Search

Copyright of Disasters is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper explores and analyses the activities of Swedish organised crisis volunteers during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Based on a questionnaire and interviews, it sets out to answer two research questions on what characterised organised volunteerism during the pandemic, how organised volunteers experienced cooperation with local public actors, and how they viewed political steering. The paper contributes to a growing literature on the role of volunteers and links that role to views on political steering, something that is rarely done in disaster research. Sweden is a useful case study because of how COVID‐19 was managed, as well as because there are organised crisis volunteers and a debate is occurring on how the national system is steered. The paper shows how organised volunteers adapted to changing needs and adopted new roles, that experiences of cooperation with local authorities varied, and that calls were made for a stronger national leadership and for more explicit central political steering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses findings of the 'PROWELLMIGRANTS'2 project, which qualitatively investigated COVID‐19 impacts on migrants' well‐being and mental health in Kerala, India. It draws on a novel conceptual framework that combines assemblage‐thinking with theories of social contracts in disasters. The paper first explores how past development processes and contemporary migration policies in Kerala, and India more widely, generated conditions of vulnerability for migrant workers in Kerala prior to the pandemic. Next it shows that Government of Kerala interventions, in some cases supported by the central Government of India, temporarily addressed these vulnerabilities during the pandemic. In acknowledging the helpful response of the Kerala government, we problematise its stance on migrant workers during 'normal' times and speculate that permanently addressing these conditions of vulnerability would be a more logical approach. We acknowledge this involves overcoming many wider barriers. Thus, the paper also contains national‐level policy implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Disasters is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How to respond quickly, effectively, and sensitively to large‐scale crises is debated at length in the aid sector. Institutional focuses on projects and outcomes have led to abundant literature on the efficacy of external interventions, while the actions of individuals and communities to meet their own needs remain under researched. This paper seeks to close the gap by joining global trends and specific case studies to explore the scale, breadth, and characteristics of citizen and community‐led responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic of 2020–21. Using mixed methods, it argues that mutual aid, self‐help, and other spontaneous community measures were vital to the early response to Covid‐19 globally. Such endeavours have limitations, however, which can be strengthened with the right national and international support. The paper concludes by calling on authorities and aid actors to widen their understanding of 'first response' and provide meaning ful support to mutual aid and local self‐help initiatives now and in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Covid‐19 pandemic has magnified existing crises and vulnerabilities, but much remains unknown about how it has affected fragile and conflict‐affected settings. This paper builds on the theory that hazards become a disaster in interaction with vulnerability and response policies, yet often lead to renewed disaster risk creation. It is based on seven case studies of countries worldwide that experienced social conflict at the advent of the pandemic, covering the period from March–August 2020. The findings show that authorities instrumentalised Covid‐19 to strengthen their control and agendas. Responsibility was assumed for lockdowns, but this was not accompanied by care to mitigate their adverse effects. Social conflict shaped the response, as high levels of mistrust in authorities complicated the implementation of measures, while authorities did not support community‐based coping initiatives. Whether Covid‐19 will trigger or exacerbate conflict and vulnerabilities depends on pre‐existing, country‐specific conditions, and how a government and other actors frame the issue and respond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Disasters is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Covid‐19 crises in the United Kingdom and the United States show how democracies may struggle to confront disasters that are increasingly impinging on the Global North. This paper highlights the extent to which disasters are now 'coming home' to Western democracies and it looks at some of the principal reasons why democracy has not been especially protective, at least in the case of the UK and the US. These include: reconceptualising disaster as a good thing (via 'herd immunity'); the influence of neoliberalism; and the limitations in the circulation of information. A key pandemic‐related danger is the conclusion that democracy itself is discredited. Disasters, though, call for a reinvigoration of democracy, not a knee‐jerk invocation of autocratic 'emergency' rule. A fundamental problem in the UK and US is that these countries were not democratic enough. The paper underlines the risk of a move towards a disaster‐producing system that is self‐reinforcing rather than self‐correcting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coping and recovery capabilities in disasters depend to a large part on the social resilience of the societies or regions that are hit by the respective disruptions. Prior disaster studies suggest a variety of indicators to assess social resilience in the natural hazard context. This paper discusses whether the most common disaster‐related social resilience indicators, including social cohesion and support, can meaningfully capture social resilience in pandemic crises, since pandemics typically entail physical distancing and other social restrictions. Based on a review of frequently used social resilience measures, this study proposes pandemic‐tailored indicators of social resilience to map a society's or region's coping and recovery capabilities in a meaningful way. Applying the suggested set of indicators to a sample of 1,500 residents surveyed in Switzerland during the summer 2020 phase of the COVID‐19 crisis revealed low levels of social support and community engagement, but a high level of willingness to help others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Disasters is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Covid‐19 pandemic has been a massive disaster in Brazil, causing more than 350,000 deaths as of April 2021. Moreover, President Jair Bolsonaro suggested that already marginalised groups should take what came to them, as if they were an expendable surplus in his necropolitical perspective. However, civil society initiatives are emerging to tackle the impacts of this crisis. This paper adds to current literature on the forms and levels of resistance to disasters, using primary and secondary data pertaining to three key Brazilian groups: domestic workers; the urban poor in favelas; and indigenous Amazonians. The analysis indicates that their historical, political resistance has been a foundation upon which to develop disaster mitigation and their actions have built on and gone beyond previous modes of organising. More specifically, their responses have replaced a 'present–absent' federal government, entailed local, innovative adaptations, led to new public–private sector relations, and may offer the prospect of consolidation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak of Covid‐19 in China during the Spring Festival of 2020 has changed life as we knew it. To explore its impact on China's economy, we analyse the daily railway passenger volume data during the Spring Festival travel rush and establish two RegARMA models to predict GDP in the first quarter. The models forecast China might lose 4.8 trillion yuan in the first quarter of 2020 due to Covid‐19, an expected decrease of 20.69 percent (year‐on‐year drop 15.60 percent). However, comparing our forecast GDP without Covid‐19 (23.2 trillion yuan) with the real GDP (20.65 trillion yuan), there is a smaller drop of 2.55 trillion yuan, a gap of 12.35 percent. The reason for this overestimation is that some positive factors, including macro‐control policies, are neglected in these models. With the global spread of Covid‐19, China should adopt a policy of focusing on balancing both domestic and external affairs against the instability of the world economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Covid‐19 pandemic has challenged the resilience of care organisations (and those dependent on them), especially when services are stopped or restricted. This study focuses on the experiences of care organisations that offer services to individuals in highly precarious situations in 10 European countries. It is based on 32 qualitative interviews and three workshops with managers and staff. The four key types of organisations reviewed largely had the same adaptation patterns in all countries. The most drastic changes were experienced by day centres, which had to suspend or digitise services, whereas night shelters and soup kitchens had to reorganise broadly their work; residential facilities were minimally affected. Given the drastic surge in demand for services, reliance on an overburdened (volunteer) workforce, and a lack of crisis plans, the care organisations with long‐term trust networks with clients and intra‐organisational cooperation adapted easier. The outcomes were worse for new clients, migrants, psychologically vulnerable people, and those with limited communicative abilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The response to the Covid‐19 pandemic in 2020–21 was dominated by the Westphalian primacy of national territory and sovereignty, significantly worsening and prolonging this crisis. Global platforms for cross‐border coordination and cooperation were constrained by national self‐interest. Arguably, the lack of a worldwide supranational (or post‐Westphalian) authority in health governance is one important structural reason for the fragmented, chaotic, and ineffective response to Covid‐19. The failure of Westphalian governance responses to the pandemic provides a unique opportunity for post‐Westphalian governance structures to be established and contribute to reforming international pandemic preparedness. While this is unlikely to happen soon at the global level, a comprehensive framework is emerging at the European Union level in the form of a European Health Union. Through a combined conceptualisation of supranational governance and the securitisation process of international health crises, Covid‐19 has opened the door to post‐Westphalian health governance coordinated by the European Commission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]