Density and Disasters: Economics of Urban Hazard Risk

Natural hazards are complex phenomena that can occur independently, simultaneously, or in a series as cascading events. For any particular region, numerous single hazard maps may not necessarily provide all information regarding impending hazards to the stakeholders for preparedness and planning. A multi-hazard map furnishes composite illustration of the natural hazards of varying magnitude, frequency, and spatial distribution. Thus, multi-hazard risk assessment is performed to depict the holistic natural hazards scenario of any particular region. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, multi-hazard risk assessments are rarely conducted in Nepal although multiple natural hazards strike the country almost every year. In this study, floods, landslides, earthquakes, and urban fire hazards are used to assess multi-hazard risk in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is then integrated with the Geographical Information System (GIS). First, flood, landslide, earthquake, and urban fire hazard assessments are performed individually and then superimposed to obtain multi-hazard risk. Multi-hazard risk assessment of Kathmandu Valley is performed by pair-wise comparison of the four natural hazards. The sum of observations concludes that densely populated areas, old settlements, and the central valley have high to very high level of multi-hazard risk.

Download Full-text

The recalibration of our relationships with science (and nature) by natural hazard risk mitigation practitioners

Environment and Planning E Nature and Space ◽

10.1177/25148486211019828 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 251484862110198

Author(s):

Jessica K Weir ◽

Timothy Neale ◽

Elizabeth A Clarke

Keyword(s):

Natural Hazard ◽

Risk Mitigation ◽

Environmental Issues ◽

Work Conditions ◽

Hazard Risk ◽

Change Policy ◽

Procedural Change ◽

Or Practice ◽

Effective Use ◽

Unrealistic Expectations

Unrealistic expectations in society about science reducing and even eliminating the risk of natural hazards contrasts with the chaotic forces of these events, but such expectations persist nonetheless. Risk mitigation practitioners must grapple with them, including in the cycles of blame and inquiry that follow natural hazard events. We present a synthesis of such practitioner experiences from three consequential bushfire and flood risk landscapes in Australia in which science was being used to change policy and/or practice. We show how they chose to work with, counter and recalibrate unrealistic expectations of science, as well as embrace socionatural complexity and a consequential nature. The mismatch between the challenges faced by the sector and the unrealistic expectations of science, generated more stressful work conditions, less effective risk mitigation, and less effective use of research monies. In response, we argue for structural and procedural change to address legacy pathways that automatically privilege science, especially in relation to nature, with broader relevance for other environmental issues. This is not to dismiss or debase science, but to better understand its use and utility, including how facts and values relate.

Download Full-text

Use of accident precursor event investigations in the understanding of major hazard risk potential in the Norwegian offshore industry

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability ◽

10.1177/1748006x12468670 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 227 (1) ◽

pp. 66-79 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Jan-Erik Vinnem

Keyword(s):

Present Article ◽

Risk Indicator ◽

Specific Requirement ◽

Hazard Risk ◽

The Us ◽

Objective Risk ◽

Major Accident ◽

Offshore Industry ◽

Accident Precursor ◽

Risk Potential

The recent offshore accidents at the Macondo and Montara fields in the US and Australia have demonstrated the importance of learning from major accident precursors in order to appraise the risk potential involved in critical offshore operations. This is fully realised by the Petroleum Safety Authority in Norway, which has a specific requirement for such learning in its regulations. However, an unfortunate practice has been developed by the major players in the Norwegian offshore industry, whereby potential is severely and systematically downplayed, probably to limit the negative exposure if the actual potential consequences were known. The present article analyses 45 major accident precursor investigations in order to demonstrate the effect of downplaying the potential of major accidents. It demonstrates how the risk potential classified in investigation reports has a random relationship to the more objective risk potential, as shown in the national risk indicator project conducted by the Petroleum Safety Authority. This is further demonstrated by comparing company investigations with authority investigations in four cases where parallel investigations were performed.

Download Full-text