Disaster Risk Assessme and Management and ent Applications of CAPRA s

Manzul Kumar Hazarika, AIT, Thailand With contrib butions from Gabriel Bernal, UPC, Spain Francis Ghesquiere, T World Bank, USA The

Defining Disaster Risk

Potential Hazard Hazard (H) is a phenomenon or situation, which has the potential to cause disruption or damage to people, their property, their services and their environment. Hazar is a probability rd It is re estricted for a given period of time It is va for a specified area alid The ev has a certain intensity or magnitude vent

Vulnerable Area V l ble A

Elements at Risk

Risk ~ Hazard Risk ~ Hazard x Vulnerability Risk ~ Hazard x Vulnerability/Capacity

Stru uctural Measures Qua antitative Risk Assessment Qua alitative Risk Assessment, CBDRM

Risk is Also a Spatial Pro oblem

Hazard: How big is the flood (10 yr 50 yr 100 yr )? yr., yr. r.)? r Vulnerability: What is the depth of water in eleme at risk? ents Elements at risk: Which elements are getting aff fected?

How to Assess Risk Spatially y?

Risk = Hazard x Physical Vu ulnerability
(Degree of losses to elements at risk) s

Amount/Number
(Quantification of exposed elements)

(Probability of occurrence)

Hazard
Damag (%) ge

Vulner rability

Elements at risk

5 1025 100
Flood Depth or Intensity

Type of hazard Intensity Duration Spatial E t t S ti l Extent

Exposure Overlay of hazard & element at risk d

Type of elements at T f l t t risk Numbers Economic value Location L ti

Importance of Disaster Risk Assessment k

Disaster risk assessment important for deve elopment and risk reduction decision making; Risk assessment provides a good platform f advocacy with the policy or decision maker; for Evidence provided by risk assessments help to get political support and mobilize resources; ps Risk assessment along with cost-benefit ana alysis can help in prioritizing DRR investments; Risk Assessments are b i commissioned iin many cities (D lhi A Ri k A t being i i d iti (Delhi, Amman, Dh k etc.). Dhaka t ) Challenges Significant increase in scientifically-based and community-based (VCA) risk assessments, but without much convergence; Limited collaborations among the various players involved in risk assessments; Risk assessment need variety of data, but d sharing/inter-operability remains a challenge. data

Disaster Risk is Increasing

Main driver of disaster risk is the rapidly incr reasing exposure; Poorer countries have disproportionately hig mortality/GDP risk. gher Absolute and Relative Exposure of Top Asi Countries: ian
R Rank Flood Absolute (Million)
Bangladesh1 (19.2)

Cyclone Relative (%) Absolute (Million)

Philippines2(20.7 7) China3(11.1) India4(10.7 7) Bangladesh6(7.5 5)

Relative (%)

Earthquake Absolute Relative (Million) (%)

Japan1(13.4) Vanuatu1 (60.4) Solomon Isl.2 (36.3) Tonga6 (21.1)

1 2 3 4 5

Cambodia1 (12.2)

Japan1 (30.9 North Marina Isl.2 (58.2) 9)

India2 (15.8) Bangladesh2 (12.1) China3 (3.9) Vietnam4 (3.4) Cambodia5 (1.7) Vietnam3 (3.9) Bhutan4 (1.7) India5 (1.4)

Niue9 (25.4) Philippines2(12.1) Japan10 (24.2) Indonesia3 (11.0) Philippines11 (23.6) Fiji12 (23.1)

China4 (8.1) Papua New G..9 (17.5) India8 (3.3) Philippines12 (13.8)

Source: Asia Pacific Disaster Report, 2010

HFA and Disaster Risk Asses ssment/Disaster Management

HFA Priority Actions Action 1: Ensure that DRR is a priority Action 2: Identify, assess, and monitor , disaster risks Action 3: Knowledge & education to build a culture of safety Action 4: Reduce underlying risk f t d l i i k factors Action 5: Preparedness for effective Response p Activities Legislation to support DRR nts Risk assessmen Early warning y g Research in multihazard risk Public awarenes ss Land-use plannin ng B ildi regulatio Building l tion e Review/exercise p p preparedness an nd contingency plan ns Challenges Reported Political inertia in approving legislations Lack of technical/financial capacities Difficulty in early warning at very local level y y g y Multi-hazard risk ass. remains a weak area Gap in risk communication for public awareness Weak enforcement of land-use planning Diffi lti iin iimplementing b ildi codes Difficulties l ti building d Eighty percent countries have contingency p plans to deal with major disasters j

Framework for Disaster Risk A Assessment and Disaster Disinventar Management

Environmental Factors
Geology Soil Land-use Topography Hydrology

Triggering Factors
Rainfall Volcanic Eruption Earthquake q

Hazard Inventory
Landslid de Flood Drought Cyclone ake Earthqua

Elements at Risk
Buildings Infrastructures Population Critical Facilities Lifelines

Socio-Economic Factors
Livelihoods Literacy Gender Poverty Culture

Community Approach Spatial-Temporal Probability Damage-intensity Relationships Seasonal Calendar S lC l d Transect Walk

Risk

Hazard

Vulnerability

Quantitative Risk Assessment (Absolute Risk)

Qualitative Risk Assessment (Relative Risk)

Disaster Ma anagement Disaster Mitigation (Disaster Risk Management)

8

Disaster Pr reparedness

Disaster Response

Disaster Recovery

Hazard Assessment by Mo odeling

Discharge (cu umecs)

Historical river discharge record was analyzed to find the frequency-magnitude th f it d relationship for flood

Discharge vs Return Period 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1.00

Modeling
10.00 Return period (years) 100.00

20 Year

50 Year

100 Year

Flood hazard maps obtained from a flood model (Kalu-Ganga Basin, Sri Lanka)

Hazard Assessment by Par rticipatory/Community Approach

10

Flood Haz Assessment zard 20 years flood - Depth up to 90 cm 50 years flood - Depth up to 250 cm 100 years flood - Depth up to 400 cm

Vulnerability Assessment
Types of Vulnerability Quantitative Vulnerability Qualitative Vulnerability

1) Physical Detail Survey e.g., types and locations of buildings (Scientific) (S i tifi ) 2) Economic e.g., non-diversified livelihoods, pove etc.) erty 3) E i Environmental/natural t l/ t l e.g., destruction of natural barriers e etc.) 4) Individual e.g., age, gender, skill etc.) 5) Social e.g., poor lleadership etc.) d hi t )
11

Questionnaire Survey (Traditional VCA)

Quantitative Vulnerability Assessment

12

Qualitative Vulnerability Ass sessment for Flood

Contributing Factors
Sensitivity

Major Co omponents
Demogr p Standing graphic g Land L Rural Standing g Water

Sub-Components
Gender Age Groups Health Condition

VULNERABILITY

Exposure

Adaptive Capacity
Flood Depth Duration of Flood Events

Income Livelihood

Sub-Components

Major Components j p
Assets

Exposure: Intensity and duration of flood events Adaptive Capacity: C Ad ti C it Communityd ability t withstand or recover f it d bilit to ith t d r from fl d events flood t Sensitivity: Degree to which the community is affected by flood events.
13

Contributing Factors

Hanh et al., 2009

Field Data Collection for Qua alitative Vulnerability Assessment

Contributing Factor Sensitivity (S) Major Components Sub-C Components Demographic standing Gender, Age, H Health Accessibility, p proximity to market Well, bore-welll, tap water Ownership, siz land-use ze, Amount, Amount sourc ces House types/s vehicle size, Agriculture, bu usiness, jobs Flood frequenc flood depth cy,

Rural standing Water Land Adaptive Capacity (A) Income Assets Livelihoods Exposure (E) Past flood events

14

Qualitative Flood Vulnerability Map

S (HH)
Flood Vulnera ability Index Sensitivity (S) Adaptive Capacity (A) Exposure (E) 0.2402 0.4355 0 4355 0.7201

FVI=0.11481 FVI=0. 481 FVI 0.55 FVI=0.55047 FVI=0.5 FVI=05047 FVI=0.8 8490
FVI=0.8 8490

0.4575 0.4711 0 4711 0.6222

0.5749 0.3235 0 3235 0.3158

E (HH)

A (HH)

15

Quantitative (Absolute) Risk Assessment

Risk = Hazard x Physical Vulnerability x Amoun nt Hazard (H) Amount (A) = Probability of occurrence of a hazard (0 to 1) = Value of the element (s) a risk at Vulnerability (V) = Degree of loss to a given element (s) at risk, 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss).

US $ 200,000 V = 0.6 US $ 50,000 , V = 0.1 V=1

US $ 100,000

10 years Flood

Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability x Amount = 0.1 * ((0.6*200,000) + (1 * 50,000) + (0.1*10 ((0.6 200,000) (0.1 10 00,000) ) = 0.1 * 180,000 = 16,000 $
16

Quantitative Risk Map for Flood in Sri Lanka

Hazard Quantitative Vuln nerability

Amount of loss for various types of buildings

Flood Risk Map

17

Qualitative Risk Map for F Flood in Sri Lanka

Hazard Qualitative Vulnerability

18

COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH FOR PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT

CAPRA was developed by, s p y

Consortiu ERN-AL um
19

CAPRA Initiative
Risk analysis methodology

Hazard

Physical P D Damage Vulnerability

Loss Estimation oss st at o

Economic Human

Exposure Applications
Application 1 Application 1 Application 1 A li ti Application 1

20

CAPRA Initiative
Objective and scope

Development of tools communication in order to:

for r

risk

assessment

and

Sensitize decision makers abo the damaging potential of out natural disasters; Formulate risk management st trategies at regional, national and sub-national levels; ; Develop a common methodology for quantifying disaster risk

21

CAPRA Initiative
Objective and scope

The CAPRA initiative aims to become the focus of a regional strategy strategy, versatile and effective effective, for the development of risk assessme ent and decision making related to management of disast risks. ter

22

CAPRA Initiative
Features

Probabilisticriskmodeling

Hazardmodules Exposureandvulnerabilitymodules Riskassessmentmodule Variableresolutiongrids Visualizationtools Planningtools GISinteraction Opensource Open source Userorientedapplications Userupdatable

Visualizationmodule Visualization module

Openarchitectureplatform

23

CAPRA Initiative
Features

Orientedsoftware

Availablehazardmaps p Someexposuredatabases Vulnerabilitycurveslibrary Riskandlossanalysis Risk and loss analysis Informationdatasets S ft d l d Softwaredownload Wiki

Website W b it

Communicationstrategy

Openaccesstroughinternet Regionalseminarsandworkshops Booksandpapers Books and papers

24

CAPRA Initiative
Why a probabilistic risk analy ysis?

The local intensities produced b dangerous events (hazard) have an by occurrence frequency There is uncertainty in the estimatio of hazard and vulnerability on Risk must be expressed in terms of occurrence rates or return periods f

Ability Abili to compare and aggregate l d losses of diff f different events multi-hazard lih d or multi-risk Likely future scenarios (climate change)

25

25

CAPRA Players

26

Comprehensive Approach for Pr robabilistic Risk Assessment (CAPRA)

Selected CAPRA Resul lts

Managua (Nicaragua) earthquake risk
Economic loss for 6.5 Mw earthquake occurrin near Managua ng

27

AAL/Building

Results for Nicarag gua

Bluefields hurricane risk
Relative economic loss. Probabilistic analysis f Wind only for

28

AAL/Eco. Value (Building)

Results for Nicarag gua

Corinto hurricane risk
Relative economic loss. Probabilistic analysis f Wind and storm surge combined for

29

AAL/Eco. Value (Building)

Results for Nicarag gua

Corinto hurricane risk
Human expected loss. Probabilistic analysis fo Wind and storm surge combined or

30

Results for Costa Rica

San Jose earthquake risk k
Relative economic loss

31

AAL/Eco. Value (Homogeneous zone)

Results for Costa Rica

San Jose earthquake risk k
Human expected loss

32

Results for El Salvador

San Salvador multi-hazar risk rd
Annual average loss (relative). Probabilistic an nalysis (earthquake and hurricane)

33

Results for El Salvador

San Salvador multi-hazar risk rd
Annual average loss (absolute). Probabilistic a analysis (earthquake and hurricane)

34

Results for Belize

Belmopan earthquake ris sk
Annual average loss (absolute)

[US$]
0 - 31 32 - 105 106 - 253 254 - 554 555 - 1,421

35

Results for Belize

Belmopan hurricane (win risk nd)
Annual average loss (absolute)

[US$]
0 - 222 223 - 423 424 - 794 795 - 1,506 1,507 - 5,644

36

Results for Belize

Belize City earthquake risk
Annual average loss (absolute)

[US$]
7 - 603 604 - 1,453 1,454 - 2,941 2,942 - 7,500 7,501 - 24,722

37

Results for Belize

Belize City hurricane (win and storm surge) risk nd
Annual average loss (absolute)

[US$]
472 - 39,077 39,078 - 95,905 95,906 - 185,579 185,580 - 331,062 331,063 - 765,792

38

Risk Analysis Applications

Possible Applications of CAP PRA

1) Visualization of hazard and ) risk 3) Infrastructure design

2) Land use and territorial ) planning 4) C/B analysis and support of risk reduction measures 6) Damage scenario analysis

5) Contingency and Emergency Planning g y g 7) Real time post-event damage estimation

39

8) Design of financial protection instruments

CAPRA Applications in Bo ogot

Colombias capital and main economic center 750 000 residential buildings 750,000 200 hospitals and health centers 3 500 schools and Universities 3,500 Population: Over 7,000,000 (High concentration of pop.) Exposed value US$40 Billion only building constructions + infrastructure

40

1) Visualization - Hazard Mapping d

Seismic
41

slides Lands

Floods

2) Landuse and Territorial Planning

42

4 2

Resettlement from Nueva Esperanza Barrio

Before

43

Resettlement from Nueva Esperanza Barrio

after

44

3) Infrastructure Desig (Specifications) gn

45

Colegio Distrital Florida Blanca

46

4) Cost Benefit Analysis

47

Source: GAR, 2011

etrofitting of Critical Infrastructur in Bogota re

48

6) Damage Scenario Anal lysis

DAY NIGHT

49

6) Contingency and Emer rgency Planning

Location of emergency units Functional vulnerability (emergency rou utes, etc.) Health services requirements Housing requirements Food requirements Utilities requirements (water, energy, etc.) Debris and construction materials

50

7) Immediate Damage Es stimation

AB) Bogot Accelerograph Network (RA

51

Immediate Damage Estim mation

Physical damage

Human losses

Surface Response p Spatial Distribution

Dam mage Distribution Calculation

52

8) Design of Financial Pro otection Instruments

Insurance premium calculation

Technicalpremium Technical premium

(annualexpectedloss)

53

Conclusions
One risk model (CAPRA) can be used for a large number of applications d Cost of modeling is going down - geospatial technologies - open source models Models remain models

54

Upcoming Training on CAPRA A

Date: 28 Nov 02 Dec, 2011 Location: AIT, Bangkok Participants: From S South Asian countries Fees: Free! Travel/Accommodation: Borne by p / y participants p s

55

www.ecapra.org

Thank Th k you for yo ki d attention f our kind tt ti

Generation of the Risk Curve u

Need at least 6-7 scenarios to develop a risk curve

Area under this curve shows the average annual loss