4. From a typological to a hierarchical classification of the territories prone to risks

It is difficult to establish a hierarchy in terms of risks of the five territories. Each of the territories has specific types of natural hazards and particular forms of vulnerability even though it is easy to regroup the deltas and coastal plains on one side, and the coastal mountains and inland mountains on the other, and distinguish the inland basins. Therefore a typological classification of zones prone to risks is proposed here more than an attempt of hierarchical organization based on risk levels. This approach aims at providing a basis of reflection and decision-making for some of the solutions that would reduce the risks and cannot be standardised on a national scale but be adapted to the different types of situations.

This being stated, it might be possible to establish priorities. Taking all the human and physical criteria together, the deltas are logically within the very highest risk zones. For the other territories, the hierarchical organization depends on the criterion considered.

Considering the demographic criteria (population size and densities), the inland basins are of main concern. On the other hand, the risks in the coastal plains appear more significant given the striking diversity and potential intensity of the natural hazards alone. Basing on the socio-political factors ^among others the minorities groups), it is the coastal or inland mountains that appear to be the areas of high risk because of the vulnerability. From this point of view the reduction of the vulnerability can not be a simple technical task. The determination of the priority sectors prone to risks cannot therefore be based on scientific, physical or human criteria only, but also on political choices and considerations.