ABSTRACT Concurrent crises represent a significant challenge for disaster and public health governance. Activated in response to one threat, governing institutions may be distracted or stretched thin during an emergent crisis. In such crises, governments and communities rely heavily on non‐state service providers such as non‐profit organizations and religious groups. To examine the role of non‐state providers during concurrent crises, we engaged in original survey research, secondary data analysis, and field interviews focused on the overlapping challenges of the COVID‐19 Pandemic and the 2021 Texas Winter Storm Uri as well as the pandemic's delta wave and Hurricane Ida. We considered the impact of local non‐profit capacity on community recovery, the ability of institutions to adapt, and the implications of reliance on non‐state providers for public accountability and resource allocation. Our findings supported the hypothesis that non‐profit assets augment the role of government in responding to crises. We did not find that concurrent crises weakened the ability of non‐profit groups to respond, but instead found evidence consistent with organizational adaptation. We found that closer ties to government were associated with increased transparency/accountability as well as allocation of resources based on standardized measures of need.
ABSTRACT While AI in disaster management has been widely reviewed, current research often overlooks how domestic AI disaster research portfolios can be systematically mapped and compared with international patterns. To address this gap, we develop a systematic mapping framework encompassing implementation years, funding sources, disciplinary fields, disaster types, operational stages, and thematic foci. Using the 309 government‐funded AI projects for disaster management in Taiwan as a case study, we demonstrate how this approach not only identifies key convergences and divergences with international trends but also highlights the configuration of national research priorities. Our findings indicate that the project timeline of Taiwan broadly aligns with global trends, with a notable surge in activity around 2018. However, limited attention has been given to the humanities and social sciences, emerging hazards, and post‐disaster recovery. We further synthesize key priorities and underexplored areas. Moreover, academically driven projects dominate the portfolio and demonstrate innovation, but they may face challenges in practical application due to insufficient coordination with government agencies. By providing a replicable framework for cross‐national comparison, this study offers a transferable approach for other nations to evaluate their national AI disaster research agenda.
ABSTRACT Disasters and crises disrupt lives and test the capacities of governments and organizations. While their immediate aftermath is often marked by uncertainty and disruption, recurrent patterns in how individuals are affected give rise to foreseeable hardships. Yet these human consequences, and what they imply for crisis leadership, remain underdeveloped in the crisis literature. This article advances a Human‐Centered Crisis Expectations Model that conceptualizes, from the perspective of those affected, the crisis management challenge as an equation composed of six interrelated elements: primary exposure, damage and loss, procedural burden, social recognition, hope and perspective, and context. Together, these elements offer a human‐centered evaluative logic for understanding and guiding crisis leadership. The model serves as both an analytical framework and a normative guide, suggesting that perceived effectiveness depends on the extent to which these elements are recognized and addressed throughout the full trajectory of a crisis—beyond the acute phase and well into recovery, which may extend over years depending on the scale and impact of loss and disruption. The article concludes by discussing implications for research, policy, and practice.
Hybrid crisis governance – combining hierarchical control with networked collaboration – has gained increasing attention in the public policy and crisis management literatures. Yet, the concept of hybridity remains crude and underdefined, limiting its analytical utility. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of how hybrid governance was applied during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Europe. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we screened 337 records and selected 20 studies for thematic synthesis. Our analysis identifies three distinct types of hybrid crisis governance: temporal, concurrent and integrative. Temporal hybridity refers to sequential shifts between control‐based and collaborative modes over time. Concurrent hybridity captures the parallel coexistence of control and collaboration with limited integration. Integrative hybridity denotes the blending of control and collaboration into fused forms such as controlled collaboration or collaborative control. This typology advances conceptual clarity in both crisis management and public governance by offering a structured analytical vocabulary for hybrid crisis governance. Assessing the strengths and limitations of each type of hybridity, we argue that effective crisis governance depends on a context‐sensitive capacity to recalibrate governance modes in response to shifting constraints and demands.
ABSTRACT This article explores decision‐making processes in crisis situations by proposing an interpretive framework grounded in multiple criteria of rationality. Crises, characterized by uncertainty, urgency, and ethical dilemmas, require critical choices that go beyond standard procedures. To investigate the dynamics that unfold in crisis decision‐making, the study examines the management of the 2023 floods in Ravenna, focusing on the controversial decision to deliberately inundate certain agricultural areas in order to protect the historic city center. Adopting a multi‐perspective thinking approach, the article develops three alternative interpretations of the same decision, showing how different forms of rationality often coexist in practice. The empirical analysis is based on semi‐structured interviews with key actors, complemented by official documents and media reports. The findings reveal the complexity and ambiguity that characterize decision‐making in crisis situations, in which multiple criteria of rationality intertwine rather than exclude one another.
