Risk and Decision-Making for Extreme Events: Climate Change and Terrorism

  • Mark G. StewartEmail author


Terrorism and climate change are extreme events that frighten and alarm. This makes decision-making for these hazards or threats all the more difficult, particularly when decision-makers are risk averse. This chapter will describe how risk-based approaches are well suited to optimising decisions related to these extreme events. Stochastic methods are used to model threat likelihood, vulnerability, effectiveness of protective strategies, exposure and costs. The concepts will be illustrated with current research of risk-based assessment of counterterrorism and climate adaptation strategies. The case studies consider (1) protection of new bridges against terrorist attack and (2) climate change and cost-effectiveness of designing new port facilities to be less vulnerable to severe corrosion.


Extreme Event Protective Measure Terrorist Attack Seawater Temperature Climate Adaptation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author thanks Dr Lizhengli Peng for generating the data for Fig. 5.3. The author also appreciates the financial support of the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Flagship Cluster Fund through the project Climate Adaptation Engineering for Extreme Events in collaboration with the Sustainable Cities and Coasts Theme, the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship.


  1. ASCE. (2013, March). 2013 Infrastructure Report Card. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  2. Bai, Y., Burkett, W., & Nash, P. (2006). Lessons learnt from the emergency bridge replacement project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(4), 338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastidas-Arteaga, E., & Stewart, M. G. (2015). Damage risks and economic assessment of climate adaptation strategies for design of new concrete structures subject to chloride-induced corrosion. Structural Safety, 52(A, January), 40–53.Google Scholar
  4. Bastidas-Arteaga, E., & Stewart, M. G. (2016). Economic assessment of climate adaptation strategies for existing RC structures subjected to chloride-induced corrosion. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 12(4), 432–449.Google Scholar
  5. Bjarnadottir, S., Li, Y., & Stewart, M. G. (2011). A probabilistic-based framework for impact and adaptation assessment of climate change on hurricane damage risks and costs. Structural Safety, 33(3), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjarnadottir, S., Li, Y., & Stewart, M. G. (2013). Hurricane risk assessment of power distribution poles considering impacts of a changing climate. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 19(1), 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjarnadottir, S., Li, Y., & Stewart, M. G. (2014). Risk-based economic assessment of mitigation strategies for power distribution poles subjected to hurricanes. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(6), 740–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blalock, G., Kadiyali, V., & Simon, D. H. (2007, November). The impact of post-9/11 airport security measures on the demand for air travel. Journal of Law and Economics, 50(4), 731–755.Google Scholar
  9. Botzen, W. J. W., Alerts, J. C. J. H., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2013). Individual preferences for reducing flood risk to near zero through elevation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(2), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. GAO. (2009, January). Federal efforts to strengthen security should be better coordinated and targeted on the nation’s most critical highway infrastructure. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  11. Gardoni, P., & Murphy, C. (2014). A scale of risk. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1208–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goklany, I. M. (2008, February 5). What to do about climate change. Policy Analysis, No. 609. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Grant, M., & Stewart, M. G. (2012). A systems model for probabilistic risk assessment of improvised explosive device attack. International Journal of Intelligent Defence Support Systems, 5(1), 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant, M., & Stewart, M. G. (2015). Probabilistic risk assessment for improvised explosive device attacks causing significant building damage. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 29(5), B4014009.Google Scholar
  15. Grynbaum, M. M. (2014, September 23). At U.N., de Blasio Warns of ‘existential threat’ from climate change. New York Times.Google Scholar
  16. Hall, J. W., Brown, S., Nicholls, R. J., Pidgeon, N. F., & Watson, R. T. (2012). Proportionate adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 2, 833–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardaker, J. B., Fleming, E., & Lien, G. (2009). How should governments make risky policy decisions? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(3), 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hinkel, J., Nicholls, R. J., Vafeidis, A. T., Tol, R. S. J., & Avagianou, T. (2010). Assessing risk of and adaptation to sea-level rise in the European Union: An application of DIVA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(7), 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holden, R., Val, D. V., Burkhard, R., & Nodwell, S. (2013). A network flow model for interdependent infrastructures at the local scale. Safety Science, 53(3), 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC. (2007). Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report on intergovernmental panel on climate change. In R. K. Pachauari & A. Reisinger (Eds.) (Core writing team), Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.Google Scholar
  21. IPCC. (2012). A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In C. B. Field et al. (Eds.), Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lugeri, N., Dankers, R., Hirabayashi Doll, P., Pinskwar, I., Dysarz, T., et al. (2013). Assessing river flood risk and adaptation in Europe—Review of projections for the future. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(7), 641–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Melchers, R. E., & Jeffrey, R. (2013). Accelerated low water corrosion of steel pilling in harbours. Corrosion Engineering Science and Technology, 48, 496–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2011a). Terror, security, and money: Balancing the risks, benefits, and costs of homeland security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2011b). The price is not right: The U.S. spends too much money to fight terrorism. Playboy, 58(10), 149–150.Google Scholar
  26. Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2014). Evaluating counterterrorism spending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2016). Chasing ghosts: The policing of terrorism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Murphy, C., & Gardoni, P. (2008). The acceptability and the tolerability of societal risks: A capabilities-based approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nishijima, K., Maruyama, T., & Graf, M. (2012). A preliminary impact assessment of typhoon wind risk of residential buildings in Japan under future climate change. Hydrological Research Letters, 6(1), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norville, H. S., Harvill, N., Conrath, E. J., Shariat, S., & Mallonee, S. (1999). Glass-related injuries in Oklahoma city bombing. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 13(2), 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. NTSB. (2008, November 14). Highway accident report: Collapse of I-35W Highway Bridge, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 1, 2007. Accident Report NTSB/HAR-08/03. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board.Google Scholar
  32. OMB. (1992). Guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs (revised). Circular No. A-94, October 29, 1992. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar
  33. Paté-Cornell, E. (2002). Risk and uncertainty analysis in government safety decisions. Risk Analysis, 22(3), 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peng, L., & Stewart, M. G. (2014). Spatial time-dependent reliability analysis of corrosion damage to concrete structures under a changing climate. Magazine of Concrete Research, 66(22), 1154–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Risky Business. (2014, June). Risky business: The economic risks of climate change in the United States. Scholar
  36. Robinson, L. A., Hammitt, J. K., Aldy, J. E., Krupnick, A., & Baxter, J. (2010). Valuing the risk of death from terrorist attacks. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1).Google Scholar
  37. Stewart, M. G. (2014). Risk and economic viability of housing climate adaptation strategies for wind hazards in southeast Australia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20(4), 601–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart, M. G., & Deng, X. (2015). Climate impact risks and climate adaptation engineering for built infrastructure. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 1(1), 04014001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stewart, M. G., Ellingwood, B. R., & Mueller, J. (2011). Homeland security: A case study in risk aversion for public decision-making. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 15(5/6), 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stewart, M. G., & Melchers, R. E. (1997). Probabilistic risk assessment of engineering systems. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Stewart, M. G., & Mueller, J. (2013). Terrorism risks and cost-benefit analysis of aviation security. Risk Analysis, 33(5), 893–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stewart, M. G., & Mueller, J. (2014a). Cost-benefit analysis of airport security: Are airports too safe? Journal of Air Transport Management, 35(March), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stewart, M. G., & Mueller, J. (2014b). Risk and cost-benefit analysis of police counter-terrorism operations at Australian airports. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 9(2), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stewart, M. G., & Mueller, J. (2014c). Terrorism risks for bridges in a multi-hazard environment. International Journal of Protective Structures, 5(3), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stewart, M. G., & Peng, J. (2010). Life cycle cost assessment of climate change adaptation measures to minimise carbonation-induced corrosion risks. International Journal of Engineering under Uncertainty: Hazards, Assessment and Mitigation, 2(1–2), 35–46.Google Scholar
  46. Stewart, M. G., Val, D., Bastidas-Arteaga, E., O’Connor, A., & Wang, X. (2014). Climate adaptation engineering and risk-based design and management of infrastructure. In D. M. Frangopol & Y. Tsompanakis (Eds.), Maintenance and safety of aging infrastructure (pp. 641–684). Leiden: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stewart, M. G., Wang, X., & Willgoose, G. R. (2014). Direct and indirect cost and benefit assessment of climate adaptation strategies for housing for extreme wind events in Queensland. Natural Hazards Review, 15(4), 04014008(12).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stewart, M. G., & Mueller, J. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis of advanced imaging technology full body scanners for airline passenger security screening. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1), Article 30.Google Scholar
  49. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2–3), 121–136.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Susskind, L. (2010). Responding to the risks posed by climate change: Cities have no choice but to adapt. Town Planning Review, 81(10), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sydney Ports. (2008, March). Port botany container terminal expansion overview.Google Scholar
  52. Val, D. V., Holden, R., & Nodwell, S. (2013). Probabilistic assessment of failures of interdependent infrastructures due to weather related hazards. In G. Deodatis, B. R. Ellingwood, & D. M. Frangopol (Eds.), Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle performance of structures and infrastructure (pp. 1551–1557). London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, The University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations