Abstract
Abstract. In a cross-disciplinary study, we carried out an extensive literature review to increase understanding of vulnerability indicators used in the disciplines of earthquake- and flood vulnerability assessments. We provide insights into potential improvements in both fields by identifying and comparing quantitative vulnerability indicators grouped into physical and social categories. Next, a selection of index- and curve-based vulnerability models that use these indicators are described, comparing several characteristics such as temporal and spatial aspects. Earthquake vulnerability methods traditionally have a strong focus on object-based physical attributes used in vulnerability curve-based models, while flood vulnerability studies focus more on indicators applied to aggregated land-use classes in curve-based models. In assessing the differences and similarities between indicators used in earthquake and flood vulnerability models, we only include models that separately assess either of the two hazard types. Flood vulnerability studies could be improved using approaches from earthquake studies, such as developing object-based physical vulnerability curve assessments and incorporating time-of-the-day-based building occupation patterns. Likewise, earthquake assessments could learn from flood studies by refining their selection of social vulnerability indicators. Based on the lessons obtained in this study, we recommend future studies for exploring risk assessment methodologies across different hazard types.
Highlights
Recent decades have seen a sharp global increase in the economic risk associated with floods and earthquakes, it should be noted that both earthquake- and flood-related fatalities might be decreasing
Where hazard is defined as “a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation”; exposure is defined as “people, property, systems, or other elements present in hazard zones that are thereby subject to potential losses”; and vulnerability is the set of conditions and processes resulting from physical, social, economic, and environmental factors, which increase the susceptibility of a community “(people and assets) to the impact of hazards” (UNISDR 2009)
The vast majority of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment models are based on damage functions or fragility curves that relate the physical indicators described in Sect. 2.1 with hazard parameters (Douglas, 2007)
Summary
Recent decades have seen a sharp global increase in the economic risk associated with floods and earthquakes, it should be noted that both earthquake- and flood-related fatalities might be decreasing. Where hazard is defined as “a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation”; exposure is defined as “people, property, systems, or other elements present in hazard zones that are thereby subject to potential losses”; and vulnerability is the set of conditions and processes resulting from physical, social, economic, and environmental factors, which increase the susceptibility of a community “(people and assets) to the impact of hazards” (UNISDR 2009) Both in the domain of flooding and earthquakes, improving methods to assess vulnerability is seen as the “missing link” for increasing our understanding of risk (Douglas, 2007; Jongman et al, 2015).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
