My Paper Writer » Essay Blog » Law Essay Writing Service » Bottom-up Implementation Emergency Management

Bottom-up Implementation Emergency Management

What is bottom-up implementation emergency management?

Bottom-Up Implementation Emergency Management refers to the strategy of planning and executing a wide use of implementation skills in a project. Bottom-up implementation emergency management is used to achieve quick, reliable, and sustainable changes by focusing on the tasks that need immediate attention (Kong, 2021). It also reduces bottlenecks in cross-functional processes when there are insufficient resources or time available for detailed strategic planning.

Bottom-up implementation emergency management can be utilized in any situation where immediate action is needed. It includes strategic planning, tactical planning, and applying project management and project control approaches.

What were the issues with the bottom-up practices of Emergency Management in Nepal during the earthquake?

The earthquake in Nepal hit the country hard and many people lost their lives due to a lack of overall preparation. This post will go over the various issues that plagued the Nepalese government’s practice of bottom-up emergency management. It will also provide potential solutions to address these issues for future emergencies (Daly et al., 2017).

In order to fully understand what were the issues surrounding bottom-up emergency management in Nepal it is important to understand how this system works and its purpose. Bottom-up emergency management is a way of operating an emergency within the country. The government usually has a central level of management that is responsible for issues regarding all aspects of an emergency. This management makes decisions based on information and data it receives from the field. In turn, the field is made up of groups and organizations that are first responders to any type of emergency (Daly et al., 2017). The field then relays information about the emergency to management for action. Generally, this works with no problems as long as there is a good communication system between management and the field. In Nepal however, there were problems with this system that caused major issues during the earthquake.

Why was the bottom up practice ineffective in the case of Nepal?

The major problem was lack of communication between management at the central level and local authorities at the field level. Management didn’t know what was happening at the field level and waited for information from the field. The field wasn’t communicating with management because people weren’t sure how to contact them. Also, the field felt that management did not listen to their input on events about the earthquake itself, or that they were even told about it by management (Daly et al., 2017).

The other major issue was lack of training of emergency responders and lack of resources for first responders outside of Kathmandu due to a decrease in government funding towards this program since 2003. As a result, there was a lack of people that could be trained to become members of the field.

The way the system is supposed to work is that management receives information from the field and then makes a decision about how to best help people who are affected by an emergency. The field then performs that action and relays information back to management for final decision making. This system works best when all involved have the same idea of what needs to be done during an emergency (Daly et al., 2017). The problem in Nepal however was that they were not on the same page and had different ideas of what needed to happen, ultimately causing major issues.

Contingency plans should be made before such events to try and prevent this issue. The issue with this is that any plan created may never be used if there isn’t an emergency, and money will have been spent on plans that may never need to be used. In order to overcome this the government of Nepal needs a plan in place so that everyone knows their role in case of an emergency. The government also needs to train first responders so that they are prepared for emergency situations (Daly et al., 2017). Lastly, the government needs to make sure that local authorities have enough resources to respond to emergency situations because this is something that has been a major issue in Nepal for many years.

There are three steps the government of Nepal can take in order to gain proper management and communication during an emergency. First, the government needs a central level of management to coordinate all plans and actions for any emergency situation. Second, a system must be set up where information from the field can reach management. And third, first responders must be prepared to deal with emergency situations, and local authorities need enough resources allocated to respond to emergencies (Daly et al., 2017).

With these steps in place Nepal will improve their practice of bottom-up emergency management, and possibly be able to save more people and property in the future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the practice of bottom-up emergency management in Nepal should be taken more seriously and be improved. The earthquake that hit Nepal caused many problems because there was a lack of communication between local authorities and management at the central level. Management didn’t know what was happening at the field level, thus they waited for information from the field rather than immediately acting. The field felt that management did not listen to their input on events about the earthquake itself, or that they were even told about it by management.

References

Kong, F., & Sun, S. (2021). Understanding and Strengthening the Emergency Management and Comprehensive Disaster Reduction in China’s Rural Areas: Lessons from Coping with the COVID-19 Epidemic. Sustainability13(7), 3642. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3642

Daly, P., Ninglekhu, S., Hollenbach, P., Duyne Barenstein, J., & Nguyen, D. (2017). Situating local stakeholders within national disaster governance structures: rebuilding urban neighbourhoods following the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Environment and urbanization29(2), 403-424. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956247817721403

Last Updated on November 21, 2022

Don`t copy text!