Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review

Abstract

Many areas of the world are prone to several natural hazards, and effective risk reduction is only possible if all relevant threats are considered and analyzed. However, in contrast to single-hazard analyses, the examination of multiple hazards poses a range of additional challenges due to the differing characteristics of processes. This refers to the assessment of the hazard level, as well as to the vulnerability toward distinct processes, and to the arising risk level. As comparability of the single-hazard results is strongly needed, an equivalent approach has to be chosen that allows to estimate the overall hazard and consequent risk level as well as to rank threats. In addition, the visualization of a range of natural hazards or risks is a challenging task since the high quantity of information has to be depicted in a way that allows for easy and clear interpretation. The aim of this contribution is to give an outline of the challenges each step of a multi-hazard (risk) analysis poses and to present current studies and approaches that face these difficulties.

Multi-hazard assessment in Europe under climate change

“…The study of multiple hazards poses two major challenges: (1) hazards are not directly comparable as their processes and describing metrics differ; and (2) hazards can interact triggering cascade effects and coupled dynamics. In the existing literature, the first issue has been mainly addressed through standardization approaches, such as classification of hazard intensity and development of continuous indices (Dilley 2005;Kappes et al 2012;Lung et al 2013). While these approaches represent a starting point, they describe only a limited set of climate hazards and the techniques used to make different hazards comparable are largely subjective and inconsistent.…”

Decision support for long-range, community-based planning to mitigate against and recover from potential multiple disasters

“…Much of the current analytical work in disaster operations management tends to focus on the emergency of the disaster -the middle three phases of disaster operations management: preparedness, response, and short-term recovery (Salmeron & Apte, 2010;Holguin-Veras et al 2013;McCoy & Lee, 2014), and on the specific characteristics of a particular disaster event, or type of disaster, with which these phases are associated (Kappes, Keiler, von Elverfeldt, & Glade, 2012). It is important to recognize, however, that there are broader issues of safety that encompass the entire range of hazards that may pose a risk to a city (Pollett & Cummins, 2009;Basher, 2006).…”

“…Existing analytical models in disaster operations management typically consider a single type of hazard (Kappes et al, 2012). Moreover, those that consider a range of hazards (analytical multi-hazard models) typically focus on risk reduction (Kappes, et al, 2012), and as a result, post-disaster management is not considered.…”

“…Moreover, those that consider a range of hazards (analytical multi-hazard models) typically focus on risk reduction (Kappes, et al, 2012), and as a result, post-disaster management is not considered. This can be seen in Table 1, which provides a summary of the main model features represented in a review of the analytical multi-hazard model literature.…”

“…According to Kappes et al (2012), appropriate multi-hazard modeling requires the following key elements: (i) accounting for the additional interactions that exist among disaster management elements;…”