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

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.

Keywords

Germany / Industrial disaster risk / Seveso directives / Seveso sites / Social vulnerability

References

[1] Ardalan A, Fatemi F, Aguirre B, Mansouri N, Mohammdfam I. Assessing human vulnerability in industrial chemical accidents: A qualitative and quantitative methodological approach. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2019, 191(8): 1-11

[2] Beck U. Risk society: Towards a new modernity, 1992, London: Sage

[3] Bertazzi PA, Bernucci I, Brambilla G, Consonni D, Pesatori AC. The Seveso studies on early and long-term effects of dioxin exposure: A review. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1998, 106(suppl 2): 625-633

[4] Birkmann J. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, 2013 2 Tokyo: United Nations University Press

[5] Bogliolo MP. Proposal of a reference geo-database to support safety tasks involving the land context of Seveso establishments. Chemical Engineering, 2012, 26: 483-488.

[6] Bonvicini S, Ganapini S, Spadoni G, Cozzani V. The description of population vulnerability in quantitative risk analysis. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 2012, 32(9): 1576-1594

[7] Bubbico R, Carta R, Di Cave S, Luccone LG, Mazzarotta B, Silvetti B. Schmocker U, Dang VN. A GIS based approach to environmental vulnerability. Spitzer, 2004, Springer, London: Probabilistic safety assessment and management 3305-3310.

[8] Chang N-B, Wei Y, Tseng C, Kao C-Y. The design of a GIS-based decision support system for chemical emergency preparedness and response in an urban environment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 1997, 21(1): 67-94

[9] Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 2003, 84(2): 242-261

[10] De Cort R. The development of UK and European major hazards legislation and the review of the Seveso Directive. Disaster Prevention and Management, 1994, 3(2): 8-14

[11] De Sario M, Pasetto R, Vecchi S, Zeka A, Hoek G, Michelozzi P, Iavarone I, Fletcher T A scoping review of the epidemiological methods used to investigate the health effects of industrially contaminated sites. Epidemiologia e Prevenzione, 2018, 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 MF, de Freitas CM. Mars G, Weir DTH. Major chemical accidents in industrializing countries: The socio-political amplification of risk. Risk management, 2020, London: Routledge 415-426.

[14] Delvosalle C, Robert B, Nourry J, Yan G, Brohez S, Delcourt J. Considering critical infrastructures in the land use planning policy around Seveso plants. Safety Science, 2017, 97: 27-33

[15] Dhara VR, Dhara R. The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal: A review of health effects. Archives of Environmental Health, 2002, 57(5): 391-404

[16] Eskenazi B, Warner M, Brambilla P, Signorini S, Ames J, Mocarelli P. The Seveso accident: A look at 40 years of health research and beyond. Environment International, 2018, 121: 71-84

[17] Fatemi F, Ardalan A, Aguirre BE, Mansouri N, Mohammadfam I. Constructing the indicators of assessing human vulnerability to industrial chemical accidents: A consensus-based Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy AHP approach. PLoS Currents, 2017

[18] Fekete A. Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2009, 9(2): 393-403

[19] Fekete A. Social vulnerability change assessment: Monitoring longitudinal demographic indicators of disaster risk in Germany from 2005 to 2015. Natural Hazards, 2019, 95(3): 585-614

[20] Fekete A. 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, 2022, 15: 100242

[21] Gerbec M, Kontic B. Briggs DJ, Forer P, Järup L. Application of the Seveso II Directive in Slovenia with the support of GIS. GIS for emergency preparedness and health risk reduction, 2002, Dordrecht: Springer 193-203

[22] Giger W. 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, 2007, 19(1): 11-23 in German)

[23] Glatron S, Beck E. Evaluation of socio-spatial vulnerability of citydwellers and analysis of risk perception: industrial and seismic risks in Mulhouse. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2008, 8(5): 1029-1040

[24] Gómez-Delgado M, Tarantola S. 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, 2006, 20(4): 449-466

[25] Harjula H. Hazardous waste: Recognition of the problem and response. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2006, 1076(1): 462-477

[26] Hollá K, Polorecká M, Kubás J, Ballay M. Validity of the Seveso II and III Directive in the EU. Transportation Research Procedia, 2021, 55: 1506-1513

[27] Huang L, Bi J, Zhang B, Li F, Qu C. Perception of people for the risk of Tianwan nuclear power plant. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2010, 4(1): 73-81

[28] Jasanoff S. Learning from disaster: Risk management after Bhopal, 1994, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

[29] Kabisch S. Wilkinson N, Vestbro DU, Hurol Y. Empirical analyses on housing vacancy and urban shrinkage. Methodologies in housing research, 2005, Gateshead, UK: The Urban International Press 188-205.

[30] King D. Uses and limitations of socioeconomic indicators of community vulnerability to natural hazards: Data and disasters in Northern Australia. Natural Hazards, 2001, 24(2): 147-156

[31] Kirchsteiger C. How frequent are major industrial accidents in Europe?. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2001, 79(4): 206-210

[32] Kirchsteiger C, Gohla H, Ostuni A. Development of a GIS tool for monitoring and evaluating the risk potential of “Seveso Plants” in the European Union, 1999, Oak Ridge, TN: US Department of Energy

[33] Kyne D, Harris JT. A longitudinal study of human exposure to potential nuclear power plant risk. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2015, 6(4): 399-414

[34] Lees F. Lees' loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification, assessment and control, 2012, Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann

[35] Li F, Bi J, Huang L, Qu C, Yang J, Bu Q. Mapping human vulnerability to chemical accidents in the vicinity of chemical industry parks. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2010, 179(1–3): 500-506

[36] Luo X, Tzioutzios D, Tong Z, Cruz AM. Find-Natech: A GIS-based spatial management system for Natech events. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2022, 76: 103028

[37] Mohammed Saeed IM, Saleh MAM, Hashim S, Hama YMS, Hamza K, Al-Shatri SH. The radiological assessment, hazard evaluation, and spatial distribution for a hypothetical nuclear power plant accident at Baiji potential site. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2020, 32(1): 1-12

[38] Nerin C, Seco B, Tena A, Calvo M. Wexler P. Seveso disaster and the European Seveso Directives. Encyclopedia of toxicology, 2014, Amsterdam: Elsevier 244-247

[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, Harpham T, Mathee A. Environmental legislation and contamination: The gap between theory and reality in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 2010, 91(11): 2275-2280

[41] Pence J, Miller I, Sakurahara T, Whitacre J, Reihani S, Kee E, Mohaghegh Z. 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, 2019, 39(6): 1262-1280

[42] Pesatori AC, Consonni D, Bachetti S, Zocchetti C, Bonzini M, Baccarelli A, Bertazzi PA. Short-and long-term morbidity and mortality in the population exposed to dioxin after the “Seveso accident”. Industrial Health, 2003, 41(3): 127-138

[43] Radosavljević J, Djordjević A, Vukadinović A, Ristic D. Vulnerability assessment of settlements during emergencies. Transactions of the VŠB – Technical University of Ostrava, 2018, 13(1): 1-7.

[44] Raufer RK. Seveso Directive review. Environmental Policy and Law, 1996, 26(4): 177

[45] Renn O. Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1990, 10(2): 151-167

[46] Rufat S, Tate E, Burton CG, Maroof AS. Social vulnerability to floods: Review of case studies and implications for measurement. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015, 14(4): 470-486

[47] Rufat S, Tate E, Emrich CT, Antolini F. How valid are social vulnerability models?. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2019, 109(4): 1131-1153

[48] Rygel L, O`Sullivan D, Yarnal B. A method for constructing a social vulnerability index. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2006, 11(3): 741-764

[49] Salvi O, Debray B. A global view on ARAMIS, a risk assessment methodology for industries in the framework of the SEVESO II directive. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2006, 130(3): 187-199

[50] Schmidtlein MC, Deutsch RC, Piegorsch WW, Cutter SL. A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 2008, 28(4): 1099-1114

[51] Schneiderbauer S, Ehrlich D. Birkmann J. Social levels and hazard (in)dependence in determining vulnerability. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, 2006, Tokyo: United Nations University Press 78-102.

[52] Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 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, Botezan C, Crăciun I. Vulnerability analysis for two accident scenarios at an upper-tier Seveso establishment in Romania. Geographia Technica, 2018

[55] Steinhauser G, Brandl A, Johnson TE. Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 2014, 470: 800-817

[56] Suarez-Paba MC, Perreur M, Munoz F, Cruz AM. Systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis of Natech research in the past four decades. Safety Science, 2019, 116: 58-77

[57] Suarez-Paba MC, Tzioutzios D, Cruz AM, Krausmann E. Yokomatsu M, Hochrainer-Stigler S. Toward Natech resilient industries. Disaster risk reduction and resilience, 2020, Singapore: Springer 45-64

[58] Suffo M, Nebot E, Vílchez J. Comparative study of the incidence of the Seveso Directive by territorial domains: The particular case of the Andalusia region. Afinidad, 2015, 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, Dey S, Syeda SR. Mapping human vulnerability and risk due to chemical accidents. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 68: 104289

[61] Török Z, Petrescu-Mag R-M, Mereuță A, Maloș CV, Arghiuș V-I, Ozunu A. Analysis of territorial compatibility for Seveso-type sites using different risk assessment methods and GIS technique. Land Use Policy, 2020, 95: 103878

[62] UNDRR–APSTAAG (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction – Asia-Pacific Science, Technology and Academia Advisory Group) Asia-Pacific regional framework for Natech (Natural hazards triggering technological disasters) risk management, 2020, Geneva, Switzerland: UNDRR

[63] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) Technical guidance for monitoring and reporting on progress in achieving the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, Geneva: United Nations

[64] United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, 2015, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

[65] Welle T, Depietri Y, Angignard M, Birkmann J, Renaud F, Greiving S. Birkmann J, Kienberger S, Alexander DE. Vulnerability assessment to heat waves, floods, and earthquakes Using the MOVE framework: Test case Cologne, Germany. Assessment of vulnerability to natural hazards, 2014, Amsterdam: Elsevier 91-124

[66] Wiechmann T, Pallagst KM. Urban shrinkage in Germany and the USA: A comparison of transformation patterns and local strategies. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2012, 36(2): 261-280

[67] Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I. At risk – Natural hazards, people´s vulnerability and disasters, 2004 2 London: Routledge

[68] Wood MH, Fabbri L. Challenges and opportunities for assessing global progress in reducing chemical accident risks. Progress in Disaster Science, 2019, 4: 100044

[69] Zhao M, Liu X. Regional risk assessment for urban major hazards based on GIS geoprocessing to improve public safety. Safety Science, 2016, 87: 18-24

[70] Zhao Q, Han LD, Luo N. A proposed semi-quantitative framework for comprehensive risk assessment of urban hazard installations considering rescue accessibility and evacuation vulnerability. Safety Science, 2018, 110: 192-203

[71] Zografos KG, Vasilakis GM, Giannouli IM. Methodological framework for developing decision support systems (DSS) for hazardous materials emergency response operations. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2000, 71(1–3): 503-521