A Comparative Analysis of Federal Emergency Management Systems: Evidence from the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, and Australia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2025.7.2.9Keywords:
emergency management, disaster risk governance, federalism, resilience, intergovernmental coordination, comparative analysisAbstract
This paper examines how federal emergency management systems in the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, and Australia differ in terms of governance arrangements, coordination mechanisms, and resilience-oriented practices. Using a qualitative, structured comparative case study design, it analyses legal frameworks, institutional architectures, funding mechanisms, and public engagement strategies across the five countries based on documentary analysis of legislation, policy frameworks, and peer-reviewed research. The analysis shows that all systems combine federal steering with subnational implementation. However, they vary significantly along four dimensions—centralization–decentralization, networked coordination, technological integration, and the role of volunteers and civil protection—resulting in distinct strengths and vulnerabilities. The study highlights transferable lessons for strengthening federal emergency management, including investing in multi-level resilience governance, institutionalized intergovernmental coordination, technology-enabled early warning, and sustained support for community-based and volunteer capacities.
Downloads
References
1. Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework. (2018). Australian disaster preparedness framework: A guideline to develop the capabilities required for disasters. Department of Home Affairs.
2. Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework. (2018). Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework: A guideline to develop the capabilities required for disasters. Department of Home Affairs.
3. Australian Emergency Management Arrangements Handbook. (2022). Emergency management arrangements in Australia. Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience.
4. Australian Emergency Management Arrangements Handbook. (2022). Emergency management arrangements in Australia. Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience.
5. Beli, A., Renner, R., Cvetković, V. M., Ivanov, A., & Gačić, J. (2025). A cross-national study of disaster risk management: Strengths and weaknesses in Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania with reflections on Serbia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 7(1).
6. Bundesministerium des Inneren. (2012). The crisis management system in Germany. Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance.
7. Cutter, S. L. (2016). Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? Geographical Journal, 182(2), 110–113.
8. Cvetković, V. M. (2023). A Predictive Model of Community Disaster Resilience based on Social Identity Influences (MODERSI). International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(2), 57–80.
9. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012). Seismic performance assessment of buildings, Volume 1: Methodology (FEMA P-58-1). Federal Emergency Management Agency.
10. FEMA. (2018). FEMA P-58: Building performance-based seismic design. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
11. GAO. (2024). FEMA: Opportunities exist to address mission challenges and to address the increased workload. U.S. Government Accountability Office.
12. Goyal, N. (2019). Disaster governance and community resilience: The law and the role of SDMAs. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 61–75.
13. Guo, X., & Kapucu, N. (2019). Examining stakeholder participation in social stability risk assessment for mega projects using network analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 1–31.
14. Hanspal, M. S., & Behera, B. (2024). Role of emerging technology in disaster management in India: An overview. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 6(2), 133–148.
15. Jevtić, M., Cvetković, V. M., Gačić, J., & Raonić, Z. (2025). Factors of vulnerability and resilience of persons with disabilities during disasters: Challenges and strategies for inclusive risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 7(1).
16. Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies. American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 207–225.
17. Knapp, H. (2020). Managing an administrative emergency: Establishing FEMA as an independent agency. Colorado Law Review.
18. McNeil, N. (2025). FEMA: A comprehensive history of U.S. emergency management. EMS1.
19. Milenković, D., Cvetković, V. M., & Renner, R. (2024). A Systematic Literary Review on Community Resilience Indicators: Adaptation and Application of the BRIC Method for Measuring Disasters Resilience . International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 6(2), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2024.6.2.6
20. National Emergency Management Agency. (2023). Disaster recovery funding arrangements Australian Government.
21. Perls, H. (2025). Proposed changes to FEMA and the future of federal disaster response. Harvard Environmental Law Review.
22. Public Safety Canada. (2022). Emergency management in Canada. Public Safety Canada.
23. Sylves, R. T. (2008). Disaster policy and politics: Emergency management and homeland security. CQ Press.
24. Tierney, K. (2014). The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford University Press.
25. U.S. Congress. (1988). Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
26. U.S. Congress. (2006). Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act.
27. Vidović, N., Cvetković, V. M., & Beriša, H. (2024). Optimising disaster resilience through advanced risk management and financial analysis of critical infrastructure in the Serbian defence industry. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 6(2), 183–200.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Vedant Pandya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal operates under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction, adaptation, and transformation in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
Authors retain the copyright of their articles.
The International Journal of Disaster Risk Management (IJDRM) encourages and permits authors to:
-
Post pre-print (submitted version), post-print (accepted version), and publisher’s version/PDF of their articles on personal websites, institutional repositories, disciplinary repositories, and academic networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu, or departmental websites,
-
Do so at any time, including before or after publication,
-
Provided that appropriate credit is given to the original publication in this journal, including:
-
Full bibliographic details
-
A clear mention of the journal name
-
A direct link to the article’s DOI (as an HTML link)
-
No prior permission is required from the publisher or editors for such actions, as long as the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license are followed.
