Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Environmental Geosciences Dr. Alexei L. Ragozin

1. Hazard Risk Management in Europe and Central Asia Workshop Agenda June 28-30, 2004Istanbul, Turkey Natural Disasters Risk Assessment and Management in RussiaOriginal presentation is modified for Internet use. Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Environmental Geosciences Dr. Alexei L. Ragozin Deputy Director on Science

2. Hazard identification Hazard forecasting Risk assessment Risk management Vulnerability assessment NATURAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS - GENERAL FLOW CHART

3. IDENTIFICATION OF NATURAL HAZARDS • What kinds of natural hazards – in terms of their genesis, development mechanism and intensity – have affected the area under assessment; where and when? • Which natural or technogenic conditions and trigger factors have brought about or intensified those hazards? • What is annual probability (frequency) and intensity of different genetic types and forms of natural hazards in certain parts of the area under assessment (volume, velocity, affected area, duration and other measures of destructive capacity of respective hazards)?

4. SYNERGETIC MODEL DESCRIBING THE EMERGENCE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HAZARDS RELATED TO EARTHQUAKES AND TECHNOGENIC FLOODING.Linkages 1, 2 and the like indicate, accordingly, the sequence of emergence and augmentation of negative effects. Leakages from water conduits and technogenic submergence of land Discharge of tensions in earth crust in the form of seismic shocks Loss of strength, liquescency, leakage and budging of dispersed rock formations Rupture, settling, uplifting, subsidence, and horizontal movement of land surface Generation of land slides, rock slides, avalanches, glacier surges; river closing Generation of tsunami waves Generation of mud streams resulting from slide dam and glacial dam erosion Shoreline erosion

5. FORECASTING NATURAL HAZARDS • Given natural and technogenic conditions, which types of natural hazards – in terms of their genesis and development mechanism – can affect the area under assessment, and where? • Which natural hazards can be generated or triggered in the process of anticipated new construction and operation of buildings, structures and their systems? • What is the future annual frequency and intensity of those hazards under the current and altered natural and technogenic conditions?

6. FRAGMENT OF TATARSTAN’S KARST HAZARD MAP SCALE: 1:200 000 Categories of karst hazard identified in the area (areal intensity of karsk hole formation, m2/km2 · yr): 1– moderate hazard: 10-1; 2 – low hazard: 1-0,1; insignificant hazard: 3 – 0,1-0,01; 4 – 0,01-0,001; 5 – 0,001-0,0001. Borderlines: 6 – karst sites, differentiated by prevalence of karst sinks; 7 – karst sub-sites, differentiated by areal intensity of karst hole formation; 8 – average long-term areal intensity of karst hole formation within sub-sites, m2/kv2 · yr; 9 – border of the Republic of Tatarstan.

7. NATURAL HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF TERRITORIES, CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND POPULATION • What is the current and/or future use of the particular territory? • Which kinds of objects – in terms of purpose and structural units - are located and/or will be located within the particular territory? • What is the number, distribution and mobility of population within the particular territory and in objects? • How vulnerable are specific segments of the territory, objects, systems and population to anticipated natural hazards of particular type and intensity? • What is the expected vulnerability of future protective engineering structures and protected territories, future construction projects and their inhabitants, to natural hazards?

8. ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY OF ELEMENTS-AT-RISK TO NATURAL HAZARDS Types of Vulnerability: • Physical - Vf(H) = ni/n • Economic - Ve(H) = Di/D = Vf(H)·Ki • Social- Vs(H) = pi/p • Environmental- Vec(H) = xi/x Vec(H) = Si/S Vec(H) = Di/D=Vec(H) · Ki

9. COMPARATIVE AVERAGE VALUES OF ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS TO VARIOUS NATURAL AND TECHNOGENIC PROCESSES Type of Building Hazardous Processes Land submergence* Seiche-wind driven tide** Foundation type (seismic resistance index according to MMSK-86) Earthquakes (scale points) Construction Type and Material Strip Low rise buildings of rubble, stone, adobe, puddle wall Slab Pile, pier Standard buildings of flame brick, M-10 mortar Slab Pile, pier Strip Standard buildings with RC or steel frame, without seismic protection features Slab Pile, pier Strip Brick and sawn stone buildings with design seismic resistance up to 7 points Slab Pile, pier Strip Frame and large panel buildings with design seismic resistance up to 8 points Slab Pile, pier Strip Brick and sawn stone buildings with design seismic resistance up to 8 points Slab Pile, pier Strip Frame and large panel buildings with design seismic resistance up to 8 points Slab Pile, pier

10. Vulnerability of buildings and structures Vulnerability of population in buildings and structures of different height(1 1-4 storey buildings 5-10 storey buildings Over 10 storey buildings 0,005 0,000006 - 0,0001 0,000006 - 0,0001 0,000006 - 0,0001 0,05 0,00006 - 0,001 0,00006 - 0,001 0,00006 - 0,001 0,1 0,0003 - 0,07 0,0003 - 0,08 0,00030 - 0,09 0,2 0,0006 - 0,15 0,0006 - 0,16 0,0007 - 0,17 0,3 0,003 - 0,25 0,003 - 0,27 0,004 - 0,28 0,4 0,0052 - 0,35 0,0052 - 0,38 0,0061 - 0,39 0,5 0,015 - 0,45 0,015 - 0,48 0,018 - 0,49 0,6 0,031 - 0,55 0,031 - 0,58 0,038 - 0,59 0,7 0,047 - 0,65 0,05 - 0,68 0,059 - 0,69 0,8 0,064 - 0,75 0,07 - 78 0,08 - 0,79 0,9 0,42 - 0,85 0,5 - 88 0,54 - 0,89 1,0 0,7 - 0,91 0,8 - 0,96 0,9 - 0,99 CORRELATION BETWEEN ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY OF RAPIDLY DEGRADING BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES TO GEOLOGIC AND OTHER NATURAL/TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS, AND VULNERABILITY OF THEIR INHABITANTS Note. 1. Average and average maximum figures.

11. NATURAL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT · What are the possible scenarios and consequences of natural hazards? · What is the probability of those scenarios being triggered? · What will be the losses from individual episodes and from all of the natural hazards? · What will be the differential and integrated loss risks from individual episodes and from all of the natural hazards? · How will the scenarios, probabilities, losses and differential and integrated risks modify after preventive measures are taken?

12. Hazard Р(Н) Risk P(H)P(FH) Object (vulnerability) P(FH) KEY ELEMENTS OF GEOLOGICAL RISK Geological hazard (H) – a process, quality or condition of certain lithospheric masses that pose can endanger human life, economic facilities or the environment. Vulnerability P(F|H) – extent to which the object can lose capacity to perform its natural or assigned functions as a result of adverse external and/or internal effects. Risk: geological R(H) – a measure of probability of geological hazard estimated for a particular object (entity) in terms of possible losses during a certain period. 1. Rf (H) = P(H)·P(F|H) – Risk – probability of an adverse event (failure) 2. Rd(H) = P(F|H)·D – Risk – possible loss 3. Ro (H) = P(H)·P(S|H)·P(T|H)·P(O|H)·D – Combined (integrated) risk P(H) – frequency of hazard (H), numerically equal to its statistical probability P(F|H) – probability of failure (damage, destruction, death, etc.) of object when affected by hazard (H) (general vulnerability of object) D – conditional total loss from hazard (H) P(S|H) – probability of being affected by hazard in space (H) (spatial vulnerability) P(T|H) – probability of being affected by hazard (H) in time (temporal vulnerability) P(O|H) – probability of being destroyed (damaged, etc.) by hazard (H) (physical vulnerability)

13. NATURAL HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT • Types of risk, by type of effect: • one-time (subdivided into: single and multiple) – • - Re(H) = P(H) · Ve(H) · Dе ; • permanent – R(H) = Vn · P(Vn ) · dе • Types of risk, by nature of losses: • natural physical (annual number of objects affected, with differential outcomes: buildings/year, bridges/year, km/year, etc.); • natural economic (rubles/year); • specific natural economic (rubles/hectare·year, ruble/km2·year); • natural social (pers./year); • natural individual (pers./pers.·year)

14. FRAGMENT OF KARST-RELATED ECONOMIC RISK MAP OF REPUBLIC OF TATARSTAN. SCALE: 1:200 000 (SCHEMATIZED (А) AND COMPLETE (Б) VERSIONS).Karst-related economic risk (currency units/yr·km2):1 – (1 - 0,1); 2 – (0,1 - 0,01); 3 – (0,01 - 0,001); 4 – (0,001 - 0,0001); 5 – (0,0001 - 0,00001). Borderlines: 6 – Natural-Technogenic Spheres (NTS) of 2nd order, as numbered, differentiated by areal intensity of karst hole formation; 7 – NTS groups of 2nd order differentiated by categories of specific karst-related economic risk; 8 – automobile roads.

15. FRAGMENT OF KARST-RELATED INDIVIDUAL RISK MAP OF REPUBLIC OF TATARSTAN. SCALE: 1:200 000 (SCHEMATIZED (А) AND COMPLETE (Б) VERSIONS).Individual risk (pers./pers.·year): medium: 1 – (10 -7 - 10 -6); small: 2 – (1·10 -8 - 1·10 -9);3 – (1·10 -9 - 1·10 -12); 4 – (<1·10 -12). Borderlines: 5 – NTS of 2nd order, as numbered, differentiated by areal intensity of karst hole formation; 6 – NTS groups of 2nd order differentiated by categories of karts-related individual social risk.

16. (B) (A) (C) FRAGMENTS OF FORECAST MAPS: INUNDATION, ABRASION, SEICHE AND SEISMIC CHANGE (1), TYPIFICATION OF ECONOMIC ENTITIES (2) AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS RESULTING FROM HAZARDOUS SYNERGETIC PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH RAISING CASPIAN SEA LEVEL (3), CITY OF MAKHACHKALA, UP TO 2005.Territories of possible exposure to various sets of synergetic processes: 1  inundation, abrasion, submergence (groundwater depth up to 2 m), seismic forces; 2  seiche and submergence (up to 2 m), seismic forces; 3  submergence ((groundwater depth 2 to 4 m), seismic forces; 4  seismic forces. Borderlines: 5  main zoning taxons on maps A, B and C; sub-taxons with differentiated: 6  seismic activity; 7  inundation probability (%). 8  intensity of seismic forces (scale points). Land use categories: 9  utility/storage; 10  industrial; 11  transport; 12  residential; 13  administrative/public. 14  density of national wealth (thous. rubles/ha). Specific economic risk (thous. rubles/ha ·year): 15  over 400; 16  400200; 17  200100; 18  10030; 19  303; 20  30,3; 21  0,30,01; 22  less than 0,01.

17. Integrated Natural Hazard Economic Risk Map of Russia Integrated Natural Hazard Economic Risk (thous. Rub./km3/yr) Small Substantial Moderate Large Medium Enormous

18. Comparative Analysis of Social and Economic Losses from Natural Hazards in Russia Probable One-time Loss Social (thou. People) Average long-term risk Susceptibility Economic ($bn.) Processes Wounded Individual (pers./pers. year) Economic ($bn.)/year territories, by area settlements, by number Social (thou. pers./year) population Killed Processes usually resulting in major loss of human life Earthquake Tsunami Flood Landslide/ rock slide Processes that usually claim a few human lives Avalanche Wildfire Mudflow Karst Suffosion Marginal erosion of seas and reservoirs Severe frost, snowstorm Hurricane, tornado Processes usually resulting in major loss of human life Water logging Sheet and gully erosion Riverbed erosion Geocryological: rebound, thermokarst, thermoerosion solifluction Loess Subsidence Drought Total (averages) *Estimated for specific population groups and economic entities (settlements, land property, etc.) located within areas subject to the respective process. Integrated totals of social, individual and economic loss risks from natural hazards are estimated for the whole of Russia. ** Figures in parentheses correspond to numbers of cities susceptible to the process.

19. Natural Hazard Risk Management • Which measures are anticipated to reduce and prevent risk? • What levels of risk should be considered as acceptable? • What methods are/will be used to monitor natural hazards, facilities status, losses and risks? • How do the inhabitants and governments perceive identified hazards, risks, and prevention/control measures? • Which additional measures are needed to reduce and control the remaining risks?

20. Principal Levels of Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and Management