2.1 Introduction
2.2 Roles and Responsibilities in the Decision-Making Process
2.2.1 Scientists and Decision-Makers in the Risk Management
Scientists | Decision-makers |
---|---|
Frequently model events that occurred in the past in order to understand their dynamics | Need well-tested models, which are able to describe events possibly occurring in the future |
Follow a scientific approach to the risks that is often probabilistic, and always affected by uncertainties | In most cases are asked to make decisions that necessarily require a yes or no answer |
Need a relatively long time for their work, in order to acquire more data trying to reduce uncertainties, preferring to wait rather than to be wrong | Are generally asked to give an immediate response, often balancing low occurrence probabilities versus envisaged catastrophic consequences |
Exert the “art of doubt” | Need solutions |
Estimate the costs to carry out their best research | Manage a pre-defined (often limited) budget |
Step | Description | Scientists | PDMs | TDMs |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | definition of the acceptable level of risk according to established policy (i.e., in a probabilistic framework, of the acceptable probability of occurrence of quantitatively estimated consequences for lives and property) | x |
X
| |
2 | allocation of proper budget for risk mitigation |
X
| x | |
3 | quantitative evaluation of the risk (considering hazard, vulnerability, and exposure) |
X
| x | |
4 | identification of specific actions capable of reducing the risk to the acceptable level |
X
| ||
5 | cost-benefit evaluation of the possible risk-mitigating actions |
X
| x | |
6 | adoption of the most suitable technical solution, according to points 1, 4, and 5 | x | x |
X
|
7 | implementation of risk-mitigating actions |
X
|
-
not provide fully quantitative evaluations;
-
miss to supply scientific support in cost–benefit analyses;
-
give undue advice concerning civil protection actions.
-
decide not to establish the acceptable risk levels for the community they represent;
-
prefer to state that a “zero” risk solution must be pursued, which is in fact a non-decision;
-
not allocate an adequate budget for risk mitigation.
-
scientific quantitative evaluations;
-
acceptable risk statements (or impossibility to get them);
-
budget.
2.2.2 Other Actors in the Decision Process
Pros | Cons |
---|---|
Spreading knowledge about risks and their reduction in order to increase people’s awareness on risks | Distortion of information due to incompetence or to commercial or political purposes |
Disseminating best practices on behaviours to be adopted both in ordinary and in emergency conditions | Accreditation of non-scientific ideas and non-expert opinions |
Spreading civil protection alerts | Spreading false alarms |
-
asking for and/or contributing to create adequately safe conditions at their places of work, study, and entertainment;
-
verifying that civil protection authorities have prepared in advance the preventive measures that must be adopted in case of catastrophic events, especially civil protection plans, of which citizens are primary users;
-
being more aware of the risks which they are exposed to, and having an adequate civil protection culture, which would allow them to adopt the aforementioned precautionary measures and induce political representatives to carry out risk-prevention policies through both their vote and their active involvement in the local political activities.
-
in the immediate aftermath of an event (or in case of an alert), they should follow and implement the civil protection plans (if available) and the correct behaviours learned;
-
in case of very low occurrence probabilities, they should adopt individual behaviours, more or less cautious, calibrated on their own estimate of the risk acceptability.
2.3 Civil Protection and Science
-
scientific advances can allow for more effective civil protection decisions and actions concerning the entire risk cycle;
-
civil protection has to suitably re-shape its activities and operational procedures to include the scientific advances, as soon as they become available and robust.
2.3.1 Civil Protection Procedures
2.3.2 Scientific Products for Civil Protection
2.3.3 The Italian National Civil Protection System
2.4 How Science Contributes to Civil Protection
2.4.1 Permanent (i) and Finalized Research Activities (ii) for Civil Protection – The Competence Centres
-
INGV – the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology;
-
ReLUIS – the National Network of University Laboratories of Earthquake Engineering;
-
EUCENTRE – the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering.
2.4.1.1 INGV
-
A-type: operational service activities.
-
Several different activities pertain to this type:
-
seismic monitoring and 24/7 surveillance, through the National Earthquake Centre (INGV-CNT),
-
implementation and maintenance of data bases useful for civil protection purposes,
-
preparedness and management of technical-scientific activities during the emergencies,
-
divulgation and training activities in coordination with DPC.
-
-
-
B-type: development of operational service activities.
-
On the one hand, this type concerns the actions to be undertaken by DPC and INGV in order to improve and develop the activities mentioned in the above A-type description. On the other hand, it deals with the pre-operational, and then operational, implementation of research achievements (C-type below) for civil protection. This occurs when validated scientific outcomes derived from C-type activities, or from other INGV research, have to be transformed into products that can be submitted to civil protection pre-operational, experimental testing. In case of positive outcome, the scientific product/tool/study can then become part of a fully operational service among the A-type activities.
-
-
C-type: finalized research activities.
-
They consist of seismological-geological projects funded by DPC that involve the entire scientific community.
-
“A-Type” Activities
-
DISS – The Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/; Basili et al. 2008; DISS Working Group 2010; Fig. 2.4) is, according to http://diss.rm.ingv.it/diss/UserManual-Intro.html, a “georeferenced repository of tectonic, fault and paleoseismological information; it includes individual, composite and debated seismogenic sources. Individual and composite seismogenic sources are two alternative seismic source models to choose from. They are tested against independent geophysical data to ensure the users about their level of reliability”. Each record in the Database is backed by a Commentary, a selection of Pictures and a list of References, as well as fault scarp or fold axis data when available (usually structural features with documented Late Pleistocene – Holocene activity). The Database can be accessed through a web browser or displayed on Google Earth. DISS was adopted as the reference catalogue of Italian seismogenic sources by the EU SHARE Project (see below).×
-
ISIDe – The Italian Seismological Instrumental and parametric Data-basE (http://iside.rm.ingv.it/iside/standard/index.jsp; Fig. 2.5a) provides verified information on the current seismicity as soon as it is available, once reviewed by the seismologists working at the INGV-CNT, along with the updated information of past instrumental seismicity contained in the Italian Seismic Bulletin (Mele and Riposati 2007).×
-
ITACA – The ITalian ACcelerometric Archive (http://itaca.mi.ingv.it; Fig. 2.5b) contains about 7,500 processed three-component waveforms, generated by about 1,200 earthquakes with magnitude greater than 3. Most of the data have been recorded by the Italian Strong-motion Network (http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/jcms/it/ran.wp), operated by DPC, and also by the National Seismic Network, operated by INGV (http://itaca.mi.ingv.it/; Luzi et al. 2008; Pacor et al. 2011). Processed time-series and response spectra, as well as unprocessed time-series, are available from the download pages, where the parameters of interest can be set and specific events, stations, waveforms and related metadata can be retrieved (Fig. 2.6).×
“B-Type” Activities
CPS – Centre of Seismic Hazard
CAT – Tsunami Alert Centre
-
DPC has the role of Tsunami National Contact (TNC);
-
INGV has the role of National Tsunami Warning Centre (NTWC); at national scale, this corresponds to the INGV-CAT, which is part of the INGV-CNT;
-
the Director of the INGV-CNT has the role of National Tsunami Warning Focal Point (NTWFP);
-
ISPRA guarantees the sea level monitoring and surveillance, ensuring the transmission to the INGV-CAT of the data acquired by its National Mareographic Network (RMN). From August 2013, ISPRA sends to CAT@INGV sea level measurements recorded in real time.
“C-Type” Activities
-
Project S1 – Base-knowledge improvement for assessing the seismogenic potential of Italy.This project is structured into three parts. Two of them address the activities related to geographical areas of interest (Po Plain, Sannio-Matese to the Calabria-Lucania border), whereas the third one concerns the activities which may have a specific interest as special case studies or application of innovative techniques. The project has been structured in sub-projects and tasks. All sub-projects address regional-scale issues and specific targets within a region, with one exception, aimed at promoting the optimization of techniques which are used for earthquake geology and seismic monitoring.
-
Project S2 – Constraining observations into seismic hazardThis project aims at comparing and ranking different hazard models, according to open-shared and widely agreed validation rules, in order to select the best “local” hazard assessment. The goal is to validate the hazard maps on instrumental observations, combining expected shakings at bedrock with site-specific information gathered at local scale.
-
Project S3 – Short term earthquake forecastingThe basic aim of this project is the full exploitation of the huge amount of data collected, with special care to the potential detection of possible large scale/short term (weeks to months) transient strain field variations, that could be related to incoming earthquakes. Two are the study areas of major concern (Po plain and Southern Apennines). In particular, due the larger amount of information available for the Po Plain (GPS, InSAR, piezometric data, etc.) most of activities is focused on this area.
2.4.1.2 ReLUIS
-
post-earthquake technical emergency management;
-
training and divulgation activities in earthquake engineering and seismic risk (teachers’ availability, high-level course organization, meetings and seminars, technical-scientific divulgation, conferences);
-
training of professionals on the post-earthquake evaluations;
-
campaigns of divulgation and spreading of the civil protection culture.
-
finalized research programs on earthquake engineering and seismic risk mitigation;
-
coordination with the DPC, CC and with other technical-scientific subjects;
-
implementation, revision and publication of manuals, guidelines, pre-normative documents;
-
assistance for drafting/revising technical norms.
2.4.1.3 EUCENTRE
-
training and divulgation;
-
experimental laboratory testing on structural models, sub-assemblages and elements;
-
management of seismic data banks;
-
planning, preparing and managing technical-scientific activities in emergency.
-
Tool for System Integration (S.3.0 in Fig. 2.8)
-
Seismic risk of the Italian dwelling buildings
-
Seismic risk of the Italian schools (S.3.2 in Fig. 2.8)
-
Management system of the post-event dwelling needs
-
Seismic Risk of the Italian road system
-
Seismic Risk of the Italian sea harbours (S.3.5 in Fig. 2.8)
-
Seismic Risk of the Italian earth dams (S.3.6 in Fig. 2.8)
-
Seismic Risk of the Italian airports
-
Data base of past earthquake damage to buildings
-
Seismic vulnerability of the Italian tunnels
-
WebGIS for private buildings upgrade funded by the State with Law n. 77/2009, Art. 11
2.4.2 Permanent Commissions – The Major Risks Commission
-
seismic risk,
-
volcanic risk,
-
weather-hydrogeological, hydraulic and landslide risk,
-
chemical, nuclear and industrial and transport risk,
-
environmental and fire risk.
2.4.3 Commissions on Specific Subjects
2.4.3.1 ICEF – International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting
-
Recommendation A: DPC should continue to track the scientific evolution of probabilistic earthquake forecasting and deploy the infrastructure and expertise needed to utilize probabilistic information for operational purposes.
-
Recommendation D: DPC should continue its directed research program on development of time-independent and time-dependent forecasting models with the objective of improving long-term seismic hazard maps that are operationally oriented.
-
Recommendation G2: Quantitative and transparent protocols should be established for decision-making that include mitigation actions with different impacts that would be implemented if certain thresholds in earthquake probability are exceeded.
-
the very low probabilities of a strong event during swarms and their communication to authorities and to citizens (and then to media). This information competes with different kinds of predictions made available to the public, as well known since the seventies: “In the 1976 … I warned that the next 10 years were going to be difficult ones for us, with many ‘messy’ predictions to deal with as we gradually developed a prediction capability. Certainly this has proved to be the case, with many of the most difficult situations arising from predictions by amateurs or self-proclaimed scientists who nevertheless gained public credibility through the news media” (Allen 1982). Although it is well known that the strengthening of constructions remains by far the more effective way to mitigate seismic risk, there is still a strong request for predictions or any action that can alleviate worries and fears of citizens caused by shakes during a seismic sequence;
-
the relatively high probabilities of strong aftershocks following a major event, especially for what concerns the management of civil protection activities after a big earthquake, like search and rescue, population assistance, damage assessment, safety countermeasures, etc.
2.4.3.2 ICHESE – International Commission on Hydrocarbon Exploration and Seismicity in the Emilia Region
-
The study does not indicate that there is evidence which can associate the Emilia 2012 seismic activity to the operation activities in Spilamberto, Recovato, Minerbio and Casaglia fields,
-
it cannot be ruled out that the activities carried out in the Mirandola License area have had a triggering effect,
-
In any case, the whole Apennine orogen under the Po Plain is seismically active and therefore it is essential that the production activity are accompanied by appropriate actions, which will help to manage the seismic risk associated with these activities.
2.4.4 Research Funded by Other Subjects
2.4.4.1 SYNER–G
-
to elaborate, in the European context, appropriate fragility relationships for the vulnerability analysis and loss estimation of all elements at risk,
-
to develop social and economic vulnerability relationships for quantifying the impact of earthquakes,
-
to develop a unified methodology and tools for systemic vulnerability assessment, accounting for all components exposed to seismic hazard, considering interdependencies within a system unit and between systems,
-
to validate the methodology and the proposed fragility functions in selected sites (at urban scale) and systems, and to implement them in an appropriate open source and unrestricted access software tool.
-
the analysis of the systemic vulnerability and risk is a very complex task;
-
considerable steps ahead have been made, in Syner-G, both in questions not dealt with before or in topics that have been better finalized during the project;
-
brilliant solutions have been proposed for the problems dealt with and sophisticated models have been utilized;
-
of great value is the coordination with other projects, especially with GEM.
-
large gaps still exist between many scientific approaches and practical decision-makers’ actions;
-
the use of very sophisticated approaches and models has often required to neglect some important factors affecting the real behaviour of some systems;
-
when dealing with a specific civil protection issue, all important affecting factors should be listed, not disregarding any of them, and their influence evaluated, even though roughly;
-
a thorough and clear representation of results is critical for a correct understanding by end-users;
-
models and results calibration should be referred to events at different scale, due to the considerable differences in the system response and in the actions to be undertaken;
-
cases of induced technological risks should be considered as well, since nowadays the presence of dangerous technological situations is widespread in the partner countries.
2.4.4.2 REAKT
-
efficiency of all the scientific components is guaranteed,
-
efficiency of all the technological components is guaranteed,
-
targets and mitigation actions to be carried out are defined,
-
time needed for the actions is added to the (scientific) lead time,
-
end-users (including population) are educated and trained to receive messages and act consequently and efficiently,
-
costs and benefits of the actions are evaluated,
-
infrastructures required for automatic actions are efficient,
-
downtime is avoided in the links among elements of the EEW chain,
-
responsibilities related to false and missed alarms and legal framework are well defined.
2.4.4.3 SHARE
2.4.5 Free Research Works
-
drafting new hazard maps,
-
making earthquake predictions (short- and medium-term),
-
discovering new active faults (especially in built environments),
-
inventing instruments that try to make a sort of earthquake early warning,
-
conceiving new structural devices or building techniques,
-
inventing antiseismic indoor shelters, like antiseismic boxes, rooms, cellules, beds, etc.
2.5 Conclusion
-
better structured scientific activities, finalised to civil protection purposes;
-
an improved coordination among research units for the achievement of civil protection objectives;
-
the realization of products of ready use (e.g.: tools for hazard analysis, databases in GIS environment, guidelines);
-
a substantial increase of experimental investigations, data exchanging and comparisons within large groups, as well as the achievement of a consensus on results, strictly intended for decisional purposes;
-
a renewed cooperation in the divulgation activities aimed at increasing risk awareness in the population;
-
better structured advisory activities of permanent and special commissions.