Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 8, pp 1657–1675 | Cite as

Geo-environmental mapping using physiographic analysis: constraints on the evaluation of land instability and groundwater pollution hazards in the Metropolitan District of Campinas, Brazil

  • Paulo Cesar Fernandes-da-Silva
  • Ricardo Vedovello
  • Claudio Jose Ferreira
  • John Canning Cripps
  • Maria Jose Brollo
  • Amelia Joao Fernandes
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Geo-environmental terrain assessments and territorial zoning are useful tools for the formulation and implementation of environmental management instruments (including policy-making, planning, and enforcement of statutory regulations). They usually involve a set of procedures and techniques for delimitation, characterisation and classification of terrain units. However, terrain assessments and zoning exercises are often costly and time-consuming, particularly when encompassing large areas, which in many cases prevent local agencies in developing countries from properly benefiting from such assessments. In the present paper, a low-cost technique based on the analysis of texture of satellite imagery was used for delimitation of terrain units. The delimited units were further analysed in two test areas situated in Southeast Brazil to provide estimates of land instability and the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution hazards. The implementation incorporated procedures for inferring the influences and potential implications of tectonic fractures and other discontinuities on ground behaviour and local groundwater flow. Terrain attributes such as degree of fracturing, bedrock lithology and weathered materials were explored as indicators of ground properties. The paper also discusses constraints on- and limitations of- the approaches taken.

Keywords

Terrain units Satellite imagery Physiographic compartmentalisation Tectonic fracturing Inferential tools 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Mara A. Iritani and Dr. Lidia K. Tominaga for their contribution to data derivation and interpretation, the UK Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for their financial support, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful advice.

References

  1. Abella EAC, Van Westen CJ (2008) Qualitative landslide susceptibility assessment by multicriteria analysis: a case study from San Antonio del Sur, Guantánamo, Cuba. Geomorphology 94:453–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akiwumi FA, Butler DR (2008) Mining and environmental change in Sierra Leone, West Africa: a remote sensing and hydrogeomorphological study. Environ Monit Assess 142:309–318. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9930-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aller LT, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC—a standardised system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeological settings. Report No. 600/2–87/035. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Aydin F (2002) Heterogeneity and behaviour of saprolitic slopes. Paper presented at 9th International Congress of the Intl. Assoc. Engineering Geology and Environment, Durban, South Africa. Proceedings, p 846–856Google Scholar
  5. Barton J, Alexander D, Correa C, Mashelkar R, Samuels G, Thomas S (2002) Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy. UK Department for International Development, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaumont TE (1985) An application of satellite imagery for highway maintenance and rehabilitation in Niger. Int J Remote Sens 6(7):1263–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaumont TE, Beaven PJ (1977) The use of satellite imagery for highway engineering in overseas countries. (TRRL—Transport & Road Research Laboratory) England, Supplementary Report 279, 19 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett MR, Doyle P (1997) Environmental geology. Wiley, ChicesterGoogle Scholar
  9. Câmara G, Fonseca F (2007) Information policies and open source software in developing countries. J Am Soc Info Sci Technol 58(1):121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Câmara G, Souza RCM, Freitas UM, Garrido J (1996) SPRING: integrating remote sensing and GIS by object-oriented data modelling. Comput Graphics 20(3):395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cendrero A, Flor G, Gancedo R, González-Lastra J, González-Lastra JR, Omenaca JS, Salinas JM (1979) Integrated assessment and evaluation of the coastal environment of the Province of Vizcaya, Bay of Biscay, Spain. Environ Geol 2(6):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cripps JC, Fernandes Da Silva PC, Culshaw MG, Bell FG, Maud RR, Foster A (2002) The planning response to landslide hazard in São Paulo State—Brazil, Durban—South Africa and Antrim—Northern Ireland. Paper presented at 9th International Congress of the Intl. Assoc. Engineering Geology and Environment, Durban, South Africa. Proceedings, p 1841–1852Google Scholar
  13. Culshaw MG, Foster A, Cripps JC, Bell FG (1990) Applied maps for land use planning in Great Britain. Paper presented at the 6th International Congress of the Intl. Assoc. Engineering Geology and Environment. Proceedings, 1:85–93Google Scholar
  14. Davidson DA (1992) The evaluation of land resources. Longman, Essex, 198 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandes AJ (1997) Tectônica Cenozóica da Porção Média da Bacia do Rio Piracicaba: Applicações à Hidrogeologia de Meios Fraturados [Cenozoic Tectonics at the Mid-Piracicaba River Watershed: Application to the Hydrogeology of Fractured Rocks]. PhD, The University of São Paulo (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  16. Fernandes AJ (2003) The influence of Cenozoic Tectonics on the groundwater vulnerability in fractured rocks: a case study in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Paper presented at the International Conference on Groundwater in Fractured Rocks, Prague, IAH/UNESCO, pp 81–82Google Scholar
  17. Fernandes AJ, Amaral G (2002) Cenozoic tectonic events at the border of the Parana Basin, São Paulo, Brazil. J S Am Earth Sci 14(8):911–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernandes Da Silva PC, Cripps JC (2008) Comparing directional line sets using non-parametric statistics: a new approach for geoenvironmental applications. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 22(2):231–246. doi: 10.1007/s00477-007-0110-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernandes Da Silva PC, Maffra CQT, Tominaga LK, Vedovello R (1997) Mapping units on São Sebastião Geohazards Prevention Chart, Northshore of São Paulo State, Brazil. In: Daoxian Y (ed) Environmental geology. Proceedings of 30th International Geological Congress, vol 24. VSP Scientific Publisher, Utrecht, pp 266–281Google Scholar
  20. Fernandes Da Silva PC, Cripps JC, Wise SM (2005) The use of Remote Sensing techniques and empirical tectonic models for inference of geological structures: bridging from regional to local scales. Remote Sens Environ 96(1):18–36. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2005.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernandes AJ, Rudolph DL (2001) The influence of Cenozoic tectonics on the groundwater-production capacity of fractured zones: a case study in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Hydrogeol J 9:151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finlayson A (1984) Land surface evaluation for engineering practices: applications of the Australian P.U.C.E. system for terrain analysis. Q J Eng Geol 17(2):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grant K (1968) A terrain evaluation system for engineering. CSIRO, Div. Soil. Mech. Technical Paper No. 2, Melbourne. 27 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Grant K (1974) The PUCE Programme for terrain evaluation system for engineering purposes. II. Procedures for Terrain Classification. CSIRO, Div. Soil. Mech. Technical Paper No. 15, Melbourne. 68 pGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant K (1975) The PUCE Programme for terrain evaluation system for engineering purposes. I. Principles. CSIRO, Div. Soil. Mech. Technical Paper No. 19, Melbourne. 32 pGoogle Scholar
  26. Guy M (1966) Quelques principles et quelques experiences sur la metodhologie de la photointerpretation [Some principles and experiences on the methodology of photo-interpretation]. Paper presented the 2nd International Symposium on Photo-interpretation, Paris, vol 1, pp 2–41Google Scholar
  27. Harris T, Weiner D (1998) Empowerment, marginalization and community-integrated GIS. Cartogr Geogr Info Syst 25(2):67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill SE, Rosenbaum MS (1998) Assessing the significant factors in a rock weathering system. Q J Eng Geol 31:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howard AD (1967) Drainage analysis in geologic interpretation: a summation. Bull Am Assoc Petrol Geol 51:2246–2254Google Scholar
  30. Hudec PP (1998) Rock properties and physical processes of rapid weathering and deterioration. Paper presented at the 8th International Congress of the Intl. Assoc. Engineering Geology and Environment, Vancouver, 1998. Proceedings, p 335–341Google Scholar
  31. INPE (2009) Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (2009) SPRING 5.0. http://www.dpi.inpe.br/spring/english/download.php. Cited in 11 December 2009
  32. Latifovic R, Fytas K, Chen J, Paraszczak J (2005) Assessing land cover change resulting from large surface mining development. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinfo 7:29–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2004.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lillesand T, Kiefer RW (2000) Remote sensing and image interpretation, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell CW (1991) Terrain evaluation, 2nd edn. Longman, EssexGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore ID, Gessler PE, Nielsen GA, Peterson CA (1993) Soil attribute prediction using terrain analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 5:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nedovic-Budic Z (2000) Geographic information science implications for urban and regional planning. URISA J 12(2):81–93Google Scholar
  37. Pine RJ, Harrison JP (2003) Rock mass properties for engineering design. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 36:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabins FF Jr (1987) Remote sensing: principles and interpretation. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Sahay S, Walsham G (1996) Implementation of GIS in India: organizational issues and implications. Int J Geogr Info Syst 10:385–404Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt H, Glaesser C (1998) Multitemporal analysis of satellite data and their use in the monitoring of the environmental impacts of open cast lignite mining areas in Eastern Germany. Int J Remote Sens 19:2245–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shi X, Zhu A-X, Burt JE, Qi F, Simonson D (2004) A case-based reasoning approach to fuzzy soil mapping. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:885–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soares PC, Fiori AP (1976) Sistemática para interpretação geológica de fotografias aéreas. [Systematic procedures for geological interpretation of aerial photographs]. Notícia Geomorlógica 16(32):71–104 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  43. Soares PC, Mattos JT, Barcellos PE, Meneses PR, Guerra SMS (1981) Análise morfotectônica regional da Bacia do Paraná através de imagens de Radar e Landsat [Regional morpho-structural analysis on Radar and Landsat images at the Parana Basin]. Paper presented at the 3rd South Brazilian Regional Symposium on Geology, Curitiba, pp 5–23 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  44. Tamura H, Mori S, Yamawaki T (1978) Texture features corresponding to visual perception. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 8(6):460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thornton SF, Lerner DN, Banwart SA (2001) Assessing the natural attenuation of organic contaminants in aquifers using plume-scale electron and carbon balances: model development with analysis of uncertainty and parameter sensitivity. J Contam Hydrol 53(3–4):199–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tominaga LK, Ferreira CJ, Vedovello R, Tavares R, Santoro J, Souza CRG (2004) Mapa de Perigos a Escorregamento do Litoral Norte do Estado de São Paulo: conceitos e técnicas [Landsliding Hazard Map of the North Shore of São Paulo State: concepts and techniques]. Paper presented at the 5th Brazilian Symposium on Geotechnical and Geo-environmental cartography, São Carlos. Proceedings, pp 205–216 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  47. TRRL (Transport & Road Research Laboratory) (1978) Terrain evaluation for highway engineering and transport planning: a technique with particular value for developing countries. TRRL Supplementary Report No. 448, 21pGoogle Scholar
  48. Vedovello R (1993) Zoneamento Geotécnico com base em Sensoriamento Remoto para fins de Planejamento Regional e Urbano [Geotechnical Zoning based on Remote Sensing Techniques for Urban and Regional Planning]. M.Sc, INPE—National Institute for Space Research) (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  49. Vedovello R (2000) Zoneamento Geotécnico através de Unidades Básicas de Compartimentação para fins de Gestão Ambiental [Geotechnical Zoning for Environmental Management through Basic Compartmentalisation Units]. PhD, São Paulo State University at Rio Claro (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  50. Vedovello R, Mattos JT (1998) A utilização de unidades básicas de compartimentação na definição de unidades geotécnicas (UBCs): uma abordagem baseada em sensoriamento remoto. [The use of basic compartmentalisation units (BCUs) to define geotechnical units: a remote sensing approach]. Paper presented at the 3rd Brazilian Symposium on Geotechnical Cartography, Florianopolis. Proceedings, 11 p (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  51. Vernez-Moudon A, Hubner M (eds) (2000) Parcel-based GIS for land supply and capacity monitoring. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Verstappen HTh (1977) Remote sensing in geomorphology. Elsevier, Amsterdam 214 pGoogle Scholar
  53. Vrba J, Civita M (1994) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability. In: Vrba J, Zaporozec A (eds) Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability. International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH), vol 16, pp 31–48Google Scholar
  54. Wang JSY, Narasimhan TN (1993) Unsaturated flow in fractured porous media. In: Bear J, Tsang C-F, de Marsily G (eds) Flow and contaminant transport in fractured rock. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 325–395Google Scholar
  55. Zhu A-X, Mackay DS (2001) Effects of spatial detail of soil information on watershed modelling 2001. J Hydrol 248:54–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhu A-X, Hudson B, Burt J, Lubich K, Simonson D (2001) Soil mapping using GIS, expert knowledge, and fuzzy logic. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1463–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zuquette LV, Pejon OJ, Collares JQ (2004) Engineering geological mapping developed in Fortaleza metropolitan region, State of Ceara, Brazil. Eng Geol 71:227–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Cesar Fernandes-da-Silva
    • 1
  • Ricardo Vedovello
    • 1
  • Claudio Jose Ferreira
    • 1
  • John Canning Cripps
    • 2
  • Maria Jose Brollo
    • 1
  • Amelia Joao Fernandes
    • 1
  1. 1.Geological InstituteSão Paulo State Secretariat of EnvironmentSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Structural EngineeringUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations