IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i8p1741-1754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perceptions Toward Drinking Water Quality Among Private Well Owners in Ireland: The Illusion of Control

Author

Listed:
  • Teresa Hooks
  • Geertje Schuitema
  • Frank McDermott

Abstract

In rural areas where no public or group water schemes exist, groundwater is often the only source of drinking water and is extracted by drilling private wells. Typically, private well owners are responsible for the quality and testing of their own drinking water. Previous studies indicate that well owners tend to underestimate the risks of their well water being contaminated, yet little is known about why this is the case. We conducted a qualitative study by interviewing private well owners in Ireland to investigate their beliefs surrounding their water quality, which, in turn, inform their risk perceptions and their willingness to regularly test their water. Based on our findings we designed a theoretical model arguing that perceived control is central in the perceived contamination risks of well water. More specifically, we argue that well owners have the illusion of being in control over their water quality, which implies that people often perceive themselves to be more in control of a situation than they actually are. As a result, they tend to underestimate contamination risks, which subsequently impact negatively on water testing behaviors. Theoretical and practical implications are highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Teresa Hooks & Geertje Schuitema & Frank McDermott, 2019. "Risk Perceptions Toward Drinking Water Quality Among Private Well Owners in Ireland: The Illusion of Control," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1741-1754, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:1741-1754
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13283
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13283?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:189-203 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    4. 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.
    5. P. Hynds & H. Murphy & I. Kelly & U. Fallon, 2014. "Groundwater Protection, Risk Awareness, Knowledge Transfer and Public Health: The Role of “Future Custodians”," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(14), pages 5199-5215, November.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    7. Unesco Unesco, 2015. "Water for a Sustainable World," Working Papers id:6657, eSocialSciences.
    8. 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.
    9. Paul, Bimal Kanti, 2004. "Arsenic contamination awareness among the rural residents in Bangladesh," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 1741-1755, October.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:314-322 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Robert Tobias, 2016. "Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2011-2026, October.
    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. Anthea R. Lacchia & Geertje Schuitema & Aparajita Banerjee, 2020. "“Following the Science”: In Search of Evidence-Based Policy for Indoor Air Pollution from Radon in Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Veronika Vaseková, 2022. "How do people in China perceive water? From health threat perception to environmental policy change," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(3), pages 627-645, 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. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    4. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey B. Henriques, 2009. "The Effect of Graphics on Environmental Health Risk Beliefs, Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Recall," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1549-1565, November.
    5. 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).
    6. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    7. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    10. Jeuring, Jelmer & Becken, Susanne, 2013. "Tourists and severe weather – An exploration of the role of ‘Locus of Responsibility’ in protective behaviour decisions," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 193-202.
    11. Park, Inyoung & Lee, Jieon & Lee, Daeho & Lee, Changjun & Chung, Won Young, 2022. "Changes in consumption patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analyzing the revenge spending motivations of different emotional groups," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Tianzhuo Liu & Huifang Jiao, 2018. "How does information affect fire risk reduction behaviors? Mediating effects of cognitive processes and subjective knowledge," 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. 90(3), pages 1461-1483, February.
    14. Yung-Jaan Lee, 2018. "Relationships among Environmental Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Coping Behavior: A Case Study of Four Environmentally Sensitive Townships in Yunlin County, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-22, July.
    15. Zhang, Xian & Wang, Ke & Hao, Yu & Fan, Jing-Li & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2013. "The impact of government policy on preference for NEVs: The evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 382-393.
    16. Ulf Liebe & Veronika A. Andorfer & Patricia A. Gwartney & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Ethical Consumption and Social Context: Experimental Evidence from Germany and the United States," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 7, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    17. Veronika A. Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2014. "Do Information, Price, or Morals Influence Ethical Consumption? A Natural Field Experiment and Customer Survey on the Purchase of Fair Trade Coffee," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 6, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:567-586 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Jing Zeng & Jiuchang Wei & Dingtao Zhao & Weiwei Zhu & Jibao Gu, 2017. "Information-seeking intentions of residents regarding the risks of nuclear power plant: an empirical study 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. 87(2), pages 739-755, June.
    20. Menzel, Susanne, 2013. "Are emotions to blame? — The impact of non-analytical information processing on decision-making and implications for fostering sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 71-78.
    21. Mertens, K. & Jacobs, L. & Maes, J. & Poesen, J. & Kervyn, M. & Vranken, L., 2018. "Disaster risk reduction among households exposed to landslide hazard: A crucial role for self-efficacy?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 77-91.

    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:39:y:2019:i:8:p:1741-1754. 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.