全面防御弹性:在COVID-19期间可行与否?挪威与英国的比较研究。

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy Pub Date : 2021-03-01 Epub Date: 2020-12-03 DOI:10.1002/rhc3.12207
Kevin Pollock, Riana Steen
{"title":"全面防御弹性:在COVID-19期间可行与否?挪威与英国的比较研究。","authors":"Kevin Pollock,&nbsp;Riana Steen","doi":"10.1002/rhc3.12207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The total defence (TD) concept aims to provide an effective crisis response structure by increasing society resilience. However, the complexity of its structure regarding resource mobilization and management process highlights the need for a complexity-oriented approach in the operationalising of TD. We study the application of TD during the COVID-19 crisis and explore what makes the TD a viable system with resilience capabilities in the face the crisis. We apply the Viable Systems Model as a methodology to compare the viability of the United Kingdom and Norwegian TD systems, both of which use systems networks to achieve resilience, and contrast the different outcomes of each country. Our analysis highlights that: Managing the complexity of the TDS requires that all of the involved agencies proactively adopt a transparent approach to a joint decision making. This demands a wide range of sources of innovative solutions at different levels. Joint exercises, developed by the responsible agencies, enhance mutual understating of roles and responsibilities and crisis response structure. This calls for institutionalized support to dedicate resources. To avoid communications challenges, involved agencies in the TDS need to adopt an open messaging strategy, highlighting how to deal with uncertainties in communicating of decisions and action.</p>","PeriodicalId":21362,"journal":{"name":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","volume":"12 1","pages":"73-109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/rhc3.12207","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total Defence Resilience: Viable or Not During COVID-19? A Comparative Study of Norway and the UK.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Pollock,&nbsp;Riana Steen\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rhc3.12207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The total defence (TD) concept aims to provide an effective crisis response structure by increasing society resilience. However, the complexity of its structure regarding resource mobilization and management process highlights the need for a complexity-oriented approach in the operationalising of TD. We study the application of TD during the COVID-19 crisis and explore what makes the TD a viable system with resilience capabilities in the face the crisis. We apply the Viable Systems Model as a methodology to compare the viability of the United Kingdom and Norwegian TD systems, both of which use systems networks to achieve resilience, and contrast the different outcomes of each country. Our analysis highlights that: Managing the complexity of the TDS requires that all of the involved agencies proactively adopt a transparent approach to a joint decision making. This demands a wide range of sources of innovative solutions at different levels. Joint exercises, developed by the responsible agencies, enhance mutual understating of roles and responsibilities and crisis response structure. This calls for institutionalized support to dedicate resources. To avoid communications challenges, involved agencies in the TDS need to adopt an open messaging strategy, highlighting how to deal with uncertainties in communicating of decisions and action.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"73-109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/rhc3.12207\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/12/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

全面防御(TD)概念旨在通过增加社会弹性提供有效的危机应对结构。然而,其在资源调动和管理过程方面的结构的复杂性突出表明,在开发计划署的运作中需要一种面向复杂性的办法。我们研究了TD在2019冠状病毒病危机中的应用,并探讨了是什么使TD在危机面前成为一个具有弹性能力的可行系统。我们将可行系统模型作为一种方法来比较英国和挪威输配电系统的可行性,这两个系统都使用系统网络来实现弹性,并对比每个国家的不同结果。我们的分析强调:管理TDS的复杂性要求所有相关机构主动采用透明的方法进行联合决策。这就要求在不同层次上有广泛的创新解决方案来源。由负责机构开展的联合演习增进了对作用和责任以及危机应对结构的相互了解。这就需要制度化的支持,以投入资源。为了避免通信挑战,TDS的相关机构需要采用开放的消息传递策略,强调如何处理决策和行动通信中的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Total Defence Resilience: Viable or Not During COVID-19? A Comparative Study of Norway and the UK.

The total defence (TD) concept aims to provide an effective crisis response structure by increasing society resilience. However, the complexity of its structure regarding resource mobilization and management process highlights the need for a complexity-oriented approach in the operationalising of TD. We study the application of TD during the COVID-19 crisis and explore what makes the TD a viable system with resilience capabilities in the face the crisis. We apply the Viable Systems Model as a methodology to compare the viability of the United Kingdom and Norwegian TD systems, both of which use systems networks to achieve resilience, and contrast the different outcomes of each country. Our analysis highlights that: Managing the complexity of the TDS requires that all of the involved agencies proactively adopt a transparent approach to a joint decision making. This demands a wide range of sources of innovative solutions at different levels. Joint exercises, developed by the responsible agencies, enhance mutual understating of roles and responsibilities and crisis response structure. This calls for institutionalized support to dedicate resources. To avoid communications challenges, involved agencies in the TDS need to adopt an open messaging strategy, highlighting how to deal with uncertainties in communicating of decisions and action.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
20
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.
期刊最新文献
“Fight or flight”—A study of frontline emergency response workforce's perceived knowledge, and motivation to work during hazards Unequal burials: Medicolegal death investigation system variation as a determinant of FEMA's disaster funeral assistance allocation Translating global norms into national action. Insights from the implementation of societal security norms in Sweden Innovation and adaption in local governments in the face of COVID‐19: Determinants of effective crisis management Explaining regulatory change in the European Union: The role of the financial crisis in ratcheting up of risk regulation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1