4.5 Article

Risk assessment in support to land-use planning in Europe: Towards more consistent decisions?

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2010.10.001

Keywords

Risk assessment; Seveso II Directive; Land-use planning; Accident scenarios; Scenario trees

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recognising the importance of establishing appropriate separation distances between hazardous installations and vulnerable residential areas for mitigating the effects of industrial accidents, the European legislation for the control of major accident hazards - the so-called Seveso II Directive - calls for procedures ensuring that technical advice is taken systematically into account for land-use planning (LUP) purposes. Due to historical, administrative, cultural and other reasons, these European Union's Member States which have consolidated procedures for addressing this issue, have employed different approaches, methods and criteria, with a potential for great divergence in the resulting land-use planning decisions. In order to address this situation and to increase consistency and 'defendability' of landuse planning decisions in the EU, a European Working Group has been established and is operating under the coordination of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). This Group, consisting of experts from the EU Member States, the industry and the academia, is trying to understand the different approaches and their implications to LUP decision-making, to develop guidelines in support to these decisions and to examine data sources and tools for consistent application of risk assessment in support to LUP This paper presents the activities of the Group, reviews the situation with respect to LUP in Europe and discusses whether a direction towards more consistent LUP decisions is being followed in Europe. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available