Skip to main content
PMC home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2008 Oct 8;157(1):151. doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0524-y

Risk perception in Northeast Asia

Guofang Zhai 1,2,3,✉, Takeshi Suzuki 3
PMCID: PMC7088170  PMID: 18841489

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.

Keywords: Risk perception, Multi-country survey, Principal component analysis, Northeast Asia

References

  1. Bian W.-Q., Keller L. R. Chinese and Americans agree on what is fair, but disagree on what is best in societal decisions affecting health and safety risks. Risk Analysis. 1999;19(3):439–452. doi: 10.1023/a:1007000712537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cha Y.-J. Risk perception in Korea: An application of psychometric paradigm. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management. 2000;1(1/2):2000. doi: 10.1504/IJRAM.2000.001487. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cha Y.-J. Risk perception in Korea: A comparison with Japan and the United States. Journal of Risk Research. 2000;3(4):321–332. doi: 10.1080/13669870050132540. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooley W. W., Lohnes P. R. Multivariate data analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1971. [Google Scholar]
  5. Datascape & Communications Inc. (2004). Kurofune 2004. Datascape & Communications Inc. (in Japanese).
  6. Dillman D. A. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hinman G. W., Rosa E. A., Kleinhesselink R. R., Lowinger T. C. Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis. 1993;13:449–455. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00745.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hirose H., Slovic P., Ishizuka T. A comparative research of risk perception on US-Japan college students. Research in Social Psychology. 1994;9(2):114–122. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jacobs L., Worthley R. A comparative study of risk appraisal: A new look at risk assessment in different countries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1999;59(2):225–247. doi: 10.1023/A:1006163606270. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jolliffe I. T. Principal component analysis, series: Springer series in statistics. 2. NY: Springer; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kasperson R. E., Renn O., Slovic P., Brown H. S., Emel J., Goble R., et al. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis. 1988;8(2):177–187. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Keown C. F. Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis. 1989;9(3):401–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01005.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kleinhesselink R. R., Rosa E. A. Cognitive representation of risk perceptions: A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1991;22:11–28. doi: 10.1177/0022022191221004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mangione T. W. Mail surveys: Improving the quality. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  15. Renn O., Rohrmann B. Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rao C. R. The use and interpretation of principal component analysis in applied research. Sankhya A. 1964;26:329–358. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rohrmann, B. (1999). Risk perception research - Review and documentation; Research Center Juelich: RC Studies #68. Available at: http://www.fz-juelich.de/mut/hefte/heft_69.pdf. Accessed on 28 September 2007.
  18. Rohrmann B., Chen H. Risk perception in China and Australia: An exploratory crosscultural study. Journal of Risk Research. 1999;2(3):219–241. doi: 10.1080/136698799376817. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schmidt M. R., Wei W. Loss of agro-biodiversity, uncertainty, and perceived control: A comparative risk perception study in Austria and China. Risk Analysis. 2006;26(2):455–470. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00744.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Shaw P. J. A. Multivariate statistics for the environmental sciences. Thousands Oaks, CA: Hodder-Arnold; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  21. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sokolowska J., Tyszka T. Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: why are poor countries less concerned? Risk Analysis. 1995;15(6):733–743. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01345.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. SPSS Inc. (1999). SPSS 10.0J for Windows. Thousands Oaks, CA: SPSS Inc. (in Japanese).
  24. Tanaka A., Hirose H., Toshioka Y. Factorial analysis on risk perception of Japanese women. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis. 1989;1(1):39–44. [Google Scholar]
  25. UNDP . Reducing disaster risk: A challenge for development. USA: John S. Swift Co; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  26. Weber E. U., Hsee C. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science. 1998;44(9):1205–1217. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Weber E. U., Hsee C. Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1999;6(4):611–617. doi: 10.3758/bf03212969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Weber E. U., Ames D. R., Blais A. R. How do I choose thee? Let me count the ways: A textual analysis of similarities and differences in modes of decision-making in China and the United States. Management and Organization Review. 2005;1(1):87–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2004.00005.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Xie X., Wang M., Xu L. What risks are Chinese people concerned about? Risk Analysis. 2003;23(4):685–695. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhai G., Ikeda S. Flood risk acceptability and economic value of evacuation. Risk Analysis. 2006;26(3):683–694. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00771.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhai G., Sato T., Fukuzono T., Ikeda S., Yoshida K. Willingness to pay for flood risk reduction and its determinants in Japan. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2006;42(4):927–940. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb04505.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang J. Environmental hazards in the Chinese public’s eyes. Risk Analysis. 1994;14(2):163–167. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00041.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES