Gap in Current Disaster Management Model: Proposal for New Framework - Term Paper Example

Gap in Current Disaster Management Model: Proposal for New Framework Student name: Student number: Tutor: Date: Introduction Emergency or disaster management covers the activities undertaken by the public and private sectors to address and handle all forms of risks, hazards, and disasters (Boyd et al. 2014). A survey of past and current literature indicates that the existing frameworks for disaster management disaster management models focus on addressing disasters based on four key reasons; prevention, mitigating, response and recovery (Djalali et al. 2014). Still, this traditional theoretical framework, along with other current frameworks, has some underlying weaknesses leading to persistence of high death rates during disasters. This forms the key rationale for this study. Aim and objectives Based on the backdrop, the aim of this report is to identify gaps in the current disaster management models and to suggest a better framework that can be adopted in Kuwait. Several study objectives are suggested: The study will examine the gaps in the current disaster management theoretical frameworks. The study will determine the extent of operational and technical efficiencies of the current disaster management theoretical models. The study will explore the effectiveness of the current disaster management theoretical models in suggesting relevant policies and measures aimed at engaging the local communities in disaster planning and emergency preparedness. An underlying hypothesis is that the current disaster management theoretical models have facilitated the ineffectiveness of disaster and emergency preparedness programs due to their underlying gaps. Motivation and rationale for the research According to Kelly (1998), a disaster management should simplify complex events to help differentiate critical elements in order to respond to disasters that have critical time constraints. Additionally, a comparison of the actual conditions using a theoretical model leads to an improved understanding of the existing situation. Hence, a framework should smooth the progress of the planning and preparation process in addition to completing disaster management plans fully. Third, the disaster management model quantifies disaster events (Dorge & Jones 1999). Lastly, the model facilitates the creation of a consistent understanding for the entire elements involved. Additionally, it facilitates improved integration of the disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Boyd et al. 2014). Taking the four reasons into perspective, it is critical to argue that a distinct and logical model is crucial in managing disasters, as it smoothes the progress of providing support for efforts intended to manage a disaster (Ferguson 2011). For this reason, disaster management requires a formal integrated framework for management, and perhaps reduction of the negative impacts of a disaster (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2015). Indeed, from a survey of current and past literature, the disaster management frameworks can be separated into integrated, logical, and causes. It is reasoned that the currently prevailing disaster management frameworks are aligned into four groups, as indicated in the table below. Figure 1: Currently prevailing disaster management frameworks The logical models offer a rather straightforward description of phases of disaster and stress the basic actions and events that make up a disaster. The integrated models exemplify the stages of a disaster through the evolution of functions like monitoring and strategic planning. The category or causes, although not rooted in the idea of describing stages in disaster management, seek to suggest the fundamental causes of disasters (Kirton 2013). The traditional disaster management model approaches disaster management as a sequential process. It is made of two stages: pre-disaster risk-reduction and post-disaster recovery stage. The activities at the first stage include prevention, mitigation, and preparedness. Those in the second stage consist of response, recovery, and rehabilitation (International Finance Corporation 2010; Rural Assistance Center 2015). The expand and contract model approaches disaster management processes as continuous process rather than a sequential, which run parallel to each other while simultaneously expanding or contracting as necessary, although to different degrees (Atmanand, 2003). The framework recognizes disaster management as discipline that is made of varied activities and actions happening at the same time. Kimberly’s model (2003) approaches mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery within a four-stage disaster management framework. The model shows response to be the largest and most visible disaster management phase. Kimberley’s framework places mitigation and preparation at the bottom and suggesting that the two drive effective response. It also places recovery phase at the top, as it is the remaining after the response phase. The Manitoba integrated disaster management framework provides a means to organize interrelated activities that ensure they are implemented effectively. The four key components the framework suggests include: (a). Hazard assessment, (b) Risk management, (c) Mitigation, and (d) Preparedness. Its key advantages are that it offers a balance between preparedness and flexibility to respond effectively to the particular needs for addressing a disaster. However, it strongly provides a link between risk management and hazard but does not provide a valid link between the four disaster management stages (Manitoba-Health-Disaster-Management, 2002). The Weichselgartner framework (2001) determines the probable damage, as well as planning the future actions intended to minimise the likely damage. The model assumes that assessing vulnerability alone cannot mitigate the natural hazards. The model shows the process cycle, as well as the integration of geo-based concepts within the field of disaster management. The crunch model offers a model for interpreting the causal factors for a disaster. It attempts to disclose the community vulnerability, as well as the fundamental causes that cannot satisfy what the people directly affected by the disaster demand (Marcus, 2005). The pressure and release framework reveals how to reduce the risk of disasters through the application of mitigation or preventive actions. It starts by resolving the basic causes and evaluating the nature of the hazards. The underlying principle for this is to come up with safe conditions that assist in preparation of the community to address the disasters (Heijmans, 2001). A proposed integrated model for disaster management This paper seeks to improve the approaches to disaster management since they have not been effective based on three grounds: a) Death toll from disasters is still high globally despite the improved mitigation strategies (IJzermans et al. 2005; Cruz, G 2010; Al-Shimemeri 2012). b) There is still minimal deployment of technology to ensure disaster and emergency preparedness and response (Cruz, G 2010; Al-Shimemeri 2012). c) There is limited adoption of policies and measures aimed at engaging the local communities in disaster planning and emergency preparedness (Kirton 2013). c) Disaster relief has inadequately been integrated with economic and mitigation development (IJzermans et al. 2005; Cruz, G 2010; Al-Shimemeri 2012). Based on these gaps, this paper proposes a new all-inclusive framework for disaster management in order to improve the current models. Overall, it can be concluded that the six prevailing frameworks discusses are focused on the divergent phases of the disaster management processes, as well as how they should be mediated. A review of these frameworks also indicates that they tend to revolve around the four key disaster management phases: prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery. The fundamental gaps While the current disaster management frameworks are intended to address the entire aspects of disaster management spheres, they have obvious gaps. For instance, the logical frameworks are restricted within the disaster stages and only get to propose theoretical frameworks for basic disaster activities (Jackson 2008). Next, the expand-contract framework fails to cover risk and hazard assessment. This has specifically been the case in the Gulf countries, such as Kuwait, where major oil fires have occurred (Husain 1995; Al-Shaqsi, A n.d; Chilcote 2003; Al-Shimemeri, A 2012). Next, the integrated frameworks encompass the entire disaster management activities but do not cover the response and recovery activities. Additionally, it solely states the actions of disaster management at the top level instead of addressing the activities for each case in detail (Jackson 2008). Lastly, the cause framework is focused on the conditions that may affect disaster management, as it addresses a disaster’s root causes. However, the theoretic frameworks in this group do not consider environmental factors, despite their potential to change the course of the disasters (Cruz 2010). Proposed framework Due to these gaps, this study proposes a more integrated framework that will cover the entire disaster management activities. The proposed framework will seek to link: a) Risk management and hazard evaluation activities b) Disaster management and risk management activities. Through this integration and linkage of steps, a more integrated framework will be formulated. Hence, it will allow for inclusion of local communities in disaster management and preparedness. Additionally, it will allow for inclusion of technology-based infrastructure. It will also integrate environmental conditions hence making it possible to review and detach the environmental concerns from a disaster (Cruz 2010). The new integrated framework will not revolve around the four key disaster management phases. Instead, it will be grouped into six basic constituents: strategic planning, assessment of hazards, management of risks, the four disaster management phases, and lastly, evaluating and environmental impacts (Vallero & Letcher 2012,). In the same vein, the integrated framework also decomposes into varied activities needed to carry out disaster management operations. These disaster management actions are undertaken in a chronological manner to mitigate a disaster. The entire disaster management measures are also continually analysed and monitored in the context of varied environmental conditions. Significance of the study A research into an integrated framework would prove the significance of provision of adequate resources for disaster management by encouraging partnership at all government levels, including the local communities in Kuwait. The proposed integrated framework will also facilitate the improvement of forecasting of future events and their effects in Kuwait, specifically in cases where changing environmental conditions trigger disasters, such as climate change. Knowledge aggregated using this scoping study will direct disaster or emergency preparedness in Kuwait (Veenema, 2012). Consequently, it will enable emergency responders, including the fire service, to deal with future emergencies more efficiently, as well as reinforce and prepare local communities against disasters (IJzerman et al. 2005). The underlying assumption is that there is a need to build an integrated framework that can be integrated by organisations participating in management of emergencies and disasters (Inglesby et al. 2013). Conclusion In conclusion, several gaps in the current disaster management frameworks are evident, which justify a need to propose a new integrated framework: most of these frameworks are designed to revolve around the four key phases of disaster management, namely prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery; no single framework covers most of the disaster management activities; the current models do not consider evaluation and analysis on disasters, despite such data being essential for mitigating future disasters. The integrated model proposed will take these gaps into conclusion, and will be applicable to Kuwait. References Al-Shaqsi, A n.d., Emergency management in the Arabian Peninsula: A case study from the Sultanate of Oman, viewed 7 July 2015, Al-Shimemeri, A 2012, Challenges Faced by the Intensive Care Unit during a Terrorist Attack: The Riyadh Experience, Emergency Medicine, Article ID 859783, 1-5 Atmanand 2003, "Insurance and Disaster Management: The Indian Contextm" Disaster Prevention and Management, vol 12 no 4, pp. 286-304 Boyd, A, Chambers, N, French, S, Shaw, D, King, R & Whitehead, A 2014, “Emergency planning and management in health care: priority research topics,” Health Systems, vol 3 no 2, pp.83–92 Cruz, G 2010, “Top 10 Environmental Disasters,” Time, viewed 7 July 2015, Djalali, A, Corte, F. & Folettu, M, et al 2014, “Art of Disaster Preparedness in European Union: a Survey on the Health Systems,” PLoS Curr vol 17, pp6 Dorge, V & Jones, S 1999, Building an Emergency Plan: A Guide for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2015). Operational Lessons Learned in Disaster Response. Emmitsburg: U.S. Fire Administration Ferguson, G 2011, EMS Disaster Preparedness for Natural Gas Explosions, viewed 12 July 2015 Read More