Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 65, Issue 1, pp 173–182 | Cite as

Social vulnerability assessment of natural hazards on county-scale using high spatial resolution satellite imagery: a case study in the Luogang district of Guangzhou, South China

  • J. Zeng
  • Z. Y. Zhu
  • J. L. Zhang
  • T. P. Ouyang
  • S. F. Qiu
  • Y. Zou
  • T. Zeng
Original Article

Abstract

Social vulnerability assessment of natural hazards aims to identify vulnerable populations and provide decision makers with scientific basis for their disaster prevention and mitigation decisions. A new method based on remote sensing is presented here to establish a model of social vulnerability for county-scale regions that lack of relative data. To calculate population density, which is the most important indicator in social vulnerability assessment, first, a statistical model is established to estimate the population on village level. Then a new concept defined as “population density based on land use” is created to replace the arithmetic population density. The former has taken the dynamic human distribution related to land use into account; thus, it can map the population distribution more realistically. The other two indicators are age structure and distance to hospital. The application of this method to the Luogang District of Guangzhou, South China demonstrated its capability of providing high spatial resolution and reasonable social vulnerability for social vulnerability assessment of natural hazards.

Keywords

Social vulnerability SPOT Land use Statistical model 

References

  1. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environ Change Hum Policy Dimens 16(3):268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso FG, Roq JLC (1997) Application of NOAA-AVHRR images for the validation and risk assessment of natural disasters in Spain. Remote Sens 96:327–368Google Scholar
  3. Alwang J, Siegel PB, Jørgensen SL (2001) Vulnerability: a view from different disciplines. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, Social Protection Unit, Human Development Network, The World BankGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson-Berry LJ (2003) Community vulnerability to tropical cyclones: Cairns, 1996–2000. Nat Hazards 30(2):209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armas I (2008) Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Nat Hazards 47(3):397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutter SL, Finch C (2008) Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(7):2301–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 90(4):713–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Eng Geol 64(1):65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dibben C, Chester DK (1999) Human vulnerability in volcanic environments: the case of Furnas, Sao Miguel, Azores. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 92(1–2):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon RW, Fitzsimons DE (2001) Toward a quantified hurricane vulnerability assessment for Texas coastal counties. Tex J Sci 53(4):345–352Google Scholar
  12. Goodchild MF, Lam NSN (1980) Areal interpolation: a variant of the traditional spatial problem. Geo-Processing 1:297–312Google Scholar
  13. Guzzetti F (2000) Landslide fatalities and the evaluation of landslide risk in Italy. Eng Geol 58(2):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kienberger S, Lang S, Zeil P (2009) Spatial vulnerability units—expert-based spatial modelling of socio-economic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment, Austria. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(3):767–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King D (2001) Uses and limitations of socioeconomic indicators of community vulnerability to natural hazards: data and disasters in northern Australia. Nat Hazards 24(2):147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lam NSN (1983) Spatial interpolation methods: a review. Am Cartogr 10(2):129–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li GY, Weng QH (2005) Using landsat ETM plus imagery to measure population density in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 71(8):947–958Google Scholar
  18. Liu XL, Lei JZ (2003) A method for assessing regional debris flow risk: an application in Zhaotong of Yunnan province (SW China). Geomorphology 52(3–4):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liverman D, Moran E, Rindfuss R, Stern P (1998) People and pixels: linking remote sensing and social science. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Mantovani F, Soeters R, VanWesten CJ (1996) Remote sensing techniques for landslide studies and hazard zonation in Europe. Geomorphology 15(3–4):213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marfai MA, King L (2008) Potential vulnerability implications of coastal inundation due to sea level rise for the coastal zone of Semarang city, Indonesia. Environ Geol 54(6):1235–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Metternicht G, Hurni L, Gogu R (2005) Remote sensing of landslides: an analysis of the potential contribution to geo-spatial systems for hazard assessment in mountainous environments. Remote Sens Environ 98(2–3):284–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pandey A, Dabral PP, Chowdary VM, Yadav NK (2008) Landslide hazard zonation using remote sensing and GIS: a case study of Dikrong river basin, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environ Geol 54(7):1517–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Remondo J, Bonachea J, Cendrero A (2008) Quantitative landslide risk assessment and mapping on the basis of recent occurrences. Geomorphology 94(3–4):496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simpson DM, Human RJ (2008) Large-scale vulnerability assessments for natural hazards. Nat Hazards 47(2):143–155Google Scholar
  26. Sutton P, Roberts D, Elvidge C, Baugh K (2001) Census from Heaven: an estimate of the global human population using night-time satellite imagery. Int J Remote Sens 22(16):3061–3076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng Geol 102(3–4):251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Westen CJ, van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65(2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wei YM, Fan Y, Lu C, Tsai HT (2004) The assessment of vulnerability to natural disasters in China by using the DEA method. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(4):427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu SS, Qiu XM, Wang L (2005) Population estimation methods in GIS and remote sensing: a review. GISci Remote Sens 42(1):80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yao H, Xu X, Xue D (2008) On characteristics and spatial difference of floating populations in Guangzhou. Trop Geogr 28(3):259–264Google Scholar
  32. Zhang GR, Yin KL, Chen LX (2007) Population vulnerability assessment on regional landslide hazards and casualty risk forecasting in Yongjia County, Zhejiang Province. Geol Sci Technol Inf 26(4):70–75Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Zeng
    • 1
  • Z. Y. Zhu
    • 1
  • J. L. Zhang
    • 1
  • T. P. Ouyang
    • 1
  • S. F. Qiu
    • 1
  • Y. Zou
    • 1
  • T. Zeng
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Marginal Sea GeologyGuangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, CASGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations