Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Strategic Management of Disaster Risk Mitigation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction (ITDRR 2022)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 672))

  • 345 Accesses

Abstract

Systemic risks are embedded in the complex networks of an increasingly interconnected world. Achieving the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change 2015 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development require that risk mitigation involves not only experts but ‘power-brokers’ – those with the power to act. Impactful risk assessment and mitigation development requires high levels of ownership of the assessment and mitigation strategies, and so needs to be done fast and involve relatively small amounts of the power-brokers time. This requirement means that the analysis of the risk system will need to be transparent and relevant. We describe a method employing causal mapping with experts and power-brokers stakeholders. These stakeholders interactively undertake a qualitative systemic risk assessment and subsequently develop and agree strategies for risk mitigation explicitly considering (i) the direct purpose of mitigation (the other risks that are likely to be at least partly mitigated – the risks that are directly linked from the mitigated risk), and also (ii) the negative goals that will be mitigated.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR): Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (Fifth Edition). United Nations (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Williams, T.M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C.: Project Risk: systemicity, cause mapping and a scenario approach. In: Kahkonen, K., Artto, K.A. (Eds.), Managing Risks in Projects, pp. 343–352. E&FN Spon, London (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schwarz, S.L.: Systemic risk. Georgetown Law J. 97, 193–249 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. UN world conference on disaster risk reduction: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (2015). http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2022

  5. Handmer, J., Stevance, A.-S., Rickards, L., Nalau, J.: Policy brief: achieving risk reduction across Sendai, Paris and the SDGs (2019). https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ISC_Achieving-Risk-Reduction-Across-Sendai-Paris-and-the-SDGs_May-2019.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2022

  6. International Risk Governance Center (IRGC): Guidelines for the Governance of Systemic Risks. International Risk Governance Center (IRGC), Lausanne (2018). https://doi.org/10.5075/epfl-irgc-257279

  7. Williams, T.: The Nature of risk in complex projects. Proj. Manag. J. 48, 55–66 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Williams, T., Howick, S.: Systemic risk assessment: a case study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58, 39–51 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Lupton, D.: Risk, 2nd edn. Routledge, London (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Eden, C., Ackermann, F.: Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals. EURO J. Decis. Process. 1, 7–28 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Adams, J.: Risk. Routledge, London (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Masuch, M.: Vicious Circles in Organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 30, 14–33 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Drummond, H.: MIS and illusions of control: an analysis of the risks of risk management. J. Inf. Technol. 26, 263 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kepner, C.H., Tregoe, B.B.: The Rational Manager: A Systematic Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. McGraw Hill, New York (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ackoff, R.L.: Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. Wiley, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ozbekhan, H.: Thoughts on the emerging methodology of planning. Fields within Fields 10(Winter), 63–80 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Checkland, P.: Systems Thinking. Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester (1981)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Cavallo, A., Ireland, V.: Preparing for complex interdependent risks: a system of systems approach to building disaster resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 9, 181–193 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bloomfield, K., Williams, T., Bovis, C., Merali, Y.: Systemic risk in major public contracts. Int. J. Forecast. 35, 667–676 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Senge, P.M.: The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday, New York (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Richardson, G.: Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gonzalez, J.J., et al.: Elicitation, analysis and mitigation of systemic pandemic risks. In: Adrot, A, Grace, R., Moore, K., Zobel, C.W. (Eds.) 18th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Blacksburg, ISCRAM, Virginia, pp. 581–596 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gonzalez, J.J., Eden, C.: Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic for systemic risk assessment and management. In: Sasaki, J., Murayama, Y., Velev, D., Zlateva, P. (eds.) ITDRR 2021. IAICT, vol. 638, pp. 121–138. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04170-9_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Jamshidi, A., Ait-kadi, D., Ruiz, A., Rebaiaia, M.L.: Dynamics risk assessment of complex systems using FCM. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 1070–1088 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ren, H.: Risk lifecycle and risk relationships on construction projects. Int. J. Project Manage. 12, 68–74 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kwan, T.W., Leung, H. K.: A risk management methodology for project risk dependencies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang, Y.: Selecting risk response strategies considering project risk interdependence. Int. J. Project Manage. 34, 819–830 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ackoff, R.L., Emery, F.: On Purposeful Systems. Tavistock, London (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Marchwicka, E., Kuchta, D.: Modified optimization model for selecting project risk response strategies. Oper. Res. Decis. 27(2), 77–90 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Wirba, E.N., Tah, J.H.M., Howes, R.: Risk interdependencies and natural language computations. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 3, 251–269 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fang, C., Marle, F.: A simulation-based risk network model for decision support in project risk management. Decis. Support Syst. 52, 635–644 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fang, C., Marle, F., Zio, E., Bocquet, J.C.: Network theory-based analysis of risk interactions in large engineering projects. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 106, 1–10 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., Mininno, V.: Risk assessment in ERP projects. Inf. Syst. 37, 183–199 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rich, E., Gonzalez, J.J., Qian, Y., Sveen, F.O., Radianti, J., Hillen, S.: Emergent vulnerabilities in integrated operations: a proactive simulation study of economic risk. Int. J. Crit. Infrastr. Prot. 2, 110–123 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Qian, Y., Fang, Y., Gonzalez, J.J.: Managing information security risks during new technology adoption. Comput. Secur. 31, 859–869 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sterman, J.D.: Business Dynamics. Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill Education, Columbus, OH, USA (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mani, K.E., Cavana, R.Y.: Systems Thinking, System Dynamics. Managing Change and Complexity. Prentice Hall, New Zealand (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Howick, S., Eden, C.: Supporting strategic conversations: the significance of a quantitative model building process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 62, 868–878 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Harary, F., Norman, R., Cartwright, D.: Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs. Wiley, New York (1965)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Hage, P., Harary, F.: Eccentricity and centrality in networks. Soc. Netw. 17, 57–63 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yan, E., Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: a coauthorship network analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 60, 2107–2118 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lu, L., Chen, D., Ren, X.-L., Zhang, Q.-M., Zhang, Y.-C., Zhou, T.: Vital nodes identification in complex networks. Phys. Rep. 650, 1–63 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Rosenhead, J.: Planning under uncertainty: II. A methodology for robustness analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 31, 331–342 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O.: An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage. Sci. 9, 458–467 (1963)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rowe, G., Wright, G.: The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 15, 353–375 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vennix, J.: Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Wiley, Chichester (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Vennix, J.A.M.: System dynamics and organizational interventions. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 23, 451–466 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rouwette, E.A.J.A.: Modeling as persuasion: the impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 27, 1–21 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ackermann, F., Howick, S., Quigley, J., Walls, L., Houghton, T.: Systemic risk elicitation: using causal maps to engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238, 290–299 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Solarz, J.K., Waliszewski, K.: Holistic framework for COVID-19 pandemic as systemic risk. Eur. Res. Stud. J. XXIII, 340–351 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Carlile, P.R.: A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13, 442–455 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Black, L.J., Andersen, D.F.: Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 29, 194–208 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Luna-Reyes, L.F., Black, L.J., Ran, W., Andersen, D.L., Jarman, H., Richardson, G.P., et al.: Modeling and simulation as boundary objects to facilitate interdisciplinary research. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 36, 494–513 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Eden, C.: Behavioral considerations in group support. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (Eds.) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, pp. 777–792.Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49629-6_34

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strathclyde Business School, United Kingdomand, and Stepchange AS, Glasgow, Norway

    Colin Eden

  2. Centre for Integrated Emergency Management (CIEM), Department for ICT, University of Agder, and Stepchange AS, Kristiansand, Norway

    Jose J. Gonzalez

Authors
  1. Colin Eden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose J. Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose J. Gonzalez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Terje Gjøsæter

  2. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Jaziar Radianti

  3. Tsuda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuko Murayama

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Eden, C., Gonzalez, J.J. (2023). The Strategic Management of Disaster Risk Mitigation. In: Gjøsæter, T., Radianti, J., Murayama, Y. (eds) Information Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction. ITDRR 2022. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 672. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34207-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34207-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-34206-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-34207-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships