Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Dilani Dassanayake, Andreas Burzel, Hocine Oumeraci
10. December 2012
Summary:
This report provides a methodology for the evaluation of cultural losses due to flooding. First, the theoretical background for the development of this methodology is described. Based on the available knowledge, it is proposed to evaluate the cultural losses using two factors: the physical damages of the cultural
assets due to flooding and the cultural values of the assets. The losses are presented in a five-point
scale: 1-very low, 2-low, 3-medium, 4-high and 5-very high. For the estimation of physical damages, two
main flood characteristics are adopted, i.e. flood depth and flow velocity. Unlike the other buildings, it is
not sufficient to consider only the physical damages of cultural assets as a final cultural loss, since the
cultural assets themselves are highly heterogeneous in terms of their cultural values. Therefore, it is proposed to also consider their cultural values, which consist of their historical and the societal significance.
The proposed methodology is exemplarily applied for the estimation of cultural losses in HamburgWilhelmsburg area. The modelling of losses is carried out in ArcGIS using the ArcGIS ModelBuilder application. Two different analyses are carried out, based on (i) only the physical damages of the cultural
assets, and (ii) both physical damages and cultural values of the assets. The results of the analyses and
the strengths/weaknesses of the two analyses are discussed, showing that the second analysis provides
more comprehensive results on cultural loss, although it demands more complex input data, especially
on cultural assets.
Das diesem Bericht zugrunde liegende Vorhaben wurde mit Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung unter
dem Förderkennzeichen 03F0483A gefördert. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt dieser Veröffentlichung liegt beim Autor.
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
ABSTRACT
Cultural assets can broadly be classified as heritage (e.g. historic buildings, museums, archaeological sites, churches and historic landscape) and non-heritage cultural assets (e.g.
cultural spaces, libraries and recreational parks). Floods can cause physical, chemical or
biological damages to the cultural assets. “Damage may range from soiling basements and
lower floors and their contents, and long-term increase in residual moisture to destruction of
structures and buildings from the tremendous force of flood waters” (Taboroff, 2000). These
damages may include: structural damages (i.e. collapse or movement of a building due to
force of water flow), damages to paint, wall papers, plaster of floor covering, total or partial
damage to contents of buildings, loss or destruction of landscape elements, and deposition
of debris.
The proposed methodology for the evaluation of cultural losses is based on two factors: the
physical damages of cultural assets due to flooding and the cultural values of the assets. For
the estimation of physical damages, two main flood characteristics are adopted: flood depth
and flow velocity. Unlike the other buildings, it is not sufficient to consider only the physical
damages of cultural assets as a final cultural loss, since the cultural assets themselves are
highly heterogeneous in terms of their cultural values. Therefore, it is proposed to also consider their cultural values, which consist of their historical and the societal significance. The
modelling of losses was carried out in ArcGIS using the ArcGIS ModelBuilder application.
The losses are presented in a five-point scale: 1-very low, 2-low, 3-medium, 4-high and 5very high.
This report addresses the development of the methodology for the evaluation of cultural
losses and the exemplarily application of this methodology to the study area HamburgWilhelmsburg.
Chapter 1 provides the available knowledge on the classification of cultural assets, on the
losses due to flooding and on the evaluations methods. It also proposes a methodology for
the assessment of cultural losses based on physical damages of cultural assets and cultural
values. In Chapter 2, the methodology is exemplarily performed for the HamburgWilhelmsburg area. In a first analysis, the evaluation of cultural losses based only on the
physical damages of the cultural assets is carried out. The flooding scenario HH_XR2010A is
adopted for an exemplarily analysis. Chapter 3 provides the analysis of cultural losses based
on both physical damages and cultural values using the same flooding scenario as in the first
analysis. Chapter 4 provides an overview and comparison of the results of analyses of cultural losses for all scenarios considered in the project. Finally, the summary and concluding
remarks including the strengths and the weaknesses of the two analyses carried out in Chapter 2 and 3 are discussed in Chapter 5.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-i-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... iv
1 Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses ................ 1 1.1 Cultural Assets and Losses
1 1.1.1 Classification of cultural assets ............................................................. 1 1.1.2 Cultural losses due to Floods ................................................................ 3 1.2 Evaluation of cultural losses
4 1.2.1 Previous studies on the Assessment of Cultural Losses ....................... 4 1.2.2 Proposed Methodology for the Evaluation of Cultural Losses ............... 7 1.3 Qualitative Assessment of Cultural Losses
8 1.3.1 Assessment of Physical Damages to Cultural Assets ........................... 8 1.3.2 Determination of Cultural Values ......................................................... 13 1.3.3 Assessment of Cultural Losses ........................................................... 16 1.4 Discussion and Implications for this Study
18 2 Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages............................. 20 2.1 Cultural Assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg
20 2.1.1 Collection of Data on Cultural Assets .................................................. 20 2.1.2 Digitisation of data ............................................................................... 21 2.2 Cultural Loss Assessment Model (based on Physical Damages) in ArcGIS
22 2.2.1 Model Inputs ........................................................................................ 22 2.2.2 Model development in ArcGIS Modelbuilder ....................................... 23 2.3 Results
25 2.4 Discussion
27 3 Assessment of Cultural Losses – Based on Physical Damages and Cultural
Values .......................................................................................................................... 28 3.1 Identification of Cultural Assets
28 3.1.1 Geocoding ........................................................................................... 28 3.1.2 Importing the Geographical Coordinates in ArcGIS ............................ 29 3.1.3 Classification of cultural assets and estimation of cultural values ....... 30 3.2 Cultural Loss Assessment Model (based on Physical Damages and Cultural
Values) in ArcGIS
31 3.2.1 Model Inputs ........................................................................................ 31 3.2.2 Model Development in ArcGIS ModelBuilder ...................................... 31 3.3 Results
33 3.4 Discussion
34 4 Overview of Results of all Storm Surge Scenarios.................................................. 36 5 Summary and Concluding Remarks ......................................................................... 40 References ............................................................................................................................ 42
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- ii -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Changes in Exceedence Probability-Damage Curve as a Result of Adopting
Replication Costs (modified from Rodakowski, 1978). ...................................................... 5 Figure 1.2: Proposed methodology for the assessment of cultural losses (Dassanayake and
Oumeraci, 2011). .............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 1.3: Depth-damage curves for residential buildings (USACE, 2003, 2006, and
Middelmann-Fernandes, 2010) ......................................................................................... 9 Figure 1.4: Expected flood damage due to surging floods (Nadal, 2007) .............................. 10 Figure 1.5: Building collapse curve – Class C buildings - masonry or concrete walls (USACE,
1985) ............................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 1.6: Building damage assessment criteria by (a) Clausen (1989) and (b) Pistrika and
Jonkman (2010) .............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 1.7: Level of physical damage in cultural assets related to flood depth and velocity
(damage criteria are adopted from USACE, 1985; Clausan, 1989; Queensland
Government, 2002; Pistrika and Jonkman , 2010 and Figure 1.3) .................................. 13 Figure 2.1: The Excel Table including the information on the cultural assets in HamburgWilhelmsburg area. ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.2: a) Identification of cultural assets, (e.g. Holy Cross Church and the cemetery in
Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg), b) digitisation of cultural assets as area polygons and c) all
cultural assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg after digitisation. ........................................... 21 Figure 2.3: Estimated flood depths for flooding scenario HH_XR2010A ................................ 22 Figure 2.4: Estimated flow velocities for flooding scenario HH_XR2010A ............................. 23 Figure 2.5: Cultural loss assessment model in ArcGIS Modelbuilder. ................................... 24 Figure 2.6: Calculation of damage level based on flood depth, velocity and depth-velocity
product. ........................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.7: Conversion of vector data to raster data .............................................................. 25 Figure 2.8: The level of cultural losses in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area (based on physical
damages to cultural assets). ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.9: The percentage of affected grid cells for each loss level. .................................... 26 Figure 3.1: Excel data sheet including geographic coordinates ............................................. 28 Figure 3.2: Digitized cultural assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg as point data. ...................... 29 Figure 3.3: Attribute table which includes geographic coordinates. ....................................... 30 Figure 3.4: GIS model for the assessment of cultural losses based on physical damages and
cultural values. ................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 3.5: Allocation of cultural value based on the class of cultural assets. ....................... 32 XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- iii -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Figure 3.6: The level of cultural losses in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg (based on both physical
damages and cultural values). ........................................................................................ 33 Figure 3.7: Percentage of affected grid cells for each loss level ............................................ 34 Figure 4.1: Level of Cultural losses for scenario XR2010A_DB2 ........................................... 36 Figure 4.2: Level of Cultural losses for scenario XR2010B .................................................... 37 Figure 4.3: Level of Cultural losses for scenario XR2010C .................................................... 38 Figure 4.4: Cultural loss levels due to four storm surge scenarios ......................................... 38 XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- iv -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Classification of cultural assets by Ikeda and Nagashima (2008) ........................... 2 Table 1.2: Possible losses in cultural asset categories ............................................................ 4 Table 1.3: Factors for the assessment of the cultural value of archaeological assets ............. 6 Table 1.4: Factors in the assessment of magnitude of impacts ............................................... 6 Table 1.5: Significance of effects matrix................................................................................... 7 Table 1.6: Expected flood damage due to surging floods - average (Nadal, 2007) ................. 9 Table 1.7: Proposed flood damage criteria for cultural assets ............................................... 12 Table 1.8: Previous classifications of cultural value constituents ........................................... 14 Table 1.9: Modified classification of cultural value constituents ............................................. 14 Table 1.10: Proposed criteria for the level of historical significance (HS) .............................. 15 Table 1.11: Proposed criteria for the level of value of societal significance (SS) ................... 15 Table 1.12: Proposed matrix of cultural assets and their cultural value constituents. ............ 15 Table 1.13: Matrix for the determination of the level of cultural value for heritage assets. .... 16 Table 1.14: Cultural Loss Assessment Matrix (CLAM) for the integration of physical damages
of cultural assets and their cultural values ...................................................................... 17 Table 3.1: Classification of cultural assets and the assumed cultural values ......................... 30 XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-v-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
1 Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of
Cultural Losses
1.1 Cultural Assets and Losses
Cultural assets include all buildings considered to form part of cultural and historical heritage
and other non-heritage infrastructure that has a cultural value (ECLAC, 2003). Natural hazards can cause massive damages to the cultural properties due to many reasons: negligence
of these places in a disaster, placement of the destructible items in a risky area, lack of damage prevention strategies, etc. This chapter aims at examining a methodology for the qualitative assessment of losses to cultural assets due to coastal flooding.
1.1.1
Classification of cultural assets
ECLAC (2003) has classified cultural assets into three categories.
1. Public historic heritage buildings, including historic assets declared as such that are the
property of the state:
a. World heritage, world cultural assets registered in UNESCO’s list of World Cultural and
Natural Heritage;
b. Heritage buildings or declared historic buildings, with their equipment and collections;
c. Museums;
d. Archaeological sites;
e. Moveable goods, such as state-owned collections of historic value that might be located in buildings other than museums; and
f. Archives and collections of documents.
2. Private historic heritage buildings, whether owned individually or by foundations:
a. Churches registered as historical heritage through legislative decrees or executive orders;
b. Dwellings located in historic centres, including buildings of historical value (used as
dwellings or as dwellings and businesses) located within sections deemed historical
heritage; and
c. Libraries and collections, including private moveable goods located in foundations, libraries, churches, etc.
3. Non-heritage public cultural infrastructure, referring to State-owned non-historical
goods operated under official cultural programmes:
a. Cultural spaces, including houses of culture, public libraries and non-heritage theatres;
b. Libraries and their equipment;
c. Recreational parks, including zoos;
d. Cultural centres in indigenous communities; and
e. Artisan and crafts communities.
The classification mentioned in Malla (2006) has two types of cultural property, movable and
immovable. Immovable cultural property includes various types of monuments, archaeologiXtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-1-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
cal sites, historical buildings etc. In movable category, the property such as museum objects
is mainly considered.
A broader classification is suggested by ACA (2010) and Ikeda and Nagashima (2008). Here,
a wide range of cultural properties are considered which are classified into six main categories (as shown in Table 1.1).
Table 1.1: Classification of cultural assets by Ikeda and Nagashima (2008)
Categories
Cultural properties
Tangible Cultural
buildings and other structures, fine and applied arts, paintings, sculptures,
Properties
applied arts, calligraphy, classical books, ancient manuscripts, archaeological artifacts, historical materials
Intangible Cultural
stage arts, music, craft techniques, etc
Properties
Folk Cultural ProperTangible Folk Cultural Properties: clothing, implements, dwellings, etc.
used for intangible folk cultural properties
ties
Intangible Folk Cultural Properties: manners and customs, folk performing
arts, and folk techniques related to food, clothing, housing, occupation,
religious faith, annual events
Monuments
Historic Sites: shell mounds, ancient burial mounds, ancient capital ruins,
former residences, etc.
Places of Scenic Beauty: gardens, bridges, gorges, beaches, mountains,
etc.
Natural Monuments: fauna, flora, and geological minerals
Cultural Landscapes
terraced rice fields, rural landscapes, waterways, etc.
Groups of Traditional
post towns, castle towns, farming and fishing villages, etc.
Buildings
In Ikeda and Nagashima (2008), a total of 4904 cultural properties in Tokyo belonging to the
above mentioned categories are considered for the assessment of risk due to eight different
hazards including earthquakes, landslides, fire and floods.
Meanwhile, Imon et al. (2007) classify cultural heritage assets into three groups as follows;
1. Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements
or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations
of features, which are of outstanding universal value in terms of history, art or science;
2.
Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their
architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value in terms of history, art or science;
3. Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including
archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view.
Further, intangible heritage assets are discussed, which exist in immaterial form such as music, dance, literature, theatre, languages, knowledge, crafts, local traditions and religious
ceremonies.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-2-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
The current research focuses on the estimation of cultural losses, under the category of intangible losses, due to flooding and hence, only the physically existing cultural properties are
considered. Therefore, immaterial cultural assets, such as music, dance, literature etc. are
excluded in this study. Further, the above classifications mainly discuss about two broad
categories of cultural assets: heritage and non-heritage, which can be adopted for this study.
Since the tangible flood losses are also estimated within this entire research, a part of nonheritage cultural assets (e.g buildings) can be included in that estimation. This leads to the
necessity of considering the non-heritage cultural assets separately, so that only the intangible part of these assets can be included in this study. Therefore, cultural assets are categorised in this study into two main groups: heritage assets and non-heritage assets. The classification of cultural assets in this study is as follows:
1. Heritage assets
a. Heritage buildings or historic buildings, with their equipment and collections, or dwellings located in historic centres
b. Museums
c. Archaeological sites
d. Libraries, archives and collections of documents
e. Churches
f. Moveable goods of historic value that might be located in buildings other than museums
g. Historic landscape
h. Monuments
i. Cemetery
2. Non-heritage assets
a. Cultural spaces, including houses of culture and non-heritage theatres
b. Libraries and their equipment
c. Recreational parks, including zoos
d. Monuments
Within these two categories, both movable and immovable properties are considered.
1.1.2
Cultural losses due to Floods
Floods can cause physical, chemical or biological damages to the cultural assets. “Damage
may range from soiling basements and lower floors and their contents, and long-term increase in residual moisture to destruction of structures and buildings from the tremendous
force of flood waters” (Taboroff, 2000). These damages may include: structural damages (i.e.
collapse or movement of a building due to force of water flow), damages to paint, wall papers, plaster of floor covering, total or partial damage to contents of buildings, loss or destruction of landscape elements, and deposition of debris.
Since cultural assets are diverse in nature, it is necessary to identify possible damages for
each category of cultural assets. Considering the simple classification in heritage and nonheritage assets proposed above for this study and the different types of damages, Table 1.2
attempts to summarize the possible damages to different cultural assets due to flooding.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-3-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
Table 1.2: Possible losses in cultural asset categories
Cultural assets
Heritage
Historic/
buildings
heritage
Museums
Archaeological sites
Library/ archives
Churches
Historic landscape
Monuments
Non-heritage
(only intangible
damages included)
Cemetery
Cultural spaces
Library
Recreational parks
Monuments
Possible losses
- Damages to walls, floor or structure of the building,
building fabric, paintings
- Total/ partial destruction of historical goods
- Deposition of debris
- Damages to walls, floor or structure of the building,
building fabric, paintings
- Total/ partial destruction of movable goods
- Deposition of debris
- Deposition of debris
- Damages to walls, floor or structure of the building,
building fabric, paintings
- Total/ partial destruction of books/ documents
- Deposition of debris
- Damages to walls, floor or structure of the building,
building fabric, paintings
- Deposition of debris
- Deposition of debris
- Total/ partial destruction of landscape elements
- Deposition of debris
- Total/ partial destruction of monuments
- Deposition of debris
- Total/ partial destruction of goods
- Total/ partial destruction of books/ documents
- Deposition of debris
- Reduction of visitors
- Deposition of debris
- Total/ partial destruction of monuments
1.2 Evaluation of cultural losses
1.2.1
Previous studies on the Assessment of Cultural Losses
An earlier attempt to evaluate the flood damages to historic homes was made by Rodakowski (1978). He suggested that the replication cost is suitable for the damage estimation
and graphically presented how the “depth-damage”, “discharge-damage” and “exceedance
probability-damage” curves change as a result of adopting replication costs. First, the traditional damage estimation of homes is obtained from insurance companies and the depthdamage curve is drawn (Figure 1.1a). Based on previous flood data, a depth-discharge curve
(Figure 1.1b) has been drawn. Figure 1.1a and 1.1b were combined to obtain the relationship
between damages and flood discharge (Figure 1.1c). Further, the relationship between discharge and probability was illustrated (as in Figure 1.1d) for various flood events. Finally, the
damage-probability curve is obtained combining Figure 1.1c and Figure 1.1d.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-4-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
(a)
Traditional depthdamage curve
hR2
h1
(c)
Depth (m)
(b)
+
DR2
D2
DR1
+
D1
Q1
Q2
Discharge (m3/s)
h2
Damages Cost
D1
D2
Damages Cost
(e)
(d)
Discharge (m3/s)
Curve
after
adopting
replicati
on costs
hR1
Damages Cost
Depth (m)
h2
Q2
Q1
DR2
D2
DR1
D1
PE1
PE2
Exceedance Probability
PE1
PE2
Exceedance Probability
Traditional curves (before adopting replication costs)
h1
Curves after adopting replication costs
Curves, which do not depend on the costs
Q1
Q2
Discharge (m3/s)
D1, D2, h1, h2 - before adopting replication costs
DR1, DR2, hR1, hR2 - after adopting replication costs
Figure 1.1: Changes in Exceedence Probability-Damage Curve as a Result of Adopting Replication
Costs (modified from Rodakowski, 1978).
Moreover, Rodakowski (1978) states that, in a more practical approach, restoration costs,
although they may results in lower values due to the utilization of modern construction methods, can also be used as an alternative to replication costs. The idea of adoption of restoration costs is further suggested by few other researchers (e.g. Handmer et al., 2002; ECLAC,
2003). Handmer et al. (2002) suggest that the damages to cultural assets can be assessed
by replacement/ restoration costs where feasible using experts’ estimates.
ECLAC (2003) proposes methodologies for the estimation (mainly valuation) of socioeconomic losses after natural disasters, including two main suggestions:
1. Cultural losses can be assessed as direct and indirect losses.
Direct losses: direct losses refer to the destruction of, or damage to, buildings, furniture
and equipment, and materials, works or volumes of a cultural nature stored in heritage
buildings that may have been affected by a disaster.
Indirect losses: these are the costs arise from direct losses such as costs of debris removal, temporary leasing premises to provide cultural services, loss of income from heritage establishments during repair and reconstruction, etc.
2. Heritage buildings should be treated individually, since they are highly heterogeneous.
Experts in the field will have to be consulted for the estimation of repair or restoration
costs.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-5-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
A qualitative cultural heritage impact assessment due to the extension of Town Farm sand
and gravel Quarry at Burlescombe, UK is carried out based on the value of the heritage resource and the magnitude of the impact (Nicoll, 2008). Three cultural heritage assets were
considered: archaeological assets, historic buildings and historic landscape. The value of the
cultural heritage resources is defined using a five point scale from negligible value to very
high value. The magnitude of the impact is also considered in a five-point scale from no
change to major change. Table 1.3and
Table 1.4 provide example illustrations of scales and related factors for the assessment of
the cultural values and the magnitude of impact for archaeological assets, respectively.
Table 1.3: Factors for the assessment of the cultural value of archaeological assets
Scale
Factors for assessing the cultural value
Very High
 World Heritage Sites (including nominated sites).
 Assets of acknowledged international importance.
 Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives.
High
 Scheduled Monuments (including proposed).
 Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance.
 Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives.
Medium
 Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research
objectives.
Low
 Designated and undesignated assets of local importance.
 Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations.
 Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research
objectives.
Negligible
 Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest.
Table 1.4: Factors in the assessment of magnitude of impacts
Scale
Factors for the assessment of magnitude of impacts
Major
 Change to most or all key archaeological materials, such that the resource is totally altered.
 Comprehensive changes to setting.
Moderate
 Changes to many key archaeological materials, such that the resource is
clearly modified.
 Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the asset.
Minor
 Changes to key archaeological elements, such that the asset is slightly
altered.
 Slight changes to setting.
Negligible
 Very minor changes to materials, or setting.
No change
 No change
Finally, the significance of the effects on cultural heritage resources are estimated qualitatively changing from neutral to very large using a significance of effects matrix as illustrated
in Table 1.5.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-6-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
Table 1.5: Significance of effects matrix
Value/
Magnitude of Impact
Sensitivity
No change
Negligible
Very High
Neutral
Slight
High
Neutral
Slight
Medium
Neutral
Neutral/slight
Low
Neutral
Neutral/slight
Negligible
Neutral
Neutral
Minor
Moderate/ large
Moderate/ slight
Slight
Neutral/slight
Neutral/slight
Moderate
Large/very large
Moderate/large
Moderate
Slight
Neutral/slight
Major
Very large
Large/very large
Moderate/large
Slight/moderate
Slight
Moreover, in assessment of losses to cultural assets, adoption of indirect monetary valuation
approaches, such as contingent valuation, travel cost method and hedonic price method, is
also evident in literature (e.g. Ruijgrok, 2006; Salazar and Marques, 2005; Vecvagars, 2006).
1.2.2
Proposed Methodology for the Evaluation of Cultural Losses
In this study, two steps are identified for the evaluation of cultural losses (Figure 1.2): (i)
Identification of cultural sites within the study area, (ii) Qualitative assessment of losses
STEP 1: Identification of cultural assets
Identification of cultural assets
Pilot site analysis
STEP 2: Qualitative assessment of losses
Information on cultural value of assets
Inundation model
(flood data)
Level of Physical damage to asset Level of cultural value of assets
Level of cultural losses Figure 1.2: Proposed methodology for the assessment of cultural losses (Dassanayake and Oumeraci,
2011).
Step 1: Identification of cultural sites within the considered area
First, the geographical area affected by flooding is identified. The cultural assets within the
considered area are then identified and their spatial distribution is determined. The available
information on the existing conditions (category, age, building material, data on past flood
damages, any renovation information etc.) is also collected.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-7-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
Step 2: Qualitative assessment of cultural losses
Inundation models are used to determine the flood characteristics; water depth and velocity.
Depending on the flood characteristics, the level of potential physical damages (such as
damages to the floor/ walls of the buildings, loss of contents, deposition of debris etc.) are
identified (see section 1.3.1). Further, by analysing the information of the assets and visitors,
the level of cultural value of each asset is determined (see section 1.3.2). The qualitative
assessment is carried out combining the level of physical damage to cultural asset and the
level of cultural value of the asset (see section 1.3.3). The spatial distribution of the cultural
losses is also determined.
1.3 Qualitative Assessment of Cultural Losses
Qualitative assessment of cultural losses is based on two main factors, as depicted in Figure
2.2: the level of physical damages and the level of cultural value of the asset. The following
sections describe the proposed approach for the qualitative assessment of cultural assets.
1.3.1
Assessment of Physical Damages to Cultural Assets
In the assessment of physical damage to cultural assets, it is first needed to identify the
characteristics which govern the damage. Since no studies on physical damages to cultural
buildings are available in the literature, previous studies on damage assessments of residential buildings need to be analysed. The flood damage assessment criteria derived for residential buildings have considered different flood characteristics such as flood depth and velocity.
However, the damage with respect to flood depth is the most common estimation criterion.
For example, USACE (2003, 2006) and Middelmann-Fernandes (2010) have developed
depth-damage relationships for residential buildings and their contents. The percentage of
damages is derived from the percentage of total depreciated repair or replacement cost of
the structure and the contents. Figure 1.3 presents the depth-damage curves developed by
USACE (2003, 2006) and Middelmann-Fernandes (2010) for the damage of structure and
contents of residential buildings.
The studies considered here have different characteristics, mainly with the type of building
material. USACE (2003) has developed the depth-damage curves for masonry buildings,
while Middelmann-Fernandes (2010) has considered brick veneer structures. On the other
hand, the depth-damage curve by USACE (2006) takes the average of the damage percentages of structures on pier and slab. One major difference of USACE (2003) with other two
studies is that it has considered the damages to contents (furniture, paintings, antiques, etc.)
as a percentage of total value of structure, which results in lower percentage of damages.
The main finding of Figure 1.3 is that the damage starts to reach a high level beyond 2.5m of
water depth (as shown by black dotted line and the shaded area in Figure 1.3).
In addition to the flood depth, flow velocity is also an important characteristic, which has been
considered in building damage assessments. For example, Queensland Government (2002)
says, “Structural failures can begin at a range of flood depth–velocity combinations. At shallow depths, velocities greater than two metres per second can affect the stability of building
foundations through the actions of scour. Even at very low velocities, damage to light-framed
buildings from water pressure, flotation and debris loads can be caused by flood inundation
depths of greater than two metres”.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-8-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
100.0
USACE (2003) - Structure
1 story
USACE (2003) - Contents
1 story
USACE (2003) - Structure
2 or more story
USACE (2003) - Contents
2 or more sroty
USACE (2006) - Structure
1 story
USACE (2006) - Contents
1 story
USACE (2006) - Structure
2 story
USACE (2006) - Contents
2 story
Middelmann-Fernandes
(2010) - Structure 1 story
Middelmann-Fernandes
(2010) - Contents 1 story
Damage Percentage
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Water Depth (m)
Figure 1.3: Depth-damage curves for residential buildings (USACE, 2003, 2006, and MiddelmannFernandes, 2010)
Nadal (2007) has developed vulnerability matrices considering both flood depth (h, in feet)
and flow velocity (U, in feet per second) for individual concrete structures with five building
components: 1-reinforced-concrete frames, 2-concrete-block walls, 3-doors, 4-windows and
5-utilities and finishes and for three different flood types: river floods, storm surges and Tsunamis. Table 1.6 and Figure 1.4 provide the expected flood damage due to storm surges.
Table 1.6: Expected flood damage due to surging floods - average (Nadal, 2007)
First, the flood damage is computed for each building component individually, as a function
of both the floodwater depth and velocity. The expected flood damage (EFD), defined as the
expected value of flood damages, is then computed per building unit by considering the aggregated damage to all five building components at each of the evaluated depth-velocity
combinations (Nadal et al., 2010).
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
-9-
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
EFD (%)
h (ft)
U (ft/s)
Figure 1.4: Expected flood damage due to surging floods (Nadal, 2007)
Since Nadal (2007) has developed the vulnerability matrices only for the concrete structures,
it is difficult to use these results directly for the masonry structures. However, this research
work is very useful to examine and describe how the flood depth and velocity cause damages to individual buildings. For example, vulnerability matrix for surging flood shows that the
water depth less than 0.5m causes very low or no damages to buildings and beyond water
depths over 1.5m cause considerable building damage (more than 20% - for concrete structures) although the flow velocities are low, less than 2m/s (Table 1.6). This result is common
for all types of floods he considered.
Further, USACE (1985) has developed building collapse curves with respect to flood depth
and velocity for four classes of buildings: Class A - Structural steel columns and beams with
nonbearing walls, Class B - Reinforced concrete columns and beams with nonbearing walls,
Class C - Masonry or concrete load bearing walls, and Class D - Wood or steel studs in bearing walls with wood or steel Frame. Figure 1.5 presents an example of such curves for Class
C buildings. This building collapse curve indicates that a single story masonry building is
likely to be collapsed when the flood velocity is over 7ft/s (approx. 2m/s) with a flood depth
beyond 10 ft (approx. 3m). On the other hand, for two story buildings, a total collapse limit
can be identified as flood depth of 6m and flood velocity of 2.5m/s.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 10 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
30
FLOOD DEPTH IN FEET
25
20
15
10
COLLAPSE
5
0
NO COLLAPSE
0
2
4
6
8
OVERBANK VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
10
Figure 1.5: Building collapse curve – Class C buildings - masonry or concrete walls (USACE, 1985)
In addition to the consideration of flood depth and velocity separately, the depth-velocity
product (h·v), which represent a specific discharge, has also been taken into account in assessment of building damage. As stated by Kelman and Spence (2004), the following criterion for the building damage due to flooding is derived by Clausen (1989) (see Figure 1.6a);
inundation damage
 v < 2 m/s or h·v < 3 m3/m∙s
3
3
 v > 2 m/s and 3 m /m∙s < h·v < 7 m /m∙s
partial damage
3
total destruction
 v > 2 m/s and h·v > 7 m /m∙s
Pistrika and Jonkman (2010) have implemented Clausen’s criterion and concluded that the
consideration of both velocity and depth-velocity product leads to inaccurate results. Therefore, they proposed the following criterion for building damage, considering only the depthvelocity product (Figure 1.6b):
inundation damage
 h·v <3 m3/m∙s
3
3
 3 m /m∙s < h·v < 7 m /m∙s
partial damage
3
total destruction
 h·v > 7 m /m∙s
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 11 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
3.5
v < 2m/s
4
v > 2m/s
3.5
3
3
Total destruction
2
Depth, h (m)
Depth, h (m)
2.5
Inundation
damage
1.5
Partial
damage
1
h·v = 7 m3/m·s
Partial
damage
2
1.5
h·v = 3 m3/m·s
Inundation damage
h·v = 7 m3/m·s
Inundation
damage
1
0.5
h·v = 3 m3/m·s
0.5
0
0
0
(a)
Total destruction
2.5
1
2
3
4
Velocity, v (m/s)
5
6
7
0
(b)
1
2
3
4
Velocity, v (m/s)
5
6
7
Figure 1.6: Building damage assessment criteria by (a) Clausen (1989) and (b) Pistrika and Jonkman
(2010)
Both approaches by Clausen (1989) and Pistrika and Jonkman (2010) give similar results for
flood velocities greater than 2 m/s. However, for flood velocities less than 2 m/s, flood depth
is more significant on building damage than flood velocity as by Clausan’s illustration. Therefore, the consideration of 2 m/s limit (as in Clausen’s approach) is more suitable for this
study. Nevertheless, it is not acceptable that for all flood depths (velocities < 2 m/s), only the
inundation damage can occur, since the depth-damage curves in Figure 1.3 show a continues increment in damage with respect to water depths. Therefore, the damage levels in
Clausan’s approach should be modified for the velocities < 2 m/s.
In the meantime, Queensland Government (2002) says that the damage to light structures
possible beyond h·v = 1 m3/m·s. Moreover, Priest (2009) has also considered flood discharge
in calculation of flood risk to people, and confirms that the risk is extremely high when h·v >
7 m3/m·s due to building collapses. However, the physical meaning of the variable h·v, which
is a specific discharge q (m3/m·s), has not been mentioned or discussed in these studies.
From the above studies, it can be seen that not only the flood depth, but also flood velocity
represents a significant flood characteristic, which should be considered in building damage
assessment, since the flood velocity have also a considerable effect on damages to building
contents. Therefore, combining the important findings of previous studies, a five point scale
of damage criterion (Table 1.7) is proposed for the qualitative assessment of the level of
physical damage in cultural assets, especially cultural buildings. A graphical representation
of the damage criterion is provided in Figure 1.7.
Table 1.7: Proposed flood damage criteria for cultural assets
Damage level
Damage Criterion
for flood velocity < 2 m/s
1 - Very low
h < 0.5m
2 - Low
0.5 m < h < 1.5 m
3 - Medium
1.5 m < h < 2.5 m
4 - High
2.5 m < h < 3 m
5 - Very high
h>3m
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 12 -
Damage Criterion
for flood velocity > 2 m/s
h·v < 1 m3/m·s
1 m3/m·s < h·v < 3 m3/m·s
3 m3/m·s < h·v < 7 m3/m·s
h > 3 m or h·v > 7 m3/m·s
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
3.5
v = 2m/s (Clausan, 1989; USACE, 1985)
Very High
h = 3m (USACE, 1985)
3
High
Very High
h = 2.5 m (Figure 1.3)
Depth, h (m)
2.5
Medium
2
High
h∙v = 7m3/m·s (Pistrika and Jonkman,
2010; Clausan,1989)
h = 1.5m (Nadal, 2007)
1.5
Low
1
Medium
h = 0.5m (Nadal, 2007)
0.5
h∙v = 3 m3/m·s (Pistrika and Jonkman, 2010;
Clausan,1989)
h∙v = 1 m3/m·s (Queensland Government, 2002)
Very Low
Low
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Velocity, v (m/s)
Figure 1.7: Level of physical damage in cultural assets related to flood depth and velocity (damage
criteria are adopted from USACE, 1985; Clausan, 1989; Queensland Government, 2002; Pistrika and
Jonkman , 2010 and Figure 1.3)
As Figure 1.7 illustrates, for the flood velocities less than 2 m/s, the level of physical damages merely depends on the flood depth. Beyond the flood velocities of 2 m/s, both flood
depth and velocity have significant impact on the building damage. Therefore, the depthvelocity product is considered to differentiate the damage levels referring few previous studies. However, beyond 3 m water depth, it is assumed that the damages reach their highest
possible level. At the boundary points, the possible highest damage level is assumed (for
example, at the point of v = 2 m/s and h = 1.5 m, the damage level is “high”).
The above damage criteria can be used for the estimation of physical damages to cultural
buildings and their contents such as historic buildings, museums, libraries, churches etc.
These damages can vary from deposition of debris (level 1, very low damage) to collapse or
movement of whole or part of the building (level 5, very high damage). However, these damage criteria are not applicable for few cultural assets such as recreational parks, where the
damages may limit only to deposition of debris. Therefore, for these cultural assets, the
physical damage can be assumed as the level 1 (very low damage) for all flood scenarios.
1.3.2
Determination of Cultural Values
The next important variable determining the losses of cultural assets is its cultural value.
Even though the cultural values can be defined in different ways, it is common to use a typology, which is a framework that breaks down the total value into several constituents (Mason, 2002). Table 1.8 presents the summary of typologies used in previous studies (classification 1-5) for the description of cultural values, focusing mainly on heritage values.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 13 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
Table 1.8: Previous classifications of cultural value constituents
Classification
1. Reigl (1903)
2. Lipe (1984)
3. English Heritage
(1997)
4. Mason (2002)
5. Holden (2004)
Cultural value constituents
Age, historical, intentional commemorative, use, art, newness
Economic, aesthetic, associative-symbolic, informational
Cultural, educational and academic, economic, resource, recreational,
aesthetic
Historical, cultural/symbolic, social, spiritual/religious, aesthetic
Historical, social, symbolic, aesthetic, spiritual
It is clear that these classifications are similar to some extent, describing similar constituents,
but using different wording. However, seven major cultural value constituents can be identified as shown in Table 1.9. A clear distinction between these components cannot be made,
since they can be overlapping.
Table 1.9: Modified classification of cultural value constituents
Type of value
Definition
Historical value
Symbolic value
Social value
Aesthetic value
Spiritual value
Recreational value
Educational value
a special relationship with the past; a concept resting on particular viewpoints of history
representing an underlying structure/ specific era/ cultural characteristics of a social
systems
places or things that tend to make connections between people and to reinforce a
sense of unity and identity
refers to the visual qualities of the assets
associated with the religious, numinous
and, sublime or any other sacred meaning
the places providing the opportunity for
people’s recreation and enjoyment
acting as a source of information about the
ancestors, the evolution of the society and
characteristics of environments and culture
Major determinants
Age (construction year) and the
importance to the community
Number of visitors
The economic value of cultural assets is not included in this classification as seen in Lipe
(1984) and English Heritage (1997). Generally the economic value of a cultural asset is derived from the total cultural value of the asset. Therefore, the economic value is considered
separately and not included as a constituent of cultural value.
It is possible to identify two major groups of cultural values in Table 1.9:
1. Cultural values of Historical Significance - HS (historical and symbolic) - estimated by age and the importance to the community
2. Cultural values of Societal Significance - SS (social, aesthetic, spiritual, recreational and educational) – estimated by the site visitation population
Cultural value estimation criteria can be developed according to the above information for the
two cases: HS and SS. For HS case, the value estimation criteria are proposed based on the
age and the importance level to the community. Two timelines are considered in this study
for the year of construction of assets: built before 15th century and, between 15th and 20th
centuries. The level of importance can vary from international level to local level. Based on
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 14 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
the importance level as well as the construction year of the asset, the five-point scale for HS
is defined as in Table 1.10.
The societal significance (SS) of cultural assets is proposed by considering the site visitation
population as stated above. Here, it is assumed that the SS is directly proportional to the
number of visitors. Therefore, a five-point scale as shown in Table 1.11 can be used for defining the level of SS.
Table 1.10: Proposed criteria for the level of historical significance (HS)
Scale
Criteria
5 - Very High
International importance and has built before 15th Century
4 - High
International importance and has built between 15th- 20th Century
3 - Medium
National importance and has built before 15th Century
2 - Low
National importance and has built between 15th- 20th Century
1 - Very low
Regional/ local importance built before 20th Century
Table 1.11: Proposed criteria for the level of value of societal significance (SS)
Scale
Criteria
5 - Very High
Site visitation population is high in all 7 days of week
4 - High
Site visitation population is high only in weekends
3 - Medium
Site visitation population is low in all 7 days of week
2 - Low
Site visitation population is low and only in weekends
1 - Very low
Very low or no visitation
Before applying the value estimation criteria for the cultural assets considered in this study, it
is necessary to determine the cultural value constituents in each type of asset. Table 1.12
attempts to identify the cultural value constituents of each cultural asset considering the classification of cultural assets (section 1.1.1) and Table 1.9. Here, HS and SS are referred to
historical significance and societal significance, respectively.
Table 1.12: Proposed matrix of cultural assets and their cultural value constituents.
Nonheritage
Historic/ heritage building
Museum
Archaeological site
Library/ archive
Church
Cemetery
Monuments
Cultural space
Library
Recreational park
Monuments
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
SS
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
- 15 -
Educational
Heritage
Recreational
HS
Spiritual
Aesthetic
Social
Symbolic
Cultural assets
Historical
Cultural value constituents
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
An important implication can be drawn from Table 1.12. In heritage cultural assets, the most
common value components are historical and symbolic values (i.e. values of historical significance). Further, societally significant cultural values are also possible in some extents. On
the other hand, social, aesthetic and recreational values are the major constituents of nonheritage assets (only societal significance). This information can be used for the determination of the cultural value of heritage and non-heritage assets.
Criteria for the determination of cultural values – Heritage assets
As discussed in the previous section, heritage assets have both historical and societal significance, but in different scale. Therefore, weighting factors should be introduced for the
estimation of total cultural value. Here, a value of 1 is allocated for each “√” sign in Table
1.12. A historical significance factor is calculated as; total cultural value constituents for all
heritage assets/ no. of constituents, which amounts to 14/2 = 7. In the same manner, societal
significance factor equals to 15/5 = 3. Then the weighting factors can be calculated as;
HSw = 7/ (7+3) = 0.7 and SSw = 3/ (7+3) = 0.3
Finally, the level of cultural value for heritage assets is estimated using the weighting factors
(HSw and SSw) and the values (scale: 1 to 5) in Tables 1.10 and Table 1.11. i.e. level of cultural value = (HS * HSw) + (SS * SSw). The values are rounded to whole numbers. For example, if HS is 1 and SS is 2, the level of cultural value amount to 1.3, which can be approximated to 1- very low level. The calculated values for the level of cultural value are given in
Table 1.13.
Table 1.13: Matrix for the determination of the level of cultural value for heritage assets.
SS
HS
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
1.3 ~ 1
1.6 ~ 2
1.9 ~ 2
2.2 ~ 2
2
1.7 ~ 2
2
2.3 ~ 2
2.6 ~ 3
2.9 ~ 3
3
2.4 ~ 2
2.7 ~ 3
3
3.3 ~ 3
3.6 ~ 4
4
3.1 ~ 3
3.4 ~ 3
3.7 ~ 4
4
4.3 ~ 4
3.8 ~ 4
2-Low
4.1 ~ 4
3- Medium
5
1-Very Low
4.4 ~ 4
4.7 ~ 5
4-High
5-Very High
5
Criteria for the determination of cultural values – Non-heritage assets
Non-heritage assets have mainly societally significant cultural values: social, aesthetic, recreational, educational and spiritual. Therefore, the same criteria given in Table 1.11 can be
applied for the determination of cultural value of non heritage assets.
1.3.3
Assessment of Cultural Losses
The losses of the cultural losses, like other building losses, depend mainly on the physical
damages to cultural assets due to the hazard. The level of physical damage merely can provide a first overall picture of the loss. Therefore, the level of physical damage of cultural assets is a significant determinant of cultural loss. On the other hand, although the physical
damage is the same for two cultural assets, the actual loss can be different due to the differXtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 16 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
ence in cultural values of the assets. Hence, the level of cultural value of assets can be used
to improve the overall picture obtained from the level of physical damage to estimate the
level of cultural loss. Therefore, it can be seen that the level of cultural value is significant as
same as the level of physical damage in cultural loss estimation. Hence, the weighting factor
of 0.5 is assumed for the level of physical damage and the level of cultural value for the calculation of the final cultural loss.
Once the level of physical damage and the level of cultural value of cultural assets are estimated using the approaches given in sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, it is possible to integrate them
into a single matrix (as in Table 1.14) to determine the level of cultural losses. Here again, a
five point scale of 1 - very low, 2 - low, 3 - medium, 4 - high and 5 - very high is used for the
levels of cultural loss. Based on the above assumed weighting factors for physical damage
and cultural value, the values for the level of cultural loss are calculated and rounded to the
nearest (higher) integer.
Table 1.14: Cultural Loss Assessment Matrix (CLAM) for the integration of physical damages of cultural assets and their cultural values
Level of physical damage
Level of Cultural
value
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
1.5 ~ 2
2
2.5 ~ 3
3
2
1.5 ~ 2
2
2.5 ~ 3
3
3.5 ~ 4
3
2
2.5 ~ 3
3
3.5 ~ 4
4
4
2.5 ~3
3
3.5 ~ 4
4
4.5 ~ 5
5
3
3.5 ~ 4
4
4.5 ~ 5
5
1- Very Low
2- Low
3- Medium
4- High
5- Very High
The cultural loss assessment matrix (CLAM) given in Table 1.14 clearly illustrates how the
level of cultural losses varies with the level of physical damage as well as with the level of
cultural value of assets. It shows that if an asset, which has a very high cultural value, experiences a very low damage, then the level of the overall cultural loss will be medium. This
may occur as the asset can be repaired to its original conditions within very short period with
a lower cost. Although the number of beneficiaries of the asset is high because of the very
high cultural value, they will not affect heavily by the damage. On the other hand, if an asset,
which has a very low cultural value, undergoes a very high physical damage, then the overall
loss level, according to the matrix, is also medium. This is possible since the time taken for
the repair work might be long, the cost would be high, and the beneficiaries (although the
number might be low) can have a long term effect of using the asset.
It can also be seen from the cultural loss assessment matrix that a very high ranked cultural
asset (e.g. a historic museum, which has an international importance), which experiences a
medium level physical damage, is in the same loss level (high) as a very highly damaged
and low ranked (e.g. newly constructed theatre, which is occasionally used by local people)
cultural asset. This seems impossible if only the repair and restoration costs of the assets are
considered, since the repair cost mainly depends on the degree of physical damage. The
repair cost of the first case might be lower than that of the second case (when assuming all
the necessary materials and methods for the repair work of the historic building is available).
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 17 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
However, the cultural value of the first asset is very high and hence, a large number of people who might not have the opportunity to benefit from this asset during the damaged period.
On the other hand, although the repair cost is high for the second case, the cultural value as
well as the number of beneficiaries is very low. Therefore, a major conclusion drawn from the
CLAM in Table 1.14 is that the cultural losses cannot be estimated merely based on the repair and replacement cost, if a monetary valuation of cultural losses is needed.
Although this methodology seems promising for the evaluation of the level of cultural losses,
several limitations arose when developing the methodology. These limitations and the implications are discussed in section 1.4.
1.4 Discussion and Implications for this Study
This study focuses on the development of a methodology for the assessment of cultural
losses due to flooding. Here, an overall methodology is developed for the estimation of cultural losses qualitatively. The proposed approach allows us to determine the level of the
losses using a five-point scale: very low, low, medium, high and very high.
The qualitative assessment is based on two factors; the level of physical damage of the cultural assets and the level of cultural value of the asset. In the estimation of the physical damage to cultural sites, two main flood characteristics (flood depth and flow velocity), which
have been mostly used in previous studies for the estimation of building damages, are considered. In this study, a damage criterion is proposed which is based on flood depth, flow
velocity and their combination (product).
The main limitation in developing this methodology is that the lack of reliable data related to
physical damages to cultural assets with flood characteristics such as flood depth and flow
velocity. Therefore, the damage criteria developed for the physical damages in residential
buildings due to flooding had to be incorporated in this study.
The present building construction can have a significant difference with historical building
construction methods. For example, the building materials (bricks, mortar, plaster material
etc.) used in historic buildings can be different from present building materials used in residential buildings. Therefore, the structures might have a considerable difference in strength,
which in turn show a difference in flood physical damage.
The second factor considered for the evaluation of cultural losses is the level of cultural values. Based on the cultural value constituents present in an asset (such as historic, symbolic,
social, aesthetic, recreational, educational etc.), two major groups of values are identified:
values with historic significance and values with societal significance. The historic significance is determined using the level of importance of the site to the community and its age,
while the societal significance is estimated based on the site visitation. Combining these two
aspects, the level of cultural value is determined for heritage assets. On the other hand,
based on the societal significance, the level of cultural value of non-heritage assets is estimated.
The main difficulty in the assessment of cultural losses is that, each and every asset should
be considered individually, since the cultural assets are largely heterogeneous in terms of
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 18 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 1
Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Cultural Losses
both physical damages and cultural values. Although the number of cultural assets in an area
is relatively less compared to that of residential buildings, all relevant information should be
collected separately for each type of cultural assets in order to estimate their cultural value.
Therefore, unlike for residential building damages, a common criterion for all cultural assets
cannot be derived.
Although the visitation information provides a good insight into the cultural value of an asset,
it might be difficult to find the information for all cultural sites, mainly if they don’t have an
entrance ticket or they are not under control of any organization. In such cases, field surveys
should be carried out to count the number of visitors of that cultural site.
The level of cultural losses is determined using a CLAM (cultural loss assessment matrix),
which combines the physical damage level and the cultural value level (Table 1.14). The
level of cultural loss is estimated based on the assumption that the significance of physical
damages is same as the significance of cultural value of the asset. This assumption is made
merely to emphasize the level of significance of these two factors, and there is no theoretical
background to support this assumption. Therefore, it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the
weighting factors adopted in the study.
The same two factors considered in this study: physical damage and cultural value can also
be used for the monetary valuation of cultural losses, if the monetary assessment is necessary. The physical damages can be estimated depending on the repair and replacement
costs. Based on indirect valuation approaches, the cultural value of assets can be determined. Then the monetary value of cultural losses can be calculated based on the same
weighting factors used in the CLAM.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 19 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
2 Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical
Damages
In this chapter, the methodology proposed in Chapter 1 for the assessment of both physical
damages of cultural assets and their cultural values is applied to assess only the physical
damage of cultural assets. For the assessment of the cultural values, an attempt will be
made in Chapter 3.
2.1 Cultural Assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg
2.1.1
Collection of Data on Cultural Assets
Data on cultural assets were collected from the relevant documents and archives on cultural
assets in the area. For example, the city of Hamburg (Hamburg Denkmalbehörde) has published a list of all cultural assets within Hamburg (City of Hamburg, 2010a-d), which include
the postal address of each asset, the year of construction and the type of the asset: whether
it is a residential building, a public building, an infrastructure etc.
The collected data on cultural assets within Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area from different
documents and archives was entered into an Excel worksheet (as shown in Figure 2.1). The
most important entry in this table is the postal address of the cultural asset, since, in the next
step, the location of cultural assets are identified in Google maps using its address.
Figure 2.1: The Excel Table including the information on the cultural assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg
area.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 20 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
2.1.2
Digitisation of data
The cultural assets are digitised in ArcGIS using aerial photographs and maps obtained from the Internet (e.g. Google maps and Google Earth). First, the exact location of the cultural asset is identified
in Google maps using its address (Figure 2.2a). Next, the same cultural asset is located in the aerial
photographs (provided by Landesamt für Geoinformationen) which are imported to GIS. Then, the
asset is digitised as an area polygon using ArcEditor software (which is later referred as ArcGIS for
Desktop Standard) (Figure 2.2b). After digitisation of all cultural assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg as
area polygons, the GIS map can be seen as in Figure 2.2c.
(a) Cultural asset identification in Google maps
(c) Cultural assets in Hamburg‐Wilhelmsburg as area polygons after digitisation
Cemetery
Holy Cross Church
(b) Digitisation of cultural assets Cemetery
Holy Cross Church
Figure 2.2: a) Identification of cultural assets, (e.g. Holy Cross Church and the cemetery in HamburgWilhelmsburg), b) digitisation of cultural assets as area polygons and c) all cultural assets in HamburgWilhelmsburg after digitisation.
As shown by Figure 2.3c, the total area of each cultural asset is represented by an area
polygon. Here, the adjoining cultural assets, e.g. cultural buildings located next to each other,
are digitised as one area polygon and each cultural asset is not separately outlined. Therefore, the assets are not identified separately, i.e. it is not specified whether it is a church, museum or any other asset.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 21 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
2.2 Cultural Loss Assessment Model (based on Physical Damages)
in ArcGIS
As mentioned previously, the cultural losses are assessed on the basis of the physical damage of the cultural assets. Here, the physical damage due to both flood depth and flow velocity is estimated using scoring: 1-very low, 2-low, 3-medium, 4-high and 5-very high. The cultural loss assessment model is developed in ArcGIS Modelbuilder.
For the analysis of cultural losses, cell-based risk assessment (CRA) methodology (Burzel
and Oumeraci, 2011) is applied. In this analysis, GIS maps of 50m x 50m cell size are used.
For this exemplary analysis flooding scenario HH_XR2010A is considered. The Flooding
scenario HH_XR2010A is developed based on the storm surge event on 03.01.1976, which
would lead to a highest water level of 8.10m NN in Hamburg (Burzel et al., 2010).
2.2.1
Model Inputs
Two main input features are used for the GIS model:
1. The map of cultural assets digitised as area polygons (Figure 2.2c): This vector data map
will be converted to a raster map within the analysis, in order to integrate it with other
raster maps of estimated flood losses in a later stage of this research study.
2. The 50m x 50m raster maps of estimated flood depths (Figure 2.3) and velocities (Figure
2.4): Flood depths and velocities were estimated using MIKEFLOOD software for flooding
scenarios (in this case, scenario HH_XR2010A) as point data and later converted to raster
maps.
Figure 2.3: Estimated flood depths for flooding scenario HH_XR2010A
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 22 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
Figure 2.4: Estimated flow velocities for flooding scenario HH_XR2010A
Figure 2.3 shows that the flood depth is less than 1.5m for the majority of the HamburgWilhelmsburg area for the considered flooding scenario. Further, only a very few places have
the flood depths more than 3.0m. Flood velocities for this flooding scenario (Figure 2.4) are
less than 2 m/s for almost all the area. Therefore, from physical damage estimation criteria in
Table 1.7 and Figure 1.7, the damage level in most Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area is less than
or equal to level 4 (high) for the considered flooding scenario HH_XR2010A.
2.2.2
Model development in ArcGIS Modelbuilder
The cultural loss assessment model was developed in ArcGIS Modelbuilder software as
shown in Figure 2.5. The blue ovals represent the input data (maps of cultural assets, flood
depths and velocities, in this case). The yellow rectangles indicate the processes within the
model and the output data from each process is indicated by green ovals. The black arrows
show the direction of data flow. The letter “P” indicates the model parameters. The numbers
in red colour are not a part of the GIS model, but included here for the illustration of the sequence of the model development.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 23 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(7)
(9)
(6)
(8)
Figure 2.5: Cultural loss assessment model in ArcGIS Modelbuilder.
Two main stages of the cultural loss assessment process can be identified. The first stage is
to combine flood depth and flow velocity, in order to estimate the possible physical damage
levels in the area according to Table 1.7, which is carried out in Steps 1-3 of the GIS model.
First, the raster maps of flood depth and velocity are intersected (Step 1). Since, the physical
damage estimation methodology requires the depth-velocity product, the flood depth and
velocity fields are multiplied together in Step 2. Step 3 deals with the estimation of physical
damage level in each cell. Here the level of damage is determined as a score (1-5) based on
the physical damage assessment methodology given in Table 1.7 and Figure 1.7. The calculation of physical damage score for the new field in the attribute table is shown in Figure 2.6.
In the second stage (Step 4-9), physical damage level of cultural assets are determined by
combining the damage levels with the cultural assets. First, the resultant shape file of physical damage levels within Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area is intersected with the shape file of the
cultural assets (Step 4). At this stage, the vector data (or area polygons) of cultural assets
should be converted to raster data for a better presentation of cultural losses and especially,
for the compatibility with other categories of losses in integration in a later stage of this research study. For this purpose, first, the tool “summary statistics” is used (Step 5) and an
output table is produced with the maximum damage value allocated for each cell containing a
cultural asset. Then, this attribute table is joined (in Step 6) with the flood-velocity layer using
the common field “ID Fishnet”. Then the tool “copy features” (Step 7) is used to store the
results of the join. The join is then removed (Step 8) by introducing a precondition that Step 8
should be executed after Step 7. Finally, the extra fields in the attribute table, which are repeated or not important, will be deleted (Step 9).
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 24 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
Dim PD_Level as Double
if [FloodDepth]=0 then
PD_Level=0
Elseif [Velocity]<2 and [FloodDepth]<0.5 then
PD_Level=1
Elseif [Velocity]<2 and [FloodDepth]<1.5 then
PD_Level=2
Elseif [Velocity]<2 and [FloodDepth]<2.5 then
PD_Level=3
Elseif [Velocity]<2 and [FloodDepth]<3 then
PD_Level=4
Elseif [Velocity]>2 and [DV_product]<1 then
PD_Level=2
Elseif [Velocity]>2 and [DV_product]<3 then
PD_Level=3
Elseif [Velocity]>2 and [DV_product]<7 then
PD_Level=4
Else PD_Level=5
End if
Figure 2.6: Calculation of damage level based on flood depth, velocity and depth-velocity product.
2.3 Results
The area polygons of cultural assets are converted to raster cells, which contain one or more
cultural assets or a part of a cultural asset. Figure 2.7 shows an example of how the cultural
assets are symbolized by raster cells after the conversion in 100m*100 m grid. Although
these raster cells are not an actual representative of the area of the cultural assets, they are
merely used for the representation of the possible level of cultural loss within each cell.
Figure 2.7: Conversion of vector data to raster data
Figure 2.8 illustrates the estimated levels of the cultural losses in the Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg
area. The value 0 (dark green) indicates the raster cells of cultural assets which are not affected by the considered flooding scenario. The results show that the cultural assets have
only up to the damage level 4 (orange colour), since the maximum physical damage level
possible for this scenario is level 4. Furthermore, Figure 2.9 shows the number of grid cells
containing cultural assets of each loss level within the pilot site.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 25 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
Figure 2.8: The level of cultural losses in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area (based on physical damages to
cultural assets).
% of affected grid cells
100
80
63%
60
40
20
17%
16%
3%
0.3%
0%
3
4
5
0
0
1
2
Score
Figure 2.9: The percentage of affected grid cells for each loss level.
As illustrated by Figure 2.9, 17% of grid cells containing cultural assets is not affected by the
considered flooding scenario HH_XR2010A. Moreover, 63% of grid cells has a damage level
1, 16% has a damage level 2, 3% has a damage level 3 and only 0.3% has a damage level
4. That means, nearly 97% of the grid cell has damage level 2 (low) or less for the considered flooding scenario.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 26 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 2
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages
2.4 Discussion
Within this chapter, it was attempted to estimate the level of cultural losses in the HamburgWilhelmsburg area. Although the methodology proposed in the Chapter 1 was developed for
the assessment of the cultural losses based on both the physical damages and the cultural
values of the assets, the cultural losses were estimated based only on the physical damages
within this chapter. According to the methodology proposed, the physical damages to cultural
assets are evaluated depending on both the flood depth and the flow velocity. When the flow
velocity is less than 2 m/s, the flood depth represents the main source of damages (Table 1.7
and Figure 1.7). Further, when the velocity is more than 2 m/s, it is proposed to consider both
the flood depth and the flow velocity (as a product of depth and velocity). However, according
to the exemplary flooding scenario, only two cells contain a velocity more than 2 m/s (Figure
2.4). Nevertheless, the damage assessment model is developed to consider both cases.
The damage assessment model is developed using ArcGIS ModelBuilder application.
ModelBuilder is a user-friendly application, in which all the steps of the model can be clearly
seen (Figure 2.5). The input flood depth and flow velocity layers are defined as model parameters and therefore other flooding scenarios can be easily input in the model. Further,
outputs from Steps 1, 4 and 7 are also defined as model parameters in order to avoid the
overwriting of output files in each run with new input flooding scenarios.
Damage results for the entire study area show that the damage level varies from 0 (not affected) to level 4 (high damage) for the considered flooding scenario. Therefore, the cultural
assets have only up to the damage level 4. These results may change with the different
flooding scenarios considered in the project.
The cultural assets are represented by polygons in a GIS map. Here, the adjoining assets
are outlined by a single polygon, including total area of all adjoining assets. The main advantage of this damage assessment method is that it considers the total area of the cultural assets. If the part of a cultural asset, which has a large area, is damaged, it can be seen from
the spatial analysis. Hence, this method gives an overall picture of the damages of cultural
assets within the area. However, this analysis has two major drawbacks:
(i) In the contexts of mapping the assets, the process of drawing polygons manually for all
the assets is time consuming.
(ii) The assets are not considered individually and therefore, the type of cultural assets
damaged is not specifically identified.
When the type of the cultural asset has to be considered, for example, to estimate the cultural value of each asset, this method is not appropriate. Furthermore, if the information such
as the number of each type of cultural assets damaged (e.g. churches, museums etc.) is
needed, this analysis should not be used.
Further, the raster maps of 100mx100m cell size are not suitable, if an actual representation
of the area of the cultural assets is needed, since most of the assets have smaller floor area
than the considered grid cell. Therefore, for a better representation of area, smaller size of
grid should be selected, for example 10mx10m.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 27 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
3 Assessment of Cultural Losses – Based on Physical
Damages and Cultural Values
This chapter attempts to evaluate the cultural losses by considering both physical damages
of the cultural assets and the cultural values. Unlike in the previous chapter, the cultural assets are represented by point data in the GIS map and the types of the cultural assts are
specially considered. Since all the data required for the assessment of cultural value as proposed in the methodology described in Chapter 1 are difficult to collect, a simple approach is
used in this analysis for the assessment of the level of cultural value of each asset.
3.1 Identification of Cultural Assets
The same data set collected previously (as in Chapter 2.1.1) and the Excel data sheet (in
Figure 2.2) is used in this analysis. However, the digitization of data is different from the previous analysis. Here, the assets are marked as points instead of area polygons.
3.1.1
Geocoding
Geocoding is the process of finding associated geographic coordinates (i.e. latitude and longitude) from other geographic data, such as street addresses, or zip codes (postal codes). In
this study, the coordinates were found using the addresses of cultural assets. A freely available webtool (or Geocoder) called “GPS Visualizer” was adopted to transform the addresses
to coordinates (http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/geocoder). It allows the entry of addresses in a
list. Here, a sample list can be downloaded in order to have an appropriate style. On the basis of a gazetteer service, addresses are converted to geographic coordinates and the geographical coordinates are displayed in Latitude-Longitude format. These data must be copied
into an original address list. The output from the geocoder can be linked with the Excel
spreadsheet. The final data set therefore contains the information on latitude, longitude, address, the type of building, the categorization and the dating of each building (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Excel data sheet including geographic coordinates
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 28 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
3.1.2
Importing the Geographical Coordinates in ArcGIS
For the digitization of data, the final Excel data table with geographic coordinates should be
imported ArcGIS. This is done via “Tools > Add XY Data”. In order to ensure the assignment
of geographical coordinates correctly, the column headers should be named as Longitude
(for X value) and Latitude (for Y value). As the coordinate system, “Geographic Coordinate
System > World > WGS 1984” was selected. After importing the coordinates into ArcGIS and
the resulting transformation associated to a point feature, the correct coordinate system must
be selected for the layer “Predefined> Projected Coordinate System> National Grid>
Germany Zone 3”. Finally, the point data can be exported to a shape file by right-clicking the
layer and selecting “Data > Export Data”.
Figure 3.2 represents the Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area including cultural assets mapped as
point data.
Figure 3.2: Digitized cultural assets in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg as point data.
The attribute table related to the ArcGIS map of the point data of cultural assets then consists of the geographic coordinates of each asset. An example of such an attribute table is
shown in Figure 3.3.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 29 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
Figure 3.3: Attribute table which includes geographic coordinates.
3.1.3
Classification of cultural assets and estimation of cultural values
For the GIS analysis, all the cultural assets are classified allocating a 3-digit identification
number according to the classification introduced in Chapter 1.1.1. The first digit indicates
whether the cultural asset is non-heritage (allocated number: 1) or heritage (allocated number: 2). The other two digits are allocated depending on the type of the asset. The allocated
GIS classes are illustrated in Table 3.1. These classes of cultural assets are used for the
analysis of cultural value of assets in this analysis.
Table 3.1: Classification of cultural assets and the assumed cultural values
Cultural Assets
Class
number
Heritage assets
Heritage buildings or historic buildings, with their equipment
207
and collections, or dwellings located in historic centres
Museums
206
Archaeological sites
205
Libraries, archives and collections of documents
204
Churches
203
Moveable goods of historic value that might be located in
202
buildings other than museums
Historic landscape, monuments and cemetery
201
Non-heritage assets
Cultural spaces, including houses of culture and non103
heritage theatres, Libraries and their equipment
Monuments
102
Recreational parks
101
Assumed
Cultural value
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
1
Since there is no comprehensive information available for all cultural assets within HamburgWilhelmsburg area for the assessment of cultural value of each asset individually according
to method proposed in Section 1.3.2, a simple method is adopted here. In this case, a value
for each cultural asset is assumed based on the author’s estimation for each class of cultural
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 30 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
assets. Here, the level of cultural value of non-heritage assets is assumed to be varied between 1 and 3, since they can be replaced or rebuild to their original conditions. It is assumed that recreational parks have the minimum cultural value of 1, monuments have a cultural value of 2 and the cultural buildings and spaces have a cultural value of 3. On the other
hand, the level of cultural value of heritage assets is assumed to be between 3 and 5, considering their historical importance and the non-replaceable nature. All historic buildings including museums, libraries and churches, and archaeological sites are assumed to have the
maximum cultural value of 5.
3.2 Cultural Loss Assessment Model (based on Physical Damages
and Cultural Values) in ArcGIS
3.2.1
Model Inputs
Within this analysis, both physical damages of cultural assets due to flooding and the cultural
value of the assets are considered. The level of physical damages of cultural assets is assessed following the same procedure as in Chapter 2.2 based on flood depth and flow velocity in a score. Here, the same exemplary flooding scenario HH_XR2010A used in Chapter 2
in 100m raster (Figure 2.3) was employed.
Further, the digitised maps of heritage and non-heritage cultural assets separately are also
employed in the model as input data, which are similar to Figure 3.2 (which represents both
layers in a merged map).
3.2.2
Model Development in ArcGIS ModelBuilder
The ArcGIS model developed for the assessment of cultural losses is shown in Figure 3.4.
The model consists of two main stages. First, the maps of heritage and non-heritage assets,
which are digitised as point data in separate maps, are brought together, the level of cultural
values of the assets are determined and the results are converted to a raster representation
(Step 1-9). In the second stage (Step 10-15), first, the possible level of physical damage in
the area is estimated based on flood depth, flow velocity and depth-velocity product (Step
10-12). Finally, the level of physical damages are combined with the level of cultural values
and based on the calculated loss values, the level of cultural loss is determined (Step 13-15).
These two stages will be described in detail below.
Since the heritage and non-heritage cultural assets are mapped in different layers, first they
were brought together in one map (Step 1). The level of cultural value of each class of asset
(as in Table 3.1) is then allocated by adding a new field to the attribute table and calculating
the field as illustrated in Figure 3.5 (Step 2).
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 31 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(2)
(8)
(6)
(5)
(7)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(11)
(12)
(12)
(14)
(14)
(13)
(15)
Figure 3.4: GIS model for the assessment of cultural losses based on physical damages and cultural
values.
Dim CV as long
if [class]=101 then
CV=1
Elseif [class]=102 then
CV=2
Elseif [class]=103 or [class]=201 then
CV=3
Elseif [class]=202 then
CV=4
Else CV=5
End if
Figure 3.5: Allocation of cultural value based on the class of cultural assets.
In order to convert point data to raster data, the same procedure used in Section 2.2.2 (Steps
4-8 in Figure 2.4) was adopted in this analysis: i.e intersect with a raster layer (Step 3),
summary statistics (step 4), add join (Step 5), copy features (Step 6) and remove join (Step
7). When there are more than one cultural assets are located in one cell, the maximum cultural value from all assets is selected for the output table produced from ‘summary statistics’
in Step 4. Then the additional fields created during the process are deleted at Step 8. A copy
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 32 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
of the resultant map (a raster map of the level of cultural values of assets) is made (Step 9)
as an intermediate result of this model.
In the second stage, the flood depth map and the velocity map are intersected first (Step 10)
and then the depth-velocity product is calculated (Step 11). The possible level of physical
damage of each raster cell was calculated (in Step 12) as same as in Step 3 in Figure 2.4
and Figure 2.5. The map of the level of cultural losses is then intersected with the map of
physical damages (Step 13) and the level cultural loss is calculated (Step 14) using the
weighting factor of 0.5 for both physical damage and cultural value (see Chapter 1.3.3). Finally the additional or repeated fields are deleted at Step 15.
3.3 Results
The results for the assessment of the level of cultural losses are illustrated in Figure 3.6.
When there are more than one cultural asset in one grid cell, the maximum damage level,
which is in turn estimated by the cultural value of assets, is considered for that cell.
Figure 3.6: The level of cultural losses in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg (based on both physical damages
and cultural values).
The results show that 24% of the raster cells consist of cultural assets are not affected (dark
green) by this flooding scenario, 3% have the loss level of 2 (low – light green), 54% have 3
(medium – yellow) and 18% have the level 4 (high – orange colour), which means the most
of the cultural assets undergo a loss level medium or high (72% of the cells containing cultural assets). These results are further illustrated in Figure 3.7, which shows the number of
cultural assets of each loss level.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 33 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
% of affected grid cells
100
80
54%
60
40
24%
18%
20
0%
3%
1
2
0%
0
0
3
4
5
CLAM Score
Figure 3.7: Percentage of affected grid cells for each loss level
The reason is, although the physical damage is less for this flooding scenario as from the
analysis of the level of physical damages (nearly 97% of the grid cells containing cultural
assets have a physical damage level of 2 or less, see Section 2.3), the cultural values are
considerably high for the considered assets. Therefore, this analysis based on both physical
damages of cultural assets and their cultural values provides comparatively higher loss values than the analysis based only on the physical damages of cultural assets in Chapter 2.
3.4 Discussion
This chapter attempted to estimate the cultural losses within the Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg
area, not only based on the physical damages of the assets as in Chapter 2, but also based
on the cultural value. Here, all the cultural assets should be specified separately in order to
assess their cultural value. Therefore, unlike in Chapter 2, the assets were mapped as point
data ignoring their floor area. Here, the geographical coordinates related to the address of
the assets were used for the mapping.
The methodology developed for the assessment of cultural values (in section 1.3.2) suggests
to consider two factors of cultural value: historical significance and societal significance of
assets. However, the determination of cultural values based on these factors demands several data including the asset’s age, the level of importance and the tourist data. Ideally, these
data should be collected for each asset. Since the most of the necessary data (except year
of construction of some assets) are not available for the Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area, a simple methodology was adopted in this analysis. This method was based on the type of cultural
assets and the authors’ judgements on the cultural value. The loss assessment model developed in ArcGIS Modelbuilder provided the steps of the overall methodology of the assessment of cultural losses.
The main advantage of this methodology over the one proposed in Chapter 2, which is based
only on the physical damages of cultural assets, is that it additionally incorporates the cultural
values of assets, which may specifically differ from each other. For example, generally the
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 34 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 3
Assessment of Cultural Losses - Based on Physical Damages and
Cultural Values
cultural value of non-heritage cultural buildings is less than that of the heritage buildings,
since the former can easily be constructed using the currently available materials and technology, if they are damaged. Further, the mapping of cultural assets in GIS is comparatively
easier with geocoding.
However, the non-consideration of the area of cultural assets is in some cases disadvantageous. For example, the cemetery in the south of Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg is impacted by
considered flooding scenario and the area affected is clear in the analysis in Chapter 2. It
shows that a small area has a damage level of 4, and the rest has levels 1 and 2. However,
from the second analysis, it implies that the whole cemetery can have a damage level of 2.
Therefore, this methodology is more suitable for the assessment of cultural assets that have
an area less than the size of one grid cell.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 35 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 4
Overview of Results of all Extreme Storm Surge Scenarios
4 Overview of Results of all Storm Surge Scenarios
Within the project, four different extreme storm surge scenarios were considered. Estimated
maximum possible flood depths and flow velocities related to each scenario within the Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area are shown in the following table.
Storm Surge Scenario
XR2010A
XR2010A_DB2
XR2010B
XR2010C
Max. Flood Depth (m)
4.61
10.97
1.21
8.44
Max. Flow Velocity (m/s)
3.69
6.70
0.31
3.80
It can be seen that the most hazardous storm surge scenario is the dike breach scenario,
XR2010A_DB2 while XR2010C is the second. The least hazardous scenario is XR2010B.
The results of the analyses of cultural losses based on both physical damage and the cultural
values (described in Chapter 3) in 50m x 50m grid maps are presented below.
Storm surge scenario XR2010A
The cultural loss map for the storm surge scenario XR2010A is illustrated in Chapter 3 (See
Figure 3.6). As described in Chapter 3, the scenario XR2010A results mainly a loss level
‘medium’, which is 54% of the total grid cells containing cultural assets. The highest loss
level resulted from scenario XR2010A is ‘high’ with 18% damaged cells. Further, nearly one
fourth of the total cells containing cultural assets are not affected by this scenario.
Storm surge scenario XR2010A_DB2
The cultural loss map for the storm surge scenario XR2010A_DB2 is shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Level of Cultural losses for scenario XR2010A_DB2
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 36 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 4
Overview of Results of all Extreme Storm Surge Scenarios
All cultural assets are expected to be damaged from the scenario XR2010A_DB2 with loss
levels ‘high’ (77%), ‘medium’ (15%), low (5%) and ‘very high’ (3%). This scenario mainly affects the north part of Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg with ‘high’ and ‘very high’ loss levels. In southern part, the main loss level is ‘medium’.
Storm surge scenario XR2010B
The cultural loss map for the storm surge scenario XR2010B is shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Level of Cultural losses for scenario XR2010B
The storm surge scenario XR2010B results a slight damage within Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg.
Only 8% of the grid cells containing cultural assets are damaged and also they undergo only
the ‘medium’ loss level. The losses are scattered over the area.
Storm surge scenario XR2010C
The storm surge scenario XR2010C is the most hazardous storm surge scenario considered
in the project, which results damages to all the assets almost with ‘very high’ or ‘high’ loss
levels. Figure 4.3 illustrates the cultural loss levels in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg due to scenario
XR2010C. 93% of grid cells containing cultural assets undergo ‘very high’ damage and 5.9%
cells are subjected to ‘high’ damages. Only one cell experiences a ‘medium’ damage which
is the lowest loss level for this scenario.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 37 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 4
Overview of Results of all Extreme Storm Surge Scenarios
Figure 4.3: Level of Cultural losses for scenario XR2010C
The resulted cultural loss levels due to all four storm surge scenarios are illustrated in Figure 4.4. Total number of grid cells containing cultural assets is 136.
Figure 4.4: Cultural loss levels due to four storm surge scenarios
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 38 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 4
Overview of Results of all Extreme Storm Surge Scenarios
As mentioned previously, XR2010C causes the highest cultural damage in HamburgWilhelmsburg with almost all the assets experiencing ‘very high’ or ‘high’ loss. The second
hazardous scenario is XR2010A_DB2 which causes damages to all the assets with main
damage levels of ‘high’ and ‘medium’ losses. No ‘very high’ losses are caused by the scenario XR2010A. However, ‘high’ and ‘medium’ level losses are experienced by 72% of the cells
and 24% of the cells are not affected by this scenario. The least hazardous scenario is
XR2010B which cases only ‘medium’ level damage to only 11 cells containing cultural assets.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 39 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 5
Summary and Concluding Remarks
5 Summary and Concluding Remarks
The report attempts to estimate the cultural losses caused by flooding. Chapter 1 proposes a
methodology for the estimation of cultural loses based on the level of physical damages of
cultural assets and the cultural values of the assets. The losses are presented in a five-point
scale: 1-very low, 2-low, 3-medium, 4-high and 5-very high. Since, no specific methods are
available for the estimation of the level of physical damages of cultural assets, the analysis is
carried out based on the available methods for the estimation of residential building damages. For the estimation of physical damages, two main flood characteristics are adopted,
i.e. flood depth and flow velocity. Unlike the other buildings, it is not sufficient to consider only
the physical damages of cultural assets as a final cultural loss, since the cultural assets
themselves are highly heterogeneous in terms of their cultural values. Therefore, it is proposed to consider their cultural values, which consist of their historical and the societal significance. However, the determination of cultural value is a difficult task, since it should be
done for each and every asset separately based on their age, tourist information etc.
The proposed methodology is applied exemplarily for the estimation of cultural losses in
Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg area. The modelling of losses was carried out successfully in ArcGIS
using the ModelBuilder application. Two analyses are carried out, based on (i) physical damages of cultural assets, and (ii) both physical damages of cultural assets and their cultural
values. The first analysis considers the total area of all cultural assets and they are mapped
in ArcGIS as area polygons. Here, the type of the asset is not taken into account and the
adjoining assets are represented by one polygon. Conversely, in the second analysis, the
cultural assets are considered individually and mapped as point data using their postal address in order to estimate their cultural value. The same flood depth and velocity data in
raster GIS maps are adopted for both analyses. Within this report, the flooding scenario
HH_XR2010A is used for the exemplarily analyses. The cultural asset data (either polygon or
point data) are transformed to raster data in order to combine them with flood data. Therefore, results of both analyses are illustrated in raster cells.
A significant difference of the results of the level of cultural losses can be seen in the two
analyses. The first analysis based only on the physical damages of cultural assets (in Chapter 2) results mainly in loss levels of 0 (not affected) to 2 (low damage). That implies, the
flooding scenario considered in this analysis has less physical damage level. However, the
levels of cultural losses from the second analysis, which is based on physical damages of
cultural assets and cultural values (in Chapter 3), show loss levels from 0 (not affected) to 4
(high), with a high percentage (72%, see Section 3.3) of medium and high loss levels. Here,
the considered cultural assets are assumed to have high cultural values. Therefore, the second analysis implies that the consideration of cultural values of assets is significant in the
analysis of cultural losses.
The main advantage of the first analysis, where the total area of all cultural assets is considered, is that it gives a meaningful picture of the damages for the assets which have a larger
area. However, this method is time consuming since all the polygons should be drawn
manually in mapping the cultural assets in GIS. Moreover, as the type of the asset is not
considered in this method, the final cultural loss would be same for a very old historical buildXtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 40 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
Chapter 5
Summary and Concluding Remarks
ing and a newly constructed cultural building, if the physical damage levels are the same. In
this case, the second analysis is advantageous as it distinguishes the losses of cultural assets depending on their types. Here, not only the physical damage of each asset, but also its
cultural value is considered in the analysis. In order to estimate the cultural value of assets, a
simple approach based on the author’s judgements is adopted in this analysis. However,
when the area of a cultural asset is larger than a raster cell (for example, an archaeological
site or a cemetery), this method is not appropriate, since the total area of the asset is represented by a point based on its postal address. Therefore, the physical damage is assessed
only for the location of this point. If a part of the cultural asset, which is away from the point,
is damaged, it is not clearly reflected in the analysis. Nevertheless, in this method, the mapping of cultural assets in GIS is comparatively easier with geocoding.
From this study, the following concluding remarks can be drawn:

Since the cultural assets are highly heterogeneous in terms of their cultural value,
unlike for residential buildings, a common method for the assessment of losses of all
cultural assets is hardly achievable.

Therefore, for the evaluation of cultural losses, not only the physical damages of cultural assets, but also the cultural value should be considered.

Available methods for the assessment of physical damages of residential buildings
depending on flood depth and flow velocity can be adopted for the estimation of the
physical damages of cultural assets based on the assumption that the structural
strength of both residential and cultural buildings has insignificant difference.

The spatial analysis of cultural losses can be performed in ArcGIS successfully.

The first analysis (based on the physical damages of cultural assets) can be used as
a basic approach for the assessment of cultural losses to obtain an overall picture of
the losses. The second approach (based on both physical damages of cultural assets
and cultural values) is a detailed study, which provides more complete results of cultural losses. However, for the second analysis, a more comprehensive data set is required.

For the cultural assets which have an area more than the size of a grid cell, it is important to consider the total area of the asset with area polygons. The consideration
of point data is appropriate if the area of cultural assets is smaller than a grid cell in
order for a better representation of cultural assets. However, to increase the accuracy
of the analysis, the smaller grid size should be selected, for example, 10mx10m cell
size.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 41 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
References
References
ACA - The Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan. (2008). Preservation and Utilization of Cultural
Properties. Available at http://www.bunka.go.jp/english/pdf/chapter_06.pdf.
Burzel. A. & Oumeraci, H. 2011. Development of a Framework for the Spatial Modelling of
Extreme Risks and the Consideration of Risk Acceptance: Progress Report 1: Cellbased Risk Assessment (CRA) approach. Leichtweiß-Institute for Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources, Technische Universität Braunschweig.
Burzel, A.; Dassanayake, D.R.; Naulin, M.; Kortenhaus, A.; Oumeraci, H.; Wahl, T.; Mudersbach, C.; Jensen, J.; Gonnert, G.; Sossidi, K.; Ujeyl, G. and Pasche, E. (2010): Integrated flood risk analysis for extreme storm surges (XtremRisK). Proc. of the 32nd International Conference on Coastal Engineering (ICCE 2010), ASCE, Shanghai, China,
15 p.
City of Hamburg (2010a): Verzeichnis der erkannten Denkmäler nach § 7a Hamburgisches
Denkmalschutzgesetz – Abschnitt A – E, 650p.
City of Hamburg (2010b): Verzeichnis der erkannten Denkmäler nach § 7a Hamburgisches
Denkmalschutzgesetz – Abschnitt F – K, 683p.
City of Hamburg (2010c): Verzeichnis der erkannten Denkmäler nach § 7a Hamburgisches
Denkmalschutzgesetz – Abschnitt L – R, 549p.
City of Hamburg (2010d): Verzeichnis der erkannten Denkmäler nach § 7a Hamburgisches
Denkmalschutzgesetz – Abschnitt S – Z, 531p.
Clausen, L.K. (1989): Potential dam failure: estimation of consequences, and implications for
planning. Unpublished Master of Philosophy thesis at the School of Geography and
Planning, Middlesex Polytechnic collaborating with Binnie and Partners. Redhill (cited
in Kelman and Spence 2004).
Dassanayake, D.R. & Oumeraci, H. 2011. Evaluation of cultural losses due to coastal floods.
Progress Report. Leichtweiß-Institute for Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources,
Technische Universität Braunschweig, 38p.
ECLAC - Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, (2003): Handbook for
Estimating the Socio-economic and Environmental Effects of Disasters. United Nations,
ECLAC and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank).
English Heritage. (1997): Sustaining the Historic Environment: New Perspectives on the Future. English Heritage Discussion Document. London.
Handmer, J., Reed, C., and Percovich, O. (2002): Disaster Loss Assessment: Guidelines.
Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.
Holden, J. (2004): Capturing Cultural Value: How Culture has become a Tool of Government
Policy. Demos.
Ikeda, N. and Nagashima, F. (2008): Risk Assessment of Cultural Heritages Using Local
Hazard Maps and Risk Filters. Proc. of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 42 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
References
Imon, S. S., Dioko, L. A. N., Ong, C. E., and Kane, M. (2007): Tourism at Cultural Heritage
Sites in Asia - Cultural Heritage Specialist Guide Training and Certification, Programme
for UNESCO World Heritage Sites. 4th ed. UNESCO and Institute for Tourism Studies
(IFT).
Kelman, I., and Spence, R. (2004). An overview of flood actions on buildings. Engineering
Geology, 73, pp 297-309.
Kreibich, H.; Piroth, K.; Seifert, I.; Maiwald, H.; Kunert, U.; Schwarz, J.; Merz, B. and Thieken, A. H (2009): Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage modelling?
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 9, pp. 1679–1692.
Lipe, W.(1984): Value and meaning in cultural resources. In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, ed. H. Cleere. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Malla, B. (2006): Classification of Cultural Property and Their Conservation. Orissa Review.
pp. 61-64.
Mason, R. (2002): Assessing values in conservation planning’ in de la Torre (2002) Assessing the value of cultural heritage Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute pp 530.
Middelmann-Fernandes, M.H. (2010): Flood damage estimation beyond stage-damage functions: an Australian example. Journal of Flood Risk Management 3, pp. 88–96.
Nadal, N.C. (2007): Expected flood damage to buildings in riverine and coastal zones. PhD
Thesis, University of Puerto Rico.
Nadal, N.C.; Zapata, R.E.; Pagan, I; Lopez, R. And Agudelo, J. (2010): Building Damage due
to Riverine and Coastal Floods. Journal of water resources planning and management,
ASCE May/June 2010. pp. 327-336
Nicoll, C. (2008): Appendix E: Cultural heritage impact assessment, Environmental Statement, Town Farm Quarry Extension to existing sand and gravel workings, and subsequent restoration to agriculture, woodland and nature conservation, Supporting statement. Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd.
Pistrika, A. K., and Jonkman, S. N. (2010). Damage to residential buildings due to flooding of
New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Natural Hazards, 54, pp.413-434
Priest, S. (2009): Building models to estimate loss of life for flood events, FLOODsite Report
T10-08-10. HR Wallingford, UK.
Queensland Government (2002): Guidance on the Assessment of Tangible Flood Damages.
The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines).
Reigl, A. (1903) 1982: The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origins. Reprint,
trans. D. Ghirardo and K. Forster. Oppositions 25, pp. 21-51.
Rodakowski, R. (1978): A proposed method of evaluating flood damages to historic homes –
an externality approach. Water Resources Bulletin 14 (6), American Water Resources
Association.
Ruijgrok, E.C.M. (2006): The three economic values of cultural heritage: a case study in the
Netherlands. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 7, pp. 206–213.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 43 -
Dezember 2012
Evaluation of Cultural Losses
References
Salazar, S. D. and Marques, J.M. (2005): Valuing cultural heritage: the social benefits of restoring and old Arab tower. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6, pp. 69-77.
Taboroff, J. (2000): Cultural Heritage and Natural Disasters: Incentives for Risk Management
and Mitigation. In: Kreimer, A. and Arnold, M. (Eds.) Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies. The World Bank, Washington, USA.
USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1985): business depth-damage analysis procedures. Institute for Water Resources Water Resources Support Center, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.
USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1996): Engineering and Design- Risk Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies. Manual No. 1110-2-1619, Washington, DC.
USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003): Economic Guidance Memorandum (EGM)
04-01, Generic Depth-Damage Relationships for Residential Structures with Basements, Washington, DC.
USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006): Depth-damage relationships for structures,
contents, and vehicles and content-to-structure value ratios (csvr) in support of the
donaldsonville to the gulf, Louisiana, feasibility study, Final report. New Orleans, Louisiana
Vecvagars, K. (2006): Valuing damage and losses in cultural assets after a disaster: concept
paper and research options. Focal Point on Disaster Evaluation, Mexico.
XtremRisK_Evaluation of Cultural
Losses.doc
- 44 -
Dezember 2012