Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cascading Disasters: Multiple Risk Reduction and Resilience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience

  • 1519 Accesses

Abstract

The connectedness and interdependency of modern society mean that, when disaster strikes, it is likely to involve cascading consequences. This chapter examines the nature of cascading disasters in terms of the cross-sectoral linkages that they exploit. Escalation points can arise, in which interactions between different forms and scales of vulnerability lead to impacts that may be greater or more serious than those of the hazard that started the cascade. Natural and technological events combine in cascading disasters to produce complex consequences. To understand such processes, a full understanding of disaster vulnerability is required. A model is presented which avoids the usual categories into which forms of vulnerability are placed and encourages instead a more holistic, cross-disciplinary approach to the phenomenon. The chapter then examines how cause is turned into effect by the interaction of specific and general vulnerability, representing direct causes of disaster and contributory or contextual factors, respectively. Dealing with cascading disasters requires planning based upon suites of scenarios that represent different sets of cascade paths. Foresight and mitigation need plans to be based on understanding the range of possible cascade mechanisms and providing redundancy in the proposed solutions to them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications, 7(1), 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abunyewah, M., Gajendran, T., & Maund, K. (2018). Profiling informal settlements for disaster risks. Procedia Engineering, 212, 238–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D. E. (1997). The study of natural disasters, 1977–97: Some reflections on a changing field of knowledge. Disasters, 21(4), 284–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D. E. (2013). Volcanic ash in the atmosphere and risks for civil aviation: A study in European crisis management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 4(1), 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D. E. (2016). How to write an emergency plan (268 pp). Edinburgh/London: Dunedin Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D. (2018). A magnitude scale for cascading disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 30B, 180–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, D., & Pescaroli, G. (2019). What are cascading disasters? UCL Open: Environment, 1(03), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/000011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amailef, K., & Lu, J. (2013). Ontology-supported case-based reasoning approach for intelligent m-government emergency response services. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baina, A., El Kalam, A. A., Deswarte, Y., & Kaaniche, M. (2008). Collaborative access control for critical infrastructures. In M. Papa & S. Shenoi (Eds.), International conference on critical infrastructure protection (International federation for information processing) (Vol. 290, pp. 189–201). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. In J. Birkmann (Ed.), Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies (pp. 9–54). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (1st ed., 320 pp). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, J. K. (2000). Let them eat risk: Wealth, rights and disaster vulnerability. Disasters, 24(3), 254–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardona, O. D. (2004). The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: A necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, & D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development and people (pp. 37–51). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowlard, A., Bittern, A., Abecassis-Empis, C., & Torero, J. (2013). Fire safety design for tall buildings. Procedia Engineering, 62, 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, D. (2013). Fukushima: Impacts and implications (145 pp). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elmer, F., Hoymann, J., Düthmann, D., Vorogushyn, S., & Kreibich, H. (2012). Drivers of flood risk change in residential areas. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12(5), 1641–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotham, K. F., & Campanella, R. (2011). Coupled vulnerability and resilience: The dynamics of cross-scale interactions in post-Katrina New Orleans. Ecology and Society, 16(3), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidotti, R., Chmielewski, H., Unnikrishnan, V., Gardoni, P., McAllister, T., & van de Lindt, J. (2016). Modeling the resilience of critical infrastructure: The role of network dependencies. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 1(3–4), 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (507 pp). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, K. (1983). The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In K. Hewitt (Ed.), Interpretations of calamity (pp. 3–32). London: Unwin-Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, W.-K., Huang, P.-C., Chang, C.-C., Chen, C.-W., Hung, D.-M., & Chiang, W.-L. (2011). An integrated flood risk assessment model for property insurance industry in Taiwan. Natural Hazards, 58(3), 1295–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kachali, H., Storsjö, I., Haavisto, I., & Kovács, G. (2018). Inter-sectoral preparedness and mitigation for networked risks and cascading effects. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 30B, 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. L. (2007). Vulnerability assessments for public and private facilities. Journal of Business Continuity and Emergency Planning, 1(3), 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann, E., Cruz, A., & Salzano, E. (2016). Natech risk assessment and management: Reducing the risk of natural-Hazard impact on hazardous installations (268 pp). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner-Lam, A. (2007). Assessing global exposure to natural hazards: Progress and future trends. Environmental Hazards, 7(1), 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LFB. (2018). London fire brigade operational response to Grenfell Tower (123 pp). London: London Fire Brigade.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mignan, A., Scolobig, A., & Sauron, A. (2016). Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: A pilot study. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(3), 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., Walker, B., Birkmann, J., van der Leeuw, S., Rockström, J., Hinkel, J., Downing, T., Folke, C., & Nelson, D. (2010). Resilience and vulnerability: Complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and Society, 15(3), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore-Bick, M. (2019). Grenfell Tower inquiry: Phase 1 report (4 vols). London: UK Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadal, N. C., Zapata, R. E., Pagán, I., López, R., & Agudelo, J. (2013). Building damage due to riverine and coastal floods. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 136(3), 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowell, B., Bodkin, C. P., & Bayoumi, D. (2017). Redundancy as a strategy in disaster response systems: A pathway to resilience or a recipe for disaster? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(3), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özerdem, A., & Jacoby, T. (2006). Disaster management and civil society: Earthquake relief in Japan, Turkey and India (142 pp). Taurus/London/New York: International library of postwar reconstruction and development no. 1, I.B.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. E., & Tapia, C. (2013). Sustainability of natural hazard risk mitigation: Life cycle analysis of environmental indicators for bridge infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19(4), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescaroli, G. (2018). Perceptions of cascading risk and interconnected failures in emergency planning: Implications for operational resilience and policy making. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 30B, 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescaroli, G., & Alexander, D. (2015). A definition of cascading disasters and cascading effects: Going beyond the “toppling dominos” metaphor. GRF Davos Planet@Risk, 3(1), 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pescaroli, G., & Alexander, D. (2016). Critical infrastructure, panarchies and the vulnerability paths of cascading disasters. Natural Hazards, 82(1), 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescaroli, G., & Alexander, D. (2018). Understanding compound, interconnected, interacting, and cascading risks: A holistic framework. Risk Analysis, 38(11), 2245–2257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quarantelli, E. L. (1997). Problematical aspects of the information/communication revolution for disaster planning and research: Ten non-technical issues and questions. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6(2), 94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, D. A., Kapur, K. C., & Christie, R. D. (2009). Methodology for assessing the resilience of networked infrastructure. IEEE Systems Journal, 3(2), 174–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijpma, J. A. (1997). Complexity, tight–coupling and reliability: Connecting normal accidents theory and high reliability theory. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1), 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvast, A. (2017). Making electricity resilient: Risk and security in a liberalised infrastructure (174 pp). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N., & Fraser, M. R. (2020, February 13). Straining the system: Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and preparedness for concomitant disasters. American Journal of Public Health, 110(5), 648–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Worst-case scenarios (339 pp). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UK Cabinet Office. (2010). Strategic framework and policy statement on improving the resilience of critical infrastructure to disruption from natural hazards (26 pp). London: UK Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Voet, H., & Slob, W. (2007). Integration of probabilistic exposure assessment and probabilistic hazard characterization. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vugrin, D. E., Warren, M. A. E., & Camphouse, R. C. (2010). A framework for assessing the resilience of infrastructure and economic systems. In K. Gopalakrishnan & S. Peeta (Eds.), Sustainable and resilient critical infrastructure systems (pp. 77–116). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wacholder, S., Benichou, J., Heineman, E. F., Hartge, P., & Hoover, R. N. (1994). Attributable risk: Advantages of a broad definition of exposure. American Journal of Epidemiology, 140(4), 303–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, V., & Gaillard, J. C. (2014). Disaster risk at the margins: Homelessness, vulnerability and hazards. Habitat International, 44, 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weichselgartner, J. (2001). Disaster mitigation: The concept of vulnerability revisited. Disaster Prevention and Management, 10(2), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29(2), 112–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisner, B. (1999). There are worse things than earthquakes: Hazard vulnerability and mitigation in Los Angeles. In J. K. Mitchell (Ed.), Crucibles of Hazard: Mega-cities and disasters in transition (pp. 375–427). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner, B. (2004). Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, & D. Hilhorst (Eds.), mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development and people (pp. 183–193). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed., 496 pp). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, M., Wang, Z., Qi, L., Liu, L., & Zhang, K. (2012). Disaster chains initiated by the Wenchuan earthquake. Environmental Earth Sciences, 65(4), 975–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, A. (2014). A framework for studying mortality arising from critical infrastructure loss. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 7(2), 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, X., & Tonon, F. (2012). Event-tree analysis with imprecise probabilities. Risk Analysis, 32(2), 330–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, University College London, London, UK

    David Alexander

Authors
  1. David Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Alexander .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Excellence in Risk Management and Natural Hazards, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

    Saeid Eslamian

  2. McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Faezeh Eslamian

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Alexander, D. (2021). Cascading Disasters: Multiple Risk Reduction and Resilience. In: Eslamian, S., Eslamian, F. (eds) Handbook of Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61278-8_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation