EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 7 (2016) E3S Web Conf., 7 (2016) 04013 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 04013
Number of page(s) 11
Section Hazard analysis and modelling
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160704013
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. UNISDR. Proceedings of the third UN world conference on disaster risk reduction. in UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, 14-18 March 2015. 2015. Sendai - Japan. [Google Scholar]
  2. FFSA. Impact du changement climatique et de l’aménagement du territoire sur la survenance d’évènements naturels en france. in Impacts du changement climatique. 2009. 29 avril 2009, Paris. [Google Scholar]
  3. Valy, J., Croissance urbaine et risque inondation en Bretagne, 2010, Université Rennes 2; Université Européenne de Bretagne. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pigeon, P., Paradoxes de l’urbanisation: pourquoi les catastrophes n’empêchent-elles pas l’urbanisation? 2012: Editions L’Harmattan. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cannon, T., Vulnerability analysis and disasters. Floods, 2000. 1: p. 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nicholls, R.J. and R. Misdorp, Synthesis of vulnerability analysis studies. 1993: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. [Google Scholar]
  7. Antoine, J.-M., B. Desailly, and F. Gazelle. Les crues meurtrières, du Roussillon aux Cévennes/Casualty-causing flood: from the Roussillon region to the Cevennes country. in Annales de géographie. 2001. JSTOR. [Google Scholar]
  8. Delrieu, G., et al., The catastrophic flash-flood event of 8-9 September 2002 in the Gard region, France: A first case study for the Cevennes-Vivarais Mediterranean Hydrometeorological Observatory. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 2005. 6(1): p. 34–52. [Google Scholar]
  9. Huet, P., et al., Retour d’expérience des crues de septembre 2002 dans les départements du Gard, de l’Hérault, du Vaucluse, des Bouches-du-Rhône, de l’Ardèche et de la Drôme : rapport consolidé après phase contradictoire, 2003, Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable: France. p. 133. [Google Scholar]
  10. Westrelin, S., et al. RHYTMME Project: Risk management based on a radar network. in Proc. European Conf. on Radar in Meteorology and Hydrology. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cosandey, C. and J. Didon-Lescot, Etude des crues cévenoles: conditions d’apparition dans un petit bassin forestier sur le versant sud du Mont Lozère, France. Regionalisation in Hydrology, IAHS Publication, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1990. 191: p. 103–115. [Google Scholar]
  12. Weng, P. and N. Dörfliger, Projet PACTES—module: contribution des eaux souterraines aux crues et inondations; site de l’Hérault, 2002, Tech. Rep. BRGM/RP-51718-FR, BRGM. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cremonini, R., et al. CRISTAL: a project to manage hydrological risk in alpine areas by x-band polarimetric radar. in The sixth European Conference on radar in meteorology and hydrology. 2010. Sibiu, Romania. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lavabre, J. and Y. Grégoris, AIGA: un dispositif d’alerte des crues sur l’ensemble du réseau hydrographique. Ingénieries-EAT, 2005(44): p. p. 3-p. 12. [Google Scholar]
  15. Javelle, P., et al., Evaluating flash-flood warnings at ungauged locations using post-event surveys: a case study with the AIGA warning system. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques, 2014. 59(7): p. 1390–1402. [Google Scholar]
  16. Javelle, P., et al. Setting up a French national flash flood warning system for ungauged catchments based on the AIGA method in 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. 2016. 17th-21st october 2016, Lyon, France. [Google Scholar]
  17. Varnes, D.J., Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. 1984. [Google Scholar]
  18. Blaikie, P., et al., At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. 2014: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bolin, R. and L. Stanford, The Northridge Earthquake: Community‐based Approaches to Unmet Recovery Needs. Disasters, 1998. 22(1): p. 21–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kron, W., Keynote lecture: Flood risk= hazard× exposure× vulnerability. Proceedings of the Flood Defence, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lewis, J., Development in disaster-prone places : studies of vulnerability. Includes five case studies of vulnerability description and analysis. 1999, London. p. 224. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cutter, S., B.J. Boruff, and W.L. Shirley, Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Hazards, Vulnerability, and Environmental Justice, 2006: p. 115–132. [Google Scholar]
  23. Le Bihan, G., et al., Regional hydrological models for distributed flash-floods forecasting: towards an estimation of potential impacts and damages, in 9th Hymex Workshop 2015: Mykonos, Greece [Google Scholar]
  24. Pons, F., et al., EXZECO: A GIS and DEM based method for pre-determination of flood risk related to direct runoff and flash floods. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pons, F., et al., Une contribution à l’évaluation de l’aléa inondation par ruissellement et crues soudaines, in SimHydro 2010 2011, /: 2-4 June 2010, Sophia Antipolis. p. 18 p. [Google Scholar]
  26. Brémond, P., F. Grelot, and A.-L. Agenais, Review Article: economic evaluation of flood damage to agriculture-review and analysis of existing methods. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2013. 13: p. p. 2493-p. 2512. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lugeri, N., et al., Flood risk in Europe: analysis of exposure in 13 Countries. European Commission Directorate-General Joint Research Centre, EUR22525 EN, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  28. Peduzzi, P., et al., Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the Disaster Risk Index. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 2009. 9(4): p. 1149–1159. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Belmonte, A.M.C., M.J. López-García, and J. Soriano-García, Mapping temporally-variable exposure to flooding in small Mediterranean basins using land-use indexs. Applied Geography, 2011. 31(1): p. 136–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruin, I., et al., Human exposure to flash floods–Relation between flood parameters and human vulnerability during a storm of September 2002 in Southern France. Journal of Hydrology, 2008. 361(1): p. 199–213. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Soto, D., F. Renard, and A. Magnon. Évaluation de la vulnérabilité territoriale des enjeux environnementaux du Grand Lyon aux aléas technologiques. in INFORSID. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  32. Renard, F. and D. Soto, Une représentation du risque à l’intersection de l’aléa et de la vulnérabilité: cartographies des inondations lyonnaises. Geographica Helvetica, 2015. 70: p. 333–348. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Saaty, T.L., How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 1990. 48(1): p. 9–26. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jenks, G.F., Generalization in statistical mapping. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1963. 53(1): p. 15–26. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Corvey, W.J., et al. Foundations of a Multilayer Annotation Framework for Twitter Communications During Crisis Events. in LREC. 2012. Citeseer. [Google Scholar]
  36. Coyle, D. and P. Meier, New technologies in emergencies and conflicts: the role of information and social networks, in New Technologies in Emergencies and Conflicts: The Role of Information and Social Networks. 2009, United Nations Foundation; Vodafone Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ruin, I., et al., Social and hydrological responses to extreme precipitations: An interdisciplinary strategy for postflood investigation. Weather, Climate, and Society, 2014. 6(1): p. 135–153. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Downton, M.W. and R.A. Pielke, How accurate are disaster loss data? The case of US flood damage. Natural Hazards, 2005. 35(2): p. 211–228. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.