Negotiated Agreement(s) as a Means of local-level Crisis Management
An indicative case study on the functions of a voluntary crisis management agreement at the municipality of Gronau (Westf.), Germany
by
Lennart Heimbach s1208926
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, program Public Administration, University of Twente
2019
Supervisors:
Dr. P. J. Klok, University of Twente Dr. A.J.J. Meershoek, University of Twente
R. Hoff, Municipality of Gronau (Public Order & Safety Dept.)
The author would like to reserve special thanks to the municipality of Gronau and his practical tutor Mr.
Hoff for their willingness to participate in this project. Moreover, I am highly grateful to my academic
tutors, Mr. Klok & Mr. Meershoek, for their supervision and valuable feedback at several moments in
time throughout the project. Lastly, I would like to articulate my appreciation for the LaTeX-Community,
without whom it would not have been possible to present the project in the beautiful way it currently is.
Abstract
Modern crisis management (CM) faces increasingly severe consequences of climate change, with the poorest populations often the most vulnerable. Accordingly, we argue that CM deals with similar policy challenges as modern environmental governance, namely (1) significant steering capacities of policies and (2) the sourcing & availability of policy-relevant information to tackle uncertainty about future climate developments. In this regard, environmental negotiated agreements have been proven especially fruitful in the Netherlands and beyond (Bressers, De Bruijn, & Lulofs, 2009). Hence, translating scientific knowledge on environmental governance and related policy implementation processes to CM settings could help policy-makers formulate effective disaster governance strategies aiding the effectiveness of crisis preparations, without needing to invest equal resources and time.
Contextual Interaction Theory (CIT) has been proven to effectively conceptualise and explain gover- nance outcomes in Dutch sustainability management contexts (Bressers & De Boer, 2011). The imple- mentation of a recent CM harmonisation law in the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia allows us to apply the theory in a local-level disaster governance context and test the effectiveness of a negotiated CM agreement. We employ Elinor Ostrom’s IAD framework to structure our institutional analysis and conceptualise how disaster governance processes can lead to strengthened CM capacities.
We found that CM in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia is, similar to other settings (Aysan & Lavell, 2014), heavily institutionalised in terms of traditional core actors. Accordingly, local network structures are coherent, but highly inaccessible to parties outside this legal framework, which contradicts findings on the benefits of broad actor involvement (Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2007;
Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010; Tierney, 2012; Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall, Cutter, &
Nguyen, 2014). Due to the partners’ strongly legitimised positions, concerns over transparency and
accountability, moreover, form the limitations to flexible governance processes. However, our survey
results (n = 8) indicate that negotiated CM agreements could indeed offer long-term solutions to these
issues in terms of relational governance factors, such as mutual understanding, the use of common
terminologies, organisational learning, improvements to formal and informal relations, on the one hand,
as well as overall information management capacities, on the other. With time limiting our analysis, we
believe these expectations regarding relational aspects point to the initiation of a new process of policy
and network-level resource development.
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 1
2 Theory 3
2.1 Crisis Management as a field of Governance . . . . 3
Crisis mitigation as a public service delivery . . . . 5
Policy effectiveness at the network level of CM . . . . 6
2.2 Policy-making in the CIT framework . . . . 7
Earlier policy decisions as drivers for institutionalisation . . . . 8
Network qualities as structural-context variables . . . . 9
2.3 Variables of interest & their alleged relations . . . . 11
3 Method 14 3.1 Strategy & Design . . . . 14
Institutional context analysis . . . . 15
Cooperative context analysis . . . . 15
Covenant performance in CM settings . . . . 15
3.2 Data collection methods & Data analysis . . . . 16
Law & Document analysis . . . . 16
Workshop Poll . . . . 17
Survey . . . . 17
4 Results 20 4.1 Geo-Legal circumstances of CM in Gronau . . . . 20
German Disaster Control before German unification (1968) . . . . 20
CM devolution after German unification (1998) . . . . 22
Modern CM governance in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (2015) . . . . 27
Institutional development of CM in Germany . . . . 30
Local geographical circumstances shaping CM preparations in Gronau . . . . 31
4.2 Network governance qualities at Gronau municipality . . . . 32
Extent of strategic crises preparation cooperation . . . . 32
Coherence of strategic crises preparation cooperation . . . . 33
Flexibility of strategic crises preparation cooperation . . . . 34
Intensity of strategic crises preparation cooperation . . . . 35
Network governance qualities at Gronau . . . . 36
4.3 The agreement’s effects on supportive CM tasks . . . . 37
5 Conclusion 39
References 42
Appendix A - Disaster specific GAT 45
Appendix B - Completed GAT 46
Appendix C - Survey items 47
Appendix D - Survey results 48
List of Abbreviations
BHKG Gesetz ¨uber den Brandschutz, die Hilfeleistung und den Katastrophenschutz CIT Contextual Interaction Theory
CM Crisis Management
FB Fire Brigade
FSHG Gesetz ¨uber den Feuerschutz und die Hilfeleistung GAT Governance Assessment Tool
IAD Institutional Analysis & Development Framework IM Independent Municipality
(E)NA (Environmental) Negotiated Agreement
SSP Sonderschutzplan (Disaster Management Plan)
UNDP United Nations Development Program
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In 2017 the world has experienced one of its most relentless years on record in terms of disasters, witnessing numerous severe weather events such as hurricanes, typhoons, floods and wildfires (Swiss Re Institute, 2018). A total of 335 natural disasters affected 95.6 million people, with an estimated 9.697 deaths and many displaced (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, 2018). On top of the human detriment, economic damages reached an estimated $337bn - an increase of 63% compared to the preceding year - with man-made disasters accounting for only $7bn (Swiss Re Institute, 2018).
As average global temperatures are projected to rise (NASA, 2010; IPCC, 2018), many expect such extreme events to occur more frequently and severely (Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006; Artiningsih, Setyono, &
Yuniartanti, 2016). In turn, these impact populations unequally across the socio-economic scale, with less developed communities most vulnerable to severe events (Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006; Norris et al., 2007; Groven, Aall, Van den Berg, Carlsson-Kanyama, & Coenen, 2012; Aysan & Lavell, 2014) and their administrative structures least capable of delivering community services (Gall et al., 2014). On the one hand, these developments lie at the core of modern climate change debates to sustain a liveable habitat for future generations. On the other hand, they dictate a strong context for forthcoming crisis management (CM) preparations (Aysan & Lavell, 2014) as affected societies and their governments will face rising economic costs (NASA, 2010; IPCC, 2018) and increased scrutiny (Aysan & Lavell, 2014).
Hence, CM appears deeply interwoven with modern environmental management as it is confronted with the increasing consequences of unsustainable behaviour (Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006; Groven et al., 2012; Tierney, 2012; Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014; IPCC, 2018). Whereas research on the structural antecedents of policy effectiveness in environmental management is extensive, however, such a systematic approach is sparse in disaster governance literature (Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014).
Bressers (1999) argues that sustainability management faces three central challenges, namely (1) legitimacy, (2) steering capacity, and (3) policy-relevant information. Policy-makers, in turn, have two ways of dealing with uncertainty, with some avoiding uncertainty (science) while others are more open to learning from mutual experiences (flexibility & decentralisation) (Arentsen, Bressers, & O’Toole, 2000;
Aysan & Lavell, 2014). Overall, networking can be regarded advantageous under these circumstances (Jones, Hesterly, & Borgatti, 1997; Provan & Miward, 2001; Bressers, 2004; Aysan & Lavell, 2014), with negotiated agreements (or ’covenants’) proving especially fruitful in achieving sustainability goals in the Netherlands and beyond (Bressers et al., 2009).
Due to its interdependency with climate change processes, therefore, we believe CM faces identical
challenges within a multi-scale (horizontal/vertical/over time) environment (Bressers & Rosenbaum,
2003; Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006; Kapucu et al., 2010; Tierney, 2012; Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014), namely (1) effectiveness (steering capacity) (Kapucu et al., 2010; Gall et al., 2014) as well as (2) dealing with uncertainty (policy-relevant information) (Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014) in times of informal information structures (Norris et al., 2007) and public service deliveries through semi-governmental networks (Jones et al., 1997; Provan & Miward, 2001) - the latter is commonly referred to as ’disaster governance’ in CM literature (Tierney, 2012; Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014). Similar to sustainability management, flexibility, and organisational learning are desirable dur- ing disaster mitigation efforts (Norris et al., 2007; Kapucu et al., 2010; Tierney, 2012; Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014), too, when crises ”cause heavy losses to capital assets, disrupt production and the flow of goods and services in the affected economy” (Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006, p.217; Tierney, 2012).
If these correlative assumptions hold true, and with decentralisation a central topic of disaster gover- nance (Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014; Artiningsih et al., 2016), too, transferring knowledge and translating theoretical insights could prove beneficial in terms of preparing communities and their administrations while saving time and costs (Gall et al., 2014). Contextual Interaction Theory (CIT) (Bressers, 2004; Bressers & De Boer, 2011), constructed upon evidence from environmental policies, appears to be such a theory. The implementation of a harmonisation law (’Law on fire control, assistance, and disaster control’) on the organisation of regional and local CM structures by the German Land (read
’state’) of North Rhine-Westphalia in 2015, allows us to apply the theory in a local disaster governance set- ting at the municipality of Gronau and investigate the possible functioning of a negotiated CM agreement.
Accordingly, the following central research question will guide our case study:
Can a negotiated agreement enhance perceived performance of crisis preparation efforts in the relevant institutional and governance contexts of the municipality of Gronau, and how (not)?
To answer this question, the following sub-questions will structure our approach:
1. How has local crisis management been institutionalised in Germany and North Rhine-Westphalia?
2. How do cooperative crisis preparation efforts at the municipality of Gronau currently take shape within the local network of relevant crisis partners?
3. How does a negotiated agreement between local crisis management partners contribute to crisis preparation efforts at the municipality of Gronau as expected by strategic employees?
In other words, the aim of our field study at the municipality of Gronau, Germany, is to provide indicative
evidence on the suitability of voluntary instruments for improving local CM capacities. More specifically,
we want to instigate a new methodological approach for future disaster governance research. In doing
so, we will first analyse the legal (sub-question 1) and operational (sub-question 2) contexts of such an
agreement, before measuring its performance in an ex-ante evaluation by relevant strategic employees.
CHAPTER 2
THEORY
Our central research question ponders whether a negotiated agreement (NA) can be regarded as an effective tool for facilitating contingent CM capacities, and, if so, in which ways that is the case. Answering this question, however, requires a substantial definition of performance in disaster governance prior to disasters in the first place. In the following section, we will discuss the most recent literature on this topic, conceptualise CM as a public service delivery through semi-governmental networks and relate relevant findings to the broader CIT framework on policy implementation.
Afterwards, we will elaborate relevant institutional and network context variables according this theory (Bressers & De Boer, 2011; Bressers, Bressers, Kuks, & Larrue, 2016) for sub-questions one and two, respectively. We do so, because we believe the framework can contribute to our understanding of policy-making processes in crisis preparation efforts, as discussed in the introduction. We conclude our theoretical chapter with a summary of variables of interest and their alleged relations.
2.1 Crisis Management as a field of Governance
According to Aysan and Lavell (2014), disaster governance takes place across three distinct phases, namely (1) disaster risk reduction, (2) disaster risk preparation, and (3) disaster risk mitigation, with the latter two incorporated in the term CM. As our research focusses on tactical administrative aspects of CM, however, we will ignore aspects of proactive disaster risk reduction.
Tierney (2012), in her review article, describes disaster governance in terms of its social, economic, and political dimensions, which was reverberated by the UNDP (as cited in Aysan & Lavell, 2014). As a starting point, she conceptualises governance in CM in terms of collaborative multi-actor (horizontal), multi-level (vertical) networks (see Bressers & Rosenbaum, 2003; Srikandini, Van Voorst, & Hilhorst, 2018) of coherent sets of actors serving global community interests, namely mitigating disruptions to the functioning of societies. She argues that disaster governance can best be described in terms of (1) the levels & scales involved, (2) the entities participating in the network, and (3) their activities.
Simultaneously, she argues that network cooperation produces benefits crisis preparation and re-
lief efforts, such as cost-efficient resource acquisition or mutual learning before. Interestingly for our
research, Tierney (2012, p.347) points to the ”complexity with respect to scales of activity, variability
with respect to the participation of entities across the temporal phases of the hazards cycle, comprehen-
siveness, and integration across different types,” as structural challenges of CM networks, and argues
that most are still reactive and incomprehensive in kind. Aysan and Lavell (2014) agree and urge practi-
tioners to increase horizontal integration besides recent efforts of vertical administrative decentralisation.
When researching possible contributions of networking behaviour to a community’s ability of dealing with disastrous events, Norris et al. (2007) found earlier that (1) equal economic development, (2) social capital, (3) information & communication resources, and (4) community competences facilitate more resilient communities in terms of redundant resources & rapid response patterns. They argue that these aspects are ideally described as ”adaptive” (see Bressers & De Boer, 2011; Tierney, 2012).
Firstly, fair distribution of economic resources, risks and vulnerabilities enhances the diversity of economic means, and leads to more resilient communities, with poverty and land-use having been identified as ”a key driver of disaster risk” (Aysan & Lavell, 2014, p.15). Furthermore, social embeddedness in terms of formal organisational linkages, informal ties, citizen participation, and a sense of attachment to as well as identification with the broader community contributes to resilience through factually received, but also perceived, social support during crises situations (Norris et al., 2007). These can, in turn, be improved by decentralised CM authorities and resources allowing citizen participation in the formulation and implementation of CM preparation policies according to Aysan and Lavell (2014).
Thirdly, flexible skills and infrastructure (see Kapucu et al., 2010) situated in a broad network of trusted information sources facilitate adaptive information and communication capacities, which allow PR channels to deliver ”communal narratives that give the experience shared meaning and purpose”
(Norris et al., 2007, p. 140). Similarly, critical reflection and problem-solving skills, creativity and flexibility, and political partnerships empowering community action as well as collective efficacy (read governance), can enhance communities’ competences to tackle and process disastrous incidents all together (see also Aysan & Lavell, 2014).
Referring to ’collaborative emergency management’ and taking a network-specific approach, Kapucu (2008) sought to identify factors explaining the effectiveness of preparatory coordination efforts. He similarly describes CM as multi-actor cooperation between government, non-profit and private organ- isations as well as individual citizens (see Bressers & Rosenbaum, 2003; Norris et al., 2007; Tierney, 2012). Kapucu (2008, p. 244) then contemplates that, in times of growing strains on official response organisations, cooperative crisis preparations ”can lead to strengthened organisational relationships that improve effectiveness”.
Furthermore, he argues that an increasing need for coordination between a growing number of actors, the emergence of progressively decentralised public-service networks and mutual learning from experiences encourage crisis partners to share information as well as capital. Underlining his argument, he points to the observation that U.S. authorities which experienced catastrophic events were in general more inclined towards disaster governance through flexible crisis networks (Tierney, Lindell and Perry, 2001; as cited in Kapucu, 2008). Consequently, adapting or improving mutual IT systems, creating trust among actors as well as combining their resources can result in more resilient communities, overall, and improve public preparedness through organisational learning, in particular.
When Kapucu et al. (2010) dove deeper into the theory on possible benefits of disaster governance, they
found that emergency managers can increase interoperability between crisis partners by (1) integrating
incident command structures (technical systems), and (2) coordinating decision-making processes (operational practices). On the one hand, technical integration can improve the frequency and quality of shared information. On the other hand, trust building, consensus reaching, team spirit, mutual understanding and common terminologies can harmonise partner interactions. According to the authors, network governance enhances these competences due to more frequent partner interactions stimulating organisational learning processes. Again these findings are in concordance with general network theory (Jones et al., 1997; Provan & Miward, 2001), and findings from environmental (Bressers & Rosenbaum, 2003) and other disaster governance studies (Aysan & Lavell, 2014).
Crisis preparation & mitigation as a public service delivery
Figure 2.1: Conceptualisation of network performance according to Provan & Milward (2001) Evidently, modern CM can best be described as a community service delivery through semi-hierarchical, multi-level, and multi-actor cooperation networks under public-sector leadership (Tierney, 2012; Aysan
& Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014), which relies heavily on the preparation of a sub-set of contingent capacities prior to disasters (Norris et al., 2007; Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu et al., 2010). Accordingly, the seminal evaluation framework by Provan and Miward (2001) allows us to conceptualise performance of disaster governance efforts across three levels of outcomes (see figure 2.1).
CM networks can be said to first and foremost serve (1) community-level goals such as changes in
the incidence of the problem, aggregate indicators of well-being, social capital as well as decreasing costs
to the community (Provan & Miward, 2001). However, they can only accomplish these by harnessing
(2) network-level benefits such as increasing the range of services as well as their integration, increas-
ing network participation (including citizens in our case), strengthening organisational relationships,
creating stronger commitment to network goals by member organisations, and eliminating duplicate
services. Furthermore, agents will initially join the network only, if they can justify membership towards
their principal. That is the case, if the network serves (3) organisational-level interests including agency
survival, resource acquisition, cost minimisation for services and their delivery, or by providing access to
distinct types of services. Even though our results will focus on network-level goals only, this framework
incentivises the streamlining of future research findings into a coherent scientific approach.
Policy effectiveness at the network level of CM
Community-level goalsNetwork-level goalsOrganisational-levelgoals
Figure 2.2: Policy-making as crisis preparation according to Stolk et al. (2011)
With ”the transformation of outputs into disaster risk reduction outcomes” (Aysan & Lavell, 2014, p.40), frequently overlooked in practical disaster governance efforts, and under-appreciated in CM literature (Gall et al., 2014) in general, Stolk et al. (2011) offer a conceptual solution. They argue that policy-making and capacity building (e.g. the establishment of a NA) along more prominent aspects such as training and exercises, raising community awareness (see Norris et al., 2007), or preparing civil-military cooperation, form ’preparatory tasks’ of CM (see figure 2.2). Capacity building through policy instruments (see also Aysan & Lavell, 2014) is consequently conceptualised to determine, in part, improvements in the provision of tactical-operational ’supporting tasks’ indispensable to crisis mitigation efforts. These include the supply of services and logistics (see Tierney, 2012), the coordination of mutual efforts (see Kapucu, 2008), information management, and sense-making (see Norris et al., 2007; Kapucu et al., 2010).
Here we point to the fact that Stolk et al.’s (2011) list of ’supportive’ CM capacities strongly resembles
our findings on network-level goals (Provan & Miward, 2001) derived from recent disaster governance
literature (see right margin of figure 2.2). Nonetheless, both should be viewed as non-interchangeable
categories, as Stolk et al. (2011) focussed on short-term tactical-operational aspects of CM, whereas
other literature focussed on strategic-administrative aspects of disaster governance. In other words,
network governance and related administrative policy processes can be viewed as strategic preparatory
CM tasks enhancing a network’s supportive capacities to deliver crisis mitigation operations during
emergency situations. According to Kapucu et al. (2010) as well as Aysan and Lavell (2014) we can further
distinguish between inter-organisational and technical ’supportive capacities’ of disaster governance.
2.2 Policy-making in the CIT framework
Figure 2.3: Relevant policy inputs according to Bressers & De Boer (2011) and Bressers et al. (2016)
Contextual Interaction Theory allows us to embed the above conceptualisation in a wider body of literature on policy implementation processes. The theory is aimed at explaining policy formulation and implementation processes in terms of dynamic learning over time based on Bandura’s (1986; as cited in Bressers & De Boer, 2011) Social Cognitive Learning theory. It views policy-making as a process moving from initiation to outcomes via actor interactions in a policy arena. Furthermore, CIT categorises all inputs prior to an instrument’s initiation as external factors impacting on policy outcomes directly, as well as indirectly via the three central actor characteristics motivation, cognitions and resources (see figure 2.3) (Bressers, 2004; Bressers & De Boer, 2011; Bressers et al., 2016).
Conflicting actor interests, risk perceptions and divergent power positions are often perceived as
hindrances to the effective implementation of disaster governance policies, too (Aysan & Lavell, 2014,
p.20). And with disaster governance ”predominantly perceived in terms of outputs and normative
aspects of governance (policies and laws, financing, institutional structures, decentralization, and
platforms), rather than as a complex web of context specific processes and interactions of various
aspects, institutions and actors” (Aysan & Lavell, 2014, p.8), the CIT framework presents an intriguing
case of applicability to the research focus of our study, as it allows us to place our findings in ”an
integral analysis of [the] specific [...] local [context].” Importantly, we limit our research to the direct
effects of a negotiated agreement on strategic CM capacities within its wider legal and institutional
contexts. We will therefore refrain from correlating the effects of contextual inputs on the three actor
characteristics, as this would bereave the theory of its essence - its simplicity in explaining processes
from policy formulation towards policy outcomes.
Earlier policy decisions as drivers for institutionalisation
Figure 2.4: Ostrom’s IAD modell according to Cole (2016)
As a starting point, the framework assumes that policy effectiveness can be explained by a project’s geographic circumstances in terms of the distance between actors and other local circumstances.
Simultaneously, it considers each initiation of a policy instrument a specific context variable, too. This is in line with Aysan & Lavell’s (2014, p.19) argument that case-specific administrative frameworks for issuing policies need to be considered when studying disaster governance efforts because ”policies and laws capture the essence of the ways that national and local governments understand and prioritize disaster and disaster risk matters”. Hence, CM policies need first and foremost be regarded in the context of earlier policy decisions, which determine ”which actors participate to what extent and with what legal resources and expectations” (Bressers & De Boer, 2011, p. 12). According to Elinor Ostrom (Cole, 2016, p. 16), such actor positions are to a large extent determined by previous legislation (see figure 2.4). In other words, actors in an arena can be said to operate within rule structures determined by their legitimised societal roles. We, too, believe that legal structures of administrative institutionalisation in a field of government represent its organic growth in societies over time, with CM originating from efforts to protect civil society from the hazards of warfare (Mayor of Gronau, 2011; Aysan & Lavell, 2014).
Cole (2016) explains how relevant legal documents formulate official positions which may be held by eligible actors according to boundary rules. For each position, choice rules ”prescribe actions actors in positions must, must not, or may take in various circumstances” (Cole, 2016, p. 16), while aggregation rules determine procedures by which decisions may be taken (either alone or in aggregation). Furthermore, information rules stipulate obligations, permissions, or prohibitions for the flow of information from and towards certain positions. Lastly, scope rules ”delimit the range of possible outcomes” (Cole, 2016, p.
16), while pay-off rules reward or sanction certain actions and outcomes. All in all, this methodology allows
researchers to grasp the extent of and qualitatively compare different institutional arenas. According to
Aysan and Lavell (2014) understanding such formal institutions is crucial to delivering effective disaster
governance policies.
Network qualities as structural-context variables
Aysan and Lavell (2014, p.14) furthermore argue that the ”[organisational] basis for the implementation of disaster risk management,” carries important implications for how policies take shape and are im- plemented, too, which is especially true for ”[...] practitioner networks” (Aysan & Lavell, 2014, p.20).
Such governance networks are incorporated into the CIT framework as structural contexts (Bressers &
De Boer, 2011). According to the authors, these can best be described in terms of multi-level, multi-actor environments (see Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu et al., 2010; Tierney, 2012, Aysan & Lavell, 2014, Gall et al., 2014) dealing with a multiplicity of issue perceptions and beliefs by deploying diverse strategies and instruments distributing responsibilities as well as relevant resources flexibly (see Bressers et al., 2016).
This conceptualisation strongly mirrors findings from disaster governance apparently, with Tierney (2012) defining CM networks in terms of levels and scales, participating entities, and activities. Whereas Bressers and De Boer (2011) identified five structural governance dimensions, namely (1) levels & scales, (2) networks & actors, (3) perspectives & goals, (4) strategies & instruments, and (5) responsibilities
& resources (see also Bressers et al., 2016), however, their latter three dimensions together strongly resemble Tierney’s (2012) third aspect of activities.
When the authors researched possible determinants of effective environmental policies, they identified four quality criteria, namely (1) extent, (2) coherence, (3) flexibility, and (4) intensity which each relate to all governance dimensions simultaneously (see Bressers and Kuks, 2004; De Boer & Bressers, 2011;
Kuks et al., 2012; Bressers et al., 2013, 2015; as cited in Bressers et al., 2016, p. 54). These can again be compared to similar research findings on disaster governance using slightly different terminology, but conveying similar notions of meaning, namely complexity, integration, variability, and comprehensive- ness as discussed previously. We will shortly discuss these similarities and how they relate to each other.
According to Bressers et al. (2016, p. 16) the extent criterion ”refers to the completeness of the regime,”
as characterised by the number of regulated target groups and involved implementers. Conversely, Bressers and De Boer (2011) and Bressers et al. (2016) identified complexity (Norris et al., 2007; Ka- pucu, 2008) as the root cause of extent governance regimes in environmental policy studies. As ”a lack of technical capacity or access to resources can hinder disaster risk reduction planning at the local level”, extensive disaster governance regimes are widely argued to enhance representativeness, particularly in local settings (Gall et al., 2014), as well as available resources (Aysan & Lavell, 2014, p.21).
Simultaneously, clearly assigned roles and responsibilities help safeguard accountability within complex governance structures (Aysan & Lavell, 2014), which is reflected in the GAT, too.
Furthermore, coherence describes the degree to which various levels & scales, networks & actors,
perspectives & goals, strategies & instruments as well as responsibilities & resources reinforce rather
than obstruct each other (Bressers & De Boer, 2011; Bressers et al., 2016). In their view coherent
large-extent regimes outperform more fragmented ones of the same scope, as stronger fragmentation
allegedly facilitates divergent actor goals, higher uncertainty as well as more power stalemates and inhibits trust (see also Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014). Whereas Kapucu et al. (2010), Aysan and Lavell (2014) and Srikandini et al. (2018) refer to the term ’integration’, however, Bressers and De Boer (2011, p. 16) argue that it ”implicitly or explicitly includes an increase in the domain of the regime”. For this, they advocate the term ’coherence’ to ensure conceptual clarity.
The need for coherence in large-extent regimes becomes apparent, when inspecting disaster gover- nance efforts in developing countries where quantitative network growth hampered performance rather than promote it (Srikandini et al., 2018). Furthermore, as local disaster risks often arise from supra-local processes, ”it will require governance arrangements that allow synergy and negotiation between diverse interest groups”, if disaster governance efforts are to be successful Aysan and Lavell (2014, p.7).
Flexibility, or adaptiveness, as a structural determinant for the success of inclusive governance structures (see Bressers & De Boer, 2011; Bressers et al., 2016) has similarly been discussed in disaster governance literature, either as a community competence (Norris et al., 2007), or as a factor impacting on perfor- mance in decentralised coordination structures directly (Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu et al., 2010; Aysan &
Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014; Srikandini et al., 2018). The concept of flexibility is defined in terms of actors’ formal and informal liberties as well as related behavioural incentives, and is best be described as
”the degree to which the regime elements support and facilitate adaptive actions and strategies in as far as the integrated ambitions are served by this adaptiveness” (Bressers & De Boer, 2011, p. 29).
Flexibility is a central concern for decentralisation efforts in modern CM as some cases have been demonstrated to ”exhibit a tendency for the state to retain central power and marginalise non-state actors,” (Srikandini et al., 2018, p.187) (see also Aysan & Lavell, 2014, p.21; Artiningsih et al., 2016).
Moreover, organisational learning and local capacity building often touted as crucial advantages of adaptive disaster governance regimes (Norris et al., 2007; Kapucu, 2008; Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014). While the pooling of responsibilities and resources as an underlying process in complex networks has been widely recognised as an opportunity (Bressers & De Boer, 2011), however, it has conversely been found to bear negative implications for transparency and accountability in disaster governance settings, with few suitable instruments available (Aysan & Lavell, 2014). This view is, again, reflected in the GAT.
Concerning these issues, the extent of social capital as well as the degree and equality of economic development (see Norris et al., 2007) are regarded safeguards to the successful implementation of decentralisation policies (Olum, 2014, as cited in Aysan & Lavell, 2014) in regimes that allow mem- ber organisation to execute their own responsibilities and develop individual capacities autonomously (Bressers et al., 2016). In other words, while the devolution of power has been touted as a driver of accountable government action (Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006; Aysan & Lavell, 2014; Gall et al., 2014), transparency needs to be acknowledged as a constraint on flexibility in disaster governance.
Lastly, it is debatable whether disaster governance literature has considered intensity as a structural
determinant of regime performance. We argue, however, that Tierney’s (2012) and Aysan & Lavell’s (2014) remarks on comprehensive disaster governance regimes carry similar notions to Bressers & De Boer’s (2011, p.30) definition, namely ”[the] degree to which the regime elements urge changes in the status quo or in current developments”.
Looking in from a CM perspective, we argue that coordination systems can only be comprehensive, if strong cooperation between crisis partners and a mutual drive for improvements bring forward ambitious goals for future preparation efforts (learning from experiences) (Gall et al., 2014). Aysan and Lavell (2014), in turn, claim that ambitious and far-reaching goals need to be facilitated with ”dedicated and adequate resources” (Aysan & Lavell, 2014, p.18) at the local level to promote legitimacy, effective outcomes and allocative efficiency (see also Gall et al., 2014). Again, such considerations are represented in the GAT.
The above demonstrates that research on the underlying organisational causes of effective crisis miti- gation efforts have significant conceptual overlap with the CIT frameworks definition of governance quality. Flexibility and intensity are desirable network qualities in case change and resource development are desired when preparing and implementing mitigatory measures (see Norris et al., 2007; Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu et al., 2010; Tierney, 2012). Extensive and coherent network regimes, on the other hand, are most desirable, when policy implementers wish to stabilise a situation (Bressers et al., 2016). This is often the case during and after crises situations (see Norris et al., 2007; Stolk et al., 2011; Tierney, 2012).
As a result, we believe the Governance Assessment Tool (GAT) derived from sustainability management research (see appendix A) (Bressers et al., 2016), represents a useful measurement tool for determining the quality of Gronau’s local CM networks.
2.3 Variables of interest & their alleged relations
Streamlining the three models of Provan and Miward (2001), Stolk et al. (2011), Bressers and De Boer (2011), and Bressers et al. (2016) into a single theoretical framework on the role of policy-making in disaster governance, we achieve a coherent picture of our conceptualisation (see table 2.1). With respect to our central research question, we are interested in a multitude of variables. Sub-question 1 establishes the institutional context of local CM efforts at the municipality of Gronau, including policy-internal goals, formal actor positions and their attributed legal powers, responsibilities, and formalised resource dispositions according to Cole’s (2016) substantiation of Ostrom’s IAD framework.
Secondly, at the network level, the four network criteria extent, flexibility, coherence, and intensity
serve as indicators for the quality of the local governance regime. Concerning the extent-row in the GAT
(appendix A), it is desirable for a diversity of government institutions and private entities be involved
as well as their various problem perceptions be considered in decision-making processes. Furthermore,
application of multiple policy instruments as well as clearly assigned responsibilities facilitated by
sufficient resources are desirable for producing effective policy outcomes in terms of capacity, resources,
and representation.
[D isa ste r Ri sk M itig ati on ] [Di sa ste r Ris k P re pa ra tio n] [Dis aste r Risk Re du ctio n]
Specific context: - negotiated agreement - specific case circumstances
Po licy Ef fe ct iv en ess A ct o r ar ena
IN PUTS OUTPUTS O rgani sat ional -lev el goal s:
- agency survival - resource acquisition - cost minimisation - access to other servicesN et w or k- lev el goa ls:
- range of services - service integration - network participation - org. relationships - member commitment - eliminating duplicate servicesC om m uni ty -lev el goa ls:
- changes in problem incidence - aggr. indicators well-being - public social capital - decreasing community costsS tr u ct u ra l ( n et wo rk ) co n te xt : - E xt en t - C oh er en ce - F le xi bi lit y - In te n si ty .. .o f 5 g ov er na n ce di m en si on s
S uppor tiv e C M t as ks:
Inter-organisational: - resource development/acquisition (services & logistics) - social capital - interoperability (consensus reaching, team spirit, mutual understanding, org. learning & relationships, trust)T
echnical: - information managementO per at iv e C M t as ks:
- crisis mitigation (on-site) - search & rescue - security/law enforcement - evacuation & shelter - public relations - health services - after care3 1
2
S to lk et a l. (2 01 1) P ro va n & M ilw ard ( 2 00 2)
Bre sse rs et al.(
201 1, 20 16 )
P repar at or y C M t as ks :
- policy-making- pocure/ maintain/ warehousing - awareness raising- doctrine/procedure development - evaluation- training & exercises - prepare civil-military coop.A ysa n & L av el l (2 01 4 ) Table 2.1: Graphical representation of our theoretical framework incl. the three measurement moments
Considering the coherence of the regime, constructive cooperation, and trust between the levels involved are favourable qualities of a CM network. This would be characterised by frequent interactions in institutionalised structures which facilitate synergistic problem perspectives and goal ambitions. As cooperative strategic planning resolves conflicts between instruments as well as competence struggles between actors (Bressers et al., 2016), we argue it facilitates coordination and organisational learning, and improves social capital as well as overall information management.
The ability to move up and down different levels, for new actors to get involved in crisis preparation efforts, and to share social capital in the network (flexibility) represents the networks capacity to provide supportive CM tasks adaptive to the crisis situation at hand. Furthermore, optimisation of multiple goals in cooperative arrangements, combination and availability of multiple instruments, the ability to pool responsibilities and resources as well sharing social capital can be expected to facilitate efficiency in resource acquisition and continued organisational learning.
Lastly, a strong drive by a certain level of government, organisation or actor (coalition) towards more ambitious goals can be expected to produce policy innovation and improve crisis preparation efforts. This urge should be reflected in the instruments deployed in that they incentivise and allocate sufficient resources to such measures (see again Appendix A). That environmental negotiated agreements were found to stimulate broad sector representation, mutual understanding, collaboration between government and target groups, resource efficiency through allocation of obligations and phasing in time as well as more ambitious goals, points to the potential of voluntary CM regulation, too.
Sub-question 3, then, deals with the question whether or not a negotiated agreement facilitates con- tingent inter-organisational and technical supportive tasks of CM according to disaster governance literature. On the one hand, we would expect a covenant between the crisis partner organisations to contribute positively to the development and availability of network resources (Norris et al., 2007;
Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu et al., 2010; Stolk et al., 2011), the efficient acquisition of resources (Provan
& Miward, 2001; Kapucu et al., 2010; Tierney, 2012), the development of social capital (Norris et al., 2007), and improvements to inter-organisational relations (or trust) (Provan & Miward, 2001; Norris et al., 2007), too. Furthermore, we argue that the partners’ interoperability in terms of consensus reaching, team spirit, mutual understanding (shared common language) (Kapucu et al., 2010; Stolk et al., 2011), and organisational learning (Norris et al., 2007; Tierney, 2012) as well as the broader community’s competence in terms of citizen participation (Norris et al., 2007) can be furthered by such a network-level agreement.
On the other hand, we expect the agreement to improve the quality of as well as the frequency with
which information is shared among the partners (Kapucu, 2008; Stolk et al., 2011) as well as the network’s
overall ability to process information (Kapucu et al., 2010; Stolk et al., 2011). Simultaneously, governance
instruments such as our agreement could feasibly increase the number of trusted information sources
available in the network (Norris et al., 2007) through improving social capital, as well as contributing to
the overall trust in and accessibility to already existing information sources (Kapucu et al., 2010).
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
The aim of our case study is to transfer knowledge from environmental policy research to a CM context and explore arguments in favour or against the use of governance instruments during crisis preparation.
In doing so, we will provide analysis of the case-specific circumstances and network conditions under which such a policy tool is applied, before measuring the agreement’s expected performance. Employing a qualitative research design, we aim to provide results meaningful in the context at hand. Due to the limited amount of available observations in the local CM context of the municipality of Gronau, our results should not be over-generalised. In other words, we base our findings on a simple, but valid, sample of public as well as private organisation representatives with strategic-level insights involved in the local preparations for catastrophic events.
Meanwhile, whether or not our findings indicate the validity of the CIT framework in a CM context, will be elaborated further in the discussion part of this thesis, too. As our methodology is thoroughly grounded in an extensive body of literature, however, we believe our overall design to be reliable and internally consistent in a qualitative field setting. Table 3.1 at the end of this chapter summarises our operationalisation according to theory across the three sub-questions.
3.1 Strategy & Design
Employing a qualitative research design moving from descriptive content analysis towards a measure
of covenant performance, we sought to involve our participants and their field insights to the greatest
extent possible in order to guarantee for the validity of our findings. A total of six organisations were
involved in the process of the agreement, including the municipality’s network manager, Gronau’s fire
brigade (FB), a private plant fire brigade, the local police representation, the local Red Cross Federation’s
representation, and the local division of the German Federal Technical Relief Organisation (THW). We
reached out to this sample via the municipality’s network to ensure sustained interest and participation
in our project for the period of six months. We share the network manager’s sentiment that this sample
reflects Gronau’s day-to-day CM business fairly well, but were surprised to see less institutionalised
actor coalitions, e.g. health and critical infrastructure sectors, not represented at the workshop. We will
elaborate further on this topic in the results section for sub-question 2. Meanwhile, our study begins with
a thorough analysis of relevant legal documents, before a subsequent disaster governance workshop
involving these correspondent partner organisations rounded off our network analysis. Our empirical
design concludes with an ex-ante evaluation of the agreement’s contributions to current CM capacities.
Institutional context analysis
Answering the first sub-question, we provide legal-institutional analysis of local CM organisation at the municipality in a first of its kind and give a thorough description of the agreement’s implementation context in terms of the CIT framework. That is, we first describe policy-specific context variables in terms of legal operational rules by analysing three relevant laws reaching back to the late 1960s, when the relevance of military protection slowly degraded and CM in Germany was reorganised to provide civil protection from man-made and natural disasters. In doing so, we gain insights into the organisations’
legal decision-making context and delineate an institutional arena according to Ostrom’s IAD framework.
Hence, the legal-institutional arena forms the unit of analysis for this sub-question, while relevant legal documents are our units of observation. It is important to note at this point, that our focus lays on the strategic-administrative (crisis preparation) decision-making context, rather than the operational- tactical (crisis mitigation) decision-making context of local disaster mitigation efforts in Germany. Thus, we base our analysis on relevant laws regulating strategic-level organisation of CM and leave more specific regulations on operational best practices aside.
Cooperative context analysis
While sub-question 1, therefore, relies on law document analysis for the specific context measurement, sub-question 2 indicates qualitative network analysis as a suitable tool. We reformulated the Governance Assessment Tool to accommodate the CM context at hand by slightly altering the items created by Bressers et al. (2016). These 35 items (see appendix A) were answered by involving insights from strategic-level employees in a field research setting at two separate moments, namely during (1) data gathering as well as preceding (2) data validation. This was done to substantiate our previous desk research measurements, with quantification of the GAT hardly possible (Bressers et al., 2016).
During the workshop, the nine strategic-level employees participating in the drafting of the agree- ment, moreover provided us with valuable empirical data for our network analysis. With limited time for our workshop, we decided to let participants answer 14 items, which could hardly be answered by desk research. The remaining 21 items were subsequently answered by careful review of related disaster governance literature in combination with relevant legal documents as well as the transcript of discussions during the workshop. Our units of analysis for this sub-question, therefore, were the local partner organisations within their network structure. Meanwhile, our units of observation were, first, legal documents including relevant laws and a decree by the mayor of Gronau regulating local crisis preparation efforts, and, secondly, strategic-level employees representing their organisations in a cooperative workshop.
Covenant performance in CM settings
Subsequently, we brought forward a new methodology for measuring network-level outcomes during
crisis preparation efforts for sub-question 3 (see Gall et al., 2014). Put differently, our analysis focusses
on the contributions of a negotiated agreement to future disaster mitigation efforts in terms of dynamic
inter-organisational and technical support tasks of CM. Similar to sub-question 2, our results are based
on observations provided by the nine strategic-level employees involved in the creation of the agreement.
More specifically, we set out to quantitatively measure the agreement’s effects on inter-organisational crisis mitigation capacities in terms of resource availability (Norris et al., 2007; Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu et al., 2010; Stolk et al., 2011), the diversity of resources available in the network (Jones et al., 1997; Kapucu et al., 2010; Tierney, 2012) as well as social capital in terms of formal and informal relations (Norris et al., 2007). Further possible effects include increased interoperability in terms of consensus reaching, team spirit and mutual understanding through shared common language (Kapucu et al., 2010; Stolk et al., 2011), organisational learning (Norris et al., 2007; Tierney, 2012), and community competence (Norris et al., 2007). Effects on technical tasks include information sharing frequency and quality (Kapucu et al., 2010), the amount of information sources, information management skills in the network (Kapucu, 2008) as well as the number of reliable information sources and trust in those (Norris et al., 2007).
Employing a survey with participation limited to the participants of the workshop as well as the agreement, therefore, provided us with meaningful statistical data to answer sub-question 3. We need to mention, however, that citizens were excluded from participating on practical grounds. In this light, we excluded measures on citizen participation (Norris et al., 2007) as a possible outcome of the agreement.
It should be noted that it was neither our aim to establish statistical correlation, nor causality, but rather to qualitatively explain the agreement’s functioning in the administrative CM context at hand.
3.2 Data collection methods & Data analysis
Law & Document analysis
In order to measure the relevant policy-specific context according to Bressers and De Boer (2011) we analysed three relevant laws, namely (1) the federal ’Statute on the Expansion of Disaster Control’ (Gesetz
¨uber die Erweiterung des Katastrophenschutzes) from 1968 which initiated the transformation from military towards civil protection as well as two laws enacted by the federal Land of North-Rhine Westphalia, namely (2) the ’Law on Fire Safety and Assistance’ (Gesetz ¨uber den Feuerschutz und die Hilfeleistung - FSHG) from 1998 and the most recent (3) ’Law on Fire Protection, Assistance and Disaster Control’ (Gesetz ¨uber den Brandschutz, die Hilfeleistung und den Katastrophenschutz - BHKG) from 2015.
These legal provisions shaping CM efforts at the municipality of Gronau were coded according Ostrom’s operational rules in a closed coding scheme, with prefixes signifying the type of rule an article formulated as well as an abbreviation of the organisation the article relates to. The coded docu- ments as well as the resulting coding schemes are archived and can be accessed at DANS (https://
dataverse.nl/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:10411/MJMLW3).
Measuring our structural network context variables according to (Bressers et al., 2016), document analysis played a significant role, too. Both, the most recent state regulation (BHKG) as well as the local disaster management plan (Sonderschutzplan) issued in the form of a decree by the mayor of Gronau in her/his role as the responsible municipal clerk, allowed us to analyse 21 of the overall 36 items of the GAT.
The measurement results can be found in Appendix B, with items answered through literature review and
the transcript of the workshop (see following section) marked with an ’a’-suffix behind their numbering.
Workshop Poll
Furthermore, we organised a crisis cooperation workshop aimed at establishing a negotiated agreement between the partners. 9 strategic-level employees representing 7 organisations in the network provided valuable insights into the circumstances of local CM cooperation. In order to gather and present the data immediately during the workshop, we created an online poll (www.polleverywhere.com) with participants able to answer instantly using their mobile phones. The 14 items answered through this poll, are indicated by a ’b’-suffix behind their numbering (again see appendix B). As we recorded the live poll discussions between the partners, we were able provide a detailed transcript which helped answer the remaining items as laid out above. The overall results on the GAT (including the workshop poll as laid out beneath) were distributed to all workshop participants for verification. As we have not received any calls for improvements or alterations, we believe the results reflect the situation well. The transcript can be found in the same DANS database as the coding schemes.
Survey
Lastly, our workshop participants were requested to provide their views on the possible contributions of the negotiated agreement to the local CM cooperation network as a means of answering sub-question 3. Due to our limited time frame, we decided to formulate questions about which future benefits the participants expect, rather than what they can already observe. From a practical point-of-view, this method will be easily adaptable for future policy instrument evaluations in CM including future agreements at the municipality of Gronau or elsewhere. The survey was conducted with the aid of Qualtrics’ online survey tool, distributing personalised access links to track progress of the number of respondents. It was administered between December 3, 2018, - 10 days after the agreement had been signed - and January 11, 2019 (39 days). This resulted in a response rate of 88%. This means that not all of the 9 workshop participants (n = 8) answered the survey, but at least one representative per organisation did. In line with our qualitative design, we will analyse the survey results in terms of answers categories’ frequencies and mean score per item. The corresponding figures and tables were generated using the LibreOffice Calc software.
The survey consists of 16 items covering operational and technical dimensions according to (Kapucu
et al., 2010). This includes questions on resource development (items 1 & 2), efficiency in resource
acquisition (item 3), development of social capital (items 4 & 5), indicators of community competence
(item 6), mutual understanding (item 7), shared common language (item 8) and organisational learning
capacities (items 9 & 10), as well as the frequency (item 11) and quality (item 12) of information sharing,
the quantity of information sources (item 13), overall network ability to process information (item 14),
and trust and quantity of trusted information sources (items 15 & 16), respectively. A complete list of
survey items can be found in appendix C. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they
agree with these 16 statements on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from ’strongly disagree’ to ’strongly
agree’ with ’undecided’ as the middle value.
As we believe our small sample of local core partners reflects fundamental network structures in
other German localities, the survey results provide an interesting, though maybe incomplete, preliminary
and network-focussed picture of the possible functioning of NAs in CM settings as expected by strategic
employees. Due the limited number of observations, however, their generalisability should be viewed
critically and only indicative in kind. Regarding questions as to why exactly the agreement does (not)
work in the context of actor interactions in Gronau’s local CM arena, the application of CIT’s likelihood of
(adequate) implementation models based on the three central actor characteristics could substantiate
our survey findings, and provide a more detailed and process-oriented picture of subsequent interaction
processes. Whereas we considered this step in the preparation of this research, too, we decided against
the application of these models for reasons of time and conceptual clarity.
ResearchquestionVariablesMethodDocuments/ItemsIndicators
