Malcolm (2010) offers an overview of the stages of emergency management in the US. According to the author, the present management stages in the emergency management are more effective than the past stages. Presently divided into five sections, the paper contains the definition of phases, arising adaptations, modifications, and confusions, descriptions of the phases, conceptual issues, and conclusion. Phases in the article refer to the elements of disaster management. According to Malcolm (2010), disaster management refers to all activities conducted by the federal and the state governments to manage all forms of threats, hazards, and disasters. Within the nation, emergency departments have been defined into alleviation, awareness, response, and recovery.
In relation to the stages of emergency management, the study is beneficial as it advances research, and education. As part of ITFI initiative, the study is to improve communal appreciating between the public and the private departments. The study is additionally beneficial as it highlights confusion realized when employing some terms such as all hazards when referring to local security. Important words have therefore been clarified, to minimize misunderstanding, contextual definition, and confusion.
Malcolm applied qualitative methodology in conducting this research. Secondary sources of data collection were applied in deriving information. This approach included evaluation of articles and journals were used in underscoring previously applied terminology and phrases. Intuitive data analysis method is employed in this research in analyzing collected data. Findings from the federal emergency management have introduced new terms and corrections to applied terminologies. Sources in the study are therefore previously conducted research on diverse disciplines, with varying perspectives and paradigms. From the gathered information, majority of the state’s emergency departments are centered on preparedness and response. Administrations of federal grants have remained the basic level for recovery of the departments. Alleviation and recovery processes have been employed previously, but in the absence of other conclusive emergency management phases. Among the chief weaknesses identified in the research is application of separate approaches and resources by the state and federal government in managing civil defense and natural disasters. Some types of risks were not addressed effectively. Among the identified changes, include addition of certain phrases into the original words. For instance, the term mitigation has presently been modified to ‘mitigation and prevention.’ It is also confusing when the term ‘all hazards’ have been used to refer to all disasters occurring in the state.
Previously applied terminologies such as all hazards and all phases are still significant in the emergency management. Nevertheless, presently applied terminologies affirm the 1997 theorems pioneered by Stanley Kaplan. Kaplan in previous studies bears two theorems: the first theorem states that more than half the problem worldwide result in the public applied similar words with different meaning. The second theorem states that more than half the entire population worldwide employs different words with similar meanings. The study therefore is of profound importance as it has clarified essential words previously misunderstood and wrongly applied within the context. By involving the government and the transportation department in the study, Malcolm has encouraged the transport community to remain an active participant in the management of emergency. This is attributed by the fact that transportation department has momentous roles within the phases of emergency management and the governmental agencies within the transportation industry possess more resources to employ into management of emergencies. To overcome prevailing challenges, federal and state attempts need be prolonged to incorporate mitigation and recovery.
Malcolm, E. B. “The ‘Phases’ of Emergency Management.” Intermodal Freight Transportation
Institute. 2010. Page 1-50