Elements at risk as a framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities to landslides

International audienceThe assessment of the vulnerability of communities prone to landslide related disasters is a topic that is growing in importance. Few studies discuss this issue and limited research has been carried out on the relationship between types of landslide and their potential impact on buildings and infrastructure. We outline a framework to undertake an assessment of the vulnerability of buildings to landslide utilising a similar framework used for assessing the vulnerability of buildings to tsunami damage. The framework is based on the development of an "elements at risk database" that takes into consideration the characteristics and use of the buildings, their importance for the local economy and the characteristics of the inhabitants (population density, age and so forth). The attributes that affect vulnerability are imported and examined within a GIS database which is used to visualise the physical, human and economic vulnerability. The results may have important implications for disaster management and emergency planning, and the database can be used by various end-users and stakeholders such as insurance companies, local authorities and the emergency services. The approach presented here can be integrated in to a wider more detailed "Framework for Landslide Risk and Vulnerability Assessment for Communities". We illustrate the potential of this framework and present preliminary results from Lichtenstein, Baden Württemberg, Germany

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

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

Vulnerability of buildings exposed to dynamic flooding.

Repeatedly, dynamic flooding causes high loss in many mountain regions all over the world. Dynamic flooding is a group of hazard processes includingfluvial sediment transport, debris floods, and debris flows, as well as to some extent flash flood hazards if these are related to mountaincatchments. Regardless of the magnitude and frequency, the consequences of dynamic flooding are strongly connected to the vulnerability of elements at risk, such as people, buildings and infrastructure. Several methods to assess physical vulnerability of buildings towards these processesare available. The plethora of methods andapproaches, however, makes a comparison between different case studies challenging. Assessment methodscan be classified inthree categories: vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indices. We provide a short review of these methods and discuss theirdominance in the scientific debate onmountain hazard risk managementover the last decade, giving an emphasis to vulnerability curves. Furthermore, challenges in vulnerability assessment including data requirements, uncertainties, and needs for improved event documentation are outlined

Letter to the Editor: The Australian Tsunami Warning System and lessons from the 2 April 2007 Solomon Islands tsunami alert in Australia

International audienceNo abstract available