丹美社,v880游戏,洛江虹山瀑布
a b s t r a c t 摘要
本研究的核心目的是检查风险意识，风险意识，省心，一方面风险承受能力和安全性，并降低风险需求的优先级之间的关联在另一方面交通工具。结果是基于秋冬季2004年（N = 510）期间从挪威人口登记获得挪威公众中随机选出代表性样本进行了自我完成问卷调查。答复率为51％，与普通人群的统计数据比较表明，该样品充分代表挪威人口的性别，年龄，受教育程度和受伤的经验方面。三个变量（风险意识，省心和安全的优先级）为降低风险的需求显著预测。也有担心和风险承受能力之间的负相关性。相反，对风险的认识以前的研究，目前的研究没有发现假设支持，一般的风险认知是一个显著的预测，无论是安全性的优先级，也不是降低风险的需求。然而，由于预期的感知风险是紧密联系在一起的受访者担心有关。担心是安全的优先级，以及为降低风险需求的显著预测。个人的担心并没有对风险管控作为一般需求的担心同样的效果。The core aim of the present study is to examine the associations between risk awareness, risk perception, worry and risk tolerance on the one hand and priority of safety and demand for risk mitigation in transport on the other hand. The results are based on a self-completion questionnaire survey carried out in a randomly selected representative sample of the Norwegian public obtained from the Norwegian population registry during the autumn and winter 2004 (n = 510). The response rate was 51% and comparisons with general population statistics showed that the sample was adequately representative of the Norwegian population in regard of gender, age, education and previous injury experience. Three variables (risk awareness, worry and priority of safety) were significant predictors of demand for risk mitigation. There was also a negative association between worry and risk tolerance. Contrary to previous research on risk perception, the present study did not find support for the hypothesis that general risk perception was a significant predictor, neither of priority of safety, nor of demand for risk mitigation. However, as expected perceived risk was strongly associated with the respondents’ worry. Worry was a significant predictor of priority of safety as well as for demands for risk mitigation. Personal worry did not have the same effect on demand for risk mitigation as general worry.
1. Introduction 介绍
Demand for risk mitigation is the demand from the public towards policy makers and experts to reduce a specific risk source (Moen & Rundmo, 2004). Risk mitigation is defined as the steps policymakers and experts take to reduce a risk source. In addition, safety behaviour and health/accident protection behaviour may be categorised as individual-level risk mitigation. The present paper focuses on demands for risk mitigation from the public on policymakers and experts related to reducing hazards and risks in transport. This includes public (plane, train, bus, boat and ferry) as well as private transportation modes (car, motorcycle, scooter, bike and as a pedestrian). Compared to private transportation it is often more difficult to replace risk behaviour with safe behaviour or health protection behaviour by individual-level decisions in public transportation. However, also when e.g. driving own car, the driver is at the mercy of all other road users and their unpredictable behaviour. Still the driver may be able to avoid an accident by individual-level action in a risky situation, whereas a passenger would not have the same ability to act. Consequently, the driver is more in control compared to the passenger. This may also cause differences in demand for risk mitigation placed on policy makers and experts in regard of public versus private transportation. On the other hand, it could be argued that passengers in public transportation e.g. may have the option of sitting in the location where there is the lowest statistical likelihood of injury in the event of a crash. In civil aviation the passengers have the choice of different airlines, and thereby 1369-8478/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.04.004 .nordfjaern@gediz.edu.tr (T. Nordfj.rn). Imprint logoJournal logo
they may make an informed decision about which company to use, based upon their relative safety track records. However, when a decision has been made, the passengers in public transportation do not have the same ability to control the danger by individual behaviour as the driver, pilot, ferry or passenger boat officer, etc. Passengers of public transportation are at the mercy of these operators and, consequently, the perception of control may be considered as lower in public compared to private transport. Several studies have shown that risk perception is associated with health protection behaviour as well as demands for risk mitigation (Borcherding, Rohrman, & Eppel, 1986; Marris, Langford, Saunderson, & O’Riordan, 1997; Rohrman, 1994; Sj.berg, 1999). Risk perception is understood to be the risk we envisage, which results from how we assess the probability of a particular incidence or event and how concerned we are in relation to the risk (Risk Research Committee, 1980). Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichteinstein, Read, and Combs (1978, 2000) found support for the hypothesis that perceived risk and public demand of risk mitigation measures are positively correlated. Thereby, it may be expected that when a perceived risk is ‘‘too high’’ and health protection behaviour at an individual level alone is unsuited to reduce the risk, a demand of mitigating risk increases upon policymakers and experts. However, several characteristics may influence perceived risk and there is no simple way to decide whether a risk is perceived to be ‘‘too high’’. Factors which are important for risk perception include cognitive evaluations related to the probability of an event or incident as well as the evaluation of consequences or severity if this event or incident takes place. The psychometric paradigm in risk perception (Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichteinstein, Read, & Combs, 1978, 2000; Slovic, 1987, 2000) hypothesised that nine general properties of activities or technologies are important for the subjective risk judgement (Fischhoff et al., 2000). These are voluntariness of risk, immediacy of effect, knowledge about the risk by the person who is exposed to the potentially-hazardous risk source, knowledge about the risk in science, control over the risk, newness, chronic/catastrophic potentials, common/dread potentials, and severity of consequences. The most important predictors of risk perception seemed to be ‘‘novelty’’ and ‘‘dread’’ factors (Fischhoff et al., 2000). Slovic (1999) and Palm (1999) refer to several studies which showed that probability as well as the consequences of an accident are important predictors of health protection behaviour, e.g. the health belief model (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, 1966), subjective expected utility theory (Edwards, 1961) and prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). A great deal of research has upheld the prediction power of the health belief model (Becker & Rosenstock, 1984; Curry & Emmons, 1994) and several other empirical studies have shown that general risk perception was significantly associated with various health protection behaviours (Brun, 1992; Kraus & Slovic, 1988; Marris, Langford, Saunderson, & O’Riordan, 1997; Rohrman, 1994; Slovic, MacGregor, & Kraus, 1987; Slovic & Monahan, 1995). The consequentialist perspective as well as the risk-asfeeling perspective also hypothesise that cognitive evaluations of risk, including probability judgements, are important determinants for decisions and behaviour (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001). Sj.berg (1999) showed that demand for risk mitigation was most strongly related to the expected severity of the consequences, while general risk perception was more strongly related to the probability of harm. Probability had a weaker relation to demand for risk mitigation. These results indicate that demands for risk reduction primarily are driven by the severity of consequences, not by the probability of risk. Accordingly, Moen and Rundmo (2005) also found support for the conclusion that the subjective judgement of probability of an accident or injury was the most significant predictor of risk perception. The same study showed that probability judgements contributed significantly to explaining perceived risk in public transport. Assessment of consequences was an insignificant factor for explaining risk perception. Thus, the conclusions of empirical research of the role of probability and consequences for risk mitigation seem to be contradictory in terms of the role of these two factors. However, all the studies referred to above seem to agree that general risk perception may be an important predictor variable of health protection behaviour as well as demand for risk mitigation independent of controversies about the relative importance of probability and consequence judgements. In addition to the role of the general risk perception, worry may also be a relevant determinant of demand for health protection behaviour. It seems reasonable that especially thinking about the severity and dreadfulness of the consequences may be associated with worry. Worry may also be hypothesised to be positively associated with demand for risk mitigation. Emotion or affectivity, e.g. worry, is also recognised as an important predictor of perceived risk. In the psychometric perspective dread is said to constitute the affective factor of perceived risk (see Sj.berg, 2004). Myers, Henderson-King, and Henderson- King (1997) showed that worry was related to personal action to reduce risk as well as a desire for risk regulation. Worry has been found to be influenced by cognitive judgements of risk and has been reported as the most significant predictor variable in explaining differences in individual desire for action and priority of risk reduction measures (Baron, Hershey, & Kunreuter, 2005). Accordingly, the present article hypothesises that general risk perception may be a significant predictor of affectivity, i.e. transport-related worry when thinking about the risk associated with specific transportation modes, and that general risk perception (including probability and consequences) as well as worry are significant predictors of demand for risk mitigation. Whether or not a risk is judged to be ‘‘too high’’ may also be associated with a general tendency to perceive all risks as large or small. This has been called risk awareness as well as ‘‘risk amplification–attenuation’’ (Sj.berg, 2004). If risk is rated to be high in one domain it is more likely to be rated as high in another domain. Sj.berg (2004) found that risk amplification– attenuation was a significant predictor variable of personal as well as general risk perception. Rundmo and Moen (2005) showed that perceived risk was significantly associated across various types of transport. In addition, Rundmo (1999) showed that risk behaviour as well as health protection behaviour in one area, e.g. health behaviour, is positively associated with risk and safety behaviour in another area, e.g. consumer and environmental behaviour. There is also some evidence 184 T. Rundmo, T. Nordfj.rn / Transportation Research Part F 20 (2013) 183–192 |
