Landslide Problems in Bulgaria: Factors, Distribution and Countermeasures

Dobrev, Nikolai; Ivanov, Petko M.; Varbanov, Radoslav; Frangov, Georgi; Berov, Boyko; Bruchev, Ilia; Krastanov, Miroslav; Nankin, Rosen

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31313-4_24

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the landslide zoning of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, Primorsko Municipality falls into the southern landslide zone and the subzone of landslides southern from Burgas (Konstantinov et al, 1992;Bruchev et al, 2007;Frangov et al, 2011;Dobrev et al, 2013;Berov et al, 2016Berov et al, , 2020Ivanov et al, 2017bIvanov et al, , 2020. The main destabilizing factors are sea erosion, erosion and fluctuations in groundwaters.…”

Section: Risk Assessment Methodology Applied For Primorsko Municipalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk assessment of geological disaster in the region of Primorsko Municipality

Frantzova

2021

Geologica Balcanica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment methodology is described in detail and applied for assessing the geological hazard for potential landslides and earthquakes. This methodology follows the guidelines of ISO 31010 and the JRC recommendations, and is applied for the first time in Bulgaria. The obtained results have high practical applicability. The flexibility of the methodology allows the final result to be presented as either a risk matrix or risk profiles. It depends on the specific tasks, issues and scientific problems that need to be solved.

show abstract

Section: Risk Assessment Methodology Applied For Primorsko Municipalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk assessment of geological disaster in the region of Primorsko Municipality

Frantzova

2021

Geologica Balcanica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The distribution of landslide processes is uneven and depends on the geological, geomorphological, tectonic and other features of the terrain. Taking into account these factors, landslides are widespread in several key regions: the Black Sea coast, the High Danube River Bank, the Rhodope Mts., Cenozoic grabens in Southern Bulgaria and the Fore-Balkan area (Iliev-Broutchev et al, 1994;Berov et al, 2002Berov et al, , 2020Konstantinov et al, 2003;Bruchev et al, 2007;Dobrev et al, 2013Dobrev et al, , 2014Plamen Ivanov, Nikolai Dobrev, Boyko Berov, Antoaneta Frantzova, Miroslav Krastanov, Rosen Nankin Ivanov et al, 2017a, b;Bruchev, 2018;Ivanov et al, 2020a, b).…”

Section: Landslide Hazard By Administrative Areas (Districts)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Landslide risk for the territory of Bulgaria by administrative districts

Ivanov¹,

Dobrev²,

Berov³

et al. 2022

GeolBalc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An assessment of the landslide risk (Rls) for the territory of Bulgaria by administrative districts has been made by combining the vulnerability (V) and landslide hazard (Hls) maps. Landslides are a significant part of geological hazards and are widespread throughout the country. In order to assess the landslide risk for the territory of Bulgaria, it is necessary to take into account not only all landslides for a given region, but also its vulnerability, and thus to assess the level of landslide risk for this region, Rls = f (V, Hls). Landslide risk is determined by a risk matrix, using selected indicators and weighting coefficient of vulnerability and landslide hazard. Assessing the vulnerability of a region subjected to geological hazards is a key component of risk assessment. These include the exposure of infrastructure, industrial facilities and production capacity, residential buildings, regional GDP per capita and potential for human disability (defined by population density in the district). The data used is combined to create a map showing the vulnerability of each administrative district. Indicators of population density, GDP, length of road and railway networks and number of residential buildings were used to assess the vulnerability. The landslide hazard in each administrative district is determined by the intensity of landslide processes in the district, depending on the level of their activity and the affected area. The normalized (distributed) hazard of landslides for an administrative region is given depending on the area of the given administrative region. Landslides are categorized as active, potential and stabilized. The results express the weighted average hazard. Landslide hazard is rated from 1 to 5, where 1 means no landslide hazard and 5 means that landslide hazard has a very high intensity (very high hazard). The high degree of landslide hazard in turn leads to possible economic losses, social and environmental consequences (landslide risk). The intensity (level) of landslide vulnerability, hazard and risk is assessed as very low, low, medium, high and very high, and is shown on the relevant maps.

show abstract

“…The next step is developing a comprehensive seismic risk analysis, undertaken at the building and asset level, which is anticipated to provide a very high-level analysis of the extent of seismic risk, which will be finalised in 2025. The Geological Institute at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences elaborated a methodology for geological risk in 2014 [84]. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency is responsible for the nuclear and radiological emergency risks, but no mapping is available.…”

Section: Organisational Arrangementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geospatial Data Utilisation in National Disaster Management Frameworks and the Priorities of Multilateral Disaster Management Frameworks: Case Studies of India and Bulgaria

Ghawana¹,

Pashova

Zlatanova

2021

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facing the increased frequency of disasters and resulting in massive damages, many countries have developed their frameworks for Disaster Risk Management (DRM). However, these frameworks may differ concerning legal, policy, planning and organisational arrangements. We argue that geospatial data is a crucial binding element in each national framework for different stages of the disaster management cycle. The multilateral DRM frameworks, like the Sendai Framework 2015–2030 and the United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UNGGIM) Strategic Framework on Geospatial Information and Services for Disasters, provide the strategic direction, but they are too generic to compare geospatial data in national DRM frameworks. This study investigates the two frameworks and suggests criteria for evaluating the utilisation of geospatial data for DRM. The derived criteria are validated for the comparative analysis of India and Bulgaria’s National Disaster Management Frameworks. The validation proves that the criteria can be used for a general comparison across national DRM.

show abstract

Landslide Problems in Bulgaria: Factors, Distribution and Countermeasures

Cited by 9 publications

References 3 publications

Risk assessment of geological disaster in the region of Primorsko Municipality

Risk assessment of geological disaster in the region of Primorsko Municipality

Landslide risk for the territory of Bulgaria by administrative districts

Geospatial Data Utilisation in National Disaster Management Frameworks and the Priorities of Multilateral Disaster Management Frameworks: Case Studies of India and Bulgaria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About