Public risk perception of covid-19 transmission and support for compact development

The study examines whether perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission reduces public support for compact development in the United States. Compact development—higher densities, more multifamily housing, and greater public transit access—has been promoted for sustainability, accessibility, and livability benefits. However, COVID-19 highlighted concerns about density, crowding, and public transit as potential vectors of transmission, with mixed empirical evidence on the role of urban form. With public opinion strongly influencing local development policy in the US, this research assesses how concern about COVID-19 transmission relates to support for compact development policies and tests specific hypotheses linking concern, geographic context (population density, COVID-19 caseload), information sources, and sociodemographic characteristics to policy support.

Urban planning has historically responded to epidemics (e.g., sanitary reforms after cholera). Recent decades emphasized sustainability, equity, and resilience, with compact development as a key strategy to address environmental degradation and urbanization. During COVID-19, density and public transit were intensely debated concerning transmission risk; early studies often linked higher density to greater incidence, though later analyses accounting for public health measures found attenuated or no effects. Public transit saw large ridership declines globally due to perceived risk. Media played a major role in shaping risk perceptions, potentially amplifying fear of dense environments. The study posits that sustained media emphasis on crowding and transmission might decrease support for compact policies. Hypotheses predict: higher concern reduces support; higher density and higher caseload increase concern (and may influence support); greater reliance on news/online media increases concern and reduces support; single-family residents show lower concern and support; older adults show higher concern and greater support; women show higher concern and support; higher education lowers concern and raises support; higher income lowers concern and lowers support (tested empirically).

Design: Cross-sectional online survey via SurveyMonkey Audience conducted in April 2022 due to ongoing transmission concerns precluding in-person surveys. Sampling: US residents aged 18+, contiguous states; invitations balanced by gender and age using ACS 2016–2020 5-year estimates. Final sample: n = 1100, from 817 counties across 44 contiguous states and DC. Pilot: 10 respondents; no instrument changes needed. Measures: Outcome constructs—(1) Concern for COVID-19 transmission (1=Not at all to 5=Very great extent). (2) Support for compact development measured via three items: support for increased housing density, more multifamily homes, and greater access to public transit (each 1–5 scale). Predictor variables—Residence type (single-family vs. other); information sources for COVID-19 (reliance on news/online media; reliance on friends/family), each on 1–5 scales; demographics (age categories: 18–29, 30–44, 45–60, >60; gender; education levels; annual household income brackets). Contextual variables—County population density (ACS 2016–2020); cumulative COVID-19 cases per 10,000 residents through March 2022 (Dong et al. 2020). Descriptives: Concern mean 2.97 (SD 1.17); support means—density 3.80 (SD 1.14), multifamily 3.45 (SD 1.24), transit access 2.95 (SD 1.21). 31.1% reported great/very great concern; 60.9% expressed great/very great support for higher density, 47.9% for multifamily, 33% for transit access. Residence type: 77.3% single-family. Information sources: news/online mean 3.01 (SD 0.97); friends/family mean 2.73 (SD 1.08). Population density mean 1179.6 (SD 4939.5); cumulative cases mean 80,928.5 (SD 168,516.9) per 10,000 (as provided in dataset description). Analysis: Zero-order correlations among all variables; then Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to estimate relationships between county density, COVID-19 caseload, residence type, information sources, demographics, concern for transmission, and support for compact development (latent indicated by the three policy items). Estimation used maximum likelihood with robust MLR to address non-normality; multicollinearity assessed via VIF < 2 for all variables. Model fit: χ²(20)=118.95, p<0.001; SRMR=0.027; RMSEA=0.049; CFI=0.97, indicating acceptable fit.

- Primary relationship: Higher perceived concern for COVID-19 transmission is associated with lower support for compact development (SEM negative path), confirming H1. - Mediated effects: County population density and COVID-19 caseload both positively relate to concern for transmission; elevated concern in turn reduces support, implying a mediated reduction of support in higher-density and higher-caseload areas. - Information sources: Reliance on news/online media positively relates to concern and negatively to support for compact development. Reliance on friends/family is negatively related to support; its path to concern was not significant in SEM (despite positive bivariate correlations). - Residence type: Living in a single-family home is negatively related to support for compact development; it is not significantly related to concern. - Demographics: Age is positively related to both concern and support. Household income is negatively related to concern and positively related to support. Education is positively related to concern; its relationship to support is not significant. Gender shows no significant relationships with concern or support. - Descriptive support levels: 60.9% reported great/very great support for higher density; 47.9% for more multifamily housing; 33% for greater transit access. Concern levels: 31.1% great/very great, 34.3% moderate, 34.7% none/small extent. - Model fit: χ²(20)=118.95, p<0.001; SRMR=0.027; RMSEA=0.049; CFI=0.97.

Findings indicate that perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission suppresses public support for compact development, addressing the core research question about risk perception’s policy implications. Even where empirical links between density and transmission are mixed, public perceptions—shaped by experiences, local caseload, and media narratives—associate compactness with crowding and infection risk. County density and caseload raise concern, which mediates lower support. Media and interpersonal information channels appear to reinforce caution toward compact policies, with news/online media increasing concern and both media and social networks associated with lower support. Sociodemographic patterns suggest older adults, despite higher concern and vulnerability, continue to support compact living—possibly due to amenity and social benefits—while higher-income households both feel less at risk and are more supportive, potentially aiding policy adoption. Single-family homeowners’ opposition remains a structural barrier to compact policy implementation. Overall, results underscore the need for integrating public health safeguards and risk communication into compact development strategies to realign perceptions with evidence and maintain support.

This study contributes early post-pandemic empirical evidence that higher perceived COVID-19 transmission risk reduces public support for compact development (density, multifamily housing, transit access). Concern is elevated in higher-density and higher-caseload counties, indirectly dampening support in such areas. Media and social information channels are linked to lower support, highlighting the importance of communication strategies. Older and higher-income respondents are more supportive, while single-family residents are less supportive. Policymakers should incorporate public health measures—enhanced cleanliness, ventilation, crowding management—and clear risk communication into compact development planning to sustain public backing. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to track evolving perceptions, disentangle dimensions of risk (vulnerability vs. severity), and examine contextual moderators (e.g., health infrastructure, neighborhood design features) to better inform policy and design interventions.

- Cross-sectional design limits causal inference; observed relationships may reflect contemporaneous perceptions (April 2022) and could change over time. - Potential survey response bias cannot be ruled out. - Use of an opt-in online panel may introduce undercoverage and self-selection biases; despite gender/age balancing and wide geographic coverage, generalizability is limited. - Single-item measure of perceived risk may not capture distinct dimensions (e.g., vulnerability vs. severity) of COVID-19 risk perception. - Results reflect a specific post-pandemic phase; future outbreaks or changing conditions may alter public support trajectories.