Do first responders and populations perceive risks similarly? A comparative study of seven countries.

Introduction: Risk perception illustrates the subjective evaluation of individuals concerning the characteristics, severity, and capacity to cope with potential hazards. Risk perception influences attitudes and actions individuals take to protect themselves from future threats. Risk perceptions might change among different stakeholder groups such as society and first responders. Identifying risk perceptions of stakeholders is essential to establish effective protective measures. Method: This study investigated the commonalities and diversities in risk perception among first responders and the public, within and between seven European and beyond countries. A self-administered questionnaire was used to gather data from both first responders and civilians. They were asked to assess their risk perception level for five categories of risks (Extreme weather-related events, nature-related events, social disruptions, critical services dependencies, and pandemics). Results: Using Univariate Analysis of Variance showed disparity concerning both the levels of risk perception between the public and first responders, as well as their relative ranking. For example, concerning extreme weather-related and nature-related events, risk perception levels of the first responders is higher than that of the population in six out of the seven studied countries. In contrast, the population's risk perception is higher compared to the first responders in six out of the seven countries, concerning critical infrastructure dependencies and pandemics. Discussion: The relative gaps between the first responders versus the population, within each country, vary considerably. Norway for example presents significant differences between the two internal populations concerning all risks (except for extreme weather), while in Sweden, no significant gaps were identified, concerning all five risks.

Understanding Societal Resilience-Cross-Sectional Study in Eight Countries.

Civilian populations that are more prepared for emergencies are more resilient. Ample research has been carried out over the last three decades to identify the factors that contribute to public readiness to emergencies and disasters and enhance societal resilience. However, the analysis did not achieve an in-depth comprehension of the types of contributing factors, namely, contextual vs. target aspects. A cross-sectional study that explored attitudinal factors among civilian populations took place during the months of January-February 2021. Diverse representative samples (N ≥ 500 each) of adults from eight countries (Italy, Romania, Spain, France, Sweden, Norway, Israel, and Japan) were engaged. The primary outcomes of this study were individual and societal resilience as well as emergency preparedness. The results suggest that in most countries, levels of trust are relatively high for emergency services and health services, and relatively low for politicians. In the overall sample, the individual preparedness index, which delineates the compliance with general household adjustment recommendation for emergencies, averaged at 4.44 ± 2.05SD (out of 8). Some variability was observed between countries, with some countries (e.g., Spain, Norway, and Italy) reporting higher preparedness rates than others (e.g., Japan). In the overall sample, levels of individual resilience were mediocre. Multivariate analysis showed that the following variables are predictors of societal resilience: trust (ß = 0.59), social norms and communality (ß = 0.20), individual resilience (ß = 0.05), individual preparedness (ß = 0.04), risk awareness (ß = 0.04), and age (ß = 0.03). The results of this study show that there are commonalities and differences between societies across Europe and beyond concerning societal resilience at large, including preparedness, individual resilience, and risk perception. Despite socio-cultural driven differences, this study shows that societies share varied characteristics that may contribute toward a common model for assessing societal resilience and for explaining and predicting resilience and readiness.

Risk Perception of Natural and Human-Made Disasters-Cross Sectional Study in Eight Countries in Europe and Beyond.

Each year, emergency and disaster situations claim a heavy toll in human lives and economic loss. Civilian populations that are more aware and prepared for emergencies are more resilient. The aim of this study was to explore similarities and differences in risk perception of emergencies and disasters across different societies and its association with individual resilience. A cross sectional study that explored attitudinal factors, as expressed by diverse samples of target countries across Europe and beyond, took place during the months of January-February 2021. Diverse samples (N ≥ 500) of adults from 8 countries (Italy, Romania, Spain, France, Sweden, Norway, Israel, and Japan) were engaged in this study. This study used the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self-Measure (iPRISM) tool to assess risk perception. The results suggest that for the overall sample (N = 4,013), pandemics were the risk of which participants showed the highest concern, followed by critical infrastructure fail, social disturbance, natural hazards, and extreme weather events. It was found that religiosity is associated with risk perception, with highly religious and non-religious reporting elevated risk perception (F = 5.735, df = 2, p = 0.003), however country-specific analysis revealed that this finding varies depending on local contexts. The analysis also revealed differences in risk perception depending on age and type of risk. The results of this study present that there are commonalities and differences between societies across Europe and beyond concerning societal resilience at large, including risk perception. The dependency of risk perception on local context suggests that a regional-based approach for disaster risk reduction may be called for to adapt and adjust to local socio-cultural characteristics of each population.

Emerging infectious disease (EID) communication during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak: literature review (2009-2013) of the methodology used for EID communication analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This year alone has seen outbreaks of epidemics such as Ebola, Chikungunya, and many other emerging infectious diseases (EIDs). We must look to the responses of recent outbreaks to help guide our strategies in current and future outbreaks or we risk repeating the same mistakes. The objective of this paper was to conduct a systematic literature review of the methodology used by studies that examined EID communication during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic outbreak through different communication channels or by analyzing contents and strategies. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the literature (n=61) studying risk communication strategies of H1N1 influenza, published between 2009 and 2013, and retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts by use of specific search criteria. Searches were followed by review, categorization, and mixed qualitative and quantitative content analysis. RESULTS: Of 41 articles that used quantitative methods, most used surveys (n=35); some employed content analyses (n=4) and controlled trials (n=2). The 16 articles that employed qualitative methods relied on content analyses (n=10), semi-structured interviews (n=2) and focus groups (n=4). Four more articles used mixed-methods or nonstandard methods. Seven different topic categories were found: risk perception and effects on behaviors, framing the risk in the media, public concerns, trust, optimistic bias, uncertainty, and evaluating risk communication. CONCLUSIONS: Up until 2013, studies tended to be descriptive and quantitative rather than discursive and qualitative and to focus on the role of the media as representing information and not as a medium for actual communication with the public. Several studies from 2012, and increasingly more in 2013, addressed issues of discourse and framing and the complexity of risk communication with the public. Formative evaluations that use recommendations from past research when designing communication campaigns from the first stages of crises are recommended. Research should employ diverse triangulation processes based on representatives from different stakeholders. Further studies should address the potential offered by social media to create dialogue with individuals and the public at large.