Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-297
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-297
13 Oct 2020
 | 13 Oct 2020
Status: this discussion paper is a preprint. It has been under review for the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion.

Review of different methods and techniques used for flood vulnerability analysis

Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya

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.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya
Dilip Kumar and Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya

Viewed

Total article views: 2,078 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
909 1,133 36 2,078 44 45
  • HTML: 909
  • PDF: 1,133
  • XML: 36
  • Total: 2,078
  • BibTeX: 44
  • EndNote: 45
Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Oct 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Oct 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,957 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,954 with geography defined and 3 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 15 Jun 2024
Download
Altmetrics