Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Mitigation
3. Preparedness
4. Response
5. Recovery
6. Conclusion
7. References
Introduction
Traditionally, humans were exposed to numerous risks and dangerous which threatened
their life and security. These risks and threats could be created by nature,
humans’ environment and their own activity. However, whatever the cause
of such risks and threats was, their consequences were often ruinous and led
to numerous destructions and casualties. In fact, people were traditionally
unable to resist to the power of nature and they could hardly prevent a natural
disaster such as a hurricane, a volcano eruption, an earthquake, etc., neither
they are able to prevent such disasters in the modern era. Nevertheless, gradually
people learned to forecasts the upcoming natural disaster and, therefore, come
prepared to face these problems with minimal losses. In this respect, it should
be said that the first efforts of humans to foresee the upcoming disaster and
develop some plans to prevent its ruinous effects, as well as first efforts
of human to restore the normal life and social system after a disaster may be
viewed as the first samples of emergency management.
However, it is necessary to admit that at the early stages of the development
of human society and emergency management in its primitive form there were consistent
gap and it is relatively recently emergency management has acquired new features
and four phases of emergency management that are the management phases that
match the Emergency Life Cycle. At the same time, it is worthy of noting that
the development of four phases of emergency management was, to a significant
extent, determined not only by the traditional weakness of human beings in face
of natural disaster but also by the rapid development of science and technologies
which had a dubious effect. On the one hand, the scientific and technological
breakthrough has opened new opportunities in forecasting and prevention disasters
and emergency cases, but, on the other hand, it also contributed consistently
to the spring of new risks and threats resulting from human activities which
threatens to the normal life of people on different levels from local to the
national or even global ones, such as was the case of Chernobyl which exposed
the mankind to the great threat of unparalleled risk in the result of technological
disaster.
What is more important, in the course of development of the mankind the new
risks and threats steadily appear that means that people should be ready to
cope effectively with all the risks and threats they are facing. In this respect,
it is extremely important to implement effectively the four phases of emergency
management that may be a kind of guarantee of the prevention of huge material
losses and numerous casualties as well as effective and rapid recovery from
the disaster. This is why it is necessary to analyze carefully each phase of
emergency management on different level, including local, state, and federal
ones.
Mitigation
The first phase of emergency management is mitigation. Basically, this phase
implies the implementation of actions that are taken in order to eliminate a
hazard, or to reduce the probability and the effect, should the disaster occur
(Wisner et al, 2004, p.315). It is necessary to point out that this phase is
really of a paramount importance since it focuses on the preparation to a disaster
or hazard and ways of the minimization of its negative effects. In fact, mitigation
is supposed to make people more secure in face of potential hazards and, therefore,
more protected in face of potential threats they may face.
In this respect, it should be said that the phase of mitigation should be actually
realized before a disaster has struck or, at any rate, directly on heels of
a disaster. In fact, the former is much more preferable than the latter since
the more people are prepared to the realization of the emergency plan the less
ruinous a disaster will be.
Basically, the mitigation phase includes such actions as building codes, special
identification and routing requirements for the movement of hazardous materials,
and land use and zoning requirements (Alexander, 2002, p.147). In general, all
the actions that are undertaking during this phase target the elimination and
minimization of negative effects of a disaster or hazard. In practice, this
means that in the case of a flood, for instance, the mitigation stage should
include preventive measures that could lessen, postpone or even totally dissipate
negative effects of this natural disaster. In this respect, it is possible to
build dikes, special shelters for people affected by flood, develop the plan
of their evacuation, and zoning regulation. At the same time, depending on the
scale of the disaster different levels of emergency management could be involved.
What is meant here is the fact that the mitigation phase targeting the elimination
of negative effects of a flood, for instance, may be realized on the local,
state, and even national level depending on the scale of the disaster. On the
local level, it is possible to undertake only the most essential and simple,
but important measures, such as the creation of the system of warning of the
local population, or analysis of the threat of a flood. At the same time, often
the assistance of a state is needed since local communities cannot always cope
with such a problem as a flood. For instance, people may need to be evacuated
from the area in zones which are not affected by a disaster and, in such a situation,
the state should provide routes and special shelters for people affected by
the disaster. In the most severe cases, the support on the federal level may
be needed to the extent that even the national programs may be developed to
mitigate the effects of a disaster or hazard. For instance, the evacuation of
people to a different state may be needed that implies the necessity of the
creation of respective infrastructure in different states that is not always
affordable financially for local communities and states. This is why the federal
support is needed to eliminate or minimize successfully negative effects of
a disaster, such as flood.
Preparedness
It is worthy of mention that the mitigation phase may be viewed in the context
of preparedness phase since both stages target the prevention of a potential
disaster or hazard and minimization of its negative effects. In the case of
the preparedness phase, actions that are supposed to be undertaken are basically
focused on the facilitation of the following stages of emergency management,
namely response and recovery. Unlike the mitigation phase, the preparedness
stage implies the practical preparation of people to face and cope with a disaster
or hazard. To put it more precisely, this phase includes special programs for
training citizens, local government and agencies involved in the prevention
and realization of plans of emergency management in order to make them get prepared
to face a disaster or hazard and get ready to act according to the training
programs that will naturally minimize negative effects of a disaster because
people will know potential threats and risks and, what is probably even more
important, they will know what they should do in order to secure themselves
and, therefore, avoid negative impact of a disaster. In terms of this phase,
it is also possible to provide the equipment of the local government with the
essential materials, products, machines, etc. In other words, it is necessary
to prepare not only people by means of their training but it is also necessary
to create the material basis which they will be able to use effectively in case
of a disaster.
It is important to underline that this phase also involves different levels
of emergency management from the local to the federal levels. To put it more
precisely, on the local level it is necessary to provide the training of the
local population, government, and agencies, stock the essential equipment but
often the cooperation on the state level or even between states may be needed
so that rescuers from other states should be used, for instance. In such a situation,
the federal government should be involved in order to train the interaction
between states. For instance, in case of flood, on the local level people should
be trained and have essential equipment, such as boats, helicopters, etc. The
state should be ready to assist the area affected by the flood and get ready
to evacuate people to other parts of a state. If the state cannot cope with
the disaster than the assistance of other states is needed and, therefore, the
federal government should provide the effective cooperation between states as
well as federal support.
Response
The two previous phases, to a significant extent, determine the effectiveness
of the third, probably the most important phase, the phase of response. Basically,
this phase implies the implementation of actions that are undertaken in order
to save lives and property during the emergency (Haddow and Bullock, 2004, p.259).
In fact, the actions that are undertaken during this phase directly depend on
the nature of the emergency. It is obvious that the actions will vary in case
of a flood and a volcano eruption, for instance. In practice, this means that
the emergency services, the government and citizens should realize the plan
of emergency on the basis of the existing infrastructure created during the
phase of mitigation and using the equipment stocked during the preparedness
phase. In this respect, the training could of a paramount importance because
people should be ready to act depending on the situation and, during the response
phase they often have little time to think about their actions so they need
to take them almost automatically responding to the challenges they face.
At the same time, the response phase also implies a close cooperation on local,
state and federal level because a disaster, such as flood, can disable the local
government and population to resist the disaster because the essential infrastructure
will be damaged while the need in equipment may exceed expectations, especially
if the preparedness phase on the local level has failed. In such a situation,
the assistance of a state and federal government is vitally important because
the sooner they help the affected area the less significant the negative effects
of a disaster will be. Also, it should be said that often disasters, such as
flood, affect entire states or regions of the country to the extent that it
is necessary to use the national army to adequately respond to the disaster.
Naturally, without the federal assistance an effective response in such a situation
will be practically impossible.
Recovery
However, the adequate response to a disaster is just a phase of emergency management.
In order to make emergency management really effective, it is necessary to implement
the final stage, the recovery, which will help to overcome the negative effects
of a disaster and restore the normal life of the area affected and local population.
Naturally, the most severe disasters can make the return to the normal, pre-disaster
life impossible but, still, the returning to normal or near normal life is the
major goal of the recovery phase that will accomplish emergency management phases.
In fact, this stage may include a variety of actions, including the reconstruction
of roads and public facilities, securing financial aid for disaster victims
and others (Cuny, 1983, p.126). Also it is worthy of mention that the recovery
phase may include the review and critique of response activities. This particularly
important in order to assess the effectiveness of the response phase and implement
more effective measures if necessary to overcome negative consequences of a
disaster.
Similarly to other phases, the recovery phase should be applied on local, state,
and federal level. Obviously, the local community can cope with a disaster,
such as flood, if it does not really affect the functioning of the entire community.
For instance, the local community can restore a bridge across the river, or
reconstruct some roads, but it can hardly afford the reconstruction of the infrastructure
of the state or federal significance. In such a case, the assistance of the
federal and state powers is needed, including the large scale recovery of the
entire area affected by a disaster.
Conclusion
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that
emergency management includes four phases: mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery. All the four phases are of a paramount importance and all the
activities should be effectively implemented in order to not only prevent or
minimize negative effects of a disaster but also fully recover the area affected
from these effects. As a result, it is obvious that the four phases, even though
they have particular actions assigned to each of them, cannot be viewed as independent
phased. In contrast, the actions during all the phases should be dynamic and
interconnected to increase the effectiveness of emergency management.
References
Alexander, D. (2002). Principles of Emergency planning and Management. Harpenden:
Terra Publishing.
Cuny, F. C. (1983). Disasters and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haddow, G. D. and J. A. Bullock. (2004). Introduction to Emergency Management.
Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wisner, B. et al. (2004). At Risk - Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability
and disasters. Wiltshire: Routledge.
