How to cite this article: Nojavan, M., Salehi, E. & Omidvar, B., 2018, `Conceptual change of disaster management models: A thematic analysis`, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 10(1), a451. doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v10i1.451 The Manitoba model is one of the famous integrated models. This model typically consists of six independent elements, namely the strategic plan, hazard assessment, risk management, mitigation, preparedness, and monitoring and assessment. Each element respects its own boundaries and includes its own activities and processes (Manitoba Health Disaster Management 2002). The advantage of this model is that it offers a balance between preparedness and flexibility to be able to respond routinely to the specific needs of disasters. Since this model links actions and events during disasters, these connections can be close or loose. After reviewing the mentioned models, taking into account the need to examine the effective sub-components of disaster management in each identified organizational topic, the subcomponents of the ideal type are discussed in this section. Table 4 shows the subcomponents of three organization topics in the selected ideal models. The second step in the study process is model analysis. In this phase, we tried to extract and classify the subjects of each model using thematic analysis. This method requires three steps.
In the first phase, the descriptive coding, the existing elements in each model were extracted as code, and then the basic topics that are the repetitive and distinct characteristics of the text were recognized. Then, in the interpretive coding phase, the basic topics were divided into three categories called organizational topics. These categories are hazard assessment, risk management and management actions. The final step is the determination of the overall theme formed from all the other topics mentioned (King & Horrocks 2010). The main objective of the Weichselgartner model is to assess the likely damage and plan future measures to reduce this damage. This model also attempts to propose a complete model by examining the components presented in Table 4. In this context, different models of disaster management have been proposed by researchers and authorities. Quarantelli (1994) attempted to develop the principles of disaster management. For him, the “principles of good and effective disaster planning” have certain characteristics that can be used as general principles.
Cuny (1998) defined a disaster management cycle, which is one of the most comprehensive cycles, taking into account the management and leadership measures and activities to be undertaken during a disaster. Mileti (1999) developed a set of principles to prevent and reduce the negative effects of natural disasters. Kimberly (2003) proposed a four-phase disaster management model. In this model, special attention was paid to emergency management. McEntire, Crocker and Peters (2010) proposed an integrated approach to vulnerability modelling based on schools of physics, engineering, structure and organization. The Organization`s school, the youngest school for natural hazards, was created on the basis of the concept of resilience. Van der Waldt (2013) also proposed measures to unify theory as a global paradigm for disaster risk management. How are the elements that received the least attention in the previous models treated in the proposed model? Differences and discrepancies between different models of disaster management have led to complications in this conceptual structure and theoretical chaos. Bailey (1994) argues that a well-formed typology can be very effective in establishing discipline in a chaotic environment and reducing complications. Based on this conceptual model for the development of a comprehensive disaster management model, three main questions will first be answered: The third step is typology. After analyzing the models, the basic subjects are identified and used as a theoretical structure to form the table of types. By multiplying the theoretical structures between them and recognizing their different combinations, all possible types are created and named.
The models are then classified by comparison and the models are adapted to the types. Taking into account the main objective of the study, 38 models of disaster and crisis planning and management were then selected, which were proposed for analysis by various researchers from 1941 to 2016 in different countries. These models included general models. In the McConkey, Crunch, Pressure and Release (PAR), Fink`s Comprehensive Audit, Baas et al. and Fink models, a great deal of attention was paid to hazard assessment and risk management. In these models, the only missing link between the three main components of the study is the management process or measures. Therefore, these models are also included in the category of two-dimensional models. The wheel-shaped model is also considered an operational model of processing, but can be considered as one of three model options by examining components such as resource assessment in the field of hazard assessment and risk identification in the field of risk management.
The first category is logic models. Logic models provide a simple definition of disaster levels and focus on the basic events and actions that represent a disaster. The traditional disaster management model is one of the well-known and common logic models. .