Organizing for the Big One: A Review of Case Studies and a Research Agenda for Multi‐Agency Disaster Response

Steigenberger, Norbert

doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12106

Cited by 52 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As planners acquire knowledge about the disease outbreak, they are likely to revise the written plans to respond to the changing situation. Regardless of the activities included in response plans and the way they are specified, plans in an action field have inherent limitations in their ability to guide an emergency response, and their usefulness has long been debated [5] [27] [30]. By examining the actors, activities, and coordination plans in the written documents, we can obtain a basic understanding of what priorities the government set during the emergency and which agencies were intended to act in the critical and supportive tasks.…”

Section: H2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemic Response Coordination Networks in “Living Documents”

Wang

Kim

Oh³

2020

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response plans developed thoroughly are suggestive of a successful action, but there is a gap in the literature with respect to the way concerted efforts among organizations are planned and change during crises. Using organizational network data extracted from the South Korean government's MERS response manuals, we examined the changes in the response coordination network planned during the epidemic's distinct stages. The greatest difference in predicting tie formation was found in the networks planned before the event and revised during the outbreak. Local and governmental actors tend to form more ties consistently in the revised manuals. Two actors that are intended to transfer medical and/or personnel resources tend to form more ties across all stages. These findings suggest that transferring material and/or human resources are key activities in the epidemic response and planners tend to increase the connection of local and governmental actors over time.

show abstract

Section: H2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemic Response Coordination Networks in “Living Documents”

Wang

Kim

Oh³

2020

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, once they had been completely included, they were sometimes subjected to de-including 2 practices, such as being temporarily ignored. This occurred in disorderly situations; as a rule, emergency response is least organized at the outset (Steigenberger, 2016). A VRG commander describes such a situation during the initial phase of establishing a unified command centre:…”

Section: Changing Degrees Modes and Levels Of Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

At the external boundary of a disaster response operation: The dynamics of volunteer inclusion

Johansson

Danielsson

Kvarnlöf

et al. 2018

Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present article, practices of inclusion of different types of volunteers in the response to a large‐scale forest fire in Sweden are studied. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with three types of voluntary actors. The volunteers were organized to different degrees, from members of organizations and participants in emergent groups to organizationally unaffiliated individuals. Organized volunteers were the most easily included, particularly if they were members of voluntary emergency organizations. It was difficult for volunteers lacking relevant organizational affiliation to be included. Disaster response operations are dynamic, conditions change over time, and tensions between different modes, degrees, and levels of inclusion may arise. However, irrespective of changing conditions, practices of inclusion of highly organized volunteers work best.

show abstract

“…In addressing a large-scale crisis, cooperation and operation beyond the normal confines of an organization are vital (Kapucu and Garayev 2011). Accordingly, multi-agency cooperation may be set back during disaster response in cases where the agencies do not work together on a daily basis (Steigenberger 2016). Aside from differences in cultures and priorities within the MJ and among the different sectors and agencies, cooperation is also hampered by their lack of interaction.…”

Section: Institutional Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Norway’s societal safety and security measures following the 2011 Oslo terror attacks

Nilsen

Albrechtsen

Nyheim³

2018

Safety Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper characterizes changes in Norway's civil protection and emergency preparedness five years after the Oslo and Utøya terror attacks. Data from 48 interviews conducted in the period 2014 to 2016 with civil servants within different levels of the justice sector were qualitatively analyzed. The inductive analysis shows four main changes made related to Norway's civil protection and emergency preparedness within the Ministry of Justice and Public Security: 1) a change in risk perception regarding awareness of security-related risks; 2) the generation of several plans and measures; 3) structural changes at various levels within the justice sector; and 4) increased resources allocated to societal safety and security. The changes following the Oslo terror attacks were not solely in response to the terror attacks, but also the result of previous and subsequent events and reports. The current organization of public administration, however, still fosters siloed thinking and turf wars around the principle of responsibility and each sector's respective area of expertise. Most of the implemented changes can be characterized as structural; diagnoses made after the terror attacks pointed at cultural aspects. IntroductionIn the post-war era, Norway has been fortunate in facing only a handful of large-scale crises and terror-related events (Rykkja, Laegreid et al. 2011). As a result, a fairly untroubled society has been able to attend primarily to the welfare of its inhabitants (Kuhnle 2000, Wollebaek et al. 2012). On July 22, 2011, the nation was shocked when an armed right-wing extremist single-handedly bombed the Government Complex in Oslo and thereafter shot young political aspirants attending a youth camp on the island of Utøya. In total, 77 people were killed during these terror attacks.The aftermath of disasters and national crises represent an opportune time to examine governmental strategies for civil protection and emergency preparedness (Birkmann, Buckle et al. 2010). They provide a moment for self-reflection and a chance to learn from previous mistakes and weaknesses in the governmental system. Changes are usually implemented to demonstrate handling capacity or rectify specific gaps in the system (March and Olson 1983). Lessons learned are ideally applied to a broad context, where the knowledge gained is used to address not only the specific problem but also other issues that may arise from these inadequacies.Nevertheless, in these situations, society also often shows an inclination toward morality plays and blame games (Boin, Hart et al. 2006). A focusing event, such as a terror attack, often leads to excessive fixation on solving the specific problem brought to light by the event (Birkland 2006). Leaders feel pressured to take charge and prevent a similar crisis, and they risk overreacting by way of regulation or other actions and measures in response to the event (de Ridder and Reinders 2014, van Tol 2016). This spontaneous reaction is in part due to media coverage or "mediazation" (Helsloot, Boi...

show abstract

Organizing for the Big One: A Review of Case Studies and a Research Agenda for Multi‐Agency Disaster Response

Cited by 52 publications

References 114 publications

Epidemic Response Coordination Networks in “Living Documents”

Epidemic Response Coordination Networks in “Living Documents”

At the external boundary of a disaster response operation: The dynamics of volunteer inclusion

Changes in Norway’s societal safety and security measures following the 2011 Oslo terror attacks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About