Journal Pre-proof

Climate change risk assessment: a holistic multi-stakeholder

methodology for the sustainable development of cities

Alessandra Gandini, Laura Quesada, Iñaki Prieto, Leire Garmendia

PII: S2210-6707(20)30857-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102641
Reference: SCS 102641

To appear in: Sustainable Cities and Society

Received Date: 4 September 2020

Revised Date: 24 November 2020
Accepted Date: 30 November 2020

Please cite this article as: Gandini A, Quesada L, Prieto I, Garmendia L, Climate change risk
assessment: a holistic multi-stakeholder methodology for the sustainable development of
cities, Sustainable Cities and Society (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102641

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as
the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the
definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and
review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early
visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal
pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

Climate change risk assessment: a holistic multi-stakeholder methodology for the

sustainable development of cities.

Alessandra Gandinia, Laura Quesadab, Iñaki Prietoa, Leire Garmendiab,1

a
TECNALIA, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Parque Tecnológico
de Bizkaia, Astondo Bidea, Edificio 700 (48160) Derio. Spain.

of
alessandra.gandini@tecnalia.com
inaki.prieto@tecnalia.com
b
, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, School of Engineering in Bilbao,

ro
Mechanical Engineering Department, Building I, Plaza Ingeniero Torres Quevedo s/n
(48013) Bilbao. Spain.
laura.quesada@ehu.eus
leire.garmendia@ehu.eus
-p
re
1
Corresponding author, Tel.: +34 946017333
lP

Email address: leire.garmendia@ehu.eus.

na
ur

Highlights
Jo

 Disaster risk management, climate change adaptation and sustainable development

 Sample building method at city scale
 Multi-perspective decision making (MIVES)
 Multi-scale urban modelling (CityGML)
 Risk index for the prioritization of adaptive interventions

1
Abstract

Cities are at risk due to global climate change, increasing both the frequency and the intensity of storms
and extreme precipitation, sea-level rise, and other extreme weather events. Disaster risk reduction and
adaptation to climate change should include a holistic and multi-scale perspective, to address the
challenges of sustainable urban development and the conservation of the cultural value of our cities. In
this research, an integral multi-stakeholder methodological approach is presented for risk assessment,
supported by a data-collection and analysis strategy and a multi-scale urban model based on CityGML. A

of
method of sampling buildings is presented together with the necessary data analysis, in order to perform
the analysis at city scale. The methodology is implemented in Donostia- San Sebastián (northern Spain), a
city located alongside a river estuary on the coastline. A sample of 2,262 buildings are analyzed with

ro
varied characteristics at risk of extreme precipitation and/or storm surges and sea-level rise. The results
demonstrated the effectiveness of the methodology at generating a unique risk index through a balance

-p
between the resources for data collection and the accuracy of the results, supported by a graphical 3D
representation to facilitate results interpretation, and the subsequent evidence-based decision-making for
prioritizing sustainable interventions.
re
lP

Keywords: risk assessment, sample buildings, urban modelling, floods, MIVES, CityGML.

1. Introduction
na

The scientific community has accredited future scenarios in which the average mean global

temperature will have increased between 3.2 and 4ºC by 2100, based on the current policy and the no
ur

policy scenario, respectively, global sea-level rise between 0.09 and 0.88 meters and hydrological cycles

leading to more frequent rainfall and local storm surges [1-4]. Flooding, which depends on precipitation
Jo

volumes, intensity, timing, river conditions and drainage basins, is the most frequent natural disaster with

the highest economic impact worldwide. Europe suffered over 440 destructive floods between 1998 and

2019, affecting over 7.2 million people, causing 2,115 fatalities, with direct economic losses of over €106

billion [5]. The world’s largest reinsurance company, Munich Re, reported that the number of destructive

floods across Europe resulting in insurance payouts has more than doubled since 1980, following a

pattern that reflects the predictions of climate models.

2
 Aimed at improving flood protection by reducing its negative consequences and associated risks,

the European Commission agreed on the first coordinated action at EU level [6] and, according to the

fifth Water Framework Directive Implementation Report, all Member States have approved their Flood

Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), except from the FRMPs of the Canary Islands (Spain) [7].

As opposed to traditional methods that have focused on hazard limitation [8], current procedures

for successful flood management in Member States, developed in response to EU Directive [6], apply

comprehensive risk-based models aimed at minimizing both the hazard and its consequences.

Furthermore, as a result of the international political agenda seeking integrated approaches, European

cities are introducing methodologies that unify disaster mitigation and adaptation solutions, aimed at

minimizing climate change vulnerability [9].

of
Risks will increase for cities alongside rivers and on the coastline, as a consequence of sea level

ro
rise and heavy rainfall [2, 10]. Furthermore, uncontrolled and rapid urbanization in cities has raised the

susceptibility of cities to climate change disaster and to both spatial and social fragmentation. Successful

-p
adaption of cities can be ensured, if adaptation strategies are introduced in urban planning, land-use

management, and regulatory frameworks [11-17]. Planners should consider a risk-based design [18-20] to
re
reduce exposure to weather-related risk in urban areas through adequate land-use management and

building standards [21-22]. Urban master plans can also include climate risks and vulnerability
lP

approaches, but comprehensive risk assessment methodologies are still missing.

An integral approach towards risk assessment implies an assessment of the particularities of all

city districts, as well as the singularities of historic city centres that are at the origin of city settlements.
na

Nevertheless, heritage is not commonly considered within global urban approaches, although it is within

the scope of certain strategies [23-26]. The most recent studies have also been on the physical parameters
ur

of buildings in the vulnerability and the risk assessment methodologies [27-33]. Hence, comprehensive

methodologies that combine physical, socio-economic and cultural parameters still need to be developed.
Jo

The over-arching objective is to promote resilient and adaptive responses, aimed at responding to climate

change and promoting sustainable development at city scale from a multidisciplinary perspective rather

than as separate planning initiatives (climate change, urban planning and conservation policies) [34-38].

Risk assessment, requires the refinement of data-collection methods and the processing of large

volumes of data [39-41]. However, policy-making in the field of climate change, urban planning, and the

conservation of historic value is characterized by increasingly large numbers of stakeholders with

3
different backgrounds, interests, and values. This multi-stakeholder context influences the definition of

models [42]. Hence, it is mandatory to understand the needs of each stakeholder, in order to provide data

models that can promote and assist stakeholder coordination and decision-making for sustainable

development that is inclusive of all (climate change, urban planning and conservation) perspectives [43].

Urban dynamic models are simplified digital environments that identify and highlight essential

features by moving from theoretical to testable models for the analysis of the consequences of the

changes that are likely to affect cities [44-47] and they have to be selected on the basis of the final needs

or decisions to be taken.

There are few available methodologies that are used to assess flood damage both before and after

an event: FLEMO - Flood Loss Estimation MOdel [48] developed for the commercial sector, HAZUS-

of
HAZards United States [49] for earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and floods, and HOWAD- Flood

ro
Damage Simulation Model [50] that includes remote sensing and digital image processing. The last two

models are used to assess financial and physical damage before an event through an object-based

-p
approach with high resolution Geographical Information System (GIS) technology. However, these

methods cannot be replicated in large-scale analyses, due to the difficulties over accessing and gathering
re
large amounts of data and the high consumption of both time and resources that are required for damage

assessment fieldwork.
lP

There is the persistent challenge of balancing the input data and the resources that may be

necessary and the debate continues over the identification of proper scales for effective decision-making

and planning [51]. A combination of scales is usually required, both on a fine scale at the level of
na

individual buildings and on a large scale for city-wide analysis [52]. In addition, there is still the

persistent challenge of integrating both quantitative and qualitative information within a single data model
ur

[53]. Low cost or free data are essential to produce cost-effective city models. Remote imagery and data

from the land register (cadastre) are the most complete sources, which can in some cases be supplemented
Jo

with usually non-homogeneous and irregular data, provided through public initiatives (e.g.,

OpenStreetMap). In contrast, international data standardization and harmonization initiatives (e.g., the

Integrated Research on Disaster Risk –IRDR- and the International Disaster Database EM-DAT) only

partially respond to the risk assessment in terms of community needs. Reliable information on the

existing building stock is frequently incomplete or missing and efforts should be directed towards

accessing existing data, which may often be unavailable or restricted. Other relevant sources of advanced

4
information on the building stock can be found in the INSPIRE Directive and at the national housing

censuses through the Eurostat Census Hub at regional level (NUTS 2), although they are not completely

harmonized across countries.

Overall, climate-change risk assessment for sustainable development and urban adaptation

planning needs to harness responsibilities and capacities fragmented across departments and should

include the multi-stakeholder perspective, highlighting the importance of coordinated action. Since

regional benefits and the costs of climate policy need to be considered [54], efficient and representative

urban models are fundamental. They should achieve a balance between accuracy and the necessary

resources and should promote sustainable development through the effective identification of risks that

will support subsequent decision making on sustainable adaptive interventions to reduce and face climate

of
change impacts. This urban model should be accompanied by a methodology that helps to organize and to

ro
assess data in an efficient, cost-effective, and objective manner [55].

2. Baseline and scope of the research -p

In this research, a holistic and multi-stakeholder methodology is developed for risk assessment
re
of cities towards floods and extreme precipitation events. The methodology is aimed at identifying

vulnerabilities and risks in the building stock, providing support for subsequent decision-making on
lP

adaptation actions that will lead to the conservation of the built environment, and the promotion of

sustainable cities and societies through low environmental impact and effective and resilient projected

interventions.
na

The risk assessment methodology includes a multi-scalar approach that connects the operational

scale (building scale) with the urban scale through the sample building concept and a multi-disciplinary
ur

approach covering climate change, urban planning, and conservation frameworks. The methodology

considers singularities of all city districts, including historic areas in order to avoid any type of
Jo

fragmentation of areas, promoting synergies and adaptation strategies at a city-scale level.

The Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment (Spanish acronym MIVES)

methodology, based on a multi-criteria approach, is employed for risk calculation. The outcome is an

objective risk index that helps to establish priorities for the implementation of adaptative solutions.

A data model based on CityGML was also employed as its use supports the methodology by

linking hazard, exposure, and vulnerability parameters at city scale, and it can structure and process the

5
information with different scales, dates and sources in an effective and representative manner (see Figure

1). It also ensures interoperability with other tools used in urban planning as it is a standard defined by the

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC).

Vulnerability assessment is the first step to address for future assessments of climate change risk.

In line with this approach, [56] is the baseline for the current research work to which specific

developments related to exposure and hazard parameters will be added within a holistic and multi-

stakeholder risk assessment methodology.

The outcomes of the research are validated in a case study of Donostia-San Sebastián, located on

the coastline in the North of Spain, also used in the first part of the research work [56]. However, the

current research uses an extended case-study area that includes six districts and permits, on the one hand,

of
the validation of the vulnerability-assessment methodology within a larger area and, on the other, the

ro
validation of the holistic risk-assessment methodology.

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 1. Structure of the methodological approach.

3. Urban modelling strategy: CityGML multiscale data model

The urban modelling strategy is aimed at developing a cost-effective model, which will integrate

both geometric and semantic data obtained from public data sources that will provide 3D visualization to

facilitate the understanding of outputs even for non-expert end-users. The model will ensure public access

6
to data and interoperability with other systems or tools used in urban planning as well as an iterative

approach after the update of the information.

CityGML is a multiscale data model format somewhere in between GIS and BIM (Building

Information Modelling). It is an XML-based open-data model capable of exchanging and storing virtual

3D city models supplied by the OGC and ISO TC211. These models can establish classes and relations

between the topographic objects at different scales (city, region) and geometric, semantic, and topological

data, which explains the increasing use of CityGML [57].

CityGML specifies five levels of detail (LoD) [58-60]. LoD0 is a two-and-a-half dimensional

Digital Terrain Model, over which a map or an aerial image can be superimposed. LoD1 is a blocks

model where buildings are presented without textures or roofs, while LoD2 represents textures, roofs and

of
vegetation objects. LoD3 goes beyond representing architectural models through its exhaustive

ro
representation of roof and wall structures, balconies, bay windows, and projections and high-resolution

textures that can be allocated to structures. Finally, LoD4 adds interior elements of the buildings (doors,

stairs, rooms, furniture, etc.). -p

These kinds of enhanced models are promising in different fields and are capable of collecting
re
voluminous information for urban disaster management tasks [61]. LoD4 has already been used for

specific disaster types such as indoor fire events [62-63] while flood analysis has usually been undertaken
lP

in GIS, considering digital terrain models [64-65]. However, the analysis of the propagation and the

impact of flooding can be improved with the help of 3D models [66]. The scope of some studies was to

represent flood depth and its extension within urban areas, disregarding damage to buildings [67-68].
na

Recent studies use 3D models to evaluate flood-related damage and risk at a micro-scale, which includes

building components, through the integration of GIS and BIM [69-70]. Hence, the challenges in this
ur

research work are to combine data on floods and buildings from different sources and in different formats

within a multi-scale analysis.

Jo

The development of urban 3D models based on the OGC CityGML standard integrates the scales

at both city and building levels within the same model with added geometric and semantic data. A model

with these characteristics can be used in numerous applications from which various agents, whether urban

planners or citizens, among others, could benefit. There are several advantages to the collaborative

creation and editing of these models within urban management processes; facilitating work on the always

up-to-date single model and parallel work. The 3D component facilitates the representation of the

7
complete information and is easily understood by any user. These models facilitate the cooperation of

experts in different areas, contributing their knowledge to the generation of a unique model. [3, 71-73] In

addition to that, the widespread use of CityGML throughout Europe is another of its advantages, for

example most German cities have a CityGML model at least at its lowest level of detail [74]

In this research, the generation of the geometry of the 3D city model (see Figure 2) was

completed through a semi-automatic process collecting data from the land registry, which contains the

geometry of building footprints, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) that represents the Digital Surface

Model, and the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) that represents 3D terrestrial zone topography. The first

step was the data pre-processing stage, to eliminate duplicated and erroneous data, as well as data outside

the area of interest. Subsequently, the height and the altitudes of the buildings were obtained from LIDAR

of
and DTM data to generate the 3D model of the buildings, and to identify their height, position, and

ro
altitude [75]. As a result, a model with different levels of detail was obtained: LoD0 for the buildings

footprints in 2D, LoD1 for representing buildings in 3D boxes, and LoD2 for generating building façades,

and roofs (see Figure 2). -p

re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 2. 3D city model generation process.

Having generated the geometric data, the semantic data were added to the model. For this

purpose, the CityGML data model was extended to specific attributes of the application domain. Each

attribute had to be referenced to the corresponding element and then information was automatically added

to the 3D urban model through the semanticization process, and information in .xls or .shp file formats

was fed into CityGML.

8
 The urban model generation process has to consume few resources, so available and easily

accessible data must be used. The unit of a lot was therefore used, i.e., a terrain of known boundaries

ascribed to one or multiple owners. Instead of the building unit, the lot unit was selected, normally of

single building size, but can include more than a doorway, because the information on public databases

usually refers to lots.

Hence, the urban model for risk assessment will include necessary geometric and semantic data

to undertake the risk-assessment methodology at building level. The challenge arises when seeking a

compromise between the micro-scale (individual elements) at which buildings may be characterized at a

local level and the macro-scale (city level). This compromise is evident in the representation of the city

according to a statistical distribution of building properties within a specific area, for vulnerability and

of
risk assessment, starting with sample buildings (explained in the following section) and extrapolating

ro
their properties to the whole area.

4. Categorization method for the building stock. Sample buildings

-p
A statistical approach may be employed on a city scale for analyzing a large and varied building

stock. In this approach, the stock is described by means of sample buildings or archetypes. Sample
re
buildings represent buildings that include data obtained through measurements while Archetypal

buildings refer to buildings with approximate statistical descriptors. Thus, real unique buildings or a
lP

theoretical standardized building can both be used [76-79]. Moreover, the extreme heterogeneity of the

building stock usually requires an initial categorization process where the stock is divided into categories.

Afterwards, a sample building for each category is identified.

na

Sample buildings work as input data for the model, with which a wide variety of buildings may

be considered, although a large database is necessary. Such data can also be useful to detect high priority
ur

areas within the city. The aim is to identify a limited number of sample buildings, but which represent the

majority of the building stock in the city [80], aware of data accessibility constraints. These samples
Jo

should represent the important parameters in the risk analysis, such as the constructive characteristics,

socio-economic aspects, and cultural value. Moreover, data should be (semi-) automatically collected to

build a low-cost model. Geometric data are collected from the model and semantic data from public

information systems.

A central critical step is the identification of parameters to generate categories. The configuration

of parameters depends on the characteristics of the city and their value concentration, with the objective

9
of finding the right balance between the number of categories, and both the representativeness and the

relevance of the information.

Following the identification of categories, the most representative ones were selected through the

establishment of a minimum threshold and the least representative were discarded. The suitable number

of categories and the percentages of building stock they represent will depend on the size and

homogeneity of the city. An optimum balance between both should be achieved, taking into account that

a minimum threshold of between 2% and 5% generally delivers good results [53, 81]. For this research, a

threshold of 2% was selected, as it resulted in a manageable number of categories (15) and good building

stock representativeness (76.1%).

The building stock was categorized in accordance with the following six parameters, which were

of
determined on the basis of the final goal of the analysis, the identification of flood-risk levels. The data

ro
with the parameters of each sample building were obtained through municipal databases, the use of

Google Earth and Street Map, and a field survey.

 -p
Year of construction: to gather an outline of the construction techniques as they commonly

depend on the construction period.

re
 Use: impacts on building vulnerability, such as the timeframe in which a building can stop

operating, that will depend on its use. A building with fundamental use requires a prioritization
lP

of the intervention.

 Existence of a (semi-)basement: implying greater vulnerability of the buildings as they can easily

be flooded with water.

na

 Level of protection: directly influencing the selection of adaptation solutions and combined with

the construction year, the cultural value of the building can be determined.
ur

 Number of dwellings: the vulnerability decreases as the intervention capacity increases with the

number of owners because intervention costs can be shared.

Jo

 Socio-economic status: the economic capacity of the owners increases the intervention capacity

aimed at reducing vulnerability.

5. Decision-making process for risk assessment

A risk assessment tool was developed in this research for cities to cope with floods and extreme

precipitation events. It will include a multi-disciplinary and multi-scale approach that will integrate the

10
operational building level and strategic urban planning, facilitating decision-making processes through

properly structured information flows processing accessible data [82-83].

The methodological approach towards decision-making is based on the latest international

concept of climate-change-related risk assessment. According to the Fifth Synthesis Report (AR5) [4],

risk is defined as the “probability or likelihood of occurrence of hazardous events or trends multiplied by

the impacts if these events or trends occur”. Hence, flood risk considers the factors of exposure to hazard

impact and vulnerability of an asset, through the binomial sensitivity and adaptive capacity, to rank the

risk and to support the decision-making for prioritizing the interventions of adaptive strategies, as shown

in Figure 1.

of
5.1. MIVES methodology

MIVES sets out an operative methodology to help decision-makers when deciding upon adaptive

ro
interventions for the areas of the city at highest risk. MIVES was chosen as the risk-calculation

methodology, due to its multi-criteria perspective, with which different type of indicators may be
-p
compared, and its objectivity, because the evaluation model was defined prior to the generation of the

alternatives. MIVES was developed by the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), Tecnalia, the
re
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) and University of A Coruña (UDC). Its flexibility and

soundness have been validated in several sustainability-related fields of interest [84-91].

lP

The first step in the MIVES methodology is the definition of a requirements tree with which the

information may be organized into a hierarchic structure, usually up to three levels. The first and second
na

level identify the requirements and criteria, respectively, which represent general and qualitative aspects.

The third level identifies the indicators that are specific and measurable parameters.

Indicators are evaluated by value functions that, depending on the nature of each indicator, will
ur

follow a concave, a convex, a linear or an S-shaped function with a value that is always between 0 and 1

(see Figure 3) [92]. The relevance of the different parameters of the multi-criteria analysis may differ, so
Jo

their relative importance is defined afterwards, according to the weights assigned to the parameters at the

same level. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) helps to define the relative importance of the

parameters by means of a pair-wise comparison completed with a comparison matrix [93-94]. These

matrix calculations, are based on their specific vectors (eigenvector of weights) and the ratio of

consistency (eigenvalue) [88]. In this research, the evaluation was in the hands of a "panel of experts" that

was composed of specialists (professionals and researchers and some of them trained in MIVES

11
methodology) in the architectural, engineering, and conservation fields. Their working of experience in

the design, execution and maintenance of buildings, conservation and risk management in constructions

works as a forum for debate to identify and to assess requirements, criteria, and indicators.

of
ro
-p
Figure 3. MIVES requirement tree and evaluation of alternatives. Source: Adapted from [84]
re
The requirements tree developed for the risk assessment was defined by three requirements,

sensitiveness and adaptive capacity, which compose the vulnerability index, and exposure. These
lP

requirements were divided into 9 criteria and 19 indicators for evaluation. As previously mentioned, the

vulnerability analysis was presented in [56] and the risk assessment was completed with the evaluation of
na

the exposure requirement. Vulnerability and risk assessment were performed in separate ways, because

vulnerability reflects the intrinsic properties of the building, while exposure is associated with the

probability of the impact of the hazard. In a climate change scenario, a scenario of uncertainty, the
ur

possibility of changing exposure indicators is needed. Moreover, risk assessment can be carried out in

various climate change scenarios over different time scales (from near future to century), while the
Jo

vulnerability assessment is more static and unlikely to change in a near future.

The exposure requirement is related to the building location that might be impacted by an event

and the criterion refers to the building location and its surrounding urban area. Exposure indicators, in the

same way as vulnerability indicators, are evaluated according to the value function method, in order to

calculate the final risk index. The difference is that exposure will affect each building in different ways,

12
so the sample building method is not used, in contrast with the vulnerability assessment. In total, five

indicators related to exposure were calculated by a value function or pair-wise comparison through AHP.

Proximity to coast/river (Figure 4A) indicates the exposure of the building to water penetration.

The value increases with the proximity of the building to a coastline or a river. Buildings situated closer

than 25 meters to the coastline/river were assigned a value of 1 and the value decreased as the distance to

coastline/river increased. The values for each alternative were calculated through the demarcation of a

buffer zone along the coastline/river estuary at varied distances (25, 50, 75, 100, 150 and 200 meters).

The corresponding buffer zone for each building was the intersection between the buffer zone and the

building.

The soil type (Figure 4B) sub-foundation of the building affects the exposure value, as the

of
performance of the building can vary in the presence of water. The maximum value (1) was given to soils

ro
that can generate problems in case of intense rainfall or floods and the minimum value (0) was assigned

to soils that can to some extent retain their stability in the presence of water. The most common

-p
alternatives were considered: rock, sand, clay, backfill, and silts, according to the classification provided

by National geological institutions. The type of soil on which a building is located can be obtained by the
re
intersection of the geological map and the building layer.

The presence of green areas (Figure 4C) is directly related to the capacity to absorb excess
lP

rainwater. The maximum value was assigned to urbanized areas (with no green areas) that prevent the

absorption of water and that increase the ground waterproofing (e.g., asphalt). The indicator was

evaluated by circumscribing a radius of 50 meters around the building and then the percentage of green
na

area within the circle was calculated. Urbanized areas, without green areas, obtained the maximum value

(1), a value that decreased to a minimum (0) with the increase in the percentage of green areas.
ur

Identification of flooding areas was based on flooding maps with a 500-year return period

developed in 2013, according to the procedure established in Directive 2007/60/EC. This binary indicator
Jo

means that if the building is located in a flood zone, the maximum value is assigned.

The storm surge and sea-level rise indicator represents the height of water in the area due to the

aforementioned parameters. Five categories were created to group possible heights (0-2 meters, 2-4

meters, 4-6 meters, and over 6 meters). Final exposure was calculated based on the number of points

included in each category within a 10-meter radius around the building. The overall value of the indicator

13
was calculated by the sum of all points in each category. The highest value (1) went to buildings with the

highest exposure.

Figure 4. Value functions of the exposure indicators

Once the value functions are defined, the next step in the MIVES methodology was the

definition of the weight for each indicator, criterion and requirement, to establish their relative importance

through AHP and to obtain the building risk index.

of
With respect to indicators within the exposure criteria, the "panel of experts" estimated that the

most important indicator was the location of the building in the flooding zone while the least important

ro
was the proximity to the coastline/river since the key aspect is the land height. The existence of green

areas and the soil type are considered to be of equal importance, but of a little less importance than the
-p
location in a flooding area. When the risk provoked by sea-level rise and storm surge was analyzed, the

flooding area indicator was replaced by its corresponding indicator, which took the same weight (see
re
Figure 5left).
lP
na
ur

Figure 5. Pair-wise comparison of exposure indicators (left) and risk requirements (right).

Finally, a weight was assigned to the three requirements that compose the risk requirement.
Jo

According to the Panel of Experts, vulnerability and exposure were of the same importance and, within

vulnerability, sensitiveness and adaptive capacity were also given the same weight, in line with [56] (see

Figure 5right).

Figure 6 represents the tree corresponding to the exposure requirement, summarizing the weight

of each indicator. The “Panel of Experts” made any final adjustments to the values. In the case of the

exposure criteria, as it is a unique parameter, a value of 1 was assigned. The final requirement tree, at its

14
three levels (requirements, criteria and indicators), considering both vulnerability assessment and

exposure, is presented in Appendix A.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

15
 of
ro
Figure 6. Value of the exposure requirement, criterion and indicators
-p
5.2. Final risk index
re
As represented in Figure 3, MIVES provides the final risk index from the sum of all the

multiplications between the indicator value and weight, multiplied by the criteria weight. The sum of all
lP

the criteria is finally multiplied by the requirement weight. The final risk index of each alternative should

be provided by the sum of all sensitiveness and exposure requirement values minus the adaptive capacity
na

requirement value, as the first two aspects are evaluated in a negative way (a higher index refers to a

building that is more vulnerable and more exposed than others) and the latter is calculated in a positive

way (the higher index represents buildings with higher adaptive capacity).
ur

Nevertheless, as the relation between sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and exposure was not linear,

in line with the vulnerability assessment, alternative assessment was employed to calculate the final risk
Jo

index. This alternative assessment followed the approach broadly used in the climate change framework,

based on the work of Kleinfelder [95]. Table 1 provides a vulnerability index according to [56] and then

the resulting value as shown in Table 2, so as to determine five risk levels (R0 is the least risk and R4 the

highest risk) based on the proposal in [96].

16
 Table 1. Levels of sensitivity, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. [56]

SENSITIVITY

S0 S1 S2 S3 S4
S0≤0.10 0.10<S1≤0.40 0.40<S2≤0.60 0.60<S3≤0.90 0.90<S4≤1.00
AC0
V2 V3 V4 V5 V5
AC0≤0.33
CAPACITY
ADAPTIVE

AC1
V1 V1 V2 V3 V4
0.33<AC1≤0.75
AC2
V0 V0 V0 V1 V2
0.75<AC2≤1.00

Table 2. Risk index based on exposure and vulnerability index.

of
VULNERABILITY

V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5

ro
E0
EXPOSURE

R0 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3
E0≤0.40
E1
R1 R2 R2 R3 R3 R4
0.40<E1≤1.00 -p
re
6. The case study of Donostia-San Sebastián
lP

6.1. Implementation of the urban modelling tool and risk-assessment methodology

Donostia-San Sebastián (the provincial capital of Gipuzkoa) is a medium-sized city of around

187,000 inhabitants, situated on the northern coast of Spain, near the French border. The city is aware of
na

climate change risks and is fully involved in the “Covenant of Mayors”.

Donostia-San Sebastián is mainly exposed to sea-level rise and the extreme wave events, which
ur

have already caused significant damage and economic loss to the city. According to the scenarios

developed in 2013, the sea-level rise scenario has worsened since 2007, moving from a range of 18-59 cm
Jo

to 26-82 cm. Additionally, the results of the risk assessment along the coastline of Gipuzkoa [97] already

indicated, within a moderate scenario, the risk of flooding in urban areas and sea-level and groundwater

rise, among others. If no measures are taken, the risks may even increase.

The risk-assessment methodology was implemented in an area formed by six districts (Alde

Zaharra/Old Quarter, Centre, Gros, Egia, Amara and Loiola) located near the boundaries of the Urumea

river and the coastline, which comprises 2,262 buildings (see Figure 7). Each district has its own

17
particular characteristics, some districts are of an historical nature, others include constructions that are

more modern. Hence, the current study extends and validates previous vulnerability assessments [56] as

well as implementing the risk-assessment methodology in a larger and more representative area of the

city.

The geometry of the city was first defined and then the semantic properties were introduced in

CityGML for the 3D modelling of the city. Since one of the requirements of the tool is to consume few

resources and use available and accessible information, semantic data related to the lot unit were

introduced. As previously explained, public sources usually provide information at lot level, which

includes a single building, but it can contain more than one doorway. The data introduced in the model

are the reference number added to the six parameters identified in section 4 that will characterize sample

of
buildings. All of them are obtained from the land registry or cadastre, except the level of protection that is

ro
obtained from the City General Urban Plan. The socio-economic status includes the occupational profile

of the lot based on the adaptation of the methodology proposed in [98]. Three ranges were defined: high

-p
category for managing directors; medium category for employees, qualified workers, administrative staff,

traders and army personnel; and, low category for fishermen, farmers and unqualified workers. The data
re
were obtained from statistical databases [99] on census units, and the corresponding percentage of the

unit was calculated and then applied to all buildings within the unit. The final status was achieved from
lP

the weight assigned to each percentage.

A statistical overview at case study level was performed, for the categorization of the building

stock according to these parameters. The threshold of minimum representation for a category was
na

established at 2%.

Although initially the study was planned to cover different building uses, the low statistical
ur

distribution of non-residential activities (the main functions of the buildings according to the cadaster are

cultural centres 5.3%, commerce 6.2%, residential 87.3%, emergency 1.2%) means that only the
Jo

residential buildings of the study area were considered. Additionally, 1950 was identified as the limit on

the year-of-construction for the categories, as it represents a cut-off point between historic and new

buildings and a period when more homogenous construction patterns (e.g., common use of reinforced

concrete) may be observed. The number of dwellings was also discarded, because it is not a

differentiating parameter in the area. In total, 15 categories based on four parameters were established,

which included 1,721 lots and represented 76% of the building stock (see Table 3).

18
 Figure 7 shows the geographical distribution of the categories in the study area. A sample

building was selected for each category, based on the availability of data and the representativeness of its

parameters for the whole category. A data sheet that also included semantic data was prepared (see Figure

8) for each sample building.

of
ro
-p
re
lP

Figure 7. Geographical distribution of the categories within the six districts under study.
na
ur
Jo

Figure 8. Example of data sheet for sample buildings.

19
 Once the sample buildings were established, the vulnerability assessment of the six districts

under study was completed through the calculation of the sensitiveness and adaptive capacity indexes

based on the pre-established ranges. The vulnerability index of sample buildings was then extrapolated to

the whole study area, assigning the same value to all the buildings belonging to the same category.

Consequently, the 1,721 categorized buildings will have an associated vulnerability index. Numerical

results are presented in Appendix B while the graphical representation is shown in Figure 9.

of
ro
-p
re
lP

Figure 9. Graphical representation of the vulnerability of the lots within the six districts under
na

study.

Once the vulnerability index had been calculated, the flood risk index was obtained considering,
ur

on the one hand, risk resulting from flooding events following the increase of extreme precipitation and,

on the other hand, from flooding caused by the raise in sea-level and storm surges. For this purpose,

projections for the 21st century developed in 2013 with high spatial resolution (1 km x 1 km) were used.
Jo

As previously explained, risk analysis needs to consider the exposure of the assets, which

depends on the location of each lot. The necessary data for feeding exposure indicators (proximity to the

coast/river, soil type, existence of green areas, and location in a flooding zone or area subjected to storm

surge) was obtained through maps on GIS that were crosschecked with the building layer, to estimate the

value of the indicator depending on the building location. Figure 10 shows as an example the analysis of

20
the exposure to coast-line/river and to storm surge. The value for each indicator was obtained with the

procedure explained in section 5.1.

of
Figure 10. Buffer area of the coast-line/river (left) and exposure to storm surge (right) for the Donostia-

San Sebastián case study.

ro
The exposure index, in line with the vulnerability index, was evaluated by multiplying the value

of the indicator by its weight and by the weight of the criteria, following the decision tree defined through
-p
the MIVES methodology. As a result, an exposure index based on previously established ranges (Table 2)

was obtained for each building. Appendix C shows an example for the numerical values of the exposure
re
obtained for the sample buildings.

The final risk index was obtained from the ratio of the vulnerability value derived from the
lP

sample building method and the real data on exposure. Figure 11 represents the risk index derived from

extreme precipitations at building level. It is shown that Amara and Loiola are the two districts at highest
na

risk. The risk index related to storm surge and sea level rise (Figure 12) reached its highest value in the

district of Alde Zaharra/Old Quarter, in the buildings closest to both the coastline and the river estuary.
ur
Jo

21
 of
ro
Figure 11. Risk index due to extreme precipitation. -p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 12. Risk index due to storm surge and sea-level rise.

22
6.2. Validation and discussion of the results

The use of CityGML as a data model enables the effective combination of both geometric and

semantic information from different data sources and in 2D/3D formats. In addition, the CityGML data

model was the input for the visualization tool, which facilitated both the categorization and the risk

analysis factors.

The topography and orography of the area are successfully represented through a Digital Terrain

Model (DTM) within CityGML. information used to evaluate the exposure to individual buildings that

together with the vulnerability associated with the categories represent the second risk component. The

CityGML data model also serves as the input for a user-friendly visualization tool; vulnerability, exposure

and risk can be automatically calculated and displayed, enabling the user to navigate inside the city.

of
According to the study, the buildings at highest risk are located near the sea and river

ro
boundaries. Although there are vulnerability, exposure and hazard parameters involved in their risk

assessment, the location is a relevant exposure indicator. From the vulnerability point of view, buildings

-p
at highest risk were all constructed in 1960 or later, all of them with basements and with no damp

coursing. Additionally, even the adaptive capacity of these buildings is high as the economic status of
re
inhabitants mainly ranges from medium to very high. Their privileged location leaves them more exposed

to future climatic challenges related to the increase of extreme precipitation and sea-level rise. Hence,
lP

exposition parameters gain relevance in comparison with vulnerability parameters.

With the aim of validating the results, an area comprised of blocks within the districts of Gross,

Loiola and Alde Zaharra/Old Quarter was analyzed in depth. In total, 100 buildings were inspected onsite
na

to fill in the semantic information of the tool and compare the results obtained from onsite inspections

(real data) with the results of the methodology based on building categories.
ur

From among the 100 buildings that were analyzed, only 9 of them (9%) presented a vulnerability

index different from the index obtained by onsite inspections (see Appendix D). Whenever a variation
Jo

was detected in the vulnerability index, an obvious variation in the risk index was also detected. There are

two main reasons for these differences. On the one hand, the variation in most cases had its origin in the

adaptation capacity index, as public data may not have been updated with recent interventions that impact

on the adaptation capacity. On the other hand, the categorization process loses representativeness for

buildings in highly heterogeneous areas, such as the Loiola district (6 of the 9 buildings have different

23
vulnerability values) that is composed mainly of single-family units with particular constructive

characteristics.

In the opinion of the technicians, the categorization process properly identified the most

vulnerable and at-risk buildings and areas, as was later verified in onsite works. The balance between

results accuracy and resource commitments was also satisfactory and affordable for any institutions that

needs to make decisions at city scale. This fact, together with the sample building approach, makes the

replication of the methodology in different cities feasible and ensures the consideration of their singular

characteristics during the evaluation.

Moreover, an understanding of the impacts on the buildings under study provided a more

realistic approximation to the real situation, in-depth prioritization, and better management of available

of
resources. Additionally, the sample building approach makes it possible to define an appropriate strategy

ro
adapted to the real situation of the most vulnerable and critical assets, in which adaptation measures

should be initiated.

-p
Finally, the fact that the exposure index was calculated on the basis of real locations and

scenarios reflects the utility of the tool at simulating different scenarios by varying time-scales and
re
impacts in real- time, shedding light on the current situation and continuously updating it, minimizing

necessary efforts.
lP

7. Conclusions

Climate change and associated hazards are impacting on cities, and their frequency and intense
na

will increase in the coming years. Cities located in coastal areas will be exposed to extreme precipitation

and consequent flood events, sea-level rise and storms will represent challenges requiring the
ur

implementation of sustainable adaptive measures for cities of greater resilience. Urban planners need

effective risk assessment tools for supporting their decision-making based on a multi-stakeholder and
Jo

multi-scale analysis that will include all the particularities of a building, including the specific parameters

of each district, as historic cities, all too often omitted.

The current research work presents a holistic risk assessment tool for cities to support decision-

making in case of extreme precipitation and storm surge and sea-level rise. The methodology strikes an

reasonable balance between the required input data and the accuracy of the results through the

implementation of MIVES methodology and the CityGML open urban-data modelling tool, which

24
provide a systemic, organized, and objective means of data analysis, supported by a graphical 3D

representation to facilitate results interpretation and subsequent evidence-based decision-making. If

different scenarios are to be analyzed, the methodology can also provide an iterative process, and the

consideration of all the particularities of the building stock at city-scale is ensured by the sample building

strategy.

The proposed risk-assessment methodology includes the parameters commonly used in a

climate-change context such as vulnerability and exposure, which have been evaluated according to a

comprehensive set of indicators, criteria, and requirements, in order to generate a vulnerability and risk

index. An understanding of the risk of buildings to the hazard impacts has provided a realistic

approximation of the real situation of the city, exhaustive prioritization, and better resource management.

of
By means of the building approach, an acceptable strategy adapted to the real situation of the most at-risk

ro
areas can be obtained. Harmony between resource commitments and the results accuracy should be

always pursued.

-p
The methodology has been validated within six districts of Donostia-San Sebastián that included

2,262 buildings. The categorization of the buildings, according to most relevant public data available,
re
yielded 15 categories and the consequent sample buildings, which represented 76% of the building stock

of the study area. The modelling through sample buildings and MIVES methodology, yielded the
lP

vulnerability and risk value for the six districts. The accuracy of the results obtained through the sample

building strategy was validated by onsite inspections performed on 100 buildings from four districts. A

comparison of the results of the categorization method and the real data obtained through inspection
na

showed slight differences of only 9%. The largest variation was noted in the Loiola district, where mainly

single-family houses of diverse properties were analyzed. Therefore, the methodology presented its
ur

highest potential in districts which have been characterized by smooth development over time, such as the

historic ones, providing affordable and feasible solutions for vulnerability and risk assessment in urban
Jo

areas.

In conclusion, the proposed methodology has provided vulnerability and risk assessment through

simple key parameters and can deliver an initial diagnosis for decision-making. If there is an extended

public data set, then the results of an analysis of greater accuracy can be easily used to update the data

model and to store the new information.

25
 Climate change is an urban problem and strategies are designed at city scale. However, adaptive

measures can be implemented at city or building scale. The current multi-scalar approach covers both the

strategic and operational scale, thereby supporting the integration of adaptive measures within disaster

risk management, sustainable development and climatic scenarios.

Declaration of interests
☐ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

of
The authors would like to acknowledge the Municipality of Donostia-San Sebastián that

facilitated the completion of this study and funding from the Basque Government (ADVICE project), the

ro
European Commission (SHELTER project, GA821282) and the University of the Basque Country

UPV/EHU (PPGA19/61 and PPGA20_26) as well as the support of the research group IT1314-19 from
-p
the Basque Government and GIU19/029 of the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU.
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

26
References

[1] IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming

of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the

context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable

development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D.

Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors,

J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, & T.

Waterfield (Eds.)]. In Press.

of
[2] EEA (2017). Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016: an indicator-based report.,

ro
ISBN 978-92-9213-835-6. https://doi.org/10.2800/534806.

[3] Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Franse, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F.,

-p
Riahi, K., & Meinshausen, M. (2016a). Paris Agreement climate proposals need boost to keep

warming well below 2°C. Nature Climate Change, 534, 631–639,

re
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307.

[4] IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. (2014).
lP

Climate change 2014 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Part a: Global and sectoral aspects:

Working group II contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report. (pp. 1–32). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415379.

na

[5] EM-DAT (2020). EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Université

Catholique de Louvain – Brussels – Belgium. Available at: https://public.emdat.be/.

ur

[6] European Commission (2007). Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal of the
Jo

European Union, L288/27, pp.27–34. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060.

[7] European Commission (2019). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the

Council on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods

Directive (2007/60/EC). Second River Basin Management Plans. First Flood Risk management

Plans. Brussels, 26.2.2019. COM(2019) 95 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

27
 content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2019:95:FIN&from=EN

[8] Birkmann, J., Cardona, O.D., Carreño, M.L., Barbat, A.H., Pelling, M., Scheneiderbauer, S.,

Kienberger, S., Keiler, M., Alexander, D., Zeil, P., & Welle, T. (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk

and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Natural Hazards, 67(2), pp.193–211. Available at:

http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-013-0558-5.

[9] UNISDR. (2015). The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030: The challenge for

science. Royal Society Meeting Note, page 9, “Breakout groups-PowerPoint slides” session.

Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/ 2015/300715-meeting-note%20-

sendai-framework.pdf.

[10] Curcic, L., Jasna, S., Prokic, D., & Aleksic, D. (2012). Interaction between tourism and climate

of
change. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 13(2), pp.620–627.

ro
[11] Dietz, T. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302(5652), pp.1907–1912.

Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1091015.

-p
[12] Ostrom, E. (2009). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change - Background paper to

the 2010 World Development Report. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series.
re
Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pap ers.cfm?abstract_id=1494833&.

[13] Corfee-Morlot, J., Cochran, I., Hallegatte, S., & Teasdale, J. (2011). Multilevel risk governance and
lP

urban adaptation policy. Climatic Change, 104(1), pp.169–197. Available at:

http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-010-9980-9.

[14] Blanco-Vogt, A., & Schanze, J. (2014). Assessment of the physical flood susceptibility of buildings
na

on a large scale - Conceptual and methodological frameworks. Natural Hazards and Earth System

Sciences, 14(8), pp.2105–2117.

ur

[15] McCarney, P. et al. (2011). Cities and Climate Change - The challenges for governance. In C.

Rosenzweig et al., (Eds.). Cities and climate change. Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment
Jo

Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge University Press, pp. 249–269.

[16] Kehew, R., Kolisa, M., & Rollo, C. (2013). Formulating and implementing climate change laws and

policies in the Philippines, Mexico (Chiapas), and South Africa: a local government perspective.

Local Environment, 18(6), pp.723–737.

[17] Lowe, A., & Foster, J. (2009). Ask the climate question: adapting to climate change impacts in

urban regions, Available at: http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/

28
 Urban_Climate_Adaptation-FINAL_CCAP 6-9-09.pdf.

[18] Kithiia, J. (2010). Old notion–new relevance: setting the stage for the use of social capital resource

in adapting East African coastal cities to climate change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable

Development, 1(1-2), pp.17–32.

[19] Solecki, W. (2012). Urban environmental challenges and climate change action in New York City.

Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), pp.557–573. Available at:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956247812456472.

[20] Kennedy, C., & Corfee-Morlot, J. (2013). Past performance and future needs for low carbon climate

resilient infrastructure- An investment perspective. Energy Policy, 59, pp.773–783.

[21] UNISDR (2009). 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Risk and poverty in a

of
changing climate: Invest Today for a Safer Tomorrow.

ro
[22] UNISDR (2011). Revealing Risk, Redefining Development. 2011 Global Assessment Report on

Disaster Risk Reduction, pp.i–x. Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/

-p
english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/GAR-2011/GAR2011_Report_Prelims.pdf.

[23] European Commission (2007). LEIPZIG CHARTER on Sustainable European Cities. Europe,
re
(May), pp.1–7. Available at: http://www.eu2007.de/en/News/download_docs/Mai/0524-

AN/075DokumentLeipzigCharta.pdf.
lP

[24] ICOMOS (2016). Cultural Heritage, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the New Urban

Agenda. Available at: http://www.usicomos.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Final-Concept-

Note.pdf
na

[25] Hosagrahar, J., Soule, J., Girard, L. F., & Potts, A. (2016). Cultural Heritage, the UN Sustainable

Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda. In Third United Nations Conference on Housing
ur

and Sustainable Urban Development (HABITAT III).

[26] ICOMOS (2011). The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities,
Jo

Towns and Urban Areas.

[27] D’Ayala, D., Wang, K., Yan, Y., Smith, H., Massam, A., Filipova, V., & Pereira, J. J. (2020). Flood

vulnerability and risk assessment of urban traditional buildings in a heritage district of Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia. Natural hazards and earth system sciences, 20(8), 2221–2241.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-2221-2020

[28] Ferreira, T. M., & Santos, P. P. (2020). An Integrated Approach for Assessing Flood Risk in

29
 Historic City Centres. Water, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061648

[29] Figueiredo, R., Romao, X., & Pauperio, E. (2020). Flood risk assessment of cultural heritage at large

spatial scales: Framework and application to mainland Portugal. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 43,

163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.11.007

[30] Garrote, J., Diez-Herrero, A., Escudero, C., & Garcia, I. (2020). A Framework Proposal for

Regional-Scale Flood-Risk Assessment of Cultural Heritage Sites and Application to the Castile and

Leon Region (Central Spain). Water, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020329

[31] Kittipongvises, S., Phetrak, A., Rattanapun, P., Brundiers, K., Buizer, J. L., & Melnick, R. (2020).

AHP-GIS analysis for flood hazard assessment of the communities nearby the world heritage site on

Ayutthaya Island, Thailand. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 48.

of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101612

ro
[32] Sardella, A., Palazzi, E., von Hardenberg, J., Del Grande, C., De Nuntiis, P. D., Sabbioni, C., &

Bonazza, A. (2020). Risk mapping for the sustainable protection of cultural heritage in extreme

-p
changing environments. Atmosphere, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070700

[33] Miranda, F. N., & Ferreira, T. M. (2019). A simplified approach for flood vulnerability assessment
re
of historic sites. Natural Hazards, 1(96), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-03565-1

[34] Young, A. F., Aparecida, J., & Papini, J. (2020). How can scenarios on flood disaster risk support
lP

urban response? A case study in Campinas Metropolitan Area (S˜ao Paulo, Brazil). Sustainable

Cities and Society, 61, Article 102253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scs.2020.102253.

[35] Wang, P., Qiao, W., Wang, Y., Cao, S., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Urban drought vulnerability
na

assessment – A framework to integrate socio-economic, physical, and policy index in a vulnerability

contribution analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, Article 102004.

ur

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.102004.

[36] UNESCO (2013). The Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable
Jo

Development Policies. Culture: Key to Sustainable Development, (May), pp.1–6. Available at:

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclaration

20130517.pdf.

[37] Bigio, A. G., Ochoa, M. C., & Amirtahmasebi, R. (2014). Climate-resilient, climate-friendly world

heritage cities world bank. Washington, DC. Available at: https://openknowledg

e.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19288.

30
[38] Mendizabal, M., Heidrich, O., Feliu, E., García-Blanco, G. & Mendizabal, A. (2018). Stimulating

urban transition and transformation to achieve sustainable and resilient cities. Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews 94, pp. 410-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.003.

[39] Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Thieken, A. & Schmidtke, R. (2004). Estimation uncertainty of direct

monetary flood damage to buildings. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 4(1), pp.153–163.

Available at: http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/4/153/2004/.

[40] Taboroff, J. (2000). Cultural Heritage and Natural Disasters: for Risk Management Incentives and

Mitigation. In Disaster Risk Management Series No. 2 Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging

Economies. pp. 71–79.

[41] Blanco-Vogt, A. & Schanze, J. (2014). Assessment of the physical flood susceptibility of buildings

of
on a large scale - Conceptual and methodological frameworks. Natural Hazards and Earth System

ro
Sciences, 14(8), pp.2105–2117.

[42] OECD Global Science Forum. (2011). Effective modelling of urban systems to address the

challenges of climate change and sustainability. -p

[43] Khare, A., Beckman, T. & Crouse, N. (2011). Cities addressing climate change: Introducing a
re
tripartite model for sustainable partnership. Sustainable Cities and Society, 1(4), pp.227–235.

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221067071100045X [Accessed

lP

April 19, 2017].

[44] Batty, M. (2009). Urban Modeling. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. pp. 51–58.

Available at: http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/rits/BATTY-Urban-Modelling-2009.pdf. [Accessed April

na

19, 2017]

[45] Assumma, V., Bottero, M., Datola, G., De Angelis, E., & Monaco, R. (2020). Dynamic models for
ur

exploring the resilience in territorial scenarios. Sustainability, 12, 3.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010003
Jo

[46] Sola, A., Corchero, C., Salom, J., & Snmarti, M. (2019). Multi-domain urban-scale energy

modelling tools: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society 54(2020)101872.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101872

[47] Paiho, S., Ketomäki, J., Kannari, L., Häkkinen, T., & Shemeikka, J. (2019). A new procedure for

assessing the energy-efficient refurbishment of buildings on district scale. Sustainable Cities and

Society 46(2019)101454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101454

31
[48] Kreibich, H., Seifert, I., Merz, B., & Thieken, A. H. (2010). Development of FLEMOcs – a new

model for the estimation of flood losses in the commercial sector. Hydrological Sciences Journal,

55(8), pp.1302–1314.

[49] Scawthorn, C., Blais, N., Seligson, H., Tate, E., Mifflin, E., Thomas, W., Murphy, J., & Jones, C.

(2006). HAZUS-MH Flood Loss Estimation Methodology. I: Overview and Flood Hazard

Characterization. Natural Hazards Review, 7(2), pp.60–71. Available at:

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%291527-6988%282006%297%3A2%2860%29.

[Accessed April 19, 2017]

[50] Neubert, M., Naumann, T., Hennersdorf, J. & Nikolowski, J. (2016). The Geographic Information

System-based flood damage simulation model HOWAD. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 9(1),

of
pp.36–49. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jfr3.12109 [Accessed April 19, 2017].

ro
[51] Pasimeni, M. R., Petrosillo, I., Aretano, R., Semeraro, T., De Marco, A., Zaccarelli, N. & Zurlini, G.

(2014). Scales, strategies and actions for effective energy planning: A review. Energy Policy, 65,

pp.165–174. -p
[52] Smith, D. & Crooks, A. (2010). From buildings to cities: techniques for the multi-scale analysis of
re
urban form and function.

[53] Egusquiza, A., Prieto, I., Izkara, J. L., & Béjar, R. (2018). Multi-scale urban data models for early-
lP

stage suitability assessment of energy conservation measures in historic urban areas. Energy and

Buildings, 164(2018), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2017.12.061. ISSN 0378-7788.

[54] Ruth, M. (2010). Economic and Social Benefits of Climate Information: Assessing the Cost of
na

Inaction. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 1, pp.387–394. Available at:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1878029610000277.
ur

[55] Rumson, A. G., Payo, A, & Hallett S. H. (2020). The role of data within coastal resilience

assessments: an East Anglia, UK, case study. Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105004
Jo

[56] Gandini, A., Garmendia, L, Prieto, I., Álvarez, I. & San-José, JT (2020). Sustainable Cities and

Society 63 (2020) 102437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102437

[57] Reinhart, C. F. & Cerezo Davila, C. (2016). Urban building energy modeling - A review of a

nascent field. Building and Environment, 97, pp.196–202.

[58] Köninger, A., & Bartel, S. (1998). 3D-GIS for Urban Purposes. Geoinformatica, 2(1), pp.79–103.

Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1009797106866. [Accessed April 19, 2017]

32
[59] Coors, V., & Flick, S. (1998). Integrating levels of detail in a Web-based 3D-GIS. In Proceedings of

the sixth ACM international symposium on Advances in geographic information systems - GIS ’98.

New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 40–45. Available at:

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=288692.288701. [Accessed April 19, 2017]

[60] Kolbe, T. H. (2009). Representing and Exchanging 3D City Models with CityGML. 3D Geo-

Information Sciences, pp.15–31. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87395-

2_2\nhttp://misc.gis.tu-berlin.de/igg/htdocs/docs/CityGML_Paper_Kolbe_2008.pdf.

[61] Kolbe, T. H. (2009). Representing and exchanging 3D city models with CityGML. 3D Geo-

Information Sciences, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87395-2_2.

[62] Kemec, S., Duzgun, S., Zlatanova, S., Dilmen, D. I., & Yalciner, A. C. (2010). Selecting 3D Urban

of
Visualisation Models for Disaster Management : Fethiye Tsunami Inundation. 3rd International

ro
Conference on Cartography and GIS.

[63] Ren, S., Mao, J. H., Ye, L., & Liu, X. F. (2012). 3D building modeling and indoor fire event

-p
representation in CityGML. Progress in structure (pp. 2631–2636).

[64] Jain, S. K., Singh, R. D., Jain, M. K. & Lohani, A. K. (2005). Delineation of flood-prone areas using
re
remote sensing techniques. Water Resources Management, 19(4), pp.333–347.

[65] Wang, L., & Liu, H. (2006). An efficient method for identifying and filling surface depressions in
lP

digital elevation models for hydrologic analysis and modelling. International Journal of

Geographical Information Science, 20(2), 193–213. https://doi. org/10.1080/13658810500433453.

[66] Schulte, C., & Coors, V., (2008). Development of a CityGML ADE for dynamic 3D flood
na

information. In Joint ISCRAM-CHINA and GI4DM Conference on Information Systems for Crisis

Management. Harbin, China.

ur

[67] Schulte, C., & Coors, V. (2009). Development of a CityGML ADE for Dynamic 3D Flood

Information. University of A pplied Sciences Stuttgart.

Jo

[68] Mioc, D., Anton, F., Nickerson, B., Santos, M., Adda, P., Tienaah, T., Ahmad, A., Mezouaghi, M.,

MacGillivray, E., Morton, A., & Tang, P. (2011). Flood Progression Modelling and Impact

Analysis. In Efficient Decision Support Systems - Practice and Challenges in Multidisciplinary

Domains. InTech. Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/efficient-decision-support-

systems-practice-and-challenges-in-multidisciplinary-domains/flood-progression-modelling-and-

impact-analysis. [Accessed April 19, 2017]

33
[69] Varduhn, V., Ralf-Peter Mundani, & Ernst Rank (2015). Multi-resolution Models: Recent Progress

in Coupling 3D Geometry to Environmental Numerical Simulation. Geotechnical, Geological and

Earthquake Engineering, 16, pp.55–69.

[70] Amirebrahimi, S., Rajabifard, A., Mendis, P., & Duc Ngo, T. (2015). A framework for a microscale

flood damage assessment and visualization for a building using BIM–GIS integration. International

Journal of Digital Earth, 8947(April 2015), pp.1–24. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2015.1034201.

[71] Biljecki, F., Stoter, J., Ledoux, H., Zlatanova, S., & Çöltekin, A. (2015) Applications of 3D City

Models: State of the Art Review. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 4, pp. 2842-2889.

[72] Biljecki, F., Kumar, K., & Nagel, C. (2018). CityGML Application Domain Extension (ADE):

of
overview of developments. Open geospatial data, softw. stand. 3, 13.

ro
[73] Kutzner, T., Chaturvedi, K., & Kolbe, T. H. (2020). CityGML 3.0: New Functions Open Up New

Applications. PFG–Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science, pp.

1-19. -p
[74] Nouvel, R., Schulte, C., Eicker, U., Pietruschka D., & Coors V. (2013). CityGML-based 3D city
re
model for energy diagnostics and urban energy policy support. IBPSA World, vol. 2013, pp. 1–7,.

[75] Prieto, I., Izkara, J. L., & Béjar, R. (2018). A continuous deployment-based approach for the
lP

collaborative creation, maintenance, testing and deployment of CityGML models. International

Journal of Geographical Information Science, 32(2), 282–301. https://doi.

org/10.1080/13658816.2017.1393543.
na

[76] Swan, L. G., & Ugursal, V. I. (2009). Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the residential

sector: A review of modeling techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8),
ur

pp.1819–1835. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364032108001949

[77] Mata, É., (2011). Energy efficiency and carbon dioxide mitigation in building stocks. Development
Jo

of methodology using the Swedish residential stock. Chalmers University of Technology.

[78] Ballarini, I., Paolo Corgnati, S., Corrado, V., & Tal´a, N. (2011). Improving energy modeling of

large building stock through the development of archetype buildings. In Proceedings of Building

Simulation "Driving Better Design Through Simulation (pp. 2874–2881).

[79] Naumann, T., Nikolowski, J., & Golz, S. (2009). Synthetic depth–damage functions – A detailed

tool for analysing flood resilience of building type. In E. Pasche (Ed.), Road map towards a flood

34
 resilient urban environment. Institut für Wasserbau der TU Hamburg.

[80] Apreda, C., D’Ambrosio, V., & Di Martino, F. (2019). A climate vulnerability and impact

assessment model for complex urban systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 11–26.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.016.

[81] Egusquiza, A. (2015). Multiscale information management for historic districts' energy retrofitting.

PhD Thesis Politechnic University of Catalunya.

[82] Miranda, F. N., & Ferreira, T. M. (2019). A simplified approach for flood vulnerability assessment

of historic sites, Natural Hazards. Springer Netherlands, 1(96), pp. 713–730. doi: 10.1007/s11069-

018-03565-1.

[83] San-José Lombera, J. T., & Garrucho Aprea, I. (2010). A system approach to the environmental

of
analysis of industrial buildings. Building and Environment, 45(3), 673–683

ro
[84] Viñolas, B., Cort´es, F., Marques, A., Josa, A., & Aguado, A. (2009). MIVES: modelo integrado de

valor para evaluaciones de sostenibilidad. In C. I. de M. N. en I. (CIMNE) (Ed.), Congress

-p
Internacional de Mesura i Modelitzaci´o de la Sostenibilitat. Barcelona (pp. 1–24). Available at:

http://hdl.handle.net/2117/9704
re
[85] Aguado, A., del Caño, A., de la Cruz, P., Gómez, D., & Josa, A. (2012). Sustainability assessment of

concrete structures within the Spanish structural concrete code. Journal of Construction Engineering
lP

and Management, 138(2), pp.268–276.

[86] Del Caño, A., Gómez, D., & De La Cruz, M. P. (2012). Uncertainty analysis in the sustainable

design of concrete structures: A probabilistic method. Construction and Building Materials, 37,
na

pp.865–873.

[87] Pons, O., & Aguado, A. (2012). Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to
ur

technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Building and Environment, 53, 49–58.

[88] Piñero, I., San-José, J. T., Rodríguez, P., & Losáñez, M. M. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making
Jo

for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites. Application in the historic center of La Habana.

Journal of Cultural Heritage, 26, pp144-152.

[89] Oses, U., E. Rojí, E., Cuadrado, J., & Larrauri, M. (2017). Multiple criteria decision-making tool for

local government to evaluate the global and local sustainability of transportation systems in urban

areas: a case study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(1): nr. 04017019.

[90] Zubizarreta, M., Cuadrado, J., Orbe, A., & García, H. (2019). Modeling the environmental

35
 sustainability of timber structures: A case study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,

78(2019) 106286.

[91] Pons, O., & Abt, T. (2020). Evaluation of household waste materials for façade components in

primary educational workshops. Mechanical and fire properties. Journal of Building Engineering,

29. nr. 101202.

[92] Alarcon, B., Aguado, A., Manga R., & Josa A. (2011). A value function for assessing

sustainability: Application to industrial buildings. Sustainability, 3(1), pp.3

[93] Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Education, pp.1–11. Available at:

http://www.mendeley.com/research/the-analytic-hierarchy-process/. [Accessed April 19, 2017]

of
[94] Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of

Services Sciences, 1(1), p.83.

ro
[95] City of Cambridge. (2015). Cambridge climate change vulnerability assessment. Available at:

https://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/Cambridge_Novembe r2015_FINAL-web.pdf.

[Accessed April 19, 2017] -p

[96] Kleinfelder. (2015). Ranking reports critical infrastructure and community resources. Available at:
re
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Climate/climatechange resilianceandadaptation.aspx.

[Accessed April 19, 2017]

lP

[97] Liria, P., Chust, G., Epelde, I., & Caballero, A. (2011). Extreme Wave Flood-Risk Mapping Within

the Basque Coast. Proceedings of ICS2011, (64), pp.225–229.

[98] Reques, P. (2006). Geodemografía : fundamentos conceptuales y metodológicos, Servicio de

na

Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cantabria.

[99] http://www.eustat.eus/estad/gis_c.html#axzz4ggCs6Ur7
ur
Jo

36
 Table 3: Selected categories for the case study of Donostia-San Sebastián. Number of lots and

representative percentage of the building stock appear in the hexagon.

EXISTENCE
LEVEL OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSTRUCTION
OF CATEGORY
PROTECTION STATUS YEAR
BASEMENT

<1950 56
CATEGORY 1
2.5%
Low 188
8.3%
132

of
>1950 CATEGORY 2
5.8%

ro
<1950 123
CATEGORY 3
5.4%
With Medium 246
basement 10.9%

752
33.2%
-p >1950 CATEGORY 4 123
5.4%
re
66
<1950 CATEGORY 5 2.9%
High 205
9.1%
lP

139
None >1950 CATEGORY 6
6.1%
1057
46.7%
113 93
na

Very high >1950 CATEGORY 7

5.0% 4.1%

<1950 CATEGORY 8 68
ur

Without Low 186 3.0%

basement 8.2%
>1950 CATEGORY 9 118
Jo

305 5.2%
13.5%
81 67
Medium <1950 CATEGORY 10
3.6% 3.0%

Medium 124 <1950 CATEGORY 11 120

5.5% 5.3%

37
 With High 312 <1950 302
CATEGORY 12
Grade IV basement 13.8% 13.4%

726
32.1% 671 235 <1950 215
Very high CATEGORY 13
29.7% 10.4% 9.5%

55 50
Grade III With High >1950 CATEGORY 14
2.4% 2.2%
basement
151
6.7% 136 54 49
6.0% Very high >1950 CATEGORY 15
2.4% 2.2%

1721

of
TOTAL
76.1%

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

38
 APPENDIX A. Value of requirements, criteria and indicators of the vulnerability decision tree.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

39
APPENDIX B: Vulnerability value for each sample building

C REF. CY SC WD GFT EB OGF RF FM U SM SI EAS DSC PI SES CV AI VI

1 8396354 1933 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.00 0.38 0.69 1.00 0.64 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.22 V5
2 8396357 1963 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.82 0.70 0.00 0.78 1.00 0.54 0.00 0.32 V3
3 8297106 1900 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.69 1.00 0.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.00 0.35 V3
4 8397100 1979 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.69 0.82 0.75 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.21 V5
5 8297107 1900 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 1.00 0.73 0.00 0.29 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.29 V5
6 8297117 1970 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.82 0.67 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.24 V5
7 8296741 1962 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.82 0.72 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.22 V5
8 8396375 1930 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.38 0.69 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.78 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.35 V2
9 8396351 1985 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.38 0.69 0.82 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.22 V4
10 8397051 1936 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.69 0.82 0.65 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.00 0.35 V3
11 8297113 1900 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.00 0.38 0.69 1.00 0.67 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.27 0.46 V3
12 8297590 1912 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.82 0.82 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.62 0.27 0.60 V3
13 8296379 1905 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.79 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.27 0.48 V3
14 8297194 1900 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.79 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.61 0.61 V3
15 8296496 1903 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.79 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.64 0.61 0.47 V3

of
C: Category; REF: Reference; CY: Construction Year; SC: State Of Conservation; WD: Existence Of Water Damage; GFT: Ground
Floor Typology; EB: Existence Of Basement; OGF: Openings in The Ground Floor; RF: Roof Type; FM: Façade Material; U: Use; SM:
Structural Material; SI: Sensitiveness Index; EAS: Existence of Adaptive Systems; DSC: Drainage System Condition; PI: Previous
Intervention; SES: Socio-Economic Status; CV: Cultural Value; ACI: Adaptive Capacity Index; VI Vulnerability Index

ro
APPENDIX C: Exposure index to precipitation and storm surge and sea level rise for the sample
buildings.

C
1
REF. CY PC/R ST
8396354 1933 0.00 1.00
GA
0.55
P
1.00
SS/SL
0.00
-p
EI (P)
0.79 E1
EI (SS/SL)
0.39 E0
re
2 8396357 1963 0.00 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.30 E0 0.30 E0
3 8297106 1900 0.00 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.30 E0 0.30 E0
4 8397100 1979 0.29 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.33 E0 0.33 E0
lP

5 8297107 1900 0.00 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 E0 0.35 E0

6 8297117 1970 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 E1 0.60 E1
7 8296741 1962 0.00 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.30 E0 0.30 E0
8 8396375 1930 0.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.00 0.72 E1 0.32 E0
9 8396351 1985 0.00 1.00 0.79 1.00 0.00 0.85 E1 0.45 E1
na

10 8397051 1936 0.00 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.30 E0 0.30 E0

11 8297113 1900 0.00 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 E0 0.35 E0
12 8297590 1912 0.29 1.00 0.79 0.00 0.50 0.48 E1 0.68 E1
13 8296379 1905 0.00 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.30 E0 0.30 E0
ur

14 8297194 1900 0.74 1.00 0.79 0.00 0.50 0.52 E1 0.72 E1

15 8296496 1903 0.00 0.40 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.30 E0 0.30 E0
C: Category; REF: Reference; CY: Construction Year; PC/R: Proximity to Coast/River; ST: Soil Type;
Jo

GA: Green Area; SS/SL: Storm Surge/Sea Level Rise; EI(P): Exposure Index for Precipitation:
EI(SS/SL): Exposure Index for Storm Surge and Sea Level Rise

APPENDIX D. Comparison of the sensitiveness, adaptive capacity, vulnerability and risk levels to
extreme precipitation and storm surge and sea level rise given by real data obtained through onsite
inspections (INSP) and the categorization method (CAT).
RISK STORM
SENSITIVE ADAPTIVE VULNER-
RISK SURGE/SEA
CAT REF. NESS CAPACITY ABILITY
PRECIPITATION LEVEL RISE
INSP CAT INSP CAT INSP CAT INSP CAT INSP CAT

40
12 8297159 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297001 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297002 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297003 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297004 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297005 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297006 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297007 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297008 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297009 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297010 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297011 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3

of
12 8297013 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297014 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297015 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2

ro
12 8297017 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297018 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12
6
8297020 S3
8297021 S3
S3
S3
A1
A1
A1
A0
V3
V3
-p
V3
V5
R3
R2
R3
R3
R3
R2
R3
R3
12 8297024 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
re
12 8297032 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297034 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
lP

12 8297035 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297044 S3 S3 A0 A1 V5 V3 R3 R2 R3 R2
12 8297045 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297046 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
na

12 8297047 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297082 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
6 8297117 S3 S3 A0 A0 V5 V5 R4 R4 R4 R4
ur

14 8297166 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8297168 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8297169 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
Jo

14 8297171 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
5 8297172 S3 S3 A0 A0 V5 V5 R4 R4 R4 R4
12 8297173 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297174 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297175 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297176 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297177 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2

41
12 8297178 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297186 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8297193 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8297194 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
14 8297195 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8297197 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297199 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
12 8297201 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8297202 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8297204 S2 S3 A1 A1 V2 V3 R1 R2 R1 R2
6 8297205 S3 S3 A0 A0 V5 V5 R4 R4 R4 R4
12 8297212 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3

of
12 8297575 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297579 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297584 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2

ro
12 8297585 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8297586 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12
12
8297587 S3
8297588 S3
S3
S3
A1
A1
A1
A1
V3
V3
-p
V3
V3
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
12 8297590 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R3 R3 R3 R3
re
12 8297603 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
1 8396057 S2 S3 A0 A0 V4 V5 R3 R4 R3 R4
lP

1 8396057 S3 S3 A1 A0 V3 V5 R3 R4 R3 R4
9 8396351 S2 S2 A0 A0 V4 V4 R3 R3 R3 R3
8 8396352 S2 S2 A1 A1 V2 V2 R2 R2 R2 R2
8 8396353 S2 S2 A1 A1 V2 V2 R2 R2 R2 R2
na

1 8396354 S3 S3 A0 A0 V5 V5 R4 R4 R3 R3
1 8396355 S3 S3 A0 A0 V5 V5 R4 R4 R4 R4
8 8396367 S2 S2 A1 A1 V2 V2 R2 R2 R2 R2
ur

1 8396369 S2 S3 A1 A0 V2 V5 R2 R4 R2 R4
1 8396370 S2 S3 A1 A0 V2 V5 R2 R4 R2 R4
1 8396371 S3 S3 A0 A0 V5 V5 R4 R4 R4 R4
Jo

3 8396372 S2 S2 A0 A1 V2 V2 R3 R2 R3 R2
3 8396373 S2 S2 A1 A1 V2 V2 R2 R2 R2 R2
3 8396374 S2 S2 A0 A1 V4 V2 R3 R2 R3 R2
3 8396375 S2 S2 A1 A1 V2 V2 R2 R2 R1 R1
3 8396376 S2 S2 A1 A1 V2 V2 R2 R2 R2 R2
1 8396419 S3 S3 A0 A0 V5 V5 R4 R4 R4 R4
12 8397200 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2

42
12 8397242 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397337 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397338 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397339 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397340 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397341 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8397365 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397366 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397367 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8397369 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
14 8397377 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397380 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2

of
12 8397383 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397384 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397389 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2

ro
12 8397390 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397716 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12
12
8397717 S3
8397718 S3
S3
S3
A1
A1
A1
A1
V3
V3
-p
V3
V3
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
12 8397719 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
re
12 8397720 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
12 8397728 S3 S3 A1 A1 V3 V3 R2 R2 R2 R2
lP
na
ur
Jo

43