36 Findings & Solutions
The results of the analysis present the themes and areas of alignment and divergence between the EMAP Emergency Management Standard (EMAP Standard), ISO Technical Committee 292 Standards (ISO/TC 292), and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (Sendai Framework). Findings are organized into three sections: 1) terminology, 2) core concepts, and 3) priority areas. The analysis suggests similarities among the overarching themes, with widespread variation across definitions and core concepts.
Terminology
The study found considerable variations in the definitions used across key terms in the Sendai Framework (primarily retrieved from UN/GA 71/644), EMAP Standard, and ISO/TC 292 (primarily retrieved from ISO 22300 Vocabulary). Key terms explored in the analysis include: hazard, risk, vulnerability, emergency, disaster, emergency management, disaster management, disaster risk reduction, crisis management, and resilience. While some variation between the documents may be expected due to the different scopes and focal points (e.g., strategy and framework compared to technical and operations standards), the extent of differences observed across key terms presents challenges and barriers to navigating how the documents relate, and the concepts built upon these key terms.
Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability
The terms “hazard,” “vulnerability,” and “risk” are used in each of the documents analyzed. However, the definitions are not generally defined or applied consistently throughout. The most consistent definition is “hazard,” which is commonly understood as a potential source of harm or may be the cause of an incident (see Table 4). The EMAP Standard and the ISO Standards provide a broader generalization, while UN/GA 71/644 is more detailed in describing a hazard as a “process, phenomenon, or human activity” (United Nations, 2016). “Vulnerability” and “risk” are not defined in the EMAP Standard. However, both terms are defined in UN/GA 71/644 and ISO (see Table 4). The definitions of “vulnerability” and “risk” in UN/GA 71/644 and ISO 22300 show similarities and notable differences. For example, UN/GA 71/644 describes the “conditions” or “processes,” deliberately acknowledging the social, economic, and environmental contexts contributing to vulnerability. In contrast, ISO focuses on the probability and severity of a potential “loss,” “harm,” or “consequence.” “Risk” is only deliberately defined in the ISO standards, while UN/GA 71/644 defines “disaster risk” but not “risk” specifically.
Table 4. Definitions of Hazard, Vulnerability, and Risk Definitions
|
|
UN/GA 71/644 (2016) |
EMAP Standard (2019) |
ISO 22300 Vocabulary (2021) |
|
Hazard |
“A process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation” (pg. 5). |
“Something that has the potential to be the primary cause of an incident” (pg. 4). |
“Source of potential harm. Note: Hazard can be a risk source (pg. 14)” |
|
Vulnerability
|
“The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards” (pg. 24). |
Not defined. |
Vulnerability analysis: “process of identifying and quantifying something that creates susceptibility to a source of risk that can lead to a consequence” (pg. 37)
Community vulnerability: “characteristics and conditions of individuals, groups or infrastructures that put them at risk for the destructive effects of a hazard” (pg. 6). |
|
Disaster Risk |
“The potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could occur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as a function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity” (pg. 14). |
Not defined. |
Risk: “effect of uncertainty on objectives” (pg. 27). |
Emergency and Disaster
The definitions and use of the terms “emergency” and “disaster” vary across the documents; however, there is a common generalization depicted (see Table 5). Contextually, UN/GA 71/644 focuses more on a “community or society” (2016, pg. 13), while the EMAP Standard and ISO apply to a community or organization. “Emergency” and “disaster” in the EMAP Standard and ISO Standard are similarly differentiated by the “severity” or “widespread” implications on “life” or “human,” “property” or “material,” “economic,” “environmental,” and/or “critical systems,” where disasters are more severe. UN/GA 71/644, comparatively, differentiates “emergency” and “disaster” based on the severity of the event and the cause of “serious disruption” and specifically incorporates the conditions related to “exposure, vulnerability, and capacity” within the definition (2016, pg. 13). UN/GA 71/644 specifically highlights how the terms “emergency” and “disaster” are often used interchangeably (2016, pg. 13).
Table 5. Definitions of Emergency and Disaster
|
|
UN/GA 71/644 (2016) |
EMAP Standard (2019) |
ISO 22300 Vocabulary (2021) |
|
Emergency |
“Is sometimes used interchangeably with the term disaster, as, for example, in the context of biological and technological hazards or health emergencies, which, however, can also relate to hazardous events that do not result in the serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society” (pg. 13). |
“An incident or set of incidents, natural or human-caused, that requires responsive actions to protect life, property, the environment, and/or critical systems” (pg. 4).
|
“Sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence or event requiring immediate action” (pg. 12). |
|
Disaster |
“A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts” (pg. 13). |
“A severe or prolonged emergency that threatens life, property, the environment, and/or critical systems” (pg. 4). |
“Situation where widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses have occurred that exceeded the ability of the affected organization, community, or society to respond and recover using its own resources” (pg. 10). |
Emergency management, Disaster Management, Disaster Risk Reduction, & Crisis Management
Considerable differences were observed across the documents for the terms “emergency management,” “disaster management,” “disaster risk reduction,” and “crisis management.” For example, the terms “disaster risk reduction” and “disaster management” are only defined in UN/GA 71/644, and “crisis management” is only defined in ISO 22300 and focuses on the organizational level (see Table 6). “Emergency management” is defined in UN/GA 71/644 and ISO 22300, while the EMAP Standard specifically focuses on an “emergency management program.” The EMAP Standard and ISO 22300 include the phases of “prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery” in “emergency management” and “emergency management program,” but the EMAP Standard also includes “mitigation.” UN/GA 71/644 includes the phases of “preparedness, response, and recovery” in both “emergency management” and “disaster management,” however, the terms are differentiated by the level of disruption to society while also acknowledging that the terms are often used interchangeably.
Table 6. Definitions of Emergency Management, Disaster Management, and Disaster Risk Reduction
|
|
UN/GA 71/644 (2016) |
EMAP Standard (2019) |
ISO 22300 Vocabulary (2021) |
|
Disaster management |
“The organization, planning and application of measures preparing for, responding to and recovering from disasters” (pg. 14). |
Not defined. |
Not defined. |
|
Emergency management |
“Used, sometimes interchangeably, with the term disaster management, particularly in the context of biological and technological hazards and for health emergencies. While there is a large degree of overlap, an emergency can also relate to hazardous events that do not result in the serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society” (pg. 14). |
Emergency Management Program: “A system that provides for management and coordination of prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities for all hazards. The system encompasses all organizations, agencies, departments, and individuals having responsibilities for these activities” (pg. 4). |
“Overall approach for preventing emergencies and managing those that occur” (pg. 12)
“Note 1 to entry: In general, emergency management utilizes a risk management approach to prevention, preparedness, response and recovery before, during and after potentially destabilizing events and/or disruptions” (pg. 12). |
|
Disaster risk reduction |
“Aimed at preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk and managing residual risk, all of which contribute to strengthening resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development” (pg. 16). |
Not defined. |
“Policy aimed at preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk and managing residual risk, all of which contribute to strengthening resilience and therefore to the achievement of sustainable development” (pg. 10). |
|
Crisis management |
Not defined |
Not defined. |
“Holistic management process that identifies potential impacts that threaten an organization and provides a framework for building resilience, with the capability for an effective response that safeguards the interests of the organization’s key interested parties, reputation, brand and value-creating activities, as well as effectively restoring operational capabilities” (pg. 9). |
Resilience
“Resilience” is similarly defined in UN/GA 71/644 and ISO 22300; however, the term is not included in the EMAP Standard (see Table 7). The context of the definition for UN/GA 71/644 is a “system,” while ISO 22300 provides a more focused definition for “an urban system.” The commonality between the two definitions is the ability to “absorb” effects or shocks and to “adapt.” The term, however, is differentiated between the two documents by the focus. UN/GA 71/644 highlights “preservation and restoration of essential basic structures and functions,” while ISO 22300 focuses on the “capacity to anticipate, prepare and respond.”
Table 7. Definitions of Resilience
|
|
UN/GA 71/644 (2016) |
EMAP Standard (2019) |
ISO 22300 Vocabulary (2021) |
|
Resilience |
“The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management” (pg. 22). |
Not defined. |
“Ability to absorb and adapt in a changing environment Note 1 to entry: In the context of urban resilience the ability to absorb and adapt to a changing environment is determined by the collective capacity to anticipate, prepare and respond to threats and opportunities by each individual component of an urban system” (pg. 26). |
Core Concepts
The document analysis revealed two core concepts explored in this study, the disaster cycle and disaster phases, representing elements of the disaster cycle. The specific terms “disaster cycle,” “emergency management cycle,” “disaster management cycle,” and “disaster risk reduction cycle” did not appear in the documents, but the concept of continual and cyclical considerations for disaster, divided by phases, consistently appeared. The findings suggest that although there were widespread conceptual similarities across the Sendai Framework, EMAP Standard, and ISO/TC 292, the extent of differences provides challenges and barriers toward a common understanding and application of the core concepts.
Disaster Cycle
Alignment was not observed in depicting the phases within the disaster cycle (i.e., emergency management cycle, disaster management cycle). Although there were some similarities in the phases across the data, each source had a different representation of the disaster cycle (see Figure 1). Similarly, the phases “prevention,” “preparedness,” “response,” and “recovery” were included in the Sendai Framework, EMAP Standard, and ISO/TC 292. In contrast, “mitigation” was included in the Sendai Framework and EMAP but not ISO. The Sendai Framework uniquely includes the phases of “rehabilitation” and “reconstitution.” A glaring difference appears within the purview of emergency and disaster management; where the EMAP standard considered the entire disaster cycle a part of emergency management programs, the Sendai Framework and ISO/TC 292 did not include “prevention” or “mitigation” as part of emergency or disaster management.
Visual 1. Sendai Framework Disaster Cycle & Emergency Management Nexus
Visual 2. ISO/TC 292 Disaster Cycle & Emergency Management Nexus
Visual 3. EMAP Standard Disaster Cycle & Emergency Management Nexus
Figure 1. Representations of the Disaster Cycle
Disaster Phases
The phases included in the disaster cycle varied in their definitions. However, there were conceptual similarities observed in many phases depicted across the documents reviewed (i.e., mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery) (see Table 8). For example:
- Mitigation is generally considered to “minimize,” “lessen,” “reduce,” or “limit,” or “eliminate” “impacts” or “consequences” from “hazardous events” or “incidents.”
- Prevention encompasses “measures” or “activities” to “avoid,” “stop,” or “limit” occurrence or impact of the event.
- Preparedness can be considered “activities” to “anticipate” or “enhance” readiness and improve other phases.
- Response includes the “immediate” and “short-term” actions focused on “life,” “property,” “environment,” and “critical” systems or assets.
- Recovery reflects the “restoring” or “improving” of “livelihoods” in areas affected by disaster.
- Rehabilitation and reconstitution are presented as distinct phases from recovery as part of a build–back better concept in the Sendai Framework and are specifically defined in UN/GA 71/644 (see Table 8).
Although conceptual similarities are observed in the disaster phases, the extent of differences in the context and specific definitions presents challenges to “neatly” crosswalk the concepts.
Table 8. Definition of Phases in the Emergency Management Cycle.
|
|
UN/GA 71/644 (2016) |
EMAP Standard (2019) |
ISO 22300 Vocabulary (2021) |
|
Mitigation |
“The lessening or minimizing of the adverse impacts of a hazardous event” (pg. 20). |
“The activities designed to reduce or eliminate risks to persons or property or to lessen the actual or potential effects or consequences of a disaster. Mitigation involves ongoing actions to reduce exposure to, probability of, or potential loss due to hazards” (pg. 5). |
“Limitation of any negative consequence of a particular incident” (pg. 20). |
|
Preparedness
|
“The knowledge and capacities developed by governments, response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to and recover from the impacts of likely, imminent or current disasters” (pg. 21). |
“The range of deliberate, critical tasks and activities necessary to build, sustain, and improve the operational capability to prevent, protect against, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from disasters. Preparedness is a continuous process” (pg. 5). |
“Readiness activities, programmes, and systems developed and implemented prior to an incident that can be used to support and enhance prevention, protection from, mitigation of, response to and recovery from disruptions, emergencies or disasters” (pg. 23). |
|
Prevention
|
“Activities and measures to avoid existing and new disaster risks” (pg. 21). |
“Actions to avoid an incident or to intervene to stop an incident from occurring. Prevention involves actions to protect lives, property, the environment, and critical systems/infrastructure. It involves identifying and applying intelligence and other information to a range of activities that may include such countermeasures as deterrence operations; heightened inspections; improved surveillance and security operations; investigations to determine the full nature and source of the threat; public health and agricultural surveillance and testing processes; immunizations, isolation, or quarantine; and, as appropriate, specific law enforcement operations aimed at deterring, preempting, interdicting, or disrupting illegal activity, and apprehending potential perpetrators.” (pg. 5). |
“Measures that enable an organization to avoid, preclude or limit the impact of an undesirable event or potential disruption” (pg. 23). |
|
Response
|
“Actions taken directly before, during or immediately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected
Annotation: Disaster response is predominantly focused on immediate and short term needs and is sometimes called disaster relief. Effective, efficient and timely response relies on disaster risk-informed preparedness measures, including the development of the response capacities of individuals, communities, organizations, countries and the international community.” (pg. 22). |
“Efforts to minimize the short-term direct effects of an incident threatening life, property, the environment, and/or critical systems” (pg. 5). |
Response plan: “documented collection of procedures and information that is developed, compiled and maintained in preparedness for use in an incident” (pg. 27).
Response Programme Plan: “processes, and resources to perform the activities and services necessary to preserve and protect life, property, operations and critical assets” (pg. 27). |
|
Build back better |
“The use of the recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phases after a disaster to increase the resilience of nations and communities through integrating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, and into the revitalization of livelihoods, economies and the environment” (pg. 11). |
Not defined. |
Not defined. |
|
Reconstruction |
“The medium- and long-term rebuilding and sustainable restoration of resilient critical infrastructures, services, housing, facilities and livelihoods required for the full functioning of a community or a society affected by a disaster, aligning with the principles of sustainable development and “build back better”, to avoid or reduce future disaster risk” (pg. 21). |
Not defined. |
Not defined. |
|
Recovery
|
“The restoring or improving of livelihoods and health, as well as economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets, systems and activities, of a disaster affected community or society, aligning with the principles of sustainable development and “build back better”, to avoid or reduce future disaster risk” (pg. 21). |
“The development, coordination, and execution of plans or strategies for the restoration of impacted communities and government operations and services through individual, private sector, non-governmental, and public assistance” (pg. 5). |
“Restoration and improvement, where appropriate, of operations, facilities, livelihoods or living conditions of affected organizations, including efforts to reduce risk factors” (pg. 26). |
|
Rehabilitation |
“The restoration of basic services and facilities for the functioning of a community or a society affected by a disaster” (pg. 22). |
Not defined. |
Not defined. |
Priority Areas
This section explores the alignment of themes from the standard elements from the EMAP Standard and ISO/TC 292 (related to “emergency management”) with the Sendai Framework’s priority areas. Recall the Sendai Framework includes the priority areas: 1) understanding risk, 2) strengthening disaster risk governance, 3) investing in disaster risk reduction, and 4) enhancing preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. A common element across the priority areas and program elements was the emphasis on proactive steps and comprehensive planning across the phases of the disaster cycle. Although there are similarities in the themes across the documents reviewed, the analysis did not provide a well-ordered alignment (see Table 9). The differences in what is considered within the purview of emergency and disaster management, as shown in visuals 1 – 3, are highlighted when comparing these elements. For example, many elements described within the EMAP Standard as pertaining to “emergency management programs” are included within the “disaster risk reduction” umbrella in the Sendai Framework and incorporate standards specific to ISO Technical Committee 268: Sustainable Cities and Communities (ISO/TC 268) (see Table 9).
Table 9. Alignment of Standards with Sendai Framework Priority Areas
|
Sendai Framework Priority Areas (Sendai Framework, 2015) |
EMAP Standard – Program Elements (EMAP, 2019) |
ISO/TC 292 Published Standards (ISO/TC 292, 2024) |
|
Understanding risk |
|
|
|
Strengthening disaster risk governance |
|
|
|
Investing in disaster risk reduction |
|
|
|
Enhancing preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction |
|
|
In summary, while there are similarities in the Sendai Framework, EMAP Standard, and ISO/TC 292 Standards, and some differences may be attributed to differences in the scope and audience of the documents, the extent of the differences would make it challenging for anyone attempting to cohesively apply the practices or to research the topic holistically. Similar terms were used across the strategy and standards. However, this study found differences in how the terms were, at times, defined and applied. Furthermore, variations in the disaster cycle and what is considered in the purview of emergency (and disaster) management provide further barriers to applying core concepts. Moreover, although an alignment could be observed between the priority areas of the Sendai Framework and the elements of the EMAP Standard and ISO/TC 292 Standards, a well-ordered alignment was not observed. However, it is important to note that an emphasis on taking proactive steps and developing comprehensive strategies throughout the disaster cycle phases was evident.
