F32 a syntesis ensure method for assessing vulnerability resilience
-
Upload
cristini75 -
Category
Education
-
view
377 -
download
1
Transcript of F32 a syntesis ensure method for assessing vulnerability resilience
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”.
ENSURE E-LEARNING TOOL F32_A synthesis of the whole ENSURE method
for assessing vulnerability and resilience
Selection from The integrated framework for vulnerability and resilience assessment
by Scira MenoniENSURE final meeting
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 need
of a methodology. Drawing on an experience of ASEAN in
Birmania/Myanmar 2008
Drawing on an experience of ASEAN in Birmania/Myanmar 2008
Key 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
capacity to bounce back and even more: to transform damage into opportunities
Resilience capacity to face uncertainties
capacity to face change (is change always negative? Do we need resilience also to face positive change?)
vulnerability:how prone is a system to be damaged in case of a given stress
*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
Methodology
timeimpact emergency recovery recostruction
Scale (at which vulnerabilities are considered)
Macro (regional, national, global)
meso
micro
scale (of hazards)
local
Multi-site
regional
Mitigation capacity
Physical vulnerability:vulnerability to stress
Systeemicvulnerability:vulnerability to losses
Resilience:Capacity to transform losses into opportunities
Hazard time scale
impact Impact duration
Repeated impact
Premonitory signs
timeimpact emergency recovery recostruction
Scale (at which vulnerabilities are considered)
National/
globall) R
egionallocal
scale (of hazards)
local
Multi-site
regional
resilience: mitigation capacitiessystems parameters depending on:
natural environment capacity ofsystems to:
built environment * ex istence of build. * embed prevention(structures including codes for new into ordinary strucutral mitigation * ex istence of codes activ itiesmeasures) rules for retrofitting
urban fabric * mitigation embedded in ordinary plans * embed mitigation
critical infrastructures* build in resilience in projects
and facilities in new projects* build in resilience
production sites in modernization programs
agents (examples)
population in * ongoing education key criteria:hazardous areas programs * capacity to
* access to insurance enforce * keeping attention
governmental * capacity to enforce on mitigation
organisations * capacity to invest in prevention despite uncertainties* creation/use of implemention tools
economic * including business
stakeholders continuity in plans* insurance coverage
physical vulnerability: physical damageabilitysystems parameters depending on:
natural env ironment * vulnerability to stress specific aspects of indiv idual
built env ironment * structural features hazards (or (including structural * concentration enchained ones),measures) * maintenanceurban fabric * patterns
critical infrastructures * lifelines features and to the and facilities * hospitals features response of
*…. systems andproduction sites * agricolture: vulnerability agnets to the
to stress stress* production sites features
structural measures * quality* maintenance
agents (examples) key criteria:* phsy ical
population living in * age characteristicshazardous zones * disabled… * concentration
* maintenance
systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to lossessystems parameters depending on:
natural environment * vulnerability to na-tech losses andthe consequence
built environment losses mayhave on
urban fabric * external and internal accessibility
critical infrastructures * dependency indiv idual and facilities * robustenss sectors,
* rapidity activ ity* resourcefulness
production sites * transferability serv ice*….
agents (examples) key criteria:* ability to function
population liv ing in * preparednesshazardous areas * access to information * information
governmental organ. * plans, preparation…* sharing of information* access to crucial knowledge
economic stakeholders * business continuity
resilience: response capability in the long runsystems parameters depending on:
natural env ironment * cleaning up tools capacity ofsystems to:
built environment * availability of materials * recover from* availability of skilled losses workers
urban fabric * mitigation embedded in reconstruction plans
critical infrastructures * robustness * transform lossesand facilities * flex ibility into
* resourcefulness opportunitiesproduction sites * substitutability * reduce pre-event
vulnerabilityagents (examples)population in * development key criteria:hazardous zones * social cohesion * capacity to learn
* access to credit * dynamic adaptation* access to institutions* insurance coverage
governmental organ. * capacity to reorganise* capacity to question* access to knowledge* capacity to enforce* insurance coverage
economic stakeholders * capacity to recover…* insurance coverage
Hazard time scale
impact Impact duration
Repeated impactPremonitory signs
Time at which the assessment is carried out
timeemergency recovery recostruction
Hazard time scale
Impact duration
Repeated impactPremonitory signs
Time at which the assessment is carried out
impact
impact
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 scale: some thoughts
Key points:
* Tension between local scale and larger scales
* Emergent aspects (relevant for systemic vulnerability for example)
* Cross-level relationships: influence of vulenrability at one scale (agency for example) on another scale (laws, regulations, stretegies)
Spatial scale: some thoughtsScale (at which vulnerabilities are considered)
National/
globall) R
egional
scale (of hazards)
local
Multi-site
regional
local
resilience: mitigation capacitiessystems parameters depending on:
natural environment capacity ofsystems to:
built environment * ex istence of build. * embed prevention(structures including codes for new into ordinary strucutral mitigation * ex istence of codes activ itiesmeasures) rules for retrofitting
urban fabric * mitigation embedded in ordinary plans * embed mitigation
critical infrastructures* build in resilience in projects
and facilities in new projects* build in resilience
production sites in modernization programs
agents (examples)
population in * ongoing education key criteria:hazardous areas programs * capacity to
* access to insurance enforce * keeping attention
governmental * capacity to enforce on mitigation
organisations * capacity to invest in prevention despite uncertainties* creation/use of implemention tools
economic * including business
stakeholders continuity in plans* insurance coverage
physical vulnerability: physical damageabilitysystems parameters depending on:
natural env ironment * vulnerability to stress specific aspects of indiv idual
built env ironment * structural features hazards (or (including structural * concentration enchained ones),measures) * maintenanceurban fabric * patterns
critical infrastructures * lifelines features and to the and facilities * hospitals features response of
*…. systems andproduction sites * agricolture: vulnerability agnets to the
to stress stress* production sites features
structural measures * quality* maintenance
agents (examples) key criteria:* phsyical
population liv ing in * age characteristicshazardous zones * disabled… * concentration
* maintenance
systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to lossessystems parameters depending on:
natural env ironment * vulnerability to na-tech losses andthe consequence
built env ironment losses mayhave on
urban fabric * external and internal accessibility
critical infrastructures * dependency indiv idual and facilities * robustenss sectors,
* rapidity activ ity* resourcefulness
production sites * transferability serv ice*….
agents (examples) key criteria:* ability to function
population liv ing in * preparednesshazardous areas * access to information * information
governmental organ. * plans, preparation…* sharing of information* access to crucial knowledge
economic stakeholders * business continuity
resilience: response capability in the long runsystems parameters depending on:
natural env ironment * cleaning up tools capacity ofsystems to:
built environment * availability of materials * recover from* availability of skilled losses workers
urban fabric * mitigation embedded in reconstruction plans
critical infrastructures * robustness * transform lossesand facilities * flexibility into
* resourcefulness opportunitiesproduction sites * substitutability * reduce pre-event
vulnerabilityagents (examples)population in * development key criteria:hazardous zones * social cohesion * capacity to learn
* access to credit * dynamic adaptation* access to institutions* insurance coverage
governmental organ. * capacity to reorganise* capacity to question* access to knowledge* capacity to enforce* insurance coverage
economic stakeholders * capacity to recover…* insurance coverage
Semplification: each matrix address a specific aspect of the exposed systems across time and space
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 natural ecosystems fragile to the potential effects of hazard(s)?
Are different crops/agricolture productions vulnerable?
Can natural systems interact with hazard(s)?
Is there a possibility of solid trasport mechanisms
Are natural ecosystems vulnerable to mitigation measures taken particularly during the eemrgency phase?
Is there a possibility of water diversion that will subtract water from needing areas
Position with respect to hazardous zonesContent of buildingsVulnerability assessment of public facilitiesVulnerability of the urban fabric
Location with respect to vulnerable buidlings, roads, industrial sitesPreparednessDepth of flood dangerous for individualsAge; mobility impairment, other impairmentPopulation density in vunerable areas
Nat
ural
env
ironm
ent
Natural ecosystems
Exposure andvulnerability of builtenvironment
What are the factors that make buildings, the urban fabric and public facilities vulnerable to the stress?
Bui
lt en
viro
nmen
t
People/individuals
Community and Instituions
What are the factors that may lead to large number of victims?
Infr
astr
uctu
re
and
prod
uctio
n si
tes
What are the factors that make production sites vulnerable (including na-tech potential)
Production sites
What are the factors that make critical infrastructures vulenrable (mainly lifelines)
Critical infrastructures
Soci
al s
yste
m (a
gent
s)
Buildings structural vulnerability
Water treatment plants; electical power plants; other lifelines plants
Vulnerability assessment of production sites
What are the factors that may lead to injuries and fatalities?
Organisation of each matix: different “components” of vulnerability
System Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Application to case study
Are natural ecosystems fragile to the potential secondary effects of hazard(s)?
Are crops and other agricoltural productions vulnerable to contaminated water
by type of production and concentration/type of contaminant
detailed analysis of potentialcontaminants sources in thearea needed
Areas that may be vulnerable to secondary contamination
along the river, considering dispersion mode of contaminants
Contaminants, rock, stones,boulders, mud; transportationpocesses
Existance of public facilities: hospitals, fire brigades, emergency control rooms
yes/no; functional capacity of such facilities
assessment of functionalpotential of facilities
Accessibility to vulnerable areas
redundancy; quality of roads; usability; expected travel time
10,000 motorists stranded onmotorway system. 500 railpassengers stranded. Tens andthousands more with disruptedtravel for several weeks.
Existance of lifelines binary yes/noContinuity plan for lifelines, individually and in a coordinated fashion
binaryyes/no; considers all potentialthreats/does not
People and areas depending on lifelines in potentially affected zones
number/area dimension number of customers who maybe affected; geographic area
Number affected through loss ofpotable w ater supplies: 135,000homes or 350,000 people for 17 days:i.e. 340,000 people outside the floodrisk zone. Adaptation comprisedproviding large number of bottledw ater supplies but not w ithoutavailability problems in some areas.
Business continuity plan binary yes/no
Business continuity planning hasbecome relatively w ell developed in the UK in the past decade and so w ew ould expect many flood risk firms tohave considered how they w ouldensure business continuity during aflood disaster. How many w ouldprobably not have consideredprolonged loss of potable w atersupplies caused by flooding in thesummer 2007 f loods.
Access to understandable information
binary and redundancy yes/no; radio and TV/special telephone number/internet
Everyone is able to obtaingeographically specif ic f lood w arninginformation and flood advice (includingon flood resilience measures) bytelephoning the Environment Agency'sFLOODline. Radio information is alsoavailable.
Preparedness in case of event degree good/partial/low
People received severe w eather andflood w arnings but most did not expectutilities to suffer outages and so theyw ere not prepared for this in mostcases.
Community and Institutions
What are the factors that may hamper effective crisis management?
Existance of contingency plan fro threats at stake
binary; date of last production or update
yes/no; recent/old
Capacity to run economy and respond to crises
degree yes/partially/no
Capacity to invest in recovery and take preventive actions
Binary or degree Yes/no or none/partial/high
Nat
ural
env
ironm
ent
Natural ecosystems
Exposure andvulnerability of builtenvironment
What are the factors that make buildings, the urban fabric and public facilities vulnerable to losses?
Bui
lt en
viro
nmen
tSo
cial
sys
tem
(age
nts)
People/individuals What are the factors that may reduce coping capacity during crisis?
Economic stakeholders
Are economic stakeholders prepared to face crises?
Infra
stru
ctur
e an
d pr
oduc
tion
site
s
What are the factors that make critical infrastructures stop functioning?
Critical infrastructures
Advance in the most “established” assessment tools
The process for identifying parameters to assess physical vulnerability: the seismic case
Parameters to assess buildings vulnerability to earthquakes(GNDT)
ClassesParameters 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
0,000
0,200
0,400
0,600
0,800
1,000
1,200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
dam
age
(-)
depth (m)
STANDARD METHODdamage to buildings (content + structure)
low rise
single and farm
intermediate
high rise
Parametro Descrizione Valutazione
a) Posizione Dalla posizione dell’edificio dipende la pericolosità a cui è assoggettato
b) Destinazione d’uso
Dalla destinazione d’uso dipende il valore dei contenuti e quinti dei beni potenzialmente danneggiabili.
Si
c) Epoca di costruzione
L’epoca di costruzione è collegata, in genere, allo stato di manutenzione e ai materiali utilizzati .
No
d) Stato di manutenzione
Edifici in buone condizioni di manutenzione presentano una maggior resistenza alla sollecitazione prodotta dall’acqua che edifici fatiscenti
No
e) Materiale da costruzione
Alcuni materiali (come il cemento armato o la muratura) resistono meglio all’azione dell’acqua di atri (quali il legno)
No
f) Numero di piani fuori terra
La presenza di piani ulteriori rispetto al piano terreno consente di posizionare/spostare oggetti ai piani più alti
Si
g) Presenza piano interrato
I piani interrati sono soggetti ad allagamento anche con limitate altezze d’acqua
Si
h) Numero di aperture a piano strada
La presenza di aperture al piano strada favorisce l’ingresso dell’acqua
Si
i) Quota del piano terreno
La presenza di un dislivello tra piano terra e piano strada protegge dall’ingresso dell’acqua
Si
l) Presenza impianti ai piani vulnerabili
La presenza di impianti (elettrico, gas, acqua) ai piani allagabili può comportare non solo il danneggiamento dell’impianto ma anche l’interruzione del servizio
No
Distance <2m
Distance between 2-4mDistance between 4-6mDistance between 6-8mDistance between 8-12mDistance between 12-20mDistance >20mSlope <5%Slope between 6-20%Slope >20%Non burnable wallsFlammable wallsNon flammable roofFlammable roofMetal shuttersShutters made of wood or plastic
Only ground floorTwo-floor buildingThree-floor or higher building
Vulnerability of the urban fabric
Residential use on a higher floor whilethere is another use at the ground floorstoring flammable materials orentailing a risk of explosion (e.g.warehouse, workshop, small industryetc
Types of dangerous uses within or in proximity to the building unit of reference (either in the horizontal or vertical sense)
What are the factors that make buildings and public facilities vulnerable to the stress?
What are the factors that make the urban fabric and public facilities vulnerable to the stress?
Vulnerability assessment of residential buildings and public facilities
Influence of the slope of the surrounding area (B)
Heat tolerance of the walls(C1)
Heat tolerance of the roof(C2)
Heat tolerance of the shutters(C3)
Number of floors(C4)
Minimum distance between the forest fuel and the house
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
tephra gas pyroclastic flows ballistic lahars
roof connection to structure good/poor 1 0,5 1weight heavy/light 1 1shape large inclination/plane 0,5 1 (pitch > 15° ok) 0,5material iron, reinforced
concrete, masonry (different types), other
1(best: iron, r.c antiseismic,
timber)
0,5 (worse: timber)
0,5 (best: r.c, masonry if homogenous resistance; worse: timber)
homogeneity large/largely disomogenous
1 1 1 1
type of connection among parts
good/poor 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
floors rigidity rigid/non rigid 0,5foundation depth and type non-existent, deep,
superficial1 1 1 1
spans between resistant elements
distance in m. > 3 mt; < 3 mt (for masonry mainly)
1 0,5
openings number and dimension of windows/doors
0,5 0,5 1 1 1 0,5
quality of openings may be easily sealed/not
1 1 1
elevation regular and symmetric/not regular and asymmetric
1
plan regular and symmetric/not regular and asymmetric
1
phys
ical
vul
nera
bilit
y
build
ings
keys
structure (or GNDT forms for seismic risk)
shape
hazards for which they countseismic landslides volcanic
aspect parameters
Advance in the most “established” assessment tools
Establishing a process for systemic vulnerability
Loss
Of
function
?physical damage
systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to lossessystems parameters depending on:
natural env ironment * vulnerability to na-tech losses andthe consequence
built env ironment losses mayhave on
urban fabric * external and internal accessibility
critical infrastructures * dependency indiv idual and facilities * robustenss sectors,
* rapidity activ ity* resourcefulness
production sites * transferability serv ice*….
agents (examples) key criteria:* ability to function
population liv ing in * preparednesshazardous areas * access to information * information
governmental organ. * plans, preparation…* sharing of information* access to crucial knowledge
economic stakeholders * business continuity
How to choose vulnerability and resilience indicators?
measurable specificity representativeness verifiable scientific validity
cost effective
cost of collection
spatio-temporalscale
availability
quality
data
characteristics
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Mitigationcapacity
Physicalvulnerability
Systemicvulnerability
Resilience
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Mitigationcapacity
Physicalvulnerability
Systemicvulnerability
Resilience
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Naturalenvironmentvulnerability
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerabilityof the builtenvironment
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Vulnerabilitycriticalfacilities
Mitigationcapacity
Physicalvulnerability
Systemicvulnerability
Resilience
Choice: a set of matrices “for” each hazard