Framework for Comprehensive Assessment of a City's Natural Disaster Risk

Abstract

Most traditional regional natural disaster risk assessments use either engineering-based loss estimation modeling that focuses on probabilistic assessment of damage to the physical infrastructure, or a social science–based index approach that focuses on assessing vulnerability or resilience of the people exposed. Both have important strengths, but to date, the two have remained largely separate. In this paper, we introduce a new framework for comprehensive assessment of a city's natural disaster risk that aims to integrate the strengths of the two approaches into a single method that can be used to assess a city's risk. The framework essentially extends the probabilistic engineering loss estimation framework to include social resilience in a way that treats social resilience and physical infrastructure damage equally with a parallel structure. We illustrate application of the framework through a case study application to the seismically active city of Padang, Indonesia.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainuddin

and Routray

J. K.

2012. Earthquake hazards and community resilience in Baluchistan, Natural Hazards 63(2), 909–937.

Beck

Shepard

Birkmann

Rhyner

Welle

Witting

Wolfertz

Martens

Maurer

Mucke

and Radtke

2012. World Risk Report 2012, Alliance Development Works, Berlin, Germany, available at http://www.worldriskreport.com/uploads/media/WRR_2012_en_online.pdf.

Bendimerad

2001. Loss estimation: a powerful tool for risk assessment and mitigation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21, 467–472.

Birkmann

2007. Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications, Environmental Hazards 7, 20–31.

Birkmann

Cardona

O. D.

Carreño

M. L.

Barbat

A. H.

Pelling

Schneiderbauer

Kienberger

Keiler

Alexander

Zeil

and Welle

2013. Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework, Natural Hazards 67, 193–211.

Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB), 2009. West Sumatra and Jambi Natural Disasters: Damage, Loss and Preliminary Needs Assessment, East Jakarta, Indonesia.

Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS), 2012. Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (SUSENAS) Modul Sosial, Budaya dan Pendidikan (MSBP), available at http://sirusa.bps.go.id/index.php?r=sd/view&kd=2535&th=2012.

Badan Pusat Statistic Kota Padang (BPSKP), 1994–2010. Padang dalam angka: Padang in figures, Padang.

Brink

S. A.

2013. Framework for a Comprehensive Assessment of a City's Natural Disaster Risk with a Case Study for Earthquake Risk in Padang, Indonesia, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark.

10.

Cardona

O. D.

2005. Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management: Main Technical Report, Institute of Environmental Studies, National University of Colombia, Inter-American Development Bank, available at http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co/documentos/Main%20technical%20report%20IDEA.pdf.

11.

Carreño

M. L.

Cardona

O. D.

and Barbat

A. H.

2007. Urban seismic risk evaluation: A holistic approach, Natural Hazards 40, 137–172.

12.

Carreno

Cardona

and Barbat

2012. New methodology for urban seismic risk assessment from a holistic perspective, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 10, 547–565.

13.

Chakraborty

Tobin

G. A.

and Montz

B. E.

2005. Population evacuation: Assessing spatial variability in geophysical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards, Natural Hazards Review 6, 23–33.

14.

Colombijn

1996. City profile: Padang, Cities 13, 281–288.

15.

Colombijn

1994. Patches of Padang: The History of an Indonesian Town in the Twentieth Century and the Use of Urban Space, Research School CNWS, Leiden, The Netherlands, 428 pp.

16.

Cornell

C. A.

1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58, 1583–1606.

17.

Cutter

S. L.

Carolina

Boruff

B. J.

and Shirley

W. L.

2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards, Social Science Quarterly 84, 242–261.

18.

Cutter

S. L.

Barnes

Berry

Burton

Evans

Tate

and Webb

2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters, Global Environmental Change 18, 598–606.

19.

Cutter

S. L.

Carolina

Burton

C. G.

and Emrich

C. T.

2010. Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7, Article 51.

20.

Davidson

1997. A multidisciplinary urban earthquake disaster risk index, Earthquake Spectra 13, 211–223.

21.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security (FEMA), 2003. HAZUS-MH Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model – Technical Manual, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.fema.gov/.

22.

Frankel

A. D.

Petersen

M. D.

Mueller

C. S.

Haller

K. M.

Wheeler

R. L.

Leyendecker

E. V.

Wesson

R. L.

Harmsen

S. C.

Cramer

C. H.

Perkins

D. M.

and Rukstales

K. S.

2002. Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–420, U.S. Geological Survey, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02–420/OFR-02–420.pdf.

23.

Global Earthquake Model (GEM), n.d. http://www.globalquakemodel.org/ (last accessed 17 February 2014).

24.

Han

and Davidson

2012. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for spatially distributed infrastructure, Earthquake Engineering & Strutural Dynamics 41, 2141–2158.

25.

Hufschmidt

2011. A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts, Natural Hazards 58, 621–643.

26.

Jayaram

and Baker

2010. Efficient sampling and data reduction techniques for probabilistic seismic lifeline risk assessment, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 39, 1109–1131.

27.

Kircher

C. A.

Whitman

R. V.

and Holmes

W. T.

2006. HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methods, Natural Hazards Review 7, 45–59.

28.

McGuire

R. K.

2004. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, 240 pp.

29.

Montz

B. E.

Blackman

and Halupke

2005. Hurricane Charley and changing vulnerability: An analysis of spatial and temporal changes, The Florida Geographer 36, 6–22.

30.

Norris

F. H.

Stevens

S. P.

Pfefferbaum

Wyche

K. F.

and Pfefferbaum

R. L.

2008. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness, American Journal of Community Psychology 41, 127–150.

31.

Peduzzi

Dao

Herold

and Mouton

2009. Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the disaster risk index, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 1149–1159.

32.

Perry

R. W.

2007. What is a disaster?, in Handbook of Disaster Research ( Rodríguez

, Quarantelli

E. L.

and Dynes

R. R.

, Eds.), Springer, New York, 1–15.

33.

Petersen

Harmsen

Mueller

Haller

Dewey

Luco

Crone

Lidke

and Rukstales

2007. Documentation for the Southeast Asia Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geological Survey, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/images/SEASIA_2007.pdf.

34.

Rashed

and Weeks

2003. Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17, 547–576.

35.

Rose

2009. Economic resilience to disasters, Published Articles & Papers, Paper 75, available at http://research.create.usc.edu/published_papers/75.

36.

Sapountzaki

2012. Vulnerability management by means of resilience, Natural Hazards 60, 1267–1285.

37.

Schmidtlein

M. C.

Shafer

J. M.

Berry

and Cutter

S. L.

2011. Modeled earthquake losses and social vulnerability in Charleston, South Carolina, Applied Geography 31, 269–281.

38.

Sengara

I. W.

Suarjana

Beetham

Corby

Edwards

Griffith

Wehner

and Weller

2010. The 30th September 2009 West Sumatra Earthquake, GeoScience Australia Record 2010/44, Canberra, Australia.

39.

Vaziri

Davidson

Apivatanagul

and Nozick

2012. Identification of hazard-consistent probabilistic earthquake scenarios for regional loss estimation, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 16, 296–315.