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

net/publication/242202837

Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction: Towards a holistic

paradigm

Article in Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal · August 2001

DOI: 10.1108/09653560110395359

CITATIONS READS

245 2,937

1 author:

David A. Mcentire
University of North Texas
45 PUBLICATIONS 2,603 CITATIONS

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.


Triggering agents,
vulnerabilities and
disaster reduction:
towards a holistic
paradigm
David A. McEntire
The author
David A. McEntire is an Assistant Professor/Program
Coordinator, of Emergency Administration and Planning,
University of North Texas, Texas, USA.
Keywords
Disaster management, Crisis planning, Environmental
management strategy
Abstract
Discusses the nature of disaster and the future of
emergency management. After exploring differing
historical perspectives of disaster, puts forth a model of
vulnerability and highlights the plethora of factors that
contribute to calamitous events. Introduces the concept of
invulnerable development as a method of vulnerability
management and compares it to other terms that have
been proposed as guides for future disaster policy. The
central argument to be made is that vulnerability is, or
should be, the key concept for disaster scholarship and
reduction.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . pp. 189±196
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0965-3562
189
‘‘What is a disaster?’’ This is perhaps the most
important and fundamental question facing
disaster scholars today. Indeed, as Quarantelli
notes, ‘‘unless we clarify and obtain minimum
consensus on the defining features . . . we will
continue to talk past one another on the
characteristics, conditions and consequences of
disasters’’ (Quarantelli, 1995, p. 225). But this
inquiry about disaster is not limited to the
academic realm alone; finding a resolution to
this enigma has or will have a dramatic impact
upon practitioners’ efforts to reduce
catastrophic events. This being the case, the
following paper will attempt to contribute to
the burgeoning literature on this topic (see
Oliver-Smith, 1999; Quarantelli, 1998; Britton,
1986) in order to discuss the future of disaster
management. In so doing, the paper will
examine the nature of disaster and the factors
that contribute to vulnerability. The major
point to be made in this article is that the latter
must be understood and directly addressed so
that the former may be reduced. It is therefore
possible that the process of ‘‘invulnerable
development’’ may provide the logical
conceptual foundation for a future disaster
reduction movement. Before proceeding with
this argument, it will be necessary to review
historical perspectives of disaster.
Historical perspectives of disaster
The notion of disaster has undergone a
dramatic transformation of meaning over time.
In the past, many, if not most, of the cultures
around the world viewed disasters as acts of
God (Drabek, 1991). The injury, death,
destruction and disruption associated with
catastrophic events were often regarded to be
punishments that fulfilled the divine, and
sometimes unknown, purposes of a
supernatural being. The problem with this
conceptualization was that it ignored the
natural processes of an ever-changing
environment. Consequently, as the scientific
understanding of the earth’s physical systems
expanded, disasters became synonymous with
disaster agents themselves. In other words,
disasters were equated with earthquakes,
tornadoes, flooding and the like (Cannon,
1994). This natural hazards perspective was
not immune to drawbacks however. It
downplayed the role of humans in creating or
contributing to all types of catastrophic events
and was most applicable to sudden-onset
 Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction
David A. McEntire
‘‘natural’’ disasters (O’Keefe et al., 1976;
Hewitt, 1983). As a result of these weaknesses,
the field is moving in many respects towards an
alternative explanation that explores the social
construction of disasters (Bolin and Stanford,
1999; Quarantelli, 1998). While such a
movement is definitely needed, there is a
possibility that social explanations will exclude
or downplay the power of nature as well as
numerous physical variables[1]. It should be
clear, therefore, that the limiting approaches of
the past should not be replaced by another
equally constraining alternative today. A
holistic perspective of disaster – one that takes
into account multiple causal sources, catalytic
processes, and the compound interaction of
physical, built, technological and social systems
– is undoubtedly needed (see Hoffman and
Oliver-Smith, 1999, p. 1; Mileti, 1999;
Quarantelli, 1998; Burton et al., 1993).
The nature of disaster
Disasters are the disruptive and/or deadly and
destructive outcome of triggering agents when
they interact with, and are exacerbated by,
various forms of vulnerability (McEntire,
2000a). While their effects may vary, all
disasters share common characteristics: they
include a triggering agent (or agents) and
vulnerabilities. The triggering agent (or
agents) may emanate from the natural
environment, human activity or a
combination of the two. For instance, the
triggering agent may be a volcanic eruption, it
may be a hazardous material spill owing to
carelessness with dangerous chemicals, or it
may be an intense and altered meteorological
event that results from the interplay of
recurring weather patterns with human-
induced global warming. The benefit of
viewing disasters as a result of triggering
agents instead of natural hazards is that it not
only permits the inclusion of both sudden and
slow-onset disasters, but also allows room for
unintentional disasters such as transportation
or industrial mishaps as well as intentional
disasters such as terrorism and war. Such
inclusions are necessary in that famines, plane
crashes, sunken vessels, train derailments,
nuclear plant accidents, chemical explosions,
computer malfunctions, school/workplace
shootings, riots, bio-technological releases,
bombings and complex emergencies lead to
disruption, injury, death and damage just as
190
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . 189±196
any sudden natural hazard agent would. This,
of course, does not deny the frequency and
destructive power of environmental agents.
Nor is it to overlook the fact that each type of
triggering agent may require unique measures
for mitigation, preparedness, response and
recovery. It does underscore, however, that
there are more agents than just natural or
even technological hazards.
It should be emphasized that humans do not
always initiate or have control over triggering
events. It is true that people are typically
involved in one way or another in disasters such
as oil spills, structural failures, mining
accidents, and computer or mechanical
malfunctions. However, there are other agents
over which individuals and groups have little or
no influence because they result from the
decisions and activities of others, or because
they are a product of the powerful physical
environment. For example, innocent
bystanders may be the target of violence while
seismic activity will naturally occur when
sufficient stress has been built up along the
earth’s tectonic plates. Although people may or
may not be able to prevent or stop triggering
agents one thing is certain: they determine to a
great extent the level of vulnerability to
disaster[2] (Bolin and Stanford, 1999;
Hoffman and Oliver-Smith, 1999; Lewis,
1999; Mileti, 1999; Twigg and Bhatt, 1998;
Blaikie et al., 1994; Cannon, 1993; 1994;
Maskrey, 1993; Merriman and
Browitt, 1993; Wisner and Luce, 1993;
Winchester, 1992; Sinha, 1992; Hewitt, 1983;
Jeffrey, 1982; O’Keefe et al., 1976).
Vulnerability is the dependent component
of disaster that is determined by the degree of
risk, susceptibility, resistance and
resilience[3] (see Figure 1) (McEntire 2000a;
2000b). Risk is a result of proximity or
exposure to triggering agents, which increases
the probability of disaster and the potential
for human or material losses (Buckle et al.,
2000; Reynolds, 1993). Susceptibility is a
Figure 1
 Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction
David A. McEntire
product of social, political, economic, and
cultural forces and activities that determines
the proneness of individuals and groups to
being adversely affected by disaster[4]
(Buckle, 1995). Resistance is the ability of
buildings and the infrastructure to resist the
strain or force exerted by natural or human
induced agents (Norton and Chantry, 1993).
Resilience is the amount of coping capacity,
or the ability to react or effectively recover
from a triggering agent that becomes
disastrous (Buckle et al., 2000; Mileti, 1999).
A benefit of viewing vulnerability as a
product of these four components is that it
includes both the positive and negative
aspects of the physical and social arenas. In
other words, the model recognizes that
vulnerabilities are most likely to be present
when there is a combination of high
liabilities and low capabilities from diverse
but overlapping environments[5]. This
perspective also acknowledges that location
and construction are important
determinants of vulnerability, but can never
be isolated from the social, cultural,
economic and political realms that influence
decisions regarding settlement patterns and
methods for building. What is more, by
focusing on aspects that have a bearing upon
each phase of disaster the model implies that
there is a temporal dimension to
vulnerability[6]. The model also shows the
relevance of vulnerability to natural and
physical scientists in addition to engineers,
sociologists, political scientists, economists,
anthropologists, epidemiologists,
psychologists, students of emergency
management, etc.[7].
The drawback of the above model is that it
presents a rather simplistic and static view of
vulnerability[8]. Reality is much more
complex and dynamic however. Vulnerability
is complex in that the categories of risk,
susceptibility, resistance and resilience are not
independent or mutually exclusive
(McEntire, 2000a). This is to say that the
lines of demarcation among the positive and
negative attributes of both the physical and
social environments are fuzzy and fluid, never
exempt from interaction. In other words, each
category of vulnerability may influence, or is
influenced by, each other category. For
instance, risk may be increased if resistance is
lowered, while resilience may be decreased if
susceptibility is heightened. At the same time,
risk and susceptibility, as well as resistance
191
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . 189±196
and resilience, often interact in mutually
reinforcing ways. Furthermore, risk could
jeopardize resilience, and resistance and
susceptibility may have an inverse
relationship. Vulnerability is thus difficult to
accurately assess and is always in a continual
state of flux (Lewis, 1999). The
interdependent relationships among risk,
susceptibility, resistance and resilience may
even generate or solidify vicious or virtuous
cycles of vulnerability or decreased
vulnerability over time. Interestingly, there is
now growing concern that vulnerability to
disaster is increasing around the world.
Reasons why vulnerability is increasing
Innumerable variables are interacting to
produce a future of increased vulnerabilities.
These can be categorized under physical,
social, cultural, political, economic, and
technological headings. A short, and by no
means comprehensive, list of factors that
augment vulnerability are identified[9]:
. Physical
– the proximity of people and property to
triggering agents;
– improper construction of buildings;
– inadequate foresight relating to the
infrastructure;
– degradation of the environment.
. Social
– limited education (including insufficient
knowledge about disasters);
– inadequate routine and emergency
health care;
– massive and unplanned migration to
urban areas;
– marginalization of specific groups and
individuals.
. Cultural
– public apathy towards disaster;
– defiance of safety precautions and
regulations;
– loss of traditional coping measures;
– dependency and an absence of personal
responsibility.
. Political
– minimal support for disaster programs
among elected officials;
– inability to enforce or encourage steps
for mitigation;
– over-centralization of decision making;
– isolated or weak disaster related
institutions.
 Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction
David A. McEntire
. Economic
– growing divergence in the distribution
of wealth;
– the pursuit of profit with little regard for
consequences;
– failure to purchase insurance;
– sparse resources for disaster prevention,
planning and management.
. Technological
– lack of structural mitigation devices;
– over-reliance upon or ineffective
warning systems;
– carelessness in industrial production;
– lack of foresight regarding computer
equipment/programs.
Taking these variables into consideration
leads to several important lessons. First, there
are recurring patterns relating to vulnerability.
For example, the development process is itself
creating diverse vulnerabilities.
Industrialization, urbanization,
environmental mismanagement, construction
practices, technological advances and the
marginalization of certain segments of society
are to blame for much of the heightened
vulnerability (Burton et al., 1993, p. 27;
Pandey, 1990; Maskrey, 1989; World
Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987; El-Masri and Tipple,
1997; Quarantelli, 1994; Cernea, 1996).
Vulnerability is similarly influenced by values,
attitudes and practices (Mileti, 1999). Apathy
shown towards safety precautions (because of
alternative or competing interests) may
determine levels of vulnerability. The
exclusion or discrimination of gender, class,
ethnic and other groups augments their
vulnerability to disaster (Peacock et al., 1997;
Enarson and Hearn Morrow, 1997). Also,
decisions to construct a house in a scenic but
precarious area contributes to the owner’s
disaster vulnerability, while the location of a
petrochemical plant may place others in
jeopardy without their knowledge or
approval. Furthermore, disaster management
activities may also contribute to
vulnerabilities[10]. Structural mitigation
devices such as dams often exacerbate
flooding (Mileti, 1999). Planning based on
false assumptions may inhibit effective
responses (Dynes, 1994). The provision of
disaster relief may subsidize risk taking and
encourage dependence on others while
response and recovery operations may
sometimes and ironically augment
192
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . 189±196
vulnerability (Mileti, 1999; McEntire,
1999a). Failure to rethink, adjust and
improve development practices, cultural
attitudes and behavior, and disaster
management activities are therefore the major
causal explanations for vulnerability.
Second, it should be recognized that none
of the patterns is sufficient to explain
vulnerability alone. For instance, singling out
the weaknesses of capitalist development
would ignore other variables, downplay the
responsibility of all individuals and nations,
and overlook how Western economic and
political systems have contributed (through
educational opportunities, welfare programs,
technological advances, increased
participation, strong emergency management
institutions, etc.) to the reduction of
vulnerabilities[11]. At the same time, one
must not overlook the fact that the skewed
distribution of resources associated with
capitalism increases liabilities and reduces
capacities; extreme differences in wealth are
limiting the choice, opportunity and
empowerment of many people. Thus, it
would be myopic to blame all of the world’s
disaster woes on globalization or the
expansion of Western economic systems,
although it is certainly apparent that
capitalism must be altered if not carefully held
in check. Similar types of arguments could be
made against those explanations that only
include culture or disaster mismanagement.
Finally, it must be reiterated that human
beliefs and activities do play a major role in
the creation of vulnerabilities. Development,
culture and disaster management can
therefore be altered, with considerable effort,
to reverse the trends towards increased
vulnerabilities. Changes in industrialization,
urbanization, environmental management,
construction practices, technological
advances and the distribution of wealth will
reverse the creation of vulnerabilities.
Increasing the level of respect shown towards
safety precautions, diverse populations, and
past disaster lessons will reduce future
liabilities. Improvements in mitigation,
preparedness, response and recovery
operations, in addition to the involvement of
the entire population in disaster management
programs, will do much to promote future
capabilities. Safety, prevention and
preparedness may thus be integrated into
development, culture and disaster
management. This, of course, does not mean
 Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction
David A. McEntire
that it will be possible to eliminate all
vulnerabilities. Human knowledge about and
control over the physical and social
environments will always be inadequate.
Nonetheless, it is increasingly clear that
something should be done to reverse the trend
toward increased vulnerabilities.
Implications for the future
It is apparent that a holistic approach to the
disaster problem is needed. No longer should
disaster agents be limited to natural and
technological hazards. No longer should
emergency managers be the sole proprietors
of disaster. No longer should disaster
management imply a response-mentality
alone. What is needed is an approach that
addresses all agents, all actors (including the
public), and all phases pertaining to disaster
vulnerability.
The US Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s Project Impact/disaster resistant
communities and the concepts of sustainable
development/disaster resilient communities
(Mileti, 1999; Boullé et al., 1997; Berke, 1995;
Geiss and Kutzmark, 1995; Berke et al., 1993)
have been proposed as solutions for the disaster
problem, and the implementation of these
approaches will undoubtedly do much to
reduce catastrophic events. However, these
concepts may suffer from potential drawbacks.
None of these concepts are directly or
completely concerned about all types of
vulnerabilities. The former may focus too
heavily on physical variables while the latter
may be overly concerned with social issues[12].
Both may also continue to address natural and
to a lesser extent technological hazards at the
expense of other triggering agents.
Furthermore, the first seems to have a top
down or official orientation while the second is
bottom up and based at the grass roots
level[13]. Moreover, each of these approaches
is focusing increased amounts of attention on
mitigation and recovery, possibly at the expense
of preparedness and response measures and
activities (McEntire, 1999b). This, in
particular, could be a potentially dangerous
mistake (McEntire, 1998). Because of physical
and social constraints disasters of all types will
continue to occur, and a prevention approach
will unfortunately meet much opposition and
take a long time to implement[14]. In addition,
it would be unethical to be unwilling to help
193
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . 189±196
save and improve the lives of those who truly
cannot care for themselves. Moreover, all sorts
of vulnerabilities may be created during the
preparedness and response phases of disaster
(e.g. those associated with planning, warning,
evacuation, sheltering, etc.) (Britton, 1986, p.
256). Also, the movement away from disaster
assistance may actually increase the
vulnerability of certain victims to future disaster
(Bolin and Stanford, 1999). Focusing too
much on correcting pre-disaster liabilities may
therefore reduce response and recovery
capacities, which may provide a false sense of
security about the overall balance of
vulnerability.
In light of the above weaknesses, and as a
result of importance of vulnerability in the
disaster debate, there may be merit in the
concept of invulnerable development.
Invulnerable development has been defined
as development pursued in such a manner as
to address vulnerabilities, and thereby reduce
disaster and minimize the reversal of social,
political and economic progress (McEntire,
1999b). Invulnerable development is not a state
or condition, but a process whereby decisions and
activities are intentionally designed and
implemented to take into account and eliminate to
the fullest extent possible disaster
vulnerabilities[15]. In this sense, invulnerable
development is nothing more than
vulnerability management (defined broadly).
Invulnerable development is thus an attempt
to:
. link development activities to
vulnerability reduction[16];
. foment a culture of safety, prevention and
preparedness among all individuals,
families, groups, businesses,
organizations, communities, and nations
around the world; and
. increase the capacities, cooperation,
coordination and effectiveness of all
public, private and non-profit
organizations and agencies involved in or
related to disaster management and
vulnerability reduction[17].
There are four central tenets of the
invulnerable development concept
(McEntire, 2000a). First, invulnerable
development involves a variety of well-
thought-out activities that seek to avert the
creation of additional vulnerabilities over time
and reduce those vulnerabilities that have
been carried over from the past. It is an
 Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction
David A. McEntire
attempt to implement safe development
practices, alter beliefs and behavior, and
improve disaster management in order to
minimize the numerous and diverse
conditions and activities that interact with
and exacerbate triggering agents. Second, and
because it takes as its highest priority the
reduction of vulnerability, invulnerable
development is a form of progress that
endeavors to avoid promoting or contributing
to the probability of disaster. This is an
important point, because humans are able to
control vulnerabilities – not natural hazards.
Third, and building upon what has already
been stated, invulnerable development aspires
to promote social, political and economic
advances and minimize the possibility that
such progress may be nullified by disaster.
This goal is possible – even though potentially
destructive physical and/or human-induced
agents cannot always be eliminated – because
catastrophic events will become less frequent
or intense owing to the heightened awareness
of what types of actions or inactions augment
vulnerability. Finally, and because
invulnerable development desires to promote
safe and therefore continued progress, it
recognizes that a community’s response to
disaster (in addition to the involvement of
outsiders) plays a key role in whether it breaks
out of, or becomes further entrenched in the
vicious cycle of vulnerability[18]. This notion
therefore acknowledges the complex ways in
which development and all types of
emergency management activities may either
contribute to or reduce future vulnerabilities
and disasters. These four principles
accordingly suggest that invulnerable
development attempts – where possible – to
reduce risks and susceptibilities, and increase
resistance and resilience in order to decrease
disaster vulnerability[19]. To reiterate, this
does not mean that vulnerability and disasters
can be fully eliminated. In fact, and in
contrast to some of the currently proposed
social construction paradigms, invulnerable
development takes a somewhat pessimistic
outlook of the future due to the insufficient
knowledge, will and power that humans
possess to address disaster vulnerabilities.
Hence, invulnerable development suggests
the need to maintain the current level, or even
increase the amount of attention being given
to preparedness, response and recovery
operations[20].
194
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . 189±196
Conclusion
Regardless of whether disaster resistant
communities, disaster resilient communities,
sustainability, invulnerable development or
any other concept becomes the unifying
theme for a world-wide movement to reduce
vulnerabilities, it is clear that the disaster
problem will require increased attention in
the future. Education about triggering agents
and vulnerabilities must become a top
priority. Barriers separating disaster related
actors and institutions from one another must
be torn down. Political support, further
legislation, the use of carrots and sticks, and
the provision of human and material
resources for disaster management purposes
will be a necessity. The social, political and
economic status of poor individuals, groups
and nations must be improved around the
world. The careful and beneficial use of
technology for development and disaster
purposes must be sought. Above all, there is a
need for people, businesses, government
departments, communities and countries to
take responsibility for the creation of liabilities
and work towards their reduction through the
building of individual and institutional
emergency management capacities. After all,
if vulnerabilities are the only cause of disaster
that humans have control over, should they
not also be the focal point of any
comprehensive and unifying disaster
reduction movement?
Notes
1 I credit James Mitchell for making me aware of this
potential drawback.
2 Interestingly, actions that increase vulnerabilities
may someday become triggering agents. For
instance, carelessness with the maintenance of an
aircraft may lead to mechanical malfunctions and
disaster. Discrimination and marginalization may
lead to riots, terrorism and war. Improper
construction of buildings and dams may lead to
structural failure.
3 The concept of vulnerability is applicable to all types
of triggering agents (e.g. natural, technological,
civil, biological, etc.).
4 It should be recognized that certain people are more
prone to being affected by disaster than others.
5 Liabilities are the disadvantageous circumstances of
risk and susceptibility that work towards the
creation of disaster. Capabilities are advantageous
circumstances of resistance and resilience that may
inhibit a triggering agent from becoming disastrous.
 Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction
David A. McEntire
6 Vulnerability is determined by activities taken
before, during and after disaster. Thus, all types of
development and emergency management activities
have bearing on vulnerability.
7 All disasters scholars focus in one way or another
on vulnerability (see Merriman and Browitt, 1993).
All disaster and development practitioners,
regardless of whether they are from the public,
private or non-profit sectors, also play unique roles
in the production or reduction of various types of
vulnerabilities.
8 I agree with Elaine Enarson, who made me aware of
this drawback.
9 A complete and detailed list of all types of
vulnerabilities could be impossible (although certainly
desirable). Vulnerabilities may result from historical
events and demographic trends, family structure,
unfamiliarity with technological advances, a lack of
planning, and improper responses and beyond.
10 Disaster management activities do not always
promote disaster. Mitigation, preparedness,
response and recovery each have a unique
relationship not only to the creation but also the
reduction of vulnerability.
11 Just as poverty is not the only variable related to
vulnerability (Varley, 1994), capitalism is not the
only variable related to poverty, vulnerability and
disaster.
12 Mileti (1999) diverges from the other scholars that
espouse sustainable development; his perspective is
very similar to past technocratic approaches to
disasters (see McEntire, 1999b).
13 I acknowledge Wayne Blanchard for making me
aware of the uniqueness of top down and bottom
up approaches.
14 Research consistently indicates that people do not
give much attention to disaster mitigation and
preparedness. Altering not only disaster management,
but cultural attitudes/behavior and development
practices as well will undoubtedly be a very daunting
and lengthy (although necessary) process.
15 I am grateful to Thomas Drabek for his contribution
to this conceptualization.
16 For instance, development should address physical
vulnerability (the appropriate construction and safer
location of buildings and the infrastructure) as well
as social vulnerability (the reversal of
marginalization and discrimination, improvements
in education, employment and health care, etc.).
17 In this sense, invulnerable development builds
disaster management institutions.
18 In the developing world especially, disasters often
leave people more vulnerable which increases the
probability of future calamity. The international
attention given to these countries after disaster may
therefore provide a prime opportunity to improve
development and reduce future vulnerabilities.
However, most disasters are not big enough to
warrant global recognition and a careless relief
approach may perpetuate the disaster problem
(Lewis, 1999). Hence, development and
vulnerabilities must be addressed before disasters
occur. At the same time, the constraints inhibiting
the implementation of this approach should be
recognized. Therefore, disaster managers must also
capitalize on people’s increased interest after
195
Disaster Prevention and Management
Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . 189±196
disaster to reduce future vulnerabilities. A great
challenge is to blend disaster response and recovery
with vulnerability reduction through development,
mitigation and preparedness (McEntire, 1998).
19 Invulnerable development is concerned with a
reduction of liabilities and an increase in
capabilities, which is an extension of Anderson and
Woodrow’s (1998) discussion about the importance
of vulnerability and capacity analysis. It is also
closely related to the previous focus of the
Integrated Emergency Management System in the
USA on closing the gap between risks and
capacities.
20 This is not to suggest that emergency management
should be as reactive as it has been in the past.
Invulnerable development encourages holistic
approaches to the disaster problem.
References
Anderson, M.B. and Woodrow, P.J. (1998), Rising from
the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of
Disaster, Lynne Rienner, London.
Berke, P. (1995), ``Natural hazard reduction and
sustainable development: a global assessment’’,
Working Paper Number S95-02, Center for Urban
and Regional Studies, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Berke, P., Kartez, J. and Wenger (1993), ``Recovery after
disaster: achieving sustainable development,
mitigation and equity’’, Disasters, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 93-108.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994), At
Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and
Disasters, Routledge, London.
Bolin, R. and Stanford, L. (1999), ``Constructing
vulnerability in the first world: the Northridge
earthquake in Southern California, 1994’’, in Oliver-
Smith, A. and Hoffman, S.M. (Eds), The Angry Earth:
Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 89-112.
BoulleÂ, P., Vrolijks, L. and Palm, E. (1997), ``Vulnerability
reduction for sustainable urban development’’,
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 179-88.
Britton, N.R. (1986), ``Developing an understanding of
disaster’’, Australian New Zealand Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 254-71.
Buckle, P. (1995), ``A framework for assessing
vulnerability’’, Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 11-15.
Buckle, P., Mars, G. and Smale, S. (2000), ``New
approaches to assessing vulnerability and
resilience’’, Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 8-15.
Burton, I., Kates, R.W. and White, G.F. (1993), The
Environment as Hazard, The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Cannon, T. (1993), ``A hazard need not a disaster make:
vulnerability and the causes of `natural’ disasters’’,
in Merriman, P.A. and Browitt, C.W.A. (Eds),
Natural Disasters: Protecting Vulnerable
Communities, Thomas Telford, London, pp. 92-105.
 Triggering agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction Disaster Prevention and Management
David A. McEntire Volume 10 . Number 3 . 2001 . 189±196
Cannon, T. (1994), ``Vulnerability analysis and the
explanation of `natural’ disasters’’, in Varley, A.
(Ed.), Disasters, Development and Environment,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 13-30.
Cernea, M. (1996), ``Bridging the research divide: studying
refugees and development outsees’’, From In Search
of Cool Ground: War, Flight & Homecoming in
Northeast Africa, United Nations Research Institute
for Social Development, New York, NY.
Drabek, T.E. (1991), ``The evolution of emergency
management’’, in Drabek, T.E. and Hoetmer, G.J.
(Eds), Emergency Management: Principles and
Practice for Local Government, ICMA, Washington
DC, pp. 3-29.
Dynes, R.R. (1994), ``Community emergency planning:
false assumptions and inappropriate’’, International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 141-58.
El-Masri, S. and Tipple, G. (1997), ``Urbanization, poverty
and natural disasters: vulnerability of settlements in
developing countries’’, in Awotona, A. (Ed.),
Reconstruction after Disaster: Issues and Practices,
Ashgate Publishing, Brookfield, VT, pp. 1-12.
Enarson, E. and Heran Morrow, B. (1997), ``A gendered
perspective: the voices of women’’, in Peacock, W.G.,
Heran Morrow, B. and Gladwin, H. (Eds), Hurricane
Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of
Disasters, Routledge, London, pp. 116-37.
Geiss, D. and Kutzmark, T. (1995), ``Developing
sustainable communities’’, Public Management,
Vol. 77 No. 8, pp. 4-13.
Hewitt, K. (1983), Interpretations of Calamity, Allen
&Unwin, Boston, MA.
Hoffman, S.M. and Oliver-Smith, A. (1999), ``Anthropology
and the angry earth: an overview’’, in Oliver-Smith,
A. and Hoffman, S.M. (Eds), The Angry Earth:
Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 1-16.
Jeffrey, S.E. (1982), ``The creation of vulnerability to
natural disaster: case studies from the Dominican
Republic’’, Disasters, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 38-43.
Lewis, J. (1999), Development in Disaster-Prone Places:
Studies of Vulnerability, Intermediate Technology
Publications, London.
McEntire, D.A. (1998), ``Balancing international
approaches to disaster: rethinking prevention
instead of relief’’, Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 50-5.
McEntire, D.A. (1999a), ``Issues in disaster relief: progress,
perpetual problems and prospective solutions’’,
Disaster Management and Prevention, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 351-62.
McEntire, D.A. (1999b), ``Sustainability or invulnerable
development? Proposals for the current shift in
paradigms’’, Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 58-61.
McEntire, D.A. (2000a), ``From sustainability to
invulnerable development: justifications for a
modified disaster reduction concept and policy
guide’’, PhD Dissertation, University of Denver.
McEntire, D.A. (2000b), ``Correspondence’’, Disasters, Vol.
24 No. 1, pp. 78-9.
Maskrey, A. (1989), Disaster Mitigation: A Community
Based Approach, Oxfam, Oxford.
Maskrey, A. (1993), ``Vulnerability accumulation in
peripheral regions in Latin America: the challenge
196
View publication stats
for disaster prevention and management’’, in
Merriman, P.A. and Browitt, C.W.A. (Eds), Natural
Disasters: Protecting Vulnerable Communities,
Thomas Telford, London, pp. 461-72.
Merriman, P.A. and Browitt, C.W.A. (1993), Natural
Disasters: Protecting Vulnerable Communities,
Thomas Telford, London.
Mileti, D. (1999), Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of
Natural Hazards in the United States, Joseph Henry
Press, Washington, DC.
Norton, J. and Chantry, G. (1993), ``Promoting principles
for better typhoon resistance in buildings ± a case
study in Vietnam’’, in Merriman, P.A. and Browitt,
C.W.A. (Eds), Natural Disasters: Protecting
Vulnerable Communities, Thomas Telford, London,
pp. 533-46.
O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K. and Wisner, B. (1976), ``Taking
the naturalness out of natural disasters’’, Nature,
Vol. 260, April, pp. 566-7.
Oliver-Smith, A. (1999), ``What is a disaster?
Anthropological perspectives on a persistent
question’’, in Oliver-Smith, A. and Hoffman, S.M.
(Eds), The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological
Perspective, Routledge, New York, pp. 18-34.
Pandey, G. (1990), ``Development and disasters: tasks
during the international decade of natural disaster
reduction’’, Disaster Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 77-82.
Peacock, W.G., Heran Morrow, B. and Gladwin, H. (Eds)
(1997), Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and
the Sociology of Disasters, Routledge, London.
Quarantelli, E.L. (1994), ``Future disaster trends and policy
implications for developing countries’’, Preliminary
paper #200, Disaster Research Center, University of
Delaware, Newark, NJ.
Quarantelli, E.L. (1995), ``What is a disaster?’’,
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 221-9.
Quarantelli, E.L. (1998), What is a Disaster? Perspectives
on the Question, Routledge, New York, NY.
Reynolds, J.M. (1993), ``The development of a combined
regional strategy for power generation and natural
hazard risk assessment in a high-altitude glacial
environment: an example from the Cordillera
Blanca, Peru’’, in Merriman, P.A. and Browitt,
C.W.A. (Eds), Natural Disasters: Protecting
Vulnerable Communities, Thomas Telford, London,
pp. 38-50.
Sinha, D.K. (1992), ``Natural disaster reduction for the
nineties: perspectives, aspects and strategies’’,
International Journal Services, Calcutta.
Twigg, J. and Bhatt, M.R. (1998), Understanding
Vulnerability: South Asian Perspectives,
Intermediate Technology Publications Inc., London.
Varley, A. (Ed.) (1994), Disasters, Development and
Environment, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
Winchester, P. (1992), Power, Choice and Vulnerability: A
Case Study in Disaster Mismanagement in South
India, James & James, London.
Wisner, B. and Luce, H.R. (1993), ``Disaster vulnerability:
scale, power and daily life’’, Geo-Journal, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 127-40.
World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.