At the time when this issue of Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy gets published (March 2022), we can look back at over 2 years of COVID‐19 pandemic. The crisis had both many phases and faces, in ever so many countries around the globe. In RHCPP, we have seen discussions on its creeping nature (Boin et al., 2020), its disproportionate impact on vulnerable minorities (Gadson, 2020), the widely different governance responses to similar threats (Pollock & Steen, 2021; Simonsen, 2022; Thomas & Terry, 2022; Zahariadis et al., 2021) the viability of all‐hazards, and total defense approaches (Penta et al., 2021; Pollock & Steen, 2021), the obstacles of learning from pandemic response inquiries (Eriksson et al., 2022), the influence of risk perception and trust on support for government interventions and restrictions (Ahluwalia et al., 2021; Sledge & Thomas, 2021; Yeom et al., 2021) and its particular but not so unique nature in historical perspective (De Graaf et al., 2021). In line with our recent review on methods and approaches in crisis and disaster research, they represent a mix of single and comparative case studies based on secondary data, conceptual discussions and survey research on primary data. Also, they clearly indicate a shift of attention from preparedness to response (Wolbers et al., 2021). If anything good, the Covid‐19 pandemic brings us ample opportunities to study crisis governance comparatively. Many axioms in our multidisciplinary literature on how and why and what aspects of crisis management matter can be tried and tested empirically under a wide variety of conditions. There is rich harvest there. In Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, we would therefore like to push the envelope and prioritize comparative studies over single case or country studies and invite contributors to search for external validity of their findings for an international audience struggling with similar crisis management challenges. The current issue brings variety beyond Covid, mostly. One article digs into the Covid response, in the United Arab Emirates, coining the term NASECH disaster: a Natural disaster with Social, Economic and Health implications. It studies the impact of lockdown interventions onmental wellbeing of the population and finds that young, urban, female and vulnerable people ran higher risks on elevated levels of depression and anxiety (Thomas & Terry, 2022). The other articles presented here focus on flood risks, cascading hazards, and power failure. First, Lea and Pralle (2021) argue that in response to flood risks, citizens and residents can wield their influence on flood insurance rates maps to their advantage. It turns out that areas indicated as flood risk zones are more often amended in places where the houses are more valuable and newer and the residents have greater socioeconomic means, raising questions of equity. Next, Chen and Greenberg (2022) discuss how cascading effects of hazardous events for their (urban) en
当这期《公共政策中的风险、危害和危机》出版时（2022年3月），我们可以回顾2年多的新冠肺炎疫情。这场危机在全球许多国家都有多个阶段和面。在RHCPP中，我们看到了关于其蔓延性质的讨论（Boin et al.，2020），其对弱势少数群体的不成比例的影响（Gadson，2020）以及对类似威胁的不同治理对策（Pollock&Steen，2021；Simonsen，2022；Thomas&Terry，2022；Zaharadis et al.，2021）所有危险的生存能力，和全面防御方法（Penta等人，2021；Pollock和Steen，2021），从流行病应对调查中学习的障碍（Eriksson等人，2022），风险感知和信任对支持政府干预和限制的影响（Ahluwalia等人，2021；Sledge&Thomas，2021；Yeom等人，2021）及其在历史视角下的特殊但不那么独特的性质（De Graaf等人，2021年）。根据我们最近对危机和灾害研究方法和方法的审查，它们是基于二级数据的单一和比较案例研究、概念讨论和对一级数据的调查研究的混合体。此外，它们清楚地表明，人们的注意力从准备转向了应对（Wolbers等人，2021）。如果说有什么好处的话，新冠肺炎-19大流行为我们提供了比较研究危机治理的充足机会。我们的多学科文献中关于危机管理的重要性、原因和方面的许多公理可以在各种各样的条件下进行实证检验。那里收获颇丰。因此，在《公共政策中的风险、危害和危机》一书中，我们希望突破极限，将比较研究置于单一案例或国家研究之上，并邀请撰稿人为面临类似危机管理挑战的国际受众寻找其研究结果的外部有效性。当前的问题主要带来了新冠肺炎以外的多样性。一篇文章深入探讨了阿拉伯联合酋长国的新冠肺炎应对措施，创造了“NASECH灾难：具有社会、经济和健康影响的自然灾害”一词。它研究了封锁干预措施对人群心理健康的影响，发现年轻人、城市人、女性和弱势群体患抑郁症和焦虑症的风险更高（Thomas&Terry，2022）。这里介绍的其他文章侧重于洪水风险、级联危险和停电。首先，Lea和Pralle（2021）认为，为了应对洪水风险，公民和居民可以利用他们对洪水保险费率图的影响来发挥自己的优势。事实证明，被指定为洪水风险区的地区往往被修改为房屋更有价值、更新换代、居民拥有更大社会经济手段的地方，这引发了公平问题。接下来，Chen和Greenberg（2022）讨论了危险事件对其（城市）环境的连锁影响在历史上如何在当地减灾计划中没有得到关注，但最近得到了更多关注。作者呼吁更积极地延续这一趋势，以增加和创新环境健康和保护计划。Sapat等人（2022）研究了收养和
{"title":"Risk, hazards and crisis: Covid‐19 and beyond","authors":"S. Kuipers, J. Wolbers","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12245","url":null,"abstract":"At the time when this issue of Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy gets published (March 2022), we can look back at over 2 years of COVID‐19 pandemic. The crisis had both many phases and faces, in ever so many countries around the globe. In RHCPP, we have seen discussions on its creeping nature (Boin et al., 2020), its disproportionate impact on vulnerable minorities (Gadson, 2020), the widely different governance responses to similar threats (Pollock & Steen, 2021; Simonsen, 2022; Thomas & Terry, 2022; Zahariadis et al., 2021) the viability of all‐hazards, and total defense approaches (Penta et al., 2021; Pollock & Steen, 2021), the obstacles of learning from pandemic response inquiries (Eriksson et al., 2022), the influence of risk perception and trust on support for government interventions and restrictions (Ahluwalia et al., 2021; Sledge & Thomas, 2021; Yeom et al., 2021) and its particular but not so unique nature in historical perspective (De Graaf et al., 2021). In line with our recent review on methods and approaches in crisis and disaster research, they represent a mix of single and comparative case studies based on secondary data, conceptual discussions and survey research on primary data. Also, they clearly indicate a shift of attention from preparedness to response (Wolbers et al., 2021). If anything good, the Covid‐19 pandemic brings us ample opportunities to study crisis governance comparatively. Many axioms in our multidisciplinary literature on how and why and what aspects of crisis management matter can be tried and tested empirically under a wide variety of conditions. There is rich harvest there. In Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, we would therefore like to push the envelope and prioritize comparative studies over single case or country studies and invite contributors to search for external validity of their findings for an international audience struggling with similar crisis management challenges. The current issue brings variety beyond Covid, mostly. One article digs into the Covid response, in the United Arab Emirates, coining the term NASECH disaster: a Natural disaster with Social, Economic and Health implications. It studies the impact of lockdown interventions onmental wellbeing of the population and finds that young, urban, female and vulnerable people ran higher risks on elevated levels of depression and anxiety (Thomas & Terry, 2022). The other articles presented here focus on flood risks, cascading hazards, and power failure. First, Lea and Pralle (2021) argue that in response to flood risks, citizens and residents can wield their influence on flood insurance rates maps to their advantage. It turns out that areas indicated as flood risk zones are more often amended in places where the houses are more valuable and newer and the residents have greater socioeconomic means, raising questions of equity. Next, Chen and Greenberg (2022) discuss how cascading effects of hazardous events for their (urban) en","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"13 1","pages":"6 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46185320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research on the societal costs of disaster-related US school closures has focused, and due to COVID-19 will likely continue to focus, on pandemics, with very limited research on closures from natural hazards. This is surprising given that school closures occur frequently to protect children, teachers, and staff pre-event as well as post-disaster to convert facilities into emergency shelters, etc. This study investigates the secondary effects from post-flooding, temporary school closures after the catastrophic 2015 flash flood in Richland County, South Carolina. Lost productivity from school closures was quantified using the Human Capital Method. Out of the 208 completed surveys, 75% of households had children that missed school. Post-stratifying survey results on race produced an average of $437 in lost productivity due to school closures and an overall $2175 in lost productivity due to flood-related impacts in general. Expressed in FEMA benefit-cost analysis terms, our study shows that schools have a standard value of $215 per household and per day for the unweighted sample ($180 for the race-weighted sample). Furthermore, households' disutility for a late start is almost as great as their disutility for a school closure. These exploratory findings suggest that unplanned school closures should be minimized, and community characteristics carefully considered to avoid unintended socioeconomic consequences.
{"title":"The economic impact of school closures during the 2015 flood in Richland County, South Carolina","authors":"M. Gall, Tamara L. Sheldon, Larianne Collins","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12242","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12242","url":null,"abstract":"Research on the societal costs of disaster-related US school closures has focused, and due to COVID-19 will likely continue to focus, on pandemics, with very limited research on closures from natural hazards. This is surprising given that school closures occur frequently to protect children, teachers, and staff pre-event as well as post-disaster to convert facilities into emergency shelters, etc. This study investigates the secondary effects from post-flooding, temporary school closures after the catastrophic 2015 flash flood in Richland County, South Carolina. Lost productivity from school closures was quantified using the Human Capital Method. Out of the 208 completed surveys, 75% of households had children that missed school. Post-stratifying survey results on race produced an average of $437 in lost productivity due to school closures and an overall $2175 in lost productivity due to flood-related impacts in general. Expressed in FEMA benefit-cost analysis terms, our study shows that schools have a standard value of $215 per household and per day for the unweighted sample ($180 for the race-weighted sample). Furthermore, households' disutility for a late start is almost as great as their disutility for a school closure. These exploratory findings suggest that unplanned school closures should be minimized, and community characteristics carefully considered to avoid unintended socioeconomic consequences.","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49068394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated over the past two decades. Attention is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the main foci, methods, and research designs employed in the crisis and disaster research fields in the period of 2001-2020. The review documents that the focus and methods used have not changed much over time. Single case studies and exploratory research prevail, the focus has shifted from preparedness to response, and methodological diversity is limited, but gradually increasing. Future challenges are to understand transboundary crisis management and creeping crises. Advancing the field calls for our community to put more effort in drawing lessons beyond the single case to uncover comparable and universal patterns that connect between events or phases, which help to theorize the multifaceted nature of crisis and disaster management.
{"title":"A systematic review of 20 years of crisis and disaster research: Trends and progress","authors":"J. Wolbers, S. Kuipers, A. Boin","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12244","url":null,"abstract":"The field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated over the past two decades. Attention is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the main foci, methods, and research designs employed in the crisis and disaster research fields in the period of 2001-2020. The review documents that the focus and methods used have not changed much over time. Single case studies and exploratory research prevail, the focus has shifted from preparedness to response, and methodological diversity is limited, but gradually increasing. Future challenges are to understand transboundary crisis management and creeping crises. Advancing the field calls for our community to put more effort in drawing lessons beyond the single case to uncover comparable and universal patterns that connect between events or phases, which help to theorize the multifaceted nature of crisis and disaster management.","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48635063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Les Stanaland, R. Baldick, Alvaro Cardenas, Jennifer Holmes
{"title":"Protecting the Texas electric grid: A cybersecurity strategy for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT)","authors":"Les Stanaland, R. Baldick, Alvaro Cardenas, Jennifer Holmes","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12241","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43570834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Dismantling power asymmetries in disaster and emergency management research: Another argument for the application of critical theory","authors":"K. Leach, Jason D. Rivera","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12243","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42199585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Claudia Morsut, C. Kuran, Bjørn Ivar Kruke, Tor-Olav Nævestad, Kati Orru, Sten Hansson
Funding information EU's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, Grant/Award Number: 833496 Abstract While there is still a vast body of scholarly research in crisis and disaster management that considers social capital an asset for lessening negative impacts from crises, this paper investigates an underexplored aspect of social capital—its microlevel positive and negative instances in the crisis response—a quite neglected phase of the crisis management cycle when it comes to studying the role of social capital. To underline social capital's double‐ edged aspects, this paper draws from the handful of studies that focus on individual social capital in crisis response, to systematize their findings according to bonding, bridging, and linking social capital and positive and negative impacts. In addition, the paper considers these findings to analyze the 2011 Utøya terrorist attack in Norway, to uncover new positive and negative effects of individual social capital, thus contributing to pushing the research agenda toward a more critical appraisal of individual social capital.
{"title":"A critical appraisal of individual social capital in crisis response","authors":"Claudia Morsut, C. Kuran, Bjørn Ivar Kruke, Tor-Olav Nævestad, Kati Orru, Sten Hansson","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12236","url":null,"abstract":"Funding information EU's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, Grant/Award Number: 833496 Abstract While there is still a vast body of scholarly research in crisis and disaster management that considers social capital an asset for lessening negative impacts from crises, this paper investigates an underexplored aspect of social capital—its microlevel positive and negative instances in the crisis response—a quite neglected phase of the crisis management cycle when it comes to studying the role of social capital. To underline social capital's double‐ edged aspects, this paper draws from the handful of studies that focus on individual social capital in crisis response, to systematize their findings according to bonding, bridging, and linking social capital and positive and negative impacts. In addition, the paper considers these findings to analyze the 2011 Utøya terrorist attack in Norway, to uncover new positive and negative effects of individual social capital, thus contributing to pushing the research agenda toward a more critical appraisal of individual social capital.","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43585334","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A comparative analysis of social vulnerability and proximity to coal‐fired power plants and windmill farms","authors":"Julia Crowley","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12239","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"179 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/rhc3.12239","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41263111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Trust and confidence in authorities, responsibility attribution, and natural hazards risk perception","authors":"Ziqiang Han, Jie Liu, Wei‐Ning Wu","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12234","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/rhc3.12234","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45440434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01Epub Date: 2021-05-18DOI: 10.1002/rhc3.12225
Beatrice de Graaf, Lotte Jensen, Rina Knoeff, Catrien Santing
In this paper, we address the question on how societies coped with pandemic crises, how they tried to control or adapt to the disease, or even managed to overcome the death trap in history. On the basis of historical research, we describe how societies in the western world accommodated to or exited hardship and restrictive measures over the course of the last four centuries. In particular, we are interested in how historically embedded citizens' resources were directed towards living with and to a certain extent accepting the virus. Such an approach of "applied history" to the management of crises and public hazards, we believe, helps address today's pressing question of what adaptive strategies can be adopted to return to a normalized life, including living with socially acceptable medical, hygienic and other pandemic-related measures.
{"title":"Dancing with death. A historical perspective on coping with Covid-19.","authors":"Beatrice de Graaf, Lotte Jensen, Rina Knoeff, Catrien Santing","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12225","DOIUrl":"10.1002/rhc3.12225","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, we address the question on how societies coped with pandemic crises, how they tried to control or adapt to the disease, or even managed to overcome the death trap in history. On the basis of historical research, we describe how societies in the western world accommodated to or exited hardship and restrictive measures over the course of the last four centuries. In particular, we are interested in how historically embedded citizens' resources were directed towards living with and to a certain extent accepting the virus. Such an approach of \"applied history\" to the management of crises and public hazards, we believe, helps address today's pressing question of what adaptive strategies can be adopted to return to a normalized life, including living with socially acceptable medical, hygienic and other pandemic-related measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"12 3","pages":"346-367"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8242892/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39158351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01Epub Date: 2021-03-08DOI: 10.1002/rhc3.12216
Daniel Sledge, Herschel F Thomas
In this article, we examine public perceptions of the importance of different levels of government and of nongovernmental entities in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the case of COVID-19, we illuminate patterns that may be helpful for understanding public perceptions of the response to a broader range of crises, including the impacts of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires, and other hazards. We contribute to the public policy literature on public perceptions of government response to crises and expand it to include consideration of the role of nonstate actors. Drawing on a representative survey of 1200 registered voters in Texas, we find that individuals are more likely to view government as extremely important to respond to the pandemic than nonstate actors. We find that perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors are shaped by risk perception, political ideology and religion, gender, and race/ethnicity. We do not find evidence that direct impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic consistently shape perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors.
{"title":"Public perceptions of the role of government and nonstate actors in responding to COVID-19.","authors":"Daniel Sledge, Herschel F Thomas","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12216","DOIUrl":"10.1002/rhc3.12216","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we examine public perceptions of the importance of different levels of government and of nongovernmental entities in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the case of COVID-19, we illuminate patterns that may be helpful for understanding public perceptions of the response to a broader range of crises, including the impacts of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires, and other hazards. We contribute to the public policy literature on public perceptions of government response to crises and expand it to include consideration of the role of nonstate actors. Drawing on a representative survey of 1200 registered voters in Texas, we find that individuals are more likely to view government as extremely important to respond to the pandemic than nonstate actors. We find that perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors are shaped by risk perception, political ideology and religion, gender, and race/ethnicity. We do not find evidence that direct impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic consistently shape perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors.</p>","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"12 3","pages":"266-282"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8250604/pdf/RHC3-12-266.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39159401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：