...
首页> 外文期刊>Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions >Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards
【24h】

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

机译:漏洞曲线与漏洞指标:应用基于指标的碎片流动危险

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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.
机译:随着风险分析的一部分,评估元素的身体脆弱性是风险分析的重要方面,以便制定风险减少的战略和结构措施。理解,分析和如果可能的话,量化物理漏洞是设计策略和采用其减少工具的先决条件。用于评估物理漏洞的最常用方法是漏洞矩阵,漏洞曲线和漏洞指标;然而,在大多数情况下,这些方法以冲突的方式而不是组合使用。文章侧重于这些方法中的两种方法:漏洞曲线和漏洞指标。脆弱性曲线表达物理漏洞作为过程强度和损失程度的函数,考虑到各个情况,受影响建筑物的一些结构特征。然而,大量研究争辩说,漏洞评估应专注于识别这些变量,这些变量影响了风险(漏洞指标)的元素的脆弱性。在这项研究中,基于指标的方法?(IBM)用于包括碎片流(Kappes等,2012)的山地灾害(Kappes等,2012)用于南蒂罗尔的碎片流动的案例研究,过去已经开发出漏洞曲线。正在审查相对“新”的基于指标的方法,并概述了改进的建议。两种方法方法及其结果的比较是挑战,因为两种方法方法以不同的方式处理脆弱性。但是,仍然可以突出他们的弱点和优势,显然表明,两种方法都是评估物理漏洞的必要条件,并为物理漏洞评估提供初步的“整体方法论框架”,显示两种方法可以组合使用两种方法未来。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号