Quarantelli, E. L.2005-03-082005-03-081990http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/519In this paper three questions are addressed concerning possible differences and their implications for planning between natural and technological disasters. First, are disaster for planning purposes best approached generically or in agent specific terms? The mostly research based answer is that the generic approach is more valid although this does not mean there are no meaningful differences along other dimensions between disasters. Thus, second, we ask along what lines disasters might be usefully differentiated or typologized? Eight key dimensions are discussed, mostly as they are significant for the emergency time phases of disaster occasions. Third, we conclude with asking whether whatever distinction are made, are they equally applicable across all phases of the disaster planning cycle, namely, mitigation or prevention, emergency preparedness, emergency response, and recovery? Our belief discussion takes the position that it appears the generic approach is clearly best applicable to the emergency times phases, somewhat less so for the mitigation phase with recovery falling in somewhat between the others. In the process of answering all three questions, implications for institutional and organizational behavior will be noted.283171 bytesapplication/pdfen-USdisaster planningtechnological disasternatural disastermitigationemergency responsedisaster recoveryOther