Comparison and contrast
Comfort, Hauskrecht, and Lin (2008) presented a dynamic networking modelling system to guide the process of assessing and managing susceptible risks. In their approach, they viewed the entire strategy as involving a multiplicity of diverse but adaptive process to guide the management of the emergency issue. They believed that the responsibility to protect life and property among other operations in a metropolitan region lies in the idea of managing the interactions between resilience and risk. On the other hand, the ‘all hazards approach” presented by Von Lubits, Beakley, and Patricelli (2008) argues that effective and efficient management of disasters calls for the utilization of knowledge management and refined information because failures in responding to disasters is hampered by issues such as existing disaster management approaches, and a plethora of information. As such, they propose the use of knowledge management and transformation of information to develop networked solutions that might assist the management of disasters. Both models presented by Comfort, Hauskrecht, and Lin (2008) and Von Lubits, Beakley, and Patricelli (2008) depend on integrating several proven approaches to develop a networked approach to guide the process of managing disasters.
Differences and controversies
Speaking of differences, Comfort et al (2008) deals with findings obtained from a section of a metropolitan region in Pittsburg. It employs statistical and spatial analysis techniques under the small-scale case study of the transportation system. On the contrary, Von Lubits, Beakley, and Patricelli (2008) does not rely on a particular case study but it analyzes information related to major disasters that are likely to affect geographical regions. Such differences raise a number of concerns such as the credibility of the non-tested approach in disaster mitigation? Could the dynamic network approach used in a single transportation section be applicable in mitigating disasters from other regions or equally large-scale sectors? This raises the issue of controversies and loopholes associated with such approaches. First, the all network’s approach relies on the analysis of information from a variety of sectors and it ignores the possible of the occurrence of undocumented disasters. The dynamic is controversial from the one-sector approach making it difficult to be applied to other sectors.
Key findings and Summary
Comfort et al (2008) is a research study that seeks to explore the efforts that the government puts towards the prevention of disaster and disaster management. It emphasizes on the damage that the disasters have on infrastructure, both social and technological, and the setbacks that the economy faces due to this challenges. Pittsburg is the city of focus since the study views the models put in place to indicate the vulnerability and the sustainability of infrastructure as an aftermath of a natural calamity. Finally, it highlights and gives recommendations on areas that need improvement specifically the emergency response systems.
The Von Lubits, Beakley, and Patricelli (2008) researches into the use of traditional disaster management methods as compared to the more recent research findings and how the two can be combined to produce a usable and more efficient method. The study shows how in the recent past, efforts to reduce loss of life and damage of property has continuously failed showing that there is a gap that needs to be filled with the latest technological improvements. Periodically, it advices that the combination of the network centric operation (NCO) and the Boyd’s OODA loop-based decision making may increase the success rates of disaster management in the future.
Based on the analysis of the two articles, the proposed hazard mitigation measures are effective based on the scope of usage. If only the loopholes and controversies surrounding the models for disaster mitigation identified, policy makers can be able to come up with a hazard and disaster management framework that is applicable to all sectors.
Comfort, K., Hauskrecht, M. and Lin, J. (2008). Dynamic Networks: Modeling
Change in Environments Exposed to Risk. Modeling Change in Environments
Exposed to Risk. 576-585
Von Lubits, Beakley, and Patricelli (2008). All Hazards Approach to Network-centric
Disaster Management: The role of information and Knowledge management,
and Boyd’s OODA Loop in Disaster Leadership. Disasters; the Journal of
Disaster Studies, Policy and Management. 1-29