The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE Issue | 1 October 2018 This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 252746 Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd. 13 Fitzroy Street London W1T 4BQ United Kingdom www.arup.com Document Verification Job title Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Job number Assessment 252746 Document title Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City File reference Hazard and Risk Assessment Document ref 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE Revision Date Filename 20171110-REP-01A_DraftFinal_Freetown.docx Draft 1 24 Nov Description First draft 2017 Prepared by Checked by Approved by AM, GC, JB, AN, Anna Morley Name Matthew Free PR Matthew Free Signature Draft 2 14 Sept Filename 2018 Description Incorporating feedback from Mission #4 and World Bank. Prepared by Checked by Approved by AM, GC, JB, AN, Anna Morley Name Matthew Free PR Matthew Free Signature Issue 1 Oct Filename 20181001-DOC-05B_V2of5_Freetown.docx 2018 Description Incorporating feedback from the World Bank (Rev 05B) Prepared by Checked by Approved by AM, GC, JB, AN, Anna Morley Name Matthew Free PR Matthew Free Signature Issue Document Verification with Document 20180927-DOC-05A_V2of5_Freetown.docx Issue 27 Sep 2018 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX Acknowledgements The Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment would not have been possible without the dedication and support of different partners and stakeholders at national and local levels, who contributed both time and expertise. The assessment was prepared by the Project Team, which consisted of experts from Arup (as the lead organisation), the British Geological Survey (BGS), JBA flood risk consultancy, and the Integrated Geo-information and Environmental Management Services (INTEGEMS) consultancy. Arup wishes to extend great thanks to each member organisation and individual of the Project Team. The dedication, creativity, technical capacity and enthusiasm of the team members made the completion of this project to the best possible quality and practical use possible. The assessment was carried out in partnership with the World Bank, the Government of Sierra Leone, ministries, City and District Councils, and the community. The financial support for this assessment was provided by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the European Union, in the framework of the Africa Caribbean Pacific–European Union Natural Disaster Risk Reduction (ACP–EU NDRR) Program, managed by GFDRR. Arup wishes to acknowledge the World Bank Task Team Leader for this project, Dr. Isabelle Celine Kane, for her commitment, vision, critical feedback, and leadership throughout this project. We would also like to thank a number of other key World Bank staff and consultants for their critical feedback, direction and support in completing this project, including: Deepali Tewari, Sokhna BA, Swati Sachdeva, Robert Reid, and Megha Mukim. We thank Mr. Parminder P. S. Brar, former Country Manager, World Bank Group, for his commitment to the project and in-country support, Gayle Martin, Country Manager, World Bank Group, and Sheik Sesay, Operations Officer, World Bank Group. Arup would like to extend its appreciation and acknowledge the numerous ministries and organizations for their assistance in granting access to information, providing support to the report and for their availability for discussions during the assessment. The Office of National Security (ONS) played a critical role in co- ordinating in-country meetings and workshops with members of the ministries and councils. We thank Mr. Ismail Sheriff Tarashid Tarawali, National Security Coordinator, Mr. John Vandy Rodgers and Mr Nabie Kamara, and many other senior officials from all participating ministries for their immense contribution to the process. In particular, we would also like to acknowledge the mayor of Makeni city, Sunkari Kabba-Kamara, for her engagement, commitment and support to this project, and to the local stakeholders and community members we met during our time in the city who shared important knowledge and feedback. During the course of this project, the Regent-Lumley flood and landslide disaster occurred on August 14th 2017 in Freetown. Subsequently, the Project Team spent two weeks in country collaborating with the World Bank and other government representatives and numerous experts from UN agencies and development partners to complete a Rapid Damage and Loss Assessment (DaLA). Arup would like to acknowledge and thank the extreme effort and quality contributions from 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX all those involved in this mission, as acknowledged in the official World Bank DaLA Report published following the Disaster1. To all the contributors, the team expresses its deepest gratitude and appreciation, especially to the local communities and affected populations, who experience annual flooding during the wet season, and who experienced the devastating effects of the August 14th Disaster. This report would not have been possible without their trust and engagement. 1 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/523671510297364577/Sierra-Leone-Rapid-damage- and-loss-assessment-of-August-14th-2017-landslides-and-floods-in-the-western-area 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX Abbreviations and Acronyms AAL Average annual loss ALARP As low as reasonably possible (or practicable) B/C Benefit cost ratio BGS British Geological Survey CBR Cost-benefit ratio CIDMEWS Climate Information, Disaster Management, and Early Warning System DaLA Damage and Loss Assessment DR Discount rate EU European Union EPA Environmental Protection Agency FCC Freetown City Council GDP Gross Domestic Product GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GVWC Guma Valley Water Company INTEGEMS Integrated Geo-information and Environmental Management Services IRR Internal rate of return JBA JBA Consulting is part of the JBA Group, an environmental, engineering and risk group. km Kilometres MCC Makeni city council m a.s.l. Metres above sea level mm Millimetre No. Number MoWR Ministry of Water Resources NGO Nongovernmental organization NMA Nationals Minerals Agency NPAA National Protected Area Authority NPV Net present value ONS Office of National Security OSM OpenStreetMap SLL Sierra Leone Leone (currency) 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX SLPP Sierra Leone Peoples Party SuDS Sustainable Urban Drainage UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services USD United States Dollar VSL Value of statistical life WASH Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Contents Page Summary of Report 1 1 Introduction 51 1.1 Project background 51 1.2 Outline of the report 52 1.3 Maps and data 53 1.4 Limitations of this report 53 2 Freetown: City Profile and Context 56 2.1 Introduction 56 2.2 Geographic setting and natural hazards in Freetown 56 2.3 Urbanization impact on Natural Hazards in in Freetown 62 2.4 Socio-economics in Freetown 68 2.5 Governance in Freetown 69 2.6 Resilience challenges in Freetown 71 3 Exposure in Freetown 79 3.1 Introduction 79 3.2 Population 80 3.3 Buildings 80 3.4 Roads 81 3.5 Vulnerability 81 4 Flood Hazard and Risk in Freetown 85 4.1 Introduction 85 4.2 Overview of qualitative assessment 85 4.3 Overview of quantitative assessment 87 4.4 Summary of flood risk for Freetown 93 5 Landslide Hazard and Risk in Freetown 98 5.1 Introduction 98 5.2 Overview of qualitative landslide hazard and risk assessment 98 5.3 Overview of quantitative landslide hazard and risk assessment 100 5.4 Summary of the landslide hazard and risk in Freetown 107 6 The Regent-Lumley Disaster within the Context of Flood and Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment in Freetown 109 6.1 Introduction 109 6.2 The Regent-Lumley Disaster 110 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 6.3 Comparison of the landslide and flood hazard modelling with the Regent-Lumley Disaster 113 6.4 Comparison of the landslide and flood risk modelling with losses from the Regent-Lumley Disaster 113 6.5 Summary of observations from the Regent-Lumley Disaster 114 7 Coastal Erosion Hazard and Risk in Freetown 117 7.1 Introduction 117 7.2 Overview of qualitative coastal erosion hazard assessment for Freetown 117 7.3 Overview of quantitative coastal erosion hazard and risk assessment 119 7.4 Estimated 2050 scenario coastal erosion risk 124 7.5 Summary of the coastal erosion hazard and risk in Freetown 124 8 Sea-Level Rise Hazard and Risk in Freetown 128 8.1 Introduction 128 8.2 Overview of qualitative assessment of sea-level rise hazard and risk in Freetown 128 8.3 Overview of quantitative assessment of sea-level rise hazard and risk in Freetown 128 8.4 Summary of the sea level rise hazard and risk in Freetown 133 9 Identification of Areas at Highest Risk from Natural Hazards in Freetown 136 9.1 Introduction 136 9.2 Urban development in combined hazard zones 136 9.3 Existing development in combined hazard zones 139 10 Opportunities for DRR/DRM 142 10.1 Introduction 142 10.2 Sendai Framework 142 10.3 General DRR Approaches for Freetown 143 11 Hazard and Catchment Specific DRR/DRM Measures 168 11.1 Introduction 168 11.2 Flood Hazard Specific DRR/DRM Measures 170 11.3 Landslide Hazard Specific DRR/DRM Measures 183 11.4 Coastal Hazard Specific DRR/DRM Options 189 11.5 DRR/DRM recommendations by catchment for Freetown 198 12 Recommendations 219 12.1 Recommendations for DRR/DRM Priorities 219 12.2 Recommendations from Stakeholders 224 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 12.3 Recommendations for Hazard and Risk Research and Development for Freetown 225 12.4 Management of Slope Stability in Communities 225 12.5 Call for Action 226 13 References 227 Tables Table 1 – High-hazard hotspots in Freetown. Table 2 – Approximate built environment area and expansion rate in Freetown. Table 3 – Existing development within combined hazard zones (Map FT-0117, Page 21): Table 4 – Summary of quantitative risk results for Freetown. Table 5 – Summary of high-risk hotspot areas of Freetown. Table 6 – Appropriate DRR/DRM measures for Freetown Table 7 – Natural hazard and risk assessment scope in Freetown, Makeni and Bo Table 8 – Approximate built environment area and expansion rate in Freetown metropolitan area Table 9 – Modelled distribution of building typology in Freetown Table 10 – Flood risk (Freetown). Table 11 – Return period flood losses (Freetown). Table 12 – Landslide risk (Freetown). Table 13 – Summary of high hazard zones estimated from 2050 scenario coastal erosion and associated processes. Table 14 – Presents an overview of the 2050 scenario coastal erosion risk to Freetown. Table 15 – Sea-level rise risk 2050 scenario (Freetown). Table 16 – Development within Combined Hazard Zones. Table 17 – Environmentally damaging practices in Freetown Table 18 – DRR/DRM for Freetown within the context of the Sendai Framework. Table 19 – Appropriate DRR/DRM measures for Freetown. Table 20 – Capital and operational costs for Option 1 – Hazard and Risk Communication Table 21 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 1 – Hazard and Risk Communication Table 22 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 1 – Hazard and Risk Communication Table 23 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 2 – Reforestation and Revegetation of All Catchments. Table 24 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 2 – Reforestation and Revegetation of All Catchments Table 25 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 2 – Reforestation and Revegetation of Four Selected Catchments 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 26 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 3 – River Delta Rehabilitation Table 27 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 3 – River Delta Rehabilitation Table 28 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 3 – River Delta Rehabilitation Table 29 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 4a – Mangrove Coastal Protection Table 30 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 4b – Rock Revetment Coastal Protection Table 31 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 4c – Rock Rip-Rap Coastal Protection Table 32 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 4 – Mangrove Coastal Protection Table 33 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 4 – Coastal Protection Table 34 – Summary of Cost-Benefit Results Figures Figure 1 – Overview of the key stages in this project. Figure 2 – Natural hazards in Freetown: annual flooding example from Congo Cross area 2017; landsliding (the Regent landslide, August 2017); coastal erosion and sea-level rise (2017 Google Earth satellite image of Kroo Bay coastal delta, northern Freetown). Figure 3 – Overview of the exposure gridding process: A. Buildings digitised to approximate outline in OpenStreetMap and downloaded into GIS; B. Building location, value and typology are gridded to a 30m regularly spaced grid; and C. This grid is used to facilitate hazard and risk calculations. Light to dark on grid (B. and C.) indicates increasing building density. Field of view is approximately 700m across. Figure 4 – One of the residential buildings partially destroyed by landsliding in Regent, August 2017. This is an example of the fragility of buildings in terms of landslide hazard. Figure 5 – Schematic plan-view illustration of a typical natural catchment in Freetown showing selected DRR/DRM measures. Figure 6 – Example of selected DRR/DRM measures for flooding at catchment scale. Figure 7 – Murals educating communities about Ebola, an example of effective hazard and risk communication in Freetown. Figure 8 – Diagram extracted from the World Bank report “Learning from Mega disasters – Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake”. Figure 9 – The MoSSaiC community based drainage system to reduce flooding and landslide hazard and risk (World Bank Project Insights 78723 Issue #12). Figure 10 – Community tree planting initiatives 12. Figure 11 – An example of the Freetown coastline at Aberdeen Creek. Figure 12 – Diagram extracted from “The Global Value of Mangroves for Risk Reduction”, at www.nature.org/GlobalMangrovesRiskReductionTechnicalReport Figure 13 – Satellite images (Google Earth Pro) showing deforestation and urbanisation close to New England, Freetown WUA, in 2005 (Top) and 2016 (Bottom). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 14 – Simplified geological map of Sierra Leone. Freetown outlined in black. Source, Ministry of Water Resources/ASI (2015). Figure 15 – Flooding close to Congo Cross, Freetown ~August 2017 © The Sierra Leone Telegraph. Figure 16 – The Regent landslide, Freetown August 2017. Figure 17 – Satellite imagery showing Kroo Bay in 2006 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) Figure 18 – Satellite imagery showing Calaba Town in 2005 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) Figure 19 – Satellite imagery showing Aberdeen Creek in 2006 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) Figure 20 – Satellite imagery showing Sussex in 2005 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) Figure 21 – Two Landsat satellite images highlight the extent of deforestation between 1986 (top) and 2017 (bottom). Healthy vegetation is shown in red, unhealthy vegetation and urban areas are grey; the right-hand image also shows the Regent-Lumley disaster. Figure 22 – Bomeh dump site: the black arrow points to garbage burning on top of the dump. People have been circled in white for scale. Figure 23 – Economic activities in Freetown (Western Area Urban, WU, and Western Area Rural, WR) (World Bank, 2017). Figure 24 – Deforestation in the Regent area, Freetown. The top photo is an example of where natural forest still exists (top); the bottom photo shows an example close by where forest has been removed in place of buildings. Photos were taken during March 2017 and August 2017 field Missions. Figure 25 – Disappearing mangrove in Aberdeen Creek (top photo). The bottom satellite images show loss of mangrove (white dashed outline) by deforestation between 2005 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro). Note also, the obvious urban development along the coast during this time. Figure 26 – Waste-filled river channel at Kroo Bay, Freetown. Photo taken during the field Mission in March 2016. Figure 27 – Sources of drinking water identified following the Regent-Lumley Disaster (World Bank, 2017). Figure 28 – Overview of the exposure gridding process: A. Buildings digitised to approximate outline in OpenStreetMap and downloaded into GIS; B. Building location, value and typology are gridded to a 30m regularly spaced grid; and C. This grid is used to facilitate hazard and risk calculations. Light to dark on grid (B. and C.) indicates increasing building density. Field of view is approximately 700m across. Figure 29 – Example of qualitative flood hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is in the upper catchment of Gloucester (see inset map for approximate location). Light blue indicates lower qualitative flood hazard and dark blue indicates higher qualitative flood hazard. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 30 – Example of quantitative flood hazard data viewed in a GIS (river and surface water flooding, 20-year return flood). Area shown is in the upper catchment of Gloucester (see inset map for approximate location). Light blue indicates lower floodwater depth and dark blue indicates greater floodwater depth. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 31 – Loss exceedance curve (flooding, number people affected) for Freetown (also showing Makeni and Bo for comparison). Figure 32 – Loss exceedance curve (flooding, number fatalities) for Freetown (also showing Makeni and Bo for comparison). Figure 33 – Loss exceedance curve (flooding, direct loss to all buildings) for Freetown (also showing Makeni and Bo for comparison). Figure 34 – Example of qualitative landslide hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is around Leicester and Kissy Brook (see inset map for approximate location). Light pink indicates high qualitative landslide hazard and darker red indicates very high qualitative landslide hazard. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 35 – Example of quantitative landslide hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is around Charlotte (see inset map for approximate location). Lighter red indicates individual 30m pixels that are estimated to be affected by landsliding at a return period of 5,000–2,000 years. Darker red indicates individual 30m pixels that are estimated to be affected by landslides more frequently than at a return period of 2,000 years. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 36 – The landslide at Regent. This photograph is looking north from several valleys away; it shows the mountainside that failed in the August 14th disaster. The height of the brown region is around 300m. The white circle shows the location from which the photo in Figure 37 was captured (looking to the east). Figure 37 – Field photo view east taken from a location around half way up the landslide debris material, the field team have been circled to illustrate the massive scale of the landslide. Figure 38 – Pre- and post-disaster satellite imagery showing the extent of the area affected by the Regent-Lumley debris flow (World Bank, 2107). Figure 39 – View west along the path of the debris flow towards Lumley Bay in the far distance. Photo taken August 2017 shortly following the disaster. Figure 40 – Before (top) and after (bottom) satellite imagery showing the impacts along the channelized debris flow. The channel is over 100m wider than before. A multi-storey house in the channel (circled in red), although still standing has been almost completely destroyed by the flow. Figure 41 – Lumley Beach with a view to Aberdeen, northwest Freetown (top); Kroo Bay delta, northern Freetown (bottom). Figure 42 – Zones of characteristic coastal erosion Figure 43 – Example of 2050 scenario quantitative coastal erosion hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is approximately 2km south of Lakka (see inset map for approximate location). Light purple shows the lower estimate land loss map and dark purple shows the upper estimate land loss map. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 44 – Example of 2050 scenario quantitative sea-level rise hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is approximately Kroo Bay (see inset map for approximate location). Light orange shows the lower estimate inundation map and dark orange shows the upper estimate inundation map. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 45 – Examples of deforested trees turned into scaffold poles to support construction, Freetown. Photos taken during the March 2016 field mission. Figure 46 – Example of community drainage construction scheme – MoSSaiC (Anderson and Holcombe, 2013). Figure 47 – Schematic illustration of a mountain catchment and flood hazard DRR/DRM measures recommended for Freetown. Figure 48 – The negative effects of an unplanned, overly urbanised catchment (top left) in contrast to the positive effects of a natural catchment (top right). The lower satellite images (dated 2017) taken from Google Earth Pro, and show two different middle catchment areas in Freetown. One where dense urbanisation has occurred along the natural river channel, the other where the natural vegetation surrounding the channel remains. Figure 49 – The MoSSaiC community based drainage system to reduce flooding and landslide hazard and risk (World Bank Project Insights 78723 Issue #12). Figure 50 – Land readjustment can be an alternative to high-rise construction for densification of safer areas through spot zoning (diagram from https://unhabitat.org/books/remaking-the-urban-mosaic-participatory-and- inclusive-land-readjustment/ ) Figure 51 – Schematic illustration of a mountain catchment and landslide hazard DRR/DRM measures recommended for Freetown. Figure 52 – Schematic illustration of a catchment and coastal change hazard DRR/DRM options recommended for Freetown. Figure 53 – Mangrove preservation Figure 54 – Sand mining Figure 55 – Schematic diagram showing riprap Figure 56 – Schematic diagram showing rock armour revetment Figure 57 – Schematic diagram showing vertical sea walls Figure 58 – Example of groynes used to accumulate beach sediment. Figure 59 – Example of wooden (top) and rock (bottom) groynes. Figure 60 – Example of detached breakwaters. Figure 61 – GoogleEarth Pro satellite images of Lumley Beach, Freetown in 2005 (bottom) and 2017 (top). Mangrove has been intensely deforested in the area of the righthand side of the images. The beach has been significantly impacted by construction of new buildings. Figure 62 – Example of selected proposed coastal and flood DRR measures in C1 viewed in a GIS. Area shown is Lumley Creek (see inset map for approximate location). The light orange section of the coast is where soft engineering measures have been recommended, dark orange/brown areas of the coast are where hard engineering measures have been recommended. Flood-hazard signage locations are indicative. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 63 – GoogleEarth Pro satellite images of White Man’s Bay and the coast of Kingtom in 2005 (top) and 2017 (bottom). The Ascension Town Road Bridge can be seen in the bottom of the images – this is the type of high flood-risk area that would benefit from an engineered green channel. North along the coast of the river outlet, vertical sea walls have already been implemented in the 2017 image. Figure 64 – Top: Kroo Bay delta community Google Earth Pro satellite image 2017; Bottom: view towards the ocean through the Kroo Bay River channel (bottom). Photo taken March 2016. Figure 65 – Example of selected proposed flood DRR measures in C2 and C3 viewed in a GIS. Area shown is Kroo Bay (in the east) and White Man’s Bay (in the west), also Congo Town, close to the stadium (see inset map for approximate location). The brown areas indicate natural deltas that are recommended to be rehabilitated back to their natural condition. Green boxes are indicative locations within which engineered green channels have been recommended. Flood-hazard signage locations are indicative. Blue areas indicate the 100 year flood extent. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 66 – Example of selected proposed DRR measures in C4 viewed in a GIS. Area shown is Cline Bay (see inset map for approximate location). The brown area indicates natural deltas that are recommended to be rehabilitated back to their natural condition. Green boxes are indicative locations within which engineered green channels have been recommended. Flood-hazard signage locations are indicative. Green areas indicate the hazard zone for flooding in this area. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 67 – Example of selected proposed DRR measures in C6 viewed in a GIS. See inset map for approximate location. The stippled light and brown areas are indicative regions for reforestation. Red landslide hazard signs are shown in indicative locations. Green areas indicate the hazard zone for flooding and landsliding in this area. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Figure 68 – The MoSSaiC community based drainage system to reduce flooding and landslide hazard and risk (World Bank Project Insights 78723 Issue #12). Figure 69 – Community tree planting initiatives. Figure 70 – An example of the Freetown coastline at Aberdeen Creek. Figure 71 – Diagram extracted from “The Global Value of Mangroves for Risk Reduction”, at www.nature.org/GlobalMangrovesRiskReductionTechnicalReport Appendices Appendix A Cost-Benefit Analysis 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Appendix B Maps 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 1 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Summary of Report This report provides a summary of the results from a natural hazard and risk assessment undertaken for the city of Freetown in Sierra Leone, including flooding, landsliding, coastal erosion and sea-level rise. The project also provides disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster risk management (DRM) options informed by a high-level cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The aim of these options is to save lives, reduce the potential for damage to critical buildings and infrastructure, and reduce the potential economic losses. The key stages of the project are outlined in Figure 1 and the key messages for stakeholders and interested parties are presented in the sections that follow. Figure 1 – Overview of the key stages in this project. Limitations to this project include (but are not limited to): • This study is a city scale study and results have been reported and discussed at city scale. Data input at city scale does not allow for output at detailed resolution and would not be appropriate for design of individual engineering structures. • There are many limitations and assumptions of data input and modelling practices necessary for a city-scale study in a data-poor region. These have been addressed in the Methodology Report (Volume 1). • The flood risk model underestimated the number of fatalities in the Regent- Lumley disaster. It is interpreted that this disparity occurs because the probability of death for a person having been affected by a flood is estimated without consideration of floodwater velocity. This is a necessary assumption 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 1 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment for city-scale modelling, however, clearly the probability of death for a person affected by a fast-moving debris-laden flood (a debris flow) is higher than for a person affected by slower moving debris-sparse food-waters. • This study addresses specific natural hazards. It is recognised that Sierra Leone suffers from many other hazards including epidemics, wild fire, land degradation, household fires etc. Information has been compiled in this project which could be used to study these hazards in the future, however the focus of this project is on addressing the hazard and risk associated with flooding, landslides and coastal erosion and sea-level rise. • This report is only focused on shocks and does not consider chronic stresses such as lack of clean basic services, poverty, unemployment, low coping capacity etc. that adds to the vulnerability quotient of the population at risk • Risk to agriculture is not included in this multi-city project given the primarily urban context. • For the cost assumptions, 2017 USD$ values are assumed. • No indirect costs or benefits are included in the calculation of cost-benefit ratio of DRR/DRM options in Appendix A. For example, reforestation, in addition to saving lives and assets (which are accounted for) may in the longer term contribute to improved health and environmental benefits, that are benefits not accounted for. Business interruption is an example of indirect losses that are not accounted for. Costs are quantified in terms of the capital and operational expenditure required to implement the proposed DRR/DRM measure (e.g. the cost to construct and maintain flood protection measures). The net costs and the net benefits are calculated over an assumed design life of 33 years (i.e. from 2018 to 2050) for all proposed DRR/DRM options. Project Reports Five report volumes have been prepared for this project including: • Volume 1 – Methodology and Summary of Results and Recommendations for all cities. • Volume 2 – Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Hazard • Volume 3 – Makeni City Hazard and Risk Assessment Hazard • Volume 4 – Bo City Hazard and Risk Assessment Hazard • Volume 5 – Map Pack, containing all maps for all cities in large A3 page size format Volumes 2, 3 and 4 should be read in combination with Volumes 1 and 5. Project Data This project has produced a series of maps that show where the high-hazard and high-risk areas are in Freetown. These maps (and tables) also provide quantitative numbers in terms of, for example, the modelled depth of floodwaters, the number 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 2 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment of fatalities, people affected, and damage to buildings in USD$ that can result from the different natural hazards. The maps presented in this report have been reduced in size to fit on an A4 page to provide an example of the type of data available from this project for the executive summary and this report. The full series of A3 page size maps are provided separately in Volume 5 of this report. All data (as shown on the maps) are digital and can be viewed at different scales and interrogated interactively using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. All data are open source, freely available, and will be available for download. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 3 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Hazard Natural hazards are “natural processes or phenomena that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage” (UNISDR, 2017). Flooding, Landslides, Coastal Erosion and Sea-Level Rise in Freetown Freetown is mountainous, coastal, and experiences annual monsoonal rains. It is this combination of natural environmental factors that result in frequently occurring natural disasters (e.g. Figure 2). Map FT-0048 (Page 7) shows the high-hazard zones for surface and river water flooding (blue). Map FT-0069 (Page 8) shows the high-hazard zones for landsliding (red). Map FT-0167 (Page 9) shows the coastal erosion (purple) and sea-level rise (orange) high hazard zones in Freetown based on a 2050 scenario accounting for the effects of climate change. The different hazards affect different areas of the city but sometimes they coincide. They affect these areas to different levels of intensity. This is the first time the patterns of natural hazard in Freetown have been quantitatively mapped at city-scale allowing decision makers and urban planners to understand where zones of high natural hazard exist. A summary of the different high-hazard hotspots in Freetown are presented in Table 1. High-hazard hotspots Table 1 – High-hazard hotspots in Freetown. High Hazard Hazard Hotspot Area, Freetown The natural river valleys in wards such as Regent, Bathurst, Charlotte, Kamayama, Juba, Lumley, Dworzark, Gloucester, Kissy Byepass Congo Market, Ascension Flooding Town. The low-lying areas close to the coast in wards such as Goderich, Hamilton and York (Map FT-0048, Page 7). Steep slopes, and mountain valleys, particularly in the upper and middle areas of the catchments. Wards including Regent, Charlotte, Bathurst, Hamilton, Landsliding Thunderhill all show these high landslide hazard hotspots (Map FT-0069, Page 8). The coastal parts of the city, particularly the western beaches including: Lakkah, Coastal Erosion Goderich and Hamilton beaches (Map FT-0167, Page 9). Sea-level rise particularly affects the low-lying coastal deltas along the north coast, including Kroo, Cline and Susan’s Bay. Additionally, Lumley beach is highlighted Sea-Level Rise as a sea-level rise hotspot and the mangrove areas in the southwest and southeast around Allen Town II (Map FT-0167, Page 9). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 4 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 2 – Natural hazards in Freetown: annual flooding example from Congo Cross area 2017; landsliding (the Regent landslide, August 2017); coastal erosion and sea-level rise (2017 Google Earth satellite image of Kroo Bay coastal delta, northern Freetown). Patterns of High Hazard • Surface and river water flooding: the natural river channels, valleys, river deltas and broad low-lying near coastal areas of the city have been highlighted as high flood hazard zones (Map FT-0048, Page 7). Flooding in the natural channels is as expected due rapid runoff of surface water made worse by deforestation of upper catchment areas. • Landsliding: the highest landslide hazard zones are within the natural river channels/mountain valleys particularly in the upper catchment areas, and to a relatively lesser extent the steep high-relief mountain slopes where the landslide initiates (Map FT-0069, Page 8). The high landslide hazard occurs in the channels and mountain valleys because the landslides initiate on the steep surrounding slopes, runout downslope to the valley, with debris accumulating and travelling down the valley. • Coastal erosion: the highest hazard areas are the sandy beaches on the west coast of the peninsula (Map FT-0167, Page 9). Coastal erosion is determined by measuring the rate of land loss at the coastline over time by looking at successive years of satellite imagery and projecting this rate of 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 5 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment erosion change into the future to 2050. Coastal erosion occurs in areas of coastline with erodible geology subject to erosion via coastal processes such as wave action and scour by sea currents. • Sea-level rise: Broad, low-lying areas close to the coast and the natural coastal deltas are high-hazard zones (Map FT-0167, Page 9). Sea-level rise is investigated by mapping the amount of coastal land that will potentially be inundated as a result of climate change induced sea-level rise. As expected, sea level rise inundation occurs in low lying coastal areas. Coastal erosion and sea-level rise have been considered separately because the underlying physical processes, their timescales and affects are different and each affect the same and different zones of the coastline. If analysed together, these important patterns would not be distinguishable. However, both coastal hazards have been modelled such that they interact, for example, the rate of coastal erosion includes the ongoing impact of climate change and sea-level rise. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 6 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 7 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 8 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 9 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Combined Hazard Zones to Inform Urban Planning Map FT-0112 (Page 138) shows the hazard zones for each different natural hazard combined onto one summary map, i.e. the map shows “hazard” if any of the hazards occur at that location. The current, i.e. present day, hazard zones are shown in dark pink, the lighter pink areas show the extent of the Combined Hazard Zones in the near future (year 2050) accounting for climate change. This map has two key functions for decision makers: • The map indicates the areas of the city at risk from natural hazards currently. These maps can help to inform decision makers where further development should be discouraged, unless appropriate planning and engineering procedures are in place. It also identifies the areas where public awareness with regard to natural hazard and risk should be focussed. • The map indicates that, in the near future (2050), a greater extent of the city will be within hazard zones due to the impact of climate change. This needs to be taken into consideration for urban planning, development and zoning for the city. It would be sensible therefore to increase the density of future urban development in areas of lower hazard and to minimise development in areas of the city where the hazard is highest. It is understood that a wider range of issues need to be taken into consideration by decision makers when planning urban development. This report only provides recommendations related to natural hazard and risk specifically related to flooding, landsliding, coastal erosion and sea level rise. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 10 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 11 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Exposure “The situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other tangible human assets...” (UNISDR, 2017). Rapid population growth and unplanned urbanisation over the last several decades in Freetown mean that people now live in parts of the Freetown peninsula that are highly prone to natural hazards. Over the last 40 years, the built-up area of Freetown has expanded by approximately 75km2, equivalent to 50 times the area of Aberdeen (a coastal neighbourhood in Freetown). The average population rate expansion of urban areas of Freetown has been approximately 4% since 1963 (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). The estimated population of the city from the 2015 census is 1.1 million people. People, Buildings and Infrastructure in Freetown This project has generated a digital exposure model for Freetown. The model provides a spatial inventory of population, buildings (including the estimated building usage categories), and roads aggregated to a 30m x 30m grid (Figure 3). The grid scale of the exposure model is appropriate to assess city-wide hazard and risk. Figure 3 – Overview of the exposure gridding process: A. Buildings digitised to approximate outline in OpenStreetMap and downloaded into GIS; B. Building location, value and typology are gridded to a 30m regularly spaced grid; and C. This grid is used to facilitate hazard and risk calculations. Light to dark on grid (B. and C.) indicates increasing building density. Field of view is approximately 700m across. Map FT-0004, Page 14, shows the built environment density of Freetown modelled by this project. Darker grey areas indicate parts of the city where the building density is greater, whilst the solid red polygons close to the coast indicate hotspot areas of densely urban informal settlements as identified during project workshops, from imagery and as part of the exposure modelling for this project (including Cline Bay, Kroo Bay, and Susan’s Bay etc.). The most densely built-up 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 12 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment parts of the city are in the central northern coastal flats between Kingtom in the west and Cline Bay in the east (Map FT-0004, Page 14). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 13 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 14 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Map FT-0003 (Page 64) shows how the urban boundary of Freetown has grown over time between 1974 to 2017. Freetown has developed in three main geographic areas (Map FT-0004) as well as areas of informal settlements: • Coastal settlements where the land and is low-lying and relatively flat. • Inland settlements along, within and surrounding the natural river valleys and estuaries and their floodplains. • Hillside settlements on the steep hills and lower mountain slopes of the city, such as the Regent, Hillstation, Bathurst and Grafton areas, which are rapidly encroaching into vital forestland. • Informal settlement hotspots close to the coast particularly in the north of the peninsula where river deltas have formed and dense informal communities have settled (Map FT-0004, Page 14). Informal settlements contribute to shoreline transformation via artificial reclaimed land at the coast (Figure 2). Table 2 below provides the approximate built environment expansion rate in Freetown determined as part of this project. The approximate annual built environment expansion rate is useful to decision makers. It indicates the scale and rate of the rapid urbanisation issue in Freetown and can help to plan financial budgets for urban planning and DRR/DRM. Table 2 – Approximate built environment area and expansion rate in Freetown. Year Approximate urban and Approximate expansion Approximate annual peri-urban area (km2)2 rate3 expansion rate4 1974 59 - - 1986 73 +24% 2% 2005 83 +41% 0.7% 2010 116 +97% 7% 2017 133 +125% 2% 2 Area extent of city expansion has been estimated from satellite image interpretation. 3 Built environment expansion rate is the rate of increased urbanised area compared with 1974 4 Annual urban expansion rate is average rate of increase between dates (e.g. 1974-1986) 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 15 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 16 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Patterns of Exposure Map FT-0152, Page 82, shows the gridded modelled population density for Freetown. Darker pink areas of the city have a modelled population density value that is higher than the lighter pink areas of the city. The areas of highest population density are concentrated along the northern coastal flats of the city. The encroachment of people into the hills of Regent and Bathust have been highlighted by this model. It is important to benchmark urban expansion of the city in this way to inform future planning. Map FT-0162, Page 84, shows the gridded modelled road value for Freetown, again darker pink sections indicate higher modelled values in USD$ than lighter pink sections. The darker pink areas correspond to paved primary roads, which form the Peninsular Highway and the main NW-SE Hillstation to Hastings Highway, as expected have a higher cost than other road types. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 17 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 18 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 19 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Existing Development in Combined Hazard Zones A major problem with the rapid population growth and unplanned urban development in the city is that people now live in areas that are subject to natural hazards and are significantly impacted on a regular basis. The hazard and exposure data have been overlaid and used to identify where existing development coincides with the current (dark pink) and future 2050 (lighter pink) Combined Hazard Zones across the city (Map FT-0117, Page 21). The Combined Hazard Zones will be larger by 2050 due to climate change causing more flooding, landsliding, coastal erosion and sea-level rise. Decision makers can use Map FT-0117 and Map FT-0112 in combination to inform urban zoning plans for the city. These zoning plans should take into account the location and distribution of the high-hazard zones. Lower-hazard areas can potentially be used to accommodate more of the existing population living in high-hazard areas and be used to accommodate future population growth. Around 10% of Freetown’s population currently lives in high-hazard zones (Table 3). Table 3 – Existing development within combined hazard zones (Map FT-0117, Page 21): Numbers within current Numbers in combined high hazard combined high hazard zones zones accounting for climate change* Population ~100,000 ~200,000 Buildings ~12,000 ~25,000 *Based on current model for population and buildings. The hazard models account for climate change to 2050. Does not consider expected population and building count increase to 2050. Decision makers can to use a combination of Maps FT-0117 and FT-0124, to understand 1) where most of the high-risk development has occurred spatially (FT-0117), 2) how it relates to the size of the ward (FT-0124), and 3) what budgets are available and who (communities/officials) should be involved in discussions for specific DRR/DRM planning. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 20 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 21 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Informal and formal settlements in Combined Hazard Zones The approximate numbers of formal and informal settlements in the Combined Hazard Zones have been estimated. In general, there are relatively more informal settlements within Combined Hazards Zones than formal settlements: Formal Buildings in Combined Hazard Zones (2050): • 13,270 formal buildings in Combined Hazard Zones (year 2050) in Freetown. This is 15% of all formal buildings in Freetown (85,469). Informal Buildings in Combined Hazard Zones (2050): • 11,190 informal buildings in Combined Hazard Zones (year 2050) in Freetown. This is 23% of all informal buildings in Freetown (48,492). The 2050 upper scenario sea-level rise model estimates 2,280 buildings affected. Of these, 353 are formal (15%) and 1,922 are informal (85%). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 22 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Vulnerability “The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards.” (UNISDR, 2017). The fragility of buildings and roads and vulnerability of the population have been modelled (estimated numerically). For example, fragility functions that relate the depth of flood water to the severity of building damage have been created for a selection of property types. Vulnerability functions have been developed, which then relate the fragility functions to the estimated numbers of fatalities or people affected for each hazard. Figure 4 – One of the residential buildings partially destroyed by landsliding in Regent, August 2017. This is an example of the fragility of buildings in terms of landslide hazard. This project has principally modelled physical vulnerability. Social vulnerability has also been investigated by differentiating between areas of formal (planned) development and informal (unplanned) development and the population distribution in these areas. The factors contributing to social vulnerability has not been investigated via this systematic review of natural hazard and risk. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 23 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Risk “The potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could occur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as a function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity.” (UNISDR, 2017). Risk calculations have been undertaken to determine the potential impact of flooding, landslides, coastal erosion and sea-level rise on the people, buildings and infrastructure. The modelled5 risk results (Table 4) provide estimates of the average annual losses (AAL) from each different hazard i.e. the expected loss per year averaged over many years. These averages help decision makers plan for the range of potential losses in the long term. Using this consistent measure allows the risk associated with the different natural hazards to be compared and DRR prioritised. Table 4 – Summary of quantitative risk results for Freetown. Average annual (direct) loss estimates6 Risk metrics Coastal Flooding Landslides Sea-Level Rise* Erosion* Average annual 9 11 0 0 number fatalities Average annual number persons 3,011 140 301 296 affected Average annual road n/a^ 0.2 0.2 0.2 length affected (km)7 Number buildings n/a^ 16 37 57 affected Average annual direct loss to $2,547,000 $355,000 $3,982,303** $1,419,030** buildings (USD$) Average annual direct loss to buildings (USD$) as 0.06% 0.01% 0.11% 0.04% percentage of country GDP8 *2050 scenario including climate change. **The 2050 scenario average value estimate has been divided by 33 years to estimate the AAL. Future population growth and increase in buildings has not been considered in the 2050 scenario numbers. 5 The model uses historical and simulated input data to estimate the impacts of different natural hazards on the built and human environment. 6 Indirect losses have not been calculated by this study. 7 The average annual road affected is the same for each hazard, however, the ranges are significantly different. 8 Country GDP 3.7 billion USD$ from https://data.worldbank.org/country/sierra-leone [Accessed 19.06.2018] 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 24 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Indirect losses and currency inflation have not been considered. ^ Number not reported. The direct losses for each natural hazard have also been calculated as a percentage of the country GDP (USD$). These percentages are relatively small as they reflect the average loss annually. A disaster may occur one year, whereas many other years may be disaster-free. For example, the August 2017 World Bank Rapid Damage and Loss Assessment (DaLA) following the devastating Regent-Lumley Disaster documented that the Government of Sierra Leone had put aside 6.4 million USD$ in preparation for a natural disaster response, however, the estimated damage and loss across the multiple sectors affected during this event was approximately 30 million USD$, closer to 1% of the country’s GDP compared with the AAL for landslides and flooding of 355,000 USD$ (0.01% GDP) of and 2.5 million USD$ (0.06% GDP), respectively. Key Risk Results for Freetown • Flooding and landsliding cause the most annual fatalities; • Coastal erosion and sea-level rise are very unlikely to result in fatalities; • Flooding affects the most people city-wide; and, • Coastal erosion and sea-level rise will potentially cause the highest annual direct financial loss to buildings and infrastructure (USD$). • Although coastal erosion and sea-level rise cause the largest estimated average annual direct economic losses, these hazards affect significantly fewer people (~300) than flooding (>3,000) on an average annual basis. This information must be considered when prioritising appropriate measures for DRR/DRM and budgets. It is therefore important to reduce risk caused by flooding and landsliding now – this is urgent – as lives are being lost and people affected city wide. Flooding and landslide hazard is likely to be intensified and risk increased if communities continue to deforest and build in the upper catchments. It is important to start to seriously plan to combat coastal erosion and the effects of sea level rise along the coast. Coastal change is starting to have serious economic impact and this economic impact will increase in the future as the effects of climate change worsen. High-risk Hotspots in Freetown The modelled risk results have highlighted a number of high-risk hotspots across the city for each different hazard (Table 5, and Maps FT-0063 to FT-0090 on Pages 28 to 31). A series of maps showing the different risk results have been provided at ward- administrative level. Decision makers can use these maps to: • Compare the level of risk from each of the different hazards quantitatively; and, 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 25 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Compare the level of risk in each ward for each individual hazard quantitatively. Following these two steps will enable objective prioritisation of where to focus DRR/DRM interventions and help to plan budgets to implement these interventions. Table 5 – Summary of high-risk hotspot areas of Freetown. High Risk Risk Hotspot Area, Freetown The natural channels within the major northwest-southeast trending mountain valleys, such as Regent-Lumley in the northwest of the peninsula and Bathhurst-Hastings Village Area in the southeast of the peninsula (Map FT-0063). Flooding The natural channels and tributaries within the northeast-southwest trending mountain valleys, such as Thunderhill to Shell and Gloucester to Cline Bay. The bay areas along the coast – for example Kroo Bay, Susan’s Bay, Cline Bay, as well as Congo Town, Lumley and Juba. Wards where people have encroached upon steep high-relief mountain slopes and associated river channels including: Tengbeh Town, Foulah Town, Magazine, Bombay, Landsliding Kossoh Town, Ginger Hall, Quarry and Coconut Farm, New England-Hill Cot, New England-Hanneson, Dworzack, Quarry, Coconut Farm, and Kissy Brook (Map FT-0079, Page 29). The coastal parts of the city, particularly the more developed northern and western areas, Coastal Erosion including: Aberdeen, Murray Town, Kingtom, Cannaught, Cline Town Kissy areas (Map FT-0098, Page 30,). Lumley Beach in the northeast, the small densely populated informal settlements on the deltas of the northern coast including Kroo and Susan’s Bay, the beach-mangrove areas of Sea-Level Rise Hamilton in the south west, and broad low-lying coastal areas of Allen Town in the south east (Map FT-0090, Page 31). Map FT-0063, Page 32, shows the quantitative flood risk in terms of the number of people affected relative to the ward area. Darker blue areas indicate higher relative flood risk. The largest numbers of people affected by flooding correlate to areas that are known high flood-hazard hotspots in the northern part of the peninsular which impact populated areas. These are river channels and where the river channels reach the coast in the bay areas (example hotspots are included in Table 5). Map FT-0079, Page 29, shows the quantitative landslide risk in terms of the number of fatalities relative to the ward area. The darker red areas indicate regions that have higher landside risk in terms of the potential number of fatalities. These areas broadly correlate with the deforested and urbanised lower slopes that surround the central high-relief, steep mountains in the northern part of the peninsular where the slopes have high landslide susceptibility and the valleys that have high hazard and high exposure. The highest landslide risk hotspots occur where deforestation makes upper catchment slopes susceptible to landsliding and the landslide debris has the potential to run out into the natural channel that has been urbanised (example hotspots are included in Table 5). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 26 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Map FT-0098, Page 30, shows the quantitative coastal erosion risk in terms of direct loss to buildings relative to ward area for the 2050 scenario accounting for climate change. The rate of cliff recession has been determined by measuring the change in the coast by successive satellite imagery and by projecting the rate of erosion in the future to see what the cumulative change in the coastline could be by 2050. The highest relative risk areas (darker purple) are clearly focussed around the northern coastline of the peninsular where exposure is close to the coastline and hazard is high (example hotspots are included in Table 5). Map FT-0090, Page 31, shows the quantitative sea-level rise risk in terms of direct loss to buildings relative to ward area for the 2050 scenario. Sea level rise is investigated by mapping the amount of coastal land that will potentially be inundated as a result of climate change induced sea level rise. Inundation occurs in low lying coastal areas. The higher risk areas are darker orange, and are concentrated along the northern and southeast coastline of the peninsular. These areas correlate to where the sea-level hazard and exposure is high (example hotspots are included in Table 5). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 27 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 28 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 29 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 30 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 31 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment DRR/DRM in Freetown “Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) aims to reduce the damage caused by natural hazards like earthquakes, floods, droughts and cyclones, through an ethic of prevention.” (UNISDR, 2017). “Disaster risk management (DRM) is the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses.” (UNISDR, 2017). Catchment-scale DRR/DRM Options for Freetown In line with international best practice, this study recommends that individual DRR/DRM measures are combined for practical implementation as opposed to implementing individual measures in isolation for any one hazard. Herein, the combinations of measures proposed in this study are referred to ‘DRR/DRM Options’. Combining measures can reduce the risk from multiple types of hazard. For example, reforestation, hazard signage and flood- landslide communication and community engagement in combination are relatively low cost and reduce the hazard-risk from flooding and landslides. All Options in this report are combined at city or catchment scale. All DRR/DRM measures should be integrated across multiple sectors for developing a well-functioning and resilient city. It is recommenced that development planning moves away from the traditional single siloed master planning approach for each sector separately in favour of integrated planning of appropriate interventions across multiple sectors including all the required disaster risk reduction and management measures (considering all the risks) is an integral part for building urban resilience. Firstly, in developing the DRR/DRM Options for Freetown, a range of best practice DRR/DRM measures have first been provided, these are presented in the following section. Secondly, a number of complimentary measures have been grouped together to form four different DRR/DRM Options for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) (Appendix A). Finally, a prioritised list of DRR/DRM recommendations have been proposed, informed by the conclusions of the study. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 32 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Implementing nature-based DRM measures has the potential to be the most cost-effective solutions in both the long and short term and this is recommended however ‘hard’ engineering solutions are also required in to achieve optimal DRM effectiveness within a specific time-frame and within the constraints of an urban setting. International good practice for DRM measures (flood risk management in particular) is moving toward holistic, sustainable, green, urban drainage systems (Forbes et al. 2015; Woods Ballard et al. 2016). This holistic, sustainable approach is in line with the Greening Africa initiative (White et al., 2017) and clear guidance in Implementing Nature-Based Flood Protection (World Bank, 2017). This guidance emphasizes the importance of approaching planning of nature-based flood protection at a system or catchment scale perspective (Figure 5). However Figure 5 also shows the mix of ‘hard’ engineering measures at specific locations as required in a dense urban environment such as measure 5, check dams and measures 12 and 13, engineered concrete channels and culverts, respectively. The importance of operation and maintenance of urban drainage is also shown on Figure 5 in terms of management of culverts and the importance of keeping drains clear in the urban environment. Figure 6 demonstrates a selected range of DRM measures to mitigate against flooding that are recommended to be implemented in combination using a system or catchment-scale approach. Implementing a combination of measures that are applicable in the upper catchment helps to avoid implementation of more expensive and intrusive ‘hard’ engineering solutions in the lower catchment. . In coastal areas, similar sustainable and holistic approaches are recommended, with ‘softer’ green engineering solutions favoured over ‘hard’ engineering solutions such as concrete-lined channels. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 33 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 5 – Schematic plan-view illustration of a typical natural catchment in Freetown showing selected DRR/DRM measures. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 34 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 6 – Example of selected DRR/DRM measures for flooding at catchment scale. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 35 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment It should be noted that this natural hazard and risk study sets a broader framework of existing and future risk, and presents limited priority measures for DRR/DRM in Freetown. There are various other DRR/DRM measures that can be considered or combined to form a DRR/DRM Option to improve city’s resilience, and it is recommended to conduct more detailed studies especially in high risk zones, to prioritize the most appropriate cross-sectoral interventions based on specific site conditions and institutional frameworks. Selected range of best-practice DRR/DRM measures for Freetown Table 6 presents the broad range of appropriate DRR/DRM measures that have been reviewed for Freetown. Column 4 of Table 6 indicates the Option into which the measure has been included. These measures have been combined into DRR/DRM options for prioritisation by cost-benefit analysis (Appendix A). Table 6 – Appropriate DRR/DRM measures for Freetown Hazard DRR/DRM Measure DRR/DRM Option Hazard and risk Flood + Landslide communication and 1 engagement Flooding Drainage channel clearance 4 Flood + Landslide Early warning systems 1 Coastal Erosion Mangrove preservation 5 Coastal Erosion Sand mining9 prevention Check dam (with Flood + Landslide instrumentation and monitoring) Multi-hazard Hazard signage 1 Flood Rooftop rainwater harvesting Coastal Riprap coastal protection Revegetation of the natural Flood + Landslide 2 channels Community drainage Flood + Landslide implementation Reforestation of upper Flood + Landslide 2 catchment areas Flood Flood water storage ponds Flood Engineered green channels 4 Coastal Erosion Groyne coastal protection 9 Identify alternative sand sources, regulate and monitor extraction. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 36 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Hazard DRR/DRM Measure DRR/DRM Option Detached breakwater coastal Coastal Erosion protection Zoning (enforcement and implementation), land Multi-hazard readjustment and building 3 regulations - implementation and enforcement10 Flood Delta rehabilitation 4 Coastal erosion + Sea-level Vertical seawall coastal 5 rise protection Coastal erosion + Sea-level Rock armour revetment 5 rise coastal protection Multi-hazard Multipurpose escape building Flood Engineered concrete channels Flood Engineered concrete culverts Details of these proposed DRR/DRM recommendations for Freetown are given in Section 11 of this report. The recommendations are both hazard specific (Sections 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4) and catchment specific (Section 11.5) and within each catchment DRR/DRM measures are location specific. MAP FT-0131 on Page 38 gives an example of location-specific flood-warning hazard signage. 10 High cost relates to implementation and enforcement, but establishing a ‘zoning regulation’ which will include a technical study and establishing a bye-law is not high cost and is advised. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 37 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 38 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Prioritised DRR/DRM Recommendations Effective prioritisation of DRR/DRM needs to be informed by more than cost-benefit analysis on the basis of natural hazard and risk. Cost-benefit analysis has indicated the potential for lives saved and losses avoided by implementing proposed DRR/DRM solutions. However, decisions cannot be based on reduction of natural hazard and risk alone. It is important that wide urban/economic development plans are taken into consideration. A holistic city wide and site specific (taking account of catchment scale), community driven DRM strategy is recommended with phased investment. Prioritised proposals based on the natural hazard and risk assessment results of this study are given below. These recommendations have been informed from a combination of international best practice and findings of project/stakeholder feedback and results of the hazard and risk analyses. The recommendations are not an all- encompassing road map to address the other many cross-cutting challenges to Freetown’s urban resilience. Priority 1 – City-Wide Hazard and Risk Communication City-wide hazard and risk communication (e.g. Figure 7) has the potential to reduce risk and save lives for relatively modest investments. Figure 7 – Murals educating communities about Ebola, an example of effective hazard and risk communication in Freetown. Community: DRM is everybody’s business. DRR/DRM is most effective when complimentary measures are combined and there is engagement from all levels of society (Sendai Framework, Guiding Principles). Figure 8 shows some of the many roles of the community in effective DRM. This reference notes that in Japan, although both central government and local government play a leading role in mitigating against disaster, that community-based DRM activities are (and need to be) well integrated into the daily lives of people, ensuring that awareness of natural hazards is never far from their minds. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 39 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 8 – Diagram extracted from the World Bank report “Learning from Mega disasters – Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake”. The role of the community in Freetown can and does go far beyond response, recovery and rehabilitation; communities have the networks and workforce available to address disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness and this can help with redressing the benefit cost ratio of other DRR/DRM options. For example, The World Bank funded, Management of Slope Stability in Communities (MoSSaiC) approach, provides a community-based and scientific approach for delivering flood and landslide hazard reduction measures. A schematic illustration of the MoSSaiC system is shown in Figure 9. The summer 2016 ‘Operation Clean Freetown’ initiative11 highlighted that citywide community involvement can result in citywide flood hazard reduction. People were incentivised to clear waste from their homes for collection, helping to significantly reduce the impacts of flooding related to blocked urban drainage during the rainy season. 11 http://apanews.net/en/news/sierra-leone-announces-operation-clean-freetown http://www.presidentsrecoverypriorities.gov.sl/single-post/2017/05/14/Youth-groups-trained-in- door-to-door-waste-management-under-Operation-Clean-Freetown-are-equipped-to-begin-work 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 40 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 9 – The MoSSaiC community based drainage system to reduce flooding and landslide hazard and risk (World Bank Project Insights 78723 Issue #12). Priority 2 – Greening Freetown – Revegetation and Natural Catchments Nature-based solutions can help mitigate flood, drought, erosion and landslide (hazards) as well as decrease vulnerability to climate change while creating multiple benefits to the environment and local communities (World Bank, 2017). The costs associated with large planting programmes can be high and therefore the benefit-cost ratio can be low. A phased approach to revegetation is therefore recommended. Selected high hazard and risk catchments should be prioritised. In addition, community schemes can make DRM activities cost- effective and sustainable. In Freetown for example there are ongoing low-cost community measures such as tree planting initiatives that will reduce flooding and landsliding. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 41 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment “On Friday 1 June, at the Dwazark Community Hall, the SLRCS in collaboration with Ministry of Agriculture Forestry Division concluded one- day training on reforestation. Volunteers in all six communities: Mortormeh, Kaningo, Kamayama, Culvert, Juba and Dwazark, were trained in tree nursing, planting and reforestation. 20,000 seedlings were brought from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Forestry Division12” Figure 10 – Community tree planting initiatives 12. Priority 3 – Urban Planning and Zoning One of the most effective ways to save lives and reduce losses going forward is to minimise further building in the combined hazard zones. (Map FT-0112, page 138). Currently 10% of Freetown’s population live in these combined higher hazard zones and this number will increase if further building in these zones is not managed. If further building is allowed to continue in an unmanaged way then the risks associated with these hazards will continue to increase. The city should focus on ‘efficient utilization’ of existing safe land within the urban area (low hazard zones) by considering varied urban design tools for densification of safe zones, such as increasing square footage by land- readjustment, building additional floors, infill development, spot zoning etc. based on the specific site condition and land-use. This would allow the city to grow in a more sustainable and resilient way with reduced cost of service delivery for compact city, encouraging public-private partnerships for cost recovery. Planning regulation is intrinsically linked to urban planning. A good urban design will focus on the relationships between buildings and on the spaces they create in and in the case of Freetown, take account of high hazard zones. This will help move the city away from a reactive development approach to one that prioritizes the prevention of risk as recommended by the DaLA Report 12 https://awoko.org/2018/06/06/sierra-leone-news-world-environment-day-today-communities-to-be- reforested/ - [accessed 02/07/18]. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 42 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment (World Bank, 2017). To achieve this, capacity building in planning regulation is required. It is very important that encroachment of housing into upper catchment areas is controlled, supported by appropriate engineering, required drainage infrastructure is planned and installed, and re-forestation is implemented as a priority. Strong urban planning regulation as well as implementation and enforcement of zoning, together with associated technical capacity building, will be of greatest benefit city-wide in reducing both short term and long- term risk from all the natural hazards. In the short term, it is suggested a technical study to advise on and draft zoning regulations (e.g. permissible built up areas, designated land-use, height restrictions, design flood levels etc.) should be developed. Such a study would strongly benefit from the data, maps and results of this project. Typically, such studies are led by city councils and the cost of such a study could potentially lead to many lives saved and building losses avoided if the recommendations are implemented in the future. In addition, it is strongly recommended that zoning is established for schools and hospitals. Priority 4 - Pilot Studies and Phasing of DRR/DRM DRM pilot study catchments (spot zoning) can be selected from amongst the highest risk catchments (see Section 12.5). The recommended catchments for pilot studies are Tower Hill, Regent-Grafton, Yams Farm and Regent-Lumley and potentially Gloucester. It is recommended that these pilot areas are selected following the urban planning technical study (recommendation 3 above) and taking into account a measure of how prepared the local community is for engagement. Catchment location specific DRM solutions for these natural hazards can be reviewed in this report as well as location-specific DRM maps. DRM investment at catchment scale should be phased. Phasing of DRM interventions allows lessons to be learnt from one phase or one catchment that can be implemented over the next phase. It allows time for communities and the city council to learn-by-doing. It allows success to be demonstrated from one area to the next, and it allows capital and maintenance investments in DRM to be staggered. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 43 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 5 - Coastal Protection The results from this study indicate that direct economic losses due to damage to buildings and infrastructure from coastal hazards and sea level rise will become increasingly important in Freetown. The study suggests greater losses from coastal erosion hazards (nearly $4m) annually compared to flooding (>$2.5m) and landslides (<$0.5m) annually. The direct losses only include building and infrastructure damage losses and do not include any indirect losses such as trade or business interruption. These losses have been determined from the rate of coastal erosion and rate of sea level rise averaged over 33 years. Expected population increase and therefore building increase over this period of 33 years is not taken into consideration. If population and building increase was considered then the potential direct economic losses would be even higher than reported in this study. Qualitative comparison of MAP FT-0004 (built environment density) that shows major areas of informal settlement with MAP FT-0012 (combined hazard zones) indicates that major areas of informal development, particularly on the northern coast of the Freetown peninsular frequently coincide with areas of higher combined hazard zones. The 2050 sea-level rise coastal inundation estimated that more than 2000 buildings will be affected and 85% of these buildings are informal and occupied by the poorer economically vulnerable members of the city. Figure 11 – An example of the Freetown coastline at Aberdeen Creek. Nature-based coastal protection options, particularly replanting of mangroves have multiple benefits, over and above the simple benefit-cost ratio of building losses avoided. These include: reducing wave height, retaining sediment, decreasing impact of flooding and erosion. These natural defences also provide a wide range of ecosystem benefits including food, livelihoods, and carbon capture 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 44 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment sequestration. Mangroves uniquely have the ability to grow up with climate- change induced sea level rise (Losada et al, 2018). “In northern coastal regions of Vietnam, local communities have planted and protected mangroves. An estimated US$7.3 million a year in sea dike maintenance was saved because of an investment of US$1.1 million on restoration of natural mangrove forests. The project areas also suffered less damage than neighbouring provinces during typhoon Wukong in 2000 (White et al., 2017). Sierra Leone is listed as one of the top three countries that receive greatest overall risk reduction benefits from mangroves in existing areas in a study analysing The Global Value of Mangroves for Risk Reduction (Losada et al, 2018). This is shown graphically in Figure 12. Figure 12 – Diagram extracted from “The Global Value of Mangroves for Risk Reduction”, at www.nature.org/GlobalMangrovesRiskReductionTechnicalReport Implementation of Priority DRR/DRM (example) Map FT-0167 shows the indicative locations of priority DRR/DRM options in the Regent-Lumley catchment of Freetown. The Regent-Lumley catchment has been shown because it is one of the highest hazard (and risk) catchments on the Freetown Peninsula. Generally, implementation of DRR/DRM on a catchment-by- catchment basis is a good approach, since it is often beneficial to manage the upper catchment before issues with the lower catchment can be resolved. However, in certain hot-spots, it may be possible and indeed sensible to implement DRR/DRM on a more localised scale as a priority. Examples of these areas in Freetown include Cline Bay, Kroo Bay, and Susan’s Bay. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 45 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 46 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment This report provides a summary of the priority DRR/DRM options for these natural hazards, however does not provide the full set of necessary information to implement these options. There are numerous guides available and under development which describe the implementation process. UNISDR (2018 - https://www.unisdr.org/files/57399_drrresiliencepublicreview.pdf) describe a process which includes: 1) Defining local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies; 2) Considering enabling factors for developing local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies; and 3) Implementing local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies. And 4) an example of a pilot study (as per Priority 4). 1) Defining local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies The definition of a DRR strategy is an important first step in the implementation process. A strategy informs the development of DRR plans and subsequent actions. A strategy should have (from UNISDR, 2018): • A shared vision and understanding of DRR which is integrated into the city development strategy; • A designated core team leading and coordinating the process to ensure successful implementation; • Some form of clearly defined and allocated budget; and • A timeline of activities to fulfil the preparation of the strategy and its implementation through an action plan. Activities include various types of work, meetings, preparation of a baseline document, and outline of roles and responsibilities etc. Furthermore, an action plan that addresses the following questions (UNISDR, 2018): • Set goals and priority areas – what do we need to do? • Responsibilities and roles – who has what role? • Indicators – how do we measure progress? • Time – when do we expect to complete activities? • Budget – how much will it cost and what are the possible funding sources? 2) Considering enabling factors for developing local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies Certain enabling factors can help to develop and implement a successful DRR strategy. These factors include (UNISDR, 2018): • Having local government at the forefront of the process; • Engaging with local communities; • Engaging with other key actors e.g. NGOs. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 47 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Putting participatory mechanisms in place. It is important to also have a shared understanding of local disaster risk and resilience. This report presents a city-scale assessment of natural hazard and risk from four specific natural hazards; however, it may be necessary to develop a more localised understanding of risk prior to implementation of DRR options. This could be done by more detailed hazard and risk assessment (e.g. high- resolution elevation mapping for culvert re-design in hazard hot-spots) or through more detailed community engagement (e.g. to develop a locally led flood warning system). 3) Implementing local disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies The implementation of DRR strategies entails: • Organizing for DRR, which includes an understanding of governmental and organizational structures for DRR (e.g. the ONS) and considering other important institutional elements such as written laws, regulations and codes, building capacities and coordination; • Knowing and understanding risks (as above, this is partly addressed by this report, but may need to be further assessed prior to implementation based on the DRR strategy content); • Having the financial resources to be able to plan and act; and • Monitoring and measuring the performance of implemented DRR strategies and ensuring that lessons learned are recorded, shared and revisited during the revision of DRR strategies in the future. 4) Example of DRR/DRM implementation strategy for the Regent- Lumley Catchment Following the process outlined by UNISDR (2018), the process to implement a DRR option for the Regent-Lumley Catchment could follow the process outlined below: • Develop a catchment-specific DRR strategy, which is likely to be informed by the recommendations and findings from this report; • Create a multi-disciplinary core team within the government to lead and coordinate the development of a DRR strategy; • Identify and allocate a suitable budget to support the DRR strategy team; • Produce a timeline of activities which leads to the production of the strategy and its implementation. This could be done in the form of an action plan; • It may be necessary to undertake some more localised hazard and risk assessment to support the DRR strategy; • Ensure that the strategy considers national, sub-national and local government, local and other stakeholders. Put participatory measures in place so that the process can be both transparent and as applicable as possible e.g. public consultations; 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 48 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Ensure that the plan accords with governmental and institutional elements such as written laws; • Conduct more detailed design of any necessary construction works (this stage may need to come earlier in the process to accord with laws and planning requirements); • Specifically identify the funds required to implement the strategy and it’s DRR options; • Implementation, which may be staged and refined based on the results from preliminary testing; and • Monitoring and measuring performance. Call for Urgent Action This report provides a summary of the results from a natural hazard and risk assessment undertaken for the city of Freetown in Sierra Leone. The natural hazards investigated are flooding, landsliding, coastal erosion and sea-level rise. The natural hazard and risk results indicate that there are significant hazards and risks in Freetown. It is indicated that the hazards and risks (as quantified by this project) are expected to get worse as a result of climate change, increasing population growth rate, continuing environmental degradation and increasing poverty in the urban Freetown area. Sierra Leone is among the top ten countries considered most threatened by climate change globally (AGI, 2017 in White et al., 2017). It is urgent to regulate existing and future urban growth in high hazard zones; preserve, increase and restore natural barriers such as forest cover and mangroves for disaster mitigation; prioritize building resilient infrastructure; and to integrate disaster risk planning and management into decision making at national government, local government and community level for building urban resilience. The project also provides disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster risk management (DRM) options. The aim of these options is to save lives, reduce the potential for damage to critical buildings and infrastructure, and reduce the potential for economic losses. The data from this project can provide objective evidence for prioritised decision making. The next stage to implement the DRR and DRM recommendations will require some difficult decisions to be made and priorities to be agreed. These decisions and priorities need to be made with some urgency at city and national level. Natural hazards result in loss of life, large numbers of people impacted, and significant economic losses. The time for DRR and DRM action is now. We strongly recommend that urgent action is undertaken. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 49 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 50 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 1 Introduction 1.1 Project background The geographical location of Sierra Leone makes it prone to intense and recurring natural hazards such as flooding and landslides. Increasing urbanisation together with the effects of climate change are intensifying the problems faced by cities in Sierra Leone. The lack of available and reliable data on the frequency and impact of natural hazards on these cities is hindering DRR and DRM, urban planning and investment. To better understand and quantify natural hazard and disaster-risk in Sierra Leone, the World Bank and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) are supporting, with Africa Caribbean Pacific – European Union (ACP- EU) funding, the development of new natural hazard and risk information in Sierra Leone for three cities: Freetown, Makeni and Bo (Table 7). The World Bank have commissioned Ove Arup and Partners International Ltd (Arup), with sub-consultants: Integrated Geo-information and Environmental Management Services (INTEGEMS, Freetown), JBA Risk Management (JBA) and the British Geological Survey (BGS) (collectively, the ‘Project Team’) to undertake this consultancy assignment. Table 7 – Natural hazard and risk assessment scope in Freetown, Makeni and Bo Freetown Makeni Bo Flooding Landslides Sea level rise Coastal erosion The results of this study will help to inform the understanding of natural hazards and risk for the three cities and build on ongoing DRR and DRM work in Sierra Leone by recommending simple but practical and effective solutions to natural hazard-risk to reduce risk and increase resilience in each of the three cities. Throughout the assignment, the Project Team has been working closely with the Office of National Security (ONS) and local stakeholders through ongoing in- country engagement, workshops and sharing of information and findings. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 51 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 1.2 Outline of the report This report is Volume 2 of 5 of the Final Report. Volume 2 contains: Use these sections to • Section 0 – Summary of the Report; understand: • Background and Freetown • Section 1 – this section, Introduction; context including current resilience challenges that • Section 2 – Overview of Freetown from a review of the effect or are affected by literature and from knowledge gathered at the in-country flooding, land sliding, or workshops, with specific reference to the vulnerabilities and coastal land loss. resilience challenges posed to Freetown from natural hazards; Use these sections to • Section 3 – Exposure and Vulnerability; understand: • Freetown exposure • Section 4 - Detailed review and discussion of flood hazard (people, buildings and and risk results; infrastructure); • Physical vulnerability of • Section 5 – Detailed review and discussion of landslide exposure to natural hazards; locations of hazard and risk results; flood, landslide, coastal erosion and sea level rise • Section 6 – Description and discussion of the recent August hazard on maps; 2017 Regent-Lumley Disaster; • Location and potential losses (people affected and • Section 7 – Detailed review and discussion of coastal $) due to risk from natural erosion hazard and risk results; hazards in maps and tables of losses and reported by • Section 8 – Detailed review and discussion of sea-level rise ward; hazard and risk results; • Maps and description of highest risk urban areas. • Section 9 – Identification of current development in the Combined Hazard Zones; Use these sections to • Section 10 – High-level DRR/DRM measures for Freetown understand: • High-level DRR/DRM to address the risk from the natural hazards; linked to Sendai Framework for Freetown; • Section 11 – Specific DRR/DRM measures for Freetown; • Hazard specific • Section 12 – Recommendations DRR/DRM measures; • Catchment-scale location and hazard specific DRR/DRM measures; • Recommendations for DRR/DRM in Freetown. Use these appendices to understand: • Appendix A – Cost-benefit analysis • High-level preliminary estimates of DRR/DRM • Appendix B - Maps costs and benefits. • A4 sized maps of hazard, risk and DRR options. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 52 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Volume 1 contains the wider Sierra Leone country profile, context, and methodology for assessing the hazard and risks from these perils. Volumes 3 and 4 contain city-specific information relating to Makeni and Bo in the same format as this volume. Volume 5 contains a series of A3 maps showing the spatial distribution of natural hazard and risk in each of Freetown, Makeni and Bo. 1.3 Maps and data Throughout this report, maps showing the spatial distribution of the natural hazards and risks in Freetown are included as examples. These maps have been reduced in size to fit an A4 page. The full series of A3 page size maps are provided separately in Volume 5. Whilst the maps provide an overview of the natural hazards and risks in Freetown, most value can be gained from this study by viewing and interrogating the data produced by this study using a Geographic Information System (GIS) such as ArcGIS or QGIS (QGIS is open-source and freely available). Throughout this report, example screenshots from GIS are included to demonstrate this. All data produced by this project is open source and are available from the World Bank. 1.4 Limitations of this report Limitations to this project include (but are not limited to): • This study is a city scale study and results have been reported and discussed at city scale. Data input at city scale does not allow for output at detailed resolution and would not be appropriate for design of individual engineering structures. • There are many limitations and assumptions of data input and modelling practices necessary for a city-scale study in a data-poor region. These have been addressed in the Methodology Report (Volume 1). • The flood risk model underestimated the number of fatalities in the Regent- Lumley disaster. It is interpreted that this disparity occurs because the probability of death for a person having been affected by a flood is estimated without consideration of floodwater velocity. This is a necessary assumption for city-scale modelling, however, clearly the probability of death for a person affected by a fast-moving debris-laden flood (a debris flow) is higher than for a person affected by slower moving debris-sparse food-waters. • This study addresses specific natural hazards. It is recognised that Sierra Leone suffers from many other hazards including epidemics, wild fire, land degradation, household fires etc. Information has been compiled in this project which could be used to study these hazards in the future, however the focus of this project is on addressing the hazard and risk associated with flooding, landslides and coastal erosion and sea-level rise. • This report is only focused on shocks and does not consider chronic stresses such as lack of clean basic services, poverty, unemployment, low coping capacity etc. that adds to the vulnerability quotient of the population at risk 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 53 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Risk to agriculture is not included in this multi-city project given the primarily urban context. • For the cost assumptions, 2017 USD$ values are assumed. • No indirect costs or benefits are included in the calculation of cost-benefit ratio of DRR/DRM options in Appendix A. For example, reforestation, in addition to saving lives and assets (which are accounted for) may in the longer term contribute to improved health and environmental benefits, that are benefits not accounted for. Business interruption is an example of indirect losses that are not accounted for. Costs are quantified in terms of the capital and operational expenditure required to implement the proposed DRR/DRM measure (e.g. the cost to construct and maintain flood protection measures). The net costs and the net benefits are calculated over an assumed design life of 33 years (i.e. from 2018 to 2050) for all proposed DRR/DRM options. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 54 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 55 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 2 Freetown: City Profile and Context 2.1 Introduction This Section describes the geographic setting and socioeconomic context of Freetown. The geology, topography, and physical location of the city is unique and prone to natural hazards. The population of the city has grown rapidly, particularly over the last decade and in keeping pace with the population growth, much of the urban development has been in areas of the city that are prone to natural hazards. Communities living in high-hazard areas of the city are at high risk and this is a major problem for Freetown. This problem was fatally highlighted in the recent 2017 Regent-Lumley disaster. Many factors have exacerbated the problem of natural hazards impacting the population and built environment, including: lack of urban planning, and lack of disaster-risk planning, coupled with poor communication and enforcement. 2.2 Geographic setting and natural hazards in Freetown Freetown is located on a mountainous peninsular, which is approximately 38km long and 16km wide, with topographic relief of over 700m.a.s.l. The peninsula is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. Dense forest covers the highest areas whilst many of the lower slopes have been deforested leaving a cover of sparse forest, grasslands and urbanized built-up areas (Figure 13). The country experiences a rainy season between May and November, with the maximum average annual precipitation in August. Historical rainfall averages for August in Freetown indicate that 530mm can fall within August13. For comparison, historical rainfall data for Kew, London, indicate that during the December/January rainy months an average of around 57mm of rain typically falls14. On the 14th August 2017 alone, one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite recorded between 25-50mm of rainfall across the area encompassing Freetown (JBA Report, 2017), i.e. equivalent to the rainfall that might fall in the winter rainy season over an entire month in England. Outside of the rainy months, the climate is tropical and humid, with the hottest, driest months between December and March. 2.2.1 Geology of Freetown The Freetown geology is characterised by repeated sequences of igneous rocks described as a lopolith (Wells, 1962; Dixey, 1922). Subsequent geological investigations of the Freetown complex by Chalokwu (2001) and Chalokwu and Seney (1995) with new geochemical mapping data led to reappraisal of the bedrock petrology zones, and development of a bedrock stratigraphy (Figure 14). 13 Climate Change Knowledge Portal, The World Bank Group: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisCCo de=SLE 14 UK Met Office: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gcpuckhb6 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 56 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment A generally deeply weathered mantle combined with steep slopes and heavy seasonal rainfall leads to frequent landslides. Some apparent outcrops of rock are in fact the tips of large residual blocks of lesser-weathered bedrock embedded in the weathered mantle. Whilst these largely remain in situ, some creep is inevitable on steeper slopes (Thomas, 1994). The mountain valleys have significant topographic relief (hundreds of metres), are steep-sided and densely forested (where intense deforestation has not occurred). Small landslides occur frequently in the rainy season and it is normal for the valley floors to become blocked with boulders (Wells, 1962). Where the rivers reach the coast, they become confined to narrow, steep-sided valleys (Wells, 1962). Figure 13 – Satellite images (Google Earth Pro) showing deforestation and urbanisation close to New England, Freetown WUA, in 2005 (Top) and 2016 (Bottom). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 57 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 14 – Simplified geological map of Sierra Leone. Freetown outlined in black. Source, Ministry of Water Resources/ASI (2015)15. 2.2.2 Flooding in Freetown Statistically, of the total number of people affected by disasters in Sierra Leone in the last 30 years, 90% of were affected by flooding (UNDP, 2012). From 1980 to 2010, over 220,000 people were affected by floods (Figure 15), and 145 people were killed (EMDAT, 2009). Floods occur frequently and can occur any time but are particularly common in the rainy season between May and November. Whilst flooding occurs across Sierra Leone, flood events in Freetown can be particularly damaging due to the steep terrain that characterises the Freetown peninsula, which can cause rapid ‘flash’ flood events in the natural river channels. These high energy, rapid flows can cause substantial destruction and pose a significant threat to life. In low-lying, coastal areas, floods, which coincide with storm events or high tides, have the potential to become more widespread. In many parts of Freetown, river drainage channels are blocked by debris and/or are severely narrowed by solid waste dumped by residents living upstream as well as downstream. Culverts are also commonly blocked with silt and solid waste or undersized leading to localised flooding along existing natural river valleys. The documented historical 15 Source: http://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php/OR/15/009_Introduction Accessed February 2018. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 58 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment flood record shows that events are often of a short duration, days rather than weeks, and are frequently coupled with landslides. Kroo Bay in Freetown, one of the most densely populated coastal informal developments in the city, has flooded every year since 2008 (Africa Research Institute, 2015). This is because the community have built on a natural river delta, a landform that is created by repeat flooding and deposition of sediment. Additional sites that are known to experience intense flooding in Freetown include Lumley, Babadorie, the Congo River, Hill Cot Road Bridge, Ashobi Corner and Banana Water (and many more listed by FCC/MLPCE, 2014). Figure 15 – Flooding close to Congo Cross, Freetown ~August 201716 © The Sierra Leone Telegraph. 2.2.3 Landslides in Freetown Landslide hazard across the mountainous and steep terrain of Freetown peninsular is not a new phenomenon (Thomas, 1994). However, until more recent years, people and buildings have not existed in the regions that are subject to landsliding. Today, the landslide hazard-risk picture is very different. A catastrophic example of why people should not live in these high landslide (and flood) prone areas of the city was highlighted on Monday 14th August 2017 when a massive landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown (Figure 16). The landslide, which occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area that was already understood to have been affected by severe flooding. As a direct result of the event, approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have been declared dead or missing. This event is referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. The World Bank carried out a Rapid Damage and Loss Assessment (DaLA) on a number of different sectors (including buildings, infrastructure, health, environment, industry and trade, social protection etc.), immediately following the Regent-Lumley Disaster, the results of which are presented in the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). The DaLA included a preliminary needs assessment for each sector with priority recommendations and provided the short-, medium-, and long-term needs cost per sector. 16 http://www.thesierraleonetelegraph.com/freetown-flood-disaster-emergency-appeal/ Accessed March 2018. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 59 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 16 – The Regent landslide, Freetown August 2017. Landslide hazards in the Freetown area are frequent and landslide hazard is widely recognised by government and the residential population in Freetown. Specific areas at risk of mudslide and rockfall include Moyiba quarry, PK Oil Mill, Joshua Street, Mission School, Hill Cot Road, Portee/Rokupa Ward, Ashobi Corner, Blackhall Road, Kanikay, Moa Wharf, Yandama Farm, Falcon Bridge, Omolay Bush, New England Ville, Congo Town, Ephraim Robinson School, Granville Brook, Racecourse Cemetery and Kissy (MLCPE/FCC, 2014). Slope instability has also been reported at quarry sites in north-eastern Freetown at Mamba Ridge, Old Railway and MBHS Quarries (Chinsman, 1977). A public survey17 of natural hazard awareness in Freetown by Macarthy (2012) concluded that whilst landsliding does not represent the foremost concern of respondents, it is an important source of anxiety to over 30% of the hill slope settlement of East Brook where it has become an almost yearly event. In August 2009, for example, a single landslide event at East Brook led to the destruction of several houses resulting a reported 7 deaths and 15 injuries. A landslide triggered by heavy rainfall in the Mountain Cut area in September 2010 caused the destruction of several houses killing 14 people mostly from the same family. The type of landslide vary from deep-seated rotational slides (slumps) to shallow translational slides (debris slides and flows), to boulder rolls and rock falls (Thomas 1998). 17 Sample size = 200 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 60 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Geomorphological evidence of old translational slides is widespread on the slopes around Freetown, where landslides form in colluvium debris (Thomas, 1994). Detachment of the slide mass along the bedrock-soil interface, often leaves a relatively fresh bedrock scar, which is recognisable on high-resolution aerial photographs and digital topography models (digital elevation models, or DEMs) where forest cover is removed or sparse. During fieldwork in the 1970-1980’s tropical geomorphologist M.F Thomas mapped several hundred slide scars in the central mountains area from large-scale aerial photo interpretation (1:12,500 scale onto 1:10,000 scale base maps) with some field observations to ground truth his remote observations from the imagery (Thomas, 1998). Landslides were mainly found to occur within the saprolites, the chemically weathered rocks commonly found below hard near-surface laterite, which forms over the basic igneous rocks in tropical climates (Thomas and Thorp, 1992). On the Freetown Peninsula, colluvium covered slopes tend to fail at angles of >26° (Thomas, 1983; 1998). The thickness of soil and rock weathering profiles is locally affected by bedrock texture, geochemistry and mechanical discontinuities (joints, faults, and shears) and the degree/depth of laterisation and saprolite development. The body of landslides tends to consist of debris; a mix of laterite, sandy soil and rock corestones. Slope parallel sheet joints are often present at slide sides and impart a structural control on slope instability, not unlike the geological situation on hillslopes in Hong Kong (see Parry, 2016). 2.2.4 Coastal hazards in Freetown This project has estimated that at least 20,000 people live along the coastal areas of Freetown (around 2% of the city’s population). Furthermore, changes to the coastline threaten several coastal aquifers and other water resources for Sierra Leone, potentially having implications that reach well beyond the coastal communities. According to Kargbo and Mico (2012), coastal erosion in Sierra Leone can be attributed to a range of natural as well as man-made coastal activities, including: • Sea-level change and wave action; • Chemical weathering of carbonate rocks; • Gold and diamond mining; • Sand mining for construction; and, • Poor coastal management. The communities that live in the low-lying coastal areas of Freetown are particularly susceptible to sea-level rise associated with climate change. In many areas, coastal communities have ended up living in near-tidal zones often due to lack of affordable land available for construction and near livelihoods in relatively safer zones of the city. These areas will become gradually inundated as sea-level rises in line with climate change. The majority of flat land, prime for construction, is close to the coast and its area is limited. The flat land is narrowly constrained by the ocean and by the steep mountains. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 61 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 2.3 Urbanization impact on Natural Hazards in in Freetown Freetown is the capital of Sierra Leone and the city is home to the largest population in the country, with approximately 20% of the country’s population residing in Freetown (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). Freetown was severely affected by the 2014 Ebola outbreak, where 1,434 confirmed cases of Ebola were reported in Western Area Urban (out of 13,575 nationally in Sierra Leone (World Bank, 2017). 2.3.1 Urbanization: population and expansion of built environment The population of Sierra Leone has been increasing gradually since the 1963 census, however, from 2004 to 2015 the population has increased rapidly from ~5 million to ~7 million, representing an inter-census increase of 43% (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). Freetown has seen rapid urbanization and an average population growth rate of ~4% since 1963 (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). Internal displacement during the civil war (1991-2002) and migration in search of employment opportunities in Freetown has further contributed to the growth of the city’s population. The expansion of informal settlements is underpinned by several factors, notably, the local economy, which is dominated by small scale and informal businesses (mainly petty trade) and a growing demand for proximal living to business centres and markets, coupled with unaffordable land and housing in formalised areas (SLURC, 2017). Development in Freetown has broadly followed three major spatial patterns: • Coastal settlement along the rocky beaches of the Atlantic Ocean; • Sprawling inland settlements along the Sierra Leone river estuary; and • Hillside settlements in the steep hills of the city, which are rapidly encroaching into vital forestland (SLURC, 2017). The 2004 census noted that 44% of households lived with 5, 6 or 7 people in one room (MLCPE/FCC, 2014). In the 2015 census, the average number of people per household in Freetown was reported to be 10, compared to a national average of 9 people per household (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). The 2015 census lists 12% of dwellings as improvised homes/kiosks or unnamed huts etc. representing the spatial expansion of low-income groups into marginal and vulnerable settlement areas. Map FT-0003 (Page 64) shows the approximate expansion of Freetown’s built environment between 1974 and 2017. In 1974, Freetown was largely confined to the coastal plain areas of the peninsula along the main roads and highways, covering the developed areas such as Goderich, Gbendemdu, Murray Town, Tower Hill, Cline Town, Kissy and Wellington. In 1974, the built-up area was approximately 59km2. By 1986, the developed area had grown in size to approximately 73 km2 and had extended inland into the areas of Fonima, Hill Station, Mount Aureol and Wongo Town, as well as the west coastal areas near Adonkia Village and Angola Town. By 2005, more developments were formed 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 62 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment inland with the most significant increase along the main road between Hill Station and Regent. By 2005, the urbanised area had grown to approximately 83km2. By 2010, the urbanised area was further extended to the hilly terrain and formerly forested foot slopes of the central Freetown peninsula, covering an area of approximately 116m2. The most notable increases in urban developments have been observed around the areas of Regent, Temne Town and Hastings. In 2017, the urban and peri-urban areas of Freetown are estimated to cover an area of approximately 133km2. Of most concern, for natural hazard-risk is that an increasing proportion of this development is on steep hilly terrain, particularly around Bathurst and Grafton (although this practice is evident throughout the Freetown peninsula). Table 8 – Approximate built environment area and expansion rate in Freetown metropolitan area Year Approximate urban and Approximate expansion Approximate annual peri-urban area (km2)18 rate19 expansion rate20 1974 59 - - 1986 73 +24% 2% 2005 83 +41% 0.7% 2010 116 +97% 7% 2017 133 +125% 2% Figure 17 to Figure 20 show aerial photos of the built environment expansion rate in Freetown. Of particular note is the shoreline transformation over these years and resulting in more high density informal settlements in high hazard areas. Figure 17 shows the expansion of the informal settlement at Kroo Bay, Freetown. The alluvial fan has increased in area over the past 10 years. Consequently, the land has been reclaimed and structures built on the recent deposits. Figure 18 shows the expansion of Calaba Town, Freetown, which is located on the south- eastern side of the peninsula. Figure 19 shows Aberdeen Creek in the northwest of Freetown. Aberdeen Creek is a tidally submerged area, with mangroves growing on the western side. Figure 20 shows Sussex, Freetown. Sussex is located on the south-western side of the peninsula. Many buildings have been constructed around the main road over since 2006 18 Area extent of city expansion has been estimated from satellite image interpretation. 19 Built environment expansion rate is the rate of increased urbanised area compared with 1974 20 Annual urban expansion rate is average rate of increase between dates (e.g. 1974-1986) 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 63 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 64 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 17 – Satellite imagery showing Kroo Bay in 2006 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) Figure 18 – Satellite imagery showing Calaba Town in 2005 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) Figure 19 – Satellite imagery showing Aberdeen Creek in 2006 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) Figure 20 – Satellite imagery showing Sussex in 2005 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro imagery) 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 65 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 2.3.2 Urbanization: environmental impact related to natural hazards The value of the natural environment surrounding Freetown is high, yet in spite of this, it is threatened by unmanaged urban development, mining and pollution. If preserved and enhanced, the natural environment of Freetown peninsular could provide a unique ecological, aesthetic and recreational resource for the future development of the city (MLCPE/FCC 2014a). Part of the Freetown peninsula was declared a forest reserve in 1916. The forest reserve area covers many rainwater catchments which are vital for the drinking water supply to Freetown. The Guma Valley, Congo and other dams have in the future, if protected, enough capacity to supply the city with good, clean water. However, the forest reserve is seriously threatened by deforestation for charcoal burning and farming, stone extraction, and construction (MLCPE/FCC 2014a) (Figure 21). Forests have been cut down on the hillsides and Freetown faces severe threats from soil erosion, resulting in an increasing risk of landslides and inland flooding. Figure 21 – Two Landsat satellite images highlight the extent of deforestation between 1986 (top) and 2017 (bottom). Healthy vegetation is shown in red, unhealthy vegetation and urban areas are grey; the right-hand image also shows the Regent-Lumley disaster. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 66 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 2.3.3 Urbanization: solid waste management related to natural hazards Effective solid waste management in Freetown is a three-fold problem; inefficient primary and secondary waste collection, lack of proper disposal and lack of any treatment facilities. Challenges around solid waste management in Freetown are detailed in a number of reports including Abarca and de Vreede, 2013, Freetown’s Environmental Assessment, MLCPE/FCC, 2014b and the Freetown Structure Plan, MLCPE/FCC, 2014a. A major problem is that the final dumping of waste takes place inside the city on dumping sites with little use of modern environmentally sound solid-waste management techniques (MLCPE/FCC, 2014a). Only 53.4% of the population have access to proper sanitation (SDI, 2015). Only 27% of the communities living in unplanned and informal developments have access to proper waste collection services. Some parts of Freetown are cleaned by the Freetown Waste Management Company (FWMC); however, large parts of the city exist with without this service. In Freetown, the effective waste management begins with the primary mode of collection, starting from door-to-door and with street-to-street collection, temporary deposition in transit points, and finally transfer to a secured site. Secondary collection concerns the transportation of waste from the collection points and industrial rubbish dumps to the landfill sites. Waste-disposal trucks transport waste from transit sites to the landfill sites. Maintenance and fuel costs have been a major setback for the effective operation of waste collection in Freetown. Consequently, there is a backlog of waste at the transit collection points leading to the over-accumulation of waste which results in inevitable negative impacts on both the environmental and on the widespread health and sanitation of communities. Solid waste that is not collected from the communities is discarded in the urban drainage network and consequently, these blocked drainages exacerbate flooding in the city during the rainy season (MLCPE/FCC, 2014a). Freetown has two formal – yet unplanned and non-engineered – landfill sites, Kingtom in the west and Granville Brook (Bomeh dumpsite along the Bai Bureh Road) in the east of the city. The general condition of the two existing solid waste dumpsites is unsanitary and they harm the environment and the health of the communities that surround them and live amongst them. The sites are poorly managed regarding environmental considerations and functionality (Bomeh dump sits in a natural river channel Figure 22), such as a lack of control over waste burning, poor control over scavengers, illegal dumping and encroachment, inappropriate tipping and stockpiling, and lack of space for expansion (MLCPE/FCC, 2014a). Figure 22 shows the scale of the problem at Bomeh dumpsite. Communities live and have livelihoods in the dump. The culvert that drains Granville Brook, which flows beneath the dump, is partially blocked with sediment and waste, and the weight of the overlying dump has partly crushed the culverts further restricting the flow of floodwaters. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 67 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 22 – Bomeh dump site: the black arrow points to garbage burning on top of the dump. People have been circled in white for scale. There a number of interconnected issues that have exacerbated the solid waste disposal issue in the city. These include, the rapid population growth and lack of space for urban development in the Western Area Urban, a general lack of awareness of the necessity of solid-waste collection, in addition to the lack of financial resources, limited capacity, and institutional fragmentation. Waste accumulation within drainage channels can, in addition to the environmental and health effects adversely affect water flow in the channels and contribute to inland flooding hazard and risk. 2.4 Socio-economics in Freetown Sierra Leone’s urban areas are facing rising populations, rapid urbanization (3.3%), high levels of unemployment, uncontrolled settlements, a rising number of informal businesses and severe pressure on the provision of basic services such as water supplies, sanitation and solid waste management services. The migration of citizens from rural to urban areas has further increased the demand on public services (Abarca and de Vreede, 2013). Urban poverty in Freetown increased from 14% in 2003 to 31% in 2011. This increase was despite an overall decline in urban poverty for the overall country, from 47% to 31% over the same time period (World Bank, 2013). In Sierra Leone as a whole, just over half of the population are literate, however, literacy in Western Area (Urban) is higher than the national average, at 78% 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 68 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). Although in Freetown city around 80% of children are enrolled in primary school (SDI, 2015), access to education can be restricted for the city’s urban poor. In one of Freetown’s largest informal developments located in Dworzack, only 45% of respondents attained primary school qualifications, and only 21% attained secondary school qualifications. In the same area, 27% reported as having never attended formal schooling (YMCA, 2011). Generally, Sierra Leone has a young population; in 2015, 71% of the population was under 30 years old. The working age population (~15 to 64 years old) comprises ~56% of the population total and Figure 23 (World Bank, 2017) shows the breakdown of economic activities in Freetown. Freetown and other urban areas provide the majority (over 70%) of waged employment in Sierra Leone (MLCPE/FCC, 2014). Further information about employment in Freetown has been identified in the Freetown Structure Plan (MLCPE/FCC, 2014), which suggests that although the construction sector provides employment for a significant proportion of Freetown’s’ working population, most of these jobs are informal. The Central Business District (CBD) is the main commercial centre in Freetown, including offices for consulting firms, financial offices, banks, and insurance operations. Eleven commercial banks, five insurance companies, and the Sierra Leone Housing Corporations are located here. Figure 23 – Economic activities in Freetown (Western Area Urban, WU, and Western Area Rural, WR) (World Bank, 2017). 2.5 Governance in Freetown Freetown City Council (FCC) is the municipal government of the city of Freetown. The council was established in 1893 and is one of the oldest municipal governments in Africa. The city of Freetown is politically divided into three regions, namely East End Freetown, Central Freetown and the West End of Freetown, which are then further subdivided into wards. Members of the FCC, including the Mayor (at the time of the workshop), are directly elected every four years by the residents of Freetown and each represent different wards throughout the city. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 69 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The FCC, including the Mayor, form the local government for the city of Freetown. The Mayor of Freetown at the time of the workshops for this project was his worship Franklyn Bode Gibson. Mayor Franklyn Bode Gibson has been able to attend workshops organized by this project. The Project Team are extremely thankful for the support and critical feedback of the Mayor and the FCC throughout the duration of this project. 2.5.1 Disaster management and emergency response in Freetown The Office of National Security (ONS) are mandated to co-ordinate the management of national disaster mitigation. Functional disaster management committees have been formed at the chiefdom level, with community-based volunteers having been trained at both province and district levels. In Freetown, 300 community-based volunteers have been trained, with the aim of helping to increase the local capacity to address emergencies (ONS, 2011). A report produced by Concern (Concern, 2015) noted that the government of Sierra Leone has not established an intermediary between local and national disaster management structures, however during workshops held for this project in Freetown, the ONS were represented by ONS staff who held disaster management responsibilities both nationally and for Freetown. There is a great deal of national and international NGO activity in Sierra Leone within the field of disaster management. This significantly increased in scale during the 2014 Ebola crisis, particularly with regard to response and recovery activities but there is also a strong permanent presence within the county that contributes to disaster management activities across all phases of the disaster management cycle (preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation) at both a national and city-scale. During the Regent-Lumley Disaster, the disaster management and emergency response was co-ordinated by the ONS. The ONS were supported in this task by a number of NGOs and donor organisations. Full details of the response to the Regent-Lumley Disaster are summarised in the World Bank DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). 2.5.2 Land Zoning in Freetown The Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment (MLCPE) has traditionally been responsible for urban planning, land registration and demolition permits in Sierra Leone and the Ministry of Works, Housing and Infrastructure (MWHI) for building inspection and development control. The Local Government Act 2004, which is supposed to provide city powers for strategic local planning, preparation of zoning plans, and issuance of building permits amongst other responsibilities, but all functions are yet to be devolved completely to local council. Urban planning in Freetown is governed by the FCC, however, it is suggested that development control is weak at present (Williams, 2014). During in-country workshops for this project it was suggested that ‘permits to build’ were previously issued by the MLCPE but this responsibility was being transitioned to the MWHI. It is understood from these workshops that there is no 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 70 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment central database of ‘permits to build’ or locations for where these are issued however this has not been verified. A Freetown pilot plan was developed by MLCPE and FCC with European Union support in 2014, with on the job training of FCC staff of the project’s objectives (MLCPE/FCC, 2014a) but this has yet to be implemented. Suggestions from this document are considered and incorporated into DRR recommendations from this project (Sections 9 & 10). 2.6 Resilience challenges in Freetown There is a severe lack of comprehensive urban planning and strategy in Freetown, and this has resulted in urbanisation of areas of the city that are subject to hazards associated with landslides, floods, coastal erosion and sea-level rise. In addition, the rapid population growth in Freetown has forced vulnerable and low-income communities to settle in unsuitable areas of the city. This is the case in Kroo Bay, where coastal and river floods occur annually resulting in loss of life, damage to housing, and loss of assets and livelihoods in these low-income communities (MLCPE/FCC, 2014b) . The lack of available hazard mapping, lack of urban planning or zoning, and increasing pressure on livelihood resources associated with population growth has also resulted in urbanization extending into the upper catchment areas of the Freetown peninsular. Subsequently many buildings are now located in areas of high landslide hazard such as the river channels along which landslide debris might run-out. As well as building in locations of high landslide hazard, a number of practices around building in these locations have also exacerbated the landslide hazard and community vulnerability in these locations. Houses are frequently built in these locations without access roads or other infrastructure to serve them. The absence of planned, engineered drainage and solid waste management for the housing leads to increased run-off, increased erosion and increased flood-hazard levels lower down in the catchment. Deforestation of the upper catchments associated with these housing developments is occurring rapidly (e.g. Figure 24). Deforestation is undertaken to clear space for new houses, the timber is also used to generate charcoal for cooking fires and for use as construction scaffolding. Most of the buildings constructed in the deforested upper catchment areas are large residential plots (typically a big house with a small caretaker house). It is understood that the owner doesn’t necessarily continuously live in these houses (World Bank, 2017). Deforestation in the upper catchment areas of Freetown contributes to increase both flood and landslide hazard in a number of ways (MLCPE/FCC, 2014b): • A portion of the rainfall that would be caught in the tree canopy and lost via evapotranspiration is lost; • Rainfall that does hit the denuded ground is able to flow more readily across the land into the nearest channel rather than seeping in and being conveyed as groundwater; 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 71 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • The root structure of trees adds a stabilising effect to the ground against shallow landslides which is lost with deforestation; • The saturation of the ground rises over time when there are fewer trees to absorb the groundwater via the root network; and • The loss of tree cover allows the friable superficial soils of Freetown’s upper catchments to wash down into channels, contributing to gradually blocking the channels, drains and culverts. Figure 24 – Deforestation in the Regent area, Freetown. The top photo is an example of where natural forest still exists (top); the bottom photo shows an example close by where forest has been removed in place of buildings. Photos were taken during March 2017 and August 2017 field Missions. It is very important that encroachment of housing into upper catchment areas is controlled, supported by appropriate engineering, required drainage infrastructure is planned and installed, and re-forestation is implemented as a priority. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 72 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 2.6.1 Resilience challenges for coastal locations Low-lying coastal locations have also been targeted as development locations for low-income populations allowing them to live close to a source of livelihood. These low-lying areas are vulnerable to coastal flooding during higher tides and storm events, whilst communities built near natural deltas also suffer from riverine flooding hazards. In addition, longer-term sea-level rise due to climate change will increase the hazard in these locations. The community at Kroo Bay is an example of informal reclamation and redevelopment of the coastline. In Cockle Bay, the community is developing the coastline out into the mangrove lagoon of Aberdeen Creek. In these locations and around the Freetown peninsula coastline, communities are clearing mangroves to make space for development (Figure 11) . The mangroves at the coast provide valuable protection from storm events and future sea-level rise as well as providing a stabilising effect on the coastline. Mangroves uniquely have the ability to grow up with climate-change induced sea level rise (Losada et al, 2018). If these natural mangrove assets continue to be cleared, these already vulnerable coastal communities will face even higher hazards from storm events and future sea-level rise. It should also be noted that mangroves provide an integral component of the local fishery ecosystem and protection of the mangrove areas is therefore essential for the continuation of the local fishing industry. Sand mining, where sand is removed illegally with trucks from the beaches near Freetown is exacerbating coastal erosion. The requirement for sand is linked to the increasing pace of construction in Freetown as well as providing a livelihood for those involved. There is a lack of easily accessible, economic, legal sources of sand for construction. Identification and development of alternative sources of sand and aggregate or Freetown would help resolve this issue. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 73 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 25 – Disappearing mangrove in Aberdeen Creek (top photo21). The bottom satellite images show loss of mangrove (white dashed outline) by deforestation between 2005 and 2017 (Google Earth Pro). Note also, the obvious urban development along the coast during this time. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 74 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 2.6.2 Resilience challenges for solid waste management Solid waste management is a severe problem in Freetown. Lack of reliable house- to-house collections, in most parts of the city, and upstream pollution results in disposal of plastics and other solid waste in the natural and manmade water drainage systems used to convey floodwater. Waste reduces the capacity of the drainage and blocks culverts that transport water beneath roads. This exacerbates the flooding hazard in Freetown, particularly in localised, densely urban areas (Figure 26). The poor and unreliable supply of clean water in Freetown, particularly in areas of unplanned and informal development, was the subject of a limited survey during the rapid damage and loss assessment exercise conducted in response to the Regent-Lumley Disaster (World Bank, 2017). This survey found that people rely on multiple water sources, of which ‘protected dug well’ contributed the greatest percentage (34%). Overall, this survey estimates that around 60% of those surveyed rely on point sources for water (Figure 27). Figure 26 – Waste-filled river channel at Kroo Bay, Freetown. Photo taken during the field Mission in March 2016. Water supply point-sources are generally considered unsuitable for dense urban environments where water points are very close to on-site sanitation facilities. Many of these water sources have the potential to become contaminated during disasters, further increasing health risks. A significant proportion of the population (12%) report relying on bottled water as their main source of drinking water and it is the disposal of plastic bottles (and plastic bags of water) that contributes to the solid waste management problem. Generally, there is a lack of 21 http://www.sl.undp.org/content/sierraleone/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2015/06/09/undp- country-director-calls-for-protection-of-aberdeen-creek-and-sierra-leone-s-ocean-plastic-waste- threatens-future-of-sierra-leone-s-oceans-entire-environment-.html. Accessed March 2018. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 75 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment awareness amongst the urban population of the effects of disposing of solid waste within the drainage network. Figure 27 – Sources of drinking water identified following the Regent-Lumley Disaster (World Bank, 2017). 2.6.3 Resilience challenges for disaster risk management The DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017) identified the recurrent observation that across sectors, complexities of institutional systems management cause weaknesses in the overall DRM system and resilience of Freetown to absorb shocks caused by natural and manmade hazards. Within the workshops held as part of this project, two main areas of governance were reported to particularly influence capacity issues around DRR/DRM for flooding, landslides and coastal hazards. These were: • Planning regulation, including land permissions – buildings are often built illegally on state-owned land with insecure tenure; and, • Devolution of responsibility to local city councils. Planning regulation is intrinsically linked to urban planning. A good urban design will focus on the relationships between buildings and on the spaces they create in and in the case of Freetown, take account of high hazard zones. This will help move the city away from a reactive development approach to one that prioritizes 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 76 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment the prevention of risk as recommended by the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). To achieve this, capacity building in planning regulation is required. It was reported in the project workshops (although not verified by other sources) that there is no central database of locations where ‘permits to build’ have been granted. There were anecdotal comments made by workshop participants about house plots where ‘permits to build’ were issued more than once, resulting in land disputes. It was reported that there are not enough surveyors to verify and regulate the building process i.e. that the house is built in the location where the permit was given and that it has the permitted dimensions and is structurally appropriate and safe. Many of the issues around building in high hazard zones are understood by the technical staff of the ONS and EPA who attended the workshops, however, there is a lack of structure in place to enforce planning regulation. MLCPE/FCC, 2014b comments that “urban expansion into the hills and mountainous area is widely known by the authorities and the general population, but action to address these issues according to law is still lacking”. A draft version of the National Building Code exists from 2015, which states that planning responsibility rests at local council level, but this legislation has yet to be passed. Devolution issues exist and national-level involvement is significant in local planning processes. On reflection of these significant legislation and governance issues the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017) has recommended that: “A preventive approach would require the development of policies and an enabling legislative framework and procedures for action by different institutions endorsed by representative stakeholders: central government, local government, private sector and civil society organizations that interface with the communities. The National Disaster Management Policy and National Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan are to be strengthened and operationalized into the development plans and operations of government entities, both central and local.” 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 77 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 78 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 3 Exposure in Freetown “The situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and other tangible human assets...” (UNISDR, 2017). Rapid population growth and unplanned urbanisation over the last several decades in Freetown mean that people now live in parts of the Freetown peninsula that are highly prone to natural hazards. Over the last 40 years, the urban area of Freetown has grown by approximately 75km2, equivalent to 50 times the area of Aberdeen. The average population growth rate of Freetown has been approximately 4% since 1963 (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). The estimated population of the city from the 2015 census is 1.1 million people. 3.1 Introduction This project has generated a digital exposure model for Freetown. The model provides a spatial inventory of population, buildings (including the estimated building usage categories), and roads aggregated to a 30m x 30m grid (Figure 3). The grid scale of the exposure model is appropriate to assess city-wide hazard and risk. Figure 28 – Overview of the exposure gridding process: A. Buildings digitised to approximate outline in OpenStreetMap and downloaded into GIS; B. Building location, value and typology are gridded to a 30m regularly spaced grid; and C. This grid is used to facilitate hazard and risk calculations. Light to dark on grid (B. and C.) indicates increasing building density. Field of view is approximately 700m across. This section of this report describes the modelled distribution of these elements in Freetown. The accompanying Volume 1 report should be read in conjunction with these observations to fully understand the limitations of the datasets. Each of these exposure elements was modelled distributed to a 30m x 30m grid across Freetown. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 79 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 3.2 Population Map FT-0152 (Page 82) shows the modelled gridded distribution of population in Freetown. As discussed in Section 2, the densest population is modelled at the northernmost part of the Freetown Peninsula, in the areas bordering Destruction Bay, Cline Bay and Kroo Bay. Populations in these areas are more likely to be in lower quality informal residential housing, meaning that they are physically vulnerable to the effects of natural hazards. The low-lying coastal areas in particular are susceptible to coastal hazards and will increasingly be affected by coastal erosion and sea-level rise. To the east, this trend of densest population nearer the coastal areas continues through Kissy Bye Pass II and down towards Allen Town II. Generally, population density reduces moving away from the lower lying areas and up onto the steeper terrain which forms the central highlands of the Freetown Peninsula. To the western part of the peninsula from Juba down towards Hamilton, population density is notably less than on the eastern side of the peninsula. Population density is notably lower in Regent than in the more northerly wards. This is likely to be due to the prevalence of larger, more formal residential properties in this area. Of most concern, for natural hazard-risk is that an increasing proportion of this development is on steep hilly terrain, particularly around Bathurst and Grafton (although this practice is evident throughout the Freetown peninsula). 3.3 Buildings Map-FT-0157 (Page 83) shows the gridded distribution of building value in Freetown. As discussed in Section 2, the density of the built environment is highest in the northernmost part of the Freetown Peninsula. In terms of gridded modelled building value, area of high building value can be associated with one of two patterns of land use/development. The first, is areas within the central urbanized parts of Freetown which have high building density, for example around Susan’s Bay. These areas are not necessarily all associated with high-value structures, however they may contain a mixture of higher-rise residential/commercial properties and informal residential properties. The second, is areas with lower building density however with a concentration of larger, higher value properties e.g. around Regent. Here, the predominant building typology is larger planned residential buildings with high value. Whilst these buildings are typically larger and perhaps more likely to be constructed from reinforced masonry, they are still vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters, as exemplified by the large degree of loss to buildings from the Regent Landslide. The buildings exposure model for Freetown contains 135,996 individual buildings. Table 9 shows the modelled typology of these as determined by the method detailed in the Volume 1 Report. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 80 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 9 – Modelled distribution of building typology in Freetown Type Modelled component of total buildings Educational buildings 0.4% Formal residential buildings 62.8% Government buildings 0.4% Healthcare buildings 0.2% Industrial buildings 0.5% Informal residential buildings 35.7% Utility buildings 0.1% 3.4 Roads Map-FT-0162 (Page 84) shows the gridded distribution of road value in Freetown. It is apparent that the exposed value of roads is largely dictated by surface type. Paved roads have a modelled average replacement value of $341,700/km, whereas unpaved roads have a modelled average replacement value of $52,800/km. Paved roads head towards Western Area Urban by three main routes: along the western coast of the peninsula through Hamilton, Goderich and up towards Aberdeen; through Hastings and through the centre of the peninsula through Charlotte and Regent; and along the eastern coastline of the peninsula from Hastings up through Congo Water II and towards Cline Bay. In the centre of Western Area Urban, the paved road network becomes more intricate and is cross-cut by unpaved roads connecting roads. 3.5 Vulnerability “The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards.” (UNISDR, 2017). The fragility of buildings and roads and vulnerability of the population have been modelled (estimated numerically). For example, fragility functions that relate the depth of flood water to the severity of building damage have been created for a selection of property types. Vulnerability functions have been developed, which then relate the fragility functions to the estimated numbers of fatalities or people affected for each hazard. This project has principally modelled physical vulnerability. Social vulnerability has also been investigated by differentiating between areas of formal (planned) development and informal (unplanned) development and the population distribution in these areas. The factors contributing to social vulnerability has not been investigated via this systematic review of natural hazard and risk. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 81 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 82 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 83 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 84 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 4 Flood Hazard and Risk in Freetown 4.1 Introduction This section of the report provides an overview of the qualitative and quantitative river and surface water flood hazard and risk assessments undertaken for this project. This section of the report should be read in conjunction with Volume 5, which presents detailed maps showing the spatial distribution of flood hazard and risk across Freetown, and Volume 1, which describes the methodology. The spatial extent of the river flood hazard is terminated at the natural coastline. 4.2 Overview of qualitative assessment Areas of medium to high flood hazard are typically confined to the natural network of inland river channels, which flow from areas of high relief (the central mountains of Freetown Peninsular) towards the coast. Broad areas of high flood hazard are also located on the coastal flats on the western side of the peninsula and the wetland areas to the east where there is little or no relief so floodwaters can spread more easily in areal extent. Since the majority of densely urban areas are on the low-lying relatively flat terrain, in the lower river catchments, it follows that the areas of medium and high flood risk are concentrated where the urban areas have built up upon and immediately adjacent to the river channels and floodplains. Particular high-risk flooding hotspots include Tower Hill, Kingtom and Congo Town. A number of watercourses flowing from the terrain above New England converge on these densely developed areas. Other notable areas with a high risk of flooding are located around the watercourses flowing through Kissy, Wellington, Samura Town and Fonima, including intersecting the main coastal roads such as Bai Bureh and Peninsular roads. Figure 29 gives an example of the qualitative flood hazard data viewed in GIS. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 85 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 29 – Example of qualitative flood hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is in the upper catchment of Gloucester (see inset map for approximate location). Light blue indicates lower qualitative flood hazard and dark blue indicates higher qualitative flood hazard. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 86 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 4.3 Overview of quantitative assessment The quantitative flood hazard maps indicate that the medium and high flood- hazard zones for all of the modelled return periods are concentrated along the natural river systems (river channels and their immediate floodplains) of Freetown. These zones include: • The natural channels within the major northwest-southeast trending mountain valleys, such as Regent-Lumley in the northwest of the peninsula and Bathhurst-Hastings Village Area in the southeast of the peninsula; • The natural channels and tributaries within the northeast-southwest trending mountain valleys, such as Thunderhill to Shell and Gloucester to Cline Bay; and • Broad areas of low topographic relief close to the coast. The northwest-southeast valley that contains Regent and Bathurst wards in the east to Malama, Juba and Lumley wards in the west, has some of the highest flood hazard areas in Freetown. In places, modelled flood depths for the 20 year return period indicate up to 5.0 m floodwater depth (Map FT-0043, Page 44). The broad low-lying areas of high modelled flood hazard close to the coast indicate 1.0 to 3.0 m of flooding for the 100 and 1500 year return period. These areas include regions of Hastings Village Area and Allen Town II in the southeast and, York and Hamilton in the southwest. In general, as the modelled flood return period increases, the spatial extent of the flood hazard and the modelled flood depth increases but the spatial pattern of flooding largely remains the same (as described above). A comparison of the modelled 100 year flood with the 1,500 year flood highlights that as return period increases more channels in the upper catchments become zones of medium-high flood hazard. This hazard is likely to be intensified and risk increased if communities continue to deforest and build in the upper catchments. Figure 30 gives an example of the quantitative flood hazard data viewed in a GIS. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 87 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 30 – Example of quantitative flood hazard data viewed in a GIS (river and surface water flooding, 20-year return flood). Area shown is in the upper catchment of Gloucester (see inset map for approximate location). Light blue indicates lower floodwater depth and dark blue indicates greater floodwater depth. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. Estimated flood risk in terms of annual economic loss (USD$) to buildings and calculated as total losses per ward is highest in Hastings Village Area, Hamilton, Regent, Juba/Kaningo, Malama/Kamayama, George Brook and Brookfields- Congo Market (Map FT-0058, Page 45). These wards are predicted to have greater than $100,000 in average annualised losses. Note that some of these wards have large areas so as the losses can be higher. If the risk is recalculated relative to ward area, the highest risk wards are concentrated in the north of Freetown where the building and population density is highest, whereas the larger wards towards the south (Hamilton and Hastings Village Area, which are sparsely developed in the majority of the catchment) have 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 88 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment low relative risk (Map FT-0059, Page 46.). Brooksfield-Congo Market is the ward with the highest relative risk, whilst Kroo Town, Brookfields, George Brook and Kissy Brook also have high relative high risk to flooding when ward size is considered. The number of fatalities from flooding is highest in the wards of Regent, Bathurst and Hastings Village Area (0.5 to >1.0 estimated average annual fatalities). Relative to ward area, the highest risk wards in terms of fatalities are: Lumley, Juba, Susan’s Bay and Regent. The modelled distribution for people affected by floods is similar to the direct loss to buildings. The highest risk wards for the number of people affected are: Hamilton, Hastings Village Area, Industrial Estate, Kingtom, Kroo Town, Brookfields-Congo Market and George Brook. All of these wards are modelled to have greater than 100 people affected by flooding annually. The number of people affected relative to ward area shows that Kroo Town, Brooksfield-Congo Market are the highest risk areas, whilst Kissy Brook is also shown to have a high number of people being affected per unit area. The larger wards towards the south (Hamilton and Hastings Village Area) have a low relative risk to population. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 89 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 90 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 91 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 92 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 4.4 Summary of flood risk for Freetown Flood risk in Freetown is concentrated where urban development has occurred along the natural river channels and their flood plains and on the low-lying areas close to the coast. The highest flood risk areas include: • Relative to ward area, in terms of fatalities: Lumley, Juba, Susan’s Bay and Regent. • Relative to ward area in terms of number of people affected: Kroo Town, Brooksfield-Congo Market. Risk to people (in terms of potential loss of life and potential number of people affected) and to buildings and infrastructure (in terms of potential for damage and economic loss) occurs as a result of urban development occurring in areas of high flood hazard. The loss-exceedance curves (Figure 31, Figure 32 and Figure 33) reveal that flood risk to the population is highest in Freetown, moderate in in Bo, and quite low in terms of loss of life in Makeni. Similarly, the flood risk in terms of direct losses due to damage to buildings is highest in Freetown. Table 10 provides an overview of modelled flood risk in Freetown. The average annual direct loss to all buildings is estimated to be $2,547,000. 92% of this direct loss is associated with formal residential buildings, whilst the remaining percentage is made up of the combination of healthcare facilities, informal residential buildings, industrial buildings and government facilities, in descending order of contribution. Table 10 – Flood risk (Freetown). Risk metric Average estimate Average annual number fatalities 9 Average annual number persons affected 3,011 Average annual direct loss to all buildings (USD) $2,547,000 Average annual direct loss to educational facilities (USD) $23,000 Average annual direct loss to formal residential buildings (USD) $2,335,000 Average annual direct loss to government facilities (USD) $2,000 Average annual direct loss to healthcare facilities (USD) $137,000 Average annual direct loss to industrial buildings (USD) $14,000 Average annual direct loss to informal residential buildings (USD) $36,000 Average annual direct loss to utility facilities (USD) < $1,000 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 93 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 11 provides a breakdown of modelled return period losses for Freetown. As expected the longer the return period of the flood, the greater the losses due to flooding. This is because more extreme natural hazard events occur less frequently than less extreme natural hazard events. Table 11 – Return period flood losses (Freetown). Flood return period (years) Mean loss to all buildings Mean loss as a percentage (USD$) of current country GDP22 10 $16,000 0.0004% 20 $32,533,000 0.9% 50 $38,496,000 1.0% 100 $45,107,000 1.2% 250 $52,173,000 1.4% 500 $62,040,000 1.7% 1,000 $79,719,000 2.2% Figure 31, Figure 32 and Figure 33 show loss exceedance curves for risk to population and buildings in Freetown. 22 Current (2016) GDP of Sierra Leone estimated by the World Bank = 3.7 billion US$ (https://data.worldbank.org/country/sierra-leone [accessed 17.05.2018]. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 94 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 31 – Loss exceedance curve (flooding, number people affected) for Freetown (also showing Makeni and Bo for comparison). Figure 32 – Loss exceedance curve (flooding, number fatalities) for Freetown (also showing Makeni and Bo for comparison). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 95 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 33 – Loss exceedance curve (flooding, direct loss to all buildings) for Freetown (also showing Makeni and Bo for comparison). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 96 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 97 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 5 Landslide Hazard and Risk in Freetown 5.1 Introduction This section of the report provides an overview of the qualitative and quantitative landslide hazard and risk assessments undertaken for this project. This section of the report should be read in conjunction with Volume 5, which presents detailed maps showing the spatial distribution of landslide hazard and risk across Freetown mapped by this project. 5.2 Overview of qualitative landslide hazard and risk assessment Areas of medium to very high landslide hazard are located in areas of steeper terrain (Map FT-0019, Page 52). It can be seen that the areas shown as having high landslide susceptibility/hazard generally coincide with areas where recent and historical landslide source areas have been identified. The majority of the steep terrain is characterised by a medium hazard. Large areas of high landslide hazard are located on steeper terrain in Mount Aureol, New England, Kissy, Wongo Town, Wellington, Samura Town, Wilberforce and Hill Station. Localised areas of very high landslide hazard also exist in the Mount Aureol area. Some broad areas of high landslide hazard are located in the upland areas in the central region of the peninsula; these are associated with the steepest terrain rather than encroachment of the built environment (Map FT-0019, Page 99). Areas of medium to very high landslide risk are associated with areas where the built environment encroaches onto steeper terrain, such as in Mount Aureol, New England, Kissy, Wilberforce and Hill Station. As a result, the areas of high landslide hazard in the upland areas have a low medium landslide risk, due to the lack of development. Landslide risk is lower along the western extent of the peninsula due to the lower built environment density. Figure 34 gives an example of the qualitative landslide hazard data viewed in a GIS. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 98 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 99 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 34 – Example of qualitative landslide hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is around Leicester and Kissy Brook (see inset map for approximate location). Light pink indicates high qualitative landslide hazard and darker red indicates very high qualitative landslide hazard. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 5.3 Overview of quantitative landslide hazard and risk assessment The landslide susceptibility map (Map FT-0064, Page 54) indicates that the high landslide susceptibility regions are concentrated in areas of high elevation and high topographic relief. The spatial extent of high landslide susceptibility covers most of the central and southern mountainous regions of the Freetown peninsular. The modelled spatial pattern of high landslide susceptibility is consistent with the observed and mapped locations of historical landslide source areas (although this is somewhat self-fulfilling since the historical landslide source areas were used to generate the landslide susceptibility model, see Volume 1). Figure 35 is an example of the quantitative landslide hazard data viewed in a GIS. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 100 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 101 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The quantitative landslide hazard map (Map FT-0069, Page 104) indicates that the highest landslide hazard occurs in the valleys directly beneath the high relief mountainous areas. This is due to the runout associated with mobile debris flows. As expected, the landslide hazard is low in the flatter regions close to the coast. There is a concentration of high landslide hazard in Hamilton. Other wards with significant landslide hazard are Regent, Goderich, York, Hamilton Village Area, Charlotte and Bathurst. Figure 35 is an example of the quantitative landslide hazard data viewed in a GIS. In terms of wards, those with high risk of number of fatalities are in the regions surrounding the central mountains of the Freetown peninsular Map FT-0078, Page 105. As with the quantitative flood modelling, ward is not the ideal unit for summing up the landslide risk. This is because some of these wards can have large areas so as the combined losses can be higher. When the risk is re-calculated relative to ward area, the high landslide risk regions are concentrated in the north and north east of Freetown (e.g. Map FT-0079, Page 106). Relative to ward area, the highest risk wards in terms of number of fatalities are concentrated in the northern part of the peninsular where the exposure is high (Map FT-0079, Page 106). The quantitative landslide risk metrics in these wards have been estimated as follows: • Direct average annualised loss to buildings is estimated to be greater than $10,000 each year; • >0.5 – 1 fatalities each year; • Typically 0.1 to 1 buildings affected each year; and • 0.5 to >10 people affected each year. There are three wards (Bathurst, Charlotte and York) that stand out as low risk for nearly all of the risk metrics. These wards are located in the centre and south of the peninsular in areas of high topography where the exposure is low. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 102 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 35 – Example of quantitative landslide hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is around Charlotte (see inset map for approximate location). Lighter red indicates individual 30m pixels that are estimated to be affected by landsliding at a return period of 5,000–2,000 years. Darker red indicates individual 30m pixels that are estimated to be affected by landslides more frequently than at a return period of 2,000 years. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 103 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 104 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 105 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 106 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 5.4 Summary of the landslide hazard and risk in Freetown The highest landslide hazard zones are within the natural river channels/mountain valleys particularly in the upper catchment areas, and to a relatively lesser extent the steep high-relief mountain slopes where the landslide initiates. The high landslide hazard occurs in the channels and mountain valleys because the landslides initiate on the steep surrounding slopes, runout downslope to the valley, with debris accumulating and travelling down the valley. The highest landslide risk areas include: • Relative to ward area, in terms of fatalities: New England-Hill Cot, New England-Hanneson, Dworzack, and in particular Quarry, Coconut Farm, and Kissy Brook. • Relative to ward area in terms of number of people affected: the wards north of Leicester and south of Destruction Bay have the highest risk. These include: Tengbeh Town, Foulah Town, Magazine, Bombay, Kossoh Town, Ginger Hall, Quarry and Coconut Farm. Risk to people (in terms of potential loss of life and potential number of people affected) and to buildings and infrastructure (in terms of potential for damage and economic loss) occurs because of urban development occurring in areas of high landslide hazard. Table 12 provides an overview of modelled landslide risk in Freetown. Table 12 – Landslide risk (Freetown). Risk metric Lower Upper Average estimate estimate estimate Average annual number fatalities 1 20 11 Average annual number persons affected 25 255 140 Average annual direct loss to all buildings (USD) $9,000 $701,000 $355,000 Average annual number buildings affected 3 29 16 Average annual direct loss to educational facilities (USD) < $1,000 $23,000 $12,000 Average annual direct loss to formal residential buildings $7,000 $558,000 $283,000 (USD) Average annual direct loss to government facilities (USD) < $1,000 $21,000 $11,000 Average annual direct loss to healthcare facilities (USD) < $1,000 $19,000 $10,000 Average annual direct loss to industrial buildings (USD) < $1,000 $72,000 $37,000 Average annual direct loss to informal residential < $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 buildings (USD) Average annual direct loss to utility facilities (USD) < $1,000 $6,000 $3,000 Average annual direct loss to roads (USD) < $1,000 $9,000 $5,000 Average annual road length affected (km) < 0.1 0.3 0.2 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 107 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 108 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 6 The Regent-Lumley Disaster within the Context of Flood and Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment in Freetown 6.1 Introduction On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Western Area Rural, Freetown (Figure 36 and Figure 37). The landslide, which occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area that was already understood to have been affected by severe flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have been declared dead or missing. Because this event occurred after the quantitative natural hazard mapping had been carried out as part of this project, this section of the report describes the nature of the Regent-Lumley Disaster and how the event has been represented by the separate flood and landslide hazard and risk models developed for this project by comparison. Figure 36 – The landslide at Regent. This photograph is looking north from several valleys away; it shows the mountainside that failed in the August 14th disaster. The height of the brown region is around 300m. The white circle shows the location from which the photo in Figure 37 was captured (looking to the east). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 109 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 37 – Field photo view east taken from a location around half way up the landslide debris material, the field team have been circled to illustrate the massive scale of the landslide. 6.2 The Regent-Lumley Disaster A landslide occurred in the Regent area, shortly before 0700 on 14th August 2017. The landslide is understood to have occurred in two phases, as indicated by eyewitness accounts, confirmed both in Regent and ~6km away in Lumley by the timing of the arrival of debris at the mouth of the Regent-Lumley channel (Figure 38). It is also understood that the area into which the landslide slipped in Regent was already affected by flooding, having been subject to intense rainfall overnight. The exact nature of the two-stage failure (i.e. which part of the slope failed first and how) is not yet known and is the subject of ongoing investigation. In the upper part of the slope, there is evidence of large wedge block failures having occurred in relatively fresh bedrock in addition to the more visible signs of translational sliding along extensive joints within the slope. Once part of the slope had failed, areas immediately upslope or adjacent to the failed mass would also have progressively failed due to a release of confining stress, eventually forming the characteristic ‘scallop-shaped’ landslide scar visible in the upper part of the slope today. Despite the evidence of wedge-type release surfaces, this mechanism could best be characterised as a predominantly translational debris slide. From approximately halfway down to the foot of the slope, material was no- longer falling from the hillside by wedge and translational mechanism, but rather the failed material from above came sliding rolling and flowing on top of the 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 110 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment former ground surface. This is evidenced by foundation-remains still found in-situ at the post-event ground surface within the middle to lower part of the slope. Once this vast volume of material reached the lower parts of the slope, it became mixed with the gathering floodwaters at the foot of the slope. The flooding here would have in places been static, accumulating in the natural topographic depressions in this part of Regent. Some of the floodwaters would have been continuing to flow rapidly from east to west down the Regent-Lumley channel and out to sea (Figure 38 and Figure 39). Figure 38 – Pre- and post-disaster satellite imagery showing the extent of the area affected by the Regent-Lumley debris flow (World Bank, 2107). At this point the landslide would have begun to display more flow-like behaviour as the debris from the upper slopes became yet further agitated and saturated with water. This sort of debris flow commonly develops when landslide debris mixes with surface runoff (Iverson, 1997). This transition from sliding to flow-like behaviour can occur rapidly (Santi et al., 2011). When such a debris flow occurs in or enters a drainage line (such as the Regent-Lumley channel), it forms a channelized debris flow (Figure 40). As the debris flow became channelized by combination of the natural topography at the base of the slope and the deluge of east-west flowing floodwater, which was, already flowing through the area, it would have gained greater mobility and volume due to erosion and entrainment of loose deposits from the floodplain and banks. The velocity of such debris flows can be as high as 15m/s (Hungr et al., 2001). At this point, the path of the debris flow was controlled by the alignment and confinement of the drainage line. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 111 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 39 – View west along the path of the debris flow towards Lumley Bay in the far distance. Photo taken August 2017 shortly following the disaster. Due to the natural pinch-points in the Regent-Lumley channel, it is probable that the channel may have at times during the event become partially blocked by boulders, trees or other entrained debris. This may have allowed temporary dams to form, which would have permitted the build-up of material until such a time that the blockage burst, releasing a further surge of fast-flowing debris along the channel. This may account for the extent and scale of building damage and devastation as far as 3km downstream along the channel in Kamayama (e.g. Figure 40). The destructive force of the debris flow would have gradually reduced from east to west as its load was deposited, the topographic gradient reduced and the floodplain widened. By the time the debris flow reached Lumley, it would have resembled a large, relatively fast flowing (compared to what might be a ‘normal’ flood in the channel) flood. The floodwaters then flowed out into the sea, depositing their remaining load as the sediment plume, which can be clearly seen from post-event satellite imagery. Importantly, the impact of debris flows on buildings shares characteristics of the impact of landslides but also it resembles the impact of floods depending on the content of solid material and the size of transported particles (Papathoma-Köhle, 2017). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 112 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 40 – Before (top) and after (bottom) satellite imagery showing the impacts along the channelized debris flow. The channel is over 100m wider than before. A multi-storey house in the channel (circled in red), although still standing has been almost completely destroyed by the flow. 6.3 Comparison of the landslide and flood hazard modelling with the Regent-Lumley Disaster The source area for the landslide in Regent was identified as a zone of high qualitative landslide susceptibility/hazard. In addition, the source area was also identified as an area of high quantitative landslide susceptibility. The quantitative landslide hazard modelling captured well the spatial extent of the landslide source and runout in the Regent area. The quantitative flood and landslide hazard modelling accurately represents the spatial extent of the debris flow along the length of the Regent-Lumley channel. The full length of the Regent-Lumley mountain valley is identified as ‘hazard zone’ by the quantitative flood and landslide modelling for which priority should be given to the prevention of further construction. It can therefore be concluded that the separate quantitative flood and landslide hazard models well represent the spatial extent of the Regent-Lumley Disaster and lead to suitable and sensible conclusions about hazard in the area. 6.4 Comparison of the landslide and flood risk modelling with losses from the Regent-Lumley Disaster At least 5,900 people were reported to have been directly affected by the Regent- Lumley Disaster (World Bank, 2017). As of October 2017 at least 500 bodies have been recovered and a further 800 people were reported as missing (World Bank, 2017). Because the quantitative flood hazard and risk assessments are based on a stochastic event set of modelled floods in Freetown, it is possible to further interrogate the event set to find an event of similar spatial extent to the Regent- 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 113 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Lumley Disaster and compare observed losses with modelled losses. The largest of these stochastic events was then used for comparison with observed losses from the Regent-Lumley Disaster. No similar comparison can be made by the quantitative landslide hazard and risk model due to the methodology used (described in Volume 1). The maximum number of fatalities estimated by the modelled flood within only the Regent-Lumley channel is <50. The observed number of fatalities from the Regent-Lumley Disaster is >500. The flood model alone therefore does not account well for the number of fatalities from the Regent-Lumley Disaster. The flood loss curves indicate that the potential loss of life from longer return period events (500 to 1000-year return period) may be in the order of 275 to 350 fatalities. The maximum number of people affected estimated by the modelled flood within the Regent-Lumley channel is ~5,000. The observed number of people affected from the Regent-Lumley Disaster is ~5,900. The flood model therefore well accounts for ~85% of the people affected by the Regent-Lumley Disaster. The maximum direct losses to buildings estimated by the modelled flood within the Regent-Lumley Channel is ~$10,000,000. The observed direct losses to buildings from the Regent-Lumley Disaster is ~$9,500,000 (World Bank, 2017). The flood model therefore accounts well for the direct losses to buildings from the Regent-Lumley Disaster. The hazard and risk models created for Freetown therefore represent well the losses from the Regent-Lumley Disaster (and can be thought of as a suitable proxy), except for the number of fatalities (which are underestimated). It is interpreted that this disparity occurs because the probability of death for a person having been affected by a flood is estimated without consideration of floodwater velocity and debris load. This is a necessary assumption for city-scale modelling, however clearly the probability of death for a person affected by a fast-moving debris-laden flood (a debris flow) is higher than for a person affected by slower moving debris-sparse food-waters. It would be unreasonable to increase the probability of death for a person affected by flooding (i.e. vulnerability) to account for faster velocities and entrained debris for the whole Freetown flood model since the Regent-Lumley Disaster was unprecedented in size, and hence is not representative of the longer-term annual flooding suffered by Freetown (such as that which occurred in Culvert and Dwozark at the same time as the Regent- Lumley Disaster). Such an increase in vulnerability would overestimate the average annual estimate of fatalities significantly. 6.5 Summary of observations from the Regent- Lumley Disaster The quantitative flood and landslide hazard and risk models prepared for the project provided a good representation of the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Recommendations for DRR in these areas are therefore valid. The models lead to a good indication of the spatial extent of hazards and therefore well delineate areas for prioritised DRR. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 114 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The effects of the Regent-Lumley Disaster are also well modelled by the individual quantitative flood and landslide hazard and risk models developed for this project. The number of fatalities which may arise from channelized debris flows (such as the Regent-Lumley Disaster) may be underestimated by the models, however the flood and landslide models provide a good representation of the average annual losses in Freetown and therefore present a suitable baseline from which to prioritise DRR and reduce long-term losses. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 115 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 116 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 7 Coastal Erosion Hazard and Risk in Freetown 7.1 Introduction The next two sections present a summary of the qualitative and scenario-based quantitative land loss due to coastal erosion and inundation due to sea-level rise hazard and risk assessments undertaken for this project. These hazards are related, since rising sea-level will increase rates of coastal erosion, and intensifying and more frequent storm surges resulting from global climate change will also increase rates of coastal erosion. However, the hazards have been discussed and analysed in separate sections for clarity, since the spatial pattern and extent of each hazard is different and they have different impacts. The following sections of the report should be read in conjunction with Volume 1, which presents the technical approach and methodology, and Volume 5, which presents detailed maps showing the spatial distribution of coastal erosion and sea- level rise hazard and risk across Freetown. 7.2 Overview of qualitative coastal erosion hazard assessment for Freetown Large areas of medium to high coastal erosion hazard have been identified in the qualitative assessments. These areas are located along the western extent of the Freetown Peninsula at Cockerill Bay and the beaches at Adonkia Village and Angola Town (Map FT-0039, Page 118). Lumley Beach is particularly vulnerable to coastal erosion because it is a narrow sand spit (Figure 41). Areas of high coastal erosion hazard are also associated with the alluvial deltas that have formed where a number of rivers drain to the north coast, such as White Man’s Bay, Kroo Bay (Figure 41), Destruction Bay and Cline Bay. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 117 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 118 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 41 – Lumley Beach with a view to Aberdeen, northwest Freetown (top); Kroo Bay delta, northern Freetown (bottom). 7.3 Overview of quantitative coastal erosion hazard and risk assessment The coastline around Freetown has been divided up into sections based on the varying levels of hazard that have been identified in the quantitative hazard assessment. There are 27 of these sections (S01 – S27), with S01 staring in the south west of the peninsula and S27 ending in the northeast (Figure 42). It is possible to group these sections together to form four stretches of coastline with 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 119 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment similar characteristics and vulnerabilities. A brief description of these four larger sections of coastline, along with comments on hazards and risks follows below. Figure 42 – Zones of characteristic coastal erosion 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 120 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 7.3.1 Coastal Section S1 to Section S10 Southwest Freetown contains large stretches of natural coastline that have only been marginally affected by human activity. Most typical are long sandy beaches, separated by rocky headlands. Sections S1 to S10 contain the coastline that runs to the west of Sussex, Lakka and Goderich, which are regions comprising medium density housing. Homes are generally separated from the shoreline by the sandy beaches or vegetated areas. Elsewhere, homes have been built on the rockier headlands. There is very little immediate coastal erosion risk to buildings from coastal erosion along the majority of sections S1 to S10. Figure 43 gives an example of the quantitative coastal erosion land-loss data viewed in a GIS. 7.3.2 Coastal Section S11 to Section S13 The coastline in northwest Freetown typically comprises thin beaches with man- made developments at the top of the beaches very close to the shoreline. This section of coastline has been created because critical infrastructure, such as the coastal road, is at risk to coastal erosion. This stretch of coastline is also home to Lumley Beach and other tourist hotspots, so potential economic loss from coastal erosion is high. 7.3.3 Coastal Section S14 to Section S24 The coastline along the northern peninsular of Freetown is very densely populated. Homes have been built right on the shoreline, and, in some cases, have been built out into the water. Kroo Bay is an example of this outwards building. The coastline contains virtually no sandy beaches and very little vegetation. Due to the proximity of buildings to the shoreline and the lack of natural defences, this section of coastline is at high risk to coastal erosion. The port in the northwest of Freetown does not appear to be susceptible to coastal erosion and will be well protected by hard engineering structures (e.g. sea walls). The mangrove area behind Lumley Beach separating Aberdeen from the rest of the Freetown peninsular is not included in coastal erosion analysis. This is because this mangrove area is not directly subjected to any wave action. Mangroves will respond to sea-level rise. 7.3.4 Coastal Section S25 to Section S27 The coastline in northeast Freetown is dominated by mangroves. The built environment is behind these highly vegetated areas, which act as a natural defence against coastal erosion. For the purposes of this study, the coastline has been defined at the boundary between the edge of the mangroves and open water. Approximately 95% of this coastline is natural and unaffected by human activity, however there are two small areas where homes have been built out into the mangroves and are close the coastline. These built-up areas are the only areas that are at any risk to coastal erosion in Sections S25 to S27. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 121 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 43 – Example of 2050 scenario quantitative coastal erosion hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is approximately 2km south of Lakka (see inset map for approximate location). Light purple shows the lower estimate land loss map and dark purple shows the upper estimate land loss map. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 122 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 13 – Summary of high hazard zones estimated from 2050 scenario coastal erosion and associated processes. Coastal Location Estimated Geomorphological interpretation Section land loss (m) from 2017 to 2050 S02 Vegetated 150m A low-lying, sandy beach with mangroves behind coastline means that there is little resistance to erosion. north of Rivers channels have also formed in the Sussex. mangroves, helping to erode the coastline. This section of coastline is not sheltered by any headland so wave action will be prevalent. S05 – Coastline 125m Similarly to S02, this stretch of coastline comprises S06 between sandy beach that is exposed to the full force of Lakka and Atlantic waves. These factors mean it is susceptible Goderich. to a significant amount of erosion. The majority of the area behind the beach is dry land, rather than mangroves, which may account for the slightly lower amount of erosion compared to S02. S13 Lumley 10m Despite only having a small predicted amount of Beach erosion, Lumley Beach has been included in this high hazard table because a storm event could easily overtop the thin beach. This would wash away the beach and connect the mangroves behind the beach with the open ocean. Such an event would also isolate Aberdeen but is not captured by the city-scale modelling approach used for this project. S14 – Northern 50m The northern stretch of coastline around the S20 coastline Freetown peninsula has no natural defences, such from as mangroves and sandy beaches, like many of the Aberdeen to western coastline do. This should make the Jinger Hall northern coastline more susceptible to erosion, however, human activity appears to be slowing the process. People are building right up to the shoreline and there is also evidence of seawalls being constructed. The materials being used in this construction are more resistant to erosion than many natural materials. S23 – Coastline 70m The coastline around Kissy appears to be slightly S24 around less densely populated compared with the coastline Kissy further west. As such, a greater proportion of coastline is made up of natural materials. These natural materials appear to be loose fine grained sediments and vegetation, which are more susceptible to coastal erosion than man-made materials. This might explain why there is slightly more erosion predicted in Kissy than in other stretches along the northern coastline. S25 – North east 50m The edge of the mangroves may be being damaged S27 coast from during storm events or they may be being cut down Calaba for wood. Town to Hastings 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 123 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 7.4 Estimated 2050 scenario coastal erosion risk Risk is highest along the south west coast and the northern coastline of Freetown. The worst affected wards are Hamilton, Goderich and Connaught Hospital, with estimated building value loss at greater than $5,000,000 (Map FT-0097, Page 126) and greater than 100 buildings affected. When the risk is normalised relative to ward area, the highest risk wards are Aberdeen, Connaught Hospital and Magazine. Lumley Beach, contained within S13, may be at higher risk than these findings suggest. Although only one building per kilometre is predicted to be affected by coastal erosion over this section, a storm event and the over topping of the narrow beach would have other negative economic consequences. These include a loss of income from tourism along the beach and the coastal road which connects Aberdeen to Lumley and the rest of the mainland to the south. Conversely, the risk to the port in north east Freetown contained in segment S21, shows 14 buildings will be affected per kilometre of coastline. The risk is thought to be lower than this because the very resistant sea walls along the port will make coastal erosion negligible. It is likely very few buildings in this section will be affected. 7.5 Summary of the coastal erosion hazard and risk in Freetown Coastal erosion hazard and risk in Freetown is concentrated where urban development has occurred where communities have built at and very close to the shoreline, on natural and reclaimed land. The high hazard coastal erosion areas are in particular: Lumley Beach, Goderich and Lakkah Beaches on the west coast of the Peninsular. The highest coastal erosion risk (2050 scenario) areas include: • In terms of direct loss to buildings, include the wards: Hamilton, Goderich, Aberdeen, Murray Town, Kingtom, Cannaught Hospital and Cline Town, each of which would experience losses of greater than $5,000,000 based on the 2050 scenario. Risk to people (in terms of potential loss of life and potential number of people affected) and to buildings and infrastructure (in terms of potential for damage and economic loss) occurs because of urban development, sand mining and environmental degradation occurring in areas of high coastal erosion hazard. Table 14 provides an overview of modelled coastal erosion risk results in Freetown. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 124 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 14 – Presents an overview of the 2050 scenario coastal erosion risk to Freetown. Risk metric Lower estimate Upper estimate Average Average annual estimate estimate Number persons 1,778 18,075 9,927 300 affected* Direct loss to all $1,121,000 $261,711,000 $131,416,000 $3,982,303 buildings (USD) Number 243 2,222 1,233 37 buildings affected Direct loss to < $1,000 $5,409,000 $2,704,000 $81,939 educational facilities (USD) Direct loss to $801,000 $190,100,000 $95,450,000 $2,892,424 formal residential buildings (USD) Direct loss to < $1,000 $1,182,000 $591,000 $17,909 government facilities (USD) Direct loss to < $1,000 $5,874,000 $2,937,000 $89,000 healthcare facilities (USD) Direct loss to $174,000 $56,579,000 $28,376,000 $859,879 industrial buildings (USD) Direct loss to $65,000 $1,771,000 $918,000 $27,818 informal residential buildings (USD) Direct loss to $81,000 $796,000 $438,000 $13,273 utility facilities (USD) Average road 1.6 13.3 7.4 0.22 length affected (km) * Based on the current population (2015 census data). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 125 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 126 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 127 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 8 Sea-Level Rise Hazard and Risk in Freetown 8.1 Introduction As sea level rise and associated land loss occurs gradually, it is a hazard that needs to be addressed differently to other hazards that have a more rapid onset and impact. UNISDR (2017) note that the impacts of sea-level rise may not be immediately seen or coalesce around a single sea-level rise event. This section of the report provides an overview of the qualitative and scenario- based (2050) quantitative sea-level rise hazard and risk assessments undertaken for this project. This section of the report should be read in conjunction with Volume 1, which details the assessment methodology, and Volume 5, which shows maps showing the spatial distribution of hazard and risk related to coastal change across Freetown and around the Freetown coastline. 8.2 Overview of qualitative assessment of sea-level rise hazard and risk in Freetown Areas of high to very high inundation hazard are associated with the low-lying coastal areas at Aberdeen and Lumley Beach at the north-eastern extent of Freetown as well as on the eastern extent of the peninsula at Orogu Village and Wellington (Map FT-0029, Page 84). A large area of medium inundation hazard is located at the Sussex Beach area on the western extent of the peninsula. The inundation risk is relatively low in these areas due to these low-lying wetland areas being unsuitable for urban development. Areas of medium to high risk are located where the built environment encroaches the periphery of these areas. Developed coastal areas in the Kingtom area, particularly in White Man’s Bay and Kroo Bay, have a high to very high risk from inundation as these low-lying areas have been densely urbanised and have in places prograded due to informal reclamation coupled with natural sedimentation. 8.3 Overview of quantitative assessment of sea-level rise hazard and risk in Freetown Sea level rise in 2050 in Freetown using the RCP8.5 climate-change scenario is estimated to be +0.26m, which is slightly higher than the global mean sea-level rise calculated using RCP8.5 of +0.25m. This means that for a calm sea state at the highest astronomical tide, including allowance for sea-level rise to 2050, the sea level would be approximately 2m above the current mean sea level. This projection does not include allowance for storm surge or wave run-up, which would increase the level (although this allowance would usually be added to the mean high water spring level, rather than the highest astronomical tide). For this reason, and considering that the use of global elevation models typically underestimates the effects of sea-level rise, particularly in urban settings, the 2050 scenario sea-level is estimated to be 3m to 4m above the current global mean sea 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 128 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment level. This estimate includes allowance for SLR, highest astronomical tidal conditions and a nominal allowance for wave-action23. The upper and lower estimates of quantitative sea-level rise from the 2050 scenario are shown on Map FT-0084, Page 85. The areas of highest hazard largely reflect the areas identified by the qualitative sea-level rise map. Figure 44 gives an example of 2050 scenario quantitative sea-level rise hazard data viewed in GIS. 23 Based on a high-level review of the tail ends of historical hurricane tracks off the coast of West Africa, we can conservatively assume a storm surge that relates to a category 1 on the Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale. Using this scale, this relates to a storm surge of 1.0m – 1.7m. A conservative range of 1m – 2m can therefore be assumed for potential storm surge as a high- level estimate. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 129 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 130 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 131 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 132 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 44 – Example of 2050 scenario quantitative sea-level rise hazard data viewed in a GIS. Area shown is approximately Kroo Bay (see inset map for approximate location). Light orange shows the lower estimate inundation map and dark orange shows the upper estimate inundation map. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 8.4 Summary of the sea level rise hazard and risk in Freetown Sea level rise hazard and risk in Freetown is concentrated where urban development has occurred where communities have built at and very close to the shoreline, on natural and reclaimed land. The high hazard sea level rise areas are in particular: a large region between Aberdeen Creek and Lumley Beach, and localised areas of the coast that coincide with the locations of the natural deltas such as Kroo Bay, Cline Bay and Susan’s 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 133 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Bay. Additionally, large, low-lying areas of coastal land in the northeast and southwest of the Peninsular are also high hazard zones. The highest sea level rise risk (2050 scenario) areas are: • In terms of direct loss to buildings, MAP FT-0089 Page 132 shows the highest risk wards, which would incur losses in excess of $500,000 based on the 2050 scenario. Risk to buildings and infrastructure (in terms of potential for damage and economic loss) occurs because of urban development occurring in areas of high sea level rise hazard. Table 15 provides an overview of modelled coastal erosion risk results in Freetown. Table 15 – Sea-level rise risk 2050 scenario (Freetown). Risk metric Lower Upper Average Average annual estimate estimate estimate estimate Number persons affected* 7,309 12,248 9,779 296 Direct loss to all buildings $9,925,000 $83,731,000 $46,828,000 $1,419,030 (USD) Number buildings affected 1481 2280 1881 57 Direct loss to educational < $1,000 < $1,000 < $1,000 < $30 facilities (USD) Direct loss to formal $8,781,000 $77,184,000 $42,982,000 $1,302,485 residential buildings (USD) Direct loss to government < $1,000 $913,000 $456,000 $13,818 facilities (USD) Direct loss to healthcare < $1,000 $669,000 $334,000 $10,121 facilities (USD) Direct loss to industrial < $1,000 $2,346,000 $1,173,000 $35,545 buildings (USD) Direct loss to informal $1,144,000 $2,619,000 $1,882,000 $57,030 residential buildings (USD) Direct loss to utility facilities < $1,000 < $1,000 < $1,000 < $30 (USD) Average road length affected 5.1 10.3 7.7 0.2 (km) *based on current population (2015 census data). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 134 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 135 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 9 Identification of Areas at Highest Risk from Natural Hazards in Freetown 9.1 Introduction This section of the report identifies the areas of highest risk from the one or more of the natural hazards of flooding, landslides, coastal erosion, and sea-level rise in Freetown. These areas have been identified using the following two methods: • The identification of urban development within Hazard Zones, which are defined by the quantitative natural hazard assessment undertaken for this study; and • The identification of specific areas of high risk as informed by the qualitative and quantitative hazard and risk assessments undertaken by this study, with emphasis on ‘hot-spots’ identified by stakeholders during in-country workshops. 9.2 Urban development in combined hazard zones Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially defined by: • The spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and • The spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years. Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard zones for a 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The 2050 combined hazard zones have been defined by: • The spatial extent of a 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); • The spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; • The estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a 2050 scenario; and, • The estimate land loss area from coastal erosion for a 2050 scenario. Map FT-0112 (Page 138) shows the spatial extent of the zones defined by these criteria, the proposed combined hazard zones. The current, i.e. present day, hazard zones are shown in dark pink, the lighter pink areas show the extent of the Combined Hazard Zones in the near future (year 2050) accounting for climate change. This map has two key functions for decision makers: 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 136 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • The map indicates the areas of the city at risk from natural hazards currently. These maps can help to inform decision makers where further development should be discouraged, unless appropriate planning and engineering procedures are in place. It also identifies the areas where public awareness with regard to natural hazard and risk should be focussed. • The map indicates that, in the near future (2050), a greater extent of the city will be within hazard zones due to the impact of climate change. This needs to be taken into consideration for urban planning, development and zoning for the city. It would be sensible therefore to increase the density of future urban development in areas of lower hazard and to minimise development in areas of the city where the hazard is highest. It is understood that a wider range of issues need to be taken into consideration by decision makers when planning urban development. This report only provides recommendations related to natural hazard and risk specifically related to flooding, landsliding, coastal erosion and sea level rise. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 137 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 138 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 9.3 Existing development in combined hazard zones The hazard and exposure data have been overlaid and used to identify where existing development coincides with the current (dark pink) and future 2050 (lighter pink) Combined Hazard Zones across the city (Map FT-0117, Page 140). The Combined Hazard Zones will be larger by 2050 due to climate change causing more flooding, landsliding, coastal erosion and sea-level rise. Decision makers can use Map FT-0117 and Map FT-0112 in combination to inform urban zoning plans for the city. These zoning plans should take into account the location and distribution of the high-hazard zones. Lower-hazard areas can potentially be used to accommodate more of the existing population living in high-hazard areas and be used to accommodate future population growth. It should be noted that existing Hazard Zone maps are not sufficiently detailed to be used to define no- build-zones and more detailed assessment would be required to do so. Around 10% of Freetown’s population currently lives in high-hazard zones (Table 3). Table 16 – Development within Combined Hazard Zones. Numbers within current combined Numbers within 2050 combined hazard zones hazard zones* Population ~100,000 ~200,000 Buildings ~12,000 ~25,000 *Based on current model for population and buildings. Does not consider probable population and building count increase to 2050. Decision makers can to use a combination of Maps FT-0117 and FT-0124, to understand 1) where most of the high-risk development has occurred spatially (FT-0117), 2) how it relates to the size of the ward (FT-0124), and 3) what budgets are available and who (communities/officials) should be involved in discussions for specific DRR/DRM planning. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 139 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 140 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 141 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 10 Opportunities for DRR/DRM 10.1 Introduction This section of the report presents DRR/DRM opportunities to address the risk to the city of Freetown from flooding, landslides, coastal erosion and sea level rise hazards. The proposed DRR/DRM measures have been framed according to the priorities of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (United Nations, 2015) to capture overarching recommendations that are necessary to bring about long term and sustained improvements in reducing disaster risk. In order to build a long list of appropriate DRR/DRM measures, Section 10.2 considers natural hazard and risk within the context of the Sendai Framework for Freetown. Next, Section 11 summarises the link between Freetown’s vulnerabilities and challenges and the DRR/DRM measures proposed. A number of tangible measures/recommendations for natural hazard and risk reduction are noted in Section 11. 10.2 Sendai Framework The Sendai Framework provides a useful context in which to define the opportunities for disaster risk reduction (Table 18). The Framework is a 15-year voluntary, non-binding agreement that recognizes that the State has the primary role to reduce disaster risk but that responsibility should be shared with other stakeholders including local government and the private sector. Its main aim is the substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries (UNISDR, 2009). The four broad DRR priorities of the Sendai Framework are: 1) Understanding disaster risk (Priority 1); 2) Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk (Priority 2); 3) Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience (Priority 3); and 4) Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to ‘Building Back Better’ in recover, rehabilitation and reconstruction (Priority 4). In line with the priorities of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 18 recommendations are captured in this Section to begin the process of reducing urban risks and increasing building resilience against flooding, landslides, coastal erosion and sea-level rise in Freetown. The recommendations necessarily have some overlap between each Sendai Framework Priority but ultimately all recommendations need investment and this is captured in Priority 3. The recommendations have been prioritised to address the major challenges seen in 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 142 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Freetown from the natural hazards (landsliding, flooding and coastal change) that are the subject of this report. The Sendai Framework and the recommendations in Table 18 are not an all- encompassing road map to address the other many cross-cutting challenges to Freetown’s urban resilience. The Sendai Framework sets out the big picture principles of DRR/DRM strategy, however the DRR/DRM strategy with prioritized actions should be prepared for each catchment based on the local context. 10.3 General DRR Approaches for Freetown This section presents an overview of the general good practice DRR opportunities for Freetown within the context of Freetown’s vulnerabilities and challenges. Freetown has many cross-cutting challenges that result from or contribute to the hazard and risk from flooding, landslides, coastal erosion and sea-level rise. These were introduced in Section 2. Resilience is defined as 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 ensuring the preservation, restoration or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions (IPCC 2012). This report is only focused on shocks and does not consider chronic stresses such as lack of clean basic services, poverty, unemployment, low coping capacity etc. that adds to the vulnerability quotient of the population at risk. This section illustrates how proposed DRR/DRM opportunities aim to improve Freetown’s resilience to flooding, landslides, coastal change and sea-level rise hazards. The challenges are complex and crosscut many sectors. 10.3.1 Improved Urban Planning Urbanisation due to increasing population pressure occurring in Freetown has been discussed in Section 2. Urban planning has not kept pace with population growth in Freetown, resulting in communities (often low-income groups in vulnerable buildings) encroaching or illegally settling in high hazard zones including within floodplains of river channels, low lying coastal zones or steep, landslide prone upper catchment terrains. • Zoning regulations – Maps (e.g. Map FT-0112 Page 91) showing the spatial extent of these hazards can be used to inform plans for prevention of further development in high hazard zones, thus not increasing exposure, and consequently not increasing risk in these hazard zone areas. • Zoning plans and densification of safer zones – it is specifically recommended that no new school or hospital24 should be constructed within these hazard zones and that existing schools or hospitals24 within these zones should be reviewed within the context of the appropriate site-specific global program for safer schools/hospital studies or similar. 24 Or other critical facilities identified by relevant stakeholders 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 143 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Capacity building and awareness – urban planning capacity-building recommended to improve the understanding of the distribution of natural hazards across the city and how this information should be used to inform planning decisions. 10.3.2 Incentivised cessation of environmentally damaging practices Overpopulation in the city coupled with poor urban planning results in many environmentally damaging practices in Freetown that exacerbate the natural hazard and risk. The public should be encouraged to cease deforestation using tools such as education initiatives, financial incentives and stronger urban planning and regulation. Some of the major environmentally damaging practices in Freetown include: Table 17 – Environmentally damaging practices in Freetown Environmentally Where has it damaging Example solution Holistic Benefits been successful? practice Recycling banana Doula, Cameroon Clears solid waste from the city skins and other (DW, 2018a) helping to reduce effects of organic household flooding. waste to make a green alternative Provides a cheaper, charcoal sustainable and greener, briquettes Nukuru, Kenya alternative to chopping down the Deforesting for (DW, 2018a) country's mangroves and burning of Recycling human for firewood. charcoal excrement to make green Can provide employment and alternative Sierra Leone income leading to improved charcoal (DFID-UNOPS, living standards structured briquettes. 2017) and Mali livelihood. (DW, 2018c) Electricity from solar power Urban farming in Kampala, Uganda Education of youth about the schools (DW, 2018b) negative impacts of deforestation, bottom up attempt at changing the Deforestation for standard practice of deforestation. construction scaffolding Youth learn respect the (Figure 45) environment and view it as a sustainable resource that can be used to generate livelihood and attractive surroundings. Recycling plastic Kampala, Uganda Recycles plastics for household Combats food insecurity Plastic waste items (chairs, Alternative source of income cushion stuffing, Motivates communities construction materials) 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 144 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 45 – Examples of deforested trees turned into scaffold poles to support construction, Freetown. Photos taken during the March 2016 field mission. Re-forestation schemes for upper catchment and drainage channel alignments should be widely initiated. Representatives from EPA note that these schemes exist, however greater investment in government-led re-forestation and stronger financial incentive is required to promote wider uptake and faster improvements. A similar approach could be applied to incentivise the public to cease clearance of mangroves at low lying coastal zones. • In the first instance, stopping this practice will ensure that the coastal change hazard does not increase in these areas. • Secondly, schemes to re-plant mangroves in these areas will potentially provide coastal protection and reduce the vulnerability of the low-lying coastal areas to coastal flooding and erosion. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 145 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment A factor contributing to coastal erosion is the wide spread mining of sand for use as a construction material. • Finding alternative sustainable sources of sand for construction activities within Freetown will allow cessation of sand mining. • Beach nourishment schemes to replace sand that has been removed are not recommended in the short or medium term but could be considered as part of wider urban planning for the Freetown coastline. 10.3.3 Community engagement There are many examples of successful community engagement initiatives to promote all cycles of the urban resilience agenda from preparedness to recovery and this is crucial to the success of any DRR measures proposed as the outcome of this project in Freetown. There is a strong NGO presence in Freetown with organisations such as YMCA, SDI and Concern permanently in place, (as well as the Red Cross and institutions such as SLURC). Concern, SDI and YMCA have been working to increase the level of engagement and capacity of residents (including vulnerable populations) in Freetown (Concern, 2015; YMCA, 2012). There is a pre-existing Community Task Force culture in Sierra Leone dating back to before the civil war (Sustersic, 2015), in addition to existing strong ward-level and local NGO networks that were created for assessing priority community needs for the Development Plan (2016- 18) under guidance of the FCC. To build upon the existing base of community engagement with respect to DRR/DRM the following points should be considered: • Further consideration of coordination between government and civil society actors as well as top and grassroots levels, is an urgent necessity for disaster management and for inclusive urban planning and city development. • Development would include understanding of existing inherent capacity as well as current NGO activities in Freetown. Such an approach has the potential to improve day-to-day conditions for some of the most vulnerable residents, learning new skills as well as enhancing local emergency preparedness and providing local ownership and understanding. • Community-based organisations with support of NGOs could be mobilised and incentivised to undertake jobs such as clearing blocked urban drainage systems or constructing appropriate local-scale drainage (Anderson and Holcombe, 2013). The existing networks of ward councillors, ward representatives, community members and local NGOs, should be built-upon and scaled up to promote natural hazard and risk awareness and to implement localized risk mitigation measures. The DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017) noted that disasters affect women, men, girls, and boys differently. • Consideration should be given to warning and evacuation of vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly and people with disabilities who cannot easily respond to early warning. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 146 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • As yet, development of a gender policy is not addressed in the Sierra Leone Social Protection Policy of 2011. In the future, such a gender policy should address specific needs of vulnerable populations. There will be value in enhancing coordination of disaster response and urban planning for DRR/DRM between similar-level local actors in Freetown, Makeni and Bo so that lessons learned and success stories can be shared. Figure 46 – Example of community drainage construction scheme – MoSSaiC (Anderson and Holcombe, 2013). 10.3.4 Solid waste management in Freetown The knock-on effects of the challenges around solid waste disposal to flood hazard have been discussed in Section 2. There are a number of reports that have been written about the waste management challenges in Freetown, including the Freetown Environmental Assessment (MLCPE/FCC, 2014b). The Freetown Environmental Assessment (MLCPE/FCC, 2014b). has a number of recommendations to improve solid waste management: including closing the existing unplanned, non-engineered and unsanitary city dump sites and opening new, planned, engineered, sanitary ones and seeking international assistance to 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 147 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment address the solid waste management challenges. Clearly, this challenge is beyond the scope of this project and demands detailed attention, however, it is worth noting that until a functional solid waste management system is in place it will be difficult for the city to address the issues of solid waste blocking the drainage system. In addition, the significant challenge of improving the clean drinking water supply should reduce the reliance on bottled and bags of water. In the meantime, the solid waste problem at the dumpsites could be helped by community-driven actions such as: • Community waste collection plus low-cost or free bus travel to solid-waste collection sites; • Community recycling (particularly of plastics and metal); • Banning plastic bags; and • Impose a community service or financial fine for dumping solid waste. 10.3.5 Coastal change hazard engineering opportunities The choice of the coastal erosion DRR measures depend on the specific characteristics and requirements of a section of coastline. Key criteria that should be considered for the selection of sites and type of intervention include: • Asset protection – residential, properties and infrastructure including roads and services; • Social benefits – relating to the protection of local coastal communities; • Environmental benefits – focusing on marine and coastal ecology; and, • Economic benefits – relating to tourism and protection of fisheries/and fishing communities. Ultimately those sites with the most assets at risk would benefit most from protection are prioritised over those with limited assets. A detailed coastal engineering study and coastal processes assessment have not been carried out. Therefore, recommendations for protection measures are based on our international experience taking into account available information specifically about Freetown. Hard engineering opportunities are appropriate where coastal erosion poses the greatest threat of economic loss in Freetown. These costlier measures should be reserved for sections of coastline where the threat is imminent and where soft engineering measures would not offer enough protection quickly enough. Soft engineering opportunities focus on preservation of the coastline’s existing natural defence features. They are sustainable and suitable everywhere where coastal erosion is occurring, and the risk to people, buildings and infrastructure is low. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 148 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 18 – DRR/DRM for Freetown within the context of the Sendai Framework. Priority 1 – Understanding Natural Disaster Risk No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders (lead Existing Timescale Improvement in bold) guidance? Knowledge of flood Better understand and characterize Further investigation and Detailed flood hazard maps National Government (for Brief note in Medium and landslide hazard flooding at catchment scale. study of flood hazard building for each ward in Freetown. funding and assignment of National Disaster term in Freetown (coastal known in this project. roles), EPA. Preparedness erosion and sea Fund courses on Civil Plan. level rise Engineering at university recommended for level. lower priority). Better understand and characterize Further investigation and In-country capacity to map National Government (for Medium landslide at catchment scale. study of landslide hazard and record landslide hazard funding and assignment of term building on knowledge in this to update inventory and roles), NMA. 1 project. understand landslide Fund courses in Geological mechanisms. Sciences at university level. Better understand the characteristics Support existing UNDP Weather and climate National Government (for UNDP funded Medium of the river network response to Climate project (CIDMEWS) network. funding and assignment of project term flooding in Freetown. to collect and openly share Rainfall and river gauge roles), EPA. CIDMEWS) rainfall, river gauge and networks. weather data. Zoning. Gather selected data on exposure Establish a national mapping Detailed survey data and National Government, Noted in Sierra Short to Knowledge of and vulnerability (site assessments) agency and national database reports to be available in an Local Government, ONS, Leone Disaster Medium exposure and for priority assets in the country for survey data and reports. accessible national database Ministry of Land Country Management term vulnerability for (hospitals, emergency response Implement zoning and in geospatial format Planning and Environment, Policy, Draft 2006 critical assets in facilities, schools and critical building codes. managed by an appointed EPA, Technical Specialists 2 Freetown to inform infrastructure including roads and government agency. (in-county and Perform detailed site surveys updated natural bridges). As a secondary priority, international), New for priority assets. hazard risk data collection for drainage or flood national mapping agency defence assets in selected Communicate findings with in Sierra Leone. assessments. catchments. key stakeholders. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 149 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 1 – Understanding Natural Disaster Risk No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders (lead Existing Timescale Improvement in bold) guidance? Collect and share post-disaster Form an in-country Field investigation reports National Government (for National Land Short to damage and loss data for physical organization to carry out and related data. funding and assignment of conference 2017. Medium assets. multi-disciplinary post- An open-access database roles), ONS-DMD, term To gather and share post-disaster disaster data collection where geospatial data Technical Specialists (in- Noted in Sierra site effect data (landslide mapping, missions. This should include (survey data and reports) county and international), Leone Disaster flood high-water mapping). investigation of: performance are stored. Insurance. Management of physical assets, geological Policy, Draft 2006 and flood data, evaluation of disaster management and socio-economic effects. Improved education To increase awareness of natural Continue public awareness Radio, television National Government, Noted in Sierra Short term to of and hazard risk. campaigns through national broadcasts. ONS-DMD, Ministry of Leone Disaster long term communication to media. Written materials. Information and Management To inform public officials and other citizenry about: Wall murals and posters. Communication (MIC) Policy, Draft 2006 decision makers. Flood hazard; To promote competency of Implementation of flood Schools curriculum for Medium Landslide hazard; professionals. and landslide hazard teachers and students on term to 3 disaster awareness in flood and landslide risk. long term Coastal erosion hazard; schools. Sea level rise and Education of government Training materials and Medium coastal flood and municipal officials guidance documents for term to hazard. through training and government and long term written materials. municipal officials. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 150 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 1 – Understanding Natural Disaster Risk No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders (lead Existing Timescale Improvement in bold) guidance? Education of engineers and Continued Professional National Government, No Medium to architects. Development (CPD) Local Government, ONS- Long term courses for engineers and DMD, Sierra Leone architects. Universities. University curriculum on natural hazards and risk, including design requirements. Education of communities in Community engagement to Local Government, ONS- Noted in Sierra Short term to landslide and flood hazard empower community DMD, Ministry of Leone Disaster long term awareness. groups and local leaders. Information and Management Consideration should be Communication (MIC), Policy, Draft 2006 given for gender and age Communities factors, cultural differences as well as more vulnerable groups. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 151 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 2 – Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? DRM Framework. To strengthen the DRM legal Update and approve DRM A finalised and adopted National Government, Sierra Leone Short term to framework and policy in Freetown, policy based on Sierra Leone DRM strategy enabling ONS-DMD. Disaster long term. including aspects that address DRM Disaster Management climate-smart and resilient Local government Management for flood, landslide and coastal Policy, draft June 2006. decisions at city scale. Freetown City Council Policy, draft June hazards. Establish consistent DRM Investment plans to carry 2006. terminology among out DRM actions. 4 stakeholders and in laws Strategy for obtaining funds related to DRM and DRR. to carry out DRM (from National Government, local government and NGOs). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 152 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 2 – Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? The legal framework Overall, to reduce the risk from Devolution of power to the Legal framework to require National Government, The existing draft Short to long for urban plans for natural hazards for new and existing local city council. This is the up-to-date urban plans, Local Government. land policy and term. Freetown City development. main bottleneck to which also incorporate building code. Council. Specifically: implementing land policies, flood, landslide and coastal This document building codes and building hazard and risk can be the starting To ensure the regulatory framework zoning regulations. Until full considerations as well as points to build requires the development and devolution is achieved, the emergency response needs. upon. adoption of up-to-date land use city cannot take steps to plans that can be used to develop increase its resilience to the building zonation regulations. natural hazards that are 5 Establishing zoning regulations – to discussed in this report. provide guidance of what areas of Once devolution has been the city can be densified and what achieved, then laws can be areas need to remain as green open enacted that require urban space/n-build zones. areas to have up-to-date land use plans; and that require the city follow building zonation regulations informed by the updated, implemented zoning plans. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 153 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment To ensure urban plans take into Provide funding and added Hiring of additional staff in National Government, National Land account up-to-date information on: capacity to those who carry Local Government, Local Government, conference 2017? Flood hazard and risk; out urban planning to access, Ministry of Land and other Ministry of Land Country understand and incorporate government agencies Planning and Landslide hazard and risk; natural hazard and risk involved in producing land Environment, ONS-DMD, coastal erosion hazard and risk; and, considerations into land use use planning. Technical Specialists. Sea-level rise hazard and risk. planning documents. Training programmes for This should involve the existing staff involved in ability to access relevant land use planning in natural databases that contain hazard hazard and risk. and risk data (GeoNode and others). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 154 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 2 – Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? Improved capacity To improve the quality of reviews Ensure the building Updated regulatory Local Government, Draft National Medium term and capability of ahead of design approvals and permitting process is simple requirements and processes. Ministry of Land Country Building Code to long term. design and checking construction permits. and transparent. Added capacity for officials Planning and Environment, Draft 2015. authorities related to To ensure consistent construction Introduce information involved in the regulatory Ministry of Works local good practice monitoring. communications technology process. Housing and for resilient and (ICT) for building control Infrastructure. To ensure consistent enforcement of Revised requirements for climate-smart procedures. regulatory documents. obtaining engineering construction to flood Increase capacity and professional licences. and landslide remuneration of officials hazards. involved in design approvals and construction monitoring. Ensure fees are consistent with the cost of regulatory 6 services. Ensure penalties are enforced for lack of compliance. Increase inspection requirements for construction, particularly residential construction. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 155 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 2 – Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? Institutional To promote internal collaboration Give more oversight of Established exchange Local Government, No Medium term fragmentation. and exchange of knowledge in building and demolition programmes with targets Universities, Technical to long term. natural hazard engineering and permits to the city council that are monitored. Specialists (in-county and disaster risk reduction. so that the local council has Government scholarships to international). Regional and inter- power to administer and foreign universities (which city collaboration in keep track of building and include conditions such as natural hazard demolition permits. returning to Sierra Leone engineering and 7 disaster risk Create an up-to-date, official for a certain number of reduction. database/record of build years after completion of permits. degree). Create role exchanges at city Hosting of international level within a dedicated team conferences related to of specialists. natural hazard engineering and/or DRR. Centrally managed, To update and improve existing Roles and responsibilities to Establishment of openly National Government, No Medium term and maintained citywide databases for natural be assigned for the accessible databases. ONS-DMD and other to long term. digital open-access hazard and risk data including maintenance of databases appointed stakeholders, 8 data on flood, location and characteristics of and sharing of information Technical Specialists (in- landslide and coastal physical assets and expected among government agencies county and international). hazard, exposure and damage and losses. and other stakeholders. risk. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 156 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 3 – Investing in Natural Disaster Risk Reduction for Improved Urban Resilience No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? Urban and land use Reduce risk from flood, landslide and Produce up to date land use Hazard and risk maps and National Government, No, Land Policy Medium term. planning. coastal change hazards for new and plans based on the results of data to be integrated into Local Government, ONS- Conference, 2017? existing development in Freetown. this study. land use planning and DMD, Ministry of Lands, Noted in Disaster Produce guidance on regulations. Country and Management Policy, infrastructure planning and Infrastructure Environment, Ministry of Draft 2006. installation. (particularly roads and Works Housing and drainage) to be designed Infrastructure. Add capacity and capability to local authorities and and installed prior to others who carry out land house construction. 9 use planning so they can access and use hazard and risk data from this study. Educate government Guidelines for site Local Government, No, Land Policy Short term. officials in planning and selection for critical Technical Specialists, Conference, 2017? engineering professionals buildings (schools, Ministry of Lands, Country on selection of safer sites hospitals, emergency and Environment. for critical/higher response facilities) and importance buildings and infrastructure. infrastructure. Knowledge among To train engineering professionals in Develop and deliver Training materials in National Government for No, Land Policy Long term. engineers, climate-smart designs resilient to Continuing Professional CPD. investment planning. Conference, 2017? developers and flood, landslide and coastal hazards. Development (CPD) University courses on Universities, Local Noted in Disaster 10 communities about courses on the current best hazard resilient and Government. World Bank. Management Policy, disaster risk practice for climate-smart climate-smart designs and Draft 2006. reduction and and resilient design principles of ‘build-back- mitigation. principles and detailing. better’. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 157 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 3 – Investing in Natural Disaster Risk Reduction for Improved Urban Resilience No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? To build understanding at community Develop practical, Guidance notes targeting Local Council, Ministry of Noted in Disaster Long term. level about disaster risk reduction and appropriate guidance for community on a range of Information and Management Policy, mitigation measures. community education on DRR-related topics Communication (MIC). Draft 2006. actions that would improve including urban resilience to flooding, recommendations on: landslides and coastal Safe construction of erosion: man-made slopes around houses. Flood prevention construction of houses e.g. rainwater harvesting, community drainage Solid waste disposal that does not block drainage. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 158 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 3 – Investing in Natural Disaster Risk Reduction for Improved Urban Resilience No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? Codes (including To produce/update building codes. Recommendations related Revised Norms. National Government, No Long term. building zonation To improve the provisions for to updates for the building Guidance materials Ministry of Works Housing regulation), disaster-resilient and climate-smart code include: relating to the Norms. and Infrastructure. standards and design for housing and infrastructure. New design, prohibition of guidance related to unsafe slope and drainage disaster-resilient and practices. climate-smart Updated flood, landslide housing design. and coastal hazard and risk maps. Building codes to be based on risk zones for 11 resilient construction and appropriate density. New provisions for non- structural mitigations. Update Norms and/or guidelines on hazard assessment of buildings and infrastructure. Update Norms related to hazard retrofit of buildings and infrastructure. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 159 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 3 – Investing in Natural Disaster Risk Reduction for Improved Urban Resilience No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? Investments for Slow or reduce coastal erosion for Review proposed Detailed investment plans National Government for Environmental Medium to DRR intervention improved urban resilience against loss intervention DRR measures for each ward including investment planning. Local Assessment and Long term. opportunities of land at coastline. from this report. detailed cost for each Government (FCC) for Evaluation of preventing future Review priority of DRR intervention implementation of the Natural Disaster coastal erosion to intervention measures by measures. plans. Risk and Mitigation reduce economic taking into account finalised Identify funding to carry in Freetown. losses and loss of Urban Planning and cost- out investment plans. life. benefit analysis. Implementation of risk reduction measures to reduce coastal erosion rate for each ward 12 including green and engineering measures (details contained in this report). Monitoring and feedback from implementation phase to inform ongoing risk reduction measures. Employment opportunities from construction. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 160 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Invest in To reduce the impact on the Review proposed Detailed investment plans National Government for Freetown Structure Medium and intervention DRR population of Freetown in terms of intervention DRR measures for each ward including investment planning. Plan 2013-2018 & Long term. measures to reduce loss of life and economic costs from from this report. detailed cost for each Local Government (FCC) Freetown City economic losses and damaging floods. Review priority of DRR intervention for implementation of the Development Plan loss of life from To improve resilience of the intervention measures by measures. plans. 2016-2018 & damaging floods. population of Freetown to damaging taking into account finalised Identify funding to carry Environmental floods. Urban Planning and cost- out investment plans. Assessment and benefit analysis. Evaluation of Implementation of risk Natural Disaster reduction measures to Risk and Mitigation reduce flooding for each in Freetown ward including green and engineering measures (detailed in this report). 13 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 161 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 3 – Investing in Natural Disaster Risk Reduction for Improved Urban Resilience No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Stakeholders Existing Timescale* Improvement Guidance? Invest in To reduce the impact on the Review proposed Detailed investment plans National Government for Freetown Structure Medium and intervention DRR population of Freetown in terms of intervention DRR measures for each ward including investment planning. Plan 2013-2018 & long term. measures to reduce loss of life and economic costs from from this report. detailed cost for each Local Government (FCC) Freetown City economic losses and damaging landslides. Review priority of DRR intervention for implementation of the Development Plan loss of life from To improve resilience of the intervention measures by measures. plans. 2016-2018 & damaging population of Freetown to damaging taking into account finalised Identify funding to carry Environmental 14 landslides. landslides. Urban Planning and cost- out investment plans. Assessment and benefit analysis. Evaluation of Implementation of risk Natural Disaster reduction measures to Risk and Mitigation reduce landsliding for in Freetown. each ward including green and engineering measures (detailed in this report). Invest in Reduce the impact on the population Review proposed Detailed investment plans National Government for No Long term. intervention DRR of Freetown in terms of loss of life intervention DRR measures for each ward including investment planning. measures to reduce and economic costs from damaging from this report. detailed cost for each Local Government (FCC) economic losses and floods. Review priority of DRR intervention for implementation of the loss of life from To improve resilience of the intervention measures by measure. plans. future sea level rise. population of Freetown to damaging taking into account finalised Identify funding to carry floods. Urban Planning and cost- out investment plans. 15 benefit analysis. Implementation of risk reduction measures to reduce risk from sea level rise for each ward including green and engineering measures (detailed in this report). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 162 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 4 – Enhancing Preparedness for Natural Disasters No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Existing Timescale* Improvement Stakeholders Guidance? Preparedness. Improved understanding In general, the results of this study should Updated national, regional and National National Disaster Medium term and implementation of be used to inform emergency response and city level emergency plans. Government, Preparedness Plan & to long term. actions for flood and preparedness planning at a national and Local National Disaster landslide preparedness. local level. Government, Management Policy Improved emergency The National Government should consider Ministry of Health preparedness in viability of external funding arrangement, and Sanitation. different key sectors insurance/risk pools, traditional insurance (education, health, and re-insurance. critical infrastructure, Community-based social nets could be cultural heritage) and at established. different scales Cross-sector collaboration and sharing of (National, regional, information for robust planning. city-level and 16 communities). For hospitals, MoHS to coordinate which Sharing of emergency response National National Disaster Medium term hospitals are more critical for emergency plans among stakeholders. Government, Preparedness Plan & to long term. response and expected number of Hospital emergency response Local National Disaster causalities for flood/landslide scenarios. plans and training materials for Government, Management Policy. Countywide emergency preparedness hospital staff. Ministry of Health planning and training for hospital staff and Sanitation. including communication and coordination post-disaster and maintaining emergency medical supplies. Provision of mobile emergency medical facilities to allow adequately resourced emergency medical response for remote regions or where access to permanent medical facilities is not available. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 163 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 4 – Enhancing Preparedness for Natural Disasters No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Existing Timescale* Improvement Stakeholders Guidance? For emergency response facilities Sharing of emergency response National National Disaster Medium term (including fire stations), MoHS to plans among stakeholders. Government, Preparedness Plan & to long term. coordinate which emergency responses National, regional and local Local National Disaster facilities are more critical for emergency emergency response plans and Government, Management Policy response training materials for first Ministry of Health Countywide emergency preparedness responders related to natural and Sanitation. planning and training for emergency hazard risks. response staff including communication Countrywide coverage for and coordination post-disaster and emergency response plans and maintaining emergency supplies. resource (permanent and Countrywide programme for community voluntary), including rural and first responders. remote areas. For schools, MoE to coordination with Sharing of emergency response National National Disaster Medium term municipalities on which schools they plan plans among stakeholders. Government, Preparedness Plan & to long term. to use for emergency response. Training materials for teachers Local National Disaster Countywide emergency preparedness and students. Government, Management Policy training for teachers and students. Ministry of Education 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 164 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 4 – Enhancing Preparedness for Natural Disasters No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Existing Timescale* Improvement Stakeholders Guidance? Assess emergency Scale-up programmes for training of Updated investment plan for National National Disaster Medium term response capability in community first responders in areas without improving capacity for Government, Preparedness Plan & to long term. country or through designated emergency response personnel. emergency response including Local National Disaster wider international Early warning system implementation plan. capacity building in communities. Government, Management Policy. assistance (shelter, Implementation of the plan Communities. food, search and including instrumentation and Responsiveness rescue). monitoring and systematic and capability for 17 Improved early warning reporting and communication. emergency systems for flood, storm response. surge and landslides. Improved and countrywide communications network for emergency response. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 165 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Priority 4 – Enhancing Preparedness for Natural Disasters No. Area for Objectives Actions Outputs/Outcomes Key Existing Timescale* Improvement Stakeholders Guidance? To understand the Gather and share risk assessment loss data Engagement with international, National DaLA report Long term. funding gap for to understand funding gap and ensure fair regional and local insurance Government, National Disaster potential losses from pricing of insurance. stakeholders to share loss data to ONS- DMD, Preparedness Plan & natural disasters. The National Government should consider inform updated catastrophe Insurance, National Disaster To identify potential viability of external funding arrangement, models for the country and Technical Management Policy. sources of funds that insurance/risk pools, traditional insurance region. specialists. can be allocated post- and re-insurance. A disaster-risk financing plan for disaster. Community-based social nets could be the National Government. This To strengthen established. could include in the longer term, Economic government regulation public and private insurance Train and retain more insurance resources to of the insurance market partnerships (countrywide and professionals in Sierra Leone. 18 address post- to ensure financial regional/global). Update laws and regulations relating to disaster funding stability and growth of Training for insurance insurance. and recovery. capitalisation and professionals related to policies incentivize take up of Standardize insurance coverage with for disaster related insurance. disaster risk insurance. respect to natural disasters. To spread insurance risk Raise public awareness about the benefits regionally/globally. of private insurance coverage for natural disaster events. To increase robustness and penetration in insurance market to respond to natural hazard losses. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 166 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 167 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11 Hazard and Catchment Specific DRR/DRM Measures 11.1 Introduction This section of the report describes the specific DRR/DRM measures identified for consideration for Freetown both related to the hazard and by catchment location. This has been informed by discussion with the in-country stakeholders, field observations, expert judgment and research, and the qualitative and quantitative hazard and risk assessment results determined in this study. These measures are specific to the context of Freetown and consider the type and spatial distribution of hazards that threaten the urban area of the city, and provide guidance on locations in the city where selected options would be most beneficial to reduce the risk from the natural hazards. A broad range of DRR measures have been considered based on a high-level qualitative review of cost, practicality, and consideration of the climate, topography and nature of the natural hazards in Freetown. In line with international best practice, this study recommends that individual DRR/DRM measures are combined for practical implementation as opposed to implementing individual measures in isolation. Herein, the combinations of measures proposed in this study are referred to ‘DRR/DRM Options’. Combining measures typically reduces the risk from multiple types of hazard. For example, reforestation, hazard signage and flood-landslide communication and community engagement in combination are relatively low cost and reduce the hazard-risk from flooding and landslides. All DRR/DRM measures should be integrated across multiple sectors for developing a well-functioning and resilient city. Development planning should move away from traditional single silo master planning and integrate appropriate interventions, combining multiple DRR/DRM measures. High- level cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is one tool to help establish prioritised DRR/DRM Options, however, unfavourable CBA results should not exclude potentially effective measures. The specific DRR/DRM measures are first described in terms of what measures are appropriate for each of the natural hazards: • Flooding in the fluvial channels within the main drainage catchments (Section 11.2); • Landslides initiating from the steep terrain (Section 11.3); and, • Coastal change and sea level rise hazards to the low-lying coastal areas (Section 11.4). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 168 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The specific DRR/DRM options are then described in terms of the relevant location specific information within each of the drainage catchments across Freetown (Section 11.5). There are 13 drainage catchments defined for Freetown and specific recommendations are provided for each catchment. A long list based on qualitative analysis is presented in Table 19 below. These measures have been combined into DRR/DRM options for prioritisation by cost-benefit analysis. Finally, DRR/DRM measures are recommended based on the results of the study, stakeholder discussions and the results of the cost-benefit analysis. Table 19 – Appropriate DRR/DRM measures for Freetown. Hazard DRR/DRM Measure DRR/DRM Option Hazard and risk Flood + Landslide communication and 1 engagement Flooding Drainage channel clearance 4 Flood + Landslide Early warning systems 1 Coastal Erosion Mangrove preservation 5 Coastal Erosion Sand mining prevention25 Check dam (with Flood + Landslide instrumentation and monitoring) Multi-hazard Hazard signage 1 Flood Rooftop rainwater harvesting Coastal Riprap coastal protection Revegetation of the natural Flood + Landslide 2 channels Community drainage Flood + Landslide implementation Reforestation of upper Flood + Landslide 2 catchment areas Flood Flood water storage ponds Flood Engineered green channels 4 Coastal Erosion Groyne coastal protection Detached breakwater coastal Coastal Erosion protection Zoning regulation (including zoning plans), land Multi-hazard readjustment and building 3 regulations - implementation and enforcement26 25 Identify alternative sand sources, regulate and monitor extraction. 26 High cost relates to implementation and enforcement, but establishing a ‘zoning regulation’ which will include a technical study and establishing a bye-law is not high cost and is advised. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 169 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Hazard DRR/DRM Measure DRR/DRM Option Flood Delta rehabilitation 4 Coastal erosion + Sea-level Vertical seawall coastal 5 rise protection Coastal erosion + Sea-level Rock armour revetment 5 rise coastal protection Multi-hazard Multipurpose escape building Flood Engineered concrete channels Flood Engineered concrete culverts Implementing nature-based DRM measures has the potential to be the most cost- effective solutions in both the long and short term. International good practice for DRM measures (flood risk management in particular) is moving toward holistic, sustainable, green, urban drainage systems (Forbes et al. 2015; Woods Ballard et al. 2016). This holistic, sustainable approach is in line with the Greening Africa initiative (White et al., 2017) and clear guidance in Implementing Nature-Based Flood Protection (World Bank, 2017). This guidance emphasizes the importance of approaching planning of nature-based flood protection at a system or catchment scale perspective. 11.2 Flood Hazard Specific DRR/DRM Measures The flood hazard specific DRR/DRM measures recommended for Freetown are summarised on Figure 47. Figure 47 provides a schematic illustration of where different DRR/DRM measures can be implemented within a typical catchment to achieve the optimum benefit in terms of risk reduction. Implementing nature-based DRM measures has the potential to be the most cost-effective solutions in both the long and short term and this is recommended however ‘hard’ engineering solutions are also required in to achieve optimal DRM effectiveness within a specific time-frame and within the constraints of an urban setting. International good practice for DRM measures (flood risk management in particular) is moving toward holistic, sustainable, green, urban drainage systems (Forbes et al. 2015; Woods Ballard et al. 2016). This holistic, sustainable approach is in line with the Greening Africa initiative (White et al., 2017) and clear guidance in Implementing Nature-Based Flood Protection (World Bank, 2017). This guidance emphasizes the importance of approaching planning of nature-based flood protection at a system or catchment scale perspective (Figure 47). However, Figure 47 also shows the mix of ‘hard’ engineering measures at specific locations as required in a dense urban environment such as measure 5, check dams and measures 12 and 13, engineered concrete channels and culverts, respectively. The importance of operation and maintenance of urban drainage is also shown on Figure 5 in terms of management of culverts and the importance of keeping drains clear in the urban environment. Fifteen flood hazard DRR/DRM options are described on Figure 47. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 170 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 47 – Schematic illustration of a mountain catchment and flood hazard DRR/DRM measures recommended for Freetown. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 171 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.2.1 Flood hazard and risk communication and engagement Communication of hazard and risk information and the associated community engagement should be an essential component of the holistic and sustainable DRR/DRM strategy for Freetown. It is very important that citizens be provided with access to the information related to the hazards that threaten their communities. It is recommended that the hazard and risk information be provided to communities through a range of communication mechanisms taking into consideration the broad range of stakeholders and their communication needs. 11.2.2 Early warning systems The Climate Information, Disaster Management, and Early Warning System – Sierra Leone (CIDMEWS-SL) web portal27, which is scheduled to launch early 2018, will provide early warning system capability across Sierra Leone and specifically across Freetown. The system will be the first of its kind in Sierra Leone and serve as both a planning and response tool (UNDP Newsletter November 2017). The rainfall data available from CIDMEWS-SL could be used to inform both flooding and landslide early warnings based on flood triggering rainfall thresholds. Typically, these systems are defined at the regional scale, regardless of the different landslide susceptibility of each slope. However, recent studies (e.g. Lun-Wei et al. 2017) have attempted to refine these systems to account for the category (high, moderate, low) of landslide susceptibility of the slope. The results of this study could inform more custom catchment-scale monitoring methods for Freetown. 11.2.3 Reforestation upper catchment areas Reforestation capitalises on use of the natural hydrological processes, landscape features and characteristics of a drainage catchment area to manage flood hazard. It involves restoring a landscape to its natural form such that it may effectively reduce, store or transport rainfall run-off floodwaters. In Freetown re-forestation of upper catchment and natural channels are both recommended. Indicative locations for re-forestation are shown on Map FT-140, Page 126. Trees stabilise soils, maintaining natural rates of infiltration, which reduces risk of deep-soil slips and disturbing the natural conditions of the hydrology that interacts with the deeper bedrock. Map FT-140, Page 126 shows the distribution of reforestation areas coincides with locations of combined high landslide hazard and intense deforestation and construction. Reforestation is expected to have the greatest impact in the upper catchment areas but will also have benefits in the lower catchments, where it is more complicated to implement other types of DRR/DRM measures because of the urban density. Where forest already exists, particularly in the central peninsula mountains, it is proposed that these areas are protected from deforestation as general best practice. 27 CIDMEWS-SL @ https://www.cidmews- sl.solutions/index.php/component/users/?view=remind 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 172 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.2.4 Revegetation of the natural channel The natural vegetation of a river channel, embankment and floodplain, is critical for a variety of roles in a healthy functioning river system including, 1) embankment stabilisation, 2) cleaning water, 3) biodiversity enhancement, 4) erosion control, 5) improvement of water quality, and 6) enhancement of aesthetics/recreation. In terms of flood hazard, a variety of vegetation helps to slow the flow of floodwaters within the channel, in addition to reducing the volume of floodwaters entering the channel as run-off from the immediate surroundings of the river channel (Figure 48). Furthermore, the vegetation helps to trap large volumes of sediment therefore reducing erosion that would otherwise result in the undercutting of embankments. It is relatively low cost and sustainable. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 173 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 174 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 48 – The negative effects of an unplanned, overly urbanised catchment (top left) in contrast to the positive effects of a natural catchment (top right)28. The lower satellite images (dated 2017) taken from Google Earth Pro, and show two different middle catchment areas in Freetown. One where dense urbanisation has occurred along the natural river channel, the other where the natural vegetation surrounding the channel remains. 11.2.5 Community drainage implementation It was observed that most urban development, particularly in the upper catchment areas, has no planned drainage infrastructure to collect rainfall run-off and transport the water to the natural drainage network in a controlled manner. It has been recommended that drainage infrastructure be planned for all urban development in Freetown. The World Bank funded, Management of Slope Stability in Communities (MoSSaiC) approach, established by researchers from the University of Bristol, provides a community-based and scientific approach for delivering flood and landslide hazard reduction measures. A schematic illustration of the MoSSaiC system is shown in Figure 49. A similar initiative to MoSSaiC that has proven to be successful is the Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) system (e.g. Bahri, 2012), which aims to improve the way resources are managed across the urban water cycle by promoting resource diversification, system efficiency and conservation, while taking into account all water users in the city and in the wider catchment through broad stakeholder participation. 28 Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS): https://www.susdrain.org/delivering-suds/using- suds/background/sustainable-drainage.html accessed March 2018. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 175 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment It has been recommended that a pilot study of the MoSSaiC drainage system be undertaken within an upper catchment area of Freetown to demonstrate the benefits that can be achieved. Following the successful implementation of a pilot study, the installation of drainage infrastructure more widely across Freetown could be more accurately costed and undertaken. Figure 49 – The MoSSaiC community based drainage system to reduce flooding and landslide hazard and risk (World Bank Project Insights 78723 Issue #12). 11.2.6 Check dams Check dams are structural flood risk-reduction measures that can be constructed across waterways to counteract erosion by reducing water flow velocity. They therefore also slow the flow and reduce their silt content of floodwaters as they travel to the lower catchment areas. In Freetown, such measures would be best suited to the middle catchment areas, and across waterways that are relatively narrow. Further engineering and hydrological investigation would be required before implementation of a check dam in Freetown. 11.2.7 Flood-water storage ponds Floodwater storage ponds can be natural low topographic areas either within the flood plain of the river system or along the river channel itself. There are two main reasons for providing temporary detention of floodwater: 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 176 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Compensate for the effects of catchment urbanisation; and, • Reduce flows passed downriver and mitigate downstream flooding. Achieving either or both of the above points would help reduce the flood hazard across Freetown. There are a number of different floodwater storage options that can be considered and the selection of the type and location of such measures would require more detailed engineering and hydrological investigation. 11.2.8 Flood hazard signage Hazard signage is a relatively low-cost, high impact risk-reduction measure that will raise awareness of flood, landslide and coastal hazards across the city. The aim of this measure is also long-term citywide education of flood, landslide and coastal hazards. Associated evacuation routes and plans should also be developed. Signs have been located where they should receive maximum exposure to the communities, chiefly at main road junctions, typically in urban areas, and close to high hazard areas as identified by the quantitative hazard mapping (e.g. Maps FT-0130, Page 130). If hazard signage was to be implemented, the sign locations should be decided in conjunction with the ONS. 11.2.9 Zoning regulations Zoning maps of the city are required to indicate where people currently living in combined hazard zones (Map FT-0117, page 19). It is recommended that the hazard maps (e.g. Map FT-0112, Page 91) prepared for this study are used to inform decision makers whether land is suitable for specific building usage types including emergency response facilities, Government administrative buildings, hospitals and other medical facilities, schools and critical infrastructure. Freetown should focus on ‘efficient utilization’ of existing safe land within the urban area (low hazard zones) by considering varied urban design tools for densification29 of safe zones, such as increasing square footage by land- readjustment (Figure 50), building additional floors, infill development, spot zoning etc. based on the specific site condition and land-use. This help towards allowing the city to grow in a more sustainable and resilient way with reduced cost of service delivery for a compact city, encouraging public-private partnerships for cost recovery. 29Densification i.e. increase in floor space index or floor area ratio (UN habitat, 2016) can be achieved through various urban design tools such as building additional floors over safe buildings, expanding existing ground overage in an existing plot, land-readjustment to reorganise and accommodate more built up area, spot zoning to allow higher built density, infill development etc. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 177 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 50 – Land readjustment can be an alternative to high-rise construction for densification of safer areas through spot zoning (diagram from https://unhabitat.org/books/remaking-the-urban- mosaic-participatory-and-inclusive-land-readjustment/ ) 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 178 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 179 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment For all future urban development, of all usage type, consideration should be given to natural hazard level and risk level and appropriate hazard and risk reduction measures implemented to reduce the risk to as low as reasonably practical (ALARP). 11.2.10 Rooftop rainwater harvesting The aim of rainwater or floodwater harvesting is to store floodwater in artificial, closed ponds, made from a safe, sanitary material. This flood risk-reduction option helps to reduce the volume of rainwater runoff flowing into the watercourses. The ‘harvesting’ method can be through rooftop or ground level pond containers that capture intense storm rains. The stored (cleaned) water could then be used for cooking and cleaning and for agriculture and livestock. 11.2.11 Engineered green channels Engineered green channels involve re-profiling and re-vegetating the natural channel, helping to increase the capacity for floodwaters and slowing their flow. These channels have been proposed in the lower catchment at indicative locations where a main transport route in a densely urban area intersects with a natural channel that has high flood hazard (e.g. Map FT-0145, Page 133). Buildings that currently exist in these areas are at risk of regular flooding. The engineered green channels form part of the overall city greening strategy proposed as part of the DRR/DRM strategy in this project. The channels can act as clean, green recreational spaces in the dry season, which would benefit social aspects of the community. 11.2.12 Delta rehabilitation These areas are close to sea level and are part of the natural river flood system, typically flooding during the annual rainy season. Informal settlements have been constructed in these areas. As a result, the buildings and communities that live in them are highly vulnerable to flooding. To stop the flood risk from increasing, the aim should be that no more people build in these areas. A reclaimed platform could be engineered to account for future flood scenarios that includes climate change, in addition to future sea-level rise and coastal erosion. 11.2.13 Engineered concrete channels and culverts This proposed measure would involve further investigation of the concrete channels that already exist in the densely populated delta areas (Map FT-0145, Page 133) and possible options for optimising the existing built channels to help reduce flood risk to the informal settlements. Since the engineered concrete channels increase the flow rate of floodwaters downstream, they are only recommended in the lower catchment where water exits immediately to the ocean. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 180 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.2.14 Channel clearance Unblocking silt and waste from culverts and built drainage will promote conveyance of floodwaters, particularly in dense urban areas in the middle and lower catchment areas. Community groups could be established and the wider community could be incentivised to participate. The summer 2016 ‘Operation Clean Freetown’ initiative30 highlighted that citywide community involvement can result in citywide flood hazard reduction. People were incentivised to clear waste from their homes for collection, helping to significantly reduce the impacts of flooding related to blocked urban drainage during the rainy season. 11.2.15 Multi-purpose disaster response shelters It is recommended that multi-purpose disaster response shelters are established at locations across Freetown. It is important that the shelters are located outside of defined natural hazard zones, are evenly distributed across the city and at secure locations accessible to the public via existing infrastructure. It is recommended that the disaster response centres are established by upgrading existing schools or other existing community facilities or by construction of new school or community facilities. It is important that the shelter is multi-purpose so that social benefits to the community are maximised and the facility is used and maintained while not required for its disaster response shelter function. Schools and community facilities are recommended because they are typically perceived as safe and secure for children, woman and vulnerable members of society including the elderly. It is recommended that the shelters include separate sections for women and their children – as it is very important that shelters are regarded as providing a “safe haven” (World Bank, 2014). One of the purposes of the centre will be to provide temporary accommodation for displaced people during and immediately after a disaster such as flooding. It is therefore important that the centre has suitable covered space such as a hall or other building for the required number of displaced people and in addition, sufficient open space where additional people could be accommodated in tents if required. It is also important that the centre has sufficient welfare facilities that could be used by an increased number of people if required. Welfare facilities would include toilets, water and bathing, and facilities cooking. In addition to welfare facilities for impacted population, it is recommended that open space is available if possible for livestock which allows improved economic recovery. 30 http://apanews.net/en/news/sierra-leone-announces-operation-clean-freetown http://www.presidentsrecoverypriorities.gov.sl/single-post/2017/05/14/Youth-groups-trained-in- door-to-door-waste-management-under-Operation-Clean-Freetown-are-equipped-to-begin-work 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 181 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 31 31 The ‘Indicative area for further investigation’ encompasses where the new road is being constructed along what has been identified in this study as a high landslide and flood hazard zone. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 182 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.3 Landslide Hazard Specific DRR/DRM Measures The landslide hazard specific DRR/DRM options recommended for Freetown are summarised in this section. Figure 51 provides a schematic illustration of where different DRR/DRM options can be implemented within a typical catchment to achieve the optimum benefit in terms of risk reduction. International good practice in landslide risk management is moving toward holistic, sustainable, green solutions as described for flood risk management above. This holistic, sustainable approach is also consistently in line with the Greening Africa initiative (White et al., 2017). Greening measures, particularly in the upper catchment areas, are considered the best way to mitigate the effects of severe landslides and flooding. Implementing measures in the upper catchment also helps to avoid implementation of more expensive and intrusive ‘hard’ engineering solutions in the lower catchment. Local site-specific slope stabilisation measures will also be required for individual developments but these detailed stabilisation measures are beyond the scope of this city scale study. Seven landslide hazard DRR/DRM options are described on Figure 51. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 183 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 51 – Schematic illustration of a mountain catchment and landslide hazard DRR/DRM measures recommended for Freetown. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 184 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.3.1 Landslide hazard and risk communication and engagement Landslide hazard and risk communication and engagement is a low cost high benefit method of helping to reduce the landslide risk across the city. Educating people about where the high hazard areas are and why they should not build home and livelihoods in such areas is at the root of stopping the landslide risk from increasing. The results of this study can be used to educate and engage the communities, schools, city and district councils, ministries, government and other key decision makers. It is the responsibility of the stakeholders involved in this project to share and engage the communities with the open source maps and data produced by this project. 11.3.2 Early warning systems Since there is a broad correlation between very intense rainfall and landslide triggering, a rainfall-intensity-threshold based early warning system located in the steep slope, high topographic relief (upper catchment) areas of Freetown would be an appropriate option to reduce landslide risk in the urbanised upper catchment areas. Further research would be needed to define threshold levels. 11.3.3 Reforestation of upper catchment areas Trees stabilise the deep soils, maintaining natural rates of infiltration, which reduces risk of deep-soil slips and disturbing the natural conditions of the hydrology that interacts with the deeper bedrock. Map FT-0140, Page 138 shows the distribution of reforestation areas which has been designed to coincide with locations of combined high landslide hazard and intense deforestation and construction. 11.3.4 Landslide hazard signage Landslide hazard signage is a relatively low-cost, moderate benefit opportunity to help educate and increase awareness of landslide hazard amongst the population, in particular in the upper catchment areas. Map FT-0135, Page 139 shows indicative locations for landslide hazard signage, which are typically areas where landslide hazard-risk are high and there is maximum exposure of the population to the signage (i.e. the signs are located at major road junctions). Associated evacuation routes and plans should be developed. 11.3.5 Community drainage implementation Community drainage implementation helps to reduce landslide hazard by potentially helping to reduce the volume and rate of floodwater runoff. It has been recommended that a pilot study of the MoSSaiC drainage system be undertaken within an upper catchment area of Freetown to demonstrate the benefits that can be achieved (to reduce flood and landslide hazard). Following the successful implementation of a pilot study, the installation of drainage infrastructure more widely across Freetown could be more accurately costed and undertaken. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 185 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.3.6 Zoning regulations Zoning maps of the city are required to indicate where people currently living in combined hazard zones (Map FT-0117, page 19). A similar approach to zoning for landslide hazard as that recommended for flood hazard could be adopted (see Section 11.2). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 186 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 187 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 188 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.4 Coastal Hazard Specific DRR/DRM Options To help reduce the effects of coastal erosion, seven mitigation measures have been identified as a range of potentially suitable options in Freetown. The sections below describe the two shortlisted soft engineering measures that have been recommended for Freetown, followed by the five recommended hard engineering measures that are appropriate for Freetown. Map FT-0148, Page 150 shows the indicative locations where these measures could be implemented along the coast of Freetown. However, consultation with the government, ministries and councils in addition to potential further engineering and or environmental studies are recommended before possible implementation. The scenario of sea level rise at 2050 has been described in Section 7 of this report. This Section also gives a description of the low-lying areas that are shown to be high hazard zones for sea level rise. DRR /DRM measures tackling the hazard of sea level rise need to include long term land use plans. This will need to be at national and city scale and should include all parts of society and governance. Recommendations for sea-level rise risk reduction, based on UNISDR (2017) notes, include the following suggestions: • Promote the collection of appropriate data and encourage the use of standardised baselines for the periodic assessment of sea-level risk and secondary hazards such as storm surge and groundwater intrusion. This should build on the high-level results of this study; • Drafting future climate change resilience plans that take into account changes in sea level across longer timescales and climate change scenarios; • Publicly report on progress to implement resiliency measures; • Incorporate sea level plans and assessments into rural development planning including management of wetlands; • Incorporate sea level plans into building codes to include the impact of sea level rise in designated flood and storm surge zones; and assessing buildings based on their adaptive capacity; • Promoting inclusion of planning to adapt to sea level rise including rebuilding after storms on future shoreline positions. Seven coastal change and sea level rise hazard DRR/DRM options are described on Figure 52. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 189 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 52 – Schematic illustration of a catchment and coastal change hazard DRR/DRM options recommended for Freetown. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 190 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.4.1 Mangrove preservation Mangroves act as a natural defence to coastal erosion by breaking up waves and reducing their erosive force before they reach dry land. Preserving them and re- vegetating areas where mangroves have been chopped down for wood, is an effective method of protecting the coastline from erosion. This measure is recommended in areas where the hazard of coastal erosion is high, but risk to people, buildings and other infrastructure is low. A low-cost method of preserving natural coastline. In northern coastal regions of Vietnam, local communities have planted and protected mangroves. An estimated US$7.3 million a year in sea dike maintenance was saved because of an investment of US$1.1 million on restoration of natural mangrove forests (White et al., 2017). The project areas also suffered less damage than neighbouring provinces during typhoon Wukong in 2000. White et al. (2017) suggest that such projects would also be possible in Africa, but with more challenges due to the under-resourced nature of the cities. Figure 53 – Mangrove preservation A study on mangroves in the Philippines compared the results of flood modelling that used the same scenarios with and without mangroves. The report finds that without mangroves, flooding and damages to people, property and infrastructure would increase annually by approximately 25% (Beck and Lange, 2017). It is therefore clear that preserving Freetown’s mangroves would help reduce the impacts of coastal erosion and flooding simultaneously. 11.4.2 Sand mining prevention Sand mining makes the beach more prone to erosion. Prevention of sand mining should be enforced at all levels, by the government, ministries, and councils. Beaches act as an effective natural defence to coastal erosion and as a tourist attraction in Freetown. It is critical to preserve them for the long the long-term social and economic benefit of the city. One of the first things that can be done to help this is to prevent any further sand mining and attempt to source sand from a more sustainable place. It might be possible to sustainably mine sand from the 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 191 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment interior plains of Sierra Leone as opposed to the beaches of Freetown (and Bonthe). If the only viable source of sand is to take it from the coastline, it should be taken from beaches well away from built environment. Sand mining should be regulated to restrict the amount of sand that can be taken at any one time and its impact on the environment should be monitored. A website article by IRIN, published on 1 February 2013 says that sand mining is “having a devastating effect on the coastline, destroying property, and damaging the area’s hopes of a tourism revival”. The director of Sierra Leone’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Kolleh Bangura, told the reporter that sand mining “is getting worse” and that before sand mining began, the rate of coastal erosion was around one metre per year, and “now it is around six metres per year”. Figure 54 – Sand mining 11.4.3 Riprap Riprap consists of wide graded relatively small pieces of rock placed at the top of beaches. This measure does not prevent coastal erosion, but will slow the process and help stabilise the crest/top of the beach. The beach will continue to lower and the riprap will lower with it. Riprap is an appropriate measure for areas of coast that comprise sandy beaches, but that also have buildings located at the top of the beaches. Access to the beach can be restricted by the riprap, however. It may be necessary to top up the riprap from time to time. It is therefore not effective in the medium term but a quick cheap and easily implemented short term measure. This option is less costly that the rock armour revetment option so should be used in less vulnerable/lower risk areas. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 192 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 55 – Schematic diagram showing riprap 11.4.4 Rock armour revetment The rock armour is typically formed from boulders/large pieces of rock engineered to form a revetment (seaward facing slope). The toe of the revetment has to be dug down to allow for future beach lowering. It may be necessary to provide supportive coastal structures such as groynes (described below) or offshore breakwaters (described below) to retain some of the sand on the beach and prevent long term undermining of the revetment. A rock armour revetment is designed to ‘hold the line’ against any further coastal erosion. This measure could be suitable where areas of coast that have buildings located at the top of the beaches and the consequences of further erosion and/or wave overtopping are unacceptably high. Since it is a long-term measure and requires design, this option is more costly than riprap and should be used in more vulnerable/higher risk scenarios, such as along Lumley Beach. Revetments take up more space but provide wave absorption on erodible coastal-front compared to the fully reflective vertical seawalls. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 193 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 56 – Schematic diagram showing rock armour revetment 11.4.5 Vertical seawall Vertical seawalls are formed from concrete or sheet piles, they act to reflect wave energy, which can lead to lowering of the foreshore in front of the seawall, and protect the natural coastline against wave action. If the foreshore is sensitive to this impact, then the wall needs to be founded deeper and/or be provided with scour protection rock. To reduce risk of wave overtopping the seawall’s crest may need to be set at a higher elevation. A rock revetment may be required in front of the wall to provide additional protection to the structure. These would substantially increase the cost of the sea wall. This measure could be suitable where areas along the northern coast of Freetown where buildings have been constructed on the water’s edge and the consequences of further erosion and/or wave overtopping are unacceptably high. This option will take up minimal space so impact to existing buildings and foreshore will be reduced compared to a revetment. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 194 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 57 – Schematic diagram showing vertical sea walls 11.4.6 Groynes Groynes are fingers of timber or rock that project out into mobile beaches. They are only effective where there is a drift of sand along the coastline and are suitable supplementary measures (to vertical seawalls and revetments) to control coastal erosion where there is a sandy beach which needs to be retained. For example, groynes can be a cost-effective method for holding the beach in place and reducing drawdown in front of the seawall. This makes the seawall easier and cheaper to build because it would not have to be founded so deep. Retaining the beach also reduces wave overtopping in storms and provides an amenity for the city. Groynes can be particularly effective when used in combination with revetment or vertical seawall and/or beach nourishment to retain beach sand and reduce risk of the revetment/seawall being undermined. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 195 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 58 – Example of groynes used to accumulate beach sediment. Figure 59 – Example of wooden (top) and rock (bottom) groynes. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 196 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.4.7 Detached breakwaters Detached breakwaters are distinct from groynes in that their principal purpose is to reduce the incident wave energy, not to act as retaining structures. They are generally shore parallel so that they can dissipate the wave energy offshore. In general, breakwaters are suited to coastal environments that require higher levels of protection and do not have sensitive downdrift beaches. They have been traditionally constructed using rubble mound materials, such as natural rock. Detached breakwaters can be particularly effective when used in combination with revetments, vertical seawall and/or beach nourishment to reduce incident wave energy, and consequently retain beach sand and reduce risk of the revetment/seawall being undermined. Figure 60 – Example of detached breakwaters. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 197 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.5 DRR/DRM recommendations by catchment for Freetown The topography of Freetown is mountainous with steep-sided river valleys that drain different regions (catchments) of the mountains. Freetown has thirteen major catchments, each containing a number of wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). Because the nature of the natural hazard and risk is different for each different catchment and depending on which area of the catchment, the DRR measures have been proposed on a catchment-by-catchment basis. Maps FT-0130 to FT-0151, Volume 5 show the specific DRR measures proposed for the different hazards for each catchment. Below, the hazard-risk context and the specific DRR measures proposed for each catchment have been described, beginning with the most northwestern catchment (C1) on the Freetown peninsula and continuing clockwise to the final catchment (C13). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 198 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 199 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.5.1 Aberdeen-Lumley (C1) Aberdeen-Lumley catchment is situated on the northwest tip of the Freetown Peninsular and is the third smallest catchment of the thirteen catchments. The catchment contains four wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). The topographic relief is relatively low. The flood hazard is concentrated along the natural river channel (Cain Water River), which drains to the northwest into the Aberdeen Creek (Map FT-0131). In the upper catchment, the buildings exposed to high flood hazard are single and two storey houses constructed within the natural channel and its floodplain. In the lower catchment, the hazard is concentrated to small natural topographic depressions and along the west coastal area of Aberdeen Creek close to the mouth of the Cain Water River. Most of the buildings in these high-risk areas are informal settlements. The coastline of C1 includes the relatively narrow sand spit, Lumley Beach, which consists of mobile sands and is a relatively low density build region; in addition to the rockier coastline of northern Aberdeen and Murray Town. Specific DRR options for C1 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0131); • Landslide-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0136). Landslide risk is lower in C1 than other catchments, but the hazard signage is important – deforestation has occurred into the hillsides in the upper catchment around Hill Station, such hillsides have medium to high landslide susceptibility. Forest in these areas needs to be preserved and no-build zones enforced; • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the dense urban areas; • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the natural flood flow and to increase infiltration and reduce run-off of floodwaters (Map FT-0141); • Investigate the potential for an engineered green channel where the modelled current 100 flood intersects with the Freetown Road (Map FT- 0146); • Investigate the potential for flood storage ponds for the main Cain Water river channel. These have been proposed where natural fallow low-lying topography exists close to the flood plain and upstream of potential hot spot flooding areas (Map FT-0146); • Mangrove preservation and restoration has been recommended for the mangrove of Aberdeen Creek, which has been heavily deforested and reclaimed for construction (Figure 61); • Rock armour revetment has been suggested as a possible coastal hazard risk reduction option for Lumley Beach (Map FT-0149 and Figure 62). Lumley Beach is a relatively narrow sand spit and it is therefore exposed to higher risk from coastal erosion than the sections of the coast to the south. The housing 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 200 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment density at Lumley beach is relatively lower than the other sandy beaches on the west coast, however, the main coastal road linking Aberdeen with the rest of Freetown is located on the Lumley Beach spit and this critical infrastructure would be destroyed with a small amount of erosion. • An alternative hard engineering measure to implementing rock armour revetment at Lumley Beach (Map FT-0149 and Figure 62) includes a system of detached breakwaters at a distance from the shore, which can act to reduce the wave energy directly impacting the beach. • Along the north coast of Aberdeen (Map FT-0149) where there is no sandy beach and the buildings sit directly above the shoreline in areas of high risk from coastal erosion and sea-level rise, vertical seawalls are a possible and appropriate risk reduction option. They have already been implemented along some stretches of this part of the coast. • Riprap is a possible risk reduction measure east of the coastal section where vertical sea walls already exist in Aberdeen. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 201 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 61 – GoogleEarth Pro satellite images of Lumley Beach, Freetown in 2005 (bottom) and 2017 (top). Mangrove has been intensely deforested in the area of the righthand side of the images. The beach has been significantly impacted by construction of new buildings. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 202 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 62 – Example of selected proposed coastal and flood DRR measures in C1 viewed in a GIS. Area shown is Lumley Creek (see inset map for approximate location). The light orange section of the coast is where soft engineering measures have been recommended, dark orange/brown areas of the coast are where hard engineering measures have been recommended. Flood-hazard signage locations are indicative. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 11.5.2 Congo Town (C2) Congo Town Catchment is the second smallest catchment and contains 6 wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). The relief ranges from ~400m.a.s.l. to sea level. There is one main natural river channel that drains northwards from Sugarloaf in the southeast to White Man’s Bay on the north coast. The high flood hazard is concentrated within this main channel, and a smaller tributary channel that drains through Wilberforce and Tengbeh Town (Map FT-0131). The flood-hazard potential is significant due to both the high-elevation of the majority of this 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 203 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment catchment and due to the intensity and extent of deforestation and urbanisation in the upper catchment. The majority of buildings exposed to the high flood hazard are informal settlements in New London, Crab Town, and Congo Town Community that have developed within the river flood plain of the lower catchment. Higher in the catchment, there are fewer buildings in the natural river floodplain, the majority of these are multi-storey and constructed of reinforced concrete. The coastline around White Man’s Bay (Figure 63) is mostly low-lying and built up with informal settlements, whereas the coastline around Kingtom has higher elevation above sea level, is more rocky and vegetated and, in some places has vertical seawalls. Specific DRR options for C2 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0131). • Landslide-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0136). • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the dense urban areas; and • Restoration of the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of floodwaters into the natural ground (Map FT-0141). • Investigate the potential for an engineered green channel at the intersection of the Main Motor Road Bridge with the flood hazard and at the intersection of the Ascension Town Road Bridge with the flood hazard (Map FT-0146) to help accommodate floodwaters and reduce the rate of flow in the lower catchment. • Investigate the potential for floodwater storage ponds. Map FT-0146 shows locations indicative of natural fallow low-lying topography close to the flood plain upstream of potential hot spot flooding areas. • Vertical seawalls for high-level of defence to coastal erosion along the densely urban coastline of White Man’s Bay. • Riprap to protect against coastal erosion along the Kingtom coastline. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 204 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 63 – GoogleEarth Pro satellite images of White Man’s Bay and the coast of Kingtom in 2005 (top) and 2017 (bottom). The Ascension Town Road Bridge can be seen in the bottom of the images – this is the type of high flood-risk area that would benefit from an engineered green channel. North along the coast of the river outlet, vertical sea walls have already been implemented in the 2017 image. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 205 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.5.3 Kroo Bay (C3) Kroo Bay is the fifth smallest catchment and it contains 13 wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). There are two main natural river channels that drain to the north coast. One drains the western area from Dworzack in the upper catchment to Kroo Bay in the lower catchment, the other drains the eastern area from Leicester in the upper catchment to Susans’s Bay in the lower catchment (Map FT-0131). Tower Hill separates these two main rivers. The high-flood hazard is concentrated in the natural channels and their smaller tributaries of which there are several. Since most of the catchment is at high elevation and much of the mountainous upper catchment has been intensely deforested and built upon the potential for flooding of urban areas throughout the catchment is increased. A mix of building types are at risk from the current 100 year flood. In the lower catchment, the majority are informal settlements, in the upper catchment there are fewer buildings at risk and the majority are reinforced concrete multi-storey houses. Kroo Bay delta is a densely built-up area of informal settlements that are known to suffer intense flooding in the annual rainy season. The area floods because the settlements have been built upon a natural river delta, a sediment deposit that builds over time from flood waters that carry and deposit sediment. Three other reported flooding hotspots are related to settlements that have been built in the channel and in the river flood plain in this catchment. It is possible that the hotspot reported where the Sanders Brook River flows beneath Sanders street the flooding is caused or intensified by blocked drainage. The coastline of this catchment is mostly very low-lying and built up with a majority of informal settlements. Proposed DRR options for C3 include (Figure 65): • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment. • Landslide-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0136). The quantitative landslide hazard is lower in this catchment than in others, however, Tower Hill and Mount Aureole have suffered intense deforestation and construction upon the lower slopes that have medium to high landslide susceptibility. • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of floodwaters through the dense urban areas. • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of floodwaters into the natural ground. • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce floodwater run-off and slow the flow of water into the main natural channels and smaller tributaries (Map FT-0141). • Investigate the potential for an engineered green channel where the high flood hazard intersects the Lightfoot Boston Bridge and where the high flood hazard intersects the Chapel Street and Kroo Town Road river crossings (Map FT-0146). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 206 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Investigate the potential for rehabilitating the Kroo Bay and Susan’s Bay deltas to their natural state (Map FT-0146 and Figure 64). • Investigate the potential for engineered concrete channels through each of the deltas to help control the flow of floodwater through these densely populated areas (Map FT-0146). • Vertical seawalls could be used for high-level of defence to coastal erosion along the densely urban coastline of Kroo Bay, Susan’s Bay, and Destruction Bay. Figure 64 – Top: Kroo Bay delta community Google Earth Pro satellite image 2017; Bottom: view towards the ocean through the Kroo Bay River channel (bottom). Photo taken March 2016. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 207 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 65 – Example of selected proposed flood DRR measures in C2 and C3 viewed in a GIS. Area shown is Kroo Bay (in the east) and White Man’s Bay (in the west), also Congo Town, close to the stadium (see inset map for approximate location). The brown areas indicate natural deltas that are recommended to be rehabilitated back to their natural condition. Green boxes are indicative locations within which engineered green channels have been recommended. Flood- hazard signage locations are indicative. Blue areas indicate the 100 year flood extent. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 11.5.4 Culvert-Cline Bay (C4) Culvert-Cline Bay is the fourth smallest catchment and it contains 11 wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). One main natural channel drains northwards to Cline Bay in the northeast of the peninsular. The high flood hazard is concentrated in this channel and floodplain, and in smaller tributaries in the upper catchment area. The C4 catchment is similar to C2 and C3 in that almost half of the catchment exists in the high mountains and therefore has a large surface area to capture rainwater 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 208 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment runoff. Also, similarly to C2 and C3, the mountain slopes of the upper catchment, including Mount Aureol, have been extensively deforested and built upon, increasing the potential for high flood (and landslide) hazard in the middle and lower catchment. The majority of vulnerable buildings that exist within the high-flood hazard zones are informal settlements in the lower catchment, with fewer multi-storey, reinforced concrete buildings vulnerable in the upper catchment. Bomeh city dump is located in the lower catchment and is associated with known flood hazard for the following reasons: • The dump exists within the natural river channel and floodplain and water now drains beneath the dump through a damaged partially blocked culvert. This restricts the flow of floodwaters; • The dump is immediately surrounded by informal settlements that have been constructed on the floodplain, so when flooding occurs these people are immediately flooded. The coastline of C4 is largely low-lying (with some land reclamation) and densely, with the exception of the Cline Town Dockland, which from observations of satellite imagery appears to be an engineered dockland. The proposed DRR options for C4 include (Figure 66): • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0131). • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the urban areas. • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of flood waters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0141). • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0141). • Investigate the potential for an engineered green channel where the main Bai Bureh road bridge intersects with the high flood hazard zone at Bomeh Dump (Map FT-0146). • Investigate the potential to rehabilitate Cline Bay and Destruction Bay deltas to their natural state (Map FT-0146). • Investigate the potential for an engineered concrete channel through the Cline Bay delta to help control the flow of flood waters through a vulnerable densely urban area. This would be a possible alternative if rehabilitating the delta is not possible due to financial constraints (Map FT-0146). • Vertical seawalls are recommended along Cline Bay. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 209 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 66 – Example of selected proposed DRR measures in C4 viewed in a GIS. Area shown is Cline Bay (see inset map for approximate location). The brown area indicates natural deltas that are recommended to be rehabilitated back to their natural condition. Green boxes are indicative locations within which engineered green channels have been recommended. Flood-hazard signage locations are indicative. Green areas indicate the hazard zone for flooding in this area. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 11.5.5 Kissy (C5) Kissy is the seventh largest catchment and contains 16 densely built-up wards in the lower part of the catchment (Map FT-0111, Page 151). There are two main natural channels that drain north-eastward to the Sierra Leone River Bay (Map FT-132). The majority of the buildings within the high flood hazard zone appear to be typical single and two-storey buildings constructed of concrete or sandcrete. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 210 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment There are a number of positive points to note about flood hazard potential in this catchment: • The general topographic relief, mountain slope, and extent of deforestation are less than similarly densely urban catchments in north Freetown (e.g. C2-C4). These factors naturally help reduce the flood water run-off volume and flow rate to the lower catchment; • The buildings in the lower catchment are slightly less-densely packed together, therefore, potential for flood water infiltration is greater than for example in the lower catchment areas of C2-C4; • The natural channels are still quite well vegetated with shrubs and trees. Proposed DRR options for C5 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0132); • Landslide-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0137); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the urban areas; • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of flood waters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0142]); • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0142); • Rehabilitation of the delta close to Kissy Bye Pass II (Map FT-0147); • Riprap along the more natural, rocky and less built-up sections of the coast; and, • Vertical seawalls along low-lying built-up sections of the coast. 11.5.6 Samura Town (C6) Samura Town is the sixth smallest catchment and contains six wards (Map FT- 0111, Page 151). There are four natural channels and the high flood hazard zones are concentrated in these channels and their floodplains (Map FT-0132). The upper part of the catchment is still relatively well forested and many of the floodplains are still at least partially forested and vegetated with shrubs. The coastline of C6 is largely natural mangrove that has had little impacted by deforestation. Proposed DRR options for C6 include (Figure 67): • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0132). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 211 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of floodwaters through the urban areas. • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of floodwaters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0142). • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0142). • Mangrove preservation of the all of the coastline. Figure 67 – Example of selected proposed DRR measures in C6 viewed in a GIS. See inset map for approximate location. The stippled light and brown areas are indicative regions for reforestation. Red landslide hazard signs are shown in indicative locations. Green areas indicate the hazard zone for flooding and landsliding in this area. Building polygons and road polylines are from the exposure dataset developed as part of this study and derived from OpenStreetMap. Field of view is approximately 1.5km across and oriented north. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 212 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 11.5.7 Regent-Grafton (C7) The Regent-Grafton is the largest catchment and covers 8 wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). The majority of the catchment is rural and well forested. The main urban areas are limited to lower catchment in the east. There is essentially one main natural channel (fed by many smaller tributaries) that drains the majority of the central peninsular mountains, from the Regent area in the west to Allen Town in the east (Map FT-0131 to FT-0134). In the upper catchment, the high flood hazard zones are concentrated in these natural channels. In the lower catchment where the topographic relief is low, the majority of high flood hazard zones are broader in spatial extent than in the upper catchment (Map FT-0130). The coastline of C7 is mostly a wide area of natural mangrove that has been little affected by deforestation. Proposed DRR options for C7 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0131 to FT-0134); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of floodwaters through the urban areas; • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of floodwaters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0141 to FT-0144); • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0141 to FT-0144); • Investigate the potential benefits of flood water storage along the channel and upper catchment (Natural Flood Plain Management) (Map FT-0145 to FT- 0147); • Investigation whether the recently constructed Youyi Highway, which follows the main drainage channel of the Regent-Grafton Catchment, has considered flood hazard in design; and, • Mangrove preservation. 11.5.8 Yams Farm (Hastings) (C8) Yams Farm catchment is the fourth largest catchment and it contains one Ward (Map FT-0111, Page 151). Two major tributaries in the upper catchment in the south supply run-off into a single main natural channel that drains to the northeast ([Map FT-0134]). The upper catchment is well forested, however, observations of historical and recent satellite imagery at the time of writing this study indicate that deforestation over the last decade has been intense, particularly in the middle and lower catchment. Relative to the other catchments, the density of buildings in C8 is lower and fewer people have built on the river flood plains. Many of the buildings within this catchment appear to be multi-storey reinforced concrete houses. Catchment 8 has no coastline. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 213 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Proposed DRR measures for C8 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0134); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the urban areas; • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of floodwaters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0144); • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0144); and • Investigate the potential benefits of floodwater storage along the channel and upper catchment (Natural Flood Plain Management). 11.5.9 York (C9) York is the second largest catchment and it contains two wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). A number of major tributaries in the upper catchment drain south- westwards into a single main natural channel and on to the Atlantic Ocean (Map FT-0133 and FT-0134). The upper and middle catchment are well forested, however, over the last decade or so there has been intense deforestation and development on the lower mountain slopes of the catchment. Catchment 9 has no coastline. Proposed DRR measures for C9 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0133 and FT-0134); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the urban areas; and • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of floodwaters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0143 and FT-0144). • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0133 and FT-0134). 11.5.10 Sussex (C10) Sussex is the third largest catchment and contains one Ward (Map FT-0111, Page 151). The catchment has five main natural channels two major channels in the north and three smaller channels in the south ([Map FT-0133). In the upper and middle catchment the high flood hazard is concentrated in the channels and floodplains. In the lower catchment where the relief is low, the extent of the high flood hazard zones becomes broader in extent. The upper catchment is well forested, however, similar to C8 and C9, observations of the satellite imagery over 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 214 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment the last decade indicate that deforestation and construction of the lower catchment, particularly surrounding the Peninsular Road have been intense. This region of southwest Freetown contains long stretches of natural coastline that have only been marginally affected by human activity. Typical examples of the coastline include long sandy beaches, separated by rocky headlands, such as Lakka and Goderich. Homes are generally separated from the shoreline by the sandy beaches or vegetated areas. Elsewhere, homes have been built on the more rocky headlands. Additionally, dense relatively well-preserved areas of mangrove exist. Proposed DRR options for C10 include: • Hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0133 and FT-0138); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of floodwaters through the urban areas; • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of flood waters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0143); • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0143); • Investigate the potential benefits of flood water storage along the channel and upper catchment (Natural Flood Plain Management); • Riprap may be suitable for a section of the coastline, a stretch of sandy beach to the south of Goderich’s headland. There is room at the top of the beach for the rocks to be positioned, whilst still leaving natural beach for people to enjoy. The way in which the rocks are placed does not need significant amounts of engineering, so local contractors could be used to carry out the works. The cost and effort required to implement this measure is in line with the risk from coastal erosion at this site; and, • Mangrove preservation along the coastline (Map FT-0151). 11.5.11 Angola Town (C11) Angola Town is the sixth largest catchment and contains three wards (Map FT- 0111, Page 151). The relief of the catchment is relatively low. Two tributaries drain the upper catchment and merge into a single main channel draining westwards to the Atlantic Ocean (Map FT-0131). The high flood hazard zone is concentrated within the main tributary channels and floodplains in the upper and middle catchment. In the lower catchment where the relief is low, the aerial extent of the high flood hazard zone becomes broader. As with C8, C9, and C10 deforestation and construction on the mountain slopes of the lower catchment over the last decade have been extensive. As mentioned above the coastline of C11 also comprises sandy beaches and mangrove. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 215 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Proposed DRR options for C11 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0131); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the urban areas; and • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of flood waters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0141). • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0141); and • Investigate the potential benefits of flood water storage along the channel and upper catchment (Natural Flood Plain Management) (Map FT-0146). • Riprap at Lakkah and (northern) Goderich beaches (Map FT-0149) to preserve the sands from coastal erosion. • Mangrove preservation along a section of the coastline ([Map FT-0149]). 11.5.12 Baoma (C12) Baoma is the smallest catchment and contains three wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). Due to the limited size of the catchment and the low topographic relief the high flood hazard potential is relatively lower than for the other twelve catchments. There are two small natural channels that drain north-westwards into Cockerill Bay (Map FT-0131). The high flood hazard zones are concentrated within the natural channels and floodplains. The buildings within these areas are mostly one- to two-storey concrete buildings. The river channels are still relatively well vegetated with trees and shrubs. Because the relief is low throughout the catchment, many buildings have been constructed throughout the catchment. This dense urbanisation will inevitably increase the run-off of rain water, partly countering the natural flood hazard reduction benefits of the low relief and small catchment size. The coastline of C12 is mostly formed of long continuous sandy beach, which sits between two small rocky headlands ([Map FT-0149]). The main Peninsular Highway is situated a short distance behind and parallel to this stretch of sandy beach. The DRR measures proposed for C12 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0131); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the urban areas; • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of flood waters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0141); 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 216 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0141); • Investigate the potential benefits of flood water storage along the channel and upper catchment (Natural Flood Plain Management) (Map FT-0146); • Groynes have been recommended to reduce the coastal hazard and risk along the coast of C12 (Map FT-0149). Where the beach crest is wide enough, the groynes may be effective as a standalone option to reduce drift of sand along the coastline without an additional revetment or a vertical seawall; and, • Riprap has also been recommended along the coastline (Map FT-0149). 11.5.13 Regent-Lumley (C13) Regent-Lumley is the fifth largest catchment and contains 5 wards (Map FT-0111, Page 151). Similar to C7, C13 contains some of the highest relief and longest river channels and tributaries of all of the catchments, therefore, the surface area for flood water capture is great. The high flood zones are concentrated to the natural channel and tributary floodplains (Map FT-0131). In the lower and middle catchment, the buildings that exist within the high flood hazard zones are mostly single storey informal settlements and single storey sandcrete-type buildings. In the upper catchment, fewer buildings are within high flood hazard zones and these are a majority of multi-storey concrete buildings. The coastline of C13 is relatively short and it contains Lumley Creek a natural sand bar that forms a relatively wide beach area. Catchment 13 is where the Regent-Lumley Disaster occurred on the 14th August 2017. Proposed DRR options for C13 include: • Flood-hazard signage to communicate the hazard and risk in the catchment (Map FT-0131); • Clearing the drainage channels of waste and sediment to increase the conveyance of flood waters through the urban areas; • Restoring the natural floodplain with vegetation to help attenuate the flood flow and increase infiltration of flood waters into the natural ground (Map FT- 0141); • Reforestation of the upper catchment to reduce run-off and slow the flow of water into the river channels (Map FT-0141); • Investigate the potential benefits of floodwater storage along the channel and upper catchment (Natural Flood Plain Management) (Map FT-0146); and, • Rock armour revetment possibly along Lumley Creek to protect the natural sand bar. • Localised restoration of the landslide affected area is subject to a separate World Bank funded, UNOPS project. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 217 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 218 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 12 Recommendations 12.1 Recommendations for DRR/DRM Priorities This study has provided, for the first time, quantitative spatially accurate digital natural hazard and risk data for Freetown. This data is now freely available in printed A4 and A3 size documents and in digital GIS format. It is recommended that awareness of this information is promoted so that all members of the Government, ministries, the Freetown city council, and community are engaged and can communicate about natural hazard and risk issues in their city. The aims of the DRR/DRM recommendations described in this report are to save lives, reduce the number of people impacted, and to reduce the direct losses and economic impact caused by damage and disruption to the built environment from natural hazards. The DRR/DRM options recommended are presented in terms of a wider holistic strategy at city region scale. The holistic strategy takes into consideration the unique setting and terrain of Freetown with an emphasis placed on understanding the distribution of hazards and risks, communication and community involvement, re-establishing green and environmental solutions throughout the city to manage the risk associated with natural hazards, and providing early warning where possible and providing shelter for impacted people when disaster strikes. • Firstly, in developing the DRR/DRM Options for Freetown, a range of best practice DRR/DRM measures have first been provided, these are presented in Section 11. • Secondly, a number of complimentary measures have been grouped together to form four different DRR/DRM Options. • Finally, a prioritised list of DRR/DRM recommendations have been proposed, informed by the conclusions of the study. These are summarised below and in the Summary Report at the start of this volume. They are recommended to be implemented for optimal long-term improvement for city resilience however viable alternatives including other structural measures e.g. flood defence bunds, exist and may deliver quicker short-term improvements to city resilience but these would require more detailed flood modelling and analysis. Priority 1 – City-Wide Hazard and Risk Communication City-wide hazard and risk communication has the potential to reduce risk and save lives for relatively modest investments. Community: DRM is everybody’s business. DRR/DRM is most effective when complimentary measures are combined and there is engagement from all levels of society (Sendai Framework, Guiding Principles). 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 219 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The role of the community in Freetown can and does go far beyond response, recovery and rehabilitation; communities have the networks and workforce available to address disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness and this can help with redressing the benefit cost ratio of other DRR/DRM options. For example, The World Bank funded, Management of Slope Stability in Communities (MoSSaiC) approach, provides a community-based and scientific approach for delivering flood and landslide hazard reduction measures. A schematic illustration of the MoSSaiC system is shown in Figure 68. Figure 68 – The MoSSaiC community based drainage system to reduce flooding and landslide hazard and risk (World Bank Project Insights 78723 Issue #12). Priority 2 – Greening Freetown – Revegetation and Natural Catchments Nature-based solutions can help mitigate flood, drought, erosion and landslide (hazards) as well as decrease vulnerability to climate change while creating multiple benefits to the environment and local communities (World Bank, 2017). The costs associated with large planting programmes can be high and therefore the benefit-cost ratio can be low. A phased approach to revegetation is therefore recommended. Selected high hazard and risk catchments should be prioritised. In Freetown for example there are ongoing low-cost community measures such as tree planting initiatives that will reduce flooding and landsliding. It should also be noted that ‘hard’ engineering solutions are also 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 220 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment required in to achieve optimal DRM effectiveness within a specific time-frame and within the constraints of an urban setting. “On Friday 1 June, at the Dwazark Community Hall, the SLRCS in collaboration with Ministry of Agriculture Forestry Division concluded one- day training on reforestation. Volunteers in all six communities: Mortormeh, Kaningo, Kamayama, Culvert, Juba and Dwazark, were trained in tree nursing, planting and reforestation. 20,000 seedlings were brought from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Forestry Division32” Figure 69 – Community tree planting initiatives. Priority 3 – Urban Planning and Zoning One of the most effective ways to save lives and reduce losses going forward is to minimise further building in the combined hazard zones. (Map FT-0112, page 138). Currently 10% of Freetown’s population live in these combined higher hazard zones and this number will increase if further building in these zones is not managed. If further building is allowed to continue in an unmanaged way then the risks associated with these hazards will continue to increase. The city should focus on ‘efficient utilization’ of existing safe land within the urban area (low hazard zones) by considering varied urban design tools for densification of safe zones, such as increasing square footage by land- readjustment, building additional floors, infill development, spot zoning etc. based on the specific site condition and land-use. This would encourage people to live in safe neighbourhoods and allow the city to grow in a more sustainable and resilient way with reduced cost of service delivery for a compact city, encouraging public- private partnerships for cost recovery. Strong urban planning regulation as well as implementation and enforcement of zoning, together with associated technical capacity building, 32 https://awoko.org/2018/06/06/sierra-leone-news-world-environment-day-today-communities-to-be- reforested/ - [accessed 02/07/18]. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 221 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment will be of greatest benefit city-wide in reducing both short term and long- term risk from all the natural hazards. In the short term, it is suggested a technical study to advise on and draft zoning regulations (e.g. permissible built up areas, designated land-use, height restrictions, design flood levels etc.) should be developed. Such a study would strongly benefit from the data, maps and results of this project. In addition, it is strongly recommended that zoning is established for schools and hospitals. Priority 4 - Pilot Studies and Phasing of DRR/DRM DRM pilot study catchments (spot zoning) can be selected from amongst the highest risk catchments (see Section 12.5). The recommended catchments for pilot studies are Tower Hill, Regent-Grafton, Yams Farm and Regent-Lumley and potentially Gloucester. It is recommended that these pilot areas are selected following the urban planning technical study (recommendation 3 above) and taking into account a measure of how prepared the local community is for engagement. Catchment location specific DRM solutions for these natural hazards can be reviewed in this report as well as location-specific DRM maps. DRM investment at catchment scale should be phased. Phasing of DRM interventions allows lessons to be learnt from one phase or one catchment that can be implemented over the next phase. It allows time for communities and the city council to learn-by-doing. It allows success to be demonstrated from one area to the next, and it allows capital and maintenance investments in DRM to be staggered. Priority 5 - Coastal Protection The results from this study indicate that direct economic losses due to damage to buildings and infrastructure from coastal hazards and sea level rise will become increasingly important in Freetown. The study suggests greater losses from coastal erosion hazards (nearly $4m) annually compared to flooding (>$2.5m) and landslides (<$0.5m) annually. The direct losses only include building and infrastructure damage losses and do not include any indirect losses such as trade or business interruption. These losses have been determined from the rate of coastal erosion and rate of sea level rise averaged over 33 years. Expected population increase and therefore building increase over this period of 33 years is not taken into consideration. If population and building increase was considered then the potential direct economic losses would be even higher than reported in this study. Qualitative comparison of MAP FT-0004 (built environment density) that shows major areas of informal settlement with MAP FT-0012 (combined hazard zones) indicates that major areas of informal development, particularly on the northern coast of the Freetown peninsular frequently coincide with areas of higher combined hazard zones. The 2050 sea-level rise coastal inundation estimated that 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 222 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment more than 2000 buildings will be affected and 85% of these buildings are informal and occupied by the poorer economically vulnerable members of the city. Figure 70 – An example of the Freetown coastline at Aberdeen Creek. Nature-based coastal protection options, particularly replanting of mangroves have multiple benefits, over and above the simple benefit-cost ratio of building losses avoided. These include: reducing wave height, retaining sediment, decreasing impact of flooding and erosion. These natural defences also provide a wide range of ecosystem benefits including food, livelihoods, and carbon capture sequestration. Mangroves uniquely have the ability to grow up with climate- change induced sea level rise (Losada et al, 2018). “In northern coastal regions of Vietnam, local communities have planted and protected mangroves. An estimated US$7.3 million a year in sea dike maintenance was saved because of an investment of US$1.1 million on restoration of natural mangrove forests. The project areas also suffered less damage than neighbouring provinces during typhoon Wukong in 2000 (White et al., 2017). Sierra Leone is listed as one of the top three countries that receive greatest overall risk reduction benefits from mangroves in existing areas in a study analysing The Global Value of Mangroves for Risk Reduction (Losada et al, 2018). This is shown graphically in Figure 12. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 223 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Figure 71 – Diagram extracted from “The Global Value of Mangroves for Risk Reduction”, at www.nature.org/GlobalMangrovesRiskReductionTechnicalReport 12.2 Recommendations from Stakeholders Throughout the course of the Project, the Project Team have held workshops in Freetown on three occasions. During these workshops, key stakeholders provided a wealth of information to support the Project. The stakeholders also highlighted numerous recommendations for future studies which were beyond the scope of this project. These recommendations included: • The Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Project was originally intended to cover six cities across Sierra Leone: Freetown, Makeni, Bo, Bonthe, Kenema and Koidu. During the inception stages of the project Bonthe, Kenema and Koidu were removed from the project scope. Numerous key project stakeholders have identified the importance of undertaking a similar natural hazard review and risk assessment in each of these additional cities. • During most project workshops it has been identified that fire is a significant hazard in Sierra Leone. In some cases, it is not possible to ascertain if this relates specifically to wild-fire or man-made fire (either due to slash and burn farming practises or poor-quality electrical systems). Numerous key project stakeholders have called for further investigation into fire hazard and risk in the cities of Sierra Leone. • During the final project workshops, it was demonstrated that the data produced by this project is most useful when viewed and interrogated in a Geographical Information System (GIS). Doing so allows the user to overlay maps, add other data layers for context etc. in addition to producing plans, measuring distances and performing spatial analyses. However, the capacity to use GIS in Sierra Leone is, at present, limited. It is therefore a strong recommendation from both the Project Team and key project stakeholders that GIS training be made available, particularly to those involved in the urban 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 224 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment planning process in Freetown. INTEGEMS are well placed to offer such services in Sierra Leone and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the provision of training. The Project Team are extremely grateful to the stakeholders for their time and feedback received throughout the project. 12.3 Recommendations for Hazard and Risk Research and Development for Freetown There remains considerable uncertainty in the spatial distribution and level of hazard and risk in Freetown. Further research and development is required to reduce the uncertainty and to provide information to allow data and evidence based decision making. It is recommended that a natural hazard and risk research and development programme is prepared for the Freetown. Some priority research and development considerations related to natural hazards include the following: • Instrumentation and monitoring to compile important weather data across the region at higher resolution. • Instrumentation and monitoring to compile important river and drainage level and flow data across the region at higher resolution. • Development and calibration of early warning systems related to weather and flooding. • Development and management of databases on the built environment including buildings and infrastructure. • Continue development of early-warning system capability in high risk zones. The outputs from this project should be used to support and strengthen the information provided by this and any other similar initiatives. 12.4 Management of Slope Stability in Communities It is recommended that a trial of the Management of Slope Stability in Communities (MoSSaiC) method is undertaken (Anderson and Holcombe, 2013) in Freetown. MoSSaiC has been useful in landslide-prone countries with similar terrain and climate to Freetown and a suitable area for this trial would be the upper catchment area of Regent. The trial would comprise the implementation of several slope stability management techniques at community scale including: • Rooftop rainwater harvesting; • Installation of drainage and soakaways; • Reforestation and revegetation; • Community engagement. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 225 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment It is recommended that a trial plan, programme and budget is developed to inform decision makers with regard to the cost-benefit of undertaking this trial. 12.5 Call for Action The study has shown that the communities in Freetown are resilient and that people wish to see a positive change, particularly following the devastating effects of the Regent-Lumley Disaster and the recent change of Government. The will of the community can be very powerful and this project recognises that effective DRR/DRM needs the community to be engaged and supported in taking action. It is essential to maintain the momentum and engagement developed throughout this project. This momentum and engagement can only be maintained through proactive implementation of project recommendations on the ground so that stakeholders in the communities can see progress and can see the value of their engagement. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 226 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment 13 References [1] Abarca Verele de Vreede (2013) Waste Management in Freetown report, WASH consortium. [2] Africa Growth Initiative (AGI) (2017) Foresight Africa: Top priorities for the continent in 2017. Brookings, Washington In: White, R., Turpie, J. and Letley, G. L. (2017) Greening African Cities (No. 26730). World Bank Group. [3] Africa Research Institute (2015) Flooding in Freetown: a failure of planning? Available online: http://www.africaresearchinstitute.org/newsite/blog/flooding-in- freetown-a-failure-of-planning/ [Accessed 02/03/2017]. [4] Anderson, M. G. and Holcombe, E. (2013) Community-Based Landslide Risk Reduction: Managing Disasters in Small Steps. Washington DC. World Bank Group. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12239 [Accessed 03/04/2017]. [5] Bahri. A. (2012). TEC Background Papers. Integrated Urban Water Management. Global Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC). [6] Beck, M. and Lange, G. M. (2017) Mighty Mangroves of the Philippines: Valuing Wetland Benefits for Risk Reduction & Conservation. The World Bank. Available online: http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/mighty-mangroves-of-the- hilippines-valuing-wetland-enefits-for-risk-reduction-conservation [Accessed 24/10/2017]. [7] Chinsman, B. (1977) Jointing and rock slope stability in North-east Freetown, Sierra Leone. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 10, pp411-422. Geological Society of London. [8] Concern (2015) Disaster Risk Reduction – Urban Contexts – Freetown. 6. [9] Dixey, F. (1922) The norite of Sierra Leone. Quarterly Journal Geological Society London, 78, p299-343. [10] DW. (2018) http://www.dw.com/en/top-5-greener-alternatives-to- charcoal/a-43268826 [Accessed 18/05/2018] [11] DFID-UNOPS, (2017). https://www.unops.org/news-and- stories/news/sierra-leone-health-facility-powered-by-renewable- energy [Accessed 18/05/2018]. [12] EMDAT (2009) The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Available online: http://www.emdat.be/ [Accessed 02/03/2017]. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 227 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment [13] EMDAT (2016) Sierra Leone Country Profile. Available online: http://www.emdat.be/country_profile/index.html [Accessed 02/03/2017]. [14] Forbes, H., Ball, K. and McLay, F. (2015) Natural Flood Management Handbook. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). ISBN number: 978-0-85759-024-4. Available online: https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/163560/sepa-natural-flood- management-handbook1.pdf [Accessed 20/11/2017]. [15] IPCC. (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor and P.M. Midgley, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. [16] JBA Report. (2017), Sierra Leone Mudslide August 2017 [17] Kargbo and Mico (2012) Coastal Erosion in Sierra Leone, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, Vol 2, Issue 11. [18] Kulp, S. and Strauss, B. H. (2016) Global DEM errors underpredict coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise and flooding. Frontiers in Earth Science, 4:36. doi: 10.3389/feart.2016.00036. [19] Lun-Wei et al. 2017 Adopting the I3–R24 rainfall index and landslide susceptibility for the establishment of an early warning model for rainfall-induced shallow landslides. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1717-1733 [20] Macarthy. J. M. (2012) Integrating Climate Change Considerations in Planning for Urban Development in Sierra Leone: The case of Freetown. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Newcastle University. [21] Mechler, R. (2005). Cost-benefit analysis of natural disaster risk management in developing countries. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit. [22] MLCPE [Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment]/FCC[Freetown City Council] (2014a) Sierra Leone Preparatory Components and Studies for the Freetown Development Plan “The Urban Planning Project”, Freetown Structure Plan 2013–2028. European Union. [23] MLCPE [Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment]/FCC[Freetown City Council] (2014b), Freetown City Council. Environmental Assessment and Evaluation of Natural Disaster Risk and Mitigation in Freetown. Urban Planning Project 2011-2014. European Union. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 228 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment [24] Nas, T.F. (2016). Cost-Benefit Analysis – Theory and Application. Second Edition, Lexington Books. [25] ONS [Office of National Security] (2011) National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2009-2011). Available online: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/16241_sle_NationalHFAprogres s_2009-11.pdf [Accessed 02/05/2017]. [26] Parry, S. (2016) Landslide hazard assessments: problems and limitations. Examples from Hong Kong. In: Eggers, M. J., Griffiths, J. S., Parry, S. & Culshaw, M. G. (eds) (2016) Developments in Engineering Geology. Geological Society, London. Engineering Geology Special Publication, 27, 135–145, http://doi.org/10.1144/EGSP27.12 [27] Service Delivery Index (SDI) (2015) for Education, Health, Water and Sanitation in MP Constituencies and Local Councils of Sierra Leone by Institute for Governance Reform with funding from OSIWA. [28] SLURC (2017) Urban Risk in Freetown Informal Settlements: Making visible the invisible, March 2017 [29] Statistics Sierra Leone (2014) Sierra Leone Integrated Household Survey 2011. Available online: https://www.statistics.sl/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/sierra_leone_integrated_household_survey_ 2011-1.pdf [Accessed 02/02/2017]. [30] Statistics Sierra Leone (2016) 2015 Population and Housing Census. Summary of results. https://www.statistics.sl/images/StatisticsSL/Documents/final- results_-2015_population_and_housing_census.pdf [31] Susteric, L. (2015) Ebola Response System Strengthening along Western Area Peninsula Coastline: Lessons Learned: Social Mobilization in the Freetown Peninsula during the Ebola Epidemic 2014-2015. Welthungerhilfe Sierra Leone. Available online: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/ wa_soc_mob_paper-final.pdf [Accessed 24/09/2017]. [32] Thomas, M. F. (1974) Tropical Geomorphology: A Study of Weathering and Landform Development in Warm Climates. Focal Problems in Geography Series. Macmillan. 332 pp. [33] Thomas, M. F. (1983) Contemporary denudation systems and the effects of climatic change in the humid tropics – some problems from Sierra Leone. In: Studies in Quaternary Geomorphology (Ed. D. J. Briggs & R. S. Waters), pp. 195-214. Geo Books, Norwich. [34] Thomas, M.F. (1994) Geomorphology in the Tropics. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. ISBN 0-471-93035-0. [35] Thomas, M. F. (1998) Landscape sensitivity in the humid tropics: a geomorphological appraisal. In: Maloney, B. K. (ed.) Human 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 229 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Activities and the Tropical Rainforest. Past, Present and Possible Future. Springer-Science Business Media, B.V. ISBN 978-90-481- 4952-0. [36] Thomas, M, F., Thorp M. B. (1996) The response of geomorphic systems to climate and hydrological change during the Late Glacial and early Holocene in the humid and sub-humid tropics. In: Branson, J., Brown, A. G. & Gregory, K. J. (eds), 1996, Global Continental Changes: the Context of Palaeohydrology, Geological Society Special Publication No. 115, pp 139-153. [37] UNDP (2012) Diagnostic analysis of climate change and disaster management in relation to the PRSP III in Sierra Leone. Available online: http://www.sl.undp.org/content/dam/sierraleone/docs/focusareadocs/ undp_sle_analysisclimatechangeDM.pdf [Accessed 02/03/2017]. [38] UNDP (2016) Adapting to Climate Change Induced Coastal Risks in Sierra Leone. Available online: http://www.sl.undp.org/content/sierraleone/en/home/operations/proje cts/environment_and_energy/-adapting-to-climate-change-induced- coastal-risks-in-sierra-leon.html [Accessed 21/11/2017] [39] UNISDR (2017) Words into Action Guidelines: National Disaster Risk Assessment. 8. Sea Level Rise https://www.preventionweb.net/files/52828_08sealevelrise.pdf [40] UNISDR (2018)- https://www.unisdr.org/files/57399_drrresiliencepublicreview.pdf) [41] UN Habitat (2016), Remaking the urban mosaic: Participatory and inclusive land readjustment, United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/books/remaking- the-urban-mosaic-participatory-and-inclusive-land-readjustment/ [Accessed 25/09/2018] [42] Van de Sande, B., Lansen, J. and Hoyng, C. (2012) Sensitivity of coastal flood risk assessments to digital elevation models. Water, 4, 568-579. [43] Wells, M. K. (1962) Structure and petrology of the Freetown Layered Basic Complex of Sierra Leone. Overseas Geology and Mineral Resources Supplement Series. Bulletin Supplement No 4. HMSO: London. [44] White, R., Turpie, J. and Letley, G. L. (2017) Greening African Cities (No. 26730). World Bank Group. [45] Woods Ballard, B., Wilson, S., Udale-Clarke, H., Illman, S., Scott, T., Ashley, R. and Kellagher, R. (2016) The SuDS Manual. CIRIA C753 © CIRIA 2015 ISBN: 978-0-86017-760-9. Version 5 including errata 2016. Available online: http://www.scotsnet.org.uk/documents/NRDG/CIRIA-report-C753- the-SuDS-manual-v6.pdf [Accessed 19/09/2017]. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 230 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment [46] World Bank (2013) A Poverty Profile for Sierra Leone. file:///C:/Users/grace.campbell/Downloads/SLE%202011%20Povert y%20Profile%20(2013-7-29).pdf [Accessed 18/06/2018] [47] World Bank (2014) Findings from the 2014 Labor Force Survey in Sierra Leone. World Bank Group. [48] World Bank (2016) The Cost of Air Pollution – Strengthening the Economic Case for Action. The World Bank and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. [49] World Bank (2017) Sierra Leone: Rapid Damage and Loss Assessment of August 14th, 2017 Landslide and Floods in the Western Area (August 24 – September 8, 2017). World Bank Group. [50] YMCA (2012) YMCA-DRR-Project and Community-based Disaster Management Committee. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page 231 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX Appendix A Cost-Benefit Analysis The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment A1 Cost-Benefit Analysis of DRR/DRM Options for Freetown A1.1 Introduction This section of the report provides a summary of the key findings from the cost- benefit analysis undertaken to inform the prioritization of the DRR/DRM options recommended for Freetown. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was calculated at city-scale as this is appropriate for the aggregated and modelled data generated by this project. However, CBA showed that implementing whole-life cost DRM measures at city-wide scale (or even at catchment scale) didn’t typically balance economically for Freetown. This is in part due to the realistic capital and maintenance cost of implementation across a city with such complex challenges but also due to the relatively low value of buildings and infrastructure in the city – particularly the low value of the unplanned housing. The burden of initial investment in infrastructure and service delivery, potential avenues for public-private partnerships should be explored. It was not possible within the scope and terms of reference of this project to collect data on indirect costs or social benefits or the many other cross-cutting factors beyond the natural hazards considered in this project. CBA could still be a valuable tool for prioritizing DRR/DRM in the future at catchment scale but issues in Freetown are complex and outcomes influenced by many other factors beyond natural hazards considered in this project. The methodology for the cost-benefit analysis is described separately in detail in Volume 1 – Methodology and Summary of Results. The cost-benefit analysis concepts used are relatively straightforward: if the net benefits of a proposed DRR/DRM option exceeds the net costs then the proposed option is generally considered to be acceptable. The benefits are quantified in terms of the reduction in risk (e.g. the value of the building or infrastructure damage avoided or the potential loss of life avoided). No indirect losses are included, for example losses due to business interruption. Costs are quantified in terms of the capital and operational expenditure required to implement the proposed DRR/DRM measure (e.g. the cost to construct and maintain flood protection measures). The net costs and the net benefits are calculated over an assumed design life of 33 years (i.e. from 2018 to 2050) for all proposed DRR/DRM options. The order in which proposed DRR/DRM options are ranked or prioritized depends on three main decision metrics: • the Net Present Value; • the Benefit-Cost Ratio; and • the Internal Rate of Return. These cost-benefit analysis metrics are calculated over an extended time period but it is necessary to calculate the results in terms of present year cost and benefit values and to use an appropriate discount rate to adjust future costs and benefits to 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A1 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment the current year (Nas, 2016). For the purposes of this study the present year is assumed to be 2017 (i.e. the year in which the natural hazard and risk calculations for this project were undertaken) and therefore costs and benefits are all presented in terms of US$ values in 2017. The choice of discount rate for cost-benefit is always uncertain and has a significant impact on the cost-benefit analysis results (Nas, 2017). A discount rate of 6% is used in accordance with recommendations by The World Bank and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (World Bank, 2016) for analysis in low to middle-income countries. A sensitivity analysis is presented to illustrate the sensitivity of the analysis results to the selection of the discount rate. A country-specific value of statistical life (VSL) of US$100,000 has been used in the cost-benefit analysis to quantify the economic benefit of recommended DRR/DRM options. The assignment of VSL is an uncertain and a sensitive issue and therefore cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken with and without the analysis of the benefit of avoided potential loss of life. The methodology for determining the VSL for the cost-benefit analysis is described separately in detail in Volume 1 – Methodology and Summary of Results. A1.2 Selected DRR/DRM Options for Freetown for Cost Benefit Analysis The Scope of Work for the project requires that Cost-Benefit Analysis is undertaken for four DRR/DRM options. The following DRR/DRM options have been selected: • Option 1 – Hazard and risk communication: including formation of a hazard and risk communication team, installation of hazard and risk signage across Freetown, and establishment of an early warning system for Freetown. • Option 2 – Reforestation and revegetation: comprising reforestation of upper catchment areas and revegetation of river drainage channels across Freetown. • Option 3 – Delta rehabilitation: comprising clearance, rehabilitation of selected river deltas along the Freetown urban coastline. • Option 4 – Coastal protection: comprising implementation of selected coastal protection measures including re-establishment of mangroves, seawalls, rock-armour and rock rip-rap along sections of the Freetown urban coastline. The estimated costs and benefits and the cost-benefit analysis results for each option are summarised in the sections below. A1.3 Option 1 – Hazard and risk communication Option 1 – Hazard and risk communication will include formation of a hazard and risk communication team for Freetown, installation of hazard and risk signage across Freetown, and establishment of an early warning system for Freetown. The capital and operational costs for this option are summarised in the table below. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A2 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The cost of hazard and risk communication is estimated to be approximately US$4million including an estimated US$100,000 to establish a hazard and risk communication team in Freetown and US$50,000 per annum to maintain the team. US$500,000 is estimated for the establishment of an early warning system and US$50,000 per annum for the operation and maintenance of the early warning system for Freetown. US$50,000 is budgeted for flood and landslide hazard signage across Freetown and US$2,500 per annum for maintenance of the signage. The total undiscounted capital and operational costs for Option 1 – hazard and risk communication across Freetown are summarised in the tables below. Table 20 – Capital and operational costs for Option 1 – Hazard and Risk Communication Cost Item Cost Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) (US$) Hazard and risk team set-up 100,000 One-off 1 100,000 Hazard and risk team operations 50,000 Annual 33 1,650,000 Early warning system set-up 500,000 One-off 1 500,000 Early warning system operations and 100,000 Annual 33 3,300,000 maintenance Flood and landslide hazard signage 50,000 One-off 1 50,000 Signage maintenance 2,500 Annual 33 82,500 4,032,500 Note: All costs are un-discounted. The benefits of implementation of option 1 are summarised in terms of the reduction of risk in terms of cost of building damage and in terms of reduction of potential loss of life. Table 21 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 1 – Hazard and Risk Communication Risk metric Benefit Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) Annual building loss – flooding - avoided 254,700 Annual 33 8,405,100 Annual building loss – landslides - avoided 35,500 Annual 33 1,171,500 Annual fatalities loss – flooding - avoided 90,000 Annual 33 2,970,000 Annual fatalities loss – landslides - avoided 110,000 Annual 33 3,630,000 16,176,600 Note: All benefits are un-discounted. A series of cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken to investigate a range of factors that might inform project investment decision makers. It has been estimated that hazard and risk communication could result in a reduction of 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A3 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment approximately 10% of the total risk from flooding and landslides. The analyses have been undertaken using a calculation period of 33 years to coincide with the 2050 timeframe used for the future climate change impact scenario analyses undertaken for this project. A discount rate of 6% is used. The cost-benefit analysis results are presented in terms of the discount rate (DR), net present value (NPV), benefit cost ratio (B/C), and internal rate of return (IRR) in Table 18 below. Table 22 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 1 – Hazard and Risk Communication No. Analysis NPV B/C IRR Recommendation (US$) (%) 1.1 Flood risk direct damage cost 1,602,761 1.79 88 Very beneficial reduction 1.2 Landslide risk direct damage -1,516,505 0.25 N/A Not beneficial cost reduction 1.3 Combined flood and landslide 2,107,934 2.04 >88 Very beneficial risk direct damage cost reduction 1.4 Flood risk direct damage cost 2,883,482 2.43 >88 Very beneficial plus potential loss of life cost reduction 1.5 Landslide risk direct damage 48,820 1.02 0.9 Marginal benefit cost plus potential loss of life cost reduction 1.6 Flood and landslide risk direct 4,953,980 3.45 >88 Very beneficial damage cost plus potential loss of life cost reduction These cost-benefit analysis results indicate that hazard and risk communication, including formation of a hazard and risk communication team for Freetown, installation of hazard and risk signage across Freetown, and establishment of an early warning system for Freetown is very beneficial. In addition, it is estimated that the average annual potential loss of life avoided through hazard and risk communication will be approximately 2 to 3 lives per year. Based upon these results it is strongly recommended that hazard and risk communication and early warning is established for both flooding and landslide hazard and risk. A1.4 Option 2 – Reforestation and revegetation Option 2 – reforestation and revegetation will comprise reforestation of upper catchment areas and revegetation of river drainage channels across Freetown. The cost of reforestation and revegetation is estimated to be US$12,400 per hectare which is made up from US$7,200 for cost of trees per hectare and US$5,200 for cost of labour to plant trees per hectare. These costs are based on information from a recent UNOPS project undertaken in Freetown in 2017-2018. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A4 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The total undiscounted capital and operational costs for Option 2 – reforestation and revegetation across Freetown are summarised in the tables below. Table 23 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 2 – Reforestation and Revegetation of All Catchments. Cost Item Cost Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) (US$) Upper catchment reforestation 12,400 Hectare 2581 32,004,400 Upper catchment maintenance 100,000 Annual 33 3,300,000 Channel revegetation 12,400 Hectare 4331 53,704,400 Channel maintenance 100,000 Annual 33 3,300,000 92,308,800 Note: All costs are un-discounted. The benefits of implementation of option 2 are summarised in terms of the reduction of risk in terms of cost of building damage and in terms of reduction of potential loss of life. Reforestation and revegetation is expected to result in reduction of risk associating with flooding and with landslide. In addition, it is estimated that the average annual potential loss of life avoided through reforestation will be approximately 4 to 5 lives per year. Table 24 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 2 – Reforestation and Revegetation of All Catchments Risk metric Benefit Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) Annual building loss – flooding - avoided 840,510 Annual 33 27,736,830 Annual building loss – landslides - avoided 117,150 Annual 33 3,865,950 Annual fatalities loss – flooding - avoided 297,000 Annual 33 9,801,000 Annual fatalities loss – flooding - avoided 363,000 Annual 33 11,979,000 53,382,780 Note: All benefits are un-discounted. A simple comparison of the undiscounted totals of the Option 2 costs and benefits indicates that reforestation and revegetation of all catchments across Freetown is very expensive and cannot be justified based on risk reduction alone. A series of cost-benefit analyses have therefore been undertaken to investigate whether reforestation and revegetation in selected highest flood and landslide risk catchments only can be justified. It has been estimated that reforestation of four catchments with the highest risk contribution (i.e. Tower Hill, Regent-Grafton, Yams Farm and Regent-Lumley) can result in a significant reduction of approximately 55% of the total risk from flooding and landslides. The cost of 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A5 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment reforestation and revegetation of only four of the thirteen catchments can be achieved at a considerably reduced cost (i.e. 4/13 is only 30% of the total cost). As for Option 1, the cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken using a calculation period of 33 years to coincide with the 2050 timeframe used for the future climate change impact scenario analyses undertaken for this project. A discount rate of 6% is used. The cost-benefit analysis results are presented in terms of the discount rate (DR), net present value (NPV), benefit cost ratio (B/C), and internal rate of return (IRR) in the below. Table 25 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 2 – Reforestation and Revegetation of Four Selected Catchments No. Analysis NPV B/C IRR Recommendation (US$) (%) 2.1 Combined flood and landslide risk -14,868,842 0.36 -8.0 Not economically direct damage cost reduction justifiable 2.2 Flood and landslide risk direct -9,176,750 0.6 -4.53 Not economically damage cost plus potential loss of life justifiable cost reduction These cost-benefit analysis results indicate that reforestation and revegetation of large catchment areas is expensive. The benefit in terms of reduction in the cost of damage and potential reduction in loss of life is uncertain. and at this stage the cost-benefit analyses indicate that this option cannot be economically justified. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A6 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment A1.5 Option 3 – River Delta Rehabilitation Option 3 – River delta rehabilitation will comprise clearance of unplanned and planned settlements located on selected river deltas along the Freetown urban coastline, rehabilitation of river deltas natural environment, construction of engineered green channels where required, clearance of existing concrete channels and culverts and disposal of the waste material. Kroo Bay and Susans Bay are examples of river delta areas that require rehabilitation. The population currently living in the unplanned settlements could be redensified in adjacent low hazard areas and provided with accommodation with higher accommodation density. The costs are estimated to be relatively high as described in the table below. Table 26 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 3 – River Delta Rehabilitation Cost Item Cost Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) (US$) Average cost of Informal Residential Building 21 m2 32,500 6,916,000 2 Average cost of Informal Building Demolition 5 m 32,500 3,250,000 Average cost of Informal Building Occupants 10 m2 32,500 1,625,000 Move Average cost of Informal Building Land 15 m2 32,500 4,875,000 Average cost of Other Building 185,000 building 100 18,000,000 Average cost of Other Building Demolition 10,000 building 100 500,000 Average cost of Occupants Move 5,000 move 100 1,000,000 Average cost of Other Building Land 10,000 land 100 1,000,000 Delta Revegetation and Rehabilitation 50,000 hectare 115 5,750,000 Delta Engineered Green Channel 100,000 channel 5 500,000 Drainage Channel Clearance 50,000 channel 5 250,000 Waste Disposal 50,000 channel 13 650,000 Maintenance of Delta Vegetation and 10,000 channel 13 130,000 Drainage Team 44,446,000 2 Note: All costs are un-discounted. Informal building units are reported in terms of m . The benefits of implementation of Option 4 are summarised in terms of the reduction of risk in terms of cost of building damage and in terms of reduction of potential loss of life. Implementation of zoning planning is expected to result in reduction of risk associating with both flooding and with landslides. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A7 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 27 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 3 – River Delta Rehabilitation Risk metric Benefit Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) Annual informal building loss – flooding - 10,500 Annual 33 329,175 avoided Annual other building loss – flooding - 500 Annual 33 15,675 avoided Annual fatalities loss – flooding - avoided 1 Annual 33 3,135,000 3,479,850 Note: All benefits are un-discounted. A simple comparison of the undiscounted totals of the Option 4 costs and benefits indicates that delta rehabilitation along the Freetown coastline is very expensive and cannot be justified based on risk reduction alone. However, it is estimated that on average one life would be saved every year. A series of cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken. It has been estimated that rehabilitation of these delta areas can result in a significant reduction of approximately 95% of the total risk from flooding in these delta areas. Risk reduction would be so beneficial because it is proposed that the informal housing in these low-lying delta areas would be removed and the occupants re-housed nearby. As for previous options, the cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken using a calculation period of 33 years to coincide with the 2050 timeframe used for the future climate change impact scenario analyses undertaken for this project. A discount rate of 6% is used. Table 28 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 3 – River Delta Rehabilitation No. Analysis NPV B/C IRR Recommendation (US$) (%) 3.1 Combined flood risk direct damage cost -38,353,815 N/A N/A Not economically reduction to informal and other buildings justifiable 3.2 Combined flood risk direct damage cost -37,001,943 N/A N/A Not economically plus potential loss of life cost reduction justifiable to informal and other buildings and occupants These cost-benefit analysis results indicate that rehabilitation of the river delta areas is very expensive. The benefit in terms of reduction in the cost of building damage is relatively low because the informal buildings in these areas have very low value and the potential reduction in loss of life is uncertain. It is estimated that the average annual potential loss of life avoided through rehabilitation of the delta areas such as Kroo Bay and Susans Bay (and the occupants) will be approximately 2 to 4 lives per year. At this stage the cost-benefit analyses indicate that this option cannot be economically justified on risk reduction alone. However, it is recommended that other criteria related to urban planning and 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A8 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment economic development are used to justify rehabilitation of these areas of Freetown. A1.6 Option 4 – Coastal Protection Option 4 – Coastal protection comprises implementation of selected coastal protection measures including re-establishment of mangroves, seawalls, rock- armour and rock rip-rap along sections of the Freetown urban coastline. Option 4a would comprise re-establishment of mangroves in selected coastal areas including Aberdeen, Cockle Bay, Pamuronko, Allen Town and Hastings Village. Capital cost of re-establishment of the mangroves will be moderate to high and will require longer term maintenance costs. Option 4b would comprise rock revetment construction along the road side of Lumley Beach. Option 5c would comprise an alternative rock rip-rap construction along the road side of Lumley Beach. In both cases care will be required with landscaping to ensure that the visual impact is minimised. The cost of the rock revetment or rock rip-rap is estimated to be the same. The capital and operations and maintenance costs associated with these options are in the tables below. Table 29 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 4a – Mangrove Coastal Protection Cost Item Cost Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) (US$) Mangrove Area Revegetation 12,400 hectare 400 4,960,000 Mangrove Maintenance 5,000 year 33 165,000 5,125,000 Table 30 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 4b – Rock Revetment Coastal Protection Cost Item Cost Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) (US$) Rock Revetment Construction 2,000 m 5000 10,000,000 Revetment Maintenance 25,000 year 33 825,000 10,825,000 Table 31 – Capital and Operational Costs for Option 4c – Rock Rip-Rap Coastal Protection Cost Item Cost Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) (US$) Rip-Rap Construction 2,000 m 3000 6,000,000 Rip-Rap Maintenance 25,000 year 33 825,000 6,825,000 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A9 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment The benefits of implementation of Option 4 coastal protection are summarised in terms of the reduction of risk of cost of building damage. Implementation of coastal protection is expected to result in reduction of risk associated with both coastal erosion and sea-level rise related flooding. Table 32 – Risk reduction benefits from Option 4 – Mangrove Coastal Protection Risk metric Benefit Unit No. Sub-Total (US$) (US$) 2050 Scenario Direct Building Loss Avoided 8,755,117 Scenario 1 8,755,117 (Aberdeen and Cockle Bay) Average Annualised Loss Avoided 263,306 Annual 33 8,755,117 (Aberdeen and Cockle Bay) 2050 Scenario Direct Building Loss 1,683,246 Scenario 1 1,683,246 (Pamuronko, Allen Town and Hastings Village) Average Annualised Loss Avoided 15,302 Annual 33 1,683,246 (Pamuronko, Allen Town and Hastings Village) Note: All benefits are un-discounted. A comparison of the undiscounted totals of the Option 4 costs and benefits indicates that coastal protection along sections of the Freetown coastline is moderately expensive and cannot be justified based on risk reduction alone. In addition, there is not expected to be potential loss of life from coastal erosion and sea-level rise. However, a series of cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken. It has been estimated that coastal protection can result in a reduction of approximately 30% of the total risk from coastal erosion and sea-level rise flooding. As for previous options, the cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken using a calculation period of 33 years to coincide with the 2050 timeframe used for the future climate change impact scenario analyses undertaken for this project. A discount rate of 6% is used. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A10 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 33 – Cost-Benefit Results for Option 4 – Coastal Protection No. Analysis NPV B/C IRR Recommendation (US$) (%) 4.1 2050 Scenario Direct Building Loss -592,508 0.86 -1.45 Not economically Avoided (Aberdeen and Cockle Bay) justifiable. using Mangroves Requires further justification 4.2 2050 Scenario Direct Building Loss -4,150,128 0.05 -17.62 Not economically (Pamuronko, Allen Town and justifiable Hastings Village) using Mangroves 4.3 2050 Scenario Direct Building Loss -5,379,914 0.4 -7.33 Not economically Avoided (Lumley Beach) using Rock justifiable Revetment 4.4 2050 Scenario Direct Building Loss -1,914,808 0.66 -4.01 Not economically Avoided (Lumley Beach) using Rock justifiable Rip-Rap These cost-benefit analysis results indicate that rehabilitation of the mangroves at Aberdeen and Cockle Bay is not economically justifiable based on risk reduction alone. However, the benefit /cost ratio is marginal and it is recommended that further consideration is given to this option. Further work would be required to justify this option based on reduction of number of people potentially impacted and the associated potential economic losses avoided. The cost-benefit analysis results indicate that rehabilitation of the mangroves at Pamuronko, Allen Town and Hastings Village is not economically justifiable at this stage based on potential building damage risk reduction alone. The cost-benefit analysis results indicate that coastal protection along Lumley Beach using rock revetment or rock rip-rap options is not economically justifiable based upon risk reduction alone. Further work would be required to justify this option based on potential economic losses avoided due to damage and disruption to Lumley Beach. The benefit /cost ratio for protection of Lumley Beach is marginal and it is recommended that further consideration is given to this option. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A11 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment A1.7 Summary and Recommendations of DRR/DRM Cost-Benefit Analysis Cost-benefit analyses have been undertaken for four DRR/DRM options. • Option 1 – Hazard and risk communication: including formation and operation of a hazard and risk communication team, installation of hazard and risk signage across Freetown, and establishment of an early warning system for Freetown. • Option 2 – Reforestation and revegetation: comprising reforestation of upper catchment areas and revegetation of river drainage channels across Freetown. • Option 3 – Delta rehabilitation: comprising clearance, rehabilitation of selected river deltas along the Freetown urban coastline such as at Kroo Bay and Susans Bay. • Option 4 – Coastal protection: comprising implementation of selected coastal protection measures including re-establishment of mangroves, seawalls, rock- armour and rock rip-rap along sections of the Freetown urban coastline. The cost-benefit analyses have indicated that Option 1 would be beneficial to implement at city-scale, based on a financial justification alone. They have also shown that implementing city-wide DRR/DRM options can be difficult just justify based on financial reasoning alone. This does not mean that these options should not be considered by decision makers, rather, it indicates that these options need to be considered for implementation at a more local scale. This means, implementing one or several complimentary options at the scale of a catchment, or a specific hotspot within a catchment as a pilot study to gauge the success of the DRR/DRM measures and justify financial backing on a larger (city) scale. It is essential that DRR/DRM recommendations for the city of Freetown are aligned with Urban Plans and Zoning Plans for the city. It is also essential that these plans are co-ordinated within a broader Urban Resilience Framework that takes into consideration the specific characteristics and vulnerabilities of the location, the diverse livelihoods of the citizens and social and economic requirements of the city infrastructure. The aims of the DRR/DRM recommendations described in this report are to save lives, reduce the number of people impacted, and to reduce the direct losses and economic impact caused by damage and disruption to the built environment from natural hazards. The DRR/DRM recommendations are presented in terms of a holistic strategy at city region scale. The holistic strategy takes into consideration the coastal setting and terrain of the city with an emphasis placed on re- establishing green and environmental solutions throughout the city to manage the risk associated with natural hazards. A broad range of DRR/DRM options have been investigated and cost-benefit analyses undertaken. Recommendations and budgets are summarised. However, it is emphasised that not all DRR/DRM recommendations can, or should be, justified on cost-benefit analyses alone. The cost-benefit analysis results for each proposed DRR/DRM option investigated at city-scale are summarised in the table below. 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A12 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Table 34 – Summary of Cost-Benefit Results Option Description Recommendation 1 Hazard and risk communication Establishment of early warning and provision of including formation and operation hazard and risk communication is very beneficial of a hazard and risk communication with positive NPV and B/C ratio >2. team, installation of hazard and risk Budget: US$ 4 million. signage across Freetown, and establishment of an early warning system for Freetown. 2 Reforestation and revegetation: Reforestation and revegetation is not economically comprising reforestation of upper justifiable based upon risk reduction alone even catchment areas and revegetation of when only four highest risk catchments are river drainage channels across considered. NPV values are negative and B/C ratios Freetown. < 1. However, further work is recommended to justify reforestation of upper catchment areas in the four highest risk catchments based upon other criteria. Budget: US$ 12,400 / hectare. Budget: US$ 27 million. 3 River delta rehabilitation: These cost-benefit analysis results indicate that comprising clearance, rehabilitation rehabilitation of the river delta areas is very of selected river deltas along the expensive. NPV values are negative and B/C ratios Freetown urban coastline. < 1. The benefit in terms of reduction in the cost of building damage is relatively low because the informal buildings have very low economic value and the potential reduction in loss of life is uncertain. It is recommended that further work is undertaken to justify the rehabilitation of the selected river delta areas such as Kroo Bay and Susans Bay based on other criteria. In the short-term, it is recommended that waste is removed from the drainage channels and drainage channels maintained annually to improve drainage. Budget: Delta rehabilitation US$ 20 million. Budget: Waste removal US$ 210,000. 4 Coastal protection: comprising The cost-benefit analysis indicates that implementation of selected coastal rehabilitation of the mangroves at Aberdeen and protection measures including re- Cockle Bay is not economically justifiable based on establishment of mangroves, rock- risk reduction alone. However, the benefit /cost armour and rock rip-rap along ratio is marginal and it is recommended that sections of the Freetown urban rehabilitation of mangroves in selected areas of coastline. coastline is given further consideration. The cost-benefit analysis results indicate that coastal protection along Lumley Beach using rock revetment or rock rip-rap options is not economically justifiable based upon risk reduction alone. The benefit /cost ratio for protection of Lumley Beach is marginal and it is recommended that further consideration is given to this option. Budget: Mangrove rehabilitation US$ 5 million. Budget: Lumley Beach US$ 5 million 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page A13 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX Appendix B Maps The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment B1 List of Maps Map no. Map description 1 Freetown Overview | Overview 2 Freetown Overview | Overview of Natural Hazards 3 Freetown Overview | Approximate Extent of Urban and Peri-Urban Areas 4 Freetown Overview | Built Environment Density 5 Northwest Freetown | Built Environment Density 6 Northeast Freetown | Built Environment Density 7 Southwest Freetown | Built Environment Density 8 Southeast Freetown | Built Environment Density 9 Freetown Overview | Qualitative Flood Hazard 10 Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 11 Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 12 Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 13 Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 14 Freetown Overview | Qualitative Flood Risk 15 Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 16 Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 17 Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 18 Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 19 Freetown Overview | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 20 Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 21 Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 22 Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 23 Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 24 Freetown Overview | Qualitative Landslide Risk 25 Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 26 Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 27 Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 28 Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 29 Freetown Overview | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 30 Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 31 Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 32 Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 33 Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 34 Freetown Overview | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 35 Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 36 Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 37 Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 38 Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page B1 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Map no. Map description 39 Freetown Overview | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 40 Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 41 Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 42 Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 43 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 44 Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 45 Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 46 Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 47 Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 48 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 49 Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 50 Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 51 Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 52 Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 53 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 54 Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 55 Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 56 Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 57 Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 58 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) 59 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings relative to ward area) 60 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. Fatalities) 61 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. Fatalities relative to ward area) 62 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. People Affected) 63 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. People Affected Relative to Ward Area) 64 Freetown Overview | Landslide Susceptibility 65 Northwest Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 66 Northeast Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 67 Southwest Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 68 Southeast Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 69 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 70 Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 71 Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 72 Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 73 Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 74 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings relative to ward 75 area) 76 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Buildings Affected) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Buildings Affected Relative to Ward 77 Area) 78 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Fatalities) 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page B2 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Map no. Map description 79 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Fatalities Relative to Ward Area) 80 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. People Affected) 81 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. People Affected relative to ward area) 82 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Road Length Affected) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Road Length Affected Relative to Ward 83 Area) 84 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 85 Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 86 Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 87 Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 88 Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) (2050 89 Scenario) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings Relative to 90 Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) 91 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (no. Buildings Lost) (2050 Scenario) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (no. Buildings Lost Relative to Ward 92 Area) (2050 Scenario) 93 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) 94 Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) 95 Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) 96 Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) (2050 97 Scenario) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings Relative to 98 Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) 99 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Risk (no. Buildings Lost) (2050 Scenario) Freetown Overview | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Risk (no. Buildings Lost Relative to Ward 100 Area) (2050 Scenario) 101 Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 102 Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 103 Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 104 Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 105 Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard Freetown Overview | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard 106 (2050 Scenario) Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard 107 (2050 Scenario) Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard 108 (2050 Scenario) Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard 109 (2050 Scenario) Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard 110 (2050 Scenario) 111 Freetown Overview | Overview of Catchments for DRR Recommendations 112 Freetown Overview | Proposed Hazard Zones 113 Northwest Freetown | Proposed Hazard Zones 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page B3 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Map no. Map description 114 Northeast Freetown | Proposed Hazard Zones 115 Southwest Freetown | Proposed Hazard Zones 116 Southeast Freetown | Proposed Hazard Zones 117 Freetown Overview | Existing Development in Proposed Hazard Zones 118 Northwest Freetown | Existing Development in Proposed Hazard Zones 119 Northeast Freetown | Existing Development in Proposed Hazard Zones 120 Southwest Freetown | Existing Development in Proposed Hazard Zones 121 Southeast Freetown | Existing Development in Proposed Hazard Zones 122 Freetown Overview | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Catchment) Freetown Overview | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by 123 Catchment) 124 Freetown Overview | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Ward) Freetown Overview | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by 125 Ward) 126 Freetown Overview | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Catchment) Freetown Overview | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by 127 Catchment) 128 Freetown Overview | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Ward) 129 Freetown Overview | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by Ward) 130 Freetown Overview | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 131 Northwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 132 Northeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 133 Southwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 134 Southeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 135 Freetown Overview | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 136 Northwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 137 Northeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 138 Southwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 139 Southeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage Freetown Overview | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re- 140 vegetation Northwest Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re- 141 vegetation Northeast Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re- 142 vegetation Southwest Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re- 143 vegetation Southeast Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re- 144 vegetation 145 Freetown Overview | Indicative Areas for Catchment Rehabilitation and Further Investigation 146 Northwest Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Rehabilitation and Further Investigation 147 Northeast Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Rehabilitation and Further Investigation 148 Freetown Overview | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 149 Northwest Freetown | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 150 Northeast Freetown | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page B4 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX The World Bank Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard Review and Risk Assessment Final Report (Volume 2 of 5): Freetown City Hazard and Risk Assessment Map no. Map description 151 Southwest Freetown | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 152 Freetown Overview | Gridded Modelled Population 153 Northwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 154 Northeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 155 Southwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 156 Southeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 157 Freetown Overview | Gridded Modelled Building Value 158 Northwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 159 Northeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 160 Southwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 161 Southeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 162 Freetown Overview | Gridded Modelled Road Value 163 Northwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 164 Northeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 165 Southwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 166 Southeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 167 Freetown Overview | Coastal Erosion and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 168 Northwest Freetown | Coastal Erosion and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 169 DRR Options - Regent-Lumley Catchment 20180911-REP-04A-252746_Vol2_ISSUE | Issue | 1 October 2018 Page B5 G:\250000\252746-00\60_OUTPUT\1_REPORTS\6_FINAL REPORT\20181001-DOC-05B_V2OF5_FREETOWN.DOCX Freetown | Overview 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title General map labels Freetown | Overview Wards Main urbanized areas Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0001 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Overview of Natural Hazards 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 0 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 0 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 0 9. Murray Town 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 0 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 4 10. Wilberforce 9 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner W hite Dest ruction 29. Ginger Hall Ma n's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Ba y Ba y 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Cline Bay Aberdeen 3 1 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 0 15 Kissy Bye Pass I 0 8 22 38. Lowcost Housing 5 4 28 39. Kuntolor 7 21 3 2 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 9 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 Sierra 41 40 C i oc ke rllBay 13 44 Le one 7 Hill Station 36 R iver 39 00 Lumley Thunderhill 45 9350 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 0 Robis 50 Pamuronko 2 Gbendembu Mayenkineh 93 Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 0 Allen Town II 93000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 92 25 20 50 00 0 AT L A N T I C 9 O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Sele ct a ed l nd si ldes G a e ne rlm apl a s bel ML C P E[Mi nisr ty ofL and s, Cou ntyP r l a nni ng and the Freetown | Overview of wihi t nu rba na reas Env ironm e nt]/ FC C [F reetow nC i tyC ou l nc i] (201 4)S iera r W ar ds Le one P rep aratoryC om p one nts and S tudi es or f t he Natural Hazards s (inc e ~2 000 , # * ML C P E/FC C ,2 014) Freet ow nD evelop m e ntP l a n“ The U rba nP lanning P r e ct oj ”, Manu i ba r ni z ed aea r s Freet ow nS t ructure P a l n2 013 –2 028. Eu rop ea nU nion. Re ge ntL -u ey ml Disa ster H ist i orca lla nd slde s i ource aea r s d e nt i ified from the land si lde Manw i at erc ous res inv or e nt y c om p ied f l ort his poj r e ct(the m a joriy ofw t hich are SIERRA LEONE Hisor t ca i lland si lde from tthe w or k ofM. F.Thom as ,see a c c om pa ng r nyi ep or ts , Kl i er om e t s source areas P i rma yr r oa ye l d ( low V olumes 1a nd 2 ). i lne ) 0 1 2 4 Land si ld e hazad r hot ' spot ' O n Mond a y1 4thA ugu s t 2 01 7al a nd s li d e oc c u rred i n Mapno. ) ML ( C P E /FCC ,2014) R e ge nt oc c urr , ed i Fr eet nmu ow lt n, i p l S e p i er ha aL r s es e one . ,w as T l oc a he l t a nd s ed i l na ide, na w r hich e aw ch hi LIBERIA FT-0002 Food ha l zar hot d ' sp ' ot w a s a r l ea d yu nd e rstood t o ha ve beena ffe cte d b ys ev e er Ci le nt ) ML ( CP EF / CC ,2014) l f a ood i p p r ng. oxi ma As tel ad i y6 r , e ct 0 0 r 0p es u e op t l l oft e w he l er a e a nd s ff li e ct de a ed, nd f ofw ood i l hi ng, c h ~1 , 0 00 The World Bank Coasa t l lfood hazad r ha v a e b e e n d e cl r ed dea d or mi ss ng. i T his is ob T J t ile Scae a l tA3 C di oor nat e Sys tem hot ' spot' ) ML ( C PE/FCC ,2014) ref erred t oa s the R e ge nt -L u mle yD i s a ster . 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and Risk Assessment s Isue Dae t By Chkd Appd ob N o J MapSa ttus I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue ©Arup Freetown | Approximate Extent of Urban and Peri-Urban Areas 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Congo Town Tengbeh Town Murray Town Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 10. 11. 12. Susan's Bay Goderich-Funkia Tower Hill 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Connaught Hospital Kossoh Town Ginger Hall Albert Academy Mount Aureol Mountain Regent 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 13. Sanders Brook 23. Foulah Town 26. Brookfields-Congo Market 940000 8. Wilberforce 14. Ascension Town 24. Bombay 27. Fourah Bay 9. Pipeline-Wilkinson 15. Brookfields 25. Magazine 28. New England-Hanneson 16. Kroo Town 29. Cline Town 30. George Brook (Dworzack) 31. Quarry White Destruction 32. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Man's Kroo Bay 33. Kissy Brook Bay Bay 34. Kissy Brook 5 29 35. Mamba Ridge I Kingtom 25 18 17 10 27 24 36. Mamba Ridge II Aberdeen 14 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 6 12 23 19 38. Kissy Mess Mess 16 13 3 21 39. Rokupa 31 40. Jalloh Terrace 937500 15 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 41. Grass Field 8 32 20 42. Portee Kissy Bye Pass II 43. Congo Water I 26 4 44. Kuntolor 1 Sorie Town 34 35 9 33 Shell 41 2 28 30 Leicester 36 37 38 42 Sierra Cockerill Bay 39 Leone 7 40 Hill Station River 44 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 43 Gloucester Bottom Oku Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 11 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Approximate spatial General map labels Approximate spatial extent of urban and peri-urban areas Freetown | Approximate has been estimated from available satellite imagery using extent of urban and Google Earth Pro. Extent of Urban and Peri- peri-urban areas Wards Urban Areas 1974 Freetown (Western Area Urban) is shown hatched. Main urbanized areas 1986 Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 2005 Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 2010 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0003 2017 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I1 2018-02-28 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Built Environment Density 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Built environment General map labels Built environment density maps represent the proportion of Freetown | Built each 30m2 grid unit which is covered by building and/or density Wards road, where 100% means that the entirety of the area is Environment Density < 20% covered by buildings and/or road, and 0% means that none Main urbanized areas of the area is covered by buildings and/or roads. 20 - 40% Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE > 40% Kilometers Primary road (yellow Major areas of line) 0 1 2 4 informal settlement Map no. LIBERIA FT-0004 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Built Environment Density 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Built environment General map labels Built environment density maps represent the proportion of L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | Built each 30m2 grid unit which is covered by building and/or density Wards road, where 100% means that the entirety of the area is Environment Density < 20% covered by buildings and/or road, and 0% means that none Main urbanized areas of the area is covered by buildings and/or roads. 20 - 40% Main watercourses > 40% Kilometers Primary road (yellow Major areas of line) 0 0.5 1 2 informal settlement Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0005 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Built Environment Density 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Built environment General map labels Built environment density maps represent the proportion of L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | Built each 30m2 grid unit which is covered by building and/or density Wards road, where 100% means that the entirety of the area is Environment Density < 20% covered by buildings and/or road, and 0% means that none Main urbanized areas of the area is covered by buildings and/or roads. 20 - 40% Main watercourses > 40% Kilometers Primary road (yellow Major areas of line) 0 0.5 1 2 informal settlement Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0006 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Built Environment Density 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Built environment General map labels Built environment density maps represent the proportion of L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | Built each 30m2 grid unit which is covered by building and/or density Wards road, where 100% means that the entirety of the area is Environment Density < 20% covered by buildings and/or road, and 0% means that none Main urbanized areas of the area is covered by buildings and/or roads. 20 - 40% Main watercourses > 40% Kilometers Primary road (yellow Major areas of line) 0 0.5 1 2 informal settlement Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0007 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Built Environment Density 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Built environment General map labels Built environment density maps represent the proportion of L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | Built each 30m2 grid unit which is covered by building and/or density Wards road, where 100% means that the entirety of the area is Environment Density < 20% covered by buildings and/or road, and 0% means that none Main urbanized areas of the area is covered by buildings and/or roads. 20 - 40% Main watercourses > 40% Kilometers Primary road (yellow Major areas of line) 0 0.5 1 2 informal settlement Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0008 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Flood hazard General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal Freetown | Qualitative of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular Very low (unshaded) Wards hazard. Qualitative flood hazard was assessed based on the Flood Hazard spatial extent of the modelled flood hazard levels and return Low Main urbanized areas periods which have been produced for the quantitative flood hazard assessment. Medium Primary road (yellow SIERRA LEONE line) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Kilometers High occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which 0 1 2 4 was already understood to have been affected by severe Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Map no. approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 FT-0009 LIBERIA Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is Disaster referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Flood hazard General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular Very low (unshaded) Wards hazard. Qualitative flood hazard was assessed based on the Qualitative Flood Hazard spatial extent of the modelled flood hazard levels and return Low Main urbanized areas periods which have been produced for the quantitative flood hazard assessment. Medium Primary road (yellow line) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Kilometers High occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which 0 0.5 1 2 was already understood to have been affected by severe Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Map no. approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0010 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is Disaster referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Flood hazard General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular Very low (unshaded) Wards hazard. Qualitative flood hazard was assessed based on the Qualitative Flood Hazard spatial extent of the modelled flood hazard levels and return Low Main urbanized areas periods which have been produced for the quantitative flood hazard assessment. Medium Primary road (yellow line) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Kilometers High occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which 0 0.5 1 2 was already understood to have been affected by severe Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Map no. approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0011 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is Disaster referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Flood hazard General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular Very low (unshaded) Wards hazard. Qualitative flood hazard was assessed based on the Qualitative Flood Hazard spatial extent of the modelled flood hazard levels and return Low Main urbanized areas periods which have been produced for the quantitative flood hazard assessment. Medium Primary road (yellow line) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Kilometers High occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which 0 0.5 1 2 was already understood to have been affected by severe Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Map no. approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0012 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is Disaster referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Flood hazard General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular Very low (unshaded) Wards hazard. Qualitative flood hazard was assessed based on the Qualitative Flood Hazard spatial extent of the modelled flood hazard levels and return Low Main urbanized areas periods which have been produced for the quantitative flood hazard assessment. Medium Primary road (yellow line) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Kilometers High occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which 0 0.5 1 2 was already understood to have been affected by severe Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Map no. approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0013 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is Disaster referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Flood risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of flood hazard is combined with Freetown | Qualitative the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as the Very low (unshaded) Wards density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Flood Risk estimates of risk. Low Main urbanized areas On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Primary road (yellow Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which SIERRA LEONE Medium occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which line) Kilometers was already understood to have been affected by severe High flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 0 1 2 4 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Very high have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. the Regent-Lumley Disaster. FT-0014 LIBERIA Regent-Lumley Disaster Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Flood risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of flood hazard is combined with L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as the Very low (unshaded) Wards density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Flood Risk estimates of risk. Low Main urbanized areas On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Primary road (yellow Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Medium occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which line) Kilometers was already understood to have been affected by severe High flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Very high have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0015 Regent-Lumley Disaster Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Flood risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of flood hazard is combined with L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as the Very low (unshaded) Wards density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Flood Risk estimates of risk. Low Main urbanized areas On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Primary road (yellow Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Medium occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which line) Kilometers was already understood to have been affected by severe High flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Very high have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0016 Regent-Lumley Disaster Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Flood risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of flood hazard is combined with L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as the Very low (unshaded) Wards density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Flood Risk estimates of risk. Low Main urbanized areas On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Primary road (yellow Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Medium occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which line) Kilometers was already understood to have been affected by severe High flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Very high have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0017 Regent-Lumley Disaster Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Flood Risk 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Flood risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of flood hazard is combined with L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as the Very low (unshaded) Wards density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Flood Risk estimates of risk. Low Main urbanized areas On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Primary road (yellow Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Medium occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which line) Kilometers was already understood to have been affected by severe High flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Very high have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0018 Regent-Lumley Disaster Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo # * Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook # * 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 # * Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 # * 18 Sorie Town 34 10 12 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 # * 24 35 42. Jalloh Terrace 38 43. Portee Shell # * 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I # *19 Leicester # * 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 # * 36 44 Leone Hill Station River 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Landslide General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal Freetown | Qualitative of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular susceptibility/hazard Wards hazard. Qualitative landslide hazard was assessed using a Landslide Very low, low and weighted scoring system, which classified and then Susceptibility/Hazard medium (unshaded) combined slope angle and a built environment density factor Main urbanized areas with a weighting of 75:25. High Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE This map is titled Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard because to realistically represent the nature of landslides, potential Kilometers Very high Primary road (yellow landslide flow paths need to be considered. Potential flow line) 0 1 2 4 Selected landslides paths are considered as part of the quantitative landslide within urban areas hazard assessment (Freetown only). Map no. # * (since ~2000, LIBERIA FT-0019 MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Client Regent-Lumley occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which The World Bank Disaster was already understood to have been affected by severe flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Job Title Historical landslide Scale at A3 Coordinate System approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and source areas 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Risk Assessment the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Man's Bay # * Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay # * Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 # * Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 # * # * 5 New England-Hill Cot # * George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen # * Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular susceptibility/hazard Wards hazard. Qualitative landslide hazard was assessed using a Qualitative Landslide Very low, low and weighted scoring system, which classified and then Susceptibility/Hazard medium (unshaded) combined slope angle and a built environment density factor Main urbanized areas with a weighting of 75:25. High Main watercourses This map is titled Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard because to realistically represent the nature of landslides, potential Kilometers Very high Primary road (yellow landslide flow paths need to be considered. Potential flow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Selected landslides paths are considered as part of the quantitative landslide within urban areas hazard assessment (Freetown only). Map no. # * (since ~2000, AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0020 MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Client Regent-Lumley occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Disaster The World Bank was already understood to have been affected by severe flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Job Title Historical landslide Scale at A3 Coordinate System approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and source areas 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Risk Assessment the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II # * # * # * Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular susceptibility/hazard Wards hazard. Qualitative landslide hazard was assessed using a Qualitative Landslide Very low, low and weighted scoring system, which classified and then Susceptibility/Hazard medium (unshaded) combined slope angle and a built environment density factor Main urbanized areas with a weighting of 75:25. High Main watercourses This map is titled Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard because to realistically represent the nature of landslides, potential Kilometers Very high Primary road (yellow landslide flow paths need to be considered. Potential flow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Selected landslides paths are considered as part of the quantitative landslide within urban areas hazard assessment (Freetown only). Map no. # * (since ~2000, AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0021 MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Client Regent-Lumley occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Disaster The World Bank was already understood to have been affected by severe flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Job Title Historical landslide Scale at A3 Coordinate System approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and source areas 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Risk Assessment the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular susceptibility/hazard Wards hazard. Qualitative landslide hazard was assessed using a Qualitative Landslide Very low, low and weighted scoring system, which classified and then Susceptibility/Hazard medium (unshaded) combined slope angle and a built environment density factor Main urbanized areas with a weighting of 75:25. High Main watercourses This map is titled Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard because to realistically represent the nature of landslides, potential Kilometers Very high Primary road (yellow landslide flow paths need to be considered. Potential flow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Selected landslides paths are considered as part of the quantitative landslide within urban areas hazard assessment (Freetown only). Map no. # * (since ~2000, AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0022 MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Client Regent-Lumley occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Disaster The World Bank was already understood to have been affected by severe flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Job Title Historical landslide Scale at A3 Coordinate System approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and source areas 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Risk Assessment the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels Each qualitative hazard assessment is a general appraisal L u n g i I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | susceptibility/hazard of the likelihood of the given area to experience a particular Wards hazard. Qualitative landslide hazard was assessed using a Qualitative Landslide Very low, low and weighted scoring system, which classified and then Susceptibility/Hazard medium (unshaded) combined slope angle and a built environment density factor Main urbanized areas with a weighting of 75:25. High Main watercourses This map is titled Landslide Susceptibility/Hazard because to realistically represent the nature of landslides, potential Kilometers Very high Primary road (yellow landslide flow paths need to be considered. Potential flow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Selected landslides paths are considered as part of the quantitative landslide within urban areas hazard assessment (Freetown only). Map no. # * (since ~2000, AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0023 MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Client Regent-Lumley occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which The World Bank Disaster was already understood to have been affected by severe Job Title Historical landslide flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, Scale at A3 Coordinate System approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and source areas 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Risk Assessment the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Landslide risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of landslide hazard is combined Freetown | Qualitative with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low and low Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Landslide Risk (unshaded) estimates of risk. Main urbanized areas Medium On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which SIERRA LEONE Main watercourses occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which High was already understood to have been affected by severe Kilometers Primary road (yellow Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, line) 0 1 2 4 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. Disaster the Regent-Lumley Disaster. FT-0024 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Landslide risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of landslide hazard is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low and low Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Landslide Risk (unshaded) estimates of risk. Main urbanized areas Medium On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Main watercourses occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which High was already understood to have been affected by severe Kilometers Primary road (yellow Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, line) 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. Disaster the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0025 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Landslide risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of landslide hazard is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low and low Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Landslide Risk (unshaded) estimates of risk. Main urbanized areas Medium On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Main watercourses occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which High was already understood to have been affected by severe Kilometers Primary road (yellow Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, line) 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. Disaster the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0026 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Landslide risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of landslide hazard is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low and low Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Landslide Risk (unshaded) estimates of risk. Main urbanized areas Medium On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Main watercourses occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which High was already understood to have been affected by severe Kilometers Primary road (yellow Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, line) 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. Disaster the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0027 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Landslide Risk 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Landslide risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of landslide hazard is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low and low Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Landslide Risk (unshaded) estimates of risk. Main urbanized areas Medium On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Main watercourses occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which High was already understood to have been affected by severe Kilometers Primary road (yellow Very high flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, line) 0 0.5 1 2 approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 Regent-Lumley have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Map no. Disaster the Regent-Lumley Disaster. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0028 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Sea-level rise hazard General map labels The potential and possible frequency of sea-level inundation Freetown | Qualitative Sea- is assessed qualitatively by comparing the elevation of low- Very low (unshaded) Wards lying areas around the coastline with the potential effects of Level Rise Hazard incremental increases in sea-level. This is based largely on Low Main urbanized areas expert judgement, but also on the basis that good practice in the UK dictates that properties should not be constructed at an elevation less than the level of the highest astronimical SIERRA LEONE Medium Main watercourses tide + some allowance for sea-level rise + an overtopping allowance + 0.3m Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 Very high Map no. LIBERIA FT-0029 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise hazard General map labels The potential and possible frequency of sea-level inundation L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | is assessed qualitatively by comparing the elevation of low- Very low (unshaded) Wards lying areas around the coastline with the potential effects of Qualitative Sea-Level Rise incremental increases in sea-level. This is based largely on Hazard Low Main urbanized areas expert judgement, but also on the basis that good practice in the UK dictates that properties should not be constructed at an elevation less than the level of the highest astronimical Medium Main watercourses tide + some allowance for sea-level rise + an overtopping allowance + 0.3m Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0030 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise hazard General map labels The potential and possible frequency of sea-level inundation L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | is assessed qualitatively by comparing the elevation of low- Very low (unshaded) Wards lying areas around the coastline with the potential effects of Qualitative Sea-Level Rise incremental increases in sea-level. This is based largely on Hazard Low Main urbanized areas expert judgement, but also on the basis that good practice in the UK dictates that properties should not be constructed at an elevation less than the level of the highest astronimical Medium Main watercourses tide + some allowance for sea-level rise + an overtopping allowance + 0.3m Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0031 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise hazard General map labels The potential and possible frequency of sea-level inundation L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | is assessed qualitatively by comparing the elevation of low- Very low (unshaded) Wards lying areas around the coastline with the potential effects of Qualitative Sea-Level Rise incremental increases in sea-level. This is based largely on Hazard Low Main urbanized areas expert judgement, but also on the basis that good practice in the UK dictates that properties should not be constructed at an elevation less than the level of the highest astronimical Medium Main watercourses tide + some allowance for sea-level rise + an overtopping allowance + 0.3m Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0032 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise hazard General map labels The potential and possible frequency of sea-level inundation L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | is assessed qualitatively by comparing the elevation of low- Very low (unshaded) Wards lying areas around the coastline with the potential effects of Qualitative Sea-Level Rise incremental increases in sea-level. This is based largely on Hazard Low Main urbanized areas expert judgement, but also on the basis that good practice in the UK dictates that properties should not be constructed at an elevation less than the level of the highest astronimical Medium Main watercourses tide + some allowance for sea-level rise + an overtopping allowance + 0.3m Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0033 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Sea-level rise risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of sea-level rise is combined Freetown | Qualitative Sea- with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low (unshaded) Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Level Rise Risk estimates of risk. Low Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 Very high Map no. LIBERIA FT-0034 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of sea-level rise is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low (unshaded) Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Sea-Level Rise estimates of risk. Risk Low Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0035 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of sea-level rise is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low (unshaded) Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Sea-Level Rise estimates of risk. Risk Low Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0036 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of sea-level rise is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low (unshaded) Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Sea-Level Rise estimates of risk. Risk Low Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0037 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Qualitative Sea-Level Rise Risk 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Sea-level rise risk General map labels The qualitative assessment of sea-level rise is combined L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | with the assessment of exposure/vulnerability (expressed as Very low (unshaded) Wards the density of the built environment) to produce qualitative Qualitative Sea-Level Rise estimates of risk. Risk Low Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses Kilometers High Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Very high Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0038 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 710000 ° ! 942500 18. Susan's Bay 19. Tower Hill 20. Magazine 1. Kroo Town 21. Albert Academy 2. Ascension Town 22. Mountain Regent 3. Brookfields 23. Foulah Town 4. Murray Town 24. Mount Aureol 5. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 25. Cline Town 6. Cockerill-Aberdeen 11. Brookefields-Red Pump 7. Goderich-Funkia 12. New England-Hill Cot 8. Tengbeh Town 13. Sanders Brook 14. Connaught Hospital 940000 9. Pipeline-Wilkinson 10. Wilberforce 15. Brookfields-Congo Market 16. New England-Hanneson 26. Kossoh Town 17. George Brook (Dworzack) 27. Bombay 28. Ginger Hall 29. Fourah Bay 4 30. Quarry Aberdeen 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 25 32. Kissy Brook 14 18 20 26 Kingtom 27 29 33. Sorie Town 19 23 28 34. Kissy Brook 5 2 1 30 35. Mamba Ridge I 13 24 36. Kissy Bye Pass II 937500 3 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 37. Mamba Ridge II 9 31 38. Lowcost Housing 21 36 39. Kissy Mental 15 40. Shell 8 35 41. Grass Field 11 34 17 32 33 37 38 Leicester 41 12 10 42. Portee 16 39 40 42 43 43. Kissy Mess Mess 44. Rokupa 6 44 45. Kuntolor 46. Jalloh Terrace Hill Station 45 47. Congo Water I 935000 Thunderhill 48. Bottom Oku Lumley 47 Gloucester 46 48 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 7 932500 Gbendembu Robis Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE 917500 Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Coastal erosion General map labels Freetown | Qualitative hazard Wards Coastal Erosion Hazard Low Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE High Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0039 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:90,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Coastal erosion General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | hazard Wards Qualitative Coastal Erosion Low Hazard Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses High Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0040 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Rokupa Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Coastal erosion General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | hazard Wards Qualitative Coastal Erosion Low Hazard Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses High Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0041 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Qualitative Coastal Erosion Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Coastal erosion General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | hazard Wards Qualitative Coastal Erosion Low Hazard Main urbanized areas Medium Main watercourses High Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0042 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return Freetown | Quantitative period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (20 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Flood Hazard (20 Year < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow SIERRA LEONE 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 1 2 4 Map no. > 5.0m FT-0043 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (20 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (20 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0044 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (20 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (20 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0045 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (20 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (20 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0046 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (20 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (20 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0047 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return Freetown | Quantitative period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (100 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Flood Hazard (100 Year < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow SIERRA LEONE 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 1 2 4 Map no. > 5.0m FT-0048 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (100 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (100 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0049 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (100 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (100 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0050 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (100 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (100 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0051 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (100 Year Flood) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (100 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (100 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0052 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return Freetown | Quantitative period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (1500 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Flood Hazard (1500 Year < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow SIERRA LEONE 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 1 2 4 Map no. > 5.0m FT-0053 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (1500 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (1500 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0054 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (1500 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (1500 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0055 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (1500 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (1500 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0056 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (1500 Year Flood) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels Flood hazard is expressed in terms of return period. A return L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | period is defined as a measure of the probability of an event depth (1500 year flood) Wards occurring, expressed in years. For example, an event with a Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) 1% likelihood of occurring each year would have a return (1500 Year Flood) Main urbanized areas period of 100 years. 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0057 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). loss to buildings Wards Flood Risk (Direct Loss to < $5,000 Buildings) Main urbanized areas $5,000 - $10,000 SIERRA LEONE $10,000 - $50,000 Kilometers $50,000 - $100,000 0 1 2 4 Map no. > $100,000 FT-0058 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings relative to ward area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, loss to buildings relative Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Flood Risk (Direct Loss to to ward area highest in terms of risk per unit area. Buildings relative to ward Lowest relative risk Main urbanized areas area) SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0059 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. Fatalities) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). annual no. fatalities Wards Flood Risk (no. Fatalities) < 0.05 Main urbanized areas 0.05 - 0.1 SIERRA LEONE 0.1 - 0.5 Kilometers 0.5 - 1.0 0 1 2 4 Map no. > 1.0 FT-0060 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. Fatalities relative to ward area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, no. fatalities relative to Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Flood Risk (no. Fatalities ward area highest in terms of risk per unit area. relative to ward area) Lowest relative risk Main urbanized areas SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0061 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. People Affected) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). annual no. people Wards Flood Risk (no. People affected Affected) <5 Main urbanized areas 5 - 10 SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 10 - 50 0 1 2 4 50 - 100 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0062 > 100 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Risk (no. People Affected Relative to Ward Area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, no. people affected Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Flood Risk (no. People relative to ward area highest in terms of risk per unit area. Affected Relative to Ward Main urbanized areas Area) Lowest relative risk SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0063 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Landslide General map labels On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Freetown | Landslide Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which susceptibility Wards occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Susceptibility Medium was already understood to have been affected by severe Main urbanized areas flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 High have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as SIERRA LEONE Main watercourses the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Regent-Lumley Kilometers Disaster Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 Historical landslide source areas Map no. LIBERIA FT-0064 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which susceptibility Wards occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Landslide Susceptibility Medium was already understood to have been affected by severe Main urbanized areas flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 High have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Main watercourses the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Regent-Lumley Kilometers Disaster Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Historical landslide source areas Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0065 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which susceptibility Wards occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Landslide Susceptibility Medium was already understood to have been affected by severe Main urbanized areas flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 High have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Main watercourses the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Regent-Lumley Kilometers Disaster Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Historical landslide source areas Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0066 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which susceptibility Wards occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Landslide Susceptibility Medium was already understood to have been affected by severe Main urbanized areas flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 High have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Main watercourses the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Regent-Lumley Kilometers Disaster Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Historical landslide source areas Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0067 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Landslide Susceptibility 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Landslide General map labels On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in L u n g i I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | susceptibility Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide, which Wards occurred in multiple phases, was located in an area which Landslide Susceptibility Medium was already understood to have been affected by severe Main urbanized areas flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 High have been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as Main watercourses the Regent-Lumley Disaster. Regent-Lumley Kilometers Disaster Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Historical landslide source areas Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0068 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo # * Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook # * 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 # * Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 # * 18 Sorie Town 34 10 12 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 # * 24 35 42. Jalloh Terrace 38 43. Portee Shell # * 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I # *19 Leicester # * 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 # * 36 44 Leone Hill Station River 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 1 2 1 922500 1 2 AT L A N T I C O C E A N 2 1 2 York 2 11 920000 6 4 SIERRA LEONE 6 Average annual number of landslides >100m 2 per catchment Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using Freetown | Quantitative qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Landslide Hazard for definitions) levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider Lower landslide Main urbanized areas recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Main watercourses Medium landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return SIERRA LEONE period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers Primary road (yellow high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High line) return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 1 2 4 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of FT-0069 LIBERIA Selected landslides the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid within urban areas square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client # * (since ~2000, The World Bank MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title Regent-Lumley which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and Disaster flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have Historical landslide been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status source areas Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Man's Bay # * Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay # * Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 # * Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 # * # * 5 New England-Hill Cot # * George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen # * Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Landslide for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of Hazard Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Main watercourses Medium landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers Primary road (yellow high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High line) return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0070 Selected landslides the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid within urban areas square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client # * (since ~2000, The World Bank MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title Regent-Lumley which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and Disaster flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have Historical landslide been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status source areas Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II # * # * # * Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Landslide for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of Hazard Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Main watercourses Medium landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers Primary road (yellow high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High line) return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0071 Selected landslides the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid within urban areas square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client # * (since ~2000, The World Bank MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title Regent-Lumley which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and Disaster flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have Historical landslide been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status source areas Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Landslide for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of Hazard Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Main watercourses Medium landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers Primary road (yellow high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High line) return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0072 Selected landslides the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid within urban areas square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client # * (since ~2000, The World Bank MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title Regent-Lumley which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and Disaster flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have Historical landslide been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status source areas Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | hazard (see additional info. qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Landslide for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of Hazard Main urbanized areas 2 hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m with a return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Main watercourses 2 landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m with a return Medium period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers Primary road (yellow 2 high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m with a High line) return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high 2 >100m with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0073 Selected landslides the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid 2 within urban areas square is affected by a landslide >100m . Client # * (since ~2000, The World Bank MLCPE/FCC, 2014) On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title Regent-Lumley which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and Disaster flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have Historical landslide been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status source areas Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). annual loss to Wards Landslide Risk (Direct Loss buildings All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the to Buildings) < $500 Main urbanized areas lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the accompanying report (Volume 1). $500 - $1,000 SIERRA LEONE Kilometers $1,000 - $5,000 0 1 2 4 $5,000 - $10,000 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0074 > $10,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings relative to ward area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, loss to buildings relative Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Landslide Risk (Direct Loss to ward area highest in terms of risk per. unit area. to Buildings relative to Lowest relative risk Main urbanized areas ward area) All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the SIERRA LEONE accompanying report (Volume 1). Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0075 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Buildings Affected) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). annual no. buildings Wards Landslide Risk (no. affected All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the Buildings Affected) < 0.05 Main urbanized areas lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the accompanying report (Volume 1). 0.05 - 0.1 SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 0.1 - 0.5 0 1 2 4 0.5 - 1.0 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0076 > 1.0 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Buildings Affected Relative to Ward Area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, no. buildings affected Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Landslide Risk (no. relative to ward area highest in terms of risk per. unit area. Buildings Affected Relative Main urbanized areas All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the to Ward Area) Lowest relative risk lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the SIERRA LEONE accompanying report (Volume 1). Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0077 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Fatalities) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). annual no. fatalities Wards Landslide Risk (no. < 0.05 All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the Fatalities) Main urbanized areas lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the accompanying report (Volume 1). 0.05 - 0.1 SIERRA LEONE 0.1 - 0.5 Kilometers 0.5 - 1.0 0 1 2 4 Map no. > 1.0 FT-0078 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. Fatalities Relative to Ward Area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, no. fatalities relative to Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Landslide Risk (no. ward area highest in terms of risk per. unit area. Fatalities Relative to Ward Lowest relative risk Main urbanized areas Area) All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the SIERRA LEONE accompanying report (Volume 1). Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0079 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. People Affected) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). annual no. people Wards Landslide Risk (no. People affected All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the Affected) < 0.5 Main urbanized areas lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the accompanying report (Volume 1). 0.5 - 1.0 SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 1.0 - 5.0 0 1 2 4 5.0 - 10.0 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0080 > 10.0 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (no. People Affected relative to ward area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, no. people affected Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Landslide Risk (no. People relative to ward area highest in terms of risk per. unit area. Affected relative to ward Main urbanized areas All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the area) Lowest relative risk lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the SIERRA LEONE accompanying report (Volume 1). Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0081 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Road Length Affected) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). annual km length road Wards Landslide Risk (Road affected All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the Length Affected) < 0.001 km Main urbanized areas lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the accompanying report (Volume 1). 0.001 - 0.005 km SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 0.005 - 0.01 km 0 1 2 4 0.01 - 0.05 km Map no. LIBERIA FT-0082 > 0.05 km Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Landslide Risk (Road Length Affected Relative to Ward Area) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled average annual General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, km length road affected Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Landslide Risk (Road relative to ward area highest in terms of risk per. unit area. Length Affected Relative to Main urbanized areas All landslide risk maps are presented as the average of the Ward Area) Lowest relative risk lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the SIERRA LEONE accompanying report (Volume 1). Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0083 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title 2050 scenario sea- General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a Freetown | Quantitative 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. level rise estimated Wards Sea-Level Rise Hazard inundation (2050 Scenario) Lower estimate Main urbanized areas Upper estimate Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0084 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario sea- General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. level rise estimated Wards Quantitative Sea-Level Rise inundation Hazard (2050 Scenario) Lower estimate Main urbanized areas Upper estimate Main watercourses Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0085 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario sea- General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. level rise estimated Wards Quantitative Sea-Level Rise inundation Hazard (2050 Scenario) Lower estimate Main urbanized areas Upper estimate Main watercourses Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0086 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario sea- General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. level rise estimated Wards Quantitative Sea-Level Rise inundation Hazard (2050 Scenario) Lower estimate Main urbanized areas Upper estimate Main watercourses Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0087 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario sea- General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. level rise estimated Wards Quantitative Sea-Level Rise inundation Hazard (2050 Scenario) Lower estimate Main urbanized areas Upper estimate Main watercourses Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0088 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 scenario General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a Freetown | Quantitative 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. building value loss Wards Sea-Level Rise Risk (Direct < $10,000 This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Loss to Buildings) (2050 each administrative unit (Wards). Main urbanized areas Scenario) $10,000 - $50,000 All sea-level rise risk maps are presented as the average of SIERRA LEONE the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the $50,000 - $100,000 accompanying report. Kilometers $100,000 - $500,000 0 1 2 4 Map no. > $500,000 FT-0089 LIBERIA Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings Relative to Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 scenario General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a Freetown | Quantitative 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. building value loss Wards Sea-Level Rise Risk (Direct relative to ward area This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Loss to Buildings Relative Lowest relative risk each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, Main urbanized areas giving an indication of where within the city the risk is to Ward Area) (2050 highest in terms of risk per. unit area. SIERRA LEONE Scenario) All sea-level rise risk maps are presented as the average of Kilometers the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the 0 1 2 4 accompanying report (Volume 1). Map no. LIBERIA FT-0090 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (no. Buildings Lost) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a Freetown | Quantitative 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. scenario no. buildings Wards Sea-Level Rise Risk (no. affected This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Buildings Lost) (2050 <5 each administrative unit (Wards). Main urbanized areas Scenario) 5 - 10 All sea-level rise risk maps are presented as the average of SIERRA LEONE the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the accompanying report. Kilometers 10 - 50 0 1 2 4 50 - 100 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0091 > 100 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Sea-Level Rise Risk (no. Buildings Lost Relative to Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 scenario General map labels This project uses RCP 8.5 to estimate sea-level rise for a Freetown | Quantitative 2050 scenario as specified by the project terms of reference. no. buildings affected Wards Sea-Level Rise Risk (no. relative to ward area This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Buildings Lost Relative to Lowest relative risk each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, Main urbanized areas giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) highest in terms of risk per. unit area. SIERRA LEONE All sea-level rise risk maps are presented as the average of Kilometers the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in the 0 1 2 4 accompanying report (Volume 1). Map no. LIBERIA FT-0092 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title 2050 scenario coastal General map labels Freetown | Quantitative erosion estimate Wards Coastal Erosion Hazard Lower estimate (2050 Scenario) Main urbanized areas Upper estimate Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0093 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario coastal General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | erosion estimate Wards Quantitative Coastal Lower estimate Erosion Hazard (2050 Main urbanized areas Scenario) Upper estimate Main watercourses Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0094 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario coastal General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | erosion estimate Wards Quantitative Coastal Lower estimate Erosion Hazard (2050 Main urbanized areas Scenario) Upper estimate Main watercourses Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0095 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Hazard (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario coastal General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | erosion estimate Wards Quantitative Coastal Lower estimate Erosion Hazard (2050 Main urbanized areas Scenario) Upper estimate Main watercourses Kilometers Primary road (yellow line) 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0096 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 scenario General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). building value loss Wards Coastal Erosion Risk < $100,000 All coastal erosion risk maps are presented as the average (Direct Loss to Buildings) of the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in Main urbanized areas the accompanying report (Volume 1). (2050 Scenario) $100,000 - $500,000 SIERRA LEONE $500,000 - Kilometers $1,000,000 0 1 2 4 $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0097 > $5,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Risk (Direct Loss to Buildings Relative to Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 scenario General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, building value loss Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Coastal Erosion Risk relative to ward area highest in terms of risk per. unit area. (Direct Loss to Buildings Lowest relative risk Main urbanized areas Relative to Ward Area) All coastal erosion risk maps are presented as the average of the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in SIERRA LEONE (2050 Scenario) the accompanying report (Volume 1). Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0098 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion (no. Buildings Lost) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards). scenario no. buildings Wards Coastal Erosion (no. affected All coastal erosion risk maps are presented as the average Buildings Lost) (2050 <5 of the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in Main urbanized areas the accompanying report (Volume 1). Scenario) 5 - 10 SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 10 - 50 0 1 2 4 50 - 100 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0099 > 100 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Coastal Erosion Risk (no. Buildings Lost Relative to Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated 2050 scenario General map labels This map shows natural hazard-risk as the sum of risk within Freetown | Quantitative each administrative unit (Wards) divided by Ward area, no. buildings affected Wards giving an indication of where within the city the risk is Coastal Erosion Risk (no. relative to ward area highest in terms of risk per. unit area. Buildings Lost Relative to Lowest relative risk Main urbanized areas Ward Area) (2050 Scenario) All coastal erosion risk maps are presented as the average of the lower and upper modelled scenarios as described in SIERRA LEONE the accompanying report (Volume 1). Kilometers 0 1 2 4 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0100 Highest relative risk Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using Freetown | Quantitative qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Flood Hazard (20 Year for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of Flood) and Landslide Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a Hazard Primary road (yellow return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Medium line) landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return SIERRA LEONE period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 1 2 4 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of FT-0101 LIBERIA Modelled flood water the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid depth (20 year flood) square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client < 0.2m (unshaded) The World Bank On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title 0.2 - 1.0m which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have 1.0 - 3.0m Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue 3.0 - 5.0m © Arup > 5.0m Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Flood Hazard for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of (20 Year Flood) and Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a Landslide Hazard Primary road (yellow return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Medium line) landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0102 Modelled flood water the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid depth (20 year flood) square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client < 0.2m (unshaded) The World Bank On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title 0.2 - 1.0m which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have 1.0 - 3.0m Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue 3.0 - 5.0m © Arup > 5.0m Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Flood Hazard for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of (20 Year Flood) and Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a Landslide Hazard Primary road (yellow return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Medium line) landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0103 Modelled flood water the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid depth (20 year flood) square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client < 0.2m (unshaded) The World Bank On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title 0.2 - 1.0m which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have 1.0 - 3.0m Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue 3.0 - 5.0m © Arup > 5.0m Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Flood Hazard for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of (20 Year Flood) and Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a Landslide Hazard Primary road (yellow return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Medium line) landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0104 Modelled flood water the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid depth (20 year flood) square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client < 0.2m (unshaded) The World Bank On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title 0.2 - 1.0m which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have 1.0 - 3.0m Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue 3.0 - 5.0m © Arup > 5.0m Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Landslide Hazard 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Quantitative landslide General map labels Quantitative landslide hazard has been summarised using L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | qualitative statements to aid communication of landslide hazard. hazard (see additional info. Wards The use of the terms medium, high etc. describe relative hazard Quantitative Flood Hazard for definitions) Lower landslide levels within Freetown and do not correspond to wider recognized definitions of hazard frequency descriptors. Areas of (20 Year Flood) and Main urbanized areas hazard (unshaded) lower landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a Landslide Hazard Primary road (yellow return period of less than 1 in 6,000 years. Areas of medium Medium line) landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m 2 with a return period between 1 in 6,000 years and 1 in 5,000 years. Areas of Kilometers high landslide hazard are affected by landslides >100m2 with a High return period between 1 in 5,000 years and 1 in 4,000 years. 0 0.5 1 2 Areas of very high landslide hazard are affected by landslides Very high >100m 2 with a return period of more than 1 in 4,000 years. Map no. These estimated return periods are determined as the inverse of AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0105 Modelled flood water the modelled annual frequency at which a given 30m x 30m grid depth (20 year flood) square is affected by a landslide >100m2. Client < 0.2m (unshaded) The World Bank On Monday 14th August 2017 a landslide occurred in Regent, Freetown, Sierra Leone. The landslide was located in an area Scale at A3 Coordinate System Job Title 0.2 - 1.0m which was already understood to have been affected by severe Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and flooding. As a direct result of the landslide and flooding, 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment approximately 6,000 people were affected, of which ~1,000 have 1.0 - 3.0m Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status been declared dead or missing. This is referred to as the Regent-Lumley Disaster. I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue 3.0 - 5.0m © Arup > 5.0m Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Modelled flood water General map labels Freetown | Quantitative depth (20 year flood) Wards Flood Hazard (20 Year < 0.2m (unshaded) Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Main urbanized areas Hazard (2050 Scenario) 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow SIERRA LEONE 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 1 2 4 Map no. > 5.0m FT-0106 LIBERIA 2050 scenario sea- Client level rise estimated The World Bank inundation Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lower estimate Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Upper estimate Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | depth (20 year flood) Wards Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) (20 Year Flood) and Sea- Main urbanized areas Level Rise Hazard (2050 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow Scenario) 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0107 2050 scenario sea- Client level rise estimated The World Bank inundation Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lower estimate Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Upper estimate Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | depth (20 year flood) Wards Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) (20 Year Flood) and Sea- Main urbanized areas Level Rise Hazard (2050 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow Scenario) 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0108 2050 scenario sea- Client level rise estimated The World Bank inundation Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lower estimate Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Upper estimate Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | depth (20 year flood) Wards Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) (20 Year Flood) and Sea- Main urbanized areas Level Rise Hazard (2050 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow Scenario) 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0109 2050 scenario sea- Client level rise estimated The World Bank inundation Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lower estimate Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Upper estimate Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Quantitative Flood Hazard (20 Year Flood) and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Modelled flood water General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | depth (20 year flood) Wards Quantitative Flood Hazard < 0.2m (unshaded) (20 Year Flood) and Sea- Main urbanized areas Level Rise Hazard (2050 0.2 - 1.0m Primary road (yellow Scenario) 1.0 - 3.0m line) Kilometers 3.0 - 5.0m 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. > 5.0m AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0110 2050 scenario sea- Client level rise estimated The World Bank inundation Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lower estimate Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Upper estimate Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Overview of Catchments for DRR Recommendations 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town New England-Hill Cot Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Magazine Brookfields Foulah Town Brookefields-Red Pump Susan's Bay Kroo Town 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tower Hill Albert Academy Bombay Kossoh Town Mount Aureol Ginger Hall 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 17. Connaught Hospital 27. Quarry 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 18. Sanders Brook 28. Fourah Bay 9. Murray Town 19. Brookfields-Congo Market 29. Cline Town 10. Wilberforce 20. New England-Hanneson White Destruction 30. Mountain Regent Man's Kroo Bay 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Bay Bay 17 32. Kissy Brook Kingtom 29 33. Kissy Brook 15 11 34. Grass Field 9 24 35. Mamba Ridge II 23 28 36. Lowcost Housing Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 3 13 26 18 25 16 21 27 937500 30 Kissy Bye Pass I 8 4 31 22 Kissy Bye Pass II 38. George Brook (Dworzack) 12 C1 10 5 14 19 Sorie Town 32 33 35 36 34 39. Mamba Ridge I 40. Kissy Mess Mess 41. Jalloh Terrace 42. Kuntolor Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 20 Leicester 37 43 39 40 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 Hill Station 2 38 C3 C4 44 Leone River C2 C5 42 935000 Lumley 45 Thunderhill Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Bottom Oku 41 Juba/Kaningo C13 Congo Water II Old Warf SIERRA LEONE Regent C6 Industrial Estate 6 C12 Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Pamuronko Gbendembu Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte C7 927500 C10 Hamilton Hastings Village Area C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Overview of DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Catchments for DRR Recommendations Main urbanized areas Catchments SIERRA LEONE Kilometers Main watercourses 0 1 2 4 Primary road (yellow Map no. line) LIBERIA FT-0111 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Combined Hazard Zones 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town New England-Hill Cot Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Magazine Brookfields Foulah Town Brookefields-Red Pump Susan's Bay Kroo Town 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tower Hill Albert Academy Bombay Kossoh Town Mount Aureol Ginger Hall 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 17. Connaught Hospital 27. Quarry 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 18. Sanders Brook 28. Fourah Bay 9. Murray Town 19. Brookfields-Congo Market 29. Cline Town 10. Wilberforce 20. New England-Hanneson White Destruction 30. Mountain Regent Man's Kroo Bay 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Bay Bay 17 32. Kissy Brook Kingtom 29 33. Kissy Brook 15 11 34. Grass Field 9 24 35. Mamba Ridge II 23 28 36. Lowcost Housing Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 3 13 26 18 25 16 21 27 937500 30 Kissy Bye Pass I 8 4 31 22 Kissy Bye Pass II 38. George Brook (Dworzack) 12 C1 10 5 14 19 Sorie Town 32 33 35 36 34 39. Mamba Ridge I 40. Kissy Mess Mess 41. Jalloh Terrace 42. Kuntolor Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 20 Leicester 37 43 39 40 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 Hill Station 2 38 C3 C4 44 Leone River C2 C5 42 935000 Lumley 45 Thunderhill Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Bottom Oku 41 Juba/Kaningo C13 Congo Water II Old Warf SIERRA LEONE Regent C6 Industrial Estate 6 C12 Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Pamuronko Gbendembu Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte C7 927500 C10 Hamilton Hastings Village Area C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard Freetown | Combined assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Combined Hazard Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Hazard Zones Zones defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Zones (year 2050) landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard SIERRA LEONE zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 1 2 4 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the FT-0112 LIBERIA estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Combined Hazard Zones 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Wilberforce Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Kissy Brook C1 C2 Leicester C3 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen C4 10 Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo C13 Regent Goderich-Funkia C12 932500 Gbendembu C7 Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 930000 Hamilton Charlotte C10 C10 Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Combined Hazard Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Combined Hazard Zones Zones defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Zones (year 2050) landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0113 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Combined Hazard Zones 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra C5 Rokupa Leone River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst C6 Pamuronko Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 C7 Hastings Village Area C8 C7 Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Combined Hazard Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Combined Hazard Zones Zones defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Zones (year 2050) landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0114 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Combined Hazard Zones 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! C12 Regent Gbendembu C13 Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst C7 C11 930000 Charlotte 927500 C10 Hamilton C9 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Combined Hazard Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Combined Hazard Zones Zones defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Zones (year 2050) landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0115 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Combined Hazard Zones 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte C7 927500 Hastings Village Area C8 925000 Hamilton C9 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Combined Hazard Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Combined Hazard Zones Zones defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Zones (year 2050) landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0116 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Existing Development in Combined Hazard Zones 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town New England-Hill Cot Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Magazine Brookfields Foulah Town Brookefields-Red Pump Susan's Bay Kroo Town 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tower Hill Albert Academy Bombay Kossoh Town Mount Aureol Ginger Hall 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 17. Connaught Hospital 27. Quarry 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 18. Sanders Brook 28. Fourah Bay 9. Murray Town 19. Brookfields-Congo Market 29. Cline Town 10. Wilberforce 20. New England-Hanneson White Destruction 30. Mountain Regent Man's Kroo Bay 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Bay Bay 17 32. Kissy Brook Kingtom 29 33. Kissy Brook 15 11 34. Grass Field 9 24 35. Mamba Ridge II 23 28 36. Lowcost Housing Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 3 13 26 18 25 16 21 27 937500 30 Kissy Bye Pass I 8 4 31 22 Kissy Bye Pass II 38. George Brook (Dworzack) 12 C1 10 5 14 19 Sorie Town 32 33 35 36 34 39. Mamba Ridge I 40. Kissy Mess Mess 41. Jalloh Terrace 42. Kuntolor Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 20 Leicester 37 43 39 40 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 Hill Station 2 38 C3 C4 44 Leone River C2 C5 42 935000 Lumley 45 Thunderhill Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Bottom Oku 41 Juba/Kaningo C13 Congo Water II Old Warf SIERRA LEONE Regent C6 Industrial Estate 6 C12 Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Pamuronko Gbendembu Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte C7 927500 C10 Hamilton Hastings Village Area C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard Freetown | Existing assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Existing development Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Development in Combined within the Combined defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Hazard Zones Hazard Zones Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Existing development landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. within the Combined Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard SIERRA LEONE Hazard Zones (year zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers 2050) Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 1 2 4 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the FT-0117 LIBERIA estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Existing Development in Combined Hazard Zones 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Wilberforce Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Kissy Brook C1 C2 Leicester C3 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen C4 10 Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo C13 Regent Goderich-Funkia C12 932500 Gbendembu C7 Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 930000 Hamilton Charlotte C10 C10 Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Existing development Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Existing Development in within the Combined defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Zones Hazard Zones Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Existing development landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. within the Combined Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard Hazard Zones (year zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers 2050) Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0118 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Existing Development in Combined Hazard Zones 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra C5 Rokupa Leone River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst C6 Pamuronko Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 C7 Hastings Village Area C8 C7 Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Existing development Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Existing Development in within the Combined defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Zones Hazard Zones Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Existing development landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. within the Combined Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard Hazard Zones (year zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers 2050) Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0119 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Existing Development in Combined Hazard Zones 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! C12 Regent Gbendembu C13 Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst C7 C11 930000 Charlotte 927500 C10 Hamilton C9 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Existing development Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Existing Development in within the Combined defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Zones Hazard Zones Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Existing development landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. within the Combined Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard Hazard Zones (year zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers 2050) Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0120 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Existing Development in Combined Hazard Zones 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte C7 927500 Hastings Village Area C8 925000 Hamilton C9 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Combined Hazard Zones General map labels Using the results of the quantitative natural hazard L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | assessments it is possible to define hazard zones for Existing development Wards Freetown, which represent areas that have been spatially Existing Development in within the Combined defined by: the spatial extent of a 100-year flood; and the Combined Hazard Zones Hazard Zones Main urbanized areas spatial extent of the areas estimated to be affected by Existing development landslides at a return period of less than 2000 years. within the Combined Catchments Furthermore, it is reasonable to extend the combined hazard Hazard Zones (year zones for a year 2050 scenario to account for the anticipated influence of climate change. The year 2050 combined Kilometers 2050) Main watercourses hazard zones have been defined by: the spatial extent of a 0 0.5 1 2 Primary road (yellow 100-year flood (accounting for climate change impacts); the line) spatial extent of areas which are estimated to be affected by Map no. landslides at a return period of less than 2,000 years; the AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0121 estimated coastal inundation area from sea-level rise for a year 2050 scenario; and the estimated coastal inundation Client area from coastal erosion for a year 2050 scenario. The World Bank Additional information and a full description of proposed Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N accompanying report (Volume 2). Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Catchment) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 White Destruction Man's Kroo Bay Bay Bay Cline Bay 937500 C1 C2 C3 Cockerill Bay C4 C5 Sierra Leone River 935000 SIERRA LEONE C13 C6 C12 932500 C11 930000 C7 927500 C10 C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated no. General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated no. DRR measures for Freetown is available in the buildings within the Boundary catchment, accompanying report (Volume 2). Buildings in Proposed proposed Hazard not included Zone Hazard Zones (by < 50 Catchments Catchment) SIERRA LEONE 50 - 100 Kilometers 100 - 500 0 1 2 4 Map no. 500 - 1,000 LIBERIA FT-0122 > 1,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by Catchment) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 White Destruction Man's Kroo Bay Bay Bay Cline Bay 937500 C1 C2 C3 Cockerill Bay C4 C5 Sierra Leone River 935000 SIERRA LEONE C13 C6 C12 932500 C11 930000 C7 927500 C10 C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated no. General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated no. DRR measures for Freetown is available in the buildings within the Boundary catchment, accompanying report (Volume 2). Buildings in Proposed proposed Hazard not included Zone (2050 target) Hazard Zones (2050 target) < 50 Catchments (by Catchment) SIERRA LEONE 50 - 100 Kilometers 100 - 500 0 1 2 4 Map no. 500 - 1,000 LIBERIA FT-0123 > 1,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Ward) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated no. General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated no. DRR measures for Freetown is available in the buildings within the Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Buildings in Proposed proposed Hazard Zone Hazard Zones (by Ward) Main urbanized areas < 50 SIERRA LEONE 50 - 100 Kilometers 100 - 500 0 1 2 4 Map no. 500 - 1,000 LIBERIA FT-0124 > 1,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated no. Buildings in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by Ward) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated no. General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated no. DRR measures for Freetown is available in the buildings within the Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Buildings in Proposed proposed Hazard Zone (2050 target) Hazard Zones (2050 target) Main urbanized areas < 50 (by Ward) SIERRA LEONE 50 - 100 Kilometers 100 - 500 0 1 2 4 Map no. 500 - 1,000 LIBERIA FT-0125 > 1,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Catchment) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 White Destruction Man's Kroo Bay Bay Bay Cline Bay 937500 C1 C2 C3 Cockerill Bay C4 C5 Sierra Leone River 935000 SIERRA LEONE C13 C6 C12 932500 C11 930000 C7 927500 C10 C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated population General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated DRR measures for Freetown is available in the within the proposed Boundary catchment, accompanying report (Volume 2). Population in Proposed Hazard Zone not included Hazard Zones (by < 100 Catchments Catchment) 100 - 500 SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 500 - 1,000 0 1 2 4 1,000 - 5,000 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0126 > 5,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by Catchment) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 White Destruction Man's Kroo Bay Bay Bay Cline Bay 937500 C1 C2 C3 Cockerill Bay C4 C5 Sierra Leone River 935000 SIERRA LEONE C13 C6 C12 932500 C11 930000 C7 927500 C10 C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated population General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated DRR measures for Freetown is available in the within the proposed Boundary catchment, accompanying report (Volume 2). Population in Proposed Hazard Zone (2050 not included target) Hazard Zones (2050 target) < 100 Catchments (by Catchment) SIERRA LEONE 100 - 500 Kilometers 500 - 1,000 0 1 2 4 Map no. 1,000 - 5,000 LIBERIA FT-0127 > 5,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (by Ward) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated population General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated DRR measures for Freetown is available in the within the proposed Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Population in Proposed Hazard Zone Hazard Zones (by Ward) < 100 Main urbanized areas 100 - 500 SIERRA LEONE Kilometers 500 - 1,000 0 1 2 4 1,000 - 5,000 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0128 > 5,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Estimated Population in Proposed Hazard Zones (2050 target) (by Ward) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Estimated population General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Estimated DRR measures for Freetown is available in the within the proposed Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Population in Proposed Hazard Zone (2050 target) Hazard Zones (2050 target) Main urbanized areas < 100 (by Ward) SIERRA LEONE 100 - 500 Kilometers 500 - 1,000 0 1 2 4 Map no. 1,000 - 5,000 LIBERIA FT-0129 > 5,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town New England-Hill Cot Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Magazine Brookfields Foulah Town Brookefields-Red Pump Susan's Bay Kroo Town 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tower Hill Albert Academy Bombay Kossoh Town Mount Aureol Ginger Hall 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 17. Connaught Hospital 27. Quarry 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 18. Sanders Brook 28. Fourah Bay 9. Murray Town 19. Brookfields-Congo Market 29. Cline Town 10. Wilberforce 20. New England-Hanneson White Destruction 30. Mountain Regent Man's Kroo Bay 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Bay Bay 17 32. Kissy Brook Kingtom 29 33. Kissy Brook 15 11 34. Grass Field 9 24 35. Mamba Ridge II 23 28 36. Lowcost Housing Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 3 13 26 18 25 16 21 27 937500 30 Kissy Bye Pass I 8 4 31 22 Kissy Bye Pass II 38. George Brook (Dworzack) 12 C1 10 5 14 19 Sorie Town 32 33 35 36 34 39. Mamba Ridge I 40. Kissy Mess Mess 41. Jalloh Terrace 42. Kuntolor Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 20 Leicester 37 43 39 40 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 Hill Station 2 38 C3 C4 44 Leone River C2 C5 42 935000 Lumley 45 Thunderhill Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Bottom Oku 41 Juba/Kaningo C13 Congo Water II Old Warf SIERRA LEONE Regent C6 Industrial Estate 6 C12 Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Pamuronko Gbendembu Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte C7 927500 C10 Hamilton Hastings Village Area C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Indicative DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Locations of Proposed # * ! Indicative locations of proposed flood warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Flood Warning Signage Additional information Catchments SIERRA LEONE 100 year flood extent Kilometers Primary road (yellow 100 year flood extent line) 0 1 2 4 (estimated 2050) Map no. LIBERIA FT-0130 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Wilberforce Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Kissy Brook C1 C2 Leicester C3 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen C4 10 Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo C13 Regent Goderich-Funkia C12 932500 Gbendembu C7 Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 930000 Hamilton Charlotte C10 C10 Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed flood warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Flood Warning Signage Additional information Catchments 100 year flood extent Kilometers Primary road (yellow 100 year flood extent line) 0 0.5 1 2 (estimated 2050) Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0131 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra C5 Rokupa Leone River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst C6 Pamuronko Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 C7 Hastings Village Area C8 C7 Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed flood warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Flood Warning Signage Additional information Catchments 100 year flood extent Kilometers Primary road (yellow 100 year flood extent line) 0 0.5 1 2 (estimated 2050) Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0132 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! C12 Regent Gbendembu C13 Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst C7 C11 930000 Charlotte 927500 C10 Hamilton C9 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed flood warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Flood Warning Signage Additional information Catchments 100 year flood extent Kilometers Primary road (yellow 100 year flood extent line) 0 0.5 1 2 (estimated 2050) Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0133 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Flood Warning Signage 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte C7 927500 Hastings Village Area C8 925000 Hamilton C9 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed flood warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Flood Warning Signage Additional information Catchments 100 year flood extent Kilometers Primary road (yellow 100 year flood extent line) 0 0.5 1 2 (estimated 2050) Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0134 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town New England-Hill Cot Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Magazine Brookfields Foulah Town Brookefields-Red Pump Susan's Bay Kroo Town 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tower Hill Albert Academy Bombay Kossoh Town Mount Aureol Ginger Hall 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 17. Connaught Hospital 27. Quarry 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 18. Sanders Brook 28. Fourah Bay 9. Murray Town 19. Brookfields-Congo Market 29. Cline Town 10. Wilberforce 20. New England-Hanneson White Destruction 30. Mountain Regent Man's Kroo Bay 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Bay Bay 17 32. Kissy Brook Kingtom 29 33. Kissy Brook 15 11 34. Grass Field 9 24 35. Mamba Ridge II 23 28 36. Lowcost Housing Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 3 13 26 18 25 16 21 27 937500 30 Kissy Bye Pass I 8 4 31 22 Kissy Bye Pass II 38. George Brook (Dworzack) 12 C1 10 5 14 19 Sorie Town 32 33 35 36 34 39. Mamba Ridge I 40. Kissy Mess Mess 41. Jalloh Terrace 42. Kuntolor Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 20 Leicester 37 43 39 40 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 Hill Station 2 38 C3 C4 44 Leone River C2 C5 42 935000 Lumley 45 Thunderhill Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Bottom Oku 41 Juba/Kaningo C13 Congo Water II Old Warf SIERRA LEONE Regent C6 Industrial Estate 6 C12 Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Pamuronko Gbendembu Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte C7 927500 C10 Hamilton Hastings Village Area C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Indicative DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Locations of Proposed # * ! Indicative locations of proposed landslide warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Landslide Warning Signage Modelled return period affected by a landslide Catchments SIERRA LEONE Kilometers > 5,000 year Main watercourses 0 1 2 4 5,000 - 2,000 year Primary road (yellow Map no. line) LIBERIA FT-0135 < 2,000 year Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Wilberforce Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Kissy Brook C1 C2 Leicester C3 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen C4 10 Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo C13 Regent Goderich-Funkia C12 932500 Gbendembu C7 Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 930000 Hamilton Charlotte C10 C10 Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed landslide warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Landslide Warning Signage Modelled return period affected by a landslide Catchments Kilometers > 5,000 year Main watercourses 0 0.5 1 2 5,000 - 2,000 year Primary road (yellow Map no. line) AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0136 < 2,000 year Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra C5 Rokupa Leone River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst C6 Pamuronko Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 C7 Hastings Village Area C8 C7 Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed landslide warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Landslide Warning Signage Modelled return period affected by a landslide Catchments Kilometers > 5,000 year Main watercourses 0 0.5 1 2 5,000 - 2,000 year Primary road (yellow Map no. line) AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0137 < 2,000 year Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! C12 Regent Gbendembu C13 Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst C7 C11 930000 Charlotte 927500 C10 Hamilton C9 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed landslide warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Landslide Warning Signage Modelled return period affected by a landslide Catchments Kilometers > 5,000 year Main watercourses 0 0.5 1 2 5,000 - 2,000 year Primary road (yellow Map no. line) AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0138 < 2,000 year Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Indicative Locations of Proposed Landslide Warning Signage 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte C7 927500 Hastings Village Area C8 925000 Hamilton C9 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative Locations of # * ! Indicative locations of proposed landslide warning signage Wards Main urbanized areas accompanying report (Volume 2). Proposed Landslide Warning Signage Modelled return period affected by a landslide Catchments Kilometers > 5,000 year Main watercourses 0 0.5 1 2 5,000 - 2,000 year Primary road (yellow Map no. line) AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0139 < 2,000 year Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re-vegetation 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town New England-Hill Cot Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Magazine Brookfields Foulah Town Brookefields-Red Pump Susan's Bay Kroo Town 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tower Hill Albert Academy Bombay Kossoh Town Mount Aureol Ginger Hall 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 17. Connaught Hospital 27. Quarry 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 18. Sanders Brook 28. Fourah Bay 9. Murray Town 19. Brookfields-Congo Market 29. Cline Town 10. Wilberforce 20. New England-Hanneson White Destruction 30. Mountain Regent Man's Kroo Bay 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Bay Bay 17 32. Kissy Brook Kingtom 29 33. Kissy Brook 15 11 34. Grass Field 9 24 35. Mamba Ridge II 23 28 36. Lowcost Housing Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 3 13 26 18 25 16 21 27 937500 30 Kissy Bye Pass I 8 4 31 22 Kissy Bye Pass II 38. George Brook (Dworzack) 12 C1 10 5 14 19 Sorie Town 32 33 35 36 34 39. Mamba Ridge I 40. Kissy Mess Mess 41. Jalloh Terrace 42. Kuntolor Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 20 Leicester 37 43 39 40 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 Hill Station 2 38 C3 C4 44 Leone River C2 C5 42 935000 Lumley 45 Thunderhill Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Bottom Oku 41 Juba/Kaningo C13 Congo Water II Old Warf SIERRA LEONE Regent C6 Industrial Estate 6 C12 Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Pamuronko Gbendembu Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte C7 927500 C10 Hamilton Hastings Village Area C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Indicative Areas DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative location for Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). for Catchment re-vegetation of the Reforestation and natural channel Main urbanized areas Floodplain Re-vegetation Indicative areas for reforesting steep Catchments SIERRA LEONE slopes Kilometers Primary road (yellow Indicative areas for line) 0 1 2 4 reforesting upper Map no. catchments LIBERIA FT-0140 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re-vegetation 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Wilberforce Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Kissy Brook C1 C2 Leicester C3 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen C4 10 Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo C13 Regent Goderich-Funkia C12 932500 Gbendembu C7 Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 930000 Hamilton Charlotte C10 C10 Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative location for Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Areas for re-vegetation of the Catchment Reforestation natural channel Main urbanized areas and Floodplain Re- Indicative areas for reforesting steep Catchments vegetation slopes Kilometers Primary road (yellow Indicative areas for line) 0 0.5 1 2 reforesting upper Map no. catchments AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0141 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re-vegetation 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra C5 Rokupa Leone River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst C6 Pamuronko Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 C7 Hastings Village Area C8 C7 Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative location for Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Areas for re-vegetation of the Catchment Reforestation natural channel Main urbanized areas and Floodplain Re- Indicative areas for reforesting steep Catchments vegetation slopes Kilometers Primary road (yellow Indicative areas for line) 0 0.5 1 2 reforesting upper Map no. catchments AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0142 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re-vegetation 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! C12 Regent Gbendembu C13 Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst C7 C11 930000 Charlotte 927500 C10 Hamilton C9 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative location for Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Areas for re-vegetation of the Catchment Reforestation natural channel Main urbanized areas and Floodplain Re- Indicative areas for reforesting steep Catchments vegetation slopes Kilometers Primary road (yellow Indicative areas for line) 0 0.5 1 2 reforesting upper Map no. catchments AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0143 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Reforestation and Floodplain Re-vegetation 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte C7 927500 Hastings Village Area C8 925000 Hamilton C9 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Indicative location for Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Areas for re-vegetation of the Catchment Reforestation natural channel Main urbanized areas and Floodplain Re- Indicative areas for reforesting steep Catchments vegetation slopes Kilometers Primary road (yellow Indicative areas for line) 0 0.5 1 2 reforesting upper Map no. catchments AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0144 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Rehabilitation and Further Investigation 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town New England-Hill Cot Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Magazine Brookfields Foulah Town Brookefields-Red Pump Susan's Bay Kroo Town 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tower Hill Albert Academy Bombay Kossoh Town Mount Aureol Ginger Hall 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 17. Connaught Hospital 27. Quarry 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 18. Sanders Brook 28. Fourah Bay 9. Murray Town 19. Brookfields-Congo Market 29. Cline Town 10. Wilberforce 20. New England-Hanneson White Destruction 30. Mountain Regent Man's Kroo Bay 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner Bay Bay 17 32. Kissy Brook Kingtom 29 33. Kissy Brook 15 11 34. Grass Field 9 24 35. Mamba Ridge II 23 28 36. Lowcost Housing Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 37. Kissy Mental 3 13 26 18 25 16 21 27 937500 30 Kissy Bye Pass I 8 4 31 22 Kissy Bye Pass II 38. George Brook (Dworzack) 12 C1 10 5 14 19 Sorie Town 32 33 35 36 34 39. Mamba Ridge I 40. Kissy Mess Mess 41. Jalloh Terrace 42. Kuntolor Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 20 Leicester 37 43 39 40 Sierra Cockerill Bay 7 Hill Station 2 38 C3 C4 44 Leone River C2 C5 42 935000 Lumley 45 Thunderhill Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Bottom Oku 41 Juba/Kaningo C13 Congo Water II Old Warf SIERRA LEONE Regent C6 Industrial Estate 6 C12 Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Pamuronko Gbendembu Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte C7 927500 C10 Hamilton Hastings Village Area C8 925000 C9 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Indicative Areas DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Engineered green Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). for Catchment channels Rehabilitation and Further Indicative location for Main urbanized areas Investigation delta rehabilitation (including engineered Catchments SIERRA LEONE concrete channels) Kilometers Main watercourses Indicative locations for 0 1 2 4 flood attenuation Primary road (yellow Map no. ponds line) LIBERIA FT-0145 Indicative location for further investigation Client Indicative location for The World Bank proposed Regent- Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lumley Memorial Trail Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Rehabilitation and Further Investigation 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Wilberforce Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Kissy Brook C1 C2 Leicester C3 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen C4 10 Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo C13 Regent Goderich-Funkia C12 932500 Gbendembu C7 Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET C11 930000 Hamilton Charlotte C10 C10 Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Engineered green Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Areas for channels Catchment Rehabilitation Indicative location for Main urbanized areas and Further Investigation delta rehabilitation (including engineered Catchments concrete channels) Kilometers Main watercourses Indicative locations for 0 0.5 1 2 flood attenuation Primary road (yellow Map no. ponds line) AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0146 Indicative location for further investigation Client Indicative location for The World Bank proposed Regent- Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lumley Memorial Trail Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Indicative Areas for Catchment Rehabilitation and Further Investigation 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra C5 Rokupa Leone River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst C6 Pamuronko Robis 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 C7 Hastings Village Area C8 C7 Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the Engineered green Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Areas for channels Catchment Rehabilitation Indicative location for Main urbanized areas and Further Investigation delta rehabilitation (including engineered Catchments concrete channels) Kilometers Main watercourses Indicative locations for 0 0.5 1 2 flood attenuation Primary road (yellow Map no. ponds line) AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0147 Indicative location for further investigation Client Indicative location for The World Bank proposed Regent- Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Lumley Memorial Trail Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 710000 ° ! 942500 18. Susan's Bay 19. Tower Hill 20. Magazine 1. Kroo Town 21. Albert Academy 2. Ascension Town 22. Mountain Regent 3. Brookfields 23. Foulah Town 4. Murray Town 24. Mount Aureol 5. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 25. Cline Town 6. Cockerill-Aberdeen 11. Brookefields-Red Pump 7. Goderich-Funkia 12. New England-Hill Cot 8. Tengbeh Town 13. Sanders Brook 14. Connaught Hospital 940000 9. Pipeline-Wilkinson 10. Wilberforce 15. Brookfields-Congo Market 16. New England-Hanneson 26. Kossoh Town 17. George Brook (Dworzack) 27. Bombay 28. Ginger Hall 29. Fourah Bay 4 30. Quarry Aberdeen 31. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 25 32. Kissy Brook 14 18 20 26 Kingtom 27 29 33. Sorie Town 19 23 28 34. Kissy Brook 5 2 1 30 35. Mamba Ridge I 13 24 36. Kissy Bye Pass II 937500 3 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 37. Mamba Ridge II 9 31 38. Lowcost Housing 21 36 39. Kissy Mental 15 40. Shell 8 35 41. Grass Field 11 34 17 32 33 37 38 Leicester 41 12 10 42. Portee 16 39 40 42 43 43. Kissy Mess Mess 44. Rokupa 6 44 45. Kuntolor 46. Jalloh Terrace Hill Station 45 47. Congo Water I 935000 Thunderhill 48. Bottom Oku Lumley 47 Gloucester 46 48 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 7 932500 Gbendembu Robis Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE 917500 Legend Additional information GUINEA Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed Freetown | Indicative DRR measures for Freetown is available in the No mitigation measure Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Coastal DRR Measures recommended Main urbanized areas Soft engineering measures Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE recommended Kilometers Primary road (yellow Soft and hard line) 0 1 2 4 engineering measures Map no. recommended LIBERIA FT-0148 2050 scenario upper estimate coastal inundation Client (sea-level rise and coastal The World Bank recession) Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Estimated affected Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and area 1:90,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the No mitigation measure Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Coastal DRR recommended Measures Main urbanized areas Soft engineering measures Main watercourses recommended Kilometers Primary road (yellow Soft and hard line) 0 0.5 1 2 engineering measures Map no. recommended AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0149 2050 scenario upper estimate coastal inundation Client (sea-level rise and coastal The World Bank recession) Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Estimated affected Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and area 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Rokupa Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the No mitigation measure Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Coastal DRR recommended Measures Main urbanized areas Soft engineering measures Main watercourses recommended Kilometers Primary road (yellow Soft and hard line) 0 0.5 1 2 engineering measures Map no. recommended AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0150 2050 scenario upper estimate coastal inundation Client (sea-level rise and coastal The World Bank recession) Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Estimated affected Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and area 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Indicative Coastal DRR Measures 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title DRR measures General map labels Additional information and a full description of proposed L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | DRR measures for Freetown is available in the No mitigation measure Wards accompanying report (Volume 2). Indicative Coastal DRR recommended Measures Main urbanized areas Soft engineering measures Main watercourses recommended Kilometers Primary road (yellow Soft and hard line) 0 0.5 1 2 engineering measures Map no. recommended AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0151 2050 scenario upper estimate coastal inundation Client (sea-level rise and coastal The World Bank recession) Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Estimated affected Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and area 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Gridded modelled General map labels Population data for this project is taken from the 2015 Sierra Freetown | Gridded Leone Census (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). This census population (people/sq. Wards information is available disaggregated to Chiefdom level Modelled Population km) only. It was necessary to statistically model the sub- < 1,000 Main urbanized areas Chiefdom level distribution of the population. This was done using the built environment density as a proxy. The 1,000 - 5,000 Main watercourses methodology for distributing population across the city is SIERRA LEONE described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Primary road (yellow Kilometers 5,000 - 10,000 line) 0 1 2 4 10,000 - 25,000 Map no. LIBERIA FT-0152 > 25,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled General map labels Population data for this project is taken from the 2015 Sierra L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | Leone Census (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). This census population (people/sq. Wards information is available disaggregated to Chiefdom level Gridded Modelled km) only. It was necessary to statistically model the sub- Population < 1,000 Main urbanized areas Chiefdom level distribution of the population. This was done using the built environment density as a proxy. The 1,000 - 5,000 Main watercourses methodology for distributing population across the city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Primary road (yellow Kilometers 5,000 - 10,000 line) 0 0.5 1 2 10,000 - 25,000 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0153 > 25,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled General map labels Population data for this project is taken from the 2015 Sierra L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | Leone Census (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). This census population (people/sq. Wards information is available disaggregated to Chiefdom level Gridded Modelled km) only. It was necessary to statistically model the sub- Population < 1,000 Main urbanized areas Chiefdom level distribution of the population. This was done using the built environment density as a proxy. The 1,000 - 5,000 Main watercourses methodology for distributing population across the city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Primary road (yellow Kilometers 5,000 - 10,000 line) 0 0.5 1 2 10,000 - 25,000 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0154 > 25,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled General map labels Population data for this project is taken from the 2015 Sierra L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | Leone Census (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). This census population (people/sq. Wards information is available disaggregated to Chiefdom level Gridded Modelled km) only. It was necessary to statistically model the sub- Population < 1,000 Main urbanized areas Chiefdom level distribution of the population. This was done using the built environment density as a proxy. The 1,000 - 5,000 Main watercourses methodology for distributing population across the city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Primary road (yellow Kilometers 5,000 - 10,000 line) 0 0.5 1 2 10,000 - 25,000 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0155 > 25,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Population 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled General map labels Population data for this project is taken from the 2015 Sierra L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | Leone Census (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2016). This census population (people/sq. Wards information is available disaggregated to Chiefdom level Gridded Modelled km) only. It was necessary to statistically model the sub- Population < 1,000 Main urbanized areas Chiefdom level distribution of the population. This was done using the built environment density as a proxy. The 1,000 - 5,000 Main watercourses methodology for distributing population across the city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Primary road (yellow Kilometers 5,000 - 10,000 line) 0 0.5 1 2 10,000 - 25,000 Map no. AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0156 > 25,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Gridded modelled building General map labels Buildings location data for this project have been sourced Freetown | Gridded from OpenStreetMap (OSM, www.openstreetmap.org). The value (USD/sq. km) Wards methodology for the development of the building exposure Modelled Building Value < $50,000,000 model is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Main urbanized areas $50,000,000 - Information on the replacement value of buildings is $100,000,000 Main watercourses summarized in the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). Values SIERRA LEONE presented here are the gridded sum of building value per $100,000.000 - Primary road (yellow 30m grid square based on the average building value Kilometers $250,000,000 line) estimate. Further details are included in the accompanying 0 1 2 4 $250,000,000 - Volume 1 Report. Map no. $500,000,000 LIBERIA FT-0157 > $500,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled building General map labels Buildings location data for this project have been sourced L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | from OpenStreetMap (OSM, www.openstreetmap.org). The value (USD/sq. km) Wards methodology for the development of the building exposure Gridded Modelled Building < $50,000,000 model is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Value Main urbanized areas $50,000,000 - Information on the replacement value of buildings is $100,000,000 Main watercourses summarized in the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). Values presented here are the gridded sum of building value per $100,000.000 - Primary road (yellow Kilometers 30m grid square based on the average building value $250,000,000 line) estimate. Further details are included in the accompanying 0 0.5 1 2 $250,000,000 - Volume 1 Report. Map no. $500,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0158 > $500,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled building General map labels Buildings location data for this project have been sourced L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | from OpenStreetMap (OSM, www.openstreetmap.org). The value (USD/sq. km) Wards methodology for the development of the building exposure Gridded Modelled Building < $50,000,000 model is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Value Main urbanized areas $50,000,000 - Information on the replacement value of buildings is $100,000,000 Main watercourses summarized in the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). Values presented here are the gridded sum of building value per $100,000.000 - Primary road (yellow Kilometers 30m grid square based on the average building value $250,000,000 line) estimate. Further details are included in the accompanying 0 0.5 1 2 $250,000,000 - Volume 1 Report. Map no. $500,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0159 > $500,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled building General map labels Buildings location data for this project have been sourced L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | from OpenStreetMap (OSM, www.openstreetmap.org). The value (USD/sq. km) Wards methodology for the development of the building exposure Gridded Modelled Building < $50,000,000 model is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Value Main urbanized areas $50,000,000 - Information on the replacement value of buildings is $100,000,000 Main watercourses summarized in the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). Values presented here are the gridded sum of building value per $100,000.000 - Primary road (yellow Kilometers 30m grid square based on the average building value $250,000,000 line) estimate. Further details are included in the accompanying 0 0.5 1 2 $250,000,000 - Volume 1 Report. Map no. $500,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0160 > $500,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Building Value 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled building General map labels Buildings location data for this project have been sourced L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | from OpenStreetMap (OSM, www.openstreetmap.org). The value (USD/sq. km) Wards methodology for the development of the building exposure Gridded Modelled Building < $50,000,000 model is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. Value Main urbanized areas $50,000,000 - Information on the replacement value of buildings is $100,000,000 Main watercourses summarized in the DaLA Report (World Bank, 2017). Values presented here are the gridded sum of building value per $100,000.000 - Primary road (yellow Kilometers 30m grid square based on the average building value $250,000,000 line) estimate. Further details are included in the accompanying 0 0.5 1 2 $250,000,000 - Volume 1 Report. Map no. $500,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0161 > $500,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title Gridded modelled road General map labels OpenStreetMap is the primary source of information about Freetown | Gridded the location and nature of roads for this study. The Global value (USD/sq. km) Wards Roads Open Access Data Set (gROADS) was also Modelled Road Value < $500,000 consulted, however was found to be less complete than the Main urbanized areas OSM roads dataset. The one freight-only railway in Sierra $500,000 - Leone is not considered by this study. $1,000,000 Main watercourses SIERRA LEONE The methodology for assigning value to roads across the $1,000,000 - Kilometers city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. $2,500,000 0 1 2 4 $2,500,000 - Map no. $5,000,000 LIBERIA FT-0162 > $5,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled road General map labels OpenStreetMap is the primary source of information about L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | the location and nature of roads for this study. The Global value (USD/sq. km) Wards Roads Open Access Data Set (gROADS) was also Gridded Modelled Road < $500,000 consulted, however was found to be less complete than the Value Main urbanized areas OSM roads dataset. The one freight-only railway in Sierra $500,000 - Leone is not considered by this study. $1,000,000 Main watercourses The methodology for assigning value to roads across the $1,000,000 - Kilometers city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. $2,500,000 0 0.5 1 2 $2,500,000 - Map no. $5,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0163 > $5,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 940000 Cline Bay Kissy Bye Pass I 937500 Kissy Bye Pass II Lowcost Housing Mamba Ridge II Shell Grass Field Portee Kissy Mess Mess Jalloh Terrace Sierra Leone Rokupa River Thunderhill 935000 Congo Water I Kuntolor Bottom Oku Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Old Warf Industrial Estate Bathurst Robis Pamuronko 932500 Mayenkineh Allen Town I Allen Town II Charlotte 930000 Hastings Village Area Hastings Village Area Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled road General map labels OpenStreetMap is the primary source of information about L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northeast Freetown | the location and nature of roads for this study. The Global value (USD/sq. km) Wards Roads Open Access Data Set (gROADS) was also Gridded Modelled Road < $500,000 consulted, however was found to be less complete than the Value Main urbanized areas OSM roads dataset. The one freight-only railway in Sierra $500,000 - Leone is not considered by this study. $1,000,000 Main watercourses The methodology for assigning value to roads across the $1,000,000 - Kilometers city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. $2,500,000 0 0.5 1 2 $2,500,000 - Map no. $5,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0164 > $5,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southwest Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! Gbendembu Regent Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled road General map labels OpenStreetMap is the primary source of information about L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southwest Freetown | the location and nature of roads for this study. The Global value (USD/sq. km) Wards Roads Open Access Data Set (gROADS) was also Gridded Modelled Road < $500,000 consulted, however was found to be less complete than the Value Main urbanized areas OSM roads dataset. The one freight-only railway in Sierra $500,000 - Leone is not considered by this study. $1,000,000 Main watercourses The methodology for assigning value to roads across the $1,000,000 - Kilometers city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. $2,500,000 0 0.5 1 2 $2,500,000 - Map no. $5,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0165 > $5,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Southeast Freetown | Gridded Modelled Road Value 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 930000 Allen Town II Charlotte 927500 Hastings Village Area 925000 Hamilton 922500 York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information Title Gridded modelled road General map labels OpenStreetMap is the primary source of information about L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Southeast Freetown | the location and nature of roads for this study. The Global value (USD/sq. km) Wards Roads Open Access Data Set (gROADS) was also Gridded Modelled Road < $500,000 consulted, however was found to be less complete than the Value Main urbanized areas OSM roads dataset. The one freight-only railway in Sierra $500,000 - Leone is not considered by this study. $1,000,000 Main watercourses The methodology for assigning value to roads across the $1,000,000 - Kilometers city is described in the accompanying Volume 1 Report. $2,500,000 0 0.5 1 2 $2,500,000 - Map no. $5,000,000 AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0166 > $5,000,000 Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Freetown | Coastal Erosion and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 690000 692500 695000 697500 700000 702500 705000 707500 ° ! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ascension Town Brookfields Cockle-Bay/Collegiate Congo Town Tengbeh Town Goderich-Funkia 11. 12. 13. 14. Magazine Brookefields-Red Pump New England-Hill Cot Susan's Bay 20. 21. 22. 23. Tower Hill Albert Academy Mountain Regent Kossoh Town 7. Cockerill-Aberdeen 15. Kroo Town 24. Mamba Ridge II 16. Connaught Hospital 25. Bombay 940000 8. Pipeline-Wilkinson 17. Sanders Brook 26. Foulah Town 9. Murray Town 18. Brookfields-Congo Market 27. Mount Aureol 10. Wilberforce 19. New England-Hanneson 28. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner White Destruction 29. Ginger Hall Man's Kroo Bay 30. Cline Town Bay Bay 16 31. Quarry Kingtom 30 32. Kissy Brook 14 11 33. Fourah Bay 9 23 34. Kissy Brook 25 33 Aberdeen 1 Cline Bay 3 26 29 35. Grass Field 17 27 36. George Brook (Dworzack) 15 20 31 37. Kissy Mental 937500 22 Kissy Bye Pass I 38. Lowcost Housing 8 4 28 39. Kuntolor 2 21 Kissy Bye Pass II 40. Kissy Mess Mess 5 18 10 12 Sorie Town 34 41. Mamba Ridge I 32 42. Jalloh Terrace 24 38 35 Shell 43. Portee 44. Rokupa 45. Congo Water I 19 Leicester 37 43 41 40 13 Sierra Cockerill Bay 44 Leone 7 36 River Hill Station 39 935000 Lumley Thunderhill 45 Gloucester Bottom Oku 42 Malama/Kamayama Congo Water II SIERRA LEONE Juba/Kaningo Old Warf Regent Industrial Estate 6 Robis 932500 Gbendembu Mayenkineh Pamuronko Bathurst Allen Town I Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Allen Town II 930000 Charlotte 927500 Hamilton Hastings Village Area 925000 922500 AT L A N T I C O C E A N York 920000 SIERRA LEONE Legend Additional information GUINEA Title 2050 scenario sea- General map labels Freetown | Coastal Erosion level rise estimated Wards and Sea-Level Rise Hazard inundation (2050 Scenario) Lower estimate Main urbanized areas Upper estimate Primary road (yellow SIERRA LEONE line) Kilometers 2050 scenario coastal erosion estimate 0 1 2 4 Map no. Lower estimate LIBERIA FT-0167 Upper estimate Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:80,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup Northwest Freetown | Coastal Erosion and Sea-Level Rise Hazard (2050 Scenario) 687500 690000 692500 695000 697500 ° ! 7. Mountain Regent 940000 8. Albert Academy 9. Foulah Town 10. Mamba Ridge II 11. Mamba Ridge I 12. Mount Aureol 1. Cockle-Bay/Collegiate 13. Kissy Brook 2. Connaught Hospital 14. Coconut Farm/Ashobi Corner 3. Sanders Brook 4. Brookfields-Congo Market 5. New England-Hanneson Destruction White 6. Brookefields-Red Pump Bay Man's Bay Kroo Bay Murray Town Kingtom Magazine Fourah Bay Susan's Bay Kossoh Town Cline Town 2 Bombay Aberdeen 7 Ginger Hall 1 Ascension Town Kroo Town Tower Hill 9 Kissy Bye Pass I Congo Town Quarry 12 3 937500 Brookfields 8 4 14 Pipeline-Wilkinson Sorie Town 6 Tengbeh Town 13 Wilberforce Kissy Brook Leicester 11 5 New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) 10 Cockerill Bay Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley 935000 Gloucester Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo Regent Goderich-Funkia 932500 Gbendembu Bathurst Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET 930000 Hamilton Charlotte Legend Additional information Title 2050 scenario sea- General map labels L u n g i In t e r n a ti o n a l A i r p o r t! Northwest Freetown | level rise estimated Wards Coastal Erosion and Sea- inundation Level Rise Hazard (2050 Lower estimate Main urbanized areas Scenario) Upper estimate Primary road (yellow line) Kilometers 2050 scenario coastal erosion estimate 0 0.5 1 2 Map no. Lower estimate AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT-0168 Upper estimate Client The World Bank Job Title Scale at A3 Coordinate System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:40,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I2 2018-09-10 PGR AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup DRR Options - Regent-Lumley Catchment 690000 692500 695000 ° ! Tengbeh Town Brookefields-Red Pump Sorie Town Pipeline-Wilkinson Wilberforce Aberdeen New England-Hill Cot George Brook (Dworzack) Cockerill-Aberdeen Hill Station Lumley # * ! Leicester 935000 # * ! # * ! # * ! # * ! # * ! Malama/Kamayama Juba/Kaningo # * ! # * ! Regent C13 # * ! 932500 Gbendembu Goderich-Adonkia/MMCET Bathurst Hamilton 930000 Legend Additional information Title DRR Options - Regent- # *! Indicative locations of proposed flood warning signage Combined Hazard Zones Combined Hazard Zones Lu n g i I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t! Lumley Catchment # *! Indicative locations of proposed landslide warning signage Combined Hazard Zones (year 2050) General map labels Engineered green Kilometers channels Wards 0 0.25 0.5 1 Indicative areas for Main urbanized areas reforesting upper Map no. catchments AT L A N T I C O C E A N FT_0167 FT-0169 Indicative areas for Client reforesting steep The World Bank slopes Job Title Scale Scale at at A3 A3 Coordinate System System Sierra Leone Multi-City Hazard and 1:25,000 1:40,000 1:25,000 WGS 1984 UTM Zone 28N Risk Assessment Issue Date Date By Chkd Appd Job No Map Status I1 I2 2018-09-10 PGR 2018-09-07 AM MF 252746-00 Issue © Arup