Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of cognitive aversion toward mercury on public attitude toward the construction of mercury wastes landfill site

  • SPECIAL FEATURE: ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Mercury cycles and their management
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Minamata convention on mercury requests mercury wastes landfilling in environmentally safe manners. Owing to great difficulties to form public acceptance of landfill site construction, this study focused on emotional appraisal to mercury. The author quantitatively evaluated cognitive aversions toward mercury and other harmful/hazard-like objects like dioxin using two types of pairwise comparison methods. The results of both methods showed good agreement. Mercury received the second strongest aversion, following radioactive wastes. Gender and age gave no significant impact on mercury aversion at 5% significance level. When perceived knowledge of mercury was neutral or positive, higher awareness resulted in stronger mercury aversion. In contrast, mercury aversion was almost constant regardless of negative level of the awareness. When the attitude toward construction of mercury waste landfill site was mitigated from rejection to neutral, mercury aversion decreased. On the other hand, mercury aversion increased when the attitude was shifted from neutral to acceptance. Rejection attitude might be affected by mercury aversion. In contrast, acceptance attitude was formed by rational consideration of mercury landfill necessity, not weak aversion. To design a supporting process for public acceptance formation, stronger mercury aversion perceived by both acceptance and rejection attitude persons should be concerned.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. UN Environment (2019) Global mercury assessment 2018, UN Environment Programme, Chemicals andHealth Branch Geneva, Switzerland, ISBN: 978-92-807-3744-8.

  2. Morel FMM, Kraepiel AML, Amyot M (1998) The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:543–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee KJ, Lee TG (2012) A review of international trends in mercury management and available options for permanent or long-term mercury storage. J Hazard Mater 241:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14(6):1085–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barnett J, Cooper H, Senior V (2007) Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Anal 27(4):921–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costa-Font J, Rudisill C, Mossialos E (2008) Attitudes as an expression of knowledge and “political anchoring”: the case of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. Risk Anal 28(5):1273–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Purvis-Roberts KL, Werner CA, Frank I (2007) Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: a comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Anal 27(2):291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schulte I, Hart D, Van der Vorst R (2004) Issues affecting the acceptance of hydrogen fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energ 29(7):677–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M (1991) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254(5038):1603–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci 21(7):782–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hirono Y (2017) A historical review of mercury risk perception focusing on organic mercury poisoning in Japan and Minamata disease. Arch Philos History Sci. 19:1–38 (Univ. of Tokyo, In Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kleinhesselink RR, Rosa EA (1991) Cognitive representation of risk perceptions: a comparison of Japan and the United States. J Cross Cult Psychol 22(1):11–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kinoshita T (2002) An international comparative survey on risk perception structure. J Jpn Soc Saf Eng 41(6):356–363 (In Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Niiyama Y, Kito Y, Hosono H, Kawamura R, Kudo H, Kiyohara A (2011) The structural models of public risk perception of typical food-related hazards: an analysis of the structural complexity of incorporated factors by SEM. Jpn J Risk Anal 21(4):295–306 (In Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev 24:273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bockenholt U (2006) Thurstonian-based analyses: past, present, and future utilities. Psychometrika 71(4):615–629

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Krabbe PFM (2008) Thurstone scaling as a measurement method to quantify subjective health outcomes. Med Care 46(4):357–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kwan YK, Chiu LL, Kwan WCIP (2002) Perceived crime seriousness: consensus and disparity. J Crim Justice 30:623–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Amookht S, Kandi SG, Mahdavian M (2019) Quantification of perceptual coarseness of metallic coatings containing aluminum flakes using texture analysis and visual assessment methods. Prog Org Coat 137:105375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Day EA, Berns RS, Taplin LA, Imai FH (2004) A psychophysical experiment evaluating the color and spatial image quality of several multispectral image capture techniques. J Imaging Sci Techn 48(2):93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Takahashi F (2020) Cognitive aversion of mercury scaled by pairwise comparison method with Thurstone’s law of comparative judgement. Global Environ Res 24(1):45–52

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frewer L, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bawa AS, Anilakumar KR (2013) Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns-a review. J Food Sci Technol 50(6):1035–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheffé H (1952) An analysis of variance for paired comparison. J Am Stat Assoc 147:381–400

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Nakaya, H. (1970) A variation method of Scheffé’s method of pairwise comparison, Proceedings of sensory testing conference, The Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE). 11: 1-12. (In Japanese)

  27. Chang LW (1977) Neurotoxic effects of mercury-review. Environ Res 14(3):329–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2001) Ionizing radiation, part 2: some internally deposited radionuclides, IARC monographs programme on the evaluation of carcinogenic hazards to humans, vol. 78, IARC Press, Lyon

  29. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (1997) Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, IARC monographs programme on the evaluation of carcinogenic hazards to humans, vol. 69, IARC Press, Lyon

  30. Windfeld ES, Brooks MSL (2015) Medical waste management—a review. J Environ Manage 163:98–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (1993) Beryllium, cadmium, mercury, and exposures in the glass manufacturing iIndustry, IARC monographs programme on the evaluation of carcinogenic hazards to humans, vol. 58, IARC Press, Lyon

  32. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (1992) Solar and ultraviolet radiation, IARC monographs programme on the evaluation of carcinogenic hazards to humans, vol. 55, IARC Press, Lyon

  33. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW (2006) Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality—extended follow-up of the Harvard six cities study. Am J Resp Crit Care 173(6):667–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Clark C, Lopez-Barrio I, Fischer P, Ohrstrom E, Haines MM, Head J, Hygge S, van Kamp I (2005) Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet 365(9475):1942–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cheng KE, McHugh JA, Deek FP (2013) On the use of paired comparisons to construct group preference scales for decision making. Group Decis Negot 22:519–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kendall MG (1985) Rank correlation methods, chapter 11 and 12, 2nd edn. Griffin, London

    Google Scholar 

  37. Inoue H (2012) The theory and methods of sensory evaluation—Sensory evaluation analysis for real applications, chapter 6. JUSE press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  38. Olatunji BO, Sawchuk CN, Arrindell WA, Lohr JM (2005) Disgust sensitivity as a mediator of the sex differences in contamination fears. Pers Individ Differ 38(3):713–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Diaz A, Belena A, Zueco J (2020) The role of age and gender in perceived vulnerability to infectious diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(2):485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Riel W, Langeveld J, Herder P, Clemens F (2016) Valuing information for sewer replacement decisions. Water Sci Technol 74(4):796–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gallardo AH, Matsuzaki T, Aoki H (2014) Geological storage of nuclear wastes: insights following the Fukushima crisis, Energ. Policy 73:391–400

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kato M, Ono N, Ishikawa H, Okuhara T, Okada M, Kiuchi T (2018) Lessons learned from previous environmental health crises: narratives of patients with Minamata disease in TV documentaries as the main media outlet. Cogent Arts & Humanities 5(1):1447780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Colocousis CR (2012) “It was tourism repellent, that’s what we were spraying”: natural amenities, environmental stigma, and redevelopment in a Postindustrial Mill town. Sociol Forum 27(3):756–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rozin P, Fallon A, Augustoni-Ziskind M (1985) The child’s conception of food contamination sensitivity to ”Disgusting” substances. Dev Psychol 21(6):1075–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rozin P, Millman L, Nemeroff C (1986) Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(4):703–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kecinski M, Keisner DK, Messer KD, Schulze WD (2018) Measuring stigma: the behavioral implications of disgust. Environ Resour Econ 70(1):131–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McCluskey JJ, Rausser GC (2003) Stigmatized asset value: Is it temporary or long-term? Rev Econ Stat 85(2):276–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zwickle A, Cox JG, Zhuang J, Hamm JA, Upham BL, Chung M, Cruz S, Dearing JW (2019) The effect of dioxin contamination and remediation on property values. Int J Environ Res Pu 16(20):3900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle TC (2005) Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. J Risk Res 8(2):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(3):522–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. McIntyre E, Prior J, Connon ILC, Adams J, Madden B (2018) Sociodemographic predictors of residents worry about contaminated sites. Sci Total Environ 643:1623–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ (2006) Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet 368(9553):2167–2178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Skanavis C, Koumouris GA, Petreniti V (2005) Public participation mechanisms in environmental disasters. Environ Manage 35(6):821–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Park S, Johnson MA (2006) Awareness of fish advisories and mercury exposure in women of childbearing age. Nutr Rev 64(5):250–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wester J, Timpano KR, Cek D, Broad K (2016) The psychology of recycled water: factors predicting disgust and willingness to use. Water Resour Res 52(4):3212–3226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Menegaki AN, Mellon RC, Vrentzou A, Koumakis G, Tsagarakis KP (2009) What’s in a name: framing treated wastewater as recycled water increases willingness to use and willingness to pay. J Econ Psychol 30(3):285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lober DJ, Green DP (1994) NIMBY or NIABY: a logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting. J Environ Manage 40(1):33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Peters EM, Burraston B, Mertz CK (2004) An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal 24(5):1349–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Akiyama T, Harashina S, Osako M (2005) How public opposition and distance affect waste management facility siting. J Jpn Soc Waste Manag Experts 16(6):429–440 (In Japanese)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Gallagher L, Ferreira S, Convery F (2008) Host community attitudes towards solid waste landfill infrastructure: comprehension before compensation. J Environ Plann Man 51(2):233–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Oberholzer-Gee F, Mitsunari M (2006) Information regulation: do the victims of externalities pay attention? J Regul Econ 30:141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported financially by Environment Research and technology development grant (3-1701 and JPMEERF20S20602), funded by Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The authors appreciate the support greatly.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering, School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259, Nagatsuta, Midori-Ku, Yokohama, 226-8503, Japan

    Fumitake Takahashi

Authors
  1. Fumitake Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fumitake Takahashi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takahashi, F. The impact of cognitive aversion toward mercury on public attitude toward the construction of mercury wastes landfill site. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 25, 2642–2653 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01690-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01690-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation