4.6 Article

Understanding Compound, Interconnected, Interacting, and Cascading Risks: A Holistic Framework

期刊

RISK ANALYSIS
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 2245-2257

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/risa.13128

关键词

Cascading risk; compounding risk; critical infrastructure; interacting risk; interconnected risk; Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction; societal resilience

资金

  1. European Commission [607579]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, there has been a gradual increase in research literature on the challenges of interconnected, compound, interacting, and cascading risks. These concepts are becoming ever more central to the resilience debate. They aggregate elements of climate change adaptation, critical infrastructure protection, and societal resilience in the face of complex, high-impact events. However, despite the potential of these concepts to link together diverse disciplines, scholars and practitioners need to avoid treating them in a superficial or ambiguous manner. Overlapping uses and definitions could generate confusion and lead to the duplication of research effort. This article gives an overview of the state of the art regarding compound, interconnected, interacting, and cascading risks. It is intended to help build a coherent basis for the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR). The main objective is to propose a holistic framework that highlights the complementarities of the four kinds of complex risk in a manner that is designed to support the work of researchers and policymakers. This article suggests how compound, interconnected, interacting, and cascading risks could be used, with little or no redundancy, as inputs to new analyses and decisional tools designed to support the implementation of the SFDRR. The findings can be used to improve policy recommendations and support tools for emergency and crisis management, such as scenario building and impact trees, thus contributing to the achievement of a system-wide approach to resilience.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据