The emergency management field is a relatively newly recognized profession. Disasters and emergencies have existed since the dawn of time, but the standardization for the profession behind it has just recently started. Dennis Mileti lines out many needs for society to transition to broader paradigms for emergency management in his book, Disasters by Design. Mileti calls it sustainable hazards mitigation, a call to broaden horizons and implement creative thinking to cut losses as the world is constantly evolving and growing. Mileti found that the hazards field had ignored the people factor in the past, the social, political, and economic aspects of hazards and was focused too heavily on technology solutions. Humans are creatures of habit, so it is difficult to make them change, but it must be done. Short-term thinking dictates most decision-making; this must change.
When people don’t understand the environment, they are more influenced by other people than the hazard (Mileti, 1999). Without experience in the field, emergency managers can’t make evaluations of the performance of their programs (Henstra, 2010). Mileti (1999) finds three causal effects of the need to transition paradigms-the changing earth resources, changing demographics in the country, and the expanding infrastructure of the country. Global warming is making weather events worse, more people are living in earthquake and hurricane zones, the unequal distribution of wealth is getting worse making more citizens exposed to hazards and less likely to recover from them, and the growing infrastructure is increasing the possible losses from disaster. The ever-rising threat of terrorism is another reason that we must transition to a broader paradigm; the enemy is evolving so we must as well. Terrorism requires responses that are unlike any responses for weather or industrial disasters (Perry & Lindell, 2007).
Technology has become an essential part of our daily lives over the last century; new products and designs are being invented almost daily. I find it difficult to keep up with the constant changing technology, so the emergency management field has a lot to work and stay afloat with. With such advanced technology, Mileti (1999) found a main issue is that people have this notion that technology can be used to regulate nature to prevent disaster and that method molds dangers as still and mitigation as a positive and linear tendency. Technology can be used for risk assessments with tools like maps and computer models (Mileti, 1999).
There are six goals that need to met at the same time in order to cease the terrible losses from disasters: improve and take care of the environment and quality of life for people, promote local resilience, accountability, and economy, choose mitigation that protects all demographics of the population, and ensure participation in planning from all representation in the communities (Mileti, 1999). Wilhite (2001) found that government relief from a disaster makes communities dependent on that and less likely to change their strategies, thus more susceptible to disaster.
On the local government side, there is an abundance of responsibility they should have. The first thing is that they need to accept that fact that the mitigation choices made in the present is what will determine how much loss will be had in the future (Mileti, 1999). In order for locals to be successful, they could collaborate with other local governments, and the state or federal governments can help facilitate this through regional teams and national conferences (Mileti, 1999). Mileti also found that information sharing internationally could reduce threats to life and property; this has begun but needs to be done more. One aspect that can be easy and have the potential to save lives and lower losses is a long term emergency warning system and forecast, the federal or state government can assist in this by having a uniform system, but the local government must be in charge of the operation. Actions like evacuations need to be mandated, not just recommended. A function the local government is already in charge of that can be vital to surviving a disaster is implementing and enforcing building codes. Local governments can contribute to the shift by helping with the national databases Mileti (1999) recommends putting in place to record and understand disasters.
In order for this transition to a broader paradigm to be successful, I believe that more research is needed to enact research into education for knowledge in disasters and preparedness. Mileti in 1999 found that little research has been done about how habits affect disaster response, something that can be done to help determine how to get citizens to understand how to react. Training should be conducted across the traditional disciplines as well as interdisciplinary to improve the profession (Mileti, 1999). Governments and citizens need to understand their conditions they live in in order to better prepare, this can be done through education in schools, local museums, and literature distributed to residents. Citizens are more likely to react if they are educated about the hazards they face (Henstra, 2010). In order to stay up to date with threats and hazards, response plans should be consistently reviewed and modified (Henstra, 2010). Local governments could offer economic incentives for mitigation if they don’t negatively affect disaster recovery (Mileti, 1999).
We cannot write off climate change or global warming as a myth, it is apparent that the earth has changed and continues to do so; disasters aren’t going to go away. Local governments can invest in businesses that are environmentally conscious, because protecting the environment can be crucial for protection in a disaster (Mileti, 1999). The development of nature’s protective features like beaches and forests, must be stopped as well, they provide a barrier for storms (Mileti, 1999). Cities can adapt to this new hazards model by using being a model community, using electric vehicles, creating bike and pedestrian paths, and implementing more public transportation (Mileti, 1999). Local governments have the power to avert disaster damages through land-use plans such as building standards and development regulations (Mileti, 1999).
All demographics of our population need to be accommodated for, so their needs can be understood. Local governments need to be stricter in the enforcement, training, and implementation of building codes and permits and not bow down to political pressure for out of code building materials that saves money, something that can create jobs in a community since it will require more inspectors. It can also help the poor who live in lower quality houses that are susceptible to damage (Mileti, 1999), to cut losses by having stricter building codes. Insurance companies can help with mitigation through education, strong building codes, incentives to encourage participation, and not offering insurance in disaster prone areas (Mileti, 1999), something I agree with that should be done, I know I wouldn’t live somewhere that does not have insurance. Everyone and all levels of government must participate in mitigation this yields better results and can be accomplished through citizen organizations such as the Civilian Conservation Corps that participate in community improvement efforts (Rubin, 2012).
When disasters happen, rebuilding must be done to be safer and a long-term solution, not just a temporary patch job. Mileti in 1999 pointed to a buyout plan to relocating citizens from floodplains that has been proven successful in Boulder, Colorado, but it is expensive and not feasible for all cities. The managers of today need to plan and act for the quality of life for future generations to come and improve as much as possible for the citizens now, and not blame nature; they must accept responsibility for the need to adapt and evolve with what nature brings (Mileti, 1999). Local governments will often put emergency preparedness on the back burner for more urgent matters such as crime, education needs, and housing (Mileti, 1999).
Conclusion
The emergency management field has come a long way, but still has a ways to go. Losses from disasters are still climbing in monetary value, mitigation is only delaying the losses to happen, and some mitigation efforts are destroying the environment (Mileti, 1999). The next generation must be educated across all disciplines applicable to emergency management such as healthcare, police and fire response. Research must be expanded, standardizations enhanced, and interactions between researchers increased, this includes creating a national valuation of risks from all hazards (Mileti, 1999).