+1 Recommend
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'What are Cascading Disasters?'

    What are Cascading Disasters?Crossref
    Average rating:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Competing interests:

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    What are Cascading Disasters?

    Cascades have emerged as a new paradigm in disaster studies. The high level of dependency of modern populations on critical infrastructure and networks allows the impact of disasters to propagate through socio- economic systems. Where vulnerabilities overlap and interact, escalationpoints are created which can create secondary effects with greater impact than the primary event. This article explains how complexity can be categorised and analysed in order to find those weak points in society that enable cascading impacts to develop. Scenarios can be used to identify critical dependencies and guide measures designed to increase resilience.Experience suggests that many potential impacts of cascading disasters remain uninvestigated, which provides ample scope for escalation of impacts into complex forms of crisis.

      Review information

      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Earth & Environmental sciences,Engineering,Social & Behavioral Sciences
      Interdependencies,Scenarios,Critical infrastructure,Built environment,Complex systems,Cascading disasters,Policy and law,The Environment,Cascading effects

      Review text

      Thank you very much for your revisions, which address all the points previously raised by the reviewers. Please could you kindly revise your references before we proceed with the publication - currently both Pescaroli et al. (2018) and Galbusera et al. (2018) are numbered as 17, and your manuscript doesn't seem to refer to Parisi et al. (2018) (no 24 on your references list). Thanks!


      Will do thanks! 

      2019-07-02 10:47 UTC

      Comment on this review