Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:31:14.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chapter Four: Conceptual model: Hazard, Risk, Vulnerability, and Damage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2020

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ultimate objective of disaster management is to bring the probability that damage will occur from an event as close to zero as is possible. A conceptual model is proposed that uses a generic, non-quantitative, mathematical expression (formula) for relating the probability that damage will occur with specific hazards and with the risk posed by the hazard and vulnerabilities. Actions are subdivided into those that are implemented before a hazard becomes an event and those provided as a response to an event that is occurring or has occurred. In the former category are those actions that either augment or mitigate vulnerability by increasing or decreasing the absorbing capacity and/or buffering capacity of the population/environment at risk for an event. Responses to an event either may be productive or counterproductive. Use of this “formula” in disaster planning and analysis should assist in identification of the essential elements that contribute to a disaster. For example, application of the formula should facilitate the development of understanding why the occurrence of similar events produce a disaster in one setting but not in another. Numerous examples of its application are provided.

Keywords

actionsaugmentationcounter-productivedamageeventhazardsmanmademitigationnaturaloutcomeprobabilitiesproductiverisksocietyvulnerability
Type
Conceptual Framework
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 17 , Issue S3: Health Disaster Management: Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the “Utstein Style” , December 2002 , pp. 56 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Dhara, VR, Dhara, R, Acquilla, SD, Cullinan, P: Personal exposure and long-term health effects in survivors of the union carbide disaster at Bhopal. Environmental Health Perspectives 2002;110(5):487–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Lorin, HG, Kulling, PE: The Bhopal tragedy—what has Swedish disaster medicine planning learned from it? Journal of Emergency Medicine 1986;4(4):311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Dhara, R: Health effects of the Bhopal gas leak: A review. Epidemiologiae Prevenzione 1992;14(52):22–31.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Mukerjee, M: Persistently toxic. The Union Carbide accident in Bhopal continues to harm. Scientific American 1995;272(6):16,18.Google Scholar
5.Anonymous: Has the world forgotten Bhopal? Lancet 2000;356 (9245):1863. Editorial.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Personal communication. Kåre Ottersen, former international delegate of the Norwegian Red Cross.Google Scholar
7.Angus, DC, Pretto, EA, Abrams, J, Ceciliano, N, Watoh, Y, Kirimli, B, Certug, A, Comfort, L, et al: Epidemiological assessments of mortality, building collapse pattern, and medical response after the 1992 earthquake in Turkey. Prehosp Disast Med 1997;12(3):222–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Nur, IM: Current extent of disasters in Africa. Prehosp Disast Med 1999;14(2):66–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization: Evaluation of preparedness and response to Hurricanes Georges and Mitch: Conclusions and recommendations. Prehosp Disast Med 1999;14(2):21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar