IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v55y2022i2d10.1007_s11077-022-09454-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What matters to citizens in crisis recovery? Being listened to, action, and confidence in government

Author

Listed:
  • Yoon Ah Shin

    (Arizona State University)

  • Young Ran Hyun

    (Ewha Womans University)

Abstract

The policy decision-making process in the aftermath of a crisis is a dynamic and iterative process involving circumstances that are emotionally convoluted rather than stable and rationally predictable. This research addresses the following question: To what extent do citizens’ fears and their perceptions of governmental responsiveness affect citizens’ confidence in the government’s disaster management capacity? By building a structural equation model, we also analyze the dual mediating effects of collective action by citizens. We find that citizens’ collective action mediates the effects of both these factors—citizen fear levels and governmental responsiveness—on citizens’ confidence in the government’s disaster management capacity. We test our hypotheses, using the 2014 Sewol Ferry accident case in South Korea, a striking disaster caused by human error resulting in the loss of 304 lives. This analysis offers practical lessons for governments on how best to engage citizens’ voices in the policy-making process. When citizens feel listened to and empathized with by their government, they become more supportive of the government’s recovery efforts. Collective action by citizens plays a critical role in channeling citizens’ feelings and communicating their feelings and opinions to the government while decreasing their fear level, which, in turn, increases citizens’ confidence in the government’s disaster management capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoon Ah Shin & Young Ran Hyun, 2022. "What matters to citizens in crisis recovery? Being listened to, action, and confidence in government," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 255-281, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:55:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-022-09454-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-022-09454-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-022-09454-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-022-09454-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katie Hoover & Marc J. Stern, 2014. "Team leaders' perceptions of public influence in the US Forest Service: exploring the difference between doing and using public involvement," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 157-172, February.
    2. Deeksha Sharma & Indiwar Mishra & Vaibhav Sharma, 2014. "Emotional Intelliegnce Among Employees Of Goverment And Public Sectors," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0201636, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    3. Hanno Degner, 2019. "Public Attention, Governmental Bargaining, and Supranational Activism: Explaining European Integration in Response to Crises," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 242-259, March.
    4. Jeffrey S. Juris, 2004. "Networked social movements: global movements for global justice," Chapters, in: Manuel Castells (ed.), The Network Society, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    6. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    7. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    8. Hetherington, Marc J., 1998. "The Political Relevance of Political Trust," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 791-808, December.
    9. Yoon Ah Shin & Tonghee Park, 2013. "Intention to Participate in Earthquake Response Training in Korea: Confidence in Government Management Capability and Cognitive Evaluation of Earthquake Risk through Fear," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 235-259, August.
    10. S. Andrew Predmore & Marc Stern & Michael Mortimer, 2011. "Constructing the public: the 'substantive sieve' and personal norms in US Forest Service Planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 403-419.
    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. Mohammad Reza Farzanegan & Hans Philipp Hofmann, 2021. "A Matter of Trust? Political Trust and the Covid-19 Pandemic," CESifo Working Paper Series 9121, CESifo.
    2. Collewet, Marion & Fairley, Kim & Kessels, Roselinde & Knoef, Marike & van Vliet, Olaf, 2024. "The design of welfare: unraveling taxpayers' preferences," OSF Preprints 4am7e, Center for Open Science.
    3. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    4. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Marija Džunić & Nataša Golubović & Srđan Marinković, 2020. "Determinants Of Institutional Trust In Transition Economies: Lessons From Serbia," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 65(225), pages 135-162, April – J.
    6. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    7. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. O O Ibitayo & K D Pijawka, 1999. "Reversing NIMBY: An Assessment of State Strategies for Siting Hazardous-Waste Facilities," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 17(4), pages 379-389, August.
    9. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    10. Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Luis Guirola & Gonzalo Rivero, 2022. "Polarization contaminates the link with partisan and independent institutions: evidence from 138 cabinet shifts," Working Papers 2237, Banco de España.
    12. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    13. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    14. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    16. Yann Algan & Pierre Cahuc & Marc Sangnier, 2016. "Trust and the Welfare State: the Twin Peaks Curve," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(593), pages 861-883, June.
    17. Timothy Besley & Sacha Dray, 2022. "Trust as state capacity: The political economy of compliance," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2022-135, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Katharina Löhr & Christian Hochmuth & Frieder Graef & Jane Wambura & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Conflict management programs in trans-disciplinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1189-1201, December.
    19. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    20. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.

    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:kap:policy:v:55:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-022-09454-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.