El Planeta Tierra

The structured interview method was considered in order to evaluate and determine whether the ERS response framework works in reality by interviewing experts who have a high level of knowledge and experience on the ground and often participate in responding to flash flood events in SA. It is similar to the Delphi technique used to estimate the likelihood and outcome of future events by driving an agreement from a group of experts who make predictions about future development (Clayton, 1997 and Rowe, 2007). Although when using the Delphi technique it is recommended that questionnaires should be used, given the complexity of the framework it was considered that the use of questionnaires would not provide sufficiently robust and reliable data and so structured interviews were used instead.

160

Bryman and Bell (2003) claim that in this kind of study, the structured interview type is commonly employed. This method consists of using a standardised series of questions on which to base and develop the interview. This allows the respondents to have greater control of the answers they provide in response to the questions posed throughout the interview. Through face-to-face interviews, the author was able to encourage the interviewees to elaborate, clarify or amend their statements.

Naoum (1998) explains that the main advantages of structured interviews includes the fact that the reply percentage is comparatively high (around 60-70%), particularly if the respondents are contacted directly. Indeed, the replies can be more accurate and precise and the reasons for them ascertained. Remenyi et al (1998) claim that the use of the structured interview method delivers the chance to explore difficult issues in a comfortable atmosphere and it lets the researcher clarify the purpose of the study better than a covering letter on a questionnaire, thus helping to gain more valuable data. On the other hand, this method is logistically difficult with limited numbers of respondents.

The validation sheet (Appendix B) is intended to examine whether the ERS response framework can fulfil its primary goals (or not). The main goal is to help aid relief workers to define the nature of the problem which will then be used as the basis to search the database for all appropriate ERS response solutions. This should help the relief workers to come to a good decision, and to carry out an ERS plan of action simply and quickly so as to cover and mitigate the effects of the emergency, to protect life and to create the right circumstances to allow for a return to routine.

The size of the sample, as in any qualitative approach, is justly a reasonable number if the focus is on achieving a good understanding of the features under investigation and of the range of responses. Consequently, a suitability sample was engaged within the qualitative investigation

161

(Uma and Roger, 2016) through two stages. Firstly senior government officials who are experts with a high level of knowledge and experience on the ground, key decision makers and managers, who often participate in responding to flash flood events in SA. Secondly, academics and other consultants responsible for emergency response policy and practice, involved in many research and development studies related to develop ERS responses, review the ERS response process for flash floods in SA and participate in other disasters and hazards events globally.

The validation used the Likert scale. To gain an in-depth response of the likely success of the ERS response framework, the experts were asked whether any modifications and/or changes were recommended in order to improve it (Oppenheim, 2000). The extent to which the established ERS response framework’s stages and design factors were valued according to their significance was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘very high=5’ to ‘very low=1’.

The stages of the ERS response framework were: to define the ERS response needs; to identify the basic ERS response requirements concerning flash flooding; to identify successful ERS responses and to categorise them for inclusion in a searchable database; to create a searchable database of ERS responses; to create a shortlist of possible ERS responses; to review the shortlisted ERS responses in order to select the final ERS response(s) and to make a final recommendation for the ERS response(s) in flash flooding situations. The design factors were: flash flood information; flood-affected persons; weather conditions; size; the availability of safe buildings; topographical features; available materials; time available for implementation; financial and technical abilities and risks and hazards.

Aspects of the ERS response framework such as its efficacy, its practicality, its helpfulness to decision makers, its potential to save lives, money and time were prioritised on a 5- point Likert scale namely; ‘extremely = 5’, ‘very = 4’, ‘moderately = 3’, ‘slightly = 2’ and not = 1’.

162

All interviewees were questioned using the same questions about the ERS response framework, which was printed and provided to them before starting the interview. The author presented the request in such a way that the questions were straightforward and clear. Throughout the face- to-face interviews, the author was able to encourage the respondents to elaborate, clarify, or amend what they mentioned. However, most significantly, the author did his best to be a listener rather than a speaker throughout the interviews.