The Use of Risk Information in Spatial Planning in Europe: Examples from Case Study Sites in Italy and Romania with a Focus on Flood and Landslide Hazards

Conference paper

Abstract

The Hyogo Framework for Action established disaster risk reduction as a clear goal. Among other points, it clearly refers to the importance of the availability and quality of risk information, because information about hazards and vulnerability is a prerequisite for the implementation of purposeful risk reduction measures. Spatial planning has to be seen as key actor for risk management, since planning comprises decisions of whether and how spaces will be used. It can thus influence vulnerability parameters, contribute to the alteration of risks and improve regional or community resilience towards disasters. Drawing on document analysis and expert interviews, the paper examines the use of risk information in spatial planning in two case study areas: the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) and Buzău County (Romania) with a special focus on flood and landslide hazards. Due to the varying roles of planning and risk management actors in different countries, planning cultures and legal-administrative frameworks, it is assumed the use of risk information in spatial planning and subsequently the handling of risks caused by natural hazards differs between the case study sites considerably.

Keywords

Spatial planning Risk information Geo-hydrological hazard 

References

  1. ADB (2012) Autorità di Bacino dei Fiumi Isonzo, Tagliamento, Livenza, Piave, Brenta-Bacchiglione 2012, Progetto di Piano Stralcio per l’Assetto Idrogeologico del sottobacino del fiume Fella. Relazione Tecnica, D.Lgs. 152/2006, VeneziaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bianchizza C, Scolobig A, Pellizzoni L, del Bianco D (2011) In: 2nd CapHaz-Net Regional Hazard Workshop: Social Capacity Building for Alpine Hazards Gorizia (Italy), 4–5 April 2011, Institute of International Sociology (ISIG), GoriziaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bignami DF (2010) Protezione civile e riduzione del rischio disastri. Metodi e strumenti di governo della sicurezza territoriale e ambientale, Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di RomagnaGoogle Scholar
  4. DeGraff JV (2012) Solving the dilemma of transforming landslide hazard maps into effective policy and regulations. In: Luino F, Castaldini D (eds) Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(1):53–60Google Scholar
  5. European Commission (EC) (2009) A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters, Brussels, viewed 3 February 2014. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0082:FIN:EN:PDF
  6. European Commission (EC) (2013) Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment, European Commission, Brussels, viewed 13 June 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/SEA%20Guidance.pdf
  7. Fleischhauer M, Greiving S, Wanczura S (eds) (2006) Natural hazards and spatial planning in Europe. Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  8. Galderisi A, Menoni S (2006) Natural risk prevention and land-use planning in Italy: strengths and weaknesses of a system stretched between centralised and decentralised authorities. In: Fleischhauer M, Greiving S, Wanczura S (eds) Natural hazards and spatial planning in Europe. Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  9. Greiving S, Fleischhauer M (2006) Spatial planning response towards natural and technological hazards. In: Schmidt-Thomé P (ed) Natural and technological hazards and risks affecting the spatial development of European regions. Geological Survey of Finland, EspooGoogle Scholar
  10. Ministry of Administration and Interior (2004) National report regarding the disasters prevention in Romania. In: Elaborated for the Disaster World Conference Kobe—Hyogo (Japan), 18–22 January 2005, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  11. Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management (RCC) (2011) Promoting the use of disaster risk information in land-use planning. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  12. Sapountzaki K, Wanczura S, Casertano G, Greiving S, Xanthopoulos G, Ferrara F (2011) Disconnected policies and actors and the missing role of spatial planning throughout the risk management cycle. Nat Hazards 59(3):1445–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2007) Words into action: a guide for implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2009) Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions, the full report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009, UNISDR Secretariat, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Urban DevelopmentKrakowPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Spatial Planning, Technical University of DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations