Omilia, May 31 th 2011

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

Omilia, May 31Omilia, May 31thth 2011 2011

WP3 PartnersWP3 Partners

Work package no. 3 Start date or starting event: Beginning of the Month 3

Work package title CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

Activity Type COORD

Benef. number 9 1 3 5 7 10 11 12

Short name UNIBO UL BBRI ITAM NTUA UNIFE IPPT PAN LABEIN

Person-months 11 1 2 4 3 3 1 2

WWP3: P3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT

Objectives:

Risk identification; to search and analyze existing directives for risk assessment related to monument conservation

Setting up criteria to meet principles of CH protection Critically analyze and priorities all risks affecting the state of

conservation of cultural heritage and to set up assessment criteria which meet conservation ethics principles

Establishing indicators to be incorporated into the final strategy and model.

The overall aim of the work package was to draw a picture of currently employed methodologies, to critically analyse and evaluate actions, and to project and define future research priorities according to EU-CHIC requirements and perspectives.

Task 3.1 (month 3-9)Research and analysis of existing directives for risk assessment

related to monument conservation Leader: UNIBOParticipants: UL, BBRI, ITAM, NTUA, UNIFE, IPPT, LABEIN

Task 3.2 (month 6-11)Critical analysis of risks and setting up of assessment criteria

L: UNIBOP: UL, BBRI, ITAM, NTUA

Task 3.3 (month 8-13)Establishment of risk indicators

L: UNIBOP: UL, BBRI, ITAM

WORK PACKAGESWORK PACKAGES

Septe

mbe

r 200

9

April

2010

Oct

ober

201

0

Mar

ch 2

011

October 2010 Milestone: Current methodologies and risk assessment (Meeting in Ravenna, Italy)

February 2011 (actual date of delivery, April 2011) Deliverable “Report on risk indicators and roadmap for future research priorities”

June

201

1

TIMINGTIMING

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

TERMINOLOGY

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

1. EXISTING EUROPEAN PROJECTS FOCUSED ON RISK ASSESSMENT

Project Funding source Outcome

ESPON European Commission Hazard maps

NOAH’S ARC Research institutions (FP6 project)

Climate maps, heritage climate maps, damage maps, risk maps, thematic pages

COST ACTION C26

Research institutions Risk assessment methodology

Monumentenwatch Private organization Objective monitoring of buildings

CEN standard 346 European Commission Guidelines for condition survey of immovable heritage

RISK MAP MiBAC (Italian Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali), IsCR (Italian Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il restauro), Research institutions

Hazard maps, cultural heritage distribution, vulnerability datasheets (conservation state and seismic 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 template

Template- General information

- Name- Responsible institution- Level of implementation- Access- Updating- Reference to catalogue

- Localization method- Risk assessment methodology

- Factors of danger- Vulnerability - Legal constrains- Risk mathematical model/algorithm- Possibility to realize database

queries- Data downloadable


ADOPTED IN EUROPEa. Development of a survey templateb. Collection of data (template sent to all partners, 8 countries represented)


ADOPTED IN EUROPEa. Development of a survey templateb. Collection of data (template sent to all partners, 8 countries represented)c. Data analysis

COUNTRYCOUNTRY METHOD'S METHOD'S NAMENAME

RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ASSESSMENT

HAZARDHAZARD VULNERABILITYVULNERABILITY RISKRISK

ITALY Risk Map

static-structural (seismic activity, landslides, flooding, coastal dynamics, avalanches, volcanic

activity), human impact danger (population density, tourist flows, number of thefts

environmental (erosion, blackening, physical stress)

vulnerability datasheets (conservation state) for

archeaological siteas and hitorical

building/monuments and vulnerability datasheets specific to seismic risk

RISK EVALUATION

BELGIUM

1. MonumentenWatch; 2.Objective monitoring (standard); 3. Method raccomanded by BBRI

hazard are extremely rare and no administration take them into account

monitoring of building condition, urgency of

intervention

VISUAL INSPECTION - URGENCY OF INTERVENTION

SLOVENIA Heritage Register - - -

CZECH REPUBLIC

MonumeNet-Heritage at risk

hazard are reported as free text in immovable heritage database

- NO

SLOVAKIAMonitoring the subgrade of historic monuments

Landslide/slip danger: Specific monitoring of selected historic monuments.

Static-structural domain: Movement of reference

points is monitoredNO

NORWAY CEN standard - -

EVALUATION OF MAINTENANCE AND

PROPOSAL OF MEASURES

POLAND not named

Static-structural domain: floods, building disaster (technical or chemical failure); Weather/Climate domain: wind; Anthropic domain: liability to theft, fires, vandalism, mass manifestation and riots,

terrorist attack, armed conflicts

-

MANAGEMENT PLANS BASED ON

REGULATION(August 2004)

GREECE Risk Map (pilot program)

static-structural (seismic activity, landslides, flooding, coastal dynamics, avalanches, volcanic

activity), human impact danger (population density, tourist flows, number of thefts

environmental (erosion, blackening, physical stress)

vulnerability index defined for each

monumentRISK EVALUATION

2. c. Data analysis


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 approaches

TERMINOLOGY

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



EARTHQUAKES

Ravenna Meeting 13.October.2010The Diversity of Challenges in Creating Effective Risk Management SolutionsIngval Maxwell, OBE, DADun, RIBA, FRIAS, AABC, ACA, FSAScot


LANDSLIDES

WINTER STORMS


NOAH’S ARC PROJECTMonitor the actual situation and foresee its evolution within a given timescale: - baseline (recent past 1961-1990)- near future (2010-2030)- far future (2070-2099)



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


• 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

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

- 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…


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)


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)

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION

Documents

Omilia, May 31 th 2011