Risk Assessment Methodologies of Soil Threats in Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7.2. Inclusion of common criteria in RAMs per soil threat. Cells in grey are not part of the criteria for the specific soil threat, x = included in RAM, - = not included in RAM. Brief descriptions of the common criteria are given in the column headings, more elaborate descriptions can be found in Annex 1 of the proposal for a framework directive (COM(2006)232) and in Eckelmann et al. (2006). Soil threat Country (RAM) Soil type Soil texture Soil density, hydraulic properties Topography Land cover Land use Erosion Germany x x x x - x x x Finland x x x x - x x x Spain x x x x x - x x Hungary x x - - - x x x Belgium x x - x - x x - Norway x x x x - - x - Poland x - x - x x - France x x x x - x x - CORINE - x x - x x - PESERA - x x x - x x x GLASOD - - - - - - - - Salinization Cyprus x x x x x Hungary 1 x x x x x x Hungary 2 x x x x x x Hungary (TIM) x - x - - - Romania - x x - x x Slovakia x x x x - x Spain - x x x x x Greece x x x x x x Compaction Romania x x - x x x x Germany x x - - - x Germany x x x x x x x Germany - x - - - x x Germany - x - - x x x Poland - - - - x x Poland x x - - - - x Denmark x x - x x - x France x x - x x x x Spain x x x x x x Greece x x x x x x x Italy - - - - - - - Finland - x - x x - x Slovakia x x - x - x - Hungary x x - x x x x Belgium x x - x x - - Belgium x x - x - - - Landslides France x x - x - x Italy x x x x x x Sweden x x x x x x Switzerland x x x - x Belgium x x - - - x cyprus - x x x x x Czech republic - x - x x x Ireland x x - x - x Hungaria x x x x x x Slovenia x x x x x x Slovakia - x x x x x spain x x x x x United Kingdom x x x - - x Portugal - x x x - x Greece x x x x - x Poland - x x - x x SOM decline Belgium x x x x x x x France x x x x x x Slovak Republic x x x x x x United Kingdom x x x x x x Slovenia x x x x x x Denmark x x x x x x Greece x x x x x x Germany x x x x x x There was little information available for risk perception, which was presumably caused by the debates about thresholds values. The steps in the risk assessment chain are in successive order and hence incomplete information in a previous step will hamper the execution of the next step. The average results of the MI of each step in the risk assessment chain suggested that best options for harmonization were expected for SOM decline and landslides (Table 7.3). 60 Climate Hydrological conditions Agro-ecological zone Soil hydraulic properties Irrigation Groundwater Bulkdensity Soil organic matter Occurrence/density of existing landslides
Table 7.3. Summary of matching indices (MI) per soil threat and per step in risk assessment chain. MIs are a measure for the relative common elements of different soil RAMs. n.c.= non conclusive. Data Data Data Risk Average collection processing 61 interpretation perception Erosion 0.62 0.55 0.17 n.c. 0.45 Salinization 0.81 0.62 0.13 n.c. 0.52 Compaction 0.58 0.35 0.09 n.c. 0.34 Landslides 0.77 0.63 0.55 0.50 0.61 SOM decline 0.88 0.50 n.c. n.c. 0.69 Based on the results in Table 7.3 least efforts for harmonization were found for the RAMs for landslides and SOM decline. The reasons however for these two threats to provide good options were different: the landslide scientific community is already in a process towards harmonization of risk assessment and hence at present provides the best basis for harmonization. At the same time RAMs for SOM decline provide relative good possibilities for harmonization because RAMs for SOM decline are incomplete and least developed. We argue that the best time to harmonize guidelines and procedures for RAMs is when they are being developed, provided that this development is properly coordinated. In general, least efforts for harmonization were needed for data collection for each soil threat. In our approach we focused on the inclusion of common criteria in the RAMs as a basis for assessing the efforts needed for harmonization. However, even when common elements of data collection methods are similar, still considerable differences in outcomes may occur due to differences in sampling schemes, laboratory protocols, etc. With regard to harmonization of sampling schemes Morvan et al. (2008) concluded that an additional 4100 sampling sites are needed to achieve a harmonized, i.e. comparable, scheme across EU-27. Likewise, the MI for data processing refers to the common use of data processing methodologies, but even when similar methodologies are used results may be quite different because of different parameterization, scaling, etc. However, to our view, the use of similar methodologies demonstrate a common understanding of how the data should be processed and hence indicate that relatively little efforts are needed for harmonization of the data processing step of soil RAMs.
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 60 and 61: Table 6.1 Definition of indicators
Page 63 and 64: 7. Towards harmonization of risk as
Page 65: Cumulative use of methods (fraction
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?