Proposed scaling of the communal consequences of disaster

Abstract

Rapid assessment of a community′s capacity to continue coping in the aftermath of disaster could be of great value. Gradations of community consequences can provide emergency planners with criteria to guide them to realistic needs assessment and are invaluable to researchers in classifying incidents by intensity. Conventional wisdom might lead us to view impact on community functioning in disasters as a continuum, ranging from minimal to total collapse. Such a perception lacks clear‐cut gradation, making administrative judgements difficult and contributing to the squandering of relief resources because of our inaccurate assessment of the community′s incapacity. The precise points where communities cross damage thresholds resulting in the collapse of infrastructure appear at first, to vary inexplicably. Careful consideration suggests three sets of factors which interface to affect these thresholds. Taken together, these will raise or lower community capacity to cope with adversity. The appropriate level of emergency relief could best be determined if we can strengthen our ability to assess rapidly the community′s remaining capacity to provide for its own population. Proposes that this could be accomplished by the scaling of three sets of factors: community background, event factors and impact factors. Although the need for scaling cannot be denied, the specifics of this suggestion will need to be tested to determine their applicability.

Citation

Granot, H. (1995), "Proposed scaling of the communal consequences of disaster", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653569510088023