多灾种风险评估方法述评——基于5份国际权威报告的对比分析

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.01.016

Abstract

Abstract:

Multi-hazard risk assessment is the basis for formulating integrated risk governance strategies. Through examining the risk assessment practices in China and internationally, this study selected five authoritative global risk assessment reports, including the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, Global Climate Risk Index, The Index for Risk Management Report, World Risk Report, and World Atlas of Natural Disaster Risk, to compare their objectives, contents, models, and results of assessment. The main conclusions are as follows: 1) The five risk assessment reports have different focuses in terms of objectives, and four of them regularly publish new reports to analyze the dynamic process of change that facilitates the identification of risks through continuous risk assessment. 2) The methods characterized by the synthesis of risk elements is easy to apply, but it is necessary to further improve the applicability of indicators and adopt more intuitive and practical risk representation methods. 3) The Belt and Road initiative countries have slightly higher risk levels than the global average. In the future, we need to deepen the research on the integrated risk assessment method of multi-hazards, strengthen the practice of natural disaster risk assessment in China, and explore the disaster risk management system of regional linkages. 4) On the whole, the five risk assessment reports all have their own advantages and disadvantages. In the future, we can combine the concepts of "multi-hazard additive losses" and "disaster chain losses" to enrich the models and methods, indicator system, and result representation of integrated risk assessment.

Key words: disasters, multi-hazards, risk assessment model, integrated risk governance, risk assessment reports

NING Jiachen, WU Jidong, TANG Rumei, CHEN Xiaojuan, XU Yingjun. Multi-hazard risk assessment methods: A comparative analysis based on five authoritative reports[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2023, 42(1): 197-208.

Figures/Tables 11

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Comparison of risk assessment equations in the five risk assessment reports

报告	模型类型	模型公式	参数含义
GAR	定量风险评估	$A A L = ∑ i = 1 E v e n t s E P \| E v e n t i × F A E v e n t i$	AAL为灾害年期望损失，E(P\|Event i)为事件i造成的期望损失，F_A(Event i)为事件i年发生频次，Events为事件总数
WNDR	半定量风险评估	$T R I = ∑ i = 1 n r i × w i$	TRI指综合自然灾害相对风险等级；r_i指灾种i的风险等级；w_i指灾种i在综合自然灾害风险中所占的权重；n指自然灾害风险种类数
INFORM	半定量风险评估	$I N F O R M R i s k I n d e x = H a z a r d & e x p o s u r e 1 / 3 × V u l n e r a b l i t y 1 / 3 × L a c k o f c o p i n g c a p a c i t y 1 / 3$	$H a z a r d & e x p o s u r e$ 为标准化后的致灾因子与暴露度指数；Vulnerability为标准化后的脆弱性指数； $L a c k o f c o p i n g c a p a c i t y$ 为标准化后的应对能力指数
WRI	半定量风险评估	$W o r l d R i s k I n d e x = E x p o s u r e × V u l n e r a b i l i t y$	$E x p o s u r e$ 为暴露度指数，Vulnerability为脆弱性指数
CRI	半定量风险评估	$C R I S c o r e = R 1 × 16 + R 2 × 13 + R 3 × 16 + R 4 × 13$	$R 1$ 、 $R 2$ 、 $R 3$ 、 $R 4$ 分别代表某国死亡人口、10万人口死亡率、直接经济损失和直接经济损失占GDP的比例在全球的倒序排名(由大到小)

Tab.4

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.5

Fig.3

Tab.6

Tab.7

Tab.8

References 40

[1]	史培军. 五论灾害系统研究的理论与实践[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2009, 18(5): 1-9.
	[Shi Peijun. Theory and practice on disaster system research in a fifth time. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2009, 18(5): 1-9. ]
[2]	Unitied Nations. Agenda 21 [EB/OL]. 1992-06-14 [2021-03-12]. https://www.un.org/zh/node/181627.
[3]	Kappes M. Multi-hazard risk analyses: A concept and its implementation[D]. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna, 2011.
[4]	Kappes M S, Keiler M, Glade T. From single to multi-hazard risk analyses: A concept addressing emerging challenges[C]// Malet J P, Glade T, Casagli N. Mountain risks:Bringing science to society. Strassbourg, France: CERG Editions, 2010: 351-356.
[5]	Tilloy A, Malamud B D, Winter H, et al. A review of quantification methodologies for multi-hazard interrelationships[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2019, 196: 102881. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102881. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102881
[6]	姚清林. 自然灾害链的场效机理与区链观[J]. 气象与减灾研究, 2007, 30(3): 31-36.
	[Yao Qinglin. Field effect and regional conversion as the mechanism of natural hazard chains. Meteorology and Disaster Reduction Research, 2007, 30(3): 31-36. ]
[7]	史培军, 吕丽莉, 汪明, 等. 灾害系统: 灾害群、灾害链、灾害遭遇[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2014, 23(6): 1-12.
	[Shi Peijun, Lv Lili, Wang Ming, et al. Disaster system: Disaster cluster, disaster chain and disaster compound. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2014, 23(6): 1-12. ]
[8]	Quigley M C, Attanayake J, King A, et al. A multi-hazards earth science perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic: The potential for concurrent and cascading crises[J]. Environment Systems and Decisions, 2020, 40(2): 199-215. doi: 10.1007/s10669-020-09772-1
[9]	Argyroudis S A, Mitoulis S Α, Winter M G, et al. Fragility of transport assets exposed to multiple hazards: State-of-the-art review toward infrastructural resilience[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2019, 191: 106567. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106567. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106567
[10]	Li Y, Ahuja A, Padgett J E. Review of methods to assess, design for, and mitigate multiple hazards[J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2012, 26(1): 104-117. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000279
[11]	Argyroudis S A, Mitoulis S A. Vulnerability of bridges to individual and multiple hazards-floods and earthquakes[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2021, 210: 107564. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107564. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107564
[12]	Kappes M S, Papathoma-Kohle M, Keiler M. Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology[J]. Applied Geography, 2012, 32(2): 577-590. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.002
[13]	Hagenlocher M, Renaud F G, Haas S, et al. Vulnerability and risk of deltaic social-ecological systems exposed to multiple hazards[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 631/632: 71-80. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.013
[14]	余瀚, 王静爱, 柴玫, 等. 灾害链灾情累积放大研究方法进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(11): 1498-1511. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.11.007
	[Yu Han, Wang Jing'ai, Chai Mei, et al. Review on research methods of disaster loss accumulation and amplification of disaster chains. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(11): 1498-1511. ] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.11.007
[15]	Okada N. Urban diagnosis and integrated disaster risk management[J]. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 2004, 26: 49-54.
[16]	Mileti D S. Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States[M]. Washington D C, USA: Joseph Henry Press, 1999.
[17]	Cardona O, Schroder M G O, Reinoso E, et al. Comprehensive approach for probabilistic risk assessment (CAPRA): International initiative for disaster risk management effectiveness[R]. 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ohrid, Northern Macedonia, 2010.
[18]	IPCC. Climate change 2014:Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, Part A:Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415379. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415379
[19]	史培军. 三论灾害研究的理论与实践[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2002, 11(3): 1-9.
	[Shi Peijun. Theory on disaster science and disaster dynamics. Journal of Natural Disasters. 2002, 11(3): 1-9. ]
[20]	史培军. 四论灾害系统研究的理论与实践[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2005, 14(6): 1-7.
	[Shi Peijun. Theory and practice on disaster system research in a fourth time. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2005, 14(6): 1-7. ]
[21]	FEMA. Using HAZUS-MH for risk assessment[R]. Washington D C, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004.
[22]	Dilley M, Chen R S, Deichmann U, et al. Natural disaster hotspots: A global risk analysis[M]. Washington D C, USA: World Bank Publications, 2005.
[23]	张卫星, 周洪建. 灾害链风险评估的概念模型: 以汶川5·12特大地震为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(1): 130-138.
	[Zhang Weixing, Zhou Hongjian. Conceptual model of disaster chain risk assessment: Taking Wenchuan Earthquake on 12 May 2008 as a case. Progress in Geography, 2013, 32(1): 130-138. ] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.01.014
[24]	刘文方, 肖盛燮, 隋严春, 等. 自然灾害链及其断链减灾模式分析[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2006, 25(S1): 2675-2681.
	[Liu Wenfang, Xiao Shengxie, Sui Yanchun, et al. Analysis of natural disaster chain and chain-cutting disaster mitigation mode. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2006, 25(S1): 2675-2681. ]
[25]	Eckstein D, Künzel V, Schäfer L. Global climate risk index 2021[R]. Bonn, Germany: Germanwatch e.V., 2021.
[26]	United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2019[R]. Geneva, Switzerland: UNDRR, 2019.
[27]	Benedikt B, Rouven D, Carsten F, et al. World risk report 2020[R]. Berlin, Germany: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, 2020.
[28]	Inter-Agency Standing Committee and the European Commission. INFORM report 2020: Shared evidence for managing crises and disasters[R]. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020. doi: 10.2760/953633. doi: 10.2760/953633
[29]	Shi P J, Kasperson R. World atlas of natural disaster risk[M]. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2015: 309-323.
[30]	国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴[J]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2020.
	[National Bureau of Statistics. Chinese statistical yearbook. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press, 2020. ]
[31]	中国一带一路网. 已同中国签订共建“一带一路”合作文件的国家一览[EB/OL]. 2021-01-30 [2021-03-12]. https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/xwzx/roll/77298.htm.
	[Belt and the Road Portal. A list of countries that have signed Belt and Road cooperation documents with China. 2021-01-30 [2021-03-12]. https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/xwzx/roll/77298.htm. ]
[32]	Montserrat M F, Luca V, Karmen P. Index for risk management INFORM concept and methodology report, Version 2017[R]. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017.
[33]	Brooks N, Adger W N, Kelly P M. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2005, 15(2): 151-163. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006
[34]	孔锋. 透视大尺度综合自然灾害风险评估的主要进展和展望[J]. 灾害学, 2020, 35(2): 148-153.
	[Kong Feng. Perspective on the main progress and prospect of large-scale integrated natural disaster risk assessment. Journal of Catastrophology, 2020, 35(2): 148-153. ]
[35]	崔鹏, 邹强, 陈曦, 等. “一带一路”自然灾害风险与综合减灾[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(S2): 38-43.
	[Cui Peng, Zou Qiang, Chen Xi, et al. Natural disaster risk and comprehensive disaster reduction along the Belt and Road. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2018, 33(S2): 38-43. ]
[36]	邬柯杰, 吴吉东, 叶梦琪. 社交媒体数据在自然灾害应急管理中的应用研究综述[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(8): 1412-1422. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.08.014
	[Wu Kejie, Wu Jidong, Ye Mengqi. A review on the application of social media data in natural disaster emergency management. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(8): 1412-1422. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.08.014
[37]	Gill J C, Malamud B D. Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards[J]. Reviews of Geophysics, 2014, 52(4): 680-722. doi: 10.1002/2013RG000445
[38]	Kappes M S, Keiler M, von Elverfeldt K, et al. Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: A review[J]. Natural Hazards, 2012, 64(2): 1925-1958. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0294-2
[39]	Gallina V, Torresan S, Critto A, et al. A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2016, 168: 123-132. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.011 pmid: 26704454
[40]	Rusk J, Maharjan A, Tiwari P, et al. Multi-hazard susceptibility and exposure assessment of the Hindu Kush Himalaya[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 804: 150039. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150039. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150039

报告名称	起始年份	选择年份	发布频次	发布机构	发布形式	官方网站
CRI^[25]	2007	2021	每年	德国观察	年度报告	https://germanwatch.org/en/cri
GAR^[26]	2009	2019	每2年	联合国减灾署	年度报告	https://gar.undrr.org/
WRI^[27]	2011	2020	每年	德国发展援助联盟	年度报告	https://weltrisikobericht.de/weltrisikobericht-2021-e/
INFORM^[28]	2014	2020	每年	欧盟联合研究中心	年度报告	https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/INFORM-Risk
WNDR^[29]	2015	2015	无	北京师范大学	书籍	https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-45430-5

报告	灾种覆盖	风险评估维度
GAR	地震、海啸、洪水、风暴潮、气旋	致灾因子、暴露度、脆弱性
CRI	洪水、气旋、极端气温	历史灾害
INFORM	地震、海啸、洪水、气旋、干旱	致灾因子、暴露度、脆弱性、应对能力
WRI	地震、洪水、气旋、干旱、海平面上升	暴露度、脆弱性、应对能力、适应能力
WNDR	地震、洪水、风暴潮、气旋、极端气温、干旱、火山活动、滑坡、沙尘暴、火灾	致灾因子、暴露度、脆弱性、孕灾环境

报告	灾种个数	国家/地区个数	最小评估单元	风险表达	等级划分
CRI	3	182	国家(地区)	气候风险指数	以评估得分数值10、20、50、100为界
GAR	5	216	国家(地区)	年平均损失的期望值；最大可能损失	无
WRI	5	181	国家(地区)	世界风险指数	分位数分级法
INFORM	5	191	国家(地区)	INFORM风险指数	Ward最小方差准则
WNDR	10	195	0.5°×0.5°	年平均伤亡人数的等级和年平均经济损失的等级	以评估得分的10%、35%、65%、90%分位数为界

报告	评估指标	得分	全球中位数	排名	国家(地区)总数	全球百分位次
WNDR	绝对人口风险	无	无	2	195	1.03%
WNDR	绝对经济风险	无	无	3	196	1.53%
GAR	绝对损失风险	无	无	3	216	1.39%
CRI	CRI score	42.83	79.67	32	130	24.62%
INFORM	INFORM risk index	4.20	3.70	71	191	37.17%
WRI	World risk index	5.84	6.42	100	181	55.25%

国家	WRI		INFORM		CRI
国家	归一化指数	风险等级	归一化指数	风险等级	归一化指数	风险等级
马来西亚	0.15	高	0.31	低	0.27	低
智利	0.24	极高	0.27	低	0.74	中等
土耳其	0.10	低	0.53	高	0.45	低

Multi-hazard risk assessment methods: A comparative analysis based on five authoritative reports

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 11

References 40

Related Articles 2

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

指标	WNDR		INFORM		WRI		CRI
指标	伤亡人数	经济损失	原始值	归一化	原始值	归一化	原始值	归一化
热点国家中位数	33.5	31.0	3.75	0.382	6.18	0.119	60.17	0.500
全球中位数	98.0	98.5	3.70	0.376	6.42	0.124	79.67	0.668
数值与风险大小的关系	数值越小，风险越高		数值越大，风险越高		数值越大，风险越高		数值越小，风险越高

报告	主要优点	主要缺点
GAR	① 专业性和科学性强 ② 不同灾种采取不同评估方法 ③ 根据不同地理条件划分各灾种分区	① 模型模拟要求高、计算较复杂 ② 缺乏持续动态更新机制 ③ 原有空间数据信息平台关停，普通大众难以获取
INFORM	① 评估模型易操作、输入数据来源有保障 ② 考虑暴力冲突等人为灾害 ③ 充分考虑各种社会经济因素	① 没有考虑预警系统对风险的影响 ② 风险因子权重设定受主观因素影响
WRI	① 评估方法明确 ② 各项指标数据给出清晰来源 ③ 考虑海平面上升带来的风险	① 没有考虑灾害的致灾强度 ② 脆弱性维度覆盖领域较少 ③ 风险因子权重受主观因素影响
WNDR	① 灾种覆盖全面 ② 对各灾种不同强度进行分级 ③ 分别计算人口损失和经济损失	① 评估流程比较复杂 ② 缺乏动态评估更新机制
CRI	① 评估目的明确 ② 评估方法简便，易于推广	① 仅考虑历史灾害损失特征 ② 未应用国际通用的灾害风险分析框架

[1]	Kan ZHOU, Jie FAN, Yong XU. Paradigm and prospects of emergent evaluation of post-disaster resource and environmental carrying capacity for reconstruction planning [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(3): 286-295.
[2]	HU Aijun1,2, LI Ning1, ZHU Yande2, WU Jidong1, GUO Haifeng2, LI Chunhua3. Integrated Risk Governance Paradigm for Meteorological Disasters: Thoughts on the Low-temperature Freezing Rain and Snow Disaster in Southern China of 2008 [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2010, 29(2): 159-165.