No abstract

The majority of contact persons reported no or little concern, neither when the healthcare worker revealed the plan to leave, nor on the healthcare worker's return. The prevailing reason was trust in the judgement of 'their' healthcare worker, mainly using information received from the healthcare worker to assess risks, and relying little on other information channels. This means that the person assessing the risk was at the same time the hazard. There were indications that instructions regarding quarantine and self-isolation were less stringently followed by healthcare workers than by other aid workers in the outbreak, which could give confusing signals to the public. Simple, clear and non-negotiable rules should be preferred - also from an information perspective.

This article reports on how professionals at municipal level responsible for crisis communication (N ¼ 152) in Sweden judge the probability of 10 different responses occurring among the public, among people within their own emergency organization and themselves in case of a crisis. The direct physical effects of the crisis were kept identical throughout the study, but the cause of the crisis varied over three scenarios: accidental, terrorist and unknown. The results show that there are differences between how the respondents judge the reactions of themselves, their peers and the public, and there are also differences in the three crisis presented. The respondents judged their own reactions to be more logical and rational, and less marked by fear, panic and irrationality compared with the other two groups in all three crises. Also, it was investigated what source of information the crisis communicators thought would be used most by the public. The perceived sources of information varied depending on the cause of the crisis. The merit of these assumptions and implications for crisis communication are discussed.

No abstract

It is widely accepted that climate change may be contributing to population movement and has gendered effects. The relationship between climate change as a direct cause of migration continues to give rise to debates concerning vulnerabilities, while at the same time gendered dimensions of vulnerabilities remain limited to binary approaches. There is limited cross-fertilization between disciplines that go beyond comparison between males and females but interrogate gender in association with climate change and migration. Here, we seek to develop an analytical lens to the nexus between gender, migration and climate change in producing, reproducing and sustaining at risk conditions and vulnerabilities. When gender and mobility are conceptualized as a process, and climate change as a risk modifier, the nexus between them can be better interrogated. Starting by using gender as an organizing principle that structures and stratifies relations entails viewing gender not as a category that distinguishes males and females but as a discursive process of social construction that (re)produces subjectivities and inequalities. Gender is a dynamic process that shapes and (re)produces vulnerabilities and consequently shapes mediation of climate impacts and migration and is also shaped by symbolic processes that go beyond households and communities.