Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Education for Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ece

An analysis of engineering students’ risk perception to support process

safety learning process
Rafael Amaya-Gómez a, *, Vivian Dumar b, Mauricio Sánchez-Silva c,
Maria Alejandra Torres-Cuello d, Alba Avila e, Felipe Muñoz f
a
Chemical Engineering Department, Universidad de los Andes, Cra 1E No. 19A-40, Bogotá, Colombia
b
Risk Management, The Bogotá Metro, Cra 9 No. 76-49, Bogotá, Colombia
c
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Cra 1E No. 19A-40, Bogotá, Colombia
d
Administrative Department of Public Service, Cra 6 No. 12-62, Bogotá, Colombia
e
Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department: Microelectronic Center (CMUA), Universidad de los Andes, Cra 1E No. 19A-40, Bogotá, Colombia
f
Empresa Colombiana de Petróleos (ECOPETROL), Cra 7 No. 32-42, Bogotá, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Multidisciplinary teams often undertake engineering projects beyond their original discipline involving different
Engineering kinds of risks. Risk perception is an inherent and embedded part of the decision-making process, which depends
Education on the personal background and instinctive attitudes or behaviors. Process safety and risk analysis training for
Process safety
engineers, and education for engineering students, provide valuable tools seeking safer workplaces; however,
Risk perception
Factor analysis
personnel’s risk perception is commonly neglected. This paper analyzes the risk perception and appetite of
undergraduate engineering students in Colombia based on a survey strategy and a weighted-approach following
a Factor Analysis. The survey considered financial, social, physical, and professional risks, and four main reasons
for risk-taking or risk-avoiding actions. The Factor Analysis allows us to classify the students tendency as risk-
averse o risk-prone, and propose didactic teaching planning using a modular toolbox for process safety educa­
tion, based on skills identified for junior engineers in Colombian Oil & Gas Industry. A total of 465 engineering
students from 12 Colombian universities completed the survey in 2016. The results suggest that risk perception
depends on the location, possible risk training, and accessible information. The obtained factors allow describing
the students’ overall risk profiles, which can serve as an input for refining the content and curriculum content of
current engineering programs regarding process safety. Improving the training of risk management in the en­
gineering curriculum will benefit upcoming multidisciplinary teams in high-risk industries.

1. Introduction
Process Safety and risk management are in continuous evolution
partially because of the existence of more complex technologies, and
emerging risks as those mentioned by the OECD (2003) produced by
systemic changes in demography, environment, technology advances, or
the socio-economic structure. Process safety is also evolving considering
the aftermath of relevant process accidents in different industries (Kerin,
2016; Mannan et al., 2016). Some examples include the Caprolactam
Flixborough explosion (UK, 1974), which evidenced the need for
HAZOP analysis and adequate Management of Change (MOC). The
Seveso dioxin leakage (Italy, 1976) promoted different legislation for
the control and prevention of similar accidents (SEVESO UE Directive)
and the need for a more inherent safer design. The pesticide plant
leakage in Bhopal (India) in 1985 highlighted the need for dispersion
modeling and triggered the creation of the Center Chemical Process
Safety (CCPS). Other relevant examples include the BP Texas City ex­
plosion (U.S.) in 2005, the T2 Laboratory Inc. runaway explosion (U.S.)
in 2007, the Imperial Sugar (U.S) explosion in 2008, the explosion of the
Deepwater Horizon offshore platform (Gulf of Mexico) in 2010, and the
nuclear disaster of Fukushima (Japan) in 2011. These accidents trig­
gered the development of new technologies, new safety barriers, safety
culture, new hazards identification, and alternative risk assessments at
different industrial sectors (Mannan et al., 2016).
In addition, industrial facilities handling hazardous materials are
subjected to unlikely threats but potentially catastrophic consequences,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: r.amaya29@uniandes.edu.co (R. Amaya-Gómez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2022.10.003
Received 29 July 2022; Received in revised form 6 October 2022; Accepted 18 October 2022
Available online 20 October 2022
1749-7728/© 2022 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Amaya-Gómez et al.
as in the case of Natech –Natural Hazard Triggering Technological
Disasters– events. For instance, climate change may favor the occur­
rence of failures due to landslides in mountainous regions or floodings in
facilities near the coast (Cruz and Krausmann, 2013; Suarez-Paba et al.,
2020; Mesa-Gómez et al., 2020; He et al., 2022). These events imply
additional challenges from the traditional industrial point of view. In
this regard, authors like Reniers et al. (2018) proposed the EPIC
framework, which is associated with Natech safety in Chemical Industry
through Education (learning and training), Proactive risk minimization,
Intensified inspection and analysis, and Cooperation. Process safety
evolution requires continuous monitoring of hazards and conditions of
safety barriers and engineering resilience procedures (Kerin, 2016;
Planas et al., 2014; Mannan et al., 2016). Engineers need to be more
prepared for risk assessment and management, considering possible
catastrophic scenarios and how should be the emergency response.
The preparation of engineers has its driving force in training and
early education. According to Mkpat et al. (2018), process safety educa­
tion has its basis in three main paths: (i) an academic route that involves
bachelor, master’s, or even doctoral formation; (ii) a professional route
that includes internships and research from an industrial perspective;
and (iii) professional agencies training from a regulation perspective.
Gajek et al. (2022) assessed a couple of surveys developed by the EFCE
Working Party on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion for active in­
dustrial workers in Europe, members of professional associations, col­
lege universities, and professional institutions. This work searched for
the main formation for the different stakeholders in Europe in process
safety, indicating that the majority of training came from employers,
followed by college institutions, and some professional institutions.
These results acknowledge that undergraduate process safety education
is critical, considering senior students will be part of different high-risk
industries, where different skills or attributes are desired for next engi­
neers. For instance, the American Society for Engineering Education
(ASEE) recognized that a global engineer need to understand concepts
related to Risk Management and Continuous Improvement. Also, on a
general workplace professional competences, it is desired the ability to
apply judgment in decision-making processes to manage risks effectively
(ASEE, 2015). This overall preparation can be related to the “learning
pyramid process” (Benintendi, 2016), where at the university tier, the
learning process begins with understanding some basic principles and by
applying some corresponding principles. At the professional tier, it is
necessary to use this knowledge in conjunction with field experience to
support management decisions.
In this regard, different resources to process safety education have
been promoted by different stakeholders (Amaya-Gómez et al., 2019;
Mkpat et al., 2018). From a professional perspective, currently there are
different recognized institutions such as AIChE (American Institute of
Chemical Engineers), CCPS (Center of Chemical Process Safety), IChemE
(Institution of Chemical Engineers), ABET (Accreditation Board for En­
gineering and Technology, Inc.), or CSB (Chemical Safety Board) that
provide diverse teaching material for process safety education. For
instance, SAChE (Safety and Chemical Engineering Education) program
is a collaborative effort between CCPS and engineering schools that
distribute teaching materials and online courses for students, professors,
and recent professionals to assure safer operations. CCPS develops
different engineers training courses as the widely used Process Safety
Boot Camp intensive 4-day training that covers areas such as Risk-based
Process Safety, Process Hazard Analysis, among others. The Chemical
Safety Board (CSB) promotes detailed lessons learned from root-case
analysis in previous incidents, which help identify safety barriers,
analyze their failure rates, and determine the accident sequence.
IChemE has a variety of interesting resources that can be used for the
education of process safety. Some of them contemplate training courses
both online and on-site that cover main elements such as hazard iden­
tification, HazOp, LOPA, consequence modeling, emergency planning,
dust explosion, risk assessment, and process safety awareness. Also,
IChemE offers plenty of publications that can be used in advance for
8
Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19
process safety education, including books (e.g., Chemical Process Safety),
the Loss Prevention Bulletin (LPB), which provides lessons learned from
process safety case studies, and dedicated journal papers as in the case of
the recent Special Issue on Process Safety in Chemical Engineering Edu­
cation and Training, focusing on the “what”, “how”, and “why” is
required process safety training and education.
From an academic education perspective, different alternatives have
been implemented to raise students’ awareness of Process Safety’s
importance. In this regard, some common teaching strategies in under­
graduate programs include standalone courses that can be mandatory or
elective in the curriculum, or by incorporating process safety related
topics in core (mandatory) courses (Amaya-Gómez et al., 2019). Engi­
neering programs usually cover the main Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) taxonomy, and they follow accred­
itation requirements and literature advice, which makes the design of
degree curricula an exercise under several constraints (Campbell and
Belton, 2016). For instance, to increase international competitiveness
and Research & Innovation leadership, some approaches have been
raised such as the Bologna Process (Ministerial Decree No. 509/99)
(Crosier and Parveva, 2013; Terry, 2007), which establishes a three year
Bachelor of Science (BSc), two-year Master of Science (MSc) and three
year Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). Therefore, one of the more attractive
ways to include process safety is at core mandatory subjects such as
Chemical Reaction Engineering or Process Plant Design. For instance,
Perrin and Laurent (2008) presents this context in three French Engi­
neering Schools (Ecole Nationale Supérieure), where safety topics are
contemplated at introductory laboratory courses in chemistry and
chemical engineering, and in core courses such as design project and
industrial training. This situation is not limited to France, but also in
different countries in Europe have been incorporated process safety
topics in regular bachelor and master’s curricula as pointed out by
Kouwenhoven (2021) like in the case of the Politecnico di Milano (Italy)
in different short compulsory safety courses for those using laboratories.
Similar examples have also been reported in the United States by Dee
et al. (2015) in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and
Pintar (1999) in the Michigan Technological University (MTU).
Overall, these strategies aim to inherently include process safety in
the engineering program by teaching specific introductory related sub­
jects in several courses, which in turn prevents discrimination with the
chemical engineering activities (Benintendi, 2016; Pintar, 1999). Some
of the topics contemplated in this regard include asset integrity and
reliability, process design, fire and explosion studies, hazard identifi­
cation and risk analysis, human factors, incident management, process
control, Process Safety Management, and Risk decision-making (Mkpat
et al., 2018). However, a suitable learning environment to be applied in
a broader student population still need to be consolidated. According to
Kouwenhoven (2021) a scarce amount of time in European programs are
devoted for process safety (less than 8.3% in BSc and 12.5% in MSc
programs), where the main subjects covered include Risk Identification
and Risk Classification. These topics are also highlighted by Gajek et al.
(2022) in the rating of importance among educators and industry with
elements associated with return of experience from past accidents,
human factors, SIS, HAZOP, and Fires and Explosions. There is another
topic apart from risk estimates and management that is relevant in
high-risk industries: the personnel Risk Perception. Although it is asso­
ciated with hazards perception and their threats feelings, several works
have discussed its importance towards safety attitudes and behaviors
(Mearns and Flin, 1995; Rundmo, 1996; Arezes and Miguel, 2008).
Mearns and Flin (1995) describe Risk Perception as the study of beliefs,
attitudes, judgments, and felling a person has regarding hazards and
risk-taking within a wider social and cultural context. Certainly, biased
risk perceptions can cause misjudgments of potentially-hazardous
sources. These misjudgments may represent risky behaviors, lack of
adequate actions towards the risk source, inappropriate safety measure
decisions, common occupational accidents, and catastrophes (Rundmo,
1996). Nevertheless, Gajek et al. (2022) surveys’ results indicate that
R. Amaya-Gómez et al.
only 12% of the respondents recognized this topic in their engineering
curriculum, which is also reflected in the lower rating importance for
educators in process safety related topics, with a better rating only for
permits to work, mechanical integrity and safety legislation.
In addition to personnel in high-risk facilities like offshore platforms
(Mearns and Flin, 1995), researchers have also focused on how students
perceive risks (Hussin and Wang, 2010; Munguia et al., 2016; Carlson,
2015; Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2019). The objective is to understand their
attitudes and possible behaviors facing dangerous situations, consid­
ering available safety measures. This information would help to support
a teaching planning that is dependent on the risk appetite. For instance,
Hussin and Wang (2010) evaluated the industrial safety perception of
postgraduate students in the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) about
four high-risk industries; these are: Oil & Gas, Nuclear, Mining, and
Aviation. The results indicated that students were more influenced by
the severity of a potential accident than the probability of the event.
Therefore, the nuclear and mining industries were perceived as less safe
than the Oil & Gas and aviation, although students recognized that ex­
plosions and toxic gas leakages are likely accident events in Oil & Gas
facilities. Besides, researchers from the University of Sonora in Mexico
have assessed college students’ risk perception of hazards in chemistry
laboratories (Munguia et al., 2016; Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2019). For this
purpose, a Workers’ Risk Perception Dimensional Evaluation (EDRP-T) has
been implemented to characterize the students’ risk perception in
chemistry and biology laboratories. Furthermore, Carlson (2015) has
studied the risk perception in 14 different classes of undergraduate
students at the North Carolina State University regarding toxic risk
perception. According to the author “the educational treatment was
indicated as effective for changing risk perception for select activities
related to toxicological hazards” (Carlson, 2015, pp. i). Based on the
students’ risk perception, a teaching planning that focuses on risk
analysis and risk evaluation could help the students’ formation in pro­
cess safety and would enhance required abilities for junior engineers; for
instance, considering Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) and probabilistic
sensitization.
Risk perception has an important cultural component that poses
additional challenges in emerging countries like Colombia, where reli­
gious beliefs, social and economic conditions may drastically affect
students’ attitudes and learning processes. This work seeks to assess
students’ risk perception based on a survey analysis. This survey con­
siders financial, social, physical, and professional risks and different
reasons why a student would undertake or avoid those risks. A Factor
Analysis taking into account a Generalized Degrees of Freedom (GDF)
was implemented to describe the student’s risk profile. These profiles
are used to support didactic teaching strategies in four topics of interest
(i) Process Safety basic principles, (ii) introduction of Mechanical
Integrity, (iii) Process Hazard Analysis techniques, and (iv) runaway
reactions. These topics are considered by Amaya-Gómez et al. (2019)
based on the skills required for junior engineers from the Colombian Oil
Company (ECOPETROL). In this paper, we present our approach for
Process Safety education and the results from the surveys from 465
students from 12 universities in Colombia.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes what risk is
and how it is perceived. Section 3 presents our proposed learning
approach based on an evaluation of students’ risk perception and
appetite; Section 4 presents the case study in Colombia. Section 5 con­
tains the results from the risk perception of the engineering students and
proposes the learning approach. Finally, Section 6 contains some
concluding remarks.
2. What is risk and how it is perceived?
To develop a curriculum for engineering students regarding process
safety, one must depart from the definition of two key concepts; risk and
risk perception. Although they may be used indistinctly in practice, they
constitute two different terms, one of which departs from a theoretical
9
Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19
construction and the other from the perception of those involved in
particular situations. An official definition of risk is “a measure of the
probability and severity of adverse effects” (Lowrance, 1976). In other
words, the risk is a calculation of how likely an incident is to occur and
given its occurrence, how severe the consequences would be, consid­
ering the uncertainty of an outcome (Campbell Institute, 2014). Based
on the above, risk definition is grounded on three components: proba­
bility, severity, and perception/context.
On the other hand, risk perception is the study of people’s beliefs,
attitudes, judgments and feelings about hazards, danger and risk-taking,
within a broader context of social and cultural values (Mearns and Flin,
1995; Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Vlek and Stallen, 1981; Weinstein,
1980). Thus, it is a highly personal decision-making process based on an
individual frame of reference developed over a lifetime (Brown, 2014).
However, ‘risks’ are not perceived but hazards or various features of
decision problems, which lead to feelings of danger or safety (Mearns
and Flin, 1995). According to the Campbell Institute (2014), there are
macro, intermediate, and micro factors that affect risk perception and
risk tolerance alike.
Macro factors are related to the structure or institutional character­
istics of an organization, such as those issues related to the culture of
safety and the level of safety leadership within an organization or
community, given that these factors affect risk tolerance and perception
of its members. For example, when management demonstrates a
commitment to safety, employees’ perception of the safety management
system is positively influenced, resulting in less risk-taking behavior and
reduced injury rates (O’Toole, 2002). Another example of the organi­
zational characteristics influencing risk perception is related to the or­
ganization’s response to the occurrence of a given event. If an
organization member is aware of the possible consequences or punish­
ments for someone’s unsafe behavior, the likelihood of this member
falling in unsafe behaviors will be lower. In addition to trusting that
there will be consequences for behaving unsafely, workers need to have
faith in the credibility of those communicating safety messages to take
proper precautions when working (Fischhoff, 1995; Weyman and Kelly,
1999).
The intermediate factors are related to the community (peers) in
which an individual is involved. For that reason, it includes peer or
community pressure elements, in which stress from peers both within
and outside the workplace can cause people to take risks that go against
their better judgment. For example, a new individual in an organization
may take unnecessary risks or fall in unappropriated behavior seeking
for peer acceptance. Finally, the micro factors are those related to the
individual’s knowledge regarding a situation. Those who are less
informed of a situation are less likely to take risks, while those with more
knowledge are more likely to have higher levels of risk tolerance
(Campbell Institute, 2014).
The Risk Management process can easily break down if diverse risk
perceptions among team members are not recognized, considering their
different risk tolerance and acceptable levels. This situation turns more
complicated, considering how risk is perceived by stakeholders affected
by risk management decisions, including company employees, share­
holders, regulators, community neighbors, and the general public
(Amyotte and McCutcheon, 2006). Considering the factors mentioned
above, one can differentiate the understanding of risk perception from
two separate points of view; one coming from an expert and the other
coming from the public. Experts try to base their risk perceptions on
research findings and statistical evidence (Paek and Hove, 2017). When
experts judge risk, their response higlhly correlates with technical esti­
mates of annual fatalities or losses (Slovic, 1987). In other words, ‘ex­
perts’ often assess risk as to the expected value of the negative outcomes
(the consequences) of a decision (Weisenfeld and Ott, 2011).
Conversely, the general public judgment of “risk” is related to subjective
perceptions, intuitive judgments, and inferences made from media
coverage and limited information (Paek and Hove, 2017), so they tend
to differ from experts’ risk estimates (Slovic, 1987).
R. Amaya-Gómez et al.
However, experts and the general public share a component in which
several largely unconscious emotional processes shape risk perception.
The human brain is hard-wired to react quickly and defensively to
perceived threats (LeDoux, 2012). This situation includes physical
threats, sights, sounds, smells, and even words or memories associated
with fear or danger. Another largely unconscious process is the use of
mental shortcuts to quickly make sense of partial information (Tversky
and Kahneman, 1974). Third, different characteristics of a threat carry
different weights in terms of how people perceive the risk involved.
Finally, people tend to shape their views, so they match those in the
groups they most closely relate to, which is a concept known as cultural
cognition (Kahan et al., 2011).
A misjudgment of risk may lead to inappropriate decisions, and un­
safe behaviors or human errors given that risk perception is a critical
antecedent of at-risk behavior (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 2017). Biases
in risk perception can cause misinterpretations of potential risk sources.
When risks are misinterpreted, workers may undertake inappropriate
risks (Arezes and Miguel, 2008). A cognitive bias corresponds to the
systematic error in judgment and decision-making common to all human
beings, which can emerge due to cognitive limitations, motivational
factors, or adaptations to natural environments (Wilke and Mata, 2012).
Biases are the result of cognitive processes. According to Kahneman
(2011), cognitive processes can be divided into two conceptual systems:
system one and system two that are used in decision making. System one
produces intuitive reactions and automated decisions. It is generated
without much conscious effort and leads the available information
through a subconscious pattern recognition based on similar past situ­
ations (Hogarth, 2001). System two, corresponds to a deliberate type of
thinking, involving focus, reason, and analysis. Although both systems
are sources of bias, it is common to find biases emanating from system
one. Putting into practice the use of system two by directing
decision-making processes through logic may help reduce their
appearance.
Although the use of system two is recommended for reducing the
likelihood of biases, it is more likely for a human being to use system
one. Sometimes, it may result in a compulsive decision-making process
that might not be the most adequate but the easiest one. According to
Perlman et al. (2014), the ability to identify hazards or risks is positively
correlated with work experience and formal safety training. Someone
who has been trained may ground their decision-making processes on
the technical knowledge and training they have received regarding risk
and risk perception. As pointed out by Renn (2008) and Slovic et al.
(1980), the biases in risk perception would include:
• Availability – events that people remember immediately are seen as
more likely.
• Anchor effect–odds are estimated according to the plausibility of the
contextual relations of cause and effect, not on the knowledge of
statistical frequencies.
• Representation–there is a difference between personal experiences
and experiences that occurred to others.
• Cognitive divergence–unknown information is often ignored or
underestimated.
3. Proposed approach for learning process safety based on
students’ risk perception
A learning environment involve the complete physical, social, and
pedagogical context in which the learning is intended to occur
(UNESCO, 2012). This concept includes the place of learning (e.g.,
classroom), pedagogical strategies including unanticipated events, and
the available resources provided to the learner. This work focuses on the
pedagogical strategies and not all the issues related to the learning en­
vironments. In this regard, an approach for support the teaching plan­
ning based on students’ risk perception that is described below.
10
Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19
3.1. Surveys structure and design process
A review of psychometrics and risk profiles was developed to
establish the measurable parameter of this survey (i.e., the risk
perception or appetite) to determine factors that significantly affect the
risk perception of a Colombian engineering student. For instance Slovic
(1987), exposed a factor-analytic representation based on 81 hazards
regarding a Dread and Unknown Risks to support the statement that
people’s risk perception and attitudes are determined not only by a sort
statistics (e.g., expected number of fatalities, death probability or life
expectancy reduction), but also by different qualitative and quantitative
characteristics. Moreover, Leiserowitz (2003) developed an in-depth
examination of the political and socio-cultural dimensions of public,
global warming risk perceptions, policy preferences, and individual
behaviors, using standard analyses of political identification and ideol­
ogy, and Cultural Theory-based approaches. It implemented an affective
image analysis to investigate the role of connotative meaning in risk
perception, decision making, and risk behavior, highlighting dominant
emotional and rational factors. Indeed, risk perception is unique for
every individual, and it depends on a set of psychological, physical, and
social factors, and how they are considered in their mental processes.
Our approach focuses on rational rather than emotional factors
considering the difficulty of their measurement.
Recall a decision under risk is a function of the how likely an event is
perceived, its consequences, and the psychological propensity of the
individual to undertake the risk. Therefore, a risk decision-making
process depends on the risk tolerance/acceptable level of the individ­
ual, how much risk the observer perceived, and the willingness to act at
that risk level. Interestingly, studies about risk tolerance genetics have
suggested that from 20% to 63% is hereditary (Roszkowski and Davey,
2010). Hereditary susceptibility diseases such as cancer have significant
psychological consequences, although it rarely causes psychiatric
morbidity (Bratt et al., 2000). However, there are still some un­
certainties, including risk perception impacts and risk communication
interventions regarding genetic counseling (Edwards et al., 2008).
One of the fundamental elements of this survey was to consider
adventure tourism. According to Dickson and Dolnicar (2004), the
tourism industry’s commonly aim to reduce risk perceptions among
tourists to be more attractive, but at the same time, there is a sub-sector
of the tourism industry of adventurers that are actively searching for
high perceived risks. As it was quoted from Bernstein ”Nobody takes a
risk in the expectation that it will fail”. Dickson and Dolnicar (2004)
developed a literature review on risk in tourism consumer behavior to
propose an adventure tourism desired risk conceptualization. Moreover,
they illustrate a distinction about absolute, real, and perceived risks
considering safety controls; and expose aspects that influenced risk
perceptions.
Overall, aspects such as life experiences, genetics, social and cultural
surroundings can affect risk perception, developing a unique ”risk pro­
file”-a set of features that define attitudes and actions. It will be
considered that there are reasons related to the individual risk profile to
motivate whether or not to undertake a particular risk, as previously
reported in fundamental fraud theory (Abdullahi and Mansor, 2015).
This survey aims to measure the risk aversion/propensity of the
students that are going to receive training from the Process Safety
modules described in Amaya-Gómez et al. (2019). Overall, this survey
has 54 questions with five possible choices using the following format:
(i) level of agreement of a set of assertions (12 questions).
(ii) frequency of implementation of a set of actions (10 questions).
(iii) level of certainty based on their risk profile (17 questions).
(iv) 10 popular proverbs based on their risk profile.
(v) 5 simple closed Yes/No questions (used as validation).
Notably, each of these questions corresponds to different reasons and
types of risk that students are willing to assume or avoid, which are
R. Amaya-Gómez et al.
presented diversely to evaluate students’ possible actions due to
particular risk exposure. In what follows, the conceptual dimensions of
this survey are presented.
Four categories about risk reasons were defined to support the risk
profile definition of undertaking or avoiding risky actions:
• Preventive: Set of reasons to avoid risk situations of physical
integrity, i.e., suffering pain, physical damage, or health deteriora­
tion. These reasons are related to people who prioritize their well-
being and physical fullness senses. Indeed correspond to people
who ponder their needs for safety and stability to those of adventure
and surprise (based on physical and psychological aspects). They are
individuals whose risk assessment factors are closely linked with the
protection of their surroundings.
• Adventurous: Set of reasons to implement risk decisions based on
pleasure-seeking and well-being impressions. They are associated
with taking any possible risk to pursue excitement sensations. Indeed
correspond to the individual’s profile that ponders their adventure
and surprise need rather than safety and stability. Their risk assess­
ment factors are closely linked with the satisfaction of their personal
needs and desires.
• Inspirational: Set of reasons that lead to undertaking risks for ideals
purposes. They are related to situations that imply undertaking social
or physical integrity risks. They correspond to individuals profile
that follows their convictions, beliefs, knowledge, and creativity.
Indeed these individuals ponder their adventure and surprise need
rather than safety and stability, following their ideals. Their risk
evaluation factors are linked to the satisfaction and desires of the
need of their community.
• Rewarding: Set of conditional reasons that lead to assume or avoid a
given risk based on the corresponding reward. These reasons are
associated with individual profiles that prioritize their expected
benefits and ponder their needs either of adventure and surprise, or
safety and stability, depending on their greater profits. Their risk
evaluation factors depend almost exclusively on the expected reward
by assuming or avoiding a risk action.
Notably, any individual may include in their risk profile diverse
types of reasons. For instance, an acrobat justifies not only Adventurous
reasons but also Preventive and Rewarding reasons in order to assure
their well-being and acrobatics willing to perform. Moreover, consid­
ering that there are several possible hazardous situations where a risk
perception can be evaluated, we restrict the risk reasons to the following
categories:
• Professional: Situations where professional reputation is compro­
mised. It includes simple situations such as communication of ac­
quired knowledge to situations of professional ethics exposure.
• Financial: Situations where individuals evidence aversion or prone
taking risks leading to the materialization of financial liquidity or
solvency.
• Physical: Situations where individuals assess the risk of physical
damage (i.e., integrity or well-being).
• Social: Situations where individuals are exposed to risks associated
with their reputation or simply the risk of being mocked.
Based on the above, the survey questions were designed to address
every type of risk and reason equitably.
3.2. Risk perception evaluation and learning planning approach
This survey was delivered to all the engineering program students
who implemented the proposed modules in the spring semester 2016.
The data was collected from a Google Form discrete data survey,
following the characteristics mentioned above. Additionally, the re­
spondents were asked to provide information about their engineering
11
Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19
program, university, and location. This information allowed us to
analyze risk perception based on their region and university in ease-
implementation spreadsheets.
A weighted-approach using a Factor Analysis is proposed to evaluate
students Risk Perception and Appetite in three phases (Fig. 1). This
factor analysis aims to describe the variance of the survey in few un­
observable factor scores, which are linearly related to the questions
results. First, data processing and factors selection are applied based on
Generalized Degrees of Freedom (GDF). Then a factor evaluation, vali­
dation, and description are implemented. Finally, students’ risk
perception are described using these factors to support Learning Plan­
ning. In what follows, these phases will be illustrated in detail.
3.2.1. Data preparation phase
Initially, each survey question is evaluated from a direct/inverse
perspective, assigning a higher grade from 1 to 5 (Likert Scales) or 1/5
(Yes/No Questions) to those that classify a student as risk prone.
Moreover, a scaling and centering process is considered based on their
mean and standard deviation. The selection of the number of factors is
implemented using the approach proposed by Chen et al. (2010), based
on unbiased risk estimation and a data perturbation for estimating GDF.
Let Y be the questionnaire results associated with a n × p, where n
represents the number of respondents and p the number of questions,
and assume each question Yi are independent and identically distrib­
uted, therefore the factor model can be described as follows (Chen et al.,
2010):
Yi = α + A fi + ϵi (1)
where α is associated with the expected value of Yi, A is a p × q matrix
with the factor loadings, fi is a q-dimensional (q < p) normal distributed
column vector of the factors and ϵi is a p-dimensional error vector of each
factor (N(0,Γ)). According to Chen et al. (2010), several methods can be
implemented to select the number of factors such as Factors Variance
Proportion, Scree Test, Guttman-Kaiser (GK) rule, Akaike’s Information
Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Bozdogan’s index
of Informational Complexity Criterion (ICOMP), or the Likelihood Ratio
Test. However, these methods perform correctly under certain condi­
tions. For instance, GK tends to select more factors for a large number of
dimensions (questions in this case), LR depends on a significance level,
and AIC tends to select more factors than BIC due to a lesser penalty.
Finally, in this phase, questions with the lowest contribution on the
absolute squared sums loading of all the factors are removed.
3.2.2. Factor evaluation and validation
The factors are evaluated following a Maximum Likelihood
Fig. 1. Proposed approach description.
R. Amaya-Gómez et al.
perspective as reported by Chen et al. (2010). In this regard, it can be
̂ = 1∑n Yi and the estimates A
implemented the estimate of α as α ̂ and Γ
̂ Modules learning planning strategies.
n i=1
from the max log-likelihood function (Chen et al., 2010).
− n[ ( )]
l(A, Γ) = plog(2π) + log|AA’ + Γ| + tr (AA’ + Γ)− 1 S (2)
2
∑ g., Parachute), non-volunteer risks (e.g., nuclear energy), unknown risks, and
where S = 1n ni=1 (Yi − Y)(Yi − Y)′ . For this purpose, the R-project
function factanal was implemented that considers the number of factors
determined by GDF, Thomson’s Method for scores estimating (McDo­
nald and Burr, 1967), and Varimax Kaiser factor rotation criterion
(Kaiser, 1958). Information regarding Factor Analysis and their imple­
mentation on R can be found elsewhere (Everitt and Hothorn, 2011;
Crawley, 2007; Thomas, 2016).
Our approach seeks to determine students’ risk perception as a latent
variable (i.e., cannot be measured directly, but can be related to
measurable variables), following an exploratory factor analysis that in­
vestigates the relationship between measurable variables and factors
without making any previous assumption (Everitt and Hothorn, 2011).
Consequently, these factors were described based on their loadings (i.e.,
the degree to which the factor causes the variable), plotting against one
another. Finally, a validation approach was implemented based on five
simple closed Yes/No questions. For this purpose, a grade of 3/5 was
used as a predefined threshold in every survey question, representing a
theoretical risk-neutral student to compare aversion/propensity in a
sensitivity and specificity matrix.
3.2.3. Risk profile description and strategic learning approach
In the third phase, students’ risk perception are described based on
the factors characterizations and statistic tools as histograms. This phase
aims to determine underlying patterns about students’ risk perception,
considering their university (public vs. private) and location. For that
reason, each of the obtained factors is compared separately. Finally,
Learning planning didactic strategies are suggested depending on four
risk perception results and the available educating modules (Table 1):
(Case 1) Predominant risk-averse students, (Case 2) Predominant risk-
prone students, (Case 3) Predominant risk-neutral students, and (Case
4) Predominant factors associated with destiny. These cases were
determined based on the student’s risk perception results and a refer­
ence threshold. The last case focused on those students who firmly
believe that accidents happen due to destiny or will of God and that
nothing could have been done to avoid them. The final discrimination
aims to raise awareness among students in that accidents is often pre­
ceded by multiple incidents or near misses, as well as unsafe behaviors
or insufficient operating disciplines.
4. Colombian case study
A total of 465 surveys were carried out in 12 universities from three
Colombian Regions: Andean (77%), Caribbean (16%), and Pacific (7%).
These universities were distributed as follows: 4 public and 4 private
universities in the Andean Region; 1 public and 1 private university in
the Caribbean Region; and 1 public university in the Pacific Region.
Overall, 247 surveys were from students in public universities (53%)
and 218 surveys of private universities (47%). These universities were
selected given to their implementation of our educating modules
described in Amaya-Gómez et al. (2019) in 2016.
The modules were designed to raise awareness about the importance
of process safety and profound relation with all the engineers. For this
purpose, pedagogical strategies from constructivist teaching methods
and situated learning characteristics were implemented. An alternating
process is proposed using concepts and definitions, case analysis, sce­
nario exercises, among others. The primary objective was to establish an
easy communication between the corresponding professor and the stu­
dents based on technical terms that favor their discussion and analysis
process.
12
Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19
Table 1
Case Didactic Strategy
-Module 1: Focus on accident consequences (e.g., human, environmental,
economic losses), accident sequence, and safety barriers. Moreover, exhibit
C1 factors that affect risk perception and the difference among volunteer risks (e.
known risks.
-Module 2: Identify the mechanical integrity program, the Risk-Based
Maintenance (RBM) approach, and the acceptance criteria for process
equipment (based on RAGAGEP’s * ).
-Module 3: Focus on risk evaluation to aware students of acceptable and
tolerable criteria and the available techniques for risk and hazard evaluation.
-Module 4: Focus on equipment protection elements (e.g., relief valves,
rupture disks) and Runaway reactions Criticality Levels.
-Module 1: Focus on safety Leading & Lagging Metrics, Safety Pyramid, Risk
C2 Management, and GHS hazards classification. Moreover, expose an accident
review and their principal consequences.
-Module 2: Focus on failure definition & analysis, Risk-Based Maintenance,
Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), Risk-Based Inspection (RBI), and
Safety Integrity Level (SIL).
-Module 3: Focus on Risk Analysis and their methods (i.e., quantitative,
qualitative, semi-quantitative), Methods based on scenarios, Hazard Analysis
and Identification, and selection criteria for risk and hazard evaluation
techniques.
-Module 4: Focus on factors that affect reactive system hazards, Semenov
Diagram (produced heat vs. removed heat), and temperatures of the reactive
system.
-Module 1: Focused on the differences hazard-risk and safety-security-
C3 personal safety. Identify the accident sequence, safety barriers, safety metrics,
and factors that affect risk perception.
-Module 2: Expose principal elements from PSM, Asset Management, failure
definition, and the elements of a Mechanical Integrity Program. Focus on the
relation with Process Safety and Reliability.
-Module 3: Focus on Risk Management. Expose principal elements from risk/
hazard evaluation and analysis. Develop HazOp exercises during class.
-Module 4: Expose basic principles of runaway reactions, Semenov Diagram,
and runaway reaction critically levels.
-Module 1: Expose an accident review, the accident sequence, safety metrics
C4 & Safety Pyramid, Safety Barriers & Swiss Cheese Model, factors that affect
risk perception.
-Module 2: Exhibit the common failures in process equipment, failure
definition, deterioration, and reliability concepts such as failure probability,
asset management, and mechanical integrity elements.
-Module 3: Focus on Risk Analysis and their methods (i.e., quantitative,
qualitative, semi-quantitative), Methods based on scenarios, Hazard Analysis
and Identification, and selection criteria for risk and hazard evaluation
techniques.
-Module 4: Focus on factors that affect reactive system hazards, Semenov
Diagram (produced heat vs. removed heat), and temperatures of the reactive
system.
*RAGAGEP: Recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
The educating modules were developed following both the SAChE
recommendations, and a review of the skills required for junior engi­
neers by ECOPETROL for the Oil & Gas industry. The four topics of in­
terest, which became the proposed educating modules, were Process
Safety Basic Principles (Module 1), Introduction of Mechanical Integrity
(Module 2), Process Hazard Analysis Techniques (Module 3), and
Runaway Reactions (Module 4).
5. Results and discussions
5.1. Data processing and factors selection
The survey questions were initially classified as Direct/Inverse risk-
prone indicators, obtaining a ratio of 29/25. The questions related to
Preventive risk reasons were classified as Inverse, and those to Adven­
turous reasons were almost classified as Direct risk-prone indicators. All
the risk reasons were classified based on the proposed risk situations;
thus, Adventurous Reasons were not classified straightforward. This
classification, along with the question identification, Risk Reasons, and
R. Amaya-Gómez et al. Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19

Risk Type, is illustrated in Table 2. These questions were identified
based on the following order: 1–12 Level of agreement questions, 13–17
Closed Yes/No questions, 18–27 Frequency of implementation ques­
tions, 28–37 Popular Proverbs, and 39–54 Level of certainty questions
(Table 3).
This questionnaire was validated using pilots with both samples of
risk-prone and risk-averse people (not included in the analysis) and the
closed Yes/No questions for determining if the surveys measure the
intended risk perception (face validity). From a reliability point of view,
the questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha using the Free
Statistic Software of Wessa (2021), obtaining an overall result of 0.67
(confidence interval from 0.63 to 0.71), which according to Tsang et al.
(2017) indicate adequate internal consistency (i.e., consistency of the
survey results). Finally, the construct validity was evaluated using the
Pearson correlation coefficients between each individual item and the
sum of the total, obtaining relevant results with a direct correlation,
except for the questions U3 and U5.
Based on the students’ results, three questions were deleted (U24,
U47, and U48) because they do not support the definition of the stu­
dents’ risk perception. Both risk-averse and risk-prone students tend to
avoid risk situations involving non-compliance with social coexistence
norms, as illustrated in the percentage of students for these three choices
(99.36%, 93.14%, and 97.64%, respectively). Additionally, questions
U1, U22, U26, U30, and U32 were deleted due to their lower Squared
Absolute Sum of Loadings (Fig. 2). Note that the questions from the
Moralist Evaluation and the Closed Yes/No questions were already
removed. Moreover, question U42 was not deleted considering expert
criteria to determine the student perception in Financial Savings against
bank loans.
The results of the Generalized Degrees of Freedom (GDF) approach
showed that 5 or 6 factors analysis should be implemented to minimize
their corresponding risk (unbiased average MSE). In this work, we
implemented a four-factor analysis considering the low variance
description with the last two factors and the risk difference of less than
7% with the initial result. Moreover, these factors implemented a low
number of questions, which is not enough to evaluate students’ risk
perception. Table 4 shows the Chi-Square statistic results and p-Value
hypothesis testing, indicating that four factors are sufficient to expose
adequate significance-results, as in five or six factors.
5.2. Factor description and validation
Based on the factanal R-function, a four-factor analysis was imple­
mented using a Varimax rotation criterion and Thomson’s score esti­
mating method. The Loadings factors plot was implemented against
each other, see Fig. 3. In what follows, each of these factors will be
explained in more detail.
• Factor 1-Risk mitigation actions: This factor is characterized as a
greater weight in items that indicate undertaking risks without
mitigation actions. Risk-averse students (lower scores) need to
guarantee the existence of mitigation elements for potential risk in a
given situation. Risk-prone students (higher scores) ponder possible
rewards they get by assuming a risk rather than their consequences.
Overall, based on the reasons to undertake risks, risk-prone students
ponder expected rewards, and risk-averse students commonly focus
on planning actions. Besides, students with higher scores in this
factor could face a risky situation following experts recommenda­
tions, for instance, they would risk their professional projection
following an idea, as long as it comes from a professional with
prestige.
• Factor 2-Destiny/Divine Backup: In this factor, the higher scores
are associated with items that represent destiny/fortune backup ac­
tions. What motivates a risk-prone student to face a risk situation is
to believe in their destiny or fortune. Risk-averse students consider
that they are not favored by fortune or destiny, and it is better to
avoid unnecessary risks.
• Factor 3-Planners: Risk-averse students in this factor (higher scores)
consider it essential to make rigorous and well-thought plans and
remain them even though they do not offer the expected benefits. On
the contrary, risk-prone students (low scores) do not foresee nor
follow predefined rules for risk prevention/mitigation. They
commonly follow the quote You Only Live Once, i.e., they ponder
pleasure of a given situation rather than their possible associated
risks. Students with higher scores are concerned about improving
their development in several conditions (i.e., financial, professional,

Table 2
Risk perception survey-questions distribution.
ID Risk Reasons Risk Type Direct/Inverse ID Risk Reasons Risk Type Direct/Inverse

U1 Inspirational Social Direct U28 Adventurous Social Direct

U2 Inspirational Physical Direct U29 Adventurous Physical Inverse
U3 Preventive Social Inverse U30 Inspirational Social Direct
U4 Adventurous Professional Direct U31 Rewarding Physical Direct
U5 Inspirational Professional Inverse U32 Rewarding Social Inverse
U6 Adventurous Social Direct U33 Preventive Social Direct
U7 Inspirational Professional Direct U34 Adventurous Financial Inverse
U8 Inspirational Financial Direct U35 Adventurous Professional Direct
U9 Inspirational Professional Direct U36 Inspirational Social Direct
U10 Adventurous Financial Direct U37 Preventive Professional Inverse
U11 Inspirational Financial Direct U38 Adventurous Professional Inverse
U12 Rewarding Financial Direct U39 Preventive Professional Inverse
U13 Preventive Physical Inverse U40 Rewarding Financial Direct
U14 Preventive Financial Inverse U41 Preventive Financial Inverse
U15 Rewarding Social Direct U42 Preventive Financial Inverse
U16 Rewarding Social Direct U43 Preventive Physical Inverse
U17 Inspirational Physical Inverse U44 Rewarding Professional Inverse
U18 Preventive Physical Inverse U45 Preventive Social Inverse
U19 Adventurous Physical Direct U46 Inspirational Physical Direct
U20 Inspirational Social Direct U47 Preventive Professional Inverse
U21 Inspirational Professional Direct U48 Inspirational Financial Inverse
U22 Rewarding Professional Inverse U49 Rewarding Financial Inverse
U23 Preventive Professional Inverse U50 Rewarding Physical Direct
U24 Preventive Social Inverse U51 Adventurous Financial Direct
U25 Rewarding Professional Direct U52 Rewarding Physical Inverse
U26 Adventurous Social Direct U53 Rewarding Financial Direct
U27 Adventurous Social Inverse U54 Adventurous Physical Direct

13
R. Amaya-Gómez et al. Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Implemented questionnaire. Question
ID Question
Question typology
ID Question
typology
I thoroughly read contracts, agreements, and policies for
The only reason to buy a piece of clothing or an accessory services and products purchased.
U1 is that it is to my liking, regardless of fashion trends, cost or 1 I prefer to save up to the full commercial value of a product
U42 5
if it is very flashy. I want to purchase rather than request a loan.
Life is very short, so I must take risks and seize every I demand that the package of the syringe be opened in
U2 1 U43 5
opportunity that comes my way. front of me.
The use of "hands-free" makes it safe to communicate while I set short-term personal goals to improve skills or facets of
U3 1 U44 5
driving a vehicle. my character.
I prefer to take a risk and try something without waiting to I check my emails for spelling, wording, and punctuation
U4 1 U45 5
make a plan. several times before I send them.
My career was chosen principally due to the estimated If I were playing a sport and came up with a unique stunt, I
U5 1 U46 5
economic projection. would not hesitate to perform it.
The past experiences of others do not influence my U47 I avoid breaking regulations to avoid sanctions. 5
U6 decisions since each person experiences their processes 1 U48 I pay my debts within the agreed time to do so. 5
differently. I prefer investing in Real State because it will increase its
U49 5
If my leader is an example for my team and comes up with value in the long term
U7 an idea that could put my profession at risk, I do not 1 I consume products that fascinate me even though I know
U50 5
hesitate to develop it. they are not suitable for my health.
I risk everything when I am sure of a good idea, even if it If I am on a winning streak in a game of chance, I definitely
U8 1 U51 5
might bankrupt me. increase the number of my bets.
Once I have failed to carry out an idea, I discard all U52 I am afraid that something unexpected will ruin my plans 5
U9 1
possibility of further attempts with similar ideas. If I buy insurance to protect my assets, I tend to relax in
U53 5
I would invest large sums of money in a raffle without caring for these.
U10 1
hesitation. I have no problem enjoying mechanical attractions in a
U54 5
I am willing to invest a large part of my assets in forming park where accidents have occurred before.
U11 1
my company and developing my ideas.
Q.Typology: 1-Level of agreement, 2-Closed questions, 3-Frequency of imple­
In exchange for an economic benefit, I am willing to
U12 1 mentation, 4-Popular proverb, 5-Level of certainty.
compromise my physical integrity.
Do you have a working flashlight, whistle, and emergency
U13 2
water supply at home? social) through predefined plans, whereas students with lower scores
Have you or your family purchased funeral or funeral
U14 2 assume risks of pursuing excitement sensations and pleasure-seeking
insurance for your family nucleus?
If you were aware of not having singing skills, would you instead of safety stability.
U15 2
participate in karaoke? • Factor 4-Return of Experiences (REX): In this factor, higher scores
U16
Would you perform a highly-risk surgery for purely
2 (Risk-averse students) are characterized to consider consequences in
cosmetic purposes? previous REX in their decision-making process to assume/avoid a
If you are planning a trip to help a vulnerable population
U17 and find out there is an outbreak of a contagious disease, 2
particular risk. They tend to prevent any change from their initial
would you give up the trip? plans because it can involve undesirable risks. Moreover, they
U18
I carry an umbrella in winter or when there is constant
3
consider others’ perception and usually follow the predefined norms,
rain. which may be determined by past experiences.
U19 Usually, I practice contact sports 3
If I come up with a funny note associated with the topic in
U20
the middle of a meeting, I express it without hesitation.
3 Students’ scores distribution from each factor can indicate reasons
U21 I use portions of text verbatim without citing the source. 3 that impulse them to assume risks. Based on these results, an overall risk-
U22
I get discouraged by not receiving feedback on the progress
3 prone and risk-averse description were obtained:
of my work on a project. Risk-prone students: They follow their ideals to undertake risks (so­
In case of an idea that I consider innovative, I spend time
U23
evaluating it before trying to implement it
3 cially, professionally, financially, or physically), and they believe
U24 I keep my commitments. 3 doubtless in their occurrences for a risk decision-making process
It is difficult for me to carry out activities that do not have regardless of others’ perception. Although Risk-prone individuals are
U25 3
retribution. also able to undertake risks for ideas from people they trust profes­
U26 I can delegate tasks easily 3
sionally. Moreover, they do not consider previous REX results weighting
U27 I worry about what other people might think of me. 3
U28 Who lives prudently lives sadly 4 reasons to assume/avoid risks. Notably, they are self-protected in risks
U29 Whoever loves danger will perish in it 4 that may affect their physical integrity, tending to increase their level of
Expecting life to treat you fairly because you are a good risk aversion, whereas, for professional, social, and financial risks, they
U30 person is like expecting a lion not to attack you because 4 do not take into account risk mitigation actions in their decision-making
you are a vegetarian
U31 Once a year does not hurt 4
process.
U32 You have to put your own oxygen mask on first 4 Risk-averse students: Although they consider their ideas an essential
U33 It is better to be alone than in bad company 4 factor in assuming/ avoiding risk situations, they tend to seek further
U34 Never sell the bear’s skin before one has killed the beast 4 information regarding their surroundings, e.g., results from similar sit­
You cannot swim for new horizons until you have the
U35 4 uations or expert judges/people close to them. It is evidenced that they
courage to lose sight of the shore
U36 Once too often for the experience 4 tend to be more supported in risk situations decision-making processes
U37 Prevention is better than formatting 4 mainly related to previous professional and financial REX recommen­
U38
I need to see immediate results from every activity I
5
dations. Indeed, they implement available risk mitigation actions to
undertake. prevent their consequences, which indicates the high importance of risk
I leave everything in writing to guarantee the fulfillment of
U39
agreements made.
5 management to decide whether or not to assume a particular risk.
If a trusted person tells me about a very profitable informal Students’ factors were classified as Risk-averse (RA) or Risk-prone
U40 5
business, I will definitely invest in that business. (RP) based on each question’s loadings and a discriminant threshold
U41 5 of 3/5 in every survey question. Those students whose product sum was
greater or equal to this threshold were classified as RP; otherwise, they

14
R. Amaya-Gómez et al. Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19

Fig. 2. Squared sum of loadings for every question.

The 5 Closed Yes/No questions are outputs as Risk-averse action, or

Table 4
Risk-prone action (considering Direct/Inverse risk-prone indicators)
Sensitivity analysis of the number of factors.
were implemented to validate this proposed classification. The U13
Chi Square Chi Square question sought to determine if the student had basic emergency sup­
Factors p-Value Factors p-Value
Test Test
plies (e.g., flashlight, whistle, or food reservations). U14 determined if
the student is aware of the existence of any funeral insurance in their
119 01
1 1.61x10− 2083.65 11 1.14x10− 459.37
78 01
2 2.53x10− 1706.54 12 3.03x10− 407.95 family. U15 evaluated student willingness to participate in a music event
42 01
3 4.78x10− 1334.37 13 5.93x10− 357.99
4 1.29x10− 27
1136.77 14 7.81x10− 01
316.65
despite not having any skills. U16 determined if the student is willing to
5 1.28x10− 17
973.01 15 9.26x10− 01
274.71 do a high-risk esthetic surgery. Finally, U17 allowed identifying if the
6 1.80x10− 12
860.04 16 9.63x10− 01
242.81 student would participate in a volunteer despite an alert of a highly
09 01
7 4.68x10− 766.91 17 9.90x10− 208.68 dangerous contagious disease. Considering students, actions, and factors
06 01
8 4.19x10− 676.42 18 9.97x10− 180.41
04 01 classification, a sensitivity & specificity matrix was determined
9 4.16x10− 598.13 19 9.98x10− 156.35
10 7.39x10− 03
531.82 20 1.00 130.29 (Table 5).
As an example, questions U13 and U17 will be described. For the
sake of simplicity, for now on, the four scenarios RA-actions/RA-
were classified as RA. Interestingly, these factors provided information students, RP-actions/RA-students, RA-actions/RP-students, and RP-
about why students assume/avoid a certain risk, as it can be noticed in actions/RP-students will be denoted as R1, R2, R3, and R4, respec­
the differences among RP numbers from each factor (i.e., 16, 19, 405, tively. The results from the sensitivity & specificity matrix for the U13
and 272, respectively). question indicated that:

Fig. 3. Second and fourth factor loadings comparison.

Table 5
Students risk aversion/propensity sensitivity & specificity matrix.
Risk-averse action Risk-prone action
Factor
U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U13 U14 U15 U16 U17

F1 175 318 167 416 309 274 131 282 33 140

F2 175 317 168 414 303 271 129 278 32 143
Risk averse students
F3 21 41 22 49 49 39 19 38 11 11
F4 74 134 85 173 139 119 59 108 20 54

Factor U13 U14 U15 U16 U17 U13 U14 U15 U16 U17

F1 7 12 5 15 9 9 4 11 1 7
F2 7 13 4 17 15 12 6 15 2 4 Risk averse students
F3 161 289 150 382 269 244 116 255 23 136
F4 108 196 87 258 179 164 76 185 14 93

15
R. Amaya-Gómez et al.
1. Students that are not favored by destiny and implement preventive/
mitigative actions as emergency supplies.
2. Students who are not planners usually take risk mitigation measures
and REX recommendations, but they probably have not lived similar
experiences; thus, it does not seem indispensable for them.
3. Students that although are not planners nor guided by past experi­
ences, they are not favored by destiny, then they take actions for risk
mitigations as in this case.
4. Students that are not planner nor guided by other experiences.
Similarly, for the U17 question, it was obtained:
1. Students who would not participate as volunteers because they
implement risk preventive/mitigative actions (also follow REX rec­
ommendations), and they are not favored by destiny.
2. Students that would-be volunteers because although they employ
risk mitigation actions, they are not guided by past experiences from
others.
3. Students who would not cooperate on it, although they are not
guided by others’ experience (indeed not planners), are not favored
by destiny, so risk prevention decisions are implemented.
4. Students that are characterized for the quote You Only Live Once and
not by past experiences, they would cooperate as volunteers
regardless of any alert.
Based on results in Table 5, similar descriptions can be obtained from
the questions U14, U15, and U16. These results indicate that the ob­
tained factors allow describing students’ behavior in a risk decision-
making process, although these descriptions depend on factors
interpretations.
5.3. Risk perception description and learning planning approach
Based on the RA/RP discrimination mentioned above, a four-class
classification was proposed to describe the level of propensity or aver­
sion of the engineering students, using the number of factors that were
classified as Risk-prone: (i) 0 factors/Markedly Risk-averse students, (ii)
1 factor/Risk-averse students, (iii) 2 factors/Slightly Risk-prone stu­
dents, and (iv) 3 factors/Risk-prone students. Note that none of the
students have four risk-prone factors; thus, they are not hypothetically
classified as Markedly risk-prone students.
A region comparison was developed based on the four-class classi­
fication results in order to describe the risk perception of the students,
obtaining the resulst shown in Fig. 4. Note that students from the An­
dean Region tend to be more risk-averse, whereas students from the
Pacific Region more risk-prone. Interestingly, the histograms do not
Fig. 4. Risk perception results per region.
16
Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19
differ significantly because the RP factors ratio classification is very
similar (4% F1, 4% F2, 90% F3, and 56% F4), even though the Andean
Region counts with most of the reporting universities. A risk perception
comparison per city is implemented depicted in Fig. 5 illustrates that
cities as Cartagena, Bogotá, and Bucaramanga have the highest number
of risk-averse students (including Markedly Risk-averse). On the con­
trary, Cali and Medellin are the cities with the highest number of risk-
prone students (including Slightly risk-prone), as almost 60% of their
students can be characterized as risk-prone. This figure also illustrates
that cities with industrial activities such as Cartagena and Bucaramanga
(considering their proximity to Barrancabermeja) are more risk-averse
than those in non-industrial cities such as Medellin. This result may
occur because people from these cities already include high-risk ele­
ments on their common risk perception based on their lived experiences,
as evidenced by the fourth factor regarding Return of Experience.
Furthermore, students’ perception was assessed, taking into account
if the university was public or private (Fig. 6); through this analysis, we
found out that students from public universities tended to be more risk-
prone compared to students from private universities. The main reason
for this behavior was that they are less-planners and do not implement
mitigation/prevention actions.
Finally, based on these results and the proposed educating modules,
the following Learning Planning was suggested:
(i) universities in which their students’ second factor were classified
as RP, should consider C4 Didactic Strategy;
(ii) universities from Bogotá, Cartagena and Bucaramanga should
evaluate C1 or C3 Didactic Strategies; and
(iii) students from Medellin, Cali, and Barranquilla should contem­
plate C2 or C3 Didactic Strategies, respecting to the professor’s
autonomy.
According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Safety Culture is
defined as the product of individual and group values, attitudes, com­
petencies, and patterns of behavior that determine the commitment to,
and the style and proficiency of, an organization’s health and safety
programs (HSE, 2002). It attempts to improve workplace safety,
concentrating on technical issues and human errors. Indeed, their
importance is related to the fact that management systems and their
associated procedures depend on actions from individuals and groups
for their successful implementation (CCPS, 2015). Process Safety has an
important cultural component that can affect Risk Perceptions, as we
have already illustrated in this work. We want to emphasize the need to
establish a technical language that transcends any language, which is
easy to communicate among the community, operators, and stake­
holders around the world. This work proposes an alternative for the
R. Amaya-Gómez et al.
Fig. 5. Risk perception results per city.
Fig. 6. Public vs. private universities risk perception results.
learning of Process Safety depending on the students’ risk perception,
but further analysis is required to strengthen process safety culture in
future engineers. It is worth mentioning that this work contemplated
desired skills for engineers in the Oil & Gas industry; however, these
skills can also be required for any industrial sector handling hazardous
materials (e.g., chemical, food) with appropriate adjustments. Also, we
acknowledge that different sectors like aviation, mining, and nuclear
can also be high-risk sectors as contemplated by Hussin and Wang
(2010) in the industrial safety perception of postgraduate students in the
University of Aberdeen (Scotland).
6. Conclusions
In recent years, many researchers have investigated different fea­
tures related to process safety teaching, including appropriate inclusion
in the engineering curriculum (i.e., given accreditation constraints) or
which tools are valuable for the learning process. However, one of the
topics perceived among educators as not as important is the student’s
risk perception (Gajek et al., 2022), although risk perception has been
recognized as valuable in high-risk industries such as the offshore oil
industry (Rundmo, 1996), where decisions require managing risks
effectively. According to Rundmo (1996), there is a positive correlation
between risk perception and risk behaviors, which in turn, may affect
how risk is measured, and which safety measures are required.
This work proposed an approach to support didactic strategies for
teaching process safety in engineering students based on the students’
risk perceptions. For this purpose, a survey with financial, social,
physical, and professional risks was contemplated, using preventive,
adventurous, inspirational, and rewarding criteria to undertake or avoid
these risks. The survey was applied to 465 engineering students from 12
universities in Colombia in the spring semester of 2016, and a Factor
Analysis was implemented to identify respondents’ risk profile and
tendency as risk-averse or risk-prone. The Factor Analysis described the
students’ profile based on how they perceived risk mitigation actions,
destiny (or divine backup), planning strategies, and lessons learned from
17
Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19
the past (Return of Experience). The risk-prone profile tends to follow
their ideals, tend not to consider previous lessons learned, and avoid risk
mitigation actions during the decision-making process. The risk-averse
profile is characterized as seeking additional information to support
decisions, considering the return of experience from previous incidents,
and actions to mitigate possible consequences. This work implemented a
discriminating threshold with a neutral loading of the survey to compare
the results from the students’ surveys, obtaining that overall, they tend
to be slightly risk-prone in a higher proportion. The results indicate that
the students near industrial refineries tend to be more risk-averse than
those in non-industrial locations.
The results suggest didactic strategies based on the content of a
modular toolbox on (i) Process Safety basic principles, (ii) Mechanical
Integrity, (iii) Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) techniques, and (iv)
runaway reactions from a collaborative work between Los Andes Uni­
versity and the Colombian Oil company (ECOPETROL). These modules
follow the recommendations of process safety education from SAChE
and skills required for recently graduated engineers by ECOPETROL in
the Oil & Gas industry. The strategies are chosen depending on the
students’ risk perceptions, i.e., predominant risk-averse, risk-prone, or
risk-neutral, and if the students have a marked belief in accidents by
destiny. Process Safety and Risk Management are elements that tran­
scend any engineering; they are continuously evolving in the past years.
This work is limited for some particular reasons and contexts to un­
dertake a given risky situation, but risk perception goes beyond them,
personnel risk perception includes additional cultural and societal
contexts that were not assessed yet. This work aims to be an invitation
for educators to incorporate risk perception in their planning and course
content; as remarked by Benintendi (2016) the university tier is the basis
of the learning pyramid process, which influences the future performance
in the professional tier to support further managing decision-making
processes.
R. Amaya-Gómez et al. Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19

Declaration of Competing Interest He, Z., Chen, C., Weng, W., 2022. Multi-hazard risk assessment in process industries:
state-of-the-Art. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 76, 104672.
Hogarth, R., 2001. Educating Intuition. University of Chicago Press.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial HSE, 2002. Safety Culture: A Review of the Literature, HSL/2002/25. Technical Report
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Health and Safety Executive.
the work reported in this paper. Hussin, M., Wang, B., 2010. Industrial safety perception among post-graduate
engineering students. Knowl. Based Syst. 23, 769–771.
Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., Braman, D., 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific
Acknowledgments consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174.
Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaiser, H., 1958. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.
R. Amaya-Gómez thanks the National Department of Science, Psychometrika 23, 187–200.
Technology and Innovation of Colombia for the Ph.D. scholarship Kerin, T., 2016. The evolution of process safety standards and legislation following
(COLCIENCIAS Grant No. 727, 2015). landmark events-what have we learnt? Process Saf. Prog. 35, 165–170.
Kouwenhoven, P., 2021. Process safety education: a comparative study. Educ. Chem.
The authors would like thank all the students that completed the Eng. 36, 128–142.
survey that let us present these results. Also, the authors are special LeDoux, J., 2012. Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron 73, 653–676.
thankful for the discussion and help during the design and validation Leiserowitz, A., 2003. Global Warming in the American Mind: The Roles of Affect,
Imagery, and Worldviews in Risk Perception, Policy Preferences and Behavior (Ph.D.
process of Nicolás Villalba and Ana María Hernández. thesis).
Lowrance, W., 1976. Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. W.
References Kaufmann.
Mannan, M., Reyes-Valdes, O., Jain, P., Tamim, N., Ahammad, M., 2016. The evolution
of process safety: current status and future direction. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng.
Abdullahi, R., Mansor, N., 2015. Fraud triangle theory and fraud diamond theory.
7, 135–162. PMID: 26979411.
understanding the convergent and divergent for future research. Int. J. Acad. Res.
McDonald, R., Burr, E.J., 1967. A comparison of four methods of constructing factor
Account. Financ. Manag. Sci. 5, 38–45.
scores. Psychometrika 32, 381–401.
Álvarez-Chávez, C., Marín, L., Pérez-Gamez, K., Portell, M., Velázquez, L.,
Mearns, K., Flin, R., 1995. Risk perception and attitudes to safety by personnel in the
MuñozOsuna, F., 2019. Assessing college students’ risk perceptions of hazards in
offshore oil and gas industry: a review. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 8, 299–305.
chemistry laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 96, 2120–2131.
Mesa-Gómez, A., Casal, J., Muñoz, F., 2020. Risk analysis in Natech events: state of the
Amaya-Gómez, R., Dumar, V., Sánchez-Silva, M., Romero, R., Arbeláez, C., Muñoz, F.,
art. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 64, 104071.
2019. Process safety part of the engineering education DNA. Educ. Chem. Eng.
Mkpat, E., Reniers, G., Cozzani, V., 2018. Process safety education: a literature review.
Amyotte, P., McCutcheon, D., 2006. Risk management-an area of knowledge for all
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 54, 18–27.
engineers. Technical Report.Discussion Paper Prepared for Canadian Council of
Munguia, N., Álvarez, C., Pérez, K., Esquer, J., 2016. Students’ awareness of chemical
Professional Engineers.
risk on a Mexican Campus: the University of Sonora case study. Cent. East. Eur. J.
Arezes, P., Miguel, A., 2008. Risk perception and safety behaviour: a study in an
Manag. Econ. 179–188 (p.).
occupational environment. Saf. Sci. 46, 900–907. Occupational Safety and Risk at
O’Toole, M., 2002. The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and
{ESREL} 2006.
organizational culture. J. Saf. Res. 33, 231–243.
ASEE, 2015. The Attributes of a Global Engineer Project. 〈http://www.gedcouncil.org/p
OECD, 2003. Emerging Risks in the 21st Century. An Agenda for action. Technical Report
ublications/attributes-global-engineer-project〉.
Orgnisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Benintendi, R., 2016. The bridge link between university and industry: a key factor for
Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., 2017. Risk Perceptions and Risk Characteristics. Technical Report
achieving high performance in process safety. Educ. Chem. Eng. 15, 23–32.
Oxford University Press.
Bratt, O., Damber, J.-E., Emanuelsson, M., Kristoffersson, U., Lundgren, R., Bratt, H., H
Perlman, A., Sacks, R., Barak, R., 2014. Hazard recognition and risk perception in
Grönberg, H., 2000. Risk perception, screening practice and interest in genetic
construction. Saf. Sci. 64, 22–31.
testing among unaffected men in families with hereditary prostate cancer. Eur. J.
Perrin, L., Laurent, A., 2008. Current situation and future implementation of safety
Cancer 36, 235–241.
curricula for chemical engineering education in France. Educ. Chem. Eng. 3,
Brown, V., 2014. Risk perception-it’s personal. Environ. Health Perspect. 122,
e84–e91.
A276–279.
Pintar, A., 1999. Teaching chemical process safety: a separate course versus integration
Campbell, G., Belton, D., 2016. Setting up new chemical engineering degree
into existing courses. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference. Charlotte,
programmes: exercises in design and retrofit within constraints. Educ. Chem. Eng.
North Caroline. ISSN: 2153-5965 (4.479.1–4.479.10).
17, 1–13.
Planas, E., Arnaldos, J., Darbra, R., Muñoz, M., Pastor, E., Vílchez, J., 2014. Historical
Campbell Institute, 2014. Risk Perception: Theories, Strategies, and next steps. Technical
evolution of process safety and major-accident hazards prevention in Spain.
Report National Safety Council.
Contribution of the pioneer Joaquim Casal. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 28, 109–117
Carlson, D., 2015. A Risk Perception Analysis: Toxicology Education, Its Effect on
(European Process Safety Pioneers).
Quantitative Judgments of Risk, and the Influence of Demographic Variables
Reniers, G., Khakzad, N., Cozzani, V., Khan, F., 2018. The impact of nature on chemical
(Master’s thesis). Raleigh, NC, United States.
industrial facilities: Dealing with challenges for creating resilient chemical industrial
CCPS, 2015. Safety Culture: “What Is At Stake”. Technical Report Center for Chemical
parks. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 56, 378–385.
Process Safety.
Renn, O., 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World.
Chen, Y., Huang, H., Tu, I., 2010. A new approach for selecting the number of factors.
Earthscan.
Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 54, 2990–2998.
Roszkowski, M., Davey, G., 2010. Risk perception and risk tolerance changes attributable
Crawley, M., 2007. The R Book. Wiley.
to the 2008 economic crisis: a subtle but critical difference. J. Financ. Serv. Prof. 64,
Crosier, D., Parveva, T., 2013. The Bologna Process: Its Impact in Europe and Beyond.
42–53.
Technical Report United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Rundmo, T., 1996. Associations between risk perception and safety. Saf. Sci. 24,
Cruz, A., Krausmann, E., 2013. Vulnerability of the oil and gas sector to climate change
197–209.
and extreme weather events. Clim. Chang. 121, 41–53.
Slovic, P., 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285.
Dee, S., Cox, B., Ogle, R., 2015. Process safety in the classroom: the current state of
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., 1980. Facts and fears: understanding perceived
chemical engineering programs at US universities. Process Saf. Prog. 34, 316–319.
risk. In: Schwing, R., Albers, W.A. (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment. Springer, Boston,
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 2017. From Risk Perception to Safe Behaviour. 〈http://www.
pp. 181–216.
deloitte.com.au/media/docs/au_Deloitte_from_risk_perception_to_safe_behaviour.
Suarez-Paba, M., Cruz, A., Muñoz, F., 2020. Emerging Natech risk management in
pdf〉.
Colombia: a survey of governmental organizations. Saf. Sci. 128, 104777.
Dickson, T., Dolnicar, S., 2004. No risk, no fun: The role of perceived risk in adventure
Terry, L., 2007. The Bologna process and its implication for U.S. legal education. J. Leg.
tourism. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Research Conference of the
Educ. 57, 237–252.
Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education CAUTHE.
Thomas, E., 2016. Factor Analysis. 〈http://web.stanford.edu/class/psych253/tutorials/
Lincoln, New Zealand.
FactorAnalysis.html〉.
Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A., 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of
Tsang, S., Royse, C., Terkawi, A., 2017. Guidelines for developing, translating, and
Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press.
validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J. Anesth. 11,
Edwards, A., Gray, J., Clarke, A., Dundon, J., Elwyn, G., Gaff, C., Hood, K., Iredale, R.,
S80–S89.
Sivell, S., Shaw, C., Thornton, H., 2008. Interventions to improve risk
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.
communication in clinical genetics: Systematic review. Patient Educ. Couns. 71,
Science 185, 1124–1131.
4–25.
UNESCO, 2012. A Place to Learn: Lessons from Research on Learning Environments.
Everitt, B., Hothorn, T., 2011. An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis with R
Technical Report United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Use R! Springer New York.
Vlek, C., Stallen, P.-J., 1981. Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large.
Fischhoff, B., 1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of
Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 28, 235–271.
process. Risk Anal. 15, 137–145.
Weinstein, N., 1980. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J. Personal. Soc.
Gajek, A., Fabiano, B., Laurent, A., Jensen, N., 2022. Process safety education of future
Psychol. 39, 806–820.
employee 4.0 in Industry 4.0. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 75, 104691.

18
R. Amaya-Gómez et al. Education for Chemical Engineers 42 (2023) 7–19

Weisenfeld, U., Ott, I., 2011. Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: an
empirical study. Res. Policy 40, 487–499.
Wessa, P., 2021. Cronbach Alpha (v1.0.6) Free Statistics Software (v1.2.1), Office for
Research Development and Education. 〈https://www.wessa.net/rwasp_cronbach.
wasp/〉.
Weyman, W., Kelly, C., 1999. Risk Perception and Risk Communication: A Review of
Literature Volume CRR 148. Health and Safety Executive.
Wilke, A., Mata, R., 2012. Cognitive bias. In: Ramachandran, V. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Human Behavior, second ed. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 531–535.

19