scholarly journals Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 1771-1790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Debris Flow ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Structural Characteristics ◽  
Physical Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Indicators ◽  
Element At Risk ◽  
Mountain Hazards ◽  
Methodological Approaches

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.

scholarly journals Vulnerability curves versus vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Debris Flow ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Physical Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Curve ◽  
Vulnerability Indicators ◽  
Element At Risk ◽  
Mountain Hazards ◽  
Methodological Approaches

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.

Updating of existing vulnerability curves with data from recent events in the European Alps

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea Dosser ◽  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle ◽  
Marco Borga ◽  
Sven Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Building Envelope ◽  
European Alps ◽  
Physical Vulnerability ◽  
Mountain Areas ◽  
Austrian Alps ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Elements At Risk

<p>Because effects of climate change and an increase in elements at risk in many mountain areas, loss increased throughout Europe. Yet, factors influencing loss, i.e. physical vulnerability of elements at risk, have gained less attention to date. Here, vulnerability is defined as the degree of loss resulting from the hazard impact on the building envelope. Recent studies have focused on evaluating vulnerability to dynamic flooding using proxies from case studies and based on empirical ex-post approaches (Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2011; Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2017; Fuchs et al., 2019a). However, the transferability of resulting vulnerability functions or curves to other case studies and, therefore, the ability of such models to actually predict future losses, is limited.</p><p>Existing vulnerability curves for the expression of the physical vulnerability of buildings to dynamic flooding in the alpine space are associated with a large number of uncertainties. The updating of the existing curves with data from recent events is necessary in order to make existing curves more reliable. In the present study damage data from three torrential events in Italy (Campolongo, Province of Trento, 2010; Braies, Province of Bolzano, 2017; Rotian river creek, Province of Trento, 2018) are used to update existing curves that have been developed for similar settlement types and similar hazard events in the Austrian Alps. At first a new vulnerability curve is developed only for the new study sites and is being compared with existing vulnerability curves in the Austrian Alps. As a second step the new data are fed to the existing vulnerability models (Fuchs et al., 2019b) in order to update them. Preliminary results are presented.</p><p> </p><p>References</p><p>Fuchs, S., Keiler, M., Ortlepp, R., Schinke, R., and Papathoma-Köhle, M.: Recent advances in vulnerability assessment for the built environment exposed to torrential hazards: challenges and the way forward, Journal of Hydrology, 575, 587-595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.067, 2019a.</p><p>Fuchs, S., Heiser, M., Schlögl, M., Zischg, A., Papathoma-Köhle, M., and Keiler, M.: Short communication: A model to predict flood loss in mountain areas, Environmental Modelling and Software, 117, 176-180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.03.026, 2019b.</p><p>Papathoma-Köhle, M., Kappes, M., Keiler, M., and Glade, T.: Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs, Natural Hazards, 58, 645-680, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9632-4, 2011.</p><p>Papathoma-Köhle, M., Gems, B., Sturm, M., and Fuchs, S.: Matrices, curves and indicators: a review of approaches to assess physical vulnerability to debris flows, Earth-Science Reviews, 171, 272-288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.06.007, 2017.</p>

Landslide physical vulnerability assessment using susceptibility map with hazard level-based rainfalls: a case study to Busan, Korea

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji-Sung Lee ◽  
Yong-Soo Ha ◽  
Chang-Ho Song ◽  
Hyo-Sub Kang ◽  
Yun-Tae Kim
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Source Area ◽  
Susceptibility Map ◽  
Mountainous Area ◽  
Physical Vulnerability ◽  
Rapid Urbanization ◽  
Landslide Occurrence ◽  
Hazard Level ◽  
Quantile Regression Method

<p>Most of landslide and debris flow take place during rainy season (June-September) in Korea. It is well known that rainfall is one of the most significant triggering factors in Korea. The mountainous area is composed of about 70%, which is a terrain where slope disaster can occur frequently. In addition, there is a great exposure to slope disaster due to rapid urbanization. The main objective of this paper is to assess landslide physical vulnerability using susceptibility map with hazard level-based rainfalls for urban area in Busan, Korea. Firstly, we computed rainfall thresholds for different hazard levels by using a quantile-regression method based on 258 landslide occurrence data from 1999 to 2019. Secondly, the combined landslide susceptibility map was developed according to hazard level-based rainfalls using both physical-based model and statistical-based model. To assess the vulnerability, source area were extracted from landslide high potential area based on the combined susceptibility map. The extracted source area is used to evaluate the propagation of debris flow. Affected building of debris flow was calculated using propagation results of debris flow. Physical vulnerability assessment was carried out using the affected building of debris flow from the analysis of the propagation of debris flow. Finally, vulnerability index (0 to 1) were categorized and evaluated by the degree of damage of the building. The proposed techniques can sufficiently contribute to protect of human causalities, property loss and also diminish the risk from landslides.</p>

scholarly journals Vulnerability indicators for natural hazards: an innovative selection and weighting approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Papathoma-Köhle ◽  
Matthias Schlögl ◽  
Sven Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
Feature Selection ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Vulnerability Index ◽  
European Alps ◽  
Physical Vulnerability ◽  
Building Stock ◽  
Mountain Areas ◽  
Vulnerability Indicators

Abstract To prepare for upcoming extreme events, decision makers, scientists and other stakeholders require a thorough understanding of the vulnerability of the built environment to natural hazards. A vulnerability index based on building characteristics (indicators) rather than empirical data may be an alternative approach to a comprehensive physical vulnerability assessment of the building stock. The present paper focuses on the making of such an index for dynamic flooding in mountain areas demonstrating the transferability of vulnerability assessment approaches between hazard types, reducing the amount of required data and offering a tool that can be used in areas were empirical data are not available. We use data from systematically documented torrential events in the European Alps to select and weight the important indicators using an all-relevant feature selection algorithm based on random forests. The permutation-based feature selection reduced the initial number of indicators from 22 to seven, decreasing in this way the amount of required data for assessing physical vulnerability and ensuring that only relevant indicators are considered. The new Physical Vulnerability Index (PVI) may be used in the mountain areas of Europe and beyond where only few empirical data are available supporting decision-making in reducing risk to dynamic flooding.

Mobility and Immobility in a Transnational Context: Changing Views of Migration among the Kazakh Diaspora in Mongolia

2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Werner ◽  
Holly R. Barcus
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Transnational Migration ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Kazakh Population ◽  
Methodological Approaches

Inquiry into the causes and outcomes of transnational migration spans numerous disciplines, scales and methodological approaches.  Fewer studies focus on immobility.  Utilizing the Kazakh population of Mongolia as a case study, this paper considers how non-migrants view the economic and cultural costs of migrating.  We posit that three factors, including local place attachments specific to Mongolia, access to information about life in Kazakhstan and the importance of maintaining social networks in Mongolia, contribute substantially to their decision to not migrate. Our findings suggest that the decision to not migrate can be very strategic for non-migrants in highly transnational contexts.  

Case study and event analysis for mitigation of unpredictable volcanic hazard

Impact ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-28
Author(s):  
Tsukasa Ohba
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Graduate School ◽  
Volcanic Hazard ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Event Analysis ◽  
Traditional Methods ◽  
Risk Communities

Volcanology is an extremely important scientific discipline. Shedding light on how and why volcanoes erupt, how eruptions can be predicted and their impact on humans and the environment is crucial to public safety, economies and businesses. Understanding volcanoes means eruptions can be anticipated and at-risk communities can be forewarned, enabling them to implement mitigation measures. Professor Tsukasa Ohba is a scientist based at the Graduate School of International Resource Studies, Akita University, Japan, and specialises in volcanology and petrology. Ohba and his team are focusing on volcanic phenomena including: phreatic eruptions (a steam-driven eruption driven by the heat from magma interacting with water); lahar (volcanic mudflow); and monogenetic basalt eruptions (which consist of a group of small monogenetic volcanoes, each of which erupts only once). The researchers are working to understand the mechanisms of these phenomena using Petrology. Petrology is one of the traditional methods in volcanology but has not been applied to disastrous eruptions before. The teams research will contribute to volcanic hazard mitigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document