SpringerLink
Log in

A framework to assess quality and uncertainty in disaster loss data

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a growing interest in the systematic and consistent collection of disaster loss data for different applications. Therefore, the collected data must follow a set of technical requirements to guarantee its usefulness. One of those requirements is the availability of a measure of the uncertainty in the collected data to express its quality for a given purpose. Many of the existing disaster loss databases do not provide such uncertainty/quality measures due to the lack of a simple and consistent approach to express uncertainty. After reviewing existing literature on the subject, a framework to express the uncertainty in disaster loss data is proposed. This framework builds on an existing uncertainty classification that was updated and combined with an existing method for data characterization. The proposed approach is able to establish a global score that reflects the overall uncertainty in a certain loss indicator and provides a measure of its quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACAPS (2012) Technical brief—estimation of affected population figures. Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS), Geneva

  • Anziani A (2010) Rapport d’information fait au nom de la mission commune d’information sur les conséquences de la tempête Xynthia. Tome I: rapport. No 647, Sénat, session extraordinaire de 2009–2010. http://www.senat.fr/notice-rapport/2009/r09-647-1-notice.html

  • Ascough J, Maier H, Ravalico J, Strudley M (2008) Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision making. Ecol Model 219(3–4):383–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASQ (2014) American society for quality. http://asq.org/glossary/q.html. Accessed Apr 2014

  • Auger A, Roy J (2008) Expression of uncertainty in linguistic data. 11th International conference on information fusion, Cologne, Germany

  • Aven T (2008) Evaluation of accident risks—status and trends in risk analysis and evaluation. Swedish Rescue Services Agency, Karlstad

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayyub B, Klir G (2006) Uncertainty modeling and analysis in engineering and the sciences. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bammer G, Smithson M (2008) Understanding uncertainty. Integ Insights 7:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck M (1987) Water quality modeling: a review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Resour Res 23(8):1393–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford T, Cooke R (2001) Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bersani C, Gerard F, Gondran O, Helias A, Martin X, Puech P, Rouzeau M, Fleury B, Greff M, Bougere R, Trepos Y (2010) Tempete Xynthia retour d’experience, evaluation et propositions d’action tome I: rapport. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/104000293/0000.pdf

  • Bolker B (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone I, Van der Stede Y, Bollaerts K, Vose D, Maes D, Dewulf J, Messens W, Daube G, Aerts M, Mintiens K (2009) NUSAP method for evaluating the data quality in a quantitative microbial risk assessment model for salmonella in the pork production chain. Risk Anal 29(4):502–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone I, Van der Stede Y, Dewulf J, Messens W, Aerts M, Daube G, Mintiens K (2010) NUSAP: a method to evaluate the quality of assumptions in quantitative microbial risk assessment. J Risk Res 13(3):337–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd E (2011) Fatalities due to Hurricane Katrina’s impacts in Louisiana. PhD thesis, University of New Orleans

  • Brugnach M, Dewulf A, Pahl-Wostl C, Taillieu T (2008) Toward a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecol Soc 13(2):30

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunkard J, Namulanda G, Ratard R (2008) Hurricane Katrina deaths, Louisiana, 2005. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2(4):215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu D, Broomell S, Por H (2009) Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychol Sci 20(3):299–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgman M (2005) Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carey J, Burgman M (2008) Linguistic uncertainty in qualitative risk analysis and how to minimise it. Ann NY Acad Sci 1128:13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles A (1998) Living with uncertainty in fisheries: analytical methods, management priorities and the Canadian ground fishery experience. Fish Res 37(1–3):37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaves D (1995) Assessing and communicating uncertainty in decision support systems: lessons from an ecosystem policy analysis. AI Appl 9(3):87–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Colli A, Vetere Arellano A, Kirchsteiger C, Ale B (2009) Risk characterisation indicators for risk comparison in the energy sector. Saf Sci 47(1):59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (2007) Assessing and communicating data quality: toward a system of data quality grading. In: Costanza R, Lisa Graumlich L, Steffen W (eds) Sustainability or collapse? An integrated history and future of people on earth. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen A, Frey H (1999) Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment: a handbook for dealing with uncertainty in models and inputs. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuschieri A (2006) Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 244(5):642–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniell J, Khazai B, Wenzel F (2013) Uncovering the 2010 Haiti earthquake death toll. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 1(3):1913–1942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groeve T, Poljansek K, Ehrlich D (2013) Recording disaster losses—recommendations for a European approach. scientific and technical research reports, report EUR 26111

  • De Groeve T, Corbane C, Ehrlich D, Poljansek K (2014) Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in EU member states: a comprehensive overview of current practice in the EU member states. Scientific and technical research reports, report EUR 26879

  • Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31(2):105–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DHS (2006) Current housing unit damage estimates—Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Department of Homeland, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilley M, Chen R, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam A, Arnold M, Agwe J, Buys P, Kjevstad O, Lyon B, Yetman G (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: A global risk analysis, vol 1. The World Bank, Hazard Management Unit, Washington, D.C.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Durugbo C, Erkoyuncu J, Tiwari A, Alcock J, Roy R, Shehab E (2010) Data uncertainty assessment and information flow analysis for product-service systems in a library case study. Int J Serv Oper Inf 5(4):330–350

    Google Scholar 

  • ECLAC (2003), Handbook for estimating socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters. United Nations, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank)

  • EMA (2002) Australian emergency manuals series. Part III. Emergency management practice. Volume 3—Guidelines. Guide 11. Disaster loss assessment guidelines. Emergency Management Australia, State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia

  • Finkel A (1990) Confronting uncertainty in risk management: a guide for decision-makers. Center for risk management. Resources for the Future Press, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Foulser-Piggott R, Spence R, Eguchi R, King A (2016) Using remote sensing for building damage assessment: the GEOCAN study and validation for the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthq Spectra 32(1):611–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey H, Burmaster D (1999) Methods for characterising variability and uncertainty: comparison of bootstrap simulation and likelihood-based approaches. Risk Anal 19(1):109–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gall M, Borden K, Cutter S (2009) When do losses count? Six fallacies of natural hazards loss data. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90(6):799–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardi A, Valencia N, Guillande R, André C (2011) Inventory of uncertainties associated with the process of tsunami damage assessment on buildings (SCHEMA FP6 EC co-funded project). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(3):883–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershon N (1998) Visualization of an imperfect world. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 18(4):43–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillund F, Kjolberg K, von Krauss M, Myhr A (2008) Do uncertainty analyses reveal uncertainties? Using the introduction of DNA vaccines to aquaculture as a case. Sci Total Environ 407(1):185–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham E (2006) Disaster victim identification. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 2(3):203–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallegatte S (2008) An adaptive regional input-output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal 28(3):779–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han P, Klein W, Arora N (2011) Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making 31(6):828–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes K (2011) Uncertainty and uncertainty analysis methods: Issues in quantitative and qualitative risk modeling with application to import risk assessment. Report no EP102467, ACERA project (0705). CSIRO, Hobart, Australia

  • Helton J, Davis F (2003) Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analysis of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 81(1):23–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksson P, Guinée J, Heijungs R, de Koning A, Green D (2014) A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):429–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiete M, Merz M, Comes T, Schultmann F (2012) Trapezoidal fuzzy DEMATEL method to analyze and correct for relations between variables in a composite indicator for disaster resilience. OR Spectr 34(4):971–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPET (2006a) Performance evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana hurricane protection system volume V—the performance—levees and floodwalls. Final report. Interagency performance evaluation task force

  • IPET (2006b) Performance evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana hurricane protection system volume VII—the consequences. Final report. Interagency performance evaluation task force

  • ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. Int Organ Stand, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaiswal K, Wald D (2013) Estimating economic losses from earthquakes using an empirical approach. Earthq Spectra 29(1):309–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JCGM (2008) JCGM 200 International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM). Joint committee for guides in metrology

  • Johansson M (2015) Data sources on small-scale disaster losses and response—a Swedish case study of extreme rainfalls 2000–2012. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce K, Belliss S, Samsonov S, McNeill S, Glassey P (2009) A review of the status of satellite remote sensing and image processing techniques for map** natural hazards and disasters. Prog Phys Geogr 33(2):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim B, Bishu R (2006) Uncertainty of human error and fuzzy approach to human reliability analysis. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 14(1):111–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knabb R, Rhome J, Brown D (2005) Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Katrina 23–30 August 2005. National Hurricane Center (updated August 2006 and September 2011)

  • Koedam A (2012) Rapid estimation of affected population figures: desk review. Assessment capacities project (ACAPS), Geneva

  • Kolen B, Slomp R, Jonkman S (2013) The impacts of storm Xynthia February 27–28, 2010 in France: lessons for flood risk management. J Flood Risk Manag 6(3):261–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kron W, Steuer M, Löw P, Wirtz A (2012) How to deal properly with a natural catastrophe database–analysis of flood losses. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(3):535–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala H, Burgman M, Moilanen A (2013) Treatment of uncertainty in conservation under climate change. Conserv Lett 6(2):73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwakkel J, Walker W, Marchau V (2010) Classifying and communicating uncertainties in model-based policy analysis. Int J Technol Policy Manag 10(4):299–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemaire M (2009) Structural reliability. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liou Y, Sha H, Chen T, Wang T, Li Y, Lai Y, Lu L (2012) Assessment of disaster losses in rice paddy field and yield after Tsunami induced by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. J Mar Sci Technol 20(6):618–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz S, Dessai S, Paavola J, Forster P (2015) The communication of physical science uncertainty in European national adaptation strategies. Clim Change 132(1):143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacEachren A, Robinson A, Hopper S, Gardner S, Murray R, Gahegan M, Hetzler E (2005) Visualizing geospatial information uncertainty: what we know and what we need to know. Cartogr Geograph Inf Sci 32(3):139–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier H, Ascough J, Wattenbach M, Renschler C, Labiosa W, Ravalico J (2008) Chapter five - Uncertainty in environmental decision making: issues, challenges and future directions. Dev Integ Environ Assess 3:69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matschewsky J (2013) Evaluation and optimization of product/service systems within the development process. Technical report. Linkö** University, The Institute of Technology, Sweden

  • McCann R, Marcot B, Ellis R (2006) Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management. Can J For Res 36(12):3053–3062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinari D, Menoni S, Aronica G, Ballio F, Berni N, Pandolfo C, Minucci G (2014) Ex post damage assessment: an Italian experience. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14(4):901–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan M, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan G, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (2009) Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decision making. US climate change science program. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/final-report/default.htm

  • Mutter J, Barnard K (2009) Climate change, evolution of disasters and inequality. In: Humphreys S (ed) Human rights and climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton J, Brown J, Mysiak J (2006) To what extent, and how, might uncertainty be defined? Comments engendered by “Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support”: Walker et al. Integrated assessment 4: 1, 2003. Integ Assess J Bridging Sci Policy 6(1):83–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Okuyama Y, Santos J (2014) Disaster impact and input-output analysis. Econ Syst Res 26(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan Q (2015) Estimating the economic losses of hurricane like in the greater Houston Region. Nat Hazards Rev 16(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paté-Cornell M (1996) Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54(2–3):95–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patt A, Dessai S (2005) Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment. Comptes Rendus Geosci 337(4):425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pistrika A (2010) Flood damage estimation based on flood simulation scenarios and a GIS platform. Eur Water 30:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistrika A, Tsakiris G, Nalbantis I (2014) Flood depth-damage functions for built environment. Environ Process 1(4):553–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rausand M (2011) Risk assessment: theory, methods and application. Wiley, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard J, Sluijs J, Hojberg A, Vanrolleghem P (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modeling process—a framework and guidance. Environ Model Softw 22(11):1543–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan H, Colyvan M, Burgman M (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Appl 12(2):618–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice. A guide to assessing scientific models. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed R, Bea R, Abdelmalak R, Athanasopoulos A, Boutwell G, Bray J, Briaud J-L, Cheung C, Cobos-Roa D, Cohen-Waeber J, Collins B, Ehrensing L, Farber D, Hanemann M, Harder L, Inkabi K, Kammerer A, Karadeniz D, Kayen R, Moss R, Nicks J, Nimmala Pestana J, Porter J, Rhee K, Riemer M, Roberts K, Rogers J, Storesund R, Govindasamy A, Vera-Grunauer X, Wartman J, Watkins C, Wenk E Jr, Yim S (2006) Investigation of the performance of the New Orleans flood protection systems in Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005: final report. Independent levee investigation team

  • Serje J (2012) Data sources on hazards. In: Wisner B, Gaillard J, Kelman I (eds) The Routledge handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigel K, Klauer B, Pahl-Wostl C (2010) Conceptualizing uncertainty in environmental decision-making: the example of the EU water framework directive. Ecol Econ 69(3):502–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sills G, Vroman N, Wahl R, Schwanz N (2008) Overview of New Orleans levee failures: lessons learned and their impact on national levee design and assessment. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(5):556–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skeels M, Lee B, Smith G, Robertson G (2010) Revealing uncertainty for information visualization. J Inf Vis 9(1):70–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2014) Uncertainty quantification: theory, implementation, and applications. computational science and engineering series. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Katz R (2013) US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: data sources, trends, accuracy and biases. Nat Hazards 67(2):387–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Matthews J (2015) Quantifying uncertainty and variable sensitivity within the US billion-dollar weather and climate disaster cost estimates. Nat Hazards 77(3):1829–1851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith E, Shugart H (1994) Uncertainty in ecological risk assessment. Ecological risk assessment issue papers, EPA/630/R-94/009. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA

  • Smithson M (1989) Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sudret B (2007) Uncertainty propagation and sensitivity analysis in mechanical models—contributions to structural reliability and stochastic spectral methods. Technical report. Université Blaise Pascal, France

  • Thomson J, Hetzler B, MacEachren A, Gahegan M, Pavel M (2005) A typology for visualizing uncertainty. Proc SPIE 5669:146–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker W, Ferson S (2003) Probability bounds analysis in environmental risk assessment. Technical report, applied biomathematics, New York, USA

  • Van Asselt M (2000) Perspectives on uncertainty and risk: the PRIMA approach to decision support. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Sluijs J, Janssen P, Petersen A, Kloprogge P, Risbey J, Tuinstra W, Ravetz J (2004) RIVM/MNP guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication: tool catalogue for uncertainty assessment. Report no NWS-E-2004-37. Utrecht University, The Netherlands

  • van der Sluijs J, Craye M, Funtowicz S, Kloprogge P, Ravetz J, Risbey J (2005) Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model based environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Anal 25(2):481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinet F, Lumbroso D, Defossez S, Boissier L (2012) A comparative analysis of the loss of life during two recent floods in France: the sea surge caused by the storm Xynthia and the flash flood in Var. Nat Hazards 61(3):1179–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vozinaki A, Karatzas G, Sibetheros I, Varouchakis E (2015) An agricultural flash flood loss estimation methodology: the case study of the Koiliaris basin (Greece), February 2003 flood. Nat Hazards 79(2):899–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker W, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs J, Van Asselt M, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss M (2003) Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integ Assess 4(1):5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Qin Q, Zhao J, Ye X, Qin X, Yang X, Sun Y (2015) A knowledge-based method for road damage detection using high-resolution remote sensing image. Geoscience and remote sensing symposium (IGARSS), Milan, Italy

  • Whittingham R (2004) The blame machine: why human error causes accidents. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz A, Kron W, Löw P, Steuer M (2014) The need for data: natural disasters and the challenges of database management. Nat Hazards 70(1):135–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Li N, Hallegatte S, Shi P, Hu A, Liu X (2012) Regional indirect economic impact evaluation of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Environ Earth Sci 65(1):161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Peng C, Li W, Fang X, Zhang T, Zhu Q, Zhao P (2013) Monitoring and estimating drought-induced impacts on forest structure, growth, function, and ecosystem services using remote-sensing data: recent progress and future challenges. Environ Rev 21(2):103–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal

    Xavier Romão

  2. Construction Institute, CONSTRUCT-LESE, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal

    Esmeralda Paupério

Authors
  1. Xavier Romão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esmeralda Paupério
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Romão.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romão, X., Paupério, E. A framework to assess quality and uncertainty in disaster loss data. Nat Hazards 83, 1077–1102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2364-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2364-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation