SafetyInsights.org

 The role of spatial distance to hazards in risk perception: A systematic literature review

Not sure who this will interest – but it reviewed the evidence on how the spatial proximity to hazards alters risk perception.

54 studies met inclusion. Shared under open access licence.

PS. Check out my YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@safe_as_pod

Extracts:

• “Distance is a multifaceted concept that s… encompasses several dimensions, including spatial (or physical) distance, temporal distance, social distance, and experiential distance”

• “Most studies (n =46) reported that the closer to a hazard, the higher the perceived risks”

• And this was most “pronounced for natural hazards and industrial hazards, where proximity intensified the perceived immediacy of threats, often leading to heightened awareness and concerns”

• “In contrast, five studies have identified an inverse effect, where closer proximity to hazards resulted in lower risk perception due to habituation or familiarity … These studies suggest that residents who live near hazardous sites may develop coping mechanisms or adaptations to risks”

• “another three studies present a non-linear relation between proximity and risk perception, where risk perception did not heighten or diminish in a simple linear way with a change in distance”

• “Collective norms and shared worldviews can dampen—or amplify—how spatial cues translate into perceived risk. In some collectivist communities, for example, social cohesion and deference to local institutions have been shown to attenuate pollution-risk recognition even when residents live in close proximity to emission sources”

• “Studies have consistently shown that older individuals tend to perceive more significant risks than younger ones when living near hazardous areas”

• “women implement 26% more household flood adaptations than males … and temporary workers near industrial zones showing 18% lower evacuation compliance despite equivalent perceived risks”

• “education amplified technical risk appraisal for low-probability and high-impact events … [and] highly educated residents near tornado-prone areas perceived heightened risks within 1–3 km of hazard zones. In contrast, less-educated individuals showed minimal sensitivity to distance changes”

• “education can also attenuate proximity effects in contexts where technical knowledge overrides spatial cues. Navarro et al. (2021)reported that engineers living near volcanic hazards discounted physical proximity, relying on geological data to assess risks”

• “Temporal distance interacts with spatial proximity through construal and salience dynamics: recent events amplify immediate risks that diminish over time, while distant hazards may gain short-term salience due to media coverage”

• “Social distance, characterized by ingroup/ outgroup distinctions, shared norms, and trust levels, influences whether proximity is normalized or magnified; cohesive, high-trust environments mitigate spatial gradients, whereas low trust or outgroup dominance accentuates them”

• “Experiential distance, distinguishing between direct and indirect exposure, corresponds to the effects of firsthand experience versus descriptions: direct, frequent, low-harm exposure may lead to habituation and reduced immediate risks, while emotionally charged narratives can heighten the salience of distant risks”