Stage 3: Theoretical Framework
People face diverse challenges during disaster events such as the past Hurricane Katrina. Past studies reveal precise challenges such as shelter, and evacuation processes, and transportation in disaster management. The nation is however poised with greater willpower in reducing disasters and managing risky situations. This study discusses the theoretical framework in the management of emergencies and preparedness of disasters in support of mitigation, reduction, and response.
It is necessary to define the existing knowledge base for pandemic and all-hazards preparedness to determine a research agenda on federal, state, and ethnic priorities. Gaps are present in knowledge on public health systems include improvement of the usefulness of PHP training, enhancement of communications in preparedness and response, creation and maintenance of sustainable preparedness and response systems, and generation of criteria for evaluating public health emergency preparedness, response, and recovery, and metrics to measure their effectiveness and efficiency. It is also essential to emphasize the need for the research to address the unique needs of at-risk populations, workforce development, behavioral health, legal and ethical issues, and the use and integration of new technologies.
H0 – the public is still unaware of the emergency management and disaster preparedness approaches
H1 – Threats and risks are becoming complicated for the natural hazards to be managed by the preparedness department
H2 – Legal and ethical issues needs to be addressed as components of disaster preparedness
Previous studies have aided in the provision of useful micro theories such as risk communication and disaster warning responses. These theories have been effective in guiding the public on predictable approaches to counter information on risks (Drabek, 2003). In announcing of disaster warning, social factors after the disasters, which hamper the public in responding differently have been researched on. Theories such as embryonic theories are essential to the emergency managers in offering a comprehensive perception of the human response to disasters in complete life cycles.. Analyses from previous studies have underscored the four major elements of the social structure; domains and tasks as structural organizational ends and resources and activities as structural means of organizations. Combinations of these elements are successfully applied in the identification of assorted types of emergent systems. In this concept, pre and post disaster processes are related so individual and structural results can be predicted and defines. These included factors such as event and community features and characters of emergent system and personal participants. It is however essential to note that the objective of constructing a normal theory is of great essence in a research society. All these normative, substantive, macro and micro streams of theory enable managers exercise their acquired skills within emergency department.
Evolution of disaster preparedness has seen progressive in creating an understanding of why disasters occur. However, diverse barriers still exist in the theoretical development of emergency management. Definition of disaster preparedness and emergency management is still subjective. Additionally, response remains a problem in the management due to limited research, which can effectively validate the required practices. Recovery as well has been rarely researched on to realize limitations in the management and in the planning sectors. Recovery has been associated with the challenges in securing of the temporary housing, insurance cover, and openings in the federal assistance. Mitigation efforts are the best strategy required in the reduction of the results of disasters. These measures incorporate securing of the items in the safe room. Mitigation efforts are essential in the redressing of the mitigation planning, revision and funding of the mitigation measures. The present tragedy of the management is an illustration of the latest exercises in the sector. For instance, Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a new concept in formal references but a representation of the embrace of the organizations. Technical reports on disaster management are on the rise while scientific literature is still scarce. Research findings give out recommendations but fail to define how to apply these recommendations on a large population. The result is that the planners have the theoretical recommendation but fail to implement them.
Preparedness of the management sector is a recurring procedure that centers on the practical performances and endeavors to reduce disaster influence. Preparedness influences generation of the emergency response abilities on several aspects. Preparedness efforts such as education, training, planning, and evacuation protocols need to be conducted since previous studies have confirmed that majority of the people and the vulnerable remain unprepared for disasters. This problem has been realized because of huge burden on the minimal staff of the prevailing difficult circumstances of the vulnerable. Additionally, most of the planning on disaster management has been taking place without consultation and involvement of the main stakeholders in the preparedness sectors. To manage rising disaster challenges, it is essential for government agencies to expand common knowledge and previously acquired information on disaster and preparedness.
Arata, C. M., Picou, J. C., Johnson, G. D. & McNally, T. S. (2000). “Coping with Technological Disaster: An Application of the Conservation of Resources Model to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 13:23-39.
Drabek, T. E. (2000). “The Social Factors that Constrain Human Responses to Flood Warnings.” Parked, J. D. (ed.). London, New York: Routledge.
Drabek, T. E. (2003). “Emergent Phenomena and the Sociology of Disaster: Lessons, Trends and Opportunities from the Research Literature.” Disaster Prevention and Management 12:97-112.