Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy最新文献

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.

Evidence suggests that people vary in their desire to undertake protective actions during a health emergency, and that trust in authorities may influence decision making. We sought to examine how the trust in health experts and trust in White House leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic impacts individuals' decisions to adopt recommended protective actions such as mask-wearing. A mediation analysis was conducted using cross-sectional U.S. survey data collected between March 27 and 30, 2020, to elucidate how individuals' trust in health experts and White House leadership, their perceptions of susceptibility and severity to COVID-19, and perceived benefits of protecting against COVID-19, influenced their uptake of recommended protective actions. Trust in health experts was associated with greater perceived severity of COVID-19 and benefits of taking action, which led to greater uptake of recommended actions. Trust in White House leadership was associated with lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and was not associated with taking recommended actions. Having trust in health experts is a greater predictor of individuals' uptake of protective actions than having trust in White House leadership. Public health messaging should emphasize the severity of COVID-19 and the benefits of protecting oneself while ensuring consistency and transparency to regain trust in health experts.

How does calculated inaction affect subsequent responses to the COVID-19 crisis? We argue that when governments employ calculated inaction during crises, they are more likely to manipulate the technical (scientific) aspects of national responses and highlight symbolic politics, each in the name of projecting power and strengthening the regime's governing authority. Using theoretical insight from McConnell and 't Hart's policy inaction typology, we investigate sense-making and crisis response narratives in China and Greece. We conclude with implications for policymaking and the crisis management literature.

Centuries of practice and an array of public health literature support social distancing (SD), or self-quarantine, as a valuable nonpharmaceutical intervention. To convince individuals to engage in behaviors that limit infection, public health professionals communicate risk and hazard based on application of protection motivation theory (PMT). The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to explore the efficacy of PMT in the context of a novel coronavirus with unique public health implications. We test an integrative conceptual model of social distancing compliance in U.S. counties and examine the mediating impact of SD on community spread of infection. We find that PMT does impact individual behavior, observing that the proportion of vulnerable populations affects social distancing compliance. However, actions to protect individual health are made within the context of economic concerns and priorities. While results indicate that PMT influences behavior, the expected relationship between that behavior and spread of disease in the community is not found. We do not repudiate SD or the value of PMT, but we suggest that these results may indicate that communication of risk in the context of COVID-19 may need community, as well as individual, framing.