Advertisement

Assessment of Risk in Urban Environments Using Geo-Spatial Analysis

  • James D. Hipple
Chapter

Abstract

Geospatial technologies are focused around the acquisition, integration, analysis, visualization, management and distribution of data having an explicit spatial and temporal context (Wachter et al. 2006). These data are usually analyzed within geographic information systems (GIS). These technologies have grown to include a wide array of technologies, many of which are actively used in urban risk assessment. First, these geospatial tools and technologies are often used for the identification of “hazards” or the establishment of “risk” parameters, like height above flood stage (elevation derived through photogrammetric methods or LIDAR) and proximity to hazards (distance). Second, they can be used to actively map risk (e.g., active wildfires detected through remote sensing). Finally, these geospatial technologies can be integrative through visualization tools and models often delivered through internet-based mapping and services.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Urban Place Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Mississippi River Basin Hazard Identification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carey, C., et al., 2003. A flood of development: building booms in the flood plain. Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, 27 July 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Freeman, G.E., et al., 1993. The scientific assessment and strategy team contributions assessing the 1993 flood on the Mississippi and Missouri river basins 19(4), 177–185.Google Scholar
  3. Giglio, L., Descloitres, J., Justice, C. O., and Kaufman, Y. J., 2003: An enhanced contextual fire detection algorithm for MODIS. Remote Sensing of the Environment, 87, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heisler, E., 2003. Aflood of development: $400 million in investment flows into Chesterfield Valley. Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, 28 July 2003.Google Scholar
  5. Hipple, et al. 2005 “Characterizing and Mapping Human Settlements” in M. K. Ridd & J. D. Hipple, eds, Manual of Remote Sensing, 3rd Edition (a Series): Volume 5, Remote Sensing of Human Settlements, American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD, pp. 149–206.Google Scholar
  6. Hipple, J, B. Drazkowski, and P. Thorsell 2005. Development in the Upper Mississippi Basin: 10 years after the Great Flood of 1993, Landscape and Urban Planning. 72:313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hipple, J. and and T. Haithcoat. 2005. Remote sensing in urban infrastructure and business geographics, in S. Aronoff, Remote Sensing for GIS Managers, ESRI Press; Redlands, CA, pp. 405–413.Google Scholar
  8. Holway, J.M., Burby, R.J., 1993. Reducing flood losses: local planning and land use controls. Journal of the American Planning Association 59(2), 205–216.Google Scholar
  9. Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee (IMFRC), 1994. Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21st Century. US Government Printing Office, Washington.Google Scholar
  10. Leavenworth, S. 2004. Sacramento Bee, 12 April 2004, p. A1.Google Scholar
  11. Leavenworth, S. 2004. Sacramento Bee, 29 March 2004, p. A1.Google Scholar
  12. McNamara, D., G. Stephens, B. Ramsay, E. Prins, I. Csiszar, C. Elvidge, R. Hobson, and C. Schmidt, 2002: Fire Detection and Monitoring Products at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68, 774–775.Google Scholar
  13. Moon Jr., H.E., 1988. Modelling land use change around non-urban interstate highway interchanges. Land Use Policy 5(4), 394–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2005: MODIS Fire and Thermal Anomalies Guide. Online technical reference, accessed September 16, 2006. URL: http://modis-fire.umd.edu.Google Scholar
  15. Pinter, N. 2005. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back on U.S. Floodplains. Science 308(5719): 207–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scientific Assessment Strategy Team (SAST), 1994. Science for Floodplain Management into the 21st Century. US Government Printing Office, Washington (preliminary report).Google Scholar
  17. Shipley, S., 2003. A flood of development: Missouri lacks rules on flood plain growth. Saint Louis Post-Dispatch 27 27 July 2003.Google Scholar
  18. WHO (1988) Basic terminology for risk and health impact assessment and management. Internal Report of Working Group, 24–25 March, 1988, Geneva, World Health Organization (Annex 3).Google Scholar
  19. Wachter, S.; L. Hirschorne; H. Sokoloff; and H. Steinberg 2006. The Geospatial Industry: A perspective on Technology Diffusion. The Association of American Geographers, accessed 2 October 2006; URL http://www.aag.org/roundtable/Google Scholar
  20. Quale, B. 2005 Satellite based fire mapping for the Eastern United States. EOM: Earth Observation Magazine 14(6).Google Scholar
  21. ISO Properties, Inc. 2004. Pinpointing Insured Losses in the Southern California Wildfires of 2003. ISO, Jersey City, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Hipple
    • 1
  1. 1.USDA Risk Management AgencyWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations