Cultural HEritagE. Risks and Securing activities

Conceptual document on evAluaTion Tool for Alpine Cultural Heritage (ATTACH) design

Concept and tool for the evaluation

of the cultural asset

Document references Deliverable: D.T1.2.1 Activity A.T1.2. Set up of methodology for the evaluation of cultural assets and prioritization of securing & salvaging interventions Date of issuing: September 2020

Credits Edited by: Anže Japelj (SFI; PP 6) Author: Anže Japelj (SFI; PP 6); with an additional input from Martin Jung, Giulia Pesaro, Christian Iasio, Marco Pregnolato, Stefano Oliveri, Maria Chiara Minciaroni, Daniele Crotti, Robert Jandl, Philomene Favier, Heinz Buschmann, Daniele Crotti, David Stäblein, Iolanda Pensa, Marta Pucciarelli, Tatjana Dizdarević, Mateja Bizjak, Andreja Ferriera, Špela Planinšek and Anže Martin Pintar. Photos: Špela Planinšek, Mateja Bizjak Approved by: Steering Committee

Disclaimer The publication reflects the author’s views. The ASP Managing Authority is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein

Table of content

WHY DO WE NEED A VALUATION TOOL? ....................................................................................... 8

THE APPROACH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE METHODOLOGY ................................................. 9 THE NOTION OF RISK .............................................................................................................................. 10 THE EVALUATION TOOL FOR ALPINE CULTURAL HERITAGE (ATTACH) ............................................................. 11 STEP 1 – LOCATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE (PILOT AREA) ............................................................................ 13 STEP 2 – INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS ......................................................................................................... 13 STEP 3 – DESIGNING HAZARD SCENARIOS .................................................................................................. 15 STEP 4 – WEIGHTING ............................................................................................................................. 15 STEP 5 – VALUATION ............................................................................................................................. 16

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 19

Scope This document represents one of the first deliverables of the CHEERS project, and the first one of technical nature as it describes the theoretical framework of risk assessment related to cultural heritage management, the conceptual design of the evaluation tool ATTACH (evAluaTion Tool for Alpine Cultural Heritage) grounded upon several theoretical underpinnings of the framework, and the step-by-step protocol on how to implement the tool.

Who this report is for? A sound methodology should benefit to local communities all over Alps for the recognition and identification of cultural heritage stock at risk in need of foremost safeguarding interventions.

Key words cultural heritage, Alpine region, natural hazard, risk assessment, evaluation tool, cultural heritage, management, prioritization For public dissemination: Yes, it is intended to be published on project web site

Forward

This is one of the first deliverables of the CHEERS project, and the first one of technical nature as it describes the theoretical framework of risk assessment related to cultural heritage management, the conceptual design of the evaluation tool ATTACH (evAluaTion Tool for Alpine Cultural Heritage) grounded upon several theoretical underpinnings of the framework, and the step-by-step protocol on how to implement the tool. All three elements constitute the deliverable D.T1.2.1 (within the first technical work package), which describes a joint project’s vision of ATTACH as an innovative tool for evaluation of cultural heritage and a possible approach for prioritization of action in case of natural hazard emergency.

Anže Japelj

Why do we need a valuation tool?

ATTACH was developed to provide cultural heritage managers, local administration, civil protection, and communities across the Alps a tool for prioritising actions of salvaging in cases of natural disasters. One of the main characteristics of the project, compared to other research activities in the field of the protection of cultural heritage assets facing natural hazards, is the focus on the emergency phase. When an alarm is given or a natural disaster already took place involving or likely to involve cultural heritage assets, teams constituted by experts in CH, civil protection and all the other subjects in charge for the management of the crisis at the local and over-local levels have to be organized and make decisions. The decisions are about the identification of the CH sites where to intervene and how to organise the salvaging on-the-field operations according to the available resources (people, expertise, vehicles, devices, etc.). This under pressure because of timing and safety issues, of the need for updated and accurate information and knowledge and under the strict regulations which characterize the CH management and handling at any time and conditions in all the Alpine countries. The question this part of the Cheers project offers an answer to is: if the rescue team has just a little time and not enough resources to salvage all the CH at risk, what should be recovered first? And, even more difficult, what the rescue teams will have to leave should they not be able to salvage everything? “Tragic decisions” to be taken rapidly and with high responsibilities looking at a so highly valuable heritage. The answer would be: what is most valuable should be saved first. Actually, the project cannot of course discuss CH values per se as only experts and local and over-local stakeholders and the subjects responsible for the protection of CH have the roles and competencies for developing what can be called a “priority list for salvaging”. Such an assessment embodies many elements, among which, the meaning and importance of a certain CH element. This not only at the overall level but also for the local communities and the Alpine culture as a whole. The methodology ATTACH has been developed in this perspective, so to support decision-making by providing a list of priorities to be developed in peace time, that is times where there is no emergency, with the involvement of experts, other subjects responsible for the protection of CH and the local communities and stakeholders. The methodology, therefore, has to be considered as a tool meant to produce a list of priorities to be followed: what CH element should be saved first in the territorial area concerned, looking at the related values, identified in the assessment process which will be explained hereafter. The resulting value priority list will be obtained as the “matching of value assessments” developed by many experts and stakeholders. This based on local CH assets characteristics, among which unicity/rarity, age, constituting materials, historical and artistic relevance, importance for the local communities. The availability of such a list would therefore address CH salvaging operations and support on-the-field decision makers so to minimize heritage and values losses during emergencies. The priority list will have to be used by rescue teams together with other information and knowledge elements if time and resources are limited and if accessibility is more or less possible according to safety conditions:

• what kind of event has occurred or is likely to occur (different disasters produce different

impacts on different CH assets);

• how much vulnerable the CH asset is, which means to what extent and how a certain CH

asset would probably be damaged by a certain event (flood, fire, landslide, exceptional

meteorological events…) according to its characteristics and fragilities, linked to elements like

CH asset typology, age, building/constituting materials, location, position etc.

The approach for the development of the methodology

The ATTACH methodology does so by enabling the user to follow its 5-step protocol and assess key

elements to establish an estimate of the cultural heritage asset’s value. The value serves as a proxy of

importance of the asset and indicates that assets with higher value estimate have a priority in

salvaging. As mentioned above, in cases of emergency, limited resources and short time prioritisation

of salvaging actions seems necessary and reasonable. Thus, focusing on the most valuable assets of

cultural heritage to secure or save them first is a commonly adopted strategy.

Given that CHEERS’s focus are the Alps with heterogenous terrain, dispersed settlements and quickly

changing weather conditions, and natural hazards being an important element, a systematic

approach in defining emergency actions for protecting or saving cultural heritage is a prerequisite for

effective management of cultural heritage. This is important especially for local communities as

cultural heritage being unique for Alpine area is not only an element of local identity but also

expresses originality and attracts visitors from near and distant regions. Thus, it is also a key

generator of tourism, which is an important sector of the Alpine Region economy.

Therefore, one of the first goals of CHEERS was to design and practically test such a tool and to

provide valuable lessons from such doing. Despite the fact ATTACH provides means to value cultural

heritage, which is one of several elements of heritage management, it fits into the wider risk-

assessment frameworks. Concept of risk is broadly applicable when many assets need to be screened

for preliminary assessments and identification of cultural heritage. It can be applied to any type of

hazard, any type of cultural heritage being threaten (Romão et al. 2016) and it enables the managers

to plan and implement risk mitigation measures, which are to support conservation. ATTACH is

designed to be used in peace time, as it covers several phases, some of which involve different

stakeholders actively participating as well-informed locals, cultural heritage managers, civil

protection experts/practitioners and decision makers.

ATTACH was practically implemented on six case studies in Austria, France, Germany, Italy,

Switzerland and Slovenia, and we provide short insights from those tests within the description of

each step. We focus more on specific issues which arose from implementation of ATTACH.

Figure 1 Workshop on evaluation tool design with regional stakeholdes in Idrija, Slovenia

The notion of risk

Risk is commonly defined as a product of hazard (physical and statistical characteristics in a specific

environment) and vulnerability of exposed asset (Wisner et al. 2004; Apel et al. 2009; Vojinovic et al.

2016), although alternative views (image below) exist as some define risk with a triangle in which

hazard, exposure and vulnerability contribute independently (Dewan 2013).

Hazards are determined upon probability of past events and are commonly represented by hazard

maps. Hazard maps have a fundamental role in the design and dimensioning of mitigation structures,

in land planning and in the definition of risk and hazard management policies (Lari et al. 2014).

Hazard maps allow both, recognition of areas affected by the hazard with different levels of intensity,

and to establish the presence of hazard hot spots.

Vulnerability refers to conditions and capacity to make an asset susceptible to harm as an effect of a

hazard (Vojinovic et al. 2016). It is based on human-nature interaction and is viewed as an outcome

of the hazard and is determined by exposure, sensitivity and potential consequences of a hazard

(Dewan 2013). Consequences are in harm due to physical, social, institutional, economic and

environmental effects.

In fact, vulnerability assessment refers to several steps that need to be addressed, the first one being

to value the heritage assets. This relates to the importance of the asset that indicates the level of

salvaging priority in case of emergency. ATTACH was designed specifically to cover valuation aspect.

The next chapter gives an overview of the complete outline of ATTACH in terms of steps one needs to

consider when applying the process of valuation.

Figure 2 Risk triangle (Crichton 2002)

Exposure

Hazard

RISK

Vulnerability

The evaluation tool for alpine cultural heritage (ATTACH)

The evAluaTion Tool for Alpine Cultural Heritage (ATTACH) is designed as a five-step procedure,

with three framing the valuation context and the final one focusing on actual valuation.

Figure 3 The five-step procedure

These steps are implemented in a spreadsheet format as a one sheet-one step design and referring

to ATTACH actually means relaters to the spreadsheet. This makes the use of ATTACH transparent

and systematic. It provides a uniform platform for both compiling and reviewing data, analysing

valuation outcomes and reporting on the overall assessment of the selected assets. In cases where

needed, pre-defined calculation formulas are introduced within the spreadsheets.

Conceptually ATTACH draws some methodological elements from the ACB method, however it

introduces some novel aspects as well.

It builds on a system of seven types of values each relating to an important aspect of cultural

heritage.

This set is wider as originally defined for the ABC approach and specially tailored to conditions of the

Alpine area.

1. Evidential value derives from the potential of the cultural heritage unit to yield evidence about

past human activity (physical remains, written records, archaeological deposits, etc.).

2. Historic value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be

connected through the cultural heritage unit to the present. This type covers several aspects

Pilot area

Stake-holders

Hazard scenarios

Weighting

Valutation

like illustrative dimension indicating whether it illustrates something particular or distinctive,

associative meaning referring to whether it the asset relates a notable family, person, event or

movement, and historical importance depicting the historical period which it originates from.

3. Aesthetic/artistic value is related to ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual

stimulation from assets of cultural heritage either as a result of conscious design or the

seemingly fortuitous outcome of the way in which cultural heritage has evolved and has been

used over time.

4. Communal value derives from the meanings of the cultural heritage asset for those who relate

to it or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal value refers to

three aspects like symbolic meaning of a place for those drawing their identity from it or have

emotions links to it, social importance of places people perceive as a source of identity,

distinctiveness, social interaction and coherence, and spiritual value, which emanates from the

beliefs and teachings of an organised religion or reflect past or present-day perceptions of the

spirit of place.

5. Economic value is derived from the potential of the cultural heritage asset to produce financial

dividends for society as a result of direct or indirect economic activities connected to the use

and function of the cultural heritage.

6. In-use/fruition value relates to the fact that an asset is accessible/open to community and used

rather freely.

7. Scientific/educational value derives from an asset having information or data that (might)

contribute significantly to scientific research and academic studies.

Figure 3 National level exchange event with observers of project.

Step 1 – Location of cultural heritage (pilot area) A general description of the area containing locations of the assets of cultural heritage is the first step of the ATTACH approach. Having information on past events, features of the terrain and size of population might bring a broader general understanding of the area’s local character and a wider consideration of the context in which the valuation is to be done. The size of the pilot area of course depends on the overall aim of valuation and the bundle of cultural heritage assets we wish to consider – from the size of a small settlement or even a single building, up to a region of several hundreds of square kilometres. This information is to be recorded on the Tab (STEP 1) Pilot Area of ATTACH – see also the annex A of this document. The list of actual assets of cultural heritage that will be assessed via valuation exercise is to be provided as well. This information refers also to the definition of hazard scenarios, which are presented in the following steps of using ATTACH. Alongside, an indication of vulnerability needs to be added as this helps in identifying the potential loss of value via the extent of damage an asset can receive if the proposed scenarios would be implemented. This information is to be recorded on the Tab (STEP 1) Assets of CH.

Step 2 – Involving stakeholders Having people from different professional backgrounds like curators, civil protection, representatives of local communities, and owners of the cultural heritage assets is a key element of implementing ATTACH. One of the innovative aspects is that a variety of stakeholders are taking part in the valuation process so that a wide representation of opinions and knowledge is blended and finally consolidated in a common set of values. This also increases validity of your valuation outcomes and makes their use by the decision-makers more likely. Selecting who to involve is a critical step in managing stakeholders and needs to be planned carefully. Thus, ATTACH offers a template to map stakeholders according to their perceived interest in valuation of cultural heritage, their power in implementing either valuation outcomes in practice or introducing changes into existing valuation system according to lessons-learnt through valuation exercise, and their attitude towards valuation of cultural heritage. Approaching stakeholders depends from this characterization, which is illustratively represented on the image below.

It is obvious that you need to focus your efforts mostly on stakeholders with high level of interest and power as those are ‘key players’ that introduce changes and make your project success or failure. However, others should not be neglected. Stakeholders with high interest but low power (residents, some NGOs etc.) need to be involved too as one of the key assumptions for developing valuation tool ATTACH is also to broaden the group of stakeholders as having only professionals or officials might produce biased valuation outcomes.

Lessons-learnt from case studies

In Italian, Slovenian and Austrian case, it was especially clear and raised that the background of stakeholders attending the valuation can introduce bias into valuation as having only professionals from the field of cultural heritage management skewed the results towards historic and evidential value. Common opinion was that having more locals (also entrepreneurs) might increase the importance of economic value, which was throughout the case studies considered as least contributing to the overall value.

A section – Tab (STEP 2) Stakeholders – devoted to this step in the ATTACH enables to document all information related to stakeholders and eases the selection process so that one implementing ATTACH is able to argue why each stakeholder was selected and involved in the valuation and why some are omitted. In addition to aspects of interest, power and attitude four more elements, which might be valuable to furthermore describe the individual stakeholder. Her role in valuation (attendee, coordinator, animator, …), her significance to the project as in how can one contribute to success of ATTACH, what she requires from the ATTACH, and some additional issues & comments one might rise during implementation of ATTACH and might help in fine tuning of the tool. See also the annex A of this document for representation of the Tab (STEP 2) Stakeholders.

Keep satisfied

Manage closely

Monitor Keep

informed

PO

WER

INTEREST

Step 3 – Designing hazard scenarios The overall goal of having designed scenarios of an actual natural hazard occurring is to define cultural heritage assets exposed. This is very much case-specific and will depend upon the pilot area set-up, types of natural hazards and cultural heritage asset being assessed. It is also related to available data and the analytical approach of designing hazard scenarios. They usually combine information on possible extent and intensity of the natural hazard event and relate this with the probability of the event. The expression of extent of the event depends upon the type of natural hazard being assessed and is exhibited by the e.g. flooded area, size of the landslide etc., whereas the intensity (severity) is related to depth of inundation, kinetic energy of rockfall, fire intensity and so on. Probability is commonly expressed by return periods of events of different magnitude. Combining those data provide information on the level of hazard. The section Tab (STEP 3) Designing hazard scenarios in ATTACH devoted to this part allows to simply input relevant information describing the extent and intensity of the natural hazard scenario is depicting. Both aspects are to be simply described in a narrative format so that anyone can retrieve information afterwards. The number of scenarios described, and possibly implemented is not limited and one can actualize many different sequences of natural hazard events. See also the annex A of this document for representation of the Tab (STEP 3) Designing hazard scenarios.

Lessons-learnt from case studies

Design of hazard scenarios can vary significantly from case to case and this was evident in our pilot tests too. It can be adopted upon already existing survey like in the case of Slovenia, supported by a special ad-hoc modelling approach like in case of Italy, or by using historical statistical data to predict possible extent and intensity of the natural hazard as in Austrian and German case.

Additionally, there is a column where assets of cultural heritage exposed to a natural hazard according to a specific scenario can be listed. In this way the actual list of the assets which are relevant for valuation is defined.

Step 4 – Weighting Not all types of values listed previously are equally important. In some cases, aspect of tourism is paramount and economic value might prevail over other types, while in some other situation an asset holds a strong evidential value as it’s imperative for a specific event in history. Both are possibly extremes however not unlikely and need to be considered within the ATTACH capacities. With that said it is obvious that each case study needs to be fine-tuned also via a specific set of relative weights of types of values that display its distinct character in terms of societal preferences and management aspects.

Relative weights can be defined different ways, however the Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) seems to be most used. This method involves making pairwise comparisons of relative importance between pairs of factors; in our case types of values. For each comparison one assesses how much more important one type of value is compared to another by selecting a mark from 1 indicating that both types are equally important, 2 that one type is slightly more important than the other one, with marks progressing towards the highest mark 9 indicating that one type is extremely more important than the other one. Mathematically the method aggregating all comparisons is based on an Eigen value problem, where the solution of the problem gives the ratio scale (weighting) for each factor being assessed. Using AHP brings several benefits, like getting a better insight in complexity of preferences in terms of valuation of cultural heritage and by enabling to assess the overall inconsistencies of comparisons to review individual valuations and to consolidate different stakeholders’ opinions. It also helps in making the valuation in a more rational way and to bolster transparency. This brings a higher level of democracy as well. ATTACH enables to document relative weights of individual types of values in the same section as value scoring is recorded. It assumes one set of weights for each case study, thus the weighting process needs to be achieved within a group of stakeholders and consolidated into one unique set.

Lessons-learnt from case studies

The weighting process revealed several challenges coordinators of the case studies had to deal with. Attendees background can affect the weighting process significantly and can also introduce bias. Professional or personal preferences might shift the weighting towards individual inclinations and this needs to be addressed by constructing a well-representative composition of stakeholders. Another issue was the use of AHP, which might not be easy to grasp by attendees with different levels of technical/mathematical understanding. This was almost and overall observation. Consistent explanation with possible study examples would help in making the weighting process persistent and results dependable.

To do so several tools (not a part of ATTACH) supporting the AHP process can be used. Some even enable simultaneous input from many actors and subsequent aggregation of weighting on a group level. Weights populated into ATTACH (Tab (STEPS 4-5) Weights and scores) are already integrated into a systems of underlying equations related to the actual scoring of values by individuals, which in turn calculates the overall weighted value for each assets of cultural heritage being assessed in a case study – described in the following chapter.

Step 5 – Valuation The pinnacle of the process implemented in ATTACH is the actual value scorings. Those are done individually by each stakeholder for each asset of cultural heritage being assessed and depict individual point-of-view on the value of specific body of cultural heritage. This step

especially nurses multi-stakeholder engagement and ensures participatory format of defining priorities for salvaging operations in case of emergency.

Scoring is done on a geometric scale, which shows exponential growth as opposed to linear growth and is very suitable to accommodate very high values by keeping the ratio between neighbouring points on scale equal throughout the complete scale. This is beneficial also for valuation, when some assets/items have extremely high values. The scale has seven scores (points) from 0 to 243 (see the image below). Practically, each stakeholder selects one of seven scores for each type of value for each asset of cultural heritage. Those scores are input into the Tab (STEPS 4-5) Weights and scores of ATTACH spreadsheet where a system of pre-defined equations automatically generates a value estimate for each asset. Those estimated are weighted by previously defined set of relative weights. See also the annex A of this document for representation of the Tab (STEPS 4-5) Weights and scores.

Estimates from stakeholders can be used individually or can be aggregated to provide a joint estimate, depending on the goals of valuation. There are also different ways of aggregation either by calculating mean or mode.

•The item does not possess the contributing value 0

•The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is very small. 1

•The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is small (of the order of 3 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”). 3

•The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is medium (of the order of 9 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”). 9

•The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is large (of the order of 27 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”). 27

•The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is very large (of the order of 81 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”). 81

•The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is exceptional (of the order of 243 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”). This score indicates the maximum intensity of the occurrence of this feature throughout all components of the heritage asset.

243

Lessons-learnt from case studies

In addition to the risk of subjectivity when scoring values for the asset of cultural heritage, several other pivotal issues were established during the tests of ATTACH. Some types of values seem very close in meaning like evidential and historic value; this was raised during the test in German and Slovenian case study. The Italian case highlighted the problem of very low level of agreement among stakeholders and how to support the valuation outcome, however the French testing offered a possible alternative as the valuation was done jointly by voting on values and then agreeing on a single set of values. The Austrian experiences imply that the ATTACH-approach is suitable for a relatively low number of assets as the cognitive burden might be too large for some stakeholders to cope with, however the Italian case proved the opposite by carrying out a valuation of a 106 assets. In some case, like in Slovenian one, the geometric scale for scoring values was also discussed as it might not be lucid and easy to familiarize with.

References Adger WN. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:268-281. Apel H, Aronica GT, Kreibich H, Thieken AH. 2009. Flood risk analyses—how detailed do we need to

be? Natural Hazards 49:79-98. Birkmann J. 2007. Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and

policy implications. Environmental Hazards 7:20-31. Bourne L. 2009. Stakeholder relationship management: A Maturity Model for Organisational

Implementation. Page 246. Routledge. Crichton D. 2002. UK and global insurance responses to flood hazard. Water International 27:119-

131. Daly C. 2008. Climate Change and World Heritage: A vulnerability Assessment of Bru na Boinne,

Ireland. Unpublished thesis submitted for a Masters of Arts in World Heritage Studies. Cottbus: Brandenburg Technical University.

Daly C. 2014. A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Archaeological Sites to Climate Change: Theory, Development, and Application. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 16:268-282.

Dewan A 2013. Floods in a megacity: geospatial techniques in assessing hazards, risk and vulnerability. Springer.

Eakin H, Luers AL. 2006. Assessing the Vulnerability of Social-Environmental Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:365-394.

Ford JD, Smit B. 2004. A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arctic 57:389-400.

Goepel KD. 2018. Comparison of Judgment Scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process-A New Approach. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 18:445-463.

Jung M. 2018. CHEERS definitions. Lari S, Frattini P, Crosta GB. 2014. A probabilistic approach for landslide hazard analysis. Engineering

Geology 182:3-14. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS 2001. Climate change 2001: impacts,

adaptation, and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Michalski S, Pedersoli JL. 2016. The ABC Method: a risk management approach to the preservation of cultural heritage. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Conservation Institute.

Pelling M 2012. The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Routledge. Romão X, Paupério E, Pereira N. 2016. A framework for the simplified risk analysis of cultural heritage

assets. Journal of Cultural Heritage 20:696-708. Saaty TL 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York. Schröter D, Polsky C, Patt AG. 2005. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight

step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10:573-595. Vojinovic Z, Hammond M, Golub D, Hirunsalee S, Weesakul S, Meesuk V, Medina N, Sanchez A,

Kumara S, Abbott M. 2016. Holistic approach to flood risk assessment in areas with cultural heritage: a practical application in Ayutthaya, Thailand. Natural Hazards 81:589-616.

Wisner B, Blaikie PM, Cannon T, Davis I 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge.

Woodside R 2006. World heritage and climate change: Developing a framework for assessing vulnerability. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom).

20

ANNEX A Graphical representation

of individual tabs within the ATTACH tool

21

Tab (STEP 1) Pilot area

General information Information on cultural heritage assets** description of CH vulnerability*

Name of the pilot area name asset #1

Size (km2) xx,xxx asset #2

Population (n) xx,xxx asset #3

asset #4

asset #5

Past events

(please provide a narrative description of

significant past events of natural hazards,

which are important to predict possible

outcomes of future events and also to

indicate main aspects of vulnerability)

* please provide which elements of CH asset

are vulnerable and in

what way. Refer only to

physical vulnerability.

Terrain specifics

(please provide information on terrain and

other geologic specifics of the pilot area,

which significantly affect the occurence of

relevant natural hazards)

**please list assets you

plan to assess in the

valuation

Governance aspects

(please provide information on who is

managing (conservation, protection in events

of natural hazards, commercialization)

cultural heritage in the pilot area, what is the

role of local residents, what is the ownership

of heritage assets, who provides technical

guidance on management, and who is

providing funds)

22

Tab (STEP 1) Assets of CH

General information Information on cultural heritage assets** description of CH vulnerability*

Name of the pilot area name asset #1

Size (km2) xx,xxx asset #2

Population (n) xx,xxx asset #3

asset #4

asset #5

Past events

(please provide a narrative description of

significant past events of natural hazards,

which are important to predict possible

outcomes of future events and also to

indicate main aspects of vulnerability)

* please provide which elements of CH asset

are vulnerable and in

what way. Refer only to

physical vulnerability.

Terrain specifics

(please provide information on terrain and

other geologic specifics of the pilot area,

which significantly affect the occurence of

relevant natural hazards)

**please list assets you

plan to assess in the

valuation

Governance aspects

(please provide information on who is

managing (conservation, protection in events

of natural hazards, commercialization)

cultural heritage in the pilot area, what is the

role of local residents, what is the ownership

of heritage assets, who provides technical

guidance on management, and who is

providing funds)

23

Tab (STEP 2) Stakeholders

Name Role Significance to project Requires from project Issues & Comments Interest Power Attitude

stakeholder #1

stakeholder #2

stakeholder #3

stakeholder #4

stakeholder #5

stakeholder #6

stakeholder #7

stakeholder #8

stakeholder #9

stakeholder #10

stakeholder #11

stakeholder #12

stakeholder #13

stakeholder #14

stakeholder #15

stakeholder #16

stakeholder #17

stakeholder #18

stakeholder #19

stakeholder #20

24

Tab (STEP 3) Hazard scenarios

Type of natural

hazard

Who designed a

scenario How was it designed Extent Intensity Assets of cultural heritage

Scenario #1

(please provide a narrative

description on who

designed the scenarios -

professionals, wider

groups of stakeholders,

etc.)

(please provide a

narrative description

on methodological

aspects of the design;

also reliability check

is relevant)

(please provide a

narrative description of

the extent of the NH

event in terms of

affected area/percentage

of the pilot area; the

number of CH assets

being affected)

(please provide a

narrative description

of the intensity of NH

event; depth of

inundation, kinetic

energy of rockfall,

fire intensity, etc.)

(l ist all asets of cultural

heritage that are exposed to

the natural hazard according

to the scenario)

Scenario #2

Scenario #3

Scenario #4

Scenario #5

25

Tab (STEPS 4-5) Weights and scores

Stakeholder #1 asset #1 asset #2 asset #3 asset #4 asset #5 asset #6 asset #7 asset #8 WEIGHTS*

Evidential

Historic

Aesthetic/artistic

Communal

Economic

In-use/fruition

Scientific/educational

#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.0

(either up to 1 or 100)

Stakeholder #2 asset #1 asset #2 asset #3 asset #4 asset #5 asset #6 asset #7 asset #8

Evidential

Historic

Aesthetic/artistic

Communal

Economic

In-use/fruition

Scientific/educational

#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

*

https://bpmsg.com/ahp/

Score Definition of the score

0 The item does not possess the contributing value

1 The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is very small.

3 The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is small (of the order of 3 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”).

9 The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is medium (of the order of 9 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”).

27 The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is large (of the order of 27 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”).

81 The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is very large (of the order of 81 times greater than that corresponding to the score “1”).

243

Those are to be generated by an AHP implementing tool such as

(l ink below), and using n-balanced aggregation method

The occurrence of this contributing value in the items is exceptional (of the order of 243 times greater than that

corresponding to the score “1”). This score indicates the maximum intensity of the occurrence of this feature throughout all

components of the heritage asset.

(add as many stakeholders and assest you need)

Typ

es

of

valu

es

Assets of cultural heritage (individual scoring)Ty

pe

s o

f va

lue

s

Project Partners ITALY Lombardy Foudation for the Environment (Lead Partner) Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Touring Club of Italy

FRANCE National research institute for agriculture, food and environment French Geological Survey Valabre Consortium

SLOVENIA Slovenian Forestry Institute Idrija Mercury Heritage Management Centre

AUSTRIA Austrian Research Center for Forests Austrian Institute of Technology

GERMANY Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society

SWITZERLAND University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland

The project is co-financed by the Euroepan Regional Development Fund throught the Interreg Alpine Space programme

www.alpine.space.eu/cheers