Natural hazards and risk in tara hategului (romania)

692 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
692
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Natural hazards and risk in tara hategului (romania)

  1. 1. NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISKS IN ŢARA HAŢEGULUI (ROMANIA) Research coordinator Prof. univ. dr. Virgil Surdeanu PhD Candidate Dana Goţiu BABEŞ-BOLYAI UNIVERSITY CLUJ-NAPOCA
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ICHAPTER I INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION 1.1. Introduction1.1. Introduction 1.2. General trends in hazard and risk research1.2. General trends in hazard and risk research 1.3. Previous research in the study area1.3. Previous research in the study area 1.4. Main goals of the research1.4. Main goals of the research CHAPTER IICHAPTER II METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY 2.1. Methods and techniques used in natural risk assessment2.1. Methods and techniques used in natural risk assessment 2.2. The methodology used in this study2.2. The methodology used in this study CHAPTER IIICHAPTER III NATURAL HAZARDS AND THEIR RELATED NOTIONS BETWEEN MYTH AND REALINATURAL HAZARDS AND THEIR RELATED NOTIONS BETWEEN MYTH AND REALITYTY 3.1. Introduction3.1. Introduction 3.2. Questions and perspectives in defining the terms used in ha3.2. Questions and perspectives in defining the terms used in hazard and risk assessmentzard and risk assessment 3.3. Natural and manmade hazards3.3. Natural and manmade hazards 3.4. Vulnerability3.4. Vulnerability –– the qualitative feature of the elements at riskthe qualitative feature of the elements at risk CHAPTER IVCHAPTER IV NATURAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN TARA HATEGULUINATURAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN TARA HATEGULUI 4.1. Identification and characterization of the natural hazards4.1. Identification and characterization of the natural hazards 4.2. Causality and interrelations between the natural hazards an4.2. Causality and interrelations between the natural hazards and their triggering factorsd their triggering factors CHAPTER VCHAPTER V TARA HATEGULUITARA HATEGULUI –– TO BE OR NOT TO BE VULNERABLE?TO BE OR NOT TO BE VULNERABLE? 5.1. Susceptibility assessment to natural hazards5.1. Susceptibility assessment to natural hazards 5.2. The vulnerability of the habitats in Tara Hategului5.2. The vulnerability of the habitats in Tara Hategului CHAPTER VICHAPTER VI NATURAL RISK EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT IN TARA HATEGULUINATURAL RISK EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT IN TARA HATEGULUI 6.1. Natural hazard and risk perception in Tara Hategului6.1. Natural hazard and risk perception in Tara Hategului 6.2. Qualitative risk assessment of the geomorphic hazards6.2. Qualitative risk assessment of the geomorphic hazards 6.3. Risk management6.3. Risk management CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION REFERENCESREFERENCES APENDICESAPENDICES •• Key words: hazard, risk, susceptibility, vulnerability, geomorphKey words: hazard, risk, susceptibility, vulnerability, geomorphic processes, elements at risk, hazard and risk perception,ic processes, elements at risk, hazard and risk perception, factor analysis, hazard and risk managementfactor analysis, hazard and risk management
  3. 3. 1. to present the theoretical background as regarding natural hazards and risks 2. to establish a proper methodology that follows the actual trends in this field 3. to identify hazards and risks through analytical methods 4. to evaluate the susceptibility of the relief and the vulnerability of people to natural hazards 5. to define the degree perceived risk at the level of the communities 6. to integrate the analytical results into an integrative study of risks 7. to classify risks in relation to the territorial realities 8. to choose the right techniques for digital mapping 9. to quantify risk and make the thematic risk maps Research questions
  4. 4. EData acquisition Field work Data processing (interpretation and analysis) Susceptibility analysis Landslide susceptibility Erosion susceptibility Flood susceptibility Overall vulnerability Overall susceptibility RISK d a t a Vulnerability to floods Vulnerability to bank erosion Vulnerability to erosion Vulnerability analysis Vulnerability to landslides Bank erosion susceptibility Flow chart for the methodology used to risk assessment in Ţara Haţegului
  5. 5. ŢARA HAŢEGULUI - NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
  6. 6. NATURAL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION IN ŢARA HAŢEGULUI A.A. SLOPE PROCESSESSLOPE PROCESSES Livezi Ciula Mare Ciula Mică Râu de Mori Sâmpetru
  7. 7. BARU MARE HOT SPOT 1. Index: BM2005 2. Location: Blictaru Hill 3. Lithology: silty clay and sand 4. Sample characteristics: a.date: 11.08.2005 b.humidity: 23.0% c.main minerals: kaolinite (59%), quartz (29%) d.secondary minerals: illite (4%), montmorillonite (4%), iron oxydes (traces) 5. Slope: convex, linear 6. Slope degree: 25-30° 7. Exposure: SV 8. Vegetation: grass 9. Geomorphic processes: linear erosion, superficial landslides 10.Sediment transport: on the slope 11.Distance to: a.The closest house – 200 m b.The closest river – 100 m c.The closest road – not the case 12.Affected infrastructure: none
  8. 8. GENERAL BERTHELOT HOT SPOT 1.Index: GB2005 2.Location: Râpa lui Gîscă 3.Lithology: red clay 4.Sample characteristics: a.date: 09.08.2005 b.humiditaty: 15.0% c. main minerals: illit (58%), hydrated hydro-muscovite (39%) d. secondary minerals: iron oxydes (3%) 5.Slope : linear, straight 6.Slope degree: 70° 7.Exposure : SE 8.Vegetation: grass cca. 10-15%, shrubs 9.Geomorphic processes: linear erosion, crumbling 10.Transport: to the foot of the slope 11.Distance to: a.The closest house – 1 km b.The closest river – not the case c.The closest road – not the case 12.Affected infrastructure: none
  9. 9. LIVEZI HOT SPOT 1.Index: L2005 2.Location: Prislop Hill 3.Lithology: red clay 4.Sample characteristics: a.date: 09.08.2005 b.humidity: 22.0 % c.main minerals: quartz (48%), hydro-muscovite (22%), chlorite (18%), montmorillonite (9%) d.secondary minerals : iron hydro-oxydes (2%), feldspate (traces) 5.Slope: concave 6.Slope degree: 25° 7.Exposure: SE 8.Vegetation: grass 9.Geomorphic processes: linear erosion, crumbling 10.Transport: to the bottom of the gully, then to the foot of the slope 11.Distance to: a.The closest house – 200 m b.The closest river – 300 m c.The closest road – not the case 12.Affected infrastructure: none
  10. 10. RĂCHITOVA HOT SPOT 1.Index: R2005 2.Location: Măgurei Hill 3.Lithology: compact silty clay 4.Sample characteristics: a.date: 26.08.2005 b.humidity: 27.2% c.main minerals: quartz (58%), montmorillonite (18%), chlorite (11%) d.secondary minerals: calcite (5%), feldspate (4%), iron oxydes (4%) 5.Slope: concave, linear 6.Slope degree: 30° 7.Exposure: N 8.Vegetation: grass, fruit trees, shrubs 9.Geomorphic processes: crumbling, superficial landslides, non-active guly erosion 10.Transport: to the foot of the slope, in the Rachitova River 11.Distance to: a.The closest house – 300 m b.The closest river – 0-100 m c.The closest road – 20 m (unpaved road) 12.Affected infrastructure: none
  11. 11. RÂU DE MORI HOT SPOT 1.Index: RM 2005 2.Location: Glămeia Hill, Râu de Mori, abandoned clay quarry 3.Lithology: yellow clay 4.Sample characteristics: a.date: 06.0 8.2002 b.humidity: 17.2% c.main minerals: quartz (46%), sodic feldspar (39%), chlorite (9%), d.secondary minerals: illite (4%), iron oxydes (2%) 5.Slope: concave, left 6.Slope degree: 25° 7.Exposure: SE 8.Vegetation: cca. 40% grass 9.Geomorphic processes: erosion, suffosion, crumbling, superficial landslides 1.Transport: to the foot of the slope 2.Distance to: a.The closest house – 500 m b.The closest river – 100 m c.The closest road – 200 m 3.Affected infrastructure: none
  12. 12. SÂMPETRU HOT SPOT 1.Index: S2005 2.Locaion: Măgurile Hill (Sâmpetru) 3.Litologie: limestone silty clay argile siltice calcaroase 4.Sample characteristics: a.date: 08.08.2005 b. humidity: 23.5% a.main minerals: quartz (54%), hydromuscovite (19%), chlorite (12%), montmorillonite (10%) b.secondary minerals: feldspate (2%), iron hydroxides (3%) 5.Slope: concave, right 6.Slope degree: 20° 7.Exposure: NV 8.Vegetation: grass, compact 9.Geomorphic processes: erosion, superficial landslides, creep 10.Transportul: on the slope, seldom towards the foot of the slope 11.Distance to: a.The closest house – 500m b.The closest river – 100-150 m c.The closest road – not the case 12.Affected infrastructure: none
  13. 13. MĂLĂIESTI HOT SPOT 1. Index: M2005 2. Location: the right riverbank of the Sălaş River 3. Lithology: clay 4. Sample characteristics: a.date: 11.08.2005 b.humidity: 15.1% c.main minerals: hydromuscovite (41%), quartz (31%), chlorite (20%), d.secondary minerals: sodic feldspate (4%), iron hydroxides (3%), dolomite/calcite (traces) 5. Slope: convex, right 6. Slope: 10° 7. Exposure: N 8. Vegetation: agricultural crops 9. Geomorphic processes: rill erosion 10.Transport: local, on the slope 11.Distance to: a.The closest house – not the case b.The closest river – 170 m c.The closest road – 140 m 12.Affected infrastructure: none
  14. 14. NATURAL HAZARDS IN ŢARA HAŢEGULUI B.B. RIVER BANK PROCESSESRIVER BANK PROCESSES Sibişel River Muncel River Crivadia River C.C. PROCESSES RELATED TO THEPROCESSES RELATED TO THE RAU MARERAU MARE--RETEZAT HYDROENERGETICAL SYSTEMRETEZAT HYDROENERGETICAL SYSTEM Păclişa Artificial Lake
  15. 15. Characteristics of lithology Natural humidity Crystalline phasesCrystalline phases
  16. 16. Rock hardness 7% 6% 10% 22% 55% Roci dure si foarte dure Roci compacte Roci consolidate Roci slab consolidate Roci neconsolidate
  17. 17. Landscape morphometry
  18. 18. Rainfall characteristics 0 50 100 150 200 250 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII cantitateadeprecipitatii(mm) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
  19. 19. The ANGOT Index Number of consecutive rainy days 2% 55% 23% 12% 6% 0-1% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Frecvenţa zilelor consecutive cu precipitaţii (Păclişa, 1980-1999) 0 20 40 60 80 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Numarzileconsecutivecuploaie Cantitatea de precipitatii (mm) The relationship between consecutive rainy days and the rainfall amount (Păclişa, 1980-1999)
  20. 20. The influence of drainage upon the geomorphic processes materials from the slope Rainfall erosion Sheet erosion Rainfall transport capacity Sheet erosion transport capacity Total amount of eroded materials Transport capacity Materials on the foot of the slope E<T E>T Erosion, transport and accumulation on a slope Humidity index Sediment transport
  21. 21. Vegetation and its influence upon the geomorphic processes rainfall evaporation accumulation infiltration soil humidity underground water runoff The water cycle on bare soil (Greenway, 1987) rainfall leaves stem extraction via the roots roots soil humidity leakage via de leaves absorbtion and accumulation underground water absorbed water evaporation interception infiltration perspirationevaporation runoff The water cycle on soil with vegetation (Greenway, 1987) The hydric effects of vegetation on slope stability (Greenway, 1987) The mechanic effects of vegetation on slope stability (Greenway, 1987)
  22. 22. Land use ..... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baniţa BaruMare Densuş GeneralBerthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova RâudeMori Sarmizegetusa SălaşudeSus SântămărieOrlea Toteşti Terenuriagricole Păşuni Fâneţe Livezi Land use Ţara Haţegului Land use categories in Ţara Haţegului
  23. 23. ..... and its implications Locality Pasture surface (ha) Total biomass Optimal number of cattle/bio mass Optimal number of cattle/month Actual cattle amount Optimal number of sheep/bio mass Optimal number of sheep/mounth Actual sheep amount Optimal number horses/bio mass Optimal number of horses/month Actual amount horses* Băniţa 2500 2500000 6944 1157 702 52083 8681 1950 4464 620 - Baru Mare 2933 2933000 8147 1358 1099 61104 10184 1358 5238 727 - Densuş 1700 1700000 4722 787 967 35417 5903 3397 3036 422 - General Berthelot 385 385000 1069 178 510 8021 1337 1200 688 95 - Haţeg 908 908000 2522 420 913 18917 3153 990 1621 225 - Pui 3789 3789000 10525 1754 2090 78938 13156 9400 6766 940 - Răchitova 1038 1038000 2883 481 1070 21625 3604 1180 1854 257 - Râu de Mori 402 402000 1117 186 1307 8375 1396 1976 718 100 - Sarmizegetusa 1861 1861000 5169 862 550 38771 6462 1940 3323 462 - Sălaşu de Sus 5911 5911000 16419 2737 1732 123146 20524 2461 10555 1466 - Sântămărie Orlea 1851 1851000 5142 857 1091 38563 6427 1188 3305 459 - Toteşti 210 210000 583 97 536 4375 729 1098 375 52 - * - not registred Biomass capacity according to the animal distibution in Ţara Haţegului 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 Băniţa Baru Mare Densuş General Berthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova Râu de Mori Sarmizegetusa Sălaşu de Sus Sântămărie Orlea Toteşti Animal pressure upon pastures in Ţara Haţegului (2003)
  24. 24. Landscape artificialization indices 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 BARU GENERAL BERTHELOT DENSUS PUI RACHITOVA RAUDEMORI SARMIZEGETUSA SALASUDESUS SANTAMARIE ORLEA TOTESTI Densitateapopulatiei(loc/Kmp) 1930 1956 1966 1977 1992 2003 Population density on administrative units in Ţara Haţegului (1930-2003) (modified after Popa, 1999) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Băniţa Baru Mare Densuş General Berthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova Râu de Mori Sarmizegetusa Sălaşu de Sus Sântămărie Orlea Toteşti pondere suprafaţă construită (%) Build up areas (%) in Ţara Haţegului (2003) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 BARU DENSUS GENERAL BERTHELOT HATEG PUI RACHITOVA RAU DE MORI SARMIZEGETUSA SALASU DE SUS SANTAMARIE ORLEA TOTESTI Human pressure upon agricultural land (ha/loc.) in Ţara Haţegului (2003) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 BARU DENSUS GENERAL BERTHELOT HATEG PUI RACHITOVA RAU DE MORI SARMIZEGETUSA SALASU DE SUS SANTAMARIE ORLEA TOTESTI Human pressure upon pastures and meadows in Ţara Haţegului (2003)
  25. 25. ŢARA HAŢEGULUI – TO BE OR NOT TO BE VULNERABLE? • SUSCEPTIBILITY – The spatial component of hazards – Implies uncertainty
  26. 26. Susceptibility to landslides b o ni ta re re cl a sif ic ar e Lithology, land use, soil Morphometry Landscape artificialization Field and lab data Factor calculation Land use, lithology and soil maps Morphometric maps Slope susceptibility map Integrated factor analysis Overlapping Geotechnical analyses Susceptibility analysis Data Methodology Frequency ratio for landslides (example)
  27. 27. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 < 400 400-600 600-800 800-1100 1100-1500 >1500 (m) ratadefrecventa Elevation 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 0-2 2-6 6-17 17-32 >32 (º) ratadefrecventa Slope gradient 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 <0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2 >2 km/kmp ratadefrecventa Density depth 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 >200 (m) ratadefrecventa Fragmentation depth 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 plat N NE E SE S SV V NV ratadefrecventa Exposure 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 ratadefrecventa Lithology 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 arealeartificializate unitatiindustrialesi comerciale facilităţiagrement terenuriarabile vii livezi pasuni terenuricultivatecomplexe terenuriagricolecu vegetatienaturala padurifoioase paduriconifere padurimixte pajistinaturale mlastini tufarisuri terenurilipsitede vegetatie stancarii terenurislabinierbate terenuriinmlastinite cursurideapa lacuri ratadefrecventa Land use Frequency analysis of the factors that influnce the processes
  28. 28. Susceptibility to landslides • Very low susceptibility (0.14%) • Low susceptibility (46.22%) • Average susceptibility (28.61%) • High susceptibility (17.10%) • Very high susceptibility (7.93%)
  29. 29. Factors that influence the susceptibility to soil erosion • Analytical Hierarchy Process
  30. 30. Susceptibility to soil erosion • Very low susceptibility (18.40%) • Low susceptibility (24.71%) • Average susceptibility (23.49) • High susceptibility (20%) • Very high susceptibility (13.40%)
  31. 31. Susceptibility to the riverbank related processes • Sinuosity index 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 Rachitova Densus Galbena Pestenita Zeicani- RauMare Nucsoara Sibisel Salas Paros RauAlb ApaLazului ParaulcelMare RauBarbat Barusorul Muncel ValeaRachita Crivadia Varatec Banita Strei ApaRea valoareIS • River erosion: QEM 60.0 58.1 01.0 ⋅= 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Râu Bărbat Galbena Râu Alb Sibişel Strei Văratec m/an eroziune la debit mediu eroziune la maluri pline Comparative analysis at medium and bankfull discharge
  32. 32. Susceptibility to floods due to the RMR hydrological system
  33. 33. Elements at risk and their characteristics • Attributes of the built environment • Building characteristics • Infrastructure • Agricultural lands • Animal breeding • Non-structural elements (economy, culture and education, public services) Vulnerability indices - population (density, female density, percentage of children younger than 14) - infrastructure and services (access to media, medical services, drinking water supplies) 46 48 50 52 54 Băniţa Baru Mare Densuş Gral. Berthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova Râu de Mori Sarmizegetusa Sălaşu de Sus Sântămărie Orlea Toteşti 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Băniţa Baru Mare Densuş Gral. Berthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova Râu de Mori Sarmizegetusa Sălaşu de Sus Sântămărie Orlea Toteşti loc/kmp 0 4 8 12 16 20 Băniţa Baru Mare Densuş Gral. Berthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova Râu de Mori Sarmizegetusa Sălaşu de Sus Sântămărie Orlea Toteşti (%) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Băniţa Baru Mare Densuş Gral. Berthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova Râu de Mori Sarmizegetusa Sălaşu de Sus Sântămărie Orlea Toteşti număr locuinţe abonamente telefonie fixă abonamente radio abonamente TV
  34. 34. Vulnerability to slope processes 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 200 400 600 800 (m) valoareavulnerabilitatii Vulnerability to landslides Vulnerability to erosion
  35. 35. Vulnerability to riverbank erosion 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 (m) valoareavulnerabilitatii
  36. 36. Vulnerability to floods in the RMR hydrological system 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 conştientizarea hazardului pregătire organizaţională infrastructură şi facilităţi rezilienţa capital social pregătire psihologică pregătire la nivel familial Preparadness in Ţara Haţegului 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 (km) valoareavulnerabilitatii Population vulnerability to floods according to the their proximity to the source 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Băniţa Baru Mare Densuş Gral.Berthelot Haţeg Pui Răchitova Râu de Mori Sarmizegetusa Sălaşu de Sus Sântămărie Orlea Toteşti valoare (milioane lei) Rezilience in Ţara Haţegului
  37. 37. Risk perception hazard F I L T E R population/ expert evaluation actions taken yes/no R E Z U L T S Personal characteristics attitudes knowledge, values, beliefs Mental model of risk perception (Surdeanu, Rus, Goţiu, 2007) • Awareness • Preparadness • Way of action in case of disaster • Inter-social relationships
  38. 38. Natural risk analysis: R = ∑ ∑⋅ VS ,
  39. 39. CONCLUSION • such a study was extremely necessary because this area was very little studied, and hazard assessments haven’t been done so far; • the natural hazards that were taken into account were mainly geomorphic (related to slope processes and river banks) and only additionally related to iminent floods in the Rau-Mare – Retezat hydroenergetical system; • the susceptibility can be classified in five categories (from very low to very high), but the magnitude of the processes is not very large; • population has a high and very high vulnerability because of the socio-economical conditions of this rural area; • the risk analysis was locality-orientated so that the decision makers can take it into consideration for further management plans; • although the magnitude of the processes is not very high, considering the calculated susceptibility, there is extremely necessary to perform a permanent monitoring of the identified processes and for the identification of new ones in order to make correct decisions; • there is a huge need for a culture of risk by informing the population through various means about the natural hazards that might affect their community and about the mitigation strategies that are developed.
  40. 40. THANK YOU!

×