Close

1. Identity statement
Reference TypeJournal Article
Sitemtc-m21c.sid.inpe.br
Holder Codeisadg {BR SPINPE} ibi 8JMKD3MGPCW/3DT298S
Identifier8JMKD3MGP3W34R/427NHRP
Repositorysid.inpe.br/mtc-m21c/2020/03.25.12.17   (restricted access)
Last Update2020:03.25.12.17.09 (UTC) simone
Metadata Repositorysid.inpe.br/mtc-m21c/2020/03.25.12.17.09
Metadata Last Update2022:01.04.01.35.02 (UTC) administrator
DOI10.3390/jmse8020137
ISSN2077-1312
Citation KeyReyMSMTFRAQ:2020:CaStPr
TitleAssessing different flood risk and damage approaches: a case of study in progreso, Yucatan, Mexico
Year2020
MonthFeb.
Access Date2024, Apr. 20
Type of Workjournal article
Secondary TypePRE PI
Number of Files1
Size6617 KiB
2. Context
Author1 Rey, Wilmer
2 Martínez-Amador, Miranda
3 Salles, Paulo
4 Mendoza, E. Tonatiuh
5 Trejo-Rangel, Miguel Angel
6 Franklin, Gemma L.
7 Ruiz-Salcines, Pablo
8 Appendini, Christian M.
9 Quintero-Ibáñez, Julián
ORCID1 0000-0002-2983-5103
2
3 0000-0001-9072-8289
4 0000-0003-4416-4253
5
6
7 0000-0002-3075-9873
8 0000-0002-6044-3351
Group1
2
3
4
5 CST-CST-SESPG-INPE-MCTIC-GOV-BR
Affiliation1 Centro de Investigaciones Oceanograficas e Hidrograficas del Caribe (CIOH)
2 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
3 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
4 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
5 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)
6 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
7 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
8 Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
9 Centro de Investigaciones Oceanograficas e Hidrograficas del Caribe (CIOH)
Author e-Mail Address1 w.reysanchez@gmail.com
2
3 psallesa@iingen.unam.mx
4 emendozap@iingen.unam.mx
5 miguel.rangel@inpe.br
6 GFranklin@iingen.unam.mx
7 pruizs@iingen.unam.mx
8 cappendinia@iingen.unam.mx
9 Jquinteroi@dimar.mil.co
JournalJournal of Marine Science and Engineering
Volume8
Number2
Pagese137
History (UTC)2020-03-25 12:18:03 :: simone -> administrator :: 2020
2022-01-04 01:35:02 :: administrator -> simone :: 2020
3. Content and structure
Is the master or a copy?is the master
Content Stagecompleted
Transferable1
Content TypeExternal Contribution
Version Typepublisher
Keywordsflood hazard
flood vulnerability
hydrodynamic modeling
CENAPRED
Yucatan State
AbstractThis study applies three different methods to assess the flood risk and damage from the strongest high-pressure cold front (locally known as 'Norte') event in terms of the residual tide from 30 years (1979-2008) of data for Progreso, Yucatan. The most important difference between the three methods is the estimation of flood vulnerability for Progreso. The first method, proposed by Mexico's National Center for the Prevention of Disasters (CENAPRED) and used by the Mexican government is based mostly on economic asset (household goods) values and flood impacts. The second (CENAPREDv2) and third (FRI) methods are proposals for assessing risk that include 17 socioeconomic indicators. The former includes economic asset values, as is the case for CENAPRED, while the latter does not. The main results of this study show that the modeled 'Norte' event flooded 25% of Progreso's city blocks, with an estimated economic flood risk of $USD 16,266 (CENAPRED) and $USD 223,779 (CENAPREDv2), and flood damage of $USD 48,848 and $USD 671,918, respectively. When calculating flood risk (FRI) and flood damage (FRI_FD) without monetary terms, the risk categories along the back-barrier behind Progreso varied spatially from 'very low' to 'high', while areas along the coastal side presented a 'low' and 'very low' risk. These categories increased for the flood damage because the exceedance probability of the flood was not considered as it was for flood risk in the three methodologies. Therefore, flood damage provides the losses caused by a given flood event without considering how probable that loss may be. In conclusion, this study proposes that the selection of the applied method depends on the main objectives and specific interests when assessing flood risk. For instance, if economic damage is the main concern, then the CENAPRED method should be used as it identifies where the larger economic impacts could occur; when a socioeconomic approach is needed then the FRI should be applied, but if both economic damage and socioeconomic aspects are needed, the CENAPREDv2 is recommended. Besides considering economic aspects, the FRI method also includes social variables that can help to map the most vulnerable population in terms of mobility, education, communication access and others. Therefore, the proposed FRI method is very relevant for disaster risk managers and other stakeholders interested in disaster risk reduction.
AreaCST
Arrangementurlib.net > BDMCI > Fonds > Produção pgr ATUAIS > CST > Assessing different flood...
doc Directory Contentaccess
source Directory Contentthere are no files
agreement Directory Content
agreement.html 25/03/2020 09:17 1.0 KiB 
4. Conditions of access and use
Languageen
Target Filerey_assessing.pdf
User Groupsimone
Reader Groupadministrator
simone
Visibilityshown
Read Permissiondeny from all and allow from 150.163
Update Permissionnot transferred
5. Allied materials
Next Higher Units8JMKD3MGPCW/449U4PL
Citing Item Listsid.inpe.br/bibdigital/2021/03.06.05.18 3
DisseminationWEBSCI; PORTALCAPES; SCOPUS.
Host Collectionurlib.net/www/2017/11.22.19.04
6. Notes
Empty Fieldsalternatejournal archivingpolicy archivist callnumber copyholder copyright creatorhistory descriptionlevel e-mailaddress format isbn label lineage mark mirrorrepository nextedition notes parameterlist parentrepositories previousedition previouslowerunit progress project resumeid rightsholder schedulinginformation secondarydate secondarykey secondarymark session shorttitle sponsor subject tertiarymark tertiarytype url
7. Description control
e-Mail (login)simone
update 


Close