IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i19p12780-d934615.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Categorizing and Harmonizing Natural, Technological, and Socio-Economic Perils Following the Catastrophe Modeling Paradigm

Author

Listed:
  • Arnaud Mignan

    (Institute of Risk Analysis, Prediction and Management (Risks-X), Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), Shenzhen 518055, China
    Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), Shenzhen 518055, China)

Abstract

The literature on probabilistic hazard and risk assessment shows a rich and wide variety of modeling strategies tailored to specific perils. On one hand, catastrophe (CAT) modeling, a recent professional and scientific discipline, provides a general structure for the quantification of natural (e.g., geological, hydrological, meteorological) and man-made (e.g., terrorist, cyber) catastrophes. On the other hand, peril characteristics and related processes have yet to be categorized and harmonized to enable adequate comparison, limit silo effects, and simplify the implementation of emerging risks. We reviewed the literature for more than 20 perils from the natural, technological, and socio-economic systems to categorize them by following the CAT modeling hazard pipeline: (1) event source → (2) size distribution → (3) intensity footprint. We defined the following categorizations, which are applicable to any type of peril, specifically: (1) point/line/area/track/diffuse source, (2) discrete event/continuous flow, and (3) spatial diffusion (static)/threshold (passive)/sustained propagation (dynamic). We then harmonized the various hazard processes using energy as the common metric, noting that the hazard pipeline’s underlying physical process consists of some energy being transferred from an energy stock (the source), via an event, to the environment (the footprint).

Suggested Citation

  • Arnaud Mignan, 2022. "Categorizing and Harmonizing Natural, Technological, and Socio-Economic Perils Following the Catastrophe Modeling Paradigm," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-32, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:12780-:d:934615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12780/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12780/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnaud Mignan & Laurentiu Danciu & Domenico Giardini, 2018. "Considering large earthquake clustering in seismic risk analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(1), pages 149-172, April.
    2. Adam Rose & Charles K. Huyck, 2016. "Improving Catastrophe Modeling for Business Interruption Insurance Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1896-1915, October.
    3. Niall J MacKay, 2015. "When Lanchester met Richardson, the outcome was stalemate: A parable for mathematical models of insurgency," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 66(2), pages 191-201, February.
    4. Jorge A. Ramirez & Michal Lichter & Tom J. Coulthard & Chris Skinner, 2016. "Hyper-resolution mapping of regional storm surge and tide flooding: comparison of static and dynamic models," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 571-590, May.
    5. Arnaud Mignan & Ziqi Wang, 2020. "Exploring the Space of Possibilities in Cascading Disasters with Catastrophe Dynamics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Jochen Schmidt & Iain Matcham & Stefan Reese & Andrew King & Rob Bell & Roddy Henderson & Graeme Smart & Jim Cousins & Warwick Smith & Dave Heron, 2011. "Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 58(3), pages 1169-1192, September.
    7. Moshe Kress, 2020. "Lanchester Models for Irregular Warfare," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Arnaud Mignan & Matteo Spada & Peter Burgherr & Ziqi Wang & Didier Sornette, 2022. "Dynamics of severe accidents in the oil & gas energy sector derived from the authoritative ENergy-related severe accident database," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Chun-Pin Tseng & Cheng-Wu Chen, 2012. "Natural disaster management mechanisms for probabilistic earthquake loss," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 60(3), pages 1055-1063, February.
    10. Hazhir Rahmandad & John Sterman, 2008. "Heterogeneity and Network Structure in the Dynamics of Diffusion: Comparing Agent-Based and Differential Equation Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 998-1014, May.
    11. Joshua M. Epstein, 2009. "Modelling to contain pandemics," Nature, Nature, vol. 460(7256), pages 687-687, August.
    12. Cederman, Lars-Erik, 2003. "Modeling the Size of Wars: From Billiard Balls to Sandpiles," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(1), pages 135-150, February.
    13. Martin Eling & Werner Schnell, 2016. "What do we know about cyber risk and cyber risk insurance?," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 17(5), pages 474-491, November.
    14. Arnaud Mignan & Stefan Wiemer & Domenico Giardini, 2014. "The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 73(3), pages 1999-2022, September.
    15. Arnaud Mignan & Patricia Grossi & Robert Muir-Wood, 2011. "Risk assessment of Tunguska-type airbursts," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 56(3), pages 869-880, March.
    16. T. Maillart & D. Sornette, 2010. "Heavy-tailed distribution of cyber-risks," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 75(3), pages 357-364, June.
    17. T. Ermolieva & T. Filatova & Y. Ermoliev & M. Obersteiner & K. M. de Bruijn & A. Jeuken, 2017. "Flood Catastrophe Model for Designing Optimal Flood Insurance Program: Estimating Location‐Specific Premiums in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 82-98, January.
    18. Alileche, Nassim & Cozzani, Valerio & Reniers, Genserik & Estel, Lionel, 2015. "Thresholds for domino effects and safety distances in the process industry: A review of approaches and regulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 74-84.
    19. Turcotte, Donald L & Malamud, Bruce D, 2004. "Landslides, forest fires, and earthquakes: examples of self-organized critical behavior," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 340(4), pages 580-589.
    20. G. Grünthal & A. Thieken & J. Schwarz & K. Radtke & A. Smolka & B. Merz, 2006. "Comparative Risk Assessments for the City of Cologne – Storms, Floods, Earthquakes," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 38(1), pages 21-44, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arnaud Mignan, 2022. "A Digital Template for the Generic Multi-Risk (GenMR) Framework: A Virtual Natural Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-22, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arnaud Mignan, 2022. "A Digital Template for the Generic Multi-Risk (GenMR) Framework: A Virtual Natural Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Arnaud Mignan & Ziqi Wang, 2020. "Exploring the Space of Possibilities in Cascading Disasters with Catastrophe Dynamics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Saurabh Prabhu & Mohammad Javanbarg & Marc Lehmann & Sez Atamturktur, 2019. "Multi-peril risk assessment for business downtime of industrial facilities," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1327-1356, July.
    4. Arnaud Mignan & Stefan Wiemer & Domenico Giardini, 2014. "The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 73(3), pages 1999-2022, September.
    5. Matteo Malavasi & Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Stefan Truck & Jiwook Jang & Georgy Sofronov, 2021. "Cyber Risk Frequency, Severity and Insurance Viability," Papers 2111.03366, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    6. Farkas, Sébastien & Lopez, Olivier & Thomas, Maud, 2021. "Cyber claim analysis using Generalized Pareto regression trees with applications to insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 92-105.
    7. Zängerle, Daniel & Schiereck, Dirk, 2022. "Modelling and predicting enterprise‑level cyber risks in the context of sparse data availability," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 136276, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    8. Spencer Wheatley & Annette Hofmann & Didier Sornette, 2021. "Addressing insurance of data breach cyber risks in the catastrophe framework," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 46(1), pages 53-78, January.
    9. Mieko Kumasaki & Malcolm King & Mitsuru Arai & Lili Yang, 2016. "Anatomy of cascading natural disasters in Japan: main modes and linkages," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1425-1441, February.
    10. Malavasi, Matteo & Peters, Gareth W. & Shevchenko, Pavel V. & Trück, Stefan & Jang, Jiwook & Sofronov, Georgy, 2022. "Cyber risk frequency, severity and insurance viability," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 90-114.
    11. Gareth W. Peters & Matteo Malavasi & Georgy Sofronov & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Stefan Trück & Jiwook Jang, 2023. "Cyber loss model risk translates to premium mispricing and risk sensitivity," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 48(2), pages 372-433, April.
    12. Daniel Zängerle & Dirk Schiereck, 2023. "Modelling and predicting enterprise-level cyber risks in the context of sparse data availability," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 48(2), pages 434-462, April.
    13. Ghaderi, Mohammad, 2022. "Public health interventions in the face of pandemics: Network structure, social distancing, and heterogeneity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(3), pages 1016-1031.
    14. Baoyin Liu & Yim Ling Siu & Gordon Mitchell & Wei Xu, 2016. "The danger of mapping risk from multiple natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 139-153, May.
    15. Alessandro D’Amico & Martina Russo & Marco Angelosanti & Gabriele Bernardini & Donatella Vicari & Enrico Quagliarini & Edoardo Currà, 2021. "Built Environment Typologies Prone to Risk: A Cluster Analysis of Open Spaces in Italian Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-32, August.
    16. Jevtić, Petar & Lanchier, Nicolas, 2020. "Dynamic structural percolation model of loss distribution for cyber risk of small and medium-sized enterprises for tree-based LAN topology," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 209-223.
    17. Mieko Kumasaki & Malcolm King & Mitsuru Arai & Lili Yang, 2016. "Anatomy of cascading natural disasters in Japan: main modes and linkages," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1425-1441, February.
    18. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    19. G.J. Melman & A.K. Parlikad & E.A.B. Cameron, 2021. "Balancing scarce hospital resources during the COVID-19 pandemic using discrete-event simulation," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 356-374, June.
    20. Vivek Shastry & D Cale Reeves & Nicholas Willems & Varun Rai, 2022. "Policy and behavioral response to shock events: An agent-based model of the effectiveness and equity of policy design features," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-21, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:12780-:d:934615. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.