Extreme heat is the deadliest weather and climate-related hazard in the United States, and the threat it poses to urban residents is rising. City planners increasingly recognize these risks and are taking action to mitigate them. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted many plans. Building on a previous survey which queried city planners from across the United States about how concerned they were about extreme heat, and their heat management efforts. This thesis examines how these perceptions and efforts have changed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In general, it was found that public spaces which would typically have been used to shelter individuals from extreme heat conditions were closed to mitigate close-contact and to encourage social distancing. Furthermore, priorities were changed as the presence of the virus became commonplace, with plans being altered, delayed, or shelved to diverge more time and effort towards the crisis at hand. Working environments and conditions also changed, which in several cases led to technological shortcomings, resulting in further delays. Finally, most planners had attained a surface-level understanding of which socio-economic groups were most impacted by both COVID-19 and extreme heat, in congruence with the current literature written on the topic. Generally, it appears that planners feel that the impact of COVID-19 on heat planning efforts has been limited.

For our project, we explored the growth of the ASU BioDesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL) from a standard university research lab to a COVID-19 testing facility through a business lens. The lab has pioneered the saliva-test in the Western United States. This thesis analyzes the laboratory from various business concepts and aspects. The business agility of the lab and it’s quickness to innovation has allowed the lab to enjoy great success. Looking into the future, the laboratory has a promising future and will need to answer many questions to remain the premier COVID-19 testing institution in Arizona.

In the past year, considerable misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic has circulated on social media platforms. Faced with this pervasive issue, it is important to identify the extent to which people are able to spot misinformation on social media and ways to improve people’s accuracy in spotting misinformation. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate people’s accuracy in spotting misinformation, the effectiveness of a game-based intervention, and the role of political affiliation in spotting misinformation. In this study, 235 participants played a misinformation game in which they evaluated COVID-19-related tweets and indicated whether or not they thought each of the tweets contained misinformation. Misinformation accuracy was measured using game scores, which were based on the correct identification of misinformation. Findings revealed that participants’ beliefs about how accurate they are at spotting misinformation about COVID-19 did not predict their actual accuracy. Participants’ accuracy improved after playing the game, but democrats were more likely to improve than republicans.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals including occupational therapy practitioners (OTPs) were required to transition to working utilizing an online-service delivery model called telehealth. The use of telehealth for occupational therapy (OT) sessions was limited prior to the pandemic, and this shift required OTPs to provide services in ways many had never experienced. The purpose of this study was to identify how the transition to telehealth impacted OTPs and their ability to provide proper care to the pediatric population via telehealth. The final analytic sample included 32 female OTPs who worked with the pediatric population. Results from qualitative and quantitative analyses showed that OTPs had positive feelings toward using telehealth and that the telehealth modality had a moderate impact on their job performance. The areas that pediatric OTPs want to be addressed included technology and internet issues, lack of parent involvement, decreased quality of care, inaccessibility of materials, decreased attention span and increased distractions, and lack of general knowledge about telehealth among clients, parents, and professionals. Despite these drawbacks, a positive theme emerged that the telehealth model is good for current circumstances. The results show telehealth is a positive experience for OTPs and allows OT to be more accessible to their clients. Implications for increasing education for healthcare professionals, clients, and parents/guardians to make telehealth accessible to clients on a large scale are discussed.

The present study explored the relationship between desired purchasing behavior and individual differences using two nationally-representative, longitudinal samples of the U.S. population early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Past research has shown that individual differences provide information about how one might respond to threat. Therefore, we predicted changes in desired purchasing behavior across different sociodemographic variables that might reflect those differences. Specifically, we investigated hypotheses related to political orientation, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and whether or not the participant had children. We measured participants’ reported desired purchasing behavior across eleven categories of goods and investigated the connection between specific demographic variables and desired purchasing behavior. We found that conservatives desired to purchase more basic protection goods (guns/ammunition, cash, gas) and that older people desired to purchase more cleaning supplies and toiletries. These findings illustrate possible explanations for purchasing behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic and reveal directions for marketing designed to influence purchasing behavior.

This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.

This study looked at student’s perceptions of COVID-19 and differences in how universities handled COVID-19. It aimed to assess what measures made students feel safe and were the most effective in lessening spread. A risk-perception survey scored feelings of safety/risk, and semi-structured interviews provided context. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis showed mixed opinions on university measures, and interviews identified wearing masks, social distancing, isolating, and limiting social contacts as measures that were effective in curbing spread.