English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elementsat risk as part of the risk analysis is an essential aspect for thedevelopment of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction.Understanding, analysing and, if possible, quantifying physicalvulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting toolsfor its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physicalvulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves andvulnerability indicators; however, in most of the cases, these methods areused in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses ontwo of these methods: vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators.Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of theintensity of the process and the degree of loss, considering, in individualcases only, some structural characteristics of the affected buildings.However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerabilityassessment should focus on the identification of these variables thatinfluence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerabilityindicators). In this study, an indicator-based methodology (IBM) formountain hazards including debris flow (Kappes et al., 2012) is appliedto a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol, where in the past avulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new"indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for itsimprovement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodologicalapproaches and their results is challenging since both methodologicalapproaches  deal with vulnerability in a different way. However, it isstill possible to highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearlythat both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physicalvulnerability and provide a preliminary "holistic methodologicalframework" for physical vulnerability assessment showing how the twoapproaches may be used in combination in the future

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards