For this paper we have re-defined the concept of disaster and it elements in XXI century. Based on the study of Gary Kreps “Disaster as systemic event and social catalyst: A clarification of subject matter” we were able not only to get acquainted with new concept of disaster from sociological perspective, but also apply this knowledge into practice on cases of Chornobyl nuclear accident and Mexico City Earthquake. Careful analysis of those two events resulted in few major outputs, namely:
Disasters are special type of social phenomena. Those are dramatic historical events that involve social catalysts. They happen suddenly in one or few stages. There are few things that can be done either before or right after the event to decrease the level of damage. So, basically any disaster leads to both, physical hard and social disruptions. These are features that are crucial to define an event as disaster.
The speed and quality of recovery processes depend on the social level at which disaster occurred. The impact ratio inclines at lower societal levels, so called impact units.
Researches on potential disasters are as important as on those that actually occurred. This helps to create best scenario and diminish negative effects of disaster.
According to Kreps, 4 key defining properties of disasters are: (1) length of forewarning – the waning time before the disaster takes place; (2) magnitude of impact – severity of social disruption of daily routines; (3) scope of impact covers social and geographic characteristics of the event; (4) duration of impact – the time from the minute social disruption and physical harm from the event started and to the point where it ends.
Mexico City earthquake is an example of community physical disaster as effects of the accident took place on concentrated area, damages or resources are moderate. On the other hand, disaster at power plant in Chornobyl is an example of regional physical disaster as territories of countries other than Ukraine were impacted by this accident. Moreover, the explosion in Unit 4 leads to abandoning several cities and creating so called “exclusion zone” within 30 km around the plant. These are permanent economic losses to the country. More than 135 000 people were permanently evacuated to other regions of Soviet Union.
In Mexico, the main role in case of disasters was assigned to army. The formal disaster planning was very limited. However in the capital, armed forces have limited functions. In Mexico City, private sector had a huge impact in organization of recovery process. As it was spontaneous development, it took several days to coordinate these processes. It was estimated that around 10% of population of Mexico city was harmed because of earthquake, no long-term consequences for the capital were found. The economic and social structure remained consistent with pre-earthquake trends.
Questions for discussion:
What is the best way to use this sociological approach in the future?
