Local Recovery Coordinators and the National Disaster Recovery Framework: Questions Regarding the Form, Necessity, and Potential of the Role

Abstract

This article discusses the “uncoordinated” critique of the disaster recovery process and the current attempt to address the issue through the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). Scholars have identified that the topic of coordination in disaster recovery is one that needs policy attention and it is laudable that the federal government has provided such focused attention by way of the NDRF. Yet, it is also important to critically examine whether the NDRF’s proposed recovery coordination vision – the local disaster recovery manager – is a reasonable foundation upon which to address the issues of recovery processes nationwide. This article examines this issue by discussing the extent to which the NDRF recovery manager role is consistent with what the literature would suggest, the extent to which the NDRF role is needed, and the extent to which it is possible that the NDRF-depicted local role be fulfilled across the country. Implications for the vision set out in the NDRF and recommendations for future research are discussed in light of this analysis.

Planning for Adaptation? Examining the Planning Integration for Hazard Risk Reduction

“…National policy frameworks are found unclear about the appropriate expertise needed to advance local recovery [30]. The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF)-aiming to promote policy coordination-does not provide specific requirements on who should participate in a recovery planning committee [31,32]. We believe the ubiquity of local mitigation planning since the adoption of the DMA in most communities can at least provide a mitigation planning committee that could pivot to also address recovery.…”

Setting research priorities in the field of emergency management: which piece of information are you willing to pay more?

“…In most cases scientific works aim to present by mean of case studies particular interventions (see for example Scott and Jane 2016), in other they present new checklists (see for example Kirkpatrick et al 2017) in order to prevent accidents. In other cases, the role of the team (see for example Green and Kolesar 2004) and the importance of coordination (see for example Majchrzak et al 2004), communication (see for example Zhang et al 2018), accountability (see for example Hwang and Hyung 2016), logistics (see for example Lee et al 2006) and information (see for example Wang et al 2017) during emergencies are emphasized.…”