Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 115–145 | Cite as

Toward a rapid probabilistic seismic vulnerability assessment using satellite and ground-based remote sensing

  • Massimiliano PittoreEmail author
  • Marc Wieland
Original Paper

Abstract

Natural hazards such as earthquakes threaten millions of people all around the world. In a few decades, most of these people will live in fast-growing, inter-connected urban environments. Assessing risk will, therefore, be an increasingly difficult task that will require new, multidisciplinary approaches to be tackled properly. We propose a novel approach based on different imaging technologies and a Bayesian information integration scheme to characterize exposure and vulnerability models, which are among the key components of seismic risk assessment.

Keywords

Earthquake Vulnerability Risk management Urban planning Remote sensing Omnidirectional imaging Bayesian networks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the unknown reviewers whose constructive comments and suggestions considerably improved the manuscript. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Kevin Fleming for stimulating many inspiring discussions. Particular thanks to CAIAG (Central Asian Institute for Applied Geoscience, Bishkek) and IntUIT (International University for Innovation Technologies, Bishkek) for their support during the ground-based data-capturing. This work was supported by PROGRESS (Georisiken im Globalen Wandel), Helmholtz-EOS (Earth Observation System) and CEDIM (Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction).

References

  1. Aytekin O, Ulusoy I, Erener A, Duzgun HSB (2009) Automatic and unsupervised building extraction in complex urban environments from multi spectral satellite imagery. In: Recent advances in space technologies, 2009. RAST’09. 4th international conference on, pp 287–291Google Scholar
  2. Bayraktarli YY, Faber MH (2011) Bayesian probabilistic network approach for managing earthquake risks of cities. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 5:2–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bindi D, Mayfield M, Parolai S, Tyagunov S, Begaliev U, Abdrakhmatov K, Moldobekov B, Zschau J (2011) Towards an improved seismic risk scenario for bishkek, kyrgyz republic. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:521–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Velez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43(472):75–104Google Scholar
  5. Coburn AW, Spence R, Pomonis A (1994) Vulnerability and risk assessment. UNDP Disaster Management Training ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  6. Cochran W (1977) Sampling techniques, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox DR, Isham V (1980) Point processes. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Durieux L, Lagabrielle E, Nelson A (2008) A method for monitoring building construction in urban sprawl areas using object-based analysis of spot 5 images and existing GIS data. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 63(4):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrlich D, Zeug G, Gallego J, Gerhardinger A, Caravaggi I, Pesaresi M (2010) Quantifying the building stock from optical high-resolution satellite imagery for assessing disaster risk. Geocarto Int 25:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdik M, Rashidov T, Safak E, Turdukulov A (2005) Assessment of seismic risk in tashkent, uzbekistan and bishkek, kyrgyz republic. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Felzenszwalb PF, Huttenlocher DP (2004) Efficient graph-based image segmentation. Int J Comput Vis 59(2):167–181Google Scholar
  12. Gelfand AE, Smith AFM (1990) Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J Am Stat Assoc 85:398–409Google Scholar
  13. Grossi P, Kleindorfer PR, Kunreuther H (1999) The impact of uncertainty in managing seismic risk: the case of earthquake frequency and structural vulnerability. Wharton Financial Institution Center WP 99-03-26, Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, The Wharton School, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  14. Grunthal G, Commission ES (1998) European macroseismic scale 1998 : EMS-98. Luxembourg: European seismological commission subcommission on engineering seismology working group macroseismic scales, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  15. Haggrén H, Hyyppä H, Jokinena O, Kukko A, Nuikka M, Pitkänen T, Pöntinen P, Rönnholma P (2004) Photogrammetric application of spherical imaging. In: Panoramic photogrammetry workshop, Dresden, 19/22 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckerman D, Geiger D, Chickering D (1995) Learning bayesian networks: the combination of knowledge and statistical data. Mach learn 20(3):197–243Google Scholar
  17. Li L, Wang J, Leung H (2010) Using spatial analysis and bayesian network to model the vulnerability and make insurance pricing of catastrophic risk. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24:1759–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael AJ (2011) Random variability explains apparent global clustering of large earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 38:L21301. doi: 10.1029/2011GL049443
  19. Pearl J (1985) bayesian networks: a model of self-activated memory for evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of seventh annual conference of the cognitive science societyGoogle Scholar
  20. Pearl J (1991) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramm F, Topf J, Chilton S (2011) OpenstreetMap: using and enhancing the free map of the world. UIT Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Rapoport A (1980) Neighborhood heterogeneity or homogeneity: the field of man-environment studies. Archit Behav 1(1):65–77Google Scholar
  23. Shi J, Malik J (2000) Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(8):888–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steimen S, Fh D, Giardini D, Bertogg M, Tschudi S (2004) Reliability of building inventories in seismic prone regions. Bull Earthq Eng 2(3):361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steiniger S, Lange T, Burghardt D, Weibel R (2008) An approach for the classification of urban building structures based on discriminant analysis techniques. Trans GIS 12:31–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tao CV, Li J (2007) Advances in mobile mapping technology. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Teller S (1998) Toward urban model acquisition from geo-located images. In: Proceedings of pacific graphics, Singapore pp 45–51Google Scholar
  28. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Torii A, Imiya A, Ohnishi N (2005) Two-and three-view geometry for spherical cameras. In: Proceedings of the sixth workshop on omnidirectional vision, camera networks and non-classical camerasGoogle Scholar
  30. Vapnik V (2000) The nature of statistical learning theory, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wieland M, Pittore M, Parolai S, Zschau J (2012) Exposure estimation from Multi-Resolution optical satellite imagery for seismic risk assessment. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 1:69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wieland M, Pittore M, Parolai S, Zschau J, Moldobekov B, Begaliev U (2012) Estimating building inventory for rapid seismic vulnerability assessment: towards an integrated approach based on multi-source imaging. Soil Dyn Earthq EngGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, TelegrafenbergPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations