Flood risk assessment of cultural heritage at large spatial scales: Framework and application to mainland Portugal

Figueiredo, Rui; Romão, Xavier; Paupério, Esmeralda

doi:10.1016/j.culher.2019.11.007

Cited by 71 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting that the classification of the CH-asset significance proposed by Kerr (2013) has been already successfully used and validated in the scientific literature for the quantification of the intangible value (e.g. Romão and Paupério, 2020;Figueiredo et al, 2019). This further strengthens the validity of the proposed procedure.…”

Section: The Value Of Ch Assetssupporting

confidence: 56%

A multi-hazard risk prioritisation framework for cultural heritage assets

Sevieri

Galasso

D’Ayala

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: The Value Of Ch Assetssupporting

confidence: 56%

A multi-hazard risk prioritisation framework for cultural heritage assets

Sevieri

Galasso

D’Ayala

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and vulnerability data (stored data about cultural heritage sites such as materials, structure, content, conservation, etc.) All those limitations are very similar to those pointed out by previous approach [39]. About hydrodynamic data, the scarce availability of data limits the possibility of regional analysis, and the data from European or Global projects have a spatial resolution not useful for cultural heritage sites flood risk analysis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…About hydrodynamic data, the scarce availability of data limits the possibility of regional analysis, and the data from European or Global projects have a spatial resolution not useful for cultural heritage sites flood risk analysis. From the point of view of vulnerability data, the limited number of tabulated variables (with much more information as plain text) makes difficult [39] a more complex and complete assessment of cultural heritage sites vulnerability to flooding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework Proposal for Regional-Scale Flood-Risk Assessment of Cultural Heritage Sites and Application to the Castile and León Region (Central Spain)

Garrote

Díez‐Herrero

Escudero³

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floods, at present, may constitute the natural phenomenon with the greatest impact on the deterioration of cultural heritage, which is the reason why the study of flood risk becomes essential in any attempt to manage cultural heritage (archaeological sites, historic buildings, artworks, etc.) This management of cultural heritage is complicated when it is distributed over a wide territory. This is precisely the situation in the region of Castile and León (Spain), in which 2155 cultural heritage elements are registered in the Catalog of Cultural Heritage Sites of Castile and León, and these are distributed along the 94,226 km2 of this region. Given this scenario, the present study proposes a methodological framework of flood risk analysis for these cultural heritage sites and elements. This assessment is based on two main processing tools to be developed in addition: on the one hand, the creation of a GIS database in which to establish the spatial relationship between the cultural heritage elements and the flow-prone areas for different flood return periods and, on the other hand, the creation of a risk matrix in which different variables are regarded as associated both to flood hazard (return period, flow depth, and river flooding typology) and to flood vulnerability (construction typology, and construction structural relationship with the hydraulic environment). The combination of both tools has allowed us to establish each cultural heritage flood risk level, making its categorization of risk possible. Of all the cultural heritage sites considered, 18 of them are categorized under an Extreme flood risk level; and another 24 show a High potential flood risk level. Therefore, these are about 25% to 30% of all cultural heritage sites in Castile and León. This flood risk categorization, with a scientific basis of the cultural heritage sites at risk, makes it possible to define territories of high flood risk clustering; where local scale analyses for mitigation measures against flood risk are necessary.

show abstract

“…In recent years, the topics of cultural heritage preservation and mitigation of impacts on cultural heritage caused by natural hazards, including floods, have received considerable scientific attention. However, most related studies are relevant mainly for individual cultural heritage assets or sites (Figueiredo et al, 2020). Floods, fires, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wars, and events related to climate change are arrecating irreparable damages to cultural heritage, including the loss of movable and immovable cultural assets (Appiotti et al, 2020).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immovable Cultural Heritage Usage Modes: Theoretical Approach

Kutut¹,

Lepkova²,

Źróbek³

2021

ERSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The article aims to emphasize the importance of a multifaceted and detailed analysis of the problem of protection and using modes of immovable cultural heritage, considering the heritage types and involving investors in this process. Design/Methodology/Approach: The monographic method was used for the scientific literature and legal provisions (especially Lithuanian law) analysis. Additionally, the websites, of the presented dilemmas of the buyers of immovable monuments, were analyzed. Findings: Research results confirm that the immovable cultural heritage has a complex nature, and decisions about their usage modes, should be investigated deeper. One should strive to maintain their uniqueness, but also to implement a system that reduces the risk of investors who decide to invest in the revalorization of historic buildings. Practical Implications: The article will make the current owner (State, local community) and potential investors more aware of the factors that should be considered when managing their or deciding to purchase a property constituting cultural heritage. Originality/Value: Authors proposed the model of the risk identification and restrictions connected with the purchase and management of property constituting cultural heritage by potential investors.

show abstract

Flood risk assessment of cultural heritage at large spatial scales: Framework and application to mainland Portugal

Cited by 71 publications

References 49 publications

A multi-hazard risk prioritisation framework for cultural heritage assets

A multi-hazard risk prioritisation framework for cultural heritage assets

A Framework Proposal for Regional-Scale Flood-Risk Assessment of Cultural Heritage Sites and Application to the Castile and León Region (Central Spain)

Immovable Cultural Heritage Usage Modes: Theoretical Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About