Search results

Notwithstanding the tremendous amount of attention environmental agencies, policy analysts, and scholars have paid to "regulatory reinvention," it has been pitched primarily as a refinement of the sanction and facilitation models, and thus intended to be channeled through the firm-specific behavioral responses predicted under the rational polluter and good-apple models. Little attention has been paid to the systems level question. The relevant question under the systems model is whether there is a component of noncompliance that does not respond to sanction and facilitation policies that are intended to illicit firm-specific behavioral responses. To answer this will require (1) identifying instances when sanction and facilitation policies do not lead to improvements in compliance performance, (2) doing so on a statistically meaningful basis across industrial sectors and regulatory programs, and (3) testing the effect alternative policy responses have on this identified component of noncompliance. Of course, regulatory agencies will have a disincentive to undertake either task: The first suggests flaws in current policy, the second is a daunting undertaking, the third ventures into the unknown and risks failure.

Chapter 1 Media's Role in the AI Era? -- Chapter 2 Differences in Smart Media Communication -- Chapter 3 VR—Pioneering Smart Media Communication -- Chapter 4 SmartStories—The Backbone of Smart Media Communication -- Chapter 5 Social Network—The Core of Smart Media Communication -- Chapter 6 Platform Society—The Trend of Smart Media Communication -- Chapter 7 The Push by 5G -- Chapter 8 Reflection and Future of Smart Media Communication. .

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.