Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 05011
Number of page(s) 7
Section Physical, economic and environmental consequences
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. Dauphine A. (2000). Risques et catastrophes. Observer - Spatialiser - Comprendre - Gérer, Armand Colin, Collection U. 799.809.
  2. De Groeve T., Poljansek K., Ehrlich D. (2013) Recording Disasters Losses: Recommendation for a European Approach. JRC Scientific and Policy Report [online]. Available at:
  3. De Groeve T., Poljansek K., Ehrlich D., Corbane C. (2014). Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in EU Member States. JRC Scientific and Policy Report [online]. Available at:
  4. Merz B., Kreibich H., Thieken A., Schwarze R. (2010). Assessment of economic flood damage. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci., 10, 1697–1724. [CrossRef]
  5. Meyer V., Becker N., Markantonis V., Schwarze R., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Bouwer L.M., Bubeck P., Ciavola P., Genovese E., Green C., Hallegatte S., Kreibich H., Lequeux Q., Logar I., Papyrakis E., Pfurtscheller C., Poussin J., Przyluski V., Thieken A.H. and Viavattene C. (2013). Review article: Assessing the costs of natural hazards – state of the art and knowledge gaps. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1351–1373. [CrossRef]
  6. Molinari D., Ballio F., Handmer J., Menoni S. (2014). On the modeling of significance for flood damage assessment, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, part A, 381–391. [CrossRef]
  7. Molinari D., Ballio F., Menoni S. & Legnani L. (2013). Implementing the Floods Directive: a procedure for flood risk analysis and mapping, Proceedings of 35th IAHR World Congress, 8-13 September 2013, Chengdu, China
  8. UNDRO - Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator (1979). Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis. Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator (UNDRO), Geneva.
  9. FEMA (2010). HAZUS-MH MR5 Technical Manual - Earthquake Model, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 736 pp.
  10. Robinson D., Fulford G. and Dhu T. (2006). EQRM: Geoscience Australia’s Earthquake Risk Model: Technical Manual: Version 3.0.1 ed. Record 2005/001. Geoscience Australia, Canberra.
  11. Grossi P. and Kunreuther H. (eds.) (2005) Catastrophe Modeling: a New Approach to Managing Risk, Springer, 245 pp.
  12. Silva V., Crowley H., Pagani M., Monelli D and Pinho R. (2014). Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Natural Hazards, 72:3, 1409–1427. [CrossRef]
  13. Senouci A., Bard P-Y., Naboussi Farsi M., Beck E., Cartier S. (2013). Robustness and uncertainties of seismic damage estimates at urban scale: a methodological comparison on the example of the city of Oran (Algeria), Bull Earthquake Eng., 11, 1191–1215. [CrossRef]
  14. Benedetti D., Benzoni G., Parisi M.A. (1988). Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation for old urban nuclei, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn, 16(2), 183–201. [CrossRef]
  15. Lagomarsino S., and Giovinazzi S. (2006). Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull. Earthquake Eng., 4, 415–443. [CrossRef]
  16. Guéguen P., Michel C., LeCorre L. (2007). A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France), Bull. Earthquake Eng., 5(3), 467–490. [CrossRef]

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.