A Taxonomy of Crisis Management Functions

Abstract

The management of crises triggered by natural or manmade events requires a concerted effort of various actors crossing institutional and geographic boundaries. Technological advances allow to make crisis management more effective, but innovation is hindered by dispersed and often disconnected knowledge on the lessons learned, gaps, and solutions. Taxonomies enable the search for information of potential interest. This article presents a taxonomy of crisis management functions, designed on the basis of a conceptual model integrating the concepts of hazard, vulnerability, risk, and community, and the main consequence- and management-based concepts. At its highest level, the taxonomy includes ten functional areas: preparatory (mitigation, capability development, and strategic adaptiveness), operational (protection, response, and recovery), and common (crisis communications and information management; command, control, and coordination; logistics; and security management). The taxonomy facilitates the navigation of online platforms and the matching of needs and solutions. It has broader applications, e.g., for structuring the assessment of the societal impact of crisis management solutions and as a framework for a comprehensive assessment of disaster risk reduction measures. While the taxonomy was developed within a research and innovation project supported by the European Union, it reflects and is compatible with established international concepts and classification schemes, and is thus applicable by a wider international community.

Public health emergency preparedness for infectious disease emergencies: a scoping review of recent evidence

“…Methods and study designs varied widely across the 26 indexed literature studies, including systematic literature reviews [ 28 – 30 ], mixed-methods studies (i.e., a paper that describes a literature review, concept mapping and key informant interviews) [ 31 – 46 ], descriptive case studies [ 47 – 49 ], qualitative studies [ 50 , 51 ], a cross-sectional study [ 52 ], and a regression analysis [ 53 ]. Ten studies described a PHEP-related framework, tool or model [ 33 – 37 , 39 – 42 , 44 ], and 16 studies included content relevant to PHEP priority areas and/or activities but did not explicitly describe a PHEP framework, tool, model or set of indicators [ 28 – 32 , 38 , 43 , 45 – 53 ]. For example, two studies specifically focused on the community engagement component of PHEP [ 51 , 52 ].…”

What is the current state of public health system preparedness for infectious disease emergencies? A scoping review

“…Methods and study designs varied widely across the 26 indexed literature studies, including systematic literature reviews [25-27], mixed-methods studies (i.e., a paper that describes a literature review, concept mapping and key informant interviews) [28-43], descriptive case studies [44-46], qualitative studies [47, 48], a cross-sectional study [49], and a regression analysis [50]. Ten studies described a PHEP-related framework, tool or model [30-34, 36-39, 41], and 16 studies included content relevant to PHEP priority areas and/or activities but did not explicitly describe a PHEP framework, tool, model or set of indicators [25-29, 35, 40, 42-50]. All studies from the indexed literature described PHEP concepts for infectious disease outbreaks, pandemic influenza and/or the COVID-19 pandemic.…”

“…Methods and study designs varied widely across the 26 indexed literature studies, including systematic literature reviews [25][26][27], mixed-methods studies (i.e., a paper that describes a literature review, concept mapping and key informant interviews) [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43], descriptive case studies [44][45][46], qualitative studies [47,48], a cross-sectional study [49], and a regression analysis [50]. Ten studies described a PHEP-related framework, tool or model [30-34, 36-39, 41], and 16 studies included content relevant to PHEP priority areas and/or activities but did not explicitly describe a PHEP framework, tool, model or set of indicators [25-29, 35, 40, 42-50].…”

Making Climate Risks Governable in Swedish Municipalities: Crisis Preparedness, Technical Measures, and Public Involvement

“…This perception among officials may have consequences for the development of relationships with and involvement of the citizens. One such consequence may be a blind spot towards social mobilization among citizens: there seems to be an individualistic understanding of the citizen in terms of stressing the individual citizen's responsibility without paying attention to the role of social mobilization and the engagement that civil society has been shown to have during crises [58]. The individualization of citizen preparedness in the face of an abstract and complex risk like climate change may hinder norms and support systems that could otherwise encourage preparedness.…”