You said that
>"spatializing", as you call it, may be a difficult task.
But in any case it is essential! That means somebody has to do it. I am just
trying to do such a complex work foccused on a region in Romania and based
on GIS techniques. I have to confess it is really hard job. And I really
need sugestions; if "seeds" or anybody else could provide it, I would be
grateful.
Best regards,
Sorin Cheval
Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy
12, D. Racovita Str., sect.2, 70307, Bucharest
Romania
Tel: 0040-1-313-59-90
Fax: 0040-1-311-12-42
>From: seeds <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: more on scales
>Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:26:53 +0500
>
>that could be a good line to tow...
>
>i) hazard scaled on the amount of energy released through the event
>ii) vulnerability scaled on the energy absorption capacity of objects in
>path
>
>and disaster when (i) is greater than (ii).
>
>"spatializing", as you call it, may be a difficult task. Perhaps someone
>really techy needs to step in for evaluating the applicability of this
>theory....
>
>anshu.
>
>At 09:51 AM 2/18/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >I fully agree with how important is this question of HAZARD scale.
> >Some, not to say all, of the answer given so far, clearly illustrate how
> >difficult it is
> >to define a hazard scale.
> >It might be acceptable to say something like "the phenomenon scale is
>such
>that
> >it can destroy a straw house, a timber house or a brick house, like pigs
>1,
> >2, 3 were able to build".
> >But this will depend on the location of the house relatively to the
>phenomenon.
> >My suggestion is we better work out a hazard scale in terms of energy.
> >For instance, regarding gravitary (gravity driven) phenomena, why don't
>we
> >define
> >some value like log(potential energy), the latter being reckoned as the
>product
> >of mass and potential vertical drop (and g).
> >For a given phenomenon, this will result in 5 to 10 degree wide scales.
> >A second step could be to "spatialize" this information, I mean
>calculating
> >energy density
> >for a given point of a predefined area.
> >This could be improved using techniques enabling us to account for
> >uncertainty etc..
> >
> >Gérard
> >
> >
> >At 19:22 16/02/00 +0500, you wrote:
> >>fair question! sorry for missing it out in the first place. The purpose
>of
> >>finding this information is to feed training programs for voluntary
>field
> >>operators (non technical persons) in emergency management. For enabling
> >>them to understand the hazard zonation in areas that they are assigned
>to,
> >>and be prepared to expect disasters in accordance, as well as to able to
> >>appreciate the extent of an event, the issue of scales came up. It then
>got
> >>further complicated out of curiosity!
> >>
> >>anshu
> >>
> >>At 01:47 PM 2/15/00 -0000, you wrote:
> >> >Perhaps the issue here is between scales of measurement and scales of
> >> >classification. With landslides there are various physical measures
>that
> >> >could be employed to record relative size, the obvious one being
>volume. In
> >> >seismology the "Richter" magnitude is an analogue of energy released,
>and
> >> >while one can quote earthquake size in terms of an absolute physical
> >> >measurement, like moment, because the numbers involved are very large,
>it is
> >> >more convenient to compress them into an analogical logarithmic scale.
>It is
> >> >still a measurement of a sort.
> >> >
> >> >Alternatively, there are purely classificatory scales such as
>earthquake
> >> >intensity scales, where the effects at a particular place can be
>graded as
> >> >"generally noticeable", "strong", "slightly damaging" and so on.
>Similar
> >> >classifications have been suggested for windstorm damage, I know, and
> >> >probably other hazards as well.
> >> >
> >> >I suppose that ultimately the key questions are: what do you want to
>use the
> >> >scale for, and what resolution makes sense in terms of the available
>data?
> >> >
> >> >Roger Musson
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: seeds [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >> >Sent: 15 February 2000 13:56
> >> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >> >Subject: more on scales
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Thanks to those who responded to my earlier mail on hazard scales. I
>did
> >> >follow up the links and found some useful information. However, I am
>still
> >> >stuck for want of `hazard' scales rather than disaster scales.
> >> >
> >> >Basing hazard scales on deaths or damage caused does not really help.
>A
> >> >larger earthquake may kill less people and cause lesser damage than a
> >> >smaller one simply because it occurred in a less densely populated
>area. We
> >> >can still be sure that it was a bigger quake from its Richter scale
> >> >reading. The same applies for cyclones (SS scale). However, if out of
>two
> >> >landslides, the smaller one causes more deaths/damage, how can one
> >> >substantially record that the other one was actually larger? Same too
>for
> >> >droughts, though there do exist some basic practices of terming
>droughts as
> >> >low/med/high on severity based on percentage of normal rainfall over
> >> >specified period of time.
> >> >
> >> >any further ideas....??
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________________________
> >> >seeds
> >> >315, Tower I, Mount Kailash, New Delhi - 110065, INDIA.
> >> >Tel/Fax: (91-11) 6250475 Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|