In recent decades, the general emergency management plan (EMP) has been the preferred framework for disaster planners. The main reasoning behind the popularity of this approach is different hazard scenarios share similarities and, thus, should be managed with a common plan. The general EMP approach has arguable benefits but it does not often achieve optimum public preparedness. The framework fails to artificially consolidate dramatically different disaster scenarios. Although disasters share certain commonalities, there is a great depth of variance across hazard types. The Hazard and Vulnerability Report found that the area could be affected by at least four diverse types of catastrophes. It is, therefore, advisable for the community to adopt a disaster-specific plan rather than a general emergency management plan.
Disaster-Specific Plan
Benefits
- It is flexible
- It is the most appropriate for predictable disasters, such as hurricanes
- General EMP gives a false sense of security
- Disaster preparedness is specific and, therefore, superior
Since the local Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis report identified only four potential types of disasters that could occur in this area, it is advisable to prepare a disaster-specific plan centered on the potential areas of risk. It is imperative to make the response around the identified threat capacities as flexible as possible. Managing these emergencies can be a highly technical affair requiring specialized techniques and expertise (Nojavan et al., 2018). Zeroing in specific disasters will be highly beneficial when dealing with a streamlined management plan rather than a consolidated one.
Some types of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and cyclones, are fairly predictable. It is only logical to transform an existent general emergency management plan into a disaster-specific plan in this case to deal with a predicted phenomenon. For example, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) was very efficient from the original forewarnings of Hurricane Sandy’s imminent landing in facilitating effective and clear communication (Gregory, 2015). Prior disaster-specific planning and preparation for the hurricanes saved many lives. Preparing for a specific disaster helps the organizations involved speed the response and recovery processes.
The general emergency approach imperfections stem from a false sense of security that “general” can sometimes provide. For instance, such plans have been proven inefficient in dealing with terrorism even if they provide effective ways of aid and communication. Inefficient administration also renders the general system ineffective as was experienced during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (Gregory, 2015). A general EMP is only effective if those using it have the required experience.
Emergency preparedness in disaster-specific plans is superior compared to a general EMP. The community can act more promptly to protect property and save lives when threatened by a disaster they were briefed and trained about. There are four potential hazards identified in the community, therefore, authorities should embark on resource mobilization, training, and practice drills for these specific emergencies. This will create optimal disaster preparedness for the community in case any of these four hazards strike. This level of attention and specificity cannot be obtained if a general emergency management plan was employed because it covers a myriad of hazards.
Top-hazards approach or disaster-specific plans have been gaining acceptance in recent times especially after the mishandling and mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Its planning is more effective, and there is a high likelihood of maintaining and achieving good organization. The general EMP approach also attempts to mitigate natural and manmade disasters, such as terrorism, using the same methods while the two belong to very distinct categories. In a terrorist situation, attackers can adjust their strategies to respond to defense mounted by the government. This is one of the reasons why some types of disasters, such as terrorism, call for specific plans to deal with them.
General EMP
Benefits
- It is cost-effective
- There are managerial and logistical advantages
- A general EMP saves resources and time
The most cited argument for the general emergency management plan is that it saves time and money. This is attributable to the fact that coordination is done by all organizations involved in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Nojavan et al., 2018). Such coordination prevents confusion and consequential resource wastage that takes place when different departments act independently to achieve a common purpose. Various organizations consolidate their resources to create a single, common plan. The cost of training is shared among the different organizations, further reducing cost.
A general emergency management plan yields managerial and logistical benefits, particularly during the response. Disaster-specific plans can be limiting because when organizations are left to develop their emergency plans, they generate responses specific to them and within their resources. This may create conflict with other organizations’ plans and communication challenges between that organization and other responders. A general emergency management approach is comprehensive as it has been developed over time and includes previously mentioned logistical and economic advantages. It promotes an underlying framework of management that can in theory be used to respond to any disaster. It is a consolidation of many single entity plans to respond to different emergencies.
The general EMP allows governments to save resources and time by using consolidated action plans. This all-hazards approach plan provides an infrastructure in which all emergency management activities can be situated. Using consolidated plans increases efficacy and allows resources to be used better in managing a disaster. The all-hazards approach is preferred because it has been fairly reliable. It is considered to be cost-effective, is hands-on, encourages collaboration among a wide variety of stakeholders, and provides a comprehensive framework for responding to emergencies.
NIMS (ICS)
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) has had its share of success and failure. While it has evolved into an all-hazards response body, it can also be effective in tackling specific hazards in disaster-specific plans. The success in how Hurricane Sandy was managed is a good example of NIMS effectively handling emergencies in both a disaster-specific plan and a general emergency management plan scenario. NIMS track record suggests that the kind of plan does not really matter as long as the laid plan is amply prepared and implemented before and after the emergency event occurs (Gregory, 2015).
Having emergency workforces will not help if they are not adequately trained to respond to disaster conditions. A prepared plan will not help if the preparations needed are not done and emergency personnel are not knowledgeable. NIMS is an important organization to local arrangements whether a general EMP or a disaster-specific plan is adopted. The community must incorporate NIMS (ICS) in its strategy whatever plan it adopts. NIMS has long-term experience, trained personnel, and vast resources in dealing with emergencies.
References
Gregory, P. (2015). Reassessing the effectiveness of all-hazards planning in emergency management. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse. pp. 1-2. Web.
Nojavan, M., Salehi, E. & Omidvar, B. (2018). Conceptual change of disaster management models: A thematic analysis. Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, pp. 2-11. Web.