The Asynergies of Structural Disaster Risk Reduction Measures: Comparing Floods and Earthquakes

Traditionally, building‐level disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures are aimed at a single natural hazard. However, in many countries the society faces the threat of multiple hazards. Building‐level DRR measures that aim to decrease earthquake vulnerability can have opposing or conflicting effects on flood vulnerability, and vice versa. In a case study of Afghanistan, we calculate the risk of floods and earthquakes, in terms of average annual losses (AAL), in the current situation. Next, we develop two DRR scenarios, where building‐level measures to reduce flood and earthquake risk are implemented. We use this to identify districts for which DRR measures of one hazard increase the risk of another hazard. We then also calculate the optimal situation between the two scenarios by, for each district, selecting the DRR scenario for which the AAL as a ratio of the total exposure is lowest. Finally, we assess the sensitivity of the total risk to each scenario. The optimal measure differs spatially throughout Afghanistan, but in most districts it is more beneficial to take flood DRR measures. However, in the districts where it is more beneficial to take earthquake measures, the reduction in risk is considerable (up to 40%, while flood DRR measures lead to a reduction in risk by 16% in individual districts). The introduction of asynergies between DRR measures in risk analyses allows policy‐makers to spatially differentiate building codes and other building‐level DRR measures to address the most prevalent risk while not compromising the risk resulting from other hazards

Exploring drought‐to‐flood interactions and dynamics: A global case review

This study synthesizes the current understanding of the hydrological, impact, and adaptation processes underlying drought‐to‐flood events (i.e., consecutive drought and flood events), and how they interact. Based on an analysis of literature and a global assessment of historic cases, we show how drought can affect flood risk and assess under which circumstances drought‐to‐flood interactions can lead to increased or decreased risk. We make a distinction between hydrological, socio‐economic and adaptation processes. Hydrological processes include storage and runoff processes, which both seem to mostly play a role when the drought is a multiyear event and when the flood occurs during the drought. However, which process is dominant when and where, and how this is influenced by human intervention needs further research. Processes related to socio‐economic impacts have been studied less than hydrological processes, but in general, changes in vulnerability seem to play an important role in increasing or decreasing drought‐to‐flood impacts. Additionally, there is evidence of increased water quality problems due to drought‐to‐flood events, when compared to drought or flood events by themselves. Adaptation affects both hydrological (e.g., through groundwater extraction) or socio‐economic (e.g., influencing vulnerability) processes. There are many examples of adaptation, but there is limited evidence of when and where certain processes occur and why. Overall, research on drought‐to‐flood events is scarce. To increase our understanding of drought‐to‐flood events we need more comprehensive studies on the underlying hydrological, socio‐economic, and adaptation processes and their interactions, as well as the circumstances that lead to the dominance of certain processes. This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Water Extreme

Review article: Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale

Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around $260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy community 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 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 identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, we show that global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards, have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whilst these are missing in global studies related to geological hazards. The methods used for projecting future exposure in the former could be applied to the geological studies. 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 dialogue on knowledge sharing between scientists and communities working on different hazards and at different spatial scales

Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale

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

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases:Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.</p

The challenge of unprecedented floods and droughts in risk management

Risk management has reduced vulnerability to floods and droughts globally1,2, yet their impacts are still increasing3. An improved understanding of the causes of changing impacts is therefore needed, but has been hampered by a lack of empirical data4,5. On the basis of a global dataset of 45 pairs of events that occurred within the same area, we show that risk management generally reduces the impacts of floods and droughts but faces difficulties in reducing the impacts of unprecedented events of a magnitude not previously experienced. If the second event was much more hazardous than the first, its impact was almost always higher. This is because management was not designed to deal with such extreme events: for example, they exceeded the design levels of levees and reservoirs. In two success stories, the impact of the second, more hazardous, event was lower, as a result of improved risk management governance and high investment in integrated management. The observed difficulty of managing unprecedented events is alarming, given that more extreme hydrological events are projected owing to climate change3

Invited perspectives: A research agenda towards disaster risk management pathways in multi-(hazard-)risk assessment

Whilst the last decades have seen a clear shift in emphasis from managing natural hazards to managing risk, the majority of natural-hazard risk research still focuses on single hazards. Internationally, there are calls for more attention for multi-hazards and multi-risks. Within the European Union (EU), the concepts of multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment and management have taken centre stage in recent years. In this perspective paper, we outline several key developments in multi-(hazard-)risk research in the last decade, with a particular focus on the EU. We present challenges for multi-(hazard-)risk management as outlined in several research projects and papers. We then present a research agenda for addressing these challenges. We argue for an approach that addresses multi-(hazard-)risk management through the lens of sustainability challenges that cut across sectors, regions, and hazards. In this approach, the starting point is a specific sustainability challenge, rather than an individual hazard or sector, and trade-offs and synergies are examined across sectors, regions, and hazards. We argue for in-depth case studies in which various approaches for multi-(hazard-)risk management are co-developed and tested in practice. Finally, we present a new pan-European research project in which our proposed research agenda will be implemented, with the goal of enabling stakeholders to develop forward-looking disaster risk management pathways that assess trade-offs and synergies of various strategies across sectors, hazards, and spatial scales

D1.2 Handbook of multi-hazard, multi-risk definitions and concepts

This report is the first output of Work Package 1: Diagnosis of the MYRIAD-EU project: Handbook of Multi-hazard, Multi-Risk Definitions and Concepts. The aim of the task was to (i) acknowledge the differences and promote consistency in understanding across subsequent work packages in the MYRIAD-EU project, (ii) improve the accessibility of our work to a broad array of stakeholders and (iii) strengthen consensus across the hazard and risk community through a common understanding of multi-hazard, multi-risk terminology and concepts. The work encompassed a mixed-methods approach, including internal consultations and data-generating exercises; literature reviews; external stakeholder engagement; adopting and building on a rich existing body of established glossaries. 140 terms are included in the glossary, 102 related to multi-hazard, multi-risk, disaster risk management and an additional 38 due to their relevance to the project, acknowledging the need for a common understanding amongst an interdisciplinary project consortium. We also include extended definitions related to concepts particularly of relevance to this project deliverable, including ‘multi-hazard’, ‘hazard interrelationships’, ‘multi-risk’ and ‘direct and indirect loss and risk’. Underpinned by a literature review and internal consultation, we include a specific section on indicators, how these might be applied within a multi-hazard and multi-risk context, and how existing indicators could be adapted to consider multi-risk management. We emphasise that there are a number of established glossaries that the project (and risk community) should make use of to strengthen the impact of the work we do, noting in our literature review a tendency in papers and reports to define words afresh. We conclude the report with a selection of key observations, including terminology matters – for all aspects of disaster risk management, for example communication, data collection, measuring progress and reporting against Sendai Framework targets. At the same time, we discuss when is it helpful to include ‘multi-‘ as a prefix, questioning whether part of the paradigm shift needed to successfully address complex challenges facing an interconnected world is through inherently seeing vulnerability, exposure and disaster risk through the lens of multiple, interrelated hazards. We emphasise that there is likely to be an evolution of the terminology throughout the project lifetime as terms are emerge or shift as the project evolves. Finally, we propose a roadmap for developing and testing draft multi-risk indicators in MYRIAD-EU. The WP1 team would like to acknowledge all the contributions of the consortium on this task and the feedback from the External Advisory Board, in particular the chair of the board Virginia Murray, Head of Global Disaster Risk Reduction at the UK Health Security Agency, and the contribution of Jenty Kirsch-Wood, Head of Global Risk Management and Reporting at UNDRR, for her reflections on the findings of this work