During global pandemics, such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), crisis communication is indispensable in dispelling fears, uncertainty, and unifying individuals worldwide in a collective fight against health threats. Inadequate crisis communication can bring dire personal and economic consequences. Mounting research shows that seemingly endless newsfeeds related to COVID-19 infection and death rates could considerably increase the risk of mental health problems. Unfortunately, media reports that include infodemics regarding the influence of COVID-19 on mental health may be a source of the adverse psychological effects on individuals. Owing partially to insufficient crisis communication practices, media and news organizations across the globe have played minimal roles in battling COVID-19 infodemics. Common refrains include raging QAnon conspiracies, a false and misleading “Chinese virus” narrative, and the use of disinfectants to “cure” COVID-19. With the potential to deteriorate mental health, infodemics fueled by a kaleidoscopic range of misinformation can be dangerous. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of research on how to improve crisis communication across media and news organization channels. This paper identifies ways that legacy media reports on COVID-19 and how social media-based infodemics can result in mental health concerns. This paper discusses possible crisis communication solutions that media and news organizations can adopt to mitigate the negative influences of COVID-19 related news on mental health. Emphasizing the need for global media entities to forge a fact-based, person-centered, and collaborative response to COVID-19 reporting, this paper encourages media resources to focus on the core issue of how to slow or stop COVID-19 transmission effectively.

Off-site construction has become an emerging research domain in the recent decade. Through a holistic review approach incorporating scientometric analysis and follow-up in-depth qualitative analysis, this study contributes to the body of knowledge in off-site construction by summarizing the latest research keywords and main research topics. This study also identifies the current gaps in research and practice, as well as proposing future research directions in this research area. Off-site construction is a domain that can be extended to cross-disciplinary research from the perspectives of engineering, management, and technology. Existing research have been focusing on many research disciplines, such as structural behaviors and joint connections of prefabricated components, scheduling and planning of off-site activities, as well as performance evaluation of off-site construction. However, further research is needed in integrating the emerging digital construction technology, integrated project delivery method, lean construction, and the issues of sustainability of off-site construction. There are already limited studies linking off-site construction to the concept of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly. Future research should also adopt a larger database and allow for comprehensive evaluation of off-site construction performance.

Currently little is known about how institutional arrangements coevolve with urban experimentation. This paper mobilizes neoinstitutional literature and recent urban experimentation literature as a framework to explore how and why institutional arrangements differ across urban contexts. Empirically the paper focusses on smart city initiatives in Amsterdam, Hamburg and Ningbo. These three cities are frontrunners in adopting a comprehensive smart city agenda, but they do so in different ways. The paper examines regulative, normative and cognitive elements of institutional arrangements, explores how they shape experimentation, and reflects on their place-based specificities. The comparative analysis suggests that the focus of, and approach to, experimentation can be understood as resting in a (possibly unique) combination of strategic agency and dynamics at multiple spatial scales. ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, we aim to underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine non-adopters. As the availability of vaccines does not translate into their de facto adoption—a phenomenon that may be more pronounced amid “Operation Warp Speed”—it is important for public health professionals to thoroughly understand their “customers” (i.e., end users of COVID-19 vaccines) to ensure satisfactory vaccination rates and to safeguard society at large.

No abstract

This study explores the impacts of COVID-19 on household energy use. Some of these impacts are associated with longer-term energy demand changes and some could just be temporary. The study intends to present the results of a small pilot study conducted in China, by addressing household energy use. The samples are from 352 households and particularly focus on primary energy use in three periods of pre-pandemic (and pre-lockdown), start of COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown, and post lockdown. Each period is identified as a timeframe of 2.5 months, from November 2019 to late June 2020. The samples of this study highlight the primary implications of energy use, some that are understood as interim changes and some that may appear to be more prolonged. The results from the study highlight a variety of impacts on household energy use as well as prolonged impacts on transportation use. The primary household energy use are assessed in six fundamental elements of (1) transportation for commuting and leisure (for both private and public modes), (2) cooking, (3) entertainment, (4) heating and cooling, (5) lighting, and (6) the others. The results are summarized in three sections focused on major impacts on transportation use (comparison between private and public modes), cooking and entertainment, heating/cooling and lighting. The results could provide early suggestions for cities/regions that are experiencing longer lockdown. Furthermore, this study provides insights for larger-scale research in assessing household energy use/demand during times of health emergency and crises, such as the event of a pandemic.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the largest infrastructure scheme in our lifetime, bringing unprecedented geopolitical and economic shifts far larger than previous rising powers. Concerns about its environmental impacts are legitimate and threaten to thwart China’s ambitions, especially since there is little precedent for analysing and planning for environmental impacts of massive infrastructure development at the scale of BRI. In this paper, we review infrastructure development under BRI to characterise the nature and types of environmental impacts and demonstrate how social, economic and political factors can shape these impacts. We first address the ambiguity around how BRI is defined. Then we describe our interdisciplinary framework for considering the nature of its environmental impacts, showing how impacts interact and aggregate across multiple spatiotemporal scales creating cumulative impacts. We also propose a typology of BRI infrastructure, and describe how economic and socio-political drivers influence BRI infrastructure and the nature of its environmental impacts. Increasingly, environmental policies associated with BRI are being designed and implemented, although there are concerns about how these will translate effectively into practice. Planning and addressing environmental issues associated with the BRI is immensely complex and multi-scaled. Understanding BRI and its environment impacts is the first step for China and countries along the routes to ensure the assumed positive socio-economic impacts associated with BRI are sustainable.

Introduction: Vaccine inequality inflames the COVID-19 pandemic. Ensuring equitable immunization, vaccine empathy is needed to boost vaccine donations among capable countries. However, damaging narratives built around vaccine donations such as “vaccine diplomacy” could undermine nations’ willingness to donate their vaccines, which, in turn, further exacerbate global vaccine inequality. However, while discussions on vaccine diplomacy are on the rise, there is limited research related to vaccine diplomacy, especially in terms of its characteristics and effects on vaccine distribution vis-à-vis vaccine empathy. Thus, to bridge the research gap, this study aims to examine the defining attributes of vaccine diplomacy and its potential effects on COVID-19 immunization, particularly in light of vaccine empathy. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to shed light on vaccine diplomacy’s defining attributes and effects in the context of COVID-19 vaccine distribution and dissemination. Databases such as PubMed and Medline were utilized for literature search. Additionally, to ensure up-to-date insights are included in the review, validated reports and reverse tracing of eligible articles’ reference lists in Google Scholar have also been conducted to locate relevant records. Results: Vaccine empathy is an individual or a nation’s capability to sympathize with other individuals or nations’ vaccine wants and needs, whereas vaccine diplomacy is a nation’s vaccine efforts that aim to build mutually beneficial relationships with other nations ultimately. Our findings show that while both vaccine empathy and vaccine diplomacy have their strengths and weaknesses, they all have great potential to improve vaccine equality, particularly amid fast-developing and ever-evolving global health crises such as COVID-19. Furthermore, analyses show that, compared to vaccine empathy, vaccine diplomacy might be a more sustainable solution to improve vaccine donations mainly because of its deeper and stronger roots in multilateral collaboration and cooperation. Conclusion: Similar to penicillin, automated external defibrillators, or safety belts amid a roaring global health disaster, COVID-19 vaccines are, essentially, life-saving consumer health products that should be available to those who need them. Though man-made and complicated, vaccine inequality is nonetheless a solvable issue—gaps in vaccine distribution and dissemination can be effectively addressed by timely vaccine donations. Overall, our study underscores the instrumental and indispensable role of vaccine diplomacy in addressing the vaccine inequality issue amid the COVID-19 pandemic and its potentials for making even greater contributions in forging global solidarity amid international health emergencies. Future research could investigate approaches that could further inspire and improve vaccine donations among capable nations at a global scale to advance vaccine equity further.