Interlocal Emergency Management Collaboration: Vertical and Horizontal Roadblocks

Caruson, Kiki; MacManus, Susan A.

doi:10.1093/publius/pjr024

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the more common drivers of conflict occurs when participating organizations hold differing goals and values (Birkland & Waterman, 2008;Caruson & MacManus, 2011;Cline, 2008;McGuire, 2006;Scavo, Kearney, & Kilroy, 2007;Tierney, 1985). Kapucu, Arslan, and Demiroz (2010), for example, observes that network participants may hold differing priorities, levels of culpability, be responsible for different mandates, or have disparate understandings of a problem's causal aspects.…”

Section: Factors Contributing To Ineffective Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration After Disaster: Explaining Intergovernmental Collaboration During the EPA Gold King Mine and TVA Coal Ash Recoveries

Fisk¹,

Good²,

Nelson³

2018

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When disaster strikes, the post‐disaster politics often increase in complexity, importance, and ferocity. Disasters and attendant recovery efforts quickly occupy space on public agendas, involve a myriad of actors, and often require coordination from multiple stakeholders. This research examines two such instances and focuses on the recovery efforts following spills at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston, TN coal‐fired power plant and the Environmental Protection Agency's Gold King Mine site. Using primary and secondary sources, this project identifies that unresolved historical issues, problem complexity, and action type are likely to make intergovernmental collaboration during recovery more difficult.

show abstract

Section: Factors Contributing To Ineffective Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration After Disaster: Explaining Intergovernmental Collaboration During the EPA Gold King Mine and TVA Coal Ash Recoveries

Fisk¹,

Good²,

Nelson³

2018

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following September 11, 2001, the role of federalism in disaster management and federal, state, and local relationships reemerged as a topic of interest (Birkland and Waterman ; Kweit and Kweit ; Roberts ; Tierney ). Three key threads exist within this broader research: defining relationships within the structure of federalism and how they change over time (O'Toole ); the emphasis on top‐down, federal heavy response following the attacks on September 11, 2001, and how this approach has been unsuccessful (Lester and Krejci ; Scavo, Kearney, and Kilroy ); and the need for more collaborative state‐ and local‐driven planning and response (Caruson and MacManus ; McGuire ).…”

Section: Federalism and Disastersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict and Collaboration in Wildfire Management: The Role of Mission Alignment

Fleming

McCartha

Steelman

2015

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding to large wildfires requires actors from multiple jurisdictions and multiple levels of government to work collaboratively. The missions and objectives of federal agencies often differ from those of state land management agencies as well as local wildfire response agencies regarding land use and wildfire management. As wildfire size and intensity increase over time and associated annual suppression costs range between $2 billion and $3 billion, learning more about the existence and management of perceived agency differences becomes imperative within the academic and practitioner communities. This article examines the extent to which perceived mission misalignment exists among federal, state, and local actors and how well those differences are managed. Findings provide quantitative evidence that mission misalignment is greater within intergovernmental relationships than within intragovernmental relationships. Additionally, findings speak to the larger conversation around intergovernmental relationships within the federal structure and perceptions of the presence and management of potential interagency conflict. Potential conflict between the missions of federal and state land agencies presents a challenge for disaster management, and differing governmental levels and land‐use mandates may highlight relationships where tensions are likely greater. Wildfire managers may need to more proactively address relationships among federal agencies and state and local partners rather than relationships among multiple federal agencies. Wildfire management may benefit from increased awareness of—and discussion around—partner agencies’ stated land management philosophies and legal mandates, as structural frameworks, such as the Incident Command Structure, may not alone lead to conflict‐free collaboration.

show abstract

“…Local governments may develop and then sustain the gene‐therapy scenario on all hazards as the principle of comprehensive disaster management, whereas the state government should be ready to coordinate related issues with other governments. The federal government may provide a gene‐therapy‐oriented frame to lower governments …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating Redundancy‐Oriented Management with Gene‐Therapy‐Oriented Management Against Disaster

2015

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article tests the hypothesis that "if redundancy-oriented management has negative aspects, then it could be facilitated by gene-therapy-oriented management." Negative aspects include disadvantages, misjudgments, or miscalculations. The article provides a newly revised principle of disaster management by studying gene-therapy-oriented management. Based on qualitative analysis, redundancy-oriented and gene-therapy-oriented management are analyzed via five variables: governments, business, volunteers, households, and the international community. The article is valuable because an analytical frame on gene-therapy-oriented management is systematically reconceptualized for the field of disaster management via three elements: unhealthy proteins (problems or failed measures), a vector (new or modified solutions), and target cells (positive outcomes). In accepting the hypothesis, the key tenet is that stakeholders have to assist the progress of redundancy-oriented management with gene-therapy-oriented management by paying attention to the genes of each disaster.

show abstract

Interlocal Emergency Management Collaboration: Vertical and Horizontal Roadblocks

Cited by 24 publications

References 28 publications

Collaboration After Disaster: Explaining Intergovernmental Collaboration During the EPA Gold King Mine and TVA Coal Ash Recoveries

Collaboration After Disaster: Explaining Intergovernmental Collaboration During the EPA Gold King Mine and TVA Coal Ash Recoveries

Conflict and Collaboration in Wildfire Management: The Role of Mission Alignment

Facilitating Redundancy‐Oriented Management with Gene‐Therapy‐Oriented Management Against Disaster

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About