Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Physics and Chemistry of The Earth: Paulo Fernandez, Sandra Mourato, Madalena Moreira, Luísa Pereira
Physics and Chemistry of The Earth: Paulo Fernandez, Sandra Mourato, Madalena Moreira, Luísa Pereira
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: A Flood Vulnerability Index (FloodVI) was developed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and a
Received 12 February 2015 new aggregation method based on Cluster Analysis (CA). PCA simplifies a large number of variables into a
Received in revised form few uncorrelated factors representing the social, economic, physical and environmental dimensions of
1 April 2016
vulnerability. CA groups areas that have the same characteristics in terms of vulnerability into vulner-
Accepted 5 April 2016
Available online xxx
ability classes. The grouping of the areas determines their classification contrary to other aggregation
methods in which the areas' classification determines their grouping. While other aggregation methods
distribute the areas into classes, in an artificial manner, by imposing a certain probability for an area to
Keywords:
Aggregation methods
belong to a certain class, as determined by the assumption that the aggregation measure used is nor-
Cluster analysis mally distributed, CA does not constrain the distribution of the areas by the classes.
Flood vulnerability index FloodVI was designed at the neighbourhood level and was applied to the Portuguese municipality of
Principal components analysis Vila Nova de Gaia where several flood events have taken place in the recent past. The FloodVI sensitivity
was assessed using three different aggregation methods: the sum of component scores, the first
component score and the weighted sum of component scores.
The results highlight the sensitivity of the FloodVI to different aggregation methods. Both sum of
component scores and weighted sum of component scores have shown similar results. The first
component score aggregation method classifies almost all areas as having medium vulnerability and
finally the results obtained using the CA show a distinct differentiation of the vulnerability where hot
spots can be clearly identified.
The information provided by records of previous flood events corroborate the results obtained with
CA, because the inundated areas with greater damages are those that are identified as high and very high
vulnerability areas by CA. This supports the fact that CA provides a reliable FloodVI.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
1474-7065/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
2 P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9
Furthermore, the development of techniques and assessment the majority of the more recent vulnerability indices (Fekete,
methodologies as well as measures regarding the increase of 2009b; Schmidtlein et al., 2011; Tate, 2012).
knowledge about flood vulnerability or flood risk can be of great The main criticisms regarding indices construction methods are
value for decision makers and can help reduce damage and the subjective process of both variable selection and weighting,
fatalities. unavailability of certain variables, problems related to aggregation
Risk may be defined as the probability that a particular level of at different scales, and difficulties in validating the results (Barnett
loss can be sustained by a given series of elements as a result of a et al., 2008; Fekete, 2012; Jones and Andrey, 2007). Furthermore,
given level of hazard impact (Alexander, 2000). The exposed ele- different combinations of the variables may produce diverse
ments in flood risk are population, communities, buildings and vulnerability assessments (Chakraborty et al., 2005; Koks et al.,
infrastructures as well as economic activities and the natural 2015). Nevertheless, the usefulness of indicators aimed at
environment, that are under threat in a given area. reducing complexity, measuring progress, and establishing prior-
Vulnerability is embedded into the concept of risk, as ities makes them an important tool for decision makers.
Risk ¼ Hazard Vulnerability (Wisner et al., 2004) and is under- Jones and Andrey (2007) have argued that Principal Component
stood as “The characteristics and circumstances of a community, Analysis (PCA) offers an alternative to the otherwise subjective
system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a variable selection by objectively simplifying a large number of
hazard” (UNISDR, 2009). The existing literature establishes several variables into a few uncorrelated factors that capture the variability
definitions and conceptual frameworks of vulnerability were in the underlying data (Abdi and Williams, 2010). The PCA
established, according to the researchers' views. These can be approach increases flexibility regarding the choice and number of
summarized in three classes (Adger, 2006; Fekete, 2009b; Tate, variables, thereby allowing for a more robust and consistent set of
2011): i) exposure to a natural event, risk stressor or shock; ii) variables (Cutter et al., 2003) and provides several potential ad-
sensitivity, also described as susceptibility or resistance; and iii) vantages with regard to aggregation of spatially explicit and
adaptative capacity, also expressed as recovery potential or potentially incommensurable variables (Abson et al., 2012).
resilience. PCA is labelled as an inductive method and has been used by the
There are usually four dimensions that need to be considered in majority of the more recent vulnerability indices studies (Borden
vulnerability assessment: i) the physical dimension that represents et al., 2007; Cutter et al., 2003; Fekete, 2009a; Finch et al., 2010;
the potential of physical impact on the built environment; ii) the Rygel et al., 2006; Schmidtlein et al., 2011; Tate et al., 2010). The
economic dimension that accounts for the potential impacts of vulnerability index is built as a function of principal components
hazards on economic assets; iii) the social dimension that is related (PC) and their subsequent aggregation. Aggregation of PC refers to
to the presence of human beings, individuals or communities, and the procedure used to combine transformed, normalized, and
their capacity to cope, resist and recover from hazard impacts; and weighted indicators into a simpler measure, reducing the amount
iv) the environmental dimension that refers to potential impacts on and complexity of information that must be used during the pro-
the natural environment and the ability of ecosystems to cope and cess of classifying the areas into vulnerability classes (Nguyen et al.,
recover from hazard impacts. 2016). It should be emphasized that the existing aggregation
The complex structure of a vulnerability assessment framework methods do not guarantee that those areas have similar charac-
is described as a hierarchical model, a deductive model, or an teristics in terms of the variables of interest's values and thus of
inductive model (Tate, 2012) and aggregate vulnerability indices vulnerability. Furthermore, and as stated before, the choice of the
are computed using the mathematics of index construction aggregation method conditions the results, making the aggregation
(Schmidtlein et al., 2008). Inductive methods were popularized by of the PC a subjective decision in the index construction process
the Social Vulnerability Index (Cutter et al., 2003) and are used by (Bo€ hringer and Jochem, 2007).
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9 3
Commonly applied aggregation methods use addition and/or presented and discussed in Section 3 and finally some conclusions
multiplication of components. The aggregation based on the are presented in Section 4.
addition of components using equal weights is used comprehen-
sively (Tate, 2012). In some recent vulnerability assessments, 2. Materials and methods
eigenvector techniques similar to PCA have been used as robust
estimators of objective weights (Pacheco and Sanches Fernandes, 2.1. Study site and data
2013) and proven to be the most efficient among common
weighting techniques (Pacheco et al., 2015). Flood vulnerability is assessed for the municipality of Vila Nova
Cluster analysis (CA) appears as a serious alternative to these de Gaia (Fig. 1), situated in Northern Portugal, where several floods
aggregation methods. Although various studies, in distinct areas have occurred (Branda ~o et al., 2014; Ze^zere et al., 2014). According
other than flood risk assessment, have used CA to aggregate to the DISASTER Project (Ze ^zere et al., 2014), any flood event is
different regions by their characteristics (Lee et al., 2016; Mourato stored in the database if it led to casualties or injuries, and missing,
et al., 2010; Santos et al., 2014), a formal methodology to aggre- evacuated or homeless people, independent of the number of
gate principal components of similar neighbourhoods into the people affected. Between 1865 and 2010, 57 floods were reported in
same group and to perform their classification in a straightforward Vila Nova de Gaia municipality, accounting for a total of four deaths,
manner is missing in the literature. as well as evacuation of 123 and displacement of 2930. The mu-
The partitional K-means clustering algorithm is a non- nicipality ranks as the fourth in Portuguese ranking of flood di-
hierarchical clustering technique which attempts to find k non- sasters. Between 1999 and 2009, 1275 flood events were reported
overlapping clusters, by moving objects from cluster to cluster, by the national civil protection service.
with the goal of minimizing the within-cluster variance and The municipality has an area of 168.46 km2 and is divided into
maximizing the between-cluster variance (Jain and Dubes, 1988). 24 civil parishes and 3076 neighbourhoods. It is the third most
As a first step, k initial centroids are selected, where k is specified by populous municipality in Portugal, with 302,295 inhabitants in
the user and indicates the desired number of clusters and then, 2011, approximately 180,000 of which are urban residents. From
each additional iteration groups the observations, based on the 2001 to 2011 the number of residents has increased by approxi-
nearest Euclidean distance to the centre of the cluster. The centroid mately 15,000. The population density is about 1795 inhabitants
of each cluster is then updated based on the points assigned to the per km2 and the building density is about 386 buildings per km2.
cluster. The process continues until cluster centres do not shift The predominant land uses are urban (43%) and forest (39%).
more than a given cut-off value (Wu, 2012). By using CA, the areas In this study two data sets were used: the Geographic Infor-
with similar characteristics, in terms of the variables of interest's mation of Portuguese Statistics (2011 Census) provided by the
values, are gathered together. This is exactly what the other ag- National Statistics Institute and the land use maps for 1990 and
gregation methods lack. 2007 provided by the Portuguese Geographic Institute. The 2011
In addition to the development of a new aggregation method, Census data are geo-referenced information based on small terri-
we propose a vulnerability assessment addressing the physical, torial units. The neighbourhood is the territorial unit which iden-
economic, social, and environmental dimensions, whereas the tifies the smallest homogenous area, whether built-up or not, that
majority of studies use only the social dimension in a particular exists in the statistical section. It represents a block in urban areas.
area: United States (Cutter et al., 2003, 2013), United Kingdom
(Tapsell et al., 2002), Austria (Kienberger et al., 2009), Germany
(Fekete, 2009b), Norway (Holand and Lujala, 2013), Romania 2.2. Variable selection
(Armas and Gavris, 2013), China (Zhou et al., 2014), and Israel
(Felsenstein and Lichter, 2014). Therefore, the main differences A vulnerability study has to take into account several variables
between this study and the previous ones on vulnerability assess- within an area such as: age, gender, race, ethnicity, social class,
ment are: the development and implementation of a new aggre- unemployment rate, immigrant status, density and quality of the
gation method based on CA, which is objective, groups built environment, land use, housing tenancy and presence of
neighbourhoods with similar characteristics into the same vulner- informal support networks (Borden et al., 2007; Burton and Cutter,
ability class, incorporates a greater number of dimensions into the 2008; Cutter et al., 2003; Cutter et al., 2000; Fekete, 2009a; Finch
assessment, and contains more detail terms of the in spatial scale et al., 2010; Lein and Abel, 2010; Masozera et al., 2007; Rygel
(neighbourhood level). et al., 2006; Schmidtlein et al., 2011; Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich,
Thus, the main objective of this paper is to provide an auto- 2006; Simpson and Katirai, 2006; Tapsell et al., 2002; Wisner
mated framework for classifying vulnerability of neighbourhoods. et al., 2004).
To achieve this objective, PCA and CA are used. PCA transforms a 15 The variables for the social, economic and physical dimensions
dimensional space into a 4 dimensional one and determines scores were derived from the information available in the 2011 Census at
for each PC. This makes it possible to create and use a modified 4 the neighbourhood level. Additionally, environmental variables
dimensional space of the PC (by scores). CA groups neighbourhoods were added from the land use data. The criteria for variable se-
with similar characteristics into 5 vulnerability classes. The index is lection were taken from the literature and are presented in Table 1.
applied to the Vila Nova de Gaia municipality.
Although the input parameters of the Flood Vulnerability Index 2.3. Flood vulnerability index design
(FloodVI) were selected according to the special focus of floods in
Portugal, they are not directly dependent on flood related infor- PCA reduces the number of variables and determines some
mation. Therefore, this index can be applied to identify, quantify components that summarise different vulnerability characteristics.
and rank flood vulnerability not only in the study area but also in The proposed FloodVI is estimated according to the following steps,
any potential flood area. as illustrated in Fig. 2:
The paper outline is as follows: Section 1 introduces the back-
ground and the aim of the study. Section 2 presents the study area 1) Standardization of input variables to z-scores.
and describes the vulnerability assessment approach and the 2) Calculation of the PCA with the standardized input variables.
sensitivity analysis of the vulnerability index. The results are The starting point for all factor analysis is the collinearity
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
4 P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9
Table 1
Considerations for variable selection.
Variables Considerations
Building density In urban areas with high population density, the rescue process is often rather complicated. In some cases, high population density is related to a
relative number of lower income families (Masozera et al., 2007). Buildings' density is a factor which influences vulnerability in inundated areas
because of potential increase of building's exposure to flooding (Cardona, 2005; Tapsell et al., 2002).
Number of floors The upper floors of buildings may be used to protect people and their belongings (Schneiderbauer, 2007).
Construction period The more recent building constructions are based on structure safety regulations. Therefore, these buildings are often more resistant. Older
neighbourhoods also have older sewage systems which may be more susceptible to flooding (Simonovic et al., 2007).
Building structure The main floor and wall construction materials determine the building's physical fragility to a flood event and indicate resistance to damage, as well
as the social status of the residents (Müller et al., 2011; Schneiderbauer, 2007).
Housing occupancy Landlords are more likely to pursue construction changes in their buildings and to have insurance or increase their insurance coverage than tenants
(Tapsell et al., 2002). People that rent a house usually do not have the financial resources for home ownership and often do not have access to
information about financial support during recovery (Cutter et al., 2003; Fekete, 2009a).
Gender Women have a higher perception of risk and are better prepared for action (Fekete, 2009a). However, women can have more difficulty during
recovery, often due to lower income and greater family care responsibilities (Cutter et al., 2003; Fekete, 2009a; Hewitt, 1997).
Education level The level of education and illiteracy rate are clear factors of socioeconomic vulnerability, because there is a direct relationship between these and
economic capacity, social status and job opportunities (Cutter et al., 2003; Fekete, 2009a).
Age The elderly have limited mobility and physical difficulties in evacuations. They are more reluctant to leave their homes, have health-related
problems and longer recovery time (Rygel et al., 2006). The very young also have high physical fragility and dependency (Cutter et al., 2003; Fekete,
2009a; Hewitt, 1997; Kuhlicke et al., 2011).
Unemployment The unemployed comprise a special group that is more dependent on other family members and on the government (Fekete, 2009a). The
unemployed potentially have lower financial assets, so their houses are of lower quality and are most probably not insured (Balica, 2012).
Household Larger families often have to share their income and have more dependents such as children and elderly to evacuate (Fekete, 2009a). Frequently,
composition they have limited financial resources to outsource care for dependents and difficulties in reconciling work responsibilities with care for family
members (Cutter et al., 2003; Fekete, 2009a; Hewitt, 1997).
Economic activity The services sector is an expression of areas with high economic development areas. (Cutter et al., 2009).
sector
Land use In agricultural areas there are also economic losses resulting from temporary inundation of crops, which can be frequent due to the increase in
extreme events resulting from climatic changes (Morris and Brewin, 2013). Damages are lower in inundated forest areas. Some species are flood
tolerant (survived more than 150 days), and others can withstand up to 50 days of flooding (Whitlow and Harris, 1979). Floods in urban areas
encumber emergency management and result in large economic losses, because the temporary water coverage affects economic activities and a
large number of people (Balica, 2012).
Urban growth Rapid urban growth combined with wrong planning policies may result in poor quality housing which makes residents more vulnerable. Urban land
use increases impervious areas and hence runoff (Balica and Wright, 2010).
analysis and the elimination of redundant data. This procedure normalized PC using the Euclidean distance measure. The K-
measures if the correlations are appropriate to carry out PCA. means is a partition clustering approach by which each point is
3) Analysis of PCA output results. The KaisereMeyereOlkin test assigned to the cluster with the closest centre, with a pre-defined
(KMO) measures the sampling adequacy and shows the extent number of clusters. The K-means algorithm aims at minimizing
to which the data fits factor analysis, thus determining the level an objective function (equation (1)), in this case a squared error
of confidence that can be expected when using factor analysis function.
(Hair et al., 2009). KMO values above 0.6 indicate an acceptable
Xk Xn ðjÞ
2
level and above 0.8 a good compatibility level of variables J¼ x c (1)
j¼1 i¼1 i j
(Hutcheson and Sofroniou, 1999). Those components whose
eigenvalues are greater than one are selected (Kaiser, 1960).
where
kis the number of clusters, n is the number of cases and
Communalities measure the extent to which the variance of the ðjÞ 2
xi cj is a distance function between case i and the centre of
original variables is accounted for by the observed components.
cluster j (cj) (Jain and Dubes, 1988).
The communalities values should all be greater than 0.5.
The cluster centre is defined as a parameter set that has the
4) Analysis of variance explained. The number of components
minimum average Euclidean distance to each of the members in
needed in order to account for a pre-specified amount of orig-
the cluster. This distance is weighted by the explained variance
inal data variation should be retained. The smallest number of
obtained for the PC. In this way, the dimensions that are considered
components is chosen such that at least 80% of the original data
more important will have more impact on the clustering process.
variation is explained.
The number of clusters used in clustering is five according to the
5) Rotation of the initial PCA solution using the Varimax rotation.
five vulnerability classes (very low, low, medium, high, and very
This is a popular orthogonal factor rotation method and the
high).
factors are extracted so that their axes are maintained at 90 .
Each cluster is then characterized by a value, to reduce the 4
This generally simplifies the relationships among the variables
dimensional space to one dimension, during the classification
and clarifies the interpretation of the factors.
process. This value is the mean value of the coordinates of the
6) Calculation of the component scores for each neighbourhood.
cluster centre. The cluster with the smallest value will be classified
The component score is a composite measure created for each
as being the least vulnerable and the one with the highest value as
observation of each extracted factor in the factor analysis. The
he most vulnerable.
component scores are standardized to a z-score.
To assess FloodVI sensitivity three other aggregation methods
7) Aggregation method, assigning a vulnerability class to each
are considered:
neighbourhood.
Sum of components (Aggregation 1): this is a simple approach
that adds the component scores (CS), assigning equal weight to
The novel aggregation method proposed here is based on CA,
each component of the index (equation (2)).
which is regarded as the most practical method of establishing
regions with similar characteristics from large data sets (Hosking Xn
Aggregation 1 ¼ CSi (2)
and Wallis, 1997). A K-means clustering method is applied to the i¼1
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9 5
First component (Aggregation 2): the first extracted compo- Weighted sum of components (Aggregation 3): This is a
nent is the linear combination of variables that explain the largest compromise between the first two methods, where each compo-
amount of variation in the original data. Therefore, selecting only nent's weight (vi) is the proportion between the explainable vari-
the first component (CS1) will give the mathematically optimal ance and the total variation (equation (4)).
value that summarizes all the input variables in a single combina-
tion (equation (3)). Xn
Aggregation 3 ¼ v
i¼1 i
CSi (4)
Aggregation 2 ¼ CS1 (3)
For each aggregation method the resulting score is standardized
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
6 P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9
to z-scores. These z-score values are then used to classify the cor- loads of the four components after Varimax rotation. This pro-
responding neighbourhood into a vulnerability class. These classes vides a clear depiction of the four PC and the variables that form
correspond to an interval of dimensions that is determined by the it.
standard deviation of the z-score values (that has a value of 1 since
the z-scores are normalized). Hence, the corresponding neigh- 3.2. Flood vulnerability assessment
bourhoods are classified respectively as having very high vulnera-
bility for z-score values > 1.5, high vulnerability for 1.5 z-score The four aggregation methods were applied (2.3) to compute
values 0.5, medium vulnerability for 0.5 <z-score values < 0.5, the FloodVI. The first three aggregation methods consider that
low vulnerability for 1.5 z-score values 0.5, and finally very among the 3076 neighbourhoods, 205 have very low vulnerability,
low vulnerability for z-score values < 1.5. Selection of these values 744 have low vulnerability, 1178 have medium vulnerability, 744
is supported by the existing literature (Cutter et al., 2003; Dunning have high vulnerability and 205 have very high vulnerability.
and Durden, 2013; Schmidtlein et al., 2008) and assumes that the z- Noteworthy is the artificial distribution of the number of neigh-
scores have a normal distribution. In this way, and considering the bourhoods per class due to the classification procedure. Indeed, the
5 vulnerability classes, the probability of having a neighbourhood commonly used thresholds (2.3) force, for example, the medium
with medium vulnerability class is 38.292% against 24.173% for the vulnerability class to have a greater number of neighbourhoods.
low and high vulnerability classes and 6.681% for the other two The method using CA provides the following results: 1354 neigh-
classes. This form of classification forces the neighbourhoods to bourhoods have very low vulnerability, 369 have low vulnerability,
pertain to a certain class, depending on the thresholds used. On 215 have medium vulnerability, 861 have high vulnerability and
the contrary, and being more accurate, CA does not impose any kind 277 have very high vulnerability. The spatial distribution of these
of constraint on the distribution of the areas to be classified. classified neighbourhoods per aggregation method is illustrated in
Henceforth, cluster aggregation method will be referred to as Ag- Fig. 3.
gregation 4. Fig. 3 shows that the spatial distribution of the 5 vulnerability
classes produced by the aggregations methods 1 and 2 are very
different, especially in the southeast part of the municipality. This
3. Results and discussion indicates that it is important to also take into account components
two, three and four, which represent 41.7% of the variance of the
3.1. Component scores variables involved. Fig. 3 also shows that the results produced with
aggregation method 3 are very similar with those produced with
After PCA, a KMO test value of 0.882 was achieved, which can be method 1 since the aggregation measures used by both methods
considered good. The relationship between the selected variables are very similar. As the first component is valued more in aggre-
can be described by 4 components which explain 86.1% of the gation method 3 than in method 1, the results obtained with
variance. The first component explains 44.4% of the variance and methods 3 and 2 are less dissimilar than those obtained with
can be related to the social and economic dimensions of vulnera- methods 1 and 2, with most of dissimilarities also located in
bility. It includes the following variables: male inhabitants; female southeast part of the municipality. The major differences are be-
inhabitants; age; unemployment; education level; economic ac- tween the results of aggregation methods 1, 2 and 3 and those of
tivity sector; housing occupancy and household composition. The method 4, where there is a predominance of areas with high
second component that explains 24.0% of the variance addresses vulnerability.
building features and includes: building density; number of floors; Correlation of the results produced by the four different aggre-
construction period and building structure. The third and fourth gation methods confirms the aforesaid (Table 3).
components include the environmental dimension where compo- Analysing the percentage of the areas classified according to
nent three (which explains 11.2%) is related to the urban aspects: each aggregation method (Fig. 4a) it can be concluded that both
urban land use and urban land use change (1990 and 2007) and aggregation methods 1 and 3 present similar results. According to
component four (which explains 6.5%) comprises the rural vari- aggregation method 2, 52.5% of the area is classified as having
ables: agricultural land use and forest land use. medium vulnerability, which strongly disagrees with the 7.1%
The rotated component matrix (Table 2) shows the variable (lowest percentage) obtained by aggregation method 4, which
classifies 45.6% of the areas as having high vulnerability.
Although we have endorsed 5 vulnerability classes, the sensi-
Table 2
tivity analysis is more straightforward if we combine Low and Very
Variable loads in the rotated component matrix.
low vulnerability classes into one single class. The same is true for
Variables Components the High and Very high vulnerability classes (Fig. 4b). From Fig. 4b
1 2 3 4 one can conclude that both aggregation methods 1 and 3 provide
Gender 0.957 0.271 0.019 0.001 similar results, although the latter is sounder, from the conceptual
Age 0.899 0.380 0.017 0.011 point of view. Considering aggregation method 2, the medium and
Unemployment 0.878 0.277 0.030 0.012 low vulnerability classes still have the highest percentage of area,
Education level 0.741 0.530 0.060 0.007 which can be considered conservative since the physical and the
Economic activity sector 0.961 0.091 0.17 0.001
Housing occupancy 0.944 0.137 0.004 0.001
environmental dimensions are not accounted for. Aggregation
Household composition 0.956 0.250 0.002 0.004 method 4 now classifies 92.9% of the area as having high and low
Building density 0.393 0.899 0.043 0.027 vulnerability.
Number of floors 0.214 0.946 0.072 0.042 Intersecting the results obtained with the four aggregation
Construction period 0.166 0.836 0.002 0.046
methods, it is noted that 36 neighbourhoods maintain their clas-
Building structure 0.412 0.821 0.030 0.011
Urban land use 0.058 0.071 0.906 0.043 sification as high or very high, none keep the medium vulnerability
Urban growth 0.007 0.012 0.672 0.157 classification and 49 neighbourhoods maintain their classification
Agriculture land use 0.046 0.092 0.355 0.787 of low or very low vulnerability. Aggregation methods 1, 2 and 3
Forestry land use 0.066 0.002 0.615 0.624 have been used and divulged in the literature and no attention has
The bold values correspond to variables load on which components. been paid to their somewhat discordant results.
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9 7
Fig. 3. Flood vulnerability index at Vila Nova de Gaia municipality according to different aggregation methods.
4. Conclusions
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
8 P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9
Fig. 4. Percentage of area for each vulnerability classes according to the four different aggregation methods: a) five classes b) three classes.
aggregation methods showing similar results. The percentage the UNESCO-IHE, Delft, Netherlands, p. 152.
Barnett, J., Lambert, S., Fry, I., 2008. The Hazards of Indicators:Insights from the
values of the areas classified as having low, medium and high
Environmental Vulnerability Index. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr 98, 102e119.
vulnerability are almost equal. The first component aggregation Borden, K.A., Schmidtlein, M.C., Emrich, C.T., Piegorsch, W.W., Cutter, S.L., 2007.
method gives conservative results classifying the majority of the Vulnerability of U.S. Cities to Environmental Hazards. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg.
areas as having medium and low vulnerability, and the CA aggre- Manag 4, 1547e7355.
€
Bohringer, C., Jochem, P., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable e a survey of sus-
gation method provides completely different results that present tainability indices. Ecol. Econ. 63 (1), 1e8.
the majority of the areas as having high and low vulnerability. Branda ~o, C., Saramago, M.M., Ferreira, T., Cunha, S., Costa, S., Alvarez, T.,
Considering that it is not possible to completely validate which Carvalho, F.F.d., Silva, M., Duarte, C., Braunschweig, F., Brito, D., Fernandes, L.,
Jauch, E., Silva, R.P., 2014. Elaboraça ~o de Cartografia Específica sobre Risco de
aggregation method is the most accurate, and bearing in mind that Inundaça ~o para Portugal Continental. Relato rio Final, Volume 1-Memo ria
methods involving the addition of components are very similar, the Descritiva. Age ^ncia Portuguesa do Ambiente, Lisbon, Portugal, p. 260.
novel approach suggested here has several advantages: i) mathe- Burton, C., Cutter, S., 2008. Levee Failures and Social Vulnerability in the Sacra-
mento-San Joaquin Delta Area, California. Nat. Hazards Rev 9, 136e149.
matical background supporting the ability to bring together similar Cardona, O.D., 2005. Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management: Summary
areas; ii) providing the decision maker with an option, since the Report. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C.
results clearly classify the neighbourhoods in high or low vulner- Chakraborty, J., Tobin, G., Montz, B., 2005. Population evacuation: assessing spatial
variability in geophysical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards. Nat.
ability; and iii) not imposing an artificial distribution of neigh- Hazards Rev. 6, 23e33.
bourhoods per class of vulnerability. In addition, it is possible to Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, W.L., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental
state that CA produces a reliable FloodVI since overlaying of inun- hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 242e261.
Cutter, S.L., Emrich, C.T., Morath, D.P., Dunning, C.M., 2013. Integrating social
dated areas, where damages are recorded to have occurred in
vulnerability into federal flood risk management planning. J. Flood Risk Manag.
previous flood events, are in strong agreement with high and very 6, 332e344.
high vulnerability areas as classified by the proposed FloodVI. Cutter, S.L., Emrich, C.T., Webb, J.J., Morath, D., 2009. Social Vulnerability to Climate
The potential presented by FloodVI to clearly identify an area as Variability Hazards: a Review of the Literature. Hazards and Vulnerability
Research Institute, Department of Geography e University of South Carolina,
belonging to an extreme class of vulnerability is an important asset Columbia.
for decision makers. This index makes it possible to easily detect Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J.T., Scott, M.S., 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and
the hot spots, and improves interventions in the more vulnerable places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann. Assoc. Am.
Geogr 90 (4), 713e737.
areas. Thus FloodVI is a potentially powerful tool because it sum- Dunning, C.M., Durden, S., 2013. Social Vulnerability Analysis: A Comparison of
marizes complexity, provides quantitative metrics to compare Tools. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (IWR),
places and track progress, and it is relatively easy for non-experts to Alexandria, VA.
Emori, S., Brown, S.J., 2005. Dynamic and Thermodynamic Changes in Mean and
interpret. Extreme Precipitation Under Changed Climate. Geophysical Research Letters
32.
Fekete, A., 2009a. Assessment of Social Vulnerability for River-floods in Germany.
References Institute for Environment and Human Security. United Nations University,
Bonn.
Abdi, H., Williams, L.J., 2010. Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Fekete, A., 2009b. Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods
Comput. Stat. 2, 433e459. in Germany. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 393e403.
Abson, D.J., Dougill, A.J., Stringer, L.C., 2012. Using principal component analysis for Fekete, A., 2012. Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: challenges in
information-rich socio-ecological vulnerability mapping in southern Africa. their quality and acceptance. Nat. Hazards 61, 1161e1178.
Appl. Geogr. 35, 515e524. Felsenstein, D., Lichter, M., 2014. Social and economic vulnerability of coastal
Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environ. Change 16, 268e281. communities to sea-level rise and extreme flooding. Nat. Hazards 71, 463e491.
Alexander, D., 2000. Confronting Catastrophe. Oxford University Press, New York. Finch, C., Emrich, C., Cutter, S., 2010. Disaster disparities and differential recovery in
Armas, I., Gavris, A., 2013. Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi- New Orleans. Popul. Environ 31, 179e202.
criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the social vulnerability index (SoVI model) Groisman, P.Y., Knight, R.W., Easterling, D.R., Karl, T.R., Hegerl, G.C., Razuvaev, V.N.,
e a case study for Bucharest, Romania. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 2005. Trends in intense precipitation in the climate record. J. Clim. 18,
1481e1499. 1326e1350.
Balica, S., Wright, N.G., 2010. Reducing the complexity of the flood vulnerability Guha-Sapir, D., Vos, F., Below, R., Ponserre, S., 2012. Annual Disaster Statistical Re-
index. Environ. Hazards 9, 321e339. view 2011: the Numbers and Trends. CRED, Brussels.
Balica, S.F., 2012. Applying the Flood Vulnerability Index as a Knowledge Base for Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis: a
Flood Risk Assessment. Delft University of Technology and Academic Board of Global Perspective. Pearson Education, London.
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003
P. Fernandez et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth xxx (2016) 1e9 9
Hewitt, K., 1997. Regions of Risk: a Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Themes Santos, R.M.B., Sanches Fernandes, L.F., Varandas, S.G.P., Pereira, M.G., Sousa, R.,
in Resource Management Addison Wesley Longman, Essex, England. Teixeira, A., Lopes-Lima, M., Cortes, R.M.V., Pacheco, F.A.L., 2015. Impacts of
Holand, I.S., Lujala, P., 2013. Replicating and adapting an index of social vulnerability climate change and land-use scenarios on Margaritifera margaritifera, an
to a new context: a comparison study for Norway. Prof. Geogr. 65, 312e328. environmental indicator and endangered species. Sci. Total Environ. 511,
Hosking, J.R., Wallis, J.R., 1997. Regional Frequency Analysis: an Approach Based on 477e488.
L-moments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Schmidtlein, M.C., Shafer, J.M., Berry, M., Cutter, S.L., 2011. Modeled earthquake
Hutcheson, G., Sofroniou, N., 1999. The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory losses and social vulnerability in Charleston. South Carolina. Appl. Geogr 31,
Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. SAGE Publications Ltd. 269e281.
Jain, A.K., Dubes, R.C., 1988. Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Schmidtlein, M.C., Deutsch, R.C., Piegorsch, W.W., Cutter, S.L., 2008. A sensitivity
Jones, B., Andrey, J., 2007. Vulnerability index construction: methodological choices analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal. 28,
and their influence on identifying vulnerable neighbourhoods. Int. J. Emerg. 1099e1114.
Manag. 4, 269e295. Schneiderbauer, S., Ehrlich, D., 2006. Social Levels and Hazard (In)dependence in
Kaiser, H.F., 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Determining Vulnerability. In Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: To-
Psychol. Meas. 20, 141e151. wards Disaster Resilient Societies. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
Kienberger, S., Lang, S., Zeil, P., 2009. Spatial vulnerability units e expert-based Schneiderbauer, S., 2007. Risk and Vulnerability to Natural Disasters e from Broad
spatial modelling of socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment, View to Focused Perspective. Department Geosciences. University Berlin, Berlin
Austria. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 767e778. (Germany).
Kuhlicke, C., Scolobig, A., Tapsell, S., Steinführer, A., Marchi, B., 2011. Contextualizing Simonovic, S.P., McBean, G., Prodanovic, P., Burn, D.H., Wey, K., Kay, P., Emerson, A.,
social vulnerability: findings from case studies across Europe. Nat. Hazards 58, Mortsch, L., Hebb, A., Goldt, R., Helsten, M., Davidge, D., Wood, M., 2007. Floods:
789e810. Mapping Vulnerability in the Upper Thames Watershed under a Changing
Koks, E.E., Jongman, B., Husby, T.G., Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. Combining hazard, Climate. University of Western Ontario, University of Waterloo, Environment
exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management. Canada and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
Environ. Sci. Policy 47, 42e52. Simpson, D.M., Katirai, M., 2006. Indicator Issues and Proposed Framework for a
Lein, J.K., Abel, L.E., 2010. Hazard vulnerability assessment: How well does nature Disaster Preparedness Index (DPi), Working Paper 06e03. Center for Hazards
follow our rules? Environ. Hazards 9, 147e166. Research and Policy Development, University of Louisville, p. 49.
Lee, C.T., Guzman, D., Ponath, C., Tieu, L., Riley, E., Kushel, M., 2016. Residential Tapsell, S.M., Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Tunstall, S.M., Wilson, T.L., 2002. Vulnerability
patterns in older homeless adults: Results of a cluster analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. to flooding: health and social dimensions. Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser.
Masozera, M., Bailey, M., Kerchner, C., 2007. Distribution of impacts of natural di- A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 360, 1511e1525.
sasters across income groups: a case study of New Orleans. Ecol. Econ. 63, Tate, E., 2012. Social vulnerability indices: a comparative assessment using uncer-
299e306. tainty and sensitivity analysis. Nat. Hazards 63, 325e347.
Morris, J., Brewin, P., 2013. The impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture: the Tate, E., Cutter, S.L., Berry, M., 2010. Integrated multihazard mapping. Environ. Plan.
spring 2012 floods in Somerset, England. J. Flood Risk Manag. 7 (2), 128e140. B Plann. Design 37, 646e663.
Mourato, S., Moreira, M., Corte-Real, J., 2010. Interannual variability of precipitation Tate, E.C., 2011. Indices of Social Vulnerability to Hazards: Model Uncertainty and
distribution patterns in Southern Portugal. Int. J. Climatol 30, 1784e1794. Sensitivity, College of Arts and Sciences. University of South Carolina.
Mostert, E., Junier, S.J., 2009. The European flood risk directive: challenges for Trigo, R.M., Palutikof, J.P., 2001. Precipitation scenarios over Iberia: a comparison
research. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 6, 4961e4988. between direct GCM output and different downscaling techniques. J. Clim. 14,
Müller, A., Reiter, J., Weiland, U., 2011. Assessment of urban vulnerability towards 4422e4446.
floods using an indicator-based approach e a case study for Santiago de Chile. UNISDR, 2009. Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations, Geneva,
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 2107e2123. Switzerland.
Nguyen, T.T.X., Bonetti, J., Rogers, K., Woodroffe, C.D., 2016. Review: indicator-based Whitlow, T.H., Harris, R.W., 1979. Flood Tolerance in Plants: a State-of-the-art Re-
assessment of climate-change impacts on coasts: a review of concepts, meth- view. U.S.Army Engineer Waterways, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
odological approaches and vulnerability indices. Ocean Coast. Manag. 123, Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., 2004. At Risk e Natural Hazards, People's
18e43. Vulnerability and Disasters, second ed. Routledge, London.
Pacheco, F.A.L., Pires, L.M.G.R., Santos, R.M.B., Sanches Fernandes, L.F., 2015. Factor Wu, J., 2012. Cluster analysis and K-means clustering: an introduction. In: Wu, J.
weighting in DRASTIC modeling. Sci. Total Environ. 505, 474e486. (Ed.), Advances in K-means Clustering: a Data Mining Thinking. Springer Berlin
Pacheco, F.A.L., Sanches Fernandes, L.F., 2013. The multivariate statistical structure Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1e16.
of DRASTIC model. J. Hydrol. 476, 442e459. ^zere, J.L., Pereira, S., Tavares, A.O., Bateira, C., Trigo, R.M., Quaresma, I., Santos, P.P.,
Ze
Rygel, L., O’sullivan, D., Yarnal, B., 2006. A method for constructing a social Santos, M., Verde, J., 2014. DISASTER: a GIS database on hydro-geomorphologic
vulnerability index: an application to hurricane storm surges in a developed disasters in Portugal. Nat. Hazards 72, 503e532.
country. Mitig. Adapt Strat. Glob. Change 11, 741e764. Zhou, Y., Li, N., Wu, W., Wu, J., Shi, P., 2014. Local spatial and temporal factors
^zere, J.L., 2014. Risk analysis for local management from
Santos, P.P., Tavares, A.O., Ze influencing population and societal vulnerability to natural disasters. Risk Anal.
hydro-geomorphologic disaster databases. Environ. Scie. Policy 40, 85e100. 34, 614e639.
Please cite this article in press as: Fernandez, P., et al., A new approach for computing a flood vulnerability index using cluster analysis, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2016.04.003