Vulnerability to Earthquake Hazard: Bucharest Case Study, Romania

Abstract

Recent seismic events show that urban areas are increasingly vulnerable to seismic damage, which leads to unprecedented levels of risk. Cities are complex systems and as such their analysis requires a good understanding of the interactions between space and the socioeconomic variables characteristic of the inhabitants of urban space. There is a clear need to develop and test detailed models that describe the behavior of these interactions under seismic impact. This article develops an overall vulnerability index to seismic hazard based on a spatial approach applied to Bucharest, Romania, the most earthquake-prone capital in the European Union. The methodology relies on: (1) spatial post-processed socioeconomic data from the 2011 Romanian census through multicriteria analysis; and (2) analytical methods (the Improved Displacement Coefficient Method and custom-defined vulnerability functions) for estimating damage patterns, incorporated in a GIS environment. We computed vulnerability indices for the 128 census tracts of the city. Model sensitivity assessment tested the robustness of spatially identified patterns of building vulnerability in the face of uncertainty in model inputs. The results show that useful seismic vulnerability indices can be obtained through interdisciplinary approaches that enhance less detailed datasets, which leads lead to better targeted mitigation efforts.

Keywords

Bucharest / Romania / Seismic loss estimation / Seismic risk / Spatial multicriteria analysis / Vulnerability index

References

[1] Armaş I. Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analysis, 2006, 26(5): 1223-1234

[2] Armaş I. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: The historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards, 2008, 47(3): 397-410

[3] Armaş I. Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards, 2012, 63(2): 1129-1158

[4] Armaş I, Avram E. Patterns and trends in the perception of the seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards, 2008, 44(1): 147-161

[5] Armaş I, Gavriş A. Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model)—A case study for Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2013, 13: 1481-1499

[6] Arma I, Radulian M. Boştenaru Dan M, Armaş I, Goretti A. Spatial multi-criteria risk assessment for earthquake hazards in Bucharest, Romania. Earthquake hazard impact and urban planning, 2014, Dordrecht: Springer 127-149

[7] Armaş I, Gavriş A. Census-based social vulnerability assessment for Bucharest. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2016, 32: 138-146

[8] Balan, S.F., D. Toma-Danila, and B.F. Apostol. 2016. Reinforced concrete buildings behaviour in the Metropolis of Bucharest during strong earthquakes in Romania. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Risks ICUR2016, 149–155. 30 June–2 July 2016, Lisbon, Portugal.

[9] Birkmann J. Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions, 2006, Tokyo: United Nations University Press

[10] Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters, 1994, London: Routledge

[11] Bucharest General Municipality. 2016. List of buildings technically evaluated and classified into seismic risk classes. http://www.pmb.ro/servicii/alte_informatii/lista_imobilelor_exp/docs/Lista_imobilelor_expertizate.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.

[12] Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S. Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environmental Modelling and Software, 2010, 25(12): 1582-1591

[13] Chen M, Wood MD, Linstead C, Maltby E. Uncertainty analysis in a GIS-based multicriteria analysis tool for river catchment management. Environmental Modelling and Software, 2011, 26(4): 395-405

[14] Crosetto M, Tarantola S, Saltelli A. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in spatial modelling based on GIS. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2000, 81: 71-79

[15] Crosetto M, Tarantola S. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: Tools for GIS based model implementation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2001, 15(5): 415-437

[16] Coppola D. Introduction to disaster management, 2007, Burlington, MA: Elsevier

[17] Duzgun HSB, Yucemen MS, Kalaycioglu HS, Celik K, Kemec S, Ertugay K, Deniz A. An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas. Natural Hazards, 2011, 59(2): 917-947

[18] Erdik M, Şeşetyan K, Demircioğlu MB, Hancılar U, Zülfikar C. Rapid earthquake loss assessment after damaging earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 31(2): 247-266

[19] Eurostat. 2014. Housing condition report. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_conditions. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.

[20] Feizizadeh B, Blaschke T, Nazmfar H. GIS-based ordered weighted averaging and Dempster Shafer methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Urmia lake basin, Iran. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2014, 7(8): 688-708

[21] Fekete A. Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2009, 9(2): 393-403

[22] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2014. HAZUS-MH: Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. http://www.fema.gov/hazus. Accessed 11 Jun 2017.

[23] Giardini, D., J. Woessner, L. Danciu, F. Cotton, H. Crowley, G. Grünthal, R. Pinho, G. Valensise, and the SHARE consortium. 2013. Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE): Online data resource. doi:10.12686/SED-00000001-SHARE.

[24] Gu, D., P. Gerland, F. Pelletier, and B. Cohen. 2015. Risks of exposure and vulnerability to natural disasters at the city level: A global overview. United Nations Technical Paper No. 2015/2. New York: United Nations.

[25] Hinkel J. Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: Towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 2011, 21(1): 198-208

[26] INS (National Institute of Statistics), Romania. 2017. Results of the 2011 population and housing national census. http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2. Accessed 11 Jun 2017.

[27] Ionescu C, Klein R, Hinkel J, Kavi Kumar K, Klein R. Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. Environmental Modelling and Assessment, 2009, 14(1): 1-16

[28] ITC (International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences). 2001. ILWIS 3.0 user’s guide. http://52north.org/communities/ilwis/ilwis-open/user-guide. Accessed 20 Jan 2017.

[29] Janssen R, van Herwijnen M. DEFINITE A system to support on a finite set of alternatives (Software package and user manual), 1994, Dodrecht: Kulwer Academic Publishers

[30] Karimzadeh S, Feizizadeh B, Matsuoka M. From a GIS-based hybrid site condition map to an earthquake damage assessment in Iran: Methods and trends. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, 22: 23-36

[31] Kasperson J, Kasperson R. The social contours of risk: Risk analysis, corporations and the globalization of risk, 2005, London: Earthscan

[32] Lang D, Molina-Palacios S, Lindholm C, Balan SF. Deterministic earthquake damage and loss assessment for the city of Bucharest, Romania. Journal of Seismology, 2012, 16(1): 67-88

[33] Marquis, F., J.J. Kim, J.K. Elwood, and S.E. Chang. 2015. Understanding post-earthquake decisions on multi-storey concrete buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15(2). doi:10.1007/s10518-015-9772-8.

[34] Marmureanu G, Cioflan CO, Marmureanu A. Researches on local seismic hazard (microzonation) for metropolitan Bucharest area, 2010, Iasi: Tehnopress (in Romanian)

[35] Molina, S., D.H. Lang, C.D. Lindholm, and F. Lingvall. 2010. User manual for the earthquake loss estimation tool: SELENA. http://selena.sourceforge.net. Accessed 11 Jun 2017.

[36] Necula GC, McPeak S, Weimer W. CCured: Type-safe retrofitting of legacy code. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2002, 37(1): 128-139

[37] NIEP (National Institute for Earth Physics), Romania. 2016. BIGSEES Project’s earthquake catalog. http://bigsees.infp.ro/Results.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.

[38] Ouma Y, Kipkorir EC, Tateishi R. MCDA-GIS integrated approach for optimized landfill site selection for growing urban regions: An application of neighborhood-proximity analysis. Annals of GIS, 2011, 17(1): 43-62

[39] Pavel F, Vacareanu R. Scenario-based earthquake risk assessment for Bucharest, Romania. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2016, 20: 138-144

[40] Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Douglas J, Radulian M, Cioflan CO, Barbat AH. An updated probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania and comparison with the approach and outcomes of the SHARE Project. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2016, 173(6): 1881-1905

[41] Ravalico JK, Dandy GC, Maier HR. Management Option Rank Equivalence (MORE) a new method of sensitivity analysis for decision-making. Environmental Modelling and Software, 2010, 25(2): 171-181

[42] Rufat S. Krek A, Rumor M, Zlatanova S, Fendel E. From mural map to GIS: Mapping urban vulnerability in Bucharest. Urban and regional data management: UDMS, 2009, London: Taylor and Francis Group 301-313.

[43] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process, 1980, New York: McGraw Hill

[44] Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F. Sensitivity analysis as an ingredient of modelling. Statistical Science, 2000, 15(4): 377-395

[45] Sterlacchini S, Akbas SO, Blahut J, Mavrouli OC, Garcia C, Luna BQ, Corominas J. Asch T, Corominas J, Greiving S, Malet JP, Sterlacchini S. Methods for the characterization of the vulnerability of elements at risk. Mountain risks: From prediction to management and governance, 2014, Dordrecht: Springer 233-273

[46] Strasser FO, Bommer JJ, Sesetyan K, Erdik M, Cagnan Z, Irizarry J, Goula X, Lucantoni A, Sabetta F, Bal IE, Crowley H, Lindholm C. A comparative study of European earthquake loss estimation tools for a scenario in Istanbul. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2008, 12(2): 246-256

[47] Thywissen K. Birkmann J. Core terminology of disaster reduction: A comparative glossary. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, 2006, New York: United Nations University Press 448-496.

[48] Toma-Danila D, Armas I. Insights on the possible seismic damage of residential buildings in Bucharest, Romania, at neighborhood resolution. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 15(3): 1161-1184

[49] Toma-Danila D, Zulfikar C, Manea EF, Cioflan CO. Improved seismic risk estimation for Bucharest, based on multiple hazard scenarios and analytical methods. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 73: 1-16

[50] Toma-Danila D, Cioflan CO, Balan SF, Manea EF. Characteristics and results of the near real-time system for estimating the seismic damage in Romania. Mathematical Modelling in Civil Engineering, 2015, 11(1): 33-41.

[51] Trendafiloski G, Wyss M, Rosset P, Marmureanu G. Constructing city models to estimate losses due to earthquakes worldwide: Application to Bucharest, Romania. Earthquake Spectra, 2009, 25(3): 665-685

[52] Turner B, Kasperson R, Matson P, McCarthy J, Corell R, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson J, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2003, 100(14): 8074-8079

[53] USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2016. Earthquake statistics—Worldwide earthquakes 2000–2015. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/stats.php. Accessed 10 Jun 2017.

[54] van der Veen, A., E. Dopheide, D. Parker, S. Tapsell, J. Handmer, C. Gregg, C. Bonadonna, and F. Ferrara. 2009. State-of-art on vulnerability of socio-economic systems. Del. 1.1.3 of the ENSURE EC FP7. Project: Methodologies to assess vulnerability of structural, territorial and economic systems. Brussels: European Commission.

[55] Walker BB, Taylor-Noonan C, Tabbernor A, McKinnon T, Dal H, Bradley D, Schuurman N, Clague JJ. A multi-criteria evaluation model of earthquake vulnerability in Victoria, British Columbia. Natural Hazards, 2014, 74(2): 1209-1222