Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk Perception, Communication, and Attribution Factors

Abstract

In recent years, awareness about the risk of particulate matter (PM) has increased both domestically and internationally; consequently, various policies have been implemented to reduce PM. Since citizens are both victim and cause of this risk, PM cannot be successfully decreased only through government policies. Therefore, citizens’ active participation is required to reduce PM and prevent its risks. However, a theoretical model about public behavior against PM has not been established. Therefore, we suggest the public behavior model about individuals’ response against PM, in which response actions are classified into four types based on the combinations of the public-personal domains and mitigation-adaptation actions: Personal or public adaptations, and personal or public mitigations. We analyze how risk perception, risk communication, blame attribution factors influence the four types of responses against PM. The analysis results reveal that the receiver’s ability, negative emotion, trust in government, and age influence personal mitigation behavior, personal adaptation, public mitigation, and public adaptation, respectively. As this study demonstrates the differences in the factors influencing each type of response actions against PM, evidence-based policy is needed that considers the differences in these influencing factors.

Configurations for positive public behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis

“…These findings provide essential enlightenment for guiding rational public behavior and managing public opinion during emergencies. Besides, an exploratory theoretical model of four public behaviors based on the combinations of the public-personal domains and mitigation-adaptation actions was suggested against the risk of particulate matter (PM, a small air pollutant) by focusing on the roles of risk perception, communication, and attribution factors [ 21 ]. These results provide some enlightenment effect on selecting public behavioral factors and classifying behavioral coping strategies in our research.…”

“…However, the previous theories and models (TPB, cognition-affect theory) lack specificity in the context of COVID-19 crisis, and the specific public behavior theories were rarely reported. Furthermore, traditional statistical methods, such as principal component analysis, linear regression model, and path analysis [ 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 ], only clarify the quantitative correlation between the dependent and independent variables and cannot profoundly explain its further logical causality, which limits the theory’s explanatory power.…”

Searching for New Human Behavior Model in the Climate Change Age: Analyzing the Impact of Risk Perception and Government Factors on Intention–Action Consistency in Particulate Matter Mitigation

“…Second, in terms of theoretical frameworks, as causal factors influencing the intention and action toward PM, previous studies adopted the psychometric paradigm, known as the risk perception paradigm [ 3 , 27 ]. This paradigm was proposed by Slovic et al [ 28 ].…”

“…For example, mainly based on the psychometric paradigm, Jung and Kim [ 27 ] showed how not only self-efficacy, personal norms, information source credibility, psychological distance, and commitment to action but also perceived risk, perceived benefit, trust, and knowledge influence the judgement and action toward PM. In addition, Kim et al [ 3 ] showed that risk perception, communication, and attribution significantly influence the person or public mitigation and adaptation. In particular, perceived benefit, perceived risk, negative emotion, the receiver’s ability, and external attribution have an impact on them.…”

“…In tackling PM, individuals’ reduction efforts are as important as national public policy because they are not only victims of PM but also its producers. As the need for an active response from citizens for the effective implementation of policies has increased, response intention and action (i.e., response behavior) to PM has become an important research topic [ 3 ]. However, the existing literature reveals some theoretical limits, and they are as follows.…”