DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Preparedness for disasters is critical for households, businesses, and communities, but many
remain unprepared. As recent disasters serve to highlight the need for individual
responsibility, local coordination, and continuity plans to ensure the ability to respond to and
recover from major events, the federal government has prioritized national preparedness as a
goal without developing a system to achieve and maintain it. Furthermore, public entities
have been charged with assessing their state of readiness and identifying strengths and areas
of weakness as a requirement for receiving federal funding and Homeland Security grants. In
response, some communities have chosen to utilize voluntary accreditation programs such as
the Emergency Management Accreditation Program in order to assess their ability to respond
to disaster while others have relied on internal resources. The end result is an inconsistent,
non-standardized series of self-reports that may or may not reveal an entity’s true state of
disaster preparedness. In an effort to move toward the development of reliable, valid
preparedness metrics, we provide a summary of the concepts, guidance, and research that
informs an understanding of what it means to be prepared as a household, a business, and a
community. This research will be useful for groups responsible for public education
campaigns, business continuity programs, and emergency responders, as well as those who
have an interest in developing a standardized index to measure disaster preparedness.

1.2 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

Social scientists, emergency managers, and public policy makers generally organize both
research and guidance around four phases of disaster loss reduction: mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery. According to a newly-released report by the National Research
Council (NRC 2006), the core topics of hazards and disaster research include: hazards
research, which focuses on pre-disaster hazard vulnerability analysis and mitigation; and
disaster research, which focuses on post-disaster emergency response and recovery.
Preparedness intersects with both of these two areas, serving as a temporal connector between
the pre-impact and post-impact phases of a disaster event.

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 1

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

Preparedness is typically understood as consisting of measures that enable different units of

analysis individuals, households, organizations, communities, and societies to respond
effectively and recover more quickly when disasters strike. Preparedness efforts also aim at
ensuring that the resources necessary for responding effectively in the event of a disaster are
in place, and that those faced with having to respond know how to use those resources. The
activities that are commonly associated with disaster preparedness include developing
planning processes to ensure readiness; formulating disaster plans; stockpiling resources
necessary for effective response; and developing skills and competencies to ensure effective
performance of disaster-related tasks.

The concept of disaster preparedness encompasses measures aimed at enhancing life safety
when a disaster occurs, such as protective actions during an earthquake, hazardous materials
spill, or terrorist attack. It also includes actions designed to enhance the ability to undertake
emergency actions in order to protect property and contain disaster damage and disruption, as
well as the ability to engage in post-disaster restoration and early recovery activities.

Preparedness is commonly viewed as consisting of activities aimed at improving response

activities and coping capabilities. However, emphasis is increasingly being placed on
recovery preparedness—that is, on planning not only in order to respond effectively during
and immediately after disasters but also in order to successfully navigate challenges
associated with short- and longer-term recovery.

FEMA defines preparedness as:

The leadership, training, readiness and exercise support, and technical and financial
assistance to strengthen citizens, communities, state, local, and tribal governments, and
professional emergency workers as they prepare for disasters, mitigate the effects of disasters,
respond to community needs after a disaster, and launch effective recovery efforts
(www.fema.gov).

Both these definitions make reference to mitigation, but disaster scholars and emergency
management professionals generally define mitigation as actions that are taken well in
advance of disasters that are designed either to avoid or reduce disaster-related damage.
Mitigation measures include appropriate land-use and coastal zone management practices,
mandatory and voluntary building codes, and other long-term loss reduction efforts. In some
cases, mitigation can also include moving neighborhoods and communities to other locations

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 2

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

in order to avoid future losses. Mitigation activities can take the form of specific projects,
such as elevating homes for flood protection, as well as process-related activities, such as
hazard and vulnerability analyses, that are designed to lead to future mitigative actions.
However, some discussions, such as those cited above, also use the term “mitigation” to refer
to actions taken after an event occurs that are designed to contain impacts so that they do not
become more severe. In this sense, some would see efforts to contain an oil spill as a
“mitigative” measure, even though spill containment is commonly thought of as an element
in oil spill emergency response.

Providing additional clarification, the National Research Council report states that “hazard
mitigation consists of practices that are implemented before impact and provide passive
protection at the time impact occurs. In contrast, emergency preparedness practices involve
the development of plans and procedures, the recruitment and training of staff, and the
acquisition of facilities, equipment, and materials needed to provide active protection during
emergency response” (NRC 2006, p. 86 emphasis in the original).

Passive mitigation activities can be further separated into categories such as “process
mitigation” or “indirect” activities that lead to policies, practices and projects that reduce risk.
Such activities might also be referred to as “non-structural” mitigation activities. These
include: efforts to assess hazards, vulnerability and risk; conduct planning to identify
projects, policies and practices and set priorities; educate decision- makers and build
constituencies and political will; efforts to facilitate the selection, design, funding and
construction of projects; land-use planning to limit or prevent development in floodplains,
building codes to reduce losses from earthquake and hurricanes and fires, and designing
buildings to facilitate surveillance. (NIBS/MMC; USACE; Waugh, 2000).

In contrast, “project mitigation” or “structural” mitigation activities include measures to

avoid or reduce damage resulting from hazard events. They include projects to elevate,
acquire and/or relocate buildings, lifelines and structures threatened by floods, strengthen
buildings to resist earthquake or wind forces, and to improve drainage and land conditions
and the building of dams and levees to prevent flooding (NIBS/MMC; Waugh, 2000). (The
USACE considers disaster-proofing buildings and removing buildings from hazard zones
non-structural mitigation activities).

The NRC report highlights the importance of both emergency preparedness and disaster
recovery preparedness and emphasizes that response and recovery preparedness involve

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 3

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

distinct sets of activities. Emergency preparedness provides short-term solutions during an

emergency response that will support the longer term efforts of disaster recovery. Disaster
recovery preparedness practices involve participating in activities and gathering materials
needed “to provide rapid and equitable disaster recovery after an incident no longer poses an
imminent threat to health and safety” (NRC 2006, p. 86).

Recognizing that the immediate post-disaster emergency period is not the time to begin
developing disaster recovery strategies, the city of Los Angeles has included a “recovery and
reconstruction” element in its emergency operations plan. One key resource for disaster
recovery preparedness is “hazard insurance, designed to provide financial protection from
economic losses caused by a disaster event” (NRC 2006, p. 19).

There are a few activities discussed in the disaster literature that appear to span both
mitigation and preparedness phases. One example is the development of warning systems,
evacuation plans, disaster communications, and public education, which some sources
(USACE; Waugh, 2000) view as mitigative because such practices must be implemented
long before a hazardous event. As systems or plans, they serve as passive protection to
support emergency response and recovery. At the same time, warning systems and plans can
also be seen as a key element in disaster preparedness, since part of being prepared involves
knowing how to respond when warnings are issued.

Emergency preparedness activities differ according to which social unit, (households,

businesses, communities, public or governmental entities) is involved. For instance, for local
emergency management agencies, disaster preparedness focuses on establishing authorities
and responsibilities for emergency actions and resources to support those actions. Preparing
for disasters includes leadership, training, readiness and exercise support as well as technical
and financial assistance (www.fema.gov). For local emergency management agencies and
other crisis-relevant organizations, preparedness means developing emergency operations
plans and then training, exercising and testing in order to be ready to respond to a disaster,
crisis, or other type of emergency situation (www.fema.gov, Haddow and Bullock 2006).
Other aspects of preparedness include the designing, equipping, and managing emergency
operations centers (EOCs); developing partnerships with various community sectors (e.g.,
businesses, community-based organizations); and educating the public on disaster loss
reduction.

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 4

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

Disaster preparedness for business organizations often focuses on activities designed to

prevent physical damage and inventory loss, protect critical business records, and avoid
downtime. Common preparedness measures center on information security and continuity of
operations following a hazardous event. Business continuity planners conduct impact
analyses to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and to establish backup resources in order to
continue the flow of products to customers and clients. For households, disaster preparedness
includes a range of measures and activities, including developing household disaster response
plans, learning about evacuation routes and procedures, and knowing how to undertake
expedient emergency measures, such as boarding up windows when a hurricane threatens or
shutting off gas lines when an earthquake strikes.

1.3 ELEMENTS AND DIMENSIONS OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

As used in the disaster literature, the concept of preparedness has a variety of dimensions that
are in turn supported by a number of activities. Dimensions of preparedness consist of the
various goals or end-states that preparedness seeks to achieve. Activities are concrete actions
that need to be taken in order to meet those goals. Sources vary in terms of how dimensions
and activities are defined. Recommendations on public education campaigns for households
emphasize four dimensions of preparedness; as noted above, FEMA’s CAR specifies thirteen
areas for targeted preparedness efforts; standards for business and industry focus on twelve
different dimensions, while efforts to create accreditation standards for communities have
highlighted fifteen, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified 37
“target capabilities” for all- hazard preparedness.

As shown in Table 1, at the most general level, it is possible to identify eight dimensions or
desired end-states for preparedness activities: (1) hazard knowledge; (2) management,
direction, and co-ordination of emergency operations; (3) formal and informal response
agreements; (4) resource acquisition aimed at ensuring that emergency functions can be
carried out smoothly; (5) life safety protection; (6) property protection; (7) emergency coping
and restoration of key functions; and (8) initiation of recovery activities. Descriptions that
follow focus on each of these key dimensions and their associated activities.

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 5

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

Table 1. Preparedness Dimensions and Activities

Dimensions of Preparedness Associated Activities

Hazard Knowledge Conducting hazard, impact, and vulnerability

assessments; Using loss estimation software,
scenarios, census data; Understanding potential
impacts on facilities, structures, infrastructure,
populations; Providing hazard information to
diverse stakeholders
Management, Direction and Coordination Assigning responsibilities; Developing a division of
labor and a common vision of response-related roles
and responsibilities; Forming preparedness
committees, networks; Adopting required and
recommended management procedures (e.g.,
National Incident Management System); Providing
training experiences, conducting drills, educating
the public
Formal and Informal Response Plans and Developing disaster plans, evacuation plans,
Agreements memoranda of understanding, mutual aid
agreements, collaborative partnerships, resource-
sharing agreements; Participating in broader and
more general planning arrangements (e.g.,
neighborhood and community preparedness groups,
Urban Area Security Initiative regional plans,
industry-wide preparedness initiatives)
Supportive Resources Acquiring equipment and supplies to support
response activities; Ensuring coping capacity;
Recruiting staff; Identifying previously
unrecognized resources; Developing logistics
capabilities
Life Safety Protection Preparing family members, employees, others to
take immediate action to prevent death and injury,
e.g., through evacuating, sheltering in place, using
“safe spaces” within structures, taking emergency
actions to lessen disaster impacts on health and
safety; Containing secondary threats, e.g. fire
following earthquakes
Property Protection Acting expediently to prevent loss or damage of
property; protecting inventories, securing critical
records; Ensuring that critical functions can be
maintained during disaster; Containing secondary
threats
Emergency Coping and Restoration of Developing the capacity to improvise and innovate;
Key Functions Developing the ability to be self-sustaining during
disasters; Ensuring the capacity to undertake
emergency restoration and early recovery measures
Initiation of Recovery Preparing recovery plans; developing ordinances
and other legal measures to be put into place
following disasters; Acquiring adequate insurance;
Identifying sources of recovery aid

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 6

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

1.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PREPAREDNESS

The sections above have discussed dimensions, activities, and measures associated with
disaster preparedness at the household, business, and organizational levels. The focus thus far
has been on what activities should be undertaken, rather than on how to prepare. We turn next
to a discussion of general preparedness strategies. We argue here that some of these
recommendations can themselves serve as a basis for measurements of the quality of
preparedness efforts.

Research on preparedness has resulted in general principles of preparedness that are

applicable to any unit of analysis, including households, businesses, public sector agencies,
networks, communities, and intergovernmental alliances. Importantly, the same general
principles apply for all types of hazards: natural hazards, technological hazards, and
intentional attacks. As seen above, the concept of preparedness is multi- dimensional and
includes elements such as hazard awareness and analysis, formal plans, mutual aid
agreements, enduring social and institutional relationships, resource acquisition, training and
education, drills and exercises, and methods for institutionalizing lessons learned. The
following process-related principles are also fundamental to our understanding of what it
means to be prepared for disaster.

1.4.1 Formal plans are only one element in comprehensive preparedness strategies.

Plans can be placed into a notebook and shelved until a disaster occurs and necessitates their
use. “To assume that planning is complete when a written disaster plan is produced is to court
trouble” (Dynes et al., 1972). Unless plans are trained, practiced, and improved upon,
emergency response agencies, businesses, and households will not be ready for an
emergency.

Also implicit in this guidance is the notion that households, businesses, and community
agencies must continually find ways of improving their plans. Approaches for improving
plans include identifying lessons learned from disaster events and adjusting plans
accordingly; learning from the experiences of other communities; and seeking other sources
of information, such as government and private sector guidance, that can be used to refine
plans.

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 7

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

1.4.2 Plans mean little in the absence of other elements of preparedness.

Plans may be nothing more than “fantasy documents” (Clarke, 1999) designed to provide
assurance that organizations or communities are ready for disasters or “wish lists” indicating
what should happen when a major event occurs. Formal plans mean little unless resources
exist to actually carry out planned activities and unless those assigned responsibility know
what to do—and are able to do it—when disasters strike.

One problem with the “paper plan syndrome” is that those involved may tend to think all
potential problems are solved once the plan is formalized.

1.4.3 Preparedness is a process, not a product.

Obtaining a disaster supply kit, retrofitting a building, developing a business plan, or

consulting with experts about potential hazards in the community are only steps in larger
processes associated with preparedness. Effective planning can only take place when multiple
agencies and stakeholders are directly involved on an ongoing basis in formulating plans and
undertaking activities that ensure that plans can actually be carried out in a coordinated
fashion. Effective response is based on prior knowledge of the capabilities and competencies
of all entities designated as having tasks to perform when a disaster occurs. Such knowledge
can only be developed through extensive engagement among partners. For businesses for
example, site-based planning is a key process, but so is collaborating with supply-chain
partners to ensure continuity in operations. One key objective of the planning process is to
broaden and deepen both formal and informal connections among responding entities.
Another is to identify and address gaps in preparedness and capability within and across
partnership networks.

1.4.4 Preparedness efforts must be based on realistic assumptions concerning social

behavior during crises.

Plans should be developed based upon what is likely to happen in a disaster, rather than on
myths and misunderstandings about disaster behaviour. For instance, based on research, it is
known that public panic is not a problem during disasters, but also that public information-
seeking will greatly increase. Factors associated with the receipt of warning information and
with public warning responses are also well understood. It is important to plan, educate, train,
and focus preparedness activities in ways that have a positive effect on influencing publics to
take protective actions when warnings are given. Preparedness activities should not aim at

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 8

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

controlling behaviour, but rather on understanding and accommodating normal public

responses during disasters. The disaster literature is replete with examples of misguided
actions based on incorrect assumptions about disaster behavior. Officials have avoided
issuing warnings for fear of causing panic and have allocated public safety resources based
on erroneous fears of looting. It makes little sense to develop plans that attempt to discourage
members of the public from volunteering to assist in disaster response activities, because the
public will inevitably seek to be involved. Rather, plans should emphasize how to incorporate
volunteers into the overall response effort. Similarly, rather than planning to deal with unruly
and uncooperative disaster victims, officials should assume that members of the public will
be cooperative and helpful when disasters strike. Episodes of looting such as those that
occurred during Hurricane Katrina, should be recognized as anomalies, rather than common
patterns of public response following disasters.

1.4.5 Preparedness requires collaboration, not top-down direction – although clear

guidance does help.

As in any other endeavor that seeks to enhance collaboration and cooperation, the disaster
planning process must be carried out in ways that encourage “ownership” of the planning
process. People are highly unlikely to feel that sense of ownership if plans are developed
without the input of those who are supposed to carry them out. Guidance is essential for
encouraging preparedness, but guidance should be sufficiently flexible that those who will be
responsible for response and recovery activities can plan in ways that reflect their own
distinctive local concerns. Overly specific, top-down directives will likely encourage a
compliance-oriented rather than a collaborative mindset for those with planning
responsibilities. Particularly now, when many preparedness activities are initiated at the
federal government level, there is a strong need for preparedness strategies that are tied to
place-specific hazard and vulnerability analyses and that are consistent with the needs of
local communities, businesses, and households.

1.4.6 Planning activities should be guided by those who will actually carry out plans.

For individuals and organizations that are pressed for time and short on resources, there is a
great temptation “borrow” disaster plans from other jurisdictions or hire an individual or a
consulting company to write a plan. This tendency has no doubt increased as regulations and
requirements regarding extreme event planning have become more stringent. However,
understanding planning as a process means also understanding that there are no short-cuts to

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 9

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

effective preparedness. As noted in the section above, preparedness measures work best when
they are collaboratively developed by those who will actually be involved in responding
when disasters occur. Effective planning requires a sense of ownership of the planning
process—something that is unlikely to develop if outsiders are given major responsibility for
developing the plan. This is not to say that consultants should never be used in developing
plans. Rather, this is an argument for using consultants and other outsiders as facilitators in a
process that is owned by those who will ultimately be responsible for implementing plans.

1.4.7 Efforts should be comprehensive and inclusive, and should promote multi-
organizational participation.

Disasters require inter-organizational coordination and cooperation for an effective response;

therefore preparedness efforts should include all of the groups responsible for the various
emergency management functions. Preparedness efforts should include representation from
emergency management, law enforcement, fire, city management, public health, citizen and
voluntary groups, schools, nursing homes, hospitals and health care organizations, the
business community, and other sectors in order to create a network of organizations to
support essential functions in a disaster event.

It is important to devise preparedness strategies that are intentionally broad in part because of
the tendency for preparedness activities to be vertically integrated—or stovepiped—rather
than horizontally integrated, across community organizations and sectors. Sector-based
preparedness efforts are important. Law enforcement agencies, hospitals, and businesses need
to plan extensively. However, effective planning efforts are those that span different
organizations and sectors and that are guided by a common vision of community resilience in
the face of disasters.

1.4.8 Preparedness advocates must overcome constraints, limitations, and sometimes

outright opposition.

Emergency planning and preparedness efforts may face apathy from some and resistance
from others (Lindell and Perry 2006). Reasons why support is generally lacking range from a
resistance to thinking about disasters, to reluctance to allocate limited resources, to conflicts
among organizations responsible for planning and preparedness activities. At a more general
level, disaster-related issues must always compete with other concerns that are considered
equally or more important. Household members who live in fear of crime and struggle daily

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 10

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

to get by on low incomes may find it impossible spare time and resources for disaster
preparedness, even if they are aware of its importance. More affluent community residents
may be too busy juggling their varied responsibilities to pay much attention to a disaster that
may or may not happen. Disaster preparedness may rank low on corporate and community
agendas compared to pressing day-to-day problems. An enterprise that is struggling to stay
afloat may not have the luxury of thinking about future disasters. Expenditures on disaster
loss reduction must be weighed in light of other investments that may bring more immediate
return. Planning horizons for both businesses and local governments may be short.

Preparedness efforts are quite often difficult to sustain over time. Public officials are
educated and become advocates for disaster loss reduction, but then they leave office owing
to term limits. If no disasters occur over a period of time, members of the public, officials,
and business owners become less vigilant. Except in very unusual cases, disaster
preparedness is typically “a policy without a public” (May and Williams, 1986). What this
means is that strong advocacy is required to sustain preparedness efforts.

Advocates typically include scientists, engineers, individual activists and groups that focus
specifically on hazards and disasters, and public officials who have decided to make loss
reduction one of their key priorities. Disaster preparedness must always compete with other
issues, including those that enjoy more widespread public, corporate, and government
support.

1.4.9 Preparedness should be risk- and vulnerability-based, but should also consider
low probability/high consequence events.

Implicit in many discussions in this section is the idea that preparedness activities should be
geared to local concerns—which include scientifically-based assessments of what events are
likely to occur in a given community, state, or other jurisdictional area. This perspective
stands in contrast with current guidance that emphasizes the need for every community to
prepare for terrorist attack. While it is of course conceivable that any community may
become the target of terrorism—Oklahoma City is a case in point here—the fact remains that
historical disasters to some extent predict future ones.

Different regions of the country are zoned according to the likelihood of earthquake- induced
damage because the historical record makes that kind of zoning possible. New flood plain
maps should do a better job of indicating where future floods will be most severe. Efforts to

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 11

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

assess long-term vulnerability by taking into account future development patterns may serve
as a basis for mitigation and preparedness efforts. These are examples of the types of
information communities need to take into account when undertaking their own preparedness
efforts and communicating about vulnerability and preparedness with households and
businesses.

At the same time, preparedness efforts must address all potential disaster events.

Too many communities centre their preparedness activities on the last disaster, rather than on
those that are likely to occur in the future. Limited resources require communities to
prioritize among the events for which they will plan, but at the same time communities
should not neglect to plan for low probability events, including catastrophic and near-
catastrophic disasters.

1.4.10 Preparedness efforts must be designed in ways that help responders and victims
anticipate surprise – e.g. through fostering the ability to adapt, improvise, and
innovate.

In earlier sections of this report, we emphasized the importance of systematic planning that
recognizes that disasters always contain an element of surprise.

Improvisation is one of the foundations of emergency management (Kreps 1991). The ability
to adapt to an unfolding situation requires both flexibility within plans and broad permission
to respond creatively to the unfolding of events that do not ‘fit’ well within existing planning
frameworks (McEntire 2006).

Here again, Hurricane Katrina is a case in point. Many responding agencies, especially those
at the state and federal levels, simply did not recognize until it was too late that Katrina was a
catastrophe, rather than a garden-variety disaster. Adherence to bureaucratic rules and
regulations slowed down response efforts, as key decision-makers simply refused to see that
Katrina was not a disaster that could be managed through the use of standard emergency
measures. Rather than encouraging creativity and improvisation, the preparedness strategies
that were in place at the time Katrina struck appear to have instead discouraged decision-
makers from seeking creative solutions— even though that was exactly what the situation
called for.

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 12

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This report has sought to provide a foundation for the development of comprehensive disaster
preparedness metrics spanning measures that should be undertaken by households,
businesses, and community organizations. Discussions have been organized around key
dimensions of preparedness, activities associated with those components of preparedness, and
specific measures that have been focused on in research on preparedness and in preparedness
guidance documents. Based on our review, it appears that the development of broadly
applicable preparedness metrics is quite feasible. At the same time, it is important to engage
multiple stakeholder groups in formulating metrics that they consider most appropriate. The
discussions contained in the report are intended to serve as a first step in the collaborative
development of assessment strategies for household, community, and organizational
preparedness.

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 13

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TRAINING

REFERENCES

 Red Cross.(N.d.).“Get Prepared.” Checklists for home and business preparedness.

(http://www.redcross.org)
 Waugh, William L. Jr. 2000. Living with Hazards Dealing with Disasters: An
Introduction to Emergency Management. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, New York.
 National Research Council of the National Academies. 2006. Facing Hazards and
Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions. The National Academies Press:
Washington, D.C.
 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2004. “NFPA 1600: Standard on
Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs.”
(http:www.nfpa.org/PDF/nfpa1600.pdf?sic=nfpa.)
 Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). April 2006. “A Framework
for Assessing Regional Preparedness: A White Paper on Applying Emergency
Preparedness Standards to Multijurisdictional Areas.”
(http://www.emaponline.org/?256#search=%22emap%20regional%20assessment%2)
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. December 6, 2005. “Business Pandemic
Influenza Planning Checklist.” Version 3.6. (http:// www.pandemicflu.gov.)
 Dynes, Russell R., E.L. Quarantelli, and Gary A. Kreps. June 1972. “A Perspective on
Disaster Planning.” Report Series, No 11. Disaster Research Center: Delaware.
 Nicholson, William C. 2005. “NFPA 1600: The New Standard for Emergency
Management.” Journal of Emergency Management. 3(2): 44-46.

Department of Environmental Engineering, JSS S&T University Page 14