Description
In National Geographic’s 2006 documentary ‘Inside Hurricane Katrina’ there are numerous examples of opportunities for leaders to step forward and make decisions in the best interest of threatened and impacted communities. This didn’t always happen ideally. As seen in after action reviews for this disaster, there were identified aspects of leadership cited for future improvement.
Discussion Question:Taking into account the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and the leadership qualities discussed last week, how would an effective emergency manager in today’s world improve upon efforts to prepare for, respond to and recover from this disaster?
500 words
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0rPCMqt2DAxXeKEQIHcbdBrEQwqsBegQIIRAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5EHA1idWFdw&usg=AOvVaw2vReeqGLTv6Q8_qQsoFZuI&opi=89978449
For this learning module, please study the following materials. You will need to understand the concepts presented here to complete the assignments.
Read:
Phillips B. D. Neal D. M. & Webb G. R. (2022). Introduction to emergency management and disaster science (3rd ed.).
Chapter 9: “Mitigation”
Chapter 10: “Public and Private Sectors”
Module 3 Lecture-1.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Hello Scholars!
This is Lecture #3. This week we will be discussing recovery, mitigation, resiliency and mental health. To
assist you with this week’s discussion topic please watch National Geographic’s 2006 documentaryInside Hurricane Katrina.
While critically important to comprehensive emergency management, recovery and mitigation are not
exciting to many. That said, these two phases of the disaster life cycle are the most significant influences
upon the health and well-being of the whole community. They also are very important links to
resiliency, along with preparedness.
Let me start by saying that there will never be complete and comprehensive mitigation. There will
always be a need to recover. While it is possible to buy-down risk for some hazards, it is impossible to
prevent them from occurring. Even enhanced building codes in earthquake or tornado prone areas can’t
stop some disaster caused damages.
That isn’t to say that, as a nation, we shouldn’t be constantly trying to buy-down disaster risk. In fact, we
should be doing much more. Disasters continue to increase in frequency, intensity and recovery
expense. In recent times, the over $4B annual appropriation to the national Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
have at times been insufficient. Supplemental Congressional appropriations are no longer anomalies for
catastrophic disasters in America.
(NOTE: If you’re interested in gaining additional perspective on the financial significance of disaster
recovery in the United States take a look at The Center for American Progress 2013 report, Disastrous
Spending: Federal Disaster-Relief Expenditures Rise amid More Extreme Weather )
So, you get it, recovery is important. But, what is it exactly? The graphic below from the National
Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) depicts a time continuum for necessary recovery activities.
Essentially, actual recovery from the negative impacts of a disaster begins at the time of the incident.
From the time of initial impact (Short-Term Recovery) through long sustained activities essential to a
community developing a ‘new normal’ (Long-Term Recovery) recovery can last for years. As mentioned
in your textbook, this series of steps can include restoration of critical infrastructure in the short-term
and rebuilding of entire neighborhoods in the long-term. All are equally important and interdependent.
Further, not all are the responsibility of the emergency manager or respective government institution.
To recover the whole of community it takes the whole community.
(Note: While actual recovery begins at the time of an incident, to recover effectively and efficiently
recovery must begin in preparedness with the planning process. If you’re interested in learning more,
please look into FEMA’s Long Term Community Recovery Planning Process: A Self-Help Guide.)
Mitigation efforts save lives and reduce financial losses. You see these nearly every day around where
you live and work. Retention basins in communities, solicitations for the National Flood Insurance
Program, forest thinning in the wildland-urban interface, and installation of buffer zones around high
profile government facilities are just a few examples. All mitigation falls into two categories, structural
and non-structural mitigation. Of critical importance to non-structural mitigation is the mitigation
planning process. I argue that all structural mitigation should be plan based and the planning process
should be comprehensive and scientifically informed.
(NOTE: For those of you that are interested, Arizona’s 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan, is available online. See
page 382 for a research article I wrote concerning climate adaptation and its relationship with natural
hazards in Arizona.)
An effective planning process for mitigation assists decision makers with prioritizing where resources are
allocated. Unfortunately, resources for mitigation are often scarce. It often takes significant economic
and political will to achieve meaningful mitigation prior to a disaster occurring. While mitigation right
after a disaster is easier to achieve, this isn’t ideal for those trying to buy-down future risk.
So, what do mitigation and recovery have to do with the idea of resiliency? How does disaster mental
health relate to resiliency? The answer lies in the fact that resiliency is two-fold, personal and
community based.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s definition of resiliency is as follows, “the ability to adapt to
changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due to emergencies. Whether it
is resilience towards acts of terrorism, cyber attacks, pandemics, and catastrophic natural disasters, our
national preparedness is the shared responsibility of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit
sectors, and individual citizens.”
The definition has clear ties to preparedness. As you learned during Week #1 and research into PPD-8,
preparedness is also applicable to individuals and the community. They are interdependent. Thus
disaster mental health is just as important to personal resiliency as recovery and mitigation are to
community resiliency. The importance of disaster mental health for responders and survivors is
evidenced in the amount of available resources. The American Red Cross, SAMHSA, and ICISF are just a
few.
(NOTE: If you are interested, The International Critical Incident Stress Foundation published A Primer On
Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM).)
This concludes Lecture #3. I look forward to reading your discussion posts. Enjoy your week.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
