Disaster Management System in the UK - Case Study Example

Name: Tutor: Task: Date: Disaster Management A disaster refers to severe interruption of the every day occurrences in a community or a commercial enterprise resulting in human, economic or environmental incapacitation that debilitates the ability of the distressed people or organization to survive. Humans have endeavored to lessen the impact of disasters through modeling approaches to disaster management. These models approach disaster management as related activities that start with mitigation of the vulnerability and negative blows of the adversity, preparedness for taking action, reaction to the disaster and provision of emergency relief, and finally assisting in recovery which encompass physical recreation and the capacity to restore normalcy to the business after the disaster. To effectively respond to a disaster, information is critical. Availability of information enhances efficiency in detection, mitigation, preparation for, reaction to, and recovery from disasters. This is more critical at the response phase which is dynamic and real time. Reaction to adversities is dynamic and individuals tasked with the responsibility of making decisions should be kept informed of the most recent crisis condition. Additionally, response is time-critical with little or no allowance in decision making and reactive processes. Consequently, difficulties or setbacks in information accessibility has harmful impact on the value of decision making and hence the effectiveness of the response operations. Disaster models are important in the management of any crisis because one, they make simpler, multifaceted incidents by assisting to differentiate between vital facets. Its practicality is more tangible when reacting to disasters with strict time limits. Two, contrasting real situations with a hypothetical model can lead to an improved comprehension of the present circumstances and can therefore aid the planning process and the broad completion of disaster management plans. Three, availability of a disaster management model is an indispensable component in enumerating disaster events. Four, a documented disaster management model facilitates the establishment of a familiar pedestal of comprehension for all involved. It also permits improved integration of the relief and recovery efforts. Based on the fore going, a well defined and understandable model is greatly useful in the management of disasters because it makes possible the securing of support for disaster management endeavors. Hence, disaster management calls for a recognized system, or a model, to handle and possibly reduce the negative consequences of a disaster. Disaster management models are categorized into the following main classes: logical, integrated, causes and others. Existing disaster management representations fit into one of these classes. For this paper, the focus lies on the integrated disaster management model. The conventional process of disaster management consists of two stages; pre-disaster risk-reduction and post-disaster recovery stages. Pre-disaster risk-reduction consists of activities such as preventing, mitigating and preparation while the post-disaster recovery stage incorporates the activities of response, recovery and rehabilitation. Integrated models differentiate the phases of a disaster by the development of functions such as tactical preparation and observation. In this model, components are related as episodes and actions. In integrated disaster management model related episodes and actions are organized to ensure their effective and efficient execution. This model is has four main components; hazard assessment, risk management, mitigation, preparedness. The first undertaking in an integrated disaster management model is hazard assessment which supplies the information needed for the next phase, risk management. This result in assessments about the equilibrium of mitigation and preparedness actions required to address the risks (Manitoba-Health-Disaster-Management, 2002). This model has in total six autonomous facets such as a tactical plan, hazard assessment, risk management, mitigation, preparedness and monitoring and evaluation. Each facet monitors its own boundaries and engages its own set of activities and processes. These facets are reliant on each other in terms of provision of support and can be further broken down into stratums of sub-modules. The advantage of this model is that it presents equilibrium between preparedness and flexibility in order to respond flowingly to the precise needs of disasters. Since this model supplies the link between actions and episodes in disasters such connections can be firm or wobbly. For example, it strongly connects hazard and risk management activities but is unsuccessful in providing firm connection among the four phases of disaster management which is central components in a disaster management process. The integrated model covers nearly all of the activities of the disaster management realm but does not combine the activities of response and recovery. In addition, it only affirms the top level actions of disaster management rather than presenting the detailed activities engrossed in each stage. Analysis of the integrated model uncovers the following drawbacks; first, the blueprint of this model spins around the four main stages of disaster management: prevention, mitigation, response and recovery. Second, it fails to encapsulate a good number of the key activities of disaster management within a single framework. Third, it does not reflect on environmental circumstances that might have an effect on the severity of a disaster. Instead it merely thinks of environment as an additional disaster group. Fourth, this model does not give effectual reflection to assessment and examination of information and data related to a present disaster, which are vital and critical ingredients in the mitigation of future disasters. Lastly, it is incapable of handling complex and intricate disaster scenarios. As such it lacks all of the necessary attributes and utilities that would enable it to handle a disaster in a comprehensive way. By and large, in catastrophic disasters, diverse resources, circumstances and activities are involved; recognizing and making the most of such resources, circumstances and activities at a detailed level should be the intention of a disaster management model. Integrating this level of activities and circumstances influencing disasters, into existing models, would present the foundation for an effectual, helpful and handy disaster management model; one which would increase the attention to the complete array of anxieties about preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. As much as the emergency management systems may be different in the UK and in the US, they are both important for the existence of human beings. According to Dr. E.L. Ouarantelli, a research professor and who is also a founding director of Disaster Research Centre, in Delaware insists that there must be a collective crisis for them to be called emergency management systems. There are three ways in which emergency management can be differentiated between the UK and the US. They are the societal level, organizational level and community level. The level of impact of the management systems felt in the community differs. In the UK, most of community built constructions is normally impacted. For instance, in the case of hurricane Hugo it destroyed at least 90% of the total homes around the region and the emergency system had to handle this issue. This gave the management team hard time to rescue people as there was no nearby home to shelter the victims. The ones who survived remained shelter less as they could not join their relative since they had as well been involved in the accident. In the united states, the problem has not been that diverse since the accidents which impacted the country have been of low percentage in such a manner that only a section of the population are normally even in a major accidents. For example, in the earthquake that took place in Mexico City 1985, only 2% of the residential home constructions were reported to be lost with only 4.9% of the building had been damaged. In regard to this, the people in damaged home could move out of their homes and resettle at neighboring region in the metropolitan areas. The organization of the emergency management system has therefore been so simple. Basing on the level of impact exacted on properties, the emergency systems in the UK is known to involve all their operational bases within the government therefore leavingng them with no structure to house the management to facilitate the rescue process making work operation very difficult (Perry, 27-45). In the US, whenever there is an emergency issue, only sections of facilities are affected living great majority with no damage thus increasing the processes in the disaster life cycle. In the UK, emergency preparation involves several parties participating in the process. These particular groups of individuals are entitled to participate in putting into action and implementing plans for contracting with the disaster before and after the event occurs, especially one with the potential to take place abruptly and result to great influence of loss of people life. This takes place during the disaster inter-phase stage in the disaster life cycle. In the disaster recovery stage, the management takes place action to return the interruption occurred into normal conditions. Disaster response is the ability for the management to come up with better solutions for the intense challenges posed by the accident occurrence. In the United States, this is not the case because emergency programs are entirely controlled from a central place i.e. the government takes full control of the emergency management systems. The emergency management systems in the US are likely to be influenced by Mass Media. This is not the case in the UK. For instance, in the United States, by using high level of technology, one can develop a bombs increases the chance of threats in a nation (Perry 2005). This has not been the case in the United Kingdom because in most cases the accidents and catastrophes which occur are not predictable. Conclusion Every nation is expected to have the best emergency management system in place so as to be able to give the citizens the required protection. The emergency management system in the UK is one of the best systems in place in the world. To facilitate emergency management in this country, the government has come up with Canadian centre for emergency preparedness program which assists through providing help to the disaster management community by means of consulting, delivering applicable programs and services and accessing information required. The organization also coordinates with other nation emergency management community to attain better strategies to implement in United Kingdom (Perry, 27-45). Through improving communication between disaster management community, levels of government and private sector, the organization is able to educate all UK citizens on ways to protect their environment from disaster. Work cited: Schneid, T. D. and Collins, L. Disaster management and preparedness: Occupational safety and health guide series. CRC Press, 2001 Read More