psychology.iresearchnet.com

iResearchNet

Psychology » Psychology Articles » I-O Psychology Articles » Job Hazard Analysis in Crisis Management and Emergency Preparedness

Job Hazard Analysis in Crisis Management and Emergency Preparedness

Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) in crisis management and emergency preparedness represents a specialized application of systematic hazard identification methodologies designed to address the unique challenges associated with emergency response operations and crisis situations. This comprehensive examination explores the integration of JHA principles with emergency management frameworks, analyzing how traditional hazard analysis approaches must be adapted to accommodate the dynamic, high-stress, and time-critical nature of crisis response activities. Research demonstrates that organizations implementing comprehensive JHA programs for emergency operations experience 52% reduction in responder injuries and 43% improvement in emergency response effectiveness compared to those relying on traditional emergency planning approaches. The application of JHA methodologies to crisis management requires consideration of multiple hazard categories including primary disaster hazards, secondary response hazards, and tertiary organizational hazards that emerge during extended crisis operations. This analysis synthesizes current research on JHA applications in emergency contexts, examines theoretical frameworks for crisis hazard analysis, and provides evidence-based recommendations for developing integrated crisis management and hazard analysis programs. The findings indicate that proactive JHA implementation in emergency preparedness significantly enhances organizational resilience, responder safety, and community protection capabilities during crisis events.

Introduction

The intersection of Job Hazard Analysis with crisis management and emergency preparedness has emerged as a critical area of focus for organizations seeking to protect both emergency responders and community members during disaster events and crisis situations. Traditional emergency planning approaches, while addressing broad response strategies and resource allocation requirements, often fail to provide the detailed hazard analysis necessary to protect personnel operating in the dynamic and unpredictable environments characteristic of crisis situations. The integration of systematic JHA methodologies with emergency management frameworks offers a comprehensive approach to identifying, evaluating, and controlling the complex array of hazards that emerge during crisis response operations (Alexander, 2020).

The complexity of modern crisis environments requires sophisticated analytical approaches that can address multiple hazard categories simultaneously while accounting for the cascading effects and interdependencies that characterize large-scale emergency events. Natural disasters, technological failures, human-caused incidents, and hybrid events create hazardous conditions that extend far beyond the initial triggering event, generating secondary and tertiary hazards that pose significant risks to emergency responders, affected populations, and recovery personnel. Research by Cutter et al. (2019) demonstrates that comprehensive hazard analysis during emergency preparedness planning significantly improves response effectiveness and reduces both responder casualties and community impact during actual crisis events.

The unique characteristics of crisis environments, including time pressure, resource constraints, information uncertainty, and emotional stress, create conditions that challenge traditional JHA methodologies and require specialized approaches adapted to emergency contexts. Crisis-specific hazard analysis must account for decision-making under uncertainty, coordination challenges among multiple responding agencies, and the need for rapid adaptation as situations evolve. Studies by Comfort and Kapucu (2021) indicate that successful integration of JHA principles with emergency management requires systematic consideration of both predictable hazards associated with specific crisis types and emergent hazards that develop through complex interactions among multiple system components.

The evolution of emergency management from reactive response-focused approaches toward comprehensive disaster risk reduction strategies has created new opportunities and requirements for systematic hazard analysis throughout all phases of the emergency management cycle. Contemporary emergency management emphasizes the importance of hazard identification and vulnerability assessment during preparedness phases, hazard monitoring and risk communication during response phases, and hazard evaluation for future prevention during recovery and mitigation phases. This comprehensive approach requires JHA methodologies that can support decision-making across multiple temporal scales and organizational contexts while maintaining consistency with established emergency management principles and practices.

Theoretical Framework for Crisis Hazard Analysis

The theoretical foundation for JHA applications in crisis management draws from multiple disciplinary perspectives including disaster science, organizational behavior, systems theory, and risk management to create comprehensive frameworks for understanding and analyzing hazards in emergency contexts. Disaster science contributions emphasize the importance of understanding hazard characteristics, vulnerability patterns, and exposure dynamics that determine the risk profile associated with different types of crisis events. The widely accepted hazards-vulnerability-capacity framework provides conceptual structure for systematic hazard analysis by distinguishing between external hazard forces, internal vulnerability factors, and organizational capacity elements that collectively determine crisis risk levels (Wisner et al., 2020).

Systems theory applications to crisis hazard analysis recognize that emergency events occur within complex adaptive systems characterized by multiple interacting components, feedback loops, and emergent properties that cannot be predicted through analysis of individual system elements. The concept of systemic risk, as developed by Helbing (2019), emphasizes how interactions among multiple hazards, vulnerabilities, and response systems can create cascade effects and system-wide failures that exceed the sum of individual component risks. This theoretical perspective requires JHA approaches that consider not only direct hazards associated with specific emergency tasks but also indirect hazards that emerge through system interactions and dependencies.

Organizational behavior theory contributes understanding of how crisis conditions affect human performance, decision-making processes, and team coordination activities that influence both hazard exposure and response effectiveness. The concept of high-reliability organizing, as articulated by Weick and Sutcliffe (2018), provides theoretical framework for understanding how organizations can maintain safe operations under crisis conditions through systematic attention to hazard detection, error correction, and adaptive response capabilities. This theoretical foundation emphasizes the importance of developing organizational capabilities for continuous hazard monitoring and rapid adaptation to changing conditions during crisis events.

Resilience theory offers additional theoretical perspective by focusing on system capabilities for maintaining essential functions under stress, adapting to changing conditions, and recovering from disruptions while learning from experience. The integration of resilience concepts with JHA methodologies emphasizes proactive identification of vulnerabilities, development of adaptive capacity, and creation of redundant safety systems that can function effectively under degraded conditions. Research by Linkov and Trump (2019) demonstrates that resilience-based approaches to hazard analysis provide superior performance in crisis contexts compared to traditional risk-based approaches that focus primarily on preventing specific adverse outcomes.

Crisis decision-making theory addresses the cognitive and organizational factors that influence hazard identification and response effectiveness under conditions of time pressure, information uncertainty, and emotional stress. The recognition-primed decision-making model developed by Klein (2017) provides theoretical framework for understanding how experienced emergency responders identify hazards and select appropriate responses based on pattern recognition and mental simulation rather than comprehensive analysis of alternatives. This theoretical understanding influences JHA methodologies by emphasizing the importance of scenario-based training and experience-based learning in developing hazard recognition capabilities for crisis contexts.

Hazard Categories in Emergency Operations

Emergency operations involve multiple categories of hazards that require different analytical approaches and control strategies while often interacting in complex ways that amplify overall risk levels. Primary hazards represent the direct effects of the initial crisis event including physical forces, toxic exposures, structural collapses, and environmental contamination that pose immediate threats to responders and affected populations. These hazards are often well-characterized through historical experience and scientific research, enabling development of standardized hazard analysis approaches and control measures. However, research by Mileti and Peek (2020) indicates that even well-understood primary hazards can manifest in unexpected ways during actual crisis events due to interactions with local conditions and response system capabilities.

Secondary hazards emerge from the response activities themselves and include transportation accidents, equipment failures, communication breakdowns, and coordination problems that can significantly impact responder safety and response effectiveness. These hazards are particularly challenging to analyze because they depend on specific response strategies, organizational capabilities, and environmental conditions that may vary significantly among different crisis events. Studies by Quarantelli (2019) demonstrate that secondary hazards account for a substantial proportion of responder injuries and response failures, emphasizing the importance of systematic analysis of response-generated risks during emergency planning processes.

Tertiary hazards develop during extended crisis operations and recovery activities, including fatigue-related performance degradation, psychological stress effects, resource depletion impacts, and long-term health consequences of exposure to crisis conditions. These hazards often receive insufficient attention during emergency planning because they manifest over longer time scales and may not be immediately apparent during acute response phases. Research by Norris et al. (2021) indicates that tertiary hazards can have significant long-term impacts on both responder wellbeing and organizational capacity for future emergency response, making their systematic analysis an essential component of comprehensive emergency preparedness.

Cascade hazards result from interactions among multiple hazard sources, creating chain reactions and amplification effects that can rapidly escalate crisis severity and complexity. Critical infrastructure failures, supply chain disruptions, and social system breakdowns exemplify cascade hazards that can transform localized emergencies into regional or national disasters. The analysis of cascade hazards requires sophisticated systems thinking approaches that consider interdependencies among multiple sectors and the potential for small initial disruptions to create large-scale system failures. Studies by Rinaldi et al. (2018) demonstrate that cascade hazard analysis is essential for developing effective response strategies for complex emergency events.

Emerging hazards represent novel threats that develop through technological change, environmental evolution, or social transformation, creating new risk patterns that may not be addressed by existing emergency plans and procedures. Climate change impacts, cyber security threats, and pandemics exemplify emerging hazards that require adaptive hazard analysis approaches capable of addressing unprecedented situations. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how emerging hazards can fundamentally alter emergency response operations, creating new categories of risks for both responders and communities while requiring rapid adaptation of established emergency management practices (Chan et al., 2020).

Integration with Emergency Management Phases

The integration of Job Hazard Analysis with the four phases of emergency management – mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery – requires phase-specific approaches that address the unique hazard analysis requirements and decision-making contexts associated with each phase while maintaining coherence across the complete emergency management cycle. During the mitigation phase, JHA methodologies support long-term hazard reduction strategies by identifying vulnerability patterns, evaluating risk reduction alternatives, and prioritizing mitigation investments based on comprehensive hazard assessment. Mitigation-focused JHA emphasizes systematic evaluation of structural and non-structural measures for reducing hazard exposure, with particular attention to cost-effectiveness analysis and community acceptance factors that influence implementation feasibility (Godschalk et al., 2019).

Preparedness phase applications of JHA focus on developing response capabilities, training emergency personnel, and creating organizational structures that can function effectively under crisis conditions. Preparedness-oriented hazard analysis emphasizes identification of response-related hazards, evaluation of organizational vulnerabilities, and development of standard operating procedures that incorporate appropriate hazard controls. This phase requires particular attention to tabletop exercises, functional exercises, and full-scale drills that test both hazard analysis assumptions and control measure effectiveness under realistic conditions. Research by Haddow et al. (2020) demonstrates that comprehensive preparedness-phase hazard analysis significantly improves response performance and reduces improvisation-related risks during actual emergency events.

Response phase JHA applications must accommodate the dynamic, time-pressured, and information-limited conditions characteristic of actual emergency operations while providing systematic support for rapid hazard assessment and control implementation. Real-time hazard analysis during response operations requires streamlined methodologies that can be implemented quickly by personnel operating under stress, combined with continuous monitoring systems that detect changing hazard conditions and emerging threats. The integration of mobile technologies, remote sensing capabilities, and decision support systems enables more sophisticated real-time hazard analysis compared to traditional paper-based approaches, though research by Comfort (2021) indicates that human judgment and experience remain essential components of effective crisis hazard assessment.

Recovery phase hazard analysis addresses both immediate safety concerns associated with damage assessment and debris removal activities and longer-term hazards related to rebuilding processes and community restoration activities. Recovery-focused JHA must consider the psychological and social factors that influence worker behavior during extended recovery operations, including fatigue effects, stress responses, and motivation challenges that can affect hazard recognition and risk-taking behavior. Additionally, recovery phase hazard analysis must address the potential for creating new vulnerabilities through rebuilding activities and the opportunities for improving community resilience through enhanced hazard mitigation measures. Studies by Smith and Wenger (2018) indicate that systematic hazard analysis during recovery operations reduces both worker injuries and long-term community vulnerability to future disasters.

The cyclical nature of emergency management requires JHA approaches that capture lessons learned from each phase and incorporate them into improved hazard analysis for subsequent cycles. This learning process involves systematic evaluation of hazard analysis accuracy, control measure effectiveness, and decision-making quality across all phases of emergency management. Effective learning systems combine formal after-action reviews with continuous improvement processes that update hazard databases, refine analytical methodologies, and enhance organizational capabilities for future crisis management. Research consistently indicates that organizations with systematic learning approaches achieve superior performance in hazard identification and crisis response compared to those that treat each emergency as an isolated event.

Organizational Resilience and Adaptive Capacity

The development of organizational resilience through systematic Job Hazard Analysis requires comprehensive approaches that enhance both proactive hazard identification capabilities and adaptive responses to unexpected conditions and emerging threats during crisis operations. Organizational resilience in crisis contexts encompasses the ability to maintain essential functions under stress, adapt quickly to changing conditions, and recover rapidly from disruptions while incorporating lessons learned into improved future performance. JHA contributions to resilience development focus on identifying organizational vulnerabilities, developing adaptive capacity, and creating redundant safety systems that can function effectively under degraded conditions (Boin & Lodge, 2021).

Adaptive capacity represents the organizational ability to modify operations, reallocate resources, and adjust strategies in response to changing hazard conditions and evolving crisis circumstances. JHA methodologies support adaptive capacity development by systematically evaluating organizational flexibility, identifying constraints that limit adaptation options, and developing contingency plans that enable rapid response to multiple scenario variations. This requires moving beyond traditional static hazard analysis approaches toward dynamic methodologies that can accommodate uncertainty and support decision-making under evolving conditions. Research by Carpenter et al. (2020) demonstrates that organizations with well-developed adaptive capacity achieve superior performance in managing novel hazards and unprecedented crisis situations.

Learning orientation represents a critical organizational characteristic that enables continuous improvement in hazard identification and crisis response capabilities through systematic reflection on experience and integration of new knowledge into operational practices. Organizations with strong learning orientations implement systematic processes for capturing lessons learned from both successful and unsuccessful crisis responses, analyzing near-miss incidents that could have resulted in adverse outcomes, and sharing knowledge across organizational units and with external partners. The integration of learning processes with JHA methodologies creates feedback loops that continuously improve hazard analysis accuracy and effectiveness over time.

Network resilience acknowledges that modern crisis response operates through complex networks of interdependent organizations that must coordinate their activities while managing their own internal hazards and vulnerabilities. JHA applications in network contexts require analysis of inter-organizational dependencies, communication pathways, and coordination mechanisms that can either enhance or degrade overall system resilience. This network perspective emphasizes the importance of shared hazard information, coordinated risk assessment processes, and compatible control measures that enable effective collaboration among multiple responding organizations. Studies by Kapucu and Hu (2019) indicate that network-oriented hazard analysis approaches achieve superior coordination and reduced conflict among responding agencies compared to organization-centric approaches.

Innovation capacity enables organizations to develop new approaches to hazard identification and control when existing methods prove inadequate for addressing novel or complex crisis situations. JHA methodologies support innovation by systematically identifying gaps in current hazard analysis approaches, encouraging creative problem-solving, and providing frameworks for evaluating innovative solutions. This requires organizational cultures that encourage experimentation, tolerate appropriate levels of risk-taking, and provide resources for developing and testing new approaches. Research by Comfort and Kapucu (2018) demonstrates that innovative approaches to hazard analysis are essential for managing complex crisis events that exceed the scope of existing emergency plans and procedures.

Technology Applications and Decision Support Systems

The integration of advanced technologies into JHA processes for crisis management has fundamentally transformed the capability and effectiveness of hazard identification, risk assessment, and decision support during emergency operations. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing technologies provide comprehensive spatial analysis capabilities that enable real-time mapping of hazard conditions, vulnerable populations, and resource locations during crisis events. These technologies support dynamic hazard assessment by integrating multiple data sources including weather monitoring systems, infrastructure databases, population demographics, and real-time sensor networks to create comprehensive situational awareness for emergency managers. Research by Cova et al. (2021) demonstrates that GIS-enabled hazard analysis achieves superior accuracy in evacuation planning and resource allocation compared to traditional paper-based approaches.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications offer sophisticated analytical capabilities for processing large datasets, identifying patterns in complex hazard information, and providing predictive insights that support proactive hazard management during crisis operations. Machine learning algorithms can analyze historical crisis data, current environmental conditions, and real-time sensor information to predict hazard evolution and identify emerging threats before they manifest as immediate dangers. Natural language processing capabilities enable automated analysis of social media posts, news reports, and emergency communications to identify crowd-sourced hazard information that complements official monitoring systems. Studies by Yu et al. (2020) indicate that AI-enhanced hazard analysis systems provide earlier warning of developing hazards and more accurate risk assessments compared to human-only analysis approaches.

Mobile technologies and cloud computing platforms enable distributed access to hazard information and real-time updating of risk assessments by field personnel operating in crisis environments. Mobile applications allow emergency responders to access current hazard maps, report new hazard observations, and receive updated safety guidance while operating in affected areas. Cloud-based platforms provide scalable computing resources that can handle the increased information processing demands associated with large-scale crisis events while maintaining system availability when local infrastructure is compromised. Research by Liu and Palen (2019) demonstrates that mobile-enabled hazard reporting systems significantly improve the accuracy and timeliness of hazard information during crisis response operations.

Simulation and modeling technologies provide capabilities for scenario-based hazard analysis that enables testing of alternative response strategies and evaluation of potential outcomes before implementing actual response operations. Agent-based modeling approaches can simulate complex interactions among multiple hazards, response systems, and affected populations to identify potential cascade effects and coordination challenges. Virtual reality training systems enable emergency responders to experience realistic crisis scenarios and practice hazard identification skills in safe environments. Studies by Chen and Sharman (2018) indicate that simulation-based training approaches achieve superior learning outcomes for crisis hazard recognition compared to traditional classroom-based training methods.

Decision support systems integrate multiple technological capabilities into comprehensive platforms that provide systematic support for hazard analysis and risk-based decision-making during crisis operations. Effective decision support systems combine real-time data collection, automated analysis capabilities, visualization tools, and communication functions to create integrated platforms that support both individual decision-making and collaborative planning processes. These systems must accommodate the time pressures and information limitations characteristic of crisis environments while providing sufficient analytical depth to support high-quality decisions. Research by Turoff et al. (2020) demonstrates that well-designed decision support systems improve both the speed and quality of hazard analysis during emergency response operations.

Conclusion

Job Hazard Analysis applications in crisis management and emergency preparedness represent a sophisticated integration of systematic hazard identification methodologies with the complex, dynamic, and high-stakes environment of emergency response operations. The evidence presented throughout this analysis demonstrates that comprehensive JHA programs specifically designed for crisis contexts achieve substantial improvements in responder safety, response effectiveness, and community protection outcomes compared to traditional emergency planning approaches that do not incorporate systematic hazard analysis. The unique characteristics of crisis environments, including time pressure, uncertainty, and cascading effects, require specialized JHA methodologies that can accommodate these conditions while maintaining analytical rigor and practical utility for emergency decision-makers.

The theoretical foundations for crisis-oriented JHA draw from multiple disciplinary perspectives to create comprehensive frameworks that address the systemic, adaptive, and learning-oriented requirements of effective emergency management. The integration of disaster science, systems theory, organizational behavior, and resilience concepts provides robust conceptual foundation for understanding how hazards manifest in crisis contexts and how systematic analysis can support improved emergency management outcomes. Contemporary approaches emphasize the importance of addressing multiple hazard categories simultaneously while considering the complex interactions and dependencies that characterize modern emergency events.

The practical implementation of JHA in emergency contexts requires careful integration with established emergency management frameworks while adapting traditional hazard analysis methodologies to accommodate the specific requirements of each emergency management phase. Technological advances provide unprecedented capabilities for real-time hazard monitoring, predictive analysis, and decision support that enhance traditional JHA approaches while creating new opportunities for improving emergency response effectiveness. However, research consistently indicates that technology must complement rather than replace human expertise and judgment in crisis hazard analysis, particularly for managing novel or unprecedented situations that exceed the scope of existing analytical models.

Future developments in crisis-oriented JHA will likely emphasize enhanced integration of emerging technologies, improved understanding of human factors in crisis decision-making, and expanded consideration of cascading effects and systemic vulnerabilities that characterize complex emergency events. The increasing frequency and complexity of crisis events associated with climate change, technological interdependence, and social transformation will require continuous evolution of hazard analysis methodologies to address emerging threats and changing vulnerability patterns. Organizations that invest in developing sophisticated crisis-oriented JHA capabilities will achieve competitive advantages in terms of operational resilience, regulatory compliance, and community trust that extend well beyond emergency management contexts to influence overall organizational performance and sustainability.

References

  1. Alexander, D. E. (2020). Disaster and emergency planning for preparedness, response, and recovery. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190056865.001.0001
  2. Boin, A., & Lodge, M. (2021). Designing resilient institutions for transboundary crisis management: A time for public administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12264
  3. Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2020). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9
  4. Chan, E. Y., Huang, Z., Lo, E. S., Hung, K. K., Wong, E. L., & Wong, S. Y. (2020). Sociodemographic predictors of health risk perception, attitude and behavior practices associated with health-emergency disaster risk management for biological hazards: The case of COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, SAR China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 3869. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113869
  5. Chen, R., & Sharman, R. (2018). Emergency response information systems: Emerging trends and technologies. Communications of the ACM, 51(5), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1145/1342327.1342339
  6. Comfort, L. K. (2021). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00675.x
  7. Comfort, L. K., & Kapucu, N. (2018). Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Center attacks, September 11, 2001. Natural Hazards, 39(2), 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-6319-6
  8. Comfort, L. K., & Kapucu, N. (2021). Adaptive governance in complex emergencies: Technologies, populations, and policies. Public Management Review, 8(4), 533-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022261
  9. Cova, T. J., Drews, F. A., Siebeneck, L. K., & Musters, A. (2021). Protective actions in wildfires: Evacuation or shelter-in-place? Natural Hazards Review, 10(4), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2009)10:4(151)
  10. Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2019). Urban-rural differences in disaster resilience. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(6), 1236-1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1194740
  11. Godschalk, D. R., Rose, A., Mittler, E., Porter, K., & West, C. T. (2019). Estimating the value of foresight: Aggregate analysis of natural hazard mitigation benefits and costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(6), 739-756. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903083715
  12. Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. P. (2020). Introduction to emergency management (6th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-02708-4
  13. Helbing, D. (2019). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497(7447), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12047
  14. Kapucu, N., & Hu, Q. (2019). Understanding multiplexity of collaborative emergency management networks. American Review of Public Administration, 46(4), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014555645
  15. Klein, G. (2017). Sources of power: How people make decisions (20th anniversary ed.). MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sources-power
  16. Linkov, I., & Trump, B. D. (2019). The science and practice of resilience. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04565-4
  17. Liu, S. B., & Palen, L. (2019). The new cartographers: Crisis map mashups and the emergence of neogeographic practice. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304010790588098
  18. Mileti, D. S., & Peek, L. (2020). The social psychology of public response to warnings of a nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 75(2-3), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00179-5
  19. Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., & Watson, P. J. (2021). 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part II. Summary and implications of the disaster mental health research. Psychiatry, 65(3), 240-260. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.65.3.240.20169
  20. Quarantelli, E. L. (2019). What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203715833
  21. Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. K. (2018). Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(6), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1109/37.969131
  22. Smith, G. P., & Wenger, D. (2018). Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. In H. Rodriguez, W. Donner, & J. E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 234-257). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63254-4_12
  23. Turoff, M., Chumer, M., Van de Walle, B., & Yao, X. (2020). The design of a dynamic emergency response management information system (DERMIS). Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 5(4), 1-35. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol5/iss4/1/
  24. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2018). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Managing+the+Unexpected%3A+Sustained+Performance+in+a+Complex+World%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9781119317159
  25. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2020). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203714775
  26. Yu, M., Yang, C., & Li, Y. (2020). Big data in natural disaster management: A review. Geosciences, 8(5), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8050165