El papel de los conocimientos previos en la comprensión de múltiples documentos: avances y pendientes de investigación

2.9.2.1 Coordination Problems

Effective coordination is an essential element for disaster response management. Thus far, the available literature related to coordination of disaster response considered this area is important because typical requirements are demanding during an emergency situation, for instance, the risk of possible mass casualty, high necessity and uncertainty for rapid decision making, sudden and unexpected events, large-scale impact and damage, response under resource and temporal constraints and the disruption of infrastructure support necessary for coordination like telecommunications, electricity, and transportation. Therefore, this area is challenging and needs to be studied in greater detail (Chen, Sharman, Rao, et al., 2008). A large and growing body of literature has investigated challenges during the coordination stage. One of these studies is from Meissner et al. (2002) which revealed that in order to save lives and property,

disaster response and recovery efforts require coordination and timely interaction of public emergency services. Based on Lettieri et al. (2009) wrong coordination might cause conflicts to result and waste time. Ultimately, it might cause human and property losses. This coordination includes efficient labour delegation and division (Lettieri et al., 2009). In addition, According to Chen, Sharman, Rao, et al. (2008), the issue of coordination in the context of emergency response is an understudied topic. It is considered an important problem, as it impacts on life and property in the affected area. In a similar way, Unlu et al. (2010) describe coordination and management of first-response operations during crises as problematic and ineffective. Particularly, the Turkish system is not designed for different types of crises such as terrorist attacks. While also in Turkey, organisational and institutional problems were found

in organising a suitable disaster management and response system (Baris, 2009). Yet, a lack of direct coordination among first responders is considered one of the major operational problems experienced during hurricane Katrina (Banipal, 2006). In the Philippines, systemic breakdowns in communication, damaged infrastructure and limited coordination have occurred in disaster management performance by the Philippine government response agencies when implementing response and relief activities. Such breakdowns caused failures in disaster management performance (Saban, 2014). However in the United States, it is widely believed that the organisational response was typically deviant and chaotic and is unproductive in defeating the long-term goals of the terrorists, though, in Turkey, the institutional organisation for disaster management and planning has a chaotic nature, namely the responsibilities and duties of some of the institutions often cause confusion (Baris, 2009). Uhr, Johansson, and Fredholm (2008)

49

indicated that the complexity of the response operation likely resulted from the unclear and confused distribution of authority in the disaster response. In agreement, Chen, Sharman, Rao, et al. (2008) indicated that coordination of disaster response is complicated by factors such as multi-authority and massive personal involvement; infrastructure interdependencies; high demand for timely information; and the conflict of interest. Whereas, George et al. (2010) attributed such complexity to the disconnected nature of disaster response activities and manpower-intensive problems. In the United States, a recent study of disaster managers supports the desirability of the “coordination” rather than the “control” approach. The disaster manager, in many cases, acts as a facilitator rather than a commander. Therefore, the absence of a coordinator with sufficient authority to coordinate powerful federal agencies appears as a problem in the United States (Handmer & Parker, 1991). Furthermore, the International Risk Governance Council (2009) cited in Greiving et al. (2012) pointed out problems related to organisational capacities for responding to or monitoring risk as major deficits of current risk governance. Hills (1994) summarised that in the disaster response, ideas concerning coordination are confused, partially because coordination by planning is not clearly distinguished from coordination by feedback. As the latter is in accord with past practice, in the UK’s emergency response, coordination by feedback will continue to be an important issue.

2.9.2.2 Coordination between Organisations

Disasters often occur without warning and surprisingly, therefore there is no time for long negotiations or prearrangements for different actors such as public and non-profit organisations. Since such organisations might have little experience in doing disaster management activities under extreme circumstances, different problems can emerge from such fragmented performance such as lack of coordination, information exchange, and trust (Comfort, 2007; Nolte & Boenigk, 2013). In addition to that, because national governments’ capacities to respond are highly overwhelmed during extreme events, the coordination and joint response resources mobilisation of the global disaster management community is demanded by governments. Such coordination is outside their hierarchical control (Saban, 2014). Accordingly, the inter-organisational collaboration remains one of the main challenges in disaster management literature (Comfort & Kapucu, 2006). Achieving coordinated action among a different group of actors depends basically on their access to timely, valid information and their ability to participate in information search, absorption, exchange, and adaptation (Comfort, 2002). As pre-existing strains between organisations may be exacerbated in disaster response situation (Koehler, Kress, & Miller, 2014), disaster operations are affected by the

50

degree of coordination developed among agents involved in disaster response (Comfort et al., 2004). According to Saeed (2012) the main problem in disaster response management which lies at the coordination and collaboration of activities of different organisations involved both at the inter- and intra-organisation level. Baris (2009) argues that the impacts of disasters are dramatically exacerbated due to the absence of a single organisational structure

focused on disaster management. Within the same context, Greiving et al. (2012) stated that due to a lack of coordination between involved actors; current management of disaster risks is often fragmented. Such fragmentation of responsibilities should be regarded during any coordination of activities. Greiving et al. (2012) called this phenomenon as the “problem of

interplay” which is defined as a result of the presence of a multitude of actors. Steigenberger (2016) gave a reason for such complex coordination problems as these agencies seldom interact in their daily operations. Helbing et al. (2006) added that it is hard to coordinate different organisations and many people that have not collaborated before and do not know each others’ command structures. So cooperation of this agencies is required at disaster response operations (Steigenberger, 2016). The UNISDR and UNOCHA (2008) added that assistance during disaster is provided from the wide range of potential stakeholders, such as the military, NGOs, utility companies and private sector entities and skilful coordination among them is critical to avoid confusion and to facilitate an effective response. The Emergency Operations Centre, for instance, is also essential to ensure a clear central focal point and location for coordination. In Iraq, based on Humayun and Al-Abyadh (2014) there is no coordinating body or focal agency to ensure an integrated response by the multiple agencies working on Disaster Risk Reduction. LeClerc (2015) stressed that response will not be successful if the communication and organisation structures set up prior to the disaster are not able to accommodate a variety of factors when coordinating response between multiple agencies. Therefore, to achieve an effective response to disaster, cooperation among all levels of government is required (Kamel & Wachs, 1996). Interestingly, Comfort et al. (2004) find that the relation between the efficiency of disaster response operations and the number of jurisdictions involved is positive. Such a finding is contradictory to the general observation from practice that when the number

of jurisdictions involved in response operations increases, the efficiency will drop.

2.9.2.3 Coordination between the Donor Countries and the End Beneficiaries

In Pakistan, as regards the coordination between the donor countries and the end beneficiaries, coordination problems existed during Pakistan’s 2005 earthquake (Ugwu & Ihejirika, 2013), While in the South-east Asian region, disaster relief agencies face a number of key challenges

51

that limit their capacity to respond effectively to disasters. Poor coordination between relief agencies and the local government has resulted (Lai et al., 2009) from the lack of support from the government of the country struck by disaster. Such lack of support is considered the main stumbling block that hampers disaster relief operations (Rowlands, Tan, & Yuen, 2007). On the other hand, Fisher (2007) stated that the right to deny relief agencies access to disaster-struck country territories has been retained by the government of the disaster-struck country through the primary phase of a disaster relief operation, particularly if the influenced areas are replete with conflict. Relief agencies, in such a situation,

have little recourse to international legal preparations to obtain primacy entrance to disaster areas or oblige the government to accept help.

2.9.2.4 Bureaucracies and Cronyism

It is often argued that the prototypical bureaucratic response of delegated authority and use of formal routines have a dampening effect upon policymakers’ demands while also slowing organisational responses (May, Workman, & Jones, 2008). In the case of the United States, a "gap" happens between the emergent norms that direct social interactions and the bureaucratic norms that dominate governmental activity. It is widely believed that there is a failure in the relief effort when this gap is large, but when the gap is small the relief effort progresses smoothly, and governmental operations are perceived to be successful (Schneider, 1992). For example, in the case of hurricane Katrina, it was claimed (Boin, Hart, McConnell, & Preston, 2010) that because of cronyism in the White House (in Bush’s administration) there were appointments that were made (such as FEMA director Brown and Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff) which were given due to loyalty rather than expertise (appointees were not qualified for the roles), and ultimately this affected the efficiency of the disaster response. In agreement, Handmer and Parker (1991) stress that the initiative of operational sections can be constrained because of the tendency for bureaucracies to exert strong central control.

2.9.2.5 Hierarchy and Centralisation Problems

One of the important tasks for organising is assigning groups of essential activities (to achieve response objectives) to a competent manager with authority necessary to supervise it. Within the context of hierarchy problems, Baris (2009) believed that the abundance of too many units may cause sometimes hierarchy problems when responding. However, Meissner et al. (2002) noted that there is a need for both intra and inter organisation coordination at several hierarchy levels in order to react not only individually and efficiently, but also in a coordinated manner.

52

Based on Perrow (1984, p. 334) cited in Handmer and Parker (1991) since the 1960s, organisational theorists have “recognised that centralisation is appropriate for organisations with routine tasks, and decentralisation for those with non-routine tasks”. Different scholars stressed the importance of decentralisation during disaster. For instance, Kapucu and Garayev (2011) put emphasis on non-traditional approaches and tools characterised by non-hierarchical structures and flexibility in decision-making. Kapucu and Garayev (2011) stated that because of the ineffectiveness of the traditional disaster management tools, the traditional approaches characterised by hierarchy and centralisation have been replaced by decentralised emergency management systems. Nazarov (2011) and UNISDR and UNOCHA (2008) confirm this view, while Withanaarachchi and Setunge (2014) stressed that decision-making must be flexible during unexpected incidents. Whereas, Steigenberger (2016) stress that an effective disaster response plan outlines roles and responsibilities and prescribes a command structure that is as decentralised as necessary and as centralised as possible.

Baris (2009) noted that the disaster risk reduction system of Turkey is still mainly centralised. However, Unlu et al. (2010) point out that centralised and decentralised systems have various tasks in various conditions. Despite the centralised organisation of the Turkish Crisis Management System that provides the government more coordination and control over resource distribution, involvement responsibility with various ministries and national

organisations generates a coordination problem (Unlu et al., 2010). Manoj and Baker (2007)

added that in disaster response, organisational challenges are prevalent, particularly when groups that are accustomed to hierarchy and hierarchical (centralised) decision making must rapidly work in a more dynamic, flatter, ad-hoc organisation that appears during post-disaster relief efforts. Nevertheless, Smirnov, Levashova, Pashkin, Shilov, and Komarova (2007) emphasise the decision that had been made about future research to concentrate on decentralisation of the decision support system evolution. Smirnov et al. (2007) added that such choice can be accomplished through presenting of self-organising networks. Goodyear (2009) supports this view stating that “systems that are community-based can sometimes be more effective than top-down centralised systems because they can be more directly integrated into local response and risk reduction strategies”.

2.9.2.6 Trust

It is widely acknowledged that cooperation without initial trust is very difficult to implement because trust boosts cooperation. Once trust has been violated, cooperation is diminished significantly (Krackhardt & Stern, 1988). Steigenberger (2016) describes trust as a precondition

53

for effective coordination. It is also an important issue in the field of coordination and control. According to Trim (2004), to facilitate cooperation and communication between different actors involved, it is necessary to establish trustworthy and respectful relationships between such actors. In agreement, Emanuele, Cristina, and Giovanni (2009) stressed that in a stressful and potentially harmful environment, there is little chance for a participatory approach between employees and their superiors. Accordingly, trust is the best way to diminish the chance that responders would disobey superiors’ orders and compromise operations outcomes.