Conceptual framework

1. Assessment of the technological installations vulnerability to natural hazards Gabriela BOCA, Alexandru OZUNU,Serban Nicolae VLAD The Environmental Science Faculty, Babeş Bolyai University Cluj Napoca, ROMANIA Abstract Define study area Vulnerability indicators selection, standardization, weighting and aggregation • Set up the specific indicators for each vulnerability index • Gather data for all indicators identified for each technological site • Weight and aggregate the indicators to calculate each vulnerability indexes for each technological site • Standardisation of the values of the indexes calculated • Calculation of the total vulnerability value of each technological site to natural hazards • Normalize the technological sites total vulnerability values with respect to the maximum value within the study area • Mapping the technological installation total vulnerability at natural hazards, within the study area • Overly the map of the natural hazardous areas with the technological installation vulnerability at natural hazards • Natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslide, do not only affect people and the environment but also infrastructures and industrial companies. • Technological installations vulnerability at natural hazards [V] was measured by a range of indicators covering both damage potential and coping capacity, as well as the range of all three vulnerability dimensions (economic, social and environmental). • Criteria for assessing exposure to damages cover: • susceptibility to natural hazard • structural vulnerability • potential consequences of the hazmat release • production losses • Criteria for assessing coping capacities quantify measures which are taken prior to the event, which can reduce the vulnerability, as well as measures which can be implemented to try to contain the event once it has manifested itself within a specific geographical area in addition to measures to respond. • Indicators were weighted in 4 vulnerability indexes • 1) SV index assess the structural vulnerability, was performed by analyzing a series of parameters that pertain to physical, systemic, and functional aspects through the Analytical Hierarchy Process methodology (Saaty, 2006a, 2006b). ; • 2) SD index assess the secondary direct damages, the potential consequences of the hazmat release(Cruz and Okada, 2008) - so-called natural hazard-triggered technological disasters (Natechs) with devastating social as well as environmental consequences (Cruz and Okada, 2008). • 3) PL index, illustrates the production losses (Hiete and Merz, 2008) – estimate the vulnerability of industrial sectors to different types of disasters, in a quantitative manner, as a result of the input factors (i) direct disaster losses, (ii) supply chain disruptions, and (iii) critical infrastructure disruptions • RR index estimate the coping capacity as resilience and resistance - indicators for assessing coping capacities, resilience and resistance, quantify measures which are taken prior to the event, which can reduce the vulnerability, as well as measures which can be implemented to try to contain the event once it has manifested itself within a specific geographical area in addition to measures to respond The increasing frequency of some natural events having a particularly high severity raised a growing concern for industrial asset integrity and for the consequences of accident scenarios that may be triggered by intense natural events. The vulnerability assessment is a key factor in determining and minimizing risk, as highlighted on the 2005 World Conference on Disaster Reduction, held in Kobe, Japan. This work proposes a methodology for the assessment of technological installations vulnerability to natural hazards in the area of the Transylvanian Plateau. Vulnerability was measured by a range of indicators, using also some weight values. The basic criteria for choosing vulnerability indicators was that they should cover both damage potential and coping capacity, as well as the range of all three vulnerability dimensions (economic, social and environmental). In this context a crucial task was to find the right balance between the accuracy of data and the limited data available. • In the Târnavelor Plateau, flood contributes to the highest percentage (70 per cent) of natural disasters as events number, and has affected the largest population, with the highest economic loss; Over the past 38 years floods affected an estimated land area of 80-90 square kilometers on the Tarnavelor Plateau. During this period, the area suffered about 26 significant damaging floods, causing some 12 fatalities, the displacement of about 43 people and at least 25 billion euro in economic losses. The impact of floods on the economy varies from site to site, but is very heavy, especially because of the many priorities which have to be addressed in a relatively short time. • Geological foundation of Tarnavelor Plateau is covered by a crystalline sedimentary blanket. Fragmentation of relief, the composition of rocks least resistant to erosion, mainly agricultural land use and unprotected slopes extending the growing season increased facilitate a dynamic geomorphologic processes modelling: pluvial - denudation and erosion of the surface (affecting all slopes deforestation), also exists landslides due to the clay - gritty, however be reflected in an increased mobility of relief. Landslides increased substantially during the second half of the 20th century, mostly because of urbanization and agricultural land abandonment • As a result of geographical and geological conditions no real danger of a destructive event shares of earthquake, landslides and / or their complementary disasters; Technological installations vulnerability map Goals One of the most important goals of developing tools for measuring vulnerability is to help bridge the gaps between theoretical concepts of vulnerability and day-to-day decision making. The primary interest in defining and measuring vulnerability lies in the goal of reduction it (Green 2004:324). Conceptual framework The BBC conceptual framework for measuring vulnerability proposed by Bogardi / Birkmann (2004) and Cardona (1999/2001) implies that the assessment of vulnerability should address on the one hand the susceptibility and exposure of elements, on the other it should also identify and assess coping capacities and potential intervention tools. The BBC conceptual framework promotes a problem–solving perspective by analysing probable losses and deficiencies of the various elements at risk and their coping capacities as well as the potential intervention measures, all within the three key thematic spheres (economic, social and environmental). In this way it shows the importance of being proactive in order to reduce vulnerability before an event strikes the society, economy and environment. The BBC conceptual framework implies that the development of vulnerability indicators and the assessment of vulnerability should address on the one hand the susceptibility and exposure of different elements at risk in the economic, social and environmental sphere, on the other it should also identify and assess coping capacities and potential intervention tools. Ranking natural hazardous areas using relative priority matrix • Calculate the magnitude of each type of natural hazards, at each NUTS5 of the study area • Magnitude = Frequency + Area exposed • Standardisation of the values of the magnitudes calculated • At each NUTS5 of the study area, we aggregated the values of the magnitudes of different natural hazards into an overall composite index • Ranking and mapping that composite index for each NUTS5 Conclusion The analysis shows the technological installations vulnerability to natural hazards in the area of the Transylvanian Plateau is not negligible.Some technological installations are highly vulnerable mainly due to their structural characteristics, some are vulnerable mainly due to their NATECH potential, and/or due to a lack of resilience. It is emergent to assess the risks due to NATECH events in a framework starting with the characterization of frequency and severity of natural disasters and continuing with complex analysis of industrial processes, to risk assessment and residual functionality analysis. Map of the natural hazardous areas and location of the technological sites Tools and methods V = HM * [0,7( SV + SD + PL ) - 0,3 RR] where HM is a score that indicates the sensitivity of vulnerability to the type and magnitude of the hazard.The vulnerability of systems is disaster depended. A disaster specific weighting of the sub-indicators allows determining differences in vulnerabilities against different types of disasters. In our case, HM is equal with the composite index calculated for the NUTS5 were the technological site is located • The estimation was performed by analyzing a series of parameters that pertain to physical, systemic, and functional aspects through the Analytical Hierarchy Process methodology (Saaty, 2006a, 2006b). • Tools: • Overview of statistical data • Synthesis and analyze of the public information; • Indicators selection, data collection, indicators standardization, indicators weighting and aggregation • Observations and investigations on technological sites, the Security Reports, the External Urgency Plans Contact information The Environmental Science Faculty, Babeş Bolyai University Cluj Napoca, ROMANIA alexandru.ozunu@ubbcluj.ro; serban.vlad@caronet.ro ; coordonareboca@yahoo.co.uk