A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of flood emergency management systems in Europe

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Society is faced with a range of contemporary threats to everyday life, from natural and technological hazards to accidents and terrorism. These are embodied within integrated emergency management arrangements that are designed to enhance preparedness and response to such incidents, and in turn facilitate a prompt recovery. Such arrangements must be inherently dynamic and evolve as new threats emerge or as existing threats change. An example of the latter is the changing nature of flooding, which is projected to increase in both frequency and severity with climate change. Recognizing this evolving threat, we focus on the evaluation of the effectiveness of domestic Flood Emergency Management Systems (FEMS) as components of integrated emergency management arrangements. Despite the extensive body of literature that documents success conditions of so-called effective emergency management more broadly, there have been only a few attempts to construct a comprehensive evaluation framework to support objective assessment and cross-country comparison. Addressing this gap, we formulate an evaluation framework specifically tailored to the study of FEMS in Europe, which is then provisionally applied to the study of FEMS in England (UK), France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Important differences are observed in how FEMS have evolved in relation to differing contextual backgrounds (political, cultural, administrative, and socio-economic) and exposures to flood hazard. From this provisional assessment, a number of opportunities for, and constraints to, enhancing the effectiveness of FEMS in Europe are discerned. The evaluation framework thus serves as an important stepping stone for further indepth inquiry, and as a valuable tool for future comparative study.

Sticks and carrots for reducing property-level risks from floods: an EU–US comparative perspective

“…However, post-flood measures could be integrated into the procedural framework of the Floods Directive, and more specifically the flood risk management plans. The lack of reference to post-flood policies in the Floods Directive and its implementation hampers resilient flood risk management, as linking flood risk management strategies is an important condition of achieving such resilience (Driessen et al, 2016;Gilissen, Alexander, Matczak, Pettersson, & Bruzzone, 2016).…”

Rethinking flood risk communication

“…EA research on resilience has previously focused on generating trusted, long-term relationships with atrisk communities (Twigger-Ross et al 2011 (Table 1). As a result, communications have traditionally been supported by a network of local flood groups and wardens, tasked with working alongside the EA to prepare local communities for flooding (Gilissen et al 2016). However, recent high-profile floods have caused a shift of focus towards infrastructure and property-based resilience programmes (McBain et al 2010;Chatterton et al 2010; Environment Agency 2011).…”

Protocols and Practices in Emergency Evacuation of Women Fleeing Abuse

“…Recent studies (Gilissen et al, 2016) in Europe hypothesized that, despite being limited, a comprehensive evaluative framework that supports objective evaluation would be useful. Kulig et al (2012) suggested that identifying needs of certain subgroups, such as DV, helps to identify the efficacy of current policies and possible policy changes that might be helpful for victims.…”