week4

docx

School

University of South Australia *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5102

Subject

Information Systems

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AyonD

4. WEEK 4 - SYSTEMS APPROACHES IN EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT Systems thinking considers the ways in which factors interact and combine to give rise to the situations we observe. It may seem obvious when stated in that way, but we are often unused to thinking about things in these terms. Not only does human cognition naturally focus more on our immediate surroundings, but social approaches to issues often favour short-term conceptualisations (or at least ones that are easily digestible). However, the fact that systems interactions seem evident when pointed out mean that we have an instinctive understanding of their existence. Thus, systems thinking is a methodology and a habit - one which can be learned. WEEK 4 - SYSTEMS APPROACHES IN EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT 4.1. BACKGROUND When considering emergency management, it can be tempting to put the event and the hazards that the event poses at the centre of our perspective. This can happen even in a perspective based on the PPRR paradigm, which by its nature tends to encourage a slightly broader perspective, particularly in terms of time. There is certainly value on having a deep understanding, and even a degree of central focus, on how to deal with potential adverse effects and how to characterise concrete risks to populations. However, the extreme version of this focus is to view events as essentially isolated incidents, and give less thought to the factors that contribute to their causes and outcomes. This very narrow perspective, what might commonly be referred to as tunnel vision, is clearly not suitable to the imperatives of PPRR, nor of responding to emergencies in a complex real-world context. One approach that can assist us in avoiding an overly-narrow perspective is systems thinking. This term simply refers to the practice and worldview of considering events as arising from the interaction of factors and smaller-scale events over time. Systems theory has evolved over many years into, essentially, a separate field all to its own; as such, many elements of it are beyond the scope of this unit to consider in-depth. Systemic Disaster Risk Handbook | Case Study: Beck Dawson This video from AIDR introduces the aims, goals, and some details of applying a systems approach to disaster risk assessment. For professionals seeking to apply a generalist systems approach to their own field, or to other particular contexts which they navigate, it is sufficient to consider the approach formulated by Cabrera and Cabrera (2015), which provides a four-point basis for analysis.

Distinctions are the basis of characterising a system’s components. Anything (including tangible objects, phenomena, and ideas) can be distinguished from others based on its unique characteristics. This allows precise discussion of them and allows further analysis to be performed. For example, as we discussed in week 1, an emergency is a situation characterised by clearly-defined features, namely harm to people and/or property that requires the intervention of specialised services. A disaster is distinguished from an emergency by the scope and the scale; an emergency becomes a disaster when its scale exceeds the ability of local authorities to address. Systems are made up of clearly distinguished components. More importantly, a system is defined by the interactions between those components. A group of objects that do not interact with each other or influence each other in any way would instead be referred to as a collection. As such, defining a system also involves defining the relationships that exist between its components, and understanding how those relationships contribute to outcomes. For example, a systems view of a bushfire might consider its components to include material suitable for burning, high temperatures, low humidity, and a trigger event (such as a lightning strike or improper use of fire by humans). The exact degree of the high temperatures and low humidity influence the amount of material suitable for burning by, for example, drying plants and leaving brittle flammable matter on the ground. In turn, the increase in the amount of flammable matter makes any potential trigger event much riskier than it might be under different circumstances. Finally, a systems view requires the selection of an appropriate perspective. Once we begin focusing and characterising the interactions between things in our world, it can be very difficult to know where to draw the line. Everything on Earth is, ultimately, connected to everything else, and small-scale events can be influenced to some (or a great) degree by much larger ones – and vice versa. This concept was popularised by James Lovelock in his series of books on the “Gaia theory” of Earth as a self- regulating system (1995), which is closely related to the field of Earth system science. Another popular image of this issue comes from the mathematician Edward Lorenz, and his presentation on the “butterfly effect” (1972). Regardless of how we choose to imagine it, a perspective that includes the entire Earth and everything in it will almost certainly be excessive for certain applications, such as the practicalities of responding to a local incident, or the allocation of funding and resources to emergency preparedness at a city level. The selection of an appropriate perspective allows us to, in a sense, “reduce” issues to a manageable size and consideration. The selection of appropriate perspectives is also important because of the complexity of the systems involved. The natural events that lead to disasters are extremely complex, sometimes chaotic, and in many cases poorly understood by science. Additionally, humans create their own systems, and society is one of the most important of these. Society defines many of the physical characteristics of the environment, as we have seen in our mentions of land use, which become very important components of where and how disasters affect people’s lives. But it also creates many less tangible components that must be considered. Economic systems, for example, deal with real resources, but our ideas on the correct ways to distribute and manage them are based on conceptual systems which exist only in our minds.

Political systems are similarly based on the connections between ideas shared between individuals and groups. Social systems are, in certain ways, the least tangible of all, arising from the meanings assigned to the interactions between people, but can constrain people’s individual and collective behaviour. In the coming weeks, we will examine some of the structures in which emergency management operates, and how they impact on the theory and practice of the field. PREVIOUS NEXT WEEK 4 - SYSTEMS APPROACHES IN EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT 4.2. HOW BRAD PITT’S GREEN HOUSING DREAM FOR HURRICANE KATRINA SURVIVORS TURNED INTO A NIGHTMARE Week 5 Reading Activity: How Brad Pitt’s green housing dream for Hurricane Katrina survivors turned into a nightmare. Read “How Brad Pitt’s green housing dream for Hurricane Katrina survivors turned into a nightmare”, at https://theconversation.com/how-brad-pitts-green-housing- dream-for-hurricane-katrina-survivors-turned-into-a-nightmare-175597 . Then answer the following questions. 1. What are some factors that Make It Right did not take into account when building its houses? Why do you think the foundation might have made these mistakes? 2. What problems may have arisen from the fact that the houses were sold for less than the costs involved with building them? 3. Why do you think Make It Right’s attempts to “revitalise the Lower Ninth Ward” might have failed? (Consider: Where does Brad Pitt live?) 4. What kind of problems might have Make It Right’s failure caused in the lives of people who were depending on its houses? 5. Do you think the city seizing some of the abandoned houses will help the situation? Click here to provide your response.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

WEEK 4 - SYSTEMS APPROACHES IN EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT 4.3. WEEK 4 REVIEW QUESTIONS Week 4 Review Questions 1. What is systems thinking’s perspective on why events happen? 2. Why is it important to be able to distinguish between things clearly and consistently? 3. What does selecting a narrow perspective allow us to do? What does selecting a broad perspective allow us to do? 4. What are some examples of systems with non-tangible components? Do these systems ever have an impact on “real” (tangible) things? Click here to provide your response. WEEK 4 - SYSTEMS APPROACHES IN EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT 4.4. REFERENCES Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L. and Powers, E., (2015). A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(5), 534-545 Lorenz, E.N. (1972). “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?” Presented before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 29, 1972. Lovelock, J (1995) The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. Norton.

week4

Related Documents