The urban domino effect: A conceptualization of cities' interconnectedness of risk

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(2), pp. 80-113. ISSN 1759-5916

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.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: climate change adaptation; critical dependencies; disaster risk reduction; risk governance; sustainable urban planning; urban resilience
Index terms: recovery, sustainable urban planning, risk governance, grounded theory, adaptation, dynamics, successor, built environment, urban fabric, Hyogo framework, risk reduction, systems analysis, mainstreaming, critical dependency, methodology, vulnerability, urban resilience, disaster risk reduction, climate change
Subjects: climate science, business, user focus, analytical methods, operations management, operations research, sustainability and resilience, financial risk, theoretical framing, research methods, urban form and morphology, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental hazards, systems engineering
Topics: Sustainability, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Time Control, Urban Studies, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here