RE-LAND

Report

Description

Bilateral cooperation project of ‘Particular Relevance’ Italy-USA: RE-LAND, REsilient LANDscapes. PI: Massimo Sargolini 

(Italy-USA, Science and technology cooperation) 

FIRST-YEAR REPORT  

Massimo Sargolini, Flavio Stimilli, Ilenia Pierantoni, Ahmadreza Shirvani (University of Camerino) In collaboration with:  

Jonathan P. Stewart and Paolo Zimmaro (University of California Los Angeles, UCLA)  Robert Z. Melnick and Noah P. Kerr (University of Oregon, UO)  

Keith A. Porter (University of Colorado Boulder, UC Boulder)  

Michele Barbato (University of California Davis, UC Davis)  

Andrea Dall’Asta and Fabio Micozzi (University of Camerino, Unicam) 

Massimo Musacchio (National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, INGV)  

Vania Virgili (National Institute of Nuclear Physics, INFN) 

Index 

Introduction 3 1. Hazards that threaten infrastructure and communities 4 2. Cultural heritage methodological and conceptual context 5 

3. Public policies to address natural hazards 6 
4. The interaction between spatial planning (at regional and municipal level), and the activities  of prevention, mitigation, emergency management and post-disaster recovery. 7 
5. The platforms to establish contact between scientists, governments and communities 10 
6. Submitted and published papers 11 
7. Draft list of the activities necessary to undertake in the second year of the project  

to develop the Decision Support System, drawing from the tackled case study 12 Basic references 13

Introduction 

The project RE-LAND is one of the initiatives undertaken by the University of Camerino after the series of  earthquakes that stroke Central Italy in 2016 and 2017. As such, its fundamental motivation originates from  the high number of casualties and the heavy damages suffered by many towns and communities in the inland  areas of the Italian central Apennines. Therefore, its ultimate goal is to contribute to develop and implement  a culture and practice of disaster risk reduction and building back better, by increasing risk awareness,  preparedness and prevention, and fostering strategies, plans and proactive measures aimed at enhancing  risk mitigation and territorial resilience.  

The unpreparedness and difficulty experienced by the Italian national, regional and local authorities and  communities in responding to the disaster of 2016-2017 and in coping with its aftermaths, pose a crucial  problem to experts and scientists who should support those very authorities with scientific and technical  knowledge. How could we scientists better connect different expertise and competencies, combining them  in a way to improve the dialogue and cooperation with communities and decision makers?  

RE-LAND has the ambition of providing insight to address this issue by developing collaborations with  colleagues from different universities of the USA engaged in applied research on the same topics for a long  time. In particular, in the light of the recently established research consortium REDI (REducing risks of natural  DIsasters)1, of which Unicam is a founding partner alongside with INGV, INFN and GSSI2, the project falls  within the framework of initiatives promoted by the consortium and represents one of the first activities  developed in collaboration with and in support of the consortium itself. 

During the first year of RE-LAND, the partnership of Italian and American researchers has carried out a  systematic review of scientific literature, thematic research, and exchange of experiences and best practices,  to define the theoretical framework through which tackling and developing the case study and pilot actions  in the second year of the project. In particular, besides the work done on their own at their respective  universities, and a few virtual meetings to clarify some issues in advance and speed up the communication  and exchange of data, perspectives and information, the Italian and American research teams have met twice  in 2019, first in Los Angeles in August, and then in Ascoli Piceno in December.  

The meeting in LA was an operative workshop between the two groups, and details of the two-day workshop are in the first Annex to this report. The meeting in AP was operative as well, but for one day had an  informative and public character, as an international seminar open to the entire academic audience and  beyond. Details of the three days in Ascoli Piceno are in the second and third Annex. The rest of the Annexes  are the main presentations drawn up for and discussed in fact in the two meetings.  

  

1 http://www.redi-research.eu/ 

2 National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV); National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN); and Gran  Sasso Science Institute (GSSI). 

The present report is therefore a synthetic outline of the main activities carried out, and the main topics and  issues addressed, during the first year of the research project.  

More on this in: Annex 1, 2, 3 and 4.  

1. Hazards that threaten infrastructure and communities  

Natural hazards that threaten infrastructure and communities in Italy and the U.S. include:  

1. Earthquakes: Most earthquakes are of tectonic origin, but recently some are induced by human  activity. The effects of earthquakes are a consequence of strong shaking and ground failure  (permanent displacements of ground from surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, etc.) 
2. Hurricanes: Storm events have the potential to damage infrastructure through a combination of high  winds and storm surges that lead to coastal flooding.  
3. Wildfire: Whether sparked by natural processes or human systems (e.g., downed power line),  wildfires impact the natural environment and, especially in recent years, impact communities along  the urban-wildland interface.  
4. Landslides: Landslides are gravity driven earth movements of rock or soil slopes, most often induced  to severe precipitation events or earthquakes. A particularly dangerous form of landslides are debris  flows, which often follow wildfires. 
5. Flooding: Inundation of communities from flooding can be caused by extreme local precipitation that  overwhelms drainage systems, rivers overtopping their banks due to extreme flows generated  upstream, or storm surge.  

Many of these hazards are connected. Earthquakes can cause landslides and compromise flood protective  systems (dams/levees). Hurricanes produce storm surges that produce flooding. Wildfires can remove  protective vegetation that increases debris flow vulnerability.  

Climate change increases vulnerability to each of these hazards (exception: earthquake sources are not  affected). Strategies for dynamically updating hazard estimates in consideration of climate change effects  are critical.  

More on this in: Annex 6. 

2. Cultural heritage methodological and conceptual context 

Cultural heritage can be understood through the ways that people and natural systems have interacted and  modified each other over time. Alongside other relevant disciplines, such as geotechnical engineering, this  approach recognizes the importance of a distinct cultural landscape view of place at regional, local, and site  scales. The research and practice on cultural landscapes can be articulated in the following manner:  

1. Cultural landscape methods inform the interconnection between natural hazard assessment and  significant cultural places; transdisciplinary methodologies include methods and techniques drawn  from several fields. This expertise examines a typology of culturally and historically important  physical attributes (and their mutual interaction) found throughout Central Italy, including (among  others):  
   

∙ Natural Systems and Features;  ∙ Topography;  

∙ Land Use;  

∙ Patterns of Circulation;  ∙ Spatial Organization;  ∙ Buildings and Structures.  

Together, these perspectives establish essential baseline knowledge from a holistic view of cultural  heritage processes and systems - not merely buildings or monuments alone - upon which appropriate  planning and programmatic thinking may be based.  

2. Impacts of climate change increase the short- and long-term vulnerability of tangible and intangible  evidence of cultural heritage, and should be assessed according to these characteristics. Together,  these reveal a broader qualitative understanding of dramatic transformation affecting significant  places; moreover, they provide the basis for public decision-making and action (i.e. ministerial) as a  meaningful response to projected climate hazards. This framework also informs the continuing effort  to weigh benefits and costs of potential mitigation measures, including the Building Back Better (BBB)  system. 
3. Future planning and design efforts (as a part of BBB) must reflect great concern for physical evidence  of culture, to ensure that appropriate planning decisions will not further damage physical culture  already impacted by natural hazards. Intensive survey and documentation of cultural landscape  features are an essential component of responsible planning for future hazard events and trends.  

In Italy, in particular, cultural heritage is a very complex system, result of synergistic relationships developed  over time between unique elements of the geomorphological and built environment (natural and anthropic).  The related policies must develop therefore considering this high level of interrelationship and complexity. 

More on this in: Annex 7, 8 and 9. 

3. Public policies to address natural hazards 

In U.S. practice, natural hazards are considered in land use planning and approval of specific projects for  development through building codes and local laws and regulations (administered by states, counties, or  cities). Important elements of the process of considering hazards in this context include:  

1. Hazard characterization. Hazard characterization quantifies hazard severity (e.g., earthquake shaking  intensity, hurricane wind speed, flood inundation depth). These metrics should be accompanied by  probabilities of being exceeded in a certain time period.  
2. Design against hazard. Hazards place demands on infrastructure systems. These demands are  derived from hazards using engineering models, which enable identification of system vulnerabilities.  In the case of earthquakes, a feedback loop determines design shaking levels by combining hazard  with structural response to achieve a risk target. 
3. Period updates. Scientific methods for characterizing hazard and infrastructure responses evolve due  to research. As a consequence, codes and guidelines documents should be revised periodically (e.g.,  approximately every six years for ASCE 7, 2016). 
4. Validation. When infrastructure systems are subject to demands from natural disasters, their  performance provides a test of the effectiveness of design procedures. Documentation of  performance from post even reconnaissance, including remote sensing, enables validation.  

The four elements described above are applied in the development of building code documents and local  regulations for earthquake and wind-related hazards. The main building code document reflecting the  outcomes of this process is ASCE 7. Earthquake demands are represented by shaking levels on national maps  of risk-targeted ground shaking. Wind hazards are represented by national wind speed maps. Local  regulations govern the consideration of ground failure hazards.  

For wildfires in urban or rural areas no USA nationwide provisions are present. Local regulations are available  (e.g. Rancho Santa Fe FPD, 2017), but there is little consistency across areas. Typical regulations pertain to  street parking and vegetation restrictions (i.e. palm trees are not allowed in the vicinity of houses). Fire maps  are also available at the local level (e.g. https://www.fire.ca.gov/imapdata/index.html). 

Debris flow hazard is not currently directly address in USA codes. Post-fire debris-flow hazard maps are  available at the local level (i.e. https://landslides.usgs.gov/hazards/postfire_debrisflow/). Flood hazard is  addressed in local (e.g. DWR, 2012 and 2015) and federal guidelines (e.g. USACE, 2014) documents for seismic  and non-seismic conditions. Various levels of sophistication in the definition of the hazard and in the design  protocols can be used depending on the importance of the flood-protection structure (typically river protection levees). 

More on this in: Annex 5, 10, 13, 14. 

4. The interaction between spatial planning (at regional and municipal level), and the activities of  prevention, mitigation, emergency management and post-disaster recovery.  

Areas lacking strategic planning policies and economically vulnerable, where the poorest sections of the  entire population often live, are those where natural disasters have the strongest impact on people and  property. Spatial planning involves the process of allocating, forming, sizing, and harmonizing the territory  for multifunctional uses. Its spatial dimension also relates to the spatial dimension of every (potential)  hazard. Furthermore, the spatial character of a hazard can either be defined by spatial effects that might  occur if that hazard turns into a disaster, or by the possibility for an appropriate spatial planning response.  

This dual character opens out the still-unaddressed relationship between risks and ordinary spatial planning,  that is planning conceived at any given time of political and administrative interest or convenience, and  mostly regardless of the existing risk of disasters, not considered and integrated yet, unfortunately, into the  regular planning activities.  

Within such a framework, some aspects stand out particularly: the potential extent of hazards (geographical  area and size of the population at risk), their complexity and probability, duration, frequency and reversibility  of potential impacts. Whenever considering them, spatial planning is actually regarded, with growing  interest, as one of the most important instruments for Disaster Risk Reduction. As it guides in fact decisions on the future land uses of the territory, it may orient as well the management of prevention, mitigation,  emergency, and post-disaster recovery, in particular by:  

1. classifying different land-use settings for disaster-prone areas;  
2. regulating and differentiating land use or zoning plans with legally binding status related to a specific hazard/vulnerability combination;  
3. promoting soft engineering methods to reduce risks and adapt to even small hazard modifications;  4. prohibiting future development in certain areas exposed to hazards; 
4. providing evidence-based information, such as hazard and risk maps, and detailed datasets about  frequency/magnitude curves, risk alerts, emergency plans, etc.  

The integration of disaster-risk-reduction strategies into the planning process entails a need to simulate the  future impacts of disaster (through the development of scenarios). The most appropriate level to do so is the  local level, as stated by the Incheon Declaration. However, risk reduction is beyond the capacity of local  authorities alone, because the spatial extent of risks goes far beyond the local boundaries, and a multi-level  and multi-stakeholder participation approach would be most effective. 

Governments (from national to local ones) should build awareness by involving communities in disaster  planning and preparedness activities, and at the very same time seek new and creative ways of engaging  communities in the dialogue and decision-making process and.  

There is significant evidence of strong linkages between the quality of emergency responses to disasters, and  the existence of community participation in risk knowledge and information, planning processes and  decision-making. 

Fig. 1. A model for integration of disaster risk reduction into spatial planning (elaborated by the authors) 

Fig. 2. Risk reduction in spatial planning (elaborated by the authors based on Greiving & Fleischhauer, 2006)  

More on this in: Annex 15 and 16. 

5. The platforms to establish contact between scientists, governments and communities through the  whole disaster management cycle, namely, in the different phases of a natural disaster (preparing  for; reacting to; overcoming)  

This section is composed of two parts, aimed to reach different “audiences”, internal or external to the  project. The first partregards the internal audience and the communication between scientists, to implement  in the second year of the project; the second one regards the external audience and the activities of  community engagement and dissemination, including suggestions to keep “on board” the final user. The  platform will be set up, opened and used during the second and third year of activities.  

Two first reference platforms are:  

https://ponmassimo.rm.ingv.it/ecm/ (internal audience and communication) 

http://160.97.1.28/tirmission/index.php/it/ (external audience and communication) 

5.1.Communication line internal to the project 

The online platform will facilitate, amplify and speed up the internal communications between the members  of the project. These internal communications, essential to ensure proper execution of the planned activities, include face-to-face meetings, conference calls, and private calls to discuss technical or managerial issues,  showing results or taking decisions. 

INGV is responsible for the generation of the web platform for internal communication, in collaboration with  UNICAM. Other consortium members will be required to contribute and follow the defined procedures when  performing internal communication activities.  

For this purpose, the main communication tool for internal communications among the RE-LAND partners  will be therefore, besides the e-mail, a web-based solution. To better target every communication, a mailing  list in the private area of the project website (stand-alone and linked through the institutional website of the  partners, if possible), will be created including detailed information about the partners (through profiling  steps during subscription). 

INGV will keep the partners informed about its progress in designing, realizing and publishing the web site. 

5.2. Communication line external to the project  

Research project beneficiaries (public bodies or private) should ideally engage in the whole development process, starting from the design of the solution all the way up to the activities of dissemination and  exploitation of the relevant results, both in tangible and intangible terms. 

Considering that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation has funded RE-LAND,  and that REDI is composed of public institutions, the project should reach the largest number of people, and  the research outcomes should reach the society as a whole. 

Dissemination means sharing results with potential users who could be peers in the research field, industrial  entrepreneurs, other commercial players, and policymakers. In any case, the results of the project, once  shared, will contribute to the overall progress of the average cultural level. 

Whilst “society” will receive something unexpected, users will directly benefit from the progress that they  supported. For this reason, it is fundamental to develop strategies for increasing the commitment of the final  users, keeping them “on board” by sharing developing strategies and continuing the engagement after the  project closure. Therefore, a strength of the second year of the project will be to involve end-users and  stakeholders directly into the proposal linking the expected results to the policy context of the final users. 

Considering that users are often public bodies (such as municipal governments), it is relevant to implement open source/access solutions with no further fees for their maintenance after the project closure. 

More on this in: Annex 11 and 12.  

6. Submitted and published papers 

A remarkable outcome of the first year of research activities is the submission and publication of two papers.  Both of them concern the relationship between climate change and cultural heritage: the first one  (published) takes a broad approach to the problem, with a view to address and inform climate-resilience  policies; the second one (under review) has a focus on the case study of central Italy. The latter is also one of  the first steps in the establishment of a new collaboration with the Cornell University, with which a first  meeting was arranged in Ithaca, New York, in the Summer 2019 soon after the meeting in Los Angeles.  

1. Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; Sargolini, M.; Pierantoni, I. (2019). Climate change challenges to  existing cultural heritage policy, Sustainability, 11(9), 5227, 1-10.  

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195227 

2. Shirvani Dastgerdi, A., Sargolini, M.; Allred, S.B., Chatrchyan, A., De Luca, G. (2020) Climate  change and sustaining heritage resources: a roadmap for boosting conservation framework  in central Italy. Climate. ISSN: 2225-1154. 

Cf. Annexes 17 and 18. 

7. Draft list of the activities necessary to undertake in the second year of the project to develop the  Decision Support System, drawing from the tackled case study  

1) Identification of the case study and first strategic vision for the study area 

1.1) Identification of the municipality or network of municipalities 

1.2) Identification of the existing Disaster Management Cycle in the area, if any 

1.3) Identification of strengths and weaknesses of the area (from different points of view: ecological,  geological, socio-economical ...) 

1.4) Identification of main goals and robust strategies to achieve and develop  

1.5) Display of different scenarios for a new organization of the reconstructed area in relationship with the new features of the landscape (i.e. considering natural risks and climate change too) 

1.6) Adjustment of the boundaries of the area 

2) Dialogue and interaction with the national, regional, and local planning system and legislation 2.1) Pre-analysis of plans and programs at different scales of the territorial government 

2.2) Pre-analysis of national laws on post-earthquake recovery (e.g. “Legge nazionale 198”,  “Ordinanze del Commissario Straordinario per la Ricostruzione n. 27, 36 e 39” …)  

2.3) Proposal for the improvement of the legislation system (both ordinary and emergency laws) and  of the spatial planning systems (both ordinary and emergency plans, to merge ideally together or at  least to connect inseparably)  

3) Analyses necessary for building back better 

3.1) Gathering/updating information from scientific literature and research and from UTC about:  

- Vulnerability assessment for characterizing the case study (taking into consideration the possible  interaction between hazards)  

3.2) Gathering information from the local communities  

3.3) Design of a technological platform that establishes a close and quick interaction between  government, local communities and scientists 

4) Project for building back better 

4.1) Establishment of triggers and drivers of long-term disaster response, with the cooperation of the  communities 

4.2) Identification of a range of medium and long-term actions in close interaction with the town and  regional planning

4.3) Adoption and implementation of actions for building back better in different geological areas  with different geotechnical characterization  

4.3.1) Improvement of the performance of the buildings (resilience and robustness …) 

4.3.2) Improvement of the resilience of the landscape and local communities (from different  points of view) 

4.3.2.1) Impact of the natural disasters on the landscape, and consequent reaction 

4.3.2.2) Impact of the natural disasters on the local communities, formation and 

information of the affected/at-risk communities, and enhancement of their  

preparedness 

4.4) Monitoring activities and revision of the methodology 

Basic references (more in the annexes/presentations) 

American Society of Civil Engineer (ASCE) (2016). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings  and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16. 

Birnbaum, Barrett, and Shillinglaw, eds. (2000). Making Educated Decisions: A Landscape Preservation  Bibliography 2. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Historic Landscape Initiative. 

Beagan and Dolan (2015). Integrating Components of Resilient Systems into Cultural Landscape  Management Practices. Change Over Time 5(2). 

Department of Water Resources of the State of California (DWR) (2012). Urban Levee Design Criteria, May  2012. 

Department of Water Resources of the State of California (DWR) (2015). Guidance Document for  Geotechnical Analyses, Prepared for by URS Corporation California Dept. of Water Resources, Sacramento,  CA. 

Dolan (2013). NPS Park Cultural Landscape Program Methodology. Presentation to the 4th National Register  Landscape Initiative Webinar. Retrieved from:  

https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/guidance/NRLI/presentations/1_NRLI_NPS_Intro_Cultural_Landscap es_S_Dolan.pdf 

Lozny, ed. (2006). Place, Historical Ecology and Cultural Landscape: New Directions for Culture Resource  Management. In: Landscapes under Pressure: Theory and Practice of Cultural Heritage Research and  Preservation (pp. 15-26). New York: Springer.

Kerr and Melnick (2016). Assessing Climate Vulnerability in Cultural Landscapes of the Pacific Northwest. In: A Century of Design in the Parks: Preserving the Built Environment in National and State Parks, Conference  proceedings. National Center for Preservation Training and Technology. 

Melnick and Kerr (2018). Climate Change Impacts on Cultural Landscapes: A Preliminary Analysis in U.S.  National Parks across the Pacific West. Landscape Architecture Frontiers 6 (1): 112-125. 

Melnick, Kerr, Malinay, and Burry-Trice (2017). Climate Change and Cultural Landscapes: A Guide to  Research, Planning, and Stewardship. U.S. National Center for Preservation Training and Technology,  University of Oregon. 

Page, Gilbert, and Dolan (1998). A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques.  Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. 

Rancho Santa Fe FPD (2017). Fire Code. Ordinance No. 2017/-01. Rancho Santa Fe Fire District. 

Rockman et al (2016). Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy. Washington, D.C.: Cultural Resources,  Partnerships, and Science and Climate Change Response Program, National Park Service. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2014). Draft document, Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Levees,  ETL 1110-2-580, USACE Washington, D.C. 

U.S. National Park Service (1990). Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic  Properties. Retrieved from: 

http://legacy.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/crforms_edumat/pdfs/1572.pdf 

U.S. National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Program. References, Cultural Landscapes Collections.  Guidance Documents. Retrieved from: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/culturallandscapes/references.htm

Author

Super User

Creation Date

2020-12-15 15:51:45

Modified

2020-12-29 10:01:59

File size

927.1KB

Download