“Hot spots” of geoecological risk and problems of territorial planning

Introduction. The tasks of territorial planning are closely related to the problems of locating new high-risk facilities without increasing the environmental load. Thus, the task of locating high environmental risk facilities for recycling and deep processing of wastes appears to an essential economic and scientific problem that requires an immediate solution. The long-term consequences of such decisions should be forecasted and analysed.

Aim. To identify “hot spots” according to their risk degree in order to exclude the most dangerous areas from further planning and use.

Materials and methods. The stated problem is solved on the basis of environmental risk management, which includes the following concepts: 1) hazard identification; 2) vulnerability assessment; 3) risk analysis; 4) acceptable risk concept; 5) risk assessment; 6) risk mapping; 7) risk reduction measures, including a) legislative; b) organisational and administrative; c) economic, including insurance; d) engineering; e) modelling; f) monitoring; g) informational. Data and maps of hazardous natural and technogenic processes and potential damage to the territories of the Moscow Oblast were used.

Results. When carrying out territorial planning and location of additional hazard facilities, representing an increased ecological load, such as incineration plants and landfills for recycling and deep processing of wastes, high ecological risk regions should be excluded from the potential location list. In the Moscow Oblast, these are primarily Lyuberetsky and Ramensky districts (east-southeast of Moscow). Lyubertsky district can be considered as a “hot spot” of the first class in terms of ecological risk due to the high natural hazard and potential damage. The findings obtained when determining “hot spots” based on geological, geodynamic, tectonic and socio-economic parameters, were confirmed by the areas of geochemical pollution and environmental stress zones.

Conclusion. The developed method of identifying the risk “hot spots” represents a basis for solving the problems of territorial planning for the purpose of excluding the most ecologically stressed sites and selecting suitable sites for locating hazard facilities, in particular, recycling and waste processing plants.

1. Atlas of natural and man-made hazards and risks of emergency situations in the Russian Federation / Under tot. ed. S.K. Shoigu. Moscow: “Design. Information. Cartography”, 2005.

2. Vagner B.B. Manifestation of dangerous natural processes and phenomena on the territory of the Moscow region and measures to reduce damage from them. 2009. URL: http://www.obrsouz.ru/O3_3.htm

3. Vagner B.B., Manucharyants B.O. Geology, relief and minerals of the Moscow region. Moscow: MGPU, 2003. 82 p.

4. Zaikanov V.G., Zaikanova I.N., Buldakova E.V. Geoecological and landscape-ecological analysis of the territories of existing MSW dumps in the Moscow Region // Sergeev Readings. 2018. Iss. 10. P. 65—70.

5. Kozlyakova I.V., Kozhevnikova I.A., Anisimova N.G., Ivanov P.V. Engineering-geological zoning of the Central Federal District of Russia in terms of the location of enterprises and landfills for the disposal of solid domestic waste // Sergeev Readings. 2018. Iss. 10. P. 74—77.

6. Kozlyakova I.V., Eremina O.N., Mironov O.K. Geological risk of urbanized territories (assessment and mapping on the example of Moscow) // Geoecology. 2018. No. 5. P. 53—65.

7. Makeev V.M., Makarova N.V., Ledenev V.N., Dorozhko A.L., Sukhanova N.V., Karfidova E.A., Korobova I.V. Fundamentals of the concept of geodynamic safety of environmentally hazardous engineering objects // Geoecology. Engineering geology. Hydrogeology. Geocriology. 2015. No. 2. P. 99—110.

8. Moscow. Geology and city / Ed. Osipova V.I. and Medvedeva O.P. Moscow: Moscow textbooks and cartolithography, 1997. 400 p.

9. General geographic atlas “Moscow. Moscow Region”. VTU GSh, 439 TsEVKF. Moscow, 2000.

10. Osipov V.I. Municipal solid waste management as a federal environmental project // Geoecology. Engineering geology, hydrogeology, geocryology. 2019. No. 3. P. 3—11.

11. Natural hazards in Russia. Assessment and management of natural risks / Ed. Ragozina A.L. Moscow: KROK, 2003. 316 p.

12. Recommendations for assessing the geological risk of Moscow / Ed. Ragozina A.L. Moskomarchitectura, GU GO EMERCOM of Moscow. Moscow: State Unitary Enterprise NIATs, 2002. 59 p.

13. Svalova V.B. Reducing the risk of landslide processes // United All-Russian Scientific Bulletin. 2016. II. P. 79—83.

14. Brikmann J. Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications // Environment Hazards. 2007. No. 7. P. 20—31.

15. Corominas J., van Westen C., Frattini P., Cascini L., Mallet J.-P., et al. Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk //Bulletin of Engineering Geology and Environment. 2014. No. 2 P. 209—263.

16. Cutter S.L. Building disaster resilience: steps toward sustainability // Challenges in Sustainability. 2014. Vol. 1(2). P. 72—79.

17. Cutter S.L., Finch C. Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. 2008. Vol. 105(7). P. 2301—2306.

18. Dilley M., Chen R.S., Deichmann W., Lerner-Lam A.L., Arnold M. Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 2005.

19. Proske D. Catalogue of risks // Natural, Technical, Social and Health Risks. Springer. 2007.

20. Jaedicke C., Van Den Eeckhaut M., Nadim F., Herva´s J., Kalsnes B., Vangelsten B., Smith J., TofaniV., Ciurean R., Winter V., Thygeson K., Syre T., Smebye H. Identification of landslide hazard and risk ‘hotspots’ in Europe. // Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2014. No. 73. P. 325—339. DOI: 10.1007/s10064-013-0541-0

21. Knight F.H. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Chicago: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921. 22. Svalova V.B. Mechanical-mathematical modeling and monitoring for landslide processes // Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering. 2011. Vol. 5, No. 10. P. 1282—1287.

22. Svalova V. Landslide Risk: Assessment, Management and Reduction. NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2017. 253 p.

23. Svalova V. (ed.). Risk Assessment. InTech, London, 2019. 384 p.

24. Svalova V. (ed.) Natural Hazards and Risk Research in Russia. Switzerland, Springer , 2019. 400 p.

25. Vranken L, Vantilt G, Van Den Elckhaut M, Vandekerckhove L, Poesen J. Landslide risk assessment in densely populated hilly area. // Landslides. 2015. Vol. 12, No. 4. P. 787—798.