Post on 23-Jan-2016
description
transcript
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Socio-ecological vulnerability assessment for Germany
A sub-national approach
Marion Damm
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Table of content
1. Problem Definition
2. Objectives
3. Conceptual Framework
4. Methodology
5. Preliminary Results
6. Conclusion and Outlook
Floods in Germany
Danube
Rhine
Elbe
900 €Danube2005
810 €Rhine1995/1993
530 €Danube, Rhine
1999
9200 €Elbe2002
Damage [m]RiverYear
Damage Model
GFZ
Vulnerability
UNU-EHS
DLR
Flood Extent
Coupled social-ecological system
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Objective of this study
Assessment of social-ecological vulnerability to
flooding in Germany at county level
a) forest sector
b) agricultural sector
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
Work steps:
• Conceptual Framework
• Development of Indicators
• Building a Composite Indicator
• Mapping Vulnerability
Conceptual Framework (1)
Vulnerability
Exposure Sensitivities Resilience
EcosystemRobustness
AdaptivecapacitiesAdaptivecapacities
Coping capacitiesCoping capacities
Interactions of hazards(perturbations, stresses)
Human Influences outside the PlaceMacro political economy, institutions,
global trends and transitions
Environmental Influences outside the PlaceState of biosphere, State of Nature,
Global Environmental Changes
Impact responses
Adjustment &adaptationresponses
Variability & changein human conditions
Variability & changein environmental
conditions
WorldRegion
Place
WorldRegion
Place
Dynamics
cross-scalein placebeyond place
System operates at multiplespatial, functional and temporal scales
• Assets• People• Ecosystems
• EnvironmentalStressors
• Human Stresssors
adapted from Turner et al. 2003
Important elements:
• Vulnerability framework
• Cross-scale dynamics
• Coupled systems
• Dynamic feedbacks
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Conceptual Framework (3)
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
Disaster Risk = f (Hazard, Vulnerability)
Vulnerability = f (Exposure, Sensitivity, Resilience)
Hazard: flood dependent and flood independent characteristics that contribute to flood intensity
Vulnerability: Intrinsic and dynamic feature of a system which is driven by environmental, social and economic factors and determines the susceptibility towards a certain hazard
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Methodology
1. Indicator development- Literature Review
- Impact Analysis
- Interviews with experts from forest and agricultural sector
2. Building a composite indicator
- Data collection (German wide data base)
- Statistical Analyses
3. Mapping vulnerability across counties- Geographical Information System (GIS)
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Composite Indicator
Procedure:
1. Data collection
2. Imputation of missing data
3. Scaling and transformation of indicators
4. Data analysis
5. Normalization
6. Weighting
(Nardo et al. 2005)
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Weighting Scheme
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
Sensitivity (S)
Exposure (E)
Resilience (R)
• forest rate (e1)
• employers in forest sector (e2)
• unemployment rateof county (sh)
• crown defoliation rate (se1)
• mean river water quality (se2)
• forest size (er1)
• forest type (er2)
• forest fragmentation (er3)
• GDP per capita of county (c1)
• GDP per capita of FS* (c2)
• mean annual income of households (c3)
• forest growth rate (a1)
• protected areas (a2)
CI Vulnerability
* FS = Federal State
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sensitivity (S)
Exposure (E)
Resilience (R)
• forest rate (e1)
• employers in forest sector (e2)
• unemployment rateof county (sh)
• crown defoliation rate (se1)
• mean river water quality (se2)
• forest size (er1)
• forest type (er2)
• forest fragmentation (er3)
• GDP per capita of county (c1)
• GDP per capita of FS* (c2)
• mean annual income of households (c3)
• forest growth rate (a1)
• protected areas (a2)
CI VulnerabilityCI Vulnerability
* FS = Federal State
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Criteria
• Data quality
• Correlations
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Composite Indicator
Procedure:
1. Data collection
2. Imputation of missing data
3. Scaling and transformation of indicators
4. Data analysis
5. Normalization
6. Weighting
7. Aggregation of indicators
(Nardo et al. 2005)
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Aggregation
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
2
)( 2211 ewewExposure
22
)( 25143
sewsewshw
ySensitivit
323
)(
3
)(
Re
21311231121019382716 awawcwcwcwerwerwerw
silience
Vulnerability = E + S+ R
Resilience
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Composite Indicator
Procedure:
1. Data collection
2. Imputation of missing data
3. Scaling and transformation of indicators
4. Data analysis
5. Normalization
6. Weighting
7. Aggregation of indicators
8. Visualization
9. Robustness tests
(Nardo et al. 2005)
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Vulnerability Maps
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Robustness Test (1)
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Robustness Test (2)
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Robustness Test (3)
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Conclusion and Outlook
Conclusion: • Data availability and accessibility as a main constraint• Generalization due to scaling• Indicators and methods are robust• Approach provides a reliable overview on vulnerable
patterns in Germany
Outlook:• Evaluation and Validation of the approach• Risk assessment
• Problem Definition
• Objectives
• Concep. Framework
• Methodology
• Results
• Constraints/Outlook
4th InternationalSymposium on Flood
Defence
6-8 May 2008
Thank you for your attention!
Contact:
damm@ehs.unu.edu