Figure 1: The Disaster Management Cycle. Source/Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
The Disaster Management Cycle is a useful tool to use because it simplifies the phases of disaster recovery in a way that is easily relatable in terms of a sequence of events that need to happen after or before a disaster. This particular model of Disaster Recovery also highlights the duration of the particular tasks, with, say, emergency intervention being usually very short while mitigation being more of a constant (Davis & Alexander, 2015).
However, the Disaster management cycle does not apply to all disasters, since not all disasters can be considered regular and therefore cyclical (Davis & Alexander, 2015). My thoughts initially about the Disaster Cycle have been that thinking of it strictly as a cycle may impede the process of breaking out of it.
We have identified in previous modules that disasters as all essentially “un-natural” as it is our behaviour, patterns and ways of living that make hazardous events become disasters. Thinking of Disaster management more as a linear event allows us to grow and develop past specific disasters by redeveloping better, stronger and more sensitively to the environment we find ourselves in.
Davis and Alexander (2015) point out a few shortcomings and limitations of the Disaster Management Cycle, some of which I have noted below:
In many cases, the phases within the Disaster management cycle are not sequential but overlapping, interweaving events.
Separating mitigation from recovery and reconstruction is a crucial missed opportunity in building resilience and breaking out of said disaster cycle.
In its simplifying nature, the Disaster Management Cycle does not have an allowance for repeating, cascading or complex impacts that may be related or not.
The model implies a “bouncing back” instead of “bouncing forward”
Mitigation and preparedness in the graphics of the model appears to lead directly into disaster when it should be the opposite.
A Linear Plan for Disaster Management?
Figure 2: Disaster Management Flow. Source: IFRC & RCS, 2010
Alternatively to the Disaster management Cycle, above is the one created by the IFRC that is not in fact a cycle. I think the below illustration would allow for compounding disasters and illustrates a way of moving forwards rather than in cyclical motion, which allows us to think of certain disasters as something that we can resolve once it hits as we respond, recover and rebuild more intelligently to reduce the risk of disaster in the first place.
Disaster Management & Recovery Models
Figure 3 (above): Kates and Pikawa Recovery Model. Source: Recovery from Disaster, Davis & Alexander, 2015
Figure 4 (above): Cost. Source: Recovery from Disaster, Davis & Alexander, 2015
Figure 5 (above): Disaster Timeline. Source: Recovery from Disaster, Davis & Alexander, 2015
These models and graphs all have valuable information to convey. It is difficult, however for a singular model to explain disaster management in its entirety for every single case – and that is ok. The creation of such knowledge tends to depend on the context, nature of the situation, and the subjective positioning of who is creating the knowledge. The most important factor in creating models is being aware of the unique factors that make up the situation one is analysing and the subjective positioning that we might hold – what are we looking at, what have we identified as important, why might that be?
Beyond the representation of Disaster Management, these recovery figures can serve as a tool for disaster management in general, not only in hindsight and record-keeping but helping in mitigation and preparedness.
References:
Davis, I., & Alexander, D. (2015). Recovery from Disaster. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315679808
Comments