Enrico L. Quarantelli Conventional Beliefs and Counterintuitive Realities THIS PAPER DISCUSSES MAJOR MYTHS AND WIDELY HELD INCORRECT beliefs about individual and group behaviors in disaster contexts. Why can we categorize such views as invalid? Because now there has been m ore than half a century o f systematic social science studies (and an earlier half century of less well known scattered works) that have estab lished the actual param eters of the behavior of individuals and groups in natural and technological disaster situations (for recent summaries of the extensive research literature, see Lindell, Peny, and Prater, 2006; N ational Research Council, 2006; and Rodriguez, Q uarantelli, and Dynes, 2006). All is not known, and serious gaps rem ain in knowledge about im portant topics, but we are at this tim e far beyond just educated guesses on m any dim ensions of the relevant behaviors. Our focus is on six different behavioral aspects ofdisasters,prim ar ily occurring around the im pact tim e period of such crises. Stated in just a few words, we look at panic flight and at antisocial looting behav ior, supposed passivity in emergencies, role conflict and abandonment, severe m ental health consequences, and the locus of w hatever prob lems surface. We present w hat is often assumed, believed, or stated on these m atters—at least in popular discourse and to a varying extent in policy, planning, and operational circles—as over against w hat study and research has found. The concept of "m yths" was coined in the early 1950s by research ers who were studying the natural and technological "disasters" that social research Vol 75 : No 3 : Fall 2008 873 were taking place in Am erican society at that time. These research ers were never under any illusion th at these were the only kinds of collective crises th at societies could suffer. This idea was reinforced in the early 1960s w hen there were m any urban and university riots that "disaster" researchers studied even as they recognized they were along some lines qualitatively different from the earlier natural and technological disasters looked at in the field. To some researchers these became known as "conflict crises." In the decades that followed, addi tional notions about mega-disasters/catastrophes, as well as even newer kinds of crises, also qualitatively different, crept into the literature. W ithout going into the uneven historical evolution of the think ing about different kinds or types, we need here to identify distinc tive aspects of the four kinds of collective crises ju st noted. This is because the idea of the m yths is not equally applicable across the board. Particularly im portant is th at the idea makes sense for disasters but needs qualification for catastrophes. A few researchers have argued for decades that there are disasters and there are catastrophes. This is not simply substituting or replacing one word w ith another to try to m aintain the idea of disaster myths, as has been incorrectly implied (Handmer, 2007, for example). Rather, it involves an attem pt to differentiate m ajor differences between one kind of social crisis and another as the result of the im pact of a destruc tive natural or technological agent (see Quarantelli, 2005a). The charac teristics of a catastrophe in ideal-type term s are the following. In a space-time framework, a catastrophe occurs when 1) w ithin a relatively short time period, 2) a large but not necessarily fully contiguous area with multiple land uses and diverse communities, is 3) perceived as being subjected to veiy m ajor threats to life and property, thus 4) requir ing immediate responses to start restoring a routine social order. This kind of social occasion results in: ►m ost eveiyday com m unity functions and social institutions being sharply and concurrently interrupted (in contrast to this not happening in a disaster); 874 social research ►m any organizations, including those that are emergency oriented, either cease operating or do so in a m arkedly reduced m anner (in contrast to a disaster w here few organizations in a com m unity dete riorate to such a degree); ►m any local com m...
The terms “sheltering” and “housing” are used in a variety of unclear and inconsistent ways in the disaster literature. Proposes a differentiation among emergency sheltering, temporary sheltering, temporary housing and permanent housing. Indicates how they are paid differential attention in American disaster planning and gives specific observations about the four patterns, noting especially how they differ from one another. Suggests there will be a future increase in problems in all the patterns, and that it is not yet fully established to what extent these patterns are applicable in all types of societies.
Abstract : In this report, we present a case study of some of the individual and group responses to the threat posed by a tank explosion at a chemical plant in Taft, Lousiana, about 30 miles west of New Orleans. The focus is on the activities of the local emergency organizations, particularly their involvement in the relatively large scale evacuation behavior which occurred. In the description presented, the perspective taken is that of the local groups and what they knew or did not know as the threat situation developed. The analysis undertaken is a social science one which assumes that different valid criteria can be applied in evaluating any or all parts of the emergency response. The study was initiated because early reports and comments from the scene suggested that elements of a nuclear plant disaster plan might have been used in the evacuation. As our on-the-scene field work found, this was not the case in any meaningful sense, and only very indirectly did prior planning for the nuclear plant influence the response pattern of the local emergency organizations. However, our Louisiana study did find, as other researchers have consistently found, that disaster planning of any kind--and there was much disaster planning in the threatened area--makes a difference during a community threat emergency. Futhermore, it seemed particularly worth-while to document this particular case because of the high disaster risk nature of the community involved, its extensive experience with small and large scale emergencies, and the complexity of its disaster planning.
Some social science literature conceptualizes disasters and riots together, treating the two phenomena as involving but one relatively homogeneous type of social crisis. This is only valid if the pre‐, trans and post‐impact behaviours in such consensus and conflict occasions are roughly the same. This assumption is examined by comparing the similarities and differences between what occurs in community disasters and riots as these have been reported in empirical studies, looking at behaviours appearing at the individual, organizational and community levels. Significant differences have been found supporting the notion that consensus‐type crises such as disasters ought to be conceptualized as a different social category than riots.
I have spent most of my professional life since the 1950s doing research on the social aspects of disasters, This social science research in which I have participated, is of course part of a much larger body of studies undertaken in the last 40 years, could be characterized in a whole variety of ways as to findings, motifs, implications, uses, etc. But there is one theme that runs through the bulk of the work that has been done up to now: according to research findings much of what is generally believed about disaster related individual and group behavior is not true or correct. As I and others have phrased it, we are embedded in a great number of misconceptions or myths about behavior in disasters. This disaster mythology clearly does not make for effective planning for or managing of such crisis occasions.
This was prepared as a background paper for the International Seminar on the Quality of Life and Environmental Risks held in Rio di Janeiro, Brazil, October 10-11, 1996. It is a slightly revised version of Disaster Research Center Preliminary Paper # 199 which was the expanded written version of the oral remarks made at the 2nd National Congress of Universities on Civil Protection held at the University of Colima in Colima City, Mexico on June 27-29, 1994. Some of the material also appeared in earlier publications (Quarantelli 1988; 1991; 1992; 1993; 1994). There are plans in Brazil to publish this paper in Portuguese in 1999.
In order to understand the process of initiating schools'
involvement in disaster planning, we will first discuss the context
of disasters toward which planning must be oriented. Second, we
will examine certain dimensions of the educational system to be
considered. In particular, we wish to emphasize the school
(a) as a structure to be secured, (b) as a location of community
members to be protected and (c) as an important community resource
to be utilized in emergency operations. We will discuss the
problem of schools which have experienced significant disaster
damages. Finally, we will turn directly to the question of
implications of these considerations for planning.
This report consists of eight chapters. Each chapter deals with a major issue in regard to the implementation of disaster planning, indicates central questions with respect to that issue, and makes some major points in relation to each question. The discussion in all cases is based on what studies of actual situations show and in this sense is grounded in research-derived findings rather than being based on unrealistic suppositions or desirable but unattainable ideal circumstances. A basic theme running throughout the report is that implementation of disaster planning cannot be achieved through the mechanical application of a fixed set of procedures but requires instead a careful analysis of the particular constellation of conditions present in each individual case, and a willingness of some organization such as local civil defense to take the initiative in developing and/or maintaining community emergency plans.
