Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas
A Training Guide
This section focuses on the various approaches and methodologies for preventing and mitigating disaster risks to cultural heritage. This generally involves one or more of the following approaches
Eliminating the source of risk, for instance preventing theft or arson by ensuring security and monitoring of the site.
In cases of unavoidable hazards, for instance, meteorological hazards that include heavy rainfall leading to floods or landslides, tornadoes etc., proactive measures may be undertaken to mitigate the impact of the risk.
Cultural heritage can be supplemented with robust planning and interventions to reduce its vulnerability to certain kinds of hazards. For example, in the case of earthquakes, structural strengthening of a historic building is possible to ensure its resistance to seismic movements.
At each stage of the disaster risk management process, community engagement should be highlighted taking into account varying perceptions of the different stakeholders.
Key aspects to be introduced and discussed
Urban and regional planning measures in and around the cultural heritage site. Planned measures need to be integrated with other existing planning frameworks.
Integrating mitigation strategies within the management of the property and clearly defining buffer zones.
Technical measures for protecting the site from the impact of specific disasters.
Traditional technologies as opposed to modern scientific techniques of risk reduction should be discussed in detail along with illustrating the applicability of both depending on the context.
considering effectiveness in regards each hazard present, cost to benefit ratio and the effect of reducing risk on one component on other components.
A policy of minimal intervention should be retained as much as possible; the values, authenticity and integrity of the cultural heritage should be considered while deciding appropriate mitigation measures. Reviews should be done periodically to the disaster risk management strategy to prevent any unintended impact of risk-reduction activities.
The instructor should explain the basic approaches included in mitigating risks, and how actions may be prioritised depending on various aspects of heritage vs. the impact of disaster and the potential for loss and damage. This should be in connection with the previous module on risk assessment. The instructor may emphasise one particular kind of hazard, and explain case studies which highlight related issues and concerns. The instructor should clearly communicate how cultural heritage can contribute towards disaster prevention/mitigation in various ways.
Lectures which focus on how a certain approach, policy or strategy has been applied for risk prevention/mitigation may be used to emphasise exemplary approaches or even highlight gaps in existing planning for participants to understand how mitigation strategies fit within the overall disaster risk management and site management. At this stage the instructors may present secondary case studies. Potential site visits could also be introduced in the lecture.
Traditional Urban Configuration Hierarchy of the Open Spaces of Kyoto City, Kathmandu Symposium, 2009
Instructor: Masafumi Yamasaki
Read More...
Potentially, there is a lot of technical knowledge in this section that may be delivered to participants depending on their qualification and existing skill sets. Most of this content may be dealt with in the next section of this module (Reducing Disaster Risks from Various Hazards). However, some general approaches and policies for risk mitigation applicable to cultural heritage could be introduced through a site visit at this stage and then its technical aspects detailed in the next section. The site visit may be used as a basis for a workshop where course participants identify potential mitigation strategies.
In the previous module, workshops were designed to focus on assessing disaster risks to a cultural heritage site and creating possible disaster scenarios for detailed risk analysis. This series of workshops could be taken further in this module by using the outcomes of the previous workshop as a basis for providing strategies for mitigating risk. In case participants are working on a single running case study through the course, they may be asked by the instructor or coordinator to focus on prevention/mitigation strategies in this module. In that scenario, mitigation strategies can be developed with the assistance of the instructor or coordinator and discussed between participants. The worksheet/handouts circulated by the instructor through the lectures and presentations could be used by participants as a resource.
Participants may progress to the next stage within their selected case study projects, and identify possible approaches for risk prevention and mitigation. They may be helped in this process by resource persons and also through sample formats and worksheets.
A session on Heritage and Resilience was organised at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva, 2013 by UNESCO/ICOMOS-ICORP/ICCROM ICOMOS. The resource material from this session may be used for this module
This section focuses on the various approaches and methodologies for preventing and mitigating disaster risks to cultural heritage. This generally involves one or more of the following approaches
Key aspects to be introduced and discussed
A policy of minimal intervention should be retained as much as possible; the values, authenticity and integrity of the cultural heritage should be considered while deciding appropriate mitigation measures. Reviews should be done periodically to the disaster risk management strategy to prevent any unintended impact of risk-reduction activities.
Participants of the International Training Course 2012 examining structural models to understand the behaviour of structures in earthquakes and how structures may be reinforced
Thematic Lecture with Secondary Case Studies
Lectures which focus on how a certain approach, policy or strategy has been applied for risk prevention/mitigation may be used to emphasise exemplary approaches or even highlight gaps in existing planning for participants to understand how mitigation strategies fit within the overall disaster risk management and site management. At this stage the instructors may present secondary case studies. Potential site visits could also be introduced in the lecture.
Site Visits
Potentially, there is a lot of technical knowledge in this section that may be delivered to participants depending on their qualification and existing skill sets. Most of this content may be dealt with in the next section of this module (Reducing Disaster Risks from Various Hazards). However, some general approaches and policies for risk mitigation applicable to cultural heritage could be introduced through a site visit at this stage and then its technical aspects detailed in the next section. The site visit may be used as a basis for a workshop where course participants identify potential mitigation strategies.
Primary Case Study
In the previous module, workshops were designed to focus on assessing disaster risks to a cultural heritage site and creating possible disaster scenarios for detailed risk analysis. This series of workshops could be taken further in this module by using the outcomes of the previous workshop as a basis for providing strategies for mitigating risk. In case participants are working on a single running case study through the course, they may be asked by the instructor or coordinator to focus on prevention/mitigation strategies in this module. In that scenario, mitigation strategies can be developed with the assistance of the instructor or coordinator and discussed between participants. The worksheet/handouts circulated by the instructor through the lectures and presentations could be used by participants as a resource.
Participant Case Study Project Participants may progress to the next stage within their selected case study projects, and identify possible approaches for risk prevention and mitigation. They may be helped in this process by resource persons and also through sample formats and worksheets.
The traditional system of planning and built and open space relationships in Kyoto
Source: Naoko Itaya
Secondary Case Study
Traditional Urban Configuration Hierarchy of the Open Spaces of Kyoto City, Kathmandu Symposium, 2009
Instructor: Naoko Itaya
A secondary case example was used by the instructor to highlight how traditional urban configurations could assist in risk reduction. The city of Kyoto was used as a case study.
The importance of open spaces within the urban fabric was experienced during the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Great Earthquake. Kyoto has 32 historic urban units called Cho in which the community still holds their festivals such as the Gion-Festival. These traditional urban units had many different categories of open spaces that formed soft and flexible areas that contributed towards the safety of inhabitants. By the 14th century, the merchants had settled in town houses called Machiya that faced the street with small gardens that served as private open spaces in the back. By the 17th century they needed to defend themselves and the communities organised themselves along streets called Tori. These tori were the semipublic open spaces for the cho. Contemporary urban planning in Kyoto has changed the structure of the city introducing wide roads and fireproof buildings that are ‘solid’ and ‘hard’. The taller buildings are required by law to have setbacks, allowing for the streets to get wider; however there are no semi-public spaces. There exists a conflict between the traditional space structure and contemporary city planning in the historic urban areas of Kyoto. The experiences gathered during the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Great Earthquake shows the importance of open spaces in reducing disaster risks.
Open spaces played various roles such as providing space for
The challenge faced today is how to protect historic urban areas by using modern techniques and city planning while at the same time utilising the soft and flexible configuration of the traditional historic urban areas.
Disaster Risk Management Policy for Cultural Heritage in Japan
Instructor: Akiko Umezu , International Training Course 12
Duration: 80 minutes
The objectives of this session were to familiarise participants with the existing statutory frameworks for cultural heritage in Japan and emerging frameworks and policies for urban cultural heritage, with a specific focus on disaster risk management. The instructor introduced the Agency for Cultural Affairs in Japan. She also introduced the various statutory categories of cultural heritage from tangible to intangible cultural property, folk cultural property, cultural landscapes and historic precincts. Using case studies in Japan, she introduced the various steps involved in disaster mitigation at the planning level.
She highlighted the following key issues:
Most Japanese cultural properties make use of perishable, flammable organic materials that make them especially vulnerable to fire damage. Given the seismic activity in the area, the risk of fire as a result of earthquake is great. Therefore, disaster preparedness for cultural properties in Japan is mostly targeted towards fire preparedness and seismic resistance at this point.
The Japanese government has also begun working with property owners and local authorities to prevent arson attacks and fire damage due to negligence. It has also started working in collaboration with property owners to prepared comprehensive disaster management plans for heritage properties.
The following policies were discussed:
Fire disaster (arson), burglary and other natural disasters such as landslides, floods etc.
Since the 1897 Preservation Act for Old Temples or Shrines was enacted the fundamental policy for disaster risk has been fire prevention based on following strategies:
1. Prevention through alarm systems, automatic warning systems, lightning protection systems.
2. Early Detection: temperature detector, flame detector, fire control panel.
3. Early response: fire hydrants, water walls and drenchers, fire extinguishers, underground tanks, gravity tanks.
References
http://www.bunka.go.jp/bunkazai/pamphlet/pdf/pamphlet_en_03_ver03.pdf