This paper aims at presenting and comparing two methodologies adopted by the Emilia-Romagna region, northern Italy, to evaluate coastal vulnerability and to produce hazard and risk maps for coastal floods, in the framework of the EU Floods Directive. The first approach was adopted before the directive had been issued. Three scenarios of damage were designed (1-, 10-, 100-year return periods), produced by the concurrent occurrence of a storm, high surge levels and high-water spring tidal levels. Wave heights were used to calculate run-up values along 187 equally spaced profiles, and these were added to the tidal and atmospheric water level contributions. The result is a list of 10 vulnerability typologies. To satisfy the requirements of the directive, the Geological, Seismic and Soil Service (SGSS) recently implemented a different methodology that considers three scenarios (10-, 100-and > g¯100-year return periods) in terms of wave setup (not including run-up) plus the contribution of surge levels as well as the occurrence of high-water springs. The flooded area extension is determined by a series of computations that are part of a model built into ArcGIS®. The model uses as input a high-resolution lidar DEM that is then processed using a least-path cost analysis. Inundation maps are then overlapped with land use maps to produce risk maps. The qualitative validation and the comparison between the two methods are also presented, showing a positive agreement.

Evaluation of coastal vulnerability to flooding: comparison of two different methodologies adopted by the Emilia-Romagna region (Italy)

Armaroli, C.
2016

Abstract

This paper aims at presenting and comparing two methodologies adopted by the Emilia-Romagna region, northern Italy, to evaluate coastal vulnerability and to produce hazard and risk maps for coastal floods, in the framework of the EU Floods Directive. The first approach was adopted before the directive had been issued. Three scenarios of damage were designed (1-, 10-, 100-year return periods), produced by the concurrent occurrence of a storm, high surge levels and high-water spring tidal levels. Wave heights were used to calculate run-up values along 187 equally spaced profiles, and these were added to the tidal and atmospheric water level contributions. The result is a list of 10 vulnerability typologies. To satisfy the requirements of the directive, the Geological, Seismic and Soil Service (SGSS) recently implemented a different methodology that considers three scenarios (10-, 100-and > g¯100-year return periods) in terms of wave setup (not including run-up) plus the contribution of surge levels as well as the occurrence of high-water springs. The flooded area extension is determined by a series of computations that are part of a model built into ArcGIS®. The model uses as input a high-resolution lidar DEM that is then processed using a least-path cost analysis. Inundation maps are then overlapped with land use maps to produce risk maps. The qualitative validation and the comparison between the two methods are also presented, showing a positive agreement.
Coastal zone management, digital elevation model, flood damage, flooding, hazard assessment, lidar, risk assessment, storm surge, vulnerability, wave height, wave runup
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
03_Perini et al 2016_NHESS.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 5.14 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
5.14 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12076/6659
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 49
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 44
social impact