**9. Conclusions**

of damages reported by privates for indemnification. These categories of damages may, or may not, match with the categories of "refundable" damages by Ministry. Moreover, the quantification of damage made by "not expert" privates after the flood can overestimate/

The gap between the collected damages (contained in the B-sheet and C-sheet) and the refundable damages can lead to an over (or under)estimation of the former with respect to the latter.

Consequently, the quantification of real damages, and the calibration of the model, is a very difficult task. The computed IDP cannot be easily compared to collected damage "data," as the latter refer to conditions which are highly influenced by regulations, personal attitudes,

For this reason, the proposed model aims at the computation of an *index* (the Index of Proportional Risk, or the index of proportional damage) more than to the precise computation

Moreover, it should be considered that the total flood damages can be by far higher than the residential and/or productive ones. Actually, in the recent *flood report* of Regione Piemonte

> The total number of collected B-sheet and C-sheet can be by far lower than

The quantification by professionals can be different from assessment by privates (B-sheet, C-sheet)

Citizens avoid to produce B-sheet and C-sheet if the technical costs for bureaucracy are of the same order

The requests in B-sheet and C-sheet can overestimate the total refundable

The available data can underestimate

the affected receptors

of refunds

damage

the real damage

administration ([19], p.84), "flood costs" have been divided into different groups:

Regulations [19, 20] indicate that different modules to be filled, with different obligations for

The technical assessment has to be made by professionals, to quantify the damages of residential houses. Professionals are paid by

Damages to chattels can be of the same order of the total maximum contribution or less. Bureaucracy costs can be too high with respect to

According to regulations, only some damage categories can be refunded. For example, • damaged or destroyed chattels in secondary

• damages to secondary buildings are not

• damages to cars and to mobile registered

Damages covered by private insurances are not

**Table 8.** Main factors that cause a gap between the total amounts of real damages suffered by residential/commercial

**Factors Description Effects**

the possible indemnification

houses are not refunded;

goods are not refundable

contained in the available data

refundable;

receptors and damages that can be eligible for public indemnification.

Bureaucracy The procedures are felt to be "complex."

the owners

privates

underestimate real damages assessed by professionals.

30 Natural Hazards - Risk Assessment and Vulnerability Reduction

**Table 8** shows a list of the main factors for this gap.

and so on.

of physical damages.

Necessity to produce a technical assessment

Maximum amount of public contribution (e.g., max 1500.00€ for chattels)

Kinds of refundable

Insurance to natural

damages

disasters

The IRP model, extensively applied to different case studies in Piemonte region, demonstrated to be a suitable model to risk and damage estimation, either for the aims of the implementation of flood directive or for the design of countermeasures. The model aims at expressing an "index," where estimation is based on a scientific approach (i.e., on the definition of damage and of risk) and on the basis of available databases at the regional scale (Piemonte region) and national scale (Italy).

The usability of the model to compute an "index" has been proven elsewhere, and it is confirmed on the present application to the 2016 case study, to Bormida, Tanaro, and Chisola rivers.

IDP index of damage risk

IRP Index of Proportional Risk

OMI Estate Market Observatory PAI Hydrogeological Asset Plan

\*, Gennaro Bianco2

**Author details**

Luca Franzi1

Torino, Italy

**References**

2018-06-01]

2018-06-01]

PGRA Management Plan for Flood Risk

Re.N.Di.S. National Repository for Soil defense

ISPRA Superior Institute for Protection and Environmental Research

, Alessandro Pezzoli<sup>3</sup>

3 DIST - Politecnico di Torino and Turin University and R3C – Politecnico di Torino,

[1] European Commission, Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. 2007. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood\_risk/index.htm [Accessed:

[2] PBDA. Piano per l'assetto idrogeologico - Relazione generale. Interventi sulla rete idrografica e sui versanti. 2001. Available from: http://www.adbpo.it/PAI/1%20-%20Relazione%20generale/1.1%20-%20Relazione%20generale/RelGenCap\_1\_2.pdf [Accessed:

[3] MATTM. Indirizzi operativi per l'attuazione della direttiva 2007/60/ce relativa alla valutazione ed alla gestione dei rischi da alluvioni con riferimento alla predisposizione delle mappe della pericolosità e del rischio di alluvioni. 2013. Available at: http://www. minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/vari/documento\_definitivo\_indi-

[4] PBDA, Piano per la valutazione e la gestione del rischio di alluvioni. II Mappatura della pericolosità e valutazione del rischio. 2016. Available at: http://pianoalluvioni.adbpo.

rizzi\_operativi\_direttiva\_alluvioni\_gen\_13.pdf [Accessed: 2018-06-01]

and Angelo Besana4

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

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

33

MATTM Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea

\*Address all correspondence to: luca.franzi@regione.piemonte.it

2 DIATI - Politecnico di Torino and Turin University, Torino, Italy

4 DIST - Politecnico di Torino and Turin University, Torino, Italy

1 Soil Defence Department, Regione Piemonte, Torino, Italy

The comparison between the computed "index" and the *collected* residential and productive damages proves that if the former should be used to estimate the real damages, an *over-* or *under*estimation of the latter could be done. Moreover, collected damages can be very different with respect to real damages. This is due to the many factors, including the attitude of privates, or legislation. Application to Bormida river also showed a strong variability in the total amount of indemnification requested by economic activities.

For this reason, it should be considered that, at the present state, a real calibration of the model is not possible and the use of the term *index* should be maintained. However, the IDP can be a useful index to estimate the order of magnitude of the total indemnification requests by privates or to estimate the total flood costs. Available data on 2016 flood show that, for Alessandria and Asti provinces, the total costs are between 1.6 and 3.9 times the private requests.

The adoption of the IRP allows the risk quantification and its ranking; in spite of the fact that, at present, risk quantification in EFD is not compulsory, in this frame, IRP can be a useful instrument to (i) improve risk ranking and mapping and to (ii) estimate damages for the application of Re.N.Di.S. procedures.

Obviously, over/underestimations by the model should be taken into account by decision makers and public administration, especially in Re.N.Di.S. procedures.
