Companion animals and disasters: The role of Human Services Organisations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:Companion animals have often been treated as an afterthought, or ignored, by those involved in planning for and responding to disasters. This omission in planning for the needs of companion animals has been predicated upon a failure to recognise the emotional bond between many people and their companion animals. This has resulted in significant costs for humans and animals in many disasters. This article serves to raise issues regarding the responsibilities of human service organisations (HSOs) for animal-inclusive disaster risk reduction (DRR). METHOD:This article develops a conceptual base for the consideration of the inclusion of animals in disaster planning and response within human services organisations. By first establishing the legitimacy of the human-animal bond and the requirement for human services organisations to develop their disaster planning, an exploration of the literature explores the rationale for the inclusion of companion animals within DRR. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS:A clearly demonstrated relationship between DRR and the presence of companion animals is evidenced within the literature. Delays in evacuation due to the lack of facilities for companion animals, the loss and grief experienced by those forced to abandon their animals, and the particular vulnerabilities of those living in isolation or in homeless situations attest to the importance of animal-inclusive planning. Those living with animals may be more inclined to commit to DRR if the needs of their animals are included in planning. A mandate for organisational and professional responsibility for the inclusion of companion animals is established. CONCLUSION:For effective DRR, human services organisations have a professional and ethical imperative to include companion animals in their disaster planning and response.

Animals in Disaster Social Work: An Intersectional Green Perspective Inclusive of Species

“…Beyond climate change, animals are affected by other disasters that hit our multispecies communities, yet they are often left unconsidered when it comes to disaster planning and response ( Evans and Perez-y-Perez, 2013 ; Potts and Gadenne, 2014 ; Thompson, 2018 ). In their social work study of the earthquake in Christchurch, for example, Darroch and Adamson (2016) underlined the human–companion animal bonds so often by those affected by disasters but not always understood or provided for through policies and programmes. As they note,…”

“… For many people, the idea of leaving their companion animals behind during a disaster is unthinkable… The presence of companion animals during a disaster often leads to people staying in dangerous situations or attempting to evacuate with them, even if this places people and animals at increased risk ( Darroch and Adamson, 2016 , p. 102). …”

“…Fortunately, mainstream disaster management and recovery knowledge and practices are slowly expanding to include nonhuman animals. For instance, attention is increasingly given to the inclusion of pets and other animals on private properties in bushfire evacuation plans, and the need for animal-inclusive emergency and post-disaster accommodation arrangements (see Darroch and Adamson, 2016 ). Admittedly, animal inclusive disaster planning poses several complexities, especially for larger animals such as horses, donkeys and lamas, who are more likely to be living in rural and remote areas where the needs can be high but the support services spread thin.…”

Untitled

“…Owners resisted evacuation orders and those who left their pets behind attempted to re-enter dangerous evacuation zones to rescue their pets [21,22]. Intense grief and depression were often experienced by individuals who were forced to abandon their pets during natural disasters [23]. Given these considerations, emergency planning protocols must be reformed to include the safety of pets.…”

Categorising animals and habitats in disaster-related activities

“…Initiatives to incorporate animals and habitats within disasterrelated activities are scattered at times, often focusing on one particular typology or classification defined by the discipline or purpose of the people involved. For instance, Darroch and Adamson's (2016) 'animal-inclusive disaster risk reduction' focuses on companion animals. Furthermore, animals can be labelled as problematic in disasters or as inhibitors for disaster-related activities, rather than being regarded as advantageous or supportive factors (Thompson 2013).…”