Journal Information
Vol. 14. Issue 3.
Pages 226-232 (May - June 2000)
Vol. 14. Issue 3.
Pages 226-232 (May - June 2000)
Open Access
Percepción de Riesgos Ambientales: Estudio Cualitativo Realizado en la Zona del Vertido Tóxico de Aznalcóllar
Visits
6112
R. Solé Arqués
Corresponding author
r.sole@arrakis.es

Correspondencia: C/ San Basilio, 12–14, 41003 Sevilla.
, M.T. Cruz Piqueras
Máster en Salud Pública y Gestión Sanitaria. Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Reseumen
Fundamento

Este artículo está basado en un estudio cualitativo realizado durante los meses de julio y agosto de 1998 entre la población residente en zonas próximas al vertido tóxico de minas de Aznalcóllar, en Sevilla, España, suceso ocurrido el 25 de abril de 1998.

Objetivos

Aportar algunas claves sobre la percepción de riesgos en la población de la zona próxima al vertido, haciendo hincapié en los riesgos percibidos para la salud de las personas, las fuentes de información, su credibilidad, y las expectativas ante el futuro.

Metodología

Se utilizaron técnicas cualitativas combinadas, consistentes en entrevistas semiestructuradas y grupos focales.

Resultados

recogen la existencia de una percepción de las consecuencias económicas del vertido, y en un segundo plano por posibles consecuencias para la salud. Los riesgos percibidos para la salud se refieren a los efectos a largo plazo del tipo de malformaciones y cáncer, sin que se reconozcan cambios de comportamientos o en los hábitos. La información procede de los medios de comunicación, si bien se manifiesta desconfianza y perplejidad ante la información recibida. Se constata escasa credibilidad hacia la administración, los grupos ecologistas y los medios de comunicación. El rol del sistema sanitario aparece desdibujado. Existe una clara percepción de falta de información adecuada a la audiencia y la población afectada demanda una participación informada en la gestión de riesgos ambientales.

Conclusiones

Los resultados de este estudio apoyan la necesidad de reconocer la trascendencia de una comunicación adecuada en el manejo de las posibles amenazas para la salud inherentes a los peligros ambientales. Asimismo se pone de manifiesto la necesidad de profundizar en el conocimiento de la percepción de riesgos ambientales en nuestro país, mediante estudios cuantitativos y cualitativos, en el contexto de la gestión moderna de riesgos y ante la creciente importancia que tienen en la agenda social los temas relacionados con el medio ambiente.

Palabras clave:
Percepción de riesgos ambientales
Estudio cualitativo
Vertido tóxico
Abstract
Background

This paper is based on a qualitative study undertaken between July and August 1998 among the residents of the area close the mining waste spill that occurred the 25th of April 1998 in Aznalcóllar, Seville, Spain.

Objectives

To contribute to the identification of some clues about risk perceptions among the population living at the vicinity of the toxic spill, focusing especially on the perceived health risks, the sources of information, their credibility, and the expectations for the future.

Methodology

Combined qualitative research methodologies were used, including interviews and focal groups.

Results

The findings show the existence of a perception of the economic consequences of the spill. In a second level possible the consequences for the health status were relevant. Perceived health risks referred to long term effects, such as malformations and cancer. No changes in habits and behaviour are expressed. The information comes from the media, even if mistrust and perplexity are associated with the information received. There is low of credibility towards the administration, ecologist groups and the media. The role of the health system appears poorly defined. The perceived absence of an adequate information to the audience is noted, and there is a demand from the affected population for an informed participation in the process of management of environmental risks.

Conclusions

The findings of this work stress the importance of an adequate communication process in the management of health risks associated with environmental hazards. Moreover, it also highlights the need to improve the knowledge about environmental risk perceptions in our country through both quantitative and qualitative research, in the context of the modern risk management and the growing relevance of environmental topics in the social agenda

Key words:
Environmental risk perception
Qualitative study
Mining waste spill
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
World Health Organisation: Assessing the health consequences of major chemical incidents: epidemiological approaches. Who Regional Publications, European series n.° 79, 1997.
[2.]
E.K. Noji.
The Public Health Consequences of Disasters.
[3.]
H.I. Hall, V.R. Dhara, W.E. Kaye, P. Price Green.
Public health consequences of hazardous substance releases.
Toxicology and Industrial Health, 12 (1996), pp. 289-293
[4.]
P.A. Bertazzi.
Industrial disasters and epidemiology. Scand J Work. Environ.
Health, 15 (1989), pp. 85-100
[5.]
S.B. Thacker, et al.
Surveillance in environmental Public Health: Issues, Systems and Sources.
Am J Public Health, 86 (1996), pp. 633-638
[6.]
D. Coggon.
Assessment of exposure to environmental pollutants Occup Environ Med, 52 (1995), pp. 562-564
[7.]
R.J. Hardy, G.D. Schroder, S.P. Cooper, P.A. Buffler, H.M. Prichard, M. Crane.
A surveillance system for assessing health effects from hazardous exposures.
Am Jour of Epidem, 132 (1990), pp. 32-42
[8.]
I. Hertz-Picciotto.
Comment: Toward a Coordinated System for the surveillance of environmental Health Hazards.
Am J Public Health, 86 (1996), pp. 638-641
[9.]
R. Goyer.
Toxic and Essential metal interactions.
Ann Rev Nutr, 17 (1997), pp. 37-50
[10.]
P.A. Buffler, M. Crane, M. Mc Key.
Possibilities of detecting health effects by studies of populations exposed to chemicals from waste disposal sites.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 62 (1985), pp. 423-465
[11.]
D. Bard.
Principes de l'evaluation des risques pour la santé publique liés aux expositions environnementales.
Revue Epidem et Santé Publique, 43 (1995), pp. 423-441
[12.]
R. Kolluru, S. Bartell.
Risk assessment and management handbook.
[13.]
F. Rowman.
The high stakes of risk communication.
Prev Med, (1996), pp. 26-29
[14.]
C.J. Atman, A. Bostrom, B. Fischhoff, G. Morgan.
Designing Risk Communications: Completing and correcting Mental Models of Hazardous processes, part I.
Risk anal, 14 (1994), pp. 779-788
[15.]
T.L. Mc Daniels, L.J. Axelrod, N.S. Cavanagh, P. Slovic.
Perception of Ecological risk to water environments.
Risk Anal, 17 (1997), pp. 341-352
[16.]
Beck U. De la sociedad Industrial a la sociedad del riesgo, Revista de Occidente, Nov 1993,19–40.
[17.]
A. Giddens.
La vida en una sociedad postindustrial.
Revista de Occidente, (1993), pp. 61-90
[18.]
N. Luhmann.
Autoorganización e información en el sistema político.
Revista de Occidente, (1993), pp. 41-60
[19.]
L.J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley, R. Sheppherd.
The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food risks.
Risk Anal, 17 (1997), pp. 759-770
[20.]
R.G. Peters, V.T. Covello, D.B. McCallum.
The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication, an empirical study.
Risk Anal, 17 (1997), pp. 43-54
[21.]
C. Marris, I. Langford, T. Saunderson, T. O'Riordan.
Exploring the «Psychometric Paradigm»: Comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses.
Risk Anal, 17 (1997), pp. 303-312
[22.]
T.A. Burke, N.L. Tran.
Regulating risk.
ILSI press, (1993),
[23.]
J. Flynn, P. Slovic, C.K. Mertz.
Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks.
Risk Anal, 14 (1994), pp. 1101-1108
[24.]
P.R. Lees-Harley, R.S. Brown.
Biases in perception and reporting following a perceived toxic exposure.
Percept-Mot-Skills, 75 (1992), pp. 531-544
[25.]
N. Mays, C. Pope.
Rigour and qualitative research.
BMJ, 311 (1995), pp. 109-112
[26.]
J.C. March Cerda, D.R. Pajares Conde, M.E. Gómez Martínez.
Auditoría de comunicación interna de un hospital.
Gaceta Sanitaria, 12 (1998), pp. 231-238
[27.]
C. Manfredi, L. Lacey, R. Wernacke, G. Balch.
Method effects in survey and focus group findings.
Health education and behavior, 24 (1997), pp. 786-800
[28.]
J. Kitzinger.
Introducing focus groups.
BMJ, 311 (1995), pp. 299-302
[29.]
T. Rhodes.
Risk theory in epidemic times: sex, drug and the social organization.
Sociology of Health and Illness 1997, 19 (1997),
[30.]
J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Delgado.
Teoría de la observación.
Métodos y técnicas cualitativas en investigación en ciencias sociales,
[31.]
M. Debus, N. Poter.
Manual para la excelencia en la investigación mediante grupos focales.
OPS/OMS, (1988),
[32.]
D. Morgan.
Focus group as qualitative research. (Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods N.° 16).
[33.]
J. Secker, E. Wimbush, J. Watson, K. Milburn.
Qualitative methods in health promotion research: some criteria for quality.
Health Education Journal, 54 (1955), pp. 74-87
[34.]
K. Reko.
The psychosocial impact of environmental disasters. Environmental Contam.
And toxicology, 33 (1984), pp. 655-661
[35.]
E. Singer, P. Endreny.
Reporting on risk, Russell Sage Foundation.
¿, (1993),
[36.]
R.J. Griffin, S. Dunwoody, C. Gehermann.
The effects of community pluralism on press coverage of health risks from local environmental contamination.
Risk anal, 15 (1995), pp. 449-458
[37.]
D. Janienson.
Scientific uncertainty: how do we know when to communicate research findings to the public?.
The Science of the Total Environment, (1996), pp. 103-107
[38.]
B.B. Johnson, P. Slovic.
Presenting uncertainity in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust.
Risk Anal, 15 (1995), pp. 485-494
[39.]
P. Robin.
Surveillance systems and the role of a preventive medical team in chemical incidents. Oc.
And Env Medicine, 53 (1996), pp. 502-504
Copyright © 2000. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?