Lifelines earthquake vulnerability assessment: a systemic approach

Menoni, Scira; Pergalani, F.; Boni, Maria Pia; Petrini, V.

doi:10.1016/s0267-7261(02)00148-3

Cited by 52 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…utility systems such as electricity, telecommunication, potable and waste water, and infrastructure) (Menoni et al, 2002(Menoni et al, , 2007. Frequently used lifeline vulnerability indicators measure the length and accessibility of lifelines, such as a road (e.g.…”

Section: Infrastructure and Lifelines Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Penning-Rowsell et al, 2010;Peng, 2015). An extensive and highly detailed overview of the lifeline indicators that Menoni et al (2002) used in earthquake vulnerability assessments, and in fragility curves in particular, is provided by Pitilakis et al (2014). Flood vulner- Building structural types (i.e.…”

Section: Infrastructure and Lifelines Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Menoni et al, 2002;Damm, 2009) and the susceptibility and vulnerability of the environment captured in indicators such as types of vegetation, soil erosion potential, and soil quality (e.g. Barroca et al, 2008;Balica et al, 2009;Damm, 2009).…”

Section: Environmental Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Menoni et al (2002) developed a tool to study earthquake event scenarios for lifelines to estimate both the physical and organizational failures originating from lifeline systems. Summarizing, it appears that temporal changes regarding earthquake risk mainly focus on temporal changes in exposure rather than vulnerability.…”

Section: Temporal Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Review Article: A comparison of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators

Ruiter

Ward

Daniell

et al. 2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In a cross-disciplinary study, we carried out an extensive literature review to increase understanding of vulnerability indicators used in the disciplines of earthquakeand flood vulnerability assessments. We provide insights into potential improvements in both fields by identifying and comparing quantitative vulnerability indicators grouped into physical and social categories. Next, a selection of indexand curve-based vulnerability models that use these indicators are described, comparing several characteristics such as temporal and spatial aspects. Earthquake vulnerability methods traditionally have a strong focus on object-based physical attributes used in vulnerability curve-based models, while flood vulnerability studies focus more on indicators applied to aggregated land-use classes in curve-based models. In assessing the differences and similarities between indicators used in earthquake and flood vulnerability models, we only include models that separately assess either of the two hazard types. Flood vulnerability studies could be improved using approaches from earthquake studies, such as developing object-based physical vulnerability curve assessments and incorporating time-of-the-day-based building occupation patterns. Likewise, earthquake assessments could learn from flood studies by refining their selection of social vulnerability indicators. Based on the lessons obtained in this study, we recommend future studies for exploring risk assessment methodologies across different hazard types.

show abstract

Section: Infrastructure and Lifelines Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Infrastructure and Lifelines Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Environmental Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Temporal Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review Article: A comparison of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators

Ruiter

Ward

Daniell

et al. 2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies analysing the behaviour of networks in hazardous circumstances are useful for understanding network interand intra-connections, such as post-disaster feedback (Lau et al, 1995;Adachi and Ellingwood, 2008), systemic methods for evaluating the vulnerability of network infrastructures to earthquakes (Menoni et al, 2002), and interdependencies between different networks (Rinaldi et al, 2001;Petit et al, 2004;Robert, 2002;Robert et al, 2003a,b,c;Chiaradonna et al, 2011;Ge et al, 2010;Johansson and Hassel, 2010;Ouyang et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systemic method for evaluating the potential impacts of floods on network infrastructures

Eleutério

Hattemer

Rozan

2013

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding network infrastructures and their operation under exceptional circumstances is fundamental for dealing with flood risks and improving the resilience of a territory. This work presents a method for evaluating potential network infrastructure dysfunctions and damage in cases of flooding. In contrast to existing approaches, this method analyses network infrastructures on an elementary scale, by considering networks as a group of elements with specific functions and individual vulnerabilities. Our analysis places assets at the centre of the evaluation process, resulting in the construction of damage-dysfunction matrices based on expert interviews. These matrices permit summarising the different vulnerabilities of network infrastructures, describing how the different components are linked to each other and how they can disrupt the operation of the network. They also identify the actions and resources needed to restore the system to operational status following damage and dysfunctions, an essential point when dealing with the question of resilience. The method promotes multi-network analyses and is illustrated by a French case study. Sixty network experts were interviewed during the analysis of the following networks: drinking water supply, waste water, public lighting, gas distribution and electricity supply

show abstract

Assessing Urban System Vulnerabilities to Flooding to Improve Resilience and Adaptation in Spatial Planning

Pasi

Viavattene

Loggia

et al. 2018

Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Lifelines earthquake vulnerability assessment: a systemic approach

Cited by 52 publications

References 2 publications

Review Article: A comparison of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators

Review Article: A comparison of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators

A systemic method for evaluating the potential impacts of floods on network infrastructures

Assessing Urban System Vulnerabilities to Flooding to Improve Resilience and Adaptation in Spatial Planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About