Perceived Risk in the Population Living near the Turin Incinerator: Comparison between before and at Three Years of Operation

Antonella Bena, Martina Gandini, Laura Crosetto, Cristiana Ivaldi, Enrico Procopio, Giuseppe Salamina, Manuela Orengia and Elena Farina
Additional contact information
Antonella Bena: Regional Epidemiology Unit, ASL TO3, Piedmont Region, Via Sabaudia 164, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy
Martina Gandini: Environmental Epidemiological Unit, Regional Environmental Protection Agency, Piedmont Region, Via Pio VII 9, 10135 Turin, Italy
Laura Crosetto: Environmental Epidemiological Unit, Regional Environmental Protection Agency, Piedmont Region, Via Pio VII 9, 10135 Turin, Italy
Cristiana Ivaldi: Environmental Epidemiological Unit, Regional Environmental Protection Agency, Piedmont Region, Via Pio VII 9, 10135 Turin, Italy
Enrico Procopio: Department of Prevention, ASL TO3, Piazza San Francesco 4, 10059 Susa, Italy
Giuseppe Salamina: Department of Prevention, ASL TO1, Via Della Consolata 10, 10122 Turin, Italy
Manuela Orengia: Environmental Epidemiological Unit, Regional Environmental Protection Agency, Piedmont Region, Via Pio VII 9, 10135 Turin, Italy
Elena Farina: Regional Epidemiology Unit, ASL TO3, Piedmont Region, Via Sabaudia 164, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 17, 1-11

Abstract: When the Turin incinerator went into operation in 2013, it was accompanied by surveillance of health effects that included a human biomonitoring survey of 394 residents. They responded to items investigating their awareness of environmental and health issues and perception of environmental health risks. In this study, we compared the questionnaire responses before plant startup and at 3 years of operation. To accomplish this, we investigated changes in perceived risk and evaluated the efficacy of communication strategies. A total of 344 participants equally distributed in an exposed and an unexposed group responded to the follow-up questionnaire. Survey items investigated the perception of a relationship between illness and exposure to environmental pollution, feeling at risk of developing an illness, and concern about natural and anthropogenic hazards. The proportion of ‘certain’ and ‘very probable’ responses was compared to the total using the difference-in-differences method. Analyses showed an overall decrease in the differences between the two groups, which suggests that the communication actions undertaken for the exposed group were effective. Future communication plans should also include initiatives targeting the unexposed group.

Keywords: perceived risk; incinerator; pre–post analysis; human biomonitoring survey (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9003/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9003/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9003-:d:622686

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().