Given that disasters create opportunities for active learning, why do they repeat?

“Given that disasters create opportunities for
active learning, why do they repeat?”

 

Introduction

CRED or the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters defined disasters as exceptional events that require external assistance. The word disaster is actually taken from combined Latin terms dis (bad) and astrum (star); this is based on the conventional belief that dreadful incidents happen when the stars are badly positioned. Disasters can also be categorized into two types: natural and man-made. Earthquake, flood, tsunami and volcanic eruption are some common examples of natural disasters whereas man-made disasters can be in the form of civil disorder, war or terrorism (Hoffman & Oliver-Smith, 2002). When a number of disasters occur and remain uncontrolled, a disaster may rise.

Compared to disaster, the impact of a disaster may be greater, particularly in terms of losses. Disaster may then occur due to financial threats, physical disasters, technological failures, security leaks and other similar examples. While disaster and disaster may be related, there are also some differences. For instance, while both disaster and disaster are considered unpredictable events, disaster are not unexpected events (Coombs, 1999). This suggests in general, plans to counter disaster can be done ahead of time. As several mismanaged disasters lead to the formation of a disaster, multiple factors are necessary in order to trigger a disaster from happening; thus, in terms of lifespan, disaster often affect people longer than disasters as several issues would have to be addressed to resolve it (Borodzicz, 2004). Within a small environment such as an situation, disaster may also occur.

With different disasters may it be natural or man-made disasters, government authorities play crucial role in dealing with it. It has been said that in times of disaster, chances of survival increases when more and more people help each other. In particular, disaster management is carried out effectively as emergency agencies, business sectors, local and national governments work together. Survival plans are developed ahead in order to address disastrous events.

Primarily, the goal of this paper is to analyze the assumption: “Given that disasters create opportunities for active learning, why do they repeat?” For this analysis, the discussion will include how the government, local and federal learned from disasters and states some reasons why disaster happen again inspite of the idea of active learning.

 

Analysis and Discussions

Accordingly, the worst reaction to the aftermath of every disaster would be to adopt more heavy-handed federalized procedures, which would undercut the very kinds of responses which proved the most effective. Accordingly, in every disaster, the government (local and national) has their accountabilities and responsibilities to ensure immediate recovery.  And in every disaster new learnings come which when used properly can be able to prevent further damages from any disasters. There is a supposition that disasters create opportunities for active learning. Accordingly, active learning happens when an individual are given the chance to take a more interactive relationship with a particular subject (like disaster management), encouraging the people to generate rather than simply to receive specific knowledge.

It can be said that active learning is an exceptionally efficient approach which government and other local authorities can use to manage disasters.  It is noted that the world has experienced various disasters as well as human tragedies in the past several years that some worry about how these disasters can be prevented. Although there are learnings from various disasters, it seems that the tragedy keeps on repeating and repeating, like it happened for the first time. 

            One of the essential procedures in applying what has been learned in the previous case of disasters is disaster management is the development of a disaster management plan (DMP). It is stated that stated that a DMP is comprised of the processes and steps suitable for addressing both real and perceived disaster. Similar to the concept of disaster management, the DMP is created in advance so as to achieve more efficient and speedier responses to disaster. It has been noted that those who are involved in disaster management) should also learn to have their own DMPs.

The components of the plan are purely dependent on the needs and priorities of the situation; developing this type of program is an important learning to be applied effectively in case of disaster and its components is also based on the types of disaster that are likely or frequently affects the situation. For instance, this active learning experience can include the steps citing what the situation would do or say to relevant parties in the wake of a disaster. This component is typically referred to as disaster-response strategies; these are actually message repertoires that aim to repair or protect the people from the occurrence of disasters. In integrating this procedure in the disaster management planning, consistency is very crucial.

In particular, another learning that can be considered in disaster response is related to stakeholder in a consistent manner. Coombs (1999) stated that in order for situations to deliver consistent replies to the stakeholders, a unified response must be developed. This was supported by Barton (2001) and referred to this strategy as the audience-centric approach, which basically stresses the need for situations to relay information with similar feel and content to relevant parties, particularly in times of disaster. Applying this principle in disaster management development is significant as it prevents the delivery of mixed signals or incomplete information to affected situational members; this then can help prevent further confusion and tension within the situation. In addition, this principle clearly emphasizes that in order to effectively manage an situational disaster, affected audiences must be given due priority.

Accordingly, disaster linked with natural hazards can result to significant learnings which can be used for changes in the socio-ecological systems. When disasters happen, people give emphasis on the direct disaster impacts and also the relief and recovery operations and the factors that affects the successful implementation of the response. Although this focus is very significant, it is noteworthy that there has been little research on the characteristics as well as the progress of learnings induced by disasters.  Learning, as distinctive from impacts, consists of formal and informal learnings, in terms of responses to disaster events and its direct and indirect impacts. While those smaller disasters that happen do not necessarily bring learnings for the people involved, major disasters have the potential to enable people learn different techniques and approaches which can be used to have a better preparedness and response for future disasters.

The main premise is that knowing and understanding how a disaster occurs and what should be the most effective ways on preventing further damages for such incident.  There are various reasons why disasters and its damages and effects keep on repeating, despite of the learnings that the government and authorities have experienced in the past disasters.

One important reason is that most of the people involved in disaster management are lacking natural structures or the leadership which can respond quickly and well to these disasters.  There are many volunteers and many agencies who wants to help but the government fail to deliver the compassion to those most in need. The government agencies, volunteers, and disaster coordinating council and board members must be able to continuously exert an effort to model collaboration and coordination by guaranteeing that planning and reporting needs are rationalized and coordinated. In addition, the central government agencies, volunteers, and disaster coordinating council and board members must include additional works to ensure better coordination of coexisting policy initiatives with regards to their disaster preparedness program and disaster management approach. This existing policy is important in maintaining the efficacy of the changes made to the prevention systems of the agency at the central government. In addition, an effort is also required to more totally incorporate the role of central government coordinators to the role of coordinators in the local (county and tribal level).

In addition, it is also recommended that both central government and local government most have individuals who will continue to advocate the enhancement of the coordination, increased resources for prevention and for implementation of the selected best practices programs to maintain the success of the managing disasters and disaster in the country. 

Another plausible reason is the inability of the government to provide intensive support to the appointed central government coordinators in order to focus their efforts in the most important areas. Which usually happens, due to political rivalries and issues? It is noted that a successful counties tends to be those in which resources were devoted to coordination, compared to the used of both coordination programming. This means that focusing at what area at a time may lead to a successful implementation of program than focusing on various areas at a time. However, because of the inability of the people involve considering it during a disaster, more problems occur.

Previous disaster should be a guide for the people to know what to do in case this happens again. Preparedness and  response is the key aspects that should be learned. However, it seems that government agencies have not been able to consider this and do not use what they learned from the past. It is important that the people specifically the key stakeholder in the local area and the state area must have the ability to identify what aspects of pthe previous preparedness and response programme should be adopted to the change implementation in order to maintain the success of the disaster management approach and response. In addition, if people will cooperate in every endeavor that the federal government will impose there is a greater possibility of achieving the purpose of the project for the sake of the state as a whole. 

            Conducting a disaster management approach and engaging in this kind of activities is a very difficult task, specifically if the program imposed will be conducted in to ensure safety of various individuals. It can be said that this evaluation will benefit both the central and local government to know that coordination is still the best approach in managing risks to protect the people or even the environment. 

 

Following any disasters from the past, people can see the best of human nature and the worst of bureaucracy. Most of the headlines convey what should be lacking in the government like the inability of the poor nations to reach victims immediately, systems failure, and others.  In addition, another aspect that can be considered as a reason why disasters seem to repeat is in line with the ability of the authorities to generate effective decision making in times of managing disasters.  Disasters come in different ways and the management of these disasters comes into different packages. It is where the government should learn and use it for future emergencies.

Take for example the learnings that the United Kingdom have from their previous disasters. The United Kingdom government has launched a review of disaster preparations in 1991 to see what went wrong in their disaster management approach. In the year 2003, the government has published a modified aim for the national emergency planning which is to improve the resilience of the country to the drastic impact of disruptive challenges or disasters (Civil   Contingencies       Secretariat;     2003).    This strategy specifically relies on resilience which is considered as an opposed to risk reduction by anticipation. Resilience is seen as the ability to pre-empt disaster.  Accordingly, resilience is the ability to reorganize resources as well as actions to respond to actual hazards, after it happens (Comfort; 1994, p157).

            As cited in Comfort (1994), Wildavsky defined resilience in accordance with decentralization, in which anticipation involves the prediction of danger, specialized protection and security, centralizations and detailed standards (Comfort; 1994, p157). All of these, except for the context of centralization are determined as duties for local government within the Civil Contingencies Bill which is included in part 1, sections 2, 4, 5, 8 & 9). Herein, the general requirements of the Boll, as a picture of present government thinking, seem to ensure that central government’s aim is to take distance to take any response to a local disaster while attempting to make sure that there is sufficient local preparation. Nonetheless, the formal preparations do not usually address the idiosyncrasies of disasters.

            Among thee peculiarities is the requirement to be flexible in response and to be prepared to be more innovative. Innovation has been determined as a key factor since it has the ability to facilitate the response to the needs during the times of disaster.  The context of innovation needs room to function. Hence, an overly centralized approach of disaster response could suppress opportunities for accurate and appropriate innovation. With this regard, the central government’s aims to remain on the disaster scene somewhat detached from local   emergencies have been justified with this aspect and maintain its consistencies with a context of   appropriate   decentralization   (HM Treasury, Dept, Trade & Industry, Office of the Deputy Prime minister; 2003, 19).

Another reason why disasters and it drastic affects keep on repeating is because of the inability of the government to consider centralized approach for every disaster. Each disaster was treated as new, affecting their ways on managing and handling it.  It is said that disaster management team may find their sudden experience of a disaster as well as its management a totally unexpected challenge during the time when they are themselves in a state of shock. In this regard, people involved needs to have the philosophy and idea of disaster response as well as the dynamics of disaster impact. Accordingly, those people who are involved in a specific disaster may also make use of the lessons they have learned on their previous experiences since they are able to be heavily involved in the actual relief stage and the trend is for them to have greater involvement in long-term recovery programmes when a disaster happens.

            It can be mentioned that the leading agencies who are much more familiar with the nature of disasters as well as good practice in responding to them have learned it from their actual experiences in various disasters, however, most of them could not eventually used what they have learned in other disasters, since most disasters are distinctive in many ways. No one can really foresee what would be its effect and the damages that it can create. What people, especially government can do is to just prevent further harm and atrocities. In  practice, it is said that most of the disaster preparedness and response organization have high staff turnover as a consequent risk even of agencies that regularly consider ‘reinventing wheels’, because the individual official are being challenged with the practical problems of having individuals who has no prior personal experience of such a situation.

 

Penning-Roswell (1995) has noted that at least in the situation of natural disasters, although there is a tendency to concentrate the response level of the government, because of their intimate and wide knowledge of the environment in which the disaster is happening, it is progressively more recognized that a broader geographical as well as disciplinary perspective brings a better consideration which sometimes lacked or inefficient, causing disaster and its damaging effect to happen again.   Accordingly, there is evidence that little studies and researches have been conducted over the past few years into what the design approach for a common good hazard agency. Such argument shows that this is due to the tendency to give emphasis on the impacts of the individual rather than the property of the value constructed agency whose primary aim is to meet the needs of the target audience (Penning-Roswell, 1995), in line with the disaster.

Every institutions is marked by its own unique internal culture as well as priorities (Ott;   1989).  According to Quarantelli   (1982), there are three specific difficulties that occurs from this in ensuring efficient coordination among disaster response bodies. First is that the coordination of interests among the public and private sectors may be hard due to the different perspectives.  Secondly, normal daily networks as well as coordination systems may differ qualitatively from those employed din times of major emergency and lastly, the term coordination itself ma have various connotation to various institutions or even parts hereof.  Accordingly, to expect a naturally efficient and consistent response to a wide range of disaster emergency situation would   seem   to   fly   in the face of these factors of the organization or corporation al response to emergencies.

Another reason why a disaster keeps on repeating even when people and agencies involved in managing disasters learned from previous occurrence is the restrictions and limitations of the things that they learned. It can be said that what the government and agencies learned in a specific disaster is constrained only for such particular disaster or situation and might not be useful in other disasters.

            It is said that during a disaster, survival plans should be developed ahead in order to address disastrous events.  However, in most cases, survival plans are only done after the disaster happened; hence, affecting the context of having effective disaster management approach that can be useful in preventing another disaster.

Through this, more lives can be saved and restoration would be immediate. In the same way, disaster management involves advance planning as well as the participation of the natural members. Moreover, planning ahead so as to overcome incoming disaster can also result to a number of advantages for the situations. Specifically, advance plans for natural disaster help in saving more lives.  Readying means to counter natural disaster also helps situations in establishing rehearsed actions, which contributes to damage control. Enforcing strategies that would address disaster is also useful in protecting the future in case another disaster occurs. Failing to apply these means of disaster management on the other hand, can lead to loss of both financial and public confidence. In worst cases, this can even lead to irreversible damages.

 

Conclusion

For the success of the disaster response and to be able to easily achieve the objective of reducing the risks of these disasters, it is recommended that the project must be able to provide both agencies from central government and local government clear roles and comprehensible expectations in order to deliberate their functions well. What the government and disaster management bodies can do is to become more responsive, developing a disaster management team, appointing team leaders and developing disaster management plan in cooperation with the all governing bodies so as to ensure that what these people learned from previous disasters can be collaborated with other disaster management team for a better outcome.  By means of combining human capability and advance planning, risks and damages brought about by natural or man-made disasters disaster will be experienced within manageable levels.

 It is important so that all the key stakeholders involved and knowledgeable about the disaster management should have clear understanding on their roles and responsibilities so as not to be confused on the objectives and goals of the said management approach.

            It can be concluded that disasters repeat or happen again in spite of the learnings that the government and other agencies encountered because of different reasons, mostly, uncontrollable reasons. In this regard, preparedness and response programs run by the government should collaborate with other agencies in the local and national level to ensure that community-centered programs to prevent further damagers cost by the disaster.

It is recommended that the people who are involved in previous disasters should conduct lectures to share what they have learned and to ensure that only important information is being disseminated.  Those who are involved in the previous disasters should give emphasis on the priorities for action in relation to learning. One of the ways to do is to establish approaches to promote learning to generate from past events. These include, documentation, evidence analysis, dissemination of key issues and information, education and training and creation of learning organization.

It is said that while there are essential individual aspects in each disaster which strikes a specific society, particular solutions for their recovery, there are patterns which frequently recur and the disaster management team should be aware of that. These patterns can be useful for future disasters.  It may be critical to discard the experiences of others as being immaterial or irrelevant to their own disaster situation. In addition, the team should also learn from other people in the international level.

 

Reference

Clark, J., & Harman, M. (2004). On disaster management and response and rehearsing a plan. Risk Management, 51(5), 40-44.

Comfort, L.K. (1994) “Risk & Resilience: Inter-organizational Learning Following The Northridge Earthquake of 17 January 1994”. In “Journal Of Contingencies And Disaster management and response”, vol.2, no.3. pp.157-170.

 

Hoffman, S. & Oliver-Smith, A. (Eds.) (2002). Catastrophe and Culture: The Anthropology of Disaster. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press.

 

Giddens   A   (1998)   “Risk   Society:   the   Context   of   British   Politics”   ed.   Jane ranklin. In The Politics of Risk Society. Polity Press; Cambridge.

 

O’Riordan, T. (1996) “Exploring the Role of Civic Science in Risk Management” eds. Christopher Hood             & David K. C. Jones. In Accident & Design; Contemporary Debates in Risk Management. UCL Press; London.

 

Ott, J., S. (1989) “The Organizational Culture Perspective”. Brooks/Cole; Pacific Grove, California.

 

Penning-Roswell, E. (1996) “Criteria for the Design of Hazard Mitigation Institutions” eds. Christopher Hood  & David K. C. Jones. In Accident & Design; Contemporary Debates in Risk Management. UCL Press; London.

 

Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L., & Ulmer, R.R. (1998). Communication, situation, and disaster. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.). Communication Yearbook, 21 (pp. 231-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

 

Shaluf, I., Ahmadun, F. & Said, A.M. (2003).  A review of disaster and disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management, 12(1), 24-32.  

 

Woollacott, M. (1998a) “Risky Business, Safety” ed. Jane Franklin. In The Politics of Risk Society. Polity Press; Cambridge.

 

Woollacott, M. (1998b) “The Politics of Prevention” ed. Jane Franklin. In The Politics of Risk Society. Polity Press; Cambridge.

 

 

 

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com