Posts

Panel 16 – Multiple hazards and compound/cascading effects

Conveners: Maurizio Mazzoleni and Johanna Mård (Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University)

Abstract: Different natural hazards (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes, wildfire, etc.), caused by the interaction of multiple hazard drivers in space or time, have a multiplier effect on the risk to society, infrastructure, and the environment, leading to a significant impact is referred to as a ‘compound event’. Recently, they were identified as an important challenge by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) ‘Grand Challenge’ on Extremes. For this reason, this panel aims at providing a platform for first understanding current state-of-the-art and recent research findings on compound, cascading, and concurrent events and then discussing reduction and management of compound disaster risks depending on our improved understanding of these causal connections and mechanisms.

Long Abstract: This session focuses on the compound and cascading events, and their impacts on natural hazard risk. Traditionally, risk assessment methods only consider one driver and/or hazard at a time, potentially leading to uncertainty risk evaluation as the processes that cause extreme events often interact and are spatially and/or temporally dependent. However, different natural hazards (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes, wildfire, etc.), caused by the interaction of multiple hazard drivers in space or time, have a multiplier effect on the risk to society, infrastructure, and the environment, leading to a significant impact is referred to as a ‘compound event’. For example, recent studies indicate that when river and coastal floods occur at the same time or in quick succession, their impacts could be more devastating than when either occurs separately (Kew et al., 2013; Klerk et al., 2015; Wahl et al., 2015). The need to proper understand compound hazards has been recognized by different studies (e.g., Leonard et al., 2014). Recently, they were identified as an important challenge by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) ‘Grand Challenge’ on Extremes. For this reason, this panel aims at providing a platform for first understanding current state-of-the-art and recent research findings on compound, cascading, and concurrent events an then discussing reduction and management of compound disaster risks depending on our improved understanding of these causal connections and mechanisms (Ikeuchi et al., 2017).

We encourage contributions related to all aspects of compound, cascading, and concurrent events, including those that: improve understanding of physical processes; showcase new methodologies, techniques and statistical approaches; and illustrate how including multiple interacting hazards improves risk assessments (Zscheischler et al., 2018). Moreover, we invite panellists which work (both theoretical and empirical) contributes to addressing the following questions: What are the most appropriate theoretical frameworks and supporting tools for risk assessment and attribution that explicitly account for compound events? Which tools and data can be use to better risk management of climate-related impacts? How can we identify the combinations of climate drivers and hazards that collectively lead to changes in risk? Which analysis are required to resolving compound events in climate projections? How can we investigate the changing nature of human activities (such as urbanization, infrastructure, anthropogenic emissions) and their interactions with compound events?

References

Ikeuchi, H., Y. Hirabayashi, D. Yamazaki, S. Muis, P. J. Ward, H. C. Winsemius, M. Verlaan, and S. Kanae (2017), Compound simulation of fluvial floods and storm surges in a global coupled river-coast flood model: Model development and its application to 2007 Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 9, 1847–1862, doi:10.1002/2017MS000943.

Kew, S. F., F. M. Selten, G. Lenderink, and W. Hazeleger (2013), The simultaneous occurrence of surge and discharge extremes for the Rhine delta, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13(8), 2017–2029, doi:10.5194/nhess-13-2017-2013.

Klerk, W. J., H. C. Winsemius, W. J. van Verseveld, A. M. R. Bakker, and F. L. M. Diermanse (2015), The co-incidence of storm surges and extreme discharges within the Rhine–Meuse Delta, Environ. Res. Lett., 10(3), 035005, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/035005.

Leonard, M., S. Westra, A. Phatak, M. Lambert, B. Van den Hurk, K. McInnes, J. Risbey, S. Schuster, D. Jakob, and M. Stafford-Smith (2014), A compound event framework for understanding extreme impacts, WIREs Clim. Change, 5, 113–128, doi:10.1002/wcc.252.

Wahl, T., S. Jain, J. Bender, S. D. Meyers, and M. E. Luther (2015), Increasing risk of compound flooding from storm surge and rainfall for major US cities, Nat. Clim. Change, 5(12), 1093–1097, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2736.

Zscheischler, J., Westra, S., van den Hurk, B.J.J.M., Seneviratne, S.I., Ward, P.J., Pitman, A., AghaKouchak, A., Bresch, D.N., Leonard, M., Wahl, T., Zhang, X.Z. (2018), Future climate risk from compound events, Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 469-477.

Panel 2 – Displacement: Examining the complexities of an escalating and vexing social dilemma

Conveners: Susanna Hoffman (Chief, Commission on Risk and Disaster, International Union of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences), Andrew Littlejohn (Leiden University), and Irena L. I. Connon (Dundee University), Alex Greer (State University of New York at Albany) and Sherri Brokopp Binder (BrokoppBinder Research & Consulting)

Abstract: The scale of people displaced by calamity, climate, and development around the world in recent years has grown exponentially. In 2017 alone the number was 44,000 people every day, or one person every two seconds, with a total of 68.5 million, the largest number for the fifth year in a row. Forty percent of them were displaced internally within their own country; sixty to other lands. Forty percent came from developing countries; a surprising sixty percent from the first world. The phenomena has caused great stress not only to the people themselves but to the societies to which they have migrated. Considering the increasingly dismaying “nature” of global circumstances, the numbers and scale will only grow. This panel aims to explore the intricacies of loss and displacement as experienced by those displaced and why resettlement often proves so difficult.

The first part of the panel focuses on understanding the complexity of displacement through an anthropological lens. While a great deal has been written about the privations and dispossession of people exiled by various causes from their homes and prior lives and why their resettlement often proves difficult, generally the bereavement and intransigence suffered by those displaced has been treated as if singular in constitution. In actuality, a number of distinct facets make up its disposition. Incorporated are at least three vectors of enduring pain and bewilderment: past, home, and place. All of them combine to make adaptation, or lack of it, to new circumstance vexing. While all the threads that make up the despair are personally endured, they also take shape from the aura and structures set by the culture and society of origin. Covered will be loss of cultural and physical surroundings, quotidian habit and sphere, legacy and expectation, and perceptual ambiance. While a people’s past is implicated, so are the present and the future.

Understanding the complexities of displacement is also fundamental for development of equitable relocation and resettlement processes. The latter part of this panel expands on the discussion of displacement by examining organized retreat as a strategy for reducing disaster exposure and losses. Organized retreat presents an opportunity for governments to permanently eliminate hazard exposure in an equitable, mutually beneficial way. However, relocations have historically been associated with a suite of negative consequences for affected households, communities, governments, and lands. To ensure that future relocation projects minimize harm and maximize potential benefits to communities, it important to develop new research-informed policies and practice that reliably reduce hazard vulnerability and deliver timely and equitable assistance to communities and governments.

Long Abstract: The scale of people displaced by calamity, climate, and development around the world in recent years has grown exponentially. In 2017 alone the number was 44,000 people every day, or one person every two seconds, with a total of 68.5 million, the largest number for the fifth year in a row. Forty percent of them were displaced internally within their own country; sixty to other lands. Forty percent came from developing countries; a surprising sixty percent from the first world. The phenomena has caused great stress not only to the people themselves but to the societies to which they have migrated. Considering the increasingly dismaying “nature” of global circumstances, the numbers and scale will only grow.

This panel aims to explore the intricacies of loss and displacement as experienced by those displaced and why resettlement often proves so difficult. While a great deal has been written about the privations and dispossession of people exiled by various causes from their homes and prior lives and why their resettlement often proves difficult, generally the bereavement and intransigence suffered by those displaced has been treated as if singular in constitution. In actuality, a number of distinct facets make up its disposition. Incorporated are at least three vectors of enduring pain and bewilderment: past, home, and place. All of them combine to make adaptation, or lack of it, to new circumstance vexing. Examined will be the fact that while all the threads that make up the despair are personally endured, they also take shape from the aura and structures set by the culture and society of origin. Covered will be loss of cultural and physical surroundings, quotidian habit and sphere, legacy and expectation, and perceptual ambience. Also possibly discussed will be the ramifications of “landless” resettlement in the upheaval of once rural peoples, the duel or more temporalities the displaced live in, the costs of entire communities relocating, and weighs the notion of risk and risk reduction in light of the pain of displacement. While a people’s past is implicated, so are the present and the future. Pertinent to the issue are coping, adaptation, and sustainability, and the strategies and obstacles to them. In order to examine the impacts of displacement and increasing resettlement, the panel crosses over and is open to a number of what are usually treated as diverse concerns: disaster survivors, the increasing number of climate exiles, conflict refugees, and groups forcibly extracted from their milieus for other reasons. It is further open to both theoretical approaches and particular or ethnographic case studies and also to social science, physical or natural science, and practitioner concerns.

In addition, the panel also welcomes papers examining the issues, challenges, and opportunities of post-disaster relocation and resettlement processes. While organized retreat and related relocation efforts may seem like a straightforward method of reducing disaster exposure and losses, empirical research in this area remains limited. The relocation of residents out of hazardous areas has historically been plagued with challenges for affected households, communities, and governments. Households and communities affected by relocation efforts have been found to experience a suite of losses, including disruptions to social networks, negative health impacts, and economic losses. Further, such relocations raise complex questions related to the management and use of newly created open space. To ensure that future relocation projects benefit communities, it important to develop new research-informed policies and practice that reliably reduce hazard vulnerability and deliver timely and equitable assistance to communities and governments.

Panel 5 – Governing ethics, accountability, and data in disasters

Conveners:  Nathan Clark (University of Copenhagen), Kristoffer Albris (University of Copenhagen), Paolo Cavaliere (University of Delaware) and Femke Mulder (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract: Disasters are becoming digital. More and more, professional disaster management systems and bottom-up, volunteer initiatives processes rely on (big) data, digital technologies, social media platforms and geospatial information to assess risks, organize recovery efforts, and perform early warnings. There is indeed a sense that the digital revolution in its various guises and expressions has already had profound effects on the conduct and theory of disaster governance, while holding even greater potentials for the future (Palen and Anderson 2016). Yet the use of digital technologies and data for disaster governance also brings with it a number of unaddressed and unanswered challenges and issues (Alexander 2014). For instance, how are citizens’ rights of anonymity, privacy, security and data ownership guaranteed when they contribute – knowingly or unknowingly – to disaster management efforts through social media and other digital platforms? How do the uses – and potential misuses – of digital technologies and data in disaster management affect questions of liability and responsibility? How do authorities and communities react to misinformation and “fake news” in disaster situations? What sorts of questions does the issue of data sensitivity for aid relief in complex emergencies present us with? How do rules, norms and practices shape disaster technologies and vice versa? These are just some of the questions at stake in the politics and ethics of the use of data and digital technologies in disasters and emergencies. They also give rise to broader lines of enquiry. Under the ethics and accountability lens, practitioners and scholars should ask whether a certain action can bring any benefit or can undermine both response and the integrity of either an agency, organization or the state. How can we address complex ethics and accountability issues that relate to the overall disaster governance? Crucially, the plethora of new digital innovations in disasters and emergencies occur at different scales, from the local to the global levels, and in different tempi, from immediate to long-term implications, which often makes it hard to comparatively discuss their ethical and political implications. For this panel, we invite papers that analyse disaster governance and deal critically with how (big) data, social media platforms, GIS and remote sensing technologies, and other emerging digital technologies, are being used throughout all phases of the disaster management cycle, as well as in humanitarian emergencies. We especially encourage papers that simultaneously address theoretical questions and practice-oriented problems.

Panel 15 – Post-disaster resiliency: Planning to meet community needs during the short-term recovery phase

Conveners: Claire Connolly Knox (School of Public Administration and National Center for Integrated Coastal Research, University of Central Florida) and Lauren A. Clay (Health Services Administration Department, D’Youville College; Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware)

Abstract: Billion-dollar disasters have steadily increased in the U.S. and abroad, which has focused our attention to community resiliency. In the U.S., 2017 and 2018 were two of the most costly years for natural disasters thus far. Specifically, the 2017 Hurricane Season – markedly Harvey, Irma, and Maria – caused an estimated $265 to $306 billion in damages and greatly tested the level of disaster resilience in the affected communities (NOAA 2018). Disaster resilience, often mistaken as the opposite of vulnerability, is the ability for individuals, communities, or society to prepare and plan for, absorb, respond, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. All disasters are local and communities continue to struggle to meet their needs during the short-term recovery phase.

Post-disaster resilience is multi-faceted. While scholars have studied various aspects of community resiliency in the growing literature, there remain gaps in the scientific literature related to emergency management. Most notably (1) meeting community needs during short-term recovery phase following a disaster as evidenced by the prolonged processes and stress associated with disaster recovery; (2) reported health and well-being outcomes by families, communities, and institutions affected by disaster; and (3) translating lessons learned during the short-term recovery phase into long-term recovery and resiliency planning efforts (Kendra, Clay, and Gill 2018; Knox 2017).

This panel will examine approaches to bolstering resilience at the individual, community, institutional, and policy levels. Papers focused on approaches to resilience from different country settings, methodological, and disciplinary perspectives as well as interdisciplinary approaches; studies of resilience at multiple levels such as individual, community, institutional, and policy levels; examples or exemplars of resilience building interventions; studies that have been translated into action; and practical, empirical, or theoretical work are encouraged.

Long Abstract:Billion-dollar disasters have steadily increased in the U.S. and abroad, which has focused our attention to community resiliency. In the U.S., 2017 and 2018 were two of the most costly years for natural disasters thus far. Specifically, the 2017 Hurricane Season, most notably Harvey, Irma, and Maria, caused an estimated $265 to $306 billion in damages and tested affected communities level of disaster resilience (NOAA 2018). Disaster resilience, often mistaken as the opposite of vulnerability, is the ability for individuals, communities, or society to prepare and plan for, absorb, respond, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. All disasters are local and communities continue to struggle to meet their needs during the short-term recovery phase.

Post-disaster resilience is multi-faceted. While scholars have studied various aspects of community resiliency in the growing literature, there remain gaps in the scientific literature related to emergency management. Most notably (1) meeting community needs during short-term recovery phase following a disaster as evidenced by the prolonged processes and stress associated with disaster recovery, (2) reported health and well-being outcomes by families, communities, and institutions affected by disaster, and (3) translating lessons learned during the short-term recovery phase into long-term recovery and resiliency planning efforts (Kendra et al. 2018; Knox 2017).

Measuring community resilience is challenging; however, it is imperative especially if “communities want to track their progress towards resiliency and target efforts where they most need to improve.” (National Research Council 2012:12). The strategic goals and targets for resiliency and long-term planning often stem from recommendations and lessons learned during the response and short-term recovery phases (Knox 2013). While long-term recovery planning is a critical element of a community’s resiliency, it is often underutilized because of a lack of capacity at the local government level. Multiple types of capacities are needed for resiliency, including community, economic, infrastructure, institutional, and social (Ross 2016; Cutter et al. 2010). Lacking one or more of these capacities can lead to repeated failures, repeated policy and organizational recommendations, and an unequal distribution of goods and services during and after natural or man-made disasters (Knox 2013; Hu et al. 2014; Kim & Marcouiller 2016).

There are disparities in the distribution of disaster risk in a community and disparities in the adverse consequences following disaster exposure. Racial and ethnic minorities and the socioeconomically disadvantaged are recognized as health disparity populations and experience a disproportionate burden of adverse consequences following disasters due to lack of English proficiency, culturally appropriate risk communication, systemic poverty, segregation, substandard education, and social and political marginalization (Fothergill & Peek 2004; Purtle 2012). Before an event, individuals with inadequate access to health services, high prevalence of chronic illness, and limited capital are less likely to be in a position to prepare for a disaster (Honore 2008). When a disruption or disaster occurs, these are the same populations that require additional resources such as transportation assistance and health services for the treatment of chronic health conditions. Compounding the problem, following disasters, we often see changes in the health care landscape from temporary closures to relocation and permanent closure of facilities resulting in disruptions to continuity of care and access issues in low-income and minority communities (Ford et al. 2006; Guglielmo 2006; Krol et al. 2007). While disparities are exacerbated during disasters, the public attention on inequity presents an opportunity to leverage the attention and influx of resources to improve health equity and bolster resilience for those most vulnerable.

This panel will examine approaches to bolstering resilience at the individual, community, institutional, and policy levels. Papers focused on approaches to resilience from different country settings, methodological, and disciplinary perspectives as well as interdisciplinary approaches; studies of resilience at multiple levels such as individual, community, institutional, and policy levels; examples or exemplars of resilience building interventions; studies that have been translated into action; and practical, empirical, or theoretical work are encouraged.

References

 

Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1).

Ford, E. S., Mokdad, A. H., Link, M. W., Garvin, W. S., McGuire, L. C., Jiles, R. B., & Balluz, L. S. (2006). Chronic disease in health emergencies: In the eye of the hurricane. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(2), A46. doi:A46 [pii]

Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. A. (2004). Poverty and disasters in the united states: A review of recent sociological findings. Natural Hazards, 32(1), 89-110.

Guglielmo, W. J. (2006). New orleans’ doctors: Still MIA. Medical Economics, 83(6), 17.

Honore, R. L. (2008). Health disparities: Barriers to a culture of preparedness. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice : JPHMP, 14 Suppl, S5-7. doi:10.1097/01.PHH.0000338381.29071.d6 [doi]

Hu, Q., Knox, C. C., & Kapucu, N. (2014). What Have We Learned Since September 11, 2001? A Network Study of the Boston Marathon Bombings Response. Public Administration Review, 74(6), 698-712.

Kendra, J. M., Clay, L. A., & Gill, K. B. (2018). Resilience and disasters. Handbook of disaster research (pp. 87-107) Springer.

Kim, H. & Marcouiller, D.W. (2016). Natural Disaster Response, Community Resilience, and Economic Capacity: A Case Study of Coastal Florida, Society & Natural Resources, 29:8, 981-997.

Knox, C. C. (2013). Analyzing After Action Reports from Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina: Repeated, Modified, and Newly Created Recommendations. Journal of Emergency Management, 11(2), 160-168.

Knox, C. C. (2017). A Football Field Lost Every 45 Minutes: Evaluating Local Capacity to Implement Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan. Coastal Management Journal, 45(3), 233-252.

Krol, D. M., Redlener, M., Shapiro, A., & Wajnberg, A. (2007). A mobile medical care approach targeting underserved populations in post-hurricane katrina mississippi. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 18(2), 331-340.

National Research Council. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2018). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

Purtle, J. (2012). Racial and ethnic disparities in post-disaster mental health: Examining the evidence through a lens of social justice. Wash.& Lee J.Civil Rts.& Soc.just., 19, 31.Ford, E. S., Mokdad, A. H., Link, M. W., Garvin, W. S., McGuire, L. C., Jiles, R. B., & Balluz, L. S. (2006). Chronic disease in health emergencies: In the eye of the hurricane. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(2), A46. doi:A46 [pii]

Ross, A. D. (2016). Perceptions of Resilience Among Coastal Emergency Managers. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 7(1), 4-24.

Panel 12 – Crisis governance: Taking on the grand challenges

Conveners: Jeroen Wolbers (Leiden University), Sanneke Kuipers (Leiden University), Kees Boersma (VU University Amsterdam), and Charles Parker (Uppsala University)

Abstract: The purpose of this track is to bring together cutting-edge papers on the topic of crisis governance. Crisis governance is a complex process that has many facets. In its basic form crisis governance is about reducing the impact of a negative, intolerable event. As a crisis forms a threat to the basic structures or the fundamental values and norms of a system, crisis governance requires making vital decisions under time pressure in highly uncertain circumstances (Rosenthal et al., 1989). It entails ad-hoc organizing, directing and forging cooperation, enabling workarounds, but also taking symbolic measures that provide direction and guidance (Boin et al., 2013).

Traditionally, concepts like sensemaking, (Weick, 1993), decision-making (Klein, 1993), coordination (Comfort, 2007), meaning-making (Rosenthal et al., 2001), and accountability (Kuipers & ‘t Hart, 2014) have been central in the study of crisis governance (Hällgren et al., 2018). Recently, important developments have been noted pertaining to the shape of a crisis, such as the transboundary crisis (Boin, 2018), institutional crisis (Schmidt et al., 2017; cf. Boin and ‘t Hart 2000), and in its underlying dynamic, such as the role of fragmentation (Wolbers et al., 2018). The field has also been informed by other emergent topics associated, for instance, with disaster risk reduction in multi-level governance settings.

Despite the growing attention for crisis governance (Kuipers & Welsh, 2017; Hällgren et al., 2018), we still face a number of theoretical, conceptual, and methodological challenges in our field that are crucial to address in the NEEDS community.

  • First, crisis governance is normally studied as a unique event through single case studies, making it difficult to compare across cases (Roux-Dufort, 2007). We could develop a more systematic understanding of the similarities and differences across cases. We call for papers that provide systematic analyses and comparative case studies to identify and theorize patterns across crises and disasters.
  • Second, an important issue in crisis research is hindsight bias, which occurs when studies focus predominantly on tracing back the cause of failure in a crisis. Indeed, much of our knowledge is based on the (historical) reconstruction of crisis governance. We call for studies that use in-depth and real-time data on crisis governance processes, despite of its positive or negative outcome.
  • Third, we lack an encompassing model to explain the effectiveness of crisis governance. Contextual factors seem to have a large role in explaining whether crisis response is effective or not, but can we develop a more generic model that theorizes when crisis governance is effective?

We would like to challenge our fellow academics to advance our knowledge of crisis governance, and call on you to bring forth your own ideas in empirical or conceptual papers on crisis governance that address these challenges and stimulate our discussion at NEEDS4.

The track is hosted by the Leiden University Crisis Research Center (CRC) and the VU Amsterdam in collaboration with the Department of Government and the Center for Natural Hazards and Disaster Science (CNDS) at Uppsala University.

References

Boin, A. and P. ‘t Hart (2000). Institutional Crises and Reforms in Policy Sectors. Government Institutions: Effects, Changes and Normative Foundations, Boston, MA: Kluwer. H. Wagenaar. Boston, Kluwer Press: 9-31.

Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for assessment. International Review of Public Administration18(1), 79-91.

Boin, A. (2018). The Transboundary Crisis: Why we are unprepared and the road ahead. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management.

Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review67, 189-197.

Hällgren, M., Rouleau, L., & De Rond, M. (2018). A matter of life or death: How extreme context research matters for management and organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 111-153.

Klein, G. A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making (pp. 138-147). New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Kuipers, S., & Welsh, N. H. (2017). Taxonomy of the Crisis and Disaster Literature: Themes and Types in 34 Years of Research. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy,8(4), 272-283.

Kuipers, S., & ‘t Hart, P.(2014)Accounting for Crises, Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, 589-602

Rosenthal, U., M. Charles and P. ’t Hart. (Eds.) (1989). Coping with Crisis: The Management of Disasters, Riots and Terrorism. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas

Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A., & Comfort, L. K. (2001). The changing world of crises and crisis management. Managing crises: Threats, dilemmas, opportunities, 5-27.

Roux‐Dufort, C. (2007). Is crisis management (only) a management of exceptions? Journal of contingencies and crisis management15(2), 105-114.

Schmidt, A., Boersma, K., & Groenewegen, P. (2018). Management strategies in response to an institutional crisis: The case of earthquakes in the Netherlands. Public Administration.

Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative science quarterly, 628-652.

Wolbers, J., Boersma, K., & Groenewegen, P. (2018). Introducing a Fragmentation Perspective on Coordination in Crisis Management. Organization Studies, 39(11), pp. 1521–1546.