Disaster studies

Michael K Lindell Texas A&M University, USA

abstract Disaster studies address the social and behavioral aspects of sudden onset collective stress sit-
uations typically referred to as mass emergencies or disasters. These situations can be created by natural
hazards, technological accidents, violent intergroup conflicts, shortages of vital resources, and other
major hazards to life, health, property, well-being and everyday routines. Disaster studies address the
impacts of these events on all social units ranging from individuals and households to nation-states. All
aspects of the life history of such events, both actual and threatened, are examined in terms of the ways
in which pop- ulations at risk conduct hazard and vulnerability analyses as well as plan and implement
mitigation, pre- paredness, response and recovery actions.
keywords convergence ◆ crisis ◆ disaster ◆ emergence ◆ emergency ◆ improvisation ◆ mitigation
◆
preparedness ◆ recovery ◆ response ◆ vulnerability

Origins of disaster research

Although historical and literary accounts of disasters
date back thousands of years, scientific analyses are
more recent. Dynes (2000) contends that Rousseau
provided the first social scientific insights into disaster
with his observation that the impacts of the 1755
Lisbon earthquake would have been diminished if
the city had been less densely populated and if people
had evacuated promptly in response to the initial
tremors. More than 150 years later, William
James’s (1983) observations in San Francisco
immediately after the
1906 earthquake also anticipated important themes of
later research by reporting improvisation (‘the
rapidi- ty of the improvisation of order out of chaos’,
p. 336) and emergent organization (‘within
twenty four hours, rations, clothing, hospital,
quarantine, disin- fection, washing, police, military,
quarters in camp and in houses, printed
information, employment, all were provided for
under the care of so many volunteer committees’, p.
337). Nonetheless, the first systemat- ic disaster
research is generally acknowledged to be Samuel
Prince’s (1920) study of the 1917 Halifax
explosion (Scanlon, 1988). This study documented
the presence of convergence and emergence, as well as
the absence of role abandonment. As Quarantelli
(2000) noted, little additional progress was made in
disaster research until the National Opinion Research
Center/National Academy of Sciences studies of the
1950s, whose findings were first summarized by Fritz
and Marks (1954) and Fritz (1961), received more
extensive treatment in Baker and Chapman (1962)
and were the subject of a systematic analysis in Barton
(1969). Other classic works of the 1950s are also
reviewed in the International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1988.
Drabek (1986) and Tierney et al. (2001) provided
later sum- maries of this research. Tierney et al.
(2001: 234–40) and CDRSS (2006: Ch. 8) describe
the institutional context of disaster research.
Basic definitions
Definitions of disaster can be classified into three cat-
egories – classic, hazards/disasters and socially focused
(Perry, 2006). According to Fritz (1961: 655), a
disas- ter is ‘an event concentrated in time and
space, in which a society or one of its subdivisions
undergoes physical harm and social disruption, such
that all or

Sociopedia.isa
© 2011 The Author(s)
1
© 2011 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of sociopedia.isa)

2
Lindell Disaster studies
 Lindell Disaster studies

i
some essential they are not m
functions of the mutually exclusive p
a
society or subdivision because mitigation a
c
are impaired’. Physical and preparedness i t
harm and social generally take place
d
disruption (now more concurrently in the
commonly labeled pre-impact period.
physical and social There are also overlaps
impacts) occur in the post-impact R
because the event period, with some
exceeds normal neigh- borhoods of a e
protections (Kreps, disaster-stricken
s
1984). The community conduct-
requirement that an ing emergency o
event be concentrated response operations
u
in time and space is while others are Figure 1.
essential to distinguish initiating disaster r Disaster
between earthquake recovery. Finally, impact zones
c
deaths that might mitigation is fre- Source: Dynes
(1970).
number as few as 50 quently implemented e
deaths in a matter of during the disaster
minutes from recovery period.
automobile fatalities
that number f
approxi- mately R i
40,000 per year in the
US, for example. e l
A disaster’s g t
concentration in time
obviously defines i e
three temporal periods o r
– pre-impact, trans-
impact and post- n
impact. However,
a
some disasters have F
multiple (e.g. l
earthquake r
aftershocks) or sec- i
ondary (e.g. hazardous
materials releases) a n
impacts, so identifying i g
the time at which
impact occurs can be d e
difficult. An
alternative conception
of disaster phas- es is
defined in terms of C i
hazard mitigation, o m
disaster preparedness,
emergency response m p
and disaster recovery m a
(National Governors
Association, 1978). u c
However, these terms n t
are not accepted
worldwide and, in i
T
any event, are t o
functions rather than t
phases. Moreover, y a
l
 Lindell Disaster studies

A disaster’s ed within households reported disaster to

concentration in space that are in observe behavior and
defines a series of neighborhoods within conduct personal
geographical areas that communities. interviews (The
Figure 1 identifies as Businesses are American Behavioral
a series of (idealized) included within Scientist, Vol.
concentric zones that industries that are in 13, No. 3, 1970
define impact and economic sectors, and contains an early
response (Wallace, local jurisdictions are summary of such
1956). In practice, contained within studies). Slow onset
these impact zones are states/provinces that disasters such as
more elusive than they are in nations (see hurricanes might
appear. First, impact Lindell et al., 2006: allow researchers to
boundaries do not Ch. 2). A major observe pre-impact
follow neat circles challenge to response activities but
because the severity understanding disaster it has been more
of building damage impacts is that social common to collect
after an earthquake, units such as data after a disaster
for example, depends communities are not strikes. In either case,
on the structural homogeneous, so
resilience of buildings subunits such as
and the intensity of households and
earth- quake shaking – businesses vary in
neither of which is their vulnerability to
uniformly dis- tributed disaster impacts. This
so the boundaries of has given rise to an
the damage area can be expanding litera- ture
extremely irregular. on differences in
Moreover, casualties disaster vulnerability
are com- plexly associat- ed with
determined, as are demographic
social impacts, which characteristics such as
can extend far beyond gender, ethnicity and
the boundaries of the poverty (Fothergill,
damage zone. For 1996; Fothergill and
example, earthquake Peek, 2004; Fothergill
damage can cause a et al., 1999).
loss of electric power in Similarly, research into
areas where there is no disaster impacts on
phys- ical damage. business has exam-
Thus, defining impact ined variations by size
zone boundaries and economic sector
presents a significant (Webb et al., 2000;
problem for Zhang et al., 2009).
researchers study- ing
response as well as
practitioners trying to
assess where disaster Major
impacts have actually methodologi
happened, let alone cal
trying to predict where
they will occur.
approaches
A society’s As Stallings (2006)
subdivisions encompass noted, disaster research
a wide range of social has been characterized
units arrayed in by inductive field
overlapping social, studies in which one
econom- ic and or more researchers
political sectors. Thus, travel to the site of a
individuals are includ-
Lindell Disaster studies

Pre-impact
conditions
Hazard
mitigation
Hazard
exposure
Physical
vulnerability
Social
vulnerability
Hazard
event
Figure 2. Disaster impact model
Source: Lindell, Prater and Perry (2006).
researchers collect important documents and inter-
view key informants who are identified by organiza-
tional position or by snowball sampling. In recent
decades, there has been an increasing reliance on
sur- vey research (Bourque et al., 1997). In most
cases, surveys have been conducted to study
households’ warning response (Mileti and Beck,
1975; Perry et al., 1981) or perception and
response to natural haz- ards (Turner et al., 1986).
In both types of studies, the research objectives and
methods of sociologists have overlapped
significantly with those of geogra- phers (White,
1974). In other cases, surveys have been
conducted on businesses struck by disasters
(Tierney et al., 1996) and emergency preparedness
organizations (Lindell et al., 1996). Occasionally,
disaster studies have analyzed archival data (Wright
et al., 1979).
Disaster impacts model
The basic framework of disaster research can be
sum- marized in Figure 2, which indicates that the
effects of a disaster are determined by three pre-
impact con- ditions – hazard exposure, physical
vulnerability and social vulnerability. There also are
three event-specif- ic conditions – hazard event
characteristics, impro- vised disaster responses
and improvised disaster
Lindell Disaster studies
Emergency management interventions
Emergency Recovery
preparedness preparedness
Physical Social
impacts impacts
Improvised Improvised
disaster disaster
response recovery
Event-specific conditions
recovery. Two of the event-specific conditions, haz-
ard event characteristics and improvised disaster
responses, combine with pre-impact conditions to
produce a disaster’s physical impacts. Physical
impacts, in turn, combine with recovery actions to
produce a disaster’s social impacts. Communities can
engage in three types of emergency management
interventions to ameliorate disaster impacts. Physical
impacts can be reduced by hazard mitigation prac-
tices and emergency preparedness practices, whereas
social impacts can be reduced by recovery
prepared- ness practices.
Of the three pre-impact conditions, hazard expo-
sure arises from people’s occupancy of geographical
areas where they could be affected by specific types
of events that threaten their lives or property.
Physical vulnerability includes human vulnerability,
agricultural vulnerability and structural vulnerabili-
ty. Human vulnerability arises from humans’ suscep-
tibility to environmental extremes of temperature,
pressure and chemical exposures that can cause
death, injury and illness. Agricultural vulnerability
exists because, like humans, plants and animals are
also vulnerable to environmental extremes.
Structural vulnerability arises when buildings are
constructed using designs and materials that are
incapable of resisting extreme stresses (e.g. high
wind, hydraulic pressures of water, seismic shaking)
or that allow hazardous materials to infiltrate into a
building where people thus – the event’s positions in terms of S
are sheltering. The casualties, damage number of deaths o
concept of social and socioeconomic from 1966 to 1990. c
vulnerability (e.g. disruption. The other Low- income i
Wisner et al., 2004) two event-spe- cific countries suffer a
repre- sents an conditions, approximately 3000
l
important extension improvised disaster deaths per disaster,
of previous theories of response and whereas the
corresponding figure i
hazard vulnerability improvised disaster
for high-income m
(Burton et al., 1978). recovery, are addressed
Whereas people’s later on. countries is p
physical vulnerability approximately 500 a
refers to their suscep- P deaths per disaster. c
tibility to biological h Moreover, these t
changes (i.e. y disparities appear to s
impacts on s be increasing because
anatomical structures i the average annual Psychosocial
and physiological death toll in impacts. Disasters
c
function- ing), their developed countries can cause a wide
a range of negative
social vulnerability declined by at least
l 75 percent between psychological
refers to limitations in
their physical assets 1960 and 1990, but responses (Bourque et
(buildings, furnishings, i the same time period al., 2006; Gerrity and
vehicles) and m saw increases of over Flynn, 1997). In most
psychological p 400 percent in cases, the observed
(knowledge, skills a developing countries effects are mild and
and abilities), social c (Berke, 1995). transi- tory and
(community t victims can
integration), economic s Damage. Losses of experience positive
(financial savings) structures, animals impacts (e.g.
and political (public Casualties. The and crops also are strengthened family
policy influence) number of casualties important measures of relationships) as well
resources. per event can be physical impacts, and as negative ones (e.g.
Of the three extremely high for these are rising strained family
event-specific some hazards. exponentially in the relationships).
conditions, hazard According to Noji US (Mileti, Nonetheless, the fact
event characteristics (1997), hurricanes 1999). However, the that most effects are
can be defined in produced 16 of the rate of increase is generally mild and
terms of six attributes 65 greatest disasters even greater in transitory does not
– speed of onset, of the 20th century developing countries preclude the
availability of (in terms of deaths) (Berke, 1995). occurrence of some
perceptual cues (such and the greatest very negative long-
as wind, rain, or number of deaths term outcomes.
ground movement), from 1947 to 1980 Zahran et al. (2009)
the intensity, scope (499,000). found that domestic
and duration of Earthquakes produced crimes increased after
impact, and the 28 of the greatest disasters even though
probability of disasters and 450,000 index, property and
occurrence (CDRSS, deaths, whereas floods vio- lent crimes
2006; Kreps, produced four of the decreased.
1984). These greatest disasters and There also are
characteristics 194,000 deaths. psychological impacts
determine people’s There is significant with long- term
abil- ity to detect variation by country, adaptive consequences,
hazard onset, the with developing such as changes in risk
amount of time they countries in Asia, perception (beliefs in
have to respond, the Africa and South the likelihood of the
number of affected America accounting occur- rence of a
social units and – for the top 20 disaster and its
personal consequences
for the individual) population segments
and increased hazard that have lost housing.
intrusiveness In many cases,
(frequency of thought housing-related
and discussion about emigration is also
a haz- ard). In turn, temporary, but the city
these beliefs can affect of New Orleans lost
risk area resi- dents’ thousands of house-
adoption of holds after Hurricane
household hazard Katrina and had only
adjustments that returned to 300,000
reduce their (66 percent of its pre-
vulnerability to future impact population)
disasters. However, the four years after the
cognitive impacts of disaster. Moreover,
disaster experi- ence there are cases in
do not appear to be which housing
large, resulting in reconstruction has
modest effects on been delayed
household hazard indefinitely – leading
adjustment (see to ‘ghost towns’
Lindell, in press; (Comerio,
Lindell and Perry, 1
2000). 9
9
Dem o g r ap h i c 8
i m p ac t s. The )
demographic impact .
of a disaster can be
assessed by adapting Economic
the demographic impacts. The
balancing equation, Pa property damage
– Pb = B – D + caused by disaster
IM – OM, where Pa is impact creates losses in
the population size asset values that can
after the be measured by the
disaster, Pb is the cost of repair or
population size before replacement
the disaster, (CACND, 1999).
B is the number of Disaster losses in the
births, D is the number US are ini-
of deaths,
IM is the number of
immigrants, and OM
is the number of
emigrants (Smith et
al., 2001). As noted
earlier, the number of
deaths from disasters
can be large in
developing countries,
but the major demo-
graphic impacts of
disasters in developed
countries are likely to
be the (temporary)
post-impact immi-
gration of construction
workers and
emigration of
tially borne by the personal income taxes. candidates’ re-elections reduce disaster
affected households, However, most of the or even seek to recall impacts. Hazard
businesses and local research in this area some politicians from mitigation and
government agencies has been conducted office (Olson and emergency
whose property is by researchers in Drury, 1997; Prater preparedness practices
damaged or destroyed. political science and and Lindell, 2000). attempt to reduce a
However, some of public administration disaster’s physical
these loss- es are (e.g. Farazmand, impacts (casualties
redistributed during 2001). Emergency and damage) and
disaster recovery. management indirectly reduce its
Unfortunately, the Political impacts. interventions social impacts,
magnitude of these Disaster impacts can whereas recovery
losses is diffi- cult to cause social activism As Figure 2 indicates, preparedness practices
determine because no resulting in political there are three types of attempt to reduce its
organization tracks all disruption. The disaster emer- gency social impacts.
of the relevant data recovery period is a management
and some data are not source of many victim interventions, also H
recorded at all grievances and this known as hazard a
(CACND, 1999; creates many adjustments (Burton et z
Charvériat, 2000). opportunities for al., 1978), that can a
In addition to community conflict, r
direct economic both in the US d
losses, there are (Bolin, 1982,
indirect losses that 1993) and abroad m
arise from the (Albala-Bertrand,
i
interdependence of 1993). Attempts to
community subunits. change prevailing t
A business’s patterns of civil gov- i
operations can be ernance can arise g
interrupted because its when individuals a
workers are disaster sharing a griev- ance t
casualties or are forced about the handling of i
to move because they the recovery process o
have nowhere to live seek to redress that n
within commuting grievance through Hazard mitigation
distance. collective action. In can be defined as
Alternatively, a some cases, new pre-impact actions
business’s operations groups emerge to that protect passively
can be interrupted by influence local, state, against casualties and
losses of its or federal government damage at the time of
infrastructure or its agencies and legislators hazard impact (as
normal customers to take actions that opposed to an active
(Rose and Limb, they support and to emergency response to
2002; Tierney, 2006). terminate actions that reduce those casual-
Disasters can have they disapprove of. ties and damage).
significant financial Indeed, such was the Hazard mitigation
impacts on local case for Latinos in includes hazard source
government. Costs Watsonville, California control, community
must be incurred for following the Loma protection works,
tasks such as debris Prieta earthquake land use practices,
removal, (Tierney et al., 2001). building construction
infrastructure restora- Usually, community practices and building
tion and replanning action groups pressure contents protection
stricken areas. In govern- ment to (see Lindell et al.,
addition, there are provide additional 2006: Ch. 7). Hazard
decreased revenues resources for source control acts
due to loss or deferral recovering from directly on the hazard
of sales, business, disaster impact, but agent to reduce its
property and might oppose magnitude or dura-
tion. For example, examined hazard critiques (Perry and
patching a hole in a mitigation from the Lindell,
leaking tank truck perspective of social 2
terminates the construction of risk. 0
release of a toxic 0
gas. Community E 7
protection works, m )
which limit the e .
impact of a hazard r
agent on an entire g
community, e
include dams and n
levees that protect c
against flood- y
water. Land use
practices reduce
hazard vulnerability p
by avoiding r
construction in
areas that are e
susceptible to p
hazard impact. a
Hazard mitigation r
can also be
achieved through e
building d
construction n
practices that make e
individual structures s
less vulnerable to s
natural hazards – Emergency
for example, using preparedness
steel reinforced practices are pre-
concrete rather impact actions that
than unreinforced provide the human
masonry to con- and material
struct apartment resources needed to
buildings. Finally, support active
hazard mitiga- tion responses at the time
can be achieved of hazard impact.
by contents An important step in
protection strategies emer- gency
such as elevating preparedness is to use
appliances above the community
base flood elevation hazard/vul- nerability
or bolting them to analysis (HVA) to
walls to resist seis- identify the
mic forces. Research geographic areas and
on hazard population segments
mitigation has at risk. In addition,
most- ly been communities should
conducted by develop emergency
planners (e.g. operations plans,
Burby, 1998) and conduct emergency
political scientists response training,
(e.g. Birkland, acquire facilities and
1997) although equipment, and
there are exceptions perform emergency
such as Stallings’ drills, exercises and
(1995) study that
Community and or ganizational
disaster pr epar edness. Disaster research
has identified many conditions influencing the
effectiveness of local emergency management
agencies (LEMAs) and local emergency
management committees (LEMCs) in producing
community hazard adjustments such as
hazard/vulnerability analyses, hazard mitigation,
emergency response preparedness and disaster recov-
ery preparedness (see Figure 3). The figure indicates
that LEMA effectiveness – measured by such organi-
zational outcomes as the quality, timeliness and cost
of hazard adjustments adopted and implemented
by the community – is a direct result of individual
out- comes and the planning process. Outcomes
for the individual members of the LEMA and
LEMC include job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, attachment behaviors (effort,
attendance and contin- ued membership) and
organizational citizenship behaviors (Lindell and
Brandt, 2000). The planning process includes
preparedness analysis, planning activities, resource
development, organizational cli- mate development
and strategic choice. In turn, the planning process
is determined by five factors, the first of which is
community hazard experience and hazard analyses
that reveal the likelihood and expect- ed impacts of
future disasters. Hazard exposure/vul-
nerability also has an indirect effect on the planning
process via its effects on community support from
public officials and the news media, as well as
differ- ent demographic, economic and political
segments of the local population. This community
support draws upon community resources such as
staff and budget to yield staffing and
organization for the LEMA and the LEMC. In
addition, communities draw upon extra-community
resources such as pro- fessional associations,
government agencies and regional organizations
to supplement their own resources (see Lindell
and Perry, 2007, for a more complete discussion).
Household disaster pr epar edness.
Most research on natural hazards has reported
significant correlations between hazard adjustment
and per- ceived personal risk, where the latter refers
to respon- dents’ judgments of the likelihood that
they will be personally affected by specific
consequences such as death, injury, property
damage, or disruption to daily activities (Mileti
and Peek, 2000). There is mixed evidence that
personal experience affects responses to hazards.
Some studies indicate that this is due to its effect on
risk perception but there is also evidence of an effect
that is independent of risk per-

Hazard exposure/ Extra-community resources

vulnerability Professional associations
Hazard experience Government agencies
Hazard analyses Regional associations
Individual outcomes Job
satisfaction Organizational
commitment Organizational
attachment Organizational
citizenship
Planning process
Community support Preparedness analysis
Officials Planning activities
News media Resource development
Public Organizational climate
development
Strategic choice
Organizational outcomes
Product quality
Product timeliness
Product cost
Community resources Staffing/organization
Staff Staffing levels
Budget Organizational structure
Technology

Figure 3. A model of local emergency management effectiveness

Source: Adapted from Lindell and Perry (2007)
ception. In addition, combination of pop- ular belief, sandbagging a
there is conflicting preparedness and emergency responders flooding river or
evidence regarding the improvisation (Kreps, do not abandon their patching a leaking
correlations of hazard 1991). The disaster professional duties in railroad tank car).
proximity with response actions that favor of protecting Population protection
hazard adjustment. take place at the their families. In fact, refers to actions –
Here too, the conflicts individual and emergency responders such as sheltering in-
might be explained by organizational levels are more likely to place, evacuation and
the mediating effects differ signifi- cantly suffer burnout from mass immunization –
of other variables from most people’s working too many con- that protect people
– in this case, the stereotypes. Although secutive hours without from haz- ard agents.
effect of proximity on dis- aster myths relief (Quarantelli, Incident management
experience, experience commonly portray 1988). consists of the activ-
on risk perception, disaster victims as The actual ities by which the
and risk perception dazed, panicked, or performance of human and physical
on hazard adjustment. disorganized (Fischer, individuals and organ- resources used to
Finally, there is 2008), people actually izations in disasters respond to the
evidence that people’s respond in a generally can be characterized emergency are
adoption of hazard adaptive man- ner by four basic mobilized and
adjustments is related when disasters strike. emergency response directed to
to the perceived Adaptive response is functions – accomplish the goals
attributes of those often delayed because emergency assessment, of the emergency
adjustments such as normalcy bias delays hazard operations and response
efficacy, utility for people’s realiza- tion population pro- organization. These
other purposes, that an improbable tection and incident emergency response
financial cost, event is, in fact, management (Lindell functions provide a
knowledge and skill occurring to them, so and Perry, useful framework for
requirements, time they seek confirmation 1992). Emergency summariz- ing and
and effort of any initial indi- assessment comprises evaluating existing
requirements and cations of an diagnoses of past and research on disaster
required social emergency before present conditions and pre- paredness and
cooperation (Lindell initiating protective prognoses of future response.
et al., 2009). action. The vast conditions that
majority of people guide the emergency Emergency
E respond in terms of response. Hazard assessment and
m their customary social operations refers to hazard opera- t i o
e units – especially expedient hazard n s. Social
r their households and mitiga- tion actions scientists have
g neighborhoods – that emergency conducted little
e which can con- sume personnel take to limit research on topics
time in developing the magnitude or such as threat
n
organizations that can duration of disaster detection/emer- gency
c
cope with the disaster’s impact (e.g. classification and
y
demands. Contrary to damage assessment
stereotypes of and vir- tually none
r individual selfishness, on
disaster victims often hazard/environmental
e devote considerable monitoring or
s effort to protecting population
p other people and their monitoring and
o property. There is assessment. What
n considerable social and research has been
s material convergence done in these areas
e on the disaster impact has conceptu- alized
As indicated by area and a decreased organizational
Figure 2, people try incidence of antisocial response in more
to reduce the physical behaviors such as crime abstract terms such as
impacts of a hazard (Tierney et al., 2001). continuity,
agent by a Finally, contrary to contingency and
improvisation. discontinuous) and
Specifically, role behavior
Wachtendorf (conventional or
(2004; Kendra improvised).
and Wachtendorf,
2006) proposed Population
that there are protection. Much
differ- ent types of of the research on
improvisation – disaster response has
reproductive, addressed population
adaptive and warning and,
creative – that especially,
differ from evacuation. Warning
organizational conti- research has
nuity (continuation provided a basis for
of normal assessing the degree
organizational to which 32 different
routines) and variables are
organizational empirically related to
contingency warning response
(implemen- tation (Sorensen, 2000;
of the procedures Sorensen and
specified in an Sorensen,
Emergency 2006). The findings
Operations Plan). of this research can
Mendonça and be summa- rized by
Wallace (2007) the Protective
proposed a Action Decision
cognitive theory of Model (Lindell and
improvisation in Perry, 1992, 2004),
which procedural which proposes that
and declarative sensory cues from
knowledge are used the physical
to process environment (espe-
information about cially sights and
goals, functions, sounds, see Gruntfest
object groups, et al., 1978) or
objects and socially transmitted
properties to information (e.g.
generate novel disaster warnings)
solutions to can each elicit a
unanticipated perception of threat
problems. In con- that
trast to this
problem solving
approach, Kreps
and Bosworth
(2006) focused on
organizational
roles. They
characterized
organizational
adaptation to dis-
aster demands in
terms of role
allocation
(consistent or
inconsistent), role
relationships
(continuous or
 Source
characteristics
Channel
access and
preference
Pre-decision
Message
processes
characteristics
• Exposure
• Attention
• Comprehension
Receiver
characteristics
Environmental
and social
cues
Figure 4. Protective action decision model
Source: Lindell and Perry (2004).
diverts the recipient’s attention from normal
activities (see Figure 4). In particular, disaster
warn- ings are transmitted by social sources that use
infor- mation channels to transmit warning
messages. The principal warning sources –
authorities, news media and peers – differ in their
perceived expertise, trust- worthiness and protection
responsibility (Arlikatti et al., 2007). There are
many different types of chan- nels, which include
print media, electronic media and face-to-face
warnings. These differ in such char- acteristics as
dissemination rate and precision, pene- tration of
normal activities, message specificity/distortion,
sender and receiver require- ments and
feedback/receipt verification (Lindell and Perry,
1987, 1992). Messages should contain infor-
mation about the threat, especially the hazard agent
(type, specific threats and potential impacts), and
affected populations so people can form a
perception of certain, severe and immediate
personal risk. Warning messages should also
contain recommend- ed household response actions
and describe official response actions such as
agency/organizational response actions
completed, in progress and planned. In addition,
messages should list sources of official assistance
and sources of further official information –
especially rumor control hotlines (Lindell and Perry,
2004; Scanlon, 2006).
Most warning research has focused on compli-
ance with authorities’ evacuation recommendations
and, to a lesser extent, evacuation shadow – people
evacuating from outside officially designated evacua-
tion zones (Sorensen and Sorensen, 2006).
Traffic
Situational
facilitators
Stakeholder
perceptions
Behavioral response
• Information search
Protective
Threat • Protective response
action
perceptions • Emotion-focused
decision-
coping
making
Protective
action
perceptions
Situational
impediments
analysts have developed models that require data on
many other demographic and behavioral variables,
but social scientists have studied only a few of these
variables and traffic analysts have largely ignored the
relevant social science data that are available
(Lindell and Prater, 2007). Past evacuation
research has focused substantially on ‘typical’
households (two parents and children evacuating
in a personal vehi- cle) and is only now
beginning to address transit dependent populations
and special populations that have physical, sensory,
or mental disabilities that hinder their evacuation.
Although some of these population segments are
located in facilities where evacuations can be
planned by specialized staff (Vogt, 1991), others
are dispersed throughout their communities.
Research is also beginning to examine the problems
associated with animals in evacuation (Heath et al.,
2001).
Research on reception and care of victims has
concluded that most evacuees in the US stay with
friends and relatives, at least in the short term
(Mileti et al., 1992). A smaller proportion stay in
commer- cial facilities such as hotels and motels,
and very few stay in public shelters – about 5–15
percent, depend- ing on the weather, time of day
and evacuees’ finan- cial resources. However, there
are few studies that have begun to address the
problems of re-entry (Siebeneck and Cova, 2008).
Search and rescue (SAR; Poteyeva et al., 2006) is
an activity that is crucially important in disasters
involving building collapses. In such incidents,
primarily earthquakes and explosions, crush syndrome
will kill most of those which is usually this typol- ogy by the Incident
who are injured overloaded at the noting that Command System
within about same time as other organizations of all and Incident
24 hours. competent facilities four types must often Management System.
Consequently, the receive few or no interact with each However, there have
prompt response of patients (Auf der other in novel ways been challenges to the
local volunteers – Heide, 1994). through structures assumption that ICS
either singly, in they labeled emergent and IMS can solve
emergent groups, or Incident multiorga- nizational the problems that
in previously management. One networks (EMONs). led to their
organized and trained of the major com- Because of their dif- development (Buck
SAR teams – is far ponents of disaster ferences in et al., 2006; Lutz
more significant than response is emergent organizational titles, and Lindell, 2008).
the response of behavior, which arises organizational Especially
heavily equipped when ‘individuals see structures, training, problematic is the
urban search and needs that are not experience and legal role of volunteers and
rescue teams because being met and authority, EMONs emergency-relevant
the latter generally therefore attempt to frequently experience organizations such as
take days to arrive address them in an severe difficulties in social serv- ice
even in domestic informal manner’ communicating with agencies that have
incidents. The delays (McEntire, 2006: each other and little training in
are even greater in 175). Disaster demands coordinating their ICS/IMS and
internation- al that exceed the abilities responses to disasters. infrequent experience
incidents, where of individ- uals acting Indeed, such problems in emergency
mobilization delays, independently lead to have led to the response.
long flights and visa the emergence of development of Disaster
problems can cause coordinated responses standardized systems, researchers have also
even further delays – ‘the cooperation of examined the dis-
(Prater and Wu, inde- pendent units semination of public
2002). Such for the purpose of information (which is
situations can require eliminating frag- intended for those
extensive coordination mentation, gaps in who are not at risk, by
among a number of service delivery, and contrast to warnings,
different organizations unnecessary (as which are directed to
that do not normally opposed to strategic) those who are at
work together duplication of risk). One important
(Drabek et al., 1981). services’ (Gillespie, goal of public
It is commonly 1991: 57). That is, information is to
assumed that according to Dynes reassure people that
authorities trans- port (1970), established they should avoid
injured disaster organizations perform taking protective
victims in ambulances their nor- mal tasks actions – especially if
to the most within normal these might interfere
appropriate hospitals. organizational with the protective
However, according structures, extending actions of those who
to Quarantelli (1983), organizations perform are at risk. Much of
almost as many novel tasks within the research on public
injured victims arrive normal organizational information has
at hospitals in their structures, expanding studied news media
own vehicles or those organi- zations perform framing of disaster
of peers (46 percent their normal tasks reports (Vultee,
of casualties) as in within novel orga- 2009).
ambulances (54 nizational structures, There has been
percent of casualties). and emergent little research on
Moreover, the vast organizations perform topics such as
majority (75 percent) novel tasks within mobilization of
of victims are novel organizational emergency
transported to the structures. Drabek et facilities/equipment,
nearest hospital, al. (1981) extended incident
communication/do inci- dent and ends
cumentation, when the
hazard community has re-
analysis/planning, estab- lished normal
finance/administrati social, economic
on and logis- tics. and political
Such topics might routines. It is now
seem to have little generally accepted
theoretical appeal that disaster
for social and recovery
behavioral scientists encompasses
but they have great multiple activities,
practical some implemented
importance for sequentially and
emergency man- others implemented
agers. For simultaneously. At
example, Sorensen any one time, some
and Rogers (1988) households might be
conducted a survey engaged in one set
of local agency of recovery activities
procedures for while other
notification and households are
mobilization in engaged in other
toxic chemical recovery activities.
emergencies. This Thus, attempts to
research provided define finely
important back- differenti- ated
ground data for phases of disaster
legislative and recovery are
regulatory actions inherently limit- ed
to improve safety in their validity so
around toxic researchers have
chemical facilities in been less concerned
the aftermath of the about time phases
Bhopal incident. (e.g. short-term
recov- ery vs long-
D term recovery) than
i about the specific
s recovery functions
a that must be
s performed.
t
e Household r
r ecover y. There are
three basic com-
ponents to household
r recovery – housing
recovery, economic
e recovery and
c psychological
o recovery (Bolin and
v Trainer, 1978). All
e three components
r require resources to
recover and
y households must
Disaster recovery frequently
begins with
stabilization of an
10
10
invest significant commercial facilities sometimes are forced economic recovery
amounts of time to such as rental houses to accept as after the Whittier
obtain these resources. and apartments, and permanent what earthquake was
Households use four mass facilities such as originally was 50 percent at the end
types of housing trailer parks. Some of intended as of the first year but 21
recovery following a these sites are in or temporary housing percent reported little
disaster (Quarantelli, near the stricken (Peacock et al., or no recovery even at
1982). The first type, community, but 1 the end of four years
emergency shelter, others are hundreds or 9 (Bolin, 1993).
consists of unplanned even thousands of 8 Economic recovery
and spontaneously miles away. Lack of 7 was positive- ly related
sought locations that alternative housing ) to household income
are intended only to within an acceptable . and negatively relat-
provide protection distance of jobs or Some households’ ed to structural
from the ele- ments, peers led some economic recovery damage, household
typically open yards households to leave takes place quickly, size and the total
and cars after earth- the Miami area after but others’ takes much number of moves
quakes (Bolin and Hurricane Andrew. longer. For example, (Bolin, 1993). In some
Stanford, 1991, The population loss the percentage of cases, this is due to the
1998). The second was 18 percent in households reporting loss of permanent jobs
type is temporary South Dade County, complete that are replaced only
shelter, which includes 33 percent in Florida by temporary jobs
food preparation and City and 31 percent in shelter
sleeping facilities that in Homestead (Dash management, debris
usually are sought et al., 1997). Other cleanup and
from friends and households remained construction – or are
relatives or are found in severely damaged not replaced at all
in commercial units – or even (Yelvington, 1997).
lodging, although condemned units – There are also sys-
mass care facilities in without electric tematic differences in
school gymnasiums or power or telephone the rate of economic
church auditoriums service for months recovery among
are acceptable as a last (Yelvington, 1997) ethnic groups. For
resort. The third type or doubled up with example, Bolin and
is temporary housing, relatives (Morrow, Bolton (1986) found
which allows victims 1997). that Black households
to re-establish house- There are (30 per- cent) lagged
hold routines in non- significant variations behind Whites (51
preferred locations or among house- holds percent) in their
struc- tures. The last in their housing return to pre-impact
type is permanent recovery and these are economic conditions
housing, which re- corre- lated with eight months after
establishes household households’ the 1982 Paris,
routines in preferred demographic Texas, tornado.
loca- tions and characteristics However, the
structures. There is no (Peacock et al., 2006). variables affecting
single pattern of Because lower-income economic recovery
progression through house- holds have were relatively similar
the stages of housing fewer resources on for Black and White
because households which to draw for families.
vary in the number recovery, they also Household
and sequence of take longer to return recovery is
movements and the to perma- nent significantly
duration of their stays housing, sometimes determined by sources
in each type of remaining for of assistance. Hazard
housing (Cole, 2003). extended periods of insurance is a major
Sites for time in severely source of the money
temporary housing damaged homes needed to rebuild
include homes of (Girard and Peacock, 11 damaged structures
friends and relatives, 1997). Indeed, they 11 and replace destroyed
contents. However, community- based
risk area residents are organizations (Phillips,
particularly likely to 2009). Because the
forego hazard donor–victim
insurance because they relationship is defined
consider premiums to by bureaucratic
be too high and norms, the amount of
deductibles too large assistance depends on
(Palm et al., whether victims meet
1990), as well as the qualification
inability to protect standards, usually
persons, and specificity documented residence
to a given hazard in the impact area and
(Lindell et al., 2009). proof of loss.
Hazard insurance Institutional recovery
varies significantly in provides assistance by
its availabili- ty and means of loans (at
cost – flood, hurricane below-market interest
and earthquake insur- rates in the
ance being particularly
problematic
(Kunreuther and Roth,
1998). Moreover,
some ethnic groups
cannot afford the rates
of high-quality
insurance companies or
are denied coverage
altogether (Peacock
and Girard, 1997).
Kinship networks
can also contribute to
disaster recovery but
the significance of this
source depends on the
physical proximity of
other nuclear families
in the kin network,
the closeness of the
psychological ties
within the network,
the assets of the other
fami- lies and, of
course, the extent to
which those families
also suffered losses.
Friends, neighbors and
co-work- ers can assist
recovery through
financial and in-kind
contributions but these
tend to be less
important.
Institutional
sources of recovery
assistance include
federal, state and local
government as well as
non-governmental 12
organizations and
12
13
13
case of the US c 2006; Mitroff, 2005)
Small Business Business r ecover t and crisis
Administration y. Several studies have i communications
[SBA]), grants (that exam- ined the ways in o (Seeger and Novak,
do not need to be which individual 2010; Sellnow et al.,
repaid) and tax businesses recover n 2009). The field will
deductions or from disasters (Zhang s progress if research
deferrals. SBA loans et al., 2009). Whereas continues to be done
can be prob- lematic whole- sale and retail T both inductively,
because they involve businesses generally h beginning with data
long-term debt that report experienc- ing e and working toward
takes many years to significant sales o theory, and
repay (Bolin, 1993). losses, manufacturing r deductively,
Because few and construction beginning with the-
victims develop major companies often show e ory and making
psychological gains following a t predictions about
problems from disaster (Kroll et al., i data. In either case,
disaster impacts, most 1990; Webb et al., c significant progress in
benefit more from a 2000). Moreover, a understanding
crisis counseling businesses that serve a l disasters will require
orientation than from large (e.g. regional or integration of theories
a men- tal health international) market from all of the
d
treatment orientation, tend to recover more disciplines that
especially if their rapid- ly than those i contribute to the
normal social support that only serve local r field. In many cases,
networks of friends, markets (Webb et al., it will be necessary to
relatives, neighbors 2002). Small e work with researchers
and co-workers businesses, in c from other disciplines,
remain largely intact particular, have been t including physical
(Gerrity and Flynn, found to experience i scientists and
1997). However, more obstacles than o engineers, to ensure
there are pop- ulation large firms and chains n that the field as a
segments requiring in their attempts to s whole identifies all of
special attention and regain their pre-dis- Disaster studies need to the variables that are
active outreach. These aster levels of maintain a balance needed for bet- ter
include children, frail operations. Compared between theoretical hazard management.
elderly, people with to their large and practical In this connection,
pre-existing mental counterparts, small significance. That is, it should be noted that
illness, racial and firms are more likely researchers should Lindell and Prater
ethnic minorities and to depend primarily seek to link practical (2007) iden- tified 11
families of those on neighborhood problems that emerge evacuation traffic
who have died in the customers, lack the in disasters with model parameters for
disaster. The financial resources broader social science which behavioral
appropriate strategy needed for recovery theories and other research was the
for psy- chological and lack access to perspectives on appropriate source.
recovery by victims governmental recovery disasters such as Unfortunately, social
and emergency programs (Alesch et al., organizational crisis scientists have focused
responders seems to 1993; Kroll et al., response (Boin and ‘t on only a few of these
be one of minimal 1990). Hart, parameters and
intervention to provided few or no
provide information data on the rest. Not
about sources of N only do disaster
material support (for e researchers need to
victims) and to w develop more
facilitate optional comprehensive models
involvement in social of critical outcomes
and emotional d such as evacuation,
support groups (for i they also need to
victims and emergency r 14 expand their visions
responders). e 14 of which human
behaviors to study disagreements
in disasters. To emerge when one
continue with the tries to examine
example of what is meant by
evacuation research, the widely accepted
it is important to definition of
extend our vulnerability as ‘the
understanding of character- istics of a
evacuation logistics person or group and
(the events that their situation that
take place between influence their
a household’s capacity to
depar- ture from its anticipate, cope
home and its arrival with, resist, and
at its shelter desti- recover from the
nation), as well as impact of a natural
the entire process haz- ard’ (Wisner et
of evacuation re- al., 2004: 11).
entry (e.g. People can be differ-
Siebeneck and entiated by many
Cova, 2008). different
One area that characteristics, some
has become of which define
particularly active vulnerability and
is social vulnerability others of which are
(e.g. Bolin, 2006; merely correlated
Enarson et al., with vulnerability.
2006; Phillips et al., Are demographic
2010). Most, if not characteristics such
all, disaster as gender, age or
researchers would race/ethnicity
agree with three defining
basic premises of characteristics of
this approach. That
is, there are
systematic variations
in people’s hazard
exposure
attributable to the
loca- tions where
they live and work.
Moreover, there are
also systematic
variations in
people’s
vulnerability based
on the quality of
the structures in
which they live and
work. Finally, there
are systematic
variations in the
social impacts
people are likely to
experience even
controlling for
hazard exposure
and structural
vulnerability. 15
However, 15
16
16
vulnerability, or are disasters. emergency response Internet provides
they correlated with organizations’ researchers with
other vari- ables (e.g. M increased reliance on opportunities to
human, social, et computer software to conduct web
physical, financial and h enter, distribute and experiments in which
nat- ural capital) that o store messages representative
are the defining d transmitted from one population samples
characteristics? A ol emergency responder are contacted to log
comprehensive theory to another. The on to web- sites where
o
of hazard accessibility of they can be randomly
gi
vulnerability will software systems such assigned to differ- ent
c as E Team and
need to identify information conditions
al WebEOC should
which variables are (Joinson et al., 2007).
di make it easier for
measures of vul- In addition to
nerability, which are r disaster researchers to randomization, such
proximal causes of e retrieve the data web experiments can
vulnerability, which ct needed to conduct provide graphic
are distal causes of io sophisticated materials (not
vulnerability and n network analyses available in tele-
which are merely s (e.g. Petrescu-Prahova phone surveys) and
correlated with these Future research needs and Butts, 2008). control over the order
causes. To date, our to continue to use a Disaster of ques- tion
abil- ity to variety of research researchers should completion (not
disentangle these methods involving a also increase the use available in mail
theoretical issues has mix of qualitative and of experiments such surveys) at a cost that
been hindered by the quantitative studies as Drabek’s (1970) is far lower than
limited amount and (see Stallings, 2002, elaborate simulation personal interviews.
uneven quality of the 2006). Qualitative of a police dispatch Field experiments
available research. In studies need to center. Such simula- and quasi-experiments
some cases there is a continue the practice tions, which have have the potential for
rel- atively strong of systematically become increasingly providing important
research literature on sampling situations feasible because of the complements to
which to base and informants, as availability of laboratory
conclusions (Peek, well as conducting inexpensive experiments and
2010) whereas in observations and networked surveys. Mileti and his
others there is little interviews. Extending microcomputers, can colleagues (Mileti and
more than anecdotes the four decades-long be useful in Darlington, 1995,
and highly aggregated tradition of disaster disentangling causal 1997; Mileti and
sta- tistics to work research center teams, mechanisms Fitzpatrick, 1993)
with (Clive et al., such data collection producing observed conducted evaluations
2010). efforts can be followed correlations in survey of earthquake hazard
Finally, there are by systematic analysis studies. Moreover, awareness programs
many topics – such as of interview archives the advent of the and Perry (1990)
popular culture of (e.g. Kreps and conducted an
disaster (Webb, Bosworth, 2006). evaluation of a volcano
2006) and Following such data hazard awareness
community collection, researchers program. Systematic
commemoration should make more comparisons of com-
(Eyre, 2006) – that extensive use of munities that vary in
could not be qualitative analysis their receipt of hazard
addressed here. programs such as informa- tion can
Though less likely to HyperRESEARCH, provide valuable
produce direct QSR NVivo and insights into the
reductions in Atlas.ti to sys- degree to which
casualties, damage tematically code and households have
and disruption, analyze the data received, attended to,
research in these areas that are collected. com- prehended and
is needed to generate Disaster processed information
a com- prehensive researchers can also 17 from authori- ties.
understanding of take advantage 17 of Such designs allow
researchers to test through which the
hypotheses about stages ultimate exogenous
of information variables (indepen-
processing that cannot dent variables that are
be tested rigorously in not presumed to be
survey designs. caused by any other
One recommended variables) exert their
future direction for effects on the endoge-
survey researchers is to nous variables of
increase the frequency interest (the ultimate
with which they use dependent variables).
the same measures as It is only through the
previous researchers so use of such models
systematic comparisons that it is possible to
can be made across determine if hazard
studies. As Baker proximity, hazard
(1991) noted, disaster experience, risk
experience is rou- perception and hazard
tinely invoked as an adjust- ment form a
explanation for why causal chain in which
people do or do not each variable
evacuate but this completely determines
variable has been the next variable in the
meas- ured in many chain
different ways. It is true
that part of the reason
for changes in
measurement
procedures has been
the limited success of
existing measures.
When a logically
relevant variable fails to
provide empirical
prediction, the natural
reaction is to assume
that the measure is
flawed. However, it is
also possible that the
measure predicted
poorly only in that
sample. Thus,
researchers need to test
measures over multiple
samples before
concluding that the
measures are, in fact,
flawed.
Finally, survey
researchers need to
increase the number of
studies that test
multivariate, multi-
equa- tion models. It is
becoming increasingly
obvious that theoretical
progress will depend
on researchers’ abil- ity
to identify the 18
mediating mechanisms
18
19
19
(e.g. Lindell and
Hwang, 2008).
Confirmation of the
chain hypothesis
would clarify the
mechanisms by which
each of the variables
affects the others
whereas
disconfirmation of the
chain suggests that
there are either
unexpected direct
effects or unmea-
sured intervening
variables. In either
case, such analyses
greatly enrich our
theoretical
understanding of the
phenomenon being
studied.
Annotated
further reading Mileti DS (1999)
This section lists seven
recent books that
provide signifi- cant
insights into disaster
research. For
summaries of a wider
variety of hazards-
related publications, see
www.colorado.edu/haza
rds/library/.
Committee on
Disaster Research
in the Social
Sciences. (2006)
Facing Hazards
and Disasters:
Understanding
Human
Dimensions.
Washington, DC:
National Academy
of Sciences.
This volume reports
the results of a US
National Research
Council evaluation
of social science
research on disasters.
In addition to
discussing research
in the areas of
hazard/vulnerability
analysis, hazard
mitiga- tion, disaster
preparedness and
response and disaster
recovery, the report from other research minorities, women and
also addresses trends areas who are inter- the poor.
that will affect future ested in seeing their Rodríguez H,
disaster losses and the work inform Quarantelli EL
governmental
infrastructure needed and Dynes RR
to analyze these policy. (eds) (2006)
losses. The latter Peacock WG, Morrow Handbook of
topics include BH and Gladwin H Disaster
interdisciplinary and (eds) (1997) Research. New
international research, Hurricane Andrew: York: Springer.
issues in data Ethnicity, Gender and This edited volume
collection and the Sociology of contains 32 chapters
management, Disasters. New York: that address a wide
knowledge Routledge. range of topics
dissemination to This volume provides addressed by
practitioners, and an in-depth sociologists and
examination of
future staffing of the other social scientists
disaster research Hurricane Andrew’s who conduct
enterprise. The report impacts and the research on rapid
includes Miami area’s response onset disasters
recommendations for to those impacts. The involving natural
research areas that book is notable for its and technological
deserve funding by foundation in hazards. Many of
the US federal sociopolitical ecology. the chapters (e.g.
government and, This framework the chapter on
especial- ly, the guides a thorough warning and
National Science examination of the evacuation)
Foundation. conditions affecting emphasize the
vulnerable practical
Disasters by Design: populations – implications of
racial/ethnic
A Reassessment of disaster research for
Natural Hazards in reducing casual- ties,
the United States. damage and social
Washington, DC: disruption.
Joseph Henry However, others
Press. (e.g. the chapter on
This book is the popular culture) are
capstone volume for guided pri- marily
the US National by sociological
Science Foundation- theory. Overall, the
funded Second volume provides a
Assessment of comprehensive
Research on Natural overview of the
Hazards. Mileti entire field of
summarizes the disaster research.
reports of the topical Tierney KJ, Lindell MK
committees, some of and Perry RW
which were published (2001) Facing the
as separate volumes, Unexpected: Disaster
and casts their Preparedness and
findings in the Response in the
framework of United States.
sustain- able Washington, DC:
development. Joseph Henry Press.
Although written This volume is one
primarily for national of a series of books
policy-makers, published as part of
Disasters by Design the US National
provides a useful Science Foundation-
conceptual funded Second
framework for non- Assessment of
specialists who are Research on Natural
interested in hazards Hazards. The
policy. It is also authors summarize
useful for researchers 20 the findings of
20
 research on established findings
emergency rather than
preparedness and identifying new
response at the research questions.
individ- ual, Although the
household and chapters gener-
community levels. ally provide
Tierney KJ and excellent
Waugh WF Jr summaries of their
(eds) (2007) topics, the
Emergency reference lists are
Management: rather limited.
Principles and Wisner B, Blaikie
Practice for Local P, Cannon T
Government, 2nd and Davis I
edn. Washington, (2004) At Risk:
DC: Natural
International Hazards,
City/County People’s
Management Vulnerability
Association. This and Disasters,
edited volume 2nd edn.
addresses the London:
range of disaster- Routledge.
related topics This book extends
most relevant to the argument,
local public articulated in its
adminis- trators. first edition, that
The contents of people’s
this book overlap vulnerability to
with those of the environ- mental
Handbook of hazards is
Disaster Research frequently
(see above) – produced by the
especially in the limited choices
areas of disaster that they over the
preparedness, locations and
response and structures in which
recovery. they live and work.
However, there The authors
are some sig- identify root causes
nificant of these
differences constraints, among
between the two which are condi-
books. For tions created by
example, conventional
Emergency conceptions of
Management eco- nomic
includes material development.
on Frequently, such
hazard/vulnerabili development is
ty analysis and dominated by
hazard mitiga- projects whose
tion. These are short-term gains
topics that, to are offset by the
date, have been expansion of
largely neglected geographic areas at
by sociologists. risk
However, given and the creation of
the book’s impediments to
intended people’s ability to
audience, the cope effectively
chapters tend to with those
focus on expanding hazards.
reporting 21
21
22
22
References Communities in Boulder: University Morbidity and
Disaster. New of Colorado mortality associated
Albala-Bertrand JM York: Institute of with disasters. In:
(1993) The Political Doubleday. Behavioral Rodríguez H,
Berke PR (1995) Science. Quarantelli EL and
Economy of
Natural-hazard Bolin RC and Stanford Dynes RR (eds)
Large Natural
reduction and L (1991) Shelters, Handbook of Disaster
Disasters. Oxford:
sustain- able housing and Research. New York:
Clarendon Press.
development: A recovery: A Springer,
Alesch DJ, Taylor
global assessment. comparison of US 97–112.
C, Ghanty S and
Journal of Planning disasters. Disasters Buck DA, Trainor JE
Nagy RA (1993)
Literature 9: 370– 45: and Aguirre BE
Earthquake risk
382. 25–34. (2006) A critical
reduction and small
Birkland TA (1997) Bolin RC and evaluation of the
business. In:
After Disaster: Stanford L incident command
Committee on
Agenda Setting, (1998) system and NIMS.
Socioeconomic
Public Policy and Community- Journal of
Impacts (ed.) 1993
Focusing Events. based approaches Homeland Security
National
Washington, DC: to unmet and Emergency
Earthquake
Georgetown recovery needs. Management 3: 1–
Conference
University Press. Disasters 22: 27.
Monograph 5:
Boin A and ‘t Hart P 21–38. Burby RJ (1998)
Socioeconomic
(2006) The crisis Bolin R and Trainer PA Cooperating with
Impacts.
approach. In: (1978) Modes of Nature:
Memphis, TN:
Rodríguez H, family recovery Confronting
Central United
Quarantelli EL following disaster: A Natural Hazards
States
and Dynes RR cross-national study. with Land Use
Earthquake
(eds) Handbook of In: Quarantelli EL Planning for
Consortium,
Disaster Research. (ed.) Disasters: Sustainable
133–160.
New York: Theory and Research. Communities.
Arlikatti S, Lindell MK
Springer, Beverly Hills, CA: Washington, DC:
and Prater CS
42–54. Sage, 233–247. Joseph Henry
(2007) Perceived
Bolin RC (1982) Long- Bourque LB, Shoaf Press.
stakeholder role
Term Family KI and Nguyen Burton I, Kates
relationships and
Recovery from LH (1997) Survey RW and
adoption of seismic
Disaster. Boulder: research. White GF
hazard adjustments.
University of International (1978) The
International Journal
Colorado Institute Journal of Mass Environme
of Mass Emergencies
of Behavioral Emergencies and nt as
and Disasters 25:
Science. Disasters 15: 71– Hazard.
218–256.
Bolin RC (1993) 101. New York:
Auf der Heide E (1994)
Household and Bourque LB, Siegel JM, Oxford
Disaster Response:
Community Kano M and Wood University
Principles of
Recovery after MM (2006) Press.
Preparation and
Coordination. St Earthquakes. CACND (Committee
Louis, MO: Mosby. Boulder: on Assessing the
Available at: University of Costs of Natural
orgmail2.coe- Colorado Disasters). (1999)
dmha.org/dr/flash.h Institute of The Impacts of
tm. Behavioral Natural Disasters: A
Baker EJ (1991) Science. Framework for Loss
Hurricane evacuation Bolin B (2006) Race, Estimation.
behavior. class, ethnicity, and Washington, DC:
International Journal disaster vulner- National Academy
of Mass Emergencies ability. In: Rodríguez Press.
and H, Quarantelli EL CDRSS (Committee on
Disasters 9: 287– and Dynes RR (eds) Disaster Research in
310. Handbook of Disaster the Social Sciences).
Baker GW and Research. New York: (2006) Facing
Chapman DW Springer, 113–129. Hazards and
(1962) Man and Bolin RC and Bolton Disasters:
Society in Disaster. P (1986) Race, Understanding
New York: Basic Religion, and Human Dimensions.
Books. Ethnicity in Washington, DC:
Disaster Recovery.
23
Barton A (1969) National Academy
23
 of Sciences. Responses to
Charvériat C (2000) Disaster: An
Natural Disasters in Inventory of
Latin America and Sociological
the Caribbean: An Findings. New
Overview of Risk. York: Springer-
Working paper Verlag.
#434. Washington, Drabek TE, Tamminga
DC: Inter- HL, Kilijanek TS and
American Adams CR (1981)
Development Managing
Bank. Multiorganizational
Clive A, Davis EA, Emergency Responses.
Hansen R and Boulder: University
Mincin J (2010) of Colorado Institute
Disability. In: of Behavioral Science.
Phillips BD, Dynes R (1970)
Thomas DSK, Organized
Fothergill A and Behavior in
Blinn-Pike L (eds) Disaster.
Social Vulnerability Lexington, MA:
to Disasters. Boca Heath-Lexington
Raton, FL: CRC Books.
Press, 187–216. Dynes R (2000) The
Cole PM (2003) An dialogue between
Empirical Voltaire and
Examination of the Rousseau on the
Housing Recovery Lisbon earthquake:
Process Following The emergence of a
Disaster. College social science view.
Station, TX: Texas International
A&M University. Journal of Mass
Comerio MC (1998) Emergencies and
Disaster Hits Home: Disasters 18: 97–
New Policy for 115.
Urban Housing Enarson E, Fothergill A
Recovery. Berkeley: and Peek L (2006)
University of Gender and disaster:
California Press. Foundations and
Dash N, Peacock WG directions. In:
and Morrow BH Rodríguez H,
(1997) And the poor Quarantelli EL and
get poorer: A Dynes RR (eds)
neglected black Handbook of
community. In:
Peacock WG,
Morrow BH and
Gladwin H (eds)
Hurricane Andrew:
Ethnicity, Gender
and the Sociology of
Disaster. London:
Routledge, 206–225.
Drabek TE (1970)
Laboratory
Simulation of a
Police
Communication
System under Stress.
Columbus, OH:
Ohio State
University Disaster
Research Center.
Drabek TE (1986)
Human System 24
24
25
25
 Disaster Research. NORC studies of American Veterinary City/County
New York: human behavior Association Management
Springer, 130–146. in disaster. 218: 1905–1910. Association, 30–
Eyre A (2006) Journal of Social James W (1983) Essays 54. Kreps GA and
Remembering: Issues in Psychology. Bosworth SL
Community 10: 26–41. Cambridge, MA: (2006)
commemora- tion Gerrity ET and Flynn Harvard University Organizational
after disaster. In: BW (1997) Mental Press. adaptation to
Rodríguez H, health conse- Joinson AN, McKenna disaster. In:
Quarantelli EL and quences of disasters. KYA, Postmes T and Rodríguez H,
Dynes RR (eds) In: Noji EK (ed.) Reips U-D (2007) Quarantelli EL
Handbook of The Public Health The Oxford and Dynes RR
Disaster Research. Consequences of Handbook of Internet (eds) Handbook of
New York: Springer, Disasters. New York: Psychology. New Disaster Research.
441–455. Oxford University York: Oxford New York:
Farazmand A (2001) Press, 101–121. University Press. Springer, 297–
Handbook of Crisis and Gillespie D (1991) Kendra JM and 315.
Emergency Coordinating Wachtendorf T Kroll CA, Landis JD,
Management. New community resources. (2006) Shen Q and Stryker
York: Marcel In: Drabek TS Community S (1990) The
Dekker. and Hoetmer innovation and economic impacts
Fischer HW III GJ Emergency disasters. In: of the Loma Prieta
(2008) Response to Management: Rodríguez H, earthquake: A focus
Disaster: Fact Principles and Quarantelli EL on small business.
versus Fiction and Practice for and Dynes RR Berkeley Planning
its Perpetuation, Local (eds) Handbook Journal 5:
3rd edn. Lanham, Government. of Disaster 39–58.
MD: University Washington, Research. New Kunreuther H and
Press of America. DC: York: Springer, Roth RJ Sr
Fothergill A (1996) International 316–334. (1998) Paying the
Gender, risk, and City/County Kreps GA (1984) Price: The Status
disaster. Management Sociological and Role of
International Association, inquiry and Insurance against
Journal of Mass 55–78. disaster research. Natural Disasters
Emergencies and Girard C and Peacock Annual Review of in the United
Disasters 14: 33–56. WG (1997) Sociology 10: 309– States.
Fothergill A and Peek Ethnicity and segre- 330. Washington, DC:
L (2004) Poverty gation: Post- Kreps GA (1991) Joseph Henry
and disasters in the hurricane Organizing for Press.
United States: A relocation. In: emergency Lindell MK (in press)
review of recent Peacock WG, manage- ment. In: North American
sociological Morrow BH and Drabek TS and cities at risk:
findings. Natural Gladwin H (eds) Hoetmer GJ (eds) Household
Hazards 32: 89– Hurricane Andrew: Emergency responses to
110. Ethnicity, Gender Management: environmental
Fothergill A, Maestes and the Sociology of Principles and hazards. In:
EGM and Disasters. New Practice for Local Rossetto T, Joffe H
Darlington JD York: Routledge, Government. and Adams J (eds)
(1999) Race, 191–205. Washington, DC: Cities at Risk:
ethnicity and Gruntfest E, Downing International Living with Perils
disasters in the T and White GF in the 21st Century.
United States: A (1978) Big Dordrecht:
review of the Thompson flood Springer.
literature. Disasters exposes need for Lindell MK and
23: 156–173. better flood reac- Brandt CJ (2000)
Fritz CE (1961) tion system. Civil Climate quality
Disaster. In: Merton Engineering 78: 72– and climate
RK and Nisbet RA 73. consensus as
(eds) Contemporary Heath S, Kass P, Beck A mediators of the
Social Problems. and Glickman L relationship
New York: (2001) Risk factors between
Harcourt, Brace and for pet evacuation organizational
World, 651–694. failure after a slow- antecedents and
Fritz CE and Marks onset disaster. outcomes. Journal
E (1954) The Journal of the 26 of Applied
26
 Psychology 85: paredness. In: Institute.
331–348. Tierney KJ and Available at
Lindell MK and Waugh WF Jr www.training.fem
Hwang SN (eds) Emergency a.gov/EMIWeb/ed
(2008) Management: u/fem.asp or
Households’ Principles and
per- ceived Practice for Local
personal risk Government, 2nd
and responses in edn. Washington,
a multi-hazard DC: International
environment. City/County
Risk Analysis 28: Management
539–556. Association,
Lindell MK and 113–141.
Perry RW Lindell MK and
(1987) Warning Prater CS (2007)
mechanisms in Critical behavioral
emergency assumptions in
response systems. evacuation analysis
International for private vehi-
Journal of Mass cles: Examples
Emergencies and from hurricane
Disasters 5: 137– research and
153. planning. Journal
Lindell MK of Urban Planning
and Perry and Development
RW (1992) 133:
Behavioral 18–29.
Foundation Lindell MK, Arlikatti
s of S and Prater CS
Community (2009) Why peo-
Emergency ple do what they
Planning. do to protect
Washingto against
n, DC: earthquake
Hemispher risk: Perceptions of
e. hazard adjustment
Lindell MK and attributes. Risk
Perry RW Analysis 29: 1072–
(2000) 1088.
Household Lindell MK, Prater
adjust- ment CS and Peacock
to earthquake WG (2007)
hazard: A Organizational
review of communication
research. and decision
Environment making in
and Behavior hurricane
32: 590–630. emergencies.
Lindell MK Natural Hazards
and Perry Review 8:
RW (2004) 50–60.
Communica Lindell MK, Prater
ting CS and Perry
Environmen RW (2006)
tal Risk in Fundamentals of
Multiethnic Emergency
Communitie Management.
s. Thousand Emmitsburg,
Oaks, CA: MD: Federal
Sage. Emergency
Lindell MK and Management
Perry RW Agency
(2007) Planning Emergency
and pre- Management 27
27
28
28
 archone.tamu.edu/hr Design: A Emerge Stronger nities: A cross-
rc/Publications/book Reassessment of and Better from a national analysis of
s/ Natural Hazards Crisis: 7 Essential post-disaster politi-
index.html. in the United Lessons for cal unrest.
Lindell MK, Whitney States. Surviving Disaster. International Journal
DJ, Futch CJ and Washington, DC: New York: of Mass Emergencies
Clause CS (1996) Joseph Henry AMACOM. and Disasters 15:
The local Press. Morrow BH (1997) 221–238.
emergency Mileti DS and Beck E Stretching the bonds: Palm R, Hodgson M,
planning (1975) Communication The families of Blanchard RD and
committee: A better in crisis. Andrew. In: Peacock Lyons D (1990)
way to coordinate Communication WG, Morrow BH Earthquake
disaster planning. Research 2: 24–49. and Gladwin H (eds) Insurance in
In: Silves RT and Mileti DS and Hurricane Andrew: California.
Waugh WL Jr (eds) Darlington JD Ethnicity, Gender Boulder, CO:
Disaster (1995) Societal and the Sociology of Westview Press.
Management in the response to revised Disaster. London: Peacock WG and
US and Canada: earthquake Routledge, Girard C (1997)
The Politics, probabilities in the 141–170. Ethnic and racial
Policymaking, San Francisco Bay National Governors inequalities in
Administration and Area. International Association. disaster damage and
Analysis of Journal of Mass (1978) insurance settle-
Emergency Emergencies and Comprehensive ments. In: Peacock
Management. Disasters 13: 119– Emergency WG, Morrow BH
Springfield, IL: 145. Management. and Gladwin H
Charles C Thomas Mileti DS and Washington, DC: (eds) Hurricane
Publishers, 234– Darlington JD National Andrew: Ethnicity,
249. (1997) The role of Governors Gender and the
Lutz LD and Lindell search- ing in Association. Sociology of Disaster.
MK (2008) The shaping reactions to Noji EK (1997) The London: Routledge,
incident com- earthquake risk nature of disaster: 171–190.
mand system as a informa- tion. Social general charac- Peacock WG, Dash N
response model Problems 44: 89– teristics and public and Zhang Y
within emergency 103. health effects. In: (2006) Sheltering
operation centers Mileti DS and Noji EK (ed.) The and housing
during Hurricane Fitzpatrick C Public Health recovery following
Rita. Journal of (1993) The Consequences of disaster. In:
Contingencies and Great Disasters. New Rodríguez H,
Crisis Management Earthquake York: Oxford Quarantelli EL
16: 122–134. Experiment. University Press, and Dynes RR
McEntire DA (2006) Boulder, CO: 3–20. (eds) Handbook of
Local emergency Westview Olson RS and Drury Disaster Research.
management Press. AC (1997) New York:
organizations. In: Mileti DS and Peek L Untherapeutic commu- Springer,
Rodríguez H, (2000) The social 258–274.
Quarantelli EL and psychology of Peacock WG, Killian
Dynes RR (eds) public response to LM and Bates FL
Handbook of warnings of a (1987) The effects
Disaster Research. nuclear power plant of disaster damage
New York: accident. Journal of and housing on
Springer, 168–182. Hazardous Materials household recovery
Mendonça DJ and 75: following the 1976
Wallace WA (2007) 181–194. Guatemala
A cognitive model Mileti DS, Sorensen JH earthquake.
of improvisation in and O’Brien PW International Journal
emergency (1992) Toward an of Mass Emergencies
management. IEEE explanation of mass and Disasters 5: 63–
Transactions on care shelter use in 88.
Systems, Man, and evacuations. Peek L (2010)
Cybernetics – Part International Journal Age. In:
A: Systems and of Mass Emergencies Phillips BD,
Humans 37: 547– and Disasters 10: Thomas DSK,
561. 25–42. Fothergill A
Mileti DS (1999) Mitroff I (2005) Why and Blinn-Pike
Some Companies
29
Disasters by L (eds) Social
29
 Vulnerability to activities in
Disasters. Boca disasters. In:
Raton, FL: Rodríguez H,
CRC Press, Quarantelli EL
155–185. and Dynes RR
Perry RW (1990) (eds) Handbook of
Volcanic hazard Disaster Research.
perceptions at Mt New York:
Shasta. Springer,
Environmental 200–216.
Professional 12: 312– Prater CS and Lindell
318. Perry RW MK (2000) Politics
(2006) What is a of hazard mit-
disaster? In: Rodríguez igation. Natural
H, Hazards Review 1:
Quarantelli EL and 73–82.
Dynes RR (eds) Prater CS and Wu J-Y
Handbook of (2002) The politics
Disaster Research. New of emergency
York: Springer, 1–15. response and
Perry RW and Lindell recovery:
MK (2007) Emergency preliminary
Planning. observations on
Hoboken, NJ: John Taiwan’s 921
Wiley. earthquake. The
Perry RW, Lindell Australian Journal of
MK and Emergency
Greene MR Management 17:
(1981) 48–59.
Evacuation Prince SH (1920)
Planning in Catastrophe and Social
Emergency Change. New
Management. York: Columbia
Lexington, University.
MA: Heath Quarantelli EL (1982)
Lexington Sheltering and
Books. Housing after
Petrescu-Prahova M Major Community
and Butts CT Disasters.
(2008) Columbus: Ohio
Emergent State University
coordinators in Disaster Research
the World Trade Center.
Center disaster. Quarantelli EL
International (1983) Delivery of
Journal of Mass Emergency Medical
Emergencies and
Disasters 26:
133–168.
Phillips BD (2009)
Disaster Recovery.
Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Phillips BD, Thomas
DSK, Fothergill A and
Blinn-Pike
L (2010) Social
Vulnerability to
Disasters. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Poteyeva M, Denver
M, Barsky LE and
Aguirre BE (2006)
Search and rescue 30
30
31
31
 Services in Disasters: International Journal
Assumptions and of Mass Emergencies
Realities. New and Disasters 28:
York: Irvington. 115–144.
Quarantelli EL (1988) Sellnow TL, Ulmer
Disaster crisis RR, Seeger MW
management: A and Littlefield RS
summary of research (2009) Effective risk
findings. Journal of communication: A
Management Studies message-cen- tered
25: 373–385. approach. New
Quarantelli EL (2000) York: Springer.
Disaster research. Siebeneck LK and Cova
In: Borgatta HEF TJ (2008) An
and Montgomery assessment of the
RJV (eds) return-entry process
Encyclopedia of for Hurricane Rita
Sociology, 2nd edn. 2005. International
New York: Journal of Mass
Macmillan, 681– Emergencies and
688. Disasters 26: 91–111.
Rose A and Limb D Smith SK, Tayman J
(2002) Business and Swanson DA
interruption losses (2001) State and
from natural Local Population
hazards: Projections:
Conceptual and Methodology and
methodologi- cal Analysis. New York:
issues in the case of Kluwer.
the Northridge Sorensen JH (2000)
earthquake. Hazard warning systems:
Environmental Review of
Hazards 4: 1–14. 20 years of progress.
Scanlon TJ (1988) Natural Hazards
Disaster’s little Review 1:
known pioneer: 119–125.
Canada’s Samuel Sorensen JH and Rogers
Henry Prince. GO (1988) Local
International preparedness for
Journal of Mass chemical accidents: A
Emergencies and survey of US
Disasters 6: 213– communities.
232. Industrial Crisis
Scanlon J (2006) Quarterly 2: 89–108.
Unwelcome irritant Sorensen JH and
or useful ally: The Sorensen BV (2006)
mass media in Community
emergencies. In: processes: Warning
Rodríguez H, and evacuation. In:
Quarantelli EL and Rodríguez H,
Dynes RR (eds) Quarantelli EL and
Handbook of Dynes RR (eds)
Disaster Research. Handbook of Disaster
New York: Research. New York:
Springer, 413–429. Springer, 183–199.
Seeger MW and Novak Stallings RA (1995)
JM (2010) Promoting Risk:
Modeling the recall Constructing the
and warning process Earthquake
in the foodborne Threat. New York:
contamination Aldine de Gruyter.
event: Perspectives Stallings RA (2002)
from disaster Methods of Disaster
warnings and crisis Research.
communication. Bloomington, IN:
Xlibris. United States.
Stallings RA (2006) Washington, DC:
Methodological Joseph Henry Press.
issues. In: Tierney KJ, Nigg JA
Rodríguez H, and Dahlhamer JM
Quarantelli EL and (1996) The
Dynes RR (eds) impact of the 1993
Handbook of Midwest floods:
Disaster Research. Business vulner-
New York: ability and
Springer, disruption in Des
55–82. Moines. In: Silves
Tierney KJ (2006) RT and Waugh WL
Businesses and disasters: Jr (eds) Disaster
Vulnerability, Management in the
impact, and recovery. US and Canada:
In: Rodríguez H, The Politics,
Quarantelli EL and Policymaking,
Dynes RR (eds) Administration and
Handbook of Disaster Analysis of
Research. New York: Emergency
Springer, 275–296. Management.
Tierney K, Lindell MK Springfield, IL:
and Perry RW (2001) Charles C Thomas
Facing the Publishers, 214–
Unexpected: Disaster 233.
Preparedness and Turner R, Nigg J and
Response in the Heller Paz D (1986)
Waiting for
Disaster. Los
Angeles: University of
California Press. Vogt
BM (1991) Issues in
nursing home
evacuations.
International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and
Disasters 9: 247–265.
Vultee F (2009) News
frames of mitigation
and responsi- bility
after Hurricane
Katrina.
International Journal
of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters 27:
103–126.
Wachtendorf T (2004)
Improvising 9/11:
Organizational
Improvisation
Following the World
Trade Center
Disaster. Newark:
University of
Delaware Disaster
Research Center.
Wallace AFC (1956)
Tornado in
Worcester: An
Exploratory Study of
Individual and
Community Behavior
in an Extreme
32 Situation.
32
 Washington, DC: and Disasters,
National 2nd edn.
Academy of London:
Sciences-National Routledge.
Research Council. Wright JD, Rossi
Webb GR (2006) PH, Wright SR
The popular and Weber-
culture of Burdin E (1979)
disasters: After the Clean-
Exploring a Up: Long-Range
new dimension Effects of Natural
of disaster Disasters. Beverly
research. In: Hills, CA: Sage.
Rodríguez H, Yelvington KA (1997)
Quarantelli EL Coping in a
and Dynes RR temporary way:
(eds) Handbook The tent cities. In:
of Disaster Peacock WG,
Research. New Morrow BH and
York: Springer, Gladwin H (eds)
430–440. Hurricane Andrew:
Webb GR, Tierney Ethnicity, Gender
KJ and and the Sociology of
Dahlhamer JM Disaster. London:
(2000) Business Routledge,
and disasters: 92–115.
Empirical Zahran S, Shelley
patterns and TO, Peek L and
unan- swered Brody S (2009)
questions. Natural disasters
Natural Hazards and social
Review 1: 83–90. order:
Webb GR, Tierney Modeling crime
KJ and outcomes in
Dahlhamer JM Florida.
(2002) Predicting International
long-term Journal of Mass
business recovery Emergencies and
from disasters: A Disasters 27:
comparison of the 26–52.
Loma Prieta Zhang Y, Lindell
earthquake and MK and Prater
Hurricane CS (2009)
Andrew. Vulnerability of
Environmental community
Hazards 4: 45–58. businesses to
White GF environ- mental
(1974) disasters.
Natural Disasters 33:
Hazards: 38–57.
Local,
National,
Global. New
York:
Oxford
University
Press.
Wisner B, Blaikie
P, Cannon T
and Davis I
(2004) At
Risk: Natural
Hazards,
People’s
Vulnerability 33
33
Michael K Lindell is a social psychologist with appointments at Texas A&M University as
Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Water Management and
Hydrological Science, and Psychology (adjunct) – as well as Senior Scholar in the
Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center. He has over 35 years of experience in the field of
emergency management, during which time he has conducted a program of research on the
processes by which individuals and organizations respond to natural and technological
hazards. He has written extensively on emergency management and is the author of over 80
technical reports,
100 journal articles, book chapters and encyclopedia entries, and 10 books. Professor Lindell
has served as the editor of the International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters and a
member of the US National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program’s Advisory Committee
on Earthquake Hazard Reduction. [email: mlindell@tamu.edu]

résumé Les études de désastre abordent sociaux et comportementaux des situations de

tension collectif généralement dénommés situations d’urgence ou de catastrophes. Ces
situations peuvent être créés par les aléas naturelles ou technologiques, les conflits entre
des groupes sociaux, les manques de ressources vitales, et d’autres risques majeurs pour la vie,
la santé, les biens, le bien-être, e des routines quotidiennes. Les études de désastre abordent les
effets de ces événements sur l’ensemble des unités sociales, allant des individus et de ménages
aux nations. Tous les aspects de l’histoire de vie de ces événements, à la fois réelle et potentiels,
sont examinés en fonction de la façon dont les populations à risques conduisent des
évaluations des risques et de leur vulnérabilité ainsi qu’ils préparent e mettent en œuvre les
mesures d’atténuation, de prévention, de préparation et de redressement.

mots-clés l’atténuation ◆ catastrophes ◆ la convergence ◆ les crises ◆ l’émergence ◆

l’improvisation ◆ intervention ◆ préparation ◆ les situations d’urgence ◆ la récupération ◆ la
vulnérabilité

resumen Estudios de desastre aborda los aspectos sociales y del comportamiento de las
situaciones de estrés colectiva repentina normalmente denominados de emergencias o desastres.
Estas situaciones pueden ser creadas por las amenazas naturales o tecnológicas, los conflictos
violentos entre los grupos sociales, la escasez de recursos vitales, y otros riscos mayores a la
vida, la salud, la propiedad, el bienestar y rutinas cotidianas. Estudios de desastre aborda los
efectos de estos eventos en todas las unidades sociales, desde los individuos y las familias a los
naciones. Todos los aspectos de la historia de vida de estos eventos, tanto reales como
potenciales, son examinados por lo que se refiere a las formas en que las poblaciones
amenazadas realizan los evaluaciones del riesgo y de la vulnerabilidad, así como planifican y
ejecutan la prevención, preparación, la gestión de emergencias y la recuperación.

palabras clave la convergencia ◆ las crisis ◆ desastres ◆ emergencia ◆ emergencias ◆ la

improvisación ◆ mitigación ◆ preparación ◆ recuperación ◆ respuesta ◆ vulnerabilidad

34
34