Vol. 14 No. 2 (2022): Arch Pub Health
Public Health

Evaluation and relation of determinants of risk perception in the resident population living near industrially contaminated sites

Sandra Kosteska
Institute for Accreditation of Republic of North Macedonia, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
Marija Topuzovska-Latkovic
Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical Research, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia

Published 2022-12-30


  • risk perception,
  • ecological risks,
  • ecological health,
  • Industrially Contaminated Sites

How to Cite

Kosteska S, Topuzovska-Latkovic M. Evaluation and relation of determinants of risk perception in the resident population living near industrially contaminated sites. Arch Pub Health [Internet]. 2022 Dec. 30 [cited 2023 Dec. 6];14(2):5-20. Available from: https://www.id-press.eu/aph/article/view/6066


The association between industrial pollution and human health is of high importance for public health. Living near industrially contaminated sites (ICSs) and being exposed to increasing concentrations of environmental pollutants along with disadvantaged social and economic conditions result in an increased occurrence of diseases. There are 16 identified industrially contaminated sites in the Republic of North Macedonia, and of all of them, chemical industry AD OHIS - Skopje and lindane dump located near the plant, according to almost all categorizations,has been evaluated to pose the highest level of ecological and health risk, although there has been no recent evidence about these issues. The main aim of this study was to obtain general information about risk perception of resident population living around and near AD OHIS in the Skopje region. Methods: A standardized and modified questionnaire was sent to the participants in an electronic form by e-mail and was published on social networks and municipalities’ web sites. The responses to the questionnaire were given anonymously and voluntarily. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods with calculating central tendency parameters and analytical statistical methods with correlation and Pearson χ2 test and independent sample test. Results: During the observation period, 220 people responded to the survey, with female respondents being predominant (70%). Analysis showed that there was no significant difference between genders regarding risk perception. According to Likert scale, with 95% CI, among anthropogenic sources, respondents stated they were extremely worried about air pollution and very worried or worried about water pollution, noise, waste and dangerous industry. The diseases that trigger a response of greater concern were those related to allergies, respiratory diseases and cancer. Age, education and information related to ecological risks significantly influenced on judgement of the environmental conditions in the living area of resident population (p<0.05). Conclusions: Investigation results showed that resident population in the exposed Skopje region has a high level of perception and is susceptible to ecological risks by anthropogenic and natural influence. There is a direct relationship between exposureand environmental health impact. Also, sociоeconomic characteristics (gender, age, education) and cognitive factors have influence on risk perception level.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Barker DJP. The origins of the developmental origins theory. J Intern Med 2007; 261: 412–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01809.x
  2. Prüss-Üstün A, Wolf J, Corvalán C, Bos R, Neira M. Preventing disease through healthy environments: A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks, 2nd ed.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; ISBN 978-92-4- 156519-6.
  3. Fleming TP, Watkins AJ, Velazquez MA, Mathers JC, Prentice AM et al. Origins of lifetime health around the time of conception: Causes and consequences. Lancet 2018; 391: 1842–1852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30312-X
  4. MOEPP. National plan for waste management 2009-2015 of the Republic of Macedonia. 2008.
  5. Stafilov T, Peeva L, Nikov B, De Koning A. Industrial hazardous waste in the Republic of Macedonia. Applied Environmental Geochemistry – Anthropogenic İmpact on Human Environment in the SE Europe, Ljubljana, Proceedings Book (ŠAJN, R., ŽİBERT, G. & ALİJAGİĆ, J., (Eds.)), 2009, ISBN 978-961-6498-18-0, 108-112.
  6. Stafilov T. Environmental pollution with heavy metals in the Republic of Macedonia.– Contributions, Section of Natural, Mathematical and Biotechnical Sciences MASA 2014;35(2): 81–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20903/csnmbs.masa.2014.35.2.57
  7. Bloemen ЈThH. Biomonitoring of Macedonia. Report on the Twining project MK 12 IB EN 01 – Further strengthening the capacities for effective implementation of the acquis in the field of air quality, Report no.1, 2016; p. 20.
  8. Industrial Contaminated Sites (“hotspots”) National Waste Management Plan and Feasibility Studies. Contract No.: 01/MAC05/05/002. Ref. No.: EUROPEAID/115138/D/SV/MK.
  9. European Environment Agency, Human Activities, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-827-5122-8/page011.html.
  10. WHO European Centre for Environment and Health. Healthy Environments for Healthier People. 2018, eceh-eng.pdf (who.int).
  11. Dettori M, Pittaluga P, Busonera G, Gugliotta C, Azara A, Piana A, et al. Environmental risks perception among citizens living near industrial plants: A cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 4870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134870
  12. FischhoffB, AnnB, MarilynJQ. Risk perception and communication. Annu Rev Public Health 1993; 14: 183–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.001151
  13. Ropeik D. Risk perception in toxicology-part I: Moving beyond scientific instincts to understand risk perception. Toxicol Sci 2011; 121: 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfr048
  14. Crawford-Brown DJ. Risk-Based Environmental Decisions: Methods and Culture; Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5227-7
  15. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987; 236: 280–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  16. Slovic P. Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy. In The Perception of Risk; Slovic, P., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2000; pp. 316–326.
  17. LeiserowitzGF, WeberEU, HseeCK, Welch N. Risk as feeling. Psychol.Bull 2001; 127: 267–286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
  18. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. AmPsychol 1994; 49: 709–724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709
  19. Aven T, RennO. Risk Management and Governance; Springer Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0
  20. Slovic P, WeberEU. Perception of risk posed by extreme events. In Proceedings of the Conference on Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, New York, NY, USA, 12–13 April 2002.
  21. Grendstand G. Grid-group theory and political orientations: Effects of cultural biases in Norway in the 1990s. Scand Polit Stud 2000; 23: 217–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.00037
  22. Fischhoff B, WatsanS, HopeC. Defining risk. Policy Sci 1984; 77: 123–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00146924
  23. Sjoberg L, Drottz-Sjoberg BM. Risk Perception of nuclear waste: Experts and the Public; Risk Perception Report 16; Center for Risk Research: Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden, 1994.
  24. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal 1988; 8: 177–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
  25. Weber EU. Decision and Choice: Risk, Empirical Studies. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences; Smelser, N.J., Baltes, P.B., Eds.; Elsevier Science Limited: Oxfords, UK, 2001; pp.13347–13351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00634-3
  26. Paolo L, Perkins C, Lyons M. Health risk perception and environmental problem: Findings from ten case studies in the North West of England; Summary Report; Faculty of Health and Applied Social Sciences: Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK, 2009.
  27. Gregory R, MendelsohnR. Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Anal 1993; 1: 259–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01077.x
  28. Dosman DM, Admowicz WL, Hrudey SE. Socioeconomic determinants of health and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk Anal 2001; 21: 307–317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.212113
  29. Mudu P, Terracini B, Martuzzi M. Human health in areas with industrial contamination.WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 2014.
  30. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes; Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 1932.
  31. Johnson T. Environmentalism and NIMBYism in China: Promoting a rules-based approach to public participation. Environ Politics 2010; 19: 430–448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644011003690914
  32. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz C. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis. 1994; 14(6):1101–1108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x
  33. Signorino G, Beck E. Risk perception survey in two high-risk areas. Pierpaolo Mudu; Benedetto Terracini; Marco Martuzzi. Human health in areas with industrial contamination, World Health Organization – Europe. 2014; pp.232-245.
  34. Carducci AL, Fiore M, Azara A, Bonaccorsi G, Bortoletto M, Caggiano G, et al. Environment and health: Risk perception and its determinants among Italian university students. Sci Total Environ 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.201
  35. Ozdemir ED, Sener S. The impact of higher education on environmental risk perceptions. China USA Bus Rev Sep. 2016; 15: 459–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17265/1537-1514/2016.09.005
  36. Porta D, Milani S, Lazzarino AI, Perucci CA, Forastiere F. Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste. Environ Health 2009;8:60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-8-60
  37. Ashworth DC, Elliott P, Toledano MB. Waste incineration and adverse birth and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review. Environ Int 2014;69:120 –32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.003
  38. Golini MN, Ancona C, Badaloni C, Forastiere F. Morbidity in a population living close to urban waste incinerator plants in Lazio region (Central Italy): a retrospective cohort study using a before-after design. Epidemiol Prev 2014;38(5):323 –34.
  39. BenaA, Gandini M, CadumE, Procopio E, SalaminaG, Orengia M, FarinaE. Risk perception in the population living near the Turin municipal solid waste incineration plant: survey results before start-up communication strategies. BMC Public Health2019; 19:483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6808-z
  40. Salvati P, Bianchi C, Fiorucci F, Giostrella P, Marchesini I, Guzzetti F. Perception of flood and landslide risk in Italy: a preliminary analysis. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2014;14:2589 –603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-2589-2014
  41. Cavazza N, Rubichi S. Ways of thinking about the incinerator: a typology of citizens’ mindsets. Soc Sci J. 2014;51:422 –430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2013.10.008
  42. Janmaimoоl P, Watanabe T. Evaluating determinants of environmental risk perception for risk management in contaminated sites. IntJ Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11: 6291-6313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110606291