17 sm land-use-planning_ws2015

2015 Workshop
Conoscenza 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 HAZARDS
reducing
EXPOSURE
physical 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
longtermmitigationmeasuresshorttermmitigationmeasures
STRUCTURAL NON STRUCTURAL
reducing VULNERABILITY

Where is the hazard and 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 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…)

Still there were historic evidences of floods in the area, suche as the last severe 1937 flood

7 Ottobre 1937
10 Ottobre 1859
8 Ottobre 1857
1 Ottobre 1836
18 Settembre 1960 (?)
12 Novembre 2012 (?)

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

Chiani/Paglia
Fosso Abbadia

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.

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 fon
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 maj
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 river
subjectto flood in the case of the reference
event; it generally coincide with secondary
levees systems
Zone C
Zone flooded on occasionof catastrophic ,
floods, due to phenomenathat 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 of
populated 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 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.

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
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 floods
5500 to earthquakes
4500 to subsidence phenomena
600 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 Proposal
Help 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)

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?
ROE`
VOLCIANO
VILLANUOVA
SUL CLISI
GAVARDO
GARDONE
RIVIERA
TOSCOLANO
MADERNO
GARGNANO
VOBARNO
SALO`r
LagodiGarda
2.75
1.051.151.251.35
1.451.55
1.65
1.75
1.85
1.95
2.052.15
2.25
2.352.45
2.55
2.65

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 people
exposed 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.
icalreferencescoreaspectsofthevarious

Important for both vulnerability and resilience
TEMPORAL SPATIAL SYSTEMIC
DIMENSION DIMENSION FACTORS
SCALE
* impact * core * related to systems
and components
* emergency * corona
* reconstruction * periphery * related to links
among systems
Response
to crisis
financial
resources
invested,
people
employed
impact 1 10 100 500
time in
weeks
emergency first recovery reconstruction advanced reconstruction
Response
to crisis
financial
resources
invested,
people
employed
impact 1 10 100 500
time in
weeks
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

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 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).
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 about
lack of information, no provision for elderly and a lack of drills have been
expressed by several interviewed.
Individual preparedness in terms of availability
of masks and sholves
questionnaires
low/average/good LOW
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.
0
Known evacuation procedures
binary scale based on
questionnaires
yes/no NO
At present, the Emergency Plan is not avalible; thus, evacuation procedures
are not clearly defined.
0
Evacuation drill (training) frequency
data collection
Regularly (every
year)/every few
years/occasionally
OCCASIONALLY
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.
0
Participation in development and
prevention/mitigation strategies
questionnaires and expert
judgment
not
existant/average/good
NOT EXISTANT 0
Media campaigns
data collection
yes/no NO 0
Frequency of media campaigns
data collection
every two years/only
occasionally
__
Education programs embedded in school
programs
data collection
yes/no NO 0
Coordination and cooperation among
institutions in charge of risk prevention/
mitigation
interviews and expert
judgement
low/average/high AVERAGE 0.5
GDP; GVA (Gross added value, measure of
productivity and size of economy)
data collection
rich/average/poor country AVERAGE
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
Notes on the Vulcano case-study
Scoring
Parameter
Scoring key-
topic
Scoring Aspect
Scoring
System
System Aspect
Aspect
weight
Key-topic
Key-
topic
Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Assessment
Socialsystem(agents)
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
Low
1
1
11
1
1
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
0,1 = Very
Low
0,1 = Very
Low
0,75 =
High
dimension of poverty/marginalization
data collection
low/average/high LOW
System Aspect Key-Topic Parameter
Social preparednesscontingency plans exist/do not
exercises 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 people climb the volcano every day betweenAugust
and September. About 7,000 people were ticketed every month
(aug-spet) and round 2,000 pe ople climb with no ticket, thus
around 9,000people may be on the volcano every day.
3 1 3
Sensistivity to health
effects of volcanic
hazards
means of self protection yes/no; yes 3 1 3
concentration
resident 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 people
Yes, 180/1080 people are over the threshold of 65 years 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 study
Scoring (5 high - 1
low)
Weight (1 high - 0
not relevant)
Total Score
13=Medium
Parameters
Criteria 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
Preparedness
prior training and
exercises; information
about what do do
Socialsystem(agents)
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 seguiti
conoscenza vie di fuga si/no

Assessment of post event resilience

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 framework
land usesnatural/ rural urban
physical vulnerability
- different types of
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)
- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)
- 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:
social 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
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
compatibility table and map
criteria based on H,V,R, CC
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
mitigation measures to
reduce Hazard(s)
reduce Vulnerability and
Exposure
increase coping capacity
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
baseknowlege,continuousassessmentregionalorlocalplan
H.frequency H. location
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
baseknowlege,continuousassessmentregionalorlocalplan

agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
baseknowlege,continuousassessmentlan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
baseknowlege,continuousassessmentlan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
baseknowlege,continuousassessmeregionalorlocalplan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
Armonia Proposal: the DSS
framework

avalanche pressure extended on an
obstacle (kN/m2)
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)
(m/s)
Debris flow
mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e.
cm/year)
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)
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
+ 3
Intensity= log10
+ 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:
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
obstacle (kN/m2)
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
(m/s)
(m/s)
Debris flow
cm/year)
cm/year)
Landslide
kinetic energy (kJ)kinetic energy (kJ)Rockfall
percentage of landslide surface (m2, Km2,
…) Vs stable surface;
fast and slow
movements
Acceleration (%g)
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
+ 3
Intensity= log10
+ 3
Intensity= log10
+ 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:
per second (m/s).
HR = d x (v + 0.5)
Where:
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

agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
baseknowlege,continuousassessmentn
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
baseknowlege,continuousassessmentn
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
H.frequency H. location Armonia Proposal: the DSS
framework

agricoltural uses
soil uses
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
baseknowlege,continuousregionalorlocalplan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
baseknowlege,continuousregionalorlocalplan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
H.frequency H. location Armonia Proposal: the DSS
framework

agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan
agricoltural uses
soil uses
type of hazard
- urban fabric
capacity:
- age classes
- age classes
- handicapped
H. intensity
physical damage:
Chain Na-Na
Increases
Hazard?
Increases
Vulnerability?
land use
acceptable
land use not
acceptable
reduce Hazard(s)
Exposure
reduces coping
capacity?
future?
as determined
in the plan

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 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

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

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

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

Risk prevention through land use
planning
Areas: recognize that multiple
hazards are not an exception
How? Depend on risk assessment
for planning purposes

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)

physical 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 the
D 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
TECHNOLOGICAL
Y
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 LIFELINES
ABATEMENT 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 CREDITS
PURCHASE 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
Waystoreducephysical
vulnerability
Waystoreducesystemic
vulnerability
Economictypeoftools

Land tenure
system and
condition
Urban planning system
and legislative
framework
Land tenure
management tools
Tools that can be
used for risk
prevention purposes
Issues in achieving
risk mitigation
objectives
Regional
economic
approach
Comprehensive
integrated
approach
Land use
management
The “urbanism”
tradition
Private ownership
recognised by
constitution
Land is public
Large private and
public land
properties
Fragmented land
property
Land use is
disjuncted from
land ownership
right
Land use is
regulated through
plans and taxation
Land can be
confiscated by the
State by
compensation
Public authorities
purchase land in
the market
Insurance coupled
with land use
restrictions
Taxation
Land can be
confiscated by the
State by
compensation
Public authorities
purchase land in
the market
States may end up
subsidizing risks
Taxation and
legally valid
hazard/risk maps
affect property
prices
Land use
restrictions may
be considered as a
taking
Structural measures,
restrictions., etc
discriminate among
owners
Hazard/risk maps
supporting zoning
Land tenure
system and
condition
Urban planning system
and legislative
framework
Land tenure
management tools
Tools that can be
used for risk
prevention purposes
Issues in achieving
risk mitigation
objectives
Regional
economic
approach
Comprehensive
integrated
approach
Land use
management
The “urbanism”
tradition
Private ownership
recognised by
constitution
Land is public
Large private and
public land
properties
Fragmented land
property
Land use is
disjuncted from
land ownership
right
Land use is
regulated through
plans and taxation
Land can be
confiscated by the
State by
compensation
Public authorities
purchase land in
the market
Insurance coupled
with land use
restrictions
Taxation
Land can be
confiscated by the
State by
compensation
Public authorities
purchase land in
the market
States may end up
subsidizing risks
Taxation and
legally valid
hazard/risk maps
affect property
prices
Land use
restrictions may
be considered as a
taking
Structural measures,
restrictions., etc
discriminate among
owners
Hazard/risk maps
supporting zoning
A neglected aspect: the role of land tenure

Summurizing:
spatial 3D
planning perspective systemic
capture the need
to incorporate
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
emergenc
y
recover
y
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
reconstructi
on scenario
Scenario of long
lasting
precarious
conditions
and/or increased
vulnerability

Resilience in reconstruction: beyond physical reconstruction

sustainability ~ risk prevention
Sustainibility: 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

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:

In the case of hydrogeological risks, that will be considered today, unsustainible land uses may
increase the hazard itself

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?

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.

17 sm land-use-planning_ws2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 17 sm land-use-planning_ws2015

Similar to 17 sm land-use-planning_ws2015 (20)

More from Luca Marescotti

More from Luca Marescotti (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

17 sm land-use-planning_ws2015