The Great Eastern Japan Earthquake proved the fact that a single risk (earthquake)’s interaction with the risks in other sectors (nuclear power plant) can develop into the so-called NaTech event and can bring about an amplified consequence (community evacuation and food contamination etc.). Such catastrophe has brought to the fore the importance of analyzing the interconnectedness of risks and developing resilient governance framework to deal with those risks. However, the scope of existing studies are less focused on the interactions among various components in the system, and focused on the interaction between “physical/ economic” components rather than "behavioral/ cognitive" components even when interactions are paid attentions. In addition, current approach to risk governance has limitations about the range of "threat/ hazard" to be considered and the range of "consequences" to be responded. For example, in the case of nuclear power accident, issues are what natural disaster (volcano, space weather, etc.) should be considered for preparedness and what consequences (health impact caused by evacuation, change of energy industry and service provision structure caused by the accident) should be targeted and managed.
So we undertake case studies using "hazard/ threat (both intentional an unintentional)" - "medium (systemic context)" - "consequences" framework, and to discuss about the management process of responding to interconnected risks. "Medium" has physical, economic, behavioral and cognitive components, and includes interaction among those components. Through comparison of cases in different area (namely, global public health, space and cyber, nuclear power, and climate change) using framework based on hazard-medium-consequence loop, I would like to (1) identify different patterns of interconnectedness in the medium (ex. difference between interaction of “physical/ economic” components and interaction of "behavioral/ cognitive" components, different pattern of interaction among “physical/ economic” components and "behavioral/ cognitive" components), and different scope of "hazard/ threat" and "consequences" which are dealt with; and to (2) explore the ways and approaches for addressing such complex interconnected nature of risks in resilient manner. Then based on those comparative case studies, I would like to analyze variety of resilient governance frameworks that enable long-term and cross-sectoral response for future interconnected risks.