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.
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.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: sustainable urban planning; risk governance; disaster risk reduction; climate change adaptation; critical dependencies; urban resilience
- ISBN/ISSN:
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-01-2015-0001
- Abstract:
Purpose Cities are both at risk and the cause of risk. The interconnectedness of urban features and systems increases the likelihood of complex disasters and a cascade or “domino” effect from related impacts. However, the lack of research means that our knowledge of urban risk is both scarce and fragmented. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to examine the unique dynamics of risk in urban settings. Design/methodology/approach Based on literal reading, grounded theory and systems analysis, this conceptual paper presents a framework for understanding and addressing urban risk. It conceptualizes how interdependent, interconnected risk is shaped by urban characteristics and exemplifies its particularities with data and analysis of specific cases. From this, it identifies improvements both in the content and the indicators of the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA2) that will be adopted in 2015. Findings While it is common to see disasters as “causes”, and the destruction of the built environment as “effects”, this paper highlights that the intricate links between cities and disasters cannot be described by a unidirectional cause-and-effect relationship. The city–disasters nexus is a bidirectional relationship, which constantly shapes, and is shaped by, other processes (such as climate change). Practical implications This paper argues that in-depth knowledge of the links between cities’ characteristic features, related systems and disasters is indispensable for addressing root causes and mainstreaming risk reduction into urban sector work. It enables city authorities and other urban actors to improve and adapt their work without negatively influencing the interconnectedness of urban risk. Originality/value This paper presents a framework for understanding and addressing urban risk and further demonstrates how the characteristics of the urban fabric (physical/spatial, environmental, social, economic and political/institutional) and related systems increase risk by: intensifying hazards or creating new ones, exacerbating vulnerabilities and negatively affecting existing response and recovery mechanisms.
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.