Introduction
The disruptions from natural and unnatural disasters exposes salient and pertinent long standing social structures into people’s consciousness, and forces individuals and institutions to confront problems—some of which had already existed but have become more evident and alarming after disasters, while some are produced or are resurfaced by disaster events. Weak social structures, for example, such as unpreparedness, power struggles, corruption and evident biases towards the affluent tend to become more evident especially in post-disaster evaluation and rehabilitation.
This paper explores on two articles that discusses the current normative state of disaster response and rehabilitation politics in the United States. Both articles draw on existing studies on disasters and the multitude of experiences, especially on post Katrina and post Sandy. Howitt and Leonard (2006) reveal pertinent issues and challenges on the practices of disaster response in terms of preparedness and systematic collaboration for both local and national levels. On the other hand, Greenberg (2013) examines both post-Katrina and post- Sandy redevelopments and the problem of rehabilitation politics and biases. An examination of both articles is important in gaining a deeper understanding of the stories and the multitude of realities in the current disaster culture in the United States.
Disaster Preparedness: Novelty and Systematic Collaboration
Howitt and Leonard (2006) characterizes the emergency management of the United States as a “bottom up system”, wherein local leaders and personnel are the initial responders in disasters. This is, of course, they are the best viable responders due to near proximity and their expertise in the locale and additional networks from nearby towns or cities. State and federal government and other aid organizations are tapped when the resources and efforts of the local responders are exhausted, or if specialized strategies for responding and rescuing is required. However, they argued that this bottom up approach was clearly not effective during the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Howitt and Leonard listed four core challenges revealed during Katrina that must be addressed by the current emergency system to build up a better and more responsive disaster management.
First, the current emergency response system focusses on preparing for routine emergencies, or emergencies that they frequently encounter. They rely on predictability as the key to response. Some critics have observed that after the 9/11 attack, the United States emergency response system is now sophisticated in responding to terrorist attack, but are lacking in areas such as responding to natural disasters or crisis emergencies such as Katrina. Crisis emergencies have “elements of novelty” that are unpredictable. Thus, in crisis emergencies, responders rely not on the routine response, but on effective foresight and improvisation.
The second challenge is the scalability and surge capacity of responders to respond to full scale and widespread disasters. Extensive resources are needed to adequately respond to needs both unexpected and expected. Improvisation is also important in scaling up resources, as well as the thorough assessment both novel elements and structural barriers such as funding, networks and etc.
The third and fourth challengers of disaster response are the systematic coordination of responding agencies and the distinction of leadership boundaries in disaster management. Both elements deal with administration and leadership concerns in coordination during disasters. The key to effectively managing disaster is the systematic collaboration of interdependent responding agencies. It is important that tasks, as well as roles, are done smoothly and without interference from others. Thus, leadership roles must be made clear in disaster planning to avoid conflict.
Rehabilitation Politics, Uneven Development and the Case of Agency
It is important to look at disaster responsiveness in disaster studies, however, what is more revealing in terms of the disruption of disasters in social structures is the aftermath and the rehabilitation processes that it undergoes. Greenberg (2013), in her article, studied the rehabilitation in New Orleans during post Katrina, and how it pertains to the rehabilitation experienced in New York, post Sandy. She argued that rehabilitation efforts have been largely one-sided, favoring the redevelopment of affluent neighborhoods and neglecting low and middle income communities that are experiencing much more dire circumstances.
She further reiterated that aids are focused on revamping urbanization through privatization and deregulation and are generally redistributed first to “financial sector victims to incentivize redevelopment”. Little is left, then, to the low and middle income community who do not have a strong voice to lobby for more. This uneven development can be traced back to the 9/11 rehabilitation where reconstructions were focused on building back destroyed financial buildings. Unfortunately, such efforts are not responsive during the rehabilitation of hurricane Katrina, as the two cases poses entire different needs. Now, after Katrina, rehabilitation, especially dire neighborhoods are still in want, and trends of this development seem to be repeated in post Sandy.
Greenberg (2013), nevertheless noted the rise of coalition and solidarity, as well as lobbying powers among low and middle income families in terms of negotiating for better assistance from the government. She also made a case of the importance of inclusion for all levels of stakeholders in planning for redevelopment and rehabilitation. People need to be included in the design so that they could negotiate earlier on and ensure holistic development.
The article reveals that disaster in the United States must still be extensively studied. The disaster brought by Katrina revealed fundamental insights in disaster response and rehabilitation. Greenberg (2013), argued that despite these reveal, patterns of uneven redevelopment in post Sandy is still recurring. Yet, the difference is that post Sandy has brought about a more solid relationship among stakeholders and communities. Post Sandy coalitions are now working not only towards their rehabilitation, but also towards the overall development of sustainable and democratic cities.
References
Greenberg, M. (2013). The disaster inside the disaster: hurricane sandy and post-crisis redevelopment. New Labor Forum, XX(X), 1–8.
Howitt, A. M., & Leonard, H. B. “Dutch.” (2006). Katrina and the core challenges of disaster response. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 30(1), 215–221. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/67396/1242394/version/1/file/katrina_core_challenges.pdf
