Applying the Existing Framework to Turkey Regarding Assessing Effectiveness of Flood Emergency - Case Study Example

ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOOD EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN ENGLAND AND TURKEY Student’s Name: Code + Course name Professor’s name University City, State Date Introduction Climate change has subjected the modern society to natural catastrophes. The last two decades have witnessed an evolution of the flood-risk management systems in most European countries and other countries affected by the flood emergency across the globe. Initially, the flood-risk management approach entailed the adoption of structural measures in the management of the flood risk. However, the situation has changed as countries shift to using a more holistic approach in dealing with the emergency. The flood management approach has focused on the management of residual risks that has seen the development of emergency plans to enable the effective recovery of the community from the inundations. Therefore, the survival of the communities is at the heart of the holistic approach towards flood risk management. The United Kingdom (UK) and Turkey are some of the countries that have encountered excessive inundations in the recent decades. The research paper covers the effectiveness of the flood-risk management approach in two cities, Southampton (UK) and Izmit (Turkey). Literature Review The Flood Risk in England In the UK, flood risks present a major threat to the country. The increasing threat from the natural calamity is evident in the magnitude of recent incidences and the resulting destructions and loss of life that emanates from the emergency. In England and Wales, approximately one out of six buildings is at the risk of destruction caused by flooding. This translates into approximately 2.4 million properties that subject in excess of 5.3 million individuals to the flood risk. Out of the at-risk properties, approximately one million are also at risk of surface water flooding. According to the Environment Agency, the number of properties that are at risk of surface water flooding alone is approximately 2.9 million. About 5% of UK nationals live in Southampton and other coastal areas that are at risk from sea flooding. River flooding threatens an area of approximately 10,000 km2. In essence, it is proper to state that approximately 15% of urban areas in the UK are at risk from flooding. The flood risk also threatens about half of the UK’s agricultural land (Lumbroso et al. 2011). In the 21st century alone, the UK has encountered several inundations. In one flooding emergency that occurred in June and July 2007, the incident flooded 6,000 businesses and 55,000 homes (Lumbroso et al. 2011). The widespread flooding emergency and the associated consequences resulted in a loss of approximately £3 billion. The flooding incidence also affected critical infrastructure such as roads and sewage treatment networks. The inundations disrupt the supply of clean water thereby compelling people to depend on bottled water for a lengthy duration in the fear of contracting waterborne diseases. The inundations also interrupted power supply besides resulting in the evacuation of many individuals considered at risk from the inundation. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 governs the management of emergencies in the UK. The UK presents a hierarchy of flood emergency planning. The flood emergency management approach in the UK covers aspects such as communication, evacuation, and the establishment of rest areas in accordance with the Multi-Agency Flood Plan (MAFP). The Local Resilience Forum (LRF) is responsible for the development of the MAFPs. Based on the administrative police boundaries, there are 47 LRFs in the UK and Wales. Each LRF is responsible for considering the flood risk in the area that it covers. In other areas, it is evident that the existing response measures from the generic plans are sufficient to cover the areas under consideration. In the quest to deal with areas that present the highest flood risk, the flood management approach entails the use of more detailed MAFPs (Lumbroso et al. 2011). The National Flood Emergency Management Framework in the UK provides the approach employed by the UK in handling emergencies associated with inundations. The Framework ascertains that all actors in the flood management approach are aware of their roles in the management of the flooding emergency. The stakeholders include the Environment Agency, District Councils, Lead Local Flood Authorities, Internal Drainage Board, Water and Sewerage Companies, and Highway Authorities. With the framework, all actors have a common point of reference in planning and responding to flooding emergencies. As a common reference point, the framework gathers all the information, key policies, and guidance in a single planning document. The framework also establishes clear thresholds used in the response to the flooding emergency. The framework also advocates for the adoption of a multi-agency approach in the management of flooding emergencies. Moreover, the framework provides clear guidelines on the ways of minimizing the impact of the inundations and enhancing resilience. From the framework, individual responders can develop and review their plans (DEFRA 2014). In essence, the framework acts as a basis for improved flood-risk management efforts. The Flood Risk in Turkey The Northwestern Black sea region in Turkey is one of the areas that present the highest threat of inundations. Turkey’s topography, geology, and geographical location have subjected the country to natural catastrophes such as landslides, inundations, and earthquakes. Besides earthquakes, floods stand out as the second most significant natural calamity in Turkey. Izmit is one of the coastal cities in Turkey that are at risk from flooding emergencies because of the heavy precipitation that affects the southern and western sections of Turkey’s coastal areas. Turkey has already witnessed devastating flooding events that have claimed the lives of many locals and destroyed property. Between 972 and 1998, Turkey witnessed ten devastating floods. For instance, the flooding incidence in Northwestern Anatolia that occurred in May 1998 had a significant impact on 4 cities, 110 villages, 10 towns, and agricultural land of approximately 25,000 ha (Gurer & Ozguler 2004). According to Gurer and Ozguler (2004), the heavily affected sections were the residential areas, infrastructures of the urban centers, and the river-drainage assets along the river basins. Discharge from the Bartin floodwaters resulted in the worst flooding incident that Turkey had witnessed over the past century. Resulting floodwater caused the death of thirty individuals and the destruction of property that was worth US$ billion. The flooding emergency destroyed approximately 2,200 houses. The country has learnt from its previous mistakes and embraced flood hazard mapping as one of the risk preparedness strategies that would identify at-risk areas, warn the local communities within the regions, and ensure the preparedness of the emergency actors towards dealing with the emergency. Emergency Management Emergency management is a three-phase endeavor that entails emergency preparedness, emergency response, and recovery operations (Gilissen et al. 2016). Emergency preparedness entails the day-to-day operations carried out by emergency professionals such as risk assessments, emergency planning, community engagement activities, and training and exercising. Emergency response entails to the risk mitigation measures such as the rescue operations, multiagency response coordination, and continuity management. In essence, emergency response is the reactive phase following the occurrence of a flood. Finally, the aftermath of the inundation dictates the recovery activities that emergency responders and other stakeholders would perform to restore the original situation on the ground. Some of the activities include addressing welfare needs, restoring critical services, and rehousing displaced individuals (Gilissen et al. 2016). It is evident that several studies have endeavored to measure the effectiveness of flood response measures. However, few research studies have focused on comparing the effectiveness of flood management approaches of two countries on different indicators of effectiveness. This has necessitated the identification of representative, robust, and transparent indicators that measure the effectiveness of the flood management approaches employed by different countries in relation to the corresponding benchmarks to enable the identification of the gap that exists between the already implemented strategies and the benchmark strategies. Emergency Preparedness As a standard precondition for an effective flood-risk management approach, it is imperative for a flood management framework to include strategic and operational planning (Gilissen et al. 2016). The emergency plan comprises of coordinated protocols that manage an adverse event such as an inundation. It entails pre-event or proactive emergency planning that plays an essential role in the establishment of priorities, coordinating the operational action, systematic response start-up, and tactical decision-making. Emergency planning is also important since it identifies the roles of each stakeholders in the emergency approach. Business continuity suffices to be a fundamental aspect of emergency planning since it determines the ability to carry out and maintain the provision of services in the event of an emergency. Emergency planning entails the considering the continuity of the facilities that enable the functioning of the leadership and operations. Emergency planning also entails considering resourcing procedures, record management, and communication channels. The management systems should also be spontaneous and flexible to ascertain their ability to deal with unexpected, sudden, and unpredictable emergencies such as inundations. According to Gilissen et al. (2016), various flood emergency systems have failed to develop a homogenous standard necessary in emergency planning. Therefore, a generic plan for handling an emergency should consist of the jurisdiction, scope, and legal framework of the plan as well as the risk and vulnerability analysis by analyzing different scenarios and making significant deductions from the scenarios. An effective generic plan should also be capable of providing specific procedures and protocols such as communicating the warning to the public and the evacuation procedures and routes. An effective generic plan should also entail a clear definition of the roles of all actors in the emergency approach. The utility of a judgment-based scoring system that targets these indicators of an effective emergency plan is a viable approach of measuring the effectiveness of the flood management approach. Most importantly, the plan should be specific to the hazard rather to guarantee its effectiveness as opposed to the use of a general plan that covers all risks. Because of the increasing frequency of the flooding risk in the UK and Turkey, it is necessary to consider inundations as an individual risk rather than categorizing it among other risks. As a result, an effective generic plan should be able to manage the flooding emergency effectively. Institutional Learning The other crucial component in the management of flooding emergencies is institutional learning. Therefore, an effective generic plan should possess effective protocols and procedures that ensure institutional learning. The importance of institutional learning emanates from the fact that it contributes towards enhancing the responsiveness, proficiency, and skillfulness of emergency organizations and actors (Aguirre et al. 2005). As a result, the use of effective procedures and protocols towards flood-risk planning contributes towards the overall improvement of the flood management approach. Evidence to institutional learning in a flood emergency management system (FEMS) include the existence of pre-event arrangements and post-event arrangements that include exercising and training, professional for a, consultative fora, information systems, and evaluation mechanisms. The essence of considering testing, exercising, and training as success elements in institutional learning emanates from the fact that they contribute towards the effective preparation of personnel besides ensuring that the individuals are capable of carrying out their functions in continuity as expected. Training also entails the identification of educational courses that cover the management of flood emergencies to provide a general theoretical understanding on the management of flooding emergencies (Gilissen et al. 2016). Rather than the existence of institutional learning at the organization level, an effective FEMS should also implement institutional learning at the subsystem level. The Distribution of Roles between and within Emergency Players The clear apportioning of the roles of all the actors in the generic plan is an essential requirement of an effective flood emergency management system. The clear definition of responsibilities is the first indicator for an effective organizational structure regardless of whether it is heterogeneous or decentralized. As a result, the system should outline the operational, coordinative, and administrative responsibilities to the specific actors irrespective of whether the actors are private, quasi-public, or public. All actors should understand their responsibilities as well as those of other actors in the system to enable the smooth coordination of activities. This should also include the downscaling and upscaling of responsibilities, transfer of responsibilities and chains of control and command (Gilissen et al. 2016). In the quest to ensure that the responsibilities are effective, there is need for the existence of proper powers to execute the commands. The effectiveness of the organizational structure also takes into account the three C’s: communication, coordination, and collaboration. Therefore, it is imperative that the organizational structure should provide room for coordination, communication, and collaboration in order to qualify as an effective system (Rica et al. 2010). Moreover, the ability of the emergency actors to implement the three C’s accordingly acts as the basis for a successful emergency management system. The need for the three C’s elicits the need for having an organizational culture that advocates for communication, collaboration, and coordination. Communication is also essential in institutional learning as it fosters the learning process. Communication also guarantees success to the long-term adaptation of changes in emergency management on the part of the actors. Allocation and Availability of Resources It is evident that effective management of emergencies requires the availability of resources as well as the effective deployment of the resources to the affected areas. Resources refer to a broad term that includes the human power or human resources, financial resources, technological resources such as communication devices and measuring equipment, as well as technical tools, equipment, and supplies such as pumping and transport equipment, fire extinguishers, and sand bags that are useful in emergencies such as inundations (Gilissen et al. 2016). Measuring the effectiveness of the availability and allocation of resources entails determining whether the resources are available at the right places in the required quantities. In fact, this is crucial to the success of the response and recovery operations as well as the preparation for a flooding emergency. The existence of clear procedures, plans, and policies for sharing resources is the other critical determinant of the effectiveness of the generic flood management plan. Community and Stakeholder Preparedness It is apparent that emergency preparedness plays a massive role in reducing the adverse effects of the emergency following its occurrence. A low level of the preparedness of the stakeholders to the emergency is an impediment to the successful execution of risk mitigation, response, and recovery operations. In order to measure the preparedness of the community and stakeholders, it is proper to consider the sense of urgency and risk awareness as the proper measures of success. Potential evidences include consultations among stakeholders and active campaigning among the private and public sectors (Chandra et al. 2016). Both the sectoral branch organizations and risk management authorities should indicate awareness and readiness towards dealing with the flooding emergency in order to declare the emergency approach effective. The local communities in the at-risk areas should also exhibit awareness about the impending emergency as well as the risk mitigation, response, and recovery measures within their reach. This includes awareness about the evacuation routes, safe sites, and other locations that are essential to the response and recovery operations. Local communities should also indicate their participation in preparedness activities such as training, exercising, risk assessment, and emergency planning. The Recovery Phase The final measure of the effectiveness of the FEMS targets the recovery phase of the emergency management. This entails evaluating the recovery of the affected areas and individuals from the emergency that covers the processes of rehabilitating, rebuilding, and restoring the community (Herrmann 2007). Incident recovery also involves evacuation, management of business continuity, welfare needs, temporary shelters, management of environmental impacts, and the restoration of critical services. In measuring the success of the FEMS in recovery operations, it is proper to identify evidence that indicates sufficient planning for recovering from the incidence as well as the existence of recovery plans. Recovery plans indicate impact assessment measures as well as the appropriate strategies of mitigating the impacts. Measuring the effectiveness of the FEMS also entails determining the existence of mechanisms that outline the distribution of roles and the transition from response to recovery. Evidence on the existence of voluntary groups is indicative of the effectiveness of the recovery operations on the part of the additional tasks performed by volunteer groups. Research Methodology In the development of the evaluation framework, the study intends to perform systematic and comprehensive review on the existing literature about flooding in the UK and Turkey with specific reference to coastal flooding. In the quest to capture the relevant materials, the study intends to use carefully selected search strings associated with “emergency management”, “inundations or floods”, and “effectiveness and ineffectiveness of flood management approaches” of both countries using truncation searches and Boolean operators. To ensure the applicability of the study to other sources of flooding besides coastal flooding, the study targets data on the overall management of flooding emergencies by the emergency actors and the local communities in both countries. From the literature, the study intends to identify the different performance indicators that include institutional learning, recovery operations, community and stakeholder preparedness, availability and deployment of resources, and emergency preparedness. The study also intends to research on the policy documents of the two countries to determine the effectiveness of their flood management operations. In the quest to identify the preconditions and recurrent themes in the effective emergency management systems, the study intends to conduct a thematic analysis on the policy documents as well as the academic literature. The study would then refine and structure the preconditions and recurrent themes based on the indicators that have an association with the management of flooding emergencies. In order to attain this, the study intends to draw synergies with the performance criteria associated with generic emergency response as well as the synergies linked to the emergency management of hazards. Based on the analysis of the preconditions and recurrent themes, the study intends to use seven indicators in evaluating the effectiveness of the flood management systems in the UK and Turkey with respect to the coastal cities of Southampton and Izmit that encountered devastating inundations within the last decade. The indicators cover the preparation, response, and recovery phases associated with the latest flood incidences witnessed in the cities. The study entails the use of predefined benchmarks on a scale of 1 to 5. Each benchmark provides room for identifying the extent of establishment of a given indicator. The scale comprises of 1 (minimal or absent), 2 (emerging), 3 (moderate), 4 (significant), and 5 (outstanding). In the application of the framework, the study intends to use semi-structured interviews on the selected respondents that comprise of randomly selected individuals from the community as well as emergency actors at the local level. The interviews would focus on practice and governance aspects associated with the management of flooding emergencies in the selected coastal cities. Therefore, the areas of focus would include the distribution of resources and responsibilities, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of intra-agency and inter-agency collaboration, communication, and coordination, among other critical aspects associated with the management of flooding emergencies. The study intends to ask interviewees to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the current systems as well as the identified strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the study would perform a thematic analysis on the feedback to measure the effectiveness of the flood management approaches. Summary The research paper aims at evaluating the effectiveness of flood emergency management systems (FEMS) for the UK and Turkey. The study focuses on two coastal cities, Southampton and Izmit. The study identified predefined benchmarks on a scale of 1 to 5 that would enable the interviewee to give individualized opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the flood emergency management approach as well as the effectiveness of the employed approach in responding to the flooding emergency. The areas of consideration in the study include institutional learning, community and stakeholder preparedness, the success of the recovery phase, emergency management, and the availability and deployment of resources. The Interview Questions The purpose of the interview is to evaluate the effectiveness of flood emergency management systems in England and Turkey. The interview questions comprise of a Likert scale with five entries. Please select the entry that best fits your opinion regarding the element under description. You will spend between 15 and 20 minutes to respond to the interview questions. We guarantee the confidentiality of your feedback. Therefore, we will limit its use to academic research only. 1. Did you experience or take part in responding to the most recent flood disaster in the city? Yes No To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 1. The basic emergency plans tailored to local conditions were in place to inform emergency professionals and at-risk individuals about how to respond to the disaster. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 2. Debriefing protocols were evident after the first flooding disaster to provide the opportunity for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the previous approach to managing the disaster. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 3. There was evidence of proactive culture of institutional learning beyond the response and review of the previous incidence such as efforts of facilitating knowledge exchange between emergency actors. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 4. There were established procedures to promote institutional learning such as computer-based tools and frequent meetings that enhance dialogue between emergency actors. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 5. Sporadic exercises and training were initiated to prepare emergency professionals and the local community on the effective management of the flood incidence. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 6. Different organizations coordinated in the management of the disaster with the help of clear legislation that specified the roles and responsibilities of all actors. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 7. Emergency professionals engaged actively in efforts aimed at enhancing the awareness of the public about flood management aspects. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 8. The emergency management had adequate resources in terms of funding, equipment and tools that promoted preparation, response, and recovery efforts, as well as multi-agency and single-agency decision-making. Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal 9. There was an already established flood-specific planning for the management of the recovery operations that covered humanitarian issues, physical issues, environmental issues, economic issues, and infrastructural issues Outstanding Significant Moderate Emerging Absent/Minimal Thank You for the Participation in the Interview! Reference List Aguirre, B., Dynes, R.R., Kendra, J. and Connell, R., 2005. Institutional resilience and disaster planning for new hazards: Insights from hospitals. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2(2). Chandra, A., Moen, S. and Sellers, C., 2016. What Role Does the Private Sector Have in Supporting Disaster Recovery, and What Challenges Does It Face in Doing So?. RAND Corporation. DEFRA., 2014. The National Flood Emergency Framework for England. Department for Environment Food Rural Affairs. Gilissen, H.K., Alexander, M., Matczak, P., Pettersson, M. and Bruzzone, S., 2016. A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of flood emergency management systems in Europe. Ecology and Society, 21(4). Gurer, I. and Ozguler, H., 2004. Turkey: Recent flood disasters in northwestern black sea region. In Associated Programme on Flood Management (p. 21). Herrmann, J., 2007. Disaster Response Planning & Preparedness. Spiritual Care and Mental Health for Disaster Response and Recovery, p.11. Lumbroso, D., Stone, K. and Vinet, F., 2011. An assessment of flood emergency plans in England and Wales, France and the Netherlands. Natural Hazards, 58(1), pp.341-363. Rico, R., de la Hera, C.M.A. and Tabernero, C., 2010. Work team effectiveness, a review of research from the last decade (1999-2009). Psicología, 26(1), pp.47-71. Read More

In the 21st century alone, the UK has encountered several inundations. In one flooding emergency that occurred in June and July 2007, the incident flooded 6,000 businesses and 55,000 homes (Lumbroso et al. 2011). The widespread flooding emergency and the associated consequences resulted in a loss of approximately £3 billion. The flooding incidence also affected critical infrastructure such as roads and sewage treatment networks. The inundations disrupt the supply of clean water thereby compelling people to depend on bottled water for a lengthy duration in the fear of contracting waterborne diseases.

The inundations also interrupted power supply besides resulting in the evacuation of many individuals considered at risk from the inundation. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 governs the management of emergencies in the UK. The UK presents a hierarchy of flood emergency planning. The flood emergency management approach in the UK covers aspects such as communication, evacuation, and the establishment of rest areas in accordance with the Multi-Agency Flood Plan (MAFP). The Local Resilience Forum (LRF) is responsible for the development of the MAFPs.

Based on the administrative police boundaries, there are 47 LRFs in the UK and Wales. Each LRF is responsible for considering the flood risk in the area that it covers. In other areas, it is evident that the existing response measures from the generic plans are sufficient to cover the areas under consideration. In the quest to deal with areas that present the highest flood risk, the flood management approach entails the use of more detailed MAFPs (Lumbroso et al. 2011). The National Flood Emergency Management Framework in the UK provides the approach employed by the UK in handling emergencies associated with inundations.

The Framework ascertains that all actors in the flood management approach are aware of their roles in the management of the flooding emergency. The stakeholders include the Environment Agency, District Councils, Lead Local Flood Authorities, Internal Drainage Board, Water and Sewerage Companies, and Highway Authorities. With the framework, all actors have a common point of reference in planning and responding to flooding emergencies. As a common reference point, the framework gathers all the information, key policies, and guidance in a single planning document.

The framework also establishes clear thresholds used in the response to the flooding emergency. The framework also advocates for the adoption of a multi-agency approach in the management of flooding emergencies. Moreover, the framework provides clear guidelines on the ways of minimizing the impact of the inundations and enhancing resilience. From the framework, individual responders can develop and review their plans (DEFRA 2014). In essence, the framework acts as a basis for improved flood-risk management efforts.

The Flood Risk in Turkey The Northwestern Black sea region in Turkey is one of the areas that present the highest threat of inundations. Turkey’s topography, geology, and geographical location have subjected the country to natural catastrophes such as landslides, inundations, and earthquakes. Besides earthquakes, floods stand out as the second most significant natural calamity in Turkey. Izmit is one of the coastal cities in Turkey that are at risk from flooding emergencies because of the heavy precipitation that affects the southern and western sections of Turkey’s coastal areas.

Turkey has already witnessed devastating flooding events that have claimed the lives of many locals and destroyed property. Between 972 and 1998, Turkey witnessed ten devastating floods. For instance, the flooding incidence in Northwestern Anatolia that occurred in May 1998 had a significant impact on 4 cities, 110 villages, 10 towns, and agricultural land of approximately 25,000 ha (Gurer & Ozguler 2004). According to Gurer and Ozguler (2004), the heavily affected sections were the residential areas, infrastructures of the urban centers, and the river-drainage assets along the river basins.

Read More