Running head: DISASTER CYCLE 1

Usefulness of Disaster Cycle: A Case of the UK’s 2007 Floods

Name

Institution

Date
DISASTER CYCLE 2

Usefulness of Disaster Cycle: A Case of the UK’s 2007 Floods

Introduction

Statistics show that natural disasters account for about 60,000 deaths annually. This

represents nearly 0.1% of all deaths globally in the last decade (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). There is

an indispensable need to reduce the risk and detrimental impact through a careful approach to

disaster management. Scholars and experts in managing disasters have developed theories or

frameworks for explaining how disasters happen and how to mitigate them. One of the

commonly applied frameworks is the disaster cycle. This paper provides a critical evaluation of

the framework, assessing the usefulness of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery

phases of the cycle. The evaluation focuses on the UK Floods of 2007 as the case study,

assigning the relevance of the cycle in managing the disaster. Given the complexity of handling

predictable and unpredictable disasters, the paper argues that the disaster cycle is only useful

when it helps in achieving the goals of reducing or avoiding losses, promotes response to

occurrences, and aids in a rapid and effective recovery process. The paper is organized into four

key sections. First, the theoretical and applied meanings of the disaster cycle are demonstrated.

The second section contextualises the disaster cycle and the different arguments in the historical

and contemporary theoretical and policy settings. Third, the strengths and weaknesses of the

disaster cycle are compared and contrasted, with reference to the case study. Fourth, the roles of

different stakeholders are examined, followed by a conclusion on the disaster cycle usefulness.

Disaster Cycle Stages

The disaster cycle elucidates an on-going process through which stakeholders such as

businesses, civil society and governments minimize the impact of disasters, respond during or
DISASTER CYCLE 3

after a disaster, and aids in the recovery following the disastrous impact (Khan et al., 2008).

Relevant actions throughout the points of the cycle are associated with better preparedness,

reduced susceptibility, better alerts and better response in case of recurrence (Asghar, Alahakoon

& Churilov, 2006). A thorough disaster cycle entails shaping policies and strategies that can

transform the causes of catastrophes or alleviate their impacts on people, infrastructure and

property.

Literature provides that a comprehensive method of addressing disasters involves four

phases of the disaster cycle: prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. The prevention

phase occurs before the occurrence of a disaster (Khan et al., 2008). The stakeholders take

mitigating actions to protect property and people, in addition to reducing the risks and impact of

a possible disaster. The primary role in prevention is to suppress the overall vulnerability and

impacts such as deaths and loss of property (Amaratunga, Malalgoda & Keraminiyage, 2018).

An example of prevention in a business setting is not buying property or setting premises in an

earthquake-prone area. In earthquake-prone areas, organisations are said to prevent disastrous

impacts by shielding property by reinforcing the structures and ensuring seismic safety of

breakables (Saeed & Kasim, 2019). However, prevention is only effective in known risks

because stakeholders cannot avoid disaster unless they envisage it.

Preparedness is another phase of the disaster cycle, and involves taking action before the

occurrence of a disaster (Khan et al., 2008). At this stage, an organisation strives to understand

the nature of the disaster, how it may occur and its possible impact on people and property.

Based on this understanding, emergency teams develop action plans guided by envisioned

scenarios. Typical measures of preparedness include establishing a communication plan with a

clear chain of command, developing a multiagency team for coordination, education and training
DISASTER CYCLE 4

on emergency and maintenance services, and generating an emergency warning framework

(Bremer, 2003). An effective preparedness plan includes establishing an emergency operations

team or agency, coupled with the wide-ranging principle of addressing emergencies (Asghar,

Alahakoon & Churilov, 2006). As opposed to the prevention measures which are mainly focused

on averting the occurrence of a disaster, preparedness measures are focused on planning for

actions to occur when a disaster strikes. Yet, both sets of processes are informed by awareness

and understanding a disaster is likely to strike. According to Kunz, Reiner and Gold (2014),

however, preparedness for uncertain events is also possible, but its effectiveness depends on the

actual response.

Response processes follow preparation or planning. This phase entails the actual response

to disaster occurrence to protect people and property following a disaster (Toft & Reynolds,

2016). An ideal response happens immediately or on time of a disaster. The most immediate

response action includes addressing direct threats to lives and properties. Safety and overall

wellbeing of victims and property are contingent on the preparedness plans made before the

disaster strikes (Khan et al., 2008). The most striking illustrations of response include taking

people are taken out of harm’s ways. The response teams or agencies will then evaluate the

extent of the damage, implement other response plans and initiate the recovery process (Bremer,

2003). In a business scenario, for example, an effective response process will ordinarily shift

from instant emergency actions to making repairs and restoring normalcy following a disruption.

The organisation further needs to initiate reconstruction and maintenance of the damaged

property or disrupting operations.

Recovery processes take place after responding to a disaster. The primary focus is to

implement actions that restore normality (Asghar, Alahakoon & Churilov, 2006). By the time of
DISASTER CYCLE 5

recovery, an organisation is expected to have achieved considerable levels of economic and

physical stability. However, the period of recovery may vary depending on the extent of the

impact and effectiveness of planning efforts (Toft & Reynolds, 2016). This phase can range from

six to twelve months, or longer subject to the magnitude of the incident. A typical recovery

action plan is the development of strategic protocols that focus on the most important aspects of

the organisation. Stakeholders will seek new resources and strategic alliances to develop robust

recovery schemes. The affected organisation will further need to adopt steps that alleviate the

financial burden and reduce future vulnerability. The overall goal is ensuring business continuity,

the impact of the disaster notwithstanding.

Contextualising Disaster Cycle

While disaster management is not a new field, it has gained much attention in recent

decades due to the continuing nature of disasters. The development of disaster policy plans

seems to be based on information from past events (Amaratunga et al., 2018). Existing studies

show that the effectiveness of the disaster cycle and ensuring positive long-term effects are

complex undertakings. Devising an effective disaster management process requires consideration

of a wide spectrum of evidence from the past and incorporate different contexts to minimize

mishaps and maximize efficacy.

According to Amaratunga (2018), contextualisation is critical in the disaster cycle

because it allows for effective utilization of evidence from specific contexts or settings to make

evidence-based decisions and implement the relevant policies. The central theory underlying the

need for contextualisation is that a particular strategy in one instance of a disaster may not

always be effective in another. Based on this understanding, about 187 UN states endorsed the
DISASTER CYCLE 6

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015–2030 (UNISDR, 2015) to address

increasing losses due to disasters. The framework promotes risk mitigation practices in a wide-

ranging context. The model underscores the need for close working between stakeholders and

private sectors to develop opportunities for partnership and integrate new practices to solve

disaster risks as they manifest in different settings (Pearson & Pelling, 2015). Drawing from this

framework, it is evident that the effectiveness of the disaster cycle depends on contextual factors.

According to Wang et al. (2006), effective decision-making and implementation of

disaster-related policies depend on intervention transferability and applicability. An intervention

is transferable if it would deliver effectiveness to the level it can deliver in another setting. An

intervention is applicable if it is implementable in a given setting. This means the need to

appraise the exported outcome and the process of the disaster cycle in given settings.

Some information types are required to ascertain that past interventions of responding to

a disaster would work in a different setting: information about the intervention, disaster setting,

and the relationship between the intervention and specific setting (Amaratunga et al., 2018).

Determine the applicability of a past disaster intervention in a contemporary context requires an

understanding of contextual factors and variations from the previous setting (Wang et al., 2006).

This denotes the need to take broader environmental factors into account, including the target

population, capacity of stakeholders, and the scale of a disaster, organisational structures, and

sociocultural flexibility.

However, adequate information about the usefulness of flood intervention adopted by the

UK government, which is the case focus of this study, warrants further investigation. In 2007,

the UK experienced the worst floods in June and July. They are considered as the wettest months
DISASTER CYCLE 7

in Britain’s history c (Wainwright, 2007). The military joined efforts to rescue people and

property in affected areas of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Fire Brigade

Union (RAF) led the rescue operations where about 120 lives were saved. The aftermath was

characterized by crop damage, health risks due to stagnant water and financial costs due to the

large scale. The government response included increased spending on risk management and food

security from £200 to £800 million. About £46 million was offered as food aid in form of pay-

outs.

According to disaster information from the UK, floods are not a common occurrence.

Indeed, the worst case of flooding before 2007 happened more than 60 years ago (Weaver,

2007). An effective approach to flood, as provided by the disaster cycle requires that the UK

government prevent flooding disaster in the first place, prepare to handle the outcomes, respond

appropriately and undertake recovery initiatives. Besides, it is expected that the government

tailors these processes to the specific local factors and circumstances. The rationale is that some

previous disaster management approaches may not work with prevailing conditions. For

example, European Union countries suffered about 231 damaging floods between 1998 and

2009, and have progressively amended their flood management strategies because previous ones

seemed less effective (European Commission, 2019). This is where the role of prevention,

preparedness, response, and recovery comes into play. But how useful are these processes in the

context of the UK's 2007 flood management?

Strength and Weaknesses of Disaster Cycle

On a general scale, the disaster cycle is significantly relevant and applicable in the

government approach to address the floods disaster. The primary goals of the disaster cycle are
DISASTER CYCLE 8

to avoid or reduce losses from the hazards, provide promote assistance to the affected people and

organisations, and aid a fast recovery process (Khan et al., 2008). The UK government addressed

the disaster commendably at the surface level. Although the government did not completely

avoid the risk, it reduced the scale of damage to property and loss of lives by merely responding

to the disaster. For example, the efforts helped to save the lives of 120 people who would have

otherwise died of floods. However, the government did not comprehensively address the

occurrence as a continuing problem. The disaster cycle provides that addressing such

occurrences is a continuous process that stakeholders should build on for effectiveness (Khan et

al., 2008). Given that the country has had similar disasters before, it was expected that the recent

interventions be more effective. The recent interventions efforts are not fully compliant with

what Amaratunga et al. (2018) referred to as a contextualised approach.

An appraisal of individual elements of the disaster cycle reveals mixed strengths and

weaknesses in reference to the UK flood disaster. The prevention phase requires that the

stakeholders envisage the occurrence of a disaster and adopt relevant strategies to avert the risk

(Asghar et al., 2006). The UK fell short of preventing the disaster; either by underestimating the

potential impact or supposing that the drainage systems were adequately established to address

potential overflows. This flow is attributable to the incapacity to assess the vulnerability of

people and property in low-lying areas. Indeed, prevention is contingent on understanding risky

areas and avoiding them before disaster strikes. Therefore, while the prevention component

provides that an effective approach should begin with avoiding the risk, it does not guarantee that

all areas of vulnerability would be identified.

Given the history of major disasters in the UK and Europe in general, preparedness

becomes the most important element of the cycle. The government had been alerted of the
DISASTER CYCLE 9

possible flooding, but it did little to avert the crisis. Taking the warnings into account would have

been the basis of preparedness. It is expected that a repeated case of disaster should find more

preparedness to minimize the impact (Jaques, 2014). Based on this perspective, the case of the

UK shows inadequate planning by the government. The flooding caused chaos in many parts of

Wales and England, an indication that the responsible agencies or institutions did to prepare for

the heavy downpour. The UK government needs to learn from the aftermath to understand that

better preparedness is critical to control floods, particularly by identifying and protecting the

necessary drainage infrastructure. It is important to note that only one body should hold into

account the detrimental impact. As cited by Saeed and Kasim (2019), the presence of different

conflicting priorities necessitates the creation of a team or body whose role is to mainly

anticipate and plan for disaster management. Therefore, preparedness is particularly useful in

aiding the basic strategic planning of an approach to recurrent disasters such as flooding.

The response phase is equally important because it determines how best an agency reacts

after a disaster strikes. According to Bremer (2003), the effectiveness of planning manifests

through response actions. Some of the defining factors of an effective response are the

immediacy and appropriateness of the actions. However, the response by the government

attracted criticism, particularly for slow arrival in Home Counties. One in every five households

in Hull was damaged while ninety in every hundred schools reporting damages. The damages

amounted to about £100 million (Wainwright, 2007). The strength of “response” rests with the

fact that it outlines the key policies of response, including clarification and control of the

response, coordination and implementation of strategies at all levels, and learning from

experience to determine the best practices (Herbane, 2013). The response towards the floods by

the UK government reveals that these considerations were not taken into account. In particular,
DISASTER CYCLE 10

coordination lacked because responsibilities were distributed across four divisions, with no

particular team to hold accountable (Weaver, 2007). Had the government limited the response

control to a single department, it could have responded to the crisis in time and reduce the

detrimental impact. These realities show that the response phase is a strong tool through which

organisations can effectively address the aftermaths of disasters.

One of the areas where the government excelled in addressing the crisis is recovery. By

learning from the unwanted impact on people and property, the government developed short-

term and long-term strategies. In the short-term, it provided financial support to restore damaged

structured, and supported the reestablishment of businesses. This is consistent with the goal of

“recovery” processes as provided by the model: the most immediate aim of recovery is to restore

normalcy to guarantee continuity of life processes. In the long-term, the government developed

more robust planning for future incidents and prepared better response practices. Their

effectiveness cannot be ascertained when another disaster strikes. Nonetheless, the response

elements also provide a robust basis for appraising the UK government’s recovery efforts.

Stakeholder Roles

Stakeholders are individuals and organisations that may be affected or affected by a

disaster, and contribute to addressing the occurrence through mitigation, planning, response and

recovery (Mojtahedi & Oo, 2017). Addressing an emergency situation requires a multi-

stakeholder approach (Saeed & Kasim, 2019). The main and legal stakeholder in disaster

management is the government and related agencies at the national and local levels. The

different tiers of government form the forefront responders to emergence situations. The legally

mandated government agencies work through the four-phased disaster cycle: prevention,
DISASTER CYCLE 11

preparedness, response and recovery. Given the unpredictable and predictable nature of disasters,

the government shoulders the greater responsibility through Disaster Management units within

different departments (Saeed & Kasim, 2019). For example, the UK’s government responded to

the floods through emergency units at the county levels.

Another set of stakeholders are categorized as “other stakeholders” to complement

government efforts, including education institutions, private sector, media, community and

international agencies Saeed & Kasim, 2019). NGO’s contribute differently based on the

prevailing needs of a country. For example, the Red Cross complemented response efforts by

distributing freshwater to flood victims in the UK. The Environment Agency estimated the scale

of damage and advised the government of the financial needs of affected families and businesses

(Wainwright, 2007).

The media is another key stakeholder whose role is creating awareness about a disaster

and keeping stakeholders informed of developments (Saeed & Kasim, 2019). The participation

of the media has remained dynamic in the distribution of news before and after a disaster strikes.

Give the critical role of information; the media needs to progressively sharpen their content not

to compromise the disaster response mechanism. As explained by Ali (2013), the media has the

potential of promoting or disrupting response operations in emergency situations.

Education institutions are particularly important in support evidence-based insights

thro0ugh scholarly and research-driven evidence on best disaster response practices (Saeed &

Kasim, 2019). At the most basic, professionals in disaster management departments must have

the required academic foundations to effectively apply theoretical knowledge in solving disaster
DISASTER CYCLE 12

aftermaths. Every stakeholder in a governmental or non-governmental institution will benefit, or

deliver an effective response by applying scholarly knowledge in practice.

International agencies contribute through assistance to nations by framing reduction

strategies based on best practices proved in other contexts. They also participate in improving

literacy about hazards, especially in least-developed countries. They also provide technical

support, relief aid and skilled manpower. However, the UK seemed not to utilize the multi-

stakeholder approach across all phases of the disaster cycle to solve the flooding disaster, a

possible explanation of why it escalated than expected.

Conclusion

This paper shows that the disaster cycle and its individual components provide an

important framework for devising an effective approach to a disaster. The model becomes useful

only when stakeholders use it to understand and manage the disaster. The UK floods of 2007

provide a solid case of understanding possible areas of vulnerability in the overall cycle. The

cycle envisages the different stages in which a disaster develops, and provides a methodical

approach to dealing with it to alleviate the impact on people and property. Therefore, the

challenges faced by the UK government in response to the disaster are attributable to its

incapacity to fully utilize propositions of the disaster model.

References

Ali, Z. S. (2013). Media myths and realities in natural disasters. European Journal of Business

and Social Sciences, 2(1), 125-133.

Amaratunga, D., Malalgoda, C. I., & Keraminiyage, K. (2018). Contextualising mainstreaming

of disaster resilience concepts in the construction process. International journal of disaster

resilience in the built environment. 9(4) 348-367

Asghar, S., Alahakoon, D., & Churilov, L. (2006). A comprehensive conceptual model for

disaster management. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 1360(0222), 1-15.

Bremer, R. (2003). Policy development in disaster preparedness and management: lessons

learned from the January 2001 earthquake in Gujarat, India. Prehosp Disaster Med, 18(4),

372-384.

European Commission. (2019). Flood risk management - Water - Environment - European

Commission. Ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 28 December 2020, from

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/.

Hannah Ritchie (2014) - "Natural Disasters". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved

from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters' [Online Resource]

Herbane, B. (2013). Exploring crisis management in UK small‐and medium‐sized enterprises.

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(2), 82-95.

Jaques, T. (2014). Issue and crisis management. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
DISASTER CYCLE 14

Khan, H., Vasilescu, L. G., & Khan, A. (2008). Disaster management cycle-a theoretical

approach. Journal of Management and Marketing, 6(1), 43-50.

Kunz, N., Reiner, G., & Gold, S. (2014). Investing in disaster management capabilities versus

pre-positioning inventory: A new approach to disaster preparedness. International Journal of

Production Economics, 157, 261-272.

Mojtahedi, M., & Oo, B. L. (2017). Critical attributes for proactive engagement of stakeholders

in disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 35-43.

Pearson, L., & Pelling, M. (2015). The UN Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–

2030: Negotiation process and prospects for science and practice. Journal of Extreme

Events, 2(01), 1571001.

Saeed, A. F., & Kasim, N. (2019). Role of Stakeholders in Mitigating Disaster Prevalence:

Theoretical Perspective. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 266, p. 03008). EDP

Sciences.

Toft, B., & Reynolds, S. (2016). Learning from disasters. Springer.

Wainwright, M. (2007). Hull pleads for aid after floods damage one in five homes. Retrieved 28

December 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/05/weather.world.

Wang, S., Moss, J. R., & Hiller, J. E. (2006). Applicability and transferability of interventions in

evidence-based public health. Health promotion international, 21(1), 76-83.

Weaver, M. (2007). County by county: the flood response. Retrieved 28 December 2020, from

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/24/weather.world1.