Emphasis have been placed on the importance of capacity assessment as a mechanism for ensuring adequate preparedness for disaster response. This does not infer that preparedness will always be perfect for confronting any disaster. But to encourage culture of continuous monitoring and evaluation of response performance in relation to the impacts of disasters especially when they occur in large scale. Several authors have contributed to this argument and throughout this thesis, reference have been made to global best practices ranging from the methodology used and recommended by the UN to those used in countries such as Japan, USA, UK, New Zealand, Taiwan to mention a few.
Amongst the review conducted of methodologies used in these countries, it was discovered that capacity assessment best practice has specific features outlined in Table 2.2. This is then used as basis for examining the existing structure in KSA, as a result of this process, the research findings can be summarised as follows:
Achieved through secondary data, 14 features of global best practice were identified (Table 2.2). This finding answers the first research question, which is: “what are the global best practice for capacity assessment framework for disaster response and arrangements?”. Achieved through both secondary and primary data, UN capacity assessment framework have
been adopted for use in KSA. Other approaches such as emergency management system and phases are also being used adopted from other developed countries for preparing for disasters. Literature review, questionnaire and interview data collection techniques were all
172 instrumental to answering the question: “What assessment methods or frameworks exist in Saudi Arabia for determining disaster response capacity?”. Answering this question also that part of the second objective; which sought to identify existing approaches used for disaster preparedness and response, is achieved.
Through the case study analysis and primary data, it was possible to determine “how effective are the existing frameworks and methods for disaster response?”. The findings indicate that although the UN framework and other foreign approaches may have been adopted (which most of the experts could not explain its effectiveness), it was evident through the case study analysis that they are ineffective. Answering this research question, also ensured that the second part of objective two is also achieved, but exposing a major gap in the existing system in KSA.
Various challenges to existing disaster response capacity were identified, which included insufficient training, low level of communication and limited department efforts in the region. Being able to identify these challenges and impacts contribute to the findings for part of objective three.
The fourth research question “what are the critical success factors required in KSA in order to enhance disaster preparedness and response capacity?”, was answered through a combination of secondary and primary data. A robust Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) approach was used to prioritise key factors from Saudi Perspective. This is documented in detail within Section 5.3. Secondary data ensured that CSFs which have academic and practice context are selected from which five were pooled by Saudi experts through questionnaire data collection technique. These five were further analysed since the contributed to components of the framework developed.
Findings for objectives four, five and six helped to answer research question five, which is; “how can disaster preparedness and response capacity be enhanced using capacity assessment framework in order to improve disaster resilience?”. A framework is developed as presented in Chapter 5 that comprises of components and elements of concepts examined during the research inquiry process. Validation of the framework (Section 6) resulted in demonstration of approach in real life setting. The findings for the last three objectives also enlightened on how gaps identified in the research can be met and how Saudi system and structure can improve going forward.
173 Objectives 3 -5 focused on development of critical success factors and framework development and validation. These objectives included
To analyse the impacts of challenges and identification of Critical Success Factors in capacity assessment of disaster response readiness
To develop framework for assessing disaster preparedness and response capability in Saudi Arabia
To validate and assess the disaster preparedness and response capacity assessment framework
This objective was achieved through data collected through case study analysis, focus groups, questionnaire and interviews, as well as validation done within Riyadh region. A total of fifteen Critical Success Factors (CSFs) were identified through literature relating to capacity development and assessment. These fifteen were (CSFs) further subjected to a selection and ranking process using questionnaire, and in the final form only five CSFs were identified to be most significant for capacity assessment.
Identified CSFs were generic in nature and were meant for usage in any size and type of disaster. These five CSFs namely, community engagement, effective response plan/planning, training of first responders, inter-organisational structure and communications (inter-org) which all has elements that make them functional and effective. The five CSFs and key goals to achieve these CSFs are illustrated below.
174 CSF 1 – Community
engagement
G1 – achieve integrated planning
G2 – Public education about disaster preparedness G3 – Enhancing community resilience
G4 – Public information management G5 – Support for volunteer participation CSF2 – Effective response
plan/planning
G1 – Use of proactive disaster risk reduction strategies G2 – Better understanding of disasters
G3 – increased co-ordination between agencies involved CSF3 – Training of first
responders
G1 – Improved training programmes G2 – Professional development G3 - Regular disaster drills CSF4 – Inter-organizational structure G1 – Business continuity G2 – Culture G3 – Organizational structure CSF5 – Communications (inter-org)
G1 – Formal reporting systems G2 – Clear accountability
G3 – Improving communication flow processes
Figure 7-1: Critical Success Factors prioritised for disaster capacity assessment
Figure 7.1 reflect the prioritised CSF that have been identified and the essential elements that make them effective. It can be noticed that each CSF has three to five elements that need to be implemented in order to attain the success and effectiveness of each CSF. While elements of each CSF were not directly tested in this research, further analysis and inquiry from case study of past disasters and interview revealed that community engagement is lacking and communications (inter-org) are grossly lacking. While continuous reference was made to response plan/planning and training of first responders during the interview sessions, past disasters indicate that response planning is not effective, neither is training of first responders since elements of each CSF were not evident. Thus, accounting for inability of responders to confront disasters effectively as observed in chapter four.
175 Based on the key findings of this research, recommendations for practice and future research are discussed in the next section.