Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 9 – uploaded by Stéphane Costa

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
World imagery (Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN and the GIS user Community

Figure 9 World imagery (Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN and the GIS user Community

Related Figures (15)

Fig. 2 General organization of the method at three different spatial scales analyses
Fig. 2 General organization of the method at three different spatial scales analyses
Table 1 Index defined on each class of criterion at the medium-scale analysis automatic method (e.g., natural breaks, quantile classi fication) or the empiric one such as relative cumulative frequency (RCF) methods (de Tsuzuki and Shimada 2003; Dimakos and Aas 2004; Wei and Chen 2009; Gaspar-Escribano and Iturrioz 2011; Puissant et al. 2013; Lai et al. 2015). Initially used in the PDI method , the RCF method has been applied to define thresholds as a consequence of frequency distribution (Puissant et al. 2013; Lis- sak et al. 2013; Fressard et al. 2014; Franci et al. 20 6). This approach is based on the analysis of frequency distribution to determine the number of EaRs located above or below
Table 1 Index defined on each class of criterion at the medium-scale analysis automatic method (e.g., natural breaks, quantile classi fication) or the empiric one such as relative cumulative frequency (RCF) methods (de Tsuzuki and Shimada 2003; Dimakos and Aas 2004; Wei and Chen 2009; Gaspar-Escribano and Iturrioz 2011; Puissant et al. 2013; Lai et al. 2015). Initially used in the PDI method , the RCF method has been applied to define thresholds as a consequence of frequency distribution (Puissant et al. 2013; Lis- sak et al. 2013; Fressard et al. 2014; Franci et al. 20 6). This approach is based on the analysis of frequency distribution to determine the number of EaRs located above or below
Table 2 (continued) 3.3 Weighting systems (exposure)
Table 2 (continued) 3.3 Weighting systems (exposure)
Table 3 Index defined on each class of criterion at the local-scale analysis
Table 3 Index defined on each class of criterion at the local-scale analysis
Fig. 3 Calculation of the three exposure levels. The flood-prone area is the merge of the distance to the river (0-100 m) and low-lying areas (4.5 m+1 m of sea level for 100-year event), slope areas + buffer of 10 m from the top and the bottom of the slope to consider the ablation and propagation areas of landslides- prone areas with a slope threshold >5%. Multiple exposure areas are the interaction between flood-prone and landslide-prone areas
Fig. 3 Calculation of the three exposure levels. The flood-prone area is the merge of the distance to the river (0-100 m) and low-lying areas (4.5 m+1 m of sea level for 100-year event), slope areas + buffer of 10 m from the top and the bottom of the slope to consider the ablation and propagation areas of landslides- prone areas with a slope threshold >5%. Multiple exposure areas are the interaction between flood-prone and landslide-prone areas
Fig.4 Decision tree n°! (Dt,) applied to element at risk on a large scale in order to readjust potential conse- quences (P.) according to the level of exposure
Fig.4 Decision tree n°! (Dt,) applied to element at risk on a large scale in order to readjust potential conse- quences (P.) according to the level of exposure
Fig.5 Decision tree n°2 (Dt,) applied to element at risk on a local scale in order to readjust potential conse- quences according to their different spatial location inside different types of potential exposure areas (P.(f, | or m)) From the different indexes defined in a three-scale analysis, the linear combination anc three weighting systems (including two decision trees at large and local scale) were able to define three types of consequences: (1) overall consequences (OCs) at medium scale. (2) consequences on infrastructure (CI) at large scale and (3) structural consequences (SC. at local scale. For all scales analyses considered, we classified different types of conse- quences (OC, CI and SC) in four classes (low, medium, high and very high) by using RCE similarly to the initial PDI method.
Fig.5 Decision tree n°2 (Dt,) applied to element at risk on a local scale in order to readjust potential conse- quences according to their different spatial location inside different types of potential exposure areas (P.(f, | or m)) From the different indexes defined in a three-scale analysis, the linear combination anc three weighting systems (including two decision trees at large and local scale) were able to define three types of consequences: (1) overall consequences (OCs) at medium scale. (2) consequences on infrastructure (CI) at large scale and (3) structural consequences (SC. at local scale. For all scales analyses considered, we classified different types of conse- quences (OC, CI and SC) in four classes (low, medium, high and very high) by using RCE similarly to the initial PDI method.
Fig.6 Quantification of overall consequences at medium-scale analysis
Fig.6 Quantification of overall consequences at medium-scale analysis
Fig. 7 Set of criteria used to quantify consequences on infrastructure (CI) at large-scale analysis. (b1) Index of the estimated population by building; (b2) index of the type of building; (b3) index of the function of building; (b4) index of the number of floors; (b5) index of the type of transport networks; (b6) index of the traffic; (b7) index of the number of lanes (transport network); (b8) index of the type of energy networks
Fig. 7 Set of criteria used to quantify consequences on infrastructure (CI) at large-scale analysis. (b1) Index of the estimated population by building; (b2) index of the type of building; (b3) index of the function of building; (b4) index of the number of floors; (b5) index of the type of transport networks; (b6) index of the traffic; (b7) index of the number of lanes (transport network); (b8) index of the type of energy networks
Fig.9 Set of criteria used to quantify structural consequences (SC) at local-scale analysis. The picture rep- resents the flash flood of June 1, 2003, that generated 5.3 million euros of damages and on death. (c1) is the index value of the type of building; (c2-fd) is the index value of construction material related to flood; (c2- Is) is the index value of construction material related to landslides; (c2-sc) is the index value of construction material related to spatial concomitance. (c3-fd) is the index value of the number of floors related to flood; (c3-Is) is the index value of the number of floors related to landslides; (c3-sc) is the index value of the num- ber of floors related to spatial concomitance. (c4-fd) is the index value of the building condition related to flood; (c4-Is) is the index value of the building condition related to landslides; (c4-sc) is the index value of the building condition related to spatial concomitance. (c5) is the index value of the construction date of building
Fig.9 Set of criteria used to quantify structural consequences (SC) at local-scale analysis. The picture rep- resents the flash flood of June 1, 2003, that generated 5.3 million euros of damages and on death. (c1) is the index value of the type of building; (c2-fd) is the index value of construction material related to flood; (c2- Is) is the index value of construction material related to landslides; (c2-sc) is the index value of construction material related to spatial concomitance. (c3-fd) is the index value of the number of floors related to flood; (c3-Is) is the index value of the number of floors related to landslides; (c3-sc) is the index value of the num- ber of floors related to spatial concomitance. (c4-fd) is the index value of the building condition related to flood; (c4-Is) is the index value of the building condition related to landslides; (c4-sc) is the index value of the building condition related to spatial concomitance. (c5) is the index value of the construction date of building
1990. It concerns equally sheds and huts. Average consequences represent 6 buildings (0.7%) and concern flats with two or three floors in traditional or concrete materials (good state) built after 1990. High consequences represent 18 buildings (2%) and concern flats and houses with three or more floors, in traditional or concrete materials (good state) and built before 1980. Very high consequences represent 30 buildings (3%) and concern monu- ments, complexes and flats with more three floors in traditional materials (good state) and built before 1980.
1990. It concerns equally sheds and huts. Average consequences represent 6 buildings (0.7%) and concern flats with two or three floors in traditional or concrete materials (good state) built after 1990. High consequences represent 18 buildings (2%) and concern flats and houses with three or more floors, in traditional or concrete materials (good state) and built before 1980. Very high consequences represent 30 buildings (3%) and concern monu- ments, complexes and flats with more three floors in traditional materials (good state) and built before 1980.
Fig. 11 Sum of structural consequences (SC) at local-scale analysis by using feature scaling method to dis- cretized index values
Fig. 11 Sum of structural consequences (SC) at local-scale analysis by using feature scaling method to dis- cretized index values
Related topics:
PsychologyGeographyAtmospheric sciences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved