Encyclopedia of Engineering Geology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Peter T. Bobrowsky, Brian Marker

Risk Mapping

  • Cees J. Van WestenEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73568-9_240


A process to determine the probability of losses by analyzing potential hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that could pose a threat of harm to property, people, livelihoods, and the environment on which they depend (UN-ISDR 2009)


The Earth is shaped by endogenic processes, caused by forces from within the Earth, resulting in hazardous events like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, and exogenic processes, caused by forces related to the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, biosphere, and cryosphere and their interactions. Anthropogenic activities have had a very important influence on a number of these processes, especially in the last 200 years, for instance, through the increase of greenhouse gases, leading to global warming, but also through dramatic changes in the land cover and land use and overexploitation of scarce resources. The above mentioned processes from endogenic, exogenic, and anthropogenic sources may lead to...

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


  1. Bedford T, Cooke RM (2001) Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkmann J (ed) (2006) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. UNU Press, Tokyo/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollin C, Hidajat R (2006) Community-based disaster risk index: pilot implementation in Indonesia. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards – towards disaster resilient societies. UNU Press, Tokyo/New York/ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. CAPRA (2013) Probabilistic risk assessment program. http://www.ecapra.org/
  6. Coppock JT (1995) GIS and natural hazards: an overview from a GIS perspective. In: Carrara A and Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards. Advances in natural and technological hazards research, vol 5. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 21–34Google Scholar
  7. Corominas J, van Westen CJ, Frattini P, Cascini L, Malet J-P, Fotopoulou S, Catani F, van den Eeckhaut M, Mavrouli O, Agliardi F, Pitilakis K, Winter MG, Pastor M, Ferlisi S, Tofani V, Hervas J, Smith JT (2014) Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk: open access. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73(2):209–263Google Scholar
  8. Cova TJ (1999) GIS in emergency management. In: Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (eds) Geographical information systems: principles, techniques, applications, 2nd edn. Management issues and applications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. DeGraff JV (2012) Solving the dilemma of transforming landslide hazard maps into effective policy and regulations. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EC (2011) Risk assessment and mapping guidelines for disaster management. European Commission Commission staff working paper, European UnionGoogle Scholar
  11. FEMA (2004) HAZUS-MH. FEMA’s methodology for estimating potential losses from disasters. US Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/index.shtm
  12. Garcia-Aristizabal A, Marzocchi W (2013) Software for multi-hazard assessment. Deliverable 3.5 of the EU Matrix project: new methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment methods for Europe. http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/downloads/MATRIX-D3.05.pdf
  13. Granger K, Jones TG, Leiba M, Scott G (1999) Community risk in Cairns: a multi-hazards risk assessment. Technical report, Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO). http://www.ga.gov.au/corporate_data/33548/33548.pdf
  14. Greiving S, Fleischhauer M, Lückenkötter J (2006) A methodology for an integrated risk assessment of spatially relevant hazards. J Environ Plan Manag 49(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guha-Sapir D, Below R, Hoyois Ph (2016) EM-DAT: the CRED/OFDA International Disaster Database, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels. www.emdat.be
  16. Haimes YY (2008) Risk modeling, assessment, and management, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, p 1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IRDR (2014) Integrated research on disaster risk. Peril classification and hazard glossary (IRDR DATA publication no. 1). Integrated research on disaster risk, Beijing. http://www.irdrinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IRDR_DATA-Project-Report-No.-1.pdf
  18. ISO 31000 (2009) Risk management – principles and guidelines. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso31000.htm
  19. Jaboyedoff M, Aye ZC, Derron M-H, Nicolet P, Olyazadeh R (2014) Using the consequence – frequency matrix to reduce the risk: examples and teaching. International conference analysis and management of changing risks for natural hazards, Padua, 18–19 Nov 2014Google Scholar
  20. Jonkman SN, Gelder PHAJM, Vrijling J (2003) A Overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J Hazardous Materials 99:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00283-2Google Scholar
  21. Kappes MS, Keiler M, Von Elverfeldt K, Glade T (2012) Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards 64(2):1925–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OAS (1991) Geographic information systems. In: Natural hazard management. Organization of American States. Primer on natural hazard management in integrated regional development planning. www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea66e/ch05.htm
  23. Peila D, Guardini C (2008) Use of the event tree to assess the risk reduction obtained from rockfall protection devices. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prinos P (2008) Review of flood hazard mapping. European community sixth framework programme for European research and technological development, FLOODsiteGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts NJ, Nadim F, Kalsnes B (2009) Quantification of vulnerability to natural hazards. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 3(3):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmidt J, Matcham I, Reese S, King A, Bell R, Henderson R, Smart G, Cousins J, Smith W, Heron D (2011) Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling. Nat Hazards 58(3):1169–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schneider PJ, Schauer BA (2006) HAZUS, its development and its future. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. UN-ISDR (2009) Terminology on disaster risk reduction. https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology
  29. Van Westen CJ (2013). Remote sensing and GIS for natural hazards assessment and disaster risk management. In: Shroder J, Bishop MP (eds) Treatise on geomorphology. Remote sensing and GIScience in geomorphology, vol 3. Academic, San Diego, pp 259–298Google Scholar
  30. Van Westen CJ, Castellanos Abella EA, Sekhar LK (2008) Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazards and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng Geol 102(3–4):112–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Westen CJ, Straatsma MW, Turdukulov UD, Feringa WF, Sijmons K, Bakhtadze K, Janelidze T, Kheladze N. (2012) Atlas of natural hazards and risks of Georgia: e-book. Tbilisi, Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN), University of Twente Faculty of Geo-Information and Earth Observation (ITC). ISBN 978-9941-0-4310-9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands