Climate change with an increase of the global mean temperature will likely lead to glacial melt and disruptions in the global ocean streams (IPCC 2014). Other phenomena include increased frequency of extreme weather events, leading to higher risks of additional natural hazards, e.g., landslides and forest fires. Such a chain of events can be called multiple (Gill and Malamud 2014) or compound (Zscheischler et al. 2020) natural events or hazards, where a primary natural hazard directly triggers or, by changing the environment, increases the probability of secondary hazards. The increased risk of multiple natural hazards brings challenges to the planning and decision making in emergency response (ER) systems, especially in areas with limited experience from this, e.g., Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. Multiple natural hazards will be even more challenging in terms of command, control, and coordination of the responses due to their complexity. To avoid potential devastating consequence, there is a need to improve decision support for ER systems to cope with these kinds of hazards (Chacko et al. 2014). To coordinate a single large crisis with many involved actors is difficult, not the least in a decentralized crisis management structure (Grottenberg and Njå 2017). Sweden has, like many countries, such a decentralized ER system with no single national agency responsible for overall emergency management (EM). Instead, most responsibility falls to the municipalities. To understand how technologies could support the management of multiple natural hazards, it is important to understand the interactions and activities of the studied ER system. This calls for an exploration of the current EM to increase the understanding of factors that influence the response to multiple natural hazards, and how planning and decision support tools can help to improve this.
1.1 Aim and objectives
The aim of this paper is to deepen the understanding of ER to natural hazards by identifying and examining key planning and decision activities in the Swedish ER system. This is done by (i) identifying key planning and decision activities used in practice in the response to natural hazards, (ii) systematically describing the activities using activity theory, and (iii) using activity theory to examine the activities in search of planning and decision support needs.
The paper provides knowledge to policy makers and practitioners of where to concentrate the development of tools for collaborative preparedness and response work to cope with future challenges of natural hazards. The paper will also inform the EM research community by applying activity theory which provides a theoretical understanding of ER activities.
1.2 Related work
While there are previous studies developing planning and decision support tools to improve ER to natural hazards (e.g., Guth et al. 2019; Duan et al. 2020), there is a lack of studies on the actual needs of the ER systems to manage these types of events. This creates a gap between the science documented and the practice used in ER. However, several studies examine issues, needs, and challenges of ERs to large-scale single natural hazards, and some provide suggestions or directions for improvements connected to planning and decision support.
Theodora (2020) suggests that natural hazards require the integration of advanced digital technology to support information gathering, evaluations, prioritization, visualization, and monitoring. According to Simonovic et al. (2021), decision tools based solely on risk are insufficient, and new technology needs to consider complex multi-hazards. They suggest a holistic approach, considering the larger societal system affected by the hazards, all costs and benefits, and alternative solutions, using multi-objective optimization and simulation tools. However, user acceptance is a challenge for all technological systems, and can be an obstacle for joint sense-making between response actors (Lu and Xue 2016), which is a crucial aspect for responses to large-scale emergencies.
Another challenge identified in the literature is public awareness, both regarding the risk of hazards and the subsequent ER. According to Tingsanchali (2012), who studied EM for urban floods in Thailand, public awareness can be increased by community participation in risk assessments and planning of flood hazards. A participatory process will also increase the success and effectiveness of warning systems and communication with the public, by increasing the public’s knowledge of risks and make them more familiar with natural hazard responses (Tingsanchali 2012; Bird et al. 2018). The involvement of communities and social organizations can be crucial in the management of natural hazards (Sim and Yu 2018), as they often constitute first response and local resilience actors (Genovese and Przyluski 2013). Bird et al. (2018) identified several success factors of interactive crisis communication during the Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Iceland, e.g., pre-eruption town hall meetings, the establishment of information and media centers, and increased dissemination of risk data. More complex natural hazards in the future will also require more creative responses, which need to be accepted by the public through improved interactive public communication (Steelman and McCaffrey 2013).
According to Miao et al. (2013), typical issues of emergency resource management are inefficient communication and a lack of interaction, cooperation, and integration. In a retrospect analysis of four disasters in Asia and the U.S., they suggest a more comprehensive approach to address the issues, using comprehensive information systems with cross-network integration. Comprehensive EM should cover all phases of the EM cycle (Greiving et al. 2006; Motamedi et al. 2009), and be combined with planning and operational control systems (Pesigan and Geroy 2009). Also, Bosomworth et al. (2017) suggested that to overcome the challenges, EM needs to be a component in community disaster risk reduction and a network governance approach should be adopted for comprehensive cooperation and easier dissemination of information. This, to overcome two core challenges of strategic EM in Australia: community expectations, and effective use of information systems and social media.
The contribution of this paper is the identification and analysis of key planning and decision activities in the Swedish ER system, addressing the research gap on determining the actual needs of planning and decision support tools in ER systems when managing multiple natural hazards. Since Sweden has limited experience of such events, we address this gap by studying the current ER system and how it would function during multiple natural hazards.
1.3 Study context
The Swedish ER system is decentralized, where the affected have the main responsibility of the response, i.e., the municipalities and the countyadministrations (CA). The actors involved in the response to natural hazards can be divided into three groups: response actors, support actors, and expert actors.
The main response actors are the fire and rescue services (FRS), responsible for rescue missions during natural hazards, and the emergency medical services (EMS), providing aid to injured people. The FRSs are organized on municipal level or in federations covering multiple municipalities, while the EMS is organized on the county level with the ambulance service often procured from contractors. Depending on the circumstances, they can have support from voluntary response organizations, the Swedish Armed Forces, the Swedish Police, and private contractors. In this study, the EMS’s potential involvement in the response has been excluded.
The supporting actors include the municipalities that have a “geographical area responsibility”, which means that they should work for cooperation and coordination between societal actors during extraordinary events, e.g., natural hazards. The municipality is also responsible for providing information to the public. The CAs also have a geographical area responsibility on a regional level, concerning the coordination and cooperation between municipalities. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) can provide support to FRS organizations in terms of resources, cooperation, and coordination. Other supporting agencies that may be involved during natural hazards are the Swedish Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), the Swedish Church, business actors, and voluntary support organizations.
Expert actors can assist response actors with information concerning different natural events. For instance, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) is one of the main expert actors, forecasting all weather-related events, monitoring all larger watercourses, and providing information about the current wildfire risk. The Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) has the role to inform and support other actors concerning geological hazards, e.g., landslides or debris flows. If a natural hazard has impact on critical infrastructure (CI), e.g., the road or rail network, the Swedish Transport Administration will be involved to support the response with information and expertise.
In the period 2006-2021, Sweden experienced several major natural hazards, mostly concerning wildfires and flooding events. Data on the magnitude and consequences of some of these events are presented in Table 1.