the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying Compounded Economic Impacts and Disease Burden of Flooding in Can Tho, Vietnam
Abstract. In growing urban areas, floods increasingly threaten daily life, causing economic losses and raising public health burdens through microbial exposure. Yet, risk assessments often treat economic and health impacts separately, overlooking their interconnected nature and potentially biasing adaptation strategies. This study addresses this gap by quantifying spatial and distributional disparities in flood risks across economic and health dimensions in Can Tho City, a flood-prone urban area in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta.
We calibrate flood impact models for the economic sector by estimating residential building losses, and for the health sector by predicting rotavirus A and E. coli concentrations in floodwaters and resulting disease burden. By combining probabilistic flood simulations with exposure data, we develop a multi-risk framework to capture co-occurring economic and health impacts. Economic risk is quantified via Value at Risk (VaR) and Expected Annual Damage (EAD) for fluvial–pluvial flooding, while health risk is expressed through the Population Health at Risk (PHaR) and Expected Annual Cases (EAC).
Results show pronounced spatial disparities in intersecting risks. The highest combined economic and health risks are found in Phu Thu and Thuong Thanh wards (Cai Rang district) and An Binh ward (Ninh Kieu district), while An Hoi, An Lac, and Tan An wards (Ninh Kieu district) experience consistently low risks. These findings highlight how urbanization and flooding interact to shape multi-sector vulnerabilities in delta cities.
Competing interests: I am one of the guest editors of the special issue to which the manuscript is submitted.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(2483 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(273 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Apr 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-850', Ekbal Hussain, 10 Mar 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 105 | 38 | 13 | 156 | 20 | 9 | 11 |
- HTML: 105
- PDF: 38
- XML: 13
- Total: 156
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is a nice paper attempting to merge economic losses from floods using standardised approaches to loss modelling with health impacts due to Rotavirus and E. Coli. The model is built and tested in Can Tho city in Vietnam. Please see my comments and suggestions below.
Major:
Minor:
Abstract: Please can you include more details of your findings in the abstract. The only really finding you mention in there is this sentence “highest combined economic and health risks are found in Phu Thu and Thuong Thanh wards (Cai Rang district) and An Binh ward (Ninh Kieu district), while An Hoi, An Lac, and Tan An wards (Ninh Kieu district) experience consistently low risks”, but it doesn’t say anything quantitative about what these risks are or what lo\w even means.
Introduction: This is too long and much of the basic definition sections can be shortened/removed.
Line 35-37: This sentence needs a reference.
Line 53-54:
Figure 1: The right panel shows the flood inundation map. Is this for a particular event? Or is this the expected inundation hazard? Given that you have rp =100 yr I’m assuming it means inundation hazard. Please be clearer with that the figure is showing, perhaps with a more detailed figure caption. When this figure is referenced in the text you also don’t explain how the hazard was calculated or where it was sourced from.
Supplement 1.1: It’s not clear to me how the cures were determined. Is this a smoothed fit to the histogram? Please also include in the caption what the dotted line indicates.
Equation 2c: I think you are missing a variable in the logit().
Supplement 2.1: I’m afraid I don’t understand the equation setup here. What does the rbloss ~ indicate in this and why are these different to equation 3 in the manuscript?
Lines 241: How was Apel et al., (2016) extended to cover your three districts and how did you refine the spatial resolution n to 5m? Did you rerun those models?
Line 298: can you provide the alpha and beta values for the pathogens that you used. Perhaps in Table 1? Also the unit column in Table 2 is incomplete
Line 318: Typo: D(p) instead of Dp.
Loss results: It’s a little confusing how you present your loss results, e.g. US$1,392.25k. This is too precise given the uncertainties in your data. I would recommend you present the results at a lower precision, e.g. US$1,400k.
Figure 9: I think your EAD and EAC threshold could be cleaner. Consider changing these to lower precision bounds: E.g. EAD: 0-1200; 1200-2400; 2400-3600; 3600-4800. Similarly, for the EAC.