Societal Response to Disaster and Governance

The occurrence of hazards and disaster events has increased in the last few decades. The events now occur with far more devastating impacts on humans, societies, and infrastructures. Recent events such as the 9/11 terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina attest to this. The catastrophic impacts of hazards and disaster events warrant more effective disaster management. In its book Facing Hazards and Disasters, the National Research Council (2006) provides a conceptual model of societal response to disaster. This paper describes the model and discusses how it relates to Ahrens & Rudolph (2006), Tierney (2012), and Stoker’s (1998) perspectives on governance. Attention is specifically paid to the view that the model does not clearly explain how governance affects how communities deal with hazards and disasters.
According to National Research Council’s (2006) disaster response model, the physical and social effects of disaster events are dependent on the attributes of the disaster event, hazard vulnerability, and the hazards and disaster management system. These factors comprise the major components of the model. Whether natural, environmental, or technological, disaster events catalyse the society’s collection action prior to, during, and after their occurrence. An important antecedent to the occurrence of these events is hazard vulnerability, which encompasses hazard exposure, physical vulnerability, and social vulnerability. Disaster event attributes denote the characteristics of the disaster event. These include frequency of occurrence, predictability, controllability, length of forewarning, as well as the magnitude, scope, and duration of impact. These characteristics permit the comparison of various types of disaster events. The element of hazards and disaster management system entails the pre-impact and post-impact interventions undertaken to mitigate and deal with disaster events. This includes mitigation practices, emergency preparedness, recovery preparedness, emergency activities, and recovery activities. As per the model, the outcome and levels of impact of disaster events are determined by the interaction between the hazards and disaster management system, disaster event characteristics, and hazard vulnerability.
The overarching argument of the model is that collective actions relating to the components and their interdependence minimise the human and social harm associated with disaster events. To what extent does the model account for the influence of governance on how communities address hazards and disasters? Whereas the model identifies the hazards and disaster management system as a key component of societal response to disaster events, a closer look reveals that the model does not answer the governance question satisfactorily. Ahrens & Rudolph (2006) assert that governance is crucial in minimising risk and managing disasters. Governance basically means putting in place strong institutions, policies, structures, and actors (Stoker, 1998). These facets are imperative for maintaining public order and facilitating collective action. A governance system installs formal processes, institutions, and decision makers in an effort to address socioeconomic issues. The system ensures proper assignment of public responsibilities, effective allocation of resources, transparency and accountability in resource utilisation, as well as inclusivity and participation in decision making.
The relevance of governance in disaster management is immense. Without effective governance, disaster events cannot be managed successfully. Indeed, governance failure is the underlying cause of vulnerability to disasters (Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006). Effective governance facilitates the installation of structures and policies that not only support socioeconomic development, but also reduce proneness to disaster events. Also, effective governance promotes transparency, accountability, and participation, subsequently fostering development and contributing to risk reduction. In essence, for a society to effectively manage disaster events and minimise risk, robust governance structures are vital. This means that disaster management must be conceptualised in a much broader sense rather than just relief work. It must be understood as a blend of measures taken to reduce risk and to respond to emergencies – preparing for disasters and mitigating their impact. Accordingly, disaster management entails development planning, mitigation (structural and non-structural mechanisms), as well as socioeconomic, political, human, and environmental aspects. Future-oriented policies, structures, and institutions relating to these dimensions must be implemented to ensure more effective disaster management.
Tierney (2012) further emphasises the significance of social, economic, and political dimensions in disaster governance. As disaster events are substantially shaped by factors such as sociodemographic shifts, social inequality, and globalisation, effective governance of disasters requires a multidimensional approach – an approach that considers numerous dimensions. Similar to Ahrens & Rudolph (2006), Tierney (2012) attributes poor disaster management to governance failures. More specifically, poorly governed societies are more likely to fail in disaster management compared to societies with strong governance structures. Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that strongly governed societies do not depict shortcomings in disaster governance. The U.S. government’s response to Hurricane Katrina is an ideal example of disaster governance failures in effectively governed societies. In other words, governance failure in the context of disaster management is a problem common to both developed and developing societies. For Tierney (2012), successful disaster management must be supported by robust social, economic, and political structures and institutions.
On the whole, National Research Council’s (2006) conceptual model of societal response to disaster is a useful model for risk reduction and disaster management. It identifies elements that characterise collection action relating to disaster management. A particularly important element of the model is the hazards and disaster management system, which acknowledges the significance of pre-impact and post-impact interventions. While the model is helpful, it pays little attention to governance. Disaster management is a much broader phenomenon encompassing not only risk mitigation and emergency response, but also a string of supportive social, economic, political, and environmental structures. For a society to manage disaster events and minimise risk more effectively, governance structures must be strong.


References
Ahrens, J., & Rudolph, P. (2006). The importance of governance in risk reduction and disaster management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 207- 220.
National Research Council. (2006). Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. UNESCO, 17-28.
Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economics dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341-363.