review article: a comparison of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators

Clicks: 71
ID: 205562
2017
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #173 of 190 articles by views in anziam journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 190 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
In a cross-disciplinary study, we carried out an extensive literature review to increase understanding of vulnerability indicators used in the disciplines of earthquake- and 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 index- and 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.
Reference Key
ruiter2017naturalreview Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;M. C. de Ruiter;P. J. Ward;J. E. Daniell;J. C. J. H. Aerts
Journal anziam journal
Year 2017
DOI
10.5194/nhess-17-1231-2017
URL
https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/17/1231/2017/nhess-17-1231-2017.pdf
Keywords
anthropology recreationenvironmental sciencesgeology sanitary engineeringgeography environmental technology

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.