2.

3 The most recent view

of vulnerability
Stefan Schneiderbauer, Elisa Calliari, Unni Eidsvig
Michael Hagenlocher

for understanding, assessing and re- political/institutional situation and

2.3.1 ducing risks. When a hazardous event does not account for power relations
The importance of occurs — be it of natural, technolog- or the heterogeneity within commu-
vulnerability for ical or man-made origin — the vul- nities, which are aspects considered as
disaster risk nerability of exposed people, objects
(e.g. critical infrastructure, etc.) and
important and included in the defini-
tions proposed by other authors (Car-
assessment systems (e.g. socioecological systems) dona et al., 2012; Alexander, 2013;
at different scales is key to determine Birkmann et al., 2013; Wisner, 2016)
2.3.1.1 the severity of the impact. Though
Vulnerability: a key this fact has been widely accepted,
component to the definition of vulnerability and
determine risks the components it comprises varies Vulnerability represents
between different authors and disci-
plines.
a fundamental
Disaster risk is determined by the
combination of physical hazards and
component of risk. A
the vulnerabilities of exposed ele- The United Nations Office for Disas- proper understanding of
ments. Vulnerability relates to the sus- ter Risk Reduction (UNISDR Termi- vulnerability comprising
ceptibility of assets such as objects, nology, 2017) defines vulnerability as its dimensions as well
systems (or part thereof) and popula- ‘the characteristics and circumstances as its root causes is
tions exposed to disturbances, stress- of a community, system or asset that important for effective
ors or shocks as well as to the lack of make it susceptible to the damaging
capacity to cope with and to adapt to effects of a hazard. This definition
risk assessment and risk
these adverse conditions. Vulnerabili- reflects the last decades’ shift in the reduction.
ty is dynamic, multifaceted and com- understanding of vulnerability from
posed of various dimensions, all of a focused concept (for example limit-
which have to be considered within a ed to physical resistance of engineer-
holistic vulnerability assessment. ing structures) to a more holistic and The significance of vulnerability for
systemic approach. At the same time, assessing risk is emphasised by the
Vulnerability plays a fundamental role it does not provide reference to the fact that the consequences of a haz-

70
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

ardous event largely depend on hu- Abruzzo. It is in part explained by the poor black and elderly population in
man factors. That is, the hazardous risk perception among female victims, New Orleans in 2005 (Cutter et al.,
event itself may be predominantly an who tend to be more fatalistic than 2006).
external phenomena out of the con- men and who perceived their homes
trol of those affected; any devastating as a refuge, instead of leaving it (Al- Addressing vulnerability — together
impact caused by this event, however, exander, 2010; Alexander and Magni, with exposure — represents the gate-
is mainly influenced by inherent soci- 2013). way for risk reduction measures. Con-
etal conditions and processes. sequently, the importance of vulner-
The degree of vulnerability within a ability for DRM is underlined by the
The L’Aquila earthquake in April society or a population group is usu- Sendai framework for disaster risk re-
2009 in Italy is an example of a me- ally not homogenously distributed; duction, claiming that understanding
dium-power seismic event that had a social class, ethnic origin, age and disaster risk (Priority 1) and develop-
disproportionately large human im- gender may determine a lower or ing related policies and practices need
pact. It caused 308 fatalities, most of higher probability of being affected. to consider the various dimensions of
which were the young and elderly, as Evidence of this fact has been shown vulnerability (UNISDR, 2015a).
well as women. The death toll is par- by the impact of Hurricane Katrina,
tially linked to the high vulnerability which caused a disproportionately
of building stock in the mountains of high number of victims amongst the

BOX 2.1

Resilience and capacities

Besides the notion of ‘vulnerability’ standing of resilience incorporates Horizon 2020 project ‘resilens’ is
there are other terms and concepts the ability and willingness to learn, scrutinising the resilience of Euro-
addressing the possibility of harm to reorganise and to undertake crit- pean critical infrastructure.
to a system, people or specific ob- ical self-reflection (Alexander 2013;
jects by certain events and process- Kelman et al., 2016). Climate resil- Just as the term ‘resilience’, the
es. Vulnerability – understood as a ience has emerged into a new doc- concept of capacities relates to the
holistic and systemic concept – is trine under the umbrella of which possibilities and abilities to reduce
closely related to and partly over- communities define the activities to harm under hazardous conditions.
laps, for example, with the concepts combat the impending implications Hereby, ‘coping capacity’ rather
of resilience and of coping and of climate change. deals with the short-term conser-
adaptive capacity. vation and protection of the current
There are numerous related ac- system and institutional settings,
‘Resilience’ is a term that has been tivities within Europe, for example whilst ‘adapting capacity’ denotes a
widely used over the last years to the RESIN project is investigating longer-term and constantly unfold-
describe characteristics related to climate resilience in European cit- ing process of learning (Birkmann
the ability to absorb stresses, to ies, the European Commission’s et al., 2013).
respond to changes and to recov- FP7 project emBRACE has focused
er from shocks. Some authors see on community resilience and de-
resilience as the positive flipside veloped a set of key indicators for
of vulnerability. A broader under- assessing it, and the Commission’s

71
 2.3.1.2 posure or capacities, and that elabo- physical, the ecological, the social,
Conceptual issues and rate on vulnerability’s key dimensions. the economic, the cultural and the
dimensions of The European project ‘Methods for institutional dimension. All of these
vulnerability the improvement of vulnerability as- dimensions have to be considered
sessment in Europe’ (MOVE) devel- within a holistic vulnerability study.
Just as there are numerous definitions oped such a concept, which attempts The majority of assets and systems
of the term ‘vulnerability’, there ex- to represent the multifaceted nature exposed to hazard will exhibit more
ist many models and concepts that of vulnerability (Figure 2.10). In its than one dimension of vulnerability
describe vulnerability in its relation central part, it identifies six themat- and hence these dimensions need to
to other terms, such as resilience, ex- ic dimensions of vulnerability: the be addressed more in detail for any

FIGURE 2.10

The MOVE framework to conceptualise vulnerability

Source: Birkmann et al. (2013)

ENVIRONMENT
HAZARDS Hazard
Natural events / socio-natural events intervention
Interactions
COUPLING
ADAPTATION
SOCIETY
VULNERABILITY Vulnerability
EXPOSURE SUSCEPTIBILITY LACK OF intervention
and FRAGILITY RESILIENCE
Exposure
Physical Capacity to reduction
Ecological anticipate
Temporal
Social Capacity to Susceptibility
cope reduction
Spatial Economic
Cultural
Capacity to Resilience
Institutional recover improvement

RISK
GOVERNANCE
RISK Organization / planning /
Economic / social / environmental potential impact implementation

72
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

assessment (Birkmann et al., 2013). a number of challenges. Most impor- (see Chapter 2.4).
This framework is particularly useful tantly, the majority of non-physical
within the context of disaster risk aspects of vulnerability are not meas- Due to the conceptual complexity and
since it embeds vulnerability in the urable in the way in that we are able methodological challenges connected
wider framework of risk governance/ to determine temperature or people’s with vulnerability, the uncertainties of
management and emphasises the var- income. Consequently, alternative vulnerability assessments and their re-
ious intervention opportunities that methods for assessing vulnerability sults is a topic of ongoing discussion.
may be taken to reduce risk. are applied. They can be quantitative The uncertainties are an aggregation
or qualitative or a mix of both (see of uncertainties from several sources.
A key initial question when scruti- Chapter 2.3.4). Widely applied and They include limitations in knowledge
nising vulnerability is who or what is accepted tools comprise vulnerability about the socioecological systems that
vulnerable to what type of threat or curves predominantly used for assess- the vulnerable elements are part of as
hazard. This leads to the question of ing physical vulnerabilities and the well as inaccuracies of empirical data
how the interactions between hazards use of (proxy-) indicators, particu- and limitations of models applied for
and vulnerabilities look like. In fact, larly to estimate the vulnerability of vulnerability assessments.
there are significant differences in the non-physical dimensions (for example
way the various factors that determine social, economic or institutional vul- Uncertainty can be classified in many
vulnerability are linked or connected nerabilities). Here, indicators are used different ways. One possibility is to
to different types of hazards. Typi- to communicate simplified informa- subdivide it into ‘aleatory uncertain-
cally, physical characteristics of ele- tion about specific circumstances that ty’, which represents the variability of
ments at risk are directly linked to a are not directly measurable or can the properties of concern, and ‘epis-
particular hazard. For example, the only be measured with great difficul- temic uncertainty’, which stems from
degree to which a building withstands ty (Meyer, 2011). At local level, where limited knowledge. A sophisticated
an earthquake is directly linked to the spatial data and statistics often do not estimation of uncertainties is usually
type of building material used. How- exist in sufficient resolution, expert a difficult and costly exercise. Hence,
ever, a great level of resistance related opinions as well as participatory, com- the level of complexity and sophisti-
to earthquakes as a result of building munity- based approaches play a ma- cation and the effort and resources to
material does not automatically imply jor role in vulnerability assessments. be spent should be in line with the risk
that the ability to resist a flood event is management issue and correspond to
similarly high. On the other hand, the Power relations, cultural beliefs, the the level of detail needed.
predisposition to be adversely affected attitude towards risk- reduction ef-
due to the economic, sociocultural or forts or the willingness and capacity 2.3.1.3
political-institutional susceptibilities to learn from previous events are es- State of the art and
is to a large degree hazard independ- sential for the degree of preparedness research gaps
ent. A community, for instance, with of a population. Related information
a well-working emergency response can be found in story lines rather than The number of existing theoretical
system and a strong social network in statistics. Another challenge lies in frameworks and concepts related to
is better forearmed against any type providing evidence about the degree various aspects of vulnerability is
of hazardous event than a communi- of vulnerability and its causes. Vul- striking. Future work should focus on
ty with corrupt public authorities and nerability bears witness only in the the translation of these concepts into
disrupted internal linkages (Brooks, aftermath of an event when damage action, namely by developing easy-to-
2003; Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich, and loss are realised. Loss and damage use tools to implement vulnerability
2006; Cardona et al., 2012). data, though strongly depending on studies that yield useful results for the
the magnitude of the hazard itself, are stakeholder and user. At least within
Transferring these rather theoretical therefore important data sources for Europe, a set of standardised meth-
concepts into operational vulnerabil- vulnerability assessments and/or for ods for defined purposes at certain
ity assessments in practice results in the validation of assessment attempts scales would help to monitor changes

73
over time and to compare vulnerabil- In particular, analysing vulnerability in For instance, the most damaged ar-
ity patterns spatially. The respective the framework of sustainable devel- eas during the 2010 floods in Bursa
activities need to consider the devel- opment or climate change adaptation (Turkey) were those neighbourhoods
opments of other relevant fields of requires considering the interactions characterised by the presence of in-
action such as climate change adapta- between human and natural systems. formal settlements and occupied by
tion or sustainable development. low-income families (Tas et al., 2013).
2.3.2.1
The awareness of the significance of System dynamics Another aspect of systemic vulnera-
vulnerability for DRM has significant- affecting vulnerability bility is the dependence of human so-
ly increased over the last decades. cieties on ecosystem services, particu-
Nevertheless, the importance of un- Vulnerability is a dynamic concept larly those regulating climate, diseases
derlying triggering factors of vulnera- (Cardona et al., 2012) and thus varies and providing buffer zones (Millen-
bility and not directly tangible aspects in space and time. Trends in exposure nium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
such as the cultural and institutional and vulnerability are influenced by For example, coastal wetlands increase
dimension requires further attention. changes in the demographic, econom- energy dissipation of storm surges,
ic, social, institutional, governance, dampen wind-driven surface waves,
2.3.2 cultural and environmental patterns of modify wind fields and reduce the ex-
a system (Oppenheimer et al., 2014). posure of (and thus protect) people
System and Taking demography as an example, and physical assets in the hinterland.
systemic the current trend of an ageing pop- Moreover, provisioning services in-
vulnerability ulation that characterises developed clude food, raw materials, fresh water
countries has considerably influenced and medicinal resources, the availa-
people’s vulnerability to heat stress, as bility of which determines well-being
In order to advance the understand- shown by the high death toll paid by and thus can strongly influence the
ing of vulnerability and its dynamics the elderly during the 2003 heatwave socioeconomic vulnerability profile
as well as to set appropriate policy event in Europe (Robine et al., 2008). of a community. Consequently, eco-
agendas, it is crucial to look at how system-based adaptation approaches
the vulnerability dimensions interact Another example is the concentra- have been applied in DRM to address
at different spatial, temporal and func- tion of assets and settlements (and potentially hazardous processes such
tional scales (Cardona et al., 2012). economic activities) in hazard-prone as flash floods, heat waves, sea level
areas due to population growth and rise, increasing water scarcity, etc.
the lack of related spatial planning.
At a first view this phenomena simply 2.3.2.2
The fact that our modern represents increased exposure values. System criticality
At a closer look, it is strongly linked
world is increasingly to vulnerability. Hazard-prone areas Globalisation has made communi-
interconnected calls for are in general characterised by lower ties and nations interdependent in a
systemic approaches land values and are thus occupied by number of realms, including politics,
when assessing low-income households. The scarcity economy, culture and technology.
vulnerabilities and risks, or non-existence of infrastructure, A systemic view postulates to consid-
which take into account services, social protection and securi- er those linkages within and without a
feedback loops and ty in these sites eventually leads to ‘so- socioecological system that may affect
cially segregated’ urban development, its vulnerability, thus drawing atten-
cascading chains of which in turn generates new patterns tion to wider human and environmen-
impacts of vulnerability and risk (UNISDR, tal processes and phenomena (Turner
2015b). et al., 2003). In concrete terms, this
means that systems and their popula-

74
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

tions are not only affected by hazards switched supplier and it even re-engi- practitioners accordingly.
to which they are physically exposed neered some of its phones to accept
but also — by means of cascading both American and Japanese chips. 2.3.3
effects — to those experienced else- By doing so, it raised its profits by
where. Recent disasters such as the 42 % that year and managed to ac- Vulnerability
eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland quire new market shares (Economist within the context of
(2010), the floods in Thailand (2011), Intelligence Unit, 2009). The Erics- changing climate
the Great East Japan Earthquake son–Nokia example underscores the
(2011) and Hurricane Sandy in the fundamental role played by coping ca-
conditions
United States (2013) called attention pacity in reducing the adverse effects
to the severe effects of such cascades of experienced hazards. Moreover, it Climate change is one of the most
of disasters. calls for drawing attention not only to prominent examples of an external
the triggering event when considering biophysical stressor putting coupled
Cascading disasters can be exempli- cascading disasters, but more impor- human-natural systems at risk and
fied by the vulnerability of critical tantly to how vulnerabilities of differ- the vulnerabilities to changing cli-
infrastructure (Pescaroli & Alexander, ent system’s components may align mate conditions has been the focus of
2016). When in 2003 a tree fell on a and thus amplify impacts (Pescaroli & many assessment studies. Originally,
Swiss power line, causing a fault in Alexander, 2016). the understanding of ‘vulnerability’ in
the transmission system, 56 million the community of climate scientists
people in Italy suffered the effects of 2.3.2.3 differed from that of the disaster risk
the worse blackout in the country’s State of the art and research by encompassing the hazard
history. 30 000 people were trapped research gaps component itself. That is, the project-
on trains and many commercial and ed change of relevant climate param-
residential users suffered disruption Disaster risk research often remains eters was seen as part of the system’s
in their power supplies for up to 48 fragmented in a number of disciplines vulnerability to climate change (IPCC,
hours (Johnson, 2007). At a larg- and focused on single hazards (Cutter 2007).
er scale, failures in the global supply et al., 2015), with limited interaction
chain highlight how the vulnerability with other relevant communities. Re-
of one system may depend on the re- search adopting a coupled human-en- Knowledge on climate
silience of another system working in vironmental system approach in fram-
far spatial distance. ing vulnerability has contributed to
change is growing
the integration of separate domains fast, but standardised
The Swedish company Ericsson ex- (Cardona et al., 2012). vulnerability assessment
perienced substantial loss due to approaches are lacking.
the vulnerability of a subsupplier. A Namely, the approach of ecosys- Vulnerability assessment
10-minute fire at Philips’ plant in New tem-based adaptation has transferred must consider changing
Mexico, caused by a lighting hitting this holistic view into practice. Yet, the socioeconomic, political
the electric line, translated into a loss level of trans- and interdisciplinarity
in phone sales of about EUR 375 mil- that would be required to implement
and organisational
lion (Jansson, 2004). truly systemic approaches in vulner- conditions that determine
ability assessment is rarely achieved. possible vulnerability
This was mainly because Ericsson Hence, future applied research should pathways.
took no action after Philips’ reas- follow an approach of coproduction
surance about production returning of knowledge and need to integrate
on track in a week — which was not relevant disciplines. Relevant universi-
the case. On the contrary, Nokia, an- ty education and training programmes The Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
other big Philips customer, promptly should prepare young scientists and mate Change (IPCC) special report,

75
Managing the risks of extreme events vulnerabilities to a range of diseases. and applied by the ci:grasp adaptation
and disasters to advance climate support platform (n.d.) and the latest
change adaptation (IPCC, 2012a), and The assessment of climate-related German climate change vulnerability
later on its fifth assessment report risks and the identification of respec- study (Buth et al., 2015).
(IPCC, 2013) have introduced the tive key vulnerabilities needs to con-
concept of ‘climate risks’ and have sider the variety of these possible di- 2.3.3.1
hence worked towards converging the rect and indirect impacts. Useful tools Vulnerability and climate
concepts of both communities. The to tackle this challenge are so-called change in Europe
currently ongoing integration of cli- impact chains, which represent cas-
mate change adaptation and disaster cading cause-effect relationships and At European level, climate change is
risk- reduction approaches leads to allow for structuring assessment pro- recognised as an important driver of
an increase of knowledge and has the cesses and the prioritisation of fields risk due to both climate extremes (for
potential to foster network building of action (Schneiderbauer et al., 2013; example heavy precipitation events
and to develop more efficient policies. Fritzsche et al., 2014). Impact chains or storms) and slow onset events of
A respective report is under prepara- have, for example, been developed long-term duration (for example sea
tion under the lead of the European
Environment Agency (EEA). FIGURE 2.11

The IPCC’s fifth assessment report Global maps of vulnerability index calculated by INFORM (upper left)
identifies several ways in which in- approaches and the identified sub-components of risk and vulnerability
creasing warming and climate-relat- left and the WorldRiskIndex on the bottom right.
Source: BEH and UNU-EHS (2016), INFORM (n.d.)
ed extremes can have an impact on a
socioecological system and focuses in
particular on those complex interac-
tions between climate and such sys-
tems that increase vulnerability and
risk synergistically (Oppenheimer et
al., 2014). One of them is the negative
effect of climate change on human
health, which results from a number
of direct and indirect pathways.

Direct biological consequences to Very Low Low Medium High Very High Not included in INFORM
human health can derive from heat-
waves, extreme weather events and
temperature-related concentrations INFORM
of pollutants; yet most of the impacts
will be indirectly triggered by warm-
ing-induced changes in environmen- Hazards & Lack of Coping
Vulnerability
tal and social conditions (Mc Michael, Exposure Capacity
2013) and are hence in their extent de-
termined by respective vulnerabilities.
Infrastructure

Moreover, climate change induced ad-

Institutional
Vulnerable
economic
Natural

Human

groups

verse impacts on crop yields’ quantity

Socio-

and quality can exacerbate malnutri-

tion (Met Office & WFP, 2014) and
thus contribute to new or stronger

76
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

level rise or glacier retreat) Climate tional adaptation strategies on studies adaptation platform website that rep-
change will also have positive im- about risks and vulnerabilities to cli- resents the knowledge hub for climate
pacts in Europe in specific sectors mate change, for example the United change risks and adaptation in Europe
and in certain regions (for example Kingdom in 2016 (UK, 2016), Ger- (Climate-ADAPT, n.d.).
agriculture and tourism in northern many in 2015 (Buth et al., 2015) and
Europe). In this chapter we concen- the Netherlands (PBL, 2012). At Eu- Some key vulnerabilities related to
trate on potential adverse impacts ropean level, respective studies have climate change identified by these re-
that require actions to reduce related been implemented by the European ports are:
risks.. Though all the countries in the Observation Network, Territorial De- • demographic change / aging pop-
EU are exposed to climate change, velopment and Cohesion (ESPON) ulation;
the related impacts vary depending in 2011 (EPSON, 2011) and the EEA • population growth in low- lying ur-
on differences in climate conditions in 2012 (EEA, 2012) and 2016 (EEA, ban agglomerations;
but also in vulnerabilities and degree 2017), as well as the European Com- • vulnerability of (critical) infrastruc-
of exposure (EC, 2013). Many EU mission in 2014 (Ciscar et al., 2014). ture to warming and floods;
Member States have based their na- The EEA hosts the European climate • increasing dependency on elec-
tricity, particularly linked with the
increasing internationalisation of
power grids.
and WorldRiskIndex (upper right). The respective underlying conceptual
are shown in the lower part representing the INFORM index on the bottom 2.3.3.2
State of the art and
research gap
The knowledge about future climate
conditions is vast and continues to
increase. There are numerous studies
scrutinising climate change impacts
and vulnerabilities. However, most of
them have been carried out in a static
context and they have not considered
future socioeconomic developments
resulting in changes of land use, ur-
banisation or demography. Besides
climate scenarios, climate risk studies
should aim to integrate vulnerability
pathways.

Europe-wide climate risk assessment

should further be supported and co-
ordinated with the results from na-
tional and subnational studies, where
appropriate. A certain level of stand-
ardisation is desirable in order to al-
low for comparison in space and time.

77
 best suitable strongly depends on the based on experts’ estimates. They
2.3.4 objective and the scope of the assess- are particularly useful if time and re-
Approaches to ment (e.g. understanding root causes, sources for the study are limited and
assess vulnerability identification of hotspots, trend anal- if accessible data/information is not
ysis or the selection of risk- reduction sufficient for quantitative analysis of
Researchers and practitioners apply measures), as well as on the temporal complex phenomena. Qualitative as-
quantitative, semi-quantitative, qual- and spatial scale; there is no ‘one size sessment carried out with participa-
itative and increasingly mixed-meth- fits all’ approach. tory techniques, such as interviews
ods approaches in order to assess or focus group discussions, is par-
vulnerability. Whether an approach is Qualitative vulnerability analyses are ticularly important for work at local/
community level and can reveal con-
text-specific root causes for vulnera-
FIGURE 2.12
bilities. Quantitative assessments are
Social vulnerability to floods in the Salzach river catchment, Austria. often based on statistical analysis ex-
Source: Kienberger et al. (2014) ploiting data about loss and damage
related to certain hazards (see Chapter
2.3.4.1). The most widely employed
alternative to this is the application
of indicator-based approaches, which
ideally allows assessing patterns and
trends of vulnerability across space
and time. The multifaceted nature
of vulnerability cannot be adequately
represented by a single variable (e.g.
income per capita). Consequently, the
generation of composite indicators
has gained importance for grasping
such complexities. It allows for com-
bining various indicators into a vul-
nerability index and helps to translate
complex issues into policy-relevant
information.

At global level, there are a number of

composite indicators to assess disas-
ter risk, which represent vulnerability
as one of the risk’s dimensions next
to hazard and exposure, for exam-
ple the WorldRiskIndex (Welle and
Birkmann, 2015; BEH and UNU-
EHS, 2016) and the INFORM Index
(De Groeve at al., 2014; INFORM,
n.d.). Both are continuously updat-
ed multi-hazard risk indices aiming
to support disaster risk reduction.
The WorldRiskIndex is a means for
understanding natural hazard related

78
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

risks including the adverse effects of approaches, the three case studies al., 2013). On the other hand, com-
climate changes whilst INFORM is identify a set of social (e.g. age, edu- posite indicators are always data driv-
a tool for understanding risks to hu- cation and gender), economic (e.g. in- en and might conceal crucial aspects
manitarian crises and disasters. Con- come, employment and dependency), that are not or cannot be expressed in
ceptually, both indices are very similar. organisational and institutional (e.g. numbers and statistics.
Their methodologies are presented in early warning systems (EWS), access
Figure 2.11. In the WorldRiskIndex, to health services, proximity to first In recent years, there is an increasing
the vulnerability part comprises the responders, etc.) indicators and aggre- number of studies aiming to under-
components of susceptibility, cop- gate them into a composite index of stand and analyse vulnerability in mul-
ing capacity and adaptive capacity, vulnerability. tihazard settings. For example, Welle
which are represented by 23 indica- et al. (2014) present an approach for
tors. In INFORM, vulnerability and Composite indicators have the advan- the assessment of social vulnerability
lack of coping capacity are divided tage to represent complex phenome- to heat waves and floods as well as in-
into two separate dimensions, which na in a single value. If necessary, the stitutional vulnerability to earthquakes
are described by 31 indicators. Fig- underlying indicators or subcompo- in the city of Cologne, Germany.
ure 2.11 shows the countries' vul- nents of the index can be visualised While different sets of vulnerability
nerability scores based on data from separately to support the understand- indicators are used and aggregated to
2016 calculated using the INFORM ing of which factors contribute most assess vulnerability to heat waves (e.g.
approach (left) and the WorldRisk- to a positive or negative situation in age, unemployment, place of origin,
Index approach (right). Below these the aggregated result (Hagenlocher et etc.) and floods (age and occupan-
maps, the respective approaches and
sub-components are visualised. Both
FIGURE 2.13
indices started with an approach at
nation-state resolution and global Generic quantitative vulnerability functions showing vulnerability (i.e. de-
scale but strive for more sub-nation- gree of loss) as a function of hazard intensity. The red curve represents a
al applications of their methodology more vulnerable element and the blue curve a less vulnerable element.
Source: courtesy of authors
(Wannewitz et al., 2016).

In Europe, a range of assessments 1,0

have used spatial approaches, such
as spatial multicriteria analysis or 0,9
composite indicators to create maps
0,8
at subnational level that facilitate the
Vuln erability (Degree o f lo ss)

identification of hotspots and offer 0,7

information for place-based interven-
tion planning. For instance, a number 0,6
of studies have investigated vulnera-
bility in the context of river floods at 0,5

different spatial scales. Examples in- 0,4

clude assessments: (1) in Vila Nova
de Gaia, a flood-prone municipality 0,3
in northern Portugal (Fernandez et
al., 2016); (2) along the rivers Rhine, 0,2

Danube and Elbe in Germany (Fekete, 0,1

2009); or (3) in the Salzach catchment
in Austria (Kienberger et al., 2014) 0,0
(Figure 2.12). Using indicator-based Hazard intensity

More vulnerable Less vulnerable

79
cy rates per household), institution- termath of an event. Damage func- exposed elements (e.g. building types)
al vulnerability was evaluated using tions, in particular functions relat- in study. Vulnerability curves have
qualitative information obtained from ing building damage to water depth, been developed for several types of
a series of stakeholder consultations. have a long tradition in the context natural hazards, such as wind storms,
Acknowledging the fact that commu- of flood damage evaluation (Mey- landslides, floods, tsunamis and earth-
nities are often affected by multiple er et al., 2013). Physical vulnerability quakes. There are curves expressing
hazards — combined, sequentially or of buildings can also be assessed by loss within the built environment as
as a cascading effect —, these stud- physical models or by use of expert well as loss of human lives. Most of
ies present an important step towards judgement. For some hazard types, fa- the curves are developed from empir-
providing solutions for real-world tality or mortality functions are devel- ical data and accordingly fit well with
challenges. oped to determine the death ratio for previous events in the area where the
a single hazard parameter, e.g. water data was collected. For other loca-
2.3.4.1 depth or earthquake magnitude. This tions a calibration or validation of the
Quantitative allows the estimation of numbers of model is necessary prior to use. Vali-
vulnerability functions fatalities occurring at, for example, a dation is also needed for physical or
certain water level. However, the de- analytical vulnerability functions.
Potential damage to physical assets velopment of fatality functions goes
and loss of human lives are often as- along with a high degree of uncer- Application of vulnerability functions
sessed using quantitative vulnerability tainty, which stems from the variety is useful in several phases of the risk
functions. These functions take into of physical and human parameters management, such as risk assessment
account the intensity of the hazard influencing the loss of life. For exam- and risk treatment. Risk analysts,
and the properties of the exposed ple, water depth may not be the only scientists, stakeholders and deci-
elements. The intensity expresses the and most relevant intensity measure. sion-makers could be users of vulner-
damaging potential of the hazard. Aspects such as flow rate, flood du- ability functions with the purpose to
Properties represent the resistance of ration or sediment transport might be provide input to:
the exposed elements such as build- equally as important. • decisions about the question of
ing material and maintenance level. whether risks need to be treated or
Vulnerability functions are widely about issues such as the prioritisation
applied to illustrate the relationship of risk treatment options of different
between hazard characteristics and The most appropriate areas and of different hazard types;
fatalities and damage. Generic vulner-
ability functions are shown in Figure
methodology to assess • identification of appropriate and
2.13 and refer to physical vulnerabili- vulnerability strongly optimal risk- reduction measures;
ty, described as ‘the degree of loss to depends on the purpose
a given element, or set of elements, and the context, as well • financial appraisals during and im-
within the area affected by a hazard. It as the temporal and mediately after a disaster as well as
is expressed on a scale of 0 (no loss) spatial scales; there is no budgeting and coordination of com-
to 1 (total loss)’ (UNDRO, 1984). ‘one size fits all’ approach. pensation (Merz et al., 2010).

Vulnerability functions may be sub- Alternatives to vulnerability curves

divided into fatality/mortality func- are fragility curves, which also express
tions and damage functions (the latter the uncertainty in the physical vul-
denoted and formulated in different For quantitative physical vulnerabili- nerability. Fragility curves have been
ways, e.g. loss functions, susceptibil- ty assessment, one can apply existing widely applied in probabilistic risk and
ity functions and fragility functions). vulnerability curves, which are appro- vulnerability assessment, in particular
Damage functions are mainly based priate for the specific hazard and the for earthquake risk (Hazus n.d.), but
on empirical data collected in the af-

80
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

recently also for landslide risk assess- plied methodology and related uncer- issue of concern still today.
ment. These functions describe the tainty analysis (Hinkel, 2011).
probability of exceeding different 2.3.5
damage states for various intensities. Vulnerability curves are widely applied
In a recent study on seismic risks in for physical vulnerability assessment. How vulnerability
the city of Barcelona, Spain, a physi- Future activities should focus on the information is used
cal vulnerability assessment approach development of a repository of vul- in practice
was first carried out based on vulner- nerability curves with user guidelines
ability functions for different building for different hazard types and differ- The IPCC acknowledges DRM as
types (e.g. unreinforced masonry or ent types of assets. Research should a process that goes beyond DRR
reinforced concrete, steel and wood work on the development and use of (IPCC, 2012b). Decisions to reduce
buildings). In a second step this was multiparameter vulnerability func- disaster risk must be based on a sound
combined with a probabilistic analysis tions that are transferable, i.e. valid understanding of the related vulnera-
of the seismic hazard into a seismic for different building types, and appli- bilities.
risk assessment for buildings across cable for vulnerability changing over
the city (Carreño et al., 2014). The time and for multirisk scenarios. A requirement that has clearly been
authors also considered conditions articulated in the SFDRR (UNISDR,
related to social fragility and lack of In order to fill these gaps, more data 2015b) as one of four main priorities
resilience that favour second order are required for improving and cali- for action in the years to come.
effects when a city is hit by an earth- brating existing models as well as for
quake. Factors such as population proposing new empirical vulnerability 2.3.5.1
density, population with poor health models (see Chapter 2.4). Data collec- Vulnerability in disaster
or social disparity were used as prox- tion and analysis should be extended risk management: from
ies for social fragility. In addition, the and streamlined through the use of knowledge to action
operating capacity in case of an emer- remotely sensed data and geographic
gency, the state of development or the information system technology. The
Complementing hazard analysis, vul-
access to health services were used as potential of Copernicus services and
nerability studies generate informa-
indicators of lack of resilience and particularly of Sentinel data has not
tion of relevance for various aspects
combined in an overall urban seismic been fully exploited by the disaster
of risk reduction and adaptation strat-
risk index (Carreño et al., 2007). The risk community.
egies, emergency management and
results show that the population in
sustainable territorial planning. They
the central parts of Barcelona lives at An additional challenge lies in the
are of importance for all phases of
a considerably higher risk than those forward-looking nature of vulnerabil-
the DRM cycle covering short-term
living on the outskirts of the city. ity. That is, vulnerability assessment
response as well as long-term prepar-
needs to take into account those fac-
edness or recovery. Correspondingly
2.3.4.2 tors and processes that may not yet
large is the field of potential users
State of the art and have become evident in past disaster
of vulnerability information, includ-
research gaps situations. This is particularly valid in
ing public administration staff who
highly dynamic environments where
are responsible for civil protection or
Indicator-based assessment methods both socio-natural hazards and vul-
spatial planning, actors in the field of
have proved to support the drafting nerability patterns might undergo
insurance, private companies running
and prioritisation of disaster risk- re- rapid changes in the near- and mid-
critical infrastructure, the civil society
duction measures and strategies as term future (Garschagen, 2014).
and, finally, any individual. One way
well as the allocation of resources.
of grouping the various purposes of
Several challenges exist with respect The importance to integrate uncer-
vulnerability studies and their main
to the dependency on data availability tainty in vulnerability assessment has
users is to classify them according to
and quality, the validation of the ap- often been underlined but remains an

81
TABLE 2.1

Overview of vulnerability assessments, their main objectives and potential users at different spatial scales.
Source: courtesy of authors

Scale Main objective Examples Potential users

Global Identification of The vulnerability components of the International

spatial hot spots; following risk indices: INFORM index (De organisations (including
allocation of Groeve et al., 2015); World Risk Index donors); international non-
resources; (BEH & UNU-EHS, 2016); Disaster Risk governmental
awareness raising Index (Peduzzi et al., 2009); Natural organisations (NGO);
Disaster Hotspots index (Dilley et al., regional
2005) intergovernmental
organisations
Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index
(ND-GAIN, n.d.)
International/ Identification of The vulnerability component of the International
regional spatial hot spots; INFORM Subnational risk index for the organisations (including
allocation of Sahel and the Greater Horn of Africa donors); international
resources; (INFORM subnational models, n.d.) NGOs; ROI
awareness raising
Vulnerability to climate change in
Europe (ESPON, 2011); climate change
vulnerability mapping for Southeast
Asia (Yusuf & Francisco, 2009)
National / Identification of hot The vulnerability component of the International
subnational spots; development INFORM Subnational risk index (INFORM organisations (incl.
of risk reduction / subnational models, n.d.) for Lebanon donors); international
adaptation and Colombia, World Risk Index /national / local NGOs;
strategies; subnational for the Philippines national, subnational and
allocation of (Wannewitz et al., 2016); Social local governments and
resources; Vulnerability Index for the USA (Cutter public administration
awareness raising; et al., 2003)
advocacy
Numerous studies in Europe. For an
overview of work related to climate
change, see Prutsch et al., 2014
Local Identification of For an overview of vulnerability International
root causes; assessments in Europe with respect to organisations (incl.
strengthening natural hazards, see Birkmann et al., donors); international /
capacities of local 2014; national/ local NGOs;
actors; empowering national, subnational and
A semi-quantitative assessment of
communities local governments and
regional climate change vulnerability by
public administration-
Kropp. et al., 2006
affected communities

82
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

spatial scale. Extending the examples 2.3.5.2 more resilient to identified hazards;
presented above, Table 2.1 provides Conclusions and key • design and facilitate multilevel and
an illustrative overview of selected messages cross-sectoral feedback loops be-
vulnerability assessments, their main tween public, practitioners and pol-
purposes and potential users at differ- Over the past decades, vulnerability icymaking bodies (local, regional,
ent spatial scales. research has made considerable pro- national and European) and other
gress in understanding some of the stakeholders;
root causes and dynamic pressures • standardise vulnerability assess-
that influence the progression of vul- ment approaches in order to allow
Vulnerability assessment nerability and raised awareness that for more comparison (in space and
time);
is used to support disasters are not natural but predom-
• work on improved evidence with-
stakeholders and inantly a product of social, economic
and political conditions (Wisner et al., in vulnerability assessment — this
policymakers in 2004). requires continuous effort to im-
prioritising various risks, prove loss and damage data.
in identifying root causes Vulnerability assessments are a re-
and spatial hotspots sponse to the call for evidence by de- Partnership
and in developing risk cision-makers for use in pre-disaster The comprehensive analysis and as-
risk assessment, prevention and re- sessment of vulnerability requires an
reduction strategies and interdisciplinary approach involving
measures. duction, as well as the development
and implementation of appropriate both natural and social sciences. In
preparedness and effective disaster addition, in order to foster sustainable
response strategies by providing in- and efficient vulnerability reduction
formation on people, communities or strategies and measures, an approach
The complexity of vulnerability and to produce knowledge co-productive-
the wide range of possible appli- regions at risk.
ly is desirable. This calls for a part-
cations of assessment studies re- nership with affected communities,
quire considerable effort to define The following steps are proposed to
further improve vulnerability research practitioners and decision-makers. A
the studies’ scope (objective, target stronger link and enhanced interac-
groups, spatial and temporal scale, and related applications with the final
aim to inform policymakers to most tion with other relevant communities
spatial resolution of results, etc.). In is desirable, namely climate change
practice, vulnerability studies have appropriately:
• co-produce knowledge in a trans- adaptation, natural resource manage-
benefited from pursuing a process ment, public health, spatial planning
of co-production of knowledge. The disciplinary environment;
• evaluate and present inherent un- and development.
integration of scientists, practition-
ers and potential users in the process certainties;
• integrate intangible but crucial fac- Knowledge
of a vulnerability assessment right The determination of risk often re-
from the beginning usually results in tors into quantitative assessments;
• develop and apply methods that al- mains hazard centred and hazard
a higher level of acceptance of their specific and does not consider vul-
results. They are also more likely to be low for considering cascading and
multirisks; nerability appropriately. Vulnerability
used in decision- and policymaking. assessment has tended to be mostly
An example is the latest vulnerability • combine vulnerability scenarios
with (climate-) hazard scenarios quantitative in nature. Cultural as-
assessment for Germany within the pects as well as formal (procedures,
scope of which a network of nation- when assessing future risks;
• empower communities to better laws and regulations) and tacit infor-
al authorities was created and which mal (values, norms and traditions)
participated in all important decisions understand and reduce their vul-
nerability in order to make them institutions play a fundamental role
(Greiving et al., 2015). as both enabling or limiting factors

83
of resilience and have not gained
sufficient attention. A challenge is
the need to consider local data and
information in order to account for
small-scale specificities of vulnerabil-
ity. Present databases on damage and
loss caused by natural hazards should
be standardised and extended to sup-
port evidence building in vulnerability
assessment. Existing barriers in the
co-production, exchange and use of
knowledge have to be understood and
minimised.

Innovation
In recent years, improved approach-
es to assess vulnerability by statistical
analyses or indices have been estab-
lished. Fostering the integration of
Earth observation data and technol-
ogy to detect changes would improve
the possibility to represent some of
the dynamic aspects of vulnerability.
Further improvement requires en-
hanced event and damage databases
and more sophisticated methods for
potential future vulnerability path-
ways and their integration into risk
scenarios. The challenge to integrate
qualitative information, which of-
ten contains crucial facts, needs to
be addressed. Observation data and
technology to detect changes would
improve the possibility to represent
some of the dynamic aspects of vul-
nerability. Further improvements re-
quire enhanced event and damage
databases and more sophisticated
methods for potential future vulner-
ability pathways and their integration
into risk scenarios. The challenge to
integrate qualitative information,
which often contains crucial facts,
need to be addressed.

84
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

REFERENCES CHAPTER 2

Introduction
Klinke, A., Renn, O., 2002. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based
strategies. Risk Analysis 22(6), 1071-1094.
The Royal Society, ‘Risk analysis, perception and management’, 1992.
UNISDR Terminology, 2017.https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology, [accessed 04 April, 2017].
Vetere Arellano, A. L., Cruz, A. M., Nordvik, P.. Pisano, F. (eds.). 2004. Analysis of Natech (natural hazard triggering technological
disasters) disaster management. Nedies workshop proceedings, Italy, 2003. EUR 21054EN, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg.

2.1. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to risk assessment

Apostolakis, G. E., 2004. How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Analysis 24(3),515-520.
Cox, T., 2008. What’s wrong with risk matrices. Risk Analysis 28(2), 497-512.
Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the
business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II). Official Journal of the European Union L 335, 17.12.2009, pp 1–155.
Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards
involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC. Official Journal of the Eu-
ropean Union L 197, 24.7.2012,pp.1-37.
Eurocode website, n.d. The EN Eurocodes. http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/, [accessed 04 April, 2017].
European Commission, 2014. Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks in the EU. Staff working document, SWD(2014)
134 final of 8.4.2014.
European Commission, 2010. Risk assessment and mapping guidelines for disaster management. Staff Working Paper, SEC(2010)
1626 final of 21.12.2010.
Friedman, D. G., 1984. Natural hazard risk assessment for an insurance programme. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance,
9(3), 57-128.
Gowland, R., 2012. The work of the european process safety centre (EPSC) technical Steering committee working group: ‘atypical
scenarios’. Hazards XXIII, symposium series No 158, Institute of Chemical Engineers.
Grünthal, G., Thieken, A. H., Schwarz, J., Radtke, K. S., Smolka, A., Merz, B., 2006. Comparative risk assessments for the city of Co-
logne, Germany — storms, floods, earthquakes. Natural Hazards 38(1-2), 21-44.
Health and Safety Executive, 2001. Reducing risks, protecting eople — HSE’s decision-making process, Her Majesty’s Stationary
Office, United Kingdom, www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf, [accessed 04 April, 2017].
Health and Safety Executive, 2009. Safety and environmental standards for fuel storage sites — Process Safety Leadership Group
— Final report, United Kingdom, www.hse.gov.uk/comah/buncefield/fuel-storage-sites.pdf, [accessed 04 April, 2017].
Health and Safety Laboratory, 2005. Review of hazard identification techniques. Sheffield, United Kingdom, 2005, www.hse.gov.uk/
research/hsl_pdf/2005/hsl0558.pdf
Hoogheemraadschap van Rijnland, 2009. Flood control in the Netherlands — A strategy for dike reinforcement and climate ad-
aptation.
IAIS International Association of Insurance Supervisors, 2015. Insurance core principles. www.iaisweb.org/file/58067/insur-
ance-core-principles-updated-november-2015, [accessed 04 April, 2017].
Simmons, D. C., 2016. How catastrophe and financial modelling revolutionised the insurance industry. Willis Towers Watson, https://
understandrisk.org/wp-content/uploads/Simmons.pdf. [accessed 04 April, 2017].
Skjong, R., Wentworth, B. H., 2001. Expert judgment and risk perception. In Proceedings of the Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. ISOPE IV, 17-22 June, Stavanger, pp. 537-544.
Stamatis, D. H., 2003. Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, ASQ Quality Press.
Tyler, B., Crawley, F., Preston, M., 2015. HAZOP: guide to best practice, 3rd ed., Institute of Chemical Engineers.
United Kingdom Cabinet Office, 2015. National risk register of civil emergencies. www.gov.uk/government/publications/nation-
al-risk-register-for-civil-emergencies-2015-edition
White, C. S. and Budde, P. E., 2001. Perfecting the storm: the evolution of hurricane models. www.contingencies.org/marapr01/
perfecting.pdf, [accessed 04 April, 2017].

2.2. Current and innovative methods to define exposure

Arino, O., Ramos Perez, J.J., Kalogirou, V., Bontemps, S., Defourny, P., Van Bogaert, E., 2012. Global Land Cover Map for 2009 (Glob-
Cover 2009). © Eur. Space Agency ESA Univ. Cathol. Louvain UCL.
Basher, R., Hayward, B., Lavell, A., Martinelli, A., Perez, O., Pulwarty, R., Sztein, E., Ismail-Zadeh, A.,
Batista e Silva, F., Lavalle, C., Koomen, E., 2013. A procedure to obtain a refined European land use/cover map. Journal of Land Use
Science 8(3), 255–283.
Bouziani, M., Goïta, K., He, D.C., 2010. Automatic change detection of buildings in urban environment from very high spatial reso-
lution images using existing geodatabase and prior knowledge. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 65(1),
143–153.
Cardona, O.D., Van Aalst, M., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Pulwarty, R., Schipper, L., Sinh, B., 2012. Determinants
of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner,

119
 G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 65–108.
Chen, J., Chen, J., Liao, A., Cao, X., Chen, L., Chen, X., He, C., Han, G., Peng, S., Lu, M., Zhang, W., Tong, X., Mills, J., 2015. Global land
cover mapping at 30m resolution: A POK-based operational approach. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,
103, 7–27.
Crowley, H., Ozcebe, S., Spence, R., Foulset-Piggott, R., Erdik, M., Alten, K., 2012. Development of a European Building Inventory
Database. In: Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
World Bank 2014. Open Data for Resilience Field Guide. Washington, DC: World Bank.
De Bono, A., Chatenoux, B., 2015. A Global Exposure Model for GAR 2015, UNEP-GRID, GAR 2015 Background Papers for Global
Risk Assessment, 20 p.
De Bono, A., Mora, M.G., 2014. A global exposure model for disaster risk assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduc-
tion 10, 442–451.
Deichmann, U., Ehlrich, D., Small, C., Zeug, G., 2011. Using high resolution satellite data for the identification of urban natural dis-
aster risk. World Bank and European Union Report.
Dell’Acqua, F., Gamba, P., Jaiswal, K., 2013. Spatial aspects of building and population exposure data and their implications for
global earthquake exposure modeling. Natural Hazards 68(3), 1291–1309.
Dobson, J.E., Bright, E.A., Coleman, P.R., Durfee, R.C., Worley, B.A., 2000. LandScan: A global population database for estimating
populations at risk. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing. 66(7), 849–857.
Ehrlich, D., Tenerelli, P., 2013. Optical satellite imagery for quantifying spatio-temporal dimension of physical exposure in disaster
risk assessments. Natural Hazards, 68(3), 1271–1289.
Erdik, M., Sesetyan, K., Demircioglu, M., Hancilar, U., Zulfikar, C., Cakti, E., Kamer, Y., Yenidogan, C., Tuzun, C., Cagnan, Z., Harmandar,
E., 2010. Rapid earthquake hazard and loss assessment for Euro-Mediterranean region. Acta Geophysica 58.
Esch, T., Taubenböck, H., Roth, A., Heldens, W., Felbier, A., Thiel, M., Schmidt, M., Müller, A., Dech, S., 2012. TanDEM-X mission—
new perspectives for the inventory and monitoring of global settlement patterns. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 6(1),
061702–1.
Florczyk, A.J., Ferri, S., Syrris, V., Kemper, T., Halkia, M., Soille, P., Pesaresi, M., 2016. A New European Settlement Map From Optical
Remotely Sensed Data. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 9(5), 1978–1992.
Forzieri, G., Bianchi, A., Marin Herrera, M.A., Batista e Silva, F., Feyen, L., Lavalle, C., 2015. Resilience of large investments and critical
infrastructures in Europe to climate change. EUR 27598 EN, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Freire, S., Halkia, M., Ehlrich, D., Pesaresi, M., 2015a. Production of a population grid in Europe. EUR 27482 EN, Luxembourg: Publi-
cations Office of the European Union.
Freire, S., Kemper, T., Pesaresi, M., Florczyk, A., Syrris, V., 2015b. Combining GHSL and GPW to improve global population mapping.
IEEE International Geoscience & Remote Sensing Symposium, 2541-2543.
Friedl, M.A., Sulla-Menashe, D., Tan, B., Schneider, A., Ramankutty, N., Sibley, A., Huang, X., 2010. MODIS Collection 5 global land
cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114 (1), 168–182.
Fritz, S., See, L., Rembold, F., 2010. Comparison of global and regional land cover maps with statistical information for the agricul-
tural domain in Africa. International Journal of Remote Sensing 31 (9), 2237–2256.
Gamba, P., Cavalca, D., Jaiswal, K., Huyck, C., Crowley, H., 2012. The GED4GEM project: development of a global exposure database
for the global earthquake model initiative. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Haque, U., Blum, P., da Silva, P.F., Andersen, P., Pilz, J., Chalov, S.R., Malet, J.-P., Auflič, M.J., Andres, N., Poyiadji, E., Lamas, P.C., Zhang,
W., Peshevski, I., Pétursson, H.G., Kurt, T., Dobrev, N., García-Davalillo, J.C., Halkia, M., Ferri, S., Gaprindashvili, G., Engström, J.,
Keellings, D., 2016. Fatal landslides in Europe. Landslides.
Jaiswal, K., Wald, D., Porter, K., 2010. A Global Building Inventory for Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Management. Earthquake
Spectra 26 (3), 731–748.
Latham, J., Cumani, R., Rosati, I., Bloise, M., 2014. Global Land Cover SHARE (GLC-SHARE) database Beta-Release Version 1.0.
Lloyd, C.T., Sorichetta, A., Tatem, A.J., 2017. High resolution global gridded data for use in population studies. Scientific Data 4,
170001.
Loveland, T.R., Reed, B.C., Brown, J.F., Ohlen, D.O., Zhu, Z., Yang, L., Merchant, J.W., 2000. Development of a global land cover char-
acteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21(6-7), 1303–1330.
Lugeri, N., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Genovese, E., Hochrainer, S., Radziejewski, M., 2010. River flood risk and adaptation in Europe—assess-
ment of the present status. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15, 621–639.
Manakos, I., Braun, M. (Eds.), 2014. Land Use and Land Cover Mapping in Europe, Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing.
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
Marin Herrera, M., Bianchi, A., Filipe Batista e Silva, F., Barranco, R., Lavalle, C., 2015. A geographical database of infrastructures in
Europe: a contribution to the knowledge base of the LUISA modelling platform. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
Michel-Kerjan, E., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Kunreuther, H., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Mechler, R., Muir-Wood, R., Ranger, N., Vaziri, P., Young,
M., 2013. Catastrophe Risk Models for Evaluating Disaster Risk Reduction Investments in Developing Countries: Evaluating
Disaster Risk Reduction Investments. Risk Analysis 33, 984–999.
Montero, E., Van Wolvelaer, J., Garzón, A., 2014. The European Urban Atlas, in: Manakos, I., Braun, M. (Eds.), Land Use and Land Cover
Mapping in Europe. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 115–124.
Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J., Nicholls, R.J., 2015. Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise
and Coastal Flooding — A Global Assessment. PLOS ONE 10, e0118571.
Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C., Mouton, F., 2009. Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the Disaster
Risk Index. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 1149–1159.
Pesaresi, M., Ehrlich, D., Ferri, S., Florczyk, A., Freire, S., Haag, F., Halkia, M., Julea, A.M., Kemper, T., Soille, P., 2015. Global Human
Settlement Analysis for Disaster Risk Reduction. In: The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and

120
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

Spatial Information Sciences, XL-7/W3, 36th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, 11–15 May 2015,
Berlin, German
Academic paper: Global Human Settlement Analysis for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/pub-
lication/277360201_Global_Human_Settlement_Analysis_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction [accessed Apr 6, 2017]. ISPRS — Int.
Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XL-7/W3, 837–843.
Pesaresi, M., Guo Huadong, Blaes, X., Ehrlich, D., Ferri, S., Gueguen, L., Halkia, M., Kauffmann, M., Kemper, T., Linlin Lu, Marin-Herrera,
M.A., Ouzounis, G.K., Scavazzon, M., Soille, P., Syrris, V., Zanchetta, L., 2013. A Global Human Settlement Layer From Optical HR/
VHR RS Data: Concept and First Results. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing,
6(5), 2102–2131.
Pesaresi, M., Melchiorri, M., Siragusa, A., Kemper, T., 2016. Atlas of the Human Planet — Mapping Human Presence on Earth with
the Global Human Settlement Layer. EUR 28116 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Pittore, M., 2015. Focus maps: a means of prioritizing data collection for efficient geo-risk assessment. Annals of Geophysics 58(1).
Pittore, M., Wieland, M., 2013. Toward a rapid probabilistic seismic vulnerability assessment using satellite and ground-based
remote sensing. Natural Hazards 68(1), 115–145.
Pittore, M., Wieland, M., Errize, M., Kariptas, C., Güngör, I., 2015. Improving Post-Earthquake Insurance Claim Management: A Novel
Approach to Prioritize Geospatial Data Collection. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 4(4), 2401–2427.
Pittore, M., Wieland, M., Fleming, K., 2016. Perspectives on global dynamic exposure modelling for geo-risk assessment. Natural
Hazards 86(1), 7-30.
Rose, A., Huyck, C.K., 2016. Improving Catastrophe Modeling for Business Interruption Insurance Needs: Improving Catastrophe
Modeling for Business Interruption. Risk Analysis 36(10), 1896–1915.
UNISDR, 2015a. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster
Risk Reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
UNISDR, 2015b. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf, [accessed 04 April
2016].
GFDRR, 2014. Understanding risk in an evolving world, A policy Note. Global facility for disaster reduction and recovery. World Bank,
Washington DC, USA, 16pp.

2.3. The most recent view of vulnerability

Alexander, D. and Magni, M., 2013. Mortality in the L ’ Aquila ( Central Italy ) Earthquake of 6 April 2009. PLOS Current Disasters,
(April 2009).
Alexander, D., 2010. The L’Aquila Earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Government Policy on Disaster Response. Journal of Nat-
ural Resources Policy Research, 2(4), 325–342.
Alexander, D., 2013. Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,
13 (11), 2707–2716.
BEH and UNU-EHS, 2016. WorldRiskReport 2016. Berlin and Bonn: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and United Nations University – EHS.
Birkmann, J., Cardona, O.D., Carreno, M.L., Barbat, A.H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., Kienberger, S., M.Keiler, Alexander, D., Zeil, P.,
and T., W., 2013. Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses : the MOVE framework. Nat Hazards, 67, 193–211.
Birkmann, J., Kienberger, S., and Alexander, D., 2014. Assessment of vulnerability to natural hazards : a European perspective. San
Diego and Waltham, USA: Elsevier Inc.
Brooks, N., 2003. A conceptual framework Vulnerability , risk and adaptation : A conceptual framework. No. 3.
Buth, M., Kahlenborn, W., Savelsberg, J., Becker, N., Bubeck, P., Kabisch, S., Kind, C., Tempel, A., Tucci, F., Greiving, S., Fleischhauer, M.,
Lindner, C., Lückenkötter, J., Schonlau, M., Schmitt, H., Hurth, F., Othmer, F., Augustin, R., Becker, D., Abel, M., Bornemann, T., Stein-
er, H., Zebisch, M., Schneiderbauer, S., and Kofler, C., 2015. Germany’s vulnerability to Climate Change. Summary. Dessau-Roßla.
Cardona, O.D., Aalst, M.K. van, Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Pulwarty, R.S., Schipper, E.L.F., and Sinh, B.T., 2012.
Determinants of Risk : Exposure and Vulnerability. In: C. B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastran-
drea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley, eds. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters
to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 65–108.
Carreño, M.L., Barbat, A.H., Cardona, O.D., and Marulanda, M.C., 2014. Holistic Evaluation of Seismic Risk in Barcelona. In: Assess-
ment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. 21–52.
Carreño, M.-L., Cardona, O.D., and Barbat, A.H., 2007. Urban Seismic Risk Evaluation: A Holistic Approach. Natural Hazards, 40(1),
137–172.
CI:GRASP, n.d. The Climate Impacts: Global and Regional Adaptation Support Platform. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/cigrasp-2/index.
html, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
Ciscar, J.C., Feyen, L., Soria, A., Lavalle, C., Raes, F., Perry, M., Nemry, F., Demirel, H., Rozsai, M., Dosio, A., Donatelli, M., Srivastava,
A., Fumagalli, D., Niemeyer, S., Shrestha, S., Ciaian, P., Himics, M., Van Doorslaer, B., Barrios, S., Ibáñez, N., Forzieri, G., Rojas, R.,
Bianchi, A., Dowling, P., Camia, A., Libertà, G., San Miguel, J., de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., Barredo, J., Paci, D., Pycroft, J., Saveyn, B.,
Van Regemorter, D., Revesz, T., Vandyck, T., Vrontisi, Z., Baranzelli, C., Vandecasteele, I., Batista e Silva, F., and Ibarreta, D., 2014.
Climate Impacts in Europe: The JRC PESETA II Project. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. Seville, Spain: Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Climate-ADAPT, n.d. European climate adaptation platform. http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
Cutter, S., Emrich, C.T., Mitchell, J.T., Boruff, B.J., Gall, M., Schmidtlein, M.C., and Burton, G.C., 2006. The Long Road Home: Race, Class,
and Recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Environment, 48(2), 8–20.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., and Shirley, W.L., 2003. Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2),
242–261.

121
 Cutter, S.L., Ismail-Zadeh, A., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Altan, O., Baker, D.N., Briceño, S., Gupta, H., Holloway, A., Johnston, D., McBean, G.A.,
Ogawa, Y., Paton, D., Porio, E., Silbereisen, R.K., Takeuchi, K., Valsecchi, G.B., Vogel, C., and Wu, G., 2015. Pool knowledge to stem
losses from disasters. Nature, (55), 277–279.
De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., Vernaccini, L., 2015. Index for Risk Management - INFORM. Concept and Methodology. EUR 26528EN,
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
Dilley, M., Chen, R.S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A.L., Arnold, M., Agwe, J., Buys, P., Kjekstad, O., Lyon, B., and Gregory, Y., 2005.
Natural Disaster Hotspots A Global Risk. Disaster Risk Management Series. Washington DC, USA.
EC, 2013. EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change.
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009. Managing supply-chain risk for reward. London. New York, Hong Kong.
EEA, 2012. Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe: An indicator-based report. Copenhagen, Denmark: European En-
vironment Agency.
EEA, 2017. Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe: An indicator-based report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
ESPON, 2011. ESPON CLIMATE-Climate Change and Territorial Effects on Regions and Local Economies. Luxembourg.
Fekete, A., 2009. Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Science, 9 (2), 393–403.
Fernandez, P., Mourato, S., and Moreira, M., 2016. Social vulnerability assessment of flood risk using GIS-based multicriteria deci-
sion analysis. A case study of Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal). Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7 (4), 1367–1389.
Fritzsche, K., Schneiderbauer, S., Bubeck, P., Kienberger, S., Buth, M., Zebisch, M., and Kahlenborn, W., 2014. The Vulnerability Source-
book: Concept and guidelines for standardised vulnerability assessments. Bonn and Eschborn.
Garschagen, M., 2014. Risky Change? Vulnerability and adaptation between climate change and transformation dynamics in Can
Tho City, Vietnam. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Greiving, S., Zebisch, M., Schneiderbauer, S., Fleischhauer, M., Lindner, C., Lückenkötter, J., Buth, M., Kahlenborn, W., and Schauser,
I., 2015. A consensus based vulnerability assessment to climate change in Germany. International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, 7(3), 306–326.
Hagenlocher, M., Delmelle, E., Casas, I., Kienberger, S., 2013. Assessing socioeconomic vulnerability to dengue fever in Cali, Colom-
bia: statistical vs expert-based modeling. International Journal of Health Geographics, 12- 36.
Hazus, n.d. Hazus: FEMA's Methodology for Estimating Potential Losses from Disasters. https://www.fema.gov/hazus, [accessed 06
April, 2017].
Hinkel, J., 2011. ‘Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity’: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Global
Environmental Change, 21(1), 198–208.
INFORM subnational models, n.d. INFORM Subnational risk index. http://www.inform-index.org/Subnational, [accessed 06 April,
2017].
INFORM, n.d. Index For Risk Management. http://www.inform-index.org/, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assess-
ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
IPCC, 2012a. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Cambridge UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
IPCC, 2012b. Summary for policymakers - Special report on managing the risk of extreme events and disasters to advance climate
change adaptation (SREX). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers.
Jansson, N.A.U., 2004. Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34, 434–456.
Johnson, C.W., 2007. Analysing the Causes of the Italian and Swiss Blackout, 28th September 2003. In: Tony Cant, ed. 12th Austral-
ian Conference on Safety Critical Systems and Software Conference. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Computer Society.
Kelman, I., Gaillard, J.C., Lewis, J., and Mercer, J., 2016. Learning from the history of disaster vulnerability and resilience research
and practice for climate change. Natural Hazards, 82(1), 129–143.
Kienberger, S., Contreras, D., and Zeil, P., 2014. Spatial and Holisitc Assessment of Social, Economic, and Environmental Vulnerabili-
ty to Floods – Lessons from the Salzach River Basin, Austria. In: J. Birkmann, S. Kienberger, and D. E. Alexander, eds. Assessment
of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A European Perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 53–73.
Kropp, J. p., Block, A., Reusswig, F., Zickfeld, K., and Schellnhuber, H.J., 2006. Semiquantitative Assessment of Regional Climate
Vulnerability: The North-Rhine Westphalia Study. Climatic Change, 76 (3-4), 265–290.
Mc Michael, A.J., 2013. Globalization, Climate Change, and Human Health. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368, 1335–1343.
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., and Thieken, A., 2010. Assessment of economic flood damage. Natural Hazards And Earth Sys-
tem Sciences, 10(8), 1697–1724.
Met Office and WFP, 2014. Climate impacts on food security and nutrition. A review of existing knowledge. Rome, Italy.
Meyer, V., Becker, N., Markantonis, V., Schwarze, R., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Bouwer, L.M., Bubeck, P., Ciavola, P., Genovese, E.,
Green, C., Hallegatte, S., Kreibich, H., Lequeux, Q., Logar, I., Papyrakis, E., Pfurtscheller, C., Poussin, J., Przylusky, V., Thieken, A.H.,
and Viavattene, C., 2013. Review article : Assessing the costs of natural hazards – state of the art and knowledge gaps, 13,
1351–1373.
Meyer, W., 2011. Measurement: Indicators – Scales – Indices – Interpretations. In: R. Stockmann, ed. A Practitioner Handbook on
Evaluation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 189–219.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC.
ND-GAIN , n.d. Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN). http://index.gain.org, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
Oppenheimer, M., Campos, M., R.Warren, Birkmann, J., Luber, G., O’Neill, B., and Takahashi, K., 2014. Emergent Risks and Key Vul-
nerabilities. In: C. B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C.
Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White, eds. Climate Change 2014: Impacts,

122
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA,:
Cambridge University Press, 1039–1099.
PBL, 2012. Effect of climate changes on waterborne disease in The Netherlands. The Hague.
Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C., and Mouton, F., 2009. Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the
Disaster Risk Index. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 9 (4), 1149–1159.
Pescaroli, G. and Alexander, D., 2016. Critical infrastructure, panarchies and the vulnerability paths of cascading disasters. Natural
Hazards, 82(1), 175–192.
Prutsch, A., Torsten Grothmann, Sabine McCallum, Inke Schauser, and Rob Swart, 2014. Climate change adaptation manual : les-
sons learned from European and other industrialised countries. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Robine, J.-M., Cheung, S.L.K., Le Roy, S., Van Oyen, H., Griffiths, C., Michel, J.-P., and Herrmann, F.R., 2008. Death toll exceeded 70,000
in Europe during the summer of 2003. Comptes rendus biologies, 331 (2), 171–8.
Schneiderbauer, S. and Ehrlich, D., 2006. Social Levels and Hazard (in)-Dependence. In: J. Birkmann, ed. Measuring Vulnerability to
Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Press, 78–102.
Schneiderbauer, S., Zebisch, M., Kass, S., and Pedoth, L., 2013. Assessment of vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change
in mountain environments. In: J. Birkmann, ed. Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies.
Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Press, 349 – 380.
Tas, M., Tas, N., Durak, S., and Atanur, G., 2013. Flood disaster vulnerability in informal settlements in Bursa, Turkey. Environment
and Urbanization, 25(2), 443–463.
Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., Mccarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello,
M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., and Schiller, A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8074–8079.
UK, 2016. UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017. Synthesis Report. London, UK.
UNDRO, 1984. Disaster Prevention and Mitigation: a Compendium of Current Knowledge. Volume 11. Geneva: United Nations, Office
of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator.
UNISDR, 2015a. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf, [accessed 04 April
2016].
UNISDR Terminology, 2017.https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology, [accessed 04 April, 2017].
UNISDR, 2015b. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction.
Wannewitz, S., Hagenlocher, M., Garschagen, M., 2016. Development and validation of a sub-national multi-hazard risk index for
the Philippines. GI_Forum – Journal for Geographic Information Science, 1, 133-140.
Welle, T. and Birkmann, J., 2015. The World Risk Index – An Approach to Assess Risk and Vulnerability on a Global Scale. Journal
of Extreme Events, 02 (01), 1550003.
Welle, T., Depietri, Y., Angignard, M., Birkmann, J., Renaud, F., and Greiving, S., 2014. Vulnerability Assessment to Heat Waves, Floods,
and Earthquakes Using the MOVE Framework: Test Case Cologne, Germany. In: J. Birkmann, S. Kienberger, and D. E. Alexander,
eds. Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A European Perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 91–124.
Wisner, B., 2016. Vulnerability as Concept , Model , Metric , and Tool. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science.
Oxford University Press, 1–58.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I., 2004. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. 2nd ed. Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Yusuf, A.A. and Francisco, H., 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. Singapore.

2.4. Recording disaster losses for improving risk modelling

Amadio, M., Mysiak, J., CarreraL., Koks, E., 2015. Improvements in Flood Risk Assessment: Evidence from Northern Italy. Review of
Environment, Energy and Economics (Re3).
Barbat, A., Carrenoa, M., Pujadesb, L., Lantadab, N., Cardona, O., Marulanda, M., 2010. Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation
methods for urban areas. A review with application to a pilot area. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 6(1–2), 17–38.
Barredo, J., 2009. Normalised flood losses in Europe: 1970–2006. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 97–104.
Benedetti, D., Benzoni, G., Parisi, M.A., 1988. Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation for old urban nuclei, Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics 16(2), 183–201.
Biass, S, Bonadonna, C, Di Traglia, F, Pistolesi, M, Rosi, M, Lestuzzi, P., 2016. Probabilistic evaluation of the physical impact of future
tephra fallout events for the Island of Vulcano, Italy. Bulletin of Volcanology 78, 37.
Cochrane, H. 1997. Indirect economic losses. In Development of Standardized Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. Vol. II.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Building Sciences.
Boisevert, R., 1992. Indirect losses from a catastrophic earthquake and the local, regional, and national interest. In Indirect Eco-
nomic Consequences of a Catastrophic Earthquake. Washington, D.C.: FEMA, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program.
Bolton, N. and L. Kimbell. 1995. The Economic and Demographic Impact of the Northridge Earthquake. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Population Association of America.
Brémond, P., Grelot, F., Agenais, A.L., 2013. Review Article: economic evaluation of flood damage to agriculture — review and
analysis of existing methods. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, European Geosciences Union, 13, 2493 — 2512.
Brookshire, D.S. and M. McKee. 1992. Other indirect costs and losses from earthquakes: issues and estimation. In Indirect Economic
Consequences of a Catastrophic Earthquake. Washington, D.C.: FEMA, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R., Lee, G., O’Rourke, T., Reinhorn, A., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W., Von Winterfeldt, D., 2003.
A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 19(4), 733–752.
Cepal NU, 2014. Handbook for disaster assessment, ECLAC.
Comerio, M., 1996. Disaster Hits Home. New Policy for Urban Housing Recovery. University of California Press.

123
 Conhaz project, 2016. https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=35939, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
Corsanego, A., 1991. Seismic vulnerability evaluation for risk assessment in Europe. Fourth International Conference on Seismic
Zonation, Standford.
Cozzani, V., Campedel, M., Renni, E., Krausmann, E., 2010. Industrial accidents triggered by flood events: Analysis of past accidents.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 175(1-3), 501–509.
Craig, H., Wilson, T., Stewart, C., Outes, V., Villarosa, G., Baxter, P., 2016. Impacts to agriculture and critical infrastructure in Argentina
after ashfall from the 2011 eruption of the Cordón Caulle volcanic complex: an assessment of published damage and function
thresholds, Journal of Applied Volcanology, 5(1), 7.
De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., Ehrlich, D., 2013. Recording Disasters Losses: Recommendation for a European Approach. EUR
26111 EN, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bit-
stream/111111111/29296/1/lbna26111enn.pdf, [accessed 06, April].
Direction Territoriale Méditerranée du Cerema, 2014. Retour d’expérience sur les inondations du département du Var les 18 et 19
janvier 2014 Volet 2 — Conséquences et examen des dommages. http://observatoire-regional-risques-paca.fr/sites/default/
files/rapport_rex83_2014_dommages_sept14_0.pdf, [accessed: 14 May 2015]
Elissondo, M., Baumann, V., Bonadonna, C., Pistolesi, M., Cioni, R., Bertagnini, A., Biass, S., Herrero, JC., Gonzalez, R., 2016. Chronology
and impact of the 2011 Cordón Caulle eruption, Chile. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 16, 675–704.
Ellison, R., J.W. Milliman, and R.B. Roberts. 1984. Measuring the regional economic effects of earthquakes and earthquake predic-
tions. Journal of Regional Science 24, 559–579.
EU expert working group on disaster damage and loss data, 2015. Guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage and loss
data. Towards the development of operational indicators to translate the Sendai Framework into action, EUR 27192 EN, Lux-
embourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
FAO, 2015. The impact of disasters on agriculture and food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Gautak, K., Van der Hoek, E., 2003. Literature study on environmental impact of floods, GeoDelft internal publication. http://
repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A4080519e-a46d-4e96-8524-62ee8fd93712?collection=research, [accessed 03
January, 2017].
GFDRR, 2013. Post-disaster needs assessment, Volume A, Guidelines, https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/PDNA-Volume-A.pdf,
[accessed 12 January, 2017].
Grandjean. P., 2014. Science for precautionary decision-making, In: EEA, Some emerging issues, Late lessons from early warnings:
science, precaution, innovation.
Green, C., Viavattene, C., and Thompson, P.: Guidance for assessing flood losses, CONHAZ Report, http://conhaz.org/ CONHAZ %20
REPORT %20WP06 1.pdf, 2011, [accessed 12 January, 2017].
Guéguen P., Michel C., LeCorre L., 2007. A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard
regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 5(3), 467–490.
Guimares, P., Hefner, F.L., Woodward, D.P., 1993. Wealth and income effects of natural disasters: an econometric analysis of Hur-
ricane Hugo. Review of Regional Studies 23, 97–114.
Hallegatte, S. 2008. An adaptive regional input-output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina.
Risk Analysis 28(3), 779–799.
Hallegatte, S., Hourcade, J.-C., Dumas, P. 2007. Why economic dynamics matter in assessing climate change damages: illustration
on extreme events, Ecological Economics 62(2), 330-340.
Hubert, G., Ledoux, B., 1999. Le coût du risque… L’évaluation des impacts socio-économiques des inondations, Presses de l’Ecole
nationale Ponts et Chaussées, Paris [in French].
Idea, 2015. www.ideaproject.polimi.it, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
Jongman, B., Kreibich, H., Apel, H., Barredo, J.I., Bates, P.D., Feyen, L., Gericke, A., Neal, J., Aerts, C.J.H., Ward, P.J., 2012. Comparative
flood damage model assessment: towards a European approach. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12, 3733–3752.
Kimbell, L., Bolton, N., 1994. The impact of the Northridge Earthquake on the economies of California and Los Angeles. Paper pre-
sented to the Seismic Safety Commission of the State of California, Burbank.
Krausmann, E., Cruz, A.M., Affeltranger, B., 2010. The impact of the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake on industrial facilities, Loss
Prevention in the Process Industry.
Lagomarsino, S. and Giovinazzi, S., 2006. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of
current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 4, 415-443.
Magill, C., Wilson, T.M., Okada, T., 2013. Observations of tephra fall impacts from the 2011 Shinmoedake eruption, Japan. The
Earth, Planets and Space 65, 677–698.
Marrero, J. M., García, A., Llinares, A., De la Cruz-Reyna, S., Ramos, S., Ortiz, R., 2013. Virtual tools for volcanic crisis management,
and evacuation decision support: applications to El Chichón volcano (Chiapas, México). Natural hazards, 68(2), 955-980.
Marsh, A., 2015. Decade of Advances In Catastrophe Modeling and Risk Financing, Insights. http://www.oliverwyman.com/content/
dam/marsh/Documents/PDF/US-en/A %20Decade %20of %20Advances %20In %20Catastrophe %20Modeling %20and %20
Risk %20Financing-10-2015.pdf, [accessed 17 February, 2017].
MATRIX project, 2013. http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
McEntire, D., 2005. Why vulnerability matters: Exploring the merit of an inclusive disaster reduction concept. Disaster Prevention
and Management: An International Journal 14(2), 206 — 222.
Mei, E., Lavigne, F., Picquout, A., de Bélizal, E., Brunstein, D., Grancher, D., Sartohadi, J., Cholik, N., Vidal, C., 2013. Lessons learned
from the 2010 evacuations at Merapi volcano. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 261, 348–365.
Menoni, S., Atun, F., Molinari, D., Minucci, G., Berni, N., 2017. Defining complete post flood scenarios to support risk mitigation strate-
gies. In Molinari, D., Ballio, F., Menoni, S. (Eds.). Flood Damage Survey and Assessment: New Insights from Research and Practice.
Wiley, AGU (American Geophysical Union) series.
Menoni, S., Pergalani, F., Boni, M. P., Petrini, V., 2007. Lifelines earthquake vulnerability assessment: a systemic approach, In: Linkov,
I., Wenning, R., Kiker, G. (Eds). Risk Management Tools For Port Security, Critical Infrastructure, and Sustainability, pp. 111-132.

124
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., Thieken, A., 2010. Assessment of economic flood damage, Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences 10, 1697–1724.
Meyer, V., Schwarze, R., Becker, N., Markantonis, V., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Bouwer, L.M., Bubeck, P., Ciavola, P., Genovese, E., Green,
C., Hallegatte, S., Kreibich, H., Lequeux, Q., Logar, I., Papyrakis, E., Pfurtscheller, C., Poussin, J., Przyluski, V., Thieken, A., Viavattene,
C., 2015. Assessing the Costs of Natural Hazards — State of the Art and the Way Forward. Wiley&Sons.
Miavita project, n.d. http://miavita.brgm.fr/default.aspx, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
Ministère chargé de l’environnement-DPPR / SEI / BARPI, 2005. Inspection des installations classées, L’impact des inondations sur
des établissements SEVESO, Séries d’événements de 1993 à 2003 Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Languedoc-Roussillon, France.
Ministére de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable, 2005. Réduire la vulnérabilité des reseaux urbains aux inondations, Rapport,
Novembre.
Nanto, D., Cooper, W., Donnelly, M., Johnson, R. (2011). Japan’s 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami: Economic Effects and Implications
for the United States. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, 7-5700 -www.crs.gov-R41702.
Newhall, C.G. and Punongbayan R.S. (Eds.), 1997. Fire and Mud. Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, University of
Washington Press.
OECD, 2012. Global Modelling of Natural Hazard Risks. Enhancing Existing Capabilities to Address New Challenges. Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Park, J., Seager, T. P., Rao, P.S.C., Convertino, M., Linkov, I., 2013. Integrating Risk and Resilience Approaches to Catastrophe Manage-
ment in Engineering Systems, Risk Analysis 33(3).
Pesaro, G., 2007. Prevention and mitigation of the territorial impacts of natural hazards: The contribution of economic and pub-
lic-private cooperation instruments. In: Aven, T., Vinnem, E., (Eds.). Risk, Reliability and Societal Safety, Chapter: Volume 1 —
Specialisation Topics. Publisher: Taylor&Francis, pp.603-612.
Petrini, V., 1996. Overview report in vulnerability assessment. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Seismic
Zonation, Nice, France, October 1995, Edition Ouést, Paris.
Pitilakis, K.P., Franchin,B., Khazai, H., Wenzel, H., (Eds.), 2014. SYNER-G: Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of
Complex Urban, Utility, Lifeline systems, and critical facilities. Methdologies and Applications. Springer.
Pitt, M., 2008. The Pitt review: learning lessons from the 2007 floods. http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview/
final_report.html, [accessed 05 May 2015].
Rose, A. and J. Benavides. 1997. Inter-industry models for analyzing the economic impact of earthquakes and recovery policies:
Illustrative examples [7/93; revised 11/93]. In Advances in Social Science Analysis of Earthquakes, B. Jones, ed. Buffalo, N.Y.:
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Scawthorn, C., 2008. A Brief History of Seismic Risk Assessment. In: Bostrom, A., French, S., Gottlieb, S., (Eds.), Risk Assessment,
Modeling, and Decision Support, Strategic Directions. Springer.
Senouci, A., Bard, Y., Naboussi Farsi, M., Beck, E., Cartier, S., 2013. Robustness and uncertainties of seismic damage estimates at
urban scale: a methodological comparison on the example of the city of Oran (Algeria). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11,
1191–1215.
Spence, R., Kelman, I., Baxter, P., Zuccaro, G., Petrazzuoli, S., 2005. Residential building and occupant vulnerability to tephra fall.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 5:4, 477-494
Spence, R., Pomonis, A., Baxter, P.J., Coburn, A., White, M., Dayrit, M., and Field Epidemiology Training Program Team, 1997. Building
Damage Caused by the Mount Pinatubo Eruption of June 15, 1991, In: Newhall, C.G. and Punongbayan R.S. (Eds.), 1997. Fire
and Mud. Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. University of Washington Press.
Suzuki, K., 2008. Earthquake damage to industrial facilities and development of seismic and vibration control technology. Journal
of System design and dynamics 2(1), 2-11.
Syner-G project, 2014. http://www.vce.at/SYNER-G/, [accessed 06 April, 2017].
Theocharidou, M., Giannopoulos, G., 2015. Risk assessment methodologies for critical infrastructure protection. Part II: A new ap-
proach. EUR 27332 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Thieken, A. H., Olschewski, A., Kreibich, H., Kobsch, S., Merz, B., 2008. Development and evaluation of FLEMOps — a new Flood Loss
Estimation Model for the private sector. In: Proverbs, D., Brebbia, C. A., Penning-Rowsell E., (Eds.) Flood recovery, innovation and
response, WIT Press, Southampton, UK.
Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N. Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello,
M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., Schiller A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainable science. PNAS, 100(14),
8074-8079.
Van der Veen, A., Logtmeijer, C. 2005. Economic hotspots: visualizing vulnerability to flooding. Natural hazards 36 (1-2), 65-80.
Van der Veen, A., Vetere Arellano, L., Nordvik, J.P., (Eds.), 2003. In search of a common methodology on damage estimation, EUR
20997 EN, European Communities, Italy
West, C.T., 1996. Indirect economic impacts of natural disasters: policy implications of recent research and experience. In: Proceed-
ings of Analyzing Economic Impacts and Recovery from Urban Earthquakes: Issues for Policy Makers. Conference presented by
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Pasadena, Calif.
West, C.T., and D.C. Lenze. 1994. Modeling the regional impact of natural disaster and recovery: a general framework and an ap-
plication to Hurricane Andrew. International Regional Science Review 17,121–150
Wilson, G., Wilson, T.M., Deligne, N.I., Cole, J.W., 2014. Volcanic hazard impacts to critical infrastructure: A review, Journal of Volcan-
ology and Geothermal Research, 286, 148-182.
Wilson, T., Cole, J., Johnston, D., Cronin, S., Stewart C., Dantas A., 2012. Short- and long-term evacuation of people and livestock
during a volcanic crisis: lessons from the 1991 eruption of Volcán Hudson, Chile. Journal of Applied Volcanology Society and
Volcanoes 1(2).
Wilson, T., Stewart, C., Bickerton, H., Baxter, P., Outes, V., Villarosa, G., Rovere, E., 2013. Impacts of the June 2011 Puyehue-Cordón
Caulle volcanic complex eruption on urban infrastruc-ture, agriculture and public health, GNS Science, New Zealand, GNS Sci-
ence Report 2012/20, 88 pp.

125
 WMO, 2007. Conducting flood loss assessment. A tool for integrated flood management. APFM Technical Document n.7, Flood
Management Tools Series, World Meteorological Organisation.
Yamano, N., Kajitani, Y., Shumuta, Y., 2007. Modeling the Regional Economic Loss of Natural Disasters: The Search for Economic
Hotspots, Economic Systems Research 19(2), 163-181.
Zonno, G., Cella, F., Luzi L., Menoni, S., Meroni, F., Ober, G., Pergalani, F., Petrini, V., Tomasoni, R., Carrara, P., Musella, D., García-Fernán-
dez, M., Jiménez, M.J., Canas, J.A., Alfaro, A.J., Barbat, A.H., Mena, U., Pujades, L.G., Soeters, R., Terlien, M.T.J., Cherubini, A., An-
geletti, P., Di Benedetto, A., Caleffi, M., Wagner, J.J. and Rosset, P., 1998. Assesing seismic risk at different geographical scales:
concepts, tools and procedures. In: Bisch, Ph., Labbé, P., Pecker, A. (eds). Proc. of the XI Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
CD-ROM, Balkema, Rotterdam.

2.5. Where are we with multihazards and multirisks assessment capacities?

Abad, J.,2013. Fragility of pre-damaged elements: realisation of fragility functions of elements pre-damaged by other past events
and demonstration on a scenario. European Commission project MATRIX (New methodologies for multi-hazard and multi-risk
assessment methods for Europe), Project No 265138, D4.2.
Aubrecht, C., Freire, S., Neuhold, C., Curtis, A., Steinnocher, K., 2012. Introducing a temporal component in spatial vulnerability anal-
ysis. Disaster Advances, 5(2), 48-53.
Balica, S.F., Douben, N., Wright, N.G., 2009. Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales. Water Science and Technology
60(10), 2571-2580.
Barroca, B., Bernardara, P., Mouchel, J.M., Hubert, G., 2006. Indicators for identification of urban flooding vulnerability. Natural Haz-
ards and Earth System Sciences 6, 553-561.
Bazzurro, P., Cornell, C.A., Menun, C.Motahari, M. 2004. Guidelines for seismic assessment of damaged buildings. 13th World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Paper 1708.
Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreno, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., Kienberger, S., Keiler, M., Alexander, D., Zeil,
P. Welle, T. 2013. Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Natural Hazards 67(2), 193-211.
Bucchignani, E., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Montesarchio, M. 2014. Climate-related extreme events with high-resolution regional simu-
lations: assessing the effects of climate change scenarios in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk,
1351-1362.
Cannon, A., 2010. A flexible nonlinear modelling framework for nonstationary generalised extreme value analysis in hydroclimatol-
ogy. Hydrological Processes 24(6), 673-685.
Cannon, S., De Graff, J., 2009. The increasing wildfire and post-fire debris-flow threat in western USA, and implications for conse-
quences of climate change. In: Sassa, K., Canuti, P.(eds). Landslides — disaster risk reduction, Springer, 177-190.
Cardona, O. D., Van Aalst, M.M., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Puhwarty, R.S., Schipper, E.L.F., Sinh, B.T., 2012.
Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate
change adaptation. Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K.,
Allen, S.K., Tignor, M.,Midgley, P.M. (eds.).A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 65-108.
Cariam, 2006. Plans de prévention des risques naturels prévisibles (ppr) — Cahier de recommandations sur le contenu des ppr.
Tech. rep., Ministère de l’Écologie et du Développement Durable (in French).
Carpignano, A., Golia, E., Di Mauro, C., Bouchon, S., Nordvik, J.-P. 2009. A methodological approach for the definition of multi-risk
maps at regional level: first application. Journal of Risk Research 12(3-4), 513.
Chester, D.K. 1993. Volcanoes and society, E. Arnold, London, United Kingdom.
Choe, D.E., Gardoni, P., Rosowski, D., 2010. Fragility increment functions for deteriorating reinforced concrete bridge columns.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 136(8), 969.
Choine, M.N., O’Connor, A., Gehl, P., D’Ayala, D., Garcia-Fernández, M., Jiménez, M., Gavin, K., Van Gelder, P., Salceda, T., Power, R.,
2015. A multihazard risk assessment methodology accounting for cascading hazard events. 12th International Conference on
Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP12, Vancouver, Canada.
Coburn, A.W., Bowman, G., Ruffle, S.J., Foulser-Piggott, R., Ralph, D., Tuveson, M., 2014. A taxonomy of threats for complex risk
management. Cambridge Risk Framework series, Centre for Risk Studies, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Coles, S., 2001. An introduction to statistical modelling of extreme values. Springer Series in Statistics, Springer, London, United
Kingdom, limited.
Collins, T., Grinseki, S., Romo Aguilar, M. 2009. Vulnerability to environmental hazards in the Ciudad Juárez (Mexico) — El Paso
(USA) metropolis: a model for spatial risk assessment in transnational context. Applied Geography 29, 448.
De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., Vernaccini, L., 2015. Index for risk management — INFORM: concept and methodology, Version 2016.
EUR 27521 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Del Monaco, G., Margottini, C., Serafini, S., 1999. Multi-hazard risk assessment and zoning: an integrated approach for incorporating
natural disaster reduction into sustainable development. TIGRA project (ENV4-CT96-0262) summary report.
Del Monaco, G., Margottini, C., Spizzichino, D., 2007. Armonia methodology for multi-risk assessment and the harmonisation of
different natural risk maps. In: Armonia: applied multi-risk mapping of natural hazards for impact assessment, European Com-
mission project, Contract 511208.
De Pippo, T., Donadio, C., Pennetta, M., Petrosino, C., Terizzi, F., Valente, A., 2008. Coastal hazard assessment and mapping in north-
ern Campania, Italy. Geomorphology 97(3-4), 451-466.
Dessai, S., Hulme, M., Lempert, R. Pielke, R., 2009. Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation. In: Adger, N., Lorenzoni, I. and O’Brien,
K.(Eds.). Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Dilley, M., Chen, U., Deichmann, R.S., Lerner-Lam, A. Arnold, M., 2005. Natural disaster hotspots: global risk analysis. Disaster Risk
Management Series 5, The World Bank.
El Adlouni, S., Ouarda, T., Zhang, X., Roy, R., Bobée, B. 2007. Generalised maximum likelihood estimators for the nonstationary gen-

126
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

eralized extreme value model. Water Resources Research 43(3), 410.

European Commission, 2000. Temrap: the European multi-hazard risk assessment project. DG XII, Environment and Climate Pro-
gramme, contract ENV4-CT97-0589.
European Commission, 2010. Risk assessment and mapping guidelines for disaster management. Staff Working Paper, SEC(2010)
1626 final.
FEMA, 2011. Getting started with HAZUS-MH 2.1. Tech. rep. United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Fleming, K., Parolai, S., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Tyagunov S., Vorogushyn, S., Kreibich, H., Mahlke, H., 2016. Harmonising and compar-
ing single-type natural hazard risk estimations. Annals of Geophysics 59(2), So216.
Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Almeida, M., Aubrecht, C., Polese, M., Ribeiro, L.M., Viegas D. Zuccaro, G. 2014. Assessment and management
of cascading effects triggering forest fires. In: Viegas, D. Advances in forest fire research, 1073.
Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Bucchignani, E., Manzi, M. 2016. Patterns in climate-related parameters as proxy for rain-fall deficiency and
aridity: application to Burkina Faso. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineer-
ing 3(1).
Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Bucchignani, E., Palazzi, E., D’Onofrio, D., Gasparini, P., Marzocchi, W., 2015b. Analysis of non-stationary cli-
mate-related extreme events considering climate change scenarios: an application for multi-hazard assessment in the Dar Es
Salaam region, Tanzania. Natural Hazards 75(1), 289-320.
Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Di Ruocco, A., Marzocchi, W., 2013. Naples test case. European Commission project MATRIX, Project No.
265138, D7.3.
Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Gasparini, P., Uhinga, G. 2015a. Multi-risk assessment as a tool for decision-making. In: Pauleit et al. (Eds).
Urban vulnerability and climate change in Africa: a multidisciplinary approach. Future City 4(7), Springer, 229-258.
Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Marzocchi, W., 2013. Software for multi-hazard assessment. European Commission project MATRIX, Project
No. 265138, D 3.5.
Gasparini, P., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., 2014. Seismic risk assessment, cascading effects. In: Beer, M., Patelli, E., Kougioumtzoglou, I.,
Au, I. (Eds.).Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1-20.
Gencer, E. A. 2013. The impact of globalisation on disaster risk trends: macro- and urban-scale analysis. Background paper pre-
pared for the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013, UNISDR, Geneva.
Ghosh, J., Padgett, J.E., 2010. Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves. Journal of
Structural Engineering 136(12), 1497.
Gill, J.C., Malamud, B.D., 2014. Reviewing and visualising the interactions of natural hazards. Reviews of Geophysics 52, 680.
Gill, J.C., Malamud, B.D., 2016. Hazard Interactions and interaction networks (cascades) within multi-hazard methodologies, Earth
System Dynamics 7, 659.
Giorgio, M., Guida, M. Pulcini, G., 2011. An age- and state-dependent Markov model for degradation processes. IIE Transaction
43(9), 621.
Greiving, S., 2006. Integrated risk assessment of multi-hazards: a new methodology. In: Schmidt-Thomé, P. (Ed.). Natural and
Technological Hazards and Risks Affecting the Spatial Development of European Regions. Geological Survey of Finland 42, 75.
Grünthal, G., 1998. European macroseismic scale. Cahiers du Centre Europeén de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15, Luxem-
bourg.
Grünthal, G., Thieken, A., Schwarz, J., Radtke, K., Smolka, A. Merz, B. 2006. Comparative risk assessment for the city of Cologne —
Storms, floods, earthquakes. Natural Hazards 38(1-2), 21-44.
Haasnoot, M., Middelkoop, H., Offermans, A., van Beek, E., Van Deursen, W.P.A., 2012. Exploring pathways for sustainable water
management in river deltas in a changing environment. Climate Change 115(3), 795-819.
Iervolino, I., Giorgio, M., Chioccarelli, E., 2013. Gamma degradation models for earthquake-resistant structures. Structural . Safety
45, 48-58.
Iervolino, I., Giorgio, M., Chioccarelli, E., 2015a. Age- and state-dependent seismic reliability of structures. 12th International Con-
ference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. ICASP12, Vancouver, Canada.
Iervolino, I., Giorgio, M., Polidoro, B., 2015b. Reliability of structures to earthquake clusters. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
13, 983-1002.
IPCC, 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working
Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi,
K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.).Cambridge University Press.
IPCC, 2014. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, K., Hall, J., Glenis, V., Kilsby, C., McCarthy, M., Goodess, C., Smith, D., Malleson, N., Birkin, M., 2014. Probabilistic spatial risk
assessment of heat impacts and adaptations for London. Climate Change 124(1), 105-117.
Jurgilevich, A., Räsänen, A., Groundstroem F., Juhola, S., 2017. A systematic review of dynamics in climate risk and vulnerability
assessments. Environmental Research Letters 12(1), 013002.
Kappes, S.M., Keiler, M., Von Elverfeldt, K. Glade, T., 2012. Challenges of analysing multi-hazard risk: a review. Natural Hazards
64(2), 1925-1958.
Kappes, S.M., Keiler, M., Glade, T., 2010. From single- to multi-hazard risk analyses: a concept addressing emerging challenges.
In:Malet, J.P., Glade, T., Casagli, N., (Eds.). Mountain risks: bringing science to society. CERG Editions, Strasbourg, France, p.351.
Kappes, S.M., Papathoma-Köhle, M., Keiler, M., 2011. Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator- based
methodology. Applied Geography 32(2), 577-590.
Karapetrou, S.T., Filippa, A.M., Fotopoulou, S.D., Pitilakis, 2013. Time-dependent vulnerability assessment of rc-buildings considering
ssi and aging effects. In Papadrakis, M., Papadopoulos, V. and Plevris V., (Eds.). 4th Eccomas Thematic Conference on Computa-
tional Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
Komendantova, N., Mrzyglocki, R., Mignan, A., Khazai, B., Wenzel, F., Patt, A., Fleming, K., 2014. Multi-hazard and multi-risk deci-

127
 sion-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: feedback from civil protection stakeholders. International Journal
of Disaster Risk Reduction 8, 50-67.
Komendantova, N., Scolobig, A., Vinchon, C., 2013a. Multi-risk approach in centralized and decentralized risk governance systems:
case studies of Naples, Italy and Guadeloupe, France. International Relations and Diplomacy 1(3), 224-239.
Komendantova, N., Scolobig, A., Monfort, D., Fleming, K., 2016. Multi-risk approach and urban resilience Multi-risk approach and
urban resilience. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 7(2), 114-132.
Komendantova, N., van Erp, N., van Gelder, P., Patt, A., 2013 b. Individual and cognitive barriers to effective multi-hazard and mul-
ti-risk decision-making governance. European Commission project MATRIX, Project N 265138, D 6.2.
Kunz, M., Hurni, L., 2008. Hazard maps in Switzerland: state-of-the-art and potential improvements. In: Proceedings of the 6th ICA
Mountain Cartography Workshop. Lenk, Switzerland.
Lazarus, N., 2011. Coping capacities and rural livelihoods: challenges to community risk management in southern Sri Lanka. Ap-
plied Geography 31(1), 20-34.
Lee, K., Rosowsky, D., 2006. Fragility analysis of woodframe buildings considering combined snow and earthquake loading. Struc-
tural Safety 28(3), 289-303.
Liu, B., Siu, Y.L., Mitchell, G., 2016. Hazard interaction analysis for multi-hazard risk assessment: a systematic classification based
on hazard-forming environment. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 16, 629-642.
Liu, Z., Nadim, F., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Mignan, A., Fleming, K., Luna, B., 2015. A three-level framework for multi-risk assessment.
Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 9(2), 59-74.
Loat, R., 2010. Risk management of natural hazards in Switzerland. Tech. rep. Federal Office for the Environment FOEN.
Luino, F., 2005. Sequence of instability processes triggered by heavy rainfall in the northern Italy. Geomorphology 66(1-4), 13-39.
Marulanda, M.C., Tibaduiza, M.L.C., Cardona, O.D., Barbat, A.H., 2013. Probabilistic earthquake risk assessment using CAPRA: appli-
cation to the city of Barcelona, Spain. Natural Hazards, 69(1), 59-84.
Marzocchi, W., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Gasparini, P., Mastellone, M. L., Di Ruocco, A., 2012. Basic principles of multi-risk assessment:
a case study in Italy. Natural Hazards 62(2), 551-573.
Marzocchi, W., Mastellone, M., Di Ruocco, A., Novelli, P., Romeo, E., Gasparini, P., 2009. Principles of multi-risk assessment: interac-
tions amongst natural and man-induced risks. Tech. rep. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Environment
Directorate.
Marzocchi, W., Sandri, L, Gasparini, P., Newhall, C., Boschi, E., 2004. Quantifying probabilities of volcanic events: the example of
volcanic hazard at Mount Vesuvius. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, B11201.
Marzocchi, W., Sandri, L., Selva, J., 2008. BET_EF: a probabilistic tool for long- and short-term eruption forecasting. Bulletin of
Volcanology Bulletin of Volcanology 70, 623.
Marzocchi, W., Sandri, L., Selva, J., 2010. BET_VH: a probabilistic tool for long-term volcanic hazard assessment. Bulletin of Vol-
canology 72, 717.
Middelmann, M., Granger, K., 2000. Community Risk in Mackay: a multi-hazard risk assessment. Tech. rep., Australian Geological
Survey Organisation (AGSO).
Mignan, A., 2013. MATRIX -CITY user manual. European Commission project MATRIX, Project No 265138, D 7.2.
Mignan, A., Wiemer, S., Giardini, D., 2014. The quantification of low-probability-high-consequences events: Part 1, a generic mul-
ti-risk approach. Natural Hazards 73(3), 1999-2022.
Müller, A., Reiter, J., Weiland, U., 2011. Assessment of urban vulnerability towards floods using an indicator-based approach - a case
study for Santiago de Chile. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11, 2107.
Münzberg, T., Wiens, M., Schultmann, F., 2014. Dynamic-spatial vulnerability assessments: a methodical review for decision support
in emergency planning for power outages. Procedia Engineering 78, 78-87.
Neri, M., Aspinall, W., Bertagnini, A., Baxter, P.J., Zuccaro, G., Andronico, D., Barsotti, S., D Cole, P., Ongaro, T.E., Hincks, T., Macedonio,
G., Papale, P. Rosi, M., Santacroce, R., Woo, G., 2008. Developing an event tree for probabilistic hazard and risk assessment at
Vesuvius. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 178(3), 397-415.
Neri, M., Le Cozannet, G., Thierry, P., Bignami, C., Ruch, J., 2013. A method for multi-hazard mapping in poorly known volcanic areas:
an example from Kanlaon (Philippines). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13,1929-2013.
Newhall, C., Hoblitt, R., 2002. Constructing event trees for volcanic crises. A method for multi-hazard mapping in poorly known
volcanic areas: an example from Kanlaon (Philippines). Bulletin of Volcanology 64, 3.
Nicholls, R. J., Cazenave, A., 2010. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science 328 (5985), 1517-1520.
O ´Neill, B.C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K.L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T.R., Mathur, R., 2014. A new scenario framework for climate
change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climate Change, 122(3), 387-400.
Oppenheimer, M., Campos, M., Warren, R., Birkmann, J., Luber, G., O ´Neill, B., Takahashi, K., 2014. Emergent risks and key vulner-
abilities. In Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A. global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C.B., Barros, V.R.,
Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S.,
Levy, A.H., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L., (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, New York, United States, pp1039.
Ouarda, T., El Adlouni, S., 2011. Bayesian nonstationary frequency analysis of hydrological variables. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 47(3), 496-505.
Papathoma, M., Dominey-Howes, D., 2003. Tsunami vulnerability assessment and its implications for coastal hazard analysis and
disaster management planning, Gulf of Corinth, Greece. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 3, 733-747.
Papathoma, M., Dominey-Howes, D., Zong, Y., Smith, D., 2003. Assessing tsunami vulnerability, an example from Herakleio, Crete.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 3, 377-389.
Papathoma-Köhle, M., 2016. Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for
debris-flow hazards. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 16, 1771-1790.
Papathoma-Köhle, M., Neuhäuser, B., Ratzinger, K., Wenzel, H., Dominey-Howes, D., 2007. Elements at risk as a framework for as-

128
 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES

sessing the vulnerability of communities to landslides. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 7, 765-779.
Pescaroli, G., Alexander, D., 2015. A definition of cascading disasters and cascading effects: going beyond the ‘ toppling dominos’
metaphor. Planet@Risk 3(1), 58.
Petitta, M., Calmanti, S., Cucchi, M., 2016. The extreme climate index: a novel and multi-hazard index for extreme wheather events.
Geophysical Research Abstracts 18, EGU2016 — 13861, EGU General Assembly 2016.
Polese, M., Di Ludovico, M., Prota, A., Manfredi, G., 2012. Damage-dependent vulnerability curves for existing buildings. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 42(6), 853–870.
Polese, M., Marcolini, M., Zuccaro, G., Cacace F., 2015. Mechanism based assessment of damage-dependent fragility curves for rc
building classes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13(5), 1323–1345.
Sanchez-Silva, M., Klutke, G.A., Rosowsky, D.V., 2011. Life-Cycle Performance of Structures Subject to Multiple Deterioration Mech-
anisms. Structural Safety 33(3), 206–217.
Schmidt, J., Matcham, I., Reese, S., King, A., Bell, R., Smart, G., Cousins, J., Smith, W., Heron, D., 2011. Quantitative Multi-Risk Analysis
for Natural Hazards: A Framework for Multi-Risk Modelling. Natural Hazards 58, 1169.
Schmidt-Thomé, P., (Ed.), 2005. The Spatial Effects of Management of Natural and Technological Hazards in Europe — Final Report
of the European Spatial Planning and Observation Network (ESPON) Project 1.3.1. Geological Survey of Finland.
Scolobig, A., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Komendantova, N., Patt, A., Di Ruocco, A., Gasparini, P., Monfort, D., Vinchon, C., Bengoubou-Vale-
rius, M., Mrzyglocki, R., Fleming, K., 2013. From Multi-Risk Assessment to Multi-Risk Governance: Recommendations for Future
Directions. Chapter prepared for the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015, UNISDR.
Scolobig, A., Garcia-Aristizabal, A., Komendantova, N., Patt, A., Di Ruocco, A., Gasparini, P., Monfort, D., Vinchon, C., Bengoubou-Vale-
rius, M., Mrzyglocki, R., Fleming, K., 2014a. From Multi-Risk Assessment to Multi-Risk Governance: Recommendations for Future
Directions. In: Understanding Risk: The Evolution of Disaster Risk Assessment. International Bank for Reconstruction and Devel-
opment, Washington DC, Chapter 3-20, pp163.
Scolobig, A., Komendantova, N., Patt, A., Vinchon, C., Monfort-Climent, D., Begoubou-Valerius, M., Gasparini, P., Di Ruocco, A., 2014b.
Multi-Risk Governance for Natural Hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe. Natural Hazards 73(3), 1523-1545.
Seidou, O., Ramsay, A., Nistor, I., 2011. Climate Change Impacts on Extreme Floods II: Improving Flood Future Peaks Simulation
Using Non-Stationary Frequency Analysis. Natural Hazards 60(2), 715–726.
Seidou, O., Ramsay, A., Nistor, I., 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Extreme Floods I: Combining Imperfect Deterministic Simula-
tions and Non-Stationary Frequency Analysis. Natural Hazards, 61(2), 647-659.
Self, S., 2006. The Effects and Consequences of Very Large Explosive Volcanic Eruptions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 364(1845), 2073.
Selva, J., 2013. Long-Term Multi-Risk Assessment: Statistical Treatment of Interaction among Risks. Natural Hazards 67(2), 701-
722.
Selva, J., Marzocchi, W., Papale, P., Sandri, L., 2012. Operational Eruption Forecasting at High-Risk Volcanoes: The Case of Campi
Flegrei, Naples. Journal of Applied Volcanology, Society and Volcanoes, 1, 5.
Siliverstovs, B., Ötsch, R., Kemfert, C., Jaeger, C.C., Haas, A., Kremers, H., 2010. Climate Change and Modelling of Extreme Temper-
atures in Switzerland. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 24(2), 311-326.
Silva, M., Pareira, S., 2014. Assessment of Physical Vulnerability and Potential Losses of Buildings due to Shallow Slides. Natural
Hazards 72(2), 1029-1050.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L., (Eds.), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sperling, M., Berger, E., Mair, V., Bussadori, V., Weber, F., 2007. Richtlinien zur Erstellung der Gefahrenzonenpläne (GZP) und zur
Klassifizierung des spezifischen Risikos (KSR). Tech. rep., Autonome Provinz Bozen, (in German).
Sterlacchini, S., Frigerio, S., Giacomelli, P., Brambilla, M., 2007. Landslide Risk Analysis: A Multi-Disciplinary Methodological Ap-
proach. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 7, 657-675.
Tarvainen, T., Jarva, J., Greiving, S., 2006. Spatial Pattern of Hazards and Hazard Interactions in Europe. In: Natural and Technolog-
ical Hazards and Risks Affecting the Spatial Development of European Regions. Schmidt-Thomé, P. (Ed.), Geological Survey of
Finland, Special Paper 42, 83.
Tyagunov, S., Grünthal, G., Wahlström, R., Stempniewski, L., Zschau, J., 2006. Seismic Risk Mapping for Germany. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences 6, 573-586.
UN, 2002, Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Tech. rep. United Nations.
UNEP, 1992. Agenda 21. Tech. rep. United Nations Environment Programme.
UNISDR, 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. http://
www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf, [accessed 04 April 2016].
UNISDR, 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduc-
tion. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf, [accessed 04 April 2016].
Van Westen, C., Montoya, A., Boerboom, L., Badilla Coto, E., 2002. Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment Using GIS in Urban Areas: A Case
Study for the City of Turrialba, Costa Rica. In:Regional Workshop on Best Practices in Disaster Mitigation: Lessons Learned from
the Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program and other Initiatives. Proceedings, Bali, Indonesia, pp120.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People`s Vulnerability and Disasters. New York, Routledge.
Xu, L., Meng, X., Xu, X., 2014. Natural Hazard Chain Research in China: A Review. Natural Hazards 70(2), 1631-1659.
Yalciner, H., Sensoy, S., Eren, O., 2012. Time-Dependent Seismic Performance Assessment of a Single-Degree-of-Freedom Frame
Subject to Corrosion. Engineering Failure Analysis, 19, 109.
Zentel, K.-O., Glade, T., 2013. International Strategies for Disaster Reduction (IDNDR and ISDR). In:Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards.
Bobrowsky, P.T., (Ed.), pp552.
Zschau, J., Fleming, K., (2012). Natural Hazards: Meeting the Challenges of Risk Dynamics and Globalisation, in ‘ Improving the
Assessment of Disaster Risks to Strengthen Financial Resilience’, World Bank and Government of Mexico, Editors, Chapter 9,
Germany, ‘Experiences in Disaster Risk Management within the German Development Cooperation’, Neutze F., Lutz, W., (Eds.),

129
 pp163.
Zuccaro, G., Gacace, F., Spence, R., Baxter, P., 2008. Impact of Explosive Eruption Scenarios at Vesuvius. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research 178(3), 416-453.
Zuccaro, G., Leone, M., 2011. Volcanic Crisis Management and Mitigation Strategies: A Multi-Risk Framework Case Study. Earthzine
4.

130