IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i3p570-582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Author

Listed:
  • Bart Vyncke
  • Tanja Perko
  • Baldwin Van Gorp

Abstract

The media play an important role in risk communication, providing information about accidents, both nearby and far away. Each media source has its own presentation style, which could influence how the audience perceives the presented risk. This study investigates the explanatory power of 12 information sources (traditional media, new media, social media, and interpersonal communication) for the perceived risk posed by radiation released from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant on respondents’ own health and that of the population in general. The analysis controlled for attitude toward nuclear energy, gender, education, satisfaction with the media coverage, and duration of attention paid to the coverage. The study uses a large empirical data set from a public opinion survey, which is representative for the Belgian population with respect to six sociodemographic variables. Results show that three information sources are significant regressors of perceived health‐related risk of the nuclear accident: television, interpersonal communication, and the category of miscellaneous online sources. More favorable attitudes toward nuclear power, longer attention to the coverage, and higher satisfaction with the provided information lead to lower risk perception. Taken together, the results suggest that the media can indeed have a modest influence on how the audience perceives a risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:570-582
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12618
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12618?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. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Ott, Ingrid, 2011. "Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 487-499, April.
    2. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    3. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    5. Yamamura, Eiji, 2012. "Experience of technological and natural disasters and their impact on the perceived risk of nuclear accidents after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan 2011: A cross-country analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 360-363.
    6. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    7. Tsunoda Katsuya, 2001. "Public Response to the Tokai Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(6), pages 1039-1046, December.
    8. Andrew R. Binder & Dietram A. Scheufele & Dominique Brossard & Albert C. Gunther, 2011. "Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 324-334, February.
    9. Pierpoint, Lara, 2011. "Fukushima, Facebook and Feeds: Informing the Public in a Digital Era," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 53-58, July.
    10. Amina Sugimoto & Shuhei Nomura & Masaharu Tsubokura & Tomoko Matsumura & Kaori Muto & Mikiko Sato & Stuart Gilmour, 2013. "The Relationship between Media Consumption and Health-Related Anxieties after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-7, August.
    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. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Timothy Sim & Li-San Hung & Gui-Wu Su & Ke Cui, 2018. "Interpersonal communication sources and natural hazard risk perception: a case study of a rural Chinese village," 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. 94(3), pages 1307-1326, December.
    3. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    4. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    5. Yuriko Suzuki & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Seiji Yasumura & Michio Murakami & Mayumi Harigane & Hirooki Yabe & Tetsuya Ohira & Akira Ohtsuru & Satomi Nakajima & Masaharu Maeda, 2018. "Changes in Risk Perception of the Health Effects of Radiation and Mental Health Status: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.
    6. Xu, Haifeng & Ding, Yi & Zhang, Cheng & Tan, Bernard C.Y., 2023. "Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    7. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    8. Huiyun Zhu & Kecheng Liu, 2021. "Capturing the Interplay between Risk Perception and Social Media Posting to Support Risk Response and Decision Making," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Chihiro Nakayama & Osamu Sato & Minoru Sugita & Takeo Nakayama & Yujiro Kuroda & Masatsugu Orui & Hajime Iwasa & Seiji Yasumura & Rima E Rudd, 2019. "Lingering health-related anxiety about radiation among Fukushima residents as correlated with media information following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Hanna Valerie Wolf & Tanja Perko & Peter Thijssen, 2020. "How to Communicate Food Safety after Radiological Contamination: The Effectiveness of Numerical and Narrative News Messages," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-19, June.

    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. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    3. Roh, Seungkook & Lee, Jin Won, 2018. "Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 727-735.
    4. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    5. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    6. 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).
    7. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    8. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    9. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    10. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    11. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    12. Takashi Kusumi & Rumi Hirayama & Yoshihisa Kashima, 2017. "Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2305-2320, December.
    13. Liu, Zhilin & Liao, Lu & Mei, Ciqi, 2018. "Not-in-my-backyard but let’s talk: Explaining public opposition to facility siting in urban China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 471-478.
    14. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    15. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    16. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    17. An Gie Yong & Louise Lemyre & Celine Pinsent & Daniel Krewski, 2017. "Risk Perception and Disaster Preparedness in Immigrants and Canadian‐Born Adults: Analysis of a National Survey on Similarities and Differences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2321-2333, December.
    18. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    19. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    20. Piyapong Janmaimool & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2014. "Evaluating Determinants of Environmental Risk Perception for Risk Management in Contaminated Sites," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, 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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:570-582. 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.