A Multi-Criteria Methodology For The Integration Of Risk Assessment Into Spatial Planning

A Multi-Criteria Methodology For The Integration Of Risk Assessment Into Spatial Planning

150 150 Valerio Perna

A Multi-Criteria Methodology For The Integration Of Risk Assessment Into Spatial Planning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37199/f40002607
ISSN: 2227-7994

Author: Endri Duro
Affiliation: POLIS University

Rapid urban development and continuous demands for space have increased the pressure on the territory. The need for this “usable” space, no matter the purpose, leads to an excess of capacities of existing areas and the creation of new areas, both significantly increasing the level of exposure to natural disasters. Statistics show that within a period of almost two decades from 1994 to 2013, 218 million people were affected by natural disasters annually (CRED, 2015). In the situation where the demand for growth is accompanied by an increasing potentiality of damages in economic, social, environmental or cultural terms, disaster risk management (DRM) is having an important focus in terms of research. The way communities and urban systems react to a natural distress is tightly related to the economic and technological development as well as data availability. Developed countries have the capacities to consider mitigation strategies in pre-event situations, which is not always feasible for developing and poor countries. Also, as emphasized by (Gaillard & Mercer, 2012), the issue is related to the fact that disasters affect those who are marginalized and have partial or no access to resources and means of protection. Such paradigm imposes the need to develop preventive strategies focusing on the community, which is directly affected by aftermath of these natural events. The purpose of this research is the analysis of a possible way to integrate disaster risk information within planning instruments aiming towards an inclusive disaster risk reduction (DRR) process through the proposal of a risk assessment methodology at a local scale for the case of seismic events. The main objective is that the proposed methodology will serve as a preliminary tool for several decision-making processes in terms of strategic risk reduction measures, policies, prioritization, fund allocation etc. The methodology is also aimed to serve as an important node that connects the community, the experts and responsible authorities with one another towards an inclusive disaster risk reduction approach.

Publisher: Polis_press

Reference List

Alarcon, B., Aguado, A., Manga, R., & Josa, A. (2011). A Value Function for Assessing Sustainability: Application to Industrial Buildings. Sustainability, 35-50. doi:10.3390/su3010035;

Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, T. (2006). CONSISTENCY IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS: A NEW APPROACH. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(04), 445-459; 

Beinat, E. (2012). Value Functions for Environmental Management. Dordrecht:Springer;

CRED. (2015). The human cost of natural disasters 2015—a global perspective. Brussels;

Eastman, J. R. (1999). Multi-criteria evaluation and GIS. Geographical information systems, 1(1), 493-502

Gaillard, J. C., & Mercer, J. (2012). From knowledge to action: Bridging gaps in disaster risk reduction. Progress in Human Geography, 37(1), 93-114. doi:10.1177/0309132512446717;

International Organization for Standardization. (2009). ISO 31010- Risk Management- Risk Assessment Techniques. Standard. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/72140.html

Kassem, M. M., Nazri, F. M., & Farsangi, E. N. (2020). The seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies: A state-of-the-art review. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 849-864. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.04.001;

Malczewski, J. (2000). On the use of Weighted Linear Combination Method in GIS: Common and Best Practice Approaches. Transaction in GIS, 4(1), 5-22;

Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2014). Natural Disasters. Retrieved from OurWorldinData.org: https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters;

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill;

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal Services Sciences, 83-98;

Sinha, N., Priyanka, N., & Joshi, P. K. (2016). Using Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis and Ranking Tool (SMART) in earthquake risk assessment: a case study of Delhi region, India. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(2), 680-701. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2014.945100;

Suri, N. S., Johnson, C., Lipietz, B., & Brennan, S. (2020). Words Into Action: Implementation Guide for Land Use and Urban Planning. Geneva. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/development/sites/bartlett/files/67430_landuseandurbanplanningforpublicrev.pdf;

Sutanta, H., Rajabifard, A., & Bishop, I. D. (2010). Integrating spatial planning and disaster risk reduction at the local level in the context of spatially enabled government. Spatially enabling society: Research, emerging trends and critical assessment, 1, 56-68.

UNISDR. (2009). 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations.