quo vadis emergency preparedness?

4
This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University] On: 08 October 2014, At: 10:47 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Environmental Hazards Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tenh20 Quo vadis emergency preparedness? David Alexander a a Department of Geosciences , University of Massachusetts , Amherst, MA, 01003-9297, USA Published online: 15 Jun 2011. To cite this article: David Alexander (2001) Quo vadis emergency preparedness?, Environmental Hazards, 3:3, 129-131, DOI: 10.3763/ehaz.2001.0313 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2001.0313 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: david

Post on 13-Feb-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Quo vadis emergency preparedness?

This article was downloaded by: [Nova Southeastern University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 10:47Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental HazardsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tenh20

Quo vadis emergency preparedness?David Alexander aa Department of Geosciences , University of Massachusetts , Amherst, MA, 01003-9297,USAPublished online: 15 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: David Alexander (2001) Quo vadis emergency preparedness?, Environmental Hazards, 3:3, 129-131,DOI: 10.3763/ehaz.2001.0313

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2001.0313

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Quo vadis emergency preparedness?

Environmental Hazards 3 (2002) 129–131

Short communication

Quo vadis emergency preparedness?

David Alexander

Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9297, USA

The earthquakes that occurred in early 2001 in ElSalvador and Gujarat (India) trained the spotlight onceagain on problems of disaster prevention and emergencypreparedness. Such events, and the responses to them onthe part of the world community, raise profoundlydisquieting issues about the poor quality of data oncatastrophe impacts, the slowness to develop profes-sional standards, and the persistence of misassumptionsabout disaster. They highlight the need to strengthendemocratic values when endeavoring to prevent disas-ters, and they demand that the profile of the emergencymanagement profession be improved. I will begin bydiscussing the reliability of data.

1. Data are unreliable or insufficient

After half a century of intensive study, it is stilldifficult to make reliable generalizations about trends indisasters. Average world-wide death tolls have remainedfairly stable for decades, but the actual totals fluctuatewildly from year to year and from one disaster toanother. Although various organizations have amassedcollections of detailed information (Berz, 1992;IFRCRCS, 2000), adequate casualty statistics havenever been collected, so one can hardly begin togeneralize about trends. There is even a lack of robustdefinitions of mortality and morbidity in disasters(Alexander, 1985). Regarding damage and disruption,the Munich Reinsurance Corporation reported that thecosts of disaster have risen 15.3 times over the last half acentury (Munich Re, 2000), but the trend is sounsustainable that if it were used to predict futurelosses these would be practically infinite by the year2020.

In other fields, such as climate change, great emphasishas been placed on the collection and interpretation ofreliable, comprehensive data sets. This is regarded as anessential preliminary step before decisions can be madeabout policy, and hence a firm grasp of scientific realitysustains the organizations that are lobbying for moreaction on climate. In the hazards and disasters field it

appears that similar organizations may eventually be setup to guide policy, perhaps in concert with the UnitedNations’ International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(ISDR). To be successful, they will need adequate,rigorous and reliable data on disaster impacts. This willrequire, first, a consensus on what types of data arenecessary; secondly, agreed definitions of key variablesrelating to death, injury, damage and losses; thirdly,common, standardized mechanisms for collecting andverifying data; and finally, protocols to make such datainternationally notifiable in the same way that healthdata are. A world-wide observatory is needed, with arole akin to that of the World Health Organization’sfunction in monitoring communicable diseases. Dataare, in effect, an armament in the battle to make lifesafer for the world’s populations. But safety remains aprivilege rather than the fundamental human right itshould be.

2. Disaster is about democracy and empowerment

Disaster is a window on society which reveals thecollective preferences, prejudices, and attitudes of largesections of the population (Alexander, 2000). It is thedefining moment when people suffer or benefit from thecumulative consequences of decisions made over theinterval since the last such event. Very often the sufferersare not the same people as those who made the decisionson which their plight depends, and this thereforetransfers the effects—unloads them, one might say. Itthrows into high relief all the prevailing problems ofmarginalization, exploitation, and denial of rights.

Many studies have demonstrated unequivocally thatthe impacts of disaster are greatest where democracy isweakest (Platt, 1999). While this is most evident withrespect to the ‘‘complex emergency’’1, it is equally true

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Alexander).

1The term ‘‘complex emergency’’ was first used in the 1990s to

describe situations in which natural catastrophe intertwines with

social, economic, military and political breakdown (Prehospital and

Disaster Medicine, 1995). However, same authors have pointed out

that all emergencies are, to a greater or lesser extent, complex (Kirkby

et al., 1997).

www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/ehazdoi:10.3763/ehaz.2001.0313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Quo vadis emergency preparedness?

in more stable situations. Recently, an intense examina-tion has begun of the role of gender in disasters(Morrow and Phillips, 1999). One wonders how long itwill be before the research topic ‘‘environmental racism’’(Clarke and Gerlak, 1998) has adequate parallels indisaster studies (Van Belle, 1999). In any case, disasterprevention is undoubtedly about empowerment of themost vulnerable groups in society and creation of amore equitable distribution of risk (Wisner et al., 1977).The paucity of attention given to this problem reflectsthe fact that political organizations and civil adminis-trations are mostly led by people from privileged sectorsof society. In The Intelligent Woman’s Guide toSocialism and Capitalism (1928), George Bernard Shawpointed out that the safety of railways was guaranteedby the fact that the bosses traveled on them. When thatceased to be so, the standard of safety declined. Themoral of this observation applies to many other kinds ofrisk situation, not merely the threat of transportationcrashes.

3. The world community is slow to accept the obvious

In effect, it took 30 years to bring home the messagethat economic development needs to be accompanied bydisaster prevention and mitigation measures if it is notto suffer continual setbacks (Pirotte et al., 1999). Totake one example from among very many, in 1998 theimpact of Hurricane Mitch upon six Central Americancountries demonstrated graphically that there is a widegap between establishing this principal and acting uponit: contemporary damage estimates suggested that inplaces development had been set back 20 years by thisone catastrophe alone. Will it take as long to recognizethat progress in disaster prevention has been too slowand too unsystematic, and to devise effective remedies?For all the good works of the International Decade forNatural Disaster Reduction (1990–2000), it did notsucceed in its primary goal of reducing the toll ofdisasters by half in a single decade (US NationalResearch Council, 1987).

I believe the root of the problem lies in the half-hearted, often amateurish, way that disaster preventionhas been organized. As we can no longer plead ‘‘Acts ofGod,’’ or ignorance of the cause, consequences andsolutions of disaster, it is time to adopt a more rigorousworld strategy for tackling the problem.

4. Establishing professional standards

To begin with, we need to establish clearer, morerigorous international standards for risk reduction,emergency preparedness, disaster management andemergency training. At present, practically the only

standard in general circulation is NFPA 1600, the USNational Fire Protection Association’s standard onemergency preparedness and management (NFPA,2000). This proprietary document leaves much to bedesired, especially in terms of international applicability.In fact, we need more open debate on what thestandards should be and how to apply them.

Though disaster work has become progressively moreinternationalized as each new catastrophe happens,emergency preparedness remains a proto-discipline.Moreover, it has yet to emerge as a fully fledgedprofession. This is therefore an ideal time to ask what itshould consist of. What needs to be achieved in order tomake it legitimate, generally accepted, mature andcapable of reducing the toll of disasters?

Part of the problem lies in a lack of integrationbetween studies of risk and processes of preparedness(May, 1989). Commonly, there is a failure to explicaterisk scenarios as a basis for planning: too manyemergency plans are posited on vague, incompleteassessments of risk. Yet their object should be to matchavailable resources to pressing needs. Detailed riskscenarios must be constructed if these needs are to beanticipated.

On a more general note, perhaps some debate isneeded on the relative proportions of uniqueness andgenerality in typical modern disasters. Emergencymanagement is all about using set procedures to tacklepredictable situations, and improvising a response totheir unpredictable aspects (Drabek and Hoetmer,1991). It is a widely accepted axiom that improvisationshould be kept to a minimum. But there has been littledebate about what we can actually expect to happen inthe next major disaster. What proportion of it ispredictable? What proportion can be classed as ‘‘adisaster waiting to happen?’’ These are fundamentalquestions that need to be investigated in order to bringthe field to maturity. Its slowness to mature is illustratedby the extraordinary persistence of misassumptions andcommon errors every time that large disasters strike(Alexander, 1993, pp. 16–20).

5. The persistence of disaster mythology

One of the most striking aspects of modern cata-strophe is the crushing inevitability of the mistakes thatare made, the myths that are propagated, and theinefficiencies that plague their management. For thepeople who live through it, a disaster is a time ofaccelerated learning. But this is only because appro-priate lessons are seldom learned in times of quiescence,even though they very easily could be if training andpreparedness were as universal and as effective as theyshould be.

D. Alexander / Environmental Hazards 3 (2002) 129–131130

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Quo vadis emergency preparedness?

Consider the recurrent myth that dead bodies cause ahealth hazard if they are not buried quickly. It has beenconvincingly refuted by experts in the field (De Ville deGoyet, 1999), but is still endlessly propagated in theworld’s news media. It also receives undue credencefrom civil authorities who ought to know better. Forexample, in the aftermath of the January 2001 ElSalvador earthquake, a large communal grave washastily dug in the town of Santa Tecla and bodies andbody parts were unceremoniously flung into it. In theGujarat earthquake in India a few weeks later bodieswere cremated at a furious place, and, according tocontemporary reports, wrecked buildings were hastilybulldozed ‘‘to prevent the spread of disease due todecomposing bodies.’’ Death certification, coroners’investigations, and last rites were all summarily dis-pensed with. Predictably, relatives and survivors weredemoralized by the obscene spectacle of the indiscrimi-nate and insensitive disposal of the last remains of theirloved ones, all because of a fear of epidemics that hardlyever materialize, and virtually never from such causes(Paulozzi, 1980).

This begs the question of why there is such a lack ofobjectivity in dealing with the effects of disasters? First,most people, even many of the best experts, seem unableto view such events holistically and in terms of theconnections between their physical and social parts.Secondly, disasters threaten people’s sense of order andtherefore their ability to comprehend and classifyunusual phenomena. Thirdly, as few people enjoypondering destructive events, and it is consideredunhealthy to have a fixation about them, the lessonsof past disasters are easily and rapidly forgotten.

Once again, the only answer is to increase the level ofprofessionalism in disaster management and raise itsinternational profile in order to get the message across.Much more work will be needed (McEntire, 1997).

6. Conclusion

Academic articles usually conclude that ‘‘moreresearch is needed,’’ which is, of course, an argumentfor perpetuating the roles of their authors. But in thefield of disasters there have been 50 years of sustainedresearch. More may yet be needed, but rather than thatwhat is needed is better translation of research intoconcrete applications. If it is clear, for example, thatlooting is uncommon or used clothes are seldomappropriate donations in disaster aftermaths, why dosuch myths perpetuate themselves? Perhaps, now is notthe time for a conclusion, but it is certainly time for the

emergency preparedness community to rise up andorganize itself.

References

Alexander, D.E., 1985. Death and injury in earthquakes. Disasters 9

(1), 57–60.

Alexander, D.E., 1993. Natural Disasters. University College London

Press, London, and Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 632pp.

Alexander, D.E., 2000. Confronting Catastrophe: New Perspectives on

Natural Disaster. Terra Publishing, Harpenden, UK, and Oxford

University Press, New York, 282pp.

Berz, G., 1992. Losses in the range of US$50 billion and 50,000 people

killed: Munich Re’s list of major natural disasters in 1990. Natural

Hazards 5 (1), 95–102.

Clarke, J.N., Gerlak, A.V., 1998. Environmental racism in the sunbelt?

A cross-cultural analysis. Environmental Management 22 (6), 857–

867.

De Ville de Goyet, C., 1999. Stop propagating disaster myths.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 14 (1), 9–10.

Drabek, T.E., Hoetmer, G.J. (Eds.), 1991. Emergency management:

principles and practice for local government. International City

Management Association, Washington, DC, 416pp.

IFRCRCS, 2000. World Disasters Report 2000. International Federa-

tion of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 240pp.

Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P., Convery, I., Howell, D., 1997. On the

emergency of complex disasters. Disasters 21 (2), 177–180.

May, P.J., 1989. Social science perspectives: risk and disaster

preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and

Disasters 7 (3), 281–304.

McEntire, D.A., 1997. Reflecting on the weaknesses of the interna-

tional community during the IDNDR: some implications for

research and its application. Disaster Prevention and Management

6 (4), 221–233.

Morrow, B.H., Phillips, B.D., 1999. What’s gender got to do with it?

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 17 (1),

5–13.

Munich Re, 1999. Topics 2000: Natural Catastrophes—The Current

Position. Munich Re Group, Munich, Germany, 126pp.

NFPA, 2000. NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Manage-

ment and Business Continuity Programs. National Fire Protection

Association, Quincy, Mass, 18pp.

Paulozzi, L.J., 1980. Great myths in disaster relief: epidemics. Journal

of Environmental Health 43 (3), 140–143.

Pirotte, C., Husson, B., Grunewald, F. (Eds.), 1999. Responding to

Emergencies and Fostering Development: the Dilemmas of

Humanitarian Aid. Zed Books, London.

Platt, R.H., 1999. Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme

Natural Events. Island Press, Washington, DC, 320pp.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 1995. Complex, humanitarian

emergencies: I. Concept and participants. Prehospital and Disaster

Medicine 10, 36–40.

US National Research Council, 1987. Confronting Natural Disasters:

An International Decade for Natural Hazard Reduction. National

Academy Press, Washington, DC, 60pp.

Van Belle, D.A., 1999. Race and US foreign disaster aid. International

Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 17 (3), 339–365.

Wisner, B., O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K., 1977. Global systems and local

disasters: the untapped power of peoples’ science. Disasters 1 (1),

47–58.

D. Alexander / Environmental Hazards 3 (2002) 129–131 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nov

a So

uthe

aste

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

47 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014