• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

信任与洪水风险沟通:比较地方政府、应急服务志愿者和邻居的作用。

Trust and the communication of flood risks: comparing the roles of local governments, volunteers in emergency services, and neighbours.

作者信息

Seebauer S, Babcicky P

机构信息

Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbh LIFE - Centre for Climate, Energy and Society Graz Austria.

Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change University of Graz Graz Austria.

出版信息

J Flood Risk Manag. 2018 Sep;11(3):305-316. doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12313. Epub 2017 Jul 31.

DOI:10.1111/jfr3.12313
PMID:32030096
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6991925/
Abstract

Risk information need to be communicated by trusted groups, in order to promote attitude and behaviour change. We compare different levels of trust in local governments, volunteers in emergency and relief services, and neighbours, and how trust in these groups shapes citizens' perceptions and actions relating to flood risks. Structural equation modelling is applied to a sample of 2007 flood-prone households in Austria. A series of cognitive and behavioural responses to flood risks is regressed on trust shown to the three groups. Our findings show that citizens show great trust and attribute high competence to volunteers, which increases risk perception and reduces denial and wishful thinking. Trust in local government downplays risks, makes citizens rely on external help, and promotes fatalism and wishful thinking. Trust in neighbours increases reliance on social support and reinforces wishful thinking. These trust effects reflect the roles and risk narratives of the respective groups. To stimulate specific actions of citizens in flood risk management, the group which addresses the desired actions within its narrative should act as risk communicator. Risk communication could be introduced as a complementary activity in voluntary emergency and relief services, wherein older, retired volunteers seem particularly qualified as risk communicators.

摘要

风险信息需要由受信任的群体来传达,以促进态度和行为的改变。我们比较了对地方政府、应急救援服务志愿者和邻居的不同信任程度,以及对这些群体的信任如何塑造公民对洪水风险的认知和行动。结构方程模型应用于奥地利2007个易受洪水影响家庭的样本。针对洪水风险的一系列认知和行为反应以对这三个群体所表现出的信任为回归变量。我们的研究结果表明,公民对志愿者表现出高度信任并认为他们能力很强,这会增加风险认知并减少否认和一厢情愿的想法。对地方政府的信任淡化了风险,使公民依赖外部帮助,并助长宿命论和一厢情愿的想法。对邻居的信任增加了对社会支持的依赖并强化了一厢情愿的想法。这些信任效应反映了各群体的角色和风险描述。为了激发公民在洪水风险管理中的具体行动,在其描述中涉及期望行动的群体应充当风险传播者。风险沟通可以作为志愿应急救援服务中的一项补充活动引入其中,在这些服务中年龄较大的退休志愿者似乎特别适合担任风险传播者。

相似文献

1
Trust and the communication of flood risks: comparing the roles of local governments, volunteers in emergency services, and neighbours.信任与洪水风险沟通:比较地方政府、应急服务志愿者和邻居的作用。
J Flood Risk Manag. 2018 Sep;11(3):305-316. doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12313. Epub 2017 Jul 31.
2
Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior.情绪、信任和感知风险:洪水备灾行为的情感和认知途径。
Risk Anal. 2011 Oct;31(10):1658-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01616.x. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
3
You have been framed! How antecedents of information need mediate the effects of risk communication messages.你被陷害了!信息需求的前因如何调节风险沟通信息的效果。
Risk Anal. 2014 Aug;34(8):1506-20. doi: 10.1111/risa.12181. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
4
(Almost) all Quiet Over One and a Half Years: A Longitudinal Study on Causality Between Key Determinants of Private Flood Mitigation.(几乎)持续一年半的平静:私人洪水缓解主要决定因素之间因果关系的纵向研究。
Risk Anal. 2021 Jun;41(6):958-975. doi: 10.1111/risa.13598. Epub 2020 Oct 10.
5
Understanding the effects of past flood events and perceived and estimated flood risks on individuals' voluntary flood insurance purchase behavior.了解过去洪水事件的影响以及个人对洪水风险的感知和估计对其自愿购买洪水保险行为的影响。
Water Res. 2017 Jan 1;108:391-400. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.021. Epub 2016 Nov 5.
6
Collaborative accountability for sustainable public health: A Korean perspective on the effective use of ICT-based health risk communication.可持续公共卫生的协作问责制:韩国对基于信息通信技术的健康风险沟通有效利用的视角
Gov Inf Q. 2019 Apr;36(2):226-236. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.12.008. Epub 2019 Jan 7.
7
How to Enhance Government Trust and Social Cohesion: Evidence From China.如何增强政府信任与社会凝聚力:来自中国的证据
Front Psychol. 2022 Feb 22;13:816019. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.816019. eCollection 2022.
8
Adoption of E-Government Applications for Public Health Risk Communication: Government Trust and Social Media Competence as Primary Drivers.电子政务应用在公共卫生风险沟通中的采用:政府信任和社交媒体能力是主要驱动因素。
J Health Commun. 2018;23(8):712-723. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1511013. Epub 2018 Aug 29.
9
Risk communication and adaptive behaviour in flood-prone areas of Austria: A Q-methodology study on opinions of affected homeowners.洪水多发区的风险沟通和适应行为:受影响房主意见的 Q 方法研究。
PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233551. eCollection 2020.
10
How flood risks shape policies: flood exposure and risk perception in Swiss municipalities.洪水风险如何塑造政策:瑞士各市镇的洪水暴露与风险认知
Reg Environ Change. 2020;20(4):120. doi: 10.1007/s10113-020-01705-7. Epub 2020 Oct 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Building community resilience during COVID-19: Learning from rural Bangladesh.在新冠疫情期间增强社区复原力:借鉴孟加拉国农村地区的经验
J Conting Crisis Manag. 2022 Sep;30(3):327-338. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12405. Epub 2022 Mar 27.
2
Insights from China: understanding the impact of community resilience and government trust in psychological resilience and anxiety during COVID-19.中国的启示:了解社区韧性和政府信任对 COVID-19 期间心理韧性和焦虑的影响。
Front Public Health. 2023 Nov 28;11:1298269. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1298269. eCollection 2023.
3
Relationship between disaster awareness and disaster preparedness: online survey of the community in Indonesia.

本文引用的文献

1
Risk perceptions and trust following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic volcanic ash crises.2010年和2011年冰岛火山灰危机后的风险认知与信任
Risk Anal. 2015 Feb;35(2):332-43. doi: 10.1111/risa.12275. Epub 2014 Sep 26.
2
You have been framed! How antecedents of information need mediate the effects of risk communication messages.你被陷害了!信息需求的前因如何调节风险沟通信息的效果。
Risk Anal. 2014 Aug;34(8):1506-20. doi: 10.1111/risa.12181. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
3
Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research.
灾害意识与灾害准备之间的关系:印度尼西亚社区的在线调查
J Public Health Afr. 2023 Oct 1;14(9):2376. doi: 10.4081/jphia.2023.2376.
4
Models and components in disaster risk communication: A systematic literature review.灾害风险沟通中的模型与组件:一项系统文献综述
J Educ Health Promot. 2023 Mar 31;12:87. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_277_22. eCollection 2023.
5
Latent profiles of psychological status among populations cumulatively exposed to a flood and the recurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic in China.在中国,累积遭受洪水影响人群的心理状态潜在特征以及新冠疫情的复发情况。
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023 Feb 1;85:103520. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103520. Epub 2022 Dec 31.
6
Interpersonal risk communication matters more than media risk communication in its impact on individuals' trust and preventive behaviors during COVID-19.在新冠疫情期间,人际风险沟通对个人信任和预防行为的影响比媒体风险沟通更为重要。
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022 Nov;82:103369. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103369. Epub 2022 Oct 15.
7
Community resilience and anxiety among Chinese older adults during COVID-19: The moderating role of trust in local government.新冠疫情期间中国老年人的社区复原力与焦虑:对地方政府信任的调节作用
J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2022 May-Jun;32(3):411-422. doi: 10.1002/casp.2563. Epub 2021 Jul 22.
8
Risk communication and adaptive behaviour in flood-prone areas of Austria: A Q-methodology study on opinions of affected homeowners.洪水多发区的风险沟通和适应行为:受影响房主意见的 Q 方法研究。
PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233551. eCollection 2020.
洪水风险的感知和沟通:实证研究的系统综述。
Risk Anal. 2013 Jan;33(1):24-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x. Epub 2012 May 31.
4
Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments.信任、信心、程序公平、结果公平、道德信念以及对转基因田间试验的接受。
Risk Anal. 2012 Aug;32(8):1394-403. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01739.x. Epub 2011 Dec 8.
5
Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior.情绪、信任和感知风险:洪水备灾行为的情感和认知途径。
Risk Anal. 2011 Oct;31(10):1658-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01616.x. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
6
Trust and confidence: the difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research.信任与信心:研究中区分这两个概念的困难。
Risk Anal. 2010 Jul;30(7):1022-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01454.x. Epub 2010 Jul 8.
7
Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research.风险管理中的信任:基于模型的实证研究综述。
Risk Anal. 2010 Apr;30(4):541-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.x.
8
The value of value congruence.价值一致性的价值。
J Appl Psychol. 2009 May;94(3):654-77. doi: 10.1037/a0014891.
9
The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: trusted information sources shape public thinking.知识与对全球变暖的关注之间的关联:可靠的信息来源塑造公众思维。
Risk Anal. 2009 May;29(5):633-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x. Epub 2009 Mar 12.
10
Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States.美国的个人效能、信息环境以及对全球变暖和气候变化的态度。
Risk Anal. 2008 Feb;28(1):113-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x.