Seismic risk management: A system-based perspective

Abstract

The deployment of seismic risk management is fraught with issues of complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty which pose critical challenges in assessing, modelling and management. The complexity of earthquake impacts and the uncertain nature of information necessitate establishing a risk management system to address the risk of many the effects of seismic events in a reliable and realistic way. This study was launched to review and criticize appropriate risk assessment methods for different seismic applications focusing on general characteristics from a systems perspective. The outcome of this study demonstrates the importance of a system perspective, providing a deeper insight into the background characteristics and the potential challenges involved within seismic risk management. This allows users to compare various systems and to choose the most appropriate approach according to the scope, size, accuracy and complexity of the application.

GIS-Based Regional Seismic Risk Assessment for Dubai, UAE, Using NHERI SimCenter R2D Application

“…The potential implications of seismic risk for disaster management and urban planning, especially in densely populated urban areas, influence the research priorities in regional SRA [38]. -Considering the complexity and uncertainty involved, the need for a systematic approach to reliably and realistically address the risk of seismic events also influences the research priorities in regional SRA [39].…”

Towards More Advanced, Equitable Natural Hazard Risk Metrics

“…In practice, risk metrics are used by policy makers to make informed decisions and to develop new polices or strategies to mitigate the risks posed by natural hazard. Furthermore, they are also used in news articles to provide readers with information on the impact of natural hazards (Vahdat et al,2014). For example, a risk metric that quantifies the number of fatalities can be used to identify the type of natural hazard events that lead to the highest number of fatalities which will help in decision making on types of interventions and mitigation strategies to reduce casualties in similar future event.…”

Through a glass darkly: Expertise, evidence, and the management of uncertainty

“…This has generated methodological questions for risk analysis, especially in terms of dealing with the intentions of hostile actors (Gleason, 1988;Ezell et al, 2010;Brown and Cox, 2011a, b) and it has also highlighted the need for a holisitic approach to dealing with such threats. This journal has long taken a systems-based view of risk and has considered its nature and role in a holistic manner within decision making and across a range of disciplines (Blacker, 2000;Broderick, 2000;Emmison and Smith, 2002;Bailey et al, 2010;Vahdat et al, 2014). Different disciplinary perspectives on risk, and particularly the predictive validity associated with its determination, have highlighted a series of issues and questions that can speak to other academic disciplines and fields of practice (McGuickin and Brown, 2001;Borodzicz and van Haperen, 2003;Hansson, 2005;Bea et al, 2009).…”