Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
NHESS
Articles | Volume 19, issue 3
Articles | Volume 19, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-661-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-661-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 19, issue 3
Research article
 | 
29 Mar 2019
Research article |  | 29 Mar 2019

Testing empirical and synthetic flood damage models: the case of Italy

Mattia Amadio, Anna Rita Scorzini, Francesca Carisi, Arthur H. Essenfelder, Alessio Domeneghetti, Jaroslav Mysiak, and Attilio Castellarin

Viewed

Total article views: 7,484 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
5,692 1,660 132 7,484 151 154
  • HTML: 5,692
  • PDF: 1,660
  • XML: 132
  • Total: 7,484
  • BibTeX: 151
  • EndNote: 154
Views and downloads (calculated since 20 Nov 2018)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 20 Nov 2018)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 7,484 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 6,730 with geography defined and 754 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 24 Nov 2025
Download
Short summary
Flood risk management relies on assessments performed using flood loss models of different complexities. We compared the performances of expert-based and empirical damage models on three major flood events in northern Italy. Our findings suggest that multivariate models have better potential to provide reliable damage estimates if extensive ancillary characterisation data are available. Expert-based approaches are better suited for transferability compared to empirically based approaches.
Read more
Share
Special issue
Flood risk assessment and management
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint