Omilia, May 31 th 2011

1. WP3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENTWP leader: UNIBORocco Mazzeo, Silvia Prati, Marta Quaranta, Gabriele Bitelli, Marcella Mannina Omilia, May 31th 2011

2. WP3 Partners

3. WP3: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT 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. 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.

4. WORK PACKAGES Task 3.1 (month 3-9) Research and analysis of existing directives for risk assessment related to monument conservation Leader: UNIBO Participants: UL, BBRI, ITAM, NTUA, UNIFE, IPPT, LABEIN Task 3.2 (month 6-11) Critical analysis of risks and setting up of assessment criteria L: UNIBO P: UL, BBRI, ITAM, NTUA Task 3.3 (month 8-13) Establishment of risk indicators L: UNIBO P: UL, BBRI, ITAM

5. TIMING September 2009 October 2010 June 2011 March 2011 April 2010 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”

6. 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

7. TERMINOLOGY • HAZARD: 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. • VULNERABILITY: […] 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. specifically mention technological hazards, some information on this topic was added • RISK: defined as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the consequence of an event • REFERENCE: ESPON, COST C26

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

9. 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 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

10. 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 (template sent to all partners, 8 countries represented)

11. 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 (template sent to all partners, 8 countries represented) • Data analysis

12. c. Data analysis

13. 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

14. 2. c. 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)

15. TERMINOLOGY • HAZARD (or territorial Danger, H): a function that indicates the level of potential aggressiveness of a given territorial area, irrespective of the presence or otherwise of the items. • VULNERABILITY (V): a function that indicates the level of exposure of a given item to the aggression of territorial environmental factors • RISK: general function of the Vulnerability (V) components, related to each unit of population (immovable item), and of Danger (H), related to each territorial area on which the item is located. • REFERENCE: RISK MAP

16. 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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Proposed assessment criteria: • Identification of HAZARD (geographic location) NOAH’S ARC PROJECT • Monitor the actual situation and foresee its evolution within a • given timescale: • baseline (recent past 1961-1990) • near future (2010-2030) • far future (2070-2099)

23. 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

24. 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

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

26. 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…

27. 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.

28. – 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

29. 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

30. 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)

31. THANKS FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION