The PPRR Model in Emergencies & Disasters: Is it Relevant Today?

About This Article

This article was written to explore whether the PPRR model, as used extensively in emergency management, is as relevant today as it was when introduced in the 1970s.

This was originally submitted in 2019 as a coursework essay by the author, Nathan Linton, whilst studying a Master of International Development Practice at Monash University. Nathan previously worked in the emergency management sector at the Country Fire Authority in Victoria, Australia. You can find out more about Nathan here.

Overview

The PPRR model or the Prevention, Preparedness, Response & Recovery model, is an approach used in disaster risk reduction and emergency management that outlines the various stages in the disaster cycle.  Also known as the ‘comprehensive framework’, the model seeks to produce an integrated approach to disaster risk reduction and emergency management.  The model was developed in 1978 by the American Governor’s Association (Crondstedt 2002).  It has since received widespread international acceptance and is often viewed as foundational to the global practice of emergency management (Rogers 2011).  The model was introduced to broaden the scope of emergency management to include the ‘pre’ and ‘post’ disaster phases, and not just the ‘response’ phase which was the dominant understanding of emergency management at the time. Despite its long-standing acceptance, there has been increasing discussion about the relevance of the PPRR model and whether it is still applicable, or useful, in the context of contemporary emergency management practice.

This article seeks to explore the position of the PPRR model as it relates to contemporary emergency management and assess whether it is still as relevant today as when it was introduced.  This article will answer this by first presenting an overview of the literature with a particular focus on whether the model is still applicable to contemporary emergency management practice.  It will then examine how the PPRR model is being used and implemented at the international level by analysing the ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’.  The article will then explore current national disaster and emergency management policies and frameworks to determine whether or not the current academic and international positions are consistent with contemporary national and local practice.

Literature Review

The literature, whilst acknowledging the widespread adoption and usage of the PPRR model, is generally critical of its usefulness in the modern emergency management context, with Gabriel (2003, p.75) claiming that the model’s usefulness is approaching its limit.  A set of common flaws are consistently identified by the literature which, in the view of many, renders the model less relevant to the current understanding of disaster mitigation, response and recovery in contemporary practice.  Crondstedt, who’s article ‘Prevention, Preparedness, Response, Recovery – An Outdated Concept’ served as a basis for further criticism, particularly in the Australian literature, and highlighted 4 main criticisms of the model.  It was noted that the model ‘sets-up artificial barriers between the four elements’, that each element ‘always appears as equally important in all circumstances’, ‘assume[s] a sequential consideration of PPRR’ and that they ‘appear biased towards ‘action’ based treatments’ (2002, p. 12).  The last criticism was expanded on by Gabriel (2003) who noted the PPRR model as being disaster or ‘emergency-centric’ as opposed to an ‘all-hazards approach’ which was being increasingly adopted into emergency management frameworks (Crondstedt 2002, p.13).

Despite acknowledging that some aspects of the model appear outdated, the literature varies on what role it should play in emergency management in the future.  Whilst Crondstedt (2002, p.13) argues for the model to be done away with, stating that it should ‘be removed from usage in the emergency management community’, others believe the model should be improved to acknowledge the evolution of current emergency management approaches.  Whilst respecting the value of the PPRR model, Rogers (2011, p. 55) noted that ‘[it] has recently received some criticism in the treatment of anticipation and assessment’.  Instead of doing away with the model, Rogers (2011, p. 55) suggests the adoption of the UK’s refined AA-PP-RR model, which includes ‘anticipation and assessment alongside preparation and prevention [as] pre-emergency event aspects…’  Whilst the literature acknowledges that the PPRR model is less useful than when first introduced, there are varying opinions on the degree it should still be used in emergency management policy and practice.

The Sendai Framework & PPRR Model

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030), serves as the leading international authority on disaster risk reduction, continuing the work of the previous Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030) ([SFDRR] 2015, p. 5) ‘introduces a number of innovations as called for during the consultations and negotiations’, many of which focus on the creation of an approach which looks more at a disaster risk management framework rather than one based soley on disaster management.  Point 17 of the framework states that prevention, preparedness, response and recovery are essential elements in strengthening disaster resilience (SFDRR 2015, p.12).  In this point, the PPRR model is applied as a means of achieving disaster risk reduction as opposed to a disaster or emergency focus which is contrary to the findings of the critical literature which claimed the PPRR Model was an emergency-centric model (Gabriel 2003). Additionally, the framework states that the application of the PPRR model should be applied in a way which acknowledges the social, political and economic factors with a community.  This new context for the model is consistent with the guiding principles of the framework, one of which states that ‘Disaster risk reduction requires a multi-hazard approach and inclusive risk-informed decision-making…’ (SFDRR 2015, p. 13).  Despite the literature claiming that the PPRR model is outdated, largely due to it’s emergency focus, the application of the model within the Sendai Framework shows how the model is able to be adapted to contemporary disaster risk management frameworks by making it more people and hazard focused as opposed to disaster focused.

National & Local Perspectives

Whilst most national models focus on the pre, during and post disaster phases, each model applies different principles to each disaster preparedness and response stage. In 2011, the Australian Government produced its first National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR).  The strategy stated that ‘emergency management in Australia is built on the concept of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR)’ with a note that ‘there has been a considered move to give greater emphasis to prevention and recovery…’ (National Strategy for Disaster Resilience [NSDR] 2011, p. 2). 

Despite criticism that the PPRR model is not as relevant in contemporary emergency management, by placing greater emphasis on prevention and recovery, Australia’s NSDR adopts the recommendations from the Sendai Framework thus making the PPRR framework more risk focused than disaster focused.  This suggests that there has been a notable evolution in the application of the PPRR model from an emergency focused framework to one centred on risk. Instead of applying the PPRR model, New Zealand uses the ‘RRRR’ model which stands for ‘reduction, readiness, response and recovery’.  Despite the first 2 stages of the model being different to the PPRR model, there is a high degree of similarity between ‘reduction and readiness’ to ‘prevention and preparedness’.  The differences, however, extend beyond semantics.  The use of ‘reduction’ as opposed to ‘prevention’ implies a longer term hazard mitigation focus which can be explained by national legislation, with the New Zealand Civil Defence Emergency Management Act ‘requir[ing] that a risk management approach be taken when dealing with hazards’ (National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy [NCDEMS] 2008, p. 5).  Additionally, the United Kingdom places a greater emphasis on the pre-disaster phase and employs an AA-PP-RR model adding ‘anticipation’ and ‘assessment’ as guiding principles in their Emergency Response and Recovery Plan ([ERR] 2013, p.16).  Rogers (2011, p.55) observed that the addition of anticipation and assessment in the pre-event stage provides a less emergency-focused plan, which he observed as an issue of Australia’s persistent application of the PPRR model.  Despite the differing models used by governments, there is a clear indication that the pre, during and post disaster phases are all extremely important in emergency planning and management, and that there should be a greater move away from emergency-centric planning towards a greater emphasis on the pre-event stage in areas such as anticipation, assessment, reduction and readiness.

Conclusion

There has been a notable evolution in the application of the PPRR model away from an emergency-centred framework to a disaster risk framework.  This shift has occurred despite some literature stating that the model is no longer as relevant today as when it was introduced.  Whilst the model was initially applied in an emergency-centric model of emergency management, the adaptation of the model has shown it still has relevance today.  Instead of the model being done away with, numerous governments have built on and innovated the model to increase its relevance to contemporary emergency management practice which can be seen in the British and New Zealand contexts. It can therefore be concluded that, whilst the PPRR model is less useful in the case of emergency-specific management, the model is continually being improved and adapted to disaster risk frameworks which are more commonly applied in contemporary emergency management practice.

See Also

• Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience
• Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
• Evaluation and Evidence in Disasters and Humanitarian Crises

Further Reading

Note: To help cover the costs of running this website, links marked with an (*) contain affiliate links. That means if you choose to make a purchase after clicking the link, I will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for your understanding and support – Nathan 🙂

• Opinion: Prevention Is No Longer a Useful Term in Emergency Management – Stuart Ellis
• * Incident Management in Australasia: Lessons Learnt From Emergency Responses – ed. Stuart Ellis and Kent MacCarter
• * The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction – ed. Ben Wisner, J.C. Gaillard & Ilan Kelman
• * Disasters: A Sociological Approach – Kathleen Tierney
• * Disaster by Choice: How Our Actions Turn Natural Hazards Into Catastrophes – Ilan Kelman