2.2 Detailed Risk Analysis 2.2.1 Analysing the level of hazard risk The combination of all hazards within the CDEM Group is commonly referred to as the hazardscape. The Marlborough District is subject to a wide range of significant natural, human-made and biological hazards, including: Natural Hazards: flooding, tsunami, earthquake, fire, liquefaction, human pandemic, drought and various botanical and zoological pests, diseases and epidemics. Technological Hazards: Marine and transport accidents, utility failures, and terrorism. THE TOP 15 HAZARDS AREDETAILED FURTHER IN APPENDIX B. The risk posed by each hazard was evaluated using the risk management process outlined in 2.2.2 below. The evaluation was carried out through a combination of facilitated workshops with Lifeline Utilities, primary industry representatives including Wine Marlborough, emergency services agencies, Nelson-Marlborough Health and Council staff including planners, hazards experts and 3 waters engineers. Available scientific hazard and historical data was used to initially populate the risk analysis and evaluation columns prior to the workshops to initiate a discussion. 2.2.2 The Risk Prioritisation Model The National CDEM Group Planning Director’s guideline (DGL 09/15) recommends the use of the ‘SMG’ model for prioritising risks for CDEM Group action. The model takes into account: The seriousness of the hazard consequence. The manageability difficulty in relation to the hazard. The likelihood that there will be growth in either the frequency of the hazard or the community exposure to the hazard. Hazard Seriousness A 1-5 consequence rating is evaluated for impact on each of the social, built, economic and natural environments (as detailed in Table 1). In calculating the overall seriousness score, a higher weighting is given to the social area (50%), with 25% weighting to the built environment impact, 15% to economic and 10% to natural environment impact. This reflects the higher priority given by CDEM to human life and safety and community resilience. The weighted score is multiplied by 2 to give a total score out of 10. Hazard Manageability The manageability of the hazard is rated for each of the ‘4Rs’ area. The manageability is a combination of how difficult it is to manage the hazard and the current level of effort applied (each category is scored as Low, Medium or High). The highest score of 5 is given to those hazards that are most difficult to manage and have the least effort applied, and vice versa for the lowest score of 1. Hazard Growth The ‘growth’ rating is a combination of the likelihood that the frequency of the hazard will increase and the likelihood that the community exposure to that hazard will increase. Hazards that impact on wider communities and the economy are considered to have a moderate probability of increasing community exposure (because of the growing population increasing the number of people that will be potentially affected by hazards). Community exposure to infrastructure failure will increase even more significantly as society becomes increasingly dependent on technology. Climate change is also expected to increase the frequency and/or intensity of some hazards, such as storms and drought. Man-made risks (such as rural fire and marine accidents) may increase in frequency because of higher population. Marlborough Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, 2018-2023 Page 12