Wu, S., Zhang, Q., & Jin, X. (2022). A Vulnerability Curve Method to Assess Risks of Climate-Related Hazards at County Level. Prevention and Treatment of Natural Disasters, 1(3), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.54963/ptnd.v1i3.130

A comprehensive risk assessment of different types of natural disasters at the county level can promote quantitative disaster risk assessment and can provide a scientific basis for the formulation of disaster prevention measures. Focusing on climate-related hazards and based on natural disaster risk assessment theories and methods, this study integrates disaster statistics, meteorological data, geographic information, and other multivariate data to quantify the hazards of various disasters and the vulnerability and exposure of hazard-bearing bodies and conducts an integrated assessment of comprehensive risks of multiple climate-related hazards in Cangnan County, Zhejiang Province. Typhoon disaster risk is high in the central and northern parts of this county and low in its surroundings, with high-risk areas mainly distributed in Lingxi Town to the north. The comprehensive risk distribution patterns of drought and flood disasters in Cangnan County are similar: low in the south and high in the north. With the method of standard deviation, the comprehensive risk of multiple climate-related hazards in Cangnan County shows a distribution pattern of being low in the south and high in the north, with high risk in the northeast and low risk in the northwest and south.


Climate-related hazards comprehensive risk county scale typhoon drought and flood.


  1. UNDRR; CRED. Economic Losses, Poverty & Disasters (1998–2017); CRED: Brussels, Bel-gium, 2018; Available online: https://www.unisdr.org/files/61119_credeconomiclosses.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2021).
  2. UNDRR; CRED. The Human Cost of Disasters: An Overview of the Last 20 Years (2000–2019); UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  3. Ministry of Emergency Management of the Peo-ple’s Republic of China Website. Available online: https://www.mem.gov.cn/xw/yjglbgzdt/202101/t20210108_376745.shtml (accessed on 20 July 2021).
  4. UNGA. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Re-duction 2015–2030; UN: Sendai, Japan, 2015.
  5. Ding, Y.; Shi, P.J. Fuzzy risk assessment model of typhoon hazard. J. Nat. Disasters 2007, 11, 34–43.
  6. Wang, W.; Wang, T.; Su, J.; Lin, C.; Seng, C.; Huang, T. Assessment of damage in mountain tunnels due to the Taiwan Chi-Chi Earthquake. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2001, 16, 133–150.
  7. Dai, F.C.; Lee, C.F.; Ngai, Y.Y. Landslide risk as-sessment and management: An overview. Eng. Geol. 2002, 64, 65–87.
  8. Bosa, S.; Petti, M. A Numerical Model of the Wave that Overtopped the Vajont Dam in 1963. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 1763–1779.
  9. Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Tong, Z.; Bao, Y. GIS-based multi-dimensional risk assessment of the grass-land fire in northern China. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 381–395.
  10. Lin, N.; Emanuel, K.; Smith, J.; Vanmarcke, E. Risk assessment of hurricane storm surge for New York City. J. Geophys Res.-Atmos 2010, 115, D18121.
  11. Shahid, S.; Behrawan, H. Drought risk assess-ment in the western part of Bangladesh. Nat. Hazards 2008, 46, 391–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fox-Rogers, L.; Devitt, C.; O’Neill, E.; Brereton, F.; Clinch, J. Is there really “nothing you can do”? Pathways to enhanced flood-risk prepared-ness. J. Hydrol. 2016, 543, 330–343.
  13. Ozger, M. Assessment of flood damage behav-iour in connection with large-scale climate indi-ces. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2017, 10, 79–86.
  14. Pelling, M. Visions of risk: A review of interna-tional indicators of disaster risk and its manage-ment. ISDR/UNDP King’s Coll. Univ. Lond. 2004, 2004, 1–56.
  15. Bell, R.; Glade, T. Multi-hazard analysis in natu-ral risk assessments. Risk Anal. 2004, 77, 1–10.
  16. Kappes, M.S.; Papathoma-Kohle, M.; Keiler, M. Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 577–590.
  17. Buriks, C.; Bohn, W.; Kennett, M.; Scola, L.; Srdanovic, B. Using HAZUS-MH for Risk As-sessment: A How-to-Guide, 1st ed.; Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
  18. Shi, P.; Lv, L.; Wang, M.; Wang, J.; Chen, W. Dis-aster system: Disaster cluster, disaster chain and disaster compound. J. Nat. Disasters 2014, 23, 1–12.
  19. Kim, J.M.; Sitar, N. Probabilistic evaluation of seismically induced permanent deformation of slopes. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 44, 67–77.
  20. Zhao, Y.; Liu, X. Application of ANN to risk as-sessment on debris flow. J. Geol. Hazards Envi-ron. Preserv. 2005, 16, 135–138.
  21. Yan, J.; Zuo, Z. Research on Natural Disaster Risk Assessment Index System and Method. Chi-na Saf. Sci. J. 2010, 11, 61–65.
  22. Yin, Z.; Xu, S.; Yin, J.; Wang, J. Small-scale Based Scenario Modeling and Disaster Risk As-sessment of Urban Rainstorm Water-logging. Ac-ta Geograph. Sin. 2010, 65, 553–562.
  23. Dong, C.; Wang, X.; Xiao, Q.; Li, S.; Gao, X. GIS-based study and application of meteorological disaster assessment system. J. Nat. Disasters 2010, 19, 107–111.
  24. Pelling, M.; Maskrey, A.; Ruiz, P. Reducing Dis-aster Risk–A Challenge For. Development, 1st ed.; United Nations Development Programme: New York, NJ, USA, 2005.
  25. Munich Reinsurance Company. Topics: Annual Review: Natural Catastrophes 2002, 1st ed.; Mu-nich Re Group: Munich, Germany, 2003.
  26. Ge, Q.S.; Zou, M.; Zheng, J.Y. Preliminary Study of Integrated Risk Assessment of Natural Haz-ards of China, 1st ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2008.
  27. Song, W. Study on County-level Governments’ Emergency Response Capability of Serious Natu-ral Disasters; Xiangtan University: Beijing, Chi-na, 2011.
  28. Chen, F.; Jia, H.; Zhang, C. A comprehensive method for evaluating marine disaster risk re-duction capacity in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 825.
  29. Shi, P. On the role of government in integrated disaster risk governance—Based on practices in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2012, 3, 139–146.