5.3. Traditional Separation of Departments

Traditional separation of the departments of disaster management in urban planning is still prevalent in most jurisdictions. So, disaster management is mostly seen as a contingency planning for disaster response whether in a larger perspective on urban resilience.

In many regions, the departments responsible for disaster management and urban planning operate separately. This separation means that disaster management is primarily viewed as planning for immediate response during a disaster, rather than integrating disaster risk reduction into long-term urban planning. Consequently, the broader concept of urban resilience—how cities can prepare for, withstand, and recover from disasters—is often overlooked. Instead of focusing on how to prevent disasters through thoughtful planning, much of the focus is on how to react after a disaster has occurred.

Think of this situation like a fire drill in a school. If the school only practices how to escape during a fire but never discusses how to prevent fires from happening in the first place, they might find themselves unprepared. A well-rounded approach includes both prevention strategies (like ensuring fire alarms work and having no flammable materials around) and response strategies (like knowing where the exits are and how to safely evacuate).

As I said to you, we are still in 1980s in many of the cases, that disaster planning is not well integrated into the planning process. Because they always see that how well at the event of a disaster or risk how well we can plan for rescue but how to avoid this okay, how a planning process itself can engage that thought process in it.

Despite advancements in disaster management awareness, many regions are operating with outdated methods from the 1980s. This outdated approach suggests that planning mainly involves developing procedures for effective rescue during a disaster rather than embedding considerations for avoiding disasters during the planning stages. Effective planning should include strategies for risk avoidance and mitigation, not just rescue plans after a disaster occurs. This indicates a fundamental disconnect where disaster management is not seen as part of the overall urban planning process.

Consider a restaurant that only plans how to clean up after a meal but doesn’t think about how to avoid spills in the first place. If the staff never learns to manage food properly on the way to the tables, they’ll constantly be dealing with the mess after the fact. Similarly, good urban planning should focus on preventing disasters along with preparing for them.

This is the two different separation of these departments are still existing in many of the jurisdictions. Reducing disaster risk in informal settlements through planning, land management and upgrading.

The existence of separate departments for disaster management and urban planning leads to inefficient risk management, especially in informal settlements where residents are often most vulnerable. There is a pressing need for these departments to merge their efforts. An integrated approach would enhance the ability to reduce disaster risks while effectively managing land and improving life conditions in these communities. Coordination across efforts can lead to better planning, which ultimately reduces the impact of potential disasters.

Imagine a sports team that has a strong offense but a disorganized defense. If the defense doesn’t communicate or collaborate with the offense, the team is likely to lose games. However, if both units work together with shared strategies, the team's overall performance improves. Similarly, urban departments focused on planning and disaster management must collaborate to lower the risk of disasters in communities, ensuring that preventative measures are in place while also being ready to respond effectively when needed.

--