Proponents of site-specific hazardous technologies and members of involved communities are often in conflicting positions regarding the most appropriate location for their siting. Because of the component of uncertainty that characterizes the assessment of the potential consequences of these technologies and the different perception of risks by the side of individuals, the ‘‘where of risks’’ is rarely uncontroversial. This chapter discusses the relation between ‘‘risks’’ and ‘‘space’’ and argues, in particular, on its moral implications. Such implications regard the land use planning evaluations related to the risks (e.g., of the release of hazardous substances or radioactive emissions) arising from these technologies. These risks constitute the main locational criteria. This chapter reflects on the moral legitimacy of the development and outcomes of locational assessments by arguing on possible forms of synergy between spatial planning theories and ethical theories. In the first part of this chapter, a concrete example of a European chemical safety regulation (namely, Directive 96/82/EC on Hazardous Substances, the so-called Seveso Directive) is discussed. Article 12 of the Directive, that is, the ‘‘Control of Urbanization’’ requirement, requires member states to assess and maintain opportune safety distances from Seveso establishments according to the risk of major accidents.
|Title of host publication||Handbook of Risk Theory; Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk|
|Editors||S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, M. Peterson|
|Number of pages||1187|
|Publication status||Published - 2012|
Basta, C. (2012). Risk and Spatial Planning. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory; Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk (pp. 267-294). Springer.