**3. Addressing environmental risks**

As previously mentioned, the possibilities of addressing the risk issue and of applying the research results have been continuously diversified. Different viewpoints or approaches can be framed either in a behavioral paradigm, a structural paradigm, or a complexity paradigm [2].

Behavioral paradigm is the hazard-based point of view that emphasizes the role of human adjustment to natural hazards through defensive technical measures, scientific acquirements, and emergency plans for disaster mitigation [3].

The structural paradigm is rather a cross-hazard and a disaster-based viewpoint that focuses on the characteristics of socioeconomic and political structures, the lack of resources or human exploitation of nature. Nowadays, these two approaches coexist, but it should be noted that physical scientists have a distinct preference for the behavioral perspective, while the social scientists and human geographers rather prefer the second one [3].

The complexity paradigm is built on the foundations of the two paradigms already mentioned, taking from each of them the most valuable aspects and pursuing a more comprehensive approach, considering that disasters are the result either of the interactions between the natural and social worlds and within each of them.

A recent addressing is the multi-hazard approach which is related to the complex nature of the interaction between the hazards [20]. For risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequence [8]. Different methods for risk assessment can be applied: quantitative and qualitative risk assessment methods, the event-tree analysis (very useful for analyzing complex chains of events and the associated probabilities), the risk matrix approach, the indicator-based approach, etc.).

connection to sewage systems or septic tanks. This fact leads to groundwater contamination with the critical impact on human health. Provision of safe drinking water facilities is challenging for rural population compared to urban areas as for sanitation sector. In 2015, 0.8 million deaths were estimated to be caused by unsafe sanitation and 1.3 million to unsafe water sources [11]. Almost 3 billion people lack sound waste collection services with a critical

In sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Central and South America, wastewater treatment systems, if they exist, are minimal or function poorly, while in eastern Europe, Turkey, the Russian Federation, Mexico, South America, and other areas, wastewater treatment has advanced, but wastewater sludge and biosolids management are emerging concerns, and complex regulatory structures are being developed [10]. The poor and the marginalized communities are most exposed to health pollution threats in every country of the globe. The Agenda 2030 aims to end open defecation and to provide universal access to basic utilities as

Cross-border pollution issues via air, water bodies, or emerging transportation systems challenge the current international relations. Plastic pollution, oil spills, chemical pollution, industrial accidents, and other environmental threats raise several governance issues, and

As previously mentioned, the possibilities of addressing the risk issue and of applying the research results have been continuously diversified. Different viewpoints or approaches can be framed either in a behavioral paradigm, a structural paradigm, or a complexity paradigm [2]. Behavioral paradigm is the hazard-based point of view that emphasizes the role of human adjustment to natural hazards through defensive technical measures, scientific acquirements,

The structural paradigm is rather a cross-hazard and a disaster-based viewpoint that focuses on the characteristics of socioeconomic and political structures, the lack of resources or human exploitation of nature. Nowadays, these two approaches coexist, but it should be noted that physical scientists have a distinct preference for the behavioral perspective, while the social

The complexity paradigm is built on the foundations of the two paradigms already mentioned, taking from each of them the most valuable aspects and pursuing a more comprehensive approach, considering that disasters are the result either of the interactions between the

A recent addressing is the multi-hazard approach which is related to the complex nature of the interaction between the hazards [20]. For risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequence [8]. Different methods for risk assessment can be applied: quantitative and qualitative

situation across rural areas of low- and middle-income countries [9].

frequently, the local communities have few options to combat such events.

part of sustainable development goals (SDGs).

8 Environmental Risks

**3. Addressing environmental risks**

and emergency plans for disaster mitigation [3].

natural and social worlds and within each of them.

scientists and human geographers rather prefer the second one [3].

Of great importance is the development of spatial decision support systems with the aim to analyze the effect of risk reduction planning alternatives and to support decision makers in selecting the best alternatives. They are composed of a number of integrated components such as risk assessment, risk reduction planning, temporal scenario, and communication and visualization components [20].

Important advances in addressing risks are due to new technology, including applications of satellite remote sensing, airborne laser scanning (ALS), global positioning systems (GPS), and geographical information systems (GIS). They provide strong support in all phases of the risk management process through monitoring, evaluation, warning, and mobilization of emergency aid.

There is currently a shift of efforts from post-disaster responses and measures to a more responsible, pre-disaster attitude and action. If the events themselves cannot be prevented from occurring, their disastrous consequences can be reduced by a well-established prior plan and by preparing emergency measures for the community at risk. Experience of past events, centralization of the results in disaster observation, and use of modern methods and techniques for evaluating vulnerable areas, can reduce the degree of unpredictability of destructive phenomena occurrence.

Thus, pre-disaster protection becomes a priority within the cycle of disaster management and includes risk assessment (hazard identification, probability and scenarios, exposure and vulnerability evaluation and mapping, loss estimation); mitigation (construction of engineering works and protective structure, insurance, land planning); preparedness (forecast systems, warning schemes, safe refuges, stockpile aid); and emergency plans (evacuation routes, practice drills, first aid supplies).

In the case of climate change mega-hazard, traditional responses to the risk are of limited value in mitigating risk, so different types of possible ex ante responses are considered [7]: global abatement to rapidly stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere to a sufficiently low level; development and deployment of controlled geoengineering (e.g., technologies to reduce the amount of solar energy the planet absorb or to remove the CO<sup>2</sup> from the atmosphere); and large-scale adaptation measures to reduce the consequences of megacatastrophes or short-circuit the cascading of more localized disasters.

The subject of environmental risks continues to be of great interest to various national and international institutions. Among the efforts of the United Nations, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 underscores that disaster risk reduction is essential to achieve sustainable development. It strongly supports the integration of the disaster and climate risk reduction, at the global, regional, national, and local level, into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development frame [21].

There are still a number of future needs in the field of environmental risks research, such as multilevel cooperation; interdisciplinary research; integration between natural and social approaches; selection of relevant evaluation indicators, especially vulnerability indicators [22]; transferability of methods; the use of GIS techniques; and the existence of output maps, considering scale and hierarchy, etc. [23].

December 2016. Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/50683\_oiewgreport-

Introductory Chapter: Environmental Risks between Conceptualization and Action

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81072

11

[2] Smith K, Petley DN. Environmental hazards. In: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster.

[3] Stângă IC, Grozavu A. Quantifying human vulnerability in rural areas: Case study of Tutova Hills (Eastern Romania). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.

[4] Hufschmidt G. A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts. Natural

[5] Birkmann J, Kienberger S, Alexander DE, editors. Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural

[6] Cred Crunch 50. EM-DAT The International Disaster Database. Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters-CRED. Natural Disasters in 2017: Lower mortality, higher cost. 2018. Available at https://www.cred.be/sites/default/files/CredCrunch50.

[7] Kousky C, Rostapshova O, Toman M, Zeckhauser R. Responding to Threats of Climate Change Mega-Catastrophes, Policy Research Working Paper 5127. The World Bank Development Research Group, Environment and Energy Team; November 2009. Available at: http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-09-45.

[8] IPCC. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA, editors. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2014: 151 pp. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR\_AR5\_FINAL\_full.

[9] Mihai FC. One global map but different worlds: Worldwide survey of human access to basic utilities. Human Ecology. 2017;**45**(3):425-429. DOI: 10.1007/s10745-017-9904-7

[10] UN-HABITAT. Global atlas of excreta, wastewater sludge, and biosolids management: Moving forward the sustainable and welcome uses of a global resource. 2008. Available at: https://esa.un.org/iys/docs/san\_lib\_docs/habitat2008.pdf [Accessed: June 26, 2018]

[11] Landrigan PJ et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet. 2018;

[12] Mihai F-C. Rural plastic emissions into the largest mountain lake of the Eastern Carpathians. Royal Society Open Science. 2018;**5**(5):172396. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.172396

[13] Lamond J, Bhattacharya N, Bloch R. The role of solid waste management as a response to urban flood risk In developing countries. A case study analysis. WIT Transactions on

Ecology and the Environment. 2012;**159**:193-205. DOI: 10.2495/FRIAR120161

**391**(10119):462-512). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0

english.pdf [Accessed: June 28, 2018]

pdf [Accessed: June 26, 2018]

pdf [Accessed: June 28, 2018]

pdf [Accessed: June 26, 2018]

5th ed. New York, USA: Routledge; 2008

2012;**12**:1987-2001. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-12-1987-2012

Hazards. 2011;**58**:621-643. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-9823-7

Hazards. A European Perspective. San Diego, USA: Elsevier; 2014
