Natural Hazards

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 283–309 | Cite as

Toward a disaster risk assessment and mapping in the virtual geographic environment of Armenia

  • Arshavir Avagyan
  • Hasmik Manandyan
  • Aleksandr Arakelyan
  • Artak Piloyan
Original Paper


This paper presents the results of a research aiming natural and technological hazard, and risk assessment and mapping in Web-based holistic geographic environment, and the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 in Armenia. A common spatial multi-criteria evaluation method was used for natural and technological hazard, risk and population vulnerability assessments. The virtual geographic environment developed by the authors during the previous period of investigations was upgraded and used for the implementation of this research. It involves the following components: 1. geodatabase, 2. modeling and simulation, 3. interface for digital mapping, 4. metadata, 5. Web–based network service for collaboration. Moreover, the country specific natural and technological hazard, risk and population vulnerability assessment methods were developed, implemented, and appropriate digital maps were created.


Disaster risk reduction Hazard assessment Modeling Virtual geographic environment Armenia 



This work was supported by the Program on Prevention, Preparedness and Response to man-made and natural Disasters in the ENPI East Region (PPRD East). The program was financed by the European Union. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript.


  1. Arakelyan A, Piloyan A (2011) Identification and delineation of water bodies at risk by qualitative and quantitative characteristics on example of Aghstev River Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci Repub Armen Earth Sci 64(2):54–64Google Scholar
  2. Avagyan A, Arakelyan A (2011) About the coding system of rivers, catchment basins and their characteristics of the Republic of Armenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci Repub Armen Earth Sci 64(1):57–66Google Scholar
  3. Avagyan A, Piloyan A, Yeritsian H (2010a) On elevation characteristics and methodology of its calculations of terrain of the republic of Armenia based on 1:200000 scale digital elevation models. Proc Natl Acad Sci Repub Armen Earth Sci 63(3):48–58Google Scholar
  4. Avagyan A, Yeritsian H, Piloyan A (2010b) An example of a study on the lake Sevan basin river’s longitudinal profiles as indicators of modern relief formation processes. In: 6th Schukin conference on geomorphology, Moscow State University, pp 27–28, 18–21 MayGoogle Scholar
  5. Avagyan A, Hilbert R, Yeritisian H, Manandyan H, Arakelyan A, Piloyan A, Elbakyan A (2016) Electronic regional risk atlas: development, structure and application practice in republic of Armenia. In: Bandrova T, Konecny M (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on cartography and GIS. Albena, Bulgaria, pp 834–846Google Scholar
  6. Batty M (1997) Virtual geography. Futures 29(45):337–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batty M (2008) Virtual reality in geographic information systems. In: Wilson J, Fotheringham A (eds) The handbook of geographic information science. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 317–334Google Scholar
  8. Beccari B (2016) A comparative analysis of disaster risk, vulnerability and resilience composite indicators. PLOS Curr Disasters. Google Scholar
  9. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7(1):20–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks N, Adger Neil W, Mick Kelly P (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob Environ Change 15(2):151–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costea M (2012) Using the Fournier index in estimating rainfall erosivity. Case study—the Secaşul Mare Basin. Aerul şi Apa Componente ale Mediului 71:313–320Google Scholar
  12. Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labeling of dangerous substances 1967. European Commission, Brussels. Accessed 26 April 2016
  13. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Lynn Shirley W (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demek J (1972) Manual of detailed geomorphological mapping. International Geographical Union. Commission on Geomorphological Survey and Mapping. AcademiaGoogle Scholar
  15. DIRECTIVE 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007: Establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Accessed 26 April 2016
  16. DIRECTIVE 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007: The EU Floods Directive. Accessed 26 April 2016
  17. Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. Geosci Aust Rec, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  18. EU Commission Staff Working Paper (2010) Risk assessment and mapping guidelines for disaster management. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. Fekete A (2012) Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: challenges in their quality and acceptance. Nat Hazards 61(3):1161–1178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flanagan B, Gregory E, Hallisey E, Heitgerd J, Lewis B (2011) A social vulnerability index for disaster management. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 8(1):1–22. Google Scholar
  21. Ge Y, Dou W, Gu Z et al (2013) Assessment of social vulnerability to natural hazards in the Yangtze River Delta, China. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 27(8):1899–1908. Google Scholar
  22. Geological Map of the Republic of Armenia (Scale: 1:500,000). Geological Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia. Composed by E. Kharazyan, Editor: H. Sargsyan. Yerevan, 2005Google Scholar
  23. Gong J, Lin HA (2006) Collaborative virtual geographic environment: design and development. In: Balram S, Dragicevic S (eds) Collaborative geographic information systems. Igi Global, Hershey, pp 186–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guidelines for Emergency Assessment (2005) International federation of red cross and red crescent societies. Accessed 18 April 2016
  25. Huan H, Wang J, Teng Y (2012) Assessment and validation of groundwater vulnerability to nitrate based on a modified drastic model: a case study in Jilin City of northeast China. Sci Total Environ 440:14–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kazakis N, Voudouris KS (2015) Groundwater vulnerability and pollution risk assessment of porous aquifers to nitrate: modifying the drastic method using quantitative parameters. J Hydrol 525:13–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kazakis N, Kougias I, Patsialis T (2015) Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional scale using an index-based approach and analytical hierarchy process: application in Rhodope-Evros region, Greece. Sci Total Environ 538:555–563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohler A, Jülich S, Bloemertz L (2004) Guidelines: risk analysis—a basis for disaster risk management. GTZ, EschbornGoogle Scholar
  29. Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP (2011) Flood management and a GIS modeling method to assess flood-hazard areas: a case study. Hydrol Sci J 56(2):212–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li K, Lam NSN, Qiang Y, Zou L, Cai H (2015) A cyber infrastructure for community resilience assessment and visualization. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 42(1):34–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin BB, Morefield PE (2011) The vulnerability cube: a multi-dimensional framework for assessing relative vulnerability. Environ Manag 48:631–643. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin H, Chen M, Lu G (2012) Virtual geographic environment: a workspace for computer-aided geographic experiments. Ann As Am Geogr 103(3):465–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin H, Chen M, Lu G, Zhu Q, Gong J, You X, Wen Y, Bingli X, Mingyuan H (2013) Virtual geographic environments (VGEs): a new generation of geographic analysis tool. Earth Sci Rev 126:74–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merz M, Hiete M, Comes T, Schultmann F (2013) A composite indicator model to assess natural disaster risks in industry on a spatial level. J Risk Res 16(9):1077–1099. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mnatsakanyan B, Avagyan A, Arakelyan A, Yeritsian H (2010) Methodology for development of average annual flow module map and calculation of water rate at any cross section of the river (on the example of territory of Armenia). Proc Natl Acad Sci Repub Armen Earth Sci 63(2):48–56Google Scholar
  36. National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia. Socio-economic situation of the RA, January–December 1999–2016.
  37. Neil Adger W (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Orencio PM, Fujii M (2014) A spatiotemporal approach for determining disaster-risk potential based on damage consequences of multiple hazard events. J Risk Res 17(7):815–836. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ouma Y, Tateishi R (2014) Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water 6(6):1515–1545. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papathoma-Köhle M, Promper C, Glade T (2016) A common methodology for risk assessment and mapping of climate change related hazards-implications for climate change adaptation policies. Climate 4(1):8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Piloyan A, Avagyan A (2016) The circular structures of the republic of Armenia based on a digital elevation model. Eur J Geogr 7(3):57–69Google Scholar
  42. Piloyan A, Konečný M (2017) Semi-automated classification of landform elements in Armenia based on SRTM DEM using k-means unsupervised classification. Quaest Geogr 36(1):93–103. Google Scholar
  43. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176. Google Scholar
  44. Tapas MR, van Westen CJ, Kerle N, Jetten VG, Kumar V (2013) Landslide hazard and risk assessment using semi—automatically created landslide inventories. Geomorphology 184:139–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN (2013) Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in GIS. J Hydrol 504:69–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. The Results of 2011 population census of the Republic of Armenia 2011. National Statistical Service of Republic of Armenia, YerevanGoogle Scholar
  47. UNISDR (2009) Terminology on disaster risk reduction. Geneva. Accessed 18 April 2016
  48. UNISDR (2015a) Proposed updated terminology on disaster risk reduction: a technical review. Geneva. Accessed 18 April 2016
  49. UNISDR (2015b) Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030, New York. Accessed 18 April 2016
  50. Van Westen C, Damen M, Feringa W (2013) National scale multi-hazard risk assessment. ITC Enschede, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  51. Wood M, Jelínek R (2007) Risk mapping in the new member states. A summary of general practices for mapping hazards, vulnerability and risk. European Commission, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  52. World Risk Report (2014) United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Bonn. Accessed 18 April 2016
  53. Xu B, Lin H, Gong J, Tang S, Hu Y, Nasser IA, Jing T (2013) Integration of a computational grid and virtual geographic environment to facilitate air pollution simulation. Comput Geosci 54:184–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of GeoinformaticsInstitute of Geological Sciences at National Academy of Sciences of ArmeniaYerevanArmenia
  2. 2.Faculty of Geography and GeologyYerevan State UniversityYerevanArmenia

Personalised recommendations