Figure 1 - uploaded by Lee Bosher
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Purpose
The way that disasters are managed, or indeed mis-managed, is often represented diagrammatically as a “disaster cycle”. The cyclical aspects of the disaster (risk) management concept, comprised of numerous operational phases, have, in recent years, been criticised for conceptualising and representing disasters in an overly simplistic way th...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... 'cycle', as the name suggests, implies a cyclical process of activities which invariably involves a disaster 'event',0 F 1 along with efforts to reduce disaster impacts and disaster risks as well as responding to disasters if they occur. The cyclical aspects of the disaster management concept (comprised of numerous operational phases) has in recent years been criticised for conceptualising disasters in an overly simplistic way that typically starts with a disaster 'event' and ends with another disaster (Bosher & Chmutina 2017;Aubrecht et al. 2013;Bosher 2005), (see Figure 1). US comedian Jon Stewart, famously highlighted this issue after Hurricane Katrina affected New Orleans in 2005 when he commented on the 'disaster cycle' diagram (similar to that shown in Figure 1) used by FEMA; stating "This chart clearly depicting the agencies' responsibilities in the event of a disaster.... ...
Context 2
... cyclical aspects of the disaster management concept (comprised of numerous operational phases) has in recent years been criticised for conceptualising disasters in an overly simplistic way that typically starts with a disaster 'event' and ends with another disaster (Bosher & Chmutina 2017;Aubrecht et al. 2013;Bosher 2005), (see Figure 1). US comedian Jon Stewart, famously highlighted this issue after Hurricane Katrina affected New Orleans in 2005 when he commented on the 'disaster cycle' diagram (similar to that shown in Figure 1) used by FEMA; stating "This chart clearly depicting the agencies' responsibilities in the event of a disaster.... It begins with a response to a disaster, leads to recovery, mitigation, risk reduction, prevention, preparedness………….. and ends up back in disaster! ...
Citations
... Sawalha [39] proposed a conceptual model that incorporates contemporary management concepts into the traditional disaster management cycle. Bosher et al. [6] proposed a helictical conceptual framework questioning the reliability of the current circular representation and triggering discussions on how to best capture the dynamic nature of disasters. Among these models, the Green Paper on Disaster Management [13] proposed a different perspective on disaster management for both sudden-and slow-onsets. ...
COVID-19 challenged all national emergency management systems worldwide overlapping with other natural hazards. We framed a ‘parallel phases’ Disaster Risk Management (DRM) model to overcome the limitations of the existing models when dealing with complex multi-hazard risk conditions. We supported the limitations analysing Italian Red Cross data on past and ongoing emergencies including COVID-19 and we outlined three guidelines for advancing multi-hazard DRM: (i) exploiting the low emergency intensity of slow-onset hazards for preparedness actions; (ii) increasing the internal resources and making them available for international support; (iii) implementing multi-hazard seasonal impact-based forecasts to foster the planning of anticipatory actions.
... Despite adaptability, preparedness, and recoverability, which investigate resilience from the point of the performance of the network and are mostly interwoven with the concepts of disaster management (Bosher et al., 2021) and emergency logistics (Patel et al., 2022), there are other metrics that examine resilience without having a specific event or a specific infrastructure under consideration. These may be categorized into graph-based and demand-related metrics. ...
Resilience is a complex term, bearing multiple definitions and resilience-related metrics. The most commonly utilized metrics are network efficiency and criticality that examine the impact that the removal of a structural element of a graph/ network has on its operation. Efficiency examines this term from a pure topological aspect and takes into account the shortest paths between the nodes whereas, on the other hand, criticality takes into account transportation-related variables like travel demand. In the present research, the interrelation between efficiency and criticality is further examined through a series of simulation experiments on the Athens city-center urban road network. For the quantification of efficiency, vulnerability, and criticality an iterative approach is used where, per iteration, one link of the network was removed. The outputs of the experiments are, then, statistically analyzed, using unsupervised and supervised techniques. Findings reveal that a polynomial relationship between the ratio of criticality and efficiency, and traffic flow exists. Finally, the implications of these findings to traffic and network management are discussed.
... The third phase, response, deals with the response to the resulting disaster. The last phase, recovery, serves to quickly restore essential functions and services in the affected area [46]. The result of the whole cycle should be the acquisition of new experiences, knowledge and lessons learned from past disasters. ...
Human society has been dealing with natural threats since the very beginning of humanity. A society that is better prepared for disasters can better resist the adverse effects of disasters and subsequently adapt to them and thus be prepared in the future for known threats and “new” ones. Level of education, access to information, the income of communities, or social capital are just some factors that can determine the level of safety and preparedness of members of society, especially the vulnerable. For this reason, frameworks and strategies containing disaster risk reduction tools aimed at developing and increasing the level of safety, prevention and preparedness of all states (including island states) for disasters have been created. The article aims to identify vulnerable community members and evaluate the factors that can cause gender inequality in disaster risk reduction and can also significantly influence the increase/decrease of community resilience to disasters. Furthermore, the article presents practical examples from different countries that point to the importance of addressing disaster risk reduction, including global and governmental responses to disasters and the impact of these responses on society.
... Early warning systems and risk knowledge and perception influence the precautionary and adaptation strategies that communities use in response to hazards, and these are shaped by belief systems and community dynamics, such as social cohesion (see Fig. 4). We move away from presenting the use of LIK in the typical disaster cycle paradigm as we acknowledge that these practices do not occur very linear or cyclical (see [54]), but instead, there are overlaps and overarching instances when these are used when disasters unfold. Hence, we are not limiting when LIK occurs against a predefined disaster phase as there is a continuum of ways communities use their knowledge and practices for disaster response. ...
The embeddedness of local and indigenous communities in their environments has led them to develop time-tested knowledge and practices to prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the impacts of natural hazards. Collectively, these are referred to as local and indigenous knowledge (LIK) and have gained a niche in disaster risk reduction (DRR) scholarship. We conducted a systematic literature review, identifying 325 articles that were qualitatively coded to identify what practices constitute LIK, patterns in how it has been studied, and how current understanding of LIK fits to the Sendai Framework. We found a plethora of strategies that communities mobilise, from hazard forecasts to livelihood-based adaptation, with the study of these concentrated in middle- and high-income countries. Efforts to integrate knowledge (LIK and scientific) and power spheres (top-down and bottom-up) are increasingly prominent themes in disaster scholarship. There is a recognition of LIK in the Sendai Framework priority areas, although still embryonic, which we link to the existing body of knowledge in literature. Our synthesis pieces together a holistic understanding of LIK to offer a more concrete appreciation of what LIK is and how it can be further relevant for DRR efforts.
... Western notions of resilience, as well as the phases of the disaster cycle (Bosher et al., 2021), need to be questioned. In the article "Reconceptualizing disaster phases through a Metis based approach", Joanne P erodin, Zelalem Adefris, Mayra Cruz, Nahomi Matos Rondon, Leonie Hermantin, Guadalupe De la Cruz, Nazife Emel Ganapati and Sukumar Ganapati calls for a change in disaster research through a metis-based approach which refers to practical skills and acquired intelligence in responding to a constantly changing environment (P erodin et al., 2021). ...
This special issue calls for a change in disaster studies. This edition directly responds to the call for epistemological shifts from the imperative of the “Power, Prestige & Forgotten Values: A Disaster Studies Manifesto” that we endorsed together with 575 scholars from 63 countries since 2019.
The rise of knowledge production, indicated by the worldwide increase in peer-reviewed journals and grey literature in disaster studies over the last few decades, corresponds to the rise of risks and disasters. While this is a good sign of progress, it is also time to ask whose voice gets heard and who is left behind while producing “authentic knowledge” and theory in disaster studies and who benefits from it. One can further ask a critical question: if the faces of global disaster victims are people of the Global South, why have the faces of the disaster scholars remained predominantly Western?
... For instance, a 1979 report on emergency management by the (US) National Governors Association is credited with the initial categorization of the disaster life cycle into four phases, i.e. mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Disaster researchers around the world still refer to these four stages, though they are not seen as distinct or mutually exclusive (Landahl et al., 2019) and moves are afoot to nudge the thinking away from the typical 'cyclical' view of the disaster life-cycle to a framework that is less repetitive and inevitable in its conceptualization (see Bosher et al., 2021). The conceptualization of these 'stages' in a disaster is relevant for our discussion of the role of translation and interpreting and will be elaborated further on below. ...
The fields of disaster studies and crisis communication have been established for a long time. However, the role of translation in these fields has largely been overlooked until recently. A considerable body of research is now emerging that investigates translation as a crisis communication tool. This paper serves to provide a snapshot in time of the progress to date. A brief introduction to the disciplines of disaster studies and crisis communication is provided and crisis translation is situated at the nexus of these two areas. Following from this, the article considers the position of crisis translation in relation to topics of interest to translation studies scholars such as conflict, development, and community translation. Some of the main topics that have received recent attention to date, such as emergency response policy, translation technology, citizen translator training and ethics are then introduced. The lack of recognition of translation as a crisis communication tool in emergency response policies is called out and recommendations for such policies are highlighted. The essential role of volunteers in crisis response and how this relates to translation is discussed, along with the ethical considerations that need to be taken into account. The potential and challenges of translation technology to assist in all stages of crises is then elaborated. Taking a proposal for research directions in disaster studies, which outlines guiding principles and research thrusts, how translation studies can respond to that agenda is briefly considered. It is concluded that translation and interpreting research can contribute to the five ‘guiding principles’ of horizon scanning, interdisciplinarity, ethics, knowledge transfer and impact. Equally, crisis translation can also easily contribute to the five research ‘thrusts’ of justice, risk, habitation zones, data and technology, and infrastructure for humanity. Indeed, the work to date on crisis and translation has already made significant contributions to these topics, but there is considerable potential for further developments.
... Moreover, the traditional management model for recovery projects has a linear process, which is prone to methodologic inadequacies due to the fragmented phases emphasising outcomes rather than process (Vahanvati and Mulligan 2017). Taking advantage of the proposed management models offered by Bosher et al. (2021) and Vahanvati and Mulligan (2017), this study suggested a conceptual framework attempting to combine lifespan for disaster recovery projects and project management stages. As the results surpass the earlier work in this area regarding the necessity of linking the development recovery to the mitigation and preparedness phases, a nonclosed loop cycle has been utilised, representing the lifespan of the recovery projects. ...
... • In addition, the suggested framework reveals the necessity of having planning before the disasters. This observation also agrees with the results reported by Bosher et al. (2021), as they have demonstrated the necessity of paying more attention to disaster mitigation and preparedness rather than emergency management (Bosher et al. 2021). Furthermore, the more resources are being used in the mitigation and preparedness stage, the more sustainable the communities will be. ...
... • In addition, the suggested framework reveals the necessity of having planning before the disasters. This observation also agrees with the results reported by Bosher et al. (2021), as they have demonstrated the necessity of paying more attention to disaster mitigation and preparedness rather than emergency management (Bosher et al. 2021). Furthermore, the more resources are being used in the mitigation and preparedness stage, the more sustainable the communities will be. ...
Following the increasing rate of disasters’ impacts on societies, more attention is being paid to recovery projects after these disasters. However, from the perspective of project management, recovery projects show a significant degree of differences from regular construction projects. Although some progress has been made on this topic, further research is needed to smooth pathways for the management of disaster recovery projects. This paper provides a management framework for disaster recovery projects through a qualitative analysis of the research’s selected resources. The resources selected from academic online platforms have been coded by NVivo 2020, and corresponding groups have been made for the disaster recovery lifespan and project stages separately. An integrated management framework has been put forward throughout the simultaneous application of the research’s suggested lifespan and project stages. The most significant observation of this study is the necessity of applying a continuous lifespan to address projects’ long-term goals and provide an experience-based database to manage the next disasters. The significant role of planning in the entire lifespan of recovery projects, recognition of the tasks that need to be handled continuously during their entire lifespan, the necessity of simultaneous consideration of tangible and intangible recovery outcomes are the other findings of this study. The reconstruction stage is identified as part of the more extensive system, which stresses the necessity of considering the recovery project as a whole system.
... Other conceptualizations of disaster have underlined precisely this role of seemingly ''normal'' conditions in prefiguring or constructing disaster risk (Hewitt 1983;Kelman 2020). In reality, a neat dichotomy between normality and disaster, or other ''phases'' of disaster, does not exist (Neal 1997;Coetzee and Van Niekerk 2012;Bosher et al. 2021). While disaster impacts are increasingly seen as processes rather than one-off events, disasters are typically imagined in the form of graphic images of material destruction, a need for getting out of harm's way and as ''events'' followed by recovery in their aftermath. ...
... The ''disaster occurrence'' itself is commonly understood in ''sudden-onset'' terms (although disasters often have lasting consequences), seen as implying impact trajectories that consist of abrupt, unexpected devastation followed by a race to recover back to how things were (Meriläinen and Koro 2021). This is also implied by the urge to build back better, recover resiliently, or other temporal foci that cast disasters as ''events'' (Bosher et al. 2021). The following definitions, for example, conceptualize ''disaster'' as: ...
In this article, we set out to reconcile a general conceptualization of disaster temporalities by drawing on the epitome example of a creeping disaster, namely famine. Our argument is driven by the recognition that slowly manifesting disaster impacts pose distinct challenges for decision makers and researchers while there is a tendency for the disaster literature to overlook the role of disaster onset dynamics. More specifically and as a starting point, we identify four key themes that merit particular attention when dealing with creeping disasters: (1) our understanding of disaster as a phenomenon; (2) measurement and operationalization; (3) early warning and response; and (4) disaster management and termination. By integrating conceptual discussions of disaster with famine scholarship-a phenomenon often excluded from mainstream disaster research-this article provides fresh perspectives on disaster science as well as a number of implications for how we think about disaster risk reduction.
... Our third concern relates to the focus on specific phases of a crisis or disaster. The differentiation between mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Alexander, 2002) has helped disaster researchers to systematize and codify research results (Bosher et al., 2021;Neal, 1997). At the same time, the field has also been criticized for its putative preference for some phases of crises over others. ...
The field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated over the past two decades. Attention is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the main foci, methods, and research designs employed in the crisis and disaster research fields in the period of 2001–2020. The review documents that the focus and methods used have not changed much over time. Single case studies and exploratory research prevail, the focus has shifted from preparedness to response, and methodological diversity is limited, but gradually increasing. Future challenges are to understand transboundary crisis management and creeping crises. Advancing the field calls for our community to put more effort in drawing lessons beyond the single case to uncover comparable and universal patterns that connect between events or phases, which help to theorize the multifaceted nature of crisis and disaster management. © 2021 The Authors. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Policy Studies Organization
... In addition, a multi-hazard disaster risk perspective is needed to better prepare a region with different hazards (natural, biological, etc.). Furthermore, it is necessary to apply a disaster risk perspective using a helix cycle of disaster phases rather than a single circle of disaster phases with its variety of intensity as well as frequency [58]. In that perspective, disaster risk reduction efforts will be conducted continuously (in pre-, during, post-disaster management phases) and adapted to different possible hazard(s) in that area. ...
In relation to innovations which help to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, the best practices of several smart cities become an important input to organize and create strategies for future cities. This research aims to identify the responses of cities to the COVID-19 pandemic; analyze their innovation in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic; and create strategies and planning for the future of the cities. This study analyzes aspects such as the use of information and communication technology (ICT), smart city implementation, the biological disaster of the COVID-19 pandemic, the environment, and spatial plans. This research was carried out in five smart cities using a case study. The results indicated that each case had innovations for coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. They showed a uniqueness and local innovations adapted to the problems faced in the five case areas. The innovations were demonstrated by the use of ICT-based applications in several public services as part of smart city implementation. The concept of a smart city, which addresses the biological disaster of the COVID-19 pandemic through the existence of ship-based isolation centers and sociotechnical innovations, was then adapted in various cities throughout Indonesia. In terms of the smart environment concept, this is translated through technological and social innovation approaches to improve medical and domestic waste management, public service systems, and the socialization of environmental protection programs in cities during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is allegedly accelerating the implementation of the smart city concept in spatial planning. There is a tendency for the use of public space in the city center to shift to local-scale service centers. Additionally, other activities are increasingly occupying the digital space so that it affects the arrangement of spatial organization and increases the need for ICT infrastructure. The efficient and flexible use of applications for supporting the implementation of smart cities needs to be broadened for the public services provided by both the government and private sectors. Meanwhile, in relation to the dimensions of a smart environment, it is necessary to take into account the waste management as a result of COVID-19. The same case is the aspect of spatial planning in which it is necessary to redesign open spaces for public use. City planning in the future also needs to be capable of the smart mitigation of non-physical disasters, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
