1 / 19

Athens, February 12 th 2012

W P3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT W P leader: UNIBO Rocco Mazzeo, Silvia Prati, Marta Quaranta, Gabriele Bitelli, Marcella Mannina. Athens, February 12 th 2012. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD.

delora
Télécharger la présentation

Athens, February 12 th 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENTWP leader: UNIBORocco Mazzeo, Silvia Prati, Marta Quaranta, Gabriele Bitelli, Marcella Mannina Athens, February 12th 2012

  2. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD EXISTING EUROPEAN PROJECTS FOCUSED ON RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY ADOPTED IN EUROPE IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN RISK ASSESSMENT

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

  4. INTRODUCTION OF A GLOSSARY – • HAZARD • 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);

  5. INTRODUCTION OF A GLOSSARY – • VULNERABILITY • 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);

  6. INTRODUCTION OF A GLOSSARY – • RISK • 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);

  7. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC RESULTS ACHIEVED BY WP3 IN THE REPORTING PERIOD • IDENTIFICATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY ADOPTED IN EUROPE • Development of a survey template • Collection of data • Data analysis • 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)

  8. 2. c. Data analysis • 1.Three approaches • 2. 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

  9. Proposed assessment criteria: • Cultural Heritage distribution in each country e.g. RISK MAP – ISCR (MiBAC, Italy)

  10. Proposed assessment criteria: • Identification of HAZARD (geographic location)

  11. Proposed assessment criteria: • Harmfulness of HAZARDS to Cultural Heritage: definition of VULNERABILITY • vulnerability datasheets (conservation state) for archaeological site and historical building/monuments and vulnerability datasheets specific to seismic risk (Italy) • monitoring of building condition, urgency of intervention (Belgium) • vulnerability index defined for each monument (Greece) * = related to mankind

  12. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD • Methodology • Take into consideration the structure developed by Risk Map: hazard + vulnerability • Make use of information provided by existing Eu-projects (ESPON, Noah’s Arc, COST C26, Climate for Culture, etc.) • Adaptation to Eu-CHIC needs defining priorities for each European regions

  13. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD • Methodology • Proposal for risk indicators • Hazard - 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…

  14. IDENTIFICATION AND PROPOSAL OF RISK INDICATORS TO BE INCLUDED INTO THE FINAL CHIC CARD • Methodology • Proposal for risk indicators • Hazard • Vulnerability • 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 Lack of STANDARDIZED DIAGNOSTIC SURVEYs (1) (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.

  15. – 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 (naturali e 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. SPECIFICATION FOR DIAGNOSTIC ACTIVITIES TO BE CARRIED OUT PRELIMINARY TO ANY CONSERVATION-RESTORATION INTERVENTION

  16. 4. Professionals involved • a. Different levels of involvement • 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

  17. 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)

  18. 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

  19. THANKS FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION

More Related