Earthquake Crisis Management in Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China

Cuiwei Song; Kamolporn  Kalyanamitra; Satit  Niyomyaht; Tassanee  Lakkanapichonchat

doi:10.60027/iarj.2026.e299726

ผู้แต่ง

Cuiwei Song Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9700-4328
Kamolporn Kalyanamitra Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8911-3047
Satit Niyomyaht Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4153-7893
Tassanee Lakkanapichonchat Bangkokthonburi University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8258-2000

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2026.e299726

คำสำคัญ:

Earthquake Crisis Management, Guangzhou City, Disaster Governance, Urban Resilience, Interface Failure

บทคัดย่อ

-

Background and Aims: Megacities face a low-frequency, high-consequence earthquake risk characterized by dense population, infrastructure complexity, and cascading failure potential. Guangzhou, a core metropolitan center in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, exemplifies this governance challenge. This study aimed to: (1) analyze Guangzhou's earthquake crisis management system and specific risks; (2) identify challenges and gaps in the existing framework; and (3) propose innovative strategies and a guidance framework for high-density urban earthquake management.

Methodology: A qualitative case study design guided by Quarantelli disaster lifecycle theory was adopted. Four independent variables government administrative capacity, technological innovation capacity, disaster preparedness and mitigation systems, and public awareness and education constituted the conceptual framework. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 purposively selected key informants from government officials (n=6), technical experts (n=5), community representatives (n=5), and academic scholars (n=4), and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Guangzhou's primary risk stems from high-density exposure and cascading lifeline failures. The central performance bottleneck is interface failure: weak translation between data and decisions, plans and actions, warnings and behavior, and resources and aid. Early warning systems are technically advanced but socially underutilized. Four integrative discoveries emerged: (1) interface failure as a crisis multiplier; (2) early warning as behavioral governance; (3) preparedness inequality as a performance driver; and (4) routine governance embedding as a resilience path. An Integrated Urban Earthquake Resilience Framework (IUER) with five strategic pathways is proposed.

Conclusion: Effective earthquake crisis management in megacities requires a shift from siloed, technology-centric approaches to humanized, interface-focused governance. Strengthening operational interoperability, embedding preparedness into routine urban governance, and designing early warning as a behavioral system are essential pathways for building equitable resilience in high-density urban environments.

เอกสารอ้างอิง

Agrawal, H., Wang, C., Cremen, G., & McCloskey, J. (2024). A geophysics-informed pro-poor approach to earthquake risk management. Natural Hazards, 121, 1293–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06165-6

Alexander, D. (2015). Disaster and emergency planning for preparedness, response, and recovery. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.12

Allen, R. M., & Melgar, D. (2019). Earthquake early warning: Advances, scientific challenges, and societal needs. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060457

Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreño, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., & Welle, T. (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk, and societal responses: The MOVE framework. Natural Hazards, 67(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0558-5

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2025). 2024 disasters in numbers. https://files.emdat.be/reports/2024_EMDAT_report.pdf

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. (2024). 2024 disasters in numbers. CRED. https://files.emdat.be/reports/2024_EMDAT_report.pdf

Comfort, L. K., Boin, A., & Demchak, C. C. (Eds.). (2010). Designing resilience: Preparing for extreme events. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

Daniell, J. E., Schaefer, A. M., & Wenzel, F. (2017). Losses associated with secondary effects in earthquakes. Frontiers in Built Environment, 3, Article 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2017.00030

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2021). Comprehensive preparedness guide (CPG) 101: Developing and maintaining emergency operations plans. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_npd_developing-and-maintaining-emergency_052125.pdf

Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136)

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2023). Studying public policy: Principles and processes (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Kopanov, K., Varbanov, V., & Atanasova, T. (2024). Leveraging social media data and artificial intelligence for improving earthquake response efforts. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01680

Lagap, U. (2024). Digital post-disaster risk management twinning: A systematic review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 98, Article 103456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103456

Nakashima, M., Lavan, O., Kurata, M., & Luo, Y. (2014). Earthquake engineering and structural control: Past, present, and future. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 18(Suppl. 1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.921890

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023). Strengthening the whole-of-government approach to emergency preparedness and response. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311459-en

Pescaroli, G., & Alexander, D. (2018). Understanding compound, interconnected, interacting, and cascading risks: A holistic framework. Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(4), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-05-2018-0147

Quarantelli, E. L. (1988). Disaster crisis management: A summary of research findings. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00043.x

Sherman-Morris, K., Brown, L., & Jones, J. (2021). Preparedness motivation in low-frequency, high-impact hazard environments. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 60, Article 102284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102284

Tierney, K. (2019). Disasters: A sociological approach. Polity Press.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2022). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk: Transforming governance for a resilient future. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210019880

Vatuva, A., He, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, D., Feng, H., Yuan, Y., Wang, S., Yi, J., & Di, Y. (2023). Genesis of Makeng-type Fe-polymetallic deposits in SE China: New constraints by geochronological and isotopic data from the Dapai–Makeng metallogenic system. Geoscience Frontiers, 14(5), Article 101614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101614

World Bank. (2024). Equitable urban resilience: Protecting vulnerable populations in disaster risk management.

Zhao, G. (2024). How does social capital facilitate community disaster resilience? Mechanisms and pathways. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, Article 1496813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1496813