Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 1209–1222 | Cite as

A multi-criteria evaluation model of earthquake vulnerability in Victoria, British Columbia

  • Blake Byron Walker
  • Cameron Taylor-Noonan
  • Alan Tabbernor
  • T’Brenn McKinnon
  • Harsimran Bal
  • Dan Bradley
  • Nadine Schuurman
  • John J. Clague
Original Paper

Abstract

Researchers have recently examined the geographic variability of the vulnerability of populations to earthquakes. These studies focus mainly on the complex modelling of geophysical processes or identification of socio-economically disadvantaged populations. However, no studies to date have integrated different components of vulnerability with metrics of travel distance to hospitals and trauma centres (systemic vulnerability). We argue that this previously unaccounted component is an important conceptual and practical aspect of earthquake vulnerability. Accordingly, this paper presents a multi-criteria model for combining physical, social, and systemic components, moving towards a more comprehensive assessment of vulnerability. An analytic hierarchy process is used to produce a place-specific index of social vulnerability, which we combine with soil liquefaction and amplification index and a road network model for access to hospitals and trauma services. Using a geographic information system, we implemented this model for the Greater Victoria region (483 km2, 2011 population: 345,000) in British Columbia, Canada. Clustering of total vulnerability was found in outlying areas, highlighting the importance of access to trauma centres. We conclude by identifying challenges in measuring earthquake vulnerability and advocate integration of systemic vulnerability components in natural hazards research.

Keywords

Earthquakes Risk Vulnerability Disaster response GIS Victoria British Columbia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Fiona Lawson at the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

References

  1. Akgun A, Türk N (2010) Landslide susceptibility mapping for Ayvalik (Western Turkey) and its vicinity by multicriteria decision analysis. Environ Earth Sci 61:595–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amram O, Schuurman N, Hameed SM (2011) Mass casualty modelling: a spatial tool to support triage decision making. Int J Health Geogr 10:40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anbazhagan P, Thingbaijam KKS, Nath SK, Narendara Kumar JN, Sitharam TG (2010) Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India. J Asian Earth Sci 38:168–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armaş I (2008) Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality, Romania. Nat Hazards 47:397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armaş I, Rădulian M (2014) Spatial multi-criteria risk assessment of earthquakes from Bucharest, Romania. In: Bostenaru DM, Armaş I, Goretti A (eds) Environmental hazards, earthquake hazard impactt and urban planning. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atwater BF, Tuttle MP, Schweig ES, Rubin CM, Yamaguchi DK, Hemphill-Haley E (2003) Earthquake recurrence inferred from paleoseismology. Dev Quarternary Sci 1:331–350Google Scholar
  7. Bell N, Schuurman N, Oliver L, Hayes MV (2007) Towards the construction of place-specific measures of deprivation: a case study from the Vancouver metropolitan area. Can Geogr 51:444–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brabyn L, Skelly C (2002) Modeling population access to New Zealand public hospitals. Int J Health Geogr 1:3. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-1-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (2011) History of earthquakes in Cascadia. Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Castellanos Abella EA, Van Westen CJ (2007) Generation of a landslide risk index map for Cuba using spatial multi-criteria evaluation. Landslides 4:311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakraborty J, Tobin G, Montz B (2005) Population evacuation: assessing spatial variability in geophysical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards. Nat Hazards Rev 6:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chateau D, Metge C, Prior H, Soodeen RA (2012) Learning from the census: the Socio-Economic Factor Index (SEFI) and health outcomes in Manitoba. Can J Public Health 103:523–527Google Scholar
  13. Chiba M (2011) Warning and evacuation in response to sediment-related disasters. Nat Hazards 56:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chou YJ, Huang N, Lee CH, Tsai SL, Chen LS, Chang HJ (2004) Who is at risk of death in an earthquake? Am J Epidemiol 160:688–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clague JJ (1997) Evidence for large earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone. Rev Geophys 35:439–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clague JJ (2002) The earthquake threat in southwestern British Columbia: a geologic perspective. Nat Hazards 26:7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clague JJ, Munro A, Murty M (2003) Tsunami hazard and risk in Canada. Nat Hazards 28:433–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cova T, Church RL (1997) Modelling community evacuation vulnerability using GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 11:763–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cutter S, Boruff B, Shirley W (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84:242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dell’Acqua F, Gamba P, Jaiswal K (2013) Spatial aspects of building and population exposure data and their implications for global earthquake exposure monitoring. Nat Hazards 68:1291–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Delor F, Hubert M (2000) Revisiting the concept of ‘vulnerability’. Soc Sci Med 50:1557–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas J (2007) Physical vulnerability modelling in natural hazard risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duzgun HSB, Yucemen MS, Kalacioglu HS, Celik K, Kemec S, Ertugay K, Deniz A (2011) An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas. Nat Hazards 59:917–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ehrlich D, Kemper T, Blaes X, Soille P (2013) Extracting building stock information from optical satellite imagery for mapping earthquake exposure and its vulnerability. Nat Hazards 68:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feizizadeh B, Blaschke T (2013) GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping: comparing three methods for the Urmia Lake Basin, Iran. Nat Hazards 65:2105–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fekete A (2012) Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: challenges in their quality and acceptance. Nat Hazards 61:1161–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Few R (2007) Health and climatic hazards: framing social research on vulnerability, response, and adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 17:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flanagan BE, Gregory EW, Hallisey EJ, Heitgard JL, Lewis B (2011) A social vulnerability index for disaster management. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 8:1547–7355Google Scholar
  29. Frankel AD, Petersen MD (2008) Cascadia subduction zone. In: The uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 2. US Geol Surv, RentonGoogle Scholar
  30. Gitis V, Derendyaev A, Metrikov P, Shogin A (2012) Network geoinformation technology for seismic hazard research. Nat Hazards 62:1021–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldfinger C, Nelson CH, Morey A, Johnson JE, Gutierrez-Pastor J, Eriksson AT, Karabanov E, Patton J, Gracia E, Enkin R, Dallimore A, Dunhill G, Vallier T (2012) Turbidite event history: methods and implications for Holocene paleoseismicity of the Cascadia subduction zone. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1661-FGoogle Scholar
  32. Guha-Sapir D, Vos F, Below R, Ponserre S (2011) Annual disaster statistical review 2010: The numbers and trends. Cen Res Epidemiol Disasters. Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels.Google Scholar
  33. Hengjian L, Kohiyama M, Horie K, Maki N, Hayashi H, Tanaka S (2003) Building damage and casualties after an earthquake. Nat Hazards 29:387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hewitt K (2013) Environmental disasters in social context: toward a preventive and precautionary approach. Nat Hazards 66:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Horner MW, Widener MJ (2011) The effects of transportation network failure on people’s accessibility to hurricane disaster relief goods: a modeling approach and application to a Florida case study. Nat Hazards 59:1619–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King D, MacGregor C (2000) Using social indicators to measure community vulnerability to natural hazards. Aust J Emerg Manag 15:52–57Google Scholar
  37. Kuhlicke C, Scolobig A, Tapsell S, Steinfuhrer A, Di Marchi B (2011) Contextualizing social vulnerability: findings from case studies across Europe. Nat Hazards 58:789–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kulkarni R, Wong I, Zachariasen J, Goldfinger C, Lawrence M (2013) Statistical analyses of great earthquake recurrence along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 103:3205–3321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindsay J (2003) The determinants of disaster vulnerability: achieving sustainable mitigation through population health. Nat Hazards 28:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luo W, Wang F (2003) Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environ Plan B Plan Des 30:865–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malczewski J (1999) Spatial multicriteria decision making. In: Thill JC (ed) Spatial multicriteria decision making and analysis: a geographic information sciences approach. Ashgate, Brookfield, pp 11–48Google Scholar
  42. Martins VN, Sousa e Silva D, Cabral P (2012) Social vulnerability assessment to seismic risk using multicriteria analysis: the case study of Vila Franca do Campo. Nat Hazards 62:385–404Google Scholar
  43. McLafferty SL (2003) GIS and health care. Ann Rev Public Health 24:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Monahan P, Levson V, Henderson P, Sy A (2000) Relative liquefaction and amplification of ground motion hazard maps of Greater Victoria. BC Geol Surv, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrow BH (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mück M, Taubenböck H, Post J, Wegscheider S, Strunz G, Sumaryono S, Ismail FA (2013) Assessing building vulnerability to earthquake and tsunami hazard using remotely sensed data. Nat Hazards 68:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nallamothu BK, Bates E, Wang Y, Bradley E, Krumholz H (2006) Driving times and distances to hospitals with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: implications for prehospital triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 113:1189–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Earthquake Database (2014) Seismic hazard earthquake epicentre file. Geol Surv Can Ottawa, Ottawa, ON. www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/stndon/NEDB-BNDS/bull-eng.php. Accessed 19 Mar 2014
  49. Natural Resources Canada (2013) Seismic zones in western Canada. Natural Resour Can, Ottawa, ON. http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/zones/westcan-eng.php Accessed 13 Mar 2014
  50. Noriega GR, Ludwig LG (2012) Social vulnerability assessment for mitigation of local earthquake risk in Los Angeles County. Nat Hazards 64:1341–1355Google Scholar
  51. Onur T, Ventura CE, Finn WDL (2006) A comparison of two regional seismic damage estimation methodologies. Can J Civil Eng 33:1401–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (2013) Earthquake hazards in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon Dep Geol Mineral Industries, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  53. Pathak SR, Dalvi AN (2013) Elementary empirical model to assess seismic soil liquefaction. Nat Hazards 69:425–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peleg K, Pliskin JS (2004) A geographic information system simulation model of EMS: reducing ambulance response time. Am J Emerg Med 22:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pourghasemi HR, Pradhan B, Gokceoglu C, Deylami Moezzi K (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping using a spatial multi criteria evaluation model at Haraz Watershed, Iran. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  56. Rashed T, Weeks J (2003) Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas. Int J Geog Inf Sci 17:547–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rygel L, O’Sullivan D, Yarnal B (2006) A method for constructing a social vulnerability index: an application to hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11:741–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saatay TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24:19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scheuer S, Haase D, Meyer V (2011) Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnerability. Nat Hazards 58:731–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmidtlein MC, Deutsch R, Pieogorsch W, Cutter S (2008) A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Anal 28:1099–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmidtlein MC, Shafer M, Berry M, Cutter S (2011) Modeled earthquake losses and social vulnerability in Charleston, South Carolina. Appl Geogr 31:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schuurman N, Bérubé M, Crooks VA (2010) Measuring potential spatial access to primary health care physicians using a modified gravity model. Can Geogr 54:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sica S, Dello Russo A, Rotili F, Simonelli AL (2014) Ground motion amplification due to shallow cavities in nonlinear soils. Nat Hazards 71:1913–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith K (2013) Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge, NYGoogle Scholar
  65. Ventura CE, Liam Finn WDL, Onur T, Blanquera A, Rezai M (2005) Regional seismic risk in British Columbia: classification of buildings and development of damage probability functions. Can J Civil Eng 32:372–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wisner B, Luce HR (1993) Disaster vulnerability: scale, power, and daily life. GeoJournal 30:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wood NJ, Schmidtlein MC (2012) Anisotropic path modeling to assess pedestrian-evacuation potential from Cascadia-related tsunamis in the US Pacific Northwest. Nat Hazards 62:275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xie J, Nistor I, Murty T (2012) Tsunami risk for Western Canada and numerical modelling of the Cascadia fault tsunami. Nat Hazards 60:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu Z, Lu X, Guan H, Han B, Ren A (2014) Seismic damage simulation in urban areas based on a high-fidelity structural model and a physics engine. Nat Hazards 71:1679–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Xue X, Yang X (2014) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Nat Hazards 71:2101–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Tarabees E (2011) Integrated evaluation of urban development suitability based on remote sensing and GIS techniques: contribution from the analytic hierarchy process. Arab J Geosci 4:463–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yu L, Lai KK (2011) A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support. Decis Support Syst 51:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang N, Huang H, Su B, Zhang H (2013) Population evacuation analysis: considering dynamic population vulnerability distribution and disaster information dissemination. Nat Hazards 69:1629–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Blake Byron Walker
    • 1
  • Cameron Taylor-Noonan
    • 1
  • Alan Tabbernor
    • 1
  • T’Brenn McKinnon
    • 1
  • Harsimran Bal
    • 1
  • Dan Bradley
    • 1
  • Nadine Schuurman
    • 1
  • John J. Clague
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GeographySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations