WWP3: P3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENTFOR RISK ASSESSMENT

WP leader: UNIBOP leader: UNIBO

Rocco Mazzeo, Silvia Prati, Marta Quaranta, Gabriele Bitelli, Marcella Mannina

Athens, February 12Athens, February 12thth 20122012

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD

1. EXISTING EUROPEAN PROJECTS FOCUSED ON RISK ASSESSMENT

2. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

CURRENTLY ADOPTED IN EUROPE

3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE

INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD

4. PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN RISK ASSESSMENT

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD1. EXISTING EUROPEAN PROJECTS FOCUSED ON RISK ASSESSMENT

• Hazard (1): An extreme natural event […] that is statistically rare at a particular place and time. A natural hazard can be a source of risk but does not necessarily imply potential degree or frequency of occurrence. A natural hazard produces risk only if exposures create the possibility of adverse consequences.

• Hazard (2): a particular threat or source of potential damage (fire, floods, earthquakes, are type of threats)

• Hazard (3): the function that indicates the level of aggressiveness of a given territorial area, irrespective of the presence or not of the item;

(1) European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON);(2) Herb Storel, RISK PREPAREDNESS: a management manual for world cultural heritage. 1998

ICCROM, Rome;(3) Risk Map (Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro, ISCR, Rome);

INTRODUCTION OF A GLOSSARY – HAZARD

• Vulnerability (1):[…] is a set of conditions and processes resulting from physical, social, economical and environmental factors, which increase the susceptibility of the impact and the consequences of hazards. Vulnerability is determined by the potential of a hazard, the resulting risk and the potential to react to and/or to withstand it, i.e. its adaptability, adaptive capacity and/or coping capacity.

• Vulnerability (2):Estimation of the level of loss associated with particular hazard• Vulnerability (3): a function that indicates the level of exposure of a given item to the

aggressiveness of a territorial environmental factors

(1) European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON);(2) Herb Storel, RISK PREPAREDNESS: a management manual for world cultural heritage. 1998

ICCROM, Rome;(3) Risk Map (Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro, ISCR, Rome);

INTRODUCTION OF A GLOSSARY – VULNERABILITY

• Risk (1): defined as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the consequence of an event

• Risk (2): Hazard x vulnerability; i.e. the degree to which loss is likely to occur, as a function of the nature of particular threats in relation to particular physical circumstances and time.

• Risk (3): to be expressed as a general function of the Vulnerability components, related to each unit of population, and of Danger, related to each territorial area on which the item is located.

R = R(V1,V2,....Vn, P1,P2,...Pn)

where R indicates the Risk and configures itself as a weighted average of the Vulnerability (V) and Danger (P) Indicators.

(1) European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON);(2) Herb Storel, RISK PREPAREDNESS: a management manual for world cultural heritage. 1998

ICCROM, Rome;(3) Risk Map (Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro, ISCR, Rome);

INTRODUCTION OF A GLOSSARY – RISK

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD2. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY

ADOPTED IN EUROPEa. Development of a survey templateb. Collection of data c. Data analysis

1. Three approaches

Northern Europe (Belgium, Norway)Criteria for risk assessment: condition survey based on NEN2727 standard,

detection of defects and definition of urgency of intervention. No risk assessment as risks are extremely rare (Belgium).

VISUAL INSPECTION DEFINITION OF POSSIBLE MEASURES

Southern Europe (Italy, Greece)Criteria for risk assessment: complex evaluation of risk based on analysis of

hazards and individual vulnerability (state of conservation) of building. EVALUATION OF RISK (hazard + vulnerability)

Eastern Europe (Poland) RISK MANAGEMENT plans (regulated by national law)

2. c. Data analysis1.Three approaches2. Proposed assessment criteria

• Cultural Heritage distribution in each country

• Identification of HAZARD (geographic location)

• Harmfulness of HAZARDS to Cultural Heritage: definition of VULNERABILITY ( through Standardized condition surveys)

• RISK EVALUATION (function of hazard and vulnerability)

• Definition of risk indicators

e.g. RISK MAP – ISCR (MiBAC, Italy)

Proposed assessment criteria:

•Cultural Heritage distribution in each country

Proposed assessment criteria:

• Identification of HAZARD (geographic location)

A. vulnerability datasheets (conservation state) for archaeological site and historical building/monuments and vulnerability datasheets specific to seismic risk (Italy)

B. monitoring of building condition, urgency of intervention (Belgium)

C. vulnerability index defined for each monument (Greece)

* = related to mankind

Proposed assessment criteria:

• Harmfulness of HAZARDS to Cultural Heritage: definition of VULNERABILITY

3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD1. Methodology

a. Take into consideration the structure developed by Risk Map: hazard + vulnerability

b. Make use of information provided by existing Eu-projects (ESPON, Noah’s Arc, COST C26, Climate for Culture, etc.)

c. Adaptation to Eu-CHIC needs defining priorities for each European regions

- Static structural domain- ESPON European-level hazard maps / RISK MAP / COST C26

- Environment domain- blackening index- erosion index- physical stress

- Weather/climate domain- NOAH’S ARC Eu-project

climate maps, heritage climate maps, damage maps, risk maps

- Human impact domain- demography, number of visitors, thefts…

3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD1. Methodology2. Proposal for risk indicators

a. Hazard

To be achieved through:

•Monumentenwatch, NEN 2767 (standardized condition survey and monitoring)

•CEN standard 346 (standardized condition survey)

•RISK MAP: vulnerability datasheets - conservation state

•RISK MAP: vulnerability datasheets - seismic risk

(1) M. Laurenzi Tabasso, Il Capitolato Speciale tipo per la Diagnostica: un “non-finito” della Commissione NorMal, KERMES, Speciale Normativa BB.CC., anno XXI, numero 71, luglio-settembre 2008.

Lack of STANDARDIZED DIAGNOSTICDIAGNOSTIC SURVEYs (1)

3. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD1. Methodology2. Proposal for risk indicators

a. Hazardb. Vulnerability

SPECIFICATION FORDIAGNOSTIC ACTIVITIES TO BE CARRIED OUTPRELIMINARY TO ANY CONSERVATION-RESTORATIONINTERVENTION

– Indagine storica e archivistica*– Rilievo e rappresentazione– Misura dei parametri ambientali– Caratterizzazione geologico-tecnica e geotecnica di un sito– Analisi e calcolo strutturale*– Definizione della tipologia e funzionalità degli impianti tecnici*– Caratterizzazione dei materiali lapidei (naturalie artificiali) e studio di processi di alterazione– Indagini non distruttive– Prove meccaniche– Caratterizzazione dello stato termoigrometrico delle murature– Valutazione preventiva dei prodotti e dei metodi da impiegare per il trattamento dei materiali lapidei naturali e artificiali.

OWNERS, MANAGERS OF MONUMENTS/SITES: advantages: cost-effective; existing standardized format for data

collection drawbacks: non professionals; lack of knowledge on material

science and degradation

ARCHITECT, ENGINEERS, CONSERVATION SCIENTISTS, NATURAL SCIENTIST, etc

advantages: professional and qualified survey drawbacks: demanding in terms of time, cost and knowledge

4. Professionals involveda. Different levels of involvement

WP3 ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE REPORTING PERIOD

WHO CAN USE THE RESULTS?

According to DOW the results achieved will be used by WP4 and WP5

•WP4 Task 4.1: after the conclusion of WP3, the aim of the task is to identify the techniques and methods used to collect data regarding monument documentation and risk assessment

•WP5 Task 5.1: an integrated documentation protocol will be based on new documentation procedures (WP2), responding to criteria and indicators for risk assessment (WP3), responding to advanced diagnostic and data management (WP4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIFtdHUE5pQ

A video statement made by Dr. Rohit Jigyasu, UNESCO Chair Professor, Research Centre for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan President, ICOMOS-ICORP, at the Third Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva, May 2011.

European Union as example for world heritage preservation

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION