Emergency Management has Evolved: Why the All-Hazards Era is Over

The field of emergency management has significantly evolved since its inception. The previous generation of emergency management was defined by Presidential Policy Directive-8 on National Preparedness, which focused on a whole-community approach to all-hazards preparedness. “All hazards” does not encompass the breadth of the discipline, is self-limiting, and focuses solely on the consequence factor of the risk equation to the detriment of reducing vulnerability. The current generation of emergency management has moved beyond all hazards. The discipline has become “hazard agnostic.” In this environment, emergency managers must identify and focus on threat commonalities and build a more flexible, scalable system that can solve a variety of just-in-time problems regardless of whether these problems are hazards, special events, societal vulnerabilities, or humanitarian crises.

Addressing Risk in the Modern Risk Environment

While initially useful, the term “all hazards” no longer accurately describes the functions or mission of the emergency management discipline. In the past few years, state and local emergency managers have led or coordinated governments’ responses to a broadening range of incidents and problems. Similarly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has led or supported large-scale disasters at an increased rate. The 1980–2024 annual average for billion-dollar disasters is 9.0 events, while the annual average for the most recent five years (2019–2023) is 23.2 events (Consumer Price Index-adjusted).

“All hazards” is a self-limiting term, not an enabling one. Hazards do not encompass the entirety of the discipline’s current focus, which can include special event planning and coordination, resilience building, humanitarian support, air and environmental quality, and election security, to name a few.

As emergency managers grapple with new and increasingly complex challenges—such as the intensification of natural disasters and the proliferation of threats like pandemics and cyberattacks—the all-hazards model is inadequate. The current emergency management landscape demands a shift away from the all-hazards approach to a more comprehensive, hazard-agnostic approach. This shift reflects the growing complexity of modern crises and the need for a flexible, adaptable framework that can address a broad range of evolving threats. This approach emphasizes core skills, adaptability, diversity of staff personal and professional experience, identifying commonality of threats, and addressing these by coordinating multidisciplinary solutions.

The Evolution of Emergency Management: From Civil Defense to Hazard Specific to All Hazards to Hazard Agnostic

Concepts of emergency management through legislative action began in the early 19th century. However, its first iteration can be traced back to the post–World War II era, focused on civil defense. The federal government’s establishment of FEMA in 1979 formalized the field, shifting attention to disaster response and mitigation in the context of natural hazards like floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. This focus on specific types of hazards led to a hazard-specific approach to disaster planning. Emergency management professionals were trained to address each hazard with specialized protocols.

However, as disaster preparedness evolved, so did the understanding that threats faced by societies were not limited to specific hazards. Emergency managers began to look for more comprehensive strategies that could be applied to a broad spectrum of events as the frequency and intensity of natural disasters began to increase. The all-hazards approach was adopted to address the diverse and unpredictable nature of threats. This model suggested that emergency management plans should focus on broad capabilities rather than developing separate plans for each type of disaster.

The all-hazards approach had many advantages, including the ability to plan using specific frameworks. However, as environmental hazards have intensified and new threats have emerged, the all-hazards approach may limit emergency management coordination, especially at the most local level.

Environmental Disasters, Emerging Incidents, and the Commonalities of Threats

The growing prevalence of environmental disasters has been a key factor in the evolution of emergency management practices. The frequency and severity of hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and heat waves have increased significantly in recent years. In addition to natural hazards, emergency management agencies have coordinated or led responses to a wide range of problems outside of typical hazards. In essence, emergency managers are better labeled as risk managers. Regardless of hazard, they actively work to reduce threat, vulnerability, and consequence, thereby reducing community risk. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, demonstrated how an incident can have cascading impacts across health, economy, and social systems, forcing emergency management to stretch traditional boundaries. The sheer complexity of these emergencies requires a flexible approach that can accommodate such challenges. Just as public health policy is affected by adjacent sectors such as social, physical, built, and economic environments, so emergency management policy should be evaluated in light of those things that affect disaster risk, such as environment, infrastructure, and social policies.

Focusing on the commonality of threats and vulnerabilities is more important than devising a playbook for specific occasions in an increasingly complex world. As Dr. Samantha Montano notes in her book Disasterology, the disruption of ecosystems introduces a level of unpredictability and complexity that makes traditional hazard-specific models less effective. As disasters worsen, they interact with other societal vulnerabilities, such as housing insecurity, public health inequities, and economic instability. These interconnected crises require emergency managers to think in terms of systems—focusing not on a single hazard but on the broader conditions that lead to widespread disruption.

The New Role of Emergency Managers

Interconnectivity, complexity, and a broadening scope necessitates a hazard-agnostic approach to emergency management and providing an appropriate level of resources. This means focusing on core skills, systems thinking, and adaptability as well as a variety of skills, lived experiences, and professional and academic backgrounds. Rather than preparing for one specific type of disaster, emergency managers must now prepare for a wide range of events, often unpredictable in nature. This shift allows for the development of more versatile and comprehensive strategies that can be applied across different contexts and situations, enabling emergency managers to quickly adapt to new or unforeseen crises. The hazard-agnostic approach is rooted in the belief that the commonalities among various disasters—such as their ability to disrupt infrastructure, society, and economies—are more important than the specific characteristics of the hazards themselves.

Carrie Speranza and Dillon Taylor describe emergency managers’ role as “disaster diplomats.” In this role, they must coordinate response efforts across multiple sectors and jurisdictions, often working with federal, state, and local governments, as well as private-sector entities, nongovernmental organizations, and international partners. Each of these sectors and levels of government is important and brings different focuses and capabilities. Effective disaster diplomacy requires emergency managers to navigate complex relationships, broker agreements, and ensure that resources are distributed equitably and efficiently.

However, the rise of this new role is occurring amid a backdrop of stagnant or reduced resources. Some state legislatures have limited the scope or duration of executive emergency powers. Emergency management agencies are faced with the difficult task of prioritizing scarce resources and balancing the needs of various sectors. This is where the hazard-agnostic approach proves useful. By focusing on core skills and commonalities among different types of crises, emergency managers are better equipped to navigate these resource constraints and ensure that response efforts are as effective as possible. Consistent federal government support and technical assistance will continue to be vital.

Back to Basics: Developing Core Competencies Through Training and Education

In light of evolving threats and challenges, there should be a renewed emphasis on developing core competencies within the emergency management field. These competencies—including incident command, resource management, crisis communication, coordination, and the preparedness cycle—are fundamental to preparing for and managing the consequences of any crisis, regardless of its specific nature. This can help practitioners become indispensable to chief executives and their communities as they narrow the aperture but take more photographs. They should focus on refining core skills but also apply them liberally to complicated, multidisciplinary problems.

Creating a new framework akin to the crisis standards of care framework utilized in the public health and medical field would be a useful exercise for managing disasters. Such frameworks could help emergency managers prioritize critical needs, allocate scarce resources efficiently, and make quicker decisions. By getting back to basics and honing core competencies, they can ensure that they are prepared to execute functions efficiently for a wide range of problems. Academic institutions also have a key role in developing both the discipline of emergency management and the emergency manager.

At the Crossroads

The field of emergency management is at a crossroads. Although the all-hazards approach served the discipline well in the past, it no longer sufficiently describes or enables emergency managers. The increasing frequency and severity of environmental disasters, combined with special events and the rise of nontraditional threats, necessitate a more flexible, adaptable approach. A hazard-agnostic model supports emergency managers’ focus on core competencies, prioritizes cross-disciplinary solutions, and prepares for a wide range of evolving threats through a properly resourced, flexible, and scalable approach.