Building-level physical vulnerability in Europe: Exterior vs interior indicators and GIS–BIM approaches for multiple-hazard risks: A systematic review

dc.contributor.authorSteffen Neuner
dc.contributor.authorMunschauer, C.
dc.contributor.authorFekete, A.
dc.contributor.authorStellacci, S.
dc.contributor.authorBuzna, L.
dc.contributor.authorChovanec, D.
dc.contributor.authorHolla, K.
dc.contributor.authorKockar, S.
dc.contributor.authorLeopold, U.
dc.contributor.authorLi, R.
dc.contributor.authorYaghoubi, A. R.
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, D.
dc.contributor.authorFerreira da Silva, C.
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-31T09:00:08Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.date.updated2026-07-30T11:58:07Z
dc.description.abstractThis paper presents a systematic literature review of building-level physical vulnerability indicators in Europe, with a specific focus on the distinction between exterior and interior indicators and on the role of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in assessment workflows. This study identifies existing gaps in the literature in regard to (i) the systematic integration of interior and exterior vulnerability indicators, (ii) pragmatic interoperability between GIS and BIM in assessment workflows, and (iii) more transparent weighting and validation procedures to improve transferability and comparability across different hazards and contexts. Across 26 peer-reviewed scientific publications (2000–2025), we extracted 121 indicators and analysed their use by hazard type, indicator location (interior/exterior), digital tools (GIS/BIM), weighting, and validation process. Most assessments rely on exterior indicators (e.g., material, number of floors, roof type, openings), while only three of the included studies explicitly incorporate interior indicators. GIS is widely used for data collection, mapping, and spatial analysis of vulnerable buildings. At the same time, BIM has so far been rarely leveraged despite its potential to capture interior characteristics and component-level detail needed for robust building-level assessments. The hazards most frequently addressed are landslides, floods, and dynamic flooding, whereas heatwaves – despite their high historic mortality rates in Europe – remain underrepresented. Indicator weighting approaches vary (expert-based, statistical, multi-criteria), and empirical validation is limited. These identified gaps show potential future research directions.eng
dc.identifier.citationSteffen Neuner, Munschauer, C., Fekete, A., Stellacci, S., Buzna, L., Chovanec, D., Holla, K., Kockar, S., Leopold, U., Li, R., Yaghoubi, A. R., Yilmaz, D., & Ferreira da Silva, C. (2026). Building-level physical vulnerability in Europe: Exterior vs interior indicators and GIS–BIM approaches for multiple-hazard risks: A systematic review. Urban Climate, 68, Article 103042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2026.103042
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.uclim.2026.103042
dc.identifier.issn2212-0955
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10071/38096
dc.language.isoeng
dc.peerreviewedyes
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation101147113
dc.relationUIDP/04466/2025
dc.relationUIDB/04466/2025
dc.relation1/0696/26
dc.relation1/0220/25
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.subjectPhysical vulnerabilityeng
dc.subjectBuilding resilienceeng
dc.subjectMulti-riskeng
dc.subjectVulnerability indicatorseng
dc.subjectNatural hazardeng
dc.subjectGIS-BIMeng
dc.titleBuilding-level physical vulnerability in Europe: Exterior vs interior indicators and GIS–BIM approaches for multiple-hazard risks: A systematic revieweng
dc.typearticle
dc.volume68
iscte.identifier.cienciahttps://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/id/ci-pub-119393
iscte.journalUrban Climate

Ficheiros

Pacote original

A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
A carregar...
Nome:
article_119393.pdf
Tamanho:
1.29 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
Versão Editora