A Study on Perception for Risk Communication Channel Selection for Radon for Youth

청소년 대상 라돈 위해 의사전달 경로 선정을 위한 인식도 조사 연구

  • Park, Tae Hyun (Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering, Seokyeong University) ;
  • Jeon, Hyung Jin (Korea Environmental Information Center, Korea Environment Institute) ;
  • Kang, Dae Ryong (Institute of Genomic Cohort, College of Medicine, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kwon, Myung Hee (Indoor air and noise Research division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Park, Si Hyun (Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering, Seokyeong University) ;
  • Park, Se Jung (Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering, Seokyeong University) ;
  • Lee, Cheol Min (Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering, Seokyeong University)
  • 박태현 (서경대학교 화학생명공학과) ;
  • 전형진 (한국환경정책 평가연구원 국토환경정보센터) ;
  • 강대용 (연세대학교 원주의과대학 유전체 코호트 연구소) ;
  • 권명희 (국립환경과학원 생활환경연구과) ;
  • 박시현 (서경대학교 화학생명공학과) ;
  • 박세정 (서경대학교 화학생명공학과) ;
  • 이철민 (서경대학교 화학생명공학과)
  • Received : 2017.08.17
  • Accepted : 2017.10.23
  • Published : 2017.10.31


Objectives: The purpose of this study is to obtain basic data on the development of a risk communication model through an investigation of risk perception for radon and identify effective risk communication channels. Methods: A questionnaire was used to evaluate differences in perception level according to respective communication channels. A chi-squared test was used to analyze the difference in pre- and post-risk communication by communication channel. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the difference in the radon risk perception rate for each communication channel. Results: All of the communication channels resulted in increased radon risk perception, but there was no statistical difference between them in terms of perception (p>0.05). However, based on previous findings that it is effective to use a multi-channel approach, it is considered that communication channels based on duplicate avenues is most appropriate. Conclusions: It is expected that this study will be used as basic data to better understand the formation of public opinion about radon risk and to understand the social reaction to each risk factor.


Radon;risk communication;ANOVA;perception


Supported by : Korea Ministry of Environment(ME)


  1. Beck U, Ritter M, Brown J. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Environmental Values. 1993; 2(4); 367-368.
  2. Thinker TL, Collins CM, Kin HS, Hoover MD. Assessment risk communication effectiveness: Perspectives of agency practitioners. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2000; 73(2); 117-127.
  3. Sparks PJ and Copper M. Risk Characterization, Risk Communication, and Risk Management: The role of the occupational and environmental medicine physics. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 1993; 35(1); 13-20.
  4. US EPA. Considerations in risk communication: A digest of risk communication as a risk management tool. 2002.
  5. Golding D, Krimsky S, Plough A. Evaluating risk communication: Narrative vs. technical presentations of information about radon. Risk Analysis. 1992; 12(1); 27-35.
  6. Lee CM, Kim YS, Kim JC, Jeon HJ. Distribution of radon concentration at subway station in Seoul. Korean society of environmental health. 2004; 30(5); 469-480 [Korean].
  7. Kim YS, Lee CM, Kim KY, Jeon HJ, Kim JC, lida T. Time series observations of atmospheric radon concentration in Seoul, Korea for an analysis of long-range transportation of air pollutants in the North-East asia. Korean society of environmental health. 2007; 33(4); 283-292 [Korean].
  8. Laughlin DC, Joshi C, Bodegom PM, Bastow ZA, Fule PZ. A predictive model of community assembly that incorporates intraspectific trait variation. Ecology Letters. 2012; 15(11); 1291-1299.
  9. Bochicchio F, Hulka J, Ringer W, Rovenska K, Fojtikova I, Venoso G, Bradley EJ, Fenton D, Gruson M, Arvela H, Holmgren O, Quindos L, Mclaughlin J, Collignan B, Gray A, Grosche B, Jiranek M, Kalimeri K, Kephalopoulos S, Kreuzer M, Schlesinger D, Zeeb H, Bartzis J. National radon programmes and policies: the RADPAR recommendations. radiation protection dosimetry. 2014; 160(1-3); 14-17.
  10. WHO. fact sheet No. 291: radon and cancer. 2005. Available from: http//
  11. WHO. WHO handbook on indoor radon. 2009. Available from
  12. ICRP. Recommendation of the international commission on radiological protection, ICRP Publication 103, Annual ICRP. 2007; 37.
  13. UNSCEAR. Effects of ionizing radiation. Volume II. Annex E: Sources-to-effects assessment of radon in homes and workplaces. UNSCEAR 2006 Report. New York, United Nations. 2009. Available from
  14. AGIR. Radon and public health. Report of the independent advisory group on ionizing radiation. Doc HPA, RCE-11. 2009; 1-204. Available from:
  15. Rowan F. The high stakes of risk communication. Preventive Medicine. 1996; 25(1); 26-30.
  16. Velicer CM, Knuth BA. Communicating contaminant risks from sport-caught fish: The importance of target audience assessment. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(5); 833-841.
  17. Kang DW, Kim HG. Measurement of radon concentration in the near-surface soil gas by CR-39 detectors, Journal of Radiation Protection and Research, 1988; 13(2); 57-66.
  18. Chang SY, Ha CW, Lee BH. Effective dose equivalent due to inhalation of indoor radon-222 daughters in Korea. Journal of Radiation Protection and Research. 1991; 16(1); 1-13 [Korean].
  19. Chung HJ, Baek SH, Kim JH. Radon concentration and prediction of annual exposure rate of underground shopping center in Daejeon area. Journal of Korea Society of Environmental Administration. 2001; 7(2); 219-225 [Korean].
  20. Chang BU, Kim YJ, Song MH, Kim GH, Jeong SY, Cho KW. Measurement of indoor radon concentration and actual effective dose estimation of schools at high radon area in Korea. Radioprotection. 2011; 46(6); S91-S95 [Korean].
  21. Lee CM, Sim IS, Cho YS, Park GY, Kim YS, Nam Gong SJ, Joo YK. Radon concentrations in various indoor environments and effective doses to inhabitants in Korea. Environment and Pollution. 2012; 1(1); 55-68 [Korean].
  22. Mitchell JV. Perception of risk and credibility at toxic sites. Risk Analysis 1992; 12(1); 19-26.