Multi-hazards and dominoes at the UR2016 conference

This year the Understanding Risk 2016 Conference in Venice hosted two sessions related to multi-hazards and their interactions:

• The domino effect: the future of quantifying compounding events in deltas
• Challenges in developing multi-hazard riskmodels from local to global scale

The domino effect: the future of quantifying compounding events in deltas

The “Domino effect” session integrated short presentations from those researching interactions of hazards (mostly in deltas), with a panel discussion session open to the audience. The discussion section on data issues highlighted the problems of data related to interacting hazards such as the lack of detailed data at an appropriate spatial scale to determine hazard interactions; and that loss data from cascading events are attributed to the primary hazard. The insurance industry was highlighted as a potential source of useful data; it is widely acknowledged that the insurance industry models what they commonly refer to as “secondary perils”. However, it is unclear precisely how they model these interactions, as they are not transparent in their methodology, or what data they potentially have access to (and whether they would be willing to share it). There is also a push for more and better data throughout the disaster community at the moment. This provides an excellent opportunity for the multi-hazards community to identify what data is needed to model and understand the interactions between hazards better, and therefore what data needs to be gathered now to develop our understanding of multi-hazards for the future.

Ways around the lack of data was also discussed – particularly focusing on the practical aspects of understanding multi-hazards for those on the ground. It was questioned whether we need to have all the data to model interactions to be able to make decisions and act on them in the present. For example, civil protection, non-governmental organisations, and communities have to make decisions about multi-hazards on a regular basis. These decisions cannot (and do not) wait for the science to catch up with needs. Therefore, what can we learn from those already dealing with multi-hazards? What do they need to make decisions? And are there any gaps that science can fill without having to collect vast amounts of data?

An agreement from the discussion was that community knowledge is not enough – often potential interactions between hazards are unknown as they go beyond historical or community memory. But similarly, science is currently not enough. A multi-disciplinary approach to multi-hazards is needed to push forward the field, but in a practical and useful way. The session showed promise for future collaborative work on the theme, with an inclusive approach to contributors to the topic, linking together those with a background and experience in the field, with those who have a newer, fresh perspective on the issue. In this way a range of skills and knowledge can be applied to the problem in a systematic way to produce useful outputs for the issue of multi-hazards.

Challenges in developing multi-hazard risk models from local to global scale

The “Multi-hazard risk models” session was opened by Mauro Dolce from the National Civil Protection Department, Italy. He echoed some of the discussion during the “Domino effects” session, highlighting that multi-hazard thinking is already intuitive even if there is a lack of quantitative data, for example, locating displaced people away from flood plains in the aftermath of an earthquake. Echoing the literature, he outlined the difficulties of comparing natural hazards, but was optimistic in using losses as a common measure of comparison between hazards. He said cascading effects are an example of complexity, and they represent a significant challenge in implementing fully multi-hazard risk models. Despite the difficulties, he emphasised that the growing complexity of modern society makes the occurrence of these effects more and more fatal and catastrophic. In conclusion, he promoted the need for the following:

• Close the gap between science and technology, and decision making
• Make information open, available, and accessible
• Develop standards for multi-hazard risk analysis
• Develop partnerships between natural hazard silos
• Develop a consistent capability of modelling multi-hazards globally. Including independent, concurrent, and triggered events.

Peter Salamon from the Joint Research Centre emphasised the need to bring a community together to focus on multi-hazards and their interactions and tackle the problem in a systematic and holistic way, including the suggestion of a multi-hazard focus group specifically designed for this purpose.

The discussion from this panel session focused on the possibility of creating a global multi-hazard model with one standardised approach, particularly looking at underlying risk and loss and impact of hazards to synthesise and compare them. The suggested approach seemed to indicate fusing the current global hazard models and organisations that currently exist (e.g. Global Earthquake Model, Global Volcano Model, Global Tsunami Model). It was suggested the Global Earthquake Model’s exposure database could be expanded to cover vulnerability to other hazards. Whilst this is a promising advancement for the multi-hazard field, and an achievable goal in the foreseeable future, there was a lack of discussion on how to include the interactions between hazards in this approach.

Multi-hazard buzz-word

The increase in attention being paid to multi-hazards and their interactions are clear in the number of sessions dealing with these issues at this international event. The increase in attention is likely related to the increased mention of multi-hazards and interacting effects in the 2015-2016 international agreements, such as the Sendai Framework. Whilst this is encouraging and promising for this niche area to be receiving increased attention, there is clear danger in everyone jumping on the newest buzz word without a clear understanding of what the issues are surrounding interacting hazards, and a thorough awareness of what has already been done in this area. As such there is a risk of duplicating work and thinking that has already taken place around multi-hazard issues, rather than pushing the sector forward with the added momentum and interest it has recently received.

N/B I was on the panel discussion for the “Domino effect” session, focusing on the data issues of interacting hazards. As such, this blog summary does not include all the issues discussed during the panel session, as I was unable to take notes.