Disaster Risk Reduction and Management from the GIS ...
Post on 28-Dec-2021
2 Views
Preview:
Transcript
7/03/2019
1
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management from the GIS Perspective in Viti Levu, Fiji Island.
Name: Joeli Varo
ID Number: 17800989
Programme: Ph.D./2
Introduction
UNDP [1] defines the concept of disaster risk as potential disaster losses, in
lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which could occur to aparticular community or a society over some specific future period.
In addition, a hazard is defined by UNISDR as a dangerous phenomenon,substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury of
other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services,
social and economic disruptions or environmental damage
The UNDP [2] reported that within the period of 2000 – 2011, 1.1 million
people had been killed by natural hazards, 2.7 billion people had sufferedmaterial loss, and 1.3 trillion USD worth of physical damage had been
reported globally.
Introduction
Mycoo [3] revealed that the increase in intensity, severity and frequency ofnatural hazards has become a major global concern in this 21st century especiallyfor Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
IPCC [4] predicted that in this 21st century, Pacific Island Countries (PICs) willexperience an increase in hydro-meteorological events such as rainfall and itsextremes, including more extreme precipitation associated with tropical cyclones,tsunami & earthquakes.
Sekac et al [5] revealed that natural hazards have negatively impacted thesociety, the national economy, household income per capita, food security,building stock and infrastructure.
United Nation Development Program South Pacific Office (UNDPSPO)[6]; Fiji hashigh vulnerability in Earthquake, Flood, Landslide, Drought. In this regards my studyis very much important to protect socio-economic and environmentaldevelopment from natural disasters in Fiji.
Fiji government [7] report revealed that in 2016, the category 5 tropical cycloneWinston damages infrastructures that cost $F1.99 billion ($US0.9 billion), killed 42people with tens of thousands homeless in a night. A strongest cyclone everexperienced in the Southern Hemisphere.
Cyclone History- Fiji
Floods History - Fiji
YearCountr
y EventPersons affected
Damaged, U.S dollars in thousands
1964 Fiji Flood 18,000 $1,100
1986 Fiji Flood 215,000 $15,400
2007 Fiji Flood 900 $30,000
2009 Fiji Flood 10,556 $42,247
2012 Fiji Flood 14,984 $72,000
April, 2018 – Cyclone Josie & Keni (1 week interval)
- 77, 140 people affected
- 4 deaths
EM-DAT [8]
Earthquakes History - Fiji
Year Magnitude Location Deaths Damaged, U.S dollars in thousands
1850 6.5 Kadavu None$ not recorded - massive damages to plantation, l ivestock loss and landslides
1884 6.8 Vanua Levu None$ not recorded - massive damages to plantation, l ivestock loss and landslides
1932 6.5 Vanua Levu None$ not recorded - massive damages to plantation, l ivestock loss and landslides
1953 6.8 Suva/Navua 8 $US62,538 worth of physical damages.
1979 6.9 Taveuni None$ not recorded, massive damages to plantation, l ivestock loss and landslides
1998 6 Kadavu None$ not recorded, massive damages to plantation, l ivestock loss and landslides
PDC [9]
7/03/2019
2
Background of study Figure 1:
a. Fiji’s location in the SW Pacific
b. 332 islands & atolls
c. Complex tectonic settings
d. Case study area - Viti Levu
Island
Fiji Bureau of Stats [10] revealed that Fiji
has a total population of 884,887.
Viti Levu Island - 10,344 km2 with 76.6% of
the total population. (PD = 65 people per
Km2).
11 towns & cities with >60% urban
population.
Tourism is the highest GDP earner
comprises of more than 82% .
Rich in hospitality.
Earthquake occurrences in the South Pacific
According to Sykes [11] Fiji –
Tonga region accounts for
about 70 percent of the
world’s earthquakes with
depths greater than 400
kilometres.
Very complex tectonic history.
Earthquake occurrences in the South Pacific
Earthquake Magnitude Against Depth
Earthquake Depth (Km)
700650600550500450400350300250200150100500
Eart
hquake M
agnitude
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Testing ground for various theories of
global tectonics such as thehypotheses of mantle convection
currents, continental drift, sea-floor
spreading, and movements of largeplates of lithosphere.
Importance of study
To protect and safeguard the vulnerable population of 884,887 from
mass natural hazard destructions such as earthquake, cyclone,
landslide & flood.
To disseminate the good news of GIS as an scientific and engineering
tool and its powerful readable solution at the community level, local
and national level. Hence, fostering ‘bottom up approach’ of public
participation.
To fully mobilize the community with pro – active spatial planning at the
same time building resilient economy, infrastructure and formulating
policies for the betterment of the nation.
To prepare different types of thematic layers contributing to disaster.
To investigate and evaluate the relationship of other parameters
using the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), Frequency Ratio (FR),
MCA in ArcGIS to prov ide a readable solutions to disaster,
To formulate disaster risk reduction measures and management plans
for Fiji Islands.
Aim & objectives
The main aim of this research is to integrate Geospatial knowledgeto investigate and understand disaster risk reduction andassessment for proper planning
Data Source Data Description Source
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA%), Fault
l ines, Folding & Deep strike
Derived from Mineral Resources Department,
researchers & New Zealand GNS science
USGS, Fiji Mineral Department & New Zealand
GNS science Institute.
Soi l factors & Soil Attributes Derived from Fiji LUP Guidelines & Fiji Soil
Classification Map
Fi ji Ministry of Agriculture & Mineral Resource
Department
Rainfall factors Derived from Fiji LUP Guidelines Fi ji Meteorological Services
Land Use/Zoning/Built infrastructures Derived from Fiji Department of Town & Country
Planning
Fi ji Department of Town and Country Planning
Slope Derived from Fiji Mineral Resources Department
& SPC
Fi ji Mineral Department & USGS
Landsat 8 OLI ETM+ & satellite image (30m spatial resolution – 2016)
Downloaded from particular website for veri fication purposes
PNG University of Technology
Geology (rock type classification) Derived from Fiji Geology map Fi ji Mineral Resources Department & PNG
University of Technology
7/03/2019
3
Methodology Site-Soil-Geology
Identification of 6 Parameters
a. Lithology
b. Hydrological soil group/Texture
c. Soil average water-holding capacity
d. Soil drainage
e. Fault lines
f. Slope
Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) Scale Reciprocal Values Definition
1 1 Equally Importance2 0.5 Equally to moderately Importance3 0.33 Moderately Importance4 0.25 Moderately to strongly Importance5 0.2 Strongly to very strongly Importance6 0.17 Strongly Importance7 0.14 Strongly importance to very s trongly importance8 0.13 Very s trongly to extremely s trongly Importance9 0.11 Extremely importance
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RI 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.46 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59
Site-Soil-Geology
Theme Rank Weight Classes RatingsNormalize
rate
Area (KM.
Sq)Area (%)
Lithology
(GE)6 0.383 Consolidated 1 0.16 823.29 96.63
Semi-
consolidated3 0.29 0 0
Unconsolidated 4 0.53 270.1 3.25
Soil Texture
(ST)5 0.250 A 4 0.46 418.93 49.17
B 3 0.27 250.85 3.03
C 2 0.16 401.98 47.18
D 1 0.09 5.86 0.68
Soil AWC
(SA)4 0.161 A - High 4 0.53 418.93 49.17
B - M oderate 3 0.29 401.97 46.47
C- Low 2 0.16 310.71 3.71
D – Very low 1 0.09 25.85 0.68
Fault Buffer
(FB) (km)3 0.104 >36 1 0.09 17.19 1
22 - 36 2 0.16 700.12 0.4
10.0-22.02 3 0.27 146.43 9.15
0-10 4 0.46 142.84 89.3
Soil
Drainage
(SD)
2 0.091 Perfectly drain 1 0.09 418.93 49.17
Imperfectly drain 2 0.16 250.84 3.03
Poorly drain 3 0.27 401.97 47.18
Water logged 4 0.46 5.87 0.68
Slope (SP)
(degree)1 0.071 0-6.82 1 0.09 347.5 84.01
6.82-16.57 2 0.16 443.6 107.26
16.57-27.61 3 0.27 234.3 56.65
27.61 - 83.16 4 0.46 85.2 2.06
Factors
Normalize
weights Assigned Rank
Lithology 0.383 6
Soil Texture 0.250 5
Soil AWC 0.161 4
Fault Zone 0.091 3
Soil
Drainage 0.071 2
Slope 0.041 1
Total 1
Consistency Ratio (CR) = 0.01
Arc Toolbox Liquefaction Potential Zones (LPZ)
Demarcation of Liquefaction
Potential Zones (LPZ)
a. High
b. Moderate
c. Low
Geohazard
Index (GHI)
Value
Liquefaction
Potential Zones
(LPZ)
Area (Sq.
km)
Area
%
1.0 – 2.0 Low541.9
55.5
2.0 – 3.0 Moderate403.3
41.31
3.0 – 4.0 High210.5
3.18
7/03/2019
4
Seismicity/Earthquake
Identification of seismotectonic
occurrences & Earthquake Hazard Zones (EHZ);
a. Earthquake magnitude distribution,
b. Peak Ground Acceleration,
c. Liquefaction Potential Zones
(LPZ)
d. Earthquake Depths in Km
Factors
Normalize
weights Assigned Rank
LPZ 0.383 4
PGA 0.250 3
Depth 0.161 2
Magnitude 0.091 1
Total 1
Consistency Ratio
(CR) = 0.01
Earthquake Hazard Zones (EHZ)
Demarcation of Earthquake
Hazard Zones;
a. High
b. Moderate
c. Low
Earthquake
Hazard
Index (EHI)
Earthquake
Hazard
Zones (EHZ)
Area (Sq.
km)
Area %
1.27 – 1.87
Low541.3
53.18
1.87 – 2.42
Moderate350.1
34.37
2.42 – 3.55
High120.7
12.43
Liquefaction Potential Zonation & Assessment of Viti Levu Island
a. Liquefaction Potential Zones & built
infrastructures
VITI LEVU ISLAND
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ZONES
High
(210.5 Km2)
Moderate
(403.3 Km2)
Low
(541.9 Km2)
Towns & cities Nausori
Navua
Sigatoka
Nadi
Lautoka
Rakiraki
-Suva
Lami
Ba
Tavua
Korovou
Airports Nausori airport
Nadi International
airport
- -
Sea ports Lautoka wharf - Suva wharf
Main Road (km)
38.84 5.5 319.1
Hospital & Health
centres Nausori
Sigatoka
Nadi
Rakiraki
- Tavua
Ba
Lautoka
Navua
Lami
CWM
Korovou
b. Earthquake Hazard Zones & built infrastructures
Earthquake Hazard Zonation & Assessment of Viti Levu Island
VITI LEVU
ISLAND
EARTHQUAKE HAZARD ZONES
High
(120.7 Km2)
Moderate
(350.1 Km2)
Low
(541.3 Km2)
Towns & cities Nausori
Navua
Sigatoka
Nadi
Lautoka
Tavua
Rakiraki
Korovou
Suva
Lami
Ba
-
Airports Nausori airport
Nadi
international
airport
- -
Sea ports Lautoka wharf Suva wharf -
Main Road (km)
110.1 82.1 113.7
Hospital & Health
centres
Nausori
Sigatoka
Nadi
Tavua
Rakiraki
Suva
Lami
Lautoka
Ba
Korovou
Navua
-
Built - infrastructure Assessments a. Liquefaction Potential Zones (LPZ) b. Earthquake Hazard Zones (EHZ)
50%
19%
31%
% of Total Infrastructures
High Moderate Low
High58%
Moderate42%
Low0%
% of Total Infrastructures
High
Moderate
Low
• Of all the 26 selected infrastructures;
a. 13 are built on high zone,
b. 5 are built on moderate zone,
c. 8 are built on low zone.
• Of all the 26 selected infrastructures;
a. 15 are built on high zone,
b. 11 are built on moderate zone,
c. 0 are built on low zone.
90% of total infrastructure located on the coastal area
Disaster risk reduction measures & management
Integrated pre-natural disaster planning and post recovery management plan for Fiji islands.
Earthquake Hazard Zones Measures
Structural Non - Structural
High Sea walls Approved building codes
Revertment Hillside development policy
High tech engineering
building (mandatory) Integrated water Resource Management Policies
Hazard Zones map
Tax impact fees & information disclosure (Incentive
to disincentive)EIA
Coastal setbacks
Moderate High tech engineering
building Land budget and planning
EIA
Evacuation centers
LowHigh tech engineering
building Bottom up approach' public planning
Local community awareness & consultation
EIA
Early warning system
7/03/2019
5
Publications EHZ of Viti Levu – Taylor & Francis
PublicationLPZ of Viti Levu – Springer Publication1 2 Conclusion
Developments concentrated on high earthquake zone associated with high populat ion density which prompt an effective disaster management plan.
Natural hazards brought sorrows, agony and destruct ion to humanity and man-made infrastructures all over the world.
ArcGIS is a scient ific and engineering tool that art iculate parameters and provide readable solut ions to natural disaster in this digital age.
With ArcGIS technological contribut ion, it is become safer and more secure to predict hazardous natural phenomenon severity on spatial context especially for SIDS such as Fiji Islands.
Way Forward
1. Knowledge sharing & active research - ArcGIS advanced spatial analysis to
be mainstreamed into tertiary institution,
2. Capacity building - GIS analyst and Urban planners shall be regularly trained
on utilization of technology to support decision making in order to becomepro-active rather than re-active in planning,
3. Institutional collaboration - Elevate and re-enforce inter & intra institutionalcollaboration through projects such as BULA scholarship or DoDL to other
SIDS Pacific island countries,
4. Political will & good governance – all societies must embrace disaster risk
reduction as integral requirement of any development.
Acknowledgement
Principal Supervisor: Ass. Prof., Dr. Sujoy Kumar Jana.
Co – supervisor: Mr. Tingneyuc Sekac
Lands & Survey Dept. HOD: Professor Dilip Kumar Pal
PNG UNITECH Staffs: PG’s office, international office,administration office & all affiliations.
Sponsor: BULA Scholarship Consortium.
Fiji’s government: Lands Dept., Mineral Dept. & all affiliations.
SOPAC: GIS Conference
Thank you for listening!
References 1. United NationDevelopment Programme. 2009. UNISDRTerminology on Disaster RiskReduction. Bangkok.
2. United Nation Development Programme. (2011). 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk,Redefining Development. Geneva, Switzerland: UnitedNations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
3. Mycoo, M. A. (2014). “Autonomous Household Responses and Urban Governance Capacity Building for Climate ChangeAdaptation: Georgetown, Guyana.” UrbanClimate9: 134-154
4. International Panel for Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report Working Group 1 Summary for Policy Makers (IPCC). (2013).Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental. Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y.Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom andNew York, NY, USA, 1535 pp
5. Sekac, T., Jana, S. K., Pal, I., & Pal, D. K. (2016). Earthquake hazard assessment in the Momase region of Papua New Guinea.Spatial InformationResearch,24(6), 617-637. doi:10.1007/s41324-016-0058-2
6. United NationDevelopment Program SouthPacific Office (UNDPSPO) 2002.
7. Fiji Gov ernment 2016. Fiji Post Disaster Needs Assessment, Suva,Fiji Islands.
8. Office of the United States Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)/CRED International Disaster Database. (2015 ).EM-DAThttps://www.emdat.be/
9. Pacific Disaster Center. (2011). Summary of Earthquake andTsunami Affecting Fiji 1850 – 2004.
10. Fiji Bureau of Statistic. (2017). Population census by province. Retrieved from http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/
11. Sykes, L. R., Isacks, B. L., & Oliver, J. (1969). Spatial distribution of deep and shallow earthquakes of small magnitudes in the Fiji-Tonga region. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 59(3), 1093-1113
12. UN Habitat (2011). Citiesand Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements
top related