Historic records and GIS applications for flood risk analysis in the Salento peninsula (southern Italy)

Abstract

Abstract. The occurrence of calamitous meteoric events represents a current problem of the Salento peninsula (Southern Italy). In fact, flash floods, generated by very intense rainfall, occur not only in autumn and winter, but at the end of summer as well. These calamities are amplified by peculiar geological and geomorphological characteristics of Salento and by the pollution of sinkholes. Floodings affect often large areas, especially in the impermeable lowering zones. These events cause warnings and emergency states, involving people as well as socio-economic goods. A methodical investigation based on the historic flood records and an analysis of the geoenvironmental factors have been performed, using a Geographic Information System (GIS) methodology for database processing in order to identify the distribution of areas with different risk degrees. The data, referring to events that occurred from 1968 to 2004, have been collected in a database, the so-called IPHAS (Salento Alluvial PHenomena Inventory), extracted in an easily consultable table. The final goal is the development of a risk map where the areas that are affected by floodings are included between small ridges, the so-called "Serre". More than 50% of the Salento peninsula shows high or very high risk values. The numerous maps that were utilized and generated represent an important basis in order to quantify the flood risk, according to the model using historic records.

The efficiency of a risk reduction program for debris-flow disasters – a case study of the Songhe community in Taiwan

“…For instance, because heavy rainfall is the main cause of debris flows, rainfall frequency and intensity are represented by frequency/intensity classes, and debris flows are represented by movement classes. Forte et al (2005) established nine indices for hazard degree based on three classes of rainfall intensity and three classes of rainfall frequency. Similarly, Cardinali et al (2002) proposed that the degree of landslide hazard depends on landslide frequency and intensity.…”

“…However, this approach, which is a type of qualitative analysis, did not suggest any vulnerability values in the risk assessments. Forte et al (2005) used nine classes of vulnerability to classify elements at risk. Each class had one fictitious multiple of three indices so that vulnerability was numerically defined by the values.…”

Analysis of Flood Risk Due to Sea Level Rise in the Menor Sea (Murcia, Spain)

“…Each individual factor described in Section 2.2.2 has got its relative importance in the final outcome of the index. Lithology and geomorphology are closely linked with the resistance of the materials, their permeability, texture or alterability [36]. The elevation of the terrain slope and distance factors play a fundamental role as obstacles to the water advance [37], while the coastal factor provides an insight about the evolution trend of the coast line as well as helping to identify coastal hazards [38].…”

The KULTURisk Regional Risk Assessment methodology for water-related natural hazards – Part 1: Physical–environmental assessment

“…Moreover, while most of the approaches made a considerable use of GIS-based tools both for computational and outcome purposes, they were mainly developed for very specific contexts at a very local scale, with an high level of complexity, and were data demanding, and they can hardly be employed for a wide range of case studies (e.g. Forte et al, 2005;Kubal et al, 2009;Forster et al, 2009). A recent attempt has been made by Balica et al (2009) in proposing an innovative parametric approach for the estimation of the vulnerability of a system by using only few (readily available) parameters related to that system.…”

“…Most of the available methodologies, in fact, only targeted "classical" receptors, such as buildings, infrastructure or population (e.g. Clausen and Clark, 1990;Citeau, 2003;Forte et al, 2005;DEFRA, 2006;Büchele et al, 2006;Kubal et al, 2009), which are usually analysed separately, in monetary terms, and related damage only, neglecting the coexistence (and synergies) of multiple receptors inhabiting in the same geographical region. Moreover, while most of the approaches made a considerable use of GIS-based tools both for computational and outcome purposes, they were mainly developed for very specific contexts at a very local scale, with an high level of complexity, and were data demanding, and they can hardly be employed for a wide range of case studies (e.g.…”