Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Applying neighbourhood classification systems to natural hazards: a case study of Mt Vesuvius

  • Iain Willis
  • Maurizio Gibin
  • Joana Barros
  • Richard Webber
Original Paper

Abstract

Mt Vesuvius is regarded as one of the most deadly volcanoes on earth. With over 1 million people living on its flanks and in its periphery, there is little doubt that an eruption of sub-Plinian magnitude would be catastrophic to the livelihood and well being of contemporary Neopolitans. Such a large scale eruption would have wide ranging and differential effects on the surrounding population. Whereas previous studies of social vulnerability have focused on individual demographic factors (such as age, income or ethnicity), this research proposes the application of a general neighbourhood classification system to assess natural hazard vulnerability. In this study, Experian’s Mosaic Italy is used to classify and delineate the most vulnerable neighbourhood types around the province of Naples. Among the neighbourhoods considered most at risk, those areas with high proportions of elderly and low income families are deemed particularly vulnerable. With current evacuation plans deemed outdated and poorly communicated to the locals Rolandi (2010), Barberi et al. (2008), this methodology could prove to be a useful input to both town planners and civil protection agencies. A range of statistical measures and geophysical risk boundaries are employed here to assess the different areas of human resilience.

Keywords

Social vulnerability Volcanoes Geodemographics Vesuvius Neighbourhood classification 

References

  1. Andronico D, Cioni R (2002) Contrasting styles of Mount Vesuvius activity in the period between the Avellino and Pompeii Plinian eruptions, and some implications for assessment of future hazards. Bull Volcanol 64:372–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barberi F, Davis MS, Isaia R, Nave R, Ricci T (2008) Volcanic risk perception in the Vesuvius population. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172:244–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonadonna C, Connor CB, Houghton BF, Connor L, Byrne M, Laing A, Hincks T 2005 Probabilistic modeling of tephra dispersion: hazard assessment of a multi-phase eruption at Tarawera, New Zealand. J Geophys Res 110. doi: 10.1029/2003JB002896
  4. Burton I, Kates RW, White GF (1992) The environment as hazard. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cioni R, Bertagnini A, Santacroce R, Andronico D (2008) Explosive activity and eruption scenarios at Somma-Vesuvius (Italy): towards a new classification scheme. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 178:331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutter SL, Mitchell JT et al (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Am Geogr 90(4):713–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DPC (1995) Pianificazione nazionale d’emergenza dell’area vesuviana. Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, RomaGoogle Scholar
  8. Enarson E, Morrow B (1998) The gendered terrain of disaster. Praeget, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Esposti Ongaro T, Neri A, Menconi G, de’Michieli Vitturi M, Marianelli P, Cavazzoni C, Erbacci G, Baxter PJ (2008) Transient 3D numerical simulations of column collapse and pyroclastic density current scenarios at Vesuvius. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 178:378–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eurostat, European Commission 2009. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ Accessed 15 November 2009
  11. Experian Mosaic (2009) Index. Available at: http://strategies.experian.co.uk/. Accessed 15 November 2009
  12. Gastwirth JL (1972) The estimation of the lorenz curve and Gini index. Rev Econ Stat 54:306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hewitt K (1983). “Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology”. Winchester MAGoogle Scholar
  14. ISTAT (2001) Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. Available: http://www.istat.it/english/. Last accessed 09/06/2009
  15. Johnson J, Zeigler D (1986) Evacuation planning for technical hazards: an emerging imperative. Cities 3:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leventhal B (1995) Evaluation of geodemographic classifications. J Target Measur Anal Mark 4:173–183Google Scholar
  17. Macdonald GA 1972 “Role of science and technology in reducing the impact of volcanic eruptions”. In: The role of science and technology in reducing the impact of natural disasters on mankind. United Nations, New York, pp. 26–32Google Scholar
  18. Macedonio G, Costa A, Folch A (2008) Ash fallout scenarios at Vesuvius: numerical simulations and implications for hazard assessment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 178:366–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McMaster RB, Johnson JH Jr (1987) Assessing community vulnerability to hazardous materials with a geographic information asystem. In: Chrisman NR (ed), Autocarto 8 Proceedings, Falls Church, VA: American Society for Photogrammetry and American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, 471–480Google Scholar
  20. Pareschi MT, Cavarra L, Favalli M, Giannini F, Meriggi A (2000) “GIS and volcanic risk management”. J Nat Hazards 21:361–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pulido L (2000) Rethinking environmental racism: white privilege and urban development in Southern California. Ann As Am Geogr 90:12–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quarantelli EL (1978) Disasters: theory and research. Beverly Hills, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Rolandi G (2010) Volcanic hazard at Vesuvius: an analysis for the revision of the current emergency plan. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 189(3–4):347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sigurdsson H, Cashdollar S, Sparks SRJ (1982) The eruption of Vesuvius in A. D. 79: reconstruction from historical and volcanological evidence. Am J Archaeol 86(1):39–51Google Scholar
  25. Small C, Naumann T (2001) The global distribution of human population and recent volcanism. Environ Hazards 3:93–109Google Scholar
  26. Webber RJ (1977) An introduction to the national classification of wards and parishes, planning research applications group technical paper 23, London, Centre for Environmental StudiesGoogle Scholar
  27. Webber RJ (1985) The use of census-derived classifications in the marketing of consumer products in the United Kingdom. J Econ Soc Meas 13:113–124Google Scholar
  28. Westgate KN, O’Keefe P (1976) ‘Some definitions of disaster’, Occasional Paper 4. Disaster Research Unit, University of Bradford, BradfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Wisner B, Blaikie PM, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk : natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iain Willis
    • 1
  • Maurizio Gibin
    • 1
  • Joana Barros
    • 1
  • Richard Webber
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geography, Environment and Development StudiesBirkbeck CollegeLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of GeographyKings College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations