Journal cover Journal topic
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 3.102
IF 5-year value: 3.284
IF 5-year
CiteScore value: 5.1
SNIP value: 1.37
IPP value: 3.21
SJR value: 1.005
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 90
Scimago H
h5-index value: 42

  13 Oct 2020

13 Oct 2020

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal NHESS.

Review of different methods and techniques used for flood vulnerability analysis

Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya
  • Dept. of Civil Eng., Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, Assam, India

Abstract. Assessment of vulnerability is the primary objective of flood hazard management. One of the most significant purposes of flood vulnerability appraisal is to make a precise relationship between the theoretical conceptions of flood vulnerability and the ground level management policies. A variety of approaches have been defined by many researchers to evaluate vulnerability. As such, the selection of the most suitable methodology is essential for policymakers to adequate mitigation policies. The purpose of the present study is to review all the vulnerability methods floating over the research universe and compare their benefits and drawbacks. This study evaluated more than 250 selected articles related to the assessment of vulnerability published between 1980 and 2020 to determine their competence in the estimation of flood vulnerability. The findings show that most of the research works are related to statistical methods, and the methods used to allocate weight to different indicators associate to the vulnerability. Moreover, most of the vulnerability assessment methods are centred around the single type of hazard, i.e., flood, drought, etc. As such, the results recommend the necessity for developing a new integrated vulnerability assessment framework applicable to worldwide considering multiple risks.

Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya

Status: final response (author comments only)
Status: final response (author comments only)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Login for authors/editors] [Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya

Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya


Total article views: 387 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
279 103 5 387 7 9
  • HTML: 279
  • PDF: 103
  • XML: 5
  • Total: 387
  • BibTeX: 7
  • EndNote: 9
Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Oct 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Oct 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 327 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 324 with geography defined and 3 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
Latest update: 19 Jan 2021
Publications Copernicus