Content uploaded by Jessica Bernal Borrego
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jessica Bernal Borrego on Aug 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
Available online 26 July 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Outdated regulations and institutional vulnerability: Hydrological
risk management in M´
alaga’s municipal planning
Jessica Bernal Borrego
1
Biologist, University of M´
alaga, Spain
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Hydrological
Planning
Risk
Urban
ABSTRACT
M´
alaga, a Mediterranean region, is increasingly prone to water-related risks, a situation com-
pounded by the impacts of climate change. Urban development practices over the past decades
have signicantly exacerbated these risks. Our study offers a novel, scientically derived meth-
odology to evaluate municipal capabilities in managing hydrological risks through urban plan-
ning instruments. Leveraging a checklist applied through multicriteria analysis, we scrutinized
the integration of theoretical and regulatory frameworks relating to hydrological risks in
numerous municipalities. Our ndings highlight a glaring deciency in local Disaster Risk
Reduction strategies in alignment with the Sendai Framework. Additionally, there’s minimal
incorporation of natural risk analysis and mapping into planning instruments. Our results spot-
light M´
alaga’s high institutional vulnerability due to its limited capacity in hydrological risk
management, underlining the pressing necessity for land use policies informed by risk assess-
ments and prioritizing citizen safety. This study signicantly contributes to future urban planning
initiatives, offering a roadmap toward more resilient communities amid escalating hydrological
risks.
1. Introduction
Despite the universal acceptance of risks—whether natural, induced, or technological—it’s clear that regions and their planners
vary widely in their capacity to tolerate and manage these risks. This variability is evident when examining hydrological risks, where
the risk appetite should, in theory, be far lower than the uncertainty level of statistical models [1]. This is essential for ensuring the
safety of people, their assets, and livelihoods against potentially catastrophic, often irreversible, events. Importantly, current urban
planning must be rigorously scrutinized to assess its capacity to offer protection against hydrological risks, considering the lengthy
approval and validity periods of these plans. In this context, we have developed and applied a scientic approach, including an
evaluation of institutional vulnerability to measure urban planning’s performance in mitigating hydrological risks.
This study’s primary objective is to evaluate urban planning performance against hydrological risks in the M´
alaga municipalities,
E-mail address: jessicabernal@uma.es.
1
This article is based on the author’s master’s thesis in Economic and Territorial Regulation, with a specialization in territorial planning, ur-
banism, and the environment, undertaken at the University of M´
alaga during the academic year of 2020/2021 under the supervision of Professor Dr
María Remedios Zamora Rosell´
o. After defending the thesis before the Tribunal, the author was awarded a distinction of Honours (grade 10). This
work was also honoured with the Terra-M´
alaga Research Award in November 2022. The thesis is available for viewing online at ResearchGate with
the DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28125.08163. The author would like to express her appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful
comments and suggestions, which have greatly improved and enriched the manuscript initially submitted for this publication.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18691
Received 9 April 2023; Received in revised form 23 July 2023; Accepted 25 July 2023
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
2
notably vulnerable to such risks. We build our theoretical framework for hydrological risks on timely and relevant publications,
considering territorial scope, methodology, and hydrological risk management. Also, we integrate perspectives from over 200 sci-
entists, policymakers, and professionals from the “Science for Disaster Risk Management” guide [2]. Our regulatory framework
consulting consolidates current legislation, and key judgments help dene indicators for our checklist. We exclude regulations related
to response and emergency phases from our analysis, focusing instead on disaster risk prevention within local administrations’ urban
planning competence.
We heed the European Committee of the Regions call in their 2017 Opinion on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030 Action Plan, which advocates adopting a risk-informed approach to all Union policies. This highlights the urgency of
addressing hydrological risks in territorial planning, a task within local administrations’ purview that can be coordinated with other
competent authorities. The urgency of this issue and the expected necessary steps in the years to come underline this study’s
importance and relevance.
2
2. Regulatory framework
2.1. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
In addition to Spain, 192 states and stakeholders currently subscribe to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR),
an instrument conceived for its application to disaster risks at all spatiotemporal scales, regardless of their origin. The framework has
seven goals connected to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through a series of common indicators, 11 of which are related to
goals 1, 11, and 13, which are part of the United Nations Ofce for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) monitoring system.
This work specically evaluates the implementation of Goal E, which refers to DRR strategies at the local level that should be in
place since 2020. It is also important to note that underlying factors such as poverty, inequality, policies formulated without
knowledge of risks, demographic changes and land use, epidemics and pandemics, etc., mean that both the causes and scope of di-
sasters are interconnected, limiting, and even capable of reversing progress in achieving SDGs other than those monitored by UNDRR.
2.2. Binding regulations for general plans
Regarding the binding regulations on which the checklist for this work is based, it should be highlighted that Directive 2000/60/
EC, or the Water Framework Directive (WFD) [3], and Directive 2007/60/EC, or the Floods Directive [4], are of fundamental
importance. The WFD is reected in national law by the Consolidated Text of the Water Law, approved by Royal Legislative Decree
1/2001, of July 20 (TRLA), as well as by the legal framework for water planning. On the other hand, the Floods Directive is transposed
into Spanish law by Royal Decree 903/2010, of July 9, on the assessment and management of ood risks. At the regional level, Law
9/2010, of July 30, on Water in Andalusia [5], is the legal framework that applies to general urban development plans (PGOUs),
together with the specic legislation on territorial and urban planning. Among the latter, the specic law governing territorial
planning in Andalusia is currently Law 1/1994, of January 11, on Territorial Planning in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia
(LOTA) [6]. This law provides that territorial planning must be carried out through the Territorial Plan of Andalusia (POTA) [7], the
Plan for the Protection of the Coastal Corridor of Andalusia [8], and the Territorial Plans of subregional scope. The POTA must indicate
the areas with catastrophic risks and dene the territorial criteria for action to be taken to prevent them, considering the applicable
policies of the European Union and the State. This Plan is binding for all other territorial planning instruments, plans with an impact on
territorial planning, and general urban planning.
Similarly, LOTA provides that the Plan for the Protection of the Coastal Corridor of Andalusia must include, among other things, the
designation of areas that must be preserved from urban development for territorial or protection reasons. This plan is also binding for
subregional Territorial Plans. The scope of this plan includes at least the rst 500 m of the Coastal Inuence Zone, as well as any other
areas necessary to achieve the protection and accessibility objectives of the coastal system of the municipalities of M´
alaga.
3
Subregional Territorial Plans are binding for plans with an impact on territorial planning and general urban planning. They must
also include the determinations of plans with an impact on territorial planning (including water management plans, plans for the
management of natural resources, and the Andalusian Climate Action Plan) and of the urban plans in their scope that must be adapted,
justifying any proposed changes to them. The aforementioned determinations can be rules (with direct binding effect), guidelines
(binding in terms of their objectives), or recommendations (non-binding), but any deviation from them requires explicit justication
and must be compatible with the objectives of territorial planning.
Regarding its processing, the approval of Territorial Planning Plans implies the declaration of public utility and the need for the
occupation of the corresponding assets and acquisition of rights, for expropriation, temporary occupation, or imposition or modi-
cation of servitude. Likewise, the Government Council has the power to declare of Autonomous Interest the public actions contem-
plated in territorial planning plans and plans with territorial incidence. In this sense, the PGOUs, their total or partial revisions, and
2
There is Supplementary Material available for this article, which provides additional information on the sources consulted and methodology
used in the development of the theoretical and regulatory frameworks. The Supplementary Material can be found online, we encourage readers to
consult it for a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.
3
Algarrobo, Benalm´
adena, Casares, Estepona, Fuengirola, M´
alaga, Manilva, Marbella, Mijas, Nerja, Rinc´
on de la Victoria, Torremolinos, Torrox,
and V´
elez-M´
alaga.
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
3
modications of the structural planning must be submitted after the initial approval to a binding report on the territorial incidence that
includes the analysis of the compatibility of this with the determinations of the territorial planning instruments.
As stated in the preamble of Law 7/2002, of December 17, on Urban Planning in Andalusia (LOUA) [9], since the transfer of means
for exercising urban planning competencies to the Autonomous Community of Andalusia in 1979, the regional government has
pursued a decisive policy of promoting urban planning. Additionally, LOUA explicitly states that regardless of private sector
involvement in direct implementation, urban planning activity, and plan execution are a public function, hence the public adminis-
tration is responsible for its direction and control. Based on these competencies, Andalusian urban planning legislation is developed,
which at the municipal level translates into general urban planning gures.
On the other hand, territorial and urban planning instruments are subject to environmental evaluation by the provisions of the
legislation on the evaluation of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment, without prejudice to the environmental
impact assessment of the projects required for their implementation, if applicable. In this sense, Andalusian regulations are based on
Law 7/2007, of July 9, on Integrated Environmental Quality Management (GICA) [10]. This law includes the regional competencies
statutorily attributed to the areas of the environment, protected areas, and sustainability, including the regulation of environmental
evaluation of plans and programs. Therefore, in addition to considering applicable directives such as the WFD, the GICA is developed
based on the state basic legislation, which includes Law 21/2013, of December 9, on environmental evaluation (LEA) [11], and the
Consolidated Text of the Land and Urban Rehabilitation Law (TRLS), approved by Royal Legislative Decree 7/2015, of October 30.
Specically, the environmental evaluation of urban planning instruments is carried out following the procedures and requirements
of the evaluation of plans and programs, with the particularities derived from the provisions of LOUA. This work does not aim to
provide a detailed explanation of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) or its legal regime; it simply states that planning in-
struments may be subject to ordinary or simplied SEA, considering the assumptions established by this law. In any case, modications
affecting the structural planning relating to non-developable land (classication, category, etc.) are subject to ordinary SEA.
Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of urbanization action planning instruments must include, among other aspects, a
map of natural risks in the area subject to planning, as well as the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of climate change, inte-
grating the secondary, cumulative, and synergistic effects of the project on the population and the environment.
In summary, among the binding regulations that inuence urban planning concerning hydrological risk, the WFD and the Floods
Directive play a crucial role. Both directives, implemented through the Spanish national law and regional Andalusian law, mandate
specic provisions that are instrumental in PGOUs. Despite the regulations’ potential for directing urban planning towards a safer, risk-
informed approach, the study found that the application and enforcement of these mandates have been inconsistent, contributing to
the hydrological risk M´
alaga currently faces. The examination of these regulations, considering the results from the studied munici-
palities, offers an important perspective on the enforcement and effectiveness of these laws.
3. Methodology
This research employed a comprehensive methodology to evaluate hydrological risk management strategies in fourteen munici-
palities in M´
alaga, primarily characterized by exposure to natural hazards such as uvial oods [12], soil erosion, and potential for
mass movements.
The initial stage involved an in-depth analysis of normative and jurisprudential frameworks, as well as a detailed assessment of
territorial hydrological risks. The municipalities of Algarrobo, Benamargosa, Rinc´
on de la Victoria, V´
elez-M´
alaga, Estepona, Fuen-
girola, Marbella, Mijas, Torremolinos, M´
alaga, Alhaurín de la Torre, C´
artama, Coín, and Pizarra were selected for this purpose. The
selection criteria included the use of ofcial cartographic data and other relevant information obtained from REDIAM,
4
and the
National Soil Erosion Inventory of the Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge [13].
The collected data were systematically processed using QGIS 3.10, a well-known open-source Geographic Information System
software. To allow comparability, the data were normalized for the 103 municipalities within the province and ltered according to
pre-determined criteria. Notably, the chosen municipalities had at least 3% of their territories located within ood-prone zones, more
than 9 t ha
−1
⋅year
−1
affected by soil erosion and a minimum of 36% of the territory with a high to very high potential for mass
movements.
Standard forms were devised to incorporate critical information about each municipality to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. The
forms included population density, recorded ood and gravitational events, inequality indices, and other relevant land-use indicators.
Additionally, these forms had a section dedicated to observations and a provision to calculate a “Municipal Plan Performance Value” - a
quantiable measure indicating the outcome of this study. An illustration of such a form for the Pizarra municipality is provided in
Fig. 1.
5
The subsequent phase revolved around the design of a comprehensive checklist, instrumental in evaluating each municipality’s risk
management capabilities. The checklist, detailed in Table 1, comprises 20 compliance indicators: 9 associated with binding legislation,
3 linked to community regulations, and 8 related to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [14]. A more in-depth
explanation of these indicators and specic evaluation criteria is provided in the Supplementary Material accompanying this paper.
Ensuring the consistency of the applied indicators was achieved through a multi-criteria analysis, which entailed a pairwise
4
“Red de Informaci´
on Ambiental de Andalucía”, which objective is the integration of information (alphanumeric, graphic, etc.) on the envi-
ronment in Andalusia, so that it can be used in management, research, public dissemination, and decision-making.
5
All the municipal case study sheets generated in this project are available as supplementary material.
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
4
Fig. 1. Municipality sheet example (results from Pizarra). Own Elaboration.
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
5
comparison of indicators to establish their relative importance (see supplementary material, Annex 2).
The evaluation process comprised an audit of each general urban planning plan against the established indicators. The scoring
system rated full compliance as (5), partial compliance as (3), and non-compliance as (0). The weighted ratings summed up to generate
a ‘global performance value’ ranging between 0 (null performance) and 500 (optimal performance).
The nal stage involved the assimilation of results into each municipality’s prole, to inform multi-scale decision-making. Qual-
itative assessments were used in conjunction with the numerical performance values to yield a well-rounded understanding of each
municipality’s risk management performance. The performances were categorized as decient (0–124), insufciently compatible
(125–249), moderately compatible (250–374), and adapted compatible (375–500). This standardized evaluation process facilitated an
objective comparison across the case studies. A step-by-step graphical representation of the methodology can be found in the sup-
plementary materials.
4. Results and discussion
Table 2 depicts the performance value of each municipal plan, showing that 10 out of 14 municipalities are decient, three are
insufciently compatible, and only one is moderately compatible.
Given the volume of data analyzed, the following results have been organized into four main categories: binding legislation,
community regulations, Sendai Framework, and specic measures for ood risk management and hydrological risks.
4.1. Binding legislation (indicators 1–6, and 9)
Indicator 1: Technical Determination and Delimitation of DPH and DPMT, Intense Drainage Routes, and Return Periods.
Compliant Municipalities: Fuengirola, Torremolinos, M´
alaga, and Pizarra comply sufciently with this indicator. They all designate
DPH and DPMT to non-developable land under special protection (SNU-EP), following specic legislation. Among them, Fuengirola
and Pizarra recognize a wider range of return periods, with Pizarra acknowledging the highest (1000 years). Nevertheless, none of
these municipalities have technically determined the intense drainage routes.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Algarrobo, V´
elez-M´
alaga, Estepona, Marbella, Mijas, Alhaurín de la Torre, C´
artama, and Coín
are partially compliant. They account for DPH and DPMT but lack their technical delimitation. Particularly, V´
elez-M´
alaga, Algarrobo,
and Mijas classify these lands as General Systems, rather than SNU-EP, which may not offer sufcient guarantees of protection against
potential hydrological risks.
Key Issues: The classication of certain lands as General Systems instead of SNU-EP and the lack of legal authorization cited in
Mijas’ case raise questions about the robustness of the protection offered. It suggests that local administrations might need to better
utilize their authority to review and update their general plans by higher-ranking binding legislation.
Indicator 2: Adaptation of Buildings and Land Use Considering Natural Flood Risk Maps.
Table 1
Checklist. Own elaboration.
CHECKLIST
I. Binding legislation
1. Determination and delimitation of the Hydraulic Public Domain (DPH) and the Maritime-Terrestrial Public Domain (DPMT) (if applicable), intense drainage
routes, and return periods (T).
2. Includes adaptation of buildings and other land uses considering natural ood risk maps.
3. Analysis and mapping of natural risks. Within the corresponding Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and incorporated into the planning instrument.
4. Addresses the repercussions of climate change on the incidence of natural risks.
5. Preserves the urban development process for the land adjacent to the natural public domain to ensure its integrity (minimum easement margins of 5 m and
police margins of 100 m in DPH).
6. Preserves the urban development process for the land that presents natural risks.
7. Includes specic structural measures for ood risk management.
8. Includes specic non-structural measures for ood risk management.
9. Includes corrective (elimination) measures for constructions in ood-prone areas.
II. Community Regulations
10. Establishes additional protection standards against hydrological disaster risks.
11. Risk maps include coastal (if applicable), river, and ash ood risks.
12. Risk maps identify and include other risk multiplier elements of ooding (transported sediments, rockfalls, etc.).
III. Sendai Framework for DRR
13. Recognizes the types of hydrological risk present.
14. A multiple risk assessment has been carried out.
15. Incorporates present hydrological risks into land use planning (zoning).
16. Recognizes and incorporates scientic uncertainty from the precautionary principle.
17. Contemplates the revision, adaptation, and updating of the planning with future changes in projected risks.
18. Includes structural measures for managing present hydrological risks.
19. Includes non-structural measures for managing present hydrological risks.
20. Includes a local strategy for DRR (2020-Meta E, SDGs 1.5, 3.d, 11.5, 11. b, 13.1, and 15).
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
6
Compliant Municipalities: Torremolinos and Pizarra stand out for their full compliance. Torremolinos implements a Corrective
Flood Risk Action Plan in urban areas, even classifying incompatible lands as out of order. Pizarra classies structures affected by ood
risk as subject to a temporary out-of-order regime. It allows only conservation and rehabilitation works until ood defence measures
are enacted, after which the buildings are deemed orderly.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: V´
elez-M´
alaga, Fuengirola, and M´
alaga demonstrated partial compliance. V´
elez-M´
alaga’s plan
lacks determination of associated risk and spatiotemporal scope for its Special Plans designed to restore non-developable land to
agricultural use. Fuengirola’s plan addresses land use according to areas assigned to different ood risk categories but doesn’t
explicitly provide for the adaptation of existing buildings. M´
alaga’s General Urban Plan also lacks specic adaptation actions for
existing buildings. However, it mandates that ood-prone areas be kept free from construction, buildings, and infrastructure.
Key Issues: A key issue lies in the absence of clear provisions for adapting existing buildings in Fuengirola and M´
alaga. It’s crucial to
address this aspect to enhance resilience against potential ood risks. For V´
elez-M´
alaga, a better articulation of the risk and scope
associated with each Special Plan is required to improve planning clarity. Pizarra’s approach of a temporary out-of-order regime for
buildings at risk could be a valuable strategy for other municipalities to consider.
Indicator 3: analysis and mapping of natural risks.
Compliant Municipalities: M´
alaga and Pizarra show sufcient compliance with indicator 3. Pizarra’s General Urban Development
Plan (PGOU) incorporates comprehensive annexes, including an Environmental Study, Environmental Risk Study, and Hydrological-
Hydraulic Study. The ndings of these studies are cohesively integrated into both the territorial planning memory and the general
plan’s urban regulations. Although M´
alaga’s EIS does not specically conduct a natural risk analysis, factors such as oodability and
terrain instability are considered. M´
alaga also provides an annexed hydrological and hydraulic study integrated into its water map-
ping, demonstrating its consideration for natural risks.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Fuengirola and Torremolinos show partial compliance. Fuengirola’s environmental study
considers geological and ood risks but lacks associated risk mapping. Torremolinos’ EIS, while not providing a comprehensive natural
risk analysis, includes a hydrological and hydraulic study that delineates ood risk for a 500-year return period. However, it does not
consider other present hydrological risks, thus earning it a partial compliance status.
Key Issues: One common issue across these municipalities is the limited scope of risk analysis. Specically, not all municipalities
comprehensively consider various forms of natural risks, often omitting certain categories of hydrological risks. Also, while some
municipalities include studies that consider different aspects of natural risks, these are not always adequately translated into risk maps,
which are crucial for practical implementation and decision-making in urban planning.
Indicator 4: Treatment of the Effects of Climate Change on the Incidence of Natural Risks.
Compliant Municipalities: In the evaluated municipalities, only Torremolinos satisfactorily integrated the impacts of climate
change into its 2020 PGOU. The municipality did so via its Twelfth Additional Provision and an addendum to its Environmental Impact
Study (EIS), outlining climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Notably, no other municipalities were found to be partially compliant for this indicator. Their
urban planning schemes lacked the incorporation of climate change impacts, revealing a signicant gap in addressing and managing
evolving environmental hazards [15].
Key Issues: The overarching issue identied was that most municipalities were not recognizing or planning for the increasing risks
associated with climate change. Despite Torremolinos demonstrating some level of commitment to tackling climate change, the
measures outlined lacked specicity towards individual natural risks. However, due to their broad applicability (encompassing eco-
systems, water, and land occupation patterns), these strategies were considered sufcient in this evaluation. Their acknowledgement
of the necessity to “dene the risk zones against intense climatological phenomena, especially ooding and increased erosion” was a
promising step, highlighting the municipality’s awareness of climate change’s multifaceted impacts. This indicator underlines a crucial
area for improvement for most municipalities.
Indicator 5: Preservation of the urbanization process for the urban development of lands adjacent to the natural public domain.
Compliant Municipalities: Fuengirola, Marbella, Torremolinos, and Pizarra demonstrated adequate preservation measures for the
Table 2
Performance value of each Municipal Plan.
Municipality Index Qualication
Pizarra 310 Compatible – Moderate
Torremolinos 256 Compatible – Insufcient
M´
alaga 207 Compatible – Insufcient
Fuengirola 207 Compatible – Insufcient
V´
elez-M´
alaga 71 Decient
Algarrobo 56 Decient
C´
artama 44 Decient
Marbella 35 Decient
Mijas 25 Decient
Coín 22 Decient
Estepona 20 Decient
Alhaurín de la Torre 2 Decient
Benamargosa 0 Decient
Rinc´
on de la Victoria 0 Decient
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
7
urban development of lands adjacent to the natural public domain. They have considered compatibility with sectoral legislation,
regulating areas of servitude, police, and oodable zones. Marbella and Pizarra have also implemented an additional protection zone
alongside rivers and streams. Torremolinos has specic conditions for developable and urban land, planning more precise measures
through the Plan for Corrective Flood Risk Actions in the urban centre of Torremolinos.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: M´
alaga and Coín demonstrated partial compliance with the preservation of the urbanization
process. While M´
alaga considers legislation to protect lands assigned to non-developable areas under special protection (SNU-EP), it
transfers responsibility for protection to structural solutions established in development projects. This evaluation interprets M´
alaga’s
regulatory provisions as discretionary, providing partial protection to areas adjacent to the public domain. Meanwhile, Coín’s Partial
Adaptation Plan does not include areas adjacent to channels assigned to non-consolidated or non-developable urban lands. Coupled
with the lack of delimitation for specic streams, this leads to partial fullment of indicator 5.
Key Issues: Notably, the evaluation reveals a concerning discretionary aspect to the preservation measures in M´
alaga. Also, in Coín,
the lack of areas adjacent to channels assigned to non-developable urban lands in their zoning maps presents a signicant issue.
Indicator 6: Preservation of Urbanization Process in Lands Presenting Natural Risks.
Compliant Municipality: Pizarra stands as the only municipality that fully satises the criteria of indicator 6, preserving the ur-
banization of lands presenting natural risks comprehensively.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Fuengirola, Torremolinos, and M´
alaga demonstrate partial compliance. While the General
Urban Plans for Torremolinos and M´
alaga incorporate specic measures to limit golf course development in areas presenting gravi-
tational risks, neither explicitly address the preservation of lands facing other natural risks apart from pre-identied ood areas.
Fuengirola’s General Urban Plan, aside from highlighting certain ood risk points like the Real Stream and the Fuengirola River, does
not specically address preservation against other natural risks. However, its Plan provides technical guidelines for development areas,
ensuring that areas with slopes greater than 35% are preserved from construction and that deep cuts in the landscape are avoided.
Key Issues: A notable gap in the strategies of these municipalities is the lack of comprehensive planning for a range of natural risks.
Emphasis is generally placed on identied ood areas, with insufcient attention given to other potential risks. Moreover, explicit
provisions for preserving the urbanization process in lands with natural risks are largely absent from the General Urban Plans of
Torremolinos and M´
alaga. Fuengirola’s approach, though acknowledging some additional constraints for certain development areas,
falls short of a holistic risk mitigation strategy. These shortcomings highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to urban
planning in areas presenting diverse natural risks.
Indicator 9: Correction Measures (Elimination) of Constructions in Flood-Prone Areas.
Compliant Municipalities: There are no municipalities that comply with the criteria of indicator 9.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Not applicable, as no municipality considers the implementation of corrective measures to
eliminate constructions in ood-prone areas.
Key Issues: This result underscores a critical gap in the urban planning strategies of all the studied municipalities. Not considering
the elimination of structures in ood-prone areas fails to acknowledge the potential for signicant damage and loss in these high-risk
zones [16]. This absence of corrective measures indicates a lack of comprehensive disaster risk management strategies in these mu-
nicipalities, highlighting an urgent need for reconsideration of policies for a proactive approach towards urban resilience.
4.2. Community regulations (indicators 10 to 12)
Indicator 10: Establishment of Additional Protection Rules Against Hydrological Disaster Risks.
Compliant Municipalities: The municipalities of Fuengirola, Torremolinos, M´
alaga, and Pizarra have all incorporated a heightened
level of protection exceeding that mandated by sectorial legislation into their planning. Fuengirola notably denes the Pajares Stream
and Carvajal Park as “Spaces of High Ecological Value”, and mandates a thorough geomorphological study and approval from a
geological institute before any development activities in “Geological Protection Areas”. Torremolinos and M´
alaga have implemented
special conditions for development on plots near the DPH, in areas prone to ooding, or on steep slopes. Pizarra has imposed specic
use rules and limitations on the SNU-EP, which are based on the prevalent natural risks identied.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: No municipalities have been identied as partially compliant with indicator 10 in this study.
Key Issues: The need for more comprehensive regulations addressing hydrological disaster risks is evident. A lack of additional
protection rules can compromise the safety of people and assets in the face of potential hydrological hazards. The provisions adopted
by the compliant municipalities serve as promising examples that could be emulated by others. Fuengirola’s model of designating
special areas and mandating thorough geological assessments can help ensure environmentally sensitive areas are not inadvertently
compromised, while the practices in Torremolinos, M´
alaga, and Pizarra demonstrate how additional rules can mitigate risk in ood-
prone and steep areas.
Indicator 11: Cartography of Coastal, River, and Flash Flood Risks.
Compliant Municipalities: Fully compliant municipalities are not found for Indicator 11.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: V´
elez-M´
alaga, Torremolinos, M´
alaga, and Pizarra have partially complied with Indicator
11. Their efforts in this regard have led to the development of cartography for coastal, river, and ash ood risks, albeit with
some limitations. Notably, their preparedness does not extend to non-riverine ash oods, a potential shortfall in their risk
management.
Key Issues: A signicant limitation across these municipalities is the exclusion of non-riverine ash oods from their planning
instruments, which could leave these areas unprepared for such events. Additionally, coastal oods were not considered by V´
elez-
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
8
M´
alaga and Torremolinos. This lack of comprehensive risk mapping in these municipalities exposes them to potential vulnerabilities.
Therefore, further work needs to be undertaken to ensure all forms of ood risks are appropriately mapped and planned for.
Indicator 12: risk multiplier elements of ooding.
Compliant Municipalities: No municipalities fully complied with Indicator 12, regarding the inclusion of ood risk multiplier el-
ements such as transported sediments and debris ows in their risk maps.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Not applicable.
Key Issues: This total non-compliance with Indicator 12, the ninth most important in this study, reveals a signicant gap in ood
risk assessment. The absence of this factor could potentially lead to an underestimation of ood risks and insufcient preparation or
mitigation measures, leaving communities vulnerable to unexpected hazards during ood events. This issue needs to be addressed
urgently to enhance the resilience of these municipalities to ood disasters.
4.3. Sendai Framework for DRR (indicators 13–17, and 20)
Indicator 13: Recognition of Hydrological Risk Types.
Compliant Municipalities: The municipalities of Algarrobo, Fuengirola, Torremolinos, M´
alaga, C´
artama, and Pizarra all reect the
diverse hydrological risks including ooding, erosion, and climatic events, in their respective planning documents. Particularly,
C´
artama’s structural analysis incorporates an in-depth geological report, recognizing ooding risks and the potential for landslides and
terrain instability.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Estepona only acknowledges river ooding risks, as identied by the Plan for the Prevention of
Floods in Andalusian Urban Channels and the Andalusian Water Agency. This partial compliance is of particular concern given that
over 85% of the Estepona territory is potentially exposed to a high or very high risk of mass movements.
Key Issues: Despite some municipalities demonstrating an awareness of multiple hydrological risks, many fall short of translating
this recognition into tangible regulatory or zoning provisions for land use planning. This disconnection between the identication of
potential hazards and the implementation of effective preventative measures presents a signicant barrier to comprehensive disaster
risk reduction.
Indicator 14: multiple risks assessment.
Compliant Municipalities: None of the municipalities studied carried out assessments of multiple hydrological risks, failing to full
the requirements of this indicator.
Key Issues: The absence of multiple risks assessment across all municipalities presents a serious gap in the holistic understanding of
hydrological hazards. It prevents the development of comprehensive and effective land use planning strategies, potentially compro-
mising safety and sustainability.
Indicator 15: Incorporation of Hydrological Risks into Land Use Planning.
Compliant Municipalities: Pizarra is the sole municipality that successfully incorporates recognised hydrological risks into land use
planning, specically through establishing appropriate zoning strategies.
Key Issues: With only one municipality incorporating hydrological risks into its land use planning, there is a signicant shortfall in
disaster risk reduction efforts. This lack of integration suggests a need for a more thorough, risk-informed approach to planning that
includes comprehensive zoning strategies to mitigate the potential impacts of hydrological hazards.
Indicator 16: Recognition and Incorporation of Scientic Uncertainty in the Precautionary Principle.
Compliant Municipalities: Pizarra is the only municipality that implicitly incorporates this precautionary principle in its planning.
This is evident in its preservation of new developable sectors in areas where there’s a potential for natural or articial risks, even
though it does not explicitly recognize the uncertainty tied to projected hydrological risks.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: There were no municipalities identied as partially compliant with this indicator.
Key Issues: The lack of explicit recognition of scientic uncertainty in most municipalities’ planning is a key issue. According to the
Sendai Framework for DRR, ideally, uncertainty related to hydrological risk models [17] would be integrated into planning, with
redened scenarios that consider potential unprecedented extreme events. The current municipal plans do not meet this standard. The
unique approach of Pizarra underscores the need for other municipalities to follow suit in acknowledging and planning for scientic
uncertainty in hydrological risks.
Indicator 17: Updating Urban Planning Schemes Based on Projected Risks.
Compliant Municipalities: None of the municipalities considered future changes in projected risks an explicit reason for revising,
adapting, or updating their urban planning scheme.
Algarrobo, V´
elez-M´
alaga, Estepona, and Torremolinos consider revising their urban planning based on unforeseen events
impacting their plans, primarily linked to demographic or economic factors. Fuengirola, M´
alaga, and Pizarra also allow for revisions if
higher-level territorial plans affect their current scheme. The General Urban Planning Scheme (PGOU) of M´
alaga further adds the
possibility of complete revision in the event of choosing a different territorial model, including the criteria for classication and
protection of Non-Developable Land Subject to Special Protection (SNU-EP).
Key Issues: A critical issue identied is that urban plans generally cannot be revised based on future projected hydrological risks.
This is mainly because these risks have not been integrated into most of the studied cases, and secondly, they need to be identied and
incorporated into a higher-level legal instrument or provision with denitive and binding approval for the PGOU. Therefore, there is a
fundamental need to align local urban planning practices with projected hydrological risks.
Indicator 20: Local Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Compliant Municipalities: Unfortunately, none of the municipalities have a local strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction, thereby
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
9
making compliance in this area absent.
Partially Compliant Municipalities: Not applicable in this instance as none of the municipalities demonstrated any level of
compliance with this indicator.
Key Issues: The lack of local Disaster Risk Reduction strategies across all municipalities is a signicant concern. This gap suggests a
substantial vulnerability to disaster risks and underscores the pressing need for local authorities to develop and implement compre-
hensive strategies for managing these risks effectively [18–20].
4.4. Specic measures for ood risk management and hydrological risks (indicators 7, 8, 18, and 19)
Concluding this study, we turn our attention to indicators that pertain to the general plans’ specied measures, particularly in-
dicators 19, 18, 8, and 7, which are noteworthy due to their interrelatedness. These are ordered in terms of their importance, from
lowest to highest (refer to Annex II: Multi-Criteria Analysis).
Seven municipalities (Algarrobo, V´
elez-M´
alaga, Fuengirola, Mijas, Torremolinos, M´
alaga, and Pizarra) have considered specic
structural measures for ood risk management (indicator 7). The measures primarily include river channelling through urban areas
and the adjustment of the rainwater drainage network. Fuengirola and Mijas also contemplate reforestation and recreational use of
river banks, respectively.
These measures correlate directly with indicator 18, which addresses all hydrological risks in the area. Fuengirola, Torremolinos,
and Pizarra exhibit satisfactory compliance. Measures adopted by Fuengirola include those ensuring minimal impact on soil stability
during earth-moving activities. Torremolinos’ PGOU proposes various measures such as retention works, hydraulic actions, and
plantations in delicate areas. Pizarra’s general plan incorporates actions to counter risks and environmental regeneration using
bioengineering techniques.
Concerning non-structural ood risk management measures (indicator 8), Fuengirola and C´
artama partially comply while Tor-
remolinos and Pizarra comply sufciently. Fuengirola mainly focuses on ood-prone land demarcation, whereas C´
artama’s measures
are broader but subjectively applied and challenging to monitor. Torremolinos and Pizarra demonstrate more comprehensive
compliance, outlining objectives and measures for water protection, land use regulations, and mandatory geological studies.
Furthermore, Pizarra meets the standards for indicator 19 concerning non-structural measures for all present hydrological risks.
Both Torremolinos and Fuengirola also sufciently full the requirements of indicator 19. Torremolinos’ plans include dening risk
zones against climatological phenomena, conducting cost-benet studies, and recovering natural runoff channels. Fuengirola man-
dates that any planning permit request involving signicant earth movements be accompanied by documentation ensuring minimal
negative impact on soil erodibility.
In C´
artama, some planning documents include measures for managing gravitational risk. However, these are limited to requiring
that development plans justify land nature and establish the correct urbanization and building corrective measures. Thus, C´
artama
partially meets the criteria for indicator 19.
The accompanying chart (Fig. 2) offers a visual representation of the number of municipalities that fully comply, partially comply,
or do not comply with each indicator, and highlights the relative importance of each indicator. The bar graphs provide a clear
depiction of how each municipality is performing disaster risk reduction measures. Notably, the chart reveals disparities between the
Fig. 2. Compliance Level and Relative Importance of Urban Planning Indicators in Andalusian Municipalities selected. Own-elaboration.
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
10
municipalities, showcasing the varying degrees of commitment and success in adopting the necessary measures. The relative
importance of each indicator is also clearly communicated, helping readers to understand the emphasis placed on each area. This chart
is crucial for gaining a clear understanding of where efforts need to be intensied, allowing policymakers and local authorities to
strategically focus resources for improved disaster risk reduction.
Further details for each municipality can be found in the appendix. These ndings underline an urgent need for municipalities to
improve their strategic approach to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, particularly in terms of incorporating
scientic uncertainty and developing local DRR strategies [21].
5. Conclusions
Our research presents a scientic method to assess the capacity for managing hydrological risks in urban planning. This method,
which includes understanding the locality, designing checklists, assuring consistency, auditing planning, and informing results, has
been applied across multiple municipalities. It reveals that most municipalities fall short in managing hydrological risks in their urban
planning. No municipality, for example, has a local strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction following the Sendai Framework, and only
28% incorporate the analysis and mapping of natural risks in their planning instruments. Furthermore, only Torremolinos considers
the effects of climate change on natural hazards in its General Plan for Urban Planning (PGOU).
The ndings reveal a high institutional vulnerability to hydrological risks in the province of M´
alaga. A signicant cause of concern
is the lack of consideration of non-uvial ash oods and a continued preference for structural measures over comprehensive, long-
term solutions. Special attention needs to be given to V´
elez-M´
alaga, Algarrobo, and Mijas due to their failure to delimit important
hydrological features in their urban planning.
Informed by our ndings, we recommend a shift towards more integrated and future-oriented urban planning. The adoption of a
risk-informed approach to all policies is paramount. This approach aligns with the European Committee of the Regions’ opinion on the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 Action Plan, issued on August 17, 2017, emphasizing the urgent need for
such an approach. It calls for the prioritization of safety over development and an increased focus on non-structural measures for
managing hydrological risks.
One crucial area that demands urgent attention is the territorial planning issue of not occupying areas with hydrological risks with
urban land. Local administrations should address this issue in a coordinated manner with other competent authorities. By recognizing
and assessing potential risks and integrating them into urban planning in a manner that aligns with state and community legislation,
we can substantially improve the management of hydrological risks.
This study underscores the importance and viability of scientic methods in evaluating hydrological risk management in urban
planning. The ndings and recommendations presented herein contribute to the ongoing discussions on the subject and emphasize the
need for urgent action. Local administrations have the competencies to address this problem, and necessary steps are expected to be
taken in the coming years to ensure the safety and sustainability of our communities.
Author contribution statement
Jessica Bernal Borrego: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data;
Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Data availability statement
Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.
Additional information
Supplementary content related to this article has been published online at [URL].
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
inuence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18691.
J.B. Borrego
Heliyon 9 (2023) e18691
11
References
[1] V. Anselmo, G. Galeati, S. Palmieri, U. Rossi, E. Todini, Flood risk assessment using an integrated hydrological and hydraulic modelling approach: a case study,
J. Hydrol. 175 (1–4) (1996) 533–554.
[2] K. Poljanˇ
sek, Montserrat Marín Ferrer, Tom De Groeve, Ian Clark, Science for Disaster Risk Management 2017: Knowing Better and Losing Less, Publications
Ofce of the European Union, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc.
[3] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the eld of water
policy. OJEU no. 327, 22 December 2000: 1-73.
[4] Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of ood risks. OJEU no. 288, 6
November 2007: 27-34.
[5] Law 9/2010, of July 30, on Water Resources in Andalusia. BOJA no. 155, of August 9, 2010.
[6] Law 1/1994, of January 11, on Territorial Planning in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. BOJA no. 8, of January 22, 1994.
[7] Territorial Planning Plan of Andalusia. BOJA no. 250, of December 29, 2006.
[8] Andalusian Coastal Corridor Protection Plan. BOJA no. 139, of July 20, 2015.
[9] Law 7/2002, of December 17, on Urban Planning in Andalusia. BOJA no. 154, of December 31, 2002.
[10] Law 7/2007, of July 9, on Integrated Environmental Quality Management. BOJA no. 143, of July 20, 2007.
[11] Law 21/2013, of December 9, on Environmental Assessment. BOE no. 296, of December 11, 2013.
[12] Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Lahore, Lahore, M. Aslam, Flood management current state, challenges and prospects in Pakistan: a review,
Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 37 (2) (2018) 297–314.
[13] General Directorate for Biodiversity, Ministry of Environment, 2007. National Inventory of Soil Erosion 2002-2012. M´
alaga, Andalusia. Available on the
Ministry for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge website: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/inventarios-nacionales/
inventario-nacional-erosion-suelos/Descarga_INES_Andalucia.aspx.
[14] United Nations Ofce for Disaster Risk Reduction, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction of the United Nations. Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction,
2009. Retrieved from, https://www.unisdr.org/publications.
[15] S.A. Shah, M. Jehanzaib, K.W. Park, S. Choi, T.-W. Kim, Evaluation and decomposition of factors responsible for alteration in streamow in lower watersheds of
the han river basin using different budyko-based functions, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 27 (2) (2023) 903–914.
[16] L. Koivum¨
aki, P. Alho, E. Lotsari, J. K¨
ayhk¨
o, A. Saari, H. Hyypp¨
a, Uncertainties in ood risk mapping: a case study on estimating building damages for a river
ood in Finland: uncertainties in ood risk mapping, J. Flood Risk Manag. 3 (2) (2010) 166–183.
[17] S.A. Shah, M. Jehanzaib, J.-H. Lee, T.-W. Kim, Exploring the factors affecting streamow conditions in the han river basin from a regional perspective, KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 25 (12) (2021) 4931–4941.
[18] R. Basher, B. Hayward, A. Lavell, A. Martinelli, O. Perez, R. Pulwarty, E. Sztein, A. Ismail-Zadeh, F. Batista e Silva, C. Lavalle, E. Koomen, A procedure to obtain
a rened European land use/cover map, J. Land Use Sci. 8 (3) (2013) 255–283.
[19] L. Tasc´
on-Gonz´
alez, M. Ferrer-Juli`
a, M. Ruiz, E. García-Mel´
endez, Social vulnerability assessment for ood risk analysis, Water 12 (2) (2020) 558.
[20] V.G. Plyuschikov, V.P. Avdotin, E.V. Areeva, R.R. Gurina, M.V. Bolgov, Hydrological risk management of urbanized areas in framework of the smart city
concept, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 691 (1) (2021), 012019.
[21] M. Dale, J. Wicks, K. Mylne, F. Pappenberger, S. Laeger, S. Taylor, Probabilistic ood forecasting and decision-making: an innovative risk-based approach, Nat.
Hazards 70 (1) (2014) 159–172.
J.B. Borrego
