A study on the risk perception of light pollution and the process of social amplification of risk in Korea
- 473 Downloads
In this study, the risk perception level of each light pollution type was analyzed, and the effects of the variables (e.g., psychometric paradigm factor, trust in the government, etc.) on the process of the increase in the risk perception were analyzed. For the sample population (1096 persons) in Korea, the risk perception levels of each light pollution type and other environmental and health risk factors were compared, and the relative magnitude was examined. In addition, to test which variables affect the group with high-risk perception of each light pollution type, a logistic regression analysis was performed. For the group with highest risk perception of light pollution, the odds ratios (OR) of all psychometric paradigms (excluding controllability) increased compared to those of the group with low-risk perception. Additionally, the level showing the acquisition of information from the media and the recollection level of media criticism on each light pollution type showed a statistically significant increase. Especially, the risk perception of light trespass increased as trust in the government decreased. The significance of this study includes the finding that the public’s risk perception of light pollution was significantly affected by the psychometric paradigm factors. Moreover, this study analyzed the differences of the variables that affect the increase in the risk perception of each light pollution type and provided a theoretical framework that can practically reflect the strategy for the risk communication of light pollution.
KeywordsLight pollution Risk perception Light trespass Over-illumination Glare Light clutter
This work was supported by a future environmental R&D grant funded by the Korean Environmental Industry and Technology Institute (RE201206020).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Agha S (2003) The impact of a mass media campaign on personal risk perception, perceived self-efficacy and on other behavioural predictors. AIDS Care 15(6):749-762.Google Scholar
- Chepesiuk R (2009) Missing the dark health effects of light pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(1):A20-27 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/issues/175683/ (last accessed 10 April 2014)
- Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2007) Research methods in education 6th edition. Routledge, USA and CanadaGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2005) Eurobarometer survey, social values, science and technology. Special Eurobarometer Report 225. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_240_220_en.htm (last accessed 10 April 2014)
- European Commission (2011) Scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks, health effects of artificial light. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_033.pdf (last accessed 10 April 2014)
- Harris CR, Jenkins M, Glaser D (2006) Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judge Decis Making 1:48–63Google Scholar
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2010) Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans 98 Shiftwork, 563–754. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol98/mono98-8.pdf (last accessed 10 April 2014)
- Munn T, Timmerman P, Whyte A (1999) Emerging environmental issues: a global perspective of SCOPE. Ambio 28:464–471Google Scholar
- Petty RE. Cacioppo JT (1986) Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Vandewalle G, Schmidt C, Albouy G, Sterpenich V, Darsaud A, Rauchs G, Berken PV, Balteau E, Degueldre C, Luxen A, Maquet P, Dijk DJ (2007) Brain responses to violet, blue, and green monochromatic light exposures in humans: Prominent Role of Blue Light and the Brainstem. PLoS ONE 2(11):e1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar