Spatial Analysis and Ranking for Retrofitting of the School Network in Lima, Peru

  • Angelo Anelli
  • Sandra Santa-Cruz
  • Marco VonaEmail author
  • Michelangelo Laterza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10405)


Retrofitting and management strategies of existing buildings are actually a crucial topic. In this work, an approach based on GIS and MCDM method has been used in order to define a retrofitting ranking for seismic risk management. The main goal is to define a framework based on a multidisciplinary approach. The proposed procedure can be used in different ways and applications. It can be the basis of seismic risk mitigation strategies which are a typical problem of public administrations. Due to both the amount of essential buildings that require seismic retrofitting and the restricted economic availability, it is necessary to prioritize interventions on large territorial scale in order to optimize the allocation of available economic resources and ensure an efficient seismic risk mitigation. The paper provides a simple and rational seismic risk mitigation policy in order to consider the possible variables or disciplines that are not generally integrated in studies of risk (not only seismic) on a large territorial scale.


Seismic risk mitigation strategies Seismic losses evaluation GIS Ranking list 



This work has been partially completed thanks to the ELARCH project: Reference number 552129-EM-1-2014-1-IT-ERA MUNDUS-EMA21 funded with support of the European Commission. This document reflects the view only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

This work has been based on the Project 70244-0034: “Evaluación Probabilística del riesgo sísmico de escuelas y hospitales de la ciudad de Lima. Componente 2: Eva-luación probabilista del riesgo sísmico de locales escolares en la ciudad de Lima”. Coordinator Prof. Sandra Santa-Cruz.


  1. 1.
    Dolce, M., Kappos, A.J., Masi, A., Penelis, G., Vona, M.: Vulnerability assessment and earthquake scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using the Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng. Struct. 28, 357–371 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiauzzi, L., Masi, A., Mucciarelli, M., Vona, M., Pacor, F., Cultrera, G., Gallovič, F., Emolo, A.: Building damage scenarios based on exploitation of Housner intensity derived from finite faults ground motion simulations. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 10(2), 517–545 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garcia-Torres, S., Kahhat, R., Santa-Cruz, S.: Methodology to characterize and quantify debris generation in residential buildings after seismic events. Resourc. Conservat. Recycl. (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mesta, C., Kahhat, R., Santa-Cruz, S.: Quantification of lost material stock of buildings after an earthquake. A case study of Chiclayo, Peru. In: 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017, pp. 1–12. International Association of Earthquake Engineering, Santiago (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vona, M., Murgante, B.: Seismic retrofitting of strategic buildings based on multi-criteria decision-making analysis. In: Furuta, H., Frangopol, D.M., Akiyama, M. (eds.) IALCCE 2014 Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, Volume: Life-Cycle of Structural Systemsi: Tsuyoshi Akiyama. Taylor and Francis Group (2014). ISBN: 978-1-138-00120-6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vona, M., Harabaglia, P., Murgante B.: Thinking about resilience cities studying Italian earthquake. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Urban Design and Planning (2015).
  7. 7.
    Vona, M., Anelli, A., Mastroberti, M., Murgante, B., Santa-Cruz., S.: Prioritization Strategies to reduce the Seismic Risk of the Public and Strategic Buildings (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    INEI: PERÚ: ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIÓN TOTAL POR SEXO DE LAS PRINCIPALES CIUDADES. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e In-formatica (INEI) (in Spanish). Scribd, p. 32, March 2012. Accessed 14 Mar 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática) and MINEDU (Ministerio de Educación): Censo de Infraestructura Educativa (CIE). Lima, Peru (2013).
  10. 10.
    Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática: Una Mirada a Lima Metropolitana, Hecho el Depósito Legal en la Biblioteca Nacional del Perú Nº 2014-12857.
  11. 11.
    Fernández de Córdova, G.: Nuevos patrones de segregación socioespacial en Lima y Callao 1990–2007. PUCP, Lima (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Programa de Agua y Saneamiento del Banco Mundial (WSP): Perú: Gestión de Riesgo de Desastres en Empresas de Agua y Saneamiento. Tomo I: Perfil de Riesgo Catastrófico, Medidas de Mitigación y Protección Financiera. Caso Sedapal y Emapica.
  13. 13.
    INDECI: Proyecto SIRAD Investigación Sobre Peligro Sísmico en el Área Metropolitana de Lima y Callao, 19, 2011.
  14. 14.
    Blondet, M., Dueñas, M., Loaiza, C., Flores, R.: Seismic vulnerability of informal construction dwellings in Lima, Peru: preliminary diagnosis. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Santa-Cruz, S.: Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico de escuelas y hospitales de la ciudad de Lima. Componente 2: Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico de locales escolares en la ciudad de Lima. Informe Interno TAP 2. PUCP, Lima (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rivera, M., Velazquez, T., Morote, R.: Participación y fortalecimiento comunitario en un contexto posterremoto en Chincha, Perú. Psicoperspectivas 13(2), 144–155 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Santa-Cruz, S., Palomino, J., Arana, V.: Prioritization methodology for seismic risk reduction in public schools. Study case: Lima, Peru. In: 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017, pp. 1–12. International Association of Earthquake Engineering, Santiago (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anelli, A., Santa-Cruz, S., Vona, M., Tarque, N., Laterza, M.: An innovative method-ology for the seismic risk mitigation on large territorial scale. In: World Engineering Confer-ence on Disaster Risk Reduction, WECDRR 2016, Lima, Peru, pp. 1–10 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H.: Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156, 445–455 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santa-Cruz, S., Fernandez De Córdova, G., Rivera Holguin, M., Vilela, M., Arana, V., Palomino, J.: Social sustainability dimensions in the seismic risk reduction of public schools: a case study of Lima, Peru. Sustainability: Sci. Pract. Policy 12(1), 1–13 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision in a Complex World. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Anelli
    • 1
  • Sandra Santa-Cruz
    • 1
  • Marco Vona
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michelangelo Laterza
    • 2
  1. 1.Pontifical Catholic University of PeruLimaPeru
  2. 2.University of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations