CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Coastal and Marine DynamicsDisaster Management and ResilienceCoastal and Marine Management

Integrated socio-environmental vulnerability assessment of coastal hazards using data-driven and multi-criteria analysis approaches

Open access
Tanim, Ahad Hasan, Goharian, Erfan, Moradkhani, Hamid·2022·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-022-15237-zPMC PMC9270473
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Coastal hazard vulnerability assessment has been centered around the multi-variate analysis of geo-physical and hydroclimate data. The representation of coupled socio-environmental factors has often been ignored in vulnerability assessment. This study develops an integrated socio-environmental Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI), which simultaneously combines information from five vulnerability groups: biophysical, hydroclimate, socio-economic, ecological, and shoreline. Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach, two CVI (CVI-50 and CVI-90) have been developed based on average and extreme conditions of the factors. Each CVI is then compared to a data-driven CVI, which is formed based on Probabilistic Principal Component Analysis (PPCA). Both MCDM and PPCA have been tied into geospatial analysis to assess the natural hazard vulnerability of six coastal counties in South Carolina. Despite traditional MCDM-based vulnerability assessments, where the final index is estimated based on subjective weighting methods or equal weights, this study employs an entropy weighting technique to reduce the individuals’ biases in weight assignment. Considering the multivariate nature of the coastal vulnerability, the validation results show both CVI-90 and PPCA preserve the vulnerability results from biophysical and socio-economic factors reasonably, while the CVI-50 methods underestimate the biophysical vulnerability of coastal hazards. Sensitivity analysis of CVIs shows that Charleston County is more sensitive to socio-economic factors, whereas in Horry County the physical factors contribute to a higher degree of vulnerability. Findings from this study suggest that the PPCA technique facilitates the high-dimensional vulnerability assessment, while the MCDM approach accounts more for decision-makers' opinions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-022-15237-z

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A better understanding of combined anthropogenic and environmental effects on short and long-term coastal landscape evolution is essential for integrated management of the multifunctional potential of coastal areas.

    “A better understanding of combined anthropogenic and environmental effects on short and long-term coastal landscape evolution is essential for integrated management of the multifunctional potential of coastal areas (Tanim et al., 2022;Mavromatidi et al., 2018;Filho et al., 2011).”

    From Towards integrated management of sandy anthropogenic shores: Developing tools for the exploration of human-natural interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Tanim et al., 2022

    The Introduction links interactions between social and biophysical systems to integrated vulnerability assessment and coastal planning; the Shoreline vulnerability section also discusses human intervention and long-term shoreline change. The paper does not establish the claimed need to understand both short- and long-term coastal landscape evolution for managing the multifunctional potential of coastal areas. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. [1]Kirwan ML Megonigal JP Tidal wetland stability in the face of human impacts and sea-level rise Nature 2013 504 7478 53 60 10.1038/nature12856 24305148 · DOI
  2. [2]Dixon RW Moore TW Tornado vulnerability in Texas Weather. Clim. Soc. 2012 4 1 59 68 10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00004.1 · DOI
  3. [3]Barnett TP Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States Science 2008 319 5866 1080 1083 10.1126/science.1152538 18239088 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]Gober P Desert urbanization and the challenges of water sustainability Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010 2 3 144 150 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.06.006 · DOI
  5. [5]Foley JA Global consequences of land use Science (80-). 2005 309 5734 570 574 10.1126/science.1111772 16040698 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Vano JA Understanding uncertainties in future Colorado River streamflow Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2014 95 1 59 78 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00228.1 · DOI
  7. [7]Madani K Water management in Iran: What is causing the looming crisis? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2014 4 4 315 328 10.1007/s13412-014-0182-z · DOI
  8. [10]Walcker R Laplanche C Herteman M Lambs L Fromard F Damages caused by hurricane Irma in the human-degraded mangroves of Saint Martin (Caribbean) Sci. Rep. 2019 9 1 18971 10.1038/s41598-019-55393-3 31831827 PMC6908650 · DOI
  9. [11]Barbier EB Policy: Hurricane Katrina’s lessons for the world Nature 2015 524 7565 285 287 10.1038/524285a 26289191 · DOI
  10. [12]Nelson KS Abkowitz MD Camp JV A method for creating high resolution maps of social vulnerability in the context of environmental hazards Appl. Geogr. 2015 63 89 100 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.011 · DOI
  11. [13]AghaKouchak, A. et al.How Do Natural Hazards Cascade to Cause Disasters? (Nature Publishing Group, 2018). 30250152
  12. [14]Sun H Gao S Liu J Vulnerability assessment and impact factor analysis of marine economic system based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022 10.1016/j.chnaes.2022.03.001 · DOI
  13. [15]Thirumurthy S Jayanthi M Samynathan M Duraisamy M Kabiraj S Anbazhahan N Multi-criteria coastal environmental vulnerability assessment using analytic hierarchy process based uncertainty analysis integrated into GIS J. Environ. Manag. 2022 313 114941 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114941 35378345 · DOI
  14. [16]Bevacqua A Yu D Zhang Y Coastal vulnerability: Evolving concepts in understanding vulnerable people and places Environ. Sci. Policy 2018 82 19 29 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.006 · DOI
  15. [17]Furlan E Pozza PD Michetti M Torresan S Critto A Marcomini A Development of a multi-dimensional coastal vulnerability index: Assessing vulnerability to inundation scenarios in the Italian coast Sci. Total Environ. 2021 772 144650 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144650 33770878 · DOI
  16. [18]Hiriart-Bertrand L Silva JA Gelcich S Challenges and opportunities of implementing the marine and coastal areas for indigenous peoples policy in Chile Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020 193 105233 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105233 · DOI
  17. [19]Rufat S Tate E Burton CG Maroof AS Social vulnerability to floods: Review of case studies and implications for measurement Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015 14 470 486 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.013 · DOI
  18. [20]Bukvic A Rohat G Apotsos A de Sherbinin A A systematic review of coastal vulnerability mapping Sustainability 2020 12 7 2822 10.3390/su12072822 · DOI
  19. [21]Nguyen TTX Bonetti J Rogers K Woodroffe CD Indicator-based assessment of climate-change impacts on coasts: A review of concepts, methodological approaches and vulnerability indices Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016 123 18 43 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.11.022 · DOI
  20. [22]Ng K Borges P Phillips MR Medeiros A Calado H An integrated coastal vulnerability approach to small islands: The Azores case Sci. Total Environ. 2019 690 1218 1227 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.013 31470484 · DOI
  21. [23]Kantamaneni K Phillips M Thomas T Jenkins R Assessing coastal vulnerability: Development of a combined physical and economic index Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018 158 164 175 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.039 · DOI
  22. [24]Eakin H Bojórquez-Tapia LA Insights into the composition of household vulnerability from multicriteria decision analysis Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008 18 1 112 127 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.001 · DOI
  23. [25]Levy JK Hartmann J Li KW An Y Asgary A Multi-criteria decision support systems for flood hazard mitigation and emergency response in urban watersheds1 JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007 43 2 346 358 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00027.x · DOI
  24. [26]Reddy AA Bhattacharya A Reddy SV Ricart S Farmers’ distress index: An approach for an action plan to reduce vulnerability in the drylands of India Land 2021 10.3390/land10111236 · DOI
  25. [27]Kantamaneni K Rice L Du X Allali B Yenneti K Are current UK coastal defences good enough for tomorrow? An assessment of vulnerability to coastal erosion Coast. Manag. 2022 50 2 142 159 10.1080/08920753.2022.2022971 · DOI
  26. [28]Chang H-S Chen T-L Spatial heterogeneity of local flood vulnerability indicators within flood-prone areas in Taiwan Environ. Earth Sci. 2016 75 23 1484 10.1007/s12665-016-6294-x · DOI
  27. [29]Cogswell A Greenan BJW Greyson P Evaluation of two common vulnerability index calculation methods Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018 160 46 51 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.041 · DOI
  28. [30]Il Choi H Assessment of aggregation frameworks for composite indicators in measuring flood vulnerability to climate change Sci. Rep. 2019 9 1 1 14 10.1038/s41598-019-55994-y 31852964 PMC6920364 · DOI
  29. [31]Mclaughlin S Cooper JAG A multi-scale coastal vulnerability index: A tool for coastal managers? Environ. Hazards 2010 9 3 233 248 10.3763/ehaz.2010.0052 · DOI
  30. [32]Sahoo B Bhaskaran PK Multi-hazard risk assessment of coastal vulnerability from tropical cyclones—A GIS based approach for the Odisha coast J. Environ. Manage. 2018 206 November 1166 1178 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.075 29128202 · DOI
  31. [33]Behera R Kar A Das MR Panda PP GIS-based vulnerability mapping of the coastal stretch from Puri to Konark in Odisha using analytical hierarchy process Nat. Hazards 2019 96 2 731 751 10.1007/s11069-018-03566-0 · DOI
  32. [34]Engström J Jafarzadegan K Moradkhani H Drought vulnerability in the United States: An integrated assessment Water 2020 10.3390/w12072033 · DOI
  33. [35]Lee G Jun K-S Chung E-S Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013 13 5 1293 1312 10.5194/nhess-13-1293-2013 · DOI
  34. [36]Khajehei S Ahmadalipour A Shao W Moradkhani H A place-based assessment of flash flood hazard and vulnerability in the contiguous United States Sci. Rep. 2020 10 1 448 10.1038/s41598-019-57349-z 31949202 PMC6965116 · DOI
  35. [37]Abebe Y Kabir G Tesfamariam S Assessing urban areas vulnerability to pluvial flooding using GIS applications and Bayesian Belief Network model J. Clean. Prod. 2018 174 1629 1641 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.066 · DOI
  36. [38]Joo H Choi C Kim J Kim D Kim S Kim HS A Bayesian network-based integrated for flood risk assessment (InFRA) Sustainability 2019 11 13 3733 10.3390/su11133733 · DOI
  37. [39]Lee S Kim J-C Jung H-S Lee MJ Lee S Spatial prediction of flood susceptibility using random-forest and boosted-tree models in Seoul metropolitan city, Korea Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2017 8 2 1185 1203 10.1080/19475705.2017.1308971 · DOI
  38. [40]Mojaddadi H Pradhan B Nampak H Ahmad N Bin Ghazali AH Ensemble machine-learning-based geospatial approach for flood risk assessment using multi-sensor remote-sensing data and GIS Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2017 8 2 1080 1102 10.1080/19475705.2017.1294113 · DOI
  39. [41]Fereshtehpour M Karamouz M DEM resolution effects on coastal flood vulnerability assessment: deterministic and probabilistic approach Water Resour. Res. 2018 54 7 4965 4982 10.1029/2017WR022318 · DOI
  40. [42]Wang Y Fang Z Hong H Peng L Flood susceptibility mapping using convolutional neural network frameworks J. Hydrol. 2020 582 124482 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124482 · DOI
  41. [43]Debortoli NS Sayles JS Clark DG Ford JD A systems network approach for climate change vulnerability assessment Environ. Res. Lett. 2018 13 10 104019 10.1088/1748-9326/aae24a · DOI
  42. [44]Nandi A Mandal A Wilson M Smith D Flood hazard mapping in Jamaica using principal component analysis and logistic regression Environ. Earth Sci. 2016 75 6 465 10.1007/s12665-016-5323-0 · DOI
  43. [46]Abson DJ Dougill AJ Stringer LC Using Principal Component Analysis for information-rich socio-ecological vulnerability mapping in Southern Africa Appl. Geogr. 2012 35 1 515 524 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.08.004 · DOI
  44. [47]Gupta AK Mapping socio-environmental vulnerability to climate change in different altitude zones in the Indian Himalayas Ecol. Indic. 2020 109 105787 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105787 · DOI
  45. [49]Mullick MRA Tanim AH Islam SMS Coastal vulnerability analysis of Bangladesh coast using fuzzy logic based geospatial techniques Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019 174 154 169 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.03.010 · DOI
  46. [50]Tipping ME Bishop CM Mixtures of probabilistic principal component analyzers Neural Comput. 1999 11 2 443 482 10.1162/089976699300016728 9950739 · DOI
  47. [51]Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., Shirley, W. L. Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards, 1st ed. (Routledge, 2012).
  48. [52]Gao J Jiao K Wu S Quantitative assessment of ecosystem vulnerability to climate change: methodology and application in China Environ. Res. Lett. 2018 13 9 94016 10.1088/1748-9326/aadd2e · DOI
  49. [53]Sajjad M Lin N Chan JCL Spatial heterogeneities of current and future hurricane flood risk along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts Sci. Total Environ. 2020 713 136704 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136704 32019039 · DOI
  50. [54]Alipour A Ahmadalipour A Abbaszadeh P Moradkhani H Leveraging machine learning for predicting flash flood damage in the Southeast {US} Environ. Res. Lett. 2020 15 2 24011 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6edd · DOI
  51. [56]Füssel, H.-M. Review and quantitative analysis of indices of climate change exposure, adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and impacts (2010).
  52. [60]Bui DT Pradhan B Lofman O Revhaug I Dick OB Spatial prediction of landslide hazards in Hoa Binh province (Vietnam): A comparative assessment of the efficacy of evidential belief functions and fuzzy logic models CATENA 2012 96 28 40 10.1016/j.catena.2012.04.001 · DOI
  53. [61]Zhao, Y. Fuzzy set theory in geospatial analysis. In Progress in Geospatial Analysis (ed. Murayama, Y.) 51–71 (Springer Japan, 2012).
  54. [62]Pourghasemi HR Beheshtirad M Pradhan B A comparative assessment of prediction capabilities of modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) and Mamdani fuzzy logic models using Netcad-GIS for forest fire susceptibility mapping Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2016 7 2 861 885 10.1080/19475705.2014.984247 · DOI
  55. [63]Yin J Schlesinger ME Stouffer RJ Model projections of rapid sea-level rise on the northeast coast of the United States Nat. Geosci. 2009 2 4 262 266 10.1038/ngeo462 · DOI
  56. [64]Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, J.-J. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. (CRC Press, 2011).
  57. [66]Wald A Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses Ann. Math. Stat. 1945 16 2 117 186 10.1214/aoms/1177731118 · DOI
  58. [67]Shannon CE A mathematical theory of communication Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948 27 3 379 423 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · DOI · Paper page
  59. [68]Uddin MN Mapping of climate vulnerability of the coastal region of Bangladesh using principal component analysis Appl. Geogr. 2019 102 47 57 10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.12.011 · DOI
  60. [69]Humphreys LG Ilgen DR Note on a criterion for the number of common factors Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1969 29 3 571 578 10.1177/001316446902900303 · DOI
  61. [70]Long S Fatoyinbo TE Policelli F Flood extent mapping for Namibia using change detection and thresholding with SAR Environ. Res. Lett. 2014 9 3 35002 10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/035002 · DOI
  62. [76]Michot BD Meselhe A Krauss EKW Shrestha S From AS Patino E Hydrologic modeling in a marsh-mangrove ecotone: Predicting wetland surface water and salinity response to restoration in the ten thousand islands region of Florida, USA J. Hydrol. Eng. 2017 22 1 D4015002 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001260 · DOI
  63. [77]Daniels RC White TW Chapman KK Sea-level rise: Destruction of threatened and endangered species habitat in South Carolina Environ. Manag. 1993 17 3 373 385 10.1007/BF02394680 · DOI
  64. [79]Kleinosky LR Yarnal B Fisher A Vulnerability of Hampton Roads, Virginia to storm-surge flooding and sea-level rise Nat. Hazards 2007 40 1 43 70 10.1007/s11069-006-0004-z · DOI
  65. [80]Sears CJ Bowen BW Chapman RW Galloway SB Hopkins-Murphy SR Woodley CM Demographic composition of the feeding population of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) off Charleston, South Carolina: Evidence from mitochondrial DNA markers Mar. Biol. 1995 123 4 869 874 10.1007/BF00349132 · DOI
  66. [82]Möller I Wave attenuation over coastal salt marshes under storm surge conditions Nat. Geosci. 2014 7 10 727 731 10.1038/ngeo2251 · DOI
  67. [83]Shepard CC Crain CM Beck MW The protective role of coastal marshes: a systematic review and meta-analysis PLoS One 2011 6 11 e27374 10.1371/journal.pone.0027374 22132099 PMC3223169 · DOI
  68. [84]Elmilady H van der Wegen M Roelvink D van der Spek A Morphodynamic evolution of a fringing sandy shoal: From tidal levees to sea level rise J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2020 125 6 e2019JF005397 10.1029/2019JF005397 · DOI
  69. [85]Narayan S Simmonds D Nicholls RJ Clarke D A Bayesian network model for assessments of coastal inundation pathways and probabilities J. Flood Risk Manag. 2015 11 S233 S250 10.1111/jfr3.12200 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tanim, A. H., Goharian, E., & Moradkhani, H.
Affiliations
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
Corresponding author
Goharian, Erfan
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-07-08
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
11625-11625
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-022-15237-z
PMC
PMC9270473
OpenAlex
W4284891965
Cited by
88
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2
FWCI
9.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • U.S. Geological Survey
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Earth-Surface Processes › Coastal and Marine Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
Keywords
coastal vulnerability, coastal vulnerability index, socio-environmental vulnerability, coastal hazards, multi-criteria decision making, probabilistic principal component analysis, entropy weight method, socioeconomic vulnerability, sensitivity analysis
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Oceans and Seas, South Carolina

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