Advertisement

International Journal of Disaster Risk Science

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 296–307 | Cite as

Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment in Manizales, Colombia: Quantifying Losses for Insurance Purposes

  • Mario A. Salgado-Gálvez
  • Gabriel A. Bernal
  • Daniela Zuloaga
  • Mabel C. Marulanda
  • Omar-Darío Cardona
  • Sebastián Henao
Open Access
Article

Abstract

A fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment was developed in Manizales, Colombia, considering assets of different types. The first type includes elements that are part of the water and sewage network, and the second type includes public and private buildings. This assessment required the development of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis that accounts for the dynamic soil response, assembling high resolution exposure databases, and the development of damage models for different types of elements. The economic appraisal of the exposed assets was developed together with specialists of the water utilities company of Manizales and the city administration. The risk assessment was performed using several Comprehensive Approach to Probabilistic Risk Assessment modules as well as the R-System, obtaining results in terms of traditional metrics such as loss exceedance curve, average annual loss, and probable maximum loss. For the case of pipelines, repair rates were also estimated. The results for the water and sewage network were used in activities related to the expansion and maintenance strategies, as well as for the exploration of financial retention and transfer alternatives using insurance schemes based on technical, probabilistic, and prospective damage and loss estimations. In the case of the buildings, the results were used in the update of the technical premium values of the existing collective insurance scheme.

Keywords

CAPRA Earthquake insurance Manizales (Colombia) Probabilistic seismic risk assessment Risk retention and transfer 

1 Introduction

Manizales is a city of about 400,000 inhabitants located in the Colombian Andes. Similarly to other cities in the region, Manizales has a building portfolio that is mainly comprised of low and middle-rise masonry and reinforced concrete residential, commercial, and administrative units. As a consequence of being located in a region prone to hazards with different origins (for example, landslides, floods, and volcanic ash fall are common in the city, and the Colombian Andes are prone to earthquakes), a comprehensive set of disaster risk management and reduction activities have been continuously developed during the past 10 years. These actions have had remarkable achievements in terms of corrective and prospective interventions, which range from the structural retrofitting of hospitals to the design and implementation of a voluntary and collective risk transfer scheme using innovative earthquake insurance approaches (Marulanda 2013; Marulanda et al. 2014, 2016).

As part of these disaster risk management and reduction activities that have taken place in the city, a multidisciplinary and multi-sectorial disaster risk management and reduction project was developed for the city.1 Among its different activities, a fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment was developed for all elements of the water and sewage network owned and operated by Waters of Manizales S.A. E.S.P. (Aguas de Manizales S.A. E.S.P.), and also for the portfolio of public and private buildings within the city limits. The aim of the assessment was to estimate the order of magnitude of potential damages and losses due to earthquakes, and use these results in the design of an earthquake insurance policy for the water and sewage network, as well as in the update of the existing voluntary and collective insurance scheme of the buildings in the city. This is the first time a fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment has been performed for water and sewage networks in Colombia, although similar assessments have been previously performed in other parts of the world (Taleb-Agha 1977; Eguchi 1991; Isoyama et al. 1998; Ballantyne et al. 1999; Pitilakis et al. 2006). With respect to the building portfolio, this assessment constitutes an update, bearing in mind that similar studies have been developed using the same methodological framework in other urban centers such as Bogotá D.C., Medellín, Barcelona, and Lorca (Marulanda et al. 2013; Salgado-Gálvez et al. 2013, 2014a, b, 2016c).

Because a number of uncertainties related to seismic hazard and physical vulnerability exist, it has been widely acknowledged that probabilistic approaches and methodological frameworks are required when assessing, in a prospective way, feasible future losses (McGuire 2004; Grossi and Kunreuther 2005; UNISDR 2013; GFDRR 2014). These probabilistic approaches are intended to not only identify the uncertainties but, when possible, quantify and rigorously propagate them throughout the whole analysis process. Recently, different open-source tools and initiatives to perform these evaluations have been developed, with the primary objective of providing access to these tools to developing countries. A widely used and recognized tool is CAPRA—Comprehensive Approach to Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Cardona et al. 2012).

For the building stock, the probabilistic risk assessment was performed with the R System (ERN 2014), a proprietary tool that implements the fully probabilistic and event-based loss assessment methodology proposed by Ordaz (2000). The results from this assessment were used for the update of the technical premium values used for the insurance of the complete portfolio of public buildings of Manizales (using one collective policy), as well as for the premium values of the voluntary and collective insurance scheme for the private buildings of the city. In the case of the water and sewage network, the results were used to identify appropriate materials to be used in the expansion and maintenance activities of the water and sewage company, as well as to serve as a base for the negotiation of an earthquake insurance policy based in sound technical results, instead of using solely the opinion of experts. The results constitute a starting point not only for future updates of the assessment (accounting for changes in the exposure characteristics, for example, larger number of buildings, water and sewage network elements with different characteristics, and better understanding of the seismic hazard in the area under analysis), but for a later integration of damages and losses associated to other types of hazards that can be aggregated using approaches like the one proposed by Ordaz (2014).

This case study provides an example of how scientific, engineering, and financial activities can be combined in order to develop comprehensive disaster risk management activities converting the results into a technical basis for the design and implementation of earthquake insurance schemes in the city of Manizales.

2 Methodology and Input Data

This assessment made use of the recently updated local seismic hazard model at bedrock level considering the local site effects (Bernal et al. 2015, 2017; Salgado-Gálvez et al. 2016b). Additionally, detailed and high-resolution exposure databases were developed for the water and sewage and building portfolios—in the case of buildings, individual structural characteristics (that is, age, number of stories, and construction material) were recorded for each entry, whereas in the case of the water and sewage network, characteristics for each segment of the pipelines (that is, material, diameter, and joint type, among others) were assigned. In addition to buried pipelines, other elements such as water storage tanks and administrative buildings were also considered; for these, parameters such as age and construction material were also taken into account. After identifying the structural characteristics of each element included in both exposure databases, a set of vulnerability functions was developed in terms of different seismic hazard intensity measures (for example, spectral acceleration, and peak ground velocity), to be assigned later to each element. Then the convolution between hazard and vulnerability was performed using the CAPRA-GIS program (ERN-AL 2011) to obtain the loss exceedance curve (LEC), from which other probabilistic risk metrics such as average annual loss (AAL) and probable maximum loss (PML) can be obtained. For the buried pipelines, average annual repair rates (by km) were also estimated.

The development of a fully probabilistic seismic risk analysis usually requires the completion of a set of activities that provide input data. Among them, the following can be identified: (1) a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in which events with different characteristics such as location, magnitude, and occurrence frequency are modelled, together with the geographical distribution of the hazard intensities and the dynamic soil response, which is of high interest usually where there is presence of soft soil layers; (2) the assembly of exposure databases making use of several data sources, with the objective of identifying and characterizing all relevant elements on which feasible damages and losses are of interest; (3) the development of vulnerability models that relate different seismic hazard intensities to the expected losses, where a unique vulnerability function is assigned to each element included in the exposure database, associated to the hazard intensity that better correlates with damage (that is, spectral acceleration for flexible buildings, peak ground velocity for buried pipelines); and (4) the assessment of damages and losses by convoluting hazard and vulnerability, thus obtaining exceedance rates for different loss values (in monetary terms), from where other relevant risk metrics such as the AAL and the PML can be obtained (Ordaz 2000; Cardona et al. 2008a, b). This section summarizes the most relevant aspects of each of these four steps for the water and sewage network of Manizales, as well as for its portfolio of public and private buildings.

2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

The objective of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is to provide a long-term overview of the relationships between strong ground motion levels and their occurrence frequencies. For a fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment, a hazard representation by means of stochastic events (event-based approach) is required. A PSHA allows the user to obtain feasible earthquakes with different locations, magnitudes, and occurrence frequencies, associated to all the seismic sources of interest. For this case, the PSHA was developed using the latest version of the program CRISIS, a well-known and accepted tool that implements state-of-the-art methodologies to perform PSHA (Ordaz et al. 2013). This program is also the seismic hazard module of the CAPRA platform and an input data provider for the R-System, used for the case of buildings.

The PSHA was developed at local level considering more than 35 seismic sources for which, in all cases, a geometric area model was used for their representation accounting for variations in dip angles and depths (Salgado-Gálvez et al. 2013, 2016b). Regionally developed and calibrated ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) were assigned to each seismic source (Bernal 2014), thus allowing the consideration of different hazard intensities such as spectral accelerations, peak ground velocity (PGV), and peak ground displacement (PGD). As a result of the PSHA a total of 1275 stochastic events were obtained, each of them with a set of hazard intensities associated to several spectral ordinates ranging between 0.0 and 4.0 s, and for ground accelerations, velocities, and displacements. Since a Poissonian process is assumed to occur for the loss generation process, the stochastic event set needs to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive; individual events need to have an associated occurrence frequency and data of at least the first two statistical moments for each hazard intensity measure.

Due to the characteristics of the soils in Manizales, and also because of the local nature of the analysis, as well as its high level of resolution, it is relevant to take into account the dynamic soil response. This was done by using spectral transfer functions based on the results of the recently updated and harmonized seismic microzonation developed for the city [also developed within the framework of the disaster risk management and reduction project, see Bernal et al. (2015, 2017)] that provides results at 377 different locations.

2.2 Assembly of the Exposure Databases

The development of exposure databases has always constituted a great challenge in modeling disaster risk because, in most cases, in order to complete the identification and characterization process, data from several sources need to be combined, leading to a process where assumptions and simplifications are usually required. However, the exposure databases developed for these case studies can be considered an exception. Given the previous continuous efforts of the water and sewage company, as well as of the city (cadastral office), in gathering, arranging, classifying, and updating the information related to the exposed assets, all relevant parameters for a seismic risk assessment (ranging from age to structural system, construction material, location, and geometry) could be obtained directly from the official sources (only specific field visits to validate and review very specific issues were needed). The economic appraisal of each element included in the exposure databases was done using official data in a task where close collaboration was received from specialists working in the water utilities company of Manizales and the cadastral office of the city.

The exposure databases for the water and sewage network, as well as for the public and private buildings, required the development of specific tasks such as the identification of the relevant structural parameters that are related to the expected behavior of each asset when subjected to earthquake hazard intensities. Because of the evident differences between the type of components, and since the use of the results was not directly linked or combined, these activities were performed in a separate manner.

The economic appraisal of the whole water and sewage network was developed in terms of the replacement cost, that is the amount of money required to repair or rebuild the damaged element and take it back to the exact same conditions it was in before it was damaged; in this case, the value for each element does not simply correspond to its monetary cost (for example, 5 m of concrete pipe), but also to other costs associated to activities of installation, such as breaking and repairing streets at different depths. All values were obtained directly from the water utilities company and those data can be said to be complete, reliable, and updated. Overall, pipelines for primary and secondary water and sewage networks account for most of the exposed value with around 80%, followed by the water storage tanks that account for approximately 7% of the total exposed value of the water and sewage network in Manizales.

For the case of the public and private building portfolio, the base information to assemble the exposure database was delivered by the Secretary of Finance and the Risk Management Unit (Unidad de Gestión del Riesgo) of the city administration, and was complemented with additional parameters from aerial images, existing maps, and field visits. The first exposure database for private buildings in Manizales, developed for purposes related to seismic risk assessment in 2004, included representative variables such as age, number of stories, structural system, location, and socioeconomic level. The latter is specified in terms of strata, from 1 to 6, in which strata 1 and 2 group inhabitants with the lowest economic capacity and are therefore granted a property tax exemption, whereas strata 3–6 group property tax payers. At the time the project was conducted, more than 85,816 dwellings were included and, for the purpose of the analysis, they were split into three different categories as explained in detail in Marulanda et al. (2014, 2016).

One of the tasks within the disaster risk management project developed in Manizales was related to the update and completion of the exposure database to take into account not only improvements related to the content and attributes of the exposure database, but also the consideration of new buildings that have been built since 2004. For the purpose of this analysis more than 113,064 dwellings were considered. Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of the identified structural systems in the city. Non-engineered materials and structural systems such as adobe and other earthen structures (bahareque) can be easily identified in the oldest and historical areas of the city (Cumanday, San José, and La Macarena). Further details about the assembly of the buildings exposure database of Manizales can be found in Gonzalez (2014).
Fig. 1

Geographical distribution of structural systems for the public and private buildings in Manizales, Colombia

2.3 Vulnerability Functions

The vulnerability function approach accounts for a continuous, quantitative, and probabilistic representation of the physical damage of the assets for different levels of hazard intensities. For each asset included in the exposure databases, a unique vulnerability function is assigned in order to estimate the losses associated with different hazard intensity levels, for each of the considered stochastic events. Due to the great variety of types of elements, vulnerability functions in terms of several hazard intensities were developed, given that different intensities show good correlation with the damage of different types of elements. For example, vulnerability functions were developed in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the case of buried water storage tanks, in terms of spectral accelerations for administrative buildings and elevated water storage tanks, and in terms of PGV for buried pipelines. For the latter, the recommendations provided by the American Lifeline Alliance—ALA (2001) were followed in order to obtain the repair rates, RR (the number of damages to be repaired by km).

For other types of components such as administrative buildings and water storage tanks, the development of the vulnerability models included the consideration and combination of different approaches, such as analytical and empirical analyses combined with expert criteria. For all types of components, loss is considered to be a random variable for which the variation of the first two statistical moments for different seismic demand levels are described by means of vulnerability functions (Miranda 1999; Ordaz 2000). Figure 2 shows the vulnerability functions (expected values of the loss) used for the different water storage tank classifications (left), and some of the vulnerability functions used for the building portfolio (right).
Fig. 2

Examples of some vulnerability functions for different types of water storage tanks (left) and for some of the different types of buildings (right) in Manizales, Colombia

2.4 Loss Assessment

Once the input data for hazard, exposure, and vulnerability was ready, the loss estimation was made following the fully probabilistic and event-based procedure proposed by Ordaz (2000). This procedure has been implemented in the CAPRA-GIS program, which corresponds to the risk module of the CAPRA platform, in the case of the water and sewage network, and the R System (ERN 2014), in the case of the portfolio of buildings. The main outcome of a state-of-the-art probabilistic risk assessment corresponds to the LEC, which contains several loss values together with their associated exceedance frequencies. The same methodological approach and procedure was followed to estimate seismic losses in the two different exposure databases and, therefore, results in terms of the same risk metrics have been obtained. Under this approach, the LEC is calculated using 50 different loss values ranging between 0 and 80% of the total exposed value (logarithmically spaced) using the following expression:
$$\nu (l) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N} { \, \Pr (L > l\left| {Event_{\text{ i}} )} \right.} \cdot F_{A} (Event_{\text{ i}} )$$
(1)
where ν(l) is the loss exceedance rate (1/year), Pr(L > l|Event i ) is the loss probability exceedance conditional to the occurrence of the ith event, and F A (Event i ) is the annual occurrence frequency of the ith event. Once the LEC is calculated, other risk metrics such as the AAL and the PML (for any return period of interest) can be obtained; additionally, loss exceedance probabilities for different exposure timeframes can be computed. Equation 1 shows that an event-based approach is required for the hazard representation because the associated occurrence frequencies are required along with the expected hazard intensities. More details on the loss assessment methodology can be found in Ordaz (2000) and Salgado-Gálvez et al. (2014b).

For the case of the water and sewage network, additional analyses were considered for particular feasible earthquakes in which the approach from the temporal perspective can be considered as deterministic, but which is still probabilistic from the loss estimation perspective (since the uncertainties associated with the strong ground motion intensities and the vulnerability representation are still accounted for). In that case, the expected loss for the particular scenario is estimated using Eq. 1 where the occurrence frequency of the considered event is assumed to be equal to 1.0.

3 Results

The results of the fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment of the two portfolios for Manizales (the water and sewage network and the public and private buildings) are presented in this section. For clarity, they have been split by category. Due to confidentiality constraints, the results (in terms of absolute exposed values and losses) for the water and sewage network are not presented here, although the relevant share by component is included.

3.1 Water and Sewage Portfolio

Table 1 shows the risk results for the components of the water utilities company in terms of the relative AAL. From Table 1 it is evident that the component with the highest relative AAL corresponds to the water storage tanks with around 6.6‰ (a considerably high value bearing in mind that the AAL of the whole network is 0.65‰). From these results, it is also worth noting that, although pipelines concentrate the vast majority of the exposed value, their AAL is low when compared, in relative terms, to any other component. Furthermore, it is important to see that the administrative buildings have an AAL that by no means can be considered as negligible with the aggravating fact that those buildings are to be considered as critical components. This is because aside from the physical losses, any important damage on the buildings can gravely affect the operation of the network in the aftermath of an earthquake, not only from a purely operational point of view but also from the emergency management perspective (Salgado-Gálvez 2014). For the case of the buried pipelines it is also possible to develop risk maps in terms of average annual repair rates (by km) such as the one shown in Fig. 3 for the sewage network of Manizales. More details about this study can be found in Salgado-Gálvez et al. (2017).
Table 1

Exposed value and average annual loss (AAL) by component for the Aguas de Manizales network (a), and probable maximum loss (PML) for different return periods of the Aguas de Manizales network (b) in Manizales, Colombia

Component

Relative share (%)

AAL  ‰

(a)

  

Administrative buildings

2.8

1.61

Adduction network

4.2

0.18

Water catching

1.2

0.29

Inspection chambers

2.9

0.01

Conduction pipelines

13.7

0.09

Distribution pipelines

30.6

0.04

Sewage pipelines

35.3

0.17

Tanks

7.3

6.57

Control valves

0.7

0.92

System valves

1.2

1.28

Total

100.0

0.64

Probable maximum loss

Return period (years)

Relative loss (%)

(b)

 

250

2.1

500

2.8

1000

3.5

1500

4.0

Fig. 3

Average annual repair rates (RR/km) for the sewage network of Aguas de Manizales in Manizales, Colombia

In addition to the fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment, an event capable of causing losses with a return period of 1000 years occurring in the vicinity of the city was considered (event with magnitude 7.3, with an epicenter located 25 km southwest of Manizales). In this case, instead of a loss exceedance rate, what is directly obtained is the mean damage ratio (MDR) of each component of the network, which is approximately 3.5% of the total exposed value. As in the fully probabilistic assessment, risk is mostly concentrated in the water storage tanks and the administrative buildings. Repair rates for pipelines with different materials and joint characteristics were compared with published post-earthquake survey data of water and sewage systems (Ballantyne et al. 1991, 2002), finding congruent results in terms of RR. Several of the tools and programs used for this study have been previously tested and validated with particular damage results for earthquakes in Lorca, Spain (Salgado-Gálvez et al. 2016a).

3.2 Building Portfolio

For the building portfolio, three separate seismic risk assessments were performed. The first included only the buildings that are exempt from property taxes (socioeconomic strata 1 and 2), the second included only the buildings subjected to property tax payments (socioeconomic strata 3–6), and the third included all 113,064 dwellings.

Figure 4 shows the geographical distribution of the relative (to the exposed value) AAL for the public and private buildings of Manizales. The highest values, around 2.25%, correspond to dwellings with non-engineered building classes; this value of 2.25% can be understood as losing the total exposed value of each asset on average every 40 years (Marulanda 2014).
Fig. 4

Average annual loss (AAL) (relative) distribution for the public and private buildings in Manizales, Colombia

Table 2 shows the summary of the risk metrics (AAL and PML) for the analyzed portfolios considering different deductible levels, in all cases using the methodological approach to account for limits and deductibles proposed by Ordaz (2000). The higher the deductible level in a traditional earthquake insurance scheme, the lower the expected losses in terms of either AAL or PML, for any return period.
Table 2

Seismic risk results, average annual loss (AAL), and probable maximum loss (PML), for public and private buildings with 0 and 3% deductible levels in Manizales, Colombia

The value of the pure premium, in 2014, for private properties was set equal to 2.86‰ without deductible, and to 1.63‰ after applying a 3% deductible. Despite the significant increase in the number of existing properties in the city in a period shorter than 10 years (from 85,816 to 113,064), the decrease of the pure risk premium value in the city (with 3% deductible) from 1.98 to 1.63‰ is particularly remarkable. It is rarely possible to measure the seismic risk of a city in different time periods with the same metrics, and even more so to reveal a reduction of risk which, in the case of Manizales, could be expected due to the efforts made in risk management. In recent years a significant number of buildings have been retrofitted in Manizales, particularly public sector buildings. This can explain the new pure risk premium value of 1.62‰ (with 3% of deductible) for these properties. This value is practically the same if compared to the value estimated for the private buildings. However, the main reason why the seismic risk of the city has been decreasing relates to the significant increase in construction of new buildings that effectively take into account all the earthquake resistance requirements established in the Colombian earthquake resistant building code—NSR-10 (Marulanda et al. 2016).

4 Using the Seismic Risk Results in Earthquake Insurance Design and Implementation

The seismic risk results obtained from the assessment outlined above have been used in different activities that include: the design of cross (subsidized) collective earthquake insurance schemes, the development of hybrid loss exceedance curves (Velásquez et al. 2014), the feasibility assessment of the use of alternative risk transfer instruments such as captive or cat-bonds for the insurance of the water and sewage network components, as well as the identification of the best materials and characteristics for the construction, maintenance, expansion, and update of pipelines.

Regarding the water and sewage network, the results were useful for the design of a structural retrofitting strategy of critical components based on the overall risk results. Among the components, the water storage tanks were prioritized not only due to the high relevance they have in the operational capacity of the network, but also due to the high-risk concentration they present, as shown in Table 1. For that reason, a probabilistic benefit–cost analysis was developed to explore different structural retrofitting alternatives, with the selection of the most effective ones from the behavioral and economic perspectives. Regarding the pipelines, after the disaggregation of the risk results by material and joint type, the difference was evident, allowing us to recommend that for expansion and replacement activities (the latter closely related to the continuous maintenance actions developed by the company), flexible joints and materials are to be used. This is in order to minimize the expected damages, and therefore, to guarantee a better operational condition of the system after the occurrence of an earthquake in the city or its surroundings.

The overall results were considered as useful input data for the design of a robust and technically based earthquake insurance scheme, while at the same time providing the company with sound information to be reliably used in the negotiation process. Regarding financial protection schemes, obtaining future feasible losses in terms of AAL, PML (for any return period of interest) and loss exceedance probabilities for different exposure timeframes (Fig. 5) allows for the exploration of the design, use, and establishment of policy conditions for alternative risk transfer instruments (such as captive insurance companies and/or catastrophe bonds), an activity that is expected to be completed in a second phase of the comprehensive disaster risk management project in Manizales.
Fig. 5

Loss exceedance probabilities for different exposure timeframes for the components of the water and sewage network in Manizales, Colombia

The results also led to the proposal of the design of a collective voluntary insurance to cover, in some way, the losses of the poorest city residents. After analyzing the portfolios, it was possible to reveal that the cadastral value of the low-income properties was not significant when compared to the rest of the value of the private buildings of the city. This opened the possibility to consider a subsidy for the low-income socioeconomic layers, where the taxpayers who decide to subscribe to the insurance program assume the low socioeconomic layers’ pure premiums (Marulanda et al. 2008, 2014, 2016; Cardona 2009; Cardona and Marulanda 2010; Marulanda 2013).

According to Agreement 760 of 2011, from 1 January 2012, of the City Council of Manizales, all urban properties belonging to the socioeconomic layers 1, 2, and 3 will be exempted from paying property taxes; the same applies for all rural residential properties, irrespective of the socioeconomic layer, whose assessed valuation is less than or equal to 39 minimum current legal salaries (USD 8284), which correspond to 20% of the number of properties and 4% of the insurable value of the total properties of the city. Before this agreement was put into action, only properties belonging to socioeconomic layers 1 and 2 were exempt. Table 3 shows the results of this new situation.
Table 3

Risk results for private buildings (tax exempt and non-exempt), with 0 and 3% deductible (Agreement 760, 2011)a in Manizales, Colombia

aUSD = 2900 Colombian pesos (COP). Exchange rate as per 4 January 2017

In order to determine the value of the insurance premium of the non-exempt tax properties, including the exempt (or exonerated) properties, with 3% deductible, it is necessary to add approximately USD 0.14 million to USD 4.41 million of the non-exempts (not exonerated), and divide this by the insurable value thereof. This value of the premium corresponds to 1.69‰, and this would be the blanket premium in case that all non-exempts (not exonerated) would participate in the insurance program. With these results the city made a call for proposals to the insurance companies to implement the new collective voluntary insurance program to cover the low-income house owners in the city from 2016.

5 Conclusion

The practical use of the results of probabilistic seismic hazard and risk models has been presented in this comprehensive case study developed for the water and sewage network and the portfolio of buildings of Manizales, Colombia. The case study shows how these models provide valuable information that can be incorporated in a direct and explicit way in decision-making processes and how these decisions can cover a large variety of aspects that range from the design of traditional insurance schemes, to the design of innovative cross (subsidized) insurance schemes (Gurenko et al. 2006; GFDRR et al. 2015), and to the use of specific materials for the replacement, update, and expansion plans of the water and sewage company, together with the update and harmonization of contingency plans.

The water and sewage network of Manizales is the first in Colombia that has been subjected to a seismic risk assessment, not only at a high-resolution detail level, but also with a fully probabilistic approach. This case also serves to show that having updated, complete, and reliable information regarding exposure yields a set of reliable results that are useful for activities that are not directly related to the daily operation of the system. The results obtained for the expected losses and after the analysis for single and specific scenarios are consistent (and within the order of magnitude) with the findings by other authors in the field (Ballantyne et al. 1991, 2002).

The regular completion, update, and improvement of exposure databases for both the water and sewage network and the public and private buildings in any city, is a high priority task for which the needed economic resources should be allocated. The two different exposure databases used in the case studies presented for Manizales were mostly developed using official information showing how data, first gathered and arranged for other purposes, is clearly useful for disaster risk identification purposes.

Future risk assessments for the water and sewage network owned and operated by Aguas de Manizales can explore the consideration of hazards of different origins (for example, flash floods, landslides, and volcanic ash fall), which can also be assessed and integrated using the same probabilistic methodological framework for the estimation of feasible losses explained in this study.

Finally, regarding the use of risk results for the collective insurance of private buildings, it is important to mention that the possibility of covering the poorest socioeconomic strata of the population and promoting, in general, the insurance culture in the city of Manizales have been targets of special interest of the municipal administration. This initiative has primarily sought a social benefit and has been promoted by the local government. Support from the national government for the replication in other parts of the country can also be possible. The benefit–cost ratio is clear from the point of view of sustainability, prevention, welfare, and socioeconomic and financial protection. It is based on technical studies made with robust risk models, but the most important elements of this initiative have been the political will, governance, citizen solidarity, and risk perception of society and government officials. This innovative instrument represents a successful experience and is a good practice promoted between local government and the private sector that could be replicated in other developing countries prone to disasters, if appropriate risk studies for implementation are made.

Footnotes

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out within the framework of the inter-institutional agreement between the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales headquarters, and the Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas (Corpocaldas)—the regional environmental authority—to improve information systems for risk knowledge and understanding; monitoring of hazard events and warning systems; mainstreaming risk into planning; and to improve risk awareness in the city of Manizales, Colombia. The authors also express their gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers who contributed to improving the original version of the manuscript.

References

  1. ALA (American Lifelines Alliance). 2001. Seismic fragility formulations for water systems. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://www.americanlifelinesalliance.com/pdf/Part_1_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2016.
  2. Ballantyne, D., J. Eidinger, and C. Howard. 2002. Lifelines. Earthquake Spectra 18(S1): 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballantyne, D., A.R. Guerrero, M. O’Rourke. and E.L. Krinitzsky. 1991. Lifelines. Earthquake Spectra 7(S2): 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballantyne, D., D. Kessler, W. Elliot. and C. Scawthorn. 1999. Multi-hazard risk assessment for lifelines—Part 2—case study for the Portland, Oregon water supply system. In Proceedings of the 5th US Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Seattle, Washington, USA, August 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Bernal, G.A. 2014. Methodology for the modelling, calculation and calibration of seismic hazard parameters to assess risk in a probabilistic way (Metodología para la modelación, cálculo y calibración de parámetros de la amenaza sísmica para la evaluación probabilista del riesgo). Ph.D. thesis. Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña. Barcelona, Spain (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  6. Bernal, G.A., O.D. Cardona, M.A. Salgado-Gálvez, and C.P. Villegas. 2015. Update of the seismic microzonation of Manizales (Actualización de la microzonificación de Manizales). In Proceedings of the VII National Congress of Earthquake Engineering. Bogotá D.C., Colombia, May 2015 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  7. Bernal, G.A., M.A. Salgado-Gálvez, D. Zuloaga, J. Tristancho, D. González, and O.D. Cardona. 2017. Integration of probabilistic and multi-hazard risk assessment within urban development planning and emergency preparedness and response: Application to Manizales, Colombia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 8(3). doi: 10.1007/s13753-017-0135-8.
  8. Cardona, O.D. 2009. Financial disaster risk management: Retention and transfer financial instruments (La Gestión Financiera del Riesgo de Desastres: Instrumentos Financieros de Retención y Transferencia para la Comunidad Andina, PREDECAN), Comunidad Andina, Lima.Google Scholar
  9. Cardona, O.D., and M.C. Marulanda. 2010. Financial mechanisms, insurance, reinsurance for natural disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean. Recent experiences (Mecanismos Financieros, Seguro y Reaseguro contra Desastres Naturales en América Latina y el Caribe: Experiencias Recientes). Secretaría Permanente del Sistema Económico Latinoamericano y del Caribe, SELA (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  10. Cardona, O.D., M.G. Ordaz, M.C. Marulanda, and A.H. Barbat, 2008a. Estimation of probabilistic seismic losses and the public economic resilience—An approach for a macroeconomic impact evaluation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12(S2): 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardona, O.D., M. Ordaz, E. Reinoso, L.E. Yamín, and A.H. Barbat. 2012. CAPRA—Comprehensive approach to probabilistic risk assessment: International initiative for risk management effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal, September 2012.Google Scholar
  12. Cardona, O.D., M.G. Ordaz, L.E. Yamín, M.C. Marulanda, and A.H. Barbat. 2008b. Earthquake loss assessment for integrated disaster risk management. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12(S2): 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eguchi, R.T. 1991. Seismic hazard input for lifeline systems. Structural Safety 10: 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ERN (Evaluación de Riesgos Naturales). 2014. R-System: Program for the assessment of earthquake losses in buildings for insurance purposes. Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
  15. ERN-AL (Evaluación de Riesgos Naturales-América Latina). 2011. CAPRA-GIS v2.0. Program for probabilistic risk assessment. Bogotá D.C., Colombia.Google Scholar
  16. GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2014. Understanding risk in an evolving world. A policy note. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  17. GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery), The World Bank Group and JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2015. Pacific catastrophe risk insurance pilot: From design to implementation, some lessons learned. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Gonzalez, D. 2014. Buildings exposure database of Manizales (Base de datos de predios de Manizales). Technical report. Gestión del Riesgo—Manizales. CORPOCALDAS 2014. http://www.gestiondelriesgomanizales.com/Documentos/Informes/12-BaseDatos-EdificacionesPublicas-EvRiesgoSismico-DianaGonzalez.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2017 (in Spanish).
  19. Grossi, P., and H. Kunreuther (eds.). 2005. Catastrophe modeling. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Gurenko, E., R. Lester, O. Mahul, and S. Oguz Gonulal. 2006. Earthquake insurance in Turkey: History of the Turkish catastrophe insurance pool. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Isoyama, R., E. Ishida, K. Yune, and T. Shirozu. 1998. Seismic damage estimation procedure for water supply pipelines. In Proceedings of Water and Earthquake ´98 Tokyo, IWSA international workshop, anti-seismic measures on water supply, International Water Services Association and Japan Water Works Association. Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  22. Marulanda, M.C. 2013. Probabilistic modelling of earthquake economic losses for the estimation of the fiscal vulnerability and financial risk management (Modelación probabilista de pérdidas económicas por sismo para la estimación de la vulnerabilidad fiscal del estado y la gestión financiera del riesgo). Ph.D. thesis. Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña. Barcelona, Spain (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  23. Marulanda, M.C. 2014. Risk assessment of Manizales for insurance and financial protection of the public and private assets (Evaluación del riesgo de Manizales con fines de seguros y protección financiera de inmuebles públicos y privados). Programa de Gestión Integral del Riesgo de Desastres de Manizales, Technical report. Gestión del Riesgo—Manizales. CORPOCALDAS (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  24. Marulanda, M.C., O.D. Cardona, M.G. Mora, and A.H. Barbat. 2014. Design and implementation of a voluntary collective earthquake insurance policy to cover low-income homeowners in a developing country. Natural Hazards 74(3): 2071–2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marulanda, M.C., O.D. Cardona, M.G. Mora, and D.M. Gonzalez. 2016. Seismic risk assessment for risk transfer: The voluntary collective insurance in Manizales, Colombia. In Proceedings of International Conference on Urban Risks, ICUR2016, Lisbon, June 2016.Google Scholar
  26. Marulanda, M.C., O.D. Cardona, M.G. Ordaz, and A.H. Barbat. 2008. The financial management of risk from the perspective of disasters: Evaluation of the fiscal exposure and alternatives of financial instruments of risk retention and transfer (La gestión financiera del riesgo desde la perspectiva de los desastres: Evaluación de la exposición fiscal de los Estados y alternativas de instrumentos financieros de retención y transferencia del riesgo). Monografía CIMNE IS-61, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, Barcelona (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  27. Marulanda, M.C., M.L. Carreño, O.D. Cardona, M. Ordaz, and A.H. Barbat. 2013. Probabilistic earthquake risk assessment using CAPRA: Application to the city of Barcelona, Spain. Natural Hazards 69(1): 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGuire, R. 2004. Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Miranda, E. 1999. Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in multistory buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering 125(4): 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ordaz, M. 2000. Methodology for the seismic risk assessment oriented toward earthquake insurance management (Metodología para la evaluación del riesgo sísmico enfocada a la gerencia de seguros por terremoto). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Mexico City, Mexico (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  31. Ordaz, M. 2014. A simple probabilistic model to combine losses arising from the simultaneous occurrence of several hazards. Natural Hazards 76(1): 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ordaz, M., F. Martinelli, V. D’Amico, and C. Meletti. 2013. CRISIS2008: A flexible tool to perform probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. Seismological Research Letters 84(3): 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pitilakis, K., M. Alexoudi, S. Argyroudis, O. Monge, and C. Martin. 2006. Earthquake risk assessment of lifelines. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 4(4): 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A. 2014. Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of the Aguas de Manizales System (Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico del sistema de Aguas de Manizales). Technical report. Gestión del Riesgo—Manizales. CORPOCALDAS (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  35. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A., A.H. Barbat, O.D. Cardona, and M.L. Carreño. 2016a. Comparing observed damages and losses with modelled ones using a probabilistic approach: The Lorca 2011 case. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19: 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A., D. Zuloaga, S. Henao, G.A. Bernal, and O.D. Cardona. 2017. Probabilistic assessment of annual repair rates in pipelines and of direct economic losses in water and sewage networks. Application to Manizales, Colombia. Natural Hazards. doi:  10.1007/s11069-017-2987-z.Google Scholar
  37. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A., G.A. Bernal, and O.D. Cardona. 2016b. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Colombia with updating purposes of the Earthquake-Resistant Building Code for Bridges CCP-14 (Evaluación probabilista de la amenaza sísmica de Colombia con fines de actualización de la Norma Colombia de Diseño de Puentes CCP-14). Revista Internacional de Métodos Numéricos para Cálculo y Diseño en Ingeniería 32(4): 230–239 (in Spanish).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A., M.L. Carreño, A.H. Barbat, and O.D. Cardona. 2016c. Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of Lorca through scenario simulations (Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico en Lorca mediante simulaciones de escenarios). Revista Internacional de Métodos Numéricos para Cálculo y Diseño en Ingeniería 32(2): 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A., D. Zuloaga-Romero, G.A. Bernal, and O.D. Cardona. 2014a. Comparison of the seismic risk results in two cities with the same earthquake resistant design coefficients (Comparación de los resultados de riesgo sísmico en dos ciudades con los mismos coeficientes de diseño sismo resistente). Revista de Ingeniería, Universidad de Los Andes 41: 8–14 (in Spanish).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A., D. Zuloaga-Romero, G.A. Bernal, M.G. Mora, and O.D. Cardona. 2014b. Fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment considering local site effects for the portfolio of buildings in Medellín, Colombia. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 12(2): 671–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Salgado-Gálvez, M.A., D. Zuloaga-Romero, and O.D. Cardona. 2013. Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of Bogota and Manizales with and without the influence of Caldas Tear Fault (Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico de Bogotá y Manizales con y sin la influencia de la Caldas Tear). Revista de Ingeniería, Universidad de Los Andes 38: 6–13.Google Scholar
  42. Taleb-Agha, G. 1977. Seismic risk analysis of lifeline networks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 67(6): 1625–1645.Google Scholar
  43. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2013. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2013. Geneva: UNISDR.Google Scholar
  44. Velásquez, C.A., O.D. Cardona, M.L. Carreño, and A.H. Barbat. 2014. Retrospective assessment of risk from natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10(B): 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario A. Salgado-Gálvez
    • 1
  • Gabriel A. Bernal
    • 2
  • Daniela Zuloaga
    • 2
  • Mabel C. Marulanda
    • 1
  • Omar-Darío Cardona
    • 3
  • Sebastián Henao
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre Internacional de Metodes Numerics en Enginyeria (CIMNE)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.INGENIAR Ltda.Bogotá, D.C.Colombia
  3. 3.Instituto de Estudios Ambientales (IDEA)Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede ManizalesManizalesColombia
  4. 4.Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede ManizalesManizalesColombia

Personalised recommendations