A syntesis of the ENSURE Project methodology

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 Menoni
ENSURE final meeting

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”.

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”

space
vulnerability
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
vulnerability:
how prone is a
system to be
damaged in case
of a given stress
 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?)

Methodology

*exctracting concepts * development of a framework
basically a model for
vulnerability and resilience
assessment

* Case studies from * verify on case studies
previous studies, literature
test areas of the project

scale Scale (at which
(of hazards) vulnerabilities are
regionalconsidered)
Mult Macro
i-site (regional, Resilience:
national,
global)
Capacity to
transform
meso losses into
Systeemic
opportunities
vulnerability:
vulnerability
Mitigation Physical to losses
micr
capacity o vulnerability:
local
vulnerability
to stress

time
impact emergency recovery recostruction

Premonitory impact Impact Repeated Hazard time
signs duration impact scale

scale Scale (at which vulnerabilities are considered)
(of hazards)
regional

globall)
National/
Multi- resilience: response capability in the long run
resilience: mitigation capacities
systems parameters depending on: site systems parameters depending on:

natural environment * cleaning up tools capacity of
natural environment capacity of systems to:
systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to losses
systems to: built environment * availability of materials * recover from
systems parameters depending on:
built environment * existence of build. * embed prevention * availability of skilled losses
(structures including codes for new into ordinary natural environment * vulnerability to na-tech losses and
workers
strucutral mitigation * existence of codes activities the consequence
urban fabric * mitigation embedded in
measures) rules for retrofitting built environment losses may
reconstruction plans
physical vulnerability: physical damageability have on
urban fabric * mitigation embedded critical infrastructures * robustness * transform losses
systems parameters depending on: urban fabric * external and internal
in ordinary plans * embed mitigation and facilities * flexibility into
critical infrastructures in resilience
* build in projects accessibility
* resourcefulness opportunities
natural environment * vulnerability to stress specific aspects critical infrastructures
Regional
and facilities in new projects * dependency individual
production sites * substitutability * reduce pre-event
of individual and facilities * robustenss sectors,
* build in resilience vulnerability
built environment * structural features hazards (or * rapidity activity
production sites in modernization agents (examples)
(including structural * concentration enchained ones), * resourcefulness
programs population in * development key criteria:
measures) * maintenance production sites * transferability service
agents (examples) hazardous zones * social cohesion * capacity to learn
urban fabric * patterns *….
* access to credit * dynamic adaptation
population in * ongoing education key criteria: agents (examples) key criteria:
* access to institutions
critical infrastructures * lifelines features and to the * ability to function
hazardous areas programs * capacity to * insurance coverage
and facilities * hospitals features response of population living in * preparedness
* access to insurance enforce governmental organ. * capacity to reorganise
*…. systems and hazardous areas * access to information * information
* keeping attention * capacity to question
production sites * agricolture: vulnerability agnets to the
local

governmental * capacity to enforce on mitigation * access to knowledge
organisations * capacity to invest in local to stress
* production sites features
stress governmental organ. * plans, preparation…
* capacity to enforce
prevention despite * sharing of information
* insurance coverage
uncertainties * access to crucial
economic stakeholders * capacity to recover…
structural measures * quality knowledge
* creation/use of * insurance coverage
* maintenance
implemention tools
agents (examples) key criteria: economic stakeholders * business continuity
economic * including business
* phsyical
stakeholders continuity in plans
population living in * age characteristics
* insurance coverage
hazardous zones * disabled… * concentration
* maintenance

time
impact emergency recovery recostruction

Premonitory impact Impact Repeated impact Hazard
signs duration time
scale
Time at which the assessment is carried out

Time scale: some thoughts

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
emergency recovery recostruction
impact
Premonitory impact Impact Repeated impact Hazard
signs duration time
scale
Time at which the assessment is carried out

Scale (at Spatial scale: some thoughts
which
scale vulnerabilities are
(of hazards) considered)

Key points:
regional
globall)
Multi- National/
site * Tension between local scale and
larger scales

* Emergent aspects (relevant for systemic
Regional

vulnerability for example)

* Cross-level relationships: influence of
vulenrability at one scale (agency for
local

local
example) on another scale (laws,
regulations, stretegies)

resilience: mitigation capacities
systems parameters depending on: Semplification: each matrix
natural environment capacity of address a specific aspect of
systems to:
built environment * existence of build. * embed prevention
(structures including codes for new into ordinary
the exposed systems across
strucutral mitigation * existence of codes activities
measures) rules for retrofitting
time and space
physical vulnerability: physical damageability
urban fabric * mitigation embedded
in ordinary systems embed mitigation parameters
plans * depending on:
critical infrastructures in resilience
* build in projects
and facilities in new projects
natural environment * vulnerability to stress specific aspects
* build in resilience
of individual
production sites in modernization
programs built environment * structural features hazards (or
agents (examples) (including structural * concentration enchained ones),
measures) * systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to losses
maintenance
population in * ongoing education key criteria:
urban fabric * systems
patterns parameters depending on:
hazardous areas programs * capacity to
* access to insurance enforce natural environment * vulnerability to na-tech losses and
critical infrastructures
* keeping attention * lifelines features and to the the consequence
governmental * capacity toand facilitiesmitigation
enforce on * built environment
hospitals features response of losses may
organisations * capacity to invest in
*…. systems and have on
prevention despite
production sites
uncertainties * urban fabric vulnerability* external andthe
agricolture: agnets to internal
accessibility
* creation/use of to stress stress
implemention tools critical infrastructures * dependency individual
resilience: response capability in the long run
* production sites features
economic * including business and facilities * robustenss sectors,
stakeholders continuity in plans * rapidity activity
* insurance coverage measures
structural * quality
* resourcefulness natural environment * cleaning up tools capacity of
* production sites
maintenance * transferability service systems to:
agents (examples) *…. criteria:
key
built environment * availability of materials * recover from
agents (examples) * phsyical key criteria:
population living in * age characteristics * ability to function
* availability of skilled losses
hazardous zones * population living in
disabled… * preparedness
* concentration workers
hazardous areas * access to information fabric
* maintenanceurban * information * mitigation embedded in

Organisation of each matix: different “components” of vulnerability
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 different
Natural environment

Are natural ecosystems fragile to the
crops/agricolture productions
potential effects of hazard(s)?
vulnerable?
Can natural systems interact with Is there a possibility of solid
Natural ecosystems hazard(s)? trasport mechanisms

Are natural ecosystems vulnerable to Is there a possibility of water
mitigation measures taken particularly diversion that will subtract
during the eemrgency phase? water from needing areas

Buildings structural
Built environment

vulnerability

Exposure and What are the factors that make Position with respect to
vulnerability of built buildings, the urban fabric and public hazardous zones
environment facilities vulnerable to the stress? Content of buildings
Vulnerability assessment of
public facilities
Vulnerability of the urban
fabric

What are the factors that make critical Water treatment plants;
and production
Infrastructure

Critical infrastructures infrastructures vulenrable (mainly electical power plants; other
lifelines) lifelines plants
sites

What are the factors that make Vulnerability assessment of
Production sites production sites vulnerable (including production sites
na-tech potential)

Location with respect to
Social system (agents)

vulnerable buidlings, roads,
industrial sites
What are the factors that may lead to Preparedness
People/individuals
injuries and fatalities? Depth of flood dangerous for
individuals
Age; mobility impairment,
other impairment
Population density in
Community and What are the factors that may lead to
vunerable areas
Instituions large number of victims?

Natural environment System Aspect Parameters Criteria for assessment Descriptors Application to case study
Are crops and other
Are natural ecosystems fragile to the by type of production and detailed analysis of potential
agricoltural productions
potential secondary effects of concentration/type of contaminants sources in the
vulnerable to contaminated
hazard(s)? contaminant area needed
Natural ecosystems water
Areas that may be along the river, considering Contaminants, rock, stones,
vulnerable to secondary dispersion mode of boulders, mud; transportation
contamination contaminants pocesses
Built environment

Existance of public
facilities: hospitals, fire yes/no; functional capacity assessment of functional
brigades, emergency of such facilities potential of facilities
Exposure and What are the factors that make
control rooms
vulnerability of built buildings, the urban fabric and public
10,000 motorists stranded on
environment facilities vulnerable to losses? redundancy; quality of
Accessibility to vulnerable motorway system. 500 rail
roads; usability; expected
areas passengers stranded. Tens and
travel time
thousands more with disrupted
travel for several weeks.
Existance of lifelines binary yes/no
Continuity plan for lifelines,
yes/no; considers all potential
individually and in a binary
Infrastructure and production sites

threats/does not
coordinated fashion
Number af f ected through loss of
Critical What are the factors that make critical potable w ater supplies: 135,000
infrastructures infrastructures stop functioning? homes or 350,000 people f or 17 days:
People and areas
number of customers who may i.e. 340,000 people outside the f lood
depending on lifelines in number/area dimension
be affected; geographic area risk zone. Adaptation comprised
potentially affected zones providing large number of bottled
w ater supplies but not w ithout
availability problems in some areas.
Business continuity planning has
become relatively w ell developed in the
UK in the past decade and so w e
w ould expect many f lood risk f irms to
have considered how they w ould
Business continuity plan binary yes/no ensure business continuity during a
f lood disaster. How many w ould
probably not have considered
prolonged loss of potable w ater
supplies caused by f looding in the
summer 2007 f loods.

Everyone is able to obtain
geographically specif ic f lood w arning
inf ormation and f lood advice (including
Access to understandable yes/no; radio and TV/special
binary and redundancy on f lood resilience measures) by
information telephone number/internet
Social system (agents)

telephoning the Environment Agency's
What are the factors that may reduce FLOODline. Radio inf ormation is also
People/individuals
coping capacity during crisis? available.
People received severe w eather and
f lood w arnings but most did not expect
Preparedness in case of
degree good/partial/low utilities to suf f er outages and so they
event w ere not prepared f or this in most
cases.
Community and What are the factors that may hamper Existance of contingency binary; date of last
yes/no; recent/old
Institutions effective crisis management? plan fro threats at stake production or update
Capacity to run economy
degree yes/partially/no
and respond to crises
Economic Are economic stakeholders prepared
Capacity to invest in
stak eholders to face crises?
recovery and take Binary or degree Yes/no or none/partial/high
preventive actions

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)
Classes
Parameters 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

Extending the process to “all” hazards STANDARD METHOD
damage to buildings (content + structure)
1,200
Parametro Descrizione Valutazione
Dalla posizione dell’edificio dipende 1,000
a) Posizione
la pericolosità a cui è assoggettato
Dalla destinazione d’uso dipende il valore dei 0,800
b) Destinazione
contenuti e quinti dei beni potenzialmente Si
d’uso

damage (-)
danneggiabili. 0,600
L’epoca di costruzione è collegata,
c) Epoca di low rise
in genere, allo stato di manutenzione No 0,400
costruzione single and farm
e ai materiali utilizzati .
intermediate
Edifici in buone condizioni di manutenzione 0,200
high rise
d) Stato di presentano una maggior resistenza alla
No
manutenzione sollecitazione prodotta dall’acqua che edifici 0,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
fatiscenti depth (m)
Alcuni materiali (come il cemento armato o la
e) Materiale
muratura) resistono meglio all’azione No
da costruzione
dell’acqua di atri (quali il legno)
Distance 2m
La presenza di piani ulteriori rispetto al
f) Numero di piani
piano terreno consente di Si
fuori terra Distance between 2-4m
posizionare/spostare oggetti ai piani più alti
Minimum distance between the Distance between 4-6m
g) Presenza piano I piani interrati sono soggetti Distance between 6-8m
forest fuel and the house ad allagamento
Si
interrato anche con limitate altezze d’acqua between 8-12m
Distance
h) Numero di Distance between 12-20m
La presenza di aperture al piano 20m
Distance strada
aperture a piano Si
favorisce l’ingresso dell’acquaSlope 5%
Influence of the slope of the
Built environment

What are the factors that make strada
Vulnerability assessment of Slope between 6-20%
surrounding area (B)
buildings and public facilities vulnerable residential buildings and Slope 20%
to the stress?
La presenza di un dislivello tra piano terra e
i) public facilities
Quota del piano Non burnable walls
piano tolerance of theprotegge Flammable walls
Heat strada walls(C1) dall’ingresso Si
terreno
dell’acqua Non flammable roof
Heat tolerance of the roof(C2)
Flammable roof
La presenza di impianti Metal shutters gas,
(elettrico,
l) Presenza impianti acqua) ai piani of the
Heat tolerance
allagabili può comportare of wood or plastic
Shutters made non
shutters(C3) No
ai piani vulnerabili solo il danneggiamento dell’impianto ma
anche l’interruzione del servizio ground floor
Only
Exposure and Number of floors(C4) Two-floor building
vulnerability of built Three-floor or higher building
Types of dangerous uses within Residential use on a higher floor while
environment
or in proximity to the building there is another use at the ground floor
Vulnerability of the urban storing flammable materials or
unit of reference (either in the
fabric entailing a risk of explosion (e.g.
horizontal or vertical sense)
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 warehouse, workshop, small industry
aspect parameters keys hazards for which they count
etc
Proximity with a site hosting a use
seismic landslides volcanic
entailing presence of flammable
tephra gas pyroclastic flows ballistic lahars

roof connection to structure good/poor 1 materials (e.g. warehouse)
0,5 1
weight heavy/light 1 1
shape large inclination/plane 0,5 Presence of15° ok)
1 (pitch > flammable installations or 0,5
structure (or GNDT material iron, reinforced 1(best: iron, r.c constructions in the non-built part ifr.c,
0,5 (worse: 0,5 (best: of
What are the factors that make the forms for seismic risk) concrete, masonry antiseismic, timber) masonry
urban fabric and public facilities (different types), other timber) the building plot homogenous
resistance; worse:
vulnerable to the stress? A building adjacent to a vacant site
timber)
homogeneity large/largely 1 1 1 1
disomogenous (i.e. lacking fuels altogether)
type of connection among good/poor 1 0,5 Medium or 0,5 high voltage wires 0,5 and 0,5 0,5
parts
floors rigidity rigid/non rigid 0,5 electricity installations close to the
foundation depth and type non-existent, deep, 1 1 1 1
superficial building
spans between distance in m. > 3 mt; < 3 mt (for 1 0,5
resistant elements Additional exposure due to the Continuous building development
masonry mainly)
shape openings number and dimension
pattern of building development pattern 1
of windows/doors
0,5 0,5 1 1 0,5

quality of openings may be easily 1 1 1
Semi-detached buildings
buildings

sealed/not
elevation regular and 1
symmetric/not regular Free from all sites system
and asymmetric
plan regular and 1
symmetric/not regular
and asymmetric
non structural presence of added parts yes/no and number 0,5
elements (chemneys, balconies,
statues, etc.)
basement existant/non existant 1
inflammable objects existant/non existant 0,5 0,5 0,7 1 0,7 0,5 0,5
y


Establishing a process for systemic vulnerability

systemic vulnerability: vulnerability to losses

natural environment * vulnerability to na-tech losses and Loss
the consequence
built environment losses may
have on
Of
urban fabric * external and internal
accessibility
function
critical infrastructures * dependency individual
and facilities * robustenss sectors,
* rapidity activity
* resourcefulness
production sites * transferability service

agents (examples)

population living in
hazardous areas
*….

* preparedness
* access to information
key criteria:
* ability to function

* information
?
governmental organ. * plans, preparation…
* sharing of information
* access to crucial
knowledge

physical damage
economic stakeholders * business continuity

How to choose vulnerability and resilience indicators?
data

quality

availability

spatio-
temporal
scale

cost of
collection

measurable specificity representativeness verifiable scientific cost
characteristics
validity effective

Mitigation Physical Systemic Resilience
capacity vulnerability vulnerability

Natural Natural Natural Natural
environment environment environment environment
vulnerability vulnerability
Mitigation vulnerability
Physical vulnerability
Systemic Resilience
capacity vulnerability vulnerability

Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
of the built of the built
Natural of the built
Natural of the built
Natural Natural
environment environment
vulnerability vulnerability vulnerability vulnerability

critical critical Vulnerability critical Vulnerability critical Vulnerability Vulnerability
facilities facilitiesof the built facilitiesof the built facilitiesMitigation
of the built Physical
of the built Systemic Resilience
environment environment capacity
environment vulnerability
environment vulnerability

Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of
Natural Natural Natural Natural
Vulnerability
Vulnerability social systems Vulnerability Vulnerability
social systems social systems social systems
environment environment environment environment
critical critical
/agents /agents critical /agents /agentsvulnerability critical
vulnerability vulnerability vulnerability
facilities facilities facilities facilities

Vulnerability of Vulnerability of of the built of
Vulnerability of the built of
Vulnerability of the built of the built
social systems social systems social systems
environment social systems
environment environment environment
/agents /agents /agents /agents

critical critical critical critical
facilities facilities facilities facilities
Choice: a set of
matrices “for” Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of Vulnerability of
each hazard social systems
/agents
social systems
/agents
social systems
/agents
social systems
/agents

A syntesis of the ENSURE Project methodology

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à A syntesis of the ENSURE Project methodology

Similaire à A syntesis of the ENSURE Project methodology (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

A syntesis of the ENSURE Project methodology