Journal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102103
Keywords
COVID-19; All-hazards approach; Top-hazards approach; Disaster risk reduction
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The current All-Hazards Approach framework in disaster risk planning is criticized for its flaws highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The alternative Top-Hazards Approach emphasizes the need for different planning and mitigation tactics for inherently different disaster events.
The current paradigm in disaster risk planning and reduction is the All-Hazards Approach (AHA) framework, which suggests that different hazards share commonalities allowing for the generalization of parts of the preparedness to all. A growing body of literature suggests that this approach has many flaws, rendering it suboptimal in promoting disaster readiness. The Novel Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak is a major wake-up call in this regard. This perspective article uses the experience from the COVID-19 pandemic that disproves or at least undermines, many aspects of the AHA, including early warning, medical public health response, reliance on international assistance, lead agency, and politicization of the crisis. A pandemic is a unique disaster with little relationship to other disaster types and requires an entirely different way of planning. The COVID-19 pandemic is a call to action for a consolidated alternative framework called the Top-Hazards Approach (THA), arguing that inherently different events require different planning and mitigation tactics, and therefore should be prioritized according to likelihood and severity in each local context.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available