Dataset Information

Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites.

ABSTRACT: Whether on grounds of perceived safety, aesthetics, or overall quality of life, residents may wish to be aware of nearby energy sites such as nuclear reactors, refineries, and fracking wells. Yet people are not always accurate in their impressions of proximity. Indeed, our data show that only 54% of Americans living within 25 miles of a nuclear site say they do, and even fewer fracking-proximal (30%) and refinery-proximal (24%) residents respond accurately. In this article, we analyze factors that could either help people form more accurate perceptions or distort their impressions of proximity. We evaluate these hypotheses using a large national survey sample and corresponding geographic information system (GIS) data. Results show that among those living in close proximity to energy sites, those who perceive greater risk are less likely to report living nearby. Conversely, social contact with employees of these industries increases perceived proximity regardless of actual distance. These relationships are consistent across each site type we examine. Other potential factors-such as local news use-may play a role in proximity perception on a case-by-case basis. Our findings are an important step toward a more generalizable understanding of how the public forms perceptions of proximity to risk sites, showing multiple potential mechanisms of bias.

SUBMITTER: Lyons BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7027911 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites.

Lyons Benjamin A BA Akin Heather H Stroud Natalie Jomini NJ

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 20190827 2

Whether on grounds of perceived safety, aesthetics, or overall quality of life, residents may wish to be aware of nearby energy sites such as nuclear reactors, refineries, and fracking wells. Yet people are not always accurate in their impressions of proximity. Indeed, our data show that only 54% of Americans living within 25 miles of a nuclear site say they do, and even fewer fracking-proximal (30%) and refinery-proximal (24%) residents respond accurately. In this article, we analyze factors th ...[more]

PMID: 31454092

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe willingness of Africa's population to patronise the COVID-19 vaccines is critical to the efficiency of national immunisation programmes. This study surveys the views of adult African inhabitants toward vaccination and the possibility of participating or not participating in governments' efforts to get citizens vaccinated.MethodA cross-sectional online survey of adult Africans was undertaken from December 2020 to March 2021. Responses were anonymised. The Pearson Chi-square test was performed to determine whether or not there were any variations in knowledge, awareness, perception and acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccines among the participants. Binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with willingness to accept the COVID-19 vaccines and participate in immunisation programmes.ResultsThe results indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are more likely to be used by adult Africans over the age of 18 who are largely technologically savvy (55 percent) if the vaccine is made broadly available. A total of 33 percent of those who responded said they were unlikely to receive the vaccine, with another 15 percent stating they were undecided. Aside from that, we found that vaccine hesitancy was closely associated with socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education and source of information. We also found that there were widespread conspiracies and myths about the COVID-19 vaccines.ConclusionMore than one-third of African adults who participated in the survey indicated they would not receive the COVID-19 vaccine, with majority of them expressing skepticisms about the vaccine's efficacy. It is possible that many of the people who would not be vaccinated would have an impact on the implementation of a COVID-19 immunisation programme that is meant for all of society. Majority of the respondents were unwilling to pay for the COVID-19 vaccines when made available. An awareness campaign should be focused on promoting the benefits of vaccination at the individual and population levels, as well as on taking preemptive actions to debunk misconceptions about the vaccines before they become further widespread.

Project description:ObjectivesIn this study, we aimed to measure the awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues in biosecurity posed by infectious diseases dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the community. DURC is conducted today in many locations around the world for the benefit of humanity but may also cause harm through either a laboratory accident or deliberate misuse. Most DURC is approved by animal ethics committees, which do not typically consider harm to humans. Given the unique characteristics of contagion and the potential for epidemics and pandemics, the community is an important stakeholder in DURC.DesignSelf-administered web-based cross-sectional survey.ParticipantsParticipants over the age of 18 in Australia and 21 in the USA were included in the survey. A total of 604 participants completed the study. The results of 52 participants were excluded due to potential biases about DURC stemming from their employment as medical researchers, infectious diseases researchers or law enforcement professionals, leaving 552 participants. Of those, 274 respondents resided in Australia and 278 in the USA.OutcomesBaseline awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues surrounding DURC. Changes in perception from baseline were measured after provision of information about DURC.ResultsPresurvey, 77% of respondents were unaware of DURC and 64% found it unacceptable or were unsure. Two-thirds of respondents did not change their views. The baseline perception of high risk for laboratory accidents (29%) and deliberate bioterrorism (34%) was low but increased with increasing provision of information (42% and 44% respectively, p<0.001), with men more accepting of DURC (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.57, p=0.002). Postsurvey, higher education predicted lower risk perception of laboratory accidents (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p=0.02) and bioterrorism (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80, p=0.004).ConclusionThe community is an important stakeholder in infectious diseases DURC but has a low awareness of this kind of research. Only a minority support DURC, and this proportion decreased with increasing provision of knowledge. There were differences of opinion between age groups, gender and education levels. The community should be informed and engaged in decisions about DURC.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments.MethodsThe national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert).ResultsThirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%).ConclusionsOrganizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs.

Project description:BackgroundMis-implementation (i.e., the premature termination or inappropriate continuation of public health programs) contributes to the misallocation of limited public health resources and the sub-optimal response to the growing global burden of chronic disease. This study seeks to describe the occurrence of mis-implementation in four countries of differing sizes, wealth, and experience with evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP).MethodsA cross-sectional study of 400 local public health practitioners in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States was conducted from November 2015 to April 2016. Online survey questions focused on how often mis-termination and mis-continuation occur and the most common reasons programs end and continue.ResultsWe found significant differences in knowledge of EBCDP across countries with upwards of 75% of participants from Australia (n = 91/121) and the United States (n = 83/101) reporting being moderately to extremely knowledgeable compared with roughly 60% (n = 47/76) from Brazil and 20% (n = 21/102) from China (p < 0.05). Far greater proportions of participants from China thought effective programs were never mis-terminated (12.2% (n = 12/102) vs. 1% (n = 2/121) in Australia, 2.6% (n = 2/76) in Brazil, and 1.0% (n = 1/101) in the United States; p < 0.05) or were unable to estimate how frequently this happened (45.9% (n = 47/102) vs. 7.1% (n = 7/101) in the United States, 10.5% (n = 8/76) in Brazil, and 1.7% (n = 2/121) in Australia; p < 0.05). The plurality of participants from Australia (58.0%, n = 70/121) and the United States (36.8%, n = 37/101) reported that programs often mis-continued whereas most participants from Brazil (60.5%, n = 46/76) and one third (n = 37/102) of participants from China believed this happened only sometimes (p < 0.05). The availability of funding and support from political authorities, agency leadership, and the general public were common reasons programs continued and ended across all countries. A program's effectiveness or evidence-base-or lack thereof-were rarely reasons for program continuation and termination.ConclusionsDecisions about continuing or ending a program were often seen as a function of program popularity and funding availability as opposed to effectiveness. Policies and practices pertaining to programmatic decision-making should be improved in light of these findings. Future studies are needed to understand and minimize the individual, organizational, and political-level drivers of mis-implementation.

Dataset Information

Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites.

Publications

Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets