The role of risk perception and other risk-related judgements in transportation mode use

Rundmo, Torbjørn; Nordfjærn, Trond; Iversen, Hilde Hestad; Oltedal, Sigve; Jørgensen, Stig

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.08.003

Cited by 96 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For these scenarios, accident frequency appears to have higher influence on risk acceptance level than severity, because in another way the level of risk acceptance would have been higher, as this is the scenario with lower severity. This, in accordance with Rundmo et al (2011), can be due to the low effect of severity when severity of the consequences is small. In view of this, the results suggest that the influence of accident frequency is observed in scenarios with small severity of consequences.…”

Section: Analysis Of the Risk Acceptance Levelsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…These findings were expected since previous works observed that risk perception tends to increase as the severity of the scenario increase (Young et al 2015). Furthermore, the specific scenarios created may also had an influence on the obtained results (Wogalter et al 1999;Rundmo et al 2011). According to Rundmo et al (2011), severity of the consequences has influence on the level of risk acceptance; however, in areas where the severity of the consequences is moderated or small, the importance of the consequences is lower.…”

Section: Analysis Of the Risk Acceptance Levelsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…Furthermore, the specific scenarios created may also had an influence on the obtained results (Wogalter et al 1999;Rundmo et al 2011). According to Rundmo et al (2011), severity of the consequences has influence on the level of risk acceptance; however, in areas where the severity of the consequences is moderated or small, the importance of the consequences is lower. The current study showed that in fact severity is an important factor for risk acceptance level, but its effect was also high for moderated risks and not only for high risks as previously observed for the death scenario where the risk acceptance level was low.…”

Section: Analysis Of the Risk Acceptance Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Risk Acceptance in the Furniture Sector: Analysis of Acceptance Level and Relevant Influence Factors

Rodrigues

Arezes

Leão

2015

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk acceptance has been broadly discussed in relation to hazardous risk activities and/or technologies. A better understanding of risk acceptance in occupational settings is also important; however, studies on this topic are scarce. It seems important to understand the level of risk that stakeholders consider sufficiently low, how stakeholders form their opinion about risk, and why they adopt a certain attitude toward risk. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to examine risk acceptance in regard to occupational accidents in furniture industries. The safety climate analysis was conducted through the application of the Safety Climate in Wood Industries questionnaire. Judgments about risk acceptance, trust, risk perception, benefit perception, emotions, and moral values were measured. Several models were tested to explain occupational risk acceptance. The results showed that the level of risk acceptance decreased as the risk level increased. High-risk and death scenarios were assessed as unacceptable. Risk perception, emotions, and trust had an important influence on risk acceptance. Safety climate was correlated with risk acceptance and other variables that influence risk acceptance. These results are important for the risk assessment process in terms of defining risk acceptance criteria and strategies to reduce risks.

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of the Risk Acceptance Levelsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Analysis Of the Risk Acceptance Levelsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Analysis Of the Risk Acceptance Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk Acceptance in the Furniture Sector: Analysis of Acceptance Level and Relevant Influence Factors

Rodrigues

Arezes

Leão

2015

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The measures of road traffic risk perception, risk sensitivity and risk willingness have been applied in Norway as well as in other countries at several previous occasions (see, e.g., Bergly and Rundmo 2008;Lund and Rundmo 2009;Nordfjaern and Rundmo 2009;Rundmo et al 2011;Tennfjord and Rundmo 2007). The instruments yielded alpha values around .70 and inter-item correlations above .30, which could be considered as satisfactory (Hair et al 1998;Nunnally 1968).…”

Section: T Nordfjaern Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

A cross‐cultural comparison of road traffic risk perceptions, attitudes towards traffic safety and driver behaviour

Nordfjærn¹,

Jørgensen²,

Rundmo³

2011

Journal of Risk Research

Self Cite

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated cross-cultural differences in road traffic risk perception, risk sensitivity and risk willingness in Norway, Russia, India, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. Differences in driver attitudes and driver behaviour were also examined. An additional aim was to test whether the risk constructs and driver attitudes explained the variation in risky driver behaviour in these countries. To obtain these aims, a questionnaire survey was conducted among a randomly obtained representative sample of the Norwegian public (n = 247). Stratified samples were established in Russia (n = 245), India (n = 196), Ghana (n = 299), Tanzania (n = 559) and Uganda (n = 415). The respondents completed a questionnaire which consisted of validated self-reported measures of the risk constructs, and driver attitudes and behaviour. Norwegians reported safer attitudes regarding drinking and driving, and speeding in road traffic. These respondents also reported more seat belt use and lower frequencies of drinking and driving than the remaining subsamples. Respondents from Sub-Saharan Africa reported higher road traffic risk perceptions and risk sensitivity than respondents from Norway, Russia and India. Respondents from Tanzania reported the highest willingness to take risks both in traffic and in general. Participants from Sub-Saharan Africa and India reported safer attitudes in regard to speaking out to an unsafe driver, rule violations and sanctions, attitudes towards pedestrians, and traffic rules and knowledge. Respondents from Sub-Saharan Africa also reported more precautious behaviour and less speeding. The predictive model of driver behaviour explained a satisfactory amount of variance in Norway, Russia and India, but was poorly fitted in the African countries. The results are discussed in line with the general risk environments and the road traffic systems in high-and low-income countries. Challenges related to measuring road traffic attitudes and behaviour in lowincome countries are also discussed.

show abstract

“…Thus, the insecurity or dread attached to a low-probability event such as a landslide or an avalanche might have welfare effects beyond being a cause of transport casualties (Elvik et al, 2006(Elvik et al, , 2009. If landslides are a type of hazard that people dread (Slovic, 1999;Rundmo et al, 2011), individuals may demand relatively higher protection, a measurably higher WTP for fatality risk reductions compared to, for example, the WTP for fatality risk reductions related to collisions or driving off the road (Carlsson et al, 2004;Chilton et al, 2006;Elvik et al, 2009). However, Chilton et al (2006) found that dread premiums were largely offset by (low) baseline risk.…”

Section: Cognitive and Emotional Elements Of Landslide Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Car drivers’ valuation of landslide risk reductions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tApproximately one car occupant per year is killed as a result of landslides or avalanches in Norway, compared to 150-200 fatalities due to accidents. Still, protection from landslides is a major transport safety issue, possibly due to the concern and dread felt by the car-driving population travelling through landslide-prone areas. A main challenge when valuing landslide risk economically lies in distinguishing it from the standard road accident risk of having a collision or running off the road.In this paper we present an approach to the valuation of landslide risk, using a stated choice experiment where internet survey respondents were asked to choose between route alternatives that differed in terms of landslide risk, casualty risk, time use and cost. Thus, landslide risk was explicitly valued as an attribute, besides travel time and casualty risk, conveying a valuation of a feature different than the risk of fatality or injury caused by ordinary road accidents.The stated route choice data were analysed using mixed logit models. We obtained point estimates for the value of landslide risk removal per kilometre driven ranging from about EUR 0.2 to EUR 0.3. These results indicate that landslide risk was perceived as something different from casualty risk related to collisions with other road users or driving off the road. More research is warranted for developing the procedures for valuation of landslide risk before such valuations can enter as input into cost-benefit analyses of landslide-reducing measures.

show abstract

The role of risk perception and other risk-related judgements in transportation mode use

Cited by 96 publications

References 38 publications

Risk Acceptance in the Furniture Sector: Analysis of Acceptance Level and Relevant Influence Factors

Risk Acceptance in the Furniture Sector: Analysis of Acceptance Level and Relevant Influence Factors

A cross‐cultural comparison of road traffic risk perceptions, attitudes towards traffic safety and driver behaviour

Car drivers’ valuation of landslide risk reductions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About