CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 156Flood Risk Assessment and ManagementDisaster Management and ResilienceInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Flood risk assessment for informal settlements

Open access
De Risi, R., Jalayer, F., De Paola, F., Iervolino, I., Giugni, M., Topa, M. E., Mbuya, E., Kyessi, A., Manfredi, G., Gasparini, P.·2013·Natural Hazards
DOI 10.1007/s11069-013-0749-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11069-013-0749-0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The location of informal settlements renders residents vulnerable to floods.

    “This is aligned with the findings in De Risi et al. (2013), which demonstrated that the location of informal settlements rendered residents vulnerable to floods.”

    From Flood vulnerability in township informal settlements (2026) · cites this paper as De Risi et al. 2013

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Apel H, Aronica GT, Kreibich H, Thieken AH (2009) Flood risk analyses—how detailed do we need to be? Nat Hazard 49:79–98 · DOI
  2. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York
  3. Box GEP, Tiao GC (1992) Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Wiley Interscience, New York
  4. Chang LF, Kang JL, Su MD (2009), Depth-damage curve for flood damage assessments industrial and commercial sectors. In: Proceedings of the 4th IASME/WSEAS international conference on water resources, hydraulics & hydrology
  5. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York
  6. Connolly RD, Schirmer J, Dunn PK (1998) A daily rainfall disaggregation model. Agric For Meteorol 92:105–117 · DOI
  7. De Risi R (2013) A probabilistic bi-scale frame work for urban flood risk assessment. PhD dissertation. Department of structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Naples
  8. De Risi R, Jalayer F, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Carozza S (2013) VISK: a GIS-compatible platform for micro-scale assessment of flooding risk in urban areas. In: Papadrakakis M, Papadopoulos V, Plevris V (eds) COMPDYN, 4th ECCOMAS Thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. Kos Island, Greece
  9. Güntner A, Olsson J, Calver A, Gannon B (2001) Cascade-based disaggregation of continuous rainfall time series: the influence of climate. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 5:145–164 · DOI
  10. Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G (2007) Seismic risk of R.C. building classes. Eng Struct 29(5):813–820 · DOI
  11. Jalayer F, Elefante L, Iervolino I, Manfredi G (2011) Knowledge-based performance assessment of existing RC buildings. J Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2010.501193 · DOI
  12. Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK, Vrouwenvelder ACWM (2008) Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method. Nat Hazard 46:353–389 · DOI
  13. Kang JL, Su MD, Chang LF (2005) Loss functions and framework for regional flood damage estimation in residential area. J Mar Sci Technol 13(3):193–199
  14. Kelman I, Spence R (2004) An overview of flood actions on buildings. Eng Geol 73(3–4):297–309 · DOI
  15. Lacasse S, Nadim F (2011) Learning to live with geohazards: from research to practice. Geotechnical Special Publication 224:64–116
  16. Nadal NC, Zapata RE, Pagán I, López R, Agudelo J (2010) Building damage due to riverine and coastal floods. J Water Resour Plan Manag 136(3):327–336 · DOI
  17. O’Brien JS, Julien PY, Fullerton WT (1993) Two-dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. J Hydraul Eng 119(2):244–261 · DOI
  18. Olsson J (1998) Evaluation of a cascade model for temporal rainfall disaggregation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2:19–30 · DOI
  19. Papadimitriou C, Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS (2001) Updating robust reliability using structural test data. Probab Eng Mech 16(2):103–113 · DOI
  20. Pistrika AK (2010) Flood damage estimation based on flood simulation scenarios and a GIS platform. Eur Water 30:3–11
  21. Pistrika AK, Jonkman SN (2010) Damage to residential buildings due to flooding of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Nat Hazard 54:413–434 · DOI
  22. Scawthorn C, Blais N, Seligson H, Tate E, Mifflin E, Thomas W, Murphy J, Jones C (2006a) HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. I: overview and flood hazard characterization. Nat Hazards Rev. 7, SPECIAL ISSUE: Multihazards Loss Estimation and HAZUS, 60–71 · DOI
  23. Scawthorn C, Flores P, Blais N, Seligson H, Tate E, Chang S, Mifflin E, Thomas W, Murphy J, Jones C, and Lawrence M (2006b) HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. II. Damage and loss assessment. Nat Hazards Rev. 7, SPECIAL ISSUE: Multihazards Loss Estimation and HAZUS, 72–81 · DOI
  24. Schwarz J, Maiwald H (2008) Damage and loss prediction model based on the vulnerability of building types. In: 4th International symposium of flood defence, Toronto, Canada, May 6–8
  25. Smith DI (1994) Flood damage estimation—a review of urban stage-damage curves and loss function. Water SA 20(3):231–238
  26. UN-HABITAT, State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011, Bridging The Urban Divide. Report ID 2917. http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2917 . 2010 · DOI
  27. Viparelli C (1963) Ricostruzione dell’idrogramma di piena. L’Energia Elettrica 6:421–428 (in Italian)
  28. Zuccaro G, Santo A, Cacace F, De Gregorio D, Di Crescenzo G (2012) Building vulnerability assessment under landslides actions: Castellammare di Stabia case study. Rend. Online Soc. Geol. It., Vol 21 (2012), pp 470–472. Società Geologica Italiana, Roma 2012. ISSN 2035-8008

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
De Risi, R., Jalayer, F., De Paola, F., Iervolino, I., Giugni, M., Topa, M. E., Mbuya, E., Kyessi, A., Manfredi, G., & Gasparini, P.
Affiliations
  • Analysis and Monitoring of Environmental Risk (IT)
  • Ardhi University (TZ)
ORCID
Venue
Natural Hazards
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-06-08
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
1003-1032
ISSN
  • 0921-030X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0840
DOI
10.1007/s11069-013-0749-0
OpenAlex
W1977230707
Cited by
156
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
8.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Natural Hazards (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Keywords
flood risk assessment, informal settlements, slums, flood hazard, building fragility, logic tree, error propagation, ultimate limit state, flood height, building vulnerability, Dar es Salaam

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review