The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach

Radon and overhead powerlines are two radiation risk cases that have raised varying levels of concern among the general public and experts. Despite both involving radiation—a typically feared and unseen health hazard—individuals' perceptions of the two risk cases may invoke rather different factors. We examined individual and geographic-contextual factors influencing public perceptions of the health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines in a comparative research design, utilizing a postal questionnaire with 1,528 members of the general public (response rate 28%) and multilevel modeling techniques. This study found that beliefs about the two risk cases mainly differed according to the level of "exposure"—defined here in terms of spatial proximity. We argue that there are two alternative explanations for this pattern of findings: that risk perception itself varies directly with proximity, or that risk is more salient to concerned people in the exposed areas. We also found that while people living in high radon areas are more concerned about the risks of indoor radon gas, they find these risks more acceptable and have more trust in authorities. These results might reflect the positive effects of successive radon campaigns in high radon areas, which may have raised awareness and concern, and at the same time may have helped to increase trust by showing that the government takes the health risks of indoor radon gas seriously, suggesting that genuine risk communication initiatives may have positive impacts on trust in risk management institutions.     

Why Risk Is Not Variance: An Expository Note

Variance (or standard deviation) of return is widely used as a measure of risk in financial investment risk analysis applications, where mean‐variance analysis is applied to calculate efficient frontiers and undominated portfolios. Why, then, do health, safety, and environmental (HS&E) and reliability engineering risk analysts insist on defining risk more flexibly, as being determined by probabilities and consequences, rather than simply by variances? This note suggests an answer by providing a simple proof that mean‐variance decision making violates the principle that a rational decisionmaker should prefer higher to lower probabilities of receiving a fixed gain, all else being equal. Indeed, simply hypothesizing a continuous increasing indifference curve for mean‐variance combinations at the origin is enough to imply that a decisionmaker must find unacceptable some prospects that offer a positive probability of gain and zero probability of loss. Unlike some previous analyses of limitations of variance as a risk metric, this expository note uses only simple mathematics and does not require the additional framework of von Neumann Morgenstern utility theory.     

A review of international human resource management: Integration,interrogation, imitation

International human resource management (IHRM) represents an important dimension of international management. Over the past three decades, there has been considerable growth in research and practice in IHRM. While there have been extensive developments in this field, numerous scholars have identified aspects requiring review and revision. Hence, this paper reviews and interrogates the progress in IHRM's theoretical development. The review leads to the conclusion that research in IHRM has tended to emphasize integration over other forms of progress. In response, and in provocation, imitation rather than integration is suggested as an approach for the development of future theoretical and conceptual directions in IHRM.