Purpose Adverse health impact of air pollution on health may not only be associated with the level of exposure, but rather mediated by perception of the pollution and by top-down processing (e.g. beliefs of the exposure being hazardous), especially in areas with relatively low levels of pollutants. The aim of this study was to test a model that describes interrelations between air pollution (particles < 10 \({\upmu }\)m, PM₁₀), perceived pollution, health risk perception, health symptoms and diseases. Methods A population-based questionnaire study was conducted among 1000 Estonian residents (sample was stratified by age, sex, and geographical location) about health risk perception and coping. The PM₁₀ levels were modelled in 1 × 1 km grids using a Eulerian air quality dispersion model. Respondents were ascribed their annual mean PM₁₀ exposure according to their home address. Path analysis was performed to test the validity of the model. Results The data refute the model proposing that exposure level significantly influences symptoms and disease. Instead, the perceived exposure influences symptoms and the effect of perceived exposure on disease is mediated by health risk perception. This relationship is more pronounced in large cities compared to smaller towns or rural areas. Conclusions Perceived pollution and health risk perception, in particular in large cities, play important roles in understanding and predicting environmentally induced symptoms and diseases at relatively low levels of air pollution.

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 propelled the creation, transmission, and consumption of false information – unverified claims, misleading statements, false rumours, conspiracy theories, and so on – all around the world. When various official or unofficial sources issue erroneous, misleading or contradicting information during a crisis, people who are exposed to this may behave in ways that cause harm to the health and well-being of themselves or others, e.g., by not taking appropriate risk reducing measures or blaming or harassing vulnerable groups. To work towards a typology of informational content that may increase people’s vulnerability in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, we explored 98 instances of potentially harmful information that spread in six European countries – France, Italy, Norway, Finland, Lithuania, and Estonia – between March and May 2020. We suggest that during the pandemic, exposure to harmful information may have made people more vulnerable in six ways: (1) by discouraging appropriate protective actions against catching/spreading the virus, (2) by promoting the use of false (or harmful) remedies against the virus, (3) by misrepresenting the transmission mechanisms of the virus, (4) by downplaying the risks related to the pandemic, (5) by tricking people into buying fake protection against the virus or into revealing their confidential information, and (6) by victimising the alleged spreaders of the virus by harassment/hate speech. The proposed typology can be used to guide the development of risk communication plans to address each of these information-related vulnerabilities.

While social vulnerability in the face of disasters has received increasing academic attention, relatively little is known about the extent to which that knowledge is reflected in practice by institutions involved in disaster management. This study charts the practitioners’ approaches to disaster vulnerability in eight European countries: Belgium; Estonia; Finland; Germany; Hungary; Italy; Norway; and Sweden. It draws on a comparative document analysis and 95 interviews with disaster managers and reveals significant differences across countries in terms of the ontology of vulnerability, its sources, reduction strategies, and the allocation of related duties. To advance the debate and provide conceptual clarity, we put forward a heuristic model to facilitate different understandings of vulnerability along the dimensions of human agency and technological structures as well as social support through private relations and state actors. This could guide risk analysis of and planning for major hazards and could be adapted further to particular types of disasters.