Session No. 13

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

Emergency Management

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

Time: 1 Hour

Objectives:

13.1 To describe the concept of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM)
or "All- Hazards" emergency management.

13.2 To describe the functional approach to All-Hazards emergency
management.

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

**Scope:**

To begin this session, the professor describes the hazard-specific
approach to emergency planning that was common prior to the issuance of
the 1978 report of the National Governor's Association. The students
examine the issues that the report brought to light and the
recommendations that the Governors provided to enable jurisdictions to
institute the concept of "comprehensive" or "all-hazard" emergency
management. An overview of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM)
provides a definition and objectives---specifically, a new approach that
includes the principles of all hazards, all actors, and all phases.
Following the overview, the professor provides the students with a brief
outline of how they will encounter the principles as they are broken out
in this session and the two following sessions. Next, the focus turns to
the concept of all-hazards emergency management, defining functionalism
and providing examples of emergency management functions. The professor
will discuss all-hazards planning versus the hazard-specific approach
and how a growing focus on emergency services funding influences
planning, and the implications of that influence. Finally, the professor
relates the benefits of the all-hazard approach and provides a
transition to the following session that will discuss the all-actors
approach.
**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Suggested Student Homework Reading Assignment:

To be determined.

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

**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 I of a three-part
breakout of the topic, Fundamentals of U.S. Emergency Management. It
includes an overview of the concept of Comprehensive Emergency
Management (CEM) and materials on the all-hazard approach. The following
two sessions (Sessions 14 and 15) will round out the topic, as outlined
on page 8 of these notes. Session 15 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 13.1 To describe the concept of Comprehensive Emergency
Management (CEM) or "All-Hazards" emergency management.**

**Overview: Comprehensive Emergency Management**

A fundamental component of U.S. emergency management is referred to as
"All-Hazards" or "Comprehensive" Emergency Management (CEM). That is,
today, CEM is considered to be the same as "all-hazards" emergency
management, whereas it originally meant, "emergency management the way
it ought to be."

**Not that many years ago, government at all levels used to prepare for
disaster using a hazards-specific approach -- an earthquake plan, a
hazardous-materials spill plan, a severe storm plan, etc.**

-   Thus, if you had walked into an Office of Emergency Management in a
    jurisdiction that was vulnerable to a number of hazards you would
    have **found a similar number of disaster plans, one for each hazard
    confronting that jurisdiction**.

-   In addition, within the community you would likely have found a
    number of various other disaster plans in other public and private
    sector organizations -- often not coordinated with others or perhaps
    even unknown to other disaster planners.

-   For example, from a 1982 report on disaster planning in the U.S. the
    author notes that:

    **"In one community the following separate plans and procedures
    existed:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the county disaster plan;

-   a separate emergency plan for each school prepared by the principal;

-   an overall school emergency procedure planning guide;

-   a storm response manual for both gas and electricity prepared by the
    utility;

-   planning procedures for the fire department;

-   a police department emergency plan;

-   a citywide post-disaster cleanup plan;

-   a countywide post-disaster plan;

-   an emergency medical services response plan;

-   and an emergency plan for each of the military facilities in the
    area.

    **Few of these plans are referenced or coordinated with each
    other"** (Perry and Mushkatel 1986, 142-143).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   As you may recall from the previous history session, this was a
    concern expressed by the **National Governor's Association 1978
    Report on Emergency Preparedness** -- a concern and lexicon that was
    eventually taken up by the Federal Emergency Management Agency upon
    its creation in 1979-1980.

-   For example, the report described **problems of fragmentation,
    insufficient coordination, integration, and comprehensiveness**:

> **". . . no state as far as we know, has centrally integrated policy
> and coordination for all phases, for all types of emergencies, and all
> levels of participation."**[^1]

-   The report was critical of what was then a narrow interpretation of
    emergency management, dealing with mostly **preparedness and
    response**.

> **"**Many state emergency operations are **limited to planning and
> implementing response mechanisms, emphasizing natural disasters. . .
> their 'preparedness' mandate is interpreted in the narrow sense of
> planning and implementing response** mechanisms for disasters,
> **overlooking opportunities to integrate mitigation and long-term
> recovery activities."**[^2]
>
> **"Few state emergency plans have substantive mitigation or long-term
> recovery** sections, nor do they relate to **overall state community
> development plans. . . no Governor or SEO \[State Emergency Office\]
> interviewed saw mitigation or long-term recovery as SEO
> responsibilities."**[^3]
>
> "The most striking observation is the **relative paucity of mitigation
> activity**."[^4]

-   **Federal** government personnel were seen as inadequately prepared:

> "Federal officials, especially those who operate in the regions or the
> states, **should receive better training and orientation to the
> problems, resources, and methods of state governments**."[^5]

-   **State** emergency managers should have credibility with State and
    local agencies, good working relationships with Federal agencies,
    and:

> "Can not only oversee the state Emergency Services (preparedness and
> response) office. . . **but coordinate the mitigation and long-term
> recovery activities for civil emergencies of all types. . . with all
> appropriate public and private organizations."**[^6]

-   And **local** civil defense agencies should evolve into emergency
    management entities.

> **"Local governments should recognize and upgrade, where needed, the
> responsibilities of local civil defense coordinators to emergency
> management coordinators for all hazards**." (National Governor's
> Association Policy Position A 19, passed unanimously at NGA Annual
> Meeting, Boston, MA, August 29, 1978; reprinted in NGA 1978, p. 367.)

-   On the **professionalism** of local emergency managers:

> **". . . some local officials appoint unqualified people to local
> civil defense director positions which are poorly paid or non-paid.**
> They \[Governors\] urge local officials' fuller understanding of the
> **all-risk nature of the local coordination jobs, job description, and
> upgrading and salary augments where needed."**[^7]
>
> "All state emergency offices expressed the need for **greater
> understanding on the part of local officials of the role of local
> civil defense directors and the 'dignification' or upgrading of their
> responsibilities**. Some stated the need for establishing **higher
> salary levels** for local civil defense directors **and making their
> jobs full-time."**[^8]

-   On the **four phases** of emergency management, and how they
    interrelate:

> " . . . Disaster activities are clustered into **four phases that have
> a temporal and functional relationship with disaster agents. . .
> Mitigation. . . Preparedness. . . . Response. . . Recovery**."[^9]
>
> " . . . we now have some empirical evidence to support the assumption
> that **the four phases of emergency management are related, each
> contributing to the other and to the overall effectiveness of
> emergency efforts**."[^10]

-   Recall from the history session that among the more important
    positions advocated by the NGA Report were:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Consolidation of disperse Federal programs. (This led to the
    creation of FEMA.)**

-   **Greater State and local discretion in the use of Federal funds.**

-   **Adoption of a Comprehensive Emergency Management philosophy.**

-   **Greater attention paid to mitigation and recovery.** (Drabek 1991,
    17-18)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The report **defined** Comprehensive Emergency Management:

> **"Comprehensive Emergency Management means integrating all actors, in
> all phases of emergency activity, for all types of disasters."**[^11]
>
> **"CEM refers to a state's responsibility and unique capability to
> manage all types of disasters by coordinating wide-ranging actions of
> numerous agencies. The 'comprehensive' aspect of CEM includes all four
> phases of disaster activity: mitigation, preparedness, response and
> recovery for all risks---attack, man-made, and natural---in a
> federal-state-local operating partnership."**[^12]

-   And **described its objectives**:

    **"The Comprehensive Emergency Management program should accomplish
    several objectives:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Reduce (if not eliminate) the incidence of high probability
    disasters;**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Reduce the damage (health, property, economy) caused by disasters
    that could not be prevented; and**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Reduce the costs of emergency response and disaster recovery,
    while increasing their effectiveness."** (NGA 1978, 138.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Thus, this is largely the way emergency management is done in the
    U.S. today, using principles that can briefly be stated as:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **All Hazards.**

-   **All Actors.**

-   **All Phases.**

*At this point, you may wish to provide the students with a brief
outline of how this session and the two sessions to follow will
introduce them to the principles of emergency management.*

-   Now that we have taken a look at the overall concept of
    Comprehensive, or All-Hazard, Emergency Management, this session and
    the two sessions that will follow it, will break out the principles
    of emergency management for further examination and discussion. Note
    that while the fundamental, Building Disaster Resilient Communities,
    is not a principle itself, it does encapsulate several principles in
    itself.

+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **1. Overview, Comprehensive Emergency            | **Session 13**   |
| Management**                                      |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| **2. All Hazards:**                               |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| -   Functionalism                                 |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **3. All Actors:**                                | **Session 14**   |
|                                                   |                  |
| -   The Intergovernmental Nature of EM            |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| ```{=html}                                        |                  |
| <!-- -->                                          |                  |
| ```                                               |                  |
| -   Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches             |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| -   Networking and Partnering                     |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| ```{=html}                                        |                  |
| <!-- -->                                          |                  |
| ```                                               |                  |
| -   Integrated Emergency Management               |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **4. All Phases:**                                | **Session 15**   |
|                                                   |                  |
| -   The Four Phases of Emergency Management (with |                  |
|     student activity)                             |                  |
|                                                   |                  |
| **5. Building Disaster Resilient Communities**    |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+

**Objective 13.1 To describe the functional approach to All-Hazards
emergency management.**

**All Hazards---Functionalism**

-   People working in emergency management eventually came to the
    realization that there is a range of functions that cut across
    hazards boundaries.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **The function of communication, for example, is the same function
    regardless if the hazard is an earthquake or a hurricane.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Because of this realization, and the difficulty of dealing with a
    large range of disaster plans, a "comprehensive" or "all-hazards"
    approach, which focuses on the types of functions that government
    performs regardless of the type of disaster, has been adopted by
    most jurisdictions.

### *Emergency Management Functions*

-   These include such common functions as:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Capability Assessment (or Community Profiling)**

-   **Capability Maintenance**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Testing and updating of plans**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Testing equipment**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Training and education programs**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Continuity of Government (or Operations)**

-   **Direction and Control**

-   **Essential Public Services (food, medical care, etc.) Maintenance**

-   **Evacuation & Sheltering**

-   **Hazard, Vulnerability, Risk Analysis or Assessment**

-   **Planning**

-   **Public Safety Maintenance**

-   **Resource Management**

-   **Warning and Communications, Emergency Public Information**

*You might wish to explain that the functions of emergency management
will be examined in more detail in a later session of this course.*

-   There is **nothing "magic" to this specific list** of functions --
    communications, for example could be broken out from warning and
    communications. One may encounter different categorizations in the
    literature \-- for example, FEMA's Federal Response Plan (1992) and
    State Capability Assessment for Readiness publication (1997) use a
    somewhat different listing. What matters is that in planning, an
    attempt be made to look for functional commonalties.

-   It is recognized, of course, that there are **unique features** to
    each hazard, so detailed **hazard specific annexes** to all-hazards
    plans do need to be developed.

    "Emergency management planning in the 1990s has often reflected our
    efforts to provide a rapid response to target specific hazards.
    Although we preach the 'all-hazard/all-risk approach to planning,'
    **we still continue** to spend much of our time **developing
    hazard-specific plans for response to hazardous materials, mass
    casualty events, terrorism---and especially, weapons of mass
    destruction."**[^13]

-   An example of how in many cases, however, typical plans focus on
    response:

    **"Prevention rarely gets the attention given to response.
    Engineering people out of harm's way is too often seen from a
    short-sighted approach as being too expensive or impractical**. . .
    simply count the number of mitigation plans vs. response plans. We
    have developed a broad range of plans suited to responding to the
    risks and hazards of our communities. We have **nuclear power plant
    evacuation procedures, dam safety warning plans** for dam breaches
    and flooding**, evacuation plans** for low-lying flood plans,
    **warning plans** for trailer parks during tornadoes, **power outage
    plans, water shortage plans, earthquake response plans, hurricane
    evacuation plans, air alert warning plans, communication outage
    plans---and even special event plans for demonstrations in
    anticipation of riots**.. . . In contrast, we may have **one
    mitigation plan.**"[^14]

    *You may wish to remind the students that mitigation will be
    examined in more detail in Session 15.*

-   How might hazard-specific planning relate to the approaches to
    emergency management (Emergency Services and Public Administration)
    that we studied in previous sessions? The following comments may be
    an indicator:

    "During the 1990s, our **expanded partnerships with the fire and
    rescue service and many law enforcement agencies have also
    influenced much of our planning process.** Emphasis on response
    planning often gave rise to plans that created specialty, rapid
    response teams in many jurisdictions. **FEMA and/or the Office of
    Justice Programs have funded the expansion of urban search and
    rescue teams, metropolitan medical strike teams, and first responder
    anti-terrorism equipment caches in major cities. The influx of these
    monies has influenced our emergency planning to support these
    responders. Our operational plans have been greatly influenced by
    the influx of fire service managers to the emergency management
    profession.**

    "Garry Briese, Executive Director of the International Association
    of Fire Chiefs, notes that in 1999, **72 percent** of 1,250 IAFC
    members surveyed **reported that emergency management was a
    component of their responsibility as fire chief**." (Briese,
    1999)[^15]

-   Some of the benefits of an all-hazard approach, in the words of
    Enrico Quarantelli:

    **"Apart from theoretical, logical or empirical research reasons for
    taking a generic or all hazard approach to disaster planning, there
    are also some practical ones. These include being:**

    **(a) cost-efficient in terms of expenditure of time, effort, money
    and resources;**

    **(b) a politically better strategy because it mobilizes a wider
    range of groups interested in disaster planning thus creating a more
    powerful constituency for the process;**

    **(c) a major way of avoiding duplication, conflict, overlaps, and
    gaps in preparedness activities and actual responses to disasters;
    and**

    **(d) a way of increasing efficiency as well as effectiveness in any
    organized effort to cope with disaster occasions**" (Quarantelli
    1992, 10).

-   Thus, an all-hazards approach:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Minimizes disaster response planning chaos.**

-   **Requires a functional approach.**

-   **Allows hazard specificity**

-   **Is cost-efficient**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Finally, another benefit of all-hazards emergency management is that
    it affords **cross-training opportunities** for responder
    organizations and helps **to avoid duplication of effort** -- in
    other words it facilitates a move toward an Integrated Emergency
    Management (IEM) approach.

*You may wish to remind the students that the Integrated Emergency
Management approach will be discussed in the next session.*

### 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[^1]: National Governors' Association (Hilary Whittaker, Project
    Director). 1979 (May). *State Comprehensive Emergency
    Management---Final Report of the Emergency Preparedness Project,
    Center for Policy Research, National Governors Association* (also
    referred to as*: 1978 Emergency Preparedness Project Final Report*).
    Washington, DC: Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. p. xiv

[^2]: NGA, 1978, p. 201

[^3]: NGA, 1978, p. xiv

[^4]: NGA, 1978, p. 44

[^5]: NGA, 1978, p. 219

[^6]: NGA, 1978, p. 133

[^7]: NGA, 1978, p. xvi

[^8]: NGA, 1978, p. 81)

[^9]: NGA, 1978, p. 63

[^10]: NGA, 1978, p. 106

[^11]: NGA, 1978. p. 111

[^12]: NGA, 1978. p. 203

[^13]: International Association of Emergency Managers. IAEM Bulletin.
    "Strategic Planning Moves Us Beyond Response Planning. IAEM
    Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 7, July 2000. p. 4

[^14]: *Ibid*.

[^15]: *Ibid*.