Earthquake triggered networked risk and response: based on relevant literature



Death, injury, conflict, and disorder caused by natural and man-made disasters have resulted in significant challenges to good governance and impeded the goal of achieving the benign development of society. This paper uses a particular method for analyzing the research situation and identifying current trends and focuses. It then proceeds to explore future research needs. The study finds that future researchers will shift their emphasis from the risks caused by natural disasters to those arising from man-made disasters; meanwhile, the study will consider the complex systems of interaction to understand causality. The objectives of management, hence, should change from investigating the impacts of risks to crisis control. Eventually, an evolutionary disaster-based social-risk framework is established, and some suggestions for future research are provided.


Earthquake Networked risk Response Risk mitigation 



This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71771157, 71301109), Soft Science Program of Sichuan Province (Grant No. 2017ZR0154), Funding of Sichuan University (Grant No. skqx201726), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project (Grant No. 2017M610609) and the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education (Grant No. 16YJC630089).


  1. Ahmadvand, M., Karami, E., Zamani, G.H., Vanclay, F., Ahmadvand, M., Zamani, G.H.: Evaluating the use of social impact assessment in the context of agricultural development projects in Iran. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29(6), 399–407 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, W., Park, C., Goble, E.: From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research: a case study. Qual. Health Res. 18(4), 557 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U.: World Risk Society. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken (2012)Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H.A.: Social impact assessment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 128(2), 311–321 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, H.A., Vanclay, F., Becker, H.A., Vanclay, F.: The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2006)Google Scholar
  6. Branch, K.: Guide to Social Assessment. Westview Press, Boulder (1984)Google Scholar
  7. Brown, C., Milke, M., Seville, E.: Disaster waste management: a review article. Waste Manag. (Oxford) 31(6), 1085–1098 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burdge, R.J., Vanclay, F., Taylor, C.N.: Social Impact Assessment: An Introduction. Oxford University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  9. Burton, I.: The Environment as Hazard. Guilford Press (1993)Google Scholar
  10. Chen, F.Y., Tong, K., Yang, J.C.: The proposal about constructing the national disaster monitoring, forecast and control system. Acta Astronaut. 28(5), 135–138 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clauset, A., Newman, M.E., Moore, C.: Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 70(6–2), 066–111 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. Cutter, S.L.: The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 93(1), 1–12 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutter, S.L.: Hazards, Vulnerability and Environmental Justice. Earthscan, London (2006)Google Scholar
  14. Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, W.L.: Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84(2), 242–261 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daigle, B., Hall, K., Macdougall, C.: Earthbag housing: structural behaviour and applicability in Sri Lanka. Eng. Sustain. 164(4), 261–273 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dibben, C., Chester, D.K.: Human vulnerability in volcanic environments: the case of Furnas, Sao Miguel, Azores. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 92(1–2), 133–150 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downs, M., Stoffle, R., Burdge, R.J., Charnley, S., Finsterbusch, K., Freudenburg, B., Fricke, P., Gramling, B., Smith, M., Kragh, B.C.: Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA: the interorganizational committee on principles and guidelines for social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 21(3), 231–250 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Droegemeier, K.K., Smith, J.D., Businger, S., Doswell, C.I., Doyle, J., Duffy, C., Foufoulageorgiou, E., Graziano, T., James, L.D., Krajewski, V.: Hydrological aspects of weather prediction and flood warnings: report of the ninth prospectus development team of the U.S. Weather Research Program. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 81, 2665–2680 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garcia, C., Fearnley, C.J.: Evaluating critical links in early warning systems for natural hazards. Environ. Hazards 11(2), 123–137 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, C.: Crisis analysis: between normalization and avoidance. J. Risk Res. 10(7), 925–940 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harel, D., Koren, Y.: A fast multi-scale method for drawing large graphs. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 1984(3), 183–196 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. Hasan, S., Ukkusuri, S.V.: A threshold model of social contagion process for evacuation decision making. Transp. Res. Part B 45(10), 1590–1605 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Helbing, D.: Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497(7447), 51 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hohenemser, C., Kasperson, R.E., K, R.W.: Causal Structure: A Framework for Policy Formulation. Springer, Berlin (1982)Google Scholar
  25. Hunt, J.: Integrated policies for environmental resilience and sustainability. Eng. Sustain. 162(3), 155–167 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johansen, W., Aggerholm, H.K., Frandsen, F.: Entering new territory: a study of internal crisis management and crisis communication in organizations. Public Relat. Rev. 38(2), 270–279 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonkman, S.N., Kok, M., Vrijling, J.K.: Flood risk assessment in the Netherlands: a case study for dike ring South Holland. Risk Anal. 28(5), 1357–1374 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kang, X., Shaohong, E., Yang, Q., Yang, Z., Zhao, P.: Pre-assessment on the loss and impact caused by large-scale flood disasters. Chin. Sci. Bull. 51(B11), 186–196 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X., Ratick, S.: The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8(2), 177–187 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasperson, R.E., Golding, D., Tuler, S.: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Guiding Future OCS Research. Port Ludlow, Washington (1989)Google Scholar
  31. Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Pidgeon, N., Slovic, P.: The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. Soc. Amplif. Risk 1, 13–46 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lazarescu, M.: The Floods on the River Danube in 2006: Social Impact and Remedial Processes. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)Google Scholar
  33. Li, Y., Erickson, T.A.: Application of spatial visualization for probabilistic hurricanes risk assessment to build environment. In: Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 1314–1319 (2008)Google Scholar
  34. Lindell, M.K., Prater, C.S.: Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Nat. Hazards Rev. 4(4), 176–185 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luo, Z.S., Xi, Y.C., Wang, H.C.: Research on comprehensive quantitative risk-assessment of urban nature gas pipeline. In: International Conference on Management Science and Engineering, pp. 2196–2202 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. Mahmoudi, H., Renn, O., Vanclay, F., Hoffmann, V., Karami, E.: A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43(4), 1–8 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mei, G.D., Wu, Z.Z.: Study on social risk evaluation index system for tailings pond dam-break based on the vulnerability theory. Adv. Mater. Res. 594–597, 2301–2308 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Okrent, D.: Comment on societal risk. Science 208(4442), 372–5 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Omelicheva, M.Y.: Natural disasters: triggers of political instability? Int. Interact. 37(4), 441–465 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Panteleev, V.A.: Quantitative Risk Assessment of Aircraft Impact on a High-Rise Building and Collapse. Springer, Dordrecht (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prior, T., Hagmann, J.: Measuring resilience: methodological and political challenges of a trend security concept. J. Risk Res. 17(3), 281–298 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Renn, O.: Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework. Dordrecht (2008a)Google Scholar
  43. Renn, O.: Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan, London (2008b)Google Scholar
  44. Sen, C.K., Gordillo, G.M., Roy, S., Kirsner, R., Lambert, L., Hunt, T.K., Gottrup, F., Gurtner, G.C., Longaker, M.T.: Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regener. 17(6), 763 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slovic, P.: Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 19(4), 689–701 (1999)Google Scholar
  46. Smit, B., Wandel, J.: Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16(3), 282–292 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, W., Davies-Colley, C., Mackay, A., Bankoff, G.: Social impact of the 2004 manawatu floods and the ‘hollowing out’ of rural New Zealand. Disasters 35(3), 540–53 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tierney, K.J.: The Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience. Stanford University Press (2014)Google Scholar
  49. Turner, B.L.I., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.T., Meyer, W.B.: The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere Over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  50. Vanclay, F.: International principles for social impact assessment: their evolution. Impact Assess. Project Apprais. 21(1), 5–12 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wearne, S.H.: Management of urgent emergency engineering projects. IEEE Eng. Manage. Rev. 33(3), 21–21 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webler, T., Lord, F.: Planning for the human dimensions of oil spills and spill response. Environ. Manag. 45(4), 723–738 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whlberg, A.E.A.: The theoretical features of some current approaches to risk perception. J. Risk Res. 4(3), 237–250 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wijkman, A., Timberlake, L.: Natural disasters. Acts of god or acts of man? Developed Nations, p. 150 (1984)Google Scholar
  55. Xu, J., Wang, Z., Shen, F., Ouyang, C., Tu, Y.: Natural disasters and social conflict: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Disaster Reduct. 17, 38–48 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, W., Chen, H., Wang, M.: A forecast model of agricultural and livestock products price. In: Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture, pp. 40–48 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Uncertainty Decision-Making LaboratorySichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations