Need for Disaster Response Capacity Assessment Framework

Chapter Four presented results of case study review and challenges in terms of capacity assessment and methodologies used for disaster management in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The case study analysis and focus group discussions have also helped to better understand themes examined in the chapters two and various reasons for insufficient disaster response within KSA. As intended in this section, subsections focus on providing a brief discussion on essential elements that contributes to the overall Disaster Response capacity assessment framework designed for KSA disaster preparedness and response capacity enhancement.

5.2.1 Disaster Response Capacity Assessment Methodologies

The case study analysis presented in chapter four revealed that lapses exist in the disaster response system within KSA and that the capacity assessment methodologies used in KSA are ad hoc and not efficient enough for dealing with the type of disaster plaguing KSA in recent years. The focus group

107 inquiry and documentary data analysed in Chapter 4 exposed that there are attempts to bring international methodologies, but as shown in case studies examined and the justifications for this research, it is evident that these capacity assessment methodologies are not efficient. The case study analysis also revealed that responders exhibited limited skills, lack of communication systems, interference with responsibilities and complications (Section 4.3 & Section 4.4), to mention few of the identified issues. However, this analysis revealed that although KSA tend to have some of the capacity assessment best practice features (Table 4.1) such as; structured system, readiness arrangements that focuses on EMFs, arrangements that cover all readiness actions and activities during the preparedness phase, the actual response action plan does not demonstrate best practice arrangement.

The results also show that the following elements of best practice are missing in within existing disaster response approaches used within KSA:

1. Focus on short term and long-term view of risks is often not taken

2. Conduct survey or ask critical questions from all stakeholder (NAO, 2008) which is practiced in the UK system

3. Asking critical questions focusing on risk consequences, level of capability and implementation of readiness arrangement for response

4. Focus on the four levels i.e. central government, local government, community and community groups to respond (Shuhei, 2014), as seen in the Japanese system

5. Comprehensive and integrated approaches, to cover all disaster phases and multiple teams involved in a disaster response effort

6. Conduct of evaluation post-response to determine if capacity i.e. equipment, skills facilities, resources, were sufficient

7. Periodic or regular assessment to ensure regular monitor and evaluation

8. Use of performance indicators (Deng et al., 2005) as is the case in Taiwan best practice (Chapter 2)

9. Define and use primary and secondary indexes

10. Capacity assessment system/framework must be multi-hazard that ensures that consequences of hazard are prevented and risks are mitigated

108 None of the primary data available about disaster response capacity within KSA Ministry of Interior appear to suggest that data is not existing, which is backed up by data gathered through Interviews and focus groups. Since the research participants are experts, it can be assumed that they will be informed about these best practices if they are in place, therefore leading to the conclusion that they are non-existent in the KSA system. As such a gap that exposes absence of ten major best practices in the practice of disaster management strongly justifies the need for developing a consistent approach to disaster capacity assessment within KSA.

Another gap identified from the results for this objective is that there is gap between best practice methodologies adopted from foreign countries and the operations being carried out in KSA. This may be due to compatibility of system since the capacity assessment methodologies are from other developed countries and the UN. Lack of understanding or training in the arrangement or techniques for implementing the foreign capacity assessment methodologies adopted for use in KSA, is another reason that may be responsible for inefficiency of the capacity assessment method in the country. Whatever the case is, it can be observed that the UN and other foreign capacity methodologies identified through the interview sessions used in KSA are not effective and/or suitable for the KSA preparedness and response structured system.

5.2.2 Existing Disaster Response Assessment Methods and Approaches in KSA

In terms of existing methods and approaches in KSA, which is a theme relating to the second objective, it was discovered that despite having UN and other foreign capacity assessment method, training, experiences and individual abilities, no consistent approach is being used across the board. The approaches identified and explained by the research participants show that preparedness actions and activities are conducted, there are readiness arrangement, as well as trainings conducted to improve the system. However, the impacts disasters (as analysed in chapter four) create in KSA challenges the existing methods and approaches suggesting that they are insufficient or ineffective.

Results from literature review identified combinations of methods and approaches that are used for assessing capacity for response across the world. However, the primary data on KSA shows that many of these best practice methods and approaches are unknown in KSA even among the experts. Furthermore, plans and trainings seem to be the two generally acknowledged approaches for preparing to deal with disasters. Although one of the preparedness arrangements identified by

109 Alexander (2002), they are not enough for developing capacity for responding to modern time disasters which cause widespread cascading impacts, given highly engineered urban infrastructure. Therefore, the results for this theme and objective is that, there is a knowledge gap in terms of how to effectively deploy disaster response maturity assessment approaches, planning, training and preparedness actions and capacity assessment methods within KSA context. Hence, there is need for a capacity assessment framework suited to local needs, thereby justifying the relevance of research aim.