Toxics (Oct 2022)

The Differences in Risk Perception between Practitioners in the Non-Coal-Mining Industry: Miners, Managers and Experts

  • Yuting Song,
  • Shu Zhang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10100623
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 10
p. 623

Abstract

Read online

Non-coal-mining accidents occur frequently in China, and individual unsafe behaviors are the direct cause. The cognitive diversity of practitioners in the non-coal-mining industry leads to various behaviors in work and hinders communication between groups. The aim of this study is to analyze the differences in risk perception (accidents and occupational diseases) between non-coal-mining practitioners (experts, miners, and managers) and to explore the contributing factors. The questionnaire survey method was used to collect the data on risk perception and influencing factors from 402 respondents working in non-coal mines and universities in China. Project analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used for preprocessing. A t-test and linear regression analysis were used to test the significance of the differences and assess the function of the factors, respectively. Regarding risk perception, two risks both have significant differences between the three groups. With the perceptions of accidents and occupational diseases ranked from high to low, the order of the practitioners is as follows: managers (3.88), experts (3.71), miners (3.55) and experts (4.14), miners (3.90), and managers (3.88). Regarding the influencing factors, risk attitude, risk communication, educational level, enterprise trust, and occupational satisfaction have great effects on the three groups. More precisely, three groups have different important predictors. Risk attitude has the greatest impact on miners (0.290) and experts (0.369), but sensibility preference has the greatest impact on managers (0.518). In summary, cognitive discrepancies are common among non-coal-mining practitioners, but the degree of deviation varies with the type and dimension of the risk. There are six factors that have a significant impact on all practitioners, but the effect is limited by specific risks and groups.

Keywords