Multistakeholder Participation in Disaster Management: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Lily Guo and Version 3 by Komali Kantamaneni.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is affecting society’s health, economy, environment and development. COVID-19 has claimed many lives across the globe and severely impacted the livelihood of a considerable section of the world’s population. We are still in the process of finding optimal and effective solutions to control the pandemic and minimise its negative impacts. In the process of developing effective strategies to combat COVID-19, different countries have adapted diverse policies, strategies and activities and yet there are no universal or comprehensive solutions to the problem. In this context, this paper brings out a conceptual model of multistakeholder participation governance as an effective model to fight against COVID-19. Accordingly, the current study conducted a scientific review by examining multi-stakeholder disaster response strategies, particularly in relation to COVID-19. The study then presents a conceptual framework for multistakeholder participation governance as one of the effective models to fight against COVID-19. 

  • Multistakeholder Participation in Disaster Management
  • COVID-19
  • Spatial Decision Support System
  • Scientific Review

1. Introduction

The world is facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which is having an unprecedent effect on people’s lives and livelihoods, leading to severe and long-term impacts at individual, community and societal levels. The pandemic crisis involves not only health issues but also economic issues [1]​. Pandemics are not new to human society; however, their nature, intensity and the way societies respond change over time. In history, we have seen the most devastating pandemic, called the “black death”, which shook the world from the years 1347 to 1352 and took the lives of more than 75,000,000 people [2] In the years 1918 to 1920, there was another pandemic called the “Spanish Flu”, where more than 100,000,000 people died [3] Pandemics create uncertainty, complexity in understanding and there is need for new knowledge. In order to access new knowledge, it is important that we integrate the best available knowledge and reconcile often conflicting values and viewpoints. There is a need to find solutions to dealing with complicated, wicked problems such as COVID-19 that will involve complex interactions between technological, social, environmental, behavioural, managerial and medical worlds; one such strategy is multi-stakeholder participation [4] and we propose this can be combined with Multi-stakeholder Spatial Decision Support systems (MS-SDSS). The aim is to help the world to be prepared for future problems and challenges that include pandemics [5].

As the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is multidimensional, affecting all spheres of life and across the global population, no single agency or stakeholder can work alone to control COVID-19 effectively and mitigate its impact. In order to better respond to and manage the COVID-19 situation, we need to deploy appropriate multi-stakeholder management strategies which can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of crisis and humanitarian operations [[6] It is important that competencies are developed at all levels for emergency, crisis prevention and management. COVID-19 is partly a spatial problem, highlighting the importance of quarantine, segregation and isolation in homes, workplaces and cities [7][8]. Controlling and managing these spatial issues requires an integrated, scientific approach that can help in the aggregation of spatial and non-spatial data, quick visualisation of epidemic information, spatial tracking of confirmed cases, estimation of regional transmission, and provide solid spatial information support for decision-making, measures formulation, and effective assessment of COVID-19 prevention and control measures [9][10]

2. Policy Announcement from Selected Countries for COVID-19

National Level COVID-19 Public Health responses included international travel restrictions, improving health facilities, setting strict following quarantine rules, guidance and compliance; tracking and testing, building up advisory systems, creating public awareness, controlling non-essential businesses, strengthening government services, restrictions on mass gathering, closure of schools and universities and imposing curfews. Some countries implemented good health data management/epidemiological databases, declared a state of emergency, imposed internal travel restrictions, implemented lockdown policies and followed decentralised communication as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Policy announcements for COVID-19.

Country/Territory Method/Approach Crisis Management Partners/Stakeholders Source

[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][11][12][13][14]

Strategies Followed to Combat COVID-19

Various countries followed different strategies like extensive testing, contract tracing, community mobilisation, crisis precautions, cluster containment strategy, public health surveillance, proactive state leadership, proper planning, knowledge of COVID-19, expect the unexpected, creating awareness, service orientation and supply chain information to fight against COVID-19 (Table 2).

Table 2. Case synthesis of lessons learned from the experience of different countries.

International travel restrictions [105][106]
Improving health facilities [107]
Strict quarantine measures [108][109][110]
Tracking and testing [18][108][111][112][113]
Built new hospitals for the treatment COVID-19 [110]
Building up advisory systems and Creating public awareness [18][114]
Stoppage of Non-essential businesses [108][112]
Strengthening Government services [115][116]
Restriction on mass gathering [108][112][116]
School and university closure [108][109][112][116]
Curfew [109][112][117]
Health data management/ epidemiological data base [18][108][114]
State of emergency [108]
Internal travel restriction [112]
Lockdown policy [111][112][117][118][119]
Decentralised communication [18]
community to be proactive, sharing of responsibility [120][121]
Stakeholders and clinical manifestation of COVID-19 [16][122]
Taiwan Networking, proactive testing, border control, transparency Frequent health check-ups, public education, relief to business, use of information technology Multi-layer governance, private organisations, insurance companies, citizens [11][12][13][14][15]
South Korea Timely emergency response, the nationwide framework of networks among stakeholders Shared interest, priority-based emergency response, rapid response, effective anti-COVID-19 measures, rapid testing, effective isolation strategy, scaling up resources, use of information technology Govt, community, CSOs (Civil Society Organisation) [16][17][18][19][20][21]
China,

Singapore		 The collaboration of Science including Social Sciences Large scale coordination, institutional timely response, community resilience, national level response, effective contact tracing Govt, industry, banks and financial institutions [22][23][24][25][26]
USA Networking Outbreak management, control, ineffective response to the COVID-19 Multi-layer Govts, private, CSOs [27][28][29][30]
Malaysia Movement control order Produce PPE (personal, protective equipment), fundraising, collaboration with healthcare service providers, inducting additional Labs, effective testing and contact tracing, effective communication and daily briefings Govt, CSOs, community [31][32][33][34]
India Lockdown Emergency management, interstate transmission control, laboratory network, ineffective practice of physical distancing, closure of educational institutes Multi-layer Govts, private, CSOs [27][35][36][37][38]
Italy Pandemic management, lockdown Institutional arrangements, undermining the virus, triple “Ts” (testing, tracing and treatment) Govt, CSOs [39][40][41][42][43][44]
Turkey Lockdown, proactive policy style Rapid and strong response, extensive use of institutional resources, factual information campaigns Presidential system of government, community, religious authorities [45][46][47]
Canada Social distancing, travel restrictions, integration of social sciences Well-functioning federalism, long term care, rapid testing and tracing, face mask mandates Multilayer government [48][49][50][51]
France Nationwide lockdown Closure of non-essential public places and services, internal and international travel restrictions, cancellation of public events, all covid-19 system—care categorization and anticipation strategy Govt, health department [26][52][53][54][55]
Japan Emergency (sub-national and local) Effective implementation of self-discipline, avoiding “Three Cs” (closed spaces with insufficient ventilation, crowded conditions with people, and conversations at a short distance), no lockdown, recommendations regarding closure of schools and work places, public information campaigns Govt, community [11][26][56][57][58][59]
Sweden Pandemic management—long term plan Temporary ban on nonessential travel, recommendations on social distancing and working online, voluntary self-protection, non-closure of gyms, schools, restaurants and shops Govt, voluntary organizations, community [26][60][61][62][63][64]
Germany Social lockdown & Economic lockdown Nation–wide social distancing and contact restrictions, personal care business centres were closed (hair dresses, tattoos, massage centres, etc.), different states followed different styles of lockdown e.g., strict lockdown—stay at home order and/or lenient lockdown—not to leave the house without a reason, closure of churches, recommendation on wearing of face masks, good medical preparedness, developed a reliable testing system, stock of testing kits, early testing and tracing Govt (National & Federal state), public and private hospitals, medical professionals, virologists, public health experts, laboratories, community, self-discipline, citizens [65][66][67][68][69][70]
New Zealand Lockdown Lockdown measures, closure of schools, non-essential workplaces, travel restrictions, restrictions on social gathering, social distancing, border control, rapid and science-based risk assessment, rapid testing and contact tracing, community transmission control measures, promotion of hand washing hygiene, medical preparedness, arranged more ICU & ventilator facilities, safeguarding healthcare professionals Govt, public and private hospitals, medical professionals, virologists, public health experts, laboratories, community, self-discipline, citizens [71][72][73][74][75]

While others made the community be proactive, coordinated the works with clear role clarity, coordinated different policies, shared responsibilities and implemented effective public health measures. Some connected with their stakeholders by establishing mutual trust and through clinical manifestation to manage COVID-19[76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]

Lessons learned from different countries involve the strengthening of crisis management and response strategies, increasing efforts to recognise cognitive bias and avoid partial solutions. Learning is critical and a readiness to accept the limitations is necessary. Understanding that extensive testing of symptomatic and asymptomatic cases early and proactive tracing of potential positives is very important. A strong emphasis on home diagnosis and care, specific efforts to monitor and protect health care and other essential workers, and collecting and disseminating data are important, as well as the resilience of affected/infected individuals [15]. It is important to address the plight of farmers, labourers and workers towards social protection measures. Health departments should concentrate on the robust collection of health data and epidemiological databases (for health policies and to ensure public health surveillance). The government should recognise the role of local international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) to the pandemic response and encourage timely provision of medical supplies and hygiene kit to individuals. The government should focus on the provision of social support and care to appropriate communities and vulnerable populations, co-ordination of funding activities and volunteers, R&D in life-saving medical innovations and to Test, Test and Test again the people in order to bring COVID-19 under control [76][77][79][80][81][82][99][100][101][102][103][104][11][12][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35].

3. Discussion

The paper has presented different strategies, policies and methods used by different countries to fight against COVID-19. There is no one solution that can solve COVID-19, but through multi-stakeholder participation it is possible to find the most appropriate strategies to fight against COVID-19. Countries need to identify innovative and culturally acceptable measures to combat this crisis. Efforts should be taken to identify easily available, culturally adaptable local technology that is accessible and affordable to everyone. There is a need to address the immediate and long-term impacts of COVID-19 [36]. In pandemic times, there must be promotion of culturally acceptable strategies for physical distancing coupled with social solidarity[37] . There is a need to advocate for the advancement and strengthening of social welfare services as an essential protection against the pandemic [38]. There is a need to develop capabilities at all levels for emergency and pandemic prevention and management where each stakeholder’s strength and skills are identified, targeted and harmonised within general response and management systems [39].

There is a need to strengthen inter-organisational coordination, participation, accountability and local responsibility with central coordination to handle the pandemic impact effectively [40]. Societies also need significant resources and dedicated funding to deal with emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases focusing on its future recurring possibilities, prevention and management [41]. There should be incentives given to people for early reporting [42] followed by developing strategies to prevent antimicrobial resistance [43][44].

The health impact of recent outbreaks should be properly studied and there is a need to communicate effectively with public health emergency management including hazard and risk assessment, prevention and mitigation, incident management, resource management, communications, operations and training, exercising evaluation, corrective action and quality improvement [45]. Government should focus on the impact of sudden job losses and depletion of income due to COVID-19 and acute hardships for millions of urban and rural households, especially those working in the informal sector with no contracts, including migrants. Governments should find solutions to the complex challenges of health and nutrition, poverty, hunger and acute undernourishment of several million people, rising domestic conflict, violence and depression. Major economic problems like a reversal in capital follow as global risk, oil market deep-diving into negative, economic stagnation and the plight of labour, require further attention. Governments must also address the risk of health inequalities especially in vulnerable groups [46][47][48].

Importance and Implications of Public Policies

While communicating to people there should be credible communication to the public without politicising the message [49]. Countries should come together, even if digitally/virtually, in order to take bold action since the virus knows no borders [50]. The public sector must lead society with a global approach to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. This involves public health emergency actions, identifying economic impacts, and combating misinformation and disinformation about the disease and its spread (Harvey, M. Whole of Society Approach [51]). Governments should focus on providing authoritative information via multiple sources to ensure accurate data, to slow the spread so that our health systems are not over-stressed (Kayyem, J. Disruption is the Plan [51]). There is a need to encourage increasing transparency, impose control measures and appropriate restrictions, design suitable prioritisation guidelines regarding the allocation of scarce resources and make use of effective technologies (Saghafian, S. Transparency, Control, Prioritization [51]). Countries should strive to recognise the potential for psychological burnout from long hours of work and potential demoralisation from persistent stress (Howitt, A.; Leonard, H. Energetic Mobilization [51]). Governments need to strike a balance between protecting the health of people and respecting human rights (Sikkink, K. Rights and Responsibilities [51]); to invest in vaccine and therapeutics against COVID-19 (Chandra, A. Vaccine Investment [51]); and to identify new priorities and revisit national spending priorities (Bilmes, L.J. How the Public Sector and Civil Society Can Respond to the Coronavirus Pandemic: New Priorities [51]). The government should address the long-standing challenges of health and nutrition of low-income households [52]. Governments must create synergy between partners and encourage collaboration to identify and engage in strong partnerships.

4. Suggestions for Effective Interventions

Despite the breadth of this study, we are not presenting generalised suggestions for the most effective interventions, as there is so much variation across contexts, cultures and climates, and no single approach is most appropriate in all cases. Instead, we present the multi-stakeholder participation model as one of the appropriate models to be implemented in combating COVID-19. We need to create effective mechanisms through which to enable collaboration between international, national and regional organisations, and we should strive to establish pathways through which multiple actors can work together [53] and create synergy among society, economy and development [54]. An understanding of pandemic risks in all its dimensions, interlinking of disaster management and development planning is required [55]. There is also a need to encourage clinical and community-based research [56] and to strive to enhance healthcare data management for evidence-based research [57][58]. Successful interventions always assess the felt need of the community and then, through active and effective legal enforcement as required, facilitate and enable education to create a context of personal and public accountability and social responsibility. Self-discipline is one of the better interventions through which we can fight against COVID-19 so this can be achieved successfully[76]. The most effective intervention may be a combination of the different suggestions presented according to the needs, wants and situation of each country.

Scope for Future Research

There is a need to better understand the COVID-19 crisis life cycle [59], and more research is required to know the causes and consequences (recovery, mitigation, response and preparation). Further analysis can be done by revisiting datasets, redefining relevant methodologies, facilitating access to online resources and exploring culturally relevant approaches. There is a need to improve access to relevant information sources and compile robust data of active and closed COVID-19 cases and their relatives. We need to evolve a global monitoring framework and find ways to implement the sustainable development goals [60]. Additional work is required to explore COVID-19’s impact on social development, human happiness and well-being of professionals, carers, their families and others in the community. Evidence must be synthesised more rapidly and it is needed the provision of large-scale intervention guidelines and longer-term strategies for human happiness, well-being, social and economic recovery. Further work is required to ensure adequate quality of research work and to better communicate the findings with multi-stakeholders, including policy briefs. There is a need to strengthen community-based crisis risk management, replicate best practices and learn from the field of diverse multispectral partnerships [61].

5. Limitations

Although the present study has accomplished some significant and interesting results, there are certain research limitations and challenges that can be improvised for better research in this field. First, due to the lack of available consistent data on global pandemic COVID-19 multi-stakeholder participation in diverse aspects, it took a lot of time to collect and finalise the data sets. Second, significant differences in various technical subjects (e.g., SDSS) led to challenges in identifying the real current situations. Third, due to the lockdown, work restrictions and lack of full physical access to the universities, some library facilities were not available for the data search. This is to be a major limitation and could be better addressed in future research. Finally, during the data collection, some organisations, particularly for government organisations, did not respond within the time frame. However, most of the vital information was obtained during the stipulated data collection period.

Acknowledgements:

Thanks to G.M.Lagunes who permitted to use the first photograph of the cover page

References

  1. Wang, C.; Ng, C.; Brook, R. Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. JAMA 2020, 323, 1341–1342.
  2. Cheng, H.-Y.; Li, S.-Y.; Yang, C.-H. Initial rapid and proactive response for the COVID-19 outbreak—Taiwan’s experience. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2020, 119, 771.
  3. Huang, I.Y.F. Fighting COVID-19 through government initiatives and collaborative governance: The Taiwan experience. Public Adm. Rev. 2020, 80, 665–670.
  4. Lin, C.; Braund, W.E.; Auerbach, J.; Chou, J.-H.; Teng, J.-H.; Tu, P.; Mullen, J. Policy decisions and use of information technology to fight coronavirus disease, Taiwan. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 1506.
  5. Summers, J.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Lin, H.-H.; Barnard, L.T.; Kvalsvig, A.; Wilson, N.; Baker, M.G. Potential lessons from the Taiwan and New Zealand health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Reg. Health Western Pac. 2020, 4, 100044.
  6. Ha, K. A Lesson Learned from the Outbreak of COVID-19 in Korea. Indian J. Microbiol. 2020, 60, 396–397.
  7. Lee, D.; Heo, K.; Seo, Y. COVID-19 in South Korea: Lessons for developing countries. World Dev. 2020, 135, 105057.
  8. You, J. Lessons from South Korea’s Covid-19 policy response. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2020, 50, 801–808.
  9. Lee, S.; Hwang, C.; Moon, M.J. Policy learning and crisis policy-making: Quadruple-loop learning and COVID-19 responses in South Korea. Policy Soc. 2020, 39, 363–381.
  10. Kim, J.-H.; An, J.A.-R.; Min, P.-k.; Bitton, A.; Gawande, A.A. How South Korea responded to the COVID-19 outbreak in Daegu. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 1.
  11. Park, S.; Choi, G.J.; Ko, H. Information technology–based tracing strategy in response to COVID-19 in South Korea—privacy controversies. JAMA 2020, 323, 2129–2130.
  12. Liu, Y.; Lee, J.M.; Lee, C. The challenges and opportunities of a global health crisis: The management and business implications of COVID-19 from an Asian perspective. Asian Bus. Manag. 2020, 19, 277–297.
  13. Pan, S.L.; Cui, M.; Qian, J. Information resource orchestration during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study of community lockdowns in China. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102143.
  14. Kuguyo, O.; Kengne, A.P.; Dandara, C. Singapore COVID-19 pandemic response as a successful model framework for low-resource health care settings in Africa? Omics A J. Integr. Biol. 2020, 24, 470–478.
  15. Woo, J. Policy capacity and Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy Soc. 2020, 39, 345–362.
  16. Yan, B.; Zhang, X.; Wu, L.; Zhu, H.; Chen, B. Why do countries respond differently to COVID-19? A comparative study of Sweden, China, France, and Japan. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2020, 50, 762–769.
  17. Zodpey, S.; Negandhi, H.; Dua, A.; Vasudevan, A.; Raja, M. Our fight against the rapidly evolving COVID-19 pandemic: A review of India’s actions and proposed way forward. Indian J. Community Med. 2020, 45, 117.
  18. Balogun, J.A. Lessons from the USA Delayed Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Commentary. Afr. J. Reprod. Health 2020, 24, 14–21.
  19. Carter, D.P.; May, P.J. Making sense of the US COVID-19 pandemic response: A policy regime perspective. Adm. Theory Prax. 2020, 42, 265–277.
  20. Haffajee, R.L.; Mello, M.M. Thinking globally, acting locally—The US response to COVID-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e75.
  21. Shah, A.U.M.; Safri, S.N.A.; Thevadas, R.; Noordin, N.K.; Abd Rahman, A.; Sekawi, Z.; Ideris, A.; Sultan, M.T.H. COVID-19 Outbreak in Malaysia: Actions Taken by the Malaysian Government. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 97, 108–116.
  22. Abdullah, J.M.; Ismail, W.F.N.m.W.; Mohamad, I.; Ab Razak, A.; Harun, A.; Musa, K.I.; Lee, Y.Y. A critical appraisal of COVID-19 in Malaysia and beyond. Malays. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 27, 1.
  23. Elengoe, A. COVID-19 outbreak in Malaysia. Osong Public Health Res. Perspect. 2020, 11, 93.
  24. Rahman, F. The Malaysian Response to COVID-19: Building Preparedness for ‘Surge Capacity’, Testing Efficiency and Containment. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 24 January 2021).
  25. Changotra, R.; Rajput, H.; Rajput, P.; Gautam, S.; Arora, A.S. Largest democracy in the world crippled by COVID-19: Current perspective and experience from India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 1–19.
  26. Chetterje, P. Gaps in India’s preparedness for COVID-19 control. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 544.
  27. Ghosh, J. A critique of the Indian government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 2020, 47, 519–530.
  28. Pulla, P. Covid-19: India imposes lockdown for 21 days and cases rise. BMJ 2020.
  29. Capano, G.; Howlett, M.; Jarvis, D.S.; Ramesh, M.; Goyal, N. Mobilizing policy (in) capacity to fight COVID-19: Understanding variations in state responses. Policy Soc. 2020, 39, 285–308.
  30. Pisano, G.P.; Sadun, R.; Zanini, M. Lessons from Italy’s Response to Coronavirus. Available online: (accessed on 15 August 2020).
  31. Ruiu, M.L. Mismanagement of Covid-19: Lessons learned from Italy. J. Risk Res. 2020, 23, 1007–1020.
  32. Armocida, B.; Formenti, B.; Ussai, S.; Palestra, F.; Missoni, E. The Italian health system and the COVID-19 challenge. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 5, e253.
  33. Berardi, C.; Antonini, M.; Genie, M.G.; Cotugno, G.; Lanteri, A.; Melia, A.; Paolucci, F. The COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: Policy and technology impact on health and non-health outcomes. Health Policy Technol. 2020, 9, 454–487.
  34. Paterlini, M. On the front lines of coronavirus: The Italian response to covid-19. BMJ 2020, 368.
  35. Bakir, C. The Turkish state’s responses to existential COVID-19 crisis. Policy Soc. 2020, 39, 424–441.
  36. Alyanak, O. Faith, politics and the COVID-19 pandemic: The Turkish Response. Med. Anthropol. 2020, 1745482.
  37. Zahariadis, N.; Petridou, E.; Oztig, L.I. Claiming credit and avoiding blame: Political accountability in Greek and Turkish responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2020, 6, 159–169.
  38. Desson, Z.; Weller, E.; McMeekin, P.; Ammi, M. An analysis of the policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Belgium, and Canada. Health Policy Technol. 2020, 9, 430–446.
  39. Detsky, A.S.; Bogoch, I.I. COVID-19 in Canada: Experience and response. JAMA 2020, 324, 743–744.
  40. Karaivanov, A.; Lu, S.E.; Shigeoka, H.; Chen, C.; Pamplona, S. Face Masks, Public Policies and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19: Evidence from Canada. MedRxiv 2020.
  41. Leslie, M.; Fadaak, R.; Davies, J.; Blaak, J.; Forest, P.; Green, L.; Conly, J. Integrating the social sciences into the COVID-19 response in Alberta, Canada. BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e002672.
  42. Bounie, D.; Camara, Y.; Galbraith, J.W. Consumers’ Mobility, Expenditure and Online-Offline Substitution Response to COVID-19: Evidence from French Transaction Data. Available online: (accessed on 15 August 2020).
  43. Barro, K.; Malone, A.; Mokede, A.; Chevance, C. Management of the COVID-19 epidemic by public health establishments–Analysis by the Fédération Hospitalière de France. J. Visc. Surg. 2020, 157, S19–S23.
  44. Di Domenico, L.; Pullano, G.; Sabbatini, C.E.; Boëlle, P.-Y.; Colizza, V. Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 epidemic in Île-de-France and possible exit strategies. BMC Med. 2020, 18, 1–13.
  45. Pullano, G.; Valdano, E.; Scarpa, N.; Rubrichi, S.; Colizza, V. Population mobility reductions during COVID-19 epidemic in France under lockdown. MedRxiv 2020.
  46. DeWit, A.; Shaw, R.; Djalante, R. An integrated approach to sustainable development, National Resilience, and COVID-19 responses: The case of Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101808.
  47. Iwasaki, A.; Grubaugh, N.D. Why does Japan have so few cases of COVID-19? EMBO Mol. Med. 2020, 12, e12481.
  48. Tashiro, A.; Shaw, R. COVID-19 pandemic response in Japan: What is behind the initial flattening of the curve? Sustainability 2020, 12, 5250.
  49. Yabe, T.; Tsubouchi, K.; Fujiwara, N.; Wada, T.; Sekimoto, Y.; Ukkusuri, S.V. Non-compulsory measures sufficiently reduced human mobility in Japan during the COVID-19 epidemic. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2005.09423.
  50. Pacces, A.M.; Weimer, M. From Diversity to Coordination: A European Approach to COVID-19. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 2020, 11, 283–296.
  51. Dahlberg, M.; Edin, P.-A.; Grönqvist, E.; Lyhagen, J.; Östh, J.; Siretskiy, A.; Toger, M. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mobility under mild policies: Causal evidence from Sweden. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2004.09087.
  52. Kavaliunas, A.; Ocaya, P.; Mumper, J.; Lindfeldt, I.; Kyhlstedt, M. Swedish policy analysis for Covid-19. Health Policy Tech. 2020, 9, 598–612.
  53. Petridou, E. Politics and administration in times of crisis: Explaining the Swedish response to the COVID-19 crisis. Eur. Policy Anal. 2020.
  54. Valeriani, G.; Sarajlic Vukovic, I.; Lindegaard, T.; Felizia, R.; Mollica, R.; Andersson, G. Addressing Healthcare Gaps in Sweden during the COVID-19 Outbreak: On Community Outreach and Empowering Ethnic Minority Groups in a Digitalized Context. Healthcare 2020, 8, 445.
  55. Stafford, N. Covid-19: Why Germany’s case fatality rate seems so low. BMJ 2020, 369, m1395.
  56. Armbruster, S.; Klotzbü, V. Lost in Lockdown? Covid-19, Social Distancing, and Mental Health in Germany; Discussion Series No. 2020-04; Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg: Freiburg i. Br, Germany, 2020; Available online: (accessed on 13 February 2021).
  57. Buthe, T.; Messerschmidt, L.; Cheng, C. Policy responses to the coronavirus in Germany. In The World Before and After COVID-19: Intellectual Reflections on Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations; Gardini, G.L., Ed.; European Institute of International Relations: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2020.
  58. Desson, Z.; Lambertz, L.; Peters, J.W.; Falkenbach, M.; Kauer, L. Europe’s Covid-19 outliers: German, Austrian and Swiss policy responses during the early stages of the 2020 pandemic. Health Policy Tech. 2020, 9, 405–418.
  59. Narlikar, A. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Germany’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Daring. Available online: (accessed on 30 March 2020).
  60. Naumann, E.; Möhring, K.; Reifenscheid, M.; Wenz, A.; Rettig, T.; Lehrer, R.; Krieger, U.; Juhl, S.; Friedel, S.; Fikel, M. COVID-19 policies in Germany and their social, political, and psychological consequences. Eur. Policy Anal. 2020, 6, 191–202.
  61. Baker, M.G.; Kvalsvig, A.; Verrall, A.J.; Wellington, N. New Zealand’s COVID-19 elimination strategy. Med. J. Aust. 2020, 1.
  62. Baker, M.G.; Kvalsvig, A.; Verrall, A.J.; Telfar-Barnard, L.; Wilson, N. New Zealand’s elimination strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic and what is required to make it work. N. Z. Med. J. 2020, 133, 10–14.
  63. Baker, M.G.; Wilson, N.; Anglemyer, A. Successful elimination of Covid-19 transmission in New Zealand. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, e56.
  64. Cousins, S. New zealand eliminates covid-19. Lancet 2020, 395, 1474.
  65. Jefferies, S.; French, N.; Gilkison, C.; Graham, G.; Hope, V.; Marshall, J.; McElnay, C.; McNeill, A.; Muellner, P.; Paine, S. COVID-19 in New Zealand and the impact of the national response: A descriptive epidemiological study. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e612–e623.
  66. Wells, C.R.; Sah, P.; Moghadas, S.M.; Pandey, A.; Shoukat, A.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Meyers, L.A.; Singer, B.H.; Galvani, A.P. Impact of international travel and border control measures on the global spread of the novel 2019 coronavirus outbreak. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 7504–7509.
  67. Now, India bans entry of Indians from EU, Turkey and UK. The Economic Times. 18 March 2020. Available online: (accessed on 22 January 2021).
  68. Zangrillo, A.; Beretta, L.; Silvani, P.; Colombo, S.; Scandroglio, A.M.; Dell’Acqua, A.; Fominskiy, E.; Landoni, G.; Monti, G.; Azzolini, M.L. Fast reshaping of intensive care unit facilities in a large metropolitan hospital in Milan, Italy: Facing the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. Crit. Care Resusc. 2020, 22, 91.
  69. Lu, N.; Cheng, K.-W.; Qamar, N.; Huang, K.-C.; Johnson, J.A. Weathering COVID-19 storm: Successful control measures of five Asian countries. Am. J. Infect. Control 2020, 48, 851–852.
  70. Åslund, A. Responses to the COVID-19 crisis in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2020, 61, 532–545.
  71. Hopman, J.; Allegranzi, B.; Mehtar, S. Managing COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. JAMA 2020, 323, 1549–1550.
  72. Peto, J.; Alwan, N.A.; Godfrey, K.M.; Burgess, R.A.; Hunter, D.J.; Riboli, E.; Romer, P.; Buchan, I.; Colbourn, T.; Costelloe, C. Universal weekly testing as the UK COVID-19 lockdown exit strategy. Lancet 2020, 395, 1420–1421.
  73. Kwok, K.O.; Lai, F.; Wei, V.W.I.; Tsoi, M.T.F.; Wong, S.Y.S.; Tang, J. Comparing the impact of various interventions to control the spread of COVID-19 in twelve countries. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 106, 214–216.
  74. Djalante, R.; Lassa, J.; Setiamarga, D.; Mahfud, C.; Sudjatma, A.; Indrawan, M.; Haryanto, B.; Sinapoy, M.S.; Rafliana, I.; Djalante, S. Review and analysis of current responses to COVID-19 in Indonesia: Period of January to March 2020. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 100091.
  75. Alanezi, F.; Aljahdali, A.; Alyousef, S.; Alrashed, H.; Alshaikh, W.; Mushcab, H.; Alanzi, T. Implications of Public Understanding of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia for Fostering Effective Communication Through Awareness Framework. Front. Public Health 2020, 8.
  76. Dzigbede, K.; Gehl, S.B.; Willoughby, K. Disaster resiliency of US local governments: Insights to strengthen local response and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2020.
  77. Almutairi, A.F.; BaniMustafa, A.A.; Alessa, Y.M.; Almutairi, S.B.; Almaleh, Y. Public trust and compliance with the precautionary measures against COVID-19 employed by authorities in Saudi Arabia. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2020, 13, 753.
  78. Sarkar, K.; Khajanchi, S.; Nieto, J.J. Modeling and forecasting the COVID-19 pandemic in India. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2020, 139, 110049.
  79. Chiu, N.-C.; Chi, H.; Tai, Y.-L.; Peng, C.-C.; Tseng, C.-Y.; Chen, C.-C.; Tan, B.F.; Lin, C.-Y. Impact of Wearing Masks, Hand Hygiene, and Social Distancing on Influenza, Enterovirus, and All-Cause Pneumonia During the Coronavirus Pandemic: Retrospective National Epidemiological Surveillance Study. J. Med. Internet. Res. 2020, 22, e21257.
  80. Lancet, T. India under COVID-19 lockdown. Lancet 2020, 395, 1315.
  81. Wan, K.-M.; Ho, L.K.-K.; Wong, N.W.; Chiu, A. Fighting COVID-19 in Hong Kong: The effects of community and social mobilization. World Dev. 2020, 134, 105055.
  82. Hartley, K.; Jarvis, D.S. Policymaking in a low-trust state: Legitimacy, state capacity, and responses to COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Policy Soc. 2020, 39, 403–423.
  83. Levy, D.L. COVID-19 and Global Governance. J. Manag. Stud. 2020.
  84. Uusikylä, P.; Tommila, P.; Uusikylä, I. Disaster Management as a Complex System: Building Resilience with New Systemic Tools of Analysis. In Society as an Interaction Space; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 161–190.
  85. Kwan, K.M.W.; Shi, S.Y.; Nabbijohn, A.N.; MacMullin, L.N.; VanderLaan, D.P.; Wong, W.I. Children’s appraisals of gender nonconformity: Developmental pattern and intervention. Child Dev. 2020, 91, e780–e798.
  86. Pandi-Perumal, S.R.; Akhter, S.; Zizi, F.; Jean-Louis, G.; Ramasubramanian, C.; Edward Freeman, R.; Narasimhan, M. Project Stakeholder Management in the Clinical Research Environment: How to Do it Right. Front. Psychiatry 2015, 6, 71.
  87. Rice, L.; Sara, R. Updating the determinants of health model in the Information Age. Health Promot. Int. 2018, 34, 1241–1249.
  88. Oliver, N.; Lepri, B.; Sterly, H.; Lambiotte, R.; Deletaille, S.; De Nadai, M.; Letouzé, E.; Salah, A.A.; Benjamins, R.; Cattuto, C.; et al. Mobile phone data for informing public health actions across the COVID-19 pandemic life cycle. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabc0764.
  89. Paul, C.; Pearlman, C.V.; Tulika Singh, L.M.; Stevens, B.K. Multi-stakeholder partnerships: Breaking down barriers to effective cancer-control planning and implementation in low-and middle-income countries. Sci. Dipl. 2016, 5, 1–15.
  90. Fernandez, A.A.; Shaw, G.P. Academic Leadership in a Time of Crisis: The Coronavirus and COVID-19. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2020, 14, 39–45.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback