Emergencies often require the input of fast and effective services so as to contain the situation. In many cases, either property and or life are often at risk and the necessity often is to salvage the situation. Emergency can be managed well with the application of theories of emergency management. Although the theories approach emergencies in different perspectives, an application of the same enables the ultimate solution of emergency cases. This paper shall focus on two main emergency theories. These are the Chaos Theory as advanced by Klaus Mainzer and the Disaster Theory as advanced by Thomas Drabek. The two theories appreciate the fact that emergencies arise out of both anticipated and unanticipated factors. However, from the onset, it is essential to appreciate the concurrence that emergencies can be solved through an application of effective measures within the right time.
According to Chaos Theory emergencies can be addressed through an application of programs that enunciate the following principles; certainty, predictability and feedback interpretation. In that vein, it is essential for emergency managers to ensure that the programs in place for any potential for risks and disaster management have in them the principles so mentioned. The level of certainty can be used to determine the extent to which the initiated program would be able to tackle the disaster. Certainty plays a critical role in determining and estimating the ability of the programs to address the emergency situation. A program that fails in certainty would most likely equally fail in the mitigation roles. In addition, predictability relates to the ability of the programs and system in general to forecast the occurrence of disasters and emergency situation. According to Klaus, a predictable system should be able to allocate probability and likely chances of risks areas. In this approach, the emergency manager is given an early opportunity to put in place relevant checks and precautions in relation to the levels of disaster predicted. Klaus appears to rely on the scientific developments in terms of systems and models. Through the application of recent scientific applications, the emergency manager is able to assign probabilities of risks and likely causes of risks. The manager then has the option of election from a diverse number of combative approaches. One can elect to pursue a preventive approach, a mitigation approach or a mixture of the two approaches. In preventive approach, the managers ensure that the disasters are forestalled before its likely occurrence. This could involve employing other methods of achieving the same result. However, it must be appreciated that this approach could be expensive or in extreme cases render a project impossible to perform. This often provides the justification for pursuing a mitigation approach. In the latter approach, the managers appreciate the fact that the disaster can occur. Steps are the put in place to ensure upon occurrence, the amount of damage and losses would be at the bare minimum. This method is often predicated on the assumption that it is not the case that the risks may occur. In other words, the approach is based on the insurance concept where disasters though expected to occur no certainty exists that it would occur. The third option which is a mix of the two approaches entails the application of both preventive and mitigation approaches. According to Klaus, this is the most practical and rational approach. It attempts to solve the issues at hand without necessarily disallowing an activity or project from proceeding.
Klaus also places a lot of importance on feedback interpretation. He posits that a good emergency management system must have a comprehensive mechanism for the collection of feedback before, during and after the occurrence of the emergency. Klaus suggests that the interpretation and application of feedback is what would determine the success in management of the disaster. In that vein, Klaus suggests that the managers must effectively collect and discern the important factors and points from the feedback and apply it either in the mitigation and or the future prevention of a similar occurrence. In the overall, Klaus seems to suggest through the theory that emergencies can be managed and mitigated with an application of proper systems that enunciate certainty, predictability and feedback interpretation.
Thomas Drabek in his Disaster Theory does not deviate so much from Klaus. However, Drabek assumes the position that disaster needs to be managed through an application of four main strategies of disaster management. The four are preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. In addition, Drabek stresses on the need for an integrated approach that cuts across disciplines. In that context, Drabek asserts that disaster managers need to adopt a multidisciplinary approach that is integrative and all inclusive. Drabek seems to be basis his argument on the need for emergency managers to embrace the cross cutting content from various disciplines. The four main bases of Drabek’s theory show the reasoning that the best strategy in solving disasters involves the all-inclusive and multidisciplinary approach. For instance, as the system is designed for the potential solution of disasters it needs to incorporate the need for preparedness. Under preparedness, a system must be able to provide the necessary infrastructure that would be useful in the solution of potential disasters. The infrastructure must be both resources and personnel. This involves deliberate training of personnel and purchase of resources for the solution of any anticipated disasters. Secondly, the design of the same system needs to look into matters of mitigation. In mitigation, the main objective is the lowering of the damages to the best extent possible. Under that approach, the system needs to examine the possible options to pursue for the solution of any anticipated disasters. The same approach is taken for matters of response and recovery. At the end of the day Drabek assumes the position that disaster management can be effective with the application of the four strategies.
The two theories, therefore, are related in the sense that both espouse the fact that emergencies can be solved and that the realization needs a deliberately planned and coordinated structure. The two theorists both suggest that the disaster managers must put in place comprehensive measures and efforts for the purpose of tackling future disasters. At the end of the day, disasters though of high levels of certainty can be predicted and either mitigated or prevented from occurring. The theories are important for the solution of disasters which is the main purpose of this discipline. In addition, the theories offer solutions and principles which if applied in practical solution of disasters can be helpful with a number of modifications. It is that premise that the paper finds the theories useful for the research to be conducted in due time.
References
Campus Law Enforcement Journal. "Integrating Theory into Practical Emergency Management." Campus Law Enforcement Journal (2009): 23-34.
Drabek, Thomas. "Emergency Management and Homeland Security Curricula: Contexts, Cultures, and Constraints." Journal of Emergency Management (2007): 42-55.
Keohler, Gus. "Chaos Theory and Disaster Response Management: Lessons for Managing Periods of Extreme Stability." Dallas: Conference Proceedings, 2007. <http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/96/05/over_12.html>.
Long , Goerge. "Disaster Theory." 2009.
McEntire, David. The Status of Emergency Management Theory: Issues, Barriers, and Recommendations for Improved Scholarship. Denton: FEMA Higher Education Conference, 2004.
