Analysis of Accidents and Catastrophes - Essay Example

ACCIDENTS AND CATASTROPHES Discuss the nature of accidents and how they can be ified It is beyond human capacity to entirely control his/her environment so that every action goes according to plan and every occurrence happens in a pre-meditated manner. Every once in a while the unforeseen happens and things go awry. In situations such as these, it is termed an accident, that which was not anticipated or the occurrence of which one was not prepared for. An accident can be defined as being an unexpected and unplanned occurrence that causes damage or injury to people or physical structures. Accidents can be classified according to ‘size’, meaning depending on the number of casualties and destruction done or according to the nature of the accident, that is whether it was caused by human or natural factors (Quarantelli, 1987). The linear model of classifying accidents uses ‘size’ to categorize and give different names to accidents (UN, 1992). An incident is termed as being an occurrence whether accidental or one done on purpose that still calls for the reaction of an emergency team or group put in place for just such a purpose (UN, 1992). An emergency can be termed as being an unanticipated occurrence that threatens life and property and calls upon immediate and urgent reaction from the relevant authorities within the given social set up. It is to be found that each social set up has its own way of coping with emergencies and, that there are different pre-arranged response depending on the magnitude of the emergency situation (Porfiriev, 1995). A disaster is an occurrence that causes extensive damage to the infrastructure within a given societal set up that is so severe to the extent that the resources available within the society itself are not adequate to function a response. At the same time a disaster jars the day to day activities of the society (Porfiriev, 1995). While a disaster might disrupt the functioning within a social set-up, a catastrophe brings a society to a standstill. A catastrophe throws a community into total mayhem where institutions of leadership may completely disintegrate and other institutions like schools and hospitals may be wholly destroyed. Catastrophes call for international intervention if the society affected is so crippled that it does not have the capacity to help its own survivors and casualties (Quarantelli, 1987). Although there is no unanimous agreement as to how accidents are to be listed using the linear model, it is generally accepted that, from the smallest to the most dire the order is an incident emergency, disaster and catastrophe. There are other terminologies that occur frequently when dealing accidents and their nature. A calamity is an occurrence that, like a disaster brings about large-scale disruptions in the normal functions of a societal set up but lasts over an extended period of time. A crisis is the point of deadlock in a tough situation or circumstance where a decision has to be made whose outcome, whether to bear a positive or negative impact, is not guaranteed (Pearce, 2000). What is termed an act of God is seen as a natural phenomenon in which man takes no part at all and over which he has minimal, if any control. An Act of God can be an earthquake or a volcanic eruption (Pearce, 2000). Tragedy refers to a series of unfortunate events whether manmade or natural (Pearce, 2000). The Disaster Research Institute formulated its own linear typology, dubbed the DRC typology, that was based on the scale and category of community response to accidents. According to this linear typology an accident is an event that calls upon existing emergency organizations and handled by rote. An emergency calls for a more extensive operation from the already existing emergency organizations, but it would still be done by rote. A disaster would encompass existing emergency organizations as well as going beyond and would not be done by rote. A catastrophe would altogether go beyond the emergency organizations within the community and encompass organizations that are not in any way part of the community set-up (Toft, 1992). 2. Discuss how numerous variables interact to produce disasters and catastrophes There are three main variables that are considered when it comes to discussing the factors that determine the enormity of a disaster. These three variables are: the physical environment and the phenomena beyond man’s manipulation that take place in it, the social environment which constitutes man’s social systems namely culture, population distribution, cultural practices, politics and economics, and lastly, the built environment which is simply infrastructure put up by man. Be it roads, bridges or buildings (Roberts, 1993). The occurrence of a catastrophe or a disaster is more complicated than can be surmised in there being a hazard agent and vulnerability. In most cases the thing that leads to the actual occurrence of a disaster or catastrophe can be in place years before the actual event occurs, which is always a sort of climax to a culminating problem. To put it in a clearer light, if an earthquake occurs in a remote region of the world where there is no human habitation, it is barely noted by geologists and seismologists. If, an earthquake of the same magnitude occurs where there is heavy human habitation, especially if there are poor building practices that lead to gross loss of lives then a natural phenomenon is transformed into a disaster (Roberts, 1993). Hazards can broadly be classified as either being internal or external (Mileti, 2003). External hazards are those that occur naturally in the physical world and of which man only has a limited influence on such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Internal hazards can be more directly linked to man and his activities for example in warfare, a nuclear bomb dropped on a town or city, a chemical plant accident, an oil spill from a tanker or even poor agricultural practices that in the long run lead to famine. At times both internal and external hazards can interact in unexpected ways, for example if mining is practiced in an area prone to landslides then the human activity might trigger a landslide (MIleti, 2003). What happens when there is a disaster is that there might be the occurrence of the domino effect where, one hazard can bring to the fore other vulnerabilities that had previously not been considered. In the case of a hurricane where there is heavy downpour of rain, accompanied by extremely strong winds, there may result in destroyed buildings, damaged infrastructure and cause flooding. All these are disastrous in their own right. In the face of a disaster or catastrophe, vulnerabilities are magnified (Tobin, 1997). Disasters occur when hazards and variables act together where there is already a vulnerability, or to exacerbate an already existing catastrophe. It cannot always be predicted how systems and variables in existence will interact to bring about a disaster or catastrophe. For example, in an agriculture based area, the main concern of deforestation would be that of soil erosion and the subsequent poor crop production which might result in famine after a period of time. A landslide, which might occur if there is flooding after heavy rains is not what first comes to mind when one thinks of deforestation. It is these ‘unexpected’ disasters that are normally most destructive (Tobin, 1997). In conclusion it can be said that there is always a disaster or catastrophe waiting to happen as long as the conditions are right, or ripe. A disaster is not always a one time, spur of the moment happening but rather a culmination of events that have been taking place of a span of time. Human activity contributes largely to the occurrence of these disasters/ catastrophes or contributes to their exacerbation. The occurrence of a disaster/catastrophe reveals other vulnerabilities and might at the same time trigger other hazards that make the situation worse (Tobin, 1997). 3. Discuss modern day threats and the changing trends in the frequency of disasters The face of disasters has been changing over the decades and indeed over centuries. With the continual study in how and why disasters occur, today there is the added advantage that not only can some natural be disasters fore-cast but in some instances they can also be prevented altogether or at least their damage minimized (Toft, 1992). The trend that has been observed in recent years has been that in the case of natural disasters, the higher percentage of death is reported in developing countries. This is probably because such countries do not pay as much attention to the adequacy of structures put up in disaster prone areas and do not have evacuation plans that are as efficient as those of their more developed counterparts. This could also be accounted for by the fact that poorer nations do not invest as much in pre-emptive action, that is action taken to minimize human based disasters (Pearce, 2000). The poorest nations are the hardest hit and most vulnerable. Out of the forty nine least developed nations, twenty foru are at greater risk fo disaster while six have experienced two to eight major disasters within the past fifteen years. Most of these disasters have had a negative long term effect on human development (Pearce, 2000). Statistics show that disasters have become more costly, not only for the developing countries. Data presented by Munich-Re, the trend that has been observed over the past five decades in regards to natural catastrophes is that it costs world economies billions of dollars. The group forwarded that between 1950 and 1959, there twenty major catastrophes that cost a sum total of s38 billion dollars while in the same ten year span of between 1990 and 1999, there were eighty such catastrophe that cost five hundred and thirty five billion dollars (Mileti, 2003). Over the last three years, there has been a marked increase in the number of natural events that proved hazardous and the populations affected. While the number of disasters has grown by three hundred percent, the tallied death toll has gone down by fifty percent. This can be attributed that technological advancements have made it easy for there to be alerts on looming disasters as well as general disaster and catastrophe preparedness (Mileti, 2003). Asia is the country that is most affected by these natural disasters, experiencing forty three percent of natural disasters in the past decade. Asia also accounted for seventy percent of all people who died in the past ten years with seventy percent of deaths caused by disasters occurring in Asia (Deyle, 1998). There have been changing patterns in people’s exposure to hazards that are intertwined with agricultural as well as socio-economic practices. There are several factors that play a role in this such as the level of poverty, development and modernization that have led to population shifts and new risks in the form of nuclear and bio-hazards (Deyle, 1998). Another reason for the change in the nature of disaster is the degradation of the environment that has brought about such phenomena as global warming and consequent change in climate patterns. This has resulted in severe weather patterns that have resulted in extremes of rainfall, drought, high or low temperatures which play a major role in how severe hydro-meteorological hazards remain to a community (Deyle, 1998). Though the number of disasters is increasing, with more and more occurring over a given time span, there are fewer deaths recorded as compared to incidences in the past. However, the value of property destroyed has been on the rise in given years. Industrialization has also contributed to disasters both directly and indirectly. In the first instance, there have been industrial accidents that have been on the level of disasters such as the explosion at the Chernobyl plant in Russia. The impact that industries have on the environment has increased tenfold since the number of industries have become multiplied tremendously as well. In the case of very severe industrial disasters the effects can outlast those of natural disasters by years. Take an example of a nuclear plant explosion such as the one that occurred at Chernobyl, the radioactive elements will contaminate the air, soil and water for a long time to come (Hodgkinsson, & Stewart, 1991). 4. Discuss the disaster life cycle and the UK management plans and the differences between the disaster and catastrophe planning The cost of disasters and catastrophes are overwhelming, not only in terms of human life and the destruction of property, but also in the long term ramification and setback. Thus, there are several strategies employed to check disasters before they happen, or if inevitable, to minimize the vulnerabilities so that there is minimum loss and damage incurred. Therefore, there are stringent measures taken to minimize, where possible, the damage done by disasters and catastrophes. Since, as has already been noted disasters are not an out of the blue occurrence, it means that there are plausible steps that can be taken to control the variables that lead to the occurrence of disasters and catastrophes (Deyle, 1998). The disaster life cycle is one that tries to break down a disaster into several stages and analyze what takes place at each stage. The first stage of a disaster, the pre-event, actually takes place before the disaster in a bid to avert it from actual occurring. The pre-event refers to the course of action taken when it is apparent that human activity might lead to a disaster. For example if it is decided that there shall be re-forestation in an area that has been particularly denuded (Hodgkinsson & Stewart, 1991). Once the disaster has occurred, the emergency stage starts where emergency organizations and other agencies have to take immediate action in an attempt to save as many lives and as mush property as is possible (NAPA, 1993). There is the intermediate stage which refers to the first measures taken to see that the basic needs of the survivors are met. This is very important because with the wreckage it means that there will be a severe shortage of social amenities, food and safe drinking water. It is done in a bid to restore a semblance of normalcy in the community in the shortest span of time possible NAPA, 1993). This is followed by the long-term stage where further repair to damaged infrastructure is done; counseling the affected, environmental cleanup and debris collection is conducted in an attempt to restore the community to what it once was. This stage normally takes the longest time NAPA, 1993). The last stage is the resolution stage which should happen after the community has been completely restored to its former state or has been improved and is even better off than it was before the disaster NAPA, 1993). When it comes to catastrophe and disaster planning, there are indications that for the smaller societal units, such as the individual and families, there is not much difference between the two. The differences only become clearer as one ascends the hierarchy of organization and authority. It has been noted that reaction to catastrophes is much poorer than to disasters, probably because of the scale of the latter. Also, since there are emergency organizations and other groups involved who do not belong to the immediate community, the issue of authority and command may on occasion arise (Toft, 1992) Disaster planning is more localized in that in the occurrence of a disaster the emergency organizations are expected to be still functional. For example the casualties could still be attended to at their own local hospital. In the case of a catastrophe the local institutions are completely rendered immobile thus it has to be considered what party could step in to provide the much needed assistance (Quarantelli, 1987). REFENCES Allinson, Robert E. . Global Disasters:  Inquiries Into Management Ethics.  NY:  Prentice Hall. 1993 Deyle, Robert et al.  Hazard Assessment:  The Factual Basis for Planning and Mitigation.  Chapter Five in Cooperating with Nature, Raymond Burby (ed.).  Washington DC:  Joseph Henry Press, 1998.  Hodgkinsson. E. Peter & Stewart Michael: Coping with Catastrophe: a Handbook of Disaster Management. New York: Routledge, 1991 Mileti. S. Denis. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural hazards in the United States, 2003 National Academy of Public Administration.  1993.  Coping With Catastrophe – Building an Emergency Management System to Meet People’s Needs in Natural and Manmade Disasters.  Washington, DC:  NAPA, February. Pearce, Laurence Dominique Renee. An Integrated Approach For Community Hazard, Impact, Risk and Vulnerability Analysis:  HIRV.  Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, 2000.    Porfiriev, Boris N.  “Disaster and Disaster Areas:  Methodological Issues of Definition and Delineation.”  International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters (November), Vol. 13, No. 3, 285-304. 1995.  Quarantelli. E.L. Catastrophes are Different from Disasters: Some Implications for Crisis Planning and Managing Drawn from Katrina Retrieved on 20th October from http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Quarantelli/ Quarantelli. E.L. Emergencies, Disaster and Catastrophe are Different Phenomena Retrieved on 20th October from http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/19716/674/1/PP304.pdf. Quarantelli, E.L.  “What Should We Study?  Questions and Suggestions for Researchers About the Concept of Disasters.”  International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters (March), Vol. 5, No. 1, 7-32. 1987.  Tobin, Graham A. and Burrell E. Montz.  Natural Hazards:  Explanation and Integration.  New York and London:  The Guilford Press, 1997.  Toft, B.  “The Failure of Hindsight.”  Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 48-60, 1992.  U.N. (United Nations), Department of Humanitarian Affairs.  Internationally Agreed Glossary of Basic Terms Related to Disaster Management (DNA/93/36),  Geneva Switzerland:  UN, 1992.  Read More