Surveys in Geophysics

, 32:753

The Handling of Hazard Data on a National Scale: A Case Study from the British Geological Survey

Article

Abstract

This paper reviews how hazard data and geological map data have been combined by the British Geological Survey (BGS) to produce a set of GIS-based national-scale hazard susceptibility maps for the UK. This work has been carried out over the last 9 years and as such reflects the combined outputs of a large number of researchers at BGS. The paper details the inception of these datasets from the development of the seamless digital geological map in 2001 through to the deterministic 2D hazard models produced today. These datasets currently include landslides, shrink-swell, soluble rocks, compressible and collapsible deposits, groundwater flooding, geological indicators of flooding, radon potential and potentially harmful elements in soil. These models have been created using a combination of expert knowledge (from both within BGS and from outside bodies such as the Health Protection Agency), national databases (which contain data collected over the past 175 years), multi-criteria analysis within geographical information systems and a flexible rule-based approach for each individual geohazard. By using GIS in this way, it has been possible to model the distribution and degree of geohazards across the whole of Britain.

Keywords

Geohazards National models GIS Uncertainty Extremes 

References

  1. Aleotti P, Chowdhury R (1999) Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and new perspectives. Bull Eng Geol Environ 58:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen MA, Stott PA, Mitchell JFB, Schnur R, Delworth TL (2000) Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature 407:617–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anon (1990) Planning Policy Guidance 14: Development on Unstable Land. Department of the Environment, Welsh Office. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (1994) Planning policy guidance 14 (annex 1): development on unstable land: landslides and planning. Department of the Environment, Welsh Office, HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Appleton JD (2009) Development of geospatial data for concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Ni and Pb in UK soils. in British Geological Survey. Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal Report no. IR/09/077Google Scholar
  6. Appleton JD, Miles J (2003) Interim report on an integrated method for mapping radon prone areas. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/03/041R, p 38Google Scholar
  7. Appleton JD, Miles JCH (2010) Soil uranium, soil gas radon and indoor radon empirical relationships in the UK and other European countries. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on the geological aspects of radon risk mapping. Prague, Czech Republic, 20–21 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  8. Appleton JD, Miles J, Talbot DK (2000) Dealing with radon emissions in respect of new development: evaluation of mapping and site investigation methods for targeting areas where new development may require radon protective measures. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Research report no. RR/00/12Google Scholar
  9. Appleton JD, Rawlins BG, Thorton I (2008) National-scale estimation of potential harmful element ambient background concentrations in topsoil using parent material classified soil:stream sediment relationships. Appl Geochem 23:2596–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Appleton JD, Rawlins B, Scheib A (2009) Development of geospatial data for concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Ni and Pb in UK soils. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/09/077, p 297Google Scholar
  11. Barredo J, Enavides A, Hervas J, Van Westen CJ (2000) Comparing heuristic landslide hazard assessment techniques using GIS in the Tirajana basin, Gran Canaria. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 2:9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Becken K, Green C (2000) DigMap: a digital geological map of the United Kingdom. Earthwise 16:8–9Google Scholar
  13. Birch EL, Wachter SM (2006) Rebuilding urban places after disaster: lessons from hurricane Katrina. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Bloomfield J, Mckenzie A, Rutter H, Hulbert A (2007) Methodology for mapping geological controls on susceptibility to groundwater flooding. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/07/072, p 46Google Scholar
  15. Booth KA, Linely KA (2010) Geological indicators of flooding: user guidance notes. British Geological Survey, Open file report, OR/10/12, p 16Google Scholar
  16. Bryant E (2005) Natural Hazards. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, UK, p 312Google Scholar
  17. Cave MR, Wood B (2003) Approaches to the measurement of uncertainty in geoscience data modelling. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. Ir/02/068, p 38Google Scholar
  18. Chester DK, Degg M, Duncan AM, Guest JE (2000) The increase exposure of cities to the effects of volcanic eruptions: a global survey. Glob Environ Change Part B: Environ Hazards 2:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke SM (2004) Confidence in geological interpretation. A methodology for evaluating uncertainty in common two and three-dimensional representations of subsurface geology. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/04/164, p 29Google Scholar
  20. Colgan P, Gutierrez J (1996) National approaches to controlling exposure to radon. Environ Int 2(Suppl. 1):1083–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper AH (2008) The GIS approach to evaporite-karst geohazards in Great Britain. Environ Geol 53:981–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper AH, Farrant AR, Adlam KAM, Walsby JC (2001) The development of a national Geographic Information System (GIS) for British karst geohazards and risk assessment. In: Beck BF, Herring JG, (eds) Geotechnical and environmental applications of karst geology and hydrogeology. Proceedings of the eighth Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, April 1–4th Louisville, Kentucky. Balkema, USA, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  23. Dailey P, Huddleston M, Brown S, Fasking D (2009) The financial risks of climate change: examining the financial implications of climate change using climate models and insurance catastrophe risk models in ABI research paper no 19, p 108Google Scholar
  24. DEFRA-EA (2002) Soil guideline values for cadmium contamination. Environment Agency, Bristol. ISBN 1 857 05738 4Google Scholar
  25. DEFRA-EA (2002a) Soil guideline values for arsenic contamination. Environment Agency, Bristol. ISBN 1 857 05755 XGoogle Scholar
  26. DEFRA-EA (2002b) Soil guideline values for chromium contamination. Environment Agency, Bristol. ISBN 1 857 05727 9Google Scholar
  27. DEFRA-EA (2002c) Soil guideline values for lead contamination. Environment Agency, Bristol. ISBN 1 857 05736 8Google Scholar
  28. DEFRA-EA (2002d) Soil guideline values for nickel contamination. Environment Agency, Bristol. ISBN 1 857 05730 9Google Scholar
  29. Doff R (2008) A critical analysis of the solvency II proposals. Geneva Pap 33:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Doornkamp J (1995) Perception and reality in the provision of insurance against natural perils in the UK. Trans Inst British Geogr 20:68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Environment Agency (2009) Consultation on soil screening values for assessing ecological risks. http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/96836.aspx. Accessed 17 March 2009
  32. ESFS (2004) Hazards-minimising risk, maximising awareness. Earth Sciences for Society prospectus for a key theme of the international year of planet Earth. Earth Sciences for Society FoundationGoogle Scholar
  33. Forster A (2003) The national assessment of the geological hazards- landslide, running sand, collapsible soils, compressible soils and shrinkable clay soils. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/03/141R., p 27Google Scholar
  34. Forster A, Culshaw MG, Stuart M, Dunkley P, Musson R, Hooker P (2002) Assessment of hazard and risk in the geological sciences: a guide to current practice. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal Report no. IR102/169R, p 150Google Scholar
  35. Garcia-Bajo M, Booth K (2008) Geological indicators of flooding: user guidance notes. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/08/065, p 10Google Scholar
  36. Gardener PD, Corter HJ, Wildaman K (1987) The risk perceptions and policy response toward wildland fires hazards by urban home owners. Landsc urban plan 14:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harrison M, Cooper R, Farrant A, Gibson A, Newsham R (2008a) GeoSure version 2 and 3. Methodology review: soluble rocks (dissolution). British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/07/087, p 37Google Scholar
  38. Harrison M, Gibson A, Wildman G (2008b) GeoSure version 2 and 3 methodology review: collapsible deposits. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/07/088, p 30Google Scholar
  39. Harrison M, Gibson A, Wildman G, Foster C (2008c) GeoSure version 2 and 3. methology review: landslides (slope instability). British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal Report no. IR/07/085, p 36Google Scholar
  40. Harrison M, Jones L, Gibson A, Cooper A, Wildman G, Forster C (2008d) GeoSure version 5. Methodology review: shrink—swell. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/08/092, p 31Google Scholar
  41. Harrison M, Jones L, Gibson A, Wildman G, Cooper R (2008e) GeoSure version 2 and 3. Methodology review: running sand. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/07/086, p 28Google Scholar
  42. Harrison M, Jones L, Gibson A, Wildman G, Entwisle D (2008f) GeoSure version 2 and 3 methodology review: compressible ground. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal Report no. IR/07/089, p 33Google Scholar
  43. Harrison AM, Plim J, Harrison M, Foster C, Jones L (2009) Geohazards and climate change: a shrink/swell GIS model. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/09/034, p 20Google Scholar
  44. Jackson I (2008) OneGeology levels the playing field. Environ Geol 56:811–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jackson I, Green C (2003) The digital geological map of Great Britain. Geoscientist 13:4–7Google Scholar
  46. Johnson CC, Breward N, Ander EL, Ault L (2005) G-BASE: baseline geochemical mapping of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Geochem Explor Environ Anal 5:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jones LD, Terrington R (2011) Modelling volume change potential in the london clay. Q J Eng Geol Hydrol 44:50–77Google Scholar
  48. Kindlarski E (1984) Ishikawa diagrams for problem-solving. Quality Prog 17:26–30Google Scholar
  49. Lappenna V, Lorenzo P, Perrone A, Piscitelli S, Sdao F, Rizzo E (2003) High-resolution geoelectrical tomographies in the study of Giarrossa landslide (southern Italy). Bull Eng Geol Environ 62:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lawley R (2009) The soil-parent material database: a user guide. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Open Report no. OR/08/034, p 42Google Scholar
  51. Mailier P, Stephenson D, Ferro C, Hodges K (2006) Serial clustering of extratropical cyclones. Mon Weather Rev 134:2224–2240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McKenzie AA, Rutter HK, Hulbert AG (2010) The use of elevation models to predict areas at risk of groundwater flooding. In: Fleming C, Marsh SH, Giles JRA (eds) Elevation models for geoscience, vol 345. Geological Society of London, Geological Society of London Special Publications, London, UK, pp 75–79Google Scholar
  53. Miles J (2002) Use of a model data set to test methods for mapping radon potential. Radiat Prot Dosim 98:211–218Google Scholar
  54. Miles J, Appleton J (2000) Identification of localised areas of England where radon concentrations are most likely to have >5% probability of being above the action level. DETR report no. DETR/RAS/00. 001Google Scholar
  55. Miles J, Appleton J (2005) Mapping variation in radon potential both between and within geological units. J Radiol Prot 25:257–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mora S (2009) Disasters are not natural. In: Culshaw MG, Reeves H, Jefferson I, Spink T (eds) Engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities. Engineering geology special publication no. 22. Geological Society of London, London, UK, pp 101–112Google Scholar
  57. Munich RE (2000) TOPICS GEO: annual review natural catastrophes, p 56Google Scholar
  58. Munich RE (2010) TOPICS GEO: natural catastrophes 2009. Analyses, assessments, positions, p 40Google Scholar
  59. Pitt M (2008) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. Cabinet Office, p 505Google Scholar
  60. Rawlins BG, Webster R, Lister TR (2003) The influence of parent material on top soil geochemistry in eastern England. Earth Surf Proc Land 28:1389–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rawlins BG, Lark RM, O’Donnell KO, Tye AM, Lister TR (2005) The assessment of point and diffuse metal pollution of soils from an urban geochemical survey of Sheffield, England. Soil Use Manag 21:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rees J, Gibson A, Harrison M, Hughes A, Walsby JC (2009) Regional modelling of geohazard change. Engineering geology special publication no. 22. In: Culshaw M, Reeves H, Jefferson I,Spink T (eds) Engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities. Geological Society of London, London, UK, pp 49–63Google Scholar
  63. Royse KR (2009) Keeping it real. Geoscientist 19:16–21Google Scholar
  64. Royse KR, Campbell SD (2009) Geoscience for wonks. Geoscientist 19:2Google Scholar
  65. Royse KR, Entwisle DC (2010) Reply to discussion by J N Hutchinson on the paper ‘Property attribution of 3D geological models in the Thames Gateway, London: new ways of visualizing geoscientific information. Bull Eng Geol Environ 69:157–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Royse KR, Reeves HJ, Gibson AR (2008) The modelling and visualisation of digital geoscientific data as an aid to land-use planning in the urban environment, an example from the Thames Gateway. In: Liverman DGE, Pereira C, Marker B (eds) Communicating environmental geoscience. Special publication, 305. Geological Society of London, London, UK, pp 89–106Google Scholar
  67. Royse KR, Rutter HK, Entwisle DC (2009) Property attribution of 3D geological models in the Thames Gateway: new ways of visualising geoscientific information. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Royse KR, Horn D, Eldridge J, Barker K (2010) Flooding and subsidence in the Thames Gateway: impact on insurance loss potential. Geophysical research abstracts, vol 12Google Scholar
  69. Scheib A, Appleton J (2010) Validation of BGS’s PHE soil chemistry map data of England and Wales using the new national soil inventory data. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Internal report no. IR/10/029, p 55Google Scholar
  70. Scheib C, Appleton JD, Miles J, Green B, Barlow T, Jones D (2009) Geological controls on radon potential in Scotland. Scott J Geol 45(2):147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith A, Ellison R (1999) Applied geological maps for planning, development: a review of examples from England, Wales 1983 to 1996. Q J Eng Geol 32(supplement):S1–S44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Turner AK (2006) Challenges and trends for geological modelling and visualisation. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Westen C, van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walsby JC (2007) Geohazard information to meet the needs of the British public and government policy. Quat Int 171–172:179–185Google Scholar
  75. Walsby JC (2008) GeoSure; a bridge between geology and decision-makers. In: Liverman D, Pereira C Marker B (eds) Communication environmental geoscience. Special publications, 305. Eological Society of London, London, UK, pp 81–87Google Scholar
  76. Walter J (2004) Focus on community resilience. World disaster report 2004. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, USA, p 240Google Scholar
  77. Webb JS, Thornton I, Howarth RJ, Thomson M, Lowenstein P (1978) The Wolfson Geochemical Atlas of England and Wales. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  78. Willis Re (2010) Willis Re 1st view: Calm amid calamity. Willis Re, London, UK, p 8Google Scholar
  79. Wilson A, Rees J, Crofts R, Howard A, Buchana J, Waine P (1992) Stoke-on-trent: a geological background for planning and development. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Technical report no. WN/91/101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Geological Survey NERC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.British Geological SurveyKeyworthUK

Personalised recommendations