PSI - Issue 78

Anna Lo Monaco et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 544–551

546

for monitoring purposes or to design and apply interventions, if needed. In contrast, the evaluation according to classes aims to simply compare churches belonging to different areas in Europe or in a specific country.

Table 1. Levels of assessment proposed in the new methodology

Target area

Purpose

Action needed

Multicriteria

Level 0_E – Risk assessment Level 0_N – Risk assessment

Wide area (European context)

Assessment of hazard and exposure parameters by European/National maps provided by methodology (online documentation) and vulnerability parameter by general information that does not require in situ surveys. Assessment of hazard and exposure parameters by local maps (online documentation/further research) and of vulnerability parameter by information obtained through rapid in-situ surveys. Seismic behavior investigation on structural macro-elements; further in-situ surveys are needed. Seismic behavior investigation on the global structure; material tests are needed to evaluate their mechanical properties.

Comparison among European churches

YES

Wide area (National context)

Comparison among churches located in a specific Nation

YES

Level 1 – Risk assessment

Medium area (Diocese, municipality)

Priority assessment among churches located in a specific Diocese or municipality Priority assessment among churches located in a specific urban area Detailed investigation of churches found to be particularly vulnerable and at higher risk.

YES

Level 2 – Vulnerability assessment Level 3 – Vulnerability assessment

Limited area (urban area)

NO

Punctual (single church)

NO

2.1. Level 0 – European context (Level 0_E) The evaluation of Level 0_E is characterized by quick application and a low level of detail of information. Therefore, the methodology involves the use of large-scale documentation that can be found online, such as European natural hazard assessment reports or population census reports. With reference to the hazard parameter , two types of natural threats are identified, that are Geological and Hydro-meteorological hazards. Within these two categories, only sudden-onset hazards are considered. In particular, for the Geological hazards category seismic, volcanic eruptions, landslides and avalanches hazards are considered; as for the Hydro-meteorological hazards floods, storms, tsunami and wildfires hazards are taken into account. With regard to the vulnerability parameter , five variables are considered: construction period, conservation state, vertical structure typology, horizontal structure typology and plan floor area dimension. Finally, as for the exposure parameter , the data collection regards the resident population (no. of people and population density), the tourism density and intensity, and the importance of the investigated area (cultural relevance through UNESCO sites and typology of area). A number of 8 variables ( h i ) are counted for the hazard parameter, no. 5 variables for the vulnerability one ( v i ), and no. 6 variables for the exposure one ( e i ). Each variable is scored from 1 to 5 (from the least to the most hazardous) and classified from a Low Class to a High Class (the score 1 corresponds to a Low Class; the score 5 corresponds to a High Class). Subsequently, the scores are summed for each of the parameters (Eq.1), resulting in a final score and class for the indices of hazard ( IH ), vulnerability ( IV ) and exposure ( IE ). The class is assigned according to intervals set on the score. After that, for the evaluation of the risk index ( IR ), the class obtained on the three indices IH , IV and IE is converted into a score from 1 to 5 ( 1 = Low , 2 = Medium-Low , 3 = Medium , 4 = Medium-High , 5 = High ). The IR score is obtained by summing the indices of the three parameters (Eq.1), while its class is assigned according to a matrix distribution (Table 2). = ℎ , 8 =1 , = , 5 =1 , = , 6 =1 , = + + (1)