• Non ci sono risultati.

µ3LHFHVRINLW¶DUHQRWHQRXJK WKHUROHRILQIUDVWUXFWXUHLQFRPPXQLW\ resilience

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Condividi "µ3LHFHVRINLW¶DUHQRWHQRXJK WKHUROHRILQIUDVWUXFWXUHLQFRPPXQLW\ resilience"

Copied!
9
0
0

Testo completo

(1)E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009.   

(2) 

(3)  

(4)    

(5) 

(6)  

(7)  resilience 1a. 1. 1. Paula Orr , Clare Twigger-Ross , Katya Brooks and Rolands Sadauskis. 1. 1. Collingwood Environmental Planning, Unit 1E The Chandlery, London SE17QY, England. Abstract. Flood resilience is about the ability of people and places to cope with, recover from and adapt to flooding in ways that maintain quality of life and identities. In the past UK flood risk management prioritised engineering solutions to prevent flooding (barriers, walls, etc); today there is greater emphasis on resilience. Cutter et al (2010) developed a model that describes community resilience capacities/resources in terms of social, institutional, infrastructure and economic resilience along with community capital. This paper draws on the findings of an 

(8)  

(9)        

(10)            2015, which aimed to enable and stimulate communities to develop innovative local solutions and improve resilience to flooding. Actions to improve flood infrastructure included installing property resilience measures or setting up community flood stores providing equipment to deal with emergencies! "   #       

(11)    capaci      #     

(12)       

(13)    ! $ finds that the development of infrastructure resilience depends on strong relations between community members %   &    tionships between community organisations and flood management institutions %    &! "  conclusions discuss the implications for infrastructure schemes in other places.. 1 Introduction Many people, experts and members of the public alike, have long been of the opinion that more effective flood risk management means greater investment in structural flood risk management measures such as embankments in order to move water away from homes, workplaces and infrastructure. However, increasing pressure on public spending has created a new policy context in the UK, with a shift towards localism and an emphasis on communities taking ownership of flood risk. "  '(     )  * -term Investment Scenarios (2014) report [1] stated that it will never be cost-effective for Government investment to protect everyone from flooding. Between April 2013 - March 2015 Defra (the UK +    , 

(14)     -    Rural Affairs) provided funding to support innovative community flood resilience measures carried out by 13 local authorities across England. The Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder scheme was intended to enable and stimulate communities at significant or greater risk of flooding to work with key partners to develop innovative local solutions that:  

(15)     .    

(16)      

(17)

(18) 

(19)  

(20) .   

(21)      

(22)  

(23)   

(24)   

(25) .  

(26)       

(27) . 

(28)    .. Each pathfinder developed its own work programme, made up of a number of work packages focused on different aspects of resilience, with the focus depending on the priorities of the lead pathfinder organisation or local residents, and on the availability of resources (land and buildings as well as funding). Infrastructure resilience was the focus for 30 work packages. a. The scheme was evaluated by Collingwood Environmental Planning (CEP) and a consortium of expert project partners. Evaluating policy interventions of this kind generates valuable information and helps understand which actions work and are effective.. 2 UK flood pathfinders. community. resilience.  !"          . 

(29)  #  $

(30) 

(31) $  

(32) . %. &     '

(33) . #  '

(34)        ( )

(35) .  $ *

(36)  

(37) $ +

(38)  ,  

(39) %. -     

(40)  

(41)    .       

(42)   .     

(43) . &

(44)    .         

(45)

(46)    . ./!"!0. 1 

(47) 

(48)  * 

(49)

(50)   $   .    

(51)       

(52) . 

(53) . 2

(54)

(55)    

(56)   + 

(57) + 3

(58) . 2  #++32%    4   .         "5   .

(59)        

(60)    .      (  * 

(61)

(62)    . 

(63)   6$///   

(64)  3 !   .

(65)      . Pathfinders received help in-kind from a range of partners, such as the Environment Agency, County Resilience Groups, water companies, fire services and Council departments. Eight pathfinders contracted the National Flood Forum (NFF), a national charity dedicated. Corresponding author: p.orr@cep.co.uk. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)..

(66) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009. conflict - without compromising their long-term SURVSHFWV´[2] This definition draws out the multi-dimensional nature of resilience and highlights the possibility of transformation of communities so that risks can be better managed or lived with. Refining the definition further and thinking more about community resilience in the context of emergencies within the UK in particular, the following definition of community resilience provides a useful articulation of what the pathfinders were aiming for within their projects: ³Communities working with local resources (information, social capital, economic development, and community competence) alongside local expertise (e.g. local emergency planners, voluntary sector, local responders) to help themselves and others to prepare and respond to, and to recover from emergencies, in ways that sustain an acceptable level of community functioning´ [3]            

(67).     

(68)    

(69)   

(70).      

(71)  

(72) .  An important aspect to note is that resilience can be of different types. Some types of resilience can be   0

(73)  #      seen as resistance,       , being able to  /        /! 1  

(74) resilience are  , focusing on the ability to adapt to new conditions, recognition and ownership of the need to change or even transformation. Understanding that there are different approaches to resilience helps to distinguish different strategies and to ask questions about the kind of resilience they promote. This definition also draws attention to the issue of capacities that exist within communities which provide the foundation for resilience within the disaster/emergency situation. A number of authors [4 -7] suggest that communities need a certain set of capacities or resources or assets that can be drawn upon to address shocks and stresses. Five categories of community resilience are provided within the Cutter et al (2010) paper: social, economic, institutional and infrastructure resilience, community capital, as shown in Figure 2. These categories relate to how communit    %!! prepare for, withstand, respond to, and recover from) disasters taking the view that: ³+HUHUHVLOLHQFHLV[seen] as a set of capacities that can be fostered through interventions and policies, ZKLFKLQWXUQKHOSEXLOGDQGHQKDQFHDFRPPXQLW\¶V DELOLW\WRUHVSRQGDQGUHFRYHUIURPGLVDVWHUV´[8]. Figure 1. Location of the flood resilience pathfinders. to supporting and representing communities and individuals at risk of flooding) and had a member of NFF staff working in their Council offices on the community engagement aspects of the project. Working with communities to create awareness of flood risk and promote resilience measures was a central part of most of   

(75)    /!        film festivals, community learning events, flood fairs and online information resources. All of the pathfinders also developed organisational mechanisms and structures specifically designed to deal with flood risk, such as flood action groups or flood wardens. In the context of this scheme, infrastructure resilience refers to community and individual flood infrastructure. Individual infrastructure includes the type of housing and its inherent resilience (mobile homes and basement flats are known to be vulnerable to flooding), together with any measures people might have taken to increase their   resilience to flooding %    &. Community flood infrastructure includes installations that increase overall resilience within an area. Some examples from the pathfinders were community flood stores providing access to basic equipment for use in flood events (such as high-visibility jackets and sandbags), rain gauges or measures to maintain and improve infrastructure such as drains.. 3 What is community resilience? The UK Department for International Development has a useful definition of disaster resilience as: ³Whe ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses - such as earthquakes, drought or violent. 2.

(76) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009. Community resilience category. Reason for using indicator. Indicator. IN1: Housing style. Temporary and mobile homes are less resilient.. % housing units that are not bungalows or mobile homes (Source: 2010 Census). IN2: Shelter capacity. The availability of temporary accommodation makes it easier to re-house flooded people. Units of accommodation available for displaced people (Source: pathfinders). Number of schools/halls as designated evacuation centres within the area of influence (Source: pathfinders) Table 1: Indicators of infrastructure resilience at community level IN3: Recovery. Figure 2 Characteristics of resilient communities. Infrastructure resilience is one of the sub-categories. For Cutter et al, [9], this is described in three ways: in relation to the amount of private property that may be particularly vulnerable to sustaining damage and economic loss (including mobile homes and basement properties); in terms of community response and recovery capacity (e.g. sheltering, vacant rental housing units, and healthcare facilities); and the existence of critical infrastructure such as road networks which allow for evacuation before an event as well as access for supplies and assistance for recovery. These aspects of infrastructure resilience are generic to disasters and emergencies of all kinds. The pathfinder infrastructure measures tended to focus on increasing resilience to specific flood risks and impacts,. Evacuation centres provide a safe place for people to go. ; $      

(77)  .    

(78) 

(79)   $    .         

(80)  .

(81)  3  '

(82) $     . 

(83) $     

(84)   1<. &

(85) .   1<"   2     . # %   

(86) 

(87)    .    =    >  -

(88)   .    #*  * 

(89)

(90) %     . 1<.   )

(91)  , $       .      > #+

(92) $ <  .  &

(93) %       

(94) 

(95).   

(96)

(97)        

(98)

(99) .            .           & 

(100) &. 1 

(101)       #1<"%$ .            

(102)  #. 

(103) $

(104)      %  .           . 2.  

(105)   +

(106)   $   .            .       

(107) 

(108)     .   

(109)       

(110)    .        (  

(111) .   

(112)         .  '

(113)   

(114)     .  

(115)   

(116)      .   $  

(117)        

(118).   

(119)      

(120)  . 1.               .     

(121)  $

(122)  .    $  

(123)  .     

(124) $   

(125) .

(126) 

(127)

(128)      . 

(129)  .     .  

(130)        

(131)  .   

(132) . 4 Evaluation focus and indicators.     

(133)  

(134)      .   #    

(135)  $   . 

(136)

(137)

(138)     

(139)      %     

(140) #  .      

(141)

(142) 

(143)  

(144)

(145)  %. 1          .     $  

(146)       . 

(147)       

(148)

(149) 

(150) . 1 .    

(151) 

(152)   $   .   

(153)        . 

(154)    *  

(155) 7!/8    .  

(156)   '      . 

(157)    9:       '

(158) . 

(159)  !      

(160) 

(161)  . 

(162)    . 3.

(163) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management Infrastructure Resilience.          

(164) .  #  '

(165)     

(166)    .   *

(167)  

(168) %.    

(169)  .        > &    .  O   PBB

(170)  

(171)     

(172)   %$.              

(173)  - $

(174) 

(175) $.      

(176)     

(177) . Number of pathfinders asking question. ! = 

(178)  

(179)  ?. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009. !/. . ;           . @. 

(180) ?. ABC1

(181) 1

(182)  E.  

(183) D. FBCG  

(184) 

(185)  

(186)   E. 'HD. E    

(187)        . 5.

(188) ?. IBC=    J.

(189)  

(190)  

(191) D. KBC 

(192) 

(193) 1    J.    

(194) D. LBC1      J.      

(195) D. MBC;      6. 

(196) 

(197) ?D. !/ ;      .

(198)

(199) 

(200)    ?. E. 

(201)        

(202) . Table 2: Household survey: infrastructure resilience questions.. Drainage + 

(203)       . 

(204)   

(205) $   

(206)  .  

(207)          .        .   &

(208)          . 

(209)

(210)    

(211) 

(212)   

(213)   .        

(214)   

(215). 

(216) (.   Q    

(217)

(218)   .  ** R         

(219)  . 

(220) N.   * 

(221)

(222)          . '    

(223) 

(224) 

(225)     .  (  

(226)

(227)   

(228) $ .      

(229)     .   

(230)           

(231) 

(232)  

(233) .      N.   +

(234)       .

(235) 

(236)          

(237) .  

(238) 

(239)      

(240)  .   + 

(241)  

(242)   

(243)     . 

(244) 

(245)     

(246)     . G

(247)         

(248) 

(249).    

(250)       $. 

(251)      

(252)   . 1     

(253)        .        

(254)      .   

(255)      B ; $       

(256)    .     

(257) 

(258)    .             $.          

(259)

(260)  . 5 Communities and infrastructure          .   

(261)   

(262)  .        .   

(263)      .      

(264)      . 1        N .     >     

(265)  .

(266) 

(267)  

(268) 

(269)    

(270)    . 

(271) $ 

(272)        .         .     1   

(273)  .            . 

(274)     .        .            .

(275)

(276)   . Rain gauges ,     

(277)    

(278) .       

(279) . # * 

(280)

(281) $  %       . 

(282)      # <  $. Q%  ' 

(283) $ 

(284) 

(285)  . 

(286)   

(287)

(288)       . 

(289) 

(290)  

(291)         .      3         .       

(292) $ .             . 

(293)         $ 

(294) 

(295).          $ .             . .   

(296)      .     

(297)       .            

(298) .    

(299)   

(300)     

(301) 

(302).  

(303)  &

(304) $       

(305)  .          

(306)    $  . Pathfinder community infrastructure interventions Property-level resilience = 

(307) 

(308) 

(309)       

(310).    

(311)  

(312)  

(313)   . 4.

(314) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management.    

(315) 

(316)     .   . G      

(317)   .

(318) 

(319)

(320)   Q    

(321) . 

(322) 

(323)   

(324)   #  '

(325)   . 

(326)  %$  

(327) 

(328)

(329) .       . G       

(330)  . 

(331)   Q    .

(332)  

(333) 

(334)   

(335)   #  '

(336) .   

(337)  %$  

(338) 

(339).

(340)       .  '

(341)    

(342) 

(343).    

(344)      . 

(345)      

(346)   .

(347)  . 3

(348)  (.  *

(349)

(350) 

(351)   

(352)    

(353)  .

(354) 

(355)  $    2$

(356) 

(357) .        $   .     

(358)  N.  G 

(359)  

(360)        .  

(361)      #  .  

(362)    

(363) %N.  *       . '

(364)        $  '

(365) .      

(366) 

(367) 

(368)    . +

(369)  &  . 1         .       

(370)    .           .

(371)    

(372) 

(373)     '  .     . 1 +

(374)  .      

(375) 

(376)      

(377).         $     

(378) 

(379)  .  

(380)    

(381)

(382)   '

(383)   

(384) 

(385) .     . 1   $

(386) 

(387)     .   

(388) $  

(389) 

(390)       

(391)   .          O

(392)

(393)           '

(394)      .

(395) 

(396)

(397)  (.        =+= . . +

(398)        .   =+=         . 

(399)

(400)         . . *

(401)  

(402)      

(403)   

(404)     .     

(405) 

(406) 

(407)     .     . 1 $ *

(408)  

(409) . * 

(410)        

(411)    .

(412) 

(413)

(414) 

(415)    

(416)     .       ' .     

(417)       .  

(418)  . -    $  

(419)  

(420)  .    

(421)         

(422)

(423)  .         $.

(424) 

(425)    

(426)    .       

(427) . . 3  '

(428) $   >  .  

(429)          .    

(430)       .  

(431) 

(432)  (. 

(433) 

(434)   

(435)       

(436) $  .    3

(437)   

(438)    .  

(439)       

(440)    .  N      

(441)   .  $ 

(442) 

(443)      .      

(444)   . '

(445)   . Flood stores 3

(446)       

(447) .         

(448)  .     

(449)   

(450) 

(451).     

(452) 

(453)      .            . 

(454)    

(455)  # +

(456) . <  %  

(457)   . #*

(458)  

(459)    %. Flood defences  &      

(460)

(461)   .

(462)       

(463)  

(464)  .  

(465) 

(466)

(467)           . 

(468)  

(469) 

(470)          

(471)  .    

(472)      .   

(473)        

(474) 

(475) 

(476) .   

(477)   

(478) .      

(479)    .   

(480) #   

(481)   .    %       .    . Promotion of catchment management and river stewardship  *

(482)  

(483)   ,  

(484)      .         .  $    

(485)  

(486)  .   

(487)  

(488)     #*

(489)  

(490) %.           '.    > #,  

(491) %.          . 

(492)        

(493) .   1        

(494)   .   

(495) 

(496)    

(497) .          

(498) '

(499)  .    N  

(500)        .  

(501)  . Implementing interventions. community. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009. infrastructure. 3

(502)      

(503)

(504)    .        

(505) $   

(506) .  

(507)   '

(508)    G    .   

(509)  

(510)      . 

(511)

(512)      ' 

(513) .  

(514)   #  %$    .     

(515) 

(516)    

(517)    .

(518) 

(519)  

(520)   

(521) 

(522)  

(523)    . 5.

(524) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009. $   

(525)

(526)     .  . ³As each location is dealt with individually, this engenders high level of ownership from the community in question, but it also takes time as separate meetings are needed to site and set up each gauge. Also land ownership permission is needed which can cause further delays.´[15] 1    

(527) $  

(528) .   (. ³The support of the projects on local community rainfall monitoring and telemetry systems, to provide triggers for community level response has also proved successful. The learning from this aspect of the project has been shared within our organisation, as it shows that communities often have a range of flood risks, from rivers to surface water, which they need to respond to and which may require different triggers. These triggers could be the Environment Agency Flood Warning Service but also may be supplemented by a locally managed trigger for surface water flooding from their rain gauge.´ [16] 1   $     .       

(529) .          .    . 1      .   

(530)   

(531)      .  

(532)  (. ³It was unclear who had responsibility for the flood store so the placing of it was delayed. The community had taken account of the flood risk to the store through procedures while professionals wanted it out of the risk area. It almost resulted in the resignation of the whole JURXS´ [17] = 

(533) 

(534)        .    

(535)       $  .  

(536)

(537)  

(538)    

(539)    .   

(540)     .   .    

(541)     

(542) $ 

(543)

(544)  .           

(545) .

(546) 

(547)    

(548) # 

(549) %. 1 &

(550) $ .

(551)    

(552) 

(553) 

(554) $    .            .       

(555) 

(556) 

(557) . .         .   

(558)       

(559)  .    .  

(560)  ". ³Trying to convey to homeowners that they need to maintain the pumps and other PLP measures in order to keep resilient and safe, and to continue to keep aware of maintenance aspect, is a learning issue.³7!!8 2       

(561)  .

(562) 

(563)    

(564)    

(565) .          .     

(566)  

(567)    

(568) 

(569)  . - 

(570)         . 

(571)      

(572)     >  . 

(573)

(574)  

(575)   '     

(576) .  . 3

(577)      

(578)  

(579) 

(580).

(581)    $ 

(582)     . S   

(583)   O     

(584)     

(585)    

(586) $  .  

(587)  

(588)

(589)     . #  

(590)         Q

(591)  .   +

(592) .         $. ³Recent experience has shown that small deficiencies in a range of infrastructure can make a significant difference both to the risk of flooding itself but particularly the speed at which both individual householders and communities as a whole can respond. This is especially important in rapid response catchments.´ 7!.8. Q 

(593)  $

(594) 

(595)  

(596)     .   

(597)     . To what extent did the pathfinders succeed in building infrastructure resilience in their communities? + 

(598)    

(599)  

(600)   .    

(601)   

(602)   (. ³Full survey done by flood group to plot all drains / culverts. [These are] Checked / cleared on a regular basis. One of our members has been on a course for this purpose. Through above work of flood group, parish council now able to work with Highways and South West Water on vital village drainage with more informed knowledge and experience.´[13] 2     $  

(603) 

(604) 

(605).  

(606)         (. ³At a practical level, screens will be replaced. This is something the residents have wanted for a long-time but only the weight of the flood group gave them a voice that was heard by Thames Water.´ [14] 1         

(607)

(608) .

(609)       

(610) 

(611).        

(612) 

(613)      

(614).

(615)  $    

(616)

(617)   .    #* 

(618)

(619) $  $ <   . Q% 1        

(620) 

(621).            .   

(622)

(623)       

(624) .  .       

(625)

(626)  .     

(627) 

(628)        #. 

(629) % Q

(630)     

(631)     

(632) . 6.

(633) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management General issue Language Barrier Cultural Challenges. Priorities and Shift Work. Property Ownership. ³in addition to the initial capital cost, rain gauge equipment also incurs an annual subscription and maintenance cost which was seen as a potential burden to local communities.´ [19]  -

(634)        . Q        

(635)  $ .          (   . $          

(636)  .   . Challenge x Residents unable to read initial letters. x Residents unable to communicate on doorstep. x Challenge engaging with lone female residents within some cultures. x Female residents keen to have surveys but not when husband not present. x Residents reluctant to take time off work for surveys. x Residents do not know times they are available in advance. x Residents rarely available during standard hours for engagement. x Residents did not feel responsible for council or rental properties.. 6 Community capital and institutional resilience: key pieces in the resilience jigsaw Community capital and infrastructure resilience. x Residents suspicious of our activity / assume trying to sell products, especially when they have not experienced flooding first hand. x Residents unwilling to work with Other council directly for fear of Challenges consequences e.g. reporting illegally constructed buildings or multiple occupancies.  *

(637)

(638)    

(639) 

(640) 

(641) .       &

(642)      Financial Implications. ,     

(643)    .   

(644)    

(645)   .   $ 

(646)      

(647) 

(648)     .    >  7./..8 *  

(649) .  O

(650)                     

(651) 

(652) .   

(653) . 2   

(654)       .       

(655)    

(656) . 

(657)  ; 

(658)   

(659)     .          

(660) 

(661). 

(662)  . Q

(663)      

(664)  . '$  

(665)   

(666)   .           $. 

(667)        

(668)     $. 

(669)

(670)      '  . . *    

(671)      .   

(672)       

(673) 

(674).   & 

(675)    .  $  '

(676)    

(677)  $.        

(678) 

(679)  

(680)  .     

(681)    

(682)

(683)  . 

(684)

(685)        

(686)  .      .       

(687) . &  

(688)

(689) $  

(690)   . 

(691) 

(692) 

(693)

(694)   

(695)       .   

(696) $          .     

(697)   '

(698)       .  .        . +

(699)   $   

(700)     

(701)      $       .    .      .  

(702) 

(703) 

(704)     .            . 

(705)         .              .         . 

(706)

(707)    

(708)  7!68 1 &  $ 

(709) .         

(710) 

(711) 

(712)  .              .

(713) 

(714)     >   &   .     

(715)    

(716)     

(717).     . Challenges for building infrastructure resilience. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009. Institutional and infrastructure resilience 1 

(718) 

(719)     

(720)  .  $   

(721)   

(722)   .  

(723)   1 

(724)     .  ( 

(725)       $ . 

(726)

(727)    

(728)   

(729) 

(730)   .  '     

(731) .  

(732) 

(733)   

(734) .    ) 

(735) $     .  

(736)      .        $   .   

(737)       .    >O B1       

(738)   

(739)  . community-level. 

(740)       

(741) .  

(742)

(743)          .  ' .        (.  =  T

(744) 

(745)         U    .   

(746) 

(747)  (.  , 

(748)      (  .  

(749)            

(750)  .  

(751)   

(752)      . 7.

(753) E3S Web of Conferences 7, 08009 (2016) FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management. DOI: 10.1051/ e3sconf/2016 0708009. WUHQG WR µOHVV¶ UDWKHU WKDQ µPRUH¶ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DV compared to the WFD >:DWHU )UDPHZRUN 'LUHFWLYH@´ [28]. In this context, it seems important to provide examples of the benefits of engaging affected communities, in aspects such as improving the effectiveness of local infrastructure.. 1        

(754) 

(755).  

(756)             .  $   4     .    

(757) 

(758) 

(759)     .    

(760) 

(761)   #    

(762) .   

(763)  

(764) 

(765)

(766) 

(767)   

(768). 

(769)      

(770)   .       %  

(771).   

(772)

(773)       . 

(774)

(775)  

(776)        (.  1        . 

(777) (      .    

(778)       .

(779)  

(780)         

(781) .      

(782)     .

(783) 

(784) .  1             

(785)

(786) .

(787) 

(788)  $        .  

(789) 

(790)  

(791)         .       

(792)     .   O.  &       

(793)

(794)       .     

(795)  $ 

(796) 

(797).     

(798)     

(799)

(800)    .   .  G   

(801)  $

(802)   

(803) 

(804).   $         

(805) .        

Riferimenti

Documenti correlati

The braking system of the SimRod has been instrumented with several thermal sensors for the identification of the simulation model parameters (Figure 7).. They were laid out on

This paper shares interdisciplinary research that has developed an innovative co- production process to engage small businesses and the stakeholders that support them in

More specifically, this paper presents progress on the four inter-related strands of research being conducted as part of the SESAME project: i developing and using agent

Centre for Floods, Communities and Resilience, University of the West of England, Bristol,UK Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry,UK... Transactions

On an individual building scale the set of flood resili- ent technologies comprises, first, building aperture tech- nologies for the temporary watertight closure of façade

In a set of simulations with the same starting energy, one can analyze the statistics of the single events, by fitting the asymptotic behavior with a power law (with exponent μ),

Ricordiamoci prima di tutto del profilo che ho cercato di tracciare dei signori che prendono, a partire dalla metà del XII secolo, l’iniziativa di associarsi per fondare questi

An extreme case of asymmetric update is the PCM device, where G can gradually increase via crystallization, whereas the conductance decrease induced by phase amorphization is