The danger of mapping risk from multiple natural hazards

In recent decades, society has been greatly affected by natural disasters (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes), losses and effects caused by these disasters have been increasing. Conventionally, risk assessment focuses on individual hazards, but the importance of addressing multiple hazards is now recognised. Two approaches exist to assess risk from multiple-hazards; the risk index (addressing hazards, and the exposure and vulnerability of people or property at risk) and the mathematical statistics method (which integrates observations of past losses attributed to each hazard type). These approaches have not previously been compared. Our application of both to China clearly illustrates their inconsistency. For example, from 31 Chinese provinces assessed for multi-hazard risk, Gansu and Sichuan provinces are at low risk of life loss with the risk index approach, but high risk using the mathematical statistics approach. Similarly, Tibet is identified as being at almost the highest risk of economic loss using the risk index, but lowest risk under the mathematical statistics approach. Such inconsistency should be recognised if risk is to be managed effectively, whilst the practice of multi-hazard risk assessment needs to incorporate the relative advantages of both approaches

Workplace innovation: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation

Workplace innovation enables the development and improvement of products, processes and services leading simultaneously to improvement in organisational performance. This study has the purpose of examining the factor structure of workplace innovation. Survey data, extracted from the 2014 APS employee census, comprising 3,125 engineering professionals in the Commonwealth of Australia’s departments were analysed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA returned a two-factor structure explaining 69.1% of the variance of the construct. CFA revealed that a two-factor structure was indicated as a validated model (GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.08, RMR = 0.02, IFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98, and TLI = 0.96). Both factors showed good reliability of the scale (Individual creativity: α = 0.83, CR = 0.86, and AVE = 0.62; Team Innovation: α = 0.82, CR = 0.88, and AVE = 0.61). These results confirm that the two factors extracted for characterising workplace innovation included individual creativity and team innovation