Self-imposed social isolation among clients of social care organisations in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although self-imposed social isolation is an important way of reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection, previous research indicates that this behaviour varies substantially between different groups and individuals. Socially marginalized people are generally less involved in protective health behaviours, but there are few studies of their COVID-19 protective behaviours. The aims of the paper are therefore to: 1) compare self-imposed social isolation to avoid COVID-19 among socially marginalized groups, and to 2) examine factors influencing this, focusing especially on the role of social capital, risk awareness and sources of information about COVID-19. The study is based on survey data (N = 173) from people who are clients of social care organisations in Estonia, Norway, Hungary and Portugal. The sample involves clients living: a) in their homes, b) in facilities, and c) on the street or under temporary arrangements. Results indicate that the level of social isolation among the marginalized groups is comparable to that of the general population in previous studies. As hypothesized, we find that respondents living on the street or under temporary arrangements engage in less self-imposed social isolation than e.g. the respondents living in their homes. We also find lower levels of risk awareness, social capital and trust in authorities' information about COVID-19 among people living on the street or under temporary arrangements. Only linking social capital and trust in authorities' information was significantly related to respondents' social isolation, and not worry for COVID-19 infection. Thus, it seems that respondents largely self-isolated because of "duty" and not worry for infection.

Approaches to 'vulnerability' in eight European disaster management systems.

While social vulnerability in the face of disasters has received increasing academic attention, relatively little is known about the extent to which that knowledge is reflected in practice by institutions involved in disaster management. This study charts the practitioners' approaches to disaster vulnerability in eight European countries: Belgium; Estonia; Finland; Germany; Hungary; Italy; Norway; and Sweden. It draws on a comparative document analysis and 95 interviews with disaster managers and reveals significant differences across countries in terms of the ontology of vulnerability, its sources, reduction strategies, and the allocation of related duties. To advance the debate and provide conceptual clarity, we put forward a heuristic model to facilitate different understandings of vulnerability along the dimensions of human agency and technological structures as well as social support through private relations and state actors. This could guide risk analysis of and planning for major hazards and could be adapted further to particular types of disasters.