Area of Research:

The Virtual Element Method for Engineering Applications to Improve

Disaster Risk Forecast and Management

Summary:

In recent decades, human and economic losses due to natural hazards have increased significantly.
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) programs aim to mitigate these losses by assessing risks in specific
geographic areas. Risk assessment quantifies the likelihood of human and economic impacts from
hazardous events, which are processes causing harm to human and economic systems. Effective
risk reduction requires a multidisciplinary approach that integrates physical, built, and social
environmental factors. Traditional risk assessments often focus on single hazards like landslides,
floods, or earthquakes. However, many areas face multiple, simultaneous hazards or cascading
events. Comprehensive multi-hazard risk assessments are necessary but challenging due to issues
like inconsistent definitions, methodological difficulties, data scarcity, disciplinary boundaries,
and the unique characteristics of each location. Despite these challenges, multi-hazard approaches
are beneficial as they provide a realistic assessment by considering the interaction of natural
hazards with social vulnerability factors such as income, education, and demographic
characteristics. A spatial approach is crucial for effective multi-hazard risk assessment. It helps
identify hazard source areas, impact zones, and vulnerable populations. Geographic Information
Systems (GIS), remote sensing, and publicly available data enhance the modeling of multi-hazard
risks. This study introduces a spatial multi-hazard risk assessment model for Dharan, Nepal, a city
with limited data availability. The objectives are to assess individual hazards (earthquakes, floods,
and landslides), calculate social vulnerability, and integrate these into a comprehensive multi-
hazard risk assessment. Two broad approaches to multi-hazard risk assessment are: assessing
individual hazards independently and evaluating their interactions. While interactions are
essential, they are rarely studied due to the complexity and data requirements. This study adopts
the first approach due to limited data for Dharan. In Dharan, hazards include regular floods and
landslides during the monsoon season and the potential for large earthquakes due to the active
Main Boundary Thrust (MBT). The rapidly growing city faces significant risks from these hazards,
especially in areas with informal settlements along riverbanks. The study uses a variety of data,
including satellite imagery, topographic data, and social indicators, to assess risks and inform local
DRR efforts. The methodological framework combines hazard-specific assessments with social
vulnerability analysis, integrating these into a composite risk map. This hybrid model provides a
holistic risk assessment, accounting for spatially relevant hazards and societal vulnerabilities. The
study aims to support efficient resource deployment and policy-making for disaster risk reduction
in Dharan.

Introduction:
Human and economic losses to natural hazards have escalated in recent decades (Guha-
Sapir et al. 2004; Bouwer 2011). Disaster risk reduction (DRR) programs have addressed such
losses by identifying and assessing risk in specific geographic locations (Van Westen et al. 2014;
Garcia-Aristizabal et al. 2015). The primary objective of risk assessment is to quantify the
probability of human and economic losses due to the occurrence of a ‘hazardous event’, defined
as a process that causes loss or harm to human and economic systems (Wohl 2000). Since hazards
occur at the intersection of socio-ecological systems, reducing hazard loss necessitates a holistic
assessment of risk that considers integrated nuances of the physical, built, and social
environments of a place. Hence, risk assessment, and ultimately vulnerability reduction, are
processes that require multidisciplinary knowledge of various coupled physical and social
processes to calculate the cumulative level of risk posed by hazards. Studies of natural hazard
risk frequently emphasize the impacts of an individual hazard, such as landslides (Althuwaynee
et al. 2014; Pellicani et al. 2017), floods (Kazakis et al. 2015; Kabenge et al. 2017), earthquakes
(Theilen-Willige 2010; Dhar et al. 2017), drought (Lehner et al. 2006), sea level rise (Hinkel et
al. 2014), tropical cyclones (Hoque et al. 2018), or wildfires (Adab et al. 2013). However, in
reality, many locations are prone to multiple natural hazards that can occur simultaneously or
manifest in a set of cascading events (Kappes et al. 2012). Mitigation and planning for such
complex outcomes requires a consideration of combined hazard risk. However, efforts to assess
multi-hazard risk are impeded by a multitude of barriers, including lack of a common definition
for a multi-hazard risk (epistemological issues) (Marzocchi et al. 2012); developing a common
approach for integrating different hazards (methodological issues) (Tate et al. 2010); availability
of intensive data (data scarcity issues) (Gallina et al. 2016); confinement of risk assessments
within disciplinary boundaries (research domain issues) (Kappes et al. 2012; Barrantes 2018);
and the inherent uniqueness of each place in generating geographically-specific hazards
conditions and outcomes (place-based issues) (Johnson et al. 2016). As a result, few studies have
examined integrating multiple hazards in risk and impact assessments (Van Westen et al. 2014;
Barrantes 2018).
Despite these challenges, multi-hazard approaches offer many benefits. First the
integration of natural hazard risk and social vulnerability offers a more realistic assessment of
potential impact because social, economic, and cultural elements are considered simultaneously
along with physical geography (Marzocchi et al. 2012; Johnson et al. 2016). Additionally,
modeling the spatio-temporal overlap of hazards while considering the possibility of cumulative
synergistic and cascading effects improves upon the modeling of single hazard types, which
tends to underestimate or overestimate total risk (Kappes et al. 2012; Van Westen et al. 2014).
Moreover, the inclusion of socioeconomic factors, such as income, education, ethnicity, and
elderly populations, provides much needed insights on levels of human capacity and resilience
before a disaster happens (Greiving et al. 2006; Tate et al. 2010). Since the pre disaster context
serves either to accentuate or attenuate the impacts of a disaster, a multi-hazard approach that
considers the spatial, demographic, and physical contexts and their various linkages and
feedbacks could play a significant role in mitigating human and economic losses.
A spatial approach must be employed to effectively model multi-hazard risk. A spatial
approach in risk assessment facilitates DRR by providing critical information on hazard source
areas, possible impact zones, and the geographic distribution of (vulnerable) populations and
infrastructure located in hazardous areas (Greiving et al. 2006). Spatial approaches can also help
to identify optimal locations for disaster mitigation infrastructure and assist in evacuation,
response, resource allocation, and evidence- based policymaking. Thus, the use of remotely
sensed data, geographic information systems (GIS) software, and publicly available social,
demographic, and economic data have potential to support modeling efforts in terms of increased
spatial resolution, computing capacity, rigor in quantitative techniques, and sharing of data for
public benefit (Wohl and Oguchi 2004; Bishop et al. 2012; Hoque et al. 2018). This study
introduces a model for spatial multi-hazard risk assessment applied to Dharan, Nepal–a location
for which spatial data availability is limited in terms of quality, quantity, and access. The purpose
is to use the relevant, publicly available geospatial data to assist local decision and policy makers
in the efficient deployment of resources for DRR by developing a procedural model for
generating a composite risk map. The overall study objectives are to: (1) produce individual
hazard assessments for the rapidly growing city of Dharan, Nepal (i.e., for earthquakes, floods,
and landslides); (2) calculate social vulnerability for the city of Dharan; and (3) combine results
from objectives 1 and 2 into a comprehensive multi-hazard risk assessment for the city of
Dharan.
Multi-hazard risk assessment methods can be broadly categorized into two approaches:
(a) assessing individual hazards in a particular geographic location independently (Greiving et
al. 2006; Gr€unthal et al. 2006; Carpignano et al. 2009; Schmidt et al. 2011); and (b) evaluating
possible interactions and/or cascade effects among the different possible hazardous events
(Nadim and Liu 2013; Garcia-Aristizabal et al.
2015; Zhang and Zhang 2017). Most studies acknowledge that hazard interactions (i.e.,
triggering and/or cascade effects) are important considerations in hazard risk assessment.
However, very few studies have explicitly considered cascade effects and interactions among
hazards (Kappes et al. 2012; Marzocchi et al. 2012; Gill and Malamud 2014; Van Westen et al.
2014; Liu et al. 2015). Such studies require substantial amounts of input data for dynamic
modeling, and sometimes the complexity of hazard ‘chains’ that can be foreseen discourage
analysts from considering such interactions and triggering effects in a comprehensive multi-
hazard analysis (Komendantova et al. 2014; Van Westen et al. 2014; Garcia-Aristizabal et al.
2015; Liu et al. 2015). Since no historical hazard occurrence data and limited physical and social
data are available for the study area of Dharan, this study adopts the first approach to identify
the spatial distribution of multi-hazards risk in the study area. In the hazards and geography
literature, risk (R) has been understood as the combination of hazard exposure (H) and societal
vulnerability (V). This relationship can be expressed in a ‘pseudo-equation’ of R¼H V (Wisner
et al. 2004). Thus, there is no risk if a hazard and vulnerable population do not interact in a
particular location. Vulnerability is defined as the susceptibility of people and communities
exposed with their social, economic, and cultural resources to cope with and recover from a
hazardous event (Hewitt 1997; Mileti 1999; Cutter et al. 2003). The predisposition of social
inequalities, livelihoods, degree of social protection, and community and built environment
attributes help to determine the level of impact of any disaster regardless of source or physical
processes (Comfort et al. 1999; Wisner et al. 2004).
However, the majority of risk assessment research either focuses on a single hazard type or
warrants little attention to vulnerability of society to natural hazards. To address the gap, this
study combines an integrated spatial assessment of hazards, based on the approach of Greiving
et al. (2006), with the hazards of place model developed by Cutter et al. (2000) (Figure 1).
Greiving et al. (2006) consider all spatially relevant hazards that produce total risk in a particular
location, and Cutter et al. (2003) Social Vulnerability Index method considers various social,
economic, and demographic indicators that influence vulnerability of a society. Together, this
hybrid model conceptualizes risk as the joint product of (1) spatially relevant hazards in a
particular place, and (2) level of vulnerability present in the social systems in a particular place.
The combination of both models provides a holistic assessment risk.
Study Area:
Nepal is susceptible to a multitude of natural hazards, ranging from frequent, regularly
occurring hazards (e.g., floods, landslides, and avalanches), to less frequent but higher magnitude
hazards such as earthquakes. Floods, for example occur regularly during heavy precipitation
events and the annual monsoon season (June-September), whereas large-scale earthquakes occur
periodically. The 2015 Gorkha earthquake claimed more than 9,000 lives and destroyed tens of
thousands of houses. The combination of these serial and sporadic hazards makes apparent the
high level of risk and low level of disaster preparedness that characterize the country of Nepal
(Aksha et al. 2018).
Figure.1. Study area Dharan, Nepal
The city of Dharan (192 km2 area and located at 26_510 N, 87_130 E) is situated in the
Sunsari District of eastern Nepal, approximately 600 km southeast of the capital Kathmandu
(Figure. 1). Dharan is one of three major urban centers in eastern Nepal, with the latest 2011
census reporting the population at 137,705 (CBS, 2012). Dharan is situated at the foothills of the
Siwalik range and is characterized by the presence of very young sedimentary rocks such as
mudstones, shale, sandstone, and conglomerates. Furthermore, the Main Boundary Thrust
(MBT) runs along the north side of Dharan, placing the entire city at seismic risk. The MBT is
an active thrust running east-west along the Himalayas that is capable of initiating major
earthquakes at any time (Upreti 2001).
Dharan is rapidly growing in population and areal extent, with many settlements
expanding on fan deposits of the Sardu and Seuti Rivers that flank the city (Figure 2). The two
rivers frequently flood during the annual monsoon season. A large agglomeration of squatter
settlements has also emerged along the banks of Seuti and Sardu Rivers. This highly vulnerable
area contains approximately 6,500 households scattered across several administrative wards.
Risk to dry landslides is severe in Dharan due to riverbank cutting by the Sardu and Seuti Rivers.
Serial flooding and wet landslides during the monsoon season complicate this risk by
continuously deteriorating agriculturally productive land and posing constant, increasing risk to
settlements that have sprung up as part of urban sprawl processes (Dharan Municipality 2014).
Efforts to reduce vulnerability are further exacerbated by weak institutional memory of past
disaster events, scarcity of financial and capital resources, and limitations in quantitative,
geospatial, and socioeconomic data and their applications.
Purpose of the study:
The purpose is to use the relevant, publicly available geospatial data to assist local
decision and policy makers in the efficient deployment of resources for DRR by developing a
procedural model for generating a composite risk map.
Objectives:

 Produce individual hazard assessments for the rapidly growing city of Dharan, Nepal
(i.e., for earthquakes, floods, and landslides).
 Calculate social vulnerability for the city of Dharan.
 Combine results from objectives 1 and 2 into a comprehensive multi-hazard risk
assessment for the city of Dharan.

Multi-hazard risk assessment methods can be broadly categorized into two approaches;

 Assessing individual hazards in a particular geographic location independently (Greiving

et al. 2006; Greunthal et al. 2006; Carpignano et al. 2009; Schmidt et al. 2011).
 Evaluating possible interactions and/or cascade effects among the different possible
hazardous events (Nadim and Liu 2013; Garcia-Aristizabal et al. 2015; Zhang and Zhang
2017).

Methodology:

 Data and Source:

For our hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessment of Dharan, we will collect remotely sensed
imagery, hundreds of landslides geolocations, and building footprint data with respect to
floodplain locations, topographic data, environmental variables, triggering factors, and social
data (Table 1). These data will obtained from publicly available sources such as the most recent
2011 census (CBS, 2012), socio-economic data available at the Dharan sub-metropolitan office,
and several field investigations (acquiring spatial administrative data, verification of landslides,
interviews with key informants). Data will managed in a GIS environment and analyzed using
several statistical and geospatial methods. High resolution WorldView-3 imagery (1.24m
resolution) dated 3 February 2015 will obtained from the Digital Globe Foundation to produce a
land use land cover map. Monthly rainfall data for the 2016 calendar year will obtained from the
Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks
(PERSIANN) available at the Center for Hydrometeorology and Remote Sensing, University of
California). River flow data will not available for the Seuti and Sardu Rivers because no gauging
stations are installed. Based on visual interpretations of WorldView-3 images and Google Earth,
an inventory of active landslides will prepared. Landslide locations will field-verified in summer
2016.

The methodological framework depicted in Figure 1 guided our overall analysis. Based on
previous studies, a spatial database of 12 physical variables (aspect, plan curvature, distance
from faults, distance from streams, elevation, flow accumulation, land use, lithology, normalized
difference vegetation index (NDVI), rainfall intensity, slope, and topographic wetness index
(TWI)) will prepared considering their influence on multi-hazard risk.
 Specific Subcomponent Risk
Indicator General Type
Measure Component

Integrated Hazard Map

Hazard Indicator

Natural Hazards
Flood Hazard Map

Landslide Hazard Map

Earthquake Hazard Map

Population 65 years

Household without piped

water connection
Age

Integrated Risk Map

Household without
Built
electricity
Environ+C3ment
Household without
Education
infrastructure
Ethnicity
Houses with low quality
Vulnerability Indicator

external walls

Vulnerability Map
Family Structure
Population who
Level of
completed school
Employment
Dalit Population
Occupation
Female Headed
Renters
Households
Socioeconomic
Household Size
Status
Female Population
Special Needs
Unemployed population
Urban/Rural
Employed Population

Families Occupying
 rented houses

Household with cell

phone or Landline

Population with disability

Household that use

firewood as fuel source

Figure.2. The analytical framework: Indicators and measures of hazard, vulnerability, and risk
(Adapted from (Collins et al. 2009)).

Each spatial layer will transformed into a grid spatial database at a pixel size of 30_30 m. All
raster layers will referenced using World Geodetic System (WGS)-1984 and the Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 45 north. Each hazard (landslide, flood, and earthquake) will
modeled individually based on causative factors, and the models will subsequently integrated to
generate an integrated hazard map of the study area. Finally, social, demographic, and economic
data) will used to assess social vulnerability at the ward level, which will overlaid on the
integrated hazard map to produce a composite risk map of Dharan.
  Hazard Assessment:

Three types of natural hazards (i.e., landslides, floods, and earthquakes) were included in
this study based on hazard risk exposure. First, each individual hazard was mapped separately
based on selected conditioning factors. Subsequently, the three layers were overlaid to prepare
an integrated hazard map. These processes are detailed below.

 Landslide hazard assessment:

Landslide hazard assessment involves understanding slope characteristics and factors that
weaken shear strength or increase shear stress. These factors include topographic features like
slope angle, aspect, elevation, and surface curvature, as well as local hydrology, soil moisture,
climatic events, rivers, streams, land use, vegetation cover, lithology, and geology. In a study
conducted in Dharan, a general linear model (GLM) was employed to assess landslide hazards.
Seventy-one non-landslide points were randomly generated and divided into training and
validating datasets. Seventy-one landslide locations were identified using satellite images, with
63 field-verified and eight assessed via Google Earth due to terrain difficulties. Ten variables,
including aspect, plan curvature, distance from faults and streams, elevation, land use, lithology,
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), slope, and topographic wetness index (TWI),
were selected for potential inclusion in the landslide model. These variables were derived from
DEM and satellite images and were imported for binomial logistic regression. Multicollinearity
assessment led to the removal of two variables (distance from faults and slope) before modeling.
The study aimed to provide insights into landslide susceptibility using spatial analysis and
statistical modeling techniques.

Flood Hazard Assessment:

Flood hazard assessments often rely on meteorological, hydrological, and
geomorphological data, employing hydraulic modeling to predict flood depth. However, in
regions like Nepal where such data is lacking, GIS-based flood hazard analyses are used. In
Dharan, due to the absence of river discharge data, a GIS-based Flood Hazard Index (FHI)
method was adopted. The FHI incorporates seven criteria-variables: distance from streams,
elevation, flow accumulation, lithology, land use, rainfall intensity, and slope. These variables
were chosen based on previous studies and their significance in flood hazard estimation. Distance
from drainage networks is crucial, as closer areas have a higher risk of inundation. Elevation and
slope influence the speed of runoff and inundation, with lower slopes being more susceptible.
Flow accumulation indicates concentrated flows and higher flood hazard zones. Geological
factors, such as soil type and parent rock formation, can amplify or mitigate flood events. Land
use affects interception of precipitation and infiltration, with natural vegetation reducing runoff.
Higher rainfall intensity increases flood likelihood. To generate the GIS-based FHI, data such as
elevation, flow accumulation, slope, and geological information were extracted. Euclidean
distance calculated proximity to drainage networks, and a modified Fournier index determined
rainfall intensity. The relative importance of each variable was assessed using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. This approach provides a comprehensive method for estimating flood hazards
in data-scarce regions like Nepal.

Earthquake Hazard Assessment:

Earthquake hazard assessment involves evaluating ground motion during earthquakes,

crucial for understanding damage mechanisms like intense shaking or structural collapse. Two
main approaches, scenario and probabilistic, rely on historical data, geology, tectonics, fault
activity, and seismic source models. Probability of exceeding specific ground motion parameters,
often peak ground acceleration (PGA), is widely used in regional and national assessments. At
the local level, microzonation considers sedimentary layers' effects, though impacts also depend
on topographic amplification and other factors beyond sedimentary layers. Advancements in
satellite technologies enable earthquake hazard assessment using geomorphometric variables
from DEMs. Studies commonly analyze five criteria-variables: distance from faults, elevation,
flow accumulation, lithology, and slope, as these variables influence earthquake damage. Local
lithological and hydrogeological conditions, as well as tectonic structures like faults and folds,
influence seismic hazards and secondary effects like land subsidence and liquefaction. Mass
movements are more likely on higher slope angles and elevations. Areas with higher flow
accumulation, characterized by young unconsolidated deposits and high groundwater tables, are
more prone to liquefaction during earthquakes.

Weighting criteria-variables using AHP:

To integrate various variables into spatial decision-making processes and determine their
relative importance for landslide, flood, and earthquake hazards, weighting and ranking of the
variables are essential. For landslide hazard assessment, a statistical method was employed,
while the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to determine the weight of each
variable for flood and earthquake hazards. AHP is a widely used multi-criteria decision-making
tool that establishes the importance of criteria-variables. In this study, a pairwise comparison
matrix was prepared for flood and earthquake hazards, with three experts assessing the relative
importance of criteria on a scale from 1 to 9. A consistency ratio (CR) was used to ensure the
consistency of comparisons in the matrix, with comparisons considered consistent if CR was less
than or equal to 0.1. This approach allows for the systematic integration of variables and their
prioritization in hazard assessment.

Integrated hazard assessment:

To assess susceptibility to individual hazards, relevant variables were weighted, and hazard
maps were generated using the Weighted Overlay Function tool in ArcGIS 10.3. The study area,
Dharan, is prone to floods, landslides, and earthquakes. Assuming equal importance for each
hazard, an integrated hazard map was created by overlaying individual hazard maps with equal
weights assigned to each. Since Dharan faces all three hazards regularly, equal weights were
employed. The hazard maps were then classified and ranked from 1 to 5 using the Jenks Natural
Break classification method in ArcGIS, with 1 representing low susceptibility and 5 indicating
high susceptibility. This approach facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the combined
hazard risks in the study area.

 Vulnerability assessment:

Vulnerability to hazards is influenced by social, economic, and demographic factors,

affecting individuals' and communities' ability to cope with disasters. To assess social vulnerability
in Dharan, social, demographic, and economic data were mapped at the ward level. The Social
Vulnerability Index (SVI) method, adapted from Cutter et al. (2003), was used for quantification
and mapping. Eighteen variables, including age, education, ethnicity, family structure, occupation,
socioeconomic status, and urban/rural status, were aggregated from the Nepal census and Dharan
city office. Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to reduce these variables into more
meaningful components. Varimax rotation and Keiser criterion were used to identify components
with eigenvalues higher than 1. All components were summed to obtain SVI scores for the study
area, indicating social vulnerability levels. These scores were mapped using ArcGIS, providing
insights into areas with higher vulnerability. This approach helps prioritize interventions and
resource allocation for disaster risk reduction efforts.

 Overall risk assessment:

The overall risk assessment for Dharan regarding three natural hazards—landslides, floods,
and earthquakes was conducted by spatially intersecting hazard risk and social vulnerability layers.
Using ArcGIS, the integrated hazard map and social vulnerability layers were multiplied to obtain
a multi-hazard risk map. The Jenks natural breaks method was applied to classify the risk into five
classes ranging from low to high. This approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the
combined risk posed by multiple hazards and social vulnerabilities in the study area, aiding in
prioritizing mitigation and preparedness efforts.

Conclusion:

 This study presents a comprehensive risk and vulnerability assessment model for Dharan,
Nepal, a data-scarce city, integrating geospatial techniques with social data. It combines
risk assessment from three natural hazards—landslides, floods, and earthquakes—to
develop a multi-hazard risk model. This model is then merged with a social vulnerability
analysis to produce a composite risk and vulnerability map.
 Primarily based on publicly available remote sensing imagery and socioeconomic data
collected through fieldwork and local government sources, this method offers a replicable
approach for other data-scarce regions facing multiple hazards. The results can aid
decision-makers in understanding comprehensive risk and designing more effective,
 spatially-targeted policies to enhance capacity and resilience.
 Risk is dynamic and influenced by geophysical processes, human activities, and their
interactions. Therefore, routine risk assessment is crucial to capture changes in natural and
social environments, identify high-risk areas and vulnerable populations, and monitor
changes over time. While challenges like inadequate historical hazard data persist, satellite
imagery and geospatial techniques can partially address this issue, facilitating evidence-
based decision-making in risk management.
Refferences:

Adab H, Kanniah KD, Solaimani K. 2013. Modeling forest fire risk in the northeast of Iran
using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Nat Hazards. 65(3):1723–1743.

Aksha SK, Juran L, Resler LM. 2018. Spatial and temporal analysis of natural hazard
mortality in Nepal. Environ Hazards. 17(2):163–179.

Aksha SK, Juran L, Resler LM, Zhang Y. 2019. An analysis of social vulnerability to
natural hazards in Nepal using a modified social vulnerability index. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 10(1):

103–116.

Allen TI, Wald DJ. 2009. On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for
seismic site conditions (VS 30). Bull Seismol SocAm. 99(2A):935–943.

Althuwaynee OF, Pradhan B, Park HJ, Lee JH. 2014. A novel ensemble bivariate statistical
evidential belief function with knowledge-based analytical hierarchy process and multivariate
statistical logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena. 114:21–36.

Barrantes G. 2018. Multi-hazard model for developing countries. Nat Hazards.

92(2):1081–1095.

Bathrellos GD, Gaki-Papanastassiou K, Skilodimou HD, Papanastassiou D, Chousianitis

KG.

2012. Potential suitability for urban planning and industry development using natural
hazard maps and geological–geomorphological parameters. Environ Earth Sci. 66(2):537–548.

Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Chousianitis K, Youssef AM, Pradhan B. 2017. Suitability
estimation for urban development using multi-hazard assessment map. Sci Total Environ. 575:

119–134.

Bishop MP, James LA, Shroder JF, Jr, Walsh SJ. 2012. Geospatial technologies and digital
geomorphological mapping: concepts, issues and research. Geomorphology. 137(1):5–26.

Bouwer LM. 2011. Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?
Bull
 Amer Meteor Soc. 92(1):39–46.

Butler D, Kokkalidou A, Makropoulos CK. 2006. Supporting the siting of new urban
developments for integrated urban water resource management. In: Integrated Urban Water

Resources Management. Dordrecht, Springer.

Carpignano A, Golia E, Di Mauro C, Bouchon S, Nordvik J. P. 2009. A methodological

approach for the definition of multi-risk maps at regional level: first application. J Risk Res. 12(3-
4):513–534.

CBS. 2012. National population and housing census 2011. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central
Bureau of Statistics (CBS), National Planning Commission.

Chamlagain D. 2009. Earthquake scenario and recent efforts toward earthquake risk
reduction in Nepal. J S A Disaster Stud. 2:57–80.

Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Silva V, Spacone E, Varum H. 2015. Seismic risk assessment

and hazard mapping in Nepal. Nat Hazards. 78(1):583–602.

Chen H, Ito Y, Sawamukai M, Tokunaga T. 2015. Flood hazard assessment in the Kujukuri

Plain of Chiba Prefecture, Japan, based on GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Nat

Hazards. 78(1):105–120. Chousianitis K, Del Gaudio V, Sabatakakis N, Kavoura K,

Drakatos G, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD. 2016. Assessment of earthquake-induced landslide
hazard in Greece: from 108 S. K. AKSHA ET AL. arias intensity to spatial distribution of slope
resistance demand assessment of earthquake induced landslide hazard in Greece. Bull Seismol Soc
Am. 106(1):174–188.

Comfort L, Wisner B, Cutter S, Pulwarty R, Hewitt K, Oliver-Smith A, Wiener J, Fordham

M,

Peacock W, Krimgold F. 1999. Reframing disaster policy: the global evolution of

vulnerable communities. Global Environ Change Part B: Environ Hazards. 1(1):39–44.

Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL. 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards.
Social Sci Q. 84(2):242–261.
 Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS. 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places:
a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 90(4):713–737.

De Luis M, Gonzalez-Hidalgo J, Longares L. 2010. Is rainfall erosivity increasing in the

Mediterranean Iberian Peninsula? Land Degrad Dev. 21:139–144.

Devkota KC, Regmi AD, Pourghasemi HR, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Ryu IC, Dhital MR,

Althuwaynee OF. 2013. Landslide susceptibility mapping using certainty factor, index of
entropy and logistic regression models in GIS and their comparison at Mugling–Narayanghat road
section in Nepal Himalaya. Nat Hazards. 65(1):135–165.

Dhar S, Rai A, Nayak P. 2017. Estimation of seismic hazard in Odisha by remote sensing
and

GIS techniques. Nat Hazards. 86(2):695–709.

Dharan Municipality. 2014. Dharan Municipality Disaster Risk Management Plan. Dharan

Municipality Office.

Dixit A. 2003. Floods and vulnerability: need to rethink flood management. Nat Hazards.

28(1):155–179.

ESRI. 2014. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.3. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems
Research

Institute.

Gallina V, Torresan S, Critto A, Sperotto A, Glade T, Marcomini A. 2016. A review of

multirisk methodologies for natural hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change
impact assessment. J Environ Manag. 168:123–132.

Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Uhinga G. 2015. Multi-risk assessment as a tool for

decision- making. In: Urban vulnerability and climate change in Africa. Switzerland, Springer.

Geiß C, Taubenb€ock H. 2013. Remote sensing contributing to assess earthquake risk:

from a literature review towards a roadmap. Nat Hazards. 68(1):7–48.
 Giardini D. 1999. The global seismic hazard assessment program (GSHAP)-1992/1999.
Ann Geophys. 42(6): 1225-1230..

Gill JC, Malamud BD. 2014. Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards.
Rev Geophys. 52(4):680–722.

Greiving S, Fleischhauer M, L€uckenk€otter J. 2006. A methodology for an integrated risk

assessment of spatially relevant hazards. J Environ Plan Manag. 49(1):1–19.

Gr€unthal G, Thieken A, Schwarz J, Radtke K, Smolka A, Merz B. 2006. Comparative

risk assessments for the city of Cologne–storms, floods, earthquakes. Nat Hazards. 38(1-2):

21–44.

Guha-Sapir D, Hargitt D, Hoyois P. 2004. Thirty years of natural disasters 1974-2003: The
numbers. De Louvain: Presses Univ.

Hernandez MW. 2014. A multiple natural hazards assessment model based on geomorphic
terrain units. Int J Appl Geospatial Res (IJAGR). 5(1):16–37.

Hewitt K. 1997. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters, Singapore,

Longman.

Hinkel J, Lincke D, Vafeidis AT, Perrette M, Nicholls RJ, Tol RS, Marzeion B, Fettweis
X,

Ionescu C, Levermann A. 2014. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st
century sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, p. 3292–3297.

Hoque MAA, Phinn S, Roelfsema C, Childs I. 2018. Assessing tropical cyclone risks using
geospatial techniques. Appl Geogr. 98:22–33.

Hough SE, Altidor JR, Anglade D, Given D, Janvier MG, Maharrey JZ, Meremonte M,
Mildor

BSL, Prepetit C, Yong A. 2010. Localized damage caused by topographic amplification

during the 2010 M7.0 Haiti earthquake. Nature Geosci. 3(11):778–782.
 Johnson K, Depietri Y, Breil M. 2016. Multi-hazard risk assessment of two Hong Kong
districts.

Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 19:311–323.

Juran L, Trivedi J. 2015. Women, gender norms, and natural disasters in Bangladesh.
Geogr

Rev. 105(4):601–611.

Kabenge M, Elaru J, Wang H, Li F. 2017. Characterizing flood hazard risk in data-scarce

areas, using a remote sensing and GIS-based flood hazard index. Nat Hazards. 89(3):1369–1387.

Kappes MS, Keiler M, Von Elverfeldt K, Glade T. 2012. Challenges of analyzing multi-
hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards. 64(2):1925–1958.

Kazakis N, Kougias I, Patsialis T. 2015. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional

scale using an index-based approach and Analytical Hierarchy Process: application in

Rhodope–Evros region, Greece. Sci Total Environ. 538:555–563. Komendantova N,

Mrzyglocki R, Mignan A, Khazai B, Wenzel F, Patt A, Fleming K. 2014.

Multi-hazard and multi-risk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk

governance:

Feedback from civil protection stakeholders. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 8:50–67.

Lehner B, D€oll P, Alcamo J, Henrichs T, Kaspar F. 2006. Estimating the impact of global
change on flood and drought risks in Europe: a continental, integrated analysis. Climatic

Change. 75(3):273–299.

Liu J, Shi Z, Wang D. 2016. Measuring and mapping the flood vulnerability based on land-
use patterns: a case study of Beijing, China. Nat Hazards. 83:1545–1565.

Liu Z, Nadim F, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Mignan A, Fleming K, Luna BQ. 2015. A three-

level framework for multi-risk assessment. Georisk: Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards.
9:59–74.
 Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone ML, Di Ruocco A. 2012.
Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. Nat Hazards. 62(2):551–573.

Mileti D. 1999. Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States.

Washington, DC. Joseph Henry Press.

Mousavi SZ, Kavian A, Soleimani K, Mousavi SR, Shirzadi A. 2011. GIS-based spatial
prediction of landslide susceptibility using logistic regression model. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk.
2(1):33–50.

Nadim F, Liu Z. 2013. Quantitative risk assessment for earthquake-triggered landslides

using

Bayesian network. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics

and

Geotechnical Engineering,

Ouma Y, Tateishi R. 2014. Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated
multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water.
6(6):1515–1545.

Papadopoulou-Vrynioti K, Bathrellos GD, Skilodimou HD, Kaviris G, Makropoulos K.

2013.

Karst collapse susceptibility mapping considering peak ground acceleration in a rapidly

growing urban area. Eng Geol. 158:77–88.

Pellicani R, Argentiero I, Spilotro G. 2017. GIS-based predictive models for regional-scale

landslide susceptibility assessment and risk mapping along road corridors. Geomatics Nat

Hazards Risk. 8(2):1012–1033.

R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Online].
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org.
 Rawat PK, Pant CC, Bisht S. 2017. Geospatial analysis of climate change and emerging
flood disaster risk in fast urbanizing Himalayan foothill landscape. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk.
8(2):418–447.

Rouse J. 1973. Monitoring the vernal advancement and retrogradation of natural vegetation

[NASA/GSFCT Type II Report]. Greenbelt, MD: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.

Runfola DM, Ratick S, Blue J, Machado EA, Hiremath N, Giner N, White K, Arnold J.
2017.

A multi-criteria geographic information systems approach for the measurement of

vulnerability to climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 22(3):349–368.

Saaty TL. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. IJSSCI. 1(1):83–98.

Schmidt J, Matcham I, Reese S, King A, Bell R, Henderson R, Smart G, Cousins J, Smith

W,

Heron D. 2011. Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for
multirisk modelling. Nat Hazards. 58(3):1169–1192.

110 S. K. AKSHA ET AL.

Shafapour Tehrany M, Shabani F, Neamah Jebur M, Hong H, Chen W, Xie X. 2017. GIS-
based spatial prediction of flood prone areas using standalone frequency ratio, logistic regression,
weight of evidence and their ensemble techniques. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 8(2):1538–1561.

Skilodimou HD, Bathrellos GD, Chousianitis K, Youssef AM, Pradhan B. 2019. Multi-
hazard assessment modeling via multi-criteria analysis and GIS: a case study. Environ Earth Sci.
78(2):47.

S€orensen R, Zinko U, Seibert J. 2006. On the calculation of the topographic wetness

index: evaluation of different methods based on field observations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Disc.
10:101–112.

Stoffel M, Wy_zga B, Marston RA. 2016. Floods in mountain environments: a synthesis.

Geomorphology. 272:1–9.
 Sudmeier-Rieux K, Gaillard JC, Sharma S, Dubois J, Jaboyedoff M. 2012. Floods,
landslides, and adapting to climate change in Nepal: what role for climate change models? In:
Climate change modeling for local adaptation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region. Bingley,

Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Tate E, Cutter SL, Berry M. 2010. Integrated multihazard mapping. Environ Plann B Plann

Des. 37(4):646–663.

Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebur MN. 2013. Spatial prediction of flood susceptible areas
using rule based decision tree (DT) and a novel ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical
models in GIS. J Hydrol. 504:69–79.

Theilen-Willige B. 2010. Detection of local site conditions influencing earthquake shaking

and secondary effects in Southwest-Haiti using remote sensing and GIS-methods. Nat Hazards

Earth Syst Sci. 10(6):1183–1196.

Upreti BN. 2001. The physiographic and geology of Nepal and their bearing on the
landslide problem. In: Landslide hazard mitigation in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya. Kathmandu:
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.

Van Westen C, Kappes MS, Luna BQ, Frigerio S, Glade T, Malet JP. 2014. Medium-scale
multi-hazard risk assessment of gravitational processes. In: Mountain risks: from prediction to
management and governance. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.

Van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL. 2008. Spatial data for landslide
susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Eng Geol. 102(3-4):112–131.

Vanacker V, Vanderschaeghe M, Govers G, Willems E, Poesen J, Deckers J, De Bievre B.

2003.

Linking hydrological, infinite slope stability and land-use change models through GIS for
assessing the impact of deforestation on slope stability in high Andean watersheds.

Geomorphology. 52(3-4):299–315.
 Vojtek M, Vojtekova J. 2016. Flood hazard and flood risk assessment at the local spatial
scale: a case study. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 7(6):1973–1992.

Wald DJ, Allen TI. 2007. Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and
amplification.

Bull Seismol Soc Am. 97(5):1379–1395. Wilhelmi OV, Morss RE. 2013. Integrated
analysis of societal vulnerability in an extreme precipitation event: a Fort Collins case study.
Environ Sci Policy. 26:49–62.

Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I. 2004. At risk: natural hazards, people’s

vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge.

Wohl E, Oguchi T. 2004. Geographic information systems and mountain hazards. In:

Geographic information science and mountain geomorphology. Berlin: Springer, p. 309–

341.

Wohl EE. 2000. Anthropogenic impacts on flood hazards. In: Inland flood hazards: human,
riparian, and aquatic communities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Yalcin G, Akyurek Z. 2004. Analysing flood vulnerable areas with multicriteria evaluation.

20th ISPRS Congress, p. 359–364.

Youssef AM, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Al-Katheeri MM. 2016. Landslide
susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and regression
tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin, Asir

Region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides. 13(5):839–856.

Zhang L, Zhang S. 2017. Approaches to multi-hazard landslide risk assessment. In:

Geotechnical Safety and Reliability.