Park Model vs Hazard Management Cycle

What is the main purpose of the Park Model?

The Park Model shows how a hazard affects a population’s quality of life over time, from before the event through response and long-term recovery.

What is the main purpose of the Hazard Management Cycle?

The HMC shows how hazards should be managed through preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation to reduce future risk.

Why is the HMC considered more useful than the Park Model?

It includes the actions before, during and after a hazard, placing greater emphasis on preparedness and reducing future vulnerability.

Why is preparedness an important strength of the HMC?

It recognises that planning, education, emergency drills and early warning systems can significantly reduce the impacts of future hazards.

What is a key limitation of the Park Model?

It begins before the hazard but mainly focuses on changes in quality of life rather than explaining how hazards can be prevented or mitigated beforehand.

Why can the Park Model be difficult to apply to every hazard?

The rate of recovery varies greatly between hazards and countries, so quality of life doesn’t always follow the pattern shown by the model.

How does the HMC recognise that hazard management is continuous?

It is cyclical because lessons learnt after one hazard improve preparedness and mitigation for future events.

What limitation do both the Park Model and HMC share?

Both simplify complex disasters and cannot fully represent differences in wealth, governance, hazard type or international aid.

Why does international aid reduce the usefulness of the Park Model?

It assumes recovery depends mainly on a country’s own capacity, but international aid can greatly accelerate recovery and improve quality of life.

Which model is more useful for managing natural hazards?

The HMC as it focuses on reducing future risk through preparedness and mitigation, whereas the Park Model is better suited to analysing recovery after a hazard has occurred.