Literature DB >> 18841489

Risk perception in Northeast Asia.

Guofang Zhai1, Takeshi Suzuki.   

Abstract

Multi-country surveys of the public's perception of risk using the same questionnaire were sequentially implemented from April to December 2006 in Japan, China, and South Korea. Statistical analyses, such as traditional mean tests, rank order tests, two-step cluster analysis, and principal component analysis were used to analyze the survey data. The results revealed that Chinese tend to be more tolerant of risk than Japanese and South Koreans. In all three countries, the threats of global warming, cancer, traffic accidents, and fire were perceived as higher-order risks, while infectious diseases and threats from high technology were perceived as lower-order risks. Looking across the entire multi-country sample, we found that Chinese participants perceived greater risk in typhoons, SARS, and drugs; Japanese saw greater risk from gas explosions and potential threats coming over the Internet; while people in all three countries identified earthquakes as a primary risk. These differences in risk perception reflect the natural and socioeconomic conditions in the three countries. Although the study did not emphasize differences in risk perception within countries based on demographic factors such as education, age, and gender, we found that differences based on education and age tended to be greater in China and South Korea than in Japan. We also found that men perceived greater risks than women in China and South Korea, while in Japan it was the opposite with women perceiving greater risks. A comparison of these results with previous studies reveals a bias in past studies toward student samples and indicates the need for more representative samples in multi-country surveys.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18841489      PMCID: PMC7088170          DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0524-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  10 in total

1.  Chinese and Americans agree on what is fair, but disagree on what is best in societal decisions affecting health and safety risks.

Authors:  W Q Bian; L R Keller
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.000

Review 2.  Models and mosaics: investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference.

Authors:  E U Weber; C K Hsee
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-12

3.  Flood risk acceptability and economic value of evacuation.

Authors:  Guofang Zhai; Saburo Ikeda
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans.

Authors:  C F Keown
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  Perception of risk.

Authors:  P Slovic
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-04-17       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: why are poor countries less concerned?

Authors:  J Sokolowska; T Tyszka
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.000

7.  Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States.

Authors:  G W Hinman; E A Rosa; R R Kleinhesselink; T C Lowinger
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  Environmental hazards in the Chinese public's eyes.

Authors:  J Zhang
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.000

9.  Loss of agro-biodiversity, uncertainty, and perceived control: a comparative risk perception study in Austria and China.

Authors:  Markus R Schmidt; Wei Wei
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.000

10.  What risks are Chinese people concerned about?

Authors:  Xiaofei Xie; Mei Wang; Liancang Xu
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.000

  10 in total
  5 in total

1.  Cross-cultural and site-based influences on demographic, well-being, and social network predictors of risk perception in hazard and disaster settings in Ecuador and Mexico: predictors of risk perception in hazard and disaster settings in Ecuador and Mexico.

Authors:  Eric C Jones; Albert J Faas; Arthur D Murphy; Graham A Tobin; Linda M Whiteford; Christopher McCarty
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2013-03

2.  Assessment of perception and intention in pesticide purchase in Taiwan.

Authors:  Jong Chao Yeh; Chih-Hsiang Liao
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries.

Authors:  Byoung Joon Kim; Seoyong Kim; Youngcheoul Kang; Sohee Kim
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  A study of the perception of health risks among college students in China.

Authors:  Chenggang Zhang; Jingbo Fan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-05-27       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Understanding the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients With Cancer, Their Caregivers, and Health Care Workers in Singapore.

Authors:  Kennedy Yao Yi Ng; Siqin Zhou; Sze Huey Tan; Nur Diana Binte Ishak; Zack Zhong Sheng Goh; Zi Yang Chua; Jace Ming Xuan Chia; Ee Ling Chew; Than Shwe; Jacklyn Kah Yeen Mok; Shen Si Leong; Joanne Si Ying Lo; Zoe Li Ting Ang; Jo Lene Leow; Chanel Wei Jie Lam; Jin Wei Kwek; Rebecca Dent; Jeffrey Tuan; Soon Thye Lim; William Ying Khee Hwang; Konstadina Griva; Joanne Ngeow
Journal:  JCO Glob Oncol       Date:  2020-10
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.