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

Abstract

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.

Enhancement of large-scale flood risk assessments using building-material-based vulnerability curves for an object-based approach in urban and rural areas

“…In large-scale assessments, i.e. regional to global levels, exposure is generally represented based on aggregated landuse categories, especially in regions where only limited data are available, such as Africa (de Moel et al, 2015). Whilst using such data provides a useful first assessment of largescale damage and risk (e.g.…”

“…More detailed information on the specific land use, its extent, and the vulnerability of the exposed elements could improve large-scale assessments, for example by using high-resolution remote sensing products (Goldblatt et al, 2018;Myint et al, 2011) or information as used in local-scale flood damage studies at an object level (individual buildings, businesses, infrastructure objects, etc.) ( de Moel et al, 2015;Merz et al, 2010). In our approach, we therefore utilize information about the composition of an area's building stock and the characteristics of exposed objects, particularly construction types and materials.…”

An adaptive regional vulnerability assessment model: Review and concepts for data-scarce regions

“…Spatial scale is identified to be an important issue in evaluating impacts of hazards (Birkmann, 2007;Fuchs et al, 2013;Kundzewicz et al, 2019). The spatial scale for applying the vulnerability indicator approach varies depending on the 215 availability of data (Marleen et al, 2017) or the aim of the assessment. Spatial scales for assessing vulnerability can be on micro-, meso-and macro-scale, however, Table 1 shows that vulnerability indices for assessing physical vulnerability to flood hazards is mostly applied at a local (micro) scale.…”

“…The core element in deriving a vulnerability index is the indicator itself (Krellenberg and Welz, 2017), hence, careful attention has to be given to which variables are chosen as indicators. The selection of indicators is one of the main challenges of vulnerability assessment (Marleen et al, 2017;Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2019) because a suboptimal selection of indicators will consequently lead to an information bias or even loss (Günther 2006). Before a variable is qualified to be an indicator, certain criteria have to be considered to allow for consistency and methodical soundness.…”

“…In addition, indicators are more-easily communicable to decision makers 70 (Birkmann, 2007) and they have application in several stages of the risk cycle (Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2017). The vulnerability indicator method has been applied for assessing different natural hazards and risks, including studies on earthquakes by Rashed and Weeks (2003), Yücemen et al (2004), Schmidtlein et al (2011), Brink and Davidson (2015), Peng (2015), and Marleen et al (2017), and on landslides by Silva and Pereira (2014), Guillard-Gonçalves et al (2016), and Thennavan et al (2016). Applications for tsunamis include studies by Papathoma-Köhle and Dominey-Howes (2003), 75…”