This session aims to discuss and improve the understanding of disaster resilience to various natural hazards (e.g., floods, droughts or wildfires) including compound events across spatial and temporal scales taking a systems approach. We encourage contributions focusing on the following topics:
• exploration of both process- and outcome-based evaluation methods, as well as innovative modeling approaches, including the use of remote sensing and climate data.
• concrete interventions (i.e. climate-smart agriculture, VSLA, field schools), adaptive planning processes, socio-technological solutions (i.e. EWS, NBS, built infrastructure) and the pivotal roles of social capital, adaptive capacity in fostering sustainable resilience and adaptation strategies.
• cross-learnings and linkages between natural hazard resilience and other systemic, complex contexts.
We encourage contributions that encompass local case studies, regional insights and global perspectives from multi- and transdisciplinary research endeavors.
In summer 2021 heavy precipitation caused major flooding in central Europe affecting areas in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. The Ahr-Valley in Germany was one of the most adversely affected area with more than 135 deaths and major destruction within a 60km path along the Ahr. The recovery and reconstruction process is still ongoing. Most attention is given to the speed of reconstruction and the question whether reconstruction funds have been used according to the funding rules defined in the state and federal regulations. However, our presentation takes a different perspective. We explore the uptake and impact of scientific research within the reconstruction process of the Ahr-Valley. We explore how selected recommendations were taken up or ignored and outline ways to improve the consideration of climate resilient development in reconstruction after extreme events. The findings can also inform the global discourse on climate change adaptation and loss and damage under UNFCCC.
How to cite: Birkmann, J. and Truedinger, A.: Reconstruction and climate resilience: assessing the relevance and impact of scientific recommendations for resilient development after flood disasters- case study Ahr-Valley in Germany - , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-3304, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-3304, 2025.
The humanitarian community is actively working to mitigate the human impact of extreme weather and climate events. Social protection is increasingly recognized as a promising mechanism to address the challenges posed by climate change, as it supports individuals and households in managing climate risks, thereby addressing drivers of vulnerability, building resilience capacities and contribute to adaptation strategies (Costella & McCord, 2023).
In this study, we focus on Ethiopia—a country grappling with the compounded risks of climate change and conflict—to examine the historical interplay between climate-related hazards, conflict, and social protection on food security. Our analysis centers on regions in Amhara and Oromia, where the national Productive Safety Net Programme has been operational for over 15 years.
Recently, Ethiopia has experienced severe floods and droughts that have significantly impacted crop yields, prices, and food security. However, future rainfall projections for the country exhibit considerable uncertainties. To address this, we are developing plausible future climate risk storylines that incorporate these uncertainties in rainfall projections and integrate both quantitative and qualitative insights from our historical analysis. These storylines aim to inform resilience-building efforts and the development of effective social protection systems and adaptation measures.
How to cite: Vogel, M. M. and Jack, C. D.: Climate risk storylines for Ethiopia: compounding impacts from climate change, conflict and social assistance , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-980, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-980, 2025.
Global warming, which has accelerated significantly since 1970, is driving rapid and observable climate change (IPCC AR6 2023). Southern European countries, particularly those in the Mediterranean region, are disproportionately affected due to their already hot and dry summer climates, making them highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and altered precipitation patterns. Climate change exacerbate the situation, leading to more frequent extreme weather events and critical challenges such as heatwaves, droughts, and both fluvial and pluvial flooding.
In the ClimEmpower project[1] [2], funded under the Horizon Europe program, five South-European regions characterized by high climate risk and low adaptive capacity were studied to strengthen climate resilience. To empower these regions, a comprehensive analysis of climate-related data, services, and resilience indicators was conducted and regional partners involved to understand their specific needs and primary climate-related challenges, and to identify critical gaps along with methodologies to address them. A key focus of this inter- and transdisciplinary approach was the development and study of resilience indicators, which are essential for assessing the current state of resilience in these regions and for monitoring progress towards improved resilience over time.
This paper presents key findings from the comprehensive analysis of existing datasets and services related to climate hazards, impacts, exposure, and vulnerabilities, as well as gaps identified through collaboration with regional stakeholders. Additionally, an overview of climate change resilience indicators is provided which is based on an extensive analysis of approximately 500 indicators across climate, socio-economic, and governance domains. The analysis reveals an uneven distribution of indicators across different sectors, with a predominant focus on environmental, economic, and governance topics, while critical areas such as water and waste management, food security, and urban planning are notably underrepresented. Significant gaps between available data and indicators for representing region-specific needs were identified, highlighting the importance of prioritizing indicators that are meaningful and actionable for localized adaptation efforts.
Concluding, the study demonstrates that not all indicators hold equal relevance across all regions and quality, and relevance should be prioritized over the sheer quantity of indicators. Thus, the emphasis should be placed on indicators with high significance and ability to support the development of region-specific pathways to enhance climate resilience in vulnerable South-European regions, ensuring that resources are directed toward the most critical areas of need.
[1] Climempower.eu. ABOUT—ClimEMPOWER. 2023. Available online: https://climempower.eu/about/ (accessed on 9 January 2025).
[2] Xekalakis, G.; Lopez, P.M.; Ruiz, M.A.; Tötzer, T.; Kaleta, P.; Karystinakis, K.; Moumtzidou, A.; Forjan, R.; Christou, P.; Anastasiou, C.; et al. User-Driven Climate Resilience Across Southern European Regions. Climate 2025, 13, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13010002
How to cite: Tötzer, T., Bügelmayer-Blaschek, M., Hochebner, A., Kozlowska, A., Schneider, M., Chatzichristaki, C., Molina Lopez, P., Murano, I., Xekalakis, G., and Havlik, D.: Climate change resilience in South-European regions: data, services, indicators and gaps, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-9170, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-9170, 2025.
A significant challenge of resilience measurement lies in taking a complex, multi-dimensional concept and operationalizing it in a concrete and measurable way. The next generation FRMC (Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities) framework and tool is providing such a measurement within a standardized approach (e.g. not dependent on the location it is applied to), and which therefore can be used across the globe. It is based on the Sustainable Livelihood Framework and includes 44 indicators called ‘sources of resilience’ that are distributed across and represent critical aspects of five complementary ‘capitals’ (5C). The sources are selected for the roles they play in helping people on their development path and/or providing capacity to withstand and respond to shocks. We present the dynamics of these resilience indicators over time based on a large-scale empirical assessment of communities across the globe that are exposed to flood risks. In more detail, resilience indicators are measured for a baseline as well as endline period (over 2-4 years) and in case of flood hazard events, a post-event analysis was performed to identify corresponding damages. The baseline survey involved 325 communities across 22 developing countries, with data collected from over 19,000 households as well as focus groups, key informants, and secondary sources. This survey represented a total community population of more than 1 million people and generated over 2.5 million data points from 14,300 graded sources. The endline survey engaged 280 communities of the 325 in 19 developing countries. Post-event surveys were conducted in 66 communities across 7 developing countries that have experienced a flood event. Lastly, an interventions survey analysed in which communities’ interventions were implemented. Based on a Confirmatory Factor analysis, Structural Equation modelling as well as a Boosted Regression Tree approach we found important differences in the dynamics of resilience over time which are not only dependent if hazard events have realized but also in regard to the resilience levels communities are starting from during the baseline period. Our empirical findings should therefore provide a better understanding about actual resilience trajectories that can take place and the important dimensions that may influence them over time.
How to cite: Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Chapagain, D., Velev, S., Guimaraes, R., and Keating, A.: Dynamics of Resilience over Time: A global empirical study on the community level for flood risks, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-10572, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-10572, 2025.
Recent catastrophic storms and flood events—including Hurricanes Helene and Milton (2024), Ian (2022) in the United States, and severe floods in Valencia, Spain (2024), Belgium, and Germany (2021)—highlight the critical need for comprehensive resilience planning in coastal and riverine communities. With a global rise in both the frequency and severity of weather and climate disasters, coastal regions are increasingly vulnerable, facing significant risks and economic losses. This work presents an integrated framework to support flood resilience and optimize evacuation strategies by leveraging big data, high-resolution flood and storm surge models, and advanced predictive tools. This framework combines high-resolution computational fluid dynamics and finite element models to evaluate flood damage and structural vulnerability under different hurricane intensities. By capturing both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties in hazard assessment, building resilience, and community preparedness, it provides a robust basis for proactive flood risk management. The framework also includes a multidimensional flood-damage assessment model, which goes beyond traditional depth–damage relationships by incorporating building-specific factors such as height, age, configuration, and construction material. Structural resilience is calculated as a function of recovery time, community preparedness, and the severity of flood-induced damage, thus enabling a detailed, community-scale risk assessment. Validated through large-scale storm surge and 2D inundation simulations, this framework offers actionable insights for emergency managers, policymakers, and local stakeholders. By integrating hydrodynamics, structural data, and socio-economic factors, this comprehensive approach empowers communities with data-driven resources for making informed decisions to reduce risk and improve adaptive capacity. This framework is positioned to be highly impactful for diverse users—including property owners, insurance companies, real estate businesses, and regional decision-makers—as it addresses the complex challenges of flood resilience in the face of increasing extreme weather events.
How to cite: Nazari, R. and Karimi, M.: Enhancing Community Resilience, Flood Risk Assessment, and Decision-Making in the Face of Extreme Weather Events, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-78, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-78, 2025.
A new web-based portal, Resilience Studio, has been developed to help explore large spatio-temporal risk scenario libraries of mixed adaptation strategies to multi-source hazards in the face of rapid climate change. The software is demonstrated using global flood hazard maps at 30m resolution and 5m resolution for a UK case-study, combined with world population data to provide an equitable measure of expected annual flood risk to people now and in the future, anywhere globally. The studio environment permits exploration of how risk is expected to change across a wide range of through-time (decadal) ‘what-if’ mitigation scenarios including property flood resilience, embankments, early warning and nature-based solutions (following Hankin et al., 2022). The framework is agnostic to the type of hazard and metrics, including natural capital assessments of multi-hazards, and permitting a more complete system understanding.
We demonstrate how the integrated whole-life benefits of user-selected adaptation pathways, tempered by estimated mitigation costs, can be visualised in a new way to permit dynamic appraisal of trade-offs. The user can explore introducing mitigations at the best point in time to anticipate tipping points from projected step changes in future risk (Hankin et al., 2023). The intention is to develop M-L co-pilot suggestions for more efficacious pathways to assist with long term, dynamic planning using benefit-cost as an objective function. Finally, to help with on-demand appraisal of supplementary risk scenarios outside of the library, a new QGIS based tool, QFlow, is demonstrated to show rapid inundation modelling and impact analysis - creating flexibility for adding unforeseen flood hazards such as reservoir breach failure.
Hankin, B., Sampson, T., Ilyasova, A., Pleijter, G., 2023.How do climate change pathway assumptions effect economic viability and prioritisation of flood projects? Proceedings of the Irish National Hydrology Conference. https://hydrologyireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/09-B-Hankin-T-Sampson-JBA-Pathways_edit01-2.pdf
Hankin, B., Ramirez, L., Wood, I., Green, A., Quincieu, E., Lauren, Y., and Lawless, M.: Integrated flood risk management prioritization in Indonesia, EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-9246, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-9246, 2022.
How to cite: Hankin, B., Evans, A., Maslen, S., Bromley, T., Roberts, J., Robinson, P., Lowis, A., Dudman, J., and Lawless, M.: Exploring whole-life trade-offs for mixed adaptation pathways with a large risk-scenario-library using Resilience Studio enhanced with QFlow , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-5182, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-5182, 2025.
The July 2021 floods in Europe stand out as one of the most devastating flood-related disasters to impact the continent in recent years - affecting multiple countries at once. As climate change intensifies, such cross-border disasters are expected to become more frequent. This underscores the importance of understanding the patterns and limits of how households in different nations respond to shared flood crises. Using unique cross-country survey data from flooded homeowners, we find evidence of financial, institutional, and psychological limits to adaptation on the building level. Insurance compensation is the main driver of private adaptation actions shortly after flooding. However, over the long term, the intensity of flood experiences plays a pivotal role in shaping household adaptation intentions. Households that suffered significant flood damage are more likely to take steps to mitigate future risks to their homes. Yet, this intention encounters limits for extreme flood damage. Once experienced flood damages exceed a threshold of 58% of the home reconstruction value, homeowners begin to view private adaptation efforts as less effective, prompting a shift toward relocating to safer areas.
How to cite: Endendijk, T., Rodriguez Castro, D., Dillenardt, L., Kumar Guntu, R., Botzen, W., de Moel, H., Thieken, A., Kreibich, H., Dewals, B., and Aerts, J.: Emerging patterns and limits in household cross-border flood adaptation, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-10617, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-10617, 2025.
This study investigates the relationship between community resilience indicators and flood-related mortality and morbidity across 66 communities worldwide. Using the Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC) framework, we examine how five distinct forms of capital - social, financial, physical, human, and natural - influence three specific outcomes: direct flood-related fatalities, deaths within three months post-flood, and flood-related injuries.
The research employs a quasi-experimental design with regression adjustments to analyze the relationship between resilience levels and these mortality and morbidity outcomes. Our methodology incorporates key demographic factors, including age distribution, gender composition, and urban-rural residence, while also accounting for flood exposure and hazard characteristics such as return periods and the percentage of the community affected.
The FRMC framework provides a comprehensive dataset compiled through multiple data collection methods, including household surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and secondary sources. The study specifically uses baseline data to assess pre-existing resilience levels and post-event data to measure mortality and injury impacts.
Our analytical approach begins with Principal Component Analysis to derive consolidated measures for each type of capital. The quantitative research design carefully controls for demographic vulnerabilities and flood exposure or hazard characteristics, recognizing that these factors may significantly influence the relationship between resilience and both mortality and morbidity outcomes.
The study makes several important contributions to the existing literature on flood resilience impacts. First, it provides a systematic analysis of how different forms of community capitals affect both mortality and injuries in flood-affected areas. Second, it considers both immediate and delayed mortality impacts, accounting for deaths occurring up to three months after flood events. Third, it examines these relationships while controlling for demographic factors and flood exposure or hazard levels, offering insights into how resilience effects may vary across different community contexts.
This research has significant implications for policy and practice in flood risk management and community resilience building. By understanding how different forms of capital influence mortality and injury patterns, policymakers and practitioners can better target interventions to reduce flood-related deaths and injuries. The findings may help inform more effective strategies for protecting vulnerable populations and strengthening community resilience to flood events.
Furthermore, by examining both immediate and delayed mortality effects alongside injury patterns, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of flood impacts on communities. This broader perspective is crucial for developing more effective long-term disaster response and recovery strategies.
How to cite: Guimaraes, R., Velev, S., and Chapagain, D.: The Effect of Community Resilience Measures on Morbi-Mortality Indicators Following Floods: An Empirical Assessment., EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-17601, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-17601, 2025.
In the context of increasing measured climate-related risks and observed impacts across the globe, the need for transformative adaptation is seeing heightened attention, which implies consideration shifts from conventional, response-and incremental-focussed approaches for addressing climate-related risks towards transformative approaches to prevent existential impacts associated with climate-related disasters and enable sustainable futures.
Yet, little reported success with observed adaptation exists and little is now about the capacity of communities to implement transformation. In this study we use a most widely used and validated resilience measurement tool to estimate capacity for transformation resilience across the globe.
We do so by applying the systematic resilience measurement framework developed by the Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities tool to examine the potential for transformational resilience as compared to absorptive and adaptive resilience.
For this research we utilize the Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC) framework in order to evaluate absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities as key enablers of resilience. The FRMC tool comprises 44 discrete sources of resilience, which are indicators that are measured during normal (non-flood) and post-flood times via household surveys, community group discussions, focus group discussions with stakeholders that are part of the Flood Resilience Alliance, key informant interviews, and existing secondary data sources. This study encompass 22 countries and 325 communities. The analysis focuses on absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities and examines how these capacities evolve over time in response to changes in environmental, social, and economic conditions. We further measure their changes across two distinct time periods. While absorptive capacities focus on coping with and recovering from shocks, adaptive capacities enable incremental adjustments to manage evolving risks. Transformative capacity, essential for addressing intolerable risks and driving systemic change.
We overall find absorptive and adaptive resilience capacities to dominate the results, but in a number of vulnerable communities we identify solid levels of transformative capacity. We suggest further efforts ought to be expanded on bolstering the transformative capacity, where it exists, of communities in order to better brace those for further increases in the severity of climate-related risks.
How to cite: Velev, S. and Hochrainer-Stigler, S.: Measuring resilience capacity for transformational adaptation across the world , EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-17565, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-17565, 2025.
Despite wide-spread recognition and rhetoric regarding the burdens imposed by simple and systemic disaster and climate risks as well as solid evidence regarding the benefits of reducing risk, it has remained difficult to motivate sustained investment into disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) at individual project level as well as country scale. To this effect, international policy debate over the last years in the wake of the international compacts of 2015 has emphasized the need for orienting such investments toward interventions that generate so-called triple or multiple resilience dividends. Such dividends include reducing loss of lives and livelihoods, unlocking development, and creating development co-benefits. In addition to risk reduction benefits from project investment (1st dividend), these suggested dividends would arise from positive externalities, such as unlocked development (2nd dividend) and co-benefits (3rd dividend), e.g. investment into health systems with returns from treating disaster-affected patients and those affected by idiosyncratic events, such as from disease or accidents. In economic parlance, externalities (also called spill-overs) can be considered the benefits (if positive) or costs (if negative) not directly captured in market prices or transactions. In our discussion, we consider externalities as the unplanned positive or negative effects arising from risk management investment. While externalities have been considered in sustainability decision-making for public sector investment decisions for many issues, in DRR and CCA they are generally not yet well captured, which gave rise to the concept of triple dividend decision-making propositions.
Yet, while triple and multi resilience dividend decision-making have received attention in policy and practice over the last decade, evidence remains scarce, particularly as to the 2nd dividend (the externalities). We suggest that systemic risk research with its focus on interdependent systems coupled with resilience dividend decision-making reasoning may point a way forward for improved decision-making on disaster and climate risks (reduction).
This article queries what resilience assessment methods, metrics and evidence exist to address interconnected systemic and global catastrophic risks for informing efforts towards transformational resilience across systems. Based on insights and examples from decision-making analysis as well as systemic risk research we show how analysts and decision-makers can better consider the various resilience dividends, i.e., positive externalities and co-benefits of disaster risk reduction measures beyond the reduction of losses and assess dependencies in risk and benefits' creation across micro and macro scales. As we suggest, this may enable a more comprehensive evaluation of interventions with benefits arising at various scales, thus in many cases, where there are strong dependencies across systems, such benefits may result in reduced cost (trade-offs) and increased benefits (or synergies) for risk reduction and resilience.
How to cite: Zebrowski, P., Clercq-Roques, R., Patil, P., and Hochrainer-Stigler, S.: Resilience in the Polycrisis. Addressing multiple risks through multiple resilience dividends, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-21772, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-21772, 2025.
Flood resilience is becoming increasingly crucial in the background of global climate change and urbanization, especially in regions susceptible to frequent and compound flooding. This study develops a long-term, cross-scale dynamic systems-based framework based on the "Robustness-Resistance-Recovery" (3Rs) to evaluate the spatiotemporal evolution of flood resilience from 2000 to 2020 in the Beibu Gulf Urban Agglomeration. This framework integrates social, economic, and ecological dimensions to analyze the dynamics of flood resilience in the Beibu Gulf Urban Agglomeration that is confronting complex challenges due to rapid development and flooding. The optimal parameters-based geographical detector model, which accounts for spatial heterogeneity and temporal dynamics, was employed to identify key influencing factors and mechanisms shaping resilience. The findings reveal spatial disparities in flood resilience: pre-flood robustness is higher in inland areas but lower in coastal areas; during-flood resistance is associated with greater urban development; and post-flood recovery is stronger in city centers and mountainous areas but weaker in low-lying inland and coastal areas. Over the past two decades, significant improvements in flood resilience have been driven by advancements in infrastructure and healthcare, although their impact is relatively limited compared to the contributions of economic. Notably, ecological factors have emerged as critical drivers in recent years, indicating a shift toward sustainable adaptation strategies. These findings are expected to serve as a practical reference for urban flood risk management and resilience planning, adaptable to other regions facing comparable challenges.
How to cite: Deng, J., Zhang, R., Chen, S., li, Z., Gao, L., Li, Y., and Wei, C.: Flood Resilience Dynamics and Influencing Factors in Beibu Gulf Urban Agglomeration Across Spatial and Temporal Scales, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-9226, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-9226, 2025.
In recent decades, tourism on active volcanoes has become very popular, raising the risk exposure of more and more visitors to potential volcanic hazards. Tragic illustrations were recorded at Ontake (2014), Whakaari (2019) and Marapi (2023).
Tourist operators promoting tourism on volcanoes offer a wide diversity of tours with varying degrees of difficulty and risk. The most popular attractions include visits to glowing lava flows and fumarolic areas, as well as observing mildly explosive eruptions. The commonality between all visiting options is that many people are often involved in multiple and diverse groups, which raises a different risk level compared to individual visits in front of any same hazard. While individual risk is related to the exposure time of an individual, the collective risk for visiting groups depend on the total numbers of visitors, the number of groups and the summations of exposure times. This risk difference between individuals and groups has important implications in terms of risk mitigation and potential decisions.
In order to improve communication on volcanic hazards and awareness of potential risks to the tourist public, the IAVCEI can provide professional recommendations on the best practices and protocols to be checked before planning and embarking on a tour. This is envisioned as a positive complement to existing communication protocols established in each country. In addition, IAVCEI may foster interactions with tourism agencies to support effective risk management and improve information dissemination, starting from the role of the volcanologists and volcano observatories.
How to cite: Bonforte, A. and the IAVCEI Volcano-Tourism Working Group: Volcanoes and tourism: a reflection from an IAVCEI working group, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-11642, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-11642, 2025.
For strengthening disaster resilience and risk analysis in Mexico, in November 2023, the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) installed a web platform containing digital maps with the spatial distribution of natural hazards that frequently impact Mexico City and other exposed communities in this country. This digital web platform is called “Information System of Hazards and Risk” (Sistema de Información de Peligros y Riesgos, in Spanish; SISPER UNAM) and it is based on a Geographical Information System (GIS) with more than 500 shapefile and raster layers. At present, the following hazards are considered: earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, mass movement processes, forest fires, and land subsidence. Also, the platform has data of recent hurricanes that have impacted Mexico. There are plans to include information regarding anthropogenic hazards in the near future. The spatial distribution of social vulnerability was determined using thirteen indicators from data of the 2020 Mexican Census of Population and Housing. Vulnerability, hazard, and risk were classified from 1 to 5, where 1 is low and 5 very high. Population and critical facilities (hospitals, schools, telecommunication facilities, churches, etc.) are considered as exposed elements. By superimposing the calculated GIS’s raster of the social vulnerability over individual hazard rasters, we estimated the spatial distribution of the “likelihood of social risk” for specific hazards. Seismic structural risk was estimated by modeling the expected impact of large subduction and cortical earthquakes (M > 7). The system is open to researchers and students, and it is a working tool for local authorities in their urban development programs including strengthening the local public policies for disaster reduction, prevention, and resilience. At present, more than 500 users access recurrently the platform, mainly from Mexico. However, there are also users from the United States, China, and France, among other countries.
How to cite: Novelo-Casanova, D. A., Suárez, G., and Hernández, A.: Digital platform for disaster resilience in Mexico, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-3344, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-3344, 2025.
Taiwan is a high-risk area for natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and landslides. The social vulnerability index (SVI) is a virtual element in risk analysis in disaster management. The purpose of this research is to develop a system for assessing the SVI in natural hazards. The framework of SVI includes4 categories (such as exposure, preparedness, response, and recovery), 12 subcategories, and 33 specific quantitative indicators, used to assess the potential damage a region may face from natural disasters (such as earthquakes, floods, etc.), as well as its capacity to respond, resist, and adapt. The SVI by country and township level, it quickly identifies the gaps on disaster management. At 2024, 5 cities and 17 countries in Taiwan elevated the SVI by township, and then 22 local governments made strategies to fix gaps and enhance the capacity in disaster. For example, Taoyuan City uses SVI results to reveal gaps in disaster prevention and mitigation, specifically shortages of rescue equipment and volunteers.
Our flexible SVI assessment system empowers users to customize their SVI calculations by selecting the most relevant indicators for their specific needs. The system visualizes the resulting SVI scores on a map, showing their spatial distribution, and also provides historical trend data for both the overall SVI and each indicator. This research selects 8 indicators (such as number of the resident population, ratio of infrastructure in disaster-prone areas, number of soil and water conservation engineering, number of buildings with low seismic resistance, number of isolated islands, number of healthcare personnel per 10,000 people, average disposable income per household and coverage rate of earthquake insurance) to assess SVI of earthquake by county level, the result show that SVI is lower in highly urbanized areas because these regions have more abundant disaster prevention and response resources, well-developed infrastructure, greater healthcare capacity, and more comprehensive disaster risk reduction preparedness. SVI is higher in rural and eastern counties due to a lack of medical resources and limited external transportation routes, leading to more isolated areas. Regions with elevated SVI scores demonstrate heightened social vulnerability. Consequently, local governments must enhance their capacities in disaster prevention, response, and recovery to mitigate potential damage from earthquakes.
Keywords: Social Vulnerability Index, local government, specific needs, earthquake
How to cite: Lin, M.-C., Lin, P., Lee, C.-Y., Lin, K.-C., Shih, Y.-C., and Huang, Z.-J.: Social Vulnerability Index Assessment: Identifying Gaps and Enhancing Local Capacity in Natural Disaster Management, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-5161, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-5161, 2025.
The increasing frequency and intensity of urban flooding, driven by rapidly changing climate patterns, necessitate the enhancement of the resilience of flood defense infrastructure. Urban infrastructures, as forms of complex systems, are interconnected through multi-scale subsystems with dynamic feedback mechanisms, which influence their resilience based on the adaptive cycle stage of each subsystem. Despite this, existing studies predominantly focus on macro-level analyses, underscoring the need for resilience studies at the facility scale, which supports large-scale flood defense operations. Traditional flood defense infrastructures, designed based on historical rainfall patterns, often fail to address the variability introduced by climate change. These systems are further compromised by aging and inadequate maintenance, which diminishes their functional capacity. This study proposes a novel approach to quantitatively evaluate the resilience of flood defense facilities. The proposed resilience assessment integrates both structural factors, such as design capacity, and non-physical factors, including regulatory frameworks and institutional mechanisms. Using the 4Rs framework—Robustness, Redundancy, Resourcefulness, and Rapidity—a comprehensive evaluation model was established for flood defense infrastructures, including sewer systems, pumping stations, and detention basins. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis was conducted to validate the indicators and determine appropriate weights for each parameter within the mathematical resilience function, which adopted a sigmoid model to integrate key parameters, such as initial performance, performance variability, recovery speed, and time. Additionally, a simulation-based approach was employed to predict recovery and failure scenarios. The simulation examined the impact of fixed and randomly varying resilience indicators on recovery outcomes. Results demonstrated that disaster frequency and intensity significantly influence failure probabilities and recovery thresholds. Recovery thresholds, defined as the minimum performance levels below which facilities fail to restore their initial capacity, provided critical insights into the functional limits of the infrastructure. The study further evaluated recovery success by tracking performance curves over time. This methodology highlights the actual recovery capacity of urban flood defense facilities. The findings offer predictive insights into whether these facilities can recover under repeated disaster conditions or transition to alternative stable states, contributing to enhanced flood response capabilities of urban infrastructure.
Acknowledgement This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (RS-2024-00356786) and Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute grant funded by the Ministry of Environment (RS-2023-00218973).
How to cite: Shin, Y., Kim, D., Hong, J., Park, S., Chung, Y., Kim, I., and Park, J.: Facility-Level Resilience Analysis of Urban Flood Defense Systems, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-5391, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-5391, 2025.
To assess the potential risk of NaTech disasters in Germany, we present an approach that evaluates both natural hazards triggering industrial accidents and the potentially affected population. First, the exposure of industrial installations, facilities registered under the Seveso Directive, chemical parks, and nuclear power plants to earthquake and wildfire hazards is mapped. Second, because NaTech disasters can amplify risks to nearby populations, the study examines the effects of NaTech disasters on communities surrounding these industrial sites. It is necessary to assess the exposure to hazards and the type of potentially vulnerable social groups that may be threatened by NaTech disasters in order to better guide preparedness against and mitigation of such disasters.
We apply a spatial analysis methodology using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to assess exposure around hazardous sites and analyse census data to assess social vulnerability. Our findings indicate that while some industrial installations are situated in earthquake-prone areas, even more are exposed to wildfire hazards. Most industrial sites are located in urban areas, where we observe higher population density, more foreign residents, and smaller housing units. The analysis of buffer zones around industrial installations shows that vulnerability decreases with increasing distance from these sites.
These findings can help emergency management planners and stakeholders in developing more effective disaster risk reduction strategies tailored to different social groups, thereby enhancing preparedness for NaTech disasters and industrial accidents.
How to cite: Neuner, S., Fekete, A., and Nehren, U.: Spatial Industrial Accident Exposure and Social Vulnerability Assessment of Industrial Installations in Germany, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-19015, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-19015, 2025.
The Vietnamese Mekong Delta faces severe flooding challenges due to variations in Mekong River flows combined with extreme weather conditions. Despite these adversities, agricultural sectors in VMD have demonstrated remarkable development and resilience in flood circumstances over time. This study examines the participatory efforts of farmers and governments of the social hierarchy in Cho Moi district, An Giang province, to improve flood resilience for agricultural development. The investigation draws on information collected through a focus group discussion, a semi-structured survey of 10 government officials, a structured survey of 127 farmers, and secondary documents. The analysis reviews that the full implementation of the South Vam Nao scheme, led by the government following the success of the earlier North Vam Nao project, has encouraged farmers to innovate their farming practices. The study also underscores the crucial role of innovative strategies and policies in directing farming practices; for instance, introducing flood-tolerant rice varieties, implementing seasonal planting calendars, and organizing formal group discussions and training sessions. Such initiatives have motivated farmers to take advantage of the flood-control infrastructure established under the scheme to enhance their agricultural productivity. Notable models include growing durian on raised beds, converting rice fields to fruit tree cultivation, adopting the 3B model (Cow - Corn - Biogas), and using crop rotation systems such as the “2-year-5-crop” and “3-year-8-crop” models. The experience learned in the Cho Moi case indicates the value of coordinated flood resilience measures and is referable for other areas in the VMD and beyond.
How to cite: Ho, P. T., Yang, L. E., Garschagen, M., and Van, P. D. T.: An explicit case of coordinated flood resilience for agriculture development in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-5048, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-5048, 2025.
Developing countries grapple with a critical dilemma: balancing the imperative of development with investing in measures to build resilience against climate risks. Current adaptation efforts are often insufficient due to limited resources and fragmented initiatives, leaving vulnerable countries increasingly exposed to escalating threats. Madagascar serves as a poignant case study, vividly illustrating these challenges.
Hence, there is a pressing need for close collaboration between national governments and international donors to strategically mobilise limited resources for maximal resilience benefits. The Smart Support Guidance offers an analytical framework to demonstrate the benefits of various risk management strategies under a broader macroeconomic context. Integrating Climate Disaster Risk Reduction Measures (CDRM) and Climate Disaster Risk Insurance and Finance (CDRFI) solutions, this guidance facilitates the “optimisation” of investments, the assessment of multi-metric impacts of policies, and the maintenance of a balance between risk reduction, development, and fiscal sustainability.
Our Smart Support framework involves estimating the risk profiles, estimating the governmental financing ability to address disaster damages, and evaluating the policy trade-offs of various adaptation strategies. The risk profile estimation uncovers the significant vulnerabilities of Madagascar to cyclones and surges. Identified in the financing ability analysis, we highlight a large gap between available resources and the need for recovery and reconstruction given the current risk profile. This underscores the necessity for substantial investments in CDRM and CDRFI. To better illustrate the broader development and resilience impacts of CDRM and CDRFI, we developed the macroeconomic model to demonstrate that investments in risk management can bolster GDP growth and stability. Subsidies on risk management measures, backed by international donors, mitigate fiscal vulnerabilities, and fortify resilience.
In conclusion, tailored adaptation strategies, robust stakeholder engagement, and refined economic modelling are paramount. Collaboration between national governments and international donors is vital for constructing climate-resilient futures for vulnerable countries like Madagascar.
How to cite: Zhu, Q., Yokomatsu, M., and Hochrainer-Stigler, S.: Managing Sovereign Climate Risk in Vulnerable Developing Countries: Smart Support Guidance for Donors and Policy Makers, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-21950, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-21950, 2025.
