Multi-hazard risk mapping for coupling of natural and technological hazards

References

• Aksha SK, Resler LM, Juran L, Laurence WC. 2020. A geospatial analysis of multi-hazard risk in Dharan, Nepal. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 11(1):88–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrantes G. 2018. Multi-hazard model for developing countries. Nat Hazards. 92(2):1081–1095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Chousianitis K, Youssef AM, Pradhan B. 2017. Suitability estimation for urban development using multi-hazard assessment map. Sci Total Environ. 575:119–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner GW, Warner J, Wolfe B, Piper S, Marston L. 2016. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System. Applications Guide. US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis (CA).
   Google Scholar
• Buck KD, Summers JK. 2020. Application of a multi-hazard risk assessment for local planning. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk. 11(1):2058–2078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen G, Huang K, Zou M, Yang Y, Dong H. 2019. A methodology for quantitative vulnerability assessment of coupled multi-hazard in Chemical Industrial Park. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 58:30–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabbeek J, Silva V. 2020. Modeling the residential building stock in the Middle East for multi-hazard risk assessment. Nat Hazards. 100(2):781–810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dai FC, Lee CF, Deng JH, Tham LG. 2005. The 1786 earthquake-triggered landslide dam and subsequent dam-break flood on the Dadu River, Southwestern China. Geomorphology. 65(3–4):205–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eshrati L, Mahmoudzadeh A, Taghvaei M. 2015. Multi hazards risk assessment, a new methodology. Int J Health Syst Disaster Manage. 3(2):79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Gallina V, Torresan S, Critto A, Sperotto A, Glade T, Marcomini A. 2016. A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 168:123–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautam D, Thapa S, Pokhrel S, Lamichhane S. 2021. Local level multi-hazard zonation of Nepal. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 12(1):405–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill JC, Malamud BD. 2014. Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards. Rev Geophys. 52(4):680–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girgin S, Necci A, Krausmann E. 2019. Dealing with cascading multi-hazard risks in national risk assessment: The case of Natech accidents. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 35:101072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grünthal G, Thieken AH, Schwarz J, Radtke KS, Smolka A, Merz B. 2006. Comparative risk assessment for the city of Cologne-storms, floods, earthquake. Nat Hazards. 38(1-2):21–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzzetti F, Carrara A, Cardinali M, Reichenbach P. 1999. Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology. 31(1–4):181–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Z, Weng W. 2020. Synergic effects in the assessment of multi-hazard coupling disasters: Fires, explosions, and toxicant leaks. J Hazard Mater. 388:121813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intentional Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). 2004. Living with risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. United Nations Publication, Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• Ji J, Chen X, Han X. 2014. Rapid simulation and visualization analysis of liquid ammonia tank leakage risk. Procedia Eng. 84:682–688.
   Google Scholar
• Kappes MS, Keiler M, von Elverfeldt K, Glade T. 2012. Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards. 64(2):1925–1958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komendantova N, Mrzyglocki R, Mignan A, Khazai B, Wenzel F, Patt A, Fleming K. 2014. Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: feedback from civil protection stakeholders. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 8:50–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenoir EM, Davenport JA. 1993. A survey of vapour cloud explosions: Second update. Proc Safety Prog. 12(1):12–33.
   Google Scholar
• Liu B, Siu YL, Mitchell G. 2016b. Hazard interaction analysis for multi-hazard risk assessment: a systematic classification based on hazard-forming environment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 16(2):629–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu B, Siu YL, Mitchell G. 2017. A quantitative model for estimating risk from multiple interacting natural hazards: an application to northeast Zhejiang. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 31(6):1319–1340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu B, Siu YL, Mitchell G, Xu W. 2016a. The danger of mapping risk from multiple natural hazards. Nat Hazards. 82(1):139–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone M, Di Ruocco A. 2012. Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. Nat Hazards. 62(2):551–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mousavi SZ, Kavian A, Soleimani K, Mousavi SR, Shirzadi A. 2011. GIS-based spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using logistic regression model. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 2(1):33–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norio O, Ye T, Kajitani Y, Shi P, Tatano H. 2011. The 2011 eastern Japan great earthquake disaster: overview and comments. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2(1):34–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacheco JF, Sykes LR, Scholz CH. 1993. Nature of seismic coupling along simple plate boundaries of the subduction type. J Geophys Res. 98(B8):14133–14159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelling M. 2003. The vulnerability of cities. Natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan Publications, London.
   Google Scholar
• Pourghasemi HR, Gayen A, Edalat M, Zarafshar M, Tiefenbacher JP. 2020. Is multi-hazard mapping effective in assessing natural hazards and integrated watershed management? Geosci. Front. 11(4):1203–1217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawat PK, Pant CC, Bisht S. 2017. Geospatial analysis of climate change and emerging flood disaster risk in fast urbanizing Himalayan foothill landscape. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 8(2):418–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satir O, Berberoglu S, Donmez C. 2016. Mapping regional forest fire probability using artificial neural network model in a Mediterranean forest ecosystem. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 7(5):1645–1658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Thomé P. 2006. Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European region. Geological Survey of Finland, Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• Sutanto SJ, Vitolo C, Napoli CD, Andrea MD, Van Lanen HAJ. 2020. Heatwaves, droughts, and fires: Exploring compound and cascading dry hazards at the pan-European scale. Environ. Int. 134:105276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan W, Du H, Liu L, Su T, Liu X. 2017. Experimental and numerical study of ammonia leakage and dispersion in a food factory. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 47:129–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilloy A, Malamud BD, Winter H, Laugel AJ. 2019. A review of quantification methodologies for multi-hazard interrelationships. Earth-Sci. Rev. 196:102881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie P, Wen H, Ma C, Baise LG, Zhang J. 2018. Application and comparison of logistic regression model and neural network model in earthquake-induced landslides susceptibility mapping at mountainous region, China. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 9(1):501–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng T, Chen G, Reniers G, Yang Y. 2021. Methodology for quantitative risk analysis of domino effects triggered by flood. Process Saf Environ. 147:866–877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Q, Zhou G, Hu Y, Wang S, Sun B, Yin W, Guo F. 2019. Risk evaluation and analysis of a gas tank explosion based on a vapour cloud explosion model: A case study. Eng. Fail. Anal. 101:22–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zscheischler J, Westra S, van den Hurk BJJM, Seneviratne SI, Ward PJ, Pitman A, AghaKouchak A, Bresch DN, Leonard M, Wahl T, et al. 2018. Future climate risk from compound events. Nature Clim Change. 8(6):469–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar