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

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.

Automated summary

The current All-Hazards Approach framework in disaster risk planning is criticized for its flaws highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The alternative Top-Hazards Approach emphasizes the need for different planning and mitigation tactics for inherently different disaster events.