w3

1

Overview:

During this session, the Principle of “Progressive” is defined and we will then discuss how this

concept essential to help us consider why disasters are rising in number and intensity, and

explore the need for a more proactive approach to emergency management. The session

explores diverse theoretical approaches to enhance sustainability, resistance and resilience.

Practical perspectives on how to reduce the factors that lead to disasters and build capacity to

deal with them more effectively are mentioned.

Definition: Emergency managers anticipate future disasters and take preventive and preparatory

measures to build disaster-resistant and disaster-resilient communities.

The rising toll and impact of disasters:

Disasters produce injuries for a sizable population in the affected area. Injuries, such as broken bones and

blunt force trauma, may result from collapsed structures in earthquakes and flying debris in tornadoes and

hurricanes. Burns from urban-wild land fires, respiratory distress from hazardous materials releases and

infection from pandemics each impact people in the United States and around the world.

The 2007 wildfires in San Diego, California injured 32 firefighters and 27 residents, and 645 people were

injured directly from tornadoes that ripped through the state of Oklahoma on May 3, 1999. Over 3,500

people were injured in the Texas City disaster on April 16, 1947. The Loma Prieta earthquake injured

nearly 4,000 when it occurred on October 17, 1989. An estimated 9,000 people were injured when the

Northridge earthquake occurred in California on January 17, 1994. About 7% of these required

substantial treatment in medical facilities.

Disasters and catastrophe may also result in substantial deaths. These deaths may result directly from the

disaster or indirectly through secondary hazards. About 50 people died during the Midwest flooding

episode in 1993. The great Alaskan earthquake (and resulting Tsunami) killed over 125 people on March

27, 1964. Nearly 1,600 people were killed when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans,

Louisiana on August 23, 2005. The hurricane that struck Galveston on September 9, 1900, most likely

resulted in the deaths of about 8,000 people (although figures range from 5,000 to 12,000). The 191

8

Influenza outbreak killed between 500,000 and 700,000 in the United States alone.

Property damage is unimaginable in most disasters and calamities. Anything built by humans is subject

to destruction. Parking structures collapsed at the Northridge Fashion Center when an earthquake struck

Southern California in 1994. The Oakland Hills Fire of October 20, 1991 destroyed up to 3,500 homes

and apartment buildings. Between 5,000 and 14,000 homes were damaged or destroyed when Hurricane

Camille made landfall in Mississippi on August 17, 1969. Hundreds of thousands of homes were

damaged or destroyed as Hurricane Andrew made it way over Miami-Dade County in Florida. Hurricane

Katrina damaged countless roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and other public buildings.

2

Economic losses are also noteworthy in disasters. This is to say nothing about lost employment, wages

and investments. Hurricane Hugo resulted in $2 billion in damages in 1989. $5 billion in losses were

attributed to Hurricane Floyd in 1999. The Midwest flooding of 1993 resulted in more than $15 billion in

losses. Hurricane Andrew cost at least $25 billion in 1992. Although figures are still being totaled, some

suggest that Hurricane Katrina cost more than $100 billion. Disasters and catastrophes also produce

distress on the physical environmental. The Mt. St. Helens eruption in Washington destroyed thousands

and thousands of trees and caused problems for soil in the surrounding area due to tons and tons of falling

ash. The March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez emitted 10 million gallons of oil in Prince William Sound.

70,000 acres of trees were flattened after Hurricane Andrew passed over Florida in 1992. More than

500,000 acres were burned during the San Diego fires in October 2007. Hurricane Katrina caused beach

erosion in Louisiana and left a toxic sludge of sewage, oil, and dangerous chemicals in New Orleans.

Social disruption is a key characteristic of disasters. Schools, malls, and government offices were closed

after Hurricane Andrew struck Florida. Freeways became impassible in some cases after the Northridge

earthquake. Water systems were destroyed in the Loma Prieta earthquake. An entire community was

relocated after the great Alaskan earthquake. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced from their

homes and city after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

Although these and many other consequences of disasters are significant, there is growing consensus

among scholars and practitioners that they will increase in frequency and intensity in the future. The

agreement is almost overwhelming.

For instance:

 Patrick S. Roberts, in his article “What Katrina Means for Emergency Management” says

“Over the past 50 years, the number of disasters has increased along with the threat they

pose” (2005, 1).

 Senator Edwards and Senator Stevens of the Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus report in

“A National Priority: Building Resilience to Natural Hazards” that “Each decade, property

damages has doubled or tripled in terms of constant dollars” (2001, 1).

 Hemant Shah, a chief executive of Risk Management Solutions, stated in a Reuters article,

“U.S. Storm Damage Predictors see Bigger Risks Ahead,” “We are increasing our view of the

likelihood of severe hurricanes and the severity of the loss in the event of those hurricanes”

(in Leefeldt 2006, 1).

 William L. Waugh, Jr., one of the editors of Emergency Management: Principles and

Practices for Local Government, states “communities in the United States are becoming more

and more vulnerable to major disasters . . . . The potential for catastrophe is growing” (2007,

5).

 Don Kettle, in his article “The Worst is Yet to Come: Lessons from September 11 and

Hurricane Katrina” argues “We’re increasingly facing problems that, by their very nature, are

wicked. From mega-storms to terrorist attacks, from nasty flu viruses to earthquakes, we face

the virtual certainty of big events that provide little time to react, and where the cost of failure

is enormous” (2005, 3).

3

 James Lee Witt, the former Director of FEMA, stated in 2001 at the National Symposium of

Mitigating Severe Weather Impacts, that “We have every reason to believe that our citizens

are going to face even bigger disasters in the future.”

 The famous disaster sociologist, E.L. Quarantelli, in “Implications for Programs and Policies

from Future Disaster Trends” in Risk Management asserts “Irrespective of whether the

involved agents are natural or technological, there will be both quantitative and qualitative

increases in disastrous occasions for all societies” (1999, 9).

 Quarantelli also notes in “The Environmental Disasters of the Future Will be More and

Worse but the Prospect is not Hopeless” in Disaster Prevention and Management says “In the

near future, we will have both more and worse disasters” (Quarantelli 1993, 12).

 Eric Tolbert, a former Director of the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management,

commented in Emergency Preparedness News “In our lifetime, probably within the next two

decades, Americans will see one to two catastrophic events that will be beyond our

comprehension” (2001, 42).

 Richard Bissell, in his manuscript “Long-Term Global Threat Assessment: Challenging New

Roles for Emergency Managers,” suggests that “this next 50 to 100 years of human existence

will be characterized either by Herculean struggle to re-establish a sustainable relationship

between humans and their finite environment, with painful setbacks along the way, or by a

catastrophic failure to negotiate needed changes with resulting collapse of many societies

when resources and climactic conditions no longer support a large human population”

(undated, p. 1).

 Dennis Mileti, the author of Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the

United States, states “The United States is probably facing a future more hazardous than its

past . . . . the overall situation is that (1) the already-staggering monetary losses from disasters

are still increasing; (2) there is reason to believe that in many instances mitigation activities

are simply postponing losses that will be more catastrophic when they do occur; and (3) many

efforts at disaster mitigation and many disasters result in short-term or cumulative

environmental degradation and ecological imbalance, which, besides being detrimental to

society, also contributes to the occurrence and severity of the next disaster” (1999, 133, 24).

There are countless reasons why scholars and practitioners believe disasters are now more common and

consequential than in the past. The National Science and Technology Council, in its publication Natural

Disaster Reduction: A Plan for the Nation, affirms “Future prospects are sobering. Continued U.S.

population growth, increased urbanization and concentration in hazard-prone costal areas, increased

capital and physical plants, accelerated deterioration of the urban infrastructure, and emerging but

unknown new vulnerabilities posed by technological advance virtually guarantee that economic losses

from natural hazards will continue to rise throughout the early part of the coming century” (1996, 3).

John Twigg, in his article “Physician, Health Thyself? The Politics of Disaster Mitigation” declares “To

understand what makes people vulnerable, we have to move away from the hazard itself and look at a

much wider and much more diverse set of influences. The whole range of economic, social, cultural,

4

institutional, political and even psychological factors that shape people’s lives and create an environment

that they live in. Vulnerability is socially constructed” (2001, 2).

Some of the many reasons why disasters are increasing in number and scope include:

 Industrial hazards. “Technological hazards are a relatively new class of danger which

contemporary society is only just beginning to recognize. Disaster wrought by the unintended

consequences of technology has largely been a product of the large-scale industrial development

initiated by the eighteenth century industrial revolution. . . . This and the activities associated with

industrialization – the discovery and invention of new energy sources together with large-scale

production and storage requirements; the establishment of transport modes, haulage routes and

depots; the need for disposal of unwanted wastes; increasing amounts and dangers from

atmospheric pollutants; the development of mass transit modes, networks and stations – have

produced conditions which have jeopardized public safety and enlarged community vulnerability”

(Quarantelli, 1993, 13).

 Biotech hazards. Quarantelli also states “There are going to be disasters that will be produced by

biotechnology, especially genetic engineering. . . . There can be and will be the creation of, or the

escape from control of, some altered organism which cannot be checked by present known

means” (1993, 17).

 IT hazards. Claire Rubin, in her Natural Hazards Center Working Paper #104, “Emergency

Management in the 21
st
Century,” relays that “Technology advances are double-edged; the

increasing usefulness of these tools and the growing dependency on them by all sectors make

those users vulnerable to service interruptions and failures – accidental and intentional” (2000, 3).

 Terrorism and WMD. Gary Anthony Ackerman, stated in a USA Today article “Experts Testify

of ‘Growing’ Nuke Threat, that “The prospect of terrorists detonating a nuclear device on

American soil sometime within the next quarter-century is real and growing” (April 2008).

 Climate change. Richard Bissell, in his manuscript “Long-Term Global Threat Assessment”

conveys that “Climatologists have been warning us for several decades that the Earth’s

temperature is rising at an alarming rapid rate. . . . Weather patterns, which have a huge impact on

whether a particular area of land can support life at all, or life forms that humans use for direct

sustenance, derive largely form the distribution of temperature differences. As temperatures

change, so do the weather patterns that determine the distribution and amount of rainfall, the

frequency and intensity of storms, and hence, the distribution of arable land, life-sustaining

forests, and life-threatening storms” (no date, 2).

 Unwise development/land use planning. In his New York Times review of The Future of

Calamity, Andrew C. Revkin reports that the “Rich and poor alike have pushed into soggy

floodplains or drought-ridden deserts, built on impossibly steep slopes, and created vast, fragile

cities along fault lines that tremble with alarming frequency” (2005, 4).

5

 Inadequate construction. Jake Page and Charles Officer, in their book, The Big One: The

Earthquake that Rocked Early American and Helped Create a Science, state regarding a possible

New Madrid quake in St. Louis: “some 80 percent of the city’s buildings – both residential and

nonresidential – are made of unreinforced masonry, which is particularly vulnerable to

earthquake damage . . . casualties from a weekday quake might reach about forty-five hundred,

while a weekend or nighttime quake would produce about four thousand (2004, p.211-212).”

 Failing infrastructure. Naomi Klein, in “Disaster Capitalism: The New Economy of

Catastrophe,” an article which appeared in Harpers Magazine in 2007, reveals “The American

Society of Civil Engineers has warned that the United States has fallen so far behind in

maintaining its public infrastructure – roads, bridges, schools, dams – that it would take more

than a trillion and a half dollars over five years to bring it back up to standard. This past summer

those statistics came to life: collapsing bridges, flooding subways, exploding steam pipes, and the

still-unfolding tragedy that began when New Orleans’s levees broke” (2007).

 Urbanization. David Etkin, in his article “Risk Transference and Related Trends” in

Environmental Hazards, affirms that “Populations are tending to become more concentrated . . . .

All other factors being equal, concentrated populations experience extreme events less often but

are much more affected when such events occur” (1999, 73).

 Poverty. Raymond Misomali and David McEntire suggest in their chapter “Rising Disasters and

Their Reversal” in the Handbook of Disaster Management, “Poverty increases an individual’s

proneness to disasters and decreases his or her capacity to cope with a hazardous event in a

number of ways. For example, poor people usually live in substandard conditions, including

inadequately maintained housing. Poverty is also a source of vulnerability because impoverished

individuals lack the financial resources to prepare for and respond to a hazardous event. During a

hurricane, for example, a poverty stricken individual might not be able to [purchase wood to]

board up his or her home. This increases the household’s likelihood of being adversely affected

by the hazard” (2006, 25-26).

 Elderly populations. Raymond Misomali and David McEntire also declare that “The elderly are

vulnerable for many reasons. One reason is that they lack the agility to respond to a hazard event.

During Hurricane Rita, 23 elderly individuals died when a bus that was evacuating them from the

threat of the hurricane caught on fire. These individuals were unable to escape the burning bus

because they lacked the health and physical ability to do so. The elderly are also less likely to

possess the financial resources needed to respond to, or recover from, a hazardous event” (2006,

26).

 Politics. Richard Posner, in the Wall Street Journal Article, “The Probability of Catastrophe,

states “Politicians with limited terms of office and thus foreshortened political horizons are likely

to discount low-risk disaster possibilities, since the risk of damage to their careers from failing to

take precautionary measures is truncated” (2005, A 12).

 Unclear policy. Chrstine E. Wormuth and Anne Witkowsky, in Center for Strategic and

International Studies report Managing the Next Catastrophe: Ready (or Not?), “Preventing,

6

protecting against, preparing for, and responding to a domestic catastrophe are basic tasks of

government at all levels. Unfortunately, today’s efforts to provide homeland security,

particularly at the federal level, are not unlike the governmental equivalent of a children’s soccer

game. One can see a tremendous amount of activity under way and considerable energy on the

field, but the movements are often not very well coordinated. Players tend to huddle around the

ball – in this case, whatever happens to be the crisis or headline issue of the day – and follow it

wherever it goes, even if in doing so they neglect their assign positions. In such an environment,

it is not impossible to score a goal, but that outcome is usually due more to luck than skill” (2008,

vi-vii).

 Poor preparedness. Michelle Mittelstadt, in her Dallas Morning News article, “Experts: Bird Flu

Plan Needs Work” avows “Epidemiologists and other public health experts say the U.S. is far

behind other countries, particularly when it comes to stockpiling anti-viral drugs. While some

countries are snapping up anti-viral drugs to cover as much as 40 percent of their population, the

U.S. stockpile covers about 1 percent of Americans” (2005).

 Heterogeneous subcultures. E.L. Quarantelli declares in his article in Disaster Prevention and

Management “What is present are different social worlds and subcultures whose members have

values and beliefs which are different from the dominant social pattern and culture, many of these

stemming from different ethnic and/or religious backgrounds . . . . These kinds of population mix

can affect disaster response in a variety of ways, make disaster planning even more complicated

than usual, and generally raise the risks and vulnerabilities for the persons and groups in the mix”

(1993, 21).

 Risk subsidization. John Krist, in a 2005 article in the Ventura County Star, stated “If people

wish to occupy places where mud, fire, water or seismicity periodically try to kill them, it is their

right to do so, in the same way it is their right to risk death or injury climbing mountains, surfing

monster waves or challenging treacherous whitewater in tiny plastic boats. But there is a useful

distinction to be made between allowing people to assume risk, and encouraging risky behavior

by shifting nearly the entire cost of bad decisions from the individual to the general public. . . . If

the residents of La Conchita want the hillside that threatens their town to be rendered safe by

construction of a costly retaining wall, they should build it themselves. If they cannot afford to

do so, then they cannot afford the true costs of living in that place. As there is no general public

benefit to be gained by protecting their property, society is under no obligation to reduce their

building costs by constructing vast protective structures at public expense.”

 Lack of resources. Anthony L. Kimery, in an April 3 HS Today article entitled “FEMA’s Lack of

Progress Rests With Lawmakers, Admin – Inadequate Budgets, Staffing; Lack of IT,” affirms

“Indeed, in many areas of FEMA’s efforts to prepare for catastrophic disasters, the OIG found

inadequate or no budgets; no separate appropriations; . . . lack of resources; and lack of vital IT

equipment; etc., etc., etc.” (2008).

 Lack of Staff. Patrick McGreevy, an L.A. Times writer, reports in his article “City Panel Calls

for More Staff for Disaster Preparedness Department,” that the Los Angeles “Emergency

7

Preparedness Department is [as of September 2006] one of the most understaffed in the nation”

(2006).

 Citizen apathy. Amanda Ripley, quotes Eric Holdeman, Director of Emergency Management for

Seattle’s King County, in her August TIME article “Why We Don’t Prepare, “There are four

stages of denial: One is, it won’t happen. Two is, if it does happen, it won’t happen to me. Three,

if it does happen to me, it won’t be that bad. And four, if it happens to me and it’s bad, there’s

nothing I can do to stop it anyway” (2006, 57).

Enhancing sustainability, resistance and resilience:

If it is true that disasters are rising in both frequency and intensity, and if there are multiple

causes that lead to such events, it becomes apparent that we need a more proactive approach to

emergency management.

Lucien Canton, in his book Emergency Management: Concepts and Strategies for Effective

Programs, argues that we need to take a strategic approach to emergency management. Instead

of just reacting to disasters, emergency managers are advised to develop strategies for mitigation,

preparedness, response and recovery.

In terms of mitigation, Canton reminds us that “it is possible to identify opportunities that could

either eliminate the organization’s vulnerability to a hazard or substantially reduce the impact of

a hazard” (Canton 2007, 163).

In regards to preparedness, Canton suggests we need to avoid the paper plan syndrome and

instead focus on developing capabilities (2007, 190). He argues that “effective plans facilitate

creative problem solving. They establish an operating structure that can be expanded to include

new actors, provide for supporting structures such as effective communication flow, and

eliminate potential barriers to improvisation” (2007, 197). He also examines the benefit of

training.

When speaking of response, Canton asserts that “a critical part of response strategy is the

development of a governance structure and the fixing of responsibility for various response

functions” (Canton 2007, 177). Everyone must know what they are to do, and all parties must

interact collaboratively for the collective good.

Finally, in relation to recovery, Canton reminds us to avoid simply rebuilding a community.

Although that is important after a disaster and must be anticipated through careful planning, “the

recovery period offers an opportunity to implement components of the mitigation strategy and

the two must be closely linked” (2007, 169).

8

Canton wants emergency managers to look at the big picture and begin to take disasters

seriously. He states “Despite the lip service given to the four-phase comprehensive emergency

management model, emergency managers have narrowed their focus and directed their work

almost solely toward response and almost exclusively to the development of emergency

operations plan. Strategic issues related to mitigation and recovery are barely addressed” (2007,

336).

His work is a vital reminder of the inescapable breadth of emergency management. “Emergency

management programs provide a mechanism for assessing risk and developing and implementing

strategies aimed at reducing or eliminating risk and for building the capacity to protect the

community from the unexpected” (2007, 336).

With this in mind, we begin to ask the question: what is the best method for improving

emergency management in the future?

There are several different schools of thought regarding how we might promote a more effective

form of emergency management in the future. One deals with the concept of sustainability and

the others focus on resistance and resilience. There is also another view that attempts to capture

the strengths of the aforementioned models. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

Dennis Mileti is a renowned sociologist who is a former Director of the Natural Hazards Center

in Boulder Colorado. He is the author of Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural

Hazards in the United States. In this book, Mileti illustrates that disasters losses are increasing

and that we therefore need to alter our culture if we are to reduce them.

He suggests that we need to change our values, attitudes and practices as they relate to disasters,

and promote what can be termed as “sustainable hazards mitigation.”

In Mileti’s view, “Sustainability means that a locality can tolerate – and overcome – damage,

diminished productivity, and reduced quality of life from an extreme event without significant

outside assistance” (1999, 4).

 There are six objectives associated with the sustainable hazards mitigation paradigm:

o Maintain and enhance environmental quality. This implies that we must protect

our natural resources or disasters will result (e.g., the cutting down of forests may

produce more flooding).

9

o Maintain and enhance people’s quality of life. Because poor people are more

vulnerable to disasters than the rich, it is imperative that the benefits of the

economy be spread evenly to all groups of people.

o Foster local resiliency and responsibility. Communities should recognize the risk

they face and take steps to reduce it.

o Recognize that vibrant local economies are essential. Because mitigation

activities can be expensive, it is vital that the economy be vibrant enough to

support such endeavors.

o Ensure inter- and intra-generational equity. We must recognize the impact of our

actions and guarantee that they do not shift risk to future generations.

o Adopt local consensus building. Mitigation is most likely to be successful when

politicians, interest groups, and citizens find common policy objectives.

Mileti also states that there are several important tools to foster sustainable hazards

mitigation. They include:

 Land use. Wise development is the single most important factor to reducing disaster

losses.

 Warnings. Effective warnings help people to have advanced noticed to protect

themselves or evacuate our of harms way.

 Engineering and building codes. Homes and buildings (commercial and public) must

be built in such a way as to withstand the forces of nature.

 Insurance. Property owners should acquire coverage which will help them to rebuild

(and not rely so heavily on government assistance).

 New technology. Geographic information systems, computer programs, remote

sensing and other technology will help emergency managers to assess risks and take

steps to counter future hazards.

 Mileti notes further the need to address “social forces” that lead to disasters. Such

social forces may include economic circumstances and politics that increase disasters

and poverty.

10

The sustainable hazards mitigation paradigm therefore promotes disaster reduction through

environmental protection, social justice and other mitigation techniques. It has received a

great deal of recognition from scholars and practitioners.

Another concept pertaining to the reduction of disasters is “resistance.” This term has been

defined as a “means to assist communities in minimizing their vulnerability to natural

hazards by maximizing the application of the principles and techniques of mitigation to their

development and/or redevelopment decision making process” (Geis 2000, 152).

This view has been promoted by scholars and practitioners including Donald Geis and

Michael Armstrong. Scholars under this view acknowledge, like Mileti, that disasters are

increasing problems for societies. For instance, “after continued exposure to disaster victims,

queries from Congress and the media, charts showing escalating costs, and dramatic physical

evidence of insufficient construction and mistaken building placement, [James Lee] Witt [the

former FEMA Director] decided something different and dramatic was needed” (Armstrong

2000, 138).

Donald Geis states that the principle objective of this perspective is to “provide the direction

essential to our core mission of minimizing the growing human and property losses resulting

from extreme natural events” (2000, 152). This goal was to be accomplished through a

unique federal program entitled “Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities.”

Project Impact was a FEMA sponsored mitigation and grant program designed to reduce

disaster losses. Its intent “was to create ‘disaster resistant communities’ by combining the

various approaches of planning, hazard identification and risk assessment, publish awareness

and education, partnering, resource leveraging, code adoption and enforcement, and project

implementation, with the grant money as the catalyst” (Armstrong 2000, 138). When this

program began, FEMA regional offices were asked to recommend jurisdictions to serve as

pilot communities.

These communities then developed partnerships with the private sector to promote disaster

resistance. With the assistance of banks, real estate developers, builders, construction supply

companies, insurance agencies and others, government officials would be better able to

develop and build in such a way as to reduce the risk of disaster or repetitive disaster losses.

For instance:

 “Engineering and architectural studies resulting in ‘safe room’ designs have been

made available in tornado-prone communities and are being utilized in Project

Impact planning activities” (Armstrong 2000, 143).

11

 “Project Impact grants . . . . [and] the different funding sources . . . [were also]

brought together [to] include the acquisition of property, elevation of buildings,

and rehabilitation of existing structures” (Armstrong 2000, 143).

The goal was to make mitigation the cornerstone of national emergency management policy. As

can be seen, the resistance concept is closely related to urban planning and engineering. It

clearly shifts “the focus of emergency management and disaster planning toward pre-disaster [or

prevention] activities” (Armstrong 2000, 139).

A third perspective on how to better deal with disasters centers on the concept of resilience.

There is really no consensus on what the term resilience means. For instance, “the resilience

paradigm was interpreted in vastly divergent ways . . . . Some scholars equated resilience to

hazard mitigation, thus becoming very similar to the resistance school . . . . In contrast, others

regarded resilience to be a precursor of or synonym for effective post-disaster operations. ..”

(McEntire 2005, 209). However, resilience has often been defined as “the ability to recover from

or adjust easily to misfortune or change” (Geis 2000, 152).

Neil R. Britton and Gerard J. Clark are proponents of the resilience perspective. These scholars

examined what New Zealand is doing to promote resilience. Similar to other scholars, they note

in their article “From Response to Resilience: Emergency Management Reform in New Zealand”

that disasters are rising. Britton and Clark point out the steps New Zealand is taking to reduce

disasters. This includes:

 Understanding hazards and vulnerabilities in their country.

 Critically assessing all laws relating to emergency management, recommending that

“the national’s emergency management system be more comprehensive in their

outlook and approach, rather than maintaining an avowedly response-focused

orientation” (Britton and Clark 2000, 146).

 Passing legislation that concentrates on risk reduction.

 Providing professional training and education.

 Using research to inform emergency management policy.

 Improving interagency coordination among all levels of government and with

partners in the private sector.

12

 “Maintaining a response capability in the face of more widely spread and highly

committed resources requiring contract management and logistical planning skills”

(Britton and Clark 2000, 149).

The resilience concept is somewhat similar to other concepts being proposed today. However, it

seems to focus more on building the emergency management institution so it is better able to

deal more effectively with disasters.

A final proposal to reduce the probability of disasters and deal more effectively with their

consequences is proposed by David McEntire (2005). This perspective has been labeled by this

author as comprehensive vulnerability management and it is described in the article “Why

Vulnerability Matters” in Disaster Prevention and Management. This model is built on, but goes

further than, the social vulnerability model. In addition, this perspective attempts to incorporate

many of the arguments listed above into a more holistic and proactive approach.

McEntire asserts that any paradigm to reduce disasters (in quantitative and qualitative terms)

must be based on vulnerability (2005). In his view, we do not have any or complete control over

hazards (we cannot stop an earthquake, and we may or may not always be able to prevent human

induced disasters due to limits on human omniscience, omnipotence and volition). Nevertheless,

there is no doubt that we do have the ability to influence our level of vulnerability pertaining to

the hazard. This being the case, vulnerability is of paramount importance for disaster policy.

The concept of vulnerability has often been described by social scientists as the characteristics of

people that make them more prone to disasters or least able to deal with their impacts.

The argument of this social vulnerability school is that social, political and economic

circumstances determine a person’s degree of vulnerability (Wisner et. al. 2005). For instance, a

poor person may live in a dilapidated home in a hazard prone area. In addition, this person may

not have adequate resources to prepare for or respond to a disaster (e.g., purchase a fire

extinguisher or evacuate in a personal vehicle). Finally, the individual may not have insurance

or savings to help them rebound after a disaster.

There is no doubt that this view is accurate in many cases. Poor people are often more

vulnerable than the rich. However, poor people may at times develop coping skills that others

may not have (this is especially evident when comparing developing and developed nations). In

addition, rich people may also be vulnerable (because they live in scenic, but beautiful areas) as

well as other groups in society (e.g., children, first responders). The social vulnerability school

likewise seems to downplay other disasters (e.g., transportation accidents or terrorist attacks) as

well as other factors that determine vulnerability (e.g., laws pertaining to land-use and

construction along with their enforcement, environmental degradation, political apathy, cultural

13

attitudes and practices, psychological processes, strength of emergency management institutions,

professionalism of emergency managers, education of citizens, past experience, familiarity of

technology, etc.). It is for these reasons, that the comprehensive vulnerability concept has been

proposed.

According to this view, vulnerability is determined by the physical and social environments

(McEntire 2002). Humans live in and interact with both the natural and social worlds. We live

in certain locations and we build homes, businesses and infrastructure in the physical

environment. We also interact with nature and rely heavily on technology. The social forces

mentioned by Mileti as well as innumerable other human factors (ranging from population

growth and first responder training to emergency management budgets and organizational

leadership) also have a bearing on many different types of disasters.

These overlapping and interacting environments have both negative and positive features

(McEntire 2004). On the one hand, for instance, our choice for urban development may make us

vulnerable to disasters. On the other hand, our vulnerability may be reduced if citizens give

priority to emergency management in a particularly community. Many positive and negative

relationships are possible, and the combination of the environments will be unique in every

society.

The negative feature in the physical environment may be called risk. An example of this is the

building of homes in floodplains or an industrial plant near a school.

The negative feature of the social environment may be called susceptibility. An example of this

is the denial of hazards among citizens or a failure of government officials to enforce building

codes.

The positive feature of the physical environment may be called resistance. An example of this is

the use of engineering to improve building performance in earthquakes or the careful application

of technology to prevent industrial accidents.

The positive feature of the social environment may be called resilience. An example of this is

adequate disaster planning, training and exercises or a willingness and ability to adapt to unique

disaster demands.

Although risk, susceptibility, resistance and resilience have been treated separately in order to

facilitate understanding, these categories of the physical and social environments are not mutual

exclusive (McEntire 2005). They interact in very complicated ways and are therefore the

predominant determinants of vulnerability.

14

Possible benefits of this model include its attempt to be holistic and accept complexity. The

model acknowledges that many variables have an impact on vulnerability and disasters. If this is

a correct assumption, the model also implies that there are many possible solutions to the disaster

problem (and that the most successful emergency management programs will address as many of

them as is realistically feasible).

Another possible benefit is that it simplifies policies recommendations for emergency managers.

Two measures are required to reduce the causes and consequences of disasters. First, we must

minimize the factors that lead to risk and susceptibility. These may be called liabilities. Second,

we must enhance our abilities pertaining to resistance and resilience. These may be labeled as

capacities or capabilities. Emergency management (or comprehensive vulnerability

management) is nothing more than liability reduction and capacity building. Liabilities and

capabilities can be addressed in each phase of disaster: mitigation, preparedness, response and

recovery.

Reducing liabilities, Building Capacities:

If we are to promote a more progressive form of emergency management, what are some specific

recommendations we might have for those involved in this profession? One requirement to be

truly “progressive” as an emergency manager is to be able to think broadly. You should be

prepared to think about:

 Mitigation Activities

 Assess natural hazards thoroughly to determine what might happen and how bad the
event could be.

 Evaluate industrial and transportation hazards, paying specific attention to who is
located near manufacturing plants, roads and airports.

 Work closely with law enforcement and homeland security officials to determine the
threat of terrorism in your jurisdiction.

 Use geographic information systems and other software (such as HAZUS) to plot low
lying coastal and flood plain areas.

 Create a hazard mitigation action plan to address each of these hazards.

 Identify dangerous areas and work diligently to change land-use laws and regulations.
Flood plain managers and land-use planners may help you complete this task.

15

 Consult with the engineering department to determine if building codes need to be
tightened and if retrofit of buildings is required. Take measures as necessary.

 Be sure to enforce all development regulations, building codes and set back
requirements.

 Use extreme caution when relying on structural mitigation devices (e.g., levees) since
they tend to post-pone and worsen losses, and because they require a great deal of

maintenance over time.

 Seek grants to reduce disaster vulnerability in your jurisdiction.

 Preparedness Activities

 Create a community preparedness council and involve pertinent parties from the
public, private and non-profit sectors.

 Seek the political support of the mayor or county commissioner for emergency
preparedness in your community.

 Seek grants to fund your planning and preparedness activities.

 Develop an emergency operations plan, but avoid falling into the trap of the paper
plan syndrome.

 Train all of those involved in emergency management to ensure they are familiar with
the latest standards.

 Conduct exercises to test your capabilities, and then adapt your emergency
management program based on the lessons learned.

 Establish an EOC and ensure you have a back up EOC too.

 Promote community disaster education.

 Ensure your warning sirens are working properly and that you can communicate
through several means (radios, HAM radios, etc.).

 Obtain a grant and develop a Community Emergency Response Team.

 Response Activities

 Try to provide as much advanced warning as is possible.

16

 Evacuate people to safe areas and provide well-staffed and equipped shelters (if
needed).

 Carefully and quickly assess damages when an event occurs.

 Conduct a needs assessment to determine what needs to be done and by whom.

 Declare a disaster and seek mutual aid, state or federal assistance as

needed.

 Remove debris quickly to ensure other vital response activities may take place.

 Work closely with the medical and public health community to address disease
outbreaks.

 Provide detailed information to the media to keep the public abreast of response
activities and concerns.

 Enlist the support of volunteers and manage donations effectively.

 Maintain close contact between the EOC and the incident command post(s).

 Recovery Activities

 Carefully plan recovery priorities as soon as possible.

 Enact new regulations and laws as required.

 Work closely with state and federal emergency management agencies to complete all

required recovery paperwork.

 Ensure first responder and victims emotional needs are met after a disaster.

 Be sure to monitor special populations and provide additional disaster assistance as

needed.

 Enlist the help of the private sector and assist businesses as necessary.

 Take advantage of the “window of opportunity” disasters provide.

 Remove repetitive flood loss structures out of flood plains.

17

 Rebuild with the next disaster in mind.

 Monitor fraud, waste and abuse of disaster assistance.

Conclusion:

Disasters are rising in frequency and consequence. Many scholars and practitioners are

concerned about the future. There are multiple causes of disasters and we need to address

them strategically. No longer can we think of emergency management in terms of first

response activities alone. There are several theoretical approaches as to how this is done.

These include sustainable hazards mitigation, resistance, resilience and comprehensive

vulnerability management. Many steps need to be taken to have a progressive emergency

management program. This includes numerous mitigation, preparedness, response and

recovery activities.

References:

Armstong, Michael J. (2000). “Back to the Future: Charting the Course for Project Impact.”

Natural Hazards Review. 1(3): 138-144.

Britton, Neil R. and Gerard J. Clark. (2000). “From Response to Resilience: Emergency

Management Reform in New Zealand.” Natural Hazards Review 1 (3): 145-150.

Geis, D. (2000). “By Design: The Disaster-Resistant and Quality of Life Community”, Natural

Hazards Review, Vol. 1 No.3, pp. 151-160.

McEntire, David A. (2005). “Why Vulnerability Matters: Illustrating the Need for an Inclusive

Disaster Reduction Concept.” Disaster Prevention and Management. 14(2): 206-222.

McEntire, D.A. (2004). “Tenets of Vulnerability: An Assessment of a Fundamental Concept”,

Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 23-29.

McEntire, David A. and Dorothy Floyd. (2004). “Applying Sustainability to the Study of

Disasters: An Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses.” Sustainable Communities

Review, 6(1&2): 14-21. (Invited).

McEntire, David A., Christopher Fuller, Chad W. Johnston and Richard Weber. (2002). “A

Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide.” Public

Administration Review, 62(3): 267-281. (Lead article).

Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States,

Joseph Henry Press, Washington D.C.

18

Quarantelli, E.L. (1993). “The Environmental Disasters of the Future Will Be More and Worse,

but the Prospect is not Hopeless.” Disaster Prevention and Management 2 (1): 11-25.

Quarantelli, E. L. (1999). “Implications for Programs and Policies from Future Disaster Trends.”

Risk Management. 9-19.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I. (2004). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s

Vulnerability and Disasters, Rutledge, New York.

After reading this week’s lecture, discuss the meaning of “

progressive emergency management

” and what it means to promote it.

 

During your exploration of this subject discuss three of the schools of thought (pp. 8-12) emergency managers can use to reduce the frequency and severity of disasters. Please see attached file EMA 305 lecture notes. Students will be required to write 2 pgs to the discussion question. You will not be marked on your opinion but on your ability to present a valid argument and to manage constructive discussion with your cohort while integrating the material being discussed in the course. 

Remember, I expect you to borrow from the Learning Resources, BUT you MUST provide the appropriate citation. I will not accept work from you that borrows ideas and direct quotes without proper citation. For example, when you paraphrase an author’s idea(s), or briefly quote their work you should immediately follow the paraphrase or quote with an in-text citation, for example: (Bullock, Haddow and Coppola, 2016, p. 146). The corresponding Reference section should note:

Bullock, J., Haddow, G., & Coppola, D. (2016). Introduction to homeland security: principles of all-hazards risk

         management (5th ed.). Waltham, MA: Elsevier.

Remember, an organization can be an author. For example, a Reference section might contain the following entry:

Department of Homeland Security (2013). National Mitigation Framework. Retrieved

         from 

http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32209 Links to an external site.