Spatial Industrial Accident Exposure and Social Vulnerability Assessment of Hazardous Material Sites, Chemical Parks, and Nuclear Power Plants in Germany

Alexander Fekete; Steffen Neuner

doi:10.1007/s13753-023-00486-x

Volume 14 Issue 2

Apr. 2023

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2023 > 14(2): 223-236

Alexander Fekete, Steffen Neuner. Spatial Industrial Accident Exposure and Social Vulnerability Assessment of Hazardous Material Sites, Chemical Parks, and Nuclear Power Plants in Germany[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2023, 14(2): 223-236. doi: 10.1007/s13753-023-00486-x

Citation:

Alexander Fekete, Steffen Neuner. Spatial Industrial Accident Exposure and Social Vulnerability Assessment of Hazardous Material Sites, Chemical Parks, and Nuclear Power Plants in Germany[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2023, 14(2): 223-236. doi: 10.1007/s13753-023-00486-x

Citation:

Alexander Fekete, Steffen Neuner. Spatial Industrial Accident Exposure and Social Vulnerability Assessment of Hazardous Material Sites, Chemical Parks, and Nuclear Power Plants in Germany[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2023, 14(2): 223-236. doi: 10.1007/s13753-023-00486-x

PDF

Spatial Industrial Accident Exposure and Social Vulnerability Assessment of Hazardous Material Sites, Chemical Parks, and Nuclear Power Plants in Germany

doi: 10.1007/s13753-023-00486-x

Institute of Rescue Engineering and Civil Protection, TH Köln - University of Applied Sciences, 50679, Cologne, Germany

Funds:

We thank the German Environment Agency, Department of Sustainable Production, Resource Conservation and Material Cycles and sub-division of plant safety for providing the data for the sites registered under the Seveso Directive in Germany.

Accepted Date: 2023-03-25

Available Online: 2023-04-28

Publish Date: 2023-04-11

Abstract

Abstract

Industrial accidents have shown that many people can be affected, such as in Seveso, Italy, in 1976. Industrial accidents in nuclear power plants have also led to fatalities and evacuations. To better guide preparedness against and mitigation of industrial accidents, an assessment is necessary to evaluate hazard exposure and the type of potentially vulnerable social groups that need to be taken into account. This study conducted a spatial assessment of three types of industrial facilities in Germany:facilities registered under the Seveso Directive, chemical parks, and nuclear power plants. The method consisted of a spatial assessment using a Geographic Information System of exposure around hazardous sites registered under the Seveso Directive in Germany and of census data to analyze social vulnerability. Hazards analyzed included industrial accidents and earthquakes. The results revealed that most industrial sites are in urban areas and that population density, the numbers of foreigners, and smaller housing unit sizes are higher in close proximity to these sites. The buffer zones analyzed in circles between 1 and 40 km show a decreasing vulnerability with more distance. This can guide emergency management planners and other stakeholders to better prepare for major accidents and better devise disaster risk reduction strategies specifically for different social groups.
- Germany,
- Industrial disaster risk,
- Seveso directives,
- Seveso sites,
- Social vulnerability

FullText(HTML)

References(71)

References

[1]	Ardalan, A., F. Fatemi, B. Aguirre, N. Mansouri, and I. Mohammdfam. 2019. Assessing human vulnerability in industrial chemical accidents:A qualitative and quantitative methodological approach. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191(8):1-11.
[2]	Beck, U. 1992. Risk society:Towards a new modernity. London:Sage.
[3]	Bertazzi, P.A., I. Bernucci, G. Brambilla, D. Consonni, and A.C. Pesatori. 1998. The Seveso studies on early and long-term effects of dioxin exposure:A review. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(suppl 2):625-633.
[4]	Birkmann, J. 2013. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards:Towards disaster resilient societies, 2nd edn. Tokyo:United Nations University Press.
[5]	Bogliolo, M.P. 2012. Proposal of a reference geo-database to support safety tasks involving the land context of Seveso establishments. Chemical Engineering 26:483-488.
[6]	Bonvicini, S., S. Ganapini, G. Spadoni, and V. Cozzani. 2012. The description of population vulnerability in quantitative risk analysis. Risk Analysis:An International Journal 32(9):1576-1594.
[7]	Bubbico, R., R. Carta, S. Di Cave, L.G. Luccone, B. Mazzarotta, and B. Silvetti. 2004. A GIS based approach to environmental vulnerability. In Spitzer, ed. U. Schmocker, and V.N. Dang, 3305-3310. Springer, London:Probabilistic safety assessment and management.
[8]	Chang, N.-B., Y. Wei, C. Tseng, and C.-Y. Kao. 1997. The design of a GIS-based decision support system for chemical emergency preparedness and response in an urban environment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 21(1):67-94.
[9]	Cutter, S.L., B.J. Boruff, and W.L. Shirley. 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84(2):242-261.
[10]	De Cort, R. 1994. The development of UK and European major hazards legislation and the review of the Seveso Directive. Disaster Prevention and Management 3(2):8-14.
[11]	De Sario, M., R. Pasetto, S. Vecchi, A. Zeka, G. Hoek, P. Michelozzi, I. Iavarone, and T. Fletcher et al. 2018. A scoping review of the epidemiological methods used to investigate the health effects of industrially contaminated sites. Epidemiologia e Prevenzione 42(5):59-68.
[12]	de Sherbinin, A.M. 2014. Mapping the unmeasurable? Spatial analysis of vulnerability to climate change and climate variability. Doctoral thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
[13]	de Souza Porto, M.F., and C.M. de Freitas. 2020. Major chemical accidents in industrializing countries:The socio-political amplification of risk. In Risk management, ed. G. Mars, and D.T.H. Weir, 415-426. London:Routledge.
[14]	Delvosalle, C., B. Robert, J. Nourry, G. Yan, S. Brohez, and J. Delcourt. 2017. Considering critical infrastructures in the land use planning policy around Seveso plants. Safety Science 97:27-33.
[15]	Dhara, V.R., and R. Dhara. 2002. The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal:A review of health effects. Archives of Environmental Health 57(5):391-404.
[16]	Eskenazi, B., M. Warner, P. Brambilla, S. Signorini, J. Ames, and P. Mocarelli. 2018. The Seveso accident:A look at 40 years of health research and beyond. Environment International 121:71-84.
[17]	Fatemi, F., A. Ardalan, B.E. Aguirre, N. Mansouri, and I. Mohammadfam. 2017. Constructing the indicators of assessing human vulnerability to industrial chemical accidents:A consensus-based Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy AHP approach. PLoS Currents. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.526884afe308f8876dce69c545357ecd.
[18]	Fekete, A. 2009. Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9(2):393-403.
[19]	Fekete, A. 2019. Social vulnerability change assessment:Monitoring longitudinal demographic indicators of disaster risk in Germany from 2005 to 2015. Natural Hazards 95(3):585-614.
[20]	Fekete, A. 2022. Phasing out of nuclear-Phasing out of risk? Spatial assessment of social vulnerability and exposure to nuclear power plants in Germany. Progress in Disaster Science 15:100242.
[21]	Gerbec, M., and B. Kontic. 2002. Application of the Seveso II Directive in Slovenia with the support of GIS. In GIS for emergency preparedness and health risk reduction, ed. D.J. Briggs, P. Forer, and L. Järup, 193-203. Dordrecht:Springer.
[22]	Giger, W. 2007. The fire catastrophe at schweizerhalle 1986-Review and assessment of its long-term impact (Brandkatastrophe in Schweizerhalle 1986-Rückblick und Bilanz). Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung 19(1):11-23 (in German).
[23]	Glatron, S., and E. Beck. 2008. Evaluation of socio-spatial vulnerability of citydwellers and analysis of risk perception:industrial and seismic risks in Mulhouse. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 8(5):1029-1040.
[24]	Gómez-Delgado, M., and S. Tarantola. 2006. GLOBAL sensitivity analysis, GIS and multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable planning of a hazardous waste disposal site in Spain. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20(4):449-466.
[25]	Harjula, H. 2006. Hazardous waste:Recognition of the problem and response. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1076(1):462-477.
[26]	Hollá, K., M. Polorecká, J. Kubás, and M. Ballay. 2021. Validity of the Seveso II and III Directive in the EU. Transportation Research Procedia 55:1506-1513.
[27]	Huang, L., J. Bi, B. Zhang, F. Li, and C. Qu. 2010. Perception of people for the risk of Tianwan nuclear power plant. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 4(1):73-81.
[28]	Jasanoff, S. 1994. Learning from disaster:Risk management after Bhopal. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
[29]	Kabisch, S. 2005. Empirical analyses on housing vacancy and urban shrinkage. In Methodologies in housing research, ed. N. Wilkinson, D.U. Vestbro, and Y. Hurol, 188-205. Gateshead, UK:The Urban International Press.
[30]	King, D. 2001. Uses and limitations of socioeconomic indicators of community vulnerability to natural hazards:Data and disasters in Northern Australia. Natural Hazards 24(2):147-156.
[31]	Kirchsteiger, C. 2001. How frequent are major industrial accidents in Europe?. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 79(4):206-210.
[32]	Kirchsteiger, C., H. Gohla, and A. Ostuni. 1999. Development of a GIS tool for monitoring and evaluating the risk potential of "Seveso Plants" in the European Union. Oak Ridge, TN:US Department of Energy.
[33]	Kyne, D., and J.T. Harris. 2015. A longitudinal study of human exposure to potential nuclear power plant risk. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6(4):399-414.
[34]	Lees, F. 2012. Lees' loss prevention in the process industries:Hazard identification, assessment and control. Oxford, UK:Butterworth-Heinemann.
[35]	Li, F., J. Bi, L. Huang, C. Qu, J. Yang, and Q. Bu. 2010. Mapping human vulnerability to chemical accidents in the vicinity of chemical industry parks. Journal of Hazardous Materials 179(1-3):500-506.
[36]	Luo, X., D. Tzioutzios, Z. Tong, and A.M. Cruz. 2022. Find-Natech:A GIS-based spatial management system for Natech events. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 76:103028.
[37]	Mohammed Saeed, I.M., M.A.M. Saleh, S. Hashim, Y.M.S. Hama, K. Hamza, and S.H. Al-Shatri. 2020. The radiological assessment, hazard evaluation, and spatial distribution for a hypothetical nuclear power plant accident at Baiji potential site. Environmental Sciences Europe 32(1):1-12.
[38]	Nerin, C., B. Seco, A. Tena, and M. Calvo. 2014. Seveso disaster and the European Seveso Directives. In Encyclopedia of toxicology, ed. P. Wexler, 244-247. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
[39]	Orso Giacone, M., E. Ponte, G. Giannino, A. Navarretta, B. Basso, M. Zappia. 2007. SIAR Web-GIS in Regione Piemonte:A public administration tool about Seveso installations. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Chemical and Process Engineering (ICHEAP-8), 24-27 June 2007, Ischia, Italy.
[40]	Papu-Zamxaka, V., T. Harpham, and A. Mathee. 2010. Environmental legislation and contamination:The gap between theory and reality in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 91(11):2275-2280.
[41]	Pence, J., I. Miller, T. Sakurahara, J. Whitacre, S. Reihani, E. Kee, and Z. Mohaghegh. 2019. GIS-based integration of social vulnerability and level 3 probabilistic risk assessment to advance emergency preparedness, planning, and response for severe nuclear power plant accidents. Risk Analysis 39(6):1262-1280.
[42]	Pesatori, A.C., D. Consonni, S. Bachetti, C. Zocchetti, M. Bonzini, A. Baccarelli, and P.A. Bertazzi. 2003. Short-and long-term morbidity and mortality in the population exposed to dioxin after the "Seveso accident". Industrial Health 41(3):127-138.
[43]	Radosavljević, J., A. Djordjević, A. Vukadinović, and D. Ristic. 2018. Vulnerability assessment of settlements during emergencies. Transactions of the VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava 13(1):1-7.
[44]	Raufer, R.K. 1996. Seveso Directive review. Environmental Policy and Law 26(4):177.
[45]	Renn, O. 1990. Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology 10(2):151-167.
[46]	Rufat, S., E. Tate, C.G. Burton, and A.S. Maroof. 2015. Social vulnerability to floods:Review of case studies and implications for measurement. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14(4):470-486.
[47]	Rufat, S., E. Tate, C.T. Emrich, and F. Antolini. 2019. How valid are social vulnerability models?. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109(4):1131-1153.
[48]	Rygel, L., and D. O`Sullivan, and B. Yarnal. 2006. A method for constructing a social vulnerability index. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11(3):741-764.
[49]	Salvi, O., and B. Debray. 2006. A global view on ARAMIS, a risk assessment methodology for industries in the framework of the SEVESO II directive. Journal of Hazardous Materials 130(3):187-199.
[50]	Schmidtlein, M.C., R.C. Deutsch, W.W. Piegorsch, and S.L. Cutter. 2008. A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Analysis:An International Journal 28(4):1099-1114.
[51]	Schneiderbauer, S., and D. Ehrlich. 2006. Social levels and hazard (in)dependence in determining vulnerability. In Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards:Towards disaster resilient societies, ed. J. Birkmann, 78-102. Tokyo:United Nations University Press.
[52]	Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280-285.
[53]	Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. 2020. Overview of the register supported census 2020 (Der registergestützte Zensus im Überblick 2020). https://www.zensus2011.de/DE/Zensus2011/Methode/Methode_node.html. Accessed 11 Jan 2023 (in German).
[54]	Ştefănescu, L., C. Botezan, and I. Crăciun. 2018. Vulnerability analysis for two accident scenarios at an upper-tier Seveso establishment in Romania. Geographia Technica. https://doi.org/10.21163/gt_2018.131.10.
[55]	Steinhauser, G., A. Brandl, and T.E. Johnson. 2014. Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents:A review of the environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment 470:800-817.
[56]	Suarez-Paba, M.C., M. Perreur, F. Munoz, and A.M. Cruz. 2019. Systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis of Natech research in the past four decades. Safety Science 116:58-77.
[57]	Suarez-Paba, M.C., D. Tzioutzios, A.M. Cruz, and E. Krausmann. 2020. Toward Natech resilient industries. In Disaster risk reduction and resilience, ed. M. Yokomatsu, and S. Hochrainer-Stigler, 45-64. Singapore:Springer.
[58]	Suffo, M., E. Nebot, and J. Vílchez. 2015. Comparative study of the incidence of the Seveso Directive by territorial domains:The particular case of the Andalusia region. Afinidad 72(569):21-30.
[59]	Susnik, J. 1987. Population risk in the wider area around the planned nuclear power plant (Tveganje prebivalstva v sirsem podrocju lokacije nacrtovane jedrske elektrarne). In Proceedings of the Conference-ETAN'87:Society for Electronics, Telecommunications, Automation, and Nuclear Engineering, 1-5 Jun 1987, Serbia (in Slovenian).
[60]	Tahmid, M., S. Dey, and S.R. Syeda. 2020. Mapping human vulnerability and risk due to chemical accidents. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 68:104289.
[61]	Török, Z., R.-M. Petrescu-Mag, A. Mereuță, C.V. Maloş, V.-I. Arghiuş, and A. Ozunu. 2020. Analysis of territorial compatibility for Seveso-type sites using different risk assessment methods and GIS technique. Land Use Policy 95:103878.
[62]	UNDRR-APSTAAG (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction-Asia-Pacific Science, Technology and Academia Advisory Group). 2020. Asia-Pacific regional framework for Natech (Natural hazards triggering technological disasters) risk management. Geneva, Switzerland:UNDRR.
[63]	UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2017. Technical guidance for monitoring and reporting on progress in achieving the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. New. Geneva:United Nations.
[64]	United Nations. 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva, Switzerland:United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
[65]	Welle, T., Y. Depietri, M. Angignard, J. Birkmann, F. Renaud, and S. Greiving. 2014. Vulnerability assessment to heat waves, floods, and earthquakes Using the MOVE framework:Test case Cologne, Germany. In Assessment of vulnerability to natural hazards, ed. J. Birkmann, S. Kienberger, and D.E. Alexander, 91-124. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
[66]	Wiechmann, T., and K.M. Pallagst. 2012. Urban shrinkage in Germany and the USA:A comparison of transformation patterns and local strategies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36(2):261-280.
[67]	Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At risk-Natural hazards, peoplés vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. London:Routledge.
[68]	Wood, M.H., and L. Fabbri. 2019. Challenges and opportunities for assessing global progress in reducing chemical accident risks. Progress in Disaster Science 4:100044.
[69]	Zhao, M., and X. Liu. 2016. Regional risk assessment for urban major hazards based on GIS geoprocessing to improve public safety. Safety Science 87:18-24.
[70]	Zhao, Q., L.D. Han, and N. Luo. 2018. A proposed semi-quantitative framework for comprehensive risk assessment of urban hazard installations considering rescue accessibility and evacuation vulnerability. Safety Science 110:192-203.
[71]	Zografos, K.G., G.M. Vasilakis, and I.M. Giannouli. 2000. Methodological framework for developing decision support systems (DSS) for hazardous materials emergency response operations. Journal of Hazardous Materials 71(1-3):503-521.