Review article: Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale
-
Published:2020-04-22
Issue:4
Volume:20
Page:1069-1096
-
ISSN:1684-9981
-
Container-title:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Ward Philip J., Blauhut VeitORCID, Bloemendaal NadiaORCID, Daniell James E.ORCID, de Ruiter Marleen C.ORCID, Duncan Melanie J., Emberson Robert, Jenkins Susanna F., Kirschbaum DaliaORCID, Kunz MichaelORCID, Mohr SusannaORCID, Muis SanneORCID, Riddell Graeme A., Schäfer AndreasORCID, Stanley ThomasORCID, Veldkamp Ted I. E.ORCID, Winsemius Hessel C.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around USD 260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy communities recognise the need to reduce these risks. As a result, the last decade has seen a rapid development of global models for assessing risk from natural hazards at the global scale. In this paper, we review the scientific literature on natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale, and we specifically examine whether and how they have examined future projections of hazard, exposure, and/or vulnerability. In doing so, we examine similarities and differences between the approaches taken across the different hazards, and we identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, there are a number of global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards that have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whereas fewer exist in the peer-reviewed literature for global studies related to geological hazards. On the other hand, studies of earthquake and tsunami risk are now using stochastic modelling approaches to allow for a fully probabilistic assessment of risk, which could benefit the modelling of risk from other hazards. Finally, we discuss opportunities for learning from methods and approaches being developed and applied to assess natural hazard risks at more continental or regional scales. Through this paper, we hope to
encourage further dialogue on knowledge sharing between disciplines and
communities working on different hazards and risk and at different spatial
scales.
Funder
Goddard Space Flight Center
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference219 articles.
1. Aerts, J. C. J. H., Botzen, W. J., Clarke, K. C., Cutter, S. L., Hall, J. W., Merz, B., Michel-Kerjan, E., Mysiak, J., Surminski, S., and Kunreuther, H.:
Integrating human behaviour dynamics into flood disaster risk assessment,
Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 193–199, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0085-1, 2018. 2. AghaKouchak, A., Huning, L. S., Chiang, F., Sadegh, M., Vahedifard, F.,
Mazdiyasni, O., Moftakhari, H., and Mallakpour, I.: How do natural hazards
cascade to cause disasters?, Nature, 561, 458–460,
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06783-6, 2018. 3. Ahlström, A., Schurgers, G., Arneth, A., and Smith, B.: Robustness and
uncertainty in terrestrial ecosystem carbon response to CMIP5 climate change
projections, Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 044008, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044008, 2012. 4. Alfieri, L., Bisselink, B., Dottori, F., Naumann, G., de Roo, A., Salamon, P., Wyser, K., and Feyen, L.: Global projections of river flood risk in a warmer world, Earth's Future, 5, 171–182, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000485, 2017. 5. Allen, J. T., Tippett, M. K., Sobel, A. H., and Lepore, C.: Understanding the
drivers of variability in severe convection: Bringing together the scientific and insurance communities, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, ES221–ES223,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0208.1, 2016.
Cited by
166 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|