Need a perfect paper? Place your first order and save 5% with this code:   SAVE5NOW

Executive Summary of the U.S. and Canadian Emergency Management Systems

The most common catastrophes are meteorological weather as well as geological tragedies, which can devastate any portion of the United States. Their impacts could be restricted or extensive, predictable or unexpected. The magnitude of the damage could range from modest to major (Jones & Kovacich, 2019). Depending on the intensity of the disaster, it can have a long-term impact on any location’s infrastructure, such as roadways, bridges, including utilities. Environmental hazards include thunderstorms, tides, tornadoes winter storms, plagues, droughts, landslides, tremors, tsunamis, tidal waves, eruptions, and dam failure.

Hazardous materials are one example of technological risks. Leaks, spills, terrorism, and atomic catastrophes, are all possibilities. Natural disasters are more foreseeable in most cases, and sometimes not. Compared to any other sort of danger. Other dangers involve animal attacks like a foreign animal’s epidemics (Jones & Kovacich, 2019). Mitigation Measures performed to avoid or lessen the source, incidence, and aftermath of catastrophes are included in this stage. The following are some instances of hazard mitigation: Using ground fasteners to secure dwellings, damaged water channels are dug to divert water, plants are being planted, and water absorption by plants. Levees or concrete obstacles are built to strengthen fences to keep animals from escaping to manage to flood. Purchasing insurance policies is one of the most important things you can do.

Preparation for incidents that sometimes cannot be avoided, this period comprises strategy, instruction, and educative efforts. Establishing catastrophe preparedness procedures for everything that needs to be done, how to get there, and who to approach for rescue in the case of a catastrophe, for instance is very crucial. Drills, tabletop exercises, especially full-scale exercises are used to develop inventory list of vital commodities in the event of a tragedy, cruise around a property, and detect likely high-wind weaknesses. Whenever a tragedy strikes quickly, the response phase commences.

More often than not, economic and other activities are disrupted during the reaction period. The amount of readiness determines individual security and well-being in a disaster and the length of the response process (Henstra, 2003). Developing catastrophe reaction preparations, performing search and relief operations, and adopting efforts to safeguard yourself, your household, your creatures, and others are instances of reaction exercises. They were changing people’s views about food security. Recovery Efforts go simultaneously with normal operations and activities during a recovery phase. The time it takes to recuperate from a calamity might be lengthy. The following are examples of recuperation activities: Strain diseases and severe financial commitments can be avoided or reduced. Reconstruction of structural failure using enhanced information gained from the previous tragedy. They were Reducing future disaster susceptibility.

In Canada, emergency management is a collective duty that requires continual collaboration and consultation from all administration stages. A significant percentage of crises are handled by province and territory authorities and municipal institutions under Canada’s legislative structure (Harrald & Jefferson, 2007). Almost all Canadian crises are managed regionally or even at the provincial tier and do not need federal intervention. In a situation where an emergency begins to overrun a province’s or kingdom’s assets, the federal administration may act at the province’s or state’s appeal. The National Emergency Response System is part of Canada’s emergency response management system. It combines the emergency management concepts outlined in An Emergency Management Framework for Canada, authorized by the national, province, and territory organizations.

The federal, provincial, as well as territorial states, as well as their associates, distribute duty for emergency management in Canada. The federal, provincial, and regional states have embraced a detailed strategy to emergency management that incorporates equitable efforts throughout mitigation, remediation, preparedness, way to respond, and rehabilitation operations. Emergency management necessitates strong collaboration between state agencies, the corporate industry, first rescuers, localities, municipalities, and individuals at all stages. To guarantee the first most efficient utilization of assets and implementation of operations, Emergency Management counts on the coherence of operations and the availability of defined and suitable tasks, obligations, authority, and competencies of stakeholders. A risk-based technique highlights the need to analyze responsiveness to all perils from the beginning to find the best equilibrium and inclusion of activities to handle susceptibility and threats.

Each jurisdiction in Canada uses an all-hazards strategy for emergency management, tackling hazards revealed by equally natural and human perils and catastrophes. Incident administration strives to improve people, responses, institutions, regions, governments, institutions, and community’ endurance to prevent risks from generating catastrophes; effective communication from competent agencies is vital before, during, and after a crisis (Henstra, 2003). Emergency management strives for constant systematic development at all stages to reduce the occurrence of issues, incorporating progressive and revolutionary transformation as needed. When interventions can potentially safeguard lives, maintain the environment, or safeguard business and the industry, the enormous consequences of these judgments should be thoroughly balanced against emergency management ideals and principles.

It is not uncommon for government agencies with overlapping domains and similar duties to collaborate. Initiatives to promote agency collaboration, limit the number of agencies in specific policy domains, or explain the distribution of work between them extend back to the republic’s founding (Harrald & Jefferson, 2007). In the modern period, the quantity, importance, and ideas for comparable partnerships are rising in practically all governmental sectors. Expansion in government duties, cross-cutting initiatives, particularly their diversity; particular disasters that revealed significant constraints in established institutions; and increased demand to minimize the number of federal initiatives and expenses are the causes for the present upswing.

Nonetheless, working definitions can be developed for the different types. All of them are accompanied by various possible reasons to improve cooperation, enhance coordination, or clarify agency roles and competencies (Rostis, 2007). Reduce policy complexity and mitigate rivalry across agencies, as well as improve productivity and performance, change corporate and bureaucratic practices, and streamline and improve legislative and administrative supervision are between the underlying aims and objectives. Given these pleas, several of the justifications and their fundamental concepts and measuring the effectiveness or failures of interagency initiatives have raised issues and problems.

Collaboration a generally balanced interchange between relatively equal organizations or colleagues, independent from collaboration’s extensive, coordination, mergers, incorporation, connections, as well as collaborations are all examples of interagency collaboration in its broadest sense (Rostis,2007). These classifications frequently overlap, augment, or complement each other, and multiple types might exist within the identical administrative framework and activity. Adding to the confusion, the various categories are not specified in public legislation or presidential instructions, despite the fact that they are necessary in some. Based of this among other factors, the phrases have occasionally failed accuracy and coherence, were employed consistently, or have been extended to many categories.


Jones, A., & Kovacich, A. (2019). Emergency management: The American experience 1900-2010. Routledge.

Henstra, D. (2003). Federal emergency management in Canada and the United States after 11 September 2001. Canadian Public Administration, 46(1), 103-116.

Harrald, J., & Jefferson, T. (2007, January). Shared situational awareness in emergency management mitigation and response. In 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07) (pp. 23-23). IEEE.

Rostis, A. (2007). Make no mistake: The effectiveness of the lessons-learned approach to emergency management in Canada. International Journal of Emergency Management4(2), 197-210.


Don't have time to write this essay on your own?
Use our essay writing service and save your time. We guarantee high quality, on-time delivery and 100% confidentiality. All our papers are written from scratch according to your instructions and are plagiarism free.
Place an order

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Need a plagiarism free essay written by an educator?
Order it today

Popular Essay Topics