Local social services in disaster management: Is there a Nordic model?

Abstract

The Nordic states have extensive welfare systems in which the local social services are an important component. Despite a growing research on societal disaster resilience, we lack research examining in systematic way whether and how local social services in the Nordic countries contribute to such resilience. Aiming to fill this gap, this article asks whether we can identify a common Nordic model of the role of local social services in disasters, or whether the countries have taken different paths.We use policy documents and legislation to examine the extent to which roles for local social services are embedded in the disaster management systems of the five Nordic countries. We analyze the institutional organization in each country, as well as the models of social services related to disasters from a comparative perspective. We find that the Nordic countries have chosen quite different paths regarding local social services' role in disaster management. A general conclusion is that the governments of the five countries ought to strengthen the position of local social services within the disaster management system as a way to enhance disaster resilience in the Nordic countries as a whole.

Pandemic and Social Work: Exploring Finnish Social Workers’ Experiences through a SWOT Analysis

“…Our empirical analysis certainly has its limitations. The study has been implemented in the Finnish context ( Rapeli et al , 2018 ) and with qualitative methods, which should be kept in mind when interpreting the findings. There have been fewer viral infections in Finland than elsewhere, and the social service system is of a good international standard.…”

“…The ethical principles of social work are constantly being tested, and pressures to deviate from them tend to intensify in exceptional situations. Thus, although the well-being of health care staff has been the primary concern in the current pandemic, it is worth seriously considering social workers’ workload, well-being and resilience ( McFadden et al , 2015 ; Rapeli et al , 2018 ).…”

‘Local community-based disaster management’ The transformation of religious and local wisdom values in preparation to deal with natural hazards in West Sumatra, Indonesia

“…In general, disaster studies have focused a lot on community involvement in disaster management such as Oktari et al (2018), Ikeda andNagasaka (2011), Cronjé, Reyneke andVan Wyk (2013), and Aka et al (2017). Furthermore, the more specific involvement of local communities with their wisdom in disaster management has been found by Berse, Bendimerad and Asami (2011), Rapeli et al (2017), Rozi (2017), and Kusumasari and Alam (2012). The use of community participation with local values has successfully proved that the severity of the impact of disasters is because of the weakness of top-down disaster management strategies that ignore local potential resources and capacities (Kapiarsa & Sariffuddin 2018).…”

<strong>Pro-Resilience Governance and (in)Accessibility to Services of General Interest: evidence from the Portuguese Center region after 2017 wildfires crisis</strong>

“…Thus, the consequences of disruption tend to be more severe when they occur in territories that are more vulnerable. As mitigation strategies in vulnerable communities (more poor, with ageing population, with low population density) are more demanding and complex to implement, they are often neglected (Rapeli et al 2017). The SeGI systems play a key role in low-density rural areas, with the mission of ensuring minimum conditions of quality of life, by enabling access to health, education and social support (Costa, Palma, and Costa 2017;Garlandini and Torricelli 2017).…”

“…The resilience of communities to natural disasters results from social skills (social capital) that allow the adoption of intentional actions before and after a catastrophe (Rapeli et al 2017). In general, the resilience of a territory combines knowledge, learning experiences, sense of place, social networks and local infrastructures, diversity and economic innovation, as well as participatory governance (Maclean, Cuthill, and Ross 2014).…”