protection of european cultural heritage from geo-...

"PROTection of European Cultural HEritage from GeO-

hazards. Satellite techniques for risk monitoring and

for conservation policies"

BRUSSELS, 24 April 2017

Daniele Spizzichino, PROTHEGO Project Manager - ISPRA

2Copernicus for Cultural Heritage, Brussels, 24/04/2017

Daniele Spizzichino (ISPRA)

UNESCO World Heritage List April. 2017

RATIONALE:

WH Sites “in danger”



Source: UNESCO (2013)

Protection from what?”



Pavlova et alii in press, 2016

WH properties exposed to geo-hazrads according to Global Risk Data Platform (GRDP) and Global Volcanism Programme (GVP) datasets.

Article 11 of the Convention (Protection of WH) includes sites threatened also by armed conflicts, accelerated deterioration, calamities and cataclysms, and rapid urban or tourist development.

76% of the WHS is affected at least by one geo-hazards

Known Exposure

of WH to Geo-Hazards



Enviro

nm

enta

ldynam

ics

……

……

Landslidescience

Causes and

evolution

Mitigation

Trends and monitoring system(satellite, remote sensing, in situ...)

EarthquakeVolcanic..............

Floodsstorm



•the project PROTHEGO aims to make an innovative contribution towards the analysis of geo-hazards in areas of Cultural Heritage in Europe;

•CH are continuously impacted and weathered by several internal and external factors, withboth rapid and slow onset, including natural hazards, such as landslides, sinkholes,settlement, subsidence, earthquakes or extreme meteorological events;

•PROTHEGO applies novel space technology based on radar interferometry (InSAR) to monitormonuments and sites in Europe which are potentially unstable due to geo-hazards.

•Remotely sensed information on ground stability and motion are combined with geo-hazarddatasets available for Europe to identify the most endangered sites across Europe



PROTHEGO Project Scientific CoordinatorClaudio MARGOTTINI

ISPRA Project Manager:Daniele SPIZZICHINO

NERCFrancesca CIGNA

CUTKyriacos THEMISTOCLEOUS

UNIMIBGiovanni CROSTA

IGMEJosé Antonio FERNÀNDEZ MERODO

Project Participants



No. Support letter AP - typology Role in the project

1 ESA – European Space Agency

[Pier Giorgio Marchetti] European Agency Steering Committee

2 EGS – Eurogeosurveys

[Luca Demicheli] Association of the European

Geological Surveys Steering Committee

3 Petra Archaeological Park - Jordan

[Emad Hijazeen] World Heritage Site Steering Committee

4 ICL International Consortium on Landslides

[Kyoji Sassa] International Research

consortium Stakeholders

5 ISCR Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il

Restauro [DG Arch. Gisella Capponi]

Public Agency Stakeholders

6 CRSS Cyprus Remote Sensing Society

[Dr. Giorgos Papadavid] SME Stakeholders

7 Politecnica Madrid - Alert geo-materials Royal

Academy of Sciences Seville [Manuel Pastor]

Public University Stakeholders

8 CSPfea

[CEO Eng. Paolo Segala] SME Stakeholders

9 Association of Cypriot Archaeologists

[D. Pilides & V. Lysandrou] Non-profit Scientific

Association Stakeholders

10 Patronato de la Alhambra y generalife Public Authority Demonstration Site

Stakeholders: Alhambra, Spain

11 Sovrintendenza Capitolina – Roma Capitale

[Claudio Parisi Presicce] Technical body of the municipality of Rome

Demonstration Site Stakeholders:

Historic Centre of Rome, Italy

12 Landscape Research & Management

[Dr. Andy Howard] Geo-archaeological

landscape consultancy Demonstration Site

Stakeholders: Derwent Valley Mills, UK

[via the project “Managing Climate Change in the Derwent Valley”,

commissioned by English Heritage]

13 Derwent Valley Mills - World Heritage Site

[Mark Suggitt] World Heritage Site Board

14 Trent & Peak Archaeology and the York

Archaeological Trust [Dr. David Knight]

Archaeological heritage Services provider

other organization involved



MethodologySAR (PS) techniques applied toUNESCO European World HeritageSites potentially affected by Geo-Hazards(e.g. landslide, seismic, subsidence).

Target and main GoalsCalibrate and verifying limits and constrainsof SAR techniques applied to WH throughdownscaling the analysis in specific test sites:Mura Aureliane (IT), Pompei (IT), Alhambra (ES),Derwent valley Mills (UK), Choirokoitia (CY).The methodology will be calibrated also throughmonitoring and advanced geotechnical modelling.

364 cultural

32 natural

9 Mixed N/C

Main goals of the project



PROTHEGO Work plan



update:April 2016

WHL Sites 399

WHL Core polygons 2351

WHL parts > 505

45 - 700(50% of tot)

WHL avg. parts 2.7

Min polygon area 5 (m^2)

Max polygon area10 000(km^2)

Avg. polygon area 80 (km^2)

WP1 European WH Vs Geo-hazards:

European WHL Boundaries



EU UNESCO CH Vs Landslides

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

No Data Very Low Low Moderate High Very High

7.6% 26.5% 16.7% 21.7% 18.4% 9.1%8 26 17 22 18 9 %

ELSUSEuropean LandslideSUSceptibility Map(ELSUS1000) v1

▪5 hazard classes [Low-High]

▪Cell size 1 km

▪update 2013


Landslide Hazard vs. WH



10%15%

75%

SHAREEuropean Earthquake Catalog(Peak Ground Accelerations map for Europe)

▪3 hazard classes

▪Cell size ~ 8 km

▪update 2013

▪475 yrs Return Time


Seismic Hazard vs. WH




Volcanic Hazard vs. WH

26

15

WHL Core Areainterested by Volcanic effects

11 volcanoes in Europe can

produce effects on WHL Sites.

7 of these Sites are in Italy.



10% high seismic hazard

399 UNESCO European CH 2351 single polygons CH

27% high and very highlandslide hazard

UNESCO WH geo-hazard preliminary analysis

41 single CH affected by volcanic hazard

General European WH Sites

ATLAS

WP1 first output: Geo-Hazards Vs

European WH



WP2: Harmonisation of PS data and creation of digital factsheets

ERS2008-2010

ENVI2010-2012

CSK2011-2014

For all the EUROPEAN UNESCO WH sites asynthetic digital factsheets will beimplemented and fulfilled with allcollected data concerning level of Hazardand SAR data (if available)



The Satellite Interferometry analysis, will be validated, calibrated and tested through site scale field survey, geotechnical advanced model and detailed monitoring data.

Stakeholder involvement

WP5&WP6: Local scale monitoring, investigation and advanced modelling

Five test sites that could be more at the end of the project:1. Roma Historic centre (IT);2. Pompei archeological sites (IT);3. Derwent Valley Mills (UK);4. Alhambra, Granada (ES);5. Choirokoitia (CY).



▪ Text text text... [Arial 18pt]

CITY WALLS

PS ANALYSIS HAZARD

TYPOLOGY

Test Site 1

Rome Historic centre (IT)



Test Site 1

Rome Historic centre (IT)#12: debris fall from the wall since year 2009 due to

vegetation growth

# of PS Vel. STD Coherence

Feature 12 (buffer 50m) 19 -2.29 0.29 0.77

PS: 614A1008uJ3 1 -5.10 0.50 0.72

PS: 614A1008uJ2 1 -4.10 0.50 0.71



Domus Gladiatori NecropoliPorta

Nocera

Test Site 3: Pompei (IT)

35 structural and geological phenomena occurred in the last ten years in the sites were investigated through back analysis using SAR data



Terrestrial Laser Scanner

(University of Granada)

▪ 18/04/2007

▪ 13/02/2013

▪ 27/12/2013

▪ 06/05/2014

▪ 14/10/2014

▪ 24/09/2015

01/2013 event

Small debris flow

Test Site 4

Alhambra, Granada (ES)

Sentinel 1 (ESA) image

Alhambra, Generalife y Albaicín de Granada



Test Site 5

Choirokoitia (CY)



The Updated European scenario and catalogue of UNESCO CH affected by Geo-hazards will improve resilience and reduce the vulnerability and related risk tonatural disaster;

Calibrate and verifying limits and constrains of SAR techniques through downscalingapproach for single WH properties, from static to dynamic assessment promoting thecorrect use of this advanced techniques;

Standard methodologies geo-hazard Vs CH at European scale will promote commonvision and tools for conservation and protection;

Implement, applied and calibrate downstream services directly addressed to CH riskreduction and disaster management;

Produce guideline and simple tools (web GIS platform) for CH stakeholder, managerand policy makers for geo-hazards and risk reduction;

PROTHEGO project main targets



Space technologies and remote sensing are the last frontiers in terms of Researchand Innovation applied to environmental and human pressure dynamic;

Space segment (e.g. satellite and remote sensing techniques, hyper and multispectral sensors, interferometry techniques) applied to CH conservation andmitigation policies are the most advanced, sustainable, low impact techniques forthe environmental risk reduction affecting WH sites;

Support CH site manager and UNESCO focal point to integrate satellite techniquesinto the management plan and long terms conservation policy in the fields of geohazards as well as anthropogenic hazards;

R&I applied to the CH domain will promote innovative finance, investment,governance, management and business models to increase the effectiveness ofcultural heritage as an economic production factor;

Future challenges



Homework for all of us

Cultural Heritage

Natural & Anthropogenic Hazards

Satellite and space segment

From static to dynamic integrated risk scenario

Cultural Heritage domainExposed elements:

Collection and implementationfor all EU country of digital CH database.

Number, type and location (same format, glossary and metadata)

digital open source format (WMS, WFS,….)

Natural and anthropogenic domainHazard:

Homogeneous and harmonized map at national level for all EU and for all possible hazard (landslide, earthquake, subsidence, floods, pollution…….. )in order to produce correct static risk mapfor CH

Satellite and space domainMonitoring:

We need dedicated and simple tool (e.g. web GIS platform) for downstream services dedicated to monitoring environmental and anthropogenic pressure on CH (e.g. SAR, multi spectral, hyper spectral sensor), both in low and high resolution

Management policies for EU Cultural Heritage :

A new paradigm for all the actors involved in the sustainable conservation and exploitation of EU CH

•Prioritization of intervention;•Preventive conservation;•Space market development;

[email protected]

protection of european cultural heritage from geo-...

Documents