Ecological model of disaster management
Ecological Model of Disaster Management.
Beaton, R., Salazar, M. & Bridges, E.
University of Washington, School of Nursing
Oberle, M. & Thompson, J.,
University of Washington, School of Public Health and Community Medicine
Butterfield, P.
School of Nursing, Washington State University
Submitted to Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (in review)
1
Ecological model of disaster management
Abstract
An ecological model of disaster management is presented and described. The ecological
model of disaster management assumes that disaster planning, preparedness, response and recovery
all occur at various levels of organization. These nested levels or layers of increasing complexity
include the individual/family microcosm, the organizational, the community, the state, the federal
and the global macrocosm levels. The ecological model also hypothesizes that these levels interact
with one another and these interactions together determine the overall disaster planning,
preparedness, response and recovery outcomes. In addition to the features of the hazard/disaster
itself, it is also assumed that similar or parallel disaster planning, preparedness and response
elements as well as logistical challenges, the need for flexibility and sustainability and rehabilitation
elements occur at each level of ecological model depending on the disaster phase. It is also assumes
that the evaluation of response and recovery efforts can and should inform future planning and
preparedness efforts at every level. The ecological model of disaster management is contrasted
with the Haddon Matrix as well as the federal National Response Plan and the National Incident
Management System in terms of “goodness of fit” to both describe and explain disaster
management processes.
Word count = 195
2
Ecological model of disaster management
Introduction
Both natural and man-made hazards can result in disasters.1 Disasters may be defined as
“…any destructive event that disrupts the normal functioning of a community.” 2 Disasters
invariably cause property damage, illness, injuries and even death of such magnitude that outside
assistance is required. 3 The costs of ineffectual or suboptimal disaster management throughout all
phases of the disaster cycle (preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery), are difficult to
calculate, but are potentially prohibitive when excessive human suffering is considered. 4
Disaster preparedness, response and recovery pose challenges that are both daunting and
complex. Various disaster management models have been proposed that describe the sequence of
events and activities that occur in preparation for, during, and in the aftermath of disasters. 5,6,7
Disaster management also requires a recognition and an appreciation of the various organizational
levels involved (e.g. local, state, tribal and federal disaster agencies) and an understanding of the
interactions and interplay between these various organizational levels that occurs during all phases
of the disaster cycle.8 Shultz and his colleagues have developed an ecological contextual model of
disaster impact. 9 However, apparently there has not been a systematic effort to conceptualize and
create an ecological model or framework that emphasizes the interplay of the various organizational
levels during the disaster cycle. The ecological model described in this article provides both
general and specific examples of disaster planning, preparedness, response and recovery within the
context of this model.
This article initially describes the generic features of ecological models. Next, an ecological
model for all phases of disaster management is proposed. Applications of the ecological model to
both general and specific disaster scenarios are presented, with an emphasis on the interactions
among the various levels. Differences and similarities between this ecological model of disaster
3
Ecological model of disaster management
management and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response
Plan (NRP) are also identified.10, 11 Finally, limitations and strengths of the ecological model of
disaster management are considered.
Ecological Theory and Ecological Model of Disaster Management
The basic premise of ecological theory is that systems are dynamic, in flux and that
“everything is connected to everything else.” 12 Bronfenbrenner, in his groundbreaking treatise,
argued that human relationships and interaction can best be understood within an ecological context
conceptualized as various levels or layers of increasing organizational complexity. 13 Numerous
researchers have applied the ecological approach as a means to better describe and understand
complex human behaviors.14, 15, 16
Ecological models consist of a nested or layered arrangement of successive structural levels.
In the proposed model, these layers represent the various organizational levels of disaster
management. The proposed ecological model of disaster management also emphasizes the systemic
and mutual interconnectedness of the various levels of disaster management during each phase of
the disaster cycle (See Figure 1) In contrast to a “silo” orientation where disaster planning,
preparedness, response and recovery efforts often occur independently at the various levels of
organizational, this ecological model suggests that the various disaster management organizational
levels are mutually interdependent.
The ecological model shown in Figure 1 and assumes that each disaster management
planning, preparedness, response and recovery level is nested within increasingly more complex
organizational and contextual level(s). According to this conceptualization, each layer of the
ecological model of disaster management, and ultimately the effectiveness of the disaster
management efforts, depends upon the functional interactions among the various organizational
levels.12, 15, 16 While this model assumes that every disaster management organizational level
4
Ecological model of disaster management
interacts with every other level, it also assumes that the mutual interactions are strongest between
those most proximal nested level(s).
One inference this ecological model of disaster management is that the overall effectiveness
of disaster preparedness response and recovery efforts will depend disproportionately upon the least
prepared level involved. That is, the “weakest link” of any of the involved nested layers of the
ecological model will disproportionately impair overall disaster management. In general, disaster
management efforts will be diminished and less effective as a result of a lack of preparedness,
planning, response or recovery efforts at any one or more of the organizational levels or layers of
the ecological model.
Overview of the Levels of the Ecological Model of Disaster Management
The various levels of this ecological model of disaster management will initially be
described in general terms and the various elements of disaster management will be described
within the context of this model. Some specific exemplars of these ecological levels in terms of
various hazards will also be offered. At the same time the interactions and mutual
interdependencies of the various ecological levels of this disaster management model will be
highlighted. Planning, preparedness, response and recovery elements as well as disaster factors
affecting the response and recovery phases of this model will also be considered within the context
of this ecological framework.
Individual / Family System Level of the Ecological Model
Most preparedness agencies recommend that individuals and families develop their own
disaster plans and also recommend that they should compile resources (“disaster kits”) to survive on
their own for 3-7 days. Further, disaster planners recommend that families draw up formal escape
and evacuation plans and practice drilling them.17 In the case of a potential influenza pandemic
individuals and families will also need to practice basic hygiene, such as regular hand washing and
5
Ecological model of disaster management
to “cover their cough” to slow and deter the spread of this respiratory viral infection.18 Some
planners even recommend disaster specific annexes for family plans, such as to “shelter in place” in
response to a chemical or biological event.19 The degree to which individuals and families plan for
and heed these recommendations will dramatically impact the disaster response at the
organizational and community levels of the ecological model. A survey conducted in Florida in the
aftermath of the active 2004 hurricane season documented that nearly half (48.7%) of all Florida
residents had no evacuation plan before any of the four major 2004 hurricanes.20 To provide
another concrete example of the interaction between ecological levels, if health care providers feel
their own families’ safety is at risk or is compromised by a community-wide disaster they may be
unwilling to report to work at their clinic or medical center, limiting and adversely affecting the
capacity/capability of their medical facility’s disaster response.3
Another important aspect of the individual level disaster of preparedness and response
addresses the ability to provide assistance during the immediate post-disaster phase. One clear
lesson learned from prior disasters is that true first responders are often the disaster survivors
themselves.21 Individuals who possess first responder and emergency medical skills, such as first
aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation are able to provide aid to their own family members. Thus
this model is useful in understanding how individual/family actions augment and may contribute to
the organizational and community levels of the disaster response. 22
Organizational Level of The Ecological Model
The workplace, hospital, school community or other organizations are the next level of the
ecological model of disaster management. At this level, the focus is on the organizational system,
employees and facilities. In educational settings, organizational plans and preparedness efforts need
to focus on the faculty, staff and students.4 For medical facilities the focus is on healthcare
workers, staff and patients. Each workplace organization must have a disaster plan, evacuation
6
Ecological model of disaster management
routes and disaster supplies.23 Disaster training at the workplace can enhance workers’ skills (e.g.,
CPR, first aid), which can be critically important in the immediate aftermath of a disaster for their
co-workers, their families and other disaster victims.22 Also, organizations such as corporations
need to have disaster business continuity and recovery plans for economic, legal and ethical
reasons.24 Regional/community/city recovery efforts in the aftermath of a disaster will depend, to a
significant degree, on the economic resilience of the major employers.25 If downstream job losses
related to a disaster are significant and prolonged, this will adversely impact the recovery of the
disaster affected community, the community organizations as well as individuals and families
residing or working in that community.
The hospital or medical center is a special case of the organizational level in the context of
the ecological model of disaster management. In any disaster with large numbers of casualties the
ability of nearby medical facilities to screen, triage and treat disaster survivors, especially in the
post-disaster surge, will be critically important.2 All Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health
Care Organizations accredited hospitals are required to develop disaster plans and use an incident
command system.26, 27 The impact of a disaster on the surrounding community will be far greater
if, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina, the disaster itself disrupts or even shuts down operations
of one or more community medical facilities.28 Likewise, the long term loss of medical facilities
and personnel in the aftermath of certain disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, may have an enduring
adverse impact on the health and recovery of the entire disaster affected community.29
Community Level of the Ecological Model
The Red Cross maxim that “All disasters are local” generally refers to the initial
responsibilities of the local cities, municipalities or counties in which a disaster occurs.30 However,
consistent with the ecological model, the individual/family and local organization layers are nested
within this more complex community/city/county layer. While certain disaster management efforts
7
Ecological model of disaster management
can probably best be approached at the community level, a concerted effort must also be made to
encourage preparation and a partnership among individuals/families and community businesses and
organizations. Local health departments, Red Cross agencies, and emergency management
divisions affiliated with city and country governments are often the front-line, emergency
responders in a community-wide disaster. Likewise, many communities have now trained and
educated Community Emergency Response Team and Medical Reserve Corps volunteers.31, 32
Another crucial role of local disaster response agencies is to assess the impact of a disaster in terms
of casualties, damage to the community infrastructure and the local resources needed to respond to
the disaster. Assessment information and status updates need to be communicated to state
emergency management organizations to determine if, and what, state disaster response resources
might be needed. Local agencies in disaster affected communities are also important resources and
conduits for individuals, families and organizations in terms of disaster education, risk
communication and planning guidance.33
State Level of Ecological Model
When the resources and capabilities of a local community or jurisdiction are exceeded the
state may provide resources and assets that support and sustain local community disaster response
and recovery efforts. In each state emergency management organizations and state health
departments also plan and prepare for major disasters. State agencies provide training, education
and conduct exercises often in collaboration with local partners. Again, consistent with the
ecological model, there needs to be a coordinated and collaborative disaster planning, preparedness
and response effort involving the state and local disaster agencies to ensure an optimal disaster
response. As an example of collaborative state and local disaster planning preparedness efforts, the
State of Washington Department of Health recently convened an advisory group to consider policies
and procedures needed to distribute potentially scarce antiviral medications in the event of an
8
Ecological model of disaster management
influenza pandemic.34 This Antiviral Advisory Planning Group included representatives from local
public health departments and emergency management agencies as well as community medical
centers.
American Indian Tribal Level of the Ecological Model
In considering tribal preparedness within the ecological model it is important to note that
there are more than 550 federally recognized American Indian tribal organizations within the United
States. The unique legal relationship between the Federal government and tribes has been codified
in the US Constitution, treaties, statutes and case law. Each tribe is unique in its culture, tradition
and worldview.35 In terms of the ecological model, tribal disaster preparedness and response may
be complicated by jurisdictional issues at the tribal nations, state and federal levels.36 Gaps and
overlaps in service jurisdiction are common on tribal nations, with different nations holding
different views about the role of state and federal agencies on issues related to medical services,
civil defense, and law enforcement. Because organizations providing such services are also
involved in disaster response efforts, inter-organizational conflicts and lack of jurisdictional clarity
can mean that citizens living on tribal nations may encounter service gaps during and after a
disaster. Due to these complexities and tribal values addressing autonomy and it is imperative that
planning and preparedness efforts involving tribal nations include discussions among all the key
stakeholders. In addition, non-tribal municipalities located adjacent to tribal nations need to assess
their functions in relation to tribal-level services that also play a role in mitigating and/or
responding to disasters.37, 38
Federal Level of the Ecological Model
When a disaster exceeds the capabilities of both local and state authorities, the governor in
the affected state may request a presidential disaster declaration. In the event of a federal disaster
declaration needed federal resources (Emergency Service Functions: ESF’s 1-14) are made
9
Ecological model of disaster management
available to the disaster impacted communities. The National Response Plan (NRP) and National
Incident Management System (NIMS) are designed specifically to integrate federal, state and local
community disaster response agencies into a unified command.10, 11 The NRP, last updated May
25, 2006, is a detailed plan designed to coordinate the activities of federal, state, local, tribal, private
sector and non-governmental organizations in disaster prevention, mitigation response and
recovery. The NRP is an all hazards plan built on the template of NIMS, which provides a core set
of principles and organizational processes.
Global level of the Ecological Model
For truly catastrophic events that require a global level response, such as the Indian Ocean
tsunami of 2004, there are global assets available through the World Health Organization (WHO) as
well as non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), such as the International Red Cross. Global
assets and expertise were made available to aid the recoveries of countries whose ecosystems were
affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. For example, the United Nations Environment
Program created a task force to respond to requests for ecosystem(s) technical assistance from
tsunami affected countries.39 Additionally, there are governmental agencies with disaster response
and recovery missions, such as the Canadian Development Agency and the United States Agency
International Development.40,41 At this level of disaster management, there is a need for
cooperation and collaboration between these global agencies and the government(s) of the affected
country or countries.
Disaster Preparedness, Planning, Response and Recovery Elements
In the following sections preparedness, planning, response and recovery elements of disaster
management will be described. These elements or components refer to the disaster management
structures and/or process present at each phase of the disaster cycle. The ecological model of
10
Ecological model of disaster management
disaster management also assumes that similar or parallel preparedness elements are present at each
ecological layer and therefore need to be addressed at each level.
Pre-event Planning Elements
An inclusive planning process requires that all involved parties participate in planning so
that there is an understanding, agreement and consensus among participant groups or agencies
regarding the need for and the goals of a particular disaster plan. For example, an inclusive family
disaster planning process should involve all members of the family; an organizational disaster plan
should involve key representatives from all business divisions, sectors or facilities; and a
community disaster plan should include community leaders, representatives from professional and
volunteer disaster organizations, medical facilities, and key businesses and major employers.8
As part of the planning process potential hazards for relevant organizational levels need to
be identified. Hazards are situations or events that create danger and the potential for a disaster.
These hazards may be natural, technological or human-caused.1 Certain individuals, property,
facilities or communities may be more vulnerable to a particular hazard and this also needs to be
assessed as part of the planning process.42 For example, children and the elderly are more
vulnerable to cold environment hazards and to hypothermia.43 Certain residential areas downstream
from hazardous dams, for instance, are more vulnerable and more likely to sustain water damage
and succumb to destructive forces during flooding.44
An all-hazards approach to disaster management is a framework for disaster preparedness
that incorporates similar elements across all major types of disasters to maximize resources and
other planning elements.45 For example, a family disaster kit should include items and supplies
needed to prepare for and respond to most types of disasters. Disaster plan annexes are agent or
hazard specific approaches to disaster planning so that agents or hazards with relatively unique
features, such as a radiological emergency, are also included in comprehensive planning efforts. For
11
Ecological model of disaster management
example, to prepare for a radiological emergency a family disaster plan may include plans to shelter
in place or, depending on the radiologic emergency, plans to evacuate.17
Preparedness Elements
A key preparedness element is mitigation; that is, measures taken to reduce or potentially
eliminate a hazard as well as efforts to reduce the harmful impact of a particular hazard.46 At the
community level this may include building codes which are designed to lessen the impact of
earthquake or fire hazards.47 At the fire service department organizational level, mitigation efforts
might include mandated use of fire-retardant materials in coats, gloves and footwear used in fire
fighting.48 Logistical preparedness efforts include securing supplies and equipment needed to
respond to a hazard. At the individual/family level this might include stores of potable water and
food sufficient to last for several days.17 At the community level this may mean ample rescue and
fire equipment as well as trained personnel and/or hospital surge capacity.49 At the hospital
organizational level this may mean hospital surge capacity and the presence of back-up water and
power systems.27
Planning and preparing for command, control and communication during a disaster are
integral features of NIMS, but they are also important preparedness elements at every level of the
ecological model of disaster management.10 For example, plans for communication between
family members during, and in the immediate aftermath of a disaster are important, especially when
family members are separated. Another important line of communication that needs to be planned
for and established in a disaster response is that between community disaster agencies and local
medical facilities.50
Finally, training, drills and exercises are also essential pre-event preparedness elements.51
Family fire evacuation plans and routes should be drilled.52 Medical facilities need to test and
evaluate their disaster plans regularly to maintain accreditation.27 Large scale community and
12
Ecological model of disaster management
national disaster exercises such as the TopOff series are necessary to assess the preparedness and
response elements at these organizational levels.53 Important lessons can be learned from these
exercises which, when evaluated, can be used to identify disaster planning and preparedness
deficiencies.54, 55, 56
Disaster Response Elements
An effective disaster response also depends crucially upon post-disaster assessment,
situational awareness, communication, coordination, collaboration as well as command and control
elements. These response elements occur at every level of the ecological model. The ecological
model of disaster management also assumes that these disaster response elements need to occur
between and across (horizontally and vertically) organizational levels. For example, local, state and
federal disaster agencies responding to a particular disaster need to communicate in a timely fashion
and to coordinate their disaster response efforts. NIMS describes the multiagency coordination
systems that defines the interactive management component of disaster agencies engaged at the
federal, state, local and tribal levels.10 In terms of command and control during a disaster response,
the National Response Plan and NIMS also describe the emergency operational roles and
responsibilities of federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Health and Human Services.10, 11
The ecological model of disaster management further assumes that flexibility is a key
element of disaster response and recovery efforts (at every level). Due to their complexity and the
relatively unique characteristics of certain disasters, flexibility, ingenuity and imagination are often
required. For example, a deployed Disaster Medical Assistant Team may form a “strike team” from
its team membership to respond to the emergent needs of on-scene causalities to expedite patient
screening and triage.57 The alternative dogmatic approach (“plan-boundness”) can derail even well
conceived and exercised disaster response and recovery efforts.
13
Ecological model of disaster management
The ecological model of disaster management also assumes that logistical elements of a
disaster response will affect the outcome. At the family level this may include access or lack of
access to a family disaster kit due to the timing and nature of the disaster. Logistical challenges to
community-wide disasters can arise when, for example, transportation in or out of the disaster
affected community is affected as was the case in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.58
Finally, the ecological model also assumes the disaster response and recover is influenced
by various aspects of a disaster/hazard event itself, such as the type, scope and severity. For
example, a radiologic emergency that is either accidental or intentional may involve exposures or
contamination issues that are both short-term and long-term. A radiologic emergency would also
likely engender fear and psychological stress in those who may have been exposed as well as
potentially large number of “worried well” with little or no exposure.59
Disaster Recovery Elements
Disaster recovery efforts are hypothesized to be influenced by sustainability and
rehabilitation elements. At the federal level, the sustainability elements might include the ability to
provide shelter for disaster victims during a prolonged recovery effort. At the community level
rehabilitation might include long-term recovery projects designed to rebuild a community’s
infrastructure or to return business activity and employment to predisaster levels. Recovery also
includes emotional and psychological recovery of individuals, families, organization and
communities affected by a disaster.4
Disaster Management Evaluation Component
Incorporating features of the Red Cross’ Disaster Cycle Model, the ecological model of
disaster management also hypotheses that evaluation of disaster response and disaster recovery
efforts (such as formal After Action Reports and systematic “Lessons Learned modalities”)
provides valuable feedback that can influence and inform future disaster planning and preparedness
14
Ecological model of disaster management
efforts at every level.60,61 The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation program, for instance,
includes detailed guidance designed to ensure that exercise outcomes and evaluation feedback are
translated into improved disaster plans and preparedness.62
Similarities and Differences Between Ecological Model and the NRP and NIMS
The National Response Plan, or NRP, describes how the Federal Government will work in
concert with state, local and tribal governmental agencies as well as the private sector in a domestic
disaster response.11 The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a unified approach to
disaster management employing standard command and management structures.10 NRP is an all
hazards plan that is built on the template of NIMS. The ecological model of disaster management
and the NRP/NIMS emphasize the importance of inter-organization communication, collaboration
and coordination in disaster planning, preparedness, response and recovery efforts. NRP/NIMS
emphasize the importance of a unified command when there is more than one agency with incident
jurisdiction or when an incident occurs across political jurisdictions. Both NRP/NIMS and the
ecological model embrace a systems approach to disaster management.
NRP and NIMS differ from the ecological model in various ways. NRP and NIMS focus
more on the command and control structural elements of the disaster response and are more
pragmatic in their orientation(s) compared to the ecological model.10, 11 The ecological model, on
the other hand, is more conceptual and considers a broader array of systemic components. Another
difference is that, the NRP and NIMS focus less on the individual citizen and organizational levels
of disaster management compared to the ecological model. NRP and NIMS on the other hand,
focus more on local, state and tribal and federal disaster response authorities. The ecological
model of disaster management also includes a global level, which could be important in certain
exceedingly large scale disasters.10, 11 The focus of NRP and NIMS is chiefly domestic disaster
management.
15
Ecological model of disaster management
Strengths of the Ecological Model
The ecological model of disaster management is presented here as a comprehensive systems
model of disaster planning, preparedness, response and recovery. This is apparently one of the first
attempts to employ an ecological framework to describe, and analyze the structures and processes of
disaster management. It incorporates many of the elements of the NRP/NIMS approach and is, at
the same time, broader in scope. The ecological model may help disaster planners in their efforts
to address certain organizational levels or elements that may be overlooked or underrepresented in
current plans. Likewise, it may aid in the evaluation of disaster (or exercise) outcomes. It may also
assist disaster response and recovery personnel in a similar manner.
The planning for and the actual deployment of the Strategic National Stockpile illustrates the
interactions of most of the levels of the ecological model. While the global level is not typically
involved in this example, the planning for and the actual deployment of the SNS illustrates the roles
and interactions of the federal, tribal, state, local, organizational and individual, and family levels of
the ecological model. The federal authorities, specifically the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) manage and oversee the SNS program. The SNS consists of a cache of medical
equipment, medical and surgical supplies, pharmaceuticals and airway supplies.63 One of the
elements of the SNS, 12 hour Push Packages, can be deployed if an act of terrorism, a large-scale
natural disaster or a disease outbreak occurs that exceeds locally available resources and requires a
rapid distribution of medications, vaccines and/or medical supplies to treat or prevent illness or
injuries in large numbers of individuals. If the local need surpasses local assets, state authorities
can formally request federal assets in order to provide large-scale post-exposure prophylaxis or
treatment of an affected population. The requesting authorities, typically at the state-level, are
responsible for the receipt, staging and distribution of assets from the SNS to the local community
jurisdictions.64 The local health jurisdiction works with the local emergency management agency
16
Ecological model of disaster management
to determine resource needs. These needs are communicated to the state. The local health
jurisdiction is also responsible for planning and implementing points of dispensing (PODs) in
affected communities, dispensing medications or immunizing citizens and assisting treatment
centers, such as hospitals in obtaining needed resources.65, 66 Individuals and their families located
in the affected communities need to monitor the media and to follow the directions of local health
authorities. These directions may be for all or certain at risk members of the community to report to
a local POD for medications needed to treat or prevent a specific illness or disease. Individuals and
families also have a responsibility to take the medications as prescribed.67 Thus planning for and
the successful deployment of the SNS requires cooperation, coordination and an interplay of
federal, tribal, state, local, organizational and individual and family systems. The ecological model
of disaster management highlights the interactions between these various levels which are needed
and necessary for the successful deployment of the SNS.
Another potential strength of the ecological model is that it may be testable, at least in
theory. As disaster preparedness and response metrics are refined it may be possible to make
predictions about disaster outcomes based on preparedness or response preparedness and response
parameters measured at a particular level or levels of the ecological model. For example, if we
know the percentage of residents in a given community with family disaster kits or the percentage
of citizens who are homebound or who may be unable or unwilling to evacuate, we may be able to
generate some testable predictions about the overall effectiveness of a disaster response.
Limitations
The ecological model for all its complexity, is an overly simplistic representation of the
disaster planning, preparedness, response and recovery structures and processes. For example, the
recent TopOff 4 function exercise venue in Portland, Oregon involved the play and interplay of 250
agencies, organizations and departments.68 Furthermore, the federal disaster response in the US is
17
Ecological model of disaster management
extremely complex with 14 distinctive Emergency Service Functions (ESFs). Even a single ESF 8
federal response contingency such as a Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT) is itself highly
complex with numerous interdependent components including staff, as well as various professional
and paraprofessional team functions.69 Furthermore, additional ecological levels of disaster
management exist that have not been included in this model. For example, when a disaster affects
more than one state in a region of the country, or when disaster response assets and/or resources
must cross state lines, a Regional Disaster or Health authority may become involved. For example,
the Regional Public Health authority in the Pacific Northwest (Region X), works closely with the
states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington and with the Federal authorities to coordinate,
collaborate and to facilitate communication in preparation for, or in response to, a disaster that may
affect the public health of this multistate region of the country.70 For relative simplicity, this and
other potential levels have been omitted from this ecological model of disaster management.
Another limitation of this ecological model was cited earlier in this paper as a potential
strength. Currently, it does not easily lend itself to testing. In part this is because there are, as yet,
few widely agreed upon preparedness metrics.71 The complexity of the ecological model and its
systemic feedback features also limit its testability.
Conclusion
While an Institute of Medicine Report in 2002 adopted some of the principles of an
ecological model in identifying various “actors” needed to promote and preserve health in
Americans, this is apparently one of the first attempts to conceptualization the interaction and
interplay of the various levels of disaster management within an ecological conceptual framework.72
This model hypothesizes that each of the nested layers of organizational complexity interacts with
every other level or layer within the ecological model and most strongly with the most proximal
nested levels. Furthermore, the ecological model of disaster management proposes that similar or
18
Ecological model of disaster management
parallel planning, preparedness, recovery and processes occur at every level from the
individual/family microcosm to the global macrocosm across the disaster cycle. The ecological
model of disaster management addresses most of the planning, preparedness, response and recovery
processes and structures described in the National Response Plan and The National Incident
Management System and at the same time, is more conceptual and somewhat broader in scope.
The ecological model also shares certain features with the Haddon Matrix, a model used for
more than 20 years in injury prevention research and practice.73 For example, both the Haddon
Matrix and the ecological model recognize and incorporate different event phases (pre-event, event
and post-event). More recently Barnett and his colleagues have applied the Haddon Matrix to
public health readiness and response planning.74 Both the Haddon Matrix and the ecological model
provide useful frameworks for planning and responding to various types of hazards. Perhaps the
most important difference between these two frameworks is the systems assumption and dynamic
interplay between the various organizational level proposed by the ecological model as contrasted
with the comparatively static Haddon Matrix grid conceptualization.75
The ecological model of disaster management incorporates both a disaster management and
a public health systems perspective consistent with the recent Homeland Security Presidential
Directive (HSPD-21) outlining strategies in disaster public health and medical preparedness.62 In
theory at least, the ecological model of disaster management has some testable tenets and such
investigations may contribute to the emerging field of public health systems research.76
Acknowledgements/sources of support
This work was supported by grant number 1 D09HP08334-01-00- from the Health Resources and
Service Administration (HRSA), DHHS, Public Health Service Act, Title VIII, Section 811
awarded to the first author. It was also supported by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for
19
Ecological model of disaster management
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through the Association of Schools of Public Health
(ASPH) Grant # U09/CCU024247-04
20
Ecological model of disaster management
References
1. Hau, M. Disaster planning and management. In: Salazar, M. eds. Core Curriculum for
Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing. 2006. Chapter 13.
2. Veenema, T.G. Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness for Chemical, Biological and
Radiological Terrorism and Other Hazards. New York: Springer 2007.
3.
Landesman, L.Y., Malilay, J., Bissell, R.A., et al. Roles and responsibilities of public health in
disaster preparedness and response. In: Novick, E.F., Marr, J.S., eds. Public Health Issues in
Disaster Preparedness: Focus on Bioterrorism. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. 2001: 1-56
4. Beaton, R., Stergachis, A., Thompson, J., et al. Pandemic planning and policy considerations
for major research universities: Findings from a gaps analysis of a tabletop exercise. Biosecurity
and Bioterrorism. 2007: 5: (4), 1-8.
5. Wisner, B., Adams, J. Environmental health in emergencies and disasters. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2002.
6.
Veenema, T.G. Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness. New York: Springer: 2003.
7. Jennings-Saunders, A. Teaching disaster nursing by utilizing the Jennings Disaster Nursing
Management Model. Nurse Education in Practice. 2004; 4: 69-76.
8.
Mental health all hazards disaster planning guide. Department of Health & Human Services.
Rockville, MD; 2003 Pub. SMA 3829.
9. Shultz, J. Epinel, Z, Galea, S., et al. Disaster Ecology: Implications for disaster psychiatry. In
Ursano.et. al. Textbook of Disaster Psychiatry, Cambridge University Press; 2006.
10. Homeland Security Department. National Incident Management System (2004). Available at:
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/index.shtm. Accessed 01/03/08.
11. Homeland Security Department. National Response Plan (2004). Available at:
www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/committees/editorial_0566.shtm. Accessed 01/03/08.
21
Ecological model of disaster management
12. McDonald, T.P., Poertner, J., Pierpont, J. Predicting caregiver stress: An ecological
perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1999: 69 (7), 100-109.
13. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward and experimental ecology in human development.
American Psychologist. 1977; 32 (4), 513-531.
14. McLeroy, K., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., et al. (1988). An ecological perspective on health
promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly. 1988; 15(4), 351-377.
15. Salazar, M.K., Primomo, J. (1994). Taking the lead in environmental health. AAOHN
Journal. 1994; 42(7), 317-324.
16. Salazar, M., Beaton, R. Ecological model of occupational stress: Application to urban
firefighters. American Journal of Occupational Health Nursing. 2000; 48: 470-479.
17. Washington State Department of Health and Washington Military Department Emergency
Preparedness Handbook —An emergency planning and response guide. 2005. Available at
www.doh.wa.gov/panflu/qna.htm. Accessed 01/03/08.
18. Washington State Department of Health. Pandemic Influenza. 2007. Available at:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/panflu/ . Accessed 01/03/08.
19. American Red Cross. Shelter-in-place. 2004. Available at:
http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/beprepared/shelterinplace.html. Accessed 01/03/08.
20. CDC: Epidemiologic assessment of the impact of four hurricanes, - Florida, 2004.
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5428al.htm.
2005.
MMWR, 54 (28)
693-697.
21. Auf der Heide, E. Disaster Response Principles of Preparation and Coordination. St. Louis,
MO: C.V. Mosby; 1989.
22
Ecological model of disaster management
22. American Red Cross. Prepare a Safer Workplace and Protect Your Most Valuable Asset: Your
Employees. 2006. Available at:
http://www.redcross.org/services/hss/courses/workplace.html .
Accessed 01/03/08.
23. Wallace, M., Webber, L. The Disaster Recovery Handbook: A Step-by-Step Plan to Ensure
Business Continuity and Protect Vital Operations, Facilities, and Assets. New York: American
Management Association; 2004.
24. Business Continuity Planning. IT Examination Handbook. Federal Financial Institution
Examination Council. 2003.
25.
Loshbaugh, D. (2000) School of Hard Knocks – Chugach Alaska (Native) corporation
declares bankruptcy in aftermath of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. http://www.juneaualaska.com/between
chugach.shtml
26. Hospital Emergency Incident Command System. 1998. Available at:
http://www.emsa.ca.gov/dms2/heics3.htm. Accessed 01/03/08.
27. The Joint Commission/JCAHO. 2007. Available at:
http://www.jointcommission.org/AccreditationPrograms/AssistedLiving/Standards/FAQs/default.ht
m. Accessed 01/03/08.
28. LSU Hospital. Health Care Services Division. 2007. Available at:
http://lsuhospitals.org/About_LSU-HCSD/history.htm. Accessed 01/03/08.
29. Krane, N., DiCaro, R., Kahn, M. Medical education in post-Katrina New Orleans. JAMA.
2007; 298; 1052-1055.
30. American Red Cross. Disaster Services. 2007. Available at:
http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/0,1082,0_319_,00.html. Accessed 01/03/08.
31. Community Emergency Response Teams. 2007. Available at:
https://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/. Accessed 01/03/08.
23
Ecological model of disaster management
32. Medical Reserve Corps website. Available at:
http://www.medicalreservecorps.gov/Homepage. Accessed on 01/03/08.
33. Public Health Seattle King County. Emergency Preparedness Links. 2007. Accessed at:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/portal/prep.htm. Accessed 01/03/08.
34. Washington State Department of Health Antiviral Advisory Group (2007).
35. HeavyRunner, I., Morris, J. Traditional native culture and resilience. 1997. Available at
http://cehd.umn.edu/CAREI/Reports/Rpractice/Spring97/traditional.html. Accessed 01/03/08.
36. Health and Human Services. Administration on Aging. 2006. Available at:
http://www.aoa.gov/PROF/disaster_assist/disaster_assist_manual_IX.asp. Accessed 01/03/08.
37. Brave Heart , Yellow Horse, M. Gender differences in the historical trauma response among
the Lakota. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 1999: 10(4), 1-21.
38. Churchill, W., LaDuke, W. (1992). Native North America: The political economy of
radioactive colonialism. In Jaimes, M.A., ed. The State of Native America: Genocide,
Colonization, and Resistance.
Boston, MA: South End Press; 1992; 241-226.
39. United Nationals Environment Programme. Road map for Sri Lanka’s sustainable
reconstruction. 2005. Available at:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=434andArticleID=4818an
dl=en . Accessed 01/03/08.
40. Canadian Government. Tsunami: Canada’s response. 2007. Available at: http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/canadatsunami-e. Accessed 01/03/08.
41. United States Agency International Development. 2007. Available http://www.usaid.gov/ .
Accessed 01/03/08.
42.
Landesman, L., Public Health Management of Disasters: The Practice Guide. Washington
DC, American Public Health Association; 2001: 147-157.
24
Ecological model of disaster management
43. Hofen, B., Karren, K., Mistovich, J. Prehospital Emergency Care. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall: 1996.
44. American Society of Civil Engineers. Report card for America infrastructure-dams. 2005.
Available at: www.asce.org/pressroom/news/grwk/thisweek0413.cfm.
Accessed 01/03/08.
45. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Guide for all hazard emergency operations (1996).
Available at: www.Fema.gov/pdf/plan/O-prelim.pdf. Accessed 01/07/08
46. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2007). Mitigation Planning.
http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm. Accessed 01/07/08
47. American Planning Association. Integrating Hazard Mitigation into Local Planning. 2007.
Available at: http://www.planning.org/hazardmitigation/index.htm. Accessed 01/03/08.
48. National Fire Protective Administrative Association. 2000. Standards for protective ensemble
for structural fire fighting. Available at: http://www.nfpa.org/. Accessed 01/03/08.
49. Voelker, R. Mobile hospital raises questions about hospital surge capacity. JAMA. 2006:
295, 1499-1503.
50. Beaton, R., Stergachis, A., Oberle, M., et al. The sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo
Subway – 10 years later/Lessons Learned. Traumatology, 2005,11, 75-85
51. Beaton, R., Johnson C. Evaluation of domestic preparedness training for first responders.
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 2002; 17, 119-125.
52. NFPA . Family fire planning. 2007. Available at: www.nfpa.org. Accessed 01/03/08.
53. Homeland Security Department Top Officials (TOPOFF) exercise series: TOPOFF2. After
action summary report. December 19, 2003 http://www.house.gov/etheridge/Topoff.doc
(accessed 11/15/07)
25
Ecological model of disaster management
54. Beaton, R., Oberle, M., Wicklund, J., et al. Evaluation of the Washington State national
pharmaceutical stockpile dispensing exercise Part I – patient volunteer findings. Journal of Public
Health Management and Practice, 2003; 9: 368-376.
55. Beaton, R., Oberle, M., Wicklund, J., et al. Evaluation of the Washington State national
pharmaceutical stockpile dispensing exercise Part II – dispensary site worker findings.
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2003; 10, 77-85.
56. Stergachis, A., Wetmore, C., Beaton, R. et al. Evaluation of a mass dispensing functional
exercise in a cities readiness initiative setting. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy,
2007; 64: 285-293.
57. Disaster Medical Assistance Team. 2007. Available at: http://www.dmat.org/ . Accessed
01/03/08.
58. Napucu, Lawther & Pattison (2007). Logistics and staging areas in managing disasters and
emergencies. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2007. Available at:
http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol14/iss2/3. Accessed 01/03/08.
59. Mettler, F., Voeltz, G. Major radiation exposure—What to expect and how to respond. New
Eng. J. of Med. 2002; 346: 1554-1561.
60. American Red Cross–Disaster Cycle. 1993. Available at: www.redcross/org/services/disaster.
Accessed 01/03/08.
61. Lessons Learned Information Sharing. 2006. Available at: https://www.llis.dhs.gov.
Accessed 01/03/08.
62. Homeland Security Department HSPD-21. Public Health & Medical Preparedness. 2007.
63. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Strategic National Stockpile. Available at:
www.bt.cdc.gov/stockpile. Accessed 01/03/08.
26
Ecological model of disaster management
64. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cities Readiness Initiative. Available at:
www.bt.cdc.gov/cri/qa.asp. Accessed 01/03/08.
65. Hupert, N., Cuomo, J., Callahan, M., et al. Community-based mass prophylaxis. A planning
guide for public health preparedness. Available at:
www.ahcpr.gov/research/cbmprophyl/index.html. Accessed 01/03/08.
66. Esbitt, D. The Strategic National Stockpile: roles and responsibilities of health care
professionals for receiving the stockpile assets. Disaster Manage Response. 2003; 1:68-70.
67. Anderson, A., Eisold, J. Anthrax attack at the United States Capitol front line thoughts.
American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal. 2002; 50 (4): 170-173.
68. Homeland Security Department Topoff 4 website. 2007. Available at:
www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc . Accessed 01/03/08.
69. Health and Human Services. Emergency Response: Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
(DMATs) and Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT). 2001.
70. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2007. Available at:
http://www.hhs.gov/about/regions/index.html . Accessed 01/03/08.
71. Bradt, DA, Abraham K, Franks, R. A strategic plan for disaster medicine in Australiasia.
Emergency Medicine 2003; 15(3): 271-282.
72. Institute of Medicine (2002) Preserving and Promoting Health in Americans. Available at:
www.iom.edu/CMS/2956.aspx
73. Runyan, C. (2003) Introduction: back to the future—revisiting Haddon’s conceptualization of
injury epidemiology and prevention. Epidemiol. 2003; 25: 60-64.
74. Barnett, D., Balicer, R., Blodgett, D. The Application of the Haddon Matrix to Public Health
Readiness and Response Planning. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005, 113, 561-566
27
Ecological model of disaster management
75. Institute of Medicine. Reducing the burden of injury. In: Advancing Prevention and
Treatment.
National Academy Press; 1999.
76. Scutchfield, FD, Patrick, K. Public health systems research: the new kid on the block. Am J
Prev Med 2007; 32: 173-4.
28
Ecological model of disaster management
Figure 1.
Schematic representation of ecological model of disaster management including nested
organizational levels as well as planning, preparedness, response and recovery elements during all
phases of the disaster cycle.
29