Exploring the Robustness of Emergency Response Networks by Considering Task Association and Reassignment: An Extreme Rainstorm Case

Abstract

In the face of disasters, a strong organizational network is the foundation for effectively accomplishing emergency relief tasks. In an emergency response network comprising tasks and organizations, the failure of certain organizations may cause large systemic losses owing to internal component associations. To analyze the response system’s robustness, we developed emergency response networks based on the associations between organizations and tasks. A cascading failure model was established considering task reassignment after organizational failure, and indicators in terms of tasks and structures were identified to observe robustness. In the proposed model, we developed random, bond-based, and bridge-based organizational failure modes, and average, capacity-based, and surplus-based reassignment programs. To validate the model, simulation experiments were conducted in the context of extreme rainstorms. The results show that bridge-based failures were the most damaging to network systems, and the average reassignment program was the least effective. The analysis of model parameters illustrates the critical effectiveness of individual organizational capability in enhancing system robustness. The proposed framework and model enrich the study of emergency response networks with favorable applicability, and the results can provide theoretical references for emergency management practices.

Keywords

Cascading effect / Emergency organizational network / Emergency response / Rainstorm / Robustness

References

[1] Adenso-Díaz B, Mar-Ortiz J, Lozano S. Assessing supply chain robustness to links failure. International Journal of Production Research, 2017, 56(15): 5104-5117.

[2] Albert R, Jeong H, Barabási A. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 2000, 406: 378-382.

[3] Andrew S, Arlikatti S, Siebeneck L, Pongponrat K, Jaikampan K. Sources of organisational resiliency during the Thailand floods of 2011: A test of the bonding and bridging hypotheses. Disasters, 2016, 40(1): 65-84.

[4] Bellingeri M, Bevacqua D, Scotognella F, Alfieri R, Nguyen Q, Montepietra D, Cassi D. Link and node removal in real social networks: A review. Frontiers in Physics, 2020, 8: Article 228.

[5] Bohnett E, Vacca R, Hu Y, Hulse D, Varda D. Resilience and fragmentation in healthcare coalitions: The link between resource contributions and centrality in health-related interorganizational networks. Social Networks, 2022, 71: 87-95.

[6] Buldyrev SV, Parshani R, Paul G, Stanley HE, Havlin S. Cascading failures in interdependent networks. Nature, 2010, 464: 1025-1028.

[7] Cohen R, Erez K, Ben-Avraham D, Havlin S. Breakdown of the Internet under intentional attack. Physical Review Letters, 2001, 86: 3682-3685.

[8] Comfort LK. Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 2007, 67(s1): 189-197.

[9] Contreras S, Niles S. Building resilience through informal networks and community knowledge sharing: Post-disaster health service delivery after Hurricane Maria. Environmental Hazards, 2022, 21(5): 433-452.

[10] Dixit V, Verma P, Tiwari MK. Assessment of pre and post-disaster supply chain resilience based on network structural parameters with CVaR as a risk measure. International Journal of Production Economics, 2020, 227: Article 107655.

[11] Doerfel ML, Chewning LV, Lai C. The evolution of networks and the resilience of interorganizational relationships after disaster. Communication Monographs, 2013, 80(4): 533-559.

[12] Eisenberg DA, Park J, Seager TP. Linking cascading failure models and organizational networks to manage large-scale blackouts in South Korea. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2020, 36(5): Article 04020067.

[13] Fitzhugh SM, Butts CT. Staying connected under fire: Effects of individual roles and organizational specialization on the robustness of emergency-phase communication networks. Social Networks, 2021, 64: 1-15.

[14] Ghanbari R, Jalili M, Yu X. Correlation of cascade failures and centrality measures in complex networks. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018, 83: 390-400.

[15] Giannoccaro I, Iftikhar A. Mitigating ripple effect in supply networks: The effect of trust and topology on resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 2022, 60(4): 1178-1195.

[16] Guo N, Guo P, Dong H, Zhao J, Han Q. Modeling and analysis of cascading failures in projects: A complex network approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2019, 127: 1-7.

[17] Guo X, Kapucu N. Network performance assessment for collaborative disaster response. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2015, 24(2): 201-220.

[18] He J, Zheng T. Research on the model of industrial interconnection intelligent manufacturing supply and demand network and its robustness. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2022, 2022: Article 8076551.

[19] Hileman J, Bastos MTA, Lubell M. Robustness and the paradox of bridging organizations: The exit problem in regional water governance networks in Central America. Society & Natural Resources, 2018, 31(6): 683-697.

[20] Jung K, Song M. Linking emergency management networks to disaster resilience: Bonding and bridging strategy in hierarchical or horizontal collaboration networks. Quality & Quantity, 2015, 49: 1465-1483.

[21] Kapucu N. Interagency communication networks during emergencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 2006, 36(2): 207-225.

[22] Kapucu N, Arslan T, Demiroz F. Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2010, 19(4): 452-468.

[23] Kapucu N, Garayev V, Wang X. Sustaining networks in emergency management. Public Performance & Management Review, 2013, 37(1): 104-133.

[24] Kim K, Andrew SA, Jung K. Building resilient organizations: Organizational resilience as a network outcome. International Journal of Public Administration, 2021, 44(15): 1319-1328.

[25] Klimek P, Varga J, Jovanovic AS, Székely Z. Quantitative resilience assessment in emergency response reveals how organizations trade efficiency for redundancy. Safety Science, 2019, 113: 404-414.

[26] Kumar A, Pal I, Santoso DS, Ninsawat S, Islam ST. Identification of critical infrastructure sectors and their interdependencies in Bangladesh: A step towards resilience planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2025, 16(4): 682-698.

[27] Lai C, Hsu Y. Understanding activated network resilience: A comparative analysis of co-located and co-cluster disaster response networks. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2019, 27(1): 14-27.

[28] Lam CY, Shimizu T. A network analytical framework to analyze infrastructure damage based on earthquake cascades: A study of earthquake cases in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2021, 54: Article 02025.

[29] Li Y, Ji W. Robustness of stakeholder response networks for infrastructure system protection. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2021, 37(6): Article 04021063.

[30] Li X, Ramshani M, Huang Y. Cooperative maximal covering models for humanitarian relief chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2018, 119: 301-308.

[31] Li J, Wang J, Sun S, Xia C. Cascading crashes induced by the individual heterogeneity in complex networks. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2018, 323: 182-192.

[32] Li R, Yang N, Zhang Y, Liu H, Zhang M. Impacts of module-module aligned patterns on risk cascading propagation in complex product development (CPD) interdependent networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2021, 564: Article 125531.

[33] Liu J, Dong C. Cross-departmental emergency coordination characteristics formed by multiple risks: Evidence from production safety special emergency campaigns across government levels in China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2024, 111: Article 104672.

[34] Liu J, Dong C, An S. Integration and modularization: Research on urban cross-regional emergency cooperation based on the network approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2022, 111: Article 103375.

[35] Liu J, Fu Z, Song Y, Ma R, An S. How to improve the effectiveness of the cooperation networks of emergency science communication for public health emergencies. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2024, 11: Article 1449.

[36] Lu Y, Liu T, Wang T. Dynamic analysis of emergency inter-organizational communication network under public health emergency: A case study of COVID-19 in Hubei Province of China. Natural Hazards, 2021, 109: 2003-2026.

[37] Ma R, Liu J, An S. Early warning response to rainstorm: Designing a model with incentive and supervision mechanisms based on the principal-agent theory. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2024, 111: Article 104683.

[38] Peng X, Yao H, Du J, Wang Z, Ding C. Invulnerability of scale-free network against critical node failures based on a renewed cascading failure model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2015, 421: 69-77.

[39] Shi X, Long W, Li Y, Deng D, Wei Y, Liu H. Research on supply network resilience considering random and targeted disruptions simultaneously. International Journal of Production Research, 2020, 58(21): 6670-6688.

[40] State Council Disaster Investigation Team. 2022. Report on the investigation of the “7·20”extraordinary rainstorm disaster in Zhengzhou, Henan Province. https://www.mem.gov.cn/gk/sgcc/tbzdsgdcbg/2022dcbg/. Accessed 21 Nov 2024.

[41] Sun F, Zhou J, Hu S, Zhang R, Xing H. Dynamically examining emergency response network resilience: A case study of a typical earthquake in China. Safety Science, 2025, 184: Article 106766.

[42] Vachette A, King D, Cottrell A. Bonding, bridging and linking social networks: A qualitative study of the emergency management of Cyclone Pam. Vanuatu. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 2017, 58(2): 315-330.

[43] Wang A. A framework for assessing project vulnerability to crises. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2018, 12(4): 1079-1096.

[44] Wang J. Robustness of complex networks with the local protection strategy against cascading failures. Safety Science, 2013, 53: 219-225.

[45] Wu J, Barahona M, Tan Y, Deng H. Spectral measure of structural robustness in complex networks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 2011, 41(6): 1244-1252.

[46] Xie Y, Desouza KC, Jabbari M. On organizational robustness: A conceptual framework. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2023, 31(1): 105-120.

[47] Yi H. Network structure and governance performance: What makes a difference?. Public Administration Review, 2018, 78(2): 195-205.

[48] Zhang Y, Yang N. Research on robustness of R&D network under cascading propagation of risk with gray attack information. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2013, 117: 1-8.

[49] Zhang H, Zhang X, Comfort LK, Chen M. The emergence of an adaptive response network: The April 20, 2013 Lushan, China earthquake. Safety Science, 2016, 90: 14-23.

[50] Zhao K, Kumar A, Harrison TP, Yen J. Analyzing the resilience of complex supply network topologies against random and targeted disruptions. IEEE Systems Journal, 2011, 5(1): 28-39.

[51] Zhao P, Li Z, Han X, Duan X. Supply chain network resilience by considering disruption propagation: Topological and operational perspectives. IEEE Systems Journal, 2022, 16(4): 5305-5316.

[52] Zheng M, Liu J, Gao J, Zhou N, Jiang S. Navigating urban challenges: Quantifying emergency service accessibility and robustness amid meteorological disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2024, 110: Article 104655.

[53] Zio E, Sansavini G. Component criticality in failure cascade processes of network systems. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(8): 1196-1210.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)