...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Water >Comparing Methods of Calculating Expected Annual Damage in Urban Pluvial Flood Risk Assessments
【24h】

Comparing Methods of Calculating Expected Annual Damage in Urban Pluvial Flood Risk Assessments

机译：城市雨洪风险评估中预期年损失的比较方法

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Estimating the expected annual damage (EAD) due to flooding in an urban area is of great interest for urban water managers and other stakeholders. It is a strong indicator for a given area showing how vulnerable it is to flood risk and how much can be gained by implementing e.g., climate change adaptation measures. This study identifies and compares three different methods for estimating the EAD based on unit costs of flooding of urban assets. One of these methods was used in previous studies and calculates the EAD based on a few extreme events by assuming a log-linear relationship between cost of an event and the corresponding return period. This method is compared to methods that are either more complicated or require more calculations. The choice of method by which the EAD is calculated appears to be of minor importance. At all three case study areas it seems more important that there is a shift in the damage costs as a function of the return period. The shift occurs approximately at the 10 year return period and can perhaps be related to the design criteria for sewer systems. Further, it was tested if the EAD estimation could be simplified by assuming a single unit cost per flooded area. The results indicate that within each catchment this may be a feasible approach. However the unit costs varies substantially between different case study areas. Hence it is not feasible to develop unit costs that can be used to calculate EAD, most likely because the urban landscape is too heterogeneous.
机译：对于城市水管理者和其他利益相关者来说，估算城市洪水造成的预期年度损失（EAD）非常重要。它是给定区域的有力指标，显示出该区域容易遭受洪灾风险，以及通过实施例如气候变化适应措施能获得多少收益。这项研究确定并比较了三种不同的基于城市资产洪水的单位成本估算EAD的方法。在以前的研究中使用了其中一种方法，并通过假设一些事件的成本与相应的回报期之间呈对数线性关系，基于一些极端事件来计算EAD。将该方法与更复杂或需要更多计算的方法进行了比较。计算EAD的方法选择似乎不太重要。在所有三个案例研究领域中，损坏成本随回收期的变化而变化似乎更为重要。这种变化大约发生在10年的回收期，并且可能与下水道系统的设计标准有关。此外，还测试了是否可以通过假设每个淹水区单个单位成本来简化EAD估算。结果表明，在每个流域内这可能是一种可行的方法。但是，不同案例研究区域之间的单位成本差异很大。因此，开发可用于计算EAD的单位成本是不可行的，这很可能是因为城市景观过于多样化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号