A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 267

David A. McEntire
Christopher Fuller
Chad W. Johnston
Richard Weber
University of North Texas
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms:
The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide
The following article discusses the current emphasis and attention being given to the future of
emergency management, as well as theoretical constructs designed to guide research and help
practitioners reduce disaster. It illustrates that while the disaster-resistant community, disaster-resil-
ient community, and sustainable development/sustainable hazards mitigation concepts provide
many unique advantages for disaster scholarship and management, they fail to sufficiently ad-
dress the triggering agents, functional areas, actors, variables, and disciplines pertaining to ca-
lamitous events. In making this argument, the article asserts that any future paradigm and policy
guide must be built onyet go further thancomprehensive emergency management. The article
also reviews and alters the concept of invulnerable development. Finally, the article presents com-
prehensive vulnerability management as a paradigm and suggests that it is better suited to guide
scholarly and practitioner efforts to understand and reduce disasters than the aforementioned
perspectives.
Everything is interconnected and a holistic, integrated approach is required.
(Geiss 2001, 152).
Vulnerability must be integrated as part of ongoing policies and programs
(Weichselgartner 2001, 86).
David A. McEntire is an assistant professor and coordinator of the Emer-
gency Administration and Planning Program in the Department of Public
Administration at the University of North Texas. Research interests include
emergency management theory, international disasters, response coordina-
tion, and vulnerability. Email: dmcentir@scs.cmm.unt.edu.
Christopher Fuller is a graduate of the Emergency Administration and Plan-
ning Program, and is currently a student in the masters program in the De-
partment of Public Administration at the University of North Texas. Research
interests include emergency management and public administration. Email:
fuller30@yahoo.com.
Chad W. Johnston is a graduate of the Emergency Administration and Plan-
ning Program and is currently a student in the masters program in the De-
partment of Public Administration at the University of North Texas. Research
interests include disaster recovery, the nonprofit sector, and public adminis-
tration. Email: cjohnston@fbclewisville.org.
Richard Weber is the professional development coordinator in the Center for
Public Management and an adjunct faculty member in the Emergency Ad-
ministration and Planning Program at the University of North Texas. Research
interests include public administration, hazardous materials, and the private
sector. Email: weberr@scs.cmm.unt.edu.
Introduction
An impressive amount of attention is currently being
given to the future of emergency management. Without a
doubt, a new theoretical perspective and policy guide are
required. Modern disasters are complex and diverse phe-
nomena with a greater potential for adverse impact (Rubin
2000; Quarantelli 1993). Accordingly, researchers have
called for a broader view of the disaster problem and even
for a revolution in approach (Mileti 1999, 35; see also
Britton and Clarke 2000; Geis 2000). Fortunately, there
are a number of closely related initiatives showing the way
ahead, indicating the sector is responsive to change
(Britton 1999, 227). The most recognized academic para-
digms and policy guides include disaster-resistant com-
munities, disaster-resilient communities, and sustainable
development and sustainable hazards mitigation.
The following article reviews each of the above
conceptualizations and examines their relative merit. It
268 Public Administration Review May/June 2002, Vol. 62, No. 3
argues that each of the proposals has brought a new and
useful perspective to the disaster problem. However, the
article points out that these approaches
1
may be incom-
plete, as they are not built on comprehensive emergency
management and previous research,
2
and they fail to rec-
ognize the importance of vulnerability in multidisciplinary
disaster scholarship. In light of these weaknesses, the ar-
ticle reviews and adapts McEntires work (2000a, b, 2001)
on invulnerable development. Comprehensive vulnerabil-
ity management is introduced and is suggested to be a more
appropriate academic concept and holistic policy guide than
the previously mentioned alternatives.
3
Before proceeding
with this comparative analysis, the article
4
will explore the
history, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of com-
prehensive emergency management.
Comprehensive Emergency Management
Comprehensive emergency management emerged in
1979 from the National Governors Association as a result
of a realization that there was a need for inclusive emer-
gency management policies and procedures. Comprehen-
sive emergency management acknowledged the diverse
types of disaster agents that emergency managers would
have to deal with, as well as the functional similarities
across each type of hazard. It incorporated mitigation, pre-
paredness, and response and recovery activities and in-
cluded many of the different actors involved in disasters
from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Compre-
hensive emergency management, therefore, attempted to
conceptually incorporate each of the hazards, phases, and
actors pertinent to emergency management
5
(Godschalk
1991, 145).
In spite of this breadth, the comprehensive emergency
management concept possessed inherent drawbacks. By
focusing too much on hazards, comprehensive emergency
management failed to recognize the many social, political,
economic, cultural, and other variables leading to disaster.
Comprehensive emergency managements depiction of the
phases of emergency management was likewise simplistic
(Neal 1997),
6
and the concept was limited somewhat to
emergency managers, first responders, and officials in the
public sector. As a result, comprehensive emergency man-
agement was too reactive and incomplete as a paradigm.
Notwithstanding these weaknesses, comprehensive
emergency management contributed much to the develop-
ment of emergency management scholarship. It expanded
the types of hazards that would be addressed by emergency
managers.
7
It categorized the functional areas of the disas-
ter life cycle and helped to identify the important activities
of those working in the emerging profession. Comprehen-
sive emergency management also expanded (albeit insuf-
ficiently) the individuals and organizations that should be
involved in emergency management. With these strengths
and weaknesses in mind, it may be argued that any future
concept should be built onyet go further thancompre-
hensive emergency management. For this reason, it is nec-
essary to critically evaluate the concepts of disaster-resis-
tant community, the disaster-resilient community, and
sustainable development and sustainable hazards mitiga-
tion within the comprehensive emergency management
framework.
The Disaster-Resistant Community
The disaster-resistant community model has been de-
fined as a means to assist communities in minimizing their
vulnerability to natural hazards by maximizing the appli-
cation of the principles and techniques of mitigation to their
development and/or redevelopment decision-making pro-
cess (Geis 2000, 152). Donald Geis, the principal propo-
nent of the term resistance, states that the primary ob-
jective of his model is to provide the direction essential
to our core mission of minimizing the growing human and
property losses from extreme natural events (151). With
increasing losses resulting from natural disasters in recent
decades, it has become apparent that emergency manage-
ment must include more proactive measures. Therefore,
mitigation activities such as hazard and vulnerability analy-
ses, pre-zoning methods, land-use planning, community
education, and more stringent building codes and regula-
tions will be required for community development. Thus,
Geis declares that the disaster-resistant community rep-
resents the safest possible community that we have the
knowledge to design and build in a natural hazard con-
text (152).
Undoubtedly, there are significant advantages associ-
ated with the disaster-resistant community paradigm. First,
there can be little doubt that measures taken for mitigation
will decrease the degree of loss resulting from physical
agents. Destructive natural hazards may be imminent, but
the design, placement, and development of a community
can alter the effects of such an event. Another benefit of
this concept is its marketability. The availability of grants
through Project Impact
8
(FEMAs program to implement
the disaster-resistant community approach) encourages
communities to participate in mitigation (Armstrong 2000).
While the disaster-resistant community paradigm aids in
the understanding of how to minimize natural disaster losses,
it does have some inherent weaknesses. For instance, the
disaster-resistant community model seems to apply only to
extreme hazardous events related to the natural environment
(Geis 2000, 154) and does not appear to take into account
the social, civil, and technological triggering agents that
comprehensive emergency management addressed. In ad-
dition, the disaster-resistant community model does not
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 269
cover each of the functional areas of emergency manage-
ment. Geis states that the disaster-resistant community pro-
cess provides the best means for developing the most ef-
fective disaster and emergency management programs
(153), but does not discuss preparedness and response mea-
sures in any detail. In contrast, Armstrong (2000) unequivo-
cally asserts that Project Impact shifts the focus of emer-
gency management and disaster planning toward pre-disaster
[or prevention] activities (139). Therefore, disaster resis-
tance is somewhat bound to mitigation, which is, according
to Geis (2000), a major constraint of the paradigm.
Not only are various triggering agents and functional
areas ignored, but the disaster-resistant community ap-
proach also precludes the involvement of many actors. The
resistance model is most applicable to urban planners and
engineers. However, the paradigm appears to neglect the
contributions of emergency managers, meteorologists, first
responders, hazardous materials teams, public health offi-
cials, and the nonprofit sector. A further weakness is that,
although community location, design, and construction are
integral to community safety, so too are the social, cul-
tural, and political variables that the disaster-resistant com-
munity model downplays. Geis recognizes this oversight
and attempts to compensate by adding the term quality of
life community to the resistance concept (2000, 154).
Thus, while the term resistance captures many physical
variables, it must be associated with another paradigm in
order to capture social factors. What is more, even the qual-
ity of life community may not fully consider how con-
straining attitudes, psychological stress, and political pro-
cesses relate to disaster.
Finally, the disaster-resistant community model is un-
able to incorporate all of the academic disciplines associ-
ated with disasters. The resistance paradigm is undoubt-
edly related to geography, engineering, and urban planning.
However, the disaster-resistant community concept may
not directly apply to social science disciplines such as pub-
lic administration, sociology, economics, political science,
anthropology, and psychology. Therefore, the value of the
disaster-resistant community paradigm is again called into
question.
The Disaster-Resilient Community
There is perhaps no single and agreed-upon definition
of what disaster resilience or a disaster-resilient com-
munity actually means. Indeed, as Buckle, Mars, and
Smale (2000) observe, there is still a limited understand-
ing of what the [term] resilience include[s]. One of the
major challenges inhibiting agreement upon any defini-
tion is due to the fact that individuals, groups and commu-
nities may each possess [differing] degrees of resilience
which will vary over time (89).
Finding consensus on the term resilience may be dif-
ficult. For instance, some scholars (Mileti 1999; Burby et
al. 2000) state that resilience applies to the minimization
of losses and damages when a disaster occurs, thereby in-
dicating similarity to the term resistance. Mileti (1999)
also suggests (as will be seen in the following section of
this article) a close relation between resilience and sus-
tainable development and sustainable hazards mitigation.
Nonetheless, the literature frequently uses the concept of
resilience to imply the ability to recover or bounce back to
normalcy after a disaster occurs. For example, Mileti (1999,
33) notes how resilience may reduce the need for large
amounts of assistance from outside communities (although
the role that emergency management plays in bringing
about such a situation appears to be downplayed). Also,
Emergency Management Australia defines resiliency as [a]
measure of how quickly a system recovers from failures
(quoted in Buckle and Smale 2000, 9).
Definitions aside, it is evident that the disaster-resilient
community is commonly related to social factors (eco-
nomic, psychological, and cultural) pertaining to recov-
ery. The exploration of the literature in Paton et al. (2000,
175) indicates that resilience comprises three components:
dispositional, cognitive, and environmental. These features
relate to the economic, emotional, and cultural aspects of
recovery, respectively. Therefore, it is highly probable that
the term resilience emerged as a reaction or alternative
to the term resistance; scholars may have developed this
notion to capture social and other variables that had been
neglected in previous studies.
With respect to this shift in emphasis, the concept of
resilience possesses three key strengths. First, the most
common use of the term does not assume that disaster pre-
vention is always possible, as does the disaster-resistant
community concept. It recognizes that natural hazard events
will always occur (although humans may work to prevent
them or minimize their impact) and suggests the need for
recovery efforts.
9
A second strength of the term is that it
captures the social variables that are neglected by the di-
saster-resistant community concept. The resilience para-
digm is thus correct in suggesting that cultural, psycho-
logical, and especially economic variables do indeed have
relation to disaster and must be given more attention. Fi-
nally, the disaster-resilient community may include disci-
plines other than the physical sciences and engineering.
Sociologists, economists, anthropologists, and psycholo-
gists seem to have much more interest in resilience than in
the disaster-resistant community concept.
It should be recognized, however, that there may be a
few basic problems with the disaster-resilient community
concept. First, it is uncertain whether the concept is con-
cerned with all types of triggering agents. Resilience, like
resistance, is applied to natural hazards and may have an
270 Public Administration Review May/June 2002, Vol. 62, No. 3
unclear relation to technological and civil disasters. Sec-
ond, the term resilience is often used to discuss recovery
functions after disaster. Proponents of the concept are gen-
erally concerned about how fast a society can return to
normal, thus making the paradigm somewhat reactive. This
is unfortunate in that mitigation and preparedness mea-
sures (such as community education, resource identifica-
tion, planning, training, and exercises) have a great impact
on response and recovery operations. Furthermore, resil-
ience may unintentionally imply a return to normalcy af-
ter disasterinstead of a reduction of future vulnerability.
This is a serious weakness of the concept, which could
have major detrimental implications for future mitigation
initiatives. Moreover, resilience may not include all of the
actors and disciplines interested in disasters. It seems to
be frequently concerned with the cultural and psychologi-
cal attitudes of the population, thus leaving an ambiguous
relation to epidemiologists and others in the medical field.
In addition, some scholars relate the term resilience to
urban planning, building location, and construction, while
others do not. Hence, the disaster-resilient community con-
cept also goes further than comprehensive emergency man-
agement in some areas while falling short in other respects.
Sustainable Development and
Sustainable Hazards Mitigation
Sustainable development has evolved since it was first
introduced as a concept, and it has been used in a variety
of different ways by diverse disciplines. However, two
definitions are prevalent in the disaster literature. Many
scholars refer back to the conceptualization provided by
the World Commission on Environment and Development:
sustainable development is development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs (1987, 43).
Because this definition is not explicitly related to disas-
ters, attention increasingly is being given to Miletis sus-
tainable-hazards-mitigation perspective. Mileti (1999) de-
clares that sustainability implies that a locality can
tolerateand overcomedamage, diminished productiv-
ity, and reduced quality of life from an extreme event with-
out significant outside assistance (4). As previously noted,
sustainable hazards mitigation may have a close relation
to (and at times an unclear differentiation from) the disas-
ter-resilience concept.
While there is no single meaning for sustainable devel-
opment and sustainable hazards mitigation, it is evident
that researchers have linked the principles of sustainability
to catastrophes. For instance, the original group of schol-
ars that proposed the need for sustainable development
initiated a discussion about the complex interactions among
the environment, development, poverty, industry, and di-
sasters (Rowland 1973, 14245; WCED 1987, 34851; Rao
2000, 1113). In disaster studies, scholars have relied on
the concept of sustainability to propose ways to integrate
the delivery of aid with development for disaster reduc-
tion (see Berke 1995; Berke, Kartez, and Wenger 1993;
McAllister 1993). The most important work on sus-
tainability, however, is credited to Denis Mileti and his
associates at the Natural Hazards Research and Applica-
tions Information Center at the University of Colorado.
Following up on the United Statess first assessment
in 1972 of knowledge about hazards, Mileti collaborated
with a large and distinguished group of experts (engi-
neers and physical, natural, social, and behavioral scien-
tists) to identify the current state of the disaster field. His
synthesis of research over the past two decades (Mileti
1999) is impressive in that it examines many different
types of natural hazards, mentions several alternative ways
of approaching them, and discusses the implications of
recent research for academics and practitioners interested
in reducing disaster.
The central finding of his work is that a shift in culture
(values, attitudes, and behavior) will be necessary if un-
sustainable practices are to be avoided and hazard mitiga-
tion is to be sustainable in the future. Consequently, he
proposes a new way of thinking about natural hazards that
would recognize the complex interface between earth and
social systems (as well the interactions between local ac-
tivity and globalization); take responsibility for hazards
and disasters; anticipate the uncertain and unexpected; re-
ject short-term thinking; understand more fully the impact
of social forces on the occurrence of disasters; and em-
brace the principles of sustainable development (Mileti
1999, 2630).
Mileti asserts that five tools are necessary to achieve
sustainable hazards mitigation: (1) better land-use plan-
ning and management to limit settlement in dangerous ar-
eas; (2) the enforcement of building codes and standards
to protect people and property; (3) increased reliance on
insurance to cover possible financial losses from disaster;
(4) enhanced prediction, forecasting, and warning systems;
and (5) improved engineering for buildings and infrastruc-
ture to minimize death and damage associated with disas-
ter (Mileti 1999, 155207).
At the conclusion of his monumental work, Mileti of-
fers suggestions on how his view of sustainable hazards
mitigation may be implemented (1999, 26788). His nu-
merous recommendations for the stakeholders in disaster
reduction involve building consensus on a common agenda
for disaster reduction; participating in networks and allow-
ing for flexibility in organization; developing tools for
improved decision making; measuring progress to deter-
mine the need for future adjustments; consolidating knowl-
edge about hazards; and putting it into practice. Mileti also
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 271
suggests the need to establish holistic government policies
for disasters and development, improve local and regional
responsibility and capability, transfer knowledge about
disasters to other nations, and determine the hazardous-
ness of the nation. Thus, Mileti applies the sustainability
concept in disaster studies to illustrate the importance of
new development practices, what those policies may look
like, and how they are to be implemented. His work has
justifiably been praised for altering views about disaster
and bringing more attention to this problem facing human-
kind (Myers et al. 2000).
There can be little doubt about the benefits that sustain-
able development and sustainable hazards mitigation pro-
vide for disaster studies and disaster reduction. First,
sustainability notes the importance of process for disas-
ter reduction. It underscores how everyday activities, such
as the location of communities and the construction of
buildings, have a bearing on disaster. Second, the sus-
tainability concept adds to the understanding of the com-
plex relation between development and disasters. It indi-
cates that development often promotes disaster, disasters
inhibit development, and better development practices are
needed to prevent disasters. In addition, sustainable devel-
opment promotes the understanding of how disaster assis-
tance and recovery may retard development or reduce the
probability of future disasters. Thus, the sustainability con-
cept explores in greater detail the linkages between hazard
mitigation and disaster recovery. Another benefit of the
sustainability concept is that it incorporates many variables
for disaster reduction. It indicates how culture, econom-
ics, and environment play a role in calamity. Sustainable
development and sustainable hazards mitigation conse-
quently provide a larger picture of the problems and solu-
tions to disaster than has been offered heretofore.
While Miletis approach provides many advantages, there
may be reason to believe that the sustainable development
and sustainable hazards mitigation paradigm is not holis-
tic. First, while there can be little doubt about the perti-
nence of sustainability to extreme natural events and some
types of technological triggering agents, there is less evi-
dence that it is related to other categories of mass emergen-
cies and disasters (McEntire 2000a, b). For instance,
sustainability has an unclear connection to certain types of
industrial disasters, such as coal mining accidents. Sustain-
able development may or may not have a relation to haz-
ardous material cargo spills, but it undoubtedly has less
applicability to other transportation incidents such as train
derailments, shipping accidents, and airplane crashes. Fur-
thermore, the concept also fails to address computer mal-
functions and conflict disasters such as riots, school
shootings, and terrorist activity. Therefore, sustainable de-
velopment may be associated more with natural disas-
ters than others that are human-induced or hybrid in nature.
Second, sustainable development may be more relevant
to certain functional areas of disaster than others. For in-
stance, scholars such as McAllister (1993) and Berke,
Kartez, and Wenger (1993) focus on how post-disaster ac-
tivity may promote or discourage the future of develop-
ment and disaster. By comparison, Mileti (1999) and
Godschalk et al. (1999) mainly discuss hazards mitigation.
Even when Mileti tries to link sustainability to prepared-
ness and response, he is aware of the tenuous fit: warning
systems seem to have little direct bearing on sustainable
development (1999, 197). Noting these difficulties, Berke
has commented that the interest groups involved in miti-
gation and long-range disaster recovery are likely to be
closely associated with the interests of sustainable devel-
opment advocates. However, for those interest groups con-
cerned with emergency preparedness and response issues
(e.g. disaster warning, search and rescue, evacuation, and
sheltering) the relationship with sustainable development
would be less salient (1995, 1415).
A further problem is that sustainable development and
sustainable hazards mitigation may not show relevance to
all of the actors involved in emergency management. Sus-
tainable development and sustainable hazards mitigation
obviously include environmentalists, urban planners, and
engineers, but the relation to other actors, such as crisis
counselors, search and rescue teams, fire fighters, and
emergency managers, is less clear. Moreover, it is unknown
whether sustainable development addresses all of the vari-
ables related to disaster. While it brings to light factors
that were previously neglected (particularly environmen-
tal degradation and poverty), the concept is often used too
narrowly in disaster studies. For instance, Mileti et al. state
that a sustainability approach to natural hazards would
envision a future with human communities and settlements
that relate wisely to the natural areas that they occupy over
the long term (1995, 122). Later on, Mileti argues that
no single approach to bringing sustainable hazards miti-
gation into existence shows more promise at this time than
the increased use of sound and equitable land-use man-
agement (1999, 15556). Godschalk et al. (1999), Burby
(1998), and Boull, Vrolijks, and Palm (1992) concur.
10
In
addition, even Mileti acknowledges that his work is very
similar to the predominant hazards approach of previous
years. Thus, sustainable development often focuses too
heavily on one or a few variables, possibly causing them
to ignore, miss, or downplay the plethora other factors that
interact to produce disaster as well as the need for a holis-
tic approach.
Lastly, sustainable development and sustainable hazards
mitigation appear to be related to a limited number of dis-
ciplines. They are closely related to environmental scien-
tists, geographers, urban planners, and engineers. But
sustainability may not adequately capture sociology, po-
272 Public Administration Review May/June 2002, Vol. 62, No. 3
litical science, anthropology, psychology, epidemiology,
etc., because of its excessive focus on natural hazards.
The limited applicability of sustainability to all disci-
plines, in addition to the other weaknesses pertaining to
each of the triggering agents, functional areas, actors, and
variables, indicates that the sustainable development/sus-
tainable hazards mitigation concept is not completely built
on or an extension of comprehensive emergency manage-
ment and previous literature. In fact, there is rightfully some
uncertainty and unease about the relation of sustainable
development and disasters. One observer points out that
hazards play largely a symbolic role in the sustainable
development debate, with limited, if any, impact on the
shaping of sustainable development policies (Berke 1995,
13). In a more negative tone, Hooke notes that the term
sustainable development is (or should be) out of the di-
saster debate (1999). In a January 1, 1999, email to one of
the authors, Dr. E.L. Quarantelli observed that sustainable
development is usually more a statement of ideological
position than a very useful tool either for scientific or prac-
tical purposes. Others favor a more complex perspective
and contend that natural hazards should not be consid-
ered as a subset of sustainable development problems, but
should be viewed as a separate set of problems that often,
but not always, overlap with sustainable development prob-
lems (Berke 1995, 14, referring to Kriemer and
Munasinghe 1991; see also Mitchell 1999, 505). Even
scholars that espouse sustainable development in the di-
saster literature have questioned the clarity of the concept
and its applicability to catastrophes (Mileti et al. 1995;
Berke 1995). Berkes acknowledgment of the problems of
relying upon the sustainability concept therefore remains
valid today: It is clear that all adverse impacts of [disas-
ters] will not be eliminated as is currently put forth in much
of the sustainable development literature. The knowledge
gained by [disaster] researchers and the extensive experi-
ence of [disaster] practitioners needs to be meaningfully
introduced into the sustainable development debate. Oth-
erwise, nave assumptions about sustainable development
eliminating [disaster] impacts could lead to the shaping of
flawed policy (1995, 14). Thus, the sustainable develop-
ment concept has a unique relation to disaster studies; it
has unquestionably made contributions to the field, but it
may not be totally adequate for the disaster problem.
11
Invulnerable Development
By now it should be apparent that the disaster-resistant
community, disaster-resilient community, and sustainable
development and sustainable hazards mitigation concepts
provide many advantages for the study and practice of
emergency management. However, it also should be evi-
dent that these concepts are not holistic in approach. Most
of these paradigms are related to natural hazards only and
downplay other types of triggering agents. They also are
more concerned about one or two functional areas of emer-
gency management while ignoring others. A few of these
concepts are likewise related to some actors only while
overlooking the importance of participants in other sec-
tors. In addition, none of these concepts captures the ma-
jority of variables and disciplines relating to disasters be-
cause they fail to acknowledge the importance of vulner-
ability in the disaster equation.
Recognizing these weaknesses, the concept of invul-
nerable development was recently proposed as a pos-
sible paradigm and policy guide for the future of emer-
gency management. Emanating from a quasi- or curtailed
social-constructionist perspective,
12
McEntire defines in-
vulnerable development (2000a,b) as development pur-
sued in such a manner as to address vulnerabilities. For
McEntire, the term invulnerable suggests efforts to re-
duce liabilities from the physical, social, and organiza-
tional environments, while development conjures up
the building of capacity in these arenas as well. Together,
these words imply the intentional design and implemen-
tation of decisions and activities
13
that reduce risk and
susceptibility and raise resistance and resilience to disas-
ter
14
(see figure 1). Invulnerable development, therefore,
is viewed by McEntire as a process that attempts to de-
crease the quantity (or frequency) and quality (or sever-
ity) of emergencies and disasters through liability reduc-
tion and capacity building.
As a means to pursuing these goals, the invulnerable
development concept implies (1) the altering cultural at-
titudes about disasters; (2) the linking development prac-
tices to vulnerability reduction; and (3) the building of
emergency management institutions (McEntire 2001,
193). First, McEntire agrees with Mileti (1999) that atti-
tudes, values, and practices must be changed to reduce
disasters. However, McEntire is much more specific about
the need to give priority to vulnerability rather than haz-
ards. Second, it is clearespecially in developing na-
tionsthat the impact of local and global development
Figure 1
Environments
Environmental
attributes
Physical
(including natural,
built, technological)
Social/organizational
(including cultural,
psychological, political,
economic)
Liabilities
Capabilities
Adapted from McEntire (2001).
Risk Susceptibility
Resistance Resilience
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 273
processes on the occurrence of disasters must be taken
into account. For instance, development must not
marginalize nations or segments of the populace, degrade
the environment, or encourage the building of settlements
in dangerous areas. Otherwise, disasters will continue to
occur and even increase in number and magnitude. Fi-
nally, the capacities of individuals, groups, and commu-
nities to reduce disasters and effectively respond must be
improved; the cooperation and coordination of the pub-
lic, private, and nonprofit sectors also must be fostered
to enhance endeavors to reduce disaster or more success-
fully deal with their consequences.
These three strategies are heavily dependent upon one
another. Without changing culture, it is doubtful that flaws
of development will be corrected and that disaster institu-
tions will be fortified. In similar fashion, development goals
may influence cultural practices or impact mitigation and
preparedness capacities. Likewise, the strength and nature
of disaster institutions may shape cultural attitudes and alter
development processes. Hence, invulnerable development
approaches disaster reduction through three interrelated
strategies.
There are several strengths associated with the invul-
nerable development concept. First, invulnerable devel-
opment directly and explicitly recognizes that vulnerabil-
ity (defined broadly as a high level of risk and susceptibility
coupled with a low degree of resistance and resilience)
has been and, ironically, remains the neglected concept
for both disaster scholars and practitioners (McEntire
2000a,b). It recognizes the growing consensus that vul-
nerability is increasing, which is producing more frequent
and severe disasters (Merriman and Browitt 1993). This
focus on vulnerability, therefore, is more likely to amount
to a revolutionary approach, in that humans are able to
manage their vulnerability but have little control over natu-
ral hazards. Second, invulnerable development agrees that
a more holistic perspective on the disaster problem is re-
quired. But unlike other perspectives that may not fully
appreciate the importance of vulnerability (Mileti 1999;
Britton and Clarke 2000; Geis 2000), invulnerable devel-
opment incorporates the vast majority of triggering agents,
functional areas, actors, variables, and disciplines related
to disasters
15
(McEntire 2001). Third, invulnerable devel-
opment acknowledges that vulnerability has a unique re-
lation to both disasters and development. For example,
development may increase or decrease vulnerability to di-
sasters, while disasters may set back development or pro-
vide new opportunities for progress (which may subse-
quently increase or decrease vulnerability to future
disasters) (UNDP 1992, 15). Finally, invulnerable devel-
opment is built onyet goes further thanprior research
and previous initiatives to reduce disaster. It retains the
holistic approach of comprehensive emergency manage-
ment. In addition, invulnerable development is an exten-
sion and application of Anderson and Woodrows impor-
tant work on vulnerability and capacity analysis (1991).
Invulnerable development also appears to be similar to
FEMAs integrated emergency management system
(IEMS), although it assesses and attempts to bridge the
gap between a much broader scope of liabilities and capa-
bilities than IEMS. Invulnerable development integrates
and synthesizes prior approaches with current concerns
to provide a more holistic theoretical orientation to guide
policy makers in their efforts to reduce disasters.
These strengths aside, there are at least two possible
defects associated with the invulnerable development con-
cept. First, even though McEntire (2001, 193) has been
careful to stress that invulnerable development refers to
a process rather than a state or condition, and in spite of
the fact that vulnerability explicitly captures functional
areas other than mitigation and recovery (Britton 1986;
Weichselgartner 2001), the concept may be interpreted
as implying a situation where there are no disasters. Sec-
ond, the meaning of the term development could also
be troublesome. Development is most often interpreted
to mean economic growth or the rationalization of bu-
reaucratic institutions. However, radical scholars often
dispute the benefit of growth approaches to develop-
ment and argue against the reinforcement of government
agencies. What is more, development may have physical
connotationsimplying urban planning and the construc-
tion of buildings. Others may view development as chang-
ing attitudes, beliefs, and practices. These definitional
problems are, of course, significant weaknesses of the
invulnerable development concept.
Comprehensive Vulnerability
Management
If it is true that each of the previous concepts is in-
complete or flawed, an inclusive paradigm based on sound
assumptions must be generated. One method of creating
this new paradigm is to alter invulnerable development
by giving it the name comprehensive vulnerability man-
agement.
16
Comprehensive vulnerability management
could be defined as holistic and integrated activities di-
rected toward the reduction
17
of emergencies and disas-
ters by diminishing risk and susceptibility and building
of resistance and resilience. The values, decisions, and
policies that guide comprehensive vulnerability manage-
ment are based on careful and continued assessments of
the liabilities and capabilities from both the physical,
social, and organizational environments. Accordingly,
comprehensive vulnerability management refers to a con-
certed effort to identify and reduce all types of disaster
vulnerabilities.
274 Public Administration Review May/June 2002, Vol. 62, No. 3
Perhaps the greatest justification for this paradigm is
that it is able to overcome the drawbacks of invulnerable
development while retaining its strengths. On the one hand,
comprehensive vulnerability management cannot be inter-
preted to imply immunity from disaster, and it does not
include the debatable term development. On the other
hand, this paradigm deserves consideration because it re-
tains emphasis on vulnerability, which shows clear rela-
tion to the vast majority of triggering agents, functional
areas, actors, variables, and disciplines related to disasters
(see table 1).
First, comprehensive vulnerability management is re-
lated to all types of triggering agents. Depending on the
location and construction of buildings and the availability
and effectiveness of warning and evacuation systems, a
society may be vulnerable to natural agents such as earth-
quakes, flooding, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and the
like. A community may also be vulnerable to natural di-
sasters if the physical environment has been degraded or
natural resources are depleted. People may be vulnerable
to technological agents if they have not taken steps to pre-
vent or prepare for nuclear plant accidents, utility failures,
industrial explosions, computer malfunctions,
18
plane
crashes, hazardous material spills, and disasters associated
with biotechnological advances. Vulnerability to civil emer-
gencies and disasters is also a possibility due to alienating
social, political, and economic relationships, insufficient
site security, or the lack preparedness measures for riots,
violence, or terrorist activity.
19
A society may also be vul-
nerable to environmental or biological disasters (such as
global warming, foot-and-mouth disease, small pox), de-
pending on its ability to enforce laws to protect nature and
acquire medicines to prevent the spread of infectious dis-
eases. Of course, it would be misleading to assume that
the vulnerabilities of one triggering agent do not interact
with those of another. Comprehensive vulnerability man-
agement, therefore, recognizes there are many unique com-
binations of vulnerability, which have an impact on all types
of disasters.
Second, the comprehensive-vulnerability-management
paradigm is also advantageous because it is related to each
of the four functional areas of emergency management.
This concept is related to mitigation in that hazard and
vulnerability mapping, the appropriate location of settle-
ments, the use of structural mitigation devices, sturdy con-
struction techniques, and environmental protection reduce
vulnerability. Furthermore, infrastructure engineering, ret-
rofitted buildings, a slower pace of (or controlled) urban-
ization, reversal of social marginalization, changing cul-
tural attitudes, political will to do something about disasters,
reduction of poverty, early warning systems, careful use
of technology, anchoring of heavy furniture and equipment,
strengthening of infrastructure, and careful use and main-
tenance of hazard-containing devices (such as dams) may
also reduce vulnerability.
Comprehensive vulnerability management is related to
preparedness in that it notes how local emergency plan-
ning committees, community education, insurance cover-
age, and the availability of disaster-related resources re-
duce liabilities and build capacities. It is also related to
preparedness in that vulnerabilities may be created or mini-
mized through planning, training, and exercising for spe-
cific emergencies and disasters (such as hazardous materi-
als spills, school shootings, hurricanes) or for important
post-disaster functions (such as dispatch operations, emer-
gency medical care/tactical EMS, search and rescue, pub-
lic information, continuity of government, emergency op-
erations center procedures, media relations, debris
management). Comprehensive vulnerability management
also acknowledges that preparedness and planning mea-
sures are strong determinants of whether a community will
reduce its future vulnerability during disaster-recovery op-
erations. Insufficient or inappropriate preparation may in-
crease the vulnerability of communities to disaster
20
(Weichselgartner 2001; Britton 1986).
Comprehensive vulnerability management is related to
a more efficient, effective and appropriate form of disaster
response because it increases the capacities of responders
by delegating authority to the local level, avoiding overly
stringent bureaucratic operating procedures, encouraging
self-reliance among the affected population, improving
decision making in crisis situations, and discouraging the
creation of dependency through well-intentioned but some-
times ineffective and counterproductive relief operations.
Comprehensive vulnerability management also relates to
this functional area because, as Britton (1986) and
Weichselgartner (2001) suggest, the failure to effectively
perform emergency operations functions (such as flood
forecasting, evacuation, incident management, logistics,
sheltering, resource management) increases the inability
of people to cope with disasters that cannot be prevented.
21
In addition, failure to take necessary safety precautions
during search and rescue, damage assessment, and debris
removal increases emergency workers vulnerability to
secondary hazards.
Comprehensive vulnerability management is also related
to recovery because disaster relief is intricately related to
local capacity building. For instance, disaster assistance
maydepending upon how it is distributed and received
encourage dependency or reduce ones vulnerability to
future disaster. Comprehensive vulnerability management
also links reconstruction, relocation, and redevelopment
back to mitigation for the reduction of future vulnerabili-
ties. Furthermore, the handling of debris could lead to en-
vironmental degradation or other problems that may cre-
ate future disasters. Moreover, this concept also includes
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 275
the emotional vulnerability of people by helping them cope
with and bounce back from disaster losses. Comprehen-
sive vulnerability management, therefore, addresses disas-
ters in a holistic and integrated manner. Such an approach
is imperative because even the best efforts to prevent or
reduce disaster will fail. Also, a fundamental part of disas-
ter vulnerability is the inability to cope, respond, or re-
cover effectively. Attention must be given to each func-
tional area in order to reduce vulnerability to prospective
and unfolding disasters.
Third, comprehensive vulnerability management is re-
lated to the majority of actors that are (or need to be) in-
volved in disaster reduction.
22
The public sector plays an
important role in comprehensive vulnerability manage-
ment. The support given to vulnerability reduction by po-
litical leadership is imperative if citizens and government
entities are to address the disaster problem effectively. It is
the legislators who pass laws to encourage the enactment
of safety, prevention, and preparedness measures. The gov-
ernment is also an important player in comprehensive vul-
nerability management, as it is charged with the responsi-
bility of enforcing disaster regulations and environmental
policies. Each level of government and most government
agencies (including environmental, housing, commerce,
defense, and public health departments) are involved in
disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
functions. Therefore, it is important that the branches and
departments of local, state, and federal governments work
together to reduce liabilities and increase capacities.
Comprehensive vulnerability management also recog-
nizes the public sectors crucial role in the reduction of
vulnerability. To a great extent, businesses, corporations,
industries, and other private entities determine the prob-
ability of disaster in a community. The pursuit of profits at
all costs, the location of manufacturing plants, the treat-
ment of labor, and the level of respect shown to safety pre-
cautions and the environment each has bearing on disas-
ter. The manner in which companies extract, ship, and store
natural resources and convert them into consumable prod-
ucts also figures into disaster vulnerability. What is more,
the private sector is heavily involved in activities that have
a bearing on liabilities and capacities, such as construc-
tion, health care, emergency communications, the dona-
tion of relief, insurance, record and data storage, consult-
ing, debris removal, and environmental cleanup.
Comprehensive vulnerability management, therefore, rec-
ognizes how the private sector may contribute to or reduce
vulnerabilities.
The nonprofit sector is similarly acknowledged as an
important participant in comprehensive vulnerability man-
agement. Charitable organizations are frequently involved
with vulnerable populations such as women, children, the
elderly, disabled persons, and minority groups. They pro-
mote measures such as education, health care, and employ-
ment that may have a bearing on vulnerability. Further-
more, community-based agencies, the Red Cross, Salva-
tion Army, religious affiliations, and international
nongovernmental humanitarian organizations are major
players during response operations. They provide valuable
services including the distribution of relief food, shel-
ter, mental health counseling, and reconstruction assis-
tancethat may either reduce or unintentionally create
vulnerabilities to ongoing and future disasters.
Most importantly, comprehensive vulnerability manage-
ment is especially aware of the publics role in creating
and reducing vulnerability. Peoples vulnerability is often
determined by their values, attitudes, and practices. The
apathy shown toward disasters and the environment, as well
as the defiance of disaster legislation and safety precau-
tions, are major explanations for increased vulnerability.
Also, the low degree of personal responsibility often shifts
vulnerability to other people, businesses, or the govern-
ment. What is more, citizen emergency response teams and
emergent groups play an important role in building pre-
paredness capabilities and responding to disasters. There-
fore, the activities of the public, private, and nonprofit sec-
tors will always be incomplete unless individuals take
vulnerability into consideration. Comprehensive vulner-
ability management is particularly cognizant of the impact
of citizens in reducing disasters.
Fourth, because vulnerability is so clearly related to
each of the triggering agents, functional areas, and actors
involved in disaster, it becomes evident that comprehen-
sive vulnerability management takes into account the wide
array of disaster-inducing or disaster-intensifying vari-
ables. In other words, comprehensive vulnerability man-
agement explicitly recognizes that various forms of vul-
nerability must be addressed if disasters are to be
minimized in quantitative or qualitative terms. The spe-
cific variables that are captured by comprehensive vul-
nerability management may, at a minimum, be placed
under physical, social, cultural, political, economic, tech-
nological, and developmental categories. Physical vari-
ables include an accurate assessment of potential disas-
ters, the safer (or less vulnerable) location of people/
infrastructure/settlements, the use of structural and
nonstructural mitigation devices and techniques, proper
construction of buildings,
23
and the protection and im-
provement of the quality of the environment. Social vari-
ables take into account demographic and other trends and
consist of educating the public about disasters, improving
the provision of health care before and during mass emer-
gencies, slowing the pace of urbanization, and finding
ways to reverse the marginalization of specific groups and
individuals. Cultural variables encompass shaping peoples
attitudes toward disaster and safety precautions, encour-
276 Public Administration Review May/June 2002, Vol. 62, No. 3
aging self-reliance and personal responsibility, and rely-
ing on traditional coping mechanisms. Political variables
entail altering politicians (and other key decision mak-
ers) will to improve emergency management institutions,
enforcing nonstructural approaches, and decentralizing
authority to facilitate decision making and implementa-
tion at the local level. Economic variables embrace in-
creasing wealth, distributing income more equitably, in-
suring against potential economic losses, and dedicating
sufficient resources to disaster mitigation, preparation,
response, and recovery. Technological variables touch on
the importance of early warning and communications sys-
tems, in addition to the careful handling of modern equip-
ment, hazardous chemicals, and nuclear material. Devel-
opmental variables involve detailed rural and urban
planning, as well as foresight into large projects aimed at
improving the infrastructure and the provision of disaster
relief to foster self-reliance and capacity building in order
to avoid creating relationships of dependency. Each of
these variables is important because they relate to vulner-
ability (Britton 1986; Quarantelli 1993; Weichselgartner
2001), and because many disasters are not amenable to
simple or piecemeal solutions.
Finally, comprehensive vulnerability management is also
beneficial in that vulnerability is an important topic of dis-
cussion in most (if not all) disaster-related disciplines
(Merriman and Browitt 1993). For instance, geographers
attempt to reduce vulnerabilities by recommending or ad-
vising against certain locations or structural mitigation
devices. Meteorologists attempt to reduce vulnerabilities
by giving advance notice of weather disturbances. Engi-
neers attempt to reduce vulnerabilities by indicating how
to build structures that can withstand and resist strain. En-
vironmental scientists attempt to reduce vulnerabilities by
illustrating the dangers of natural-resource degradation.
Anthropologists attempt to reduce vulnerabilities by ex-
posing constraining attitudes and risky behavior. Econo-
mists may help to reduce future vulnerabilities by discuss-
ing the negative impact of poverty or the important role of
insurance for recovery after disaster. Sociologists attempt
to reduce vulnerabilities by illustrating the susceptibility
of particular individuals and groups (the poor, women,
children, minorities, elderly, handicapped, tourists) or by
exposing how organization adds to or reduces disaster con-
sequences. Psychologists attempt to reduce vulnerabilities
by exposing why people overlook the potential for disas-
ter, by helping victims and responders understand their
emotions, and by pointing out factors that lead to and re-
solve post-traumatic stress disorder. Students of law may
provide important information about the steps that can be
taken to reduce the vulnerability of cities and businesses
to legal liability after disaster. Epidemiologists and others
in the medical field attempt to reduce vulnerabilities by
exploring factors that increase disease, injury, and death,
or by acquiring stockpiles of medicines and building the
capacities of those who respond to victims emergency and
long-term health care needs. Scholars of criminal justice
investigate what can be done to reduce vulnerability to ter-
rorism. Political scientists attempt to reduce vulnerabili-
ties by showing which government policies or inactions
are ineffective, dangerous, or likely to result in political
turmoil after disaster. And students of emergency manage-
ment attempt to reduce vulnerability by discussing how
preparedness measures such as community education, re-
source acquisition, planning, training, and exercising im-
prove the performance of emergency functions (such as
warning, evacuation, mass care, mass casualty, sheltering,
public information, damage assessment, and debris man-
agement). Comprehensive vulnerability management may,
therefore, help to unify a fragmented field. For these and
other reasons, comprehensive vulnerability management
seems to have a number of advantages for scholars and
practitioners involved in disasters than other concepts be-
ing proposed for the future of emergency management. This
is not to argue that other concepts are incorrect; it simply
means the others are incomplete.
Conclusions
Scholars are currently calling for a paradigm shift to
facilitate the understanding and reduction of disaster. In-
deed, a new concept is needed to replace comprehensive
emergency management, as it is incomplete, reactive, and
does not address or include all of the variables and disci-
plines related to disaster. However, it is equally clear that
any new approach must be built on the strengths of com-
prehensive emergency management and explicitly recog-
nize the importance of vulnerability if it is to amount to a
more holistic guide for the future of emergency manage-
ment. The disaster-resistant community, disaster-resilient
community, sustainable development and sustainable haz-
ards mitigation, and invulnerable development concepts
each possess unique strengths, but are nevertheless lim-
ited by respective drawbacks. On the other hand, compre-
hensive vulnerability management possesses many advan-
tages, as it certainly has direct relevance to the many
triggering agents, functional areas, actors, variables, and
disciplines related to disaster.
This having been said, the concept of comprehensive
vulnerability management may do much for disaster schol-
arship and management. For instance, comprehensive vul-
nerability management may help to integrate findings from
each of the various disciplines that generate knowledge
about disaster vulnerability. Comprehensive vulnerability
management likewise expands the research agenda of di-
saster studies because there are numerous factors from both
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 277
the physical and social environments that interact to deter-
mine the degree of vulnerability. Specifically, the compre-
hensive-vulnerability-management concept may help to
generate a holistic and clear road map for future scholar-
ship, as it suggests the need to investigate the factors that
produce risk and susceptibility, the characteristics that pro-
mote resistance and resilience, and the complex interac-
tions of liabilities and capabilities. Also, because compre-
hensive vulnerability management is explicitly concerned
about vulnerability, it may provide numerous variables to
measure (whereas other concepts incorporate limited vari-
ables or cannot be tested empirically).
In the practical realm, the implications of comprehen-
sive vulnerability management are also consequential. If
comprehensive vulnerability management is indeed a
more clear and appropriate concept, it may simplify rec-
ommendations for practitioners who are concerned about
reducing disaster. This is to say, the lessons for policy
makers and implementers may be more easily understood
because they are more germane to the disaster problem.
Furthermore, if comprehensive vulnerability management
is in fact a more holistic concept, it may truly help to
promote the worldwide effort which Blaikie et al. (1994,
23435) propose to reduce vulnerability to disaster as
development proceeds.
With this in mind, the authors invite the reader to con-
sider comprehensive vulnerability management as the fu-
ture paradigm for the field of emergencyor perhaps more
appropriatelydisaster vulnerability management.
24
To the
extent that comprehensive vulnerability management does
not amount to a holistic future disaster paradigm, the au-
thors encourage scholars to consider the importance of
comprehensive emergency management and vulnerability
when developing alternative models.
Acknowledgments
This article is adapted from a paper presented by David A.
McEntire at the annual conference of the International Emer-
gency Management Society in Oslo, Norway, on June 22, 2001.
The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments on a previous draft of this paper.
Notes
11. In order to limit excessive repetition the terms approach,
concept, perspective, paradigm, model and policy
guide will be used interchangeably throughout this article.
12. We are not alone in making this argument. Claire Rubin
(2000) also asserts that we

must modernize the emergency
management house but save the foundation.
13. Risk management will not be discussed in this article, as no
one has, to our knowledge, provided a clear picture of what
this term implies. In addition, risk management may be seen
as a limiting concept in that it focuses mainly on the physi-
cal causes and consequences of disaster (thereby possibly
downplaying many important social, political, cultural, eco-
nomic, psychological, and organizational variables related
to liability reduction and capacity building).
14. This article is based on four related assumptions: (1) vul-
nerability is increasing; (2) increased vulnerability will re-
quire a shift in emphasis toward mitigation; (3) increased
vulnerability will necessitate improved preparedness and
planning measures for more effective response and recov-
ery operations; and (4) we can reduce manybut certainly
not eliminate alldisasters.
15. Comprehensive emergency management was considered to
be an all-hazards approach (that is, covering natural, tech-
nological, civil, and biological disaster agents) and included
each phase of the disaster life cycle (mitigation, prepared-
ness, response, and recovery) as well as actors from various
sectors (public, private, and nonprofit). FEMAs adaptation
of comprehensive emergency management into an opera-
tional strategy was known as integrated emergency man-
agement or the integrated emergency management system
(IEMS). Integrated emergency management attempted to
identify risks, measure capabilities, and close the gap be-
tween risks and capabilities.
16. Because of considerable overlap and complexity, it may be
more appropriate to label mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery as functional areas rather than phases.
17. Because there are so many different types of disasters
many of them human inducedit may be necessary to use
the term triggering agent instead of hazard. What is
more, factors that augment vulnerabilities may eventually
initiate disaster in and of themselves (for instance, the lack
of maintenance may lead to a plane crash).
18. Unfortunately, the role, benefit, and future of Project Im-
pact is being questioned at the time of this writing.
19. Most discussions of resilience do not clearly explore its re-
lationship to response operations. In addition, the current
use of the term does not fully appreciate how organizational
factors influence resilience.
10. Land-use planning is clearly applicable to certain natural
hazards including flooding, earthquakes, and landslides. It
may have less applicability to other types of hazards and
triggering agents. In addition, it should be recognized that
there are no hazard-free areas.
278 Public Administration Review May/June 2002, Vol. 62, No. 3
11. It is doubtful that the shift in culture being proposed can be
accomplished by continually focusing on hazards rather than
vulnerabilities. For instance, sustainable hazards mitigation
may unintentionally equate hazards with disasters, a per-
petual problem in disaster scholarship (Cannon 1993).
12. This perspective implies that humans may control and re-
duce manybut certainly not allvulnerabilities due to lim-
its in human knowledge, will, and power.
13. We thank Dr. Thomas E. Drabek for his contribution to this
definition.
14. Risk indicates the likelihood of occurrence, exposure, and
probability of physical loss; susceptibility implies proneness
to being affected by a disaster due to social, cultural, politi-
cal, economic, psychological, and organizational variables;
resistance suggests the ability of structures to withstand the
forces of powerful agents in order to minimize damage and
destruction; and resilience includes the individual, institu-
tional, and community ability to respond and recover based
on preparedness and other measures. Risk, susceptibility, re-
sistance, and resilience are not mutually exclusive or exempt
from interaction. That is to say, the lines of demarcation among
the positive and negative attributes of both the physical and
social/organizational environments are fuzzy and fluid, never
exempt from interaction. In other words, each category of
vulnerability may influence or is influenced by each other
category. For instance, risk may be increased if resistance is
lowered, while resilience may be decreased if susceptibility
is heightened. At the same time, risk and susceptibility (as
well as resistance and resilience) often interact in mutually
reinforcing ways (for example, the social, cultural, political,
and economic environment may encourage people to locate
in dangerous areas, while a lower degree of resistance may
make response and recovery more problematic). Furthermore,
risk could jeopardize resilience, and resistance and suscepti-
bility may have an inverse relationship. Thus, there are com-
plex and interdependent relationships among risk, suscepti-
bility, resistance, and resilience.
15. Unlike other concepts that limit thinking in holistic terms,
invulnerable development not only assumes that the ongo-
ing increases in various types of vulnerabilities indicate the
need for disaster prevention, it also recognizes that more
effective preparedness measures will be required for future
emergency management operations. In fact, invulnerable
development is slightly pessimistic that all the changes
needed for mitigation will occur because history teaches that
humans lack sufficient knowledge, will, and power to pre-
vent all disasters. Therefore, preparedness, response, and
recovery activities should not be overlooked in the future;
doing so would only increase our vulnerabilities in these
areas. At the same time, emergency management must not
be as reactive as it has been in the past. More attention must
certainly be given to mitigation, but this must not totally
discount the importance of other functional areas.
16. This adaptation of invulnerable development is logical, in
that McEntire has equated the concept with vulnerability
management (2001, 193).
17. Reduction is used here to denote decreases in the quantity
(or frequency) and quality (or severity) of emergencies and
disasters.
18. Claire Rubin (2000) is correct to assert that more attention
needs to be given to potential computer-related disasters (see
also Quarantelli 1993).
19. Traditionally there has been much debate about including
terrorism among the responsibilities of emergency manag-
ers. On the one hand, the vulnerabilities associated with ter-
rorism need to be addressed because of the high conse-
quences of these events (Waugh 1996). In addition, the
increased focus on terrorism may help build all emergency
capabilities. For instance, planning and preparing for a ter-
rorist attack may improve responses in all other types of
disasters, especially technological ones. On the other hand,
giving too much attention to terrorism may preclude time
spent on other pressing day-to-day emergency management
functions and operations (Rubin 2000). Spending excessive
resources on terrorism could also jeopardize efforts at re-
ducing natural or other technological disasters. Nonethe-
less, the recent terrorist attacks on the East Coast of the
United States will likely shift resources to counterterrorism
initiatives.
20. For instance, the lack of resources may limit the ability of
responders to save lives and protect property, while unclear
roles and responsibilities complicate effective and efficient
delivery of goods and services. Ineffective planning also may
lead to inefficiency and dangerous response decisions. Fi-
nally, returning to a state of normalcy during recovery with-
out learning from previous experience perpetuates vulner-
ability and ensures future disasters.
21. Much of the earlier work in sociology recognized that di-
saster was not only physical, but also social and organiza-
tional. For instance, disruption, disorganization, or an in-
ability to respond and perform important societal functions
during or after the event are as much a part of the disaster as
are the injuries, death, damage, and destruction. With this
in mind, comprehensive vulnerability management attempts
to reinstate the importance of previous sociological find-
ings on disaster while also updating prior academic perspec-
tives with new approaches and concerns.
22. The distinctions among the public, private, and nonprofit
sectors are becoming blurred; each sector is increasingly
involved with other sectors in fulfilling important disaster
functions. For example, traditional relief organizations such
as the Red Cross are becoming more involved in the mitiga-
tion of natural disasters. Police organizations play an im-
portant role in preventing terrorist disasters. Corporations
provide valuable services to emergency managers and lo-
cal, state, and federal governments involved in disasters.
23. The location of settlements and the construction of build-
ings appear to be common denominators in most natural
disasters. However, while some variables are more self-evi-
dent than others, focusing too heavily on them downplays
the relevance of other variables and ignores how one area of
vulnerability is inherently intertwined with another. For in-
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 279
stance, the location of settlements is inherently related to
cultural preferences, land-use regulations, and the ability of
individuals and families to acquire property in safer areas.
Construction practices are influenced by technological ad-
vances, the desire of companies to cut costs, and the ability
of inspectors to keep contractors within the limits of build-
ing codes. Effective emergency management depends on
political will, sufficient planning and training, correct deci-
sion making, and an abundance of resources. Other com-
plex linkages among a myriad of variables could be men-
tioned as well. By making vulnerability (and not hazards)
the centerpiece of a future disaster-reduction movement, all
types of variables are incorporated and their complicated
interaction is taken into account. The comprehensive-vul-
nerability-management concept, therefore, questions ap-
proaches that concentrate on hazards or a limited number of
variables in their attempt to provide a more holistic disas-
ter-reduction concept.
24. Vulnerability management includes assessing liabilities and
capabilities, reducing risk and susceptibility, and raising
resistance and resilience to disaster. At a minimum, imple-
menting comprehensive vulnerability management would
require a better understanding of vulnerability as it relates
to development and disasters; community and decision
maker education about vulnerability and disasters; stronger
disaster institutions; altered attitudes about disasters and
development; holistic policies (such as focusing on all trig-
gering agents, functional areas, actors, and variables); the
use of carrots and sticks (that is, incentives, legislation,
and enforcement); increased but cautious reliance on tech-
nology; environmental protection; poverty reduction; con-
tributions by all disciplines; and individual and community
empowerment and responsibility.
References
Anderson, Mary B., and Peter J. Woodrow. 1991. Reducing Vul-
nerability to Drought and Famine: Development Approaches
to Relief Disasters. Disasters 15(1): 4354.
Armstrong, Michael. 2000. Back to the Future: Charting the
Course for Project Impact. Natural Hazards Review 1(3): 138
44.
Berke, Phillip R. 1995. Natural Hazard Reduction and Sustain-
able Development: A Global Assessment. Center for Urban
and Regional Studies, Working Paper no. S95-02.
Berke, Phillip R., Jack Kartez, and Dennis Wenger. 1993. Re-
covery after Disaster: Achieving Sustainable Development,
Mitigation and Equity. Disasters 17(2): 93108.
Blaikie, Piers, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis, and Ben Wisner. 1994.
At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disas-
ters. London: Routledge.
Boull, Philippe, Luc Vrolijks, and Elina Palm. 1992. Vulner-
ability Reduction for Sustainable Urban Development. Jour-
nal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 5(3): 17988.
Britton, Neil R. 1986. Developing an Understanding of Disas-
ter. Australian New Zealand Journal of Sociology 22(2): 254
71.
. 1999. Whither the Emergency Manager? International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 17(2): 22335.
Britton, Neil R., and Gerard J. Clarke. 2000. From Response to
Resilience: Emergency Management Reform in New Zealand.
Natural Hazards Review 1(3): 14550.
Buckle, Philip, Graham Mars, and Syd Smale. 2000. New Ap-
proaches to Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience. Austra-
lian Journal of Emergency Management 15(2): 814.
Burby, Raymond J., ed. 1998. Cooperating with Nature: Con-
fronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sus-
tainable Communities. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Burby, Raymond, Robert E. Deyle, David R. Godschalk, Robert
B. Olshansky. 2000. Creating Hazard Resilient Communities
Through Land-Use Planning. Natural Hazards Review 1(2):
99106.
Cannon, T. 1993. A Hazard Need not a Disaster Make: Vulner-
ability and the Causes of Natural Disasters. In Natural Di-
sasters: Protecting Vulnerable Communities, edited by P.A.
Merriman and C.W.A. Browitt, 92105. London: Thomas
Telford.
Drabek, Thomas E., and Gerald Hoetmer. 1991. Emergency
Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government.
Washington, DC: International City Management Associa-
tion.
Geis, Don. 2000. By Design: The Disaster Resistant and Qual-
ity-of-Life Community. Natural Hazards Review 1(3): 151
60.
Godschalk, David R. 1991. Disaster Mitigation and Hazard
Management. In Emergency Management: Principles and
Practices for Local Government, edited by Thomas E. Drabek
and G.J. Hoetmer, 13160. Washington, DC: International
City Management Association.
Godschalk, David R., Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, David J.
Brower, and Edward J. Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitiga-
tion: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Hooke, Bill. 1999. The Second Assessment: Hazards at the Mil-
lennium. Fostering Local Sustainability: Progress and New
Challenges. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Hazards Re-
search and Applications Workshop, July 12, Boulder, Colo-
rado.
Kriemer, Alcira, and M. Munasinghe, eds. 1991. Managing Natu-
ral Disasters and the Environment. Washington DC: World
Bank.
280 Public Administration Review May/June 2002, Vol. 62, No. 3
McAllister, Ian. 1993. Sustaining Relief with Development: Stra-
tegic Issues for the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Boston:
Marinus Nijhoff Publishers.
McEntire, David A. 2000a. Correspondence. Disasters 24(1):
7879.
. 2000b. Sustainability or Invulnerable Development?
Proposals for the Current Shift in Paradigms. Australian Jour-
nal of Emergency Management 15(1): 5861.
. 2001. Triggering Agents, Vulnerabilities and Disaster
Reduction: Towards a Holistic Paradigm. Disaster Preven-
tion and Management 10(3): 18998.
Merriman, P.A., and C.W.A Browitt. 1993. Natural Disasters:
Protecting Vulnerable Communities. London: Thomas
Thelford.
Mileti, Dennis S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of
Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington DC: Jo-
seph Henry Press.
Mileti, Dennis S., JoAnne DeRouen Darlington, Eve Passerini,
Betsy C. Forest, and Mary Fran Myers. 1995. Toward an In-
tegration of Natural Hazards and Sustainability. Environ-
mental Professional 17(2): 11726.
Mitchell, James K. 1999. Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-cities and
Disasters in Transition. New York: United Nations Univer-
sity Press.
Myers, Mary Fran, Kathleen Tierney, Lori Pekk, Stu Nishenko,
Maria Vorel, Ed Hecker, Jill McCarthy, Ken Deutsch, Marga-
ret Davidson, and Priscilla Nelson. 2000. Progress Report on
the Second Assessment. Paper presented at the 25th Annual
Hazards Research and Applications Workshop, July 11, Boul-
der, Colorado.
National Governors Association. 1979. Comprehensive Emer-
gency Management: A Governors Guide. Washington, DC:
National Governors Association, Center for Policy Research.
Neal, David M. 1997. Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster. In-
ternational Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 15(2):
23964.
Paton, Douglas, Leigh Smith, and John Violanti. 2000. Disaster
Response: Risk, Vulnerability and Resilience. Disaster Pre-
vention and Management 9(3): 17379.
Quarantelli, E.L. 1993. The Environmental Disasters of the Fu-
ture Will be More and Worse but the Prospect Is Not Hope-
less. Disaster Prevention and Management 2(1): 1125.
Rao, Pinninti Krishna. 2000. Sustainable Development: Econom-
ics and Policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Rowland, Wade. 1973. The Plot to Save the World. Vancouver:
Clarke Irwin.
Rubin, Claire B. 2000. Emergency Management in the 21st Cen-
tury: Coping with Bill Gates, Osama bin-Laden and Hurri-
cane Mitch. Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of
Colorado, Working Paper no. 104.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1992. An
Overview of Disaster Management. New York: United Na-
tions Disaster Relief Organization.
Waugh, William L., Jr. 1996. Managing Terrorism as an Envi-
ronmental Hazard. Paper prepared for the Terrorism Confer-
ence, Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Office of
Emergency Management, September 25, Waterbury, Con-
necticut.
A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide 281
T
a
b
l
e

1
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

D
i
s
a
s
t
e
r

P
a
r
a
d
i
g
m
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
D
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
-
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
-
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
n
d
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

h
a
z
a
r
d
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
/
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
H
a
z
a
r
d
s
/
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
t
s
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
,

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
,

c
i
v
i
l
,
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

(
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
)
a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

t
o

a

l
e
s
s
e
r
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
,

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
,

c
i
v
i
l
,
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
s
/
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
M
a
i
n
l
y

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s

a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

a
n
d

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

t
o
a

l
e
s
s
e
r

e
x
t
e
n
t
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
,
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
,

a
n
d

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
A
c
t
o
r
s
M
a
i
n
l
y

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r
(
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y

e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s

a
n
d

f
i
r
s
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
r
s
)
M
a
i
n
l
y

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r
(
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y

u
r
b
a
n

p
l
a
n
n
e
r
s
a
n
d

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
)
M
a
i
n
l
y

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
n
d
g
r
o
u
p
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

i
n

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c
,

p
r
i
v
a
t
e
,

a
n
d
n
o
n
p
r
o
f
i
t

s
e
c
t
o
r
s
U
r
b
a
n

p
l
a
n
n
e
r
s
,

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
n
o
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
t
s
,

a
n
d
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
M
o
s
t
,

i
f

n
o
t

a
l
l
,

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
-
t
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c
,
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
,

a
n
d

n
o
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
s
e
c
t
o
r
s
,

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s

i
n
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
M
a
i
n
l
y

p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
M
a
i
n
l
y

p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
S
o
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
o

a
l
e
s
s
e
r

e
x
t
e
n
t
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

a
n
d

s
o
c
i
a
l

t
o

a
l
e
s
s
e
r

e
x
t
e
n
t

(
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n
t
h
e

s
c
h
o
l
a
r

a
n
d

d
u
e

t
o

t
h
e
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e

f
o
c
u
s

o
n

h
a
z
a
r
d
s
)
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

a
n
d

s
o
c
i
a
l
D
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
s
M
a
i
n
l
y

s
o
c
i
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d

p
u
b
l
i
c
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
i
n
l
y

g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y

a
n
d
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
M
a
i
n
l
y

p
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
,
s
o
c
i
o
l
o
g
y
,

a
n
d

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
;
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y

a
n
d

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
t
o

a

l
e
s
s
e
r

e
x
t
e
n
t
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
,

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
a
n
d

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

s
c
i
e
n
c
e
;
a
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
o
g
y
,

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
a
n
d

s
o
c
i
o
l
o
g
y

t
o

a

l
e
s
s
e
r
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
h
e

v
a
s
t

m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y

o
f

f
i
e
l
d
s
f
r
o
m

t
h
e

h
a
r
d

a
n
d

s
o
f
t
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
s

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

e
p
i
d
e
m
i
-
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e
m
e
d
i
c
a
l

f
i
e
l
d