A Methodological Framework for Geohazards Prevention,
driven by a Cumulative Index, in the Management and Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage Areas

Papakonstantinou, Georgios Faidon; Παπακωνσταντίνου, Γεώργιος Φαίδων

dc.contributor.author	Papakonstantinou, Georgios Faidon
dc.contributor.author	Παπακωνσταντίνου, Γεώργιος Φαίδων
dc.date.accessioned	2025-09-22T09:16:48Z
dc.date.available	2025-09-22T09:16:48Z
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/62483
dc.identifier.uri	http://dx.doi.org/10.26240/heal.ntua.30179
dc.rights	Αναφορά Δημιουργού-Μη Εμπορική Χρήση-Όχι Παράγωγα Έργα 3.0 Ελλάδα	*
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/gr/	*
dc.subject	geohazards assessment; protected areas management; heritage landscapes; visual resources protection; geohazards factors analysis	en
dc.subject	εκτίμηση γεωκινδύνων, διαχείριση προστατευόμενων περιοχών, τοπία πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς, προστασία οπτικών πόρων, ανάλυση γεωκινδύνων	el
dc.title	A Methodological Framework for Geohazards Prevention, driven by a Cumulative Index, in the Management and Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage Areas	en
dc.contributor.department	Laboratory of Physical Geography and Environmental Impacts	el
heal.type	doctoralThesis
heal.secondaryTitle	Μεθοδολογικό Πλαίσιο για την Πρόληψη Γεωκινδύνων, με βάση έναν Αθροιστικό Δείκτη, στη Διαχείριση και Προστασία Περιοχών Πολιτιστικής και Φυσικής Κληρονομιάς	el
heal.generalDescription	A prevention framework is offered with a cumulative geohazard assessment index that can be used by the Cultural and Natural Heritage Areas' management unit when and as often as needed, with timely and targeted actions to intervene, before geohazards develop into disasters.	en
heal.classification	Environmental Management	en
heal.language	en
heal.access	free
heal.recordProvider	ntua	el
heal.publicationDate	2025-03-17
heal.abstract	The thesis represents a significant contribution to the field of prevention. It assesses the cumulative geohazards present in cultural and natural heritage sites, with the aim of providing guidance on optimal management and protection strategies. By developing a methodological framework based on the introduction of a cumulative index, the research addresses a critical gap in international experience. The objective is to prevent adverse effects at the earliest possible stage. This can be achieved by implementing targeted action plans that enable those responsible for management to prevent or mitigate the impacts that could potentially be caused cumulatively by these risks. This will ensure the long-term conservation of cultural and natural heritage features. Cultural and natural heritage areas represent irreplaceable elements of the historical and evolutionary record of the natural and anthropogenic environment. These landscapes are of considerable value, encompassing both natural wealth and aesthetic beauty, as well as irreplaceable cultural elements. They are thus in need of protection. Heritage landscapes, which are characterized by a unique combination of cultural and natural significance, are particularly susceptible to geohazards due to their distinctive attributes. The geological processes that contribute to the formation of these heritage features over time also pose a significant threat to their preservation for future generations. Geohazards, such as landslides, earthquakes, weathering, erosion, and subsidence, often affect cultural and natural heritage landscapes in a complex and interrelated sequence of events. As climate change accelerates, the frequency and severity of these hazards are increasing, placing these sensitive areas under greater threat. The issue arises from the failure to consider the cumulative impact of geohazards in a cumulatively additive manner, a necessity that is particularly pertinent in the context of cultural and natural heritage sites. The research findings underscore the necessity for an integrated, cumulative approach to geohazard assessment, particularly for the cultural and natural heritage sites. This approach should be designed with the objective of early prevention in the context of sustainable management and protection of these sites. Despite advances in the scientific study of geohazards, current approaches mainly focus exclusively on individual hazards. This fragmented investigation fails to recognise the interconnected nature of geohazards and the cascading effects that reinforce them. For example, seismic activity often causes landslides, while the intensification of rainfall exacerbates erosion and increases threats to the conservation of the heritage of such areas. These interdependencies highlight the inadequacy of single hazard approaches and underline the urgent need for integrated multi-hazard frameworks. Isolated approaches lead to ineffective geohazard assessments and mitigation strategies, thus increasing the vulnerability of these areas. Furthermore, existing surveys are often tailored to specific regions or individual hazards, making it difficult to generalise or adapt them to highly sensitive landscapes of high cultural and aesthetic value. The thesis proposes to fill the gap as follows. It develops a methodological prevention framework (GPF) for cumulative geohazard assessment that incorporates identified site-specific geohazards into a single analysis. The framework is based on spatial analysis implementing GIS technologies, which it uses to combine environmental factors affecting geohazards and their interconnections to achieve a more holistic understanding of geohazards. The framework is continuously improved with new data (with feedback), allowing real-time updates, thus increasing resilience to Climate Change, whose impacts are increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. It introduces a cumulative geohazard assessment index (the Geohazards Prevention Index, GPI) into the structured prevention methodology framework, thus enabling a comprehensive, cumulative assessment of geohazards in cultural and natural heritage areas that form remarkable landscapes. It uses the GPI index as a tool for combining different data sets, allowing the precise identification of risk zones. By producing multi-level hazard maps, this approach identifies critical zones of graded importance where multiple geohazards intersect, supporting evidence-based, proactive action. In summary, the proposed prevention methodological framework is characterized by six functions. It starts with substantial preparatory decisions on the cultural and natural heritage area, where the scope of the study and the key geohazards are identified. In this phase, the fundamental objectives are defined and the critical factors, mainly of the natural environment, that influence the behaviour of geohazards are identified. Data collection then focuses on gathering high quality datasets from open source platforms, official government archives, data and records, field surveys and remote sensing technologies. Physical environment factors such as geology, relief, soil, climate, water and vegetation are examined. These datasets provide the key inputs to the analytical processes, ensuring that the framework is based on reliable and diverse sources of information. During data processing, the information collected is structured into digital layers compatible with GIS platforms. Each geohazard is analysed by surveying and studying the relevant environmental factors that have been shown to influence it. For example, landslide susceptibility is assessed using slope gradient, soil properties and rainfall patterns, while seismic hazards are assessed based on local ground dynamics. Similarly, weathering, erosion and sedimentation are considered through their respective environmental effects, with a detailed and factor-specific approach. Particular attention is paid to the process from primary data to processed information and then the GPI index is applied in two phases. The GPI index is defined as the sum of the hazard of each geohazard calculated in the total with the significance of its contribution to it, i.e. multiplied by its corresponding weight. Moreover the hazard of each geohazard is calculated as the sum of the environmental factors affecting it multiplied by the corresponding calculated weight of each factor. The weights at both levels of the mathematical relationship of the GPI index are calculated using the Analytical Hierarchy Proccess (AHP). The AHP uses a series of pairwise comparisons to assess the importance of the factors and determine their weights. It systematically assesses the relative importance of factors by considering all possible pairs and determining their importance in a consistent manner. By comparing factors based on a set of criteria, the AHP allows the generation of weighted values that reflect the hierarchy and relative influence of each factor within the overall analysis. The importance of each pairwise comparison was determined through a comprehensive review of the relevant literature and consultation with renowned experts in the field. With this knowledge, the comparison criteria were subjected to a rigorous and informed evaluation to ensure that the assessment of the relative importance of the factors was both robust and objective (in applying the framework and GPI index to the study area, the consistency ratio, CR, of the method yielded excellent results). Accordingly, during the initial phase of the GPI index, the processed data delivers information regarding each specific geohazard to the index. The AHP calculates the contribution of each environmental factor to a particular type of geohazard using weighting factors that quantify their relative importance. The results of the hazard calculation for each geohazard are displayed on maps of the specific geohazards (landslides, earthquakes, subsidence, erosion and subsidence) in which risk zones are highlighted for each hazard. These maps provide critical information on the spatial distribution and severity of geohazards across the landscape. In the next phase, the cumulative impacts of geohazards are calculated by integrating the individual geohazard maps into a single composite map. Using the GPI index, the total contribution of each geohazard is recalculated to reflect their combined impacts. The resulting aggregate geohazard map provides a holistic picture of the graded risk zones, from low to high, across the entire region. Reliability check ensure the accuracy and consistency of this overall assessment. The check is performed using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) method. This is a robust and widely used method for evaluating the performance of binary classification models. It is particularly useful for understanding the trade-offs between true positive rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates at different threshold settings. The visual output of the method is the ROC curve, a graphical diagram that illustrates the diagnostic capability of the system. At the end, the cumulative geohazard map is overlaid with cultural and natural heritage features. This integration allows the identification of subzones where heritage features are most vulnerable in order to implement targeted actions to protect these sites, ensuring the preservation of their unique characteristics and mitigating potential damage. The proposed methodological framework of prevention with the GPI index was applied to the Parrhasian Heritage Park (PHP), which is under designation as a Protected Area by the Greek Ministry of Environment. Parrhasia was historically considered as the oldest inhabited area in mainland Greece. PHP is distinguished by the presence of three major mountain peaks, with Mount Minthi to the north, Mount Tetrazio to the south and Mount Lykeon to the east. It is dominated by four gateway cities, which are the largest cities in the region, Megalopolis in Arcadia in the east, Andritsaina in the north, Nea Figalia in Ilia in the west and Diavolitsi in Messinia in the south. The area is distinguished by its steep topography, dense vegetation, and diverse climatic conditions. It exhibits a geologically distinctive character and contains significant natural and cultural features that can be considered visual resources. In order to test the proposed methodological framework and the GPI index in areas of varying characteristics, the methodological framework was applied to all four distinct Landscape Character Zones (LCZs) of the PHP. These LCZs were defined in the context of an international research project. The area provided an optimal setting for evaluating the efficacy of the framework in addressing geohazards through in situ testing. The framework and index application provided crucial data regarding the spatial distribution and intensity of geohazards. The process enabled a comprehensive and well-informed analysis, which contributed to the formulation of effective decision-making strategies. This resulted in the creation of geohazard maps that were both scientifically accurate and practically applicable. The findings offer a comprehensive foundation for the implementation of targeted preventative measures and the development of effective management strategies to safeguard the cultural and natural heritage of the Parrhasian Heritage Park. The analysis of each geohazard revealed that landslides were more prevalent in areas with steep slopes and unstable geology, particularly in the vicinity of Mount Tetrazio, where rainfall patterns and slope gradients serve to exacerbate the risk. The effects of weathering were observed in areas subject to intense temperature and precipitation cycles, such as those in the vicinity of key archaeological sites, where the retreating materials posed a direct threat. The erosion observed was concentrated in the steep terrain of the Neda River and Mount Tetrazion areas, with the process being exacerbated by deforestation and intense rainfall events. While less prevalent, sedimentation was observed in lowland areas with softer sediments and significant groundwater pumping (Megalopolis). The integration of the individual geohazard maps into the cumulative geohazard index revealed the existence of zones exhibiting different risk levels (Figure 1). The highest risk areas, particularly in the vicinity of Mount Tetrazio and Mount Lycaion, were identified as hotspots where multiple geohazards converge. Moderate risk zones were distributed across the Neda River and Mount Lycaion LCZ, requiring intensive monitoring. The low-risk areas, which present minimal natural threats, offer potential for sustainable development and conservation projects. The cumulative assessment revealed the interconnectivity of geohazards, exemplified by the heightened probability of earthquake-induced landslides in regions characterized by steep slopes and unstable geology. The overlay of the cumulative geohazard map with the distribution of cultural and natural heritage features facilitated the identification of vulnerable spatial units (Figure 2). Notable archaeological sites, including the ancient city of Trapezous and the temple of Athena in Figalia, were identified within high-risk zones, where geohazard indicators reached critical levels. The natural heritage areas, including the Neda River and the surrounding landscape, are susceptible to erosion and weathering, necessitating prompt intervention. These findings lend support to the implementation of preventative measures. The quantitative analysis of the relative contribution of each geohazard revealed that landslides accounted for the largest share, contributing 36.5% to the cumulative risk. Erosion and subsidence followed with 23.5% and 25.7%, respectively, while weathering and earthquakes accounted for smaller shares with 9.2% and 5.1%. These results reflect the steep topography of the region and climatic conditions, highlighting the need for tailored prevention strategies. The framework and index application also highlighted the escalating role of Climate Change in intensifying geohazards. The variability in rainfall patterns, coupled with the increase in extreme weather events, is expected to exacerbate geohazards, particularly in areas already prone to landslides, subsidence, erosion and subsidence. This underscores the need for dynamic and adaptive management strategies to address evolving threats and protect the cultural and natural heritage of Parrhasian Heritage Park. In conclusion, the contribution of this research is evident in the creation of a methodological framework for geohazard prevention, which introduces a new index for the assessment of cumulative geohazards that threaten cultural and natural heritage landscapes. These landscapes are sensitive and require special attention to reduce the impact of geohazards that threaten them. The prevention framework process enables the early prediction of the evolution of cumulative geohazards that may result in alterations to the specific characteristics of a cultural and natural heritage landscape. The framework is based on an innovative approach, namely the cumulative approach. By identifying cumulative geohazards, the proposed framework assists in the prevention of the acceleration of geohazards and their evolution into disasters. This is achieved by implementing appropriate mitigation strategies that prioritize heritage conservation over restoration. The framework places particular emphasis on the spatial dimension, utilising innovative technologies within a GIS environment. This enables the exploitation of the GPI, with the creation of zones of graded cumulative geohazard. The GPI index structure enables the identification of the most significant environmental factors associated with geohazards and the establishment of relationships between all geohazards in such heritage areas. Furthermore, it permits the comprehension of the role played by a multitude of parameters in the genesis of geohazards, as well as the elucidation of the mechanisms underlying their genesis and occurrence processes. This is accomplished through the utilization of data surveys, analytical procedures, and the interpretation of the information obtained concerning the particular area. The implementation of the methodological framework and the GPI index is contingent upon the prevailing physical conditions in the area of interest. Moreover, it can be employed on a daily basis in instances where intensifying phenomena are observed in the area as a consequence of climate change. The framework and the GPI index have been developed for application to terrestrial cultural and natural heritage landscapes. Accordingly, a prospective area of inquiry is the adaptation of the GPI index for utilization in coastal cultural and natural heritage regions, which are becoming increasingly susceptible. In order to expand the framework to include marine and alongshore environmental geohazard factors, it will be necessary to incorporate additional parameters, including sea level rise, storm surges, tidal patterns, saltwater intrusion, and coastal erosion rates. The index will be expanded to include new terms and weights. The findings of the research demonstrate that by employing the proposed methodological framework and the GPI index in accordance with their intended specifications, critical questions can be addressed. These include whether the framework serves as a prevention tool, whether it is user-friendly, whether it is technologically up-to-date, whether it is cost-effective to utilize, whether it provides spatial information, and finally, whether it is effective. The Geohazard Prevention Framework is a useful and rapid tool that works in a modern technological environment. It is based on spatial analysis and requires no operational costs, using digital information and techniques. Its usefulness lies in its ability to provide timely information for decision-making processes for effective and responsible environmental management. This tool will contribute to the sustainable management and protection of these areas and the advantages of its use can be summarised as follows.  It serves to highlight the need to acquire the knowledge required for the early adoption of preventive measures and mitigation strategies for specific areas, thus preventing the acceleration of geohazards in the event of disasters.  Indicates spatial definitions for specific actions to reduce or even prevent the development of cumulative geohazards, which by their nature require local studies.  Contributes significantly to the conservation of valuable and sensitive landscapes and their characteristics, with the aim of enhancing them where necessary.  Facilitates the reduction of time and financial costs associated with unnecessary and costly actions, thus promoting the sustainable management of cultural and natural heritage landscapes. This cumulative geohazard prevention approach aims to enhance the protection and conservation of our world's priceless cultural and natural heritage for future generations. It aims at a shared understanding of how the vision, values and strategies that can be embedded in a cultural and natural heritage landscape will guarantee its protection, preserve its identity and support the creation of resilient communities. It has multiple benefits, including both tangible and intangible objectives. The tangible benefits contribute directly to safeguarding the characteristics of cultural and natural heritage landscapes and are measurable and immediate, as mentioned above. The intangible benefits, on the other hand, relate to the preservation of the special character of the area and its way of life. This conservation also acts as a catalyst for the engagement of local communities. In addition, it provides exciting opportunities for visitors to enjoy the natural beauty and culture of the area and to escape to a tranquil and exceptional environment. Overall, the proposed geohazard prevention methodological framework and the aggregate indicator contribute to the mission of the Living Landscape, which is to manage and protect cultural and natural heritage in the long term as an essential part of improving quality of life, community well-being and economic opportunities, encouraging people to take ownership of the landscape and bequeath it to future generations.	en
heal.advisorName	Papadopoulou, Maria, P.
heal.committeeMemberName	Papadopoulou, Maria, P.
heal.committeeMemberName	Romano, David Gilman
heal.committeeMemberName	Karantzalos, Konstantinos
heal.committeeMemberName	Potsiou, Chryssy
heal.committeeMemberName	Kranis, Charalambos
heal.committeeMemberName	Pantzou, Panagiota
heal.committeeMemberName	Chatzichristos, Thomas
heal.academicPublisher	Σχολή Αγρονόμων και Τοπογράφων Μηχανικών	el
heal.academicPublisherID	ntua
heal.numberOfPages	224
heal.fullTextAvailability	false