Abstract
Purpose
Damage functions constitute an essential part of the modelling of critical infrastructure (CI) performance under the influence of climate events. This paper aims to compile and discuss publications comprising damage functions for transport assets.
Design/methodology/approach
The research included the collection of contemplable literature and the subsequent screening for damage functions and information on them. In conclusion, the derived damage curves and formulae were transferred to a unified design.
Findings
Damage functions for the transport sector are scarce in the literature. Although specific damage functions for particular transport assets exist, they mainly consider infrastructure or transport in general. Occasionally, damage curves for the same asset in different publications vary. Major research gaps persist in wildfire damage estimation.
Research limitations/implications
The study scope was restricted to the hazards of fluvial floods and wildfires. Despite all efforts, this study did not cover all existing literature on the topic.
Originality/value
This publication summarises the state of the art of research concerning transport asset damage functions, and hence contributes to the facilitation of prospective research on CI performance, resilience and vulnerability modelling.
Keywords
Citation
Habermann, N. and Hedel, R. (2020), "Damage functions for transport infrastructure", International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 9 No. 4/5, pp. 420-434. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-09-2017-0052
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2018, Nadine Habermann and Ralf Hedel.
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
Climate change and its consequences are currently in broad discussion. “Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes” (IPCC, 2007). Field et al. (2012) expected extensive effects on infrastructure from climate events. This is where research gaps emerged. According to Mehrotra et al. (2011), these involved research on quantifying expected climate impacts on transport networks and users:
Infrastructure is an understudied area of direct tangible damage. Many studies have ignored it altogether, although evidence indicates that damage to infrastructure can constitute a large proportion of the overall damage total (Hammond and Chen, 2014).
Recently, the modelling of interdependent critical infrastructure (CI) networks and their behaviour during climatic events gained attention. The modelling of asset performance required a characterisation of the connections between hazards and losses. Damage functions depict the said correlation, and thereby constitute an essential part of the modelling. This literature review collected and discussed existing damage functions for transport assets, with the objective to facilitate future research in interconnected CI performance modelling. The paper introduces the EU-CIRCLE project, which this research affiliates to. Further, it defines the terminology of CI damage assessment, provides an overview of relevant literature and displays exemplary curves for specific assets.
The EU-CIRCLE project
This research is affiliated to the pan-European project EU-CIRCLE. The project obtained funding by the European Commission DG - Connect in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme in the period 2015-2018:
EU-CIRCLE‘s scope is to derive an innovative framework for supporting the interconnected European Infrastructure‘s resilience to climate pressures, as well to generate scientifically truthful and validated knowledge on the potential impacts of climate (EU-CIRCLE consortium, 2016).
The central part of the research was the modelling of CI behaviour affected by natural hazard events, regarding the interdependencies within linked CI networks. The modelling of hazard-induced damages and losses utilised damage functions as input. Various functions from the literature were selected to characterise the behaviour of assets appendant to different infrastructure sectors.
The modelling results were implemented in five case studies:
electrical grid and highways affected by extreme droughts and forest fires, South France;
electrical grid disruption due to forest fires, Cyprus;
impacts from coastal floods on roads, railways and buildings, the UK;
cyclone impacts on electrical grid, Bangladesh; and
sewage and electricity disruption due to fluvial floods, Germany.
The multiplicity of transport assets required the selection of an asset sample regarding the relevance for the case studies, to conduct the case study modelling within the project timeframe. The comparison of the modelling results with real historic data of similar incidents allowed the calibration of the modelling and the applied damage functions. The developed EU-CIRCLE framework enables modellers to conduct the modelling for multi-hazard events and interconnected networks of different CI sectors.
Research methodology
The research took place as a secondary research. The majority of publications were in English language. In addition, the collection included papers in German and Dutch from publication references. The search for papers accessed the following search engines and databases:
Google;
Google Scholar;
Citavi Online Search;
Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog;
ScienceDirect;
ResearchGate;
IEEE Xplore;
Semantic Scholar;
SpringerLink;
Scopus;
ScienceOpen;
ASCE Library; and
Wiley Online Library.
The following keywords were entered in various combinations:
damage/loss/vulnerability function/curve;
flood/wildfire damage/loss;
(transport) infrastructure;
critical infrastructure;
natural hazard;
damage/loss estimation/assessment; and
infrastructure design standards.
Further publications found in the reference lists of papers augmented the sample. The literature collection contained 327 papers in total. The screening process involved three rounds (confer Figure 1). The terms of reference were pertinent to EU-CIRCLE case studies 1 and 5, confining the regarded hazards to wildfire and fluvial floods. In total, 166 papers were discarded in the first round. About 106 publications did not pass the second screening for information on damage functions. Finally, 29 papers remained after the third screening, as they contained damage curves utilisable for the modelling of transport infrastructure affected by flood or wildfire. Transferring the damage functions from the literature into a unified design ensured comparability and avoided biases.
Terminology and definitions
Critical infrastructure
Country governments worldwide defined the term “critical infrastructure” differently. The German Federal Ministry of the Interior (2008) defined CI:
[…] as organizations and institutions of central importance for the country and its people whose failure or functional impairment would lead to severe supply bottlenecks, significant disruption of public security or other dramatic consequences.
The US Government referred to:
[…] systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters (Francis and Bekera, 2014).
Johansson and Hassel (2010) and Larsen et al. (2008) provided and discussed further definitions.
Damage
Defining damage, Vanneuville et al. (2005) referred to material losses consequent on hazardous events. In the literature, a high consensus according to the differentiation of damage categories was discernible (see Figure 2) (Emergency Management Australia, 2003; Lange et al., 2015; Admiraal, 2011; Merz et al., 2010; Bubeck; Thieken et al., 2005; Garrote et al., 2016; Messner et al., 2007; van der Sande, 2001):
Direct damages: Resulting from direct contact with the hazard.
Indirect damages: Resulting from the event, but not its direct impact.
Both categories contain sub-categories:
Tangible damages: Specifiable in monetary terms.
Intangible damages: Difficult to assess in monetary terms.
Recent publications attempted to assess operational damages (Thieken et al., 2016). “Many case studies have applied a percentage of direct damage as representative of the indirect damage […], which is a rather coarse assumption” (Olesen et al., 2017). Taylor et al. (2006) and Matsushima et al. (2007) approached the inclusion of inconveniences and losses from reduced road network accessibility.
Difficulties appeared in the monetisation of intangible damages. The assessment of direct damages necessitated the monetary estimation of asset values (Jenelius and Mattsson, 2015). These describe the maximum damage “for a virtual scenario in which everything is destroyed” (Deckers et al., 2010). The literature research revealed two options for maximum damage determination (Albano et al., 2015; Merz et al., 2010):
replacement costs; and
depreciated/repair costs.
Replacement costs tended to overestimate damages, because they included infrastructure improvements after restoration (Meyer and Messner, 2005). Penning-Rowsell et al. (2005), Messner et al. (2006), Bubeck and Moel (2010) and Merz et al. (2010) recommended the use of depreciated values.
Besides few recommendations in Donovan and Brown (2005) and Zybach et al. (2009), approaches for wildfire and smoke loss estimation in the transport sector were unavailable in the literature.
Damage functions
Prahl et al. (2016) and Prahl (2016) defined damage functions as “mathematical relation between the magnitude of a (natural) hazard and the average damage caused on a specific item”. Bubeck, Bubeck and Moel (2010) and Jongman et al. (2012) provided comparable definitions.
The literature presented damage functions either as mathematical calculations or as graphs.
Jongman et al. (2012) distinguished relative and absolute damage functions. Figure 3 contrasts advantages and disadvantages of both function types. Absolute damage functions allocate monetary losses to hazard severity. Merz et al. (2010) proposed the use of “standard costs for length units (e.g. km railway, km road)”. The preceding research depicted relative damage either as percentage or as proportion of the maximum possible damage.
Garrote et al. (2016), Olesen et al. (2017), Chen et al. (2016), Bubeck, Hammond (2014), Dutta and Herath (2001) and van der Sande (2001) coincided relating to two approaches for the construction of damage curves:
Empirical approaches: “use damage data collected after flood events” (Merz et al., 2010).
Surveys with large samples were conducted for the collection of information on property types, hazard severity and damages. A subsequent regression analysis revealed typical depth damage functions for different assets (Messner et al., 2007).
Synthetic approaches: are “based on hypothetical damage estimates by experts through what-if-analysis” (Gerl et al., 2016).
Synthetic assessment approaches examined standardised assets (Messner et al., 2006). The synthetic functions were calibrated in consideration of real recorded damages. Figure 4 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.
Estimations of thresholds for flood damages were noticeable in the literature. Simply put, CI assets are resilient to certain hazard severities. Vanneuville et al. (2003) determined a flood inundation threshold of 50 cm for roads and railways.
Design criteria further influence the resilience of CI assets. “Agency policy and standards generally define the design event based on consideration of the nature of the structure, the roadway, or of the transportation facility served” (Federal Highway Administration, 2016).
Albano et al. (2015) identified uncertainties of damage functions due to insufficient data and simplifications in the modelling. Scorzini and Leopardi (2017), Moel and Aerts (2011) and Bubeck et al. (2011) compared several damage models and discovered large deviations between them. Notaro et al. (2014) examined the influences of different damage functions by applying them to the same area. According to Messner and Meyer (2005), uncertainties emerged due to the omission of indirect effects. A profound examination of uncertainties was provided by Wagenaar et al. (2016).
In the literature, produced damage functions were mostly based on historic event data, which made them less suitable for different areas. To find damage functions that best represent the considered area, Wagenaar et al. (2016) recommended attaining damage functions from other models or the combination of various functions into one damage curve. Prahl et al. (2016) introduced an attempt for the adaption of existing damage functions to other hazards.
Damage functions derived from the literature
Overview of pertinent literature
Tables I and II contain the publications providing information on damage functions, hazard–damage relations and damage functions themselves for transport assets. These papers passed screening rounds 2 and 3.
Infrastructure in general
The majority of damage functions in the literature addressed infrastructure in general. Meyer and Messner (2005), ICPR (2001, 2016) and Moel and Aerts (2011) contained the Rhine Atlas damage function for transport (Figure 5). Bubeck, Vanneuville et al. (2006) and Klijn et al. (2007) provided the damage scanner curve (see Figure 6). Bubeck and Moel (2010), Bubeck et al. (2011), Moel and Aerts (2011) and Kellermann et al. (2015) contained both. The resulting damages in these examples differed broadly. While the Rhine Atlas function reached 10 per cent damage at 1 m inundation depth and further remained constant, the damage scanner function reached a total damage at 5 m. This elucidated the variety of damage modelling outcomes determined by the applied damage curve. Messner and Meyer (2005), van der Sande (2001), van der Sande et al. (2003), Hammond et al. (2014), Genovese (2006), Mittelstädt and Gönnert et al. (2004) provided further functions for infrastructure and transport in general. Few publications contained formulae to compute losses. Dutta and Herath (2001) and Dutta et al. (2001) contained equations for the estimation of system disruption losses, marginal costs and delay costs. Hammond et al. (2014) proposed formulae for time and fuel consumption losses.
Roads and railways
Functions for wildfire damage were unobtainable. Chen et al. (2010) and Jofré et al. (2010) examined the behaviour of asphalt, asphalt binder and concrete affected by fire. The available functions for flood damage concerned structural damages. Figures 7 and 8 contain exemplary flood damage curves for roads. Tariq et al. (2013) and Huizinga et al. (2017) contained further damage functions.
Various references contained joint roads and railways damage functions. Figure 9 illustrates the damage function from Kok et al. (2004). Vanneuville et al. (2003) introduced a function (see Figure 8), which is also contained in Deckers et al. (2010), Vanneuville et al. (2005), Verwaest et al. (2008) and Kellens et al. (2013). Flood damage functions for roads and railways were the most consistent functions in the literature. Hammond et al. (2014), Pregnolato et al. (2017) and Jenelius and Mattsson (2015) approached the estimation of operational damages emerging from road closure (Figure 10).
Bridges
The research did not reveal damage functions for bridges. The Department of Homeland Security FEMA (2013) emphasised a low probability of bridge failure due to flooding, because design standards required resilience to standardised flood events. The structural damage of bridges depends on bridge type, technical equipment, structural features and position in the infrastructure network. Mostafaei et al. (2014) examined fire damage to bridges based on reported incidents. They concluded that a collapse, equivalent to total damage, occurred after short fire duration when the bridge was directly affected. Alutaibi (2017) assumed that “the level of damage is influenced by several factors such as wind speed and direction, and fuel type and load”.
Gasoline stations and train stations
Vanneuville et al. (2006) developed flood damage functions for industry (see Figure 9), which the authors applied to gasoline stations, airports and train stations, disregarding the structural and operational differences between these assets. Damage curves for indirect or intangible losses were unavailable. The research also did not reveal damage functions for wildfire damages.
Airports
Kok et al. (2004) developed a flood damage function for airports (Figure 11). Vanneuville et al. (2006) also applied the damage function for industry (see Figure 12). Both curves estimated direct tangible losses. In comparison, the damage function of Kok et al. (2004) showed a fast damage growth reaching maximum damage at 3.5 m inundation depth. Functions for indirect or intangible damages were non-existent. The review did not reveal damage functions for wildfire damages.
Conclusions
The literature screening revealed several publications comprising damage functions for transport assets. Precedent publications contained several damage functions for infrastructure in general. However, profound information on included assets was rarely available, whereby the application of general functions for the modelling at asset level ought to be considered carefully. Several insurance organisations possessed knowledge on damage estimations for CI. However, this knowledge was mostly proprietary and inaccessible.
Mentionable was the lack of consistent approaches to estimate wildfire severity. The review results corroborated the conclusion in Howard (2014) that most literature estimated particular fires or group of fires and lack generality. Further research on the estimation of losses from wildfire needs to broaden the existent investigations on the factors that influence fire damage.
Inundation depth was the most frequently applied variable for flood severity. Although Merz et al. (2010) confirmed the multiplicity of influencing variables, they found no ample approach for including them in damage modelling. Messner and Meyer (2005) considered these variables as often disregarded due to their correlation with inundation depth. The literature review confirmed the need to include different hazard variables, as done by Kreibich et al. (2009). Lately, research started to pay particular attention to damages from pluvial flooding, which still appeared to be sparsely examined (Vanneuville et al., 2016; Weerasinghe et al., 2018; Lee and Kim, 2018; Melvin et al., 2017).
More thorough research needs to take more assets and hazards into account. Furthermore, research gaps remained concerning interdependent infrastructure systems and their performance in multi-hazard events. With lack of monitoring and management, they introduce new risks and societal consequences (Kaewunruen et al., 2016). Moreover, approaches for the estimation of cascading effects in interconnected transport infrastructure (Wang et al., 2018; Ouyang, 2014; Setola and Geretshuber, 2009; Trucco et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2014; Laugé et al., 2015; Dudenhoefer et al., 2006) need more profound examination. Existent damage estimation approaches primarily assessed direct damages. Indirect and intangible damages were often addressed, but not further estimated, mostly due to lack of data or knowledge. As the assessment of indirect and intangible damages came into focus, methodologies for their measurement need further development.
This literature review summarised the current state of the art in flood and fire damage estimation for transport assets. It gleaned damage curves scattered in various publications into an overview. The research results aimed to encourage and facilitate further damage estimations and CI network modelling. The development of frameworks for the modelling at the asset level as in the EU-CIRCLE project is important for flood damage forecasting and the enhancement of transport asset resilience, as well as the safety for network users.
Figures
Literature containing information on damage functions
| Chen et al. (2016), Garrote et al. (2016), Gerl et al. (2016), Jongman et al. (2012), Messner et al. (2006), Messner et al. (2007), Olesen et al. (2017), Wagenaar et al. (2016) | Function estimation |
| Chen et al. (2010) | Impacts of high temperatures on asphalt |
| Chen et al. (2015) | Course of functions |
| Hammond et al. (2014) | Function estimation, variables |
| Hardy (2005) | Indicators/variables for fire damage |
| International Joint Commission (2000) | Function estimation, formula for CI damages |
| Jofré et al. (2010) | Behaviour of asphalt and concrete in fire |
| Mattsson and Jenelius (2015) | Schematic damage function |
| Merz et al. (2010) | Function estimation, approach discussion |
| Mostafaei et al. (2014), Pool (2016), Wright et al. (2013) | Structural damage to bridges due to fire |
| Lee and Kim (2018) | Schematic function for precipitation |
| Penning-Rowsell et al. (2005) | Operational damages |
| Prahl (2016), Prahl et al. (2016) | Adaption of functions |
| Pregnolato et al. (2017) | Formulae for operational damages on roads |
| Reese and Ramsay (2010) | Flood impacts on roads |
| US Department of Agriculture (2013) | Schematic of wildfire damage functions; indirect, intangible losses |
Literature containing specific damage functions and formulae
| Alutaibi (2017) | Formulae for fire damage |
| Bubeck et al. (2011), Bubeck and Moel (2010) | Flood damage for mobile and immobile traffic and infrastructure |
| Deckers et al. (2010): | Flood damage for roads and railways |
| Dutta and Herath (2001) | Formulae for system and disruption losses of infrastructure, marginal costs and delay costs due to flood |
| Dutta et al. (2001) | Flood damage for infrastructure: system damage, disruption loss, marginal and delay |
| Genovese (2006) | Flood damage for infrastructure |
| Gönnert et al. (2004): | Flood damage for trade and traffic |
| Hammond et al. (2014) | Flood damage for transport and transport services; formulae for velocity attenuation; for economic losses of fuel consumption, time consumption of private cars and motor coaches |
| Huizinga et al. (2017) | Flood damage for roads in Europe |
| ICPR (2001, 2016) | Formula for flood damage to mobile and immobile traffic |
| Kellens et al. (2013) | Flood damage for roads |
| Kellermann et al. (2015) | Flood damage for mobile and immobile traffic and infrastructure |
| Klijn et al. (2007) | Flood damage for infrastructure |
| Kok et al. (2004) | Flood damage for airports, roads and railways |
| Messner and Meyer (2005) | Flood damage for traffic + telecommunications |
| Meyer and Messner (2005) | Formula for flood damage to immobile traffic |
| Mittelstädt | Flood damage for traffic and communication |
| Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (2014) | Flood damage for roads and bridges |
| Moel and Aerts (2011), Penning-Rowsell et al. (2013) | Formula for flood damage to immobile traffic Evacuation travel cost, flood damage for roads and railways |
| Tariq et al. (2013) | Flood damage for roads |
| van der Sande et al. (2003) | Flood damage for roads |
| van der Sande (2001) | Flood damage for roads |
| Vanneuville et al. (2003, 2005) | Flood damage for roads and railways |
| Vanneuville et al. (2006) | Flood damage for gasoline stations, train stations and airports |
| Verwaest et al. (2008) | Flood damage for roads and railways |
References
Admiraal, J. (2011), “Flood damage to port industry”, Case study: vulnerability of the port of Rotterdam to climate change.
Albano, R., Mancusi, L., Sole, A. and Adamowski, J. (2015), “Collaborative strategies for sustainable EU flood risk management: FOSS and geospatial tools—challenges and opportunities for operative risk analysis”, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 2704-2727.
Alutaibi, K. (2017), “Decision support for emergency response in interdependent infrastructure systems”.
Bubeck, P. and Moel, H.D. (2010), “Sensitivity analysis of flood damage calculations for the river Rhine”.
Bubeck, P., Moel, H.D., Bouwer, L.M. and Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2011), “How reliable are projections of future flood damage?”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 12, pp. 3293-3306.
Chen, A.S., Hammond, M.J., Djordjević, S., Butler, D., Khan, D.M. and Veerbeek, W. (2016), “From hazard to impact: flood damage assessment tools for mega cities”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 857-890.
Chen, M., Xu, G., Wu, S. and Zheng, S. (2010), “High-temperature hazards and prevention measurements for asphalt pavement: 26-28 June 2010, Wuhan, China”, Proceedings of 2010 International Conference on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering (MACE), IEEE, Piscataway, NJ.
Chen, M., Ma, J., Hu, Y., Zhou, F., Li, J. and Yan, L. (2015), “Is the S-shaped curve a general law? An application to evaluate the damage resulting from water-induced disasters”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 497-515.
Deckers, P., Kellens, W., Reyns, J., Vanneuville, W. and Maeyer, P.D. (2010), “A GIS for flood risk management in Flanders”, in Showalter, P.S. and Lu, Y. (Eds), Geospatial Techniques in Urban Hazard and Disaster Analysis, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 51-69.
Department of Homeland Security FEMA (2013), “Hazus®-MH – Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology”, Technical Manual.
Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C. (2005), “An alternative incentive structure for wildfire management on national Forest land”, Forest Science, Vol. 51 No. 5.
Dudenhoefer D.D, Perman M.R. and Manic M. (Eds) (2006), “CIMS: a framework for infrastructure interdependency modeling and analysis”, Winter Simulation Conference, s.l.
Dutta, D. and Herath, S. (2001), “GIS based flood loss estimation modeling in Japan”.
Dutta, D., Herath, S. and Musiake, K. (2001), “Direct flood damage modeling towards urban flood risk management”, Urban Safety Engineering, pp. 127-143.
Emergency Management Australia (2003), “Disaster loss assessment guidelines”.
EU-CIRCLE consortium (2016), D 1.2 State of the Art Review and Taxonomy of existing Knowledge.
Federal Highway Administration (2016), “Highways in the river Environment - Floodplains, extreme events, risk, and resilience”.
Federal Ministry of the Interior (2008), “Protecting critical Infrastructures - Risk and crisis management”.
Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F. and Dahe, Q. (2012), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Francis, R. and Bekera, B. (2014), “A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 121, pp. 90-103.
Garrote, J., Alvarenga, F.M. and Díez-Herrero, A. (2016), “Quantification of flash flood economic risk using ultra-detailed stage? Damage functions and 2-D hydraulic models”, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 541, pp. 611-625.
Genovese, E. (2006), “A methodological approach to land use-based flood damage assessment in urban areas: Prague case study”.
Gerl, T., Kreibich, H., Franco, G., Marechal, D. and Schröter, K. (2016), “A review of flood loss models as basis for harmonization and benchmarking”, PloS One, Vol. 11 No. 7, p. e0159791.
Gönnert, G., Graßl, H., Kelletat, D., Kunz, H., Probst, B., Storch, H.V. and Sündermann, J. (2004), “Klimaänderung und küstenschutz”.
González-Cabán, A. (Ed.) (2013), Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: climate change and wildfires, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Hammond, M. (2014), “Flood impact assessment literature review”.
Hammond, M. and Chen, A. (2014), “Flood damage model guidelines”.
Hammond, M., Chen, A. and Djordjevic, S. (2014), “Flood damage model case study results”.
Hardy, C.C. (2005), “Wildland fire hazard and risk. Problems, definitions, and context”, Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 211 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-10.
Howard, P. (2014), “Flammable planet. Wildfires and the social cost of carbon”.
Huang, C.-N., Liou, J.J. and Chuang, Y.-C. (2014), “A method for exploring the interdependencies and importance of critical infrastructures”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 55, pp. 66-74.
Huizinga, J., Moel, H.D. and Szewczyk, W. (2017), “Global flood depth-damage functions. Methodology and the database with guidelines”.
ICPR (2001), “Übersichtskarten der überschwemmungsgefährdung und der möglichen vemögensschäden am rhein. Abschlussbericht: Vorgehensweise zur ermittlung der hochwassergefährdeten flächen vorgehensweise zur ermittlung der möglichen vermögensschäden”.
ICPR (2016), “Tool and assessment method for determining flood risk evolution or reduction”, Technical Report.
International Joint Commission (2000), Red River Basin Stage-Damage Curves Update and Preparation of Flood Damage Maps, July 30-August 2, International Joint Commission, Minneapolis, MN.
IPCC (2007), “Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability”.
Jenelius, E. and Mattsson, L.-G. (2015), “Road network vulnerability analysis: conceptualization, implementation and application”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 49, pp. 136-147.
Jofré, C., Romero, J. and Rueda, R. (2010), “Contribution of concrete pavements to the safety of tunnels in case of fire”.
Johansson, J. and Hassel, H. (2010), “An approach for modelling interdependent infrastructures in the context of vulnerability analysis”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 95 No. 12, pp. 1335-1344.
Jongman, B., Kreibich, H., Apel, H., Barredo, J.I., Bates, P.D., Feyen, L., Gericke, A., Neal, J., Aerts, J.C.J.H. and Ward, P.J. (2012), “Comparative flood damage model assessment: towards a European approach”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 12, pp. 3733-3752.
Kaewunruen, S., Sussman, J.M. and Matsumoto, A. (2016), “Grand challenges in transportation and transit systems”, Frontiers in Built Environment, Vol. 2, pp. 1-5.
Kellens, W., Vanneuville, W., Verfaillie, E., Meire, E., Deckers, P. and Maeyer, P.D. (2013), “Flood risk management in Flanders: past developments and future challenges”, Water Resources Management, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 3585-3606.
Kellermann, P., Schöbel, A., Kundela, G. and Thieken, A.H. (2015), “Estimating flood damage to railway infrastructure – the case study of the March river flood in 2006 at the Austrian Northern railway”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 2485-2496.
Klijn, F., Baan, P., Bruijn, K.D., Kwadijk, J. and van Buren, R. (2007), “Overstromingsrisico’s in nederland in een veranderend klimaat. Verwachtingen, schattingen en berekeningen voor het project nederland later”.
Kok, M., Huizinga, H.J., Vrouwenvelder, A. and Barendregt, A. (2004), “Standard method 2004 damage and casualties caused by flooding”.
Kreibich, H., Piroth, K., Seifert, I., Maiwald, H., Kunert, U., Schwarz, J., Merz, B. and Thieken, A.H. (2009), “Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage modelling?”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1679-1692.
Lange, D., Sjöström, J. and Hanfi, D. (2015), “Losses and consequences of large scale incidents with cascading effects”.
Larsen, P.H., Goldsmith, S., Smith, O., Wilson, M.L., Strzepek, K., Chinowsky, P. and Saylor, B. (2008), “Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 442-457.
Laugé, A., Hernantes, J. and Sarriegi, J.M. (2015), “Critical infrastructure dependencies: a holistic, dynamic and quantitative approach”, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Vol. 8, pp. 16-23.
Lee, E.H. and Kim, J.H. (2018), “Development of a flood-damage-based flood forecasting technique”, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 563, pp. 181-194.
Matsushima, K., Onishi, M. and Kobayashi, K. (2007), Economic Valuation of Victims’ Mental Damage Due to Flood Disaster, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ.
Mattsson, L.-G. and Jenelius, E. (2015), “Vulnerability and resilience of transport systems - A discussion of recent research”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 81, pp. 16-34.
Mehrotra, S., Lefevre, B., Zimmerman, R., Gerçek, H., Jacob, K. and Srinivasan, S. (2011), “Climate change and urban transportation systems”, Climate change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network, pp. 145-177.
Melvin, A.M., Larsen, P., Boehlert, B., Neumann, J.E., Chinowsky, P., Espinet, X., Martinich, J., Baumann, M.S., Rennels, L., Bothner, A., Nicolsky, D.J. and Marchenko, S.S. (2017), “Climate change damages to Alaska public infrastructure and the economics of proactive adaptation”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. E122-E131.
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R. and Thieken, A. (2010), “Review article ‘assessment of economic flood damage”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 1697-1724.
Messner, F. and Meyer, V. (2005), “Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception – challenges for flood damage research”.
Messner, F., Penning-Rowsell, E., Green, C., Meyer, V., Tunstall, S.V.D. and Veen, A. (2006), “Guidelines for socio-economic flood damage evaluation”.
Messner, F., Penning-Rowsell, E., Green, C., Meyer, V., Tunstall, S. and van der Veen, A. (2007), “Evaluating flood damages: guidance and recommendations on principles and methods”.
Meyer, V. and Messner, F. (2005), “National flood damage evaluation methods: a review of applied methods in England, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Germany”.
Moel, H.D. and Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2011), “Effect of uncertainty in land use, damage models and inundation depth on flood damage estimates”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 407-425.
Mostafaei, H., Kashef, A., Sultan, M., McCartney, C., Leroux, P. and Cowalchuk, R. (2014), “Resilience of critical infrastructure to extreme Fires - Gaps and challenges”.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (2014), Multi Hazard Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Modeling and Mapping in Bangladesh: Probabilistic Damage Functions, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Trontheim.
Notaro, V., Marchis, M.D., Fontanazza, C.M., La Loggia, G., Puleo, V. and Freni, G. (2014), “The effect of damage functions on urban flood damage appraisal”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 70, pp. 1251-1260.
Olesen, L., Löwe, R. and Arnbjerb-Nielsen, K. (2017), Flood Damage Assessment: Literature review and recommended procedure.
Ouyang, M. (2014), “Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 121, pp. 43-60.
Penning-Rowsell, E., Johnson, C., Tunstall, S., Tapsell, S., Morris, J., Chatterton, J. and Green, C. (2005), “The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: a handbook of assessment techniques”.
Penning-Rowsell, E., Priest, S., Parker, D., Morris, J., Tunstall, S., Viavattene, C., Chatterton, J. and Owen, D. (2013), Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: A Manual for Economic Appraisal, Routledge, Oxon.
Pool, K. (2016), “Fire hazard simulation of bridge hangers exposed to hazardous material fires using fire dynamics simulator”.
Prahl, B.F. (2016), “On damage functions for the estimation of storm loss and their generalization for climate-related hazards”.
Prahl, B.F., Rybski, D., Boettle, M. and Kropp, J.P. (2016), “Damage functions for climate-related hazards. Unification and uncertainty analysis”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1189-1203.
Pregnolato, M., Ford, A., Wilkinson, S.M. and Dawson, R.J. (2017), “The impact of flooding on road transport: a depth-disruption function”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 55, pp. 67-81.
Reese, S. and Ramsay, D. (2010), “RiskScape: Flood fragility methodology”.
Scorzini, A.R. and Leopardi, M. (2017), “River basin planning: from qualitative to quantitative flood risk assessment: the case of Abruzzo region (central Italy)”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 71-93.
Setola R. and Geretshuber S. (Eds), (2009), Critical Information Infrastructure Security: Third International Workshop, CRITIS 2008, Rome, Italy, October13-15, Revised Papers, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
Tariq, M., Hoes, O. and van de Giesen, N.C. (2013), “Development of a risk-based framework to integrate flood insurance”, Journal of Flood Risk Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 291-307.
Taylor, M.A.P., Sekhar, S.V.C. and D’Este, G.M. (2006), “Application of accessibility based methods for vulnerability analysis of strategic road networks”, Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 267-291.
Thieken, A.H., Müller, M., Kreibich, H. and Merz, B. (2005), “Flood damage and influencing factors. New insights from the august 2002 flood in Germany”, Water Resources Research, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 1-16.
Thieken, A.H., Bessel, T., Kienzler, S., Kreibich, H., Müller, M., Pisi, S. and Schröter, K. (2016), “The flood of June 2013 in Germany: how much do we know about its impacts?”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1519-1540.
Trucco, P., Cagno, E. and Ambroggi, M.D. (2012), “Dynamic functional modelling of vulnerability and interoperability of critical infrastructures”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 105, pp. 51-63.
van der Sande, C. (2001), “River flood damage assessment using IKONOS imagery”.
van der Sande, C.J., Jong, S.M. and de Roo, A.D. (2003), “A segmentation and classification approach of IKONOS-2 imagery for land cover mapping to assist flood risk and flood damage assessment”, International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 217-229.
Vanneuville, W., Wolters, H. and Scholz, M. (2016), “Flood risks and environmental vulnerability — exploring the synergies between floodplain restoration, water policies and thematic policies”.
Vanneuville, W., Maeyer, P.D., Maeghe, K. and Mostaert, F. (2003), “Model of the effects of a flood in the Dender catchment, based on a risk methodology”.
Vanneuville, W., Gamanya, R., Rouck, K.D., Maeghe, K. and Maeyer, P.D. (2005), “Development of a flood risk model and applications in the management of hydrographical catchments”.
Vanneuville, W., Maddens, R., Collard, C., Bogaert, P., Maeyer, P.D. and Antrop, M. (2006), “Impact op mens en economie t.g.v. overstromingen bekeken in het licht van wijzigende hydraulische condities, omgevingsfactoren en klimatologische omstandigheden”.
Verwaest, T., Vanpoucke, P., Reyns, J., van der Biest, K., Vanderkimpen, P., Peeters, P., Kellens, W. and Vanneuville, W. (2008), “Comparison between different flood risk methodologies”, Action 3B Report.
Wagenaar, D.J., Bruijn, Kd., Bouwer, L.M. and Moel, Hd. (2016), “Uncertainty in flood damage estimates and its potential effect on investment decisions”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Wang, W., Yang, S., Hu, F., Stanley, H.E., He, S. and Shi, M. (2018), “An approach for cascading effects within critical infrastructure systems”, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, Vol. 510, pp. 164-177.
Weerasinghe, K.M., Gehrels, H., Arambepola, N., Vajja, H.P., Herath, J. and Atapattu, K.B. (2018), “Qualitative flood risk assessment for the Western province of Sri Lanka”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 212, pp. 503-510.
Wright, W., Lattimer, B., Woodworth, M., Nahid, M. and Sotelino, E. (2013), “Highway bridge fire hazard assessment Draft - Guide specification for fire damage evaluation in steel bridges”.
Zybach, B., Dubrasich, M., Brenner, G. and Marker, J. (2009), “U.S. Wildfire Cost-Plus-Loss Economics project. The ‘One-Pager’ checklist”.
Further reading
Bubeck, P. (2018), Memo: Flood Damage Evaluation Methods.
Mittelstädt, R. (2018), “Bestandsaufnahme”, in Planungsgemeinschaft Hydrotec/Sönnichsen (Ed.), Hochwasser-Aktionsplan Werre, DUV, Wiesbaden, pp. 2-73.