Welcome to Academia
Sign up to get access to over 50 million papers
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Use
Continue with Email
Sign up or log in to continue.
Welcome to Academia
Sign up to continue.
Hi,
Log in to continue.
Reset password
Password reset
Check your email for your reset link.
Your link was sent to
Please hold while we log you in
Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:Analytical  Hierarchy Processes: An Application of the Risk Prioritation Assessment for Towns Affects to Natural Risks,  in the  Region of Aysen

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
The quantitative values of the environmental risk index given by AHP were translated into a qualitativ: risk scale of intensity. This scale summarizes the vulnerability range in the following levels:

Table 1 The quantitative values of the environmental risk index given by AHP were translated into a qualitativ: risk scale of intensity. This scale summarizes the vulnerability range in the following levels:

Related Figures (10)

Figure 4. Towns ranking for scenario with geological risk According to the above definition, the towns were sorted and classified as indicated in next Figure for the scenario with geological risk included.
Figure 4. Towns ranking for scenario with geological risk According to the above definition, the towns were sorted and classified as indicated in next Figure for the scenario with geological risk included.
In this case, the town ranking is the following:
In this case, the town ranking is the following:
Figure 5. Graphical ranking for scenario with geological risk
Figure 5. Graphical ranking for scenario with geological risk
Figure 6. Town ranking for scenario without geological risk
Figure 6. Town ranking for scenario without geological risk
Figure 7. Sensitive risk towns set for both scenarios Following Figure 7 compares towns classified with high or unacceptable risk level.
Figure 7. Sensitive risk towns set for both scenarios Following Figure 7 compares towns classified with high or unacceptable risk level.
Following table and graphic show the final town vulnerability considering both scenarios. High or unacceptable risk situations are emphasized with bold font; towns with moderate risk have italic font while normal font is associated to low risk towns.
Following table and graphic show the final town vulnerability considering both scenarios. High or unacceptable risk situations are emphasized with bold font; towns with moderate risk have italic font while normal font is associated to low risk towns.
Following Figure 9 shows the above in a graphically view.
Following Figure 9 shows the above in a graphically view.
Figure 8. Comparison of town rankings for both scenarios
Figure 8. Comparison of town rankings for both scenarios