Developing Improvements to Multi-Hazard Risk Assessments
This paper outlines the approaches taken to assess multi-hazard assessments. There is currently confusion in assessing multi-hazard impacts, and so this study aims to determine which of the available options are the most useful. The paper uses an international literature search, and analysis of current multi-hazard assessments and a case study to illustrate the effectiveness of the chosen method. Findings from this study will help those wanting to assess multi-hazards to undertake a straightforward approach. The paper is significant as it helps to interpret the various approaches and concludes with the preferred method. Many people in the world live in hazardous environments and are susceptible to disasters. Unfortunately, when a disaster strikes it is often compounded by additional cascading hazards, thus people would confront more than one hazard simultaneously. Hazards include natural hazards (earthquakes, floods, etc.) or cascading human-made hazards (for example, Natural Hazard Triggering Technological disasters (Natech) such as fire, explosion, toxic release). Multi-hazards have a more destructive impact on urban areas than one hazard alone. In addition, climate change is creating links between different disasters such as causing landslide dams and debris flows leading to more destructive incidents. Much of the prevailing literature deals with only one hazard at a time. However, recently sophisticated multi-hazard assessments have started to appear. Given that multi-hazards occur, it is essential to take multi-hazard risk assessment under consideration. This paper aims to review the multi-hazard assessment methods through articles published to date and categorize the strengths and disadvantages of using these methods in risk assessment. Napier City is selected as a case study to demonstrate the necessity of using multi-hazard risk assessments. In order to assess multi-hazard risk assessments, first, the current multi-hazard risk assessment methods were described. Next, the drawbacks of these multi-hazard risk assessments were outlined. Finally, the improvements to current multi-hazard risk assessments to date were summarised. Generally, the main problem of multi-hazard risk assessment is to make a valid assumption of risk from the interactions of different hazards. Currently, risk assessment studies have started to assess multi-hazard situations, but drawbacks such as uncertainty and lack of data show the necessity for more precise risk assessment. It should be noted that ignoring or partial considering multi-hazards in risk assessment will lead to an overestimate or overlook in resilient and recovery action managements.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3593176Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 222
 M. Dilley, Chen R. S., Deichmann U., Lerner-Lam A. L., Arnold M. Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis: The World Bank; 2005.
 L. Zhang, Zhang S., Huang R. J. E. g. Multi-hazard scenarios and consequences in Beichuan, China: the first five years after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. 2014; Vol.180, pp. 4-20.
 Y. Depietri, Dahal K., McPhearson T. J. N. H., Sciences E. S. Multi-hazard risks in New York City. 2018; Vol.18(12), pp. 3363-81.
 M. Pelling, Blackburn S. Megacities and the coast: risk, resilience and transformation: Routledge; 2014.
 M. S. Kappes, Keiler M., von Elverfeldt K., Glade T. J. N. h. Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. 2012; Vol.64(2), pp. 1925-58.
 N. Komendantova, Mrzyglocki R., Mignan A., Khazai B., Wenzel F., Patt A., et al. Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: Feedback from civil protection stakeholders. 2014; Vol.8, pp. 50-67.
 J. C. Gill, Malamud B. D. J. R. o. G. Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards. 2014; Vol.52(4), pp. 680-722.
 W. Marzocchi, Garcia-Aristizabal A., Gasparini P., Mastellone M. L., Di Ruocco A. J. N. h. Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. 2012; Vol.62(2), pp. 551-73.
 T. Lung, Lavalle C., Hiederer R., Dosio A., Bouwer L. M. A multi-hazard regional level impact assessment for Europe combining indicators of climatic and non-climatic change. Global Environmental Change. 2013; Vol.23(2), pp. 522-36.
 D. Araya-Muñoz, Metzger M. J., Stuart N., Wilson A. M. W., Carvajal D. J. S. o. t. T. E. A spatial fuzzy logic approach to urban multi-hazard impact assessment in Concepción, Chile. 2017; Vol.576, pp. 508-19.
 O. Rahmati, Yousefi S., Kalantari Z., Uuemaa E., Teimurian T., Keesstra S., et al. Multi-Hazard Exposure Mapping Using Machine Learning Techniques: A Case Study from Iran. 2019; Vol.11(16), pp. 1943.
 H. R. Pourghasemi, Gayen A., Panahi M., Rezaie F., Blaschke T. Multi-hazard probability assessment and mapping in Iran. Science of the total environment. 2019; Vol.692, pp. 556-71.
 H. D. Skilodimou, Bathrellos G. D., Chousianitis K., Youssef A. M., Pradhan B. J. E. E. S. Multi-hazard assessment modeling via multi-criteria analysis and GIS: a case study. 2019; Vol.78(2), pp. 47.
 G. J. N. H. Barrantes. Multi-hazard model for developing countries. 2018; Vol.92(2), pp. 1081-95.
 B. Liu, Siu Y. L., Mitchell G. J. N. H., Sciences E. S. Hazard interaction analysis for multi-hazard risk assessment: a systematic classification based on hazard-forming environment. 2016; Vol.16(2), pp. 629-42.
 V. Gallina, Torresan S., Critto A., Sperotto A., Glade T., Marcomini A. J. J. o. e. m. A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment. 2016; Vol.168, pp. 123-32.
 M. A. Islam, Mitra D., Dewan A., Akhter S. H. J. O., Management C. Coastal multi-hazard vulnerability assessment along the Ganges deltaic coast of Bangladesh–A geospatial approach. 2016; Vol.127, pp. 1-15.
 M. Peng, Zhang L. J. L. Breaching parameters of landslide dams. 2012; Vol.9(1), pp. 13-31.
 S. Girgin, Necci A., Krausmann E. J. I. J. o. D. R. R. Dealing with cascading multi-hazard risks in national risk assessment: The case of Natech accidents. 2019; Vol.35, pp. 101072.
 D. E. Hart, Giovinazzi S., Byun D.-S., Davis C., Ko S. Y., Gomez C., et al. Enhancing resilience by altering our approach to earthquake and flooding assessment: multi-hazards. 2018, pp.
 S. Davoudi, Brooks E., Mehmood A. J. P. P., Research. Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. 2013; Vol.28(3), pp. 307-22.
 S. Menoni, Galderisi A., Ceudech A., Delmonaco G., Margottini C., Spizzichino D. FP6 Armonia Project—Applied Multi-Risk Mapping of Natural Hazards for Impact Assessment. Deliverable 51, Harmonised Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Methods Informing Mitigation Strategies Addressing Land-Use Planning and Management 2006.
 E. Pilone, Demichela M., Baldissone G. J. S. The Multi-Risk Assessment Approach as a Basis for the Territorial Resilience. 2019; Vol.11(9), pp. 2612.
 D. E. Hart, Hawke K. A. Multi-Hazard Flooding Interactions in the Ōpāwaho Heathcote Catchment, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2016, pp.
 D. Todd, Moody L., Cobby D., Hart D., Hawke K., Purton K., et al. Multi-Hazard Analysis: Gap Analysis Report. 2017, pp.
 C. Davis, Giovinazzi S., Hart D., editors. Liquefaction induced flooding in Christchurch, New Zealand. ISSMGE Technical Committee TC203 Proc 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Christchurch, NZ Nov; 2015.
 R. Mahendra, Mohanty P. C., T Kumar S., Shenoi S., Nayak S. R. J. I. J. o. R. S. Coastal multi-hazard vulnerability mapping: a case study along the Coast of Nellore District, East coast of India. 2010; Vol.42(3), pp. 67-76.
 B. Sahoo, Bhaskaran P. K. J. J. o. e. m. Multi-hazard risk assessment of coastal vulnerability from tropical cyclones–A GIS based approach for the Odisha coast. 2018; Vol.206, pp. 1166-78.
 G. Thomas, Schmid R., Cousins W., Heron D., Lukovic B., editors. Post-earthquake fire spread between buildings–Correlation with 1931 Napier earthquake. Proc New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Conference, Napier; 2006.
 D. Dowrick, Rhoades D., Babor J., Beetham R. J. B. o. t. N. Z. N. S. f. E. E. Damage ratios for houses and microzoning effects in Napier in the magnitude 7.8 Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand, earthquake of 1931. 1995; Vol.28(2), pp. 134-45.
 H. s. B. E. Management. 1960 tsunami: Hawke's Bay Emergency Management; Available from: https://www.hbemergency.govt.nz/hazards/tsunami/.
 Reporter. Residents evacuated as streets turn into rivers 2004 Available from: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=10915535.
 M. Sharpe. Hawke's Bay flooding cuts off village and overloads Napier's wastewater system 2018 Available from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/106848300/school-and-roads-closed-as-heavy-rain-batters-hawkes-bay.
 D. Paton, Johnston D., Bebbington M. S., Lai C.-D., Houghton B. F. J. A. J. o. E. M., The. Direct and vicarious experience of volcanic hazards: implications for risk perception and adjustment adoption. 2000; Vol.15(4), pp. 58.
 K. Ronan, Johnston D., Paton D., editors. Communities' understanding of earthquake risk in the Hawke's Bay and Manawatu-Wanganui regions, New Zealand. NZSEE 2001 Conference; 2001.
 D. McIvor, Paton D. J. D. P., Journal M. A. I. Preparing for natural hazards: normative and attitudinal influences. 2007; Vol.16(1), pp. 79-88.
 S. A. Fraser, Power W. L., Wang X., Wallace L. M., Mueller C., Johnston D. M. J. N. H. Tsunami inundation in Napier, New Zealand, due to local earthquake sources. 2014; Vol.70(1), pp. 415-45.
 N. Horspool, Cousins W. J., Power W. L. Review of tsunami risk facing New Zealand: a 2015 update: GNS Science; 2015.
 T. Taylor. Hawke Bay Coastal Strategy. Report. Hawke's Bay Regional Council 2016.
 M. R. Elkortbawi. Insights into the Liquefaction Hazards in Napier and Hastings Based on the Assessment of Data from the 1931 Hawke's Bay, New Zealand, Earthquake: Virginia Tech; 2017.