This study is about accountability relationships in decision making processes. The study is made up of two parts; in the first part, accountability is explained in light to the structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), this is... [ view full abstract ]
This study is about accountability relationships in decision making processes. The study is made up of two parts; in the first part, accountability is explained in light to the structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), this is followed by an empirical part. In particular the study analyses relationships of accountability at the individual level as a result of both an internal dialogue between the individual and internalized norms and expectations based on individual context knowledgeability and as resulting from a set of interaction between individuals through time and space. The study assumes that reality is both socially and individually constructed (see Berger & Luckmann, 1969), bounded by time and space, and that individuals are knowledgeable. These assumptions lead to the use of an interpretive approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Yanow, 2000). The study analyses the decision making process of steering committee members participating in the tsunami mitigation plan portion of a multi-hazard mitigation plan in three counties in Oregon. Steering committee members need to decide on what kind of mitigation measure to include in the plan in order to reduce or minimize the risk of loss of life and property damage due to a tsunami hazard. In particular, the study, while asking for all kind of mitigation measures, focuses on the adoption within the plan of Vertical Protective Strategies or VPS (Velotti, Trainor, Engel, Torres & Myamoto, 2013) as a mitigation measure. VPS 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. Vertical evacuation for tsunami is proposed by FEMA (Applied Technology Council, 2008; 2009) as an alternative or an option to horizontal evacuation for low lying areas, situations with short warning times and for locations where sufficiently high ground is not readily available. The study assumes that the selection of a specific mitigation measure over others is based on the way in which individual decision makers and groups of decision makers frame (Goffman, 1969) the accountability toward that specific issue and decide to produce or reproduce accountability content.
In the process of framing (Goffman, 1974) and the production or reproduction of accountability ontological security/insecurity (Giddens, 1984) and individual or group situatedeness are assumed to play a role (Dubnick & Yang, 2010). Ontological security refers to an individual's perception of being able to make situations and the surrounding environment socially intelligible and predictable according to internalized definition of the reality that in turn guides the behaviors to be undertaken.
It is assumed that the preference of horizontal over vertical evacuation is the result of a routine practice. Horizontal evacuation is preferred to vertical evacuation since it refers to a system of accountability in which the onus of evacuation is on evacuees rather than emergency managers or public officials. This assures public officials and emergency managers that their ontological security can remain intact.
