Disaster Risk Reduction and Management from the GIS ...

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