IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i2p428-d476389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk Perception, Communication, and Attribution Factors

Author

Listed:
  • Geunsik Kim

    (Institute of Government Studies, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Seoyong Kim

    (Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

  • Eunjung Hwang

    (The Convergence Institute of Healthcare and Medical Science, Catholic Kwandong University, Incheons 22711, Korea)

Abstract

In recent years, awareness about the risk of particulate matter (PM) has increased both domestically and internationally; consequently, various policies have been implemented to reduce PM. Since citizens are both victim and cause of this risk, PM cannot be successfully decreased only through government policies. Therefore, citizens’ active participation is required to reduce PM and prevent its risks. However, a theoretical model about public behavior against PM has not been established. Therefore, we suggest the public behavior model about individuals’ response against PM, in which response actions are classified into four types based on the combinations of the public-personal domains and mitigation-adaptation actions: Personal or public adaptations, and personal or public mitigations. We analyze how risk perception, risk communication, blame attribution factors influence the four types of responses against PM. The analysis results reveal that the receiver’s ability, negative emotion, trust in government, and age influence personal mitigation behavior, personal adaptation, public mitigation, and public adaptation, respectively. As this study demonstrates the differences in the factors influencing each type of response actions against PM, evidence-based policy is needed that considers the differences in these influencing factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Geunsik Kim & Seoyong Kim & Eunjung Hwang, 2021. "Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:428-:d:476389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/428/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/428/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "The Crisis of Public Health and Infodemic: Analyzing Belief Structure of Fake News about COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2019. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    5. Yeonjae Ryu & Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Seoyong Kim & Sang-Ok Choi & Jaesun Wang, 2014. "Individual perception vs. structural context: Searching for multilevel determinants of social acceptance of new science and technology across 34 countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 44-57.
    7. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    8. Craig W. Trumbo, 1999. "Heuristic‐Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 391-400, June.
    9. Seoyong Kim & Seol A. Kwon & Jae Eun Lee & Byeong-Cheol Ahn & Ju Ho Lee & Chen An & Keiko Kitagawa & Dohyeong Kim & Jaesun Wang, 2020. "Analyzing the Role of Resource Factors in Citizens’ Intention to Pay for and Participate in Disaster Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-25, April.
    10. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2020. "Analysis of the Impact of Health Beliefs and Resource Factors on Preventive Behaviors against the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Seoyong Kim & Hyesun Kim, 2009. "Does Cultural Capital Matter?: Cultural Divide and Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 295-313, September.
    13. King, Jennifer B., 1982. "The impact of patients' perceptions of high blood pressure on attendance at screening : An extension of the health belief model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(10), pages 1079-1091, January.
    14. Yong-Jin Cha, 2000. "Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the United States," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 321-332, October.
    15. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2015. "Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2183-2201, December.
    16. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    17. Helmut Jungermann & Hans‐Rüdiger Pfister & Katrin Fischer, 1996. "Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 251-261, April.
    18. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    19. Seol-A Kwon & Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee, 2019. "Analyzing the Determinants of Individual Action on Climate Change by Specifying the Roles of Six Values in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yeji Shin & Seoyong Kim & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for New Human Behavior Model in the Climate Change Age: Analyzing the Impact of Risk Perception and Government Factors on Intention–Action Consistency in Particulate Matter Mitigation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-26, September.
    2. Yoonjung Oh & Seoyong Kim & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for New Human Behavior Model in Explaining Energy Transition: Exploring the Impact of Value and Perception Factors on Inconsistency of Attitude toward Policy Support and Intention to Pay for," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-26, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for General Model of Conspiracy Theories and Its Implication for Public Health Policy: Analysis of the Impacts of Political, Psychological, Structural Factors on Conspiracy Beliefs about the," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-28, December.
    2. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "The Crisis of Public Health and Infodemic: Analyzing Belief Structure of Fake News about COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, November.
    3. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing Three Causal Models of Risk Perception, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Energy Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2020. "Analysis of the Impact of Health Beliefs and Resource Factors on Preventive Behaviors against the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Seoyong Kim & Seol A. Kwon & Jae Eun Lee & Byeong-Cheol Ahn & Ju Ho Lee & Chen An & Keiko Kitagawa & Dohyeong Kim & Jaesun Wang, 2020. "Analyzing the Role of Resource Factors in Citizens’ Intention to Pay for and Participate in Disaster Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2019. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    7. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    8. Yoonjung Oh & Seoyong Kim & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for New Human Behavior Model in Explaining Energy Transition: Exploring the Impact of Value and Perception Factors on Inconsistency of Attitude toward Policy Support and Intention to Pay for," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-26, September.
    9. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    10. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    11. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    12. L׳Orange Seigo, Selma & Dohle, Simone & Siegrist, Michael, 2014. "Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 848-863.
    13. Seungkook Roh & Hae-Gyung Geong, 2021. "Extending the Coverage of the Trust–Acceptability Model: The Negative Effect of Trust in Government on Nuclear Power Acceptance in South Korea under a Nuclear Phase-Out Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Seol-A Kwon & Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee, 2019. "Analyzing the Determinants of Individual Action on Climate Change by Specifying the Roles of Six Values in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, March.
    15. Sangsomboon Ploywarin & Yan Song & Dian Sun, 2018. "Research on Factors Affecting Public Risk Perception of Thai High-Speed Railway Projects Based on “Belt and Road Initiative”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    16. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    17. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    18. Tibert Verhagen & Daniel Bloemers, 2018. "Exploring the cognitive and affective bases of online purchase intentions: a hierarchical test across product types," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 537-561, September.
    19. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:428-:d:476389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.