35 Discussion

The fields of disaster risk reduction and emergency (and disaster management) have primarily evolved through reactions to the impacts of hazard events, which set conditions for siloed and fragmented approaches to emerge (McEntire et al., 2002). This lack of alignment has hindered effective coordination and collaboration across the phases of the disaster cycle in both research and practice. Furthermore, misalignment has added challenges in navigating the body of knowledge in the field and in synthesizing vital information. To address these challenges there must be interdisciplinary effort to further align key terms, core concepts, and priority areas.

Analysis of Findings

The findings suggest conceptual confusion involving key terms, core concepts, and priority areas related to the nexus of emergency (and disaster) management and disaster risk reduction. Across strategy and standards, consistency in how terms were defined and how concepts were applied was not widely observed. While there is a clear emphasis on being proactive in limiting impacts and comprehensively planning for the impacts to hazard events across phases, navigating concepts across the documents was challenging. It was evident in the analysis that there is a lack of common understanding of the meaning “emergency management,” “disaster management,” and “disaster risk reduction.” Furthermore, using the same terms in different contexts and applications provided further confusion in attempting to establish a consistent understanding and alignment. Moreover, the variations of the disaster phases and described role of emergency management add challenges for nations, communities, organizations, and other programs in navigating and implementing best practices. The gaps presented in the findings pose implications for research and practice in emergency management, disaster management, and disaster risk reduction.

Implications of Findings

The lack of consistency in understanding key terms in emergency management and disaster risk reduction has significant scholarly and practical implications. The lack of clarity for both research and practice hinders the ability to compare and synthesize findings from different studies, guiding documents, after-action reports, and initiatives. Individuals across communities, organizations, and nations must navigate a compendium of differing, and at times conflicting, key terms and concepts, resulting in conceptual confusion, which may result in misinterpretation and hinder application.

Scholarly pursuits are considerably impacted by the lack of consistency. As research in disaster science and emergency management are interdisciplinary in nature, where individuals from various fields contribute to the knowledge base, a common understanding enhances collaboration among scholars and the integration of findings (Staupe-Delgado, 2019). Acute disasters can raise interest in research across disciplines, which is vital in expanding the body of knowledge but hindered by difficulty navigating the field. Key findings may be overlooked without clarity of terms and concepts. Conceptual clarity is essential to advance interdisciplinary research and advance toward transdisciplinary understanding.

Practical implications for the findings apply across sectors, levels, and nations. Without a consistent understanding of what specifically constitutes “emergency management” or a common language from which to approach core concepts, the applications of effective programs become more challenging. Lessons learned, or best practices applied from one sector, jurisdiction, or nation may be misunderstood due to conceptual differences, which may lead to misapplication of initiatives A lack of consistency in the benchmarking documents may result in key differences in policy, adding further barriers to individuals and programs attempting to implement practices that have proven effective elsewhere. The cross-functional nature of emergency management, along with concepts associated with sustainable development, resilience, and climate change, further complicates a path toward consistency and harmonization of strategies and standards across programs around the globe responsible for disaster management and disaster risk reduction.

Review of Lessons Learned

The findings highlight the need for greater attention to define and standardize key terms in emergency management and disaster risk reduction. Although there has been progress in international strategy to promote a proactive stance to address risk, vulnerability, and the impacts of hazards, the lack of consistency hinders progress in the field across practical and scholarly pursuits. To effectively foster collaboration and integration of findings, interdisciplinary conceptual clarity must be achieved.

Recommendations

Scholarly and practical recommendations are provided to address the implications of the study. Although further coalescing around definitions and core concepts will be challenging and will require participation from individuals across fields worldwide, the progress made to promote a “safer world” demonstrates the ability of the global community to work towards common goals and establish common frameworks. A holistic approach involving research and practice can further evolve global practices in emergency management and disaster risk reduction.

Scholarly Recommendations

Scholarly recommendations based on the findings of the study are centered around further coordination and collaboration by researchers to synthesize the body of knowledge and coalesce around key terms in sync with the international and practitioner community. A foundation of interdisciplinary research in disaster science and emergency management has been established, but further coordination across nations may help academic communities center around an agreed-upon body of knowledge. At the minimum, a crosswalk of terms and concepts should be established to facilitate a common understanding and effective communication among researchers. Additional scholarly recommendations include:

• Adopting standard definitions for “emergency,” “disaster,” and “catastrophe” across disciplines, which could further be adopted by practice (e.g., Montano & Savitt, 2023; Quarantelli, 1998; Quarantelli, 2006).
• Advancing the use of theory in emergency management research (e.g., Jensen, 2010).
• Comparing concepts related to international frameworks and guidance, such as sustainable development, resilience, climate change, and humanitarian assistance, will further support the development of a crosswalk of terms to clarify concepts necessary across fields.
• Further studying the local to global alignment of the Sendai Framework, standards, and guidance documents used across different countries, including different levels of jurisdictions and across all sectors, will further understanding of the state of practice.
• Conducting research on the use of terms and concepts within national-level policy, laws, frameworks, and strategies to better understand the breadth of differences in applications and to determine what benchmarks are being used to influence policy.
• Exploring the effectiveness of current international agreements and strategies in emergency management and disaster risk reduction to identify and support enhancement of strategies and guidance.

Working toward scholarly recommendations will help unify a body of knowledge and support practical applications.

Practical recommendations

Practical recommendations are focused on establishing solutions to increase the ability of individuals worldwide to quickly learn about the field, understand core concepts, differentiate contexts in which best practices are applied, and effectively find and apply best practices and lessons learned. Specific practical recommendations include:

• Developing consistent terminology, definitions, and processes for international emergency and disaster management or, at minimum, provide a clear crosswalk of terms, concepts, and guiding documents that can be easily applied across sectors and local and global communities.
• Coalescing around professional terms, such as the concepts of “emergency management,” “disaster management,” “crisis management,” and “disaster risk reduction.”
• Establishing a global platform for sharing best practices, lessons learned, and case studies in emergency and disaster management to facilitate knowledge exchange and collaboration among practitioners, which encourages alignment across nations and communities.
• Encouraging nations, communities, and organizations to further apply a continuous improvement process to regularly review and update practices based on standards and benchmarks.

Without clear and consistent boundaries for the body of knowledge, the influence of outside factors in shaping the field, such as politics or the latest trend, only grows, rather than what has been learned from research and practice (McEntire, 2007; Waugh & Strieb, 2006). As emergency and disaster management emerges as a discipline and profession, the field must adapt to new and growing challenges, including having a monopoly on the specialized body of knowledge and autonomy over standards (Cwiak, 2011; Oyola-Yemaiel & Wilson, 2005).