Evaluation of Disaster Preparedness and Management

7/29/2019 Evaluation of Disaster Preparedness and Management

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-of-disaster-preparedness-and-management 1/7

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY J OURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY R IGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 876

SEPTEMBER 2011

V OL 3, NO 5

Evaluation of Disaster Preparedness and Management: A Comparative

Case of Haiti and Pakistan

Muhammad Tariq

Deputy Director, EDC, Sarhad University of Science and IT, Peshawar

Saif Ullah KhanCoordinator Public Administration, Institute of Management Studies, University of Peshawar

Zahid RahmanLecturer, Brains Post Graduate College, Peshawar

Abstract

In recent times humanity has seen many calamities evident from the plethora of natural

calamities that had occurred in the first decade of the new millennium. These catastrophes

have compelled researchers to look out for new and innovative means to confront and combat

the likes of Tsunami, Cyclones, Tornados, Earthquakes. The research unveils the fact that

Haiti and Pakistan being under developed economies have shown certain similarities and

certain dissimilarities in their level of disaster preparedness, capacity and response that have

led to different results for both cases. The study argues theoretically and proves empirically

the likelihood and intensity of calamities can least be controlled by man-made design; the

impact of these disastrous situations can however be mitigated as evident from the reduced

number of causalities in various countries.

Key Words: Disaster Management, Preparedness, Haiti, Pakistan.

1. Introduction and Literature Review:

For many reasons the first decade of the new millennium has been a sad one for humanity.

Disasters from the 9/11 attacks on United States, Hurricane Katrina, Indian Ocean Tsunami

and Sumatra Earthquake of 2004, the 2005 earthquake and 2010 floods in Pakistan and The

earthquake in Haiti and Japan, has left both short and long term disruptions in the social,

political and economic systems of the world.

Academia all over the world has produced much thought and research to prevent or least

mitigates the effects of such catastrophe on humanity. Focusing on different aspects of

Disasters and their management. (For example Cigler, 2007; Copeland, 2005; McEntire

2002; Berke 1993; Boulle 1992; Geis 2000; Quarantelli 1993), with different scholars



ijcrb.webs.com



SEPTEMBER 2011

V OL 3, NO 5

looking at different phases of disaster, debating different approaches and looking at different

perspectives of the issue.

Three major approaches to disaster management can be identified, depending on the phase

intervention. The first approach focuses on pre disaster efforts and is mostly dubbed disaster

resistance. The approach focuses on avoiding disasters or preparing in advance to deal with a

disastrous situation (Geis, 2000). The second approach focuses on post disaster efforts and

called Disaster Resilience in most literature. This approach focuses to bring back normality

after a disaster (Bukle, 2000).

While the third approach deals with both pre- and post- disaster efforts and is presented in

different ways by different scholars. Mileti (1999) has linked disaster management with

sustainable development, calling it Sustainable Hazard Mitigation. McEntire et. al, (2000)stressed on managing vulnerabilities in the system in their approached; invulnerability

management. Other approaches focus on GIS approach (Hoshino et al. 2003; Luhisu 2007;

Kotovirta 2006) and IT (Kawai 2006) for timely interventions at different pre- or post disaster

interventions.

This paper utilizes McEntire et. al, (2000) Comprehensive Vulnerability Approach to

measure the level of disaster preparedness and major pitfalls in the cases of Haiti and

Pakistan. According to this model preparations ought to be made at three levels. (1)

Community level Preparation, (2) Capacity building for disaster management, and (3)

Disaster response. This approach covers both the systematic and unsystematic factors

occurring in a disaster situation.

The centrality of community to disaster situation is well acknowledged (Shaw & Okazaki,

2003). But Britton (1986) argues that inadequate preparation at community increases

vulnerability to hazardous situation. McEntire (2000), list community education, community

level emergency planning committees and the availability of disaster related resources as

necessary for disaster preparedness of the community.

Dispatch operations, search and rescue operations, emergency medical care, public

information system, debris management and simplifying disaster operations center are some

of the measure put forward by McEntire (2000) as the important issues for building capacity

for disaster situation.

Disaster response has to be carried out with due diligence, as it may increase vulnerability to

future disaster by creating community dependency on external aid (Wade, 1973). But this

due diligence is commonly missing in the confused and chaotic environment of disaster relief



ijcrb.webs.com



SEPTEMBER 2011

V OL 3, NO 5

(Gilmore et al 2003; Rudmen et al 2003; Nash et al. 2003). Balcik et al, (2003) has the

number of state and non state actors, the conflicting priorities of donors, and the

unpredictable nature of disaster itself and over and under supply of resources as the major

causes of the chaos in disaster relief efforts.

2. Methodology

Twenty one experts from academia and field of disaster management were given the

Performa 1 and were asked to evaluate the cases of Pakistan and Haiti from their experience

and the reports they have came across. The small sample was selected because the number of

experts involved and having understanding of Pre-disaster and Post-disaster management

efforts is very limited.

They were asked to evaluate their respective case (of either Pakistan or Haiti) on the sixteen

point’s proforma as proposed by McEntire et al (2000). The items they were inquired about

are as follows:

1. Community Education

2. Community Level Emergency Planning Committees

3. Community Level Resource Availability

4. Dispatch operations

5. Debris management

6. Search and rescue operations

7. Emergency medical care,

8. Public information system

9. Simplifying disaster operations center

10. Delegation of authority

11. Discouragement of Dependency

12. Promotion of Resilience

13. Agents collaboration

14. Public and Multi – level Communication

15. Use of Social Media

16. Use of Mass Media



ijcrb.webs.com



SEPTEMBER 2011

V OL 3, NO 5

To analyze the data gathered from sample of twenty one experts Mann Whitney non-

parametric test was used. The results of the test for each of item represented in the above list

are giventable 1.

3. Analysis

Significant differences were found in both countries in Community Education, Search and

Rescue operations, Emergency Medical Care, Public Information System, Discouragement of

Dependency, Agents collaboration, Public and Multi – level Communication, Use of Social

Media, Use of Mass Media. While no significant difference was found in Community Level

Emergency Planning Committees, Community Level Resource Availability, Dispatch

operations, Debris management, Simplifying disaster operations center, Delegation of

Authority, Promotion of Resilience.

The survey of expert opinion presents a grim picture. In both cases heavy losses were faced

due to absence of:

• Any type of Community level Preparedness

• Clear Policy on disaster management

• Relief Chain Management education and policy

• Collaborative efforts that led to utter exclusion of certain areas and duality of efforts

in others.

• Media Policy for information dissemination.

• Social exclusion also occurred and (a) women sufferings (b) minority groups (c)

laborers and peasants were overlooked in the relief effort.

Although the above mentioned elements were present to certain extent in both the countries.

But the lack of effectiveness can be logically ascribed to:

a. Incomplete implementation of disaster management models.

b. The inherent inability of the models to coup with disasters, and

c. Unsymmetrical nature of disaster that makes it very difficult to coup with.

From the above premises we can conclude that better implementation of these models canreduce the impact of the disaster on public as shown in the case of Bangladesh cyclone



ijcrb.webs.com


COPY R IGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

SEPTEMBER 2011

V OL 3, NO 5

Table 1: Mann Whitney U test for McEntire et al (2000) listed items.

CommunityEducation

Community LevelEmergency

PlanningCommittees

CommunityLevel Resource

Availability

DispatchOperations

Debrismanagement

Search andrescue

operations

Mann-WhitneyU

39.000 30.000 17.500 26.000 21.000 45.000

Wilcoxon W 84.000 108.000 62.500 104.000 99.000 123.000 Z -1.208 -2.505 -2.910 -2.102 -2.544 -.683

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

.227 .012 .004 .036 .011 .495

Exact Sig.[2*(1-tailed

Sig.)] .310** .095 .007 .049 .018 .554**

Delegationof authority

Discouragementof Dependency

Promotion of Resilience

Agentscollaboration

Public andMulti – level

Communication

Use of SocMedia

Mann-

Whitney U 3.000 42.500 30.000 44.500 39.000 41.000 Wilcoxon W 48.000 87.500 108.000 89.500 117.000 86.000

Z -3.702 -.906 -1.866 -.715 -1.233 -.971 Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed) .000 .365 .062 .475 .218 .332

Exact Sig.[2*(1-tailed

Sig.)] .000 .422** .095 .508** .310** .382**

a. Not corrected for ties.

b. Grouping Variable: Country

(If Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]/2 > α (.05) significant difference exists between the two countries, shown as “**” in

values.)



ijcrb.webs.com



SEPTEMBER 2011

V OL 3, NO 5

References

Balcik, B., Beamon B., M., Krejci, C., C., Muramatsu K., M., Ramirez, M., (2010), Coordination inhumanitarian relief chains: Practices, challenges and opportunities, Int. J. Production Economics 126 Pp. 22–34

Berke, P., R., Jack K., and Dennis W., (1993), Recovery after Disaster: Achieving Sustainable Development,Mitigation and Equity. Disasters 17(2): 93-108.

Boulle, P,, Luc V., and Elina P., (1992). Vulnerability Reduction for Sustainable Urban Development. Journalof Contingencies and Crisis Management 5(3): 179-88.

Britton, N., R., (1986), Developing an Understanding of Disaster. Australian New Zealand Journal of Sociology22(2): 254- 71.

Buckle, P., Graham M., and Smale S., (2000). New Approaches to Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 15(2): 8-14.

Cigler, B.A. (2007a), “Hurricane Katrina: two intergovernmental challenges”, Public Manager, Vol. 35 No. 4,pp. 3-7.

Copeland, C. (2005), Hurricane-Damaged Drinking Water and Wastewater Facilities: Impacts, Needs, and

Response, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service

Geis, D., (2000), By Design: The Disaster Resistant and Quality-of-Life Community. Natural Hazards Review1(3): 151-60.

Gilmore, J .S., Foresman, G., Freeman, M., Garrison, W., Gordon, E.M., Greenleaf, J ., et al., (2003). ForgingAmerica’s new normalcy: Securing our homeland, preserving our liberty. The fifth annual report to thePresident and Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for TerrorismInvolving Weapons of Mass Destruction. The RAND Corporation, Arlington.

Hoshino, Y., Maruyama, H. and Shimoyama, Y. (2003), Steps towards digital J apan, Proceedings of theCambridge Conference 2003, Cambridge, UK, 21-25 July 2003.

Kawai, T. (2006), Building ‘e-community’ which is strong against disaster, Proceedings of the InternationalDisaster Reduction Conference, Davos, Switzerland, 27 August-1 September 2006, Vol. 3, p. 813.

Kotovirta, V., Kanniainen, J., Veijonen, T. and Neuvonen, S. (2006), Building an application framework formonitoring the environment, Proceedings of the IGARSS 2006, Denver, Colorado, USA, 31 July-4 August2006.

Luhisuo M., Veijonen M., Ahola J., and Morohoshi T., (2007), A disaster information and monitoring systemutilizing earth observation, Management of Environmental, Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,Pp. 246-262

McEntire D., A., Fuller, C., Jhonston C., W., Weber, R., (2002), A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: TheSearch for a Holistic Policy Guide, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (May - Jun., 2002), pp. 267-281

Mileti, D., S., (1999), Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States.Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press

Nash, D.B., (2003), Being ready for an insidious threat. Managed Care 12 (11 Suppl), 1.

Quarantelli, E .L. (1993). The Environmental Disasters of the Future Will be More and Worse but the ProspectIs Not Hopeless. Disaster Prevention and Management 2(1): Pp 11-25. Washington, DC.

Rudman, W.B., Clarke, R.A., Metzl, J .F., (2003). Emergency responders: Drastically Underfunded,Dangerously Unprepared. Council on Foreign Relations, New York

Shaw, R. and Okazaki, K. (eds) (2004). Sustainable Community Based Disaster Manage-ment (CBDM)Practices in Asia - A User's Guide. Kobe Japan: United Nations Centre for Regional Development, DisasterManagement Planning Hyogo Office.

Wade, R., (1973). The Plot to Save the World. Vancouver: Clarke Irwin.

Evaluation of Disaster Preparedness and Management

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Disaster Preparedness and Management