During disaster response operations, first responders are often confro的繁體中文翻譯

During disaster response operations

During disaster response operations, first responders are often confronted with unfamiliar and often hostile work environments such as large and distributed areas, unpredictable and dynamic work demand and work under high time pressure and stressful situations. Disaster response under such adverse conditions has often been inadequate (McKinsey, 2002; NCSEA, 2003). Various limitations of existing disaster response operations as cited in the literature are summarized in Figure 1. Many shortcomings of the existing disaster response operation result from the fact that first responders at individual, team, and organizational levels are unable to develop a depth of understanding of the situation that would allow them to make comprehensive decisions and respond in a holistically appropriate manner (Son and Pena-Mora, 2006). Responders operating in inhospitable and chaotic disaster environments need answers to questions like where am I? What do we know about the scene? What hazards exist? Where are other responders located? Where are the victims? (Betts et al., 2005). Without adequate answers to such questions and overall awareness of the Situation, disaster responders run the risk of becoming casualties themselves because they do not know enough about the incident scene when they arrive (NAP, 2006). However, current disaster management procedures rely primarily on heuristics which result in their strategies being very cautious and sub-optimum in terms of saving life, minimizing damage and returning the building to its normal function. Recent disaster events have shown that existing disaster response procedures that rely primarily on heuristics result in a response that is often too general and not adapted to the specific situation. “For instance, when a major incident, such as a significant earthquake, occurs, predetermined, static plans are usually brought into operation and any flexibility of response is limited by the ability and competence of those at the scene of the incident to gather relevant data and make appropriate judgments” (Aziz et al., 2004). The gap resulting from demands imposed by inter-dependent urban environments and existing independent and static approaches to disaster response, result in communication and collaboration problems, negative impact on work-flows, low productivity, economic and human losses. Similarly, when assessment of the disaster situation is carried out, it is generally done independently by a number of individual organizations. Often each agency limits its assessment to those observations of direct consequence to that particular organization without sharing or pooling such information. Thus, an overall picture of the scope, severity, and types of disruption and damage does not emerge early in the crisis, affecting the overall response process. Against this background, this paper argues that the theoretical construct of situation awareness (SA) (Endsley and Garland, 2000) can be effectively applied to existing disaster response operations to contrive how to improve them, and to better understand the process of responders’ reaction against complex and
dynamic situations.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 discusses the concept of situation awareness in current disaster response situations and its various sources.
0/5000
原始語言: -
目標語言: -
結果 (繁體中文) 1: [復制]
復制成功!
During disaster response operations, first responders are often confronted with unfamiliar and often hostile work environments such as large and distributed areas, unpredictable and dynamic work demand and work under high time pressure and stressful situations. Disaster response under such adverse conditions has often been inadequate (McKinsey, 2002; NCSEA, 2003). Various limitations of existing disaster response operations as cited in the literature are summarized in Figure 1. Many shortcomings of the existing disaster response operation result from the fact that first responders at individual, team, and organizational levels are unable to develop a depth of understanding of the situation that would allow them to make comprehensive decisions and respond in a holistically appropriate manner (Son and Pena-Mora, 2006). Responders operating in inhospitable and chaotic disaster environments need answers to questions like where am I? What do we know about the scene? What hazards exist? Where are other responders located? Where are the victims? (Betts et al., 2005). Without adequate answers to such questions and overall awareness of the Situation, disaster responders run the risk of becoming casualties themselves because they do not know enough about the incident scene when they arrive (NAP, 2006). However, current disaster management procedures rely primarily on heuristics which result in their strategies being very cautious and sub-optimum in terms of saving life, minimizing damage and returning the building to its normal function. Recent disaster events have shown that existing disaster response procedures that rely primarily on heuristics result in a response that is often too general and not adapted to the specific situation. “For instance, when a major incident, such as a significant earthquake, occurs, predetermined, static plans are usually brought into operation and any flexibility of response is limited by the ability and competence of those at the scene of the incident to gather relevant data and make appropriate judgments” (Aziz et al., 2004). The gap resulting from demands imposed by inter-dependent urban environments and existing independent and static approaches to disaster response, result in communication and collaboration problems, negative impact on work-flows, low productivity, economic and human losses. Similarly, when assessment of the disaster situation is carried out, it is generally done independently by a number of individual organizations. Often each agency limits its assessment to those observations of direct consequence to that particular organization without sharing or pooling such information. Thus, an overall picture of the scope, severity, and types of disruption and damage does not emerge early in the crisis, affecting the overall response process. Against this background, this paper argues that the theoretical construct of situation awareness (SA) (Endsley and Garland, 2000) can be effectively applied to existing disaster response operations to contrive how to improve them, and to better understand the process of responders’ reaction against complex anddynamic situations.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 discusses the concept of situation awareness in current disaster response situations and its various sources.
正在翻譯中..
結果 (繁體中文) 2:[復制]
復制成功!
在災難應對行動,第一反應往往面臨著不熟悉的和時常懷有敵意的工作環境,如大而分散的地區,在高時間壓力和壓力的情況難以預測,充滿活力的工作要求和工作。如此惡劣的條件下,救災工作經常是不夠的(麥肯錫,2002年; NCSEA,2003)。引自文獻中現有的災難應對行動的各種限制是一個事實,即第一個響應者在個人,團隊和組織水平是無法發展的理解深度總結在圖的現有的災難響應操作的結果1。許多缺點這種情況,讓他們做出全面的決定,並在整體上適當的方式(兒子和佩納-莫拉,2006年)作出回應。工作在荒涼和混亂的災難環境中人員需要回答的問題,比如我在哪裡?我們究竟了解現場?有什麼危害存在嗎?當其他的應答者在什麼位置?哪裡是受害者?(貝茨等人,2005)。如果沒有足夠的這些問題的答案和情況的大局意識,災害反應運行成為傷亡自己的風險,因為他們不知道有足夠的了解事故現場,當他們到達(NAP,2006年)。然而,目前的災害管理過程主要依賴於這導致他們的戰略是非常謹慎和次優的拯救生命,最大限度地減少損失和返回建築它的正常功能方面的啟發。最近的災難事件表明,主要依靠啟發式導致反應往往是過於籠統,沒有適應具體情況,現有的災難應變程序。“例如,當重大事故,如顯著地震發生時,預定的,靜態的計劃通常投入運行和響應的任何靈活性是由那些在事件發生現場收集相關數據的能力和競爭力有限並作出適當的判斷“(Aziz等人,2004)。由相互依存的城市環境和現有的獨立的和靜態的方法來應對災害強加的要求造成的差距,導致溝通和協作問題,對工作流的負面影響,生產力低下,經濟和人員損失。類似地,當災情評估被執行時,它一般獨立地由多個單獨的組織進行。通常每個機構限制了它的評估,直接後果是特定組織的這些意見沒有分享或共用這些信息。因此,適用範圍,嚴重性和類型破壞和損害的全貌不會出現在危機初期,影響了整體反應過程。在此背景下,本文認為的態勢感知的理論建構(SA)(恩茲利和 ​​花環,2000),可有效地應用於現有的災難應對行動,以圖謀如何改進,並更好地理解反應“的反應過程針對複雜的
,動態的情況下,
在本文的其餘部分安排如下:第2節討論的態勢感知的概念,在當前應對災害的情況和它的各種渠道。
正在翻譯中..
結果 (繁體中文) 3:[復制]
復制成功!
在灾害應急行動,第一反應往往面臨著不熟悉的和經常敵對的工作環境,如大型和分佈式領域,不可預測的和動態的工作需求和工作在高壓力和壓力的情况下。在如此惡劣的條件下,救災往往是不够的(麥肯錫,2002;全國社區學校教育協會,2003)。在文獻中總結了現有的救災行動的各種限制,如圖1。現有的救災行動的許多不足之處,從一個事實,即個人,團隊的第一反應操作的結果,和組織水准是無法製定一個深入的瞭解的情况,讓他們作出綜合決策和整體恰當的管道回應(兒子和佩納猜拳,2006)。救援人員在荒凉和混亂的災難環境中需要回答的問題,就像我在哪裡工作?我們對現場瞭解多少?存在什麼危害?其他反應位置在哪裡?受害者在哪裡?(貝茨et al.,2005)。沒有足够的答案,這樣的問題和整體意識的情况下,灾害反應者的風險成為人員傷亡,因為他們不知道足够的事件現場,當他們到達(午睡,2006)。不過現時的灾害管理程式主要依賴於啟發式,這導致他們的策略是非常謹慎和次優的節能生活,最大限度地減少損失,並返回到它的正常功能。最近的災難事件已經表明,現有的救災程式,主要依賴於啟發式的響應,往往是過於籠統,不適用於特定的情况。例如,當一個重大的事件,如一個重大的地震,發生,預定,靜態的計畫通常被納入操作和任何靈活性的響應是有限的能力和能力的事件,收集相關的數據,並作出適當的判斷“(阿齊茲等人,2004)。由相互依賴的城市環境和現有的獨立和靜態的方法來救災的要求所造成的差距,造成溝通和合作的問題,對工作流程的負面影響,生產力低下,經濟和人力損失。類似地,在對灾情進行評估時,一般是由多個獨立組織獨立完成的。通常每一個機构將其對直接後果的評估限定為特定的組織,而不共亯或彙集這些資訊。囙此,整體的畫面的範圍,嚴重程度和類型的中斷和損壞不會出現早期的危機,影響整體的反應過程。在此背景下,本文認為,情境意識的理論建構(SA)(Endsley和花環,2000)可以有效地應用於現有的救災行動設計完善,並更好地瞭解反應的反應對複雜
動態情况的過程。
本文的其餘部分組織如下:第2節討論了在當前灾害應對情况下的態勢感知的概念及其各種來源。
正在翻譯中..
 
其它語言
本翻譯工具支援: 世界語, 中文, 丹麥文, 亞塞拜然文, 亞美尼亞文, 伊博文, 俄文, 保加利亞文, 信德文, 偵測語言, 優魯巴文, 克林貢語, 克羅埃西亞文, 冰島文, 加泰羅尼亞文, 加里西亞文, 匈牙利文, 南非柯薩文, 南非祖魯文, 卡納達文, 印尼巽他文, 印尼文, 印度古哈拉地文, 印度文, 吉爾吉斯文, 哈薩克文, 喬治亞文, 土庫曼文, 土耳其文, 塔吉克文, 塞爾維亞文, 夏威夷文, 奇切瓦文, 威爾斯文, 孟加拉文, 宿霧文, 寮文, 尼泊爾文, 巴斯克文, 布爾文, 希伯來文, 希臘文, 帕施圖文, 庫德文, 弗利然文, 德文, 意第緒文, 愛沙尼亞文, 愛爾蘭文, 拉丁文, 拉脫維亞文, 挪威文, 捷克文, 斯洛伐克文, 斯洛維尼亞文, 斯瓦希里文, 旁遮普文, 日文, 歐利亞文 (奧里雅文), 毛利文, 法文, 波士尼亞文, 波斯文, 波蘭文, 泰文, 泰盧固文, 泰米爾文, 海地克里奧文, 烏克蘭文, 烏爾都文, 烏茲別克文, 爪哇文, 瑞典文, 瑟索托文, 白俄羅斯文, 盧安達文, 盧森堡文, 科西嘉文, 立陶宛文, 索馬里文, 紹納文, 維吾爾文, 緬甸文, 繁體中文, 羅馬尼亞文, 義大利文, 芬蘭文, 苗文, 英文, 荷蘭文, 菲律賓文, 葡萄牙文, 蒙古文, 薩摩亞文, 蘇格蘭的蓋爾文, 西班牙文, 豪沙文, 越南文, 錫蘭文, 阿姆哈拉文, 阿拉伯文, 阿爾巴尼亞文, 韃靼文, 韓文, 馬來文, 馬其頓文, 馬拉加斯文, 馬拉地文, 馬拉雅拉姆文, 馬耳他文, 高棉文, 等語言的翻譯.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: