Body of Knowledge Theories and Concepts

Disaster Management

Theories of Disaster Management

Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other disasters the world over have made it clear that disaster management plans and policies are of great importance to nations and populations attempting to attain any sense of security in the modern world. Despite the pressing nature of disaster management, however, there is not really a true consensus on what the most effective way to actual plan for and manage disasters is. Two overarching theories or frameworks that can be seen as in competition when it comes to disaster management are centralized planning and devolved management. As the following paragraphs will show, there are both pros and cons to each of these frameworks, however a unified approach is possible that can help achieve the best of both worlds in disaster management.

Centralized planning is a framework that, as the name implies, attempts to centralize authority and resource for disaster management and response, and is typically implemented at national levels though the same basic concepts can be used in smaller governmental regions (Alexander, 2007; Cheong, 2011). Centralized planning can lead to greater resource control and greater levels of assurance that adequate resources will be available for any given disaster, which are definite benefits (Alexander, 2007). There can be issues with efficient deployment and through difficulties caused by the bureaucracies that typically exist in large-scale centralized efforts, and some also question the appropriateness of national government involvement in certain areas of disaster management (Alexander, 2007; Cheong, 2011). These are the reasons that devolved frameworks are sometimes preferred.

A devolved or decentralize disaster management plan is one in which resource and authorities are broken up amongst different agencies and, typically, in different geographic regions (Alexander, 2007). If cities each controlled their own emergency resources, equipment, and personnel without relying on state agencies, for example, this would be a devolved disaster management framework. The benefits of this type of policy framework are clear: response can be achieved much faster, with resources allocated more efficiently and with more direct and immediate information and authority in response to on-the-ground and at-the-moment events (Alexander, 2007). The downsides are, of course, lower levels of resources (a city's resources are bound to be lower than a state's, in most circumstances) and a reduced ability to maintain resource levels at an appropriate level to be prepared for future disasters (Alexander, 2007). As preparedness is the most essential element in disaster management, the extremity of the downside of reduced resources is difficult to overstate.