Geo-information for measuring vulnerability to earthquakes: a fitness for use approach

Even though natural hazard threats are present in most parts of the world, according to the data collected in the International Disaster Database, most of them occur in developing countries, and remain a major obstacle to sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The trend during the last decades shows an increase in the number of natural hazard events and their consequences. Natural hazards cannot be avoided, but understanding and measuring the factors that make up vulnerability, the main factor in the risk equation that can be managed, is an important research task. In this endeavor, information is a key factor in vulnerability reduction. Most planning authorities rely on hazard maps to define risk management plans and projects, but these maps only depict the threat and not the whole picture of what and who can be affected by these hazards. Information, or rather the availability of useful information, is a critical element for effectively tackling vulnerability. Defining the fitness for use of municipal geo-information for earthquake vulnerability assessment is the main topic of this research. A methodology was developed to establish whether and to what extent the vulnerability indicators calculated using this municipal geo-information are suitable for decision making. This is done by understanding the different types of vulnerability, and re-defining it in terms of the three disaster stages: impact, relief and recovery. The main proposal of the general analysis model is the analysis of vulnerability of a region for the 3 stages of a disaster (1- Impact, 2- Relief, and 3- Recovery), that follow each other in time and require different municipal strategies to cope with them. Considering this, the availability of data for the analysis of vulnerability in each phase starts with the identification of the required information -indicators- and their specific attributes. A list of indicators exists for each phase (required information) that in turn will be rated in importance according to different attributes. Some indicators are common to different evaluation phases, but their application to the analysis and/or solution proposals or plans is different. The indicators are assessed in terms of five attributes: availability, completeness, integrity and reliability, scale, and shelf-life.

[1]  Anne-Catherine Chardon,et al.  A geographic approach of the global vulnerability in urban area: case of Manizales, Colombian Andes , 1999 .

[2]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study , 2000 .

[3]  Omar Darío,et al.  Manejo ambiental y prevención de desastres : Dos temas asociados , 1993 .

[4]  Michael Batty Geographic Information Systems, Spatial Modelling and Policy Evaluation , 1993 .

[5]  By Zorica Nedovic̀-Budic̀ Geographic Information Science Implications for Urban and Regional Planning , 2000 .

[6]  Ronald McGill Integrated urban management: An operational model for third world city managers , 1994 .

[7]  M. Worboys Computation with imprecise geospatial data , 1998 .

[8]  Britt-Inger Rönnbäck Are uncertain uncertainties useful? : towards improved quality assessment of spatial data , 2004 .

[9]  I. Masser,et al.  Urban Planning and Geographic Information Systems , 2019, Geographic Information Systems to Spatial Data Infrastructure.

[10]  David Sanderson,et al.  Cities, Disasters and Livelihoods , 2000 .

[11]  Alcira Kreimer,et al.  Building safer cities : the future of disaster risk , 2003 .

[12]  Ricardo Arriagada,et al.  Diseño de un sistema de medición de desempeño para evaluar la gestión municipal: una propuesta metodológica , 2002 .

[13]  W. Adger,et al.  Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and the Architecture of Entitlements , 1999 .

[14]  Michael Mattingly,et al.  URBAN MANAGEMENT IN LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES , 2007 .

[15]  Miroslaw Kwiesielewicz,et al.  Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP , 2004, Comput. Oper. Res..

[16]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  The accuracy of spatial databases , 1991 .

[17]  Jonathan P. Atkins,et al.  A commonwealth vulnerability index for developing countries : the position of small states , 2000 .

[18]  María Teresa Lamata,et al.  Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a New Approach , 2006, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[19]  Eric D. Knapp Vulnerability and Risk Assessment , 2011 .

[20]  Jerry T. Mitchell,et al.  Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina , 2000 .

[21]  Monica Wachowicz,et al.  Understanding Spatial Data Usability , 2003, Data Sci. J..

[22]  D. Rossiter Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Management , 1995 .

[23]  Didier Josselin Spatial data exploratory analysis and usability , 2003, Data Sci. J..

[24]  Caroline Moser,et al.  The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies''World Development , 1998 .

[25]  Ian Williamson,et al.  Land information management at the World Bank , 1991 .

[26]  William J. Hurley,et al.  Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Applying TAM across cultures: the need for caution , 2007, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Chris Webster GIS and the Scientific Inputs to Urban Planning. Part 1: Description , 1992 .

[29]  Giles Clarke,et al.  Urban management in developing countries , 1991 .

[30]  R. Devillers,et al.  Multidimensional Management of Geospatial Data Quality Information for its Dynamic Use Within GIS , 2005 .

[31]  F. Cuny Disasters and Development , 1983 .

[32]  R. Stren,et al.  ‘Urban management’ in development assistance , 1993 .

[33]  P. Goovaerts Geostatistics in soil science: state-of-the-art and perspectives , 1999 .

[34]  L Stephen,et al.  Getting the scale right: a comparison of analytical methods for vulnerability assessment and household-level targeting. , 2001, Disasters.

[35]  Kenneth Davey Strengthening municipal government , 1989 .

[36]  Janos J. Bogardi,et al.  Vulnerability assessment : the first step towards sustainable risk reduction , 2005 .

[37]  Monica Wachowicz,et al.  Preface to Special Section on Spatial Data Usability , 2003, Data Sci. J..

[38]  Rachel A. Davidson EERI Annual Student Paper Award a Multidisciplinary Urban Earthquake Disaster Risk Index , 1997 .

[39]  R. Kasperson,et al.  A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Allan. Lavell Thomas,et al.  CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y DESASTRES NATURALES EN AMERICA LATINA: UN ENCUENTRO INCONCLUSO , 1993 .

[41]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[42]  Meine Pieter van Dijk Managing Cities in Developing Countries , 2006 .

[43]  Ronald McGill,et al.  Urban management performance: An assessment framework for Third World city managers , 1995 .

[44]  Nicholas R. Chrisman,et al.  A THEORY OF CARTOGRAPHIC ERROR AND ITS MEASUREMENT IN DIGITAL DATA BASES , 2008 .

[45]  M. Pelling The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience , 2005 .

[46]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[47]  C. J. van Westen,et al.  Seismic vulnerability and capacity assessment: a case study of Lalitpur Sub - Metropolitan City, Nepal , 2008 .

[48]  J. M. Morales Guarin,et al.  Designing service - oriented spatial data infrastructures , 2006 .

[49]  B. Wisner,et al.  At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters , 1996 .

[50]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[51]  R. Warrick,et al.  Integrated model systems for national assessments of the effects of climate change: Applications in New Zealand and Bangladesh , 1996, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.

[52]  Dorothea Hilhorst,et al.  Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People , 2004 .

[53]  B. Smit,et al.  From Adaptation to Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability Reduction , 2003 .

[54]  William E. Huxhold,et al.  An introduction to urban geographic information systems , 1991 .

[55]  J. Blondel Rising from the Ashes - Development Strategies in Times of Disaster , 1990 .

[56]  I. Bishop,et al.  Spatial data infrastructures for cities in developing countries Lessons from the Bangkok experience , 2000 .

[57]  R. Chambers,et al.  Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century , 1992 .

[58]  Stephanie E. Chang,et al.  Disaster vulnerability of businesses in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake , 2002 .

[59]  L Calos Eduardo García,et al.  Modelo basado en lógica difusa para la construcción de indicadores de vulnerabilidad urbana frente a fenómenos naturales , 2003 .

[60]  W. Adger Social and ecological resilience: are they related? , 2000 .

[61]  Omar D. Cardona,et al.  La necesidad de repensar de manera holística los conceptos de vulnerabilidad y riesgo , 2002 .

[62]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR DECISION MAKING IN ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS: SOME CHALLENGES , 1995 .

[63]  E. Forman Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices , 1990 .

[64]  Aregai Tecle,et al.  SELECTING A MULTICRITERION DECISION MAKING TECHNIQUE FOR WATERSHED RESOURCES MANAGEMENT , 1992 .

[65]  S. Guptill,et al.  Elements of Spatial Data Quality , 1995 .

[66]  Cardona Arboleda,et al.  Estimación holística del riesgo sísmico utilizando sistemas dinámicos complejos , 2001 .

[67]  Arnold Bregt,et al.  Assessing fitness for use: the expected value of spatial data sets , 2001, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..