scholarly journals Determinant Factors in Personal Decision-Making to Adopt COVID-19 Prevention Measures in Chile

Author(s):  
Karina Fernanda Gonzalez ◽  
Maria Teresa Bull ◽  
Sebastian Muñoz-Herrera ◽  
Luis Felipe Robledo

The pandemic has challenged countries to develop stringent measures to reduce infections and keep the population healthy. However, the greatest challenge is understanding the process of adopting self-care measures by individuals in different countries. In this research, we sought to understand the behavior of individuals who take self-protective action. We selected the risk homeostasis approach to identify relevant variables associated with the risk of contagion and the Protective Action Decision Model to understand protective decision-making in the pandemic. Subsequently, we conducted an exploratory survey to identify whether the same factors, as indicated in the literature, impact Chile’s adoption of prevention measures. The variables gender, age, and trust in authority behave similarly to those found in the literature. However, socioeconomic level, education, and media do not impact the protection behaviors adopted to avoid contagion. Furthermore, the application of the Protective Action Decision Model is adequate to understand the protective measures in the case of a pandemic. Finally, women have a higher risk perception and adopt more protective measures, and in contrast, young people between 18 and 30 years of age are the least concerned about COVID-19 infection.

Author(s):  
Sabrina Katharina Beckmann ◽  
Michael Hiete ◽  
Michael Schneider ◽  
Christoph Beck

AbstractExtreme heatwaves will occur more frequently and with higher intensity in future. Their consequences for human health can be fatal if adaptation measures will not be taken. This study analyses factors related to heat adaptation measures in private households in Germany. During the summer months of 2019, indoor temperatures were measured in over 500 private households in the City of Augsburg, Germany, accompanied by a survey to find out about heat perception and adaptation measures. Hypotheses deducted from the Protective Action Decision Model were tested using one-way ANOVAs, regression analysis and in the end a multiple hierarchical regression model. The results of the hypotheses tested imply an influence of knowledge and heat risk perception of heat adaptation behaviour and an influence of age on heat risk perception. The results of the regression model show an influence of the efficacy-related attribute, of age, indoor temperature, subjective heat stress and health implications to heat adaptation behaviour. In the end, this study proposes adjustments to the PADM according to the results of the hierarchical regression analysis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (12) ◽  
pp. 1120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica D. Kuligowski ◽  
Emily H. Walpole ◽  
Ruggiero Lovreglio ◽  
Sarah McCaffrey

As wildfires occurring at the wildland–urban interface (WUI) continue to become more severe, there is an increasing need to understand human behaviour in these situations, and evacuation decision-making in particular. To contribute to this understanding, an online survey (using both mail and online sampling methods) was disseminated to households impacted by the 2016 Chimney Tops 2 fire in Tennessee. The survey instrument measured pre-event variables such as awareness of fire risks and previous experience with evacuations as well as the types of warnings and fire cues received during the event, with a focus on factors known to impact evacuation decisions and risk perception. Using linear and logistic regression analyses, it was found that fire cues and receiving warnings from a trusted source influenced risk perceptions leading up to an evacuation decision. In line with the Protective Action Decision Model, risk perception also highly influenced evacuation decisions, along with other variables, i.e. gender and prior preparation actions. Results from this work provide support for findings from previous wildfire evacuation research as well as produce some novel findings, along with several methodological recommendations, which will be further explored.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 100042
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Liddell ◽  
Leia Y. Saltzman ◽  
Regardt J. Ferreira ◽  
Amy E. Lesen

Risk Analysis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Heath ◽  
Jaesub Lee ◽  
Michael J. Palenchar ◽  
Laura L. Lemon

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 04020043
Author(s):  
Mitchell Scovell ◽  
Connar McShane ◽  
Anne Swinbourne ◽  
Daniel Smith

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document