Limitations of the Swedish network coordination of oil spill preparedness

Abstract

The management of extreme crisis situations in Sweden has shown delays in decisive actions at higher levels during emergencies, such as oil spills. This has been blamed on unclear responsibilities that undermine the decision‐making process. Confusing, conflicting, or delayed orders impede response effectiveness. This article uses network analysis and survey responses to examine the Swedish oil spill crisis management network and show the Swedish Coast Guard, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency and Oil Spill Advisory Service as central organizations. However, the roles of these organizations need to be clarified and communicated better to other organizations. In order to improve coordination of Swedish oil spill preparedness, it is suggested to formalize and strengthen the roles of these central organizations. Weak connections between municipalities in different counties were also observed. This weakness could be overcome by more frequent exercises across counties to improve familiarity.

A concept analysis of preparedness: Application to LGBTQ considerations for nursing

“…This is seen within Pålsson et al. (2018) and Swift et al. (2017) by their description of preparedness as having training and knowledge to plan a response to situations.…”

A Systematic Review of Empirical Emergency Management Network Research: Formation and Development, Properties, and Performance

“…Centrality measures are frequently used to identify key actors in different phases of emergency management. Degree centrality was employed to identify central organizations that dealt with a wide range of emergency scenarios, including but not limited to the September 11 terrorists attacks, Boston Marathon bombings, wildfire management, hurricanes, earthquakes, technological disasters, foreign animal disease outbreaks, and oil spills (Abbasi & Kapucu, 2012;Curtis, 2018;Hu et al, 2014;Kapucu, 2006;Kapucu et al, 2010a;Kim et al, 2018;Lai et al, 2017;Oh & Lee, 2017;Owen et al, 2012;Pålsson et al, 2018;Pleuss et al, 2018). In addition, centrality measures have been used in these reviewed articles to study policy changes.…”

“…Network structures. Network density (i.e., the ratio of the actual number of ties to all possible pairs of ties) and average degree (i.e., the average number of ties each node has) have been used to describe the overall connectedness of emergency management networks (Pålsson et al, 2018). A certain level of network density is needed, as a highly fragmented network with many isolates or small components can impede timely communication and effective coordination (Yeo & Comfort, 2017).…”