Decision support for mitigation and adaptation in a multihazard. environment. Nadejda (Nadya) Komendantova

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Decision support for mitigation and adaptation in a multihazard. environment. Nadejda (Nadya) Komendantova"

Charlotte Campbell
5 years ago
Views:

1 Decision support for mitigation and adaptation in a multihazard environment Nadejda (Nadya) Komendantova

Natural risks and disasters are becoming an interactive mix of natural,

etc.) Individual hazards, however, are usually treated separately by

This leads to the spatial, temporal and causal relationships that often

2 Natural risks and disasters are becoming an interactive mix of natural, technological and social events (e.g. Katrina, Fukushima Di-Chi nuclear accident, Deepwater Horizon Oil spill, etc.) Individual hazards, however, are usually treated separately by scientists, engineers, disaster response managers and local authorities. This leads to the spatial, temporal and causal relationships that often exist between these hazards to be neglected. The same is true for the consequences of these interactions. These relationships and unforseen negative effects may amplify the risk to a community

3 Major Results Development of decision-support model for multi-risk assessment based on the principles of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Identification of scientific evidence of behavioral and cognitive biases in decision-making prior historical multi-hazard disasters; contribution to further development of Bayesian Information and Decision Theories Identification of institutional and societal barriers for implementation of multi-risk approach in two test sites: Naples (Italy) and Guadeloupe (France)

4 Decision-support tool

5 Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methodological approach that allows the structuring of the problem and identification of attributes relevant for decision making Set priorities following a group discussion consensus reaching Sensitivity analysis supports priority settings

6 Identification of Loss Parameters People Environment Fatalities damage to environmentally sensitive areas Casualties damage to the fluvial environment persons in need assistance for more than 2wks damage to ground water. persons in need assistance for up to 2wks damage to agricultural areas Economy Infrastructure direct losses interruption of fresh water supply Indirect losses interruption of energy supply Loss of economic power interruption of gas supply. Loss of tax revenues and earning power interruption of telecommunication Intangibles implications for public security political implications psychological implications loss to cultural values Source: Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK)

7 Quantify Preferences (weights) Source: Khazai et al., 2012

8 Source: Khazai et al., 2012

9 Usefulness of the decision-support tool for understanding of losses Source: Komendantova et al., 2013

10 Application of decision-support, recommendations from scientists: Understand the characteristics of the scenarios (quantified by the loss scores) Rank and compare risk scenarios to each other relative to one (or several) criteria Conduct interactive sensitivity analyses to detect the most significant factors in the ranking of scenarios Discuss ways to characterize uncertainties in the loss parameters Discuss ways to set priorities by determining how much greater risk one scenario poses over another

11 Application of decision-support tool, recommendations from civil protection stakeholders - Increasing transparency in decision making by breaking down complex decisions to components - Communication and education instrument to show impacts from different scenarios - Can be used by risk analysis experts - Understand potential human, economic, environmental, infrastructural and intangible losses and their specific distributions for each risk scenario

12 Individual perceptual and cognitive barriers to multihazard management

13 Biases in making choices and assessing probabilities Availability heuristics underestimation of events, which did not happen in near past Dread risk strong emotions to unknown risks and out of control Loss aversion ignorance of additional gains, overestimation of losses Bounded rationality limitation in ability and desire to collect information Limited worry mitigation of one most probable or serious hazard

14 Kobe Earthquake of 1995 Heavy roofing materials to stand tropical cyclones More vulnerable to earthquake 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Source: Kobe City Restoration Plan, %

15 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake 2004 Early warning systems oriented towards cyclones but not tsunami Emergency cyclone shelters 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

16 Tohoku earthquake 2011 Estimation of the size of tsunami Construction of nuclear power plant on the coast shore to mitigate earthquakes but not tsunami 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

17 Evidences of biases in historical cases Bias Availability heuristics 1995 Kobe earthquake 2004 Sumatra earthquake 2011 Tohoku earthquake Dread risk Loss aversion Bounded rationality Overconfidence Source: Komendantova et al., 2013

18 Institutional barriers to multi- hazard and risk governance

19 Cross-country co omparison Stepwise comparison Methodology Country level (Italy and French West Indies) desk study of the disaster cycle in diverse natural hazard contexts focus on institutional and regulatory frameworks Case studies (Napoli and Guadalupe) profiles of the key characteristics of risk governance primary investigations (in progress): semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, focus groups, feedback with experts Cross-cout try comparison 19

20 Governance characteristics Sets Governance level National role Regional/river basin role Municipal role Decision-support tools Hazard assessment and mitigation measures Exposure assessment Vulnerability assessment Risk mitigation measures Monitoring/warning system Emergency plan Cooperation and Public availability of hazard/risk assessment communication Planning integration at different levels Balance between governance tasks and resources Multi-stakeholders participation Responsibility on those at risk for protection

21 Governance level Napoli Guadeloupe NATIONAL ROLE 7 6 Seismic Vulcanic NATIONAL ROLE Seismic Vulcanic Cyclone Continental flood Fire Hydro geological Tsunami Marine inundation Erosion Ground movement 0 MUNICIPAL ROLE REGIONAL/RIVER BASIN ROLE MUNICIPAL ROLE REGIONAL ROLE [Evaluation provided on 1-7 Likert scale: 1 minimum, 7 maximum role] Source: Scolobig et al., 2013

22 Decision support tools and mitigation measures Napoli Guadeloupe EMERGENCY PLAN HAZARD ASSESSMENT Seismic Vulcanic Fire Hydro geological EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY PLAN HAZARD ASSESSMENT Seismic Vulcanic Cyclone Continental flood Tsunami Marine inundation Erosion Ground movement EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT MONITORING/WA RNING SYSTEM VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT MONITORING AND ALERT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT RISK MITIGATION MEASURES RISK MITIGATION MEASURES [Evaluation provided on 1-7 Likert scale: 1 minimum, 7 maximum availability] Source: Scolobig et al., 2013

23 Stakeholders cooperation and communication Napoli Guadeloupe RESPONSIBILITY ON THOSE AT RISK FOR PROTECTION PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF HAZARD/RISK ASSESSMENT Seismic Vulcanic Fire Hydro geological PLANNING INTEGRATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS RESPONSIBILITY ON THOSE AT RISK FOR PROTECTION PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF HAZARD/RISK ASSESSMENT Seismic Vulcanic Cyclone Continental flood Tsunami Marine inundation Erosion Ground movement PLANNING INTEGRATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS MULTISTAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION BALANCE BETWEEN GOVERNANCE TASKS AND RESOURCES CULTURE OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION BALANCE BETWEEN GOVERNANCE TASKS AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES [Evaluation provided on 1-7 Likert scale: 1 minimum, 7 maximum ] Source: Scolobig et al.,2013

24 Benefits of multi-risk approach Napoli Guadeloupe Benefits Global /holistic view Ѵ Ѵ Integration of natural and technological risks Ѵ Ѵ Development of global platforms (GIS, documents, education) Development of a transversal exchange system Development of a multi-risk functional center for warning Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

25 How local capacities may be strengthen within multi risk environments The creation of local multi-risk commissions, i.e., groups of local natural hazard advisors acting as the liaising bodies between local communities and risk management experts, can help to bridge the gap between the domains of knowledge pertaining to the numerous actors involved in natural hazards management and improve data use and access. The establishment of territorial databases and online platforms can facilitate a more efficient exchange of information on risk management between the private and public sectors

MATRIX New Multi-HAzard and MulTi-RIsK Assessment MethodS For Europe. Start: End:

MATRIX New Multi-HAzard and MulTi-RIsK Assessment MethodS For Europe Start: 1.10.2010 End: 31.9.2013 Countries: 10 Research: 10 12 Participants Industry: 1 End User: 1 6. ASPINALL, United Kingdom 7. KIT,