Challenges in assessing and managing multi-hazard risks: a European stakeholders perspective

The latest evidence suggests that multi-hazards and their interrelationships (e.g., triggering, compound, and consecutive hazards) are becoming more frequent across Europe, underlying a need for resilience building by moving from single-hazard-focused to multi-hazard risk assessment and management. Although significant advancements were made in our understanding of these events, mainstream practice is still focused on risks due to single hazards (e.g., flooding, earthquakes, droughts), with a limited understanding of the stakeholder needs on the ground. To overcome this limitation, this paper sets out to understand the challenges for moving towards multi-hazard risk management through the perspective of European stakeholders. Based on five workshops across different European pilots (Danube Region, Veneto Region, Scandinavia, North Sea, and Canary Islands) and an expert workshop, we identify five prime challenges: i) governance, ii) knowledge of multi-hazards and multi-risks, iii) existing approaches to disaster risk management, iv) translation of science to policy and practice, and v) lack of data. These challenges are inherently linked and cannot be tackled in isolation with path dependency posing a significant hurdle in transitioning from single- to multi-hazard risk management. Going forward, we identify promising approaches for overcoming some of the challenges, including emerging approaches for multi-hazard characterisation, a common understanding of terminology, and a comprehensive framework for guiding multi-hazard risk assessment and management. We argue for a need to think beyond natural hazards and include other threats in creating a comprehensive overview of multi-hazard risks, as well as promoting thinking of multi-hazard risk reduction in the context of larger development goals

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

Developing a framework for the assessment of current and future flood risk in Venice, Italy

Flooding has been a serious risk to the old-town of Venice, its residents and cultural heritage and continues to be a challenge in future. Despite this existence-defining condition, limited scientific knowledge on flood hazard and flood damage modelling of the old-town of Venice is available to support decisions to mitigate existing and future flood risk. Therefore, this study proposes a risk assessment framework to provide a methodical and flexible instrument for decision-making for flood risk management in Venice. It uses a state-of-the-art hydrodynamic urban model to identify the hazard characteristics inside the city of Venice. Exposure, vulnerability and corresponding damages are modelled by the multi-parametric, micro-scale damage model INSYDE transferred and adapted to the specific context of Venice with its dense urban structure and high risk awareness. A set of individual protection scenarios is implemented to account for possible variability of flood preparedness of the residents. The developed risk assessment framework was tested for the flood event of 12 November 2019. It was able to reproduce flood characteristics and resulting damages well. A scenario analysis based on the meteorological event like 12 November 2019 was conducted to derive flood damage estimates for the year 2060 for a set of sea level rise scenarios in combination with a (partially) functioning storm surge barrier MOSE. The analysis suggests that a functioning MOSE barrier could prevent flood damages for the considered storm event and all sea level scenarios almost entirely. It could reduce the damages by up to 34 % for optimistic sea level rise prognosis. Contrary, damages could be 1.08 to 5.92 times higher in 2060 compared to 2019 for a partial closure of the storm surge barrier depending on different levels of individual protection.The submitted thesis will be published as a paper. Therefore, a 'review' document is added along with the main paper and the supplementary material as required according to the Board of Examiners.Civil Engineering | Hydraulic Engineering | Hydraulic Structures and Flood Ris

Interim report on collaborative systems and DAPP approaches to develop forward looking DRM pathways

<p>This report presents findings on two key aspects of developing forward-looking DRM pathways: (1) feedback from pilot leads on their experience with implementing the proposed collaborative systems analysis approach outlined previously in D6.2 during the first round of pilot workshops (PW1), and; (2) DAPP-MR – the proposed, staged, iterative analytical process to follow to facilitate the assessment of multiple possible pathways to adapt to current and future multi-risk challenges.</p><p>Collaborative systems analysis approach</p><p>In Task 6.1, we developed an approach for collaborative systems analysis to allow decision-makers and policymakers to accurately describe their DRM decision-making contexts. This description serves as the foundation for the development of forward-looking DRM pathways. The proposed approach therefore serves as a means by which to undertake the first step of the DAPP-MR approach (Figure 4 in this report) and the equivalent context setting-related elements of the proposed MYRIAD-EU framework for systemic multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment and management. Some of the pilots applied several of the collaborative tools that were presented in D6.2 according to which pilot teams felt most comfortable and were relevant to their workshop activities and practical needs (e.g., virtual versus in-person settings). Although the collaborative systems analysis approach was not applied either systematically or in full by any pilot, this was not the intention within the context of PW1, which also had other priorities. In general, pilots conducted relatively shallow analyses of their systems together with stakeholders, focussing primarily on those aspects relating most to step 1 of the MYRIAD-EU framework. Nevertheless, the pilots were generally positive about the proposed approach and its ability to achieve its objectives. The authors look forward to the pilots deepening their analyses though (adapted) applications of the remainder of the proposed approach as they move towards assessing risks and options and developing DRM pathways during subsequent pilot meetings.</p><p>DAPP-MR</p><p>Building on the existing Dynamic Adaptation Policy Pathways (DAPP) approach, DAPP-MR is proposed to guide the assessment and evaluation of multiple adaptation pathways to current and future multi-risk challenges. The approach aims to systematically consider the three key themes relevant to the design of multi-risk DRM pathways: (1) the effects of multiple, interacting hazards; (2) the dynamics and interdependencies of sectors; and (3) the trade-offs and synergies of DRM policy options across different sectors and different spatial and temporal scales. It does so by proposing three, iterative stages of the first four steps of the DAPP policy analysis cycle to gradually build up problem complexity:</p><p>• Stage 1: DAPP-MR starts with a single-sector, single-hazard perspective.</p><p>• Stage 2: Subsequently, all single-hazard considerations are integrated per sector to result in a single-sector, multi-hazard perspective.</p><p>• Stage 3: The single-sector, multi-hazard information is integrated into a multi-sector, multi-hazard</p><p>DAPP-MR has been applied in a synthetic multi-risk case study to prove its utility. An integrated assessment meta-model was used to quantitatively stress test potential DRM adaptation measures and pathways, with these evaluated according to one or two criteria: pathway robustness across all stages of the analysis, and pathway interdependency across stages 2 and 3. The results highlighted the complexity of assessing the effectiveness of flood and drought risk reduction measures, particularly in the context of multi-hazard interactions. The interactions between different pathways, their timing, and the presence of other sector-hazard DRM measures all play significant roles in determining overall outcomes. However, the staged approach helps to illuminate pathways which remained valid under increasing complexity.</p&gt

Proposing DAPP-MR as a disaster risk management pathways framework for complex, dynamic multi-risk

Climate change impacts are increasingly complex owing to compounding, interacting, and cascading risks across sectors. However, approaches to support Disaster Risk Management (DRM) addressing the underlying (uncertain) risk driver interactions are still lacking. We tailor the approach of Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) to DAPP-MR to design DRM pathways for complex, dynamic multi-risk in multi-sector systems. We review the recent multi-hazard and multi-sector research to identify relevant aspects of multi-risk management frameworks and illustrate the suitability of DAPP-MR using a stylized case. It is found that rearranging the analytical steps of DAPP by introducing three iteration stages can help to capture interactions, trade-offs, and synergies across hazards and sectors. We show that DAPP-MR may guide multi-sector processes to stepwise integrate knowledge toward multi-risk management. DAPP-MR can be seen as an analytical basis and first step toward an operational, integrative, and interactive framework for short-to long-term multi-risk DRM

Evaluating Adaptation Pathways in a Complex Multi‐Risk System

Abstract Disaster Risk Management (DRM) is complex due to interacting climate risks from interacting hazards and sectors. We develop a synthetic multi‐risk test case to explore the effects of these interactions on decision‐making under deep uncertainty. The test case accounts for changes in hazard impacts and occurrence frequency due to interactions between floods and droughts. Interactions between the shipping, housing and agricultural sectors are considered as well. We use this test case to explore the utility of the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for Multi‐Risk (DAPP‐MR) framework. DAPP‐MR has been introduced to assess DRM policies' effectiveness under deep uncertainties and to develop integrated adaptive strategies considering interactions across hazards, sectors and time. With the test case, we show that the stage‐wise approach of DAPP‐MR, which gradually increases the complexity of the analysis, can facilitate the evaluation process. Earlier stages of the analysis can be used to establish the direct cause‐effect relations, later stages allow us to identify whether additional interacting factors have a significant effect on the direct cause‐effect relations. As a result, decision‐makers can gain insights into dependencies and their relevance for developing short‐to long‐term strategies under deep uncertainty. We show that multi‐risk interactions can lead to non‐linear effects that influence the outcome of the policy analysis, for example, the indirect influence of a decision in one sector on another. Future work could investigate further improving the operationalization of this staged approach as well as extending the set of uncertainties, dynamics and decision‐rules accounted for in the multi‐risk test case