SUPPORTING DISASTER RESILIENCE IN CROATIA Opportunities for Smart Investments in Resilience APPLICATION OF PRIORITIZATION TOOLS TO STRENGTHEN DISASTER RESILIENCE IN CROATIA Disclaimer 2025 May © International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: +1-202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. Some rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or accep- tance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. The report reflects information available up to June 2023. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washing- ton, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ATTRIBUTION Please cite this work as follows: World Bank. 2025. Opportunities for Smart Investments in Resilience – Application of Prioritization Tools to Strengthen Disaster Resilience in Croatia: Knowledge Notes on Select Topics. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. TRANSLATION If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official. THIRD-PARTY CONTENT The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual compo- nent or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringements rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, the World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Acknowledgments This report was made possible with the financial support of the Japan-World Bank Program for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries, which is financed by the Govern- ment of Japan and receives technical support from the World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) Tokyo Disaster Risk Management Hub, as part of Technical Assistance, “Supporting disaster resilience in Croatia” (P173998/TF0B9214). This note was prepared by a group of World Bank staff and experts, consolidated by Farah Soraya Riđanović (Disaster Risk Management Analyst) under the supervision of Zuzana Stanton-Geddes (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist), drawing on expert inputs from Josip Atalić (Senior Engineer), Mario Uroš (Senior Engineer), Marta Šavor Novak (Senior Engineer), Maja Baniček (Engineer), Krunoslav Katić (Senior Disaster Risk Management Expert), Martina Vojković (Disaster Risk Management Expert), Tara Katarina Juarros Lukić (Disaster Risk Management Consultant), and Tianyu Zhang (Disaster Risk Management Expert). The note was edited by Anne Himmelfarb and Selvaraj Ranganathan and designed by Tamas Torok. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms 06 Key Terms 07 Executive Summary 10 Summary of methodological approaches and results 14 1. Introduction and Context 18 Country context: key highlights 20 Disaster risk management framework 21 2. Application of the Ready2Respond Method 22 Summary 23 2.1. Steps in the analytical process 25 2.2. Summary of findings 28 3. Application of the Rapid Exposure Analysis of Critical Infrastructure to Multiple Hazards 30 Summary 31 3.1. Steps in the analytical process 32 3.2 Summary of findings 36 3.3. Key takeaways and recommendations 38 4. Application of a Portfolio-Level Assessment of Emergency Response-Related Assets 40 Summary 41 4.1. Steps in the analytical process 45 4.2. Summary of findings 51 4.3. Key takeaways and recommendations 59 5. Key Recommendations and Opportunities Going Forward 61 Annex 1. Bibliography 64 Annex 2. Additional Information 67 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Expected losses for the earthquakes with return period of 95 and 475 years and a what-if scenario based on the historical earthquake from 1880 in the City of Zagreb 53 Table 2. Cost analysis of seismic retrofit, energy renovation, and reconstruction of emergency-response related buildings in Croatia 55 Table 3. CP portfolio review - BCA results 56 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Five components of the R2R assessment 24 Figure 2. Four-step approach as part of the R2R application 25 Figure 3. Analytical steps taken in exposure assessment 32 Figure 4. Example of Individual Asset Map under Exposure Assessment 34 Figure 5. Distribution of emergency response assets fire stations with high exposure to multiple hazards 36 Figure 6. Example map of exposure of assets to seismic hazard 37 Figure 7. Triple dividend of resilience 42 Figure 8. Four-step approach for portfolio assessment of CP infrastructure 45 Figure 9. Number of injured people in the operational areas (counties) for the 95-year earthquake return period (left) and the 475-year earthquake return period (right) 49 Figure 10. Results of Croatia Portfolio Analysis 51 Figure 11. Analysis based on data collected through surveys/supplemental research 52 Figure 12. The AAL ratios in emergency response-related infrastructure aggregated at the county level 53 Figure 13. Analysis of four types of CP infrastructures in the Republic of Croatia 54 LIST OF BOXES Box 1. 25 steps to a portfolio analysis with the TDR 48 Acronyms AAL Average Annual Loss BBB Build Back Better BCA Benefit-Cost Analysis BCR Benefit-Cost Ratio CCA Climate Change Adaptation CI Critical Infrastructure CEC Croatian Earthquake Catalogue CER Critical Entities Resilience CP Civil Protection DRF Disaster Risk Financing DRM Disaster Risk Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DVD Voluntary Fire Brigades (Dobrovoljno Vatrogasno Društvo) EU European Union ESHM20 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model EWS Early Warning System GDP Gross Domestic Product GEM Global Earthquake Model GFDRR Global Facility For Disaster Reduction and Recovery GIS Geographic Information System HGSS Croatian Mountain Rescue Service (Hrvatska Gorska Služba Spašavanja) ISGE National Energy Management Information System JRC Joint Research Centre MCA Multicriteria Analysis MoI Ministry Of Interior MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity NRA National Risk Assessment NRRP National Recovery And Resilience Plan NPV Net Present Value NUTS Nomenclature Of Territorial Units for Statistics nZEB Nearly Zero-Energy Building PGA Peak Ground Acceleration RC Reinforced Concrete R2R Ready2Respond RoR Rate Of Return SDGs Sustainable Development Goal SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction TDR Triple Dividend of Resilience TR Total Replacement VSL Value Of Statistical Life WUI Wildland-Urban Interface Key Terms Benefit-cost ratio (BCR): BCR is the ratio used in benefit-cost analysis (BCA) to summarize the relation- ship between the overall benefits and costs of a project. A BCR greater than 1 means that the project’s net benefits could be positive—that is, benefits are higher than costs.1 Climate change adaptation: The process of adjusting to life in a changing climate and making efforts to reduce the risk from the harmful impact of current or expected climate change and climate-induced hazards. Climate change mitigation: The effort to reduce climate change and decelerate global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Mitigation can be done by either reducing the sources of greenhouse gases or improving the carbon sinks on Earth, which store and absorb greenhouse gases. Comprehensive (major) renovation: A level of renovation at which optimal measures are taken to improve the existing condition of buildings. The measures may include improvement in energy performance, fire safety, indoor climate conditions, and mechanical resistance and stability—in particular, to reduce risks related to earthquake loads. Comprehensive renovation may also include measures to improve the basic requirements for buildings.2 Critical infrastructure (CI): The body of assets, systems, and networks that is crucial for maintaining the functioning of a society and the economy. The destruction or disruption of CI will have a significant impact on people's physical, economic, and social well-being. Damage: Total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area. Damage occurs during and after a disasters and is measured in physical units (such as, square meters of housing, kilometers of roads, and so on).3 Deep renovation: A level of renovation at which energy efficiency measures are taken for the envelope and technical systems of a building that reduce the annual consumption of heating (QH,nd) and primary energy (Eprim) [kWh/(m2 ·a)] by at least 50 percent compared to prerenovation consumption.4 Disaster risk: The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences. Disaster risk refers to the likelihood over a specified time period of severe alterations in the normal functioning of a community or a society due to hazardous physical events interacting with vulnerable social conditions, leading to widespread adverse human, material, economic, or environmental effects that require immediate emergency response to satisfy critical human needs and may require external support for recovery. Disaster risk management (DRM): Processes for designing, implementing, and evaluating strategies, policies, and measures to improve the understanding of disaster risk, foster disaster risk reduction and transfer, and promote continuous improvement in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery 1 World Bank (WB) and European Commission (EC). 2024. Link. 2 Per Article 2 Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings, major renovation is defined as the renovation of a building where (i) the total cost of the renovation relating to the building envelope or the technical building systems is more than 25 percent of the value of the building, excluding the value of the land upon which the building is situated, or (ii) more than 25 percent of the surface of the building envelope undergoes renovation. Member states may choose to apply option (i) or (ii). 3 WB and EC. 2021a. Link. 4 The proposed revision of Directive 2010/31 defines deep renovation as one that transforms a building or building unit (i) before January 1, 2030, into a nearly zero-energy building (nZEB) and (ii) as of January 1, 2030, into a zero-emission building. See EC. 2021. Link. practices, all with the explicit purpose of increasing human security, well-being, quality of life, and sustainable development. Disaster risk reduction (DRR): Denotes both a policy goal or objective, and the strategic and instru- mental measures employed for anticipating future disaster risk, improving resilience, and reducing existing exposure, hazard, or vulnerability. DRM investments: Investments in risk identification (such as risk assessments), risk reduction (preven- tion), early warning, emergency preparedness and response, public awareness, financial resilience (various instruments), and resilient recovery. Energy performance of a building: The calculated or measured amount of energy needed to meet the demand associated with the typical use of a building. This includes, among other things, energy used for heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water, and lighting. Exposure: The situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities, and other tangible human assets located in hazard-prone areas. Hazard: A potentially destructive physical phenomenon, such as a natural hazard (for example, earthquake, wildfire). Nearly zero-energy building (nZEB): A building with very high energy performance, which cannot be lower than the 2023 cost-optimal level reported by Member States in accordance with Article 6(2) (proposed revision of Directive 2010/31) and where the nearly zero or very low amount of energy required is covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources produced onsite or nearby. It will remain the standard for new buildings until the application of the zero-emission building standard and is the level to be attained by a deep renovation until 2030. Peak ground acceleration: Peak values of the ground motion parameters in an earthquake, or the maximum acceleration of the ground caused by earthquakes. Resilience: The ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions.5 Retrofitting and reconstruction: Retrofitting refers to the reinforcement or upgrading of infrastructure to improve safety levels and safety performance and to increase resistance and resilience to the damaging effects of hazards. Reconstruction refers to the process of demolishing and rebuilding (new structures)6 , and to the medium- and long-term rebuilding and sustainable restoration of resilient CI, services, housing, facilities, and livelihoods required for the full functioning of a community or society affected by a disaster, aligning with the principles of sustainable development and “build back better” (BBB) to avoid or reduce future disaster risk. Rehabilitation: The restoration of basic services and facilities necessary for the functioning of a community or society affected by a disaster. Seismic exposure: Refers to the elements at risk, such as people, buildings, structures, lifelines, or other CI located in seismic hazard-prone areas. It has a permanent character (for fixed assets, such as 5 WB and EC. 2021a.Link. 6 Definition of retrofitting is from UNISDR. 2009. Link. the built environment) or a variable character (for people), depending on when the event occurs. For instance, more people may be exposed to nighttime earthquakes, given that during daytime more people may be outdoors rather than indoors within unsafe structures. Understanding exposure implies, at a basic level, storing and monitoring key data on people and the built environment they inhabit, use, or depend on.7 Seismic hazard: An earthquake-related physical phenomenon that may produce adverse effects on life, human-related activities, and the built environment. Seismic hazard is determined by natural factors, such as faults and subduction zones, though it might also be induced by human activities (gas extrac- tion, mining, large water management works). Hazard information serves different purposes: it substantiates building and planning regulations and informs seismic risk assessments. Accordingly, a number of laws and regulations contain provisions with regard to hazard maps at national and local levels.8 Seismic microzonation: An aspect informing local hazard maps to better indicate site-specific effects on ground motions. Local hazard maps capture amplification/de-amplifications as well as frequency content modifications of the ground motions likely to occur due to local shallow geology or orography. These data also allow for a better refinement of building code requirements and planning regulations for areas where earthquake site amplification may occur. Staged deep renovation: A deep renovation carried out in several steps, which are set out in a renova- tion passport in accordance with Article 10 (proposed revision of Directive 2010/31). Deep renovation is set as a gold standard for building renovation, and “staged deep renovation” is intended to ease its delivery. Seismic risk assessment: An assessment that brings together hazard, exposure, and vulnerability information to develop probabilistic methods for assessing expected casualties and material losses in the aftermath of an earthquake. Such assessments are crucial for prioritizing scarce budgets across territories and building typologies. They also serve as he baseline for effective planning of response actions.9 Technical expertise/survey: The official process through which a building’s seismic vulnerability is assessed and general directions for seismic strengthening are indicated. It is conducted by a structural engineering expert certified by a government entity. A technical expertise/survey report is the result of the exercise. Vulnerability: The conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes that increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets, or systems to the impacts of hazards. Zero-emission building: A building with very high energy performance, where the very low amount of energy required is fully covered by energy from renewable sources generated onsite; from a renewable energy community, as defined by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 [amended RED]; or from a district heating and cooling system. 7 GFDRR. 2014. Link. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Croatia faces a complex disaster risk landscape—one that demands smarter, risk-informed planning and decisions to strengthen emergency preparedness and climate resilience. The country’s seismic exposure, diverse geography, and increasing experience of climate-related hazards— such as floods, wildfires, and landslides—have posed growing challenges to communities, infrastruc- ture, and economic sectors. These challenges are expected to intensify with climate change, as projections for Croatia include hotter, drier summers, rising sea levels, and more frequent extreme events, with potential impacts on agriculture, tourism, water management, and coastal areas. Between 1980 and 2020, Croatia incurred an estimated €2.86 billion in losses from weather- and climate-related disasters—among the highest in the European Union (EU) per capita and when adjusted for gross domestic product (GDP). In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, earthquakes struck Croatia on March 2210 (M5.5) and December 2911 (M6.2), with epicenters in Zagreb and Petrinja, respectively, causing an estimated €16.1 billion in damage and economic losses, according to the Rapid Damage and Needs Assessments (RDNAs) carried out after the events.12 The reconstruction and recovery needs were extensive, with estimated costs of €25.9 billion (€17.5 billion for the March earthquake and €8.4 billion for the December earthquake). In this context, it is critical to ensure that public resources are directed toward the highest-priority interventions to reduce losses, safeguard development gains, and promote long-term resilience. Evidence and data can help decision-makers prioritize investments and optimize resources so as to reap the largest gains in risk reduction, in line with global and national priorities.13 Resilient critical services and infrastructure, such as fire and police stations, health and education facilities, and key transport, telecommunications, and power networks, are essential for effective emergency response and recov- ery. These systems are highly interconnected, and disruptions in one sector can trigger cascading impacts across other sectors. Strategic planning and risk-informed design of emergency infrastructure are needed to ensure that assets remain functional when most needed, particularly in high-risk or densely populated areas. This knowledge note summarizes the results of three methodological tools applied in Croatia to inform and guide smart and targeted investments in disaster resilience: (i) the Ready2Respond (R2R) methodology for emergency preparedness and response at the national and city levels, (ii) an EU- wide rapid assessment of select critical sectors’ exposure to select hazards, and (iii) a portfolio-level assessment of earthquakes’ potential impacts on emergency preparedness buildings across Croatia and costs of proactive investments. 10 The epicenter of the March 22 earthquake was 7 km north of central Zagreb, in Markuševec. 11 The epicenter of the December 29 earthquake was 6 km outside the town of Petrinja. 12 The March 2020 earthquake (Mw 5.5) caused €10.7 billion in damage. GoC. 2020, Link. The December 2020 earthquake (Mw 6.2) caused €4.1 billion in damage. GoC. 2021, Link. 13 WB and EC. 2024. Link. 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY While different in terms of focus, underlying method, and data used, these tools can support evidence-based decision-making in a complementary manner, and they have contributed to strengthening disaster risk management (DRM) in Croatia. More specifically, • The R2R methodology enabled a rapid self-assessment of the national DRM system. Facilitated by experts, it helped identify key strengths and weaknesses of the system at national and city levels. • The EU-wide exposure assessment provided a complementary perspective, identifying critical civil infrastructure—such as fire and police stations, schools, health facilities, energy lines, and roads— that is exposed to floods, earthquakes, wildfires, landslides, and other significant hazards. This approach allows comparison of Croatia with other EU countries.14 • The portfolio-level assessment focused on emergency preparedness–related critical infrastruc- ture across Croatia, offering a rapid evaluation of earthquake exposure, vulnerability, and impact, as well as costing for potential seismic retrofitting and reconstruction efforts; and.15 • At a broader level, the application of these tools offers valuable lessons for authorities in Croatia other countries—in the EU and beyond—who seek to improve resilience through risk-informed and cost-effective planning and investments. This note shows that policy makers and decision-makers in Croatia have several tools available to support their decisions, planning, and investments to strengthen the disaster and climate resilience of critical infrastructure. Use of three different yet complementary approaches suggests several lessons relevant for Croatia and other countries: • First, engaging DRM stakeholders in assessing the system’s gaps and priorities allows valuable insights to emerge. A useful way to foster this engagement is through a simple assessment—one focusing on select elements such as institutions, equipment, facilities, or data/IT, and facilitated by experts and technology. Such an assessment can be regularly repeated or followed by more focused assessments. • Second, using already available public data (as was done in the exposure analysis) or data that can be very easily and rapidly collected (was done in the exposure analysis) demonstrates the value of using hazard information for planning. Initial analysis showing potential hotspots—that is, the type of emergency preparedness infrastructure or geographical areas that could be particularly affected by certain hazards—can provide the data and evidence needed for making strategic and prioritized decisions and investments, and possibly for carrying out more detailed assessments and specific pre- feasibility and feasibility studies. • Third, the multi-hazard exposure analysis highlights both the importance of thinking about multiple hazards, and the need for prevention and preparedness actions that address a range of hazards and ensure more adaptive and effective emergency response systems in the face of compound and intensi- fying risks. Given climate-sensitive hazards, there is also a clear need to better understand climate change impacts and to make climate change projections more available for integration into analytical tools and methods. 14 See WB and EC. 2024. As with any analysis of this (EU-wide) scale, there are limitations to the approach. These include the use of open-source data sets that may contain inaccuracies or be incomplete, hazard layers with differing metrics and resolutions, and challenges in accounting for localized or scale-dependent risk. The assessment does not capture vulnerability or asset-specific risk profiles, and results should be interpreted as indicative only. 15 Rehabilitation entails structural strengthening of existing buildings to meet a higher seismic performance, while reconstruction entails demolition of existing buildings and subsequent construction of new buildings in replacement. 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Fourth, in upgrading critical emergency infrastructure, integrated improvements that address multiple hazards should be prioritized. Isolated or uncoordinated upgrades are not effective in address- ing the complex risk environment facing Croatia. Instead, drawing on lessons from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Croatia should develop and implement a national program or action plan for renovation of emergency response buildings that integrates seismic, energy, and multi- hazard considerations and that focuses first on the most vulnerable and critical assets. Data-driven portfolio-level prioritization frameworks could be used to guide investments, thereby ensuring that upgrades address both structural and operational vulnerabilities, including network resilience (for example, roads, power lines). Such integrated interventions maximize resilience, cost-effectiveness, and compliance with the EU acquis. The implementation of the new Law on Critical Infrastructure (NN 89/25) also provides a good opportunity to start with risk screening and risk reduction for critical entities. • Fifth, there are ways to estimate the benefits of proactive investments. The triple dividend of resilience (TDR) approach provides a practical template to calculate the costs as well as the benefits and potential co-benefits of investing in resilient infrastructure. It is a method that can be applied to different CI types and different data environments. Research shows that the greatest benefits are reaped when investments are “smart”—that is, when they bring multiple benefits by considering elements such as multi-hazard resilience, energy efficiency, and functional upgrades (for example, accessibility, improved space for awareness and community engagement). • Finally, the application of these tools also shows the importance of training emergency prepared- ness stakeholders, including those at policy and operational levels, in use of such tools. All three tools require expert knowledge, and efforts should be made to train officials and other stakeholders in their use. For example, technical assistance and knowledge sharing in different formats can support this process. 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary of methodological approaches and results Prioritizing emergency preparedness and response through the R2R tool About the tool: The global R2R tool was used for a self-assessment of Croatia’s emergency prepared- ness and response capabilities across five critical components: legal and institutional frameworks, personnel, facilities, equipment, and information systems. This rapid, data-driven self-assessment highlighted both strengths and weaknesses across 18 criteria, 72 indicators, and 360 attributes.16 The tool was applied at the national level and city level (Zagreb), with 46 participants and 25 participants respectively.17 National-level results: At the national level, the R2R self-assessment noted strengths related to equipment capacities, particularly urban firefighting, and technical rescue; it noted gaps related to resilience of critical infrastructure, financial preparedness, and information systems (such as the geographic information system [GIS] and early warning systems [EWS]), as well as training/knowledge and internal capacity management. Overarching opportunities included improved DRM planning and capacity building. Reflecting on the results, stakeholders discussed how ongoing and planned projects address some of the identified gaps (for example, development of legislative plans), and where further actions or refinement of planned projects could be beneficial. The results of the R2R assessment supported policy dialogue and preparation of strategic documents, including the State Action Plan on Civil Protection,18 which was adopted in September 2023. Results also informed Croatia’s preparation for the transposition of the EU Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive and others. Local-level results: The self-assessment revealed strengths in urban firefighting, technical rescue, and emergency response services, while gaps included crisis communication and early warning systems. Reflecting on the results, participants in the assessment highlighted the operational challenges at the local level and the related need to strengthen the overall DRM system and better coordinate across different administrative levels. The results of the analysis informed the Urban Security Strategy 2025– 2030 for the City of Zagreb,19 adopted in December 2024. Lessons learned: This tool highlighted the benefit of using a structed simple diagnostic that can be applied as a self-assessment. At the same time, expert facilitation was necessary to run the assessment and support rapid visualization and generation of the results. Overall, the results informed broader policy dialogue and efforts to modernize emergency preparedness capacities, increase the resilience of critical infrastructure, and improve financial resilience. In the future, this tool could also be reapplied to monitor progress and/or emerging gaps, or it could focus on a specific hazard or area at risk. EU-wide mapping of critical infrastructure exposure to identify potential hotspots About the tool: This tool focused on select EU-level critical infrastructure relevant to emergency preparedness and response (as noted above) and provided a rapid assessment of its exposure to single or multiple hazards, including floods, earthquakes, landslides, and wildfires. The analysis used EU-wide hazard layers and open-source information on the location of this infrastructure at nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) 3 level across the EU. As with any analysis of this scale, there are 16 WB and GFDRR. 2017. Link. 17 While R2R was previously applied in several Western Balkan countries as an expert assessment, this innovative application adapted the tool for an EU Member State context and allowed use of the methodology as a self-assessment by national- and local- level experts/officials working on emergency preparedness and response. The assessment was conducted in mid-May 2023, with results available in under 48 hours to enable immediate discussion. 18 GoC. 2023a. Link. 19 City of Zagreb. 2024. Link. 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY important limitations: the open-source data sets may be incomplete or contain inaccuracies in asset geolocation; hazard layers vary in resolution, methodology (probabilistic versus deterministic), and metrics (for example, continuous flood depths versus classified wildfire indices); and the analysis does not account for asset vulnerability or condition. The results should thus be considered indicative, highlighting potential exposure hotspots rather than providing a full risk or impact assessment. Results for emergency preparedness and response critical infrastructure: In Croatia, critical infrastructure for emergency preparedness and response is highly exposed to seismic risk. A total of 1,200 out of 1,329 assets (90 percent) are located in areas of high or very high earthquake hazard, including 156 health facilities (93 percent), 414 education facilities (91 percent), 418 fire stations (89 percent), and 212 police stations (89 percent). Exposure to wildfire risk is also significant; 964 assets (73 percent) are exposed. In contrast, exposure to landslides and floods is low, with 88 assets (7 percent) and 42 assets (3 percent) exposed, respectively. Results for road and power line networks: These networks show similarly high exposure to seismic and wildfire hazards. A total of 2,811 km of roads (97 percent) and 8,148 km of power lines (94 percent) are exposed to high or very high wildfire hazard. Earthquake exposure affects 2,625 km of roads (91 percent) and 8,061 km of power lines (93 percent). Landslide exposure is also relevant, with 1,944 km of roads (67 percent) and 4,773 km of power lines (55 percent) located in zones of high or very high hazard. Results for multi-hazard exposure: Multi-hazard exposure is also notable: 30 percent of road assets and 37 percent of power lines are exposed to two hazards; 27 percent of road assets and 23 percent of power lines are exposed to three hazards; and 23 percent of road assets and 5 percent of power lines are exposed to all four hazards assessed (earthquakes, landslides, floods, wildfires). Lessons learned: While focusing on the exposure of assets to individual or multiple hazards, this rapid analysis highlights potential concentrations of critical assets (hotspots) exposed to different levels of risk. This information can guide further action, such as more detailed risk assessments or collection of data on other elements of risk—for example, condition/vulnerability of assets, social vulnerability of the population, or emergency preparedness and planning by authorities and stakeholders in these areas. This information can complement national risk assessments and other ongoing efforts. Using open- source information and drawing on EU-wide risk analysis, this tool can also provide a quick comparison with other EU countries and can guide policy makers at the EU level. Portfolio-level analysis of emergency response–related assets using the triple dividend of resilience approach About the tool: The portfolio assessment analyzed the seismic vulnerability of over 60 emergency preparedness and response–related assets in total, comprising four types of infrastructure: (i) county firefighting centers (193-type emergencies), (ii) national/county centers (112-type emergencies), (iii) firefighting stations in the City of Zagreb, and (iv) civil protection (CP) headquarters in the City of Zagreb. These buildings are vital lifelines, and their failure during disasters could have widespread impacts. Using the tool, rapid data collection (survey and expert analysis) was conducted focusing on the buildings’ characteristics and condition. A probabilistic analysis of CP buildings’ seismic risk, vulnera- bility, and exposure was combined with the TDR approach.20 This included an evaluation of the costs and benefits of rehabilitation/reconstruction interventions, including energy efficiency interventions. Portfolio assessment results: A large number of emergency response buildings are highly vulnerable to seismic risk, including some in regions of high seismic hazard. Concerning county firefighting centers (193-type buildings), over half the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and of these, the large 20 Overseas Development Institute (ODI), GFDRR, and WB. 2015. Link. 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY majority (82 percent) are unreinforced masonry. Two-thirds of the buildings analyzed—14 of 21—would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage under a probabilistic earthquake scenario. Concerning firefighting stations in the City of Zagreb, around one-third (30 percent) of the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and all of these are unreinforced masonry. Among the 10 buildings analyzed, 4 would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage under a probabilistic earthquake scenario. Results on potential proactive investments: The analysis estimated the costs and benefits of proactive investments, specifically seismic retrofitting, reconstruction, and energy efficiency upgrades, using available data for 64 CI buildings related to emergency preparedness and response. The total direct expected reconstruction cost was estimated at €209.3 million, while seismic retrofitting was estimated at €63.5 million, indicating that proactive investment could be much more cost-effective than reconstruction after a strong earthquake. For the most vulnerable buildings, the total cost of seismic retrofit or replacement combined with energy renovation amounted to €108.3 million. The assessment also calculated life-saving benefits and estimated the value of avoided fatalities at €17.9 million annually. Energy efficiency gains added further value, with avoided electricity costs of €920,061 and CO₂ savings of up to €1.5 million over 50 years. The analysis determined the net present value, benefit-cost ratio (BCR), estimated rate of return, and payback period for proposed retrofitting solutions over 20- and 50-year horizons. It found positive BCRs for seismic retrofit and energy efficiency, especially over 50 years; these results are conservative since they exclude equipment and other avoided losses (like productivity or income from displacement). Additional non-monetized benefits—such as cultural heritage preservation, environmental improvements, and social gains—further strengthen the case for action. The analysis shows that seismic risk reduction investments can enable other upgrades and (even with limited data) can present opportunities for no- or low-regret solutions that combine DRM and climate change adaptation agendas in practical, impactful ways. Lessons learned: The portfolio analysis provided information that was not available before. In estimating the potential damage costs as well as costs of proactive interventions, the analysis offers practical guidance for prioritizing investments that increase the earthquake (and disaster) resilience and energy efficiency of emergency response infrastructure, and also include other functional upgrades. Future analysis could be combined with consideration of various other elements, including operational needs, population service levels, response times, and so on. These together can bring significant economic and socio-environmental benefits and co-benefits that outweigh costs in the longer term. This portfolio-level assessment of emergency response assets shows the value of conduct- ing portfolio-type rapid assessments, which can be applied to other types of critical infrastructure and services, and which can also be carried out in other countries. 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 18 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT This note summarizes the results of the application of three select prioritization approaches to support smart and focused investments in disaster resilience in Croatia. Each chapter presents the key steps in the analytical process, key findings, and policy recommendations for decision makers and practitioners who seek to improve disaster and climate resilience, enabling decision-makers to allocate resources where they will have the greatest impact. While the analysis is not comprehensive, it serves as a practical starting point that can be built upon as more information becomes available. The goal is to support Croatia in making informed, targeted decisions to ensure that its critical infrastructure is strong, resilient, and better prepared for future risks. Accompanying this note are three knowledge notes on select topics that support the Government of Croatia in enhancing institutional capacity for resilient and green reconstruction, and in expanding the knowledge base for scaling up risk reduction, preparedness, and financial resilience against multiple hazards. The accompanying knowledge notes cover: (i) selected aspects of Japan’s approach to seismic resilience—including engineering, regulatory frameworks, risk reduction, and disaster risk finance21; (ii) an overview and assessment of Croatia’s current disaster risk financing (DRF) landscape, with recommendations for future action22; and (iii) a review of Croatia’s regulatory framework for seismic resilience, highlighting existing arrangements, challenges, good practices, and opportunities for improvement.23 21 WB. 2025a. Link. 22 WB. 2025b. Link. 23 WB. 2025 (forthcoming). 19 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Country context: key highlights Croatia’s geographical location and climate make it susceptible to a wide variety of hazards. These include geological disasters (earthquakes), hydrometeorological and weather-related hazards (floods, extreme temperatures, strong winds, and droughts), and wildfires, all of which can significantly disrupt economic and social functions. According to the global disaster database EM-DAT, between 1990 and 2023, 36 disasters were recorded in Croatia.24 The 2019 National Risk Assessment (NRA) identified earthquakes, floods, and wildfires as priority hazards.25 Climate change is expected to have major impacts in Croatia; the intensity and frequency of disaster events, along with hotter and drier summers, are predicted. Croatia’s cumulative damage from extreme weather and climate events as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the highest in the EU.26 Croatia has experienced various extreme weather events; 2017 recorded the most intense, hottest, and driest summer season to date. Since 2017, Croatia has broken many meteorologi- cal records. According to the Ministry of Interior (MoI), 2022 was the fifth warmest year recorded and saw a 74 percent increase in the number of forest fires compared to 2021. In May 2023, torrential rainfall led to severe flooding (which broke 2014 records) and caused multiple landslides. In the long term, the complexity of Croatia’s climatic and disaster profile, coupled with sea level rise, will have a significant impact on various critical sectors and the economy. The World Bank and European Commission have estimated average annual losses (AAL) to private and public buildings from flood damage at 0.29 percent of GDP (€147 million),27 while the Joint Research Centre (JRC) estimates them at 0.4 percent of GDP.28 Similarly, Croatia’s critical infrastructure, including emergency preparedness and response infrastructure, as well as transport, energy, water supply, health care, and communications, faces heightened vulnerability due to the country’s exposure to a complex array of natural hazards, with the risk profile further exacerbated by the increasing frequency and intensity of climate- and weather-related events. Croatia is in a region of moderate to high seismic hazard, but the building stock is relatively old and poorly maintained; about 30 percent of the country is exposed to earth- quakes, an area that is home to about 60 percent of the population29 and produces 65 percent of the country’s GDP.30 New buildings (those in compliance with modern building codes) represent only a small percentage of the building stock in Croatia (estimated between 5 and 10 percent).31 The series of earthquakes in 2020 highlighted the vulnerability of Croatia’s public and private infrastructure stock, including hospitals and administrative buildings. Until 1964, when the first building code introduced seismic provisions, buildings were constructed with little to no consideration for seismic shaking—and about one-third of the existing building stock dates from this period. Investments in energy-efficient retrofitting are increasing but often lack comprehensive consideration for earthquake resilience, fire safety, and other climate-related impacts such as heat resilience, flood-proofing, and wildfire protec- tion. 24 EM-DAT, Link. 25 GoC. 2019. Link. 26 European Environmental Agency. 2017. Link. 27 WB and EC. 2021b. Link. 28 Dottori et al. 2020. 29 GoC. 2015. Link.; GoC. 2019. Link. 30 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2016. 31 At the EU level, around 40 percent of buildings were constructed before the 1960s. See EC. n.d. iRESIST+ innovative seismic and energy retrofitting of the existing building stock. Link. 20 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Disaster risk management framework Croatia has made significant progress in building an integrated DRM system aligned with EU and global frameworks. 32 The governance architecture is grounded in the Civil Protection System Act, which defines roles across the national, regional, and local levels. The Croatian Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, established in 2009, fosters coordination among ministries, local authorities, scientific institutions, civil society, and the private sector. Strategic guidance is provided by the National DRM Strategy (2023) and its action plan, which identify and address ‘unacceptable’ and ‘tolerable’ risks based on national assessments.33 Croatia’s approach is embedded in broader development and climate agendas, including the National Development Strategy 2030, the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Frame- work for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Complementary policies, such as the Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Strategy (2020) and the Act on Climate Change (2019), reinforce integration of climate and disaster planning. Through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Croatia has mobilized €1.98 billion for energy efficiency and post- earthquake reconstruction. Ex ante risk assessment and preparedness planning are institutionalized and multi-level. Under the Civil Protection Act, local, regional, and national authorities must prepare risk assessments every three years. These NRAs, most recently updated in 2024, cover 15 hazards and integrate scenario-based modelling, risk matrices, and vulnerability indicators (such as, poverty, education, and unemployment). The Ministry of the Interior’s Civil Protection Directorate leads the process, which informs capability assessments and DRM strategies. Coordination is supported by the National Platform for DRR, ensuring science-policy-practice links. Public awareness is improving; however, there are opportunities for further improvements and modernization of the system. For example, 77 percent of Croatians trust public risk information, only 53 percent feel well-informed (Eurobarometer 2024).34 Recent investments include school-based DRR education, communication tools like the DRR Geoportal, and the SRUUK (Sustav za Rano Upozoravanje i Upravljanje Krizama) early warning system launched in 2023 to send alerts to residents and tourists via mobile phones. Croatia continues to strengthen emergency response capacity and recovery systems, but gaps persist in financing and inclusion. Emergency response is coordinated through the Civil Protection Act across levels, with operational emergency services from the Firefighters Association, the voluntary fire brigades (obrovoljno vatrogasno društvo, DVDs), the Red Cross,35 the Mountain Rescue Service (Hrvatska Gorska Služba Spašavanja, 36 and more recently, the Croatian Center for Earthquake Engineer- ing.37 The See Me initiative (2022) seeks to improve preparedness for persons with disabilities.38 Assistance after a disaster is regulated by the Act on Mitigation and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (OG 16/19) and the Ordinance on the Register of Damages of Natural Disasters (OG 65/19). Croatia is piloting a national damage and loss data system (DrawData 2024–2025) to institution- alize disaster loss accounting. However, insurance penetration remains low—just 25 percent of households are insured, with only 16 percent covering earthquakes—underscoring a need for risk financing reform. 32 For more information on disaster risk governance in Croatia, see Holcinger, N., and Z. Simac. 2021. Link. 33 For the DRM Strategy, see GoC. 2022 Link. The strategy was drafted in accordance with the Act on the System of Strategic Planning and Development Management of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette, 123/17). 34 European Union (EU). 2024b. Link. 35 GoC. 2023b. Link. 36 GoC. 2015, Link; GoC. 2023a, Link. 37 HCPI (Hrvatski centar za potresno inženjerstvo). n.d. Implementacija HCPI u sustav civilne zaštite. Link. 38 The See Me Initiative was extended in 2024, and it will run until December 2025. EU. 2022, Link; EU. 2024a. Link. 21 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD This chapter provides an overview of the Ready2Respond (R2R) method and describes the preparatory and analytical steps to assess the emergency preparedness and response system in Croatia at the national and city levels. 22 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD Summary R2R is a global methodology, focusing on a quantitative assessment across several areas and criteria. It examines five key components of emergency and response systems; (i) legal and institu- tional framework, (ii) information, (iii) facilities, (iv) equipment, and (v) personnel. Assessment participants evaluate these components using 18 criteria, 72 indicators, and 360 attributes.39 The R2R framework is a flexible analytical tool designed to assess emergency preparedness and response systems. It can be used as part of an expert-led assessment or as a self-assessment, providing a structured approach to identify strengths and weaknesses at national or subnational levels. The tool is adaptable to different contexts; for example, the R2R framework was applied to the Western Balkan countries as an expert review assessment.40 39 WB and GFDRR. 2017. Link. 40 See, for example, WB. 2021. Link. 23 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD Figure 1. Five components of the R2R assessment Source: World Bank GFDRR. 2017. In Croatia, the R2R framework was implemented as a self-assessment, facilitated by an online platform. The framework was tailored to the Croatian context by providing a translation, adapting the assessment sheets to local needs, and adding visualization functions, making it user-friendly and accessible. The self-assessment was conducted at both the national level and in the City of Zagreb, enabling stakeholders to systematically review the capabilities of their emergency preparedness and response systems. The application of the R2R framework in Croatia quickly generated actionable insights, highlight- ing key strengths and areas for improvement within the system. The R2R self-assessments at the national and local levels identified strong capacities in urban firefighting and technical rescue, while highlighting gaps in infrastructure resilience, early warning systems, crisis communication, and institutional capacity. These findings informed key strategic documents, including Croatia’s State Action Plan on Civil Protection (2023) and the Urban Security Strategy for the City of Zagreb (2024), and supported alignment with EU directives and ongoing legislative planning. The results demonstrate the tool’s potential to establish a quantifiable and repeatable benchmark, which can inform prioritization of future efforts and enable ongoing monitoring of progress against planned targets. 24 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD 2.1. Steps in the analytical process The analytical process of the R2R assessment included the following steps (Figure 2): Figure 2. Four-step approach as part of the R2R application Step 4: Setting Priorities Step 1: Preparatory Step 2: Conducting the Step 3: Generation and and identification of actions R2R assessment evaluation of results research gaps Source: World Bank and European Commission. 2024. Step 1: Preparation Preparation for the R2R assessment involved translating the tool into Croatian, verifying terminol- ogy and all questions (18 criteria, 72 indicators, and 360 attributes), and adjusting it to fit the European/ Croatian DRM context and relevant Croatian laws. In consultation with relevant authorities, two R2R self-assessments were prepared, one for national level and one for the city level (Zagreb). A list of participants was prepared for each assess- ment covering the different elements of the R2R framework, with a minimum number of responders, to ensure robustness of results. Each participant’s assignment was tailored to his or her expertise to ensure more robust results. Sample questions included the following: Does emergency management legislation exist for the jurisdiction?, Do programs for community education on local emergency preparedness and response exist and are they functional? Are emergency operations centers available with sufficient backup and facilities to support extended emergency conditions? Explanatory materials and guidelines were shared with all participants ahead of the self-assessment. Step 2: Conducting the R2R self-assessment Online surveys were launched at two workshops hosted by the MoI and the City of Zagreb. The purpose of the workshop was to provide a brief introduction and access to experts throughout the assessment. Participants attended the workshops either in person or online, with most being able to complete their assignment within 30 minutes, depending on the number of assigned criteria. While the overall framework has 360 questions, participants did not have to answer every question, but only those most related to their field of expertise, averaging about 3 criteria per person (out of 72), while some experts, given their profile, went as high as 8 criteria (out of 72). Each participant answered True/False statements about the attributes of a particular emergency preparedness and response system indicator. The 80/20 rule was applied to determine whether the answer was True or False. For example, if a participant believes an attribute was 80 percent complete or fully mature, he or she would answer “True”. Anything less would be noted as False, ensuring consis- tency across participants when formulating their answers. For questions where different participants’ answers conflicted, for example, where some chose ‘True’ while others chose “False”, the overall answer was rounded up (True) or down (False), toward the majority opinion. For example, if three out of five participants chose “True” for a question, the final answer was assumed “True”. In cases where a tie- break occurs (i.e., even scoring across participants), the answer is rounded down to reflect “False”. This rounding down limits the potential for false positives while still providing a signal to decision-makers that a targeted exploration of that indicator may be important. Two principal measurements were calculated during the R2R assessment: score and participant agreement. Score answers the question “how strong is this particular capability?”, while participant agreement answers “how much variability was there in participant answers?”. 25 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD Step 3: Generation and evaluation of results As participants responded, the results of the assessment were generated and evaluated in real time. A summary of results was provided to the stakeholders within 48 hours after the launch of the assessments, allowing all responders to finalize their surveys. Each component was divided into different sub-factors and the results varied, with some of them scoring very high and others very low. For instance, at the national level, some factors that received a weak score (less than 50 percent) are Training Centers (Facilities), Financial Preparedness (Legal and Institutional Framework); and Training and Knowledge Building (Personnel). Conversely, the factors that received the best score (more than 70 percent) are Accountability and Authority (Legal and Institutional Framework), Community Engagement (Information); Logistics, Warehouses and Response Stations (Facilities), Urban Firefighting and Technical Rescue (Equipment), and International Support Coordination (Personnel). At the local level some factors that received a weak score (less than 50 percent) are Training Centers (Facilities), Public Alerting (Information), and Aid Distribution (Personnel). On the other hand, the factors that received the best score (more than 70 percent) are Structural Firefighting (Equipment), Casualty Care (Equipment), and Wildland Fire Suppression (Equipment). According to the methodology, the average value for both indicators (Score and Participant Agreement) for each of the 72 R2R indicators is 61 percent for Score and 58 percent for Participant Agreement at national level, and 49 percent for Score and 50 percent for Participant Agreement on the local level. Step 4: Setting priorities and identification of research gaps. During and after the assessment, discussions were held with stakeholders to review the strengths and weaknesses and further identify ways the results can be used, that is, informing strategic or operational documents and investment planning, whether for singular or regular use. After the finalization of the R2R assessment, a workshop was organized with the MoI, where the results from the assessment were presented and feedback from the experts who had participated in the assessment was given. Individuals could also participate online. Additionally, several meetings were organized with the Civil Protection of the City of Zagreb, where insights were shared among different stakeholders and members of society. Finally, after the closure of the assessment, a survey was sent to all the participants to gather their opinion regarding the R2R and how it was conducted. The general opinion was satisfactory. 26 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD 2.2. Summary of findings The R2R assessment allowed for a rapid yet comprehensive overview and visualization of strengths and weaknesses in national- and city-level disaster readiness and areas for improve- ment. The results highlighted strengths and weaknesses across the five components, criteria, indicators, and attributes. • At the national level, the R2R self-assessment found potential gaps in Financial Preparedness, Information Systems (such as geographical information system (GIS) and early warning systems), and Training or Knowledge and Internal Capacity Management. The highest scores were related to Equip- ment Capacities, particularly urban firefighting, and technical rescue. The results of the assessment suggest opportunities to prioritize DRM planning and capacity building. During subsequent discussions, stakeholders noted ongoing or planned projects that match identified gaps or may reinforce results (for example, development of legislative plans) as well as areas where plans or projects must be refined. The results of the R2R assessment will be further analyzed at the national level, with high-level and operational-level internal discussions, to develop priorities. Strategic documents have been prepared, including the State Action Plan on Civil Protection, adopted in September 2023.41 • At the local level, potential weaknesses were highlighted in crisis communication and early warning systems. Strengths, however, related to urban firefighting, technical rescue, and emergency response services. Participants also considered strengthening the overall Croatian DRM system in different areas and at various levels a necessity. The results highlighted the realities of local-level response, where further cooperation with various entities would be needed at the national level. Local- level authorities analyzed these results, which informed the Urban Security Strategy for the City of Zagreb.42 Overall, both national- and local-level participants recognized that the R2R assessment results can be easily integrated into local- and national-level strategies under development and inform discussions to define priorities in the coming years. Stakeholders plan to leverage the results at the national level to open a broader discussion with other stakeholders including the EU on how to strengthen the DRM system and address systemic issues. Furthermore, the results uncovered areas where the national and local levels could collaborate more closely to strengthen vertical and horizontal institutional resilience. The results may also support planning at the subnational level. 41 GoC. 2023a. Link. 42 City of Zagreb. 2024. Link. 28 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD 2.3. Key takeaways and recommendations The R2R assessment conducted in Croatia provides a detailed, data-driven analysis of the coun- try's emergency preparedness and response system, offering critical insights into its strengths and weaknesses. This innovative approach, tailored to Croatia's specific context and aligned with international best practices, highlights the potential for using a quantitative, self-assessment method- ology to inform strategic investments in DRM. The analysis underscores the value of combining national and local-level perspectives, enabling a comprehensive understanding of system-wide capabilities and vulnerabilities. The findings reveal that Croatia demonstrates notable strengths in equipment capacities, partic- ularly for urban firefighting and technical rescue operations, which reflecting strong investment in critical response functions. However, the assessment also identifies significant gaps, including weaknesses in crisis communication, early warning systems, financial preparedness, and information systems such as GIS. Additionally, capacity-building efforts, especially in training and knowledge management, remain areas for further development. There is an opportunity to combine the results of the R2R assessment to inform specific scenar- ios.43 Incorporating data and analytics into the R2R assessment process provides decision-makers with a clearer and more effective way forward. This combination of approaches can identify areas where proactive measures can significantly mitigate future risks, save more lives, and reduce the impact on critical sectors and the broader economy. For example, in combination with risk data, a tailored R2R assessment can be considered for key areas at risk of wildfire. Based on this analysis, several lessons learned/recommendations can be outlined for Croatia: • Institutionalize regular, inclusive, and evidence-based capacity assessments. The R2R method- ology has proven to be a rapid, low-cost, and participatory tool to assess strengths and gaps across the DRM system. Croatia could establish regular R2R assessments at the national and subnational levels to track progress, inform operational plans, and adapt priorities in light of evolving risks. • Prioritize investment in areas requiring strengthening, while continuing to monitor and sustain areas of strength. The R2R assessment highlighted areas, such as crisis communication, early warning systems, and information management, that require targeted investment. At the same time, maintaining strong capacities in areas like urban firefighting and technical rescue is essential to ensure long-term system performance. • Use R2R findings to guide strategic planning and investment. The R2R results offer a practical evidence base for updating national and local strategic documents. Croatia has already applied findings in project preparation and preparation and strategy development. This approach could be scaled to other frameworks, including those linked to EU acquis. • Enhance vertical and horizontal coordination within the DRM system. The assessment identified gaps in coordination between national and local actors. Strengthening joint planning, clarifying roles, and improving information exchange can foster a more cohesive and responsive DRM system. • Engage a broad and diverse set of stakeholders in DRM planning. The R2R process demonstrated the value of capturing input from technical, operational, and institutional stakeholders. Differences in perception can surface important issues and help foster dialogue, consensus-building, and more legitimate decision-making. 43 An example of integrating further layers of data can be found in WB and EC. 2024. Link. 29 2. APPLICATION OF THE READY2RESPOND METHOD 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS This chapter provides an overview of the preparatory analytical steps to prioritize emergency preparedness and response investments using the exposure assessment method. 30 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS Summary The exposure mapping exercise is a spatial analysis tool designed to quantify the number and proportion of critical assets—such as fire stations, police stations, education and health facilities, roads, and power supply infrastructure—located in areas susceptible to various hazards. By leveraging open source GIS software (QGIS) and integrating exposure and hazard data, the tool provides a systematic approach to identify concentrations of risk. This enables users to prioritize areas for further analysis, inform resilience planning, and support benefit-cost analyses for targeted investments. The tool is adaptable and can be applied at different geographic scales, making it valuable for both national and regional risk assessments. In Croatia, the exposure mapping tool was used as part of an EU-wide exposure assessment, generating detailed exposure maps at the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS-3) level. The analysis used publicly available and regionally consistent hazard and asset data to map the exposure of key assets to high-impact hazards, including wildfires, floods, landslides, and earth- quakes.44 The resulting maps provided a clear overview of the spatial distribution of risk, helping to connect case study findings to the broader regional context and identify areas where similar analyses or interventions might be relevant. The exposure assessment in Croatia shows that a large share of emergency preparedness and response critical infrastructure, as well as road and powerline networks, is located in areas of high or very high hazard—particularly for earthquakes and wildfires. Among these, 90 percent of critical facilities such as hospitals, schools, fire stations, and police stations are exposed to seismic risk, while 73 percent are also exposed to wildfire hazard. Roads and powerlines follow a similar pattern, with 91 to 97 percent exposed to seismic and wildfire hazards. Multi-hazard exposure is also common, with over one-quarter of these infrastructure networks exposed to three or more hazards. While the co-location of infrastructure in high-risk areas may reflect operational needs—such as rapid emergency response— it also highlights the importance of understanding the structural vulnerability and functional resilience of these assets. The results inform DRM strategies and support continuity of critical services. 44 It is noted that open street map (OSM) data are publicly contributed and may not always represent an asset’s location accurately. During the analysis, data for the geolocation for some CIs (fire stations and hospitals) were received from the Croatian Firefighting Association and MoI’s Civil Protection Directorate and compared to the OSM data. There were discrepancies in the geolocation of the two datasets; however, given that the focus is EU-wide, for consistency, EU-wide OSM data were considered. 31 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS 3.1. Steps in the analytical process The analytical process of the exposure assessment, repeated for each asset type and hazard, is summarized in Figure 3. Figure 3. Analytical steps taken in exposure assessment Source: World Bank and European Commission. 2024. Step 1. Obtain exposure data: Obtain exposure data and convert it into a vector format if required. Load into GIS software. Asset-level exposure data describe the location (latitude, longitude) and use type of each asset. Generally, the data used do not include construction attributes, which limits the ability to estimate asset damage levels using these datasets, without making further assumptions about construction. Step 2. Obtain hazard data: Convert to raster format if required. Load into GIS software. Regional hazard data are used to describe the distribution of maximum expected hazard intensity for each analyzed hazard: flood (flood depth, m); earthquake ground shaking (peak ground acceleration [PGA], g); wildfire (fire danger, index values); and landslide (susceptibility, index values). Each asset is exposed to some level of hazard; to identify exposure hotspots, a threshold has been chosen for each hazard, for which assets are counted as exposed to ‘high’ hazard. Step 3. Apply spatial overlay methods: Apply this method by using QGIS tools such as Sampling Raster Values or Intersections, to overlay the exposure data onto the hazard data, ensuring the datasets use the same spatial projection for correct alignment. For each asset, the hazard intensity value occurring at that location is recorded, with some variation according to asset type: • Point asset features: Adds the value of the hazard raster grid cell within which the point is located. When using vector hazard data, spatial joins and intersections of hazard and asset data are used to obtain the hazard value. • Polyline asset features: Add the maximum, minimum and mean value of the hazard grid cell for each line segment. Step 4. Export the aggregated asset: Export the aggregated asset counts from the asset data attribute table, grouped by NUTS administrative unit (using GISCO 2021). The exported table shows the number and proportion of assets in a defined range or class of hazard intensity, per NUTS unit. This table can be used to produce a choropleth map (units shaded to represent number or proportion) to show exposure hotspots. 32 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS Step 5. Export the asset attribute table without grouping: This table can be used to map the location of individual assets and the hazard values associated with that location, to show which individual assets are exposed to each hazard and clustering of assets. Asset points can be overlaid onto hazard data to visualize the distribution of assets and hazard together as shown in Figure 4. The hazard thresholds used in steps 4 and 5 are to determine what is referred to in this analysis as high or very high hazard. The selection of thresholds and hazard maps is based on expert judgment. These are subjective, and any adjustments would be reflected in changes to the estimates of assets exposed. The data sources and thresholds used are outlined below: Landslide: five classes provided in the original hazard data are used directly without further adjust- ment: “1: very low hazard, 2: low hazard, 3: moderate hazard, 4: high hazard, 5: very high hazard”. Assets with values of 4 or 5 are considered exposed to high hazard. Wildfire: Five classes are defined in line with the approach taken in the JRC Pan-European Wildfire Assessment. However, this analysis computes wildfire hazard as a function of three base layers (two fire danger layers and the burnable fuel layer) used by JRC, rather than using the wildfire risk index, which already accounts for the presence of exposure and, therefore does not represent a hazard layer. Assets with a wildfire value of 4 or 5 are considered exposed to high hazard in this analysis. Earthquake: A regional probabilistic seismic hazard map was used from the European Seismic Risk Model 2020 is used, providing PGA for each cell, with a probability of 10 percent in 50 years (a 1-in-475- year return period), which is standard in seismic engineering and hazard analysis. The PGA values are aggregated to seismic intensity values using the corresponding PGA ranges defined by USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), to assigning each cell a value on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale.45 This analysis defines high hazard as having a value of MMI VI or above. MMI VI is classified as strong shaking causing light damage, and corresponds to a PGA of 11.5 percent. Flood: River flood hazard maps are used to provide estimated flood depth per return period.46 In this analysis, the 1-in-10-year return period is selected, to estimate exposure to frequent flood events, and the threshold defined for high hazard is a depth of 0.5m. Any depth above this is considered a high hazard, due to the increased potential for damage beyond this depth. Step 6. Multi-hazard aggregation: Using the same asset dataset to assess exposure to each hazard enables an assessment of how many hazards each asset is exposed to, and which assets are exposed to a high level of more than one hazard. 45 Shake Map Documentation. Link. 46 Dottori et al. 2016. Link. 33 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS Figure 4. Example of Individual Asset Map under Exposure Assessment Source: World Bank and European Commission. 2024. By creating a spatial join on each asset ID in the datasets produced in the single-hazard analysis, the level of hazard for each analyzed hazard has been compiled into one file. Applying the same hazard thresholds as for the single-hazard exposure assessment, a count has been made for each asset, to record the hazards that exceed the defined threshold. This assigns each asset a number between 0 and 4, denoting whether the asset is exposed to high levels of zero, one, two, three, or four of the analyzed hazards. These numbers are summarized at the different spatial resolutions (Europe-wide, Member State, and NUTS3) used in the analysis. As part of the exposure analysis conducted in this report, granular maps were created for the case study countries of Croatia and Romania. These maps show the distribution of emergency response related assets and hazard levels based on available EU-wide hazard data, which were augmented with national records. These maps can help identify areas that are exposed to high levels of multiple hazards. By providing a visual representation of the distribution of assets and the level of hazard they face, these maps assist decision-makers in prioritizing areas for further analysis and investment. By focusing on assets exposed to high levels of multiple hazards, decision-makers can develop effective strategies to manage the risks associated with these hazards and minimize potential losses. 34 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS 3.2 Summary of findings The EU-wide exposure analysis conducted under Economics for Disaster Prevention and Pre- paredness revealed two significant hotspots when considering emergency response-related assets exposed to one or more high or very high hazards (Figure 5). The first is found in and around Zagreb up to the very north of the country, and the second is around Split and across the Split-Dalmatia County. Further concentrations of assets subject to high or very high hazards are scattered along the Croatian coastlines, including around Rijeka, Zadar, Šibenik, and Dubrovnik. Multi-hazard exposure is high, for example, 48 percent of fire stations in Croatia are exposed to high levels of two or three hazards. The exposure to multiple combinations varies by asset type. The dominant combination of hazards to which fire stations are exposed is wildfire and earthquake. For health care facilities, exposure also concerns, to a great extent, landslides, floods, and earthquakes. Figure 5. Distribution of emergency response assets fire stations with high exposure to multiple hazards Source: World Bank and European Commission. 2024. To better understand the risks associated with disasters, an exposure analysis conducted at the NUTS3 level across Croatia helps identify the exposure of assets, energy, and transportation infrastructure, which are critical in DRM. Below is a summary of the main findings grouped by hazard type: Wildfire: Over 76 percent of police and fire stations (a total of 554 buildings) are exposed to high and very high wildfire hazard. A lower proportion of education and health facilities are exposed to this level of hazard—69 percent (315) and 57 percent (95), respectively. Due to the coarse resolution hazard data available for this analysis and the omission of facility-level features such as defensive space, this is likely a conservative estimate, with localized variations in hazards indicating that fewer facilities are exposed directly to wildfire but are nevertheless located in areas that could be affected by this hazard. The results also show that over 94 percent of power lines and 97 percent road network segments in Croatia are at least partially exposed to wildfire hazard, indicating a high level of exposure. The Adriatic motorway is often closed due to wildfires during the summer wildfire season, as is the main A1 highway (Zagreb-Dubrovnik), 36 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS particularly the sections near coastal cities. In 2018, a fire near Orebić caused power cuts due to power lines being overwhelmed by heat. Similarly, in 2015, a large fire in Trstenik affected water and electrical lines, resulting in cut power lines. The road closure across the Pelješac Peninsula during the fire made evacuation possible only via sea transportation, such as ferries and boats. Floods: Compared to other hazards, flood exposure among emergency response-related assets in Croatia is relatively low. Only 3 percent of all assessed assets are located in areas of high or very high flood hazard, including 2 percent of education facilities, 2 percent of health facilities, 4 percent of fire stations, and 5 percent of police stations. This is significantly lower than exposure to earthquakes, which affect 90 percent of all assets, or wildfires, which affect 73 percent. Based on the data, flood exposure of road and power infrastructure in Croatia is low. Landslide: Few emergency preparedness and response related assets are in areas of high or very high landslide susceptibility in Croatia—in total, only 88 (7 percent) of the 1,300 assets analyzed. These include 29 education facilities, 12 health care facilities, 27 fire stations, and 20 police stations. The results also show that out of the 1,944 km of road network in Croatia; 67 percent is exposed to high and very high landslide susceptibility. Similarly, out of the 4,773 km of power lines, 55 percent are exposed to high and very high landslide susceptibility. For example, in May 2023, following severe storms, over 50 landslides occurred in the Zagorije area of Croatia, resulting in network disruptions, including several road closures and power outages. Earthquake: Emergency response-related assets in Croatia face high exposure to high-seismic hazards, determined as strong ground shaking (MMI ≥ VI) with a 10 percent chance of occurring in a 50-year period, with over 90 percent of assets exposed. Healthcare facilities face the highest exposure propor- tionally with 93 percent (156) of facilities exposed. In addition, 414 education facilities (91 percent of the total) are exposed. A similar number of fire stations (418, 89 percent of all fire stations analyzed) are exposed to high hazard while about half the number of police stations (212), representing the same proportion (89 percent), are exposed. Figure 6 displays the length and proportion of road and power line assets that are exposed to high-seismic hazard in Croatia, as determined by the analysis. Over 2,600 km of roads and 8,000 km of power lines in Croatia are exposed to strong seismic shaking intensity (MMI ≥ VI), which amount to 91 and 93 percent, respectively. These figures reflect the situation in Croatia after the series of earthquakes in 2020, which caused significant damage to health and education assets, but do not explicitly consider the seismic resistance of any individual asset or building stock to earthquakes. Figure 6. Example map of exposure of assets to seismic hazard 37 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS Source: World Bank and European Commission. 2024. 3.3. Key takeaways and recommendations The exposure assessment offers an analysis of how critical emergency preparedness and response-related infrastructure is situated in Croatia in areas susceptible to floods, wildfires, earthquakes, and landslides. This assessment is especially valuable because it enables decision-mak- ers to identify potential exposure "hotspots" at the national and subnational levels, forming the basis for risk-informed planning, resource allocation, and strategic investment in disaster and climate resilience. It also supports a shift from reactive emergency response to proactive risk reduction and infrastructure resilience building. The findings for Croatia reveal a concerning level of exposure across multiple hazard types. These findings highlight systemic vulnerabilities in both emergency service delivery and CI continuity, pointing to a pressing need for integrated risk management and retrofitting of essential public assets. The analysis also draws attention to the need for assessing infrastructure not just individually but as interconnected networks. The results revealed that a significant proportion of these assets are in zones of high or very high hazard, especially for earthquakes and wildfires. For example, over 90 percent of critical assets are exposed to seismic risk, and 73 percent to wildfire hazard, with multi-hazard exposure common—nearly half of fire stations face two or more hazards. There are opportunities to build on the assessment by undertaking deeper, localized analyses of vulnerability and criticality, especially in regions identified as exposure hotspots. Croatia can apply prioritization framework to guide investments in seismic retrofitting, resilient construction, and redundancy planning for emergency facilities. Strengthening roads and power lines in highly exposed areas could prevent cascading failures during disasters. In addition, incorporating climate projections and multi-hazard planning into urban development and infrastructure design will enhance long-term resilience. By combining exposure data with benefit-cost and criticality analyses, Croatia has a strong foundation to optimize limited resources for maximum impact in disaster prevention and prepared- ness. 38 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS Based on this analysis, several lessons learned/recommendations can be made for Croatia: • Prioritize multi-hazard risk reduction for critical infrastructure. Given the high exposure of emergency assets to multiple hazards, investments should focus on integrated, multi-hazard resilience measures, especially in identified hotspots like Zagreb, Split, and the coast. While the proximity of emergency preparedness and response assets is operationally sound, it is essential to ensure that these critical infrastructures are structurally resilient and functionally reliable under multiple hazard scenar- ios. • The exposure analysis is a starting point that can be bolstered by conducting localized vulner- ability and criticality assessments. While the exposure analysis provides a valuable overview, more detailed, site-specific analyses are needed to assess the structural vulnerability and functional impor- tance of individual assets, particularly in areas with high concentrations of exposed infrastructure. • Strengthen infrastructure networks to prevent cascading failures. Given the high exposure of roads and power lines to hazards, targeted investments should aim to confirm and enhance the resilience of these networks to ensure continuity of emergency response and critical services during disasters. • Integrate exposure data into strategic planning and investment decisions. Use the exposure assessment results to inform DRM strategies, urban development, and infrastructure design, ensuring that new investments consider current and future hazard exposure, including climate change projec- tions. • Promote data-driven, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for prioritizing interventions. Combine exposure data with benefit-cost and criticality analyses to optimize resource allocation, focusing on interventions that deliver the greatest risk reduction and resilience benefits for critical assets and networks. 39 3. APPLICATION OF THE RAPID EXPOSURE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO MULTIPLE HAZARDS 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE- RELATED ASSETS 47 This chapter provides an overview of the analytical steps for the portfolio-level assess- ment of emergency response-related assets with respect to seismic risk, using the triple dividend of resilience (TDR) approach. 47 WB and EC. 2024. Link. 40 47 Summary The portfolio assessment is a rapid method designed to support strategic decision-making by evaluating the risk exposure, vulnerability, and resilience of critical infrastructure at a portfolio- wide level. The portfolio-based prioritization tool for investments in critical sectors involves analyzing and selecting a set of investments or projects that collectively maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of resilience-building efforts. It considers the interdependencies and synergies among different investments to create a balanced and coherent portfolio of initiatives. This rapid analysis relies on simplified data collection and is particularly relevant for data-poor environments. This approach ensures that resources are allocated strategically and optimally across a range of DRM activities. For example, this method was applied in Romania to assess the portfolio of fire stations. 48 The portfolio assessment can be bolstered by integrating the TDR approach, which enables the assessment of not only the direct benefits of risk reduction (such as avoided losses from disasters) but also the wider economic, social, and environmental co-benefits of possible interventions to guide future decision-making toward prioritization of risk reduction and preparedness invest- ments at the sectoral level. The TDR framework is a comprehensive approach that aims to estimate a variety of wider benefits of DRM investments that are typically overlooked, leading to a more balanced prioritization. The approach assesses each DRM investment option by three possible types of benefits— or dividends of resilience—that those investments can yield (i) avoiding losses when disasters strike; (ii) stimulating economic activities and innovations by reducing disaster risks; and (iii) generating social, environmental, and economic co-benefits in the absence of disasters (see Figure 7). The approach reconciles perspectives from the DRM, environmental, and economic fields, but sometimes it is restricted by data limitations and hence the ability to calculate the broader dividends.49 This TDR methodology was applied in a 2021 study by the World Bank and EU to analyze more than 70 invest- ments ex ante and ex post.50 This perspective allows for the prioritization of investments that maximize overall resilience and value for money. The tool can be applied in various contexts to inform the allocation of resources, guide investment planning, and support the development of robust DRM strategies, especially in environments where data may be limited and rapid analysis is required. These analytical tools can be highly relevant to the application of EU law, such as the Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive (EU2022/2557)51 and the NIS2 Directive (EU2022/2555).52 48 Strengthening DRM Project (P166302); Improving Resilience and Emergency Response Project (P168119); Strengthening Preparedness and Critical Emergency Infrastructure Project (P168120); Romania Safer, Inclusive, and Sustainable Schools (P175308). 49 ODI, GFDRR, and WB. 2015. Link. 50 ODI, GFDRR, and WB. 2015, and as demonstrated by WB and EC. 2021a, Link. For example, heatwave early warnings were found to provide significant benefits, with a mean BCR of 131 (range of 48–246). Measures focused on wildfire prevention, such as managing wildland-urban interface (WUI), were found to have BCRs of 2.1 to 3.1; addition of fuel breaks in forested areas had a BCR of 12. Decision support tools for CCA and alerting for wildfire risk reduction yielded BCRs ranging from 5.8 to 39. 51 Critical entities provide essential services that uphold key societal functions, support the economy, ensure public health and safety, and preserve the environment. Member States will have to identify the critical entities for the sectors set out in the CER Directive by 17 July 2026. They will use this list of essential services to conduct risk assessments and then identify the critical entities. Once identified, each critical entity will have to take measures to enhance their resilience. For more information, see EC. n.d. Enhancing EU resilience: A step forward to identify critical entities for key sectors. Link. 52 The NIS2 Directive establishes a unified legal framework to uphold cybersecurity in 18 critical sectors across the EU. It also calls on Member States to define national cybersecurity strategies and collaborate with the EU for cross-border reaction and enforce- ment. NIS2 raises the EU common level of ambition on cyber-security, through a wider scope, clearer rules and stronger supervision tools. It requires Member States to enhance their cybersecurity capabilities, while introducing risk management measures and reporting requirements to entities from more sectors and setting up rules for cooperation, information sharing, supervision, and enforcement of cybersecurity measures. For more information, see: EC. n.d. NIS2 Directive: new rules on cybersecurity of network and information systems. Link. 41 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Figure 7. Triple dividend of resilience 1st Dividend of Resilience: Avoided Losses Avoiding damages and losses from disasters, by: Saving lives and reducing people affected Benefits when Reducing damages to infrastructure and other assets disaster strikes Reducing losses to economic flows Disaster risk 2nd Dividend of Resilience: Unlocking Economic Potential Stimulating economic activity due to reduced disaster risk, by increasing: management Business and capital investment (DRM) Household and agricultural productivity Land value from protective infrastructure investments Fiscal stability and acces to credit Benefits Regardless 3rd Dividend of Resilience: Generating Development Co-Benefits of disasters DRM investements can serve multiple uses which can be captured as co-benefits such as: Eco-system services Transportation uses Agricultural productivity gains Costs and potential adverse effects of DRM measures Source: ODI, GFDRR, and World Bank. 2015. In Croatia, the portfolio assessment tool was applied to a suite of emergency response-related assets, focusing specifically on their exposure to seismic risk: County firefighting centers (193), national/county centers (112), firefighting stations in the City of Zagreb, and civil protection (CP) headquarter buildings in the City of Zagreb, with a probabilistic analysis of risk, vulnerability, and exposure of these buildings to seismic hazard. The assets analyzed are important lifelines, and if they fail to provide services after a major disaster, this would have cascading negative impacts on the population. The analytical process began with the collection and consolidation of data on the location, condition, and function of key assets. Seismic hazard data were overlaid with information on asset conditions and location to identify the facilities most at risk. The energy performance of the emergency response-related buildings was analyzed to understand their energy efficiency (energy consumption) and the reduction of CO2 emissions. Costing considered avoided losses related to people, infrastruc- ture, and disruptions. Within the framework, benefits relating to climate change and risk reduction were considered and quantified, whenever possible. The result is an overview of the potential financial costs of a prioritized program focused on investing in upgrading buildings efficiently. The portfolio assessment, combined with the TDR, demonstrates that a significant portion of Croatia’s emergency response buildings are both structurally and operationally vulnerable to seismic events, particularly due to their age, construction before modern seismic codes, and location in high-hazard regions, underscoring the urgent need for integrated risk reduction and energy efficiency measures. In sum, the results underscore the urgent need for targeted, integrated investments to improve the safety, resilience, and sustainability of Croatia’s emergency response infrastructure. • Portfolio assessment: Many emergency response buildings are highly vulnerable to seismic risk, some in regions of high seismic hazard. For county firefighting centers (193-type buildings), over half of the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and of these, the large majority (82 percent) were built from unreinforced masonry. Of 21 buildings analyzed, 14 would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage – more than two-thirds (probabilistic earthquake scenario). For firefighting stations in the City of Zagreb: one-third (30 percent) of the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and all were built from unreinforced masonry. Of 10 buildings analyzed, 4 would likely suffer moderate-extensive damage” (probabilistic earthquake scenario). 42 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS • Results - Potential proactive investments: The analysis estimated the costs and benefits of proactive investments, specifically seismic retrofitting, reconstruction costs, and energy efficiency upgrades, using available data for 64 CI buildings related to emergency preparedness and response. • The total expected reconstruction cost was estimated at €209.3 million, while seismic retrofitting was estimated at €63.5 million, indicating that proactive investment could be much more cost-effective than reconstruction after a strong earthquake. The total cost for seismic retrofit or replacement of the most vulnerable buildings, combined with energy renovation, amounted to €108.3 million. • Life-saving benefits were also calculated, with avoided fatalities valued at €17.9 million annually. • Energy efficiency gains added further value, with avoided electricity costs of €920,061 and CO₂ savings of up to €1.5 million over 50 years. • The BCA determined the net present value, benefit-cost ratio (BCR), estimated rate of return, and payback period for proposed retrofitting solutions over 20- and 50-year horizons, finding positive BCRs for seismic retrofit and energy efficiency, especially over 50 years, while noting that the results are conservative since they exclude equipment and other avoided losses such as productivity or income from displacement). • Additional non-monetized benefits—such as cultural heritage preservation, environmental improvements, and social gains—further strengthen the case for action. The analysis provides evidence that seismic risk reduction investments can enable other upgrades and, even with limited data, present opportunities for no- or low-regret solutions that combine DRM and CCA agendas in practical, impactful ways. 43 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS 4.1. Steps in the analytical process The analysis follows a four-step approach that demonstrates the application of portfolio-level rapid vulnerability assessments and the TDR, as portrayed in Figure 8. Figure 8. Four-step approach for portfolio assessment of CP infrastructure Step 1: Portfolio based Step 3: Quantification Step 4: Step 2: Additional analysis of CP of costs and benefits Recommendations for analysis (Energy infrastructure (seismic (Triple Dividend of prioritization efficiency) focus) Resilience) framework Source: World Bank and European Commission. 2024. Step 1: Portfolio-based analysis of CP infrastructure The first step was to identify the types of infrastructure to be considered in the portfolio assess- ment, in consultation with the stakeholders. These infrastructures are: (i) County firefighting centers (193), (ii) national/county centers (112), (iii) firefighting stations in the City of Zagreb, and (iv) CP headquarter buildings in the City of Zagreb. Once identified, building exposure data for more than 60 emergency response service buildings were collected and analyzed. Like many other countries, Croatia does not have an official inventory database that includes building material, age, floor area, structural system, and occupancy category, parameters critical for seismic assessments. There is also no inventory database for public sector emergency facilities in Croatia. To address these gaps, an online survey was created using a GIS environment to collect information on key building attributes,53 functional and occupational data, and photos and other documentation that can help inform further phases of prioritization. The basic questions in the form represent the main attributes based on GEM and GED4ALL taxonomy,54 which was used in seismic risk analysis. Additional attributes include questions related to the working environ- ment and functionality of the centers and stations. A full version of the form covering the attributes related to seismic risk assessment can be found in Annex 1. The information collected was primarily intended to inform seismic risk and energy efficiency analytics, but additional information related to other hazards was also considered. The online questionnaire was sent to stakeholders of the national and county centers (112) and firefighting stations (193) at the county level, firefighting stations of the City of Zagreb and CP headquarters of the City of Zagreb. Since stakeholders did not provide data for four firefighting stations through the online questionnaire, the required data were estimated through desk research using Google Maps (Google, n.a.). It was found that, since some stakeholders share the same assets, four questionnaires related to the same assets; that is, two questionnaires are considered in this analysis. The data collected pertains to a total of 64 buildings of 64.55 53 The main attributes collected in the scope of this study include material of lateral-load system, lateral-load resisting system, period of construction, code level, system ductility, number of stories, building height, building floor area, physical condition/ maintenance, shape of building plan, structural irregularities (in plan and in height), roof shape and structure, floor system material and type, and foundation material and system. 54 Silva et al. 2018. 55 It is important to note that the quality and completeness of the information provided by stakeholders were inconsistent, resulting in varying degrees of uncertainty within the risk assessment outcomes and the associated cost-benefit analyses. To address these data limitations, the project team applied engineering judgment, employed statistical methods to process and interpret available data, and incorporated insights from local experts. 45 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Seismic hazard: The seismic hazard model used was the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM20) which follows two different assessments: (i) the probabilistic seismic assessment, which considers all possible earthquake sources in Croatia, based on how often they produce earthquakes and their dimensions; and (ii) the deterministic seismic hazard assessment, which is performed using specified earthquake scenarios (events) defined by magnitude, location, and other source parameters such as fault orientation and rupture area. Exposure: The exposure model contains buildings characterized by different typologies. The GEM taxonomy is followed.56 The most important part of the exposure data is the inventory of existing buildings (building stock), which relates to the number of residents, building occupancy (residential, industrial, CI, and so on.), building replacement costs (used as the basis for calculating financial losses). The main attributes collected in this study are: material of the lateral-load system, lateral-load resisting system, period of construction, code level, system ductility, number of stories, building height, building floor area, physical condition or maintenance, the building plan, structural irregularities (in plan and in height), roof shape and structure, floor system material and type, and foundation material and system. As there is no official inventory database that includes building materials, year of construction, and other relevant information, the exposure model in Croatia is limited. Nevertheless, the exposure to seismic events in Croatia has been categorized into two types: (i) exposed population and demograph- ics, and (ii) exposed economy. Therefore, for this project, the attributes important for seismic risk assessment have been collected through online forms, surveys, and desk research. In addition, the replacement cost (€1,950 per m2 for “ordinary” emergency response-related buildings and €2,250 per m2 for fire stations) is estimated based on current construction prices and personal communication with practicing engineers, construction companies and relevant ministries. This value includes struc- tural and non-structural components of buildings but not the contents or the equipment. Vulnerability: Since there are no analytical fragility and vulnerability models developed for the Croatian building stock and despite the earthquakes of 2020, data on earthquake damage have not yet been systematized in Croatia and empirical vulnerability models are not available, existing models from other countries were used in the risk models. The vulnerability model is defined using fragility curves and vulnerability curves, adopted from the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) repository (available at: https://docs.openquake.org/vulnerability). Martins and Silva (2021)57 described the development of these curves which cover the most common building classes globally. Four damage states are adopted for the fragility curves: slight damage (DS1), moderate damage (DS2), extensive damage (DS3) and complete damage (DS4). Slight damage is assumed to begin at 75 percent of the yielding displacement to account for damage initiation in non-structural elements, while complete damage is considered to be reached at the ultimate displacement capacity of the structure. The remaining damage states are evenly spaced in spectral displacement between these two states. Step 2: Energy efficiency analysis The energy performance of emergency-response-related buildings was analyzed to understand the energy efficiency of the building (energy consumption) and the reduction of CO2 emissions after potential energy renovation. Relevant data were collected from the National Energy Manage- ment Information System (ISGE), noting, however, that from the list of CP/emergency response portfolio buildings, the ISGE database contains data only for about 35 buildings. The energy prices are from the EU Reference Scenario 2020, which is one of the European Commission's key analysis tools in the areas of energy, transport, and climate action. 56 Brzev et al. 2013, Link; Silva et al. 2018. 57 Martins, L. and Silva, V. 2021. 46 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS According to the ISGE database, only five buildings have undergone some energy efficiency improvements, but there are no data on the implemented measures and upgrades. Additionally, the average annual consumption in the last five years (2018-2022) for 35 buildings in the CP portfolio is 125.6 kWh/m2. After these conclusions were drawn, some assumptions were made. The general assumption is that all buildings built before 1981 (more than 80 percent of the analyzed buildings) need to undergo through a comprehensive EE, while the rest of the buildings need softer measures. Also, the aim is to reach a consumption of 50 kWh/m2 or lower (which would be A+ grade for other nonresidential buildings) and increase safety. In addition to EE measures, comprehensive renovation includes measures to increase safety in the event of earthquakes, and fires and to improve indoor climatic conditions. Step 3: Quantification of benefits and costs. Using a TDR approach, benefits and costs of interventions related to seismic safety and energy efficiency were estimated. The costing of avoided losses related to people, infrastructure and disruptions was performed. Within the framework, benefits relating to climate change and risk reduc- tion were considered and quantified as well, whenever possible. The result is an overview of potential financial costs of a prioritized program focusing on investing in upgrading buildings efficiently. The methodology for the cost-benefit analysis used to understand the benefits and costs related to seismic safety and energy efficiency in Croatia consists of 25 steps (Box 1). 47 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Box 1. 25 steps to a portfolio analysis with the TDR 1. Analyze the emergency prepared- building damage, number of fatalities, ness CI portfolio ‒ structural material, and number of severely injured people, structural system, period of construction, and financial losses of the lives lost. ductility, number of stories, area, replace- ment cost, number of occupants, and 7. Choose a retrofit option for vulnera- other data such as energy efficiency (ifble buildings and assign fragility curves available), for every building. of retrofitted buildings for every damage state and vulnerability (consequence) 2. Assign every building to particular models. typology based on the data from step 1; for each typology define appropriate 8. Calculate the cost of seismic retrofit fragility curves for every damage state for emergency preparedness CI build- and vulnerability (consequence) models. ings. 3. Create a seismic hazard model and 9. Calculate direct losses for every perform PSHA (Probabilistic Seismic building in the emergency prepared- Hazard Assessment) for selected return ness CI portfolio in its retrofitted state periods (for example, 95 and 475 years) to to be fully operational after the design obtain values of the hazard intensity earthquake and aggregate the values for measures at building sites - PGA, and the emergency preparedness CI subsec- tors (average annual values, as well as the spectral accelerations at periods 0.3 s, 0.6 s and 1.0 s values for the two scenarios defined in step 3) ‒ financial losses resulting from 4. Based on the hazard model, create a building damage, number of fatalities, series of stochastic events for a very long number of severely injured people, and period of seismicity and run event-based financial losses of the lives lost. risk assessment (for example, in Open- Quake). 10. Obtain the benefit of losses avoided as the difference between the amount 5. Determine the value of a statistical and value of losses in steps 6 and 9. life (VSL).58 11. Within the emergency preparedness CI 6. Calculate direct losses for every sector, identify firefighting response building in the emergency prepared- centers and determine the operational ness CI portfolio in its original (un- area served by the emergency firefighting retrofitted) state and aggregate the units. values for the emergency preparedness CI subsectors (average annual values, as well 12. Create the exposure model consist- as the values for the scenarios defined in ing of buildings and occupants for each step 3) – financial losses resulting from operational area. 58 The value of statistical life (VSL) is a concept used in BCA to estimate the monetary value of preventing a single human life lost. It represents the amount of money that society is willing to spend to reduce the risk of a fatality in various activities or situations. In the studies presented, a VSL of €6 million is used based on a study by Viscusi and Masterson. The VSL is the marginal rate of substitution between income (wealth) and mortality risk, that is, how much individuals are willing to pay on average to reduce the risk of death. It does not indicate the value of an actual life but the value of marginal changes in the likelihood of death. 48 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Figure 9. Number of injured people in the operational areas (counties) for the 95-year earthquake return period (left) and the 475-year earthquake return period (right) Source: Based on University of Zagreb. 2023. 13. Assign fragility curves for every 18. Determine the energy consumption, damage state and vulnerability (conse- related costs and emission of CO2 of quence) models for each building emergency preparedness CI buildings in typology in the exposure model. their current (un-retrofitted) state. 14. Run event-based risk assessment for 19. Define solutions and unit prices for the hazard defined in step 4. EE, and calculate the costs of EE upgrade. 15. Calculate the number of injured persons in each operational area due to 20. Determine the energy consumption, earthquakes (Figure 10) related costs and emission of CO2 of emergency preparedness CI buildings 16. Determine the number of avoided after energy renovation. fatalities in collapsed buildings located in the operational areas; multiply by VSL 21. Obtain the aggregated benefits of and obtain the annual benefit of human energy renovation. lives saved. The mortality post-collapse factor, which represents the percentage of 22. Calculate total costs of retrofit as the trapped survivors in collapsed buildings sum of seismic retrofit and energy who subsequently die, depends crucially renovation costs. on the effectiveness of the search and 23. Determine the planning horizon and rescue teams. The speed is slower in the discount rate. heavy buildings such as concrete ones, where cutting and lifting equipment has 24. Discount the costs and benefits over to be used.59 the period of the planning horizon. 17. Obtain the aggregated benefit as the 25. Obtain the BCR, net present value sum of the benefits obtained in steps 10 (NPV), estimate rate of return and and 16. payback period for the proposed retrofitting solutions. 59 Coburn, A., and R. Spence. 2002. 49 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Step 4: Recommendations for prioritization framework, including various criteria In addition to the evidence gathered and provided through the above analysis and costing, the following criteria could be considered as part of a full-fledged multi-criteria analysis (MCA) that may be highly relevant for the Croatian context: • Disaster and climate risk ◦ Disaster vulnerability (existing analysis) ◦ Consideration of other hazards, including floods, wildfire, and extreme heat (overlaying additional risk information and spatial analysis) ◦ Consideration of future climate conditions and expected increases of annual losses and so on • Service-related criteria ◦ Importance of specific buildings within the whole system, county or nationwide ◦ Requirements related to response time or other service/performance-level criteria that fire stations or operation centers are required to meet ◦ Area (catchment) and number of people (beneficiaries) covered by these buildings ◦ Number of calls per year ◦ Social aspects—population trends, accessibility in relation to expected impact, ratio of potentially vulnerable population • Functionality related ◦ Information on other standards, norms, regulations or targets (such as, energy efficiency targets, sanitation norms, and fire codes) ◦ Building functionality versus equipment compatibility • Strategic related ◦ Considerations of past or planned energy efficiency upgrades ◦ Inclusion/prioritization of areas/buildings in existing investment plans ◦ Availability of funds (ongoing/planned calls of proposals). 50 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS 4.2. Summary of findings Step 1: Potential impacts The following summarizes the key findings of the seismic risk analysis conducted as part of the portfolio assessment, as illustrated in Figure 10: • County firefighting centers (193): Over half of the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and of these, the large majority (82 percent) are built from unreinforced masonry. Of 21 buildings analyzed, 14 would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage – more than two-thirds. • National/county centers (112): One-third (35 percent) of the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and of these, the majority (72 percent) are built from unreinforced masonry. Of 20 buildings analyzed, 5 would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage. • Firefighting stations in the City of Zagreb: One-third (30 percent) of the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and all are built from unreinforced masonry. Of 10 buildings analyzed, 4 would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage. • CP headquarter buildings in the City of Zagreb: Half of the buildings analyzed were built before 1964, and of these, the majority (72 percent) are built from unreinforced masonry. Of 14 buildings analyzed, 9 would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage – half of the stock. Figure 10. Results of Croatia Portfolio Analysis Source: Based on the portfolio assessment data. 51 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Additional details about construction material: Reinforced concrete (RC) (48 percent) is the most used type of material, followed by unreinforced masonry (40 percent), confined masonry (10 percent), and steel (2 percent). Apart from the fact that these buildings are generally old (note that 3 percent were built in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 18 percent were built between 1880 and 1918, and another 18 percent were built between 1945 and 1964) and not designed for earthquake loads, the problem also lies in their poor maintenance and subsequent alterations, additions, and changes in occupancy. Figure 11 shows results related to the type of material and period of construction, and Figure 13 presents the four types of CP infrastructure in Croatia. Figure 11. Analysis based on data collected through surveys/supplemental research Source: Based on the portfolio assessment data. The AALs amount to €171,250/300,40960 (considering VSL). The AAL ratio for the country’s CP/emer- gency response sector is 0.08 percent, but in some buildings this value goes up to 0.4 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the AAL are generated in the City of Zagreb (as shown in Figure 12). Economic loss ratios in the case of earthquakes with return periods of 95 years and 475 years are between 1 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively, considering only damage to buildings, as shown in Table 1. 60 The first value relates to the vulnerability of buildings, while the second value includes the potential fatalities in the CP sector buildings. 52 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Figure 12. The AAL ratios in emergency response-related infrastructure aggregated at the county level Source: Based on the portfolio assessment data. Table 1. Expected losses for the earthquakes with return period of 95 and 475 years and a what-if scenario based on the historical earthquake from 1880 in the City of Zagreb Emergency response-related building Losses (€) Zagreb Losses (€) P95 Losses (€) P475 type 1880 CP headquarter of CZ 1,3M 8,4M 10,1M Firefighting station CZ 765,080 3,448,340 3,5M National/county center 112 601,137 2,734,010 422,874 County firefighting center 193 825,934 2,983,810 320,179 County firefighting center 193 /national/ 106,290 952,490 915,366 county center 112 53 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Figure 13. Analysis of four types of CP infrastructures in the Republic of Croatia Source: Based on the portfolio assessment data. Step 2: Energy efficiency The analysis found that the majority of buildings in the portfolio assessment perform poorly in terms of energy efficiency and are not aligned with current EU and national policies. Average annual consumption over 2018–2022 was 125.6 kWh/m² across the 35 assessed buildings. Based on this, it was assumed that buildings constructed before 1981 (over 80 percent of the sample) require comprehensive energy renovation, while newer buildings may need only lighter measures. The goal is to reduce consumption to 50 kWh/m² or lower (A+ grade for nonresidential buildings) and enhance safety. In line with Croatia’s Long-Term Strategy for National Building Stock Renovation and European standards, comprehensive renovation includes both energy and safety upgrades. This involves at least one building envelope measure and improvements to technical systems, aiming for at least 50 percent savings in both heat energy for heating and primary energy use. It also includes enhancements for seismic and fire safety, as well as indoor climate improvements. Overall, the combined seismic and energy assessments show that urgent integrated interventions are needed to improve both safety and energy performance across the CP infrastructure portfolio. 54 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS Average consumption CP/ER portfolio area (m2) Energy (kWh) Energy costs (€) (kWh per m2) 94,054 11,810,440 1,5M 125.6 Emission of CO2 and related costs Total costs CO2 (€) Factor of emissiona 0.00027408 t CO2/kWh - Emission CO2 3,237 t CO2 - Cost avg 2024-2044b 371 €/tCO2e 1,2M Cost avg. 2024-2074 b 780 €/tCO2e 2,5M Source: Based on the portfolio assessment data. Note: a Average factor of emission of different fuels (Emission factors as per national carbon footprint calculation methodology: Government of Croatia. n.d. Ugljični otisak. Link.). b Shadow cost of carbon is used as in European Commission Technical Guidance on the Climate Proofing of Infrastructure in the period 2021-2027 (2021/C 373/01). Step 3: Quantification of benefits and costs The process followed the key steps of the TDR approach, and the results are presented below. • Related to costs, unit replacement costs were established for the different types of CP buildings. Costs and potential damage to equipment and the contents of these buildings were not considered. Direct losses for every building in the CP/emergency response portfolio in its original (un-retrofitted) state and aggregate values for the CP/emergency response subsectors were calculated. The cost of retrofitting and replacing CP/emergency response buildings was calculated based on market prices and expert judgment. In total, for the 64 buildings analyzed, the total expected replacement cost was €209,304,150 while the seismic retrofit cost was €63,475,330,000. Considering benefits, the number of occupants for each operational area of these assets was calculated. Table 2. Cost analysis of seismic retrofit, energy renovation, and reconstruction of emergency-response related buildings in Croatia SR+EE +TR Total re- Seismic Energy reno- Emergency response-related Number of SR+EE costs of most vul- placement retrofit (SR) vation costs building type buildings (€) nerable (TR) cost costs (€) (EE) (€) buildings (€) CP headquarter of CZ 14 58M 22,9M 6M 28,8M 32,8M County firefighting center 193 18 52,5M 16,3M 6,8M 23M 31,6M County firefighting center 193/ 3 5,7M 1,2M 900,000 2,1M 2,3M national/county center 112 Firefighting station CZ 10 25,2M 6,9M 2,2M 9,1M 10,9M National/county center 112 19 67,9M 16,3M 11,1M 27,4M 30,9M Total 62 209,3M 63,5M 27M 90,6M 108,4M Source: Based on the portfolio assessment data. 55 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS • The total number of avoided fatalities in collapsed buildings was calculated, considering the VSL of €6,000,000,61 with average annual benefits from lives saved of €17,936,584. • Related to energy efficiency, energy consumption, related costs, and CO2 emissions of the emergency response-related buildings in their current (un-retrofitted) state as well as the cost of energy renovation solutions were calculated. Benefits from reduced costs of electricity and CO2 emissions include avoided costs of electricity (€920,061) and avoided costs of CO2 emissions for 20 years (€722,466) and 50 years (€1,519,058). • Based on the above, the analysis determined the NPV, BCR, estimated rate of return (RoR), and payback period for the proposed retrofitting solutions for two planning horizons (20 and 50 years). A summary of the results is presented in Table 3. The results show positive BCRs for seismic retrofit and energy efficiency, especially considering the 50-year life cycle of buildings. Table 3. CP portfolio review - BCA results Planning period (years) Seismic retrofit/ Planning period (years) Seismic retrofit + replacement of the most energy 20 50 vulnerable buildings + 20 50 renovation energy renovation Discount rate 0.05 0.05 Discount rate 0.05 0.05 BCR 2.45 4.07 BCR 2.05 3.39 NPV (€) 115,2M 242,8M NPV (€) 99,5M 227,1M ERR (%) 21.2 22.9 ERR (%) 17.1 19.1 Payback period 9 9 Payback period 10 10 Source: Based on the portfolio assessment data. The TDR approach found significant long-term benefits from modernized, retrofitted buildings in critical infrastructure, including near-zero energy use, reduced seismic risks, and enhanced workspace quality, which have a positive impact on operability and health. The TR cost versus the seismic retrofitting/replacement of the most vulnerable buildings with energy renovation is approxi- mately 3.0-2:1. Additional benefits are anticipated, which were not monetized – such as cultural heritage preservation, environmental interventions, and social aspects, among others. Step 4: Recommendations for a prioritization framework, including various criteria. Based on the analysis, collected data, and consultations with stakeholders, several parameters and criteria were identified. Authorities could consider these as part of an MCA to inform future investment planning for integrated upgrades of priority buildings. Croatia is in a region of moderate to high seismic hazard, but its building stock is relatively old and poorly maintained. The emergency response buildings are often located in “common” buildings, sharing their spaces with other users. The analysis showed that many emergency response buildings are highly vulnerable to seismic events, even in regions of high seismic hazard, and thus, they cannot be expected to remain operational after an earthquake. An intervention strategy aimed at mitigating risk must be developed as soon as possible, identifying representative retrofits for various building typologies, including energy efficiency improvements. Measures for risk mitigation can be divided into short-term, medium-term, and long- term actions. 61 WB and EC. 2021b. Link. 56 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS • Short-term: With short-term measures, it is very difficult to increase the load-bearing capacity of buildings in the event of an earthquake (that is, to significantly improve seismic safety), but restraining non-structural components (such as infill walls and equipment) may be carried out. Urgent measures can also include decisions to relocate to buildings of lower risk. • Medium-term: Critical elements can be identified through a more detailed assessment of critical buildings and targeted measures and interventions for seismic strengthening can be undertaken. Such interventions do not have to be expensive or long-lasting, and smaller interventions can significantly contribute to the safety of the building and, ultimately, the functioning of the system after a disaster. • Long-term: The long-term solution is the strengthening of existing buildings or the construction of new buildings according to current regulations, which will surely remain in operation even after the earthquake. Such activities would convey a message to the wider community about the risk of earth- quakes and indirectly affect the awareness of citizens, as well as the responsibility of the state. Given the importance of CI buildings, all key characteristics should be assessed strategically and on an ongoing basis. As previously discussed, isolated or uncoordinated energy and seismic upgrades are not an effective approach. Strengthening a building’s seismic resilience involves significant structural interventions, making it both logical and efficient to incorporate other essential improve- ments at the same time. Additionally, enhancing resilience to multiple hazards should be a priority. A proactive, compre- hensive strategy is essential, ensuring that upgrades align with long-term planning for each critical building. At the Croatian level, floods and fires have been identified as the most significant risks in risk assessments, and recent experience confirms this. Floods and fires affect the building structure differently, and the damage analysis itself also differs. Floods tend to focus on building components below ground level and building durability (not damage). Fires can threaten the stability of buildings, depending on the material they are constructed of (especially metal), but risk mitigation involves very different measures than strengthening buildings against earthquake effects. These are mostly mea- sures that do not affect the load-bearing structure but are prevented by additional coverings or works. However, it should be recognized that fires and floods can significantly affect the functionality of buildings, that is, most of the other attributes that are collected. 57 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS 4.3. Key takeaways and recommendations This kind of analysis provides a rapid yet robust overview of the state of the portfolio of emer- gency response-related assets while also highlighting options for interventions and broader recommendations to consider as part of a prioritized approach to investments. The study compre- hensively assessed seismic, economic, and energy efficiency aspects, offering insights into the cost- effectiveness of retrofitting CP buildings over different time frames and discount rates. Croatia’s emergency response infrastructure is highly vulnerable to seismic risk, with a large proportion of critical buildings, such as county firefighting centers and CP headquarters, con- structed before the adoption of modern seismic codes. Many of these buildings are made of unreinforced masonry and are located in high-hazard areas, making them particularly susceptible to earthquake damage. The portfolio-level assessment revealed that, for example, over half of county firefighting centers and one-third of other key emergency buildings were built before 1964, and the majority of these would likely suffer moderate to extensive damage in a major earthquake scenario. The assessment also found that energy efficiency across the emergency response building stock is poor, with average energy consumption significantly exceeding EU targets. More than 80 percent of the analyzed buildings require comprehensive renovation to meet both safety and energy perfor- mance standards. This dual vulnerability—structural and operational—means that in the event of a disaster, not only is the physical integrity of these assets at risk, but their ability to provide essential services could be severely compromised. In line with Croatia’s Long-Term Strategy for National Building Stock Renovation and European standards, comprehensive renovation includes both energy and safety upgrades. The TDR approach demonstrated that proactive investments in seismic retrofitting and energy efficiency upgrades are highly cost-effective. The BCRs for combined interventions are strongly positive, especially over a 50-year horizon, with the cost of proactive investment being roughly half that of full replacement after a disaster. In addition, these investments generate broader economic, social, and environmental benefits, such as avoided fatalities, reduced CO₂ emissions, and improved working conditions. Despite these clear benefits, the assessment highlighted significant data and capacity con- straints. The absence of a comprehensive, official building inventory and limited data on building attributes and energy use hinder detailed risk analysis and investment planning. Nevertheless, the rapid, portfolio-level assessment approach proved effective in providing actionable guidance for prioritization, even in a data-poor environment. Finally, the findings and methodology are directly relevant for Croatia’s compliance with EU directives on the resilience of critical entities and climate change/adaptation. The integrated approach supports the country’s long-term building renovation and climate resilience strategies and offers a model for other sectors and countries facing similar challenges. Based on this analysis, several lessons learned/recommendations can be made for Croatia: • Prioritize integrated, multi-hazard upgrades of critical emergency infrastructure. Liked to the above recommendations, Croatia should develop and implement a national program for the integrated seismic and energy renovation of emergency response buildings, focusing first on the most vulnerable and critical assets – building on Long-Term Strategy for National Building Stock Renovation. The results show that over half of county firefighting centers and one-third of other key emergency buildings are at 59 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS high risk of moderate to extensive damage in a major earthquake. Upgrading these assets will not only reduce disaster losses but also ensure continuity of essential services and alignment with EU acquis. • Use portfolio-level, data-driven prioritization frameworks to guide investments. Rapid, portfolio-level assessments could be institutionalized for smart, focused, and evidence-based deci- sions. The TDR approach enables the capture of further benefits, including social/environmental co- benefits. MCA could be used to weigh risk, service criticality, and co-benefits, ensuring that limited resources are allocated where they will have the greatest impact. • Invest in robust data collection and portfolio or asset management systems. To improve the sustainability and efficiency of future investments, Croatia could establish a national inventory of public buildings, including detailed structural, functional, and energy performance data. The assessment found that lack of data is a barrier to effective risk management but also demonstrated that even simplified data collection (for example, online surveys, GIS tools) can provide a strong foundation for prioritization and planning. The analysis conducted in this note could be further bolstered and strength- ened to better advise decisions and continue to provide evidence of no regret investments. • Mobilize and coordinate funding for resilience investments. Given the high BCRs identified, where proactive investment costs are roughly half those of post-disaster replacement, Croatia should dedicate and mobilize funds from national, EU, and other sources for seismic and energy retrofitting – building on the lessons from the NRRP. Innovative financing mechanisms, such as risk transfer instru- ments and public-private partnerships, should be explored to scale up investments and ensure sustainability. • Build institutional capacity and engage stakeholders throughout the process. Strengthening technical and managerial capacity within relevant ministries and agencies is essential for effective risk assessment, project design, and implementation. The assessment also underscores the importance of involving stakeholders, including local governments, emergency services, and civil society, in the prioritization and planning process to ensure ownership and sustainability. • Integrate DRM and CCA in all investments. All upgrades to CI should be climate-proofed and support both mitigation and adaptation objectives. The TDR approach and EC guidelines provide practical tools for identifying no- or low-regret solutions that deliver multiple dividends, including reduced disaster risk, lower emissions, and improved service delivery. • Establish robust monitoring, evaluation, and communication mechanisms. A strong monitoring and evaluation framework should be put in place to track the effectiveness of interventions, including both direct and indirect benefits. Communicating results and lessons learned will help build public and political support for continued investment in resilience. • Foster regional and international collaboration to accelerate learning and implementation. Croatia should leverage lessons from other countries (such as Romania and Bulgaria) and participate in regional knowledge-sharing platforms to continuously improve its approach to CI resilience. This will help ensure that Croatia remains at the forefront of best practices in DRM and CCA. 60 4. APPLICATION OF A PORTFOLIO-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE-RELATED ASSETS 5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD 61 5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD As this note demonstrates, Croatia has at its disposal a suite of practical and scalable tools to strengthen the resilience of its emergency preparedness infra- structure and broader DRM system. The application of these tools with through three complementary approaches has produced a number of important insights and lessons for Croatia and for other countries seeking to advance climate and disaster resilience in a risk-informed and cost-effective manner: • Engage the full spectrum of DRM stakeholders, from CP agencies to urban planners and data managers, in identifying gaps and priorities across the emer- gency preparedness system. Structured, participatory self-assessments like the R2R diagnostic have proven to be effective and adaptable instruments. When applied in a focused manner, these assessments can generate valuable inputs for planning, while remaining light enough to be repeated regularly or applied selectively to key subsys- tems or geographic areas. Ensuring that these assessments are multi-hazard in scope and include climate change considerations will further enhance their value and relevance for both immediate and long-term investment decisions. • Leverage readily available or easily collectible data on hazards, assets, and exposure to serve as a practical starting point for evidence-based and risk-in- formed planning and prioritization. Even rapid analyses, such as those piloted in this note, can generate clear signals about where risks are most concentrated and which types of infrastructure are most exposed. Such analyses can support prioritiza- tion and early action and also inform more detailed studies, including cost-benefit assessments and feasibility analyses for specific investments. Developing and main- taining a national inventory of CI and integrating exposure data into all relevant planning and investment processes will be essential for optimizing resource allocation and maximizing the impact of resilience investments. • Adopt a multi-hazard and climate-smart approach to prevention and prepared- ness. The risk landscape in Croatia, as in much of Europe, is characterized by overlapping hazards, some of which are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change. Planning based on a single hazard is no longer sufficient. The expo- sure analysis described in this note underscores the need to design infrastructure and emergency systems that are adaptive and robust under multiple and compounding risk scenarios. This will require better integration of climate projections and updated hazard models into planning processes, as well as the use of climate-smart risk analytics to inform both new investments and the upgrade of existing assets. • Prioritize integrated, multi-hazard upgrades of critical emergency infrastruc- ture. Isolated or uncoordinated upgrades are not effective in addressing the complex risk environment facing Croatia. Instead, drawing on the lessons of the NRRP, the country should develop and implement a national program or action plan for the renovation of emergency response buildings that integrates seismic, energy, and multi-hazard considerations and focuses first on the most vulnerable and critical assets. Data-driven portfolio-level prioritization frameworks could be used to guide investments, ensuring that upgrades address both structural and operational vulnera- bilities, including network resilience (for example, roads, power lines). Such integrated interventions maximize resilience, cost-effectiveness, and compliance with EU acquis. The implementation of the new Law on Critical Infrastructure (NN 89/25) also provides a good opportunity to start with risk screening and risk reduction for critical entities. 62 5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD • Estimate and communicate the benefits of proactive, smart investments. Benefit-cost and co-benefit analyses like the TDR approach provide a practical tem- plate to calculate costs, benefits, and potential co-benefits of investing in resilient infrastructure. Evidence shows that proactive integrated investments are highly cost- effective and deliver multiple dividends, including avoided losses, energy savings, and social or environmental benefits. When designed to be “smart”—that is, to integrate elements such as energy efficiency, accessibility, or community engagement—such investments can enhance service delivery, promote social inclusion, and generate wider economic benefits. This framing can also support stronger investment cases, particularly when seeking financing from national or international sources. There are opportunities to guide investments—for example, under NRRP and other EU funds— both in the context of post-2020 earthquake reconstruction and more generally. • Building capacity and a culture of resilience remains a critical enabler. Each approach described in this note requires technical and institutional capacity—across data, analytics, planning, and coordination. Supporting practitioners at both the policy and operational levels through training, technical assistance, and peer learning will be key to scaling these tools and ensuring their sustained use. To help ensure that risk-informed planning becomes the norm rather than the exception, these tools should be embedded in institutional routines, whether through national guidance, financial incentives, or cross-sectoral collaboration. Finally, communities, civil society, and the private sector should all be engaged to help ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of resilience measures. They should be involved in planning and moni- toring interventions, updating legal and regulatory frameworks to support integrated, multi-hazard, and disaster or climate-resilient investments, and fostering regional and international collaboration for continuous learning. Looking ahead, Croatia has a clear opportunity to build on the analytics con- ducted. The country offers a regional example of how practical, data-driven tools can inform resilience building at scale. The methodologies and lessons generated through this process are not only relevant for Croatia’s own systems and investments, but also offer valuable knowledge for peer countries across the EU and the Western Balkans. Moreover, the evidence base generated through this work can support Croatia in accessing technical and financial assistance for resilience investments, including from the EU, the World Bank, and other development partners. By institutionalizing these approaches and investing in the capacity to apply them, Croatia can strengthen the resilience of its CI, improve emergency pre- paredness, and reduce the human and economic costs of disasters. In doing so, it can protect development gains, safeguard lives, and contribute to a more resilient and climate-ready Croatia. 63 5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD ANNEX 1. BIBLIOGRAPHY 64 ANNEX 1. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brzev S., Scawthorn, C., Charleson, A.W., Allen, L., European Commission. n.d. iRESIST+ innovative Greene, M., Jaiswal, K., Silva, V. 2013. GEM Building seismic and energy retrofitting of the existing Taxonomy. Link. building stock. Link. City of Zagreb. 2024. “Draft Proposal for the Urban European Commission. n.d. NIS2 Directive: new Security Strategy of the City of Zagreb for the rules on cybersecurity of network and information Period 2025–2030 [Nacrt prijedloga Strategije systems. Link. urbane sigurnosti Grada Zagreba za period 2025.– 2030]. Link. European Environmental Agency. 2017. Climate change impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. Coburn, A., and Spence, R. 2002. Earthquake Link. Protection. 2nd ed. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. European Union. 2022. See Me. Link. Dasović, I., Herak, D., Herak, M., Latečki, H., European Union. 2024a. See Me 2. Link. Mustać, M., Tomljenović, B. 2020. About earth- European Union. 2024b. Disaster Risk Awareness quakes in Croatia [O potresima u Hrvatskoj], Vijesti and Preparedness of the EU Population. Link. Hrvatskog geološkog društva, 57, 1, pp. 4–27. (in Croatian). GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2014. Understanding Risk in an Evolv- Dasović, I., Herak, M., Prevolnik, S. 2021. “About ing World: Emerging Best Practices in Natural earthquakes and seismology – in general”. In Disaster Risk Assessment. Link. Earthquake Engineering – Retrofitting of Masonry Buildings edited by Uroš, M., Todorić, M., Crnogo- Government of the Republic of Croatia. rac, M., Atalić, J., Šavor Novak, M. i Lakušić. Zagreb: 2015. Croatian Mountain Rescue Service University of Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering. Act [Zakon o Hrvatskoj gorskoj službi spašavanja]. Link. Dottori, F., Alfieri, L., Bianchi, A., Lorini, V., Feyen, L., Salamon, P. 2016. River flood hazard maps for Government of the Republic of Croatia. 2019. Europe - version 1. European Commission, Joint Disaster Risk Assessment for the Republic of Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID: Link. Croatia [Procjena rizika od katastrofa za Republiku Hrvatsku]. Main Working Group Croatian National Dottori, F., L. Mentaschi, A. Bianchi, L. Alfieri, and L. Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. Link. Feyen. 2020. Adapting to Rising River Flood Risk in the EU under Climate Change. EUR 29955 EN. Government of the Republic of Croatia. 2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Croatia Earthquake Rapid Damage and Needs Union. doi:10.2760/14505. Assessment 2020. Link. EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database, Government of the Republic of Croatia. 2021. Université Catholique de Louvain–CRED (Centre Croatia December 2020 Earthquake: Rapid for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters), Damage and Needs Assessment. Link. Brussels, Belgium, Link. Government of the Republic of Croatia. 2022. European Commission. 2021. Proposal for a Disaster Risk Management Strategy until 2030 Directive of the European Parliament and of the [Strategija upravljanja rizicima od katastrofa do Council on the energy performance of buildings. 2030. godine]. Link. Government of the Republic of Croatia. 2023a. European Commission. n.d. Enhancing EU State Action Plan of Civil Protection [Državni plan resilience: A step forward to identify critical djelovanja civilne zaštite]. Link. entities for key sectors. Link. 65 ANNEX 1. BIBLIOGRAPHY Government of the Republic of Croatia. 2023b. Law World Bank and European Commission. 2021b. on the Civil Protection System [Zakon o sustavu Financial Risk and Opportunities to Build civilne zaštite]. Link. Resilience in Europe. Link. HCPI (Hrvatski centar za potresno inženjerstvo). World Bank and European Commission. 2024. n.d. Implementacija HCPI u sustav civilne zaštite. From Data to Decisions. Tools for Making Smart Link. Investments in Prevention and Preparedness in Europe. Link. Herak, Marijan, Davorka Herak, and Mladen Živčić. 2021. “Which One of the Three Latest Large World Bank and GFDRR. 2017. Ready2Respond: Earthquakes in Zagreb Was the Strongest—The Framework for Emergency Preparedness and 1905, 1906 or the 2020 One?” Geofizika 38. Link. Response. Washington, DC: World Bank. Link. Holcinger, N., and Simac, Z. 2021. Importance of World Bank. 2021. Montenegro Ready 2 Respond: National Platforms in Disaster Risk Governance. Emergency Preparedness and Response Assess- 1st Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineer- ment Diagnostic Report. Washington, DC: World ing. Link. Bank. Link. Martins, L. and Silva, V. 2021. Development of a World Bank. 2025 (forthcoming). Croatia’s regula- fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic tory framework for seismic resilience. Knowledge risk analyses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. Notes on Select Topics. Overseas Development Institute, GFDRR, and World Bank. 2025a. Seismic Resilience: Experience World Bank. 2015. The Triple Dividend of and Lessons Learned from Japan. Knowledge Resilience: Realising Development Goals through Notes on Select Topics. Link. the Multiple Benefits of Disaster Risk Management. Link World Bank. 2025b. Croatia Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance Policy Note. Knowledge Notes on Shake Map Documentation. Link. Select Topics. Link. Silva, V., Yepes-Estrada, C., Dabbeek, J., Martins, L., World Bank. n.d. “Tokyo Disaster Risk Manage- Brzev, S. 2018. GED4ALL - Global Exposure Data- ment Hub.” Link. base for Multi-Hazard Risk Analysis – Multi-Hazard Exposure Taxonomy, GEM Technical Report 2018- 01, GEM Foundation. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2016. Risk-Proofing the Western Balkans: Empow- ering People to Prevent Disasters. Human Development Report. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2009. Terminology on disaster risk reduction. Link. World Bank and European Commission. 2021a. Investing in Disaster Risk Management in Europe Makes Economic Sense, Background Report. Economics for Disaster Prevention and Prepared- ness. Link. 66 ANNEX 1. BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As part of the application of a Portfolio-Level Assessment of Emergency Response-Re- lated Assets, the following data was sought during the collection step. 67 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Information on building Characteristic name of the building Područni ured Susedgrad Address Sigetje 2 City Zagreb County City of Zagreb Remarks and comments on possible problems related Text to the address ☐ National/County Center 112 ☐ County firefighting station 193 The premises/building for which the form is being filled out ☐ Public firefighting station of the City of Zagreb ☐ Civil Protection Headquarters of the City of Zagreb ☐ Administration ☐ Garage ☐ Stock ☐ Classroom Category of the building ☐ Gym ☐ Polygon Name and surname of the person filling out the Text questionnaire E-mail address of the person filling out the Text questionnaire Name and surname of the responsible person of the Text center/station/headquarters for which the questionnaire is being filled out Year of construction/reconstruction/legalization of the building ☐ Exact year of construction _______ ☐ Construction year interval ☐ >2010 ☐ 1982-2009 ☐ 1965-1981 ☐1945-1964 ☐ 1919-1944 ☐ 1880-1918 ☐ 19th century (<1880) Enter the year/period of construction ☐ 18th century ☐ 17th century ☐ 16th century ☐ 15th century ☐14th century ☐ 13th century ☐ 12th century ☐ 5.-11. para. ☐ 1.-4. para. ☐ Unknown year of construction ☐ Unknown ☐ The exact year of the project is known:_______ Enter the year the building was designed ☐ The data is not available ☐ Not applicable Upload the existing documentation related to the Attachment design and construction of the building ☐ YES, the whole building ☐ YES, a part of the building has been changed or upgraded (for example, the building has been constructed in larger dimensions, a floor has been upgraded, an annex has been Is the building in the process of dealing with illegally added to the building, etc.) constructed buildings ☐ YES, a small part of the building is illegal (for example, the balcony is closed, roof heights are changed, etc.) 68 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ☐ NOT Is the building in the process of dealing with illegally constructed buildings ☐ Unknown Upload the documentation related to the process of Attachment dealing with illegally constructed buildings ☐ Exact year of reconstruction _______ ☐ Reconstruction year interval Enter the year/period of building reconstruction ☐ >2010 ☐ 1982-2009 ☐ 1965-1981 ☐ <1964 ☐ Unknown year of reconstruction ☐ There was no reconstruction Upload the existing documentation related to the Attachment reconstruction of the building Upload any other documentation you think can help Attachment describe characteristics of the building Purpose/occupancy/ownership of the building ☐ Residential ☐ Residential, unknown type ☐ One residential unit (various sizes of residential units, from small family houses to castles) ☐ Multiple units, unknown type ☐ 2 residential units ☐ 3-4 residential units ☐ 5-9 residential units ☐ 10-19 residential units ☐ 20-49 residential units ☐ 50+ residential units ☐ Buildings for temporary residence - holiday home, cottage, apartments ☐ Institutional accommodation - home for children ☐ Institutional accommodation - Pupil or student dormitory (this also includes student pavilions of the Category of building purpose ☐ Military or Police Academy and similar ☐ Institutional accommodation - Home for the elderly ☐ Institutional accommodation - Care for people with disabilities ☐ Institutional accommodation - Care for victims of violence ☐ Institutional accommodation - Care for the homeless ☐ Institutional accommodation - Care for addicts ☐ Mobile home ☐ Business and public ☐ Business and public, unknown type ☐ Stores ☐ Shopping centers and warehouses ☐ Offices, services 69 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ☐ Offices, services ☐ Buildings for health purposes - Health center ☐ Clinics ☐ Hospital ☐ Clinical hospital center ☐ Clinical hospital ☐ Clinic ☐ Polyclinic ☐ Special hospital Health center ☐ Health institute/institute ☐ Pharmacies ☐ Entertainment center - restaurants, bars, cafes ☐ Public building ☐ Covered parking garage ☐ Bus station ☐ Railway station ☐ Airport ☐ Recreation and relaxation ☐ Museums, galleries, archives ☐ Libraries, reading rooms ☐ Mixed use ☐ Mixed, unknown type Category of ☐ Mostly residential and commercial building purpose ☐ Mostly commercial and residential ☐ Mostly commercial and industrial ☐ Mostly residential and industrial ☐ Mostly industrial and commercial ☐ Mostly industrial and residential ☐ Industrial ☐ Industrial, unknown type ☐ Heavy industrial ☐ Light industrial ☐ Agricultural ☐ Agriculture, unknown type ☐ Produce storage ☐ Animal shelter ☐ Agricultural processing ☐ Assembly ☐ Assembly, unknown type ☐ Religious gathering ☐ Arena ☐ Cinema or concert hall ☐ Other gatherings (clubs, premises of political parties, associations, societies, etc.) 70 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ☐ Theatre ☐ Administrative ☐ Administrative, unknown type ☐ Public administration, generally ☐ Center for social welfare ☐ Employment agency or pension insurance agency ☐ Public administration, emergency service - emergency medical assistance institute ☐ Public administration, emergency service - Fire station Category of building purpose ☐ Public administration, emergency service – Police station ☐ Public administration, emergency service – HGSS ☐ Educational ☐ Educational, unknown type ☐ Kindergartens ☐ Elementary school ☐ High school ☐ Higher school/faculty, offices and/or lecture halls ☐ Higher school/faculty, buildings with research areas and/or laboratories ☐ Other types of purposes Ownership ☐ Private ☐ Public (owned by the state or city/municipality) ☐ Mixed ☐ Religious community ☐ Other ☐ In return ☐ Unknown Occupancy of the ☐ >65% of the building is used building ☐ 30%-65% of the building is used ☐ <30% of the building is used ☐ Not in use (for example, built but not in use) ☐ Unfinished (for example, the construction process was interrupted) ☐ Abandoned (for example, after the war) ☐ Not applicable ☐ Poor construction condition/insufficient maintenance Building condition/ maintenance ☐ Moderately good structural condition/partially maintained ☐ Good condition of construction/maintenance 71 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Number of storeys and basic dimensions Enter the number of storeys including the ground floor: Number of storeys above ground ________________ Average storey height in cm ________________ Number of storeys below ground ________________ Height of the ground floor measured from the level of the surrounding ground immediately next to the ________________ building in cm Lateral Load-Resisting System ☐ The type of material is unknown ☐ Masonry (usually brick/stone and mortar masonry)* ☐ Masonry, confined (walls with vertical/horizontal RC elements)* Type of the load-resisting system ☐ Concrete, reinforced ☐ Concrete, unreinforced ☐ Concrete, unknown reinforcement existence ☐ Steel ☐ Wood ☐ Other material Are there reinforced concrete columns at the corners of the walls ☐ YES, at all the floors ☐ YES, at ground floor only If selected Masonry or Masonry confined: ☐ YES, only at the floors above the ground floor Are there reinforced concrete ring beam at the top of each floor ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ Unknown Thickness of the external load-bearing walls in cm ________________ Thickness of the internal load-bearing walls in cm ________________ ☐ Solid brick ☐ Hollow brick ☐ Concrete Material of non-load bearing (partition) walls ☐ Plasterboard Load-bearing construction of ☐ Other below storeys the ground and ☐ Unknown ☐ Not applicable properties of the foundation ☐ There are no underground floors or unknown ☐ Reinforced concrete walls Material of the underground floor load-bearing system ☐ Poorly reinforced or unreinforced concrete (if underground floor exists) ☐ Concrete blocks ☐ Masonry, bricks ☐ Stonewall ☐ Mixed ☐ Other ☐ Not applicable ☐ Unknown ☐ Footings ☐ Wall footings ☐ Slab Type of structure foundation ☐ Pilons ☐ Other ☐ Unknown ☐ Reinforced concrete ☐ Unreinforced concrete Material of foundation ☐ Brick ☐ Stone ☐ Other Floor system ☐ Material of floor system, unknown Floor system material ☐ One-story building (no floor system) 72 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ☐ Wood ☐Concrete / Reinforced concrete ☐ Metal Floor system material ☐ Masonry ☐ Earthen ☐ Other materials ☐ There is no basement ☐ Unknown ☐ Vaults/arches without steel ties ☐ Vaults/arches with steel ties ☐ Prussian vault/cap ☐ Floor system material above the underground floor Wooden beams ☐ Ribbed ceiling ☐ Semi-prefabricated floor system (for example "fert", white ceiling and similar) ☐ Reinforced concrete slab ☐ Mixed (in floor plan or in height) ☐ Other Roof ☐ Unknown shape ☐ Flat ☐ Pitched (with gables) ☐ Four- pitched Roof shape ☐ Pitched with dormers (e.g. roof houses) ☐ Monopitched ☐ Complex regular ☐ Complex irregular ☐ Other shapes ☐ There is no attic floor ☐ Yes, attic If YES, floor on one level (open) ☐ Inhabited ☐ Uninhabited Is there an attic floor? ☐ Yes, two- level attic floor (separated by a floor system) Height of the attic wall in cm _______ Height of the roof structure system from the attic floor _______ to the ridge in cm ☐ The material of the roof structure is unknown Material of the roof system ☐ Masonry ☐ Earthen ☐ Concrete ☐ Metal or steel ☐ Wooden ☐ Textile ☐ Other material ☐ Unknown roof covering ☐ Concrete or RC slab without additional layers ☐ Tiles made of clay or concrete ☐ Fibre cement or metal panels ☐ Membrane (bituminous or synthetic rubber sheets, asphalt, Roof covering etc.) ☐ Slate ☐ Stone slab ☐ Metal or asbestos sheets ☐ Wooden and asphalt shingles ☐ Vegetative ☐ Earthen ☐ Solar panels only ☐ Tensile membrane or fabric roof ☐ Roof covering, other 73 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Building position within the block/Floor plan/ Area of the building ☐ Detached building ☐ Building at the end of a row (adjacent to one building).* Building has one adjacent building or building at the end of a row. ☐ Building within a row (adjacent to two buildings).* A building within a row adjacent to two buildings or on two opposite sides. Location of building whiting the block ☐ Building within a row (adjacent to three buildings).* ☐ Corner building.* Corner building adjacent to two buildings (on adjacent sides). ☐ Position within the block, unknown ☐ Not applicable ☐ Next to a taller building ☐ Next to a shorter building ☐ Next to taller buildings ☐ Next to shorter buildings If the previous answer is *, describe the interaction with adjacent building(s) ☐ Next to taller and shorter buildings ☐ Seismically dilated from adjacent buildings (separated from adjacent buildings, usually the walls are spaced - for example 5 cm) ☐ Unknown ground plan ☐ Square, solid ☐ Square with interior opening (e.g., atrium) ☐ Rectangular, solid ☐ Rectangular with opening ☐ L shape ☐ T shape ☐ U shape ☐ E shape ☐ F shape ☐ A shape ☐ B shape ☐ Curved, solid (e.g., circular, elliptical) Shape of the building plan ☐ Circular with opening ☐ Triangular shape, solid ☐ Triangular shape with opening ☐ H shape ☐ S shape ☐ X shape ☐ Y shape ☐ Irregular floor plan shape ☐ Not applicable Total area of the ground floor of the building (area of __________ all rooms on the ground floor) [m2] Total area of the building (including all floors) [m2] __________ Structural Irregularity Regular or irregular: If the building has a uniform arrangement of walls in the floor plan and there are no significant changes in height, ☐ Unknown structural irregularity ☐ Regular structure it can be considered regular. Irregular constructions have, for example, "soft floor" (see picture), recessed floors, a ☐ Irregular structure ☐ Not applicable change in the type of construction (brick/concrete) in height, walls concentrated in only one part of the building, changes in the height of the building, short columns, and the like. 74 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Does the building have a "soft storey" (see picture and For example, one floor (for example, the ground floor) is higher description) than the others (by more than approx. 15% of the floors below/ above) and/or weaker than the others (for example, it has approx. 30% less columns/walls). This irregularity is common in cases where the ground floor is used for bars, parking lots and the like (e.g. Ilica street). ☐ Yes ☐ No Energy efficiency of the building Does the building have an energy certificate? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, class of energy certificate 1: ☐ A+ ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐F ☐G If there is an energy certificate 2, which class is? ☐ A+ ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐F ☐G Type of thermal insulation that covers most of the ☐ There is no thermal insulation ☐ Thermal plaster* exterior walls of the building. ☐ Expanded polystyrene - Styrofoam (EPS) * ☐ Extruded polystyrene - Styrodur (XPS) * ☐ Mineral wool* ☐ The building has thermal insulation only on a smaller part. * ☐ Lime-cement plaster* ☐ Other ☐ Not applicable Thermal insulation thickness [cm]* __________ Fire protection of the building Number of external staircases (mostly located outside the floor plan (envelope) of the building, often with a different supporting system. If there are no external __________ stairs, enter the value 0) Number of interior staircases (mainly located within the floor plan of the building, and if there are no internal staircases, enter the value 0) __________ ☐ one-flight ☐ two-flight ☐ three-flight ☐ circular Predominant type of staircase? ☐ other ☐ Not applicable ☐ Reinforced concrete ☐ Wooden ☐ Steel Structure type of the staircases: ☐ Unknown ☐ Not applicable ☐ YES, the elevator is located close to the center of the building (centrally placed)* ☐ YES, the elevator is offset in plan from the center of the building (it is placed eccentrically)* Is there an elevator in the building? ☐ YES, outside the building, placed outside the floor plan of the building (on the envelope)* ☐ YES, there are multiple lifts* ☐ NO ☐ Unknown ☐ Not applicable 75 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Is the lift adapted to people with disabilities and ☐ Yes ☐ No reduced mobility? ☐ The elevator is located inside load-bearing walls (for example, reinforced concrete core) ☐ The elevator is located inside the partition walls Define the relation of the elevator structural system to the main structural system of the building. ☐ The elevator is located inside a special structure (independent to the main building structure) ☐ Unknown ☐ Not applicable ☐ YES, the garage is part of the building structure ☐ YES, an underground garage with another load-bearing (structural) system Is there a garage in the building? ☐ YES, shared underground garage for multiple buildings ☐ NO, the garage is in a separate construction next to the building there is no garage ☐ Other ☐ Not applicable Are there an access from the public street to the ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown ☐ Not applicable building - "firefighter route"? Are there firefighter accesses (space around the ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown ☐ Not applicable building that allows access for fire vehicles to openings/walls)? Is the building equipped with appropriate firefighting ☐ Yes ☐ Partially equipped ☐ No equipment? For example, a firefighter hose, axe, fire extinguisher, fire alarm system? Approaching paths and accesses to the building Number of access points to the building that can be __________ accessed by vehicle? Length [cm] _________ What are the maximum dimensions (size) of the Width [cm] _________ vehicle that can access the building? Height [cm] _________ Does the center/station/headquarters for which the ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown ☐ Not applicable form is being filled out share the same access road to the building with another institution/service? Installations ☐ Yes ☐ No Do you have a functional generator as an alternative source of electricity? If YES, what amount of fuel for the generator is __________ currently at the location? Enter the quantity in liters Are there gas installations in the building in question? ☐ Yes ☐ No If YES, describe the location of the main valve (central place to turn off the gas when emergency services intervene in the building) Upload ("upload") scan/photos of blueprints/sketches Attachment of main installation locations 76 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Functionality of centers 112/193/civil protection headquarters What is the total number of currently systematized/ __________ employed users of the center/headquarters? Specify the number of work shifts in one day __________ Number of employees per shift? __________ Enter the average number of employees per work shift Number of employees per shift __________ Number of calls to the center/headquarters per one __________ year Does the center/headquarters have equipment for ☐ Yes ☐ No recording conversations and telecommunications? Is it possible to organize the work of an alternate ☐ Yes ☐ No center (space and equipment)? Does the center/headquarters have a permanent IP ☐ Yes ☐ No address? Does the center/headquarters have a backup Internet ☐ Yes ☐ No communication option? Does the center/headquarters have two independent ☐ Yes ☐ No telecommunication lines (one for emergency reporting and one business line)? What is the total gross area [m2] of the space in which __________ the 112 center /193 center / headquarters of the CP is located? ☐ Basement ☐ Ground floor ☐ At one floor ☐ At several floors At which floor/floor is the operation center 112/193/ city headquarters CP located? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unknown Does the building have secured/adapted access for people with disabilities or reduced mobility? Does the space have natural lighting? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes, in all rooms ☐ Yes, in most rooms Is artificial lighting of 300 lux provided in the premises? ☐ In most rooms not secured ☐ No Can the windows be opened? ☐ Yes ☐ No Do the windows have appropriate curtains/shutters ☐ Yes ☐ No that can prevent sunlight from entering and reflecting on the screen if necessary? Is the space exposed to excessive noise (higher than 60 ☐ Yes ☐ No dBa) that interferes with work in the space? Does the space have a functional type of heating or ☐ Yes ☐ No cooling that ensures that the temperature in the space can be adjusted to a value of 20 to 25 °C? What type of f heating system is used to heat the ☐ Gas central heating ☐ Central heating ☐ Something else rooms in the building? ☐ Yes, for all workers ☐ Yes, for most workers Is 10 m3 of air space or 2 m2 of free floor area provided for each worker? ☐ Not insured for most workers ☐ No Does the building have an evacuation route and is that ☐ Yes ☐ No route marked and clearly visible in the building itself? 77 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Does the building have an evacuation route and is that ☐ Yes ☐ No route marked and clearly visible in the building itself? Are devices that generate high temperatures (e.g. ☐ Yes ☐ No servers) isolated or specially protected in relation to the work area? Is there a separate area in the building for W/M toilets ☐ Yes ☐ No with cold and hot water and heating? Is there a separate area in the building for W/M ☐ Yes ☐ No bathrooms with showers with cold and hot water and heating? Is there a separate area in the building for W/M ☐ Yes ☐ No changing rooms? Is there a separate space in the building for rooms for ☐ Yes ☐ No taking meals? Is there in the building a separate space for rooms for ☐ Yes ☐ No resting? Is there in the building a room for providing first aid? ☐ Yes ☐ No Are all the above-mentioned rooms adapted for use by ☐ Yes ☐ No people with disabilities and reduced mobility? Upload ("upload") scan/photos of blueprints/sketches Attachment of main installation locations Functionality of firefighting stations in the City of Zagreb Do the garage parking spaces for fire trucks in this fire ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not applicable station building have an entrance on one side and an exit on the other side or do you enter and exit on the same side? ☐ Enter the number of parking spaces in the garage (a place for parking a fire engine that is directly accessible from the outside How many garage parking spaces do you have for fire and contains all the equipment that must be located next to the trucks in this fire station building? parked vehicle ready for intervention). ____________________ ☐ Not applicable ☐ Enter vehicle dimensions: What is the maximum vehicle dimensions (length x width x height) that can be parked in a garage space in ____________________ this fire station building? ☐ Not applicable Are the garage parking spaces for firefighting vehicle ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not applicable in this fire station building equipped with a modern smoke extraction system? ☐ Double door What type of door is installed at the entrance to or exit from the garage parking spaces for firefighting vehicle ☐ Roller door in this fire station building? ☐ Hinged door Does this fire station building have a dedicated ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not applicable equipment storage area? Does this fire station building have a dedicated ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not applicable equipment maintenance area? 78 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ☐ Yes Does this fire station building have space and equipment for firefighting and rescue training? (tower, If YES, indicate what equipment the fire station area has: Text labyrinth, polygon, etc.)? ☐ No ☐ Not applicable Is there in the area covered by the unit a training ☐ Yes ☐ No center/exercise field with all the necessary elements? Does this fire station building have a dedicated ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not applicable communication or dispatch room ? Does the dispatch center have equipment for ☐ Yes ☐ No recording conversations and telecommunications? Is it possible to organize the work of a reserve dispatch ☐ Yes ☐ No center (space and equipment)? Does the dispatch center have a permanent IP ☐ Yes ☐ No address? Does the dispatch center have two independent ☐ Yes ☐ No telephone lines (one for emergency reporting connection and one business line)? Enter the time in minutes During the time of increased traffic load (traffic congestion), what is the maximum time required for the intervention service to arrive at the farthest point of the area for which this unit is responsible ? __________ ☐ Yes ☐ No Does the fire department cover its area of operation If not, can you estimate how many facilities are missing for the within 15 minutes? coverage to be equal to the legal requirement? Enter the number of necessary units __________ Enter the time in minutes What is the estimated average time needed from a call for help to intervention arrival of the intervention vehicle within the area for which the fire department is responsible? __________ Enter the time in minutes What is the average time required from the call for help to the vehicle leaving the station? __________ ☐ Yes If YES, what is the total capacity of the fuel tank in liters? Does the fire station have a fuel tank (petrol/diesel)? ___________________ ☐ No Are sleeping areas separated from other work areas ☐ Yes ☐ No where work activities take place in the fire station? ☐ Dormitory What type of dormitories does the fire station have? ☐ Semi-private dormitory (2-6 beds per room) ☐ Private dormitory 79 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION How many total female showers are there in the fire station building? __________ How many male shower rooms are there in total in the fire station building? __________ Enter the number of laundry rooms How much is the laundry room in the fire station building in total? _________________ ☐ Yes Is there a fully equipped kitchen in the building of the fire station (e.g. oven, stove, sink, refrigerator, freezer, ☐ Partially microwave, and cooking and eating utensils)? ☐ No Does the station building contain a meeting room that ☐ Yes ☐ No is separate from other work areas? Does the station building contain a well-equipped ☐ Yes ☐ No exercise room (fitness)? Does the station have the capacity to function as an ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Do not know alternative crisis management center (crisis headquarters)? Is the fire station located in the same building or in the ☐ Yes ☐ No immediate vicinity of the police station and/or civil protection office? Is the fire station located in the immediate vicinity of ☐ Yes ☐ No the ambulance? 80 ANNEX 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION