A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Is there a tolerable level of risk from natural hazards in New Zealand?
Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquake and aftershocks in Canterbury, New Zealand, extensive research was carried out on the rockfall hazard to residential buildings on Christchurch's Port Hills. To determine which dwellings faced an unacceptable risk to life safety, the recommendation was made to adopt a tolerable threshold for individual risk of 1/10,000 p.a. (10−4 p.a.). The 10−4 p.a. threshold has subsequently been considered for application to other natural hazards. However, this threshold is far too high. It is about 35 times higher than the post-colonial historic average for natural hazards, it is 100 times greater than New Zealand's structural design standard for new buildings and it is 10–100 times greater than the risk tolerated by comparable jurisdictions for existing and new risks, respectively. A more appropriate threshold for the risk from natural hazards is within the range from 10−5 p.a. for existing exposure to 10−6 p.a. for new exposure. The reason for adopting this arbitrarily high threshold for rock roll hazard appeared to be to balance an overestimation of calculated risk given the large uncertainties inherent in the data. However, there are some concerns if this acceptance criterion is applied to other natural hazards where underlying risk might be more accurately estimated.
Is there a tolerable level of risk from natural hazards in New Zealand?
Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquake and aftershocks in Canterbury, New Zealand, extensive research was carried out on the rockfall hazard to residential buildings on Christchurch's Port Hills. To determine which dwellings faced an unacceptable risk to life safety, the recommendation was made to adopt a tolerable threshold for individual risk of 1/10,000 p.a. (10−4 p.a.). The 10−4 p.a. threshold has subsequently been considered for application to other natural hazards. However, this threshold is far too high. It is about 35 times higher than the post-colonial historic average for natural hazards, it is 100 times greater than New Zealand's structural design standard for new buildings and it is 10–100 times greater than the risk tolerated by comparable jurisdictions for existing and new risks, respectively. A more appropriate threshold for the risk from natural hazards is within the range from 10−5 p.a. for existing exposure to 10−6 p.a. for new exposure. The reason for adopting this arbitrarily high threshold for rock roll hazard appeared to be to balance an overestimation of calculated risk given the large uncertainties inherent in the data. However, there are some concerns if this acceptance criterion is applied to other natural hazards where underlying risk might be more accurately estimated.
Is there a tolerable level of risk from natural hazards in New Zealand?
Enright, P.A. (author)
2015-01-02
8 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
| HENRY – Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Institute (BAW) | 2007
| British Library Online Contents | 2006