Trust matters: The Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe Study.

This article presents the design of a seven-country study focusing on childhood vaccines, Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in Europe (VAX-TRUST), developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study consists of (a) situation analysis of vaccine hesitancy (examination of individual, socio-demographic and macro-level factors of vaccine hesitancy and analysis of media coverage on vaccines and vaccination and (b) participant observation and in-depth interviews of healthcare professionals and vaccine-hesitant parents. These analyses were used to design interventions aimed at increasing awareness on the complexity of vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals involved in discussing childhood vaccines with parents. We present the selection of countries and regions, the conceptual basis of the study, details of the data collection and the process of designing and evaluating the interventions, as well as the potential impact of the study. Laying out our research design serves as an example of how to translate complex public health issues into social scientific study and methods.

The influence of river regulation on the affinity for nature and perceptions of local populations.

Rivers are powerful systems supporting human civilization, but despite the enormous dependence on rivers by humans, this does not stop them to assault rivers in the most varied ways. Such dependency determines the establishment of strong river flow-human relationships, and river degradation the prompting of health and non-tangible complications for humans. This work assesses how river regulation, interacting with sociodemographic characteristics, influences the affinity for nature and the perception of humans regarding its effects on river systems. Increased affinity for nature and clearer perceptions about the effects of river regulation improve emotive connection with nature and promote pro-environmental concerns towards a more sustainable water management. Two case studies were selected with different river regulation types (run-of-river and storage reservoir). In each one, the affinity for nature and social perceptions were assessed via telephone-assisted questionnaire surveys carried out in 2020 using 402 randomly selected numbers of local human communities living in its influence areas. Results showed that despite river regulation, communities remain connected to the river system with well-established flow-human relationships. Nonetheless, these relationships have changed due to socioeconomic and cultural changes over time. Significant differences were found in educational attainment and age regarding the affinity for nature. On the other hand, gender differs significantly regarding both the affinity for nature and how the river regulation affect perception, highlighting a gender gap motivated by social and cultural customs passed throughout generations. The lower education level of women and less frequent use of the river acts as a barrier to their perception of river ecosystems and the regulation effects. The affinity for nature and the perception of ecosystems changes by local populations were also significantly different according to the river regulation type, where residents near the run-of-river dam present less affinity for nature. Notwithstanding, the perceptions of local communities were in general in accordance with the scientific knowledge on rivers' condition. Finally, this work highlights the necessity for education through schools, local communities, municipalities and families, providing conditions for dedication and time to nature and promoting environmental knowledge through direct experience.

Trust and Mistrust in Sources of Scientific Information on Climate Change and Vaccines: Insights from Portugal and Poland.

Public trust in science and expertise remains a contentious issue. When public trust is analysed, it often simplifies a complex process of information retrieval and interpretation. Questionnaire surveys help us make sense of differences among actors and countries, but they fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of the reasons that lead citizens to trust a specific actor to differing degrees. Hence, we opted for using a qualitative grounded approach to understand how citizens make sense of their trust in several actors. This article draws from the results of public consultations with citizens in Portugal and Poland about two specific science-related topics-climate change and vaccines-focusing on citizens' perceptions of trust in several sources of scientific information. The results show that citizens' trust varies depending on the source of scientific information, and it is affected by the topic's visibility and different national levels of institutional trust. It also concludes that citizens use different criteria to evaluate trustworthiness and that this process leads to different ways of expressing trust/mistrust: unquestioned confidence, justified trust, reflexive trust, and active distrust. Such knowledge leads to a more in depth understanding of how trust in science is constructed, which can help science communicators and educators choose sources and materials.