Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 9 results ...
Arbon, P, Steenkamp, M, Cornell, V, Cusack, L and Gebbie, K (2016) Measuring disaster resilience in communities and households: Pragmatic tools developed in Australia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 201-15.
Haraguchi, M and Kim, S (2016) Critical infrastructure interdependence in New York City during Hurricane Sandy. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 133-43.
King, D, Gurtner, Y, Firdaus, A, Harwood, S and Cottrell, A (2016) Land use planning for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Operationalizing policy and legislation at local levels. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 158-72.
Komendantova, N, Scolobig, A, Garcia-Aristizabal, A, Monfort, D and Fleming, K (2016) Multi-risk approach and urban resilience. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 114-32.
McGee, S, Frittman, J, Ahn, S J and Murray, S (2016) Implications of cascading effects for the Hyogo Framework. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 144-57.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: causal mapping; critical infrastructures; Hyogo framework; risk relationships; systems thinking; cascading effects
- ISBN/ISSN:
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2015-0012
- Abstract:
Purpose This paper aims to provide a preliminary systemic portrayal of risk relationships in the context of critical infrastructures (CIs) during disasters and assess the adequacy of the Hyogo Framework in addressing such relationships and the resultant cascading effects. Design/methodology/approach Using a systems thinking approach, this study views CIs as complex systems operating in the context of broader societies and disaster conditions. Using a causal loop diagramming technique, relationships across a large number of variables are mapped to capture pathways for cascading effects across CIs. This theoretical understanding is supplemented by cascading effects seen during the 2011 Japanese disaster. The Hyogo Framework indicators are mapped both to causal variables and disaster events to identify gaps. Data on cascading effects were collected from journals, news articles and reports by governments and NGOs. Findings The Hyogo Framework does not address facilitation by the host country of international aid during disasters; identification of infrastructure interdependencies and prioritization planning for recovery operations; national risk assessments that account for interrelated disasters; and private sector’s need to understand CIs’ dependencies and establish robust continuity plans that account for potential infrastructure failures. Originality/value This paper is the first attempt to assess the Hyogo Framework’s potential in addressing risk relationships and cascading effects. The knowledge provided in the paper is derived from the synthesis of previous cascading effects’ literature and examination of a real-life disaster. Findings are applicable to any disaster risk reduction initiative that seeks to anticipate and mitigate risk relationships and their implications for CIs during disasters.
Murnane, R, Simpson, A and Jongman, B (2016) Understanding risk: what makes a risk assessment successful?. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 186-200.
Schipper, E L F, Thomalla, F, Vulturius, G, Davis, M and Johnson, K (2016) Linking disaster risk reduction, climate change and development. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 216-28.
Wamsler, C and Brink, E (2016) The urban domino effect: a conceptualization of cities’ interconnectedness of risk. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 80-113.
Wilkinson, S, Chang-Richards, A Y, Sapeciay, Z and Costello, S B (2016) Improving construction sector resilience. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(02), 173-85.