Vulnerability assessment of population in mountain settlements exposed to debris flow: a case study on Qipan gully, Wenchuan County, China

2019 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 553-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingtao Ding ◽  
Tao Huang
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 1771-1790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle

Abstract. The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elements at risk as part of the risk analysis is an essential aspect for the development of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction. Understanding, analysing and, if possible, quantifying physical vulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting tools for its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physical vulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators; however, in most of the cases, these methods are used in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses on two of these methods: vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators. Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss, considering, in individual cases only, some structural characteristics of the affected buildings. However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerability assessment should focus on the identification of these variables that influence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerability indicators). In this study, an indicator-based methodology (IBM) for mountain hazards including debris flow (Kappes et al., 2012) is applied to a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol, where in the past a vulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new" indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for its improvement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodological approaches and their results is challenging since both methodological approaches deal with vulnerability in a different way. However, it is still possible to highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearly that both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physical vulnerability and provide a preliminary "holistic methodological framework" for physical vulnerability assessment showing how the two approaches may be used in combination in the future.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle

Abstract. The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elements at risk as part of the risk analysis is a very important aspect for the development of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction. Understanding, analysing and quantifying, if possible, physical vulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting tools for its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physical vulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators, however, in most of the cases these methods are used in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses on two of these methods: the vulnerability curves and the vulnerability indicators. Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss. However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerability assessment should focus on the identification of these variables that influence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerability indicators). In this study, an indicator-based vulnerability methodology for mountain hazards including debris flow (2012) is applied in a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol where in the past a vulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new" indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for its improvement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodological approaches and their results highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearly that both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physical vulnerability and emphasise the need for a "holistic methodological framework" for physical vulnerability assessment.


Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 1288
Author(s):  
Husam Musa Baalousha ◽  
Bassam Tawabini ◽  
Thomas D. Seers

Vulnerability maps are useful for groundwater protection, water resources development, and land use management. The literature contains various approaches for intrinsic vulnerability assessment, and they mainly depend on hydrogeological settings and anthropogenic impacts. Most methods assign certain ratings and weights to each contributing factor to groundwater vulnerability. Fuzzy logic (FL) is an alternative artificial intelligence tool for overlay analysis, where spatial properties are fuzzified. Unlike the specific rating used in the weighted overlay-based vulnerability mapping methods, FL allows more flexibility through assigning a degree of contribution without specific boundaries for various classes. This study compares the results of DRASTIC vulnerability approach with the FL approach, applying both on Qatar aquifers. The comparison was checked and validated against a numerical model developed for the same study area, and the actual anthropogenic contamination load. Results show some similarities and differences between both approaches. While the coastal areas fall in the same category of high vulnerability in both cases, the FL approach shows greater variability than the DRASTIC approach and better matches with model results and contamination load. FL is probably better suited for vulnerability assessment than the weighted overlay methods.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 05019005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saier Wu ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
Chong Xu ◽  
Wendy Zhou ◽  
Leihua Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document