The COVID-19 pandemic challenge to the All-Hazards Approach for disaster planning

Abstract

Abstract 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.