Student Name :

Muhammad Aththaar Nazim (m.a.nazim@student.utwente.nl)

Mochamad Budi Purnomo (m.b.purnomo@student.utwente.nl)


MULTI HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN GEORGIA

I. Introduction

Georgia with Tbilisi as the capital, pointed between intersection of Western Asia and Eastern Europe, is
a new born country after the Russia disintegration. Geographically is bordered with the Black Sea in the
west, to the north by Russia, to the south by Turkey and Armenia, and to the southeast by Azerbaijan.
These territories cover 69,700 square kilometers (26,911 square mil) and rises around 5,000 m above
sea level. In general the region characterized as interconnected mountain ranges (largely of volcanic
origin) and plateaus with slope degree less than 3,400 meters.

Statistic data shows a numerous disaster event in Georgia. As a volcanic areas earthquake, erosion, and
avalanche recorded in this area. The world most known earthquake existed in 1998 (Spitak earthquake)
and 1991 (Racha earthquake). Multi hazardous event has been made suffered Georgia in casualties and
economic losses.

Climate condition plays a significant trajectory for hazardous event, namely landslide, floods and
mudflows after heavy rainfall season at certain location in hilly side of Georgia. In the early spring a huge
process of snow melting and/or combine with rains can also drive flood and mudflows.

II. Objective

The objectives of this study are:
1. Calculate combines factors for landslide cases in Georgia, and generate a composite index map
showing the ranking of these hazards using Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation (SMCE).
2. Calculating exposure information for multi-hazards and different elements-at-risk in Georgia
territories and creates a hazard map.

III. Landslide Hazard Assessment using SMCE

SMCE, in short, is a tool to assist stakeholder to choose a better options based on multi criteria input by
combining and weighting each criteria (normalized) to create a solution. A set of spatial representation
maps of each criteria, which are grouped, standardized and weighted in a criteria tree used as input
process.

Criteria that were used are geology, slope, fault, land cover and landslide. All criteria weighted and
normalized to generate a hazard map using two SMCE method; direct and pairwise. The aim is to see
different weighted result in those maps.

Weighting value in Direct method as follows 0.22 (geology), 0.35 (slope), 0.18 (fault), 0.22 (land cover)
and 0.03 (landslide). The weighting value creates a susceptibility map as shows in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Landslide Susceptibility Map with Direct Method in Georgia




















To compare with different weighting value, we use pairwise method with the weighted value 0.34
(geology), 0.22 (slope), 0.11 (fault), 0.18 (land cover) and 0.14 (landslide). The weighting value creates a
susceptibility map as shows in Figure 2.


Landslide Susceptibility Map (Direct Method)
Figure 2. Landslide Susceptibility Map with Pairwise Method in Georgia




















Both figures used the same criteria for SMCE assessment but have different point on weighting the
criteria. The dominant criteria in Figure 1 are slope and the second one is geology. It shows the
decreasing of high susceptibility area for geology as great influence factor. But if check the histogram of
both maps did not a significant difference.
Figure 3. Direct Method Landslide Susceptibility Map Histogram



The classification of susceptibility area for direct method (Figure 1) is 0.75 % (low), 55.11% (moderate)
and 44.14% (high). Histogram for Pairwise method has the same distribution 0.62% (low), 55.63%
(moderate) and 42.75% (high). See Figure 3 and 4 for detail.
Landslide Susceptibility Map (Pairwise Method)
Figure 4. Pairwise Method Landslide Susceptibility Map Histogram



These results explain that, in Georgia territory, both geology and slope play a significant role in driven
landslide event. As a mountainous area these factor determine the development of hazardous process
of natural and manmade disaster. In the ideal scenario climate criteria should be considered as main
input for this calculation, like heavy rainfall which can trigger rapid landslide process, but in this exercise
is not included. Another minor result is landslide validation calculation that failed to perform, since
there is no historical landslide event in the original landslide map and its table attributes.

IV. Exposure Information for Multi-Hazards and Different Elements at Risk

The complexity of the geological structure, geomorphologic diversity and hydro-climatic make the
Southern Caucasus (including Georgia) vulnerable to natural disasters, namely earthquake (EQ), flooding
(FL), landslides (LS), mudflows (MF), rock falls (RF), wildfires (WF), snow avalanches (SA), drought (DR),
windstorm (WS) and hailstorm (HS).

Furthermore the local populations which have main economic activities related to natural resources
exploitation also induced the development vulnerability of environment to natural disaster processes.
Green mining and agricultures practices were not applied to support nature development of the
resources and create vulnerable environment.

The exposure of multi-hazard event on element at risk based on the structural of Georgia region
classified into level of community, district and region. Building, population, forest, crops and pipeline
were used as element at risk in this exercise.
a. Building

Building, as element at risk, is vulnerable to various disasters event, Table 1 shows ten communities that
has building highest prone to earthquake, flood, landslide and wildfire. The calculation shows five
communities that vulnerable to two hazardous disasters, they are Sokhumi, Martkopi, Borjomi, Gldani-
Nadzaladevi and Vake-Saburtalo.

Table 1. Ten communities in Georgia with the highest exposure of buildings for earthquakes, flooding,
landslides and wildfires

No Earthquake Flood Landslide Wildfire
1 Telavi Samtredia Gldani-Nadzaladevi Gldani-Nadzaladevi
2 Sokhumi Kobuleti Vake-Saburtalo Martkopi
3 Gurjaani Abasha Mtatsminda-Krtsanisi Kumisi
4 Akhmeta Khashuri Chiatura Akhalsopeli
5 Tsalenjikha Zugdidi Lisi Isani-Samgori
6 Kvareli Martkopi Ortabatumi Gamarjveba
7 Kolkhida Sokhumi Borjomi Vake-Saburtalo
8 Sadakhlo Surami Besleti Teleti
9 Zemo Alvani Borjomi Tavisupleba Gardabani
10 Lagodekhi Krtsanisi Bakuriani Tsilkani
(Source: Calculation)


Related to earthquake, top-ten communities located in the high prone area of earthquake. Earthquakes
are considered as the most devastating disaster and causing a huge economic losses and casualties.
Buildings in these regions placed in density populated area and extend along mountainous of Caucasus
region which one of the most active seismic in the Alpine-Himalayan collision belt. Figure 5 shows the
distribution of communities with highest building vulnerability to earthquake.


Figure 5. Top-ten Communitiy with Highest Vulnerable Building to Earthquake in Georgia



















Heavy rainfalls and melted glacial water from Caucasus mountainous will had flown a high volume of
water into Georgia regions. Sokhumi community, as well as to earthquake, also threatened by flood
hazard. The impacted community to flood hazard were distributed from hilly to lowland area. Figure 6
shows the distribution.

Figure 6. Top-ten Community with Highest Vulnerable Building to Flood in Georgia


















Highest Building Exposure to Earthquake by Community
Lagodekhi
Tsalenjikha
Telavi
Gurjaani
Kolkhida
Akhmeta
Sadakhlo
Zemo Alvani
Kvareli
Sokhumi
Sokhumi
Zugdidi
Kobuleti
Abasha
Samtredia Surami
Martkopi Borjomi
Krtsanisi
Khashuri
Highest Building Exposure to Flood by Community
Highest Building Exposure to Landslide by Community
Chiatura
Ortabatumi
Gldani-Nadzaladevi
Lisi
Vake-Saburtalo
Mtatsminda-Krtsanisi
Bakuriani
Besleti
Borjomi
Tavisupleba
As Georgia located in medium-level of seismicity, the seismic activity can create strong earthquakes that
could also generate the landslides process in the region. Top ten community with highest vulnerable of
building to landslide hazard were located in red zone (high) landslide prone area. Compare to CENN
(2012) shows the same result.

Figure 7. Top-ten Community with Highest Vulnerable Building to Landslide in Georgia



















Wildfire could be induced by natural phenomena, like drought, and also by human who occupied the
prone area. For instance to convert forest to cultivated area people make fire for economical and time
consuming reason. But many of this action could not be controlled as the original plan and causing
devastating to environment, crops , air quality and community health. Compare to CENN (2012)
calculation this result shows similar pattern (Figure 8).


Figure 8. Top-ten Community with Highest Vulnerable Building to Wildfire in Georgia


















Related to building, population as well is the devastated element when the disaster occurs because
people life inside the building. Its a matter of time when the disasters happen in the night or the day, as
long as people aware the casualties can be minimized.

b. Population
Based on region and six disastrous events, the top three most devastated regions in average are
Apkhazeti, Kakheti and S. Z. Svaneti. These indicate by a huge number of populations that will get
negative impact in term of earthquake hazard, between 100,000 to more than 400,000 live. Although
the populated regions were Achara and Kvemo Kartli, both of this regions relatively had low impact on
population. Furthermore related with flood and landslide they are relatively still in top of number of
impacted population as shows in Table 2.

Highest Building Exposure to Wildfire by Community
Akhalsopeli
Akhalsopeli
Akhalsopeli
Tsilkani
Kumisi
Gardabani
Teleti
Vake-Saburtalo
Gldani-Nadzaladevi
Isani-Samgori
Martkopi
Gamarjveba
Table 2. Number of Impacted Population due to Hazardous Disasters in Georgia

No Region EQ FL LS RF SA WS Average %
1 Apkhazeti 413152 36574 60504 301 0 212 85124 29.49
2 A. R. of Achara 0 19010 83784 4371 1714 0 18147 6.29
3 Guria 0 5843 10069 56 21 0 2665 0.92
4 Imereti 26849 29800 54967 1829 279 0 18954 6.57
5 Kakheti 268292 10538 12151 10 22 5 48503 16.80
6 Kvemo Kartli 50275 22899 2967 7 0 0 12691 4.40
7 Mtskheta_Mtianeti 11168 6567 29322 701 817 4583 8860 3.07
8 R. L. K. Svaneti 55980 4039 25196 196 8079 18698 6.48
9 S.Z. Svaneti 110223 28293 17770 783 721 14739 28755 9.96
10 Samtskhe_Javakheti 26907 18641 39252 358 29 0 14198 4.92
11 Shida_Kartli 9752 26744 12254 173 96 411 8238 2.85
12 Tbilisi 0 25009 117824 0 0 0 23806 8.25
(Source: Calculation)

CENN (2012) reported the same result as displayed in Table 2. Despite the result of the assessment,
there is still no strong evidence to support this prediction due to the validity of population and building
data in Georgia or the region itself, which is too fortunate that both of these elements at risk did not
updated and validated before.

c. Pipelines
Another object that could affect the community and economic growth due to disaster event is pipelines
route, known as South Caucasus Pipeline. Those pipeline transport natural gas from gas field in the
Azerbaijan (the Caspian Sea) to Turkey. Georgia, as a transit location, has rights to take 5% of the gas
flow per year (Wikipedia, 2014). Pipelines route in Georgia is shows in Figure 9.

Natural Gas Pipelines Route in Georgia
R. L. K. Svanet
Guria
Kakheti
Tbilisi
Shida Kartli
Kvemo Kartli
S. Javakheti
S. Z. Svaneti
Imereti
Apkhazeti
M. Mtianeti
Figure 9. Pipelines Across Region in Georgia


















Earthquake, landslides and rock fall are considered as the disastrous event with can cost a huge loss to
income for economic stability. Based on those three hazard, calculation of the threatened pipelines
classified into three categories; low, moderate and high. Model shows that pipelines which lay across
region Mtskheta Mtianeti, Kvemo Kartli, Samtskhe Javakheti, Emereti and Tbilisi were the most
endangered due to hazards occurrence.

Table 3. Disaster Impact on Pipelines by Region in Georgia (Meter)

Region
Earthquake Landslide Rockfall Total
High Mod Low High Mod Low High Mod Low High Mod Low
Apkhazeti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Achara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Guria 0 0 45800 0 0 45800 0 0 45800 0 0 137400
Imereti 0 43000 105700 2300 25900 120500 0 29600 119100 2300 98500 345300
Kakheti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kvemo Kartli 0 164200 223600 6300 32100 349400 0 47400 340400 6300 243700 913400
Mtskheta_Mtianeti 77000 165100 0 52300 101200 88600 7900 118400 115800 137200 384700 204400
R. L. K. Svaneti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S. Z. Svaneti 0 0 4700 0 0 4700 0 0 4700 0 0 14100
Samtskhe_Javakheti 0 113700 0 30700 70200 12800 0 90900 22800 30700 274800 35600
Shida_Kartli 0 101800 0 300 24500 77000 0 14300 87500 300 140600 164500
Tbilisi 0 19400 17900 7700 17200 12400 0 14600 22700 7700 51200 53000
Total 77000 607200 397700 99600 271100 711200 7900 315200 758800 184500 1193500 1867700
(Source: Calculation)

Achara
All exposures category related to pipelines should be considered, even in the low level will affected a
long pipelines route. For earthquake about 607200 m pipelines will endangered in moderate level,
711200 m will damage by landslide in low level and 758800 m by rock fall also in low level (see Table 3).

V. Recommendation

Considering the geology, geography, climate change and the results of the above calculations of all
elements at risk Georgian government should give more attention to disaster risk management. Given
the significant level of losses both to the population, buildings, natural gas pipelines and other element
at risk, as well as validation of the present supporting data held, the next step to be taken is to validate
the accuracy of the data, especially population and building in the region, as well other element at risk.

Environmentally based development planning and considered disaster risk management
comprehensively should be a reference for the safety of society and the environment itself.

VI. Reference

Westen, C. V., Damen, M. 2012. Training Package on National Scale Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment
Exercise Book National Scale Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment, with an example of Georgia. UNU-
DRM Centre for Spatial Analysisand Disaster Risk Management, University Twente, Faculty of
Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede, The Netherlands

CENN, 2012. Atlas of Natural Hazards and Risks of Georgia, Caucasus Environment NGO Network (CENN),
Tbilisi, Georgia.