## 4 Identified Factors and Discussed Discussion
### Factors: Head-Mariala ICT-1
#### 4.3.1 Absence of Formal and Standard Information Delivery System  
Power cut-out is the first thing that happens in floods even when the flood has not arrived yet. It happened in York too but only when the flood was severe. The power cut-out paralyzed most of the ICF such as TV broadcasts but there were still many options available that needed to be considered but were not. HM is not developed compared to York, yet people had considerable access to smart gadgets. It came out that the grassroots-level ICF was quite weak.  
HM showed strong community strength and lesser dependency on authorities, which was reversely observed in York. The reason was that HM's people understood and accepted the ground realities that the population was denser compared to the facilities that authorities had. This compelled people to manage their own escape and safety measures. In such scenarios, the minimum help that people expected to obtain from authorities was a constant supply of transport-flood-related ICF. Thus emerged a strong need to establish a standard format of ICF utilization to keep people updated with constant standardized and customized information sharing.  
For this purpose, a specific set of ICTs should be engaged in floods but there is also a need to standardize the plans to practice ICTs for effective communication among communities and authorities. This information sharing requires timely management; otherwise, the useful information may get lost or outdated with the heterogeneous use of different ICTs.  
3.2 Lack of Operational Coordination among Different Institutes during Execution of Emergency and Rescue Operations  
In HM, contrary to York, a weak operational coordination among different institutions was observed during the execution of ER operations. It is out of the question that authorities used their efforts and expertise in the best possible way that they could but due to the lack of an effective operational framework, tasks were either overlapped or unattended and there was ambiguity in setting addressable jobs' priorities. Also, hesitation in taking initiative while overseeing a particular operation, either due to political or other administrative pressures, caused weak operational coordination.  
The inclusion of stakeholders seemed a critical problem to consider. For example, metrological and environment departments conveyed up-to-date information to other institutions but not directly to the public, who were the first line affected. Experts shared that while managing floods, transport system-managing authorities were usually not taken into consideration, which results in poor handling of transport systems in floods. Also, many possibilities of engaging ICTs for effective communication were neglected. This triggered loss of time, resources, and people's trust in authorities. Contrary to HM, the authorities in York worked in a more coordinated manner, which is why the public trusted authorities more compared to their own selves.  
This can be avoided by practicing two things. Firstly, engaging a variety of ICTs [57] in the ER operational system for fast and timely communication among different stakeholders of the society who face transport system problems in floods. Secondly, there is a need for a suitable coordination system to execute plans with clear definitions and distribution of layer-wise responsibilities and roles of each authority. The incorporation of ICTs will optimize the strategies to tackle transport systems in different flood scenarios.