Evaluation of the incident management system of a bigger city during the winter flood 2023/24 in northern Germany
Organized (ir)responsibility in the pre-disaster phase
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22026792 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Markus Wiedemann (0009-0008-0607-0647, HAW Hamburg, corresponding author), Marc Schütte (0000-0001-5071-2565, HAW Hamburg), Karsten Loer (0009-0008-8971-5112, HAW Hamburg), Andre Gerdes (Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg), Stefan Thate (0000-0003-3673-1406, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 113 |
| Pages | 104821 |
| Publication date | 2024-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2212-4209 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104821 |
| OpenAlex | W4402544436 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 12 |
Incident management systems operate within complex and uncertain conditions during disasters. Therefore, researching their activities is challenging as there is no clear right or wrong. The winter 2023/2024 flood event in the city of Oldenburg, Germany, provided an opportunity to evaluate crisis management under high uncertainty, although no disaster has eventually occurred. Three stakeholder groups of the Incident Management System were examined through After-Action Reviews: The Emergency Operation Center (EOC), specialist advisors, and the Area Command (AC). Data on performance shaping factors (descriptions and judgements) were collected and analyzed using the Countenance Evaluation Model as a general framework in combination with a Systems-Thinking approach. The study aimed to identify variables within and between groups as well as factors in the environment that either hindered or facilitated work transactions. It emerged that the work organization in bodies of public administration is at odds with the uncertain, fast-paced, and problem-oriented structure of Incident Management System operations, causing stress and adding workload to employees. Additionally, the separation of strategic and tactical decision making led to coordination issues due to divergent time structures and task logics of EOC and AC. Furthermore, although specialist advisors played a crucial role in risk assessments and setting the direction of risk mitigation activities, it became clear that this person related resource is scarce and difficult to embed into the Incident Command System. A final finding is the importance of the larger Emergency Operation Center working environment. The spatial constraints and noise levels caused stress
Aeronautics · Archaeology · Business · Environmental resource management · Flood myth · Geography · Physics · Disaster Management and Resilience · Engineering · Environmental Science · Flood Risk Assessment and Management · Public Relations and Crisis Communication
| Highly cited | No |
|---|