Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology of natural risk assessment in Russia

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Russian Federation territory is prone to various natural hazards. The paper analyzes the most hazardous natural processes that may cause human deaths, injuries and health damage, as well as considerable economic loss. The history of studies in the assessment of different natural risk indices in the interests of particular end-users is described, and the conceptual instruments used in the assessment of natural risk indices are considered. The principle GIS-based methodical approaches to the assessment and mapping of natural risk are provided. The examples of estimation and mapping of natural risk are cited and their application by different end-users (i.e., state and municipal authorities, Ministry of Construction of Russia, Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (Emercom of Russia)).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Natural hazard is a process, property or state of certain portions of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere or space endangering people, engineering structures and (or) the environment.

    Natural risk is the probabilistic measure of the natural hazard (a set of hazards) established for a certain object as possible losses for a preset time.

    Vulnerability is the ability of a body to lose its natural or given functions under the impact of hazardous process.

  2. 1 score corresponds to the mean perennial loss of 1 million rubles per year (in prices of 1990) in the area of 20 thousand sq. km.

References

  • Amendola A (2001) Recent paradigms for risk informed decision making. Saf Sci 40:17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas of natural and man-made hazards and risks of emergency situations in the Russian Federation (2005) In: Shojgu SK (ed) Moscow, Publishing Center “Design, Information, Mapping” (in Russian)

  • Atlas of natural and man-made hazards and risks of emergency situations in the Russian Federation (2010) In: Shojgu SK (ed) Moscow, Publishing Center “Design, Information, Mapping”, (in Russian)

  • Aven T, Renn O, Rosa EA (2011) On the ontological status of the concept of risk. Saf Sci 49:1074–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala FJ (1990) Analisis de los conceptos fundamentals de riesgos y aplicacion a la definicion de tipos de mapas de riesgos geologicos. Boletin Geologico y Minero 101–103:108–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnin J, Frolova N (2004) Near real-time loss assessment due to strong earthquakes: the state of the art. In: Proceedings of the 29 general ESC assembly, Potsdam, Germany

  • Bonnin J, Frolova N, Kozlov M, Larionov V, Sushchev S, Ugarov A (2002) Experience of “extremum” system application for operative earthquake loss assessment. In: Proceedings of the 28 general ESC assembly, Genoa, Italy

  • d’Albe F (1982) An approach to earthquake risk management. Eng Struct 4:145–152

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Albe F (1986) The assessment of seismic risk. In: Proceedings of UNDRO/UNESCO/USSR seminar on earthquake prediction and mitigation of earthquake losses, Dushanbe, UNDRO, Geneva

  • Fekete A (2012) Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: challenges in their quality and acceptance. Nat Hazards 61(3):1161–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope Ch (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sci 17:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frangopol DM, Kallen M-J, van Noortwijk JM (2004) Probabilistic models for life-cycle performance of deteriorating structures: review and future directions. Prog Struct Eng Mater 6:197–212. doi:10.1002/pse.180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frolova NI (2011) Seismic risk assessment and management in the Russian Federation. In: Gliko AO, Zavyalov AD, Malovichko AA, Sobolev GA, Ulomov VI (eds) National seismological review of Russia (2007–2010). Publications GC RAS, Moscow, pp 75–91. doi:10.2205/2011-IUGG-NRR2007-2010

  • Frolova N, Kozlov M, Larionov V, Sushchev S, Ugarov A (2003) Extremum system for earthquake risk and loss assessment. In: Proceedings of SE-40EEE. Skopje-Ohrid, Macedonia

  • Frolova N, Larionov V, Bonnin J (2007) Simulation-based information systems for multi-hazard risk and near real time loss estimations due to strong earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the TIEMS2007 Conference, Trogir, Croatia

  • Frolova NI, Larionov VI, Suschev SP, Bonnin J (2011) Estimation of loss caused by earthquakes and secondary technological hazards. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:3025–3033. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-3025-2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frolova N, Larionov V, Sushchev SP, Bonnin J (2012) Seismic and integrated risk assessment and management with information technology application. In: Proceedings of the 15WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal, no 4168

  • Frolova N, Bonnin J, Larionov V, Ugarov A (2015) Complexity in seismic risk assessment at different levels with gis technology application. In: Lollino G et al. (eds) Proceedings of XII international IAEG congress. Torino, 2014, engineering geology for society and territory, vol 5. Springer, Cham, pp 381–385. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09048-1_73

  • Frolova NI, Larionov VI, Bonnin J, Sushchev SP, Ugarov AN, Kozlov MA (2016) Seismic risk assessment and mapping at different levels. Natural Hazards Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol.84, ISSN 0921-030X. Nat Hazards doi:10.1007/s11069-016-265x-9

  • Fuchs S (2009) Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria-paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):337–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs S, Kuhlicke C, Meyer V (2011) Editorial for the special issue: vulnerability to natural hazards—the challenge of integration. Nat Hazards 58(2):609–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs S, Birkmann J, Glade T (2012) Vulnerability assessment in natural hazard and risk analysis: current approaches and future challenges. Nat Hazards 64(3):1969–1975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs S, Keiler M, Sokratov SA, Shnyparkov A (2013) Spatiotemporal dynamics: the need for an innovative approach in mountain hazard risk management. Nat Hazards 68(3):1217–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galante E, Bordalo D, Nobrega M (2014) Risk assessment methodology: quantitative HazOp. J Saf Eng 3(2):31–36. doi:10.5923/j.safety.20140302.01

    Google Scholar 

  • General scheme of engineering protection of the Russia territory from hazardous natural and natural-technogenic processes (1990) A map of natural risk of engineering construction in the Russian territory, scale 1:5,000,000. In: Ragozin AL, Slinko OV, Burova VN (eds) Moscow: PNIIIS Publishing house (in Russian)

  • Girgin S (2011) The natech events during the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli earthquake: aftermath and lessons learned. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:1129–1140. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-11292011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman SN, van Gelder PHAJM, Vrijling JK (2003) An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J Hazard Mater A99:1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman SN, Jongejan RB, Maaskant B (2011) The use of individual and societal risk criteria within the Dutch flood safety policy—nationwide estimates of societal risk and policy applications. Risk Anal 31(2):282–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantorovich LV, Molchan GM, Keylis-Borok VI, Vilkovich EV (1970) A statistical model of seismicity and an estimate of the basic seismic effects. Izv. Acad. Sci. USSR. Solid Earth 320–328 (in Russian)

  • Kaputo M, Keilis-Borok VI, Molchan GM et al (1973) Seismic risk in Central Italy. In: Computational and statistical methods of seismic data interpretation. Moscow, Nauka, pp 67–106 (in Russian)

  • Karagiorgos K, Thaler T, Heiser M, Hubl J, Fuchs S (2016a) Integrated flash flood vulnerability assessment: insight from East Attica, Greece. J Hydrol 541:553–562. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.02.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagiorgos K, Thaler T, Hubl J, Maris F, Fuchs S (2016b) Multi-vulnerability analysis for flash flood risk management. Nat Hazards 82(1 Suppl):63–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnik V (1984) Existing recommendations and definitions on disaster insurance. Geneva Pap 9(30):3–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnik V, Algermissen ST (1978) Seismic zoning: the assessment and mitigation of earthquake risk. UNESCO, Paris, pp 11–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnik V, Schenkova Z (1988) Seismicity, hazard, vulnerability and risk—a commentary. In: Proceedings of UNDRO/UNESCO/USSR training seminar on engineering aspects of earthquake risk mitigation, Dushanbe, UNDRO, Geneva

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Kronrod TL, Molchan GM (1973) Algorithm for assessing seismic risk. Comput Seismol 6:21–43 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Kronrod TL, Molchan GM (1980) Calculation of seismic risk. In: Seismic zoning of the USSR territory. Moscow, Nauka, pp 69–82 (in Russian)

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Kronrod TL, Molchan GM (1982) Seismic risk for the largest world megacities: preliminary estimation. In: Mathematical models of the Earth structure and earthquake prediction. Moscow, Nauka, pp 82–98 (in Russian)

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Molchan GM, Gotsadze OD, Koridze AKh, Kronrod TL (1984a) An insurance-oriented pilot estimation of seismic risk for rural dwellings in Georgia. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Etudes et Dossiers 77:85–111 (Natural Disasters and Insurance (IV))

  • Keilis-Borok VI, Kronrod TL, Molchan GM (1984b) Seismic risk for the largest world megacities (shakes of intensity 8). Comput Seismol 17:93–117 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Koff GL, Chesnokova IV (1995) Assessment of seismic risk and issues of insurance from earthquakes. Appl Geoecol Emerg Land Cadastre Monit 1:58–64 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E (2010) Analysis of Natech risk reduction in EU Member States using a questionnaire survey. Report EUR 24661 EN

  • Krausmann E, Baranzini D (2009) Natech risk reduction in OECD Member Countries: results of a questionnaire survey. Report JRC 54120, European Communities

  • Krausmann E, Cruz AM, Affeltranger B (2010) The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 23:242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krausmann E, Renni E, Campedel M, Cozzani V (2011) Industrial accidents triggered by earthquakes, floods and lightning: lessons learned from a database analysis. Nat Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9754-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova IL, Miklyaev SM, Chernyad’ev VP, Chekhovskii AL (1995) Risk assessment upon the construction in permafrost ground (Bovanenkovskoe deposit, Yamal Peninsula). In: Analysis and assessment of natural and technogenic risk in construction. Moscow, PNIIIS, pp 96–97 (in Russian)

  • Larionov VI (1999) Theoretical basis of response to emergencies. In: Manuel for students of Military Engineering University. Publishing House of Military Engineering University, Moscow (in Russian)

  • Larionov V, Frolova N (2003a) Peculiarities of seismic vulnerability estimations. In: Natural Hazards in Russia, volume 6: natural risks assessment and management. Publishing House “Kruk”, Moscow, pp 120–131 (in Russian)

  • Larionov VI, Sushchev SP, Frolova NI (1999a) Methodical approach to substantiation of the acceptable seismic risk. In: Applied geoecology, emergencies, land cadastre and monitoring. Polteks, Moscow, Issue 3, pp 50–63 (in Russian)

  • Larionov VI, Sushchev SP, Frolova NI, Ugarov AN (1999b) Application of GIS-technologies to the assessment of individual seismic risk. In: Antiseismic construction no 2. pp 18–24 (in Russian)

  • Larionov VI, Sushchev SP, Frolova NI, Ugarov AN (1999c) Assessment of vulnerability and seismic risk to instability of ground basements upon earthquakes using GIS- technologies. In: Antiseismic construction. no 2. pp 41–45 (in Russian)

  • Larionov V, Sushchev S, Ugarov A, Frolova N (2003b) Seismic risk assessment with GIS-technology application. In: Natural Hazards in Russia, volume 6: natural risks assessment and management. Publishing House “Kruk”, Moscow, pp 209–231 (in Russian)

  • Larionov V, Frolova N, Berzhinsky YuA, Berzhinskaya LI (2012) Natural and natural-technological risk assessment for the Bajkal region with GIS technology application. In: Proceedings of the third all-Russian scientific conference “Ecological risk and ecological safety”, Irkutsk. Publishing House of Institute of Geography named by V.B. Sochava, vol 2. pp 206–208 (in Russian)

  • Lutikov A, Ragozin A, Frolova N (1995) Seismic hazard and risk assessment for some cities of Dagestan. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on seismic zonation. Nice, France

  • Marshall V (1989) The main hazards of chemical industries. Mir Publication, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Menoni S, Molinari D, Parker D, Ballio F, Tapsellet S (2012) Assessing multifaceted vulnerability and resilience in order to designs risk-mitigation strategies. Nat Hazards 64:2057–2082. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0134-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Methods of earthquake consequences forecast (2000) Moscow, VNII GOChS, Extreme Situations Research Center, Seismological Center of IGE RAS (in Russian)

  • Methods of integrated natural and technological risk assessment (2002) Moscow, VNII GOChS, Extreme Situations Research Center, Seismological Center of IGE RAS (in Russian)

  • Mitigating Natural Disasters (1991) Phenomena, effects and options—a manual for policy makers and planners. UNDRO, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Myagkov SM (1995) Geography of natural risk. MGU Publication, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Negmatullaev SKH, Frolova NI, Babaev AM, Kozlov MA, Ruziev DR, Malaeva NS (2011) Seismic risk assessment and management for urban territories: example of Dushanbe City. Crisis Situation Department. State Academy of Crisis Management of Emercom of Armeniya, Yerevan, Armeniya. no 2 (3), ISSN 1829-2984, pp 41–54

  • Osipov VI, Burova VN, Pyrchenko VA, Petrasov AV (2010) The database of natural hazards as the basis for the study of their development regularities and consequences prediction. In: Extreme natural phenomena and disasters, vol 1. Publishing house “PROBEL 2000”, Moscow, pp 436–445 (in Russian)

  • Osipov VI, Frolova NI, Sushchev SP, Larionov VI (2011) Assessment of seismic and natural risk for the population and territories of Russian Federation. In: Extreme natural phenomena and disasters, vol 2. Publishing house “PROBEL 2000”, Moscow, pp 28–48 (in Russian)

  • Petrova EG (2011) Natural factors of technological accidents: the case of Russia. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2227–2234. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-2227-2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova EG, Krausmann E (2011) From natural hazards to technological disasters. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:3063–3065. www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/3063/2011/ doi:10.5194/nhess-11-3063-2011

  • Ragozin AL (1992) Engineering protection of territories, buildings, and structures from hazardous natural processes. In: Industrial and civil construction, no 12. pp 6–7 (in Russian)

  • Ragozin AL (1993) Assessment and mapping hazard and risk from natural and technonatural processes (history, methodology, procedure, and examples). In: Safety issues in emergencies, Issue 3. pp 16–41 (in Russian)

  • Ragozin A.L (1999) General issues of natural risk assessment and management. In: Geoekologiya, no 5. pp 417–429 (in Russian)

  • Ragozin AL, Pyrchenko VA, Tikhvinskii IO, Khaime NM (1996) Combined analysis and assessment of the consequences of the Caspian Sea level rise. In: Geoekologiya, no 3. pp 16–37 (in Russian)

  • Report of Expert Group Meeting 9–12 July 1979 (1980) “Natural Disasters and Vulnerability Analysis” (1980) UNDRO, Geneva, August 1980

  • Rowe WD (1977) An anatomy of risk. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Blumer YB, Brand FS (2012) Risk, vulnerability, robustness, and resilience from a decision-theoretic perspective. J Risk Res 15(3):313–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seismic hazard and risk assessment (1997) Guidelines for decision makers. In: Sobolev GA (ed) Moscow. Publishing house “BSTS Center”. (in Russian)

  • Set of review seismic zoning maps OSR-97-A,B,C and other materials for Constructions standards and rules (1998) SNiP “Construciton in earthquake prone areas”. Joint Institute of Physics of the Earth, Moscow (in Russian)

  • Sevostiyanov VA, Barkhatov II, Lutikov AI (1996) Seismic risk assessment. In: Poltavtsev SI (ed) Complex assessment of seismic hazard to Groznyi city territory. Moscow, pp 81–94 (in Russian)

  • Shebalin N, Gekhman A, Shestoperov G (1986) Development of improved version of seismic intensity scale (MMSK-86) on the bases of MSK-64 scale and scale of Joint Council on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering—73. Report on scientific research study within the Federal Program 0.74.03, number of state registration 01814003271, Joint Council on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow (in Russian)

  • Shnyparkov AL, Fuchs S, Sokratov SA, Koltermann KP, Seliverstov YG, Vikulina MA (2012) Theory and practice of individual snow avalanche risk assessment in the Russian arctic. Geogr Environ Sustain 5(3):64–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoigu SK, Shakhramanyan MA, Koff GL, Larionov VI, Sushchev SP, Nigmetov GM (1992) Analysis of seismic risk, rescue and life support of population upon disastrous earthquakes (seismic, methodological and methodical aspects). Moscow: GKChS RF Publication, part 1, 176 P; part 2 (in Russian)

  • Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:689–701

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Geological Survey (1977) Proposed procedures for dealing with warning and preparedness for geologic-related hazards. United States Federal Register. 42(70):19292-19296

  • Udias A, Mezcua J (1986) Introduccion a la geofisica. Madrid: Ed: Alhambra

  • Varness DJ (1984) Landslide hazards zonation, a review of principles and practice. UNESCO

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sergeev Institute of Environmental Geoscience, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

    V. I. Osipov, V. I. Larionov, V. N. Burova & N. I. Frolova

  2. Extreme Situations Research Center, Moscow, Russia

    S. P. Sushchev

Authors
  1. V. I. Osipov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. I. Larionov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. N. Burova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. I. Frolova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. P. Sushchev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. I. Frolova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Osipov, V.I., Larionov, V.I., Burova, V.N. et al. Methodology of natural risk assessment in Russia. Nat Hazards 88 (Suppl 1), 17–41 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2780-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2780-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation