There is the need to evaluate the community’s risk communication plan. The council members should allocate more resources for the process. The evaluation of the program determines whether the benefits of the communication plan is felt at the community level. The assessment establishes the ability of the plan to diagnose community problems and build trust between the public and the risk communicators. The process is also essential because it measures the capability of the risk assessment plan in creating awareness strategies (Ng and Hamby 3). These strategies enlighten the public, and they can handle any risks without many problems.
Furthermore, the risk communicators and other stakeholders will understand why the public find it difficult to understand concepts. As a result, they will understand the complexities associated with community risk plan and develop approaches to overcome the problem (ibid). Nonetheless, the risk communicators will grasp to develop mediating skills as it creates the motivation in the public and motivates them to act during emergency situations. In a nutshell, the benefits assured by the community’s risk communication program offers sensible reasons to allocate more resources and manpower to perform the evaluation (Waugh et.al 132).
Risk management is a cyclic process with risk communication at its heart. The evaluation helps the risk communicators to understand the strengths and weaknesses associated with the rolling out of the plan. For example, the assessment also helps to measure success in the cyclic cycle that comprises of hazard identification, risk assessment, policy development, policy implementation, and policy evaluation (Lang et.al 319). The decision to fund the evaluation process should be made to clear the air and set its intention in a transparent way. Through evaluating the community’s risk communication program, the level of accountability in the society will be automatically improved.
How will disaster management ever work in conventional bureaucratic systems? Do your observations, understandings, and perceptions of past disasters bear this out? Any ideas?
Disaster management requirements are imposed upon conventional bureaucratic systems that rely on moderately unbending plans, meticulous decision-making procedures, and formal relationships that shoulder continuous communications. Since time immemorial, disaster management strategies have been fragmented because of a perceived gap in information coordination and sharing. There is a huge problem on how disaster management will effectively work in the community because of the challenges presented by the structures and systems. To date, disaster management is still not utilized to reach its chock-full potential. The risks and vulnerabilities associated with the process have existed because of inadequate knowledge management (Seneviratne 3). It remains unclear whether the conventional bureaucratic systems will create a conducive environment for disaster management. In most countries, the system is rigid and fails to create flexibility that improves efficiency during disaster management. The existing structures make it difficult to ensure that the flow of information is consistent, and steady among the population.
In most incidences, the conventional system affects the formulation and implementation of operational sequence system and other component processes in disaster management. During disaster management process, there has been a mix-up in identifying job operations. The positions and duties of the personnel involved in disaster management should be set clear to avoid the glitches that emerge in the process. In the past, I have discovered that a lot has to be done regarding disaster management. The involvement of the community is a key factor that will dilute the rigid bureaucratic system. The local leaders will inspire the rest of the community members to engage actively in the program, and the resistance will be reduced (Schneider 4). In some situation, disaster management has failed to achieve its objectives because of the resistance from a section of the stakeholders and much must be done to reduce the challenges involved.
Work cited
Lang, Sue, Lorna Fewtrell, and Jamie Bartram. "Risk communication." Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health. Assessment of Risk and Risk Management for Water-related Infectious Disease (2001): 317-332
Ng, K. L., and D. M. Hamby. "Fundamentals for establishing a risk communication program." Health Physics 73.3 (1997): 473-482.
Schneider, Saundra K. "Flirting with Disaster: Public Management in Crisis Situations." Prepared for the 10th Annual Emergency Management Education Conference, 2007.
Seneviratne, T. K. K. S., et al. "Disaster knowledge factors: benefits and challenges." (2011).
Waugh, William L., and Gregory Streib. "Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management." Public administration review 66.s1 (2006): 131-140
