See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249359280

Rethinking Disasters by Design

Article in Disaster Prevention and Management · February 2010

DOI: 10.1108/09653561011022135

CITATIONS READS
15 1,983

2 authors:

Richard H. Afedzie David A. Mcentire

Pentecost University College University of North Texas
10 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 2,453 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David A. Mcentire on 24 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm

DPM
19,1 Rethinking Disasters by Design
Richard Afedzie and David A. McEntire
Department of Public Administration, University of North Texas,
Denton, Texas, USA
48
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to reflect on Dennis Mileti’s Disasters by Design ten years after its
publication and to discuss the book’s contributions and limitations. It seeks to uncover how Mileti’s
work relates to disaster and emergency management policy.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines scholarly reviews of Mileti’s work and
explores the theoretical and practical implications of his important research.
Findings – Disasters by Design recognizes the importance of environmental protection and poverty
reduction in disaster policies. However, this work may not fully capture all the hazards, distinct types
of vulnerability, phases and functions pertinent to emergency management.
Research limitations/implications – This review both accepts and questions some of the
assessments of Mileti’s work. The perspective of this review may help shape the future of emergency
management policy.
Practical implications – The paper provides a comprehensive view of disasters and offers
recommendations to improve the emergency management profession.
Originality/value – The review is one of the few works that examines Mileti’s work with a critical
eye. It draws concern to his paradigm and suggests the need for continued refinement.
Keywords Hazards, Economic sustainability, Disasters, Loss prevention
Paper type General review

Disaster Prevention and Management
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2010
pp. 48-58
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0965-3562
DOI 10.1108/09653561011022135
Introduction
Dennis Mileti’s well-known method for dealing with hazards, published as Disasters by
Design (1999), is a landmark contribution to the analysis of natural disaster mitigation.
Mileti’s approach has had a substantial impact on research and disaster pedagogy. The
major strength of Mileti’s book is his promotion of “greater acceptance of sustainable
development in the United States and throughout the globe and to commit to making
hazard mitigation and disaster management consistent with it” (Mileti, 1999, p. 267).
Over the past decade, Mileti’s work has been highly praised by a number of scholars
(Svenson, 2001; Burton, 2000). However, those praising the work may not have
examined the overall picture of Mileti’s paradigm, and it is precisely specific
arguments, omissions and implications of his paradigm that may contain potential
weaknesses. With the advantage of a decade of hindsight, much more is known about
the potential risk of other hazards and the broad nature of emergency management[1].
It is now clear that alternative versions of/to Mileti’s paradigms could and should be
developed to highlight broader and more fundamental measures to deal effectively
with disasters.
Since Mileti’s work still has wide currency in our discipline, the time is ripe for a
critical analysis of his paradigms and arguments. In this vein, we undertake a four-fold
review of Mileti’s work. First, we examine the content and arguments analyzed in his
book. Second, the contributions of sustainable hazard mitigation are highlighted
through the eyes of other scholars. Third, a closer look at the argument in Disasters by
Design is undertaken to draw out some of the weaknesses inherent in this work.
Finally, we emphasize the implications of Mileti’s paradigm and conclude with some Rethinking
thoughts about the way forward in emergency management. Disasters by
Design
Content and argument
Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States is a
follow-up to the first assessment by White and Haas (1975). Mileti’s analysis of hazards
mitigation is the core aspect of the US second assessment. Drawing on the work of about 49
140 researchers, Mileti highlighted the intellectual strength of US hazards research as
well as the productive and long-standing linkages between research and policy.
Prior to Mileti’s work, White and Haas (1975) published a pioneering report on the
nation’s ability to withstand and respond to natural disasters. The result of the first
assessment was an effort taking stock of the nation’s knowledge regarding natural
hazards and disasters (Mileti, 1999, p. 21). In the first report, White and Haas (1975) noted
that the nation had concentrated too heavily on technological solutions when what was
needed was “technology in balance” (Mileti, 1999, p. 2). In other words, White and Haas
suggested that the way to reduce disasters was to use programs that provide equitable
distributions of costs and benefits of recovery among various economic and social groups.
Mileti declares the impact of the first assessment on the hazard management field as
an essential work that “lowered the walls that had separated many of the disciplines
involved with natural hazards and paved the way for the interdisciplinary approaches
to hazards research and management that the nation enjoys today” (Mileti,1999, p. 21).
In short, White and Haas (1975) point out that “rather than simply picking up the
pieces after disasters, the nation could employ better planning, land-use controls, and
other preventive and mitigation measures to reduce the toll in the first place” (Mileti,
1999, p. 1). This “publication provided the baseline for much of the world as well as
signposts for research and policy that were applied widely, if a little uncritically,
almost everywhere” (Burton, 2000).
However, according to Mileti, the research by White and Haas (1975) had
inadequately developed explanations for losses from disasters. In addressing these
shortcomings, Mileti recognizes that hazards are complex due to overlapping and
interacting environments (Mileti, 1999, p.133). The physical systems that give rise to
extreme events are complex and changing. Also, the socio-economic characteristics of
the nation’s people are dynamic, resulting in a larger proportion with low incomes who
are more likely to be seriously affected by disasters (Mileti, 1999, p.135).
Mileti’s principal goal is to foster truly long-term mitigation and loss reduction
measures and to avoid burdening future generations with unnecessary hazards (Mileti,
1999, p. 30). In line with this, he explains that communities that carefully mitigate the
impact of hazards will improve overall sustainability in addition to community
resilience (Mileti, 1999).
Mileti defines sustainability as the capacity of a locality to “tolerate and overcome
damage, diminished productivity, and reduced quality of life from an extreme event
without significant outside assistance” (Mileti, 1999, p. 4). He asserts that hazards
mitigation must be done in a sustainable way by maintaining and improving
environmental conditions, people’s quality of life, local resilience, local economies,
inter- and-intra generational equity, and local decision-making and opinion. These
tasks are then assigned to a “sustainable hazard mitigation network” made up of
planners, resources managers, environmentalists, and other “local stakeholders”.
DPM Mileti formulated five new approaches for hazards mitigation:
19,1 (1) adopt a global systems perspective;
(2) accept human responsibility for hazards and disasters;
(3) anticipate ambiguity and change;
(4) reject short-term thinking; and
50 (5) take a broader, more generous view of social forces and their role in hazards and
disasters (Mileti, 1999, p. 26).

In this sense, Mileti argues that a change in culture is needed to reduce disasters.
However, Mileti acknowledges that the primary mechanism for ensuring
sustainable hazards mitigation is land-use planning and management. The broad
application of this tool can incorporate the concept of land-use planning, environmental
protection, hazards mitigation, and sustainable development to reduce disasters,
maintain the natural mitigative qualities of local ecosystems, and enhance the
resiliency of the built environment (Mileti, 1999, p. 31). Mileti also states that the use of
building codes and standards is another tool of sustainable hazards mitigation that can
greatly reduce the damages and losses from natural hazards.
Further, Mileti demonstrates that sustainable hazard mitigation can be achieved by
society through the adaptation of a consensus-building approach (Mileti, 1999, p. 34). In
this regard, Mileti asserts that “building consensus is a process of seeking wide
participation among all of the people who have a stake in the outcome of the decision
being pondered, identifying all possible concerns and issues, generating ideas for
dealing with them, and reaching agreement about how they will be resolved and what
steps will be taken” (Mileti, 1999, p. 34). In his suggestions to curtail the losses from
hazards, Mileti proposes other techniques and practices, which included improved
warning and short-term forecasts, engineering, building codes and insurance coverage.
While Mileti focused predominately on hazard mitigation and sustainable
development, he also looked at the state of knowledge regarding preparedness,
response and recovery issues. He views preparedness as the activities of formulating,
testing, and exercising disaster plans; providing training, testing, and exercising
disaster plans; and communicating with the public and others about disasters and
what to do to reduce them (Mileti, 1999, p. 215). He examines preparedness in the
context of the household, organizations, communities, states and the nation. Mileti
asserts that disaster response activities include emergency sheltering, search and
rescue, care of the injured, fire fighting, damage assessment, and other emergency
measures. Disaster responders also cope with response-generated demands such as the
need for coordination, communications, ongoing situation assessment, and resource
mobilization during the emergency period (Mileti, 1999, p. 220). In Disasters by Design,
Mileti also examines group emergence, organizational response, local emergency
management agencies, the private sector and multiorganizational response (Mileti,
1999, p.226). Mileti defines recovery as the short-term activities to restore vital support
systems and long-term activities to return life to normal (Mileti, 1999, p. 23). He also
states that “recovery is not just a physical outcome but a social process that
encompasses decision-making about restoration and reconstruction activities” (Mileti,
1999, p. 230).
Contributions of Disasters by Design Rethinking
Dennis Mileti and others are correct to note many benefits emanating from Disasters by Disasters by
Design. Among other things, Mileti’s work has enriched the research on mitigation in
several different ways. For example, Disasters by Design has greatly improved our Design
understanding of the physical processes underlying natural hazards and the
complexities of social decision making before, during, and after disasters (Mileti, 1999,
p.3). In addition, Mileti’s work brings to the fore the need for an integrated accessible 51
database of losses that could create a feedback loop between communities, researchers,
regulatory agencies, emergency managers, the insurance industry, and others to
improve overall effectiveness in coping with hazards and disasters (Mileti, 1999, p.
104). What is more, Mileti points out that sustainable hazard mitigation will require
that future hazard managers be trained across traditional disciplines and in
interdisciplinary ways that would enable them to view the world in a more holistic
manner (Mileti, 1999, p.259). Furthermore, sustainable hazards mitigation will demand
that future researchers work in a world different from that of the past and different
even from today (Mileti, 1999, p. 255). For instance, the questions they address and the
solution they seek will be more complex; they will work less in disciplinary isolation
and more interdisciplinary teams; and they will work with practitioners more
frequently and intensively than is the case today (Mileti, 1999, p. 241).
Other scholars have similar praise for Mileti’s work. The new awareness about the
importance of environmental matters reinforced by his book is such that it is difficult
to conceive future work in the disaster area that could be completely devoid of such
considerations. Schwab and Brower (1999) argue that with hazard mitigation as one of
the pillars of sustainable development, we can make our development decisions in such
a way as to make the built environment more resilient to the impact of natural hazards.
This will decrease the loss of human life and property while bolstering the long-term
viability of natural ecosystems and human communities (Schwab and Brower, 1999).
These scholars also point out that mitigation can provide a degree of socioeconomic
continuity in the community by reducing the social upheaval that often accompanies a
hazardous event. Damage to transportation and communication systems, dislocation of
people, loss or interruption of jobs, and closing or disabling of businesses, schools and
social centers often create personal and family stress for disaster victims in addition to
financial hardship. By minimizing the causes of these disruptions, untold
repercussions of disasters may be avoided (Schwab and Brower, 1999).
Scholars also note correctly that hazard mitigation requires that we plan for today’s
development while considering the impact of hazards yet to occur in the future. In this
vein, the goal of “sustainable hazards mitigation” is not just to reduce losses, but also
to build sustainable local communities and maintain an eye toward expanding that
resiliency to nationwide and international spheres (Mileti, 1999, p.30).
Monday and Myers (1999) looked at Mileti’s contributions to sustainable
development, asserting that communities that incorporate the idea of sustainability
into their long-term development plans and actions (both before and after disasters)
can curtail disaster losses. Societies can improve their economic viability, preserve the
health of their natural environment, ensure the quality of life of their residents and
more effectively deal with other community problems as well (Monday and Myers,
1999, p. 10). For this reason, Mileti’s work plays a key role in overcoming the damage,
diminished productivity and reduced quality of life from an extreme event.
DPM Weaknesses in Mileti’s work
19,1 While there are numerous benefits associated with Mileti’s “sustainable hazard
mitigation” concept, other scholars have pointed out some of the problems in Mileti’s
Disasters by Design. Below we list several criticisms from Aguirre’s (2002a) article,
“Can Sustainable Development Sustain Us?” While we have mixed feelings about
Aguirre’s criticisms, other weaknesses pertain to Mileti’s theoretical position. We also
52 believe the paradigm has practical limitations as well.

Aguirre’s criticisms
Discounts prior advancement
According to Aguirre (2002b), the confrontation of the sustainable development
approach with older, less environmentally-oriented thinking may lead to the tendency
to discount the real advances in disaster mitigation and planning that have occurred in
the past. This includes a whole host of matters, such as land use planning, coastal
erosion, evacuation planning, warnings, wind-resistant buildings, disaster-resistant
programs, and an understanding of complex organizational reactions to disasters.
Aguirre also states that the grandiose emphasis in the surge of sustainable
development may have the paradoxical effect of diluting the urgent need to stay
focused on specific environmental issues and their relation to disasters and hazards,
such as planting trees and preserving forests in Central America to alleviate mudslides
and floods (Aguirre, 2002b, p. 25).

North/south divide
Aguirre (2002b) also asserts that sustainable development is an intellectual product of
professionals in northern countries, reflecting their way of life and ideology. Aguirre
(2002a) posits that “sustainable development’s lofty claims and dreams of equity and
nonviolence are foreign, hollow, and hypocritical. [This is because] the same north [that
is] pushing sustainable development on the south also advances neo-liberal economic
policies and programs causing widespread suffering” (22). As a result, rather than
decreasing vulnerability, what appears to be going on is a rearrangement of risk at the
international level (Dynes, 1997). For this reason, the global economy in some ways
contradicts the hopes of the sustainable development movement (Aguirre, 2002a, p. 120).

Failure to follow through

Aguirre makes the case that many Latin American governments have accepted and
reproduced the sustainability discourse while continuing with their exploitative
tactics. In this regard, what is considered as sustainable development initiatives have
resulted in, and continue to result in, the destruction of rainforest environments in
many developing countries. A good example is the massive exploitation of the Amazon
rainforest for commercial purposes in Brazil. The same pattern of exploitation is rife in
many African and Asian countries.

Localism-control issues
Aguirre (2002b) argues that Mileti’s emphasis on localism in hazard mitigation is not
clear. Aguirre (2002b) notes that the strong emphasis on the local community in some
respects is opposed to general social patterns in the USA that have persisted at least
since the Civil War. He states that the logic of societal development in the country
particularly since the Civil War has been away from localism and in the direction of Rethinking
facilitating national integration; nation building; the emergence of state, regional, Disasters by
continent-wide markets; the ascendance of the federal government; and indeed, the
creation of international economic, military, cultural and political organizations Design
(Aguirre, 2002b, p. 15). The assumption that the success of disaster mitigation and
sustainability is linked to communities’ self-sufficiencies may not be supported by this
historical pattern. Thus, for Aguirre, it is unclear what makes localism a more effective 53
tool for carrying out disaster mitigation than regional, state, national and international
interdependences (Aguirre, 2002b, p. 16).

Politics
Aguirre (2002a) also states that the emphasis on sustainable development and the need
for rapid social change it advocates necessitates a spelling out of an explicit model of
the political process. Aguirre maintains that one cannot assume that hazards politics
would attain its goals once citizens are informed, public opinion is solidified, and a
collective decision is reached that reflect a generalized consensus. In this respect, it is
necessary to spell out the model of politics supporting the argument for sustainable
development and point out likely ways to bring about the desired change (Aguirre,
2002b, p. 19).

Long-term effectiveness
Aguirre (2002a) examines Mileti’s insistence on the need to think about the long-term
effectiveness of various types of mitigation efforts. This argument for success is
expressed by Mileti when he states that “reducing losses and disruption in the long
term (will not succeed) until hazards mitigation is housed within a redesigned national
culture that favors sustainable development and people are reorganized to support that
cultural shift” (Mileti, 1999, p. 267). However, Aguirre (2002a) contends that even
without a revised national culture, a number of mitigation efforts have been successful.

Potential theoretical concerns

Terms
Problematic use of terminology is present in Mileti’s work at times. He does not always
clarify the meaning of sustainability and resilience and their relation to each other. For
instance, sometimes he states that sustainable hazard mitigation brings about
resilience, and in other cases he notes that they seem to be separate. For example, in
chapter nine, Mileti links disaster resiliency to sustainability by stating that
stakeholders should use a consensus-building approach to determine community goals
for sustainability: disaster resiliency, quality of life environmental quality, and
inter-intra-generational equity (Mileti, 1999, p. 268). In other cases, he looks at resilience
as a separate element that should be pursued through local determination (Mileti, 1999,
p. 268).
Mileti also periodically blurs the distinction between resiliency and resistance.
Under the chapter heading “Human System,” he writes that “the poor have lesser
resiliency to disaster mainly because they live in lower-quality housing that is more
likely to be damaged and often is closer to technologically hazardous sites” (Mileti,
1999, p. 123). Yet on another occasion, he states that politics, budgetary processes and
pressures, and the public’s relatively low awareness of the importance of building
DPM codes and construction practices also played a role in the low resistance of the houses
19,1 to disasters (Mileti, 1999, p. 132). While a relationship certainly exists between
resiliency and resistance, this link should be carefully explained. Because of this lack of
clarity between resiliency and resistance, Mileti’s paradigm falls short of the kind of
lucid policy-relevant goals sought by the disaster community.

54 Clarity of argument
Mileti’s other claim is that “sustainable hazard mitigation” paradigm suggests the way
to reduce losses from disaster. However, Mileti also states that choices will also have to
be made about acceptable losses. He writes that “until people are ready to address the
interdependent root causes of disasters and to do the difficult work of coming to
negotiated consensus about which losses are acceptable, which are unacceptable, and
what type of action to take, our nations will continue on a path toward ever-larger
natural catastrophes” (Mileti, 1999, p. 64). Therefore, it must be recognized that these
claims contradicts Mileti’s most salient argument – the need to reduce the dollar
amount of disaster in the USA. This creates uncertainty and ambiguity about the
overarching goals of the “sustainable hazard mitigation” approach.

Future disasters
Disasters by Design also focuses heavily on social changes and environmental concerns
as a way to prevent disasters. We applaud Mileti in this effort. However, even Mileti
admits that disasters will also be worse in the future. In making these claims, Mileti
loosened the connection between his “sustainable hazard mitigation” paradigm and
disasters. In other words, we begin to question if he has outlined a “comprehensive
approach to enhancing society’s ability to reduce the cost of disaster” and deal with
their consequences (Mileti, 1999, p. 3).
In addition, Mileti emphasizes some of the grim realities about future disasters by
contending that “many efforts at disaster mitigation and many disaster results in
short-term or cumulative environmental degradation and ecological imbalance, which,
besides being detrimental to society, also contributes to the occurrence and severity of
the next disaster” (Mileti, 1999, p. 3). Mileti also notes that the natural and related
technological catastrophes of the next millennium are likely to be larger than those
before because of prior and current activities. For this reason, Mileti’s fundamental
argument about sustainable hazards mitigation and the future may be incomplete.

Disasters are beyond our control

Mileti goes on to stress that disasters cannot be wholly eliminated, “but can be reduced
to a level that can be borne by the governments, communities, individuals, and
businesses exposed to them” (Mileti, 1999, p. 156). He indicates that “even if
encouraged by more holistic state and federal policies, sustainable hazard mitigation
will never eliminate the need for plans to address the destruction and human suffering
imposed by disasters” (Mileti, 1999, p. 10). Indeed, Mileti precisely notes that
sustainable hazard mitigation will not eliminate the need for emergency preparedness
and disaster response to deal with the physical destruction, losses, and human
suffering imposed by disasters” (Mileti, 1999, p. 209). These statements at times
counter the argument that a shift in culture will automatically reduce disasters.
Downplaying of the human role Rethinking
Mileti’s “sustainable hazard mitigation” paradigm ironically downplays the human Disasters by
element in disasters. Mileti does consider the interaction of three environments (the
natural environment, the social world, and the man-made constructed environment). Design
He also notes that natural hazard mitigation will not be successful at reducing losses
and disruption in the long term until it is integrated into the considerations of the daily
activities of everyone who has an influence on future losses (Mileti, 1999, p. 267). It is 55
precisely for this reason that we might question why Mileti decided to name his
paradigm “sustainable hazard mitigation?” This seems to be a curious choice of
wording since there is almost universal agreement that we cannot control hazards, but
our vulnerability to them. In this vein, Mileti’s “sustainable hazard mitigation”
paradigm could ironically overlook the extent and types of social causes that occupy
the forefront of disaster management in the United States and elsewhere.

Practical concerns
Neglect of other hazards
Mileti’s paradigm also downplays important hazards like terrorism and technological
hazards. Mileti points out this problem himself, asserting that technological hazards
not related to natural events and disastrous events that result from violent human acts
(e.g., terrorism and war) were excluded from this assessment (Mileti, 1999, p. 17).
However, some of the most significant disasters in the last ten years have resulted from
intentional acts of violence and industrial hazards. In this sense, we feel that it would
have been advisable to pay closer attention to more than just natural hazards. A
paradigm that explains certain hazards and excludes others cannot provide a
comprehensive way forward in dealing with future disasters. Thus, we wonder if the
“sustainable hazard mitigation” paradigm is applicable to all the hazards we face in
our society today.

Focus on mitigation
Another ambiguous aspect of Mileti’s paradigm is whether sustainable hazard
mitigation is presumed to have just one solution – that of mitigation. Undoubtedly,
Mileti’s illustration of the three scenarios (a hurricane in Miami, Florida; a flood in
Boulder, Colorado; and an earthquake in San Francisco, California) confirm his
overarching emphasis on mitigation. He also states that “making mitigation a reality
will require overcoming many human behaviors along with financial, political, and
social obstacles” (Mileti, 1999, p. 22). The allocation of a large portion of his book and
argument seems to be devoted to mitigation only, although he does provide nine broad
guidelines for developing recovery strategies that also promote sustainable hazards
mitigation (Mileti, 1999, p. 238).

Benefits of other phases

Mileti (1999, p. 22) does maintain that “human adjustments to disasters take place
throughout a cyclical process that has four stages: preparedness, response, recovery,
and mitigation”. He suggests further that “these stages are rough but useful categories
that have helped organize the thinking, activities, research, and policy for hazard
management” (Mileti, 1999, p. 22). Mileti also argues that preparedness and response
are vital to society’s ability to survive extreme natural and technological events over
DPM the long term (Mileti, 1999, p. 239). He asserts that “effective preparedness and
19,1 response activities help save lives, reduce injuries, limit property damage, and
minimize all sorts of disruptions that disasters cause” (Mileti, 1999, p. 239).
Nonetheless, it is difficult to distill the relation of preparedness and response to the
concept of “sustainable hazard mitigation.” Mileti’s argument does not show ample
evidence of how preparation and response connect to sustainable hazard mitigation.
56
Vagueness about warning
Mileti’s analysis emphasizes warning as one key tool in achieving sustainable hazard
mitigation. However, Mileti also questions the value of warnings in other parts of his
book. For instance, he argues that the “warning system could not compensate for the
consequences imposed by previous rapid environmental destruction and unsound and
unplanned development” (Mileti, 1999, p. 43). Mileti also concedes that short-term
warnings may hinder the movement toward sustainability by allowing long-term
occupancy of marginal lands (Mileti, 1999, p. 198). Further, he states that short-term
warning seem to have little direct bearing on sustainable development (Mileti, 1999,
p. 197). Therefore, we are not sure if warning is or should be a tool of sustainable
hazard mitigation.

Narrow applicability to disasters

Many scholars see the original conceptualization of sustainable development as being
very broad. However, some scholars argue that research has not yet shown how each of
the variables related to sustainability may reduce disaster; they have only illustrated
how environmental protection and caution about hazards may reduce disaster (Berke,
1995). For instance, one could argue that Mileti’s paradigm does not assess the
potential impact globalization and industrialization has on individual and community
vulnerability (Geis and Kutzmark, 1995). By far, these external factors are driving
much of the changes in national policies on disaster management.

Scope of actors
Mileti acknowledges that networks of organizations relating to disaster differ in terms
of their importance, structure, cohesiveness, willingness and ability for
interorganizational communication, lines of authority, and utilization of resources
(Mileti, 1999, p. 225). Given the fact that Mileti does not always include all types of
hazards in his discussion and that he is not always clear about the importance of
warnings and certain phases of emergency management, the question of who should be
involved in networking is not fully addressed in the sustainable hazards mitigation
paradigm. For this reason, it is not obvious who emergency managers should network
with as a result.

Conclusions
As has been illustrated, Disasters by Design is more than an academic review on
sustainable development. It is a very ambitious book and a heuristic guide to
explaining natural and environmental disasters. For these reasons, we admire Mileti’s
reach and we believe his work remains important to this day. It is one of the most
frequently cited studies in the literature on sustainable development and disasters.
 Mileti’s work provides scholars and students with significant concerns about Rethinking
hazards and disasters. Disasters by Design made a persuasive case that we must Disasters by
address environmental and economic issues in an effort to head off the continued rise
in tolls from disasters (Mileti and Gailus, 2005, p. 493). Although the first assessment of Design
by White and Haas (1975) was a seminal report on the nation’s capacity to withstand
and respond to natural disasters, Mileti’s work “lowered the walls that had separated
many of the disciplines involved with natural hazards and paved the way for the 57
interdisciplinary approaches to hazards research and management that the nation
enjoys today” (Mileti, 1999, p. 21).
However, it is our opinion that Mileti ignores important issues pertaining to
disasters and in emergency management. Most significantly, his work overlooks
technological hazards and terrorist events that appear to be mounting in number and
consequences over time. Also, by focusing so much on natural hazards, Mileti may not
fully explain the human role in creating disaster vulnerability. There likewise appears
to be little explanation to the linkage between “sustainable hazard mitigation” and the
preparedness and response phases of emergency management. Furthermore, there are
at times unclear terms, incorrect assumptions, unspecified variables, and certain
contradictions that make it difficult to determine the exact nature of sustainable hazard
mitigation.
In addition, many of the shortcomings pointed out in Disasters by Design do not
stem from new developments in the disaster field; those have existed prior to Mileti’s
work, and a good assessment of the book must recognize this fact. However, because
Disasters by Design still has considerable currency in disaster studies, an
unquestioning acceptance of its paradigm may inadvertently lead to the
perpetuation of misunderstandings about hazards and disaster studies.
Taking these points together, our position is that Disasters by Design richly
deserved its decade of intellectual prominence. At the same time, a closer examination
of Mileti’s paradigm illustrates that it may not be applicable to all types of disaster
issues. For Mileti’s paradigm to be useful for systematic analysis, it must be more
carefully crafted or discarded in favor of a more comprehensive analysis that
recognizes the many variables that lead to disasters. Mileti’s Disasters by Design is
undoubtedly important, but researchers should also look at other ways to solve and
deal with our current and future disaster problems.

Note
1. Emergency management is generally accepted name given to those involved in dealing with
disasters. The authors understand the weakness of this term and actually prefer alternative
conceptualizations.

References
Aguirre, B.E. (2002a), “Can sustainable development sustain us?”, International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 111-25.
Aguirre, B.E. (2002b), “Sustainable development as collective surge”, Social Science Quarterly,
Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 23-45.
Berke, P.R. (1995), “Natural hazard reduction and sustainable development: a global
assessment”, Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 370-82.
DPM Burton, I. (2000), “Review of disasters by design”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 755-9.
19,1 Dynes, R. (1997), “Comments on the second assessment”, Preliminary Paper No. 251, Disaster
Research Center, Newark, NJ.
Geis, D. and Kutzmark, T. (1995), “Developing sustainable communities”, Public Management,
Vol. 77 No. 8, pp. 4-13.
58 Mileti, D.S. (1999), Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States,
Joseph Henry, Washington, DC.
Mileti, D.S. and Gailus, J.L. (2005), “Sustainable development and hazards mitigation in the
United States: Disasters by Design revisited”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 491-504.
Monday, L.J. and Myers, F.M. (1999), “Coping with disasters by building local resiliency”, paper
presented at Public Entity Risk Institute Symposium, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Schwab, A. and Brower, D. (1999), “Sustainable development and natural hazards mitigation”,
available at: www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/Mitigation/library/Sust_Dev.pdf (accessed
21 August 2008).
Svenson, A.G. (2001), “Review of Disasters by Design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the
United States”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 115-16.
White, G.F. and Haas, J.E. (1975), Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

About the authors

Richard Afedzie is a Doctoral Student in the Public Administration and Management Program at
the University of North Texas. He holds a Master of Science in Political Science from East
Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania. He has research interests in emergency management.
David A. McEntire is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at the University of
North Texas. He has a PhD in International and Comparative Politics from the University of
Denver in Denver, Colorado. His research interests include emergency management theory,
vulnerability reduction, community preparedness and response coordination.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats