Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.281 IF 2.281
  • IF 5-year value: 2.693 IF 5-year 2.693
  • CiteScore value: 2.43 CiteScore 2.43
  • SNIP value: 1.193 SNIP 1.193
  • SJR value: 0.965 SJR 0.965
  • IPP value: 2.31 IPP 2.31
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
  • Scimago H index value: 73 Scimago H index 73
Volume 17, issue 7 | Copyright
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1231-1251, 2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Review article 20 Jul 2017

Review article | 20 Jul 2017

Review Article: A comparison of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators

Marleen C. de Ruiter1, Philip J. Ward1, James E. Daniell2, and Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts1 Marleen C. de Ruiter et al.
  • 1Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081HV, the Netherlands
  • 2Geophysical Institute and Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, 76344, Germany

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.

Download & links
Publications Copernicus
Short summary
This study provides cross-discipline lessons for earthquake and flood vulnerability assessment methods by comparing indicators used in both fields. It appears that there is potential for improvement of these methods that can be obtained for both earthquake and flood vulnerability assessment indicators. This increased understanding is beneficial for both scientists as well as practitioners working with earthquake and/or flood vulnerability assessment methods.
This study provides cross-discipline lessons for earthquake and flood vulnerability assessment...