In the literature that exists so far, the term "crisis management" has been widely employed. But this terminology is ambiguous. "Crisis management" can be taken to refer either to managing a crisis after it has arisen-that is, intervening in a crisis situation-or managing in such a way that a crisis does not arise in the first place. The blanket term "crisis management" is thus a conceptual blanket that covers a multitude of sins. It is best to avoid the usage of such a label, since the inclusion of the word "management" in such a label implies that the process so labeled is envisioned as a solution to the problem of crises in general. This, however, is not really the case. At best, so-called crisis management addresses only crises that have already arisen and usually only when such crises have become either imminent or already actualized disasters. (Allinson, 1993, 92) Since "crisis management" is used in the literature to refer for the most part to either how one responds to an existent crisis or how one might anticipate crises and therefore be able to respond to them, crisis management most often connotes crisis intervention management whether after the onset of the disaster or in anticipation of a disaster. In either of these two modes, it is nevertheless a "band-aid" approach since it either comes into effect after the wound or primarily addresses itself to having a band-aid ready to cover the wound immediately so that the wound does not bleed overly much. (Allinson 1993, 93)