Classification and dynamic evolution of public's environmental risk coping actions in China
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12705563 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gang Wang (0000-0002-2288-3807, School of International Affairs and Public Administration Ocean University of China; Marine Development Studies Institute Qingdao P. R. China), Jing Ning (0000-0001-9533-6700, Management College Ocean University of China Qingdao P. R. China, corresponding author), Kai‐ye Song (School of Government Sun Yat‐sen University Guangzhou P. R. China), Zhang Xiafei (Shandong University), Xia‐fei Zhang (School of Political Science and Public Administration Shandong University Qingdao P. R. China) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Publication date | 2019-02-08 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Public Affairs (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1472-3891 • E-ISSN: 1479-1854 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/pa.1915 |
| OpenAlex | W2911458640 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 38 |
Existing studies on public attitudes and actions towards sites elections of projects with existing environmental risk usually make simple binary partition and mostly focus on public confrontational actions. Whereas, no attention has been paid to the complexity and dynamic convertibility of public's risk coping actions. This paper constructs an integrated framework for environmental risk coping actions referring to risk social amplification theory and risk protective theory. Through the comparative analysis with three typical projects of nuclear facilities in China, it has been found that there are four different types of risk coping action based on dual dimensions of risk perception and risk communication, namely, acquiescence–support and acquiescence–adaption, belonging to low‐grade risk coping actions, and two high‐grade risk coping actions, prevention–mobilization and prevention–protest. Under specific conditions, the dynamic conversions from low grade to high grade among the four action choice models also existed. Findings of this paper try to provide a theoretical interpretation for getting a better understanding of the public action choices in relation to environment risk. In the meanwhile, policy enlightenment to risk governance for government has also been discussed
Acquiescence · Actuarial science · Business · Coping (psychology · Corporate governance · Economics · Perception · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Risk analysis (engineering · Risk Governance · Risk perception · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Disaster Management and Resilience · Law · Psychology · Risk Perception and Management · Social Psychology · Finance
Mobilizing on the Extreme RightGermany, Italy, and the United States
Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy
Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perceptions of Disasters
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Social Conflict
Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism
Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks
Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment
The Social Amplification of Risk
Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged
Individual Risk Attitudes
The Protective Action Decision Model
Reinterpreting Locational Conflicts
Myths of Nature
Ideology and the Clamshell Identity
| Citations per year | 0.14 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2019 - 2019 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |