Representing crowd behaviour in emergency planning guidance: 'mass panic' or collective resilience?
Representing crowd behaviour in emergency planning guidance: 'mass panic' or collective resilience?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/21693293.2013.765740
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stott, Clifford
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Drury, John;Novelli, David;Stott, Clifford
应急计划通常包括对人群行为的假设。这些假设很重要，因为它们可以作为应急管理实践的依据。我们研究了人群在英国应急规划指导中作为心理脆弱或有助于心理社会弹性的程度。对47份指导文件进行了系统检索，发现9份文件提到了“恐慌”。对这些文件进行了论述分析，沿着六份被认为是民事应急复原力的关键的指导文件。研究发现，“恐慌”的提法有助于将集体（尤其是人群）构建为心理脆弱性的来源。大多数人认为，提及公众的集体复原力来源是有限的，往往使人群边缘化，成为应对紧急情况的基础。我们认为，在目前的指导人群的边缘作用和专业人士的不可或缺的作用的重点冲突与当前的政策方面的社区弹性。
Emergency planning often includes assumptions about crowd behaviour. These assumptions matter, as they can operate as rationales for emergency management practices. We examined the extent to which crowds are represented in UK emergency planning guidance as psychologically vulnerable or as contributing to psychosocial resilience. A systematic search of 47 guidance documents identified 9 referring to 'panic'. These were discourse analysed, along with six more guidance documents considered key to civil contingencies resilience. It was found that the references to 'panic' served to construct collectives (and particularly crowds) as a source of psychological vulnerability. References to collective sources of resilience in the public were mostly found to be limited and often served to marginalise the crowd as a basis of coping in emergencies. We argue that the emphasis in the current guidance on the marginal role of crowds and the indispensable role of the professionals conflicts with aspects of current policy on community resilience.