1212 2332 1 SM

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/323808498
USING MODELS TO DEAL WITH HAZARDS AND DISASTERS: A TRAJECTORY

TOWARDS EFFECTIVE DISASTER MANAGEMENT IN ZIMBABWE
Article in PEOPLE International Journal of Social Sciences · March 2018

DOI: 10.20319/pijss.2018.41.111132
CITATIONS READS
7 13,896
1 author:
Ernest Dube
Marondera University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (MUAST)
21 PUBLICATIONS 395 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ernest Dube on 16 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899
Dube, 2018
Volume 4 Issue 1, pp.111-132
Date of Publication: 16th March 2018
DOI-https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.41.111132
This paper can be cited as: Dube, E. (2018). Using Models to Deal with Hazards and Disasters: A
Trajectory towards Effective Disaster Management In Zimbabwe. People: International Journal of Social
Sciences, 4(1), 111-132.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or send a
letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
USING MODELS TO DEAL WITH HAZARDS AND

DISASTERS: A TRAJECTORY TOWARDS EFFECTIVE
DISASTER MANAGEMENT IN ZIMBABWE
Ernest Dube
Department of Development Studies, Midlands State University, P.O B0x 9055, Gweru,
Zimbabwe
ernestdubeh@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
The contribution of models in the management of disasters has been less understood by some
practitioners. As such, the use of models seems to have been ignored by policy-makers and
practitioners when dealing with all forms of disasters in Zimbabwe. Various kinds of hazards
and disasters in Zimbabwe, that include droughts, floods, cholera epidemics and veld fires have
heavily impacted communities, resulting in the complexity of disaster management that calls for
the use of models. This desktop study sought to analyze the contribution of models in managing
hazards and disasters in Zimbabwe. The study was based on a qualitative literature survey and
document analysis. Through literature and document analysis, the study found that models are
crucial in disaster management as they can simplify practitioners’ understanding of hazards and
disasters. Models are also a useful and indispensable decision-making support tool as they can
assist the practitioners to make appropriate decisions. The study further found that models that
are common to the practitioners included the traditional model, expand-contract model, and the
disaster crunch model. Furthermore, a close relationship exists between the disaster
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 111

ISSN 2454-5899
management models. Most of the models are based on the disaster management phases of
mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Since the models play a significant role in the
management of hazards and disasters, the study concluded that they are an indispensable tool
and a proper trajectory towards managing disaster events in Zimbabwe. Therefore, the study
recommends the adoption of the models in the management of all forms of disasters. The
significance of this study is in its potential to inform policy and practice. The future scope should
focus on the nature of models applicable to selected disaster situations in Zimbabwe.
Keywords
Disaster, Disaster management, Disaster management models, Hazards, Practitioners
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Zimbabwe, in addition to South Africa and Mozambique, is one of the countries in
Southern Africa with a history of being affected by different kinds of disasters. Disasters in
Zimbabwe have increased in intensity and frequency in recent times, with the country
experiencing disasters such as floods, drought, veld fires, AIDS pandemic, cholera outbreaks and
transport accidents (Dube, 2015; Sillah, 2015). Disaster statistics can reveal that between 1980
and 2010, 35 natural disasters mainly droughts, floods, cyclones and epidemics have been
recorded in Zimbabwe, resulting in 6 448 deaths (Prevention Web 2012). The total number of
deaths from these natural disasters translates to an average of 208 deaths per year, which is very
high figure that should not be tolerated. Chaminuka and Dube (2017), note that the poor have
been the most vulnerable to disasters in human societies. Although the disasters have been
managed through various ways, the interventions employed by the Zimbabwe government
through Civil Protection Unit, a body mandated with the management of all forms of disasters,
have at times been ineffective owing to lack of use of disaster management models. The concept
of disaster management models, as an aid to deal with hazards and disasters is a practice that
originated some years ago. Some scholars and practitioners argue that models are needed in
order to improve existing systems (Salazar, 2015).
According to Baird (2010), the need for the use of models in disaster management was
first advocated by Kelly in 1998, and since then models have been used to describe, examine,
and understand disasters. Models can as well be used to manage various forms of disasters in
Zimbabwe in order to improve practitioners’ efficiency. This is so because the concern of

ISSN 2454-5899
governments, disaster managers and other like-minded practitioners has been that disasters have
resulted in huge human, material, economic and environmental losses in the country. According
to Das (2017) adverse shocks or threats to human development in societies can be attributed to
natural disasters as well. Such losses can be averted if the disasters are properly managed.
Globally disasters are occurring in larger scale, calling for policies and measures that analyze
their causes and consequences in order to strengthen the resilience of individuals, communities
and institutions (Hai & Smyth 2012). For example, China, Iran, Russia, Peru and Turkey are
countries enlisted as having the highest number of people killed from earthquake disasters in the
last 60 years (Akdag 2002). It was from such huge impact and massive losses from disasters, that
disaster practitioners and scholars alike, saw it prudent to come up with models as an aid to
managing disasters and other calamitous events.
The aim of disaster management is to reduce or avoid the potential losses from hazards,
to ensure prompt and appropriate assistance to victims of disasters and to achieve rapid and
effective recovery (Othman & Beydoun 2012). Asghar, Alahakoon and Churilov (2006) note that
in 1998, Kelly advocated the need for theoretical models that would help simplify the complexity
of the disaster management system, and possible minimize disaster impact. This was after the
realization that disaster management may involve a large number of players, resulting in chaos,
confusion and conflict if there is no proper model put in place. This is one of the reasons this
study is supporting the adoption of models in the management of disasters in Zimbabwe.
Because of the growing concern about the increasing disaster losses, a number of models for
dealing with disasters have therefore, been added to academic literature, with the models being
categorized into four types encompassing logical models, integrated models, causal models and
models that do not fall under any of these categories (Asghar et al. 2006).
In order to analyze the contribution and usefulness of disaster management models in
Zimbabwe, this study was based on the following three principal objectives:
 To discuss the purpose of models in the field of disaster management

 To establish the common types of models used in disaster management
 To analyze the contribution of models in the management of disaster events in Zimbabwe
It is from the above stated objectives, that the study later came up with its findings,
recommendations and conclusions.

ISSN 2454-5899
1.1 Statement of the problem

Some scholars, policymakers and practitioners continue to ask themselves about the
contribution of models in the management of disastrous events. The main source of concern
being that despite the growing number of disasters, the contribution of models in disaster
management seems to be less understood. In Zimbabwe while some practitioners seem to be
skeptical about the contribution of models, they also seem to lack appropriate knowledge on the
usefulness of the models. As such, this study argues that disaster management strategies in
Zimbabwe, which are usually implemented though the Civil Protection Unit, have been less
effective due to either none use of or little knowledge of the models. As a result, the
communities have continued to lose property, human capital, and livelihoods due to poor disaster
management approaches that are devoid of models use. Platt (2015) asserts that from his disaster
management experience, models are little used by disaster managers. Fussel (2007) gives
examples of the pressure-and-release model and the resilience approach model, which he feels
have not been widely applied in the context of climate change.
In Zimbabwe, models have scarcely been used despite the continued occurrence of many
disasters that have resulted in major human, material, economic and environmental losses. Even
where models have been used, they have contributed little to the field of disaster management
because they seem to be less understood by practitioners. However, Alexander (1997) noted that
there is room for improvement in the use of models so that losses such as deaths resulting from
disasters can be reduced. The use of some models has also ignored the gendered aspects of
vulnerability and capacity in disaster management, leading to their contribution being (Hai &
Smyth 2012). This study strongly argues that if models are not properly applied in the
management of hazards and disasters in Zimbabwe, communities would continue to suffer huge
losses. As such, the contribution of models when dealing with disasters in Zimbabwe needs to be
improved. When effectively used, disaster management models may help in minimizing disaster
impact and losses.
2. Literature on disaster management models

Literature on the use of disaster management models has continued to grow as scholars
try to navigate the disaster management terrain. As a desktop research, this study interrogated the
body of literature in order to understand the contribution of models in the management of

ISSN 2454-5899
disasters in general and in Zimbabwe in particular. As part of the literature study, document
analysis of the most recent scholarly publications was done in order to understand the purpose of
models; common types of models used in managing disasters; and the contribution of models in
managing disasters. These are the principal objectives that this study sought to fulfill. The term
model according to Klein and Romero (2007: 243) refers to ‘a system of functions and
conditions that yield formal results ...’. It is such a system, that this study envisages should exist
in the management of various forms of disasters in Zimbabwe so that the results desired by
practitioners can be achieved.
2.1 The purpose of models in disaster management
Models in disaster management can serve many purposes in shaping many lives in human
societies. One such purpose is that models can simplify one’s understanding of how things
happen, for what purpose and how problems affecting people and their environment can be
solved. Hussain (2013) notes that in the field of disaster management, models are based on the
understanding that disasters are temporary interruptions to development processes, and that the
job of disaster practitioners is to take appropriate action to quickly return to the normal the
course of development. This suggests that models are there to be implemented and enforced by
disaster practitioners, a situation that should be prevailing in a country like Zimbabwe. However
if models are not properly enforced, even good models may turn out to be of little significance.
Kelly (1998) has proffered four major reasons to demonstrate the purpose of models in disaster
management. The reasons are as follows:
1. Models can be used to simplify complex events through distinguishing between critical
elements. The usefulness of models is more realized when there is need to respond to
disasters within a short possible time.
2. Comparing actual conditions with a theoretical model can lead to an improved
understanding of the prevailing disaster situation, and thus facilitating the planning
process and the effective implementation of plans related to disaster management.
3. The presence of a model for disaster management is also an essential element in
quantifying disaster situations or events.

ISSN 2454-5899
4. When documented, models help to establish a common understanding between various

stakeholders involved in managing disasters. It also affords the smooth integration of
disaster relief and recovery efforts.
By closely scrutinizing the four main conditions of models given by Kelly (1998), one is
rightly tempted to conclude that the use of models in disaster management cannot be dispensed
with. It is clear that good disaster management models can quantify disaster events in Zimbabwe
through determining measurable losses from disasters. Disaster management models can
therefore, play a significant role in Zimbabwe if they are properly implemented.
2.2 The most common types of models used to manage disasters
Various models have been used by practitioners to manage hazards and disaster events in
the field of disaster management. Through document analysis, this study identified and discussed
four common types of disaster management models. These are the prominent models that have
been used regularly in the field. The four models identified by the study are the traditional model
or disaster management continuum model (ADPC 2000), the expand-contract model (Marcus
2005), the disaster crunch model (Blaikie et al. 1994), and the Kimberly model (Kimberly 2003).
2.2.1 The traditional model
The traditional disaster management continuum model is the earliest model to be used in
the field of disaster management. The model (Figure 1) views the management of disasters as a
continuous process rather than a static event. According to ADPC (2000), the traditional
continuum model comprises the four distinct phases of mitigation, preparedness, response and
recovery.

ISSN 2454-5899
Figure 1: The traditional continuum model

Source: Coburn, A.W., Spence, R.J.S. & Pomonis, A. (1994). Disaster mitigation, 2nd edn.
Cambridge Architectural Research: Cambridge.
The traditional model (Figure 1) assumes that hazards and disasters can be managed
through a sequence of activities in each of the main four phases of mitigation, preparedness,
response and recovery. According to the traditional model, activities which are aimed at reducing
the negative effects of potential disaster are carried out during the first stages of the model. This
model can be applied in the management of disasters in Zimbabwe because it is easy to
understand and implement. The model also makes it easy to understand and appreciate disaster
events. The traditional model is simple to follow and puts mitigation and preparedness phases
before occurrence of disaster, whilst response and recovery phases come after disaster impact.
The mitigation phase entails eliminating or reducing the threats as possible and
appropriate (Manitoba 2000). It is worthwhile to note that mitigation also encompasses some
elements of the preparedness phase, for example, the provision of early warming, public
education and resource mobilization. The preparedness phase on the other hand, consists of
putting in place systems which can handle any possible disaster. For instance, response
mechanisms, vulnerability assessment and setting up an institutional framework. Sillah (2015)
adds that the preparedness phase involves putting in place measures that allow people to react in
the face of disaster. However, this phase does not nullify occurrence of any possible disaster. The
response stage follows soon after disaster occurrence, with its major aim being to provide

ISSN 2454-5899
essential emergency services to the disaster affected populations. This phase entails activities
such as search and rescue, distribution of food items, and provision of medication. After the
response phase comes recovery, which is the last stage of the traditional model. Recovery entails
long term actions taken after disaster impact with, a view to restoring infrastructure and services
(Baas, Ramasamy, DePryck & Battista 2008). For example, it entails amongst other programs,
the construction of permanent infrastructure such as houses, dams, roads, and railways.
Critics of the traditional model have however argued that the model seems to focus a lot
on activities for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. As such, the model seems to
overlook a proper analysis of disaster risks and vulnerabilities in communities. It is further
argued that the model also seems to ignore how to deal with the distribution of resources to the
affected populations. The traditional model can however, be used as a form of intervention
towards managing disasters in Zimbabwe because of its usefulness. The next subsection
discusses the expand-contract model (Figure 2), which some scholars argue was created to cover
some weaknesses of the traditional model.
2.2.2 The expand-contract model
The expand-contract model (Figure 2) challenges the sequential structure of activities
proposed in the traditional model, while advocating for community involvement in disaster
management. Therefore, the model is a community-based disaster management tool, as it
assumes that disasters occur when a hazard overwhelms a vulnerable community.
Figure 2: The expand-contract model

ISSN 2454-5899
Source: Atmanand, R. (2003). Insurance and disaster management: The Indian context. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 12(4):286–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0965356 0310493105
According to DPLG-2 (1998), activities in the expand-contract model (Figure 2) can
occur simultaneously, and also continue side by side, expanding or contracting as needed. Each
strand of the model varies, depending on the existing relationship between the hazard and the
community’s conditions of vulnerability. This therefore, suggests that many activities for disaster
interventions can be carried out at the same time when dealing with various disasters in
Zimbabwe. During disasters situations, the expand-contract model highlights that vulnerabilities
of communities are more pronounced than the capacities that the communities possess (Kieft &
Nur 2001). According to Dube (2015), a notable feature of the expand-contract model is that it
overcomes the major weaknesses of the traditional model, which views disasters as managed in a
phased sequence.
However, just like any model the expand-contract model is not without criticism. One
notable limitation of the model is that it explains the parallel nature of activities, without
explaining the cause and effect relationship. Furthermore, the expand-contract model does not
explain the available disaster risks. The weaknesses of the cause and effect perspective that the
expand-contract model ignores, can be addressed by the strengths of the disaster crunch model
(Figure 3). However, despite its weaknesses, the expand-contract model can still be useful in
analyzing disasters in the Zimbabwean context.
2.2.3 The disaster crunch model
The disaster crunch model (Figure 3) has been viewed as a framework of understanding
and analyzing the causes of disasters (ADPC 2000; Heijmans, 2001; Caymaz, 2004). This is one
aspect that the expand-contract model ignores.

ISSN 2454-5899
Figure 3: The disaster crunch model

Source: Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B. (1994). At risk: natural hazards, people's
vulnerability and disasters. Routledge: London.
According to Blaikie et al (1994), the crunch model (Figure 3) adopts a cause and effect
perspective because of its focus on the causes and impact of disaster. The model is also
understood to analyze vulnerabilities and coping capacities of disaster affected communities.
According to the crunch model (Figure 3), the progression of vulnerability of a
community is revealed. Furthermore, the underlying causes that fail to satisfy the demands of the
people are identified (Asghar et. al 2006). This model goes further to estimate the dynamic
pressures and unsafe conditions (Figure 3). The model is important as it can help practitioners to
understand and react to people’s vulnerability to disasters (Hai & Smyth 2012). It therefore,
explains the relationship between natural hazards and vulnerabilities of communities, making the
model applicable in Zimbabwe disaster situations. Hai and Smyth (2012) assert that the crunch
model helps practitioners to understand and react to disaster vulnerabilities facing people.
According to this model, a disaster happens only when a hazard affects vulnerable people (Hai &
Smyth 2012). Cyr (2005) notes that pressure can be released on those communities vulnerable to
risk by decreasing or eliminating the various root causes, dynamic forces, and/or unsafe
conditions available.

ISSN 2454-5899
However, the disaster crunch model has also not been spared from criticism of scholars
and practitioners. Turner et al. (2003) have argued that the crunch model lacks the feedback in
the system. Cutter et al. (2008) noted that the model tracks the progression of vulnerability from
the root causes, through to dynamic pressures, and to unsafe conditions, but fails to adequately
address the coupled human–environment system associated with the proximity hazards. Despite
its weaknesses, the advantages of crunch model can be employed to study and understand
hazards and disasters in Zimbabwe.
2.2.3 Kimberly’s model for managing complex disaster events
Kimberly (2003) also came up with a model, which he also condensed to the four phases
of mitigation, preparation, response and recovery (Figure 4).
Recovery
Response
Mitigation Preparation
Figure 4: The Kimberly Model

Source: Kimberly (2003). Disaster preparedness in Virginia Hospital Center-Arlington after
Sept 11, 2001. Disaster Management and Response, 1(3): 80-86.
According to the Kimberly model (Figure 4), mitigation and preparation stages of
disaster management are located at the bottom level, whilst the recovery stage is situated at the
top. The model also shows the response phase as the largest, longest and most visible stage of
disaster management (Albtoush, Dobrescu & Ionescou, 2011). However, this study argues that
the recovery stage is largest and longest phase of disaster management. However, the model still
remains suitable for managing complexity in disasters in the Zimbabwean set up. By situating
the stages of mitigation and preparation at the same bottom level of the model (Figure 4), the
model suggests that the two phases are the driving force for successful disaster response. The
recovery stage is at the top of the model, as it illustrates what remains after the response stage. In

ISSN 2454-5899
addition, this study argues that the recovery stage is at the summit to emphasize it as the longest
and costly period of disaster management.
One weakness of the Kimberly model is that it can be used only in specific disaster
situations, as it requires suitably trained employees in order to effectively deal with all the stages
of disaster management. The model also has a bias towards the management of disasters
occurring in health institutions, than in any other contexts (Albtoush et al., 2011). Because of the
bias towards the health sector, the model may suffer a limited scope in the management of
disasters in Zimbabwe as disasters in the country are usually managed through a multi-sectoral
approach. Further, the Kimberly model requires high budget for well trained and skilled
employees. This may be a challenge in Zimbabwe considering that the CPU, which manages all
forms of disasters, is usually ill-resourced financially. As such, the model may not always be
suitable as a disaster intervention in Zimbabwe.
2.3 Are models really useful in disaster management?
Previous research has shown that the usefulness of the models as a tool for effective
disaster management cannot be overemphasized. By comparing actual conditions with a
theoretical model can improve an understanding of disasters, thereby facilitating better planning
and appropriate action. In some situations where disaster management models have been applied,
it has been noted that the models have proved to be relevant and very useful. For instance,
Oxfam has used disaster models as a framework for situation analysis in its guidelines for
Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Assessment (PCVA) (Hai & Smyth 2012). Models have
also been used in dealing with disasters of high magnitude too. For example, the model of
disaster recovery was applied to deal with the 2010 Maule earthquake and tsunami in Chile, and
the 2011 Van earthquake in Turkey (Platt 2015). This type of model helped the disaster
responders to adopt appropriate decisions in order to effectively and efficiently deal with the
phenomena. Patterson, Weil and Patel (2009) argue that decision-making in a disaster situation is
unique and has great implications for individuals and communities, therefore, models are a good
aid in coming up with good decisions. Such decisions may encompass Meta decisions which are
taken by politicians and policy makers, operational decisions which are made by disaster
managers, and planning decisions which are made by planners (Platt 2015). The above decisions
are also applicable in Zimbabwe when dealing with disasters because politicians, disaster
practitioners and planners all get involved in disaster situations. Therefore, models may be an aid

ISSN 2454-5899
to assess resilience and preparedness of communities at risk of disasters in Zimbabwe. Another

example of a major disaster that demonstrated the need for sound models in planning, swift
execution and efficient accountability was Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (Anderson-Berry 2003).
Following Hurricane Katrina occurrence, Paul and Batta (2011) offered a model for optimal
relocation of hospital facilities in order to improve hurricane disaster preparedness. This move
demonstrated the applicability of models in developing disaster plans such as hospital capacity
and ambulance reallocation, through a case study on New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina.
Anderskov (2004) also observes that the Mozambique flood in Mutara District was analyzed
through the Pressure and Release Model (PAR), which helped practitioners to identify past,
existing and potential hazards and vulnerabilities.
It can be as well argued that the use of models can also effectively contribute to the
management of human-induced disasters. For example, lessons learnt from the Bhopal disaster,
the Tylenol poisoning, and the explosion of space shuttle challenger indicated that disaster
models were useful (Shrivastava 1992). In the aftermaths of these events, Shrivastava (1992)
proposed a model for dealing with industrial crisis through a comparison of the three disaster
events. Shrivastava’s model can also be used in the management of related industrial disasters in
Zimbabwe, so as to minimize associated losses. It is important to prevent previous mistakes by
presenting an efficient disaster model at the strategic level in order to cope with all kinds of
disasters (Caymaz, Akyon & Erenel 2013). In such cases, the coordinating agency in Zimbabwe,
which is the Department of Civil Protection, should be in a position to understand roles to be
played by different stakeholders. Whatever the disaster model is chosen, coordinating agents
need to allow government agencies and organizations with specific experience in a certain sector
or areas, to assume the responsibility for response efforts in those sectors or areas (Moore,
Trujillo, Stearns, Basurtodávila & Evans 2007). This scenario currently prevails in the
Zimbabwean context and it is a step towards the right trajectory.
However, a major criticism that applies to all disaster management models was given by
Stetler (2001, 2010), who argued that all disaster management models tend to be more
prescriptive, specific and with a narrow scope. It is for this reason that some policymakers,
agencies and practitioners have seemingly, doubted the contribution of models in disaster
management. However, this author still argues that models in the management of disasters
remain useful.

ISSN 2454-5899
3. Research Methodology employed

This study was based on desktop research. It was based on literature survey and
document analysis, with the researcher analyzing the body of literature from publications in
order to understand the contribution of models in managing disasters in Zimbabwe. The
publications studied included recent journal articles, books, conference presentations and other
useful related documents. Through survey of the literature and document analysis, the researcher
came up with the findings, from which recommendations and conclusions were drawn.
4. Data presentation and Discussion

This part of the study presents and discusses the findings of the study. The findings were
derived from a thorough analysis of the relevant literature and documents. Through the analysis
of literature, the study came up with thematic areas which emerged as follows: Purpose of
models in the field of disaster management; four common types of disaster management models;
the contribution of models in managing disasters in Zimbabwe; and, the relationship between the
disaster management models.
4.1 Purpose of models in the field of disaster management
Models can serve many purposes in the field of disaster management. From literature
data analysis, this study found that models can simplify an understanding of disaster events in
Zimbabwe. This means that all disasters in Zimbabwe can be managed through the use of
suitable models. Another major finding was that models can be implemented and enforced by
those with a mandate to deal with disasters, especially disaster managers or practitioners. In the
Zimbabwean context, the CPU too can rely on models to deal with disaster events. These
findings support Kelly (1998), who summed up the purpose of models by stating that models can
be used to simplify complex events through distinguishing between critical elements, and that
comparing actual conditions with a theoretical model can lead to an improved understanding of
the prevailing disaster situation, and thus facilitating the planning process and effective
implementation of plans related to disaster management. It therefore means that models should
not be taken for granted, as they are an indispensable tool for disaster management that cannot be
overlooked.

ISSN 2454-5899
4.2 Common types of disaster management models

This study discussed and analyzed four disaster management models. The study found
that the four models that have been favored by practitioners in the management of hazards and
disasters and included the traditional model, the expand-contract model, and the disaster crunch
model. Of these models, the traditional model, the expand-contract model and the crunch model
were found to be the most common types of the models. However, the study further found that
more than one model, may be adopted to deal with hazards and disasters at a time. This is in line
with Moore et al. (2007), who found that there is no single model for achieving good disaster
response in disaster management.
Table 1 presents the models in the order in which they were found to be common in being
used by disaster management practitioners. The table is the author’s creation emanating from the
literature and document analysis.
Table 1: Common models used by disaster practitioners
Name of Model Description of the model Major limitation of the
model
Traditional Its stages are sequential. Focuses on Model overlooks an analysis of
continuum model activities for pre and post disaster disaster risks and
occurrence. vulnerabilities
Expand-contract Its stages and activities occur Ignores the cause-effect
model simultaneous and in parallel. They are relationship
not sequential.
Disaster crunch Describes disaster as a point where It fails to adequately address
model hazard and vulnerability meet. It the coupled human–
shows the cause and effect relationship environment system associated
of activities. with the proximity to a hazard.
Kimberly model Gives more importance to the recovery Has bias towards the
stage, followed by response. It places management of disasters
recovery at the top of all the stages and occurring in health institutions
puts preparedness and mitigation at the and requires suitably trained
same level. personnel.
Source: Author
As can be observed, the traditional model is the most common model to most scholars
and practitioners, followed by the expand-contract model (Table 1). The disaster-crunch model is
third, whilst the Kimberly model is the fourth and last common model. Each of the four models
serves different purposes in the field of disaster management. This study found that each model
is unique in its description and approach towards disasters. As such, the limitations associated

ISSN 2454-5899
with each model are also reflected in the table (Table 1). The hierarchy of the arrangement shows
the level of understanding in which most scholars and practitioners perceive and interpret the
models in the field of disaster management.
Finally, the study found that the first three models can be easily applied to manage
disasters in Zimbabwe, serve for the Kimberly that may be met with certain challenges as it
requires special expertise and special funding.
4.3 The contribution of models in managing disasters in Zimbabwe
This study found that models are a useful and indispensable tool for effective disaster
management in Zimbabwe. They can be used to describe and understand disasters through
simplifying them. These findings agree with the thinking of Platt (2015), who views a model as a
decision-making support tool that can aid in adopting appropriate decisions for dealing with the
disasters effectively. The findings further advance the work of Wada, Wakigawa, Yokomatsu
and Takeya (2014), who found that it was important to develop decision-making supporting tools
in the form of models in order to quantify the impact of disasters. Another finding of the study
was that models were also useful in dealing with past major disaster events. Previous events that
were analyzed included the 2010 Maule earthquake and tsunami in Chile, the 2011 Van
earthquake in Turkey, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in the United States of
America, the 2000 Mozambique flood in Mutara District, and the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India
(Platt 2015). For these events to be dealt with more effectively, the models improved the
understanding of the disaster events and different roles of the stakeholders involved, resulting in
proper planning and implementation of appropriate decisions. This scenario also makes the use
of models suitable for the Zimbabwean situation, in which the CPU allows different stakeholders
to partake in the management of disasters. Therefore, models can make a unique and meaningful
contribution to the management of disasters in Zimbabwe.
However, the study also found that although models are a useful tool for disaster risk
management, good models may be of little significance if there are no meaningful efforts
towards their implementation. For them to be more effective, models need to be properly used,
including being combined so that weaknesses of one model can be outdone by the strengths of
another.

ISSN 2454-5899
4.4 The relationship between the disaster management models

Some relationship exists between the disaster management models that were analyzed in
this study. This study found that although the traditional disaster model was the first model to be
adopted for use in managing disasters, there are similarities between the studied disaster
management models. One similarity is that each one of the models endeavors to correct the
weaknesses of another. For example, the expand-contract model tries to challenge the sequence
of stages in the traditional disaster management continuum, by running the stages in a parallel
format. This finding echoes Dube (2015)’s view, who indicated that all the activities in the
expend-contract model can take place simultaneously. Instead of carrying out activities in a
sequence, the expand-contract model shows that they can also be done at the same time. Again,
the study found that the models are closely related to each other in that most of them are based
on the four main phases of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. The findings support
the view of previous researchers, who found that the phases of mitigation, preparedness,
response and recovery are the core of many disaster management models (Joyce et al. 2009). Of
the studies models, only the crunch model overlooks these stages in its structures. Due to the fact
that most models rely on the four main stages, the study found that this makes each of the studied
models to easily address the weaknesses of another or other models. Another major finding was
that all disaster management models have one major aim – that of acting as a disaster
management decision-making support tool, thereby improving approach to hazards and disasters
affecting communities. Therefore, in order to effectively implement the disaster models in
Zimbabwe, their relationship should be highly considered.
5. Study Recommendations
The following are the recommendations emanating from the findings. The study
recommends that governments, policy-makers, disaster planners and practitioners in Zimbabwe
adopt and effectively use models in managing disasters. It is further recommended that scholars
and practitioners continue to come up with new and improved models that are capable of
addressing contemporary disaster management issues. For them to be more effective, this study
recommends the combined use of disaster management models to address more complex
situations. This study has a potential to inform policy and practice as it may benefit governments,
policy-makers, disaster practitioners and the academe.

ISSN 2454-5899
6. Research Conclusions
Conclusions may be drawn from this research based on the findings of the study. One
such conclusion is that models can play a significant role in the field of disaster management.
They act as a decision-making support tool before, during and after disaster events. As such their
role cannot be ignored by stakeholders in Zimbabwe. Major decisions, such as Meta decisions by
policy-makers, planning decisions by disaster planners and operational decisions by disaster
managers can be effectively influenced by the use of models. The study further concluded that
the Kimberly model may not be ideal in less developed countries like Zimbabwe, because of its
heavy reliance on huge budgets, high level of expertise and its bias towards health institutions.
The Zimbabwean situation, which is characterized by different kinds of disasters, needs models
that are relevant to all forms of disasters. This study also concluded that a close relationship
exists between the various models of disaster management. For instance, all the models aim to
help in minimizing disaster impact. Furthermore, the models are similar as many of them are
based on the main phases of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Again, each model
for disaster management is crafted in such a way that it endeavors to correct the shortcomings of
earlier model or models. As such, one other major conclusion of the study was that new models
in the field of disaster management are a panacea and should continue to be proposed. The
strengths of new models would help to make up for weaknesses of older r models. However, no
matter how good a model for disaster management may be, the study concluded that models may
not serve their purpose unless there is commitment towards their implementation. This study
therefore, strongly concludes that the use of models to manage disasters is a step towards the
right trajectory for disaster management practitioners.
7. Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship which may have
inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
8. Disclaimer
The author declares that the paper in whole has not been previously published and is not
under consideration elsewhere.

ISSN 2454-5899
References
Akdag, S.E. (2002). Mali yapı ve denetim boyutlarıyla afet yönetimi, T.C. Sayıstay Yayınları,
First edition: Ankara.
ADPC. (2000). Community based disaster management (CBDM): Trainer's guide, module 4:
Disaster Management. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC). Bangkok,
Thailand.
Albtoush, R., Dobrescu, R. & Ionescou, F. (2011). A hierarchical model for emergency
management systems. U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series C, 73 (2):53-62.
Alexander, D. (1997). The study of natural disasters, 1977-1997: Some reflections on a changing
field of knowledge. Disasters, 21(4): 284-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00064
Anderskov, C. (2004). Anthropology and disaster: An analysis of current trends within
anthropological disaster research, and an attempt to construct an approach that
facilitates theory building and applied practices: Analysed with vantage point in a case
study from the flood-prone Mutarara District in Mozambique. MA. Thesis, Department
of Ethnography and Cultural Anthropology, University of Aarhus.
Anderson-Berry, L. (2003). Community vulnerability to tropical cyclones: Cairns, 1996–2000.
Natural Hazards, 30(2): 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026170401823
Asghar, S., Alahakoon, D. & Churilov, L. (2006). A comprehensive conceptual model for
disaster management. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 1360(222):1-15.
Atmanand, R. (2003). Insurance and disaster management: The Indian context. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 12(4):286–304. Baas, S., Ramasamy, S., DePryck, J.D. &
Battista, F. (2008). Disaster risk management analysis: A guide book. FAO: Rome.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B. (1994). At risk: natural hazards, people's
vulnerability and disasters. Routledge: London.
Cannon, T. (2004). At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters". Proceedings of
the CENAT Conference, Switzerland 28 November - 3 December, 2004.
Caymaz, E., Akyon, V.F. & Erenel, F. (2013). A model proposal for efficient disaster
management: the Turkish sample. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99: 609 –
618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.531
Chaminuka, N. & Dube, E. (2017). ‘Urban agriculture as a food security strategy for urban
dwellers: a case study of Mkoba residents in the city of Gweru, Zimbabwe’, PEOPLE:

ISSN 2454-5899
International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), pp. 26 – 45.

https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.2645
Coburn, A.W., Spence, R.J.S. & Pomonis, A. (1994). Disaster mitigation, 2nd edn. Cambridge
Architectural Research: Cambridge.
Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate et al. (2008). A place-based
model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. University of South
Carolina: SC.
Cyr, F.St. (2005). At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Journal of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2(2), Art 4. Retrieved 6 November
2016, from https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1131
Das, P. & Das, A. (2017). Environmental vulnerabilities index formulation in fragile ecosystem
of the Indian Sundarbans. MATTER: International Journal of Science and Technology,
Vol. 3(1), 36 – 58. https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/Mijst.2017.31.3658
DPLG-2. (1998). Green paper on disaster management: chapter 2 and 3. Retrieved 12 December
2016, from http://www.local.gov.za/DCD/policydocs/gpdm/gpdm2-3.html.
Dube, E. (2015). Improving disaster risk reduction capacity of District Civil Protection Units in
managing veld fires: A case of Mangwe District in Matabeleland South Province,
Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 7(1), Art. #143, 13 pages.
https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v7i1.143
Fussel, H.M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate
change research. Global Environmental Change, 17: 155–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002
Hai, V.M. & Smyth, I. (2012). The disaster crunch model: guidelines for a gendered approach.
Oxfam GB: Oxford.
Heijmans, A. (2001). Vulnerability: A matter of perception. Disaster management working paper
4/2001. Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College of London:
London.
Hussain, Z. (2013). Disaster and vulnerability from people’s perspective. NIRAPAD Secretariat,
19/13 Babar Road, Mohammadpur: Dhaka.

ISSN 2454-5899
Joyce, K.E., Wright, K.C., Samsonov, S.V. & Ambrosia, V.G. (2009). Remote sensing and the
disaster management cycle. GNS Science, New Zealand. In Advances in Geoscience
and Remote Sensing, Ed. Gary Jedlovec. InTech Open Access.
Kelly, C. (1998). Simplifying disasters: Developing a model for complex non-linear events.
Proceedings of International Conference on Disaster Management: Crisis and
Opportunity: Hazard Management and Disaster Preparedness in Australasia and the
Pacific Region, Cairns, Queensland, Australia, pp. 25-28, 1-4 November, 1998.
Kieft, J. & Nur, A. (2001). Community-based disaster management: a response to increased risks
to disaster with emphasis on forest fires. Retrieved 10 November 2016, from
www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC798E/ac798e0e.htm
Kimberly, A. (2003). Disaster preparedness in Virginia Hospital Center-Arlington after Sept 11,
2001. Disaster Management and Response, 1(3): 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1540-
2487(03)00048-8
Klein, D.B. & Romero, P.P. (2007). Model building versus theorizing: The Paucity of Theory in
the Journal of Economic Theory. Econ Journal Watch, 4(2): 241-71.
Manitoba Health. (2000). Disaster management model for the health sector. Guidelines for
program development. Manitoba Health.
Marcus, O. (2005). A conceptual framework for risk reduction. World Conference of Disaster
Reduction, Kobe, Japan, 18-22 January 2005.
Moore, M., Trujillo, H.R., Stearns, B.K., Basurtodávila, R. & Evans, D. (2007). Models of relief
learning from exemplary practices in international disaster management. RAND Center
for Domestic and International Health Security.
Othman, S.H. & Beydoun, D. (2012). Evaluating disaster management knowledge model by
using a frequency-based selection technique. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7457:
21-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32541-0_2
Patterson, O., Weil, F. & Patel, K. (2009). The role of community in disaster response:
Conceptual models. Popul Res Policy Rev, 29:127–141
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-009-9133-x
Paul, J. & Batta, R. (2011). Improving hurricane disaster preparedness: Models for optimal
reallocation of hospital capacity. International journal of Operations Research, 10(2):
194-213. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOR.2011.038584

ISSN 2454-5899
Platt, S. (2015). A decision-making model of disaster resilience and recovery. SECED 2015
Conference: Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World, 9-10 July
2015, Cambridge.
Salazar, G.S. (2015). A strategic needs-based community health administration model for social
development and administrative reform: A case study of an urban municipality in the
Philippines, PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences 2(1), pp.1490-1503.
http://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.14901503
Shrivastava, P. (1992). Bhopal, anatomy of a crisis. 2nd ed., Paul Chapman Publishing: London.
Sillah, R.M. (2015). A call to establish a child-centered disaster management framework in
Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 7(1), Art. #148, 7 pages.
http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/jamba.v7i1.148
Turner II, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L.,
Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A. &
Schiller, A. (2003). Framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100: 8074–8079. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100
Stetler, C.B. (2001). Updating the Stetler model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-
based practice. Nurs Outlook, 49: 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1067/mno.2001.120517
Stetler, C.B. (2010). Stetler model. In J. Rycroft-Malone and T. Bucknall (Eds.), Models and
frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice. Wiley Blackwell: Oxford.
Wada, K., Wakigawa, H., Yokomatsu, M. & Takeya, K. (2014). The role of a macro-economic
model for disaster risk reduction policy in developing countries. Journal of Integrated
Disaster Risk Management, 4(1): 12-29. https://doi.org/10.5595/idrim.2014.0088
View publication stats

1212 2332 1 SM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1212 2332 1 SM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1212 2332 1 SM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

USING MODELS TO DEAL WITH HAZARDS AND DISASTERS: A TRAJECTORY

Article in PEOPLE International Journal of Social Sciences · March 2018

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

USING MODELS TO DEAL WITH HAZARDS AND

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 111

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 112

 To discuss the purpose of models in the field of disaster management

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 113

1.1 Statement of the problem

2. Literature on disaster management models

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 114

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 115

4. When documented, models help to establish a common understanding between various

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 116

Figure 1: The traditional continuum model

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 117

Figure 2: The expand-contract model

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 118

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 119

Figure 3: The disaster crunch model

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 120

Figure 4: The Kimberly Model

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 121

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 122

to assess resilience and preparedness of communities at risk of disasters in Zimbabwe. Another

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 123

3. Research Methodology employed

4. Data presentation and Discussion

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 124

4.2 Common types of disaster management models

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 125

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 126

4.4 The relationship between the disaster management models

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 127

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 128

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 129

International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), pp. 26 – 45.

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 130

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 131

Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/ 132

View publication stats

You might also like