Collaborative governance in handling natural and non-natural disasters based on the perspective of public administration: Evidence from Indonesia
-
Author(s)Slamet RiadiLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7830-9636
,
ErdiyansyahLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8037-8959
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.37
-
Article InfoVolume 19 2021, Issue #2, pp. 468-479
- 1122 Views
-
353 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Both natural and non-natural disasters greatly affect human life, including business actors. The government is urgently required to solve the emerging problems caused by the disaster. This study aims to determine collaborative governance in handling natural and non-natural disasters that affect the business actors in Palu City. This study used a quantitative approach with a series of statistical tests. The sample of this study consisted of 207 respondents who are government and the business actors in Palu City affected by natural and non-natural disasters. Data were collected through observation, questionnaires, and documentation. Then, the data were analyzed with statistical testing including descriptive statistics and a T-Test (comparative test). The results showed a significant difference between collaborative governance during natural and non-natural disasters. Further, the differences in collaborative governance can be seen in the leadership and initial condition variables. When a natural disaster occurs, leadership is urgently required, while a non-natural disaster caused by the COVID-19 is highly determined by the initial conditions. It means that government decision-making to deal with non-natural disasters from the start is urgently required. The evidence can be seen from some countries and regions with slow response to the COVID-19 resulting in difficulty in controlling the spread of the virus.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)H83, H84, O38
-
References48
-
Tables3
-
Figures2
-
- Figure 1. Collaborative governance in disasters
- Figure 2. Normal Q-Q plots
-
- Table 1. Item-total statistics collaborative governance
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics of collaborative governance
- Table 3. Paired samples test
-
- Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 56-65.
- Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
- Ansell, C., Doberstein, C., Henderson, H., Siddiki, S., & Hart, P.’t. (2020). Understanding inclusion in collaborative governance: A mixed methods approach. Policy and Society, 39(4), 570-591.
- Bell, E., & Scott, T. A. (2020). Common institutional design, divergent results: A comparative case study of collaborative governance platforms for regional water planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 111, 63-73.
- Beyers, F., & Heinrichs, H. (2020). Global partnerships for a textile transformation? A systematic literature review on inter- and transnational collaborative governance of the textile and clothing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261, 121131.
- Biggs, R. (2012). Paying for disaster recovery: Australia’s NDRRA and the United States’ NFIP. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(2), 26-30.
- Bingham, L. B. (2011). Collaborative governance. In The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 386-401). London: Sage.
- Blanco, D. V. (2015). Disaster Governance in the Philippines: Issues, Lessons Learned, and Future Directions in the Post-Yolanda Super Typhoon Aftermath. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(10), 743-756.
- Bruno, M. (2020). The challenge of the bicycle street: Applying collaborative governance processes while protecting user centered innovations. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 7, 100209.
- 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.
- Bussy, N. M. de, & Paterson, A. (2012). Crisis leadership styles – Bligh versus Gillard: A content analysis of Twitter posts on the Queensland floods. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(4), 326-332.
- Cavallo, E., & Noy, I. (2011). Natural Disasters and the Economy – A Survey. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(1), 63-102.
- Cohen, C., & Werker, E. D. (2008). The Political Economy of “Natural” Disasters. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(6), 795-819.
- Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). A leadership framework for cross-sector collaboration. Public Management Review, 7(2), 177-201.
- Dapilah, F., Nielsen, J. Ø., Lebek, K., & D’haen, S. A. L. (2021). He who pays the piper calls the tune: Understanding collaborative governance and climate change adaptation in Northern Ghana. Climate Risk Management, 32, 100306.
- Diaz-Kope, L., Miller-Stevens, K., & Morris, J. C. (2015). Collaboration Processes and Institutional Structure: Reexamining the Black Box. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 607-615.
- Douglas, S., Ansell, C., Parker, C. F., Sørensen, E., Hart, P.’T, & Torfing, J. (2020). Understanding Collaboration: Introducing the Collaborative Governance Case Databank. Policy and Society, 39(4), 495-509.
- Douglass, M. (2016). The Urban Transition of Disaster Governance in Asia. In M. Miller & M. Douglass (Eds.), Disaster Governance in Urbanising Asia (pp. 13-43). Springer.
- Duda, P., Kelman, I., & Glick, N. (2020). Informal disaster governance. Politics and Governance, 8(4), 375-385.
- Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.
- Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.
- Emerson, K. (2018). Collaborative governance of public health in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from research in public administration. BMJ Global Health, 3(suppl 4), e000381.
- Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishing.
- Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66-67.
- Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2016). Investigating Collaborative Processes Over Time: A 10-Year Study of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(2), 180-200.
- Hui, I., Ulibarri, N., & Cain, B. (2020). Patterns of Participation and Representation in a Regional Water Collaboration. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 754-781.
- Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2018). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
- Ishiwatari, M. (2019). Flood risk governance: Establishing collaborative mechanism for integrated approach. Progress in Disaster Science, 2, 100014.
- Kornelius, Y., Buntuang, P. C. D., & Bidin, C. R. K. (2020). Rethinking of Strategy Defending Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) During COVID-19 Pandemic. Proceedings of the International Conference on Community Development (ICCD 2020), 786-790. Atlantis Press.
- Kusumastuti, R. D., Arviansyah, A., Nurmala, N., & Wibowo, S. S. (2021). Knowledge management and natural disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review and a case study of East Lombok, Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 58, 102223.
- Lam, L. M., & Kuipers, R. (2019). Resilience and disaster governance: Some insights from the 2015 Nepal earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 33, 321-331.
- Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2003). Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters. Natural Hazards Review, 4(4), 176-185.
- Margerum, R. D. (2008). A Typology of Collaboration Efforts in Environmental Management. Environmental Management, 41, 487-500.
- McNamara, M. (2012). Starting to Untangle the Web of Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration: A Framework for Public Managers. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(6), 389-401.
- Meriläinen, E. S., Mäkinen, J., & Solitander, N. (2020). Blurred Responsibilities of Disaster Governance: The American Red Cross in the US and Haiti. Politics and Governance, 8(4).
- Miller, M. A., & Douglass, M. (2016). Disaster Governance in an Urbanising World Region. In M. Miller & M. Douglass (Eds.), Disaster Governance in Urbanising Asia (pp. 1-12). Springer.
- Page, S. (2010). Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: Civic engagement in Seattle. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 246-263.
- Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2014). Natural Disasters. Our World in Data.
- Sandoval, V., & Voss, M. (2016). Disaster Governance and Vulnerability: The Case of Chile. Politics and Governance, 4(4).
- Scott, T. A., Ulibarri, N., & Scott, R. P. (2020). Stakeholder involvement in collaborative regulatory processes: Using automated coding to track attendance and actions. Regulation & Governance, 14(2), 219-237.
- Sedlacek, S., Tötzer, T., & Lund-Durlacher, D. (2020). Collaborative governance in energy regions – Experiences from an Austrian region. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120256.
- Suzuki, I., & Kaneko, Y. (2013). Japan’s Disaster Governance: How was the 3.11 Crisis Managed? New York: Springer.
- Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster Governance: Social, Political, and Economic Dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 341-363.
- Ulibarri, N., Emerson, K., Imperial, M. T., Jager, N. W., Newig, J., & Weber, E. (2020). How does collaborative governance evolve? Insights from a medium-n case comparison. Policy and Society, 39(4), 617-637.
- Ullah, I., & Kim, D.-Y. (2020). A Model of Collaborative Governance for Community-based Trophy-Hunting Programs in Developing Countries. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 18(3), 145-160.
- Van den Honert, R. C., & McAneney, J. (2011). The 2011 Brisbane Floods: Causes, Impacts and Implications. Water, 3(4), 1149-1173.
- Weymouth, R., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2015). Deliberative collaborative governance as a democratic reform to resolve wicked problems and improve trust. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17, 1-34.
- Zurita, M. de L. M., Cook, B., Harms, L., & March, A. (2015). Towards New Disaster Governance: Subsidiarity as a Critical Tool. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(6), 386-398.
-
Perceived health risk, online retail ethics, and consumer behavior within online shopping during the COVID-19 pandemic
Yuniarti Fihartini ,
Arief Helmi ,
Meydia Hassan ,
Yevis Marty Oesman
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.17(3).2021.02
Innovative Marketing Volume 17, 2021 Issue #3 pp. 17-29 Views: 4455 Downloads: 1707 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe risk of virus contracting during the COVID-19 pandemic has changed consumer preference for online shopping to meet their daily needs than shopping in brick-and-mortar stores. Online shopping presents a different environment, atmosphere, and experience. The possibility of ethical violations is higher during online than face-to-face transactions. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the influence of perceived health risk and customer perception of online retail ethics on consumer online shopping behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, involving seven variables, namely perceived health risk, security, privacy, non-deception, reliability fulfillment, service recovery, and online shopping behavior. The data were collected through an online survey by employing the purposive sampling technique to a consumer who has shopped online during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. 315 valid responses were obtained and analyzed through quantitative method using SEM-Amos. The results showed that perceived health risk and four variables of online retail ethics including security, privacy, reliability fulfillment, and service recovery affected online shopping behavior. Meanwhile, non-deception was found to have an insignificant effect. The coefficient value proved perceived health risk to be more dominant in influencing online shopping behavior than the variables of online retail ethics. Thus, consumers pay more concern for their health during online shopping. However, positive consumer perceptions of the behavior of online retail websites in providing services also can encourage consumers to shop online during this pandemic.
-
The influence of servant leadership on job satisfaction with individual character as a moderating variable
Bakri Hasanuddin ,
Mustainah M ,
Pricylia Chintya Dewi Buntuang
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.37
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 19, 2021 Issue #1 pp. 445-455 Views: 3657 Downloads: 1645 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study aims to investigate the influence of servant leadership on job satisfaction with individual character as a moderating variable. It used a quantitative approach with multiple linear regression analysis. The population of this study were employees of the Central Sulawesi province industry and trade office. It involved 72 samples selected using a purposive sampling technique. The results showed that servant leadership significantly influence job satisfaction with a value of 82.5%. The most significant factor affecting job satisfaction is wisdom (correlation coefficient = 0.863) in which the higher the wisdom, the higher the job satisfaction. The next factor is persuasive mapping in which the higher the persuasive mapping, the higher the job satisfaction (correlation coefficient = 0.697). Then, it was followed by altruistic calling with the correlation coefficient value of 0.524 in which the higher the altruistic calling, the higher the job satisfaction. The last is emotional healing with a correlation coefficient value of 0.291 in which the higher the emotional healing, the higher the job satisfaction. On the other hand, organizational stewardship is the only factor does not influence the job satisfaction (correlation coefficient = 0.009).
-
Environmental Performance Index: relation between social and economic welfare of the countries
Tetyana Pimonenko 
,
Oleksii Lyulyov ,
Olena Chygryn ,
Maksim Palienko
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.09(3).2018.01
Environmental Economics Volume 9, 2018 Issue #3 pp. 1-11 Views: 3528 Downloads: 531 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe paper deals with the analysis of methodology of Environmental Performance Index. The authors analyzed and systematized the main existing integrated indices, which were used for evaluation of environmental, social and economic situation in the countries. The authors allocated the environmental performance index as a basis for analyzing the environmental policy of the country. In this direction, the authors analysed the main features, structure and indicators of environmental performance index. The authors allocated the world-leader countries with huge level of CO2 emissions. According to the results, the authors aproved that these countries should improve their environmental policy. Accordingly, they occupied less position in environmental performance index. For the purpose to analyze the relation between ecological, social and economic welfare, the authors analyzed score of sustainable development goal index, social progress index and gross domestic product per capita. The comparison analysis of findings showed that countries with good position on environmental performance index have the strong position on sustainable development goal index and social progress index. The authors suggested that Ukraine should orient to the EU countries with purpose to improve the environmental policy.
