Despite numerous research efforts in recent years, seismic risk continues to be difficult to perceive and communicate. Although researchers have access to sophisticated tools that can quantify seismic risk, such groups as public authorities, land use and urban planners, stakeholders, end-users, and citizens should also be able to access simple seismic risk information. Thus, SIRIUS was built and mapped into a scale following the Weber and Fechner perception law, with impacts described in a simple yet meaningful language while capturing the two most fundamental dimensions that explain risk variability along the urban space: the reliability deficit and human concentration. With SIRIUS, at-risk places and the reasons why seismic risk is a concern are easy to identify and communicate. To illustrate the potential of this robust indicator, an application of SIRIUS to the city of Lisbon is presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnasA., and RheeH.-J., 2006. Curbing excess sprawl with congestion tolls and urban boundaries, Regional Science and Urban Economics36, 510–541.
2.
Bana e CostaC., 1992. Structuration, construction et exploitation d'un model e multicritère d'aide à la decision, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal (in French).
3.
BernardiniA., GiovinazziS., and LagomarsinoS., 2007. The vulnerability assessment of current buildings by a macroseismic approach derived from the EMS-98 scale, in Proc. Congresso Nacional de la Ingienería Sísmica, Girona.
4.
BilhamR., 2009. The seismic future of cities, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering7, 839–887.
5.
BloomfieldR., ChozosN., and NoblesP., 2009. Infrastructure Interdependency Analysis: Introductory Research Review, Report, Center for Software Reliability of City University London, Adelard LLP, Granfield University.
6.
BorgesJ. F., and CastanhetaM., 1983. Structural Safety, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal.
7.
BurdgeR. J., 2004. The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment, Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WI, 320 pp.
8.
CardonaO., 2005. System of Indicators for Disaster Risk Management, Report, Instituto de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales.
9.
CarreñoM. L., CardonaO. D., and BarbatA. H., 2007. Urban seismic risk evaluation: A holistic approach, Natural Hazards40, 137–172.
10.
CoxL. A., 2009. What's wrong with hazard-ranking systems? An expository note, Risk Analysis29, 940–948.
11.
CrowtherK. G., HaimesY. Y., and TaubG., 2007. Systemic valuation of strategic preparedness through application of the inoperability input-output model with lessons learned from hurricane Katrina, Risk Analysis27, 1345–1364.
12.
DantzigG. B., 1973. The ORSA New Orleans address in Compact City, Management Science19, 1151–1161.
13.
DantzigG. B., and SaatyT. L., 1974. Compact City: Plan for a Liveable Urban Environment, W.H. Freeman & Co., Ltd., San Francisco, 255 pp.
14.
DavidsonR. A., and ShahH. C., 1997. An Urban Earthquake Disaster Risk Index, Report, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
15.
DesyllasJ., WardJ., DuxburyE., and SmithA., 2003. Pedestrian Demand Modeling of Large Cities: An Applied Example from London, Report, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London.
16.
Dueñas-OsorioL. A., 2005. Interdependent response of networked systems to natural hazards and intentional disruptions, Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.
17.
Dueñas-OsorioL. A. and VemuruS. M., 2009. Cascading failures in complex infrastructure systems, Structural Safety31, 157–167.
18.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2004. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Eurocode 8.
19.
Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Building Sciences (FEMA, NIBS), 1999. HAZUS, Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, Washington, D. C.
20.
FerreiraM. A., OliveiraC. S., and SáF. M., 2011. Estimating human losses in earthquake models: A discussion, in Human Casualties in Earthquakes, SpenceR. et al. (eds.), Chapter 17, Springer, 255–266.
21.
GiovinazziS., and LagomarsinoS., 2001. Una metodologia per l'analisi di vulnerabilità sismica del costruito, Paper presented at the X CongressoNazionale “L'ingegneriaSismica in Italia,” Potenza-Matera (in Italian).
22.
GiovinazziS., and LagomarsinoS., 2004. A macroseismic method for the vulnerability assessment of buildings, in Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
23.
GrünthalG., 1998. European Macroseismic Scale 1998, Cahiers du Centre Européen de géodynamique et de séismologie, Conseil de L'Europe, Report Luxembourg.
24.
HubbardD. W., 2010. How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 320 pp.
25.
HunterP. R., and FewtrellL., 2001. Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health, World Health Organization, London.
26.
JacobsJ., 1993. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Modern Library, New York, 640 pp.
27.
KahnemanD., and TverskyA., 2009. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, in Choices, Values and Frames, Cambridge University Press, 17–43.
28.
KeeneyR., and RaiffaH., 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Willey & Sons, New York, 592 pp.
29.
KunreutherH., NovemskyN., and KahnemanD., 2001. Making low probabilities useful, Risk and Uncertainty23, 103–120.
30.
LianC., SantosJ. R., and HaimesY. Y., 2007. Extreme risk analysis of interdependent economic and infrastructure sectors, Risk Analysis27, 1053–1064.
31.
LoboM. C., PardalS., CorreiaV. D. P., and LoboM. S., 1996. Normas urbanísticas, Direcção Geral do Ordenamento do Território e Desenvolvimento Urbano, Lisbon, Portugal, 261 pp. (in Portuguese).
32.
MilutinovicZ. V., and TrendafiloskiG. S., 2003. Risk-UE: An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns, WP4 Vulnerability of Current Buildings, RISK-UE – EVK4-CT-2000-00014.
33.
NeumanM., 2005. The compact city fallacy, Journal of Planning Education and Research25, 11–26.
34.
NormandinJ.-M., TherrienM.-C., and TanguayG. A., 2009. City strength in times of turbulance: strategic resilience indicators, in Proc. of City Futures 2009, Madrid.
35.
OliveiraC. S., SáF. M., and FerreiraM. A., 2005. Application of two different vulnerability methodologies to assess seismic scenarios in Lisbon, in Proc. of 250th Anniversary of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, 1–4 Nov, Lisbon, Portugal.
36.
PetersK., BuznaL., and HelbingD., 2008. Modeling of cascading effects and efficient response to disaster spreading in complex networks, Int. J. Critical Infrastructures4, 46–62.
37.
RobertsB., 2007. Change in urban density: Its implications on the sustainable development of Australian cities, in Proc. of State of Australian Cities National Conference.
38.
SampsonR. J., MorenoffJ. D., and Gannon-RowleyT., 2002. Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research, Annual Review of Sociology28, 443–478.
39.
ScharligA., 1999. Décider surplusieurs critères, Panorama de l'aide à la décisionmulticritère, Collection Dirigerl Entreprise, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 304 pp. (in French).
40.
ShahH. C., 2009. Catastrophe risk management in developing countries and the last mile, The 1755 Lisbon Earthquake Revisited, Springer, 111–120.
41.
Tekeli-YesilS., DedeogluN., and Braun-FahrlaenderC., 2010. Factors motivating individuals to take precautionary action for an expected earthquake in Istanbul, Risk Analysis30, 1181–1195.
42.
TrifunacM. D., and BradyA. G., 1975. On the correlation of seismic intensity scales with the peaks of recorded strong ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America65, 139–162.
43.
TurnerS. P., 1993. Emile Durkheim, Sociologist and Moralist, Routledge, New York, 272 pp.
