September 11, is an unforgettable date in the history of the United States. The coordinated series of attacks that were executed by the dreaded Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda exposed a poor disaster management system in the country. Following the disastrous attack, the government formulated new emergency response systems dedicated to mitigating both man-made and natural disasters. Despite federal government high investment in disaster risk reduction, the gap between disaster preparedness and mitigation raises tough questions on government's efforts to protect citizens from physical, social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities. According to Baxter (2013), mitigation and preparedness are two different things. Mitigation refers to the actions and decisions employed to eliminate long-term risks to hazards, whereas preparedness involves measures put in place to improve emergency response. In disaster management, vulnerability is a concept that is used to define circumstances that surround physical, social, economic, and environmental factors that increases a community susceptibility to hazards and the impacts of hazards. Vulnerability is a complex subject. According to Singh, Eghdami, & Singh (2014), the concept of vulnerability goes beyond understanding a society’s history in regards to disaster management and includes the society’s knowledge about risks.
The concept of vulnerability can be explained by elaborating on the multidisciplinary theories that support the technical and social origins. Studies show that political, physical, social, and environmental factors influence social vulnerability which puts communities on the risks of harm. As Franco, Yang & Hammer (2012), suggest, disasters can lead to severe long-term impacts disrupting community services. Social vulnerability assessments assume that different communities have different access to resources necessary for the preparation and recover from disaster circumstances. The National Research Council (US) (2006) defines the two general categories of hazard vulnerability; the physical hazards and the social hazards. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), any threat to physical structures and infrastructure, resulting in economic loss is classified under physical threats. They may include housing designs, the remoteness of a community settlement, density levels, poor buildings, roads, and infrastructure. On the contrary, all threats that jeopardize the well-being of societies, for instance, diseases and injuries, they are classified under social vulnerabilities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The paradigms for quantitative and qualitative assessments of vulnerability are conducted to determine the level of threat posed to society. Quantitative assessment occurs when the degree of loss caused due to exposure of a population to the impacts of hazards can be quantitatively measured. Otherwise, if the impacts of hazards cannot be quantitatively measured, a qualitative assessment is used. Both quantitative and qualitative assessments of vulnerabilities are essential in mitigating natural hazard risks.
When a disaster is declared in the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) coordinates and organizes response teams in support of local and state emergency response units. The response teams must respond quickly to save lives, protect property, and provide any other support that may be required by the victims in the aftermath of the disaster.
Disasters such as rising floods and hurricanes have warnings, and therefore, the emergency response teams are put on high alert; thus, establishing mitigation procedures to protect the citizens from the results of the catastrophes. Other disasters such as earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and lightening happen to occur without warnings. When an unanticipated disasters strike at the local levels, the local governments respond swiftly in collaboration with voluntary agencies to manage the damage caused. FEMA is alerted if the level of the disaster overwhelms the resources at the local government. At that point, the local government seeks support from the state and federal assistance. Therefore, the local government is the first provider of response emergency services when a disaster strikes. The next action taken by local governments is the activation of the emergency operations center (EOM). This ensures a proper flow of activities and coordination of activities during disaster management. The local government informs the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) of the scope of the situation by repeatedly issuing situation reports (SITREP). The third action that local governments may take during disasters is proclaiming a local state of emergency depending on the scope of the disaster. Eventually, if the disaster overwhelms the resources at the local government, assistance from the State Emergency Management Agency is requested.
The role of the state in disaster response and management comes into play when the local jurisdiction lacks adequate resources needed to respond to a disaster. It is worth to note that local jurisdictions have direct links to the federal programs. The only way local jurisdictions can access federal programs is through state governments. Therefore, a disaster in the local government that requires federal assistance is facilitated through state governments. But before federal assistance is requested, the state government must first monitor and evaluate the situation at the local government. Federal disaster declaration can be confirmed when the state government evaluates and determines the situation at the local government is past the capability of the state government. If the situation is declared a state of emergency, federal assistance may as well be required.
References
Singh, S. R., Eghdami, M. R., & Singh, S. (2014). The concept of social vulnerability: A review from disasters perspectives. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies , 1 (6), 71-82.
National Research Council (U.S.). (2006). Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions . Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
Baxter, J. (2013). Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards . US Department of Homeland Security. FEMA.
Franco, D. O., Yang, L. I., & Hammer, A. E. (2012). Critical Infrastructure and Economic Impact Considerations for Recovery from Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Incidents . SANDIA NATIONAL LABS ALBUQUERQUE NM.
