**4. The Re.N.Di.S. platform for planning**

Flood damage quantification and assessment is not only a (optional) requirement for the implementation of EFD, but it has recently become a requirement for the evaluation of the projects of countermeasures and for the eligibility of public financing.

Actually, with the recent 2015 decree of the President of the Ministry Council (2015DPCM in the following), a new discipline to evaluate the priority of public financing for flood protection projects came into force in Italy. To set priorities is fundamental when financial resources are scarcer than necessities. Actually, at the moment, the total needs for protection (by considering all the kinds of natural hazards, which are floods, landslides, flash floods, debris flows) amount to about 30G€, by far higher than the resources available at the moment (**Table 2**).

The model for prioritization proposed by the 2015DPCM is based on a score approach.

According to the 2015DPCM, flood defense projects have to be collected into the so-called Re.N.Di.S. procedure, which is a national repository of projects for soil defense. For a given project, either the assessments by public administration, or the level reached by design, or the effectiveness of the designed countermeasures are scored. The Re.N.Di.S. procedure allows to associate a total score to each proposed project, included in the Re.N.Di.S. procedure. The criteria are listed in **Table 3**.

For the sake of simplicity, it can be said that, for a given project of flood protection measures included in the Re.N.Di.S procedure, the priority to financing is based on its total score: the higher is its score, the higher is its ranking and therefore the probability for public financing. As shown in **Table 3**, flood damage evaluation score is relevant with respect to other criteria: if the damage evaluation is given, there is a 10-point score.

Without a uniform methodology for damage assessment and quantification, the damage assessment and the cost/benefit analysis (upon which also the prioritization of the public administration is based) is meaningless, either for the aims of EFD or for the Re.N.Di.S. pro-

**Table 3.** List of the evaluation criteria of the projects, with the respective scores (table taken from the 2015DPCM).

**Criteria contained in the DPCM Description of the criteria Min-max score**

considered

Design level (low/medium/high) Italian laws consider three levels of design. The

Directly endangered people Higher score for a higher number of protected population

Frequency Higher score if the project allows the protection

*reduction*

*involved*

environment

Compensation and mitigation measures Presence of compensation and mitigation

The higher is the total score, the higher is the ranking of the project for public financing.

administration and expressed in three levels. The cost/effectiveness rate should be

Index of Proportional Risk (IRP) Flood-Risk Assessment Model and Comparison to Collected Data

higher the level, the higher the score

Higher score for projects that allow the

*The criteria allow a higher score for projects which quantify the effectiveness in terms of damage* 

*The criteria allow a higher score for projects which allow the reduction of the total number of people* 

measures, which can mitigate the effects on

complementary to other projects

protection of goods at risk

to more frequent floods

0–20

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79443

23

3.3–10

0–10

0–60

0–30

4.2–30

0–30

0–5

*0—no quantification 10—damage quantification*

Priority by public administration The priority level is expressed by public

Completion Higher score for projects that are

Therefore, a uniform methodology for risk evaluation is required. It should be homogeneous at the national scale and based on databases available and preferably free to public and

In order to overcome the constraints of the present methodologies for risk mapping, Regione Piemonte public administration in collaboration with the Politecnico of Turin and the University developed a methodology for risk assessment and quantification, which is based

cedure. Heterogeneity would undermine the usability of the analysis.

on the quantification of the *Index of Proportional Risk* (IRP).

updated.

**5. The IRP model**

Goods at risk (properties, communication lines, etc.)

*damage reduction*

involved people

*Effectiveness of the project in terms of* 

Effectiveness of the project in terms of the reduction of the total number of


**Table 2.** Total amount of proposed interventions for risk reduction and financing necessities (taken from [12]).


**Table 3.** List of the evaluation criteria of the projects, with the respective scores (table taken from the 2015DPCM).

Without a uniform methodology for damage assessment and quantification, the damage assessment and the cost/benefit analysis (upon which also the prioritization of the public administration is based) is meaningless, either for the aims of EFD or for the Re.N.Di.S. procedure. Heterogeneity would undermine the usability of the analysis.

Therefore, a uniform methodology for risk evaluation is required. It should be homogeneous at the national scale and based on databases available and preferably free to public and updated.
