A GIS-based Approach For Hurricane Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment in The Cayman Islands

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264534681
A GIS-based approach for hurricane hazard and

vulnerability assessment in the Cayman Islands
ARTICLE in OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT AUGUST 2014
Impact Factor: 1.77 DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.021
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
164
141
3 AUTHORS:
Andrea Taramelli
Emiliana Valentini
Institute for Environmental Protection and
Institute for Environmental Protection and
64 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Simone Sterlacchini
Spanish National Research Council
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Andrea Taramelli

Retrieved on: 18 June 2015
Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
A GIS-based approach for hurricane hazard and vulnerability

assessment in the Cayman Islands
A. Taramelli a, *, E. Valentini a, 1, S. Sterlacchini b, 2
a
b
ISPRA Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, via Vitaliano Brancati, 60, Rome, Italy
National Research Council of Italy, Institute for the Dynamic of Environmental Processes, Piazza della Scienza, 1, 20126 Milano, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Available online xxx
Coastal areas are complex systems that represent the interface between the human, physical and natural
components. This paper describes the design, development and application of a conceptual foundation
for a quantitative integrated coastal element vulnerability assessment using the up to date Source
ePathwayeReceptoreConsequence (SPRC) approach. It is a conceptual model that combines a wellestablished approach in the eld of waste and pollution management with the possibility of introducing the concept of system diagrams. Through the implementation of hazard classication, the
approach leads to critical facilities identication and the loss estimation for specic hazards when
different types of buildings are selected. In the example of Cayman Islands, the presence of exposed
elements at risk, as the port or the airport, named critical facilities, drives serious potential damage
effects due to high winds and storm surge. This approach provides both a spatial data infrastructure
design, for collecting, storing and managing critical facilities information and a vulnerability assessment
procedures for structural and operational components, concerning coastal zones affected by hurricane
and related hazards. The nal part of the paper synthesizes the conceptual treatment of coastal
vulnerability in the Grand Cayman Island and underlines the ready-to-use GIS based vulnerability
methodologies for risk assessment allowing to build capacity and resilience of the local communities.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
prediction of the related risk assessment remain largely unsolved

problems (Kok and Winograd, 2002; Pielke et al., 2008). Vulnerability is, in fact, a multidimensional concept associated with high
uncertainty in measurement and classication. Developing a
vulnerability index from the diverse and often incommensurate
data that form the basis of vulnerability assessment is often a core
challenge of vulnerability research (Davidson et al., 2007; Eakin and
Bojorquez-Tapia, 2008). It is well known that hurricane hazard is
controlled by or dependent on a large and complex set of natural
and human induced environmental factors (Howard et al., 2003;
Shen et al., 2005; Cutter and Emrich, 2006). To complicate matters further, hurricane related components like storm surges, oods
and high winds, require forecasting appraisal that is often founded
upon different methods, techniques and tools (Landsea et al., 1999;
Jiang et al., 2003; Bao et al., 2006; Knutson et al., 2010) that just
recently started to deal with local perceptions and transferring risk
into policy making (Hallegatte, 2008; Frazier et al., 2010b;
Krishnamurthy et al., 2011).
The countries of the Caribbean are among the most disaster
prone areas in the world by measures such as disaster frequency,
population affected and value of damage (Anderson et al., 2010).
In the last decades, developing hazard models for hurricane

impact using GIS have become a major topic of research (Colby
et al., 2000; Guzman-Tapia et al., 2005; Frazier et al., 2009; Taramelli et al., 2010; Krishnamurthy et al., 2011). Basic approaches
based on Multi-Hazard model method, have been applied to hurricane hazard/elements at risk assessment using GIS data (Boyd
et al., 2002; Bausch, 2003; Tran et al., 2009). Indeed, despite the
disastrous effects of hurricanes on coastal and inland communities
are well known (O'Hare, 2001; Pielke et al., 2003; Watson and
Johnson, 2005), there is still a need to better understand how to
manage vulnerability to the different mechanisms related to hurricanes strike like storm surges, oods and high winds (Frazier
et al., 2010a). Moreover, hurricane vulnerability identication and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 (0) 6 5007 4635; fax: 39 (0) 6 5007 4912.
E-mail addresses: ataram@ldeo.columbia.edu, andrea.taramelli@isprambiente.it
(A. Taramelli), emiliana.valentini@isprambiente.it (E. Valentini), simone.
sterlacchini@idpa.cnr.it (S. Sterlacchini).
1
Tel.: 39 (0) 6 5007 4635; fax: 39 (0) 6 5007 4912.
2
Tel.: 39 (0) 26448285; fax: 39 (0) 264482895.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.021
0964-5691/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Taramelli, A., et al., A GIS-based approach for hurricane hazard and vulnerability assessment in the Cayman
Islands, Ocean & Coastal Management (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.021
A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15
In the 52 years from 1950 to 2002, Grand Cayman has experienced seven tropical storms and six hurricanes and the Sister
Islands six tropical storms and ve hurricanes (Tompkins and
rez, 2010). However,
Hurlston, 2003; Novelo-Casanova and Sua
more recently, in 2004 and 2008 Hurricane Ivan and Paloma caused
billions of dollars in damage to the economy, environment and
infrastructures (Emdat database: http://www.emdat.be/resultcountry-prole; Young, 2004; Young and Gibbs, 2005).
With regard to other natural related hazards like earthquake,
the Cayman Islands lie in a zone that is close to the boundary of the
Caribbean and North American tectonic plates. This transform
boundary, where the plates slide past each other, is known to
generate earthquakes. The Islands frequently experience minor
tremors, though often unnoticed by most residents. On 19 January
2010 the Cayman Islands were hit by an earthquake registering
magnitude 5.8 on the Richter Scale, resulting in the issuance of a
tsunami watch which was later canceled. Prior to this, the last
earthquake to hit the Cayman Islands was magnitude 6.8 on 14
December 2004, occurring just three months after Hurricane Ivan
devastated the Cayman Islands (De Mets and Wiggins-Grandison,
2007).
Thus, climate change and its natural related hazard impact was
the subject of a recent workshop held in Havana, Cuba, as part of a
project called The Future of Climate Extremes in the Caribbean
(XCUBE e Mesquita et al., 2013). The Caribbean islands are, in fact,
characterized by a range of coastal hazards such as earthquakes,
tsunamis and most notably, those related to hurricanes. It is thus
important to assess the risk posed by these hazards because the
islands are environmentally and economically signicant due to
natural resources, industry, trade and tourism (Birkmann, 2007;
Birkmann and Wisner, 2006).
Existing coastal management approaches are not always able to
adequately address risk, as the vulnerability study is not always
included as a management option (Cutter and Emrich, 2006; R3i
Contractor Report, 2011; Krishnamurthy et al., 2011). Vulnerability is a key component of risk assessment and it is the capacity of
elements exposed to hazards, such as people, resources and infrastructure, to suffer damage (Cova and Church, 1997; Sisson et al.,
2006). The Provision of Services to Caribbean Overseas Countries
and Territories (OCTs) addresses the risk and exposure of these
islands by providing a network of regional infrastructure, programs,
policies and protocols to strengthen their capacity to predict and
prepare for natural hazards, thereby improving resilience and
reducing risk and subsequent loss. Based on the information made
available by the R3i project, the efforts of this work are directed to
identify which critical facility and resource could be potentially
threatened by hazards and to rank the magnitude, frequency and
probability of occurrence of the natural and man-made hazards
that might potentially affect these structures. Vulnerability to
natural hazards, such as hurricanes and related oodings, storm
surges, waves and high-speed winds, of the exposed elements can
be assessed by the analysis of the different dimensions composing
the vulnerability of the physical components and the local communities (Birkmann, 2005, 2006).
Because of the need to integrate and manage all these factors
and aspects with the development of coastal zone, GIS appears to
be the most appropriate tool to deal with those tasks for coastal
managers and operators (Andrews et al., 2002; Kienberger, 2007;
Rodrguez et al., 2009). A GIS based approach can clearly shows
the spatial and temporal evolution of dynamic processes through
static maps and matrix of spatial information, as well as the factors
that control their behavior in order to analyze the potential scenarios and to evaluate the impact on buildings and manage them
properly (Moe et al., 2000; Li et al., 2000; Zhang and Grassle, 2002).
Since GIS was one of the tools recommended in Word Coast
Conference in 1993 (Vellinga and Klein, 1993), a number of different

projects using GIS applications and methodologies for coastal zones
have been developed (e.g. BALTICSEA-WEB, Laitinen and
Neuvonen, 2001; Zhang and Grassle, 2002; Dune Hazard Assessment Tool, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2003; Miller et al., 2003;
THESEUS, Zanuttigh et al., 2014).
Particular is the use in the littoral zone, where GIS allows homogenization and integration of all the available information into
geodatabases, a standardized access to data, the generation of
thematic cartography and spatial and geostatistical analysis
(Pompe and Rinehart, 2008; Debaine and Robin, 2012). This characteristic is especially useful, for example, in the integration and
analysis of the indexes used to identify coastal vulnerability
(Doukakis, 2005; Debaine and Robin, 2012) and to produce maps
for coastal risk analysis. FEMA (Lindell et al., 2006), for example,
proposed a probabilistic approach in which different fragility
curves for different types of hazardous events and building type are
proposed using a GIS platform. Each curve statistically describes the
likelihood of a certain building type of exceeding a certain limit
state at a specied stress condition.
In the present work, the primary objectives are to identify the
various critical facilities within the Cayman Islands, determine their
level of exposure to natural hazard events and assess the structural
and operational dimensions of vulnerability to be used in loss
estimation. For this aim, two different approaches have been used:
the former based on the calculation of indexes; the latter on the use
of available fragility functions for different hazardous events and
building types. The use of indexes or fragility functions is a well
known approach to vulnerability and risk assessment studies to
represent the system's or the community's physical (structural,
including the built environment), socio-cultural, socio-economic
and environmental susceptibility to damage.
In this work, the vulnerability assessment is based on the
SourceePathwayeReceptoreConsequence concept (SePeReC)
framework widely used in the elds of waste and pollution management and utilized by the UK's Foresight Future Flooding, the EUfunded FLOODsite and the THESEUS projects (FLOODSITE
CONSORTIUM, 2009, Narayan et al., 2012, 2014; Kane et al., 2014).
The methodology is completely GIS-based and provides a
framework within which the case study data collection denes the
basic information in a way, which is consistent and compatible with
the proposed hazard and vulnerability assessment framework. The
applied model thus provides a consistent approach for achieving
comprehensive element at risk and vulnerability analysis that are
related to the Grand Cayman test case, but could be individual to
each coastal areas for all the different Caribbean islands. These are
obtained through a robust data structure implementation that
represents a model-building exercise to facilitate a shared understanding of the applied system within different hazard management ofce in the whole area. The model is a powerful tool for
structuring and integrating existing knowledge across multiple island reality with different management approach. Applications of
the GIS model provide key insights into the characteristics of
complex coastal areas d insights that will inform the quantication
process linked to hurricane related events leading to a shared
coastal spatial planning for hurricane vulnerability analysis.
1.1. Study site
Located in the western Caribbean Sea (Fig. 1a) at the northwest
of Jamaica, the Cayman Islands (CI's) are a British overseas territory comprised of three islands: Grand Cayman (GC, Fig. 1b),
Cayman Brac (CB, Fig. 1c), and Little Cayman (LC, Fig. 1d). These
three islands occupy around 250 kmq of land area (Brunt and
Davies, 1994).
Fig. 1. a) Overview of the Caribbean Sea and the surroundings islands. The Cayman Islands are a British Overseas Territory considered part of the geographic Western Caribbean
Zone as well as the Greater Antilles. The Caymans territory comprises three islands: b) Grand Cayman, c) Cayman Brac and d) Little Cayman represented in the gure by the ground
elevation layer (Digital Terrain Model) provided by Land and Survey Department, Grand Cayman.
GC is approximately 115 000 ft long and 43 000 ft wide at the

widest point. The highest elevation is about 60 ft above sea level
and the most striking geographical feature is the North Sound, a
shallow reef-protected lagoon with an area of about
602 780 000 ftq. CB lies about 475 000 ft northeast of GC. It is about
62 300 ft long and a little over 5 300 ft wide. LC is 26 200 ft west of
CB and is 52 500 ft long and 9 800 ft at its widest point. It is the
attest of the three islands with its highest elevation being 39 ft. To
the west, a 36 000 ft channel separates CB from LC (Brunt and
Davies, 1994). The three islands are mostly at (Fig. 1bed) and
were formed by large coral heads, covering submerged ice age
peaks of western extensions of the Cuban Sierra Maestra range. The
highest point is The Bluff, a limestone outcrop 140 ft in height on
the eastern end of eastern CB. The CI's lowest elevation is the
Caribbean Sea at sea level (Brunt and Davies, 1994).
Climate in the GC basin can be classied as dry-winter tropical,
with signicant subregional variations in rainfall annual totals,
length of the rainy season, and timing of rainfall maxima. The climatologic (1951e80) annual mean rainfall, averaged over all the
188 stations (Giannini et al., 2000; White et al., 2004), is 5 ft per
year. Three rainfall regimes can be related to the geography of the
Caribbean-Central American region. A MayeOctober rainfall
regime is typical of the Central American. In this context rainfallbearing disturbances, known as African easterly waves (Riehl,
1954; Burpee, 1972), propagate across the Atlantic Ocean into the
Caribbean basin from mid June to early October generating
hurricanes.
So that the islands are subject to numerous hazards, most
notable are those related to hurricanes (Emanuel, 2005). Worldwide, approximately 85 percent of direct losses from natural
hazards are related to hurricane events (Gall et al., 2011). A famous

example for Cayman Islands was Hurricane Ivan, which occurred
September 11th, 2004. When Ivan reached the islands, it was
Category 5 strength on the SafreSimpson Hurricane Scale,
creating an 8 foot storm surge on Grand Cayman. An estimated 83%
of the buildings were damaged, 4% of which required complete
reconstruction, with the majority of damage due to ooding and
wind. Power, water and communications were disrupted for
months in some areas and Ivan was the worst hurricane to hit the
islands in 86 years (Thompson, 2010). According to the United
Nations Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean (UNECLAC, 2004), the Cayman islands were impacted more
than any other islands in the Caribbean in terms of economic loss
after the 2004 hurricane season (Novelo-Casanova and Su
arez,
2010). The paths of tropical storms and hurricanes that passed
within 96 km of the CI's since 1853 are exposed in the UNECLAC
report (2004). The number of tropical systems passing nears the
CI's at 5-year intervals (from Caribbean Hurricane Network: www.
stormcarib.com) from 1851 to 2006 shows that most storms
occurred from 1930 to 1934and the most severe hurricanes were
registered between 1915 and 1919. On average, the CI's are affected,
brushed or hit by hurricanes every 2.23 years. The average number
of years between direct hurricane hits (usually within 64 km to
include small hurricanes) is once every 9.06 years. The months of
September, October, and November are typically the most active for
rez, 2010).
hurricanes in the islands (Novelo-Casanova and Sua
During these months, storms tend to form in the southern Caribbean and move north, into or close to CI's. During the 55 years from
1950 to 2004, GC experienced seven tropical storms and seven
hurricanes, and CB and LC six tropical storms and ve hurricanes.
The most important hurricanes that have directly impacted the CI's
in recent years, in addition to Ivan, are (Novelo-Casanova and
Su
arez, 2010): Gilbert, September 1988, Mitch, October 1998,
Michelle, November 2001, Wilma, October 2005 and Dean, August
2007.
2. Material and methods
The methodology was implemented using the available dataset
(R3i Contractor Report, 2011). The Hazard Management Cayman
Islands (HMCI), the Lands Survey Department (LSD) Cayman
Islands and the Department of Environment Cayman Islands
generously provided part of this information under the R3i funded
project. A limitation of the data used that are the most update ones,
is the dating involved in model application, specically with regard
to the data used to build it. However, this problem is not seen as
essential as it ensures that the model can be built commensurate to
the amount of data and time available for the new data acquisition.
Moreover, the resulting conceptual model of the coastal vulnerability analysis explicitly reects these limitations due to the fact
that the process of model construction is universal and equally
applicable to all sites, though the resultant model is built to deal
with the diverse characteristics of each coastal area where the
model based on Cayman has to be applied further.
The data availability is:
Cadastre Map of the Cayman Islands (Lands and Survey
Department, Cayman Islands, 2007)
Cayman Islands' National Hurricane Plan 2006 (Emergency
Operation Centre, Cayman Islands, 2006)
Development Plan Map 2006 (Central Planning Authority,
Cayman Islands, 2006)
Map of ooding areas during Ivan Hurricane (Department of
Environment, Cayman Islands, 2005)
Map of Ivan Hurricane Preliminary Damage Assessment (Lands
and Survey Department, Cayman Islands, 2005)
Map of location (latitude and longitude) of critical facilities
(hospitals, schools, shelters, fuel deposits, fuel and gas pipeline,
government communications infrastructure, power stations,
ports, water and sewage treatment plants, water storage plants,
airport, police and re departments, critical government, and
Red Cross installations) (Hazard Management Cayman Islands,
2009)
Petroleum Products Location Map (Lands and Survey Department, Cayman Islands, 2007)
Preliminary Post-Ivan Environmental Impact Assessment
Report (Department of Environment, Cayman Islands, 2004)
Quikbird acquisition on the tree islands (Department of Environment, Cayman Islands, 2006)
Terrain models, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands (Lands and
Survey Department, Cayman Islands, 2007)
EMMA hazard maps based on TAOS approach (Hazard Management Cayman Islands, 2009)
The buildings and facilities analyzed are as follows:
Buildings are grouped together into specic building types and
occupancy classes following HAZUS-MH classication (FEMA,
Bausch, 2003). Degrees of damage and loss are computed for each
group. Building types (Table 1) are classied according to: the
number of storeys, usage and construction material and techniques
(for example: one-storey wood frame residential buildings, twostoreys masonry multi-family residential buildings, low-rise masonry strip mall buildings, etc.). Each model building type is further
dened by a distribution of wind building characteristics, such as:
roof shape, roof covering and opening protection. Three
Table 1
Construction categories used to classify the critical facilities surveyed in Grand
Cayman.
General building type
Construction description
Wood
Masonry
Steel
Concrete
Manufactures homes
Wood frame
Reinforced or un-reinforced masonry
Steel frame
Cast-in-place or pre-cast reinforced concrete
Factory-built residential construction
predominant roof shapes are modeled: Hip, Gable or Flat. For at

roofs, two roof coverings (Built-Up Roof or Single Ply Membrane)
and three roof-covering conditions (New, Good or Poor) are
considered. For all roof shapes, two roof-sheathing fastener conditions (6-penny nails or 8-penny nails) and two roofewall
connection conditions (Strapped or Toe-Nailed) are modeled.
A signicant feature is the possibility to model the benets of
mitigation for all building types. The mitigation options available
are: (1) strengthened roofewall connections (i.e., straps or clips
instead of simple toe-nailed connections), (2) upgraded roof
sheathing attachments, (3) pressure and impact resistant protection for all openings, and (4) secondary water resistance to prevent
water penetration through the roof decking after the loss of the roof
covering.
Examples of occupancy classes are single-family dwelling, retail
trade, industry, etc. Due to the variations in building type and
performance, the model building types used are designed to
represent the average characteristics of buildings in a class (HAZUSMH, FEMA, Bausch, 2003). That is, the damage and loss prediction
models are developed for model building types and the estimated
performance is based upon the average characteristics of the total
population of buildings within each class.
Within the different type of building we also considered for the
operational vulnerability what is dened as an Essential Facilities:
this includes medical care facilities, emergency response facilities
(re stations, police stations, etc.) and schools, that are those vital
to emergency response and recovery following a disaster. School
buildings are included in this category because of the key-role they
often play in housing people displaced from damaged homes.
Generally, there are very few of each type of essential facilities in a
census tract, making it easier to obtain site-specic information for
each facility. Damage and loss-of-function are evaluated on a
building-by-building basis for this class of structures, taking into
account the construction and structural characteristics (model
building type) of the facility under analysis, even though the uncertainty in each estimate could be large. Utility lifeline systems,
includes potable water, gas and electric power, waste water, communications and liquid fuels (oil and gas). Examples of components
are electrical substations, water treatment plants, tank farms and
pumping stations.
The SPRC (Fig. 2) is a model for representing systems and processes that lead to a particular consequence. The SPRC model describes the hazards in terms of the process of event propagation e
the initiation of a hazard and its propagation through a pathway to
a receptor with particular (negative) consequences (Hallegatte
et al., 2013). The model was rst used in the environmental sciences to describe the movement of a pollutant from a source,
through a conducting pathway to a potential receptor (Holdgate,
1979) and was rst adapted for coastal ooding in the UK by the
Foresight: Future Flooding study (Evans et al., 2006). Several new
examples were then applied using the approach (Hanson, 2010;
Hanson and Nicholls, 2012; Narayan et al., 2014). For a risk to
arise, there must be hazard that consists of the source, an individual or object that could be damaged the receptor; and a
Fig. 2. The SourceePathwayeReceptoreConsequence (SPRC) approach (Mendez, 2011 e Personal Communication).
pathway between the source and the receptor. Essentially, the

system is dened by identifying known route(s) for Pathway(s)
between their origin (Source) and impacts (Receptor). Once the
sourceepathereceptor is identied, an impact can be evaluated as
a consequence. The impact can cause social, economic or environmental damage that results from the hazard and is generally
expressed quantitatively, qualitatively or as categories (i.e. High,
Medium, and Low). There may be a number of sources, areas
affected (receptors), type and nature of impacts and linking pathways, but an important aspect of the concept is that there must be a
pathway in order for a receptor, consequence, and therefore risk, to
exist. The purpose of SPRC is to provide (i) a clear denition of the
hazard system and (ii) a conceptual map showing the inherent,
causal relationships and interdependencies that will need to be
represented in the analytical vulnerability assessment framework.
Once the approach is dened, the elements at risk (people,
infrastructure, land cover, activities, public and private services,
etc.) are collected, validated and stored in a database using a GIS
system (Meyer, 2007). The geometric features (shapes, perimeters,
areas and, eventually, volumes) and the relevant descriptive attributes (occupancy rates of buildings, type of door, type of windows,
type of roof, etc.) of the elements at risks are collected and stored. A
catalog of historical damage and estimates of losses is also stored in
the database; information can come from local archives, insurance
companies, and interviews of owners' elements, which have been
damaged. The physical and environmental components of vulnerability can be dened as the degree of loss due to the exposure
(loss) of human settlements to a hazard and the likelihood of being
affected by dangerous phenomena due to the location and physical
conditions of elements that will sustain certain hazard impacts
(Fig. 3).
The analysis includes not only the critical facilities but also the
community distribution. At a rst instance, indicators should
include the age, the gender, if inhabitants are employed or unemployed, the occupation depending upon whether skilled or unskilled, also linked to income and nancial status, as well as the
educational level (higher or lower educational level). Then,
emphasis should be put on the family size and composition of

households e.g. large family, single person household, number of
dependents, if single parent, the household income, tenure status
(owner, renter), disability, nationality/ethnicity (non-white, new
immigrant), the years of residency and whether there is participation in social networks. Apart from persons and/or households, it
is important also to explore rms and economic production at risk
through the use of input data that identify type and size of rms,
number of employees, nancial data (prot, sales) etc.
Hence, the aim for element-at-risk indicators (Fig. 4) is to
specify the amount of social, economic or ecological units or systems which are at risk of being affected regarding the relevant
kinds of hazards in a specic area, e.g. persons, households, rms,
economic production, private and public buildings, public infrastructure, cultural assets, ecological species and landscapes located
in a hazardous area or connected to it (Meyer and Messner, 2006).
As a result, the vulnerability contribution is to map which and
how many elements are at risk of being affected by hazardous
events. In that way, the magnitude of damage can be estimated in
monetary and non-monetary units. As Meyer and Messner (2006)
note since every element at risk is more or less exposed to
events and more or less susceptible to them, exposure and susceptibility indicators are related to element-at-risk indicators and
contribute signicantly to the analysis of vulnerability.
The methodology (Fig. 4) aims to develop a systematic approach
to coastal vulnerability providing both spatial data infrastructure
for collecting, storing and managing critical facilities information
and procedures to assess vulnerability. A range of analysis composes the methodology, including: elements at risk, loss estimation
(based on the use of vulnerability curves) and operational vulnerability to quantify the impact of extreme events (Fig. 5).
The vulnerability assessment developed can be summarized in a
step by step procedure as follows:
Spatial data infrastructure design and implementation
Collection of individual hazard maps
Categorization of hazards
Fig. 3. A fragility curve demands knowledge on the physical parameters of hazard, the structural characteristics of critical building components and the terrain environments. In the
specic case of hurricane, the physical parameter of hazard is represented by the maximum peak gust speed measured at 32 ft above the terrain level; the structural characteristics
of critical building components by the type of buildings (engineered residential steel building in this example), the number of storey (two-storey), the type of roof (built-up roof
cover) and the glazing coverage (33%); the terrain environments by the terrain exposure (z0 0.1 ft open terrain) and the windborne debris model (missile environment D no
windborne debris). For a pre-dened peak gust speed (a), four different damage states may be simulated in probability terms. External tables (b) explain the extent and severity of
damage to structural and non-structural components of a building type. All the fragility curves and descriptions concerning types of building and damage state functions have been
extracted from HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual and User Manual.

Creation of an inventory of critical facilities

Categorization of critical facilities
Elements at risk exposure to hazards calculation
Structural vulnerability assessment for identied hazards and
critical facilities
Loss estimation by fragility curves selection
Operational vulnerability assessment for identied hazards and
critical facilities
The spatial data infrastructure was implemented within ArcMap
9.3 provided by ESRI, with a set of tools for collecting, storing,
retrieving, transforming, and displaying spatial data from the real
world for a particular set of purposes (Burrough, 1986) and is,
therefore, appropriate for this type of analysis since the vulnerability changes with respect to several parameters like the location.
The geophysical and structural data are stored as raster and vector
maps, including EO imagery and classication, as well as shape les
obtained by in situ data acquisition (Fig. 6).
Government ofces such as the Hazard Management Cayman
Islands, the Land and Survey Ofce and the Department of
Environment of Grand Cayman provided images and data in

geographic (WGS84) or projected (NAD27 Grand Cayman) coordinate system. All data were processed in the original projection
setting.
HURRICANE RELATED HAZARD Geodatabase
Based on the above, hurricane related-hazard maps of high
winds, storm surges and oods (with information on the magnitude and return period of each hazardous event have been
collected and stored in the Geodatabase. A collection of past
events was considered a primary source of information. To this
end, the USAID/OAS Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project (CDMP)
has supported the development of TAOS/L, a storm hazard model
for use in the Caribbean to assess the impact of storm surge and
wave action on coastal areas through the region and the exposure
of the elements at risk. Storm Surge Raster maps provide the expected level of surge, generally expressed in feet, with no information about velocity as the waves data. Rainfalls are collected by
literature review and are considered as an adjunct factor to
ooding simulations.
ELEMENTS AT RISK geodatabase
ECOLOGICAL and GEOPHYSICAL geodatabase

The Ecological and Geophysical geodatabase contains multispectral satellite imagery and the natural resources maps like land
covers, natural protected areas, vegetation distributions, wetlands
and water lens, etc. Eco-geophysical settings are stored in order to
crosscheck results and, if necessary, provide important boundary
conditions for the analysis.
The three geodatabases implemented are used in the methodological steps for vulnerability assessment concerning different
coastal zones:
Step 1: hazard assessment (model multiple hazards)
Step 2: elements at risk (critical facilities, people, land cover and
relevant attributes)
Step 3: vulnerability analysis (loss estimation, operational
vulnerability)
2.1. Step 1: hazard assessment: source estimation
Fig. 4. Example of community distribution vulnerability curves for three typologies of
land use. The damage function can be built using the hazard values with terrain environments (i.e. Land use) to delineate the affected area. Based on the monetary values
for each class (GDP Damage), an overall damage cost can be calculated as well as the
structural characteristics of critical buildings.
The elements at risk geodatabase stores a lot of information

concerning: government civic and critical facilities, population
density, infrastructure, land cover, business activities, public and
private services. At a building level, geometric features, perimeters,
areas and, eventually, volumes and other relevant descriptive attributes, such as occupancy rates of buildings, have been collected
and stored. It also contains information regarding the geographical
position and structural characteristics of each building; a catalog of
historical damage and estimates of losses; information from local
archives, insurance companies and interviews of damaged owners.
Systematic in situ surveys and measures integrate the degree of
data completeness.
The Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project supported the

development of The Arbiter of Storms (TAOS/L), a storm hazard
model that can be used to assess the impact of hurricanes on coastal
areas in the Caribbean region (Vermeiren and Watson, 1994). TAOS
is a computer-based numerical model that produces estimates of
water surge height, wave height at the coastline, and maximum
sustained winds at the surface for any coastal area in the Caribbean
basin. Bathymetric and topographic data of the Cayman Islands is
also included in the model to ensure that the TAOS predictions are
as accurate as possible. Model runs are made for any historical
storm (TAOS/L includes and uses a database of historical storms
from 1886 to the present in the Caribbean), for probable maximum
events associated with different return periods, or using real-time
tropical storm forecasts from the US National Hurricane Center
(Iman et al., 2005a,b). Results of individual storm runs can be displayed as raster maps showing the maximum effect (envelope) of
the hazards at each location over the entire course of the storm.
Rainfall data are not modeled by TAOS but collected by literature
review and are considered as an adjunct factor to ooding simulation simply adding the value to the raster map within the GIS. To
determine the level of exposure of the elements at risk to hazards,
storms, waves and winds are extracted from the atlas.
Then, continuous data have been classied on the base of
threshold values proposed in the Safr Simpson classication system (Table 2). Wind raster maps were based on wind velocity and,
recently, the National Hurricane Center added the effects of storm
surge and ooding to this scale. Authors have cited that surge and
ooding are dependent on other factors, such as the size of the
storm and the location, as opposed to a hurricane category based on
wind velocity (Kantha, 2006).
At the beginning, areas potentially affected by high-speed
winds, storm surges and oods (waves and rainfall) have been
identied in each hazard raster map available in this study (Fig. 7).
In the analysis, a SafreSimpson Category III (111e130 mph)
hurricane, crossing Grand Cayman from the southeast approximately 120 (Cayman MET ofce), has been extracted from the atlas.
2.2. Step 2: elements at risk: pathway and receptor estimation
Fig. 5. Conceptual base methodology applied in the Cayman Islands case study.
The ve broad hurricane intensity categories are used to quantitatively provide the levels of exposure of each element at risk
stored in the geodatabase and attain an indication of the potential
damage upon landfall. By overlapping hazard maps with elements
at risk distribution map, a corresponding hazard class is assigned to
each building. This represents the Pathway estimation and is done
in order to dene the magnitude of different damaging hurricane-
Fig. 6. Critical facilities geodatabases implementation.
related events assigned to each element at risk (that represent the

Receptor estimation). In case of high speed winds:
- 2 Critical Facilities fall in class 1 (00.0e94.0 mph)
In case of storm surge, all Critical Facilities located on Grand
Cayman fall within the class 1 (0.0e5.0 ft storm surge height) and
only George Town port is in class 3 (9e12 ft storm surge height).
2.3. Step 3: vulnerability analysis: consequences estimation
As a next step, the physical parameters of the damaging events
(wind speed and high of water classes) have been related to the
structural parameters concerning each element at risk in order to
analyze their response capacity (potential degree of loss) against
hazards, applying two different approaches:
1. The heuristic approach, based on a simple weight assignment
procedure (structural vulnerability).
2. The probabilistic approach, based on the use of fragility functions (loss estimation).
In the heuristic approach, a Total Score is calculated by summing
up all the weights assigned to each structural and architectural
feature composing a critical facility. Total Score shows different
Table 2
SafreSimpson scale referring to the hurricane category, wind speed in miles per
hour (mph) and storm surge and wave height in feet (note: wave height was not
originally included in SafreSimpson scale). Between brackets: number of critical
facilities surveyed in Grand Cayman and affected by each simulated wind speed,
storm surge and wave class (hurricane category: 3; wind direction: 120 ).
Hurricane category
Wind speed (mph)
Storm surge (ft)
Waves (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
75e95 (2)
96e110 (21)
111e130 (39)
131e155 (0)
>155 (0)
4.0e5.0 (61)
6.0e8.0 (0)
9.0e12.0 (1)
13.0e18.0 (0)
>18.0 (0)
4.0e5.0 (60)
6.0e8.0 (2)
9.0e12.0 (0)
13.0e18.0 (0)
>18.0 (0)
(weak)
(moderate)
(strong)
(very strong)
(devastating)
response capacity against hurricane winds: from 0 no or very low

response capacity to5 very high response capacity. Structural
features include material type, structural components, building
codes, and maintenance/retrotting works. Architectural features
include roof type, window type, door type, and glass type. Weights
are assigned to each feature and are determined from literature. A
calculation of the total sum of the single weights can then be
compared to the wind velocity at each critical facility (Table 3).
These total sums represent the response capacities against highspeed winds, where low values indicate low response capacity
and high values correspond to high response capacity.
Concerning the probabilistic approach, vulnerability or fragility
functions and curves have been applied to the most vulnerable
Critical Facilities as resulted from heuristic approach (although the
methodology can be easily applied to all critical facilities). In this
study, HAZUS-MH (FEMA, Bausch, 2003) has been used to predict
the physical damage for different model building types due to
wind-induced pressure.
For storm surge, the response capacity is usually based on two
hazard scenarios according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 1985, 1996): 1) Inundation, where only depth of water is
considered, and 2) Flooding, where the depth and velocity of water
is considered. The purpose of separating the two scenarios is
because the resulting damage will be signicantly different. For
example, it is unlikely that a building will suffer structural failure
during inundation; however, if waters ow at a high velocity it is
more likely that the building will suffer structural failure because
the structure and the foundation may become separated (USACE,
1996). In both cases, the structural nishes and contents may be
severely damaged. In our study only the rst case is considered due
to the data availability (Table 4).
3. Results
Here we present the results from the application of the methodology for inland ooding and high speed winds from hurricane.
The methodology presented is strongly based on Multi-hazard Loss
Estimation Methodology (HAZUS-MH project e Vickery et al.,
2006). All the fragility curves and descriptions concerning types
Fig. 7. Information layers concerning hazardous events (derived from EMMA-TAOS project) potentially affecting the island of Grand Cayman. In each map, the color of the dots
refers to the hazard class which each critical facility falls in. a) Qickbird 2006 with 60 cm of resolution and, hazard maps classied following the SafreSimpson scale in terms of b)
wind speed in miles per hour (mph), c) storm surge and d) wave height in feet (as listed in Table 2). An additive effect of e) storm surge and wave height and f) storm surge, wave
height and rainfall is also proposed.
of building and damage state functions have been extracted from

HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual and User Manual. The results
are divided and presented for hazards related to inland ooding
and winds. Within the two subparagraphs the results are discussed
following the 3 steps approach.
3.1. Inland ooding
3.1.1. Step1
Hazard classes for storm surge, waves and rainfall on the base of
the level in feet of inland ooding raster maps have been assigned
to critical facilities weighed on the base of their structural status.
3.1.2. Step 2
Properly, for storm surge height all critical facilities in Grand
Cayman fall in class 1 (0.0e5.0 ft wave height) and 1 in class 3
(6.0e8.0 ft wave height). The only one in class 3 is the George Town
Port that actually represents one of the major sources of goods for
the islands. The functional role of the only one in Class 4 can
compromise a lot of abilities. The analysis was specically designed

to obtain the selection of critical facilities on the base of the
structural characteristics of each building/facility for considering in
a second part of the analysis the government buildings.
Hazard effects from waves highlighted that 60 Critical Facilities
in Grand Cayman fall in class 1 (0.0e5.0 ft wave height) and 2 are in
class 2 (6.0e8.0 ft wave height). The Chevron fuels at the airport
and the Prospect Primary School represents the most vulnerable
buildings during an inundation of more than 5 ft of water height.
When storm surge and waves effect are coupled, 57 Critical
Facilities in Grand Cayman fall within the class 1 (0.0e5.0 ft) and 2
critical facilities falls in the class 3 (>9 ft), the Chevron fuels airport
and the George Town Port. In the case of inland ooding from
hurricane, the two main sources of goods would be compromised
by the inaccessibility due to water height. In the framework of a
worst-case scenario, considering the concurrent hazard effects of
storm surge, waves and rainfall (about 12 in z1 ft of rainfall has
been included in the analysis, experienced during Ivan Hurricane,
2004), 55 Critical Facilities located on Grand Cayman fall within
10

Table 3
Tables of weights assigned to each structural and
architectural feature composing critical facilities
surveyed in Grand Cayman and exposed to highspeed winds.
Material type
Weight
Wood
Masonry
Concrete
Metal
Steel
1
2
3
4
5
Build status
Weight
Very bad
Bad
Average
Good
Very good
1
2
3
4
5
Roof material
Weight
Clay tiles
Concrete tiles
Fiber cement slates
Shingles
Concrete
Standing seam
Steel
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
Roof
Weight
Complex
Gable
Gambrel
Hip
Flat
2
3
3
4
5
Shutters
Weight
No shutters
Ply wood
Accordian
Awning Bahamas
Steel removable
0
2
4
4
5
Windows
Weight
Awning windows
Single panel
Multi panel
Miami
Hurricane proof glass
1
1
1
1
3
Door
Weight
Wood
Glass
Metal
1
2
3
the rst class (0.0e5.0 ft), 3 are in class 2 (6.0e8.0 ft), 2 are in class 3
(9.0e12.0 ft). The Caribbean Utilities Company, the Cayman Islands
Environmental Centre, the Owen Roberts Airport Facility, the
Chevron fuels can be considered elements at low risk less threatened than the Prospect Primary school. The George Town Port is
also involved in the inundation; it appears with higher weight in all
the analysis. Particular is the weight assumed by airport commercial services because the airport is positioned in a low lying area
and the operational capabilities during the ooding for goods and
resources provision can be threatened.
When considering a local scale scenario, focused on the George
Town Port, 54 critical facilities are not affected by surge, while 23
critical facilities are affected by a Class 1 surge. Surge does not
exceed 8 ft anywhere in the district and only one critical facility
resides in this class, the Airport is subject to a 5 ft surge.
When the analysis includes not only the critical facilities but also
the community distribution, the values of weighed analysis result
higher (Meyer and Messner, 2006). This is because the
Table 4
Tables of weights assigned to each structural and architectural feature
composing critical facilities surveyed in Grand Cayman and exposed to
ooding.
Building materials
Weight
Reinforced concrete structures

Cold-formed steel houses
High strength steel structures
Wood light-frame structures
Reinforced masonry structures
Unreinforced masonry structures
Adobe structures
5
4
4
3
3
2
1
House upward of structural elements
Weight
Sum of the following items

Compacted earth lled of gravel
Lifted windows
New concrete slab oor
Trench and tunnels under the slab
0e5
0 (no)
0 (no)
0 (no)
0 (no)
or
or
or
or
1
1
1
1
(yes)
(yes)
(yes)
(yes)
Foundations and foundations walls
Weight
Treated wood
Retaining wall foundation

Solid clay masonry
Fully grouted concrete masonry
2
3
Concrete foundations
Pile foundations
4
5
Height of the rst oor
Weight
House and slab oor lifted together

Top lowest oor
Lowest oor
1
2
3
Height of the rst oor
Weight
House and slab oor lifted together

Top lowest oor
Lowest oor
3
2
1
Number of storeys
Weight
1 Store
2 Storeys
>2 Storeys (with lower area converted to not habitable)
1
2
2
Soil types
Weight
Gravel and gravelly soils

Sand and sandy soils
Silts and clay
Highly organic soils
5
4
3
2
Secure connection of structural elements
Weight
Elements anchored each other

Elements anchored to foundation
1
3
Openings for the entryeexit of ood waters
Weight
Openings in the foundation lesser of 20% of the total oor

Openings in the oor do not exceed 10% of the oor
3
1
communities analysis takes the maximum values of surge from

anywhere within the community while the critical facilities analysis takes the value of surge at each critical facilities location
(Fig. 8). Surge classes were assigned to each community on the base
of the maximum level of its effect in ft. The entire community takes
only one surge class value and the maximum surge experience at
any location within the community: 9 communities do not experience any surge, 52 communities experience Class 1 surge and 25
communities experience Class 2 surge. No communities experience
Class 3 surge.
Comparing the two analyses, critical facilities analysis indicates
lower vulnerability because the majority of buildings are in the no
surge category while the communities' analysis indicates that 25
communities are in the Class 2. This comparison illustrates the
various and different ways that spatial data can be processed and
11
Fig. 8. a) Critical facilities plotted on top of storm surge of Hurricane Ivan TAOS model. In the George Town district surge does not exceed 8 ft (Class 2). b) Overlap of Storm Surge
(Hurricane Ivan TAOS model) and Communities in George Town District, Grand Cayman. Communities of George Town district are separated by gray lines. Maximum surge values
that fall within each community are assigned to each community and distinguished by color. No communities fall into surge Class 3.
how the results can vary. Based on the above, the key layers (hazard) in the GIS elements at risk model are the hurricane relatedhazard maps of high winds and the inland ooding with information on the magnitude and return period of each hazardous event.
3.1.3. Step 3
Different hazard scenarios and related consequences have been
investigated, the inundation represented by the depth of water and
the ooding that considers only depth, are used to evaluate the
degree of loss by applying Depth-Damage curves. Flood fragility
functions were related to the depth of water (in feet) and measured
from the top of the rst nished oor and they express damage as a
percent of replacement cost, namely loss estimation. The model of
single familiar residential structure depth-damage curves adapted
to the one-storey buildings, two-storey buildings and split level
buildings with/without basement show the effect for increasing
values of water height. Curves are available for six structure categories: 1) one oor, no basement, 2) two or more oors, no basement, 3) two or more oors, with basement, 4) split-level, no
basement, 5) split-level, with basement and 6) mobile home (FIA
Credibility and Weighting report, 1998) (Fig. 9).
Damage curves were applied to single buildings and they were
reliable as predictors of damage for large population groups. In the
case of inundation, fragility functions are also known as depthdamage curves and for inundation no structural damages were
considered.
Flooding with signicant depth can result in structure and
content damage in addition to the damage caused by simple
inundation. In the Cayman Islands it appears a large distribution of
wooden and concrete made buildings. Velocity-based building
collapse curves developed by the Portland District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers have been utilized. These curves relate collapse
Fig. 9. Credibility weighted depth-damage (CWDD) curves. Inundation depth-damage curves (riverine) for six building types developed by FIA, showing structural and contents
losses (% replacement costs) as a function of water depth (ft).
12
potential to overbank velocity (in ft per second) and water depth (in
ft) for three building material classes (wood frame, steel frame and
masonry or concrete bearing wall structures). The Portland collapse
curves for wood, masonry and steel frame can be associated to the
critical facility selection and evaluate the weighed analysis on the
base of historical records.
Table 5
Model building type and number of critical facilities belonging to each model
building type surveyed in Grand Cayman.
Model building type
Nr
Wood and masonry (unreinforced and reinforced)

Metal
Concrete and steel
1
3
71
3.2. Winds
3.2.1. Step 1
Hazard classes for high winds on the base of the wind velocity
raster maps have been assigned to critical facilities weighted on the
base of their structural status. In case of high-speed winds, the
minimum weight value was 0, meaning no or very low response
capacity to high wind events; on the contrary, a value of 5 means
high response capacity from the critical facility under analysis
against high winds.
3.2.2. Step 2
The Total Score ranges between 8 and 31 calling for different
response capacity against high winds and low Total Score values
may refer both to real low response capacity from the critical facility or missing data (Fig. 10). 2 Critical Facilities fall in class 1
(00.0e94.0 mph); 21 Critical Facilities fall in class 2
(95.0e110.0 mph); 39 Critical Facilities fall in class 3
(111.0e130.00 mph). The land base maps of the area highlights
spatial boundary condition of each group of critical buildings that
are represented by natural and managed areas. George Town Port,
the Cayman Islands Hospital, two the North and West Bay Police
stations show the distribution of the essential critical facilities for
the operation vulnerability analysis. In the operational vulnerability
analysis the gas and fuel terminals as well as health centers are
weighted with lower values.
3.2.3. Step 3
For high wind velocity the element at risk analysis provided the
critical facility selection for damage functions, named fragility
functions. From this probabilistic approach, the physical damage
model predicts wind-induced pressure for different Model Building
Types on the base of the available database. In this work we
selected the http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/. The effect
of the actual local terrain (z0) is then taken into account by modifying that wind speed by a factor, which is dictated by the exposure
category for the local terrain.
Based on the FEMA probabilistic approach, examples of specic

building types include one-story wood frame residential buildings,
two-story masonry multi-family residential buildings, or low-rise
masonry strip mall buildings, etc. These fragility curves were
based on physical parameters of hurricane, environmental parameters, structural and architectural characteristics of building components (Table 5). So far, the parameters that have been
investigated are: 1) hazard including wind velocity and hurricane
return period 2) ground surface roughness (z0), 3) specic building
types and occupancy classes, 4) nail type, 5) roof type, 6) window
type. Each of these controls the choice of the proper the fragility
curve. The probabilistic phase of the vulnerability analysis is based
on the model building types for wood and masonry materials. Nail
length, roof and window models are considered. The case of major
signicance comes from CB, where the electric plantation results
with a major weight.
An example is the residential masonry class (reinforced or unreinforced) for four different damage states ranging from 1 (minor
damage) to 4 (severe damage. The structure has two storeys, 6d
roof sheathing nails, strapped roof trusses, gable roof, no garage,
and wood frame walls. A sensitivity test comparing different z0
values shows the effects of surface roughness on damages for the
same building class (Table 6). We compare damage curves when
z0 0.1 ft (open terrain) and z0 3.30 ft (suburban terrain).
75 critical facilities fall within this model building type: 71
critical facilities are made by concrete and 4 critical facilities are
made by steel. The damage probabilities for each building class are
estimated with its probability of failure or the probability that the
wind load effect (e.g., aerodynamic pressure or impact energy) is
greater than the resistance of the element.
4. Discussion
This paper summarizes a collective effort to understand and
develop methods to mitigate risk in the Caribbean area, focusing on
vulnerability assessment in the Cayman Islands due to hurricane-
Fig. 10. a) Critical facilities plotted on top of High winds of Hurricane Ivan TAOS model and b) Hurricane Ivan surge as it was modeled by the Environmental Department of Caymans
under the Critical Facilities status, the majority of buildings are in very good and good status also in lower coastal areas.

Table 6
Critical facilities surveyed in Grand Cayman and belonging to the model building
type metal aluminumeiron.
Category
Description
Building type
Electric plants
Government building
Seaport
Caribbean utilities company

Custom's warehouse
Cargo distribution center
Metal aluminumeiron
Metal aluminumeiron
Metal aluminumeiron
related hazards. This work is GIS-based and follows three main

steps: 1) Hazard scenarios denition (type, magnitude, return
period of different damaging events); 2) Elements at risk identication (type, location, structural and architectural features), exposure of elements at risk to hazards; 3) Vulnerability assessment.
Hazard assessment includes modeling the hurricane-related
hazards that could affect elements at risk in order to estimate the
Source of the approach. The Pathway and consequences estimation
is based on the elements at risk calculation and on the location and
the structural components of the different buildings. Finally the
loss estimation is performed as a separate estimate of the probability of loss via fragility functions, which are a necessary step
forward in quantitative risk assessment. By assessing the exposure
to dene elements at risk and the critical facilities included, the
example of the storm surge in the district of George Town and the
spatial extent of surge with critical facilities and communities,
shows how vulnerability varies geographically and the importance
of performing these types of assessments with GIS.
The hurricane loss estimation methodology is designed to produce loss estimates for use by state, regional and local governments
in planning for hurricane risk mitigation, emergency preparedness,
response and recovery. This forecasting capability will enable users
to anticipate the consequences of future hurricanes and to develop
plans and strategies for reducing risk. The methodology deals with
nearly all aspects of the built environment and a wide range of
different types of loss. As already discussed in literature (Hsu et al.,
2011), the assessment is usually made to predict possible economic
loss from different nancial perspectives such as the total loss,
insured loss and loss exceeding (Cova and Church, 1997). In this
approach the information provided will assist state and local ofcials in evaluating, planning for, and mitigating the effects of expected hurricane winds and ooding with information about wind
damage, disaster payments.
The hurricane loss estimation methodology is based on sound
scientic and engineering principals and experimental and experience data provided by HAZUS-MH project (FEMA, Lindell et al.,
2006). The methodology has been tested against the judgment of
experts and, to the extent possible, against records from several
past hurricanes. However, uncertainties are inherent in any loss
estimation methodology. They arise in part from incomplete scientic knowledge concerning hurricanes (tracks and intensities)
and their effects upon buildings and facilities. They also result from
the approximations and simplications that are necessary for
comprehensive analyses. For this reason, the next major hurricane
to affect an area will likely be quite different than any scenario
anticipated as part of a hurricane loss estimation study. To overcome these limitations, conducting multiple analyses and varying
certain input parameters to which the losses are most sensitive
should evaluate ranges of loss at the community level (Birkmann,
2005, 2006).
Therefore, although the methodology offers users the opportunity to prepare comprehensive loss estimates, it should be recognized that, even with state-of-the-art techniques, uncertainties are
inherent in any such estimation methodology HAZUS-MH project
(FEMA, Lindell et al., 2006): rst of all, uncertainties are inherent in
hurricane scenario parameterization; it is only an indication of
13
what the future may hold. This is particularly true in areas where
hurricanes are poorly understood, studied, and recorded (Pompe
and Rinehart, 2008; Debaine and Robin, 2012). Moreover, any region or city will have an enormous variety of buildings and facilities
of different sizes, shapes and structural systems constructed over
years under diverse hurricane design codes (Doukakis, 2005;
Debaine and Robin, 2012). Similarly, many types of components
with differing wind resistance will make up transportation and
utility lifeline systems. Due to this complexity, relatively little is
certain concerning the structural resistance of most buildings and
other facilities. Further, there simply are not sufcient data from
past phenomena or laboratory experiments to permit precise predictions of damage based on known wind forces and pressures,
even for specic buildings and other structures (Moe et al., 2000; Li
et al., 2000; Zhang and Grassle, 2002).
The usage of the following fragility curves demands knowledge
on the physical parameters of hurricane (peak gust wind speed in
mph) and the structural characteristics of building components.
The performance of a building class under wind loading events
will be formulated probabilistically using simple concepts of
structural reliability. For a single failure mode, the failure or damage probability is the probability that the wind load effect (e.g.,
aerodynamic pressure or impact energy) is greater than the resistance of the element. In evaluating the nal results, the user has to
take into account possible uncertainties in the prediction of loads
and structural response HAZUS-MH project (FEMA, Lindell et al.,
2006). Consequently, the users have to focus their attention on
the accuracy of the model predictions, as applied to damage and
loss estimates across broad classes of buildings, and on the possibility to validate results using data from past events (Frazier et al.,
2010a,b; Krishnamurthy et al., 2011).
The applied GIS model is potentially useful for coastal vulnerability assessment and consequence management. In the Caribbean
area, the current risk prevention approach delineates hazard and
denes the associated prevention measures according to the level
of threat (Cutter and Emrich, 2006; Technical Report of the National
Climate Change Committee, 2011; Report to the Cayman Islands'
Government: Adaptation lessons learned from responding to
tropical cyclones by the Cayman Islands' Government, 1988e2002,
2003). This hazard assessment is frequently conducted using a
detailed modeling of well-dened centennial or historical events.
In contrast, the approach applied in this study might be useful as a
preliminary assessment of the potential weaknesses in the structural system. A second potential utility is its ability to generate
rapid hypothetical scenarios based on pre-existing hazard models.
As part of the adaptation strategy in Grand Cayman and all the
other Caribbean Islands funded by the R3i projects, regional and
local authorities must assess territorial vulnerability and take
appropriate adaptation measures based on the sharing knowledge
produced by the project. This requires the generation of multiple
scenarios of possible different hazard events and assesses the
relevance of different elements at risk using the vulnerability
curves that the GIS approach produced (even if it could be only
based on literature curves in some of the islands). Since detailed
modeling is often too expensive for use in high-level scoping
studies, and since uncertainties on future coastal hazards are large
(e.g. Yates et al., 2011), simpler methods such as multi-criteria approaches (Le Cozannet et al., 2013) or the SPRC framework could
prove to be very useful based on the results of this study.
5. Conclusion
The strength of the approach proposed in this study as a problem solving method comes from the realization that similar patterns of behavior and properties appear in a variety of different
14
situations. It is also capable of incorporating a variety of data

sources, allowing the magnitude of such consequences can be
determined in different ways depending on whether they are being
considered as part of a risk screening process or as part of a more
detailed risk assessment. Fundamental to the approach is the
denition of the relationships between system components at a
relevant scale, which leads to greater understanding and insight
into the system under investigation. It can also be an iterative
process and can be developed from a simple rst analysis to a more
detailed and comprehensive analysis. The methodology that could
developed in is also intended to provide a framework within which
the case study sites can collect and dene information in a way
which is consistent and compatible with the proposed hazard and
vulnerability assessment framework. A key limitation of the GIS
model is that it does not, on its own, identify the structural and
economical parameters of the mapped hazard system. A quantitative representation of these parameters is just recently being
developed in a GIS Decision Support System develop under Theseus
(Kane et al., 2014; Zanuttigh et al., 2014) to identify critical system
components still using the SPRC approach. The aim of the new
implementing quantitative analysis is to provide integrated probabilistic risk assessments for rapid appraisal of risk pathways across
different inputs. Based on that, some examples of mitigating
structural damage to help ensure operation after disaster could
include installing shutters, upgrading the roof and applying secondary water resistance. Other risk mitigation options that have to
be considered are identifying, evaluating and reviewing risks,
developing and managing risk awareness/reduction projects, incident investigation, arranging and coordinating appropriate property and liability insurance coverage and provision of policy advice
and ministerial services to the Minister of Finance, Cabinet and
Financial, Secretary on risk management issues. These other options are often used for developing an in-depth understanding of
complex systems where qualitative and quantitative data and
knowledge are uncertain, incomplete and/or spread across very
different elements that managers have to deal with especially in
emergency situations.
There are many possible ways to expand this study in future
works. Socio-economic and environmental vulnerability will be
hopefully expanded and further implemented in R3i future
funding.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the R3idRegional Risk Reduction
Initiative a project funded by the European Commission Union and
implemented by UNDPdunder a contract between United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and the Joint Venture (Joint
Venture between GESP S.r.l., GIS4C B.V. and CGS-EI of UWI) for the
Provision of Services to Caribbean OCTs. Lot1: GIS and Vulnerability Assessment. The USAID/OAS Caribbean Disaster Mitigation
Project (CDMP) has supported the development of the storm hazard model TAOS/L. All data provided in this example of application
are from Hazard Management Cayman Islands (2009), from Land&Survey Ofce of Grand Cayman and the Cayman Islands Department of Environment.
References
Anderson, et al., 2010. The efcacy of a programme of landslide risk reduction in
areas of unplanned housing in the Eastern Caribbean. Environ. Manag. 45 (4),
807e821.
Andrews, B.D., Gares, P.A., Colby, J.D., 2002. Techniques for GIS modelling of coastal
dunes. Geomorphology 48, 289e308.
Bao, S., Xie, L., Pietrafesa, L.J., 2006. An asymmetric hurricane wind model for storm
surge and wave forecasting. In: AMS Annual Meeting, Atlanta. 2006.
Bausch, D., 2003. HAZUS: FEMA's GIS-based risk assessment tool. In: Proceedings of
the Geospatial Information & Technology Association's 7th Annual Conference
and Exhibition: a Geospatial Odyssey. In: http://gisdevelopment.net/
proceedings/gita/2003/disman/dism09.shtml (accessed September 2006).
Birkmann, J., 2005. Danger need not spell disasterdbut how vulnerable are we?. In:
Research Brief, vol. I United Nations University, Tokyo.
Birkmann, J. (Ed.), 2006. Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazardsdtowards
Disaster-resilient Societies. UNU Press, Tokyo, New York.
Birkmann, J., 2007. Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability,
usefulness and policy implications. Environ. Hazards 7, 20e31.
Birkmann, J., Wisner, B., 2006. Measuring the Un-measurable. The Challenge of
Vulnerability (Source, No. 5/2006). United Nations UniversitydInstitute for
Environment and Human Security, Bonn. Available at: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/
le.php?id212S.
Boyd, K., Hervey, R., Stradtner, J., 2002. Assessing the vulnerability of the Mississippi
Gulf Coast to coastal storms using an on-line GIS-based coastal risk atlas. In:
Proceedings of the OCEANS 2002 MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, October
29e31, 2002, Biloxi, MS, pp. 1234e1240. http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/cra/
Papers/vuln_paper (accessed 22.09.03).
Brunt, M.A., Davies, J.E., 1994. In: The Cayman Islands: Natural History and Biogeography. Kluwer Academy Publisher, Boston, p. 604.
Burpee, R.W., 1972. The origin and structure of easterly waves in the lower troposphere of North Africa. J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 77e90.
Burrough, P.A., 1986. Principles of geographic information systems for land resource
assessment. In: Monographs on Soil and Resources Survey No. 12. Oxford Science Publications, New York.
Colby, J., Mulcahy, K., Wang, Y., 2000. Modelling ooding extent from Hurricane
Floyd in the coastal plains of North Carolina. Environ. Hazards 2, 157e168.
Cova, T.J., Church, R.L., 1997. Modelling community evacuation vulnerability using
GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Sci. 11 (8), 763e784.
Cuttfer, S.L., Emrich, C.T., 2006. Moral hazard, social catastrophe: the changing face
of vulnerability along the Hurricane coasts. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 604,
102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285515.
Davidson, M., Van Koningsveld, M., De Kruif, A., Rawson, J., Holman, R., Lamberti, A.,
Medina, R., Kroon, A., Aarninkhof, S., 2007. The CoastView project: developing
video-derived coastal state indicators in support of coastal zone management.
Coast.
Eng.
54
(6e7),
463e475.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.coastaleng.2007.01.007.
De Mets, C., Wiggins-Grandison, M., 2007. Deformation of Jamaica and motion of the
Gonave microplate from GPS and seismic data. Geophys. J. Int. 168, 362e378.
Debaine, M., Robin, M., 2012. A new GIS modelling of coastal dune protection
services against physical coastal hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 63, 43e54.
Doukakis, E., 2005. Identifying coastal vulnerability due to climate changes. J. Mar.
Environ. Eng. 8, 155e160.
Eakin, H., Bojorquez-Tapia, L.S., 2008. Insights into the composition of household
vulnerability from multicriteria decision analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 18,
112e127.
Emanuel, K., 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30
years. Nature 436, 686e688.
Evans, E., Hall, J.W., Penning-Rowsell, E., Sayers, P., Thorne, C., Watkinson, A.,
2006. Future ood risk management in the UK. Proc. d Instn. Civ. Eng.
Water Manag., 53.
FLOODSITE CONSORTIUM, 2009. Language of Risk: Project Denitions. Floodsite:
Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies. FLOODsite
Consortium.
http://www.oodsite.net/html/partner_area/project_docs/
FLOODsite_Language_of_Risk_v 4_0_P1.pdf.
Frazier, T., Wood, N., Yarnal, B., 2009. Utilizing GIS to identify vulnerability to coastal
inundation hazards: a case study from Sarasota County, Florida. In: Fra Paleo, U.
(Ed.), Building Safer Communities. Risk Governance, Spatial Planning and Responses to Natural Hazards. IOS Press, Amsterdam.
Frazier, T.G., Wood, N., Yarnal, B., 2010a. Stakeholder perspectives on land-use
strategies for adapting to climate-change-enhanced coastal hazards: Sarasota,
Florida. Appl. Geogr. 30, 506e517.
Frazier, T.G., Wood, N., Yarnal, B., Bauer, D.H., 2010b. Inuence of potential sea level
rise on societal vulnerability to hurricane storm-surge hazards, Sarasota
County, Florida. Appl. Geogr. 30, 490e505.
Gall, M., Borden, K.A., Emrich, C.T., Cutter, S.L., 2011. The unsustainable trend of
natural hazard losses in the United States. Sustainability 3, 2157e2218.
Giannini, A., Kushnir, Y., Cane, M.A., 2000. Interannual variability of Caribbean
rainfall, ENSO and the Atlantic ocean. J. Clim. 13, 297e311.
Guzman-Tapia, Y., Ramirez-Sierra, M.J., Escobedo-Ortegon, J., Dumonteil, E., 2005.
Effect of Hurricane Isidore on Triatoma dimiata distribution and Chagas disease
transmission risk in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 73
(6), 1019e1025.
Hallegatte, S., 2008. An adaptive regional inputeoutput model and its application to
the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal. 28 (3), 779e799.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01046.x.
Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R.J., Corfee-Morlot, J., 2013. Future ood losses in
major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 802e806.
Hanson, S., 2010. THESEUS Project Report: Homogenous Methods for the Development of Local Scenarios. Available at: www.theseusproject.eu.
Hanson, S., Nicholls, R.J. (Eds.), 2012. Integrated Report on Risk Assessment in Study
Sites, with Appendices, Ofcial Deliverable OD1.15. THESEUS Project (eu fp7: Grant
244104). Available at: http://www.Theseusproject.Eu/index.Php?Optioncom_
remository&itemid2&funcselect&id88project (accessed June 2014).

Holdgate, M.W., 1979. A Perspective of Environmental Pollution. Cambridge University, Press, Cambridge, UK.
Howard, R., Dodge, P., Doggett, A., Finney, J., Gurley, K., Levitan, M., Reinhold, T.,
Schroeder, J., Stone, G., 2003. The landfall of Hurricane Lili in Louisiana: a
summary of cooperative data collection efforts. In: International Conference on
Wind Engineering, Lubbock, Texas.
Hsu, W.K., Huang, P.C., Chang, C.C., Chen, C.W., Hung, D.M., Chiang, W.L., 2011. An integrated ood risk assessment model for property insurance industry in Taiwan. Nat.
Hazards 58, 1295e1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9732-9.
Iman, R.L., Johnson, M.E., Watson Jr., C., 2005a. Sensitivity analysis for computer
model projections of Hurricane losses. Risk Anal. 25, 1277e1297.
Iman, R.L., Johnson, M.E., Watson Jr., C., 2005b. Uncertainty analysis for computer
model projections of Hurricane losses. Risk Anal. 25, 1299e1312.
Jiang, H., Halverson, J.B., Simpson, J., 2003. Difference of rainfall distribution for
tropical cyclones over land and ocean and rainfall potential derived from satellite observations and its implication on hurricane landfall ooding prediction.
J. Hydrometeor 12, B.1.
Kane, I.O., Vanderlinden, J.P., Baztan, J., Touili, N., Claus, S., 2014. Communicating risk
through a DSS: a coastal risk centred empirical analysis. Coast. Eng. 87, 240e248.
Kantha, L., 2006. Time to replace the SafreSimpson hurricane scale? Eos, Trans.
Amer. Geophys. Union 87, 3e6.
Kienberger, S., 2007. Assessing the vulnerability to natural hazards on the provincial/community level in Mozambique: the contribution of GIScience and remote
sensing. In: The 3rd International Symposium on Geo-information for Disaster
Management, Joint CIG/ISPRS Conference, Toronto, Canada, 23e25 May 2007.
Knutson, T.R., Mcbride, J.L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., Held, I.,
Kossin, J.P., Srivastava, A.K., Sugi, M., 2010. Tropical cyclones and climate change.
Nat. Geosci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NGEO779 (Review article).
Kok, K., Winograd, M., 2002. Modelling land-use change for Central America, with
spatial reference to the impact of hurricane Mitch. Ecol. Model. 149, 53e69.
Krishnamurthy, P.K., Fisher, J.B., Johnson, C., 2011. Mainstreaming local perceptions
of hurricane risk into policymaking: a case study of community GIS in Mexico.
Glob. Environ. Change 2, 143e153.
Laitinen, S., Neuvonen, A., 2001. BALTICSEAWEB: an information system about the
Baltic Sea environment. Adv. Environ. Res. 5, 377e383.
~ ez, A.M., Knaff, J.A., 1999. Atlantic basin
Landsea, C.W., Pielke Jr., R.A., Mestas-Nun
Hurricanes: indices of climatic changes. Clim. Change 42 (1), 89e129.
Le Cozannet, G., Garcin, M., Bulteau, T., Mirgon, C., Yates, M.L., Mendez, M., Baills, A.,
Idier, D., Oliveros, C., 2013. An AHP-derived method for mapping the physical
vulnerability of coastal areas at regional scales. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13
(5), 1209e1227.
Li, Y., Brimicombe, A.J., Ralphs, M.P., 2000. Spatial data quality and sensitivity
analysis in GIS and environmental modelling: the case of coastal oil spill.
Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 24, 95e108.
Lindell, M., Prater, C., Perry, R.W., Nicholson, W.C., 2006. Hazard, vulnerability and
risk analysis. In: Fundamentals of Emergency Management (Chapter 6). http://
training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/fem.asp.
Mesquita, M.D., Robock, A., Antuna, J.C., 2013. Capacity building for the Caribbean
region. Eos 94 (30), 264.
Meyer, V., 2007. GIS-based Multicriteria Analysis as Decision Support in Flood Risk
Management (UFZ Discussion Papers 6/2007, Leipzig).
Meyer, V., Messner, F., 2006. Methods and decits in ood damage evaluation, a
comparison of four European countries. In: Poster Presentation at the International Symposium of Integrated Water Resources Management in Bochum,
Germany 2006.
Miller, M., Smith, W., Kuhn, J., Sandwell, D., 2003. An Interactive Global Map of Sea
Floor Topography Based on Satellite Altimetry & Ship Depth Soundings. http://
ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/bathy/bathD.pl.
Moe, K.A., Skeie, G.M., Brude, O.W., Lovas, S.M., Nedrebo, M., Weslawwski, J.M., 2000.
The Svalbard intertidal zone: a concept for the use of GIS in applied oil sensitivity,
vulnerability and impact analyses. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 6, 187e206.
Narayan, S., Hanson, S., Nicholls, R.J., Clarke, D., Willems, P., Ntegeka, V., Monbaliu, J.,
2012. A holistic model for coastal ooding using system diagrams and the
SourceePathwayeReceptor (SPR) concept. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12,
1431e1439. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-1431-2012.
Narayan, S., Nicholls, R.J., Clarke, D., Hanson, S., Reeve, D., Horrillo-Caraballo, J., le
Cozannet, G., Hissel, F., Kowalska, B., Parda, R., Willems, P., Ohle, N.,
Zanuttigh, B., Losada, I., Ge, J., Trifonova, E., Penning-Rowsell, E.,
Vanderlinden, J.P., 2014. The SPR systems model as a conceptual foundation for
rapid integrated risk appraisals: lessons from Europe. Coast. Eng. 87, 15e31.
Novelo-Casanova, D.A., Su
arez, G., 2010. Natural and man-made hazards in the
Cayman Islands. Nat. Hazards 55, 441e466.
15
NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2003. Dune Hazard Assessment Tool (Dune Hazard
Assessment Tool (DHAT). http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachmap/html/dune_
model.html. Natural Disasters Assessment Consulting Group (NDAC) (2009).
Preliminary Vulnerability Assessment of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.
O'Hare, G., 2001. Hurricane 07B in the Godavari delta, Andhra Pradesh, India:
vulnerability, mitigation and the spatial impact. Geogr. J. 167 (1), 23e38.
Pielke Jr., R.A., Rubeira, J., Landsea, C., Fernandez, M.L., Klein, R., 2003. Hurricane
vulnerability in Latin America and the Caribbean: normalised damage and loss
potentials. Nat. Hazards Rev. ASCE Aug, 101e114.
Pielke Jr., R.A., Gratz, J., Landsea, C.W., Collins, D., Saunders, M.A., Musulin, R., 2008.
Normalized Hurricane damages in the United States: 1900e2005. Nat. Hazards
Rev. 9 (1), 29e42.
Pompe, J.J., Rinehart, J.R., 2008. Mitigating damage costs from hurricane strikes
along the southeastern U.S. coast: a role for insurance markets.
R3i Contractor Report, 2011. Cayman Islands Structural Vulnerability (Element at
Risk), Loss Estimation and Operational Vulnerability Assessment. Provision of
services to Caribbean OCTs Lot1: GIS and Vulnerability Assessment.
Riehl, H., 1954. Tropical Meteorology. McGraw-Hill, p. 392.
nchez, M.J., Carren
~ o, F., 2009. Geographic information sysRodrguez, I., Montoya, I., Sa
tems applied to integrated coastal zone management. Geomorphology 107,
100e105.
Shen, B.W., Atlas, R., Reale, O., Lin, S.J., Chern, J.D., Chang, J., Henze, C., Li, J.L., 2005.
Hurricane forecasts with a global mesoscale-resolving model: preliminary results with Hurricane Katrina (2005). Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L13813. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026143.
Sisson, S.A., Pericchi, L.R., Coles, S.G., 2006. A case for a reassessment of the risks of
extreme hydrological hazards in the Caribbean. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess.
20, 296e306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00477-005-0246-4.
Taramelli, A., Melelli, L., Pasqui, M., Sorichetta, A., 2010. Modelling risk hurricane
elements in potentially affected areas by a GIS system. Geomatics Nat. Hazards
Risk 1 (4), 349e373.
Thompson, K., 2010. Caribbean Islands: the Land and the People. New Africa Press,
ISBN 9987-16-018-2, p. 152.
Tompkins, E., Hurlston, L.A., 2003. Report to the Cayman Islands' Government.
Adaptation Lessons Learned from Responding to Tropical Cyclones by the
Cayman Islands' Government, 1988e2002. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research Working Paper 35.
Tran, P., Shaw, R., Chantry, G., Norton, J., 2009. GIS and local knowledge in disaster
management: a case study of ood risk mapping in Vietnam. Disasters 33 (1),
152e169.
UNECLAC (The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean), 2004. The Impact of Hurricane Ivan in Cayman Islands, p. 85.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1996. Hydrologic Aspects of Flood Warningpreparedness Programs (ETL 1110-2-40). USACE Ofce of Chief of Engineers,
Washington, D.C.
USACE, 1985. Business Depth-Damage Analysis Procedures. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Institute for Water Resources.
Vermeiren, J., Watson, C.C., 1994. New technology for improved natural hazard risk
assessment in the Caribbean. J. Conting. Plan. 6, 14e20.
Vellinga, P., Klein, R.J., 1993. Climate change, sea level rise and integrated coastal
zone management: an IPCC approach. Ocean Coast. Manag. 21 (1), 245e268.
Vickery, P.J., Skerlj, P.F., Lin, J., Twisdale Jr., L.A., Young, M.A., Lavelle, F.M., 2006.
HAZUS-MH Hurricane model methodology. II: damage and loss estimation.
Nat. Hazards Rev. 7, 2,. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2006)7:
2(94).
Watson, C.C., Johnson, M.E., 2005. Hurricane Loss Estimation Models. American
Meteorological Society, pp. 1713e1726. BAMS e Nov. 2004.
White, S.F., Taylor, M.A., Stephenson, T.S., Campbell, J.D., 2004. Features of the
Caribbean low level jet. Int. J. Climatol. 28 (1), 119e128. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/joc.1510.
Yates, M.L., Le Cozannet, G., Lenotre, N., 2011. Quantifying errors in long-term
coastal erosion and inundation hazard assessments. J. Coast. Res., 260e264.
Young, S.R., 2004. Impact of Hurricane Ivan in Grand Cayman: Understanding and
Quantifying the Hazards. GeoSY Ltd., p. 49
Young, S., Gibbs, T., 2005. Impact of Hurricane Ivan in Grand Cayman: a Technical
Review of the Hazards and their Effects. GeoSY Ltd., p. 51
Zanuttigh, B., Simcic, D., Bagli, S., Bozzeda, F., Pietrantoni, L., Zagonari, F., Hoggart, S.,
Nicholls, R.J., 2014. THESEUS decision support system for coastal risk management. Coast. Eng. 87, 218e239.
Zhang, Y., Grassle, J.F.O., 2002. A portal for the ocean biogeographic information
system. Oceanol. Acta 25 (5), 193e197.

A GIS-based Approach For Hurricane Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment in The Cayman Islands

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A GIS-based Approach For Hurricane Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment in The Cayman Islands

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

See

A GIS-based approach for hurricane hazard and

Institute for Environmental Protection and

Institute for Environmental Protection and

Available from: Andrea Taramelli

Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

A GIS-based approach for hurricane hazard and vulnerability

prediction of the related risk assessment remain largely unsolved

In the last decades, developing hazard models for hurricane

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Conference in 1993 (Vellinga and Klein, 1993), a number of different

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

GC is approximately 115 000 ft long and 43 000 ft wide at the

hazards are related to hurricane events (Gall et al., 2011). A famous

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

predominant roof shapes are modeled: Hip, Gable or Flat. For at

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Fig. 2. The SourceePathwayeReceptoreConsequence (SPRC) approach (Mendez, 2011 e Personal Communication).

pathway between the source and the receptor. Essentially, the

emphasis should be put on the family size and composition of

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Creation of an inventory of critical facilities

Environment of Grand Cayman provided images and data in

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

ECOLOGICAL and GEOPHYSICAL geodatabase

The elements at risk geodatabase stores a lot of information

The Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project supported the

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Fig. 6. Critical facilities geodatabases implementation.

related events assigned to each element at risk (that represent the

Wind speed (mph)

Storm surge (ft)

response capacity against hurricane winds: from 0 no or very low

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

of building and damage state functions have been extracted from

compromise a lot of abilities. The analysis was specically designed

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Reinforced concrete structures

House upward of structural elements

Sum of the following items

Foundations and foundations walls

Retaining wall foundation

Height of the rst oor

House and slab oor lifted together

Height of the rst oor

House and slab oor lifted together

Gravel and gravelly soils

Secure connection of structural elements

Elements anchored each other

Openings for the entryeexit of ood waters

Openings in the foundation lesser of 20% of the total oor

communities analysis takes the maximum values of surge from

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Wood and masonry (unreinforced and reinforced)

Based on the FEMA probabilistic approach, examples of specic

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

Caribbean utilities company

related hazards. This work is GIS-based and follows three main

A. Taramelli et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2014) 1e15

situations. It is also capable of incorporating a variety of data