Review Article: A Comparison of Flood and Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment Indicators

Abstract

Abstract. In a cross-discipline study, we carried out an extensive literature review to increase understanding of vulnerability indicators used in both earthquake- and flood vulnerability assessments. We provide insights into potential improvements in both fields by identifying and comparing quantitative vulnerability indicators. Indicators have been categorised into physical- and social categories, and then, where possible, further subdivided into measurable and comparable indicators. Next, a selection of index- and curve based vulnerability models that use these indicators have been described, comparing several characteristics such as temporal- and spatial aspects. It appears that 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. Flood risk studies could be improved using approaches from earthquake studies, such as incorporating more detailed physical indicators, 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 cross-different hazard types.

The Asynergies of Structural Disaster Risk Reduction Measures: Comparing Floods and Earthquakes

“…Flood and earthquake vulnerability are commonly quantified using vulnerability curves that link a hazard factor (e.g., inundation or ground shaking) to damage potential (De Ruiter et al., 2017). For floods, this damage potential is often referred to as the damage factor (i.e., the percentage of the building damaged) and spans from zero (no damage) to one (maximum damage; Huizinga et al., 2017) and for earthquakes as the damage ratio (i.e., the ratio of the repair cost of the building to construction cost; Daniell, 2014).…”

“…For floods, this damage potential is often referred to as the damage factor (i.e., the percentage of the building damaged) and spans from zero (no damage) to one (maximum damage; Huizinga et al., 2017) and for earthquakes as the damage ratio (i.e., the ratio of the repair cost of the building to construction cost; Daniell, 2014). While earthquake vulnerability curves tend to be designed based on building materials, flood vulnerability curves are commonly designed based on aggregated land‐use classes (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial), which do not account for heterogeneity of the building stock (De Ruiter et al., 2017; Englhardt et al., 2019). To the best of our knowledge, there exist no flood and earthquake building‐material based vulnerability curves specific to the Afghanistan building stock.…”

“…Similarly, building‐level flood DRR measures are often designed based on base flood elevation (BFE; Freeman & Kunreuther, 2002). It is important to note that earthquake risk assessments more commonly account for the vulnerability posed by such building attributes compared to flood risk assessments (De Ruiter et al., 2017; Douglas, 2007). Based on the characteristics of residential buildings in Afghanistan, we focus on wall material and building height related DRR measures.…”

Why We Can No Longer Ignore Consecutive Disasters

“…This challenge stems in large part from hazards typically being studied in a monodisciplinary fashion (Cutter et al, ; Kappes et al, ; Peduzzi, ). The thematic clustering separating the disciplines causes a lack of understanding between different disciplines due to terminology differences (De Ruiter et al, ; Marzocchi et al, ). For example, tropical cyclones and earthquakes are independent and distinctly different disasters, stemming from different hazard groups (atmospheric and geophysical respectively) and their impacts occur at very different temporal and spatial scales (Gill & Malamud, ).…”

Psychological vulnerability as an integral component of comprehensive vulnerability assessment: informing policy and practice in disaster risk reduction

“…For example, these indicators include susceptibility to environmental events and hazards (Atkins et al, 2001), physical susceptibility (Cardona, 2005), event characteristics (such as frequency, duration and intensity) and antecedent conditions, including natural systems and built environment (Cutter et al, 2008). Other indicators used to assess the environmental vulnerability include infrastructure and lifeline indicators and building structural and occupancy indicators (de Ruiter et al, 2017). Considering that a broad range of issues falls under the umbrella of 'environmental' factors, including features of the disaster event itself, the physical protection measures available and the nature of the built and natural environment all significantly affect the vulnerability of a place to a particular disaster.…”