IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v46y2008i2p221-241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A method for na-tech risk assessment as supporting tool for land use planning mitigation strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Galderisi
  • Andrea Ceudech
  • Massimiliano Pistucci

Abstract

Hazardous industrial sites have always represented a threat for the community often provoking major accidents overcoming the boundaries of the plants and affecting the surrounding urban areas. If the industrial sites are located in natural hazard-prone areas, technological accidents may be triggered by natural events, generating so-called na-tech events which may modify and increase the impact and the overall damage in the areas around them. Nevertheless, natural and technological hazards are still treated as two separate issues, and up to now the methods for na-tech risk assessment have been developed mainly for specific natural hazards, generally restricted to some plant typologies and to the area of the plant itself. Based on a review of the current na-tech literature, this article illustrates a risk assessment method as a supporting tool for land use planning strategies aimed at reducing na-tech risk in urban areas. More specifically, a multi attribute decision-making method, combined with fuzzy techniques, has been developed. The method allows planners to take into account, according to different territorial units, all the individual na-tech risk factors, measured through both quantitative and qualitative parameters, while providing them with a na-tech risk index, useful to rank the territorial units and to single out the priority intervention areas. The method is designed to process information generally available about hazardous plants (safety reports), natural hazards (hazard maps) and features of urban systems mainly influencing their exposure and vulnerability to na-tech events (common statistical territorial data). Furthermore, the method implemented into a GIS framework should easily provide planners with comparable maps to figure out the hazard factors and the main territorial features influencing the exposure and vulnerability of urban systems to na-tech events. The method has been tested on a middle-sized Municipality in the Campania Region, identified as 2nd class seismic zone, according to the Ordinance 3274/2003, in which a LPG storage plant, classified as a plant with major accident potential by the Seveso II Directive (art. 9), is located just within the city core. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Suggested Citation

  • Adriana Galderisi & Andrea Ceudech & Massimiliano Pistucci, 2008. "A method for na-tech risk assessment as supporting tool for land use planning mitigation strategies," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 46(2), pages 221-241, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:46:y:2008:i:2:p:221-241
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-008-9224-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11069-008-9224-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-008-9224-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jie Lu & Guangquan Zhang & Da Ruan & Fengjie Wu, 2007. "Fuzzy Group Decision Making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Multi-Objective Group Decision Making Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques, chapter 10, pages 207-227, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Jie Lu & Guangquan Zhang & Da Ruan & Fengjie Wu, 2007. "Group Decision Making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Multi-Objective Group Decision Making Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques, chapter 3, pages 39-51, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tiezhong Liu & Hubo Zhang & Xiaowei Li & Haiyan Li, 2017. "Effects of organization factors on flood-related Natechs in urban areas of China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(1), pages 355-365, August.
    2. Marzo, E. & Busini, V. & Rota, R., 2015. "Definition of a short-cut methodology for assessing the vulnerability of a territory in natural–technological risk estimation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 92-97.
    3. José Carlos de Moura Xavier & Wilson Cabral Sousa Junior, 2016. "Recognising na-tech events in Brazil: moving forward," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 493-506, May.
    4. Nicholas Santella & Laura J. Steinberg & Gloria Andrea Aguirra, 2011. "Empirical Estimation of the Conditional Probability of Natech Events Within the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 951-968, June.
    5. Yunfeng Yang & Guohua Chen & Yuanfei Zhao, 2023. "A Quantitative Framework for Propagation Paths of Natech Domino Effects in Chemical Industrial Parks: Part II—Risk Assessment and Mitigation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Pilone, E. & Demichela, M., 2018. "A semi-quantitative methodology to evaluate the main local territorial risks and their interactions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 143-154.
    7. Bernier, Carl & Gidaris, Ioannis & Balomenos, Georgios P. & Padgett, Jamie E., 2019. "Assessing the accessibility of petrochemical facilities during storm surge events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 155-167.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wenjing Luo & Zhi Qiu & Yurika Yokoyama & Shengyuan Zheng, 2022. "Decision-Making Mechanism of Joint Activities for the Elderly and Children in Integrated Welfare Facilities: A Discussion Based on “Motivation–Constraint” Interaction Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Wanke, Peter Fernandes & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel José & Moreira Antunes, Jorge Junio & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz & Roubaud, David & Sobreiro, Vinicius Amorim & Santibanez Gonzalez‬, Erne, 2021. "An original information entropy-based quantitative evaluation model for low-carbon operations in an emerging market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    3. Eduardo Fernández & Claudia Gómez-Santillán & Nelson Rangel-Valdez & Laura Cruz-Reyes, 2022. "Group Multi-Objective Optimization Under Imprecision and Uncertainty Using a Novel Interval Outranking Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 945-994, October.
    4. Zhang, Ruijun & Lu, Jie & Zhang, Guangquan, 2011. "A knowledge-based multi-role decision support system for ore blending cost optimization of blast furnaces," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 194-203, November.
    5. Cebi, Selcuk & Ilbahar, Esra & Atasoy, Aylin, 2016. "A fuzzy information axiom based method to determine the optimal location for a biomass power plant: A case study in Aegean Region of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 894-907.
    6. Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2010. "Fuzzy bilevel programming with multiple objectives and cooperative multiple followers," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 403-419, July.
    7. Pham Thanh Vu & Vo Quang Minh & Phan Chi Nguyen & Tran Van Dung & Nguyen The Cuong & Ngo Thi Phong Lan, 2020. "Estimating the criteria affected to agricultural production: case of Chau Thanh A district, Vietnam," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(1), pages 463-472, June.
    8. Harrison Mutikanga & Saroj Sharma & Kalanithy Vairavamoorthy, 2011. "Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: A Strategic Planning Tool for Water Loss Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(14), pages 3947-3969, November.
    9. R. O. Parreiras & P. Ya. Ekel & D. C. Morais, 2012. "Fuzzy Set Based Consensus Schemes for Multicriteria Group Decision making Applied to Strategic Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 153-183, March.
    10. Liu, Fang & Chen, Ya-Ru & Zhou, Da-Hai, 2023. "A two-dimensional approach to flexibility degree of XOR numbers with application to group decision making," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 267-287.
    11. Jaafari, Abolfazl & Najafi, Akbar & Melón, Mónica García, 2015. "Decision-making for the selection of a best wood extraction method: An analytic network process approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 200-209.
    12. Samari, Davood & Azadi, Hossein & Zarafshani, Kiumars & Hosseininia, Gholamhossein & Witlox, Frank, 2012. "Determining appropriate forestry extension model: Application of AHP in the Zagros area, Iran," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 91-97.
    13. Fang Liu & Mao-Jie Huang & Cai-Xia Huang & Witold Pedrycz, 2022. "Measuring consistency of interval-valued preference relations: comments and comparison," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 371-399, March.
    14. Borawska Anna, 2017. "Cognitive Neuroscience Tools in Economic Experiments Investigating the Decision Making Process," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 159-169, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:46:y:2008:i:2:p:221-241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.