Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation Workshop
Session 15: Impacts of Climatic Variability: Disaster Planning
Presenter: Charles Kelly (email: 727734.2412@Compuserve.com)
Purpose:
Provide an general overview of disaster planning(Session One)
Conduct disaster planning exercise (Session Two).
Session One Outline
I. Concepts and Terminology
1. Key words and Phrases
Preparedness, Mitigation, Relief and Rehabilitation, Hazards and Disasters
See What is a Disaster? Views from Research and the Field
2. Disaster Models
See Simplifying Disasters: Developing a Model for Complex Non-Linear Events
3. Social aspects of disaster
See What is a Disaster? Views from Research and the Field
II. Disaster Planning and Response.
1. Planning
What is it?
When, How and Who.
Communications: A two way process.
No Plan is Final.
2. Incident Management
Incident Management System: Planning, Operations, Support and Command Elements.
3. The Role of Mitigation and Preparedness
III. Hazards and Climate Change
1. Typical and Untypical Hazards
2. Linkages
3. Fuzzy Assessments and Fuzzy Planning
IV. Climate Change and Disaster
1. Where is the disaster?
2. Coping, Adjustment and Adaptation: Who does what, when?
2. Bangladesh Case Study
See Climate Change and Disasters In Bangladesh from Poverty, Disasters and the
Environment in Bangladesh: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Causal
Linkages.
Session Two
Disaster Planning Exercise
Participants will be divided into teams. Each team will be tasked to deal with specific aspects of
climate change and disaster interaction. Members of each team will be assigned specific roles to
play and the team will be give a specific question or problem to solve based on materials
presented in Session One and other training at the workshop.
Recommended References
The Oxfam Handbook of Development And Relief (Vols. 1-3), Deborah Eade and Suzanne
Williams, Oxfam UK and Ireland, 1995, ISBN:085598278.
Twenty Criteria For Evaluating Disaster Planning And Managing And Their Applicability in
Developing Societies, E. L. Quarentelli, Preliminary Paper #199, Disaster Research Center,
University of Deleware, 1994 (available from Disaster Research Center web site).
Confronting Disaster: New Perspectives on Natural Disasters, David Alexander, Oxford
Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000, ISNB:095216962
-The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Woman’s Eyes, Elaine Enarson and Betty Hearn
Morrow (ed.), Laboratory for Social and Behavioral Research, Florida International University,
Miami,1998, ISBN:0615118704
Web Resources
- WWW.ReliefWeb.int
- WWW.colorado.edu/hazards
It is just as easy to use a web search engin to look for sources on information on disaster
planning.
What is a Disaster?
Views from Research and the Field
1
Charles Kelly
Ste. 211, 7758 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA
Email:72734.2412@Compuserve.com
Abstract
The paper draws on the work of E. L. Quarantelli and coauthors in What is a Disaster? to
consider what really is a disaster. As indicated in Quarantelli’s book, the definition of what is a
disaster differs between professions, societies, cultures, as well as over time. The paper
summarizes the major points of proposed definitions and reflects on what, in a practical sense,
is the real definition of disaster. In the end, it appears that when people think they are having a
disaster, their actions reflect this view regardless of what external assessments or academic
definitions may indicate. The implication for disaster and emergency management is that the
perception of a problem, rather than hard data, may be the most important factor defining
response expectations and needs.
Keywords: Disaster Definitions, Research, Operations
Biography
Charles Kelly (MA Geography) has been involved in disaster management activities for more
than 20 years in the USA, Europe, Africa, the Caribbean and Asia. Mr. Kelly’s early work
included relief operations in West Africa and the Caribbean. Subsequent activities have included
a broad range of disaster management activities for the US Government, non-governmental and
international assistance organizations, as well as work on research issues related to
international disaster management. Mr. Kelly currently works on a freelance basis providing
services to private and international organizations on disaster related topics. Mr. Kelly has
published more than 30 articles on disaster management and is a member of a number of
professional societies.
1. Introduction
Defining the obvious has few merits. Most people probably don’t see a need for an elaborate
definition of what is a disaster. They have no doubts that when one affects them they will know it.
A similar view is probably held by those involved in disaster management operations. Dealing
with disasters on a regular basis, they probably feel they are more than familiar with the nature of
the beast. Researchers, who often try to look beyond the obvious, shouldn’t really be doing
research without a clear and accepted definition of what they are investigating.
The reality is a bit different. As Quarantelli comments “. . . some disputes about what appear to
be empirical findings mostly stem from different usages of the basic concept . . . ”of what is a
disaster, and “ . . . some researchers use such a broad referent that any type of individual or
group stress situation is seen as a ‘disaster’ (p. 3).” Clearly, if any stressful event is defined as a
disaster, then most days for most people include at least one disaster. And disaster managers
1 Presented at The International Emergency Engineering Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, May 16-19,
2000.
are failing seriously in their responsibilities.
At a more practical level, the climatic, political and economic problems in Indonesia, the
earthquakes in Turkey, the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, the social and economic transition in
post-Soviet Russia, the conflict in Kosovo and AIDS are all commonly referred to as disasters.
But the nature of the responses, dictated by the nature of the events, have radical differences. It
seems these events are only lumped together under the heading of disaster because of a
perceived need to do something.
For people affected by the diverse types of events labeled as disasters, the moral and physical
support which comes when experiencing a disaster can seem to be more related to access to
political systems or the media rather than any obvious need. In other words, the better connected
(often the better off) may seem to get assistance while those in greater absolute need may not.
Even if this is not true in most cases, the lack of a commonly held definition of what is a disaster
means there is no way to assess whether assistance is fair, appropriate and equitable.
While a disaster may be obvious, the devil seems to be with the specifics. Most would probably
not want every individual stressful event to be considered a disaster, if only because disaster
assistance would become a daily entitlement and a new expensive form of welfare. 2 Creating a
very tight definition excludes legitimate cases of need. This outcome is contrary to the societal
solidarity, compassion and help normally directed to people recognized as victims of disaster.
Getting a handle on what is a disaster seems critical to ensuring everyone recognizes and is
dealing with the same problem, and that what assistance that is provided is fair, effective and
appropriate.
This paper makes a contribution toward developing a generally applicable definition of what is a
disaster through a review of some definitional arguments made by researchers, followed by a
perspective based on experience and networking with disaster managers over the past 20 years.
The researcher’s arguments come primarily from What is a Disaster, a book which provides the
first cross-discipline effort to define what is a disaster (Quarantelli:242). Yet, the book is written
by and for researchers. There is a need to open-up this exchange to a more practice-oriented
assessment, if only to ensure that what researchers define has some relation to reality.
2. Defining Disaster
One approach to defining disaster is quantitative, identifying a disaster based on numbers
affected, killed and injured, and economic loss. The Bradford Disaster Scale (Keller), the record
keeping by the Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, and reporting of such data in
the annual International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent World Disaster Report
(IFRC 1999), exemplify this quantity-based approach.
There are three weaknesses with this quantitative approach. First, data on possible disaster
must be accurate, of the types used in the relevant calculations, and available. These
requirements create a bias against events which are not easily accessible or well quantified.
The second weakness is that there is not universal agreement on the thresholds for
quantitatively defining a disaster. (See, for instance, the Natural Hazards-Disasters email list
discussion about disaster and hazard scales at
www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/natural-hazards-disasters/archive.html). Efforts at setting quantitative
thresholds seem to reflect more a sector’s limited interests (e.g., the insurance industry) than
2
Admittedly, some disaster assistance programs already fall into this category.
establishing a broadly applicable way to identify threats and misfortune experienced by
individuals and society.
Third, there is a growing view that the number of small disasters (ones which fall under the
quantitative thresholds or fail to gain media attention) are much greater than generally realized,
and result in cumulative damages which are greater than those experiences from larger, mediaacknowledged, disasters (Mitchell:25). This view suggests that, at a practical level, disasters
need first to be considered as local events, and definition and quantification based on the local
impact on people and society. This type of information is rarely collected or considered at the
national and international levels at which the compilation of disaster statistics takes place.
Interestingly, the disasters-are-local-events view has a strong link to efforts in the international
humanitarian assistance community to include local populations in disaster relief and
preparedness (IFRC, 2000). This point will be returned to later in the paper.
Another definitional divide comes in deciding what type of event should be considered as a
possible disaster. The traditional approach classifies events under headings such as “natural”,
“technological”, or more recently “social” or “complex” disasters (see Kelly, 1996, 1998, and
Mitchell:35-42).This can be seen as a continuation of the view of disasters as “acts of god”, that
disaster is caused by some external force (Dynes:214, Mitchell:36). An alternate view holds that
a trigger event, e.g., an earthquake, is something quite different from the reasons for earthquake
damage, which are the result of human action or inaction (Mitchell:42-46).
There is also an issue as to what types of events can be considered as triggers. One side holds
that triggers which involve antisocial behavior, e.g., war or terrorism, should not be considered
since damage is intentional. In short, the difference between rugby and hooliganism (see
Quarantelli:238-242 for a fuller discussion of this position). Others hold that triggers involving
antisocial behavior are legitimate disaster initiators (Drabek:243).
There is also an evolving view that disaster triggers are developing in new ways (Quarantelli:3),
and that new combinations of previously common events can trigger unprecedented disasters
(Mitchell:36). Yet, as comments by Dynes (214) suggest, some limit to the definition of what is a
disaster is needed, if only to permit an individual to divide the day into normal and disaster
periods.
So, what can What is a Disaster? contribute to setting limits to what is a disaster? The book is a
compilation of the views of thirteen researchers from fields including sociology, political science,
geography, economics, anthropology, public administration and social psychology
(Quarantelli:6). By reference, the book expresses the views of a wide range of researchers in
North America and Europe. Given this broad base one might expect the views expressed would
help form a consensus definition of what is a disaster. The book does contain a number of
possible definitions, including that disaster are3:
“. . . a reflection of the nature of the market in which disaster research became an
institutional demand (Gilbert:12).”
Like war, in that they are caused by external agents (Gilbert:12).
Social vulnerability (Gilbert:14-15).
Uncertainty caused by danger which threatens the community, complexity in the
operation of a community, or the inability of community members to address
serious concerns in traditional terms (Gilbert:16-17).
3
Author names and pages below refer to What is a Disaster?
“. . . the failure of protection measures . . . the inadequacy of means (the cultural
protections) in relation to given ends (to avoid their collapse) (Dombrowsky:26).”
“. . . an unplanned and unintended result of human activities . . . not only the
human interaction itself, . . . but also the interaction with nature and its own
autodynamic and self-organizing processes (Dombrowsky:29).”
“. . . sociological (Dombrowsky:30).”
“. . . nonroutine events in societies or their large subsystems (e.g., regions,
communities) that involve social disruption and physical harm. Among the key
defining properties of such events are (1) length of forewarning, (2) magnitude of
impact, (3) scope of impact, and (4) duration of impact (Kreps:34).” 1
“. . . an incident, accident or other harmful occasion resulting in losses and
sorrow” quoted from Explanatory Dictionary of the Great Russian Living
Language (Porfiriev:57).
“. . . a state/condition destabilizing the social system that manifests itself in a
malfunctioning or disruption of connections and communications between its
elements or social units (communities, social groups, and individuals); partial or
total destruction/demolition; physical and psychological overloads suffered by
some of these elements; thus, making it necessary to take extraordinary or
emergency countermeasures to reestablish stability (Porfiriev:61-62).”
“. . . problems that are, by implication and in fact, out of control, in that they break
out of the modern mold, or challenge its effectiveness (Hewitt:89).”
“. . . normatively defined occasion in a community when extraordinary efforts are
taken to protect and benefit some social resource whose existence is perceived
as threatened (Dynes:113).”
“. . . fundamentally disruptions of routines . . . just one among many types of
exceptions that one can observe occurring within a social system . . . We know
them to be exceptions because participants . . . designate them as such . . .
(Stallings:137).”
“. . . a large, pitch black wall in a room with no light . . . ” with legislative
definitions of disaster, and other definitions arising from personal experience and
perspective, only illuminating small parts of the wall (Knoll-Smith and
Gunther:163-166).
“. . . a collectivity of intersecting processes and events, social, environmental,
cultural, political, economic, physical, technological, transpiring over varying
lengths of time. Disasters are totalizing events (Oliver-Smith:178).”
“. . . a process/event involving the combination of a potentially destructive
agent(s) from the natural, modified and/or constructed environment and a
population in a socially and economically produced condition of vulnerability,
resulting in a perceived disruption of the customary relative satisfactions of
individual and social needs for physical survival, social order and meaning (OliverSmith:186).”
“. . . a socially defined occasion, serving as a context for human behavior,
recognized across social time as a radical change in the effectiveness of social
structures (norms, practices beliefs, etc.) to meet human needs, and framed in a
social change perspective (Perry:211).”
“. . . a sensitizing concept, . . . a research topic, an administrative decree, an
ordinary language description or metaphor for human experience, and a popular
genre for B movies . . . (Kroll-Smith and Gunther:230).”
These possible definitions of what is a disaster cover a lot of ground. The diversity of views does
not seem to help much in establishing a functional definition of use in field operations.
1
Bold in original.
One characteristic does seem common to most of the definitions: disasters have a negative
connotation. Yet Quarantelli points out this view: (1) represents a value judgement, something
researchers are suppose to refrain from making, (2) is contradicted by research identifying
positive long term economic and social changes following disasters, and, (3) ignores some
circumstances, such as violent conflict, where the winners may see themselves as being better
off despite having suffered the disaster of war (265-266).
At the practical level, defining what constitutes a disaster is done by three groups:
(1) Those who believe others are having a disaster,
(2) Those who see themselves as experiencing a disaster, and
(3) Those charged with providing assistance in response to one or the other group’s
belief that a disaster is happening.
In most cases, the third group is constrained by some written (and often legal and quantitative)
definition as to what should be considered a disaster. These definitions are usually close to
those cited by Kreps, Porfiriev and Oliver-Smith, and focus on conditions which pose an
immediate threat to life and welfare, or new, significant and threatening uncertainty. There are
clearly value judgments involved. Rarely, if ever, is the positive side of disaster considered
(although the vulnerability of disaster-affected populations may be seen as an opportunity by
outsiders for positive social change).
The other two groups, the affected and unaffected, base their definitions on a combination of
objective and subjective (i.e., perception) factors. These definitions change over time and reflect
different combinations of factors seen as indicating a disaster.
This latter process of defining disasters, using objective and subjective factors, has a strong link
to a pervasive theme in What is a Disaster?, that disasters are socially defined. To paraphrase
Quarantelli’s reference to Thomas, (273), when people think there is a disaster, their actions will
reflect this view.
Turning this into a definition, that disasters are what happens when people think there is a
disaster, has significant implications for field operations. Most disaster assistance deals with
tasks such as moving assistance, or implementing processes to support victims and minimize
damage. If the target population does not believe they are at risk or suffering from a disaster,
these efforts lack utility, and may even be resisted by the supposed victims.
The opposite, where one group sees themselves as experiencing or at risk from a disaster, but
this view is not held by the unaffected, leads to unmet demands for assistance. The result is a
serious tension between the self-identified victims and the disaster assistance group, acting as
the interface between the affected and unaffected group.
The more common situation is of agreement across groups as to the risk or reality of a disaster,
but a lack of agreement as to the specifics of magnitude, damage and needs. This places the
assistance group in a quandary as to whether to provide aid based on what the victim group
wants or what the unaffected group believes is needed. Often, decisions are based on the later,
as the assistance group is more beholden to the non-affected than the affected in terms of
access to resources.
Obviously, reducing the gap between what affected and unaffected groups see as the
characteristics of a disaster can lead to more appropriate assistance, and less suffering by those
experiencing a disaster. And reducing the tension between the groups makes the work of the
assistance providers easier. Yet, given the difficulty which disaster researchers have in agreeing
on a definition, creating agreement across the all possible groupings of those who can be
affected or not affected by each type of disaster is impossible.
A more practical approach is to seek to understand different subjective perceptions of what
constitute a disaster (as suggested by Knoll-Smith and Gunther, in Quarantelli:160-176), define
areas of agreement, and work to forge agreement in those areas of potential disagreement. This
process probably best works with the assistance group, the on-site link between affected and
unaffected, as the facilitator and translator of information and views between the two groups.
A trend in this direction is already underway in international assistance. The Sphere Project
seeks, among other objectives, involvement of disaster victims in identifying needs and planning
assistance in response to a disaster (IFRC 2000). This approach works best at the community
level, shifting the focus of disaster definition away from large anonymous levels of society. As
disasters are socially defined, so are they events which first affect communities.
3. Conclusions
If “I cannot define disaster, but I know it when I see it” (Quarantelli:236) is true, is there any
practical need to answer the question “what is a disaster?” At the level of the affected and
unaffected groups, rigorous definitional efforts are probably a waste of time. Like Quarantelli,
either group will know it when they see it.
However, defining disaster is critical for the assistance group (and of course researchers, who
do need to know what they are talking about). To be effective in moving assistance from the
unaffected to the affected, this group needs cross-group agreement on the nature of the
problem. The greater the agreement, the better the match between assistance and needs, and
the quicker the recovery from the disaster.
Thus, the assistance group should seek less to create their own definition of what is a disaster
than synthesize the range of interrelated definitions based on different community-level
perceptions. The challenge is to redefine, reduce and bridge disagreements and create
functional definitions which enable disaster field operations to be effective and provide
appropriate assistance to those in critical need.
This paper does not reach a single functional definition of what is a disaster. Definitions used by
the research community have not begun to converge. It is likely that disputes about “empirical
findings” referred to by Quarantelli (3), will continue. Victims and non victims will continue to
define and refine their respective definitions of disaster based on information and perceptions,
with little regard for researchers’ views, to the consternation of each other and the frustration of
those involved in disaster field operations. Yet, the dark clouds of confusion over what is a
disaster may lift, however slightly, if those involved in providing assistance work to build a bridge
between victim and non victim views, and establish a common understanding of what constitutes
a disaster.
4. References
- Drabek, Thomas E. (1999). “Revisiting the Disaster Encyclopedia”, International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 17/2, 237-257.
- Dynes, Russell, R. (1999).“Comments on Drabek and Other Encyclopedists”, International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 17/2, 211-215.
- IFRC (International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) (2000). “The
Sphere Project”, www.sphereproject.org.
-___ (1999). World Disaster Report 1999, Edigroup, Chene-Bourg, France.
- Kelly, Charles (1998). Correspondence, Disasters, 22/2.
-___(1996). Correspondence, Disasters, 20/3.
- Mitchell, J. Kenneth, ed. (1999). Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-Cities and Disasters in Transition,
United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.
- Quarantelli, E. L. (ed.) (1998). What is a Disaster?, Routledge, New York, United States.
- Keller, A. Z. (1990). "The Bradford Disaster Scale." In Keller, A. Z. and H.C. W ilson, eds.,
Disaster Prevention, Planning and Limitation, Proceedings of the First Conference,
Disaster Prevention and Limitation Unit, University of Bradford, Bradford, United
Kingdom, 3-40.
Climate Change and Disasters In Bangladesh
Extracted from: Poverty, Disasters and the Environment in Bangladesh: A Quantitative and
Qualitative Assessment of Causal Linkages, by: Charles Kelly2 and M. H. Khan Chowdhury3,
for the Department for International Development Bangladesh, Government of the United
Kingdom and Northern Ireland, 2001.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND DISASTERS IN BANGLADESH
Does the analysis of poverty-disaster-environment linkages provide any useful
insight on links between climate change and disasters in Bangladesh?
The problems posed by climate change to Bangladesh have been framed by World Bank and
DFID analysis in terms of an increase in the frequency and severity of natural hazards, leading to
increased disaster frequency and damage (Anonyms-2:2-3; World Bank:2000b:xvii).
Floods, drought, cyclones, storm surges and other severe weather are historically normal events
in Bangladesh. In projecting the impact of climate change, increased cyclone frequency and
intensity, sea level change, increased or reduced precipitation, and changes in river flow levels
and patterns are generally presented as a range of change over decades (World Bank:200b:1012). Bangladesh already adjusts to changes in each of these conditions as a result of seasonal
or multi-year weather cycles. The question is whether the projected climate change and impacts
will occur at a rate and extent that exceeds the intrinsic human and natural environmental
capacities.
In considering the linkages between climate change and disaster it needs to be clear that climate
change in and of itself is not tightly linked to the occurrence of disasters. Disaster, as defined in
the paper, arises from a combination of risk, vulnerability and resilience. The fact that cyclones
may increase does not mean cyclone disasters must increase.
The more fundamental question is whether the livelihood system in Bangladesh can adapt to
climate change to a degree that stabilizes disaster impact at current levels or results in an actual
reduction in impact. This suggests that the issue of competence needs to be given more
consideration in assessing the impact of climate change on poverty, disaster and the
environment. Is the social structure in Bangladesh competent to deal with the projected physical
and social impacts of climate change or not? The track record in responding to famine, floods
and cyclones is positive. The track record for dealing with environmental trends is not. What is
the forecast for dealing with climate change?
The adaptations to climate change proposed for Bangladesh largely focus on risk reduction and
tends toward technological and institutional efforts (World Bank 2000b:xviii-xxvi). In fact, the
World Bank report posits that “... reactive measures dominate on the individual level while more
aggregate levels (national, international) seem better equipped for planning approaches (World
Bank 2000b:49).” The implication is that individual action to deal with climate change will come
after technical and institutional efforts, although the same report does indicate that advantage
should be taken of traditional knowledge in dealing with climate change (World Bank 2000b:81).
A sustainable livelihoods-based analysis of climate change might be a useful in identifying more
in the way of social and human opportunities to deal with climate change at the individual level.
2
3
Email: 72734.2412@Compuserve.com
Email: mhkhan@bdmail.net
The results could provide a balance to efforts focussed on cross-sector planning by upper tier
institutions and policy and process actions outside Bangladesh. As well, and as is emphasized
elsewhere in this paper, response to disasters in a changed climate needs to balance efforts to
reduce risk with reducing vulnerability.
References
- Anonyms-2 (No date), Briefing Paper: Global Environmental Problems: Climate Change and its
Implications for Bangladesh, DFID Bangladesh.
- World Bank, (2000b) Bangladesh Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Report No.
21104-BD, Rural Development Unit, South Asia Region.