Columbia University Center for Hazards and Risk Research

Columbia University

Center for

Hazards and Risk Research

Overview

CENDIM/CHRR URM Workshop

October 25-26, 2001

October 25-26, 2001 CENDIM/CHRR URM Workshop 2

Center for Hazards and Risk Research

Organized April 2001 Part of Columbia Earth Institute Based at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Partners include The Wharton School,

Bogazici University, London School of Economics, others.


Organizing Themes for Hazard and Risk Studies

Science in service of Sustainable International Development

– Reducing Vulnerability / Building Resiliency

– Methods and Mechanisms of Risk Assessment and Risk Management

– Technological and social measures of risk

Multiple Hazards, Aggregate Risk

– Interactions, triggers, and amplification

Human activities that generate risk


Organizing Themes for Hazard and Risk Studies (cont.)

Community Knowledge System

– Assessments of Predictive Skill in S&T

– Assessment and communication of risk

– Assessment and communication of uncertainty

– Understanding decision strategies and mechanisms, and their inputs and outcomes

– Feedbacks for integrated studies

– Appropriate use of technology


What Is the relationship between “Hazard” and “Risk”?

“Hazard” is a process which has potential human impacts.

“Risk” is a function of both “hazard” and accumulated human assets.

“Concentration of assets” contributes to quantitative measures of risk.

Source: USGS, CIESIN


Risk is a Cultural Quantity

Different societies have different asset exposures

System effects can amplify the evaluation of risk

The study of risk mixes hazards (physical science) and vulnerability (engineering, social science)


Technical Risk vs. Social Risk

Asset census and Asset fragility

Integration over many scales Complexities due to

interdependencies not included

Not normative Measured in replacement

and repair costs (or loss of use)

Useful for cost-benefit analysis

Risk transference as an economic cost

Measures social and cultural disruptions

Measured in risk tolerance in relation to a self-defined state of well being

Highly normative Social and cultural

interdependencies critical Useful for choice analysis Issues of risk transference

harder to quantify, and hinge on moral arguments


Prediction and Predictability

New science is available to improve predictability of events and their impacts

New science is both empirical and model-based


Stress ‘climate’ is a manifestation of plate tectonics, but simple models of deformation are surprisingly good at predicting seismicity. (source: J. Deng, Ph.D. Thesis 1996, Columbia)


Research Model

Basic Research

Basic Research

Integrated Research

Integrated Research

Physical Science/Engineering Social Science

Extension/ApplicationsExtension/

Applications

Risk Assessment Risk Management


Fig. 1: Conceptual Illustration of Some Hazards and Their Process, Impact,

and Management Interactions

Research Investment: Hazard Reduction Impact Reduction

New Knowledge and/or Externalities and/or Externalities

Multi-Hazard Vulnerability Index: Reflects or illustrates 1) Physical Processes and Human Impacts Plus

2) Resource Allocation and Trade Offs Among Hazard Mitigation/Management Options

- Solid Earth

Processes

- Weather/Climate

Processes

- Human Activity

(e.g., Land-Use)

- Landslides

- Floods

- Structural (e.g.,

Dam Failure)

- Deaths

- Water Quality

Processes

- Earthquakes

- Severe Storms

- Water Pollution

Primary Hazards

Secondary Hazards

Primary Impacts

- Structural Design

- Policy (Zoning,

Land Use,

Regulation)

- Insurance

- Emergency

Response

Risk Reduction

Events

- Economic

- Human Health

- Ecological

Secondary Impacts

Risk Management

Source: K. Boyer


Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Earth Processes Underlying Earthquakes, Landslides, Volcanoes

IRI Climate/Extreme Weather

Processes and Severe Storms, Floods, Droughts

SEASStructural Response,

Chemical Exposure, Built Environment and System

Response

CIESINData Integration,

Spatial Data Warehousing, Decision

Support ToolsCSTEP/SIPA/GSB/GSAPP Public Health

Regional Studies, Economics, Urban Planning, Policy,

Epidemiology

Hazards Research CenterCore Research

Multi-Hazard ProcessesCase Studies

Multi-Hazard Vulnerability IndexRisk Assessment/Management

Center for the Decision Sciences

Decision Making

EESJMedia

CSPO Science Policy

Illustration: K. Boyer


Center Programmatic Components

Basic Disciplinary Research Integrated Research Research Extension Training Extension Graduate and Other Formal Education


Improving Resilience

Emergency Response Hardening Built Environment Hardening Social Constructs

– Political– Economic– Cultural

Alternative Development Paths– Responsible Planning– Altered States


Single Hazard Model

Hazard Impact Risk Action

Knowledge areas incomplete, research required


Single Hazard Model

EarthquakeProcess Model

Fracture Mechanics

Tectonic Stress Model

Fault Topology

Anelastic structure

Near-surface structure

Event Genesis

Wave Propagation Model


Single Hazard Model

Impact

Process Model

(Built Environment)

Ground Motion

Structural Design

Soil-Structure Interactions

Structure Dynamics

Primary and SecondarySystem Response


Single Hazard Model

Risk andRisk Perception

Categorization

Tolerance Levels

Asset Concentrations(space and time)

Resiliency


Multiple Hazard Model(1st Generation)





Multiple Hazard Model(2nd Generation)

Hazard Impact Risk


Hazard Impact Risk


Multiple Hazard Model(3rd Generation)

IntegratedRisk

System

Action

IntegratedHazardSystem

IntegratedImpactSystem

Hazard Impact Risk

Hazard Impact Risk


Improving Resilience:Knowledge System Approach

“Product” orientation widely used to match scientific output to end-user needs.

Product design at provider level often assumes end-user knowledge is capped.

Elevating community knowledge base will produce higher-level outcomes

User-mediated science and technology outputs


Third Generation Multiple Hazard+ Information Technology

Action

IntegratedHazardSystem

IntegratedImpactSystem

Hazard Impact Risk

Hazard Impact Risk

Provider/UserCommunity

Interaction Model


Community Interaction Model

Links observational, modeling, simulation, prediction science

Links science to technology (engineering solutions)

Links solutions to risk management community

If near-real-time, links response and emergency management communities.


Community Feedback Loops

Feedback between sectors important for modulating basic S&T output.

Knowledge base kept high by combination of push and interactive technologies.

Heightened curiosity hastens application of new S&T advances in the field.

Move beyond virtual knowledge product generation.


IT Requirements for Implementation

Spatial data integration Monitoring and near-real-time data assimilation of time series Data QC, preliminary analysis, archiving, management for research and

products Physical descriptions: Characterizations and models Modeling and simulation codes and results Scenario building, description, and dissemination Data integration from other components Servicing decision pathways and community interactions

– Mitigation planning– Emergency response

Capturing feedbacks Formal and informal education Community outreach Products (push, interactive, user-mediated)


Education and Outreach

Certificate and Degree Programs Student and investigator exchange Integrated Project studios Professional awareness Public/political awareness Identifying stakeholders Links with digital media.


Highlights: TurkeyIncreased earthquake risk in Istanbul

• The 1999 Earthquake Sequence in Northwest Turkey points to the high likelihood of even more damaging earthquakes in the Marmara Sea (Istanbul) region, during the next few decades.

• The Center for Disaster Management (CENDIM) of Bogazici University and Columbia are initiating an alliance in research and education dealing with earthquake hazard risk reduction. Will extend Columbia’s current scientific work in the Marmara region and expand into structural and socio-economic risk assessment and risk management activity.


From: Parsons, Tom, Toda, Shinji, Stein, Ross S., Barka, Aykut, Dieterich, James H., Heightened

Odds of Large Earthquakes Near Istanbul: An Interaction-Based Probability Calculation Science 2000 288: 661-665


From: Parsons, Tom, Toda, Shinji, Stein,

Ross S., Barka, Aykut, Dieterich, James H., Heightened Odds of Large Earthquakes Near Istanbul: An Interaction-Based Probability Calculation Science 2000 288: 661-665

Fig. 1. (A) Stress change caused by earthquakes since 1900. Shown are the maximum Coulomb stress changes between 0 and 20 km depth on optimally oriented vertical strike-slip faults (44). The assumed friction coefficient is 0.2, as has been found for strike-slip faults with large cumulative slip (45, 46). A 100-bar deviatoric tectonic stress with compression oriented N55°W (47) is used, under which optimally oriented right-lateral faults strike E-W except along the rupture surface. The 1993 to July 1999 seismicity recorded since installation of IZINET (7) has uniform coverage over the region shown. Calculated stress increases are associated with heightened seismicity rates and with the future epicenter of the 17 August 1999 Izmit earthquake (indicated by star); sites of decreased stress exhibit low seismicity. (B) Izmit aftershocks are associated with stress increases caused by the main rupture [first 12 days from IZINET (7)], such as the Yalova cluster southeast of "Y," and the occurrence of the 12 November 1999 Düzce earthquake. Faults: Y, Yalova; P, Prince's Islands; M, Marmara; I, Izmit.


From: Parsons, Tom, Toda, Shinji, Stein, Ross S., Barka, Aykut, Dieterich, James H., Heightened Odds

of Large Earthquakes Near Istanbul: An Interaction-Based Probability Calculation Science 2000 288: 661-665

Figure 4. (A) Observed and modeled transient response to stress transfer. The 13 M 6.8 North Anatolian earthquakes for which the stress at the future epicenter was increased by 0.5 bars are plottedas a function of time. The earthquake rate decays as t-1 in a manner identical to aftershocks, as predicted by (29-32).

(B) Calculated probability of a M 7 earthquake (equivalent to MMI VIII shaking in greater Istanbul) as a function of time. The probability on each of three faults is summed (43). The large but decaying probability increase is caused by the 17 August 1999 Izmit earthquake. "Background” tracks the probability from earthquake renewal; "interaction" includes renewal and stress transfer. Light blue curve gives the probability had the Izmit earthquake not occurred.

Documents

Columbia University Center for Hazards and Risk Research