Vulnerability to Earthquake Hazard: Bucharest Case Study, Romania

International Journal of Disaster Risk Science

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 182-195

  Armaş, Iuliana ^a   Toma Danila, Dragos ^a,b   Ionescu, Radu ^a   Gavriş, Alexandru ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EARTH PHYSICS   (Romania)

^c BUCHAREST UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES   (Romania)

Author keywords

Bucharest; Romania; Seismic loss estimation; Seismic risk; Spatial multicriteria analysis; Vulnerability index

Indexed keywords

ESTIMATION METHOD; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC HAZARD; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; VULNERABILITY;

BUCHAREST [BUCHAREST (ADS)]; BUCHAREST [ROMANIA]; ROMANIA;

EID: 85021646964     PISSN: 20950055     EISSN: 21926395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13753-017-0132-y     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Armaş, I. 2006. Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analysis 26(5): 1223–1234.
2. Armaş, I. 2008. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: The historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards 47(3): 397–410.
3. Armaş, I. 2012. Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards 63(2): 1129–1158.
4. Armaş, I., and E. Avram. 2008. Patterns and trends in the perception of the seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards 44(1): 147–161.
5. Armaş, I., and A. Gavriş. 2013. Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model)—A case study for Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13: 1481–1499.
6. Armaş, I., and M. Radulian. 2014. Spatial multi-criteria risk assessment for earthquake hazards in Bucharest, Romania. In Earthquake hazard impact and urban planning, ed. Dan M. Boştenaru, I. Armaş, and A. Goretti, 127–149. Dordrecht: Springer.
7. Armaş, I., and A. Gavriş. 2016. Census-based social vulnerability assessment for Bucharest. Procedia Environmental Sciences 32: 138–146.
8. Balan, S.F., D. Toma-Danila, and B.F. Apostol. 2016. Reinforced concrete buildings behaviour in the Metropolis of Bucharest during strong earthquakes in Romania. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Risks ICUR2016, 149–155. 30 June–2 July 2016, Lisbon, Portugal.
9. Birkmann, J. 2006. Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
10. Blaikie, P., T. Cannon, I. Davis, and B. Wisner. 1994. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. London: Routledge.
11. Bucharest General Municipality. 2016. List of buildings technically evaluated and classified into seismic risk classes. http://www.pmb.ro/servicii/alte_informatii/lista_imobilelor_exp/docs/Lista_imobilelor_expertizate.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.
12. Chen, Y., J. Yu, and S. Khan. 2010. Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environmental Modelling and Software 25(12): 1582–1591.
13. Chen, M., M.D. Wood, C. Linstead, and E. Maltby. 2011. Uncertainty analysis in a GIS-based multicriteria analysis tool for river catchment management. Environmental Modelling and Software 26(4): 395–405.
14. Crosetto, M., S. Tarantola, and A. Saltelli. 2000. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in spatial modelling based on GIS. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81: 71–79.
15. Crosetto, M., and S. Tarantola. 2001. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: Tools for GIS based model implementation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(5): 415–437.
16. Coppola, D. 2007. Introduction to disaster management. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
17. Duzgun, H.S.B., M.S. Yucemen, H.S. Kalaycioglu, K. Celik, S. Kemec, K. Ertugay, and A. Deniz. 2011. An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas. Natural Hazards 59(2): 917–947. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9808-6.
18. Erdik, M., K. Şeşetyan, M.B. Demircioğlu, U. Hancılar, and C. Zülfikar. 2011. Rapid earthquake loss assessment after damaging earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31(2): 247–266.
19. Eurostat. 2014. Housing condition report. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_conditions. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.
20. Feizizadeh, B., T. Blaschke, and H. Nazmfar. 2014. GIS-based ordered weighted averaging and Dempster Shafer methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Urmia lake basin, Iran. International Journal of Digital Earth 7(8): 688–708.
21. Fekete, A. 2009. Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9(2): 393–403.
22. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2014. HAZUS-MH: Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. http://www.fema.gov/hazus. Accessed 11 Jun 2017.
23. Giardini, D., J. Woessner, L. Danciu, F. Cotton, H. Crowley, G. Grünthal, R. Pinho, G. Valensise, and the SHARE consortium. 2013. Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE): Online data resource. doi:10.12686/SED-00000001-SHARE.
24. Gu, D., P. Gerland, F. Pelletier, and B. Cohen. 2015. Risks of exposure and vulnerability to natural disasters at the city level: A global overview. United Nations Technical Paper No. 2015/2. New York: United Nations.
25. Hinkel, J. 2011. Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: Towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change 21(1): 198–208.
26. INS (National Institute of Statistics), Romania. 2017. Results of the 2011 population and housing national census. http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2. Accessed 11 Jun 2017.
27. Ionescu, C., R. Klein, J. Hinkel, K. Kavi Kumar, and R. Klein. 2009. Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 14(1): 1–16.
28. ITC (International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences). 2001. ILWIS 3.0 user’s guide. http://52north.org/communities/ilwis/ilwis-open/user-guide. Accessed 20 Jan 2017.
29. Janssen, R., and M. van Herwijnen. 1994. DEFINITE A system to support on a finite set of alternatives (Software package and user manual). Dodrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers.
30. Karimzadeh, S., B. Feizizadeh, and M. Matsuoka. 2017. From a GIS-based hybrid site condition map to an earthquake damage assessment in Iran: Methods and trends. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22: 23–36.
31. Kasperson, J., and R. Kasperson. 2005. The social contours of risk: Risk analysis, corporations and the globalization of risk. London: Earthscan.
32. Lang, D., S. Molina-Palacios, C. Lindholm, and S.F. Balan. 2012. Deterministic earthquake damage and loss assessment for the city of Bucharest, Romania. Journal of Seismology 16(1): 67–88.
33. Marquis, F., J.J. Kim, J.K. Elwood, and S.E. Chang. 2015. Understanding post-earthquake decisions on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15(2). doi:10.1007/s10518-015-9772-8.
34. Marmureanu, G., C.O. Cioflan, and A. Marmureanu. 2010. Researches on local seismic hazard (microzonation) for metropolitan Bucharest area. Iasi: Tehnopress (in Romanian).
35. Molina, S., D.H. Lang, C.D. Lindholm, and F. Lingvall. 2010. User manual for the earthquake loss estimation tool: SELENA. http://selena.sourceforge.net. Accessed 11 Jun 2017.
36. Necula, G.C., S. McPeak, and W. Weimer. 2002. CCured: Type-safe retrofitting of legacy code. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 37(1): 128–139.
37. NIEP (National Institute for Earth Physics), Romania. 2016. BIGSEES Project’s earthquake catalog. http://bigsees.infp.ro/Results.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.
38. Ouma, Y., E.C. Kipkorir, and R. Tateishi. 2011. MCDA-GIS integrated approach for optimized landfill site selection for growing urban regions: An application of neighborhood-proximity analysis. Annals of GIS, 17(1): 43–62.
39. Pavel, F., and R. Vacareanu. 2016. Scenario-based earthquake risk assessment for Bucharest, Romania. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 20: 138–144.
40. Pavel, F., R. Vacareanu, J. Douglas, M. Radulian, C.O. Cioflan, and A.H. Barbat. 2016. An updated probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania and comparison with the approach and outcomes of the SHARE Project. Pure and Applied Geophysics 173(6): 1881–1905.
41. Ravalico, J.K., G.C. Dandy, and H.R. Maier. 2010. Management Option Rank Equivalence (MORE) a new method of sensitivity analysis for decision-making. Environmental Modelling and Software 25(2): 171–181.
42. Rufat, S. 2009 From mural map to GIS: Mapping urban vulnerability in Bucharest. In Urban and regional data management: UDMS, ed. A. Krek, M. Rumor, S. Zlatanova, and E. Fendel, 301–313. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
43. Saaty, T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.
44. Saltelli, A., S. Tarantola, and F. Campolongo. 2000. Sensitivity analysis as an ingredient of modelling. Statistical Science 15(4): 377–395.
45. Sterlacchini, S., S.O. Akbas, J. Blahut, O.C. Mavrouli, C. Garcia, B.Q. Luna, and J. Corominas. 2014. Methods for the characterization of the vulnerability of elements at risk. In Mountain risks: From prediction to management and governance, ed. T. Asch, J. Corominas, S. Greiving, J.P. Malet, and S. Sterlacchini, 233–273. Dordrecht: Springer.
46. Strasser, F.O., J.J. Bommer, K. Sesetyan, M. Erdik, Z. Cagnan, J. Irizarry, X. Goula, A. Lucantoni, F. Sabetta, I.E. Bal, H. Crowley, and C. Lindholm. 2008. A comparative study of European earthquake loss estimation tools for a scenario in Istanbul. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12(2): 246–256.
47. Thywissen, K. 2006. Core terminology of disaster reduction: A comparative glossary. In Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, ed. J. Birkmann, 448–496. New York: United Nations University Press.
48. Toma-Danila, D., and I. Armas. 2017. Insights on the possible seismic damage of residential buildings in Bucharest, Romania, at neighborhood resolution. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15(3): 1161–1184.
49. Toma-Danila, D., C. Zulfikar, E.F. Manea, and C.O. Cioflan. 2015a. Improved seismic risk estimation for Bucharest, based on multiple hazard scenarios and analytical methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 73: 1–16.
50. Toma-Danila, D., C.O. Cioflan, S.F. Balan, and E.F. Manea. 2015b. Characteristics and results of the near real-time system for estimating the seismic damage in Romania. Mathematical Modelling in Civil Engineering 11(1): 33–41.
51. Trendafiloski, G., M. Wyss, P. Rosset, and G. Marmureanu. 2009. Constructing city models to estimate losses due to earthquakes worldwide: Application to Bucharest, Romania. Earthquake Spectra 25(3): 665–685.
52. Turner, B., R. Kasperson, P. Matson, J. McCarthy, R. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8074–8079.
53. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2016. Earthquake statistics—Worldwide earthquakes 2000–2015. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/stats.php. Accessed 10 Jun 2017.
54. van der Veen, A., E. Dopheide, D. Parker, S. Tapsell, J. Handmer, C. Gregg, C. Bonadonna, and F. Ferrara. 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. Brussels: European Commission.
55. Walker, B.B., C. Taylor-Noonan, A. Tabbernor, T. McKinnon, H. Dal, D. Bradley, N. Schuurman, and J.J. Clague. 2014. A multi-criteria evaluation model of earthquake vulnerability in Victoria, British Columbia. Natural Hazards 74(2):1209–1222.