IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i5p831-d211830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Geographic Context of Risk Perception and Behavioral Response to Potential Ebola Exposure

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Shook

    (Department of Geography, Environment, and Society, University of Minnesota, 414 Social Sciences Building, 267 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA)

  • Andrew Curtis

    (Department of Geography, GIS, Health & Hazards Lab, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240, USA)

  • Jacqueline Curtis

    (Department of Geography, GIS, Health & Hazards Lab, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44240, USA)

  • Gregory Gibson

    (Department of Sociology, Kent State University, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA)

  • Anthony Vander Horst

    (Department of Sociology, Kent State University, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA)

  • Virginia Little

    (Department of Sociology, Kent State University, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA)

  • Christopher Woolverton

    (College of Public Health, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA)

Abstract

The 2014–2016 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic outbreak reached over 28,000 cases and totaled over 11,000 deaths with 4 confirmed cases in the United States, which sparked widespread public concern about nationwide spread of EVD. Concern was elevated in locations connected to the infected people, which included Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. This threat of exposure enabled a unique opportunity to assess self-reported knowledge about EVD, risk perception, and behavior response to EVD. Unlike existing studies, which often survey one point in time across geographically coarse scales, this work offers insights into the geographic context of risk perception and behavior at finer-grained spatial and temporal scales. We report results from 3138 respondents comprised of faculty, staff, and students at two time periods. Results reveal increased EVD knowledge, decreased risk perception, and reduction in protective actions during this time. Faculty had the lowest perceived risk, followed by staff and then students, suggesting the role of education in this outcome. However, the most impactful result is the proof-of-concept for this study design to be deployed in the midst of a disease outbreak. Such geographically targeted and temporally dynamic surveys distributed during an outbreak can show where and when risk perception and behaviors change, which can provide policy-makers with rapid results that can shape intervention practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Shook & Andrew Curtis & Jacqueline Curtis & Gregory Gibson & Anthony Vander Horst & Virginia Little & Christopher Woolverton, 2019. "Assessing the Geographic Context of Risk Perception and Behavioral Response to Potential Ebola Exposure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-6, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:831-:d:211830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/831/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/831/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Taixiang Duan & Hechao Jiang & Xiangshu Deng & Qiongwen Zhang & Fang Wang, 2020. "Government Intervention, Risk Perception, and the Adoption of Protective Action Recommendations: Evidence from the COVID-19 Prevention and Control Experience of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Ye, Maoxin & Lyu, Zeyu, 2020. "Trust, risk perception, and COVID-19 infections: Evidence from multilevel analyses of combined original dataset in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    4. Taixiang Duan & Zhonggen Sun & Guoqing Shi, 2021. "Sustained Effects of Government Response on the COVID-19 Infection Rate in China: A Multiple Mediation Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Adloff, Susann, 2021. "Adapting to Climate Change: Threat Experience, Cognition and Protection Motivation," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242400, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    7. Anna C. M. Queiroz & Géraldine Fauville & Adina T. Abeles & Aaron Levett & Jeremy N. Bailenson, 2023. "The Efficacy of Virtual Reality in Climate Change Education Increases with Amount of Body Movement and Message Specificity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    9. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    10. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    11. Tara Kirk Sell & Crystal Watson & Diane Meyer & Marissa Kronk & Sanjana Ravi & Laura E. Pechta & Keri M. Lubell & Dale A. Rose, 2018. "Frequency of Risk‐Related News Media Messages in 2016 Coverage of Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2514-2524, December.
    12. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    14. Jia, Ling & Qian, Queena K. & Meijer, Frits & Visscher, Henk, 2021. "How information stimulates homeowners’ cooperation in residential building energy retrofits in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    15. Tao Xu & Mengyuan Shao & Ruiquan Liu & Xiaoqin Wu & Kai Zheng, 2023. "Risk Perception, Perceived Government Coping Validity, and Individual Response in the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    16. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    17. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    18. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    19. Annabelle Workman & Penelope J. Jones & Amanda J. Wheeler & Sharon L. Campbell & Grant J. Williamson & Chris Lucani & David M.J.S. Bowman & Nick Cooling & Fay H. Johnston, 2021. "Environmental Hazards and Behavior Change: User Perspectives on the Usability and Effectiveness of the AirRater Smartphone App," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    20. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:831-:d:211830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.