25Natural Hazards. Concept, Essence and Classication
Andrzej Urbanek
Pomeranian University
in Slupsk
andrzej.urbanek@apsl.edu.pl
ORCID: 0000-0003-0667-4068
NATURAL HAZARDS.
CONCEPT, ESSENCE AND CLASSIFICATION
ZAGROŻENIA NATURALNE.
POJĘCIE, ISTOTA I KLASYFIKACJA
Abstract: General security is now counted among the key areas of national security. Its main
objective is becoming the protection of the population from the eects of various types
of threats that may arise within the territory of Poland, but also outside its borders. These
threats are not only threats caused by human activity, but also threats that are caused
by the forces of nature. In the article, the author has attempted to dene the concept, outline
the essence and present the author’s classication of natural hazards from the perspective
of universal security. This is the result of the author’s research work, which is reected in the
monograph currently in the publishing process, entitled “Natural hazards in the ecological
environment” and “Natural hazards in the ecological security space.” The project received
funding from the MEiN “Excellent Science” programme.
Zarys treści: Bezpieczeństwo powszechne zaliczane jest obecnie do kluczowych dziedzin
bezpieczeństwa narodowego. Jego głównym celem staje się ochrona ludności przed skutka-
mi różnego rodzaju zagrożeń, które mogą się pojawić na terytorium Polski, ale także poza
jej granicami. Zagrożenia te mają charakter zarówno zagrożeń wywołanych działalnością
człowieka, ale też i zagrożeń, których źródłem są siły natury. W artykule, jego autor podjął
próbę określenia pojęcia, nakreślenia istoty i przedstawienia autorskiej klasykacji zagrożeń
naturalnych z perspektywy bezpieczeństwa powszechnego. Jest to efekt prac badawczych Au-
tora, które znalazły swoje odzwierciedlenie w będącej aktualnie w procesie wydawniczym
monograi pt. „Zagrożenia naturalne w ekologicznej przestrzeni bezpieczeństwa”. Projekt
uzyskał donansowanie z programu MEiN „Doskonała nauka”.
Keywords: public safety, ecological safety, security hazards, natural hazards
Słowa kluczowe: bezpieczeństwo powszechne, bezpieczeństwo ekologiczne, zagrożenia
bezpieczeństwa, zagrożenia naturalne
25
25gl;;
Nr 7 ss. 25–38 2022
ISSN 2543–7321 Przyjęto: 09.10.2022
© Instytut Bezpieczeństwa i Zarządzania, Akademia Pomorska w Słupsku Zaakceptowano: 09.10.2022
Oryginalna praca badawcza DOI: 10.34858/SNB.7.2022.002
STUDIA NAD BEZPIECZEŃSTWEM
26 Andrzej Urbanek
Introduction
Every day, people are exposed to various types of threats which, depending on
the circumstances and scale of the occurrence of a particular phenomenon, can assume
the size of a natural disaster or catastrophe. The universality of the con-
sequences of such events and situations makes them the focus of an important area
of national security, which is undoubtedly universal security.
The term “universal security” does not yet have a clear and universally recognized
denition, so it is dicult to determine unequivocally what activities of a defensive,
protective or rescue nature fall within the competence of institutions providing secur-
ity to all citizens without exception.
In addition, the lack of an accepted denition makes it dicult to unambiguously
classify all threats that fall into the space of universal security. However, there is
no doubt among security theorists and practitioners that threats to universal secur-
ity include environmental threats of natural origin, as well as anthropogenic threats,
the source of which is human activity.
The essence of modern threats
In the lexical approach to security, which is very widespread, it is often treated
as being synonymous with the absence of danger. This universality and simplicity in
the perception of security through the prism of threats results in most denitions,
whether of security in the general sense or in specic categories, as the threat being
the causal factor of the actions taken by the subject to remove it. This is a natural
consequence of the fact that the world is and always has been a source of danger for
humans, and distrust of it and what each new day may bring us, performs the function
of a natural defence mechanism, without which no subject would be able to survive in
their surrounding reality.1
Hence, threat plays an important role in knowing, understanding and properly in-
terpreting all the circumstances and conditions of security, for it is closely related to
it and, as evidenced by numerous denitions, embedded in its content.2 In commonly
used terms, threat is treated as the opposite of security and means the possibility
of the appearance of a phenomenon negatively valued by the subject, or, alternatively, as
a potential or actual phenomenon, situation or action that harms basic interests
and values and poses a danger to them,3 or nally, as a phenomenon or disparity
1 See: Urbanek, A., Wyzwania i zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa, [in:] Wybrane problemy bezpieczeń-
stwa. Teoria. Strategia. System, A. Urbanek (ed.), Słupsk 2012, p. 71.
2 This view is expressed, among others, by Fehler W.; Cf.: Fehler, W., O pojęciu bezpieczeństwa
państwa, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo państw i narodów w procesie integracji europejskiej, W. Śmiałek,
J. Tymanowski (eds.), Toruń 2002, p. 166; Fehler, W., Bezpieczeństwo wewnętrzne – próba
ujęcia modelowego, „Myśl Wojskowa” 1997, no. 6, p. 20.
3 Cf.: Prońko, J., Bezpieczeństwo państwa. Zarys teorii, problemu i zadań administracji publicznej,
2007, p. 7; Łoś-Nowak, T., Pokój i bezpieczeństwo w teorii i praktyce stosunków międzynarodo-
wych, [in:] Współczesne stosunki międzynarodowe, T. Łoś-Nowak (ed.), Wrocław 1997, p. 135.
27Natural Hazards. Concept, Essence and Classication
in resources that causes concern, fear or anxiety.4 Understanding the nature of a threat
requires distinguishing between its two essential elements: objective and subjective.
The objective element refers to those phenomena that cause a state of uncertainty,
fear or anxiety. The subjective element generally refers to the feeling and perception
of phenomena that are considered unfavourable or dangerous to the subject. Thus,
the rst element includes real threats and is subject to objective assessment, while
the second focuses on their psychological perception.5 Both elements co-shape
the threat and, at the same time, allow security to be dened and better understood.6
But distinguishing the above elements is not enough to understand the essence
of modern threats, because the diversity of processes and phenomena that determine
the face of modernity causes them to interpenetrate each other, creating qualitatively
new security threats.7 Hence, modern threats can be attributed four more character-
istics: complexity, ubiquity, universality and relativity.
The complexity of hazards stems from the process of mixing them and giving them
a new dimension and quality, which is derived from, among other things, the eects
of globalization and, in the case of natural hazards, climate change. Another feature
of hazards is their ubiquity: they are massively present all around us, often taking
a form that is not subject to sensory cognition. They can appear in the air, water
and food as harmful and often poisonous chemical compounds (e.g. pollutants) or micro-
organisms and toxins (bacteria, viruses, rickettsiae and the toxins they produce, such as
botulinum toxin), causing poisoning or mass illnesses for which we have no antidote.
They are also common, aecting every subject, and a sense of danger or awareness
of dangers accompanies every person. This gives a new perspective on the perception
of security, treated not as the traditional absence of threats, but a low, acceptable level
of risk of their occurrence.8
An analysis of contemporary security paradigms shows that threat also in-
cludes the sphere of consciousness and can be treated as a mental state express-
ing both collective and individual perceptions and evaluations of reality or its
elements, as mentioned earlier.9 Relationships between the objective and subject-
ive aspects, reality and the human psyche, allow us to distinguish four basic models
of threat perception:10
4 Cf.: Zięba, R., Pozimnowojenny paradygmat bezpieczeństwa, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo międzyna-
rodowe po zimnej wojnie, R. Zięba (ed.), Warszawa 2008, p. 25.
5 See: Prońko, J., Bezpieczeństwo państwa.., op. cit., p. 78.
6 Cf.: Brzeziński, M., Kategoria bezpieczeństwa, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo wewnętrzne państwa. Wy-
brane zagadnienia, S. Sulowski, M. Brzeziński (eds.), Warszawa 2009, p. 24.
7 Cf.: Cieślarczyk, M., Modele i wym iary bezpieczeństwa, „Zeszyty Naukowe AON” 1999, no. 3,
p. 43; Kaczmarek, J., Bezpieczeństwo w świetle praskiej konferencji NATO, „Zeszyty Naukowe
AON” 2003, no. 1, pp. 112‒113.
8 Cf.: Brzeziński, M., Kategoria bezpieczeństwa..., op. cit., p. 25; Beck, U., Społeczeństwo ryzyka.
W drodze do innej nowoczesności, Warszawa 2002, pp. 12, 31, 36, 37; Wolanin, J., Zarys teorii
bezpieczeństwa obywateli. Ochronaobywateli na czas pokoju, Warszawa 2005, pp. 13‒16.
9 Cieślarczyk, M., Niektóre psychospołeczne aspekty bezpieczeństwa, wyzwań, szans i zagrożeń,
„Zeszyty Naukowe AON” 1999, no. 2, pp. 232, 235.
10 Zięba, R., Pojęcie i istota bezpieczeństwa państwa w stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Sprawy
Międzynarodowe” 1989, no. 10, pp. 49‒50.
28 Andrzej Urbanek
– a state of insecurity (when there is a large, real threat, and its perception is
correct);
– a state of obsession (when an unknown and uno.ecognized threat is treated
as a big one);
– a state of false security (when a major threat is treated as minor);
– a state of security (when the threat is slight and its perception is correct).
Hence, there is another feature of threats, relativity, which should be accepted,
and when assessing the state of security, their objective dimension should be con-
sidered as important as their subjective one. A relatively uniform assessment
of the state of security can be obtained only when the objective (expert, actual) assess-
ments are adequate to the subjective (social, perceived) ones.
Here one can agree with the thesis that in making decisions it is the duty of those
responsible for security to skilfully reconcile the analysis of specialists with public opin-
ion.11 It should also be noted that this approach to the essence of threats has not only
a practical dimension, but also a methodological one, since it establishes how to ap-
proach the study of security. According to R. Zięba, when “(...) analysing threats, at-
tention should be paid to their perception by politicians, researchers and the public.
It must be a reection of the real state of aairs (actual or potential threat) or it can be
false (so-called misperception). (...) For proper cognition of threats, it is important to take
into account the sphere of reality in which they arise and the sphere of consciousness in
which the perception of these threats and the formation of a sense of certainty are car-
ried out.”12 The essence and characteristics of modern threats are summarized in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Essence and characteristics of contemporary threats in relation to security
Source: own development.
Thus, it is possible to accept the thesis that threats are complex, ubiquitous, com-
mon and relative, multidimensional and relative phenomena, and only an equal
treatment of their subjective and objective dimensions makes it possible to determine
11 Cieślarczyk, M., Niektóre psychospołeczne..., op. cit., p. 15.
12 Cf.: Zięba, R., Pozimnowojenny paradygmat bezpieczeństwa..., op. cit., p. 26.
29Natural Hazards. Concept, Essence and Classication
the real picture of security. It is worth remembering that threats trigger the defence
mechanisms of the subject and stimulate them to concrete action. Thus, they are
an important stimulator of the subject’s activity, allowing them to take action to ensure
defence and protection against the negative consequences of threats. Their awareness
by the subject and the subject’s knowledge of the mechanisms, sources and con-
sequences allows them to build a kind of security system, eectively protecting
them from all known dangers.13
The concept of hazards, due to their universality and interdisciplinary na-
ture, is used in various contexts of security considerations. When, for exam-
ple, threats are discussed in the context of a crisis management system, attention is
paid to the threat as a factor causing the occurrence of an emergency situation.
An exemplication of this approach to threats is the denition proposed by Eugeniusz
Nowak and Maciej Nowak, according to which “(...) threats are most generally under-
stood primarily as insecurity and viewed as negative phenomena causing the likelihood
of a crisis situation and dangers to the environment leading, as a consequence,
to a crisis (understood as the culminating moment of a crisis situation).”14 For
the purposes of an emergency system, on the other hand, it is assumed that a threat is
the possibility of “(...) the emergence of specic losses, determined for the situation after
the occurrence of an undesirable event in the human-technical-environmental system.”15
In currently emerging security publications, threats are often combined with chal-
lenges. According to R. Zięba, “(...) when studying the security issues of various entit-
ies, it is useful at the outset to distinguish threats from similarly perceived phenomena
that are merely challenges.”16 Challenges, in dictionary terms, mean actions aimed at
getting an opponent to ght back, or are a call for rivalry and competition. In other
terms, it is a new and dicult situation that requires a certain response and action.17
Thus, threats cannot be considered synonymous with challenges, or the two terms
be treated as the same. A challenge is only a signal that, after analysis and evaluation
by the subject, can be a causal factor for specic actions, and a threat is a fully real phe-
nomenon that requires immediate specic actions, a decisive response by the subject to
avoid a situation that constitutes a serious danger to them.18 This was aptly summarized
by R. Zieba, treating challenges as new situations, “(...) in which non-negotiable needs
arise that require the formulation of a response and appropriate actions. Only uno.es-
olved challenges can turn into threats to the security of individuals, nations and states.”19
13 Zięba, R., Pozimnowojenny paradygmat bezpieczeństwa..., op. cit., p. 26.
14 Nowak, E., Nowak, M., Zarys teorii bezpieczeństwa narodowego, Warszawa 2011, p. 39.
15 Cf.: Zięba, R., Pozimnowojenny paradygmat bezpieczeństwa..., op. cit., p. 26.
16 Ibidem, p. 27.
17 Balcerowicz, B., Pokój i „nie-pokój” na progu XXI wieku, Warszawa 2001, p. 185.
18 Cf.: Huzarski, M., Zmienne podstawy bezpieczeństwa i obronności państwa, Warszawa 2009, p. 22.
19 Zięba, R., Pozimnowojenny paradygmat bezpieczeństwa..., op. cit., p. 26.
30 Andrzej Urbanek
Natural hazards and disasters as ecological hazards
Natural hazards t into the general category of ecological hazards. In contemporary
studies related to security, ecological hazards are often limited to only those phenomena
negative to the environment caused by human activity.20 Such an approach to ecological
threats is justied when viewed through the prism of ecological problems as phenomena
of a social nature. Ecological threats viewed from the perspect-ive of a social problem
means situations where signicant social groups (groups, organizations or institutions)
consider the consequences of certain actions to be negative for the environment. In this
view, an environmental problem is determined by three elements:21
– physical facts (the physical context of the environmental problem);
– social values (values that constitute the reference point of the environmental
problem);
– social behaviours (behaviours that are the cause of environmental problems).
But human activity is not the only cause of negative changes in the environment.
A volcanic eruption, an earthquake or a collision of the Earth with an object of cos-
mic origin can have equally disastrous consequences, which, having violent char-
acteristics, pose a direct threat to the life and health of people located in the area of
the cataclysm. Therefore, it is worth looking at ecological hazards from a slightly broad-
er perspective, and it is generally recognized that their causes can be both the activity
of natural forces and human activity.22
In the sciences of international relations, ecological hazards are treated as “ (...)
changes in the environment caused by its physical, chemical or biological properties and
human activities, which can lead to the inhibition of socio-economic development and
even threaten the survival of human civilization as a whole.”23 This denition, which in
a way refers to the understanding of environmental threats as social and global problems,
does not fully correspond to the way they are interpreted in security sciences. Limiting
the perception of environmental threats to their consequences of a socio-economic nature
or the survival of human civilization is too narrow. Threats must also be viewed through
the prism of their threat to human life and health, as well as other values inherent in the
concepts of security, namely quality of life, integrity or development in other than socio-
economic spheres of development of human civilization.
In summary, it can be assumed that ecological threats are changes in the envir-
onment of human life, including the natural environment, caused by the activities
20 Cf. Księżopolski, K.M., Bezpieczeństwo ekologiczne, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo państwa,
K.A. Wojtaszczyk, A. Materska-Sosnowska (eds.), Warszawa 2009, p. 173; Furman, A., Eko-
logiczne, naturalne i techniczne zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa publicznego, [in:] Niemilitarne za-
grożenia bezpieczeństwa publicznego, S. Kowalkowski (ed.), Warszawa 2011, p. 81.
21 See: Matczak, P., Problemy ekologiczne jako problemy społeczne, Poznań 2000, p. 47.
22 See: Kitler, W., Bezpieczeństwo Narodowe RP. Podstawowe kategorie. Uwarunkowania, Sy-
stem, Warszawa 2011, p. 53.
23 Molo, B., Rozwiązywanie problemów globalnych na przykładzie ochrony środowiska, [in:]
Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe w XXI wieku. Wybrane problemy, E. Cziomer (ed.), Kraków
2010, pp. 181–182.
31Natural Hazards. Concept, Essence and Classication
of natural forces and human activities, posing threats to human health and life, as
well as to values such as quality of life, the possibility of survival and development
and freedom to pursue one’s interests. In this view, environmental hazards can be
divided into two categories: natural hazards and anthropogenic hazards. Thus, natural
hazards are a type of ecological hazards that are part of the ecological security space
and caused by natural forces. Of course, natural hazards can be the result of the cu-
mulative action of physical, chemical or biological factors inherent in the natural en-
vironment and the side eects of human activity, but nevertheless, at the time of their
occurrence, the main causal factor of the hazard is nature and the phenomena occurring
in it or the space surrounding the Earth. These threats can be global, supra-regional,
regional or local.
Natural hazards are often violent, so we often refer to them as environmental
disasters or natural disasters. It is therefore worth taking a slightly closer look at
the above terms.
In ecology, an ecological disaster is dened most generally “... as an irre-
versible change in the structure and function of ecosystems without the possibil-
ity of the formation of replacement (compensatory) assemblies or links, due to
an imbalance in these ecosystems.24” In ecological terms, a catastrophe of this
type leads to irreversible qualitative and quantitative changes in food chains,
resulting in the collapse of at least one of the trophic links (producers, consum-
ers or destructors), without which an ecosystem cannot exist. Thus, the result of
an ecological disaster can be a threat to the existence and survival of various species
of ora and fauna, and even the destruction of the entire ecosystem.
Environmental disasters, as mentioned earlier, can be caused by natural forces or are
the result of human activity. For the purposes of civil protection systems, the concept of
“natural disaster” is introduced. This concept is dened, among other things, in the Law
on the State of Natural Disaster, where it is stated that a natural disaster is a natural catas-
trophe or technical failure, “(...) the consequences of which threaten the life or health of
a large number of people, property of great magnitude or the environment in large areas,
and assistance and protection can be eectively undertaken only with extraordinary
measures, with the cooperation of various bodies and institutions and specialized services
and formations acting under unied leadership.”25 The essence of a natural disaster is its
violent characteristic, the relatively wide range of impact of its negative consequences
and the need for extraordinary measures and the involvement of large forces and re-
sources to counter its eects.
According to the aforementioned law, a natural catastrophe is understood
as “(...) an event associated with the action of the forces of nature, in particular
lightning, seismic shocks, strong winds, intense precipitation, prolonged occur-
rence of extreme temperatures, landslides, res, droughts, oods, ice phenomena
on rivers and the sea, as well as on lakes and reservoirs, mass occurrence of pests,
24 Encyklopedia PWN, keyword: katastrofa ekologiczna, https://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/kata-
strofa-ekologiczna;3921133.html, [accessed: 16.06.2017].
25 On the state of natural disaster Act of 18 April 2002, consolidated text: Dz.U. (Journal of Laws)
2017, item 1897, Art. 3 section 1.
32 Andrzej Urbanek
plant or animal diseases or infectious diseases of humans, or the action of another
element.”26 The law also assumes that a natural disaster can be an event caused by
a terrorist act.
It is worth noting that natural hazards and the disasters they cause have a signic-
ant impact on the modern security environment and pose a major threat to human
health and life, the wider economy or the environment.
The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) has analysed
natural disasters on a global scale from 1998 to 2017, and the results are truly alarm-
ing. According to the report presented by the Center,27 between 1998 and 2017, natural
disasters caused the deaths of some 1.3 million people and another 4.4 billion were
injured, made homeless, displaced or in need of other forms of assistance. While most
of the fatalities were caused by geophysical events, mainly earthquakes and tsunamis,
91% of all disasters were caused by oods, storms, droughts, heat waves and other ex-
treme weather events. As shown in Figure 2, oods (43.4%) accounted for the largest
number of disasters during the period under review, followed by strong winds (28.2%),
earthquakes (7.8%) and extreme temperatures (5.6%). The United States of America
suered the greatest losses of about $945 billion, followed by China ($492.2 billion)
and Japan ($376.3 billion). The greatest single cause of damage, with losses of $228
billion, was the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011, which conse-
quently led to the closure of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. In contrast, the 2008
earthquake in Sichuan, China, cost $96 billion and aected 46 million people.28
Fig. 2. Natural disasters 1998–2017
Source: CRED, Economic, Losses, Poverty & Disasters 1998–2017, Report, p. 7.
26 Ibidem.
27 CRED, Economic, Losses, Poverty & Disasters 1998–2017, Report. Raport powstał
w wyniku współpracy pomiędzy: United Nations Oce for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR),
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Institute of Health and Society
(Université Catholique de Louvain).
28 Ibidem.
33Natural Hazards. Concept, Essence and Classication
The above data on the risks to human health and life and their economic impact
shows how dangerous natural disasters are and why we should analyse this problem
from a security perspective.
Classication of natural hazards
In order to understand the nature of natural hazards and how they are treated in
modern security concepts, consideration should begin with how hazards are classied.
In the literature, we encounter numerous classications, with some being created for
the purposes of security theory, others for the purposes of crisis management systems,
and others for the purposes of emergency systems. The latter two are of interest to us
because they deal with universal security.
Analysing the essence of threats, W. Kitler stated that “(...) threats to man and his
goods and environment can arise from two sources. The rst – is the activity of man
against man or the laws of nature, the second – is the activity of natural forces, such
as water, re, air, space, the biological (microbial) world.”29 This simple distinction
between the two basic categories of threats, taking into account their source, is now
widely used in crisis management theory and practice.
Thus, according to W. Lidwa, we can distinguish four groups of threats that can
quickly lead to crisis situations, which can have impacts on the territory of an entire
state or its individual regions. These include:30
1) natural hazards, caused by the forces of nature, including oods, strong winds,
droughts, weather anomalies, tectonic movements, epidemics and animal
plagues;
2) technical risks, resulting from the civilizational and economic development
of society (res, chemical accidents, radiation accidents and incidents, trans-
portation, construction and mining disasters, and technical equipment failures);
3) terrorism (terrorist attacks in the air, at sea and on land);
4) other threats, which include: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, mass
migrations, civil uno.est, collective acts of public disorder and organized crime.
A clearer and more orderly classication of threats that can trigger emergencies
was proposed by E. Nowak, W. Kitler, A. Skrabacz and K. Gąsiorek. According
to them, one can speak of two categories of threats. The rst is threats caused
by the forces of nature (natural disasters), and the second is threats caused by hu-
man activity, including: technical failures, social events (uno.est) and terrorist events.
Still other considerations are taken into account when classifying hazards for emer-
gency systems. This takes into account the criterion of: the extent of the threats (lo-
cal, regional, continental, global, space), the source of the threats (industry, trans-
port, agriculture, military action, terrorism, forces of nature, etc.) and the type of
29 Kitler, W., Obrona cywilna – szerokie podejście do problematyki cywilnej w obronie narodowej,
[in:] Obrona cywilna (niemilitarna) w obronie narodowej III RP, Warszawa 2001, p. 35.
30 See: Lidwa, W., Krzeszowski, W., Więcek, W., Zarządzanie w sytuacjach kryzysowych, War-
szawa 2010, pp. 7, 23.
34 Andrzej Urbanek
impact (hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere).31 From the point of view
of the practice of emergency operations, the basis for the distinction is the size
of the area aected, hence the following are distinguished: widespread hazards
(caused by chemical disasters, nuclear disasters, energy disasters, weather anomalies,
epidemics, etc.) and local hazards (caused by road accidents, domestic accidents, con-
struction disasters, explosions, local poisoning, etc.).
The above classications show how, from the perspective of universal security
practice, it is important to specify which threats we are dealing with. In all classi-
cations, in which the basic criterion becomes their source, the division into natural
and anthropogenic hazards is already widely used, although there is no unied posi-
tion on what phenomena, processes or other events can be included in this category.
Analysing the above issues in the literature, one gets the impression that they are
treated marginally. Speaking of natural hazards, one points more to disasters
that can be the result of various factors, and not to the hazards themselves, which do
not necessarily always have to lead to catastrophic consequences.
Marek Graniczny and Vladimir Mizerski32 divide natural disasters33 into six main
groups:
– geological – earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, mass movements, tsunamis,
erosion;
– hydrological – oods, desertication, snow avalanches;
– oceanographic – coastal ooding, sea level changes, pollution of bodies
of water;
– meteorological – storms, cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowslides;
– related to vegetation cover – res, droughts, locusts;
– cosmic – collision with the Earth of a meteor, comet or asteroid.
At the same time, as they note, there are natural disasters that are the result of
the interaction of several factors, and one natural disaster generally stimulates another.
According to CRED, natural disasters are divided into hydrological events (oods,
landslides and wave action), meteorological (storms, extreme temperatures, fog)
and climatological (droughts, res), which are collectively referred to as weather
or climate-related, and geophysical disasters (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
massive earth movements). As can be seen, this is a fuzzy, very general classication
and does not include all hazards that qualify as natural hazards.
Taking into account a kind of eclecticism in the approach to classifying nat-
ural hazards, the author of the articles proposes his own classication, useful for
both cognitive and practical reasons. Similarly, as in the classication presented
by M. Graniczny and W. Mizerski, natural hazards can, according to his thoughts,
include six basic categories: threats to ecosystems (global and regional/local);
31 Konieczny, J., Wawrzynowicz, H., Mydlarska, J. (eds.), Psychologia bezpieczeństwa. Kompen-
dium, Agencja Wydawniczo-Reklamowa Esus, Poznań 2011, p. 128.
32 Graniczny, M., Mizerski, W., Katastrofy przyrodnicze, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, Warsza-
wa 2009, p. 3.
33 Ibidem.
35Natural Hazards. Concept, Essence and Classication
geological hazards; meteorological hazards; biological hazards; and space hazards,
and additionally include mixed hazards. (See Figure 3).
Threats to ecosystems can be divided into two basic categories: global threats
(climate change, ozone hole) and regional/local threats (loss of biological diversity,
soil degradation, forest destruction, water pollution and scarcity, marine and ocean
degradation, air pollution and large-scale res).
Another category of hazards is geological hazards. These can be divided into
ve basic categories: seismic hazards (earthquakes); tsunamis (of varying extent:
local, regional and supra-regional); volcanic hazards (volcanic eruptions); mass earth
movements (landslides) and erosion (e.g., of seashores).
The most numerous category is meteorological hazards, which include: hazards
associated with strong winds (winds associated with atmospheric circulation – hur-
ricanes, cyclones, orcans and local winds: scowls, tornadoes, foehn winds, including
hail winds); those related to precipitation (intense rain and snow, hail, acid rain, fog
and haze, snow blizzards and blizzards, freezing rain and glaze); those related to air
temperature (frost, ice hazards: icing, icebergs and sea ice, heat); mixed (storms, thun-
derstorms, once in a century winters); and weather anomalies (El Niño and La Niña).
Fig. 3. Classication of natural hazards
Source: own development.
The next threats, hydrological, are related to excess water (oods and ooding)
and water scarcity (droughts: meteorological, soil, hydrological and hydrogeological).
Biological hazards, in turn, can be divided into three categories: the mass oc-
currence of diseases among humans (epidemics/pandemics), animals (epizootics)
and plants (epiphytoses); the occurrence of pests on a massive scale; and biological
contamination of water and food.
The sixth category, cosmic threats, includes: space weather anomalies (solar
storms); cosmic radiation (gamma rays) and collisions of the Earth with space objects.
Finally, the last category consists of mixed hazards, which may be caused by other
natural hazards or may be the result of human activity. Details of the above classi-
cations are shown in Table 1.
36 Andrzej Urbanek
Table 1. Types of natural hazards
Hazard category Subcategory Type
Threats
to ecosystems
global climate change, ozone hole
regional/local loss of biodiversity, soil degradation, forest
destruction, water pollution and shortages,
degradation of seas and oceans, air pollution,
large-scale res
Hazards
geological
seismic earthquakes
tsunamis local, regional, trans-regional (Pacic)
volcanic volcanic eruptions (eusive, explosive, mixed
eruptions)
massive earth movements landslides, avalanches
erosion coastal erosion
Hazards
meteorological
related to strong winds winds associated with atmospheric circulation:
hurricanes, cyclones, squalls and local winds:
gusts, tornadoes, foehn winds, including
mountain winds
related to precipitation heavy rain and snow, hail, acid rain, fog
and mist, blizzards, freezing rain and glaze
related to air temperature frost, frost heaves, ice hazards: icing, icebergs
and sea ice, heat waves
mixed hazards storms, once in a century winters
weather anomalies El Niño and La Niña
Threats
hydrological
related to excess water inundations, oods (uvial, precipitation,
snowmelt, groundwater, seawater, water
and waste water facilities)
related to water scarcity droughts: meteorological, soil, hydrological,
hydrogeological
Hazards
Biological
massive outbreaks
of disease among humans,
animals and plants
epidemics/pandemics, epizootics
and epiphytoses
occurrence of pests
on a massive scale
pests of agricultural crops, foodstus, forests,
spreading diseases
biological contamination
of water and food
water contamination, food contamination
Hazards
cosmic
space weather anomalies solar storms
cosmic radiation penetrating radiation
collisions of the Earth
with cosmic objects
collisions with meteorites, asteroids, comets
37Natural Hazards. Concept, Essence and Classication
Hazard category Subcategory Type
Risks
mixed
caused by natural hazards e.g. an eruption of an underwater volcano
can trigger tsunamis or earthquakes, storms,
and especially the accompanying lightning,
which can cause large-scale res, El Niño
and La Niña, both of which can cause drought
or ooding, etc.
caused by anthropogenic
threats
e.g. disasters of hydraulic structures can cause
oods, the use of geological weapons can cause
earthquakes, etc.
Source: own development.
Bibliography
Balcerowicz, B., Pokój i „nie-pokój” na progu XXI wieku, Warszawa 2001.
Beck, U., Społeczeństwo ryzyka. W drodze do innej nowoczesności, Warszawa 2002.
Brzeziński, M., Kategoria bezpieczeństwa, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo wewnętrzne państwa. Wybrane
zagadnienia, S. Sulowski, M. Brzeziński (eds.), Warszawa 2009.
Cieślarczyk, M., Niektóre psychospołeczne aspekty bezpieczeństwa, wyzwań, szans i zagrożeń,
„Zeszyty Naukowe AON” 1999, no. 2.
Cieślarczyk, M., Modele i wymiary bezpieczeństwa, „Zeszyty Naukowe AON” 1999, no. 3.
CRED, Economic, Losses, Poverty & Disasters 1998–2017, Report.
Czajkowski, W., Psychologia bezpieczeństwa. Kompendium, Kraków 2017.
Fehler, W., Bezpieczeństwo wewnętrzne – próba ujęcia modelowego, „Myśl Wojskowa” 1997.
Fehler, W., O pojęciu bezpieczeństwa państwa, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo państw i narodów w pro-
cesie integracji europejskiej, W. Śmiałek, J. Tymanowski (eds.), Toruń 2002.
Furman, A., Ekologiczne, naturalne i techniczne zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa publicznego, [in:]
S. Kowalkowski (ed.), Niemilitarne zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa publicznego, Warszawa 2011.
Graniczny, M., Mizerski, W., Katastrofy przyrodnicze, Warszawa 2009.
Huzarski, M., Zmienne podstawy bezpieczeństwa i obronności państwa, Warszawa 2009.
Kaczmarek, J., Bezpieczeństwo w świetle praskiej konferencji NATO, „Zeszyty Naukowe
AON” 2003, no. 1.
Kitler, W., Obrona cywilna – szerokie podejście do problematyki cywilnej w obronie naro-
dowej, [in:] Obrona cywilna (niemilitarna) w obronie narodowej III RP, Warszawa 2001.
Kitler, W., Bezpieczeństwo Narodowe RP. Podstawowe kategorie. Uwarunkowania. System,
Warszawa 2011.
Konieczny, J., Wawrzynowicz H., Mydlarska J. (eds.), Psychologia bezpieczeństwa. Kompen-
dium, Agencja Wydawniczo-Reklamowa Esus, Poznań 2011.
Księżopolski, K.M., Bezpieczeństwo ekologiczne, [in:] K.A. Wojtaszczyk, A. Materska-Sos-
nowska (eds.), Bezpieczeństwo państwa, Warszawa 2009.
Lidwa, W., Krzeszowski, W., Więcek, W., Zarządzanie w sytuacjach kryzysowych, Warszawa
2010.
Łoś-Nowak, T., Pokój i bezpieczeństwo w teorii i praktyce stosunków międzynarodowych, [in:]
Współczesne stosunki międzynarodowe, T. Łoś-Nowak (ed.), Wrocław 1997.
Matczak, P., Problemy ekologiczne jako problemy społeczne, Poznań 2000.
38
Molo, B., Rozwiązywanie problemów globalnych na przykładzie ochrony środowiska, [in:]
Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe w XXI wieku. Wybrane problemy, E. Cziomer (ed.),
Kraków 2010.
Nowak, E., Nowak, M., Zarys teorii bezpieczeństwa narodowego, Warszawa 2011.
Prońko, J., Bezpieczeństwo państwa. Zarys teorii, problemu i zadań administracji publicznej,
Bielsko-Biała 2007.
Urbanek, A., Wyzwania i zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa, [in:] Wybrane problemy bezpieczeństwa.
Teoria. Strategia. System, A. Urbanek (ed.), Słupsk 2012.
Wolanin, J., Zarys teorii bezpieczeństwa obywateli. Ochrona obywateli na czas pokoju, War-
szawa 2005.
Zięba, R., Pojęcie i istota bezpieczeństwa państwa w stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Sprawy
Międzynarodowe” 1989, no. 10.
Zięba, R., Pozimnowojenny paradygmat bezpieczeństwa, [in:] Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe
po zimnej wojnie, R. Zięba (ed.), Warszawa 2008.
Legal Acts
On the state of natural disaster Act of 18 April 2002, consolidated text: Dz.U. (Journal of Laws)
2017, item 1897.
Summary
Natural hazards, especially those related to climate change, are becoming an important
factor that aects the operation of civil protection systems. Learning about these phenom-
ena, systematizing knowledge about them, and nally creating eective systems to protect
the population from their destructive eects is a part of the problems that should be analysed
from the perspective of universal security. This problem must not be underestimated or mar-
ginalized by the relevant services in Poland, hence, it is worth attempting to draw some conclu-
sions that emerge from the analysis of the above problem presented by the Author:
1. The risk of the occurrence of natural hazards as a result of increasing industrialization
and climate change is increasing, and their eects will aect most of the inhabitants
of our globe, so systematizing knowledge about them is a relatively urgent endeavour
that will determine how well we are able to prepare ourselves to face their destructive
impact on people, infrastructure and the environment.
2. Natural hazards are a type of environmental hazard, which are part of the ecological
security space, the causes of which are natural forces. Of course, natural hazards can
be the result of the cumulative action of physical, chemical or biological factors in-
herent in the natural environment and the side eects of human activity, but however
they occur, the main causal factor of the threat is nature and the phenomena occurring in it
or the space surrounding the Earth.
3. It is reasonable to divide natural hazards into six basic categories: ecosystem hazards
(global and regional/local); geological hazards; meteorological hazards; biological haz-
ards and space hazards, and additionally include mixed hazards.
4. The classication proposed by the Author is not enumerative. It is an open classica-
tion, on the basis of which further work can be carried out to systematize and generalize
knowledge on the subject. It is also worth researching the impact of climate change on
natural hazards, because in the near future they will determine the activities of crisis
management systems and civil protection systems.
Urbanek Andrzej
