6 marzo 2014 - 15-16

2014 Workshop
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità e la resilienza
in urbanistic...
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 ...
State of the art in Europe

Commune de Veurey-Voroize
PLAN DE PREVENTION DES RISQUES NATURELS PREVISIBLES
ZONAGE REGLEMENT...
Example: River zones in Italy before the flood directive
Zone A
Part of the river generally flooding in
thease of the refe...
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 ap...
Flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenarios
referred to in paragraph 3 a...
Flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenarios
referred to in paragraph 3 a...
Flood risk management plan

Member States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management of flood risks for the...
Another example, perhaps the best tool: Le plan de prévention des risques (Risk prevention plan) in
France

Main steps:
a....
Another example, perhaps the best tool: Le plan de prévention des risques (Risk prevention plan) in
France
The first four ...
Le plan de prévention des risques in France. Problems: high costs associated to this type of studies at the
municipal scal...
Example of good practice of planning in a seismic zone, but AFTER the event, during reconstruction
after the Umbria-Marche...
The Umbria Marche reconstruction good practice example
* Specific attention to the quality of the built environment
(the «...
Reconstruction after the Umbria Marche earthquake
* Positive loop between different scales:
- regional directives; trainin...
Armonia Proposal
Help planners to:
Ø
Assess the compatibility of given land uses with
existing natural risks;
Ø

Hazard Ma...
land use planning in hazardous areas
Land use planning in hazardous
areas

include as a crucial objective risk
prevention ...
land use planning in hazardous areas
Areas: recognize that multiple
hazards are not an exception

Risk prevention through ...
land use planning in hazardous areas
Where: hazards, exposure and
vulnerabilities are high
How? Depend on risk assessment
...
land use planning in hazardous areas
physical component: hazards,
physical vulnerability (to multiple
stressors)
Densities...
a dynamic definition of safety (or risk)

SAFETY

RISK

A definition of

safety:
A dynamic
‘non-event’
(Karl Weick)

RISK
...
Land use and spatial planning has a
crucial role in:
-

avoid hazard increase

The concept of scale

-

avoid/reduce expos...
Type of questions to be asked by international agencies (after the Hotspots
project by the World Bank)
* Where could a new...
regional or local plan

base knowlege, continuous assessment

Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework
natural/ rural

land use...
base knowlege, continuous assessme

land uses

physical vulnerability
- different types of
agricoltura l uses
- different ...
Natural Hazard

Scale of parameters
Regional strategic

Local general

Local detailed

Flood hazard to building

Flood dep...
land uses

physical vulnerability
- different types of
agricoltural uses
- different types of
soil uses

urban
physical vu...
H. intensity

socio-economic coping
capacity:
- economic acti vities
- age classes
- tre nd of abandonment
- recent disast...
base knowlege, continuous assessme
regional or local plan

natural/ rural

land uses

physical vulnerability
- different t...
The case-study area

21 Municipalities
Provinces: Florence, Arezzo, Prato
Arno River Basin
190.854 inhabitans (ISTAT 2001)
Data-base structure

Data for exposure, vulnerability and
coping capacity assessment have
been collected and processed in ...
Hazard, exposure, vulnerability maps

Hazard Map
(Landslides)

Exposure map
(Natural and agricoltural areas exposed to flo...
Land use planning choices compatibility assessment: the synthetic tables
Land use planning choices compatibility assessment: the synthetic tables
W ays to reduce physical
vulnerability
W ays to reduce systemic
vulnerability

ZONING

SUBDIVISION STANDARDS

BUILDING COD...
TYPE OF SETTLEMENT
new development

already built area

H

compatibility assessment
of the new development
in the hazardou...
A neglected aspect: the role of land tenure
Urban planning system
and legislative
framework

Regional
economic
approach

L...
Summurizing:

spatial 3D

knowledge,
modelling of
involved physical
phenomena
understand
exposure and
vulnerability

plann...
Risk definition: the evolution of a complex concept

Risk = f (hazard, vulnerability, exposure, ..)
Risk is measured in te...
What types of damages can be
expected?
Direct
physical
damage

Induced physical
damage

Systemic
damage

Damage in the
lon...
Physical
vulnerability of
exposed
buildings and
assets

Physical
damage
scenario: to
buildings and
assets

Social and
econ...
Hazard analysis:
what mitigation
strategies?

What can I do? Prevent the
hazard potential (limited to a
number of natural ...
Hazard analysis:
what mitigation
strategies?

What can I do? Prevent the
hazard potential (limited to a
number of natural ...
Important for both vulnerability and resilience
TEMPORAL
DIMENSION

* impact

SPATIAL
DIMENSION
SCALE

* core

* emergency...
What is the
benefit for risk
management?

core aspects of the various

Scientific and technical
domain

Geographical and
s...
scale

The Ensure project proposed framework

Scale (at which

(of hazards)

vulnerabilities are
regionalconsidered)
Mul M...
Time scale
Key points:
* Time at which the assessment is carried out (different time available as well)
* Hazard time scal...
Semplification: each
matrix address a specific
aspect of the exposed
systems across time and
space

Natural
environment

S...
Case study areas

Vulcano island in Italy.
Aspect to be looked at:
Vulnerability to:
Volcanic hazards;
Earthquakes;
Landsl...
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
Bonadonn...
Hazard analysis in the Vulcano island
(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza
Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara,
T6 ...
Mitigation capacity before the event
(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e...
Relazione vulnerabilità/danno a edifici e persone in edifici
Physical vulnerability of people and emergency structures
(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, F...
Systemic vulnerability assessment (maps: A. Galderisi,
Univ. Napoli)

Sistem
Sociale

Aspect

Parameter

Evaluation criter...
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 environment vulnerabil...
What about future research: interaction of indicators and
systems in the proposed framework
Mitigation capacity
related to...
An experiment working
within scenario modelling

Scales
Hazard Vulnerability
Regional Macr
o
Natural environment
-Climatic...
Rethinking the entire issues of vulnerability and
resilience indicators
data

quality

availability

spatiotemporal

cost ...
sustainability ~ risk prevention
Sustainibility: exploiting the environment while keeping the natural capital for future
g...
sustainability ~ risk prevention
What about environmental damage consequent to what are after all “natural events”, if we
...
In the case of hydrogeological risks, that will be considered today, unsustainible land uses may
increase the hazard itsel...
sustainability ~ risk prevention
Some measures that have been considered as “risk prevention” taken before a disaster or
d...
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 c...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

15 16 menoni-landuseplanning-02_ws2014

138

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
138
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

15 16 menoni-landuseplanning-02_ws2014

  1. 1. 6 marzo 2014 - 15-16 2014 Workshop Conoscenza 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
  2. 2. LAUREA MAGISTRALE DELLA SCUOLA DI ARCHITETTURA E SOCIETÀ Laboratorio organizzato da Luca Marescotti
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. State of the art in Europe Commune de Veurey-Voroize PLAN DE PREVENTION DES RISQUES NATURELS PREVISIBLES ZONAGE REGLEMENTAIRE DU RISQUE hors débordement de l'Isère (sur fon topographique) Niveau de contraintes* : Zones d'interdictions Zone de projet possible sous maîtrise collective Hazard mapping to support planning decisions 1. 2. 3. 4. Sectoral Looks at the best ways to analyse the phenomena rather than consideering end users (scales f.i.) No mention to vulnerability Lack of consideration of enchained hazards Zones de contraintes faibles Zones sans contraintes spécifiques Nature du Planning in hazardousrisque* : areas 1. 2. Sectoral 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 Is not included in ordinary plans but only in “special tools” generally : developed after a disaster 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 maj pour les autres cas) No mention to vulnerability ............ Limite communale 3. ------------- Limite du zonage réglementaire présenté sur fond cadastral au 1/5000 Réalisation : Alp'Géorisques Etabli le : 25 mars 1999 Modifiée le : juillet 2000 4. Edition : Alp'Géorisques (RTM et SEER) Lack of consideration of multirisk Echelle : 1/10 000
  5. 5. Example: River zones in Italy before the flood directive Zone A Part of the river generally flooding in thease of the reference flood c and its discharge Zone B External to the A zone,part of the river t subjecto flood in the case of the reference event; it generally coincide with secondary levees systems Zone C Zone flooded on occasionf catastrophic o floods, due to phenomena are more that severe than those considered in the reference flood Reference flood: TR = 200 years ,
  6. 6. An important initiative at the EU level: the Flood directive
  7. 7. 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 of populated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods.
  8. 8. 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.
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. Flood risk management plan Member 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.
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Another example, perhaps the best tool: Le plan de prévention des risques (Risk prevention plan) in France The first four columns in the following table indicate: Land use planning prescriptions Building prescriptions Presxcriptions related to spatial planning and other issues Recommendations 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 - Règles Règles de Autres Recommandations d'urbanisme construction règles Mouvements de terrain Chutes de pierres et de blocs Bpo (zone bleue, pour les extensions de construction) x Maintien en l'état des dispositifs de protection, filets pareblocs, par le maître d'ouvrage collectif
  13. 13. 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 floods 5500 to earthquakes 4500 to subsidence phenomena 600 to avalanches
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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)
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Armonia Proposal Help planners to: Ø Assess the compatibility of given land uses with existing natural risks; Ø Hazard Map (Landslides) Provide guidelines to planners while deciding modes, intensity and frequency of use of given land parcels and zones in areas prone to natural hazards
  18. 18. 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 prevention is neither economically (discount rate) nor politically convenient the “tragic choices” dilemma should the community consider this essential (community? other actors?)
  19. 19. land use planning in hazardous areas Areas: recognize that multiple hazards are not an exception Risk prevention through land use planning How? Depend on risk assessment for planning purposes
  20. 20. 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)
  21. 21. land use planning in hazardous areas physical component: hazards, physical vulnerability (to multiple stressors) Densities, concentration and specific features of: hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities systems complexity – interdependency; interconnectedness; non linear relations social and economic vulnerabilities: population (features, prepared.) institutions/organisations economic structure/activities
  22. 22. a dynamic definition of safety (or risk) SAFETY RISK A definition of safety: A dynamic ‘non-event’ (Karl Weick) RISK SAFETY
  23. 23. Land use and spatial planning has a crucial role in: - avoid hazard increase The concept of scale - avoid/reduce exposure - reduce/mitigate vulnerability * Global (international agencies and agreements) * National (strategies) space planning time * regional/subregional (plans and programs) * Local/municipal (plans and projects) * Medium/long term (up to 10 years) * pre-event/reconstruction
  24. 24. 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?
  25. 25. regional or local plan base knowlege, continuous assessment Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework natural/ rural land uses physical vulnerability - different types of agricoltural uses - different types of soil uses urban type of hazard - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L) - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F) H. intensity socio-economic coping capacity: - economic activities - age classes - trend of abandonment - recent disaster experience H.frequency H. location risk assessment (expected physical damage: matrixes fragility curves multirisk synthesis table: physical vulnerability - urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments Chain Na-Na urban coping capacity: - economic activities - network infrastructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech Increases Hazard? land use preservation future? as determined in the plan land use transformation compatibility table and map criteria based on H,V,R, CC land use acceptable mitigation measures to reduce Hazard(s) mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure Increases Vulnerability? reduces coping capacity? mitigation measures to increase coping capacity land use not acceptable
  26. 26. base knowlege, continuous assessme land uses physical vulnerability - different types of agricoltura l uses - different types of soil uses urban type of hazard - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L) - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -fores t fires (F) H. intensity socio-economic coping capacity: - economic acti vities - age classes - trend of abandonme nt - recent disaster experie nce H.frequency H. location Chain Na-Na urban coping capacity: - economic activities - network infras tructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped risk assessment (expected physical damage: matrixes Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework physical vulnerability - urban fabric - ind ustrial/ co mmercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments fragility curves multirisk synthesis table: H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech Increases Hazard? land use preservation future? as determi ned in the plan land use transformation criteria based on H,V,R, CC land use acceptable mitigation measures to reduce Hazard(s) mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure Increases Vulnerability? reduces coping capacity? compatibility table and map lan base know lege, continuous a ssessment regional or local plan natural/ rural land use not acceptable mitigation measures to increase coping capacity natural/ rural land uses physical vulnerability - different types of agricoltural uses - different types of soil uses urban type of hazard - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L) - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F) H. intensity socio-economic coping capacity: - economic acti vities - age classes - trend of abandonment - recent disaster experience H.frequency H. location risk assessment (expected physical damage: matrixes fragility curves multirisk synthesis table: physical vulnerability - urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments Chain Na-Na urban coping capacity: - economic activities - network infrastructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech Increases Hazard?
  27. 27. Natural Hazard Scale of parameters Regional strategic Local general Local detailed Flood hazard to building Flood depth (m)* Flood depth (m)* Flood depth (m)* Flood hazard to building annual probability or return period annual probability or return period annual probability or return period Flood hazard to people Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m) Approximate Flame Length (m) Approximate Flame Length (m) Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) +3 Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) +3 Intensity= log10(mass eruption rate, kg/s) +3 Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7 Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7 Magnitude= log10(erupted mass, kg) – 7 Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g) Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g) Peak ground horizontal Acceleration (%g) EMS 98 Seismic Predicted Fire-line Intensity(**) (kW/m) Approximate Flame Length (m) Volcanic eruptions 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). 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). EMS 98 Amplification factor of Peak ground Acceleration (%g) Amplification factor of Peak ground Acceleration (%g) Rockfall kinetic energy (kJ) kinetic energy (kJ) Landslide mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e. cm/year) mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e. cm/year) Debris flow Thickness of deposit front (m) and velocity (m/s) Thickness of deposit front (m) and velocity (m/s) Static flooding flow depth (m) flow depth (m) Dynamic flooding specific discharge (m3/s/m) specific discharge (m3/s/m) extent of lateral erosion (m) extent of lateral erosion (m) avalanche pressure extended on an obstacle (kN/m2) avalanche pressure extended on an obstacle (kN/m2) fast and slow movements percentage of landslide surface (m2, Km2, …) Vs stable surface; Bank erosion type of hazard - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) Snow avalanche landslides (L) - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
  28. 28. land uses physical vulnerability - different types of agricoltural uses - different types of soil uses urban physical vulnerability - urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments type of hazard - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L) - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F) H. intensity socio-economic coping capacity: - economic acti vities - age classes - tre nd of abandonment - recent disaster experience H.frequency H. location urban coping capacity: - economic activities - network infrastructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped risk assessment (expected physical damage: matrixes Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework Chain Na-Na fragility curves multirisk synthesis table: H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech Increases Hazard? land use preservation future? as determined in the plan land use transformation criteria based on H,V,R, CC mitigation measures to reduce Hazard(s) base knowlege, continuous assessment land use acceptable mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure Increases Vulnerability? reduces coping capacity? compatibility table and map n base knowlege, continuous assessme regional or local plan natural/ rural mitigation measures to increase coping capacity land use not acceptable natural/ rural land uses physical vulnerability - different types of agricoltural uses - different types of soil uses urban type of hazard - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L) - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F) H. intensity socio-economic coping capacity: - economic acti vities - age classes - trend of abandonment - recent disaster experience H.frequency H. location risk assessment (expected physical damage: matrixes fragility curves multirisk synthesis table: physical vulnerability - urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments Chain Na-Na urban coping capacity: - economic activities - network infrastructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech Increases Hazard?
  29. 29. H. intensity socio-economic coping capacity: - economic acti vities - age classes - tre nd of abandonment - recent disaster experience H.frequency H. location risk assessment (expected physical damage: matrixes physical vulnerability - urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments Chain Na-Na - economic activities - network infrastructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped - urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework H. intensity capacity: urban coping H.frequency fragility curves multirisk synthesis table: - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L) urban - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F) H. location H, Vexp, R, socio-economic CC, Na-tech coping Increases Hazard? risk assessment (expected capacity: future? land use preservation land use transformation as determined Increases - economic activities in the plan Vulnerability? physical damage: - age classes table and map reduces coping matrixes fragility curves compatibility capacity? criteria based on H,V,R, CC - trend of abandonment - recent disaster experience land use mitigation measures to mitigation measures to land use not mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and acceptable acceptable reduce Hazard(s) increase coping capacity multirisk synthesis table: Exposure regional or local plan regional or local plan base knowlege, continuous base knowlege, continuous assessme - different types land uses of agricoltural uses physical vulnerability - different types of - different types-type of(Flo) - landslides (L) of hazard - seismic (Se) floods agricoltural uses - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F) - different types of soil uses soil uses natural/ rural Chain Na-Na urban coping capacity: - economic activities - network infrastructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech Increases Hazard? land use preservation future? as determined in the plan land use transformation compatibility table and map criteria based on H,V,R, CC land use acceptable mitigation measures to reduce Hazard(s) mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure Increases Vulnerability? reduces coping capacity? mitigation measures to increase coping capacity land use not acceptable
  30. 30. base knowlege, continuous assessme regional or local plan natural/ rural land uses physical vulnerability - different types of agricoltural uses - different types of soil uses urban type of hazard - seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L) - volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F) H. intensity socio-economic coping capacity: - economic acti vities - age classes - trend of abandonment - recent disaster experience H.frequency H. location risk assessment (expected physical damage: matrixes fragility curves multirisk synthesis table: physical vulnerability - urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings - network infrastructures - strategic equipments Chain Na-Na urban coping capacity: - economic activities - network infrastructures - strategic equipments social coping capcity: - age classes - handicapped H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech Increases Hazard? land use preservation future? as determined in the plan land use transformation compatibility table and map criteria based on H,V,R, CC land use acceptable mitigation measures to reduce Hazard(s) mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure Increases Vulnerability? reduces coping capacity? mitigation measures to increase coping capacity land use not acceptable
  31. 31. The case-study area 21 Municipalities Provinces: Florence, Arezzo, Prato Arno River Basin 190.854 inhabitans (ISTAT 2001)
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. Hazard, exposure, vulnerability maps Hazard Map (Landslides) Exposure map (Natural and agricoltural areas exposed to floods) Hazard Map (Seismic and Floods) Vulnerabilty map (Building vulnerability to floods)
  34. 34. Land use planning choices compatibility assessment: the synthetic tables
  35. 35. Land use planning choices compatibility assessment: the synthetic tables
  36. 36. W ays to reduce physical vulnerability W ays to reduce systemic vulnerability ZONING SUBDIVISION STANDARDS BUILDING CODES A. Special seismic study zone A. Performance standards for sensitive lands A. Supplemental seismic standards B. Open space/conservation zones B. Standards and regulations for new development areas B. Standards to be introduced in building codes C. No-building zones C. Regulations and codes for urban renewal C. Seismic standards for retrofitting residential buildings HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS ABATEMENT ORDINANCE STRATEGIC PUBLIC FACILITIES LIFELINES A. Abatement ordinance for risky plants A. Abatement ordinance for public facilities in dangerous areas A. Substitution of old lifelines in dangerous areas C. Increase the mutual distance between dangerous facilities and residential areas B. Relocation of strategic facilities from dangerous areas B. Retrofitting of lifelines in the most vulnerable situations B. Incentives to relocate industrial plants in dangerous sites C. New public facilities in safer areas C. New infrastructures in safer areas PROPERTY ACQUISITION or PURCHASE DEVELOP. RIGHTS TAX CREDITS A. Tax benefits for those who retrofit their house B. Incentives for those relocating from dangerous areas Economic type of tools INSURANCE A. Insurance programs for goods exposed to risks A. Property voluntary acquisition or expropriation B. Insurance programs not only for private citizens but also for local/provincial authorities B. Purchase or expropriation of development rights REAL ESTATE DISCLOSURE A. Obliging contractors disclose risk to potential buyers B. Particular conditions on selling and buying contracts
  37. 37. TYPE OF SETTLEMENT new development already built area H compatibility assessment of the new development in the hazardous area, given possible mitigation measures A NATURAL Z decision concernig the priority to assign in reducing expected levels of damage decisions concerning the new development close to an existing technological hazard: is it desirable? decisions regarding the possibility/opportunity to change the settlement or to modify/relocate the plant compatibility of the new plant with the present and future land use in the area (trying to avoid conflicts over land use) building a new plant should undergo a careful and detailed risk assessment and environemntal impact analysis procedure A R existing D T TECHNOLOGICAL Y P E to be located
  38. 38. A neglected aspect: the role of land tenure Urban planning system and legislative framework Regional economic approach Land tenure system and condition Land tenure management tools Private ownership recognised by constitution Land use is disjuncted from land ownership right Insurance coupled with land use restrictions States may end up subsidizing risks Land use is regulated through plans and taxation Taxation Taxation and legally valid hazard/risk maps affect property prices Land can be confiscated by the State by compensation Land can be confiscated by the State by compensation Land use restrictions may be considered as a taking Public authorities purchase land in the market Public authorities purchase land in the market Structural measures, restrictions., etc discriminate among owners Comprehensive integrated approach Land is public Land use management Large private and public land properties The “urbanism” tradition Fragmented land property Tools that can be used for risk prevention purposes Hazard/risk maps supporting zoning Issues in achieving risk mitigation objectives
  39. 39. Summurizing: spatial 3D knowledge, modelling of involved physical phenomena understand exposure and vulnerability planning perspective systemic capture the need to incorporate integrate structural and non structural measures, together with supporting tools
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. What types of damages can be expected? Direct physical damage Induced physical damage Systemic damage Damage in the long run
  42. 42. Physical vulnerability of exposed buildings and assets Physical damage scenario: to buildings and assets Social and economic vulnerabilities Loss of function and cascade effects scenario emergenc y Systemic vulnerability of complex systems impac t Hazard main parameters: severity, location, frequency Response scenario Resources, (lack of) • Knowledge (poor,inconsistent, applied), • • Adaptation capacities (social capital) Scenario of long lasting precarious conditions and/or increased vulnerability recover y Long term recovery and reconstructi on scenario not
  43. 43. 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 What can I do? Reduce physical vulnerability, mitigate systemic, enhance response capacities mitigation strategies?
  44. 44. 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 What can I do? Reduce physical vulnerability, mitigate systemic, enhance response capacities mitigation strategies?
  45. 45. Important for both vulnerability and resilience TEMPORAL DIMENSION * impact SPATIAL DIMENSION SCALE * core * emergency SYSTEMIC FACTORS * related to systems and components * corona * reconstruction * periphery * related to links among systems Response to crisis Physical ENVIRONMENT financial resources invested, people employed Social SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT impact emergency 1 10 first recovery 100 reconstruction 500 time in weeks advanced reconstruction REGION (Territorio) Economic SYSTEM
  46. 46. What is the benefit for risk management? core aspects of the various Scientific and technical domain Geographical and sociological domain * methods to measure vulnerability have been proposed and applied * in some cases there is still a confusion between expected damage and vulnerability ical references Aa.Vv., Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis. Report of expert group, Rep. Undro, July, 1979. Petrini V, Overview report Ecological field Climate change studies Systems Engineering * vulnerability is interpreted as * in the ecological field one the key concept to explain may find more reasoning differences in response to around resilience rather than disasters between countries vulnerability. Though, the and regions features of a resilient ecosystem can be easily labelled * there is a limited attempt to as lack of vulnerability identify indicators or * attempts to apply directly parameters to assess concepts taken from ecovulnerability logy to social system can be questioned * in climate change studies vulnerability is often interpreted as the lack of copying capacity and resilience. Concepts from the geographical and the ecological field are reshaped and restructured in climate change studies * vulenrability is a latent condition of particularly complex systems, resulting from interaction among parts and components "tightly coupled" * Vulnerability compounds physical, organisational, functional factors as well as management failures Dow K., Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulenrability to global environmental change, in Geoforum, vol. 23, n.3, 1992 J. Kasperson, R. Kasperson et al., The human dimension of global environmental change, MIT University Press, 2003. Giarini O., H. Loubergé, La delusione tecnologica. I rendimenti decrescenti della tecnologia e la crisi della crescita economica, Mondadori, Milano, 1978. Gunderson L., C. Holling, Panarchy. Understanding transformation in human and natural systems Island press, 2002
  47. 47. scale The Ensure project proposed framework Scale (at which (of hazards) vulnerabilities are regionalconsidered) Mul Macro ti(regional, site national, Resilience: Capacity to transform losses into opportunities global) meso Mitigation/ prevention capacity micr o local Systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to losses Physical vulnerability: vulnerability to stress time impact Premonitory signs impact emergency Impact duration recovery Repeated impact recostruction Hazard time scale
  48. 48. Time scale 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 impact emergency impact Impact duration Premonitory signs Repeated impact Time at which the assessment is carried out Adaptation/prevention/Damag e reduction Mitigation (of systemic damages) recovery recostruction Hazard time scale Adatptation/ Expected damag reduction
  49. 49. Semplification: each matrix address a specific aspect of the exposed systems across time and space Natural environment System Social system (agents) - existence and compliance with codes Specific parameters and land use planning regulations translating into measurable - existence of vulerability assessment factors the aspect to be assessed and their consideration on mitigation strategies or in emergency plans - 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 stakeholders 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 Built environment Assessment of natural systems is more important for some hazards than others: it is crucial for drought or forest fires, less so for earthquakes Infrastructure and production sites Crtieria for evaluating the parameters are provided, taking into consideration the different spatial scales at which individuals, institutions and economic agents act (or lack of) economic stakeholders Com me nts/ca se study Whilst the previous groups of systems relate more to the "phyiscal environment", clearly this one embeds the results of decades of social sciences research in the field of risk and disasters studies 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 Whilst the previous groups of systems relate more to the "phyiscal environment", clearly this one embeds the results of decades of social sciences research in the field of risk and disasters studies Crite ria for asse ssment 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) Critical facilities and production sites are clearly part of the built environment. Nevertheless a specific group of rows have been dedicated to them because of their relevance. - weaknesses versus preparedness of - people/individuals individuals Criteria for assessment Critical - community and facilities and production sites - weaknesses versus preparedness of are provided; proposed are institutions clearly part of the built environment. organisations and institutions criteria reflect the need to Nevertheless a specific group of rows - economic - preparedness and recovery capacity address the interaction have been dedicated to them because stakeholders (or lack of) economic stakeholders across spatial scales of of their relevance. such facilities stakeholders Crtieria for evaluating the parameters are provided, taking into consideration the different spatial scales at which individuals, institutions and economic agents act Aspect Para m ete rs - existence and quality of mapping and monitoring Specific parameters to permit assessment of the - assessment of hazards triggered by aspects that have been other hazards identified as relevant - fragility to hazards and to mitigation measures Building codes exist for some hazards (particularly seismic) and not for others; nevertheless research in the field of resistance assessment to various types of stress has evolved in the last decades 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 multiple Building codes exist for some hazards - existence of strategies addressing measurement modality (particularly seismic) and not for others; the interdependency and the are provided;-they also nevertheless research in the field of critical facilities functioning of critical facilities under depend on the scale at resistance assessment to various types extreme conditions which the assessment is of stress has evolved in the last - public facilities carried out decades- existence of plans and procedures to maintain prodcution in safe conditions - production facilities given the possibility of an extreme - existence of strategies addressing event Parameters to specify Criteria for assessment the interdependency and the Critical facilities and production sites - critical facilities conditions at which crucial are provided; proposed functioning of critical facilities under are clearly part of the built environment. - weaknesses versus preparedness of lifelines and utilities cna keep criteria reflect people/individuals extreme conditions - the need to Nevertheless a specific group of rows individuals address the interaction - existence of plans and procedures to functioning are provided, as have been dedicated to them because across spatialcommunity and - scales of of their relevance. - weaknesses versus preparedness of maintain prodcution in safe conditions well as to address the - production facilities potential for na-tech such facilities institutions organisations and institutions given the possibility of an extreme event - economic - preparedness and recovery capacity - residential buildings Aspect Social system (agents) Built environment - enchained events Infrastructure and production sites - ecosystems Aspect Para m ete rs - existence and quality of mapping and monitoring Specific parameters to permit assessment of the - assessment of hazards triggered by aspects that have been other hazards identified as relevant - fragility to hazards and to mitigation measures - existence and quality of mapping and monitoring Specific parameters to permit assessment of the - assessment of hazards triggered by aspects that have been other hazards identified as relevant - fragility to hazards and to mitigation - ecosystems Crite ria for a sse ssme nt Com me measuresstudy nts/ca se Criteria may range from binary (yes/no) to degree Assessment of natural systems is (corresponding to more important for some hazards than judgements) or to more - existence and compliance with codes drought - residential others: physical measures (for buildings it is crucial for planningor forest Specific parameters and for use fires, less solandearthquakes regulations example related to time translating into measurable needed for ecosystems to - existence of vulerability assessment factors the aspect to be recover) assessed - public facilities and their consideration on mitigation strategies or in emergency plans - natural hazards - natural hazards Social system (agents) - enchained events Aspect Aspect Pa ra me ters Built environment - natural hazards Aspe ct - ecosystems Infrastructure and production sites Com ponent Com pone nt Aspe ct - enchained events Social system (agents) Infrastructure and production sites Built environment Natural environment System Natural environment Syste m Com pone nt - natural hazards Aspect Pa ra me te rs Criteria for assessm ent Comm ents/case study Criteria for multiple - existence and compliance with codes Criteria may range from - residential Specific parameters measurement modality - existence and quality of mapping and buildings and land use planning regulations to degree binary (yes/no) translating into measurable systems is monitoring Specific parameters to Assessment of natural are provided; they also (corresponding to depend than - existence of permit assessment of the vulerability assessment factors the aspect to be some hazards on the scale at more important for judgements) or to - assessment of hazards triggered by facilities thatand their consideration on mitigation more assessed which the assessment is - public aspects have been others: it is crucial for drought or forest - enchained events physical measures (for other hazards carried out identified as strategies or in emergency plans to time relevant fires, less so for earthquakes example related - fragility to hazards and to mitigation - ecosystems needed for ecosystems to measures recover) - existence of strategies addressing Parameters to specify Criteria for assessment the interdependency and the - critical facilities conditions at which crucial are provided; proposed functioning of critical facilities under Criteria for assessm ent Com m ents/case study Criteria for multiple lifelines and utilities cna keep criteriahazards Building codes exist for some reflect the need to extreme conditions - existence and compliance with codes Criteria may range- from residential buildings functioning are provided, asandaddressothers; Specific parameters measurement modality (particularly seismic) not for the interaction - existence of plans and procedures to and land use planning regulations binary (yes/no) to degree across spatial translating into measurable are safe conditions well as to address the nevertheless research in the field ofscales of Assessment of natural systems is maintain prodcution in provided; they also (corresponding to - production facilities potential for na-tech such facilities depend on the scale at resistance assessment to various types - for some of vulerability more importantexistence hazards than assessment factors the aspectthebe given to possibility of an extreme judgements) or to more assessed event which the assessment is of stress has evolved in the last - public facilities it is crucial for drought or forest mitigation and their consideration on others: physical measures (for carried out decades strategies or in fires, less so for earthquakes emergency plans example related to time needed for ecosystems to - weaknesses versus preparedness of Most of those are qualitative Crtieria for evaluating the - people/individuals parameters to assess the parameters are provided, recover) - existence of strategies addressing individuals general level of preparedness taking into consideration Parameters to specify Criteria for assessment the interdependency and the Critical facilities and - critical facilities - community and - weaknesses versus preparedness of and recovery capacity (or production sites the different spatial scales conditions at which crucial are provided; proposed functioning of critical facilities under are clearly part of the built environment. institutions organisations and institutions lack at which individuals, lifelines and utilities cna keep criteria reflect the need to of) to traumas and Criteria for multiple Building codes exist for some hazards extreme conditions Nevertheless a by provoked specific group of rows - economic - preparedness address the interaction measurement modality (particularly seismic) and of plansothers; - existence not for and procedures to functioning are provided, as and recovery capacity discomofrotbeen dedicated to institutions and economic have them because agents act stakeholders (or lack of) across spatial scales potential disasters of are provided; they also nevertheless maintain prodcution in safe conditions well as to address the economic stakeholders research in the field of of their relevance. - production facilities potential for na-tech such facilities depend on the scale at resistance assessmentpossibility of an extreme given the to various types which the assessment is of stress has evolved in the last event carried out decades Natural environment Syste m Component Whilst the previous groups of systems relate more to the "phyiscal environment", clearly this one embeds the results of decades of social sciences research in the field of risk and disasters studies 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 systems relate more to the "phyiscal environment", clearly this one embeds the results of decades of social sciences research in the field of risk and disasters studies
  50. 50. 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 Ilia Prefecture, Greece The Northern Negev, Israel Aspect to be looked at: Vulnerability to: Drought (but also flash floods?) Water scarcity as a risk but also opportunity for cooperation in conflict areas Aspect to be looked at: Vulnerability to: - Forest fires - Multisite hazards challenging the intervention of civil protection
  51. 51. The application of the Ensure methodology to the Vulcano Island
  52. 52. Physical, systemic and social vulnerability change overtime
  53. 53. 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)
  54. 54. Hazard analysis in the Vulcano island (elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)
  55. 55. Mitigation capacity before the event (elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli) System Aspect Aspect weight Keytopic Key-topic Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Risk perception/ awareness Level of coverage of Early Warning Systems (if EW Systems are available) People/individuals Preparedness 1 Are individuals aware of existing risks, informed and prepared in case of emergency? 1 qualitative scale based on low/average/good questionnaires quantitative scale based on data collection % of coverage in respect to the population Individual preparedness in terms of availability qualitative scale based on low/average/good of masks and sholves questionnaires Known evacuation procedures binary scale based on questionnaires yes/no Assessment AVERAGE __ LOW NO Notes on the Vulcano case-study According to surveys developed within the Ensure Project, the awareness of timing of most recent eruption (69%) is good. Expectations of a future eruption in <100 years is also good, but lack of expectation of an eruption in < 12 months suggests that people delay in taking preparedness actions, since the issue is not pressing. Interviewed people were largely split down the middle on the idea of taking actions to increase their ability to respond to the next eruption (e.g., 52% disagreeing they would prepare and 47% agreeing they would). According to surveys developed within the Ensure Project, concern about lack of information, no provision for elderly and a lack of drills have been expressed by several interviewed. A majority of respondents believe they would have from few minutes to some hours to react before an eruption. But, few people indicated they have an emergency supply kit on hand. At present, the Emergency Plan is not avalible; thus, evacuation procedures are not clearly defined. The only evacuation drill on the island was done in November 1991. They used 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 of emergency In detail, the questionnaires reveal that 43% of interviewed, answered that in case of eruption they would have gone to specific meetings points, while 40% declared they don't know what to do. Scoring Parameter 0 Social system (agents) 1 Regularly (every qualitative scale based on year)/every few data collection years/occasionally OCCASIONALLY qualitative scale based on not questionnaires and expert existant/average/good judgment NOT EXISTANT binary scale based on data collection NO 0 Frequency of media campaigns qualitative scale based on every two years/only data collection occasionally Education programs embedded in school programs Coordination and cooperation among institutions in charge of risk prevention/ mitigation binary scale based on yes/no data collection qualitative scale based on interviews and expert low/average/high judgement GDP; GVA (Gross added value, measure of productivity and size of economy) Mitigation capacity of economic stakeholders System Social 1 Do local economic stakeholders have sufficient resources for mitigation? 0,1 = Very 0,1 = Very Low Low 0 Media campaigns 1 Scoring System 0 Participation in development and prevention/mitigation strategies Mitigation capacity of Institutions Scoring Aspect 0.5 Evacuation drill (training) frequency 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? Scoring keytopic yes/no qualitative scale based on rich/average/poor country data collection Aspect qualitative scale based on low/average/high data collection Key-Topic 0,1 = Very 0,1= Very Low Low __ NO 0 AVERAGE 0.5 AVERAGE 1 dimension of poverty/marginalization 0 LOW Tourism represents the leading economic activity. Thanks to tourism, local economy is placed at an average level: incomes are surely all above 15000 € per year, most between 15-30 thousand €/year and, according to the surveys developed within the Ensure Project, no one is below the poverty threshold. Nevertheless, the regional economic context is very poor: the value of the GDP pro-capite in Sicily is one of the lowest in Italy. The low level of the regional economy might have relevant repercussions on the local scale in terms of provision of public services, lack of cultural and social activities and strategic development strategies. According to this, it seems possible to state that private stakeholders should have an average capacity to raise funds for mitigation, but public resources would be difficult to raise. National or European funds would be required although the Volcano island should represent not a priority in the Italian situation where other volcanic areas, like the Vesuvius area for example, would require funds for mitigation activities. 0.5 As mentioned above, no one is below the poverty threshold; almost all inhabitants own a house. More than 30% of inhabitants has at least an other property to rent in the summer. 1 preparedness contingency plans exist/do not exercises yes/no; frequency Parameter 0,75 = High 0,75 = High 0,2 = Very Low
  56. 56. Relazione vulnerabilità/danno a edifici e persone in edifici
  57. 57. Physical vulnerability of people and emergency structures (elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli) System Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Application to case study Scoring (5 high - 1 Weight (1 high - 0 low) not relevant) Total Score Social system (agents) yes/no; frequency of training; no data available What are the factors that People/individuals may lead to injuries and fatalities? Community and Instituions What are the factors that may lead to large number of victims? Preparedness prior training and information leaflet to tourist exercises; information about what do do Check point for climbing the volcano Sensistivity to health effects of volcanic means of self protection yes/no; hazards resident and present inside/outside potentially concentration population in dangerous affected areas (scenario areas dependent) Age; mobility difficulties to comply impairment, other with evacuation orders; yes/no; number of people impairment difficulties in escaping 3-4000 tourist a day in high season (june september) 3 0,75 2,25 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 yes 3 1 3 The assessment has been developer grouding on cartography 4 0,5 2 Yes, 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 13=Medium
  58. 58. Systemic vulnerability assessment (maps: A. Galderisi, Univ. Napoli) Sistem Sociale Aspect Parameter Evaluation criteria preparazione mezzi di protezione seguiti/non seguiti conoscenza vie di fuga si/no
  59. 59. Assessment of post event resilience
  60. 60. Resilience in reconstruction: beyond physical reconstruction
  61. 61. What about future research: interaction of indicators and systems in the proposed framework Natural environment vulnerability factors Vulnerability factors of the built environment Vulnerability factors of critical facilities and production sites Vulnerability of social systems and agents Interactions within the same set of matrices
  62. 62. What about future research: interaction of indicators and systems in the proposed framework Mitigation capacity related to the natural environment Physical vulnerability of the natural environment Systemic vulnerability of the natural environment Resilience of the natural environment Mitigation capacity related to the built environment Physical vulnerability of the built environment Systemic vulnerability of the built environment Resilience of the built environment Mitigation capacity related to the critical facilities Physical vulnerability of the critical facilities Sysemic vulnerability of critical facilities Resilience of critical facilities Mitigation capacity related to the social and economic agents Physical vulenrability of the social and economic agents Systemic vulnerability of the social and economic agents Resilience of the social and economic agents PRE-IMPACT PERIOD IMPACT EMERGENCY RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION
  63. 63. An experiment working within scenario modelling Scales Hazard Vulnerability Regional Macr o Natural environment -Climatic variability -General slope instability Social system-Institutions Natural environment - Lower level of spending capacity for recovery Multiscale Meso Institutional Vulnerability Critical facilities - EWS and monitoring - Poor external accessibility 12 Social system-Institutions -Agencies working with different alerting thresholds Social system-Institutions - Lack of coordination among agencies regarding EWS implementation - Relaxing land use planning (80s and 90s - Lack of provincial emergency plan Social system-Institutions -No evacuation plan Natural environment Social system-Economic agents - Lack of consideration of river bed aggradation in EWS models Built environment - Limited/no insurance coverage Physical vulnerability -Urban development -Hazardous installations Local Micro Critical facilities - Presence of hazardous installations - Poor internal accessibility - Lack of business plans for the commercial district Built environment Population -Risk perception -Preparedness - High density in flooding zones - Public facilities in flooding zones Population - Lack of information - Lack of preparedness -Age class of household -Number of persons per household Impact 11 Social system-Economic agents - Dependance on few sectors vulnerable to floods; - Income level Economic vulnerability Population Pre-event 10 Critical facilities Emergency Recovery Time 13 1987 event
  64. 64. Rethinking the entire issues of vulnerability and resilience indicators data quality availability spatiotemporal cost of collection measurable specific representative verifiable scientific validity cost effective indicators characteristics
  65. 65. sustainability ~ risk prevention Sustainibility: exploiting the environment while keeping the natural capital for future generations... environmental damage human and economic losses Risk prevention: preventing mass victims and extensive losses due to some “extreme” event that may occur in the future...
  66. 66. sustainability ~ risk prevention What 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:
  67. 67. In the case of hydrogeological risks, that will be considered today, unsustainible land uses may increase the hazard itself
  68. 68. sustainability ~ risk prevention Some 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?
  69. 69. The effectiveness and the ….danger of structural mitigation measures (alone)
  70. 70. risk prevention ~ sustainability Resources/hazards: we may say that the margin is shaped by vulnerability or resilience
  71. 71. 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.
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×