Hazard perception, risk perception, and the need for decontamination by residents exposed to soil pollution: The role of sustainability and the limits of expert knowledge

Risk Analysis

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 387-398

  Vandermoere, Frédéric ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Ecological symbolic approach; Hazard; Risk; Soil pollution

Indexed keywords

HAZARDS; SOIL POLLUTION;

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK PERCEPTION;

RISK ANALYSIS;

EXPERT SYSTEM; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH RISK; POLLUTION EXPOSURE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SOIL POLLUTION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FEMALE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE BASE; MALE; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOIL POLLUTION; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; BELGIUM; DECONTAMINATION; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOIL POLLUTANTS; URBAN POPULATION;

EID: 42249103987     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01025.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Slimak, M. W., & Dietz, T. (2006). Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 26 (6 1689 1705.
2. Lazo, J. K., Kinnell, J. C., & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20 (2 179 193.
3. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12 (2 215 232.
4. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 5 (15 137 145.
5. Jasanoff, S. (1993). Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis [guest editorial]. Risk Analysis, 13 (2 123 129.
6. Petts, J., & Brooks, C. (2006). Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decision-making: Challenges for deliberative democracy. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1045 1059.
7. Baxter, J., Eyles, J., & Elliott, S. (1999). Something happened: The relevance of the risk society for describing the siting process for a municipal landfill. Geografiska Annaler, 81, 91 109.
8. Tulloch, J., & Lupton, D. (2003). Risk and Everyday Life (p. 141). London : Sage Publications.
9. Taylor-Gooby, P., & Zinn, J. O. (2006). Current directions in risk research: New developments in psychology and sociology. Risk Analysis, 26 (2 397 411.
10. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281 304.
11. Lidskog, R. (1996). In science we trust? On the relation between scientific knowledge, risk consciousness and public trust. Acta Sociologica, 39, 31 56.
12. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press.
13. Fox, N. (1999). Postmodern reflections of risk, hazards and life choices. In D. Lupton (Ed Risk and Sociocultural Theory. New Directions and Perspectives (pp. 12 33). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
14. Renn, O. (1998). Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1 (1 49 71.
15. Otway, H. J., & Thomas, K. (1982). Reflections on risk perception and policy. Risk Analysis, 2, 69 82.
16. Bradbury, J. A. (1989). The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14 (4 380 399.
17. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London : Sage Publications.
18. Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental Sociology, 2nd ed. London : Routledge.
19. Murphy, R. (1997). Sociology and Nature. Social Action in Context. Oxford : West View Press.
20. Dickens, P. (2004). Society & Nature. Changing Our Environment, Changing Ourselves. Cambridge, UK : Polity Press.
21. Irwin, A., Simmons, P., & Walker, G. (1999). Faulty environments and risk reasoning: The local understanding of industrial hazards. Environment and Planning A, 31, 1311 1326.
22. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
23. Kroll-Smith, J. S., & Couch, S. R. (1991). What is a disaster? An ecological-symbolic approach to resolving the definitional debate. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9 (3 355 366.
24. Gunter, V. J., Aronoff, M., & Joel, S. (1999). Toxic contamination and communities: Using an ecological-symbolic perspective to theorize response contingencies. Sociological Quarterly, 40 (4 623 640.
25. Kroll-Smith, J. S., & Couch, S. R. (1993). Symbols, ecology, and contamination: Case studies in the ecological-symbolic approach to disaster. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 5, 47 73.
26. Aronoff, M., & Gunter, V. (1992). Defining disaster: Local constructions for recovery in the aftermath of chemical contamination. Social Problems, 39 (4 345 365.
27. Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics, 28 (1 57 72.
28. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London : Sage.
29. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge : Polity.
30. Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.
31. Wilkinson, I. (2001). Anxiety in a Risk Society. London : Routledge.
32. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risks. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds Societal Risk Assessment (pp. 181 214). New York : Plenum Press.
33. Grasmück, D., & Scholz, R. W. (2005). Risk perception of heavy metal soil contamination by high-exposed and low-exposed inhabitants: The role of knowledge and emotional concerns. Risk Analysis, 25 (3 611 622.
34. Sjöberg, L. (1999). Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation. Journal of Risk Research, 2 (2 129 149.
35. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280 285.
36. Jasanoff, S. (1998). The political science of risk perception. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 91 99
37. Durant, R. F., & Legge, J. S. (2005). Public opinion, risk perceptions, and genetically modified food regulatory policy. European Union Politics, 6 (2 181 200.
38. Sjöberg, L. (2001). The limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21 (1 189 198.
39. Douglas, M. (1985). Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
40. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20 (1 1 11.
41. Lash, S. (2000). Risk culture. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Van Loon (Eds The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory (pp. 47 62). London : Sage Publications.
42. Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds Social Theories of Risk (pp. 275 297). London : Praeger.
43. Knight, A. J., & Warland, R. (2005). Determinants of food safety risks: A multi-disciplinary approach. Rural Sociology, 70 (2 253 275.
44. Weber, O., Scholz, R.W., Bühlmann, R., & Grasmück, D. (2001). Risk perception of heavy metal soil contamination and attitudes toward decontamination strategies. Risk Analysis, 21 (5 967 976.
45. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge. London : Sage Publications.
46. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8 (3 362 376.
47. Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A Sociological Theory. Berlin, New York : Walter de Gruyter.
48. van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. K. (1995). Opinies en Attitudes. Meting, Modellen en Theorie. Amsterdam : Boom.
49. Borhek, J. T., & Curtis, R. F. (1975). A Sociology of Belief. New York : John Wiley and Sons.