Abstract
Emergency management is described in term of “phases,” using terms such as mitigate, prepare, respond and recover. This paper examines the origins, underlying concepts, variations, limitations, and implications of the “phases of emergency management.” The purpose is to provide background information for transportation researchers and practitioners.
The paper looks at definitions and descriptions of each phase or component of emergency management, the temporal versus functional distinctions of the various phases, the importance of understanding interrelationships and responsibilities for each phase, some newer language and associated concepts (e.g., disaster resistance, sustainability, resilience, business continuity, risk management), and the diversity of research perspectives. In addition, the research identified some confusion in the use of terms, largely attributable to unresolved questions as to whether the “all hazards” approach to emergency management is adequate for “homeland security.”
1. introduction
The term “emergency management” is used here to encompass all of the activities carried out by the federal, state, and local agencies that are referred to as “emergency management agencies (EMAs),” and, more broadly, the efforts of the public and private sectors to deal with hazards, risks, and disasters of all types.
Alternative definitions are examined for some key terms, but many other terms are used without offering specific definitions, readers should be alert for unusual or multiple meanings. Among practitioners, words and phrases have meanings not immediately or fully understood by outsiders. Further, since emergency management is an interdisciplinary field of study, the languages of multiple disciplines are intertwined. Since the primary audience for the paper is focused on transportation, transportation examples and comparisons are used in many sections.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the “phases” of emergency management and to identify sources and potential topics for more focused research. The paper is divided into three sections:
2. What are Phases?
Emergency management has been described for the past three decades as a “four phases” process, involving:
These terms have been widely used by policy makers, practitioners, trainers, educators, and researchers. As illustrated in Figure 1 the four phases are often described as part of a continuous process. Similar graphics can be found on web sites and in textbooks, training manuals, reports, and other materials published throughout the U.S.
Some additional examples are shown in Figure 2, including an excerpt from Natural Hazards Informer (No. 4, September 2009) published as an enclosure to Transportation Research Board (TRB) Research Results Digests. The title of that document is “A Guide to Planning Resources on Transportation and Hazards.” (LeDuc 2009)
Figure 1. Four Phases of Emergency Management (NEHRP 2009)
Many of these Figures, from Figures 1 and 2, shows overlap of adjacent phases.1 This acknowledges that critical activities frequently cover more than one phase, and the boundaries between phases are seldom precise. Most sources also emphasize that important interrelationships exist among all the phases. For example, “mitigating” flood damage by restricting development in a flood plain will reduce the problems in “responding” to flooding. These interrelationships are discussed more in a subsequent section.
The concept of “phases” has been used since the 1930s to help describe, examine, and understand disasters and to help organize the practice of emergency management. In an article titled Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster, David Neal cites different examples of different researchers using five, six, seven, and up to eight phases long before the four phases became the standard. (Neal 1997)
So, what is the basis for the “4 phases”? The widespread use of “mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery” to help describe “comprehensive emergency management” is the result of work by the National Governors’ Association (NGA) in the late 1970s. The NGA forms a Subcommittee on Disaster Assistance in 1977s in response to concerns among the Governors regarding the lack of coordination of emergency management at both the federal and state levels.
At the federal level more than one hundred programs were scattered across multiple agencies, some focused on “natural disasters” and others on “civil defense” and protection from enemy attack. In 1978 the NGA formed a team within their Center for Policy Research (subsequently renamed the Center for Best Practices) to examine the situation under an initiative referred to as the “Emergency Preparedness Project.” (NGA 1979)
1 Some sources suggest that “phases” should be referred to more accurately as “functional activities” or “components” or “aspects” of emergency management. The implications are examined in a following section, but these terms (phases, activities, components, aspects) are used interchangeably in this paper unless otherwise noted.
Figure 2. Additional Illustrations of the “Four Phases of Emergency Management”
In a closely related action in 1979s President Carter, a former Governor, created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with an Executive Order that combined numerous disaster-related programs from multiple federal agencies.
The results of the NGA’s study were presented in Comprehensive Emergency Management: A Governor’s
Guide. (NGA, 1979) This seminal report, only 56 pages in length including appendices, is available at a FEMA website. Link
The recommendations in the NGA report are still relevant today, and two aspects are especially important for examination of the phases of emergency management. First, the NGA recommended that the scope of emergency management, as practiced at the federal and state levels, needed to expand beyond “preparedness” and “response” to include a set of activities they described as “mitigation” and another set of activities they described as “recovery.” The authors concluded that:
It was evident that the close links between mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery ware not adequately understood. (NGA 1979)
But Disaster management aimed to reduce, or avoids the potential losses from hazards, assure prompt and appropriate assistance to victims of disaster, and achieves rapid and effective recovery. The Disaster management cycle illustrates the ongoing process by which governments, businesses, and civil society plan for and reduce the impact of disasters, react during and immediately following a disaster, and take steps to recover after a disaster has occurred. Appropriate actions at all points in the cycle lead to greater preparedness, better warnings, reduced vulnerability or the prevention of disasters during the next iteration of the cycle. The complete disaster management cycle includes the shaping of public policies and plans that either modify the causes of disasters or mitigate their effects on people, property, and infrastructure.
The mitigation and preparedness phases occur as disaster management improvements are made in anticipation of a disaster event. Developmental considerations play a key role in contributing to the mitigation and preparation of a community to effectively confront a disaster. As a disaster occurs, disaster management actors, in particular humanitarian organizations, become involved in the immediate response and long-term recovery phases. The 4 disaster management phases illustrated here do not always, or even generally, occur in isolation or in this precise order. Often phases of the cycle overlap and the length of each phase greatly depends on the severity of the disaster.
Mitigation – Minimizing the effects of disaster.
Examples: building codes and zoning; vulnerability analyses; public education.
Preparedness – Planning how to respond.
Examples: preparedness plans; emergency exercises/training; warning systems.
Response – Efforts to minimize the hazards created by a disaster.
Examples: search and rescue; emergency relief.
Recovery – Returning the community to normal.
Examples: temporary housing; grants; medical care.
3. Sustainable Development
Developmental considerations contribute to all aspects of the disaster management cycle. One of the main goals of disaster management, and one of its strongest links with development, is the promotion of sustainable livelihoods and their protection and recovery during disasters and emergencies. Where this goal is achieved, people have a greater capacity to deal with disasters and their recovery is more rapid and long lasting. In a development-oriented disaster management approach, the objectives are to reduce hazards, prevent disasters, and prepare for emergencies. Therefore, developmental considerations are strongly represented in the mitigation and preparedness phases of the disaster management cycle. Inappropriate development processes can lead to increased vulnerability to disasters and loss of preparedness for emergency situations.
3.1 – Mitigation
Mitigation activities actually eliminate or reduce the probability of disaster occurrence or reduce the effects of unavoidable disasters. Mitigation measures include building codes; vulnerability analyses updates; zoning and land use management; building use regulations and safety codes; preventive health care; and public education.
Mitigation will depend on the incorporation of appropriate measures in national and regional development planning. Its effectiveness will also depend on the availability of information on hazards, emergency risks, and the countermeasures to be taken. The mitigation phase, and indeed the whole disaster management cycle, includes the shaping of public policies and plans that either modify the causes of disasters or mitigate their effects on people, property, and infrastructure.
Mitigation efforts are attempts to prevent hazards from developing into disasters altogether or to reduce the effects of disasters. The mitigation phase differs from the other phases in that it focuses on long-term measures for reducing or eliminating risk. Mitigation measures can be structural or non-structural. Structural measures use technological solutions like flood levees. Non-structural measures include legislation, land-use planning (e.g. the designation of nonessential land like parks to be used as flood zones), and insurance. Mitigation is the most cost-efficient method for reducing the affect of hazards although not always the most suitable. Mitigation includes providing regulations regarding evacuation, sanctions against those who refuse to obey the regulations (such as mandatory evacuations), and communication of risks to the public.
3.2- Preparedness
The goal of emergency preparedness programs is to achieve a satisfactory level of readiness to respond to any emergency situation through programs that strengthen the technical and managerial capacity of governments, organizations, and communities. These measures can be described as logistical readiness to deal with disasters and can be enhanced by having response mechanisms and procedures, rehearsals, developing long-term and short-term strategies, public education and building early warning systems. Preparedness can also take the form of ensuring that strategic reserves of food, equipment, water, medicines and other essentials are maintained in cases of national or local catastrophes.
During the preparedness phase, governments, organizations, and individuals develop plans to save lives, minimize disaster damage, and enhance disaster response operations. Preparedness measures include preparedness plans; emergency exercises/training; warning systems; emergency communications systems; evacuations plan and training; resource inventories; emergency personnel/contact lists; mutual aid agreements; and public information/education. As with mitigations efforts, preparedness actions depend on the incorporation of appropriate measures in national and regional development plans. In addition, their effectiveness depends on the availability of information on hazards, emergency risks and the countermeasures to be taken, and on the degree to which government agencies, non-governmental organizations and the general public are able to make use of this information.
Preparedness is a continuous cycle of planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluation and improvement activities to ensure effective coordination and the enhancement of capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, In the preparedness phase, emergency managers develop plans of action to manage and counter their risks and take action to build the necessary capabilities needed to implement such plans. Common preparedness measures include:
with emergency shelters and evacuation plans.
Develop organizations of trained volunteers among civilian populations. Professional emergency workers are rapidly overwhelmed in mass emergencies so trained; organized, responsible volunteers are extremely valuable. Organizations like Community Emergency Response Teams and the Red Cross are ready sources of trained volunteers. The latter's emergency management
system has gotten high ratings from both California, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Another aspect of preparedness is casualty prediction, the study of how many deaths or injuries to expect for a given kind of event. This gives planners an idea of what resources need to be in place to respond to a particular kind of event
4. Humanitarian Action
During a disaster, humanitarian agencies are often called upon to deal with immediate response and recovery. To be able to respond effectively, these agencies must have experienced leaders, trained personnel, adequate transport and logistic support, appropriate communications, and guidelines for working in emergencies. If the necessary preparations have not been made, the humanitarian agencies will not be able to meet the immediate needs of the people.
4.1- Response
The aim of emergency response is to provide immediate assistance to maintain life, improve health and support the morale of the affected population. Such assistance may range from providing specific but limited aid, such as assisting refugees with transport, temporary shelter, and food, to establishing semi-permanent settlement in camps and other locations. It also may involve initial repairs to damaged infrastructure. The focus in the response phase is on meeting the basic needs of the people until more permanent and sustainable solutions can be found. Humanitarian organizations are often strongly present in this phase of the disaster management cycle.
The response phase includes the mobilization of the necessary emergency services and first responders in the disaster area. This is likely to include a first wave of core emergency services, such as firefighters, police and ambulance crews. They may be supported by a number of secondary emergency services, such as specialist rescue teams. A well-rehearsed emergency plan developed as part of the preparedness phase enables efficient coordination of rescue.
There is a need for both discipline (structure, doctrine, process) and agility (creativity, improvisation, adaptability) in responding to a disaster. Combining that with the need to onboard and build a high functioning leadership team quickly to coordinate and manage efforts as they grow beyond first responders indicates the need for a leader and his or her team to craft and implement a disciplined, iterative set of response plans. This allows the team to move forward with coordinated, disciplined responses that are vaguely right and adapt to new information and changing circumstances along the way.
4.2- Recovery
The aim of the recovery phase is to restore the affected area to its previous state. It differs from the response phase in its focus; recovery efforts are concerned with issues and decisions that must be made after immediate needs are addressed. Recovery efforts are primarily concerned with actions that involve rebuilding destroyed property, re-employment, and the repair of other essential infrastructure. Efforts should be made to "build back better," aiming to reduce the pre-disaster risks inherent in the community and infrastructure. An important aspect of effective recovery efforts is taking advantage of a ‘window of opportunity’ for the implementation of mitigative measures that might otherwise be unpopular. Citizens of the affected area are more likely to accept more mitigative changes when a recent disaster is in fresh memory.
As the emergency is brought under control, the affected population is capable of undertaking a growing number of activities aimed at restoring their lives and the infrastructure that supports them. There is no distinct point at which immediate relief changes into recovery and then into long-term sustainable development. There will be many opportunities during the recovery period to enhance prevention and increase preparedness, thus reducing vulnerability. Ideally, there should be a smooth transition from recovery to on-going development.
Recovery activities continue until all systems return to normal or better. Recovery measures, both short and long term, include returning vital life-support systems to minimum operating standards; temporary housing; public information; health and safety education; reconstruction; counseling programs; and economic impact studies. Information resources and services include data collection related to rebuilding, and documentation of lessons learned.
5. What is disadvantage?
There is no agreed single definition or measure of disadvantage. This is in part because disadvantage involves many aspects of people’s lives and is influenced by the values and priorities of different communities and groups. Disadvantage has its roots in a complex interplay of factors. Many of these factors, when combined, can have a compounding effect. The probability that any one person will experience disadvantage is influenced by:
Most people who experience disadvantage do not fall into a single category of disadvantage. The links between a poor education and low income are well known, while low income is, in turn, associated with poor health and inferior housing. The Victorian Government states that disadvantage occurs when an individual, family or community is deprived of resources or opportunities that underpin social and economic wellbeing.3 Disadvantaged people and communities can lack material resources (such as income, housing, services, and transport), skills/knowledge resources (such as education, health) or social capital resources (such as social participation, inclusion, strong governance). People considered at risk of disadvantage include:
While the experience of a single disadvantage can create difficulties for people, the experience of multiple disadvantages can have a compounding and persistent effect, reinforcing barriers to getting ahead and increasing the likelihood of other related problems later in life. People who experience multiple disadvantages have poor outcomes across many dimensions. The effects of several disadvantages can be more difficult to overcome than just a single disadvantage, and multiple disadvantages can be perpetuated across generations. Multiple disadvantages can also lead to exclusion from society and a lack of access to goods, services, activities and resources.3 In Australia, around 5 per cent of the working age population, or 640,000 people, experience multiple and complex disadvantage. People facing multiple disadvantages are also more likely to live in the most disadvantaged localities.5 Addressing disadvantage is a pre-condition to building resilient communities and a stronger, more inclusive economy. If people face acute disadvantage – through financial stress, chronic health conditions or disability, homelessness, problem drug or alcohol use, isolation, or exposure to violence, abuse or neglect – they risk living marginalized lives as adults. It also puts them at greater risk in disasters
2 R McLachlan, G Gilfillan, J Gordon, Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia, rev. Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Canberra, 2013.
3 Department of Planning and Community Development, 2011, Change and disadvantage in regional
Victoria: an overview May 2011, Melbourne, Victoria, 2011.
4 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Measures of Australia’s Progress, ABS, Canberra, ACT, 2004.
5 Australian Social Inclusion Board, Social Inclusion in Australia: How Australia is faring—2nd Edition, Commonwealth of Australia, ACT, 2012.
6. What does disadvantage mean in an emergency?
“Where people live, their income level, as well as health and social contexts will be a factor in determining the effect that extreme weather events have on people … There is a growing recognition that the distribution of weather-related health impacts has been, and will continue to be, uneven, falling more heavily on low-income populations and those with chronic health conditions. Other factors associated with increased vulnerability include age, disability, homelessness, social isolation, poor English language skills, and residing in rural and remote communities”.6
It has been found that people facing single or multiple disadvantages are at greater risk of becoming socially vulnerable in an emergency. This is because in a disaster these people, due to disadvantage, are more likely to experience death or injury, property damage, psychological impacts, demographic impacts, economic impacts or political impacts.7
They are more at risk because the disadvantage they experience leaves them unable or less able, in the face of a disaster, to prepare for and respond to, as well as recover from, the hazards and damages intrinsic to an emergency. The physical and social impacts of emergencies on them are also disproportionate.
“Vulnerabilities precede disasters, contribute to their severity, impede effective disaster response and continue afterwards. Needs, on the other hand, arise out of the crisis itself, and are relatively short-term. Most disaster relief efforts have concentrated on meeting immediate needs, rather than on addressing and lessening vulnerabilities.”8
All communities comprise people, families, groups and organizations with differing strengths and needs. Major disasters produce widespread disruption and loss across them all. These people, families, groups and organizations can be overwhelmed by the impacts of death or injury, losses of homes or premises, jobs, or communities, and disruptive transitions like separations, or moving away.9
Not all people who face individual disadvantages are socially vulnerable in the event of an emergency – many will have the resources and capacity to manage, and even the most disadvantaged communities are resilient and possess unique skills, knowledge and resources they can draw on in the face of a disaster.
However, the literature on social vulnerability consistently identifies particular disadvantaged groups as being at risk during and after disasters, with negative effects continuing for a significant period for some people.10
6 The Senate, Environment and Communications References Committee, Recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events, Commonwealth of Australia, ACT, 2013.
7 Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences, Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions, National Research Council of the National Academies, National Academies Press, USA, 2006.
8 M Anderson, P Woodrow, Rising from the Ashes: Development strategies in times of disaster, Westview Press, Colorado, USA, 1989.
9 F Walsh, Traumatic Loss and Major Disasters: Strengthening Family and Community Resilience, Family Process, June 2007 46(2), USA, 2007.
10 G Winkworth, Disaster Recovery: A Review of the Literature, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, Canberra, ACT, 2007
Community recovery after the February 2009 Victorian bushfires: a rapid review identified that: Disasters induce stress against a backdrop of systemic stress associated with social structural position. As well, there are often secondary stresses – job loss, forced relocation and economic hardship and uncertainty. Even though everyone may appear to be exposed to the same event, disasters are ‘profoundly discriminatory wherever they hit, pre-existing structures and social conditions determine that (in the long run) some members of the community will be less affected, while others will pay a higher price’.11
The physical impacts of disasters, such as casualties (deaths and injuries) and property damage, vary substantially according to the type of emergency or disaster and are usually the most obvious and easily measured. Social impacts, which include psychosocial, demographic, economic, and political impacts, can develop over a long period of time and can be difficult to assess when they occur.
These social impacts can include:
The Victorian Government’s evidence checks into community recovery after the 2009 bushfires found a differential impact. It found impacts of the bushfires were worse among:
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) says that the more frequent, intense and longer-lasting fires, floods and droughts predicted for the future mean more Australians will be exposed to health hazards.
“…it is predicted that Australia will experience more heat waves, extreme fire weather, severe storms, and drought across southern parts of the continent. Some of the health effects accompanying these changes will be direct, such as increases in mortality and morbidity associated with heat waves. Other health impacts will be indirect, including damage to health infrastructure, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, increasing health inequities, and an erosion of the social determinants of good health. When estimating the overall financial costs associated with extreme weather events, it is imperative that consideration is given to the significant costs arising from health impacts.” 13
With more exposure to the hazards of extreme weather events being predicted for the future and the effects of these type of emergencies and disasters falling disproportionately on disadvantaged, or socially vulnerable people, it is now important for the emergency management sector to develop emergency management policy and programs that address the needs of socially vulnerable people, and that the Victorian government works to resolve the causes of their vulnerability, before emergencies arise.
11 P Hawe, Community recovery after the February 2009 Victorian bushfres: a rapid review – An Evidence Check Review brokered by the Sax Institute, Victorian Department of Health, Melbourne, Victoria, 2009.
12 Australian Psychological Society, Submission to the Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry on Recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events, APS, Melbourne, Victoria, 2013.
13 The Senate, Environment and Communications References Committee, Recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, 2013.