Urban Earthquake Disaster Risk Assessment and Management

"Last-Mile" preparation for a potential disaster – Interdisciplinary approach towards tsunami early warning and an evacuation information system for the coastal city of Padang, Indonesia

“…In context of disaster risk, the concept of vulnerability has evolved out of the social sciences and was introduced as a response to the purely hazard-oriented perception (Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich, 2004) in the 1970s. There are various definitions and concepts on risk and vulnerability from different schools and disciplines (Birkmann, 2006;Cannon et al, 2003;Correll et al, 2001;Davidson, 1997;IPCC, 2001;Blaikie et al, 1994;Turner et al, 2003;UN/ISDR, 2004); the BBC Framework (Birkmann, 2006) bases on these studies and is used to structure and conceptualize risk and vulnerability assessment within our approach (Fig. 1).…”

Comparative Risk Assessments for the City of Cologne – Storms, Floods, Earthquakes

“…On the other end of the spectrum are in-depth assessments which consider the complete risk chain ('triggering natural event -direct impacts on population; built and natural environment -secondary and long-term consequences') by means of complex simulation tools for hazard and vulnerability analyses. Most of them lack, however, the multihazard aspect (Davidson, 1999;UN/IDNDR, 2000). One example of a true multi-hazard study is given by Blong (2003) who developed a damage scale for Australia that quantifies the damage to buildings resulting from a range of natural hazards.…”

Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies

“…To illustrate this school of thinking three approaches will be presented: the definition of risk within the disaster risk framework by Davidson (1997), adopted by Bollin et al (2003), the triangle of risk of Villagrá n de Leó n (2004), which reflects the ''risk triangle'' developed by , and the UN/ISDR framework for disaster risk reduction (2004). Davidson's (1997) conceptual framework, adopted by Bollin et al (2003), is shown in Figure 1 This conceptual framework views risk as the sum of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity measures. While hazard is defined through its probability and severity, exposure is characterised by structures, population and economy.…”

“…Figure 1.4 The conceptual framework to identify disaster risk. Source: Davidson, 1997: 5;Bollin et al, 2003: 67. In contrast to the framework of the double structure of vulnerability developed by , this approach defines vulnerability as one component of disaster risk and differentiates between exposure, vulnerability and coping capacity (Davidson 1997;Bollin et al, 2003). Villagrá n de Leó n also explains vulnerability in the hazard and risk context.…”

“…The discussion of different conceptual and analytical frameworks on how to systematise vulnerability has revealed that at least six different schools can be distinguished: the school of the double structure of vulnerability ) the conceptual frameworks of the disaster risk community (Davidson, 1997;Bollin et al, 2003) the analytical framework for vulnerability assessment in the global environmental change community the school of political economy, which addresses the root causes, dynamic pressures and unsafe conditions that determine vulnerability the holistic approach to risk and vulnerability assessment (Cardona, 1999 andCardona and Barbat, 2000;Carreñ o et al, 2004Carreñ o et al, , 2005aCarreñ o et al, , 2005b) the BBC conceptual framework, which places vulnerability within a feedback loop system and links it to the sustainable development discourse (based on work by and Cardona 1999). While the model of the double structure of vulnerability views vulnerability as the exposure to shocks and stressors and the ability to cope with these shocks , the second approach widely used in the disaster risk community separates vulnerability from coping capacities and exposure (Davidson, 1997;Bollin et al, 2003;.…”