Risk Assessment Methodologies of Soil Threats in Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 6.1 Definition of indicators to compare RAMs. The indicators of the 4 official RAMs are represented with spider graphs. There are as many axes in the spider graph as indicators. Each indicator is coded through an index according to the maximal value observed for each indicator. The value of the index is evaluated according to our interpretation of the questionnaires. Spider graphs were elaborated only for countries where an official risk assessment methodology is established for landslides. It seemed to us not pertinent to compare the RAMs in development because they may be subjected to some modifications or are not complete. Concerning methodologies employed by research institutes, they are most of the time developed for a specific objective, which sometimes is not for regulatory measures of risk zoning. The shape of the spider graph are relatively similar, indicating that the RAMs are basically based on the same approach. They indicate however that the French and Italian RAMs are slightly more complex than the Sweden and Swiss RAMs. In European countries, several mapping scales can be used for risk assessment. In the official methodologies, the 1:25,000 scale or 1:10,000 scale are generally used: some local detailed zooms can also be mapped at a 1:5,000 scale. For example in France, a topographic map at 1:25,000 scale enlarged at a 1:10,000 scale and cadastral plans at 1:5,000 scale are used to delineate preventions areas. 54
Figure 6.1 Spider graphs of the official landslide RAMs of France, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland. The ambiguousness indicator reveals the precision of the method. All RAMs have mean values of ambiguity. The transparency indicator indicates low value of transparency because all RAMs are based on expert and heuristic analysis, and are thus subject to the thoughts of the experts. All the RAMs present a high value of cost efficiency. For example, iIn France the elaboration of the PPR is very simple and is only based on available and existing data; the objective is to build documents taking into account the known risks rather than to focus on high accuracy. Official landslide RAMs are similar. They are built on a qualitative approach, at medium scale and where necessary a more detailed local study can be realized with more complex (e.g. deterministic) techniques. They conduct all to plans of priority measures and thus lean on local urban plans. Their main advantages and disadvantages are detailed in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Main advantages and disadvantages of the official RAMs 55
Page 1 and 2:
Risk Assessment Methodologies of So
Page 3 and 4:
Risk Assessment Methodologies of So
Page 5:
Table of Content 1. Introduction to
Page 8 and 9:
Possible consequences of not harmon
Page 10 and 11: scientists and policy makers. More
Page 12 and 13: Several European wide risk assessme
Page 14 and 15: 2.2 Data collection The types of er
Page 16 and 17: The majority (7 out of 11) of the i
Page 18 and 19: Table 2.1 Use of risk levels and/or
Page 20 and 21: Data processing phase For the data
Page 23 and 24: 3. Subsoil compaction Jan J.H. van
Page 25 and 26: Table 3.1. Information used in the
Page 27 and 28: 3.3 Data processing and data interp
Page 29 and 30: Precompression stress classes: 1 Ve
Page 31 and 32: RAMs based on measurements and expe
Page 33: compaction leads to decreased crop
Page 36 and 37: Figure 4.1. Map of saline and sodic
Page 38 and 39: 5 4 3 2 1 0 Soil typological unit (
Page 40 and 41: An experimental RAM that directly r
Page 42 and 43: 4.5 Risk perception Whereas the qua
Page 44 and 45: It appears that the assessment of E
Page 47 and 48: 5. Soil organic matter decline P.J.
Page 49 and 50: the SOM content, e.g. fertiliser re
Page 51 and 52: Models differ in their description
Page 53 and 54: 5.4 Data interpretation Data interp
Page 55: more cost-efficient RAM through ada
Page 58 and 59: These five types may sometimes be c
Page 63 and 64: 7. Towards harmonization of risk as
Page 65 and 66: Cumulative use of methods (fraction
Page 67: Table 7.3. Summary of matching indi
Page 70 and 71: The two component of Soil Threat In
Page 73 and 74: 9. Conclusions The soils in Europe
Page 75 and 76: 10 Cited literature Ahlberg P., Sti
Page 77 and 78: Davidson, E.A., Janssens, I.A., 200
Page 79 and 80: Hearn G.J. and Griffiths J.S., 2001
Page 81 and 82: Lee E.M. and Jones DKC, 2004, Lands
Page 83 and 84: Richter, D.D., Hofmockel, M., Calla
Page 85 and 86: Tóth, G. 2008. Soil quality in the
Page 87 and 88: Willigen P. de, 1991. Nitrogen turn
Page 89 and 90: Annex 2. RAMSOIL report series Repo
Page 91 and 92: European Commission EUR 24097 EN -
show all

Risk Assessment Methodologies of Soil Threats in Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?