Affiliation:
1. Sergeev Institute of Environmental Geoscience, Russian Academy of Sciences (IEG RAS)
Abstract
The paper describes approaches to assessing geohazards and georisk of economic losses in Moscow. It is shown that for surface construction, the principle geohazards in Moscow are karst-suffosion sinkholes, land subsidence, landslides, and waterlogging. The subsurface construction is endangered by karstification and fracturing of limestone, decompaction, and swelling of clay, quicksand phenomena, and groundwater breakthrough to tunnels. The different procedures for the assessment of geological risk in Moscow have been suggested for already existing urban infrastructure and for future planned construction. For existing surface urban infrastructure, geological risk is considered to be an integral parameter of probable damage caused by geohazards and the anthropogenic load on the specific territories. The main aim of risk mapping in this case is outlining the territories, for which restrictions and prohibitions should be imposed for further urban engineering development. For future subsurface urban construction, the risk-analysis consists in assessing the impact of geohazards on the engineering structure by comparing the future expenditures for the construction and operation under different engineering geological conditions. The procedures of risk mapping elaborated for both approaches are described; the typification schemes are listed; and the relevant risk maps built for the Moscow territory are provided. The risk maps will help planners to compare and make alternative project decisions in order to minimize the cost in future economic expenditures. Both approaches are successfully approved in Moscow.
Publisher
Russian Geographical Society
Subject
Environmental Science (miscellaneous),Geography, Planning and Development
Reference53 articles.
1. Admiraal H. and Cornaro A. (2016). Why underground space should be included in urban planning policy – And how this will enhance an urban underground future, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, pp. 214-220.
2. Bell F.G., Culshaw M.G., Forster A., and Nathanail C.P. (2009). The engineering geology of the Nottingham area, UK. In: Culshaw, M.G., Reeves H.J., Jefferson, I., and Spink, T.W. (eds.) 2009. Engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, 22, pp. 1-24.
3. Blong R. (2003). A new damage index. Natural Hazards, 30(1), pp.1–23
4. Bobylev N. (2009). Mainstreaming sustainable development into a City’s Master Plan: a Case of Urban Underground Space Use. Land Use Policy, 26 (4), pp. 1128-1137.
5. Bobylev N. and Sterling R. (2016). Urban underground space: a growing imperative. Perspectives and current research in planning and design for underground space Use. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 55, pp. 1 – 5.