The American Review of Public

Administration
http://arp.sagepub.com/

Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally Collaborative Emergency

Management Networks
Naim Kapucu and Vener Garayev
The American Review of Public Administration 2013 43: 312 originally published online 3 May 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0275074012444719

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://arp.sagepub.com/content/43/3/312

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Public Administration

Additional services and information for The American Review of Public Administration can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://arp.sagepub.com/content/43/3/312.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 28, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 3, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF BRAZIL on November 5, 2013

444719
American Review of Public Administration
2012
ARPXXX10.1177/0275074012444719Kapucu and GarayevThe

Article
The American Review of Public Administration

Designing, Managing, and Sustaining

43(3) 312­–330
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
Functionally Collaborative sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0275074012444719
Emergency Management Networks arp.sagepub.com

Naim Kapucu1 and Vener Garayev2

Abstract
The networked governance performance in emergency management is dependent on struc-
tural, spatial, and temporal issues embedded into interorganizational relationships. Network
sustainability is one of such issues that requires due attention by scholars and practitioners in
the field. This article examines how network sustainability, namely, the extent to which network
relationships are maintained and nurtured over time, is affected by interdependent network
relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology (ICT) utilization
at the local level. Based on 118 responses from a self-administered survey distributed to four
county-based metropolitan regions in the state of Florida, this study provides a multiple linear
regression analysis. Using UCINET social network analysis software, additional analysis of the
network structure and relationships in the four counties is provided for further insight. The
findings suggest positive and statistically significant relationships between network relationships
and information-communication technology utilization and that there is no statistically signifi-
cant impact of network complexity as well as control variables such as sector type, number of
full-time employees, and yearly budget.The network analysis suggests different patterns between
friendship and advice networks during the preparedness and response phases of an emergency.
This study contributes to the literature on networked governance applied to the field of emer-
gency management.

Keywords
emergency management, networks, network design, network development, network sustainability,
information-communication technology, complexity

Introduction
Emergency management is one of the fields under the realm of public policy and management
that has extensively utilized networks to deal with public issues over the past decades. The
complex nature and substantive impacts of emergency management issues proved to be an
inability for single organizations to tackle on their own, leading them to accept a collaborative

1
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
2
Gediz University, Izmir, Turkey

Corresponding Author:
Naim Kapucu, School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida, HPA II Suite 238M, Orlando,
FL 32816-1395, USA.
Email: Kapucu@ucf.edu
Kapucu and Garayev 313

approach (Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010; Kapucu & Garayev, 2011) as the main solution to
the problem. Focusing on an all-hazard approach as the primary strategy used to deal with disas-
ters, organizations responsible for emergency management find themselves, quite often,
involved in the midst of networked governance that envisions shared goals and responsibilities
as well as coordinated and unified action to produce a commonly owned result (Klijn &
Koppenjan, 2000).
Networked governance, on the other hand, is a combination of interorganizational interactions
spread across a timeline, the nature of which depends on the network structure and relationships,
and the contextual factors and issues to be addressed. Disasters are events requiring immediate
response before and after they strike (Birkland, 1997). Major disasters over the past few years
show that having organizations ready to respond is not enough to provide for effective emergency
response. One of the issues to be addressed in this regard is network sustainability—the extent to
which interorganizational relationships are maintained, especially in the absence of disasters
when it is deemed unnecessary. Focusing on four metropolitan regions in the state of Florida, this
study analyzes how organizations responsible for emergency management, in their respective
counties, understand the network relationships they are involved in. This study specifically looks
at how network sustainability is affected by interorganizational relationships, network complexity,
and information-communication technology (ICT) utilization as perceived by the organizations
involved in those networks. The study seeks to find answers to the following questions: Is there
any relationship between interorganizational relationships, network complexity, and ICT utiliza-
tion as predictor variables on one side, and network sustainability as an outcome variable on the
other? What are the structural and relational aspects of interorganizational networks involved in
disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery?
To answer these research questions, a self-administered survey was electronically mailed to
312 organizations responsible for emergency management as specified in the respective coun-
ties’ Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (CEMP). Based on the 118 responses
received, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify statistical relationships
among the dependent and independent variables. The results of the regression analysis were
further discussed in light of the predetermined network structures as specified in the CEMPs and
network structures derived from responses to network-related questions in the survey. Responses
to open-ended questions were also included to provide additional insight. Along with contribu-
tions to the literature on network theory, this study intends to provide managerial and policy
implications with the purpose of improving emergency response and recovery. Directions for
further research are also discussed.

Context of the Study

The fact that emergency management relies on collaborative approaches today is no longer a
novelty. This field has adapted itself to emerging disaster threats of increasing scope and sever-
ity as well as to the need for reforms in light of the failures to effectively respond to disasters
experienced over past decades. One of the most dramatic changes has been the acknowledg-
ment by governments, at all levels, of the urgency to design a more effective emergency
response system that would address previous failures. The desired systems would bring more
flexibility and horizontality, in terms of intra-organizational and inter-organizational relation-
ships, as well as a strong emphasis on coordination, collaboration, and communication. The
establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1978 was the basis
for such evolution (Schroeder, Wamsley, & Ward, 2001). At this time, FEMA absorbed several
agencies aiming for a provision of unified and coordinated national response. Natural disasters
and the noninclusive civil defense approach, used until the end of the Cold War in the late
314 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

1980s, signaled for additional reforms, one of the most important of which was the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (Sylves, 2007).
The Stafford Act embodied the principles and mechanisms needed to assist state and local
communities in times of disasters. These features were supposed to be implemented through the
Federal Response Plan (FRP), which was created along with the act. The FRP established an all-
hazards and functions-based approach to emergency management that aimed for a coordinated
and efficient use of resources during disasters. The plan enlisted 12 emergency support functions
(ESF)—a measure to group organizations based on their responsibilities, capabilities, capacity,
and expertise. This approach established not only the framework for coordination but also col-
laboration among agencies representing different sectors and levels of government. The FRP
proved ineffective during disasters of the late 1980s and 1990s, namely, due to its failure during
Hurricane Hugo, the Loma Prieta Earthquake, and Hurricane Andrew (Bullock, Haddow, &
Coppola, 2005; Kapucu & Ozerdem, 2013), and especially in response to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. Subsequent reforms were of paradigmatic and consequential nature. In
2003 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created absorbing 22 federal agencies,
which put FEMA in the peripheral role of managing natural disasters with lessened authority and
budget over emergency management policies.
Focusing more on the notion of homeland security, DHS created the National Response Plan
(NRP), which was based on existing plans with an emphasis on all-hazard, all-discipline, and
collaborative approaches to emergency management (Bullock et al., 2005; Kapucu & Garayev,
2011). The plan envisioned better communication as well as increased partnerships among all
stakeholders in emergency management. The 12-function framework of the FRP was expanded
with 3 additional ESFs to equal 15, thus providing a more inclusive and comprehensive approach
to tackle disasters. The years following 2003, and specifically disasters like Hurricane Katrina of
2005, revealed the deficiencies of the existing system, urging for additional changes and reforms
(Kamarck, 2003). The federal government took relevant steps to recognize the value of FEMA’s
previous role and capacity, which resulted in the creation of the National Response Framework
(NRF) in 2008. Having similarly 15 ESFs, the NRF asserted the need for enhanced collaboration,
coordination, and communication among emergency management stakeholders and emphasized
the importance of disaster-resilient communities structured around the all-hazard and interdisci-
plinary approach to prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Kapucu,
2009).
This historical evolution at the national level was similarly applied to and adopted at the state
and local levels over time. The NRP came in conjunction with the National Incident Management
System (NIMS), which proposed a nationwide template to address disasters. NIMS also intro-
duced the Incident Command System (ICS), which described the mechanism for emergency
response and recovery. Local governments across the United States are expected to adopt and
implement similar structures. County governments, which are the focus of this study, are com-
missioned to design their emergency management systems accordingly, with slight variations
due to regional, geographic, demographic, financial, and administrative issues. This study spe-
cifically analyzes four counties in the state of Florida that have emergency management systems
adjusted to national-level expectations.
The collaborative and coordinative approach at the federal level is similarly practiced at the
county level, with counties having CEMP with a number of ESFs ranging from 15 to 20 in most
instances (Kapucu & Ozerdem, 2013). Some examples of the commonly accepted and codified
ESFs are as follows: ESF#1—Transportation, mainly executed by the respective local transpor-
tation authority; ESF#4—Firefighting, mainly executed by respective local public firefighting
agencies; ESF#6—Mass Care, mainly headed and executed by the nonprofit American Red
Cross; and ESF#12—Energy, mainly tackled by the respective local agency, a private agency in
Kapucu and Garayev 315

most instances. The nature of the support agencies that are mobilized in accordance with the
level of emergency, in turn, may vary in terms of the sector, level of government, organizational
size, and so on. American Red Cross, for example, may contact such nonprofits as United Way
or Second Harvest Food Bank when its own resources are exhausted or the emergency situation
is overwhelming. Likewise, the local firefighting agencies may contact a state-level firefighting
association when additional support is required. Most of the CEMPs provide a list of all ESFs
and respective primary and support agencies the local emergency management agency collabo-
rates with in times of emergency situations.
This study specifically focuses on four metropolitan areas in the state of Florida (Orange,
Hillsborough, Duval, and Miami-Dade). The four counties were chosen based on their size and
the population they serve, all of which are also major metropolitan regions in the state of Florida.
As is the case of many counties within the state, those chosen have independent Emergency
Operation Centers (EOC) and are relatively larger in size with 5 to 10 employees. Each of these
counties collaborates with 60 to 90 public, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations in times of
disasters. These organizations constitute an informal network of collaborators who come together
based on the scope and severity of emergencies, with significant disasters resulting in full activa-
tion of the network. The following section explains the methodology of the study.

Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

The nature of emergencies and disasters today forces emergency response and recovery organiza-
tions to collaborate in order to be effective (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Callahan & Holzer,
1994; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). Organizations with limited capacity and capabilities tend to
create partnerships sharing resources, information, personnel, finances, and expertise (McDonald,
2008). These aspects have been reflected in the literature as collaborative governance (Bingham,
Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005), which is defined as a “governing arrangement where one or more
public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that
is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy
or manage public programs or assets” (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p. 2). These partnerships are often
multiorganizational and cross-jurisdictional, resulting in a collaborative network approach to
emergency management (Weber, 2003).
It is important to clarify at this stage why emergency management networks are considered
collaborative by nature. Kamensky et al. (Kamensky, Burlin, & Abramson, 2004) defines collabo-
ration as the process during which “people from different organizations produce something
together through joint effort, resources, and decision making, and share ownership of the final
product or service” (p. 8). In other words, there is a high level of commitment by organizations
involved in collaborative practices in terms of several aspects ranging from communicating infor-
mation to engagement in common activities and operations. This approach is similar to Jankowski
and Nyerges’ (2001) view on interorganizational arrangements. The authors argue that there are
four possible options for interorganizational arrangement: communication, cooperation, coordi-
nation, and collaboration. According to the authors, organizations commitment increases as inter-
organizational arrangements move on the spectrum from communication to collaboration. In this
regard, the last option, collaborative networks are the best tool to deal with emergencies (Ward &
Wamsley, 2007), since emergency management requires outmost commitment by pooling and use
of resources, personnel, and information through a commonly established framework of collab-
orative approach—at this level, the commitment of organizations is the highest.
Collaborative networks have been widely utilized in the emergency management field, though
excellence in networked and collaborative management has not been achieved yet (Kapucu &
Van Wart, 2006). Networks are dynamic structures comprising multiple organizations often
316 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

located in geographically different sites (Snow, Lipnack, & Stamps, 1999). They are multisite
groups of organizations with different preferences, norms, and values coming together for a com-
mon goal and relying mainly on ICT for their operations and communication (Grabowski &
Roberts, 1999). They might be informal and established on a voluntary basis (or emergent; Isett,
Mergel, LeRoux, & Mischen, 2011) or mandated by legal and/or regulatory arrangements (Bryson
et al., 2006). Networks are generally characterized by a flexible and nonrigid administrative struc-
ture and a nonhierarchical mode of governance, which could be considered as positive attributes.
They are often criticized, however, on the grounds of slow decision making and issues pertaining
to leadership, trust, accountability, and performance measurement (Ward & Wamsley, 2007).
Nevertheless, interorganizational and intergovernmental policy making is useful especially
in the field of emergency management where tackling emergency incidents is almost impossible
without the involvement of other parties, including nonprofit and for-profit sectors and com-
munities and individuals (Mushkatel & Weschler, 1985). Such governance networks today, as
Sorensen and Torfing (2011) pose it, serve as tools of innovative practices because of different
perspectives, ideas, and practices pooled to produce a unified action. Emergency management
networks are generally emergent by nature, especially in times of relatively huge disasters, due
to the fact that they are not governed by a formal agreement but rather by ad hoc informal
arrangements of relationships created to tackle common complex problems. The way networks
are utilized, however, is a crucial factor that will affect their ultimate performance (Trotter,
Briody, Sengir, & Meerwarth, 2008). More specifically, networks in emergency management
are more effective, if maintained and sustained, namely, when network relationships are stable
over time (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Milward & Provan, 2000). This article defines network sus-
tainability as the continuation and/or evolution of network relationships in the absence of trig-
gering factors for network collaboration.
There is extensive literature on factors affecting the nature and specificities of emergency and
disaster management in general and emergency management network sustainability in particular.
Some of them focus on leadership competencies (Van Wart & Kapucu, 2011), and others focus
on the political, cultural, or structural context (Noordegraaf & Newman, 2011). Such studies
mainly emphasize intraorganizational characteristics; in essence, though, network sustainability
is a matter of interorganizational characteristics and relationships. Starkey, Barnatt, and Tempest
(2000) argue that network sustainability is possible only with the existence of what they call
latent organizations that maintain certain levels of interorganizational interaction even in the
absence of necessity to come together. Their main role is to preserve network characteristics for
future “projects,” as Sydow and Staber (2002) call them. Hence, project networks are those net-
works that are ad hoc in nature and require appropriate means to maintain network relationships,
tools, and overall characteristics. Gillespie et al. (Gillespie, Colignon, Banerjee, Murty, & Rogge,
1993) state that network sustainability can be achieved through continuous professional and
personal relationships and interactions that address a continuously present and active problem.
Whereas the literature abounds on the factors affecting network sustainability, this study focuses
on three of them, namely, network relationships, network complexity, and ICT utilization.
As a group of several actors working together to achieve a common goal in the broadest sense
(Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007), networks are highly dependent on interorganizational relationships
and interactions (Vangen & Huxham, 2003). Accordingly, network sustainability is dependent on
the interdependency of organizational goals (DeSanctis, Staudenmayer, & Wong, 1999). In a sense,
it is what brings those actors together—their main and common goal for collaboration as emer-
gency management agencies—which ultimately determines the scope and the nature of the net-
work collaboration. It is also an organization’s interdependency, in terms of resources and assets
(Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999), which are shared to minimize cost and increase organizational perfor-
mance and productivity (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Fiszben & Lowden, 1999). Network relationships
Kapucu and Garayev 317

are characterized by specific asset interdependencies, which are the cornerstones of networks.
Once this multiagency perspective (Davies, 2003) is dissolved, it is needless as well as impossible
for a group of organizations to sustain their relationships in the long run. Emergency management
is a specific case, in which the organizations’ limited capabilities and capacities often force them to
collaborate with others (Jordan, 2010) in order to deal with disasters of an unexpected nature,
scope, and severity (Thurmaier & Wood, 2002). Therefore, emergency management extensively
relies on a multiagency collaborative approach (Drabek, Tamminga, Kilijanek, & Adams, 1981),
which is very much influenced by the nature and level of interdependency among the network
actors. In light of the literature, thus, the first hypothesis to be tested in this article is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Interdependent network relationships are positively associated with network

sustainability.

One factor closely related to interdependent network relationships is the concept of network
complexity. Broadly speaking and for the purposes of this article, network complexity is defined
as increased, multifaceted, and multidirectional relationships in complex settings and times of
emergencies (Kapucu, 2009). In other words, the more interorganizational relationships exist
between different actors, the more complexity there is in that specific network. Thus, for exam-
ple, a network in which all actors interact with each other would result in more complexity when
compared with the same network of less active and collaborative actors. The literature also
emphasizes network complexity as a factor that affects network sustainability. Jassawalla and
Sashittal (1999) argue that network complexity is a natural phenomenon pertaining to collab-
orative practices. Accordingly, complexity is characterized by interactions among multiple
actors with different goals and expectations and is a factor that might negatively affect network
performance and, thus, sustainability (DeSanctis et al., 1999). If mismanaged, network complex-
ity might result in a chaotic environment and disorderly relationships. It is imperative that net-
work actors understand the advantages and disadvantages of network complexity and utilize it
beneficially. This article assumes that network complexity, if not managed properly, especially
in the context of emergencies and disasters, would result in decreased network sustainability. In
other words, if organizations consider the multiplicity of actors, interactions, and goals as an
opportunity for more effective network results, network sustainability has higher chance; other-
wise, network complexity is a hindrance that should be managed wisely. The hypothesis to be
tested in regard to network complexity is as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Network complexity is negatively associated with network sustainability.

The literature also links network sustainability to technical and structural factors. One of the
most commonly cited factors to affect network sustainability is the utilization of ICT. Technological
innovations, social media, and electronic opportunities today are inevitable parts of creating, devel-
oping, and maintaining networks (Mowshowitz, 1997). The utilization of ICT, especially for com-
munication and information exchange, is of practical benefit in the network context (Dawes &
Eglene, 2004). ICT utilized for network purposes generally minimizes transaction costs, saves
time, increases network efficiency, and speeds up the overall process of decision making and
implementation (den Hengst & Sol, 2001). Though not a completely sufficient factor, ICT, thus,
contributes to the overall effectiveness of collaborative networks (Cohen & Mankin, 1999). The
main contribution of ICT is engendered in fastened, enhanced, facilitated, coordinated, and stream-
lined network operations (Kelly & Stark, 2002). Among the latest research on the importance of
ICT and social media is Jaeger et al.’s (2007) work with specific application focus in
the emergency management field. The authors emphasize the use of ICT, internet, and social media
to coordinate community emergency response with all possible stakeholders that may be included.
318 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

Hughes and Palen (2009) also exemplify how such social media instruments as Twitter can be
utilized for emergency situations on large scales. In sum, network sustainability is far from seam-
less in the absence of the technological tools that make networks viable in today’s conditions. The
third and last hypothesis of this article, therefore, is as follows:

Hypothesis 3: Utilization of information-communication technologies (ICT) is positively

associated with network sustainability.

Although many other structural and relational factors contribute to network sustainability,
this study takes a modest approach by testing the impact of three factors, namely, interdependent
network relationships, network complexity, and ICT utilization on network sustainability. These
factors are being tested in the context of the emergency management field, which is further
explained in the following section.
In addition to the main constructs of the study, three control variables were included in the
model for testing. These variables are the agency sector (SEC), the number of full-time employ-
ees in the agency (EMP), and the budget allocated for the specific agency in the respective fiscal
year (BDG). The main intent for adding these control variables to the model is to test whether
these attributes of the organizations, in this or another way, affect their relationships with their
network of agencies. They were chosen with the main assumption that these factors might in this
or another way affect the level, volume, and density of interorganizational relationships and col-
laborative practices. The variables were added for exploratory purposes in line with what emer-
gency managers have reported in responses to open-ended questions in different contexts and
research conducted by the authors. The overall conceptual model of the study is shown below in
Figure 1.
According to Figure 1, interdependent network relationships (NET), network complexity
(COM), and ICT are independent variables whose relationship is tested in regard to the depen-
dent variable of network sustainability (SUS). These relationships are tested while controlling
for the type of agency or its sector (SEC), the number of full-time employees in the agency
(EMP), and the overall yearly budget of the agency (BDG). The overall conceptual framework,
thus, exemplifies a model in which relational (interdependent network relationships), structural
(network complexity), and technical (ICT utilization) factors are combined to explain the sus-
tainability of a network—all being tested through the three major hypotheses. These intervari-
able relationships are believed and assumed by the authors to influence the intensity and
frequency of interactor interactions, namely, the main tenet of any network.

Method
This study employs data derived from responses to a self-administered survey that was elec-
tronically mailed to all agencies responsible for emergency response and recovery in 4 metro-
politan areas in the state of Florida, totaling 312 agencies. The data were collected between
October and December of 2010. The agencies comprise primary and support agencies from
public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors in four counties (Orange County, Hillsborough County,
Duval County, and Miami-Dade County). The list of agencies was obtained from the respective
counties’ CEMP that specifies which agencies are responsible for which ESFs during emergency
response and recovery. The process of data collection took approximately 3 to 4 months due to
the difficulty of reaching the agencies for survey completion. A total of 150 responses were col-
lected, among which only 118 were eligible for analysis after data clearance. A total of 93, 69,
66, and 84 (312 total) organizations were identified to be contacted and 40, 35, 23, and 20
responses (118 total) were received for Orange County, Hillsborough County, Duval County,
and Miami-Dade County, respectively.
Kapucu and Garayev 319

Figure 1. Conceptual map of the study.

The survey consisted of blocks of questions regarding the main variables of this study that
were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with response options ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree with neither agree/nor disagree at the midpoint, in addition to open-
ended questions with the aim of obtaining additional qualitative insight about the responses
provided. The blocks of questions were combined into index variables and utilized for multiple
regression analysis. The ultimate index constructs utilized in the study have the following
Cronbach’s alpha reliability values: interdependent network relationships (NET) = .880
(6 items), network complexity (COM) = .801 (5 items), ICT = .708 (5 items), and network sus-
tainability (SUS) = .742 (4 items; see Appendix A for index items of each construct).
In addition to regression analysis, this study also utilized a network approach to analyze the
structures of networks as specified by the respondents of the survey. The analysis presents an
overview of networks as perceived by the respondents to the survey questions, targeting interor-
ganizational relationships. These analyses are utilized to understand and interpret findings from
the regression analysis. Specifically for the purposes of the network analysis, all of the respon-
dents were identifiable in terms of the agency type and name. Additional insight on the benefits
of sustainable network relationships for the field of emergency management is derived from
qualitative responses through open-ended questions in the survey. The next section presents the
findings of the multiple regression analysis, in light of the network analysis, to support regres-
sion results.

Findings
Despite the relatively small sample, normality assumptions for the multiple regression analysis
were mostly met. Results of the analysis on the impact of interdependent network relationships,
network complexity, and ICT utilization on network sustainability specify an R2 value of .197
(r = .443), accounting for about 20% of the variation found in the network sustainability dependent
variable. The model is also statistically significant at the level of .001, namely, there is less than a
0.1% probability that the calculated F value of 4.526 would happen by chance.
In addition, it was found that the control variables do not have any statistically significant
explanation for the variance in dependent variables caused by independent variables. In other
words, the control variables of sector, number of employees, and budget do not provide any
320 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

Table 1. Coefficients of Regression Modela.

Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients  

Model B SE β t-Value Significance

2 Constant 2.276 0.443 5.136 0.000
  SEC –0.020 0.084 –0.021 –0.243 0.809
  EMP 0.028 0.043 0.089 0.662 0.510
  BDG –0.014 0.049 –0.037 –0.282 0.778
  NET 0.223 0.069 0.277 3.226 0.002**
  COM 0.053 0.047 0.097 1.134 0.259
  ICT 0.217 0.072 0.268 2.996 0.003**

Note: SEC = type of agency or its sector; EMP = number of full-time employees in the agency; BDG = budget of the
agency; NET = interdependent network relationships; COM = network complexity; ICT = information-communication
technology utilization.
a. Dependent Variable: SUS (network sustainability).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

additional explanation in the model beyond independent variables. Neither in the first model
designed to test only control variables, nor in the second model with all variables combined,
were the coefficients of the control variables found to be statistically significant.
The coefficients of the combined model with control variables included, namely, the impacts
of the independent and control variables in the model, are shown below in Table 1. According to
the table, interdependent network relationships and utilization of ICT are statistically significant
contributors to network sustainability. Network complexity does not seem to contribute to net-
work sustainability based on the data obtained for this study.
The regression analysis results are not surprising, especially in terms of the network relation-
ships and ICT affecting network sustainability. These assumptions were strongly supported by
different scholars in the literature. Figure 2 displays network relationships at the network level of
each county studied. The figure helps to shed light on two factors in the regression model, namely,
network relationships interdependence and network complexity. The figure shows that in terms of
friendship networks—who knows whom—counties seem to be comparatively complete, meaning
that countywide every agency has a sense of what other agencies are responsible for in the whole
emergency management network, and this might not be a surprise. The friendship networks, in
turn, are transmitted to lower-density collaborative preparedness (advice during preparedness)
and collaborative response (advice during response) networks, with some isolated nodes espe-
cially in the case of Miami-Dade. This county had the lowest response rate, which may be a pos-
sible explanation. In other words, the network sustainability in each county’s case is fostered
through these highly connected nodes before and after emergencies. The literature likewise
emphasizes the importance of pre- and post-disaster collaborations, which help to create long-
term and more productive relationships leading to sustainable networks. The regression results
pointing to the importance of network relationships and ICT were also supported by the qualita-
tive comments of the respondents. One of the respondents emphasizes that “[collaboration]
improves response time which results from proactively planning for rather than reacting to them.
[It] ensures that necessary resources are available from multiple agencies when a disaster strikes.”
Another respondent highlighted the importance of ICT utilization in his comments by stating that
“it would allow us to obtain the necessary resources and personnel, keep us updated on the disaster
response, and provide the convenience of one centralized communication portal.”
The surprising factor is related to network complexity, which has been found to be statistically
insignificant to have an impact on network sustainability. This result poses questions about the
Kapucu and Garayev 321

Figure 2. Friendship, advice preparedness, and advice response networks of the four counties.

perception of network complexity by emergency management practitioners. They may or may

not view multiplicity of network relationships and interactions among organizations from differ-
ent sectors and levels of government and, thus, having different goals, as hindrance to network
sustainability. Again, as in the case of network relationships interdependence, the network com-
plexity characterized by multiplicity of interactions among actors representing diverse back-
grounds and organizational goals seems to have been supported by visual diagrams; statistical
results, however, lead to rejection of the assumption. This might be due to the fact that different
organizations interpret network complexity in different ways; some see it as an advantage and
some as disadvantage.
Last, in terms of ICT utilization, the network analysis presents highly connected networks;
this is possible because of the sophisticated technical capacity of organizations involved in the
network. Although the high level of network connectedness can be attributed to several other
322 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

factors, it is the strong belief of the authors that ICT is the main factor making it possible. In other
words, ICT is a mandatory but not sufficient factor used to explain the density and multiplicity
of interactions and relationships in the networks in Figure 2. This is especially true for the col-
laborative preparedness and response networks that are highly dependent on ICT in today’s com-
plex environment of emergencies.
Figure 2 can be interpreted in several ways, especially from the emergency management prac-
titioner perspective. First of all, it is clear that the friendship network presents the best possible
scenario for collaborative networks in emergency management (but this does not always hap-
pen). In other words, not all organizations consider themselves as friends and are collaboratively
involved in emergency preparedness and response networks. Diversity in terms of the disaster
size would inevitably result in various degrees of commitment and involvement by collaborative
network actors. This is a reality as well as normality, since not all disasters are characterized by
the same degree of risk or scope and severity. The chief factor crucial to the functionality of
networks is their key actors. The role of these actors is to become coordinators for each respec-
tive ESF as well as taking on the role of assisting organizations regarding each ESF needed for
support and/or duplication of services. The uncertainty inherent in disasters makes it imperative
to employ or keep ready a comparatively larger number of emergency response actors when
compared to the actual response network.
Although Figure 2 does not distinguish between the types of commitment represented through
ties between the network actors and, thus, represents a generic network structure as described in
the CEMP, it is also important to note that the complexity of network relationships would also be
affected by those attributes. This itself, in turn, is a function of disaster scope and severity. More
precisely, a disaster of less severity and smaller scope would result in a less complex network
characterized mainly by communication and cooperation, whereas larger events would have
more severe consequences leading to complexity characterized by coordination and collabora-
tion among actors.
Table 2 provides a list of the top three agencies with their degree, closeness, and betweenness
centralities for friendship, advice-during-preparedness, and advice-during-response networks in
the four counties. The table presents an opportunity to evaluate the relative role of the organiza-
tions from different sectors. Accordingly, it is primarily the public sector, and specifically county
governments’ respective departments such as emergency management, sheriff’s office, fire res-
cue, medical/health, and utilities, that have prevalence in terms of degree centrality across the
four counties. These organizations are frequently mentioned by others for the purpose of disaster
preparedness and response as well as simply due to the friendship network.
In terms of closeness centrality, organizations mainly rely on sheriff’s offices and police
departments as well as nonprofit sectors. Since closeness centrality is especially important in
such time-sensitive environments as disasters, it is not a surprise that organizations tend to have
immediate or closer relationships with law enforcement and/or nonprofits that are specialized in
provision of immediate services when compared to other agencies or departments.
Last, in terms of betweenness centrality, the table shows that network actors are relying or
dependent largely on county emergency management agencies. This is an especially valid point
because of the county emergency management departments’ role in the brokerage and coordina-
tion of emergency management activities. In other words, the table reinforces the counties’ role
in the coordination of overall preparedness and response networks. The role of such nonprofits
as the American Red Cross, which is the coordinator of the nonprofit sector according to most
county CEMPs, should also be taken into consideration as seen from the table.
The survey for this study also included two open-ended questions pertaining to how sustain-
able emergency management network partnerships/collaborations (1) would help enhance, and
(2) would not benefit the emergency management field. Responses to the former questions can be
summarized in the form of emphasis on the importance of emergency management partnerships
Kapucu and Garayev 323

Table 2. Centrality of Actors in Terms of Friendship, Advice During Preparedness, and Advice During
Response Networks in Four Counties.
Degree Closeness Betweenness
Orange Country
I know this 1Orange County Human United Way Orange County
organization Resources Communications
  2 Orange County Health Progress Energy American Red Cross
Services
  3 Orange County Animal Florida Highway Patrol Orange County Office of
Services Emergency Management
I collaborate during 1 Orange County Lynx Orange County
preparedness Communications Communications
  2 Orange County Fiscal & Brighthouse American Red Cross
Business
  3 Orange County Business Area Agency on Aging Orange County Sheriff’s
Development Office
I collaborate during 1 Orange County Hospitals Orange County
response Communications Communications
  2 Orange County Fiscal & Orlando Police American Red Cross
Business Department
  3 Orange County Human Orange County Orange County Sheriff’s
Resources Administration Services Office
Hillsborough County (HC)
I know this 1 HC Hazard Mitigation HC Geographic HC Management &
organization Information System Budget
(GIS)
  2 HC Building Services HC Emergency Dispatch HC Emergency
Center Management
  3 Tampa Fire Rescue HC Library Services American Red Cross
Department
I collaborate during 1 HC Emergency Tampa Emergency HC Emergency
preparedness Management Management Management
  2 American Red Cross HC Sheriff’s Office American Red Cross
  3 HC Damage Assessment HC Communications Tampa Fire Rescue
Department
I collaborate during 1 HC Emergency Florida National Guard HC Emergency
response Management Management
  2 American Red Cross Tampa Emergency American Red Cross
Management
  3 HC Damage Assessment HC Sheriff’s Office HC Fire Rescue
Duval County
I know this 1 JEA Utilities Atlantic Beach Police Jacksonville Housing &
organization Department Neighborhoods
  2 Duval County Health Atlantic Beach Animal Jacksonville Planning &
Department Control Development
  3 Jacksonville Recruitment Jacksonville Port Florida Department of
& Commission Services Authority Transportation
I collaborate during 1 Jacksonville Recruitment Jacksonville Sheriff’s Jacksonville Emergency
preparedness & Commission Services Office Preparedness
  2 Northeast Florida Jacksonville Fire & JEA Utilities
Regional Council Rescue
  3 Jacksonville Environment American Red Cross Northeast Florida
& Compliance Regional Council
continued
324 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

Table 2. (continued)
Degree Closeness Betweenness
I collaborate during 1
Jacksonville Emergency Jacksonville Sheriff’s Jacksonville Emergency
response Preparedness Office Preparedness
  2 Jacksonville Recruitment Jacksonville Fire & Florida Department of
& Commission Services Rescue Law Enforcement
  3 Jacksonville Economic American Red Cross Jacksonville Aviation
Development Authority
Commission
Miami-Dade County (MDC)
I know this 1 Florida Power and Light Florida Department of Florida Power and Light
organization Transportation
  2 MDC Solid Waste MDC Seaport Coral Gables Fire Rescue
Management Department
  3 Miami Beach Fire Rescue MDC Building Florida Department
Department of Environmental
Protection
I collaborate during 1 MDC Department of Salvation Army MDC Department of
preparedness Emergency Management Emergency Management
  2 MDC Solid Waste American Red Cross Miami Beach Fire Rescue
Management
  3 Miami Beach Fire Rescue FEMA MDC Police Department
I collaborate during 1 MDC Aviation FEMA MDC Department of
response Department Emergency Management
  2 MDC Solid Waste American Red Cross MDC Solid Waste
Management Management
  3 MDC Department of Florida Department of Miami Beach Fire Rescue
Emergency Management Transportation

Note: FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency.

for time efficiency, better distribution of resources, better coordination of operations, clearer and
better communication, and for the best ultimate results with the least damages to human lives and
property. Specifically, most of the responses concentrate around an enhanced coordination of
emergency operations that relieves the overall burden on functionally interrelated actors. A sam-
ple answer to the first question is as follows: “Setting up a common framework helps people from
disparate organizations better understand what their roles are and how they fit towards the overall
objectives.”
Responses to the latter question, on the other hand, can be summarized in the form of agree-
ment on the collaborative partnerships’ seamlessness with minor concerns. For example, a
respondent says that “partnerships ‘for the sake of’ partnerships would waste time and funding,”
whereas another respondent argues that conflicting priorities might be a hindrance for effective
collaborations. Yet another argues that organizations that are not equally trained or aware of the
NIMS-based structure, guidelines, and operations system may lead to inefficient and ineffective
collaboration. A sample answer to the second question is as follows: “It’s beneficial if both know
their roles, perform them, and not try to either take command or fail to support the event.”

Discussion and Implications

This study presents several theoretical contributions. First of all, it is an example of research
bringing together three distinctive factors to explain network sustainability with the specific
Kapucu and Garayev 325

context of emergency management. The first aspect is relational (network relationships), the
second aspect is structural (complexity), and the third aspect is technical. In other words, net-
work sustainability is explained as a function of these three factors. These characteristics are
analyzed in terms of temporal aspects, namely, sustainability. Future research repeating such
framework or with additional factors would enrich the related literature. In addition, this study
confirms several theoretical arguments from the previous literature. Specifically, this study con-
firms the importance of network relationships that inherently enhance trust—an important
aspect of maintained and continued relationships. Moreover, the importance of technology and
social media was clearly shown, which is also a contribution to the communication literature.
Although emergency management organizations do practice collaborative networks in today’s
conditions, not all of them are aware of the benefits of sustaining those collaborative relation-
ships across time, especially in the absence of disasters. What is more, not all organizations are
equipped with the tools and information needed to enhance the network they are part of. This
study presents several lessons to enhance collaborative networks for better and more effective
results in the emergency management field.

Emergency management networks are effective to the extent that interactor relationships
are enhanced for more sustainable relationships.

The actors involved in emergency management collaborative networks should take partner-
ships seriously. It is not the one-way request of information or provision of services in collabora-
tive networks that makes networks work; rather, it is the constantly nurtured, enhanced, and
increased two-way interactions (Vangen & Huxham, 2003) among functionally interrelated
actors that increase organizational capacity and preparedness for disasters (Drabek et al., 1981).
Network actors that are isolated and disconnected from the whole might be ineffective, insuffi-
ciently prepared, unhelpful, and even detrimental to the whole network, especially during the
response stage. Thus, network relationships among actors responsible for emergency manage-
ment, including mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery stages, should be constantly
increased and enhanced through sustained contact and interaction for the purposes of synchroni-
zation of information, capacity, and expectations.

Emergency management networks should be cautious about the nature of relationships,

specifically against complexity that would damage, rather than contribute to, overall emer-
gency preparedness and response operations.

This recommendation is specifically based on the qualitative insight from the responses of
emergency managers, despite the statistically nonsignificant contribution of the complexity vari-
able in the network sustainability formula. Due to the fact that collaboration involves multiple
actors from different sectors and levels of government, collaborative network relationships in
emergency management are prone to be diverse and multifaceted. This diversity may be reflected
in the strength, quality, and nature of the relationships, bringing complexity arising from the need
to compromise multiple goals and expectations (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1999). Network actors,
thus, face a burden of constantly monitoring their relationships to bring balance between internal
organizational goals and network goals. On the other hand, the assumption that network com-
plexity, characterized by multiplicity of organizational goals and interactions, affects network
sustainability is to be retested across other types of networks.

Emergency management collaborative networks should invest in information-communication

technologies (ICT) to increase network sustainability.
326 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

Whereas the types and nature of disasters decades ago were simplistic, the increased severity
and scope of emergencies today call upon more sophisticated and coordinated emergency pre-
paredness and response. The multifaceted and complex collaborative network relationships in
today’s conditions are manageable and sustainable only through clear and enhanced communica-
tion channels and information sharing systems for the purpose of coordinated and unified efforts
and decision making (Jaeger et al., 2007). A lack of decision support systems as well as com-
munication technologies that make cooperation and partnership of geographically distributed
actors possible may be detrimental in time-sensitive and quickly evolving emergency prepared-
ness and response networks.
This study contributes to the literature and knowledge on networks in emergency manage-
ment. With the specific context of emergency management in the United States, and more spe-
cifically in the state of Florida, this study explains how interdependent network relationships,
network complexity, and ICT affect network relationships sustainability. The findings assert the
importance of network relationships in order to build stronger relationships that turn into sus-
tained relationships along with the positive impact of technology. Complexity, on the other hand,
is not a factor that affects network sustainability; a more organized and formal framework of
relationships would be a better alternative in this regard. Overall, the study shows that network
sustainability is the function of how network actors are positioned within a collaborative arrange-
ment and how effectively they use technology to enhance their relationships.
The study has several limitations, the most important of which is the probable bias in terms of
data, because not all counties were represented fairly. The authors were forced to suffice with the
responses received, which should be taken into consideration. In addition, the study is based on
the perception of agency representatives, which in this or another way would affect the results.

Conclusion
This study analyzed the factors affecting network sustainability in the emergency management
context. The main contribution of the study is the statistically confirmed relationships between
network relationships interdependency and ICT utilization and network sustainability. The
hypothesized relationship between network complexity and network sustainability was not sup-
ported by the study findings. Emergency management practitioners should consider the develop-
ment of network relationships and investment into ICT as important factors that increase
network sustainability, which in turn would result in effective emergency preparedness and
response. The need for increased network relationships should not be compromised by caution
against possible network complexity issues.
Network sustainability is positively associated with interdependent network relationships
and ICT utilization. Thus, to achieve sustainable networks, organizations need to invest in the
development of dense relationships and technical capacity. The structure and relationships of
organizations do matter when interorganizational networks are considered. Accordingly, inter-
organizational networks in disaster preparedness and response are characterized by the density
of relationships structured in accordance with the phases of emergency management respec-
tively. The network structure and, specifically, the network relationships as well as the techni-
cal capacity of organizations do contribute to the sustainability and, thus, effectiveness/
efficiency of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. The research contributes to the
emerging network sciences in public administration. It especially contributes to the research
on network structure and performance using emergency management networks as examples.
Future research will need to focus on different network structures, horizontal and vertical for
example, and their impact on network performance.
Kapucu and Garayev 327

Appendix A
Index Items for Dependent and Independent Variables

Construct Items α value

Network relationships Our organization develops long-run relationships with other .880
(independent) organizations
  Our organization exchanges resources with other  
organizations
  Our organization exchanges information with other  
organizations
  Our organization works toward a common goal as other  
responsible organizations
  Our organization is involved in partnership practices with  
other organizations
  Our organization is involved in collective/shared making  
decisions for disaster response
Complexity (independent) Disaster response is challenging because it requires working .801
with other organizations
  Disaster response is challenging because it requires working  
under other functions (i.e., emergency support functions
[ESFs])
  Disaster response is challenging because different agencies  
often have different goals
  Disaster response is challenging because different agencies  
often work against each other
  Disaster response is challenging because organizations  
involved are so different from one another
Information-communication Our organization relies on the use of information technology .708
technologies—ICT in communication and coordination
(independent) Our organization’s operations are streamlined by
  technological tools of communication and coordination  
  Our organization has sufficient technical and technological  
capacity to deal with disasters
  The use of ICT facilitates/enhances the operations of our  
organization
  Our operations are supported by a disaster information  
management system (WebEOC, E-Team, etc.)
Network sustainability Our organization maintains relationships with other .742
(dependent) organizations with role in disaster preparedness and
response
  In the absence of disasters, our organization sustains  
relationships with other organizations
  In the absence of disasters, our organization is involved in  
collaborative practices (such as exercises and meetings) with
organizations we collaborate with during disaster response
  Critical relationships among disaster response agencies  
become formalized so that they are sustainable over time
328 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article: This research was funded by National Science Foundation (NSF VOSS; Award No.
0943208; Title: Creating Functionally Collaborative Infrastructure in Virtual Organizations).

References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Admin-
istration Research and Theory, 18, 543-571.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for
stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5),
547-558.
Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector
collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44-55.
Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., & Coppola, D. P. (2005). Introduction to Homeland Security. Burlington,
VT: Elsevier.
Callahan, K., & Holzer, M. (1994). Rethinking governmental change: New ideas, new partnerships. Public
Productivity and Management Review, 17(3), 201-214.
Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. (1999). Collaboration in the virtual organization. In C. L. Cooper &
D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in organizational behavior: The virtual organization (pp. 105-120).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Davies, R. (2003, November 24). Network perspectives in the evaluation of development interventions:
More than a metaphor. Retrieved from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/nape.pdf
Dawes, S. S., & Eglene, O. (2004). New models of collaboration for delivering government services: A
dynamic model drawn from multi-national research. In 2004 Annual National Conference on Digital
Government Research (pp. 1-11). Seattle, WA: Digital Government Society of North America .
den Hengst, M., & Sol, H. G. (2001). The impact of information and coordination technology on interorga-
nizational coordination: Guidelines from theory. Informing Science, 4(4), 129-138.
DeSanctis, G., Staudenmayer, N., & Wong, S. S. (1999). Interdependence in virtual organizations. In
C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in organizational behavior: The virtual organization (pp.
81-104). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Drabek, T. E., Tamminga, H. L., Kilijanek, T. S., & Adams, C. R. (1981). Managing multiorganizational
emergency responses: Emergent search and rescue networks in natural disaster and remote area set-
tings. Boulder: University of Colorado.
Fiszben, A., & Lowden, P. (1999). Working together for a change: Government, civic and business partner-
ships for poverty reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Economic Develop-
ment Institute of the World Bank.
Gillespie, D. F., Colignon, R. A., Banerjee, M. M., Murty, S. A., & Rogge, M. (1993). Partnerships for
community preparedness. Boulder: University of Colorado.
Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. H. (1999). Risk mitigation in virtual organizations. Organization Science,
10(6), 704-721.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal
of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493.
Kapucu and Garayev 329

Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (2009). Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events.
International Journal of Emergency Management, 6(3-4), 248-260.
Isett, K. R., Mergel, I. A., LeRoux, K., & Mischen, P. A. (2011). Networks in public administration scholar-
ship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 21, 157-173.
Jaeger, P. T., Shneiderman, B., Fleischmann, K. R., Preece, J., Qu, Y., & Wu, P. F. (2007). Community
response grids: E-government, social networks, and effective emergency management. Telecommu-
nications Policy, 31(10-11), 592-604.
Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. (2001). GIS-supported collaborative decision making: Results of an experiment.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(1), 48-70.
Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1999). Building collaborative cross-functional new product teams.
Academy of Management, 13(3), 50-63.
Jordan, A. E. (2010). Collaborative relationships resulting from the urban area security initiative. Journal
of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1), 1-19.
Kamarck, E. C. (2003). Applying 21st-century government to the challenge of Homeland Security. In
J. M. Kamensky & T. J. Burlin (Eds.), Collaboration using networks and partnerships (pp. 103-146).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kamensky, J. M., Burlin, T. J., & Abramson, M. A. (2004). Networks and partnerships: Collaborating to
achieve results no one can achieve alone. In J. M. Kamensky & T. J. Burlin (Eds.), Collaboration using
networks and partnerships (pp. 3-20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kapucu, N. (2009). Interorganizational coordination in complex environments of disasters: The evolu-
tion of intergovernmental disaster response systems. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, 6(1), 1-26.
Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and national emergency
management network. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19(4), 452-468.
Kapucu, N., & Garayev, V. (2011). Collaborative decision-making in emergency and disaster management.
International Journal of Public Administration, 34(6), 366-375.
Kapucu, N., & Ozerdem, A. (2013). Managing emergencies and crises. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Kapucu, N., & Van Wart, M. (2006). The evolving role of the public sector in managing catastrophic
disasters: Lessons learned. Administration and Society, 38(3), 279-308.
Kelly, J., & Stark, D. (2002). Crisis, recovery, innovation: Responsive organization after September 11.
New York, NY: Center on Organizational Innovation.
Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. M. (2000). Public management and policy network: Foundations of a network
approach to governance. Public Management, 2(2), 135-158.
McDonald, D. D. (2008, January 8). Collaborative decisionmaking in disaster response situations.
Retrieved from http://www.ddmcd.com/managing-technology/collaborative-decisionmaking-in-disaster-
response-situations.html
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). How networks are governed. In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn
(Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 238-262). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Mowshowitz, A. (1997). On the theory of virtual organization. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
14, 373-384.
Mushkatel, A. H., & Weschler, L. F. (1985). Emergency management and the intergovernmental system
[Special issue]. Public Administration Review, 45, 49-56.
Noordegraaf, M., & Newman, J. (2011). Managing in disorderly times. Public Management Review, 13(4),
513-538.
Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of
the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479-516.
330 The American Review of Public Administration 43(3)

Schroeder, A. D., Wamsley, G. L., & Ward, R. (2001). The evolution of emergency management in Amer-
ica. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of crisis and emergency management. New York, NY: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.
Snow, C. C., Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). The virtual organization: Promises and payoffs, large and
small. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in organizational behavior: The virtual organi-
zation (pp. 15-30). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration
& Society, 20(10), 1-28.
Starkey, K., Barnatt, C., & Tempest, S. (2000). Beyond networks and hierarchies: Latent organizations in
the UK television industry. Organization Science, 11(3), 299-305.
Sydow, J., & Staber, U. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of project networks: The case of content
production in German television. Regional Studies, 36(3), 215-227.
Sylves, R. T. (2007). Federal emergency management comes of age: 1979-2001. In C. B. Rubin (Ed.),
Emergency management: The American experience 1900-2005 (pp. 111-153). Fairfax, VA: Public
Entity Risk Institute.
Thurmaier, K., & Wood, C. (2002). Interlocal agreements as overlapping social networks: Picket-fence
regionalism in metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 585-698.
Trotter, R. T., Briody, E. K., Sengir, G. H., & Meerwarth, T. L. (2008). The life cycle of collaborative
partnerships: Evolution of structure and roles in industry-university research networks. Connections,
28(1), 40-58.
Van Wart, M., & Kapucu, N. (2011). Crisis management competencies. Public Management Review, 13(4),
489-511.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 39(1), 5-31.
Ward, R., & Wamsley, G. (2007). From a painful past to un uncertain future. In C. B. Rubin (Ed.), Emergency
management: The American experience 1900-2005 (pp. 207-242). Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk
Institute.
Weber, E. P. (2003). Bringing society back in: Grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and
sustainable communities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Author Biographies
Naim Kapucu, PhD, is a professor and founding director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit
Management (2008-2011) in the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. His
main research interests are emergency and crisis management, decision making in complex environment,
collaborative governance, and organizational learning and design. His work has been published in Public
Administration Review, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Administration & Society,
The American Review of Public Administration, Public Administration, International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, and Disaster. His book, Network Governance in Response to Acts of Terrorism:
Comparative Analyses, is forthcoming in 2012 by Routledge. He teaches public and nonprofit manage-
ment, emergency and crisis management, research methods, and analytic techniques courses.

Vener Garayev, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Management at Gediz University,
Izmir. His main research interests are emergency and crisis management, decision making under uncer-
tainty, and collaborative governance and networks. His work has been published in Public Administration
Review (PAR), Journal of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (JEMHS), and International
Journal of Public Administration (IJPA).