Funded by

European Union
Civil Protection

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use

Current and Future Risk Scenarios
Uscore2: City-to-City Peer Review Tool
This document has been prepared as part of
the Uscore2 - City-to-city local level peer
review on Disaster Risk Reduction project.
The sole responsibility for the content of this
publication lies with the author(s). This
document covers civil protection activities
implemented with the financial assistance of
the European Union’s DG-ECHO Call for
proposals 2016 for prevention and
preparedness projects in the field of civil
protection programme under, agreement
number: ECHO/SUB/2016/743543/PREV04.
The views expressed herein should not be
taken, in any way, to reflect the official
opinion of the European Union, and the
European Commission is not responsible for
any use that may be made of the information
it contains.

Website: www.Uscore2.eu
Twitter: @Uscore2EU
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Background 4
Further Information 6
How can institutional resilience be assessed and improved? 7
How can this be measured? 8
Methodology 9
Phase 2, Step 7: Information to send to Review Team prior to the Review Team visit 9

Suggestions for the type of pre-visit evidence that could be shared between citites 9
Phase 2, Step 8: Arrangements for the peer review visit 11
Who should the Review Team interview? 11
How can the Host City multi-agency risk assessment capacity be demonstrated? 12
Phase 2, Step 9: Review Team: Gathering Evidence 13
Phase 3, Step 11: Recording Information and Drafting Initial Recommendations 18

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 1
2 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

INTRODUCTION

Uscore2 is a peer-to-peer review process for It is strongly recommended that cities

cities. Designed with funding from the interested in inviting another city to peer review
European Commission, it enables cities to their DRR activity work through the Step-by-
share and learn from good practice in Disaster Step Guide as a precursor to undertaking
Risk Reduction (DRR) in other cities across the Module 2.
world. Uscore2 focuses on the use of city-level
This Module Guide gives information relevant to
peer reviews as a tool with which the activities
those steps in the peer review process which
of one city in the area of disaster risk
are specific to Module 2.
management and civil protection are examined
on an equal basis by fellow peers who are During the development of Uscore2, the peer
experts from other cities. This approach review process has been piloted by three cities:
facilitates improvements in DRR through the Amadora (Portugal), Salford (UK) and Viggiano
exchange of good practice and mutual learning, (Italy). The pilot cities spoke positively of their
whilst also maintaining impartiality and experiences:
transparency. This peer review programme
integrates an evidence based methodology for
“Peer reviews are interactive and about
impact evaluation, enabling participants to
mutual learning, exchange of good practice
demonstrate the value generated by the
and policy dialogue, a support tool for
investment in the peer review.
prevention and preparation under the EU
Cities undertaking a peer review of disaster civil protection mechanism and promote an
risk assessment will generally be undertaking integrated approach to disaster risk
this as part of a wider review as outlined in the management, linking risk prevention,
Uscore2 Step-by-Step Guide to city-to-city peer preparation, response and recovery actions.”
reviews for Disaster Risk Reduction. The Step-
by-Step Guide provides an essential overview of
the peer review process, the Impact Evaluation
Methodology (IEM) used to measure the impact
of the peer review, and the 11 Modules for
conducting city-to-city peer reviews for DRR.

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 3
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

BACKGROUND

This Module focuses on improving decision At the global and regional level the Sendai
making for resilience by exploiting knowledge Framework highlights the importance of
of risk (UNISDR n.d) including learning from fostering collaboration across global and
cities with equivalent risk profiles to regional mechanisms and actively engaging in
understand similar risk and resilience issues the global, regional and sub-regional platforms
(UNISDR, 2017). Over the last 10 years, there for DRR in order to develop partnerships,
has been significant progress in strengthening assess progress, and share good practice and
disaster preparedness, response and early knowledge (Sendai Framework, 2015).
warning capacities and in reducing specific
Due to the growth and expansion of urban
risks. However, progress has been limited in
areas more people, are being exposed to
most countries when it comes to managing the
hazards (Meerow et al., 2016). Risks arise from
underlying risks.
the combination of hazards and vulnerabilities
Priority 1 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster at a particular location and time. Assessments
Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, ‘Understanding of risk require systematic collection and
disaster risk’, states that “policies and analysis of data and should consider the
practices for disaster risk management should dynamic nature of hazards and vulnerabilities
be based on an understanding of disaster risk that arise from processes such as urbanisation,
in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, rural land-use change, urban development,
exposure of persons and assets, hazard environmental degradation and climate change
characteristics and the environment. Such (Basu et al. 2013; Birkmann et al. 2013).
knowledge can be leveraged for the purpose of
pre-disaster risk assessment, for prevention
and mitigation and for the development and
implementation of appropriate preparedness
Hazard
and effective response to disasters” (Sendai
Framework, 2015 p. 14).
X
To achieve this, a number of areas should be
developed at national and local levels, and
global and regional levels (Sendai Framework,
2015). At the national and local level the focus Exposure
is on the collection, analysis and management
of data to assess disaster risks and identify the
population’s exposure, vulnerability, X
susceptibility, and adaptive capacity to these
risks (Birkmann et al. 2013; Sendai Framework,
2015). The Sendai Framework also highlights
the importance of disseminating local risk Vulnerability
information to decision makers, the general
public and communities at risk of exposure to
disasters (Sendai Framework, 2015). In turn =
this supports improved targeting of risk
information to populations (Cardona and
Carreño 2011), and increased government Disaster Risk
attention on DRR and resilience (Fleischhauer
et al. 2012).

4 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

Risk assessments identify both the hazards to developing risk analysis strategies, risk
which the city is exposed and the city-wide reduction measures and planning, to support
vulnerability, enabling understanding of the the implementation of meaningful DRR and
geographic and sectoral distribution of risk. In resilience building programmes. Unless local
addition to identifying the hazards to which the governments have a clear understanding of the
city is prone and carrying out hazard risks they face, and discuss risk scenarios in
assessments, cities should include cascading detail with the public and other stakeholders,
effects and trans-boundary risks within their implementation of meaningful disaster risk
risk assessments (UNISDR, 201 p. 37). Among reduction measures may be ineffective
other things, risk assessments are a basis for (UNISDR, n.d). The peer review process
the identification of effective structural and therefore helps to facilitate conversations
non-structural mitigation measures. Risk between local government and other
assessment and analysis must be both stakeholders who may not be readily consulted,
systematic and updated as often as possible to to promote commitment to DRR and resilience
match the changing nature of risk (RTF-URR, strategies from all levels of society (Twigg
2010 p. 35). 2009).
Disaster risk should be understood as a
contingent liability (described as “another References
category of toxic assets” (GAR, 2015 p. 54)). If a Basu, M., Srivastava, N., Mulyasari, F., & Shaw,
country ignores disaster risk and allows risk to R. (2013). Making Cities and Local Governments
accumulate, it is in effect undermining its own Ready for Disasters: A Critical Overview of a
future potential for social and economic Recent Approaches. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in
development. However, if a country invests in Public Policy, 4(4), pp. 250–273.
disaster risk reduction, over time it can reduce
the potential losses it faces, thus freeing up Birkmann, J., Buckle, P., Jaeger, J., Pelling, M.,
critical resources for development. Setiadi, N., Garschagen, M., Fernando, N., &
Kropp., J., (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk
Managing risk, rather than managing disasters and societal responses: The MOVE framework.
as indicators of unmanaged risk, now has to Natural Hazards, 67(2), pp. 193–211.
become inherent to the art of development; not
Cardona, O. D., & Carreño, M. L. (2011).
an add-on to development, but a set of
Updating the Indicators of Disaster Risk and
practices embedded in its very DNA. Managing
Risk Management for the Americas. Journal of
the risks inherent in social and economic
Integrated Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), pp.
activity requires a combination of three
27–47.
approaches:
Fleischhauer, M., Flex, F., Greiving, S., Scheibel,
1. Prospective risk management, which aims to
M., Stickler, T., Sereinig, N., Koboltschnig, G.,
avoid the accumulation of new risks;
Malvati, P., Vitale, V., Grifoni, P., & Firus, K.,
2. Corrective risk management, which seeks to (2012). Improving the active involvement of
reduce existing risks; stakeholders and the public in flood risk
management: Tools of an involvement strategy
3. Compensatory risk management to support
and case study results from Austria, Germany
the resilience of individuals and societies in
and Italy, Natural Hazards and Earth System
the face of residual risk that cannot be
Science, 12(9), pp. 2785–2798.
effectively reduced. (GAR, 2015 p. ix).
GAR, (2015). Global Assessment Report on
In summary, disaster risk management must
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015, United Nations,
be based on an understanding of disaster risk
Geneva, available from:
scenarios, the characteristics of hazards, who
https://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/
and what is exposed, the level of capacity within
gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR2015_EN.pdf
a society and its level of vulnerability (UNISDR,
n.d). Peer review will support cities in

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 5
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

References
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016).
Defining urban resilience: A review, Landscape
and Urban Planning, 147, pp. 38–49.
RTF-URR, (2010). Asia Regional Task Force on
Urban Risk Reduction, ‘A Guide for
Implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action
by Local Stakeholders, available from:
https://www.unisdr.org/files/13101_Implementi
ngtheHFA.pdf
Sendai Framework, (2015). Sendai Framework
for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, United
Nations, Geneva.
Twigg, J. (2009). Characteristics of a Disaster-
Resilient Community: a Guidance Note. Aon
Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre.
UNISDR. (2017), How to Make Cities More
Resilient: A Handbook for Local Government
Leaders, UNISDR, Geneva, available from:
http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/
assets/documents/guidelines/Handbook%20Fo
r%20Local%20Government%20Leaders_WEB_
May%202017.pdf
UNISDR. (n.d), Essential Two: Identify,
Understand and Use Current and Future Risk
Scenarios, available from:
http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/
home/index/Essential%20Two:%20Identify%20
Understand%20and%20Use%20Current%20and
%20Future%20Risk%20Scenarios/?id=2

Further Information
For further information on peer reviews visit:
www.Uscore2.eu. Also refer to ISO 22392 when
published. Currently it is in draft and will
contain further information about peer reviews.

6 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

HOW CAN INSTITUTIONAL RESILIENCE BE

ASSESSED AND IMPROVED?

The description of Essential 2: identify, understand and use current and future risk scenarios taken
from the UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient website and given below, describes the activities a city
should be demonstrating to improve resilience in this area. A city’s capacity for resilience is the
responsibility of a number of organisations, though it is usual for local government to take the lead
and enable effective collaboration.

Essential Two: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
Identify the most probable and most severe (worst-case) scenarios
• Take into consideration how hazards might change over time given the impact of factors
such as urbanisation and climate change, how multiple hazards might combine, and how
repeated small scale disaster events (if there is a relevant risk of these) might
accumulate in their impact over time;
• Prepare and maintain an updated database on: geographic areas exposed and territorial
impact; population segments, communities and housing exposed; economic assets and
activities exposed including its impact on the social, health, education, environmental,
and cultural heritage; critical infrastructure assets exposed, the consequent risk of
cascading failures from one asset system to another;
• Estimate timescales over which risks, vulnerabilities and impacts occur as well as
responses required;
• Create and publish maps of risk and exposure detailing the above.

Make use of the knowledge from risk scenarios for development decisions
• Seek inputs from the full range of stakeholders (including ethnic and social groupings);
• Update the risk scenario assessment regularly;
• Set the basis for current and future investment decisions;

Widely communicate and use risk scenario assessments for decision-making purposes, and
updating of response and recovery plans.

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 7
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

HOW CAN THIS BE MEASURED?

The following table describes the high level indicators for Essential 2 taken from the Disaster
Resilience Scorecard Preliminary Level Assessment. These are used in this Module as indicators
against which to gather evidence and make recommendations.

Ref Subject / Issue Question / Assessment Area

P 2.1 Hazard Does the city have knowledge of the key hazards that the
assessment city faces, and their likelihood of occurrence?

P 2.2 Shared Is there a shared understanding of risks between the city

understanding of and various utility providers and other regional and national
infrastructure risk agencies that have a role in managing infrastructure such
as power, water, roads and trains, of the points of stress on
the system and city scale risks?

P 2.3 Knowledge of Are there agreed scenarios setting out city-wide exposure
exposure and and vulnerability from each hazard, or groups of hazards
vulnerability (see above)?

P 2.4 Cascading Is there a collective understanding of potentially cascading

Impacts failures between different city and infrastructure systems,
under different scenarios?

P 2.5 Presentation Do clear hazard maps and data on risk exist? Are these
and update regularly updated?
process for risk
information

The full Detailed Assessment from the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities is available
through the following link:
http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/toolkitblkitem/?id=4.

8 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

METHODOLOGY
PHASE 2, STEP 7: INFORMATION TO SEND TO
REVIEW TEAM PRIOR TO THE REVIEW TEAM VISIT
Please refer to the Step-by-Step Guide for advice on both conducting and hosting peer reviews.
This section sets out information that is specific to this Module, which begins in Phase 2.

Phase 2, Step 7: Information to send to Review • The outcomes of local completion of the
Team prior to the Review Team visit UNISDR’s Disaster Resilience Scorecard for
Cities, Essential 2.
As set out in the Step-by-Step Guide if Module 1
(Organise for Disaster Resilience) is not For the remaining indicators, no more than 4
undertaken at the same time as Module 2, then other items in total should be selected from the
an overview of the Host City’s disaster risk suggestions below to demonstrate the Host
governance should be included in the pre-visit City’s baseline capacity on disaster risk
information sent to the Review Team. assessment.
The Host City should aim to send the pre-visit P2.1: Hazard assessment
evidence to the Review Team three months • City-wide maps illustrating the exposure of
ahead of the peer review visit. It is different areas of the Host City to different
recommended that the pre-visit evidence is risks, including trans-boundary risks
limited to 3 – 5 items for each Module.
• A summary of the historical disasters that
Suggestions for the type of pre-visit evidence have occurred within or impacted the Host
that could be shared between cities City
A selection of evidence should be sent to the
Review Team before their visit to the Host City. • An analysis or research article describing
This could include the type of information listed how climate change projections are
below or any other information that the Host informing future risk modelling and how
City and the Review Team agree would be of natural assets offer protection to the city in
benefit. relation to key risks
It is highly recommended that the Host City • National and / or local risk registers
prepare a summary of how the Host City
ensures it is identifying, understanding and • Public information leaflets or digital
using current and future risk scenarios applications that advise the public about the
including: key hazards that the city faces.
• An overview of the mechanisms in place to P2.2: Shared understanding of infrastructure
undertake disaster risk assessments at a risk
local level • An explanation of how risk scenarios and
population exposure to hazards inform
• How the disaster risk assessments inform urban development
city level decision making, including which
governance arrangements in the Host City • A city masterplan or equivalent planning
have the responsibility to consider disaster framework that shows how the Host City
risk assessments factors disaster risk assessments into urban
development and infrastructure planning
• The major risks faced by the Host City, their
likelihood of occurrence and potential
impacts, including the most probable and
most severe scenarios
Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 9
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

• Minutes of a cross-sector meeting, such as a P2.5: Presentation and update process for risk
local DRR platform, where representatives information
from the Host City and utility / infrastructure • Examples of hazard maps and data on risk,
providers meet to discuss disaster risk and including a monitoring and review schedule
resilience
• Details of any public facing website,
• A case study describing a cross-sector application or social media platform that
approach to investing in measures to gives information, including maps, on risk
strengthen the resilience of key points of and resilience
stress in the Host City’s critical
infrastructure • Details of any website, application or other
digital platform through which the Host
• A report from a collaborative training event City’s DRR practitioners share data,
or exercise where the city and utility / including maps, on risk and resilience.
infrastructure providers rehearsed the
response to a disaster affecting the Host
City’s infrastructure.
P2.3: Knowledge of exposure and vulnerability
• A description of the most probable and most
severe disaster scenarios, setting out the
city-wide exposure and vulnerability
• A description of how vulnerable groups and
members of the community who may have
specific needs are included in risk
assessments
• A case study describing how the Host City’s
risk assessment arrangements have helped
to identify a disaster risk and have, in turn,
led to the disaster risk being mitigated
(economic, social, health or environmental).
P2.4: Cascading impacts
• An analysis of the potential cascading
failures across the city if a key infrastructure
is damaged in the reasonable worst case
scenario for a high impact risk
• A plan to show how the Host City will
respond to a high impact, low probability
disaster scenario affecting key city systems
• Mapping or analysis of the interfaces
between different systems that may be
important in the cascading impacts of a
disaster
• A debrief report written in the aftermath of a
disaster that illustrates the cascading
consequences, together with an action plan
to mitigate the cascading impacts in future
events.

10 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

PHASE 2, STEP 8: ARRANGEMENTS

FOR THE PEER REVIEW VISIT

As described in the Step-by-Step Guide, in the resilience work and a mandate to strengthen
3-6 months before the peer review visit, the disaster risk assessment arrangements are
Host City and Review Team are recommended included and available. The Host City and
to agree an agenda for the visit. This will Review Team should consider all Modules
include a range of activities to enable the being assessed during the peer review and
Review Team to understand how the Host City is combine relevant questions with each senior
strengthening and maintaining arrangements politician or officer into one appointment.
for disaster risk assessment. The types of
activities could include some or all of those The Host City and Review Team may also wish
listed below, or any other relevant actions. It is to consider who would be most appropriate in
anticipated that the review of this Module will light of their initial exchange of pre-visit
take a day. For all interviews, the Host City information and also given the most probable
should ensure translators are available if they and most severe disaster scenarios for the Host
are required. City. Suggestions include:
• Senior managers of institutions that are part
At the start of the Review Team’s assessment of of the Host City’s risk assessment
Module 2, the Host City is highly recommended arrangements and are responsible for
to make a summary presentation to the Review identifying, understanding and using current
Team which sets out the approach to disaster and future risk scenarios
risk assessment. This could include • Officials who are responsible for drawing up
information about: the Host City’s disaster risk assessment and
risk register
• How the Host City’s arrangements for • Senior managers in different organisations
identifying, understanding and using and from different sectors who have a
disaster risk assessments operate responsibility for and an investment in
• The institutions and other stakeholders in ensuring effective disaster risk assessment
the Host City that are involved in assessing • Practitioners, academics and technical
disaster risks and how these are coordinated experts who have been involved in disaster
and work together to develop credible risk risk assessment
scenarios
• Senior managers from utility / infrastructure
• How well those involved in disaster risk providers who have a role in managing
assessment understand the risks the Host critical infrastructure within the Host City
City faces and how this knowledge is
transferred into city decision making that
reduces risks and strengthens the Host
City’s resilience whilst avoiding the creation
of new risks.
Who should the Review Team interview?
When considering who is important for the
Review Team to interview and / or receive a
presentation from, it is highly recommended
that the Mayor and / or other key local political
leaders who give leadership in the Host City’s

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 11
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

• Representatives from national and regional Exercises and Training

government who have a role in identifying, Especially in the context of this Module,
understanding and using risk information, observation by the Review Team of a public or
especially in relation to infrastructure risk practitioner training event taking place in the
• Community representatives who have been Host City at the time of the visit, or observation
involved in the identification of hazards in of a table top or live exercise to rehearse the
their area and developed a community city’s emergency response would be very
mitigation response alongside the Host City’s helpful. If required, ‘real time’ translation of the
response training / exercise into the preferred language
• Representatives of vulnerable groups who of the Review Team should be organised by the
may have specific needs taking into account Host City.
gender, disabilities, age, migrants, etc. to
identify if the overall risk assessments detail Observing a training event or exercise is
their particular vulnerabilities and the beneficial in that it will enable the Review Team
mitigation of any increased risk to them to visualise how the Host City understands and
uses disaster risk assessments to inform
• Practitioners who have been involved in a
proportionate and appropriate preparations in
city-to-city knowledge exchange on risk
case a disaster occurs.
assessment
• Insurance sector representatives to
determine if there is a shared understanding
of the major hazards, their likelihood of
occurrence and the insurance cover in place
for the Host City.

How can the Host City multi-agency risk

assessment capacity be demonstrated?
In addition to interviews and presentations,
suggestions for activities within the programme
for the visit include but are not limited to:

• Visit a team researching and assembling data

in relation to risk assessment
• Site visits to major hazard locations,
including those where mitigation activity has
been successful in reducing risk
• Site visits to observe the work of
infrastructure providers in understanding
and mitigating infrastructure risks
• Demonstrations of specialist capabilities to
identify and monitor disaster risk
• Observation of a cross-sector, partnership
meeting in which Host City officials and utility
/ infrastructure providers are developing and
using a shared understanding of disaster risk
• Observation of an example of a meeting
where risk assessment is influencing Host
City decision making taking place in the Host
City at the time of the visit.

12 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

PHASE 2, STEP 9: REVIEW

TEAM: GATHERING EVIDENCE

The Review Team will gather evidence from the • What activities currently support
pre-review information submitted before the performance in this area and are these
peer review visit, together with information activities effective?
from interviews and activities undertaken
during the visit, to gain a view of the • What, if any, additional activities would the
effectiveness of the Host City’s existing Host City like to undertake in future? What
approaches to identifying, understanding and are the barriers to extending activities?
using current and future risk scenarios. This • How are resources / information / training
will include: shared? Are there exclusions or barriers to
• Effectiveness of the disaster risk assessment access?
activity in the Host City and whether there • How is the Host City accessing local /
are suitable and sufficient organisational national / international sources of expertise
arrangements in place to improve DRR in this area? Which
• Effectiveness of the Host City in engaging all networks is the Host City part of to support
relevant agencies and organisations to this activity?
support and augment the identification, Although the Review Team should design their
understanding and use of current and future own detailed questions in order to explore
risk scenarios within the Host City issues they consider relevant in the context of
• Effectiveness of communication of disaster the Host City, the following questions are
risk assessments within the governance offered as suggestions that may be helpful in
structures, to key institutions and to stakeholder interviews for Module 2. They are
communities. example questions and it is wholly acceptable
to tailor them or, equally, not to use them,
The Review Team will structure their evidence according to the individual peer review. The
gathering and interviews to enable the Host Review Team could choose to select just the
City to describe and demonstrate their relevant questions as well as asking additional
approach against each of the indicators questions that have not been listed below.
included in the Disaster Resilience Scorecard
Preliminary Level Assessment. Overall, the
Review Team should determine:
• Who leads / contributes / coordinates /
assesses performance in this area? Is this
effective? Is shared ownership of DRR
evident?
• Who is missing / underperforming or
underrepresented?
• What skills and experience are evidenced?
Are there deficits?

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 13
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

Ref Subject / Issue Suggested Questions

P 2.1 Skills and Does the Host City have knowledge of the key hazards that
Experience the city faces, and their likelihood of occurrence?

• What are your responsibilities and accountabilities in

relation to risk assessment?
• What powers and capacity do you have to act on these
responsibilities?
• Who is in overall charge in the Host City for disaster risk
assessment and what arrangements are in place to
strengthen approaches to risk assessment?
• What are the main hazards faced by the Host City? How
likely are they to occur?
• What makes the Host City’s risk assessment activity
effective? What are the particular strengths of current
arrangements?
• How does the Host City ensure risk assessments are
informed and evidence based, drawing on scientific,
technical or academic advice and knowledge?
• How does the Host City assure itself of the effectiveness
of its risk assessment activity?
• What arrangements are in place for the Host City to
model and understand the potential impacts of climate
change and how this might affect future risk scenarios?
• How does the Host City factor information and
assessments about climate change into its decisions to
mitigate and reduce future risks?
• How are civil society, communities and indigenous
peoples and migrants involved in identifying risks?
• How do the Host City’s risk assessment activities work in
partnership / alongside the arrangements in
neighbouring cities / areas?
• What are the barriers to the Host City strengthening its
risk assessment activity? Where and how could risk
assessment improve?

14 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

Ref Subject / Issue Suggested Questions

P 2.2 Shared Is there a shared understanding of risks between the Host

understanding City and various utility providers and other regional and
of infrastructure national agencies that have a role in managing
risk
infrastructure such as power, water, roads and trains, of
the points of stress on the system and city scale risks?

• How does the Host City work across silos to make the
identification, understanding and / or use of disaster
risk assessments “everyone’s business”?
• How do regional and national governments work with
the city government to strengthen risk assessment
activity?
• How does the Host City influence the regional and
national risk reduction activity, especially for
infrastructure that crosses different administrative
boundaries?
• How do the Host City and various organisations, such as
utility / transport providers and regional / national
agencies demonstrate a shared understanding of risk?
• How is the input from different sectors and
stakeholders coordinated? How do different
stakeholders influence risk assessment in the Host
City?
• How do the institutions in the Host City understand the
roles and responsibilities of other institutions in the
Host City in disaster risk reduction and during the
response to a disaster?
• How has the Host City planned to build back better and
to reduce the city’s exposure and vulnerability to
disaster risk following a disaster?

P 2.3 Knowledge of Are there agreed scenarios setting out Host City-wide
exposure and exposure and vulnerability from each hazard, or groups of
vulnerability hazards (see above)?

• How does the Host City’s risk assessment activity

contribute to and support public awareness and
education about existing risks, facilitate community
resilience and advocate for an all-of-society approach to
risk assessment?
• How does the Host City engage citizens in the
development / assessment of risk assessment activity?
Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 15
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

Ref Subject / Issue Suggested Questions

P 2.3 Knowledge of
exposure and • How does the Host City identify vulnerable groups who
vulnerability are exposed to disaster risk and how does the city
mitigate this vulnerability?
• How regularly are the Host City’s disaster risk
assessments updated to reflect climate change
projections?
• What arrangements are in place for the Host City to use
its disaster risk assessments to inform investments in
disaster risk reduction?
• What arrangements are in place to use the Host City’s
risk assessments to inform decisions about urban
planning and infrastructure development?
• How does the Host City regularly draw on learning and
good practice from other cities in respect of risk
assessment?

P 2.4 Cascading Is there a collective understanding of potentially

Impacts cascading failures between different Host City and
infrastructure systems, under different scenarios?

• How do the Host City and utility / infrastructure

providers work together to identify critical infrastructure
and the potential for cascading failures in different risk
scenarios?
• How do the Host City and utility / infrastructure
providers develop a shared understanding of the risks to
essential services within the city and how failure in one
service might affect another?
• How do the Host City, national and regional
governments, and utility / infrastructure providers work
together to invest in reducing or mitigating the risks of
cascading failures under different disaster risk
scenarios?
• Have the utility / infrastructure providers in the Host City
developed joint plans and capabilities to respond to risk
scenarios predicted under climate change projections?
• What arrangements are in place to understand the
potential impacts of climate change on cascading
impacts?

16 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

Ref Subject / Issue Suggested Questions

P 2.5 Presentation
Do clear hazard maps and data on risk exist? Are these
and update
regularly updated?
process for risk
information
• Which stakeholders are engaged in updating risk data,
maps and scenarios?
• Who has the responsibility in the Host City for
identifying, understanding and updating risk
information?
• How is updated risk information shared with businesses
and institutions in the Host City?
• How is updated risk information shared with
communities across the Host City?
• How often is the Host City’s risk information updated to
reflect updated climate change projections?

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 17
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

PHASE 3, STEP 11: RECORDING INFORMATION

AND DRAFTING INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The ‘Step-by-Step Guide’ describes how the

Review Team can record information during
the peer review visit and includes a generic
form that can be used to capture information
during individual presentations, interviews
and other activities.

At the end of each day, it is recommended

that the Review Team assemble to consider
all the information that it has heard during
the day and summarise the evidence to
understand:

• Areas of good practice and strengths on

which the Host City can build
• Areas where further information may be
needed before the peer review visit is
finished
• Areas where possible recommendations
for the future may be made.

This process will help to inform both the

remainder of the visit and the drafting of the
peer review outcome report.

The two tables below are offered as a way of

recording the overall findings for Module 2
together with the initial recommendations
arising from the activities experienced
during the day.

18 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

SUMMARY OF INITIAL FINDINGS

Comments Justification for Good practice

assessment identified

P 2.1 Hazard Assessment

Does the Host City have knowledge of
the key hazards that the city faces, and
their likelihood of occurrence?

P 2.2 Shared Understanding of

Infrastructure Risk
Is there a shared understanding of
risks between the Host City and
various utility providers and other
regional and national agencies that
have a role in managing infrastructure
such as power, water, roads and
trains, of the points of stress on the
system and city scale risks?

P 2.3 Knowledge of Exposure

and Vulnerability
Are there agreed scenarios setting
out Host City-wide exposure and
vulnerability from each hazard,
or groups of hazards?

P 2.4 Cascading Impacts

Is there a collective understanding of
potentially cascading failures between
different Host City and infrastructure
systems, under different scenarios?

P 2.5 Presentation and Update

Process for Risk Information
a) Do clear hazard maps and data on
risk exist?

b) Are these regularly updated?

Other

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 19
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Description of Justification Time horizon

areas for
potential
development

E.g. Extent to which data on the city’s E.g. Ensure a E.g. A regular E.g. Short,
resilience context is shared with other consistent flow flow of medium,
organisations involved with the city’s of information information long term
resilience. between would improve implementation.
multi-agency understanding
partners. of risk and aid
planning for
partner
agencies.

P 2.1 Hazard Assessment

The Host City has knowledge of the key
hazards that it faces and their
likelihood of occurrence.

P 2.2 Shared Understanding of

Infrastructure Risk
There is a shared understanding of
risks between the Host City and
various utility providers and other
regional and national agencies that
have a role in managing infrastructure
such as power, water, roads and
trains, of the points of stress on the
system and city scale risks.

20 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Description of Justification Time horizon

areas for
potential
development

P 2.3 Knowledge of Exposure and

Vulnerability
There are agreed scenarios setting out
city-wide exposure and vulnerability
from each hazard, or groups of
hazards.

P 2.4 Cascading Impacts

There is a collective understanding of
potentially cascading failures between
different city and infrastructure
systems, under different scenarios.

P 2.5 Presentation and Update

a) Clear hazard maps and data on risk
exist.

b) Hazard maps and data on risk are

regularly updated.

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios 21
  Funded by
European Union
Civil Protection

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Description of Justification Time horizon

areas for
potential
development

Other
Area / issue

22 Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
NOTES:

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
23
 NOTES:

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
24
NOTES:

Module 2: Identify, Understand and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios
25
 Further information is available from: www.Uscore2.eu

ISO22392 is being drafted and will contain further information about peer reviews

Designed and printed by Agilisys Document Solutions (October ‘18)

T: +44 (0)1942 404929 E: [email protected]
2