Civil defence

Hazard prioritisation

Why prioritise hazards?

Hazard prioritisation is required to help Civil Defence Emergency Management agencies decide which hazards they should spend their time and money on first. This agencies ultimately aim to reduce the impacts of and be prepared to respond to all hazards that could affect Auckland. However, because there are limited resources, civil defence emergency management must deal with a few hazards at one time.

Which hazards are priorities for the Auckland CDEMG?

The Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group has identified those hazards which it considers priorities to manage. The top few hazards in priority order are:

• infrastructure failure
• volcanic eruption from the Auckland Volcanic Field
• earthquake
• volcanic eruption from elsewhere in New Zealand.

How were hazards prioritised?

These hazards were prioritised using a model recommended by New Zealands Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. The model suggests that Seriousness, Manageability, Urgency and Growth should be the criteria used for prioritisation, and is referred to as the SMUG method. The SMUG model provides a method to prioritise those hazards which represent the greatest risk, and can be effectively treated in the future by putting effort into managing the risks posed by these hazards.

The SMUG model that was utilised for prioritising hazards for the Auckland CDEMG Plan is summarised below.

A Basis for Risk Prioritisation - The SMUG Model

The definitions of seriousness, manageability, urgency and growth that were used to prioritise hazards for the Auckland CDEMG Plan are as follows:

Seriousness: the relative impact in terms of people and/or dollars. The number of lives lost and potential for injury, and the physical, social and economic consequences of a hazard event were specifically considered while rating seriousness.

Manageability: the relative ability to mitigate or reduce the hazard (through managing the hazard, or the community, or both). Manageability refers to how well a hazard could be managed in the future. For example, if a hazard has the potential to be mitigated against and the risk significantly reduced by putting more emphasis on risk reduction initiatives for that hazard in the future, it would be rated high.

Urgency: the measure of how imperative or critical it is to address the hazard (associated with the probability of the risk of the hazard).

Growth: the rate at which the risk from the hazard will increase through either an increase in the probability of the extreme event occurring, an increase in the exposure of the community, or combination of the two.

Each of the above criteria: Seriousness, Manageability, Urgency, and Growth are rated High, Medium or Low. A high rating is awarded 3 points, medium rating 2 points, and 1 point for a low rating.