Societal risk-to-life from natural hazards: Assessments, acceptability and actions at Whakaari/White Island and Piopiotahi/Milford Sound, Aotearoa/New Zealand

Le résumé fourni par la source

Conventional tourism risk-to-life analyses require data that are often unavailable, inaccurate or out-of-date. Thus tourist fatalities can occur where risk analyses have not been completed, as at Whakaari/White Island volcano, New Zealand in 2019, when 22 people on commercial tours died because of a sudden eruption. Even where risk analyses have been carried out (as at Piopiotahi/Milford Sound, New Zealand, a World Heritage Site where thousands of lives are endangered by coseismic landslide-triggered tsunami) unacceptable risks remain because (i) analyses can be misinterpreted, (ii) risk calculations change with time, and (iii) sociopolitical factors influence risk management decision-making. Herein we (i) develop a methodology for reconnaissance ("average") risk-to-life assessment, to indicate where more complete assessments are required, and (ii) test this against (a) the empirical acceptability of risks following a disaster and (b) a series of risk analyses where no disaster has yet occurred. We develop an “average” risk-to-life assessment for Whakaari/White Island, and compare its outcomes with existing risk analyses for Piopiotahi/Milford Sound. It agrees with post-event risk acceptability at Whakaari/White Island, and with pre-event risk analyses at Piopiotahi/Milford Sound. We update the “average” risk analysis for Piopiotahi/Milford Sound by incorporating vulnerabilities of cruise ships and improved hazard data - the societal risk-to-life is unacceptable by several orders of magnitude. The only feasible strategy for achieving acceptable risk is drastically reducing visitor numbers. Socio-economic considerations suggest that this may not be societally practicable, which calls into question the way in which risk is used in planning to reduce tourism fatalities.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.