A multi-hazard risk prioritisation framework for cultural heritage assets

Abstract

Abstract. Multi-hazard risk assessment of building portfolios is of primary importance in natural-hazard-prone regions, particularly for the prioritisation of disaster risk reduction and resilience-enhancing strategies. In this context, cultural heritage assets require special consideration because of their high vulnerability to natural hazards – due to ageing and types of construction – and their strong links with communities from both an economic and a historical–sociocultural perspective. This paper introduces a multi-hazard risk prioritisation framework specifically developed for cultural heritage assets. The proposed framework relies on a multilevel rapid-visual-survey (RVS) form for the multi-hazard exposure data collection and risk prioritisation of case-study assets. Because of the multilevel architecture of the proposed RVS form, based on three levels of refinement and information, an increasing degree of accuracy can be achieved in the estimation of structural vulnerability and, ultimately, structural risk of the considered assets. At the lowest level of refinement, the collected data are used for the computation of seismic-risk and wind-risk prioritisation indices, specifically calibrated in this study for cultural heritage assets with various structural and non-structural features. The resulting indices are then combined into a unique multi-hazard risk prioritisation index in which the intangible value of cultural heritage assets is also considered. This is achieved by defining a score expressing the cultural significance of the asset. The analytic hierarchy process is extensively used throughout the study to reduce the subjectivity involved in the framework, thus obtaining a simplified yet robust approach which can be adapted to different building typologies. The proposed framework is applied to 25 heritage buildings in Iloilo City, Philippines, for which innovative, non-invasive techniques and tools for improved surveying have also been tested. Thermal and omnidirectional cameras have helped in the collection of structural data, together with drones for the inspection of roofs. Results of the study are presented and critically discussed, highlighting advantages and drawbacks of the use of new technologies in this field.

Macroseismic risk classification of historical constructions: the LEXSIS approach

“…The seismic vulnerability of existing constructions is a well-known issue because of the widespread damages and collapses caused by recent earthquakes (Borri et al 2017;Sevieri et al 2020). Together with their unavoidable social consequences, human and economic losses strongly encouraged research activities concerning seismic risk evaluation.…”

Preliminary assessment of thaw slump hazard to Arctic cultural heritage in Nordenskiöld Land, Svalbard

“…A better understanding of RTS future development can help local authorities prioritise mitigation measures at known CH sites. Eventually, this information can be included in future multihazard approaches in the field of CH (Lombardo et al 2020), in the prioritisation of disaster risk reduction (Sevieri et al 2020), especially for the endangered Arctic CH. RTS scar inventory can also be combined with ground displacement maps, derived from Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry (InSAR) (Rouyet et al 2019) in a unified approach to detect the most vulnerable CH sites.…”

Empirical seismic fragility models for Nepalese school buildings

“…Previous vulnerability and risk assessment studies in low-tomiddle income contexts have adopted the HAZUS models (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2015) as general reference for building fragility curves. Gentile et al (2019) have used HAZUS fragilities to define the baseline score of a seismic risk index for school buildings in Indonesia while Sevieri et al (2020) have extended the approach to the Philippines. HAZUS models have also been used in loss assessment studies in Nepal (Robinson et al 2018).…”

“…By analogy with the Uniform Building Code 1994 (ICBO 1994), HAZUS models are subdivided into four seismic code levels: high code, moderate code, low code and pre-code (Gentile et al 2019). In countries where the building standards have followed the evolution of the UBC, these four levels can be used in full (Sevieri et al 2020). This is not the case of Nepal where: (1) most of the constructions have been realized according to mandatory rules of thumb rather than engineering design, (2) the first building standard, the Nepal National Building Code (Department of Urban Development and Building (4) Construction 1994) has been effectively enacted in 2003 (Giri et al 2019).…”