A review of flood risk assessment frameworks and the development of hierarchical structures for risk components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change and rapid urbanization have intensified the frequency and severity of flooding, resulting in substantial damage to communities and infrastructure. Existing research on flood risk addresses a wide range of dimensions, ranging from physical to managerial aspects, which adds complexity to the assessment process. This paper introduces the Integrated Risk Linkages (IRL) Framework to provide a systematic approach to flood risk assessment. The IRL Framework defines risk as the intersection of hazard and vulnerability, where vulnerability is shaped by exposure and susceptibility. Resilience, including coping and adaptive capacities, serves as a counterbalance to vulnerability, offering pathways to mitigate flood impacts. Guided by the IRL framework, this study conducts a comprehensive review of the literature to identify and organize a detailed set of 99 criteria and sub-criteria into three overarching hierarchical structures: hazard, susceptibility, and resilience. Furthermore, the paper evaluates existing flood risk assessment methods, emphasizing their characteristics and practical applicability. The IRL framework presented in this study offers essential insights for navigating the complexities of flood risk management, serving as a valuable reference for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. Its flexibility empowers users to adapt the framework by utilizing specific components or its entire hierarchical structure, depending on data availability and research objectives, thereby enhancing its applicability across diverse contexts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".