Natural Hazards

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 1129–1156 | Cite as

Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest, Romania

  • Iuliana Armaş
Original Paper


The expansive infrastructure, along with the high population density, makes cities highly vulnerable to the severe impacts of natural hazards. In the context of an explosive increase in value of the damage caused by natural disasters, the need for evaluating and visualizing the vulnerability of urban areas becomes a necessity in helping practitioners and stakeholders in their decision-making processes. The paper presented is a piece of exploratory research. The overall aim is to develop a spatial vulnerability approach to address earthquake risk, using a semi-quantitative model. The model uses the analytical framework of a spatial GIS-based multi-criteria analysis. For this approach, we have chosen Bucharest, the capital city of Romania, based on its high vulnerability to earthquakes due to a rapid urban growth and the advanced state of decay of the buildings (most of the building stock were built between 1940 and 1977). The spatial result reveals a circular pattern, pinpointing as hot spots the Bucharest historic centre (located on a meadow and river terrace, and with aged building stock) and peripheral areas (isolated from the emergency centers and defined by precarious social and economic conditions). In a sustainable development perspective, the example of Bucharest shows how spatial patterns shape the “vulnerability profile” of the city, based on which decision makers could develop proper prediction and mitigation strategies and enhance the resilience of cities against the risks resulting from the earthquake hazard.


Urban area Earthquakes Indicators Vulnerability Capacity Spatial multi-criteria analysis 



This study was possible through the CNMP-PN II project HERA (Contract No.: 31005/2007), having Prof. Dr. Iuliana Armaş as PI. The author would like to thank student Silvia Dumitraşcu for her contribution to this study.


  1. Anselin L, Ibnu S, Youngihn K (2006) GeoDa: an introduction to spatial data analysis. Geogr Anal 38(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armaş I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26(5):1223–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armaş I (2008a) Percepţia riscului natural: cutremure, inundaţii, alunecări de teren. TUB, Bucuresti, p 204Google Scholar
  4. Armaş I (2008b) Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest municipality/Romania. Nat Hazards 47(3):397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armaş I, Avram E (2009) Perception of flood risk in the Danube Delta/Romania. Nat Hazards 50:269–287. doi: 10.1007/s11069-008-9337-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bala A, Raileanu V, Zihan I, Ciugudean V, Grecu B (2006) Physical and dynamic properties of the shallow sedimentary rocks in the Bucharest metropolitan area. Rom Rep Phys 58(2):221–250Google Scholar
  7. Bălan S, Cristesu V, Cornea I (1982) Cutremurul de Pământ din România de la 4 Martie 1977. Ed. Acad, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  8. Bankoff G (2003) Cultures of disaster: society and natural hazards in the Philippines. RoutledgeCurzon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Barlow DH (2002) Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Benson C (2008) Macro-economic concepts of vulnerability: dynamics, complexity and public policy. In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development and people. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkmann J (ed) (2006) Measuring vulnerability to hazards of natural origin, towards disaster resilient society. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  12. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkmann J, Wisner B (2006) Measuring the un-measurable. The challenge of vulnerability. UNU-EHS, BonnGoogle Scholar
  14. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (2005) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Bohle HG, Downing TE, Watts MJ (1994) Climate change and social vulnerability: the sociology and geography of food insecurity. Glob Environ Chang 4:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bollin C, Hidajat R (2006) Community-based disaster risk index: pilot implementation in Indonesia. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards—towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  18. Bonjer K-P, Oncescu M-C, Driad L, Rizescu M (1999) A note on empirical site response in Bucharest, Romania. In: Wenzel F, Lungu D (eds) Vrancea earthquakes: tectonics, hazard, and risk mitigation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 149–162Google Scholar
  19. Bonjer KP, Grecu B, Rizescu M, Radulian M, Sokolov V, Mandrescu M, Lungu D, Moldoveanu T (2003) Assessment of site effects in downtown Bucharest by recording of ambient noise, moderate and large intermediate depth earthquakes from Vrancea Focal Zone. In: Proceedings of international conference. Earthquake loss estimation and risk reduction, 24–26 Oct 2002, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Bostenaru Dan M (2004) Multi-criteria decision model for retrofitting existing buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4(4):485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bostenaru Dan M (2005) Typological analysis of early reinforced concrete housing buildings in Romania. In: Kappos AJ (ed). Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures, August 2005, Thessaloniki, Greece, paper no. 16 (CD ROM)Google Scholar
  22. Bostenaru Dan M (2006) Wirtschaftlichkeit und Umsetzbarkeit von Gebäudeverstärkungsmaßnahmen zur Erdbebenertüchtigung. Grundlagen und Lösungsansatz unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Situation in Bukarest, Rumänien, Shaker Verlag, p 240Google Scholar
  23. Burton I, Kates RW, White GF (1993) The environment as hazard, 2nd edn. Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. BUWAL, 107/I (1999) Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren, Method, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Dokumentation, 3003 Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Carver SJ (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 5(3):321–339Google Scholar
  26. Chen NY, Heligman L (1994) Growth of the world’s megalopolis. In: Fuchs RJ, Brennan E, Chamie J, Lo FC, Uitto JI (eds) Mega-city growth and the future. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp 17–31Google Scholar
  27. Chen MF, Tzeng GH, Ding CG (2008) Combining fuzzy AHP with MDS in identifying the preference similarity of alternatives. Appl Soft Comput 8:110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cutter SL (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20(4):529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann As Am Geogr 90(4):713–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 82:242–260. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davidson R (1997) An urban earthquake disaster risk index. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg G (1996) Gender and environmental concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Davis I (2008) Progress in analysis of social vulnerability and capacity. In: Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development and people. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Dayton-Johnson J (2004) Natural disasters and adaptive capacity. OECD Development Center Working Paper No. 237Google Scholar
  35. Dow K (1992) Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change. Geoforum 23(3):417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Downing TE, Patwardhan A (2004) Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation. Technical Paper, 3, October 2004: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Accessed 20 May 2010
  37. Dowty RA, Allen BL (eds) (2011) Dynamics of disaster: lessons on risk, response, and recovery. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. Geosci Aust Rec 14Google Scholar
  39. Eakin H, Luers AL (2006) Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:365–394. doi: 10.1146/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ebert A, Kerle N, Stein A (2009) Urban social vulnerability assessment with physical proxies and spatial metrics derived from air- and spaceborne imagery and GIS data. Nat Hazards J Int Soc Prev Mitig Nat Hazards 48(2):275–294.
  41. EM-DAT (2010) The international disaster database. Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters—CRED. Accessed 10 Sept 2010
  42. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fordham M (2000) The place of gender in earthquake vulnerability and mitigation. In: Second Euro conference on global change and catastrophic risk management—earthquake risks in Europe, Austria, Laxenburg, Austria, 2000Google Scholar
  44. Fuchs K, Bonjer KP, Bock G et al (1979) The Romanian earthquake of March 4, 1977; II, aftershocks and migration of seismic activity. Tectonophysics 53:225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fuchs RJ, Brennan E, Chamie J, Lo FC, Uitto JI (1994) Mega-city growth and the future. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  46. Gall M (2007) Indices of social vulnerability to natural hazards: a comparative evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Southern CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  47. Gavriş A (2011) Mari habitate urbane în Bucureşti. Studiu de geografie urbană, Ed. Universitară, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  48. Georgescu EM (2007) Bucharest and earthquakes. Libra cultural foundation, Bucureşti (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  49. Gherasim C (2007) Bucureştiul reflectat în documentele cartografice, Ed. Universitară, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  50. Granger K, Jones T, Leiba M, Scott G (1999) Community risk in Cairns: a provisional multi hazard risk assessment, AGSO Cities Project Report No. 1. Australian Geological Survey Organisation, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  51. Grecu B, Popa M, Radulian M (2003) Seismic ground motion characteristics in the Bucharest area: sedimentary cover versus seismic source control. Rom Rep Phys 55:511–520Google Scholar
  52. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hajkowicz SA, Prato T (1998) Multiple objective decision analysis of farming systems in Goodwater Creek Watershed, Missouri. Research Report No. 24, Centre for Agriculture, Resources and Environmental Systems, Columbia, MOGoogle Scholar
  54. Haque CE, Etkin ED (2007) People and community as constituent parts of hazards: the significance of societal dimensions in hazards analysis. Nat Hazards 41:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. HAZUS—Technical Manual (1997) Earthquake loss estimation methodology, 3 volsGoogle Scholar
  56. HAZUS 99 (2000) Natural loss estimation methodology. Available online at
  57. Hewitt K (1997) Regions of risk: a geographical introduction to disasters. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. HG 1507/2007 concerning the minimum wage per country, Gazette, Part I, nr. 877/20.12.2007Google Scholar
  59. Howard AF (1991) A critical look at multiple criteria decision-making techniques with reference to forestry applications. Can J For Res 21:1649–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. IADB (2005) Indicators of disaster risk and risk management. Summary report for WCDR, Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Manizales, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  61. INSSE, National Institute of Statistics—ROMANIA (2009) Stable population at 1.01.2009.
  62. Ioane D, Stanciucu M, Chitea F, Diaconescu M (2010) Active fault systems and their significance for urban planning in Bucharest, Romania. Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol 12, EGU 2010, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  63. Ionescu C, Klein RJT, Hinkel J, Kumar KKS, Klein R (2009) Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. Environ Model Assess 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. ITC (2001) ILWIS 3.0 academic—user’s guide. Enschede, The Netherlands, ITCGoogle Scholar
  65. Janssen R (1992) Multiobjective decision support for environmental management. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Janssen R (2001) On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in The Netherlands. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 10:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Janssen R, Rietveld P (1990) Multicriteria analysis and GIS: an application to agricultural landuse in The Netherlands. In: Scholten HJ, Stillwell JCH (eds) Geographical information systems for urban and regional planning. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  68. Janssen R, Van Herwijnen M (1994) Multiobjective decision support for environmental management. DEFINITE decisions on an FINITE set of alternatives. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Joseph SA, Yule W, Williams RM (1993) Posttraumatic stress: attributional aspects. J Trauma Stress 6:501–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kasperson RE, Berberian M (2011) (eds) Integrating science and policy: vulnerability and resilience in global environmental change. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Turner BL (eds) (1995) Regions at risk: comparisons of threatened environments. United Nations University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  72. Kates RW (1985) The interaction of climate and society. In: Kates RW, Ausubel JH, Berberian M (eds) Climate impact assessment, SCOPE 27. Wiley, New York, pp 3–36Google Scholar
  73. Keefer DL, Kirkwood CW, Corner JL (2004) Perspectives on decision analysis applications. Decis Anal 1:4–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision analysis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. King D, MacGregor C (2000) Using social indicators to measure community vulnerability to natural hazards. Aust J Emerg Manag 15(3):52–57Google Scholar
  76. Kumpulainen S (2006) Vulnerability concepts in hazard and risk assessments. In Schmidt-Thomé P (ed) Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of european regions. Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 42:65–74Google Scholar
  77. Lungu D, Aldea A, Arion C, Cornea T, Vãcãreanu R (2004) RISK-UE, WP1: European distinctive features, inventory database and typology. In: Proceedings of the international conference “earthquake loss estimation and risk reduction” 24–26 Oct 2002, Bucuresti, vol 2, Romania, pp 251–272Google Scholar
  78. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. Mândrescu N (1978) The Vrancea earthquake of March 4, 1977 and the seismic microzonation of Bucharest. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference microzonation, San Francisco, vol 1, pp 399–411Google Scholar
  80. Mândrescu N, Radulian M (1999) Seismic microzoning of Bucharest (Romania): a critical review. In: Wenzel F, Lungu D, Novak O (eds) Vrancea earthquakes: tectonics, hazard, and risk mitigation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 109–122Google Scholar
  81. Mândrescu N, Radulian M, Mărmureanu G (2004) Site conditions and predominant period of seismic motion in the Bucharest urban area. Rev Roum Geophys 48:37–48Google Scholar
  82. Mândrescu N, Radulian M, Marmureanu G, Ionescu C (2008) Integrate research of the geological, geophysical and seismological data for local response evaluation in Bucharest urban area. Romanian Academy Publishing House, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  83. Marris C, Simpson A, O’Riordan T (1995) Redefining the cultural context of risk perceptions. Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the society for risk analysis (Europe), Stuttgart, University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  84. McClure EF (1989) Lessons learned from recent moderate earthquakes. In: Jacob KH, Turkstra CJ (eds) Earthquake hazards and the design of constructed facilities in the Eastern United States. Ann N Y Acad Sci 558:251–258Google Scholar
  85. McEntire DA (2000) Sustainability or invulnerable development? Proposals for the current shift in paradigms. Aust J Emerg Manag 15(1):58–61Google Scholar
  86. Meichenbaum D (1995) Disaster, stress and cognition. In: Hobfoll SE, de Vries MW (eds) Extreme stress and communities: impact and intervention. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 33–61Google Scholar
  87. Michael KL, Ronald WP (1992) Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  88. Mitchell JK (1989) Hazards research. In: Gaile GL, Willmott CJ (eds) Geography in America. Merrill, Columbus, OH, pp 410–424Google Scholar
  89. Mitchell A (2005) The ESRI guide to GIS analysis, vol 2: spatial measurements and statistics. ESRI Press, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  90. Ngo EB (2001) When disasters and age collide: reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Nat Hazards 2(2):80–89 Google Scholar
  91. Niemeijer D (2002) Developing indicators for environmental policy: data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by data. Environ Sci Policy 5(2):91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Parker D, Mitchell JK (1995) Disaster vulnerability of megacities. GeoJournal 37(3):295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Pelling M (2003) The vulnerability of cities. Natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  94. Radulian M, Panza GF, Popa M, Grecu B (2006a) Seismic wave attenuation for Vrancea events revisited. J Earthq Eng 10(3):411–427Google Scholar
  95. Radulian M, Mândrescu N, Grecu B (2006b) Seismic ground motion variability over the Bucharest area. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica 41(3–4):361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. RISK-UE (2000–2004) An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. Fifth framework programme of the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  97. Rohrmann B (1995) Risk perception research: review and documentation. Programme Group Men, Environment, Technology, KFA Research Centre, JulichGoogle Scholar
  98. Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr 80:1–28Google Scholar
  99. Rygel L, O’Sullivan D, Yarnal B (2006) A method for constructing a social vulnerability index: an application to hurricane storm surge in a developed country. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 11:741–764Google Scholar
  100. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  101. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sandi H (convener) (1986) Vulnerability and risk analysis for individual structures and for systems. Report of EAEE WG 5/10 to the 8th European conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  103. Satty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 117–152Google Scholar
  105. Smith K, Petley DN (2009) Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, p 383Google Scholar
  106. Solomon Z, Mikulincer M, Benbenishty R (1989) Locus of control and combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder: the intervening role of battle intensity, threat appraisal and coping. Br J Clin Psychol 28:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tapsell SM, Tunstall SM, Green C, Fernandez A (2005) Task 11 social indicator set, FLOODsite report T11-07-01. FHRC, Enfield. ( Accessed 10 May 2009
  108. Tapsell SM, McCarthy S, Faulkner H, Alexander M (2010) Social vulnerability to natural hazards. CapHaz-Net,
  109. Tapsell S, McCarthy S, Faulkner H, Alexander M (2011) Social vulnerability to natural hazards. CapHaz-Net Project, Accessed 17 March 2011
  110. Thywissen K (2006) Core terminology of disaster reduction. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards towards disaster resilient societies. J. Birkmann, United Nations University PressGoogle Scholar
  111. Turner BLII, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Chrisensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsiher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS 100(14):8074–8079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Twigg J (2001) Sustainable livelihoods and vulnerability to disasters. Disaster management working paper, 2/2001, March 2001: Disaster Mitigation Institute (DMI). Accessed 1 Dec 2008
  113. Uitto JI (1998) The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities. Appl Geogr 18(1):7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. UN (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division) (2011) World population prospects: the 2010 Revision, vol 1, Comprehensive tables ST/ESA/SER.A/313. Accessed 5 Dec 2012
  115. UN/ISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2004) Living with risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 2004 version. United Nations, Geneva, p. 430. Accessed 15 Dec 2010
  116. UNDP (United Nation Development Programme) (1994) Vulnerability and risk assessment, Disaster Management Training Programme (DMTP), module prepared by Cambridge Architectural Research Limited, The Oast House, Malting Lane, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  117. UNEP (United Nation Development Programme) (2002) Global environment outlook 3—past, present and future perspectives. Earthscan, London, p 426Google Scholar
  118. Văcăreanu R, Cornea T, Lungu D (2001) Evaluarea comportãrii structurale si a ulnerabilitãtii seismice folosind metodologiile HAZUS si ATC-40 modificat. A doua Conferintã Nationalã de Inginerie Seismicã, vol 2, pp 2.16–2.31Google Scholar
  119. van Westen CJ (ed) (2010) Multi-hazard risk assessment: RiskCity: distance education. ITC, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  120. Vargas LG (1990) An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 48:2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Villagrán de Leon JC (2006) Vulnerability a conceptual and methodological review. UNU-EHS. UNU. No 4/2006Google Scholar
  122. Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) The perception and valuation of risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77:151–177Google Scholar
  123. Voogd DH (1983) Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  124. Weichselgartner J (2001) Natural disaster research: the concept of vulnerability. Landsc Ecol Pap 16:107–115Google Scholar
  125. Wenzel F, Bendimerad F, Sinha R (2007) Megacities—megarisks. Nat Hazards 42:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disaster. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  127. Xiong Y, Zeng GM, Chen GQ, Tang L, Wang KL, Huang DY (2007) Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality—a case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecol Model 2009:97–109Google Scholar
  128. Yeh C, Willis R, Deng H, Pan H (1999) Task oriented weighting in multi-criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res 119:130–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Young E (1998) Dealing with hazards and disasters: risk perception and community participation in management. Aust J Emerg Manag 13(2):14–16Google Scholar
  130. Yusuff RM, Yee KP, Hashmi MSJ (2001) A preliminary study on the potential use of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to predict advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 17(5):421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Zaharia B, Radulian M, Popa M, Grecu B, Bǎlǎ A, Tǎtaru D (2008) Estimation of the local response using Nakamura method for Bucharest area. Rom Rep Phys 60(1):131–144Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geomorphology, Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations