Collation of best practices for preparedness: lessons from disasters in Pakistan and Japan

IF 3.2 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Jonas Schwarz, Valentina Kascel, Muhammad Azmat, S. Kummer
{"title":"Collation of best practices for preparedness: lessons from disasters in Pakistan and Japan","authors":"Jonas Schwarz, Valentina Kascel, Muhammad Azmat, S. Kummer","doi":"10.1108/jhlscm-07-2022-0086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to compare the humanitarian supply chains and logistics of two countries in earthquake preparedness by modifying and using a previously established preparedness evaluation framework.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA European flood emergency management system (FEMS) is a seven-dimensional framework to assess a country’s preparedness for flood emergencies. The FEMS framework was modified to apply to earthquakes. Leveraging a multiple explanatory case study approach with data analysis, the authors reconstructed the events of the earthquakes in Pakistan (2005) and Japan (2011) with an applied grading (1–5). Findings were evaluated within the adopted FEMS framework. From a practitioner’s perspective, the framework is applicable and can accelerate support in the field.\n\n\nFindings\nPakistan lacked emergency plans before the 2005 earthquake. In contrast, Japan possessed emergency plans before the disaster, helping minimise casualties. Overall, Japan demonstrated considerably better emergency management effectiveness. However, both countries significantly lacked the distribution of responsibilities among actors.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nPractical factors in the humanitarian supply chain are well understood. However, synthesising individual factors into a comprehensive framework is difficult, which the study solves by applying and adopting the FEMS framework to earthquakes. The developed framework allows practitioners a structured baseline for prioritising measures in the field. Furthermore, this study exemplifies the usefulness of cross-hazard research within emergency management and preparedness in a real-world scenario.\n","PeriodicalId":46575,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jhlscm-07-2022-0086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to compare the humanitarian supply chains and logistics of two countries in earthquake preparedness by modifying and using a previously established preparedness evaluation framework. Design/methodology/approach A European flood emergency management system (FEMS) is a seven-dimensional framework to assess a country’s preparedness for flood emergencies. The FEMS framework was modified to apply to earthquakes. Leveraging a multiple explanatory case study approach with data analysis, the authors reconstructed the events of the earthquakes in Pakistan (2005) and Japan (2011) with an applied grading (1–5). Findings were evaluated within the adopted FEMS framework. From a practitioner’s perspective, the framework is applicable and can accelerate support in the field. Findings Pakistan lacked emergency plans before the 2005 earthquake. In contrast, Japan possessed emergency plans before the disaster, helping minimise casualties. Overall, Japan demonstrated considerably better emergency management effectiveness. However, both countries significantly lacked the distribution of responsibilities among actors. Originality/value Practical factors in the humanitarian supply chain are well understood. However, synthesising individual factors into a comprehensive framework is difficult, which the study solves by applying and adopting the FEMS framework to earthquakes. The developed framework allows practitioners a structured baseline for prioritising measures in the field. Furthermore, this study exemplifies the usefulness of cross-hazard research within emergency management and preparedness in a real-world scenario.
整理最佳备灾做法:巴基斯坦和日本灾害的经验教训
目的本研究旨在通过修改和使用先前建立的备灾评估框架,比较两国在备灾方面的人道主义供应链和物流。设计/方法/方法欧洲洪水应急管理系统(FEMS)是一个七维框架,用于评估一个国家对洪水应急的准备情况。对FEMS框架进行了修改,以适用于地震。利用多解释性案例研究方法和数据分析,作者用应用分级(1-5)重建了巴基斯坦(2005年)和日本(2011年)的地震事件。研究结果在采用的FEMS框架内进行了评估。从从业者的角度来看,该框架是适用的,可以加快该领域的支持。发现巴基斯坦在2005年地震前缺乏应急计划。相比之下,日本在灾难发生前就制定了应急计划,帮助最大限度地减少伤亡。总的来说,日本的应急管理效果要好得多。然而,这两个国家都严重缺乏在行动者之间分配责任。独创性/价值人道主义供应链中的实际因素是众所周知的。然而,将单个因素综合成一个综合框架是困难的,该研究通过将FEMS框架应用于地震来解决这一问题。制定的框架为从业者提供了一个结构化的基线,用于确定实地措施的优先次序。此外,这项研究证明了在现实世界场景中,跨危险研究在应急管理和准备中的有用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management (JHLSCM) is targeted at academics and practitioners in humanitarian public and private sector organizations working on all aspects of humanitarian logistics and supply chain management. The journal promotes the exchange of knowledge, experience and new ideas between researchers and practitioners and encourages a multi-disciplinary and cross-functional approach to the resolution of problems and exploitations of opportunities within humanitarian supply chains. Contributions are encouraged from diverse disciplines (logistics, operations management, process engineering, health care, geography, management science, information technology, ethics, corporate social responsibility, disaster management, development aid, public policy) but need to have a logistics and/or supply chain focus. JHLSCM publishes state of the art research, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, in the field of humanitarian and development aid logistics and supply chain management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信