Flood Vulnerability Assessment of Urban Traditional Buildings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Abstract. Flood hazard is increasing in frequency and magnitude in Southeast Asia major metropolitan areas due to the effects of fast urban development and changes in climate, threatening people's properties and life. Typically, flood management actions are mostly focused on large scale defenses, such as river embankments or discharge channels or tunnels. However, these are difficult to implement in historic centres without disturbing their heritage value, and might not provide sufficient mitigation in these areas. Therefore urban heritage buildings may be particularly exposed to flood events, even when they were originally designed and built with intrinsic resilient measures, based on the local knowledge of the natural environment and its threats at the time. Their attractiveness, cultural and economic values, means that they can represent a proportionally high contribution to losses of any event. Hence it is worth to pursue more localised, tailored, mitigation measures. Vulnerability assessment studies are essential to inform the feasibility and development of such strategies. In the present paper we propose a multi-level methodology to assess the flood vulnerability of residential buildings in an area of Kuala Lumpur Malaysia characterised by traditional timber housing. The multi-scale flood vulnerability model is based on a wide range of parameters, covering building specific parameters, neighbourhood conditions and catchment area condition. Parameters for 163 buildings were measured in detail by a field surveys integrated with Google Street View. The vulnerability model is combined with high resolution fluvial and pluvial flood maps providing likely water depths for a range of different flood return periods. The obtained vulnerability index shows ability to reflect different exposure by different building types and their relative locations. The study provides evidence that results obtained for a small district can be scaled up at city level, to inform both generic and specific protection strategies. The paper discusses these in relation to a scenario event of 0.1 % Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), based on hydrological and hydraulic models developed for the Disaster Resilient Cities Project.

Earthen vernacular architecture in flood-prone areas: characteristics and typologies in the Ebro basin

“…Earthen vernacular architecture in flood-prone areas: characteristics and typologies in the Ebro basin 2022, Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València effects. Therefore, the study of structural and non-structural measures is considered necessary (D'Ayala et al, 2020). The design of emergency plans is considered a key measure for preventing further damage and reducing risks.…”

A systematic review of the flood vulnerability using geographic information system

“…The peak discharge was calculated using the SWAT model, and the peak discharge was included as one of the indications. The General Circulation Models (GCM) data were used to forecast future rainfall, while Landsat pictures were used to create land use and land (Singh and Pandey, 2021), (Hosseini et al, 2021) (Nazeer and Bork, 2021), (Hussain et al, 2021) (Pathak et al, 2020), (Hoque et al, 2019) (Mavhura et al, 2017), (Terti et al, 2015) (Eidsvig et al, 2014), (Zhang, 2009) Physical vulnerability Interdependency analysis, indicator methodology, decision-making trial method., Indicator based approach, morphometric parameters were derived from SRTM DEM data using (GIS), Weighted Sum Approach (WSA), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and an Integrated Approach (IA), GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Approach, Geospatial Indicator-Based Approach and Participatory Analytical Hierarchy Process, Flood generating factors: slope, elevation, land use/land cover, drainage density, rainfall, and soil types were rated and collected to mark out flood vulnerability zones using (GIS), Regression and GIS conditioning factors include digital elevation model (DEM), Pearson's correlation, multicollinearity, and heteroscedasticity analyses (Singh and Pandey, 2021), (Hosseini et al, 2021), (Nazeer and Bork, 2021), (Hussain et al, 2021), (Vignesh et al, 2021), (Usman Kaoje et al, 2021), (Desalegn and Mulu, 2021), (Usman Kaoje et al, 2021), (Sami et al, 2020), (D'Ayala et al, 2020), (Chuang et al, 2020), (Yin et al, 2019), (Hoque et al, 2019), Sajjad, 2019), Hübl et al, 2016), (Al-Juaidi et al, 2018), (Hazarika et al, 2018), (Walliman et al, 2012) and, (Mehebub et al, 2015) Environmental…”

Review of different methods and techniques used for flood vulnerability analysis

“…(Ayala et al 2020;BELL 1980;Blistanova et al 2016; Diaz-Sarachaga and Jato-Espino 2020;Khajehei et al 2020;Park et al 2015;Prasad and Narayanan 2016;Rufat et al 2015a;Teng et al 2017;Žurovec et al 2017). A time period, i.e., 1980-2020, is analyzed for reviewing previously published research works.…”