PRELIMINARY PAPER #144

SOME ASPECTS OF DISASTER PLANNING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES*

E. L. Quarantelli

Disaster Research Center University of Delaware

1990

*Written version of paper prepared for presentation under the title of "Safety assessment for regional developmental planning," at the Workshop on Integrated Approach to Disaster Management and Regional Development Planning with People's Participation held in Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 28- February 1, 1990.

Introduction: The Seven Basic Issues

In this paper we discuss seven related matters or issues:

(1) that planning for disasters encompasses four different but related aspects, namely mitigation or prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. We shall note that while the research knowledge is uneven about the different phases, nonetheless the necessity of linking them in the planning process is clear.

(2) possible social differences between developing and developed countries that have implication for disaster planning. that the great bulk of disaster research has been undertaken in developed countries; the extrapolation or applicability of the research results to the situation in developing countries has to be considered.

This is necessitated by the fact

(3) in what ways, if any, a rural way of life differs from an urban one given that almost all developing societies are basically rural in nature. If there are some major differences, they would have important implications for disaster planning.

(4) the criteria which can be used to assess disaster planning. Sets of such criteria have implicitly or explicitly been advanced in a variety of sources, so we will primarily confine ourselves to presenting mostly a checklist that could be used, taking into account all the four phases of disaster planning.

(5) the extent to which disaster planning can be integrated into developmental planning, particularly as the latter takes regional form. examination, we will assess the extent to which such integration can occur with respect to the four aspects of disaster planning.

In a short

(6) the nature of the possible participation of citizens and local communities in disaster planning. indications what research in the disaster area suggests about getting citizen and community involvement, and

In a selective discussion, we shall give some

(7) that the future will not be the same as the past or even the present insofar as disaster planning is concerned. ever changing, but the nature of disasters themselves are in flux moving us towards more and worse disasters.

Not only are developing societies .

The Four Aspects or Phases of Disaster Planning

Compared to the little that was available several decades ago, there has now accumulated a body of social science knowledge about the human, social and organizational aspects of disaster phenomena (see Quarantelli and Dynes, 1977; Kreps, 1984). In general terms we now know a great deal (see for a recent summary compilation of research findings, Drabek, 1986). But our understanding is rather uneven; about some topics (such as how to issue warning messages) we know a great deal; regarding others we have limited understanding (such as how to get disaster mitigation measures incorporated into everyday community and developmental planning). Nonetheless, there is

1

much that can be derived from social scientific studies which can currently be applied in disaster planning anywhere.

It has become commonplace in much of the disaster research literature in the West to distinguish between four different phases or aspects of disaster planning: preimpact mitigation or prevention, preimpact preparedness, emergency period response, and postimpact recovery (National Governors' Association, 1979).

Unfortunately, there is presently no consensus on the specific labels to be used--even in the workshop in which this paper is being presented such terms as disasters, disaster planning, emergency managing, and the different time phases or aspects of disaster, do not always seem to have the same common referent. can bring about a professional standardization of key terms in the disaster area. distinction alluded to above, namely that we can plan to prevent or mitigate disasters, we can undertake preparedness planning, we can plan to have efficient and effective responses to disasters, and we can plan to have better recovery from disaster impacts.

Perhaps the just initiated UN Decade for Natural DIsaster Reduction

But for our purposes here and for the present we will use the four fold

More specifically, the four aspects or phases of disaster planning can be seen as more specifically refer to the following:

1. Mitigation or prevention. activities of structural and/or nonstructural nature that tend to be one of three kinds: (a) those that attempt to actually eliminate or reduce the probability of the occurrence of a disaster; (b) those that are designed to reduce the effects of a disaster; and (c) those that help to distribute the costs of disaster planning and disasters. management such as by prohibiting construction in flood plains or the passage of laws that bar transportation of hazardous chemicals on highways going through heavily populated areas; of (b) would be retrofitting buildings to better withstand earthquakes or using fire retardant materials in structures in which large number of people might congregate such as stadiums and movie theaters; of (c) would be development of insurance programs for a larger population only part of which might be victims in a disaster impact or passing national or federal legislation requiring all local communities to have a certain level of disaster planning and providing partial national level resources for the process.

This has to do with long range preimpact

Examples of (a) would be land use

2. Preparedness. preparing for disasters. impact than mitigation ones and tend to be aimed at improving the emergency time response if a disaster were to occur. (a) might minimize disaster damage (such as the development of forecasting and warning systems or training people ahead of time on how to safeguard themselves at times of impact), and also (b) which could enhance response operations at emergency times (such as the prior stockpiling of medical supplies and food stocks or the conducting of disaster exercises or drills).

This has to do with preimpact activities concerned with Preparedness measures are closer to the onset of

They include activities which:

2

3. Response. disaster impact. provide emergency assistance (like the undertaking of search and rescue or opening up temporary shelters), (b) to reduce the probability of secondary damages (like shutting down electric power to prevent people from getting electrocuted from downed power lines or setting up roadblocks to prevent traffic jams on roads through which emergency help will be sent), and (c) to help speed the initiation of recovery operations (like the undertaking of systematic damage assessments or the setting up of emergency operations centers where coordination of the multiple organizations that will converge on the disaster site can be attempted).

This has to do with those actions that most closely follow Generally they include activities which are designed: (a) to

4. Recovery. undertaken after the emergency period is over in an attempt to return to relatively normal functioning. assistance, crisis or psychological counseling, and technical information (e.g., how polluted farm lands can be restored to production), to the restoration of major services and the rebuilding of damaged and'destroyed facilities, and to the passage of new laws or legislation which will facilitate rebuilding and reconstruction.

This has to do with those disaster relevant activities that are

They range from the providing of financial

It is important to note that while these phases can be analytically separated in reality they are related to one another. In fact, in some ways instead of visualizing them in a linear pattern, they should be seen as involving a circle. Thus,

NOT: mitigation or prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

BUT:

PREPAREDNESS

The circle implies that disaster related activities in one phase can have consequences for later phases. Thus, for example, decisions about tearing down or shoring up damaged buildings during the response phase has implications for later reconstruction during the recovery phase, in one case supporting, in the other case not supporting later relocation. Or, a failure to enact regulations to prevent living in flood plains during the mitigation phase will necessitate developing warning systems and evacuation plans for

3

residents of those areas during the preparedness phase, and in an actual response to sheltering the evacuees in someplace or other.

This four-fold distinction provides a general framework for approaching disaster planning. It should be useable in all societies.

Similarities and Differences Between Developed and Developing Countries

Disasters occur mostly in the developing countries of the world. will vary depending on the criteria used, but probably 70-80 percent of all disasters happen outside of developed countries. very well known world wide such as the earthquake in Mexico City, the toxic chemical catastrophe in Bhopal, India, the enormous destructive mudslide in Columbia, and the famine in Ethiopia, to mention a few that received major mass media attention in the last several years. Even more recently we have had fairly well noted floods in Bangladesh and the Sudan, cyclones in the Philippines and earthquakes in Nepal and Yemen.

The figure

Some of these disasters get

But these dramatic examples tend to obscure the fact that many massive disasters occur apart from those that are brought to the world's attention. For instance, in the same years 1984-1985 that the just mentioned disasters occurred, there was a cyclone and ensuing tidal wave which killed 11,000 and left 250,000 homeless in Bangladesh, a flood in northeast Brazil left 600,000 without homes, a mudflow after the Mayon volcanic eruption in Luzon, the Philippines made 50,000 homeless, a major fire destroyed 23,000 homeless in Mandalay, Burma, an earthquake in Guinea killed 275 persons and left 20,000 without housing, and a tropical storm struck the island of Anjouan in Comoros and destroyed 70 percent of the food crop and affected over 35,000 people (10 percent of the population). It is a simple fact that the world as a whole becomes only selectively aware of only a small fraction of all of even the major disastrous occasions that do occur.

So not only do most disasters happen in developing countries, but they are often of major magnitude whether they are or are not noticed by the world as a whole. In contrast, by far the greatest amount of social science disaster research has taken place in developed countries (Dynes, 1988). Given this imbalance between where the most and worst disasters happen and where disaster research is undertaken, is there anything we have learned about the social aspects of disasters in the developed societies which can be applied to disaster preparation and disaster management in developing countries? requires considering what might be disaster relevant differences between developed and developing countries.

This

We should note that we more than recognize that the very term "developing countries'' is questionable along a variety of lines. conceptual problem elsewhere (see Quarantelli, 1986: 16-18). However, for our purposes here we will use the label as it is popularly used, namely, it refers to those societies around the world that are basically rural, have relatively little industry, and who are generally poor in the economic sense of the term.

We have discussed this

4

Since we cannot in this paper examine all possible comparison points we will primarily note organizational level differences given that most disaster planning is undertaken by such kinds of groups. with the clear understanding that exceptions in the real world could be found regarding what is said; the comments are made from what social scientists call an ideal type perspective, that is, what the phenomena would look like if it existed in pure form. point of view developing versus developed countries generally differ along the following lines:

Our remarks are also made

In this kind of perspective, from an organizational

1. Developing societies do not have as complex organizational structures as do developed systems. countries.

There is simply less of an infrastructure in such

2. Many of the very top officials have obtained their training and education outside of their own social systems. A great number have been primarily socialized to Western professional ideals and contexts rather than local situations.

3. Such complex organizational structures as do exist tend to function from the top down. than proactive, this is especially true in developing countries with a strong tendency for initiatives only at the very top.

While almost all organizations anywhere are reactive rather

4. In many organizations emphasis is on structures or forms rather than functions or tasks. of paperwork and plans as well as other bureaucratic manifestations.

The means often become ends as seen in the proliferation

5. Few distinctively separate disaster preparedness and response organizations exist (and even fewer dedicated to mitigation or recovery). The further down from the national level, the rarer the existence of disaster specific groups.

What are the implications of these and other possible differences on the applicability of disaster research findings derived from developed countries to developing societies? complex one; it can not simply be said that there is applicability or not applicability.

Even at present it is clear that the answer is a

Let us illustrate the complexity by two examples.

(1) More than a decade ago, we hypothesized that cross-societal differences in disaster responses in the emergency time period varied directly with the level of the behavior involved. likely at the individual or human behavior level. But societal specific behavior patterns became more likely as one looks at the family, and up to higher social entities at the organizational, the community, and the societal levels.

That is, universal patterns of behavior were most

Such cross societal research as has been undertaken seems supportive of the hypothesis. disaster victims in any society. carried out by survivors, neighbors and private citizens rather than formal groups. In contrast, organized mitigation measures and reconstruction activities tend to vary very much from one society to another, possibly

For example, panic flight behavior is very rare among community Search and rescue activity is primarily

5

because they are more reflective of the everyday social situation than are emergency time actions.

If our general hypothesis is correct, it follows that organizational and community disaster behavior will not be universal, but also that it will not be completely societal specific. Clearly what are needed are systematic studies which will identify the universal features and the societal specific characteristics of organizational and community behaviors in disasters. We might hypothesiie, for example, that centralized organizations that have or use the same kind of technological resources, such as military groups, will tend to behave generally the same way in disasters irrespective of the society in which they operate.

(2) The absence in developing societies of the kinds of organizations that exist in Western type countries does not mean a total absence of the disaster functions that such groups may have. do not have the elaborate or specialized weather service organizations that can be found in Western Europe or Japan. Likewise, many such countries do not have anywhere near the complex and multi-faceted mass media outlets that exist in Australia, Canada and United States. But the absence of a modern mass communication system linked to a high tech monitoring and warning weather service system does not preclude institutionalized ways of alerting people and groups to sudden risks and hazards. rather complex informal social networks which allow many warnings to reach populations relatively well apart from any mass communication system. For instance, Schware (1984) has reported on the existence of a wide variety of early indicators of possible flooding as well as long established message warning networks functioning in flood prone village communities in India that are apart from the official and mass media warning systems (see also Howes, 1979).

For example, many developing countries

In some developing countries there are

Similarly, most developing countries do not have the systems of organizations which in developed societies are characterized as medical-health systems. elaborate and linked groups existing in many Western type countries for the delivery of emergency medical services are even less likely to exist in developing societies. disaster relevant functions might be almost completely unmet in such countries. This is - not the case. As an Indian observer once wrote, while. cases involving major surgical operations can only be done within a hospital context:

The

As such it might be thought that certain highly

even in a country like India where proper medical hospital care may not be available in peace times for distances up to 10 to 15 kilometers, people over time have developed and devised their own techniques of dealing with medical emergencies, using herbal or other natural resources. JAC itself have been integrating such techniques (e.g. solar therapy) into its training programmes for disaster preparedness for the last several years. (Jain, 1983:2).

Overall, our general point is that it should not be assumed that the organized ways existing in developed countries for providing certain services or carrying out particular tasks, are the only relevant social arrangements

6

possible. the social functions carried out. at the very least we should recognize that different kinds of social organizations might be able to carry out the same tasks, and that similar appearing social organizations do not necessarily have the same functions (as can be easily seen in some developing countries--as well as some developed societies-- which have Western style democratic political organizations and institutions in form, but which really do not function in any democratic way).

Less important than the social structures for doing something, are Without in any way implying an equivalence,

Furthermore, as noted earlier, as a whole, developing countries are more at risk to disasters than developed ones. point, we would therefore expect developing societies to have many disaster subcultures. Such subcultures involve interrelated sets of attitudes and practices among the residents and groups in a locality that makes them better prepared to respond to a future similar disaster (Wenger and Weller, 1973). We mention this to make an important point. In part it is to question an implicit assumption that in almost all respects developing countries as a whole are worse off in disaster preparedness than developed countries, especially given few or no organizations specifically oriented to disaster problems.

Although no solid data exists on this

If disaster subcultures exist, this would not be the case.

In general therefore it can be said that developing societies do differ somewhat from developed societies. As such modifications have to be made in any social technology transfer regarding disaster planning. differences are not always to the disadvantage of the developing countries insofar as disaster planning is concerned. Especially with respect to the more macro levels of social behavior, there are indigenous aspects which could be helpful to planners.

But the

Rural and Urban Ways of Life: A Diminishing Distinction

The ways in which urban life might differ from rural life has attracted the attention of anthropologists and sociologists for decades. Ferdinand Tonnies (1957) compared in ideal type terms the social characteristics of a small isolated village and a large urban center. then many formulations attempting to capture the similarities and differences between a rural and urban way of life have been advanced (e.g. Wirth, 1938; Simmel, 1950; 1938; Suttles, 1968; Wilson, 1986). One recent statement made the comparison as follows:

As early as 1887

Since

... in a small isolated village ... everyone knows everyone else, and they interact on a daily basis. Each persons is embedded.in a close-knit network of relatives and friends. The members of the community also have many things in common. ancestry, common values, aspirations, and traditions as well as many common roles. These shared elements and frequent face-to-face relations help to create strong social and emotional bonds. In addition, the status of each persons in the community tends to be ascribed at birth ... People tend to remain what they

They share a common

7

were born to. limited as social mobility. dies in the same small area. Thus, individual identify is closely tied to the community. think of themselves in terms of their place ...

Geographic mobility, moveover, is as A person often lives and

People

The authors then go on to say that:

Urban, industrial ... society is dramatically different. For one thing, the dense population guarantees that many of the people who encounter each other in the course of a typical day will be strangers to each other. THose strangers with whom individuals must interact such as store clerks, waiters, and bank tellers, for example--are dealt with in very impersonal ways. In fact, relationships tend to be very superficial, even with neighbors. It is rare for urban neighbors to form a close-knit social group. Often they come from very different backgrounds, so they many not share ancestry, values, norms, or attitudes. roles, since work in urban societies is highly specialized. All these differences make urban dwellers socially distanced from each other. What ties they have tend to be fragmented. Friends may live across town, co-workers miles away, and relatives virtually on the other side of the country. Moreover, unlike people in rural villages who spend their whole lives in the same location, urbanites are extremely mobile. ..Urbanites also move socially, leaving old friends behind as they make new ones ...( Light, Keller and Calhoun, 1989: 231-232).

Nor are they likely to have the same work

Still other writers have stressed that rural people, for example, tend to be traditional, passive, fatalistic, and limit women to specific gender assumed social roles and so on. Still other students of social life have noted that large impersonal bureaucracies, complex sets of laws, separation of place of work and of residence, and extreme specialization or division of labor in the work force, are notable characteristics of urban life.

To some extent these formulations are somewhat stereotypic. noted, for instance, that within even metropolitan areas there are often many enclaves and neighborhoods (ethnic and otherwise in composition) where there is a strong sense of belonging, intimacy and caring--in short, there are urban dwellers that show many of the social characteristics of the so-called rural way of life (e.g., Gans, 1962; Fischer, 1982).

Critics have

Nonetheless, it is clear that there are and continues to be some important social differences between a rural and urban way of life. For our purposes they are important because they have implications for disaster planning (e.g. an attitude of passivity or fatalism is not conducive to taking preparatory actions or recovering from disaster impacts; separation of place of residence

8

and work creates different kinds of problems at times of emergency responses; dependence on laws and social control agencies such as the police and regulatory agencies to bring about adherence to community norms provide a different context for attempting to prevent or mitigate disasters).

Also, it has been argued that some of the urbanization that is occurring in developing countries are showing extreme and very negative manifestations of an urban way of life (e.g. Castells, 1977). Cited are the huge numbers and very high population density that increasingly characterize the metropoleis in developing countries (such as Mexico City, Calcutta, Lagos), the incessant flow of rural migrants into such areas, the very high rates of unemployment and poverty, the badly overloaded public works and infrastructures in such localities, etc. (For example, 70 percent of the population in Dhaka are recent migrants from rural areas and they live in slum neighborhoods). An implication of this is that disaster planning for urban areas in developing countries that overall are still primarily rural in their lifestyles, will be unusually difficult.

Without doubt there are important differences between a rural and urban way of life. These can not be ignored. However, it is equally necessary to take into account two other aspects about this matter. One is that while there are differences there are also similarities (e.g., family and kin relationships are normally very important in both spheres). The other is that increasingly the line between the two ways of life is becoming blurred as urban values, beliefs and norms penetrate into the rural lifestyle (e.g., as can be seen in how certain kinds of music and other aspects of popular culture produced in cities become dominant in all lifestyles everywhere especially among adolescents and the young; as can also be observed in the spread of at least a nominal democratic political ideology and a more equitable position for women especially outside of the home).

In conclusion we can say that some important social differences between urban and rural areas do exist. and there should be some caution in simply taking over research findings more applicable to an urban lifestyle. different situation, and as we have stressed it is crucial to look forward more than to look at the past (this perspective itself is reflective of an urban way of life!).

They can clearly affect current disaster planning

But the future may bring a somewhat

Assessing Disaster Planning: Some Criteria

Disaster planning per se is not important. planning. used in any assessment made.

What is crucial is that it be good The research literature provides a number of criteria which can be

There are some criteria which can be applied generally. across the four different phases or aspects of disaster planning. Then there are criteria which are more applicable to only several or only one of the stages such as mitigation or recovery.

That is, they cut

9

We will indicate some of seeming more relevant criteria as these have been found by social science research on the matter.

General criteria:

1. All good planning recognizes that disasters are qualitatively as well as quantatively different from accidents and everyday emergencies. It is also important to recognize a similar difference in kind between what might be called disasters and what should be designated catastrophes. To argue that disasters are different from everyday life does not deny that whatever planning measures are advocated should be close as possible to everyday expectations and routines.

2. Disaster planning should primarily be generic rather than agent specific particularly with respect to the more human, social, and group aspects of disasters; this is less true for more technical and engineering matters. Put another way, the process should first be aimed at dealing with problems which are common across all disasters (e.g. warning, evacuation, sheltering, etc.), before dealing with those that are agent specific (e.g. the different kinds of problems involved in reacting to fallouts from volcanic eruptions or nuclear plant accidents).

3. Disaster planning must be both vertically and horizontally integrated. That is, vertical planning at different governmental--and where relevant non- governmental--levels should be linked and integrated with one another. National level planning for disasters, regional or provincial level, and community level planning needs to be consistent with each other. Likewise, the planning in the different time phases can not be done independent of one another (e.g. if in a recovery period evacuees continued to be sheltered in a flood plain, this creates a bad context for later mitigation measures that are intended to bar occupancy of such areas).

4. Planning should focus on general principles rather than specific details. This is what interests and captures the attention of most social actors in the process be it policy setters, decision makers, legislatures, heads of organizations, the mass media, various sectors of the public, etc.; only some need concern themselves with the specific operational and instrumental activities required for administration and implementation.

5. It is the planning process rather than the end product, such as a disaster plan, which is important. What needs to be created are not documents, but an accepted series of ways of approaching the problem, be it mitigation, preparedness, response or recovery. Awareness and consciousness, legitimacy and expectation, institutionalization and implementation--this is what is important rather than the production of pieces of paper, laws per se, or disaster specialized bureaucrats or agencies.

6. Planning can be no better than the assumptions on which it is based; thus the process needs to rest on valid scientific knowledge and not on popular beliefs, or worst, myths about social behaviors generally and disasters specifically. knowledgeable about the social science research which exists about public

In this respect, it would pay for planners to become

10

administration and governmental managing insofar as it involves the planning process and disasters (see Petak, 1985; Comfort, 1988).

Specific criteria for mitigation:

To be accepted, mitigation measures: (a) need to be as close as possible to everyday practices, (b) have to be politically realistic, and (c) should be economically viable (for a review of mitigation strategies see Godschalk and Brower, 1985).

Specific criteria for preparedness:

There is good preparedness for a disaster when there is: (a) anticipation of possible problems; (b) different possible solutions or options for dealing with the problems; (c) allowance for possible emergent behavior rather than just following traditional ways of doing things since disasters sometime require new and different ways of doing things (see Dynes, 1983)

Specific criteria for response:

Management of a disaster response is good if there is: (a) an efficient mobilization of personnel and resources; (b) the adequate processing of information between and within organizations, from and to the public, and within systems of organizations; (c) an effective exercise of authority and decision making; and (d) a development of coordination rather than control as the integrating mechanism (see Quarantelli, 1985).

Specific criteria for recovery:

Recovery measures will be most accepted if they: (a) are preplanned as part of the developmental planning of a society, (b) not too grandiose or ambitious, and (c) involve as many sectors of the community in the decision making as possible (for some of the problems of relating disaster recovery to developmental planning see Anderson and Woodrow, 1989).

Disaster Planning and Developmental Planning: Possible Links

Possible links between disaster planning and general societal or community developmental planning has long been recognized (see Cuny, 1983). In principle few would seem to disagree with the desirability of having a link. Logically the two kinds of planning should be connected.

However, there are sharp differences of opinion on how well it can be done and in the ways it could be done. For instance, some argue that because different types of organizations and different kinds of specialists are involved in developmental planning than normally participate in especially preparedness and response planning (usually these are emergency oriented agencies such as police and fire departments, hospitals, the public utilities, etc.), the link between the two kinds of planning will necessarily be weak. Stated in terms of an extreme example, the typical police officer has little interest, knowledge or involvement in community developmental planning, in the same way

11

that the typical community planner or housing official knowledge or involvement in the emergency tasks and responsibilities of police and fire officers.

has little interest,

In terms of what is actually done, there are often gaps if not a separation of the two kinds of planning. A recent analysis looked at the disaster related actions of a number of bilateral and multilateral aid agencies including the UN agencies, the international development groups, and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and North America. In this volume it is written:

This latter group, the NGOs, play a special role in disaster response and development programming. Varied as they are, they work "on the ground," close to the local people, providing relief and development assistance. Most believe that this closeness increases the likelihood that their assistance will really support local development. However, most also see a division between their relief principles and their development work. They have established certain principles for development work which they frequently abandon in the face of a perceived urgency of a disaster.

The result has been that opportunities for harnessing emergency work for development have been missed. Too often, disaster responses in the form of relief aid have not contributed to long- term development and, worse, actually subverted or undermined it (Anderson and Woodrow, 1989: 2).

From another perspective, even international organizations that do explicitly see a link between their own developmental planning and the disaster assistance they provide, have sometime been criticized as failing to making the two efforts converge enough.

The disaster reconstruction activities of the World Bank, for instance, have been questioned along this line, and its attempts to implement an environmental policy that will meet the concerns of all its constituencies has been faulted (see Le Prestre, 1989).

In many ways, if we separate out the four different phases or aspects of disaster planning, the picture might become clearer.

The mitigation aspects of disaster planning, concerned as it is with such matters as land use, building codes, zoning regulations, etc. would seem to be quite consistent with matters that have to be addressed in developmental planning. Similarly, but perhaps to a lesser extent, there would also seem to be a close relationship between some of the activities necessary during the recovery period of a disaster and the developmental policies of the involved communities.

On the other hand, for reasons indicated earlier about the different kinds of organizations and personnel involved, there seems to be less of a link between disaster preparedness/response planning and developmental planning. At least

12

this is true in practice if not in logic. discussed in the first part of this paper between all phases or stages of disaster planning, this is an obvious flaw in what occurs. matter that needs considerable more examination.

But if there are circular links as

Clearly this is a

However, since decisions and policies have to made in the absence of good social scientific evidence, perhaps the best strategy would be to concentrate on the mitigation phase as the point where the greatest convergence between disaster planning and developmental planning could be achieved. most effective way of dealing with sudden disasters would be to prevent them in the first place. impossible achievement. Nonetheless, the mitigation if not the prevention of disasters ought to be the ideal goal of all those concerned with these kinds of occasions. actions. period of a disaster. headache without ascertaining the generating conditions responsible for the pain. needs and undertake the necessary planning, we must also attend to how disaster effects might be mitigated if not prevented.

Obviously the

Of course total elimination of all disasters is an

It should have the highest priority in our thinking and There is a danger of being lured into the drama of the emergency

But too often, that is like treating the symptoms of an

While we must continue to pay attention to emergency time disaster

Participation of Local Citizens and Communities in the Process

Earlier we had noted the worldwide spread of a democratic ideology with its implication of the right of citizens to directly participate in and influence many areas of life. Its manifestation can be seen in the disaster area also. This very workshop explicitly takes up the point that citizens ought to be involved. In fact, it is said that:

Reduction in the vulnerability of people and institutions will be better done with People's Participation. Any national disaster programme calls for People's Participation and involvement, if it were to succeed. Disaster preparedness and training again, are inoperable in the absence of People's Participation ... For successful implementation of any preparedness planning, a management system geared to the village level and involving local volunteers must be established; otherwise, it will be reduced to a pious wish on paper" (UNCRD-CIRDAP WORKSHOP, 1989 : 2).

But there is an important matter apart from direct citizen participation. actually carrying out of the great majority of disaster planning of necessity takes place at the local community level, be this a city, town or village. Human beings everywhere are organized at the community level to carry out collective tasks. In that specific sense, citizens at the local level are involved if there is disaster planning. In fact, at the formal level to give just two examples, citizen involvement is a major focus of recently instituted planning for disasters in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The

But everything else being equal, the research literature seems to indicate that initial efforts at the community level (that is, in terms of moving local public/private organizations to plan) are likely to be somewhat easier and

13

more fruitful than attempts to first involve citizens. Change usually can be better brought about in targeted groups than among large masses of individual citizens. Furthermore, in one sense, if something is achieved at the community level, it sets a supportive and facilitating context for actions at the individual and household level. Different social conditions in different societies might lead to a different order of priority, but in most cases the community level seems to be what should be the focus of the first disaster planning effort especially if nothing or very little is in place.

However, even in societies where disaster planning is fairly widespread such as the United States and Canada, overall community disaster planning is rather uneven. The planning for disasters tends to have low priority--whether measured by attention, budgets or organizational participation in most communities. community interest as would be indicated by mass media focus, discussions in the political arena, or involvement of pressure or interest groups (except to some extent for planning with respect to local chemical and nuclear plant risks). minimal. Finally, it is the rare community where even all the crisis or emergency oriented groups have undertaken disaster planning, and if they have, have made their organizational activity a part of the overall community effort. agenda of almost all communities even in developed countries where there is some planning (see Quarantelli, 1988).

The issue of planning very seldom becomes a matter of broad

In almost all areas, resources allocated to planning are very

In short, disaster planning has very low ranking on the problem

We mention the state of affairs elsewhere because it is important to be realistic about the problem when considering the situation in developing countries. not be undertaken. Rather it is an effort to stress that persistent and systematic efforts based on the research literature will have to be used to bring about planning at the community level. providing information that a particular area is at risk from certain disaster agents. different stages in the planning process, namely:

This is not a counsel of despair or a statement that planning can

It will not occur just by

Among other things, it is helpful to recognize that there are

1) a need to formulate relevant policies; 2) once formulated, adoption by some relevant governmental agencies; 3) once adopted, identification of more relevant target audiences (e.g., village women, higher levels of national governmental bureaucracies, school children, technical experts and professionals, etc.) for different programs (e.g., training, information, skill development, diffusion of knowledge, etc.): 4) once identified, all programs must be implemented by whatever governmental and/or private agencies are appropriate; and 5) implementation must then be assessed; that is, feedback must be obtained to see if desired changes are being achieved by whatever measures have been implemented (be this increased knowledge of disasters by engineers changes in land use zoning, creation of emergency operation centers, conducting of local hazard analyses, actual use of mass shelters, the damage assessments that were conducted, etc. (Partly taken from Wenger and Drabek, 1987).

14

Obviously, what is being suggested is a step by step approach. step requires other factors that will facilitate its manifestation. For example, one study in the United States that looked at the adoption and implementation of earthquake risk mitigation policies found that it was facilitated by: mandates from the state government, previous earthquake experiences, ability of the agency staff, attitudes of local governmental leaders, the resources available, and competition from other local issues (Wyner and Mann, 1983). factors involved, but can indicate that the research literature does offer a number of cues about what might be the most fruitful ways to proceed.

In turn, each

We can not here systematically analyze all the

The Future Will Be Different

Developing countries by definition are changing. disasters is also somewhat changing. These two somewhat different kinds of changes, their dynamics, can not be ignored. This means that the future is not the past repeated. It also means that the past or even the present can not be taken exclusively for purposes of disaster planning.

Furthermore, the nature of

Developing societies almost by their very definition are in the process of changing into something else. villages, changes do occur both in attitudes and actions. present time have access to radios, to any kinds of motor vehicles, for example, they are living different than their grandparents. Disaster planning can not be just for tomorrow. It has to be for the decades to come. And in these years social changes will occur in any developing society which will affect the capabilities and resources that can be brought to bear on disaster planning (some will be helpful such as greater educational achievements for citizens as a whole; but some will not be such as ever larger and more complex bureaucracies).

In even the most tradition bound and isolated If people at the

There is also a need to project what future disasters will be like. disaster planners merely look at what has happened in the past. unfortunate because changes are also occurring in the threats to which the human race is exposed.

Too often This is

There are at least five possibilities: (1) old kinds of disaster agents that simply will have more to hit--this is especially relevant to developing countries since in most of them the population is growing rapidly and in many cases with higher density of people in especially vulnerable locations such as might be argued is the case of Bangkok, Thailand. kinds of technological accidents that were almost nonexistent several decades ago--obviously we are talking here of chemical and nuclear threats. for a variety of reasons, developing countries are especially subject to hazardous chemical risks the extent of which a Bhopal made clear. (3) Technological advances that add complexity to old threats (e.g., measures that prevent some problems but at the cost of generating others such as fire

(2) New and increasing

Again,

resistant material that will lead to threats (e.g. the increasing threats that characterize industrialized and

asphyxiation); generated by the complex lifeline systems urbanized societies).

(4) New versions of old

15

(5) Finally, we have moved into a world where the risks and hazards can increasingly impact far in time and space from their original source. chemical contamination of the Rhine River in Switzerland affect all the countries in which it flowed. its effects within the Soviet Union and Western Europe that may last for generations is, of course, the kind of future disaster that some of us in the disaster area pointed out would occur long before it actually happened. Even more illustrative of the kinds of future disasters with distant impacts is the PCB or pesticide contamination which got into the ecological food chain in Michigan in the United States where we now have daughters of mothers who had lived in the area exhibiting signs of exposure; literally a second generation has been directly affected.

The

The nuclear plant accident in Chernobyl with

As another example, we might note our increasing dependency on computers. range of implications of this for those interested in disasters has not been well thought through. For instance, computers with remote sensing devices along some lines will allow better monitoring for potential risks and hazards and allow earlier warnings. information overload on those using them creating the classic dilemma of what is the most relevant information for those using them for disaster purposes. Also, many computers are parts of interactive systems and networks which means that there is the potential that relatively minor trouble at one point may have major chain reaction consequences elsewhere. This matter of computer problems should be especially noted because sometime those in developing countries look enviously at those in developed societies that appear to have all this technology that can be brought to bear. disaster area, comes at a cost; it is not an unmixed blessing.

The

But at the same time they almost insure an

But technology, even in the

As a last example, we might note that we are moving into a biotech revolution, particularly with respect to recombinant DNA (genetic engineering) which will allow biologists to mix and match the genetic blueprints of bacteria, animals and plants. design living organisms. As new plants, engineered animals, and eventually genetically manipulated human beings are created, the probability that something will go wrong is certain. Frankenstein scenario to forecast that organisms will be created which will have unfavorable and , perhaps initially, undefendable negative effects on human beings and societies.

In one sense, we are at the threshold of being able to custom

One does not have to project a Dr.

The future disasters we have indicated do not, of course, exhaust the possibilities and probabilities (e.g., it will be interesting when a terrorist group will get hold of some nuclear or radioactive material). are to make the point that we are not talking about science fiction speculations. There are all kinds of new disaster potentials which are here, and which should be addressed. out of high technology developments when we still have famines and plagues in the world, but that is the reality of the situations we will be facing in the future.

Our examples

It may seem odd to talk of disasters coming

16

A Postscript Observation

While disaster research was initiated in the early 1950s by a handful of sociologists in the United States, disaster studies are now being conducted by social scientists in all disciplines in many places around the world (see Quarantelli, 1987). There currently is an established subspecialty with a critical mass of workers and a supporting professional research infra- structure.

What was once an almost exclusive American concern is presently the focus of systematic research in at least three dozen countries around the world including developing countries such as Mexico, China, Yugoslavia, India and Brazil and developed countries such as Australia, Italy, Japan, Canada and Belgium. disaster researchers: e.g., the International Research Committee on Disasters; the Association of International Disaster Experts; the International Panel for Risk Reduction in Hazard Prone Areas; the Section on Emergency Management of the American Society for Public Administration, etc. Workers in the area hold frequent national and international meetings, and they have their own professional journals (e.g. The International Journal of Mass Emerpencies and Disasters, The Industrial Crisis Quarterly, Disaster Management, Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies and Management, etc.); their own newsletters (e.g., Unscheduled Events, The Natural Hazards Observer, The Emergency Management Digest, The Hazard Monthly, Disaster Preparedness in the Americas, etc.); and publication outlets (e.g., the series issued by the Natural Hazards Information and Applications Center at the University of Colorado, by the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware, by the Mass Emergencies Program at the Institute of International Sociology at Gorizia in Italy, by the Relief and Development Institute in London in Great Britain, by the Center for Research Epidemiology of Disasters at the University of Louvain in Belgium, and by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center in Bangkok in Thailand).

There also exists professional association of social science

By almost any criteria which could be used, research on the human and social aspects of disasters is now a well established and institutionalized field. In less than 35 years a substantial research enterprise on disasters is presently accepted-without challenge. This contrasts with the situation of the pioneer sociologists who were often uncertain if they were posing the right questions and who frequently were surprised by the answer they obtained in their work (for an assessment of current disaster studies in sociology see Dynes, DeMarchi and Pelanda, 1987).

In conclusion, we would urge that disaster planners and researchers especially in developing societies should come to participate in this specialized enterprise developing their own institutions and activities. initiation of disaster research and/or management centers in such places as India, Mexico, and Indonesia among others indicates this is starting to happen. be of benefits to disaster planners and ultimately to the most important category of all, the human race.

The recent

The internationalization of disaster studies in the long run can only

17

References

Anderson, Mary B. and Peter J. Woodrow (1989) Rising from the Ashes: Developmental Strategies in Times of Disasters. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.

Castells, Manuel (1977) The Urban Question. London: Arnold.

Comfort , Louise (ed. ) ( 1988) Managing Disaster : Strategies and Policy Perspective. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

Cuny, Frederick C. (1983) Disasters and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Drabek, Thomas E. (1986) Human System Responses to Disasters: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New York: Springer Verlag.

Dynes, Russell R. (1983) Problems in emergency planning.

Dynes, Russell R. (1988) Cross-cultural international research: Sociology and disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 6: 101-129.

Energy 8: 653-660.

Dynes, Russell R., Bruna DeMarchi and Carlo Pelanda (eds.) (1987) Sociology of Disasters: Contributions of Sociology to Disaster Research.. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.

Fischer, Claude (1982) To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gans, Herbert (1962) The Urban Villagers. New York: Free Press.

Godschalk, David R. and David J. Brower (1985) Mitigation strategies and integrated emergency management. Public Administration Review 45: 64-71.

Howes, M. (1979) IDS Bulletin 10: 12-23.

The uses of indigenous technical knowledge in development.

Jain, N. (1983) Letter. Disaster Preparedness in the Americas. January:2

Kreps, Gary (1984) Sociological inquiry and disaster research. Annual Review of Sociology 10: 309-330.

Le Prestre, Philippe (1989) The World Bank and the Environmental Challenge. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press.

Light, Donald, Suzanne Keller and Craig Calhoun (1989) Sociology. New York: Knopf.

National Governors' Association (1979) Comprehensive Emergency Management: A Governor's Guide. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Petak, William J. (ed.) (1985) Emergency management: A challenge for public administration. Special Issue. Public Administration Review 45:

c

18

Quarantelli, E. L. (1985) Organizational Behavior in Disasters and Implications for Disaster Planning. Newark, DE.: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

Quarantelli, E. L. (1986) Research findings on organizational behavior in disasters and their applicability in developing countries. #107. Newark, DE.: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

Preliminary Paper

Quarantelli, E. L. (1988) Lessons learned from research on disasters. Preliminary Paper #133. Newark, DE.: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

Quarantelli, E. L. and Russell R. Dynes (1977) Response to social crisis and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology 3: 23-49.

Schware, Robert (1984) Flood information systems: needs and improvement in Eastern India. Environmental Management 8:55-66.

Simmel, Georg (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel.

Suttles, Gerald (1968) The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago Press.

Tonnies, Ferdinand (1957) Community and Society. East Lansing, MI.: Michigan State University.

New York: Free Press.

Chicago: University of

Wenger, Dennis E. and Thomas E. Drabek response planning: An overview of seismic policy related issues. Preliminary Paper #121. Newark, DE.: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

(1987) Emergency preparedness and

Wenger, Dennis E. and Jack M. Weller (1973) Disaster subcultures: The cultural residues of community disasters. Preliminary Paper #9. Newark, DE.: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

Wilson, Thomas C. (1986) Community population size and social heterogeneity: An empirical examination. American Journal of Sociology 91: 1154-1169.

Wirth, Louis (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44: 1-24.

Wyner, Alan J. and Dean E. Mann Local Governments and Earthquakes. Santa Barbara, CA.: Department of Political Science, University of California.

(1983) Seismic Safety Policy in California:

19