All-Actors: The Intergovernmental (Top-Down or Bottom-Up ...



Session No. 14

Course Title: Theory, Principles and Fundamentals of Hazards, Disasters, and U.S.

Emergency Management

Session Title: Fundamentals of U.S. Emergency Management (Part II)

Time: 1 Hour

Objectives:

14.1 Discuss the intergovernmental (top-down and bottom-up) and partnership nature of U.S. emergency management.

14.2 Describe and discuss what is meant by Integrated Emergency Management.

________________________________________________________________________

Scope:

To begin this session, the professor introduces the intergovernmental nature of emergency management in the United States. The professor describes aspects of “intergovernmentalism, providing an example of the need to work in partnership and potential consequences for the failure to do so. The discussion includes prerequisites for intergovernmental partnership and the role of today’s emergency manager as catalyst in that effort. The focus turns to the bottom-up and top-down approaches. Aspects of the U.S. bottom-up approach are discussed, along with a comparison to the usefulness of national legislation and executive direction—top-down aspects of the discipline. Next, the discussion turns to Integrated Emergency Management (IEM), its origins and how it applies today in terms of linking emergency management objectives with those of organizations outside the function, such as public works and community planning. Finally, the professor transitions to the third and final part of the topic by telling the class that the next session will deal with the four phases of emergency management and building disaster-resilient communities. ________________________________________________________________________

Suggested Student Homework Reading Assignment:

McEntire, David, et al. “A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide.” Public Administration Review. 2002. 62(3): 267-281

_________________________________________________________________________

Instructor Reading:

Buckle, Phillip 1998-99. “Re-defining community and vulnerability in the context of emergency management”. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management. Vol. 13, No. 4, 1999

Neal, David M. 1997. “Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 15, No. 2, 239-264.

________________________________________________________________________

Additional Sources to Consult:

Beavers, James E., Dennis Mileti, and Lori Peek: 2000. “Dealing with Natural Hazards Requires A New Approach.” Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, May, pp. 65-66.

Crews, David. 1999. “Why Emergency Management as a Profession?” The ASPEP Journal 1999. American Society of Professional Emergency Planners.

FEMA. 2000. Strategic Plan, FY 2000 through FY 2006 – Partnership for a Safer Future. Washington, DC: FEMA.

Fothergill, Alice. 2000. “Knowledge Transfer Between Researchers and Practitioners.” Natural Hazards Review, May, pp. 91-98.

Hecker, Edward J., William Irwin, David Cottrell, and Andrew Bruzewicz. 2000. “Strategies for Improving Response and Recovery in the Future.” Natural Hazards Review, pp. 161-170, August.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 2000. Public and Private Integrated Safety Administration Programs – Native American Tribes, Rural Communities, States, Major Cities, US Territories, Foreign Nations and Industry. October 18.

Mitchell, James K. (ed.). 1999. Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-Cities and Disasters in Transition. Tokyo, NY, Paris: United Nations University Press.

Mittler, Elliott. 1989. Natural Hazard Policy Setting: Identifying Supporters and Opponents on Nonstructural Hazard Mitigation. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Program on Environment and Behavior Monograph # 48.

National Governors’ Association. 1978. 1978 Emergency Preparedness Project – Final

Report. Washington, DC: Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.

National Governors’ Association. 1979. Comprehensive Emergency Management – A Governor’s Guide. Washington DC: Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, May.

Neal, David M. 2000. Feedback From The Field – Developing Degree Programs in Disaster Management: Some Reflections and Observations. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 417-437

Twigg, John. 1999-2000. “The Age of Accountability? Future Community Involvement in Disaster Reduction.” Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Summer, pp. 51-58.

Waugh, William L. Jr. 2000. “Expanding the Boundaries of Emergency Management.” IAEM Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 10, October, pp. 1 & 4.

________________________________________________________________________

General Requirements:

PowerPoint slides have been prepared to support this session. The session is not dependent upon the utilization of these visual aids. They are provided as a tool that the Professor is free to use as PowerPoints or overhead transparencies.

Note to the Professor: This session is Part II of a three-part breakout of the topic, Fundamentals of U.S. Emergency Management. It includes the intergovernmental partnership approach, bottom-up and top-down aspects, and networking, along with Integrated Emergency Management (IEM). It is the second of three sessions as outlined on page 8 of the Session 13 notes. Session 15, to follow, will include a student activity on the four phases of emergency management. The references at the end of this session are inclusive of the material in all three Fundamentals sessions.

Objective 14.1 To discuss the intergovernmental (bottom-up and top-down) and partnership nature of U.S. emergency management.

The Intergovernmental (Bottom-Up and Top-Down)

Nature of U.S. Emergency Management

• Another principle of U.S. emergency management is the intergovernmental and partnership nature of its practice. Some characteristics include:

o Locals not left to fend for themselves

o Joint State/local and Federal responsibility

o Each level having contributions to make

o Importance of improvisation and flexibility

o Teamwork

• We do not leave local jurisdictions to fend for themselves.

o Emergency management is a joint local/State and Federal responsibility. In the words of one FEMA document:

“The burden of disaster management, and the resources for it, require a close working partnership among all levels of government (Federal, regional, state, county, and local) and the private sector (business and industry, voluntary organizations, and the general public)…” (FEMA 1993 (Sep), I-5).

• In the U.S. system there is a broad range of political and managerial transactions between and among governments of all levels in disaster management.

o There are 56 States and Territories and over 3,000 counties within the U.S.

o Each level of government has characteristic resources, skills and knowledge that it can bring to bear on emergency management.

• To over-simplify, the contribution of each level can be summarized as follows:

|Federal |State |Local |

|Legal Authorities, (legislation, |Legal Authorities |Direct Motivation and Involvement |

|regulations and executive orders) |Material Resources |Knowledge of the Situation – People |

|Fiscal and Material Resources |Emergency Management Offices (every State|and Environment |

|Research, Technical Information and |has one) |Personnel and Resources |

|Services |Administrative Skills |First Responders. |

|Specialized Personnel. |Specialized Personnel | |

| |Conduit Between Local and Federal Levels | |

Aspects of “Intergovernmentalism”

• To make an intergovernmental system work, improvisation and flexibility must be part of the ethos of the system – an ethos with mutual respect and understanding at its center.

• Various emergency task domains must be identified and a consensus must be reached on who is going to perform each.

• But, every disaster presents unanticipated demands, so the capacity to improvise must also be built in.

• This calls for a team approach and mentality and highlights the need for networking and coordination, such as:

o Sharing resources and information

o Joint participation in planning, programming, and exercises

o Fiscal linkages, such as in town and county joint budgets

o Wide array of informal linkages

• Intergovernmental relationships can take the form of:

o Government-to-government mutual aid arrangements,

o Agency-to-agency memorandums of understanding,

o Interstate compacts, and

o Pre-disaster Federal-State agreements.

• Here is one example that points to the critical need for networking with floodplain management and the regional building department:

“In a strongly worded letter, the Council of Neighborhood Organizations cites numerous potential floodplain violations throughout Colorado Springs and urges authorities to investigate them.

“The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Colorado Water Conservation Board are in the middle of an investigation based on claims from a former floodplain manager that rules aren’t being enforced by the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department [charged with monitoring the rules for El Paso County, Colorado Springs and several surrounding towns].[1]

• The Regional Building Department’s spokeswoman pointed out that the agency does a good job, but, “There are always going to be some degree of floodplain violations.”[2]

• Here is a specific instance:

“Monument Creek’s floodplain area north of Garden of the Gods Road has been filled in and a new development that will add more fill dirt was approved by city planners. . . without compliance with floodplain rules.”[3]

• And potential consequences:

“If regulations are not adequately enforced, El Paso County could be excluded from the National Flood Insurance Program, which insures 1,700 properties in local floodplains and could cover thousands more.”[4]

Partnership Prerequisites:

• Prerequisites for intergovernmental partnership include:

o Mutual trust

o Mutual support

o Genuine communication

o Acceptance of conflicts as normal and commitment to working them out

o Mutual respect

• Stanley and Waugh stress a key role for the professional emergency manager:

“At best departments do not work in concert; at worst their objectives are at complete odds with one another. The emergency manager of tomorrow will be the catalyst to eliminate the incongruities between government agencies, operating not in isolation but in relation to all other departments and agencies within a government.”[5]

The Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches

• The first thing to say in this regard about U.S. emergency management is that in many aspects it employs a “bottom-up” approach as opposed to one that is “top-down” as in some other countries.

• In essence, this means that we rely heavily on building local emergency management capabilities as opposed to a reliance on a national or centralized emergency management corps.

• Stanley and Waugh on the bottom-up approach:

“While ‘bottom-up’ organizational designs were common in some communities, appropriate training and experience were mandated by state officials in other states. The dilemma of emergency management is not that local officials and agencies are incapable of addressing hazards and responding to disasters, it is the unevenness of capabilities.

“Another challenge is to increase the capacities of local officials and agencies so that they can function effectively and coordinate with their counterparts in neighboring communities. Local officials are typically the ‘first responders’ to disaster and, as such, can determine the overall success of disaster operations and recovery efforts. Capacity building necessarily has to begin at the local level.

“To some extent, state and federal authorities can help local agencies with their preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts, but local officials have to tailor their efforts to the specific hazards and capabilities within their own communities.”[6]

• There are four aspects of the U.S. bottom-up approach to emergency management that deserve comment:

1) Decentralization of responsibilities

2) Establishment of State, county and local political jurisdiction emergency management

3) Reliance on existing emergency services personnel

4) Networking with a broad segment of the community

Decentralization of Responsibilities:

• Some countries manage their equivalent of U.S. emergency management from the national level. This is a top-down approach.

• National/federal personnel do the lion’s share of planning and response to non-routine emergencies and disasters.

• Therein can be found “line authority” as in an organization chart or military structure – the top level passes orders and directions down to the bottom – there is a command relationship.

• This is generally not so in the U.S. While federal organizations are very much involved in hazards, disasters and emergency management, there is essentially very little command authority wherein the federal government orders States to perform emergency management functions. Instead, the Federal government relies, for the most part, on persuasion, and on incentives and disincentives.

o An incentive would be “strings attached” to funding – levying requirements or obligations of some sort that accompany Federal monies.

o A disincentive would be the withholding of a license to bring a nuclear power plant on-line if Federally required population protection measures were not in place – such as putting a warning system in place and developing emergency operations plans.

• There are many advantages of a system that is more bottom-up than top-down.

• In addition, it should be noted that ours is not completely a “bottom-up” system. Much of the way emergency management has evolved and is accomplished in this country can be explained in terms of national legislation and executive direction – thus, the recent emphasis in the U.S. on mitigation as the cornerstone of emergency management.

Nationwide Emergency Management Cadre:

• A second tenet of the “bottom-up” approach to U.S. emergency management is the existence of a nationwide cadre of State and local emergency management personnel.

o Every State government has an element that performs emergency management functions – usually an Office of Emergency Management, though other nomenclature is also used.

o Most of the more than 3,000 counties in the country have Offices of Emergency Management.

o Most cities have an Office of Emergency Management.

o Many towns, villages, townships and other incorporated political jurisdictions also have an Office of Emergency Management.

• Despite almost two hundred years of experience of having to confront hazards and disasters, it was not until the passage of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 and its 1957 amendments authorizing the appropriation of Federal personnel and administrative funds, that local and State “emergency management” offices began to be established across the country.

Reliance on Existing Emergency Services Personnel:

• A third tenet of the “bottom-up” approach to emergency management in the U.S. is a reliance on existing emergency services personnel for disaster response.

o Rather than develop a local, State, or Federal Emergency Management Corps or Service to respond to disasters, as some countries have done, the U.S. relies on existing emergencies services personnel – such as:

▪ Fire.

▪ Police.

▪ Public Works.

▪ Public Health.

▪ Transportation.

o Thus, a local office of emergency management generally would not have its own disaster response personnel.

o While some local offices do have volunteer auxiliary personnel – say to assist the police or Department of Public Works in putting barricades across flooded roads – primary disaster response responsibility resides with existing emergency services and other personnel.

• Similarly, at the national level, there is not a Federal disaster response force that comes in, even for Presidentially-declared disasters, and takes over and manages operations. Generally it is the case that when Federal personnel participate in disaster response it is in support of State and local activities.

Community-Wide Networking:

• A fourth and final tenet of the “bottom-up” approach to U.S. emergency management is the importance of community-wide networking – getting out from behind a desk and into the community one serves to meet and work with others.

• For effective emergency management to function, a very broad array of organizations and personnel in the public and private sectors need to be involved in the full range of emergency management measures, such as:

o Local government personnel

o Business and industry

o Volunteer and community-based organizations

o Religious organizations

o The media

o Academia

o Citizenry

• Community-wide networking cannot be overestimated. Without it, a great deal of sad experience has taught us that what one has tends to be paper plans and programs that do not work and fall apart in the face of real disasters.

Objective 14.2: Describe and discuss what is meant by Integrated Emergency Management.

Integrated Emergency Management (IEM)

• Another fundamental of U.S. emergency management is referred to as Integrated Emergency Management (IEM).

• This fundamental is not to be confused with the Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS), which was dealt with in the history session.

• IEMS was adopted by FEMA in the 1983-84 timeframe to:

1) Improve U.S. hazard and disaster management functions (Perry and Mushkatel 1986, 130), and

2) Broaden Congressional support for an enhanced civil defense budget.

• Its goal was, and still is, to develop and maintain credible emergency management capabilities nationwide for all types of emergencies at all levels of government.

• IEMS seeks a continual upgrading of emergency management capabilities and a reduction of duplicated efforts and resources through joint, community-wide planning – i.e., the integration of hazard, disaster and emergency management roles and responsibilities throughout a political jurisdiction and into the community it serves.

“IEMS…seeks to achieve a more complete integration of emergency management planning into mainstream state and local policy-making and operational systems.” (FEMA 1993 (Sep), 1-9).

• It is applicable to all jurisdictions regardless of size or level of sophistication, even though not all are confronted by the same hazards, and not all have or require the same capability.

• Today, the concept of IEM remains valid, but scholars are also seeing the value of moving emergency management objectives into other organizations’ objectives as well. Optimally, planning, training and exercising will be more successful when they are not solely the purview of an office of emergency management, but when emergency management concerns are integrated into other organizations’ plans, procedures, and operations.

• Some scholars suggest a necessary shift away from an emphasis on response and recovery toward mitigation, with the concept as IEM as a critical link.

• Laurie Pearce, for example, in a review of Australian and American research findings determines that:

“They urge the field of disaster management to shift its focus from response and recovery to sustainable hazard mitigation. It is argued that in order for this shift to occur, it is necessary to integrate disaster management and community planning. Current practice seldom reflects such a synthesis, and this is one of the reasons why hazard awareness is absent from local decision-making processes. . . it is asserted that if mitigative strategies are to be successfully implemented, then the disaster management process must incorporate public participation at the local decision-making level. . . when public participation is integrated into disaster management planning and community planning, the result is sustainable hazard mitigation.”[7]

“Although disaster management planning has not traditionally been linked with community planning, the emerging focus on sustainable hazard mitigation clearly calls for the integration of these two disciplines. It is also clear that any successful approach to sustainable hazard mitigation must be participatory in nature and must be linked with the local decision-making level.”[8]

• Consider, for example, transportation systems, which are essential to society:

“Transportation systems provide an essential function to society by allowing the movement of people and goods. These systems provide the mobility that allows us to travel, to go to work, school, and play. They allow the movement of goods we consume, and are key to commerce and economic activity. They are lifelines without which citizens and businesses could not function. Transportation represents a substantial share of a country’s gross domestic product (11% for the U.S.)

“These systems are exposed to hazards that can cause rare events with huge consequences and devastating effects on the transportation infrastructure and the economy of the affected region.”[9]

• Amar Chakar, of the American Society of Civil Engineers, writes about the effects of varied hazards on the transportation system:

“The occurrence of these events results from geological hazards (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis), climactic hazards (e.g., floods, windstorms, snow storms, ice storms, hail storms, avalanches, mudslides), or man-made hazards (e.g., accidents explosions, tunnel fires, discharge of hazardous materials, intentional damage. These events cause a number of primary and secondary effects that can lead to the failure of portions of the transportation networks.”[10]

• Chakar (2001, 2) discusses the interaction among different modes of transport and points out that:

o “Transportation infrastructure is very costly, and each year a substantial share of a nation’s resources is required to build, expand, and maintain it.

o Although private ownership of transportation infrastructure exists, it is rare, and the overwhelming majority of such infrastructure is owned by public entities and publicly funded (hence the expression, “public works”).

o Transportation infrastructure is usually not insured (or the owner is self-insured).

o Transportation planning needs to consider many issues such as financing, traffic congestion, air quality, the environmental impact, and scenic and historic preservation. It seldom considers the overall effect of the planned infrastructure on the vulnerability of the larger transportation system, particularly since disaster events tend to be infrequent.”

• And provides numerous examples of how earthquakes can cause:

o Bridge collapse.

o Damage to airport control tower and landing strips

o Pipeline rupture.[11]

• Floods, too, have extensively disrupted highway systems and caused pipelines to be floated.[12]

• As an example of planning outside of the office of emergency management, Chakar relates that “Transport authorities usually have emergency response plans for the systems under their responsibility.”[13]

“The San Francisco Association of Bay Area Governments has developed an excellent example of a comprehensive plan, although it does not address other possible hazards such as wildfires, technological or man-made hazards. It considers such topics as:

▪ Recovery from transportation disruptions after earthquakes.

▪ Riding out future quakes—estimates of road closures.”[14]

• Finally, Chakar recommends ways to reduce gaps in implementation:

o “Where missing, enact and enforce legislation requiring the use of appropriate performance standards for all infrastructure components.

o Explore innovate sources of funding for mitigation activities.

o Provide training to the personnel involved in mitigation activities.

o Disseminate information on mitigation technology.

o Disseminate the message that disasters are not inevitable, that knowledge and technology exist today, that allow effective mitigation.[15]

What to Do

• In 2001, the Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) conducted a survey of certified planners in the United States on the extent to which natural hazards are integrated into local comprehensive plans or general plans.

“Results of the survey show that communities in states that mandate planning or hazards elements in local plans are indeed planning for safety. However, many communities fail to identify natural hazard issues in their comprehensive or general plans. They also lack specific data, policies, or implementation strategies for natural hazard loss reduction. However, most planners who responded said that they are interested in putting natural hazards information and loss reduction strategies into local plans.”[16]

• These key points arise from the IBHS survey (2002, p. 2):

o Land use planning is the most effective approach for long-term reduction of community vulnerability from multiple hazards, while education, emergency response and hazard control measures were considered important, but less critical.

o Damages from natural hazards can be minimized in communities where local comprehensive plans have considered them.

o Inclusion of hazards or safety elements in comprehensive plans help to minimize the contradictions in ordinances that address other community values, such as aesthetics, environmental preservation and affordability.

o Hazards safety policies within community plans can create an environment in which it is easier to implement zoning ordinances and building code requirements.

o Hazards safety policies can help inform various municipal departments, developers, and the public about the extent and magnitude of natural hazard risks in the community.

• Yet,

“A significant number of communities lack a general or comprehensive plan, and even communities with a certified planner on staff are generally scoring low on including natural hazards information in local plans.”[17]

• Furthermore, the survey points to “the difficulty planners have finding accurate data on hazards, including hazard maps.” (2002, p. 5)

• Confirming the usefulness of an IEM approach:

“Research shows that broad stakeholder involvement in the planning process makes plans stronger and easier to carry out. Communities that coordinate internally and with bordering jurisdictions help to communicate the goals and objectives of their local plan and reduce conflicts with other competing interests and needs.” (IBHS 2002, p. 5)

• Finally, the IBHS study finds little encouragement in existing priorities, but provides the following recommendations to change the status quo:

o Build public demand for natural hazards through collaboration with the American Planning Association and other groups.

o Provide additional funding for communities to improve their plans.

o Educate elected officials at all levels of government about the importance of natural hazards planning.

o Provide consistent and accurate technical assistance to communities seeking to adopt or update plans with hazard elements.

o Educate community officials, including planners, about the availability of pre- and post-disaster resources to help improve local plans. (2002, 16)

You may wish to remind the students that the next session will include the four phases of emergency management and the concept of building disaster-resilient communities.

References

Allinson, Robert E. 1993. Global Disasters: Inquiries Into Management Ethics. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bolin, Robert, with Lois Stanford. 1998. The Northridge Earthquake: Vulnerability and Disaster. London and New York: Routledge.

Briese, Garry, Executive Director, IAFC, “Identifying Future Challenges Faced by the Fire Service,” November 17, 1999

Britton, Neil R. 1998. “Safeguarding New Zealand’s Future: Emergency Management’s Role in Shaping the Nation.” Foresight, September, pp. 1-12.

Center for the Advancement of Risk Management Education (CARME). 1999. Risk Management for Public Entities (RMPE 352 Course Guide). Malvern, PA: Insurance Institute of America, CARME, cserv@.

Chakar, Amar. “Improving the Global Disaster Resiliency of Transportation Systems.” Global Blueprints for Change. First Edition—Prepared in conjunction with the International Workshop on Disaster reduction convened on August 19-22, 2001

Coleman, Ronney J. and John A. Granito (eds.). 1988. Managing Fire Services 2nd ed. Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

Cutter, Susan L. 1993. Living With Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards. London and New York: Edward Arnold.

Disaster and Emergency Reference Center. 1998. (ed.). Disaster Management Glossary. Edited by Krisno Nimpuno. Delft, the Netherlands: Disaster and Emergency Reference Center.

Drabek, Thomas. 1985. Managing the Emergency Response. Public Administration Review 45 (January): 85-92.

Drabek, Thomas. 1998. See FEMA/EMI 1998a.

Drabek, Thomas. 1991. “The Evolution of Emergency Management.” Chapter 1 (pp.3-29) in Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government, Thomas E. Drabek and Gerard J. Hoetmer (eds.) Washington, DC: International City Managers Association

Emergency Preparedness News. Business Publishers, Inc. Silver Spring, MD.

FEMA. 1990. Definitions of Terms. (Instruction 5000.2.) Washington, DC: FEMA, April 4.

FEMA. 1993. Principal Threats Facing Communities and Local Emergency Management Coordinators. A Report to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. Washington, DC: FEMA, April.

FEMA. 1993 (September). The Emergency Program Manager (Independent Study 1). Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1995. Introduction to Emergency Management (Student Manual 230). Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1996. Appendix B: Government’s Role in Emergency Management, in Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management. Emmitsburg, MD: U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Academy December.

FEMA. 1996. Disaster Response and Recovery Operations Instructor Guide. Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA 1998 (March). FEMA Professional, Session 4 (Instructor Guide). Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1998. The Political and Policy Basis of Emergency Management. Written by Richard Sylves for the Higher Education Project. FEMA: Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1998a. Social Dimensions of Disaster. Written by Thomas Drabek for the Higher Education Project. Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1998b. Weapons of Mass Destruction—Nuclear Scenario Instructor Guide. Emmitsburg MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1998 (May). Principles of Emergency Management (Student Manual and Instructor Guide G230). Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

Hewitt, K. 1983. Interpretations of Calamity from the Perspective of Human Ecology. London: Allen and Unwin.

Institute for Business & Home Safety. 2002. Are We Planning Safer Communities? Results of a National Survey of Community Planners and Natural Disasters.

Lerberger, Otto. 1997. The Crisis Manager—Facing Risk and Responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lindell, Michael K., and Ronald Perry. 1992. Behavioral Foundations of Community Emergency Planning. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

Neal, David M. 1997. “Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 15, No. 2, 239-264.

NFPA 1600. 2000. NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2000 Edition. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association.

Olshansky, Robert and Jack Kartez. 1998. Managing Land Use to Build Resilience. In Raymond Burby (ed.), Cooperating With Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press (1998). Citing Peter Rossi, et al., Natural Hazards and Public Choice: The State and Local Politics of Hazard Mitigation (New York: Academic Press 1982).

Pearce, Laurie. “Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation.” Natural Hazards 28: 211-228. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003

Perry, Ronald, and Alvin Mushkatel. 1986. Minority Citizens in Disasters. Athens and London: University of Georgia Press. Perry and Mushkatel cite Marjorie Greene and Paula Gori, Earthquake Hazards Information Dissemination: A Study of Charleston, South Carolina. Open File Report 82-233. (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 1986.)

Quarantelli, Enrico. 1992. The Case for a Generic Rather than Agent Specific Approach to Disasters. Disaster Management 2 (1992): 191-196.

Salter, John. 1997-1998. Risk Management in the Emergency Management Context. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 12 no. 4 (Summer): 28.

Schneider, Saundra K. 1995. Flirting with Disaster—Public Management in Crisis Situations. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Shaw, Greg. 1999. Business and Industry Crisis Management (FEMA Emergency Management Higher Education Project Course). Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

Simeon Institute. 1998. Penultimate Glossary of Emergency Management Terms. Claremont, CA: The Simeon Institute. Downloaded from web site address:

Definitions from the Simeon Institute are obtained from unattributed sources.

Smith, Keith. 1996. Environmental Hazards—Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand. Australian/New Zealand Standard—Risk Management. Strathfield, Australia: Standards Australia, 1995.

Stanley, Ellis M. Sr. and William Lee Waugh, Jr. “Emergency Managers for the New Millennium,” Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management. Ali Farazmand, Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel

Sylves, Richard. 1998. See FEMA. EMI. 1998.

United Nations, Department of Humanitarian Affairs. 1992. Internationally Agreed Glossary of Basic Terms Related to Disaster Management (DNA/93/36). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.

Victorian Department of Justice. 1997. Emergency Management Manual Victoria. Melbourne, Australia.

Zubeck, Pam. Floodplain Mismanaged, Group Says.” Colorado Springs Gazette, April 25.2002.

-----------------------

[1] Pam Zubeck. Floodplain Mismanaged, Group Says.” Colorado Springs Gazette, April 25, 2002.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ellis M. Stanley, Sr. and William Lee Waugh, Jr. “Emergency Managers for the New Millennium,” Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management. Ali Farazmand, Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel. p. 701.

[6] Stanley and Waugh, p. 699

[7] Laurie Pearce. “Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation.” Natural Hazards 28: 211-228. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, p. 21

[8] Pearce. 2003, p. 226

[9] Chakar, Amar. “Improving the Global Disaster Resiliency of Transportation Systems.” Global Blueprints for Change. First Edition—Prepared in conjunction with the International Workshop on Disaster reduction convened on August 19-22, 2001. p. 1

[10] Chakar. 2001, p. 2

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Chakar. 2001, p. 6

[14] Chakar. 2001, p. 7

[15] Chakar. 2001, p. 11

[16] Institute for Business & Home Safety. 2002. Are We Planning Safer Communities? Results of a National Survey of Community Planners and Natural Disasters. p. i

[17] IBHS. 2002. p. 4

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download