Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh

Abstract

Research in developed countries showed that many citizens perceive that radio signals transmitted by mobile phones and base stations represent potential health risks. Less research has been conducted in developing countries focused on citizen perceptions of risks and benefits, despite the recent and rapid introduction of mobile communication technologies. This study aims to identify factors that are influential in determining the tradeoffs that Bangladeshi citizens make between risks and benefits in terms of mobile phone technology acceptance and health concerns associated with the technology. Bangladesh was selected as representative of many developing countries inasmuch as terrestrial telephone infrastructure is insubstantial, and mobile phone use has expanded rapidly over the last decade, even among the poor. Issues of importance were identified in a small-scale qualitative study among Bangladeshi citizens (n = 13), followed by a survey within a sample of Bangladeshi citizens (n = 500). The results demonstrate that, in general, the perceived benefits of mobile phone technology outweigh the risks. The perceived benefits are primarily related to the social and personal advantages of mobile phone use, including the ability to receive emergency news about floods, cyclones, and other natural disasters. Base stations were seen as a symbol of societal advance. The results furthermore suggest that overall risk perceptions are relatively low, in particular health risks, and are primarily driven by perceptions that related to crime and social inconvenience. Perceived health risks are relatively small. These findings show that risk communication and management may be particularly effective when contextual factors of the society where the system is implemented are taken into consideration.

Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks

“…This is consistent with what we found in studies on other developing countries [19,45], in which the benefits of technology were taken for granted. In addition to social pressure, such results explain why we found a generally positive view of mobile communication use in everyday life in the interviews conducted in Romania and reluctance to express strong negative opinions.…”

“…In countries where technology is perceived as good per se, the techno-optimistic discourse is reinforced not only by media content but also by the groups exposed to the highest social pressure towards technology adoption [19]-for example, seniors.…”

“…The effects of radiation emitted by handsets and antennas on health are not clear [15,16], while other associated risks, such as fraud, spam, sexting, cyber-bullying or game addiction, also arise [17]. However, the personal and social advantages of using mobile telephony can undermine/moderate the sense of risk [18,19], and populations can come to regard base stations as symbols of economic and technological development.…”

“…In developing countries, such as Romania, there is hardly any public debate about potential risks caused by base stations (antennas). Particularly, a study in Bangladesh [19] shows, on the one hand, that mobile base stations are associated with modernity, and, on the other hand, that those health risks are not perceived to be as important as crime but instead as more of a social inconvenience related to the use of mobile telephony. In contrast, in developed countries, the attributes associated with technology are often more related to catastrophes and potential dangers and tend not to take the benefits of technological products for granted [45].…”

Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis

“…mobile phones, internet) or failure (e.g. food irradiation; genetically modified foods in Europe) of such technologies (Frewer et al 2004, 2011a; Gaskell et al1999; Van Kleef et al 2010; Wright and Androuchko 1996). It is likely that, just as has been the case for some other new technologies, socio-psychological factors will influence the societal response to nanotechnology (Gupta et al 2011).…”