World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 Disaster Preparedness and Management in Saudi Arabia: An Empirical Investigation Shougi Suliman Abosuliman, Arun Kumar, Firoz Alam International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 waset.org/Publication/9997611 Abstract—Disaster preparedness is a key success factor for any systems while it is facing the increasing disaster challenges [2]. effective disaster management practices. This paper evaluates the disaster preparedness and management in Saudi Arabia using an empirical investigation approach. It presents the results of the survey conducted by interviewing representatives of the Saudi decisionmakers and administrators responsible for disaster control in Jeddah before, during and after flooding in 2009 and 2010. First, demographics of the respondents are presented, followed by quantitative analysis of their views and experiences regarding the Kingdom’s readiness before and after each flood. This is shown as a series of dependent and independent variables. Following this is a list of respondents’ priorities for disaster preparation in the Kingdom. Keywords—Disaster response effective service delivery. policy, crisis management, I. BACKGROUND O VER the past half-century, as the international social environment was relatively peaceful, human society, economy and technology have developed rapidly. However, the rapid development has created numerous environmental problems such as global warming and geological damages due to mining and oil extraction and so on. Despite the absence of direct evidence that the recent years’ natural disasters were created by human activities, the number of natural disasters has increased and become more destructive when compared to historical events. This situation is more obvious in Asia (Fig. 1) due to presence of large number of developing countries with dense population. People can use technology to predict some of the disasters, for instance the meteorological forecasting for rainstorm and hurricanes; however, prediction and prevention can only play a limited role in reducing losses and are powerless when facing unpredictable sudden events, such as flash floods and earthquake which is the focus of this research. In order to save lives and property as much as we can, ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of relief operations are vital after natural disasters. Thus, emergency / humanitarian logistics, which is the extended, systematized and specialized branch of logistics and supply chain management, is now gaining more and more attention from academia and the public [1]. As a disaster-prone country, when compared with other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia was slow to begin developing emergency logistics Shougi Suliman Abosuliman and Arun Kumar are with the School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Eng., RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC3000, Australia (phone:+61399256226; e-mail: s3319062@student.rmit.edu.au, a.kumar@rmit.edu.au). Firoz Alamis with the School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Eng., RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC3000, Australia (phone: +61 3 9925 4328; e-mail: a.kumar@rmit.edu.au). International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 7(12) 2013 Fig. 1 Type of number of disasters in Asia Saudi Arabia has been witnessing several manmade disasters such as terrorist attacks; however, less attention is paid to natural disasters, despite their frequent occurrence and the devastation they caused on people lives and property. Floods are the most frequently encountered disasters and have been the cause of 7 out of the 10 major disasters in Saudi Arabia between 1900 and 2010 as shown in Table I [3]. Flood disrupts the normal life patterns of individuals, families as well as the nation which are exposed to great material and personal losses. Jeddah city which is located on the Red Sea on the west coast of Saudi Arabia and has dry climate with little rainfall occurring only in winter, was flooded after a heavy rain on 25 November 2009 and caused the worst flood disaster in the history of Saudi Arabia. Situated on a plain beneath the 800m escarpment of the Jabal al-Hejaz in Saudi Arabia, as the desert city extends across numerous wadis off the escarpment, it is prone to flooding after exceptional storms; however at twice the city’s yearly average, 90mm of rain fell in just four hours on that day. By noon, torrents struck many parts of the city, especially the poorer southern neighborhoods where thousands of vehicles were caught in a traffic jam trying to escape [4], [5]. The death toll was 163, with damage to 8,000 homes, over 7,000 vehicles and economic loss of US$900. A number of children and women were also rescued and airlifted by helicopters in residential buildings. The lack of previous experience of dealing with flood crisis as well as the absence of the natural disaster plans made the situation difficult. The consequences of the floods drew criticism for wastewater management, flood mitigation and emergency response from the various responsible Saudi government organizations [6]. Saudi Arabia is yet to use the advancement of technologies to develop an efficient approach to forecast flash flood and warnings. It is still struggling to proactively manage current risks and vulnerabilities, and preparing for potential future disasters. Development of 3256 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/9997611 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 waset.org/Publication/9997611 models and provision of accurate information is crucial for local authorities in reducing vulnerability of people and flood prone areas from flash flood. The government bears the responsibility for implementing and organizing rescue operations, evacuation and providing assistance in the event of any disaster, and they should be able to take actions and policies to minimize losses [7]. TABLE I MAJOR DISASTERS IN SAUDI ARABIA BETWEEN 1941 AND 2011 Type of disaster Death Injured Year Kabaa flash floods N.A. N.A. 1941 Flash Flood 20 1,000 1964 Fire during Hajj 200 N.A. 1975 Occupation of Mosque in Makah 250 600 1979 Floods in Northwest of Kingdom 32 5,000 1985 Pilgrims Stampede inside tunnel 1,426 N.A. 1990 Pilgrims Stampede inside tunnel 270 N.A. 1994 Yanbu and Asir floods 26 N.A. 1997 Fire during Hajj 343 1555 1997 Epidemic 179 1700 2000/01 Makah floods 31 N.A. 2002 Medina flood 29 43 2005 Jeddah flood 163 11,640 2009 Jeddah flood 10 5,000 2011 This study evaluates the disaster preparedness and management in Saudi Arabia using an empirical investigation approach. A questionnaire has been prepared and survey conducted with top authorities involved in disaster and emergency management sector. The findings have made a number of important managerial and academic implications. These findings provide valuable guidance for identifying the mechanisms to improve the disaster preparedness of Saudi government organizations. scale, 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor). The dependent variables were: 11-Response time (3 questions), 12-Duration of response (3 questions), 13-Adequate emergency teams (3 questions), 14Cost efficiency (3 questions). The independent variables were: 15-Funding (3 questions), 16-Human resources (3 questions) 17-Training (3 questions), 18-Coordination between responsible organizations (4 questions). Other questions: 19 Opportunities for improvement (19 questions). III. DATA COLLECTION There were 40 possible disaster management respondents in various agencies and organizations in Jeddah and after initial contact to establish researcher’s credentials, the purpose and ethics of the study, these questions were sent to a central contact point in each organization for responses by an organizational representative. Thus, the research comprised a population of public entities, rather than a sample of respondents from each of the relevant organizations. This was considered acceptable, as the questions concerned public policy rather than respondents’ views [8]. Of the 40 written surveys delivered in August 2012, 27 (79%) completed surveys were returned for analysis by October, 2012. IV. DEMOGRAPHICS This section includes the ages, qualifications, and work experiences of the participants. The age profile is shown at Table II. TABLE II AGE PROFILE OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS Age level (years) Frequency and percentage < 30 2 (6%) 30-40 3 (10%) 41-50 20 (68%) 51> 2 (6%) Not shown 3 (10%) Total 30 (100%) II. METHODOLOGY The questionnaire was constructed in several sections to obtain information on the emergency response framework, to gather data on the organizational characteristics, and to investigate the views of the representatives of those organizations on the adequacy of the various entities’ responses to the 2009 and 2010 Jeddah floods. The survey commenced with respondents’ demographic details and position in the organization. The second part of the questionnaire, which concerned only the information sought allowed for a range of factual responses, from open or nondirected, to closed, yes/no answers. It was constructed by numbered sections as follows: 1-Organisation profile (5 questions), 2-Risk assessments (6 questions), 3-Policy and planning (4 questions), 4-Training (4 questions), 5- Government structures (15 questions), 6-Nongovernment and Red Crescent input (12 questions), 7-Disaster relief resources (17 questions), 8-Funding (6 questions), 9International assistance (10 questions), 10-Strengths and weaknesses of current plan (7 questions). The third part of the questionnaire used a series of independent and dependent variables regarding respondents’ views of factors regarding emergency response. These were based on a 5-point Likert International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 7(12) 2013 Given the youthful profile of the Kingdom, it was surprising that 20 of the 30 respondents (68%) were aged from 40 to 49 years and this was reflected in the participants’ years of experience, 16-20 years (Table III). Arguably, this is an indication that the offices were established during that period (1990s), as public servants have their jobs for life. The following Table IV shows that all the respondents were university graduates and that a majority (47%) had Master’s degrees. Further, seven (23%) of the respondents had further qualifications, either postgraduate studies in disaster management or higher degrees. TABLE III WORK EXPERIENCE OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS Years of work experience Frequency and percentage 21 2 (7%) Not shown 3 (10%) Total 30 (100%) 3257 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/9997611 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 waset.org/Publication/9997611 TABLE IV QUALIFICATIONS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS Qualifications Frequency and percentage Secondary school 0 (0%) Bachelor’s degree 6 (20%) Master’s 14 (47%) Other qualifications 7 (23%) Not shown 3 (10%) Total 30 (100%) The results are presented at Table VI. Year 2009 The Methodology section above outlined the nature of the questions. This section presents the responses of the questions using a 5-point Likert scale of 1= poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, and 5 = excellent. The results are compared and discussed in next section. V. QUALITY OF RESPONSE (DEPENDENT VARIABLES) These questions asked for the participant’s response in relation to the lead disaster response agency for the Kingdom, the Civil Defense Organization. Each question required a response for years 2009 and 2010. The results are presented in Table V. TABLE V QUALITY OF RESPONSE OF CIVIL DEFENSE ORGANIZATION W. A. Year Item S.D. Ranking n=30 Response time 2.778 1.500 1 Efficiency 2.776 1.066 2 2009 Resources 1.949 1.000 4 Cost structure 1.998 1.333 3 Response time 2.001 1.100 3 Efficiency 2.112 1.033 1 2010 Resources 1.991 1.333 4 Cost structure 2.111 1.666 2 2009 2.375 1.224 2010 2.530 1.283 Table V shows four dependent variables depicting the study participants’ views regarding the quality of the item relating to emergency responses from Civil Defence organization to the Jeddah floods in 2009 and 2010. The participants were less satisfied with these responses for the 2009 the weighted average at 2.375 and standard deviation 1.224, than the comparable 2010 weighted average, 2.530, and S.D. of 1.283. Other results for 2009 flood disaster showed that the variable response time was of primary interest to the participants (W.A. 2.778, S.D. 1.500), followed by efficiency (W.A. 2.776, S.D. 1.066), cost structure (W.A. 1.998, S.D. 1.333), and resources available, (W.A. 1.949, S.D. 1.000). The 2010 results, on the other hand, ranked variables efficiency (W.A. 2.112, S.D.1.0333), cost structure (W.A. 2.111, S.D. 1.666), response time (W.A. 2.001, S.D. 1.100) and then resources available (W.A. 1.991, S.D. 1.333) as the least important factor. The next organization examined was the Red Crescent. It is the lead agency in administering medical aid for the Kingdom, working with the ambulance services and the hospitals. Each of these items asked for the participant’s views on the quality of Red Crescent’s response for 2009 and 2010. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 7(12) 2013 2010 2009 2010 TABLE VI QUALITY OF RESPONSE OF RED CRESCENT W.A. Item S.D. n=30 Response time 2.500 1.581 Efficiency 1.889 1.666 Resources 1.904 1.833 Cost structure 2.000 1.003 Response time 3.166 0.888 Efficiency 3.500 0.667 Resources 2.833 1.007 Cost structure 2.333 1.223 1.999 1.594 2.958 0.946 Ranking 1 4 3 2 2 1 3 4 Table VI shows the analysis of participants’ views of the Red Crescent and the quality of its response to the flood events of 2009 and 2010. The results show that participants were less satisfied with these responses for the 2009 flood, with the W.A. at 1.999 and S.D. 1.564, than the comparable 2010 W.A., 2.985, and S.D. 0.946. Other results for 2009 flood disaster show that the variable response time was ranked of interest (W.A. 2.500, S.D. 1.581); followed by cost structure (W.A. 2.000, S.D. 1.003), resources available (W.A. 1.903, S.D. 1.333); and of less interest, efficiency (W.A. 1.889, S.D. 1.666). For the 2010 flood event, the rankings were efficiency (W.A. 3.500, S.D. 0.667), followed by response time (W.A. 3.166, S.D. 0.888) resources available (W.A. 2.833, S.D. 1.007); and finally cost structure (W.A. 2.333, S.D. 1.223). Local and national emergency response groups provide immediate relief in the event of an emergency in their neighborhoods. The participants were asked for their views on the ad hoc groups’ responses in 2009 and again in 2010 (Table VII). Table VII depicts the respondents’ views on the standards for local response groups to the Jeddah floods in 2009 and 2010. The participants were less satisfied with these responses for the 2009 event (W.A. 1.707, S.D. 1.553) compared to 2010 (W.A. 3.216, S.D. 1.219). Ranked results for the 2009 event show that the variable cost structure was of statistical interest (W.A. 2.168, S.D. 1.366); followed by resources available (W.A. 1.966, S.D. 1.402), response time (W.A. 1.833, S.D. 1.353), and efficiency (W.A. 1.666, S.D. 1.290). Other results for the 2010 flood disaster show that response time ranked first (W.A. 3.833, S.D. 0.957), then resources available (W.A. 3.300, S.D. 1.002) efficiency (W.A.3.166, S.D. 1.033) and last, cost structure (W.A. 2.566, S.D. 1.887). 3258 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/9997611 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 waset.org/Publication/9997611 TABLE VII QUALITY OF RESPONSE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY GROUPS W.A. Year Item S.D. Ranking n=30 Response time 1.833 1.353 3 Efficiency 1.666 1.290 4 2009 Resources 1.966 1.402 2 Cost structure 2.168 1.366 1 Response time 3.833 0.957 1 Efficiency 3.166 1.033 3 2010 Resources 3.300 1.002 2 Cost structure 2.566 1.887 4 2009 1.707 1.553 2010 3.216 1.219 0.201). Funding in the disaster planning phase, as noted, was last (W.A. 2.000, S.D. 1.433). TABLE IX PREPARATION FOR DISASTER RESPONSE BY RED CRESCENT W.A. Year Item S.D. Ranking n=30 Funding 2.000 1.414 4 People 4.000 0.998 3 2009 Training 5.000 0.301 2 Coordination 5.000 0.112 1 Funding 2.000 1.512 4 People 5.000 0.222 2 2010 Training 5.000 0.189 1 Coordination 5.000 0.300 3 2009 4.000 0.706 2010 4.250 0.555 VI. QUALITY PREPARATION (INDEPENDENT VARIABLES) The independent variables, those factors available to address disaster response before the event, were funding, people, training and coordination. These were questions for the study participants to respond in regards of the two lead organizations, the Civil Defense Organization and the Red Crescent, and also ad hoc emergency response groups. These questions were answered using a 5-point Likert scale of 1= poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, and 5 = excellent. The results are compared and discussed in next section. The first table in this section, Table VIII, shows analysis of participants’ responses to items critical to the country’s preparation to respond to a crisis, and this is for the lead agency, Civil Defense Organization. TABLE VIII PREPARATION FOR DISASTER RESPONSE BY CIVIL DEFENSE ORGANIZATION W.A. Year Item S.D. Ranking n=30 Funding 2.000 1.445 4 People 4.000 0.305 3 2009 Training 5.000 0.101 1 Coordination 5.000 0.112 2 Funding 2.000 1.433 4 People 5.000 0.110 1 2010 Training 5.000 0.117 2 Coordination 5.000 0.201 3 2009 4.000 0.490 2010 4.250 0.436 Again there are four variables for the participants’ response for this section of the analysis on the lead agency, Civil Defence Organisation, and again the respondents were found to be mildly less satisfied with preparations for the 2009 flood event (W.A. 4.000, S.D. 0.490) than 2010 (W.A. 4.250, S.D. 0.436), with more people being available in 2010. Other results for the 2009 flood disaster preparation show that the variables training (5.000, S.D. 0.101) and coordination (W.A. 5.000, S.D. 0.112) as of significance, followed in ranking by people availability (W.A. 4.000, S.D. 0.305), and last, funding (W.A. 2.000, S.D. 1.445). Analysis of participants’ views on preparations for 2010, with the exception of funding, were fairly uniform: people (W.A. 5.000, S.D. 0.110), training (W.A. 5.000, S.D. 0.117), and coordination (W.A. 5.000, S.D. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 7(12) 2013 As Table IX shows, there are four variables analyzed to report study participants’ views regarding emergency response by Red Crescent to the Jeddah floods in 2009 and 2010. The participants were somewhat less satisfied with Red Crescent’s preparations before the 2009 floods (W.A. 4.000, S.D. 0.706) than compared to preparations for 2010 (W.A. 4.250, S.D. 0.555). Rankings for preparation reported by the study participants were similar for coordination (W.A. 5.000, S.D. 0.112) and training (W.A. 5.000, S.D. 0.301), followed by people availability (W.A. 4.000, S.D. 0.998) and last, funding (W.A. 2.000, S.D. 1.414). For preparation in the next year, the study participants viewed training, people and coordination similarly (W.A. 5.000; S.D.s. 0.189, 0.222 and 0.300 respectively). However, funding preparation gained their disapproval yet again (W.A. 2.000, S.D. 1.512). The last set of questions concerned local emergency response groups and their preparation. As ad hoc organizations which were formed when a response was necessary, respondents’ views obviously reflected different groups. Nevertheless, their responses were an indicator of the community’s risk awareness and capacity to respond (Table X). The responses from the participants were relatively unchanged between 2009 (W.A. 4.991, S.D. 0.095) and 2010 (W.A. 4.908, S.D. 0.137), although there was slightly less satisfaction for the 2010 preparation for the groups. Otherwise, the 2009 rankings for groups’ preparation were people, training and coordination (W.A. 5.00 and S.D.s respectively 0.003, 0.011 and 0.022) with funding obviously last (W.A. 4.966, S.D. 0.344), as ad hoc groups were volunteers. Similarly, 2010 group preparation was people, coordination and training (W.A. 5.00 and S.D.s respectively 0.004, 0.014 and 0.110), signifying less training preparation. 3259 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/9997611 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:7, No:12, 2013 waset.org/Publication/9997611 TABLE X PREPARATION FOR DISASTER RESPONSE BY LOCAL GROUPS W.A. Ranking Year Item S.D. n=30 Funding 4.966 0.344 4 People 5.000 0.003 1 2009 Training 5.000 0.011 2 Coordination 5.000 0.022 3 Funding 4.633 0.422 4 People 5.000 0.004 1 2010 Training 5.000 0.110 3 Coordination 5.000 0.014 2 2009 4.991 0.095 2010 4.908 0.137 VII. PRIORITIES FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING The respondents were asked their views on elements for improving the country’s emergency response. Again a 5-point Likert scale was used of 1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = agree strongly. The results are shown at Table XI and discussed in next section. TABLE XI RESPONDENTS’ PRIORITIES ON EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING ELEMENTS W.A. Item S.D. Ranking n=30 Communications 4.833 0.498 6 Existing plan unchanged 00 00 -Coordinate all organisations 4.933 0.401 4 Organisational training 5.000 0.001 1 Public awareness 4.900 0.321 5 Experienced resources 4.500 0.603 7 Community preparedness 4.966 0.399 3 Policy making 4.066 0.723 11 Infrastructure 4.166 0.643 10 Organisational preparedness 4.333 0.334 8 Finance 3.866 0.767 15 International advice 3.300 0.987 17 Public preparedness 4.333 0.311 9 Interorganisational responsibilities 5.000 0.012 2 Interorganisational information sharing 3.933 0.712 14 Interorganisational communications 3.766 0.822 16 Interorganisational practices 4.000 0.664 13 Physical resources 4.000 0.643 12 Average 3.889 0.465 Rankings shown in Table XI indicate that emergency response policy makers and administrators viewed training of response teams across all organizations (W.A. 5.000, S.D. 0.001) as vital for future preparedness of the country to respond to floods or other disasters. This was followed by defining the responsibilities of each group in the response system (W.A. 5.000, S.D. 0.012) to ensure they were allocating their resources to the greatest effect. Next was community preparedness (W.A. 4.966, S.D. 0.399), followed by coordination of all response organizations (W.A. 4.933, S.D. 0.401) communications (W.A. 4.833, S.D. 0.498), and at priority 5, public awareness (W.A. 4.900, S.D. 0.321). Of least interest was to leave the system as it was, which attracted no answers, and to increase international advice and input W.A. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 7(12) 2013 3.300, S.D. 0.987). Due to the number of choices, the average agreement to all the items was low (W.A. 3.889, S.D. 0.465). VIII. CONCLUSIONS Jeddah flood disaster in 2009 was a good lesson for all government authorities and agencies to revise their natural disaster management plans. It is important for all agencies, entities and organizations to learn from past experience and implement plans for interventions and management. Based on our findings, the participants were overwhelmingly in agreement on the top five areas for future attention: training of response teams, identification and coordination of the organizational responsibilities, community awareness and preparedness. Disaster mitigation was found to be very important for the representatives of public authorities. They felt that the population acknowledged the risk of natural and human-initiated disasters, and were generally responsive to disaster threats, but lacked community-based organization. Participants are willing to accept improved disaster management policy changes. However, one-quarter of the respondents avoided to commit on their own training in an emergency capacity, although the remaining three-quarters were positive in their responses to performance enhancing training opportunities. Continually training responders with best practices and preparedness is paramount to successful disaster crisis prevention and management. The recommendations from this finding is that further research is necessary to follow the progress of policy initiatives, including a well-coordinated organization that can be established to manage disaster responses among the population in the event of flood or further such disturbance. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We are highly grateful to King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah and the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the supports to 1st author respectively. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 3260 M. G. Christopher and P. H. Tatham, Humanitarian Logistics: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing for and Responding to Disasters, London: Kogan Page, 2011. N. S. Rose, "Assessing Flash Flood Risk in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Utilizing Space Data and Hydrological Modeling," in Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of AAmerica, Minneapolis, MN., 2011. T. Alharbi, "The Cause of Flood Disaster in Saudi Arabia," in Proceedings of the First Saudi International Conference on Crisi and Disaster Management, Riyadh, KSA, 2013. M. Al Saud, "Assessment of Flood Hazard of Jeddah Area 2009, Saudi Arabia," Journal of Water Resource and Protection, vol. 2, pp. 839-847, 2010. A. Kumar, "Natural Hazards of the Arabian Peninsula: Their Causees and Possible Remediation," Earth Systems Processes and Disaster Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 155-180, 2013. H. Assaf, "Water Resources and Climate Change," 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.afedonline.org/Report2010/pdf/En/Chapter2.pdf. [Accessed October 2010]. N. Momani and A. Salmi, "Preparedness of Schools in the Province of Jeddah to Deal with Earthquakes Risks," Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 463-473, 2012. A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2012. scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/9997611 Running head: MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA Managing Floods in Saudi Arabia in the Future 1 MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA 2 Managing floods in Saudi Arabia in the future Floods prevalence in Saudi Arabia has been increasing in the recent past. However, the cities of Makkah, Jeddah, and Riyadh have been affected the most, leaving a trail of deaths, injuries, displacements, and destruction of property and infrastructure (Alamri, 2011; Ameur, 2016; Saud, 2010). Even with the rising prevalence of floods in the country, the state of emergency management, and more so mitigation, preparedness, and response, still remains poor (Youssef, Biswajeet & Sefry, 2015). In fact, various analysts’ views on risk status, preparedness, and management show that the authorities are partly responsible for the huge losses of both life and property that emanate from the floods. This paper is a proposal for a research that will analyze the vulnerability level, prevalence, and effects of floods in three Saudi Arabian cities – Jeddah, Makkah, and Riyadh – in a move to establish ways in which the country could mitigate and manage floods in the future. Background of the problem The issue of floods in Saudi Arabia has been in existence for a long time. However, as reported by Alamri (2011), the events have been on the increase in the recent past. In the 2000s, for example, a large number of people lost their lives as a result of the floods. However, even with the occurrence of floods every year, no proper measures have ever since been put in place (Sen, As-Sefry & Al-harithy, 2016). Rather, the early 2000 floods were followed by what has been termed as the worst flood disaster in three decades, and that led to the loss of 163 lives in Jeddah and Makkah (Alamri, 2011). Even with these losses, subsequent studies indicate that the vulnerability the three cities remains relatively high (Rahman, Aldosary, Nahiduzzaman & Reza, 2016; Youssef, Biswajeet & Sefry, 2015; Dawod, Meraj, Mirza, Khalid & Al-Ghamdi, 2011). Although the occurrence of heavy rains in many parts of the world is presently inevitable, the country of Saudi Arabia continues to raise many questions on the accountability of the various agencies that should be putting up MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA 3 measures to ensure the safety of the people and their property. Moreover, no elaborate efforts have been put up by both the government and the members of the public and particularly due to the low level of public’s awareness on the disaster (Al-Saggaf & Simons, 2014; Şen, Khiyami, Al-Harthy, Al-Ammawi … Al-Hawsawy, 2013). Whenever a disaster occurs, the level of damages and the number of deaths remain relatively high in the three regions than in most other parts of Saudi Arabia. Research questions A number of questions arise as per the background identified above and particularly in relation to the occurrence and management of disaster. These include: • What causes floods in Saudi Arabia? • What are the effects of floods in Saudi Arabia? • What is the history of floods in Jeddah, Makkah, and Riyadh? • What is the prevalence and risk level of floods in Jeddah, Makkah, and Riyadh? • Are there any measures put in place to manage floods in Saudi Arabia? • Are these measures sufficient? • What is the level of public awareness on the disaster? Scope of the study This study will be based in only three cities - Makkah, Jeddah, and Riyadh, and that have been identified by various studies as the most vulnerable areas. These are large cities, and that have rich documented evidence on the loss of lives and destruction of property following floods. The study will only focus on past events, although this should be sufficient to create a set of recommendations on what needs to be done in future. MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA 4 Limitations of the study This study will follow a qualitative approach in the form of a systematic review. In this case, no primary study will be conducted. Rather, the researcher will analyze a number of primary studies that have been developed in the past decade so as to identify the vulnerability, countermeasures, and the outcomes. Significance of the study Floods continue to be a challenge in Saudi Arabia as a result of lack of proper response and failure to learn from past events (Ewea et al. 2016; Alamri, 2011). Although the available literature does not make it clear why relevant agencies have failed in accountability and raising public awareness, the results of this study will serve as an important piece of information that will help in understanding not just the present state but also what should be done in so as to create a solution in future. Literature review Causes and effects of floods in Saudi Arabia There are many known causes of floods in Saudi Arabia. According to Youssef et al. (2015), Geomorphological conditions of the country, anthropogenic activities, and rainstorm events have lead amongst the various causal agents of floods in the country. According to the authors, the occurrence of floods has been accelerated by various human activities that have deteriorated water catchment areas while at the same time being worsened by lack of elaborate measures to manage the flow of runoffs. Floods have led to various levels of damages in the country. As detailed by Saud (2010), sediments and high-speed water running at high heights have adversely affected various regions in Saudi Arabia whenever a flood occurs. In one of the worst floods in 2009, a total of 900 million dollars was used to reconstruct Makkah City as well as offer support to the affected people (Alamri, 2011). At the MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA 5 same time, multiple studies cite deaths emanating from floods in the present and past decades that amount to hundreds of individuals as well as many others that have sustained various levels of injuries from the same disaster (Alamri, 2011; Tauhidur et al, 2016). Past Floods in Jeddah, Makkah, and Riyadh The history of floods in Saudi Arabia has been well documented. However, even with many parts of the country experiencing numerous losses in the past, it is the three cities; Jeddah, Makkah, and Riyadh that appear to be the most affected. In 2009 and 2010, for example, hundreds of lives and property worth millions was destroyed in Jeddah and other regions in the vicinity (Alamri, 2011). Heavy floods had been recorded before in Jeddah between 1982 and 2005 and where the prevalence was estimated to be as high as 7 floods a year and with an average of 4 extreme events every year (Saud, 2010). At the same time, Ewea et al. (2016) reported that Makkah recorded the most flood disasters in the past, with 47 floods being documented between 1975 and 2000. Risk factors and management of the risks The level of rainfall has been rising steadily in Saudi Arabia. In Jeddah, for example, two rainstorms occurred between 2009 and 2011, and that led to a rainfall of between 70 and 111 mm for each event that lasted for at least three hours (Youseff et al., 2015). This has been relatively higher than other rains experienced in the area. In a different study, Youssef & Maerz (2012) cited the soil condition and the desert nature of most parts of Saudi Arabia as a major concern as a result of the high risks that they pose whenever a disaster occurs. In fact, some regions have been forecasted to experience increased instances of floods than others in the near future. Dawood et al. (2011) estimated that the flood volume of Makkah metropolitan alone is likely to rise to as high as 172.97 million cubic meters in the near future. MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA 6 It is evident that the prevalence of floods is likely to continue rising in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, there are limited initiatives put in place to curb the increase in floods prevalence in the region. Alamri (2011) reported that, despite the various floods that have occurred in the recent past, disaster agencies have failed to develop and rehearse proper mitigation, preparedness, and response strategies to aid in the management of floods. Similar views were raised by Al-Saggaf & Simons (2011), and whose research found that poor communication was among the primary causes of poor flood management. While analyzing the disgruntling messages that are often shared on social media during post-flood disaster events, Al-Saggaf & Simons (2011) suggested that the use of a platform such as social media could be an ideal solution for notifying and creating awareness on flood disasters. Raising the awareness of floods Raising the awareness of floods is one of the most outstanding solutions for floods not just in Saudi Arabia but in other regions as well. According to Morss, Demuth, Bostrom, Lazo & Lazrus (2015), many governments and disaster management agencies fail to prepare the public prior to flood disasters despite understanding that such threats exist. In fact, this is supported by Abdelkareem (2016) and Şen et al. (2013), and who argues that, with the present state of technology, it is possible to track the imminence of a flood in different parts. This means that the responsible authorities can implement preparedness plans on time. In his analysis, Ameur (2016) concludes that the state at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia is worsened by poor awareness and accountability since the region is characterized by a dry climate, which puts the lives of more than 3.5 million individuals at risk as a result of poor accountability. To address such changes, Flood Aware (2013) recommends shared responsibility in management of floods and particularly with disaster management agencies focusing on ensuring that the public is well aware of the impending threat and their roles in its management. MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA 7 References Abdelkareem, M. (January 01, 2017). Targeting flash flood potential areas using remotely sensed data and GIS techniques. Natural Hazards : Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 85(1), 19-37. Alamri, Y. (2011). Emergency Management in Saudi Arabia: Past, Present and Future. École Polytechnique Alamri, Y. A. (January 01, 2011). Rains and floods in Saudi Arabia. Crying of the sky or of the people?. Saudi Medical Journal, 32(3), 311-313. Ameur, F. (2016). Floods in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Unusual Phenomenon and Huge Losses. What Prognoses. E3s Web of Conferences, 7(1), 4019. Al-Saggaf, Y., & Simmons, P. (June 01, 2015). Social media in Saudi Arabia: Exploring its use during two natural disasters. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 95, 315. Dawod, G. M., Mirza, M. N., & Al-Ghamdi, K. A. (January 01, 2011). GIS-Based Spatial Mapping of Flash Flood Hazard in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Geographic Information System, 3(3), 225-231. Ewea, H. A., Elfeki, A. M. M., Bahrawi, J. A., & Al-Amri, N. S. (May 10, 2016). Sensitivity analysis of runoff hydrographs due to temporal rainfall patterns in Makkah AlMukkramah region, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9(5), 1-12. Flood Aware (2013). Raising Flood Awareness and Self‐Efficacy: Framework to Develop and Implement a Successful Social Marketing Program. Flood Aware. Retrieved from http://www.flood-aware.com/topics/final_report_activity_2.pdf MANAGING FLOODS IN SAUDI ARABIA 8 Morss, R. E., Demuth, J. L., Bostrom, A., Lazo, J. K., & Lazrus, H. (January 01, 2015). Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado. Risk Analysis, 35(11), 20092028. Rahman, M. T., Aldosary, A. S., Nahiduzzaman, K. M., & Reza, I. (December 01, 2016). Vulnerability of flash flooding in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Natural Hazards : Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 84(3), 1807-1830. Saud, M. A. (January 01, 2010). Assessment of Flood Hazard of Jeddah Area 2009, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2(9), 839-847. Şen, Z., As-Sefry, S., & Al-Harithy, S. (December 19, 2016). Probable maximum precipitation and flood calculations for Jeddah area, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(1), 1-21. Şen, Z., Khiyami, H. A., Al-Harthy, S. G., Al-Ammawi, F. A., Al-Balkhi, A. B., Al-Zahrani, M. I., & Al-Hawsawy, H. M. (September 01, 2013). Flash flood inundation map preparation for wadis in arid regions. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6(9), 35633572. Youssef, A. M., & Maerz, N. H. (December 13, 2013). Overview of some geological hazards in the Saudi Arabia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 70(7), 3115-3130. Youssef, A. M., Pradhan, B., & Sefry, S. A. (January 18, 2016). Flash flood susceptibility assessment in Jeddah city (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) using bivariate and multivariate statistical models. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(1), 1-16.
Purchase answer to see full attachment