IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v18y1998i3p235-242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do People Evaluate Risk Reduction When They Are Told Zero Risk Is Impossible?

Author

Listed:
  • Kazuya Nakayachi

Abstract

Two studies examined how people evaluate risk reduction when they believe zero risk to be impossible. Measures collected were willingness to pay (WTP) for risk reduction, and degree of trust in the risk management agency. The findings from the combined studies are: (1) participants were more willing to pay a higher amount for the same reduction in risk in the “zero risk possible” than in the “zero risk impossible” condition; and (2) people's trust in the risk management agency did not differ between the “zero risk impossible” and “zero risk possible” conditions. These results suggest that it might be viable for agencies to accurately communicate the unattainability of zero risk without suffering a loss in public faith or trust, and thus that excessive expenditure for risk reduction might be prevented.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazuya Nakayachi, 1998. "How Do People Evaluate Risk Reduction When They Are Told Zero Risk Is Impossible?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 235-242, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:3:p:235-242
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01290.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01290.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01290.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    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. Guofang Zhai & Takeshi Suzuki, 2008. "Effects of Risk Representation and Scope on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risks: Evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 513-522, April.

    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. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    2. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    3. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    4. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    7. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    8. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    11. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    12. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Fernanda Bethlem Tigre & Paulo Lopes Henriques & Carla Curado, 2022. "Building trustworthiness: Leadership self-portraits," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 3971-3991, December.
    14. Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.
    15. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    16. Costa-Font, Joan & Vilaplana-Prieto, Cristina, 2023. "Health System Trust and Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions," IZA Discussion Papers 15961, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Donald G. MacGregor & Raymond Fleming, 1996. "Risk Perception and Symptom Reporting," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 773-783, December.
    18. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.

    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:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:3:p:235-242. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.