A disaster by any other name?: COVID-19 and support for an All-Hazards approach.

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-07 DOI:10.1002/rhc3.12213

Samantha Penta, James Kendra, Valerie Marlowe, Kimberly Gill

{"title":"A disaster by any other name?: COVID-19 and support for an All-Hazards approach.","authors":"Samantha Penta, James Kendra, Valerie Marlowe, Kimberly Gill","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Disasters are among the crises that can test the decision making skill of elected and appointed public officials from planning through response and recovery. The COVID-19 crisis, a public health emergency rather than one with immediate damage to the built environment, has affected many aspects of community life. Experiences in responding to the pandemic will likely stimulate fresh planning initiatives for public health emergencies. How then should emergency planners approach planning and response tasks? The All-Hazards approach has been a mainstay of both research and policymaking for over 40 years, but it has come under recent criticism. In this paper, we consider if the All-Hazards approach to disaster management is still viable. Comparing the management needs that emerged in the pandemic with those of disasters from more familiar hazard agents, we conclude that the All-Hazards approach is valid and can continue to guide policymakers in their hazard and disaster management activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"12 3","pages":"240-265"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8251020/pdf/RHC3-12-240.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Disasters are among the crises that can test the decision making skill of elected and appointed public officials from planning through response and recovery. The COVID-19 crisis, a public health emergency rather than one with immediate damage to the built environment, has affected many aspects of community life. Experiences in responding to the pandemic will likely stimulate fresh planning initiatives for public health emergencies. How then should emergency planners approach planning and response tasks? The All-Hazards approach has been a mainstay of both research and policymaking for over 40 years, but it has come under recent criticism. In this paper, we consider if the All-Hazards approach to disaster management is still viable. Comparing the management needs that emerged in the pandemic with those of disasters from more familiar hazard agents, we conclude that the All-Hazards approach is valid and can continue to guide policymakers in their hazard and disaster management activities.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

任何其他名称的灾难？COVID-19 和对全灾方法的支持。

从规划到应对和恢复，灾害是考验民选和任命的公职人员决策能力的危机之一。COVID-19 危机是一场公共卫生紧急事件，而不是一场对建筑环境造成直接破坏的危机，它影响了社区生活的许多方面。应对大流行病的经验可能会激发新的公共卫生突发事件规划倡议。那么，应急规划人员应如何开展规划和应对工作呢？40 多年来，"全危险 "方法一直是研究和决策的主流，但最近受到了批评。在本文中，我们将探讨 "一切皆有可能 "的灾害管理方法是否仍然可行。将大流行病中出现的管理需求与更熟悉的危害因素造成的灾害需求进行比较，我们得出的结论是，"全危害 "方法是有效的，可以继续指导政策制定者开展危害和灾害管理活动。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

8.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Scholarship on risk, hazards, and crises (emergencies, disasters, or public policy/organizational crises) has developed into mature and distinct fields of inquiry. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) addresses the governance implications of the important questions raised for the respective fields. The relationships between risk, hazards, and crisis raise fundamental questions with broad social science and policy implications. During unstable situations of acute or chronic danger and substantial uncertainty (i.e. a crisis), important and deeply rooted societal institutions, norms, and values come into play. The purpose of RHCPP is to provide a forum for research and commentary that examines societies’ understanding of and measures to address risk,hazards, and crises, how public policies do and should address these concerns, and to what effect. The journal is explicitly designed to encourage a broad range of perspectives by integrating work from a variety of disciplines. The journal will look at social science theory and policy design across the spectrum of risks and crises — including natural and technological hazards, public health crises, terrorism, and societal and environmental disasters. Papers will analyze the ways societies deal with both unpredictable and predictable events as public policy questions, which include topics such as crisis governance, loss and liability, emergency response, agenda setting, and the social and cultural contexts in which hazards, risks and crises are perceived and defined. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy invites dialogue and is open to new approaches. We seek scholarly work that combines academic quality with practical relevance. We especially welcome authors writing on the governance of risk and crises to submit their manuscripts.