Natech Disaster Risk Reduction: Can Integrated Risk Governance Help?

  • Ana Maria CruzEmail author
  • Yoshio Kajitani
  • Hirokazu Tatano


Natech risk refers to risk originating from conjoint natural and technological hazards. In this chapter, we are concerned with risk governance of Natechs involving technological hazards arising from the processing, handling and/or storage of hazardous materials (hazmats), as well as the transportation of oil and gas by pipeline. Examples of Natechs include large fires at an oil refinery in Chiba following the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami in 2011; multiple oil spills from offshore platforms following the passage of Hurricane Katrina in the US Gulf of Mexico in 2005; or the multiple fires and hazmat releases triggered by the Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey in 1999. Risk governance of Natechs presents particular challenges. Natech risk originates from the overlapping of natural, environmental and technological causes, making it predominantly complex and uncertain. Growing urban populations, industrialization, and globalization have resulted in more people and property at risk from natural hazards and secondary effects such as major Natech accidents. While concern over Natechs has been on the rise among researchers and government officials, a general framework for the governance of Natech risk is lacking in most countries. This chapter provides an overview of Natech hazards, their characteristics and the problems associated with Natech risk governance. We use the IRGC risk governance framework for guidance.


Wenchuan Earthquake Industrial Facility Risk Governance Great East Japan Earthquake Kocaeli Earthquake 
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.


  1. ABAG. 1990. Hazardous materials problems in earthquakes: A guide to their cause and mitigation. Oakland: Association of Bay Area Governments.Google Scholar
  2. ABAG. 1991. Sources of toxic gas releases in earthquakes. Oakland: Association of Bay Area Governments.Google Scholar
  3. Antonioni, G., S. Bonvicini, G. Spadoni, and V. Cozzani. 2009. Development of a general framework for the risk assessment of natech accidents. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94: 1442–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouchon, S., C. di Mauro, C. Logtmeijer, J.P. Nordvik, R. Pride, B. Schupp, and M. Thornton. 2008. Non-binding guidelines for application of the Council Directive on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy: EUR 23665 EN – 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Buesseler, K., M. Aoyama, and M. Fukasawa. 2011. Impacts of the Fukushima nuclear power plants on marine radioactivity. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 9931–9935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruz, A.M. 2011. Protecting infrastructure. In Handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction, ed. I. Kelman, B. Wisner, and J.C. Gaillard. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cruz, A.M., and E. Krausmann. 2008. Damage to offshore oil and gas facilities following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: An overview. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 21(6): 620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruz, A.M., and E. Krausmann. 2009. Hazardous materials releases from the offshore oil and natural gas facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22(1): 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruz, A.M., and E. Krausmann. 2013. Vulnerability of the oil and gas sector to climate change and extreme weather events. Climate Change 121(1): 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruz, A.M., and N. Okada. 2008. Consideration of natural hazards in the design and risk management of chemical industrial facilities. Journal of Natural Hazards 44(2): 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruz, A.M., and L.J. Steinberg. 2005. Industry preparedness for earthquakes and earthquake-triggered hazmat accidents during the Kocaeli Earthquake in 1999: A survey. Earthquake Spectra 21(2): 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cruz, A.M., L.J. Steinberg, A.L. Vetere-Arellano, J.P. Nordvik, and F. Pisano. 2004. State of the art in natech (Natural Hazard Triggering Technological Disasters). Risk Assessment in Europe. EUR Report 21292 EN, DG Joint Research Centre, EC and UN/ISDR, Ispra, Italy.Google Scholar
  13. Cruz, A.M., L.J. Steinberg, and A.L. Vetere-Arellano. 2006. Emerging issues for natech disaster risk management in Europe. Journal of Risk Research 9(5): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller, T. 2011. Thailand flooding cripples hard-drive suppliers. The New York Times, Global Business, 6 November 2011. Accessed 12 June 2012.
  15. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2011. Risk governance of maritime global critical infrastructure: The example of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council (IRGC).Google Scholar
  16. Japan External Trade Organization. 2005. Amended Building Standard Law. Japan.Google Scholar
  17. Köppke, K.E. 2012. Discussion document. OECD workshop on Natech Risk Management (Natural-hazard triggered technological accidents), 12 May 2012, Dresden, Germany.
  18. Krausmann, E., and D. Baranzini. 2009. Natech risk reduction in OECD Member Countries: Results of a questionnaire survey. Report JRC 54120, European Communities, 2009, Ispra, Italy.Google Scholar
  19. Krausmann, E., and D. Baranzini. 2012. Natech risk reduction in the European Union. Journal of Risk Research 15(8): 1027–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krausmann, E., and A.M. Cruz. 2013. Impact of the 11 March, 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Journal of Loss Prevention 121(1): 41–53.Google Scholar
  21. Krausmann, E., A.M. Cruz, and B. Affeltranger. 2010. The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23(2): 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krausmann, E., V. Cozzani, E. Salzano, and E. Renni. 2011. Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards: An emerging risk issue. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 11: 921–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Labboun, S. 2011. Thai floods impact on environment. Press TV, Bangkok, 29 December 2011. Accessed 17 Sept 2012.
  24. Larsson, Marie-Louise. 1999. The law of environmental damage: Liability and reparation, Stockholm studies in law. Stockholm: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  25. Lindell, M.K., and R.W. Perry. 1997. Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge earthuqke: Implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Analysis 17(2): 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lochbaum, D., and E. Lyman. 2012. U.S. nuclear power safety: One year after Fukushima. Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.
  27. Malhotra, P.K. 2001. Industrial facilities: Bhuj, India earthquake. Earthquake Engineering Abstracts. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland.
  28. Menoni, S. 2001. Chains of damages and failures in a metropolitan environment: Some observations on the Kobe Earthquake in 1995. Journal of Hazardous Materials 86: 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mori, N., T. Takahashi, and The 2011 Tōhoku Earthquake Tsunami Joint Survey Group. 2012. Nationwide post event survey and analysis of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake tsunami. Coastal Engineering Journal 54(1): 1250001-1-27.Google Scholar
  30. Mydans, S. 2011. Thai Prime Minister to take command of flood control efforts. The New York Times, Asia Pacific, 21 October 2011. Accessed 12 June 2012.
  31. National Research Institute of Fire and Disaster (NRIFD). 2012. Report on damage to industry from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. National Research Institute of Fire and Disaster, Japan. Accessed 27 Nov 2012.
  32. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1989. The application of the polluter-pays principle to accidental pollution. OECD Rec C(89)99 (Final), July 7, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  33. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2012. OECD Workshop on Natech Risk Management (Natural-hazard triggered technological accidents). 23–25 May 2012, Dresden, Germany. Accessed 9 July 2012.
  34. Rasmussen, K. 1995. Natural events and accidents with hazardous materials. Journal of Hazardous Materials 40(1): 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santella, N., L.J. Steinberg, and K. Parks. 2009. Decision making for extreme events: Modeling critical infrastructure interdependencies to aid mitigation and response planning. Review of Policy Research 26(4): 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Santella, N., L.J. Steinberg, and G.A. Aguirre. 2011. Empirical estimation of the conditional probability of natech events within the United States. Risk Analysis 31(6): 951–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sengul, H., N. Santella, L.J. Steinberg, and A.M. Cruz. 2012. Analysis of hazardous material releases due to natural hazards in the United States. Disasters 36(4): 723–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steinberg, L.J., and A.M. Cruz. 2004. When natural and technological disasters collide: Lessons from the Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999. Natural Hazards Review 5(3): 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steinberg, L.J., H. Sengul, and A.M. Cruz. 2008. Natech risk and management: An assessment of the state of the art. Journal of Natural Hazards 46(2): 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tatano, H., and Y. Kajitani. 2012. Production capacity losses due to the 311 disaster—Facility damage and lifeline disruption impacts. International disaster and risk conference, Davos, Switzerland, 26–30 August 2012.Google Scholar
  41. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2005. After the tsunami: Rapid environmental assessment. Asian Tsunami Disaster Task Force, United Nations Environmental Program, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  42. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana). 2007. Class action against Murphy Oil. Order & reasons approving class action settlement and award of common-benefit fees and expenses. Case 2:05-cv-04206-EEF-JCW, Document 1072, Filed 01/30/2007.Google Scholar
  43. University of British Columbia (UBC). 2010. Analyzing infrastructures for disaster-resilient communities project. Accessed 4 June 2012.
  44. World Bank. 2011. The World Bank supports Thailand’s post-floods recovery effort. World Bank News and Views, 3 December 2011. Accessed 12 June 2012.
  45. World Energy Council (WEC). 2011. World energy perspective: Nuclear energy one year after Fukushima. London: World Energy Council. Accessed 19 Sept 2012.
  46. Yoshimura, N. 2005. Personal communication. Tokyo: High Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan, October 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Maria Cruz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yoshio Kajitani
    • 2
  • Hirokazu Tatano
    • 1
  1. 1.Disaster Prevention Research InstituteKyoto UniversityUjiJapan
  2. 2.Central Research Institute of Electric Power IndustryChiyodakuJapan

Personalised recommendations