Search

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.

Land-use planning (LUP) with respect to major accident hazards is one of the more important requirements of Directive 96/82/EC (the so-called Seveso II Directive). Different approaches were developed by the Member States of the European Union in order to implement this aspect of the Directive. This study focuses on the comparison of the specific approaches developed for LUP with respect to major accidents hazards. An Italian industrial area has been selected to perform a case study. The different LUP criteria have been used both to evaluate the present state of the area and the effect of several proposed hazard reduction actions. The results obtained have allowed a comparison of the different LUP methodologies. Critical steps in the application of the different LUP criteria have been identified, and the different priorities of hazard reduction actions resulting from risk-based and consequence-based approaches have been highlighted.