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

net/publication/8918430

Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guidelines for the Emergency

Planning Process

Article  in  Disasters · January 2004

DOI: 10.1111/j.0361-3666.2003.00237.x · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

444 9,927

2 authors:

Ronald W. Perry Michael K Lindell

Arizona State University University of Washington Seattle
106 PUBLICATIONS   6,539 CITATIONS    212 PUBLICATIONS   16,800 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evacuation research View project

Estimating Agreement, Reliability, and Non-Independence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronald W. Perry on 29 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Disasters, 2003, 27(4): 336––350

Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guide-

lines for the Emergency Planning Process

Ronald W. Perry Michael K. Lindell

Arizona State University Texas A&M University

Especially since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, governments worldwide

have invested considerable resources in the writing of terrorism emergency response
plans. Particularly in the United States, the federal government has created new
homeland security organisations and urged state and local governments to draw up
plans. This emphasis on the written plan tends to draw attention away from the
process of planning itself and the original objective of achieving community emergency
preparedness. This paper reviews the concepts of community preparedness and
emergency planning, and their relationships with training, exercises and the written
plan. A series of 10 planning process guidelines are presented that draw upon the
preparedness literature for natural and technological disasters, and can be applied to
any environmental threat.

Keywords: disaster planning, emergency response, terrorism, emergency preparedness.

Since the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in the United
States, there has been much concern worldwide with levels of community emergency
preparedness. Indeed, in the US, UK and Europe there has been much emphasis on ——
almost a furore for —— the rapid development of emergency plans to combat or cope
with the consequences of terrorism (Perry and Lindell, 2003). The renewed awareness
of terrorist acts as a salient hazard has both brought more actors into the disaster-
planning arena and emphasised the need for coordination among their efforts.
Emergency managers have been joined by law enforcement, military and policymakers
and elected officials in calling for and preparing plans for terrorist incidents (Hoffman,
2001). Much of this work places terrorism in the general context of understanding
human behaviour under stress, logically drawing on the literature of natural and
technological disasters. As Alexander (2001) has pointed out, terrorism has obvious
features that separate it from other types of disasters, but in terms of consequences and
planning milestones there are inevitable similarities.
In the US, two problems arise in this context of creating plans for terrorist
incidents. The first difficulty is an emphasis on the presence of a plan as a document
rather than an emphasis on the planning process —— and the positive outcomes it brings
—— for the threat. The second problem is a general lack of awareness of the literature on
planning for natural and technological disasters on the part of elected officials, policy
actors and law-enforcement officials who direct much of the terrorism plan
construction (Jenkins, 2001; Smithson and Levy, 2000). While European governments
have avoided wholesale renovation of their structures for emergency planning and
management, the US national government and many state governments have made
© Overseas Development Institute, 2003.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA.
 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process 337

drastic changes. Agencies that traditionally addressed natural and technological

disasters have been combined with agencies that have traditionally dealt with law
enforcement, intelligence, coast guard functions, immigration and border issues among
others. Furthermore, the politically appointed administrators of many agencies and
their immediate subordinates have come from the general law-enforcement community,
sometimes with little experience in broader natural and technological disaster
management. The result is the construction of plans (documents) that tend to
emphasise a law-enforcement perspective or immerse important lessons from natural
and technological planning, sometimes falling prey to myths and mistakes that have
long been known in the broader community of disaster managers (US General
Accounting Office, 2003).
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationships among three critical
components of community emergency preparedness —— planning, training and written
plans —— with an emphasis on the role of the planning process. While many of the
studies cited here are North American (and presuppose a federal system), international
studies are integrated as well. Federal systems are different from the centralised states
in Europe and much of the rest of the world. There is value across national systems,
however, in that planning guidelines described below do apply broadly to the demands
imposed by disaster impacts no matter what national system is in place. It remains, of
course, that the political system in which disasters occur will always impose unique
challenges for planning, response and accountability (Perry and Hirose, 1991).
Specifically, a series of guidelines for the planning process are discussed here;
only one part of which is the generation of written plans. Of course, these ideas are not
new, particularly not to experienced disaster researchers or managers, or to those
engaged in international disaster response and recovery efforts. The first presentation
of these guidelines was made by Dynes, Quarantelli and Kreps (1972) and codified
later by Quarantelli (1982), under the rubric of ‘‘principles of disaster planning’’.
Subsequently, other researchers (Anderson and Mattingly, 1991; Lindell and Perry,
1992; Boin and Lagadec, 2000; Alexander, 2002, 2003) have expounded upon and
extended the discussion. A distinguishing feature of the present discussion is the
placement of planning in the context of current concerns regarding terrorism. The
infusion of a variety of novice emergency managers —— particularly in the US —— into
the disaster-planning community has created, however, an audience that can benefit
from a review of planning guidelines.
This review will largely draw upon work conducted in the context of natural
and technological disasters. There may not be a direct translation of results from other
types of disasters to terrorist events. Minimally, there is much variation based on the
nature and consequences of the agents used by terrorists: weapons of mass destruction
using incendiary explosives, and chemical, radiological and biological agents. For
example, the different effects of specific threats have been studied and it is known that
some agents (radiation for example) generate higher and more acute levels of fear than
others (Slovic et al., 1980). Overall, there are many distinct features of disasters
generated by natural forces, technology and terrorists. As Alexander (2001) notes so
aptly, natural disaster forces are not thinking beings like terrorists. On the other hand,
it is recognised that there are similar consequences generated for humans and structures
by the three types of disaster. Thus, for many years the same basic planning process
has been used for both natural and technological hazards and disasters (Lindell and
Perry, 1992; Britton, 2002). Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that the same
planning framework forms at least a reasonable starting point for community
preparedness for terrorist incidents (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). Of course,
338 Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell

the concept of mitigation for terrorist incidents is entirely different from other disasters,
and terrorism involves unique aspects of law-enforcement issues in response plans.
However, planning knowledge from the general disaster literature can be used to build
a basic structure for terrorism plans by isolating important aspects of process and
outcome.

Community emergency preparedness

Emergency preparedness refers to the readiness of a political jurisdiction to react

constructively to threats from the environment in a way that minimises the negative
consequences of impact for the health and safety of individuals and the integrity and
functioning of physical structures and systems. The achievement of emergency
preparedness takes place through a process of planning, training and exercising
accompanied by the acquisition of equipment and apparatus to support emergency
action (Gillespie and Colignon, 1993). The response measures and protocols generated
by the planning process and rehearsed via training and exercises are documented in the
written plan. In this way, written plans become living documents, to be revised and
changed as the threat changes and the system for detecting and responding to the threat
changes.
Often, there is a tendency to equate emergency planning with the presence of a
written plan and similarly believe that a written plan is evidence of jurisdictional
preparedness. In practice, it is important to avoid confusing planning with a written
plan; planning is a never-ending jurisdictional process, while the plan itself represents a
snapshot of that process at a specific point in time. Similarly, a written plan does not
guarantee preparedness; preparedness is dynamic and contingent upon ongoing
processes. Thus, possession of a written plan is an important part of, but not a
sufficient condition for, community emergency preparedness. Preparedness is a state
of readiness to respond to environmental threats. It results from a process in which a
community examines its susceptibility to the full range of environmental hazards
(vulnerability analysis), identifies human and material resources available to cope with
these threats (capability assessment), and defines the organisational structures by which
a coordinated response is to be made (plan development). Because vulnerability,
resources and organisational structures change over time and performance skills
disappear when not exercised, planning and training must be continual processes in
order to establish and maintain emergency preparedness (Daines, 1991; Buckle et al.,
2000). It is consequently important to examine carefully the emergency planning
process, making explicit its relationship to preparedness and examining both the
elements and products of planning. Our focus is upon the planning practices and the
level of preparedness that results from these planning practices.
Emergency planning may be conceived and implemented as a process. It is a
continuing pattern of analyses, as well as opportunities for the development and
maintenance of individual and team performance skills achieved through training, drills
and critiques (Kartez and Lindell, 1987; Lindell and Perry, 1992; Peterson and Perry,
1999; Tewdwr-Jones, 2002). This is not to suggest that emergency planning is a linear
process or that it is somehow embodied only in formal exchanges, meetings and
contacts. Indeed, much of planning is nonlinear. For example, in consulting on one
phase of analysis —— perhaps delivery of emergency medical care —— planners may
realise that issues remain unresolved from an earlier phase of planning —— perhaps the
 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process 339

need to extricate victims from rubble. As one moves towards addressing issues of
response, there is a constant need to ‘‘refer backwards’’ to matters that may impinge
upon the ability to execute the target response. Similarly, informal communications
among responders during drills or observations by planners talking with their
counterparts in other jurisdictions often generate valuable innovations (Peterson and
Perry, 1999).
Emergency planning as an approach to dealing with environmental hazards is
driven by two objectives: hazard assessment and risk reduction. Hazard assessment
involves not only identifying threats that have previously affected the community, but
also employing technology that leads to prompt identification of new or potential
threats. For many natural and technological hazards, these may take the form of a
combination of knowledge of the local environment and more costly reviews presented
in national government technical reports or reporting systems. Once the hazards are
identified, the planning process should produce an assessment of their risks.
Identifying and monitoring most risks involves inter-governmental partnerships among
local jurisdictions and higher governmental authorities with greater available resources.
The most costly and complex identification and detection technology is usually based
within national governments, who operate formal programmes for sharing information
with intermediate and local jurisdictions. As one moves from local to national
government levels, the technology and expert resources increase. As one moves down
the intergovernmental structure, knowledge of local circumstances and capabilities
increase. The assessment of risks includes a technical investigation of the magnitude
of the undesirable consequences to the community’’s safety, health, property and social
and economic activity and can, in some instances provide information about the
probability of occurrence.
Risk reduction involves an examination of the actions necessary to decrease
the detected or projected levels of danger and to identify the resources required for
implementing those actions. Since the available resources are rarely equal to the threat,
this process implicitly defines the remaining level of danger considered to be
acceptable (Dynes, 1993). Thus, the decision to manage a particular hazard and the
level of protection to be sought draws upon technology but has a political (community
resource distribution) element. Hazard identification and assessment can be thought of
as procedures through which environmental threats to the community can be measured,
monitored and evaluated, while risk reduction may be viewed as the development and
implementation of activities aimed at mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery
(Mileti, 1999).
Even within the context of achieving protective objectives, the practice of
emergency planning varies considerably among communities and nations. Whether or
not such variation is desirable, it is a fact of the planning environment. Like any other
human activity, planning depends on the resources, skills and motivation of those that
engage in that activity. The extent to which knowledge, resources and personnel are
available may differ significantly from one jurisdiction to the next. In large part, it is
the efforts at national levels that disseminate information and expertise that are
designed to ‘‘level the playing field’’ across local governments to obtain a more even
level of protection.
As a process, planning may be quite formal —— with a specific assignment of
responsibility to an office which has an identifiable budget. But planning can also be
largely informal, with responsibility poorly defined and the limited budget available
dispersed among many agencies within a jurisdiction (Dynes, 1998). Typically, the
availability of jurisdiction resources drives threat awareness and the nature of planning
340 Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell

processes. Similarly, the products associated with planning may be mostly written or
mostly unwritten. To a certain extent, the nature of the emergency planning process
will correlate with the size of the community in which it takes place. Larger
communities —— characterised by an elaborate structure of governmental offices, many
resources and personnel, and perhaps higher levels of staff turnover —— tend to evolve
formalised processes and rely more heavily upon written documentation and
agreements. In smaller communities the planning process may generate few written
products and be largely reliant upon informal, personal relationships for risk
identification, assessment and reduction. Formalisation of the planning process is also
likely to vary with the frequency of hazard impact. In communities subject to frequent
threats, response to the hazard may be a practised skill rather than a hypothetical action.
In a frequently flooded community, the local fire department may evacuate residents of
the low-lying areas (in the usual manner, to the usual safe location) when the water
reaches a certain street. There is considerable value to formalisation, however, even for
the smallest jurisdiction. With formalisation comes stabilisation of response and
increased likelihood of back-up safety systems, decreased likelihood of system
breakdowns due to forgetting and increased probability that a successful response will
be mounted to a given threat. Furthermore, as citizens hold jurisdictions responsible in
court for inadequate emergency response, written procedures form a baseline of
information regarding exactly what a jurisdiction did do to abate a danger (Lindell and
Perry, 1992).

Guidelines for emergency planning

While the degree of formality of the planning process does not necessarily provide an
adequate indication of the level of emergency preparedness, it is possible to identify
other aspects of planning that do appear to be empirically correlated with high levels of
community preparedness. There are many criteria which one could use to identify
guidelines, and consequently many possible guidelines. Quarantelli (1982) used 10
such principles, as did Alexander (2003) and Lindell and Perry (1992), while Rockett
(1994) proposed 19. To some extent the choice of number is idiosyncratic to the
researcher or practitioner, or depends upon the depth of coverage desired and
permitted. The goal here is to focus on broader process-oriented guidelines about
which there is much historical and current consensus among both researchers and
practitioners. Thus, following Quarantelli’’s (1982) lead and the more recent tradition
of research, 10 such practices have been selected here, which are based in the research
literature and represent recommended orientations to the emergency planning process
(Drabek, 1986; Emergency Management Australia, 1998; New Zealand Government,
2002; Tewdwr-Jones, 2002; Lindell and Perry, 2003). While making no claim to
originality, but standing on the shoulders of those who came before, the belief is that
the guidelines form useful information for the ever-expanding community of those
interested in or engaging in disaster planning.
The first guideline for preparedness planning is that it should be based upon
accurate knowledge of the threat and of likely human responses. Accurate knowledge
of the threat comes from thorough hazard assessment and vulnerability analysis.
Certainly the absence of an appropriate technology may render some threats not
predictable (earthquakes, for example) or an ineffective technology may make mistakes
of prediction and detection, or —— as with some chemical threats to health —— science
 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process 341

may not yet have discovered their toxicity. These simply represent cases where there is
either defective knowledge or no knowledge. The guideline is an exhortation to find
the best available knowledge, knowing that the best may not be optimal.
Once the hazards to the jurisdiction have been identified through vulnerability
analysis, planners and public officials can more readily recognise the limits of their
expertise. When accurate knowledge about the behaviour of a geophysical (earthquake
and volcano), meteorological (tornado and hurricane) or technological (hazardous
materials) threat is lacking, the need for contacting an expert to obtain it is usually
readily recognised (Alexander, 1993: 613––15). Similarly, there is little difficulty in
convincing planners and jurisdictional authorities that highly specialised experts need
to be consulted in preparing for terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction
WMD).
Unfortunately, the same cannot usually be said about accurate knowledge
regarding likely human behaviour without regard to the threat agent being addressed
(Dynes, 1994; Tierney et al., 2001). As a familiar saying goes, the problem is not so
much that people do not know what is true, but that what they do ‘‘know’’ is false. Long
ago Quarantelli and Dynes (1972) and Wenger and James (1994) succinctly described a
number of common myths regarding citizen disaster response behaviours that seem to
persist in spite of much research that shows otherwise. Contrary to the beliefs of the
general public, and, more distressingly, public officials and even residents of
communities that have previously experienced disasters, disaster victims typically act
rationally, given the limited information they have about the situation. They do not
flee in panic, wander aimlessly in shock or comply docilely with the recommendations
of authorities (Perry and Lindell, 2003). Instead, victims are likely to make their own
decisions about whether and when to evacuate. Following impact, they are the first to
search for survivors, care for the injured and to assist others in protecting property from
further damage. When they do seek assistance, victims are more likely to contact
informal sources such as friends, relatives and local groups rather than governmental
agencies or even such quasi-official sources as the Red Cross. Moreover, looting in
evacuated areas is extremely rare, while crime rates tend to decline at least temporarily
following disaster impact. Finally, the general public believes that concerned citizens
can best help the victims by sending money and supplies or going into the impact area
to provide assistance (Wenger and James, 1994); witness for example the large volume
of monetary donations to a ‘‘victim’’s and families fund’’ following the 11 September
attacks on the World Trade Center.
These disaster myths are not inconsequential: they hamper the effectiveness
of emergency planning by misdirecting the allocation of resources and the
dissemination of information. For example, concerns about looting lead to an
overemphasis on perimeter security of evacuated areas, while expectations of panic are
often given as justification for giving the public incomplete information about an
environmental threat or withholding information altogether. This response to the myth
of panic is particularly troubling since it has been shown repeatedly that people are
more reluctant to comply with suggested emergency measures when they are provided
with vague or incomplete warning messages (Perry et al., 1981). Ironically, the
misconception that accurate information will cause panic can lead officials to take
actions that frustrate their own attempts to protect the public. Therefore, the planning
process must be firmly grounded not only on the physical or biological science
literature on the effects of the hazard agent on human safety, health and property, but
also on the behavioural literature describing the response patterns of affected
populations and emergency organisations. Local emergency planners should strive to
342 Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell

make their information searches about specific hazards cast a wide net; over federal,
state and private resources (Anderson, 1995; Quarantelli, 1998). Furthermore, at this
level of planning each hazard agent needs to be approached individually. There is no
‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ description of agent-generated and response-generated demands for
all hazard agents. Similarly, there is no ‘‘model plan’’ that will serve every community
effectively.
A second characteristic of effective planning is that it should encourage
appropriate actions by emergency managers. Particularly with regard to disaster
operations, much emphasis has been given to the idea that careful planning promotes
quicker response. While quick response is important, it is not the only objective of
emergency planning. Quarantelli has argued that appropriateness of response is much
more crucial than speed:

It is far more important in a disaster to obtain valid information as to what is

happening than it is to take immediate action ... planning in fact should help to
delay impulsive reactions in preference to appropriate actions necessary in the
situation (1977: 106).

Two points are important here. First, threat assessment is critical and must be
performed continuously, even during periods of disaster impact. Emergency planning
has too often been equated with evacuation planning or some other subset of
emergency response functions and focused upon issues too narrow to achieve real
hazard management. Emergency plans must address the logistics of threat assessment
as well as response. Second, quick reactions based upon incorrect assumptions or
incomplete information can lead to inadequate protective measures. For example, after
the Tokyo subway attack using the chemical agent sarin (Smithson and Levy, 2000),
local governments —— aware of the necessity of rapid administration of nerve gas
antidotes to insure efficacy —— began to emphasise speed of response in potential WMD
incidents. In some jurisdictions this well-intended planning mandate leads to the
potential deployment of emergency medical personnel —— typically lacking special
protective garb and breathing equipment —— into an extremely hazardous environment
which increased the likelihood that they would themselves become victims. While
massive federal efforts to appropriately equip and enhance awareness of first
responders have reduced the danger, the situation calls into question the utility of
simple speed in response (Jackson et al., 2002). In the high-pressure atmosphere that
accompanies a community disaster, particularly terrorist attacks, it is undoubtedly
difficult for an emergency manager to appear to be ‘‘doing nothing’’. As this example
and many others show, however, it is important to recognise when the best action to
take is to mobilise emergency personnel and actively monitor the situation for further
information. Under these circumstances, the discipline created by the planning process
may save both lives and property. It is axiomatic to point out that accurate knowledge
—— both of the hazard and response principles —— is required for emergency managers to
take appropriate action.
The preceding example also serves to highlight another guideline for effective
planning. It is important to acknowledge that all disasters create dynamic changing
environments and that it is impossible to cover every contingency that might arise in
connection with a future disaster event. Hence, the planning process should emphasise
response flexibility so that those involved in operations can adjust to changing disaster
demands, both agent-generated and response-generated. The planning process should
focus on principles of response rather than trying to elaborate the process to include
 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process 343

many specific details. The incorporation of great detail is problematic in at least four
ways. First, the anticipation of all contingencies is simply impossible (Frosdick, 1997),
even local conditions change too rapidly to depend completely upon a fault tree or
checklist to guide operations. Second, very specific details tend to get out of date very
quickly, demanding virtually constant updating of written plans (Dynes et al., 1972;
Hoetmer, 2003). The updating process is both time and resource consuming and when
done too frequently diverts energy from other activities. Third, very specific plans
often contain so many details that each emergency function appears to be of equal
importance, causing response priorities to be unclear or confused (Tierney, 1980;
Carter, 1991). Finally, as more detail is incorporated into written planning documents,
they become larger and more complex. This makes it more difficult to use the plan as a
device for training personnel to understand how their role fits into the overall
emergency response and consequently makes it more difficult to implement the plan
effectively when the need arises.
From this perspective, planners should recognise realities of the setting in
which disaster operations take place by focusing on the fundamental principles of
response, clearly specifying priorities, and minimising the amount of operational detail
that restricts flexibility. The place for operational detail is the standard operating
procedures of agencies and organisations that execute emergency response functions,
not in the jurisdictional plan. The jurisdictional emergency management system should
strive to assure that emergency response personnel are thoughtful professionals trained
to evaluate situational contingencies and act in accordance with those assessments.
The alternative —— attempting to identify all or even most of the situations to which
emergency personnel would have to respond —— is quite unlikely to be successful.
Even were it possible to identify all emergency scenarios, the number of different
contingencies would be so large that it would be difficult to locate the right ‘‘script’’,
thus leading responders to forgo predetermined assessments in favour of their own
evaluations. Finally, heavily elaborated plans run the risk of becoming ‘‘sacred
documents’’ that are perhaps more likely to be revered than to be questioned, changed
and adapted. Such a state of affairs can ultimately hinder response capability.
A fourth guideline is that emergency planning should address inter-
organisational coordination. In the twenty-first century, emergency response is inter-
departmental within a jurisdiction and at the same time inter-governmental. Although
the need has been present for decades, the recent emphasis upon preparing for terrorist
threats —— chemical, biological and radiological agents —— shows that planning involves
emergency managers, law enforcement, hospitals, public health departments, the
military and a host of other organisations embodying a wide range of threat-relevant
expertise. Furthermore, it has long been known that the success of disaster response
operations is substantially affected by the achievement of effective inter-organisational
coordination among responding groups (Perry, 1991). Ideally such organisations work
in concert to accomplish a variety of disaster-relevant functions: emergency
assessment, warning dissemination, population protection and so on. To accomplish
the full range of emergency response functions requires that organisations be aware of
each other’’s missions, structures and styles of operation, the capabilities and limitations
of the communication system and the mechanisms for coordinating the allocation of
scarce resources to different functional areas of the emergency response. All of this
knowledge has its roots in the planning process, is conveyed through training, and is
tested in joint exercises (Shelton and Sifers, 1994).
As an illustration of the problems that can arise when individual agencies are
unaware of the roles of other organisations, consider the case of a flood-stricken
344 Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell

community (Perry et al, 1981). Citizens who were warned to evacuate, but had no
personal transport were advised to congregate at their neighbourhood fire station. The
firefighters there were unaware of the emergency plan providing that such people
would be taken to a reception centre at a nearby school and, in a misguided
humanitarian gesture, began to make arrangements for the evacuees’’ temporary food
and lodging. This needlessly duplicated a response function being performed more
efficiently elsewhere, and also diverted fire-service personnel from the specialised
duties that they were assigned by the plan.
The emergency planning process is probably the most effective place (and
certainly the most desirable) for developing the coordination that response teams will
need during an actual emergency. There are two ways in which such issues can be
resolved. The first of these is in careful review of the emergency plans of individual
agencies, while the second is in repeated drills, exercises and critiques of the plan
(Shapiro, 1995; Peterson and Perry, 1999). Much time and frustration can be saved if
the planning process is conducted in such a way that assumptions about response
performance can be scrutinised even before the plan is tested in a drill or exercise. For
example, consider the city in the south-western US that wanted to upgrade its capacity
to respond to hazardous materials incidents initiated by airplane crashes (Perry, 2001).
The city bordered a large regional airport and, while the police department had plans
for responding to airplane crashes and the fire department maintained a hazardous
materials response plan, there was minimal integration of the planning efforts of these
two agencies. The newly created emergency management office was given the task of
developing a comprehensive plan for crashes involving hazardous materials.
Fortunately the planning process established by the new emergency manager included a
careful review of all resources to be used by each organisation responding to an
emergency. It was in reviewing these lists that the emergency manager discovered that
the police and fire department radio equipment was such that neither department could
pick up a signal each other. Yet, the police were charged with protective response for
the public and the firefighters with mitigating the hazard in the same event. Had the
emergency manager simply merged the two plans instead of providing a critical review
as part of the planning process, this discrepancy would probably not have been
discovered until the plan was tested, or worse, until an actual emergency activated the
plan. Just such a problem did occur during a fire at the Brown’’s Ferry Nuclear Power
Plant, where it was found that the hoses for the local fire department could not be
coupled to the water supply from the plant because the hose fittings were
incompatible. Certainly, the operational problem would have been discovered in an
exercise, but simple reviews of plans in progress by response organisations eliminates
the difficulty early and reinforces the teambuilding atmosphere.
Of course, drills should be viewed as the setting where problems are expected
and conflicts can be resolved. Like a test on which all students achieve a perfect score
raises the suspicion that it is too easy, a drill or exercise that identifies no problems is
probably one with either a trivial scenario or an inadequate evaluation. It is also clear
that the repeated experience of dealing with disaster events will inevitably help
organisations to devise workable coordination strategies. The notion of repeated
disaster impacts with severe negative human or structural consequences doers call into
question the effectiveness of hazard management. For example, if the same area of the
same community floods each year destroying dozens of homes, one wonders if the
local hazard zoning system is working properly (May and Deyle, 1998). Furthermore,
building inter-organisational relationships primarily by responding to disaster impacts
is likely to carry with it an unnecessarily high cost. An effective planning process,
 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process 345

characterised by careful plan reviews and thoughtfully critiqued emergency exercises,

provides alternatives to learning from experience (Kartez and Lindell, 1989).
The emergency planning process should also integrate plans for each
individual community hazard managed into a comprehensive approach for multi-hazard
management. During the cold war, many Western democracies used a ‘‘dual use’’
planning policy that identified and funded emergency functions that were useful in
some natural or technological disaster and a nuclear attack. Since the cold war ended,
emergency managers have defined the disaster planning process in terms of
comprehensive or integrated emergency management: preparedness to address all
phases of all disaster agents that may threaten a community. Both of these approaches
depend upon the assumption (often demonstrated in practice) that different disaster
agents may create similar agent-generated and response-generated demands. At this
intersection of similarity, the same emergency response functions can be effectively
used to address different hazard agents (Quarantelli, 1992). Thus, the movement of
citizens away from the impact area —— evacuation —— is a useful response to hurricanes,
floods, chemical releases, nuclear power plant accidents, terrorist attacks and volcanic
eruptions. Commonality of emergency response functions provides multiple use
opportunities for personnel, procedures, facilities and equipment. The concept of
generic functions is often cited as one of the strongest arguments for comprehensive
emergency management, but requires careful attention as part of the planning process
before management benefits may be realised.
A sixth disaster planning guideline rests on the idea that plans should have a
training component. The planning process has many audiences, in part because many
different individuals and organisations are involved in implementing emergency plans.
Audiences even extend beyond the types of organisations that directly respond; for
example, government bodies that fund emergency management programs and evaluate
plans and incident response are a critical audience. Thus, effective planning requires
explaining the provisions of the plan to the administrators and personnel of those
departments that will be involved in any phase of the emergency response. Also,
elected officials and citizens need to be informed about community disaster plans,
preparedness and response operations. The public-at-risk must also be involved in the
planning process, especially if they are expected to undertake personal protections in an
emergency. Minimally, all citizens and officials should be aware that planning for
community threats is under way and what is expected of them under the plans.
Moreover, they need to know what is likely to happen in a disaster, and what
emergency organisations can and cannot do for them.
Consequently, the training component of a plan has at least two tiers. One is
an information function primarily aimed at elected officials, public administrators who
do not have a specific emergency role and citizens. Traditionally, sharing plan
information with these audiences is called risk communication and is oriented to
educational exchanges. In some very special cases, communications to the public-at-
risk may include specific training and equipment. In some cases, residents close to
nuclear power plants may be given potassium-iodide tablets and instructed on their use.
Similarly, residents near the US army centre in Alabama charged with incinerating
chemical warfare agents have been given gas masks and other special training by the
county emergency management agency. When plan information is shared with
personnel of emergency response organisations, it is usually more formal and comes
under the rubric of training. Such training is distinguished by the fact that it tends to be
administered by technical specialists and focused on specific protocols and processes.
For example, many terrorist response plans assume that fire and police department
346 Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell

dispatchers will screen all calls for assistance for signs that the emergency being
reported is really a chemical, biological or radiological attack. Even if the elements of
call screening protocols are explicitly developed in the plan, initial training (and
refresher training) by specialists will be needed to ensure that dispatchers can
effectively use the protocol. Training is consequently an integral part of the disaster
planning process, and when carefully attended to, is likely to yield high dividends in
terms of the effectiveness of emergency response. As an added benefit, the training
process can also become an important source of feedback regarding potential problems
with the plan.
Another guideline for an effective planning process is that it should provide
for testing proposed response operations. Emergency drills and exercises provide a
setting in which operational details may be critically examined (Ford and Schmidt,
2000; Simpson, 2001; Alexander, 2003). Testing of plans also serve other important
functions. They bring responding organisations into contact and allow individuals to
develop personal relationships with one another. Furthermore, drills constitute a
simultaneous and comprehensive test of emergency plans, staffing levels, personnel
training, procedures, facilities, equipment and materials. In the case of planning for
terrorist attacks, an inter-organisational testing process is complicated because it
involves types of organisations that may not normally deal with one another. These
can be organisations that cross public and private sectors, cross emergency disciplines,
and different types and levels of government. Finally, conducting drills serves as one
form of publicity for the larger emergency planning and management process.
Publicising drills informs both the public and community officials that planning for
disasters is under way and that preparedness is being enhanced.
One of the most important attributes of effective emergency planning is that it
is a continuing process. No effective plan process is static. Change should be
incorporated into every aspect of the emergency management system. In general, the
plan should change to accommodate changes in the threat environment and with the
introduction of new or improved equipment (including personal protective equipment,
testing equipment and communications) for responding to incidents. It is expected that
after every incident and every training cycle and every drill the plan will improve. For
all response agencies, as their experiences, capabilities and equipment change, these
changes will have an impact on the larger system. Indeed, an important benefit of the
planning process is the mutual recognition and acknowledgement that there is a local
response system and that those involved are mutually dependent (Tierney et al., 2001).
Clearly, if planning is conceived of as an approach to dealing with
environmental emergencies, there is never a time when planning is ‘‘completed’’.
Hazard vulnerability, organisational staffing and structure and emergency facilities and
equipment have the potential for changing over time and the emergency planning
process is the means of detecting, monitoring and responding to these changes. A
piece of written documentation, or a particular plan, may be generated through the
planning process, but as conditions change the written documentation must also
change.
Unfortunately, this point is frequently not recognised. Wenger and his
colleagues (1980: 134) have found that ‘‘there is a tendency on the part of officials to
see disaster planning as a product, not a process’’. Such research documents the
problem of equating tangible products with the activities that produced them. Of
course, planning does require written documentation: definition of the nature and
probability of threats, procedural checklists, lists of resources and records of
agreements. But effective planning is also made up of elements that are not realised in
 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process 347

hardware and are difficult to document on paper. These include the development of
managers’’ knowledge of the resources of governmental and private organisations, the
sharpening of their conceptual skills in anticipating emergency demands and balancing
these against available resources, and the establishment of linkages across
organisational boundaries between emergency planners and operations personnel. To
assume that tangible hardware and documentation provide a sufficient representation of
the emergency planning process is simply incorrect. Furthermore, by treating written
plans as a final product, one risks creating the illusion of being prepared for an
emergency when such is not the case (Quarantelli, 1977). As time passes, the
emergency plan sitting in a red three-ring binder on the bookshelf looks just as thick
and impressive as it did the day that it was published. Unfortunately, many changes are
likely to have taken place in the meantime. New hazardous facilities may have been
built, and others decommissioned. Changes in zoning ordinances may have altered
population densities in different neighbourhoods. Reorganisation may have been taken
place within different agencies responsible for emergency response. In short, the
potential for changes in the nature of the hazard, the nature of the population at risk,
and the staffing, organisation and resources of emergency response organisations
dictates that emergency plans and procedures be reviewed periodically, preferably
annually.
Still another guideline for emergency planning is that it is almost always
conducted in the face of conflict and resistance (Quarantelli, 1982). Among the truisms
about emergency planning is that citizens do not like to think about the negative
consequences of potential disasters —— a state of mind that tends to inhibit a spirit of
preparedness. Regrettably, this attitude generalises as well to public servants and to
elected officials. A common objection to planning raised by such officials is that it
consumes resources, and resources spent on planning cannot be spent on what —— at the
moment —— may seem like much more pressing community issues. Administratively
and legislatively mandated planning requirements alone are insufficient to overcome
this formidable resistance and the initiation of planning activities requires strong
advocacy. Nor does the acceptance of the need and allocation of resources to
emergency planning ensure the elimination of conflict. Emergency planning involves
the allocation of power and resources (especially personnel and budget) and every
department within the jurisdiction wants its ‘‘proper role’’ recognised and a budget
allocation commensurate with that role. No level of government is immune to such
conflict.
Finally, a tenth guideline for emergency planning is that the emergency plan
should recognise that planning and management are different functions and that the true
test of a plan rests with its implementation during an emergency (Quarantelli, 1985).
Planning is a part of preparedness —— it requires identifying the hazards to which the
community is vulnerable, the nature of the impacts that could occur, and the
geographical areas at risk. Planning also requires identifying the demands that a
disaster would impose upon emergency response organisations and the resources
(personnel, facilities, equipment and materials) that are needed by those organisations
in order to meet the emergency demands. Management of the emergency response, on
the other hand, involves performance —— meeting the emergency demands by
implementing the assessment, corrective, protective and coordinating actions identified
in the planning stage. One can draw the analogy that planning lays out the design for a
building while management of the emergency response involves sawing boards and
pounding nails. Confusing the two functions leads to the poor performance of both.
348 Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell

Conclusions

Continuing terrorist attacks worldwide are likely to sustain attention to emergency

planning, particularly in Western democracies. In the US at least, no period of recent
memory has seen the investments of government money and resources in emergency
planning that have been infused since 11 September 2001. To the extent that these
resources actually reach emergency managers and first responders there is great
potential for growth in the field and in levels of protection. This is a tremendous
opportunity for the field and practice of emergency planning because the same
resources that fuel terrorism planning can also support functions needed in natural and
technological disasters, thereby benefiting preparedness broadly. There is concern,
however, that the introduction of terrorist attacks into the pantheon of natural and
technical disasters for which jurisdictions must prepare poses new challenges for the
processes of planning and management (Rudman et al., 2003). To the extent that one
focuses upon generic functions in disaster management —— evacuation,
communications, emergency medical care, heavy rescue and morgue care —— these also
apply to conditions created in terrorist incidents, the application appears
straightforward. Great complications portend, however, if the lessons from natural and
technological threats go unheeded or if decision-makers are uninformed regarding
those lessons. Guidelines for planning processes are among the most basic of such
lessons, forming the intellectual and practical structure that enables preparedness. It is
true that disasters, whether perpetrated by natural and technological forces or by
terrorists, do not wait for planning processes to become organised to proceed. It is also
true that a written emergency plan does not guarantee preparedness and that plans
created with an abbreviated or absent planning process may lack practical utility.
Through the ongoing planning process, reflecting sound principles, one can achieve a
reasonable translation of vulnerability into a workable emergency response. However,
the ignorance of appropriate planning principles is just as dangerous to effective
outcomes as inaccurate knowledge of the threat, lack of necessary protective equipment
or failure of the jurisdiction to allocate resources to emergency preparedness and
response (Perry, 2003).

References
Alexander, D.E. (1994) Natural Disasters. Chapman and Hall, New York.
———— (2001) Nature’’s Impartiality, Man’’s Inhumanity. Disasters 26 (1): 1––9.
———— (2002) Principles of Emergency Planning and Management. Oxford University Press, New
York.
———— (2003) Towards the Development of Standards in Emergency Management Training and
Education. Disaster Prevention and Management 12 (2): 113––23.
Anderson, P. (1995) The Biggest Mutual Aid System on Earth: The Internet in Emergency
Management. National Coordinating Council on Emergency Management Bulletin 1: 7––9.
Anderson, W. and S. Mattingly (1991) Future Directions. In T. Drabek and G. Hoetmer (eds.)
Emergency Management. International City/County Management Association, Washington.
Boin, R. and P. Lagadec (2000) Preparing for the Future. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management 8: 185––91.
Britton, N. (2002) A New Emergency Management for a New Millennium? Australian Journal
of Emergency Management 16 (4): 44––54.
Buckle, P., G. Mars and S. Smale (2000) New Approaches to Assessing Vulnerability and
Resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 15: 8––14.
 Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process 349

Carter, N. (1991) Disaster Management: A Disaster Manager’’s Handbook. Asian Development

Bank Publications, Manila.
Daines, G.E. (1991) Planning, Training and Exercising. In T. Drabek and G. Hoetmer (eds.)
Emergency Management. International City/County Management Association, Washington.
Drabek, T. (1986) Human System Response to Disaster. Springer Verlag, New York.
Dynes, R. (1993) Disaster Reduction. Sociological Spectrum 6: 24––8.
———— (1994) Community Emergency Planning. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters 12: 141––58.
———— (1998) Coming to Terms with Community Disaster. In E.L. Quarantelli (ed.) That Is a
Disaster? Routledge, London.
———— , E.L. Quarantelli and G. Kreps (1972) A Perspective on Disaster Planning. Ohio State
University Disaster Research Center, Columbus.
Emergency Management Australia (1998) Australian Emergency Manuals, Part 1: Planning
Fundamentals. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Ford, J. and A. Schmidt (2000) Emergency Preparedness Training. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 75: 195––215.
Frosdick, S. (1997) The Techniques of Risk Analysis are Insufficient in Themselves. Disaster
Prevention and Management 6(3): 165––77.
Gillespie, D. and R. Colignon (1993) Structural Change in Disaster Preparedness Networks.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 11(2): 143––62.
Hoetmer, G. (2003) Characteristics of Effective Emergency Management Organisational
Structures. Public Entity Risk Institute, Fairfax.
Jackson, B., D. Peterson, J. Bartis, T. LaTourrette, I. Brahmakulam, A. Houser and J. Sollinger
(2002) Protecting Emergency Responders: Lessons Learned from Terrorist Attacks. Rand
Corporation Science and Technology Policy Institute, Santa Monica.
Jenkins, B. (2001) 30 Years and Counting. Rand Review (Fall): 1––3.
Kartez, J. and M.K. Lindell (1987) Planning for Uncertainty. American Planning Association
Journal 53: 487––98.
———— and M.K. Lindell (1989) Adaptive Planning for Community Disaster Response. In R.
Sylves and W. Waugh (eds.) Cities and Disaster. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield.
Lindell, M.K. and R.W. Perry (1992) Behavioral Foundations of Community Emergency
Planning. Hemisphere Publishing, Washington.
———— and R.W. Perry (2003) Environmental Risk Communication in Multicultural Communities.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
May, P. and R. Deyle (1998) Governing Land Use in Hazardous Areas with a Patchwork System.
In R. Burby (ed.) Cooperating with Nature. Joseph Henry Press, Washington.
Mileti, D. (1999) Disasters by Design. Joseph Henry Press, Washington.
National Academy of Sciences (2002) Countering Terrorism: Lessons Learned from Natural and
Technological Disasters. The National Academies Press, Washington.
New Zealand Government (2002) Civil Defence Emergency Management. Government of New
Zealand, Wellington.
Perry, R.W. (1991) Managing Disaster Response Operations. In T. Drabek and G. Hoetmer (eds.)
Emergency Management. International City/County Management Association, Washington.
———— (2001) Communications Interoperability in Fire Department and Police Department
Operations. Arizona State University School of Public Affairs, Tempe.
———— (2003) Municipal Terrorism Management in the United States. Disaster Prevention and
Management 12(3): 190––202.
———— and H. Hirose (1991) Volcano Management in the United States and Japan. JAI
Publishing, Greenwich.
———— and M.K. Lindell (forthcoming) Understanding Human Response to Disasters with
Implications for Terrorism. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 11.
———— , M.K. Lindell and M. Greene (1981) Evacuation Planning in Emergency Management.
Heath-Lexington Books, Lexington.
Peterson, D. and R.W. Perry (1999) The Impacts of Disaster Exercises upon Participants.
International Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management 8: 241––54.
 350 Ronald W. Perry and Michael K. Lindell

Quarantelli, E.L. (1977) Social Aspects of Disasters and Their Relevance to Pre-disaster
Planning. Disasters 1(1): 98––107.
———— (1982) Ten Research-derived Principles of Disaster Planning. Disaster Management 2: 23––
5.
———— (1985) Emergent Citizens Groups in Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Activities.
University of Delaware Disaster Research Center, Newark.
———— (1992) The Case for a Generic rather than Agent Specific Approach to Disasters. Disaster
Management 2: 191––6.
———— (1998) The Computer Based Information/Communications Revolution: A Dozen
Problematical Issues and Questions They Raise for Disaster Planning and Management.
University of Delaware Disaster Research Center, Newark.
———— and R. Dynes (1972) When Disaster Strikes. Psychology Today 5: 67––70.
Rockett, J.D. (1994) A Constructive Critique of United Kingdom Emergency Planning. Disaster
Prevention and Management 3(1): 47––60.
Rudman, W., R. Clarke and J. Metzl (2003) Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded,
Dangerously Unprepared. Council on Foreign Relations, Washington.
Shapiro, L.T. (1995) Training Effectiveness Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Shelton, J. and S. Sifers (1994) Standardizing Training Assessment. Military Review 74(10): 5––
13.
Simpson, D.M. (2001) Earthquake Drills and Simulations in Community-based Training and
Preparedness Programmes. Disasters 26(1): 55––69.
Smithson, A.E. and Levy, L. (2000) Ataxia: The Chemical and Biological Terrorism Threat and
The US Response. Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington.
Tewdwr-Jones, Mark (2002) The Planning Polity: Planning, Government and the Policy
Process. Routledge, London.
Tierney, K., M.K.Lindell and R.W. Perry (2001) Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness
and Response in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington.
US General Accounting Office (2003) Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:
Department of Homeland Security. Government Printing Office, Washington.
Wenger, D.E., C. Faupel and T. James (1980) Disaster Beliefs and Emergency Planning.
University of Delaware Disaster Research Center, Newark.
———— and T. James (1994) The Convergence of Volunteers in a Consensus Crisis. In R. Dynes
and K. Tierney (eds.) Disasters, Collective Behavior and Social Organisation. University
of Delaware Press, Newark.

Address for correspondence: School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University,

Tempe, AZ 85287-0603, USA. E-mail: <<Ron.Perry@ASU.EDU>>

View publication stats