首页> 外文期刊>Natural hazards and earth system sciences >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:脆弱性曲线与脆弱性指标:基于指标的方法在泥石流危害中的应用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

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:作为风险分析的一部分,对处于危险中的元素的物理脆弱性进行评估是制定降低风险的策略和结构性措施的重要方面。了解,分析和量化物理漏洞是设计策略和采用减少漏洞的工具的前提。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;但是,在大多数情况下,这些方法以冲突方式而不是组合方式使用。本文重点介绍以下两种方法:漏洞曲线和漏洞指示器。脆弱性曲线表示物理脆弱性是过程强度和损失程度的函数,仅在个别情况下考虑受影响建筑物的某些结构特征。但是,大量研究认为,脆弱性评估应着重于识别影响风险要素脆弱性的这些变量(脆弱性指标)。在本研究中,针对山地灾害(包括泥石流)的基于指​​标的方法(IBM)(Kappes等人,2012)被应用于南蒂罗尔(South Tyrol)泥石流的案例研究中,该地区过去已经开发了脆弱性曲线。正在研究一种相对“新的”基于指标的方法,并概述了对其进行改进的建议。两种方法论及其结果的比较具有挑战性,因为两种方法论都以不同的方式处理脆弱性。但是,仍然有可能强调它们的弱点和优势,清楚地表明这两种方法对于评估物理脆弱性都是必要的,并提供了物理脆弱性评估的初步“整体方法框架”,显示了如何将两种方法结合使用。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