A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment

Resilience assessment framework for critical infrastructure in a multi-hazard environment: Case study on transport assets.

1. Rationalizing Politics The Rise of Social Regulation Science and Policymaking Expertise and Trust The Contingency of Knowledge The Reform Debate An Alternative Approach 2. Flawed Decisions Nitrites 2,4,5-T Love Canal Estimates of Occupational Cancer The Technocratic Response A Critical Counterpoint 3. Science for the People The Rationale for Public Science The "New" Expert Agency Scientific Advice and Open Government Judicial Review of Science Policy The Weakening of the Paradigm 4. Peer Review and Regulatory Science The Traditions of Peer Review Peer Review in Practice Instructive Failures Regulatory Science: Content and Context Implications for Regulatory Peer Review 5. EPA and the Science Advisory Board Early Political Challenges A New Cooperation Boundary Exercises SAB's Impact on Policy Conclusion 6. The Science and Policy of Clean Air CASAC and the NAAQS Process Science and Standards Redefining CASAC's Role The Carbon Monoxide Controversy CASAC's Effectiveness: Bridging Science and Policy 7. Advisers as Adversaries The Scientific Advisory Panel Implementing the Impossible Ethylene Dibromide Dicofol Alar A Fragmentation of Authority 8. FDA's Advisory Network The Scientific Evaluation of Drugs Expertise and Food Safety Advice and Decision 9. Coping with New Knowledge The Quest for Principled Risk Assessment Formaldehyde: An Uncertain Carcinogen Conclusion 10. Technocracy Revisited A Public-Private Partnership for Science Risk Assessment without Politics The Public Board of Inquiry Wider Applications 11. The Political Function of Good Science From Advice to Policy Acceptable Risk Scientific Advice as Legitimation: Negotiation and Boundary Work Defining "Good Science" Normative Implications Conclusion Notes Index

The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers

A review of quantification methodologies for multi-hazard interrelationships

Dynamic risk processes, which involve interactions at the hazard and risk levels, have yet to be clearly understood and properly integrated into probabilistic risk assessment. While much attention has been given to this aspect lately, most studies remain limited to a small number of site-specific multi-risk scenarios. We present a generic probabilistic framework based on the sequential Monte Carlo Method to implement coinciding events and triggered chains of events (using a variant of a Markov chain), as well as time-variant vulnerability and exposure. We consider generic perils based on analogies with real ones, natural and man-made. Each simulated time series corresponds to one risk scenario, and the analysis of multiple time series allows for the probabilistic assessment of losses and for the recognition of more or less probable risk paths, including extremes or low-probability–high-consequences chains of events. We find that extreme events can be captured by adding more knowledge on potential interaction processes using in a brick-by-brick approach. We introduce the concept of risk migration matrix to evaluate how multi-risk participates to the emergence of extremes, and we show that risk migration (i.e., clustering of losses) and risk amplification (i.e., loss amplification at higher losses) are the two main causes for their occurrence.

/pdf/the-quantification-of-low-probability-high-consequences-tmr1xr1s6r.pdf

The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach

The number of people affected by natural hazards is growing, as many regions of the world become subject to multiple hazards. Although volume of geophysical, sociological and economic knowledge is increasing, so are the losses from natural catastrophes. The slow transfer from theory to practice might lay in the difficulties of the communication process from science to policy-making, including perceptions by stakeholders from disaster mitigation practice regarding the usability of developed tools. As scientific evidence shows, decision-makers are faced with the challenge of not only mitigating against single hazards and risks, but also multiple risks, which must include the consideration of their interrelations. As the multi-hazard and risk concept is a relatively young area of natural risk governance, there are only a few multi-risk models and the experience of practitioners as to how to use these models is limited. To our knowledge, scientific literature on stakeholders' perceptions of multi-risk models is lacking. In this article we identify perceptions of two decision-making tools, which involve multi-hazard and multi-risk. The first one is a generic, multi-risk framework based on the sequential Monte Carlo method to allow for a straightforward and flexible implementation of hazard interactions, which may occur in a complex system. The second is a decision-making tool that integrates direct input from stakeholders by attributing weights to different components and constructing risks ratings. Based on the feedback from stakeholders, we found that interest in multi-risk assessment is high but that its application remains hampered by the complexity of processes involved.

Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: feedback from civil protection stakeholders

New Multi-Hazard and Multi-Risk Assessment Methods for Europe. Risk governance and the communication process from science to policy: Evaluating perceptions of stakeholders from practice in multi-hazard and multi-risk decision support models: MATRIX results II and Reference Report

The Multi-HAzard and MulTi-RIsK Assessment MethodS for Europe or MATRIX project (01.10.2010 to 31.12.2013), coordinated by the GFZ, set out to tackle some of the issues associated with multi-hazard and risk assessment. Disaster risk reduction (DDR) activities generally treat different natural hazards and their associated risks separately within what may be termed a "single-type" approach. However, this ignores the spatial and temporal interactions that often arise along the disaster risk chain. For instance, one hazardous event may trigger others, e.g., earthquakes causing tsunamis, or several different types may occur concurrently, e.g., severe weather and earthquakes. Considering vulnerability, an initial event would leave a community more susceptible to future, possibly different, hazards, e.g., an earthquake weakening buildings which are damaged further by windstorms. The temporal dimension may include changes in exposure, e.g., increased urbanisation, altering the total risk to an area, while repeated events lessen a community's resilience. Meanwhile, although losses are estimated by usually only considering direct economic losses or casualties, this ignores less tangible losses such as reduced business activity or the loss of cultural heritage. In short, the total risk estimated when incorporating interactions between multiple hazards and risks is likely to be greater than the sum of the individual parts. 

Hence, for a more comprehensive risk assessment paradigm, these, and other, interactions need to be considered. Therefore, MATRIX set out to develop concepts, methods, frameworks and tools for dealing with risk assessment within a multi-hazard and risk environment. The focus was on the hazards that most affect Europe, namely earthquakes, landslides, volcanos, tsunamis, wild fires, storms and fluvial and coastal flooding. Interactions at all the different levels were considered, such as cascading events and time dependency in vulnerability. The resulting products were applied at three test cases: Naples, Italy, the French West Indies, and Cologne, Germany. Considerable interaction with end-users was also undertaken, including identifying biases at the individual and institutional level which may hinder employing a multi-type framework for risk governance. 

This Scientific Technical Report presents two so-called "Reference reports" produced during the MATRIX project. These reports were provided to the European Commission as deliverables, namely D8.4 "MATRIX Results I and Reference Report" and D8.5 "MATRIX Results II and Reference Report". D8.4 presented a series of specific reports outlining the results of the project, written in a manner accessible not only to the specialist but with a broader audience in mind. D8.5 deals with the risk governance within a multi-hazard and risk context and has since been published. We therefore divide with document in two, where part 1 represented the outcomes presented in D8.4 while D8.5 forms part 2. 

We believe the MATRIX project was a very important step towards the goal of establishing the multi-hazard and risk environment as the norm within a European context, and we hope that the reader will benefit from the results presented here.

MATRIX Reference Reports

Synthesis: Benefits and barriers to multi-hazard mitigation and adaptation, with policy recommendations for decision-support: MATRIX

As populations increase, especially in urban areas, the number of people affected by natural hazards is growing, as many regions of the world subject to multiple hazards. Although the volume of geophysical, sociological and economic knowledge is expanding, so are the losses from natural catastrophes. The slow transfer of appropriate knowledge from theory to practice may be due to the difficulties inherent in the communication process from science to policy-making, including perceptions by stakeholders from disaster mitigation practice regarding the usability of any developed tools. As scientific evidence shows, decision-makers are faced with the challenge of not only mitigating against single hazards and risks, but also multiple risks, which must include the consideration of their interrelations. As the multi-hazard and risk concept is a relatively young area of natural risk governance, there are only a few multi-risk models and the experience of practitioners as to how to use these models is limited. To our knowledge, scientific literature on stakeholders' perceptions of multi-risk models is lacking. In this document, we identify the perceptions of two decision-making tools, which involve multi-hazard and multi-risk. The first one is a generic, multi-risk framework based on the sequential Monte Carlo method to allow for a straightforward and flexible implementation of hazard interactions which may occur in a complex system. The second is a decision-making tool that integrates directly input from stakeholders by attributing weights to different components and constructing risk ratings. Based on the feedback from stakeholders, we found that interest in multi-risk assessment is high, but that its application remains hampered by the complexity of the processes involved.

Roger Mrzyglocki

Papers

Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: feedback from civil protection stakeholders

New Multi-Hazard and Multi-Risk Assessment Methods for Europe. Risk governance and the communication process from science to policy: Evaluating perceptions of stakeholders from practice in multi-hazard and multi-risk decision support models: MATRIX results II and Reference Report

MATRIX Reference Reports

Synthesis: Benefits and barriers to multi-hazard mitigation and adaptation, with policy recommendations for decision-support: MATRIX

MATRIX Results II and Reference Report