Social Work and Human service
To gain a deep insight into disaster management, it is important to understand the concept of emergency, disaster, and catastrophe. An emergency is defined as an instantaneous or predicted event that puts life or resources in danger. Due to such events, normal schemes are discontinued, and extra-ordinary actions are put in place to prevent a disaster. Disaster, on the other hand, is defined as an occurrence interrupting the normal contingencies of continuation and prompting a level of distress that goes beyond the scope of improvements of the affected community (Haddow and Bullock). A catastrophe occurs due to a severe disaster that the community ceases to exist, or its continued survival is drawn into question. With this insight, this paper seeks to give a substantial response to the questions below.
Natural hazards are natural occurrences whose cause is not human-made. They include but are not limited to floods, wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, extreme weather events, droughts, storms, and extreme heat. On the other hand, technological hazards are disastrous occurrences linked to human causes (anthropogenic). Such occurrences comprise fires most likely to be triggered by lightning, human neglect, or intentional actions (Haddow and Bullock). Others encompass soil spillovers, hazardous and nuclear material accidents, industrial fires, and ecological and economic challenges. Natural hazards are more familiar to people compared to technological hazards because their occurrences have been more frequent. Natural disasters are sudden and powerful events whose effects are more alarming than technological hazards.
Two examples of natural hazards are earthquakes and hurricanes. The world has witnessed many earthquakes whose impacts have been felt worldwide. In 1906, San Francisco experienced one of the biggest earthquakes whose impact is still remembered up to today. The earthquake was two in one, and it was felt by the people of Oregon and went as far as Los Angele. However, the focus was on the 7.7Mg Earthquake in San Francisco. The best example is the July 1926 hurricane that hit Palm Beach. Nevertheless, it has become a habit of resort owners to suppress news of such occurrences due to its negative effects on businesses such as scaring away investors and tourists. For this reason, even the death toll figures as a result of the 1926 hurricane were suppressed.
Concerning technological hazards, Ukraine experienced a hazard whose occurrence was due to an increase in power, causing reactivity. It took place at Chernobyl NPP Unit 4 in Pripyat, Ukraine. This hazard’s identified risk is a catastrophic steam explosion, a series of additional explosions, and a nuclear meltdown. The second hazard is pollution with organic/inorganic compounds. For instance, the 1967 flint that took place in Michigan serves as the best example of this. Michigan started receiving its water from Detroit’s water system, whose water source is Lake Huron best known for having polluted water due to industrial runoff. Under this hazard, two risks associated are rust of the water strips and health complications.
Each of the mentioned hazards above is responsible for causing additional risks. To start with earthquakes, they generate a powerful intensity on structures like buildings, dams, and bridges, which, on their collapse, destroy a lot of property and lead to massive deaths. Similarly, hurricanes also come with strong storms and large battering waves that lead to erosion of buildings, beaches, bridges, and severe damage (Haddow and Bullock). With the case of bayous and estuaries, saltwater’s intrusion into open grounds is most likely to endanger the environment and public health. Because of hurricanes’ reactivity due to power increase, they are associated with later vigorous condensation capable of producing more energy than the surrounding can safely contain. Also, temperatures of the reaction mass sometimes force the reaction to increase, affecting large areas.
Following the 9/11 disaster, the United States government responded by undertaking immediate action such as rescue operations and grounding civilian aircraft, while long-term action comprised investigations, restoration projects, military action, and legislative changes. Investigations into the attacks’ motivation and execution resulted in the war declaration on terrorism, which led to military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan (Roos). Restoration and clean-up efforts included the Lower Manhattan upgrading and the National 11 Memorial and Museum was built.
The government took various steps by making specific changes. Among the changes include the passing of the 2002 Homeland Security legislation by the Congress to establish the Department Of Homeland Security, and there was the incorporation of FEMA into DHS as a component. The implication for this change was a lost direct connection to the president. The functions of preparedness were also removed from FEMA with a single focus directed only on terrorism as a hazard. Additionally, the Federal Response Plan (FRP) was also revisited and modified into what is currently known as the National Response Plan (NRP). Many of the positive elements of FRP have been maintained in the new NRP. However, most of its focus has been changed only to respond to a terrorist hazard. In the NRP, terrorist hazard has been identified as a priority in the hands of federal governments.
These changes have impacted the emergency management policy in various ways. First, today’s policy faces an imbalance of focus, especially between natural disasters and homeland security. This is a challenge mostly felt while trying to incorporate the public in plans of preparedness. There is also a considerable amount of lack in partnership with the business community, and evidently, efforts of a private-public partnership are failing. Also, the emergency management policy has experienced various funding cuts. The policy’s struggle for funding has intensified since 9/11. It is noted that funding for traditional technological and natural risk programs at FEMA has been cut at the federal level.
Planning for terrorism hazard is difficult because of the vagueness of the term itself. Terrorism hazard is challenging to plan due to its differing motives, methods, and targets. The complexity of disentangling the projections within each of the kinds mentioned above makes the planning practically problematic. The main challenge lies in planers’ inability to separate religious terrorists’ motivations from that of other terrorist groups (Haddow and Bullock). Terrorism is motivated by three elements: religion, politics, and religion. Failure to figure out which motivational factor drives terrorist attacks stands as the main barrier for planers to plan well. As much as this has been highlighted, ever since the 9/11 terrorist disaster, the United States emergency management policy has been focused on religiously-motivated attacks, particularly the Al Qaeda, one of the most elusive religious terrorist groups.
Based on the case study, the EM principles can help inform terrorism planning and responses by implementing two major principles. The first principle is guiding the community through a consensus-building process to identify all risks and make communities aware of such risks. Secondly, reshaping the emergency management structures according to the hazard of terrorism can inform on its planning and response.
Concerning the disaster of flooding, it develops after a period of days of continuous rains. It can also occur due to prolonged rainfalls, onshore winds, snowmelts, and other causes, such as dam failures. The rainy spring season between 1926 and 1927 recorded major floods, resulting from heavy and continuous rainfall. This hazard led to an economic loss of about 250 million dollars then which would have been around 3.6 billion dollars in 2018. From January to March 1927, around 50 thousand people were displaced. New Orleans alone had 15 inches of rain, necessitating additional floods, and even the Mississippi River was greatly flooded.
Hoover’s approach involved having the Federal government or the National Guard take care of the disaster victims. In his view, managing a disaster should fall under the federal government because it would reduce deaths. For example, he claimed that only three people died after the National Guard intervened. However, this claim was false because 150 people died after the government’s intervention.
Contrary to Hoover’s approach of having the government intervene during a disaster, Calvin Coolidge believed in a citizen-based approach in which citizens would take care of themselves. He also claimed that it is not the government’s responsibility to reimburse victims. For the federal government to engage in relief provision and rebuilding public works following a disaster such as flooding, their services must be chargeable. He notes that the Red Cross and other charities like NHRCR ought to lead in giving aid. In support of his argument, Calvin posits that in 1905, the Red Cross was granted a rare “Congressional Charter” that commissioned it as an agency responsible for carrying out national and international relief during the times of such hazards like floods. It is through this argument that Calvin appointed Herbert Hoover to lead all actions geared towards relief. Hoover had a good reputation as a management genius and a fixer right from World War One that he was handed the mantle of power to deal with hazards. Calvin refused to be involved directly with the flood victims.
I chose these two authors because they present different approaches to disaster management. Calvin believes that organizations such as the Red Cross should be tasked with providing relief to disaster victims and not the Federal government. For example, when floods occur, those displaced should not expect the government to come to their aid. On the other hand, Hoover believes that the government has a responsibility to provide relief to flood victims, including providing them with food, housing, and medical care. The approaches presented by both Calvin and Hoover highlight the failure and inadequacy of government response to disasters. Based on the Calvin approach, while the government is obligated to offer aid, it can only do so through such organizations as the Red Cross. The problem with this strategy is the organization’s inability to provide the greatest excess of benefits at reduced costs. Correspondingly, Hoover’s approach involves direct governmental involvement that yields the greatest benefits is possible (“Lesson 3: When disaster strikes, what can the government do?”). However, issues such as increased deaths and abuse and harassment of victims by the police and the military are likely to occur, undermining the effort.
To conclude, Disasters have become part of our lives. Most countries experience this phenomenon almost every year. For this reason, disaster management has become a central topic for both academicians and research analysts. However, understanding the concepts of disaster, emergency, and catastrophe is crucial for gaining a deeper insight into the topic of disaster management. In this paper, various concepts are described starting from natural, technological hazards, government response mechanisms, and their effectiveness and implications. Also, the views of the two personalities are noted concerning hazards.
Works Cited
“Lesson 3: When disaster strikes, what can the government do?” Foundation For Teaching Economics, 26 Oct. 2018, www.fte.org/teachers/teacher-resources/lesson-plans/disasterslessons/lesson-3-when-disaster-strikes-what-can-government-do/.
Haddow, G., and J. Bullock. “The Future of Emergency Management.” Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management, George Washington University. Washington DC. nd, Lecture.
Dave, Roos. “5 Ways 9/11 Changed America.” HISTORY, 1 Sept. 2020, doi: www.history.com/news/september-11-changes-america.