scholarly journals Hanging on the line – on the need to assess the risk to global submarine telecommunications infrastructure – an example of the Hawaiian "bottleneck" and Australia

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 605-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Dominey-Howes ◽  
J. Goff
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Submarine Cable ◽  
Large Magnitude ◽  
Telecommunications Infrastructure ◽  
Voice Traffic ◽  
National Economies

Abstract. National economies are becoming increasingly dependent on the global telecommunications system – and in particular, its submarine cable infrastructure. We note that a variety of natural hazard processes are capable of damaging and destroying this infrastructure, both in deep water and at the coast. Some places within the global telecommunications system are already known to be bottlenecks or "choke points". Hawaii is just such a choke point and interestingly, Hawaii is also affected by numerous large magnitude natural hazard processes. Any damage to the submarine telecommunications infrastructure routed through Hawaii could result in significant impacts on the electronic flow of data and voice traffic, negatively affecting dependent economies such as Australia. We propose that proper risk assessments be undertaken at all bottlenecks in the global telecommunications system affected by natural hazards (such as tsunami). We use Hawaii as an example of the sort of research that should be undertaken.

scholarly journals Review article: Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 1069-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J. Ward ◽  
Veit Blauhut ◽  
Nadia Bloemendaal ◽  
James E. Daniell ◽  
Marleen C. de Ruiter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Global Risk ◽  
Future Projections ◽  
Hazard Risk

Abstract. Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around USD 260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy communities recognise the need to reduce these risks. As a result, the last decade has seen a rapid development of global models for assessing risk from natural hazards at the global scale. In this paper, we review the scientific literature on natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale, and we specifically examine whether and how they have examined future projections of hazard, exposure, and/or vulnerability. In doing so, we examine similarities and differences between the approaches taken across the different hazards, and we identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, there are a number of global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards that have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whereas fewer exist in the peer-reviewed literature for global studies related to geological hazards. On the other hand, studies of earthquake and tsunami risk are now using stochastic modelling approaches to allow for a fully probabilistic assessment of risk, which could benefit the modelling of risk from other hazards. Finally, we discuss opportunities for learning from methods and approaches being developed and applied to assess natural hazard risks at more continental or regional scales. Through this paper, we hope to encourage further dialogue on knowledge sharing between disciplines and communities working on different hazards and risk and at different spatial scales.

scholarly journals Review article: Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J. Ward ◽  
Veit Blauhut ◽  
Nadia Bloemendaal ◽  
James E. Daniell ◽  
Marleen C. de Ruiter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Global Risk ◽  
Future Projections ◽  
Hazard Risk

Abstract. Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around $260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy community recognise the need to reduce these risks. As a result, the last decade has seen a rapid development of global models for assessing risk from natural hazards at the global scale. In this paper, we review the scientific literature on natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale, and specifically examine whether and how they have examined future projections of hazard, exposure, and/or vulnerability. In doing so, we examine similarities and differences between the approaches taken across the different hazards, and identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, we show that global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards, have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whilst these are missing in global studies related to geological hazards. The methods used for projecting future exposure in the former could be applied to the geological studies. On the other hand, studies of earthquake and tsunami risk are now using stochastic modelling approaches to allow for a fully probabilistic assessment of risk, which could benefit the modelling of risk from other hazards. Finally, we discuss opportunities for learning from methods and approaches being developed and applied to assess natural hazard risks at more continental or regional scales. Through this paper, we hope to encourage dialogue on knowledge sharing between scientists and communities working on different hazards and at different spatial scales.

Pipeline Vulnerability to Natural Hazards

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Vicente Amórtegui
Keyword(s):  
Stress State ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Weather Conditions ◽  
Monitoring Systems ◽  
System Vulnerability ◽  
Preventive Actions ◽  
Strength And Stiffness ◽  
External Forces

The strength and stiffness of the pipelines allow them to tolerate the effects of natural hazards for some period of time. The amount of time depends on the strength and deformability, the stress state, the age, the conditions of installation and operation of the pipeline and their geometric arrangement with regard to the hazardous process. Accordingly, some of the hazards due to weather conditions and external forces would not be time independent. In consequence the designing of monitoring systems to predict the behavior of the pipelines against natural hazards is required in order to carry out the preventive actions which are necessary to avoid failure of the pipes due to the exposition to those hazards. In this paper a method for assessing the transport system vulnerability is developed, a function for risk analysis is proposed (which is determined by the probability of the natural hazard, the pipeline’s vulnerability to the hazard and the consequences of the pipe rupture). The elements that are part of that evaluation are presented and illustrated by means of examples.

scholarly journals Landscape analysis for multi-hazard prevention in Orco and Soana valleys, Northwest Italy

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 1963-1972 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Turconi ◽  
D. Tropeano ◽  
G. Savio ◽  
S. K. De ◽  
P. J. Mason
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Thematic Maps ◽  
Italian Alps ◽  
Alpine Environment ◽  
Natural Risk ◽  
Mountainous Regions ◽  
Morphological Studies ◽  
Field Evidence ◽  
Different Types

Abstract. The study area (600 km2), consisting of Orco and Soana valleys in the Western Italian Alps, experienced different types of natural hazards, typical of the whole Alpine environment. Some of the authors have been requested to draw a civil protection plan for such mountainous regions. This offered the special opportunity (1) to draw a lot of unpublished historical data, dating back several centuries mostly concerning natural hazard processes and related damages, (2) to develop original detailed geo-morphological studies in a region still poorly known, (3) to prepare detailed thematic maps illustrating landscape components related to natural conditions and hazards, (4) to thoroughly check present-day situations in the area compared to the effects of past events and (5) to find adequate natural hazard scenarios for all sites exposed to risk. The method of work has been essentially to compare archival findings with field evidence in order to assess natural hazard processes, their occurrence and magnitude, and to arrange all such elements in a database for GIS-supported thematic maps. Several types of natural hazards, such as landslides, rockfalls, debris flows, stream floods and snow avalanches cause huge damage to lives and properties (housings, roads, tourist sites). We aim to obtain newly acquired knowledge in this large, still poorly understood area as well as develop easy-to-interpret products such as natural risk maps.

scholarly journals Assessing the risk posed by natural hazards to infrastructures

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Unni Marie Kolderup Eidsvig ◽  
Krister Kristensen ◽  
Bjørn Vidar Vangelsten
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Quality Level ◽  
Quantitative Methodology ◽  
Cascading Effects ◽  
Natural Event ◽  
Ranking Criteria ◽  
Adverse Weather ◽  
Restoration Effort

Abstract. This paper proposes a model for assessing the risk posed by natural hazards to infrastructures. The model prescribes a three level analysis with increasing level of detail, moving from qualitative to quantitative analysis. The focus is on a methodology for semi-quantitative analysis to be performed at the second level. The purpose of this type of analysis is to perform a screening of the scenarios of natural hazards threatening the infrastructures, identifying the most critical scenarios and investigating the need for further analyses (third level). The proposed semi-quantitative methodology considers the frequency of the natural hazard, different aspects of vulnerability including the physical vulnerability of the infrastructure itself and the societal dependency on the infrastructure. An indicator-based approach is applied, ranking the indicators on a relative scale according to pre-defined ranking criteria. The proposed indicators, which characterize conditions that influence the probability of an infrastructure break-down caused by a natural event, are defined as 1) Robustness and buffer capacity, 2) Level of protection, 3) Quality/Level of maintenance and renewal, 4) Adaptability and quality in operational procedures and 5) Transparency/complexity/degree of coupling. Further indicators describe the societal consequences of the infrastructure failure, such as Redundancy and/or substitution, Restoration effort/duration, Preparedness, early warning and emergency response and Dependencies and cascading effects. The aggregated risk estimate is a combination of the semi-quantitative vulnerability indicators, as well as quantitative estimates of the frequency of the natural hazard, the potential duration of the infrastructure malfunctioning (depending e.g. on the required restoration effort) and the number of users of the infrastructure. Case studies for two Norwegian municipalities are presented where risk posed by adverse weather and natural hazards to primary road, water supply and power network is assessed. The application examples show that the proposed model provides a useful tool for screening of potential undesirable events, contributing to a targeted reduction of the risk.

scholarly journals The Swiss joint information platform for natural hazards

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Philipp Angehrn ◽  
Sabina Steiner ◽  
Christophe Lienert
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Spatial Data ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Measurement Data ◽  
User Feedback ◽  
Acceptance Testing ◽  
Spatial Density ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Information Platform

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> The Swiss Joint Information Platform for Natural Hazards (GIN) has been realized from 2008 to 2010 as part of the Swiss federal government’s OWARNA project, which aimed at optimizing warning and alerting procedures against natural hazard. The first online-version of the platform went productive in 2011 with the primary goal of providing measured and forecast natural hazard data in form of processed cartographic, graphic and other multimedia products to professional users &amp;ndash; before, during and after natural hazard events. In Switzerland water-, weather-, snow- and earthquake-related hazards are the most relevant ones.</p><p>In 2013, an online survey showed that the platform does not fully meet user expectations, particularly as to user experience and usability of its cartographic, web-based user interface. Revaluation and redesign of the overall platform were necessary in order to improve map legibility, caused by the complexity of data, large data amounts, and high spatial density of online, real-time measurement data locations. A new web design and user interaction concept have been developed in 2014 and eventually put online in June 2017. User acceptance testing by means of surveys and direct user feedback sessions were key factors in this perennial redesign process. The GIN platform now features important novel technical and graphical elements: The starting page is based on a dashboard containing virtual dossiers (Fig. 1), with which users configure their desired information, data, and map bundles individually, or use predefined adaptable views on various existing data sets. In addition, there is a new overall spatial search function to query data parameters. A responsive approach further improves the usability of the platform. The focus of these new features is on multi-views involving maps, diagrams, tables, text products, as well as selected geographical areas on maps, and fast data queries (Fig. 2). Current user feedback suggests that the new GIN platform design is well received, and that it is moving closer to its very goal: online monitoring and management of natural hazard events by enhanced usability, more targeted and higher personalization.</p><p>Several Swiss Cantons (i.e., the political entities in Switzerland below the federation) actively participated, and still participate, in the conceptual GIN platform development process through advisory board meetings and consultations. On the operational level, Cantons actively provide and contribute further natural hazard information and measurement data from their own natural hazard monitoring networks. These additional Cantonal regional-scale data sets help to fill spatial data gaps, where no Federal data is available. GIN thusly integrates natural hazard data from Federal and Cantonal levels (and partly even private level), which adds value to all stakeholders on various political levels involved in natural hazard management (Federal, Cantonal, Regional, Communal crisis committees). Stakeholders not only use GIN’s ample database and cartographic product portfolio to accomplish their early warning and crisis management tasks, but also benefit from seamless, secure and reliable IT-services, provided by the Swiss Federal Government. With the new GIN platform, Switzerland has a powerful, integrative, and comprehensive tool for monitoring and responding to natural hazard events.</p>

Multiple-hazards and their interactions in urban low-to-middle income countries: a case study from Nairobi

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Malamud ◽  
Emmah Mwangi ◽  
Joel Gill ◽  
Ekbal Hussain ◽  
Faith Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Disaster Risk Reduction ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Volcanic Eruptions ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Soil Subsidence ◽  
Ground Collapse

&lt;p&gt;Global policy frameworks, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, increasingly advocate for multi-hazard approaches across different spatial scales. However, management approaches on the ground are still informed by siloed approaches based on one single natural hazard (e.g. flood, earthquake, snowstorm). However, locations are rarely subjected to a single natural hazard but rather prone to more than one. These different hazards and their interactions (e.g. one natural hazard triggering or increasing the probability of one or more natural hazards), together with exposure and vulnerability, shape the disaster landscape of a given region and associated disaster impact. &amp;#160;Here, as part of the UK GCRF funded research grant &amp;#8220;Tomorrow&amp;#8217;s Cities&amp;#8221; we first map out the single natural hazardscape for Nairobi using evidence collected through peer-reviewed literature, grey literature, social media and newspapers. We find the following hazard groups and hazard types present in Nairobi: (i) geophysical (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides), (ii) hydrological (floods and droughts), (iii) shallow earth processes (regional subsidence, ground collapse, soil subsidence, ground heave), (iv) atmospheric hazards (storm, hail, lightning, extreme heat, extreme cold), (v) biophysical (urban fires), and vi) space hazards (geomatic storms, and impact events). The breadth of single natural hazards that can potentially impact Nairobi is much larger than normally considered by individual hazard managers that work in Nairobi. We then use a global hazard matrix to identify possible hazard interactions, focusing on the following interaction mechanisms: (i) hazard triggering secondary hazard, (ii) hazards amplifying the possibility of the secondary hazard occurring.&amp;#160; We identify 67 possible interactions, as well as some of the interaction cascade typologies that are typical for Nairobi (e.g. a storm triggers and increases the probability of a flood which in turn increases the probability of a flood). Our results indicate a breadth of natural hazards and their interactions in Nairobi, and emphasise a need for a multi-hazard approach to disaster risk reduction.&lt;/p&gt;

A comparative literature review of the methodologies to evaluate risk of NaTech disasters and Critical Infrastructure affected by natural hazard

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margherita D'Ayala ◽  
Riccardo Giusti ◽  
Marcello Arosio ◽  
Mario Martina
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Critical Infrastructure ◽  
Critical Infrastructures ◽  
Industrial Accident ◽  
Technological Disasters ◽  
Natural Event ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Change Framework ◽  
Oil Gas

&lt;p&gt;In a climate change framework extreme natural events are going to occur more frequently and intensively as a result of global warming. Therefore, the effects and consequences of climate-related natural hazards, such as flooding, heatwaves, drought, landslides and others, have the potential to become more disastrous and extensive. Consequences of such events are of particular concern considering that today&amp;#8217;s societies are interconnected in complex and dynamic socio-technological networks and, hence, dependent more than before on Critical Infrastructures (CI) systems (such as transport, energy, water, ICT systems, etc.). Furthermore, there are also events of Natural Hazards Trigger Technological Disasters (also known as NaTech events), whereby an industrial accident caused by a natural event could affect people, the environment, and other facilities and systems. This work reviews studies in the fields of risk assessment of CI systems affected by natural hazards and NaTech events.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This study identifies and classifies: the methodologies applied (qualitative or quantitative), the type of infrastructures exposed (transport, electricity, oil, gas, water and waste water and telecommunications systems, industrial or nuclear plant) and hazard considered (flood, earthquake, lighting, landslide, avalanche, storm surge, heat and cold waves, wind), the scale of application and the level of spatial resolution.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The work provides a comparison of the scientific studies, the objectives and analysis methods to assess risk employed in the fields of CI systems and NaTech events in order to highlight similarities and differences and to guide the most suitable approach for each application case.&lt;/p&gt;

Risk Governance of Limited-Notice or No-Notice Natural Hazards

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle ◽  
Dale Dominey-Howes
Keyword(s):  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Natural Hazard ◽  
Early Warning Systems ◽  
Global South ◽  
Disaster Risk ◽  
Tsunami Warning ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Warning Systems ◽  
Global North

The second priority of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 stresses that, to efficiently manage risk posed by natural hazards, disaster risk governance should be strengthened for all phases of the disaster cycle. Disaster management should be based on adequate strategies and plans, guidance, and inter-sector coordination and communication, as well as the participation and inclusion of all relevant stakeholders—including the general public. Natural hazards that occur with limited-notice or no-notice (LNN) challenge these efforts. Different types of natural hazards present different challenges to societies in the Global North and the Global South in terms of detection, monitoring, and early warning (and then response and recovery). For example, some natural hazards occur suddenly with little or no warning (e.g., earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, snow avalanches, flash floods, etc.) whereas others are slow onset (e.g., drought and desertification). Natural hazards such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and floods may unfold at a pace that affords decision-makers and emergency managers enough time to affect warnings and to undertake preparedness and mitigative activities. Others do not. Detection and monitoring technologies (e.g., seismometers, stream gauges, meteorological forecasting equipment) and early warning systems (e.g., The Australian Tsunami Warning System) have been developed for a number of natural hazard types. However, their reliability and effectiveness vary with the phenomenon and its location. For example, tsunamis generated by submarine landslides occur without notice, generally rendering tsunami-warning systems inadequate. Where warnings are unreliable or mis-timed, there are serious implications for risk governance processes and practices. To assist in the management of LNN events, we suggest emphasis should be given to the preparedness and mitigation phases of the disaster cycle, and in particular, to efforts to engage and educate the public. Risk and vulnerability assessment is also of paramount importance. The identification of especially vulnerable groups, appropriate land use planning, and the introduction and enforcement of building codes and reinforcement regulations, can all help to reduce casualties and damage to the built environment caused by unexpected events. Moreover, emergency plans have to adapt accordingly as they may differ from the evacuation plans for events with a longer lead-time. Risk transfer mechanisms, such as insurance, and public-private partnerships should be strengthened, and redevelopment should consider relocation and reinforcement of new buildings. Finally, participation by relevant stakeholders is a key concept for the management of LNN events as it is also a central component for efficient risk governance. All relevant stakeholders should be identified and included in decisions and their implementation, supported by good communication before, during, and after natural hazard events. The implications for risk governance of a number of natural hazards are presented and illustrated with examples from different countries from the Global North and the Global South.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document