Factors influencing acquisition of ecological and exposure information about hazards and risks from contaminated sites |
| |
Authors: | Joanna Burger Michael Greenberg Michael Gochfeld Sheila Shukla Karen Lowrie Roger Keren |
| |
Institution: | (1) Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8082, USA;(2) Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Piscataway, NJ, USA;(3) Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI), Piscataway, NJ, USA;(4) E. J. Bloustein School of Planning and Policy, Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 100, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1958, USA;(5) Environmental and Occupational Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Considerable research indicates that a wide range of socio-economic factors influence attitudes and perceptions about environmental
hazards and risks, and that social trust in those who manage a hazard is strongly correlated to judgements about risks and
benefits. We suggest that there are three steps that lead to environmental risk perceptions: acquisition of information, interpretation
and synthesis of different pieces of information, and understanding of that information in light of previous knowledge, perceptions,
or attitudes. In this study we presented 211 college students in the sciences and non-sciences with ecological and exposure
information using text, tables and maps to examine the factors that affect information acquisition and interpretation concerning
ecological issues at a fictitious hazardous waste site. Students were allowed about an hour to read the materials and answer
questions. The percent of students answering each question correctly varied from 4 to 82%, indicating that some questions
were extremely difficult to answer. We attributed these differences to variations in the number of places information was
presented (in text, tables, maps, or a combination) and the complexity of the information (how many pieces of information
were required to answer the question correctly). The correlation between the number of students answering each question correctly
and these combined measures (frequency, complexity) was −0.72. Thus, although there were differences in accuracy concerning
ecological information as presented in this study, the major differences were accounted for by how the information was presented,
and how much information was required. This suggests that risk communicators should carefully determine which ecological information
is critical for the target audience, and ensure that it is presented several times (in different forms). That a lower percentage
of people correctly answered questions that required synthesizing several pieces of information suggests that this complexity
should be reduced where possible, or that the pieces of information should be tied clearly to the conclusion. Self-declaration
of effort and perceptions of safety of the site did not markedly influence the relationship between accuracy, difficulty of
finding information, and complexity of information. Other possible confounding variables (i.e., science vs non-science major)
only accounted for about 27% of the variation in student’s overall score on ecological questions; age, ethnicity, and gender
did not enter as significant variables. We cannot manage environmental hazards with appropriate stakeholder input unless we
understand how to present environmental information to achieve a full understanding. Protection of human health and the environment
requires that people understand ecological and exposure information, particularly on buffer lands. |
| |
Keywords: | Exposure Habitat use Knowledge Risk perception Risk communication Information acquisition Buffer lands |
本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|