绘制住宅结构的洪水脆弱性图:荷兰、波多黎各和美国的案例

Nicholas D. Diaz, Yoo-Jik Lee, Baukje L. M. Kothuis, Ismael Pagán-Trinidad, S. Jonkman, Samuel D. Brody
{"title":"绘制住宅结构的洪水脆弱性图:荷兰、波多黎各和美国的案例","authors":"Nicholas D. Diaz, Yoo-Jik Lee, Baukje L. M. Kothuis, Ismael Pagán-Trinidad, S. Jonkman, Samuel D. Brody","doi":"10.3390/geosciences14040109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Floods are consistently ranked as the most financially devastating natural disasters worldwide. Recent flood events in the Netherlands, Caribbean, and US have drawn attention to flood risks resulting from pluvial and fluvial sources. Despite shared experiences with flooding, these regions employ distinct approaches and flood management strategies due to differences in governance and scale—offering a three-site case study comparison. A key, yet often lacking, factor for flood risk and damage assessments at the parcel level is building elevation compared to flood elevation. First-floor elevations (FFEs) are a critical element in the vulnerability of a building flooding. US-based flood insurance policies require FFEs; however, data availability limitations exist. Drone-based FFEs were measured in all locations to assess the flood vulnerabilities of structures. Flood vulnerability profiles revealed 64% of buildings were vulnerable to a form of inundation, with 40% belonging to “moderate” or “major” inundation, and inundation elevation means (IEMs) of −0.55 m, 0.19 m, and 0.71 m within the US, Netherlands, and Puerto Rico sites, respectively. Spatial statistics revealed FFEs were more responsible for flood vulnerabilities in the US site while topography was more responsible in the Netherlands and Puerto Rico sites. Additional findings in the Puerto Rico site reveal FFEs and next highest floor elevations (NHFEs) vulnerable to future sea level rise (SLR) flood elevations. The findings within the Netherlands provide support for developing novel multi-layered flood risk reduction strategies that include building elevation. We discuss future work recommendations and how the different sites could benefit significantly from strengthening FFE requirements.","PeriodicalId":509137,"journal":{"name":"Geosciences","volume":" 37","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping the Flood Vulnerability of Residential Structures: Cases from The Netherlands, Puerto Rico, and the United States\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas D. Diaz, Yoo-Jik Lee, Baukje L. M. Kothuis, Ismael Pagán-Trinidad, S. Jonkman, Samuel D. Brody\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/geosciences14040109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Floods are consistently ranked as the most financially devastating natural disasters worldwide. Recent flood events in the Netherlands, Caribbean, and US have drawn attention to flood risks resulting from pluvial and fluvial sources. Despite shared experiences with flooding, these regions employ distinct approaches and flood management strategies due to differences in governance and scale—offering a three-site case study comparison. A key, yet often lacking, factor for flood risk and damage assessments at the parcel level is building elevation compared to flood elevation. First-floor elevations (FFEs) are a critical element in the vulnerability of a building flooding. US-based flood insurance policies require FFEs; however, data availability limitations exist. Drone-based FFEs were measured in all locations to assess the flood vulnerabilities of structures. Flood vulnerability profiles revealed 64% of buildings were vulnerable to a form of inundation, with 40% belonging to “moderate” or “major” inundation, and inundation elevation means (IEMs) of −0.55 m, 0.19 m, and 0.71 m within the US, Netherlands, and Puerto Rico sites, respectively. Spatial statistics revealed FFEs were more responsible for flood vulnerabilities in the US site while topography was more responsible in the Netherlands and Puerto Rico sites. Additional findings in the Puerto Rico site reveal FFEs and next highest floor elevations (NHFEs) vulnerable to future sea level rise (SLR) flood elevations. The findings within the Netherlands provide support for developing novel multi-layered flood risk reduction strategies that include building elevation. We discuss future work recommendations and how the different sites could benefit significantly from strengthening FFE requirements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geosciences\",\"volume\":\" 37\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14040109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14040109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

洪水一直被列为全球最具经济破坏性的自然灾害。最近在荷兰、加勒比海和美国发生的洪水事件引起了人们对冲积和河道洪水风险的关注。尽管这些地区在洪水问题上有着共同的经历,但由于治理方式和规模的不同,它们采用了不同的方法和洪水管理策略,这为我们提供了一个三地案例研究比较。在地块层面进行洪水风险和损失评估时,往往缺乏一个关键因素,即建筑物标高与洪水标高的比较。首层标高 (FFE) 是建筑物易受洪水影响的关键因素。美国的洪水保险政策要求提供 FFE,但数据可用性存在限制。无人机测量了所有地点的 FFE,以评估建筑物的洪水脆弱性。洪水脆弱性概况显示,64% 的建筑物易受某种形式的洪水淹没,其中 40% 属于 "中度 "或 "严重 "洪水淹没,美国、荷兰和波多黎各地点的洪水淹没海拔平均值(IEMs)分别为-0.55 米、0.19 米和 0.71 米。空间统计显示,在美国的研究地点,洪水易发区更多地是由丰水期造成的,而在荷兰和波多黎各的研究地点,洪水易发区更多地是由地形造成的。波多黎各站点的其他发现表明,FFE 和次高楼层标高 (NHFE) 易受未来海平面上升 (SLR) 洪水标高的影响。荷兰的研究结果为制定新颖的多层次洪水风险降低战略提供了支持,其中包括建筑物标高。我们讨论了未来的工作建议,以及不同地点如何从加强 FFE 要求中显著受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping the Flood Vulnerability of Residential Structures: Cases from The Netherlands, Puerto Rico, and the United States
Floods are consistently ranked as the most financially devastating natural disasters worldwide. Recent flood events in the Netherlands, Caribbean, and US have drawn attention to flood risks resulting from pluvial and fluvial sources. Despite shared experiences with flooding, these regions employ distinct approaches and flood management strategies due to differences in governance and scale—offering a three-site case study comparison. A key, yet often lacking, factor for flood risk and damage assessments at the parcel level is building elevation compared to flood elevation. First-floor elevations (FFEs) are a critical element in the vulnerability of a building flooding. US-based flood insurance policies require FFEs; however, data availability limitations exist. Drone-based FFEs were measured in all locations to assess the flood vulnerabilities of structures. Flood vulnerability profiles revealed 64% of buildings were vulnerable to a form of inundation, with 40% belonging to “moderate” or “major” inundation, and inundation elevation means (IEMs) of −0.55 m, 0.19 m, and 0.71 m within the US, Netherlands, and Puerto Rico sites, respectively. Spatial statistics revealed FFEs were more responsible for flood vulnerabilities in the US site while topography was more responsible in the Netherlands and Puerto Rico sites. Additional findings in the Puerto Rico site reveal FFEs and next highest floor elevations (NHFEs) vulnerable to future sea level rise (SLR) flood elevations. The findings within the Netherlands provide support for developing novel multi-layered flood risk reduction strategies that include building elevation. We discuss future work recommendations and how the different sites could benefit significantly from strengthening FFE requirements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信