Application of hazard and risk maps in structural funds Philipp SchmidtThom

1
Application of hazard and risk maps in structural
funds Philipp Schmidt-Thomé
2
Contents

• Summarizing final results of ESPON 1.3.1
  Hazards
• Specification of spatially relevant hazards
• Set of developed hazard maps (15 hazards)
• Aggregated hazard and risk maps
• Climate change affecting natural hazards
• European Regions with specific hazard typologies
• Examples of policy recommendations
• Planning response towards natural and
  technological hazards

3
Project partners

• Geological Survey of Finland (GTK)
• Centre for Urban and Regional Studies /University
  of Helsinki (YTK/HUT)
• Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
  (SMHI)
• Comissão de Coordenação da Região Centro (CCRC) /
  Instituto Geológico e Mineiro (IGM)
• Institute Of Ecological And Regional Development
  (IÖR)
• Institute for Spatial Planning, University of
  Dortmund (IRPUD)

4
Primary goals of Espon1.3.1 Hazards (I)

• Spatial planning response
• To review the main components of natural and
  technological risk reduction and spatial planning
• To gather information of current risk management
  practices and good practice
• To document a spatial planning response to
  natural and technological hazard risk reduction
  and assist in future guidelines

5
Primary goals of Espon1.3.1 Hazards (II)

• Typologies of regions and vulnerability
• To compile a first typology of regions kinds of
  risks, their degree and management
• To develop a second typology of regions based on
  climate change
• To detect the relation of vulnerable areas to
  spatial typologies (e.g. Interreg areas)

6
Selection of spatially relevant hazards

• Probability of ocurrence (P)
• Extent of damage (E)
• Not all hazards (risks) are relevant for spatial
  planning application of a spatial filter
• Identified Hazard (risk) types are
• Damocles low P, very high E, both can be
  assessed with high certainty (e.g., nuclear power
  plant accidents)
• Cyclops P is unknown, E is high (natural
  disasters)

7
Natural hazards

• Avalanches
• Drought potential
• Earthquakes
• Extreme temperatures
• Floods
• Forest fires
• Landslides 
• Storm surges
• Tsunamis
• Volcanic activities
• Winter Storms

8
Technological hazards

• Air traffic
• Major accident hazards (chemical plants)
• Nuclear Power plants
• Oil transport, storage and handling

9
Avalanches
10
Precipitation deficit as potential drought
indication
11
Earthquakes I
12
Earthquakes II
13
Extreme temperatures
14
Floods I
15
Floods II
16
The making of the Forest fires map I
17
The making of the Forest fires map II
18
Resulting forest fire hazard map
19
Landslides
20
Storm surges
21
Tsunamis
22
Volcanic eruptions
23
Winter storms
24
Air traffic
25
Chemical production plants
26
Nuclear Power Plants
27
Oil transport, storage and handling
28
Assessing risk / risk perception
29
Weighting of hazards the Delphi method
30
Delphi method and implemented INTERREG projects
31
Aggregated natural hazards
32
Aggregated technological hazards
33
Aggregated hazards map
34
Indicators of risk / dimensions of vulnerability
35
Vulnerability concept
36
Vulnerability map
37
Risk in 9 classes
 
38
Risk in 9 classes / different colour shades
source of risk
39
Aggregated risk map
40
Weighting of hazards Portugal Centre region
41
Centre Portugal risk map
42
Change of dry spell affecting drought potential
43
Change in precipitation affecting flood potential
44
Length of dry spell affecting forest fires
45
Hazard interactions (of highest hazard degrees)
46
Hazard clusters flood and landslides
47
Hazard interactions in Interreg IIIB areas
48
Summary of selected policy recommendations

• I. Guiding principles
• Employ risk management as an integral and
  explicit part of EU cohesion policy. Improve
  coordination of policy measures at all spatial
  scales
• Integration of both substantial goals and
  procedural rules related to vulnerability
  reduction and risk mitigation into policies and
  programmes

49
Policy recommendations II

• II. EU-level instruments
• Coordination of the use of Structural Funds for
  risk management, by e.g. using criteria relevant
  to risk and vulnerability to guide and support
  funding through the Structural Fund objectives
• Ensuring the effective implementation of the
  strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
  directive integrating risk mitigation principles
  for planning into its implementation

50
Policy recommendations III

• III. Meso-level (national, transnational
  co-operation, Interreg)
• Recognition of the upgraded status of risk
  mitigation in the cohesion policy for the period
  2007-2013, including principles of vulnerability
  reduction and risk mitigation in the programme
  guidelines.
• Adoption of Strategic Environmental Assessment
  directive (2001/42/EC) by member states,
  preferably in a uniform fashion across Europe
• Enhancing the use of the Water Framework
  Directive (2000/60/EC) for integrating land use
  planning and water resources management in
  support of risk management (not only water
  quality) purposes

51
Planning response, example on risks

• Split up "risk" into the elements hazard
  potential, damage potential and coping capacity
• Framework for monitoring not only on risk but
  also for monitoring the elements of risk
• Monitor of hazards impact and the vulnerability
  (damage potential and coping capacity) of an
  area
• Risk monitoring as a major role in defining and
  deciding on actions like mitigation and reaction
  (preparedness, response, recovery)

52
Thank you very much for your attention!

• philipp.schmidt-thome_at_gtk.fi
• www.gtk.fi/projects/espon