Socio Environmental Vulnerability and Geotechnologies as - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Socio‐Environmental Vulnerability and Geotechnologies as Contributions for Risks Cartography

Maria Isabel Castreghini de Freitas

UNESP ‐ IGCE, Centre of Analysis and Environmental Planning (CEAPLA) – Rio Claro – SP Brazil CEP 13506‐900 ifreitas@rc.unesp.br

TOPICS

• 1. Aims

2.Concepts

• 3. Methodology
• 4. Results
• 5. Conclusions

AIMS

• to perform a review of the methodological

procedures for the modeling of socio‐ environmental vulnerability using geotechnologies

• vulnerability is based on GIS and Statistics, using

factor analysis and principal component analysis for aggregation of statistical socioeconomic and environmental variables derived from census.

This study is the result of research developed in the Laboratory of Spatial Analysis Applied to Public Policies in the CEAPLA/UNESP and is part of the postdoctoral research in CEGOT, under the supervision of Professor Lúcio Cunha, from the University of Coimbra - Portugal.

TOPICS

• 1. Aims

2.Concepts

• 3. Methodology
• 4. Results
• 5. Conclusions

Vulnerability to Natural Risks

• Dependence on Socio‐environmental Conditions and

their differentiated impacts (Cutter, 2012)

Earthquake in Haiti (2010) Earthquake in Chile (2010) Magnitude 7,0 (Richter scale) Magnitude 8,8 200.000 ‐ 250.000 deaths 500 deaths

Vulnerabity

• Emerges as “an idea subjacent to the notion of capacity of

answer”

• f an environment or population to the risks

(Marandola & Hogan 2004).

• the characteristics of a person or group and their situation

that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard (an extreme natural event or process) (Wisner et al. 2003).

• social vulnerability to the natural and technologic risks

incorporates to the standard exposition and biophysical vulnerability evaluations, the resilience and the infrastructural support capacities. (Mendes et al. (2009) and Cunha et al. (2011))

VULNERABILITY MODELS AND RISKS CARTOGRAPHY

• Support of Remote Sensing, GIS, GNSS, etc.
• Combine

natural hazards, exposition and vulnerability maps

• Define risks zonning for specific areas
• Contribute with the public authorities to

designate investments in priority areas

Criticality and Support Capacity

Criticality

• set of individual and

behavioral characteristics which can contribute for the rupture of the System

Support Capacity

• set of territorial

infrastructures which allow the community to react to a disaster

TOPICS

• 1. Aims

2.Concepts

• 3. Methodology
• 4. Results
• 5. Conclusions

Methodological Procedures

• Based on methodologies developed and

improved by CUTTER (1996, 2003); MENDES et al. (2009) e CUNHA et al. (2011)

• Socio‐environmental Vulnerability (SEV)

SEV = Criticality x Support Capacity

• Factorial Analysis which aggregated social and

environmental variables

• Statistic program SPSS R.18 and GIS ArcGIS v.9.3
• Municipalities as analysis units

STUDY AREA IN PORTUGAL STUDY AREA IN BRAZIL

Escala 1:6.000.000

Legend

Legend

• 2. DATA COLLECTION

CENSUS DATA

– Brazil: 2000 a 2010 – Portugal: 2001 a 2011

• Digital Database from

Statistics Institutes: INE – Portugal and IBGE ‐ Brazil

• Municipalities Webpages

CARTOGRAPHY DATA

• Portugal and Brazil

Cartographic Intituitions: Environmental Institute (PT), IBGE and SEADE Foundation (BR)

• Field Observations

Factorial Analysis ‐ SPSS

• Extraction Method: Principal Components Analysis
• Rotation Method : Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
• Statistics Validation tests: Kolmogorov‐Smirnov and Shapiro‐

Wilk tests (5% significance)

Maps Classification – GIS ArcGIS 9.3

• Natural Breaks and Manual Classifying

Portugal

Statistic Results Criticality Support Capacity Explanatory Variables 43 41 Factors 5 5 Cumulative Variance (%) 76 73

Brazil

Statistic Results Criticality Support Capacity Explanatory Variables 18 17 Factors 5 5 Cumulative Variance (%) 67 68

TOPICS

• 1. Aims

2.Concepts

• 3. Methodology
• 4. Results
• 5. Conclusions

Portugal

Main Factors ‐ Portugal

Criticality Suport Capacity

1.High or Very High Vulnerability  North Sector: Montemor, Soure, Mira e Penacova  South Sector: Alcanena e Porto de Mós.  Low economic development  Limited Enviromental and structural conditions in risk situations.

• 2. Low and Very Low Vulnerability

 Coimbra e Leiria (major urban centres)  Centre and South of study area: Pombal, Marinha Grande, Loulé, Nazaré e Batalha.  Adequated infrastructure and good development

SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL VULNERABILITY - Portugal SV = Criticality x Support Capacity

Coimbra Leiria Pombal Batalha

12/06/2012

Alcanena Figueira da Foz Nazaré Montemor-o-Velho

Brazil

Main Factors ‐ Brazil

Criticality Suport Capacity

• 1. High or Very High Vulnerability:

 Municipalities in the interior of the State

• f

São Paulo: Ibiúna, Embu-Guaçu, Juquitiba, São Roque, Piedade e Salto de Pirapora;  Low Socioeconomical Development  Limited Enviromental and structural conditions in risk situations.

• 2. Low and Very Low Vulnerability :

 São Lourenço da Serra and Municipalities in the coastal zone - Mongaguá, Itanhaém and Peruíbe;  Sorocaba e Alumínio  Good socioeconomic status, housing infrastructure and health.

SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL VULNERABILITY - Brazil

ITANHAEM MONGAGUÁ

Peruíbe

SOROCABA - SP

ALUMÍNIO - SP VOTORANTIM - SP

PIEDADE - SP

Embu-Guaçu

TOPICS

• 1. Aims

2.Concepts

• 3. Methodology
• 4. Results
• 5. Conclusions

Portugal Brasil

Economic Contraction Criminality Low Birth Rate High Birth Rate Rural Exodus Rural Exodus Forest Fire Poverty Aging buildings Precarious condition of housing

Conclusions: Vulnerabilities in Study Areas

CONCLUSIONS: APPLIED METHODOLOGY Accessibility and replicability

• f the

methodology Results close to the geographic knowledge for most municipalities Summary vision of vulnerability Next step: risk mapping at regional and local scale Basis for preventive actions related to socio‐ environmental vulnerabilities and risks

REFERENCES

Alves, H. P. F. A. (2006) Vulnerabilidade socioambiental na metrópole paulistana: uma análise sociodemográfica das situações de sobreposição espacial de problemas e riscos sociais e ambientais. Revista Brasileira de Estudos da População. 23(1):43‐59 Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T., Davis, I. Y Wisner, B. (1994) At risk: Natural hazards, peo‐ ple’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London Cunha, L.; Mendes, J.M.; Tavares, A.; Freiria, S. (2011) Construção de modelos de avaliação de vulnerabilidade social a riscos naturais e tecnológicos. O desafio das

• escalas. In: Santos, N.; Cunha, L. (org.) Trunfos de uma Geografia Activa. Imprensa

da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra Cutter, S.L. (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 20(4): 529‐539 Cutter, S.L. (2012) A Ciência da Vulnerabilidade: modelos, métodos e indicadores. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais. 93(1): 59‐70

Danke sehr! Thank you!

ifreitas@rc.unesp.br The author wishes to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) aid granted to attend the event.