An Universal Approach to Risk Assessment of Nature Management in Areas of Natural Disasters when Planning and Organizing of Economic Activities. Part 1

The article outlines a universal approach to risk assessment of nature management (RANM), developed by the author to assist government officials in assessing and reporting on environmental conditions when planning and implementing environmental management activities. This approach will also be useful to industry resource managers, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations and others interested in or currently involved in managing disaster-prone areas. RANM is the process of assessing the likelihood of an adverse outcome or event due to impacts or changes in environmental conditions, including a result of human activity. The RANM complements the formal methods used by businesses and organizations in environmental reporting, impact assessment of nature management (IANM), environmental checking, and risk management. This approach involves identifying, analyzing and presenting information in terms of risks to environmental values to support planning and decision-making processes. However, it does not purport to provide all natural and socio-economic information relevant to decision making, nor is it intended to replace standard planning and decision making in the production management process. The RANM is a flexible tool that can be used: 1) at various scales and levels of detail corresponding to these scales, from the global to the specific object; 2) on various environmental problems and types of hazardous natural processes (HNP); 3) in various sectors of the economy and at various levels of financing; 4) for short-term, medium-term and long-term time scales. The RANM is based on an assessment of the interactions between natural factors, management regimes and environmental values. Risk assessment and reporting can then be used to determine risk mitigation strategies. On this basis, specific changes in production management plans and actions can be made.

1. Vasilenko T. A., Sverguzova S. V. Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment of Engineering Projects. M.: Infra-Engineering, 2019. 264 p. (In Russ.)

2. Kuzmin S. B. Risk assessment of economic activities in natural disasters by countries of the world // Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2007;(4):86–96. (In Russ.)

3. Kuzmin S. B. Hazardous geomorphological processes and environmental management risk. Novosibirsk: Publishing House «GEO», 2009. 195 p. (In Russ.)

4. Kuzmin S. B. World environmental risk assessments // Problems of Modern Science and Education. 2015;(10):120–125. ((In Russ.)

5. Kuzmin S. B. Hazardous natural processes: special geomorphological zoning. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the SB RAS, 2022. 866 p. (In Russ.)

6. Kuzmin S. B. Risk of nature management in countries of European and African Unions: comparative analysis // Climate & Nature. 2023;(1–2):3–25. EDN: BJGNSWю (In Russ.)

7. Malyshev V. P. Global trends in increasing the risk of natural disasters and possible ways to mitigate their consequences in Russia // Issues of Risk Analysis. 2023;20(4):10–27. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2023-20-4-10-27

8. Mayorova L. P. Environmental impact assessment and environmental impact assessment. Khabarovsk: Publishing House of TOGU, 2018. 183 p. (In Russ.)

9. Bañuls V. A., López C., Turoff M., Tejedor F. Predicting the Impact of Multiple Risks on Project Performance: A Scenario-Based Approach // Project Management Journal. 2017;48(5):95–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800507

10. Baum S. D. Assessing natural global catastrophic risks // Natural Hazards. 2023;115(3):2699–2719. https://doi.org/1007/s11069-022-05660-w

11. De Angeli S., Malamud B. D., Rossi L. et al. A multihazard framework for spatial-temporal impact analysis // International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2022;73(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102829

12. Gallina V., Torresan S., Critto A. et al. A review of multirisk methodologies for natural hazards: consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment // Journal of Environmental Management. 2016;168:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.011

13. Global Risks Report 2024. 19th edition. Switzerland. Zurich. March McLennan and Zurich Economic Group Press, 2024. 124 p.

14. Marzocchi W., Garcia-Aristizabal A., Gasparini P. et al. Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy // Natural Hazards. 2012;62:551–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0092-x

15. Quinlan J. R. C4.5: Programs for Machine learning. London: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1993. 146 p.

16. Riddell G. A., van Delden H., Maier H. R., Zecchin A. C. Tomorrow’s disasters — embedding foresight principles into disaster risk assessment and treatment // International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2020;45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101437

17. Selva J. Long-term multi-risk assessment: statistical treatment of interaction among risks // Natural Haz-ards. 2013;67:701–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0599-9

18. Shah M. I., Shuaibu M. S., AbdulKareem H.K.K. et al. Inequality consequences of natural resources, environmental vulnerability and monetary-fiscal stability: a global evidence // Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2023;30:10329–10345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22788-1

19. Stalhandske Z., Steinmann C. B., Meiler S. et al. Global multihazard risk assessment in a changing cli-mate // Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55775-2

20. Ward P. J., Bloemendaal N., De Ruiter C. M. et al. Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale // Natural Hazards and Earth System Science. 2020;20(4):1069–1096. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1069-2020