Sverige

8 kris och lärdom
dish local authorities, in many cases, have not needed
assistance from national bodies and to a major degree
have been able to implement the response operation;
only in some more extreme events has assistance been
requested from external bodies, such as during the
January storm when the armed forces contributed for
example.
The organizational formation of the events that were
studied is slightly different to the traditional DRC
model (at the Disaster Research Center in the United
States). This model identifies four types of organisational
solutions for disasters, where the local authority
can utilize an established, expanded, strengthened
or newly formed organisation depending on whether
the structure and the task is normal or changed (see
chapter 3).
Swedish local and regional authorities (municipalities,
local authorities and county councils/hospitals)
rely in the first instance on an established organisation
for responding to disasters that are limited in terms of
the disaster management’s magnitude and scope, such
as only affecting one public sector, say technology/
rescue services or social services. The task is normal
procedure and the structure is the same as for “nondisasters”.
In some cases however, the normal organisation
is inadequate and resorts in the second instance
to an expanded operation, such as calling in
extra resources like new rescue operation managers.
But the task is still normal procedure. For larger incidents,
where the task crosses over several sectors, the
system is strengthened in the third instance with external
bodies (the armed forces, the home guard, road
authorities and the county administrative board, as
well as church and voluntary organisations), but the
response takes the form of co-operation between these
bodies. In connection with more extreme events, not
only co-operation is created between these bodies but
also, fourthly, a network is created between individuals
and groups of citizens who take part in the disaster
response work. New organizations corresponding to
the US model are not formed in Sweden to manage a
disaster, however.
Examples of the first type of organization apply for
bus and train accidents, and snow storms. Traffic accidents
can also be included in the second type plus
major fires (forest and ferry fires) where the disaster
is intensive or prolonged. The third type comprises
floods, violent storms, and mudslides. Estonia, the
Gothenburg disco fire, and the tsunami disaster can
also be placed here. The January storm of 2005 belongs
to the fourth type, where individuals arrange information
meetings for example and neighbours join
together to acquire reserve power stations, similarly a
few other widespread floods where individuals help
fight the flood.
The network organization thus means that the general
public is engaged or becomes involved in the response.
More recent research has discussed the need
to involve citizens or parts of this collective in the operation,
and disaster professionals in the events that are
studied confirm the advantages of this phenomenon.
Involvement of the general public applies for both disaster
response and crisis communications. The residents
in an area can thus provide situational information
for the disaster command centre, and help spread
information. They can also assist in the actual disaster
response by sandbagging during floods or clearing roads
and taking care of warm shelters during storms
and power grid failures. A network perspective could
therefore provide a suitable basis for studies of more
widespread local disasters (see Sannerstedt 2001).
Disaster response
With a few exceptions, the municipalities in the study
have special disaster plans and even, in some cases,
communication plans. Some of these plans are new
and have been revised during recent years while oth-