Emergent Groups in Established Frameworks: Ottawa Carleton's Response to the 1998 Ice Disaster

In his book, Organized Behavior in Disaster , Russell Dynes classifies organizations that respond to emergencies four ways – regular, expanding, extending and emergency. He bases this on an analysis of research done mainly in the United States. This article examines whether these typologies fit a 1998 ice storm that left about one‐fifth of Canadians without power. The conclusion is that the typologies do fit. However, in the case of the ice storm the ‘emergent’ groups were formed from within rather than outside the established response structure. As a result, there was none of the expected conflict between existing and emergent organizations. The lesson for planners is that if they adapt rapidly to changing circumstances and are ready to sponsor or include emergent groups in their existing structure they can reduce or eliminate conflict.