Shantrell,
I enjoyed reading you post and agree that “An all-hazards approach covers everything”. This
statement says it all. With an all-hazards approach emergency managers look to the response functions
using all phases of emergency management for mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery (Upstate
Medical University, 2021). One thing that I don’t agree with is that the current state of emergency
management in the country, even though is an all-hazards approach, does not accurately assist in
natural disaster or incidents that occur annually. Looking at the example that you provided in Hurricane
Katrina, we can see that an all-hazards approach failed during this disaster. In this disaster emergency
managers only planned for the most common problems using the most common capabilities of
historical storms (Gregory, 2015). If we only look at the historical data and not plan for an increase in
strength or effectiveness of a storm or other disaster, then we will ultimately fail. Emergency managers
must plan and coordinate for all incidents to include those incidents with a variety of magnitude. By
increasing the strength of a storm for a response and mitigation aspect, emergency managers can
anticipate damage and areas that may need additional resources in the event of a large storm or
disaster. This will decrease the overall recovery time and rebuilding for the affected area(s).
Reference:
Four phases of EMERGENCY management: EMERGENCY management: SUNY Upstate
Medical University. Emergency Management | SUNY Upstate Medical University. (n.d.).
https://www.upstate.edu/emergencymgt/about/phases.php.
Gregory, P. A. (2015, June 1). Reassessing the effectiveness of all-hazards planning in
emergency management. Inquiries Journal.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1050/2/reassessing-the-effectiveness-of-all-
hazards-planning-in-emergency-management.
