2007 was a crucial year when the threshold of 50% of the population living in urban areas has been achieved and Ten years later, many hazards and often combination of hazards heat the urban environment everywhere in the world. This increase rate corresponds to a new city of 1 million people every week during the next 40 years. This exponential curve is enough to imagine that cities become more vulnerable: issues we will have to face dealing with risk management become more complex. Moreover, this quick urbanization comes with climate change uncertainties. Climate change, coupled with people and asset concentration in cities, is the worst combination to set up a sustainable natural hazard management plan. As an example, floods are considered the major natural hazard in the EU in terms of risk to people and assets. Currently, more than 40 bn € per year are spent on flood mitigation and recovery in the EU. More than 75 % of the damage caused by floods is occurring in urban areas. Climate change and concentration of population and assets in urban areas are main trends likely to affect these numbers in the near future. Global warming is expected to lead to more severe storm and rainfall events as well as to increasing river discharges and sea level rise. This means that flood risk is likely to increase significantly. At least, urban systems contain assets of high value and complex and interdependent infrastructure networks (i.e. power supplies, communications, water, transport etc.). The infrastructure networks are critical for the continuity of economic activities as well as for the people’s basic living needs. Their availability is also required for fast and effective recovery after disasters (floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, landslides...). The severity of damage therefore largely depends on the degree that both high value assets and critical urban infrastructure are affected, either directly or indirectly.
In this context, we obtain an urban society:
• more and more menaced by a lot of hazards
• more and more vulnerable due to increasing issues and complex urban system relations;
• less and less resilient.

This session aims at discussing how researchers, practitioners and professionals are integrating the resilient concept to set up new risk management approaches and to design more resilient and flexible cities to face all types of natural hazards. Indeed, a lot of projects in the EU are now trying to use the concept of resilience to mitigate different types of risks in urban areas. This session represents a great opportunity to exchange on resilient cities and to build up a resilience framework. We are attending presentations combining different disciplines, bringing conceptual elements on resilience but also tangible applications. All methods, frameworks, tools (GIS) designed to reduce risks in cities and integrating the resilience concept are welcome in this session.

From the Urban Resilience Studies part, we are expecting communications questioning the traditional risk management approaches, based on case studies and leading to new approaches based on the concept of resilience.
From the Risk Mapping, communications have to demonstrate how risks are characterized, assessed and mapped at several scales allowing to develop operational spatial decision support systems.

Co-organized as NH9.20/HS11.13
Convener: Bruno Barroca | Co-conveners: Damien Serre, Charlotte Heinzlef, Mattia Leone, Xun Sun, Elisabeth Krueger, Vincent Becue
| Tue, 09 Apr, 14:00–18:00
Room N1
| Attendance Wed, 10 Apr, 10:45–12:30
Hall X3

Attendance time: Wednesday, 10 April 2019, 10:45–12:30 | Hall X3

Chairperson: Charlotte Heinzlef - Mattia Leone
X3.95 |
Resilience of underground spaces.
Bruno Barroca
X3.96 |
| Highlight
Mattia Leone, Jeffrey Raven, and Enza Tersigni
X3.99 |
Emmanuel Nduwayezu, Pascal Horton, Michel Jaboyedof, Marc-Henri Derron, Gaspard Rwanyinziri, and Zarchi Aye
X3.100 |
Hong Li, Chong-Yu Xu, Péter Borsányi, Nils Roar Sælthun, Bent Christen Braskerud, and Erland Per Volden
X3.102 |
Field Test of Technology for Ground Subsidence Restoration using Geosynthetics Pocket Filled with Expansive Materials
(withdrawn after no-show)
Dae-young Lee, Dong-min Kim, and Yong-sun Ryu
X3.103 |
Sustainable urban water management: Adaptation and application of the City Blueprint approach in Romania
Oana Mititelu-Ionus
X3.105 |
A geospatial model for leptospirosis risk mapping in the Sao Paulo urban area, Brazil, based on the fuzzy continuous classification method
Marcos Ferreira
X3.108 |
Yongwon Seo and Jun Shik Hwang
X3.109 |
Xiwen Zhang, Feng Mao, Zhaoya Gong, and Jiansheng Wu
X3.110 |
Anja Torkar, Barbara Cencur Curk, Branka Bracic Zeleznik, Urban Kristan, Gasper Rak, Daniel Kozelj, and Franci Steinman
X3.111 |
Prevalence, Concurrence of PPCPs, Virus, ARB and ARG in the surface water of Guwahati, India: Urban Vulnerability and Sustainability Perspective
Manish Kumar, Bhagwana Ram, Chomphunut Poopipattana, Vu Duc Canh, Tushara Chaminda, Ryo Honda, and Hiroaki Furumai
X3.112 |
Oil Kwon, Wooseok Kim, and Jaehyeung Jeoung
X3.113 |
Alessandra Capolupo, Giulio Zuccaro, Mattia Leone, Stefano Nardone, Denis Havlik, Patrick Kaleta, Gerald Schimak, Maja Zuvela Aloise, Robert Goler, Claudia Hahn, Astrid Kainz, and Rosmarie DeWit
X3.114 |
Modelling informal water systems in developing countries: case study of slums in Bangalore
Debraj Roy
X3.115 |
The mutual influence of politics and science in water management decision-making in a context of conflict: the case of the Zapotillo Dam, Mexico.
Jonatan Godinez Madrigal, Nora Van Cauwenbergh, and Pieter van der Zaag
X3.116 |
Charlotte Heinzlef, Vincent Becue, and Damien Serre
X3.117 |
Compound flood risk from storm surge and rainfall in coastal China
Jiayi Fang, Thomas Wahl, and Min Liu