The document summarizes a research project on assessing urban vulnerability to seismic hazard in Bucharest, Romania through spatial multi-criteria analysis. The project evaluated social, economic, physical and environmental vulnerability factors. It also considered capacity factors like accessibility to emergency services. GIS-based modeling was used to produce composite vulnerability indexes and maps showing spatial patterns of risk. The most vulnerable areas were found to be the historic city center due to older building stock and environmental factors.

1. Director: Prof. dr. Iuliana ARMAS, University of Bucharest Research Project: Multihazard and vulnerability in the seismic context of the Bucharest Municipality COST Action TU0801: Semantic Enrichment of 3D city models for sustainable urban development Acronym: HERA (HAZARD, EXPOSURE, RISK, ADAPTABILITY)

3. OBJECTIVE of PHASE 2009 URBAN VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TO SEISMIC HAZARD THROUGH SPATIAL MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS. Overall Vulnerability = Total Vulnerability/Capacity where: the total vulnerability of the analysed urban space was considered as a function between the seismic susceptibility of the natural system and the susceptibility of the socio-human system to be affected by a seismic hazard ; the capacity of the urban system to adapt and cope with disasters, was considered in the estimation of the overall vulnerability. The output map was classified in qualitative classes, comparing the histogram from the overall vulnerability.

10. The vulnerability of the housing quality (HQ) was calculated based on the formula: HQ = (N r.a. + N p.a. + N o5 ) – ( N o + N d ) The higher the value of this composite factor, the lower becomes the vulnerability of the area.

11. The vulnerability of the economic level (EL) was calculated based on the formula: EL = (N u + N l ) – (N h.m. + N h.w. )

14. Methodological flowchart

16. Results

22. Study area (1977)

27. Editing building

31. Building materials of residential houses Ownership of households Results

32. Age and costs of buildings Streets Contour lines Before 1977 1920/1940 XIXth century XXth century XIXth century, renovated

33. The state of buildings A very good state / a building that is completely restored or new; A good state / a building that is partially restored or not restored, but with the plaster damaged less than 15%; A bad state / a building that is not restored, with deep fissures and the plaster damaged from 20% to 55%; A very bad state / a building that is not restored, often uninhabited, with broken windows or lacking windows and the plaster damaged over 60%; Ruin

37. Risk to life In a day scenario In a night scenario High risk : a nr of over 100 people in buildings that can be affected up to 30% or a max. of 50 people in unsafe buildings. Very high risk : a nr of over 50 people in unsafe buildings. Day Night +5% +13% -16% -2%

39. Selected References Arion C., Vacareanu R., Lungu D.: (2004), WP10 - Application to Bucharest, RISK-UE. An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. At ftp.brgm.fr /pub/Risk-UE . Birkmann, J. (Ed.) (2006), Measuring Vulnerability to Hazards of Natural Origin, Towards Disaster Resilient Society.UNU Press, Tokyo. Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. (2004 version). United Nations, Geneva, p. 430. Grecu, B., M. Popa, M. Radulian, (2003). Seismic ground motion characteristics in the Bucharest area: Sedimentary cover versus seismic source control, Romanian Reports in Physics , 55, 511-520. HAZUS – Technical Manual (1997). Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, 3 Vol. Janssen R (2001) On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in The Netherlands. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 10:101–109 King, D., MacGregor, C., (2000), Using social indicators to measure community vulnerability to natural hazards. Australian Journal of Emergency Management , 15(3): 52–57. Lungu, D., Aldea, A., Arion, C., Cornea, T., Vãcãreanu, R. (2004), RISK-UE, WP1: European Distinctive features, inventory database and typology , Proceedings of the International Conference “Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Reduction” 24-26, Oct. 2002, Bucuresti, Vol. 2, Romania, pp. 251-272. Mândrescu, N., M. Radulian, (1999). Seismic microzoning of Bucharest (Romania): A critical review”, Vrancea Earthquakes: Tectonics, Hazard, and Risk Mitigation , Editors: Wenzel, F., Lungu, D., O. Novak, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 109-122. RISK-UE, An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns , Fifth Framework Programme of the European Commission, 2000-2004. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill International Book Company, New York UN/ISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2004), Living with Risk. A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. 2004 version. United Nations, Geneva, p. 430. . UNEP (2002), Global Environment Outlook 3 – Past, Present and Future Perspectives.Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, United Kingdom, p. 426. Yeh C, Willis R, Deng H, Pan H (1999) Task oriented weighting in multi-criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 119:130–146. Zaharia, B., M. Radulian, M. Popa, B. Grecu, A. Bǎlǎ and D. Tǎtaru, (2008). Estimation of the local response using Nakamura method for Bucharest area, Romanian Reports in Physics , 60, 1, 131-144.