Crises confront decision makers with persistent, interdependent demands that intensify under conditions of urgency, uncertainty, distributed authority, and public scrutiny. They must act rapidly while exercising judgment, coordinate centrally while preserving local discretion, and stabilize operations while remaining attentive to consequences that may emerge later and elsewhere. Drawing on paradox theory, crisis governance, and research on decision making in extreme contexts, this dissertation examines how such tensions become governable in practice. Its overarching research question is: How do decision makers navigate paradoxical tensions in crisis response? The dissertation develops a cross-level account spanning the response system, the central–local interface, and concrete decision episodes. The first study examines crisis response at the system level through a systematic review of 211 empirical studies published between 1993 and 2025 in management and public administration journals. It develops the Extreme Context Response System (ECRS) model, which links response mechanisms to operational and environmental outcomes and to feedback channels characterized by different temporal latencies. The review identifies recurring patterns in how consequences unfold over time. Operational outcomes tend to stabilize before environmental outcomes become visible; feedback travels through partially distinct channels; and time pressure concentrates attention on immediate operational priorities. Where environmental feedback is weak, delayed, or politically muted, operational primacy can displace risks and contribute to later environmental extremes. The second study examines hybrid crisis governance at the central–local interface during the Dutch public-health response to COVID-19. It focuses on the relationship between a central coordinating body and 25 regionally autonomous Municipal Health Services. The analysis identifies three coupled coordination mechanisms: a decision ledger, an exception interface, and a synchronized cadence. These mechanisms preserve decisions and their rationales, provide a bounded route for surfacing locally unworkable directions, and establish recurring moments for coordination, adjustment, and reconsideration. Together, they sustain accountability, predictable timing, and shared understanding while keeping central direction and local discretion jointly workable across levels. The third study examines concrete decision episodes in which leaders experienced paradoxical demands as undecidable. Drawing on interviews with all 25 regional public-health leaders, internal organizational documents, and field-based involvement, the study shows how leaders relied on ethical consideration when protocols, categories, and formal authority did not fully settle what should be done. Four recurring domains emerged: allocative prioritization, rule interpretation, temporal sequencing, and cross-audience alignment. Across these domains, leaders weighed duties, procedures, anticipated consequences, and audience expectations in order to render action defensible under uncertainty and scrutiny. These studies interconnect and conceptualize crisis governance as a cross-level process in which consequences, coordination, and ethical accountability remain connected over time. The integrated argument is that paradoxical tensions remain navigable when later consequences remain visible, cross-level tensions remain revisable, and difficult action remains defensible while response is still unfolding. The dissertation contributes to research on extreme contexts, crisis governance, and organizational paradox by connecting temporal, organizational, and ethical dimensions of crisis response. It further identifies practical design principles for response systems that preserve visibility of delayed consequences, support adaptation across interfaces, and sustain accountable decision making under pressure.
Hamidreza Khankeh, Samaneh Motalebi, naajmeh yazdanparast, Abbas Naboureh
Background: Over the past three decades, four international frameworks the Yokohama Strategy (1994), Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015), Sendai Framework (2015–2030), and WHO’s Health-EDRM Framework (2019) have shaped the disaster risk reduction (DRR) agenda. Despite advancing norms and principles, a persistent gap remains between policy commitments and implementation, particularly in integrating health systems.Methods: This study conducted a structured qualitative framework analysis of official UN and WHO documents, technical guidance, and monitoring reports. Frameworks were compared across four dimensions: governance, health system integration, monitoring and accountability, and financing/implementation guidance.Findings: Findings show a shift from state-centered governance toward multi-level, all-of-society approaches, although decision-making remains largely centralized. Health integration has progressed from minimal attention in Yokohama to explicit targets in Sendai and operational guidance in Health-EDRM; however, implementation remains fragmented. Monitoring systems have improved, particularly with Sendai’s 38 indicators, yet challenges in data quality and interoperability persist. Financing is consistently the weakest dimension, with limited guidance on sustainable funding.Conclusion: Overall, while DRR frameworks demonstrate normative and institutional progress, gaps in financing, decentralization, and alignment between Sendai monitoring and Health-EDRM implementation limit effectiveness. Future research should focus on translating global frameworks into local practice and their interaction with climate-related agreements.
Ensuring consistent progress toward cities’ net-zero emission goals requires understanding key dimensions of urban climate governance—particularly the motivations driving municipalities toward net zero and the critical barriers and enablers along this pathway. Current knowledge on these critical aspects is fragmented, lacking a holistic framework and empirical prioritization of key factors. We developed an integrated analytical framework and empirically distilled the most salient motivations, barriers, and enablers through a large-scale survey targeting 489 net-zero-committed municipalities—known as “Zero Carbon Cities”—across Japan. With responses from 309 municipalities, we deliver the first systematic mapping of factors perceived as most influential by Japanese local authorities. The results indicate that municipalities are primarily motivated by seizing local economic development opportunities (enhanced local energy conditions, financial gains and savings, and local industry revitalization), future-proofing communities against disasters, and enhancing the local quality of life. Key barriers and enablers were identified across four categories: municipal resources and authority (budgets, dedicated staff, and empowered climate agencies), knowledge and expertise (staff climate competence), institutional coherence (cross-departmental coordination and stakeholder involvement), and political will and leadership (the presence of climate champions and awareness within city halls and among residents). Accordingly, we discuss implications and derive recommendations toward strengthened local action in Japan and beyond.
Disaster risk, climate change, and unsustainable development are growing and interconnected challenges across Africa, where socio-economic vulnerabilities, environmental degradation, and institutional fragility converge to amplify risks. While the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change provide complementary global frameworks for tackling these complex issues, the true extent of their integrated implementation in the African context has remained largely unexplored. Existing research has tended to examine these frameworks in isolation, failing to capture their potential synergies and combined impact. This study fills this gap by assessing the integration of these global frameworks into national and sub-national planning and implementation processes in Africa. The study conducted a systematic review, complemented by a review of grey literature, covering the period from 2000 to 2024. The analysis combined qualitative thematic synthesis with quantitative assessment using MATLAB to identify trends, patterns, and integration gaps. Key funding reveals that while these frameworks are formally endorsed in Africa, their integration remains limited and inconsistent. Analysis shows that only 6.5% of Africa’s measurable SDG targets are on track, with 67.7% requiring acceleration and 25.8% off track for achieving the 2030 goals. Furthermore, fewer than 30% of African countries have adopted comprehensive strategies aligning DRR, climate adaptation, and SDGs. The study also confirms that fragmented financing, weak decentralization, and incompatible data systems persist as major barriers, limiting operational coherence and impact.
Thushara Kamalrathne, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Richard Haigh
The entire world is in an unprecedented dysfunction since 11 th March 2020 when the WHO declared a global pandemic as unprecedented health and socioeconomic issues emerged with the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated 53 coronavirus diseases (COVID-19). This challenging pandemic has created a greater shock on regular activities of every social strata resulting in a significant decline in economic growth and health sector progression. A serious wearing down of infrastructure, human resources and emergency response in the public health sector was visible in many countries, irrespective of the level of economic and social development. In this backdrop, many scholars are exploring appropriate and effective resilient systems to govern pandemic risks in varied settings. It is observed that Sri Lanka's pandemic response is not properly embedded with the country's Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) framework and in many aspects, it is heavily reliant on the public health sector authority. In further elaborating the identified gap, this study explored many possible policy amalgamations that can be considered to improve the effectiveness of pandemic response activities at sub-national levels in Sri Lanka. Many government authorities, universities, volunteer agencies including NGOs, private sector organisations and the community can be efficiently integrated into pandemic response activities, vesting necessary responsibilities and authority for contingency and financial decision making at the sub-national level. This system further ensures the unique and contextual approach in pandemic response at the Divisional Secretariat level of each sub-region, which consists of diverse cultures. A large number of public officers are employed at District Secretary (DS) level in different areas of work such as finance, statistic and information, development, public health, livelihood, legal, police, child protection and probation, social welfare, elderly care, poverty alleviation, etc. within the public administration protocol adopted in Sri Lanka. These official positions can also be effectively integrated with the pandemic preparedness and response mechanisms at sub-national level.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015–30, calls for countries to strengthen disaster risk governance systems as a pathway to disaster risk reduction. This paper assesses the disaster risk governance system in Malawi, Sub‐Saharan Africa, to understand how the positioning of multiple actors is contributing to the creation of an environment generating either positive or negative outcomes. The study utilizes a landscape governance analytical framework grounded within network governance theory and predominantly relies on qualitative approaches. The study finds that non‐governmental organizations are delivering the majority of disaster risk management services in the country. However, there are shortfalls within and across key actors and institutions that are frustrating progress and could reverse isolated gains that the country has made. While central government is largely detached from community‐level implementation, its incapacity is worsened by politicians and local government actors who have positioned themselves to capture risk reduction finance. The paper, therefore, questions the rationale behind the urgency in decentralizing disaster risk governance before addressing critical challenges within the local government system. These findings, while specifically for Malawi, are also pertinent to other developing countries struggling to deal with the consequences of climate variability and change.
Resumen. Este artículo analiza la implementación de un esquema de reducción de riesgo de desastres asociados a la actividad petroquímica en la ciudad de Coatzacoalcos, en un contexto de descentralización de la gestión de riesgos. El trabajo aborda el papel de las asociaciones público-privadas y el ambiente institucional en torno a las labores locales de protección civil y gestión de riesgos. El artículo identifica los ámbitos de acción de agentes públicos y privados, y analiza el marco legal, los acuerdos políticos informales y las regulaciones fuera del ámbito legal que permiten la colaboración de estos agentes. El estudio muestra que la funcionalidad de estas asociaciones se basa en formas de confianza y colaboración que no tienen como base los principios del marco normativo establecido por el Estado y los acuerdos internacionales en la materia. El estudio concluye que los beneficios y derechos adquiridos a través de redes personales constituyen el apoyo central de este ambiente institucional. Abstract. This paper analyzes the chemical hazards-related disaster risk reduction (drr) scheme in the petrochemical industry oriented city of Coatzacoalcos (Mexico) in the context of political decentralization. This work addresses the role of public-private partnerships, as well as the institutional environment around civil protection and chemical risk management. The paper identifies the scopes of action of public and private agents, and analyzes the legal framework, the informal political agreements and the non-legal regulations that allow these agents’ collaboration. The study shows that the functionality of these partnerships is based on forms of trust that do not rely entirely on the normative framework established by State organizations and international agreements; the trust that underlies their schemes of collaboration is relatively autonomous from the bureaucratic side of this institutional environment. The study concludes that the benefits and rights accessed through personal networks are the core of the institutional environment around risk governance.