Abstract
AbstractThe regional multi-hazards risk assessment poses difficulties due to data access challenges, and the potential interactions between multi-hazards and social vulnerability. For better natural hazards risk perception and preparedness, it is important to study the nature-hazards risk distribution in different areas, specifically a major priority in the areas of high hazards level and social vulnerability. We propose a multi-hazards risk assessment method which considers social vulnerability into the analyzing and utilize machine learning-enabled models to solve this issue. The proposed methodology integrates three aspects as follows: (1) characterization and mapping of multi-hazards (Flooding, Wildfires, and Seismic) using five machine learning methods including Naïve Bayes (NB), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and K-Means (KM); (2) evaluation of social vulnerability with a composite index tailored for the case-study area and using machine learning models for classification; (3) risk-based quantification of spatial interaction mechanisms between multi-hazards and social vulnerability. The results indicate that RF model performs best in both hazard-related and social vulnerability datasets. The most cities at multi-hazards risk account for 34.12% of total studied cities (covering 20.80% land). Additionally, high multi-hazards level and socially vulnerable cities account for 15.88% (covering 4.92% land). This study generates a multi-hazards risk map which show a wide variety of spatial patterns and a corresponding understanding of where regional high hazards potential and vulnerable areas are. It emphasizes an urgent need to implement information-based prioritization when natural hazards coming, and effective policy measures for reducing natural-hazards risks in future.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Natural Disasters. Our World in Data (2014).
2. Iglesias, V. et al. Risky development: Increasing exposure to natural hazards in the United States. Earth's Future 9(7), e2020EF001795 (2021).
3. Pescaroli, G. & Alexander, D. Understanding compound, interconnected, interacting, and cascading risks: A holistic framework. Risk Anal. 38(11), 2245–2257 (2018).
4. Ciurean, R. et al. Review of Multi-Hazards Research and Risk Assessments. (2018)
5. Gautam, D. & Dong, Y. Multi-hazard vulnerability of structures and lifelines due to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and 2017 central Nepal flash flood. J. Build. Eng. 17, 196–201 (2018).
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献