Search

Transport is crucial for society: Societies cannot function without the transport of people and goods. It enables us to participate in many activities at different locations, such as living, working, education, shopping and visiting relatives and friends. In addition, it allows us to transport goods, from the locations of mining of raw materials, via several production stages, culminating in the shops where people buy products, or even up to the final locations of use, such as houses or offices. The transport system is heavily influenced by public policies. For example, governments decide where and when to build new infrastructure, even in countries that have privately owned infrastructure, such as France and Portugal. Governments set regulations for safety (examples include vehicles, crash worthiness; infrastructure, design; speed limits; persons, alcohol; age of being allowed to drive a car), emission of pollutants (CO2 and noise) and decide on levies on vehicles and fuels. Governments make dedicated public transport policies.

The book proposes a set of original contributions in research areas shared by planning theory, architectural research, design and ethical inquiry. The contributors gathered in 2010 at the Ethics of the Built Environment seminar organized by the editors at Delft University of Technology. Both prominent and emerging scholars presented their researches in the areas of aesthetics, technological risks, planning theory and architecture. The scope of the seminar was highlighting shared lines of ethical inquiry among the themes discussed, in order to identify perspectives of innovative interdisciplinary research. After the seminar all seminar participants have elaborated their proposed contributions. Some of the most prominent international authors in the field were subsequently invited to join in with this inquiry. Claudia Basta teaches "Network Infrastructures and Mobility" at Wageningen University. Between 2009 and 2011 she worked as Coordinator of the 3TU Centre of Excellence for Ethics and Technology of Delft University, where she completed her post-doc research on the shared areas of investigation between risk theories, planning theories and ethical inquiry. Her main research interests concern the matter of assessing and governing technological risks in relation to sustainable land use planning. She wrote a number of journal articles and contributions to collective books on these themes. Stefano Moroni teaches “Land use ethics and the law” at Milan Politecnico. His main research interests concern planning theory and ethics. He is the author of a number of books and journal articles. Recent publications (as co-author): Contractual Communities in the Self-Organizing City (Springer 2012).

Although it is perhaps the most prominent interdisciplinary theme to have emerged in the past decades, in the domain of planning studies the prevention of technological risks has only recently started the pathway towards a rigorous theoretical definition (Boholm and Lofsted 2004; Hayden Lesbirel and Shaw 2005; Schmidt-Thomé 2006). This article is a further contribution and tries to delimit the shared area of investigation among risk theories, planning theories and ethical inquiry. In particular it discusses the matter of accounting technological risk, and its counterpart safety, as an explicit spatial design factor; this, not only in relation to the immediate context of risk-bearing installations but rather in relation to the overall distribution of risks in society. This latter consideration relates to the inherently normative nature of the practice of risk prevention, whose moral implications cannot be limited to the site-specific context of hazards; it is in fact the overall risk distribution in society, taking place through planning instruments, that needs to be considered. This article is part of a series of writings that aim at promoting a debate on what theoretical perspectives different disciplinary domains can contribute with in order to elaborate a solid and consistent planning discourse on technological risks. As such it constitutes a contribution to the streams of research of the referenced sociology, planning, risk and ethics scholars.

In 2004, the Major Accidents Hazards Bureau of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission launched the “Land Use Planning Including MAHB and NEDIES” research programme, in the context of which most of the research collected in this book was conducted. The focus of the investigation was on the different methods developed by Member States for implementing Art 12 of the Seveso II Directive, stating the Control of Urbanization requirement. Art 12 is the first European requirement calling Member States to “ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land-use policies and/or other relevant policies”. Scope of the MAHB investigation was providing an up-to-date overview of national implementations of Art 12 in order to elaborate the relevant Guidance and providing Member States with additional supporting instruments. The Guidance was adopted by the European Commission in November 2006. Based on a questionnaire survey, literature review and direct interviews with the members of the European Working Group on Land Use Planning (EWGLUP), the investigation led to the elaboration of a second supporting instrument, the Roadmaps. In this research document, the different methods developed in a selected group of Member States (The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy) for implementing Art 12 are investigated. Recommendations for best- practice in the field are given. In the autumn of 2004 the PhD project was involved in the investigation and particularly in the elaboration of the Roadmaps. But whereas this research document ended with reporting the different approaches developed in the European Union, the PhD project tried to explain them. Which are the characterizing elements of the different national implementations of Art 12? What determined the development of different methods for land use planning in “Seveso” areas in the relevant national practices? Are different national approaches leading to different levels of prevention? How are political views and cultural orientations influencing their adoptions? Finally, which is the role and which are the perspectives of the European regulation in the light of these differences?

The definition of safety distances as required by Art 12 of the Seveso II Directive on dangerous substances (96/82/EC) is necessary to minimize the consequences of potential major accidents. As they affect the land-use destinations of involved areas, safety distances can be considered as risk tolerability criteria with a territorial reflection. Recent studies explored the suitability of using Geographical Information System technologies to support their elaboration and visual rendering. In particular, the elaboration of GIS ¿risk-maps¿ has been recognized as functional to two objectives: connecting spatial planners and safety experts during decision making processes and communicating risk to non-experts audiences. In order to elaborate on these findings and to verify their reflection on European practices, the article presents the result of a comparative study between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands recent developments. Their land-use planning practices for areas falling under Seveso II requirements are explored. The role of GIS risk-maps within decisional processes is analyzed and the reflection on the transparency and accessibility of risk-information is commented. Recommendations for further developments are given.

Recent studies explored the suitability of using Geographical Information System to support decisional processes in the field of risk assessment & management. In particular, the elaboration of GIS ¿risk-maps¿ has been recognized as functional to two objectives: connecting decision-makers and stakeholders during decisional processes and communicating risk to non-experts audiences. In both cases, the use GIS results in increased transparency, as it gives clear ground and evidences to risk-related decisions. In order to elaborate on these findings and to verify the current use of GIS within European decisional processes, we have begun a comparative study between the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. Their land-use planning practices (LUP) are explored with respect to the risk of major accident as derived from the EU Directive Seveso II. The contribution and the role of GIS within decisional processes is analysed, and recommendations for further developments are discussed