Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 1169–1192 | Cite as

Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling

  • Jochen Schmidt
  • Iain Matcham
  • Stefan Reese
  • Andrew King
  • Rob Bell
  • Roddy Henderson
  • Graeme Smart
  • Jim Cousins
  • Warwick Smith
  • Dave Heron
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper introduces a generic framework for multi-risk modelling developed in the project ‘Regional RiskScape’ by the Research Organizations GNS Science and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. (NIWA) in New Zealand. Our goal was to develop a generic technology for modelling risks from different natural hazards and for various elements at risk. The technical framework is not dependent on the specific nature of the individual hazard nor the vulnerability and the type of the individual assets. Based on this generic framework, a software prototype has been developed, which is capable of ‘plugging in’ various natural hazards and assets without reconfiguring or adapting the generic software framework. To achieve that, we developed a set of standards for treating the fundamental components of a risk model: hazards, assets (elements at risk) and vulnerability models (or fragility functions). Thus, the developed prototype system is able to accommodate any hazard, asset or fragility model, which is provided to the system according to that standard. The software prototype was tested by modelling earthquake, volcanic ashfall, flood, wind, and tsunami risks for several urban centres and small communities in New Zealand.

Keywords

Natural hazards Multi-risk modelling Quantitative risk analysis Hawke’s Bay New Zealand Earthquakes Wind storms Floods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work presented in this paper has been funded by the New Zealand Foundation for Research and Technology (FRST) under contract number C05X0409. Quotable Value Limited provided one of the underlying property datasets for the used building inventory. Flood inundation scenarios were provided by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC).

References

  1. Bell R, Glade T (2004) Multi-hazard analysis in natural risk assessments. In: Brebbia CA (ed) International conference on computer simulation in risk analysis and hazard mitigation. WIT Press, 26–29 Sept, Rhodes (GR), 197–206Google Scholar
  2. Bell RG, King, AB (2006) Regional RiskScape: a multi-hazard loss modelling tool. Proceedings, international disaster reduction conference 2006. Davos, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Blong R (2003) A new damage index. Nat Hazards 30(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crozier MJ, Glade T (2005) Landslide hazard and risk: issues, concepts, approaches. In: Glade T, Anderson MA, Crozier MJ (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Dowrick DJ, Rhoades DA (2005) Revised models for attenuation of modified Mercalli intensity in New Zealand earthquakes. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 38(4):185–214Google Scholar
  6. Durham K (2003) Treating the risks in Cairns. Nat Hazards 30(2):251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EMA (Emergency Management Australia) (2002) Disaster loss assessment guidelines. Part III emergency management practice, vol 3, Guide 11Google Scholar
  8. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2004) Using HAZUS-MH for risk assessment. HAZUS®-MH risk assessment and user group series. FEMA 433Google Scholar
  9. Ferrier N, Haque CE (2003) Hazards risk assessment methodology for emergency Managers: a standardized framework for application. Nat Hazards 28(2/3):271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glade T, von Elverfeldt K (2005) MultiRISK: an innovative Concept to model natural risks. In: Oldrich H, Fell R, Coulture R, Eberhardt E (eds) International conference on landslide risk management. 31 May–03 June 2005, Vancouver (CND), Balkemaa, pp 551–556Google Scholar
  11. Grünthal G, Thieken AH, Schwarz J, Radtke KS, Smolka A, Merz B (2006) Comparative risk assessment for the city of Cologne, Germany—storms, floods, earthquakes. Nat Hazards 38(1–2):21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helm P (1996) Integrated risk management for natural and technological disasters. Tephra 15(1):5–26Google Scholar
  13. ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2010) Terminology: basic terms of disaster risk reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm. Last accessed 03 Sept 2010
  14. McBean E, Fortin M, Gorrie J (1986) A critical analysis of residential flood damage estimation curves. Can J Civ Eng 13:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Middelmann-Fernandes MH (2010) Flood damage estimation beyond stage-damage functions: an Australian example. J Flood Risk Manag 3:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NHRC (Natural Hazard Research Centre) (2000) Building damage in the cloncurry flood, 1997. In: Natural hazards quarterly, 6(4):S.4–S.7. Dec 2000Google Scholar
  17. Penning-Rowsell EC, Johnson C, Tunstall S, Tapsell S, Morris J, Chatterton J, Coker A, Green C (2005) The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: a manual of assessment techniques. Middlesex University Press, EnfieldGoogle Scholar
  18. Re Swiss (2003) Natural catastrophes and reinsurance. Swiss Reinsurance Company, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  19. Reese S (2003) Die Vulnerabilitaet des schleswig-holsteinischen Kuestenraumes durch Sturmfluten. Fallstudien von der Nord- und Ostseekueste. Berichte aus dem Forschungs- und Technologiezentrum Westkueste der Universitaet Kiel, Bd. 30. PhD-thesis, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultaet der Christian-Albrechts-Universitaet zu KielGoogle Scholar
  20. Reese S, Bell RG, King AB (2007) RiskScape—a new tool for comparing risk from natural hazards. Water Atmosphere 15(3):24–25Google Scholar
  21. Risk Frontiers (2010) http://www.riskfrontiers.com/index.html. Last accessed 24 Sept 2010
  22. Te Ara (2009) The 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake. The encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/NaturalHazardsAndDisasters/HistoricEarthquakes/6/en
  23. Tonkin & Taylor LTD (2004) Hawke’s Bay regional coastal hazard assessment report. Tonkin & Taylor LTD, Napier. http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/Coast/CoastalHazards
  24. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) (1998) USCE (1988). National economic development procedures manual; US army crops of engineers, Fort Collins, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Westen CJ, Montoya L, Boerboom L (2002) Multi-hazard risk assessment using GIS in urban areas: a case study fir the city of Turrialba, Costa-Rica. In: Proceedings of the regional workshop on best practise in disaster mitigation, Bali, pp 120–136Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Schmidt
    • 1
  • Iain Matcham
    • 4
  • Stefan Reese
    • 2
  • Andrew King
    • 4
  • Rob Bell
    • 3
  • Roddy Henderson
    • 1
  • Graeme Smart
    • 1
  • Jim Cousins
    • 4
  • Warwick Smith
    • 4
  • Dave Heron
    • 4
  1. 1.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)ChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)WellingtonNew Zealand
  3. 3.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)HamiltonNew Zealand
  4. 4.GNS ScienceLower HuttNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations