No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThis paper applies the theory of cascading, interconnected and compound risk to the practice of preparing for, managing, and responding to threats and hazards. Our goal is to propose a consistent approach for managing major risk in urban systems by bringing together emergency management, organisational resilience, and climate change adaptation.Design/methodology/approachWe develop a theory-building process using an example from the work of the Greater London Authority in the United Kingdom. First, we explore how emergency management approaches systemic risk, including examples from of exercises, contingency plans and responses to complex incidents. Secondly, we analyse how systemic risk is integrated into strategies and practices of climate change adaptation. Thirdly, we consider organisational resilience as a cross cutting element between the approaches.FindingsLondon has long been a champion of resilience strategies for dealing with systemic risk. However, this paper highlights a potential for integrating better the understanding of common points of failure in society and organisations, especially where they relate to interconnected domains and where they are driven by climate change.Originality/valueThe paper suggests shifting toward the concept of operational continuity to address systemic risk and gaps between Emergency Management, Organizational Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation.

Changing climates and increasing variability, in combination with maladaptive societal responses, present many threats and risks to both social and biophysical systems. The outcomes of such changes will progressively affect all aspects of ecosystem functioning including social, political, and economic landscapes. Coordination between the three frameworks that govern risk at national and subnational scales, climate change risk assessments, climate adaptation planning and disaster risk reduction (DRR), is often lacking or limited. This has resulted in a siloed and fragmented approach to climate action. By examining risk as a dynamic social construction that is reimagined and reinvented by society over time, this chapter explores how a greater degree of cohesion between these three frameworks might be achieved.

HighlightsThere is a reduction in adaptation action despite science continuing to produce actionable material. Climate change adaptation advice and support must be salient, credible and legitimate among other things.