Risk Assessments: Natural Disasters, Vulnerability, Harm, Modifiers & Proximity Risk(s)

Natural hazards, including those precipitated/aggravated by humankind, such as earthquakes, floods, storms, fire and droughts, require risk analysis to support informed resilience and preparedness strategies.

However, conventional risk assessment methodologies, used by individuals, corporates and governments, remain inadequate due to inherent complexities and nuances associated with both the natural phenomena and advanced community preparedness, resilience and recovery capabilities.

"The existence of risk source does not mean the existence of a real risk. Therefore, the hazard is just a part of disaster risk. Disaster risk needs its subject- human beings and their social and economic activities. Disaster risk will not exist without socio-economic activities. Only if the subject existed, could a natural disaster develop.?" (Du & Lin, 2012)

Moreover, natural disaster threat analysis is hyper contextual, constrained to specific geography/ies, resulting in unique vulnerabilities associated to the area, community and local socio-technical (including economic) variables.

In short, a simplistic risk model can not be applied as a blunt instrument to compare or rate locations, no matter how enticing or persuasive the risk model solution may appear.

"Hazard analysis is mainly to identify probabilities of different levels of a natural disaster while vulnerability assessment focuses on the factors, be of human or environmental origin, which together or separately, drive and shape the vulnerability of the receptor.??"

(Du & Lin, 2012)

Intensity of occurrence, velocity of onset and footprint of disruption are additional, essential considerations associated with risk evaluations involving natural phenomena, and those influenced by humankind presence or behaviour.

Efficacy of response measures, government support, community resourcing and known/perceived risk in the first instance also act as major modifiers in each geographical instance.

Notwithstanding priority or 'fatigue' of information where one or more types of natural hazards are present simultaneously or vary seasonally.

In sum, natural hazard and disaster risk assessments are incomplete if vulnerability is not considered in detail.

Therefore, not only is detailed, specific understanding of the hazard required, but the coupling effects of how people, communities and public/private actors have prepared and understood the threat remain persistent, essential requirements.

As a result, estimates and risk ratings excluding or omitting these factors remain of limited use in risk-informed decision making and should not be used a comparative estimates or displayed on consolidated visuals such as maps.

Moreover, risk maps compressing disparate, multivariate threats, hazards and risks should be avoided or treated with caution as natural hazards do not intuitively nor scientifically align with risk analysis and scales of harm associated with other threats such as crime, safety, security, health, terrorism or political risk(s).

Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP MSyI M.ISRM

Security, Risk, Safety & Management Sciences

Reference:

Du, X. & Lin, X. (2012). Conceptual Model on Regional Natural Disaster Risk Assessment, 2012 International Symposium on Safety Science and Technology, Procedia Engineering, 45 (2012), pp.96-100