Development of a Multi-Hazard Landscape for Exposure and Risk Interpretation: The PRISM Approach

Author(s): Kyle D. Buck*, Kevin J. Summers, Stephen Hafner, Lisa M. Smith, Linda C. Harwell.

Journal Name: Current Environmental Engineering
Continued as Current Environmental Management

Volume 6 , Issue 1 , 2019

Become EABM
Become Reviewer

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Background: Multi-hazard risk assessment has long been centered on small scale needs, whereby a single community or group of communities’ exposures are assessed to determine potential mitigation strategies. While this approach has advanced the understanding of hazard interactions, it is limiting on larger scales or when significantly different hazard types are present. In order to address some of these issues, an approach is developed where multiple hazards coalesce with losses into an index representing the risk landscape.

Methods: Exposures are assessed as a proportion of land-area, allowing for multiple hazards to be combined in a single calculation. Risk calculations are weighted by land-use types (built, dual-benefit, natural) in each county. This allows for a more detailed analysis of land impacts and removes some of the bias introduced by monetary losses in heavily urbanized counties.

Results: The results of the quantitative analysis show a landscape where the risk to natural systems is high and the western United States is exposed to a bulk of the risk. Land-use and temporal profiles exemplify a dynamic risk-scape.

Conclusion: The calculation of risk is meant to inform community decisions based on the unique set of hazards in that area over time.

Keywords: Climate, spatial, exposures, multi-hazard, index, land-use.

[1]
Wahlstrom M. Guha-Sapire The human cost of weather-related disasters 1995-2015. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 2015.
[2]
Chester DK, Degg M, Duncan AM, Guest JE. The increasing exposure of cities to the effects of volcanic eruptions: A global survey. Global Environ Change Part B: Environ Hazard 2000; 2(3): 89-103.
[3]
Lall SV, Deichmann W. Density and disasters: Economics of urban hazard risk. World Bank Res Obs 2010; 27(1): 74-105.
[4]
Garschagen M, Romero-Lankao P. Exploring the relationships between urbanization trends and climate change vulnerability. Clim Change 2015; 133(1): 37-52.
[5]
Güneralp B, Güneralp I, Liu Y. Changing global patterns of urban exposure to flood and drought hazards. Glob Environ Change 2015; 31: 217-25.
[6]
Miletti D. Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press: Washington, D.C. 1999.
[7]
Cutter S, Burton C, Emrich C. Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. J Homel Secur Emerg Manage 2010; 7(1): 51.
[8]
Field C, Barros V, Stocker B, et al. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, and New York, 2012.
[9]
Burton I, Kates RW. The perception of natural hazards in resource management. Nat Resour J 1964; 3(3): 412-41.
[10]
Hewitt K, Burton I. The Hazardousness of a Place: A Regional Ecology of Damaging Events. University of Toronto Press 1971.
[11]
Cutter SL, Solecki WD. The national pattern of airborne toxic releases. Prof Geogr 1989; 41(2): 149-61.
[12]
Cutter SL. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 1996; 20(4): 529-39.
[13]
Bell R, Glade T. Multi-hazard analysis in natural risk assessments. WIT Trans State Art Sci Eng 2011; 53: 1-10.
[14]
Thierry P. Multi-hazard risk mapping and assessment on an active volcano: The GRINP project at Mount Cameroon. Nat Hazards 2008; 45(3): 429-56.
[15]
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology: Flood Model Hazus-MH Technical Manual. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Division. Washington, D.C. 2013.
[16]
Schmidt-Thome P. ESPON Project 1.3.1 - Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European regions. Geological Survey of Finland, 2006.
[17]
Tate E, Burton C, Berry M, Emrich C, Cutter S. Integrated hazards mapping tool. Trans GIS 2011; 15(5): 689-706.
[18]
Batista MJ, Martins L, Costa C, et al. Preliminary results of a risk assessment study for uranium contamination in central Portugal. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Environmental Contamination from Uranium Production Facilities and Remediation Measures, ITN/DPRSN, Lisboa: 2004.
[19]
Fleischauer M, Grieving S, Schlusemann B, et al. Multi-risk assessment of spatially relevant hazards in Europe, ESPON ESMG Symposium. Nürnberg. vol. 14, 2005
[20]
Greiving S, Fleischhauer M, Lückenkötter J. A methodology for an integrated risk assessment of spatially relevant hazards. J Environ Plann Manage 2006; 49(1): 1-19.
[21]
Kappes M, Keiler M, Elverfeldt K, Glade T. Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: A review. Nat Hazards 2012; 64: 1925-58.
[22]
Reser JP. The experience of natural disasters: Psychological Perspectives and Understandings. In: Lidstone J, Dechano LM, Stoltman JP. eds. International Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and Consequences. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research Vol 21. Springer: Dordrecht 2007.
[23]
Watson JT, Gayer M, Connolly MA. Epidemics after natural disasters. Emerg Infect Dis 2007; 13(1): 1-5.
[24]
Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone M, Di Ruocco A. Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: A case study in Italy. Nat Hazards 2012; 62: 551-73.
[25]
U.S. Census. Substantial Changes to Counties and County Equivalent Entities: 1970-Present. Available at https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/county-changes.html (Accessed On May 24, 2018).
[26]
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ArcGIS Release 10.3. Redlands, CA, 2014.
[27]
Homer C, Dewitz J, Yang L, et al. Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 2015; 81(5): 345-54.
[28]
Simpson R, Reihl H. The hurricane and its impact. Louisiana State University Press: Baton Rouge, London 1981.
[29]
Weatherford C, Gray W. Typhoon structure as revealed by aircraft reconnaissance. Part II: Structural variability. Mon Weather Rev 1988; 116: 1044-56.
[30]
Zhu P. A multiple scale modeling system for coastal hurricane wind damage mitigation. Nat Hazards 2008; 47: 577.
[31]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information, Storm Events Database. Available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/ftp.jsp
[32]
Brooks H. On the relationship of tornado path length and width to intensity. Weather Forecast 2004; 19: 310-9.
[33]
U.S. Geological Survey. Earthquake Hazards Program: U.S. Seismic Design Maps: U.S. Geological Survey, 2003. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5066/ F7MC8X8S. (Accessed On May 24, 2018).
[34]
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Recommended Seismic Provisions For New Buildings and Other Structures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2009. (FEMA P-750).
[35]
Hawbaker TJ, Vanderhoof MK, Beal YG, et al. Landsat burned area essential climate variable products for the conterminous United States (1984-2015). US Geological Survey Data Release. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5066/F73B5X76.
[36]
National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). United States Drought Monitor Database, 2017. Available at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAnd Data/GISData.aspx
[37]
National Weather Service (NWS). Severe Weather Database Files (1950-2016). NOAA NWS. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data
[38]
National Weather Service (NWS). Storm Data Preparation Directive National Weather Service Instruction 10-1605. National Weather Service 2007.
[39]
Radbruch-Hall D, Colton R, Davies W, Lucchitta I, Skipp B, Varnes D. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183. U.S. Geological Survey: Washington 1982.
[40]
King P, Beikman H. Geologic map of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii) U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:2,500,000, 2 sheets, 1974.
[41]
Bove M, O’Brien J, Eisner J, Landsea C, Niu X. Effect of El Nino on U.S. Landfalling hurricanes, revisited. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 1998; 79(11): 2477-82.
[42]
Schaefer J, Kelly D, Abbey R. A minimum assumption tornado-hazard probability model. J Clim Appl Meteorol 196(25): 1934-45.
[43]
Parris A, Bromirski P, Burkett V, et al. Global sea level rise scenarios for the US National climate assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1. 2012. Available at http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/ 2012/NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf
[44]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (USNRC). Emergency Preparedness at Nuclear Power Plants. 2014. Available from: www.nrc.gov (Accessed On May 24, 2018).
[45]
Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute (HVRI). Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, Version 15.2. [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina, 2016.
[46]
Hey D, Philippi N. Flood reduction through wetland restoration: The upper Mississippi river basin as a case history. Restor Ecol 1995; 3(1): 4-17.
[47]
Zou L, Kent J, Lam NS, Cai H. Qiang Yi, Li K. Evaluating land subsidence rates and their implications for land loss in the lower Mississippi River Basin. Water 2016; 8(1): 10-25.
[48]
Holling CS. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems; local surprise and global change. Clark WC, Munn RE, eds. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K. 1986.
[49]
Bobrowsky PT. Encyclopedia of natural hazards. Springer Dordrecht 2013.
[50]
Summers JK, Smith LM, Harwell LC, Buck KD. Conceptualizing holistic community resilience to climate events: Foundation for a climate resilience screening index. GeoHealth 2017.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016HG000047]


Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 6
ISSUE: 1
Year: 2019
Page: [74 - 94]
Pages: 21
DOI: 10.2174/2212717806666190204103455
Price: $58

Article Metrics

PDF: 62
HTML: 3