Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 211

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster

Neal, David M.·1997·International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters

Abstract

The use of disaster phases (e.g., preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation) has assisted both disaster researchers and managers. Disaster researchers have used disaster phases to systematize and codify research results. Disaster managers have drawn upon disaster periods to organize their own activities. Yet, many problems exist with the current use of disaster periods. In summary, I find that the current uses of disaster periods lack conceptual clarity for improving scientific and practical use. As a result, I suggest ways the field can recast the use of disaster phases to improve the theoretical and applied dimensions of the field.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/028072709701500202

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 211

Metadata

Authors
Neal, D. M.
Venue
International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters
Published
1997-08
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
239-264
ISSN
  • 0280-7270 (ISSN-L)
  • 2753-5703
OpenAlex
W4313551220
Cited by
211
References
0
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/028072709701500202
The paper
Neal, D. M. (1997). Reconsidering the Phases of Disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072709701500202

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.