Table A2 Adopted framework indicators... | Emerald Publishing

Table A2

Adopted framework indicators and benchmarks of effective FEMS for earthquake (Gilissen et al., 2016)

Criterion		(1) Absent/minimal	(2) Emerging	(3) Moderate	(4) Significant	(5) Outstanding
i	Emergency planning for earthquake response	Basic emergency plans to inform emergency professionals on responding to generic hazard events, no earthquake-specific emergency management plans. Plans not tailored to local conditions. Incident responses mainly reactive and uninformed by planning.	As above, but locally tailored (not nationally consistent), planning documents exist for generic emergencies	As above, but nationally consistent, locally tailored planning documents exist, sporadic evidence for local earthquake emergency plans, not based on periodic risk assessment	Nationally consistent generic and earthquake-specific emergency planning established locally/regionally, informed by hazard assessment	Nationally consistent generic and earthquake-specific planning established to build risk-response capacity based on ongoing local scale risk assessment and monitoring. Planning integrates hazard assessment with vulnerability information (e.g. critical infrastructure location, population characteristics), accompanied by/aligned with subnational/national planning document
ii	Arrangements for institutional learning	Little to no attempts at identifying lessons learned from incident management	Debriefing protocols follow significant incidents to help identify strengths/weaknesses of incident management	Accompanying debriefing practices, emergency management is subject to public scrutiny and review following significant incidents. Attempts are made to implement learned lessons	Beyond significant incident responses, evidence for proactive institutional learning, efforts to facilitate knowledge exchange within/between administrative/ management districts, periodically evaluate management system performance	Procedures established to promote frequent institutional learning and following emergency events, mechanisms to facilitate knowledge exchange, sharing experiences and best practices (e.g. frequent meetings, computer-based tools supporting dialogue between emergency professionals). Emergency management periodically subjected to public scrutiny/review
iii	Requirements of exercising emergency arrangements	Exercises are initiated on an ad hoc basis in some emergency management districts, only. There are no specific provisions for earthquake incident management	As above, exercising is sporadic, with some examples of provisions for earthquake incident management	Training and exercising emergency protocols is an established practice and involves relevant emergency professionals. There are more examples of specific training/exercising for earthquake incident management, but this is not a requirement nor common practice	As above, but additional actors are occasionally engaged in emergency exercises (e.g. communities, private sector and media). Training/ exercising for earthquake incident management is an established practice and is nationally consistent	Training and exercising are initiated periodically to test planning and operational procedures for specific hazard events at local to national scales. All emergency professionals are involved, and additional actors are engaged in exercises, where relevant. Exercises are seen as an additional means of raising citizen awareness of earthquake risks
iv	Distribution of responsibilities within and between emergency actors	Different organisations/agencies involved in emergency responses, lack of coordination	Clear legislation clarifying roles/responsibilities of emergency actors ensuring a nationally consistent approach	Sporadic mechanisms to facilitate integrated work between emergency actors across the country. Mechanisms for upscaling/downscaling emergency responses reportedly lacking effectiveness	Mechanisms for facilitating work integration between emergency actors embedded in emergency management governance and practice, including public agencies/organisations, critical infrastructure providers, civil society organisations, voluntary sector. Clear understanding of roles/responsibilities, effective response upscaling/downscaling mechanisms	Facilitated inter-organisational work. Clear roles/responsibilities distinction, established communication and information exchange channels. Mechanisms for upscaling/downscaling emergency responses through operational, tactical and strategic decision-making
v	Community preparedness	Little-to-no attempts at public risk consulting, public unaware of emergency procedures	Nationally inconsistent, sporadic efforts at public risk awareness	Emergency professionals consistently required (by law/policy) to harness public risk awareness. Examples of emergency professionals actively engaging communities in preparedness	Active, widespread community engagement across the country	Emergency professionals actively involved in enhancing public earthquake preparedness at household/community levels across administrative/emergency management districts
vi	Provision of resources (financial, human resources, equipment, decision support tools)	Lacking resources to support emergency professional roles	Essential supply of necessary resources to support emergency professional roles	Nationally inconsistent availability of additional resources supporting earthquake response	Nationally established additional resources supporting earthquake response, resource-sharing/ distribution mechanisms	Emergency (earthquake) management, adequately resourced regarding funding, equipment provision, tools supporting preparation, response, recovery activities, single/multi-agency decision-making. Additional arrangements to engage further resources
vii	Arrangements for supporting recovery-based activities	Little-to-no immediate recovery planning following emergency incidents	Evidence of some planning for sparce recovery measures (e.g. return of critical infrastructure)	Nationally guided Emergency professionals required (law/policy) to develop recovery plans detailing roles/responsibilities, impact assessment, outlining provisions for likely impacts	Arrangements at all territorial levels to trigger handover from response to recovery phases of emergency management, coordinate recovery activities	Established general, earthquake-specific recovery management planning, dealing with physical damage, humanitarian issues (e.g. displaced communities, victim welfare needs), environmental, economic, and infrastructure issues. for other agencies/organisations involvement per request. Governance structures to coordinate recovery activities according to periodic impact assessment, successfully manage cross-border issues

Criterion		(1) Absent/minimal	(2) Emerging	(3) Moderate	(4) Significant	(5) Outstanding
i	Emergency planning for earthquake response	Basic emergency plans to inform emergency professionals on responding to generic hazard events, no earthquake-specific emergency management plans. Plans not tailored to local conditions. Incident responses mainly reactive and uninformed by planning.	As above, but locally tailored (not nationally consistent), planning documents exist for generic emergencies	As above, but nationally consistent, locally tailored planning documents exist, sporadic evidence for local earthquake emergency plans, not based on periodic risk assessment	Nationally consistent generic and earthquake-specific emergency planning established locally/regionally, informed by hazard assessment	Nationally consistent generic and earthquake-specific planning established to build risk-response capacity based on ongoing local scale risk assessment and monitoring. Planning integrates hazard assessment with vulnerability information (e.g. critical infrastructure location, population characteristics), accompanied by/aligned with subnational/national planning document
ii	Arrangements for institutional learning	Little to no attempts at identifying lessons learned from incident management	Debriefing protocols follow significant incidents to help identify strengths/weaknesses of incident management	Accompanying debriefing practices, emergency management is subject to public scrutiny and review following significant incidents. Attempts are made to implement learned lessons	Beyond significant incident responses, evidence for proactive institutional learning, efforts to facilitate knowledge exchange within/between administrative/ management districts, periodically evaluate management system performance	Procedures established to promote frequent institutional learning and following emergency events, mechanisms to facilitate knowledge exchange, sharing experiences and best practices (e.g. frequent meetings, computer-based tools supporting dialogue between emergency professionals). Emergency management periodically subjected to public scrutiny/review
iii	Requirements of exercising emergency arrangements	Exercises are initiated on an ad hoc basis in some emergency management districts, only. There are no specific provisions for earthquake incident management	As above, exercising is sporadic, with some examples of provisions for earthquake incident management	Training and exercising emergency protocols is an established practice and involves relevant emergency professionals. There are more examples of specific training/exercising for earthquake incident management, but this is not a requirement nor common practice	As above, but additional actors are occasionally engaged in emergency exercises (e.g. communities, private sector and media). Training/ exercising for earthquake incident management is an established practice and is nationally consistent	Training and exercising are initiated periodically to test planning and operational procedures for specific hazard events at local to national scales. All emergency professionals are involved, and additional actors are engaged in exercises, where relevant. Exercises are seen as an additional means of raising citizen awareness of earthquake risks
iv	Distribution of responsibilities within and between emergency actors	Different organisations/agencies involved in emergency responses, lack of coordination	Clear legislation clarifying roles/responsibilities of emergency actors ensuring a nationally consistent approach	Sporadic mechanisms to facilitate integrated work between emergency actors across the country. Mechanisms for upscaling/downscaling emergency responses reportedly lacking effectiveness	Mechanisms for facilitating work integration between emergency actors embedded in emergency management governance and practice, including public agencies/organisations, critical infrastructure providers, civil society organisations, voluntary sector. Clear understanding of roles/responsibilities, effective response upscaling/downscaling mechanisms	Facilitated inter-organisational work. Clear roles/responsibilities distinction, established communication and information exchange channels. Mechanisms for upscaling/downscaling emergency responses through operational, tactical and strategic decision-making
v	Community preparedness	Little-to-no attempts at public risk consulting, public unaware of emergency procedures	Nationally inconsistent, sporadic efforts at public risk awareness	Emergency professionals consistently required (by law/policy) to harness public risk awareness. Examples of emergency professionals actively engaging communities in preparedness	Active, widespread community engagement across the country	Emergency professionals actively involved in enhancing public earthquake preparedness at household/community levels across administrative/emergency management districts
vi	Provision of resources (financial, human resources, equipment, decision support tools)	Lacking resources to support emergency professional roles	Essential supply of necessary resources to support emergency professional roles	Nationally inconsistent availability of additional resources supporting earthquake response	Nationally established additional resources supporting earthquake response, resource-sharing/ distribution mechanisms	Emergency (earthquake) management, adequately resourced regarding funding, equipment provision, tools supporting preparation, response, recovery activities, single/multi-agency decision-making. Additional arrangements to engage further resources
vii	Arrangements for supporting recovery-based activities	Little-to-no immediate recovery planning following emergency incidents	Evidence of some planning for sparce recovery measures (e.g. return of critical infrastructure)	Nationally guided Emergency professionals required (law/policy) to develop recovery plans detailing roles/responsibilities, impact assessment, outlining provisions for likely impacts	Arrangements at all territorial levels to trigger handover from response to recovery phases of emergency management, coordinate recovery activities	Established general, earthquake-specific recovery management planning, dealing with physical damage, humanitarian issues (e.g. displaced communities, victim welfare needs), environmental, economic, and infrastructure issues. for other agencies/organisations involvement per request. Governance structures to coordinate recovery activities according to periodic impact assessment, successfully manage cross-border issues

Source:

Figure created by author