Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0207-4
ORIGINAL PAPER

Quantitative methods for estimating flood fatalities:

towards the introduction of loss-of-life estimation
in the assessment of flood risk
Manuela Di Mauro Karin M. De Bruijn Matteo Meloni

Received: 1 June 2011 / Accepted: 18 April 2012 / Published online: 6 May 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Risk, including flood risk, can be defined as the combination of the probability
of an event and its consequences. Assessing and managing the risk from flooding should
explicitly include the estimation of impacts to people. Extensive research is currently
ongoing looking at both quantitative and qualitative approaches for assessing flood impacts
on people. Although there is some literature available on such approaches, examples of
methodological and routinely applications of these methodologies as part of flood risk
assessments are rare. This paper focuses on quantitative approaches for estimating impacts
of flooding to people, notably on methods for assessing fatality numbers associated with
flooding. Three methods for assessing losses of life are discussed in detail. The methods
discussed here constitute the forefront of research in Canada, UK and The Netherlands.
These methods provide an assessment of the physical consequences of flooding on people
and can be used to introduce the impacts to people as quantitative metric for the assessment
of flood risk. In this paper, the three methodologies are discussed and applied in a UK case
study reproducing the 1953 East Coast flood event. This study aims to provide a comprehensive comparison on both the reliability and the applicability of the methods. We
analyse possible added values on using of these methods in systematic analyses, aiming to
provide guidelines for applying these methods for flood fatality risk assessment.
Keywords Flood risk  Fatalities  Casualties  Loss of life  Flood  Flood damages 
Impact assessment  Intangible impacts

M. Di Mauro (&)
Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, N2-01A-14, 50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
e-mail: manuela@ntu.edu.sg
M. Di Mauro  M. Meloni
HR Wallingford Ltd, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BA, UK
K. M. De Bruijn
Deltares, PO. Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands

123

1084

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1 Introduction
The International Standard Organisation (ISO) defines risk as the combination of the
probability of an event and its consequences (ISO 2002). The UK government defines the
risk of flooding as a combination of the probability of flooding and potential flood consequences (HM Government 2010). Assessing the impact of a possible event requires the
evaluation of possible economic, social, cultural and environmental damages (Samuels and
Gouldby 2009). In this paper, we will focus on the assessment of the direct impact on
people.
Floods may affect people in many ways. In general, evaluating the impacts of flooding
implies assessing direct, indirect and intangible\non-market impacts, where the latter
includes all the losses that cannot be measured in monetary terms (Parker et al. 2009).
Assessing impacts on people means looking at the effects that the flood event causes on
people as individuals, such as direct (physical), indirect and intangible impacts (e.g.
psychological impacts), and societal impacts, affecting people and the community
(Messner and Meyer 2006). Societal impacts can be monetary losses (direct and indirect),
such as loss of infrastructure (e.g. schools, hospitals, telecommunication network), and
intangible impacts, such as loss of community cohesion and identity. Environmental losses
can also result in indirect long-term damages to the community, such as damages to
business and resources, whose loss can have serious impact on the communities livelihood, but also intangible damages, as they might intrinsically influence community
resilience.
This paper, however, focuses on one aspect only, namely the fatalities caused by
flooding events. The number of fatalities resulting from a flood depends on many factors
such as (De Bruijn et al. 2009; De Bruijn 2010):
Number of inhabitants in the area
Possibilities for preventive evacuation (this determines the proportion of the population
present during the flooding)
Mortality of the people present during the flooding, defined as function of:

Flood characteristics (depth, flow velocity, onset of flooding)

Possibilities for fleeing or sheltering
Vulnerability and behaviour of the inhabitants and the environment (type of houses,
health, knowledge of the area, etc.)

This paper discusses different methodologies for estimating flood fatalities, providing
an analysis of the reliability and applicability of the methods, as well as indications for
applying these methods for assessing flood fatality numbers within the context of flood risk
assessments.
The aim of this paper is to appraise methodologies that can be used for estimating
impacts of flooding on people in a rigorous, repeatable, methodical and quantitative
manner. For that, this paper analyses and compares three methods for assessing fatalities
associated with flooding and their use in flood risk assessments.
The rationale for comparing these three methods, despite their differences, lies in the
requirement for each method to provide results that are consistent with the real event as
well as with those produced by other reliable methods. The consistency in the results can
be seen as an indicator on the reliability of these methods. This study draws conclusions on
the reliability and applicability of the analysed methods and provides guidelines for
applying them for flood risk assessment and management.

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1085

1.1 State of the art of the research on assessing flood casualty figures
The literature on assessing flood casualties figures presents many micro- and macro-scale
approaches for assessing the consequence of flooding to people (e.g. Peduzzi et al. 2009;
European Environment Agency 2001; Ashby et al. 2003) and specifically for evaluating
flood fatality figures (De Bruijn and Klijn 2009; Jonkman et al. 2008; Priest et al. 2007).
Micro-scale methods focus on single individuals. The circumstances and behaviour of
each individual are represented in detail so that the impacts to each person are explicitly
assessed. Examples of this type of model, specifically for floods, are rare and include the
Canadian agent-based Life Safety Model (Johnstone et al. 2006) and the US LifeSim
(Aboelata and Bowles 2005). These models take into account the time-based evolution of
the flood event and the statistics on the population in each sub-area of the modelled
domain. In micro-scale models, the values of the parameters representing the flood impact
to people change as the flood event evolves. These models, to different extents, dynamically account for those who evacuate the area, thus the number of people in the modelled
area also changes as the event evolves.
Macro-scale methods do not focus on individuals but instead study the characteristics of
the population as a whole. They can be applied to a larger area. Some of such methods
were developed for assessing impacts of
dam breaks; through the use of loss functions that depend on the characteristic of the
flood wave, the warning time, the population characteristics and the dam features
(Aboelata et al. 2003; Graham 1999; RESCDAM 2001)
tsunamis (Koshimura et al. 2009; Marchand et al. 2009)
river and coastal flooding, in natural valleys or due to breaches in embankments. In
these methods, the mortality is introduced as a function of the characteristic of the
areas, the receptors and the maximum flood depth and velocity (De Bruijn 2005;
Jonkman et al. 2008; De Bruijn and Klijn 2009; HR Wallingford and Middlesex
University Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006).
Macro-scale models are usually based on the analysis of the most important factors that
determine the number of fatalities (De Bruijn and Klijn 2009) (see Fig. 1). Two types of
macro-scale methods to assess flood casualties can be distinguished: methods based on
expert judgements; and method based on statistical relationships between historical fatality
rate and the characteristics of the flood and the floodplain.

Fig. 1 Factors influencing the number of fatalities due to flooding (source: De Bruijn 2010)

123

1086

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

In the first class of methods, each of the factors in Fig. 1 is estimated per region. Fatality
assessments are made by multiplying the number of inhabitants with the percentage of the area
affected by the flood, the percentage of people who do not evacuate before the flooding and the
fatality rate. Klijn et al. (2007) estimated the average fatality rate for the Netherlands to be
0.3 %. Jonkman et al. (2008) estimated an average worldwide rate to be around 1 %, meaning
that about 1 % of the people exposed to the flooding are killed on average in past events.
A second class of methods includes those based on statistical relationships between the
fatality rate, the flood and the area characteristics. These relationships are derived from past
floods. This approach was implemented in the Risk to People method (HR Wallingford and
Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006) that uses relations between risk
parameters (describing the hazard, the area vulnerability and the people vulnerability) and
the number of casualties, both as injuries and fatalities. Another example of this type of
methods is the set of Dutch Mortality Functions, in which the fatalities occurring in the 1953
flood were related to flood parameters such as water depth, flow velocity and the rate of rise
of water level (Jonkman et al. 2008). Area and people vulnerabilities are not considered in
the Mortality Functions. This means, in fact, that the influence of the area and people
vulnerability to the fatality rate is assumed to be the same now as in 1953.
The methods analysed in this paper are the Mortality Functions method (Jonkman et al.
2008; Kok et al. 2005; Di Mauro and De Bruijn 2012), the Life Safety Model (Johnstone et al.
2006, 2005) and the Flood Risk to People method (HR Wallingford and Middlesex University
Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006). Each method involves applying specific models to
represent the interactions between the flood hazard and the exposed population. Among them,
only the Life Safety Model is implemented in a dedicated stand-alone modelling platform.
These methods were all applied on the 1953 flooding of Canvey Island in the Thames
Estuary. The results of the application of these methods are discussed, together with the
outcomes from the analysis of the sensitivity of the methods to various parameters.

2 Methods for assessing fatalities from flooding

2.1 Approach 1: Mortality Functions method
The Mortality Functions method was derived to estimate the fatalities in areas exposed to
potential flooding caused by the failure of flood defences (Jonkman et al. 2008). These
functions aim to calculate the mortality among the exposed population by relating the
characteristics of the flood event to the expected number of fatalities.
The Mortality Functions were derived based on historic flood events, such as the 1953
flooding in the Netherlands and on expert judgement. The Mortality Functions have been
developed as doseresponse functions and divide the flow path into hazard zones.
These hazard zones are typically distinguished as (Jonkman et al. 2008):
Breach zones that are the zones affected by the highest velocities and the highest
product of depth and velocity;
Zones with rapidly rising water; and
Remaining zones.
It is possible to associate a dominant cause of death to each of these zones. This
association was derived from an empirical-based analysis and does not aim to constitute a
one-to-one relationship (Jonkman et al. 2008), but describes the particular combination of
depth and velocities that are likely to cause mortality due to

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1087

1. instantaneous building collapse or people not able to stand in the water (breach zones),
2. building collapse, people trapped in the flow path or in flooded buildings (rapid rise
water zones) and
3. extended exposure (remaining zones).
The application of the Mortality Function method involves:
1. Dividing the study area into zones based on the flood characteristics (depth, velocity
and rate of water level raise). These can be assessed through hydrodynamic modelling
or historical data, if available, according to the scenario considered.
2. Applying the Mortality Function appropriate to each zone.
3. Combining the obtained fatality rate with the actual population figures to assess the
expected number of fatalities.
The criteria for identifying the three zones are listed below (Jonkman et al. 2008). Each
criterion has an associated equation to calculate the mortality factor FD. This factor represents the proportion of fatalities within the exposed population. The total number of
fatalities can be calculated by multiplying this factor by the number of people present in
the flooded area at the onset of flooding.
1. Breach zone: zone with high flow velocities:
FD 1

if dv  7 m2 =s and v  2 m=s

where FD is the mortality (the fraction of those killed as a proportion of all the people
present at the onset of flooding); d is the water depth; v the flow velocity.
2. Zone with rapidly rising water, in which the average rise rate of the first 1.5 m of
water is considered:


lnd  lN
lN 1:46 rN 0:28
FD d UN
rN
2
if d  2:1 m and w  0:5 m/hour and dv\7 m2 =s or v\2 m/s
where FD is the mortality (the fraction killed of all people present at the onset of flooding);
UN is the lognormal distribution with parameters lN and rN; lN the average of ln(d); rN is
the standard deviation of ln(d); d is the water depth; v the flow velocity; w is the water level
rise rate (over the first 1.5 m).
3. For the remaining area, Eq. 3 is used:


lnd  lN
FD d UN
lN 7:60 rN 2:75
rN


3
w\0:5 m/hour or
if
and dv\7 m2 =s or v\2 m/s
w  0:5 m/hour and d\2:1 m
where FD is the mortality (the fraction killed of all people present at the onset of flooding),
UN is the lognormal distribution with parameters lN and rN; lN the average of ln(d); rN is
the standard deviation of ln(d); d is the water depth; v the flow velocity.

2.1.1 Validation and reliability of the fatality rate functions

As mentioned previously, the Mortality Functions were derived from historical data of the
1953 flooding in the south-western part of the Netherlands. They were validated for the

123

1088

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

Canvey Island flooding of 1953 (Di Mauro and De Bruijn 2012). During this event,
breaches in the costal flood defences resulted to a severe inundation of the island. When
applied to the 1953 event, the functions provided a good estimate of the number of
fatalities. These functions can be less reliable if applied to other types of flood (e.g. river
floods), or to a present-day scenario characterised by stronger houses, better communication options and a higher population density. Since disasters are rare and every area and
flood event has its own specific characteristics, it is difficult to validate, test or improve
these functions. They are considered to be the best functions available in the Netherlands
and seem to produce reasonable results that enable the identification of high-risk areas.
2.1.2 Current use of the method
The Mortality Functions are commonly used in the Netherlands in flood risk assessments.
They have been included in the Standard Dutch Damage and Casualty Model and are
frequently incorporated into risk assessments (Kok et al. 2005; De Bruijn and Klijn 2009).
2.2 Approach 2: Flood Risk to People method
The Flood Risk to People (FRTP) is a method developed in the UK by HR Wallingford and
Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre for the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency (HR Wallingford
and Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006). This method aims to
evaluate death or serious harm to people that occurs as a direct result of the flood either
during or up to one week after the event (HR Wallingford and Middlesex University Flood
Hazard Research Centre 2006).
It also provides measures of annual average fatality risk that can be used in combination with the assessment of expected annual damages and other impacts to enhance flood
risk management. In this paper, however, we focus on the assessment of numbers of
fatalities and not on the fatality risks. The latter also requires assessments of flood
probabilities.
The Flood Risks to People method considers the physical characteristics of the flood and
the vulnerability of the receptors to determine possible physical consequences to people.
The method consists of the following steps:
1. The flood hazard is calculated for each point on the floodplain, based on expected
maximum depth and velocity. These values can be obtained from a hydrodynamic
model or be assessed following alternative procedures (as explained in HR
Wallingford and Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006). The
flood hazard is calculated according to Eq. 4.
2. The vulnerability of the area is assessed in terms of land use, exposure of the area and
flood warning procedures.
3. The vulnerability of the people is estimated based on age and summary information on
health conditions.
4. The rate of people at risk is then calculated following Eq. 6. This value corresponds to
the percentage of people likely to be injured by the flood.
5. The calculated rate of people at risk is finally applied to the actual number of people in
the floodplain (Eqs. 8, 9) to obtain the expected number of injuries and deaths for the
area considered.

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1089

The parameters and equations are described in detail in HR Wallingford and Middlesex
University Flood Hazard Research Centre (2006). A summary of these variables is presented below.
(i) Flood hazard. This is calculated based on the inundation depth, the flow velocity and
the debris factor. The resulting hazard level is categorised into four classes:

Caution level, corresponding to shallow flowing water or deep standing water

Dangerous for some, corresponding to deep or fast flowing water
Dangerous for most, characterised by deep and fast flowing water
Dangerous for all, related to a very deep and fast or deep and very fast flowing water
The hazard rating is calculated with Eq. 4:
HR dmax vmax 0:5 DF

in which HR = (flood) hazard rating; dmax = maximum water depth inside the area (m);
vmax = water velocity inside the area in which the maximum depth occurs (m/s);
DF = debris factor, whose value depends on the likelihood that debris will lead to a
significantly greater hazard.
In this study, the debris factor was calculated as:

0 if dmax \0:25 m
5
DF
1 if dmax [ 0:25 m
This assumes that the influence of the debris is not relevant for a flood depth less than
0.25 m.
(ii) Area vulnerability. The parameter area vulnerability aims to classify the floodplain
according to
Flood warning, including properties covered by the flood warning system, warnings
meeting 2-h target and people taking effective action.
Speed of onset of a flood, assumed to be very gradual, gradual or rapid.
Area characteristics, consisting of multi-storey apartments, typical residential/
commercial/industrial properties, bungalows, mobile homes, campsites, schools, etc.
Each factor is scored on a simple 1, 2, 3 scale. The parameter area vulnerability is then
obtained as the sum of scores for flood warning, speed of onset and area
characteristics.
(iii) People vulnerability, which is calculated according to
% residents aged 75 years or over.
% residents suffering from long-term illness.
The people vulnerability parameter is simply defined as the sum of percentages from
the two census categories above.
Once the hazard rating and the area vulnerability have been calculated, the proportion of people at risk (rate of people at risk) can be evaluated using the equation:
X HR AV

where X rate of people at risk, HR hazard rating calculated with Eq. 4, AV area
vulnerability
Given the population N(Z)i, it is possible to determine the number of people exposed to
the risk in each hazard zone N(ZE)i:

123

1090

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

NZE NZ

X
100

The number of injuries Nin is calculated as function of the number of people exposed
(N(ZE)) and the people vulnerability (Y):
Y
Nin 2
NZE)
8
100
The number of fatalities is then obtained as:
Ndeaths

f rate 2HR
Ninj
100

Further details on the method, its derivation and calculation can be found in HR
Wallingford and Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre (2006).
Expanding Eq. 9, we obtain






4  HR Y
4  HR Y
X
4  HR Y
HR  AV
NZE
NZ

NZ
Ndeaths
100 100
100 100
100
100 100
100


4

HR2 Y AV NZ
10
106
The fatality rate, defined as the ration of fatalities among the exposed population, can be
expressed as:
4
11
FFRTP 6 HR2 Y AV
10
Equation 11 shows that the fatality rate is a function of the square of the hazard rating,
and thus to the square power of the product of the water depth and flow velocity.
2.2.1 Validation and reliability of the fatality rate functions
The Flood Risk to People method was developed in the UK, based on historical data on
area vulnerability, physical test of people stability to flow conditions (depth and velocity),
literature data on structural strength of buildings and consequence of flooding, and expert
judgement. The final report describing the model (HR Wallingford and Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006) states that: (the) uncertainty in the results is
high, particularly in the number of people who will be exposed to a flood and the wide
range of site specific factors that affect whether people are injured or killed. The results do
however provide a guide to flood risks to people, and can be used to compare the impacts
of different options.
2.2.2 Current use of the method
Currently, the method used in the UK is mainly limited to the hazard rating parameter
(Eq. 4) to establish the flow conditions that can constitute danger for some, danger for
most and danger for all (Udale-Clarke et al. 2005)
2.3 Approach 3: Life Safety Model
The Life Safety Model (LSM, www.lifesafetymodel.net) is a model developed by BC
Hydro in Canada (Sakamoto et al. 2004) to estimate loss of life and damage to buildings

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1091

Fig. 2 Conceptual diagram of the LSM

and vehicles due to a flood. The tool was initially designed for simulating dam break
scenarios, but it has been subsequently tested for other types of floods such as failure of
levees (Di Mauro et al. 2011) and tsunamis (Lumbroso et al. 2010).
The LSM includes flood wave propagation, the movement of people (as pedestrian or
vehicular traffic) and the dissemination of the warning. It determines whether a population
at risk in a floodplain can evacuate safely or find a safe shelter during an event (see Fig. 2).
In the LSM, the flood wave is simulated as it evolves over time, and this evolution affects
people that (i) get warned, (ii) start evacuating, (iii) reach safety, (iv) get stuck in traffic or
floating cars or (v) are killed. The time-varying flood condition (depth and velocity)
encountered by the people affects their health and therefore their survival capacity, and
also the speed at which they move. Their survival depends on the flood condition at a
particular moment (e.g. simulating people drowning because they are swept away by the
flood) but also on the continuous exposure to the water (e.g. to simulate exhaustion). If
people evacuate by car, the flood wave interacts with the vehicle such that an engine would
stop when it encounters a certain depth of water or alternatively the car would get swept
away. The buildings are also modelled as receptors. Their capacity to withstand the flood is
also modelled depending on the flood characteristics, so that they would collapse directly
after being hit by the flood wave or as consequence of a continuous exposure to the flood.
People can be modelled as individuals and also as groups (e.g. family), so they would not
separate during an evacuation. In the model, people can receive warning from a warning
centre, from other people or they can be warned by the observation of the incoming flood
wave itself. Vehicular movement is modelled by a traffic algorithm that can reflect the
reduced speed due to congestion and bottlenecks.
The LSM can assist in simulating emergency scenarios and enable resource planning
and the exploration of the impacts of different decisions, for example in terms of
i.

time needed for a safe evacuation compared with the available time (e.g. the arrival
time of the flood wave);
ii. loss of life and vehicles due to the flood characteristics, evacuation procedures (e.g.
warning time or decisions to close roads) and impacts on buildings.
The relationship between the condition of people and the flow characteristics is
determined as doseresponse function. The peoples health parameter (PPC) varies with
time as function of the variation in flow depth and velocity, as shown in Eq. 12 (Sakamoto
et al. 2004). When the variation in flow depth and velocity is above another threshold (the
cumulative loss threshold, PCDVM), the person is considered to be dead.

123

1092

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113



dvt dvt Dt
1
PPC(t Dt PPC(t 1 
Dt
2
PCDVM

12

where Dt time step of the simulation, PPC peoples health index (which varies between 0
and 1); dv product depth times velocity; PCDVM cumulative threshold for death due to
exhaustion (expressed in m2/s)
The conceptual diagram of the LSM is presented in Fig. 2.
LSM requires many detailed input data including:
the type and location of individual properties, vehicles and people, with their
characteristics such as physical strength and escape mode;
flood depths and velocities evolving in time;
details of the road network and other evacuation pathways;
location of safe heavens; and
warning mode and rate of warning dissemination.
The method involving the application of the LSM model can be schematically represented as follows:
1. First, detailed time-varying information on the flood hazard needs to be obtained in
terms of depth and velocities by applying a 2D hydrodynamic model.
2. The required data of the population include information of the initial location of each
person, the escape mode (by foot or vehicle), the time of reaction to the first warning
and the initial health condition.
3. The required data of the buildings include information of their location, average egress
time and the initial value of the building health variable.
4. The road network should be modelled as a connected graph (a set of nodes and arches)
with their characteristics in terms of road type, width and speed limit.
5. The locations of the warning centres, if any, have to be specified together with the time
in which they start disseminating the warning and the maximum distance that this
warning is expected to reach.
6. Once the above input data are prepared, the model can be run. The results contain
information on the number of people evacuated, deceased or safe. Detailed snapshots
of each time step are available in separate files for people, buildings and vehicles.
2.3.1 Validation and reliability of the fatality rate functions
The fatality rate functions embedded in the LSM are loss functions whose values are
calculated for each modelled individual. These functions specify the ability of people to
resist the impact of the flood wave, in terms of depth and velocity, and how this ability
changes during an event. These functions were developed through the analysis of peoples
instability curves and literature regarding human stability in water (Johnstone et al. 2006)
and calibrated and validated through (i) a review of forensic papers, which analysed and
summarised the impacts of flood events, (ii) the direct gathering and analysis of documentary evidence of events by witnesses and (iii) the modelling of historical events such as
the Malpasset Dam failure, in 1959 (Sakamoto et al. 2004). Some sensitivity analyses were
also performed to assess how the variation of the input parameters can influence the results
(Sakamoto et al. 2004), thus how the uncertainty in the input data would spread to the
models outcome. The sensitivity of the model to some of the parameters, not always
directly related to the fatality rate functions, has proven to be relevant (Di Mauro and

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1093

Lumbroso 2008). This agrees with the physics of the system and the characteristics of the
areas, for example, the collapse of a tall and populated building is more likely to cause
more fatalities than the collapse of a single-dwelling structures. However, this makes the
model sensitive to the reliability of the input data.
2.3.2 Current use of the method
The LSM was developed by BC hydro (Canada) as tool for estimating consequences of
dam breaks. This tool is currently used in British Columbia for performing risk assessments related to dam safety. Research on the applicability in other contexts is ongoing (Di
Mauro and Lumbroso 2008). Its use as a tool to inform emergency management is being
developed (Di Mauro et al. 2010, 2011) and its use not widespread.

3 Application of the three methods

The three methods have been applied to the same case study area, Canvey Island in the
Thames Estuary. Canvey Island was flooded during the 1953 flood surge that caused many
fatalities in the Netherlands and the UK. This section gives a brief overview of Canvey
Island and the flooding event, the hydrodynamic modelling carried out to reproduce the
flood parameters corresponding to the event and the number of fatalities as assessed by the
three methods discussed in the previous section.
3.1 Overview of Canvey Island and the 1953 event
Canvey Island is a flat, low-lying alluvial island in the Thames Estuary, covering an area of
18.5 km2. The island has an average height of approximately 1 m below the mean high
water level. The location of Canvey Island is shown in Fig. 3. Canvey Island is protected
from the sea by a network of flood defences. The island was inundated in 1953 by the
Great North Sea Flood that caused multiple breaches in the islands defences. This event
resulted in the death of 58 people and the destruction of several hundred houses. The
consequences of the 1953 floods led to the construction of new flood defences (Brown et al.
2007). In 1953, Canvey Island was sparsely developed with some 5,200 houses on the
island below the normal high tide level. Access to Canvey Island is currently only possible
by two roads both of which are connected to the same roundabout. In 1953, the access
constituted a single road.
The total population of Canvey Island in 1953 was around 13,000 people, based on the
1951 census data (Southall 2005). The distribution of the population was derived from the
distribution of buildings. The locations of buildings were reconstructed by analysing historical maps available in hard copy from the Bodleian Library, Oxford (www.bodleian.
ox.ac.uk). Without more detailed information, the population was assumed to be equally
distributed between the buildings. The building (and therefore the population) locations are
shown in Fig. 4. It can be noted that the majority of the buildings were located on the
eastern part of the island. As the flood event occurred during the night, the population was
assumed to be at home for the entire duration of the flooding. This approximation leads to a
conservative factor in the final results, as it is likely that part of the population was moving
after receiving flood warnings.
The 1953 flood was caused by a storm surge, and the resulting consequences were
described as the worst peacetime disaster that the UK has known (Canvey Island

123

1094

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

Fig. 3 Location of Canvey Island within the UK

archive). The tidal surge reached Canvey Island at around 1.00 am on Sunday 1 February
1953 and around this time the first breach of the flood defences occurred (Elford 2006). In
1953, there was no tidal surge forecasting system in place, and there was no single
authority responsible for flood warnings (Canvey Island archive). Fifty-eight people died
during the 1953 flood in Canvey Island (Baxter 2003). Baxter (2003) states that of the 58
people who died, 53 of the fatalities occurred in the north-eastern part of the island where
the first breaches occurred.
3.2 Hydrodynamic model
The hydrodynamic model of the 1953 flood in Canvey Island was developed by HR
Wallingford Ltd as part of a previous study (Di Mauro and Lumbroso 2008) and was used
in this study to obtain the conditions that occurred during the event. This model is a twodimensional hydrodynamic model of the island that was developed using the finite difference hydrodynamic software TUFLOW. The ground elevation information used in the
model was obtained from a recent Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) topographic
survey. The elevation model was modified in order to represent the situation of 1953.
Canvey Island was discretised into a regular 20 m 9 20 m grid, covering a total of
18 km2.
The shape of the tidal surge was available from data in HR Wallingfords archive,
integrated with newspaper and police reports from 1953 that indicated that the peak tidal
surge level was 4.6 m. This peak was recorded at between 1.00 and 1.30 am, and the
breaching of the flood defences occurred shortly before the peak tidal surge (Canvey Island
archive). The location of the breaches in the flood defences that occurred in 1953 (Fig. 5)
was established from the literature (Allen et al. 1954). The two main breaches, whose
depths were estimated to be 100 and 140 m (Allen et al. 1954), were represented in the
hydraulic model by two main openings in the flood embankments.

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1095

Fig. 4 Location of the buildings reconstructed for 1953 (background Ordinance Survey (OS) map)

Allen et al. (1954) presents a record of the maximum flood depths, an estimate of the
flood velocities and the inflow volume. This information was used to calibrate and validate
the hydrodynamic model of the flood.
Figure 5 shows a map of the peak flood extent resulting from the hydrodynamic model.
The resulting flood, covering most of the eastern part of Canvey Island, shows that the
water depth was around 23 m at the point closest to the breach, with a mean depth
between 0.8 and 1.0 m. The highest velocities were in the vicinity of the breaches with the
peak water velocity being about 2.3 m/s. These results were obtained using a 2D finite
difference model, which implies a slight underestimation in the velocities, mainly in the
transition dry/wet cells (Lhomme et al. 2010). This factor needs to be noted as the velocity
of the flood is very important in assessing flood fatalities. The maximum flow velocity,
maximum flow depth and the time series of depth and velocity have been extracted. The
total model duration is 8 h, whilst the results have been extracted every 0.5 h. More
detailed information about the model can be found in Di Mauro and Lumbroso (2008).
3.3 Application of the Mortality Functions (Approach 1)
An extensive analysis and validation on the Mortality Functions is presented in Di Mauro
and De Bruijn (2012). Here, the main findings of that paper are highlighted, and further
analysis is carried out to enable a better comparison of this method with the other two
methods. The three criteria constituting the Mortality Functions were applied to each cell
of the modelled area, to define the hazard zones, each of these corresponding to a specific
Mortality Function. There were no cells with a maximum product depth velocity larger
than 7 m2/s, which is the threshold for applying Eq. 1. Therefore, Eq. 1 was not considered. Breach zones are expected to be small, about 100200 m around a breach. People

123

1096

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

Fig. 5 Location of the breaches used in the hydrodynamic model and the resulting peak flood extent
(background OS map)

located at about 100 m behind a breaching embankment have a very high probability of
dying, as an area close to a breach (depending on land use, elevation, soil conditions) flood
depths, currents and velocities are likely to be very high.
The second and third criteria sets (Eqs. 2, 3) did apply in Canvey Island. Thus,
according to the Mortality Functions, people died due to rapidly rising water levels and due
to other causes.
3.3.1 Evaluating the number of fatalities
The maximum value of the mortality factor, which represents the likely percentage of
fatalities, was approximately 40 %. The mean value for this factor was 0.7 %. This value
corresponds well with the mean value calculated based on the historical data, which results
in a fatality rate of 0.4 % (58 for a total population of 13000 people).The results from the
Mortality Functions show good agreement with the real event in terms of number of
fatalities. The total number of deaths found by applying the Mortality Functions is 71,
which is slightly more than the 58 fatalities that occurred in 1953.
The Mortality Functions also give an indication of the probable cause of death. They
indicate that 35 people drowned in areas with fast rising water depths (second criterion)
and that another 36 people died due to exhaustion, hypothermia and other causes. Most
(42) fatalities were calculated as occurring in the north-eastern part of the island. In the
south-eastern part of the island, the model calculated 18 fatalities, whilst the other 11
fatalities occurred in the central area. Figure 6 shows the calculated locations of the
fatalities.

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1097

Fig. 6 Location of the fatalities calculated with the Mortality Functions method (background OS map)

Little information is available from literature about the real cause of fatalities in Canvey
Island in 1953. However, different people were reported to have died in their homes, and
that seems to point to the first (house collapse) and second cause (surprise due to a fast
water level rise rate) as the dominant causes (Canvey Island archive). Furthermore, witnesses stated that in some cases the people died due to exposure to icy water (Canvey
Island archive), and this supports the hypothesis that some fatalities could have occurred as
a consequence of hypothermia which may support the third cause of death (other causes).

3.3.2 Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was undertaken with regard to the (i) population distribution and the
(ii) parameters of the three criteria (Eqs. 1, 2, 3). In this paper, a summary of the results is
presented for comparison with the other two methods presented. The detailed sensitivity
analysis can be found in Di Mauro and De Bruijn (2012).
i.

Sensitivity to the population distribution

The literature shows that 91 % of the fatalities occurred in the north-eastern area (Baxter
2003). The Mortality Function method calculated that, in the same area, approximately
59 % of the fatalities occurred. These results are strictly related to the assumed distribution
of the population, which was concentrated in the south-east. This underlines the sensitivity
of the results to the assumption of the population distribution. Assuming, for example, a
uniform population density of 722 people per square kilometre, the calculated fatality
density is definitely sparser and the total number of fatalities is higher (91 fatalities).

123

1098

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

ii. Sensitivity and assessment of the three criteria (Eqs. 1, 2, 3)

For this case study, none of the cells fulfil the first criterion, thus it was not possible to
evaluate the significance of this criterion.
The second criterion related to the rate of rise of the water level was met at many
locations in this study. The adopted value of rise rate threshold (0.5 m/s) might be very
sensitive to the type of buildings and therefore differs for each case study area. For that, the
application of the second criterion might be questionable (De Bruijn et al. 2009). The
fatality rate was recalculated using only Eq. 3 (third criterion). This is equivalent to assume
that only depth is important to estimate loss of life. This resulted in a total number of
fatalities of 59, which is slightly closer to reality. However, the estimated location of the
fatalities does not fully agree with the case history: the resulting fatality rate is quite
homogeneously distributed within the cells characterised by high water depth (eastern and
central part of the island) and results in a more even distribution of fatalities over the
inhabited areas (southern and north-eastern part of the island), whilst the case history
indicates a concentration of fatalities in the north-eastern area.
The water lever rise threshold used in Eq. 2 (0.5 m/s) can be questionable: as Jonkman
et al. (2008) state, this threshold could have been chosen anywhere between 0.5 and 4 m/h.
Jonkman et al. (2008)s range was used to investigate the sensitivity of this threshold,
analysing the variation in the number of fatalities subsequent to the variation of the chosen
threshold. This resulted in a variation in the number of fatalities that ranges from 71, using
a water level rise rate of 0.5 m/h and converges to 59, using the maximum water level rise
threshold of 34 m/h. This shows that the model is not very sensitive to the variation in the
water level rise rate threshold. This is also due to the distribution of the modelled water
level rise gradient that is concentrated between 0.5 and 2 m/h, so we can expect that the
main variation in the results would be obtained using a water level rise threshold varying
between these two values (Di Mauro and De Bruijn 2012).
3.3.3 Discussion
The Mortality Functions mainly aim to represent the hazard in the floodplain, rather than to
provide a precise estimation of the number of fatalities (Jonkman et al. 2008). The fatality
rate can be expressed in terms of hazard zones and possible causes of death.
The results of the application to Canvey Island compared well with the 1953 observed
distribution of the fatalities (Di Mauro and De Bruijn 2012), and there seems to be
accordance between these results and the historical references about the causes of death:
both assess that the majority of fatalities occurred by drowning in the northeaster part of
the island (Canvey Island archives; Baxter 2003).
In the Mortality Functions method, the vulnerability of the people is incorporated
implicitly. The functions were originally derived for the 1953 flood event in the Netherlands (Jonkman et al. 2008). By using these curves, one thus supposes that the vulnerability
of the area and the people affected in that event is representative also, for other events,
locations and times.
3.4 Application of the Flood Risk to People methodology (Approach 2)
The FRTP method includes scoring the hazard rating (HR), area vulnerability (AV) and
people vulnerability (PV).

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1099

The hazard rating was here calculated based on the results of the hydrodynamic
model, according to Eq. 4.
The area vulnerability is determined by flood warning, speed of onset of a flood
and area characteristics. The flood warning was scored as 2 as only an inefficient alert
was issued through an acoustic signal and the direct actions of the police and the fire
brigade that had time to reach a limited number of people (Canvey Island archive). The
parameter speed of onset was assessed by calculating the water arrival time. If the water
arrived within half an hour, a score of 3 was assigned to the speed of onset, if the water
arrived within 1 h, a score of 2 was assigned and otherwise a score of 1 was assigned. The
area characteristics were given a score of 2, because Canvey Island was mostly characterised by typical residential properties (two-storey homes) (Barsby 2001).
The people vulnerability was calculated based on the 1951 census of Canvey Island
(Southall 2005). These figures only include the percentage of population aged below 15,
between 15 and 64 and those aged above 65. Thus, the 1951 census does not provide the
percentage of residents aged 75 or over, which is the figure required by the method.
Assessing this figure from the population pyramid might lead to an imprecise assessment,
as only three age ranges are available to reconstruct the pyramid. For that, the percentage
of residents aged 65 or over was used (15 %). This percentage indeed includes those aged
75 or over, thus our assumption is expected to lead to a conservative estimation.
We were not able to retrieve the percentage of residents suffering from long-term illness
in 1951, whilst the percentage taken from the 2001 census (UK Office for National Statistics) is 1.62 %. Assuming that this percentage is the same as in 1953 can lead to an
underestimation, as the percentage of invalid residents was likely higher in 1953 than in
2001, possibly due to the consequences of the war. The fact that the population age
distribution in 2001 is similar to that of 1953 also supports the assumption that the percentage of invalid persons is similar in both years. Without more precise data, the percentages of 15 and 1.62 % were considered to calculate the people vulnerability. The
entire population was assumed to be at home, since the flood happened at night (1 am)
(Canvey Island archive).

3.4.1 The resulting number of fatalities

The application of the FRTP method resulted in 455 injuries and 18 fatalities. The ratios
between injuries (and deaths) and the total population are 3.5 and 0.15 %, respectively.
The calculated number of fatalities, mainly located in the north-eastern part of the island
(Fig. 7), is low compared to the 58 reported fatalities in 1953. However, the model estimated the number of fatalities within the same order of magnitude as the actual number of
fatalities, with an underestimation of 0.3 % if compared with the total population. As
expected, due to the influence of the hazard rating (based on a combination of velocity,
depth and the presence of debris), the model identified the areas with the highest depths
and flow velocities as the areas with the most fatalities.

3.4.2 Sensitivity analysis

A brief sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the influence of the parameters that
are considered to have higher uncertainties, including the flood warning and people
vulnerability.

123

1100

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

Fig. 7 Location of the fatalities calculated with the Flood Risk to People method (background OS map)

The flood warning parameter was chosen as it is difficult to forecast (or to assess, in
case of post-event analysis) the actual response rate to a warning. Therefore, a low sensitivity to this variable would be particularly significant to the robustness of the method.
The people vulnerability should be calculated as the sum of the percentage of people
aged above 75 and the percentage of people with long-term illnesses. As explained above,
a precise assessment of both these percentages was not possible, and, or this reason, we
chose to include this parameter in the sensitivity analysis.
(i) Sensitivity to the flood warning parameter
Changing the flood warning score from 1 (corresponding to the assumption that people
receive the warning and act upon it) to 3 (simple acknowledgement of the presence of any
warning system), the number of deaths increases linearly, ranging from 15 to 21 fatalities.
The same trend can be found in the calculated injuries.
The flood warning parameter is part of the area vulnerability parameter, which
should take into account the possibility for people to escape (through the flood warning
and the speed of onset values) and the resilience of buildings. Whatever combinations of
scores are assigned to the three components, the value of area vulnerability can range
between 3 and 9. Varying the area vulnerability within this range resulted in the number
of fatalities varying between 12 and 37. The model thus shows a very low sensitivity, not
only to the flood warning variable, but to the whole area vulnerability parameter.
(ii)

Sensitivity to the people vulnerability

The range of variation in the people vulnerability parameter was chosen by selecting the
plausible range of variation of the two percentages constituting this parameter: the

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1101

percentage of population above 75, which can be assumed to vary between 0 and 15 %
(corresponding to the population aged above 65 years, thus including those aged above
75 years), and the population with long-term illnesses, whose variability was arbitrarily
assumed between 1 and 15 %. The range covering this possible variation is therefore
130 %. We did not consider the lower most value (1 %), which would have led to a very
low number of fatalities. Varying the people vulnerability from 5 to 30 %, the number of
fatalities also increases linearly, ranging from 5 to 33 deaths.
This analysis shows that, for a given scenario, the performance of the flood warning as
well as the calculation of people vulnerability could be a source of uncertainty, and the
variation of the two parameters could lead to changes on the final estimate of loss of life.
However, the simplicity of the model allows easy calculations of the results with varying
parameters, also obtaining uncertainty bands.
3.4.3 Discussion
The FRTP methodology resulted in an estimated number of fatalities lower than those that
occurred in reality, but within the same order of magnitude. The location of the estimated
fatalities was consistent with the real data. The method thus provides an indication of the
areas that are most at risk.
On the whole, the FRTP method can be considered an effective starting point in a risk
assessment study, because it provides an approximate number of deaths for every given
scenario (thus allowing their comparison). This method can also be useful to map the
highest-risk zones for a particular area. However, the method presents some aspects that
require further investigation, regarding the underlying assumptions, and its area of
application.
The FRTP method was developed based on a combination of evidence and expert
judgement (HR Wallingford and Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre
2006). The approach to derive these functions, therefore, was not systematic. For that, it is
not possible to draw specific recommendations regarding punctual changes in the equations
governing the FRTP method.
The FRTP method was tested against different historical events (HR Wallingford and
Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006). The validation test case events
varied in temporal scale, including events occurring in 1901 as well as 2000. On the other
hand, all the case studies were located in the UK. Further calibration of the method might
be necessary to apply this method to other countries.
When comparing our results with those obtained in the validation case studies, the
underestimation of the number of fatalities in our Canvey Island model does not seem to
occur consistently in the original case studies (HR Wallingford and Middlesex University
Flood Hazard Research Centre 2006), and, therefore, it might be specific to this particular
data set.
The influence of flood warning identified by this method seems to be limited, although
real cases suggest differently (for example, Parker et al. 2009). Further research should be
carried out to look at revising the model by studying another parameterisation that reflects
the importance of the presence or absence of warning, and the effectiveness of warnings for
fatality-rate assessments.
The overall low sensitivity to changes of the area vulnerability parameters needs to
be studied as well. It seems unrealistic that the flood impact to people living in, for
example, multi-storey dwellings is similar to the impact on people living in bungalows or
campsites.

123

1102

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

Fig. 8 Comparison between the functions to calculate the fatality rate proposed in the Mortality Function
method [1, 2] and the one proposed in the Flood Risk to People method [3, 4, 5] are possible variation of the
Flood Risk to People function

The fatality rate assumed by the FRTP method (Eq. 11) is a function of the square
power of the flow depth and velocity. In the Mortality Functions method, a logarithmic
relationship is assumed, only involving the flow depth (Eqs. 3, 4), whilst in the LSM a
linear relationship is proposed (Eq. 12).1 In the FRTP method, the fatality rate is assumed
to increase exponentially with the flow depth and velocity. However, comparing the shape
of the Mortality Functions and the Flood Risk to People fatality rate function, the fatality
rate resulting from the FRTP method is consistently lower than those obtained with the
Mortality Functions, until higher values of flood depth occur (Fig. 8). This caused the
lower number of fatalities obtained with this method compared to the Mortality Functions
method. If the exponent is varied, the results change. A linear relationship between
mortality and the hazard rating ([4] in Fig. 8) results in low fatality numbers at high
depths and follows a similar trend of Eq. 3 (which, in fact, is applied for low flow depth
and velocity). Changing the exponent of the hazard rating from 2 to 2.2, we obtain the
fatality rate function as shown in Fig. 8, [5]. However, the number of fatalities resulting
from the modified function is 19, which is very close to the 18 fatalities obtained using the
original curve. It is important to note that this can be due to the specific data set, and further
research should be carried out on this subject.
We, however, do not consider the underestimation of the number of fatalities the main
issue of the method, as the calculated fatality figures are of the same order of magnitude
that those occurred in reality. On the other hand, the low sensitivity of the method to the
flood warning and area characteristic parameter should not be ignored. In fact, the focus
of further research should not be on reproducing the exact number of fatalities of a
historical case, but to correctly reproduce the casual relationships between external factors
and flood fatalities. This casual relationship between the area vulnerability and the
fatality rate might not be correctly represented by the current method.
1

In the Life Safety Model the fatality rate is not modelled as an explicit function expressing the chance of
being killed by the flooding. However, Eq. 12 represents how the flood affects the individuals health, thus
the individuals mortality.

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1103

3.5 Application of the Life Safety Model (Approach 3)

The Life Safety Model (LSM) was applied using the same population distribution and
building locations used for the previous applications. Time-evolving flood depth and
velocities were obtained from the results of the hydrodynamic model. Historical maps from
1939 to 1961 were used to assess the roads at the time of the flood, whilst the safe haven
was allocated at the exit point of the island, which also coincides with the higher ground to
the north-west side of the island.
To simulate the flood warning, historical evidence of the event was considered. From
the 1953 police reports and other sources, it appeared that when the first breaches in the
flood defences occurred, some sirens were sounded in the hope of raising the alarm (Elford
2006). Firemen and the police also commenced warning people by going from door to door
(Canvey Island Archive). The warning centre in the model was located in accordance with
the position of the old fire station. The rate of the warning dissemination in the LSM was
set to 0.6 m/s, as this is equivalent to a slow walking pace.
3.5.1 The resulting number of fatalities
Using the default parameters in the LSM, 38 fatalities resulted from drowning, 13 as a
result of exhaustion (i.e. time exposed to the floodwater) and 14 fatalities as consequence
of building collapse. In total, the model calculated 65 deaths. The results of the reconstruction of the 1953 flood event slightly overestimate the total number of fatalities in
comparison with the available historical data. However, the error in the estimate of
fatalities is 0.13 % of the total population. The majority (51) of the fatalities were located
in the eastern part of the island, mostly in the north-eastern part close to the breaches,
whilst the remaining fatalities were calculated to be in the central-northern part, along one
of the main roads. Figure 9 shows the locations of the calculated fatalities.
3.5.2 Sensitivity analysis
The number of fatalities and injuries depends on the resilience factors applied to both
people and buildings and other parameters, such as the rate of warning dissemination. An
analysis of the sensitivity of the results to various parameters was undertaken, and this is
discussed below. These include
(i)
physical condition of the people;
(ii) the rate of the warning dissemination;
(iii) the proximity warning distance.
(iv) building strength
(i)
Sensitivity to the physical condition of the people
The physical condition of the people is determined by a parameter (PPC) whose value is
calculated through a human Object Damage and Loss Function (ODLF) (Sakamoto et al.
2004). The value of PPC decreases with the time in which a person is exposed to depth and
velocities (Eq. 12), until it reaches a critical threshold, determining whether a person is
knocked over. An individual that is knocked over is assumed not to be able to move
through the water. This causes his\her strength to continue to decline until the PPC reaches
a second threshold, and the person is considered to be deceased.
Variations in the initial value of the PPC where tested. An increase of 30 % of the
default value of PPC has little impact on the number of fatalities as a result of drowning.

123

1104

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

Fig. 9 Location of the fatalities calculated with the Life Safety Model (background OS map)

However, a 10 % reduction in PPC doubles the number of modelled deaths as a result of

exhaustion and continuous exposure. A 30 % decrease in PPC increases the number of
fatalities from exhaustion from 13 (default value of PPC) to 623.
(ii)

Sensitivity to the rate of the warning dissemination

The rate at which the warning is disseminated is implemented in the LSM through a
parameter that affects the awareness of people towards the incoming flood (thus the
number of fatalities). The warning centres are modelled in the LSM as points from which
the warning is disseminated radially. Thus, the timely dissemination of the warning is both
a function of the location of the warning centres and the rate of warning dissemination.
Differences in these parameters can result in different number of fatalities. Decreasing the
warning dissemination rate from 0.6 m/s to 0.35 m/s increases the number of fatalities
from 65 to 208. Increasing the warning dissemination rate up to 0.7 m/s decreases the
calculated number of fatalities. Further increase in this parameter does not result in a
further decrease in fatalities. A warning rate of 0.7 m/s means that within 1 h after the
occurrence of the first breach, most of the population at risk are aware that a flood is
occurring and start evacuating. Evacuation cannot be quicker since the maximum capacity
of the evacuation routes has been reached.
(iii)

Sensitivity to the proximity of the warning centre

The LSM accounts for the possibility for people who are aware of the incoming flood to
warn other people. This is implemented through a parameter that represents the maximum
distance over which two people can communicate to each other. A person unaware that the
flood is happening can be warned by someone that is aware if the distance between the two
people is less than a user-defined proximity warning distance. Setting up this parameter to

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1105

zero corresponds to assume that an aware person is unable to warn anyone else. In the
model, a proximity warning distance of 150 m was used. Varying this parameter from 150
to 50 m, the calculated number of fatalities increases with a factor of about 2.5. It was also
noted that the number of fatalities that resulted from drowning and exhaustion is not
sensitive to the proximity warning distance. On the other hand, the number of fatalities due
to the collapse of buildings is very sensitive to variation of this parameter. In fact, when the
proximity warning distance is low, people tend not to receive the warning and to remain
where they were at the beginning of the simulation, thus inside their houses. This caused a
higher number of fatalities in areas in which many building collapsed due to the flood
wave.
(iv) Sensitivity to the strength of the buildings
In the LSM, the impact of flooding to buildings is modelled through a building strength
index. The value of this parameter, compared with user-defined threshold values, determines whether the building is standing or collapsed. Once the building is considered
destroyed, the people located in the building are assumed to be killed instantaneously.
Similarly, to the peoples health index (Eq. 12), this parameter decreases with time, proportional to the depth and velocity of the flow. Using the default value for two-storey
dwellings suggested by Sakamoto et al. (2004), the model calculated the collapse of around
600 buildings, which resulted in 369 fatalities. An intensive calibration was necessary to
obtain an acceptable value of 70 collapsed buildings, by increasing the building strength
index by the 12 %. This corresponds to 88 % decrease in the resulting number of collapsed buildings.

4 Discussion
The LSM was used to model each of the 13,000 people living Canvey Island in 1953 and
their response to the flood wave. The 51 fatalities predicted by the LSM as a result of
drowning and exhaustion for the 1953 event compared well with the 58 observed fatalities,
most of whom are reported to have died in these ways. The LSM also estimated that
approximately 14 people died during the 1953 flood as a result of structural failure of their
homes. Seventy collapsed buildings resulted from the model, which compares well with
the historical data. However, this result was obtained after an intensive calibration of the
building parameters, to which the model showed to be very sensitive. It is concluded that
the LSM currently underestimates the resilience to floodwater of some of the British, and
possibly European, house types and overestimates the number of people who die instantaneously when their houses collapse.
The high sensitivity to the change in the initial value of the building strength index is
probably caused by the type of relationship between this index and the flow depth and
velocity. The presence of people in the collapsed buildings may also be wrongly assessed,
which may have led to an overestimation of the number of casualties. On the other hand,
considering that people have no chance to survive the collapse of their building might also
lead to an over conservative assessment. In Canvey Island, some people were rescued after
clinging on the remaining walls of their partly destroyed house (Canvey Island Archive).
After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, many stories emerged of people saved from the flow
after the house in which they were in collapsed (Murata 2010). This might depend on the
building type, as collapse of a lightweight building is relatively less likely to trap or injure
its occupants.

123

1106

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

Once the LSM has been set up, it is relatively simple to make changes to the model to
assess the impact of different interventions and management strategies on loss of life.
Other loss-of-life models, including the Mortality Functions and the FRTP methods analysed in this paper, generally provide only first-order magnitude estimates of fatalities and
do not include spatialtemporal variations and peoples movements that are crucial to
assessing the number of flood fatalities accurately. In fact, the LSM could be used to assess
the effectiveness of new evacuation routes, flood warning systems and safe havens in
reducing the potential loss-of-life within areas at risk of flooding. The LSM also allows
evacuation times to be assessed. However, the results were found to be sensitive to the
input parameters and initial conditions. The large number of parameters needed also
contributes to a large variation in outcomes. Therefore, the results need to be carefully
interpreted.
Looking at further developing the model, the sensitivity of the results to the initial
values of the building strengths and to the peoples health indices should be revised to
improve the robustness of the method. A high variance in the results corresponding to a
slight variation of the input parameters introduces a significant uncertainty in the results.
This makes them more difficult to use in flood risk assessments.
It is recommended to consider a reduction in the number of user-defined parameters.
This might mean that some of the accuracy of the representation of the real world is
sacrificed in order to make the results of different applications more comparable and less
sensitive to minor changes.

5 Comparison of the results and discussion

This study demonstrated that the results of the application of the three methods agree to
some extent with the historical event examined. Furthermore, and possibly more significantly in terms of reliability of the three models, they compare well with each other,
especially in terms of localising possible fatalities (Table 1).
This agreement between the results of these methods, in terms of number and location
of the fatalities, does indeed demonstrate coherence between the three methods and
therefore increases the confidence in using these methods. In fact, although developed in
very different countries and for different flood types, these methods strongly depend on the
flood characteristics, and this explains the coherence of results.
The methods incorporate different factors related to flood fatalities in very different
ways, which explains the differences in results. The main difference is in the way in which
the methods account for the dissemination of the warning, the characteristics of the area
and peoples physical characteristics. There was no evidence of a direct relationship
between the degree of accuracy in which the area is described and the accuracy in the
estimation of the number of fatalities in this case study area. The Mortality Function is the
Table 1 Number and location of the fatalities calculated with the three methods
No of fatalities

Location of fatalities

1953 event

58

Mainly in the north-eastern part of the island

Mortality functions

71

Mainly in the north-eastern part of the island

Flood Risk to People

18

Mainly in the north-eastern part of the island

Life Safety Model

65

Mainly in the north-eastern part of the island

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1107

method that requires the least prior knowledge of the modelled area; the LSM involves a
detailed modelling of the receptors; the FRTP method sits somewhere in between in terms
of the required level of details on the characteristics of the area and the population, but was
found to be the least accurate.
The methods were developed for different areas and time periods and their performance
will be the best for the areas and time periods for which they were developed. The results
of the Mortality Functions will be less accurate in areas that differ a lot from the southwestern part of the Netherlands in 1953. The Flood Risk to People method was developed
and validated on various case studies in the UK, dating from the early twentieth to the early
twenty-first century. The primary validation case study for the LSM is the Malpasset
disaster occurred in 1959. However, the model was developed building on extensive results
from physical experiments, rather than historical data (Sakamoto et al. 2004); therefore, it
cannot be expected to be related to a particular historical data set but rather to the setting of
the laboratory experiments. The comparability of the results for only one and an old case
study cannot be considered representative for their comparability in all case study areas
and all time periods. However, this comparison proved to be very valuable for illustrating
the differences and agreements between the three methods.
The methods are not equally easy to be used. The Mortality Functions and FRTP
methods are easy to apply, and their sensitivity is easy to explore to provide uncertainty
boundaries. The LSM, however, requires a lot of detailed data and is therefore more
difficult to set up. The sensitivity and uncertainty of the LSM is also more difficult to study
since many parameters can be varied and are co-dependent.
The LSM method therefore serves another purpose compared to the other two methods.
It may be used to study the effect of flood warning improvements, varying evacuation
routes, house strength improvements and other non-structural measures. The effects of
these measures are not explicitly incorporated in the other two methods and can thus not be
assessed with the other two methods. The LSM is thus a useful tool for flood event
management or for evaluating non-structural strategies, but may be too data demanding for
a simple impact assessment.
The FRTP method is a useful tool for providing a quick assessment of many scenarios
(future scenarios, climate change impacts, etc.) and can be used when exact flood propagation data are not available. The FRTP method can take into account many aspects of the
modelled area, but does not require these to be estimated in great detail, making it easier to
retrieve the essential information. The method is quite flexible to adaptation (for example,
see a related approach in De Bruijn and Klijn 2009).

6 Recommendations and guidelines for the application of the three approaches

In general, modelling fatality numbers will always be uncertain since each flood and each
area at risk are different. In countries such as the UK and the Netherlands, events causing
many fatalities are rare, and, therefore, the validation of methods and models is difficult.
Every model requires great care in setting up the modelling assumptions, accounting for
the quality of the input data and in interpreting the results. This is true for every numerical
model, even for those where the physical laws are known, such as hydrodynamic models.
This consideration is particularly important for models which simulate human behaviour
and response. The results of such models should not be considered as absolute numbers of
fatalities. Instead, they should be applied to search for an order of magnitude of fatalities to
inform flood risk managers, or to find places that are more at risk.

123

1108

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

To take into account the uncertainty that is intrinsic to the estimation of the parameters,
to which it is also very difficult (and potentially misleading) to assign a specific probability
distribution, we recommend performing sensitivity analyses by varying the input parameters, and considering the results in terms of mean and variance, which gives a good
assessment of the uncertainty boundaries. As a general indication, the higher the obtained
variance, the less reliable are the results.
All three methods showed to be sensitive to the distribution of the population in the
floodplain. The actual number of people present at the onset of a flooding depends on a
number of variables including the number of inhabitants, travellers, the flood forecasting,
the evacuation possibilities and so on. These are difficult to assess in detail. The analysis of
multiple scenarios allows accounting for this uncertainty to some extent. Probabilistic
distribution of the population can be used if the shape and parameters of the distribution are
reliable. Most important is to provide an accurate characterisation of the area, through the
analysis of the historical data and by working closely with the people who know the
communities and are therefore best placed to characterise them.
In general, all the three methods can be used for
(i)
(ii)

the identification of locations that are particularly dangerous for people and
therefore where to target possible interventions
a comparison between different structural interventions for managing the flood risk,
for example the construction of a levee versus the abandonment of floodplains.

The Mortality Functions and the FRTP methods could potentially be also used for
(iii) broad-scale flood risk assessments
(iv) broad-scale comparison of non-structural intervention (e.g. warning strategies)2
The Life Safety Model can be also used for
(v)
(vi)

detailed flood risk assessments

detailed comparison of non-structural intervention (e.g. warning and evacuating) for
managing flood risk
(vii) emergency planning and flood event management
It is recommended not to use the Flood Risk to People and Mortality Function
methods for localised (property\parish\small town level) flood risk assessments, as in
this case the flood risk assessment should strongly account for evacuation strategies and
a detailed assessment of buildings resilience. It should be good practice to assess the
benefits of particular evacuation strategies, as well as the consequences of not having
any strategy in place for densely populated cities. On the other hand, the Life Safety
Model should not be used for broad-scale assessments, as the large number of required
parameters can produce results that are patchy and unstable, and therefore lack
reliability.
A summary of the comparison and the recommendations is presented in Table 2.

In the Flood Risk to People method, this can be modelled by changing the parameter describing the
coverage of the warning system. In the Mortality Functions method, this has to be explicitly modelled by
accounting for those who would potentially respond to a warning and decide to evacuate, thus physically
leaving the area.

123

Original
scope

Evaluating
Flood
Risk to
People
due to
levy
failure

Evaluating
Flood
Risk to
People
due to
levy
failure

Method\model

Mortality
Functions

Flood Risk to
People

Input data

Required:
Hydrodynamic
information
Optional:
Population
distribution

Required:
Area
characteristics
(including
demography)
and assessment
of the sources of
flood hazard
Optional:
Hydrodynamic
information

Country

Netherlands

UK
Average

Simple

Ease of
application

Quite comprehensive. Push

the analyst to consider many
factors and therefore do a
more comprehensive
assessment of the area
Can be applied without a
detailed hydrodynamic
model

Very easy and quick to apply,

given information on the
hydrodynamic

Main strengths

Table 2 Comparison between the three analysed models and summary of the recommendations

Many parameters need to be

estimated, although it proved to
be linearly sensitive to the
variation of the parameters. The
sensitivity to the change in flood
warning policies and in the
vulnerability of the area
(including type of buildings)
appears too low, thus not well
captured by the model

Developed for the 1953 flood in

the Netherlands, and including
implicitly the information on the
area, it might not provide good
results if applied to very
different areas or modern data
set

Main weaknesses

Identification of
dangerous places
Broad-scale flood
risk assessment
Comparison between
different structural
interventions for
managing flood
risks
Rough estimations of
the effects of nonstructural
interventions (e.g.
warning, see Note
2)

Identification of
dangerous
locations
Broad-scale flood
risk assessment
Comparison between
different structural
interventions for
managing flood
risks
Rough estimations of
the effects of nonstructural
interventions (e.g.
warning, see Note
2)

Recommended use

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1109

123

Original
scope

Assessment
of loss of
life due to
dam
breach

Method\model

Life Safety
Model

Table 2 continued

Input data

Required:
Hydrodynamic
information,
number of
people,
characteristic of
the buildings
Optional:
Detailed
demography

Country

Canada

Main strengths

Very detailed in presenting

the outputs.
Accounts for possible nonstructural intervention (e.g.
warning and evacuation
strategies). Provide a
dynamic model and
visualisation of the event.

Ease of
application
Complex

Recommended use

Identification of
dangerous places
Detailed flood risk
assessment
Comparison between
different structural
interventions for
managing flood
risks
Detailed comparison
of non-structural
intervention (e.g.
warning and
evacuation) for
managing flood
risk
Emergency planning
and event
management

Main weaknesses

Data-hungry, and sensitive to

some of the parameters,
especially building resilience.
Some of these parameters might
be eliminated to reduce the
variability in the results
Validated for North America.
Caution is needed when applied
elsewhere.

1110
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1111

7 Conclusions
This paper presents a comparison between three methods for estimating fatalities due to
flooding, using the 1953 Canvey Island (UK) flood as a case study. This analysis shows
that these methods can be used as part of flood risk assessments to assess consequences and
estimate damages for an assessment of consequence and quantitative estimate of the
damage as part of flood risk assessments. However, these assessments should account for
the uncertainty of these methods by providing order of magnitude estimates instead of
absolute numbers of fatalities, and performing sensitivity tests to take into account how the
uncertainty in the input data is transferred into the estimated number of fatalities.
The studied methods can be particularly useful for scenario comparison, and for
assessing the benefit of structural and non-structural options for managing the flood risk.
The methods produce maps of dangerous locations and fatalities and could, therefore, be
potentially powerful if used for awareness-raising.
Each of the methods has an appropriate scale for the application that should be
respected; the results should not be extrapolated to a different scale for which they have
been calculated. Also, the application of these methods requires a characterisation of the
area, including making assumption on peoples responses. This should be therefore done
by working with people who have detailed knowledge of the communities at risk.
Evaluating risk to people should be part of the good practice in assessing flood risk. The
methods analysed in this paper, if applied appropriately (and accounting for their
respective limitations), can be fit this purpose, as well as informing flood risk managers and
emergency planners on potential benefits of structural and non-structural measures for
managing flood risk.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Dr Sally Priest (Flood Hazard Research Centre,
Middlesex University) and Dr Christos Gouramanis (Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University) for providing their valuable comments on the research work and the paper.

References
Aboelata MA, Bowles DS (2005) LIFESim: a model for estimating dam failure life loss. Institute for water
resources, US Army Corps of Engineers and Australian National Committee on Large Dams
Aboelata M, Bowles DS, McClelland DM (2003) A model for estimating dam failure life loss. In Proceedings of the Australian committee on large dams risk workshop, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
Allen F, Price W, Inglis C (1954) Model experiments on the storm surge of 1953 in the Thames Estuary and
the reduction of future surges. Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers, vol 4
Ashby G, Lenting V, Chapman G, Clarke S (2003) Thames coast flood risk assessment, final report.
Environment Waikato and Thames-coromandel district council, Hamilton East, New Zealand
Barsby G (2001) Canvey Island, Tempus Publishing Limited, Gloucestershire, UK
Baxter P (2003) The east coast big flood programme, 31 January to 1 February 1953: human impacts and
mitigation of North Sea storm surge floods, a summary of the human disaster. Philos Trans R Soc
363:12931312
Bodleian Libraries, www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk. Accessed 9 Feb 2012
Brown J, Spencer T, Moeller I (2007) Modelling storm surge flooding of an urban area with particular
reference to modelling uncertainties: a case study of Canvey Island, United Kingdom. Water Resources
Research 43
Canvey Island archive. http://canveyisland.org.uk/. Accessed 03 Nov 2010
De Bruijn K (2005) Resilience and flood risk management: a systems approach applied to lowland rivers.
PhD Dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, Delft University Press

123

1112

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

De Bruijn KM (2010) Casualty risks in the discussion on new flood protection standards in the Netherlands.
In: De Warchien D et al (eds) Flood recovery, innovation and response II. Wessex Institute of
Technology, Southampton
De Bruijn KM, Klijn F (2009) Risky places in the Netherlands: a first approximation for floods. J Flood Risk
Manag 2:5867
De Bruijn KM, van Buren R, Roscoe K (2009) Mapping casualty risks in the Netherlands. Deltares report
T2603. Deltares, Delft
Di Mauro M, de Bruijn KM (2012) Application and validation of mortality functions to assess the consequences of flooding to people. J Flood Risk Manag, Article first published online, February 2012
Di Mauro M, Lumbroso D (2008) Hydrodynamic and loss of life modelling for the 1953 Canvey Island
flood. Proceedings the International Conference Flood Risk, Oxford
Di Mauro M, Priest S, Harthman J (2010) Integrating emergency responders experiences into flood incident
management tools. In: Proceedings of Defra\environment agency flood and coastal erosion risk
management conference FCERM [ 10
Di Mauro M, Lumbroso D, Tagg A (2011) Agent-based modelling to inform flood emergency management.
J Emerg Manag 9(2):7179
Elford D (2006) We are in for a high tide tonight, essex police museum history notebook, issue 27, available
at www.essex.police.uk/museum. Accessed 9 Feb 2012
European Environment Agency (2001) Sustainable water use in Europe, part 3: extreme hydrological
events: floods and droughts. Environmental issue report No 21, EEA, Copenhagen
Graham W (1999) A procedure for estimating loss of life caused by dam failure. US Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Report DSO-99-06
HM Government (2010) The flood and water management Act 210. UK Statutory Instrument No. 2169
HR Wallingford and Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre (2006) Flood risks to people
phase II. Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme
ISO (2002) ISO/IEC Guide 73: Risk managementvocabularyguidelines for use in standards. Int Org
Stand
Johnstone WM, Sakamoto D, Assaf H, Bourban S (2005) Architecture, modelling framework and validation
of BC hydros virtual reality life safety model. ISSH, Stochastic Hydraulics
Johnstone WM, Alexander D, Underwood D, Clark J (2006) LSM system V1.0: guidelines, procedures and
calibration manual. BC Hydro Engineering
Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK, Vrouwenvelder AC (2008) Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to
floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method. Natural Hazard 46:353389
Klijn F, Baan P, De Bruijn KM, Kwadijk J (2007) Overstromingsrisicos in Nederland in een veranderend
klimaat. Verwachtingen, schattingen en berekeningen voor het project Nederland Later. WL | Delft
Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands (In Dutch)
Kok M, Huizinga HJ, Vrouwenvelder AC, Van den Braak WEM (2005) Standaardmethode 2005. Schade en
slachtoffers als gevolg van overstromingen. Rapport 999.10, HKV Lijn in Water, Lelystad
Koshimura S, Oie T, Yanagisawa H, Imamura F (2009) Developing fragility functions for tsunami damage
estimation using numerical model and post tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Coastal Eng J
51:243273
Lhomme J, Gutierrez Andres J, Weisgerber A, Davison M, Mulet-Marti J, Cooper A (2010) Testing a new
two-dimensional flood modelling system: analytical tests and application to a flood event. J Flood Risk
Manag 3:3351
Life Safety Model for better flood emergency management, www.lifesafetymodel.net. Accessed 9 Feb 2012
Lumbroso D, Johnstone W, De Bruijn K, Di Mauro M, Lence B, Tagg A (2010) Modelling mass evacuations
to improve the emergency planning for floods in the UK, The Netherlands and North America. In:
Proceedings of the international conference on emergency preparedness (InterCEPt): the challenges of
mass evacuation, Birmingham
Marchand M, Buurman J, Pribadi A, Kurniawan A (2009) Damage and casualties modelling as part of a
vulnerability assessment for tsunami hazards: a case study from Aceh, Indonesia. J Flood Risk Manag
2:120131
Messner F, Meyer V (2006) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perceptionchallenges for flood damage
research. In: Schanze J, Zeman E, Marsalek J (eds) Flood risk managementhazards, vulnerability and
mitigation measures. Nato Science Series, Springer Publisher
Murata S (2010) Tsunami: to survive from tsunami. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore. ISBN
9789814277471
Parker DJ, Priest SJ, Tapsell SM (2009) Understanding and enhancing the publics behavioural response to
flood warning information. Meteorol Appl 16:103114

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 63:10831113

1113

Peduzzi P, Dao H, Herold C, Mouton F (2009) Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural
hazards: the Disaster Risk Index. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:11491159
Priest S, Wilson T, Tapsell S (2007) Building a model to estimate risk to life for European flood events
Final Report. FloodSite Project report T10-07-10
RESCDAM (2001) Development of rescue actions based on dam-break flood analysis. RESCDAM project
final report
Sakamoto D, Johnston B, Lind N (2004) BC hydro life safety model formal model description. BC Hydro
Engineering
Samuels P, Gouldby B (2009) Language of risk: project definitions. FloodSite Project Report T32-04-01
Southall H (2005) Vision of Britain. www.visionofbritain.org.uk. Accessed 14 Jan 2011
Udale-Clarke H, Ramsbottom D, Dyer B, Wade S, Segura Dominguez S, Bain V, Davison M, Surendran S
(2005) Flood risk assessment guidance for new development P. 2: Framework and guidance for
assessing and managing flood risk for new development. Defra/Environment agency flood and coastal
defence R&D programme, Technical Report FD2320/TR2

123