INSPIRE Annexes II & III Natural Risk Zones

Séminaire de premier contact avec les projets de spécification des thèmes des annexes II & III INSPIRE Annexes II & III Natural Risk Zones

Plan • The NZ team • Presentation of the theme • Input documents • Use cases • Philosophy and choicesthat have been made • Presentation of the model • Evolutions prévues du modèle

Introduction of the team • Venco Bojilov – Bulgarie • Raquel Canet Castella – Espagne • Otakar Cerba – Rep. Tchèque • Giorgios Exadaktylos – Grèce • Cristiano Giovando – Italie • Matthew Harrison – Royaume-Uni (F) • Miguel Isidro Llorente – Espagne • Manuela Pfeiffer – Allemagne • Robert Tomas – JRC (contact point) • Florian Thomas – France (E)

Steps • Analysis of input documents • Production of use cases • « Flood » • « Landslide » • « Forest fire» • « Earthquake » • Setup of the model

Presentation of the theme • Definition : « Vulnerable areas characterised according to natural hazards (all atmospheric, hydrologic, seismic, volcanic and wildfire phenomena that, because of their location, severity, and frequency, have the potential to seriously affect society), e.g. floods, landslides and subsidence, avalanches, forest fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions. »

Presentation of the theme • Riskisdefined as such : Risk = hazard * probability of its occurrence * vulnerability of the exposed populations and of the environmental, cultural and economic assets in the zone considered. • Naturalrisk: • No technologicalrisk

Risk zone Hazard area Vulnerable topographical features Presentation of the theme • Overallphilosophy: « A risk zone is the spatial intersection of a hazard area withtopographicalfeatures or a zone deemedvulnerable to thishazard » Vuln. zone

Input documents • 32 reference documents de référence, 2 french documents: • ‘Elaboration d’une base de données géographique pour la cartographie des zones inondables / guide de numérisation des objets géographiques’ _ Direction de la Prévention des pollutions et des risques_Fevrier 2002 • Nomenclature des risques naturels et technologiques GASPAR • The Flood Directive • Works carried out by « Plan4All » • Le travail de la COVADIS : standard de données PPRT ou PPRN version 0.6 – octobre 2010 • Annex I : Hydrography TWG has defined a « InundatedLand » feat. class

Model v1 • 2 packages : • 1 generic package • 1 package dedicated to the flood risk • Target : • Design a generic model to all naturalrisks • Applythisgeneric model to the flood risk

Model v1: Generic package Hazard type • The model in a nutshell: « 3 feature classes plus a codelist » Risk zone Hazard area Vulnerable feature

Model v1: Generic package • Hazard Area: • Geometry : GM_MultiSurface • Hazard Type: • Hierarchised code list • Determinationmethod: modeling / observation • A level (e.g. « high » / « medium ») + a URI to the methodolgyemployed to set thislevel • links : • Internal : a hazardcanbe the combination of severalotherhazard •  Risk Zone •  Vulnerablefeature

Model v1: Generic package • Vulnerablefeature • Geometry : not specified • Anygeoreferencedfeaturecanbevulnerable • Origin of the geometry : modelling / observation • An association class withrisk zone • A level (e.g. « high » / « medium ») + a URI to the methodolgyemployed to set thislevel • Exposure value + a a URI to the methodolgyemployed to set this value • A vulnerablefeaturecan have following values for thoseattributesdepending on the risk zone

Model v1: Generic package • Risk zone: • Geometry : GM_MultiSurface • Origin of the geometry : modelling / observation • A level (e.g. « high » / « medium ») + a URI to the methodolgyemployed to set thislevel • A risk type • Links : •  Hazard area (min. 1) •  Vulnfeature(min. 1) • To the theme « environmental monitoring facility»

Model v1: Generic package • List of hazards • There is no standard for a list of hazard • The listispotentiallyinfinite • UML does not model hierarchy in codelists • Envisaged solution: • Values that are concatenedwith the mother value • Ex : « Climate / draught » • The value istakenboth for the risk and the hazard

Model v1 : Flood Package • « Whyfloods and no otherhazard? » • Flood Directive 2007/60/CE • Overallidea: • Take the generic model, eventuallyspecializeit, to makehimmeet Flood Directive’srequirements • Use the navigability of the links to avoidredundances, and the constraints to ensure the coherence of the model

Model v1 : Flood Package Flood hazard map Hazard area Potential flooded area Flood risk map Risk zone Inundated Land (Ann I Hydrographie) Preliminary flood risk assessment Vulnerable feature

Model v1 : Flood Package • New classes compared to the generic package : • « Potentialflooded area » : specializedfrom « hazard area » • Flood hazardmap • Flood riskmap • Preliminary flood riskassessment • « inundated land » : specializedfrom « hazard area » • Some concepts : • The « potential adverse consequences » are « vulnerablefeatures » • The « flood hazardmaps » must contain 3 flood scenarios  theycontain 3 featuresfrom the « Potentialflooded area » feat. class

Model v1 : Flood Package • New associations: • Flood hazardmap  flood riskmap • flood riskmap vulnerablefeature • Preliminary Flood Riskassessment vulnerablefeature • New constraints • « the potentialflooded areas that are on a flood hazardmap are linked to the risk zones that are on the flood riskmap (whichitselfislinked to the same flood hazardmap ) • « The vulnerablefeaturesthat are associated to a riskmap are alsoassociated to the risk zones that are on the riskmap »

Model v1 • NZ and otherthemes Hazard modelling Vulenrability modelling Land use Buildings Utilities / public services Hydrology Stat. Units / Pop. distribution Administrative boundaries Geology Elevation Parallel Natural risk zones Environmental monitoring facilities Consequences on land use planning Land use Area management

Model v1 • NZ and otherthemes • Hazard / Risk / Vulenrabilitymodelling • Review of the specs (in order to ensurethat the modellerwillfind the required data for the job) • No association linkmodelled • Parallel • Risk zones are monitored • Review of the specs • An association linkis to bemodelled • Consequences on land use : • Review of the specs (to ensurethateach TWG isclearlybordered) • No association linkmodelled

Comingevolutions • Geometry of risk zones / coverages model a geometricprimitivthatalsoencompassescoverages • For instance, onlyvector data are modelled • Eventually, make a 3rd package dedicated to anotherrisk.

Questions

INSPIRE Annexes II & III Natural Risk Zones