Towards dynamics in flood risk assessment

Mazzorana, Bruno; Levaggi, Laura; Keiler, Margreth; Fuchs, Sven

doi:10.5194/nhess-12-3571-2012

Cited by 42 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship between impact intensity and degree of loss is commonly expressed in terms of a vulnerability curve or vulnerability function (Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013), although also semi-quantitative and qualitative methods exist (Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013;Fuchs et al, 2007;Jakob et al, 2012;Kappes et al, 2012). The intensity criteria of torrent (steep stream) processes, encompassing clear water, hyperconcentrated and debris flows, has been considered in terms of impact forces Quan Luna et al, 2011;Hu et al, 2012); deposit height (Mazzorana et al, 2012;Fuchs et al, , 2007Akbas et al, 2009;Totschnig et al, 2011;Lo et al, 2012;Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2012;Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013); kinematic viscosity (Quan Luna et al, 2011;Totschnig et al, 2011); flow depth (Jakob et al, 2013;Tsao et al, 2010;Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013); flow velocity times flow depth (Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013); and velocity squared times flow depth (Jakob et al, 2012). Different types of elements at risk will show different levels of damage given the same intensity of hazard (Jha et al, 2012;Albano et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2014), therefore vulnerability curves are developed for a particular type of exposed element (such as construction type, building dimensions or road access conditions).…”

Section: Conceptualisation Of Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These two aspects are linked via damage functions or loss models, which quantitatively describe how hazard characteristics affect specific elements at risk. This kind of damage or loss modelling typically provides an estimate of the expected monetary loss (Seifert et al, 2009;Luna et al, 2014;van Westen et al, 2014;Mazzorana et al, 2012). However, more holistic approaches go further, incorporating social, economic, cultural, institutional and educational aspects, and their interdependence (Fuchs, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regional prioritisation of flood risk in mountainous areas

Rogelis

Werner

Obregón

et al. 2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper a method is proposed to identify mountainous watersheds with the highest flood risk at the regional level. Through this, the watersheds to be subjected to more detailed risk studies can be prioritised in order to establish appropriate flood risk management strategies. The prioritisation is carried out through an index composed of a qualitative indicator of vulnerability and a qualitative flash flood/debris flow susceptibility indicator. At the regional level, vulnerability was assessed on the basis of a principal component analysis carried out with variables recognised in literature to contribute to vulnerability, using watersheds as the unit of analysis. The area exposed was obtained from a simplified flood extent analysis at the regional level, which provided a mask where vulnerability variables were extracted. The vulnerability indicator obtained from the principal component analysis was combined with an existing susceptibility indicator, thus providing an index that allows the watersheds to be prioritised in support of flood risk management at regional level. Results show that the components of vulnerability can be expressed in terms of three constituent indicators: (i) socio-economic fragility, which is composed of demography and lack of well-being; (ii) lack of resilience and coping capacity, which is composed of lack of education, lack of preparedness and response capacity, lack of rescue capacity, cohesiveness of the community; and (iii) physical exposure, which is composed of exposed infrastructure and exposed population. A sensitivity analysis shows that the classification of vulnerability is robust for watersheds with low and high values of the vulnerability indicator, while some watersheds with intermediate values of the indicator are sensitive to shifting between medium and high vulnerability.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualisation Of Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional prioritisation of flood risk in mountainous areas

Rogelis

Werner

Obregón

et al. 2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the methodology can be further improved by taking into consideration the complex dynamics of feedbacks between physical, social and political factors that relevant end-users, decision makers and local experts frequently pose (see the companion paper, Part 2, Ronco et al, 2014). In this sense, the characterization of the vulnerability patterns for (selected) communities and areas through the combination of different drivers, such as collective memory, risk-taking attitudes and trust in protection measures, as proposed by Viglione et al (2014), or by considering its temporal evolution as proposed by Mazzorana et al (2012), represent a new, challenging, frontier for the next generation of risk assessment methodologies. In a rapidly changing world, risk changes significantly across time, space and culture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The KULTURisk Regional Risk Assessment methodology for water-related natural hazards – Part 1: Physical–environmental assessment

Ronco

Gallina

Torresan

et al. 2014

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In recent years, the frequency of catastrophes induced by natural hazards has increased, and flood events in particular have been recognized as one of the most threatening water-related disasters. Severe floods have occurred in Europe over the last decade, causing loss of life, displacement of people and heavy economic losses. Flood disasters are growing in frequency as a consequence of many factors, both climatic and non-climatic. Indeed, the current increase of water-related disasters can be mainly attributed to the increase of exposure (elements potentially at risk in flood-prone area) and vulnerability (i.e. economic, social, geographic, cultural and physical/environmental characteristics of the exposure). Besides these factors, the undeniable effect of climate change is projected to strongly modify the usual pattern of the hydrological cycle by intensifying the frequency and severity of flood events at the local, regional and global scale. Within this context, the need for developing effective and pro-active strategies, tools and actions which allow one to assess and (possibly) to reduce the flood risks that threatens different relevant receptors becomes urgent. Several methodologies to assess the risk posed by water-related natural hazards have been proposed so far, but very few of them can be adopted to implement the last European Flood Directive (FD). This paper is intended to introduce and present a state-of-the-art Regional Risk Assessment (RRA) methodology to appraise the risk posed by floods from a physical-environmental perspective. The methodology, developed within the recently completed FP7-KULTURisk Project (Knowledge-based approach to develop a cULTUre of Risk prevention -KR) is flexible and can be adapted to different case studies (i.e. plain rivers, mountain torrents, urban and coastal areas) and spatial scales (i.e. from catchment to the urban scale). The FD compliant KR-RRA methodology is based on the concept of risk being function of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. It integrates the outputs of various hydrodynamic models with site-specific bio-geophysical and socio-economic indicators (e.g. slope, land cover, population density, economic activities etc.) to develop tailored risk indexes and GIS-based maps for each of the selected receptors (i.e. people, buildings, infrastructure, agriculture, natural and semi-natural systems, cultural heritage) in the considered region. It further compares the baseline scenario with alternative scenarios, where different structural and/or non-structural mitigation measures are planned and eventually implemented. As demonstrated in the companion paper (Part 2, Ronco et al., 2014), risk maps, along with related statistics, allow one to identify and classify, on a relative scale, areas at risk which are more likely to be affected by floods and support the development of strategic adaptation and prevention measures to minimizing flood impacts. In addition, the outcomes of the RRA can be eventually used for a further socio-economic assessment, cons...

show abstract

“…Large amounts of sediment can become unstable in particular geomorphological situations and under extreme meteorological conditions Figure 1. Overview of the physically based vulnerability assessment procedure, analytic steps A through E. Please note steps D and E are not explicitly addressed in this paper, for details refer to Mazzorana et al (2012c).…”

Section: Fluid Flow Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

A physical approach on flood risk vulnerability of buildings

Mazzorana

Simoni²,

Scherer³

et al. 2014

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The design of efficient hydrological risk mitigation strategies and their subsequent implementation relies on a careful vulnerability analysis of the elements exposed. Recently, extensive research efforts were undertaken to develop and refine empirical relationships linking the structural vulnerability of buildings to the impact forces of the hazard processes. These empirical vulnerability functions allow estimating the expected direct losses as a result of the hazard scenario based on spatially explicit representation of the process patterns and the elements at risk classified into defined typological categories. However, due to the underlying empiricism of such vulnerability functions, the physics of the damage-generating mechanisms for a well-defined element at risk with its peculiar geometry and structural characteristics remain unveiled, and, as such, the applicability of the empirical approach for planning hazard-proof residential buildings is limited. Therefore, we propose a conceptual assessment scheme to close this gap. This assessment scheme encompasses distinct analytical steps: modelling (a) the process intensity, (b) the impact on the element at risk exposed and (c) the physical response of the building envelope. Furthermore, these results provide the input data for the subsequent damage evaluation and economic damage valuation. This dynamic assessment supports all relevant planning activities with respect to a minimisation of losses, and can be implemented in the operational risk assessment procedure.

show abstract

Towards dynamics in flood risk assessment

Cited by 42 publications

References 38 publications

Regional prioritisation of flood risk in mountainous areas

Regional prioritisation of flood risk in mountainous areas

The KULTURisk Regional Risk Assessment methodology for water-related natural hazards – Part 1: Physical–environmental assessment

A physical approach on flood risk vulnerability of buildings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About