Risk Perception and Occupational Health and Safety: Evaluation in National and Global Context
Abstract
Risks can be prevalent problems both within national borders and beyond. Examples of recent global infectious diseases such as natural disasters, man-made disasters (such as exposure to radiation), Covid, H1N1, and Ebola viruses can serve as examples of this. Interpretations and subjective judgments about risk are called risk perceptions and are important determinants of health and risk-related decisions (such as policy decisions about nuclear power plants, genetically modified foods, processed meats). We conducted research on studies on perception around the world, trends and what can be studied in the future. In this study, we identified 137 relevant publications from the SCOPUS database between 1987 and 2023. All the data obtained were analyzed using the Bibliometrix computer program based on R-studio. Analyses included the analysis of co-occurrences of networks, thematic maps, and trending topics. According to the findings of the present study, all reports were published in 101 sources since 1987. These documents have an annual growth rate of 5.55, increasing significantly after 2009. The countries with the highest number of publications are Australia, followed by Canada, Italy, Portugal, and the United States. Due to the nature of the topic, the occurrence of joint publications among countries is quite low. Individuals’ awareness of occupational health and safety issues increases their awareness of workplace risks and, therefore, the likelihood of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.
Keywords
References
- Alexopoulos, E. C., Kavadi, Z., Bakoyannis, G., & Papantonopoulos, S. (2009). Subjective risk assessment and perception in the Greek and English bakery industries. Journal of environmental and public health, 2009.
- Ar, H. (2014). İklim değişikliği risk algısının toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği açısından incelenmesi: Ankara ili Beypazarı ilçesi araştırması (Master's thesis, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
- Choudhri, A. F., Siddiqui, A., Khan, N. R., & Cohen, H. L. (2015). Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. Radiographics, 35(3), 736-746.
- Devos, P., & Menard, J. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of research relating to hypertension reported over the period 1997–2016. Journal of hypertension, 37(11), 2116.
- Güler, S. (2014). Örgütlerde güven algılamasının örgütsel sinizm üzerine etkisi ve bir araştırma (Master's thesis).
- Karanatsiou, D., Misirlis, N., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2017). Bibliometrics and altmetrics literature review: Performance indicators and comparison analysis. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 16-27.
- Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge university press. Kulak, M., Ozkan, A., & Bindak, R. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of the essential oil-bearing plants exposed to the water stress: How long way we have come and how much further? Scientia horticulturae, 246, 418-436.
- Kulak, M., & Kilic, N. (2020, May). A bibliometric analysis: How important is salicylic in response to the salinity from NaCl? In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (p. 1302).
- Markscheffel, B., & Schröter, F. (2021). Comparison of two science mapping tools based on software technical evaluation and bibliometric case studies. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 15(2), 365-396.
- Malanski, P. D., Schiavi, S., & Dedieu, B. (2019). Characteristics of “work in agriculture” scientific communities. A bibliometric review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39, 1-16.