The Structure of Effective Governance of Disaster Response Networks: Insights From the Field

Abstract

There is significant debate about the appropriate governance structure in a disaster response. Complex disasters exhibit both networked and hierarchical characteristics. One challenge in the field of disaster management is how to structure a response that reconciles the need for centralized coordination among varied responders while retaining flexibility to mutually adjust operations to quickly changing conditions. A key question with both practical and theoretical relevance is, "are there patterns of relationships that are more robust, efficient and effective?" Missing from the current literature is empirical evidence and theory building concerning what actual network structures and characteristics might be associated with effective incident response to complex disasters. In this article, we collected network cognition data from 25 elite, Type 1 Incident Commanders to construct an ideal-type theoretical social network of an effective incident response network. We then analyzed this model to identify a set of propositions concerning the network structure and governance of effective incident response relative to four key network capabilities: (a) rapid adaptation in response to changing conditions, (b) management of distributed information, (c) bilateral coordination, and (d) emergent collective action. Our data suggest that the structure is neither highly integrated nor rigidly centralized. Rather, it is best characterized as a moderate core-periphery structure. Greater theoretical clarity concerning the capabilities associated with this structure is critical for advancing both research and practice in network governance of complex disasters.

Appropriate Governance Responses to Infectious Disease Threats: Developing Working Hypotheses

“…In recent studies of disaster management, network governance of crisis response has gained considerable attention (Christensen & Lægreid, ; Comfort, ; Comfort & Kapucu, ; Galaz et al, ; Huizer et al, ; Kapucu et al, ; Kapucu, Augustin, & Garayev, ; Magsino, ; Moynihan & Theory, ; Nowell & Steelman, ; Nowell et al, ). As noted previously, Nohrstedt et al () produced a systematic literature review on Managing Crisis Collaboratively , Kuipers and Welsh appealed, in their Taxonomy of Crisis and Disaster literature , for more attention to be paid to inter alia “Networked Crisis Management” (Kuipers & Welsh, , p. 280), while Boin et al (, p. 32) claim in The Crisis Approach that “In fact, the crisis response in modern society is best characterized in terms of a network.” The current consensus thus appears to favour network governance, which in turn leads to the question: what type of network governance?…”

“…As noted previously, Nohrstedt et al () produced a systematic literature review on Managing Crisis Collaboratively , Kuipers and Welsh appealed, in their Taxonomy of Crisis and Disaster literature , for more attention to be paid to inter alia “Networked Crisis Management” (Kuipers & Welsh, , p. 280), while Boin et al (, p. 32) claim in The Crisis Approach that “In fact, the crisis response in modern society is best characterized in terms of a network.” The current consensus thus appears to favour network governance, which in turn leads to the question: what type of network governance? According to the contingent perspective we follow here, the question becomes which type of network governance (or “networked enterprise” as (Nowell et al, , p. 1) call it is appropriate for which type of crisis threat?…”

“…It recognizes a multi-actor system as the unit of analysis. Moreover, it recognizes that the governance of multi-actor systems can take different forms (Boin & Bynander, 2015;Nowell et al, 2017;Provan & Kenis, 2008).…”

“…Certain tasks are therefore delegated to a third organization, while at the same time it is essential that a single operational organization should exercise the overriding leadership. A fifth form, which has been introduced in a recent publication by Nowell et al (2017), in the field of crisis response is the core-periphery governance form. It is similar to the lead-organization form but, in this case, the lead is taken, not by one but simultaneously by a number of organizations having operational responsibility.…”

“…As mentioned above, types of threats are only occasionally mentioned in the literature. When it comes to responses the literature is dominated by a schism (Boin, 't Hart, & Kuipers, ; Nohrstedt et al, ; Nowell, Steelman, Velez, & Yang, ). The literature is fueled by a continuing debate among disaster scholars and practitioners concerning the networked and hierarchical aspects of incident response (e.g., Boin & Bynander, ; Comfort, ; Jung & Song, ; Kapucu, Arslan, & Collins, ; Marcum, Bevc, & Butts, ; Moynihan, ; Moynihan & Theory, ; Wittmann, Jurisch, & Krcmar, ).…”