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


natural env ironment * vulnerability to na-tech losses andthe consequence

built env ironment losses mayhave on









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


natural env ironment * vulnerability to na-tech losses andthe consequence

built env ironment losses mayhave on









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







Vulnerability ofsocial systems/agents







Mitigationcapacity

Physicalvulnerability

Systemicvulnerability

Resilience

















Mitigationcapacity



Resilience

















Mitigationcapacity



Resilience

Choice: a set of matrices “for” each hazard

F32 a syntesis ensure method for assessing vulnerability resilience

Education

Transcript of F32 a syntesis ensure method for assessing vulnerability resilience