Demonstration of Indicators and GIS Methods

52 Pages·1999·0.78 MB·English

Environmental Issues Series no. 11
Spatial and Ecological
Assessment of the TEN:
Demonstration of Indicators
and GIS Methods
Progress Report of the DGVII-DGXI-Eurostat-EEA
Working Group of the SEA of the TEN
April 1998
Spatial and Ecological Assessment of the TEN
NOTE
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European
Commission or other European Communities institutions. Neither the European Environ-
ment Agency nor any person or company acting on the behalf of the Agency is responsible
for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report.
This is a progress report of the DGVII-DGXI-Eurostat-EEA working group, prepared by the
European Environment Agency. Main contributors to this report are:
Chris Steenmans, EEA, Ivone Pereira Martins, EEA, Wim Devos, GIM Geographic Informa-
tion Management, Ann Dom, DGXI, Johan Geert Koier, DGVII, Technical assistance map-
ping: Klaas Scholte, University of Utrecht
A great del of information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be
accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int)
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998
Cover and layout:
Folkmann Design
ISBN xxx
© EEA, Copenhagen 1998
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
DK-1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail:
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................. 7
2. Executive Summary ................................................................. 8
3. Context ................................................................................... 10
3.1. Background .................................................................... 10
3.2. The Commission Work Programme
on a SEA of the TEN ...................................................... 10
4. Methodology ......................................................................... 12
4.1. Purpose and Scope of a SEA of the TEN ...................... 12
4.2. Environmental Objectives and Targets .......................... 12
4.3. Impact Indicator Selection ............................................. 12
5. Data and Information Sources .............................................. 16
5.1. Major Data Sources and Limitations .............................. 16
5.1.1. Transport Infrastructure Data............................... 16
5.1.2. Environmental Data ............................................. 17
6. TEN alternatives .................................................................... 18
6.1. Selection of Alternatives ................................................ 18
6.2. The TEN in Perspective ................................................. 21
7. Nature and Biodiversity ........................................................ 22
7.1. Main Objectives Concerning Nature and Biodiversity .. 22
7.2. Vicinity to Sites of Nature Conservation Interest .......... 22
7.2.1. Methodological Approach .................................. 23
7.2.2. The Results .......................................................... 24
7.3. Partitioning of Land ....................................................... 26
7.3.1. Methodological Approach .................................. 27
7.3.2. The Results .......................................................... 27
4 Spatial and Ecological Assessment of the TEN
8. Water Resources .................................................................... 29
8.1. Main Objectives Concerning
the Protection of Water Resources ................................ 29
8.2. Crossing of Surface Waters ........................................... 29
8.2.1. Methodological Approach .................................. 29
8.2.2. The Results .......................................................... 31
9. Noise ...................................................................................... 32
9.1. Main Objectives Concerning Noise ............................... 32
9.2. People in the Vicinity of Infrastructure .......................... 32
9.2.1. Methodological Approach .................................. 32
9.2.2. The Results .......................................................... 33
9.3. Crossing of Tranquil Zones ............................................ 33
9.3.1. Methodological Approach ............................................ 33
9.3.2. The Results .......................................................... 34
10. Land Resources ...................................................................... 36
10.1. Main Objectives Concerning Land Resources ............... 36
10.2. Land Take ....................................................................... 36
10.2.1. Methodological Approach ................................ 36
10.3. Sensitive Zones Mapping .............................................. 39
10.3.1. Methodological Approach ................................ 39
10.3.2. The Results ........................................................ 43
11. Evaluation and Conclusions .................................................. 46
11.1. Indicator Overview ........................................................ 46
11.2. Conclusions .................................................................... 49
Table of Figures 5
Table of Figures
Figure 4.1: Relevant spatial and ecological issues for a
strategic environmental assessment of the TEN ... 13
Figure 5.1: Available digitalised data concerning
European TEN infrastructure ................................. 16
Figure 5.2: Available (digitalised) data for environmental
assessment on European scale .............................. 17
Figure 6.1: Decision No 1692/96/EC Annex III
priority projects ..................................................... 18
Figure 6.2: The three transport modes included in this
study and a multi-modal overview including
the 14 specific projects .......................................... 19
Figure 6.3: Example of the multi-modal TEN network
compared to the national and regional network... 20
Figure 6.4 Estimated length of the trans-European
transport network compared to the overall
European infrastructure (kilometres) ..................... 20
Figure 7.1: Site description according to its legal statute....... 23
Figure 7.2: Designated sites potentially affected by the
development of the trans-European transport
network. Status in mid 1997 (overlaps between
sites not taken into account) ................................. 23
Figure 7.3: Indication of potential conflicts between
complete TEN and nature sites. Nature site
classification according to neighbouring links ...... 25
Figure 7.4: Indication of potential conflicts between
complete TEN and nature sites. TEN
infrastructure classification according to ...................
neighbouring nature sites ...................................... 26
Figure 7.5: Number of land units and their cumulative
surface - existing and TEN planned situation ....... 26
Figure 7.6: Partitioning of Land effects of the complete TEN .... 28
Figure 8.1: Water crossings of the existing trans-European
transport network .................................................. 29
Figure 8.2: Comparison of the number of water
crossings under different TEN variants ................. 30
6 Spatial and Ecological Assessment of the TEN
Figure 8.3: Complete Multimodal TEN classification
according to potential conflicts with surface water .. 30
Figure 9.1: Population susceptible to noise exposure
due to TEN infrastructure ...................................... 32
Figure 9.2: Population exposed to noise impacts
per TEN variant ...................................................... 33
Figure 9.3: Population density map and multi-modal
TEN network .......................................................... 33
Figure 9.4: Intersection with tranquil zones per TEN variant ..... 34
Figure 9.5: Intersection with tranquil zones
according to TEN variants ..................................... 34
Figure 9.6: Noise disturbance zones around the
Complete Multimodal TEN network ..................... 35
Figure 10.1: Estimated surface requirements per
infrastructure type ................................................. 36
Figure 10.2: Land take by TEN variant ...................................... 37
Figure 10.3: Distribution of the major land cover
types in Europe ...................................................... 38
Figure 10.4: Land take by land cover type for TEN variants ..... 39
Figure 10.5: Sensitivity thresholds attributed to
baseline data sets .................................................. 40
Figure 10.6: Assignment rules for determining
sensitivity per group .............................................. 40
Figure 10.7: Sensitivity map based on Group I criteria
(physical-environmental criteria) ............................ 41
Figure 10.8: Sensitivity map based on Group II criteria
(environmental legal status criteria) ...................... 42
Figure 10.9: Sensitivity map based on Group III criteria
(demographic criteria) ........................................... 43
Figure 10.10: Identification of high sensitivity cells
crossed by infrastructure links ............................... 44
Figure 10.11: Sensitivity index per impact group and
TEN variant ............................................................ 44
Figure 10.12: Sensitivity index graphs per impact group
and TEN variant ..................................................... 45
Figure 11.1: Summary of indicator characteristics ..................... 47
Figure 11.2: Assessment of used indicators according to
OECD criteria ........................................................ 48
Introduction 7
1. Introduction
The present report is written in view of the Commission’s aim to develop appropriate meth-
ods for the strategic evaluation of the environmental impacts of the trans-European transport
network (TEN). In order to study the possibilities of evaluating a particular type of environ-
mental impact – namely spatial and ecological impacts – the Directorate-General for Trans-
port (DGVII) and the Directorate-General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protec-
tion (DGXI) in March 1997 initiated a co-operative effort with the European Environment
Agency (EEA) and Eurostat.
The Commission’s request led to the creation of a working group consisting of DGVII,
DGXI, Eurostat and EEA representatives, and the present study was steered and developed
by this working group. The EEA European Topic Centre on Land Cover carried out most of
the technical work, including the GIS development. The EEA European Topic Centre on
Nature Conservation provided data on nature conservation and gave methodological feed-
back.
The objectives of the present methodological study were:
I. to develop and evaluate a number of indicators and GIS assessment methods and to
demonstrate their feasibility - taking account of the present data available - for an
assessment of the overall trans-European transport network, and consequently provide
a common discussion platform between and within Commission services, with external
experts, policy makers and other stakeholders on this issue;
II. to identify issues for further research as a result of this broad and multi-disciplinary
consultation.
In this context, the reader should bear in mind that all the results and figures that are presented in this
methodological report serve only to illustrate the potential output of the various assessment methods.
They are not the final results of the assessment.
8 Spatial and Ecological Assessment of the TEN
2. Executive Summary
In accordance with the provisions of the used. For the current study, it was decided to
European Union (EU) guidelines for the define overall network variants that do not
trans-European transport network (TEN), a represent true policy options, but that are
European Commission working group has useful in raising awareness about the possi-
investigated the feasibility of carrying out a ble environmental impacts of the trans-
full spatial and ecological assessment of the European transport network. The variants
TEN. The aim of the study was to develop are:
and test a number of indicators, to consider
the availability of data and to identify issues I. a “do-nothing” option: no further exten-
for further research, if necessary. The study sions to the existing network;
and the resulting report are intended to II. a “do-minimum” option: the existing
promote further discussion between all network is extended by the execution of
stakeholders on the issue of strategic envi- the fourteen specific projects agreed at
ronmental assessment (SEA) in relation to the Essen European Council in 1994;
TENs. III. the existing network is further developed
through the carrying out of all road
On the basis of EU environmental objectives, projects;
mainly specified in the 5th Environmental IV. the existing network is further developed
Action Plan, the working group identified a through the realisation of all rail
number of indicators that could be taken projects;
into account in a spatial and ecological V. the existing network is further developed
assessment of the TEN. Five different envi- through the implementation of all
ronmental themes were highlighted: inland waterway projects;
biodiversity and nature conservation, water VI. the existing network is completed by the
resources, coastal zones, noise and land development of all planned projects.
resources.
Two broad types of indicators were tested.
The working group considered only quanti- The first type is based on identifying specific
tative evaluation methods, using a Geo- sites in the vicinity of planned infrastructure
graphical Information System (GIS) as an links. In principle this technique can be used
analysis tool. The methodological approach to evaluate the potential impact on, for
was mainly based on land-suitability or example, designated biodiversity or nature
sensitivity analysis. This type of analysis sites and water catchment areas.
focuses on the environmental characteristics
of the land and relies on expert judgement The second category of indicators is based
(based on scientific knowledge). The quanti- on the identification of different land cover
tative approach involves indicator categories types according to their degree of vulnerabil-
selection, impact estimation and ratings or ity to certain impacts. For example, certain
priorities assignment. Map overlay tech- habitat types may be more vulnerable from a
niques are the most suitable for carrying out biodiversity point of view than others.
the analysis; therefore, GIS tools - given the Alternatively, one could define non-frag-
scale of the analysis and the geographical mented areas that are more likely to have a
differentiation of the impacts - have proven high value for nature and biodiversity than
to be the most useful. With these types of zones that are already fragmented by existing
methodologies, impacts are implied but not (TEN) infrastructure. This type of indicator
explicitly reported. Qualitative results may be can also be used to combine different
integrated subsequently but an evaluation environmental aspects into an overall vulner-
without any degree of quantification was not ability/sensitivity index per zone.
considered feasible, given the objectives of
the study. It must be noted that the results of an
assessment at EU-level must be interpreted
Six different TEN network development with great care, especially when it concerns
variants - considering only linear road, rail spatial and ecological impacts whose signifi-
and water infrastructures - were used to cance very much depends on local circum-
demonstrate how the indicators could be stances. The design and alignment of the
Executive Summary 9
infrastructure, the vulnerability of the As a broad conclusion, the present methodo-
species in the area concerned, the traffic logical study can be considered successful as
volume and several other factors determine it realised most of its original objectives. It
the extent of the ecological impacts. Moreo- demonstrated the technical feasibility, but
ver, mitigation measures at project level can also the limitations, of a European-wide SEA
reduce (sound barriers) or even eliminate of the TEN, and stressed the usefulness of
(tunnelling) adverse impacts. Therefore, an multi-disciplinary data collection at an
EU-level network assessment should prima- European scale.
rily be seen as a warning system for potential
risks. As a result, the present exercise helped
suggest further research and methodological
The feasibility study clearly underlined the improvements:
practical difficulties that arise in an assess-
ment of the overall network. The quality and 1. Refining the indicators and methods
availability of data at EU-level turned out to through a wide and multi-disciplinary
be rather poor. For example, digitalised consultation process;
maps of the TENs are only available on a 2. Filling the major data gaps on the TEN
very large scale (1:1.000.000), information and on the environment;
concerning the possible alignment of new 3. Carrying out a full spatial and ecological
links is often lacking, the actual boundaries assessment of the TEN, including the
of designated areas are unknown or not integration into the GIS of the results of
available in GIS-format, and overlaps be- the traffic-related impacts and a compre-
tween different designation categories hensive multi-criteria analysis of the
cannot be identified. predicted impacts;
4. Initiating longer term research on the
The insufficiency of information limits the above outlined issues, in order to gradu-
performance of the assessment methods. ally improve methods, data and tools for
Based on the currently available data, the the ecological and spatial impact assess-
measurability and analytical validity of the ment of transport plans;
proposed indicators cannot be fully assured. 5. Performing “zoom analyses” or “sample
Therefore, either additional data must be surveys”, enabling a testing of the inter-
collected at EU-level or a different approach relation between different planning/
must be followed, namely a more detailed geographical levels and corresponding
but still strategic, assessment per infrastruc- assessment techniques.
ture scheme. An example of this method is
the way in which strategic assessments are
carried out for the German
Bundesverkehrswegeplan. Furthermore,
additional data collection would be particu-
larly important for improving information
on planned TEN infrastructure. Another
priority action is the completion of the
NATURA 2000 network, as this would
provide a more consistent basis for assess-
ment of impacts on habitats.
The models and parameters that were used
in this study have been applied in a rather
straightforward manner, and have been
employed using expert judgement, which
inevitably involves a certain degree of subjec-
tivity. The key assumptions that have been
made and their transferability to EU scale
should be improved by a broad and multi-
disciplinary consultation of experts. In
particular the EU wide definition of sensitive
zones, which inevitably relies to a certain
extent on a subjective use of sensitivity
values, should be further researched.
10 Spatial and Ecological Assessment of the TEN
3. Context
3.1. Background environmental assessments may become
mandatory for a wide range of plans and
In July 1996 the European Parliament and programmes if the Commission’s proposal
the Council adopted Community guidelines for a Directive on SEAs is adopted². In April
for the development of the multi-modal 1997, the Council of Ministers of the Euro-
trans-European transport network (TEN)¹. pean Conference of Ministers of Transport
By 2010, it will gradually be established by formally endorsed the principles of SEA at its
integrating land, sea and air transport session in Berlin and called for SEA to be
infrastructure networks throughout the put into practice.
Community. The transport infrastructure will
comprise road, rail and inland waterways
networks, seaports and inland waterway 3.2. The Commission Work Programme
ports, and other interconnection points. The on a SEA of the TEN
guidelines provide the framework for the
development of the TEN and specify objec- Following the adoption of the TEN guide-
tives, principles and outline maps. One of lines, the Directorate-General for Transport
the main objectives of the TEN is “...to (DGVII) and the Directorate-General for
ensure the sustainable mobility of persons Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil
and goods within an area without internal Protection (DGXI) of the European Com-
frontiers under the best possible social and mission started to co-operate closely . A state-
safety conditions...” (article 2 of the guide- of-the-art review showed that a wide range of
lines). The network should not only SEA methods and techniques already exist
strengthen the economic and social cohe- and that SEA practice in the transport sector
sion of the Union, but should also help to is growing. However, there is little experi-
achieve the Union’s environmental objec- ence in applications on a scale comparable
tives. Integration of environmental concerns to the trans-European transport network.
into the design and development of the TEN Thus, a practical-oriented work programme
is considered a key priority. was developed and adopted by both DGs. It
included the following major tasks:
The Commission has long recognised that
the development of a process of strategic • carrying out a pilot SEA of the overall
environmental assessment (SEA) is a prereq- trans-European transport network, in co-
uisite in this regard. This view has been operation with the EEA and in consulta-
1) Decision N° 1692/96/
EC on Community confirmed in the guidelines. Article 8 §2 of tion with the Member States;
Guidelines for the the TEN guidelines states that “the Commis- • supporting a number of pilot assessments
development of the sion will develop appropriate methods of of TEN corridors conducted by the
trans-European analysis for strategically evaluating the Member States in co-operation and with
transport network, OJ L environmental impact of the whole network co-financing of the Commission;
228, Volume 39, 9
September 1996 [...] and will develop appropriate methods of • developing a methodological handbook
corridor analysis covering all relevant trans- for SEA of infrastructure networks and
2) Proposal for a port modes without prejudice to the defini- corridors, featuring the findings of past
Council Directive on the tion of the corridors themselves [...]”. The state-of-the-art studies, case studies and
assessment of the article also stipulates that the result of the the above mentioned pilot SEAs. Practi-
effects of certain plans
and programmes on work will, as and when appropriate, be taken cal guidance is also given.
the environment - into account by the Commission in its report
COM(96)511 final on the revision of the guidelines, which is to The present work forms part of the pilot SEA
be published by July 1999. of the overall trans-European network, which
3) European Commis- - for pragmatic reasons - has been split in
sion - DGXI, Spatial and
ecological assessment It should be noted that the concept of three main parts:
of the trans-European strategic environmental assessment is not
transport network: limited to transport policies or plans. In I the assessment of spatial and ecological
scope, methods, data several Member States and in a number of impacts of the TEN. This part focuses on
and research needs, countries outside Europe, SEAs are already the mere physical impacts of the infra-
Workshop proceedings,
Brussels, 24 - 25 April commonly carried out for land use and structure. The idea is to evaluate land
1997. development plans. Moreover, strategic use, disturbance and fragmentation of