A few days after Hurricane Harvey caused massive destruction in the southern states of the United States, including Texas primarily, a new powerful cyclone, dubbed “Irma”, was approaching the American coast near Florida at a speed of almost 200 kilometers per hour. The total damage caused to the US economy by two hurricanes Harvey and Irma reached up to 290 billion dollars and caused the deaths of dozens of Americans. According to Joel Myers, president of the consulting company AccuWeather, the number of losses that the United States suffered from the disaster was record high (Allen & Davis, 2017).
It is suggested that storm-related disasters do not happen when people, infrastructure, and society are ready for them. Wise (2006) proposed applying a new approach to handling disasters and their adverse consequences, adaptive management, that would ensure the catastrophe’s devastation will be mitigated. This paper will discuss the adaptive management approach to hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and the Incident Command System applied to hurricane Irma and its structure.
Historic disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, spurred disaster prevention efforts that saved many lives. Local authorities urged people not to panic, to keep in touch with emergency centers, listen to the news, and follow the instructions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The American authorities have prepared a particular memo for residents of crisis regions. It included measures that needed to be taken to protect yourself during a hurricane (FEMA, 2018). People could also find out in advance where the shelter was located, advised to use only protected routes during the evacuation, and secure homes. However, not every proposed method and action was fully implemented in Texas during the Harvey storm. Moreover, Wise (2006) mentions that federalized National Guard troops performed better after the Katrina hurricane in 2005 than FEMA. Therefore, the adaptive management system was proposed after the devastating Katrina to tackle future storms by Homeland Security.
Wise (2006) proposed the approach based on three combined processes: “risk assessment, information feedback to decision-makers, and adjustment of performance based on current information” (p. 314). Adaptive management highlights the importance of feedback in developing the policy with continuous experimentation and evaluation. In the case of Harvey, it was needed to implement several essential steps in the process of preparation. Local authorities, National Guard troops, FEMA and the Homeland Security representatives had to meet and together and “discuss the problem and any available data, then moving on to develop models of the problem” (Wise, 2006, p. 314) that lacked previously during Katrina and was a failure during Harvey upcoming. Then the adaptive model proposes the evaluation of goals established and uncertainties and data gaps projected. In the case of Harvey, mobile phone delivery alerts could be implemented, and the protection of the nearest plants from explosions that occurred could be mitigated in advance (Lohrmann, 2017).
Furthermore, according to the adaptive management model, management and monitoring plans are executed and gathered data is analyzed to evaluate work practices and make necessary adjustments. It was concluded by analysts that the authorities in both Harvey and Irma’s situations acted reactively rather than proactively (Sandifer & Walker, 2018). In this situation, the management plan had to include resources needed immediately in advance, and the preparation plan had to be profoundly articulated. The actions that were done by decision-makers did not include the preparation for unpredictable events happening during storms.
Overall, analysts concluded that during the Harvey hurricane, there were an unstrapping across standard operating rules, organizational decisions, formal communication exchange, emergency management actions, and resource management guidelines (Denham & Baker, 2020). The adaptive management model allows authorities to exchange information fast and elaborate united decisions that would help to avoid miscommunication, and unstrapping that could be among the reasons for such devastating consequences the storm caused.
Talking about Hurricane Irma that came right after Harvey, several essential points should be highlighted regarding adopting the adaptive management system proposed by Wise. Authorities could use a suggested framework that facilitates the adaptive approach and collaboration among different stakeholders involved. After Harvey, DHS and FEMA oversaw enhancing America’s preparedness for natural disasters. The public expected that the federal government would ensure that another Katrina would never take place. However, Irma was comparably strong and brought destruction across states (Allen & Davis, 2017). The adaptive management framework emphasizes that it is crucial to “define and articulate a common outcome; establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the outcomes” (Wise, 2006, p. 314). In this sense, homeland security, FEMA, and DHS could meet and establish a formal memorandum of understanding to work collaboratively fighting Irma.
Furthermore, Wise (2006) proposes “establishing compatible policies… and other means to operate across agency boundaries” (p. 315). As analysts reported that during Irma, people decided not to evacuate because they did not trust officials, creating procedures to influence people to move to safe places could be included in the plan (Medina et al., 2020). According to the survey, people were deciding not to leave their homes because they thought they have a minimum capacity to cope with the hurricane (Medina et al., 2020).
Eventually, this capacity was not enough to deal with the natural disaster. Researchers stated that authorities could establish a hurricane fund from the touristic economic sector, which coincides with the adaptive approach that requires developing mechanisms to monitor and report results of efforts and data gathered and allocate financial resources accordingly (Wise, p. 315). Finally, involving non-federal officials that an adaptive management system involves could be helpful when estimating the climate changes and sea-level changes predicted for the nearest future to adjust plans amidst Irma (Wingard et al., 2020).
National Incident Management System (NIMS) proposes the Incident Command System (ICS) to command, control, and coordinate the on-scene incident management. The NIMS is aimed to be applied across hazards and incidents, regardless of their size and complexity; to improve the communication and coordination between public and private stakeholders; to act as a unified protocol for the emergency management system (FEMA, n.d.). The ICS provides a hierarchical structure for incident management, combining guidelines, personnel, resources, facilities, and communication flows. The Incident Command System has five main functional directions: command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration (FEMA, 2017).
The ICS model will be explained based on the hurricane Harvey incident to explain a hurricane disaster response. The ICS is comprised of several responsible parties, including Unified Command and its Command Staff (Public Information Officer, Safety Officer, Liaison Officer); Operation Section Chief, Planning Section Chief, Logistics Section Chief, Finance/Administration Chief (FEMA, 2017). In the case of Harvey, the Governor of Texas could be a Commander of a Unified Command.
The Public Information Officer in charge of media communication with the public could be a press secretary of the state. Safety Officer responsible for incident operations monitoring could be a local NIMS member or FEMA to have a diversity of views. The Liaison Officer in charge of contacting representatives of governmental agencies, NGOs, and private organizations could be a local government office member assigned by the Texas Governor to manage Harvey’s handling.
The general staff includes operations, planning, logistics, finance/administration areas, and people responsible for their functions (FEMA, 2017). Operations Chief oversees the tactics and performs activities necessary to achieve objectives during the hurricane, including reducing the immediate event, saving lives, and restoring normal operations. Planning Chief executes collection, evaluation, and distribution of information, including report preparation, and maintaining resources. Logistics direction and chief are responsible for medical services, transportation, facilities, supplies, IT support, fuel and food services, and other activities. The finance/Administration Chief and the team oversee personnel time, incident costs, creating vendor contracts, and administering claims. General staff members for handling the Harvey hurricane could be chosen among federal and local authorities, such as FEMA and NIMS, to balance the views and ensure that leaders work on the common objectives (FEMA, 2017).
To make a conclusion, one can state that both hurricanes Harvey and Irma were expected natural phenomena. It can be noted that hurricanes happen often, but catastrophes are triggered by society. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the mechanisms of protection against natural disasters. Authorities must apply for more comprehensive insurance and make social services more accessible for the neediest people, to evaluate the data and ensure that all systems work towards achieving the united goals. Society needs a sufficiently qualified and resourced government to support every victim, regardless of their background, and effectively restore the facilities after the natural disaster that the adaptive management approach allows. The structured roles assigned to individuals, as proposed by the Incident Command System, could help to communicate and exchange information and help authorities, private organizations, and NGOs to work together to handle natural disasters efficiently.
References
Allen, K. & Davis, M. (2017). Hurricanes Harvey and Irma may have caused up to $200 billion in damage, comparable to Katrina.ABC News. Web.
Denham, M. & Baker, N. (2020). Hurricane Harvey unstrapped: Experiencing adaptive tensions on the edge of chaos.Risk Analysis 2020, 1-18. Web.
FEMA. (2017). National Incident Management System. Web.
FEMA. (2018). 2017 Hurricane season FEMA after-action report. Web.
FEMA. (n.d.). NIMS: Frequently asked questions. Web.
Lohrmann, D. (2017). After hurricane Harvey rescue efforts: Texas infrastructure recovery is just beginning.Government Technology. Web.
Medina, N., Abebe, Y., Sanchez, A., & Vojinovic, Z. (2020). Assessing socioeconomic vulnerability after a hurricane: A combined use of an index-based approach and principal components analysis.Sustainability, 12(4), 1452; Web.
Sandifer, P. A., & Walker, A. H. (2018). Enhancing disaster resilience by reducing stress-associated health impacts.Frontiers in public health, 6, 373.
Wingard, G.L., Bergstresser, S.E., Stackhouse, B.L. et al. (2020). Impacts of Hurricane Irma on Florida Bay Islands, Everglades National Park, USA.Estuaries and Coasts, 43, 1070–1089. Web.
Wise, C. (2006). Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what’s missing?Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302-318. Web.