The Partner Proliferation Problem in Disaster Response Networks

Abstract

The extraordinary conditions of a major disaster require mobilization of all available resources. This necessity, together with the stretch in the response budget in the public sector and the difficulty of raising funds in the private sector, draws various humanitarian actors with widely diverse capabilities into the affected area. This phenomenon is called the proliferation of actors, or the partner proliferation problem. This problem can have serious counterproductive effects on disaster operations, such as unmanaged independent efforts that lead to a duplication and confusion of effort. The disaster response phase generally lacks the contributions of a long-term outlook and pre-planning, which are adopted in existing long-term structures such as supply chains. The aim of this paper is to provide a structured review of the partner proliferation problem in the response phase and to suggest alternative courses of action for restructuring the disaster response network. Drawing on the concept of Virtual Organizations, the paper concludes that short-term collaboration is a suitable structure for the response phase. Short-term collaboration in the response phase is complementary to long-term collaborations such as supply chains in the recovery, mitigation, and preparedness phases of the disaster cycle. To that end, a conceptual framework is provided for re-structuring the disaster response network to align with the other phases of disaster management. Finally, further research is suggested to develop a decision making tool for partner configuration to meet the specific requirements of a disaster response network.

Understanding activated network resilience: A comparative analysis of co‐located and co‐cluster disaster response networks

“…Yet thus far there is a lack of consideration of the unique characteristics of short‐term disaster response networks in relation to their sustainability. Due to the level of unpredictability and the sudden surge of organizations and resources, the sustainability of short‐term disaster networks entails specific capacities that may be different from those required for long‐term collaboration networks (Hasani, El‐Haddadeh, & Aktas, ).…”

“…The four affected countries represent different types of economic development in the Asia‐Pacific and South American regions, ranging from upper‐middle‐income to low‐income countries . These four disasters also represent both slow‐onset (cyclones) and sudden‐onset (earthquakes) disasters (Hasani et al., ). Cyclones give residents time and opportunities for preparatory measures, whereas earthquakes leave people no warning or time for preparation.…”

“…Nonetheless, unlike long‐term collaborative networks, collaborative response networks are often short‐term, and different from those in the predisaster and long‐term mitigation (Choi & Brower, ; Choi & Kim, ; Hasani et al., ). As Hasani et al.…”

“…As Hasani et al. () pointed out, disasters may create challenges for coordination and collaboration owing to the sudden surge of a variety of organizational actors that are often uncoordinated or inexperienced. Hence, restructuring the short‐term collaborative network to accommodate the partner proliferation problem represents an important capacity of the network to operate under the circumstances of limited data about partners and preplanning.…”

“…Organizations operating in cities with a higher poverty level or a large elderly population tended to change their network ties after a disaster, that is, finding resources from beyond the community (Jung et al., ). Moreover, activated response networks may be disaster specific (Hasani et al., ). For example, for weather‐related disasters in Asia and Pacific Islands, the response network may consist of particular returning organizations while for earthquake disasters in Latin America, a totally different group of organizations near the geographic region will arrive and provide relief support.…”