A Strategic Approach to Disaster Preparedness

Conrad Guelke, Life Member IEEE

Abstract – This paper presents a background and framework for the development of a disaster preparedness plan using a strategic planning approach. While the response to a specific disaster will depend upon the nature of the disaster, there are fundamental mitigation principles which, if diligently observed and implemented, are likely to substantially improve the ability of a business or organization to survive and recover from a disaster. Index Terms – Emergency preparedness, disaster management, risk management, strategic planning, mitigation strategies, engineering safety.

I. INTRODUCTION

A disaster is defined as “an occurrence inflicting widespread destruction and distress.” [1]. It is a non-routine event that exceeds the capacity of the affected area to respond to it in such a way as to save lives, to preserve property, and to maintain the social, ecological, economic, and political stability of the affected region.

Just how prepared is the average business or organization for an unexpected disaster? Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants in the UK, speaking at the 13th World Conference on Disaster Management in Toronto stated: “According to recent research in the United Kingdom (Safetynet plc 1998), should disaster strike an organization without any tested plan, 40 per cent of businesses collapse outright, 40 per cent fail after 18 months, 12 per cent fail after five years, and only eight per cent survive in the long term!” [2].

A list of hazards that have the potential to cause disasters is presented in Table I.

TABLE I

POTENTIAL DISASTERS

“Natural” Hazards “Human-induced”

Hazards • Avalanches • Biological Threats • Epidemics (also human-

induced) • Chemical Threats • Crime

• Earthquakes • Cyber-crime • Fires (also human-

induced) • Floods • Meteorites • Severe Weather • Tsunamis • Volcanoes

• Dam Failures • Famine • Nuclear and

Radiological Threats • Riots • Terrorism • Transportation Accidents

With these hazards and their potential implications, this paper identifies mitigation principles which provide the foundation for a disaster preparedness plan. While the response to a specific disaster will depend upon many considerations,

including the nature of the disaster, there is a strategic approach which, if diligently observed and implemented, is likely to substantially improve the ability of a business, organization or community to avoid or survive a disaster. A strategic approach enables them to develop effective mitigation strategies that reflect their values and priorities, and address known risks. II. UNDERSTANDING AND QUANTIFYING DISASTERS AND RISK

Mitigation strategies are intended to reduce the likelihood of a disaster occurring, or lessening its impact in the event that it cannot be prevented. They are developed from an understanding of the risks a business, organization, community or nation is prepared to tolerate. But what is risk? Like many authors who relate risk to likelihood or probability, Lawrence describes risk “as the probability that a potential situation will cause damage to people, property and environment”[3]. Similarly, Godschalk states that risk “is the probability that a hazard will occur during a particular time period”, and that probability “is the number of chances per year or other time span that a disaster of a certain magnitude will occur” [4].

Given more recent concerns about critical infrastructure security, a new risk formula has been proposed by a prominent panel of engineers to determine the vulnerability of US bridges and tunnels to a terrorist bomb blast [5]. The goal is to provide agencies with a sound basis for the deployment of preparedness resources. The formula, adapted from a probabilistic risk assessment methodology developed as a basis for California’s seismic retrofit program, acknowledges the cultural and social significance of structures. The panel concluded that three factors should be considered, according to the formula:

R = O x V x I • R is the risk to a particular bridge or tunnel, • O is the probability of occurrence of sabotage, • V is the vulnerability of the structure, i.e. how much of it

might be damaged or destroyed and what impact that destruction would have, and

• I is the importance of the structure, which measures the consequence to the region or the nation in the event that the structure is destroyed or rendered unusable. Henry Petroksi, in his foreword to a book analyzing major

technological catastrophes [6], suggests that infrastructure technologies which affect great numbers of lives and over which ordinary people do not have any direct control, must be held to a much higher standard of reliability than would be the case for technologies where personal freedom of choice is involved. Hartford cautions that there are also human aspects that cannot be readily incorporated into a rational analysis of risks

0-7803-9139-X/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE. 745

[7]. Quoting Slovic (1987): “There is wisdom as well as error in public attitudes and perceptions. Lay people sometimes lack certain information about hazards. However, their basic conceptualization of risk is much richer than that of experts, and reflects legitimate concerns that are typically omitted from expert risk assessments. As a result, risk communication and risk management efforts are destined to fail unless they are strategically structured as a two-way process. Each side, expert and public, has something valid to contribute. Each side must respect the insights and intelligence of the other.” This may be a reason why nuclear power encounters considerable public opposition, despite a sound safety record and other benefits, including an absence of greenhouse gas emissions. A table of selected statistics from the US Safety Council is shown in Table II [8]. The table illustrates that the risk of death in 2002 posed by natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods was substantially less than that of human-induced accidents involving surface transportation, drowning, falls, poisoning and “intentional self-harm”. Both positive and negative conclusions can be drawn from the figures in Table II. On the positive side, the number of accidental deaths attributable to disasters where engineered safety is well established, such as earthquakes and floods, is low. On the other hand, the number of deaths due to more “routine” causes is several orders of magnitude higher, demonstrating a societal tolerance of personal risk

significantly greater than would be accepted for public transportation or for the design of bridges, dams and other public facilities.

Ultimately, the priority must be on knowing the risk, rather than eliminating the risk. In his article, Planning for the Worst, Gareth Geazant [9] explains: • The United Nations is calling for an emphasis on computer

simulation to reduce the tragic consequences of natural disasters. Plans were unveiled at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Hyogo, Japan in January 2005.

• The UN University is working on a computerized simulation of the impact of natural disasters such as floods and tsunamis on urban centres, beginning in Japan.

• One specific need noted by the UN University is for subsurface maps, to guide planning and construction of underground spaces as mega-cities expand underground.

III. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

Strategic planning is a process that provides a convenient

means of establishing the context for detailed implementation or action plans [10]. For emergency preparedness planning, it can be used to provide a “big picture” framework, within which limited resources can be most effectively deployed.

TABLE II

ODDS OF DEATH DUE TO INJURY - UNITED STATES 2002

Type of Accident or Injury Number of Deaths One-year Odds

1:n Lifetime Odds

1:n All External Causes of Mortality 164,112 1,755 23 Deaths Due To Accidental Injuries 106,742 2,698 35 Transport Accidents 48,366 5,953 77

Car Occupant 16,337 17,625 228 Pedestrian 6,091 47,273 612 Pick-up Truck or Van 4,286 67,182 869 Motorcycle Rider 3,215 89,562 1,159

Air/Space Accidents 653 440,951 5,704 Falls 16,257 17,712 229 Smoke and Fire 3,159 91,149 1,179 Drowning 3,447 83,534 1,081 Forces of Nature 1,219 236,211 3,056

Excessive Cold 646 445,729 5,766 Excessive Heat 350 822,689 10,643 Cataclysmic Storm 63 4,570,496 59,127 Lightning 66 4,362,746 56,439 Earthquake 31 9,288,426 120,161 Flood 9 31,993,469 413,887

Poisoning 17,550 16,407 212 Narcotics 8,264 34,843 451 Gases and Vapours 691 416,702 5,391 Alcohol 355 811,102 10,493

Intentional self-harm 31,655 9,096 118 Assault 17,638 16,325 211 Source: National Safety Council 2005. Estimates based on data from national Center for Health Statistics and US Census Bureau. One-year odds are approximated by dividing the 2002 population (288 million) by the number of deaths. Lifetime odds are approximated by dividing one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in 2002 (77.3 years). www.nsc.org/Irs/statinfo/odds.htm

0-7803-9139-X/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE. 746

The elements comprising a strategic plan for an organization can be summarized as follows: • “SWOT” analysis – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

threats – a useful diagnostic tool to set the stage for a strategic planning process,

• Vision – the desired future, • Mission – the purpose of the enterprise/project, • Values – a set of beliefs informing ethical behaviour, • Goals – a discrete number of directions required to achieve

the mission, • Strategic Initiatives – the implementation deliverables

(schedule, budget and quality) related to each of the goals • Performance Measures – the metrics which indicate whether

or not implementation is proceeding as planned. A strategic planning process can be used to change the direction and performance of an organization. It encourages fact-based discussions of critical issues, establishes a common reference for decision-making within an organization, and sets a proper context for budget decisions and performance evaluations. It also trains managers to develop better information in support of their decisions.

IV. MITIGATION STRATEGIES A disaster preparedness plan for an organization, business or

the community has as its focus mitigation strategies designed to protect, or lessen the impact of, potential disasters, and to ensure that a disaster recovery and continuity plan of action is in place.

The World Conference on Disaster Reduction was held in Hyogo, Japan in January 2005, soon after the earthquake and tsunami in South East Asia. An outcome was the Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters [11]. It addressed gaps in the existing 1994 Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation and its Plan of Action (“Yokohama Strategy”).

The five strategic priorities for action (2005-2015) in the Hyogo Framework are as follows: 1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local

priority, with a strong institutional basis for implementation.

2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks, and enhance early warning.

3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels.

4. Reduce the underlying risk factors. 5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at

all levels. The five strategic priorities presented in the Hyogo

Framework provide a sound basis for the development of a disaster preparedness plan for businesses, organizations and communities.

Australia is an example of a country which has articulated its preparedness vision: “An Australia which suffers minimal effects from disasters. The goal is for the whole of Australia to undertake disaster-mitigation measures to reduce personal,

social, economic and environmental impacts of disasters” [12]. The Australian National Framework for Mitigation defines mitigation as “measures taken in advance of a hazardous event, which are aimed at decreasing or eliminating its impact on society and environment.” Effective mitigation reduces the effects of a disaster, and in some cases can prevent disasters from occurring. Mitigation measures act in several ways: • Lessening the hazard, • Reducing the vulnerability of the community to the hazard,

or • Changing the environment in which hazards and

communities interact. Exemplifying a strategic approach, Australia’s entire plan of action for disaster mitigation priorities was strongly influenced by stakeholder groups. They represented states and territories, the Institution of Engineers, local government, the Master Builders Association, and government emergency management services. A detailed risk management process helped stakeholders to identify the most cost-effective combination of mitigation measures for the range of risks they faced.

Mitigation strategies have been developed for four key disaster areas covered by the Natural Disaster Relief Arrangement: Floods, Earthquakes, Cyclones and Severe Storms, and Bushfires. Examples would be moving fuel and other combustible materials away from houses (lessening the hazard), relocating dwellings away from flood plains (reducing vulnerability) and controlled burning (changing the environment in which hazards and communities interact). This strategic approach – articulating a vision, defining goals, determining community priorities and developing a broad range of mitigation measures – is applicable to other jurisdictions where primary disaster vulnerabilities may be different.

In India, a priority for preparedness included the development of mitigation tools [13]. The Indian subcontinent is among the world’s most disaster-prone areas: 54% of the land is vulnerable to earthquakes: 8% is vulnerable to cyclones and 5% to floods. Over one million houses are damaged each year as a result, together with human, social, and other losses. The work of an Expert Group appointed by the Government of India to make recommendations on improving preparedness and prevention with respect to natural disasters included the development of: • Hazard maps and risk tables detailing disaster vulnerability

by building types, • A Vulnerability Atlas of India as a key tool in proactive

disaster management, • Technical guidelines for land-use zoning and design

guidelines for improving hazard resistant construction, • Disaster damage scenarios with cost-benefit analyses.

The Vulnerability Atlas of India [14] provides macro-level information for use by the authorities for natural disaster mitigation and prevention. It includes detailed hazard maps by state and district, building on existing cyclone and flood hazard maps. Boundaries for each administrative district are

0-7803-9139-X/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE. 747

shown, for easy identification of hazard risk areas. Flood-prone areas are classified as protected and unprotected.

Along with hazard maps are housing risk tables by district, reflecting the vulnerability of existing housing stock to specific hazards. Housing units of various types are classified by wall material and roof type.

V. COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

Communication and coordination are key elements in a

strategic disaster preparedness plan. They are crucial and need to be addressed in an integrated manner.

In October 2000, the Provincial Emergency Program in Canada’s Province of British Columbia unveiled the “British Columbia Emergency Response Management System (BCERMS)” [15]. It is a standardized emergency management and response framework involving command, operations, logistics, planning, and finance and administration. Emergency response is provided at four operating levels: 1. Site: on-site response directed by single or unified

command. 2. Site Support: an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) may

be activated when the site response requires support – the EOC provides communication and policy guidance at the site level, manages the local multiple-agency support, and acquires and deploys additional resources.

3. Provincial Regional Coordination, 4. Provincial Central Coordination.

The key feature of the BCERMS structure is that the organization is similar at all four levels of response, with variations to reflect greater requirements for coordination and wider span of control. Where a particular person is not available or not required for a specific position, then the next level up assumes that function, providing for a flexible structure that can be adapted to the task at hand.

Pre-planning and training of key personnel, e.g. directors and all section chiefs, is required in the areas of operations, planning, logistics, finance and administration.

Supporting BCERMS is TEAMS – Temporary Emergency Assignment Management System [15]. Its purpose is to improve the province’s ability to staff emergency operation centres during an emergency response. British Columbia maintains a province-wide pool of staff within TEAMS, trained and experienced in BCERMS. This staff provides on-site support to implement BCERMS throughout the province in emergency response situations.

Another example of an integrated disaster management approach is the process for the containing and eradicating epidemics and pandemics. Under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and national centres for disease control, protocols are in place to limit the spread of diseases throughout the world [16]. Recent occurrences of the transmission of avian influenza from birds to humans raise new concerns. Not only is there a concern about a pandemic, but there is also an associated economic impact upon affected regions. This was evident during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in early 2003 and its negative

affect on tourism in Canada, particularly on the city of Toronto [17].

Interestingly, the city of Vancouver was not impacted by SARS to the same extent as Toronto. A fortunate sequence of events with Vancouver's first case of SARS, together with a state of vigilance against disease outbreaks in the wake of WHO alerts, evidently prevented its spread in the Vancouver area. Further containment was achieved by the swift implementation of public health strategies to isolate new cases

arriving from affected areas in Asia [18]. The SARS and avian influenza experience have underscored

the need for a more strategic and coordinated international response to the spread of disease in a world where the rapid movement of people and goods means that a disease outbreak in one country today can spread to another country half way around the globe in less than 24 hours.

In response to this changing world, the WHO Assembly in May 2005 approved a new set of International Health Regulations to manage public health emergencies of international concern [18]. These new rules are intended to "prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease."

The regulations prescribe the responsibilities of the 192 member countries of the WHO in managing public health emergencies and sharing information. WHO offices throughout the world, in conjunction with the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), provide tactical support to its member countries in identifying and responding to disease outbreaks [18].

The original International Health Regulations approved in 1969 were focused on four serious infectious diseases – cholera, plague, yellow fever and smallpox. The new rules address a broader range of public health emergencies of international concern, including emerging diseases. Under the revised regulations, countries will now have more extensive obligations to develop capacity for routine preventive measures, and to detect and respond to public health emergencies. These measures include the proactive monitoring of ports, airports, land borders and international transportation [19].

VI. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The purpose of this paper is to raise the profile of disaster preparedness as a subject warranting more purposeful attention by those in the field of engineering management, and to demonstrate the benefit of a strategic approach to preparedness.

The need to be better prepared can be addressed on a number of fronts, ranging from policy in the boardroom to testing in the field. Attention to the following issues should also advance the state of preparedness of a business, organization or community:

A. Barriers to Preparedness

Complacency and organizational parochialism (“turf” or “silo” mentality) are significant barriers to preparedness and

0-7803-9139-X/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE. 748

can hinder organizations at any level – from the local business to international governmental agencies. Complacency can result in a reluctance to address circumstances that could compromise the ongoing viability of an enterprise. The number of negative responses to the ten questions listed in Table III provides an anecdotal indication of the complacency or lack of preparedness within an organization.

Organizational parochialism is characterized by a lack of cooperation between and within agencies. In a corporate environment where decision-making is being increasingly “unbundled”, and business unit fiscal performance is the priority, the values of teamwork and cooperation are often neglected. It is the responsibility of senior management in government or industry to pay attention to this key issue. While coordination and cooperation are vital, the preparation and training to make this reality is more challenging, particularly in organizations where “turf” mentality is a problem. Mutual trust is at the core of cooperation, so it is important that leaders who must work together and share information during an emergency have had an opportunity to meet. Regular meetings, conferences and even networking social events can establish valuable connections which provide a basis for future cooperation.

TABLE III

PREPAREDNESS CHECKLIST FOR MANAGEMENT

1. Can you name the individual in your organization who has prime responsibility for emergency preparedness?

2. Is this individual clearly accountable for having in place the resources that will enable the organization to activate emergency procedures in the event of a major disaster?

3. Does this individual report to, or have “the ear” of, the CEO? 4. Has this individual presented an emergency preparedness or

business continuity plan to your Board or senior management within the last 12 months?

5. Do you have an emergency evacuation plan for your work premises? Has the plan been tested within the last six months?

6. Is there an off-site data storage location for the business records of your organization?

7. Do you know who in the organization is responsible for the active protection of all critical software and data assets?

8. Do you know the maximum down time that your unit can accommodate without a significant financial and/or operational impact?

9. Do you have a plan for the provision of counselling support to employees traumatized by a major disaster affecting the organization?

10 If your premises burned to the ground overnight, do you have tested emergency procedures for contacting every employee, and setting up operations at a new location within 24 hours?

B. Emergency Preparedness as a Governance Issue

The United Kingdom is the most active country in Europe implementing business-continuity legislation. The Higgs Report, published in early 2003, puts the onus on company directors to take responsibility for risk management within a company [20]. It sets out a code for boardroom reform and calls on non-executive directors to satisfy themselves that

systems of risk management within a company are robust and effective.

In the United Kingdom, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, replacing one developed in the 1940s, requires critical infrastructure providers to protect their infrastructure adequately from disasters [21]. Also in the United Kingdom, a guide to business continuity is available through the British Standards Institute [22]. The guide lists practices for companies to follow, and to benchmark their plans against industry peers.

In South Africa, the King II Report on Corporate Governance in 2002 makes specific mention of having to conduct annual risk assessments and to have business continuity plans that account for worst-case scenarios [23]. King II provides an international benchmark for sound corporate governance.

C. Risk Management and Engineering Practice

While natural hazards are largely known quantities from an engineering design viewpoint, human induced disasters are not, e.g. the global rise in terrorism. Introducing considerations such as business continuation risk, or the high value or irreplaceable nature of certain assets such as laboratory equipment and research specimens, may result in more stringent design criteria than those in current building codes predicated on natural hazards. Engineers can design bridges and tunnels to withstand bomb blasts – they just need to know the extent of the protection required. The success of the designers of dams in building safe structures is demonstrated by the relatively few disasters that have occurred as a result of dam failures [24]. Where floods do occur, they are often flash floods whose severity may have increased as a result of activities such as logging and land development [25].

The University of California at Berkeley has adopted performance-based engineering design principles [26]. It developed a new mitigation strategy, which combines traditional engineering methods of identifying seismic hazards with a risk management approach to critical operations being undertaken in its laboratories. This has resulted in the implementation of performance-based engineering research, to support risk management and engineering practice.

D. Testing of Preparedness Plans

The research cited by Peter Power in the Introduction referred to organizations without “tested” plans [1]. In Singapore, “Testing, Maintenance, and Audit” is one of the key phases of the Business Continuity Model (BCM) promoted and supported by the government [27]. Other key phases include Program Management, Risk and Business Impact Analysis, Development and Implementation of Response Plans, and Instilling a BCM Mindset.

Regular testing is an essential and strategic aspect of disaster preparedness planning and is the only effective means of ensuring that plans remain current. Interestingly, Singapore recognizes that superior disaster preparedness contributes to the economic competitiveness of the country [28].

0-7803-9139-X/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE. 749

E. Future Expectations: Engineers and Leadership While professional engineers continue to play a very necessary role in society, their collective voice and influence on public planning policy is not obvious. It could be argued that, as society becomes ever more dependent on technology, it is increasingly important for professional engineers to exercise leadership at boardroom tables and in legislative chambers. Following a major disaster, recovery and reconstruction requires the involvement of engineers. These situations invariably expose design and building code shortcomings, as well as examples where front-end prevention could have provided material benefit. This underscores the importance of a safety and prevention mindset in the academic and ethical training of engineers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author would like to thank H. Thompson for her research assistance and L.L. Pearce for her thoughtful and constructive suggestions. The author also thanks A. Tunner, F.P.P. Turner and B. Vernon for their valuable comments during the revision process.

REFERENCES

[1] The Houghton Mifflin Canadian Dictionary of the English Language, Markham, ON: Houghton Mifflin Canada Limited,1982.

[2] P. Power, “Convergence Not Divergence: Connecting the Silos to Work in Harmony,” Proceedings 13th World Conference on Disaster Management, Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness, Toronto, Ontario, June 23-25, 2003.

[3] P. Lawrence “Approaches to Natural Hazard Planning in Urban Areas” in Proceedings of the 11th New Zealand Geographers Conference. pp.109-112, New Zealand Geographical Society, 1981.

[4] D.R. Godschalk, "Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Management" in Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government, ed. T. E. Drabek and G.J. Hoetmer, pp.131-160. Washington, DC, International City Management Association, 1991.

[5] L.A. Shuster, “Bridge and Tunnel Security,” Civil Engineering Magazine, September 2004. [Online]. Available: www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline04/0904feat.html

[6] N. Schlager, Ed., When Technology Fails: Significant Technological Disasters, Accidents, and Failures of the Twentieth Century. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1994, pp. xxix – xxxii.

[7] D. Hartford, “Perspectives of Risk,” in An Introduction to Risk-Based Dam Safety Evaluation, Vancouver, BC: BC Hydro Maintenance, Engineering and Projects, September 1995.

[8] National Safety Council (US), “Odds of death due to injury, United States, 2002.”

[Online]. Available: www.nsc.org/1rs/statinfo/odds.htm [9] G. Geazant, “Planning for the Worst,” Professional Engineering, January

26, 2005, pp.22-23. [10] K.J. Radford, Strategic Planning: An Analytical Approach. Reston, VA:

Reston Publishing Company, 1980. [11] United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Hyogo

Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, 16 March 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf

[12] Emergency Management Australia, “Disaster Mitigation,” last modified April 21, 2005. [Online]. Available: www.ema.gov.au/agd/ema/emaInternet.nsf/Page/RWP0ACB42930E19FCEFCA256C4800062B66?OpenDocument

[13] Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC), “Disaster mitigation & vulnerability atlas of India: A paradigm shift from post-disaster reconstruction & relief to pre-disaster pro-active approach.” New Delhi, India: Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council. [Online]. Available www.bmtpc.org/disaster.htm

[14] Vulnerability Atlas of India (1st edition). New Delhi, India: BMTPC, Government of India, 1997

[15] British Columbia Emergency Response Management System (BCERMS), Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Emergency Program, October, 2000. [Online].Available: www.pep.bc.ca/bcerms/bcerms_brochure.pdf

[16] World Health Organization, Fifty Eighth World Health Assembly Media Release, “World Health Assembly adopts new International Health Regulations, New rules govern national and international response to disease outbreaks,” 23 May 2005.

[17] M. Rosszell, “SARS and Its Impact on Tourism in Toronto,” Canadian Lodging Outlook, March 2003. [Online]. Available: www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_2nd/May03_CanadianReview.html

[18] D. Patrick, “The race to outpace severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS),” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Fast-tacked article 17 April 2003. [Online]. Available www.cmaj.ca

[19] World Health Organization, Fifty Eighth World Health Assembly, International Health Regulations (2005). Approved May 2005.

[20] D. Higgs, Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. London: The Department of Trade and Industry, January 2003. [Online].Available: www.dti.gov.uk/cld/non_exec_review/pdfs/higgsreport.pdf

[21] UK Civil Contingencies Act 2004, London: The Stationary Office Limited, November 2004. [Online].Available: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040036.htm

[22] British Standards Institute (BSI), Specification 56 (PAS 56) “Guide to Business Continuity Management.” London: BSI, 2003.

[23] M. King, King Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa 2002. Parklands, South Africa: Institute of Directors in South Africa, March 2002.

[24] R. Martins, “Hydraulic-operational aspects of dam safety: lessons from historical failures and from the Portuguese experience,” in Dams in a European Context, Midttømme et al (Eds.), Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger, 2001

[25] Flash floods and floods... the Awesome Power! A Preparedness Guide. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service, July 1992 NOAA, FEMA, and The American Red Cross [Online]. Available: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/ffbro.htm

[26] M.C. Comerio, “The influence of performance engineering on disaster recovery: priorities for limiting downtime,” draft. (2005). [Online]. Available: http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/envres_seminar/s2005/c_comerio_draft.pdf

[27] Fact sheet on business continuity management, Singapore: Spring Singapore, March 23, 2005. [Online]. Available: www.spring.gov.sg/portal/products/nat_certifiation/bcm/bcm.html

[28] C.T. Him, “Singapore – a key node for business continuity and disaster recovery efforts,” [Address at The Business Continuity Conference of DRI Asia, Singapore, 23 July 2003]. [Online]. Available: www.sedb.com/edbcorp/sg/en_uk/index/in_the_next/2003/20030/singapore

0-7803-9139-X/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE. 750