IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v20y2017i9p1173-1194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk perception and worry in environmental decision-making – a case study within the Swedish steel industry

Author

Listed:
  • Stina Alriksson
  • Monika Filipsson

Abstract

Sustainable development is an important issue for the industry in order to fulfil legislation requirements and to be able to use green marketing as a competitive advantage. The Swedish steel industry has implemented a large number of environmental improvements, for example, within energy efficiency, raw materials and recyclability. Technical improvements can help the industry decrease its environmental impact; however, in order to reach sustainable development, more factors need to be considered: an effective environmental decision-making process, for example. This process may be influenced by personal factors such as risk perception and worry, which are factors that will not contribute to an effective decision-making process. The aim of this study was to investigate if personal worry and risk perception influenced environmental decision-making within the Swedish steel industry. Thirty-eight interviews were performed at 10 Swedish steelworks using the Q-methodology. The major perceived environmental risks with the facility and personal worry were assessed, compared to the day-to-day work. It was concluded that the major perceived risks were emissions of carbon dioxide, use of non-renewable energy and emissions of particulate matter. The decision-makers were mainly worried about emissions of carbon dioxide, emissions of dioxin and use of non-renewable energy. The environmental issues that were prioritised in practice (day-to-day work) were emissions of carbon dioxide, emissions of particulate matter and emissions of metals. Even though emissions of carbon dioxide were given the highest priority in the Q-sorts, there was in general no clear relationship between risk perception and personal worry with the prioritised environmental issues at the steelworks. The quantitative analysis of the Q-sorts and the qualitative interviews both showed that the day-to-day work was unaffected by personal worry and risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Stina Alriksson & Monika Filipsson, 2017. "Risk perception and worry in environmental decision-making – a case study within the Swedish steel industry," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1173-1194, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:9:p:1173-1194
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1153498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153498
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153498?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    2. Robin Gregory & Lee Failing & Dan Ohlson & Timothy Mcdaniels, 2006. "Some Pitfalls of an Overemphasis on Science in Environmental Risk Management Decisions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(7), pages 717-735.
    3. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ángeles Longarela-Ares & Anxo Calvo-Silvosa & José-Benito Pérez-López, 2020. "The Influence of Economic Barriers and Drivers on Energy Efficiency Investments in Maritime Shipping, from the Perspective of the Principal-Agent Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-42, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    3. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    4. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    5. Ma, Jie & Tse, Ying Kei & Wang, Xiaojun & Zhang, Minhao, 2019. "Examining customer perception and behaviour through social media research – An empirical study of the United Airlines overbooking crisis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 192-205.
    6. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    7. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    8. Jared LeClerc & Susan Joslyn, 2015. "The Cry Wolf Effect and Weather‐Related Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 385-395, March.
    9. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    10. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    11. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    12. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    13. Ziyang Li & Qianwei Ying & Yuying Chen & Xuehui Zhang, 2020. "Managerial risk appetite and asymmetry cost behavior: evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(5), pages 4651-4692, December.
    14. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    15. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Kirs, Peeter & Bagchi, Kallol, 2012. "The impact of trust and changes in trust: A national comparison of individual adoptions of information and communication technologies and related phenomenon," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 431-441.
    18. Sanchez, Mari & Lamont, Michèle & Zilberstein, Shira, 2022. "How American college students understand social resilience and navigate towards the future during covid and the movement for racial justice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    19. Desta Woldetsadik & Pay Drechsel & Bernard Keraita & Fisseha Itanna & Heluf Gebrekidan, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions on irrigation water contamination, health risks and risk management measures in prominent wastewater-irrigated vegetable farming sites of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 52-64, March.
    20. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:9:p:1173-1194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.