Abstract
The response management of the Kobe earthquake in 1995 provides
practitioners and theorists of crisis and disaster management with much
to consider. As in other efforts around the world the Kobe response
management appeared slow and less than optimal in performance. Focuses
on the effects of magnitude of impact and degree of strategic
preparedness that may affect response. Magnitude of impact is the degree
to which impact damage seems random in occurrence, the size of the
impact area, the severity of impact, the ratio of visible to invisible
damage, the number of major sub‐event crises triggered by the impact of
the event, and the degree of psychological distortion caused by (or
accelerated by) the impact of the event. The degree of strategic
preparedness depends on the degree to which response managers can
successfully translate meta‐strategic missions and objectives into
operational strategies that are realistic and achievable in any given
crisis or disaster event. Components of strategic preparedness include
the provision of escalation triggers, establishing cascaded priorities,
and having and maintaining a dynamic reserve. Planning and preparing for
crises and disasters needs to include cascade strategic priority
profiles for communities, consideration of cultural features of
organizations and communities in developing plans and preparedness,
establishing quantifiable escalation triggers for response management,
and developing and maintaining a working dynamic reserve.