Review article: Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale

TLDR

Natural hazards have caused over 1.6 million deaths and annual economic losses of USD 260–310 billion since 1990, prompting a global push to reduce risk through advanced modeling. This review surveys global natural‑hazard risk assessments, evaluates their use of future hazard, exposure, and vulnerability projections, and highlights opportunities for cross‑hazard knowledge transfer. The authors compare methodological approaches across hazards, identify commonalities and gaps, and propose ways for hazard communities to learn from one another. They find that hydrological, climatological, and meteorological studies routinely incorporate future projections and disaster‑risk‑reduction measures, whereas geological studies are less common, and that stochastic modelling in earthquake and tsunami research offers a probabilistic framework that could benefit other hazards. Abstract.

Abstract

Abstract. Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around USD 260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy communities recognise the need to reduce these risks. As a result, the last decade has seen a rapid development of global models for assessing risk from natural hazards at the global scale. In this paper, we review the scientific literature on natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale, and we specifically examine whether and how they have examined future projections of hazard, exposure, and/or vulnerability. In doing so, we examine similarities and differences between the approaches taken across the different hazards, and we identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, there are a number of global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards that have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whereas fewer exist in the peer-reviewed literature for global studies related to geological hazards. On the other hand, studies of earthquake and tsunami risk are now using stochastic modelling approaches to allow for a fully probabilistic assessment of risk, which could benefit the modelling of risk from other hazards. Finally, we discuss opportunities for learning from methods and approaches being developed and applied to assess natural hazard risks at more continental or regional scales. Through this paper, we hope to encourage further dialogue on knowledge sharing between disciplines and communities working on different hazards and risk and at different spatial scales.