◉ Smith, K. (2013).

Environmental hazards: assessing risk and

reducing disaster. Routledge. [Chapter 4: Risk Assessment
and Management]
◉ Paul, B. K. (2011). Environmental hazards and disasters:
contexts, perspectives and management. John Wiley & Sons.
[Chapter 3]
◉ Chen, K., Blong, R., & Jacobson, C. (2003). Towards an
integrated approach to natural hazards risk assessment
using GIS: with reference to bushfires. Environmental
Management, 31(4), 0546-0560.
◉ World Bank (1997). Environmental Hazard and Risk
Assessment.
◉ What is risk?
◉ Risk perception
◉ Risk assessment
◉ Risk has multiple conceptions and meanings;
much has been written about it; it is a topic of
interest to researchers in many disciplines
and therefore many definitions and meanings
of risk exist. “Even among risk managers,
there is no single accepted definition for the
term” (Paul, 2011)
From Paul (2011):

◉ Risk = (Likelihood of Hazard Occurrence)(Consequence)

◉ Risk = (Probability of occurrence of an extreme event)(Magnitude)

◉ Risk = (Hazard Probability) + (Vulnerability)

◉ Risk = f{(Probability of hazard occurrence)(Population)(Vulnerability)}

◉ R = {(Hazard probability)(Expected loss)}/Preparedness (lossmitigation)

Smith (2013)

◉ Wei ji (Chinese): ‘danger’ + ‘opportunity’ /

‘precarious moment’

◉ Implication: There s a balance between profit

and loss

◉ Risk-taking / Risk-averse
◉ Risk is the probability of occurrences
and losses accrued to human lives and
environment by hazards (Chen et al
2013)

◉ The probability of particular extreme

events occurring in particular place
(Mustafa, 2012)
Voluntary risk Involuntary risk
◉ Those associated with ◉ Those associated with
activities that we decide activities that happen to
to undertake us without our prior
◉ Risks are willingly knowledge or consent
accepted by a particular ◉ Often seen as external to
individual the individual
◉ Generally, more ◉ ‘Acts of God’
common and
controllable
◉ Risks can be acceptable or not, but
acceptable risk is not easy to define.
◉ Paul: “There is a need to clearly differentiate
between acceptable risk, accepted risk,
necessary risk, and tolerable risk”
◉ Acceptable risk:

○ the degree of human and material loss that is

perceived as bearable for actions taken to reduce
disaster risk (Blanchard, 2005).

○ UNISDR (2004) The level of loss a society or

community considers acceptable given existing
social, economic, political, cultural, technical, and
environmental conditions.”
◉ Tolerable risk:

○ Represents temporarily acceptable risk.

○ An individual may be willing to tolerate a risk

because it is confined to a brief time period, or
associated with a short-term inconvenience in
exchange for long term benefit
◉ Necessary risks:
○ The consequence of living in hazardous
environments, such as floodplains, coastal areas,
and mountain slopes.

○ Given the context, necessary risks are also

accepted risks, but in a different context necessary
risks may not acceptable.

○ E.g. response to a necessary risk might be to

construct dykes to protect a community from
flooding, rather than moving the community off the
floodplain
◉ Absolute safety is impossible to
ensure, therefore a compromise is
to determine the level of risk
which is acceptable to a society or
a group for common activities or
probable situations.
◉ Some levels of risk may be
acceptable to some but not
others; “acceptable to whom” is
a necessary condition to thinking
about and assessing natural
hazards risk
◉ As Wei Ji implies, risks have
benefits, and sometimes
eliminating one risk gives rise to
others.
◉ E.g. To remove nuclear fallout risk,
must dismantling of all nuclear
power plants. However, then must
rely on coal or gas plants, would
create increased carbon-based
pollution and create increased
health and environmental risks
The process of collecting, selecting, and
interpreting signals about uncertain
impacts of events, activities, or
technologies.

◉ These signals can refer to direct experience

(e.g., witnessing a flood) or indirect
experience (e.g., information from others,
such as reading about a natural disaster in
the newspaper)
◉ The subjective judgment that individuals make about
the characteristics and severity of a risk.

◉ It reflects the decision-maker’s own interpretation of

the likelihood of being exposed to the risky conditions.

◉ People make decisions and take actions regarding

hazards based on their personal perception of risk,
rather than on some externally derived measure of
threat.

◉ Risk perception differs between technical experts and

members of the general public, across age, gender, and
culture.
◉ People’s actions, decision-making and adjustments
before, during and after a hazard event are affected
by their perception of the associated hazards

◉ Perceptions also play a major role for motivating

individuals to take action to avoid, mitigate, adapt to,
or even ignore risks.

◉ Perception of risks contributes to disaster planning

policies as public involvement in hazard planning
becomes more widespread
◉ Understanding public’s risk perception also
enhances communication and execution of
disaster preparedness and response strategies.

◉ Increased preparedness along with hazard

awareness significantly reduces individual and
community risk to environmental hazards.
◉ Idea that rationality and education
shapes risk perception
◉ Attributes unrealistic risk perception
to lack of understanding of scientific
and technical information
◉ Promotes public awareness,
communication and ‘listening to the
facts’
◉ However, this perspective does not
explain differences in risk perception
among social groups (e.g. between
men and women)
◉ Education not necessarily only
influence on risk perception

◉ Men and women scientists with

considerable technical
understanding of risk and knowledge
of risk assessment procedures still
differ in their risk perceptions.

◉ Slovic et al. (1997), who found that

among members of the British
Toxicology Society, females were far
more likely than males to judge
societal risks as moderate or high
◉ Peter Sandman proposes that risk is more
about emotional and personal impact rather
than rational objectivity

◉ “Risk professionals see ‘risk’ as ‘probability x

magnitude’, whereas for most people risk
means deaths and losses.

◉ Sandman suggests educating people, but in a

way that relates to their personal lives
◉ The difference between the way experts and the public
think about risk sometimes creates risks all by itself.

◉ To a scientist who conducts risk assessments, the

definition of risk is “hazard times exposure equals
consequence.”

◉ But to the average person, the definition of risk is “the

probability of something bad happening.”

◉ And risk communication does not always account for

the subjectivity of “something bad.”
The L’Aquila Earthquake
 Increase risk Decrease risk
Involuntary hazard (radioactive Voluntary hazard (Mountaineering)
fallout)
Immediate impact (wildfire) Delayed impact (Drought)
Direct impact Indirect impact
(Earthquake) (Drought)
Dreaded hazard (Cancer) Common hazard (Road accident)
Many fatalities Few fatalities
(Air crash) (Car crash)
Deaths grouped in space/time Deaths random in space/time
(Avalanche) (Heatwave)
Identifiable victims (schoolchilren) Statistical victims (Smokers)
 Increase risk Decrease risk
Identifiable victims (Plant Statistical victims (Smokers)
workers)
Processes not well understood Processes well understood
(Nuclear accident) (Flooding)
Uncontrollable hazard Controllable hazard
(Tropical cyclone) (Ice on highways)
Unfamiliar hazard Familiar hazard
(Tsunami) (River flood)
Lack of belief in authority Belief in authority
(private industrialist) (scientists)
Much media attention Little media attention
(Nuclear plant) (Chemical plant)
External to the nature of hazard
◉ Personality traits

◉ Community traits

◉ Socioeconomic
background

◉ Past experience
◉ Determinism (Gambler’s fallacy)
○ Find it difficult to believe in the randomness of hazardous events
○ E.g. (If Tutong hujan, then Brunei Muara hujan also)

◉ Dissonance
○ A denial or minimization of risk
○ Often a past event is a freak occurrence unlikely to be repeated

◉ Probabilism
○ It accepts that disasters will occur and that many events are
random
○ Fatalistic = “Acts of God”
◉ The tendency of people to fit their perceptions of risk
and related facts to their group commitments

◉ The “cultural cognition of risk” refers to the tendency of

individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial
to their values.

◉ People will believe a hazard more risky if those hazards

are reported in a way that aligns with their values

◉ Two perspective: self-interest vs. communal interest

◉ benefit.
◉ Gender is another variable affecting risk
○ Men tend to judge risks as smaller and less
problematic than do women.
◉ Race too is a variable
○ Environmental racism
○ People of color are subjected to many hazards
Flynn, Slovic & Mertz (1994)
○ Gender essentialism:
■ Women more instinctively caring and nurturing,
therefore more concerned about human health and
safety (because they give birth)
■ Women characterized as physically more vulnerable

○ Socialisation and stereotypes:

■ Women are socialized to care more about other
people
■ Women assumed not to be more familiar with
science and technology
◉ White males may perceive less risk than others
because they are more involved in creating, managing,
controlling and benefiting from technology.

◉ Women and nonwhite men may perceive greater risk

because they tend to be more vulnerable, have less
control, and benefit less.

◉ Risk perceptions are related to individuals’ levels of

decision power (for example, whether they have high or
low ability to influence decisions about the use of
hazards such as liquefied petroleum gas) and their
interest in a hazard
White Male Effect – and
spatial location

Related to ‘vulnerability’ concept – who is exposed to

risky events (topic of next lecture!)
◉ Compared to mothers, fathers in general expressed
less concern for radiation.
◉ Fathers prioritized their responsibilities as the
breadwinner for their families and saw radiation risk as
a threat to economic stability and masculine identity.
◉ As a result, mothers’ health concerns were dismissed,
and they were prevented from taking preventive
actions.
Younger people, such as students, are more
concerned with environmental risks (e.g. landslides,
etc), while older people emphasise health and safety
issues (Fischer et al, 1991)

Older age groups are more risk-aware and risk-

averse (Otani et al, 1992)

○ Older age groups indicated higher risk in ignoring

warning signs than did the younger group.
○ The older subjects were also less willing to disregard
the signs than the younger subjects.
◉ Past experience has been shown to significantly
affect risk perception

◉ In California before the 1989 Earthquake, 34% of

people surveyed believed earthquake insurance is
useless; after the earthquake, only 5% of people
had the same opinion

◉ Similar findings are found post-flooding, where

people are more likely to get insurance after going
through a disaster
◉ However, the length of time between the
previous event and the next event also affects
the risk perception

◉ Partly thinking “This won’t likely happen again”

after adjustments are made and everyday life
prove to pass by uneventfully
Aspect Details Examples

Trust / Credibility Do you trust the “My neighbour’s cousin’s brother-in-law

source of says” vs. “The Meterological Office of Brunei
information? Darussalam reports…”

Control Risk perception is “I have a getaway sampan in case of

higher if we feel we flooding”
have control over
our response “I have access to hospitals in case of
injury/illness”
Children involved? There is greater China Earthquake 2008
emotional response
when children are
involved
Aspect Details
Choice Risk from activities that are
voluntarily chosen are perceived
as less risky
Research-based choices lower
risk perception
New vs familiar Something novel and unknown
perceived as more dangerous
Media attention on latest
epidemics and events blow
seriousness out of proportion
Examples
“Jumping from a plane is
totally safe because I have a
parachute and went through
100 hours of simulation
training”
Location chosen as home
because of research and effort
into the safety and security of
location
Zika virus vs dengue
◉ The process to determine or arrive at a
(quantitative/qualitative) value of risk
◉ A formal method for establishing the
degree of risk an individual or a
community faces from single or
multiple hazards.
◉ Risk assessment represents the first step
toward risk management.
◉ Risk assessment then leads to communication
of results, raising awareness of potential
threats, and then measures introduced to
mitigate and manage the threat.
◉ The ideal outcome is to avert disaster, or to
reduce as much as possible the consequences
of disaster.
 Quantitative Qualitative

• Numerical • Non-numerical
• Calculating the • Defining the various
probabilities of threats, determining
occurrence for the extent of
extreme events and vulnerabilities, and
the likely extent of devising
losses should it take countermeasures
place should an event occur.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795211001499
 Risk identification
e.g. Earthquake, landslides,
What type of hazard may occur?
nuclear reactor failure

Risk estimation
e.g. 1 in 10 chance; 30%
The probability that it will occur
probability; High (Level 3)

Risk evaluation
What are the consequences of the e.g. Losses in millions of dollars,
hazard fatalities, lost work days
◉ No one single approach.
◉ Methods depend on the context, the nature of
hazard, the location, the populations and
resources potentially impacted, and the
institutions/organisations that are carrying
out the assessment
◉ Can be overly quantitative and reductive.
◉ Ignores qualitative differences among risks.
◉ May omit important non-quantifiable and/or
inaccessible information, such as variations
among classes of people exposed to hazards
(vulnerability).
◉ Quantitative approaches divert attention
from precautionary or preventative
measures.
◉ Risk managers considered little more than
“blind users” of statistical tools and methods.
◉ In other words, unless the science behind risk
assessments are translated for use by policy
makers and individuals and communities, risk
assessments are not very effective if not
understandable.
Phase of analysis Risk assessment Risk perception

Risk identification Event monitoring Individual intuition

Statistical inference Personal awareness

Risk estimation Magnitude/frequency Personal experience

Economic costs Intangible losses

Risk evaluation Cost/benefit analysis Personality factors

Community policy Individual action