Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 70, Issue 4, pp 1629–1645 | Cite as

Integrated geological risk mapping: a qualitative methodology applied in St. Petersburg, Russia

  • Johannes Klein
  • Jaana JarvaEmail author
  • Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky
  • Igor Bogatyrev
Original Article

Abstract

The current active development of the city of St. Petersburg in Russia has led to high growth rates in both industrial and housing areas, causing an increased load on geological media. Taking into account the rather unfavourable geological conditions of the city area, such a development can entail to an intensification of environmental risks. Sustainable and cost-effective land-use planning requires information on geological conditions. Stakeholders need general geological information on the area of St. Petersburg, hydrogeological information on groundwater and information on geological risks. Geological risk maps help to identify whether an area under consideration requires special measures for geological risk management. This paper describes a first attempt to analyze potential geological risks in the city of St. Petersburg, Russia. The approach is to introduce a methodology for multi-risk assessment to be used in land-use planning. The core of the methodology is a matrix that assigns a certain level of geological risk depending on the combination of land use stipulated by the master plan of St. Petersburg and geological characteristics. Based on the matrix, a map presenting potential integrated geological risk can be created. At the same time, the combination of the integrated geological risk map, single geological risk maps and the matrix allows the retracement of which geological characteristics and which land use types contribute to the resulting risk. Users of the methodology in St. Petersburg were trained and an end-user manual was prepared by the authors. The methodology was introduced to professionals who utilize geological information and assess potential risks related to geology.

Keywords

Geological risk Land use Risk assessment Multi-risk mapping St. Petersburg 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was partly funded by the EU LIFE 3rd Countries Programme (LIFE06 TCY/ROS/000267) and was carried out in the years 2007–2009. It was part of the project entitled “GeoInforM”, which was coordinated by the Committee for Nature Use, Environmental Protection and Ecological Safety, the Government of St. Petersburg. Mr Harri Kutvonen edited the schemes in Figs. 6 and 7. Dr Olga Tomilina prepared the map in Fig. 8. The authors would also like to thank Dr Philipp Schmidt-Thomé and Ms Anika Nockert for commenting on the manuscript.

References

  1. Auslender VG, Andreeva NG, Borovikova NA et al (2001) Report on geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical further research at the scale 1:50,000 with general surveys and geoecological mapping of the territory of Saint-Petersburg and its surroundings. Internal report, FGU SZ RFGI (in Russian)Google Scholar
  2. Bathrellos GD, Gaki-Papanastassiou K, Skilodimou HD, Papanastassiou D, Chousiantis KG (2012) Potential suitability for urban planning and industry development using natural hazard maps and geological-geomorphological parameters. Environ Earth Sci 66:537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dai FC, Lee CF, Zhang XH (2001) GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land use planning: a case study. Eng Geol 61:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Abreu AES, Filho OA (2012) Engineering geological data in support of municipal land use planning—a case study in Analândia, southeast Brazil. Environ Earth Sci 65:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Department of Urban Development and Engineering Services (2004) Structure plan of Thimphu. DUDES. http://www.dudh.gov.bt/Thimphustructural/Index.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2010
  6. Dmitriev AA (1989) Report on geotechnical and hydrogeological mapping of the Leningrad territory at the scales 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 for the justification of the General Plan of City Development with due account for underground space usage, 1984–1989: Central and Southern Parts of Leningrad. Internal report, Object LIGO-2 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2000) First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures, Part 2: Appendices. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out84_en.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2012
  8. Ferrier N, Haque CE (2003) Hazard risk assessment methodology for emergency managers: a standardized framework for application. Nat Hazards 28:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finnish Geotechnical Association (1992) Ground survey guide for municipal engineering (Kunnallistekniikan pohjatutkimusohjeet KUPO-92). Rakennustieto Oy, Helsinki. ISBN: 951-682-251-7 (in Finnish)Google Scholar
  10. Fleischhauer M (2006) Natural hazards and spatial planning in Europe: an introduction. In: Fleischhauer M, Greiving S, Wanczura S (eds) Natural hazards and spatial planning in Europe. Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur, Dortmund, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  11. Frank-Kamenetsky D (2008) Sustainable city management—example from geological peculiarities of St. Petersburg City. In: The 33rd international geological congress, Oslo, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  12. Glassey P, Barell D, Forsyth J, Macleod R (2003) The geology of Dunedin, New Zealand, and the management of geological hazards. Quat Int 103:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greiving S (2006) Integrated risk assessment of multi-hazards: a new methodology. In: Schmidt-Thomé P (ed) Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European regions. Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, Special Paper 42, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  14. Greiving S, Fleischhauer M, Wanczura S (2006) Management of natural hazards in Europe: the role of spatial planning in selected EU member states. J Environ Plan Manag 49:739–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grünthal G, Thieken AH, Schwarz J, Radtke KS, Smolka A, Merz B (2006) Comparative risk assessments for the City of Cologne—storms, floods, earthquakes. Nat Hazards 38:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kappes MS, Keiler M, von Elverfeldt K, Glade T (2012) Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards 64:1925–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein J, Greiving S, Jarva J (2006) Integrated natural risk legend and standard for harmonised risk maps for land use planning and management. ARMONIA, Deliverable 3.2, Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, Archive Report UT/Europe/2007/81. http://arkisto.gsf.fi/UT/ut_europe_2007_81.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  18. Kumpulainen S (2006) Vulnerability concepts in hazard and risk assessment. In: Schmidt-Thomé P (ed) Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European regions. Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, Special Paper 42, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  19. Leopold LB, Clark FE, Hanshaw BB, Balsley JR (1971) A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. US Geological Survey, Washington DC, Geological Survey Circular 645. http://eps.berkeley.edu/people/lunaleopold/(118)%20A%20Procedure%20for%20Evaluating%20Environmental%20Impact.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  20. Linstone HA, Turoff M (2002) The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2012
  21. Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone ML, Di Rucco A (2012) Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. Nat Hazards 62:551–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. May ME, Dlala M, Chenini I (2010) Urban geological mapping: geotechnical data analysis for rational development planning. Eng Geol 116:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Navarro-Mejía M, Wohl EE, Oaks SD (1994) Geological hazards, vulnerability, and risk assessment using GIS: model for Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Geomorphology 10:331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicholls N (1999) Cognitive illusions, heuristics, and climate prediction. Am Meteorol Soc 80:1385–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Philippov NB, Spiridonov MA (eds) (2009) Geological atlas of St. Petersburg. Komilfo, St. Petersburg. http://www.infoeco.ru/geoinform/dl/atlas_eng.pdf Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  26. Ragozin A, Yolkin V (2004) Technique of quantitative assessment of karst risk on the local and regional level. In: Hack R, Azzam R, Charlier R (eds) Engineering geology for infrastructure planning in Europe—a European perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Renn O (2006) Risk governance—towards an integrative approach. International risk governance council, Geneva. http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance_reprinted_version.pdf Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  28. Schmidt J, Matcham I, Reese S, King A, Bell R et al (2011) Quantitative multi-risk analysis for natural hazards: a framework for multi-risk modelling. Nat Hazards 58:1169–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt-Thomé P, Kallio H (2006) Natural and technological hazard maps of Europe. In: Schmidt-Thomé P (ed) Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European regions. Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, Special Paper 42, pp 17–61Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt-Thomé P, Klein J, Aumo R, Hurstinen J (2006) Technical glossary of a multi hazard related vulnerability and risk assessment language. ARMONIA Deliverable 4.1.1, Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, Archive Report, UT/Europe/2007/80 http://arkisto.gsf.fi/UT/ut_europe_2007_80.pdf Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  31. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:689–701Google Scholar
  32. Solovieva VA (1984) Report on geotechnical and hydrogeological mapping of the Leningrad territory at the scales 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 for the justification of the General Plan of City Development with due account for underground space usage, 1980—1984: Northern and North-Western Parts of Leningrad. Internal report, Object LIGO-1 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  33. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2004) Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction. UNISDR. http://www.unisdr.org/files/657_lwr1.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2008
  34. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2009) 2009 UNISDR Terminology on disaster risk reduction. UNISDR, Geneva http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  35. Valmari T, Mäkeläinen I, Reisback H, Arvela H (2010) Radon atlas of Finland 2010. STUK (Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority), Helsinki http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut_maaraykset/tiivistelmat/a_sarja/fi_FI/stuk-a245/_files/83991740647081178/default/stuk-a245.pdf Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  36. Varazanashvili O, Tsereteli N, Amiranashvili A, Tsereteli E et al (2012) Vulnerability, hazards and multiple risk assessment for Georgia. Nat Hazard 64:2021–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Villagrán De León JC (2006) Vulnerability: a conceptual and methodological review. United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security, Bonn http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/3904 Accessed 9 Jan 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Klein
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jaana Jarva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky
    • 2
  • Igor Bogatyrev
    • 3
  1. 1.Geological Survey of FinlandEspooFinland
  2. 2.City of St. Petersburg, Committee for Nature Use, Environmental Protection and Ecological SafetySt. PetersburgRussian Federation
  3. 3.SC MineralSt. PetersburgRussian Federation
  4. 4.Department of Real Estate, Planning and GeoinformaticsAalto UniversityEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations