Explaining effectiveness of coordinated
crisis and disaster control by security
regions in the Netherlands
Research by W.J.C. Vries
Radboud University Nijmegen
Faculty of Management
Public Administration (MSc)
Supervisor: Dr. S.L. Resodihardjo
Security Region Brabant-Noord
Ing. P.B.M.J.W. de Vet, MCDm
Security Region Gelderland-Zuid
M. Meeuse
Abstract
In the Netherlands, a couple of crisis situations showed that coordination between several emergency services had to be improved in order to increase public safety. The Security Regions Act in 2010 is the legal and formal creation of a network that deals with, among other tasks, multidisciplinary coordination in crisis and disaster control. The emergency services that are primarily involved in this network are the firefighting force, the police force, medical assistance (represented by the Regional Medical Assistance Organization (GHOR)), the municipalities, the military and the water boards. Since crisis and disaster control became a network form of organization it appeared more difficult to determine effectiveness. Two cases were studied closely on their network effectiveness. The central question of this thesis is “How can effectiveness of coordinated crisis and disaster control in Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid be explained?” Network theory provided academic knowledge on the definition of a network, its structure and complexities, and finally also on measuring network effectiveness. The research into network effectiveness of Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid is twofold: determining a certain degree of effectiveness and finding factors that can explain network effectiveness. Twelve interviews were held and both organizational documents and evaluation studies provided the data. Both security regions were found to be moderately effective as a network. Both were able to innovate and sustain the network, but they failed to achieve the goals that were set for 2013. The two security regions had ten variables in common that explained successes and failures. These ten factors could also have the same effect in other security regions. More research has to be done to prove this. Furthermore, the categories of factors were not recognized to have an exclusive positive or negative influence on network effectiveness. However, contextual factors were most positively related to network effectiveness in both the regions. Overall, focusing on the categories of factors the results were mixed, so further research should address all factors individually. The functioning factors best explained the difference in network effectiveness between Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid.
Acknowledgements
It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support of many individuals in developing this research. I would like to express my sincere thanks to all of them. Some though, deserve explicit gratitude for their endeavors.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. S.L. Resodihardjo, for constant guidance, significant feedback and support for completion of this research. Although I struggled every once in a while, my supervisor kept faith and thereby also encouraged me to move forward.
Second, my gratitude goes to the two security regions that provided me the opportunity to fulfill this research concerning their organizations and their partner organizations. I owe Security Region Brabant-Noord special thanks for offering me an internship position and the possibility to create a policy document for the beneficiary of municipal care in their region. During the writing process of this document I learned a lot about the safety policy area and I got a clear perspective on the political processes of the organization. The gratitude addresses the colleagues at Security Region Brabant-Noord in particular for their kindness and sociability.
Third, I gratefully thank the respondents of the research for their cooperative behavior and honesty answering the questions proposed in this research.
Fourth, I want to offer this endeavor to my family and girlfriend, who supported me during the process of this research. I would like to express my greatest respect for my parents’ patience and financial support. I thoroughly appreciate the coffees they made me and the conversations we had when I was in need of a break. That also reminds me of the happiness I felt when I saw the most enjoyable smiles around the faces of my three cute nephews during these coffee breaks. Even though it often led to breaks of at least an hour building complete racing tracks for them to play with. These moments were priceless. I hope to enjoy many more moments with them showing their happy faces. I wish you all prosperous reading for the time being.
Willem Vries
Table of contents
Abstract...2
Acknowledgements...3
1 Introduction...6
1.1 Context...6
1.2 Theoretical and societal relevance...7
1.3 Structure...8 2 Policy Framework...9 3 Theoretical Framework...12 3.1 Network definition...12 3.2 Emergence of networks...15 3.3 Network integration...16 3.4 Network governance...18 3.5 Network complexities...19 3.6 Evaluating networks...20 3.7 Network effectiveness...22 4 Methodological Framework...28
4.1 Goal and strategy...28
4.2 Objects of analysis...28
4.3 Method...29
4.4 Operationalization...32
5 Analysis...44
5.1 Determining effectiveness of Security Region Brabant-Noord...44
5.2 Explaining effectiveness of Security Region Brabant-Noord...48
5.3 Summarizing the findings on Security Region Brabant-Noord...58
5.4 Determining effectiveness of Security Region Gelderland-Zuid...62
5.5 Explaining effectiveness of Security Region Gelderland-Zuid...65
5.6 Summarizing the findings on Security Region Gelderland-Zuid...75
5.7 Comparing the two cases...78
6. Conclusion...83
6.1 Introduction...83
6.2 Findings...84
6.3 Recommendations...88
Literature...93 Appendices...97 Appendix I: Semi-structured interview sheet (in Dutch)...97
1 Introduction
1.1 Context
“An army of ants actually consists of thousands of separate elements working together very smoothly, but without any kind of leadership and very little communication” (Scholtens, 2008, p. 201). The army of ants is the perfect metaphor for effective multidisciplinary collaboration in crisis response. Each emergency service should adequately perform its own tasks without constraining others, and all together they should reach the overarching goal: to effectively deal with a crisis.
Initially, municipalities were responsible for emergency services in the Netherlands, but often crises cross the borders of municipalities. Also, these days citizens expect emergency services, all governmental organizations, to collaborate successfully across these borders (Inspection of Security and Justice, 2013A, p. 5). This requires the organization of emergency services on a larger scale. Therefore, the Dutch government introduced the Security Regions Act (Wet Veiligheidsregio’s) in 2010. The Security Regions Act obliges municipalities to authorize a security region on public safety issues through a communal regulation (Gemeenschappelijke regeling). In a communal regulation municipalities mandate an external agency to execute a certain task on a regional level. However, the ultimate authority and accountability remains at the local level (Scholtens, 2008, 197). Mayors are the highest authority in case of crisis or disaster in their municipality. Therefore, the mayors are seated in the General Board (Algemeen Bestuur) of security regions. The municipal councils (Gemeenteraden) scrutinize security regions on their policy and budgets.
Although multidisciplinary collaboration sounds very constructive, not much is known of the effectiveness of security regions. This can be explained by the recent foundation of the security regions. Scholtens (2008) argued that multidisciplinary collaboration in emergency services should focus on formal collaboration in the preparatory phase and self-managed collaboration in the acute response phase (Scholtens, 2008, p. 206). The Security Regions Act formalized multidisciplinary collaboration in the preparatory phase. This means that emergency services are now legally bound to collaboration. They operate in a network. However, the creation of a network organization does not consequently lead to effectiveness of security regions. Collaboration is a time-consuming process and it is still in the pipelines. Therefore, it is rather unknown at security regions how effective they are and what factors can explain the performance of the network.
In 2013, an evaluation study of security regions stated that the act had increased expertise, strength of impact and effectiveness in emergency services (Hoekstra, Berlijn, De Ridder, Smits & De Vries, 2013, p. 7). There are several ways to study effectiveness of a security region. This thesis specifically focuses on the effectiveness in security regions operating as a network form of organization. Hence, the main aim of this thesis is to give insight into causes for effectiveness on the responsibility of security regions to coordinate emergency services. In order to determine what factors
explain network effectiveness in security regions, two security regions are used as case studies; namely Security Region Brabant-Noord, and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid. The central question is outlined below.
How can effectiveness of coordinated crisis and disaster control in Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid be explained?
To study network effectiveness of Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid, the main question is split up into six sub-questions. These sub-questions first regard a description of the network. This is followed by a deduction of factors for network effectiveness out of academic literature. Then, network effectiveness will be determined in the two security regions. Finally, the variables that explain network effectiveness of the two cases will be provided. The following sub-questions together provide an answer to the central question.
1. What is the network of emergency services that is coordinated by the security region and who are in it?
2. What factors influence effectiveness of a network?
3. To what extent is Security Region Brabant-Noord effective as a network that coordinates emergency services?
4. To what extent is Security Region Gelderland-Zuid effective as a network that coordinates emergency services?
5. What factors explain network effectiveness of Security Region Brabant-Noord? 6. What factors explain network effectiveness of Security Region Gelderland-Zuid?
1.2 Theoretical and societal relevance
There is limited empirical evidence on network effectiveness. Suggestions on how to explain network effectiveness are made (Provan & Milward (2001), Provan & Kenis (2007), Mandell & Keast (2008), and Provan & Lemaire (2012)), but conclusions have not yet been reached. Turrini, Cristofoli, Frosini, and Nasi (2010) blame the extensive use of variable definitions of networks and network effectiveness for the fragmented development of network theory (Turrini, Cristofoli, Frosini, & Nasi, 2010, p. 528). Provan and Lemaire (2012) concluded that more empirical research needs to be done on comparing several networks with variable characteristics and examining the role of a mandate of government on network effectiveness (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 646). Even though this thesis in the first place provides practical knowledge on network effectiveness of security regions, it also has important implications for theory on network effectiveness. This thesis involves two empirical case studies exploring network effectiveness. Moreover, it will be able to test whether the frameworks of academic theory stand within these two cases. It will also expose whether these two regions are considerably similar and possibly are examples of all security regions in the Netherlands. In other words, this study
will be a start to gather data whether generalization is possible for the network effectiveness of security regions in the Netherlands. This thesis is not comprehensive; there is no time to evaluate all twenty-five security regions. In advance I opt for more evaluation studies in other security regions all over the Netherlands.
This research thesis aims to add value in practice. Nobody would disagree on the importance of performances in emergency or crisis response. Security regions have little knowledge on how they perform as a network. Measuring quality by the Inspection, which led to the evaluation report of the Hoekstra Commission, is mainly based upon hard performance methods. It fails to investigate relationship building, trust or other soft measures of quality. This thesis seeks to involve these soft matters in knowledge on network effectiveness of coordinated emergency services. In the first place this study can help Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid to improve their network organizations. These two security regions can focus on certain factors that are negatively related to their network effectiveness based on academic grounds. Furthermore, when the factors are generalizable it is also possible for other security regions to research whether these factors require improvement within their network organizations. Security regions thus can focus on the factors that have a negative effect on network performance. However, when generalization of the results seems weak, this thesis still offers a basis for repeated study in other security regions. Then it can show the diversity between the security regions and highlight possible factors that could be improved on for the regions individually. Furthermore, it can also help public administrators and members of municipal councils. They will have a better understanding of what is important to successfully achieve coordinated emergency services through a network organization. In sum, this thesis provides academically based knowledge of the network that coordinates multidisciplinary crisis control. It can help improve security regions and hence it can benefit public interest.
1.3 Structure
The next chapter will give more information on security regions. In the third chapter scientific theories on the network and network effectiveness are elaborated. The fourth chapter will show what methods are used to conduct this research. The fifth chapter describes the results of this research. Then a discussion follows on existing academic literature and the theoretical implications of this research. Finally, a conclusive chapter sums up the main results, answers the central question and reflects on network theory and on the process of this research.
2 Policy Framework
This thesis focuses on two security regions. Therefore this chapter is introduced to provide a brief explanation of security regions and their responsibilities, and it focuses on the two security regions that are used as a casestudy in this research more specifically.
A ‘security region’ is best explained in the document that formalized its existence, the Security Regions Act (2010). The act states that a security region is a public administrative body (Openbaar Lichaam) instigated through a communal regulation by the municipal board (College van Burgemeester en Wethouders) of the municipalities incorporated through a specific geographical area. Two of these regions are Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid. In total, the Netherlands encompasses twenty-five security regions (figure 1).
As a result of evaluations of previous crisis response situations the government decided to develop and implement the Security Regions Act to coordinate activities between emergency services. Collaboration in crisis response usually includes the firefighting force, the police force, medical assistance (represented by the Regional Medical Assistance Organization (GHOR)), the national military, the water boards (waterschappen) and every municipality within the geographical borders of the area. Coordinated crisis response is organized based upon a so called ‘buttonmodel’ (knoppenmodel), in which the button refers to the possibility of simply pressing a button to activate the services needed. Through this model the capacity of services should accurately match the gravity of the crisis. According to the Regional Crisis Plan of Security Region Gelderland-Zuid this will alarm the emergency services that are required to deal with the crisis (Security Region Gelderland-Zuid, 2014B, p. 9). All of these organizations have their own separate responsibilities, but their activities have to be coordinated to improve on the achievement of the common goal, namely high quality multidisciplinary emergency response in case of crisis or disaster. Nonetheless, this is just one of the tasks of security regions. The Hoekstra commission concluded in 2013 that the term security region was still vague. The commission identified four roles that are related to four main responsibilities of security regions (Hoekstra et al., 2013, p. 8). First, an executive role in actually providing services in the acute phase of a crisis. Second, security regions have a role as expert and counselor on permits and supervision. Third, a role to direct the coordination of organizations that provide emergency services in crisis situations. Fourth, they have to compose local policies into one regional format, maintaining and preserving local preferences (Hoekstra et al., 2013, p. 8). In this research thesis I focus on the third responsibility of security regions, namely their role in directing organizations to coordinated crisis and disaster control (crisisbeheersing en rampenbestrijding). From here I will explain what crisis and disaster control and coordination are.
Crisis and disaster control is one of the responsibilities of security regions. Because the distinction between crisis and disaster is typically Dutch I will first explain this. In Dutch, disasters are a form of crisis that are caused by nature, industry or transport (Scholtens, 2008, p. 195). The
Security Regions Act provides definitions of these concepts. In paragraph 1, article 1, the Security Regions Act states that a disaster is “a serious accident or event that affects or threatens the life and health of many people, the environment or large material interests” A disaster requires coordination of emergency services to resolve the problematic consequences or threats of the disaster. Disaster control is formulated in art. 1 as “the complete package of (preparation of) measures initiated by the board of a municipality or security region during a crisis to prevent the event of disaster and the mitigation of consequences of a disaster” A crisis is “a situation in which the foundation of a vital society is threatened to be affected or already is affected” According to the Security Regions Act, art. 1, crisis control is “the complete package of (preparation of) measures initiated by the board of a municipality or security region during a crisis to maintain social order, and when possible in conjunction with the package of (preparation of) measures based on responsibilities assigned by law”
As mentioned above, coordinated crisis and disaster response is just one specific task of the security regions. According to Scholtens (2008) multidisciplinary collaboration is a process that should mainly be dealt with in the preparatory phase (Scholtens, 2008, p. 205). In the acute phase of crisis, security regions are reasonably busy with their operational responsibilities of firefighting, medical care, ambulance service and emergency information processes (Meldkamer functie). The same is to say for other emergency services involved in acute crisis response. In both the cases of this study one department specifically takes responsibility for coordinating emergency response services in the preparatory phase. Although these departments can have different names at each security region, they appear to be called the security bureau (veiligheidsbureau) at the two security regions studied in this thesis. Thus, this thesis focuses on these departments within security regions, namely the security bureau of Brabant-Noord and the security bureau of Gelderland-Zuid.
Although these two departments are both called security bureaus, it does not mean that they are structured exactly the same. Both these departments will be more closely elaborated. Firstly, in Security Region Brabant-Noord the main aim of the security bureau is to “establish coordination between monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary priorities and to strengthen the multidisciplinary collaboration in case of crisis and disaster control, multidisciplinary information sharing and the emergency information processes” (Security Region Brabant-Noord, 2012A, p. 11). The security bureau makes use of the participating organizations' capacity in projects. Administrators of the services that are appointed with multidisciplinary tasks all take office at the same address, Orthenseweg 2b in 's-Hertogenbosch (Security Region Brabant-Noord, 2012A, p. 11). This is the case for administrators of the firefighting force, the police force, medical assistance, the national military and the municipalities (respectively one regional administrator).
Secondly, in Security Region Gelderland-Zuid the aim is described to “mainly focus on multidisciplinary processes within Security Region Zuid” (Security Region Gelderland-Zuid, 2011, p. 12). At the security bureau of Security Region Gelderland-Zuid administrators of the partners collaborate to achieve its goal. According to the regional policy plan 2012-2015 all primary
partners are involved (Security Region Gelderland-Zuid, 2011, p. 12). Additionally, this is not only in terms of projects, but also physically working centralized in an office for at least one day a week. The address of the central office is Groenewoudseweg 275 in Nijmegen.
3 Theoretical Framework
Public Administration theory is roughly divided into three approaches: a classical, a critical and a modern approach. In the classical approach scientists believed in a manageable society based on rational decision-making. The classical approach was followed by a period of critical Public Administration theory that opposed the idea of a manageable society. This scientific trend showed that policy often failed in the implementation stage. When certain actors are against a policy, successful implementation is hard to accomplish (De Bruijn, 2007, p. 5). Nowadays, in modern Public Administration theory there is a focus on interaction between the community, government and (non)profit-organizations. Network theory is an example of this.
This thesis focuses on the network that coordinates emergency services. Networks have appeared all over society, in companies, in government and even in cultural activities like sports associations. Accordingly, the academic attention for networks has increased over the previous two decades (Isett, Mergel, LeRoux, Mischen, & Rethemeyer, 2011, p. i157). This chapter will firstly define a network. Secondly, the emergence of networks will be explained. What made the use of networks possible and why did they occur? Thirdly, this is followed by a categorization of networks based on the degree of integration and governance types. Fourthly, complexities of managing networks are highlighted. Then, limitations and conditions are presented to evaluate networks. And finally, factors that influence network effectiveness are summed up, leading to an explanation of independent variables that influence network effectiveness.
3.1 Network definition
A central concept in this thesis is the network, but what are networks exactly and what are they not? Concepts like collaboration, collaborative governance and public contracting are strongly related to networks. What distinguishes these concepts from networks? Collaboration refers to stakeholders that are interacting to resolve a problem in a certain field or area (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 639). Collaborative governance extends collaboration by including government and private organizations as key actors. Public contracting is a formal means to steer organizations in one direction. Even though these concepts are easily associated with networks, in essence they are not the same. These concepts are arrangements that can be part of the network (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, pp. 639-640). So what is a network then?
In network literature there are three fields of network study. All three fields of study use their own definition of a network and therefore they regard different kinds of networks. These three viewpoints are policy networks, collaborative networks and governance networks. The definitions are given in table 1 (in italics). In short, policy networks contain organizations with an interest in decision making on a certain policy domain. Collaborative networks consist of organizations that work together to provide public services or public goods. Governance networks compose the policy for
several organizations to steer them to a collective goal (Isett et al., 2011, pp. i157-i158). Within these three approaches there are again multiple definitions of a network. The main definitions can also be found in table 1. In case of crisis and disaster control the security region is a collaborative network. It coordinates activities of several organizations to provide crisis and disaster control. But defining the security region and all its responsibilities is not that easy. One could argue that it also composes the policy for all municipalities incorporated in their geographical territory. Thus, the security region could also be defined as a governance network. Furthermore, security regions act alongside other stakeholders in the security or safety sector as a policy domain. Security regions are also part of a policy network. It is of utmost importance to clarify that this thesis focuses on the collaborative network within security regions that is responsible for coordination of emergency services in case of crisis.
There are two approaches to analyze collaborative networks. The prevailing approach is called the egocentric dyadic approach. It studies networks from the individual perspective of one member organization and the benefits the organization has by partaking in the network (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 639). This research is mostly applied to private organizations. The definition that is used in this approach demonstrates the individual perspective of one organization. De Bruijn (2007) has described the network as a certain number of actors with different interests that are interdependent to reach their organizational goals (De Bruijn, 2007, p. 1). This view is opposed by the other approach and its definition of the network, the whole goal-directed approach.
The whole goal-directed network approach is more often applied to networks that consist of public organizations in particular. Their motivation to collaborate in a network is to achieve a shared goal that they are not able to reach themselves. The whole network approach studies the relationships between member organizations. Whole networks concentrate on interactions between organizations to optimize results (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 639). In this approach there is a focus on relationships, for instance in the definition of O’Toole (1997): “structures of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of the others in some larger hierarchical arrangement” (O’Toole, 1997, p. 45). Provan and Kenis (2007) do not focus on the structure of the relationship but on the shared interest of the network. Their definition is that a network contains “at least three organizations with a legal autonomous position that work together to achieve not only their own but also a collective goal” (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 231). Within these two approaches there are still several definitions of a network developed by different authors. The whole goal-directed network approach is applied in this thesis.
The operational definition in this thesis will incorporate both the structure of the relationships and the collective interest of member organizations. The operational definition of a network is “a group of goal-oriented interdependent but autonomous actors that come together to produce a collective output (tangible or intangible) that no one actor could produce on its own” (Isett et al, 2011, p. i160).
Table 1 shows an overview of definitions of a network. This overview is not comprehensive but conveys the main academic definitions. The first column gives terminology used for the network. The second column outlines the definition. The third column refers to the author(s) that defined the term. The definitions of the three main viewpoints in network theory are given in italics.
3.2 Emergence of networks
At this point there is an understanding of what the network is, but what made networks appear roughly two decades ago? Four developments are fundamental to the emergence of networks. De Bruijn (2007) recognized and explains these societal developments. The first is increased professionalization. More complex tasks require knowledgeable and experienced professionals to carry them out. The professionals often have more substantive knowledge than the public manager (De Bruijn, 2007, pp.6-7). The second development is globalization. Modern society is also globalized. This means that governments and corporations more often undertake activities across borders, mainly because these geographical borders have lost their significance. Both professionalization and globalization lead to fragmentation (De Bruijn, 2007, pp. 7-8). There are more specific tasks executed in certain areas all over the world. In a fragmented society organizations have to interact with each other, relate to each other, and are interdependent on each other. In short, network forms of organization can be the consequence of a fragmented society.
Another development is the intertwining between the public and private sector since the nineties of the twentieth century. At this time, liberal governments stimulated privatization and outsourcing, a retreat of the central government. When private organizations provide public services, the central government needs to supervise these activities. Often administrative organizations are monitoring and scrutinizing the service providing sector (De Bruijn, 2007, pp. 8-9). These relationships between the public and the private sector result in network mechanisms.
The fourth and final development that De Bruin (2007) acknowledges is the upcome of information technology. This means that the world is increasingly connected through its infrastructure. The digital and commercial connection allowed for the emergence of network organizations. Advanced information technology also stimulates globalization by creating the possibility to connect with clients across borders. On the contrary, the upcome of information technology enables regionalization, because a concentration of information technology effectuates the development of an economic center (De Bruijn, 2007, p.9). Nevertheless, the result of advanced information technology is that relationships are more easily entered and so networks are more easily established and maintained. These four developments were fundamental for the emergence of networks, but for what reason did networks emerge?
“Wicked” problems demand strategies to reach more integrative solutions to rather complex problems (Keast, Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004, pp. 363-364). Wicked problems are complex because they involve a large number of stakeholders that have different problem definitions and solutions. Wicked problems are actually non-solvable problems. Therefore a widely supported solution through collaborative means is desirable (Keast et al., 2004, p. 363). Networks appear to be an answer to reach these solutions and are therefore brought in practice. Nevertheless, not every public issue that is dealt with through network mechanisms has to be a wicked problem. In general, literature suggests that network mechanisms are especially effective when dealing with wicked
problems (Keast et al., 2004). Formerly, service delivery was structured through hierarchies or markets. Hierarchies, markets and networks are forms of coordination and governance mechanisms (Thompson, 2003). Hierarchy mostly consists of the idea that a direction will be followed when there is a clear goal. In hierarchies the organization has a clear structure with formalized ties in which one directs another. Management or administration steers the organization to achieve goals. In hierarchies top-down management structures relationships. The organization executing policy is often scrutinized to increase goal achievements (Thompson, 2003, pp. 22-24). The market distinguishes itself from hierarchies, because it lacks a physical central management system that directs organizations towards a goal. The coordinative structure is a competitive system between service providers that satisfy social desires (Thompson, 2003, p. 24). In the public sector the difference between a hierarchy and the market is basically a choice of providing a service by government or outsourcing the provision of services (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 640). Thus, a network appeared to be a solution between two opposite forms of organization.
A network can develop in two ways. Firstly, a network can be mandated (in literature this is also called organized or formal). This means the network is formally established, often by law or regulation. Secondly, the self-organizing (in literature also called self-emergent or informal) network requires interaction which is not formally secured to take care of its own establishment and sustainability (Thompson, 2003, p. 28; Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 641). The security regions in the Netherlands are a form of organized or mandated networks. They are established and sustained by law. Although there is no empirical evidence, Provan and Lemaire (2012) suggest that mandated networks are less likely to achieve their network goals. Establishment by mandate implicates the absence of the basis of relationships (like trust, friendship and legitimacy), which could constrain the effectiveness of the network (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 641). On the contrary Isett et al. (2011) argue that members of formal networks are more likely to trust each other, because their relationship is based on legal arrangements and therefore the partner is less likely to disobey network actions (Isett et al., 2011, p. i164). This thesis will not compare network effectiveness of a mandated and emergent network, so conclusions on this subject cannot be drawn and more research will need to be done. However, this thesis will show what factors influence network effectiveness of security regions and by doing so it will implicitly tell us whether mandated networks lack basic characteristics of relationships.
3.3 Network integration
From here, there will be a view on what kind of network this thesis deals with. Network types will be elaborated based on the degree of integration and on governance models. This paragraph will show how characteristics of structure and relationships lead to a categorization based on the degree of integration in a network. Structural characteristics differentiate several network types. Three network types based on structural arrangements are networking, networks and network structures. In
networking people informally interact through meetings and through communication technology (Keast, Mandell, Brown, Woolcock, 2004, p. 364). Networks consist of formal ties between the network members. The network is a necessary means to achieve a common goal. Each organization in the network remains autonomous (Keast et al., 2004, p. 364). In network structures there will not be just one leader. A high degree of trust is necessary amongst members. The goals are broadly defined and members are committed to joint action. Network structures occur when previous collaborative efforts did not result in the desired outcomes (Keast et. al., 2004, p. 365).
These three types correspond to three types based on relationships. Based on their relationships the three network types are cooperation, coordination and collaboration. The first, the cooperation type of network, does not have a set of common goals. Participants share information, but keep their autonomy. The network is developed to consider and compromise but not to change to or achieve collective goals (Brown & Keast, 2003, p.7). The second, the coordination type of network, is a formal relationship of multiple actors that together contribute to a specific program. The organizations stay separated from each other and autonomous. Coordination is forced by law or mandated. Most of the times, there will also be a scrutinizing institute or management. The formal setting of this network type creates stability and transparency (Brown & Keast, 2003, p. 7). It requires a higher degree of trust and reciprocity between the members. The third, the collaboration type of network, has the strongest relationship of the three types mentioned. Therefore this type is also the most risky network type. The relationships run through all the levels of the member organizations. Success is based on the overall acceptance of the shared goal (Brown & Keast, 2003, p. 7-8).
Brown and Keast (2003) argue that these two categorizations contain similarities and both place a network on a continuum of connectedness, varying from loose arrangements and fragmentation to a fully integrated system (Brown & Keast, 2003, p. 10). The degree of integration between member organizations differentiates networks from each other. A schematic overview is given below.
Figure 2: A Continuum of Connectedness (Brown & Keast, 2003, p. 10)
Unlike what might be expected, it is not of foremost importance for members to become fully integrated in order to become successful as a network. When all member organizations have to undertake close activities with each other, the network becomes very inefficient. Besides, like people, organizations (and the people working for them) cannot maintain a lot of close relationships, but they can preserve many weak ties (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 644). Provan and Lemaire (2012) argue
that some close ties must exist between couples and the couples should be connected through brokers or bridging managers. Weaker ties based on low levels of interaction are appropriate for networks (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 644).
In the case of providing coordinated emergency services all organizations stayed autonomous and independent. The security region is mandated to coordinate emergency response efforts. These collaborative arrangements are formally secured in the regional crisis plans that are developed by the security regions. Therefore, I place the networks of crisis response somewhere in the middle of the continuum of connectedness. They are moderately integrated. Based on structure the security region is a network, it is formally established, but members stay autonomous. Based on relational ties the crisis response services form a network that delivers coordination between partners.
3.4 Network governance
The second way to categorize networks is based on characteristics of governance types. Provan and Lemaire (2012) opt for a distinction between two roles of a public manager concerning a network. These two roles are management of the network and management in the network (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 642). Network governance corresponds to management of the network. It regards the design of the network. Management in the network implies that public managers have to deal with certain challenges when they have a role participating in the network. This role of the public manager is complex, because managers have to deal with several organizations instead of one (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 642). Management in the network will be discussed in the next paragraph concerning management complexities. Here, management of the network or network governance is described.
Provan and Kenis (2007) distinguish three governance types of a network organization: shared participant-governed networks, lead organization-governed networks and Network Administrative Organizations (NAOs). These governance forms differ on two characteristics. The first is the degree of centralization of the network. In a decentralized system all partner organizations in the network are responsible for managing the network. This is also called shared governance. On the contrary, a highly centralized network is governed by just one partner organization (Provan & Kenis, 2007, pp. 233-234). The second characteristic that differentiates forms of network management is the degree of externalization. When participants of the network govern the network it is internally governed, but the network can also be governed through an external agency. The governing agency can be created by the network itself or by the national government. It can be an already existent agency or a completely new organization (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 234).
Shared participant-governed networks have a decentralized governance structure by several or all participants of the network. The lead organization network is governed by just one member organization, thus it is highly centralized. The NAO is also structured highly centralized, but in contrast to the previous two forms of governance its governance is externalized. The NAO can differ
from just a single person to a formal organization, including a director, a board and staff. The NAO can be used to enhance legitimacy of the network without dealing with the complexity of shared governance. When this is the case the NAO is concerned with the execution of policy and all network members are engaged in strategic decision-making (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p.236).
On the one hand, security regions seem to be governed through the lead organization. Firefighting forces are concerned with the tasks of security regions. Mostly, multidisciplinary tasks and roles are executed by fireman, or at least people who serve the firefighting force and are on their payroll. The regional commander of firefighting forces is often also the director of the security region. On the other hand, security regions are typical NAOs. They have a board of directors in which all members together decide on a strategic level. There is an executive and a general board. The general board consists of mayors of all the municipalities that are served by the security region. Therefore they form a sort of scrutinizing board. This increases the democratic character of security regions and enhances legitimacy. The municipalities finance their security region. One thing is clear, the security regions are highly centralized network organizations. I would opt to add an extra governance type to the three types that Provan and Kenis (2007) proposed. The fourth governance type is characterized by a division of policy making and policy implementation. The security region is a NAO, policy making occurs by including all member organizations in a board of directors. Contrarily, the firefighting forces are mandated to execute security regions activities. The firefighting force takes the lead in executing coordination of emergency services in crisis and disaster control.
3.5 Network complexities
The second role of a public manager is managing within a network. Management in the network is complicated in comparison to management within a singular organization, because organizational and network goals can be contradictory. Additionally, the partner organizations are often part of multiple networks with different goals. At least, public managers should be committed to network success for the network to become successful, especially when the demands of stakeholders are only served through networks (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 642). The commitment and the success of the network must be surpassed in the partner organizations, to convince all the members of network benefits. Network management has to deal with a couple of challenges. Provan and Lemaire (2012, p. 642) recognized six challenges for public managers in a whole network. Firstly, variety could exist in the commitment of managers of organizations to the shared goals of the network. The commitment depends for instance on the congruence between organizational and network goals. Secondly, cultural diversity can trouble collaborative arrangements and therefore also the network. Partner organizations can have different policy making procedures or have different levels of expertise. Thirdly, there is a loss of autonomy for each partner organization in the network. Choices made in one organization can affect other partner organizations. Problems for public managers arise when an autonomous partner organization decides to ignore a shared network decision. Fourthly, the maintenance of the network is
very costly and time-consuming. Fifthly, accountability is shared amongst network partners in contrast to straightforward accountability mechanisms in a single organization. Finally, public managers have to come across two worlds. This means that they have to deal with internal issues of their own organizations on the one hand and externally with issues of the network on the other. Understanding these complexities can help public managers. Moreover, public managers should have knowledge of network effectiveness to make the right management decisions (Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 642).
Provan and Kenis (2007) provide three dilemmas of network management. They argue that management of these dilemmas is crucial for network effectiveness (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 242). These dilemmas appeal to management in a network, and are not the sole issues of a partner organization. The first dilemma is between efficiency and inclusiveness. On the one hand, effective networks rely on trust between partner organizations. On the other hand, building trust is a time-consuming process and the more members partake in the network the more trust needs to be build (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 242). In other words, including more organizations makes it more difficult and more time-consuming to become effective as a network. Thus, a broker organization is more efficient, but the network activities that are governed by a broker are less based on trust between partners in the network. The second dilemma is the tension between internal and external legitimacy. Internal legitimacy between the network partners, built in the initiating stage of a network, is essential for network benefits. It assures commitment of participants to common goals (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 243). External legitimacy has to do with the visibility of benefits from the network. Stakeholders outside the network demand positive network outcomes. These demands could conflict with desires of some partner organizations. To maintain legitimacy, networks must be stable. This brings up the third dilemma of stability versus flexibility. Networks prevail by long-term relationships which are built through stability. On the contrary, networks also have to be flexible. Multiple organizations and stakeholders that collaborate consist of dynamic relations with shifts in beliefs, opinions and their mission. This necessitates a network to be flexible. The flexibility of the network is the main reason why a network is expected to be more capable than market or hierarchy mechanisms to resolve complex issues (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p.244-245).
3.6 Evaluating networks
Now it has been made clear that networks are considerately complex, it should also be discussed what the complexity means for the success of the networks and for evaluating them. Network performance can be seen differently by the stakeholders involved. The fact that networks consist of several organizations and stakeholders makes it hard to determine success. Expectations are likely to differ between stakeholders. Hence, Provan and Milward (2001) argue that the network should be evaluated on three different levels of analysis: the community level, the network level and the organization participant level. Each level of analysis contains a number of stakeholders. Mainly, there are three sets
of stakeholders involved. The first set of stakeholders are principals, who supply the network with resources and scrutinize their activities. The second set of stakeholders consists of agents, who take part in the network and operate as managers and experts that provide the service itself (Provan & Milward, 2001, p. 416). The third group of stakeholders are clients. Clients are actually served by network through its activities. At the community level, both principals and clients are involved. At the network level principals and agents have a stake in defining success. Agents and clients are considered to be stakeholders at the organization participant level (Provan & Milward, 2001, p. 416). Network effectiveness at the community level is regarded as overall benefit to community. The clients perceive effectiveness in terms of their own well-being. At the network level, performance is a little less straightforward. Effectiveness at the network level contains three elements. Firstly, the ability to reach the goals that are set for the network. Secondly, the network has to become sustainable and viable. Thirdly, the networks capacity to push for innovation and change (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 533). At the organization/participant level the main stakeholders are agents and clients. This level regards network effectiveness as the extent of benefit for the organization that participates in the network (Provan & Milward, 2001, p. 420). These three levels categorize stakeholders and their mutual expectations of the network. For a complete understanding of network effectiveness all three levels should be taken into consideration (Provan & Milward, 2001, p. 422).
Networks are not only complex because they involve several stakeholders. Networks are also complex because they are dynamic. Relationships between organizations and their administrators or employees develop over time. Mandell and Keast (2008) suggest there are four stages in the development of a network. These four stages represent a different focus within the network related to different network outcomes. The four stages distinguished are network formation, struggle for stability, network routinization and network extension. In each stage there is a different focus within the network and therefore the network is likely to result in different outcomes. The first stage is characterized by getting to know partners, increasing trust among them, setting norms and values and creating commitment (Mandell & Keast, 2008, 725). In the second stage commitment is built and legitimacy enhanced. In the third stage networks are likely to decrease transaction costs and the networks existence is accepted. In the fourth stage organizations are committed to the whole, they accept that network goals overrule individual ones (Mandell & Keast, 2008, pp. 725-726). In addition, networks are likely to perform on a long term basis (Keast, Mandell, Brown, Woolcock, 2004, p. 367). This means that tangible outcomes cannot always show to what extent the network is effective. Determining network effectiveness is a rather complicated task. The main argument of Mandell and Keast (2008) is that a network should be evaluated through non-traditional criteria of effectiveness. They focus on the process of the network, thus the evolution of relationships highlight the effectiveness of the network (Mandell & Keast 2008, pp. 728-729).
Concluding, to get a clear view on network effectiveness the evaluation method should contain all three levels of analysis, several points in time, and both tangible as well as intangible
network outcomes. However, it is not feasible within the time frame of this thesis to assess a comprehensive evaluation method. I focus on one level of analysis, namely the network level. Furthermore, just one point in time will be used to study security regions. More research should be carried out to complement conclusions of this thesis on network effectiveness of security regions. From here, I will closely look at explanations for effectiveness on the network level in academic literature.
3.7 Network effectiveness
Turrini et al. (2010) reviewed all network literature to create an overview of what is known on network effectiveness. This led to a detailed set of variables and determinants on network effectiveness. Based upon academic literature they distinguish three factors that influence network effectiveness: contextual, structural and functioning factors. These factors fall apart in variables that influence network effectiveness. Figure 3 shows an integral framework of network effectiveness developed by Turrini et al. (2010). Further on, I firstly explain the distinction between the three factors and then I elaborate on the variables and determinants that affect network effectiveness. Note that only variables and determinants at the network level of effectiveness are further discussed in this thesis.
Figure 3: Integrated framework of network effectiveness (Turrini et al., 2010, 546)
Contextual factors consist of a set of variables that come from outside the network, flow into the network and influence the activities of the network. Structural factors are characteristics of the
network itself. These characteristics are for instance arrangements between member organizations, like who is part of the network and which procedures and rules are in effect. The last set of variables that explain network effectiveness derive from the way the network is functioning. This means the extent to which management is able to influence behavior within the network (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 534).
I will start by exploring contextual factors that are strongly related to stability within the network. Stability means that the network is able to move forward without being held back by any external (political or strategic) struggles. The stability of the system can both constrain and increase effectiveness of the network (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 534). On the one hand a network needs to be flexible and dynamic; on the other hand too many changes will worsen the ability to build relationships and policy. A network level variable is the extent to which a network is capable to change its administrative system. According to Page (2003) this is a process in which agents that monitor networks have a better understanding of the success of the network without intensifying control, but through upstream process improvements by the network (Page, 2003, p. 320). Thus, creating processes in the administrative system through which the network itself provides the instruments to be controlled by organizations is an innovative means that enhances effectiveness. The main sources for stability are the reception of resources and support for the network by its own participants. At the network level, the variable resource munificence consists of two indicators. The first is the availability of local financial resources. The expectation is that more financial resources result in a better ability for the network to achieve goals. In fact, financial resources increase the capacity of an organization or network. Another indicator is the provision of technical assistance systems by the network’s broker. These technical assistance systems improve effectiveness by sharing skills within the network. The second variable at the network level is cohesion and support by participants. Academics expect that previous collaborative efforts result in goal achievement. Although academics still discuss why previous collaborative arrangements improve networks, they point towards the building of social capital which increased trust and reciprocity of participants (Turrini et al. 2010, p. 540).
proposition1: A network that operates through bottom-up processes of administration is more
able to innovate and change
proposition2: The more local financial resources available for the network the more it will be able
to achieve its goals
proposition3: The provision of technical assistance systems will improve the networks viability and
sustainability
proposition4: Previous collaborative arrangements will positively influence the capacity to achieve
There are six structural characteristics that influence network effectiveness. The first variable is external control. A network supplies a certain area, and to some extent this can be an electoral area. To what extent does the network relate to the electorate? Previous research has showed that scrutiny enhances the ability to achieve goals (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 541). For instance, direct financial control leads to less squandering of funds. Provan and Milward (1995) pointed out that external control should be direct in order to increase network effectiveness (Provan & Milward, 1995, p.30). The second structural characteristic that influences network effectiveness is the degree of integration among actors. Strong integration especially influences the networks capability to reach goals, but it also strengthens the networks sustainability (Turrini et al. 2010, p. 541). There are two mechanisms that influence the network level performance and they also indicate the extent of integration. These indicators are the presence of shared information and communication systems, and the occurrence of shared administrative activities (such as planning, marketing and funding). Furthermore, integration of members is indicated by the strength of relationships and to what extent the collaboration brings together skills which effectuate the networks ability to achieve goals. This is also called synergy between participants (Turrini et al, 2010, p. 541).
Another characteristic, related to integration, is the size and composition of a network. There are two indicators that play a role at the network level of effectiveness. The first is the capability of the network to cease growth of the network. It is likely that success of the network will attract other organizations towards the network and consequently the network will gain more political power (Provan & Milward, 2001, p. 418). However, the network will become inefficient when too many organizations are included and coordination costs rise. With regard to the number of participating organizations, the network is expected to be effective when it is not too large, but also not too small. The most beneficial number of organizations in the network is not known, but coordination costs will grow with each new member that is assigned to the network (Provan & Lemaire, 2010, 644). Furthermore, a second indicator is the heterogeneity of membership in the network. Differences between partners in objectives and goals lead to conflicts and bargaining, and eventually they might also lead to higher coordination costs (Brown, O'Toole, Brudney, 1998, p. 505). Turrini et al. (2010) conclude that both these indicators positively relate to the achievement of goals and sustainability (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 542). The fourth characteristic is formalization and accountability of the network. Formalization means certain rules and procedures that are in effect in the network. These kind of mechanisms structure the way the network functions (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 542). At the network level the indicator that influences network effectiveness is the formal communication of network outcomes. Using ongoing explicit outcome measurement methods can increase all dimensions of network effectiveness, goal achievement, sustainability and innovation. Accountability is reached by presenting annual reports wherein performance is explained. Additionally, accountability is also enhanced when community voices are included and then are committed to network results from their own position in the network. Therefore, the incorporation of community
voices is also an indicator for accountability. The fifth and final characteristic is the inner stability of the network. The inner stability basically involves the stability of personnel in the network. Hence, it is indicated by the length of time an official takes a position in the network. The expectation is that a significant length in office creates the opportunity to develop relationships and therefore increase the ability to attain goals and for the network to be viable. A second indicator of inner stability is what in literature is called multiplexity. Multiplexity is the strength of ties between participants in the network. Strengthening these ties enhances innovation of the network, especially because these links gives the individual organizations access to new technologies and knowledge (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 543)(Goes and Park, 1997, pp. 693-694).
proposition5: Scrutiny through state agency control leads to an increased ability to achieve goals
proposition6: Scrutiny is more effective when it is direct than at an arm’s length
proposition7: Organizing joint activities increases the network’s capacity to achieve goals
proposition8: Shared information and communication systems increase both viability and goal
achievement
proposition9: When synergy between partners is present the network will be more capable to
achieve goals
proposition10: Capping the growth of the network increases goal achievement and the network
becomes more sustainable
proposition11: Carefully selecting new partners based upon heterogeneity increases goal
achievement and sustainability
proposition12: Using ongoing explicit outcome measurements increases goal achievement,
sustainability and innovation of the network
proposition13: Incorporating community voices in partnerships increases the capacity to achieve
goals and the sustainability
proposition14: A sufficient length in time in office increases the network’s ability to achieve goals
and to be viable
proposition15: Strong institutional, structural and resource links increase the capacity to
innovate the network
According to the public management approach there are certain managerial actions that increase network effectiveness (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 543). Managerial actions are circumscribed as functioning factors. Four variables have an impact on the success of the network. First of all, managers in the network need to possess managerial skills that are essential for managing traditional organizations. For instance, they need to motivate their personnel and communicate about actions and performance (Turrini et al., 2010, p 543). Soft consequences linked to performance are positively related to innovation of the network. According to Page (2003) these consequences are not, like in singular organizations, distinct incentives such as financial sanctions. The consequences in collaborative arrangements are soft consequences like public documentation to increase transparency.
This kind of public documentation reveals the added value of the partner organization to the community (Page, 2003, p. 329). Secondly, managers should have management capacity of implementing suitable administration and processes. The presupposition is that this will lead to a higher capacity to achieve goals. And thirdly, these managers should also be able to improve or decide on the appropriateness of the service delivered. This means that the manager is able to make a decision on which services are really necessary for the community or clients to be delivered, and which are consequently not (Provan & Milward, 2001, p. 418). As a network it is still not always possible to provide every service imaginable, then the network will become inefficient. The academic proposition is that the ability to decide on the appropriateness of the services delivered positively influences the sustainability of the network. The second variable of functioning factors is generic networking. It means that a manager is able to facilitate interactions in the network. Network managers have to steer people who are not directly in their command chain (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 543). A network level indicator is the time spent outside the manager’s own organization, actually interacting with others. This managerial behavior is expected to improve sustainability, but also stimulate innovation and change (Turrini et al., 2010, p. 544). A third competency of managers is to buffer instability and nurture stability. Public managers should be able to bridge, convince, to structure and to commit. The expectation is that the network will improve on all dimensions of network effectiveness. The fourth and final variable is that public managers should exercise strong leadership to steer the network. Three indicators of this functioning variable are leadership through steering the operating context, activating appropriate actors and resources, and making ethical decisions which are supposed to positively influence all dimensions of network effectiveness (Turrini et. al., 2010, pp. 544-545).
proposition16: When managers are able to motivate personnel by imposing soft consequences upon
them, the network will be more innovative and changeable
proposition17: When managers are competent the network will better achieve its goals
proposition18: When managers spend time interacting in the network the network will be more
innovative and changeable
proposition19: When managers are able to decide what services are appropriate for the network,
the network will become more sustainable
proposition20: When managers are able to solve tensions, arrange meetings, interact, blend
participants, it will positively influence goal attainment, innovation and sustainability.
proposition21: The manager’s capability of buffering instability and nurturing stability will lead to
goal attainment, sustainability and innovation
proposition22: strong leadership by influencing perceptions, rules, procedures and values in the
propostition23: strong leadership by activating skills and people will lead to goal attainment,
sustainability and innovation
proposition24: strong leadership by making ethical responsible decisions will improve goal
achievement and sustainability
In this chapter network theory has been elaborated to provide a definition and understanding of why and how networks emerged. Several types were distinguished based on different aspects like integration and governance forms. It was shown what complicates managing a network form of organization. And finally, knowledge on how to evaluate networks and what factors influence its success were discussed. This thesis seeks to find explanations for performances of two security regions in their task to provide coordinated crisis and disaster control. Within the two cases of this study, the security bureaus are responsible for coordinated crisis and disaster control. The security bureau is a network organization, in which all partners together try to achieve better emergency services than they would have provided by themselves. Effectiveness of a network is a rather complex concept. Since networks are changeable over time, network effectiveness will also differ from time to time. Furthermore, effectiveness of a network can be viewed from different perspectives. This thesis will explain network effectiveness at the network level of analysis. Turrini et al. (2010) provided a theoretical framework based upon all previous research on network effectiveness, including variables and indicators at the network level. This framework can be applied to the two cases in this research thesis. From these variables it can be said whether they do or do not explain the network effectiveness of coordination between emergency services. The next chapter will closely look at this framework, explain how the data was collected, and how variables were made visible through indicators that lead to interview questions.
4 Methodological Framework
This chapter shows how this research was carried out. It exposes a methodological framework by which effectiveness of coordinated crisis and disaster control was determined and explanations were found.
4.1 Goal and strategy
The main goal of this research thesis is to explain what factors influence network effectiveness of security regions. This goal is mainly of practical relevance. It could help security regions to focus on certain aspects that enhance their network effectiveness. It also determines effectiveness in the current situations of security regions Brabant-Noord and Gelderland-Zuid. Thus, these two regions could use conclusions on their performance to improve their own network organizations.
The research was conducted through a multiple case study, since two cases were explored. By addressing two cases the conclusions of this thesis might be generalizable to security regions as a whole. This is an advantage compared to studying just one case. The two cases were selected by the method of similarity. This means that the situation under research was regarded similar in both cases. The units of analysis and arguments for their selection are further explained in the following paragraph.
4.2 Objects of analysis
The objects of analysis of this research thesis were two security regions, namely Security Region Brabant-Noord and Security Region Gelderland-Zuid. These two regions were selected because they seemed to contain strong similarities. It is especially interesting to see whether similar regions have differences in network effectiveness and what explanations can be found for these differences. Security Region Brabant-Noord and Gelderland-Zuid are similar in their geographical location. Both are situated alongside the river Maas, which also means that the risk calculation leads to priority of flooding of the river. However, it has to be recognized that the northern region, Security Region Gelderland-Zuid, also contains flood risks from other rivers, more than the southern region of the two. Furthermore, both of the regions have one relatively large city (‘s-Hertogenbosch and Nijmegen) in their region and a lot of small or medium-sized municipalities. Additionally, the number of municipalities involved is quite similar, twenty1 in Security Region Brabant-Noord compared to eighteen in Security Region Gelderland-Zuid.
In this research there was specifically a focus on crisis and disaster response. This is just one specific task of the security regions. They also take care of the regional organization of the firefighting force, medical assistance, and information processes. Crisis response particularly is a 1 There will be nineteen municipalities in Security Region Brabant-Noord from 2015 onwards, because of a reorganization of
