**3. Results**

#### *3.1. Determination of the Weighting of the Indicators*

Emergency preparedness planning comprises the five process steps preliminary planning (1), risk analysis (2), preventive measures (3), crisis managemen<sup>t</sup> (4) and evaluation (5). In case of equal distribution, the weighting of the five process steps corresponds to 20% or *xj* = 0, 2 each. The expert-based weights are between 17 and 22% (Figure 4). The mean value of the expert-based weight of the process step Preliminary Planning (1) is 0.22, the highest value, and the mean value of the expert-based weight of the process step Evaluation (5) is 0.17, the lowest value of the five weight. The expert opinion regarding the weight of the process step Evaluation (5) varies the strongest. The difference in the mean values of the expert-based weightings is statistically significant (*p* < 0.05).

**Figure 4.** Expert-based weighting of the five process steps of emergency preparedness planning (*n* = 14).

#### *3.2. Assessment of the Applicability and Significance of the Emergency Preparedness Planning Indicator Based on the Case Study*

In order to determine the status quo of emergency preparedness planning, a data collection form was compiled from the indicators listed. This was answered by the water supply company and the responsible disaster control authority from the case study and the data was evaluated.

For the case study, this results in an EPPS of 0.66 and an EPPE of 0.67 (Figure 5). The main indicator PP with a value of 0.96 corresponds to the highest result of the five main indicators. The lowest value is obtained for the main indicator CM with 0.43 and 0.44. This means that in the area of preliminary planning almost all aspects have been implemented in the company and district, but in the area of preventive crisis managemen<sup>t</sup> aspects are not ye<sup>t</sup> sufficiently practiced.

**Figure 5.** Results of the EPP and the main indicators for the case study based on the different weightings (**a**) Expert-based Weights (**b**) Equal Weights.

The methodology developed in this study to assess the status of emergency preparedness planning is applicable in practice. The applied questionnaire captures the relevant aspects for assessing the status quo and deriving the need for action. The quantitative results also enable a comparison between municipalities and the prioritisation of planned measures to address the need for action.

#### *3.3. Status of Emergency Preparedness Planning in Germany*

#### 3.3.1. Data Basis for the Analysis of the Status Quo of Emergency Preparedness Planning

In order to determine the status of emergency preparedness planning in the water supply sector, a total of 360 data sets were analysed and evaluated. These comprise 194 data sets from districts and 166 data sets at the municipal level. Due to the different responsibilities in Germany, the data sets of the districts and municipalities are evaluated separately from the data sets at the municipal level (Table 2). The data sets are each divided into four groups of approximately equal size according to the number of inhabitants covered. In addition, a distinction was made between the areas of responsibility of the senders of the data collection forms. It is therefore necessary to examine, whether differences can be identified with regard to the level of preparation of the different senders and the size of the municipality.


**Table 2.** Size of the municipalities and districts as well as the field of activity of the senders of the survey forms.


**Table 2.** *Cont.*

#### *3.4. Assessment of the Status of Emergency Preparedness Planning in Germany*

In order to assess the status of the emergency preparedness planning of the districts as well as the municipalities, the composite indicator EPP and the main indicators PP, RA, PM, CM and E were determined on the basis of the data sets presented. For this purpose, the results of the emergency preparedness planning indicators with weighting according to expert opinion (EPPE) and with equally distributed weighting (EPPS) are presented below.

The results of the EPPE and EPPS vary for the districts in a few cases (Figure 6) The mean value of the EPPE as well as the EPPS is equal to 0.42 (Table 3). The small differences in the weighting show only a little effect in the result. Moreover, these differences are not statistically significant (*p* > 0.05).

**Figure 6.** Emergency preparedness planning indicator according to the size of the districts.

**Table 3.** Results of the emergency preparedness planning indicator with expert based and equally distributed weighting and the main indicators.


The participating districts show a different level of preparation. Districts with more inhabitants achieve a higher EPP (Figure 7). The range of EPP increases with the number of inhabitants, so that the largest districts show the greatest difference in the level of emergency preparedness within a size group. The differences in the mean values by size of the districts are significant in both cases (*p* < 0.05).

**Figure 7.** EPP according to the size of the districts. (**a**) Expert-based weighting of the main and sub-indicators; (**b**) Equally distributed weighting of the main and sub-indicators.

The mean values of the EPPE and EPPS for municipalities are 0.32. Some municipalities have thus already implemented certain aspects of emergency preparedness planning. However, these implementations are still in their beginnings. Differences between the EPPE and EPPS are only evident in a few cases (Figure 8), but do not show statistical significance (*p* > 0.05).

Municipalities with an increasing number of inhabitants achieve higher results in the EPPE as well as in the EPPS. The differences in the mean values between the size of the municipalities are significant (*p* < 0.05). However, the range of the EPPE does not increase with a growing number of inhabitants in the municipality, which can be seen at the level of districts.

**Figure 8.** Emergency preparedness planning indicator by size of municipalities.

The Figure 9 shows the differences of the EPPE and EPPS between expert-based and equally distributed weighting. The colored variance of the rectangles shows that the different weightings affect the results of the EPPE and EPPS. In addition, the figure shows that the difference between EPPE and EPPS is in the range of ± 0.018 and is therefore only noticeable in a few cases when the result is rounded to the second decimal place.

**Figure 9.** Difference between the emergency preparedness planning indicators EPPE and EPPS according to the size of the data sets taken into account.
