17 sm land-use-planning_ws2015

2015 WorkshopConoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità e la resilienza

in urbanistica Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability and Resilience

in Planning

Vulnerabilità e resilienza urbana e territoriale: come l’urbanistica e la pianificazione territoriale possono contribuire a politiche di prevenzione.

Urban vulnerability and resilience: how planning may contribute to mitigation measures. Lesson 1: unfortunately negative examples

Scira Menoni

LAUREA MAGISTRALE DELLA SCUOLA DI ARCHITETTURA E SOCIETÀ

Laboratorio organizzato da Luca Marescotti

What can be done to mitigate risks?

Risk assessment

Risk mitigation measures: structural and non structural, long and short term

Implementation tools: laws, regulations, directives, economic tools –insurance, incentives, taxes- voluntary….

Ulrich Beck reminds us of the fact the in risks imply a tightly coupled combination of “facts” and “values” that make any risk related decision neither purely technical nor purely political

The complexity of risk conditions requires a Suitable approach for example systemic

White, G., Kates, R. & Burton, I. 2001.

Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazard management.

Environmental Hazards 3(3): 81-92.

Regarding the quality of construction and land uses

Regarding “myths” regarding people’s behavior in disasters

Regarding fallacies in crisis management

decreasing HAZARDSreducing

EXPOSUREphysical social and economic built environment natural environment

- specific requirements to control buikldings vulnerability to various types of hazards (particularly seismic, but also avalanches and landlsides)

- improve citizens involvement in risk management: - ccepting building and land use restrictions; - environmental maintenance activities (forests, rivers)

- need for stronger floodplain regulation and building permits control

- monocultural agricoltural practices should be avoided in areas prone to flooding and firest fires

- in accepting for example building restrictions;- in "environment maintenance" activities (rivers, forests)

- understimation of flood levels in different events (excluded possibility of overcoming "historic" catastrophies

- difficulties in evacuating people in temporary settlements at a large distance from their original homes

- plans should include feedback analysis and procedures to up date the plan according to lessons learnt - plans are often too generic

- plans should consider the possibility of multi-site events that will put a dignificant pressure on civil protection

- poor monitoring systems (particularly floods) in Eastern countries and Greece

- plans should be based on accurate scenarios

- ICT should be more carefully and extensively used to deal with the emergency

- improve planning for crisis, including the need to plan for long emergencies

- need of local forecasts for some hazards (fires, floods, landslides)

- need to be prepared not only in traditionally "hot" periods regarding given risks (fires) - improve relationship with the media to be able disseminate messages during emergencies and guaranteeing "correct" information to the public

- need of local forecasts for some hazards (fires, floods, landslides)

- creating better coordination among civil protection forces- creating better coordination with critical infrastructures providers- business continuity plans also for the public sector- improving people's preparedness to face emergencies- need to provide stronger role to the EU Civil Protection

lon

g t

erm

mit

igat

ion

mea

sure

ssh

ort

ter

m m

itig

atio

n m

easu

res

STRUCTURAL NON STRUCTURAL

reducing VULNERABILITY

Where is the hazard?

Where is the risk?

Where is the hazard and the risk?

Where was the risk?

Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans

Unesco 1977:

“nothing has been done to discourage extensive tourist development close to the shore...Use of shoreline sites in on the increase in the Fiji, putting investemnts, visitors and Fijian people all at peril from rare but quite possible events”

Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The local scale

“Stakeholders”:

- Mayor, understands the issue and seems open to accept the revision of the PAT;

- “Assessore” of urban planning wishing to ask experts mitigation measures for buildings;

- Municipal technician, responsible of the municipal technical office, does not want us at all…

At the end: few weeks before municipal elections the PAT is approved in the muncipal assemblee, without taking into account the comments of Italia Nostra

At the end: few weeks before municipal elections the PAT is approved in the muncipal assemblee m, without taking into account the comments of Italia Nostra

At the end within the pattern of the new plan (where is the river??) apparently the normative part of the plan takes into account the hydraulic and geological reports but in reality new development, new urban planning mistakes are hiding.

The story: on February 2011 I was invited by two representatives of a civic association born after the flood in 2010 in the muncipality of Caldogno, close to Vicenza in the Region of Veneto.

Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The local scale

Examples of vulnerability created by wrong land uses and urban plans. The 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 193710 Ottobre 1859

8 Ottobre 18571 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 fond topographique)

Nature du risque* :

I, i2, i3 : crues des fleuves et des rivières M : marécages I', i' : inondation de plaine en pied de versant T : crues des torrents et des rivières torrentielles V, v : ruissellement sur versant G, g1, g2 : glissement de terrain P, p : chutes de pierres f : suffosion, voir encart au 1/25 000è

Chaque zone est référencée par deux indices alphabétiques au moins : * le premier correspond au niveau de contraintes à appliquer ** le second à la nature du risque (caractère en minuscule pour les zones de faibles contraintes, caractère en majuscule pour les autres cas)

............ Limite communale

------------- Limite du zonage réglementaire présenté sur fond cadastral au 1/5000

Niveau de contraintes* :

Zones d'interdictions

Zone de projet possible sous maîtrise collective

Zones de contraintes faibles

Zones sans contraintes spécifiques

Réalisation : Alp'Géorisques Etabli le : 25 mars 1999

Edition : Alp'Géorisques Modifiée le : juillet 2000 (RTM et SEER)

Echelle : 1/10 000

Zone A Part of the river generally flooding in thecase of the reference flood

and its discharge Zone B External to the A zone, part of the riversubjectto flood in the case of the reference

event; it generally coincide with secondarylevees systems Zone C Zone flooded on occasionof catastrophic , floods, due to phenomena that are more

severe than those considered in the reference flood Reference flood: TR = 200 years

Example: River zones in Italy before the flood directive

An important initiative at the EU level: the Flood directive

The preliminary flood risk assessment shall include at least the following:

(a) maps of the river basin district at the appropriate scale including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where existing, coastal areas, showing topography and land use;

(b) a description of the floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse impacts they have entailed;

(c) a description of the significant floods which have occurred in the past, where significant adverse consequences of similar future events might be envisaged;

and, depending on the specific needs of Member States, it shall include:

(d) an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods for * human health, * the environment, * cultural heritage and * economic activity, taking into account as far as possible issues such as the topography, the position of watercourses and their general hydrological and geomorphological characteristics, including floodplains as natural retention areas, the effectiveness of existing manmade flood defence infrastructures, the position ofpopulated areas, areas of economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods.

Flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 and expressed in terms of the following:

(a) the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected;

(b) type of economic activity of the area potentially affected;

(c) installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC;

(d) other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur and information on other significant sources of pollution.

Flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences associated with flood scenarios referred to in paragraph 3 and expressed in terms of the following:

(a) the indicative number of inhabitants potentially affected;

(b) type of economic activity of the area potentially affected;

(c) installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) which might cause accidental pollution in case of flooding and potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC;

(d) other information which the Member State considers useful such as the indication of areas where floods with a high content of transported sediments and debris floods can occur and information on other significant sources of pollution.

(a) floods with a low probability, or extreme event scenarios;(b) floods with a medium probability (likely return period≥ 100 years);(c) floods with a high probability, where appropriate.

Flood risk management planMember States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management of flood risks for the areas identified under Article 5(1) and the areas covered by Article 13(1)(b), focusing on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for * human health, * the environment, * cultural heritage and * economic activity, and, if considered appropriate, on non structural initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding.

Flood risk management plans shall take into account relevant aspects such as costs and benefits, flood extent and flood conveyance routes and areas which have the potential to retain flood water, such as natural floodplains, the environmental objectives of Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC, soil and water management, spatial planning, land use, nature conservation, navigation and port infrastructure.

Another example, perhaps the best tool: Le plan de prévention des risques (Risk prevention plan) in France

Main steps:a. Historic cases;b. Definition and appraisal of the aléa, hazard;c. Definition of risk;d. Definition and appraisal of the enjeux= exposure (in part also vulnerability)e. Recommendations and limitations in the different zones of risk

TITRE II - REGLEMENTATION DES PROJETS NOUVEAUX

Les quatre premières colonnes du tableau suivant indiquent si les règles édictées sont :

des prescriptions d'urbanisme des prescriptions de construction des prescriptions de gestion de l'espace ou d'autres prescription des recommandations

Prescriptions Chapitre IV -

Mouvements de terrain Règles d'urbanisme

Règles de construction

Autres règles

Recommandations

Chutes de pierres et de blocs

Bpo (zone bleue, pour les extensions de construction)

x Maintien en l'état des dispositifs de protection, filets pare-blocs, par le maître d'ouvrage collectif

Construction

x

x

x

x

- Interdit sauf :

exceptions prévues aux dispositions réglementaires du Titre I pour la zone rouge ;

extension limitée à 50 m2 de surface hors oeuvre brute dans le cadre d'une amélioration des habitations et bâtiments existants en : - privilégiant les implantations d'extension se protégeant mutuellement avec l'existant et protégeant les zones de circulation ou de stationnement, - adaptant la construction au risque résiduel avec notamment la protection ou le renforcement des façades exposées (y compris ouvertures), l'emplacement des accès et des ouvertures principales sur les façades non exposées (en cas d'impossibilité, les protéger)

The first four columns in the following table indicate:

Land use planning prescriptions

Building prescriptions

Presxcriptions related to spatial planning and other issues

Recommendations

Le plan de prévention des risques in France. Problems: high costs associated to this type of studies at the municipal scale.According to the Sanson report preented to the Parliament in 2001 only 5000 municipalities would have had such a document by 2005out of 36.000. 11600 French municipalities are exposd to floods5500 to earthquakes4500 to subsidence phenomena600 to avalanches

Example of good practice of planning in a seismic zone, but AFTER the event, during reconstruction after the Umbria-Marche earthquake in Central Italy

* It is a case of resilient reconstruction

* Both hazards and vulnerability were considered

* Link reconstruction to develepoment and vulnerability reduction

The Umbria Marche reconstruction good practice example

* Specific attention to the quality of the built environment (the « codice di pratica », that is the traditional mode of construction)

* Considering the specificities of vulnerability of buildings blocks typical of historic centres

* Creation of safety spaces in historic centres

* Evaluation of vulnerability: also systemic vulnerability (linking reconstruction to networks improvement)

Reconstruction after the Umbria Marche earthquake

* Positive loop between different scales:

- regional directives; training and guidance by the region

- local actions and decisions

* Framing prevention into ordinary planning tools used for reconstruction

Armonia ProposalHelp planners to: Ø Assess the compatibility of given land uses with existing natural risks;

Ø Provide guidelines to planners while deciding modes, intensity and frequency of use of given land parcels and zones in areas prone to natural hazards

Hazard Map (Landslides)


Risk assessment



Risk definition: the evolution of a complex concept

Risk = f (hazard, vulnerability, exposure, ..)

Risk is measured in terms of expected (probability of) damages. This is the starting point

RISK = HAZARD * VULNERABILITY (Exposed systems)

R = f (H, V, E)

Hazard Vulnerability

Risk

1

D = f( y, V) d(y)

0

RISK = f ( HAZARD, VULNERABILITY, EXPOSURE)

RISK measured in terms of expected damage

HAZARD = characteristics of the dangerous agent (phenomena)

VULNERABILITY= propensity to damage, fragility

(Exposed systems)= number and dimension of people and goods in a dangerous area

Brief definition

Hazard Vulnerability

Risk

Hazard analysis:

- How strong? When? Return period

- Where?

- How long can it last?

R O E ̀ V O L C I A N O

V I L L A N U O V A S U L C L I S I

G A V A R D O

G A R D O N E R I V I E R A

T O S C O L A N O M A D E R N O

G A R G N A N O

V O B A R N O

S A L O ̀ r

L a g o d

i G a r d a

2 . 7 5

1 . 0 5 1 . 1 5 1 . 2 5 1 . 3 5 1 . 4 5 1 . 5 5

1 . 6 5 1 . 7 5

1 . 8 5 1 . 9 5

2 . 0 5 2 . 1 5 2 . 2 5

2 . 3 5 2 . 4 5 2 . 5 5 2 . 6 5

The effectiveness and the ….danger of structural mitigation measures (alone)

Hazard analysis : what mitigation strategies?

What can I do? Reduce the hazard potential (limited to a number of natural hazards)

Exposure analysis:

- How many people?

How many houses, roads, factories?What can I do? Relocate move from the most hazardous areas

vulnerability

A definition of vulnerability:

how prone is a system to be damaged in case of a given stress

ill people

M number of peopleexposed to thevirus

V R

a measure of fragility, weakness

What is the benefit for risk management?

Scientific and technical Geographical and Ecological field Climate change studies Systems Engineering

domain sociological domain

* methods to measure * vulnerability is interpreted as * in the ecological field one * in climate change studies * vulenrability is a latent vulnerability have been the key concept to explain may find more reasoning vulnerability is often condition of particularly proposed and applied differences in response to around resilience rather than interpreted as the lack of complex systems, resulting

disasters between countries vulnerability. Though, the copying capacity and from interaction among and regions features of a resilient eco- resilience. Concepts from the parts and components

system can be easily labelled geographical and the "tightly coupled"* in some cases there is * there is a limited attempt to as lack of vulnerability ecological field are reshaped * Vulnerability compounds still a confusion between identify indicators or * attempts to apply directly and restructured in climate physical, organisational, expected damage and parameters to assess concepts taken from eco- change studies functional factors as well vulnerability vulnerability logy to social system can as management failures

be questioned

Aa.Vv., Natural disasters Dow K., Exploring differences Gunderson L., C. Holling, J. Kasperson, R. Kasperson Giarini O., H. Loubergé, and vulnerability analysis. in our common future(s): the Panarchy. Understanding et al., The human dimension La delusione tecnologica. Report of expert group, Rep. meaning of vulenrability to transformation in human of global environmental I rendimenti decrescenti Undro, July, 1979. global environmental change, and natural systems change, MIT University della tecnologia e la crisi

in Geoforum, vol. 23, n.3, 1992 Island press, 2002 Press, 2003. della crescita economica, Petrini V, Overview report Mondadori, Milano, 1978.

s

ome

rele

vant b

iblio

gra

phic

al r

efe

renc

es

core

asp

ects

of t

he v

ario

us

Important for both vulnerability and resilienceTEMPORAL SPATIAL SYSTEMIC DIMENSION DIMENSION FACTORS

SCALE

* impact * core * related to systems and components

* emergency * corona

* reconstruction * periphery * related to links among systems

Responseto crisis

financialresourcesinvested, people employed

impact 1 10 100 500time inweeks

emergency first recovery reconstruction advanced reconstruction

Responseto crisis

financialresourcesinvested, people employed

impact 1 10 100 500time inweeks

emergency first recovery reconstruction advanced reconstruction

Physical Social

ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM

REGION Economic(Territorio) SYSTEM

ENVIRONMENT

Hazard analysis: what mitigation strategies?

What can I do? Prevent the hazard potential (limited to a number of natural hazards)

Exposure analysis: what mitigation strategies?

What can I do? Prevent/limit the exposure through land use planning or relocating

Vulnerability and resilience assessment: what mitigation strategies?

What can I do? Reduce physical vulnerability, mitigate systemic, enhance response capacities

The application of the Ensure methodology to the Vulcano Island

Physical, systemic and social vulnerability change overtime

Modellazione relativa ad alcuni degli hazard connessi ad una crisi vulcanica (elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)

Hazard analysis in the Vulcano island(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)

Mitigation capacity before the event(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)

Risk perception/ awareness qualitative scale based on questionnaires

low/average/good AVERAGE

According to surveys developed within the Ensure Project, the awareness oftiming of most recent eruption (69%) is good. Expectations of a futureeruption in <100 years is also good, but lack of expectation of an eruption in <12 months suggests that people delay in taking preparedness actions, sincethe issue is not pressing. Interviewed people were largely split down themiddle on the idea of taking actions to increase their ability to respond to thenext eruption (e.g., 52% disagreeing they would prepare and 47% agreeingthey would).

0.5

Level of coverage of Early Warning Systems (if EW Systems are available)

quantitative scale based on data collection

% of coverage in respect to the population

__According to surveys developed within the Ensure Project, concern aboutlack of information, no provision for elderly and a lack of drills have beenexpressed by several interviewed.

Individual preparedness in terms of availability of masks and sholves

qualitative scale based on questionnaires

low/average/good LOWA majority of respondents believe they would have from few minutes to somehours to react before an eruption. But, few people indicated they have anemergency supply kit on hand.

0

Known evacuation proceduresbinary scale based on questionnaires

yes/no NOAt present, the Emergency Plan is not avalible; thus, evacuation proceduresare not clearly defined. 0

Evacuation drill (training) frequencyqualitative scale based on data collection

Regularly (every year)/every few years/occasionally

OCCASIONALLY

The only evacuation drill on the island was done in November 1991. Theyused one ferry (SIREMAR) in Porto Ponente and one ferry (NGI) in Gelso.Moreover, according to the surveys developed within the Ensure Project,many people have not a clear idea of where to go and what to do in case ofemergency In detail, the questionnaires reveal that 43% of interviewed,answered that in case of eruption they would have gone to specific meetingspoints, while 40% declared they don't know what to do.

0

Participation in development and prevention/mitigation strategies

qualitative scale based on questionnaires and expert judgment

not existant/average/good

NOT EXISTANT 0

Media campaigns binary scale based on data collection

yes/no NO 0

Frequency of media campaignsqualitative scale based on data collection

every two years/only occasionally

__

Education programs embedded in school programs

binary scale based on data collection

yes/no NO 0Coordination and cooperation among institutions in charge of risk prevention/ mitigation

qualitative scale based on interviews and expert judgement

low/average/high AVERAGE 0.5

GDP; GVA (Gross added value, measure of productivity and size of economy)

qualitative scale based on data collection

rich/average/poor country AVERAGE

Tourism represents the leading economic activity. Thanks to tourism, localeconomy is placed at an average level: incomes are surely all above 15000 €per year, most between 15-30 thousand €/year and, according to the surveysdeveloped within the Ensure Project, no one is below the poverty threshold.Nevertheless, the regional economic context is very poor: the value of theGDP pro-capite in Sicily is one of the lowest in Italy. The low level of theregional economy might have relevant repercussions on the local scale interms of provision of public services, lack of cultural and social activities andstrategic development strategies. According to this, it seems possible to statethat private stakeholders should have an average capacity to raise funds formitigation, but public resources would be difficult to raise. National orEuropean funds would be required although the Volcano island shouldrepresent not a priority in the Italian situation where other volcanic areas, likethe Vesuvius area for example, would require funds for mitigation activities.

0.5

Notes on the Vulcano case-studyScoring

ParameterScoring key-

topicScoring Aspect

Scoring System

System AspectAspect weight

Key-topicKey-topic

Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Assessment

So

cial

sys

tem

(ag

ents

)

Do local economic stakeholders have sufficient resources for mitigation?

Are individuals aware of existing risks, informed and prepared in case of emergency?

Are Institutions able to involve community/ies in mitigation strategies and improve risk awareness? Is the level of cooperation among different institutions in charge of risk prevention/ mitigation satisfactory?

Mitigation capacity of Institutions

Mitigation capacity of economic stakeholders

People/individuals Preparedness 0,1 = Very Low

0,1= Very Low

0,75 = High

0,2 = Very Low1

1

11

1

1

As mentioned above, no one is below the poverty threshold; almost allinhabitants own a house. More than 30% of inhabitants has at least an otherproperty to rent in the summer.

1

0,1 = Very Low

0,1 = Very Low

0,75 = High

dimension of poverty/marginalizationqualitative scale based on data collection

low/average/high LOW

System Aspect Key-Topic Parameter

Social preparednesscontingency plans exist/do notexercises yes/no; frequency

Relazione vulnerabilità/danno a edifici e persone in edifici

yes/no; frequency of training; no data available

information leaflet to tourist 3-4000 tourist a day in high season (june september) 3 0,75 2,25

Check point for climbing the volcano

Around 450 pe ople climb the volcano every day between August and September. About 7,000 people were ticketed every month (aug-spet) and round 2,000 pe ople climb with no ticket, thus around 9,000pe ople may be on the volcano every day.

3 1 3

Sensistivity to health effects of volcanic

hazardsmeans of self protection yes/no; yes 3 1 3

concentrationresident and present population in dangerous areas

inside/outside potentially affected areas (scenario dependent)

The assessment has been developer grouding on cartography 4 0,5 2

Age; mobility impairment, other

impairment

difficulties to comply with evacuation orders; difficulties in escaping

yes/no; number of peopleYes, 180/1080 people are over the threshold of 65 ye ars old and 63/1080 children between 0-5 years old; no specific data about impairment is available

3 0,75 2,25

Application to case studyScoring (5 high - 1

low)Weight (1 high - 0

not relevant)Total Score

13=Medium

ParametersCriteria for assessment

Descriptors

What are the factors that may lead to large number of victims?

What are the factors that may lead to injuries and fatalities?

System Aspect

Preparednessprior training and

exercises; information about what do do

Socia

l sy

stem

(agen

ts)

People/individuals

Community and Instituions

Physical vulnerability of people and emergency structures(elaborazioni e immagini di Costanza Bonadonna, Univ. Ginevra, Floriana Ferrara, T6 e Adriana Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)

Systemic vulnerability assessment (maps: A. Galderisi, Univ. Napoli)

Sistem Aspect Parameter Evaluation criteria

Sociale preparazione mezzi di protezione seguiti/non seguiticonoscenza vie di fuga si/no

Assessment of post event resilience


Risk assessment



What can be done to prevent risks?

Risk assessment



Risk prevention measures shaping a resilient/non resilient mitigation capacity, response and recovery

Land use planning

Structural measures

* re-develpment

* restauration

* relocation

* zoning

Support to implementation

* Disclosure

* Insurance; * tax incentives; * td/p rights

* Communication

Non structural measures

Structural retrofitting

Builidngs retrofitting

Emergency preparedness

* Emergency plans

* Training, exercises

* Early warning systems

Buildings codes

levees

Slope consolidation

Avalanche defences

* Inspections

rural to urban (development)

Transform land uses urban to urban (restoration, redevelopment) urban to rural

Planners do different things in Europe dealing with spatial planning; summarizing and comprising different schools of thought and practice:

rural to rural

Preserve land uses urban to urban

Armonia Proposal: the DSS frameworkland usesnatural/ rural urban

physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltural uses

- different types of soil uses

type of hazard- seismic (Se) - floods (Flo) - landslides (L)- volcanic (VO) - avalanches (A) -forest fires (F)

physical vulnerability- urban fabric - industrial/ commercial buildings- network infrastructures - strategic equipments

socio-economic coping capacity:- economic activities- age classes- trend of abandonment- recent disaster experience

urban coping capacity:- economic activities- network infrastructures- strategic equipmentssocial coping capcity:- age classes- handicapped

H. intensity

risk assessment (expected physical damage:

matrixes fragility curves

multirisk synthesis table:H, Vexp, R, CC, Na-tech

Chain Na-Na

land use preservation land use transformation

IncreasesHazard?

IncreasesVulnerability?

compatibility table and map

criteria based on H,V,R, CC

land use

acceptable

land use not acceptable

mitigation measures to

reduce Hazard(s)

mitigation measures to reduce Vulnerability and Exposure

mitigation measures to increase coping capacity

reduces coping capacity?

future?as determined

in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan

H.frequency H. location

land usesnatural/ rural urban







H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan









H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan









H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan



physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltura l uses






H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan



physical vulnerability- different types of agricoltura l uses






H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan


Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework

avalanche pressure extended on an obstacle (kN/m2)


Snow avalanche

extent of lateral erosion (m)extent of lateral erosion (m)Bank erosion

specific discharge (m3/s/m)specific discharge (m3/s/m)Dynamic flooding

flow depth (m)flow depth (m)Static flooding

Thickness of deposit front (m) and velocity (m/s)


Debris flow

mean annual velocity of landslide (i.e. cm/year)


Landslide

kinetic energy (kJ)kinetic energy (kJ)Rockfall

percentage of landslide surface (m2, Km2, …) Vs stable surface;

fast and slow movements

Amplification factor of Peak ground Acceleration (%g)


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



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).


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



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



Debris flow



Landslide

kinetic energy (kJ)kinetic energy (kJ)Rockfall

percentage of landslide surface (m2, Km2, …) Vs stable surface;

fast and slow movements



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




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



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









H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan









H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan









H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan









H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan

H.frequency H. location Armonia Proposal: the DSS framework








H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan









H. intensity




Chain Na-Na


IncreasesHazard?




land use

acceptable



reduce Hazard(s)





in the plan

base

kno

wle

ge, c

onti

nuou

s as

sess

men

tre

gion

al o

r lo

cal p

lan


The case-study area

21 MunicipalitiesProvinces: Florence, Arezzo, Prato Arno River Basin190.854 inhabitans (ISTAT 2001)

Data-base structure

Data for exposure, vulnerability and coping capacity assessment have been collected and processed in a GIS environment.Data are arranged through three topological types according to the GIS requirements: points, lines and areas

Lines: road and railway networks and other network infrastructures

Points: emergency equipments, monuments, punctual infrastructures, etc.

Areas: administrative boundaries (municipality, census units); land uses (urban fabrics and natural and agricultural areas)

Aggregation layers

Hazard, exposure, vulnerability maps

Hazard Map (Landslides)

Hazard Map (Seismic and Floods)

Exposure map (Natural and agricoltural areas exposed to floods)

Vulnerabilty map (Building vulnerability to floods)

Land use planning choices compatibility assessment: the synthetic tables

An example using material from the Hajian/Yolanda Typhoon november 2013 in the Philippines that Ouejdane Mejri and myself have developed together with two maters students fro their thesis

Starting point: using open data, volunteers open data that were produced in the emergency phase for crisis managment purposes

Several manual methods were used for the data gathering: (1) Keyword lookup using search engines, (2) Rich Site Summary (RSS) feeds subscription and monitoring, (3) Social media monitoring (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.), (4) Forum and organization subscriptions (ALNAP, GDACS, etc.), and (5) Relevant website search (UNOCHA’s Humanitarian Response, Reliefweb,

Gov.PH, etc.).

The overly utilized method was the search engine lookup. However, with this method, a single search yielded a minimum of a thousand to a maximum of six (6) million results.

An example using material from the Hajian/Yolanda Typhoon november 2013 in the Philippines that Ouejdane and myself have developed together with two maters students fro their thesis

Starting point: obtaining from the municipality of Tacloban the land use map, the current urban master plan, the layers on hazard assessment that were already available before the disaster.

Starting point: the legislative system in the Philippines regarding land use planning incorporating information on hazard assessment that was available at the time of the disaster; statistical and demographic data

Development of taxonomies and ontologies according to conceptual links among information and data that are relvant in disaster research and assessment

An example using material from the Hajian/Yolanda Typhoon november 2013 in the Philippines that Ouejdane and myself have developed together with two maters students fro their thesis

Using data collected and managed for emergency purposes for land use planning for the future

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)

land use planning in hazardous areasphysical component: hazards, physical vulnerability (to multiple stressors)

Densities, concentration and specific features of: hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities

social and economic vulnerabilities:- population (features, prepared.)- institutions/organisations- economic structure/activities

systems complexity – inter-dependency; interconnectedness; non linear relations

TYPE OF SETTLEMENT

new development already built area

H

compatibility assessment decision concernig the

A of the new development priority to assign in

NATURAL in the hazardous area, reducing expected levels

Z given possible mitigation of damage

measures

A

R

decisions concerning decisions regarding theD existing the new development close possibility/opportunity

to an existing technological to change the settlement

hazard: is it desirable? or to modify/relocate

T the plant

TECHNOLOGICALY

compatibility of the new building a new plant should

P to be located plant with the present and undergo a careful and

future land use in the area detailed risk assessment

E (trying to avoid conflicts and environemntal impact over land use) analysis procedure

ZONING SUBDIVISION STANDARDS BUILDING CODES

A. Special seismic study zone A. Performance standards for A. Supplemental seismic standards sensitive lands

B. Open space/conservation B. Standards and regulations for B. Standards to be introduced in zones new development areas building codes

C. No-building zones C. Regulations and codes for C. Seismic standards for urban renewal retrofitting residential buildings

HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS STRATEGIC PUBLIC LIFELINESABATEMENT ORDINANCE FACILITIES

A. Abatement ordinance for A. Abatement ordinance for public A. Substitution of old lifelines in risky plants facilities in dangerous areas dangerous areas

C. Increase the mutual distance B. Relocation of strategic facilities B. Retrofitting of lifelines in the between dangerous facilities and from dangerous areas most vulnerable situations residential areas

B. Incentives to relocate industrial C. New public facilities in safer C. New infrastructures in safer plants in dangerous sites areas areas

INSURANCE PROPERTY ACQUISITION or TAX CREDITSPURCHASE DEVELOP. RIGHTS A. Tax benefits for those who

retrofit their house A. Insurance programs for goods A. Property voluntary acquisition or B. Incentives for those relocating exposed to risks expropriation from dangerous areas B. Insurance programs not only B. Purchase or expropriation of REAL ESTATE for private citizens but also for development rights DISCLOSURE local/provincial authorities A. Obliging contractors disclose

risk to potential buyers B. Particular conditions on selling and buying contracts

Way

s to

red

uce

phys

ical

vu

lner

abil

ity

Way

s to

red

uce

syst

emic

vu

lner

abil

ity

Eco

nom

ic t

ype

of t

ools

Land tenuresystem and condition

Urban planning system and legislative framework

Land tenuremanagement tools

Tools that can beused for riskprevention purposes

Issues in achievingrisk mitigationobjectives

Regionaleconomicapproach

Comprehensiveintegratedapproach

Land usemanagement

The “urbanism”tradition

Private ownershiprecognised byconstitution

Land is public

Large private and public landproperties

Fragmented landproperty

Land use isdisjuncted fromland ownershipright

Land use isregulated throughplans and taxation

Land can beconfiscated by the State bycompensation

Public authoritiespurchase land in the market

Insurance coupledwith land userestrictions

Taxation



States may end up subsidizing risks

Taxation and legally validhazard/risk mapsaffect propertyprices

Land userestrictions maybe considered as a taking

Structural measures, restrictions., etcdiscriminate amongowners

Hazard/risk mapssupporting zoning

Land tenuresystem and condition

Urban planning system and legislative framework

Land tenuremanagement tools

Tools that can beused for riskprevention purposes

Issues in achievingrisk mitigationobjectives

Regionaleconomicapproach

Comprehensiveintegratedapproach

Land usemanagement

The “urbanism”tradition

Private ownershiprecognised byconstitution

Land is public

Large private and public landproperties

Fragmented landproperty

Land use isdisjuncted fromland ownershipright

Land use isregulated throughplans and taxation



Insurance coupledwith land userestrictions

Taxation



States may end up subsidizing risks

Taxation and legally validhazard/risk mapsaffect propertyprices

Land userestrictions maybe considered as a taking

Structural measures, restrictions., etcdiscriminate amongowners

Hazard/risk mapssupporting zoning

A neglected aspect: the role of land tenure

Summurizing:

spatial 3D

planning perspective systemic

capture the need

to incorporate

social, political,

administrative

issues

knowledge, modelling of involved physical phenomena

understand exposure and vulnerability

integrate structural and non structural measures, together with supporting tools

What types of damages can be expected?

Direct physical damage

Induced physical damage Systemic

damage

Damage in the long run

Hazard main parameters: severity, location, frequency

Physical vulnerability of exposed buildings and assets

Systemic vulnerability of complex systems

Social and economic vulnerabilities

impac

t

emerge nc

y

recovery

Loss of function and cascade effects scenario

Physical damage scenario: to buildings and assets

Response scenario• Resources, (lack of)

• Knowledge (poor,inconsistent, not

applied), • Adaptation capacities

(social capital)

Long term recovery and reconstruction scenario

Scenario of long lasting precarious conditions and/or increased vulnerability

Resilience in reconstruction: beyond physical reconstruction

sustainability ~ risk preventionSustainibility: exploiting the environment while keeping the natural capital for future generations...

Risk prevention: preventing mass victims and extensive losses due to some “extreme” event that may occur in the future...

environmental damage

human and economic losses

sustainability ~ risk preventionWhat about environmental damage consequent to what are after all “natural events”, if we exclude industrial accidents?

It will be shown that natural and human environments cannot be kept separated, therefore one may have a variety of combinations

As a natural event becoming an environmental catastrophe:

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

sustainability ~ risk preventionSome measures that have been considered as “risk prevention” taken before a disaster or during emergencies proved to be extremely unsustainible: are those always acceptable in the name of prevention? Could things have been managed otherwise?

Some readings

http://ensure.metid.polimi.it/web/guest/training

Vale L.J., Campanella T.J. The Resilient City. How modern city recover from disaster. Oxford University Press: NY, 2005.

http://ensure.metid.polimi.it/web/guest/training