Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Mountain Risks: From Prediction to Management and Governance pp 233–273Cite as

Methods for the Characterization of the Vulnerability of Elements at Risk

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research ((NTHR,volume 34))

Abstract

Risk assessment is the process of determining the likelihood or threat of a damage, injury, liability, loss, or other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities and that may be neutralized through preventive action. More precisely, risk assessment is the systematic prospective analysis aimed at defining, as quantitatively as possible, the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic loss, and property damage resulting from natural and/or anthropogenic hazards, by assessing the exposure and vulnerability of people and property to those hazards. The risk assessment procedure, developed in the Mountain Risks project, is based on the following five steps: (1) Identification and analysis of the specific types of hazards that could affect a territory and its community; (2) Definition of the spatial and temporal likelihood of the damaging events considered in the analysis as well as their magnitude; (3) Inventory of the assets and study of the social and economic features of the study areas; (4) Assessment of vulnerability, evaluating all the hazard consequences for each dimension composing the systems at risk (physical/functional, economic, socio-cultural, ecological/environmental and; political/institutional); (5) Evaluation of the prospective cost of damage or costs avoided through mitigation strategies. Vulnerability assessment plays a crucial role both in ‘translating’ the assessed level of hazard into an estimated level of risk and in providing leading information in mitigation planning processes and emergency management strategies. Under this perspective, it is really difficult, or even impossible, to address risk assessment without assessing vulnerability first and it appears unquestionable that a multi-disciplinary approach is required in vulnerability assessment studies. In this section, the different components (dimensions) of vulnerability are analyzed, both theoretically and practically, and then different methodological approaches, applications and solutions are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

C3L:

Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls

C1L:

Concrete moment frame

DBMS:

Database Management Systems

DI:

Damage Index

DHA:

Department of Humanitarian Affairs

DMTP:

Disaster Management Training Programme

ESPON:

European Spatial Planning Observation Network

FEMA:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FOSM:

First-Order Second Moment

GIS:

Geographic Information Systems

HAZUS:

Hazards United States

IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUGS:

International Union of Geological Sciences

ISTAT:

Italian Institute of Statistics

OMI:

Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare

PGA:

Peak Ground Acceleration

PGD:

Permanent Ground Deformation

PC2L:

Precast concrete frames with concrete shear walls

PC1:

Precast concrete tilt-up walls

QRA:

Quantitative Risk Assessment

RC:

Reinforced Concrete

C1:

Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames

RM2L:

Reinforced masonry retaining walls with precast concrete diaphragms

RM1L:

Reinforced masonry retaining walls with wood or metal deck diaphragms

RRC:

Relative recovery cost

SDOF:

Single Degree of Freedom

CapHaz-Net:

Social Capacity Building for Natural Hazards

SL:

Specific loss

S2L:

Steel braced frame

S5L:

Steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls

UNDP:

United Nations Development Programme

URML:

Unreinforced masonry bearing walls

W2:

Wood commercial and industrial

W1:

Wood light frame

References

  • Adger WN (2000) Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under the transition in Vietnam. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 90(4):738–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN (2004) Vulnerability. In: Forsyth T (ed) Encyclopedia of international development. Routledge, London, pp 742–743

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Advanced Structural Concepts Inc (2003) NONLIN – Computer program for nonlinear dynamic time history analysis of single- and multi-degree-of-freedom systems. User’s manual. Advanced Structural Concepts Inc., Blacksburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Agliardi F, Crosta GB, Frattini P (2009) Integrating rockfall risk assessment and countermeasure design by 3D modelling techniques. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 9:1059–1073. doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1059-2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbas SO, Blahut J, Sterlacchini S (2013) Estimation of a vulnerability function for debris flow risk assessment using a well-documented event in Selvetta, Italy. B Eng Geol Environ

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbas SO, Blahut J, Sterlacchini S (2009) Critical assessment of existing physical vulnerability functions for debris flows. In: Malet JP, Remaître A, Boogard TA (eds) Landslide processes: from geomorphologic mapping to dynamic modelling. CERG, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander D (1999) Vulnerability. In: Alexander D, Fairbridge RW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmental science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander D (2000) Confronting catastrophe. Terra Publishing, Harpenden

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander D (2005) Vulnerability to landslides. In: Glade T, Anderson M, Crozier MJ (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbolini M, Cappabianca F, Sailer R (2004) Empirical estimate of vulnerability relations for use in snow avalanche risk assessment. In: Brebbia C (ed) Risk analysis. WIT Press, Southampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell R, Glade T (2004) Quantitative risk analysis for landslides. Examples from Bildudalur, NW-Iceland. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 4:117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7:20–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blahut J, Horton P, Sterlacchini S, Jaboyedoff M (2010) Debris flow hazard modelling on medium scale: Valtellina di Tirano, Italy. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 10:2379–2390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge Publisher, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon T, Twigg J, Rowell J (2003) Social vulnerability, sustainable livelihoods and disasters. Report to DFID. Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD) and Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office. http://www.livelihoods.org/info/docs/vulnerability.doc

  • Cardinali M, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F, Antonini G, Galli M, Cacciano M, Castellani M, Salvati P (2002) A geomorphological approach to estimate landslide hazard and risk in urban and rural areas in Umbria, central Italy. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 2:57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Third assessment report. Climate change 2001. Working group II: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Chapter 1

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Fourth assessment report. Climate change 2007. Working group II: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Appendix 1 – Glossary

    Google Scholar 

  • Comfort LK (2006) Cities at risk: Hurricane Katrina and the drowning of New Orleans. Urb Aff Rev 41(4):501–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corominas J, Mavrouli O (2011) Rockfall Quantitative risk assessment. In: Stéphane L, Franois N (eds) Rockfall engineering. Wiley, London, pp 255–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Corominas J, Copons R, Moya J, Vilaplana JM, Altimir J, Amigó J (2005) Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a rock fall protected area. Landslides 2:343–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20(4):529–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DB2000 (2003) Database of the consortium of mountain municipalities of Valtellina di Tirano mapped at 1:2.000 scale. Consortium of mountain municipalities of Valtellina di Tirano. http://www.cmtirano.so.it/sistemainformativo.php

  • DEI (2006) Prezzi Tipologie Edilizie 2006. DEI Tipografia del Genio Civile. CD-ROM

    Google Scholar 

  • DHA – Department of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations (1992) International agreed glossary of basic terms related to disaster management. United Nations, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • DMTP – Disaster Management Training Programme (1994) Vulnerability and risk assessment. Module prepared by Coburn AW, Sspence RJS, Pomonis A. Cambridge Architectural Research Limited. The Oast House, Malting Lane, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooge J (2004) Water and ethics. Ethics of water-related disasters. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. GeoCat No. 61168, Geoscience, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • ESPON Hazards project – European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2005) The spatial effects and management of natural and technological hazards in general and in relation to climate change. Final Report, March 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Fell R, Ho KKS, Lacasse S, Leroi E (2005) A framework for landslide risk assessment and management. In: Hungr O, Fell R, Couture R, Eberhardt E (eds) Landslide risk management. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Few R (2003) Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global threat. Prog Dev Stud 3(1):43–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J (2007) Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 7:495–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galli M, Guzzetti F (2007) Landslide vulnerability criteria: a case study from Umbria, Central Italy. Environ Manage 40:649–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia C (2011) Mountain risk management: integrated people centred early warning system as a risk reduction strategy, Northern Italy. PhD dissertation, Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia C, De Amicis M, Sterlacchini S, Pasuto A, Greiving S (2010) Community based early warning system for mountain risks, northern Italy: identifying challenges and proposing disaster risk reduction strategies. In: Malet JP, Glade T, Casagli N (eds) Mountain risks – bringing science to society. CERG, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacomelli P (2005) Economic evaluation of risk. The case of a mountain area. Aracne, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Glade T (2003) Vulnerability assessment in landslide risk analysis. Die Erde 134:123–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatron S, Beck E (2008) Evaluation of socio-spatial vulnerability of citydwellers and analysis of risk perception: industrial and seismic risks in Mulhouse. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 8:1029–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen ED, Kaynia AM (2008) Vulnerability of structures impacted by debris flow. In: Chen Z et al (eds) Landslides and engineered slopes. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3–4):259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HAZUS-MH (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model, technical manual developed by Department of Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate FEMA Mitigation Division, Washington, DC. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus

  • HAZUS-MH (2010) FEMA’s methodology for estimating potential losses from disasters. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/index.shtm

  • Heinimann HR (1999) Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren – Methode, Umwelt-Materialien, 107/I, Bern, p 115

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufschmidt G, Crozier M, Glade T (2005) Evolution of natural risk: research framework and perspectives. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 5:375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTAT – Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (2001) http://www.istat.it/it/censimento-popolazione-e-abitazi/popolazione-2001

  • IUGS – International Union of Geological Sciences (1997) Quantitative risk assessment for slopes and landslides – The state of the art. In: Cruden DM, Fell R (eds) Landslide risk assessment. IUGS working group on landslides, Committee on Risk Assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaynia AM, Papathoma-Köhle M, Neuhäuser B, Ratzinger K, Wenzel H, Medina-Cetina Z (2008) Probabilistic assessment of vulnerability to landslide: application to the village of Lichtenstein, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Eng Geol 101(1–2):33–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla F (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Environ Hazards 5:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumpulainen S (2006) In: Philipp S-T (ed) Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European Regions, vol 42. Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, pp 65–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard GS, Johnston DM, Saunders W, Paton D (2006) Assessment of Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group warning system options. GNS Science Report 2006/002

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Ellingwood BR (2006) Hurricane damage to residential construction in the US: importance of uncertainty modeling in risk assessment. Eng Struct 28(7):1009–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Z, Nadim F, Huang H, Uzielli M, Lacasse S (2010) Quantitative vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards. Landslides 7(2):125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linneroth J (1979) The value of human life: a review of the models. Econ Inq 17:52–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Garcia D (2005) Discussion on: critical building separation distance in reducing pounding risk under earthquake excitation. Struct Saf 27(4):393–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010a) Vulnerability of simple reinforced concrete buildings in front of the rockfall impact. Landslides 7:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010b) Rockfall vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 10(10):2055–2066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OMI – Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare (2009) Agenzia del Territorio. http://www.agenziaterritorio.it/

  • Paton D, Smith L, Daly M, Johnston D (2008) Risk perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: individual and social perspectives. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3–4):179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quan Luna B, Blahut J, van Westen CJ, Sterlacchini S, van Asch TWJ, Akbas SO (2011) The application of numerical debris flow modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 11(7):2047–2060. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-2047-011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quan Luna B, Blahut J, Camera C, van Westen CJ, Apuani T, Jetten V, Sterlacchini S (submitted) Quantitative risk assessment for debris flows and estimation for the economic damage to structures. Natural Hazards, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach P, Galli M, Cardinali M, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F (2005) Geomorphologic mapping to assess landslide risk: concepts, methods and applications in the Umbria Region of Central Italy. In: Glade T, Anderson MG, Crozier MJ (eds) Landslide hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster RL (1996) Socioeconomic significance of landslides. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides, investigation and mitigation. Transportation Research Board, Special report. 247, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp 12–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H, Uzawa T, Ueda T (2001) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Technical report MCEER, University of Southern California

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Sci New Ser 236(4799):280–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer CV (1996) Explaining risky choices without assuming preferences. Soc Choice Welf 13:201–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterlacchini S, Frigerio S, Giacomelli P, Brambilla M (2007) Landslide risk analysis: a multi-disciplinary methodological approach. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 7:657–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapsell S, McCarthy S, Faulkner H, Alexander M, Steinführer A, Kuhlicke C, Brown S, Walker G, Pellizzoni L, Scolobig A, De Marchi B, Bianchizza C, Supramaniam M, Kallis G (2010) Social vulnerability to natural hazards. Social vulnerability to natural hazards. Report D 4.1-Version 2.2, CapHaz-Net Project

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney K, Bruneau M (2007) Conceptualizing and measuring resilience: a key to disaster loss reduction. TR News, May–June, 250:14–17

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP – United Nations Development Programme (1994) Vulnerability and risk assessment. United Nations Development Programme, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng Geol 102(3–4):251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valori Agricoli Medi – Provincia di Sondrio (2009) http://www.asr-lombardia.it/ASR/lombardia-e-province/agricoltura/produzione-agricola-zootecnia-e-risultati-economici/tavole/1097/2009/

  • Van der Veen A, Dopheide E, Parker D, Tapsell S, Handmer J, Gregg C, Bonadonna C, Ferrara F (2009) State-of-art on vulnerability of socio-economic systems. Del. 1.1.3 of the ENSURE EC FP7. Project: methodologies to assess vulnerability of structural, territorial and economic systems. EC, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • van Westen CJ, Montoya L (2009) Multi-hazard risk assessment: Distance Education Course. Guide Book Enschede, ITC

    Google Scholar 

  • van Westen CJ, van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2005) Landslide hazard and risk zonation – why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Westen CJ, Castellanos Abella EA, Sekhar LK (2008) Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazards and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng geol 102:112–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandine DF, Moore G, Wise M, Vanbuskirk C, Gerath R (2004) Technical terms and methods. In: Wise M, Moore G, Vandine D (eds) Landslide risk case studies in forest development planning and operations. B.C., Ministry of Forests, Forest Science Program, abstract of land management handbook

    Google Scholar 

  • Varnes DJ, IAEG Commission on Landslides and other Mass-Movements (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. The UNESCO Press, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Weichselgartner J (2001) Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited. Disaster Prev Manag 10(2):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams L, Kaputska L (2000) Ecosystem vulnerability: a complex interface with technical components. Environ Toxicol Chem 19(4):1055–1058

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner B, Luce HR (1993) Disaster vulnerability: scale, power and daily life. GeoJournal 30:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisner B, Blaikie PM, Cannon T (2005) At risk: natural hazards, people vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge Publisher, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Italian National Research Council, Institute for the Dynamic of Environmental Processes (CNR – IDPA), Piazza della Scienza 1, IT-20126, Milan, Italy

    Simone Sterlacchini

  2. Department of Environmental and Territorial Sciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 1, IT-20126, Milan, Italy

    Sami Oguzhan Akbas, Jan Blahut & Carolina Garcia

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University, Maltepe, TR-06570, Ankara, Turkey

    Sami Oguzhan Akbas

  4. Department of Engineering Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics, V Holešovičkách, CZ-4118209, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jan Blahut

  5. Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, Technical University of Catalonia, BarcelonaTech, Jordi Girona 1-3, SP-08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Olga-Christina Mavrouli & Jordi Corominas

  6. Regional Independent Corporation of the Centre of Antioquia (CORANTIOQUIA), Cr 65 No. 44A – 32, Medellin, Colombia

    Carolina Garcia

  7. Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Hengelosestraat 99, NL-7514 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Byron Quan Luna

Authors
  1. Simone Sterlacchini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sami Oguzhan Akbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Blahut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olga-Christina Mavrouli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carolina Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Byron Quan Luna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jordi Corominas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Sterlacchini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Theo Van Asch

  2. Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

    Jordi Corominas

  3. Institute of Spatial Planning, Technical University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Stefan Greiving

  4. CNRS, Institut de Physique du Globe du Strasbourg, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Philippe Malet

  5. Institute for the Dynamic of Environmental Processes, National Research Council of Italy, Milan, Italy

    Simone Sterlacchini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sterlacchini, S. et al. (2014). Methods for the Characterization of the Vulnerability of Elements at Risk. In: Van Asch, T., Corominas, J., Greiving, S., Malet, JP., Sterlacchini, S. (eds) Mountain Risks: From Prediction to Management and Governance. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6769-0_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation