Balamir, M (2023) The "disaster cycle" (DC) and actors in disaster management. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 14(2), pp. 185-192. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose is to indicate that the conventional graphical expression of cyclic stages of stages of disaster activities is still irrelevantly used in communications. Design/methodology/approach: Latent assumptions of the disaster cycle (DC) depiction are scrutinized. The nature of current organizational units responsible for carrying out related tasks and equipped with contemporary technology and know-how are clarified. It is indicated that the operations of these organizations today have no resemblance to any cyclic sequence. Findings: With all of its various mutations, DC does not only represent an outdated conceptualization of disaster-related activities but also conceals the globally adopted priority currently given to risk reduction policy. The contemporary organizational setup based on mitigation efforts depends on highly specialized units and teams simultaneously dedicated to the different aspects of risk management tasks. Practical implications: DC is to be taken as a representative understanding of a past policy environment. It is no more an explanation of current disaster affairs and must be removed from circulation. Originality/value: The argument serves to disregard past policy concepts, clarify the new organizational setup in disaster management and help adopt communications to current realities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | disaster cycle; disaster management phases; DRR actors; priority of mitigation; role of platforms; spatial analyses |
| Index terms: | platform, disaster management, risk management, circulation, risk reduction, policy concept, methodology, mitigation |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, policy studies, financial risk, digital design, urban design, research methods |
| Topics: | Governance, Risk Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Urban Studies, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here