Advertisement

Multi-risk Assessment as a Tool for Decision-Making

Chapter
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 4)

Abstract

The multi-risk concept refers to a complex variety of combinations of risk (i.e. various combinations of hazards and various combinations of vulnerabilities). For this reason, it requires a review of existing concepts of risk, hazard, exposure and vulnerability, within a multi-risk perspective. The main purpose of the multi-risk assessment is to harmonise the methodologies employed and the results obtained for different risk sources, taking into account possible risk interactions. Given the complexity of processes that the multi-risk problem poses, the framework presented here entails three levels of analysis: the first-level analysis, in which the evaluation of the potential physical damages is performed; the second-level analysis, in which tangible indirect losses are assessed considering the socio-economic context; and the third-level analysis, where a set of specific social context conditions is considered in an indicator-based approach. One of the most challenging elements of the multi-risk assessment is the translation of the quantitative output into useful information for decision-making under uncertainty. This is a critical step to consolidate the importance of the multi-risk analyses and to define their ultimate importance and usefulness for the resolution of critical societal problems. To illustrate the general methodology presented, an example application has been developed in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), which is one of the case study cities in the CLUVA project.

Keywords

Multi-hazard Multi-risk Risk harmonisation Mitigation options Decision-making Tanzania 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter substantially enhanced by constructive comments from Farrokh Nadim, Sarah Lindley and Ingo Simonis. Credits also go to Sandra Fohlmeister and Cynthia Skelhorn for helping to improve the original manuscript. The work presented in this chapter was developed in the framework of the FP7 European project CLUVA, grant no. 265137.

References

  1. Barbat A, Cardona O (2003) Vulnerability and disaster risk indices from engineering perspective and holistic approach to consider hard and soft variables at urban level. Technical report, IDB/IDEA Program on Indicators for Disaster Risk Management, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales, Colombia. http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co/. Accessed 12 Dec 2011
  2. Bell ML, O’Neill MS, Ranjit N, Borja-Aburto VH, Cifuentes LA, Gouveia NC (2008) Vulnerability to heat-related mortality in Latin America: a case-crossover study in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Santiago, Chile and Mexico City, Mexico. Int J Epidemiol 37:796–804CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berthold MR, Hand DJ (eds) (2003) Intelligent data analysis: an introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. Blong R (2003) A new damage index. Nat Hazards 30(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovolo CI, Abele SJ, Bathurst JC, Caballero D, Ciglan M, Eftichidis G, Simo B (2009) A distributed framework for multi-risk assessment of natural hazards used to model the effects of forest fire on hydrology and sediment yield. Comput Geosci 35(5):924–945. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2007.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardona O (2001) Holistic evaluation of the seismic risk using complex dynamic systems (in Spanish). PhD thesis, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpignano A, Golia E, Di Mauro C, Bouchon S, Nordvik J (2009) A methodological approach for the definition of multi-risk maps at regional level: first application. J Risk Res 12(3–4):513–534. doi: 10.1080/13669870903050269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carreño ML, Cardona O, Barbat A (2007) Urban seismic risk evaluation: a holistic approach. Nat Hazards 40:137–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0008-8.  10.1007/s11069-006-0008-8
  9. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment cornell. PEER Center News 3(2). http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/index.html
  10. Del Monaco G, Margottini C, Serafini S (1999) Multi-hazard risk assessment and zoning: an integrated approach for incorporating natural disaster reduction into sustainable development. Technical report, TIGRA project (The Integrated Geological Risk Assessment), grant No. Env4-CT96- 0262. European Commission DG XII, Environment and Climate Program, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. Del Monaco G, Margottini C, Spizzichino D (2006) Report on new methodology for multi-risk assessment and the harmonisation of different natural risk maps. Technical report D3.1, ARMONIA project (Applied Multi-Risk Mapping of Natural Hazards for Impact Assessment), grant No. 511208. Rome, January 2006Google Scholar
  12. Del Monaco G, Margottini C, Spizzichino D (2007) ARMONIA methodology for multi-risk assessment and the harmonisation of different natural risk map. Technical report D3.1.1, ARMONIA project (Applied Multi-Risk Mapping of Natural Hazards for Impact Assessment), grant No. 511208. Rome, 31 January 2007Google Scholar
  13. Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M, Agwe J, Buys P, Kjiekstad O, Lyon B, Yetman G, Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M, Agwe J, Buys P, Kjiekstad O, Lyon B, Yetman G (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. The World Bank Hazard Management Unit, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durham K (2003) Treating the risks in Cairns. Nat Hazards 30(2):251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2000) TEMRAP: the European multi-hazard risk assessment project. Technical report, European Commission DG XII, Environment and Climate Program, grant ENV4-CT97-0589, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2010) Commission staff working paper: risk assessment and mapping guidelines for disaster management. Technical report, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. FEMA (2004) Using HAZUS-MH for risk assessment. In: HAZUS-MH risk assessment and user group series, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 433Google Scholar
  18. Garcia-Aristizabal A, Marzocchi W (2012a) Bayesian multi-risk model: demonstration for test city researchers. Technical report D2.13, CLimate change and Urban Vulnerability in Africa (CLUVA project), grant No. 265137. URL http://www.cluva.eu/deliverables/CLUVA_D2.13.pdf
  19. Garcia-Aristizabal A, Marzocchi W, Woo G, Reveillere A, Douglas J, Le Cozannet G, Rego F, Colaco C, Fleming K, Vorogushyn S, Nadim F, Vangelsten BV (2012b) State-of-the-art in multi-risk assessment. Technical report D5.1, MATRIX project (New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe), grant No. 265138. URL http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/Deliverables.php
  20. Garcia-Aristizabal A, Marzocchi W, Di Ruocco A (2013a) Probabilistic framework for multi-hazard assessment. Technical report D3.4, MATRIX project (New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe), grant No. 265138. URL http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/Deliverables.php
  21. Garcia-Aristizabal A, Marzocchi W, Ambara G, Uhinga G (2013b) Reports and map on multi-risk Bayesian scenarios on one selected city (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania). Technical report D2.14, CLimate change and Urban Vulnerability in Africa (CLUVA project), grant No. 265137 URL http://www.cluva.eu/deliverables/CLUVA_D2.14.pdf
  22. Gasparini P, Garcia-Aristizabal A (2014) Seismic risk assessment, cascading effects. In: Beer M, Patelli E, Kougioumtzoglou I, Au I (ed) Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering, Springer Reference. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–20. ISBN: 978-3-642-36197-5, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_260-1, url http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_260-1
  23. Garcia-Aristizabal A, Bucchignani E, Palazzi E, D’Onofrio D, Gasparini P, Marzocchi W (2015) Analysis of non-stationary climate-related extreme events considering climate-change scenarios: an application for multi-hazard assessment in the Dar es Salaam region, Tanzania. Nat Hazards 75(1):289–320. doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1324-z, url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-014-1324-z
  24. Grunthal G, Thieken H, Schwarz J, Radtke KS, Smolka A, Merz B (2006) Comparative risk assessments for the city of Cologne – storms, floods, earthquakes. Nat Hazards 38(1–2):21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haimes Y (2009) Risk modeling, assessment, and management, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO/IEC guide 73 (2009) Risk management – vocabulary (and ISO 31010: Risk management – Risk assessment techniques)Google Scholar
  27. Kappes MS, Keiler M, von Elverfeldt K, Glade T (2012) Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards 64(2):1925–1958. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0294-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lari S, Frattini P, Crosta GB (2009) Integration of natural and technological risks in Lombardy, Italy. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 9(6):2085–2106. doi: 10.5194/nhess-9-2085-2009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee KH, Rosowsky DV (2006) Fragility analysis of woodframe buildings considering combined snow and earthquake loading. Struct Saf 28(3):289–303. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2005.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marzocchi W, Woo G (2007) Probabilistic eruption forecasting and the call for an evacuation. J Geophys Res 34:L22310Google Scholar
  31. Marzocchi W, Mastellone ML, Di Ruocco A, Novelli P, Romeo E, Gasparini P (2009) Principles of multi-risk assessment: interactions amongst natural and man-induced risks, Project report. European Commission, Directorate-General Research – Environment, grant No. 511264Google Scholar
  32. Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone ML, Di Ruocco A (2012) Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. Nat Hazards 62(2):551–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McMichael AJ, Wilkinson P, Kovats RS, Pattenden S, Hajat S, Armstrong B, Vajanapoom N, Niciu EM, Mahomed H, Kingkeow C, Kosnik M, O’Neill MS, Romieu I, Ramirez-Aguilar M, Barreto ML, Gouveia N, Nikiforov B (2008) International study of temperature, heat and urban mortality: the ‘ISOTHURM’ project. Int J Epidemiol 37:1121–1131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nadim F, Liu Z, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Woo G, Aspinall W, Fleming K, Vangelsten BV, van Gelder P (2013) Framework for multi-risk assessment. Technical report D5.2, MATRIX project (New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe), grant No. 265138. URL http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/Deliverables.php
  35. Schmidt J, Matcham I, Reese S, King A, Bell R, Henderson R, Smart G, Cousins J, Smith W, Heron D (2011) Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling. Nat Hazards 58:1169–1192. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9721-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt-Tomé P, Callio H, Jarva J, Tarvainen T, Greiving S, Fleischhauer M, Peltonen L, Kumpulainen S, Olfert A, Schanze J, Barring L, Persson G, Relvao AM, Batista M (2006) The spatial effects and management of natural and technological hazards in Europe (ESPON). Geological Survey of FinlandGoogle Scholar
  37. Selva J (2013) Long-term multi-risk assessment: statistical treatment of interaction among risks. Nat Hazards 67(2):701–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UN-ISDR (2009) UN international strategy for disaster reduction, terminology section, UNISDR, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology. Accessed 25 Sept 2013
  39. UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. United Nations Development Programme Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. van Westen CJ, Montoya AL, Boerboom LGJ, Badilla Coto E (2002) Multi -hazard risk assessment using GIS in urban areas: a case study for the city of Turrialba, Costa Rica. In: Proceedings of the regional workshop on best practices in disaster mitigation: lessons learned from the Asian urban disaster mitigation: lessons learned from the Asian urban disaster mitigation program and other initiatives, 24–26 September 2002, Bali, Indonesia, pp 120–136Google Scholar
  41. Yoe C (2012) Principles of risk analysis. Decision making under uncertainty. Taylor & Francis group, LLC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  42. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353. Academic. URL http://www-bisc.cs.berkeley.edu/Zadeh-1965.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2013
  43. Zuccaro G, Cacace F, Spence R, Baxter P (2008) Impact of explosive eruption scenarios at Vesuvius. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 178(3):416–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk (AMRA)NaplesItaly
  2. 2.University of Naples Federico IIAMRA S.c.a.r.l.NaplesItaly
  3. 3.Centre for Information and Communication Technology (CICT)Ardhi UniversityDar es SalaamTanzania

Personalised recommendations