ENSURE E-LEARNING TOOL F32_A synthesis of the whole ENSURE method for assessing vulnerability and resilienceSelection fromThe integrated framework for vulnerability and resilienceassessmentby Scira MenoniENSURE final meeting The project is financed by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, Area “Environment”, Activity 6.1 “Climate Change, Pollution and Risks”.
The integrated framework for vulnerability and resilience assessment Scira Menoni, Politecnico di Milano, with Claudio Margottini, Funda Atun, Seda Kundak Framework developed with all Ensure partners Ensure Final Workshop - Orleans, May 10-11 2011
Rapid needs and damage assessment: the urgent and fundamental needof a methodology. Drawing on an experience of ASEAN inBirmania/Myanmar 2008
Drawing on an experience of ASEAN in Birmania/Myanmar 2008Key points:* Do not reinvent the wheel* Comparability among places (scale)* Linked to mitigation policies* Verify results of policies (time scale) Comment by Richard Blowitt (Microdis meeting 2009): “not enough experience and training in such needs/damage assessments”
spacevulnerability time Turner et al., 2003, “Vulnerability rests in a multifaceted coupled system with connections operating at different spatiotemporal scales and commonly involving stochastic and non-linear processes”.
resilience ~ vulnerability vulnerability: how prone is a system to be damaged in case of a given stress capacity to bounce back and even more: to transform damage into opportunitiesResilience capacity to face uncertainties capacity to face change (is change always negative? Do we need resilience also to face positive change?)
Methodology *exctracting concepts * development of a framework basically a model for vulnerability and resilience assessment* Case studies from * verify on case studiesprevious studies, literaturetest areas of the project
scale Scale (at which (of hazards) vulnerabilities are regionalconsidered) Mult Macro i-site (regional, Resilience: national, global) Capacity to transform meso losses into Systeemic opportunities vulnerability: vulnerability Mitigation Physical to losses micr capacity o vulnerability: local vulnerability to stress time impact emergency recovery recostructionPremonitory impact Impact Repeated Hazard timesigns duration impact scale
scale Scale (at which vulnerabilities are considered) (of hazards) regional globall) National/ Multi- resilience: response capability in the long runresilience: mitigation capacitiessystems parameters depending on: site systems parameters depending on: natural environment * cleaning up tools capacity ofnatural environment capacity of systems to: systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to losses systems to: built environment * availability of materials * recover from systems parameters depending on:built environment * existence of build. * embed prevention * availability of skilled losses(structures including codes for new into ordinary natural environment * vulnerability to na-tech losses and workersstrucutral mitigation * existence of codes activities the consequence urban fabric * mitigation embedded inmeasures) rules for retrofitting built environment losses may reconstruction plans physical vulnerability: physical damageability have onurban fabric * mitigation embedded critical infrastructures * robustness * transform losses systems parameters depending on: urban fabric * external and internal in ordinary plans * embed mitigation and facilities * flexibility intocritical infrastructures in resilience * build in projects accessibility * resourcefulness opportunities natural environment * vulnerability to stress specific aspects critical infrastructures Regionaland facilities in new projects * dependency individual production sites * substitutability * reduce pre-event of individual and facilities * robustenss sectors, * build in resilience vulnerability built environment * structural features hazards (or * rapidity activityproduction sites in modernization agents (examples) (including structural * concentration enchained ones), * resourcefulness programs population in * development key criteria: measures) * maintenance production sites * transferability serviceagents (examples) hazardous zones * social cohesion * capacity to learn urban fabric * patterns *…. * access to credit * dynamic adaptationpopulation in * ongoing education key criteria: agents (examples) key criteria: * access to institutions critical infrastructures * lifelines features and to the * ability to functionhazardous areas programs * capacity to * insurance coverage and facilities * hospitals features response of population living in * preparedness * access to insurance enforce governmental organ. * capacity to reorganise *…. systems and hazardous areas * access to information * information * keeping attention * capacity to question production sites * agricolture: vulnerability agnets to the localgovernmental * capacity to enforce on mitigation * access to knowledgeorganisations * capacity to invest in local to stress * production sites features stress governmental organ. * plans, preparation… * capacity to enforce prevention despite * sharing of information * insurance coverage uncertainties * access to crucial economic stakeholders * capacity to recover… structural measures * quality knowledge * creation/use of * insurance coverage * maintenance implemention tools agents (examples) key criteria: economic stakeholders * business continuityeconomic * including business * phsyicalstakeholders continuity in plans population living in * age characteristics * insurance coverage hazardous zones * disabled… * concentration * maintenance time impact emergency recovery recostruction Premonitory impact Impact Repeated impact Hazard signs duration time scale Time at which the assessment is carried out
Time scale: some thoughts Key points: * Time at which the assessment is carried out (different time available as well) * Time scale of the hazard does not coincide with event time scale (aftershocks, duration ) * Time cross – level relations time emergency recovery recostruction impactPremonitory impact Impact Repeated impact Hazardsigns duration time scale Time at which the assessment is carried out
Scale (at Spatial scale: some thoughts whichscale vulnerabilities are(of hazards) considered) Key points: regional globall) Multi- National/ site * Tension between local scale and larger scales * Emergent aspects (relevant for systemic Regional vulnerability for example) * Cross-level relationships: influence of vulenrability at one scale (agency for local local example) on another scale (laws, regulations, stretegies)
resilience: mitigation capacitiessystems parameters depending on: Semplification: each matrixnatural environment capacity of address a specific aspect of systems to:built environment * existence of build. * embed prevention(structures including codes for new into ordinary the exposed systems acrossstrucutral mitigation * existence of codes activitiesmeasures) rules for retrofitting time and space physical vulnerability: physical damageabilityurban fabric * mitigation embedded in ordinary systems embed mitigation parameters plans * depending on:critical infrastructures in resilience * build in projectsand facilities in new projects natural environment * vulnerability to stress specific aspects * build in resilience of individualproduction sites in modernization programs built environment * structural features hazards (oragents (examples) (including structural * concentration enchained ones), measures) * systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to losses maintenancepopulation in * ongoing education key criteria: urban fabric * systems patterns parameters depending on:hazardous areas programs * capacity to * access to insurance enforce natural environment * vulnerability to na-tech losses and critical infrastructures * keeping attention * lifelines features and to the the consequencegovernmental * capacity toand facilitiesmitigation enforce on * built environment hospitals features response of losses mayorganisations * capacity to invest in *…. systems and have on prevention despite production sites uncertainties * urban fabric vulnerability* external andthe agricolture: agnets to internal accessibility * creation/use of to stress stress implemention tools critical infrastructures * dependency individual resilience: response capability in the long run * production sites featureseconomic * including business and facilities * robustenss sectors, systems parameters depending on:stakeholders continuity in plans * rapidity activity * insurance coverage measures structural * quality * resourcefulness natural environment * cleaning up tools capacity of * production sites maintenance * transferability service systems to: agents (examples) *…. criteria: key built environment * availability of materials * recover from agents (examples) * phsyical key criteria: population living in * age characteristics * ability to function * availability of skilled losses hazardous zones * population living in disabled… * preparedness * concentration workers hazardous areas * access to information fabric * maintenanceurban * information * mitigation embedded in
Organisation of each matix: different “components” of vulnerability Risk: flood; Case study: Severn, flood 2007 Second Matrix: Physical vulnerability: Vulnerability to stress (hazard) System Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Application to case study Are different Natural environment Are natural ecosystems fragile to the crops/agricolture productions potential effects of hazard(s)? vulnerable? Can natural systems interact with Is there a possibility of solid Natural ecosystems hazard(s)? trasport mechanisms Are natural ecosystems vulnerable to Is there a possibility of water mitigation measures taken particularly diversion that will subtract during the eemrgency phase? water from needing areas Buildings structural Built environment vulnerability Exposure and What are the factors that make Position with respect to vulnerability of built buildings, the urban fabric and public hazardous zones environment facilities vulnerable to the stress? Content of buildings Vulnerability assessment of public facilities Vulnerability of the urban fabric What are the factors that make critical Water treatment plants;and production Infrastructure Critical infrastructures infrastructures vulenrable (mainly electical power plants; other lifelines) lifelines plants sites What are the factors that make Vulnerability assessment of Production sites production sites vulnerable (including production sites na-tech potential) Location with respect to Social system (agents) vulnerable buidlings, roads, industrial sites What are the factors that may lead to Preparedness People/individuals injuries and fatalities? Depth of flood dangerous for individuals Age; mobility impairment, other impairment Population density in Community and What are the factors that may lead to vunerable areas Instituions large number of victims?
Natural environment System Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Application to case study Are crops and other Are natural ecosystems fragile to the by type of production and detailed analysis of potential agricoltural productions potential secondary effects of concentration/type of contaminants sources in the vulnerable to contaminated hazard(s)? contaminant area needed Natural ecosystems water Areas that may be along the river, considering Contaminants, rock, stones, vulnerable to secondary dispersion mode of boulders, mud; transportation contamination contaminants pocessesBuilt environment Existance of public facilities: hospitals, fire yes/no; functional capacity assessment of functional brigades, emergency of such facilities potential of facilities Exposure and What are the factors that make control rooms vulnerability of built buildings, the urban fabric and public 10,000 motorists stranded on environment facilities vulnerable to losses? redundancy; quality of Accessibility to vulnerable motorway system. 500 rail roads; usability; expected areas passengers stranded. Tens and travel time thousands more with disrupted travel for several weeks. Existance of lifelines binary yes/no Continuity plan for lifelines, yes/no; considers all potential individually and in a binaryInfrastructure and production sites threats/does not coordinated fashion Number af f ected through loss of Critical What are the factors that make critical potable w ater supplies: 135,000 infrastructures infrastructures stop functioning? homes or 350,000 people f or 17 days: People and areas number of customers who may i.e. 340,000 people outside the f lood depending on lifelines in number/area dimension be affected; geographic area risk zone. Adaptation comprised potentially affected zones providing large number of bottled w ater supplies but not w ithout availability problems in some areas. Business continuity planning has become relatively w ell developed in the UK in the past decade and so w e w ould expect many f lood risk f irms to have considered how they w ould Business continuity plan binary yes/no ensure business continuity during a f lood disaster. How many w ould probably not have considered prolonged loss of potable w ater supplies caused by f looding in the summer 2007 f loods. Everyone is able to obtain geographically specif ic f lood w arning inf ormation and f lood advice (including Access to understandable yes/no; radio and TV/special binary and redundancy on f lood resilience measures) by information telephone number/internetSocial system (agents) telephoning the Environment Agencys What are the factors that may reduce FLOODline. Radio inf ormation is also People/individuals coping capacity during crisis? available. People received severe w eather and f lood w arnings but most did not expect Preparedness in case of degree good/partial/low utilities to suf f er outages and so they event w ere not prepared f or this in most cases. Community and What are the factors that may hamper Existance of contingency binary; date of last yes/no; recent/old Institutions effective crisis management? plan fro threats at stake production or update Capacity to run economy degree yes/partially/no and respond to crises Economic Are economic stakeholders prepared Capacity to invest in stak eholders to face crises? recovery and take Binary or degree Yes/no or none/partial/high preventive actions
Advance in the most “established” assessment tools The process for identifying parameters to assess physicalvulnerability: the seismic case Parameters to assess buildings vulnerability to earthquakes (GNDT) Classes Parameters A B C D weight 1. Type and quality of structural 0 5 20 45 1.0 components 4. Building 0 5 25 45 0.75 6. Plan layout 0 5 25 45 0.50 7. Front layout 0 5 25 45 variable 8. Distance of walls 0 5 25 45 0.25 9. Roof 0 15 25 45 variable 10. Non structural components 0 0 25 45 0.25 11. State of maintenance 0 5 25 45 1.00 Data comes from surveys conducted by instructed personnel
Advance in the most “established” assessment toolsExtending the process to “all” hazards STANDARD METHOD damage to buildings (content + structure) 1,200 Parametro Descrizione Valutazione Dalla posizione dell’edificio dipende 1,000 a) Posizione la pericolosità a cui è assoggettato Dalla destinazione d’uso dipende il valore dei 0,800 b) Destinazione contenuti e quinti dei beni potenzialmente Si d’uso damage (-) danneggiabili. 0,600 L’epoca di costruzione è collegata, c) Epoca di low rise in genere, allo stato di manutenzione No 0,400 costruzione single and farm e ai materiali utilizzati . intermediate Edifici in buone condizioni di manutenzione 0,200 high rise d) Stato di presentano una maggior resistenza alla No manutenzione sollecitazione prodotta dall’acqua che edifici 0,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 fatiscenti depth (m) Alcuni materiali (come il cemento armato o la e) Materiale muratura) resistono meglio all’azione No da costruzione dell’acqua di atri (quali il legno) Distance 2m La presenza di piani ulteriori rispetto al f) Numero di piani piano terreno consente di Si fuori terra Distance between 2-4m posizionare/spostare oggetti ai piani più alti Minimum distance between the Distance between 4-6m g) Presenza piano I piani interrati sono soggetti Distance between 6-8m forest fuel and the house ad allagamento Si interrato anche con limitate altezze d’acqua between 8-12m Distance h) Numero di Distance between 12-20m La presenza di aperture al piano 20m Distance strada aperture a piano Si favorisce l’ingresso dell’acquaSlope 5% Influence of the slope of the Built environment What are the factors that make strada Vulnerability assessment of Slope between 6-20% surrounding area (B) buildings and public facilities vulnerable residential buildings and Slope 20% to the stress? La presenza di un dislivello tra piano terra e i) public facilities Quota del piano Non burnable walls piano tolerance of theprotegge Flammable walls Heat strada walls(C1) dall’ingresso Si terreno dell’acqua Non flammable roof Heat tolerance of the roof(C2) Flammable roof La presenza di impianti Metal shutters gas, (elettrico, l) Presenza impianti acqua) ai piani of the Heat tolerance allagabili può comportare of wood or plastic Shutters made non shutters(C3) No ai piani vulnerabili solo il danneggiamento dell’impianto ma anche l’interruzione del servizio ground floor Only Exposure and Number of floors(C4) Two-floor building vulnerability of built Three-floor or higher building Types of dangerous uses within Residential use on a higher floor while environment or in proximity to the building there is another use at the ground floor Vulnerability of the urban storing flammable materials or unit of reference (either in the fabric entailing a risk of explosion (e.g. horizontal or vertical sense) Vulnerability assessment framework to multiple hazards designed mainly for the emergency phase. numbers in the boxes represent importance weight (how important is the parameter); to carry out the weighed sum, assign 1 to low vulnerability, 3 to high warehouse, workshop, small industry aspect parameters keys hazards for which they count etc Proximity with a site hosting a use seismic landslides volcanic entailing presence of flammable tephra gas pyroclastic flows ballistic lahars roof connection to structure good/poor 1 materials (e.g. warehouse) 0,5 1 weight heavy/light 1 1 shape large inclination/plane 0,5 Presence of15° ok) 1 (pitch > flammable installations or 0,5 structure (or GNDT material iron, reinforced 1(best: iron, r.c constructions in the non-built part ifr.c, 0,5 (worse: 0,5 (best: of What are the factors that make the forms for seismic risk) concrete, masonry antiseismic, timber) masonry urban fabric and public facilities (different types), other timber) the building plot homogenous resistance; worse: vulnerable to the stress? A building adjacent to a vacant site timber) homogeneity large/largely 1 1 1 1 disomogenous (i.e. lacking fuels altogether) type of connection among good/poor 1 0,5 Medium or 0,5 high voltage wires 0,5 and 0,5 0,5 parts floors rigidity rigid/non rigid 0,5 electricity installations close to the foundation depth and type non-existent, deep, 1 1 1 1 superficial building spans between distance in m. > 3 mt; < 3 mt (for 1 0,5 resistant elements Additional exposure due to the Continuous building development masonry mainly) shape openings number and dimension pattern of building development pattern 1 of windows/doors 0,5 0,5 1 1 0,5 quality of openings may be easily 1 1 1 Semi-detached buildings buildings sealed/not elevation regular and 1 symmetric/not regular Free from all sites system and asymmetric plan regular and 1 symmetric/not regular and asymmetric non structural presence of added parts yes/no and number 0,5 elements (chemneys, balconies, statues, etc.) basement existant/non existant 1 inflammable objects existant/non existant 0,5 0,5 0,7 1 0,7 0,5 0,5 y
Advance in the most “established” assessment toolsEstablishing a process for systemic vulnerability systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to losses systems parameters depending on: natural environment * vulnerability to na-tech losses and Loss the consequence built environment losses may have on Of urban fabric * external and internal accessibility function critical infrastructures * dependency individual and facilities * robustenss sectors, * rapidity activity * resourcefulness production sites * transferability service agents (examples) population living in hazardous areas *…. * preparedness * access to information key criteria: * ability to function * information ? governmental organ. * plans, preparation… * sharing of information * access to crucial knowledge physical damage economic stakeholders * business continuity
How to choose vulnerability and resilience indicators? data qualityavailabilityspatio-temporalscalecost ofcollection measurable specificity representativeness verifiable scientific cost characteristics validity effective
Mitigation Physical Systemic Resilience capacity vulnerability vulnerability Natural Natural Natural Natural environment environment environment environment vulnerability vulnerability Mitigation vulnerability Physical vulnerability Systemic Resilience capacity vulnerability vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability of the built of the built Natural of the built Natural of the built Natural Natural environment environment environment environment environment environment environment environment vulnerability vulnerability vulnerability vulnerabilityVulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerabilitycritical critical Vulnerability critical Vulnerability critical Vulnerability Vulnerabilityfacilities facilitiesof the built facilitiesof the built facilitiesMitigation of the built Physical of the built Systemic Resilience environment environment capacity environment vulnerability environment vulnerabilityVulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Natural Natural Natural Natural Vulnerability Vulnerability social systems Vulnerability Vulnerabilitysocial systems social systems social systems environment environment environment environment critical critical/agents /agents critical /agents /agentsvulnerability critical vulnerability vulnerability vulnerability facilities facilities facilities facilities Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability of Vulnerability of of the built of Vulnerability of the built of Vulnerability of the built of the built social systems social systems social systems environment social systems environment environment environment /agents /agents /agents /agents Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability critical critical critical critical facilities facilities facilities facilities Choice: a set of matrices “for” Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of each hazard social systems /agents social systems /agents social systems /agents social systems /agents