Designing new institutions for implementing integrated disaster risk management: key elements and future directions

Abstract

The goal of integrated disaster risk management is to promote an overall improvement in the quality of safety and security in a region, city or community at disaster risk. This paper presents the case for a thorough overhaul of the institutional component of integrated disaster risk management. A review of disaster management institutions in the United States indicates significant weaknesses in their ability to contribute effectively to the implementation of integrated disaster risk management. Our analysis and findings identify eight key elements for the design of dynamic new disaster management institutions. Six specific approaches are suggested for incorporating the identified key elements in building new institutions that would have significant potential for enhancing the effective implementation of integrated disaster risk management. We have developed a possible blueprint for effective design and construction of efficient, sustainable and functional disaster management institutions.

Identification of disaster risks in spatial planning for sustainable development: a case study in Kosovo

“…The results of other studies [3][4][5][6] also show the various approaches to risk reduction and mitigation in the pre-disaster period.…”

Hazard Mitigation Element Quality in Coastal Comprehensive Plans in a State with Strong Requirements for Hazard Mitigation Plan Elements

“…Institutions grow from routines, which spawn from a need to cope with uncertainty. Over their life, however, institutions also grow and adapt, as they are human creations, and humans tend to grow and adapt in response to experiences (Gopalakrishnan & Okada, 2007;Healey, 1999). As people face uncertain situations, they form routines to streamline and compartmentalize these situations in a way that they can cope with; these routines form the basis of institutions (Selznick, 1996).…”

“…For institutions that deal with natural hazards to function effectively, they must be adaptable and must learn from the community around them, especially in the context of natural hazards, as these institutions need to extract local knowledge, combine that with technical knowledge, and create culturally appropriate policies that the public will follow and support (Gopalakrishnan & Okada, 2007 Ostensibly, planning organizations are part of "democratic" institutions of government. In relation to "democratic" processes, Follett (1926) wrote of a difference between including people in "power" by simply taking votes and polls of opinions, versus creating a process by which people participate together to frame questions, research issues, and come up with options.…”

“…The public has information to contribute to planning for hazard mitigation, and should be involved in policy-making to build plans for hazard-resilient communities (Berke & Campanella, 2006;Burningham, et al, 2008;Comfort, 2006;Gopalakrishnan & Okada, 2007;Heijmans, 2004). Often, people on the ground have experienced hazards, and are aware of their vulnerability and resilience capabilities.…”

“…The planning institution provides an opportunity to create a community of discourse in which parties come together and collaborate in the interest of the future of their community, and in the case at hand in this research, specifically in the context of natural hazards. Critical to the hazards perspective, institutions can bring together society, nature and culture to bear on the problems of natural hazards and human vulnerability (Gopalakrishnan & Okada, 2007).…”