The dilemmas of risk-sensitive development on a small volcanic island

In the Small Islands Developing State (SIDS) of St Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean, the most destructive disasters in terms of human casualties have been the multiple eruptions of La Soufrière volcano situated in the north of St Vincent. Despite this major threat, people continue to live close to the volcano and national development plans do not include risk reduction measures for volcanic hazards. This paper examines the development options in volcanic SIDS and presents a number of conundrums for disaster risk management on the island of St Vincent. Improvements in monitoring of volcanic hazards and ongoing programmes to enhance communications systems and encourage community preparedness planning have increased awareness of the risks associated with volcanic hazards, yet this has not translated into more risk-informed development planning decisions. The current physical development plan in fact promotes investment in infrastructure in settlements located within the zone designated very high-hazard. However, this is not an anomaly or an irrational decision: severe space constraints in SIDS, as well as other historical social and economic factors, limit growth and options for low-risk development. Greater attention needs to be placed on developing measures to reduce risk, particularly from low-intensity hazards like ash, limiting where possible exposure to volcanic hazards and building the resilience of communities living in high-risk areas. This requires planning for both short- and longer-term impacts from renewed activity. Volcanic SIDS face multiple hazards because of their geography and topography, so development plans should identify these interconnected risks and options for their reduction, alongside measures aimed at improving personal preparedness plans so communities can learn to live with risk

Partial Orders with Respect to Continuous Covariates and Tests for the Proportional Hazards Model

Several omnibus tests of the proportional hazards assumption have been proposed in the literature. In the two-sample case, tests have also been developed against ordered alternatives like monotone hazard ratio and monotone ratio of cumulative hazards. Here we propose a natural extension of these partial orders to the case of continuous covariates. The work is motivated by applications in biomedicine and economics where covariate e¤ects often decay over lifetime. We develop tests for the proportional hazards assumption against ordered alternatives and propose a graphical method to identify the nature of departures from proportionality. The proposed tests do not make restrictive assumptions on the underlying regression model, and are applicable in the presence of multiple covariates and frailty. Small sample performance and applications to real data highlight the usefulness of the framework and methodology

Decision-analytic frameworks for multi-hazard mitigation and adaptation

Developing effective decision-support for multiple hazards needs to build on a foundation of existing research into best practices for the management of single hazards analysis. This comes from the hazards literature, recent and ongoing EU research projects, and from the climate vulnerability literature, in which the theoretical focus on multiple drivers of vulnerability is already well established. The first part of this task will rely on a desk study of established management practices and decision-analytic methods. The latter include several standard methods for conducting sound formal decision-analysis, including cost-benefit analysis, risk- benefit analysis, and multi-criteria analysis. Each of these has its strengths, weaknesses, and set to best practices in particular contexts. The second part of this task will identify these in the case of multiple hazards, and appraise how they may differ in their application and appropriateness from the single-hazard case. It will rely on an application of these modeling methods to the simulated city case study

Emerging tobacco hazards in China (multiple letters) [3]

published_or_final_versio

Development and validation of risk profiles of West African rural communities facing multiple natural hazards

West Africa has been described as a hotspot of climate change. The reliance on rain-fed agriculture by over 65% of the population means that vulnerability to climatic hazards such as droughts, rainstorms and floods will continue. Yet, the vulnerability and risk levels faced by different rural social-ecological systems (SES) affected by multiple hazards are poorly understood. To fill this gap, this study quantifies risk and vulnerability of rural communities to drought and floods. Risk is assessed using an indicator-based approach. A stepwise methodology is followed that combines participatory approaches with statistical, remote sensing and Geographic Information System techniques to develop community level vulnerability indices in three watersheds (Dano, Burkina Faso; Dassari, Benin; Vea, Ghana). The results show varying levels of risk profiles across the three watersheds. Statistically significant high levels of mean risk in the Dano area of Burkina Faso are found whilst communities in the Dassari area of Benin show low mean risk. The high risk in the Dano area results from, among other factors, underlying high exposure to droughts and rainstorms, longer dry season duration, low caloric intake per capita, and poor local institutions. The study introduces the concept of community impact score (CIS) to validate the indicator-based risk and vulnerability modelling. The CIS measures the cumulative impact of the occurrence of multiple hazards over five years. 65.3% of the variance in observed impact of hazards/CIS was explained by the risk models and communities with high simulated disaster risk generally follow areas with high observed disaster impacts. Results from this study will help disaster managers to better understand disaster risk and develop appropriate, inclusive and well integrated mitigation and adaptation plans at the local level. It fulfills the increasing need to balance global/regional assessments with community level assessments where major decisions against risk are actually taken and implemented

Observations from the EEFIT-TDMRC Mission to Sulawesi, Indonesia to Investigate the 28th September 2018 Central Sulawesi Earthquake

On the 28th September 2018 at 17:02 local time, an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 Mw hit Indonesia, with epicentre located 78km north of the city of Palu on Sulawesi Island. The earthquake ground shaking triggered four substantial landslides and several instances of liquefaction and land subsidence. Furthermore, a localised tsunami was triggered in Palu Bay, likely due to subsea landsliding. These hazards caused damage to over 70,000 properties and the deaths of at least 4,438 people. The UK Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT) and Indonesian Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Centre (TDMRC) conducted a joint reconnaissance mission to areas affected by the earthquake. This paper presents their main findings regarding these multiple hazards and their impacts on the built environment

Assisted assignment of automotive safety requirements

ISO 26262, a functional-safety standard, uses Automotive Safety Integrity Levels (ASILs) to assign safety requirements to automotive-system elements. System designers initially assign ASILs to system-level hazards and then allocate them to elements of the refined system architecture. Through ASIL decomposition, designers can divide a function & rsquo;s safety requirements among multiple components. However, in practice, manual ASIL decomposition is difficult and produces varying results. To overcome this problem, a new tool automates ASIL allocation and decomposition. It supports the system and software engineering life cycle by enabling users to efficiently allocate safety requirements regarding systematic failures in the design of critical embedded computer systems. The tool is applicable to industries with a similar concept of safety integrity levels. © 1984-2012 IEEE

Equity Analysis and Natural Hazards Policy

What is an "equitable" policy for mitigating the impacts of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other natural hazards. Economists tend to see "equity" or "distribution" as irreducibly political and subjective. But, in truth, equity analysis and cost-benefit analysis are on a par. Both require a normative justification. Moreover, normative argument can help structure equity analysis, just as it can with cost-benefit analysis. This paper argues that equity is a normative consideration distinct from efficiency or overall well-being. It then argues that equity is individualistic, not group-based; ex post, not ex ante; that the "currency" for equity consists in the multiple dimensions of well-being, not income or longevity; and that, at a minimum, equity analysis should be concerned to avoid serious deprivations with respect to any well-being dimension. The upshot is a set of concrete recommendations for how equity analysis of natural hazards policy should be structured.Environment, Regulatory Reform