Suchergebnisse

Emergency management typically consists of four phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Citizen participation is recognized as key to these four phases, and local governments are responsible for promoting authentic citizen participation in all phases. Many studies have asserted the importance of citizen participation in improving the capabilities of community-based emergency response and recovery, yet studies on citizen activities and participation in the pre-disaster process are relatively limited. In practice, increasing citizen preparedness for disasters has presented a challenge to local emergency management agencies. In Taiwan, the approaches employed by local emergency management agencies for mobilizing citizens to participate in emergency management activities are often considered in isolation from their other administrative duties. To fill this gap, this study examines factors for mobilizing citizens in disaster exercises from the perspective of local fire branch heads. Using survey data collected from Southern Taiwan in 2013, we found that the capacity of local fire branches to provide emergency communications and information delivery, as well as pre-disaster risk assessment and alert systems, is critical for enhancing citizen participation in the local emergency preparedness process.

E‐government uses information and communication technology to provide citizens with information about public services. Less pervasive, e‐democracy offers greater electronic community access to political processes and policy choices. Few studies have examined these twin applications separately, although they are widely discussed in the literature as distinct. The authors, Chung‐pin Lee of Tamkang University and Kaiju Chang and Frances Stokes Berry of Florida State University, empirically analyze factors associated with the relative level of development of e‐government and e‐democracy across 131 countries. Their hypotheses draw on four explanations of policy change—learning, political norms, competition, and citizen pressures. All four explanations are strongly linked to nations where e‐government policy is highly advanced, whereas a country's e‐democracy development is connected to complex internal factors, such as political norms and citizen pressures.