RADIUS

Risk I sessmentTools for Diagnosis of

--

UrbanAreas against Seismic Disasters

1
In*nuhM~k.Na,.dmlDBlr-

I D N D R
1990-2000
U n i t e d N a t i o n s I n i t i a t i v e towards E a r t h q u a k e Safe C i t i e s WbgaCulU.d-
. 1 NOTE

The designations employed the p~exentationof the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area, o r of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Material in this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, but full acknowledgement is requested. A copy of
the publication containg the quotation or reorint should be sent t o the ISDR secretariat at: Palais des Nations,
CH- 121 I Geneva 10, Switzerland.

-- --
--

- jk airk AvsesunamToolsfor Dbgnosk d Wban Areas against Seismic Disasters

I
 Preface
Urban seismic risk is rapidly increasing, particularly in developing countries, where a number of mega-cities are
growing.Almost half of the world population lives in cities, where all kinds of human activities are concentrated.
Thus, cities are more and more vulnerable to disasters, particularly to earthquakes, which can strike any city
1
suddenly without warning. Once an earthquake takes place in a large city,the damage can be tremendous both in
human and economic terms. Even an intermediate earthquake can cause destructive damage to a city as in the cases
of the 1995 earthquake in Kobe.Japanand the 1999 earthquake in Kocaeli,Turkey.

There is a tendency to think that disaster prevention would cost much more than relief activities. However, the
reality is the reverse. Our society has been spending a lot of resources for response activities after disasters; these
resources could have been drastically reduced if some had been spent for disaster prevention.There is also a
tendency to look at disasters mainly from a humanitarian angle, bringing us into the position of giving priority to the
response to disasters. However, relief activities can never save human lives that have already been lost. Response
activities can never help immediately resume functions of an urban infrastructure that have already been destroyed.
The bottom line is that buildings should not kill people by collapsing and infrastructure should not halt social and
economic activities of the city for a long time.

It is essential particularlyfor seismic risk reduction to concentrate our efforts on prevention and preparedness.The
secretariat of the lnternational Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR 1990-2000), United Nations,
Geneva, therefore, launched the RADIUS (Risk AssessmentTools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas against Seismic
Disasters) initiative in 1996, with financial assistance from the Government of Japan.Itaimed to promote worldwide
activities for reduction of seismic disasters in urban areas, particularly in developing countries.

Nine case-study cities were selected, namely, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Antofagasta (Chile), Bandung (Indonesia),
Guayaquil (Ecuador), lzmir (Turkey), Skopje (The formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia),Tashkent (Uzbekistan),
Tijuana (Mexico),and Zigong (China) from 58 applicant cities.The case studies were carried out for 18-months to
develop earthquake damage scenarios and action plans to reduce seismic risk, and involved decision makers, local
scientists, local government officers, representatives of the communities, and mass media.Three assigned
international institutes, namely, GeoHazards lnternational (GHI, USA), lnternational Center for Disaster-Mitigation
Engineering (INCEDE)/OYO Group Oapan),and Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres (BRGM, France),
provided the case-study cities with technical guidance through intensive communication. Regional advisers also
provided them with technical advice.

Based on the experiences of the nine case studies, practical tools for earthquake damage estimation and
implementation of similar projects were developed so that any earthquake-prone cities might start similar efforts
as the first step of seismic risk managementA comparative study to understand urban seismic risk in the world was
also conducted. More than 70 cities participated in the study to exchange informati0n.A~associate ciries, more than
30 cities participated in RADIUS to provide other cities with their valuable experience.The RADIUS home page
was created to present all the information developed through the project. Indeed, exchange and dissemination of
informationwas one of the most important aspects of RADIUS.as its major objective is to raise public awareness.

I,as the RADIUS manager, thank all the experts involved in RADIUS. I highly appreciate the enormous efforts
made in the 9 case-study cities,where local scientists and government officers collaboratedvery closely. Ithank the
regional advisers who actively and kindly participated in various meetings and workshops on a voluntary basis. Ialso
thank the three international institutes for their dedication in directing the case-study cities. CHI and OYO
Corporation dedicated themselves to conduct the comparative study and develop the practicaltools, respectively.
GHI kindly offered their precious experience that was fully applied to RADIUS, playing the leading role in the
initiative. My special thanks go to Dr. CarlosVillacis, GHI, without whom RADIUS would not have been completed
successfully. Last but not least, many thanks also go to Ms. EtsukoTsunozaki, IDNDR secretariat,who assisted us in
solving many administrative problems through the course of the initiative.Without her patient work, RADIUS
would have staggered on many occasions.

It is my sincere hope that as many cities as possible will apply the developed practical tools for the initiation of their
seismic risk management so that action towards earthquake-safecities will be taken.

Kenji Okazaki
RADIUS Manager, IDNDR secretariat
OCHA, United Nations, Geneva
 hit3IU2AK;I
j IDNDR secretariat Chapter l

CaulosVILLBCIS and Cynthia CXUXMA GHI. United States Chmter 2

OYO, Japan Chapter 3

BRGM. France Chapter 4

CarloaVILLQlrCtSand C M i CARDOF4A GHI, United States Chapter 5

Chapter 6

, C p h h ;[:Ad3DW& R a M MWmW &dC c w b m GHI, United States Chapter 7 .

i

Tobin &Associates. United States Chmter 8'

essmentTmls for ban Areas against nic Disasters

CONTENTS

Preface

. .
Chapter I Outline of the RADIUS Initiative :~ji?+i~ir!+~3fsr:,,q:ilhr~;i'iPP+-i-i
.
I
.F.....................~........... 1
.?
.

. : .'t.

Chapter 2 Case Studies in LatinAmerica .........................................................................II

(Antofagasta, Guayaquil, Tijuana)

Chapter 3 Case Studies in Asia .......................................................................................... 7

(Bandung, Tashkent, Zigong)

Chapter 4 Case Studies inAfrica, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.............2 1
(Addis Ababa, lzmir and Skopje)

Chapter 5 Guidelines for RADIUS-Type Risk Management Projects..................27

Chapter 6 ATool for Earthquake Damage Estimation ...............................................

3I
3
-
;. ',.-->,,-
I
L~-
,,-
. -
1 .. -
,- -r r . - '

Chapter 7 ~ n d e ~ n
. .
7
..

dUrban
3 , ., \ -. 7 -.
L

'
r .

?
m:,r :-
r

i n ~Selsrn~c isk around BeVP6ild:.......................33

I-
-
-.'*.
-
*
L:

- .
- 1'.

A comparative study of the RADIUS initiative

Chapter 8 37
Evaluation of the RADIUS Case-Studies Projects ..................................
 RADIUS
United Nations Initiative
towards Earthquake Safe Cities

Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of

Urban Areas against Seismic Disasters

vi Risk &sasmmtToals for DPagnosis d U k m -I @st Sdanit 0

-
Chapter I

Outline of the RADIUS Initiative

Kenji Okazaki, RADIUS Manager, IDNDR secretariat, OCHA, United Nations. Geneva

J , 8

PC,*

I. Objective and Scheme

The United Nations General Assembly designated the
1990s as the "lnternational Decade for Natural Disaster
The results will also be useful t o communities, NGOS,
and citizens:
4 To understand the vulnerability of the area
where they live;
I
Reduction (IDNDR)" t o reduce loss of life, property 4 To understand how to behave in case of an
damage, and social and economic disruption caused by earthquake; and
natural disasters.The IDNDR secretariat launched the 4 To participate in preparing plans for disaster
R A D I U S (Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of prevention.
Urban Areas against Seismic Disasters) initiative in
1996, with financial and technical assistance from the
Government of japan. It aimed t o promote worldwide The results will be useful to semi-public companies that
activities for the reduction of urban seismic risk,which is maintain urban infrastructure t o understand the
growing rapidly, particularly in developing countries.The necessity of prevention and preparedness.The results
primary goal of the initiative i s t o help people will also be useful t o business leaders, building owners,
understand their seismic risk and raise public awareness developers, real estate agents. and insurancelreinsurance
companies so that they may minimize the damage on
as the first step towards seismic risk reduction.
their human resources as well as properties for their
I
business.
The direct objectives of RADIUS were:

A) To develop earthquake damage scenarios and

action plans in nine case-study cities selected Time table
worldwide;
B) To develop practical tools for seismic risk Year 1996
management, which could be applied t o any 4 Planning of the initiative
earthquake-prone city in the world;
C) To conduct a comparative study t o understand Year 1997
urban seismic risk around the world; and 4 Invitationfor the case-study cities
D) To promote information exchange for seismic 4 Pre-selection of the 20 cities
risk mitigation at city level.
4 Establishment of the STC subcommittee for

RADIUS
4 Selection of the three international institutes
The results of applying the tools will be useful t o
decision makers and government officials who are
Year 1998
responsible for disaster prevention and disaster:
4 Selection of the nine case-study cities
4 To decide priorities for urban planning, land- Uanuav)
use planning,and building regulations; 4 Implementation of the case studies (1.5 years
4 To prepare an improvement plan for existing from February)
urban structures such as reinforcement 4 Kick-off meetings and earthquake damage
(retrofitting) of vulnerable buildings and scenario workshops
infrastructure, securing of open spaces and 4 Training seminars in Japan (MayIJune)
* 12 ' emergency roads;and 4 Comparative study on "understanding urban
4 To prepare for emergency activities such as seismic risk in the world" (I year from April)
life saving, fire fighting, and emergency 4 RADIUS Workshop at the lnternational
transportation. Conference inYerevan,Armenia (September)

Risk AssessmemTaok for Dlagnoris of UrbanAreas against Seismic i%as€ws I

 I' .
Year 1999 The case studies aimed:
+ Implementation o f the case studies
(continued) A) To raise the awareness of decision makers
+ Action plan workshops and the public t o seismic risk;
+ Comparative study on "understanding urban B) To transfer appropriate technologies to the
seismic risk in the world" (continued) cities;
+ Developmentof practical tools C) To set up a local infrastructure for a
+ RADIUS Workshop in the I D N D R sustainable plan for earthquake disaster
Programme Forum in Geneva (July)
mitigation;
+ International RADIUS Symposium in Tijuana,
Mexico (October) D) To promote multidisciplinarycollaboration
within the local governments as well as
between government officers and scientists;
Year 2000 E) To promote worldwide interaction with
+ Publications (see below) other earthquake-prone cities.
+ Evaluation of the case studies
In order to develop earthquake damage scenarios, the
physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, human
losses in the city, as well as the effects on urban
Publications functions and activities were first estimated.The
earthquake damage scenario describes the various
-
A) Two brochures outline and outcome of stages of the city's damage during and after a probable
the RADIUS initiative earthquake. Human loss was estimated, based on the
B) Summary of RADIUS with CD-ROM damage of buildings and infrastructure, the efficiency of
relief activities,and outbreaks of fires.
C) Full reports:
Volume I - Project document and the A risk management plan was prepared, based on the
developed tools scenario. It contained the following aspects:
Volume II- Nine case studies
+ Urban development plan to mitigate seismic
disasters;
+ Improvement plan for the existing urban
Case atua~es structures such as reinforcement
(retrofitting) of vulnerable buildings and
infrastructures,securing of open spaces and
I. Objectives emergency roads, and designation of areas
for evacuation;
The direct objectives of the case studies were: + Emergency activities such as life saving, fire
A) To develop an earthquake damage fighting, emergency transportation, and
scenario which describes the assistance to suffering people;
consequence of a possible earthquakes; and + Individual countermeasures for important
facilities; and
B) To prepare a risk management plan and
propose an action plan for earthquake
+ Dissemination of informationto,and tranin
ig
disaster mitigation. of, the public and private sectors.

Risk Ic5815mentTaolsbr D@m& of U h n Areas a@ut SaiSmic

Finally, an "Action Plan" was proposed. It prioritized the Tijuana, Mexico, t o exchange information.
necessary actions so that they could be implemented Some o f t h e cities w e r e also invited t o , ' -
soon after the projeaTherefore, the action plan had to certain regional meetings t o present their
'
be practical. It may be a f i r s t small step f o r each progress of the project
community in the city.The scenario and action plan were
disseminated t o relevant organizations and the public.

2. Assistance to the case-study 3. Selection ofthe case-study cities

cities
In early 1997, the I D N D R secretariat sent invitation ;
+ The lDNDR secretariat provided the grant letters for paITicipati0n in the RADIUS initiative as case-
(US$ 50,000 to a full case study cityand study cities, t o major cities prone t o earthquakes all over . '-
US$20,000 t o an auxiliary case study city); the world. By the end of July 1997, it accepted applications
+ An internationally experienced institute for the case studies frOm 58 cities worldwide,mainly from
supervised and coordinated the case studies countries.
and offered technical assistance.An expert(s)
from the institute visited the case-study city In September 1997, the IDNDR secretariat pre-selected
several times.~he expert(s) alsooffered 20 cities from the 58 cities, based on the objective criteria
technical assistance through electronic and on the information in the application forms, taking ,

. communications;
~~~~~~~l ~d~~~~~~
to participate
visited a city once or mice
in the local RADIUS
into consideration the regional distribution. Experts of the
assigned international institutes, namely,the International
Center for Disaster-Mitigation Engineering (INCEDE,
Japan), t h e Bureau de Recherches Gkologiques e t
workshops, to provide technical advice, and
to raise public awareness; Minieres (BRGM, France), and GeoHazards International
+ Experts of the case-study cities were invited (GHI, United States), visited the 20 candidate cities from
to two kinds of training seminars, which October to December 1997,to collect more information
were held in 1998 in Japan, t o learn basic and assess the feasibility of the case studies.The IDNDR
knowledge for the projea; and secretariat selected 9 cities in January 1998, under
+ The cities were invited to an international
consultation w i t h the STC (Scientific and Technical
Committee for IDNDR) subcommittee for RADIUS.
symposium, which was held i n 1999 i n

List of the cities that applied for RADIUS case studies (58 cities)
+ Asia (27 cities)
Almaty (Kazakhstan),Amman (lordan),Ashgabat (Turkmenistan), Bandung (Indonesia), Baoji (China), Bishkek (Kyrgyztan),
Calcutta (India), Damascus (Syria), Daqing (China), Dushanbe (Tajikistan), Hefei (China), Istanbul (Turkey), lzmir (Turkey),
Kathmandu (Nepal),Mandalay (Myanmar), Metropolitan Manila (Philippines), Mumbai (India).Shiraz (Iran),Tabriz (Iran),Tangshan
(China),Tashkent (Uzbekistan),Tbilisi (Georgia),Tehran (Iran), Urumqi (China),Yangon (Myanmar), Yerevan (Armenia), Zipng
(China)

+ Europe andAfrica ( I2 cities)

Accra (Ghana),AddisAbaba (Ethiopia),Algiers (Algeria), Belgrade (Yugoslavia), Bucharest (Romania), Conakry (Guinea), Dodorna
(Tanzania), Giza (Egypt), Peuopavlovsk-Kamchatsky (Russian Federation).Skopje (The formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia),
Sofia (Bulgaria),Tirana (Albania)

+ LatinAmerica (I9 cities)

Ambaro (Ecuador),Antobgasta (Chile), Cali (Colombia). Cumana (Venezuela), Guayaquil (Ecuador). Kingston uarnaica), La Paz
(Bolivia), Lima (Peru), Manizales (Colombia), Medellin (Colombia), Pasto (Colombia), Pereira (Colombia), Popayan (Colombia),
Quito (Ecuador),San Juan (Argentina),Santiago (Chile),Santo Domingo (Dominican Rep.),Tijuana (Mexico),Toluca (Mexico)
 CitY Addis Ababa Anto fagasta Bandung Guayaquil lzmir Skopje Tashkent Tijuana Zigong

Area 54 km2 90 km2 168 km2 340 km2 90 km2 1,860 km2 326 km2 250 km2 4,373 km2

Population 2.90 0.22 2.06 2.10 3.00 0.55 2.08 1.25 3.13
(in millions)

Population 3.80% 3.W4 3.48% 3.2004 3.00% 8.00% 2.00% 6.02% 0.74%
g
-
Figure I.Basic informutjon on the nine RADIUS cas-strrdy cities.

Casestudy cities institutes was t o supervise and coordinate the case

Full case study (5 cities) studies. In order to guide the case studies technically,they
Addis Ababa (Ethiopia). Guayaquil (Ecuador),Tashkent were requested to visit a case-study city seved times and
(Uzbekistan),Tijuana (Mexico), Zigong (China) to communicate frequently through electronic means.

ForAsia (Bandung,Tashkent, Zigong)

Auxiliary case study (4 cities) OYO Corporation and International Center for
Antofagam (Chile). Bandung (Indonesia), lzmir (Turkey), Disaster-MitigationEngineering (INCEDE), Japan
Skopje (TFYR Macedonia) Fumio Kaneko, Rajib Shaw, Shukyo Segawa, Jichun Sun.
Ken Sudo

For Europe, the Middle East and Africa (Addis

4. STC subcommittee for RADIUS Ababa, lzmir, Skopje)
Bureau de Recherches Gkologiques e t Minieres
A t the ninth Session of the Scientific and Technical (BRGM), France
Committee for lDNDR (STC), which was held in Philippe Masure. Pierre Mouroux, Christophe Martin
Geneva in October 1997, the "Subcommittee for
RADIUS' was newly established. Its role was to review For Latin America (Antofagasta, Guayaquil,
the RADIUS activities and t o provide the IDNDR Tijuana)
secretariat with advice and comments.The members GeoHazards International (GHI), United States
were as follows: CarlosVillacis, Cynfhia Cardona

Dr.Tsuneo Katayama (Chair), Director-

General, National Research Institute for
Earth Science and Disaster Prevention,Japan 6. Launch of the case studies
Mr. Robert Hamilton, Chairman of the STC,
U.S. Geological Survey, United States The local authorities of the case-study cities prepared a
+ Prof. Mustafa Erdik, Kandilli Observatory, cost plan to launch the RADIUS case studies. In most
Bogazici University,Turkey cities, the local governments allocated complementary
local funds for the project.The IDNDR secretariat
concluded the Grant Agreement with the nine cities
5. Selection of the three respectively. It also concluded the GrantAgreement with
international institutes the three international institutes. It was stipulated in the
agreements that the cities and institutes should
complete the project in 18 months, hold RADIUS
The IDNDR secretariat identified three international
workshops, and submit periodical progress reports t o
institutes in three regions, narnely,Asii Europdthe Middle
the IDNDR secretariat.
EastIAfrica, and America.The role of the international

I Risk msessrnentTookfor" nosis " ' ban Areas against Seismic D i m

 Most of the case-study cities established a local steering Regional advisers (In alphabetical order)
committee, which took the responsibility for the
implementation of the case study.The committee Asia
basically had ncro co-chairpersons, one from the city and
the other from the responsible international institute. 4 Dr.Anand S. Arya, Former STC member,
, Each city also established a local advisory committee, Former Professor Emeritus, University of
whose role was to provide the steering committee with R&e, India
1 comments in defining needs and priorities, and to help in * Dr. Jack Rynn, Director, Centre f o r
. raising public awareness.The committee consisted of Earthquake Research Australia (CERA),
representatives from various sectors such as relevant Australia
organizations, semi-public and private sectors, mass + D~TsunehisaTsugawa,Senior Chief Research
media, politicians,and communities. Engineer, KajimaTechnical Research Institute,
Japan
In order t o substantially launch the case studies, a
RADIUS kick-off meeting was held from April to July Eum~e~th
Middle
e East and Africa
1998 in most case-study cities. Its purpose was t o

L
+ Dr. Mohamed Belazougui, Director of CGS,
explain the objectives and methodologies of the project
member of the STC, Algeria
t o relevant experts and organizations as well as
4 Dr.Victor Davidovici, French Bureau de
government officers, raising public awareness.
Contrgle SOCOTEC, France
Some case studies were incorporated in a
LatinAmerica
comprehensive project o r closely collaborated with
another similar project with independent resources. For
example, Zigong City was selected at the same time for
a national project called "Demonstration Study on
Prevention and Reduction of Earthquake Disaster in
4

4
Ms. Shirley Mattingly, Former Chair of the
Emergency Management Committee, City of
Los Angeles, United States
Prof. Carlos E.Ventura, Dept. of Civil
I
Large and Medium Size Cities" by the Chinese
Seismological Bureau. In Bandung, the case study was
Engineering, University of British Columbia, I
Canada
carried out in close cooperation with AUDMP (Asian
Urban Disaster Mitigation Program) of theADPC (Asian I
Disaster Preparedness Center), funded by USAID.
8. Training seminars

A seminar on "Seismology and Earthquake Engineering"

7. Regional advisers was held in support of the RADIUS initiative by the
International Institute for Seismology and Earthquake
Three internationaladvisory commiaees were established Engineering (IISEE), Building Research Institute (BRI).
in May I998 regionally so that they might advise the case- JapaneseMinisvy of Construction,inTurkuba, Japan from
study cities in each region.The role of the committees 1 1 May to 19 June 1998. It was financed by the Japan
was to visit the cities, provide them with technical &ice International Cooperation Agency (JICA).A RADIUS
and t o raise the public awareness there.The regional training seminar for city government officials was held
advisers, together with the assigned international institute, from 22 t o 30June 1998 inTokyo and Fukui,Japan. Itwas
vistted the cities once or twice. During their visits, they co-organized by the United Nations University (UNU),
actively participated in the meetings and workshops t o the United N d o n s Centre for Regional Development
discuss the city's seismic risk with decision makers and (UNCRD),and the IDNDR secmriatThey participated
local experts.The three international institutes in theWorld Urban Earthquake Conference in Fukui City
coordinated the activities of the regional advisers. from 26 to 28 June as part of this seminar.
 All of the participants concluded that the lectures,
information and materials that they received in Japan
were going to help them very much in. their work for
'
the reduction of seismic risk in their cities.What they
found most valuable was the opportunity to establish
relationships with people from other cities in similar
conditions. During the RADIUS seminars most of the
discussions were centered on what the RADIUS cities
were doing, what their problems were, and what they
could and needed to do in the future to reduce the risk

Figure 2: Some of the participants of the Workshop on the Action

9. "Earthquake Damage Plan f i r reducing the seismic risk of Guayaquil
Scenario" workshops

All the case-study cities held Earthquake Damage 10. "Action Plan" workshops
Scenario workshops from October 1998 t o March
1999. the end of the first phase of the case study.The In most of the nine case-study cities, the second
workshops greatly raised public awareness through workshop, the "Action Plan" workshop, was held from
various coverage by mass media, such as newspapers, April t o July 1999.The objectives of the workshops.
radio a n d m The common objectives of the workshops were t o develop a Risk Management Plan, based on the
were to: evaluation of the earthquake damage scenarios and
propose an Action Plan for immediate actions. Active
4 Present the damage estimates to the city and discussions widely covered by mass media, such as N
ask for feedback from the participants; and newspapers, greatly raised public awareness of
4 Estimate the impact of the estimated damage disaster preparedness.
on the city activities;
4 Produce ideas of actions that could reduce 4 Bandung 14Apri1 1999
the impact of an earthquake on the city;and 4 Zigong 21 May 1999
4 Discuss the conditions needed t o 4 Tashkent 26 May 1999
institutionalize the risk management + Tijuana 27 and 28 May 1999
activities. 4 Antofagasta 9 and I 0 June 1999
4 Guayaquil 30 Juneto 3 July 1999
4 Zigong 14 and 15 October 1998 + Addis Ababa 20 to 22July 1 999
4 Bandung 20 and 2 1 October 1998
4 Tashkent l l t o 1 3 November 1998
4 Antofagasta 1 7 and 1 8 December 1998
4 Tijuana 13 t o 1 5 January 1999
4 Guayaquil 20 to 22 January 1999
4 lzmir 18 and 19 February 1999
4 AddisAbaba 24 to 26 February 1999
+ Skopje I t o 3 March 1999
(in conjunction with
the Action PlanWorkshop)

6 Risk AssesEmentTooQ for Diagnosis of Urban Amas @os(; Seismic D i m

 Ill. Development application of the programme should be regarded as a
preliminary estimation.The programme requires input
of PracticalTools of a simple data set and provides visual m u l t r with user-
friendly prompts and help functions. Input data are
population, building types, ground types, and lifeline
One of the major objectives of the RADIUS initiative
facilities. Outputs are seismic intensity (MMI), building
was to develop two kinds of practical tools for urban
damage, lifeline damage and casuakies, which are shown
seismic risk management, based on the experience of
with tables and maps. Users can apply a historical
the nine case studies implemented worldwide. One of
earthquake such asTangshan (1 976, China), Kobe (1995,
the tools is a set of Guidelines for Implementation of Japan), Kocaeli ( I 999,Turkey) and Chichi (l999,Taiwan)
Risk Management Projects. It is expected that the as a hypothetical scenario earthquake.The programme is
guidelines will be used: available on CD-ROM and can be downloaded from the
+ To explain the philosophy and methodologies RADIUS home page, along with other outcomes,
adopted by RADIUS; includingguidelines and reportr of the RADIUS project
+ To assist in reading, understanding, and
interpretingthe RADIUS case study reports;
and
+ To provide general guidelines on how IV. Comparative Study on
RADIUS-type Risk Management Projects
can be implemented in other cities. Urban Seismic Risk
In'April 1998, the IDNDR secretariat and GeoHazards
GHI developed the guidelines, based on the experiences International (GHI) launched the Understanding Urban
in Quito (Ecuador), Kathmandu (Nepal), and the nine Seismic RiskAroundtheworld (UUSRAW) p r o j a w i t h
RADIUS case mdies.The emphasis was put on: the participation of more than 70 member cities
A) How to involve decision makers, relevant worldwide,that are seismically active.The study aimed:
organizations/institutions,communities, private
A) To provide a systematic comparative
sectors and scientists in a multidisciplinary way, assessment of the magnitude, causes, and ways
B) How t o practically transfer scientific data t o manage earthquake risk in cities worldwide;
into decision making information; B) To identify cities that are facing similar
C) H o w t o disseminate information and earthquake risk challenges and foster
educate people, particularly through the mass partnerships among them; and
media; C) To provide a forum in which cities could :-I
share their earthquake risk management !
D) How to prepare a risk management plan I
as well as an action plan; and experiences using a consistent, systematic
I
framework for discussion.
E) What to do as the next step.

The Earthquake Disaster Risk Index (EDRI) provided a

A computer programme for simplified Earthquake
framework f o r the UUSRAW project.The EDRI
Damage Estimation was developed by the OYO Group
compared metropolitan areas according t o ' t h e
(OYO Corporation and OYQ International). It is
magnitude and nature of their earthquake disaster risk,
intended that this programme will be used as a practical
which i s analysed using five main factors, namely,
t o o l t o aid users in understanding the seismic
"hazard","wlnerabiliff,i'exposure",%xm-nal context"
vulnerability of their own cities and encourage the s t a r t
and "emergency response and recoveryW.Thestudy
of disaster prevention pmgrammes.The results of the

. , !
I .
-- - L -ic%kL--
aisk AssesmtTocds for Dlagnous f
- -4,
+
,y k . -
a!-x?&
." - -- - .A - --
-
- 1
I
report includes (a) a summary of the assessments of comparative study, and the proceedings of the RADIUS
earthquake risk and risk management in the symposium in Tijuana-The address of the RADIUS
participatingcities; (b) a compilation of the city profiles; home page is: h t t p J M . ~ o h a z . o r ~ r a d i u s
(c) a compilation of specific risk management efforts The IDNDR home page, which was created later, also
undertaken in the participatingcities;and (d) a summary started presenting the result o f RADIUS. It now
of the feedback received from the project participants contains major information on RADIUS.
throughout the course o f the project.The project The adddress is: http:llwww.idndr.org
established a worldwide network o f earthquake
professionals that can support continued work in
comparative urban earthquake risk assessment
RADIUS Symposium
Prior t o the International RADIUS Symposium, there
Information Exchange were two RADIUS workshops and more than ten

1 More than 30 cities. all of which had carried out a

conferences where the RADIUS initiative was
presented.A RADIUS workshop was held from 18 to
seismic risk assessment or were in the process of doing 19 September 1998 during the Second International
so with independent resources, joined RADIUS as Conference on Earthquake, Hazard, and Seismic Risk
"Associate Cities" for information exchange and Reduction in Yerevan, Armenia, held from 1 5 t o 2 1
international cooperation. Most of the associate cities September 1998, to review the progress of the RADIUS
kindly wrote a "city report" and sent it to the IDNDR case studies and t o discuss urban seismic risk reduction
secretariatThe reports are presented on the RADIUS practices.
home page.
The IDNDR Programme Forum was held from 5 to 9
35 Asociate Cities July 1999 in Geneva, as an essential event of the
Algiers (Algeria), Baoji (China), Beijing (China), Bogota concluding phase of IDNDR In the Forum, a thematic
(Colombia), Cairns (Australia),Calcutta (India), Dalian (China), session on 'TOW(I~C/S Earthquake Saf2 CitiesHow to Reduce
Damascus (Syria), Gyumri (Armenia), Hefei (China), Istanbul Earthquake Damages" was held,focusing on RADIUS and
(Turkey), jabalpur (India), Kathmandu (Nepal), Khartoum
similar activities in the world. It was pointed out that
(Sudan), Lima (Peru), Manides (Colombia), Mumbai (India),
RADIUS was one of the most significant and successful
Newcastle (Australia), Pereira (Colombia), Pimpri (India),
Quito (Ecuador), S t George's (Grenada), San Juan(Argentina), projects for IDNDR, establishing excellent integrated
Shim (Iran), Sochi (Russia), Spitak (Armenia), SUM (Fiji),Tailan international cooperation. In the poster session on the
(China),Tangshan (China),Tehran (lran),Tianjin (China),Tuscan same theme, exhibited were many reports, pamphlets,
Region (Italy), Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia), Urumqi (China),Yerevan and posters from the RADIUS case-study cities as well
(Armenia) as the associate cities for the entire week

"IDNDR highlights" was published monthly by the

I D N D R secretariat and sent t o a number o f
governments and experts by e-mail. The progress of
RADIUS was reported in the publication each month.
1 The RADlUS Web rite was created in early 1998, and
the information on the initiative was fully revised and
updated in 1999. This was carried out with the technical
assistance of GHI. Available on the site are full reports
o f the nine case studies, reports from the three
international institutes, city reports from the associate Figure 3: Session on "Towards Earthquake Safe Cities: How to
I cities, the developed practical tools, the result of the Reduce Earthquake Damages" at the Progmmme Forum

8 Risk&ses.unentTools for Dhgnozis of UrbenAreas against Seismic Diasten

An lnternational IDNDR Symposium on "The RADIUS
lnitiative - Towards Earthquake Safe Cities" was held
VII. Cost
from I I to 14 October 1999 in Tijuana, Mexico. It was
the closing event for RADIUS t o present and discuss The total cost o f the RADIUS initiative was
the results of the case studies, developed tools, the approximately US$ 2.5 million, mostly spent from the
comparative study on urban seismic risk,and reports of IDNDR trust fund, which was mainly covered by a
similar efforts. It was co-sponsored by the City of contribution from the Government of Japan.Several
Tijuana, the United Nations Centre for Regional international organizations such as UNU and UNCRD
Development (UNCRD),the United Nations University collaborated in funding and organizingthe seminars and
(UNU), and the IDNDR secretariat, and endorsed by the symposium. One of the training seminars was
the lnternationalAssociation for Earthquake Engineering financed by JICA. From February 1996 to January 1998,
(IAEE), the lnternational Association of Seismology and Kenji Okazaki, the RADIUS manager, was seconded by
Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI), and the World the Japanese Government through JICA. In addition,
Seismic Safety lnitiative (WSSI).The objectives of the almost all of the nine cities allocated some additional
symposium were: local funding,including in-kind contributions to carry out
the case studies.The training seminar for technical
To present achievements of RADIUS, experts was sponsored by JICA. Participation of some
including, among others, results of the nine experts in the RADIUS related meetings was covered
case studies, developed tools,and the results by a United Nations fellowship.Tijuana City allocated
of a comparative study on urban seismic risk local funds to hold the Symposium there in October
worldwide; 1999. It was very generous of the regional advisers to
To discuss and identify the lessons learned have participated in many workshops and meetings on a
throughout the initiative and other similar voluntary basis. Many experts of both member and
efforts; and associate cities also worked on a voluntary basis t o
To propose future activities for earthquake collect data on their city and t o prepare their city
safe cities in the 2 1 st century. rep0rt.A lot of people participated in the RADIUS
symposium at their own expense.

About 300 people participated in the symposium and

discussed how to make cities safer against earthquake
disasters.They enthusiastically participated in discussions
throughout the four days, and learned lessons from the
Evaluation
nine case studies and other similar efforts in the world.
The developed tools for RADIUS-type projects and the Evaluation of the nine case studies was made in a
result of the comparative study on urban seismic risk simplified way at the final stage of RADIUS.This
were introduced and assessed. evaluation was subcontracted t o Tobin & Associa=,
California, United States, which had not previomky bat
involved in RADIUS so that it might fulfill the a s s i v
objectively. A questionnaire was prepared jusr before
the RADIUS symposium, and distributed to the
representat&@ e-f the case-study cities during the
symposium.

The nine case-study cities greatly raised public

awareness as their activities were broadly covered by
the mass media and information was disseminated t o
Figure 4: Opening ceremony of the Internotional IDNDR Symposium communities.They built up close partnerships between
on "The RADIUS Initiative -Towards Earthquake Sofe Cities" scientists and local governments.The outcome of
 RADIUS was presented publicly at a press conference in
November 1999 and is being published in earty 2000. lt
Contact information
is our hope that the developed tools and experiences of
RADIUS will be utilized in as many cities as possible to Kenji Okazaki
initiate similar efforts towards earthquake safe cities. Director for International Codes and Standards
Housing Bureau
Yet, the RADIUS initiative is just the first step on a long Japanese Ministry of Construction
journey. Seismic risk reduction is a long-term 2- 1-3 Kasumigaseki
undertaking. It will take decades t o make cities safe Chiyoda-du,Tokyo
against earthquakes. It is difficult to strengthen existing 1 00-8944 Japan
vulnerable buildings, o r change their location in the Tel: (81 3) 5251 1912
short-term. Even in the nine case-study cities, unless Fax: (8 1 3) 3580 7050
they take immediate actions, the earthquake risk of the E-mail: [email protected]
cities will continue t o grow. However, the RADIUS
approach should help raise public awareness among the
communities. It will eventually help fix land-use planning
priorities, conform building regulations, retrofit existing
structures, and, most importantly, promote preventive
management of earthquake damage.

RADIUS does not draw a closed circle but an open

circle. I sincerely hope that the circle continues t o grow
and helps more cities and people in the world to be safe
from earthquake disasters.

I
Figure 5:Press conference on 26 November 1999 at the United
Nations in Geneva

10 Risk kszcssmencTools for Diagnosis of UrbanAreas against Seism~Disasters

Chapter 2

Case Studies in LatinAmerica

(Antofagasta, Guayaqui1,Tijuana)
CarlosVillacis and Cynthia Cardona, GeoHazards International (GHI), United States

Introduction * Assessment of the city's seismic risk and

i-Twi
:',L-
development of an earthquake scenario
describ'ing the effects of a probable
In 1996, tne dnitf%%a ~'ijfts C earthquake on the city;
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction + Preparation of an action plan based on the
(IDNDR) launched the RADIUS initiative t o assist in results of the risk assessment, describing
reducing the effects of seismic disasters in urban areas, anjvities to reduce the city's seismic risk; and
particularly in developing countries.Working in close * Creation of conditions that will facilitate the
collaboration with local people in nine cities around the institutionalization of risk management
world, the project evaluated the seismic risk of those activities in the city.
cities, prepared risk management plans based on those
evaluations, and most importantly, raised awareness of In order t o produce realistic results and raise the
the local community on seismic risk Significant progress awareness of the communities on the seismic risk, the
was made towards incorporation o f the entire project ensured that representatives of all sectors of the
community in risk management activities. Citizens and society were actively involved throughout the project.
institutions participatedactively throughout the project, Furthermore, the project ensured that the general
and committed efforts were made t o set up conditions public was well informed about the project's
that will allow the establishment of long-term initiatives achievements and activities through coordination with
t o reduce seismic riskThe project made good use of the local media.
existing information and counted on the knowledge,
insight and expertise of local people t o ensure that the The project's main activities were collection of existing
results reflect local conditions. data, estimation of potential damage, and preparation of
an action plan. Because the active participation of the
This r e p o r t describes the implementation and community was crucial t o the project's success, the
achievements of the RADIUS initiative in the Latin programme of activities included repeated meetings in
American cities of Antofagasta (Chile), Guayaquil which key representatives of the community were first
(Ecuador) and Tijuana (Mexico). GeoHazards informed about the project's progress and then were
International, a non-profit organization working t o asked t o comment.
reduce earthquake risk in the world's most vulnerable
communities, was in charge of the implementation of
RADIUS in LatinAmerica.

RADIUS in Latin America

The RADIUS initiative Three cities were selected in Latin America for the
RADIUS initiative:Antofagasta (Chile), Guayaquil
(Ecuador) andTijuana (Me;xico).fl?ese three cities make
The RADIUS case studies were designed with the up an interestingand diverse group. ~ ~ is a ~ ~ p
specific objectjw of initiating long-term risk management relativelysmall of 220,000 inhabitants, whose
processes in the cities where the project was existence is dependent on mining. Antofagasta last
implemented. The case studies had three main tasks: experienced a destructive earthquake (Ms 7.3) in 1995.
 Guayaquil is a large city of 2.1 million inhabitants that
contributes 2 percent of Ecuador's total GNP. It tast
experienced a destructive rsthquake (Ms 7.9) in 1942

Tijuana is a relatively young city, intermediate in she

(I.25 million inhabitants), that has not experienced a
demuaive earthquake since its founding approximately
a century ago.

While there are smml cli&mces among these three

cities, they expsrience similar problems, such as
significant amoonts of tradkional comvuaion, modem
constsuction built without the use or enfammt of
building codes, vulnerable critical facilities (schools, Estimation of potential damage was first carried out as a
hospitals, etc.), lack of earthquake M- within tthe theoretical estimation and then as a non-theoretical
comrnuniyd M e support hlocal gcwrnmrnk estimation.The theoretical estimation was made by
risk m a q p e r p t aerivitb. F i r e 1 shows some bpii combining the seismic intensity distribution, estimated
i n f o M a n for the three cities. for the adopted earthquake, with the inventory of the
city's structures and infrastructure.This was performed
using vulnerability functions developed t o reflect the
seismic behavior of each city's structures.The non-
1
'
theoretical estimation was performed through a series
Risk evaluation of interviews with the officials in charge of the city's
systems and services (figure 2).The information
Damage that could be caused by a probable earthquake collected in these interviews allowed f o r the
was estimated for each of the three cities.The hypo- characteristicsd t h e city's systems to be included in the
I thetical earthquakes, based on studies of the local and damage estimation. Figure 3 shows the estimated
regional seismology, adopted for the analysis were the damage to the roads for Antofagasta.
following
The estimation results for Antofagasta indicate that
4 Antofagasta (Ms 8.0, epicentral distance
6 percent of the residential buildings, where 15,000
60 kilometres) people live, would be destroyed and 37 percent of the
4 Guayaquil (Ms 8.0, epicentral distance buildings, providing housing to 85,000 people, would
200 kilometres) suffer severe damage. As a result, more than 3,000
4 Tijuana (Ms 6.5, epicentral distance
I 0 kilometres)

city Population Annual growth Area (Ian2) Contribution to the country's economy
(in millions)

Antotigsta 0.22 3.0% 90 6.5% of the counvy's GNP and 3 1%of its exports

Guayaquil 2.10 3.2% 340 20% of the country's GNP and 60% of its exports
I Tijuana 1.25 6.02% 250 3.8% of the country's GNP

Figure I.Basic infomotion on the three RADIUS cities in Lotin America.

-
IZ Rtsk &sessrnentTook for CSbgmsh of Urbari A m against Wmic D i m
 us 1 'J "--uwd lrnmtnl
The results of the damage estimation were used t o
ROAD NETWORK DAMAGE
prepare a preliminary ewrhquake scenario. The scenario
ANTOFAI 'A, CHILE
IWS maw,
was presented and discussed by representatives of the
@ a me
IE.-ae,a
various sectors of the community during the scenario
workshops that were held in each city with the following
objectives:

+ Presentation of the results of the seismic

damage estimations to the community, with
I - the request for commanu;
Figure 3. Road damage estimated fbrAntofagasta,Chile. + Estimation of the impact of the estimated
damage on the city
+ Development of ideas for actions to reduce
people would die and almost 7,000 would be injured, the impact of an eerd.rquake on the city's l i i and
requiring hospitalization.An estimated 43,000 people Discussion of the institutionaliition of risk-
would be left homeless by the disastecThe estimations management W i e s in the city.
also show that it would &ke at least 6 months to clear
the debris. The inforrnatjon produced in the wrkshop was used to
' ,
prepare the final version of the earthquake scenario that
In Guayaquil, it was estimated that more than 26,000 was published and distributed to the community. Figure 4
people would die and almost 53,000 would be injured, shows some of the participants of the scenario workshop
requiring hospitalization.It would take about I week to in Guayaquil.
- start providing emergency housing after the disaster,
T
I month to start providing temporary housingand up to
, 2 years to reconstruct or repair the damaged houses.
'
The estimations also show that the city would be Planning
without power for up t o I week and without potable
water for almost 2 weeks. The results of the damage estimation and the ideas for
risk management activities produced during the scenario
The estimation prepared for Tijuana indicated that workshops were used to prepare aaion plans to reduce
I percent of the residential buildings,vhere 25,000 people each city's seismic risk Frequent working meetings were
live,would be destroyed and 35 percent of the residential carried out with city oflcials in charge of implementing
buildings, providing dwellings t o 325,000 people, would risk management activities in order to define objectives,
suffer severe damage. As a result, more than 18,000 tasks, schedules, and budgets of the activities provided
people would die and almost 37,000 would be injured, for the action plan.
requiring hospitalization. An estimated 1 30,009 people
would be left homeless by the disastecThe estimations The proposed activities addressed the three stages of
also showed that it would take about I month for the disasters: (a) pre-disaster, when preparedness and
water supply system to recover 30 percem of its pre- mitigation are imponant; (b) during and immediately
'
earthquake capacity and more than 2 months to recover after the disaster, when the emergency response
completely. capability is depended on; and (c) post-disaster, when
the city's capability t o recover in the shortest possible
 time from the disaster i s extremely important.
A preliminary action plan was prepared for presentation
Conclusions
t o the community during the action plan workshop.
The objectives of this workshop were: The RADIUS initiative has been successfully
implemented in the three Latin American cities of
+ To present to the community the preliminary Antofagasta, Guayaquil, and Tijuana. It may be the first
action plan and receive their comments; important step towards the establishment by the cities
+ To reach a consensus on the activities that of long-term initiatives t o prepare for seismic disasters.
should be incorporated into the plan and set Significant progress has been made t o increase
up priorities;and awareness in the three cities, and actions are already
+ To prepare recommendations on the being taken t o implement the plans prepared by the
institution t o be in charge of implementing project. Follow-up projects have been generated and
the plan and a strategy t o ensure i t s there is consensus on the need t o continue the efforts
implementation. initiated by the project

The results of the workshop were used t o prepare the The RADIUS initiative proved t o be important and
final version of the action plan that was submitted to effective for several reasons.The initiative (a) produced
city authorities. Summaries of the plan were also tangible results such as the earthquake scenarios and
prepared for distribution to the community. action plans for the cities and practical tools based on
the experiences of the case studies (b) the project also
promoted the collaboration of cities worldwide through
interaction and sharing of experiences, identifying
common problems and solutions, and forming
international partnerships;and (c) most importantly the
RADIUS initiative proved t o be very effective in
Institutionalization incorporating the community in the management of
seismic risk It is expected that the work initiated by the
Besides the main activities o f risk assessment RADIUS initiative will be continued by the three cities
(earthquake scenario) and planning (action plan), the and that other cities will benefit from the experiences
RADIUS initiative worked actively t o set up conditions gained during the project.
i ~a rprocess of implementation.The projea

* Involved all sectors o f the community

through the selection of a representative
local advisory committee and the holding of
well-attended workshops;
+ Informed the community about the project
through the local media on the advances and
achievements of the projea (Figure 5 shows
examples of full-page articles on the project
published in A n t o m and Guayaquil); and
+ Sought potential funding from potential
donors such as local industries, the financial I
and insurance sectors, and international aid Figure 4. Some of the participants in the scenario workshop in
organizations. Guayaquil.

14 Rmk A m - far D i i o s i s of U h a s agains - mic C --.Jrs

 Contact information
CarlosVillacis and Cynthia Cardona
GeoHazards International
200Town and CountryVillage
PaloAlto, CA 9430 I,USA
Tel: (1 650) 6 14 9050
Fax: ( 1 650) 614 9051
E-mail: [email protected]
and [email protected]

5:Newspaper ortr'cb about RdDiUS in Antofagusto and

Figure
Guapquil.

I
Risk Assessm+mTods for Magnosis of U r b n W qWSedamk Dtsamm I5
16 RiskAswmentToclr for Diagnaiilof UrtwAreas lgpinsrFeismic [3irPsrao
Chapter 3

Case Studies in Asia

(Bandung,Tashkent, Zigong)
Fumio Kaneko, Rajib Shaw and Jichun Sun, OYO Corporation/lNCEDE,lapan
I
Introduction Urban policy and disaster
Three cities were chosen from Asia out of 27 pre-
management
selected cities for RADIUS case studies, These are
Bandung (Indonesia),Tashkent (Uzbekistan), and Zigong Although all the case-study cities are well equipped with
(China).All three cities are very important in their modern infrastructures, they differ in the level o f
respective countries and regions, although the understanding of disaster issues, which is reflected in
infrastructures and local conditions are quite different their future growth plan. A brief description of each city
from one city t o another. is given below.

Bandung is a tropical resort with a cluster of universities In Bandung, there is a single coordinating office for
and research institutes. It is a rapidly growing city, emergency response, which becomes active during
the largest in the Western Java Province, it has a very disasters, receiving reports and transmitting them t o
high population growth rate and is one o f the most other agencies for emergency response. Disaster
important business and trading center in this region. management is marginal in the urban growth plan.
In contras~Tashkentis the capital of Uzbekistan, and Because annual flooding is the most frequent disaster in
one of the most strategic cities in Central Asia for the city, the focus i s on flood disasters and seismic
education, culture, trading and businessTashkent itself considerations are almost neglected. Bandung, a
contributes more than one-fifth of Uzbekistan's total relatively new city, has n o record o f damaging
GDF? Zigong is a city in southern China, located in the earthquakes since its establishment almost 100 years
Szechwan Province within mountain ranges. The city is a ago. Therefore, the general awareness of citizens and
major industrial center for mechanical and chemical decision makers of seismic risk is very low.
engineering, and salt production. Dinosaur fossils and
an ancient salt producingwell (more than 1,000 metres In contrast,Tashkent has experienced damaging
deep) are major attractions. Figure I summarizes the earthquakes, and seismic risk issues are taken into
demographic features of these three cities. consideration in urban planning. After the 1966
Tashkent earthquake, a special governmental
commission was created comprised of ministries,
scientists and engineers.There is also the Department
for Extraordinary Situations in the Tashkent city
government. Disaster management is carried out in
accordance with a civil defence action plan, including
emergency preparedness. The UzbekistanAcademy of
Sciences coordinates earthquake research through the

City Area (km? Status Population Annual growth GDP contribution

(in millions) (POP*)

BANDUNG I68 Provincial capital 2.06 3.48% 9.13% (regional GDP)

TASHKENT 326 National capital 2.08 2.00% 21.m (national GDP)
ZIGONG 8 17 Industrial city 3.13 0.74% 7.60% (regional GDP)

Figure I . Basic demogmphic data ofthe c a s w c $ cities in Asia.

 Council of Safety and Seismic Resistant Construction.
Tashkent has good planning for the seismic risk
Risk evaluation and
assessment and management The level of public awnmess earthquake scenario
is also quiae high.

In Zigong, the administrative department for earthquake To evaluate the seismic risk of each city a target area
disaster prevention and mitigation is the Zigong and organizations to be studied were designated. Data
Seismological Bureau, established in 1971. The Zigong on past seismicity were collected t o understand the
Seismological Bureau coordinates with the provincial magnitude and recurrence of earthquakes. Based on
seismological bureau (in Szechwan Province) for these data the scenario earthquake was chosen.
seismological work. Seismic countermeasures have To choose the scenario earthquake, special caution was
been included in the Ninth Five-Year Plan for the taken, depending on the future urban planning and
management.The return period o f the scenario
Economy and Social Development of Zigong City and
earthquake was also a strategic decision, which would
the Year 20 10 Development Plan. Programmes about
ultimately lead to modification of existing building laws
seismic safety and countermeasures are presented on
and seismic codes. In all three cases, the scenario
television, quake awareness pictures are shown on
earthquake was decided by the steering committee wh ti
street billboards, and information is disseminated
the agreement of community representatives. In the
through radio and local newspapers. Consequerdy, the
case of Bandung,a probabilistic approach was taken with
people of Zigong have a relatively high level of awareness
a 200-year r e t u r n period w i t h a probability o f
regarding the possibility of earthquake damage.
60 percent In Tashkent, the scenario earthquake was
considered t o be of Richter Scale 6.1 magnitude at a
depth of I 0 km beneath the city. In the case of Zigong,
I two different scenario earthquakes were postulated, one
Case studies of 5.5 and the other of 6.0 magnitude.

The case studies were jointly cooralnatea by OYO Ground classification is the second step in earthquake
Corporation and the International Center for Disaster hazard adysis. Deep geological structures were carefully

I
Mitigation Engineering (INCEDE).At the city level, a studied in and around the city, and geological profiles
steering committee responsible for administrative and were made.An inventory of the buildings, lifelines and
monetary matters was formed of representativesfrom infrastructures was prepared, and vulnerability curves
the city government, local educational institutions, and were decided, modified from ATC and examples of
international advisers. Several working groups were similar earthquake damage. Damages to lifelines were
designated for speciFic tasks with the participation of calculated based on these vulnerability curves. Several
community members. These activities were monitored damage maps are shown in figures 2 t o 4.
by two advisory committees, one at the regional level
consisting of international experts and the other at A parallel process included interviews of several
the local level with the participation of decision makers, stakeholder organizations by the working group
government officials, and academicians. representative, with active participation of the media.
A t first, a detailed questionnaire was prepared and sent
to the organizations for a reply. Based on this, a detailed
interview was held with major decision makers and
technical officers. The interviews covered earthquake
preparedness, emergency drills, earthquake risk
assessment, earthquake recovery, major earthquake
impact, vulnerable points, responsible organizations, and
damage estimation from the scenario earthquake.
 The interview results and damage estimation output
were compiled to prepare the final scenario in simple
terms and written by professioniils.The m m r i o was
described in a time frame of post-earthquake and
recovery over time.This scenario was presented in a
workshop held be~veen October&N&r 1998
in each of the case-study cities. - .
. .

, ,--.-ld- CL '-.,,>,
4 kbi?.rbi!L
1--

w
Earthquake risk
Figure 2. Damage to the rood nerwork in h d u n g n g

The process of action planning began with identification

of problems during preparation of the earthquake
scenario and identificationof the vulnerable elements in
the city.Analyses at different stages are necessary in
order to take into account available resources and the
city's priorities.The overall aim of the risk management
plan is to assist city decision makers on decisions about
present infrastructure, existing elements, and future
development. It aims to help mitigate earthquake risk
through community participation and disaster
education. For this different riori areas were chosen
for each city. -w& -
i- . &XTyq
#'A,& EN$ "^J t.*q,~,.r
g 'r

Emphasis has bee im f ernergenc$

response planning and capability, public awareness of
Figure 3. Damage to residential buildings in Tashkent fiom the earthquake risk issues,seismic performance of buildings
scenario earthquake. and infrastructure (including lifelines, critical buildings,
and school buildings), and safety measures for school
children. To achieve these objectives, several actions
BuildingDarrmgc IltsuMng have been proposed.These actions include long-term
from the MIIJPmmJalEanhruakc actions before an earthquake (prevention and
preparedness), immediate actions after an earthquake
(emergency response and relief), and long-term actions
scale .3f&$GXl
, - , ~ , ', . - -
-k'&@!~&&@,
8 .
w:&!lw
.-
~ ) ~ W & ~ ~ B ~ O $ .
, -
, , ;! . , , *l$rn=.- .hti.'
>,I...# . '.I. 4,: rLTL-.
The current status of the actions and responsibilities
related t o the seismic disaster were first listed and
reviewed. Intensive interviews were carried out with
concerned organizations, and the results were used to
I prepare the draft action plan.This integrated plan was
n then presented in the workshop in April-June 1999,and
the interdependenceof different agencies were studied.
Figure 4. Damage to buildings in Zigong . ~ zcqnacio
fr~m R .
Group disc~ssi~0.n~ were held to reach ~onsensuson tfie
I.
' J
r , ,'. . - ~'7
8 -
earthquake. ' - -

. .. , ' -
- ' 8 1.8
.. . -
-
.
-
-
-
,
8
- . 4-".

I Risk A*raumencT&ls fw Magna~isof UrbanPUCpg *st Seismic Di9scers 1

 proposed plan. Suggestions from these discussions were
-
incorporated into the final version of the plan. Some of
Contact information
the recommendations of the action plans have already
FumiO KanekopRajib Shaw*andJichun Sun
been taken into consideration in the form of new
projects. In Bandung, for example, school buildings are OY0 COrpOratiOnllNCEDE sf- 1
being reinforced and public awareness is being E-mai~:kaneko-fumio@oyon~oyo-co~~p
promoted. [email protected]
[email protected]

Evaluation and conclusion

The current project incorporates a unique methodology
for mitigating seismic risk in a city. The most important
part of this project is the involvement of diverse
organizations and communities in mitigation efforts. It
has been found that several invisible aspects, especially
social and cultural featores,are deeply related to the risk
o f the city and therefore should be taken into
consideration in future disaster management plans. In
each city and country there are several sensitive issues
related to daily activities that are difficult for foreigners
to understand or take into consideration. Involvement
of the communities is a very important point

The present project has made recommendations and

has prepared ground for future studies. However,
sincere and continued efforts are needed to turn those
recommendations into real actions and t o implement
the action plan. Sustainability is an important issue in
disaster management More effort should be made to
ensure that the process is continuous and meaningful.
National and international development agencies should
have a strong commitment t o these issues and
incorporate disaster issues in development planning t o
make it more sustainable. More activities of this type
are needed and should focus on local participation t o
build capacity among the local community while
respecting traditions.

I
10 Risk AssessmencTools for Diagnosis of 1 )Areas against Seismic D~sasters

-
Chapter 4

[q [(I I L?
w
(Addis Ababa, lzmir, Skopje)
Philippe Masure, Pierre Mouroux. Christophe n
M
,itar Bureau de Recherches Gblogiques et Minieres (BRGM), France

Introduction lzmir
The three selected cities for Africa, the Middle East, and lmir is a wealthy Turkish city (third in population and
Eastern Europe are important and fast growing cities second in economic activities) on the wen coast with
with very different development and characteristics. important activities in industry, trade, tourism, health,
education, and culture. Its population is about 3 million
;, &&&&;:,:.; : '. and has an annual growth rate of 3 percent, with
?.
..,<..><. .A?.<..
Addis Ababa , 7T + . $
+ -$;.
. .
=.
' .
p considerable migration from eastern Turkey. It spreads
'I
over 90.000 hectares.The metropolitan municipality
Addis Ababa is the capital of Ethiopia It was founded assembly of lzmir includes nine municipalitiesand deals
1 10 years ago in central EthiopiiThe area of the greater with policies of transportation, city planning, land-use
metropolitan city is about 54,000 hectares, with a and metropolitan planning, road construction, water
population of 2.9 million and an annual growth rate of distribution, and waste water collection.
3.8 percent More than 95 percent of the population live
in single-story residential units with an average of two Throughout its history, the city has experienced several
rooms.The city's development depends largely on strong earthquakes, the latest in 1994. The ancient city,
manufacturing industries, followed by trade and services. Smyrna was destroyed several times. On I 0 July 1688,
The city is located on the western edge of the Ethiopian an earthquake killed 16,000 t o 19.000 people.
rift system.Severa1 earthquakes haw occurred along the rife The earthquakes on 26 June 1880 and 3 1 March 1928
and its vicinity and were felt in the city Notable cases are: caused heavy damage in the city. As a result of the
4 1906 earthquake in Langano (epicenter I February 1974 earthquake, 47 apartment buildings
1 10 km from Addis Ababa) with an intensity were damaged, t w o people died and seven were
of Mercalli scale 8 in the city, at a time when seriously wounded.The magnitude o f the 1992
fewer than 50,000 people were living in earthquake was Richter scale 6.0 with an epicenter of
Addis Ababa; and 50 km; there were about 100 buildings reportedly
damaged.
4 196 1 Kara Kore earthquake (epicenter
150 km from Addis Ababa), with an intensity
of Mercalli scale 7 felt in Addis Ababa, which
caused some damage in the city.

There is a high vulnerability of buildings since more than

80 percent are made with wood, mud, thatch,and reeds
(Chika houses), and do not respect the building codes.
Numerous, masonry, schools, hospitals, and bridges
would not withstand even a medium-level earthquake.
National earthquake resistant regulations exist since
1992, but these regulations are not enforced. Using
the national disaster prevention and preparedness
management plan, theAddisAbaba Foreign Relation and
Development Cooperation Bureau serves as the focal
institution. For coordination and establishment of
contact points in each participating organization, nodal
officers from all relevant government agencies of the
city administration are assigned as Contact persons to
the foca4 institution (FRDCB). Figure I:Hktoricol seismic data fur the lzmir region.
 Turkey is a very centralized country.The governor's
office is responsible f o r disaster management.
The regional directorates of the Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement and the Civil Defense Board
work under the authority of the governocThey are also
the members of the Natural Disaster Coordination
Committee for each city.The mayor of lzmir and the
engineering department, fire department, potable water,
sewage systems, and food stocks of the Metropolitan
municipality are the participants of this committee. Until
the RADIUS project, the seismic risk management
programmes carried out by the governor's ofice and
the civil defense directorate were mainly bureaucratic Figure 2: Seismic exposure of the tmnsportation roses of Skopje. '
activities. Implementation of the RADIUS project has
facilitated cooperation among these central institutions
and the municipal government As was obvious during of the most destructive earthquakes in modern Europe.
the recent management of the lzmir earthquake, The earthquake killed 1,070 people, seriously injured
coordination must be better organized for an efficient 3,300, destroyed I 0 percent of the buildings, and
crisis management in the metropolitan area. 60 percent of the buildings suffered enough damage to
justify reinforcementand repair. Of the total population
Another important factor in earthquake disaster 75 percent were left homeless. Information on that
mitigation and preparedness is enforcement of building earthquake can be found in an appendix to the RADIUS
codes that regulate the earthquake resistant design of project report for Skopje.
bui1dings.A new code entered into force at the
beginning of 1998 (the old code was from 1975). The first building code,Technical Regulations for Design
Construction permits are issued by the municipalities. and Construction of Buildings in Seismic Regions, was
The municipality of lzmir has signed a protocol with the prepared in 1964 and was revised in 198 1. It has been
Chamber of Civil Engineers and the Chamber of expanded with other codes and technical regulationsfor
Architects to monitor engineering and architectural repair, reinforcement, and reconstruction.
design, before the issuing building permits.
After the 1963 earthquake, a seismic microzonation
map of Skopje was prepared as the basis for the post-
Skopje earthquake master plan enforced in 1969. Because of
I the former political system, all relevant activities are
planned and centralized. emergency
Skopje is the capital of the Republic of Macedonia and is
the country's major political, economic, and cultural management and 'Ontingency planning are a legal
center.The greater urban area of 7 municipalities covers required the lawOn protection against
approximately 180,000 hectares with one third of the disasters.
population (550,000 inhabitants) and 45 percent of the
GNP of Macedonia. The annual populationgrowth rate
is about 8 percent.

The city has been affected by several earthquakes since

its creation, the most catastrophic being those of
5 18 AD, 1555, and more recently the Mercalli scale
6.1 earthquake Skopje,on 26 July 1963. considered one
1

i
Implementationof RADIUS Results
The local conditions for the implementation of the
Addis Ababa
RADIUS initiativewere very different for the three cities. Under the direction of the municipal Department for
In Addis Ababa there are few specialists and limited Urban Planning and the Geophysical Institute, five
practice in seismology and earthquake engineering, low working groups were formed:
awareness of earthquake disaster risk at the political
level, and limited financial resources.There is a higher 4 Regional seismic hazard assessment and
level of development, risk awareness, risk mitigation in definition of reference earthquake and
urban activities,and level of scientists in charge of project groundmotion
4 Local seismic hazard assessment: influence
implementation in the other two cities. As a resukAddis
of soils on ground motion,slope instability
Ababa was selected for a full case study, while lzmir and 4 Building damage assessment
Skopje were chosen for auxiliary case studies. 4 Water system damage assessment
4 Roads and bridges damage assessment
Taking into account the absence of previous seismic risk
assessment in Addis Ababa, a full case study was made The risk management plan focused on the following
using basic RADIUS methodology, It was necessary t o eight objectives o f short- and long-term goals t o
be more precise in the scenarios for the two other cities integrate earthquake disaster in Addis Ababa:
selected for auxiliary case studies and to adapt the action
4 lrnprovement of emergency response
plans to local initiatives in preventionand urban planning.
4 Improvement of awareness of issues
The Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres related to earthquake risk
(BRGM) judged that the previous environmental 4 Improvement of the seismic performance
programmes in lzmir (UNEP project) and the revision of of existing buildings
the master plan in Skopje were potential and important 4 Improvement of the seismic performance
opportunities for the integration of a seismic risk of lifelines infrastructure and services
reduction programme into the sustainable development 4 Integration of seismic resistance into
of these cities. For that reason, it was decided to apply land-use
the French GEMITIS methodology for characterization 4 Organization of a system of regulation of
of the urban areas, classification of its main components, construction
4 Increase in knowledge of earthquake
and an assessment of their vulnerability.The basis of this
phenomena, consequences and mitigation
methodology is to consider not only lives and physical techniques
elements at risk but also non-materialand social aspects 4 Assessment of local and international
(economic and functional activities, city government financial resources t o continue
identity, local culture, town planning, and development) the programme
that can be important issues in the event of a seismic
disaster. In this case, risk reduction is integrated into
development planning.

Finally, during implementation of the RADIUS project

local steering committees suffered the indirect effects of
war in Ethiopia and Macedonia, and political changes in
Turkey and Macedonia. Because o f these special
circumstances, there were delays in implementation of
the case studies. In spite of these difficult conditions, the
results have been very positive.

F p r e 3: hrlding damage map ofAddis Ababa.

- --I
 The RADIUS project has already improved awareness T w approQches were used for rhe project implementation:
on earthquake risk and increased expert's knowledge
of earthquake engineering. It is planned to simplify the + Incorporation of the RADIUS initiative into
existing Ethiopian seismic code for use by civil engineers, the city's global seismic disaster reduction
architects and other potential users.The goals of making policy, and
+ Analysis of the long-term city urban and
environmental planning and the integration
Seek more efficient control of design and of seismic risk reduction.
construction;
Prepare guidelines f o r design and Emphasis was placed on cooperation by all institutions
construction o f new houses and the involved to closely link preventive and environmental
strengthening of existing dwellings; planning (Local Agenda 2 1). New links between the
Prioritize buildings for intervention and national institutions (governor's office and civil defence
rescue; directorate) and the municipal government were
+ Improve the seismic performance of lifeline created. In addition, it was possible t o incorporate
infrastructure and services; and several international cooperation programmes in the
+ Adapt emergency response to earthquakes. global perspective of seismic risk reduction in Izmir.
These included German cooperation for relief
Recognizingthe importance of the continuation of the organization and equipment, preparedness,and training
project for Addis Ababa and Ethiopia and the need for for crisis management and UK cooperation for hospital
implementation of the action plan, BRGM decided to and school vulnerability assessment and retrofitting.
request the cooperation of the French minister, t o After the h i r disastecthe new mayor emphasized that:
provide funds for training o f local specialists in
earthquake engineering. 4 Soil questions and seismic microzoningwill
be a priority for land-use planning,
+ Illegal buildings will not be permitted and
construction will be regulated;
lzmir + Public awareness campaigns will be carried
out; and
In the case of Izmir, the municipality had developed + A risk management department will be
contacts before the RADIUS project started with a established.
group of national scientists h m Bogazici Universityand
from IstanbulTechnical University. Their objective was A communicationplan is being developed to raise public
to prepare an earthquake master plan for Izmir, collect awareness through coverage by the media and t o
appropriate data, and for lzmir Universityt o conduct an integrate the media into policy.
initial seismic hazard analysis using basic RADIUS
methodology. Once the contract was signed the national
group began hazard and vulnerability assessment studies
in more detail. A t the same time, the Chambers of Civil Skopje
Engineers and Architects of lmir had another contract
to define the vulnerability of the main infrastructureand Based on decisions of the International Consultative
2 15,000 buildings.These data were to be processed by Board and the governments o f the Republic o f
the end of October 1999. Macedonia and the City o f Skopje, the Institute for
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology at
The municipality of lzmir conducted the RADIUS

I
the St. Cyril and Methodius University (IZIIS) was
studies through its local steering committee, which created in 1965. Its mission is to provide data and design
coordinated the work done by Bogazici University. and planning elemens for long-term reconstruction and
Istanbul Technical University, the Chambers of Civil development of the city and t o incorporate new
Engineers and Architects, and state and municipal techniques in the field of planning and design. In the
institutions.
municipality the department for urbanism is in charge
o f preparedness, emergency management, and
Contact information
contingency planning. Good communication between
P h i l i Masure (mpmemak of BRGM and for hm~r)
these services has insured close collaboration between
BRGM - Direction of the French Geological Survey
the project and political officials.
3 avenue Claude Guillemin, BP 6009
45060 Orlhns Cedex 2. France
It was decided t o concentrate the activities of the
Tel: (33 2) 38 64 35 00
RADIUS project on:
Fax:(33 2) 38 64 33 99
+ Urban development plan for lifeline E-mail: [email protected]
components,health care systems, and schools;
+ Emergencyactivities of transportation. search Pierre Mouroux (for Addis Ababa)
and rescue; BRGM - Department for Geological Hazards
+ Collective measures t o improve the 1 17 avenue de Luminy, BP 167
functioning of the aforementioned systems; 13276 Marseille Cedex 09, France
+ Individual counter measures for vulnerable Tel: (33 4) 91 17 74 67
important facilities; k ( 3 3 4 ) 9 1 177475
+ Improvement of regulation and insurance E-mail: [email protected]
systems: building code, monitoring o f
construction and insurance; and Christophe Martin (for Skopje)
+ Dissemination of the scenario and action plan. GEOTER International
La ferrne de Napollon
The RADIUS study was an opportunity to enforce the 280, avenue des Ternpliers
buildingcode, to strengthen the mechanism for technical 13 400 Aubagne, France
supervision of design and construction, through the Tel: (33 4) 42 84 94 80
physical plan and the master plan for the city of Skopje. h : ( 3 3 4) 42 84 94 80
Links between the government and municipal E-mail: Geoter.lnternational@mnetfr
departments involved in the planningwere considerably
strengthened during the project

In order to improve the present situation, it was decided:

+ To increase national coordination between

sectors;
* To includethe resutts of the Radius project in
the preparation of the master plan and of the
physical plan; and
To institutionalize efforts by improving the
laws and by creating a committee for the
development of a multidisciplinary and multi-
risk management plan.

~osisof Urban Areas against Seismic Disasters 25

Chapter 5

Guidelines for RADIUS-Type

Risk Management Projects
CarlosVillacis and Cynthia Cardona, GeoHazards lnternational (GHI), United States

Background mechanisms to enforce them,and most importantly, lack

of awareness by the community and its leaden.This lack
of awareness has kept communities, institutions and
The RADIUS initiative was launched by the IDNDR citizens from supporting risk management initiatives. In
secretariat t o promote worldwide activities for most cases, the community instead contributes t o an
reduction of seismic disasters in urban areas, particularly increase of risk by making uninformed decisions due to
in developing countries. One of the main objectives of the lack of awareness and information.
the project was to develop practical tools for urban risk
management One of these tools is a set of guidelines Most of the existing risk management techniques and
for the implementation of risk management projects methodologies have been developed in industrialized
that describe the methodology employed by the countries and cannot be directly transferred t o devel-
RADIUS initiative.The guidelines include lessons learned oping countries.There must be an adaptation of these
during the implementationof case studies in nine cities. existing methodologies t o the conditions found in
countries and cities of the world. For this adaptation
The I8-month case studies were implemented using t o be successful, the active participation of those
methodology developed by GeoHazards lnternational most aware of the local social, economic, political,
(GHI) for risk management projects in developing and cultural conditions - the local community - needs
countries.This methodology has been developed by GHI to be ensured.
through projects in Quito (Ecuador) and Kathmandu
(Nepal). Another characteristic of risk management efforts in
developed and developing countries is the emphasis on
the preparation of very accurate estimates of the losses
Purpose of the guidelines and the effects that a natural disaster could cause in a city.
There have been few examples of the actual use of the
resuks of these prepations by leaders and members of
The guidelines for the implementationof RADIUS-type the community to reduce risk Most of these studies are
risk management projects should be used to: not even known by the community that could benefit
t Explain the philosophy and methodology from them. There are many instances in which efforts
adopted by the RADIUS risk management have been duplicated and resources have been spent
without producingtangible improvement
projects;
+ Assist in interpretation of the reports
prepared for the case studies; and
Wi all of these considerations in mind, GeoHazards
t Provide guidelines on how to implement lnternational has developed a methodology for the
implementation of risk management projects in
RADIUS-type risk management projects in
developing countries. This methodology has the
other cities.
following characteristics:

Optimization of the time and resources

RADIUS methodology needed t o prepare damage estimates and
realistic risk management plans;
4 Prepamtion of sound damage estimates that
Urban seismic risk is steadily increasing worldwide,
identify the main factors contributing to a
especially in developing countries. Among the reasons for
city's earthquake risk;
this increase are worldwide urbanintion, lack of planning
+ The best possible use of existing information
and resources to accommodate rapid urban growth,lack
and of local expertise;
of appropriate building and land-use codes or lack of

--

Risk ArsessmentTwlsfor Dbgwsis of UrbanArolls Seismic D i 27

 + Incorporation of representatives of the earthquake risk of the city. This action plan was prepared
community throughout the projeeand using the results of the risk assessment phase.
+ Setting up of conditions that will allow the
immediate implementation o f the risk A detailed programme of activities for the RADIUS
management initiative case studies is presented in figure I. The main
project activities consisted of the collection of existing
GeoHazards International has applied this methodology data, estimation of potential damage,and preparation of
to risk management projects in Quito (Ecuador) and an action plan. Since the active participation of the
Kathmandu (Nepal).The RADIUS initiative adopted this community was crucial for the project's success, the
methodology for implementation of case studies in nine programme of activities included a series of meetings
cities around the world. The guidelines reported in this (represented by the large dots in figure I)in which key
paper describe the methodology and how t o use it to representatives of the community were informed about
implement risk management projects in cities in the project and then asked to comment.
developingcountries.
The guidelines explain in detail activities included in the
methodology described above. For each activity the
following information was presented:
Methodology
+ Objectives
The case studies were carried out over 18 months in two + Required information
phases. The first phase,the evaluation phase, covered the + Process, methodology
seismic risk assessment for the city in which an earthquake + Intermediateproducts
scenario was constructed.This was done through the + Participants
collection of existing data and an estimation of the + Products
potential damage caused by a hypothetical earthquake. Examples
The second phase was that of planning. In this phase, an + Observations
action plan was developed that would reduce the

I~repantion01 the projsct, cost plan, Damage

Estimation
. .
interviem tor wlldatmn
Training
I
2. Risk Management Ran
Daslgn (w RMP (Fadlitator intmiavs and Data
Actim plan
Bppnn
LXssoMnat~on 01 Actlon Phn
:Collection
h t a n a t W i WorkPhop

Figure1:Detoiled pmgmrnme of activities for the RADIUS init;ative case studies

Took for Diagndsof UrbanAreas a g a i i Seismic D i

Assessment of a city's
urban risk
Estimation of the potential damage that would be
caused by a hypothetical earthquake was carried out in a
theoretical step and a non-theoretical step.The
theoretical estimation was performed by combining the
seismic intensity distribution, estimated for the
hypothetical earthquake, with the inventory of the city's
structures and infrastructure.This combination was
performed using vulnerability functions (see figure 2) Figure 4. Some of the participants of the scenario workshop in
developed to reflect the seismic behavior of the city's zigong.
structures and infrastructure.
The non-theoretical estimation was performed through
a series o f interviews (see figure 3) with those
responsible for the city's systems and services.The
information collected in these interviews allow for the
Wooden and mixed structures
characteristics of the city systems to be included in the
damage estimation.

The results of the damage estimation were used t o

E
v prepare a preliminary earthquake scenario that was
B presented and discussed by representatives of the
$ various sectors of the community during the scenario
I workshop (see figure 4).The information produced in
the workshop was then used t o prepare the final
version of the earthquake scenario that was distributed
6 7 8 9
Intensity to the community.

Figure 2. Example of vulnerability functions for the estimation of

building damage. ('T@O"= '7ype'~ The guidelines describe in
detail the following steps
of the risk assessment -

process:
+ Preparation and data collection
+ Kick-off meeting to introduce the project to
'I) the community

&: + H n r d assessment
+ Vulnerability assessment
4 Damage (theoretical)
+ Damage estimation (non-theoretical)
+ Preparation of the earthquake scenario
+ Implementationof the scenario workshop
Figure 3. Example of on interview with officios in charge ofthe city 4 Dissemination of the earthquake scenario
se~ces.
 Preparedness
earthqua'
. -

before an R~onstnrctio~I I
earthquake I
and Recovery
- -

Figure 5. The planning phase considers all the stages of the "disaster cyde".

Preparing a plan to Implementation

reduce seismic risk Besides describing the main activities of risk assessment
and planning, the guidelines discuss how t o set up the
conditions that will allow these activities t o be
The results of the damage estimation and the ideas for implemented.The following are among the suggestions
risk management activities produced during the scenario presented by the guidelines:
workshop were used for the preparation of an action
plan that, ifimplemented, would reduce the city's seismic + Involve all sectors of the community through
risk. Regular working meetings were held with the the selection o f a representative local
institutions that would be in charge of implementing risk advisory committee and the implementation
management activities in order t o define the objectives, of well-attended workshops;
tasks, schedules, and budgets of the activities to be 4 Inform the community about the project
included in the plan. through collaboration with the local media
t o keep the community informed on the
These activities address the three stages of the disaster advances and achievements of the project; and
cycle. These stages are the following: (a) pre-disaster, 4 Approach potential donors such as local
when preparedness and mitigation are important; (b) industries, financial and insurance sectors,
during and immediately after the disaster, when the and internationalaid organizations.
emergency response capability is depended on; and (c)
post-disastecwhenthe city's capability to recover in the
shortest possible time from the disaster i s most
important A preliminary action plan was prepared for
Conclusions
presentation to the community during the action plan Since these guidelines will be widely disseminated by the
workshop. United Nations, they have been written in a language
that can be easily understood by a wide range of readers
The results of the workshop were then used t o prepare including local governments, the technical community
the final version of an action plan that was submitted to and the general public. While these guidelines are
the city authorities. Summaries of the plan were then expected t o provide valuable information f o r
prepared and distributed t o the community. implementation of risk management projects, readers
should keep in mind that there are many other technical,
The guidelines describe in detail the following steps to financial, institutional, political, and even circumstantial
prepare a risk management plan: requirements that need to be taken into account
.
;Lk:,Ll.,
.2. 4 Assessment of the current level of risk
management preparedness
4 Formulation of risk management activities Contact information
Formulation of a strategy for implemen- Carlos Villacis and Cynthia Cardona
tation GeoHazards International
Designation of the institution that would 2OOTown and CounuyVillage
implement the plan PaloAlto, CA 9430 I,USA
+ Implementationof the action plan workshop Tel: (I 650) 6 14 9050
4 Preparation of an action plan Fax ( I 650) 6 14 905 1
4 Publicationand disseminationof the action plan E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]

*.. . . . m
,

,..
L

30 R~skAs~essrnentToolsfor Diagnosis I .
ban Areas against Selsrn~cDlsasten
- . .
c.
-- . - . 1..'
1 .
j

r
v

i - ,
-
' . 1 .
*,
.-r$$;'d
-- I / _

.
.
.
I
- '1
. .. . ,
Chapter 6

ATool for Earthquake

Damage Estimation Furn~oKaneko and Jichun Sun, OYO Group, Japan

Based on the activities of nine case studies of the two + Casualties, such as number of deaths and
year RADIUS project, it has been observed that there is injuries
a wide variation in earthquake understanding, technical + Summary tables and thematic maps
competency, earthquake risk preparedness, and showing the result
emergency response and recovery countermeasures.
The tool requires only simple input data and will provide
In developing countries, awareness of earthquake risk
visual results with user-friendly process with help and
must be promoted in addition to provision of advice.
instruction documents. For more active users, a GIs
View Sample of Bandung has been prepared since the
The main purposes of the RADIUS project were t o
GIs tool is useful for more detailed studies.
raise awareness and provide practical tools for
earthquake risk reduction.This tool has been developed
All the activities of the RADIUS project have been
from the experiences of RADIUS case studies.The tool
summarized on a CD-ROM together with this tool,
has been simplified in order to promote understanding,
which can be used as a tutorial for users.The CD-
d the process and earthquake damage estimation, by
ROM includes the RADIUS project description,
decision makers and the public. Because earthquakes
reports from the case-study cities, report on the
and natural disasters differ widely, the tool should be
comparative study, the guidelines for RADIUS-type
used for only preliminary estimation, requiring further
projects, proceedings of the RADIUS symposium, and
validation and more detailed studies. It is hoped that this
other reports.
tool will assist many users to understand the seismic
vulnerability of their cities and t o assist starting
preparedness programmes for future earthquake
disasters. Contact information
The tool is a computer programme running on the widely Fumio Kaneko and Jichun Sun
available Excel 97. It is not a Geographic Information OYO Group
System (CIS) type of programme. The user needs to input E-mail: [email protected]
the following information: and [email protected]
+ Shape of target region by meshes
+ Total population and distribution
+ Total buildings, building types and their
distribution
4 Ground condition (soil type)
4 Total numbers of lifeline facilities
4 Choice of scenario earthquake and its
parameters

The programme then validates the input data and

performs analysis. Output from the analysis includes:

Seismic (ground shaking) intensity, such as

PGA and MMI Intensity
4 Building damage
+ Lifeline damage

Risk AssessmemTools for Diagnosis of UrbanAreas against Seismic Disasters 3 11

 The following figures are examples of typical
interactive windows seen using the tool:

@llJS Proarm Menu b Mesh Area -. :

Figurn 6: A wtnj~kofdamage estimation fir power ficikty (Bundungl.

Chapter 7

Understanding Urban Seismic

Risk around the World:
A comparative study of the RADIUS initiative
CarlosVillacis, Rachel Davidson and Cynthia Cardona, GeoHazards lnternational(GHI), United States

Introduction
Earthquakes are infrequent,so no single city has suffered
many earthquake disasters. Every city has much to gain
through the sharing of their resources and experiences
with earthquakes and earthquake risk management.
To use the untapped potential of inter-city collaboration,
the secretariat of the lnternational Decade for Natural Figure I: Map ofthe 74 cities that applied to the UUSRAW pro@
Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) and GeoHazards
International launched in April 1 998 the understanding City represenQtives
Urban Seismic Risk Around the World (UUSRAW) For each of the 74 cities that applied t o participate
projectThe UUSRAW project was implementedas part in the study, a scientist served as city representative.
of the RADIUS initiative.The 18-month project was The city representatives were the key to the project's
designed to help cities around the world compare their success. Using their personal knowledge, connections
earthquake hazard and to share their experiences and and resources, they gathered the information required
resources in working to reduce the impact of future to develop an earthquake risk profile of their respective
earthquakes. cities. They formed partnershipsand shared comments
about the process of gathering information, the
proposed methodology, and the project
Project objectives
Project coordinators
The project coordinators developed worksheets t o
The objectives of the UUSRAW project were to: gather information from the city representatives,
Provide a systematic comparison of the
magnitude, causes, and ways t o manage
earthquake risk worldwide;
+ Identify cities ficing similar earthquake risk
compiled and analyzed information for each city,
moderated an internet forum for city representatives
and international advisors, kept participantsinformed of
the project's status, and wrote the final report and city
I
challenges and foster partnerships among profiles.
them; and
+ Provide a forum in which cities can share International advisors
Several i n w n a t i m l advisers participatedin the internet
their earthquake and earthquake risk
forum with the city representatives and the project
management experiences usinga systematic
coordinaton.They answered questions and shared their
framework for discussion.
experience and knowledge of earthquake risk

For various reasons, only 20 of the 74 cities participated

Project participants actively in all phases of the project, collecting the
requested information and participating in discussions.
The IDNDR Secretariat invited seismically active cities These 20 cities repre* a diverse soup with respect
around the wodd to participate in the UUSRAW project t o their size, seismiWy, collateral hazard potential,
The city governments of 74 cities from 50 countries structural types, economic and political situations, and
expressed interest in participating (see figure I). social and cultural characteristics.
 These cities are:
Algiers, Algeria Gilgit, Pakistan Pimpri, India Santiago, Chile
Bogota. Colombia Guadalajara, Mexico Quito, Ecuador Skopje, Macedonia
Bucharest, Romania Gyumri, Armenia Rome, Italy Sofia, Bulgaria
Dehra Dun, India Kampala, Uganda San Juan, Argentina Tehran, Iran
Dhaka, Bangladesh Kathmandu, Nepal San Salvador,El Salvador Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Background Compilation and analysis

The project coordinators entered the earthquake risk
information into a database and distributed this database
The Earthquake Disaster Risk Index (EDRI) provided a
t o city representatives for their comments. Project
framework for the UUSRAW project's worldwide
coordinators also compiled a database of earthquake
comparative urban earthquake risk assessment.
risk management information and comments on the
The EDRI compares metropolitan areas according t o
EDRI methodology and the projedThe risk assessment
the degree and nature of their earthquake disaster risk,
analysis, risk management information and comments
using five main factors: hazard, vulnerability, exposure,
are incorporated into the project's final report, along
external context, and emergency response and
with city profiles that systematically describe the key
recovery,
elements of each city's risk and risk management efforts.

Internet forum
Project design Throughout the project, an internet forum provided a
way for ciey representatives, project coordinators, and
In the UUSRAW projectthe EDRI m&odology ofired internationaladvisers to share questions and comments
a useful structure with which t o conduct a systematic about the information-gathering process, the proposed
discussion of earthquake risk, including issues in all methodology, and urban earthquake risk and risk
disciplines of interest to academics and practitioners in management in general.The forum, an e-mail group list,
all regions of the world.The project involved city was moderated by the project coordinators.
representatives through two principal components:
WorldwideWeb page
The gathering of information required t o
A Web page wks also establishedto provide information
develop an earthquake risk profile and gain a
about this projea to non-participants. The Web page
better understanding of a city's earthquake
included project documents, a list of member cities,
risk; and
articles and reports from member city participants,and
The sharing o f experiences in gathering
other relevant information.
information and comments on the form and
usefulness of the project's methodology in
general.
Project final report
Data collection
The project coordinators created worksheets The final products of the UUSRAW project are included
requesting earthquake risk information necessary t o in the final report, which will be published and
determine EDRI values for each city. Information was disseminated by the United Nations.The report includes
requested about earthquake risk management efforts a summary of the assessments of earthquake risk and
undertaken, comments on the gathering of data, the risk management in the participatingcities, city profiles.
usefulness o f the EDRI, and project design and specific risk mana ement efforts made i n the
managementThe worksheets were distributed t o the
/g
participating citles,and a summary of feedback received
city representatives,who completed and returned them. from project participants throughout the projea
m
14 Risk &ssrornencTools for Dbpostr d Ur6Bnhzas against Seismic Diuarars
Earthquake risk and risk management
assessment
The report provides comparative assessments o f
earth4uaka risk each cities carrviburingfaaon,and the
state d risk management i n each participating c'ky.
Because the irrformstlon for each city was gathered
using the same w * h w , systematic ~ c ~ l ofp ~ s
the key dements of a cir/'s risk and risk management
&cms are also included.

VulnornMtRy Expoeum

---
I
sud*n* I
D*man
Dbslle I
GW
ovuna
I Risk management e f i r t case studies
The final r e p o r t also includes more than 65 risk-
I, magemem effort case msescudies from 26 c9ties.Togerher
they cover a variety d qpes of e8Xarts.Th-e efforts
I implemented by dlfferentt groups (lacal pvernment
w kMr0n-y
Reletsve Factor Values
agencies o r the private sector),args a variety of p u p s
*i (schook,uansportation nework, small businesses) and
needs (emergency response planning, infrastructui-e
&urn 2: bmpk mItr ofexpasureond v u l n ~ l i t fimr
y vales suiengthening, p u b k dumdon), use d i i t forms of
firthe avenqcc&s dw&Invohed In a#pJrosesof&eprrrjea implemenration (establlshi~an orgdnbrion,devet~ping
While Mda (Ba&adesh),~m
k w e e * a new technology, passing tegisktlon), and they cover
value o f h scmrpLTehm~) (lm)km rhe M g h m expasure -I d&mnt areas [local, e w e , naeicmal). The compilation
value. Resuits a= dative m rhe sample.
can be eqanded and updated over time and provided
city r e p e w with specific rlsk management ideas
and mtact informathn ghould they wish z~ obtajn
City profiles mare wrmaaon,
For each o f the participating cities, the project
coordinators developed a two-page profile of the city's
earthquake risk, its causes, and efforts undertaken t o Feedback
reduce it Each city profile includes a map of the greater
The report also summarizes the comments provided
metropolitan area, basic information about the city,
by city representatives during the project.This input
significant historical developments in the seismic building
was compiled from responses t o a worksheet
codes, a graph of the city's population growth, a list of
designed t o solicit feedback,discussion in the internet
significant earthquakes,a comparativeanalysis describing
forum, and meetings during the RADIUS symposium
the city's earthquake risk in relation to other cities,a list
that complemented the project's internet discussion.
of agencies involved in earthquake risk managemen~and
Comments were requested on the EDRl methodolo-
examples of efforts undertaken t o reduce the city's
gy, project design, potential uses and users of the
earthquake risk Figure 3 presents an example of a city
study's results, global earthquake risk assessment in
profile for Algiers, Algeria.
general, and the potential for conducting related
work in the future.
 project participants could voice their ideas about the
Worldwide network of project, the proposed methodology of earthquake risk
earthquake professionals and earthquake risk management in genera1,the internet
brought together earthquake professionalsworldwide.

The a new earthquake A notable achievement is the largeamount of

professionals in more than 70 cities and 50 countries is
information collected by the addition to
another important contribution.The professionals
earthquake risk the info,.matiOn gathered on
represent a variety of disciplines and cities with diverse
earthquake risk and risk situatiOns-Twency
earthquske risk ,,,=
shed in civ
who would like t o learn
more about
of the individuals are active participants who have each other's work
through this projea,

'
a e-mail, and met at
to be 999. This
network will be an important resource for formal
The project has also helped raise awareness in several
cities. Representatives of Sari Salvador (El Salvador) and
Sofia (Bulgaria) for have used their
pmjep participation in the project as a means t o gain the
e valuable comcts at.ntion of the media in order to eduare the public
r representatives and city on earthquake ~ s inktheir cities.
of cities that do not have a great deal of internal
earthquake risk resources. The Understanding Urban Seismic Risk around the
World projea has achieved its objectives. However,the
methodology used for this study still needs t o be
Conclusions improved. All project participants have learned from the
challenges and agree that this effort is only a first step in
a long-term process shared by cities worldwide t o
mitigate earthquake risk.
internet in order to gather information that would help
participants better understand the magnitude and
different causes of their city's risk, as we11as compare Contact information
these results with those of the other participating cities.
Cynthia Cardona, Rachel Davidson and CarlosVillacis
One of the biggest challenges o f the project was GeoHmrds
obtaining data, even directly from city representatives ZOOTownand CountryVillage
who have access to local sources. Several cities in the
Palo Alto, 9430 I,USA
sample are undergoing periods of social and economic Tel: 650) 6 9050
transition,and it has been difficult t o obtain reliable Fax:(l 650) 614 9051
economic data for these cities. In addition, it was difficult Email: cardona~eohaz.org
t o ensure that all 74 representatives were able t o [email protected]
participateactively in all phases of the project. and villacis@eohazorg

Another shortcoming was the lack of unlimited access

to the internet. For the most part, participants agreed
that the Internetwas a good vehicle for implementation
of projects such as this. Providing a forum in which

- 8
_-
-
I-
I# ' .-
-. Chapter 8
I '
L .

J , '
- .
' -

Evaluation of the RADIUS

Case-Studies Project
- .

--. ;
8 8 .

I '1

LThomasTobin,Tobin &Associates, United States

The case studies were expected to meet the following

Introduction specific goals:

This report evaluates the achievements of the RADIUS 4 Develop a seismic damage scenario which
case studies, city-level projects, and the methodology describes the consequences of a possible
used for the case studies.The findings are based on earthquake; and
4 Prepare a r i s k management plan and
confidential opinions of project participants in response
propose an action plan f o r earthquake
to a 52-question questionnaire. The case-studies project
disaster mitigation.
is an earthquake risk mitigation planning project, and as
is true for all planning efforts, the planning process is as
important as the resulting plan. The methodology and
process influence the long-term achievements of the
project. It is too early t o expect that implementation
efforts would have achieved significant successes, but The case study goals, to develop a seismic damage scenario
successes were described. These initial successes and which descn'bes the consequences of a possible earthquake
the positive tone of the responses are encouraging but and prepare a risk management plan and propose an action
success depends o n t h e inspiring long-term plan for earthquake disaster mitigation, were achieved.
commitments to mitigatingearthquake risk The local and RADIUS team respondents described the
use of scenarios and referred t o the action plans.These
products, scenarios, and plans, served as a means t o
0bjectives address the city-specific objectives.

The first objective, to mise the awareness of seismic risk

The ultimate objective of the RADIUS case studies
among dedrion mabn and the pub,ic, was achieved,
prnjea is reduce physia'* and swial Responses described increases inawareness and
damage in the case-study cities. However, each case
lupporr for redwng eymquake risk .nd for emewnq
mdymr eXPeaed to meet the following
city-qedfic management among government officials and the
objectives: general public. Increases in awareness and support for
+ To raise the awareness of seismic risk among 'educing earthquake r i s k and f o r emergency
decision makers and the public; management were noted among business leaders, but
To transfer appropriate technologies to the nearly half of the responses indicated no change. Media
cities; awareness was improved. Maintaining awareness is
+ To create local institutional support needed critical to carrying out the action plans.
t o sustain the earthquake risk mitigation
The second objeaive, to m@r appropriate technologies
plan;
+ To promote multidisciplinary collaboration to the cities, was met. Responses endorsed the RADIUS
methodology. The scenarios produced useful results
among the local government and between
that were appropriately accurate.The RADIUS "tools"
government officers and scientists; and
include the planning process.The use of international
+ To promote worldwide interaction with
institutes to transfer technology was successful. A few
other earthquake-prone cities to share their
respondents suggested that more contact time was
valuable experiences.
needed. The initiative empowered local professionals to
use their knowledge.

lurk AsmsnmcToolr for Dtqposls o

 The third objective, to create local institutional support
needed to sustain the earthquake risk mitigation plan, was
Conclusions
met t o a certain extent It is not known whether the
support will be sustained. Institutional support was I. The case studies met their goals t o complete
developed through use o f steering and advisory scenarios and risk management and action plans.They
committees and the involvement of representatives appear t o have met their main objectives t o raise
from government, science, business, and academic areas. awareness, transfer technology, create local institutional
The scenarios appear t o have successfully support and promote multidisciplinary collaboration.
communicated earthquake risk to decision makers. The tools provided t o estimate and manage urban
seismic risk were useful.
The fourth objective, to promote multidisciplinary
collaboration among the local government and between 2. A continuing effort involving the case-study cities
government oficers and scientists, was met. Responses should be defined and undertaken before the
indicated that working relationships between momentum developed is lost. Risk reduction and
government officials and scientists were improved. management are long-term efforts that require a
Steering and advisory committees engaged people from continuous commitment of the public and private
a variety of disciplines in an effort to solve a common sectors within the cities.The success t o date may not
problem. last unless an ongoing commitment is institutionalized
within the communities. Until then, an effort is needed
The fifth objective, to promote worldwide interaction wid, t o maintain a high level of awareness and t o implement
other earthquake-prone cities to share their valuable the action plans.
experiences, was met. Opportunities for face-to-face
interaction were limited. However, contact with 3. A carefitl review of the RADIUS case-studies project
international institutes and regional advisers, and should be undertaken within a year. It should consider
attendance at training workshops and the Tijuana the results of implementation efforts in the nine cities,
symposium facilitated interaction.The RADIUS home determine whether the planning process promoted
page and IDNDR highlrght reports helped cities share seismic risk reduction and raised public awareness, and
information. whether support for implementing the action plans has
been sustained.

I Process evaluation
Contact information
The process used for the RADIUS case studies involved
building relationships, crafting strategies, sharing L-Th~mas Tobin
expertise, providing loss estimation methodology, Tobin and Associates
preparing scenarios and action plans, and recommending 134 CaliforniaAve.
planning procedures.The strategy to use the prestige MillValle~~CA 94941 USA
and leadership of the United Nations and the expertise Tel: (1 415) 380-9142
of international institutes and regional advisers, sponsor Fax: (1 415) 380-9218
workshops and symposia, provide limited amounts of E-mail: LTTobin@aOl-cOm
money and empower local experts is sound.The
requisite products, a scenario and plans, were
I completed.

38 Risk AssearnentTwls lor Diagnosis o an Areas against Seismic Disasters

 RADIUS CD-ROM
Includes RADIUS tools, demonstrations, and final reports

irrR;
UNITED NATIONS

1990-2000

.dh.Cdtn.M-Lh
1:s D R \
Intrpattonal Strotegy

Fo; Disaster Reduction

United Nations Initiativetowards Earthquake Safe Cities

Risk AssessmentTools for Diagnosis of

UrbanAreas against Seismic Disasters

How to start

I. Load RADIUS CD-ROM in CD-ROM drive

2. InWindow's Explorer, go to CD-ROM drive
3. Double-click "RADIUS.htm".
CONTACT INFORMATION OF ISDR
SeciiJmriat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)
Palais des Nations
CH- 12 1 I Geneva 10, Switzerland
Tel: (41 22) 917 90 00
Fax (4 1 221 947 9 0 98/99
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: g-