Ethics and disaster management

Disaster cycles

Disaster cycles are commonly subdivided into four main categories (or phases), also known as the 4 'Rs:

• Reduction – how to minimize the risk of disasters doing damage in the first place

• Readiness – how to achieve optimum disaster preparedness

• Response – how to act when a disaster happens

• Recovery – how to get things up and running again after a disaster.

In the first two phases, where precautionary measures are devised and implemented, making decisions about such measures is challenging because a risk may or may not happen. This can make it difficult for governments to convince people of the necessity of specific measures, especially when they aim to safeguard future generations.

The E4Rs framework

Understanding risk is insufficient for comprehending the intricate dynamics of disasters, and science is trying to come up with alternative approaches.

One recent example is the Ethics for 4Rs (E4Rs) framework, which aims to support and improve disaster management across all phases of the cycle. The platform integrates risk, ethics, and law and emphasizes ethical considerations in all four phases of disaster management.

The following summarises some essential premises and underlying research linked to the E4Rs framework.

Morality and the law

Throughout the disaster cycle, many principles guide what happens at which moment. One of these is legal considerations. In democratic countries, the law governs what can and cannot be done in certain circumstances.

However, it's not always clear how morality aligns with the law. Some legally right things can be morally wrong, and vice versa. In addition, corruption of the system can further cloud the issue, e.g., when laws are made to support only one population group. In such a case, following the law can seriously get in the way of moral obligations, especially for first responders or recovery planners.

The kind of dilemmas that arise then have been described in ethics and moral philosophy as the "trolley problem" (see box).

In disaster response and recovery, people are put into situations where they need to make difficult decisions. To complicate matters, vital information is often lacking, especially immediately after the disaster has taken place. As a result, decisions can never be perfect. Nevertheless, not making decisions is much worse because rescue operations carried out by first responders may be delayed - with fatal consequences.

Local approaches to post-earthquake cordons

Ethics and values are even more prominent in the recovery phase. This is exemplified by the use of cordons to keep people away from dangerous buildings or spaces after a disaster. Recent research looked into how different circumstances and government styles affect the way cordons are used to control access to certain areas.

• New Zealand

After severe earthquakes in Christchurch (2011) and Wellington (2016), New Zealand, the authorities clearly considered life safety a top priority. First, cordons were put up to control access to dangerous areas. In the next step, many buildings presenting a risk of collapse were simply demolished so that responders could safely enter the areas in question. As New Zealand is a relatively young country, heritage didn't play a very important part when decisions had to be made about tearing down buildings. As a result of this swift action, cordons could soon be taken down, allowing everyday life to resume.

The Pyne Gould Building following the 2011 Earthquake, Christchurch, New Zealand. Source: Gabriel., CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

• Italy

L'Aquila, Italy, was a different story. Here, after the 2009 earthquake, heritage was prioritized as much as public safety. As L'Aquila is a historic town with lots of churches and other culturally unique buildings, demolition was not considered an option here.

However, under these circumstances, protecting the people in affected areas was going to be an expensive and technically challenging affair. That's why large parts of the town were heavily cordoned, and these cordons remained in place for a long time after the earthquake. The authorities declared a state of emergency that was kept in place for as long as three years, severely disrupting public life.

Earthquake damage after the 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy. Source: UCL Mathematical and Physical Sciences from London, UK, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

• Nepal

In Kathmandu, Nepal, the 2015 earthquake led to surprisingly little cordoning. This can be explained by the fact that cordons, by their design, are a very authoritative thing, and in Nepal, people don't trust the government. They are not going to let authorities stop them from going into their own homes and will gladly take responsibility for their own safety.

Earthquake damage after the 2015 earthquake, Nepal. Source: Rajan Journalist, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Here, what happened in terms of cordoning was mainly determined by the core values of the people and how they perceive the world. Also, there is no specific legal clause for cordoning-in laws in Nepal's disaster law.

Local law

Apart from the universal law and ethics dilemmas, a country's specific legal system can also be a decisive factor in disaster response and recovery decision-making. For instance, in Italy, mayors are very powerful when it comes to disaster management. Under Italian law, this power comes with serious responsibility, to the point where people may be jailed if their decisions have grave consequences. As a result, mayors tend to look at risk not just to the people but also to themselves.

Trust

Local differences aside, responsible disaster management requires strong legal frameworks. In order to achieve these, values should be articulated in a democratic process. Having a sense of commonly shared values helps to build trust in governments. It also adds to the probability of those shared values being represented in government decisions. The resulting trust can be supported by transparent communication about why certain difficult decisions were deemed necessary.

Trade-offs

Decisions made in disaster management always involve trade-offs. The cordons put in place to prevent the public from going into hazardous disaster areas are one example. They provide the necessary safety while having a negative impact on people's freedom and quality of life.

Another example is decisions taken after the fact to improve disaster preparedness. For instance, the 2015 Kathmandu earthquake led to changes in the building code, which is now very strict. This has certainly been conducive to public safety, but at the same time, building or buying a new home has become too expensive for many, as construction costs have significantly increased in compliance with the code.