IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v30y2010i6p1002-1015.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Van Kleef
  • Arnout R. H. Fischer
  • Moin Khan
  • Lynn J. Frewer

Abstract

Research in developed countries showed that many citizens perceive that radio signals transmitted by mobile phones and base stations represent potential health risks. Less research has been conducted in developing countries focused on citizen perceptions of risks and benefits, despite the recent and rapid introduction of mobile communication technologies. This study aims to identify factors that are influential in determining the tradeoffs that Bangladeshi citizens make between risks and benefits in terms of mobile phone technology acceptance and health concerns associated with the technology. Bangladesh was selected as representative of many developing countries inasmuch as terrestrial telephone infrastructure is insubstantial, and mobile phone use has expanded rapidly over the last decade, even among the poor. Issues of importance were identified in a small‐scale qualitative study among Bangladeshi citizens (n = 13), followed by a survey within a sample of Bangladeshi citizens (n = 500). The results demonstrate that, in general, the perceived benefits of mobile phone technology outweigh the risks. The perceived benefits are primarily related to the social and personal advantages of mobile phone use, including the ability to receive emergency news about floods, cyclones, and other natural disasters. Base stations were seen as a symbol of societal advance. The results furthermore suggest that overall risk perceptions are relatively low, in particular health risks, and are primarily driven by perceptions that related to crime and social inconvenience. Perceived health risks are relatively small. These findings show that risk communication and management may be particularly effective when contextual factors of the society where the system is implemented are taken into consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Van Kleef & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Moin Khan & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 1002-1015, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:6:p:1002-1015
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01386.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01386.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01386.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. Nadja Schreier & Anke Huss & Martin Röösli, 2006. "The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 51(4), pages 202-209, July.
    2. Al-mutawkkil, Adnan & Heshmati, Almas & Hwang, Junseok, 0. "Development of telecommunication and broadcasting infrastructure indices at the global level," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3-4), pages 176-199, April.
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    4. Barnett, Julie & Timotijevic, Lada & Shepherd, Richard & Senior, Victoria, 2007. "Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 240-250, July.
    5. Timothy L. McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Nigel S. Cavanagh & Paul Slovic, 1997. "Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 341-352, June.
    6. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    9. Andrea T. Thalmann & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2006. "Beliefs and Emotionality in Risk Appraisals," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(5), pages 453-466, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, 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. Marett, Kent & Pearson, Allison W. & Pearson, Rodney A. & Bergiel, Erich, 2015. "Using mobile devices in a high risk context: The role of risk and trust in an exploratory study in Afghanistan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 54-64.
    2. Michaela Gummerum & Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan J. Rolison, 2014. "Offenders’ Risk‐Taking Attitude Inside and Outside the Prison Walls," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1870-1881, October.
    3. Rojalin Pradhan & Mahim Sagar & Tushar Pandey & Ishwar Prasad, 2019. "Consumer health risk awareness model of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations: An exploratory study," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 16(1), pages 125-145, March.
    4. Raquel Ramirez-Vazquez & Jesus Gonzalez-Rubio & Isabel Escobar & Carmen del Pilar Suarez Rodriguez & Enrique Arribas, 2021. "Personal Exposure Assessment to Wi-Fi Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in Mexican Microenvironments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.

    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. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    6. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    7. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    8. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    10. Wouter Poortinga & Patrick Cox & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2008. "The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 235-248, February.
    11. Gareth Enticott & Damian Maye & Rhiannon Fisher & Brian Ilbery & James Kirwan, 2014. "Badger Vaccination: Dimensions of Trust and Confidence in the Governance of Animal Disease," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(12), pages 2881-2897, December.
    12. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    13. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    14. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona Schneider, 2024. "Trust in and Building of Sustainable Local Health and Well-Being Programs in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    16. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," 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. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    17. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.

    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:30:y:2010:i:6:p:1002-1015. 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.