Finnish reactions facing the threat of nuclear accidents in Russian nuclear power plants

Eränen, Liisa

doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(96)00959-7

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The U.S. population living adjacent to coasts is increasing (Crossett et al, 2013), making potential health effects from severe storms a regional public health issue. The effect of proximity to a hazardous site or severe storms has been recognized for some time (Eranen, 1997; Barnes et al, 2002; Trumbo et al, 2011), although sometimes proximity leads to complacency. We suggest, however, that in the case of Sandy , the responses were proportional to the severity of the effects they experienced (more flood damage, longer loss of electricity, and longer evacuation periods).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health concerns and perceptions of central and coastal New Jersey residents in the 100days following Superstorm Sandy

Burger

Gochfeld

2014

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New Jersey 29–30 October 2012 (80 km/hr winds), and many residents were evacuated, were without power for days to several weeks, and suffered property damages or lost their homes. The objective of this study was to understand health concerns within 100 days of this devastating storm that might improve recovery, future preparedness, and resilience. We conducted a survey of New Jersey residents in central (N = 407) and shore communities (n=347) about health concerns before, during, and after Superstorm Sandy. People were interviewed at public places, town hall and FEMA meetings, health and university centers, and other gathering places. 47 % of shore and 13 % of central Jersey respondents evacuated. Both populations were concerned about agents of destruction, survival needs, and possessions before and during the storm, but they were mainly concerned about survival needs thereafter. During the storm, medical issues were the greatest concern for shore respondents (23 %) vs secure and safe food and water (29 %) for central respondents. Medical concerns increased after the storm. In the future, 42 % of shore respondents would prepare more, while 51 % of central residents would buy more supplies; 20 % (shore) and 11 % (central) would heed future evacuation warnings. Before Sandy many residents did not heed warnings and evacuation orders, but worried about property damage, while during and after their major concerns were personal and community health. Prevention of future health and property impacts could be enhanced by stronger evacuation enforcement, better preparedness information, greater attention to the possibility of prolonged power outages, and more attention to medical needs during and after a storm.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health concerns and perceptions of central and coastal New Jersey residents in the 100days following Superstorm Sandy

Burger

Gochfeld

2014

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One reason for the difference may be that central Jersey respondents were farther from the coast, and, therefore, less subject to direct surge flooding. The effect of proximity to a hazardous site or severe storms has been recognized for some time (Eränen 1997; Barnes et al 2002; Trumbo et al 2011). Because shore residents experienced extreme flooding, a higher percentage evacuated and power was out for longer duration, they experienced greater personal health issues and property damage, and more inconveniences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concerns and perceptions immediately following Superstorm Sandy: ratings for property damage were higher than for health issues

Burger

Gochfeld

2014

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governmental officials, health and safety professionals, early responders, and the public are interested in the perceptions and concerns of people faced with a crisis, especially during and immediately after a disaster strikes. Reliable information can lead to increased individual and community preparedness for upcoming crises. The objective of this research was to evaluate concerns of coastal and central New Jersey residents within the first 100 days of Superstorm Sandy’s landfall. Respondents living in central New Jersey and Jersey shore communities were differentially impacted by the storm, with shore residents having higher evacuation rates (47% vs. 13%), more flood waters in their homes, longer power outages (average 23 vs. 6 days), and longer periods without Internet (29 vs. 6 days). Ratings of concerns varied both among and within categories as a function of location (central vs. coastal New Jersey), stressor level (ranging from 1 to 3 for combinations of power outages, high winds, and flooding), and demographics. Respondents were most concerned about property damage, health, inconveniences, ecological services, and nuclear power plants in that order. Respondents from the shore gave higher ratings to the concerns within each major category, compared to those from central Jersey. Four findings have implications for understanding future risk, recovery, and resiliency: (1) respondents with the highest stressor level (level 3) were more concerned about water damage than others, (2) respondents with flood damage were more concerned about water drainage and mold than others, (3) respondents with the highest stressor levels rated all ecological services higher than others, and (4) shore respondents rated all ecological services higher than central Jersey residents. These data provide information to design future preparedness plans, improve resiliency for future severe weather events, and reduce public health risk.

show abstract

“…For natural, technological, and social (terrorism) hazards, distance from a risky point or area—e.g., a shoreline subject to riverine flooding or storm surge, or chemical factory—tends to lower risk perception (Botzen, Aerts, & Van Den Bergh, ; Brody, Zahran, Veditz, & Grover, ; Elliott, Cole, Krueger, Voorberg, & Wakefield, ; Eranen, ; Gawande & Jenkins‐Smith, ; Howel, Moffatt, Prince, Bush, & Dunn, ; Lindell, ; Moffatt, Hoeldke, & Pless‐Mulloli, ; Peacock, Brody, & Highfield, ; Williams, Brown, Greenberg, & Kahn, ; Woods, Eyck, Kaplowitz, & Shalpentokh, ; Zhang, Hwang, & Lindell, ). Yet, other studies found the natural hazards association small, mixed, or nonexistent (Arlikatti, Lindell, Prater, & Zhang, ; Carlton & Jacobson, ; Ludy, & Kondolf, ; Mileti & Darlington, ; Pagneux, Gísladóttir, & Jónsdóttir, ; Palm, Hodgson, Blanchard, & Lyons, ; Perry, Lindell, & Greene, ; Trumbo, Lueck, Marlatt, & Peek, ; Zhang, Prater, & Lindell, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus

Johnson¹

2018

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two 2017 experiments with a U.S. national opportunity sample tested effects of location, psychological distance (PD), and exposure to location-related information on Americans' Zika risk views and behavioral intentions. Location-distance from mosquito transmission of the virus in Florida and Texas; residence within states with 100+ Zika infections; residence within potential mosquito vector ranges-had small, inconsistent effects. Hazard proximity weakly enhanced personal risk judgments and concern about Zika transmission locally. It also increased psychological proximity, and intentions of mosquito control, avoiding travel to Zika-infected areas, and practicing safe sex. PD-particularly social and geographical distance, followed by temporal distance, with few effects for uncertainty-modestly and inconsistently decreased risk views and intentions. Exposure to location-related information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website-naming states with 100+ Zika cases; maps of potential mosquito vector habitat-increased risk views and psychological closeness, but not intentions; maps had slightly stronger if inconsistent effects versus prevalence information. Structural equation modeling (SEM) of a location > PD > risk views > intention path explained modest variance in intentions. This varied in degree and kind (e.g., which location measures were significant) across behaviors, and between pre- and postinformation exposure analyses. These results suggest need for both theoretical and measurement advances regarding effects of location and PD on risk views and behavior. PD mediates location effects on risk views. Online background information, like that used here, will not enhance protective behavior without explicitly focused communication and perhaps higher objective risk.

show abstract

Finnish reactions facing the threat of nuclear accidents in Russian nuclear power plants

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Health concerns and perceptions of central and coastal New Jersey residents in the 100days following Superstorm Sandy

Health concerns and perceptions of central and coastal New Jersey residents in the 100days following Superstorm Sandy

Concerns and perceptions immediately following Superstorm Sandy: ratings for property damage were higher than for health issues

Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About