BMC public health · 2019
Risk perception in the population living near the Turin municipal solid waste incineration plant: survey results before start-up and communication strategies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bena Antonella, Gandini Martina, Cadum Ennio, Procopio Enrico, Salamina Giuseppe, Orengia Manuela, Farina Elena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The start-up of the Turin municipal solid waste incineration plant (2013) was accompanied by surveillance of health effects, which included a human biomonitoring campaign. Here we present the results of the risk perception survey of local residents before the plant went into operation.
METHODS: The survey sample was 394 local residents: 198 residing near the plant (exposed group) and 196 residing in an area distant from the plant site (unexposed group). The survey questionnaire investigated awareness of environmental and health issues, including a section on the perception of environmental health risks. Multivariate Poisson regressions were performed to determine the differences in risk perception between the two groups (exposed vs. unexposed).
RESULTS: The exposed group was more concerned about natural hazards (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-2.61), anthropogenic hazards (PR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.77), and waste management (PR 1.19; 95% CI 0.94-1.50). There were no significant differences in opinions about environmental pollution-related diseases between the two groups, though the exposed considered themselves to be at risk for developing these diseases. The survey population placed its trust more in health care providers than in any other category.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk perception survey questionnaire yielded data that enabled a better understanding and interpretation of the social context: residents living near the incineration plant were more concerned than those living distant from it, especially about anthropogenic hazards. This information was subsequently incorporated into the design the communication tools.
METHODS: The survey sample was 394 local residents: 198 residing near the plant (exposed group) and 196 residing in an area distant from the plant site (unexposed group). The survey questionnaire investigated awareness of environmental and health issues, including a section on the perception of environmental health risks. Multivariate Poisson regressions were performed to determine the differences in risk perception between the two groups (exposed vs. unexposed).
RESULTS: The exposed group was more concerned about natural hazards (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-2.61), anthropogenic hazards (PR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.77), and waste management (PR 1.19; 95% CI 0.94-1.50). There were no significant differences in opinions about environmental pollution-related diseases between the two groups, though the exposed considered themselves to be at risk for developing these diseases. The survey population placed its trust more in health care providers than in any other category.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk perception survey questionnaire yielded data that enabled a better understanding and interpretation of the social context: residents living near the incineration plant were more concerned than those living distant from it, especially about anthropogenic hazards. This information was subsequently incorporated into the design the communication tools.