Disaster Risk Evaluation – Other Quantitative Methods

  • Nirupama Agrawal
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 49)


Building on the previous chapter on quantitative risk evaluation approaches that are currently practiced in Canada, this chapter examines methods used in other developed nations. In the USA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a method to help the insurance industry assess flood damage and subsequent compensation as part of the federal government’s mandate. The SMUG method was developed in New Zealand; and the World Risk Index was developed by two scientists from the University of Stuttgart, offering a new approach to assessing risk and vulnerability at the national scale and allowing countries to be compared.


  1. Armenakis C, Nirupama N (2014) Flood risk mapping for the City of Toronto. Proced Econ Financ, Elsevier 18:320–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkmann J, Welle T (2015) Assessing the risk of loss and damage: exposure, vulnerability and risk to climate related hazards for different country classifications. Int J Glob Warm 8(2):191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brayant E (2005) Natural hazards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 330pGoogle Scholar
  4. CDEM (2015) National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan 2015. Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management Retrieved 20 Jan 2016
  5. Chatham Islands Council (CIC) (2015) Chatham Islands Civil Defence and Emergency Management Plan 2013–2016. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  6. CSRC (2015) NIST special publications. Computer Security Resource Center. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  7. FEMA (2015a) Risk assessment, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  8. FEMA (2015b) Natural disasters, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  9. FEMA (2015c) Pandemic, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  10. FEMA (2015d) Implementation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  11. FEMA (2015e) Business impact Analysis, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  12. Grance T, Nolan T, Burke K, Dudley R, Gregory W, Good T (2015) Guide to test, training, and exercise programs for IT plans and capabilities. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  13. IIBHF (2015) Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  14. Nirupama N, Armenakis C, Montpetit M (2014) Is flooding in Toronto a concern? Nat Hazards 72(2):1259–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. NWS (2015) Flood return period calculator. National Weather Service. Accessed 22 Jan 2016
  16. Smith K (2004) Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster, Routledge 306pGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith K, Petley DN (2009) Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge, New York, p 306Google Scholar
  18. Swanson M, Bowen P, Phillips AW, Gallup D, Lynes D (2015) Contingency planning guide for federal information systems. NIST special publication 800-34 Rev 1. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  19. Welle T, Birkmann J (2015) The world risk index – an approach to assess risk and vulnerability on a global scale. J Extreme Events (JOEE) 2(1):34 pagesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nirupama Agrawal
    • 1
  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations