This document (Deliverable 1.1) is the first attempt to establish how the concepts that serve BuildERS’ theoretical framework - risk awareness, risk perception, social capital and vulnerability - are connected to the overall work of resilience by providing a coherent and visually intuitive conceptual structure or model that shows their interdependences within the crisis management cycle.
This document (Deliverable 1.2) is the second and final report on how the concepts of BuildERS’ theoretical framework – resilience, risk awareness, social capital and vulnerability - are connected to the overall work of resilience building of European communities against natural and man-made crises and disasters.
This report (Deliverable 1.4) aims to improve the understanding of how communication related issues and actions may affect vulnerability and resilience – the ability and capacity to respond to and recover from crises. We analyse the information behaviour and particularly social media use among European populations, paying particular attention to vulnerable populations, and explore trust in media sources and proneness to be affected by misinformation.
In this article (Deliverable 1.6), we promote the application of the intersectionality perspective in the study of vulnerable groups, and we call for intersectionality as a guiding principle in risk and crisis management, to provide a better and more nuanced picture of vulnerabilities and vulnerable groups.
This report (Deliverable 2.4) assesses the institutional functioning (organisations, processes, resources, tools/assets, guidelines) for resilience management in sample countries and clarify the determinants of effective disasterresilient systems as well as describes the practices of government social media campaigns and how they are received and spread by audience and provide good practices and recommendations on effective responses in cases where disinformation interferes with official messages.
This report (Deliverable D2.5) looks at how vulnerability has been defined in the crisis management systems of eight European countries: Germnay, Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia. We first review how the concept of vulnerability is presented and defined in institutional systems of different European countries with varying historical and socio-economic backgrounds. Secondly, we identify the distinct typical waysin which responding to vulnerability has been organised by those systems.
To support BuildERS activities PUC and VTT have established a co-creation and co-design workspace on a Howspace platform (owned by Humap software), which enables users from various professional backgrounds to participate online. This report (Deliverable 6.1) introduces the platform and the way it is used in the BuildERS project.
The main goal of the first research colloquium was to share research results from the first year of the project. The colloquium invitations were sent to BuildERS partners including Advisory Board (AB) members. The other ongoing or just started DRS01 projects RESILOC, ENGAGE and LINKS contact persons were also invited to the colloquium.
The document (Deliverable 8.2) outlines the development of the dissemination materials for the BuildERS project with the aim to incite and encourage the formation of a community that would be interested to know more about social resilience in the wake of natural or manmade disasters.
The BuidERS activity report (Deliverable 9.1) gives an overview of the activities and results achieved during the first project year. The project had a strong start: several deliverables have been submitted to the Participant Portal and all milestones have been met.
The outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 propelled the creation, transmission, and consumption of false information – unverified claims, misleading statements, false rumours, conspiracy theories, and so on – all around the world.
In this article, the authors put forward a heuristic framework for explaining how communication-related factors may adversely affect people's capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters.
This article promotes the application of the intersectionality perspective in the study of vulnerable groups, and we call for intersectionality as a guiding principle in risk and crisis management, to provide a better and more nuanced picture of vulnerabilities and vulnerable groups.
Several models have been developed to facilitate decision-making in disaster management, especially in relation to emergency resource allocations. This paper presents a decision-making model that helps search and rescue teams determine the number of personnel to deploy.
A new comparative study maps false information tackling practices in European emergency management systems. The study, carried out simultaneously in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Hungary, Norway, Finland, and Estonia, revealed that approaches vary from instituted central management of identifying and tackling false information to prioritizing the spreading of accurate information. The diffusion of false information is strongly affected by the lack of timely and verifiable information from governments. In several countries, the emergence of false information is often associated with malicious foreign influence activities. According to the studied real-life crisis experiences, the primary and most efficient countermeasure to false information is enhancing crisis managers ability to provide accurate information without delay. Understanding how emergency managers handle false information will help future decision-makers at multiple governance levels to alleviate the detrimental impact of false information in emergency management.
While social vulnerability in the face of crises like the pandemic has received increasing attention, little is known about how vulnerability is addressed in practice by institutions involved in disaster management. Our recent study charts the practitioners’ approaches to disaster vulnerability in eight European countries: Germany, Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Estonia.
We found only a few countries and limited areas (e.g. climate extremes), where more systematic vulnerability assessment and response procedures are foreseen. We suggest that for an improved response, greater conceptual clarity needs to be established on who is considered vulnerable, due to what reasons, and who should do what to alleviate vulnerability. To stimulate the discussion, we put forward a model for explicating different sources of vulnerability along the dimensions of human agency and technological structures as well as social support through private relations and state actors.