Workshop Space, Costal Zones and Territorial Monitoring ... · Workshop Space, Costal Zones and...

Social Vulnerability, Scale and theTerritory: A Template for Action

Workshop Space, Costal Zones and Territorial MonitoringLisbon, March 2, 2020

Team:

José Manuel Mendes (coord.)

Alexandre Oliveira Tavares

Leandro Barros

Neide Areia

Vasco Mantas

THEORETICAL ISSUES

THE SOCIAL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT MODEL – CES/OSIRIS

CARTOGRAPHY OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

SOCIAL VULNERABILITY AND ITS DIFFERENT SCALES

CONCLUSIONS

Structure of presentation

21Priority 4:

Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction

SENDAI Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030)

Theorethical Issues

21QUESTIONS:

Where is SOCIAL VULNERABILITY in Sendai Framework?

Can we talk about and implement social resilience without social vulnerability studies?

Is social resilience less politically charged than social vulnerability?preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” n and reconstruction

SENDAI Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

Theorethical Issues

Social learning and multiple scales of intervention

There is a need to reframe issues in terms of social learning,and the capacity of coupled systems to learn in order to berelevant for critical policy processes(Lemos et al. 2007, Boyd et al 2008, Krasny et al. 2010).

Theorethical Issues

The issue of scale and the reliability of social vulnerability indexes has been recently discussed by Schmidtlein et al. (2008).

They conclude that “...while scalar changes affect PCA analysis and the numeric properties of the index, the identification of the drivers of vulnerability within a study area, based on a constant variable set, are not strongly dependent on the scale of aggregation used to define the study area” (Schmidtlein et al., 2008).

Review of Susan Cutter's SoVI and the role of scale

Theorethical issues

The Social Vulnerability assessment model – CES/OSIRIS

Social vulnerability – level of resilience and resistance of individuals and

communities when exposed to dangerous processes or events. Integrates

two components: criticality and support capability.

Criticality – Individuals’ characteristics and behaviors that may contribute

to the system's rupture and the community resources to respond or deal

with emergency scenarios.

Support capabilities – set of territorial infrastructures that enables the

community to react in case of emergency.

Social Vulnerability Methodology

SV = Criticality * (1 – Support Capability)

The subtraction of value 1 to support capability is due to the fact that it acts as attenuating factor, that is, in the opposite direction of criticality.

Criticality variables

Social support Education

Economy Housing

Demography Housing conditions

Support Capability variables

Economy Health

Housing conditions Housing

Infrastructure levels Social protection

Civil Protection Resources

Factor analysis Factor analysis

Criticality Index Support Capability Index

Social Vulnerability Criticality × (1- Support Capability)


Criticality variablesEmployed population according to the Census: total and by

sector of economic activity - primary sector (%)

Employed population according to the Census: total

and by sector of economic activity - secondary sector

(%)

Employed population according to the Census: total and by

sector of economic activity - tertiary sector (%)


and by situation in the main occupation – self-

employed as an employer (%)

Employed population according to the Census: total and by

situation in the main occupation - Self-employed as an isolated

employer (%)


and by situation in the main profession -Worker on

behalf of others (%)

Average value of social security pensions (€ / Nº) by Place of

residence

Proportion of students by pre-school education

establishment

Proportion of classic rented or subleased family

accommodation (%)

Resident population older than 65 years (%)

Resident population under 5 years old (%) Seasonal households (%)

Proportion of students by secondary education establishment Deposits from customers in banks, savings banks and

mutual agricultural credit: total and by type of

customer / hab

Purchasing power (%) Social housing - social and supported renting (%)

Difficulties of resident population by place of residence, degree

of difficulty (%)

Very degraded buildings (%)

Buildings built before 1919 (%) Housing with renting less than 100 euros (%)

Beneficiaries Social Integration Income and Minimum

Guaranteed Income (%)

Notarial acts entered into by writ - Properties buying

and selling (%)


KMO – 0.726 6 FAC’s that represent 72.8% of the sample

FAC1 FAC2 FAC3 FAC4 FAC5 FAC6

Resident population older

than 65 years (%)

Employed population

according to the Census: total

and by situation in the main

profession -Worker on behalf

of others (%)

Beneficiaries Social

Integration Income and

Minimum Guaranteed

Income (%)

Deposits from customers

in banks, savings banks

and mutual agricultural

credit: total and by type of

customer / hab

Employed population

according to the Census:

total and by sector of

economic activity - tertiary

sector (%)

Social housing - social

and supported renting (%)

Resident population under 5

years old (%)

Employed population



occupation - Self-employed as

an isolated employer (%)

Housing with renting less

than 100 euros (%)

Purchasing power (%)

Employed population



economic activity -

secondary sector (%)

Difficulties of resident

population by place of

residence, degree of difficulty

(%)

Employed population



occupation – self-employed as

an employer (%)

Buildings built before

1919 (%)

Proportion of students by

secondary education

establishment

Employed population


and by sector of economic

activity - primary sector (%)

Employed population



economic activity -

primary sector (%)

Proportion of classic rented or

subleased family

accommodation (%)

Seasonal households (%)

Proportion of students by pre-

school education

establishment

Average value of social

security pensions (€ / Nº)

by Place of residence

Seasonal households (%)

Average value of social

security pensions (€ / Nº) by

Place of residence



Support Capability variables

ATM machines (‰) - MB_1000

Urban waste collected – kg/hab - Res_urb

Banks and savings banks (‰) - Ban_caix

Accommodation capacity in hotel establishments /1000 hab - Cap_aloj

Firefighting corporations (‰) - Corp_Bomb

Firefighters/1000 hab - Bomb_1000

Proportion of collective accommodation - Aloj_colec_per

Proportion of hospitals per 10 000 inhabitants - Hosp_10000

Insurance companies (‰) - Com_segur

Pharmacies per 10 000 inhabitants Farm_10000

Inhabitants by covered spaces - Hab_esp_cob

Road network density - Rv_dens

FAC 1 FAC2 FAC3

Firefighting corporations (‰) Accommodation capacity in hotel establishments /1000 hab Banks and savings banks (‰)

Firefighters/1000 hab Urban waste collected – kg/hab ATM machines (‰)

Inhabitants by covered spaces Proportion of collective accommodation Proportion of hospitals per 10 000 inhabitants

Pharmacies per 10 000 inhabitants ATM machines (‰) Insurance companies (‰)

Road network density

KMO – 0.705 3 FAC that represent 64.6% of the sample


FAC 1 – Aged and dependent groups FAC 2 – Economic condition FAC 3 – Disadvantaged population

FAC 4 – Level of income FAC 5 – Employment FAC 6 – Dependent population

Hydrographic network

NUTIII

Municipalities

Criticality

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

FAC’s Criticality Mapping


NUTIII

Municipalities

Criticality

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

Criticality Mapping

Criticality Comparison

FAC 1 – Civil protection response FAC 2 – Economic and environmentaldynamism

FAC 3 – Logistics and services capability


NUTIII

Municipalities

Support Capability

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

FAC’s Support Capability Mapping


NUTIII

Municipalities

Support Capability

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Support Capability Mapping

Support Capability Comparison

Social Vulnerability Mapping


Municipalities

NUTIII

Social Vulnerability

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

Social Vulnerability Comparison


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

2008 2017


NUTIII

Municipalities

Criticality

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

Criticality(national scale)

Criticality(municipal scale,subsection)

Social vulnerability and its different scales

Criticality

Very High: >-1,5 D.P. High: 0,5 – 1,5 D.P.Moderate: -0,5, 0,5 D.P.Low: -1,5 - -0,5 D.P.;Very Low: < -1,5 D.P.


NUTIII

Municipalities

Support Capability

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very high


Support Capability

Support Capability(national scale)

Support Capability(municipal scale,subsection)

Very Low: >-1,5 D.P. Low: 0,5 – 1,5 D.P.Moderate: -0,5, 0,5 D.P.High: -1,5 - -0,5 D.P.;Very High: < -1,5 D.P.


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

Social Vulnerability(national scale)

Social Vulnerability(municipal scale,subsection)

Very High: >-1,5 D.P. High: 0,5 – 1,5 D.P.Moderate: -0,5, 0,5 D.P.Low: -1,5 - -0,5 D.P.;Very Low: < -1,5 D.P.



(Pendleton et al., 2010; Ismail et al., 2012)

(Dall’Osso et al., 2009)



(Barros et al., 2015; Tavares et al., 2015)


(Cutter et al., 2003; Schmidtlein, 2008; Mendes, 2009)

(Cutter et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2013)


MORPHOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY

(Mv)

STRUCTURAL BUILDING VULNERABILITY

(Bv)

SOCIAL

VULNERABILITY

(Sv)

TAXABLE PROPERTY VULNERABILITY

(TPv)

COMPOSITE VULNERABILITY INDEX

(CVI)

CVI = Mv + Bv + Sv + TPv

Very lowLow

ModerateHigh

Very high

Varies between 0 (minimal vulnerability)

and 4 (maximumvulnerability)



Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

Morphological Vulnerability(Local scale)


Maximum water level (m) (Santos, 2008) Very Low Low Moderate

High Very High

Maximum water level (m) (Santos, 2008)


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

Social Vulnerability(Parish scale)


High Very High



Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

Structural Vulnerability(Building scale)


High Very High



Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

Taxable Property Vulnerability(Local scale)

Very Low Low Moderate

High Very High

Maximum water level (m) (Santos, 2008)



Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km


Municipalities

NUTIII


Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

0 60Km

Composite Vulnerability(Local scale)


High Very High


A new version of social vulnerability indexes tonatural and technological hazards that takes intoaccount, beyond the standard analysis of exposureor biophysical vulnerability, social resilience andinfrastructural support capabilities is proposed.

Conclusions

Types of knowledge produced with the Cascais and Lagos municipalities’ assessment of social vulnerability:

- Identification and mapping of forcers of criticality (risk groups, potential impact, ability to cope and recover);

- Identification and mapping of existing and lacking means of support capability(both public and private);

- A composite classification of social vulnerability at a very detailed geographical level (statistical block).

Conclusions

Fields of recommendation for risk mitigation and disaster recovery based on the municipal social vulnerability reports

- Civil protection: predict and plan emergency procedures and resources where they are most needed.

- Social Action Programmes and Housing: reduce vulnerability of risk groups (children, elderly, illiterate, unemployed, socially marginalized).

Conclusions

- Urban and Spatial Planning: improve adaptation and mitigation strategies through broad and medium-long term planning instruments.

- Multi-sector fields: assure mobility of people and goods; plan for contingency of welfare equipment and economic activities.

Conclusions

MAIN GOAL: Reduction of vulnerability through effective public policies.

KEY FACTOR: Articulation and integration of intercepting complementary public policies, agents and scales.

Conclusions

National level - strategic and structural recommendations.

Municipal level - urban and emergency planning.

Local level - specific intervention and mitigation actions.

The ideal scenario is an articulation between these different scales.

Conclusions

THANK YOU!

[email protected]

[email protected]

Workshop Space, Costal Zones and Territorial Monitoring ... · Workshop Space, Costal Zones and...

Documents

Transcript of Workshop Space, Costal Zones and Territorial Monitoring ... · Workshop Space, Costal Zones and...