Suchergebnisse

Background:The success of vaccination campaigns against COVID-19 infection is vital for moving from a COVID-19 pandemic to an endemic scenario. We aimed to unravel the influence of the risk perception of epidemics along with individual and contextual factors on adherence to COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in Italy and Sweden. Methods:We compared the results of two nationwide surveys carried out in August 2021 across four domains of epidemic risk perception: perceived likelihood, perceived impact on the individual and perceived individual and authority knowledge. The roles of individual and contextual determinants were also explored. Results:The survey included 2144 participants in Sweden (52.3% women) and 2010 in Italy (52.6% women). In both countries, we found that trust in authorities was one of the main drivers of this process, with two-fold increased odds of being vaccinated. Being highly educated and having a higher relative income were associated with a higher adherence to the vaccination campaign (for relative income OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.23–1.67 in Sweden and OR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.04–1.34 in Italy; for education OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.30–2.77 in Sweden and OR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.09–1.97 in Italy), whereas a right and centre-right compared with a left and centre-left political orientation was negatively related to vaccination adherence (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.25–0.67 in Sweden and OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.33–0.68 in Italy). Conclusions:Increasing trust in authorities, along with an equal global distribution of vaccine doses, can contribute to accelerating vaccination campaigns around the world and, in turn, to move towards an endemic scenario.

The severe impact of global crises, such as COVID-19 and climate change, is plausibly reshaping the way in which people perceive risks. In this paper, we examine and compare how global crises and local disasters influence public perceptions of multiple hazards in Italy and Sweden. To this end, we integrate information about the occurrence of hazardous events with the results of two nationwide surveys. These included more than 4000 participants and were conducted in two different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic corresponding to low (August 2020) and high (November 2020) levels of infection rates. We found that, in both countries, people are more worried about risks related to experienced events. This is in line with the cognitive process known as the availability heuristic: individuals assess the risk associated with a given hazard based on how easily it comes to their mind. Epidemics, for example, are perceived as less likely and more impactful in Italy compared to Sweden. This outcome can be explained by cross-country differences in the impact of, as well as governmental responses to, COVID-19. Notwithstanding the ongoing pandemic, people in both Italy and Sweden are highly concerned about climate change, and they rank it as the most likely threat.

The severe impact of global crises, such as COVID-19 and climate change, is plausibly reshaping the way in which people perceive risks. In this paper, we examine and compare how global crises and local disasters influence public perceptions of multiple hazards in Italy and Sweden. To this end, we integrate information about the occurrence of hazardous events with the results of two nationwide surveys. These included more than 4,000 participants and were conducted in two different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic corresponding to low (August 2020) and high (November 2020) levels of infection rates. We found that, in both countries, people are more worried about risks related to experienced events. This is in line with the cognitive process known as availability heuristic: individuals assess the risk associated with a given hazard based on how easily it comes to their mind. Epidemics, for example, are perceived as less likely and more impactful in Italy compared to Sweden. This outcome can be explained by cross-country differences in the impact of, and governmental responses to, COVID-19. Notwithstanding the ongoing pandemic, people in both Italy and Sweden are highly concerned about climate change and they rank it as the most likely threat.

Abstract. The severe impact of global crises, such as COVID-19 and climate change, is plausibly reshaping the way in which people perceive risks. In this paper, we examine and compare how global crises and local disasters influence public perceptions of multiple hazards in Italy and Sweden. To this end, we integrate information about the occurrence of hazardous events with the results of two nationwide surveys. These included more than 4000 participants and were conducted in two different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic corresponding to low (August 2020) and high (November 2020) levels of infection rates. We found that, in both countries, people are more worried about risks related to experienced events. This is in line with the cognitive process known as the availability heuristic: individuals assess the risk associated with a given hazard based on how easily it comes to their mind. Epidemics, for example, are perceived as less likely and more impactful in Italy compared to Sweden. This outcome can be explained by cross-country differences in the impact of, as well as governmental responses to, COVID-19. Notwithstanding the ongoing pandemic, people in both Italy and Sweden are highly concerned about climate change, and they rank it as the most likely threat.

The severe impact of global crises, such as COVID-19 and climate change, is plausibly reshaping the way in which people perceive risks. In this paper, we examine and compare how global crises and local disasters influence public perceptions of multiple hazards in Italy and Sweden. To this end, we integrate information about the occurrence of hazardous events with the results of two nationwide surveys. These included more than 4000 participants and were conducted in two different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic corresponding to low (August 2020) and high (November 2020) levels of infection rates. We found that, in both countries, people are more worried about risks related to experienced events. This is in line with the cognitive process known as the availability heuristic: individuals assess the risk associated with a given hazard based on how easily it comes to their mind. Epidemics, for example, are perceived as less likely and more impactful in Italy compared to Sweden. This outcome can be explained by cross-country differences in the impact of, as well as governmental responses to, COVID-19. Notwithstanding the ongoing pandemic, people in both Italy and Sweden are highly concerned about climate change, and they rank it as the most likely threat.

The severe impact of global crises, such as COVID-19 and climate change, is plausibly reshaping the way in which people perceive risks. In this paper, we examine and compare how global crises and local disasters influence public perceptions of multiple hazards in Italy and Sweden. To this end, we integrate information about the occurrence of hazardous events with the results of two nationwide surveys. These included more than 4000 participants and were conducted in two different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic corresponding to low (August 2020) and high (November 2020) levels of infection rates. We found that, in both countries, people are more worried about risks related to experienced events. This is in line with the cognitive process known as the availability heuristic: individuals assess the risk associated with a given hazard based on how easily it comes to their mind. Epidemics, for example, are perceived as less likely and more impactful in Italy compared to Sweden. This outcome can be explained by cross-country differences in the impact of, as well as governmental responses to, COVID-19. Notwithstanding the ongoing pandemic, people in both Italy and Sweden are highly concerned about climate change, and they rank it as the most likely threat.

Predicting floods and droughts is essential to inform the development of policy in water management, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Yet, hydrological predictions are highly uncertain, while the frequency, severity and spatial distribution of extreme events are further complicated by the increasing impact of human activities on the water cycle. In this commentary, we argue that four main aspects characterizing the complexity of human-water systems should be explicitly addressed: feedbacks, scales, tradeoffs and inequalities. We propose the integration of multiple research methods as a way to cope with complexity and develop policy-relevant science. Plain Language Summary Several governments today claim to be following the science in addressing crises caused by the occurrence of extreme events, such as floods and droughts, or the emergence of global threats, such as climate change and COVID-19. In this commentary, we show that there are no universal answers to apparently simple questions such as: Do levees reduce flood risk? Do reservoirs alleviate droughts? We argue that the best science we have consists of a plurality of legitimate interpretations and a range of foresights, which can be enriched by integrating multiple disciplines and research methods.