A Comparison of the Role of Voluntary Organizations in Disaster Management

Abstract

This research aimed to compare different voluntary organizations in disaster management in the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Comparative case studies were used to evaluate the following: the specialized expertise and unsolicited goods and services approach of the United States, the collaborative relations and small-scale approach of Japan, and the additional support and unsystematic coordination approach of community-based organizations in Korea. Three variables were considered: volunteers and their organizations, financial independence, and preferred strategies. The key findings are as follows: each country has tried to enhance the role of its own voluntary organizations in disaster management; the nations studied have similarities and differences in their strategies and actions; and the specific developments in each country have been varied and reflective of its respective culture. This work, as a pioneering study, evaluated three national cases in terms of voluntary organizations in disaster management in the Asia–Pacific region.

Factors Affecting the Cyclone Preparedness Programme Volunteers’ Performance in Early Warning Dissemination in Emergency Response in Bangladesh

“…The survey results revealed that the communities in both the study areas did not properly understand the cyclone early warning messages. Accordingly, some researchers have studied the ways to improve the role of voluntary organizations in the field of disaster management from various viewpoints, such as management, participation, and organizational effectiveness (Wymer andSamu 2002, Jung andHa 2021). However, this research acknowledges the factors affecting the volunteers' activities in early warning and communities understanding of the level of early warning methods.…”

“…Despite the efforts of voluntary organizations for disaster management, the activities of these organizations have not always been successful. For example, when Hurricane Katrina hit the United States in 2005, volunteers were unable to seamlessly integrate into the disaster response phase (Jung and Ha 2021). The employees of voluntary organizations did not know how to manage volunteers or the work that had to be done at that time.…”

“…However, after the experience of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, volunteers help to spread the early warnings information and help to evacuate to shelters. It is found that, developed countries like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand provide strong financial support to their emergency volunteering (Mackwani and Sullivan 2016;Jung and Ha 2021). This regular emergency training can ensure that personnel with qualified skills can be effectively deployed to participate in emergency volunteer services during disasters.…”

Robust emergency management: The role of institutional trust in organized volunteers

“…A considerable part of the scalability of modern emergency management systems rests on voluntarism and the extent to which ICs are able to mobilize and entrust volunteers to perform critical functions when mitigating, preparing for, and responding to accidents and large‐scale disasters (Wu et al, 2015; Simo & Bies, 2007; Brudney & Gazley, 2009). Volunteers not only constitute a vital reserve that authorities and non‐profit organizations depend upon during extraordinary large‐scale and prolonged catastrophes, but also function as an integral part of the emergency management systems at both national and local levels of governance (MacManus & Carusonz, 2011; Jung & Ha, 2021).…”

“…Today, scholars, policy‐makers, and professionals generally agree that robust emergency management (REM) is not about detailed planning, standardization and centralization, but about building, coordinating, and sustaining strong networks of public and private actors capable of immediate adaptation, malleable maneuvering, and agile modification (Boin & ‘t Hart, 2010; Moynihan, 2009; ‘t Hardt, 2013; Ansell et al, 2021). Specifically, the use of volunteers of scalable resource that allows for flexible modification of the size and scope of emergency response in the face of emergent and evolving crises and catastrophes has proven pivotal for the robustness of local emergency management systems across the globe (Wu et al, 2015; Simo & Bies, 2007; Brudney & Gazley, 2009; MacManus & Caruson, 2011; Jung & Ha, 2021).…”