Methodical approaches to assessing subjective health risk perception by population under exposure to ambient air pollution

View or download the full article:

health-risk-analysis-2022-2-3.pdf

UDC:

316.77+504.3

DOI:

10.21668/health.risk/2022.2.03.eng

Authors:

А.О. Barg^1,2, N.А. Lebedeva-Nesevrya^1,2, М.D. Kornilitsyna²

Organization:

¹Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, 82 Monastyrskaya Str., Perm, 6140045, Russian Federation
²Perm State National Research University, 15 Bukireva Str., Perm, 614990, Russian Federation

Abstract:

There is a growing demand by the civil society for relevant information on the environment quality and related health risks. The state should be able to satisfy this demand and this makes the present research truly vital. It concentrates on correlating expert and non-expert opinions expressed when perceiving risk quantification.

Our goal was to answer two following questions: 1) How does an average unprofessional person quantify a probability and severity when he or she hears certain verbal expressions that denominate them? 2) How can we possibly identify the assessment of health risks associated with environmental pollution factors given by the population in general or specific social groups?

To find answers to these questions, we applied quantitative methods for data collection and analysis. The first stage involved collecting data on subjective correlation of a verbal probability scale with its numeric expression among people living in industrial cities. The second stage focused on testing the methodology for studying assessments of health risks associated with ambient air pollution given by the population/social groups.

This methodology relied on the results obtained at the previous stage.

We established that only 70 % of people actually correlated words with figures. We determined that experts tended to rate probabilities approximately by 10 % higher than “average people” did when it came down to such words as “Virtually certain” and “Very likely”. Such words as “Likely”, “Similarly likely” and “Unlikely” were also rated differently but with a smaller gap between the opinions. The study also provides a method for determining the public assessment of health associated with ambient air pollution. The research results give an opportunity to solve a practical task related to informing the population about health risks and to overcome a so-called language barrier between experts and ordinary people. For example, messages aimed for decision-makers can be adapted considering all the identified perception peculiarities.

Keywords:

risk perception, risk assessment, risk rate, probability assessment, subjective risk assessment, probability of risk realization, health risk, informing

Barg А.О., Lebedeva-Nesevrya N.А., Kornilitsyna М.D. Methodical approaches to assessing subjective health risk perception by population under exposure to ambient air pollution. Health Risk Analysis, 2022, no. 2, pp. 28–37. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2022.2.03.eng

References:

Japp K. Risikosoziologie als, Fröhliche Wissenschaft [Risk Sociology as Cheerful Science]. Zeitschriftfür Soziologie, 2016, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 311–316 (in German).
Mozgovaya A.V. Risk communication as a mechanism for the formation of the security status of a territorial community in the process of adaptation. Society and Security Insights, 2019, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 137–145. DOI: 10.14258/ssi(2019)3-6290 (in Russian).
Repin L.V., Biblin A.M., Vishnyakova N.M. Problems of risk communication related to the provision of the radiation safety. Basic concepts and definitions. Radiatsionnaya gigiena, 2018, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 83–91. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2018-11-3-83-91 (in Russian).
Stolyar V.Yu. Doverie kak instrument upravleniya global'nym riskom [Trust as a global risk management tool]. Izvestiya RGPU im. A.I. Gertsena, 2008, no. 82–1, pp. 330–336 (in Russian).
Mikhaylova E.A. Nanotechnology risks and public perception. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, 2014, no. 4, pp. 59–71 (in Russian).
Health and the environment: communicating the risks. WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2013. Available at: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/233759/e96930.pdf (20.05.2022).
Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. In: R.T. Watson, Core Writing Team eds. IPCC, 2001. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_TAR_full_report.pdf (13.05.2022).
IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and of Options: workshop report. IPCC, May 11–13, 2004. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc-workshop-2004-may.pdf (31.01.2022).
Patt A.G., Schrag D.P. Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change, 2003, vol. 61, pp. 17–30.
Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In: D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky eds. Cambridge University Press, 2008, 569 p.
Maslennikov V.V., Trocov A.A. Methodological approaches to risk assessment, determine the economic security. Azimut nauchnykh issledovanii: ekonomika i upravlenie, 2016, vol. 5, no. 4 (17), pp. 272–274 (in Russian).
Sorokotiagina V.L. Methods of measuring of economic risks of entrepreneurial activity. Menedzher, 2021, no. 2 (96), pp. 130–137. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5075294 (in Russian).
Plous S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. USA, McGraw-Hill Education, 1993, 320 p. (in Russian).
Alekseev A.O., Salnikov K.R. Development of the optimal multifactor risks management information system prototype. Matematicheskoe i komp'yuternoe modelirovanie v ekonomike, strakhovanii i upravlenii riskami, 2021, no. 6, pp. 13–17 (in Russian).
Rakitskiy V.N., Avaliani S.L., Shashina T.A., Dodina N.S. Actual problems of population health risks management in Russia. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2018, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 572–575. DOI: 10.18821/0016-9900-2018-97-6-572-575 (in Russian).
Fomenko G.A., Komarov S.I., Fomenko M.A., Borodkin A.E., Luzanova A.K. Risk-oriented approach to ecological safety management at oil refinery. Strategicheskie resheniya i risk-menedzhment, 2018, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 102–109 (in Russian).
Zaytseva N.V., Popova A.Yu., Onishchenko G.N., May I.V. Current problems of regulatory and scientific-medical support for the assurance of the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of population in the Russian Federation as the strategic government task. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2016, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 5–9. DOI: 10.18821/0016-9900-2016-95-1-5-9 (in Russian).
Effective risk communication for environment and health. A strategic report on recent trends, theories and concepts. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2021, 67 p.
Gavrilov K.A. Sotsiologiya vospriyatiya riska: opyt rekonstruktsii klyuchevykh podkhodov [Sociology of risk perception: experience in the reconstruction of key approaches]. In: A.V. Mozgovaya ed. Moscow, Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ., 2009, 196 p. (in Russian).
Veschikova M.I. A review of studies of danger perception and prospects of its study in clinical psychology development. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie psyedu.ru, 2014, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 169–181. DOI: 10.17759/psyedu.2014060415 (in Russian).