Risk perception is one of the significant factors influencing individual action to response and reduces the risk, (Smith, et. al. 2013). Although, most of the theoretical perspectives on risk emphasis on the individual unit of analysis, some recent research has calculated community experience to risk or disaster. For instance, research from Masuda & Garvin (2006) suggests that risk perceptions were connected within the minds of individuals and revealed as people’s sense of belonging in their community. According to cultural theory and perspectives, risk perception can be translated as a reflection of the social context of an individual (Sjoberg, 2000). Risk perception is a social construction that affected by several factors in which risk was culturally embedded, such as experience, the structure of economics and politics, environment, personal exposures to hazard, and community process (Fitchen et. al, 1987, Flint & Luloff, 2005).
To extend, Wachinger et. al. (2013) selected four primary factors or categories that responsible for determining risk perception: risk factors, informational factors, personal factors, and contextual factors. Risk factors related to the perceived magnitude of a disaster. Informational factors linked with source and level of information as well as an indirect experience of hazards. Personal factors include demographic characteristic (age, gender, educational level, profession, etc.), personal knowledge, personal disaster experience, trust in experts or authorities, and religiousness. Contextual factors reflected by the economic factors, family status, the size of community, and condition of the living environment. In this point of view, risks perception was broadcasted through community networks which shaping the social experience of risk and contributing to a community sense of “riskiness” (social amplification of risk).
Amplification appears at two points: in the transfer information of risk, and in the response mechanisms of community (Kasperson, et. al 1988). In line with the social contagion theory, transfer of information about risk developed because individuals tend to adopt the attitudes of others with whom they communicate and interact (Scherer & Cho, 2003). They are also most likely to share similar information, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors on controversial topics. As a result of the social amplification process, risk perception and response mechanism of community may vary within a community or between communities. Because of this wide range of variety, it’s hard to measures the level of risk and the potential for collective action at the community level.
For this reason, some scholars believe that collective experience is a better indicator of community action in response to risk rather than individual perception. Collective experience is the results of social interaction, both formal or informal, which influenced by complex social, political, and cultural processes (Bickerstaff, 2004). Social interaction and participatory decision processes are the multi-dimensional processes that were also controlling the collective action of community in response to risk. On the other word, a community with high interactional capacity can lead to stronger community well-being and diminished vulnerability in the face of risk and disaster (Flint & Luloff, 2005).
Work cited:
Bickerstaff, Karen. 2004. Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment International 30 (2004) 827-840
Fitchen, Janet M, Jenifer S. Heath, and June Fessenden-Raden. 1987. Risk Perception in Community Context: A Case Study. The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk, 31-54 (B.B. Johnson & V.T. Convello – eds)
Flint, Courtney G and A. E. Luloff. 2005. Natural Resources-Based Communities, Risk, and Disaster: An Intersection of Theories. Society and Natural Resources, 18:399-412
Kasperson, Roge E. et.al. 1988. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis, vol 8, no 2
Masuda, Jeffrey R and Theresa Garvin. 2006. Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk. Risk Analysis vol 26, No 2
Scherer, Clifford W & Hichang Cho. 2003. A Social Network Contagion Theory of Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, vol 23, No 2
Smith, Hannah Brenkert, Katherine L. Dickinson, Patricia A. Champ, and Nicholas Flores. 2013. Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources. Risk Analysis, Vol 33, No 5.
Sjoberg, Lennart. 2000. Factors in Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, vol 20, no 1
Wachinger, Gisela, et.al. 2013. The Risk Perception Paradox-Implication for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards. Risk Analysis, vol 33, No 6
No comments:
Post a Comment