Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology

Kappes, Mélanie; Papathoma-Köhle, Maria; Keiler, Margreth

doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.002

Cited by 257 publications

(200 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

173

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Last but not least, Kappes et al (2012) developed an IBM for multi-hazard in mountain areas which is presented in detail and applied in the present study. In general, in most of the studies, indicators are weighted empirically and no validation of their selection and weighting has been implemented using the damage pattern and loss from a real event.…”

Section: Methods For Assessing Physical Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, due to the lack of data regarding the hazardous process itself and the limited availability of data regarding the building characteristics the study constitutes only a good basis for further research. The next attempt was made by Kappes et al (2012), who introduced a methodology for vulnerability assessment using vulnerability indicators, e.g. characteristics of the building that are responsible for its susceptibility to damage and loss due to mountain hazards, based on the PTVA model.…”

Section: The Ptva Methods and Its Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…reinforcement of buildings). Kappes et al (2012) suggest that the main advantage of the method is the flexibility in weighting, although flexibility in this case increases subjectivity, which consequently increases the level of uncertainty. Moreover, they consider the fact that the method is not hazard-intensity specific to be an advantage, because the assessment may be carried out in absence of information regarding the process characteristics.…”

Section: The Indicator-based Methodology: a Ptva For Debris Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elements at risk as part of the risk analysis is an essential aspect for the development of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction. Understanding, analysing and, if possible, quantifying physical vulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting tools for its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physical vulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators; however, in most of the cases, these methods are used in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses on two of these methods: vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators. Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss, considering, in individual cases only, some structural characteristics of the affected buildings. However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerability assessment should focus on the identification of these variables that influence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerability indicators). In this study, an indicator-based methodology (IBM) for mountain hazards including debris flow ) is applied to a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol, where in the past a vulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new" indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for its improvement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodological approaches and their results is challenging since both methodological approaches deal with vulnerability in a different way. However, it is still possible to highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearly that both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physical vulnerability and provide a preliminary "holistic methodological framework" for physical vulnerability assessment showing how the two approaches may be used in combination in the future.

show abstract

Section: Methods For Assessing Physical Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Ptva Methods and Its Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Indicator-based Methodology: a Ptva For Debris Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since they do not require detailed data as damage and fragility curves, flood vulnerability indicators have been extensively deployed to assess the social vulnerability (Fekete, 2009;Frigerio and de Amicis, 2016), socioeconomic vulnerability (Kienberger et al, 2009), and physical vulnerability (Godfrey et al, 2015;Kappes et al, 2012), as well as to combine multiple dimensions of vulnerability (Roy and Blaschke, 2013;Vojinovic et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory flood vulnerability assessment: a multi-criteria approach

Brito

Evers

Almoradie

2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper presents a participatory multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for flood vulnerability assessment while considering the relationships between vulnerability criteria. The applicability of the proposed framework is demonstrated in the municipalities of Lajeado and Estrela, Brazil. The model was co-constructed by 101 experts from governmental organizations, universities, research institutes, NGOs, and private companies. Participatory methods such as the Delphi survey, focus groups, and workshops were applied. A participatory problem structuration, in which the modellers work closely with end users, was used to establish the structure of the vulnerability index. The preferences of each participant regarding the criteria importance were spatially modelled through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) multi-criteria methods. Experts were also involved at the end of the modelling exercise for validation. The final product is a set of individual and group flood vulnerability maps. Both AHP and ANP proved to be effective for flood vulnerability assessment; however, ANP is preferred as it considers the dependences among criteria. The participatory approach enabled experts to learn from each other and acknowledge different perspectives towards social learning. The findings highlight that to enhance the credibility and deployment of model results, multiple viewpoints should be integrated without forcing consensus.

show abstract

“…Nessa perspectiva, modelos qualitativos empíricos são empregados na análise da fragilidade ambiental para avaliação do fenômeno da erosão, no que diz respeito a sua origem, evolução e condicionantes, podendo fundamentar-se na experiência de especialistas (Kappes et al, 2012;Cardinali et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Mapeamento da Fragilidade Ambiental na Bacia do Rio Aldeia Velha, RJ

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOEste trabalho apresenta um modelo para determinar a fragilidade ambiental em bacias hidrográficas. O estudo foi realizado na Bacia do Rio Aldeia Velha, RJ, localizada na zona de contato e transição entre a baixada litorânea e o relevo montanhoso da Serra do Mar. Fatores que influenciam a ocorrência de processos erosivos foram integrados por algoritmos em um SIG para construção de classes de fragilidade. A análise multicriterial considerou o modelo numérico de terreno, dados oficiais sobre variáveis ambientais, imagem orbital de alta resolução e a opinião de especialistas. Através de informações secundárias sobre pedologia, intensidade das chuvas e declividade do terreno gerou-se o Mapa de Fragilidade Potencial (MFP). Através da combinação desse mapa com informações sobre uso e cobertura da terra obteve-se o Mapa da Fragilidade Emergente (MFE). Os resultados mostram que mais de 70% da área da bacia possui fragilidade ambiental considerada alta ou muito alta, tanto potencial como emergente. Os Processos Erosivos Aparentes (PEA) relacionaram-se positivamente com as áreas de alta fragilidade nos produtos cartográficos finais, destacando regiões mais propensas à intensificação de movimentos de massa e prioritárias para prevenção contra perda de solo. Os modelos geraram informações importantes para o planejamento territorial, possibilitando um zoneamento acessível e de fácil atualização para as prefeituras municipais e organizações da sociedade civil, inclusive para o monitoramento das áreas de alta fragilidade ambiental.Palavras-chave: geoprocessamento, diagnóstico, planejamento territorial. Mapping of Environmental Fragility in the Aldeia Velha River Basin, State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ABSTRACTThis paper presents an approach to mapping the environmental fragility of river basins. The study was performed at the Aldeia Velha river basin, a rainforest watershed located between Rio de Janeiro's coastal plains and the Serra do Mar highlands. A multiple-criteria analysis was performed involving factors that affect the risk of erosion; these variables were analyze using GIS tools and were integrated by algorithm in order to form a description of the different classes of environmental fragility in the basin. The multicriteria analysis considered the use of a numerical land model, official data, orbital imagery and the opinion of subject-matter experts. A Map of Potential Fragility (MPF) was generated through the collection of secondary information such as soil types, rainfall intensity and terrain slope. This initial map was later combined with a land-use projection to produce a Map of Emerging Fragility (MEF). The mapping results pointed to a highly fragile environment, where more than 70 percent of the basin's area was classified with high or very high degree of fragility, in both the potential and emerging context. The Apparent

show abstract

Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology

Cited by 257 publications

References 32 publications

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Participatory flood vulnerability assessment: a multi-criteria approach

Mapeamento da Fragilidade Ambiental na Bacia do Rio Aldeia Velha, RJ

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About