What is Disaster Risk Reduction?
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) refers to an orderly approach of identifying, reducing and assessing the risks of a disaster. Its main aim is to minimize socioeconomic, environmental or any other vulnerabilities and hazard that might trigger a disaster (McEntire, 2000). Its development has been influenced by various researchers who have focused on disaster vulnerability since the 1970s. Due to its effectiveness development, aid agencies, and other organization should use and highly integrate it in their activities for disaster management. DRR exists in varying intensity or forms. Its scope is broader as well as deeper than conventional emergency management (UNISDR, 2004). DRR initiative should be included in all sectors of development and public works. It principles are fully align with the principles of Disaster Risk Management (DRM).
To be precise, it is the evolution of DRM that has led to a deeper understanding of how disasters usually occur. This has consequently enabled the adoption of integrated and holistic methods of minimizing the risk of disasters and associated impacts (UNISDR, 2004). Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is the most recent approach to disaster management. It incorporates new disaster risk management thinking and practice. Nevertheless, it still embraces earlier principles and practices of disaster management that have been proven to be effective (McEntire, 2000).
Application around the Globe
Around the globe, an example of a country that has applied DRR is Bangladesh. Bangladesh has recorded a long history of natural disasters. For example, the years between 1980 and 2008 saw the country going t...
... middle of paper ...
...lted in reducing the disaster risk, which was always on the rise (Wisner et al. 2004) and being a pointer that education, however, mild or informal, is the most effective of all DRR strategies.
Works Cited
McEntire, A., (2000). ‘Sustainability or invulnerable development? Proposals for the
Current shift in paradigms’. Australian Journal of Emergency Management
Maskrey, A., (1989). Disaster Mitigation: A Community-Based Approach.Oxford: Oxfam.
UNISDR. (2004). Living With Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives; pg. 17-23. Retrieved from http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/657
Wisner, B. et al. (2004). At Risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters.London: Routledge.
Mitchell, T., (2012) Disaster risks management in post-2015 policy frameworks: forging a more resilient future. Overseas Development Institute Briefing Paper.
Mitigation: Measures taken to lessen the consequences of disaster events upon our citizens and our
Due to the change in climate, natural disasters take place taking away lives of the people. For example, The Nepal earthquake which took place on 25th April, 2015 which killed over 8000 people and injured more than 21000 people.
Bissell, R. (2010). Catastrophic Readiness and Response Course, Session 6 – Social and Economic Issues. Accessed at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/crr.asp
An activity that we participate in on a daily basis is belonging and being part of a community. We live in a world where associating and identifying ourselves with certain groups is how we share common interests, and we are responsible for facing whatever may come our way. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the differences and similarities between the approaches seen from the Chicago Heat Wave and Buffalo Creek Flood. The main differences are historical groundwork, relationship to land, physical/social vulnerability, problematic development, choices we make and media coverage. Kleinberg and Erikson both offer a greater variety of what exactly a disaster or community consist of. Although, both have some overlapping themes and ideas, their methodological approaches and expectations of a community dealing with a disaster differ significantly.
Emergency management is a career about managing risk that are both technological and naturally occurring. Though these two terms are synonymous with each other in-terms of modern conceptualization of disasters; this has not always been the case. In the developmental history of emergency management these two sources of disaster; were often seen as two completely independent sources of danger, and as a result the emergency management community encountered steep and costly learning curve in managing the hazards associated with these sources risk.
This is a continuous cycle of the National Preparedness System. This allows for consistent and reliable approach to decision-making, resource allocation, while measuring outcomes throughout preparedness and response. Identifying and assessing risk is paramount to the success of survival during a disaster of any kind man-made or natural alike. The risk assessment collects information on the threats of hazard as well as well as projected consequences (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011). The information obtain is also used to determine the desired outcomes of the operation in affect.
The Calgary Flood of 2013 forced over 100 000 people out of their homes, caused the death of three people, and caused six billion dollars in damage. Numerous buildings had no electricity, roads were shut down, and residents were asked to limit their use of water. The Alberta Government states that it will take many years to repair all the damage and have everything to return back to its normal state (CBC News, 2013). Most of the recommendations that were made after the flood in 2005 were never acted on, leaving Calgary ill prepared for the 2013 flood (Paperny, 2013). Emergency management is a framework that emcompasses procedures to effectively deal with natural and human disasters (Stanhope, Lancaster, Jessup-Falcioni, & Viverais-Dresler, 2011). The initiatives in the framework illustrate the four stages of disaster management in Canada: prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Natural disasters, namely the 2013 Calgary Flood, impact the community as a whole, and incline nurses to apply expertise skills while utilizing all resources available to initiate the disaster management framework of prevention and mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery (Stanhope et al., 2011).
Communities must come together in order to be aware of the steps that must be taken to reduce or prevent risk. “The guidance, programs, processes, and systems that support each component of the National Preparedness System enable a collaborative, whole community approach to national preparedness that engages individuals, families, communities, private and nonprofit sectors, faith based organizations and all levels of government.” (FEMA, 2011). Resources within a community are prioritized and customized based on community-based issues and local security programs. The resources used as the front line of defense are first responders, such as police officers, firefighters and medical personnel. The resources are provided and prioritized based on the priority of threat and risks to a specific community. Therefore, the threats and risks targeted towards a community must be analyzed and acknowledged in order to apply the correct resources to the opposing prioritized threats. Disasters and emergencies typically begin at the local level and eventually require resources from state and federal
A systemic crisis is a crisis in which the breadth of impact reaches many individuals within the system; for example, schools, businesses, entire communities, regions, or it may be worldwide. The individuals involved in a systemic crisis can become overwhelmed with the enormity of the situation and need physical and/or psychological assistance to regain control. Systemic crisis interventions require a combination of strategies working cooperatively together across multiple agencies to effectively address all potential needs of the victims. However, not all systemic crises are the same and require interventions that are specific to the systemic crisis category. The following paragraphs will give a brief description of a natural disaster
1). Resilience refers to the ability to prepare, plan, absorb, recover and more successfully adapt to adverse events. It is determined by the degree to which individuals, communities and organization can organize themselves to learn from the past disasters and reduce their risks to future ones Resilience is increased by emergency management planning that is based on risks, the relationship has been identified from the four phases of emergency management. Mitigation involves actions that are undertaken in advance to avoid risks such as loss of life and property, in this case the community is more resilient to an immediate emergency issue (World Resilience Emergency Management,2017). Preparedness involves training, education and sharing of information
The purpose of this paper is to discuss potential disasters that could affect a community and cause mass casualties. Further discussion will include who is responsible for the management preparedness, what barriers must be considered and finally this paper will discuss the health care facilities role in emergency supplies and care of the patient in a disaster situation. The Community Communities throughout the country and the world are susceptible to disasters. The environment and location of a community often predisposes a greater susceptibility to the type of disaster. For example, Central Pennsylvania would not be susceptible to an avalanche, however, communities in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado would have increased vulnerability.
Sometimes one phase of the emergency management tends to overlap of adjacent phase. The concept of “phases” has been used since the 1930’s to help describe, examine, and understand disasters and to help organize the practice of emergency management. In an article titled Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster, David Neal cites different examples of different researchers using five, six, seven, and up to eight phases long before the four phases became the standard. (Neal 1997) This acknowledges that critical activities frequently cover more than one phase, and the boundaries between phases are seldom precise. Most sources also emphasize that important interrelationships exist among all the ph...
Population growth, increases in wealth, and accumulation of assets in areas at risk from natural hazards have been found to be the main underlying reasons up to now for increasing losses from natural disasters (Crompton and McAneney, 2008; Pielke et al., 2008). Under the ongoing socioeconomic change, natural hazard risk is likely to increase independent from climate change (Bouwer et al., 2007; Feyen et al., 2009). In general, losses and damage from natural disasters around the world have been increasing more rapidly than general economic growth, owing to the rapid development of population and assets in large urban areas in at risk areas (Bouwer et al.,
The increase in unpredictable natural disasters events for a decade has led to put the disaster preparedness as a central issue in disaster management. Disaster preparedness reduces the risk of loss lives and injuries and increases a capacity for coping when hazard occurs. Considering the value of the preparatory behavior, governments, local, national and international institutions and non-government organizations made some efforts in promoting disaster preparedness. However, although a number of resources have been expended in an effort to promote behavioural preparedness, a common finding in research on natural disaster is that people fail to take preparation for such disaster events (Paton, 2005; Shaw 2004; Spittal, et.al, 2005; Tierney, 1993; Kenny, 2009; Kapucu, 2008; Coppola and Maloney, 2009). For example, the fact that nearly 91% of Americans live in a moderate to high risk of natural disasters, only 16% take a preparation for natural disaster (Ripley, 2006).
Of the four phases of emergency management, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, perhaps the place that individuals can make the biggest difference in their own state of resiliency and survival of a disaster is in the preparedness phase. Being prepared before a disaster strikes makes sense yet many people fail to take even simple, precautionary steps to reduce the consequences of destruction and mayhem produced by natural events such as earthquakes, volcanos and tornados (see Paton et al, 2001, Mileti and Peek, 2002; Tierney, 1993, Tierney et al, 2001).