Planning of safety of cities and territory from the point of view of population protection in the Czech Republic
Abstract
Ensuring territorial safety is one of the state's main tasks, and the public administration plays a primary role in fulfilling it. The safety and sustainability of a territory is ensured by, inter alia, safety planning, including spatial planning. Spatial planning contains safety requirements for population protection. The requirements for ensuring the safety of the population included in the spatial plan vary significantly between countries. The existing population protection requirements contained in the spatial plan have been unsatisfactory for a long time. The main issue is that they are out of date and difficult to apply. The article presents a new proposed method for determining requirements for the protection of the population, which is based on evaluating the risks in the cities and territory. The specific population protection requirements are determined based on the resulting risks and their scaling. The requirements are classified as general when the territory is not faced with external risks or specific when there are such risks. The method is applied to the conditions of the Czech Republic. In terms of national standard specifics, there are requirements in areas of public infrastructure, public utility buildings, and public benefit measures. The method for determining population protection requirements can be considered applicable in a general form by various countries if the national standards specifics or other aspects are taken into account.
Full text
sustainability Article Planning of Safety of Cities and Territory from the Point of View of Population Protection in the Czech Republic Jiri Pokorny 1,* , Barbora Machalova 1, Simona Slivkova 1, Lenka Brumarova 1and Vladimir Vlcek 2 1Faculty of Safety Engineering, VSB—Technical University of Ostrava, Lumirova 13/630, 700 30 Ostrava-Vyskovice, Czech Republic; [email protected] (B.M.); [email protected] (S.S.); lenka.brumar[email protected] (L.B.) 2Fire Rescue Services of the Moravian-Silesian Region, Vyskovicka 40, 700 30 Ostrava-Zabreh, Czech Republic; vladimir[email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 3 October 2020; Accepted: 11 November 2020; Published: 14 November 2020 Abstract: Ensuring territorial safety is one of the state’s main tasks, and the public administration plays a primary role in fulfilling it. The safety and sustainability of a territory is ensured by, inter alia, safety planning, including spatial planning. Spatial planning contains safety requirements for population protection. The requirements for ensuring the safety of the population included in the spatial plan vary significantly between countries. The existing population protection requirements contained in the spatial plan have been unsatisfactory for a long time. The main issue is that they are out of date and difficult to apply. The article presents a new proposed method for determining requirements for the protection of the population, which is based on evaluating the risks in the cities and territory. The specific population protection requirements are determined based on the resulting risks and their scaling. The requirements are classified as general when the territory is not faced with external risks or specific when there are such risks. The method is applied to the conditions of the Czech Republic. In terms of national standard specifics, there are requirements in areas of public infrastructure, public utility buildings, and public benefit measures. The method for determining population protection requirements can be considered applicable in a general form by various countries if the national standards specifics or other aspects are taken into account. Keywords: sustainability of the territory; population protection; civil protection; territorial risks; safety planning 1. Introduction Territorial safety and population protection is one of the basic tasks of the state and one of the primary interests of the European Union too. It is conceived as its safety policy. The principles of the European Union’s safety policy include, for example, increasing the citizens’ prosperity, ensuring sustainable territorial development, and promoting the resilience of democratic systems [1]. Among the European Union protection documents, we can find the Action Program, Living well within the limits of our planet, which in particular deals with the climate change, natural and biological diversity, the environment, human health and quality of life, natural resources and their sustainability, and waste [2]. The territorial safety is closely linked to long-term sustainability. Sustainability strategies are associated with the issues of “people and society”, “economic model”, “resilient ecosystems”, “municipalities and regions”, “global development”, and “good governance” [3,4]. Sustainability 2020,12, 9487; doi:10.3390/su12229487 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 2 of 17 The sustainability of a territory is closely related to the preparedness to deal with extraordinary incidents, crisis situations, and disasters. For their solution within the European Union, an integrated approach known as the civil protection mechanism is necessary. The integrated approach is primarily focused on the protection of people, the environment, and property, including cultural heritage, against all types of disasters, including the response to them. An important position here is that of prevention, which refers to any measure focused on the reduction of risk or mitigation of the adverse effects of disasters. Within prevention comes risk mapping and assessment, which is carried out by the Member States of the European Union [5,6]. The ways and principles of the risk assessment have a historical background based on the so-called “Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World”, which included the fundamental principles for a reduction of naturogenic disaster risks, mitigation of their consequences, and adaptations [ 7 ]. The principles for the disaster reduction in 2005 in Hyogo further directed the development of sending the identification of risks and the investment in disaster preparedness. The main direction was set as building the resilience of nations and communities against disasters [ 8 ]. An evaluation of previous plans for disaster risk reduction and the identification of further solution procedures in the field of risk assessment came in 2015 in Sendai. The basis for the implementation of preventive measures is the survey of the nature the risks. At the same time, it turned out that for the disaster solution, it is essential to ensure the preparedness of authorities at all levels [9,10]. The crucial part of the European Union’s civil protection mechanisms is not only the risk assessment, but also the sharing of knowledge, best practices, and information. The Member States of the European Union carry out a risk assessment every three years. The importance of risk prevention is emphasized. Risk assessment in the Czech Republic was carried out at the national level in 2015. The identified threats to the Czech Republic were one of the foundations for the elaboration of a new concept of ensuring the security of a territory from the point of view of population protection. Based on the risk assessment, the Member States of the European Union are required to improve the procedures of disaster management planning at the national or equivalent lower level. The newly proposed procedure responds to this requirement. Territorial safety and population safety in the Czech Republic are also related to the protection of the environment. It is included in the state’s environmental policy. Part of the policy is related to environmental protection and protection against floods, drought, fire, slope instabilities, and places of contamination [11]. The principles for ensuring the safety of a territory is addressed in safety planning. Emergency plans, contingency plans, and related plans are among the most important “planning documents”. The preparation of safety plans is closely associated with spatial planning, which in the Czech Republic is divided into spatial analysis documents and spatial planning documentation [ 12 – 14 ]. The tasks of spatial planning include assessing the state of the territory, its natural, cultural, and civilizational values, and setting requirements for the use and arrangement of the territory, buildings, and public space. All territorial requirements are addressed with regard to ensuring the safety of the territory. The principles are set out in the territorial development policy [15]. The requirements for spatial planning abroad are also related to ensuring the safety and sustainability of the territory. Examples of countries that have a somewhat similar safety system to the Czech Republic include Switzerland and Germany. Spatial planning in Switzerland is regulated by the Act on Spatial Planning [ 16 ]. Spatial planning includes requirements for the use and arrangement of the territory, protection of natural and cultural values, creation of conditions for economic development, sustainability of the territory, and ensuring the protection of the population. In Germany, spatial planning consists of the development and organization of the territory, the pursuit of balanced social, cultural, economic, and environmental conditions, and the consideration of defense and civil protection requirements [17].
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 3 of 17 In the risk assessment of the territory, it seems to be purposeful to take into account only the most significant selected hazards that have a major impact on the environment, cultural, and historical values of the territory, the territorial development, and the landscape creation in accordance with the principles of the long-term sustainable development. It is therefore appropriate to use a qualitative assessment of the selected hazards that allow to specify the most significant risks. The selected risks have been also taken into account in the spatial planning [18]. In the risk assessment of the large areas, the technique of multidimensional analysis has been used. The results of the analysis enable to better identify the risk areas from the perspective of naturogenic and anthropogenic risks, to classify them, and to take them into account in the planning. In the final consequence, it is possible to allocate the sufficient forces and resources to protect the territory [19]. The risk identification must be also accompanied by a quantification process. However, in some cases, the quantification of risks in relation to the possible occurrence and development of disasters has not been selected optimally. This state causes the need to develop new techniques and procedures for assessing the risks of the territory [20]. For the assessment of the environmental safety in the territory, the system of selected specific indicators that can identify the level of safety has usually been used [ 21 ]. The use of indicators requires, in some cases, modifications in relation to the solved territory [22]. The assessment of risks in the territory in connection with ensuring the sustainability can also be performed in relation to military conflicts. It is possible to determine a complex level of the risk with the division of the territory into subcategories. To process the results, it is possible to use the standard geographic systems, which can be beneficial for improving the environmental management. An example of application is the conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine [23]. In terms of the territorial security, it is possible to speak about the assessment of “territorial resilience” as a concept of helping with the identification of vulnerabilities and with the establishment of the preventive measures in the form of security plans [24]. The present has been characterized by a complex assessment of territorial risks, i.e., by the assessment of “multi-vulnerability”, “multi-exposure”, and “multi-preparedness”. It is obvious that the issue of the risk assessment cannot be approached separately, but always with the connection to other territorial factors, including the planned development [25]. Ensuring the safety of the territory has not only been associated with the spatial planning, but also with the emergency or crisis planning. However, the individual types of plans have been often solved with different regulations and their interconnection has not been optimal. In the final consequence, the effective preparation of the territory has been for possible disasters disrupted. In the future, it will be desirable to create an interconnection between different types of planning documentation [ 26 ]. In some cases, the studies also confirm the need for the adjustment in existing legislation, which solve the security of the territory [27]. The establishment of security principles in urban development is also closely linked to their digitization, which can, with appropriate solution, increase the security of citizens [28]. It is therefore clear that the requirements for the safety and sustainability of the territory are closely related to safety planning and the protection of the population [29]. 2. Materials and Methods The aim of the article is to characterize a new procedure for determining the requirements of the population protection within the spatial planning process. The requirements for the protection of the population are closely related to the sustainability of the territory and are crucial for its further development. The method was then applied to the conditions of the Czech Republic. Within the research there has been a search of existing procedures for determining these requirements in the Czech Republic and in selected foreign countries. The obtained information was analyzed, and partial conclusions were drawn using induction and deduction. Using the synthesis of
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 4 of 17 knowledge, a new, generally applicable procedure for determining the requirements of population protection in spatial planning was subsequently proposed. The newly created approach presented below keeps the legislative and normative requirements that are, regarding the given issue, valid in the Czech Republic. This approach applies the knowledge to the new principle of their application. For this principle there have been approaches of some foreign countries. Primarily, it is about a division of the application of requirements in a territory without external danger and in a territory with external danger, where the requirements are directed to a specific danger. This fact in the current state of application of the requirements of protection of the population in the Czech Republic is missing, which often causes uncertainties in the application of requirements. From the point of view of the Czech Republic, the procedure is a novelty in its entirety. 2.1. Definition of The Term “Population Protection” Theterm“populationprotection”intheCzechRepublicmeansthefulfillmentofthecivilprotection tasks, especially the warning, evacuation, shelter, emergency survival of the population and other measures to ensure the protection of life, health and property [30,31]. One of the strategic goals of the development of population protection in the Czech Republic is to create links between the safety of the population and the sustainability of the territory. This is related to the creation of personnel and material capacities, the education of the population, and the development of safety research [32]. The described definition of population protection is to some extent similar in Switzerland and Germany. In Switzerland, it has been about the civil protection that sets out the principles for cooperation in dealing with emergencies and crisis situations at the level of the Confederation, the canton, and third parties. It defines the tasks of protection of the population, which include protecting the population and its needs in the event of disasters, emergencies, and armed conflicts, and further contributing to mitigating their consequences and overcoming them [33]. In Germany, the civil protection has been understood to be a necessary range of non-military measures to protect the population, eliminate or mitigate the effects of war on the population, its homes, important businesses, cultural property, and vital workplaces, and to defend important authorities. Civil protection includes, in particular, the self-protection, warning the population, protective buildings, regulation of residence, rescue system, measures to protect health, and measures to protect cultural property [34]. Although the perception of the protection of the population is not entirely the same in different countries, it is always a matter of creating suitable conditions for the population in the event of emergencies of a non-military or military nature. In the following text, the protection of the population will be primarily associated with events of a non-military nature. 2.2. Spatial Planning Documentation Structure Spatial planning in the Czech Republic has been based on spatial analytical documents and spatial planning documentation. Spatial analysis is carried out for the territory of the region and for the administrative territory of the municipality with enlarged jurisdiction. The spatial analytical documents then contain sustainable development analyses of the territory, data about the territory, and other available information or data. The spatial planning documentation consists of the principles of spatial development and the spatial and regulation plan, which are issued in the form of measures of a general nature pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Code [14]. Principles of territorial development define the basic principles for territories of the region on their efficient and economic arrangement. They contain the delimitation of areas and corridors of supra-local significance including areas and corridors of the public infrastructure, public utility buildings, public utility measures, buildings, and measures for ensuring state defense and safety.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 5 of 17 The Spatial plan is processed for the territory of the municipality. The city region development, the protection of its values, the layout of the landscape, and the public infrastructure are set out there. It defines the borders of built-up areas, corridors, areas for public utility buildings, and land reserves. The regulatory plan is processed for a defined area of the land, which is determined by the regional council or the municipal council in the form of measures of a general nature according to the Administrative Procedure Code. It sets the condition for using land, protecting values and the character of the territory, for placing buildings, and for creating a favorable environment in the given area. 2.3. Determination of Population Protection Requirements within Spatial Planning The requirements for the protection of the population within the spatial planning create conditions for ensuringthecivil protection, reducingthe riskofecological andnaturaldisasters, and foreliminating their consequences [14]. Currently, the Czech Republic has primarily resolved the following requirements for ensuring [ 35 ]: evacuation of the population and its accommodation, emergency water supply to the population, protection against the effects of dangerous substances stored in the territory, protection against the consequences of a possible terrorist attack on objects the damage of which may cause an emergency situation. However, the implementation of the population protection requirements is currently problematic in the Czech Republic. The main reason is the ambiguity of the set requirements and thus their difficult real-life application [36]. It is necessary to design a new method for determining population protection requirements within the framework of a spatial plan. The necessity of an amendment is further supported by results from real events and conducted rescue unit exercises [37]. The general scheme of the method for determining the requirements for the protection of the population in the territory is shown in Figure 1. Sustainability2020,12,xFORPEERREVIEW5of17 2.3.DeterminationofPopulationProtectionRequirementswithinSpatialPlanning Therequirementsfortheprotectionofthepopulationwithinthespatialplanningcreate conditionsforensuringthecivilprotection,reducingtheriskofecologicalandnaturaldisasters,and foreliminatingtheirconsequences[14]. Currently,theCzechRepublichasprimarilyresolvedthefollowingrequirementsforensuring [35]: evacuationofthepopulationanditsaccommodation, emergencywatersupplytothepopulation, protectionagainsttheeffectsofdangeroussubstancesstoredintheterritory, protectionagainsttheconsequencesofapossibleterroristattackonobjectsthedamageofwhich maycauseanemergencysituation. However,theimplementationofthepopulationprotectionrequirementsiscurrently problematicintheCzechRepublic.Themainreasonistheambiguityofthesetrequirementsand thustheirdifficultreal‐lifeapplication[36]. Itisnecessarytodesignanewmethodfordeterminingpopulationprotectionrequirements withintheframeworkofaspatialplan.Thenecessityofanamendmentisfurthersupportedbyresults fromrealeventsandconductedrescueunitexercises[37]. Thegeneralschemeofthemethodfordeterminingtherequirementsfortheprotectionofthe populationintheterritoryisshowninFigure1. Figure1.Thegeneralschemeofthemethodfordeterminingtherequirementsfortheprotectionof thepopulationintheterritory. Thisgeneralmethodisthebasicframeworkfordeterminingtherequirementsfortheprotection ofthepopulationinthearea. AmoredetailedillustrationofthenewlyproposedmethodcanbeseeninFigure2. Theprocessofdeterminingtherequirementsfortheprotectionofthepopulationinaterritory canbedividedintofourstepsmarkedinFigure2lettersAtoD.Aftertheinitialstep,whichisthe definitionoftheterritory(stepA),possiblehazardsthatmayoccurintheareaaretakenintoaccount. Theprocedurefordeterminingtheresultinghazardsisdescribedinthefollowingsectionsofthe article.Theresultofthecomparisonoftheassessedterritorywiththeselectedrisksisthegrouping ofterritoriesinto“areasnotfacingexternalrisks”and“areasfacingexternalrisks”. Areasfacingexternalriskscanbefurthercomparedwithlimitcriteria,whichsetthedegreeof riskinagiventerritoryinrelationtosomeoftheresultingrisks.Theresultisthedivisionofthe territoryaccordingtolimitcriteria.Theassessorcan,however,leaveoutthisstepandkeepthesimple divisionofareasnotfacingexternalrisksandareasfacingexternalrisks(StepC). Forareasnotfacingexternalrisks,therearefurthergeneralpopulationprotectionrequirements; forareasfacingexternalrisks,therearefurtherspecificpopulationprotectionrequirements(stepD). Legend: N=naturalhazardsA=anthropogenichazardsL=limitofhazardM=measuredanger X=X‐thdangerY=Y‐thlimitcriterionZ=Z‐threquirementforprotectionofthepopulation Figure 1. The general scheme of the method for determining the requirements for the protection of the population in the territory. This general method is the basic framework for determining the requirements for the protection of the population in the area. A more detailed illustration of the newly proposed method can be seen in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 6 of 17 Figure 2. A more detailed description of the method for determining the requirements for population protection within spatial planning. The process of determining the requirements for the protection of the population in a territory can be divided into four steps marked in Figure 2letters A to D. After the initial step, which is the definition of the territory (step A), possible hazards that may occur in the area are taken into account. The procedure for determining the resulting hazards is described in the following sections of the article. The result of the comparison of the assessed territory with the selected risks is the grouping of territories into “areas not facing external risks” and “areas facing external risks”. Areas facing external risks can be further compared with limit criteria, which set the degree of risk in a given territory in relation to some of the resulting risks. The result is the division of the territory according to limit criteria. The assessor can, however, leave out this step and keep the simple division of areas not facing external risks and areas facing external risks (step C). For areas not facing external risks, there are further general population protection requirements; for areas facing external risks, there are further specific population protection requirements (step D). The general requirements of the territory can be described as the basic requirements in terms of the public infrastructure (e.g., access roads, water supply for firefighting) and public utility buildings
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 7 of 17 (e.g., establishing fire stations). The requirements will also be applied to territories not facing external dangers. The specific requirements are requirements for a territory due to the existence of external risks (e.g., the occurrence of operations with hazardous chemicals). The proposed method was further applied for the Czech Republic. For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to state that the general and specific requirements for the protection of the population were determined with regard to the competencies of the Fire and Rescue Service of the Czech Republic, which is the guarantor for the protection of the population in the Czech Republic. 2.4. Territorial Risk Assessment This part of the article deals with the risk evaluation process in the territory, therefore the principle, by which the risks were determined for comparison in the territory in the newly designed method. The principles defined by technical standards [ 38 , 39 ] can generally be used to assess the hazards and risks of a territory. The main input for determining the resulting risks in a territory for the Czech Republic have been the analyses already made. These have been mainly the Analysis for the Czech Republic and the subsequent Regional Threat Analysis [ 40 – 42 ]. Within these original works, 72 types of risks have been assessed, which have been divided into three categories. These have been the categories with acceptable hazard, conditionally acceptable hazard, and unacceptable hazard. The following works determining the resulting hazards in a territory have been aimed only at the level of unacceptable risks. This level contained 22 risks, including floods, extreme wind, radiation accidents, leakage of chemical substances from stationary installations, epidemics, the interruption of the food supply on a large scale, migration, and others. The total list of these risks is given in Table 1. Every risk has been assigned a risk code during selection, grouping the individual hazards into naturogenic (N) and anthropogenic (A), and there have been given the serial numbers. Table 1. The determination of the corrected sum of impacts for individual risks [43]. Risk Code Unacceptable Risks Cor. Sum A-02 radiation accident 17.0 N-02 flash floods 14.0 A-10 special flood 14.0 N-01 natural flood 13.0 A-01 leakage of hazardous chemical from stationary equipment 13.0 A-04 disruption of large-scale electricity supply 12.5 A-12 large-scale breaches of the law 11.0 A-03 disruption of large-scale gas supplies 10.5 A-05 disruption of the supply of large-scale oil and petroleum products 10.5 N-04 extreme prolonged drought 10.0 A-13 disruption of the financial and foreign exchange economy of a large-scale scope 9.5 A-06 disruption of large-scale drinking water supplies 9.0 A-11 large-scale migration waves 8.5 N-05 extreme wind 8.0 N-07 epidemic 8.0 N-08 epizootic 7.5 A-08 disruption of the functionality of important electronic communications systems 7.5 A-09 disruption of large-scale food supplies 7.5 N-03 heavy rainfall 7.0 N-06 occurrence of extremely high temperatures 7.0 N-09 epiphytis 5.5 A-07 breach of information safety of critical information infrastructure 3.0
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 8 of 17 Unacceptable risks have been then further evaluated in relation to possible consequences [ 43 ], namely: impacts on people’s lives and health, environmental impacts, economic impacts, social and social impacts, international impacts, impacts on the critical infrastructure. Subsequently, using the evaluation indices listed in Table 2, a corrected sum of impacts has been determined for individual hazards, characterizing their significance. Table 2. Values for calculating the corrected sum of impacts [43]. Verbal Evaluation Evaluation Index Value for the Corrected Sum of Impacts Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts no impact 0 0 0 low impact 1 1 0.5 medium impact 2 2 1 severe impact 3 3 1.5 The impacts of individual risk on the given area have been assessed as a part of the evaluation. First there was the assessment of the direct impacts and in the case of low direct impacts (the value of 1 or 0) there was also an evaluation of indirect impacts on the given area. If the value of indirect impacts exceeded the value of direct impacts, this risk has been then assessed as an indirect impact. Direct impactshavebeenconsidered thosesituations, which couldendanger thehealth orlives ofpeople; the indirect impacts were then situations that otherwise interrupt the normal life of the population. The risks assorted according to their resulting corrected sum of impacts is given in Table 1. The risks with the highest score should be the subject of priority for the determination of measures from the point of view of protection of the population. The next phase of the evaluation was focused on the evaluation of the impacts of hazards on the health and life of the population in relation to a certain area [ 43 ]. For these needs, it was primarily the territory: state, regions, municipalities. The evaluation has been focused on the fact if the given risk has an impact on the evaluated territorial unit (values “yes/no”). The evaluation also reflected that the predominant impacts were direct (red) or indirect (yellow). The assessment of the effects of the risk on the state level is shown in Figure 3. The assessment of the impacts of risks on the level of the municipality is shown in Figure 4. The values of the corrected sums of impacts can be displayed for any territorial unit. It is clear that the significance of the effects of risks varies considerably for different levels of the territory. Within the whole process of the risk assessment in the territory, this is a partial output of the evaluator.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 9 of 17 Figure 3. State level impact assessment [43]. Figure 4. Assessment of impacts on the municipality level [43]. 2.5. The Resulting Risks in The Territory The partial results obtained within the risk assessment in the area have been the basis for determining the resulting risks. The risks listed in Table 1have been further assessed from the following points of view [43]: •The assessment of permanent identifiability in the territory, • The evaluation of the possibility of preventive measures from the point of view of spatial planning, • The evaluation of the possibility of preventive measures from the point of view of the competence of the Fire and Rescue Service. Risks that meet all three above-mentioned aspects have been classified as the resulting risks for subsequent comparison with the assessed area. The resulting risks are shown in Table 3.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 16 of 17 20. Thomalla, F.; Boyland, M.; Johnson, K.; Ensor, J.; Tuhkanen, H.; Swartling, Å.G.; Han, G.; Forrester, J.; Wahl, D. Transforming development and disaster risk. Sustainability 2018,10, 1458. [CrossRef] 21. Glinskiy, V.V.; Serga, L.K.; Khvan, M.S. Environmental safety of the region: New approach to assessment. Proc. CIRP 2015,26, 30–34. [CrossRef] 22. Glinskiy,V.; Serga,L.; Khvan,M.; Zaykov, K.TheAssessmentMethodsoftheLevelofCountriesEnvironmental Safety. Proc. Manuf. 2018,21, 494–501. [CrossRef] 23. Yermakov, V.; Lunova, O.; Averin, D. Potential territorial risk in eastern Ukraine. J. Geol. Geogr. Geoecol. 2019 , 28, 600–609. [CrossRef] 24. Brunetta, G.; Ceravolo, R.; Barbieri, C.A.; Borghini, A.; De Carlo, F.; Mela, A.; Beltramo, S.; Longhi, A.; De Lucia, G.; Ferraris, S.; et al. Territorial resilience: Toward a proactive meaning for spatial planning. Sustainability 2019,11, 2286. [CrossRef] 25. Di Ludovico, D.; Di Lodovico, L. The Regional Management Risk Plan. Knowledge, scenarios and prevention projects in a regional context. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020,45, 101465. [CrossRef] 26. Pilone, E.; Mussini, P.; Demichela, M.; Camuncoli, G. Municipal emergency plans in Italy: Requirements and drawbacks. Saf. Sci. 2016,85, 163–170. [CrossRef] 27. Betakova, J.; Pavlenko, T.; Dvorsky, J. Safety Area in Terms of Municipal Planning. In Crisis Management and Solution of the Crisis Situations 2015; Tomas Bata University in Zl í n: Zl í n, Czech Republic, 2015; pp. 31–37. ISBN 978-80-7454-573-3. 28. Balogun, A.L.; Marks, D.; Sharma, R.; Shekhar, H.; Balmes, C.; Maheng, D.; Arshad, A.; Salehi, P. Assessing the potentials of digitalization as a tool for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in urban centres. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020,53, 101888. [CrossRef] 29. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Safety Strategy of the Czech Republic; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2015. 30. Rak, J.; Svoboda, P.; Vicar, D.; Princ, I.; Habrova, M. Design of the data model for information support in the field of civil protection of municipalities. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2019,15, 311–318. 31. Act No. 239/2000 Coll., on the Integrated Rescue System, as Amended, and on the Amendment of Certain Acts, as Amended. Available online: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2000-239 (accessed on 2 May 2020). 32. Ministry of the Interior-General Directorate of the Fire and Rescue Service of the Czech Republic. The Concept of Population Protection until 2020 with a View to 2030; Ministry of the Interior-General Directorate of the Fire and Rescue Service of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2013. 33. The Federal Council of the Swiss Confederation. The Federal Law on the Protection of Population and Civil Protection (Law on the Protection of the Population and Civil Protection BZG); The Federal Council of the Swiss Confederation: Bern, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://www.ifrc.org/docs/IDRL/Laws/ Switzerland_Civil%20Protection%20System.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2020). 34. Federal Office for Population Protection and Disaster Management. Law on Civil Protection and the Disaster Relief of the Bundes (Civil Protection and Disaster Protection Enforcement). 2009. Available online: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zsg/ZSKG.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2020). 35. Decree No. 380/2002 Coll., on the Preparation and Implementation of Protection of the Population. Available online: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2002-308 (accessed on 9 September 2020). 36. Machalova, B. Area Planning as a Tool to Ensure the Safety of the Area. In Proceedings of the 19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM2019 and Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation, STEF92 Technology, Vienna, Austria, 9–12 December 2019; pp. 123–130. 37. Kavan, S. Special Training of Fire Brigade Members on a Software Training Simulator. In Proceedings of the 5th SGEM International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM2018 and Science and Society, STEF92 Technology, Vienna, Austria, 19–21 March 2018. 38. International Organization for Standardization/Technical Committees 262 Risk Management. IEC/ISO 31010 Risk Management-Risk Assessment Techniques; International Organization for Standardization/Technical Committees 262 Risk Management: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. 39. International Organization for Standardization/Technical Committees Risk Management. ISO 31000 Risk Management-Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization/Technical Committees Risk Management: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. 40. Jaros, L.; Kromer, A.; Malerova, L.; Pokorny, J. Territorial Risk Assessment, Edition SPBI Spektrum 75; Association of Fire and Safety Engineering: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2017.
Sustainability 2020,12, 9487 17 of 17 41. Paul, F. Risk Management in the Process of Ensuring the Safety of the Czech Republic. In Pardubice: Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D; Faculty of Economics and Administration: Pardubice, Czech Republic, 2017. 42. Paulus, F.; Kromer, A.; Petr, J.; Cerny, J. Threat Analysis for the Czech Republic; Fire and Rescue Service of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2005. 43. Pokorny, J.; Rehak, D.; Adamec, V.; Hromada, M.; Rosenkranz, J.; Hruby, V.; Blazkova, K.; Paulus, F.; Brehovska, L.; Frohlich, T.; et al. Summary Research Report of the Project Protection of the Population in Spatial Planning and in Determining the Technical Conditions for the Design of Buildings. Procedure for Defining Population Protection Requirements in Spatial Planning; Ostrava VSB, Technical University of Ostrava, Faculty of Safety Engineering: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2019. 44. Act No. 224/2015 Coll. on the Prevention of Serious Accidents Caused by Selected Hazardous Chemical Substances or Chemical Mixtures and on the Amendment of Act no. 634/2004 Coll. on Administrative Fees, as Amended (Act on the Prevention of Serious Accidents). Available online: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/ cs/2015-224 (accessed on 10 September 2020). 45. Sardinha, D.D.; Pena, Y.T.L.; Tiezzi, R.D.; De Almeida, M.C.J. Data base of natural disasters in Pocos de Caldas: A tool for land planning and management. Urbe-Rev. Bras. Gest. Urbana 2016 ,8, 318–331. [CrossRef] 46. Fallanca, C. The Urban Question in Seismic Risk Prevention. Priorities, Strategies, Lines of Action. In Smart Intelligent Computing and Applications; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 681–690. [CrossRef] 47. Damalas, A.; Mettas, C.; Evagorou, E.; Giannecchini, S.; Iasio, C.; Papadopoulos, M.; Konstantinou, A.; Hadjimitsis, D.; Alexandra, K. Development and implementation of a decatastrophize platform and tool for the management of disasters or multiple hazards. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018,31, 589–601. [CrossRef] 48. Krocova, S. Protection of aquatic ecosystems against accidents in the Czech Republic. Miner. Eng. 2015 ,36, 225–230. 49. Kroˇcov á , Š.; Kavan, S. Cooperation in the Czech Republic border area on water management sustainability. Land Use Policy 2019,86, 351–356. [CrossRef] 50. Greiving, S.; Hartz, A.; Hurth, F.; Saad, S.; Greiving, S. Ensuring the risk of spatial planning on the example of the planning area in Cologne. Spatial research. Spat. Regul. 2016,74, 83–99. [CrossRef] 51. Monstadt, J.; Schmidt, M. Urban resilience in the making? The governance of critical infrastructures in German cities. Urban. Stud. 2019,56, 2353–2371. [CrossRef] Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).