Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Comparative tsunami vulnerability assessment of an urban area:

An analysis of Setbal city, Portugal
Angela Santos a, Alexandre O. Tavares b, Antonio Emidio a, *
a
Centre for Geographical Studies, Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, Universidade de Lisboa, Edifcio da Faculdade de Letras,
Alameda da Universidade, 1600-214 Lisboa, Portugal
b
Centro de Estudos Sociais e Dep. de Ci^encias da Terra da, Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Portugal's historical vulnerability to natural hazards has been well documented and the need exists to
Available online create a local assessment framework at the municipal scale. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to
implement and compare two methodologies for assessing the vulnerability of buildings in urban area of
Keywords: Setbal city. In this study, the area inundated by the tsunami was obtained from other authors who
Urban area carried out the tsunami numerical simulation of the 1755 Lisbon Tsunami in Setbal. The methodologies
Tsunami
used were the PTVA e 3 model and Model B, which incorporate several parameters that inuence
Vulnerability
vulnerability. These parameters were dened on the basis of post-tsunami eld surveys carried out by
PTVA-3
Setbal city
other authors. They were classied according to their inuence on the capacity to protect or cause
damage and incorporated into a GIS environment by applying multi-criteria analysis and calculating
vulnerability indexes. The results show the presence of 481 potentially affected buildings. Approximately
90% (using both methodologies) were classied as very low or low vulnerability. Within these categories,
it is important to note that two buildings associated with the emergency response service are potentially
affected, in addition to ve buildings important to the normal functioning of society. The buildings that
were classied as high vulnerability are storage facilities used by shermen and an annex to the port of
Setbal. In addition, the PTVA e 3 model highlights the number of oors in the buildings. The methods
can be developed to include physical, social and economic indicators.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction capacity to assess vulnerability is seen as an essential step towards

Despite efforts to reduce vulnerability to disasters, there has
been an increase of the impact of hazards on society, with com-
munities being more vulnerable than ever (Pine, 2009, p. 285).
Among the factors that led to this are the mobility and the con-
centration of people, activities and critical infrastructures in risk
areas, as for example, coastal regions (Queiro  s, 2009; Wisner,
Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004, p. 447).
Regardless of the importance and current interest surrounding
the concept of vulnerability, there is no clear and consensual de-
nition of this term: different approaches and conceptual models
may be found in the literature on the subject depending on
research orientation and perspectives (Cutter, Emrich, Webb, &
Morath, 2009, p. 44). Birkmann (2006) considers that the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: angela.santos@campus.ul.pt (A. Santos), atavares@ci.uc.pt
(A.O. Tavares), a.emidio@campus.ul.pt (A. Emidio).
reducing risk. In this sense, there has been a growing interest and
studies produced on assessing vulnerability associated with natural
hazards (Adger, 2006; Jeffers, 2013; Kappes, Papathoma-Kohle, &
Keiler, 2012; Santos, Tavares, & Ze^zere, 2014).
Following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, various methodol-
ogies have been developed to assess vulnerability to various types
of natural hazards, including tsunamis (Atillah et al., 2011;
Dall'Osso, Gonella, Gabbianelli, Withycombe, & Dominey-Howes,
2009; Dominey-Howes & Papathoma, 2007; Eckert, Jelinek, Zeug,
& Krausmann, 2012; Ghobarah, Saatcioglub, & Nistorb, 2006; Ismail
et al., 2012; Leone, Lavigneb, Parisc, Denaina, & Vineta, 2011;
Murthy, Usha, Pari, & Reddy, 2011; Papathoma, Dominey-Howes,
Zong, & Smith, 2003; Pendleton, Barras, Williams, & Twichell,
2010, p. 26; Reese et al., 2007; Sinaga, Nugroho, Lee, & Suh, 2011;
Taubenbock et al., 2008; Usha, Murthy, Reddy, & Mishra, 2012;
Wood, 2009). To date, most of the existing approaches assume
that vulnerability would be uniform across the entire inundated
area, although Papathoma et al. (2003) demonstrate that it should
be assessed as a dynamic component that changes in time and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.08.009
0143-6228/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
20 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29
space and depends on a series of parameters. These conclusions led
to many studies which combine a set of parameters to create a
vulnerability index using a weighted average, as is the case of the
PTVA (Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability Assessment) model
(Papathoma & Dominey-Howes, 2003; Papathoma et al., 2003),
later revised by Dominey-Howes and Papathoma (2007) e PTVA 2,
and by Dall'Osso et al. (2009) e PTVA 3. This methodology (PTVA)
was rst applied in Greece in 2003, then tested on the effects of the
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in the Republic of the Maldives, and
subsequently improved and applied in Sydney in 2009 (PTVA-3).
The Sydney study focused only on building vulnerability, analyzing
the data in relation to each building and the surrounding area,
therefore on a larger scale in comparison to the other models.
Before the PTVA-3 model (Dall'Osso et al., 2009), the different
methodologies assessed the vulnerability to tsunamis by analyzing
land use, population and buildings (not taking into account many
characteristics of each building). In many cases the information was
obtained by remote sensing and not by eld work. The PTVA-3
model details the assessment of vulnerability to tsunamis
focusing exclusively on buildings. It considers a high number of
parameters validated in post-tsunami eld surveys (Dalrymple &
Kriebel, 2005; Dominey-Howes & Papathoma, 2007; Olwig et al.,
2007; Reese et al., 2007), and introduces a rigorous method of
weighting them. Tarbotton et al. (2012) considered this to be the
best methodology for assessing the vulnerability of buildings to the
effects of tsunamis.
The 1755 Lisbon Tsunami which inundated the Portuguese
coastline caused many fatalities and damage (Santos, Koshimura, &
Imamura, 2009). Tsunami impact assessment is even more relevant
due to changes in land use and occupation along the coast, as well
as in population density and growing urbanization. (Freire,
Aubrecht, & Wesgscheider, 2013; Mendes-Victor et al., 2005;
Nunes, Ferreira, & Lus, 2009; Ribeiro, Silva, & Leita ~o, 2011).
Given the existing historical reports associated with the occur-
rence of this type of event in Portugal (Santos & Koshimura, 2013b;
Santos et al. 2009), the importance of an objective assessment of
the exposure and vulnerability of coastal areas is clear, particularly
with regard to urban areas, using a local-based methodology.
Bearing in mind the growing expansion of cities and infrastructures
built in coastal areas, it is necessary to identify the most vulnerable
Fig. 1. Study area. a) Municipality of Setbal; b) Study area; c) Subsections of the study area.
areas and buildings to tsunami inundation in order to implement
specic regulatory standards for building projects, improve emer-
gency response plans and apply the appropriate mitigation mea-
sures. The aim of this study is therefore to apply the methodology
to the urban center of a medium-sized Portuguese city. Two
methodologies for assessing the structural vulnerability of build-
ings in the event of a tsunami were used for the city of Setbal,
incorporating the results of the tsunami numerical modeling pro-
duced by Santos and Koshimura (2013a). To achieve this, three
objectives were identied for the study:

the most vulnerable infrastructures in the urban coastal area

the parameters which have the greatest inuence on variations
in structural vulnerability in the buildings potentially affected

how a tsunami with characteristics similar to the one which
took place in 1755 would affect essential facilities and services
in the urban area of Setbal city
Description of the study area
The study area is located in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, in the
urban area of the city of Setbal next to the estuary of the River
Sado (Fig. 1). The municipality of Setbal, which has a total area of
approximately 172 km2 and 121,185 inhabitants (INE, 2011), is one
of the main urban centers in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, both in
population and functional terms (CCDR/LVT, 2010, p. 368), due to its
excellent (road, rail and maritime) access and its proximity to Lis-
bon. These factors have made Setbal an average-sized Portuguese
city and one of the main economic centers in the country, whose
commercial and industrial importance is highlighted by the
numerous infrastructures and facilities located along its coastline
(CM Setbal, 2013). In terms of the tsunami hazard, Setbal is
classied as at moderate, based on tsunami travel times and wave
height (Santos & Koshimura, 2013a).
The study area (Fig. 1b) was dened by the cross between the
inundated area calculated by Santos and Koshimura (2013a) and
the urban subsections of the coastal area. A total of 66 statistical
subsections were considered (Fig. 1c), corresponding to an area of
approximately 1.1 km2.
 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29 21

Fig. 2. Photographs of the urban coastal area of Setbal (Photos taken by the rst author on October 29, 2011).

The study area has a gentle slope (less than two degrees), with
The fact that the urban area is densely populated and is a low
altitudes ranging from 3 to 4 m in most of the area. The geology area of less than 4 m with gentle slope (Santos & Koshimura,
consists mainly of alluvial deposits and landll sites. A small number 2013a);
of units composed of sand and clay can also be found, particularly in
The presence of various industrial and port infrastructures
the northeast and northwest zones of the study area (LNEG, 1994). which are important to the local and national economy;
Land use and occupation are mainly linked to the port areas,
The existence of sensitive infrastructures and facilities vital to
industry and commercial activities associated with shing. The the normal functioning of society.
resident population represented by a total of 923 inhabitants,
equivalent to 0.8% of the total for the municipality (INE, 2011).
Materials and methods
These numbers are explained by the fact that most of the sub-
sections are dedicated to commerce, services and tourism. Tourism
The cartographic sources used in this study included the inun-
stands out due to the high concentration of daily commuters,
dated area produced by the tsunami numerical model of Santos and
related not only to its riverfront, restaurants and gastronomy, but
Koshimura (2013a), which supports the entire analytical process.
also to the ferry connection to the beaches of the Tro  ia peninsula, a
This model, which has a resolution of 10 m, takes a tsunami with
tourist destination. 388 residential buildings were identied, 257
the same characteristics as the one which occurred on 1 November
(66%) of which are exclusively residential, 79 (20%) mainly resi-
1755 (Fig. 3).
dential and 52 (14%) mainly non-residential (INE, 2011).
The tsunami numerical model results show the tsunami reaches
The reports on the 1755 earthquake and tsunami for Setbal
400 m inland. The inundation depth is less than 1 m over most of
indicate the existence of three waves ranging from 6 to 17.5 m in
the area, with the highest values (less than 4 m) found in the area
height which entered the city and inundated it up to a distance of
around the three docks and the Setbal Port terminals (Fig. 3)
750 m, probably causing over 2000 deaths (Santos & Koshimura,
(Santos & Koshimura, 2013a).
2013a). The historical accounts also report that The largest
In this study the PTVA-3 model was chosen for three reasons:
destruction was at Fontainhas and Troino neighborhoods. []
the relatively recent and up-to-date methodology for parameters
many people died under the ruins of the buildings and drowned on
considered to inuence the structural vulnerability of buildings;
the waves, there were also res that caused big loss. (Santos &
the application of an analytic hierarchy process for weighting the
Koshimura, 2013b). The choice of this area was essentially based
various parameters; the fact that it could be applied on a local scale.
on three main factors (Fig. 2):
In addition to this model, the Structural Vulnerability Index (SVI)

Fig. 3. Tsunami inundation numerical model for the urban centre of Setbal (Santos & Koshimura, 2013a).
22 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29

Fig. 4. Diagram of the various stages.

proposed by Ismail et al. (2012) was also applied, henceforth
referred to as Model B, since it was developed from the PTVA-3
model. This study enables comparisons to be made between the
two above methodologies applied to the same area, discussion of
the results and identication of the positive and negative points of
each. It therefore brings a new approach to tsunami vulnerability
studies, since these methodologies have previously only been
applied separately and never to the same area. The models involve
the use of GIS-based multi-criteria analysis in order to calculate the
Structural Vulnerability Index (SVI) resulting from the set of pa-
rameters classied. The advantages include the capacity to incor-
porate information into spatial databases and the possibility of
easily updating the parameters used in the analysis at any time to
produce alternative scenarios in particular spatial contexts. In
addition, it should be emphasized that GIS allows for the use of
various tools, ranging from data collection to the visualization of
results to support decision-making.
Using these two building vulnerability assessment models in
conjunction with the inundated area obtained from the tsunami
numerical model, the affected buildings were identied and the
various parameters classied with the aid of orthophotography
validated by eldwork (Fig. 4).
The PTVA-3 model
The PTVA-3 model, developed by Dall'Osso et al. (2009) for use
in urban coastal areas, differs from its predecessors (that take into
account representative attributes of buildings, population and land

Table 1
Classication of attributes inuencing the structural vulnerability of buildings (Dall'Osso et al., 2009).
 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29 23

Table 2
Classication of attributes inuencing the level of protection of buildings (Dall'Osso et al., 2009).

Table 3 which uses the characteristics of buildings and their surrounding

Classication of inundation depth (Ex) in PTVA-3 model (Dall'Osso et al., 2009). area to identify vulnerability in terms of exposure and prolonged
Inundation depth contact with inundated area. The model is based on post-tsunami
Original 0e1 m 1e2 m 2e3 m 3e4 m >4 m
eld-survey used to analyze the parameters with the greatest in-
Reclassied 1 2 3 4 5 uence on variations in vulnerability, subsequently assigning
weighting coefcients according to their importance and calcu-
lating composite vulnerability indexes. The parameters are
collected and classied at intervals ranging from 1 to 1, in
use) focusing on structural vulnerability, collecting data on build- which positive values indicate increasing vulnerability and nega-
ings and the surrounding area, and is therefore able to assess tive values lower vulnerability. This use of positive and negative
vulnerability on a high scale of analysis. It is a deterministic model values enables the overall score for a building to be expanded to

Fig. 5. Diagram of the various stages.

24 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29

Table 4
Classication of inundation depth (Ex) in Model B (Ismail et al., 2012).

Inundation depth (m)

Original <0.5 0.5e1 1e2 2e3 >3

Reclassied 1 2 3 4 5

reect a wider range of values and the classication is based on the

approach used by Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley (2003). Thus, a
building with a score of 0 for each parameter represents average
structural vulnerability. A total of 13 parameters were considered,
seven of which concerned building structure (Table 1), four the
level of protection (Table 2), one the inundation depth (Table 3) and
one vulnerability to water intrusion.
Since the attributes do not all have the same importance in
terms of inuencing vulnerability and in order to avoid subjective
assessments of the signicance of each, the analytic hierarchy Fig. 7. Distribution of buildings by vulnerability class in PTVA-3 model.
process was applied to assign the weightings of the various pa-
rameters. The analytic hierarchy process, which is based on pair-
wise comparisons of criteria, depends on expert judgments to
vulnerability to water intrusion (WV); exclusion of the protective
produce the priority scales. In this way a decision is ranked as a set
brick wall (w); classication of all parameters at intervals varying
of attributes/alternatives, constructing a pair-wise comparison
from one (minimum vulnerability) to ve (maximum vulnera-
matrix to enable them to be classied in order of importance (Saaty,
bility), alteration of the inundation depth category (Ex) to a
2008).
maximum of 3 m instead of the 5 m used in the PTVA-3 model,
The nal result of the PTVA-3 model is a Relative Vulnerability
(Table 4), based on the tsunami inundation modeling. Furthermore,
Index (RVI) calculated for each building, which varies from one
a vulnerability index was calculated for each stage. The Physical
(very low vulnerability) to ve (very high vulnerability). This index
Vulnerability Index e PVI- is assessed on the basis of a set of ve
is calculated as the weighted sum of two separate elements: the
parameters dened by the geomorphological characteristics of the
vulnerability of the carrying capacity of the building structure
coastal area. Considering the scale of analyzes of the studied area,
(associated with the hydrodynamic force of the water ow e g e
only the last stage will be used in the study, obtaining a Structural
and structural vulnerability e SV), and the vulnerability of the
Vulnerability Index e SVI. This is designated in this study by Model
building elements associated with prolonged contact with water
B.
intrusion (WV). The parameters, weightings and the integration of
The weighting coefcients are the same as those used in the
the various components are shown in the diagram in Fig. 5.
PTVA-3 model, with changes made only to the equation for inte-
grating the parameters referring to level of protection (Prot), due to
Model B
the exclusion of the above mentioned parameter corresponding to
protective brick walls (w).
More recently, Ismail et al. (2012) proposed a tsunami vulner-
ability assessment technique, which was structured in three stages
featuring different scales of analysis. Each stage was inuenced by Results
the results of the previous one e classication of the tsunami
impact (macro scale), assessment of physical vulnerability (local A total of 481 buildings were identied as potentially affected,
scale), and assessment of structural vulnerability (micro scale). On 61% (292) of which were dedicated exclusively to commerce and
the last stage, the above authors based their proposal on the services, 28% (135) were mixed use and only 11% (54) were exclu-
approach presented by Dall'Osso et al. (2009) e PTVA-3, by incor- sively residential. Identication of the building stock highlights the
porating some small changes: exclusion of the element referring to two main economic activities characteristic of this riverside area e

Fig. 6. Relative vulnerability index (RVI) of PTVA-3 model.

 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29 25

Fig. 8. Buildings classied as high vulnerability in PTVA-3 model.

commerce and catering associated with the shing sector and in-
dustry in the port of Setbal.
The overall results indicate very low levels of vulnerability. In
general, the most vulnerable buildings were located in the Setbal
port area and the area surrounding the three docks, due to four
main factors: the inundation depth values, number of oors in the
buildings, ground oor hydrodynamics and building order. The
buildings mainly comprised warehouses and annexes/storage fa-
cilities for sherman and the Setbal port, typically with a single-
storey typology and windowless ground oor.
The classication obtained using the PTVA-3 model varies from
very low to high vulnerability. Out of a total of 481 affected
buildings, 302 (63%) were classied as very low vulnerability, 147
low vulnerability (30%), 28 moderate vulnerability (6%), and only
four as high vulnerability (1%). No buildings were classied as very
high vulnerability (Figs. 6 and 7).
Four buildings located in the dock furthest to the left of the
study area and in the Setbal port terminal were classied as high
vulnerability. These buildings comprise storage facilities, and an-
nexes for shermen and a warehouse (Fig. 8). They fall into this
category because of the inundation depth, the fact that they are
windowless or have few windows, shallow foundations, and also
because they have only one oor.
28 buildings, also not used for residential purposes, were
registered as having moderate vulnerability. Essentially three types
of building were identied with particular characteristics in this
category, as shown in Fig. 9: warehouses in an advanced state of
disrepair, annexes to restaurants situated near the docks, and

Fig. 9. General characteristics and examples of buildings classied as average vulnerability in PTVA-3 model.
26 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29

warehouses located in the Setbal port area. They are included in

this category due to their fragile building type, the fact that they
have only one oor, their state of repair and their shallow
foundations.
The great majority of the buildings were classied as low and
very low vulnerability. The central zone in the study area is high-
lighted in these categories, due to the concentration of various
buildings that would be of particular importance to any emergency
response, as well as to the normal functioning of society (Fig. 10).
These buildings comprise a re station (marked no. 1 in Fig. 10),
kindergarten (no. 2), court (no. 3), the Setbal Port Captain's Ofce
(no. 4), the Setbal and Sesimbra Port Administration building (no.
5), police station (no. 6) and another Setbal Port Administration
building (no. 7). Although potentially affected, all these buildings
would only be hit by inundation to a height of less than 1 m and the
vulnerability classication therefore varies between very low and
low according the number of oors (only one oor e low vulner- Fig. 11. Distribution of buildings by class of vulnerability in model B.
ability; more than one oor e very low vulnerability).
The results of applying Model B to the buildings identied port of Setbal and are associated with inundation depths that are
indicate that 94% (453) of the buildings were classied as very low higher than those of the other buildings.
vulnerability. Of the remainder, 26 buildings were classied as low The results obtained using this methodology show a clear
vulnerability and only two as moderate vulnerability (Fig. 11). relationship between the areas with a greater inundation depth
Hence none of the buildings were classied as high or very high and the buildings classied as more vulnerable, and there is no
vulnerability. longer a marked distinction between single-storey buildings and
Fig. 12 shows the most vulnerable (low and moderate vulnera- those with more than one oor as indicated by the PTVA-3 model.
bility) buildings in the area surrounding the port of Setbal and the These changes are mainly due to not using the water intrusion
dock on the eastern part of the study area. The exception to this are parameter (WV), and the nal result is quite similar to the struc-
the four buildings located in the dock on the west which, as in the tural vulnerability index for the PTVA-3 Model. Overall, however,
PTVA-3 model, stand out from the other buildings in the area, Model B classies some buildings in the port of Setbal as having
comprising annexes and storage facilities for shermen. The two higher levels of vulnerability in comparison to the PTVA-3 model,
buildings with moderate vulnerability, comprising one-storey due to the changes made to the inundation depth category (Ex),
warehouses with a windowless ground oor, are located in the therefore highlighting the buildings in this area.

Fig. 10. Location and classication of buildings of particular importance in PTVA-3 model.
 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29
Fig. 12. Structural Vulnerability Index (SVI) of model B.
Discussion and conclusions
The general results of the two methodologies clearly show the
low vulnerability of the buildings in the study area. The main
reason is due to the low inundation depth (Ex) and building ma-
terial (m). This reects similarities with other results obtained by
applying these methodologies in other coastal areas of Portugal
(Barros, Emdio, Tavares, & Santos, 2013). Similar results were also
obtained in other countries where the overall results are low/
moderate and no buildings are classied as very high vulnerability,
for ex. in Australia and Italy (Dall'Osso et al., 2009; Dall'Osso et al.,
2010).
However, a comparison of the results of the two methodologies
reveals certain differences in the classications obtained. Even
though the two results indicate low levels of vulnerability overall,
Model B (Ismail et al., 2012) still presents a signicant number of
buildings with lower vulnerability in relation to the PTVA-3 model
(Dall'Osso et al., 2009) (170), and only three buildings are assigned
a higher classication (Fig. 13).
The fact that these buildings have a higher level of vulnerability
is explained by the changes made to Model B in terms of the
inundation depth classication, since this model allows for a
greater differentiation between the inundation depth classes,
which is more appropriate for the Setbal case study. Thus, build-
ings with the same inundation depth had a higher level of
vulnerability in this parameter in the model B compared with the
PTVA-3 model. One limitation of Model B is the fact that it does not
Fig. 13. Variation in Model B results in relation to the PTVA-3 model.
27
recalculate the weightings attributed to the parameters for the
degree of protection component, given that it excludes one of them
(protective brick walls (w)).
The vulnerability to water intrusion component (which features
in the PTVA-3 model) signicantly highlights single-storey build-
ings, raising their level of vulnerability. The parameters with more
inuence in the nal results are the number of stories (s), the
building material (m), the presence of movable objects around the
building (mo) and the inundation depth (ex). In addition to the
maximum weighting coefcient, the parameter referring to the
number of stories also has a strong relationship with other pa-
rameters such as building materials (m) and foundation type (f),
since buildings with a large number of stories usually have a very
resistant structure and deep foundations.
The results clearly highlight the Setbal port area, where the
typical building has a single-storey typology and windowless
ground oor. Around this buildings also exists many and large
movable objects (as for example containers) which has a great
potential to cause damage to building structure. In addition, the low
relevance of the level of protection component is emphasized, due
to the lack of coastal protection features and natural barriers.
In the Setbal case study, it may be concluded that Model B is
more suitable for assessing building vulnerability, essentially due to
its classication of the inundation depth and the exclusion of pa-
rameters which overemphasize single-storey buildings, in partic-
ular in an area in which no buildings with more than one oor
would be affected.
28 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29
Although low vulnerability classication was obtained, the area
includes services essential to the emergency response, such as the
re department and police. In addition, several key buildings such
as the kindergarten, court, Setbal Port Captain's Ofce and other
buildings associated with the management and administration of
the port of Setbal were also present in the affected area.
Furthermore, the results show that approximately 900 inhabitants
may be affected, indicating the need for very careful urban planning
taking the potentially affected areas and buildings into account, as
noted by Ribeiro et al. (2011). As mentioned in the Section 2, the
signicant number of daily commuters in this area may also
aggravate the potential consequences of a tsunami, depending on
the season and time of day. Although the methodology is focused
on the buildings, it would be important to add the social
parameters.
Another limitation identied concerns the fact that both models
consider a static inundation, meaning that the direction of the
inundation ow is not included, rather than a hydrodynamic
model. The latter would make it possible to determine the direction
of the ow, which could lead to changes in the order of importance
and weightings assigned to the parameters for shape and orienta-
tion and the presence of movable objects. In addition, the use of a
continuous value scale would allow for greater differentiation of
the vulnerability of each building, rather than a classication based
on ve categories which, in this case study, produces a large per-
centage of buildings classied with the same level of vulnerability
and makes it difcult to ascertain the importance of the various
parameters in terms of the nal results. The advantage of these
models, which make them signicantly different from previous
ones, mainly concern the high scale of analysis, which assigns a
vulnerability index to each building, the large amount of classied
parameters and, above all, the use of the analytic hierarchy process
as an approach to differentiating between the importance of each
parameter using pair-wise comparisons of attributes. This tech-
nique has made the models more accurate and reduced the
subjectivity associated with the original PTVA model. The appli-
cation and comparison of PTVA-3 model (Dall'Osso et al., 2009)
with the model B (Ismail et al., 2012) (which incorporates minor
changes to the PTVA-3) allows highlighting the differences ob-
tained in nal results due to the changes between the two models.
Furthermore, allows identifying positive and negative aspects of
each in order to improve or adjust the methodology. Our analysis,
which produced good results to the study area, underlined the best
two tools of the two models, allowing to be applied to other coastal
areas.
The results also validated the historical accounts of the 1755
Lisbon Tsunami which indicated that the eastern and western parts
of the urban area were indeed the most affected than the central
area.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the TsuRiMa Project e TSUnami
RIsk MAnagement for spatial planning and civil protection (PTDC/
CS-GEO/118992/2010), funded by the Portuguese Foundation for
Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal.
References
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268e281.
Atillah, A., El Hadani, D., Moudni, H., Lesne, O., Renou, C., Mangin, A., et al. (2011).
Tsunami vulnerability and damage assessment in the coastal area of Rabat and
, Morocco. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11, 3397e3414. http://
Sale
dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-3397-2011.
Barros, L., Emdio, A., Tavares, A., & Santos, A. (2013). Metodologias de avaliaa ~o da
vulnerability ao risco de tsunami: aplicaa ~o ao sector costeiro Cova Gala e
Leirosa; Figueira da Foz. In Atas do IX Congresso da Geograa Portuguesa,
839e845, 28e30 Novembro, Evora, Portugal. Available from http://riskam.ul.pt/
images/pdf/ix_cgp_barros_etal_2013.pdf Accessed December 2013.
Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies:
conceptual frameworks and denitions. In J. Birkmann (Ed.), Measuring
vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies (pp. 9e54).
Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
CCDRLVT. (2010). Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Territo 
rio da Area Metropolitana
de Lisboa. Lisboa: Proposta Te cnica Final.
CM Setbal. (2013). C^ amara Municipal de Setbal. Available from http://www.mun-
setubal.pt. Accessed June 2013.
Cutter, S., Boruff, B., & Shirley, W. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental
hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242e261.
Cutter, S., Emrich, C., Webb, J., & Morath, D. (2009). Social vulnerability to climate
variability hazards: A review of the literature. Final Report to Oxfam America.
Available from http://adapt.oxfamamerica.org/resources/Literature_Review.pdf
Accessed May 2013.
Dall'Osso, F., Gonella, M., Gabbianelli, G., Withycombe, G., & Dominey-Howes, D.
(2009). A revised (PTVA) model for assessing the vulnerability of buildings to
tsunami damage. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9, 1557e1565.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1557-2009.
Dall'Osso, F., Maramai, A., Graziani, L., Brizuela, B., Cavalletti, A., Gonella, M., et al.
(2010). Applying and validating the PTVA-3 model at the Aeolian Islands, Italy:
assessment of the vulnerability of buildings to tsunamis. Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences, 10, 1547e1562. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1547-
2010.
Dalrymple, R., & Kriebel, D. (2005). Lessons in engineering from the tsunami in
Thailand. The Bridge, 35(2), 4e13.
Dominey-Howes, D., & Papathoma, M. (2007). Validating a tsunami vulnerability
assessment model (the PTVA model) using eld data from the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami. Natural Hazards, 40, 113e136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-
006-0007-9.
Eckert, S., Jelinek, R., Zeug, G., & Krausmann, E. (2012). Remote sensing-based
assessment of tsunami vulnerability and risk in Alexandria, Egypt. Applied Ge-
ography, 32, 714e723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.08.003.
Freire, S., Aubrecht, C., & Wesgscheider, S. (2013). Advancing tsunami risk assess-
ment by improving spatio-temporal population exposure and evacuation
modeling. Natural Hazards, 68, 1311e1324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-
013-0603-4.
Ghobarah, A., Saatcioglub, M., & Nistorb, I. (2006). The impact of the 26 December
2004 earthquake and tsunami on structures and infrastructure. Engineering
Structures, 28, 312e326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.09.028.
INE. (2011). Censos de Portugal de 2011. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Estatstica.
Available from http://www.ine.pt Accessed August 2013.
Ismail, H., Abd Wahab, A., Mohd Amin, M., Mohd Yunus, M., Jaffar Sidek, F., &
Esfandier, J. B. (2012). A 3-tier tsunami vulnerability assessment technique for
the north-west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Natural Hazards, 63, 549e573.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0166-9.
Jeffers, J. (2013). Integrating vulnerability analysis and risk assessment in ood loss
mitigation: an evaluation of barriers and challenges based on evidence from
Ireland. Applied Geography, 37, 44e51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apgeog.2012.10.011.
Kappes, M., Papathoma-Kohle, M., & Keiler, M. (2012). Assessing physical vulnera-
bility for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Applied Geog-
raphy, 32, 577e590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.002.
Leone, F., Lavigneb, F., Parisc, R., Denaina, J. C., & Vineta, F. (2011). A spatial analysis
of the December 26th, 2004 tsunami-induced damages: lessons learned for a
better risk assessment integrating buildings vulnerability. Applied Geography,
31(1), 363e375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.07.009.
LNEG. (1994). Carta Geolo gica de Portugal, 1:50 000, f. 38B e 39A. Laborato rio
Nacional de Energia e Geologia, Unidade de Investiga~ ao de Geologia e Car-
tograa Geolo  gica.
Mendes-Victor, L., Ribeiro, A., Matias, L., Baptista, M., Miranda, J., Miranda, P., et al.
(2005). Progresses in the assessment of tsunami genesis and impacts around
the Portuguese coasts. In K. Satake (Ed.), Advances in natural and technological
hazards research: Vol. 23. Tsunamis, case studies and recent developments (pp.
217e230). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3331-1_13.
Murthy, M., Usha, T., Pari, Y., & Reddy, N. (2011). Tsunami vulnerability assessment
of Cuddalore using numerical model and GIS. Marine Geodesy, 34(1), 16e28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2011.547797.
Nunes, M., Ferreira, O., & Lus, J. (2009). Tsunami vulnerability zonation in the
Algarve coast (Portugal). Journal of Coastal Research, (SI 56), 876e880.
Olwig, M., Sorensen, M., Rasmussen, M., Danielsen, F., Selvam, V., Hansen, L., et al.
(2007). Using remote sensing to assess the protective role of coastal woody
vegetation against tsunami waves. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
28(13e14), 3153e3169.
Papathoma, M., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2003). Tsunami vulnerability assessment
and its implications for coastal hazard analysis and disaster management
planning, Gulf of Corinth, Greece. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 3,
733e747. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-3-733-2003.
Papathoma, M., Dominey-Howes, D., Zong, Y., & Smith, D. (2003). Assessing tsunami
vulnerability, an example from Herakleio, Crete. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences, 3, 377e389. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-3-377-2003.
Pendleton, E., Barras, J., Williams, S., & Twichell, D. (2010). Coastal vulnerability
assessment of the Northern Gulf of Mexico to sea-level rise and coastal change. U.S.
 A. Santos et al. / Applied Geography 55 (2014) 19e29
Geological Survey Report 2010-1146. Available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/
2010/1146/pdf/ofr2010-1146.pdf Accessed October 2013.
Pine, J. (2009). Natural hazards analysis: Reducing the impact of disasters. New York:
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Queiro s, M. (2009). Riscos e Ordenamento do Territo rio: Prometeus ou Con-
hecimento e Partilha. Revista do Conselho Nacional de Planeamento de
Emerg^ encia, Lisboa, 21, 20e28.
Reese, S., Cousins, W., Power, W., Palmer, N., Tejakusuma, I., & Nugrahadi, S. (2007).
Tsunami vulnerability of buildings and people in South Java e eld observations
after the July 2006 Java tsunami. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 7,
573e589. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-7-573-2007.
~o, P. (2011). High resolution tsunami modelling for the
Ribeiro, J., Silva, A., & Leita
evaluation of potential risk areas in Setbal (Portugal). Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences, 11, 2371e2380. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2371-
2011.
Saaty, T. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International
Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83e98.
Santos, A., & Koshimura, S. (2013a). Tsunami hazards at Setbal urban area
considering the 1755 Lisbon Tsunami. In Atas do IX Congresso da Geograa

Portuguesa, Evora (p. 6). Available from http://riskam.ul.pt/images/pdf/ix_cgp_
santos_koshimura_2013_hazard.pdf Accessed December 2013.
Santos, A., & Koshimura, S. (2013b). Estimating the tsunami parameters of the 1755
Lisbon tsunami in Portugal by the interpretation of the historical accounts. In
Atas do IX Congresso da Geograa Portuguesa, Evora (p. 6). Available from http://
riskam.ul.pt/images/pdf/ix_cgp_santos_koshimura_2013.pdf Accessed
December 2013.
29
Santos, A., Koshimura, S., & Imamura, F. (2009). The 1755 Lisbon tsunami: tsunami
source determination and its validation. Journal of Disaster Research, 4(1), 41e52.
^zere, J. L. (2014). Risk analysis for local management
Santos, P. P., Tavares, A. O., & Ze
from hydro-geomorphologic disaster databases. Environmental Science & Policy,
40, 85e100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.12.007.
Sinaga, T., Nugroho, A., Lee, Y., & Suh, Y. (2011). GIS mapping of tsunami vulnera-
bility: case study of the Jembrana regency in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Civil
Engineering, 15(3), 537e543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12205-011-0741-8.
Tarbotton, C., Dominey-Howes, D., Goff, J., Papathoma-Kohle, M., Dall'Osso, F., &
Turner, I. (2012). GIS-based techniques for assessing the vulnerability of buildings
to tsunami: current approaches and future steps. Geological Society Special
Publication No. 361. In J. Terry, & J. Goff (Eds.), Natural hazards in the Asia-Pacic
region: Recent advances and emerging concepts (pp. 115e126). London.
Taubenbo ck, H., Post, J., Roth, A., Zosseder, K., Strunz, G., & Dech, S. (2008).
A conceptual vulnerability and risk framework as outline to identify capabilities
of remote sensing. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 8, 409e420.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-8-409-2008.
Usha, T., Murthy, M., Reddy, N., & Mishra, P. (2012). Tsunami vulnerability in urban
areas using numerical model and GIS. Natural Hazards, 60, 135e147. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9957-7.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people's
vulnerability and disasters (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Wood, N. (2009). Tsunami exposure estimation with land-cover data: Oregon and
the Cascadia subduction zone. Applied Geography, 29, 158e170. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.08.009.