Session No. 14

Course Title: Theory, Principles and Fundamentals of Hazards, Disasters,
and U.S.

Emergency Management

Session Title: Fundamentals of U.S. Emergency Management (Part II)

Time: 1 Hour

Objectives:

14.1 Discuss the intergovernmental (top-down and bottom-up) and
partnership nature of U.S. emergency management.

14.2 Describe and discuss what is meant by Integrated Emergency
Management.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Scope:**

To begin this session, the professor introduces the intergovernmental
nature of emergency management in the United States. The professor
describes aspects of "intergovernmentalism, providing an example of the
need to work in partnership and potential consequences for the failure
to do so. The discussion includes prerequisites for intergovernmental
partnership and the role of today's emergency manager as catalyst in
that effort. The focus turns to the bottom-up and top-down approaches.
Aspects of the U.S. bottom-up approach are discussed, along with a
comparison to the usefulness of national legislation and executive
direction---top-down aspects of the discipline. Next, the discussion
turns to Integrated Emergency Management (IEM), its origins and how it
applies today in terms of linking emergency management objectives with
those of organizations outside the function, such as public works and
community planning. Finally, the professor transitions to the third and
final part of the topic by telling the class that the next session will
deal with the four phases of emergency management and building
disaster-resilient communities.
**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Suggested Student Homework Reading Assignment:

McEntire, David, et al. "A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search
for a Holistic Policy Guide." *Public Administration Review*. 2002.
62(3): 267-281

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Instructor Reading:**

Buckle, Phillip 1998-99*. "*Re-defining community and vulnerability in
the context of emergency management". *The Australian Journal of
Emergency Management*. Vol. 13, No. 4, 1999

Neal, David M. 1997. "Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters*, Vol. 15, No.
2, 239-264.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Additional Sources to Consult:

Beavers, James E., Dennis Mileti, and Lori Peek: 2000. "Dealing with
Natural Hazards Requires A New Approach." *Natural Hazards Review*, Vol.
1, No. 2, May, pp. 65-66.

Crews, David. 1999. "Why Emergency Management as a Profession?" *The
ASPEP Journal 1999*. American Society of Professional Emergency
Planners.

FEMA. 2000. *Strategic Plan, FY 2000 through FY 2006 -- Partnership for
a Safer Future*. Washington, DC: FEMA.

Fothergill, Alice. 2000. "Knowledge Transfer Between Researchers and
Practitioners." *Natural Hazards Review*, May, pp. 91-98.

Hecker, Edward J., William Irwin, David Cottrell, and Andrew Bruzewicz.
2000. "Strategies for Improving Response and Recovery in the Future."
*Natural Hazards Review*, pp. 161-170, August.*\
*

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 2000. *Public
and Private Integrated Safety Administration Programs -- Native American
Tribes, Rural Communities, States, Major Cities, US Territories, Foreign
Nations and Industry.* October 18.

Mitchell, James K. (ed.). 1999. *Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-Cities and
Disasters in Transition*. Tokyo, NY, Paris: United Nations University
Press.

Mittler, Elliott. 1989. *Natural Hazard Policy Setting: Identifying
Supporters and Opponents on Nonstructural Hazard Mitigation.* Boulder,
CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Program on
Environment and Behavior Monograph \# 48.

National Governors' Association. 1978. *1978 Emergency Preparedness
Project -- Final*

*Report*. Washington, DC: Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.

National Governors' Association. 1979. *Comprehensive Emergency
Management -- A Governor's Guide*. Washington DC: Defense Civil
Preparedness Agency, May.

Neal, David M. 2000. *Feedback From The Field -- Developing Degree
Programs in Disaster Management: Some Reflections and Observations.*
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. Vol. 18, No. 3,
pp. 417-437

Twigg, John. 1999-2000. "The Age of Accountability? Future Community
Involvement in Disaster Reduction." *Australian Journal of Emergency
Management,* Summer, pp. 51-58.

Waugh, William L. Jr. 2000. "Expanding the Boundaries of Emergency
Management." *IAEM Bulletin*, Vol. 17, No. 10, October, pp. 1 & 4.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

#### General Requirements:

PowerPoint slides have been prepared to support this session. The
session is not dependent upon the utilization of these visual aids. They
are provided as a tool that the Professor is free to use as PowerPoints
or overhead transparencies.

**Note to the Professor:** This session is Part II of a three-part
breakout of the topic, Fundamentals of U.S. Emergency Management. It
includes the intergovernmental partnership approach, bottom-up and
top-down aspects, and networking, along with Integrated Emergency
Management (IEM). It is the second of three sessions as outlined on page
8 of the Session 13 notes. Session 15, to follow, will include a student
activity on the four phases of emergency management. The references at
the end of this session are inclusive of the material in all three
Fundamentals sessions.

Objective 14.1 To discuss the intergovernmental (bottom-up and top-down)
and partnership nature of U.S. emergency management.

**The Intergovernmental (Bottom-Up and Top-Down)**

**Nature of U.S. Emergency Management**

-   Another principle of U.S. emergency management is the
    intergovernmental and partnership nature of its practice. Some
    characteristics include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Locals not left to fend for themselves**

-   **Joint State/local and Federal responsibility**

-   **Each level having contributions to make**

-   **Importance of improvisation and flexibility**

-   **Teamwork**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **We do not leave local jurisdictions to fend for themselves**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Emergency management is a **joint local/State and Federal
    responsibility**. In the words of one FEMA document:

    **"The burden of disaster management, and the resources for it,
    require a close working partnership among all levels of government
    (Federal, regional, state, county, and local) and the private sector
    (business and industry, voluntary organizations, and the general
    public)..."** (FEMA 1993 (Sep), I-5).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the U.S. system there is **a broad range of political and
    managerial transactions between and among governments of all levels
    in disaster management**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There are 56 States and Territories and over 3,000 counties within
    the U.S.

-   Each level of government has characteristic resources, skills and
    knowledge that it can bring to bear on emergency management.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To over-simplify, the contribution of each level can be summarized
    as follows:

+------------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| **Federal**            | **State**            | **Local**           |
+------------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| -   Legal Authorities, | -   Legal            | -   Direct          |
|     (legislation,      |     Authorities      |     Motivation and  |
|     regulations and    |                      |     Involvement     |
|     executive orders)  | -   Material         |                     |
|                        |     Resources        | -   Knowledge of    |
| ```{=html}             |                      |     the Situation   |
| <!-- -->               | -   Emergency        |     -- People and   |
| ```                    |     Management       |     Environment     |
| -   Fiscal and         |     Offices (every   |                     |
|     Material Resources |     State has one)   | -   Personnel and   |
|                        |                      |     Resources       |
| ```{=html}             | -   Administrative   |                     |
| <!-- -->               |     Skills           | -   First           |
| ```                    |                      |     Responders.     |
| -   Research,          | -   Specialized      |                     |
|     Technical          |     Personnel        |                     |
|     Information and    |                      |                     |
|     Services           | -   Conduit Between  |                     |
|                        |     Local and        |                     |
| ```{=html}             |     Federal Levels   |                     |
| <!-- -->               |                      |                     |
| ```                    |                      |                     |
| -   Specialized        |                      |                     |
|     Personnel**.**     |                      |                     |
+------------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

*Aspects of "Intergovernmentalism"*

-   To make an intergovernmental system work, **improvisation and
    flexibility** must be part of the **ethos** of the system -- an
    **ethos with mutual respect and understanding** at its center.

-   Various emergency task domains must be identified and a
    **consensus** must be reached on who is going to perform each.

-   But, every disaster presents unanticipated demands, so the capacity
    to improvise must also be built in.

-   This calls for a **team approach and mentality** and highlights the
    **need for networking** and coordination, such as:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sharing resources and information

-   Joint participation in planning, programming, and exercises

-   Fiscal linkages, such as in town and county joint budgets

-   Wide array of informal linkages

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Intergovernmental relationships can take the form of:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Government-to-government mutual aid arrangements,

-   Agency-to-agency memorandums of understanding,

-   Interstate compacts, and

-   Pre-disaster Federal-State agreements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Here is one example that points to the critical need for networking
    with floodplain management and the regional building department:

    "In a strongly worded letter, the Council of Neighborhood
    Organizations cites numerous potential floodplain violations
    throughout Colorado Springs and urges authorities to investigate
    them.

    "The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Colorado Water
    Conservation Board are in the middle of an investigation based on
    claims from a former floodplain manager that rules aren't being
    enforced by the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department \[charged
    with monitoring the rules for El Paso County, Colorado Springs and
    several surrounding towns\].[^1]

-   The Regional Building Department's spokeswoman pointed out that the
    agency does a good job, but, "There are always going to be some
    degree of floodplain violations."[^2]

-   Here is a specific instance:

    "Monument Creek's floodplain area north of Garden of the Gods Road
    has been filled in and a new development that will add more fill
    dirt was approved by city planners. . . without compliance with
    floodplain rules."[^3]

-   And potential consequences:

    "If regulations are not adequately enforced, El Paso County could be
    excluded from the National Flood Insurance Program, which insures
    1,700 properties in local floodplains and could cover thousands
    more."[^4]

**Partnership Prerequisites:**

-   Prerequisites for intergovernmental partnership include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mutual trust

-   Mutual support

-   Genuine communication

-   Acceptance of conflicts as normal and commitment to working them out

-   Mutual respect

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Stanley and Waugh stress a key role for the professional emergency
    manager:

    "At best departments do not work in concert; at worst their
    objectives are at complete odds with one another. The emergency
    manager of tomorrow will be the catalyst to eliminate the
    incongruities between government agencies, operating not in
    isolation but in relation to all other departments and agencies
    within a government."[^5]

    **The Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches**

-   The first thing to say in this regard about **U.S. emergency
    management** is that **in many aspects it employs a "bottom-up"
    approach as opposed to one that is "top-down"** as in some other
    countries.

-   In essence, this means that we rely heavily on **building local**
    emergency management capabilities as **opposed to a reliance on a
    national or centralized emergency management corps**.

-   Stanley and Waugh on the bottom-up approach:

    "While 'bottom-up' organizational designs were common in some
    communities, appropriate training and experience were mandated by
    state officials in other states. The dilemma of emergency management
    is not that local officials and agencies are incapable of addressing
    hazards and responding to disasters, it is the unevenness of
    capabilities.

    "Another challenge is to increase the capacities of local officials
    and agencies so that they can function effectively and coordinate
    with their counterparts in neighboring communities. Local officials
    are typically the 'first responders' to disaster and, as such, can
    determine the overall success of disaster operations and recovery
    efforts. Capacity building necessarily has to begin at the local
    level.

    "To some extent, state and federal authorities can help local
    agencies with their preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery
    efforts, but local officials have to tailor their efforts to the
    specific hazards and capabilities within their own communities."[^6]

-   There are four aspects of the U.S. bottom-up approach to emergency
    management that deserve comment:

(1) **Decentralization of responsibilities**

(2) **Establishment of State, county and local political jurisdiction
    emergency management**

(3) **Reliance on existing emergency services personnel**

(4) **Networking with a broad segment of the community**

***Decentralization of Responsibilities:***

-   Some countries manage their equivalent of U.S. emergency management
    from the **national level**. This is a **top-down** approach.

-   **National/federal personnel do the lion's share of planning and
    response** to non-routine emergencies and disasters.

-   Therein can be found "**line authority"** as in an organization
    chart or military structure -- the top level passes orders and
    directions down to the bottom -- there is a **command
    relationship**.

-   This is generally not so in the U.S. While federal organizations are
    very much involved in hazards, disasters and emergency management,
    there is essentially very little command authority wherein the
    federal government orders States to perform emergency management
    functions. Instead, the **Federal government relies, for the most
    part, on persuasion, and on incentives and disincentives**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   An **incentive** would be **"strings attached" to funding** --
    levying requirements or obligations of some sort that accompany
    Federal monies.

-   A **disincentive** would be the **withholding of a license** to
    bring a nuclear power plant on-line if Federally required population
    protection measures were not in place -- such as putting a warning
    system in place and developing emergency operations plans.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There are many **advantages** of a system that is more bottom-up
    than top-down.

-   In addition, it should be noted that **ours is not completely a
    "bottom-up" system**. Much of the way emergency management has
    evolved and is accomplished in this country can be explained in
    terms of **national legislation and executive direction** -- thus,
    the recent emphasis in the U.S. on mitigation as the cornerstone of
    emergency management.

***Nationwide Emergency Management Cadre:***

-   A **second tenet** of the "bottom-up" approach to U.S. emergency
    management is the existence of a **nationwide cadre of State and
    local emergency management personnel**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Every State government has an element that performs emergency
    management functions -- usually an Office of Emergency Management,
    though other nomenclature is also used.

-   Most of the more than 3,000 counties in the country have Offices of
    Emergency Management.

-   Most cities have an Office of Emergency Management.

-   Many towns, villages, townships and other incorporated political
    jurisdictions also have an Office of Emergency Management.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Despite almost two hundred years of experience of having to confront
    hazards and disasters, it was not until the passage of the Federal
    Civil Defense Act of 1950 and its 1957 amendments authorizing the
    appropriation of Federal personnel and administrative funds, that
    local and State "emergency management" offices began to be
    established across the country.

***Reliance on Existing Emergency Services Personnel**:*

-   A **third tenet** of the "bottom-up" approach to emergency
    management in the U.S. is a **reliance on existing emergency
    services personnel for disaster response**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rather than develop a local, State, or Federal Emergency Management
    Corps or Service to respond to disasters, as some countries have
    done, **the U.S. relies on existing emergencies services personnel
    -- such as:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Fire.**

-   **Police.**

-   **Public Works.**

-   **Public Health.**

-   **Transportation.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Thus, a local office of emergency management generally **would not
    have its own disaster response personnel.**

-   While some local offices do have **volunteer auxiliary personnel**
    -- say to assist the police or Department of Public Works in putting
    barricades across flooded roads -- primary disaster response
    responsibility resides with existing emergency services and other
    personnel.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Similarly, at the national level, there is **not a Federal disaster
    response force** **that** comes in, even for Presidentially-declared
    disasters, and **takes over and manages operations**. Generally it
    is the case that **when Federal personnel participate in disaster
    response it is in support of State and local activities.**

***Community-Wide Networking*:**

-   A **fourth and final tenet** of the "bottom-up" approach to U.S.
    emergency management is the importance of **community-wide
    networking** -- getting out from behind a desk and into the
    community one serves to meet and work with others.

-   For effective emergency management to function, **a very broad array
    of organizations and personnel in the public and private sectors
    need to be involved** in the full range of emergency management
    measures, such as:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Local government personnel

-   Business and industry

-   Volunteer and community-based organizations

-   Religious organizations

-   The media

-   Academia

-   Citizenry

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Community-wide networking cannot be overestimated**. Without it, a
    great deal of sad experience has taught us that what one has tends
    to be paper plans and programs that do not work and fall apart in
    the face of real disasters.

**Objective 14.2: Describe and discuss what is meant by Integrated
Emergency Management.**

**Integrated Emergency Management (IEM)**

-   Another **fundamental** of U.S. emergency management is referred to
    as **Integrated Emergency Management (IEM).**

-   This fundamental **is not to be confused with the Integrated
    Emergency Management System (IEMS)**, which was dealt with in the
    history session.

-   IEMS was adopted by FEMA in the 1983-84 timeframe to:

(1) **Improve U.S. hazard and disaster management functions** (Perry and
    Mushkatel 1986, 130), and

(2) **Broaden Congressional support for an enhanced civil defense
    budget.**

-   **Its goal was, and still is, to develop and maintain credible
    emergency management capabilities nationwide for all types of
    emergencies at all levels of government.**

-   IEMS seeks a **continual upgrading** of emergency management
    capabilities and **a reduction of duplicated efforts and resources
    through joint, community-wide planning** -- i.e., **the integration
    of hazard, disaster and emergency management roles and
    responsibilities throughout a political jurisdiction and into the
    community it serves.**

> **"IEMS...seeks to achieve a more complete integration of emergency
> management planning into mainstream state and local policy-making and
> operational systems."** (FEMA 1993 (Sep), 1-9).

-   It is **applicable to all jurisdictions regardless of size or level
    of sophistication**, even though not all are confronted by the same
    hazards, and not all have or require the same capability.

-   Today, the concept of IEM remains valid, but scholars are also
    seeing the value of moving emergency management objectives into
    other organizations' objectives as well. Optimally, **planning,
    training and exercising will be more successful when they are not
    solely the purview of an office of emergency management, but when
    emergency management concerns are integrated into other
    organizations' plans, procedures, and operations**.

-   Some scholars suggest a **necessary shift away from an emphasis on
    response and recovery toward mitigation**, with the concept as IEM
    as a critical link.

-   Laurie Pearce, for example, in a review of Australian and American
    research findings determines that:

> "They urge the field of disaster management to **shift its focus from
> response and recovery to sustainable hazard mitigation.** It is argued
> that in order for this shift to occur, it is **necessary to integrate
> disaster management and community planning.** Current practice seldom
> reflects such a synthesis, and this is one of the reasons why hazard
> awareness is absent from local decision-making processes. . . it is
> asserted that **if mitigative strategies are to be successfully
> implemented, then the disaster management process must incorporate
> public participation at the local decision-making level. . . when
> public participation is integrated into disaster management planning
> and community planning, the result is sustainable hazard
> mitigation.**"[^7]
>
> "Although disaster management planning has not traditionally been
> linked with community planning, the emerging focus on sustainable
> hazard mitigation clearly calls for the integration of these two
> disciplines. It is also clear **that any successful approach to
> sustainable hazard mitigation must be participatory in nature and must
> be linked with the local decision-making level**."[^8]

-   Consider, for example, transportation systems, which are essential
    to society:

> "Transportation systems provide an essential function to society by
> allowing the movement of people and goods. These systems provide the
> mobility that allows us to travel, to go to work, school, and play.
> They allow the movement of goods we consume, and are key to commerce
> and economic activity**. They are lifelines without which citizens and
> businesses could not function. Transportation represents a substantial
> share of a country's gross domestic product (11% for the U.S.)**
>
> "These systems **are exposed to hazards that can cause rare events
> with huge consequences and devastating effects on the transportation
> infrastructure and the economy** of the affected region."[^9]

-   Amar Chakar, of the American Society of Civil Engineers, writes
    about the effects of varied hazards on the transportation system:

> "The occurrence of these events results from geological hazards (e.g.,
> earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis), climactic hazards (e.g., floods,
> windstorms, snow storms, ice storms, hail storms, avalanches,
> mudslides), or man-made hazards (e.g., accidents explosions, tunnel
> fires, discharge of hazardous materials, intentional damage. These
> events cause a number of primary and secondary effects that can lead
> to the failure of portions of the transportation networks."[^10]

-   Chakar (2001, 2) discusses the interaction among different modes of
    transport and points out that:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "Transportation infrastructure is very costly, and each year a
    substantial share of a nation's resources is required to build,
    expand, and maintain it.

-   Although private ownership of transportation infrastructure exists,
    it is rare, and the overwhelming majority of such infrastructure is
    owned by public entities and publicly funded (hence the expression,
    "public works").

-   Transportation infrastructure is usually not insured (or the owner
    is self-insured).

-   Transportation planning needs to consider many issues such as
    financing, traffic congestion, air quality, the environmental
    impact, and scenic and historic preservation. It seldom considers
    the overall effect of the planned infrastructure on the
    vulnerability of the larger transportation system, particularly
    since disaster events tend to be infrequent."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   And provides numerous examples of how earthquakes can cause:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Bridge collapse.

-   Damage to airport control tower and landing strips

-   Pipeline rupture.[^11]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Floods, too, have extensively disrupted highway systems and caused
    pipelines to be floated.[^12]

-   As an example of planning outside of the office of emergency
    management, Chakar relates that **"Transport authorities usually
    have emergency response plans for the systems under their
    responsibility**."[^13]

> "**The San Francisco Association of Bay Area Governments has developed
> an excellent example of a comprehensive plan**, although it does not
> address other possible hazards such as wildfires, technological or
> man-made hazards. It considers such topics as:

-   **Recovery from transportation disruptions after earthquakes.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Riding out future quakes---estimates of road closures.**"[^14]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Finally, Chakar recommends ways to reduce gaps in implementation:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "Where missing, enact and enforce legislation requiring the use of
    appropriate performance standards for all infrastructure components.

-   Explore innovate sources of funding for mitigation activities.

-   Provide training to the personnel involved in mitigation activities.

-   Disseminate information on mitigation technology.

-   Disseminate the message that disasters are not inevitable, that
    knowledge and technology exist today, that allow effective
    mitigation.[^15]

**What to Do**

-   In 2001, the Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) conducted a
    survey of certified planners in the United States on the extent to
    which natural hazards are integrated into local comprehensive plans
    or general plans.

> "Results of the survey show that **communities in states that mandate
> planning or hazards elements in local plans are indeed planning for
> safety**. However**, many communities fail to identify natural hazard
> issues in their comprehensive or general plans. They also lack
> specific data, policies, or implementation strategies for natural
> hazard loss reduction**. However, **most planners who responded said
> that they are interested in putting natural hazards information and
> loss reduction strategies into local plans**."[^16]

-   These key points arise from the IBHS survey (2002, p. 2):

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Land use planning is the most effective approach** for long-term
    reduction of community vulnerability from multiple hazards, while
    education, emergency response and hazard control measures were
    considered important, but less critical.

-   **Damages from natural hazards can be minimized** in communities
    where local comprehensive plans have considered them.

-   **Inclusion of hazards or safety elements in comprehensive plans
    help to minimize the contradictions in ordinances** that address
    other community values, such as aesthetics, environmental
    preservation and affordability.

-   **Hazards safety policies within community plans can create an
    environment in which it is easier to implement zoning ordinances and
    building code requirements**.

-   **Hazards safety policies can help inform various municipal
    departments, developers, and the public about the extent and
    magnitude of natural hazard risks in the community**.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Yet,

> **"A significant number of communities lack a general or comprehensive
> plan, and even communities with a certified planner on staff are
> generally scoring low on including natural hazards information in
> local plans."**[^17]

-   Furthermore, the survey points to "**the difficulty planners have
    finding accurate data on hazards, including hazard maps**."
    (2002, p. 5)

-   Confirming the usefulness of an IEM approach:

> "Research shows that **broad stakeholder involvement in the planning
> process makes plans stronger and easier to carry out**. Communities
> that coordinate internally and with bordering jurisdictions help to
> **communicate the goals and objectives of their local plan and reduce
> conflicts with other competing interests and needs**." (IBHS 2002, p.
> 5)

-   Finally, the IBHS study finds little encouragement in existing
    priorities, but provides the following recommendations to change the
    status quo:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Build public demand** for natural hazards through collaboration
    with the American Planning Association and other groups.

-   **Provide additional funding** for communities to improve their
    plans.

-   **Educate elected officials** at all levels of government about the
    importance of natural hazards planning.

-   **Provide consistent and accurate technical assistance** to
    communities seeking to adopt or update plans with hazard elements.

-   **Educate community officials, including planners, about the
    availability of pre- and post-disaster resources** to help improve
    local plans. (2002, 16)

*You may wish to remind the students that the next session will include
the four phases of emergency management and the concept of building
disaster-resilient communities.*

### References

Allinson, Robert E. 1993. *Global Disasters: Inquiries Into Management
Ethics*. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bolin, Robert, with Lois Stanford. 1998. *The Northridge Earthquake:
Vulnerability and Disaster*. London and New York: Routledge.

Briese, Garry, Executive Director, IAFC, "Identifying Future Challenges
Faced by the Fire Service," November 17, 1999

Britton, Neil R. 1998. "Safeguarding New Zealand's Future: Emergency
Management's Role in Shaping the Nation." *Foresight*, September, pp.
1-12.

Center for the Advancement of Risk Management Education (CARME). 1999.
*Risk Management for Public Entities* (RMPE 352 Course Guide). Malvern,
PA: Insurance Institute of America, CARME, cserv@cpcuiia.org.

Chakar, Amar. "Improving the Global Disaster Resiliency of
Transportation Systems*." Global Blueprints for Change*. First
Edition---Prepared in conjunction with the International Workshop on
Disaster reduction convened on August 19-22, 2001

Coleman, Ronney J. and John A. Granito (eds.). 1988. *Managing Fire
Services* 2nd ed. Washington, DC: International City Management
Association.

Cutter, Susan L. 1993. *Living With Risk: The Geography of Technological
Hazards*. London and New York: Edward Arnold.

Disaster and Emergency Reference Center. 1998. (ed.). *Disaster
Management Glossary*. Edited by Krisno Nimpuno. Delft, the Netherlands:
Disaster and Emergency Reference Center.

Drabek, Thomas. 1985. Managing the Emergency Response. *Public
Administration Review* 45 (January): 85-92.

Drabek, Thomas. 1998. See FEMA/EMI 1998a.

Drabek, Thomas. 1991. "The Evolution of Emergency Management." Chapter 1
(pp.3-29) in *Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local
Government*, Thomas E. Drabek and Gerard J. Hoetmer (eds.) Washington,
DC: International City Managers Association

*Emergency Preparedness News*. Business Publishers, Inc. Silver Spring,
MD.

FEMA. 1990. *Definitions of Terms.* (Instruction 5000.2.) Washington,
DC: FEMA, April 4.

FEMA. 1993. *Principal Threats Facing Communities and Local Emergency
Management Coordinators*. A Report to the United States Senate Committee
on Appropriations. Washington, DC: FEMA, April.

FEMA. 1993 (September). *The Emergency Program Manager* (Independent
Study 1). Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1995. *Introduction to Emergency Management* (Student Manual
230)*.* Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1996. Appendix B: Government's Role in Emergency Management, in
*Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management*.
Emmitsburg, MD: U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Academy
December.

FEMA. 1996. *Disaster Response and Recovery Operations* Instructor
Guide. Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA 1998 (March). *FEMA Professional, Session 4* (Instructor Guide).
Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1998. *The Political and Policy Basis of Emergency Management.*
Written by Richard Sylves for the Higher Education Project. FEMA:
Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1998a. *Social Dimensions of Disaster.* Written by Thomas Drabek
for the Higher Education Project. Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management
Institute.

FEMA. 1998b. *Weapons of Mass Destruction---Nuclear Scenario* Instructor
Guide. Emmitsburg MD: Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA. 1998 (May). *Principles of Emergency Management* (Student Manual
and Instructor Guide G230). Emmitsburg, MD: Emergency Management
Institute.

Hewitt, K. 1983. *Interpretations of Calamity from the Perspective of
Human Ecology.* London: Allen and Unwin.

Institute for Business & Home Safety. 2002. *Are We Planning Safer
Communities? Results of a National Survey of Community Planners and
Natural Disasters*.

Lerberger, Otto. 1997. *The Crisis Manager---Facing Risk and
Responsibility*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lindell, Michael K., and Ronald Perry. 1992. *Behavioral Foundations of
Community Emergency Planning.* Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

Neal, David M. 1997. "Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster."
*International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters*, Vol. 15, No.
2, 239-264.

NFPA 1600. 2000. *NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management
and Business Continuity Programs, 2000 Edition*. Quincy, MA: National
Fire Protection Association.

Olshansky, Robert and Jack Kartez. 1998. Managing Land Use to Build
Resilience. In Raymond Burby (ed.), *Cooperating With Nature:
Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable
Communities.* Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press (1998). Citing Peter
Rossi, et al., *Natural Hazards and Public Choice: The State and Local
Politics of Hazard Mitigation* (New York: Academic Press 1982).

Pearce, Laurie. "Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public
Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation." *Natural
Hazards* 28: 211-228. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003

Perry, Ronald, and Alvin Mushkatel. 1986. *Minority Citizens in
Disasters.* Athens and London: University of Georgia Press. Perry and
Mushkatel cite Marjorie Greene and Paula Gori, *Earthquake Hazards
Information Dissemination: A Study of Charleston, South Carolina*. Open
File Report 82-233. (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 1986.)

Quarantelli, Enrico. 1992. The Case for a Generic Rather than Agent
Specific Approach to Disasters. *Disaster Management* 2 (1992): 191-196.

Salter, John. 1997-1998. Risk Management in the Emergency Management
Context. *The Australian Journal of Emergency Management,* 12 no. 4
(Summer): 28.

Schneider, Saundra K. 1995. *Flirting with Disaster---Public Management
in Crisis Situations.* Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Shaw, Greg. 1999. *Business and Industry Crisis Management* (FEMA
Emergency Management Higher Education Project Course). Emmitsburg, MD:
Emergency Management Institute.

Simeon Institute. 1998. *Penultimate Glossary of Emergency Management
Terms*. Claremont, CA: The Simeon Institute. Downloaded from web site
address: <http://www.cyberg8.com/simeon/glossary.html>

Definitions from the Simeon Institute are obtained from unattributed
sources.

Smith, Keith. 1996. *Environmental Hazards---Assessing Risk and Reducing
Disaster* (2^nd^ ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand. *Australian/New Zealand
Standard---Risk Management.* Strathfield, Australia: Standards
Australia, 1995.

Stanley, Ellis M. Sr. and William Lee Waugh, Jr. "Emergency Managers for
the New Millennium," *Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management*. Ali
Farazmand, Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel

Sylves, Richard. 1998. *See* FEMA. EMI. 1998.

United Nations, Department of Humanitarian Affairs. 1992.
*Internationally Agreed Glossary of Basic Terms Related to Disaster
Management* (DNA/93/36). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.

Victorian Department of Justice. 1997. *Emergency Management Manual
Victoria.* Melbourne, Australia.

Zubeck, Pam. Floodplain Mismanaged, Group Says." *Colorado Springs
Gazette*, April 25.2002.

[^1]: Pam Zubeck. Floodplain Mismanaged, Group Says." *Colorado Springs
    Gazette*, April 25, 2002.

[^2]: *Ibid.*

[^3]: *Ibid*.

[^4]: *Ibid.*

[^5]: Ellis M. Stanley, Sr. and William Lee Waugh, Jr. "Emergency
    Managers for the New Millennium," *Handbook of Crisis and Emergency
    Management*. Ali Farazmand, Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel.
    p. 701.

[^6]: Stanley and Waugh, p. 699

[^7]: Laurie Pearce. "Disaster Management and Community Planning, and
    Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation."
    *Natural Hazards* 28: 211-228. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, p.
    21

[^8]: Pearce. 2003, p. 226

[^9]: Chakar, Amar. "Improving the Global Disaster Resiliency of
    Transportation Systems*." Global Blueprints for Change*. First
    Edition---Prepared in conjunction with the International Workshop on
    Disaster reduction convened on August 19-22, 2001. p. 1

[^10]: Chakar. 2001, p. 2

[^11]: *Ibid.*

[^12]: *Ibid*.

[^13]: Chakar. 2001, p. 6

[^14]: Chakar. 2001, p. 7

[^15]: Chakar. 2001, p. 11

[^16]: Institute for Business & Home Safety. 2002. *Are We Planning
    Safer Communities? Results of a National Survey of Community
    Planners and Natural Disasters*. p. i

[^17]: IBHS. 2002. p. 4