Journal cover Journal topic
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
doi:10.5194/nhess-2017-45
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Review article
31 Jan 2017
Review status
A revision of this discussion paper is under review for the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Review Article: A Comparison of Flood and Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment Indicators
Marleen C. de Ruiter1, Philip J. Ward1, James E. Daniell2, and Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts1 1Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081HV, The Netherlands
2Geophysical Institute and Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, 76344, Germany
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.

Citation: de Ruiter, M. C., Ward, P. J., Daniell, J. E., and Aerts, J. C. J. H.: Review Article: A Comparison of Flood and Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment Indicators, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., doi:10.5194/nhess-2017-45, in review, 2017.
Marleen C. de Ruiter et al.
Marleen C. de Ruiter et al.
Marleen C. de Ruiter et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 399 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
279 106 14 399 5 14

Views and downloads (calculated since 31 Jan 2017)

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 31 Jan 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 399 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

Thereof 396 with geography defined and 3 with unknown origin.

Country # Views %
  • 1

Saved

Discussed

Latest update: 23 May 2017
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
This study provides cross-discipline lessons for earthquake and flood vulnerability assessment methods by comparing indicators used in both fields. It appears that there is potential for improvement of these methods that can be obtained for both earthquake and flood vulnerability assessment indicators. This increased understanding is beneficial for both scientists as well as practitioners working with earthquake and/or flood vulnerability assessment methods.
This study provides cross-discipline lessons for earthquake and flood vulnerability assessment...
Share