https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05422-6
Regular Article
Building risk assessment methodology for explosive and non-conventional terrorist attacks
1
Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Rome, Italy
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
3
Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
4
Unicamillus-Saint Camillus International University of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy
5
The American University of Rome, Rome, Italy
6
Italian Risk Management Expert, Rome, Italy
Received:
26
March
2024
Accepted:
2
July
2024
Published online:
1
August
2024
An original methodology suitable for the assessment of the risk of a terrorist attack in a given site/building is proposed and illustrated for the case of an explosive or non-conventional (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and explosive—CBRNe) attack. The Building Risk Assessment Methodology discussed in this paper represents the arrival point of a detailed analysis and research carried out during the past 5 years and provides the synthesis of different results obtained for the assessment of Building Threats and Building Vulnerabilities. These two assessments were discussed in detail in other already published papers. The effort presented in this work is to deploy a risk and impact assessment technique for buildings that can be adopted in any operating scenario in the presence of explosive or non-conventional threats. The main target of the methodology is to provide a sufficiently accurate estimate of the risk in a simple fashion. The methodology allows to manage the different kinds of risk related to the explosive and non-conventional threats, and it is useful for identifying a ranking of risks for different buildings in different portions of territory and for prioritizing actions and investments in preparedness, protection and resilience of critical areas and critical infrastructures. In the paper, the results of two different case studies for three different threats will be considered, analyzed and compared.
© The Author(s) 2024
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
