|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volume 23, No. 3. (November 2005) CONTENTS Articles by: Heidi Ellemor and Jon Barnett, “National Security and Emergency Management After September 11,” pp. 5–26. The
terrorist attacks in New York on September 11 2001 have troubled the practice
of security. There has been renewed emphasis on the need for a layered
security strategy, and this has refocused attention on civil defense. As a
consequence, emergency management institutions are increasingly being
incorporated under the aegis of national security. This is resulting in the
implementation of older command-and-control type models of emergency
management at the expense of the prevention-oriented, preparedness and
community based approaches that emerged after the end of the Cold War. The
paper situates this recent convergence of security and emergency management
in a discussion of the evolution of both policy fields since the end of WWII.
It then explains the post-September 11 trend towards centralizing authority
in emergency management in Australia, but with considerable reference to
parallel developments in the United States. The paper argues that while this
retrogressive shift seems inimical to contemporary advances in emergency
management, an inclusive interpretation of security as human security could
serve to reinforce the important developments made in the field of emergency
management in the last decade. (AA) Brian K. Richardson, “The Phases of Disaster as a Relationship Between Structure and Meaning: A Narrative Analysis of the 1947 Texas City Explosion,” pp. 27–54. Developing
disaster phase models has been useful, particularly for understanding
response efforts to emergencies and disasters. However, such models are
limited in their ability to explain the phases encountered by a social
collective, or community, as it progresses through response and recovery
efforts. This study examined phases of disaster response and recovery as a
sociological problem. A grounded-theory analysis was used to examine 60
personal narratives of the 1947 Texas City explosion, which is an example of
a cosmology episode. Survivors of the explosion provided narrative accounts
describing their memories of the incident. Results support the idea that
social collectives depend upon a transactional relationship between structure
and meaning to make sense of events. The study develops a phase model
depicting four phases experienced by the Texas City community prior to,
during, and after the disaster. This study reveals contributions gained
through analysis of personal narratives to illuminate the relationship
between disaster and human activity. (AA) Benigno E. Aguirre, “Cuba’s Disaster Management Model: Should It Be Emulated?” pp. 55–71. The
article offers a criticism of the point of view that disaster programs in Cuba should be emulated by other
countries. It shows the relationship that exists between disaster
vulnerability and resilience, to shed light on the promises as well as the
problems of using Cuba as a model to emulate in social development. Cuba has
an excellent record when it comes to disaster preparedness and response
involving warning and evacuation, in which governmental control of the
population is used very effectively to minimize the potential morbidity and
mortality of hurricanes and tropical storms. It nevertheless has a very poor
record in dealing with disaster reconstruction, recovery, and mitigation as
well as with solving slow onset chronic problems and vulnerabilities of the
population. (AA) Sitki Corbacioglu and Naim Kapucu, “Intergovernmental Relations in Response to the 1999 Marmara Earthquake in Turkey: A Network Analysis,” pp. 73–102. This
research examines the intergovernmental coordination to reduce vulnerability
of local communities to disasters. Turkeys exposure to seismic risk is very
high and achieving intergovernmental coordination in response operations is a
challenge. The formal bureaucratic structure of the disaster management
inhibits timely collective action in complex disaster environments. The paper
examines one of the most destructive regional disasters of the last century,
the 1999 Marmara earthquake. The research uses data from content analyses of
news reports, interviews with public and nonprofit managers, and direct field
observations. This analysis was carried out using UCINET 6.0 social network
analysis software program. The results of the network analysis have shown
that there is a problem of communication and coordination among public
agencies in response to the disaster. Moreover, the integration of
organizations from different jurisdictions and other sectors was problematic
in the response operations. The results of the study reveal the leverage
points for improving intergovernmental collective action from the perspective
of complex adaptive systems theory. (AA) Nathan J. Wood and James W. Good, “Perceptions of Earthquake and Tsunami Issues in U.S. Pacific Northwest Port and Harbor Communities,” pp. 103–138. Although
there is considerable energy focused on assessing natural hazards associated
with earthquakes and tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, little has been
done to understand societal vulnerability to these hazards. Part of
understanding societal vulnerability includes assessing the perceptions and
priorities of public sector individuals with traditional emergency management
responsibilities and of private citizens who could play key roles in
community recovery. In response to this knowledge gap, we examine earthquake
and tsunami perceptions of stakeholders and decision makers from coastal
communities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, focusing on perceptions of (1)
regional hazards and societal vulnerability, (2) the current state of
readiness, and (3) priorities for future hazard adjustment efforts. Results of
a mailed survey suggest that survey participants believe that earthquakes and
tsunamis are credible community threats. Most communities are focusing on
regional mitigation and response planning, with less effort devoted to
recovery plans or to making individual organizations more resilient.
Significant differences in expressed perceptions and priorities were observed
between Oregon and Washington respondents, mainly on tsunami issues.
Significant perception differences were also observed between private and
public sector respondents. Our results suggest the need for further research
and for outreach and planning initiatives in the Pacific Northwest to address
significant gaps in earthquake and tsunami hazard awareness and readiness.
(AA) Occasional
Series on the Future of Disaster Research: Ilan Kelman, “Operational Ethics for Disaster Research,” pp. 141–158. Operational
ethics for disaster research is suggested as an important area for further
investigation. The main questions are suggested as: 1. Could
carrying out disaster research interfere with disaster and risk management
activities? 2. Could
publishing disaster research interfere with disaster and risk management
activities? 3. Should
researchers take responsibility for the operational outcomes of their
research? The example of technical rescue illustrates how these questions might be addressed in order to better understand operational ethics for disaster research. Experiences from field work on active volcanoes are presented as a research area where operational ethics have been applied, although improvements are needed. Researcher good governance is an approach which consolidates many of the issues discussed. Although disaster researchers might feel that no further governance steps are necessary, these questions should be openly debated.. (AA) William A. Anderson, “Bringing Children into Focus on the Social Science Disaster Research Agenda,” pp. 159–175. Significant
progress has been made in the social science disaster research field since
its inception several decades ago. Despite the advances in knowledge,
important areas of research have been seriously understudied, including the
impact of hazards and disasters on children and youths. In this paper, it is
argued that such knowledge is needed to deepen our understanding of the
impacts of disasters on society and to provide a firmer basis for disaster
management policy and practice. It is suggested that children should be
brought into clearer focus in the disaster research field through studies,
particularly those of a comparative nature, that consider (1) children’s
vulnerability and the outcomes they experience because of their youth, (2)
actions taken by the adult society to reduce the vulnerability of children,
and (3) actions children and youths undertake for themselves and others to
reduce disaster impacts. (AA) Jim Stuart-Black, Eve Coles, and Sarah Norman, “Bridging the Divide from Theory to Practice,” pp. 177–198. Increasing
exposure to hazards and their associated risks coupled with escalating
political, economic, social, and cultural dynamics have led to a growing
demand on emergency planners across the world. Historically, emergency
planning in the United Kingdom (UK) was a second or third career option,
characterized by individuals with a background based in emergency services,
the military, or logistics, with similar attributes seen in emergency
planners in New Zealand (NZ). In light of this new environment, practitioners
and academics alike are faced with the challenge of ensuring that today’s
emergency planners are suitably educated, skilled, and equipped to face the
challenges of the new working environment. Since 1995 when the first United
Kingdom undergraduate degree in Disaster Management came on-stream at
Coventry University, a number of academic undergraduate and postgraduate
courses in Disaster and Emergency Management have become ever increasingly
popular to both mature students and school-leavers in the UK. Similarly, in
New Zealand the historical approach to training has in recent years been
adapted into a suite of professional development activities including access
to tertiary-level qualifications and diplomas. Is it still acceptable to
consider professional development simply in terms of short-course attendance,
or should we be focusing on more contemporary academic programs as delivered
by a number of tertiary organizations? Is there a gap between the theoretical
(academic) approach and that of the traditional practitioner and if there is,
can we bridge the divide? The historical relationship between the researcher
and the practitioner in the UK and NZ appears to have been “Never the twain
shall meet,” but is that still the case? The context for developing the
emergency management profession is changing. The focus of job descriptions
and person specifications has changed dramatically within the last five years,
begging the questions: What cultural change has taken place between the
practitioner and the researcher, and what value is placed on evidence based
practice? In answering these questions, this paper will examine the
legislative frameworks in the United Kingdom and New Zealand before
identifying the respective approaches to training and professional
development. (Modified authors’ introduction) Arjen Boin, “Disaster Research and Future Crises: Broadening the Research Agenda,” pp. 199–214. Today’s
crises and disasters pose formidable challenges to politicians, public administrators,
first responders, and ordinary citizens. The 9/11 events, SARS, the Asian
tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and her sisters, the giant earthquake in the
Indian-Pakistan region, and the looming threat of a new flu pandemic are but
a handful of recent crises that seem to outstrip human capacity for dealing
with large-scale adversity. Globalization and modernization tightly connect
life-sustaining systems, which renders these systems increasingly vulnerable
to breakdowns. In addition to causing untold misery within a bounded
geographic area, the modern disaster hurts faraway and seemingly unrelated
populations. The traditional challenges of crisis and disaster management
prevention, preparation, response, and recovery are taking on new dimensions.
Recent crises and disasters have exposed the inadequacy of traditional
processes and structures, which were designed to deal with more traditional
forms of adversity. The aftermath of today’s crises and disasters is marked
by instant politicization, which all too often creates an entirely new crisis
for both crisis leaders and disaster victims. The prospect of a flu pandemic
has authorities across the world now scrambling for plans, tools, conceptual
anchors, road maps some idea, in short, of what to do when such a mega-disaster
strikes. The question, then, is what crisis and disaster researchers can
bring to the table and in which areas they remain wanting. This article
focuses on the latter: which topics do modern crises and disasters suggest
for the research agenda?
(Modified author introduction) Feedback from
the Field: Scott Somers, " Katrina: Did Federal Priorities Lead to a Slow Response?" pp. 215–219. Juan
Murria,
“International Seminar Organized by the University of Falcon, Punto Fijo,
Venezuela,” pp. 221–222. |
