The transport infrastructure of Russia is exposed to
multiple impacts of various natural hazards and adverse weather phenomena
such as heavy rains and snowfalls, river floods, earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, landslides, debris flows, snow avalanches, rockfalls, and ice
phenomena. The paper considers impacts of hazardous natural
processes and phenomena on transport within the area of Russia. Using the
information of the author's database, contributions of natural factors to
road, railway, air, and water transport accidents and failures are assessed.
The total risk of transport accidents and traffic disruptions triggered by
adverse and hazardous natural impacts, as well as the risk of road and
railway accidents and disruptions as the most popular modes of transport, is
assessed at the level of Russian federal regions. The concept of an emergency
situation is used to measure risk. In the risk analysis, 838 emergency
situations of various scales and severity caused by natural hazard impacts on
the transport infrastructure from 1992 to 2018 are considered. The average
annual number of emergencies is taken as an indicator of risk. Regional
differences in the risk of transport accidents and disruptions due to
natural events are analyzed. Regions most at risk are identified.
Introduction
According to the federal law “On Transport Security” (2019), transport
infrastructure of the Russian Federation (RF) is considered a large and
complex technological system including tunnels, overpasses, and bridges;
terminals and stations; river and sea ports; airports; and roads, railways, and
waterways, as well as other buildings, structures, and equipment, ensuring
the functioning of the transport system. Russia has a very extensive
transportation network that is among the largest in the world. It includes
1.5×106 km of public roads, more than 600 000 km of airways, 123 000 km
of railway tracks, and 100 000 km of inland navigable waterways (FSSS,
2018).
In studies on the impacts of natural hazards, transport infrastructure is
most often classified by mode of transport including road, rail, water, and
air transport (e.g., Govorushko, 2012; Mattsson and Jenelius, 2015; Voumard et
al., 2018). Some researchers classify it by infrastructure asset types. For
example, Kaundinya et al. (2016) select such transport assets as bridges,
tunnels, embankments, cuts, and centralized systems. This analysis is
structured by mode of transport.
Due to the large length of the transportation network, as well as climatic,
geological, geomorphologic, and other natural features of the country,
transport infrastructure facilities of Russia are exposed to the undesirable
impacts of adverse natural processes and phenomena, as well as to natural
hazards of various geneses, such as geophysical and hydrometeorological. The distribution of various natural hazards across the country area is
discussed below in Sect. 2.1. Their impacts may endanger transport safety
and reliability, trigger accidents and failures, disrupt the normal
operation of the transport system, cause delays in the delivery of passengers and
goods, and lead to other negative consequences.
Natural processes and phenomena can be classified in various ways depending
on the objectives of a study. Natural hazards can be typified according to
their genetic features (e.g., Voumard et al., 2018), the intensity of their
manifestation, the main formation and development factors, characteristics
of spatial distribution and mode, etc. (Malkhazova and Chalov, 2004). Liu et
al. (2016) propose a systematic natural hazard interaction classification
based on the hazard-forming environment. Gill and Malamud (2016) propose a
detailed classification of natural hazard types in Guatemala, including six
natural hazard groups (geophysical, hydrological, shallow-Earth processes,
atmospheric, biophysical, and space), 19 hazard types, and 37 hazard
subtypes.
Previously, two types of natural hazards were found by the author, based on
their genesis, distribution in space and time, and their impact pattern on the
technosphere and society in populated areas (Petrova, 2005). In the context
of the present study, the proposed classification scheme was adapted taking
into account impacts of natural hazards on the transport infrastructure
(Fig. 1).
Grouping of natural hazards based on their genesis and
impacts on transport infrastructure.
Solar and geomagnetic disturbances (space weather), geodynamics, geophysical
and astrophysical field variations, and other global processes belong to the
first group. They have a global scale in space and cyclic development in time.
Natural processes of this type may influence the transport infrastructure
both directly, causing electronics error and automatic-machinery failure, and indirectly, by affecting the nervous system of operators, drivers, or
pilots and thereby leading to a decrease in their reliability. Natural
hazards of the second type are of a more “earthly” origin, i.e., from the
atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, or biosphere. They vary greatly in
their spatial scale and geographical location. These types of natural hazards
include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, snow avalanches,
hurricanes, windstorms, heavy rains, hail, lightning, snow and ice storms,
temperature extremes, wildfires, floods, and droughts. Natural hazards
belonging to this group cause a direct destructive effect leading to
accidents and disruptions.
A transport accident is any accident that occurs when people and goods are
transported. With over 1.2 million people killed each year, road accidents
are among the world's leading causes of death; another 20–50 million people
are injured each year on the world's roads (WHO, 2017). Transport accidents
of other types including air, rail, and water transport are not as numerous
as road crashes, but the severity of their consequences is much higher
because of the higher number of people killed and injured per accident.
Shipwrecks with a large number of passengers have the highest number of
casualties.
Traffic interruptions and disruptions cause multiple social problems because
our societies are highly dependent on transport systems for people's
daily mobility and for goods transport (Mattsson and Jenelius, 2015). In the
case of an emergency situation, a transport network serves as a lifeline system.
Thus, ensuring the robustness and reliability of the transport system is one
of the most important and pressing problems of the socio-economic
development of any country. In May 2018, the Ministry of Transport of the RF developed a new version of the transport strategy for up to 2030 (Ministry
of Transport of the Russian Federation, 2018). Among the key priorities, the
Transport strategy includes requirements to cope with modern challenges,
such as climate change and a need for increasing the safety of the transport
system.
Since the early 1950s (Tanner, 1952), it has been recognized that weather
conditions affect many road safety aspects such as driver attention
and behavior, vehicle operation, and road surface condition. A large
number of studies devoted to the influence of weather factors on
accident rates have been published over the last few decades. All the authors agree
that adverse weather is a major factor affecting road situations (e.g.
Edwards, 1996; Rakha et al., 2007; Andrey, 2010; Andersson and Chapman, 2011;
Bergel-Hayat et al., 2013; Chakrabarty and Gupta, 2013; Yang et al., 2013). Many authors connect
the maximum number of road accidents with precipitation (Jaroszweski and
McNamara, 2014; Spasova and Dimitrov, 2015). Aron et al. (2007) revealed that
14 % of all injury accidents in Normandy (France) took place during rainy
weather and 1 % during fog, frost, or snow and hail. Satterthwaite (1976)
found rainy weather to be a major factor affecting accident numbers on
the state highways of California: on very wet days the number of accidents
was often double comparing to dry days. Brodsky and Hakkert (1988) with
data from Israel and the USA indicated that the added risk of an injury
accident in rainy conditions can be 2 to 3 times greater than in dry
weather; when rain follows a dry spell, the hazard could be even greater.
Among other weather factors, bright sunlight has been identified as a cause of
accidents (Shiryaeva, 2016). Redelmeier and Raza (2017) investigated visual
illusions created by bright sunlight that lead to driver error, including
fallible distance judgment from an aerial perspective. According to their
results, the risk of a life-threatening crash was 16 % higher during
bright sunlight than normal weather.
Some authors consider other natural hazards, such as landslides (Bíl et
al., 2014; Schlögl et al., 2019), flash floods (Shabou et al., 2017), or
rockfalls (Bunce et al., 1997; Budetta and Nappi, 2013).
As for railway transport, most papers also focus on specific hazards,
considering impacts of adverse weather and hydrometeorological extremes
(Ludvigsen and Klæboe, 2014; Nogal et al., 2016), landsliding (Jaiswal
and van Westen, 2013), flooding (Hong et al., 2015; Kellermann et al., 2016),
snowfall (Ludvigsen and Klæboe, 2014), or tree falls (Nyberg and
Johansson, 2013; Bil et al., 2017) as triggers of accidents.
Some studies combine all types of natural hazards affecting road and rail
infrastructure (Govorushko, 2012; Petrova, 2015; Kaundinya et al., 2016).
Voumard et al. (2018) examine small events like earth flow, debris flow,
rockfall, flood, and snow avalanche, which represent three-quarters
of the total direct costs of all natural hazard impacts on Swiss roads and
railways.
Investigations of natural hazard impacts on transport systems other than
roads and railways are not so numerous. As an example, studies about the danger of
volcanic eruptions to aviation should be mentioned (Neal et al., 2009;
Brenot et al., 2014; Girina et al., 2019). Large explosive eruptions of
volcanoes can eject several cubic kilometers of volcanic ash and aerosol
into the atmosphere and stratosphere during a few hours or days, posing a
threat to modern airliners (Gordeev and Girina, 2014).
Only a few studies have investigated impacts of global processes, such as
geomagnetic storms (space weather) and seismic activity. In the early
1990s, Epov (1994) found a correlation (R=0.74) between solar activity
and the temporal distribution of air crashes. Desiatov et al. (1972) argue that
the number of road accidents multiplies by 4 on the second day after a
solar flare in comparison to “inactive” solar days. According to Miagkov (1995), solar activity affects operators, drivers, pilots, etc., causing a
“human error” and “human factor” in accidents. Kanonidi et al. (2002) study
a relationship between disturbances of the geomagnetic field and the failure
of automatic railway machinery. Kishcha et al. (1999) and Anan'in and Merzlyi (2002) examine a correlation between seismic activity and air crashes.
The main purpose of this study is to investigate impacts of natural hazards
on the transport infrastructure and transport facilities in Russian regions.
Using the information collected by the author in the database of
technological and natural–technological accidents, contributions of natural
factors to road, railway, air, and water transport accident occurrences and
traffic disruptions are assessed. All types of natural hazards are
considered excluding impacts of global processes (left side in Fig. 1) that
are not listed in the database. The risk of road and railway accidents and
traffic disruptions, as well as the total risk of transport accidents and
disruptions, caused by adverse and hazardous natural events is estimated for
the area of Russia.
Materials and methodsStudy region
The Russian Federation is the study region.
Federal regions (constituent entities) of the RF were taken as basic
territorial units for which all the calculations were performed during the
analysis. Federal regions are the main administrative units of the Russian
Federation; at this territorial level, all official statistics are published
by the Federal State Statistics Service (FSSS) and other federal
institutions of Russia.
The main administrative units of the RF include 85 federal regions: 22
republics, 9 territories (krais), 46 regions (oblasts), 1 autonomous
region (autonomous oblast or AR, i.e., Jewish AR), and 4 autonomous areas (autonomous
okrugs; AOs). Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Sevastopol have a special status
as federal cities (FCs; cities of federal importance or significance). All the
federal regions mentioned in the paper are indicated in Fig. 2.
The size and geographical location of the Russian Federation in various
climate and geological conditions determine a great variety of dangerous
natural processes and phenomena in its area, including endogenous, exogenous,
and hydrometeorological hazards. The most characteristic features of the
geography of natural hazards in Russia are as follows:
Natural hazards associated with cold and snowy winters are common throughout
the country.
The population and the economy are relatively little exposed to the most
destructive types of natural hazards (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes,
etc.), and therefore the frequency of occurrence of natural emergencies with
severe consequences is low.
The historically formed strip of the main settlements from the European part
of Russia through the south of Siberia to the Far East approximately
coincides with the zone of the smallest manifestation of natural hazards
(Miagkov, 1995).
In Russia, there are several hundred volcanoes, 78 of which are active.
Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands are most at risk of volcanic eruptions;
explosive eruptions of two to eight volcanoes are observed annually (Girina
et al., 2019). About 20 % of the country area with a population of 20 million people is exposed to earthquakes. The most seismically active
regions are Kamchatka and Sakhalin, as well as the south of Siberia and the
North Caucasus.
Almost the entire territory of Russia is exposed to dangerous exogenous
processes; their intensity increases from north to south and from west to
east (EMERCOM, 2010). Among exogenous processes, landslides, which are
active in 40 % of the country area; debris flows (in 20 %); snow
avalanches (in more than 18 % of the area); and other slope processes
have the greatest intensity and negative impact on the transport
infrastructure. The highest avalanche and debris flow activity is observed
in the North Caucasus (republics of Dagestan, North Ossetia – Alania, and
Kabardino-Balkaria) and in Sakhalin. The greatest intensity of landslides is
in the North Caucasus (Chechen, Kabardino-Balkaria, and
Karachay-Cherkessia republics; republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia, and
North Ossetia – Alania; Stavropol and Krasnodar territories; Rostov
Region) and Ural (Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk regions), as well as in the Khabarovsk
and Primorye territories and the Amur, Irkutsk, and Sakhalin regions.
Hydrometeorological hazardous processes and phenomena such as strong winds,
squalls, catastrophic showers, floods, snowstorms, thunderstorms, and
hailstorms are widespread in the country. The combination of heavy
precipitation and strong wind is one of the most dangerous climate
situations in the coastal regions of the Far East (Sakhalin Region;
Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, and Primorye territories). The highest frequency of
strong winds is observed in the south and in the middle part of European
Russia, as well as in the Far East. The most intense rains take place in the
Kamchatka, Krasnodar, and Primorye territories; the heaviest snowfalls
happen in regions of the North Caucasus and north and southwest of Siberia, as
well as in the Far East (Sakhalin and Magadan regions; Chukotka; Kamchatka,
Khabarovsk, and Primorye territories). Regions of the Far East, such as the
Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Khabarovsk and Primorye territories, and Amur
Region, as well as south of European Russia (republics in the North
Caucasus; Krasnodar and Stavropol territories), are most exposed to
catastrophic floods.
For Russia as a whole, the cumulative degree of natural hazard increases
from west to east and south, with progression to the mountainous regions. The
most dangerous areas in terms of manifestations of natural hazards are
situated in the North Caucasus; Ural and Altai mountains; Irkutsk Region and
Zabaykalsky Territory; the Pacific coast of the Far East (Khabarovsk
Territory and Magadan Region); and especially Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands,
and Kamchatka (Malkhazova and Chalov, 2004).
According to the assessment by EMERCOM (2010), the following federal
regions are the most vulnerable to the impacts of natural
hazards: the republics of Sakha (Yakutia), Karelia, and Komi; Khabarovsk and
Primorye territories; and Amur, Arkhangelsk, Irkutsk, Magadan, Murmansk, and
Volgograd regions, as well as the Jewish AR, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area –
Yugra, and Chukotka AO. The vulnerability is measured as a ratio of the total number of
realized natural sources of emergencies to the number of emergency
situations caused by them. In the listed regions, the vulnerability is
higher than the average for Russia.
Methodology
An assessment was made of the risk of road and railway accidents and traffic
disruptions, as well as of the total risk of transport accidents and
disruptions, caused by adverse and hazardous natural impacts on the transport
infrastructure in Russian federal regions. Road, rail, air, and water
transport were considered in the total risk analysis.
Risk is understood as the possibility of undesirable consequences of any
action or course of events (Miagkov, 1995). Risk is measured by the
probability of such consequences or the probable magnitude of loss.
There are various methods for assessing risk. In the field of natural
hazards, risk is generally defined as the product of hazard and
vulnerability, i.e., a combination of the damaging phenomenon and its
consequences (Eckert et al., 2012). Most researchers calculate risk (R)
as a function of hazard (H), exposure (E), and vulnerability (V): R=f(H,E,V) (e.g., Arrighi et al., 2013; Falter et al., 2015; IPCC, 2012;
Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich, 2004). Various authors propose their own
techniques for calculating risk (Eidsvig et al., 2017), mainly within the framework of this common
approach. In a recent publication, Arosio et al. (2020) propose a holistic
approach to analyze risk in complex systems based on the construction and
study of a graph modeling connections between elements.
Another approach to measuring risk suggests using the concept of an
emergency situation. In Russia, an emergency situation is defined as a
disturbance of the current activity of a populated region due to abrupt
technological or natural impacts (catastrophes or accidents) resulting in
social, economic, and/or ecological damage, which requires special management
efforts to eliminate it (Petrova, 2005). An emergency situation caused by
the impact of natural hazards on technological systems and infrastructure
can be considered as a result of all the factors of risk: hazard, exposure,
and vulnerability. It combines hazard defined by its physical parameters,
exposure of a population or facilities located in a hazard area and subject
to potential loss, and vulnerability that links the intensity of a hazard
to undesirable consequences. An emergency resulting from a hazardous impact
may be a measure of the loss due to this impact. The total frequency of
emergencies of varying severity may serve as a comprehensive indicator of
risk assessment (Shnyparkov, 2004).
In this study, the above approach using the frequency of emergency situations as
a measure of risk was applied. As an indicator of risk, the average
frequency of occurrence of transport accidents and traffic disruptions
triggered by natural hazard impacts, which led to emergency situations of
different scales and severity, was used. Risk indicators were calculated for
each federal region as average annual numbers of emergency situations for
each type of transport, as well as a resulting average annual number of
emergencies due to all transport accidents and disruptions. Thus, the
calculated indicators included the probability of undesirable consequences
(emergencies) due to impacts of natural hazards on transport infrastructure
exposed and vulnerable to these influences. Quantitative and qualitative
criteria for classifying transport accidents and disruptions as emergency
situations are listed below.
The information collected by the author in an electronic database of
technological and natural–technological accidents (created using Microsoft
Access) is analyzed in this study. Figure 3 shows the relational structure
of the database and the procedure for conducting data analysis.
Relational structure of the database.
The database is constantly updated with new information (Petrova, 2011).
Currently, it contains about 20 000 events from 1992 to 2018. Official
daily emergency reports of EMERCOM (the Ministry of the Russian
Federation for Affairs for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of
Natural Disasters) and media reports serve as data sources. Only
open data are used. Emergency reports are publicly available on the EMERCOM
website (https://www.mchs.gov.ru, last access: 20 June 2020) but only in
Russian.
The format of the database makes it possible to structure the collected
information and classify it according to the author's assessment. The main
database table, into which all the information is entered, has the following
structure (the listed sections correspond to the column names of the table
in Fig. 3):
event number – the number changes automatically as information is entered;
date of the incident;
country;
region;
location – the distance to the nearest settlement is additionally indicated;
type of accident – according to the EMERCOM classification and assessment by
the author;
a brief description of the event, including the time of occurrence, probable
cause of the accident if available, its consequences, and measures taken to
eliminate these consequences;
geographical coordinates if applicable;
the scale of the emergency situation caused by the accident – local,
intermunicipal, regional, inter-regional, cross-border;
the number of deaths;
the number of injuries;
economic and environmental loss if any;
source of information.
All types of technological accidents occurring in Russia are recorded in the
database, including those triggered by impacts of natural events of various
geneses. Such accidents in technological systems and infrastructure due to
natural impacts are classified as natural–technological. The transport
accidents and traffic interruptions caused by natural hazards are also
listed.
It should be noted that it is not possible to fully cover all the accidents
in the database, because they are too numerous, especially road accidents.
According to the state traffic inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs of Russia, 168 000 road accidents were registered in the RF in
2019.
The criteria for statistical accounting and reporting information about
transport accidents by EMERCOM are as follows:
for road accidents,
any fact of an accident during the transportation of dangerous goods;
damage to ≥10 motor units;
traffic interruptions for 12 h due to an accident;
severe accidents with the death of ≥5 people or ≥10 people injured;
for railway accidents,
any fact of a train crash;
damage to wagons carrying dangerous goods, causing people to be injured;
traffic interruptions on the main railway tracks for 6 h or more or on the
subway for 30 min or more;
for air transport accidents, any fact of an aircraft fall or destruction;
for water transport accidents,
emergency release of oil and oil products into water bodies of the amount of ≥1 t;
accidental ingress of liquid and loose toxic substances into water bodies
exceeding the maximum permissible concentration by ≥5 times;
any fact of flooding or throwing of ships ashore as a result of a storm
(hurricane, tsunami) or running of ships aground;
accidents on small vessels with the death of ≥5 people or ≥10 people injured;
accidents on small vessels carrying dangerous goods.
The same selection criteria are used for events to be included in the
author's database. Events that meet these criteria are characterized as
emergency situations.
The accumulation of all the information in the form of an electronic
database allows for conducting various thematic search queries and analyzing
their results depending on the goals and objectives of the research (Fig. 3).
For the purposes of this study, a search of information about transport
accidents and traffic disruptions caused by the impacts of natural hazards
was made. Road, rail, air, and water transport were included in separate
search queries. Statistical and geographical analysis of data obtained as a
result of these search queries was carried out.
The proportion of accidents and disruptions triggered by natural factors was
evaluated. All types of natural hazards and adverse weather conditions were
taken into account. The main natural causes of accidents and failures were
identified for each mode of transport.
Additionally, all the federal regions were divided into groups according to
their risk level. The risk level was estimated for each federal region and
each type of transport by the average annual number of emergency situations
in comparison with the average value of the indicator in Russia. The number
of groups was determined in each case depending on the dispersion of the
calculated value. For the analysis, the period from 1992 to 2018 was chosen,
since it covered data accumulated in the database.
Using the cartogram method, maps were created, on which the results of the
assessment were presented (Figs. 4–6).
ResultsContributions of natural hazards
The transport infrastructure of Russia is exposed to multiple impacts of
various natural hazards and weather phenomena such as heavy rains and
snowfalls, strong winds, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
landslides, debris flows, snow avalanches, rockfalls, and icy conditions of
roads. In many cases, these impacts occur simultaneously or
successively, one after another, and reinforce each other. Some natural
hazards trigger hazards of other types, e.g., an earthquake or volcanic eruption
can provoke such slope processes as rockfalls, ice collapses, landslides,
debris flows and lahars, and snow avalanches; heavy rain can cause
debris flows, landslides, or floods, etc. Gill and Malamud (2016) examine
hazard interrelationships in more detail. These triggering impacts are also
recorded in the database and taken into account in the analysis.
Transport accidents and traffic disruptions caused by natural
hazards in Russia (1992–2018).
Contributions of various natural factors to occurrences of different types
of transport accidents and traffic disruptions including road, railway, air,
and water transport were found as the result of relevant searches in the
database. Table 1 shows these results. The “+” sign marks impacts of
natural hazards listed in the first column on the corresponding type of
transport. Only accidents and disruptions that occurred in Russia and were recorded in
the database are taken into consideration.
As the analysis of the database revealed, the transport infrastructure of Russia
is most often affected by adverse impacts of meteorological and hydrological
origin, especially by hazards associated with cold and snowy winters, as well
as exogenous slope processes including those provoked by
hydrometeorological hazards. The majority of emergency situations due to
natural hazards are registered from November to March (>67 %); among the warmer months, the largest number of transport accidents
occurs in July.
The frequencies of occurrence of accidents and disruptions caused by the
impacts of natural hazards, as well as their proportion among other factors
of accidents, are discussed in the following sections.
Road transport
Road transport is one of the main means of moving passengers and goods over
short and medium distances in Russia. In terms of transport security, it is
the most dangerous means of transportation with the highest number of
fatalities and injuries in accidents (Petrova, 2013) and one of the most
common sources of technological hazard, as the number of cars on roads
increases significantly faster than the quality of road infrastructure
(EMERCOM, 2010).
More than 20 % of road accidents and traffic disruptions registered in
the database were caused by the impacts of various natural hazards. This
refers to those incidents where natural impact was indicated as the main
cause of the accident.
Road transport facilities and road infrastructure are exposed to adverse and
hazardous natural processes and phenomena of hydrometeorological character
practically all around Russia. Many sections of roads, bridges, and other
road infrastructure are subject to impacts of snowfalls and snowstorms,
heavy rainfalls, flooding, and road icing; from among exogenous hazards,
landslides, debris flows, snow avalanches, rockfalls, and other natural
hazards affect road infrastructure. These negative impacts trigger road
accidents and traffic disruptions, leading to emergency situations and
causing many social problems. Under unfavorable meteorological conditions,
the risks of car crashes as well as delays in transportation, are
increasing, while the speed of traffic flow is decreasing (Petrova and
Shiryaeva, 2019).
For the study period from 1992 to 2018, the following natural hazard
impacts that caused accidents and traffic disruptions are identified. They
are recorded in 70 of the 85 federal regions of Russia. The brackets indicate
the regions where these accidents and failures occurred:
heavy snowfall and snowdrift (Republic
of Altai; Altai, Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk, Primorye,
and Stavropol territories; Jewish AR; Yamalo-Nenets AO; Amur, Arkhangelsk,
Astrakhan, Chelyabinsk, Magadan, Murmansk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Orenburg,
Rostov, Sakhalin, Saratov, Sverdlovsk, and Volgograd regions);
bottom snowstorm (Bashkortostan and Komi republics; Altai,
Kamchatka, and Krasnoyarsk territories; Chelyabinsk, Magadan, Murmansk,
Orenburg, Sakhalin, Ulyanovsk, and Volgograd regions);
ice phenomena (republics of Bashkortostan, Kalmykia, and
Khakassia; Primorye and Khabarovsk territories; Jewish AR; Chelyabinsk,
Leningrad, Magadan, Rostov, and Sakhalin regions);
abnormally low air temperature (Yamalo-Nenets AO;
Krasnoyarsk Territory; Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, Omsk, and Tomsk regions);
flooding of road due to heavy rain (Moscow FC; republics
of Altai, Bashkortostan, Buryatia, Khakassia, Sakha (Yakutia), and Tuva;
Chukotka AO; Altai, Krasnodar, Primorye, and Stavropol territories; Amur,
Arkhangelsk, Leningrad, Magadan, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Novgorod,
Sakhalin, and Saratov regions);
washout of road (Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Kamchatka
Territory, Sverdlovsk and Tyumen regions);
debris flow (Chechen, Kabardino-Balkaria,
Karachay-Circassian, and North Ossetia – Alania republics; Krasnodar
Territory; Sakhalin Region);
snow avalanche (republics of Dagestan and North Ossetia
– Alania);
rockfall (republics of Dagestan and North Ossetia –
Alania);
volcanic eruption (Kamchatka Territory).
The majority of all the emergencies revealed (almost 73 %) happened
during the cold season from November to March. A significant increase in
their number occurred during abrupt changes in weather conditions, such as
heavy precipitation, temperature drops, and icing. Emergency situations caused
by snow-related natural hazards were most frequent and most common. Snowdrifts
on the roads became a real disaster leading to long-term traffic disruptions
in many regions of Russia, especially in the Arkhangelsk, Chelyabinsk,
Novosibirsk, Omsk, Orenburg, Rostov, Sakhalin, and Sverdlovsk regions and the
Altai, Khabarovsk, and Krasnodar territories.
The frequencies of occurrence of road accidents and disruptions due to
natural hazards are discussed in Sect. 3.2.1.
Railway transport
In the Russian Federation, due to its vast and extended territory and
natural features and large distances of raw material bases from processing
enterprises, railway transportation is the basis of the transport system. It
accounts for >80 % of the freight turnover of all types of
transport (without pipelines) and >40 % of the passenger
traffic of public transport in long-distance and suburban communications.
Railway transport is considered the safest form of modern transportation,
although railway catastrophes with a large number of victims and injuries
occur in many countries. The main causes of railway accidents in Russia are
technical problems, a high degree of depreciation (of tracks, rolling
stocks, signaling means, and other equipment) and human factors such as
errors of dispatchers and drivers (Petrova, 2015).
More than 7 % of all railway accidents and failures registered in the
database were triggered by natural factors. This refers to those incidents
where natural impacts were indicated as the main causes of accidents. From 1992 to 2018, impacts of natural hazards of various geneses caused railway
accidents and traffic disruptions in 29 of the 85 federal regions of Russia.
The identified natural hazards that caused these harmful events are listed
below. The brackets indicate the regions where these accidents and failures
occurred:
heavy snow (Yamalo-Nenets AO, Orenburg and Sakhalin
regions);
washout of railway as a result of heavy rain and flash
flood (republics of Dagestan and Karelia, Chuvash and Udmurt republics,
Khabarovsk and Krasnodar territories, Amur and Sakhalin regions);
rockfall (Republic of Bashkortostan, Khabarovsk and
Krasnodar territories);
flooding due to melting snow (Murmansk and Vologda
regions).
Regarding the seasonality of accidents, they had two peaks: in summer (in June
and July) and in November. Most emergency situations were caused
by snowdrifts and washout or flooding of railway tracks due to heavy rains or
floods, as well as by the slope processes such as landslides, snow
avalanches, debris flows, and rockfalls.
The frequencies of occurrence of railway accidents due to natural hazards
are discussed in Sect. 3.2.2.
Air transport
Air transport is the fastest and most expensive mode of transportation. That
is why it is primarily used to transport passengers over distances of more
than 1000 km. In many distant areas of Russia (in the mountains, in the Far
North), it is the only means of transport. The main causes of accidents are
technical failures or human errors, as well as various natural factors
including adverse weather or collision with a flock of birds (EMERCOM,
2010).
The adverse weather conditions and other natural hazard impacts caused more
than 8 % of all the air transport accidents and traffic disruptions
recorded in the database. This refers to those incidents where natural
impacts were indicated as the main causes of accidents. From 1992 to 2018,
these events were registered in 27 of the 85 federal regions of Russia.
The following impacts of natural hazards were revealed:
strong winds (Moscow FC; republics of Bashkortostan and
Tatarstan; Chuvash Republic; Kamchatka, Krasnodar, and Krasnoyarsk
territories; Irkutsk, Murmansk, Omsk, Rostov, Sakhalin, Saratov, and
Ulyanovsk regions);
thunderstorms (Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Irkutsk
Region);
heavy rains (Moscow FC, Khabarovsk and Krasnodar
territories, Irkutsk Region);
snowfalls and snowstorms (Moscow FC; Republic of
Khakassia; Kamchatka, Krasnodar, and Krasnoyarsk territories; Leningrad,
Magadan, Rostov, and Sakhalin regions);
sleet (Moscow and St Petersburg FCs, republics of
Bashkortostan and Tatarstan, Chuvash Republic, Kamchatka and Krasnodar
territories, Rostov Region);
runway icing (Moscow FC, Kamchatka and Primorye
territories, Kaluga and Murmansk regions);
fog (Moscow FC, Chechen and Ingushetia republics,
Sverdlovsk Region);
snow avalanche (Kamchatka);
volcanic eruption.
In many cases, these adverse impacts occurred simultaneously. Thus, the
majority of emergency situations were caused by a combination of heavy
snow and strong winds. Almost 66 % of events occurred during the cold
season from November to March; another peak of accidents was in July.
A unique incident, when a helicopter was damaged as a result of an
avalanche, was recorded in the database on 10 April 2010 in Kamchatka.
For the study period, there was not a single accident caused by volcanic
eruption in Russia. Due to the eruption of the Icelandic volcano
Eyjafjallajökull, airlines canceled and delayed more than 500 flights at 10
Russian airports in April 2010; 32 000 passengers could not fly.
The frequencies of occurrence of air transport accidents caused by natural
hazards are discussed in Sect. 3.2.3 and included in the total risk analysis
(Sect. 3.2.5).
Water transport
Water transport includes both sea and river transport. Despite the
relatively low speed and seasonal limitations on traffic, this type of
transport is widely used for transporting large volumes of goods and
passengers over different distances. The main causes of accidents in water
transport are violations of the rules of navigation and transportation and of
fire safety and the technical operation of vessels; depreciation of ships,
ports' equipment, and other objects of infrastructure; and impacts of
natural hazards and adverse weather conditions (EMERCOM, 2010).
The greatest contribution of natural factors to the accident rate after road
transport was recorded for water transport. Almost 16 % of all the water
transport accidents registered in the database were caused by various
natural hazards. These events were registered in 21 of the 85 federal regions
of Russia.
The following impacts were revealed from 1992 to 2018:
strong winds (Kamchatka, Krasnodar, and Primorye
territories; Leningrad, Sakhalin, and Sverdlovsk regions);
storms (republics of Dagestan, Karelia, and Tatarstan;
Yamalo-Nenets AO; Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, Krasnodar, and Primorye territories;
Astrakhan, Irkutsk, Magadan, Murmansk, Rostov, Ryazan, Sakhalin, and
Yaroslavl regions);
snowstorms (Irkutsk and Sakhalin regions);
icing (Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Primorye Territory,
Sakhalin Region);
thunderstorms (Komi Republic, Leningrad Region);
fog and mist (Leningrad and Sakhalin regions).
Most accidents (>70 %) occurred during the cold
season from September to January.
The frequencies of occurrence of water transport accidents due to natural
hazards are discussed in Sect. 3.2.4 and included in the total risk analysis
(Sect. 3.2.5).
Risk of transport accidents and traffic disruptions
Occurrence frequencies of road, railway, air, and water accidents and
traffic disruptions due to natural hazard impacts at the level of Russian
federal regions were estimated for the risk analysis. As mentioned in Sect. 2.2, only accidents and disruptions which reached the scale of emergency
situation were taken into account. Annual average numbers of such events
from 1992 to 2018 were used as risk indicators.
All the federal regions were divided into groups by their risk levels of
road and railway accidents, as well as by the total risk of transport accidents
and traffic disruptions. In each case, the risk level was determined in
comparison with the average value of the corresponding indicator for Russia.
The resulting maps were created and analyzed. Regional differences in the
risk of transport accidents were found. Below are the main results of the
risk analysis.
Road transport
The risk of emergencies in road transport depends on the density of the road
network, traffic intensity, and human factors (violation of traffic rules by
drivers and pedestrians, etc.), as well as climatic conditions, seasonality,
and other circumstances. With its large area, the paved public
road density in Russia is the lowest of all the G8 countries, equal to 63 km (1000 km2)-1 (FSSS, 2020). However, it is much higher in the densely
populated regions of the European part of Russia. In the Asian part, only
some southwestern and southeastern regions have a satisfactory network of
hard-surface roads (Petrova and Shiryaeva, 2019). Moscow and St Petersburg
have the highest density of paved public roads, which comprises about
2500 km (1000 km2)-1; it is also high in federal regions of central
Russia (Moscow and Belgorod regions) and the North Caucasus (republics of
Ingushetia and North Ossetia – Alania), equal to 700–850 km (1000 km2)-1 (FSSS, 2020).
The risk of road accidents and traffic disruptions due to natural hazard impacts
within the Russian federal regions was assessed.
For the risk analysis, 635 emergency situations of various scales and
severity caused by the impacts of natural hazards on road infrastructure
were taken into consideration. The main triggers of these emergencies and
the regions of their occurrence were identified in Sect. 3.1.1. The risk
indicator was calculated as an average annual number of emergency situations
of this type in each federal region as well as the average for Russia.
All the federal regions are divided into five groups in accordance with risk
level by comparing their risk indicators with the average for Russia. Figure 4 shows the resulting map.
Regions of the Far East of Russia (Kamchatka and Khabarovsk territories,
Magadan and Sakhalin regions), Krasnoyarsk Territory in the southern part of
central Siberia, and the Republic of North Ossetia – Alania in the North
Caucasus have the highest risk level. The road infrastructure in these
regions is most affected by the above-listed natural hazards, especially
by heavy snowfalls and snowstorms, ice phenomena, abnormally low air
temperature, and heavy rains. In North Ossetia – Alania, impacts of snow
avalanches and debris flows are the most significant.
Railway transport
The risk of emergencies in railway transport depends on the density of the
railway network, traffic intensity, human factors, climatic conditions, and
seasonality. The highest density of the public railway network is in the federal
cities of Moscow (1921 km (10 000 km2)-1) and St Petersburg (3082 km (10 000 km2)-1), as well as in federal regions of the central and northwestern parts
of European Russia such as the Moscow, Kaliningrad, Tula, Kursk, Vladimir,
and Leningrad regions (300–500 km (10 000 km2)-1). With a lack of
railways in a large part of the country area, especially in its Asian part,
the average density of railways in Russia is 51 km (10 000 km2)-1; in the
central part of European Russia it is 263 km (10 000 km2)-1 (FSSS,
2020).
The risk of railway accidents and traffic disruptions due to natural hazard
impacts at the level of Russian federal regions was assessed.
For the risk analysis, 63 emergency situations of various scales and severity
caused by the impacts of natural hazards on railway infrastructure were
taken into consideration. The main triggers of these emergencies and the
regions of their occurrence were identified in Sect. 3.1.2. Occurrence
frequencies (annual average numbers) of these events were calculated for
each federal region as well as the average for Russia.
All the federal regions are divided into three groups by their risk levels.
In this case, only three groups are chosen, since the number of accidents
and dispersion of risk indicators are not as great as in the case of road
accidents. Figure 5 shows the resulting map.
Krasnodar Territory in the southern part of European Russia and regions of
the Far East (Sakhalin Region and Khabarovsk Territory) are characterized by
the highest level of risk. Railways in these regions are most affected by
the impacts of heavy snowfalls, heavy rains, snow avalanches, landslides,
debris flows, and rockfalls.
Air transport
The risk of emergencies in air transport depends on the aircraft's technical
conditions, air traffic intensity, human factors, meteorological conditions,
and seasonality.
The number of air transport accidents and traffic disruptions due to impacts
of natural hazards was included in the calculation of the total risk
indicator. For the risk analysis, 70 emergency situations were taken into
consideration. The main triggers of these emergencies and the regions of
their occurrence were identified in Sect. 3.1.3.
Water transport
The risk of emergencies in water transport depends on the technical conditions of
vessels, traffic intensity, human factors, climatic conditions, and
seasonality.
Water transport accidents due to natural impacts were also included in the
calculation of the total risk of transport accidents and disruptions. For
the risk analysis, 70 emergency situations were taken into consideration.
The main triggers of these emergencies and the regions of their occurrence
were identified in Sect. 3.1.4.
The total risk
Additionally, the total risk of transport accidents and traffic disruptions
was assessed for the area of Russia. Occurrence frequencies of accidents and
disruptions in all the above-examined types of transport from 1992 to 2018
were used as risk indicators.
For the total risk analysis, 838 emergency situations of various scales and
severity caused by the impacts of natural hazards on transport
infrastructure were taken into consideration. The main triggers of these
accidents were identified in Sect. 3.1 and shown in Table 1; annual average
numbers of these events were calculated for each federal region as well as
the average for Russia.
All the federal regions were divided into five groups by their risk levels.
The procedure for selecting groups was described in Sect. 2.2.
Figure 6 shows the resulting map. Regions of the Far East (Kamchatka,
Khabarovsk, and Primorye territories; Magadan and Sakhalin regions),
Krasnoyarsk Territory in the southern part of central Siberia, Murmansk Region
in the northern and Krasnodar Territory in the southern part of European Russia,
and the Republic of North Ossetia – Alania in the North Caucasus have the
highest level of risk. The transport infrastructure in these regions is
most affected by the adverse impacts of natural hazards listed in Table 1,
primarily those of a hydrometeorological genesis. Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, and
Primorye Territories, as well as Sakhalin Region, are characterized by the
most dangerous meteorological combinations of heavy precipitation and
strong winds. In the Kamchatka, Krasnodar, and Primorye territories, the most
intense rains are recorded. In winter, the heaviest snowfalls happen in all
the above regions. In spring and early autumn, the Khabarovsk, Krasnodar, and
Primorye territories are subject to catastrophic floods. Kamchatka is most
at risk of volcanic eruptions. The Republic of North Ossetia – Alania and
Sakhalin Region are characterized by the highest avalanche and debris flow
activity. All of the mentioned natural hazards trigger accidents and lead to
delay in the transportation of passengers and goods by road, railway, air,
and water transport. In addition, Kamchatka, Sakhalin, the southern part of
Siberia, and the North Caucasus are among the most seismically active
regions of Russia; during the study period, no traffic accidents due to
earthquakes were recorded, but their possibility should be taken into
account.
Concluding remarks and discussion
The contributions of various natural hazards to occurrences of different types
of transport accidents and traffic disruptions including road, railway, air,
and water transport are revealed. Among all the identified types of natural
hazards, hydrometeorological hazards such as heavy snowfalls and rains and
floods and ice phenomena, as well as dangerous exogenous slope processes
including snow avalanches, debris flows, landslides, and rockfalls, have the
largest contributions to transport accidents and disruptions. The most
dangerous is the combination of heavy precipitation and strong winds.
An annual average frequency of occurrences of emergency situations of
various scales and severity is applied in this study among all possible
methods for assessing risk. Unlike methods that assess risk by measuring its
components such as hazard, exposure, and vulnerability, this approach takes
into account the resulting consequences of the above factors and the
probability of these consequences. Transport accidents and disruptions are
considered in this case as consequences of natural hazard impacts on
transport infrastructure that is exposed and vulnerable to these impacts.
The risk index is calculated as an annual average number of emergency
situations caused by natural hazard impacts in each federal region and for each
type of transport. Thus, the index used combines both the probability and the
severity of the adverse impacts of natural hazards on transport
infrastructure, as well as the vulnerability of infrastructure to these adverse
impacts, resulting in accidents and malfunctions. Using this method, it is
possible to compare different regions and identify deficiencies that
need to be addressed.
Regional differences in the risk of transport accidents between Russian
federal regions were found. All the federal regions were divided into groups
by their risk levels of road and railway accidents, as well as by the total
risk of transport accidents and traffic disruptions due to natural hazard
impacts. The resulting maps were created and analyzed.
The Kamchatka, Khabarovsk, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk, Primorye territories;
Magadan, Murmansk, and Sakhalin regions; and Republic of North Ossetia –
Alania are characterized by the highest risk of transport accidents and
traffic disruptions caused by natural events. Emergencies of various scales
occur in these regions on average more often than once a year (Fig. 6).
The Chelyabinsk, Orenburg, and Rostov regions; Altai Territory; republics of
Dagestan and Bashkortostan; and Moscow have a high risk level with an
average probability of one event in 1–2 years (0.6–1.0 events yr-1).
For the study period of 1992 to 2018, the database mainly recorded events
caused by hydrometeorological and exogenous natural hazards. With high
values of the risk index, Kamchatka, Sakhalin, the North Caucasus, and southern Siberia are also among the most seismically active regions of Russia,
which further increases the likelihood of emergencies in these regions in
the case of earthquakes. It is in these regions that the necessary measures
should first be taken to reduce the vulnerability of transport
infrastructure to undesirable natural impacts and increase the level of
protection and preparedness.
Under conditions of observed and forecasted global and regional climate
changes, adverse and hazardous natural impacts on various facilities of
transport infrastructure, primarily from natural hazards of meteorological
and hydrological origin, as well as other natural events triggered by them
such as landslides, snow avalanches, and debris flows, are expected to
increase (Malkhazova and Chalov, 2004; Yakubovich et al., 2018). Other
factors, such as a growing transportation network, increased traffic, and a
lack of funding, will also lead to an increase in adverse impacts, especially
with further development of transport infrastructure to areas with high
levels of natural risk. In this regard, the continuous monitoring and assessment
of natural hazard impacts is especially relevant and important.
Only severe accidents leading to an emergency situation were considered in
this study due to a lack of data on small events. This gap should be filled
in future research because small events can also cause great damage to
the infrastructure and trigger accidents and traffic interruptions (Voumard
et al., 2018).
Effects of global processes such as space weather on the transport
infrastructure facilities, especially on electronics and automatic machinery,
were not taken into consideration because these events were not recorded in
the database. In the future, these impacts should be also investigated; the risk
of these events should be considered in the risk assessment.
Data availability
The data used in this study have been collected by the author in an electronic database, which is not available publicly.
Competing interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Special issue statement
This article is part of the special issue “Natural hazard impacts on technological systems and infrastructures”. It is a result of the EGU General Assembly 2019, Vienna, Austria, 7–12 April 2019.
Financial support
This research has been supported by the Lomonosov Moscow State University (grant no. I.7 AAAA-A16-116032810093-2, “Mapping, modeling and risk assessment of dangerous natural processes”).
Review statement
This paper was edited by Maria Bostenaru Dan and reviewed by two anonymous referees.
References
Anan'in, I. V. and Merzlyi, A. M.: Tectonically active zone of Russian
northern areas and their impact on air crashes, Ecology of Russian Northern
Areas, Problems, situation forecast, ways of development, decisions,
Proceedings, Arkhangelsk, 2, 4–8, 2002 (in Russian).
Andersson, A. K. and Chapman, L.: The impact of climate change on winter road
maintenance and traffic accidents in West Midlands, UK, Accident Anal. Prev., 43, 284–289, 2011.
Andrey, J.: Long-term trends in weather-related crash risks, J. Transp.
Geogr., 18, 247–258, 2010.
Aron, M., Bergel-Hayat, R., Saint Pierre, G., and Violette, E.: Added risk by
rainy weather on the roads of Normandy-centre region in France, Proceedings
of 11th WCTR, World Conference on Transport Research, 24–28 June 2007, University Berkeley, California, USA, 2007.Arosio, M., Martina, M. L. V., and Figueiredo, R.: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: a holistic graph-based assessment approach for natural hazard risk of complex systems, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 521–547, 10.5194/nhess-20-521-2020, 2020.Arrighi, C., Brugioni, M., Castelli, F., Franceschini, S., and Mazzanti, B.: Urban micro-scale flood risk estimation with parsimonious hydraulic modelling and census data, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1375–1391, 10.5194/nhess-13-1375-2013, 2013.
Bergel-Hayat, R., Debbarh, M., Antoniou C., and Yannis, G.: Explaining the
road accident risk: Weather effects, Accident Anal. Prev., 60,
456–465, 2013.
Bíl, M., Kubeček, J., and Andrášik, R.: An epidemiological
approach to determining the risk of road damage due to landslides, Nat.
Hazards, 73, 1323–1335, 2014.Bil, M., Andrasik, R., Nezval V., and Bilova M.: Identifying locations along
railway networks with the highest tree fall hazard, Appl. Geogr., 87,
45–53, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.07.012, 2017.Brenot, H., Theys, N., Clarisse, L., van Geffen, J., van Gent, J., Van Roozendael, M., van der A, R., Hurtmans, D., Coheur, P.-F., Clerbaux, C., Valks, P., Hedelt, P., Prata, F., Rasson, O., Sievers, K., and Zehner, C.: Support to Aviation Control Service (SACS): an online service for near-real-time satellite monitoring of volcanic plumes, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 1099–1123, 10.5194/nhess-14-1099-2014, 2014.
Brodsky, H. and Hakkert, A. S.: Risk of a road accident in rainy weather,
Accident Anal. Prev., 20, 161–176, 1988.Budetta, P. and Nappi, M.: Comparison between qualitative rockfall risk rating systems for a road affected by high traffic intensity, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1643–1653, 10.5194/nhess-13-1643-2013, 2013.Bunce, C. M., Cruden, D. M., and Morgenstern, N. R.: Assessment of the
hazard from rock fall on a highway, Can. Geotech. J., 34, 344–356, 1997.
Chakrabarty, N. and Gupta, K.: Analysis of Driver Behaviour and Crash
Characteristics during Adverse Weather Conditions, Procd. Soc.
Behv., 104, 1048–1057, 2013.
Desiatov, V. P., Osipov, A. I., and Suzdal'skaya, O. V.: Solar Activity and
Death-Rate Statistics, The Sun, Electricity, Life, Proceedings of Memorial
Readings devoted to A. L. Chijevskii, Moscow, Russia, 90–92, 1972 (in Russian).
Eckert, N., Keylock, C. J., Bertrand, D., Parent, E., Faug, T., Favier, T., and
Naaim, M.: Quantitative risk and optimal design approaches in the snow
avalanche field: Review and extensions, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.,
79–80, 1–19, 2012.
Edwards, J. B.: Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a
spatial analysis, J. Transp. Geogr., 4, 201–212, 1996.Eidsvig, U. M. K., Kristensen, K., and Vangelsten, B. V.: Assessing the risk posed by natural hazards to infrastructures, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 481–504, 10.5194/nhess-17-481-2017, 2017.
EMERCOM: Atlas of natural and technological hazards and risks. The Russian
Federation, Publishing House: Design. Information. Cartography, Moscow, Russia,
2010.
Epov, A. B.: Regularities in Occurrence of Technological Emergencies and
their Relationship with Natural Processes, Problems of Safety under
Emergencies, 12, 14–20, 1994 (in Russian).Falter, D., Schröter, K., Dung, N. V., Vorogushyn, S., Kreibich, H.,
Hundecha, Y., Apel, H., and Merz, B.: Spatially coherent flood risk
assessment based on long-term continuous simulation with a coupled model
chain, J. Hydrol., 524, 182–193,
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.021, 2015.Federal Law of the Russian Federation N 16-FZ “On Transport Security”, as
amended on 12 February 2019, adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation on 19 January 2007, available at: https://legalacts.ru/doc/federalnyi-zakon-ot-09022007-n-16-fz-o/ (last access: 10 July 2020), 2019 (in Russian).
FSSS: Russian Statistical Yearbook 2018: Stat.book, Rosstat, Moscow, Russia, 2018.
FSSS: Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators 2019, Rosstat, Moscow, Russia,
2020.Gill, J. C. and Malamud, B. D.: Hazard interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazard methodologies, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 659–679, 10.5194/esd-7-659-2016, 2016.
Girina, O. A., Manevich, A. G., Melnikov, D. V., Nuzhdaev, A. A., and
Petrova, E. G.: 2016 volcano eruptions in Kamchatka and the Northern Kuriles
and their danger to aviation, J. Volcanol. Seismol., 3, 34–48,
2019.Gordeev, E. I. and Girina, O. A., Volcanoes and the threat they pose for
aircraft, Vestn. Ros. Akad. Nauk+, 84, 134–142, 10.7868/S0869587314020121, 2014.
Govorushko, S. M.: Natural processes and Human impacts: Interaction between
Humanity and the Environment, Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2012.
Hong, L., Ouyang, M., Peeta, S., He, X., and Yan, Y.: Vulnerability
assessment and mitigation for the Chinese railway system under floods,
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., 137, 58–68, 2015.
IPCC: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Field, C. B., Barros,
V., Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Dokken, D. J., Ebi, K. L., Mastrandrea, M. D.,
Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S. K., Tignor, M., and Midgley, P. M.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.,
2012.Jaiswal, P. and van Westen, C. J.: Use of quantitative landslide hazard and
risk information for local disaster risk reduction along a transportation
corridor: a case study from Nilgiri district, India, Nat. Hazards, 65,
887–913, 10.1007/s11069-012-0404-1, 2013.Jaroszweski, D. and McNamara, T.: The influence of rainfall on road
accidents in urban areas: A weather radar approach, Travel Behaviour and
Society, 1, 15–21, 10.1016/j.tbs.2013.10.005, 2014.
Kanonidi, H. K., Oraevskii, V. N., Belov, A. V., Gaidash, S. P., and Lobkov,
V. L.: Railway Automatic System Failures under Geomagnetic Storms, Problems
of Emergency Forecasting, Proceedings, Russian Ministry of
Emergencies, Moscow, Russia, 41–42, 2002 (in Russian).
Kaundinya, I., Nisancioglu, S., Kammerer, H., and Oliva, R.: All-hazard
guide for transport infrastructure, Transp. Res. Proc., 14,
1325–1334, 2016.Kellermann, P., Schönberger, C., and Thieken, A. H.: Large-scale application of the flood damage model RAilway Infrastructure Loss (RAIL), Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2357–2371, 10.5194/nhess-16-2357-2016, 2016.
Kishcha, P. V., Ivanov-Cholodny, G. S., and Shelkovnikov, M. S.: Zoning of
air crashes, Physical Problems of Ecology, Proceedings, Moscow, Russia, 18–19,
1999.Liu, B., Siu, Y. L., and Mitchell, G.: Hazard interaction analysis for multi-hazard risk assessment: a systematic classification based on hazard-forming environment, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 629–642, 10.5194/nhess-16-629-2016, 2016.Ludvigsen, J. and Klæboe, R.: Extreme weather impacts on freight
railways in Europe, Nat. Hazards, 70, 767–787,
10.1007/s11069-013-0851-3, 2014.
Malkhazova, S. M. and Chalov, R. S. (Eds.): Geography, Society and
Environment. Vol. IV: Natural-Anthropogenic Processes and Environmental
Risk, Gorodets Publishing House, Moscow, Russia, 2004.
Mattsson, L. G. and Jenelius, E.: Vulnerability and resilience of transport
systems – a discussion of recent research, Transport. Res. A-Pol., 81, 16–34, 2015.
Miagkov, S. M.: Geography of Natural Risk, Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow, Russia, 1995 (in Russian).Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation: Transport Strategy of the
Russian Federation for the period until 2030, as amended on 12 May 2018,
available at: https://www.mintrans.ru/documents/3/1009 (last access: 10 July 2020), 2018.
Neal, C., Girina, O., Senyukov, S., Rybin, A., Osiensky, J., Izbekov, P., and Ferguson, G.: Russian eruption warning
systems for aviation, Nat. Hazards, 51,
245–262, 2009.
Nogal, M., O'Connor, A., Caulfield, B., and Brazil, W.: A multidisciplinary
approach for risk analysis of infrastructure networks in response to extreme
weather, Transp. Res. Proc., 14, 78–85, 2016.Nyberg, R. and Johansson, M.: Indicators of road network vulnerability to
storm-felled trees, Nat. Hazards, 69, 185–199,
10.1007/s11069-013-0693-z, 2013.Petrova, E.: Natural hazards and technological risk in Russia: the relation assessment, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 459–464, 10.5194/nhess-5-459-2005, 2005.
Petrova, E.: Critical infrastructure in Russia, Geographical analysis of
accidents triggered by natural hazards, Environ. Eng. Manag. J., 10,
53–58, 2011.
Petrova, E.: Road accidents in Russia: statistical and geographical
analysis, Scientific Annals of “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi,
Geography series, 59, 111–123, 2013.
Petrova, E.: Road and railway transport in Russia: safety and risks, AES
Bioflux, 7, 259–271, 2015.
Petrova, E. G. and Shiryaeva, A. V.: Road accidents in Moscow: weather impact,
AES Bioflux, 11, 19–30, 2019.
Rakha, H., Farzaneh, M., Arafeh, M., Hranac, R., Sterzin, E., and Krechmer,
D.: Empirical Studies on Traffic Flow in Inclement Weather, Final Report –
Phase I, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, USA, 2007.Redelmeier, D. A. and Raza, S.: Life-threatening motor vehicle crashes in
bright sunlight, Medicine, 96, e5710, 10.1097/MD.0000000000005710, 2017.
Satterthwaite, S. P.: An assessment of seasonal and weather effects on the
frequency of road accidents in California, Accident Anal. Prev.,
8, 87–96, 1976.Schlögl, M., Richter, G., Avian, M., Thaler, T., Heiss, G., Lenz, G., and Fuchs, S.: On the nexus between landslide susceptibility and transport infrastructure – an agent-based approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 201–219, 10.5194/nhess-19-201-2019, 2019.Schneiderbauer, S. and Ehrlich, D.: Risk, hazard and people's vulnerability
to natural hazards: A review of definitions, concepts and data, Eur. Comm.
Jt. Res. Centre. Eur., 40, 21410,
10.1007/978-3-540-75162-5_7, 2004.
Shabou, S., Ruin, I., Lutoff, C., Debionne, S., Anquetin, S., Creutin, J.-D., and Beaufils, X.: MobRISK: a model for assessing the exposure of road users to flash flood events, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1631–1651, 10.5194/nhess-17-1631-2017, 2017.
Shiryaeva, A. V.: Meteorological Conditions for Functioning of Automobile
Transport in Moscow and Moscow Oblast, Izvestia Russia Academy of Sci., 6,
94–101, 2016 (in Russian).
Shnyparkov, A. L.: Methods of natural risk evaluation, in: Geography, Society and Environment, edited by: . Malkhazova, S. M. and
Chalov, R. S., vol. IV:
Natural-Anthropogenic Processes and Environmental Risk, Gorodets Publishing
House, Moscow, Russia, 349–356, 2004.
Spasova, Z. and Dimitrov, T.: The effects of precipitation on traffic
accidents in Sofia, Bulgaria, Asklepios, International Annual for History
and Philosophy of Medicine, 1, 76–81, 2015.Tanner, J. C.: Effect of Weather on Traffic Flow, Nature, 169, 107, 10.1038/169107a0, 1952.Voumard, J., Derron, M.-H., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Natural hazard events affecting transportation networks in Switzerland from 2012 to 2016, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2093–2109, 10.5194/nhess-18-2093-2018, 2018.WHO: The top 10 causes of death, available at:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ (last access: 10 July 2020), 2017.
Yakubovich, A., Trofimenko, Y., and Pospelov P.: Principles of developing a
procedure to assess consequences of natural and climatic changes for
transport infrastructure facilities in permafrost regions, Transp. Res. Proc., 36, 810–816, 2018.
Yang, J., Sun, H., Wang, L., Li, L., and Wu, B.: Vulnerability Evaluation of
the Highway Transportation System against Meteorological Disasters, Procd. Soc. Behv., 96, 280–293, 2013.