I had recently found a reference to the Emergency Management Victoria Disaster Recovery Toolkit for Local Government. I’m always curious to see how other nations approach emergency management and even more curious to see the tools and resources they develop to accomplish their goals. While there is a great deal of consistency between the US model of Disaster Recovery (documented primarily through the National Disaster Recovery Framework), one of the more interesting differences was in the focus areas of each. While our National Disaster Recovery Framework identifies six recovery support functions (RSFs): Community Planning and Capacity Building, Health and Social Services, Infrastructure Systems, Economic, Housing, and Natural and Cultural Resources; the Aussie model identifies five environments of wellbeing: Natural Environment, Agricultural Environment, Social Environment, Economic Environment, and the Built Environment.
Australian Five Environments of Wellbeing
While there are certainly commonalities between the two models, each offers a unique perspective on the focus of disaster recovery and what is needed to support communities. The Disaster Recovery Toolkit for Local Governments, referenced earlier, identifies that local governments are required through legislation to ensure wellbeing to be maintained in each community through each of these environments.
What interesting perspectives have you discovered looking at emergency management globally?
© 2015 – Timothy Riecker
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 
I find the differences in the choice of words interesting. The Aussie model chooses positive words that encourage the triumph over disaster. The American model chooses negative words that make us a victim of it.
Linda – you are absolutely right. They certainly have a more positive and organic connotation.