Development of Disaster Response Strategies for Multi-Disasters

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2606478/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Development of Disaster Response Strategies for Multi-Disasters

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2606478/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The purpose of this research is to develop a disaster response strategy that can be used when more than one disaster happens at the same time. When different types of disasters occur at the same time, disaster response operations will become extremely complex. It is difficult for responders to directly perform response operations based on a single standard operation procedure. This research used flooding events that occurred in Taiwan during the COVID pandemic as an example case to develop the response strategies. The standard operating procedures before and after the pandemic were first reviewed. The authors also joined the response operations to have close observations on how responders execute response operations under restrictions of the pandemic. User interviews were then conducted to collect feedback from four responders. Finally, the multi-disaster response strategies, coined as OPERATE, was developed based on results of procedure review, field observations, and user interviews. OPERATE was developed for disaster response teams to smoothly execute response operations when multiple disasters occur simultaneously. It includes seven perspectives: simplified operation, flexible procedures, adjustable environment, personalized reminder, positive attitude, well-developed decision support tool, and preparatory education. OPERATE is developed to reduce the impact of multi-disasters on response teams, including the impact of the disaster itself and orders issued by other government departments in response to other disasters. Following the developed strategies, disaster response teams are expected to conduct stable and efficient operations in the context of multiple disasters.

multiple disasters

disaster response

disaster response strategies

COVID-19

1.1 Disaster management

Disaster management is the process of implementing adequate preparation and response actions to prevent and reduce the harmful effects of a disaster (Medicine 2021). Although disaster management cannot prevent the occurrence of disasters, it can reduce the complexity of their impact through risk management, thereby reducing potential losses. The content of disaster management can be divided into prevention and preparation before a disaster, response when a disaster occurs, and recovery after a disaster(McLoughlin 1985; Tan et al. 2020; UNODRR).

Disaster preparedness refers to the preparation of planned response operations, including personnel training, disaster drills, scenario simulations, and equipment purchases to improve the quality of response operations, thereby ensuring they can be performed quickly and effectively (Kachali et al. 2022; Sun et al. 2020). When a disaster occurs, a well-organized disaster response can help avoid the continued expansion of the losses already caused by the disaster (Baker & Refsgaard 2007; Seaberg et al. 2017). The main contents of disaster response include evacuation, search, rescue, and emergency medical assistance, which help to save lives and protect wellbeing and property. The purpose of disaster recovery is to return to normal conditions after a disaster (Cantelmi et al. 2022; Gerber 2007). Emotional, physical, and financial support should be provided to assist victims during reconstruction and help them return to their normal way of life.

1.2 Disaster management during the COVID-19 pandemic

Various measures issued to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have brought many challenges to disaster management. For instance, when floods occurred during the pandemic in China, the government faced the difficult decision of whether or not to block the movement of people (Fan et al. 2021). In Bangladesh, it was difficult for people to decide whether to move to shelter when encountering tropical cyclones or remain isolated to avoid the possibility of COVID-19 infection, (Alam et al. 2022). In the United States, wildfire prevention measures and firefighter training programs were disrupted (Ashraf 2021). In Canada, it was difficult to have community residents stack sandbags while maintaining social distancing, and this affected the execution of response actions (Ashraf 2021; Simonovic et al. 2021). The Japanese government's decision to suspend the admission of volunteers for post-typhoon recovery work also led to delays in post-disaster recovery efforts (Cabinet Office 2020; Das 2020; OSUMI 2020; Welfare 2020).

Although various governments have tried to adjust their disaster management operation models after the pandemic, the pandemic restrictions still bring many challenges to their disaster management processes. Ottawa created a separate team to respond to flooding and the city government asked personnel to adhere to the COVID-19 restrictions, namely physical distancing and maintaining five or less people when performing work (Ishiwatari et al. 2020). Elementary school gymnasiums are usually used as a space for evacuation in Japan with 200 to 300 people housed in the same space and each person allocated an area of 1.6 square meters on average, making it almost impossible to maintain social distancing (Reynolds 2020). In addition to flooding, COVID-19 has also impacted drought disaster response operations. USA wheat and corn production was affected by drought and the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in yields below historical medians (Yaddanapudi & Mishra 2022).

1.3 Disaster response challenges during the pandemic

The pandemic brought many challenges to disaster response implementation. For example, in addition to requiring people to wear masks to reduce the probability of contracting COVID-19, most countries also required people to maintain social distancing when working indoors. Those who had been exposed to the virus were required to isolate at home for several days to reduce the risk of transmission (Ford et al. 2022; Phillips et al. 2020; Renee N. Salas 2020). Disaster response units in many countries are usually temporarily formed teams (Quarantelli 1988). The COVID-19 related regulations made it difficult for the teams to maintain normal operations, thereby affecting the implementation of disaster response tasks.

Improper flood response operation measures can increase the spread of COVID-19 and increase the damage caused by flooding (Ford et al. 2022). Failure to maintain social distancing increases the risk of COVID-19 infection among disaster responders but if COVID-19 containment measures are too stringent, disaster response actions will not be sufficient to reduce disaster losses (Ishiwatari et al. 2020). Disaster management organizations therefore need to take measures to control the spread of COVID-19 while executing the appropriate disaster management tasks (Ishiwatari et al. 2020; Izumi & Shaw 2022).

During the disaster response phase, social distancing requirements had a significant impact on disaster response operations because it prohibited face-to-face meetings, the execution of certain tasks in the same space, and the physical transmission of information. Disaster responders needed to have online meetings and use electronic documents to perform their disaster response operations. Moreover, the requirement for close contacts to be quarantined greatly increased the difficulty of personnel scheduling and disaster management organizations were often forced to perform disaster response operations with reduced staff or off-site offices.

To keep disaster responders safe from infection, governments around the world developed different strategies for multi-disaster response operations. For instance, the governments of Canada and Japan required staff and volunteers to maintain social distancing while performing their duties to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19 (Manitoba 2020; Welfare 2020). During the April 2020 flood control operation in Manitoba, Canada, disaster responders used a merry-go-round to carry sandbags to build emergency levees, maintaining two-meter social distancing throughout the process (Simonovic et al. 2021). A local division of the Japanese government suspended the admission of volunteers in February 2020 to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Welfare 2020).

1.4 Requirements of a multi-disaster response strategy

When facing multiple disasters at the same time, it is important for related personnel to follow a holistic and integrated strategy to help them execute their tasks. During the pandemic, improper disaster responses could increase the spread of COVID-19 and worsen the impact of the disaster, resulting in additional economic and human damage (Ashraf 2021). Under stringent COVID-19 containment measures, lower intensity disaster response operations are not able to sufficiently mitigate disaster losses. Therefore, it is necessary to draw lessons from multi-disaster response operations including COVID-19 (Feitelson et al. 2022). This will help create an effective multi-disaster response strategy enabling better management of multi-disaster response operations around the world.

In the field of disaster response, various types of disasters have their own standard operating procedures. However, when different types of disasters occur at the same time, it can be difficult to directly implement these standard response operations, such as in response to flooding during a pandemic. Therefore, the goal of this research is to develop multi-disaster response strategies that allow disaster responders to implement their tasks when facing more than one disaster.

This research selected the flooding event that occurred in Taiwan during the COVID pandemic as an example case to develop a disaster response strategy for multi-disaster responses. Figure 1 illustrates the research method used, which includes two stages: disaster response process review and user interviews. The disaster response process review stage is designed to determine the differences and challenges that a disaster response crew encountered after the pandemic. The second stage is designed to develop potential solutions to the challenges identified in the first stage by interviewing various disaster response operation personnel.

In the first stage, this research first reviewed the government’s standard operating procedures before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The research team also participated in flood response operations before and after the pandemic to closely observe the operational details. In the second stage, an interview questionnaire was developed based on the results of the review. Four decision makers from a disaster response crew were then interviewed using a semi-structured interview method. Finally, a response strategy for future multi-disaster responses was developed based on the results of the process review and user interviews.

We first reviewed the government’s standard operating procedure to acquire a better understanding of how Taiwan conducted its disaster response operations before the pandemic. It included a review of the tasks and responsibilities of various responders, the transmission of disaster-related data, and how decisions were made during the disaster response stage. We then reviewed Taiwan’s operating procedure during the pandemic. After the outbreak of COVID-19, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control issued several strategies. To ensure the disaster response operations could be performed seamlessly, the Water Resources Agency (WRA) also developed corresponding strategies for disaster response operations during the pandemic.

In addition to the standard operating procedure review, we also conducted field observations to closely observe how the pandemic affected disaster operations. During the pandemic, the research team participated in five flood disaster response events, including two typhoons and three flood events. Through these on-site observations we were able to understand how disaster responses actually operated under the restrictions imposed during the pandemic.

After reviewing the standard operating procedures and participating in five flood events, we determined that the restrictions of the pandemic created several challenges and changes to the disaster response in terms of (1) how the response work was initiated, (2) how the relevant documents or notifications were transmitted, and (3) how disaster prevention decisions were analyzed. Therefore, to evaluate the impact on disaster response operations, we determined the operational process flows for before and after the pandemic and then based on these process flows we compared the response processes before and after the pandemic.

3.1 Disaster response process before the pandemic

Based on the results of the standard operating procedures review and field observations, we determined the disaster response process flow under normal circumstances. Figure 2 illustrates how flood response operations were implemented in Taiwan before the pandemic. The onset of a disaster event occurred when the official weather forecasting agency issues alerts that a weather system is about to affect Taiwan. When receiving the alerts, related departments in the government would then set up a response crew and initiate the appropriate disaster response operations. A watcher, who continuously monitored the weather situation would then send out notifications to all responders in the response crew. Responders were notified to be present at the response office to prepare the response operations within an hour after the alert was issued. On arrival, responders were requested to sign on a paper sheet to ensure that all responders physically participated in the response operations.

Based on the varying responsibilities for different response operations, the responders were grouped into five teams: information transmission, decision analysis, decision support, team management, and decision making. Two major tasks would be continuously conducted by the response crew: document/notification transmission and disaster prevention decision analysis. During response operations, the response crew would need to process a large number of documents and notifications. These usually needed to be reviewed and revised before they could be formally transmitted to the relevant departments or the public. Besides document transmission, the response crew would also need to collect disaster-related information from different sources. The collected information would be analyzed to help decision makers make accurate and rapid decisions.

When a document/notifications transmission task was accepted, the information transmission team would compose a report, print it, and sign the document with a timestamp. The document would then be submitted to the decision support team for further review. When a revision was requested, the document would be returned to the information transmission team for revision. Otherwise, the information transmission team would pass the document to the team manager. If there was a revision request for the document, it would be returned to the information transmission team again. The information transmission team had to submit the document for decision makers to review until no further revisions were requested by either the decision support team or the team managers. The decision maker team would make a high-level review of the document and request for minor revisions if required. After that, the information transmission team would fax the document to the relevant departments through the WRA’s disaster emergency response system.

In addition to document transmission, the response crew would meet regularly to compile information for decision making. Each response team needed to produce a decision analysis report before meeting. The disaster prevention decision analysis process involved the following steps. When the task of disaster prevention decision analysis was accepted, the decision analysis team would compose a decision analysis report in the format of slides based on the collected information. These slides would be printed out and submitted to the decision support team for review. Similar to the document transmission process, the slides would be reviewed by the decision support team, the team manager, and the decision makers. The decision analysis team was in charge of uploading the report to the WRA’s disaster emergency system. The decision support team would then send out a notification to the relevant departments.

3.2 Disaster response process after the pandemic

WRA modified its response process during the pandemic to maintain disaster response operations under the imposed restrictions. Through reviewing the new standard operating procedures and participating in five flood disaster response events, we also determined the process flow that Taiwan used during the pandemic (Fig. 3). Since being physically present in the response office may increase the possibility of spreading the virus, WRA had to digitalize many of the response processes. Digitalizing these processes also allowed the WRA to simplify the process by the introduction of new technologies.

When a disaster event occurred, responders were asked to check in virtually through a messaging app instead of physically signing on a paper sheet. This new check-in policy allowed managers to know who stayed on duty even if the responder could not show up in person. Additionally, responders also used the messaging app to exchange documents/notifications and decision analysis reports between different teams.

Five response teams were in charge of document/notification transmissions and disaster prevention decision analysis, the same as before the pandemic. However, as responders used the messaging app to exchange files, the information transmission team and decision analysis team no longer needed to print out the reports for other teams to review. Instead, they could simply digitally send the reports to other teams for further review.

For the document/notification transmission task, the information transmission team would first compose a report and then upload it to the messaging app. Unlike the original process, this only required either one of the team managers or one of the decision makers to review the document. The reviewer could directly leave their comments or suggestions on the messaging app for the information transmission team to revise. After the review and revision process, the information transmission team would fax the final document to the relevant departments through the WRA’s disaster emergency response system.

As for the disaster prevention decision analysis process, the decision analysis team would first compose a decision analysis report and send the report to the team managers or decision makers through the messaging app. Similar to the document transmission process, the report would only be reviewed by either one of the team managers or one of the decision makers. Whoever reviewed the report would leave comments or revision suggestions on the messaging app for the decision analysis team to revise. After the review process, the decision analysis team would upload the report to the WRA’s disaster emergency system. The decision support team would then send out a notification to the relevant departments.

3.3 Comparison of the response processes

To understand the challenges caused by the COVID-19 restrictions and how the government reacted, we compared the two processes before and after the pandemic based on the developed process flows. During the pandemic, physically participating in response operations became one of the biggest challenges for responders. New tools and procedures were introduced to the original disaster response operations to solve the inconveniences brought about by the COVID-19 restrictions. The government was forced to adjust its response processes, methods of interaction, and information transmission methods. Eight major changes were made by the WRA to adapt to the impact of COVID-19 (Table 1).

Table 1

Comparison of disaster responses before and after the pandemic.
		Before the Pandemic	After the Pandemic
Disaster response process	Workplace locations	All responders worked in the same office	Responders worked at different offices or at home
	Number of responders	All responders	Half of the responders (checkerboard seating)
	Check-in method	Physical sign-in on paper	Virtual sign-in through the messaging APP
Interaction method	Discussion methods	Regular face-to-face meetings and on-demand discussion	Regular virtual meetings by video conferencing software or on-demand discussion by the messaging APP
	Document review processes	Review and leave revision comments on printed documents	Review documents on mobile devices and leave revision comments on the messaging APP
	Operating atmosphere	Compact/high tension	Relaxed/low tension
Information transmission method	Information exchange methods	Use printed documents or reports	Pass information, documents, and reports via messaging APP
Information transmission method	Method to issue or receive alerts	Fax printed notification documents	Automatically issue or receive alerts through a Chatbot system

Changes in the disaster response process

Three major changes to the disaster response process were made to address the inconvenience of being unable to physically participate in response operations. These included the locations of the workplace, the number of responders, and the check-in method. For the workplace locations, before the pandemic all responders were requested to be physically present in the responding office to execute all response operations. After the pandemic, the WRA set up two more offices for response operations to avoid possible spread of the disease. Responders were also allowed to execute their duties remotely.

For the same reason, the WRA also reduced the number of responders that needed to physically join response operations. Before the pandemic, every shift required approximately 20 responders from different departments to be in the response office in person. During the pandemic, only half of the responders needed to be in the office physically. Responders who were in the response office would be asked to maintain checkerboard seating in line with indoor social distancing requirements.

Additionally, the government also adjusted its check-in method during the pandemic. The original process required all responders to sign on a paper-based check-in sheet to ensure the attendance rate met the requirement. The paper sheet with every responder’s signature and check-in time would then be stored for future auditing. During the pandemic, responders were allowed to sign in to response operations virtually. They needed to leave a message on the messaging app to indicate they were on duty no matter where they were.

Changes in interaction methods

In addition to changes in the disaster response process, the research team noticed that the COVID-19 restrictions also brought changes to how the responders interacted with each other. The major changes included the methods of discussion and meeting, document review processes, and the overall operating atmosphere during response operations.

Before the pandemic, all responders were required to have a meeting three times per day during response operations. Responders would develop different strategies to mitigate risks and damage caused by the disaster. As the original response operation required all responders to participate in person, responders could also have on-demand discussions between the regular meetings. During the pandemic, WRA hosted regular meetings via video conferencing software since some of the responders were forced to work from different places. Instead of face-to-face discussions, responders would also use the messaging app or make phone calls to have on-demand discussions.

In the original response operations, responders relied largely on physical paperwork. All documents and reports prepared by the information transmission team and the decision analysis team needed to be printed out and time stamped. Whoever had reviewed the report also needed to sign it and leave revision comments on the report. During the pandemic, the reviewing process was conducted via messaging app. All documents and reports were uploaded to the messaging app. Only one of the team managers or decision makers would need to review the reports and leave revision comments on the messaging app if required.

The operating atmosphere before the pandemic involved all responders being required to join the response operation in the same response office. All tasks in progress and information obtained could then be made known to all responders. The walls of the office would display various disaster-related information all the time. Although this allowed responders to acquire disaster-related information at all times, remaining in an office space with multiple people for a long shift (12 hours) could create a confined and high-tension atmosphere for responders. During the pandemic, considering that only half of the responders were required to be physically present at the office and that the WRA established two more offices for response operations, this reduced the number of responders being physically present in the same space and the atmosphere of the operation offices was relatively more relaxed and lower in tension compared to before the pandemic.

Changes in information transmission methods

The major changes in information transmission methods were determined by the possibility of physical access to documents, reports, and alerts. Before the pandemic, responders would print all collected information on paper and go through a review process by reading paper documents or reports, and responders would pass information between each other using paper-based documents. Since physical contacts were no longer an option for responders during the pandemic, they started to use the messaging app to exchange disaster prevention related information. All documents and reports were still uploaded to the WRA’s disaster emergency response system.

Besides the information exchange method, the pandemic also changed how the government issued emergency alerts. Before the pandemic, the government would issue emergency alerts to different departments by faxing printed documents during the response operation period. To simplify the alert issuing process during the pandemic, WRA started to use a chatbot system. This system was built on the same messaging app and was developed to gather real-time disaster related information, such as rainfall, meteorological information, and the current disaster situation. The chatbot could also issue different alerts automatically by pushing notifications to the mobile phone of relevant personnel.

Summary of the comparison results

Through comparing the response operations before and after the pandemic, we found that the pandemic brought three major changes to Taiwan’s disaster response process:

Increased willingness to introduce new technology. When introducing a new technology, the government usually needs to invest a lot of time investigating and evaluating its effectiveness and stability before adopting it. This indirectly decreases government willingness to implement state-of-the-art technologies. At the beginning of the pandemic, the response team started to use the messaging app and chatbot to perform response tasks due to the inconvenience of remote working and having a downsized team. These information technologies did bring benefits to the overall response operation regarding data exchange and information acquisition. However, not all responders are immediately proficient at operating new technologies. Therefore, appropriate decision support and communication tools should be developed in future according to the needs of responders. These tools should be able to provide personalized services in order to meet the needs of remote office work.

Simplification of operations and increased flexibility of procedures and adjustability of the environment. During the pandemic, response teams were performing their response operations digitally to simplify their tasks and allow reviewers flexibility in the review process. In addition, the environment of the offices was also adjusted. The operations described above allowed response teams to function during a pandemic but there may be further challenges when another multi-disaster occurs, and so the response team should continue to aim for simplified operational processes, flexible procedures, and adjustable working environments.

Urgency to develop preparatory education for multi-disasters. The pandemic came very suddenly. Although educational training and drills are usually carried out for flood disaster response operations, responders have not been trained for multi-disasters. There are still many issues with the actual execution of response operations during a pandemic, such as the inability to use new tools and lack of familiarity with new procedures. In the future, training should be conducted for similar situations so that responders can perform response tasks proficiently without delay.

We found via review of the standard operating procedures and field observations that the introduction of new technologies brought benefits to response operations. For example, responders used video conferencing software during the pandemic to have virtual meetings instead of in-person meetings. This allowed responders to join discussions from anywhere and save travel time and associated costs. Also, responders made heavy use of a messaging app to virtually exchange disaster-related information, review disaster prevention documents, and have on-demand discussions. This allowed responders to transmit information in a more immediate way compared to the original paper-based process. A chatbot system was also implemented to help responders query different disaster-related information and automate part of the alert issuing process.

Utilizing new assistive tools not only simplified the operating process but also increased the overall efficiency of the response tasks, presenting the implementation of new tools to disaster response operations as a promising direction. However, introducing new tools to government departments is not a simple task and may require much effort to test different solutions, adjust regulations, and conduct pre-training. Therefore, this research conducted interviews with four responders to follow up on the effectiveness and efficiency of the adoption of new tools for their daily tasks.

4.1 User interviews: design

After reviewing the disaster response processes in Taiwan before and after the pandemic, we found that the COVID-19 restrictions indirectly forced the government to introduce new tools to replace parts of its paper-based processes. Unable to have face-to-face discussions during response operations also led responders to use various software to maintain communication between different teams. During the pandemic, three assistive tools were used for meetings, data collection, and information exchange.

To have a better understanding of how these three tools influenced the disaster operation process, we used a semi-structured interview method with open-ended questions. Four responders from the WRA that heavily used the three assistive tools during the pandemic were selected as subjects of the user interview process. The subjects included one responder from the decision maker team (L), one from the decision support team (Y), and two from the team management team (C and F). Table 2 lists the response operation duties for each subject.

Table 2

Selected subjects for the user interview and their duties.
User Code	Response Team	Duties during response operations
L	Decision maker team	(1) Coordinate and supervise the response operation team (2) Pass information to the chief of the WRA (3) Review documents and reports
Y	Decision support team	(1) Review decision analysis reports (2) Monitor disaster-related information
C	Team management team	(1) Direct all responders within the operation (2) Review documents and reports (3) Track media information related to the disaster (4) Pass information to the chief of the WRA
F	Team management team	(1) Direct all responders within the operation (2) Review documents and reports (3) Track media information related to the disaster (4) Pass information to the chief of the WRA

For each assistive tool, the interviewer first provided the background information of the tool, including why the tool was used during the pandemic and whether responders continued to use it after the pandemic had subsided. Then, four open-ended questions were asked to help the research team clarify how the tool changed the subject’s disaster response operation processes. Table 3 lists the background information and open-ended questions for each assistive tool that was considered for the interview.

Table 3

List of the selected subjects for the user interview.
Tools	Introduction	Questions
Video conferencing software	• During the pandemic, the Ministry of Economy's Disaster Emergency Response Team worked in three offices using video conferencing software, and other units participated in the response efforts from their respective offices. • The video conferencing software is no longer used since the epidemic subsided.	(1) Why was the video conferencing software adopted during the pandemic? (2) What were the effects of using the software? Please describe both the advantages and disadvantages. (3) Why did the WRA not continue to use this tool for virtual meetings after the pandemic subsided? (4) If possible, please describe how you would like to improve this approach?
Messaging App	• During the pandemic, the messaging app, LINE was widely used for various tasks, including online check-in, transmission of information, request for information, and report review. • After the pandemic subsided, some operations continued to use the messaging app but some operations returned to paper-based processes.	(1) Why was the messaging app adopted during the pandemic? (2) What were the effects of using the messaging app for your response tasks? Please describe both the advantages and disadvantages. (3) Why did the WRA continue to use the messaging app for only some operations tasks? (4) If possible, please describe how you would you like to improve this approach?
Chatbot	• During the pandemic, the WRA AI robot Diana was used frequently. • After the pandemic subsided, its active push broadcast function was frequently used in disaster response operations. • Many functions of the WRA AI robot Diana have been developed, including customized reminders, duty reminders, etc.	(1) Why was the chatbot system adopted during the pandemic? (2) What were the effects of using the chatbot? Please describe both the advantages and disadvantages. (3) Why did the WRA continue to use the chatbot’s active push broadcast function after the pandemic subsided? (4) If possible, please describe how you would like to improve this approach?

4.2 Results of the user interviews

The developed questionnaires contained 12 questions for the three identified assistive tools. We analyzed the responses to each question given by the four subjects. The following subsections describe the interview results for each assistive tool.

4.2.1 Video conferencing software

According to the interviews, the main reason the WRA started to use the video conferencing software was to reduce the impact of the pandemic. Using video conferencing software allowed responders to conduct remote communications without physical contact and thus prevent potential spread of the virus.

Regarding the effects of using the tool, all subjects mentioned that using the video conferencing software to have meetings has the advantages of increasing operational productivity, adding immediacy to the communications, and saving travelling costs. For example, User Y reported “we could join the operation without physically being in the operation office which allows us to initiate the response operation earlier and not limited by space. Responders could also get ready quicker than before.” However, being unable to have face-to-face communication also brought some disadvantages to the operation. All subjects mentioned that it could be difficult to maintain engagement and participation in the virtual meetings and it was easy for responders to become distracted or disengaged. The other drawback was technical difficulties. Using the video conferencing software for response operation meetings means that it could be disrupted by poor internet connection, audio issues, and other technical issues.

Although using the video conferencing software to conduct virtual meetings did bring some benefits to the disaster response operations, the WRA decided to return to in-person meetings when the progress of the pandemic slowed down. According to the subjects’ responses, the main reason they did not use virtual meetings after the pandemic was that face-to-face communication was more efficient for the operation. Physical meetings allowed responders to discuss all reports and documents on paper and get instant feedback from other teams. For instance, User F stated, “in-person meetings are more efficient for us as we can have face-to-face discussion in real time.”

All subjects suggested that the WRA should upgrade its hardware equipment, including internet connectivity, microphones, and webcams to ensure the quality of virtual meetings. They also mentioned that it is important for the WRA to host appropriate educational training prior to the occurrence of a disaster. All responders should be trained and develop familiarity with the video conferencing software before a future incident that necessitates its adoption.

4.2.2 Messaging app

The reason the WRA started to use the messaging app as the major communication and information exchange platform was because of its high popularity and ease of use. In Taiwan, LINE is a very popular messaging application. Most responders in the WRA had already used LINE to exchange information before the pandemic, which reduced the learning threshold during response operations. Moreover, Users Y and C mentioned that the messaging app also allowed them to send report files to other responders. They also used the messaging app to call other responders, which could help the government to save on telephone fees.

All subjects stated that the major advantage of using the messaging app is its user-friendly interface and low learning threshold. User L also mentioned that the “read” function of LINE helped him to ensure that the receiver did in fact receive the information he sent. It was easier for him to track if his messages were transmitted to his colleagues and he could also follow up when his messages had not been read. However, the subjects also shared their concerns about using the messaging app. Due to the convenience of using the messaging app, lots of responders started to rely too heavily on the tool for information exchange and communications and as LINE is a commercial platform, it is difficult to ensure its stability. Technical issues, such as an unexpected shut down, might significantly impacts the entire response operation and information security issues are another concern that the subjects mentioned.

When the progress of the pandemic slowed down, the WRA continued to use LINE for portions of the operational tasks. According to the subjects, they kept using the messaging app as a tool to exchange information, such as reports and documents, between each other. However, they would still prefer to have face-to-face communication to discuss disaster-related issues. This is because instant and fast discussion is required during response operations and sending messages through LINE still slowed down the overall communication efficiency compared to in-person discussion. User Y also stated that he suggested use of the messaging app as a supportive tool instead of as the main communication channel.

For the last question, all subjects mentioned some technical issues that should be improved in the future if the WRA still wishes to use it as the major communication tool. For instance, User Y mentioned that the messaging app should have a function to organize all messages, especially for the group chat. During the response period, lots of messages from different teams can be sent to a single group and responders might miss important information when too many messages are sent at the same time. User C suggested that pre-training would still be required to help responders keep pace with the operational processes even though most of responders are familiar with the app.

4.2.3 Chatbot

The reason the WRA started to use the chatbot system as a decision-making tool for disaster response operations was because it can help responders perform disaster response operations more smoothly. Its main services include assisting responders to acquire disaster response information and actively providing responders with disaster response-related alerts. As the development of the chatbot happened to coincide with a pandemic, the WRA decided to incorporate the chatbot system into its response tasks.

The convenience and immediacy of the chatbot are generally praised by users. For example, User L mentioned, "After using the chatbot, the transmission of information is faster, and the data transmission operation is also more labor-saving. One of the reasons why user Y mainly used the chatbot system was that it can provide personalized reminders and alerts. User C is very appreciative of the way the data is centralized and presented in the chatbot. User F stated that it is convenient to receive work notifications.

The chatbot, however, still needs to be improved to adequately fulfill the user needs of responders. For example, User L mentioned that the interface used to search for information is too complicated and needs to be improved. Users L and C provided feedback that the method to query data using natural language is not intuitive enough and multiple attempts were sometimes required to obtain the required information. Users Y and C stated that some responders still need to learn how to use the interface, which increases the difficulty of promoting it. Based on user feedback, the design details of the chatbot still need to be adjusted.

The users believe that if the WRA wishes the chatbot to be incorporated into response operations, it needs to be adjusted based on user feedback, the value of the data needs to be increased, and the response process should be automated. For example, the chatbot could provide a service to predict when an alert will occur or to automatically generate a complete alert. In addition, education and training are also necessary. In general, the chatbot first needs to be adjusted based on user feedback to meet the needs of users, and then be optimized with regard to the service items of the system.

When a multi-disaster occurs, disaster response operations face multiple challenges, such as the interruption of communication, obstruction of rescue activities, and lack of resources. Policies and measures implemented to reduce losses in one field may also reduce the efficiency of disaster response operations. In the wake of COVID-19, responders have been unable to physically work in office spaces, disrupting face-to-face communication patterns and forcing the acceptance of digital communication. In order to reduce the chances of infection, responders complied with the isolation policy, which also resulted in a reduction in human resources, further affecting rescue operation.

To address the challenges raised by multi-disasters, this research developed a multi-disaster response strategy based on a disaster response process review and user interviews. The developed strategy focuses on seven aspects: operation, procedure, environment, reminder, attitude, tool, and education, coined as “OPERATE”.

O: Simplified Operation – prioritization of key processes and removal of redundant processes

Disaster-related departments should prioritize all processes and remove redundant processes to simplify the overall response operation. Disruptions in communication and lack of resources can prevent disaster response operations from running smoothly. It is important to simplify traditional disaster response operations to maintain efficiency. Disaster-related departments can remove redundant steps, such as cross-reviewing and paper-based documents archiving. For instance, the WRA simplified its review process for all documents and reports during the pandemic. The original review process required at least three people from three different teams to confirm the correctness of the information. The simplified review process only requires one person from either the decision maker team or the management team to review the report. This reduced reviewing tasks by at least 67%.

P: Flexible Procedures - flexible adjustable operation mode

When disaster-related departments develop disaster response procedures, they should allow for flexibility. When a disaster occurs, the government will issue various temporary orders to reduce the impact of the disaster. If other disasters occur at the same time, the response operations to other disasters will be affected by these temporary orders. Maintaining flexibility in response procedures allows disaster response operations to operate reasonably under the influence of other temporary orders. Disaster-related departments should have the flexibility to adjust the disaster response operating model, allowing disaster response teams to maintain operations without violating temporary orders. During the pandemic, the WRA adjusted the number of people required to be in an office so that responders whose main responsibility was to provide information could work remotely, while those who needed close communication could enter an office to conduct response operations and maintain smooth communication. Per the original procedure, all responders were required to be physically present in a designated office to perform response operations. After adjusting the operating mode of the responders to be either physical or remote, normal operation of the response team could not only be maintained but the temporary orders that required checkerboard seating were also met.

E: Adjustable Environment – instantly adjust space configuration as needed

When disaster-related departments plan multi-disaster response operations, they also need to consider that the space where the responders are located has the required equipment and can be adjusted in real time. The original operating environment is usually designed to cope with a single disaster response operation. If the response team is to be able to cope with a multi-disaster, additional equipment and space may be required. The WRA activated two additional offices during the pandemic and used video conferencing software as a bridge between the various offices. A messaging app was also used as a tool for data transmission. Although the video conferencing software and messaging app were used by the WRA in daily meetings and business operations, equipment instability still occurred during high-intensity response operations, resulting in disruptions to disaster response operations. Therefore, in addition to preparing the required equipment and space, sufficient strength tests are also required to meet the challenges of multi-disasters.

R: Personalized Reminder - provide customized reminders according to task

Responders should receive special reminders according to the different tasks they perform. In the context of a multi-disaster, response teams need to maintain a minimum level of manpower to maintain response operations in order to reduce human resource consumption but this increases the workload of other responders when there is no reduction in the overall workload. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for responders to remind and help each other, and in most cases they must cope with a large amount of real-time disaster information alone. It is important to have personalized reminders for different responders. The reminders considered in this research included on-duty and check-in reminders, various alarm reminders, and live broadcast URL reminders of important meetings. For example, the watcher only needed to select the alarm reminder to ensure that they could keep abreast of changes in weather and water conditions. Managers, on the other hand, needed to receive live URL notifications of important meetings to learn about the latest decision-making content and adjust the team's response work based on the latest decision-making content.

A: Positive Attitude - positive working attitude and willingness to accept new things

Responders must maintain a positive working attitude and be willing to accept new things in order to face various challenges and quickly adapt to changing circumstances. The shock caused by a multi-disaster can lead to many adjustments in disaster response actions, including response operations, response procedures, and the work environment. In this research, some respondents mentioned that the rapid introduction of a chatbot to the formal response assignments caused distress to some responders because they had a low willingness to learn new things. This situation also indirectly reduced the efficiency of the response job. Therefore, responders should maintain a positive working attitude and be keen to accept new things so that they can quickly adapt to changing circumstances.

T: Well-Developed Decision Support Tool - a suitable decision support tool for multi-disaster response needs

Response teams need good decision support tools to face the challenges of multi-disasters. The tools should facilitate optimization of the office environment, support the adjustment of the operation processes, and provide appropriate reminders to the responders. In addition to meeting the above requirements, a low learning threshold is also required so that the tool can be quickly adopted for formal work. The tool examined here was the messaging app LINE. LINE is very popular in Taiwan and it met the requirement of a low learning threshold. Its core function is for communication and data transmission, and so it can support the optimization of the office environment and the adjustment of operating procedures. In addition, the development of the chatbot also allows LINE to meet the needs of responders who need reminders.

E: Preparatory Education - clear and effective education, training, and drills

Disaster-related departments should provide responders with clear and effective education, training, and drills. Disaster events are unpredictable, and multi-disasters are even rarer, but once they do occur they require immediate action from response organizations. This is an extreme test of the familiarity of responders with their disaster response tasks. For responders to be sufficiently familiar with disaster response operations, adequate preparatory education, training, and drills should be provided. In this study, the rapid adjustment of response operations and response procedures, as well as the rapid use of aids, were troublesome for some responders and the interviewees all mentioned the need for adequate preparatory education, training, and drills in peacetime so that the responders have sufficient familiarity to conduct response operations.

This research developed a multi-disaster response strategy called OPERATE. OPERATE was developed for disaster response teams to smoothly execute response operations when multiple disasters occur simultaneously. The disaster response process review includes reviewing standard operating procedures and observing disaster response site activities. this research first reviewed the government's standard operating procedures before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The research team also participated in flood response operations before and after the pandemic to closely observe the operational details. In user interviews, four decision makers from a disaster response crew were then interviewed using a semi-structured interview method. Finally, a response strategy for future multi-disaster responses was developed based on the results of the process review and user interviews. OPERATE includes the following seven items: simplified operation, flexible procedures, adjustable environment, personalized reminder, positive attitude, well-developed decision support tool, and preparatory education. Disaster-related departments should prioritize key processes and remove redundant processes. Disaster response teams should adopt flexible and adjustable operation modes. Disaster response teams should instantly adjust space configurations as needed. Responders should receive specific reminders based on their tasks. Responders should have a positive working attitude and be willing to accept new things. Support tools to cope with the demands of multi-disaster responses should be developed and implemented. Responders need to receive clear and effective education, training, and drills. If the OPERATE strategy is implemented, when multiple disasters occur simultaneously, the impact of multiple disasters on the response team can be reduced. In addition to reducing the impact of the disaster itself on response teams, it can also reduce the impact of temporary orders issued by other government departments in response to other disasters. Through the implementation of the OPERATE strategy, the disaster response team can adapt to the constraints caused by the temporary order and maintain stable and efficient disaster response operations in the context of multiple disasters.

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the Nation Science and Technology Council of Taiwan under contract 111-2625-M-011-008-MY2, the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology and the Water Resources Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs under contract NTUST-WRA-No.10019.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Alam MS, Chakraborty T, Hossain MZ, & Rahaman KR. (2022). Evacuation dilemmas of coastal households during cyclone Amphan and amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: a study of the Southwestern region of Bangladesh. Nat Hazards (Dordr), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05564-9
Ashraf A. (2021). Lessons learned from COVID-19 response for disaster risk management. Nat Hazards (Dordr), 107(2), 2027-2032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04658-0
Baker D, & Refsgaard K. (2007). Institutional development and scale matching in disaster response management. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 331-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.007
Cabinet Office GoJ. (2020). Damage by 2019 Typhoon no. 19. https://www.bousai.go.jp/
Cantelmi R, Steen R, Di Gravio G, & Patriarca R. (2022). Resilience in emergency management: Learning from COVID-19 in oil and gas platforms. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 76, 103026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103026
Das SA, Jessica; Ishiwatari, Mikio et al. (2020). Lessons from Hagibis: learning to cope with intensifying disasters in the age of new normal. Church World Service Japan. https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/lessons-hagibis-learning-cope-intensifying-disasters-age-new-normal
Fan J, Hambly BD, Sun Y, & Bao S. (2021). Simultaneous compound disasters from COVID ‐19 and catastrophic flooding. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12779
Feitelson E, Plaut P, Salzberger E, Shmueli D, Altshuler A, Amir S, & Ben-Gal M. (2022). Learning from Others' Disasters? A Comparative Study of SARS/MERS and COVID-19 Responses in Five Polities. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 74, 102913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102913
Ford JD, Zavaleta-Cortijo C, Ainembabazi T, Anza-Ramirez C, Arotoma-Rojas I, Bezerra J, Chicmana-Zapata V, Galappaththi EK, Hangula M, Kazaana C, Lwasa S, Namanya D, Nkwinti N, Nuwagira R, Okware S, Osipova M, Pickering K, Singh C, Berrang-Ford L, . . . Observatory C. (2022). Interactions between climate and COVID-19. Lancet Planet Health, 6(10), e825-e833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00174-7
Gerber BJ. (2007). Disaster Management in the United States: Examining Key Political and Policy Challenges. Policy Studies Journal, 35(2), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00217.x
Ishiwatari M, Koike T, Hiroki K, Toda T, & Katsube T. (2020). Managing disasters amid COVID-19 pandemic: Approaches of response to flood disasters. Prog Disaster Sci, 6, 100096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100096
Izumi T, & Shaw R. (2022). A multi-country comparative analysis of the impact of COVID-19 and natural hazards in India, Japan, the Philippines, and USA. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 73, 102899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102899
Kachali H, Haavisto I, Leskela RL, Valja A, & Nuutinen M. (2022). Are preparedness indices reflective of pandemic preparedness? A COVID-19 reality check. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 77, 103074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103074
Manitoba go. (2020). High water response activity: COVID-19 pandemic adaptations. https://www.gov.mb.ca/
McLoughlin D. (1985). <A Framework for Integrated Emergency Management.pdf>. Public Administration Review.
Medicine TUSoPHaT. (2021). What Is Disaster Management? Understanding Emergencies From Prevention to Mitigation. https://publichealth.tulane.edu/blog/what-is-disaster-management/
OSUMI M. (2020). Experts urge rethink of disaster response measures as Japan battles coronavirus. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/05/03/national/experts-urge-rethink-disaster-response-measures-japan-battles-coronavirus/
Phillips CA, Caldas A, Cleetus R, Dahl KA, Declet-Barreto J, Licker R, Merner LD, Ortiz-Partida JP, Phelan AL, Spanger-Siegfried E, Talati S, Trisos CH, & Carlson CJ. (2020). Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Climate Change, 10(7), 586-588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0804-2
Quarantelli EL. (1988). Disaster Crisis Management: A Summary of Research Findings. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 373-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00043.x
Renee N. Salas MD, M.P.H, James M. Shultz, Ph.D., and Caren G. Solomon, M.D., M.P.H. (2020). The Climate Crisis and Covid-19 — A Major Threat to the Pandemic Response.
Reynolds I. (2020). Japan Braces for Double Disaster of Covid Outbreaks at Flooding Shelters. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-22/japan-braces-for-double-disaster-of-covid-at-flooding-shelters
Seaberg D, Devine L, & Zhuang J. (2017). A review of game theory applications in natural disaster management research. Natural Hazards, 89(3), 1461-1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3033-x
Simonovic SP, Kundzewicz ZW, & Wright N. (2021). Floods and the COVID-19 pandemic-A new double hazard problem. WIREs Water, 8(2), e1509. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1509
Sun W, Bocchini P, & Davison BD. (2020). Applications of artificial intelligence for disaster management. Natural Hazards, 103(3), 2631-2689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04124-3
Tan L, Guo J, Mohanarajah S, & Zhou K. (2020). Can we detect trends in natural disaster management with artificial intelligence? A review of modeling practices. Natural Hazards, 107(3), 2389-2417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04429-3
UNODRR. Disaster management. Retrieved 2022/12/15 from https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-management
Welfare NCoS. (2020). Suspending volunteer center for disaster management. https://www.csw-naganocity.or.jp/
Yaddanapudi R, & Mishra AK. (2022). Compound impact of drought and COVID-19 on agriculture yield in the USA. Sci Total Environ, 807(Pt 1), 150801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150801

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Development of Disaster Response Strategies for Multi-Disasters

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

1.1 Disaster management

1.2 Disaster management during the COVID-19 pandemic

1.3 Disaster response challenges during the pandemic

1.4 Requirements of a multi-disaster response strategy

2. Research Methods

3. Disaster Response Process Review

3.1 Disaster response process before the pandemic

3.2 Disaster response process after the pandemic

3.3 Comparison of the response processes

4. Interviews

4.1 User interviews: design

4.2 Results of the user interviews

4.2.1 Video conferencing software

4.2.2 Messaging app

4.2.3 Chatbot

5. Operate: Strategies For Multi-disaster Response Operations

6. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1