Multi-hazard direct economic loss risk assessment on the Tibet Plateau

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of the study area: the names of 6 provinces are shown.

Figure 2. Methodology flow chart of this study.

Table 1. The probability of occurrence of geological hazard events within a 1 km² spatial grid unit.

Geological hazard level	Frequency of geological hazard events within a 1 km^2 grid
Very low	0.0025–0.01%
Low	0.0063–0.025%
Moderate	0.0125–0.05%
High	0.025–0.1%
Very high	0.05–0.2%

Table 2. Multi-hazard risk classification method based on the expected DEL risk level induced by a single hazard.

Risk level		Geological risk
		Very low	Low	Moderate	High	Very high
Earthquake risk	Very low	LMR	LMR	MMR	HGR	HGR
	Low	LMR	LMR	MMR	HGR	HGR
	Moderate	MMR	MMR	MMR	HGR	HGR
	High	HER	HER	HER	HMR	HMR
	Very high	HER	HER	HER	HMR	HMR

Note: Low multi-hazard risk (LMR), moderate multi-hazard risk (MMR), high multi-hazard risk (HMR), high earthquake risk (HER), and high geological risk (HGR).

Figure 3. Township-level absolute value (a) and risk class (b) of multi-hazard PML on the TP.

Figure 4. Township-level relative value (a) and risk class (b) of multi-hazard PML on the TP.

Figure 5. Absolute risk class (a) and relative risk class (b) of multi-hazard PML at the township-level on the TP.

Table 3. PML for multi-hazard and fixed asset values in six provinces.

Province	Absolute value of PML (billion)	Asset value (billion)	Relative value of PML (%)
Gansu	80.02	1691.25	4.73
Qinghai	43.16	1793.02	2.41
Sichuan	140.82	1974.59	7.13
Tibet	78.23	1260.08	6.21
Xinjiang	10.01	69.26	14.45
Yunnan	113.28	1945.21	5.82

Figure 6. Proportion of NSCRB in Tibet in 2010 (a) and 2020 (b).

Figure 7. The multi-hazard PML in Tibet for 2010 (a) and 2020 (b).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.