Whole value at risk for flood damage estimates through spatial data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective disaster risk reduction (DRR) for flooding requires a comprehensive estimate of the whole value at risk (WVAR) to inform appropriate and proportionate mitigation expenditure. Conventional flood risk estimation methods focus on the direct effects of inundation on community value and generally ignore collateral effects on assets and populations outside the flooded area. Consequently, conventional methods tend to underestimate the cost of flooding, leading to an underestimate of the return on DRR investment. Using spatial data analysis in an urban case study for Toronto, Canada, we identify and capture the collateral value at risk (ColVaR) to estimate the WVAR more comprehensively. In our case study, ColVaR (mean estimate) amounts to 70% of direct losses (ColVar = $344 M; direct losses = $475 M CAD), ranging from 20%–150% (ColVar $100–$740 M) when spanning the 90% confidence intervals of our Monte Carlo simulations. Thus, we demonstrate that if the collateral value at risk is ignored, WVAR can be significantly underestimated, potentially leading to reduced disaster risk reduction resource allocations and thereby adding risk exposure for communities. We present an accessible, seven-step process using existing spatial analysis tools and techniques that infrastructure stakeholders and planners can use to estimate ColVaR and better formulate DRR measures for their communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".