Upload
luca-marescotti
View
90
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2015 WorkshopConoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità e la resilienza
in urbanistica Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability and Resilience
in Planning
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
LAUREA MAGISTRALE DELLA SCUOLA DI ARCHITETTURA E SOCIETÀ
Laboratorio organizzato da Luca Marescotti
What can be done to mitigate risks?
Risk assessment
Risk mitigation measures: structural and non structural, long and short term
Implementation tools: laws, regulations, directives, economic tools –insurance, incentives, taxes- voluntary….
Ulrich Beck reminds us of the fact the in risks imply a tightly coupled combination of “facts” and “values” that make any risk related decision neither purely technical nor purely political
The complexity of risk conditions requires a Suitable approach for example systemic
White, G., Kates, R. & Burton, I. 2001.
Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazard management.
Environmental Hazards 3(3): 81-92.
Regarding the quality of construction and land uses
Regarding “myths” regarding people’s behavior in disasters
Regarding fallacies in crisis management
decreasing HAZARDSreducing
EXPOSUREphysical social and economic built environment natural environment
- specific requirements to control buikldings vulnerability to various types of hazards (particularly seismic, but also avalanches and landlsides)
- improve citizens involvement in risk management: - ccepting building and land use restrictions; - environmental maintenance activities (forests, rivers)
- need for stronger floodplain regulation and building permits control
- monocultural agricoltural practices should be avoided in areas prone to flooding and firest fires
- in accepting for example building restrictions;- in "environment maintenance" activities (rivers, forests)
- understimation of flood levels in different events (excluded possibility of overcoming "historic" catastrophies
- difficulties in evacuating people in temporary settlements at a large distance from their original homes
- plans should include feedback analysis and procedures to up date the plan according to lessons learnt - plans are often too generic
- plans should consider the possibility of multi-site events that will put a dignificant pressure on civil protection
- poor monitoring systems (particularly floods) in Eastern countries and Greece
- plans should be based on accurate scenarios
- ICT should be more carefully and extensively used to deal with the emergency
- improve planning for crisis, including the need to plan for long emergencies
- need of local forecasts for some hazards (fires, floods, landslides)
- need to be prepared not only in traditionally "hot" periods regarding given risks (fires) - improve relationship with the media to be able disseminate messages during emergencies and guaranteeing "correct" information to the public
- need of local forecasts for some hazards (fires, floods, landslides)
- creating better coordination among civil protection forces- creating better coordination with critical infrastructures providers- business continuity plans also for the public sector- improving people's preparedness to face emergencies- need to provide stronger role to the EU Civil Protection
lon
g t
erm
mit
igat
ion
mea
sure
ssh
ort
ter
m m
itig
atio
n m
easu
res
STRUCTURAL NON STRUCTURAL
reducing VULNERABILITY
Where is the hazard?
Where is the risk?
Where is the hazard?
Where is the hazard and the risk?
Where is the hazard and the risk?
Where is the hazard and the risk?
Where is the hazard?
Where is the hazard?
Where is the hazard?
Where is the hazard?
Where is the hazard?
Where is the hazard?
Where was the risk?
Where was the risk?
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans
Unesco 1977:
“nothing has been done to discourage extensive tourist development close to the shore...Use of shoreline sites in on the increase in the Fiji, putting investemnts, visitors and Fijian people all at peril from rare but quite possible events”
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The local scale
“Stakeholders”:
- Mayor, understands the issue and seems open to accept the revision of the PAT;
- “Assessore” of urban planning wishing to ask experts mitigation measures for buildings;
- Municipal technician, responsible of the municipal technical office, does not want us at all…
At the end: few weeks before municipal elections the PAT is approved in the muncipal assemblee, without taking into account the comments of Italia Nostra
At the end: few weeks before municipal elections the PAT is approved in the muncipal assemblee m, without taking into account the comments of Italia Nostra
At the end within the pattern of the new plan (where is the river??) apparently the normative part of the plan takes into account the hydraulic and geological reports but in reality new development, new urban planning mistakes are hiding.
The story: on February 2011 I was invited by two representatives of a civic association born after the flood in 2010 in the muncipality of Caldogno, close to Vicenza in the Region of Veneto.
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The local scale
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The local scale
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The urban scale. The case of Orvieto, Umbria flood, 2012
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The urban scale. The case of Orvieto, Umbria flood, 2012
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
The Flood Risk Plan to support land use planning was somehow underestimating the hazard (correction only after the flood, eve though…)
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
Still there were historic evidences of floods in the area, suche as the last severe 1937 flood
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
7 Ottobre 193710 Ottobre 1859
8 Ottobre 18571 Ottobre 1836
18 Settembre 1960 (?)12 Novembre 2012 (?)
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
Still there were historic evidences of floods in the area, suche as the last severe 1937 flood
7 Ottobre 193710 Ottobre 1859
8 Ottobre 18571 Ottobre 1836
18 Settembre 1960 (?)12 Novembre 2012 (?)
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
Still there were historic evidences of floods in the area, suche as the last severe 1937 flood
7 Ottobre 193710 Ottobre 1859
8 Ottobre 18571 Ottobre 1836
18 Settembre 1960 (?)12 Novembre 2012 (?)
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
Still there were historic evidences of floods in the area, suche as the last severe 1937 flood
Courtesy of Claudio Margottini, ISPRA
Still there were historic evidences of floods in the area, suche as the last severe 1937 flood
The history of urban plans in the city of Orvieto
l 1956 Renato BONELLI plan to implement– The plan for the historic centre by Mario COPPA
l 1966 Urban master plan by Luigi PICCINATO
l 1977 Plan amendment by Leonardo BENEVOLO
l 2000 Current plan by Bernardo ROSSI DORIA including a plan amendment in 2003
Looking at the municipality of Orvieto considering the hydraulic dimension
Chiani/Paglia
Fosso Abbadia
Connection to highway
Looking at the municipality of Orvieto considering the hydraulic dimension
Chiani/Paglia
Fosso Abbadia
Looking at the municipality of Orvieto considering the hydraulic dimension
Study mandated by the Orvieto Municipality to the professional consultant BETA Studio from Padova.
Source: BETA Studio srl, S. Nicolò, PD, Analisi idraulica e idrologica della piena del fiume Paglia nelle zone di Orvieto Scalo e Ciconia e scenario di esondabilità: implicazioni per il sistema delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, Ottobre 2013.
Looking at the municipality of Orvieto considering the hydraulic dimension
Study mandated by the Orvieto Municipality to the professional consultant BETA Studio from Padova. Source: BETA Studio srl, S. Nicolò, PD, Analisi idraulica e idrologica della piena del fiume Paglia nelle zone di Orvieto Scalo e Ciconia e scenario di esondabilità: implicazioni per il sistema delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, Ottobre 2013.
Looking at the municipality of Orvieto considering the hydraulic dimension
Study mandated by the Orvieto Municipality to the professional consultant BETA Studio from Padova. Source: BETA Studio srl, S. Nicolò, PD, Analisi idraulica e idrologica della piena del fiume Paglia nelle zone di Orvieto Scalo e Ciconia e scenario di esondabilità: implicazioni per il sistema delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, Ottobre 2013.
Looking at the municipality of Orvieto considering the hydraulic dimension
Study mandated by the Orvieto Municipality to the professional consultant BETA Studio from Padova. Source: BETA Studio srl, S. Nicolò, PD, Analisi idraulica e idrologica della piena del fiume Paglia nelle zone di Orvieto Scalo e Ciconia e scenario di esondabilità: implicazioni per il sistema delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, Ottobre 2013.
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The urban scale
Substantial indifference of the “sustainability principle community” to risk prevention: The London Gateway Project
Communication is not just what we say: the construction of a fully equipped Congress Centre in Dresden after the 2002 Elbe flood
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The urban scale
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses. Non urban uses
Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses. Non urban uses
Photos by Carlo Giacomelli, 1955-1980
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
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)
What can be done to mitigate risks?
Risk assessment
Risk mitigation measures: structural and non structural, long and short term
Implementation tools: laws, regulations, directives, economic tools –insurance, incentives, taxes- voluntary….
What can be done to mitigate risks?
Risk assessment
Risk mitigation measures: structural and non structural, long and short term
Implementation tools: laws, regulations, directives, economic tools –insurance, incentives, taxes- voluntary….
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
RISK = HAZARD * VULNERABILITY (Exposed systems)
R = f (H, V, E)
Hazard Vulnerability
Risk
1
D = f( y, V) d(y)
0
RISK = f ( HAZARD, VULNERABILITY, EXPOSURE)
RISK measured in terms of expected damage
HAZARD = characteristics of the dangerous agent (phenomena)
VULNERABILITY= propensity to damage, fragility
(Exposed systems)= number and dimension of people and goods in a dangerous area
Brief definition
Hazard Vulnerability
Risk
Hazard analysis:
- How strong? When? Return period
- Where?
- How long can it last?
R O E ̀ V O L C I A N O
V I L L A N U O V A S U L C L I S I
G A V A R D O
G A R D O N E R I V I E R A
T O S C O L A N O M A D E R N O
G A R G N A N O
V O B A R N O
S A L O ̀ r
L a g o d
i G a r d a
2 . 7 5
1 . 0 5 1 . 1 5 1 . 2 5 1 . 3 5 1 . 4 5 1 . 5 5
1 . 6 5 1 . 7 5
1 . 8 5 1 . 9 5
2 . 0 5 2 . 1 5 2 . 2 5
2 . 3 5 2 . 4 5 2 . 5 5 2 . 6 5
The effectiveness and the ….danger of structural mitigation measures (alone)
Hazard analysis : what mitigation strategies?
What can I do? Reduce the hazard potential (limited to a number of natural hazards)
Exposure analysis:
- How many people?
How many houses, roads, factories?What can I do? Relocate move from the most hazardous areas
vulnerability
A definition of vulnerability:
how prone is a system to be damaged in case of a given stress
ill people
M number of peopleexposed to thevirus
V R
a measure of fragility, weakness
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
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
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
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
What can be done to mitigate risks?
Risk assessment
Risk mitigation measures: structural and non structural, long and short term
Implementation tools: laws, regulations, directives, economic tools –insurance, incentives, taxes- voluntary….
What can be done to prevent risks?
Risk assessment
Risk mitigation measures: structural and non structural, long and short term
Implementation tools: laws, regulations, directives, economic tools –insurance, incentives, taxes- voluntary….
Risk prevention measures shaping a resilient/non resilient mitigation capacity, response and recovery
Land use planning
Structural measures
* re-develpment
* restauration
* relocation
* zoning
Support to implementation
* Disclosure
* Insurance; * tax incentives; * td/p rights
* Communication
Non structural measures
Structural retrofitting
Builidngs retrofitting
Emergency preparedness
* Emergency plans
* Training, exercises
* Early warning systems
Buildings codes
levees
Slope consolidation
Avalanche defences
* Inspections
rural to urban (development)
Transform land uses urban to urban (restoration, redevelopment) urban to rural
Planners do different things in Europe dealing with spatial planning; summarizing and comprising different schools of thought and practice:
rural to rural
Preserve land uses urban to urban
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
An example using material from the Hajian/Yolanda Typhoon november 2013 in the Philippines that Ouejdane Mejri and myself have developed together with two maters students fro their thesis
Starting point: using open data, volunteers open data that were produced in the emergency phase for crisis managment purposes
Several manual methods were used for the data gathering: (1) Keyword lookup using search engines, (2) Rich Site Summary (RSS) feeds subscription and monitoring, (3) Social media monitoring (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.), (4) Forum and organization subscriptions (ALNAP, GDACS, etc.), and (5) Relevant website search (UNOCHA’s Humanitarian Response, Reliefweb,
Gov.PH, etc.).
The overly utilized method was the search engine lookup. However, with this method, a single search yielded a minimum of a thousand to a maximum of six (6) million results.
An example using material from the Hajian/Yolanda Typhoon november 2013 in the Philippines that Ouejdane and myself have developed together with two maters students fro their thesis
Starting point: obtaining from the municipality of Tacloban the land use map, the current urban master plan, the layers on hazard assessment that were already available before the disaster.
Starting point: the legislative system in the Philippines regarding land use planning incorporating information on hazard assessment that was available at the time of the disaster; statistical and demographic data
Development of taxonomies and ontologies according to conceptual links among information and data that are relvant in disaster research and assessment
An example using material from the Hajian/Yolanda Typhoon november 2013 in the Philippines that Ouejdane and myself have developed together with two maters students fro their thesis
Using data collected and managed for emergency purposes for land use planning for the future
An example using material from the Hajian/Yolanda Typhoon november 2013 in the Philippines that Ouejdane and myself have developed together with two maters students fro their thesis
Using data collected and managed for emergency purposes for land use planning for the future
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
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
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
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
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
Resilience in reconstruction: beyond physical reconstruction
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?
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.