Different types of disasters and planning implications.
Material type:
TextLanguage: ENG Series: Preliminary paper (University of Delaware. Disaster Research Center) ; 169Publication details: 1991Description: 32 pSubject: Discusses how popular thinking, much disaster planning and some hazard research has tended to conceive of disasters in agent specific terms, that is, as hurricanes, chemical explosions, earthquakes, radiation fallouts, etc. Notes that while common sense and traditional views of different disaster types are not particularly useful for planning purposes, disasters do differ along certain dimensions. Briefly examines whether our generic approach is equally applicable to different phases or stages of disater planning. In general, it is noted that a generic and a dimensional approach to disasters is especially valid for dealing with emergency preparedness and response activities. And while more of a case for an agent specific approach can be made for some aspects of planning for mitigating and recovering from disasters, a generic approach also seems generally valid for these phases too. Concludes with a brief consideration as to whether there are social occasions that should be characterized as catastrophes and seen as somewhat different than disasters. The general view is that catastrophes in their social manifestations do appear to be both quantatively and qualitatively different from those which are called disasters. If so, planning for the latter may not be adequate enough for the former
| Item type | Current library | Collection | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Books
|
Australian Emergency Management Library | BOOK | 363.348 DIF (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available | 008855689 |
Browsing Australian Emergency Management Library shelves, Collection: BOOK Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
"Written remarks prepared for background to oral presentation at the Emergency Planning '91 Conference in September 1991 at Lancaster University, England"
Bibliography: p. 31-32
Discusses how popular thinking, much disaster planning and some hazard research has tended to conceive of disasters in agent specific terms, that is, as hurricanes, chemical explosions, earthquakes, radiation fallouts, etc. Notes that while common sense and traditional views of different disaster types are not particularly useful for planning purposes, disasters do differ along certain dimensions. Briefly examines whether our generic approach is equally applicable to different phases or stages of disater planning. In general, it is noted that a generic and a dimensional approach to disasters is especially valid for dealing with emergency preparedness and response activities. And while more of a case for an agent specific approach can be made for some aspects of planning for mitigating and recovering from disasters, a generic approach also seems generally valid for these phases too. Concludes with a brief consideration as to whether there are social occasions that should be characterized as catastrophes and seen as somewhat different than disasters. The general view is that catastrophes in their social manifestations do appear to be both quantatively and qualitatively different from those which are called disasters. If so, planning for the latter may not be adequate enough for the former
There are no comments on this title.