15 16 menoni-landuseplanning-02_ws2014
-
Upload
luca-marescotti -
Category
Education
-
view
113 -
download
5
Transcript of 15 16 menoni-landuseplanning-02_ws2014
2014 WorkshopConoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità e la resilienza
in urbanistica Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability and Resilience
in Planning
Funda Atun, Maria Pia Boni, Annapaola Canevari, Massimo Compagnoni, Luca Marescotti, Maria Mascione, Ouejdane Mejri, Scira Menoni, Floriana Pergalani
6 marzo 2014 - 15-16
LAUREA MAGISTRALE DELLA SCUOLA DI ARCHITETTURA E SOCIETÀ
Laboratorio organizzato da Luca Marescotti
Vulnerabilità e resilienza urbana e territoriale: come l’urbanistica e la pianificazione territoriale possono contribuire a politiche di prevenzione.
Urban vulnerability and resilience: how planning may contribute to mitigation measures. Lesson 1: unfortunately negative examples
Scira Menoni
State of the art in Europe
Planning in hazardous areas
1. Sectoral
2. Looks at the best ways to analyse the phenomena rather than consideering end users (scales f.i.)
3. No mention to vulnerability
4. Lack of consideration of enchained hazards
1. Sectoral
2. Is not included in ordinary plans but only in “special tools” generally developed after a disaster
3. No mention to vulnerability
4. Lack of consideration of multirisk
Hazard mapping to support planning decisions
Commune de Veurey-Voroize PLAN DE PREVENTION DES RISQUES NATURELS PREVISIBLES
ZONAGE REGLEMENTAIRE DU RISQUE hors débordement de l'Isère (sur fond topographique)
Nature du risque* :
I, i2, i3 : crues des fleuves et des rivières M : marécages I', i' : inondation de plaine en pied de versant T : crues des torrents et des rivières torrentielles V, v : ruissellement sur versant G, g1, g2 : glissement de terrain P, p : chutes de pierres f : suffosion, voir encart au 1/25 000è
Chaque zone est référencée par deux indices alphabétiques au moins : * le premier correspond au niveau de contraintes à appliquer ** le second à la nature du risque (caractère en minuscule pour les zones de faibles contraintes, caractère en majuscule pour les autres cas)
............ Limite communale
------------- Limite du zonage réglementaire présenté sur fond cadastral au 1/5000
Niveau de contraintes* :
Zones d'interdictions
Zone de projet possible sous maîtrise collective
Zones de contraintes faibles
Zones sans contraintes spécifiques
Réalisation : Alp'Géorisques Etabli le : 25 mars 1999
Edition : Alp'Géorisques Modifiée le : juillet 2000 (RTM et SEER)
Echelle : 1/10 000
Zone A Part of the river generally flooding in thecase of the reference flood
and its discharge Zone B External to the A zone, part of the riversubjectto flood in the case of the reference
event; it generally coincide with secondarylevees systems Zone C Zone flooded on occasionof catastrophic , floods, due to phenomena that are more
severe than those considered in the reference flood Reference flood: TR = 200 years
Example: River zones in Italy before the flood directive
An important initiative at the EU level: the Flood directive
The preliminary flood risk assessment shall include at least the following:
(a) maps of the river basin district at the appropriate scale including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where existing, coastal areas, showing topography and land use;
(b) a description of the floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse impacts they have entailed;
(c) a description of the significant floods which have occurred in the past, where significant adverse consequences of similar future events might be envisaged;
and, depending on the specific needs of Member States, it shall include:
(d) an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods for * human health, * the environment, * cultural heritage and * economic activity, taking into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, including floodplains as natural retention areas, the effectiveness of existing manmade flood defence infrastructures, the position ofpopulated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods.
Flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 and expressed in terms of the following:
(a) the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected;
(b) type of economic activity of the area potentially affected;
(c) installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC;
(d) other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur and information on other significant sources of pollution.
Flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 and expressed in terms of the following:
(a) the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected;
(b) type of economic activity of the area potentially affected;
(c) installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC;
(d) other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur and information on other significant sources of pollution.
(a) floods with a low probability, or extreme event scenarios;(b) floods with a medium probability (likely return period≥ 100 years);(c) floods with a high probability, where appropriate.
Flood risk management planMember States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management of flood risks for the areas identified under Article 5(1) and the areas covered by Article 13(1)(b), focusing on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for * human health, * the environment, * cultural heritage and * economic activity, and, if considered appropriate, on non structural initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding.
Flood risk management plans shall take into account relevant aspects such as costs and benefits, flood extent and flood conveyance routes and areas which have the potential to retain flood water, such as natural floodplains, the environmental objectives of Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, soil and water management, spatial planning, land use, nature conservation, navigation and port infrastructure.
Another example, perhaps the best tool: Le plan de prévention des risques (Risk prevention plan) in France
Main steps:a. Historic cases;b. Definition and appraisal of the aléa, hazard;c. Definition of risk;d. Definition and appraisal of the enjeux=
exposure (in part also vulnerability)e. Recommendations and limitations in the
different zones of risk
Another example, perhaps the best tool: Le plan de prévention des risques (Risk prevention plan) in France
TITRE II - REGLEMENTATION DES PROJETS NOUVEAUX
Les quatre premières colonnes du tableau suivant indiquent si les règles édictées sont :
des prescriptions d'urbanisme des prescriptions de construction des prescriptions de gestion de l'espace ou d'autres prescription des recommandations
Prescriptions Chapitre IV -
Mouvements de terrain Règles d'urbanisme
Règles de construction
Autres règles
Recommandations
Chutes de pierres et de blocs
Bpo (zone bleue, pour les extensions de construction)
x Maintien en l'état des dispositifs de protection, filets pare-blocs, par le maître d'ouvrage collectif
Construction
x
x
x
x
- Interdit sauf :
exceptions prévues aux dispositions réglementaires du Titre I pour la zone rouge ;
extension limitée à 50 m2 de surface hors oeuvre brute dans le cadre d'une amélioration des habitations et bâtiments existants en : - privilégiant les implantations d'extension se protégeant mutuellement avec l'existant et protégeant les zones de circulation ou de stationnement, - adaptant la construction au risque résiduel avec notamment la protection ou le renforcement des façades exposées (y compris ouvertures), l'emplacement des accès et des ouvertures principales sur les façades non exposées (en cas d'impossibilité, les protéger)
The first four columns in the following table indicate:
Land use planning prescriptions
Building prescriptions
Presxcriptions related to spatial planning and other issues
Recommendations
Le plan de prévention des risques in France. Problems: high costs associated to this type of studies at the municipal scale.According to the Sanson report preented to the Parliament in 2001 only 5000 municipalities would have had such a document by 2005out of 36.000. 11600 French municipalities are exposd to floods5500 to earthquakes4500 to subsidence phenomena600 to avalanches
Example of good practice of planning in a seismic zone, but AFTER the event, during reconstruction after the Umbria-Marche earthquake in Central Italy
* It is a case of resilient reconstruction
* Both hazards and vulnerability were considered
* Link reconstruction to develepoment and vulnerability reduction
The Umbria Marche reconstruction good practice example
* Specific attention to the quality of the built environment (the « codice di pratica », that is the traditional mode of construction)
* Considering the specificities of vulnerability of buildings blocks typical of historic centres
* Creation of safety spaces in historic centres
* Evaluation of vulnerability: also systemic vulnerability (linking reconstruction to networks improvement)
Reconstruction after the Umbria Marche earthquake
* Positive loop between different scales:
- regional directives; training and guidance by the region
- local actions and decisions
* Framing prevention into ordinary planning tools used for reconstruction
Armonia ProposalHelp planners to: Ø Assess the compatibility of given land uses with existing natural risks;
Ø Provide guidelines to planners while deciding modes, intensity and frequency of use of given land parcels and zones in areas prone to natural hazards
Hazard Map (Landslides)
land use planning in hazardous areas
Land use planning in hazardous areas
include as a crucial objective risk prevention (in order to maintain the same assets needed for people’s life, social and economic future)
as part of ordinary activities
should the community consider this essential (community? other actors?)the “tragic choices” dilemma
prevention is neither economically (discount rate) nor politically convenient
land use planning in hazardous areas
Risk prevention through land use planning
Areas: recognize that multiple hazards are not an exception
How? Depend on risk assessment for planning purposes
land use planning in hazardous areas
Where: hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities are high
How? Depend on risk assessment for planning purposes Densities and concentration of:
hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities
Type of land uses: influencing hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities (including type of population)
land use planning in hazardous areasphysical component: hazards, physical vulnerability (to multiple stressors)
Densities, concentration and specific features of: hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities
social and economic vulnerabilities:- population (features, prepared.)- institutions/organisations- economic structure/activities
systems complexity – inter-dependency; interconnectedness; non linear relations
a dynamic definition of safety (or risk)
SAFETY RISK
SAFETY RISK
A definition of safety:
A dynamic ‘non-event’(Karl Weick)
Land use and spatial planning has a crucial role in:
- avoid hazard increase
- avoid/reduce exposure
- reduce/mitigate vulnerability
spaceplanning time
The concept of scale
* Global (international agencies and agreements)
* National (strategies)
* regional/subregional (plans and programs)* Local/municipal (plans and projects)
* Medium/long term (up to 10 years)
* pre-event/reconstruction
Type of questions to be asked by international agencies (after the Hotspots project by the World Bank)
* Where could a new lending program have the greatest risk reduction impact over the next 10 years?* To what extent can existing data provide an adequate assessment of the degrees of hazard, vulnerability, and risk?* What hazards are likely to be of concern in areas inhabited by vulnerable populations?
Type of questions to be asked by national governments (after the Hotspots project by the World Bank)
* In areas that face multiple hazard, which pose the most significant risks? * What measures would be most effective in reducing vulnerability to all hazards?* How much will achieving an acceptable level of risk cost?* How should resources be allocated?
Type of questions to be asked at the local level
* How hazard, exposure and vulnerability are diversified in the area?* What are the feasible decisions concerning mitigation (structural and non structural)?* How the area can be managed to guarantee better access to resources and access ways?* What are the rules to be followed to reduce buildings and infrastructures vulnerability?
Armonia Proposal: the DSS frameworkland usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltura l uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltura l uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework
avalanche pressure extended on an obstacle (kN/m2)
avalanche pressure extended on an obstacle (kN/m2)
Snow avalanche
extent of lateral erosion (m)extent of lateral erosion (m)Bank erosion
specific discharge (m3/s/m)specific discharge (m3/s/m)Dynamic flooding
flow depth (m)flow depth (m)Static flooding
Thickness of deposit front (m) and velocity (m/s)
Thickness of deposit front (m) and velocity (m/s)
Debris flow
mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e. cm/year)
mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e. cm/year)
Landslide
kinetic energy (kJ)kinetic energy (kJ)Rockfall
percentage of landslide surface (m2, Km2, …) Vs stable surface;
fast and slow movements
Amplification factor of Peak ground Acceleration (%g)
Amplification factor of Peak ground Acceleration (%g)
EMS 98EMS 98
Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g)Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g)Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g)Seismic
Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7
Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) + 3
Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) + 3
Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) + 3
Volcanic eruptions
Approximate Flame Length (m)Approximate Flame Length (m)Approximate Flame Length (m)
Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m)Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m)Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m)Forest Fire
HR = d x (v + 0.5)Where:HR is the flood hazard rating;d is the depth of flooding in metres (m);v is the velocity of floodwaters in metres per second (m/s).
HR = d x (v + 0.5)Where:HR is the flood hazard rating;d is the depth of flooding in metres (m);v is the velocity of floodwaters in metres per second (m/s).
Flood hazard to people
annual probability or return periodannual probability or return periodannual probability or return periodFlood hazard to building
Flood depth (m)*Flood depth (m)*Flood depth (m)*Flood hazard to building
Local detailedLocal generalRegional strategic
Scale of parametersNatural Hazard
avalanche pressure extended on an obstacle (kN/m2)
avalanche pressure extended on an obstacle (kN/m2)
Snow avalanche
extent of lateral erosion (m)extent of lateral erosion (m)Bank erosion
specific discharge (m3/s/m)specific discharge (m3/s/m)Dynamic flooding
flow depth (m)flow depth (m)Static flooding
Thickness of deposit front (m) and velocity (m/s)
Thickness of deposit front (m) and velocity (m/s)
Debris flow
mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e. cm/year)
mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e. cm/year)
Landslide
kinetic energy (kJ)kinetic energy (kJ)Rockfall
percentage of landslide surface (m2, Km2, …) Vs stable surface;
fast and slow movements
Amplification factor of Peak ground Acceleration (%g)
Amplification factor of Peak ground Acceleration (%g)
EMS 98EMS 98
Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g)Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g)Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g)Seismic
Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7
Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) + 3
Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) + 3
Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) + 3
Volcanic eruptions
Approximate Flame Length (m)Approximate Flame Length (m)Approximate Flame Length (m)
Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m)Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m)Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m)Forest Fire
HR = d x (v + 0.5)Where:HR is the flood hazard rating;d is the depth of flooding in metres (m);v is the velocity of floodwaters in metres per second (m/s).
HR = d x (v + 0.5)Where:HR is the flood hazard rating;d is the depth of flooding in metres (m);v is the velocity of floodwaters in metres per second (m/s).
Flood hazard to people
annual probability or return periodannual probability or return periodannual probability or return periodFlood hazard to building
Flood depth (m)*Flood depth (m)*Flood depth (m)*Flood hazard to building
Local detailedLocal generalRegional strategic
Scale of parametersNatural Hazard
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses
- different types of soil uses
type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments
socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience
urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped
H. intensity
risk assessment (expected physical damage:
matrixes fragility curves
multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech
Chain Na-Na
land use preservation land use transformation
IncreasesHazard?
IncreasesVulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure
mitigation measures to increase coping capacity
reduces coping capacity?
future?as determined
in the plan
base
kno
wle
ge, c
onti
nuou
s as
sess
men
tre
gion
al o
r lo
cal p
lan
H.frequency H. location
The case-study area
21 MunicipalitiesProvinces: Florence, Arezzo, Prato Arno River Basin190.854 inhabitans (ISTAT 2001)
Data-base structure
Data for exposure, vulnerability and coping capacity assessment have been collected and processed in a GIS environment.Data are arranged through three topological types according to the GIS requirements: points, lines and areas
Lines: road and railway networks and other network infrastructures
Points: emergency equipments, monuments, punctual infrastructures, etc.
Areas: administrative boundaries (municipality, census units); land uses (urban fabrics and natural and agricultural areas)
Aggregation layers
Hazard, exposure, vulnerability maps
Hazard Map (Landslides)
Hazard Map (Seismic and Floods)
Exposure map (Natural and agricoltural areas exposed to floods)
Vulnerabilty map (Building vulnerability to floods)
Land use planning choices compatibility assessment: the synthetic tables
Land use planning choices compatibility assessment: the synthetic tables
ZONING SUBDIVISION STANDARDS BUILDING CODES
A. Special seismic study zone A. Performance standards for A. Supplemental seismic standards sensitive lands
B. Open space/conservation B. Standards and regulations for B. Standards to be introduced in zones new development areas building codes
C. No-building zones C. Regulations and codes for C. Seismic standards for urban renewal retrofitting residential buildings
HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS STRATEGIC PUBLIC LIFELINESABATEMENT ORDINANCE FACILITIES
A. Abatement ordinance for A. Abatement ordinance for public A. Substitution of old lifelines in risky plants facilities in dangerous areas dangerous areas
C. Increase the mutual distance B. Relocation of strategic facilities B. Retrofitting of lifelines in the between dangerous facilities and from dangerous areas most vulnerable situations residential areas
B. Incentives to relocate industrial C. New public facilities in safer C. New infrastructures in safer plants in dangerous sites areas areas
INSURANCE PROPERTY ACQUISITION or TAX CREDITSPURCHASE DEVELOP. RIGHTS A. Tax benefits for those who
retrofit their house A. Insurance programs for goods A. Property voluntary acquisition or B. Incentives for those relocating exposed to risks expropriation from dangerous areas B. Insurance programs not only B. Purchase or expropriation of REAL ESTATE for private citizens but also for development rights DISCLOSURE local/provincial authorities A. Obliging contractors disclose
risk to potential buyers B. Particular conditions on selling and buying contracts
Way
s to
red
uce
phys
ical
vu
lner
abil
ity
Way
s to
red
uce
syst
emic
vu
lner
abil
ity
Eco
nom
ic t
ype
of t
ools
TYPE OF SETTLEMENT
new development already built area
H
compatibility assessment decision concernig the
A of the new development priority to assign in
NATURAL in the hazardous area, reducing expected levels
Z given possible mitigation of damage
measures
A
R
decisions concerning decisions regarding theD existing the new development close possibility/opportunity
to an existing technological to change the settlement
hazard: is it desirable? or to modify/relocate
T the plant
TECHNOLOGICALY
compatibility of the new building a new plant should
P to be located plant with the present and undergo a careful and
future land use in the area detailed risk assessment
E (trying to avoid conflicts and environemntal impact over land use) analysis procedure
Land tenuresystem and condition
Urban planning system and legislative framework
Land tenuremanagement tools
Tools that can beused for riskprevention purposes
Issues in achievingrisk mitigationobjectives
Regionaleconomicapproach
Comprehensiveintegratedapproach
Land usemanagement
The “urbanism”tradition
Private ownershiprecognised byconstitution
Land is public
Large private and public landproperties
Fragmented landproperty
Land use isdisjuncted fromland ownershipright
Land use isregulated throughplans and taxation
Land can beconfiscated by the State bycompensation
Public authoritiespurchase land in the market
Insurance coupledwith land userestrictions
Taxation
Land can beconfiscated by the State bycompensation
Public authoritiespurchase land in the market
States may end up subsidizing risks
Taxation and legally validhazard/risk mapsaffect propertyprices
Land userestrictions maybe considered as a taking
Structural measures, restrictions., etcdiscriminate amongowners
Hazard/risk mapssupporting zoning
Land tenuresystem and condition
Urban planning system and legislative framework
Land tenuremanagement tools
Tools that can beused for riskprevention purposes
Issues in achievingrisk mitigationobjectives
Regionaleconomicapproach
Comprehensiveintegratedapproach
Land usemanagement
The “urbanism”tradition
Private ownershiprecognised byconstitution
Land is public
Large private and public landproperties
Fragmented landproperty
Land use isdisjuncted fromland ownershipright
Land use isregulated throughplans and taxation
Land can beconfiscated by the State bycompensation
Public authoritiespurchase land in the market
Insurance coupledwith land userestrictions
Taxation
Land can beconfiscated by the State bycompensation
Public authoritiespurchase land in the market
States may end up subsidizing risks
Taxation and legally validhazard/risk mapsaffect propertyprices
Land userestrictions maybe considered as a taking
Structural measures, restrictions., etcdiscriminate amongowners
Hazard/risk mapssupporting zoning
A neglected aspect: the role of land tenure
Summurizing:
spatial 3D
planning perspective systemic
capture the need
to incorporate
social, political,
administrative
issues
knowledge, modelling of involved physical phenomena
understand exposure and vulnerability
integrate structural and non structural measures, together with supporting tools
Risk definition: the evolution of a complex concept
Risk = f (hazard, vulnerability, exposure, ..)
Risk is measured in terms of expected (probability of) damages. This is the starting point
What types of damages can be expected?
Direct physical damage
Induced physical damage Systemic
damage
Damage in the long run
Hazard main parameters: severity, location, frequency
Physical vulnerability of exposed buildings and assets
Systemic vulnerability of complex systems
Social and economic vulnerabilities
impac
t
emerge nc
y
recovery
Loss of function and cascade effects scenario
Physical damage scenario: to buildings and assets
Response scenario• Resources, (lack of)
• Knowledge (poor,inconsistent, not
applied), • Adaptation capacities
(social capital)
Long term recovery and reconstruction scenario
Scenario of long lasting precarious conditions and/or increased vulnerability
Hazard analysis: what mitigation strategies?
What can I do? Prevent the hazard potential (limited to a number of natural hazards)
Exposure analysis: what mitigation strategies?
What can I do? Prevent/limit the exposure through land use planning or relocating
Vulnerability and resilience assessment: what mitigation strategies?
What can I do? Reduce physical vulnerability, mitigate systemic, enhance response capacities
Hazard analysis: what mitigation strategies?
What can I do? Prevent the hazard potential (limited to a number of natural hazards)
Exposure analysis: what mitigation strategies?
What can I do? Prevent/limit the exposure through land use planning or relocating
Vulnerability and resilience assessment: what mitigation strategies?
What can I do? Reduce physical vulnerability, mitigate systemic, enhance response capacities
Important for both vulnerability and resilienceTEMPORAL SPATIAL SYSTEMIC DIMENSION DIMENSION FACTORS
SCALE
* impact * core * related to systems and components
* emergency * corona
* reconstruction * periphery * related to links among systems
Responseto crisis
financialresourcesinvested, people employed
impact 1 10 100 500time inweeks
emergency first recovery reconstruction advanced reconstruction
Responseto crisis
financialresourcesinvested, people employed
impact 1 10 100 500time inweeks
emergency first recovery reconstruction advanced reconstruction
Physical Social
ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM
REGION Economic(Territorio) SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENT
What is the benefit for risk management?
Scientific and technical Geographical and Ecological field Climate change studies Systems Engineering
domain sociological domain
* methods to measure * vulnerability is interpreted as * in the ecological field one * in climate change studies * vulenrability is a latent vulnerability have been the key concept to explain may find more reasoning vulnerability is often condition of particularly proposed and applied differences in response to around resilience rather than interpreted as the lack of complex systems, resulting
disasters between countries vulnerability. Though, the copying capacity and from interaction among and regions features of a resilient eco- resilience. Concepts from the parts and components
system can be easily labelled geographical and the "tightly coupled"* in some cases there is * there is a limited attempt to as lack of vulnerability ecological field are reshaped * Vulnerability compounds still a confusion between identify indicators or * attempts to apply directly and restructured in climate physical, organisational, expected damage and parameters to assess concepts taken from eco- change studies functional factors as well vulnerability vulnerability logy to social system can as management failures
be questioned
Aa.Vv., Natural disasters Dow K., Exploring differences Gunderson L., C. Holling, J. Kasperson, R. Kasperson Giarini O., H. Loubergé, and vulnerability analysis. in our common future(s): the Panarchy. Understanding et al., The human dimension La delusione tecnologica. Report of expert group, Rep. meaning of vulenrability to transformation in human of global environmental I rendimenti decrescenti Undro, July, 1979. global environmental change, and natural systems change, MIT University della tecnologia e la crisi
in Geoforum, vol. 23, n.3, 1992 Island press, 2002 Press, 2003. della crescita economica, Petrini V, Overview report Mondadori, Milano, 1978.
s
ome
rele
vant b
iblio
gra
phic
al r
efe
renc
es
core
asp
ects
of t
he v
ario
us
The Ensure project proposed framework
time
impact emergency recovery recostruction
Scale (at which vulnerabilities are considered)
Macro (regional, national, global)
meso
micro
scale (of hazards)
local
Multi-site
regional
Mitigation/prevention capacity
Physical vulnerability:
vulnerability to stress
Systemicvulnerability:
vulnerability to losses
Resilience:
Capacity to transform losses into opportunities
Hazard time scale
impact Impact duration
Repeated impact
Premonitory signs
time
emergency recovery recostruction
Hazard time scale
Impact duration
Repeated impactPremonitory signs
Time at which the assessment is carried out
impact
impact
Key points:
* Time at which the assessment is carried out (different time available as well)
* Hazard time scale does not coincide with event time scale (aftershocks, duration )
* Time cross – level relations
Time scale
Adaptation/prevention/Damage reduction
Mitigation (of systemic damages)
Adatptation/Expected damag reduction
System Component Aspect Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Comments/case study
- natural hazards- existence and quality of mapping and monitoring
- enchained events - assessment of hazards triggered by other hazards
- ecosystems - fragility to hazards and to mitigation measures
- residential buildings- existence and compliance with codes and land use planning regulations
- public facilities- existence of vulerability assessment and their consideration on mitigation strategies or in emergency plans
- critical facilities
- existence of strategies addressing the interdependency and the functioning of critical facilities under extreme conditions
- production facilities
- existence of plans and procedures to maintain prodcution in safe conditions given the possibility of an extreme event
- people/individuals- weaknesses versus preparedness of individuals
- community and institutions
- weaknesses versus preparedness of organisations and institutions
- economic stakeholders
- preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) economic stakeholdersS
oc
ial s
yst
em
(ag
en
ts)
Infr
astr
uc
ture
an
d p
rod
uc
tion
si
tes
Na
tura
l en
viro
nm
en
tB
uilt
en
viro
nm
en
t
Specific parameters to permit assessment of the aspects that have been identified as relevant
Criteria may range from binary (yes/no) to degree (corresponding to judgements) or to more physical measures (for example related to time needed for ecosystems to recover)
Assessment of natural systems is more important for some hazards than others: it is crucial for drought or forest fires, less so for earthquakes
Specific parameters translating into measurable factors the aspect to be assessed
Criteria for multiple measurement modality are provided; they also depend on the scale at which the assessment is carried out
Building codes exist for some hazards(particularly seismic) and not for others;nevertheless research in the field ofresistance assessment to various types of stress has evolved in the lastdecades
Parameters to specify conditions at which crucial lifelines and utilities cna keep functioning are provided, as well as to address the potential for na-tech
Criteria for assessment are provided; proposed criteria reflect the need to address the interaction across spatial scales of such facilities
Critical facilities and production sitesare clearly part of the built environment.Nevertheless a specific group of rowshave been dedicated to them becauseof their relevance.
Most of those are qualitative parameters to assess the general level of preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) to traumas and discomofrot provoked by potential disasters
Crtieria for evaluating the parameters are provided, taking into consideration the different spatial scales at which individuals, institutions and economic agents act
Whilst the previous groups of systemsrelate more to the "phyiscalenvironment", clearly this one embedsthe results of decades of socialsciences research in the field of riskand disasters studies
System Component Aspect Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Comments/case study
- natural hazards- existence and quality of mapping and monitoring
- enchained events - assessment of hazards triggered by other hazards
- ecosystems - fragility to hazards and to mitigation measures
- residential buildings- existence and compliance with codes and land use planning regulations
- public facilities- existence of vulerability assessment and their consideration on mitigation strategies or in emergency plans
- critical facilities
- existence of strategies addressing the interdependency and the functioning of critical facilities under extreme conditions
- production facilities
- existence of plans and procedures to maintain prodcution in safe conditions given the possibility of an extreme event
- people/individuals- weaknesses versus preparedness of individuals
- community and institutions
- weaknesses versus preparedness of organisations and institutions
- economic stakeholders
- preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) economic stakeholdersS
oci
al s
yst
em
(a
gen
ts)
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
a
nd
pro
du
ctio
n
site
s
Na
tura
l e
nvi
ron
men
tB
uilt
e
nvi
ron
men
t
Specific parameters to permit assessment of the aspects that have been identified as relevant
Criteria may range from binary (yes/no) to degree (corresponding to judgements) or to more physical measures (for example related to time needed for ecosystems to recover)
Assessment of natural systems is more important for some hazards than others: it is crucial for drought or forest fires, less so for earthquakes
Specific parameters translating into measurable factors the aspect to be assessed
Criteria for multiple measurement modality are provided; they also depend on the scale at which the assessment is carried out
Building codes exist for some hazards(particularly seismic) and not for others;nevertheless research in the field ofresistance assessment to various types of stress has evolved in the lastdecades
Parameters to specify conditions at which crucial lifelines and utilities cna keep functioning are provided, as well as to address the potential for na-tech
Criteria for assessment are provided; proposed criteria reflect the need to address the interaction across spatial scales of such facilities
Critical facilities and production sitesare clearly part of the built environment.Nevertheless a specific group of rowshave been dedicated to them becauseof their relevance.
Most of those are qualitative parameters to assess the general level of preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) to traumas and discomofrot provoked by potential disasters
Crtieria for evaluating the parameters are provided, taking into consideration the different spatial scales at which individuals, institutions and economic agents act
Whilst the previous groups of systemsrelate more to the "phyiscalenvironment", clearly this one embedsthe results of decades of socialsciences research in the field of riskand disasters studies
System Component Aspect Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Comments/case study
- natural hazards- existence and quality of mapping and monitoring
- enchained events - assessment of hazards triggered by other hazards
- ecosystems - fragility to hazards and to mitigation measures
- residential buildings- existence and compliance with codes and land use planning regulations
- public facilities- existence of vulerability assessment and their consideration on mitigation strategies or in emergency plans
- critical facilities
- existence of strategies addressing the interdependency and the functioning of critical facilities under extreme conditions
- production facilities
- existence of plans and procedures to maintain prodcution in safe conditions given the possibility of an extreme event
- people/individuals- weaknesses versus preparedness of individuals
- community and institutions
- weaknesses versus preparedness of organisations and institutions
- economic stakeholders
- preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) economic stakeholdersS
oci
al s
yst
em
(a
gen
ts)
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
a
nd
pro
du
ctio
n
site
s
Na
tura
l en
viro
nm
ent
Bu
ilt
envi
ron
men
t
Specific parameters to permit assessment of the aspects that have been identified as relevant
Criteria may range from binary (yes/no) to degree (corresponding to judgements) or to more physical measures (for example related to time needed for ecosystems to recover)
Assessment of natural systems is more important for some hazards than others: it is crucial for drought or forest fires, less so for earthquakes
Specific parameters translating into measurable factors the aspect to be assessed
Criteria for multiple measurement modality are provided; they also depend on the scale at which the assessment is carried out
Building codes exist for some hazards(particularly seismic) and not for others;nevertheless research in the field ofresistance assessment to various types of stress has evolved in the lastdecades
Parameters to specify conditions at which crucial lifelines and utilities cna keep functioning are provided, as well as to address the potential for na-tech
Criteria for assessment are provided; proposed criteria reflect the need to address the interaction across spatial scales of such facilities
Critical facilities and production sitesare clearly part of the built environment.Nevertheless a specific group of rowshave been dedicated to them becauseof their relevance.
Most of those are qualitative parameters to assess the general level of preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) to traumas and discomofrot provoked by potential disasters
Crtieria for evaluating the parameters are provided, taking into consideration the different spatial scales at which individuals, institutions and economic agents act
Whilst the previous groups of systemsrelate more to the "phyiscalenvironment", clearly this one embedsthe results of decades of socialsciences research in the field of riskand disasters studies
System Component Aspect Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Comments/case study
- natural hazards- existence and quality of mapping and monitoring
- enchained events - assessment of hazards triggered by other hazards
- ecosystems - fragility to hazards and to mitigation measures
- residential buildings- existence and compliance with codes and land use planning regulations
- public facilities- existence of vulerability assessment and their consideration on mitigation strategies or in emergency plans
- critical facilities
- existence of strategies addressing the interdependency and the functioning of critical facilities under extreme conditions
- production facilities
- existence of plans and procedures to maintain prodcution in safe conditions given the possibility of an extreme event
- people/individuals- weaknesses versus preparedness of individuals
- community and institutions
- weaknesses versus preparedness of organisations and institutions
- economic stakeholders
- preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) economic stakeholdersS
oc
ial s
yst
em
(ag
en
ts)
Infr
astr
uct
ure
a
nd
pro
du
ctio
n
site
s
Na
tura
l en
viro
nm
en
tB
uilt
en
viro
nm
en
t
Specific parameters to permit assessment of the aspects that have been identified as relevant
Criteria may range from binary (yes/no) to degree (corresponding to judgements) or to more physical measures (for example related to time needed for ecosystems to recover)
Assessment of natural systems is more important for some hazards than others: it is crucial for drought or forest fires, less so for earthquakes
Specific parameters translating into measurable factors the aspect to be assessed
Criteria for multiple measurement modality are provided; they also depend on the scale at which the assessment is carried out
Building codes exist for some hazards(particularly seismic) and not for others;nevertheless research in the field ofresistance assessment to various types of stress has evolved in the lastdecades
Parameters to specify conditions at which crucial lifelines and utilities cna keep functioning are provided, as well as to address the potential for na-tech
Criteria for assessment are provided; proposed criteria reflect the need to address the interaction across spatial scales of such facilities
Critical facilities and production sitesare clearly part of the built environment.Nevertheless a specific group of rowshave been dedicated to them becauseof their relevance.
Most of those are qualitative parameters to assess the general level of preparedness and recovery capacity (or lack of) to traumas and discomofrot provoked by potential disasters
Crtieria for evaluating the parameters are provided, taking into consideration the different spatial scales at which individuals, institutions and economic agents act
Whilst the previous groups of systemsrelate more to the "phyiscalenvironment", clearly this one embedsthe results of decades of socialsciences research in the field of riskand disasters studies
Semplification: each matrix address a specific aspect of the exposed systems across time and space
Case study areas
Vulcano island in Italy.
Aspect to be looked at:Vulnerability to:- Volcanic hazards;- Earthquakes;- Landslides- Living with risks (or hazards?) and
opportunities for creating resilience in a tourist area
The Northern Negev, IsraelAspect to be looked at:Vulnerability to:- Drought (but also flash floods?)- Water scarcity as a risk but also
opportunity for cooperation in conflict areas
Ilia Prefecture, Greece
Aspect to be looked at:
Vulnerability to:
- Forest fires
- Multisite hazards challenging the intervention of civil protection
The application of the Ensure methodology to the Vulcano Island
Physical, systemic and social vulnerability change overtime
Modellazione relativa ad alcuni degli hazard connessi ad una crisi vulcanica (elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)
Hazard analysis in the Vulcano island(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)
Mitigation capacity before the event(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)
Risk perception/ awareness qualitative scale based on questionnaires
low/average/good AVERAGE
According to surveys developed within the Ensure Project, the awareness oftiming of most recent eruption (69%) is good. Expectations of a futureeruption in <100 years is also good, but lack of expectation of an eruption in <12 months suggests that people delay in taking preparedness actions, sincethe issue is not pressing. Interviewed people were largely split down themiddle on the idea of taking actions to increase their ability to respond to thenext eruption (e.g., 52% disagreeing they would prepare and 47% agreeingthey would).
0.5
Level of coverage of Early Warning Systems (if EW Systems are available)
quantitative scale based on data collection
% of coverage in respect to the population
__According to surveys developed within the Ensure Project, concern aboutlack of information, no provision for elderly and a lack of drills have beenexpressed by several interviewed.
Individual preparedness in terms of availability of masks and sholves
qualitative scale based on questionnaires
low/average/good LOWA majority of respondents believe they would have from few minutes to somehours to react before an eruption. But, few people indicated they have anemergency supply kit on hand.
0
Known evacuation proceduresbinary scale based on questionnaires
yes/no NOAt present, the Emergency Plan is not avalible; thus, evacuation proceduresare not clearly defined. 0
Evacuation drill (training) frequencyqualitative scale based on data collection
Regularly (every year)/every few years/occasionally
OCCASIONALLY
The only evacuation drill on the island was done in November 1991. Theyused one ferry (SIREMAR) in Porto Ponente and one ferry (NGI) in Gelso.Moreover, according to the surveys developed within the Ensure Project,many people have not a clear idea of where to go and what to do in case ofemergency In detail, the questionnaires reveal that 43% of interviewed,answered that in case of eruption they would have gone to specific meetingspoints, while 40% declared they don't know what to do.
0
Participation in development and prevention/mitigation strategies
qualitative scale based on questionnaires and expert judgment
not existant/average/good
NOT EXISTANT 0
Media campaigns binary scale based on data collection
yes/no NO 0
Frequency of media campaignsqualitative scale based on data collection
every two years/only occasionally
__
Education programs embedded in school programs
binary scale based on data collection
yes/no NO 0Coordination and cooperation among institutions in charge of risk prevention/ mitigation
qualitative scale based on interviews and expert judgement
low/average/high AVERAGE 0.5
GDP; GVA (Gross added value, measure of productivity and size of economy)
qualitative scale based on data collection
rich/average/poor country AVERAGE
Tourism represents the leading economic activity. Thanks to tourism, localeconomy is placed at an average level: incomes are surely all above 15000 €per year, most between 15-30 thousand €/year and, according to the surveysdeveloped within the Ensure Project, no one is below the poverty threshold.Nevertheless, the regional economic context is very poor: the value of theGDP pro-capite in Sicily is one of the lowest in Italy. The low level of theregional economy might have relevant repercussions on the local scale interms of provision of public services, lack of cultural and social activities andstrategic development strategies. According to this, it seems possible to statethat private stakeholders should have an average capacity to raise funds formitigation, but public resources would be difficult to raise. National orEuropean funds would be required although the Volcano island shouldrepresent not a priority in the Italian situation where other volcanic areas, likethe Vesuvius area for example, would require funds for mitigation activities.
0.5
Notes on the Vulcano case-studyScoring
ParameterScoring key-
topicScoring Aspect
Scoring System
System AspectAspect weight
Key-topicKey-topic
Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Assessment
So
cial
sys
tem
(ag
ents
)
Do local economic stakeholders have sufficient resources for mitigation?
Are individuals aware of existing risks, informed and prepared in case of emergency?
Are Institutions able to involve community/ies in mitigation strategies and improve risk awareness? Is the level of cooperation among different institutions in charge of risk prevention/ mitigation satisfactory?
Mitigation capacity of Institutions
Mitigation capacity of economic stakeholders
People/individuals Preparedness 0,1 = Very Low
0,1= Very Low
0,75 = High
0,2 = Very Low1
1
11
1
1
As mentioned above, no one is below the poverty threshold; almost allinhabitants own a house. More than 30% of inhabitants has at least an otherproperty to rent in the summer.
1
0,1 = Very Low
0,1 = Very Low
0,75 = High
dimension of poverty/marginalizationqualitative scale based on data collection
low/average/high LOW
System Aspect Key-Topic Parameter
Social preparednesscontingency plans exist/do notexercises yes/no; frequency
Relazione vulnerabilità/danno a edifici e persone in edifici
yes/no; frequency of training; no data available
information leaflet to tourist 3-4000 tourist a day in high season (june september) 3 0,75 2,25
Check point for climbing the volcano
Around 450 pe ople climb the volcano every day between August and September. About 7,000 people were ticketed every month (aug-spet) and round 2,000 pe ople climb with no ticket, thus around 9,000pe ople may be on the volcano every day.
3 1 3
Sensistivity to health effects of volcanic
hazardsmeans of self protection yes/no; yes 3 1 3
concentrationresident and present population in dangerous areas
inside/outside potentially affected areas (scenario dependent)
The assessment has been developer grouding on cartography 4 0,5 2
Age; mobility impairment, other
impairment
difficulties to comply with evacuation orders; difficulties in escaping
yes/no; number of peopleYes, 180/1080 people are over the threshold of 65 ye ars old and 63/1080 children between 0-5 years old; no specific data about impairment is available
3 0,75 2,25
Application to case studyScoring (5 high - 1
low)Weight (1 high - 0
not relevant)Total Score
13=Medium
ParametersCriteria for assessment
Descriptors
What are the factors that may lead to large number of victims?
What are the factors that may lead to injuries and fatalities?
System Aspect
Preparednessprior training and
exercises; information about what do do
Socia
l sy
stem
(agen
ts)
People/individuals
Community and Instituions
Physical vulnerability of people and emergency structures(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)
Systemic vulnerability assessment (maps: A. Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)
Sistem Aspect Parameter Evaluation criteria
Sociale preparazione mezzi di protezione seguiti/non seguiticonoscenza vie di fuga si/no
Assessment of post event resilience
Resilience in reconstruction: beyond physical reconstruction
What about future research: interaction of indicators and systems in the proposed framework
Natural environmentvulnerability factors
Vulnerability factorsof the built environment
Vulnerability factorsof critical facilitiesand production sites
Vulnerability of social systems and agents
Interactions within the same set of matrices
What about future research: interaction of indicators and systems in the proposed framework
Mitigation capacity related to the
natural environment
Mitigation capacity related to the
built environment
Mitigation capacity related to the
critical facilities
Mitigation capacity related to the
social and economic agents
Physical vulnerability of the
natural environment
Physical vulnerabilityof the
built environment
Physical vulnerability of the
critical facilities
Systemic vulnerabilityof the
natural environment
Systemic vulnerability of the
built environment
Sysemic vulnerabilityof
critical facilities
Resilienceof the
natural environment
Resilience of the
built environment
Resilienceof
critical facilities
Physical vulenrabilityof the
social and economic agents
Systemic vulnerability of the
social and economic agents
Resilience of the
social and economic agents
PRE-IMPACTPERIOD EMERGENCY RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTIONIMPACT
Macro
Meso
Micro
Time
ScalesHazard Vulnerability
Local
Regional
Multi-scale
Impact Emergency Recovery
Population-Age class of household-Number of persons per household
Natural environment - Lack of consideration of river bed aggradation in EWS models
Built environment- High density in flooding zones- Public facilities in flooding zones
Population-Risk perception-Preparedness
Social system-Institutions- Lack of coordination among agencies regarding EWS implementation- Relaxing land use planning (80s and 90s- Lack of provincial emergency plan
Critical facilities- Poor external accessibility
Natural environment - EWS and monitoring
Pre-event
Social system-Institutions-No evacuation plan
Population- Lack of information- Lack of preparedness
Natural environment -Climatic variability-General slope instability
Built environment-Urban development-Hazardous installations
1987 event
10
11
12
13
Physical vulnerability
Institutional Vulnerability
Economic vulnerability
Social system-Institutions-Agencies working with different alerting thresholds
Critical facilities- Presence of hazardous installations
Critical facilities- Poor internal accessibility- Lack of business plans for the commercial district
Social system-Institutions- Lower level of spending capacity for recovery
Social system-Economic agents- Limited/no insurance coverage
Social system-Economic agents- Dependance on few sectors vulnerable to floods;- Income level
An experiment working within scenario modelling
Rethinking the entire issues of vulnerability and resilience indicators
measurable specific representative verifiable scientific validity
cost effective
cost of collection
spatio-temporal
availability
quality
data
indicators characteristics
sustainability ~ risk preventionSustainibility: exploiting the environment while keeping the natural capital for future generations...
Risk prevention: preventing mass victims and extensive losses due to some “extreme” event that may occur in the future...
environmental damage
human and economic losses
sustainability ~ risk preventionWhat about environmental damage consequent to what are after all “natural events”, if we exclude industrial accidents?
It will be shown that natural and human environments cannot be kept separated, therefore one may have a variety of combinations
As a natural event becoming an environmental catastrophe:
In the case of hydrogeological risks, that will be considered today, unsustainible land uses may increase the hazard itself
sustainability ~ risk preventionSome measures that have been considered as “risk prevention” taken before a disaster or during emergencies proved to be extremely unsustainible: are those always acceptable in the name of prevention? Could things have been managed otherwise?
The effectiveness and the ….danger of structural mitigation measures (alone)
risk prevention ~ sustainability
Resources/hazards: we may say that the margin is shaped by vulnerability or resilience
Some readings
http://ensure.metid.polimi.it/web/guest/training
Vale L.J., Campanella T.J. The Resilient City. How modern city recover from disaster. Oxford University Press: NY, 2005.