1 / 52

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

This project focuses on developing hazard and risk maps to assist in spatial planning response for natural and technological hazards, including climate change effects. It aims to provide policy recommendations based on hazard typologies and vulnerability, enhancing risk management practices across European regions. Project partners include organizations such as the Geological Survey of Finland and the Institute of Ecological and Regional Development. The project identifies and maps various hazards like earthquakes, floods, forest fires, and technological risks such as nuclear power plants and chemical production facilities. It employs the Delphi method for risk assessment and weighting of hazards to create aggregated hazard and risk maps, aiding in understanding dimensions of vulnerability and risk perception. The project also outlines policy recommendations at EU, national, and transnational levels to integrate risk mitigation principles into cohesion policies and funding mechanisms.

happel
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Application of hazard and risk maps in structural fundsPhilipp 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. Degree of vulnerability/hazards Intensity of hazard I II III IV V I 2 3 4 5 6 II 3 4 5 6 7 III 4 5 6 7 8 IV 5 6 7 8 9 V 6 7 8 9 10 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

More Related