Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T21:27:22.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part II: The Disaster Health Conceptual Framework Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2015

Marvin L. Birnbaum*
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Physiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin USA; Emeritus Editor-in-Chief, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
Elaine K. Daily
Affiliation:
Nursing Section Editor, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine; Executive Secretary, World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin USA
Ann P. O’Rourke
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin USA
Alessandro Loretti
Affiliation:
Retired, World Health Organization; Consultant, World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Adelaid, South Australia, Australia
*
Correspondence: Marvin L. Birnbaum, MD, PhD Suite 407 610 N. Whitney Way Madison, WI 53705 USA E-mail: mbirnbaum@wadem.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A Conceptual Framework upon which the study of disasters can be organized is essential for understanding the epidemiology of disasters, as well as the interventions/responses undertaken. Application of the structure provided by the Conceptual Framework should facilitate the development of the science of Disaster Health. This Framework is based on deconstructions of the commonly used Disaster Management Cycle. The Conceptual Framework incorporates the steps that occur as a hazard progresses to a disaster. It describes an event that results from the changes in the release of energy from a hazard that may cause Structural Damages that in turn, may result in Functional Damages (decreases in levels of function) that produce needs (goods and services required). These needs can be met by the goods and services that are available during normal, day-to-day operations of the community, or the resources that are contained within the community’s Response Capacity (ie, an Emergency), or by goods and services provided from outside of the affected area (outside response capacities). Whenever the Local Response Capacity is unable to meet the needs, and the Response Capacities from areas outside of the affected community are required, a disaster occurs. All responses, whether in the Relief or Recovery phases of a disaster, are interventions that use the goods, services, and resources contained in the Response Capacity (local or outside). Responses may be directed at preventing/mitigating further deterioration in levels of functions (damage control, deaths, injuries, diseases, morbidity, and secondary events) in the affected population and filling the gaps in available services created by Structural Damages (compromise in available goods, services, and/or resources; ie, Relief Responses), or may be directed toward returning the affected community and its components to the pre-event functional state (ie, Recovery Responses). Hazard Mitigation includes interventions designed to decrease the likelihood that a hazard will cause an event, and should an event occur, that the amount of energy released will be reduced. Capacity Building consists of all interventions undertaken before an event occurs in order to increase the resilience of the community to an event related to a hazard that exists in an area-at-risk. Resilience is the combination of the Absorbing, Buffering, and Response Capacities of a community-at-risk, and is enhanced through Capacity-Building efforts. A disaster constitutes a failure of resilience.

Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP, Loretti A. Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part II: The Disaster Health Conceptual Framework Revisited. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(5):523–538.

Information

Type
Special Reports
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2015 
Figure 0

Figure II-1 The Classic Disaster Management Cycle. This cycle illustrates the progression from mitigation of the hazard, to preparedness to respond, to the occurrence of an event, to the response to the event, and recovery to the pre-event levels of function.

Figure 1

Figure II-2 The Revised Conceptual Framework for a Hazard Evolving into a Disaster. Functional damage consists of compromised functions of the community caused by structural damage. Functional damages are transformed into needs. All responses address identified needs by providing the goods, services, and other resources required to meet the defined needs. Three levels of responses are included: (1) Ordinary; (2) Extra-ordinary; and (3) Outside. Responses are directed at relief or recovery and provide resources for repair or replacement of structures damaged by the event, or to temporarily supplement the gaps in levels of functions compromised by the structural damages.

Figure 2

Figure II-3 The Conceptual Framework with the Addition of Local and Outside Absorbing, Buffering, and Response Capacities. Responses that require the use the extra-ordinary (reserve) local response capacity comprise an “emergency” for the community. When responses must include the response capacities of other entities, the situation becomes a “disaster.” In addition, structural and functional damages that occur in other systems may result in needs within the system(s) being studied. Together, the absorbing, buffering, and response capacities comprise the resilience of the community to an event. Capacity building interventions are directed towards increasing the resilience to the event, and risk-reduction interventions include capacity building and hazard mitigation.Abbreviations: Ex, extraordinary; Or, ordinary.

Figure 3

Table II-1 Classification of Natural Hazards, the Events that may be Produced, and the Types of Energy Released from the Hazard

Figure 4

Table II-2 Classification of Human-made Hazards, the Events that may be Produced, and the Types of Energy Released from the Hazard

Figure 5

Figure II-4 Photograph of Structural Damages Resulting from the Tsunami of 2004. The tower that remains standing had a much greater absorbing capacity than did the surrounding structures.

Figure 6

Figure II-5 Illustration of Hypothetical Relationships between the Amount of Damage from an Event and Different Levels of Absorbing Capacity. The higher the absorbing capacity, the less the amount of structural damage that will be sustained.

Figure 7

Figure II-6 Production Functions Illustrating the Relationships Between Levels of Function and Available Goods and Services. Following an event, changes in levels of function(s) must be transformed into goods and services needed to restore levels of function (A). As needs are met, goods and services must be transformed into functions (B).

Figure 8

Figure II-7 Relationship between Supplies of Goods and Services and Levels of Function. As available goods and services decline, the functions of a System drop below its functional threshold. Further declines may cause functions to drop to its critical level of function. Abbreviation: CMR, crude mortality rate.