Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy最新文献

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.

How does calculated inaction affect subsequent responses to the COVID-19 crisis? We argue that when governments employ calculated inaction during crises, they are more likely to manipulate the technical (scientific) aspects of national responses and highlight symbolic politics, each in the name of projecting power and strengthening the regime's governing authority. Using theoretical insight from McConnell and 't Hart's policy inaction typology, we investigate sense-making and crisis response narratives in China and Greece. We conclude with implications for policymaking and the crisis management literature.

Evidence suggests that people vary in their desire to undertake protective actions during a health emergency, and that trust in authorities may influence decision making. We sought to examine how the trust in health experts and trust in White House leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic impacts individuals' decisions to adopt recommended protective actions such as mask-wearing. A mediation analysis was conducted using cross-sectional U.S. survey data collected between March 27 and 30, 2020, to elucidate how individuals' trust in health experts and White House leadership, their perceptions of susceptibility and severity to COVID-19, and perceived benefits of protecting against COVID-19, influenced their uptake of recommended protective actions. Trust in health experts was associated with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 and benefits of taking action, which led to greater uptake of recommended actions. Trust in White House leadership was associated with lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and was not associated with taking recommended actions. Having trust in health experts is a greater predictor of individuals' uptake of protective actions than having trust in White House leadership. Public health messaging should emphasize the severity of COVID-19 and the benefits of protecting oneself while ensuring consistency and transparency to regain trust in health experts.

Centuries of practice and an array of public health literature support social distancing (SD), or self-quarantine, as a valuable nonpharmaceutical intervention. To convince individuals to engage in behaviors that limit infection, public health professionals communicate risk and hazard based on application of protection motivation theory (PMT). The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to explore the efficacy of PMT in the context of a novel coronavirus with unique public health implications. We test an integrative conceptual model of social distancing compliance in U.S. counties and examine the mediating impact of SD on community spread of infection. We find that PMT does impact individual behavior, observing that the proportion of vulnerable populations affects social distancing compliance. However, actions to protect individual health are made within the context of economic concerns and priorities. While results indicate that PMT influences behavior, the expected relationship between that behavior and spread of disease in the community is not found. We do not repudiate SD or the value of PMT, but we suggest that these results may indicate that communication of risk in the context of COVID-19 may need community, as well as individual, framing.