disasters: /grassroots/ efforts can produce more efficient responses than bureaucracies" (Newsweek 19891030: 32) This affirmation is undoubtedly veracious after a disaster with extended and differentiated pattern of damages, as in the case of earthquakes in urban environments, but effective response depends not only upon grassroots or bureaucracies, but upon the general context in which both of them have a place. People simply try to help the victims Ñand do not wait for rescue corps with specialized skills or devicesÑ and spontaneity is of course a meaningful response, but the responses are of various character. Coping actions occur indeed at two levels: a macroeconomic level Ñthe communityÑ and a micro level Ñindividuals and householdsÑ. To each level belong different responses. LaPlante classified response activities as shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.3: Response activities under emergency (According to LaPlante 1988: 218) At community level
*At individual/household level
* Normal activities suspended or changed * Search and rescue of victims * Social/familiar structure disrupted * Emergency shelters set up * Emergency feeding/clothing * Clearance of debris begins
* Social/familiar activity disrupted * Search and rescue of victims * Temporary housing sough * Food/clothing sought
Under the period of restoration the affected community returns to a relative normality. Damaged utilities, housing, commercial and industrial structures capable of being restored are again in function. The length of this period depends logically on the degree of damages, but mostly on societal contexts. In societies with large resources "the restoration period will, for all intents and purposes, be over in a matter of months; in other societies, it may carry on well beyond a year" (Kates and Pijawka 1977: 3). The activities tend to patch up what was damaged, in all senses. Responses at macro and micro level show following features, as shown in Table 2.4.