An integrated web framework for HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 275-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enes Yildirim ◽  
Ibrahim Demir
2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Scawthorn ◽  
Neil Blais ◽  
Hope Seligson ◽  
Eric Tate ◽  
Edward Mifflin ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 55 (8) ◽  
pp. 1315-1324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Seifert ◽  
Heidi Kreibich ◽  
Bruno Merz ◽  
Annegret H. Thieken

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubayet Bin Mostafiz ◽  
Carol J. Friedland ◽  
Md Asif Rahman ◽  
Robert V. Rohli ◽  
Eric Tate ◽  
...  

Leading flood loss estimation models include Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Hazus, FEMA’s Flood Assessment Structure Tool (FAST), and (U.S.) Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Flood Impact Analysis (HEC-FIA), with each requiring different data input. No research to date has compared the resulting outcomes from such models at a neighborhood scale. This research examines the building and content loss estimates by Hazus Level 2, FAST, and HEC-FIA, over a levee-protected census block in Metairie, in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Building attribute data in National Structure Inventory (NSI) 2.0 are compared against “best available data” (BAD) collected at the individual building scale from Google Street View, Jefferson Parish building inventory, and 2019 National Building Cost Manual, to assess the sensitivity of input building inventory selection. Results suggest that use of BAD likely enhances flood loss estimation accuracy over existing reliance on default data in the software or from a national data set that generalizes over a broad scale. Although the three models give similar mean (median) building and content loss, Hazus Level 2 results diverge from those produced by FAST and HEC-FIA at the individual building level. A statistically significant difference in mean (median) building loss exists, but no significant difference is found in mean (median) content loss, between building inventory input (i.e., NSI 2.0 vs BAD), but both the building and content loss vary at the individual building scale due to difference in building-inventory-reported foundation height, foundation type, number of stories, replacement cost, and content cost. Moreover, building loss estimation also differs significantly by depth-damage function (DDF), for flood depths corresponding with the longest return periods, with content loss differing significantly by DDF at all return periods tested, from 10 to 500 years. Knowledge of the extent of estimated differences aids in understanding the degree of uncertainty in flood loss estimation. Much like the real estate industry uses comparable home values to appraise a home, flood loss planners should use multiple models to estimate flood-related losses. Moreover, results from this study can be used as a baseline for assessing losses from other hazards, thereby enhancing protection of human life and property.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Win Win Zin ◽  
Akiyuki Kawasaki ◽  
Georg Hörmann ◽  
Ralph Allen Acierto ◽  
Zin Mar Lar Tin San ◽  
...  

Flood loss models are essential tools for assessing flood risk. Flood damage assessment provides decision makers with critical information to manage flood hazards. This paper presents a multivariable flood damage assessment based on data from residential building and content damage from the Bago flood event of July 2018. This study aims to identify the influences on building and content losses. We developed a regression-based flood loss estimation model, which incorporates factors such as water depth, flood duration, building material, building age, building condition, number of stories, and floor level. Regression approaches, such as stepwise and best subset regression, were used to create the flood damage model. The selection was based on Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). We found that water depth, flood duration, and building material were the most significant factors determining flood damage in the residential sector.


2018 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 118-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Schröter ◽  
Stefan Lüdtke ◽  
Richard Redweik ◽  
Jessica Meier ◽  
Mathias Bochow ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 405-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Ganji ◽  
Alireza Shokoohi ◽  
Jamal M. V. Samani

2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 671-696
Author(s):  
Bin Pei ◽  
Weichiang Pang ◽  
Firat Y. Testik ◽  
Nadarajah Ravichandran ◽  
Fangqian Liu

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
유순영 ◽  
안현욱
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document