1 department of geography geography of social vulnerability, environmental hazards and climate...

Department of Geography

1

Geography of social vulnerability, environmental hazards and climate change

(VulClim)

Haakon Lein,


2


3


4

Verdal: Flood, storm surge and sea level rise


5

Point of departure

‘Vulnerability of a place’

Cutter, S.; J.T. Mitchell; M. S. Scott. 2000. Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4): 713–737.


6

Biophysical hazards

+ Social vulnerability

=Vulnerability of a place

Cutter, 2000


7

Modifications

• Contextualise (Norway)

• Add time (the future/climate change)


8

Climatechange

Demo-graphicchange

Social and eco-nomic changes


9


10

Social vulnerabilityProduct of Social inequalities and Place

inequalities • Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI)

Cutter S L, Boroff, B J, Shirley W L, 2003, Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards, Social Science Quarterly, 84 (2): 242 – 261.

• Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) for the United States based on 1990 data• County level 3,141 units• Collected several variables which could act as indicators on social

vulnerability• Factor analysis (PCA): 42 variables 11 independent factors• Additive model summary score (SoVI)• Mapping SoVI identify most vulnerable counties


11

Social Vulnerability Concepts and Metrics

• PERCAP89 Per capita income• PCTHH7589 Percent of households earning more than $75,000, 1989 • PCTPOV90 Percent living in poverty, 1990 • PCTVOTE92 Vote cast for president, 1992 - percent voting for leading party

(Democratic)


12

Social Vulnerability Concepts and MetricsFrom Cutter et al (2003), Table 1

• Socioeconomic status (wealth)• Gender• Race and ethnicity• Age• Rural/urban• Education• Population growth• Medical services• Social dependence• …


13

Kilde: http://www.cas.sc.edu/geog/hrl/sovi.html


14

Social vulnerability index (SoVI) for Norway


15

Figure 1. Social Vulnerability Index for Norwegian municipalities based on Cutter et al. (2003) variable list


16

Figure 2. Socioeconomic Vulnerability Index for

Norwegian municipalities


17

Local SoVI

¯


18

Climatechange

Demo-graphicchange

Social and eco-nomic changes


19

How to deal with the future?

• Climate is obviously not the only thing that is changing...

• Is it possible to say something meaningful about socio-economic changes in a 50-80 year perspective? How?

• Local socio-economic scenarios?


20

Local Scenarios

Welfare(environment)

Growth

Global Local

Forever growth

Forever green

Forever young


21

Using existing scenarios: Some issues to be addressed

Not dealing directly with climate change issues nor hazards- how to make more relevant?

Cover a period up to 2020- we need scenarios up to 2050 or longer

How to make a spatial interpretation, how to map the scenarios?

How to identify quantifiable/measurable indicators?


22

Forever green Renewed interest in small scale agriculture and local fishing Growth of small scale rural enterprises- decline in traditional large scale industries Decentralised and scattered settlements both in coastal areas and inland Decentralised political decision-making, emphasis on active participation (Limited population growth) Little immigration More expensive transport -emphasis on public solutions Forever Young Growth in service industries/public welfare production Growth of smaller urban settlements, decentralised urbanisation? Big public sector Growth in population Young population but also active aged Substantial organised (unskilled) immigration Development of good infrastructure/roads and mixed transport solutions Forever Growth Growth in knowledge based /high tech industries – more efficient and large scale agriculture Substantial Urban growth mainly around Trondheim and along Trondheimsfjorden (Orkanger to Steinkjer) Well modern but vulnerable infrastructure (roads, railroads) Growth in private/market based solutions Substantial population growth Immigration of well-educated people


23

About the project • Funded by The Research Council of Norway (NORKLIMA)

& NTNU 2007-2011

• 3 PhD students + department staff + master students

• Cooperation with: – Susan Cutter, Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute,

University of South Carolina, – International Centre for Geohazard (SFF) – National and local agencies


24


25

Holand, I, P Lujala,JK Rød (forthcomming):

‘Vulnerability of Norwegian Municipalities to Environmental Hazards’


26

Table 1 . Factors, factor labels, factor loadings, and factor

sign adjustment for SoVINOR, Cutter et al. replication F a c t o r V a r i a b l e L o a d i n g S i g n

% h o u s e h o l d s w i t h i n c o m e l e s s t h a n 1 5 0 0 0 0 N O K - 0 . 7 5

B i r t h r a t e ( n u m b e r o f b i r t h s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n ) 0 . 5 7

% p o p u l a t i o n 5 y e a r s o r y o u n g e r 0 . 7 5

% p o p u l a t i o n 6 7 y e a r s o r o l d e r - 0 . 9 2

% p o p u l a t i o n c h a n g e 0 . 6 9

A v e r a g e n u m b e r o f h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s 0 . 5 2

% p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n n u r s i n g h o m e s ( o l d & d i s a b l e d ) - 0 . 6 2

% e m p l o y e d i n p r i m a r y e x t r a c t i v e i n d u s t r i e s - 0 . 6 8

% f e m a l e s i n l a b o r f o r c e 0 . 7 0

% e m p l o y e d i n s e r v i c e s e c t o r 0 . 6 7

D i s t a n c e t o n e a r e s t h o s p i t a l - 0 . 4 6

% f e m a l e s 0 . 6 0

% e l e c t o r a t e v o t i n g i n m u n i c i p a l e l e c t i o n - 0 . 4 1

% u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n 0 . 5 5

A v e r a g e i n c o m e 0 . 7 8

% h o u s e h o l d s e a r n i n g m o r e t h a n 5 0 0 0 0 0 N O K 0 . 7 5

V a l u e o f h o u s i n g u n i t s 0 . 5 5

# c o m m e r c i a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s p e r k m _ 0 . 6 0

% f i r s t o r s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n n o n - w e s t e r n i m m i g r a n t s 0 . 5 3

% s i n g l e - p a r e n t h o u s e h o l d s , 2 0 0 6 0 . 5 0

% u n e m p l o y e d 0 . 8 0

% w i t h o n l y l o w e r s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n 0 . 6 1

% p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e - 0 . 5 7

% r e c e i v i n g i n v a l i d i t y p e n s i o n 0 . 5 9

% a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d - 0 . 5 3

# p h y s i c i a n l a b o r y e a r s i n p r i m a r y h e a l t h c a r e p e r 1 0 0 0 0 i n h a b i t a n t s 0 . 4 2

% r e n t e r s 0 . 8 1

N O T E : T a b l e s h o w s t h e r e s u l t s f r o m I t e r a t i v e P r i n c i p a l F a c t o r i n g ( I P F ) a n a l y s i s w i t h V a r i m a x r o t a t i o n a n d H o r s t n o r m a l i z a t i o n .

A n a l y s i s i s b a s e d o n 4 3 1 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a n d 2 7 v a r i a b l e s . 5 f a c t o r s w e r e e x t r a c t e d . F o r v a r i a b l e s a n d d e f i n i t i o n s , s e e t h e t e x t . S i n g

a d j u s t m e n t : a b s o l u t e ( | | ) , n e g a t i v e ( - ) , o r p o s i t i v e ( + ) .

| |

+

-

+

+

1 . P o p u l a t i o n

s t r u c t u r e

2 . G e n d e r

3 . I n c o m e

4 .

S o c i o e c o n o m i c

s t a t u s

5 . ?


27

Table 2. Factors, factor labels, factor loadings, and factor

sign adjustment for the Socioeconomic Vulnerability F a c t o r V a r i a b l e ( m a i n l o a d i n g ) L o a d i n g S i g n

% h o u s e h o l d s w i t h i n c o m e l e s s t h a n 1 5 0 0 0 0 N O K 0 . 7 7

% p o p u l a t i o n 6 7 y e a r s o r o l d e r 0 . 7 3

% r e c e i v i n g i n v a l i d i t y p e n s i o n 0 . 6 6

% p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n n u r s i n g h o m e s ( o l d & d i s a b l e d ) 0 . 5 9

% h o u s e h o l d s e a r n i n g m o r e t h a n 5 0 0 0 0 0 N O K - 0 . 7 0

M e d i a n i n c o m e - 0 . 6 9

% p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e - 0 . 6 8

% p o p u l a t i o n 5 y e a r s o r y o u n g e r - 0 . 7 0

% L a b o r f o r c e e m p l o y e d i n h e a l t h c a r e a n d s o c i a l s e r v i c e s 0 . 5 6

% w i t h 4 y e a r s o r m o r e o f t e r t i a r y e d u c a t i o n 0 . 7 8

% w i t h o n l y l o w e r s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n - 0 . 6 7

% e m p l o y e d i n p r i m a r y s e c t o r ( f a r m i n g , f i s h i n g , f o r e s t r y ) - 0 . 5 7

% f i r s t o r s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n n o n - w e s t e r n i m m i g r a n t s 0 . 5 6

G e n d e r e q u a l i t y 0 . 5 0

% W e s t e r n i m m i g r a n t s 0 . 4 6

% e m p l o y e d i n l o w s k i l l s e r v i c e s 0 . 3 5

% m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s n e t d e b t o f g r o s s r e v e n u e - 0 . 4 9

% m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s e x p i n d i t u r e o n d e b t s e r v i c e o f t o t a l i n c o m e - 0 . 3 3

M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s d i s p o s a l i n c o m e p e r i n h a b i t a n t 0 . 6 6

% e l e c t o r a t e v o t i n g i n m u n i c i p a l e l e c t i o n 0 . 5 7

% p o p u l a t i o n m o v i n g t o o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s 0 . 5 0

% s i n g l e - p a r e n t h o u s e h o l d s - 0 . 4 9

M e d i a n p e r c a p i t a c a p i t a l a s s e t s - 0 . 4 8

% u n e m p l o y e d 0 . 6 9

+

-

1 . P o p u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e

a n d s o c i o e c o n o m i c

s t a t u s

2 . H i g h - s k i l l e d a n d

m u l t i e t h n i c v s . l o w -

s k i l l e d

N O T E : T a b l e s h o w s t h e r e s u l t s f r o m I t e r a t i v e P r i n c i p a l F a c t o r i n g ( I P F ) a n a l y s i s w i t h V a r i m a x r o t a t i o n a n d H o r s t

n o r m a l i z a t i o n . A n a l y s i s i s b a s e d o n 4 3 1 N o r w e g i a n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a n d 2 4 v a r i a b l e s . 4 f a c t o r s w e r e e x t r a c t e d . F o r

t h e m e t h o d , v a r i a b l e s , a n d d e f i n i t i o n s , s e e t h e t e x t . S i n g a d j u s t m e n t : n e g a t i v e ( - ) , o r p o s i t i v e ( + ) .

-3 . M u n i c i p a l v i a b i l i t y

4 . S o c i o e c o n o m i c

i n s e c u r i t y a d n i n s t a b i l i t y

+


28

Table 3. Factors, factor labels, factor loadings, and factor

sign adjustment for the Build Environment Vulnerability

F a c t o r V a r i a b l e ( m a i n l o a d i n g ) L o a d i n g S i g n

V a l u e o f h o u s i n g u n i t s - 0 . 8 2 6 5

L e n g t h o f m u n i c i p a l r o a d s ( k m p e r c a p i t a ) 0 . 7 7 0 9

# e x i t r o u t e s p e r 1 0 0 0 i n h a b i t a n t s 0 . 6 4 9 8

D i s t a n c e t o n e a r e s t h o s p i t a l 0 . 7 9 1 1

P o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y 0 . 8 5 9 6

N u m b e r o f h o u s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s 0 . 8 4 9 4

A v e r a g e a g e o f w a t e r p i p e l i n e s 0 . 6 9 1 4

A v e r a g e a g e o f s e w e r l i n e s 0 . 7 2 8 1

% r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g s t o c k b u i l t a f t e r 1 9 8 0 - 0 . 7 2 0 9

+3 . A g i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e

N O T E : T a b l e s h o w s t h e r e s u l t s f r o m I t e r a t i v e P r i n c i p a l F a c t o r i n g ( I P F ) a n a l y s i s w i t h V a r i m a x r o t a t i o n a n d H o r s t

n o r m a l i z a t i o n . A n a l y s i s i s b a s e d o n 4 3 1 N o r w e g i a n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a n d 9 v a r i a b l e s . 3 f a c t o r s w e r e e x t r a c t e d . F o r t h e

m e t h o d , v a r i a b l e s , a n d d e f i n i t i o n s , s e e t h e t e x t . S i n g a d j u s t m e n t : n e g a t i v e ( - ) , o r p o s i t i v e ( + ) .

| |1 . L i f e l i n e s

+2 . S e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n


29

Figure 3. Built Environment Vulnerability Index for Norwegian municipalities

1 department of geography geography of social vulnerability, environmental hazards and climate...

Documents

department of geography

department of geography

department of geography

department of geography

department of geography

norway slide

young slide

replication slide