28 Literature Review

Modern approaches to international disaster risk reduction and emergency management have been influenced by research and practice from disparate efforts of nations and disciplines, each attempting to implement the latest best practices and lessons learned from their unique perspective and context (McEntire, 2008). Global strategies and models have aimed to serve as a basis for establishing strategies in countries worldwide, emphasizing the need to proactively reduce risk and improve preparedness for increasing hazards. However, the consistent implementation of these strategies and frameworks across nations varies, resulting in differences regarding how concepts and practices are applied. These variations stem from factors such as differing political will, resource availability, institutional capacities, and cultural contexts. Nevertheless, these variations in fundamental principles hinder achieving uniformity and effectiveness in regional disaster management practice and research (Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2020; Coppola, 2021). A better understanding of how international frameworks and standards are aligned is needed to tackle these challenges and promote a more unified approach toward reducing disaster risk.

 

 

Evolution of the International Approach to Disasters

The evolution of strategy in international disaster risk reduction and disaster management has been influenced by the transition from a reactive response to the recognition of a comprehensive and integrated proactive approach (Coppola, 2021; McEntire, 2008; Wisner and Alcántara-Ayala, 2023). Strategically and in line with this shift, the international community has developed frameworks and initiatives that aim to address various aspects of disaster risk reduction and management across nations, with the understanding of the greater need to support developing nations in building capacity for disaster resilience (Coppola, 2021; UNDRR, n.d.) However, despite the efforts to develop global strategies and frameworks, the field’s evolution has led to challenges in aligning concepts.

Evolving from the Civil Defense era in the 1950s, emergency management had initially focused on responding to attacks within nations (Coppola, 2021) but expanded to encompass an all-hazards approach and “comprehensive emergency management” by the 1980’s. In the international community, as a reaction to the increasing impacts of hazard events and the recognized need for coordinated international efforts, an initial initiative was developed in the 1980s by the United Nations, leading to a series of strategies and frameworks designed to promote international cooperation in disaster risk reduction. The driving force for international cooperation and strategy has been the recognition of the increasing hazard events and the ability of humans to proactively prevent impacts from occurring and to effectively manage them when they do occur (Coppola, 2021; Delshad et al., 2020; United Nations, 1987).

In 1987, the UN General Assembly Resolution 42/169 designated the 1990s as the “International Decade for Natural Disaster Risk Reduction,” resulting in a series of international conferences and agreements to develop strategies and frameworks for disaster risk reduction and encourage global cooperation (see Table 2). The objective was to engage in focused international action to establish strategies to reduce the loss of life, property damage, and social and economic disruption caused by natural disasters; a focus on preparedness, prevention, and mitigation was emphasized (United Nations, 1987). The Yokohama Strategy, adopted in 1994 (United Nations, 1994), resulted from this 1987 initiative.

 

Table 2. International Strategies and Frameworks in Disaster Risk Reduction

Document	Year(s)	Key Focus	Notable Achievements
UN General Assembly Resolution 42/1691	1987	Encouraging international cooperation for disaster risk reduction.	Designated the 1990s as the “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.”
Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action	1994	Guidelines for natural disaster prevention, preparedness, and mitigation.	First plan to provide a detailed strategy for disaster risk reduction.
Hyogo Framework for Action	2005-2015	Building resilience of nations and communities to disasters.	First plan to detail the work required from all sectors to reduce disaster losses.
Sendai Framework	2015-2030	Reducing disaster risk and losses.	First major agreement of the post-2015 development agenda providing concrete actions to protect development gains from disaster risk.

 

The “Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World” coalesced international efforts toward a common set of principles, suggested a basis for a strategy, and provided recommended actions for nations to take to reduce risk as the first comprehensive guidelines for disaster risk reduction and established the foundation for a cooperative approach. The Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World” also emphasized the importance of local action and community participation. It recognized the crucial role of risk assessment, disaster prevention, and preparedness in reducing the need for disaster relief. The strategy highlighted the need for integrating disaster risk reduction into development planning and emphasized the importance of knowledge sharing, education, and awareness-raising (Coppola, 2021; Delshad et al., 2020; United Nations, 1994).

Building upon the foundations of the Yokohama Strategy, the “Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015) focused on building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters (United Nations, 2005). Signed and adopted by 164 nations, the Hyogo Framework for Action emphasized the development of national action plans by all countries (Coppola, 2021). The Hyogo Framework for Action aimed to 1) strengthen disaster risk reduction as a priority at the national and local levels, 2) improve early warning systems, 3) utilize knowledge and innovation for safety and resilience, 4) reduce underlying risk factors, and 5) strengthen preparedness against disasters (United Nations, 2005). However, despite these efforts, the social, cultural, and economic damages caused by disasters continued to grow. To formulate a strategy for the next 15 years, and in recognition of a changing risk profile globally, the international community came together again in 2015 in Sendai, Japan, to adopt the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (United Nations, 2015).

The Sendai Framework broadened the scope of disaster risk reduction, focusing on both natural and man-made hazards and related environmental, technological, and biological hazards and risks (Coppola, 2021; United Nations, 2015). There was also an emphasis on the need for an improved 1) understanding of disaster risk, 2) strengthening of disaster risk governance, 3) investing in disaster risk reduction, and 4) preparedness to “Build Back Better” in recovery (United Nations, 2015). Today, the Sendai Framework guides the international community’s efforts in disaster risk reduction, marking a significant evolution in global disaster management standards since the initial iterations of international strategies to address global disaster risk. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is the most recent and comprehensive international framework for disaster risk reduction (Coppola, 2021; Delshad et al., 2020).

The Sendai Framework strongly emphasizes the need to understand and manage disaster risk. Seven global targets and four priorities for action are included in the framework (see Textbox 1). In addition, the Sendai Framework recognizes the importance of stakeholders and their roles in disaster risk reduction through an integrated and inclusive approach across “economic, structural, legal, social, health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political and institutional measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience” (United Nations, 2015, pg. 12). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, adopted in 2015, is the most recent and comprehensive international framework for disaster risk reduction (Delshad et al., 2020). However, despite the progress in international frameworks, their implementation and adherence are still not widely observed (Wisner and Alcántara-Ayala, 2023).

 

Applying International Strategies

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Priorities and Global TargetsPrioritiesPriority 1: Understanding disaster risk.Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk.Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience.Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.(United Nations, 2015, pg. 13)Global TargetsTarget A: “Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower the average per 100,000 global mortality rate in the decade 2020–2030 compared to the period 2005-2015;”Target B: “Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 in the decade 2020–2030 compared to the period 2005–2015;”Target C: “Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030;”Target D: “Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030;”Target E: “Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020;”Target F: “Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of the present Framework by 2030;”Target G: “Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to people by 2030.”(United Nations, 2015, pg. 11)
Textbox 1. Sendai Framework Priorities
Strategies and frameworks established at the international level are applied across sectors in nations and communities to enhance disaster risk reduction efforts and to better manage the impacts of hazard events. National governments play a crucial role in translating and implementing international strategies and priorities for disaster risk reduction (Coppola, 2021; Delshad et al., 2020) and have the primary responsibility to prevent and reduce disaster risk within their territories (Wahlström, 2015). Furthermore, national governments are responsible for strengthening disaster risk governance, ensuring effective coordination and collaboration among relevant stakeholders, and allocating resources for investment in disaster reduction initiatives. Through national-level implementation, countries aim to enhance their understanding of disaster risk by conducting assessments and promoting research on hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposure (Delshad et al., 2020; Johansson & Nilsson, 2006).

Frameworks, standards, policy, regulations, statutes, and laws are developed and implemented at the national level, while the Sendai Framework encourages nations to align with international strategies and priorities (Johansson and Nilsson, 2006; United Nations, 2015). To address the unique challenges and risks they face, many nations have implemented national-level strategies and frameworks of their own. These strategies are often tailored to the specific context and needs of each country, considering factors such as geographical location, climate, socioeconomic factors, culture, and resources, and must be cognizant of the culture to which it is being applied (Delshad et al., 2020; Johansson & Nilsson, 2006).

Ideally, national policies are further applied at the local level, where emergencies “start and end.” Local governments adapt these policies and standards to their specific needs, creating localized strategies for emergency management programs. Over time, standards, serving as benchmarks for emergency management programs, have become more comprehensive and inclusive, recognizing the importance of involving all sectors of society and encouraging proactive disaster risk reduction efforts over a response-focused mindset (Coppola, 2021). However, barriers remain in applying a cohesive strategy in nations across the globe.

Challenges in implementing international strategies for disaster risk reduction at the national level include limited resources, institutional capacity gaps, conflicting priorities and interests, and socio-political factors (Coppola, 2021; United Nations, 2015). Furthermore, disaster risk reduction strategies must be adapted to local contexts and consider the unique challenges faced by different communities and regions. Moreover, sustainable funding and adequate resource allocation are crucial to effectively implement international strategies at the national level. In order to successfully implement international strategies for disaster risk reduction at the national and local levels, governments must overcome challenges such as limited resources and institutional capacity gaps while navigating a compendium of terms, concepts, priorities, and approaches. The journey from international strategy to local implementation illustrates the dynamic and multi-layered nature of disaster risk reduction and management standards, which can exacerbate challenges in attempting to align efforts.

 

 

Interdisciplinary Emergency Management Program Standards

Standards provide a benchmark upon which to base practices and guide programs across sectors. Some standard-setting groups are leveraged within nations for specific standards for emergency management programs, which may be applied across disciplines and sectors. These standards aim to help ensure consistency, coherence, and effectiveness, allowing for better coordination and collaboration among different stakeholders involved in emergency management (Wahlström, 2015). In emergency management, two internationally recognized standard-setting bodies maintain emergency management program standards, including the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Burkle et al., 2001). These standards provide a technical and operational perspective, complementing strategic, high-level guidance.

Program-level standards are crucial in implementing disaster risk reduction and emergency management strategies across various disciplines and sectors. These standards attempt to provide a common language and set guidelines for implementation within each unique programmatic context (Stratton, 2017). However, alignment is inconsistent, and widespread use or adherence to standards has not been observed. A consensus on the specific standards to be implemented at the program level and on their application and enforcement would advance research and practice in the field.

 

EMAP Emergency Management Standard

The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) maintains the Emergency Management Standard (EMAP Standard) and accredits programs based on adherence to the standard (Emergency Management Accreditation Program, 2019). EMAP, an independent nonprofit, establishes standards for programs in emergency management and accredits them, regardless of their size or organizational structure (Jensen & Ferreira, 2023). The EMAP Standard is a globally recognized benchmark for emergency management programs (Crossley, 2018). It applies to all phases of emergency management, including mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery and emergency management programs of all varieties. The standards cover a range of areas such as hazard identification, planning, resource management, training and exercises, communications, and public information (EMAP, 2019) (see Table 3). In the United States, the EMAP Standard has been adopted by the American National Standards Institution (ANSI), which is the U.S. representative to ISO, and has been endorsed by the United States Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) (Shiley, 2018).

Although the EMAP Standard may apply globally, adoption and accreditation are currently centered in the United States. As of 2024, there were 91 emergency management programs accredited by EMAP. 95.6% (n=87) of EMAP programs (i.e., State Programs, Local Programs, Institutions of Higher Education Programs, and Private Sector Programs) are based in the United States. However, it is not possible to determine the number of programs worldwide using the EMAP Emergency Management Standard as a benchmark.

 

Table 3. EMAP Emergency Management Standard (2019)

Chapter	Sub-Section
1. Administration	1.1: Purpose 1.2: Application
2. Definitions	2.1: Applicant 2.2: Continuity of Government 2.3: Continuity of Operations 2.4: Disaster 2.5: Emergency 2.6: Emergency Management Program 2.7: Essential Program Function(s) 2.8: Gap Analysis 2.9: Hazard 2.10: Human-caused 2.11: Incident 2.12: Incident Management System 2.13: Intelligence 2.14: Jurisdiction 2.15: Mitigation 2.16: Mutual Aid Agreement 2.17: Preparedness 2.18: Prevention 2.19: Procedure(s) 2.20: Recovery 2.21: Resource Management Objective(s) 2.22: Response 2.23: Stakeholder(s) 2.24: Standard 2.25: Technical Assistance
Chapter 3: Emergency Management Program	3.1: Program Administration and Evaluation 3.2: Coordination 3.3: Advisory Committee 3.4: Administration and Finance 3.5: Laws and Authorities
Chapter 4: Emergency Management Program Elements	4.1: Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Consequence Analysis 4.2: Hazard Mitigation 4.3: Prevention 4.4: Operational Planning and Procedures 4.5: Incident Management 4.6: Resource Management, Mutual Aid, and Logistics 4.7: Communication and Warning 4.8: Facilities 4.9: Training 4.10: Exercises, Evaluations and Corrective Actions 4.11: Emergency Public Information and Education

 

 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an international nongovernmental organization that develops and publishes standards in various fields, including emergency management, however, ISO does not perform certification or accreditation of programs itself (Johansson and Nilsson, 2006). ISO membership is represented by standard setting bodies from over 160 countries, who provide technical and operational standards that organizations and governments can implement. ISO Technical Committee (ISO/TC) 292: Security and Resilience is responsible for the development of international standards related to emergency management, including ISO 22320 for emergency management, ISO 22316 for organizational resilience, ISO 22398 for exercises and testing, and ISO 22300 for vocabulary (ISO/TC 292, 2024; Johansson and Nilsson, 2006). However, other technical committees within ISO, such as ISO/TC 268: Sustainable Cities and Communities, also play a role in developing standards that contribute to the implementation of disaster risk reduction efforts. For example, the ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC 268, Sustainable Cities and Communities, has developed standards focusing on sustainable development objectives and indicators for cities and communities (e.g., ISO 37101, ISO 37120, ISO 37122, and ISO 37123). The ISO standards attempt to provide a common language and process used worldwide to benchmark programs; however, it is not known how many nations or programs actively use the standard as a means of benchmarking.

 

Standards in Emergency Management Literature

The literature on emergency management and disaster science highlights the need for further alignment to enhance emergency management capabilities (e.g., Saja, Goonetilleke, Teo, & Ziyath, 2019; Bentley & Waugh, 2005; Bowen, 2008). However, few studies have analyzed emergency management standards (e.g., Alexander, 2003; Alexander, 2005; Frykmer, 2020). The growth of emergency management has evolved reactively, whereas laws, not standards, have driven practice (McEntire, 2007; McEntire, 2008). Over time, standards and frameworks have evolved to address various issues related to the vulnerability to disasters (McEntire, 2008; Wahlström, 2015). As the field of emergency management evolves into a profession, the literature suggests that an essential element is to establish a shared identity (Cwiak, 2011; Oyola-Yemaiel & Wilson, 2005).

The implementation of international standards in emergency management has been recognized as a key factor for enhancing preparedness, response, and recovery, as well as promoting interoperability and coordination among different organizations and countries (e.g., Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010; Waugh & Strieb, 2006). Frameworks and standards aim to provide a roadmap for countries to effectively coordinate with all stakeholders in reducing the impacts of hazard events and preparing to respond and recover when impacts occur while striving to promote resilience and sustainable development (Goniewicz and Burkle, 2019). However, implementing these standards and frameworks faces challenges and gaps (McEntire, 2008; Wisner and Alcántara-Ayala, 2023).

Some studies have been conducted analyzing specific standards within specific contexts, such as ISO (e.g., Lushi, Mane, & Keco, 2016; Sartor, Orzes, Touboulic, Culot, & Nassimbeni, 2019), the EMAP Standard (e.g., Jensen & Ferreira, 2022; Lucus, 2006), and the Sendai Framework (e.g., Busayo et al., 2020; Wahlstrom, 2015). These studies have highlighted the benefits of implementing standards regarding improved coordination, communication, and response capabilities. Literature also suggests that as the context in emergency management is better understood and public expectations increase, so does the interest in standards (Britton, 1999), while the existence of more consistent emergency management programs across jurisdictions suggests further evolution of the field (McEntire, 2008). In order to address these challenges and gaps, countries and organizations need to work together to develop a coherent approach to implementing emergency management and disaster risk reduction efforts.

Despite the progress made in developing international standards for emergency management, there are still challenges and gaps (Johansson and Nilsson, 2006). These gaps include a lack of consensus on definitions and terminology, varying levels of commitment and resources among countries, cultural and contextual differences that affect implementation, and the need for ongoing updates and revisions to keep up with evolving risks and technologies (Lettieri, Massella, & Radaelli, 2009). Despite the challenges in implementing international standards for emergency management, their adoption and use are crucial in enhancing proactive efforts in mitigation, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery.

In summary, international strategy and frameworks have guided nations across the globe in focusing efforts toward a more risk-resistant world. However, implementation has been regarded as reactionary, ad-hoc, and insufficient. While implementing program-level disaster management and emergency management standards, such as EMAP and ISO, plays a crucial role, implementation in communities across the globe remains a challenge. Further analysis of the alignment of current standards in emergency management with international strategy and framework will be necessary to continue to work toward increased consistency and effectiveness in global emergency management efforts.