Hurricane flood risk assessment for the Yucatan and Campeche State coastal area

Rey, Wilmer; Mendoza, Edgar; Salles, Paulo; Zhang, Keqi; Teng, Yi-Chen; Trejo-Rangel, Miguel Angel; Franklin, Gemma L.

doi:10.1007/s11069-019-03587-3

Cited by 21 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mixed tide has a diurnal dominance and strong neap-spring variability, with tidal ranges that vary from 0.1 m during neaps to 0.8 m during springs [40]. Given the wide (245 km) continental shelf and its mild slope (1/1000) [41], on the one hand, the wind-wave energy is dissipated far offshore [42], while on the other hand, the area is highly prone to being flooded by hurricane storm surges [1]. A detailed description of the characteristics of the study zone can be found in [3,43].…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where C and P have the same definitions as in the CENAPRED methodology, but V 1 is the socioeconomic vulnerability proposed by [1] for the states of Yucatan and Campeche, which consists of 17 indicators: total inhabitants, people under 14 years old, people over 64 years old, unemployed population, illiterate population, disabled population, non-Spanish speakers (indigenous population), people born in a different entity, foreign population, population with no health services, divorced or windowed population, total homes, total inhabited homes, homes with no services such as electricity, water, sewer system, homes with no fridge, washing machine or car, homes with no communication technologies and homes with no home appliances. These indicators were selected in terms of mobility (age), education, households and communication access, similar to [58], and were standardized, weighted, and summed to obtain a single indicator.…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These indicators were selected in terms of mobility (age), education, households and communication access, similar to [58], and were standardized, weighted, and summed to obtain a single indicator. For more information the readers are referred to [1]. In the CENAPRED and CENAPREDv2 methodologies, the risk is expressed in US dollars; therefore, these two methodologies are comparable.…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This classification was also used for the CENAPRED vulnerability for comparison purposes. The FRI methodology has already been implemented for the states of Yucatan and Campeche, Mexico by [1], where risk is the product of the vulnerability and the hazard [26,30]. However, here we included P in the FRI expression as in CENAPRED, where the FRI formulation is defined as…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The geographical position and topographical characteristics of the northern Yucatan Peninsula expose the coastal zone to flood threats induced by both tropical cyclones [1] and Central American cold surges, locally called 'Nortes' [2,3]. A 'Norte' event is defined as a cold anticyclonic air mass that originates poleward of Mexico and penetrates equatorward to at least 20 • N [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing Different Flood Risk and Damage Approaches: A Case of Study in Progreso, Yucatan, Mexico

Rey

Martínez-Amador

Salles

et al. 2020

JMSE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This 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.

show abstract