Cultural Heritage Disaster Impact Analysis: Loss Quantification & Resilience Enhancement, Slides of Tourism

Download Cultural Heritage Disaster Impact Analysis: Loss Quantification & Resilience Enhancement and more Slides Tourism in PDF only on Docsity!

CHAPTER 3 ASSETS AT RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Assets at risk

and potential

impacts

Cultural

heritage

Chapter Chapter 33

Online Version

CONTENTS

• 1 Introduction
• 2 Cultural heritage and cultural heritage value
• 3 Disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage
  • 3.1 Types of disaster impacts on cultural heritage
  • 3.2 Existing methodologies for disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage
  • 3.3 Challenges for disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage
• 4 A resilience enhancement chain for cultural heritage
• 5 Case studies
  • 5.1 The 2011 Lorca earthquake
  • 5.2 Additional remarks with reference to other case studies
• 6 Conclusions and key messages
• References

Lead Author:

Xavier Romão University of Porto, Portugal

Contributing Authors:

Esmeralda Paupério University of Porto, Portugal Oriol Monserrat Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya, Spain Theodoros Rousakis Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Pilar Montero Vilar Complutense University of Madrid, Spain Romão, X., Paupério, E., Monserrat, O., Rousakis, T., Montero, P, ‘Cultural heritage’, in: Casajus Valles, A., Marin Ferrer, M., Poljanšek, K., Clark, I. (eds.), Science for Disaster Risk Management 2020: acting today, protecting tomorrow, EUR 30183 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-18182-8, doi:10.2760/571085, JRC114026.

Cultural heritage

CHAPTER 3 ASSETS AT RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 1 Introduction The most widely used measures of disaster impacts are direct losses, which refer to the immediate physical damage to properties, infrastructure, agriculture and human life. Direct losses are mostly defined by monetary damage, fatalities and injuries, and currently dominate all other loss measures due to the tangible nature of physical damage. However, developing the capacity to include indirect losses as well as non-monetized losses into loss estimation is paramount in order to achieve a sound understanding and quantification of the full impact of disasters. In the context of the current chapter, this relates particularly to the damage of non-monetized re- sources such as cultural heritage assets and the relationship between them and society. To provide context and frame this issue, concepts related to cultural heritage, cultural significance and cultur- al value are first addressed. Different types of cultural heritage values are introduced and the conceptual and methodological issues related to the economic quantification of cultural heritage value are also discussed. These concepts are then connected to the issue of disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage, namely to the quan- tification of the loss in value of damaged cultural heritage. After reviewing current practice in this field, as well as addressing its limitations and the challenges it involves, the development of complimentary tools for a more efficient implementation of disaster risk management in cultural heritage based on disaster impact analysis is also examined. In particular, the chapter discusses the need to put into practice a resilience enhancement chain for cultural heritage connecting three elements: the reduction of disaster impacts in cultural heritage as a way to reduce disaster impacts in multiple sectors of society; the implementation of conservation and maintenance practices to reduce disaster impacts in cultural heritage; the availability of inventory and management systems with adequate information about the existing cultural heritage and about its condition to be able to implement efficient and rational conservation and maintenance practices. These elements are discussed in more detail, highlighting relevant technological advancements that are available. 2 Cultural heritage and cultural heritage value Most cultural heritage values cannot be quantified in economic terms The concept of cultural heritage has evolved over time, reflecting the complex evolution of societies and the changes in their value systems (see for example Jokilehto, 2005; Ahmad, 2006; Vecco, 2010). Cultural heritage bridges past and future, and the term generally refers to assets capable of arousing certain values that lead a given society to consider them heritage (Vecco, 2010). In general, cultural heritage is often divided into the cat- egories shown in Figure 1 Figure 1. Categories of cultural heritage. Sources : Authors. CULTURAL HERITAGE TANGIBLE HERITAGE INTANGIBLE HERITAGE Immovable Movable (^) Music, Oral traditions, Performing arts, Rituals, Crafts, etc. Monuments, Archaeological sites, Historical centres, etc. Paintings, Books, Sculptures, etc

CHAPTER 3 ASSETS AT RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 3 Disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage What is the real impact of cultural heritage disaster losses in society?. 3.1 Types of disaster impacts on cultural heritage Disaster impacts on a physical asset are assessed primarily in terms of the level of damage that was sustained, which means the extent of physical harm that occurred (i.e. from no damage to total destruction). This level of damage is then expected to be later translated into an economic valuation by determining the cost of repairing or replacing the asset. For tangible heritage, this approach can fall short of identifying the full extent of the losses that were sustained, since heritage value is not just the economic value of physical damage, given the intangible nature of non-use and non-extractive use values that may also be affected. In some cases, a damaged (but not destroyed) heritage asset can be restored to its original value. In other cases, it can lose part or all of its non-use and non-extractive use values (even if it can be physically repaired), or can even generate new values if it is not repaired. In the case of a heritage asset that is destroyed, the situation is simpler, since replacing the asset will seldom be able to represent the totality of its non-use and non-extractive use values (but it can generate new values). Therefore, measuring the level of physical damage undergone by a tangible heritage asset can be used to determine the losses sustained in the non-use and non-extractive use values, but its economic valuation cannot be expected to express the true extent of the losses. Aside from these direct impacts, cultural heritage damaged by disasters can also generate other types of impacts. These impacts are often called indirect and can include, for example, those connected to the extractive use values of the cultural heritage asset. In this case, damage can lead to the interruption of activities taking place at the asset, which, in turn, can lead to a loss of income generated by the asset, for example in the form of rent (if a site or a building is used for other purposes such as housing or commercial activities) or entrance fees (if people pay to access and visit the asset). In other cases, this interruption of activities can also lead to a situation in which employees who worked at the asset lose their jobs because it was destroyed in the disaster. All these scenarios refer to impacts that can be expressed in economic terms, since the activities involved have market values. However, there are other relevant indirect impacts, for which this economic valuation is much more difficult. For example, losing the recreational value of a given heritage asset (because it was destroyed or cannot be accessed for some time) can have impacts on the well-being of people that are difficult to express in economic terms. Similarly, the loss of the social or spiritual value associated with the heritage asset can have deep social impacts, namely in people’s sense of identity, continuity and belonging. This type of impact can also be associated with the loss of cultural landscape, as discussed in the Super Case Study 1 on the earthquakes in Central Italy. Social impacts can also be seen to depend on the disaster impacts on intangible heritage. For this particular category of cultural heritage, the impacts can be due to the interruption of intangible heritage practices and transmission of traditional knowledge, or to the inability to have access to cultural spaces or places and materials necessary for the practice of intangible cultural expressions. Wilson and Ballard (2017) establish that disaster impacts on intangible heritage can be expressed by measuring losses in three elements: people (the individuals or communities transmitting intangible heritage), place (the setting and resources necessary for the transmission of intangible heritage) and story (the knowledge, narratives and traditions). Damage to and losses in the first two elements can be more easily quantified (but not expressed

3.2 Existing methodologies for disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage Given the challenges highlighted in the previous section in identifying and quantifying disaster impacts in cul- tural heritage, the development of specific methodologies for this purpose has been scarce. Most of the existing developments on this topic are based on the disaster damage and loss assessment (DaLA) methodology estab- lished by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in the 1990s, which was then adapted by Vecvagars (2006) for the specific case of cultural heritage. Currently, the DaLA methodology (ECLAC,

2014. includes a specific section to assess disaster impacts on the cultural heritage sector that covers damage to tangible cultural assets. However, the proposed approach does not fully adhere to the recommendations of Vecvagars (2006). In 2008, the European Union (EU), the World Bank and the United Nations (UN) Development Group started to develop the Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) methodology to harmonise existing post-disaster assess- ment methods. This methodology (PDNA, 2013) provides a framework to determine human recovery needs and to value damages and losses, and combines sector-specific tools developed by UN agencies and the DaLA meth- odology developed by ECLAC. A PDNA is launched at the request of, and led by, the government of the affected country, with the support of national and international stakeholders. Its fundamental purpose is estimating dis- aster damage and losses across all sectors of the economy that are affected, as well as recovery, relief, recon- struction and risk management needs (Jones, 2010). It will also provide guidance for developing actionable and sustainable post-disaster short-term and long-term recovery strategies, namely with respect to mobilising the necessary financial and technical resources. Since this procedure appears to have been thought for developing countries, the PDNA outcomes are often also used to launch an appeal for financial aid from other countries and donor agencies (Jeggle and Boggero, 2018). The PDNA methodology has a chapter dedicated to the culture sector, which covers damage to both tangible and intangible heritage, and in which the approach recommended for quantifying economic impacts accounts for the proposals made by Vecvagars (2006). The chapter also covers losses to repositories of heritage (museums, in economic terms), but impacts on knowledge and knowledge systems are much more difficult to identify and will depend on the redundancy of the mechanisms by which a given society holds, documents and spreads this knowledge. In any case, quantifying the overall impacts on intangible heritage due to impacts on the individual elements is challenging (Wilson and Ballard, 2017), particularly if there is insufficient information about the intangible heritage that existed prior to a disaster. The impacts that have been discussed emphasise the systemic interconnectivity between cultural heritage and multiple sectors of society. Furthermore, the negative effects of the referred impacts are expected to lead to equally negative effects on sustainable development, namely on economic sustainability and social sustainability (Nocca, 2017; Mensah, 2019). The significant exposure of cultural heritage to hazards and its simultaneous multi- hazard vulnerability (see for example Stanton-Geddes and Soz, 2017; European Commission, 2018) point to the fact that risk assessments and potential disaster impact analyses need to go beyond the direct effects on the physical heritage assets. Furthermore, integrating cultural heritage protection measures into risk management strategies is, in fact, a way to protect a significant part of the societal system that is at risk, and should be highlighted to change the currently low priority that is given to cultural heritage in risk management planning (European Commission, 2018).

3.3 Challenges for disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage In the light of the previously discussed issues, developing a methodology that can fully capture the true spectrum of economic losses due to damaged or destroyed heritage assets remains the biggest challenge. However, this challenge is not expected to be fully overcome, since the true economic loss due to the destruction of certain heritage assets will never be measurable. Still, developing ways to broaden the level of economic losses that can be measured in terms of damaged or destroyed heritage assets seems feasible. In this context, the current de- velopment of methods measuring the economic contribution of activities related to culture and cultural heritage plays a fundamental role. Research has shown that culture-related activities have a significant impact on economic indicators such as gross domestic product, gross value added and employment (CHCFE, 2015), but these impacts are not readily observ- able in traditional national accounting systems. Therefore, culture-related data need to be aggregated from the several economic sectors usually defined as industries in national accounting systems. This aggregation is called a Culture Satellite Account (UNESCO, 2009; Throsby, 2015) and measures the economic impacts of culture across the multiple productive sectors of an economy. As mentioned before, cultural heritage has also a non-economic impact on several domains of society, namely on social cohesion and community participation, education and knowledge, social identity, well-being and quality of life, and environmental sustainability (see for example CHCFE, 2015, and references cited therein). Although the methods previously referred to for eliciting monetary expressions of cultural values can also be used to monetise by disasters, the unavailability of an adequate methodology to assess damage to heritage assets in monetary terms (given the multiple values they embody and their impacts on several sectors of society) and the lack of cooperation between the various stakeholders that manage heritage assets (e.g. local, regional or national au- thorities, civil society institutions such as the Church, or private institutions). Still, factors related to the unwill- ingness to disclose this type of information due to sensitivity issues should not be discarded as well. As a first step to enhance disaster loss data-sharing practices, reference is made to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) (UNISDR, 2015) and to the indicators that were identified to measure global progress in its implementation (UNISDR, 2018). These indicators are expected to measure progress in achieving the global targets of the SFDRR and determine global trends in the reduction of risk and losses. Among these indicators, indicator C-6 refers to the direct eco- nomic losses to cultural heritage damaged or destroyed by disasters. This indicator is expected to capture part of the direct economic losses sustained by tangible (immovable and movable) cultural assets. These losses should be divided into repair costs (for damaged assets that can be restored to a pre-disaster situation), the economic value of destroyed assets with a market value and the replacement costs of destroyed assets with no market value. In addition to this information, this indicator should also collect the number of tangible (immovable and movable) cultural assets that were damaged and destroyed by the disaster. Besides indicator C-6, reference is also made to indicator D-8, which addresses disruptions to other basic services attributed to disasters and can be used to collect relevant data by considering the losses associated with services provided by cultural assets (e.g. religious buildings). Through this indicator, it could then be possible to capture the impact of disasters on human develop- ment due to damage to, or loss of, cultural heritage.

CHAPTER 3 ASSETS AT RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS the influence of cultural heritage in these domains, their limitations in this case are also those discussed before. However, current trends in analysing the influence of cultural heritage often include non-economic approaches, such as those based on multi-criteria decision analysis or qualitative/semi-quantitative methods (CHCFE, 2015). These approaches need to be ported to the context of disaster impact analysis. This discussion highlights the fact that developing methods to measure the holistic influence of cultural heritage across the several domains of society is undoubtedly important. Still, it is recalled that, as stated before, meas- uring value is not the same as measuring loss in value. Therefore, methodological advances in the former need then to be adapted to address the latter. Moreover, the quantification of non-economic losses is not just an issue for the cultural heritage sector, since it has recently become a component of international climate change policy (Hirons et al., 2016; Serdeczny et al., 2016; Tschakert et al., 2017). Thus, developments in this sector may be relevant and applicable to cultural heritage. Disaster impact analysis in cultural heritage also depends on other factors whose importance is often not high- lighted enough. Adequate disaster preparedness is one of those factors and it can be divided into two compo- nents. The first one is related to the availability of the previously mentioned baseline data about heritage assets when a disaster strikes (Figure 4a). The second component is related to the availability of emergency procedures to contain disaster losses in cul- tural heritage once a disaster strikes (Figure 4b); see for example the case related to radiation contamination referred in the Super Case Study 2 on the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Some of these issues are further discussed next, introducing technological advances that are currently available to assist in addressing these issues. Figure 4. Factors affecting disaster impact analysis: (a) baseline data availability; (b) disaster preparedness Source : Authors a) b)

CHAPTER 3 ASSETS AT RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS The previous sections emphasize the difficulties in defining the full spectrum of impacts resulting from damaged cultural heritage. Still, given that cultural heritage influences multiple sectors of society, increasing our ability to assess these impacts is paramount and will provide hard evidence for the need to enhance its resilience and, consequently, reduce the overall impacts of disasters. Grasping this holistic view of disaster impacts on cultural heritage is the first element in a chain of actions targeting the enhancement of heritage resilience. This first element will then trigger the need to have a more active implementation of conservation and maintenance practices to improve heritage protection. Consequently, to implement such practices in a more efficient and rational way, updated information and knowledge about the condition of cultural heritage should also be available when needed. This, in turn, triggers the need to have inventory and management systems capable of providing the multidisciplinary information that is necessary. Among the large spectrum of data these systems should provide, particular attention is given to the importance of having information, as detailed as possible, about certain features of built heritage assets such as their geometry, the construction techniques they involve, the properties of building materials, evolution and alterations of the assets over time, and damaged or degraded features they may exhibit (ICOMOS, 2003). It is well known that acquiring this information presents several challenges due to the resources it can involve and the complexity of certain heritage assets. However, this information is vital for performing a realistic assessment of the conservation and/or retrofitting needs in pre-disaster settings, as well as for developing adequate repair and/or reconstruction operations guided by principles highlighting the preservation of authenticity and value in post-disaster scenarios (ICOMOS, 2017). Therefore, in pre-disaster settings, the availability of this information and knowledge will help prioritizing conservation and maintenance actions that, in turn, will enhance the resilience potential of cultural heritage and actively contribute to reduce future disaster losses in cultural heritage in a way that is consistent with the anticipatory disaster risk management approach suggested in Chapter 1.3. Given that some of the relevant information that should be available in the referred inventory and management systems is expected to change over time, a regular monitoring of heritage assets is thus required, as well as additional resources for this purpose. In light of the continuous technological advancements in remote sensing platforms (e.g. the development of multiple types of ground sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles, or the launch of new satellites with multispectral sensors), technology-based monitoring and documentation tools with the ability to feed the referred systems are becoming increasingly available (e.g. see (Toth and Jóźków, 2016; Yang et al., 2016; Weissgerber et al., 2017; Corsetti et al., 2018; Manfreda et al., 2018; Zhu, et al., 2018)). Despite these advancements, their impact in fields related to cultural heritage protection is still moderate (e.g. see (Cerra et al., 2016; Frodella et al., 2016; Pavlidis et al., 2017, Pastonchi et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2018; Elfadaly et al., 2018; Giardina et al., 2019)) and further research is still needed to develop reliable and operational remote sensing tools that will increase the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of cultural heritage monitoring. Still, resilience metrics, approaches and concepts require further developments at different scales to prioritize the implementation of cultural heritage protection measures as an integral part of the concept of a resilient society (Bocchini et al. 2014, Andretta et al. 2017).

5 Case studies Community engagement is essential in post-disaster recovery of damaged cultural heritage. 5.1 The 2011 Lorca earthquake On 11 May 2011, at 18.47 (local time), an earthquake of magnitude Mw 5.1 hit the city of Lorca in the region of Murcia, Spain. Lorca is a medium-sized city that had a population of about 93 000 in 2011. The city, which sits on both banks of the Guadalentín river and on the hillside of a 9th-century castle, is rich in both tangible (e.g. churches, Roman villas, palaces, a castle and several other monuments) and intangible cultural heritage (e.g. the Holy Week and Easter festivities, the San Clemente festivities, the art of embroidery). The earthquake caused extensive damage to both recent and older constructions in Lorca, along with 9 deaths and 324 people injured. Although earthquakes of such magnitude are expected to cause limited damage, the shallow depth of the hypocentre and its closeness to the city are believed to be the main reasons for the significant damage that occurred (Romão et al., 2013). The main earthquake was preceded by another event of magnitude Mw 4.5, at 17.05 (local time). Although this foreshock was relatively weak, damage to some structures was also reported. Overall, this event damaged nearly 80 % of the buildings to varying extents. The inspection of 7 876 buildings in the city showed that 5 383 had suffered minor or no damage, 1 569 had suffered moderate damage, 664 had suffered moderate to serious damage and 260 had to be demolished. The insured losses due to this earthquake were close to EUR 511 million (CCS, 2019), of which 83. % was related to residential buildings and 13.5 % was related to commercial buildings, but estimates of the overall direct and indirect losses are in the order of EUR 1 200 million (Olivas, 2011). With respect to cultural heritage, damage occurred in monuments and historical constructions (and also in movable heritage assets) (Figure 5). Assessment forms were developed to collect damage data, which were then used to estimate costs for the emergency stabilisation and repair of 74 damaged heritage assets (and also for movable heritage assets). These 74 heritage assets are those listed as Bien de Interés Cultural (a designation equivalent to that of heritage assets with national significance) Grade 1 and Grade 2 that were damaged by the earthquake. The damage and cost data were made publicly available in the ‘Plan Director para la Recuperación del Patrimonio Cultural de Lorca (Master Plan for the Recovery of the Cultural Heritage of Lorca) commissioned by the Instituto de Patrimonio Cultural de España (Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute) of the Spanish Ministry of Culture and published in November 2011 (BOE, 2011). The prompt development of the Master Plan indicates clearly how significant this cultural heritage is for the city’s recovery and sustainability and for the well-being of citizens. Most costs were funded by various governmental sectors and programmes (at the national, regional and local levels), the Church and the private sector, highlighting the large multi-sectoral coordination effort that was made to implement the plan for the recovery of cultural heritage. To cope with the disaster, Spain also applied to the European Union Solidarity Fund, from which it received EUR 21.1 million (European Commission, 2012; European Commission, 2013), and was granted a EUR 185 million loan by the European Investment Bank (EIB, 2012), from which nearly EUR 24 million was allocated to the recovery of cultural heritage. The overall cost of immediate protection measures and repair of cultural heritage was estimated to be EUR 47.87 million for the immovable assets and EUR 2.1 million for the movable assets (BOE, 2011). The repair works were overseen by a management commission and a technical commission and were expected to be concluded in 2016. The management commission promoted initiatives supporting the value (namely touristic value), the recovery and the preventative maintenance/conservation of Lorca’s cultural heritage, and was in charge of managing resources and funding for these operations. Meanwhile, the technical commission supervised and provided guidance for all the repair works.

tourism and the ‘dark tourism’ created in the aftermath of the earthquake, with the hallmark that ‘visitors would not only connect with the cultural heritage of Lorca, but also with its post-earthquake recovery and all the curiosities about the effects of earthquakes in the city and in the lives of Lorca (AN, 2012). This route was designed to limit the post-earthquake reduction of tourism in the city (Muñoz et al., 2018) and to strengthen a sector already in distress due to the economic crisis that had been affecting Europe since 2008. In 2012, this route won the Excelencias award at the International Tourism Fair and a Global Awards at the World Travel Market (LTDT, 2019), acknowledging it as one of the best tourism initiatives in the world. More details of the economic impacts of these initiatives on the tourism sector can be found in Cebrián (2015). In January 2017, the repair works were officially concluded and the updated costs were set at EUR 64.35 million (MCD, 2017). These updated costs reflect several changes that were made to the Master Plan between 2011 and 2016 (Barceló de Torres et al., 2016). As a consequence of those changes, the protection level of some of the heritage assets was reorganised and the repair works on Grade 3 heritage assets and on some of the public spaces also damaged by the earthquake were integrated into the Master Plan, following recommendations from the management commission. Overall, the revised Master Plan refers to financial aid to repair and/or rehabilitate 186 heritage assets. The revised plan also includes a series of actions towards the sustainable management and future protection of Lorca’s cultural heritage, and three documents reflecting long-term commitments for the post-disaster sus- tainability of the city. One document proposes actions to integrate cultural heritage, urbanism, landscape and tourism, fostering the recovery of heritage assets and their economic potential (e.g. for touristic activities and job creation). Another document proposes actions to renew degraded urban areas, and to recover the identity of neighbourhoods and their connection with cultural heritage. The last document proposes a revision of the ‘Plan Especial de Protección y Rehabilitación Integral en el sector II del conjunto histórico artístico de Lorca (Special Plan for the Protection and Integral Rehabilitation of sector II of the historical centre of Lorca), promoting im- provements in the historical centre to encourage its use as a residential area, and defining a new regulation to manage and protect Lorca’s cultural heritage. Finally, in terms of global effects and lessons learned, it is noted that cultural heritage protection protocols were improved nationwide after this earthquake. In particular, in 2015, Spain published a National Emergency and Risk Management Plan for Cultural Heritage (NERMPCH) (MECD, 2015) to address disaster risk reduction issues for cultural heritage. The main objectives of the NERMPCH are:

• to define measures to protect cultural heritage assets from disasters,
• to define resources and protocols for emergency actions addressing the rescue and safeguard of cultural heritage in case of disasters,
• to design instruments and coordination mechanisms between institutions acting in emergency situations and dealing with the safety of people and assets that integrate concerns with the safeguard of cultural heritage. Among other practical measures, the NERMPCH recommends the Spanish autonomous regions create cultural heritage emergency management units that, in collaboration with civil protection and cultural heritage institu- tions, will then develop regional programmes and actions for risk prevention in cultural heritage and for the safe- guarding of cultural heritage in emergency scenarios. So far, units of this type have been created in the Spanish regions of Murcia and of Castile and Leon, while Castile-La Mancha, the Canary Islands, Aragon, Extremadura and Asturias are in the process of developing their own.

CHAPTER 3 ASSETS AT RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 5.2 Additional remarks with reference to other case studies As mentioned before, detailed accounts of disaster impacts on cultural heritage assets are, unfortunately, lim- ited. Therefore, the positive effects of measures that are implemented for disaster risk reduction are difficult to determine when certain events recur. To illustrate this issue, reference is made to the impacts of the 2002 and 2013 European floods in Germany. After the event of 2002, flood risk management measures and policies were implemented and the 2013 flood provided an opportunity to analyse their effectiveness. According to Thieken et al. (2016a), the improvements include greater integration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, an increase in mitigation and preparedness measures for individual properties, more effective flood warnings and disaster response coor- dination, and more efficient maintenance of flood defence systems. With respect to cultural heritage, since limited information has been shared about the assets that were affected by both floods, it is difficult to understand what measures were implemented, how effective they were in 2013 and what issues remain to be addressed. Thieken et al. (2016b) refer briefly to some of the impacts of the 2002 and 2013 floods on cultural heritage but highlight that no detailed list of the damaged assets is available. The only piece of information allowing a comparison between the 2002 and 2013 floods’ impacts on cultural heritage refers to the Garden Kingdom in Dessau-Wörlitz, which was severely damaged in 2002 but was not affected in 2013 thanks to upgrades in the flood protection system. Fires are also cases in which the unavailability of detailed information on damage and losses to cultural heritage has a significant influence in our ability to reduce disaster risks and impacts. The significant media coverage of single events such as the fires in the National Museum of Brazil (2018) and Notre Dame Cathedral (2019) hides the fact that fires in heritage assets are unfortunately too common. In the United Kingdom alone (one of the few European countries where data on fires in heritage assets are collected and shared) there were 164 fires record- ed in heritage buildings between January and April 2019 (HEFP, 2019). Still, for many of these fires, the available information is insufficient for developing deeper analyses and studies that may provide adequate knowledge to propose fire risk mitigation measures. As an example, reference is made to the fact that many fires occur during maintenance or renovation activities in heritage buildings, but informa- tion about the real causes of those fires is usually too limited to adequately support the development of safety procedures that could be implemented when these activities are being carried out. In sum, these two examples highlight the need to establish robust systems and methods for collecting disaster damage and loss data for cultural heritage. Currently, one critical aspect is that this lack of data is responsible for a biased view of the real effects of hazards on heritage assets, a situation that is further intensified in scenarios involving cascading hazards (when one hazard triggers another hazard) or coupled hazards (when one hazard changes the conditions for the occurrence of another hazard at a later time). Simultaneously, it leads to risk assessments that underestimate the potential consequences of future events. Globally, these issues underline the importance of understanding risk, as mentioned in Subchapter 1.2, in order to achieve effective disaster risk management.

CHAPTER 3 ASSETS AT RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Policymakers, practitioners and scientists

There is a need to significantly improve disaster data collection in the cultural heritage sector. Awareness must be raised regarding the importance of sharing this data and adequate methods and standards should be developed to facilitate data collection. Furthermore, the scope of current disaster impact assessment practice should be widened in order to capture a larger spectrum of economic impacts (e.g. indirect losses in other sectors) and non-economic impacts in society (e.g. im- pacts on social identity and cohesion, well-being). Account must be taken of the need for further development of conventions on multi-stakeholder collaborations to support a systematic exchange of information, expertise and results. The identification of internal and external interdependencies suggested in new continuity management standards such as ISO 22301:2019 and NFPA 2019/1600 could be the first step in this process. However, new steps are needed in terms of legislation and policies to support the development of a holistic collaborative framework and introduce better accountability and compliance requirements. Some open questions remain, associated with the quantification of cascading impacts triggered by the disruptions of EMFIs. At the time of writing, it is not possible to access any quantitative information on losses and damages that could have been avoided if EMFIs had been completely efficient. These data could be used to develop some better cost–benefit analyses to support decision-makers. Clearly, this approach is merely a first step in a longer process of improvement and evolution that should involve EU legislation and policies.

Practitioners and scientists

Developing an immediate and detailed post-disaster survey of the damage to cultural heritage assets and ensuring an adequate coordination between local, regional and national authorities, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders are key elements for developing and implementing a successful recovery plan for the cultural heritage sector.

Policymakers and practitioners

The role of individual citizens is another element that can be explored to improve the status quo. For example, the lit - erature recommends defining what to communicate and how to do it (Alexander, 2016; Lindell et al., 2007), but there is a lack of understanding of what procedures would be most useful if emergency facilities were disrupted. In line with the SFDRR (UNISDR, 2015), it could be useful to develop better involvement with local communities and stakeholders. Indeed, civil society could represent an essential asset for coordinating emergency efforts, and developing basic training for the population on cascading scenarios could be one of the tools for improving societal resilience (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2016).

Policymakers and citizens

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The lead author and the first contributing author would like to acknowledge the financial support from POCI-01-0145-FEDER-030469 - RIACT – Risk Indicators for the Analysis of Cultural heritage under Threat, by FEDER through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by national funds through FCT

• Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, and the financial support from Base Funding - UIDB/04708/2020 of CONSTRUCT - Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções, by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC).

References Ahmad, Y., 2006, ‘The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible’, International Journal of Heritage Studies , Vol. 12, No 3, pp. 292–300. AN, 2012, Aladierno, 165, May 2012, Air Nostrum, pp. 18-20. Andretta, M., Coppola, F., Modelli, A., Santopuoli, N., Seccia, L., 2017, ‘Proposal for a new environmental risk assessment methodology in cultural heritage protection’, Journal of Cultural Heritage , Vol. 23, pp. 22–32. Barceló de Torres, E., García, M., Barceló de Torres, I., Echevarría, C., 2016, ‘El Plan Director para la Recuperación del Patrimonio Cultural en cifras’, in: La recuperación del patrimonio cultural de la ciudad de Lorca , Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, pp. 89- Bocchini, P., Asce, M., Frangopol, D. M., Asce, D. M., Ummenhofer, T., Zinke, T., 2014, ‘Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach’, Journal of Infrastructure Systems , Vol. 20, No 2, pp. 1–16. BOE, 2011, Plan Director para la recuperación del patrimonio cultural de Lorca , Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Bienes Culturales, Ministerio de Cultura, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/res/2011/10/28/(2). Carson, R., 2011, Contingent valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. CCS, 2019, ‘Datos estadísticos de riesgos extraordinarios, serie 1971–2018’, Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros, https://www. consorseguros.es/web/ambitos-de-actividad/seguros-de-riesgos-extraordinarios/mas-informacion/estadistica. Cebrián, A., 2015, ‘Políticas, acciones y gestión turística cultural: La ciudad de Lorca (Murcia, España)’, Perspectiva Geográfica , Vol. 20, No 2, pp. 365–390. Cerra, D., Plank, S., Lysandrou, V., Tian, J., 2016, ‘Cultural heritage sites in danger: Towards automatic damage detection from space’, Remote Sensing , Vol. 8, No 9, 781. CHCFE, 2015, Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe: Full report , Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe (CHCFE) Consortium, Krakow, Poland. Chen, F., You, J., Tang, P., Zhou, W., Masini, N., Lasaponara, R., 2018, ‘Unique performance of spaceborne SAR remote sensing in cultural heritage applications: Overviews and perspectives’, Archaeological Prospection , Vol. 25, No 1, pp. 71–79. Choi, A., Ritchie, B., Papandrea, F., Bennett, J., 2010, ‘Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach’. Tourism Management , 31(2), pp. 213-220. Corsetti, M., Fossati, F., Manunta, M., Marsella, M., 2018, ‘Advanced SBAS-DInSAR technique for controlling large civil infrastructures: An application to the Genzano di Lucania dam’, Sensors , Vol. 18, No 7, 2371. de la Torre, M. (ed.), 2002, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research report , The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Drdácký, M., Binda, L., Herle, I., Lanza, L. G., Maxwell, I., Pospíšil, S., 2007, Protecting the Cultural Heritage from Natural Disasters , Study of the European Parliament IP/B/CULT/IC/2006_163, PE 369.029, Brussels. ECLAC, 2014, Handbook for Disaster Assessment , Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, https://repositorio.cepal.org/ bitstream/handle/11362/36823/1/S2013817_en.pdf. EIB, 2012, ‘EIB provides EUR 185 million to rebuild Lorca’, press release, European Investment Bank, https://www.eib.org/en/press/ all/2012-089-eib-provides-eur-185-million-to-rebuild-lorca. Elfadaly, A., Attia, W., Qelichi, M. M., Murgante, B., Lasaponara, R., 2018, ‘Management of cultural heritage sites using remote sensing indices and spatial analysis techniques’, Surveys in Geophysics , Vol. 39, No 6, pp. 1347–1377. European Commission, 2012, Report from the Commission. The European Union Solidarity Fund 2011, COM(2012) 523 final, https:// ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/information/reports/index_en.cfm. European Commission, 2013, Report from the Commission. The European Union Solidarity Fund 2012, COM(2013) 856 final, https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2013:0856:FIN European Commission, 2017, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. European Union Solidarity Fund Annual Report 2016, COM(2017) 776 final, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/thefunds/solidarity/pdf/eusf_annual_ report_2016_en.pdf European Commission, 2018, Safeguarding cultural heritage from natural and man-made disasters: A comparative analysis of risk management in the EU, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission, Brussels. Fredheim, L. H., Khalaf, M., 2016, ‘The significance of values: Heritage value typologies re-examined’, International Journal of Heritage Studies , Vol. 22, No 6, pp. 466–481. Frey, B., 1997, ‘The evaluation of cultural heritage: some critical issues’. In: Economic perspectives on cultural heritage , Palgrave Macmillan, London.