Accountability in decision making processes for vertical evacuation adoption
Date
2016
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Delaware
Abstract
This study is about accountability relationships in decision making processes and intends to advance research of accountability in unfamiliar (non routine) contexts. Accountability is defined as the individual experience of being accountable. Two research problems, linked to each other, are identified. The first research problem is the conceptualization of accountability primarily in routine contexts, the second relates to the individual experience of being accountable for the adoption of unfamiliar hazard mitigation measures such as vertical evacuation for tsunami in natural hazard mitigation plans. Vertical evacuation for tsunamis is a strategy to make people safer by moving them above the threat, as opposed to moving them out of harm’s way; also known as horizontal evacuation. Understanding how accountability works in situations perceived as either routine or non-routine provides actionable knowledge on how to manage accountability and its effects on behavior in situations of uncertainty. This research develops, operationalizes, and validates an analytic framework for describing accountability in routine and non routine situations. ☐ Building on Yang’s (2012) conceptualization of accountability as recursive, the study focuses on the individuals’ reasons and motivations for being accountable. The research proposes that the preference in the adoption of horizontal evacuation over vertical evacuation for tsunami is the result of accepting horizontal evacuation as a routine practice. ☐ An interpretive approach and multiple case study design is used. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a first and second cycle of coding. The first cycle of coding yielded exploratory knowledge. In this phase, provisional coding to which attribute and magnitude codes were applied was used. The second cycle of coding used hypothesis coding. Participants were asked questions related to their cognitive process of vertical evacuation as a mitigation measure to define what vertical evacuation meant to them, what their attitude was toward VE, and what they think of VE as a strategy for aiding vulnerable populations specifically. ☐ Comparison across case studies shows that the study cannot confirm a direct relationship between the rejection of vertical evacuation and the adoption of horizontal evacuation due to the high costs of vertical evacuation structures. The dissertation concludes with practical suggestions for public administration practitioners and addresses the need for more research on accountability in non routine contexts; particularly in fields other than emergency management.