1: Excel data sheet including geographic coordinates 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... chapter attempts to evaluate the cultural losses by considering both physical damages of the cultural assets and the cultural values. Unlike in the previous chapter, the cultural assets are represented by point data in the GIS map and the types of the cultural assts are specially considered. Since all the data required for the assessment of cultural value as proposed in the methodology described in Chapter 1 are difficult to collect, a simple approach is used in this analysis for the assessment of the level of cultural value of each asset. The same data set collected previously (as in Chapter 2.1.1) and the Excel data sheet (in Figure 2.2) is used in this analysis. However, the digitization of data is different from the previous analysis. Here, the assets are marked as points instead of area polygons. Geocoding is the process of finding associated geographic coordinates (i.e. latitude and longitude) from other geographic data, such as street addresses, or zip codes (postal codes). In this study, the coordinates were found using the addresses of cultural assets. A freely available webtool (or Geocoder) called “GPS Visualizer” was adopted to transform the addresses to coordinates ( It allows the entry of addresses in a list. Here, a sample list can be downloaded in order to have an appropriate style. On the basis of a gazetteer service, addresses are converted to geographic coordinates and the geographical coordinates are displayed in Latitude-Longitude format. These data must be copied into an original address list. The output from the geocoder can be linked with the Excel spreadsheet. The final data set therefore contains the information on latitude, longitude, address, the type of building, the categorization and the dating of each building (Figure ...

Context 2

... 1.1: Changes in Exceedence Probability-Damage Curve as a Result of Adopting Replication Costs (modified from Rodakowski, 1978). ...................................................... 5 Figure 1.2: Proposed methodology for the assessment of cultural losses (Dassanayake and Oumeraci, 2011). .............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 1.3: Depth-damage curves for residential buildings (USACE, 2003, 2006, and Middelmann-Fernandes, 2010) ......................................................................................... 9 Figure 1.4: Expected flood damage due to surging floods (Nadal, 2007) .............................. 10 Figure 1.5: Building collapse curve – Class C buildings - masonry or concrete walls (USACE, 1985) ............................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 1.6: Building damage assessment criteria by (a) Clausen (1989) and (b) Pistrika and Jonkman (2010) .............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 1.7: Level of physical damage in cultural assets related to flood depth and velocity (damage criteria are adopted from USACE, 1985; Clausan, 1989; Queensland Government, 2002; Pistrika and Jonkman , 2010 and Figure 1.3) .................................. 13 Figure 2.1: The Excel Table including the information on the cultural assets in Hamburg- Wilhelmsburg area. ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.2: a) Identification of cultural assets, (e.g. Holy Cross Church and the cemetery in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg), b) digitisation of cultural assets as area polygons and c) all cultural assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg after digitisation. ........................................... 21 Figure 2.3: Estimated flood depths for flooding scenario HH_XR2010A ................................ 22 Figure 2.4: Estimated flow velocities for flooding scenario HH_XR2010A ............................. 23 Figure 2.5: Cultural loss assessment model in ArcGIS Modelbuilder. ................................... 24 Figure 2.6: Calculation of damage level based on flood depth, velocity and depth-velocity product. ........................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.7: Conversion of vector data to raster data .............................................................. 25 Figure 2.8: The level of cultural losses in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area (based on physical damages to cultural assets). ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.9: The percentage of affected grid cells for each loss level. .................................... 26 Figure 3.1: Excel data sheet including geographic coordinates ............................................. 28 Figure 3.2: Digitized cultural assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg as point data. ...................... 29 Figure 3.3: Attribute table which includes geographic coordinates. ....................................... 30 Figure 3.4: GIS model for the assessment of cultural losses based on physical damages and cultural values. ................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 3.5: Allocation of cultural value based on the class of cultural assets. ....................... 32   ...