1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC RISK
ASSESSMENT OF
FLOODING FOR RUSSIAN
COASTAL REGIONS
Zemtsov Stepan
Kidyaeva Vera
Fadeev Maxim
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Faculty of Geography
Natural Risk Asessment Laboratory
(NRAL)

2. Main purpose
•
Purpose – risk and vulnerability assessment of hazardous hydrological
phenomena for Russian coastal regions
•
Social-economic approach for assessment (meanwhile damage
assessment prevails in Russia)
Timeliness:
•
More than 10 million people, or 7.2 per cent of the population, are
affected by hazardous hydrological phenomena; flooding zone is over
0.5 million sq. km, or 2.9 per cent of Russian territory
•
Integrated damage from floods in Russia in 2012 was about 1 billion
euros, floods have caused the death of over 200 people (Krymsk
tragedy in Krasnodar region)
•
In August 2013 approximately 102 000 people are affected by the
flooding in Far Eastern regions

3. Cuban river flood event (Temryuk, 2002; Krymsk, 2012)

4. Structure of the presentation
• Research area
• Assessment of social risk and vulnerability of municipal
communities in Krasnodar region
• Verification of social risk assessment method by field data
on an example of Slavyansk municipal district in Krasnodar
region
• Conclusions

5. Risk for Russia (World Risk Index) is quiet low (0.038) but very differentiated
between regions.
Map of typological zoning of Russia on the degree of flood risk
(N. Frolova and others, 2011, Russia)

6. Main area of research
Area of research

7. Case study area
Asov and Black sea
coastal area of Russia
Region
Krasnodar region (76
th. sq. Km, 5,3 mln.
people)
Case study
Slavyansk municipal
district

8. Method of Municipal Risk Index
•
•
•
Methodology of World Risk Index (EHS-UNU)
Data for vulnerability assessment from the Russian Statistical Service
(Rosstat) for municipal districts (local level); federal ministries,
departments of Krasnodar region administration.
Database with more than 300 indicators for 14 municipal districts from
2007 to 2011 years

9. Exposed areas.
Potential flooding zones and observed flooding areas

10. Selected indicators and weights
Vulnerability
Susceptibility
Public infrastructure
Length of
improved water
source / people
Length of
improved
sanitation /
people
0,075
0,075
Government and authoritiees
Housing
conditions
0,10
Economic capacity
Index
The share of the
The share of the
The share of the
population
population served by
Sales of ownThe share of the population with benefiting from
produced goods,
the departments of
inhabitants in incomes below
social
social services at works and services /
fragile dwellings the subsistence assistance to
people
home for senior
minimum
pay for housing
citizens and disabled
services
0,15
0,15
0,15
Lack of coping capacity
0,15
0,25
Social networks
Material coverage
Index
Share of
Number of
participants in
physicians per voluntary groups
10000
for the
inhabitants
protection of
public order
Average monthly
wages per capita
Medical services
Number of
The share of
Unemployment
hospital beds
own revenues of
rate
per 10000
local budgets
inhabitants
0,1
Poverty and dependencies
0,22
0,22
Lack of adaptive capacity
Environmental
Adaptation
Education
Investment
management
strategies
Diversification of
Share of
the labour
Observed
Private
employed
market
/Maximum flood
investment /
people with high
(Herfindahl–
area
people
education
Hirschman
Index)
0,25
0,25
0,25
0,25
0,26
Index
0,33
0,1
0,33
0,33

11. Municipal
Risk
Index
Exposure
Vulnerability
Lack of coping
Susceptibility
capacity
Lack of
adaptive
capacity
Novorossiysk
0,02
0,05
0,40
0,26
0,37
0,58
Gelendzhik
Tuapsinsky
0,03
0,03
0,04
0,07
0,06
0,09
0,42
0,51
0,50
0,47
0,66
0,45
0,25
0,39
0,56
0,55
0,47
0,49
Sherbinovsky
0,08
0,11
0,70
0,65
0,68
0,79
Kanevsky
Krymsky
0,09
0,10
0,13
0,14
0,14
0,16
0,28
0,24
0,62
0,65
0,47
0,58
0,40
0,67
0,49
0,67
0,70
0,66
0,36
0,59
0,77
0,63
0,56
0,49
Krasnoarmeysky
0,23
0,32
0,70
0,56
0,83
0,72
Temryuksky
Kalininsky
0,26
0,35
0,53
0,47
0,49
0,74
0,45
0,63
0,74
0,86
0,27
0,75
PrimorskoAkhtarsky
0,39
0,7
0,56
0,63
0,65
0,40
Slavyansky
0,45
0,75
0,59
0,43
0,71
0,65
Sochi
Eysky
Anapa

12. Lack of capacity and
susceptibility indeces

13. Exposure and vulnerability
indeces

14. Municipal Risk Index (MRI)
• Most of the districts have higher
value of MRI than Russia in WRI
(0.038)
• MRI is higher in Cuban river basin
• Slavyansk district has the highest
level of risk (0.45), the same level of
vulnerability as Krymsky district
(0.59) and higher than Russia in
WRI
• Sensitivity analysis shows that some
indicators can be excluded but finally
it doesn’t affect greatly value of the
index
• The level of MRI is increasing due to
processes of coastal zone
development (Sochi, Novorosiysk,
etc.)

15. Slavyansk district
2179 km2
131 000 citizens (50% urban)
Industries: oil, rice, wheat, fish,
tourism.
80% of the territory exposed to
annual ground water level rise

16. Field data collection
•
•
•
Data where collected in 6 settlements by interviewing of people on the streets
274 respondents, which is the representative indicator for the district.
Gender and age structure of respondents coincide with the real structure of the population.

17. Vulnerability groups assessment
Four questions (from 30 overall) were extracted by component
analysis from social poll data to reveal the groups.
Combination of answers for groups of people with different value of vulnerability
The most
vulnerable
Less vulnerable
Weakly vulnerable
No
In part
Do not know
Yes
0-16
>66
56-65
> 16
< 56
How many years do you live
in the area?
Less than 1
1-5
5-20
> 20
Did you experienced flood?
No
Once
More than once
Can you provide the safety
of your life?
What is your age?

18. Vulnerability index assessment
The distribution of the groups for Slavyansk municipal district
Index of vulnerability
Frequency Percent
Valid
Missing
Total
Most vulnerable
Vulnerable
Less vulnerable
Total
System
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
192
74
197
463
11
474
41,5
16,0
42,5
100,0
40,5
15,6
41,6
97,7
2,3
100,0
41,5
57,5
100,0
• These percentages may be used as an index of vulnerability (0.42, 0.58) for
district population respectively for medium (percentage of most vulnerable) and
catastrophic destructive floods (percentage of most vulnerable and vulnerable).
• The result (0.58) is corresponding with vulnerability index in Municipal Risk
Index (0.59).
• For settlements the scheme for calculation was the same.

19. Victims and death rate assessment
(by EMERCOM Methodology)
•
Exposed population were assessed by areas of flooding and density of population on
them. More accurate assessment of exposure index (from 0.7 in MRI to 0.3)
•
The number of victims of medium flood is 2% of the vulnerable population, and 5% - for
catastrophic flood.
•
Death rate is 5% of victims for medium flood, and 10% for strong
Medium flooding
Catastrophic flooding
Exposed
Vulnerability Vulnerable
Exposed Vulnerability Vulnerable
Victims Death
Victims Death
populatio
index
people
index
people
population
n
Total
Achuevo
Zaboyskiy
Prikubanskiy
Slavyanskon-Cuban
16481
0.46
6922
138
7
60575
0.58
35134
1757
176
403
0.14
57
2
0
403
0.21
85
4
0
2306
0.23
530
11
5
2306
0.38
876
44
4
297
0.43
128
3
0
297
0.51
151
8
0
0
0.49
0
0
0
38305
0.6
22983
1149
115

20. Financial estimations of social loss: two
approaches
Victims
5000
Government estimation, euro
Death
1500000
Methodology
Guriev S.
Based on comparison with life insurance in the USA
1200
Real loss for society, euro
50000
Methodoloy of EMERCOM
Medium flooding
Real loss for society
Government estimation
Total
Achuevo
Zaboyskiy
Prikubanskiy
Slavyansk-onCuban
Victims
690000
10000
55000
15000
Death
10500000
0
7500000
0
Victims
165600
2400
13200
3600
Death
350000
0
250000
0
Victims
8785000
20000
220000
40000
Death
264000000
0
6000000
0
Victims
2108400
4800
52800
9600
Death
8800000
0
200000
0
0
0
0
0
5745000
172500000
1378800
5750000
Medium flooding with probability 0.01
Real loss for society
Total
Achuevo
Zaboyskiy
Prikubanskiy
Slavyansk-onCuban
Catastrophic flooding
Real loss for society
Government estimation
Total
potential Annual risk
damage
11190000 111900
10000
100
7555000
75550
15000
150
0
0
Government estimation
Total
potential
damage
515600
2400
263200
3600
0
Annual risk
5156
24
2632
36
0
Catastrophic flooding with probability 0.001
Real loss for
society
Government
estimation
Total
Total potential
Annual risk potential
Annual risk
damage
damage
272785000
272785
10908400
10908.4
20000
20
4800
4.8
6220000
6220
252800
252.8
40000
40
9600
9.6
178245000
178245
7128800
7128.8

21. Comparison of social and
economic damage
Total potential damage (million euro)
Slavyansk municipal district
Medium flooding
Catastrophic flooding
Economic and
technological damage
(EMERCOM methodology)
4.3
142
Social loss.
Government estimation
(direct loss for economy)
Real social loss
(including indirect losses)
0.5
10.9
11.1
272.7
Total real damage (million
euro)
Krymsk disaster
1000
259
• Social damage can be underestimated by assessment of direct losses of man as a an
economic tool of several years. But indirect losses for society is much wider
(demographic, cultural effects, etc.).

22. Conclusion
•
In Russia, probability growth of hazardous natural events (caused by climate
change) has coincided with increasing risk of technogenic catastrophes because
of errors in territorial planning, organization of warning and prevention systems
and underinvestment of protection systems
•
Krasnodar region has one of the highest level of flood hazard in Russia, but
nowadays integral risk in coastal zone is even increasing because of
concentration of economic activity (marine ports, recreation), especially during
preparations for Sochi Olympic Games
•
The index can be used for estimation of territorial priorities
•
Most of the population in one hazardous area (Slavyansk district) is unaware and
is not ready for a flooding. It can be common for other regions
•
Both external (MRI) and internal (component analysis of opinion polls)
techniques can determine the value of vulnerability of local communities but the
second approach is preferred for financial estimations
•
Social risks can be underestimated in comparison with economic damage due to
low ‘value of life’, which in turn will continue to negatively affect the vulnerability,
especially coping capacity in Russia

23. Thank you for your attention!