02 Elements Risk Vulnerability

7/30/2019 02 Elements Risk Vulnerability

1/20

1

1

Lecture Overview

Risk assessment & management

Definitions

Elements at risk

Classification

Types of losses

Building & facilities subclasses

Data sources

Vulnerability Social science approaches to vulnerability

Natural science approaches to vulnerability

Effects on vulnerabilitity

Conclusions & perspectives

2

Risk assessment & management (1/3)

P robability oflandsliding

Triggeringfactors

Landslideinventory

P reparatoryfactors

Hazardassessment

Runoutbehavior

Land use

E lements atrisk

Vulnerabilityassessment

Riskassessment

Riskmanagement

C ost-benefitanalysis Dai et al. (2002)


2/20

2

3


Risk AnalysisNatural Science

Risk EvaluationSocial Science

Risk ManagementInterdisciplinary

Hollenstein, 1997

Risk=f(Hazard, Elements at risk, Vulnerability)Varnes, 1984

4


adopted from Hollenstein, 1997 & Kienholz, 1995


3/20

3

5

Risk Management

Glade & Crozier,

2005

6

Definitions (1/2)

Hazard (I): a potentially damaging process or situation, e.g. a

landslide of sufficient size, depth, or displacement to cause

damage or disruption.

Hazard (II, H): the probability of a potentially damaging event of

a given magnitude occurring in a unit of time.

Elements at risk (E): all valued attributes threatened by the

hazard and may include structures, land resources, social and

physical infrastructure, productive and non-productive activities,

environmental qualities, life and physical and mental wellbeing.

based on Crozier & Glade, 2004 ???


4/20

4

7

Definitions (2/2)

Vulnerability (V): the expected degree of loss experienced by the

elements at risk for a given magnitude of hazard.

Risk (R): a measure of the probability and severity of loss to the

elements at risk, usually expressed for a unit area, object, or

activity, over a specified period of time. R = H x E x V

Acceptable risk: a level of risk that a given society is prepared to

accept because of the marginal cost of any further risk reduction.

Risk management may aim to reduce all risks to this level.

based on Crozier & Glade, 2004 ???

8

Elements at risk

Classification of elements at risk

Types of losses

Human/Social/Economic

Primary/Secondary

Building and facilities

Main subclasses

Data sources

Remote sensing

Cadastres

Censuses

Adopted from Montoya wy


5/20

5

9

Classification of elements at risk

Building & facilities

Population

The environment

Production

Economic activities


10

Types of losses

Losses borne by the

insurance industry

weakening the insurance

market and increasing

premiums

Loss of markets and trade

opportunities through shortterm

business interruption

Loss of confidence by

investors, withdrawal of

investment

Capital costs of repair

Progressive

deterioration of

damaged buildings

and infrastructure

which are not

repaired

Disease

Permanent disability

Psychological impact

Loss of social

cohesion due

to disruption of

community

Political unrest (govt.

response is perceived

as

inadequate)

Secondary

Effect

Interruption of business

due to damage to buildings

and infrastructure

Loss of productive

workforce through fatalities,

injuries and relief efforts

Capital costs of response

and relief

Ground deformation

or loss of ground

quality

Structural damage or

collapse to buildings

and infrastructure

Non-structural

damage and damage

to contents

Fatalities

Injuries

Loss of income or

employment

opportunities

Homelessness

Primary

Effect

EconomicPhysicalHuman - social


6/20

6

11

Buildings & Facilities

General building stock

Essential facilities

High potential loss facilities

Transportation systems

Lifeline utility systems


12

Construction

Structure

Building material

Structural type

Height (Basement?)

Contents

Occupancy (Land use)

Buildings & Facilities General building stock (1/4)



7/20

7

13


Residential

Single family

Multi-family

Temporary-lodging

Mobile home

Institutional

Nursing


IKONOS, Denver, USA


14


Industrial

heavy

light

food/drugs/chemicals

metals/mineral processing

high technology


IKONOS, London, UK



8/20

8

15


Commercial/Institutional

retail trade

wholesale trade

banks

hospital

medical office/clinic


IKONOS, Singapore


16

Facilities that provide services to the community and

should be functional after a disaster

Police stations

Hospitals

Fire stations

Schools

Buildings & Facilities Essential facilities (1/2)



9/20

9

17

Hospitals

Vital role in the preservation of life and health in

disaster situations

Essential but also highly vulnerable

Complexity

Small rooms/long corridors

High occupancy 24 hours/day

Hazardous material

Buildings & Facilities Essential facilities (2/2)


18

Population

Most important characteristics

Children

Elderly population

low-income

Not fixed to the ground

Activity based location

At home (18:00 08:30)

At work (09:00 17:30)

Commuting hours (08:30 09:00; 17:30 18:00)

=> Not 1 scenario but at least 2


10/20

10

19

Data sources for elements at risk mapping

Satellite data

Many objects can be distinguished

Satisfactory for regional disaster management

But: A detailed risk assessment have to complement with or

use:

Cadastres

Censuses Landuse maps

Field survey


20

Vulnerability - Basic Issues

Vulnerability relates to theconsequences, or the

results of an impact of a natural force, andnot to

the natural process or force itself(Lewis 1999).

Lewis, 1999

Consequences are generally measured in terms of

damage and losses, either on a metric scale in

terms of a given currency, or on a non-numerical

scale based on social values or perceptions and

evaluations.

Social Science Approach Natural Science Approach


11/20

11

21

Types of vulnerability

Natural

Ecological

Technical

Economincal

Structural

Social

Political

Ideological

Cultural

Educative

Wilches-Chaux, 1992

22

Social Science Approaches: Vulnerability 1/7

Consequently, the so-called natural disasters are

primarily theproducts of political economies and

not the natural hazards themselves (Mileti 1999:120).

Any natural hazard, natural risk, and consequently

any form of natural disaster iscaused by

humans (Geipel 1992).

Weichselgartner (2001:85) argues, natural

disasters are socially constructed


12/20

12

23


Any natural disaster is thus the result of bad orfalse adaption to nature (Dombrowski 2001).

Concept of voluntary and involuntary activities

within risk assessments (Adams 1998; Starr 1969).

The living in a hazardous area is more voluntary for

the rich (Smith 2001).

Chambers (1989)(1989) refers to bothrefers to both internal and externalinternal and externaldimensionsdimensions affecting vulnerability.affecting vulnerability.

24

Pohl (1998) states that if a natural event is

endangering people or property, the event will be

perceived as a hazard. If the person or society

that is threatened or endangered can make

decisions and react to potential process occurrence,

the hazard becomes a risk. Consequently, if anindividual or a society has no opportunity to

make decisions, the natural event is just a

hazard, not a risk(Pohl & Geipel 2002).



13/20

13

25

Smith (2001:6) notes that risk means different

things to different people because each person

holds a unique view of the environment and

gives therefore a vague definition only.

As early as 1956, Simon argued that

perception is a filter through which the decision

maker views the objective environment ant its

hazards (in Smith 2001:67).


26


Chambers (1989): vulnerabilityis not the

same as poverty. It means not lack of want, but

defenceless and an inability to cope with risk,

shocks and stress.

BlaikieBlaikie et al.et al. (1994: 9)(1994: 9) define vulnerability asdefine vulnerability as

the characteristics of a person or a group inthe characteristics of a person or a group in

terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with,terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with,

resist, and recover from the impact of a naturalresist, and recover from the impact of a natural

hazard.hazard.


14/20

14

27


Vulnerability is closely correlated withsocio-

economic position and depends on class, caste,

ethnicity, gender, disability, age, education and

seniority (Blaikie et al. 1994; Hewitt 1997).

Vulnerability is determined by factors closely

related to conditions, whether or not people and

their environment are able to withstand or cope

with a natural disaster(Hewitt 1997; Smith 2001).

28

.... not only are people different, but they are

changing continuously, both as individuals and as

groups. Thisconstant change within the human

system ..... interacts with the physical system to

make hazard, exposure, and vulnerability all quite

dynamic (Mileti 1999: 119). .... vulnerability reduction itself would be

socially and environmentallysustainable

development . (Lewis 1999: 42).



15/20

15

29

Natural Science Approach: Vulnerability 1/2

A comprehensive natural risk assessment includes

risk analysis, risk perception and evaluation, and

risk management (e.g. Hollenstein 1997).

The product ofElements at RiskandVulnerability

is also often expressed as consequences (e.g. Wu

et al. 1996), but should not to be confused with

exposure (Alexander 2000).

30

Natural Science Approach: Vulnerability 2/2

Vulnerability is important in the determination of

the consequence and refers to thedegree of loss of

a given element at risk, or set of elements at risk

resulting from event occurrence of a given

magnitude (Newman and Strojan 1998).


16/20

16

31

32

Vulnerability: Diverse Effects

Vulnerability of different elements at riskvaries for

similar processes (Fell 1994: 263)

Temporal probability for a person of being present

during the landslide event is variable.

Different groups of humans have differentcoping

potentials.

Early warning system affects the vulnerability of

people.

Spatial probability of landslide occurrence

influences vulnerability.


17/20

17

33

Vulnerability: Conclusions

No unique and simple methodis currently

available.

Vulnerabilities of given elements at risk towards a

specific type and magnitude of process are

frequently missing.

Vulnerability is commonly based on estimates and

refer often to examples from other regions, or even

other processes.

Vulnerability isnot static it is changing!!

34

Vulnerability: Future Research

Details on elements at risk and theirspecific

vulnerability to the respective magnitude of event.

Vulnerability curves.

Advanced vulnerability modelling approaches for

various natural hazards (e.g. Hollenstein et al. 2002; Melching 1999)

Calculation ofvulnerability maps - instead of risk

maps (e.g. Weichselgartner 2001).


18/20

18

35

Hazard, Vulnerability & Risk

Natural hazard analysis should move towards

natural risk analysis (e.g. Glade et al. 2005).

Natural risk calculations are crucial estimates.

Natural risk assessment should also include the

investigation of thecommunication.

Natural risk analysis commonly only available for

local and regional scales,smaller scale studies are

rare (e.g. for landslides Dikau & Glade 2003).

Risk as adynamic approach (Hufschmidt et al. 2005)

36

Refernces

Adams J. 1998:Risk. London, UCL Press.

Alexander, D.E. 2000: Confronting catastrophe. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. 1994:At risk - Natural hazards,

people's vulnerability, and disasters. London: Routledge.

Chambers R. 1989: Vulnerability, coping and policy.IDS Bulletin 20, 1-7.

Dikau, R. and Glade, T. 2003: Nationale Gefahrenhinweiskarte gravitativer

Massenbewegungen. In Liedtke, H., Musbacher, R. and Schmidt, K.-H., editors,Relief, Boden und Wasser, Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, 98-99.

Dombrowsky W.R. (2001): Die globale Dimension von Katastrophen. In Plate,

E.J. undB. Merz (Hrsg.): Naturkatastrophen . Ursachen, Auswirkungen,

Vorsorge, 229-246

Fell, R. 1994: Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal 31, 261-272.

Geipel, R. 1992:Naturrisiken: Katastrophenbewltigung im sozialem Umfeld.

Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges.


19/20

19

37

Refernces

Glade, T. and Crozier, M.J. 2005: A review of scale dependency in landslidehazard and risk analysis. In Glade, T., Anderson, M.G. and Crozier, M.J., editors,

Landslide hazard and risk, Chichester: Wiley, 75-138.

Glade, T., Anderson, M.G. and Crozier, M.J. 2005: Preface. In Glade, T.,

Anderson, M.G. and Crozier, M.J., editors,Landslide hazard and risk,

Chichester: Wiley, xi-xx.

Hewitt, K. 1997:Regions of risk. A geographical introduction to disasters. Essex:

Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Hollenstein, K. 1997:Analyse, Bewertung und Management von Naturrisiken.

Zrich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG, ETH Zrich.

Hollenstein, K., Bieri, O. and Stckelberger, J. 2002: Modellierung der

Vulnerability von Schadensobjekten gegenber Naturgefahrenprozessen. Bern:

Bundesamt fr Umwelt Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), 116.

Hufschmidt, G., Crozier, M.J. and Glade, T. 2005: Evolution of landslide risk in

New Zealand. In Gutirrez, F., Gutirrez, M., Desir, G., Guerrero, J., Lucha, P.,

Marn, C. and Garca-Ruiz, J.M., editors, 6thInternational Conference on

Geomorphology, 7.-11. September 2005, Zaragoza, Spain, 341.

38

Refernces

Kienholz, H. 1995: Gefahrenbeurteilung und -bewertung - auf dem Weg zu

einem Gesamtkonzept. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fr Forstwesen 9, 701-725.

Lewis 1999:Development in disaster-prone places - Studies of vulnerability.

London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.

Melching, C.S. 1999: Economic aspects of vulnerability. In World

Metereological Organization, editor, Comprehensive risk assessment for natural

hazards, Geneva: World Metereological Organization,, 66-76.

Mileti, D.S. 1999:Disasters by design - A reassessment of natural hazards in the

United States. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Montoya, L. wy: Elements at risk. ITC-presentation.

Newman, M.C. and Strojan, C.L. 1998:Risk assessment: logic and measurement.

Chelesea, Michigan: Ann Arbor Press.

Pohl J. & R. Geipel, 2002: Naturgefahren und Naturrisiken. Geographische

Rundschau 54(1), 4-8.

Pohl J. 1998: Die Wahrnehmung von Naturrisken in der "Risikogesellschaft".- In:

G. Heinritz, R. Wiessner & M. Winiger (Eds.)Nachhaltigkeit als Leitbild der

Umwelt- und Raumentwicklung in Europa. Stuttgart, 153-163.


20/20

39

Refernces

Smith K. 2001:Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster.London, Routledge.

Smith, K. 2001:Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster.

London.

Starr C. 1969: Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165, 1232-1238.

Varnes, D.J. 1984:Landslides hazard zonation: a review of principles and

practice. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Weichselgartner, J. 2001: Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability

revisited.Disaster Prevention and Management10, 85-94.

Wilches-Chaux, G. 1992: The global vulnerability. In Aysan, Y. and Davis, I.,

editors,Disasters and the small dwelling, 30-35.

Documents

02 Elements Risk Vulnerability