Advertisement

Land-Use Change, Risk and Land-Use Management

  • Ellen Banzhaf
  • Annegret Kindler
  • Annemarie Müller
  • Karin Metz
  • Sonia Reyes-Paecke
  • Ulrike Weiland
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on flood risk analysis and risk prevention in Santiago de Chile. It presents a conceptual framework for flood risk analysis in urban areas and demonstrates the utility of a mixed set of methods, including remote sensing and GIS techniques, to improve the methodological basis for flood risk assessment and risk prevention. Population growth and land-use changes are analysed as key elements of urban development and indicators of flood risk production. A conceptual framework comprising the core elements of exposure, elements at risk and vulnerability serves as a tool for risk analysis and risk assessment, and is applied to the municipalities of La Reina and Peñalolén. The chapter reviews existing institutional responses to land-use and risk management and, based on expert interviews, detects their deficits. As a conclusion, recommendations to improve flood risk prevention in Santiago de Chile are made. The absence of a systemic view of flood risk resulting from complex ecological and social processes is the chief weakness of current risk prevention in Santiago de Chile.

Keywords

Demographic change Flood risk Geoinformatics Land-use change Recommended actions Risk-related indicators 

References

  1. AC Ingenieros Consultores Ltda. (2008). Diagnóstico de Cauces Naturales, Sector Pie Andino. Región Metropolitana. Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, R. G. (1996). Conservation design for subdivisions. A practical guide to creating open space networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  3. Birkmann, J., & Wisner, B. (2006). Measuring the un-measurable. The challenge of vulnerability. Bonn: United Nations University, UNU-EHS.Google Scholar
  4. Cardona, O. (2001). Estimación Holística del Riesgo Sísmico utilizando Sistemas Dinámicos Complejos. UPC: Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña.Google Scholar
  5. CEPAL – Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (2005). Buletín demográfico No. 75 Enero 2005. Àmerica Latina: Urbanización y evolución de la población urbana 1950–2000. Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  6. Ebert, A. (2008). The understanding of risk-related terms in the Field of Application (FoA) Land-Use Management (LUM) in the project Risk Habitat Megacity (RHM). unpublished working paper.Google Scholar
  7. Ebert, A., Banzhaf, E., & McPhee, J. (2009). The influence of urban expansion on the flood hazard in Santiago de Chile. A modelling approach using remote sensing data. Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event, 20–22 May 2009, Shanghai.Google Scholar
  8. Fernández, B. (2004). Drenaje de aguas lluvias urbanas en zonas semiáridas. ARQ, 57, 64–67.Google Scholar
  9. FIG – International Federation of Surveyors, Working Group 8.4 (2006). The contribution of the surveying profession to disaster risk management. FIG Publication No. 38, Copenhagen. http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pub38/figpub38.htm. Accessed 5 May 2010.
  10. Figueroa, I. (2009). Conectividad y accesibilidad de los espacios abiertos urbanos de Santiago de Chile (AMS, 2006). M.Sc. thesis: Urban Studies Institute, Catholic University of Chile.Google Scholar
  11. Figueroa Aldunce, I. M., & Reyes, S. (2010). Distribución, superficie y accesibilidad de las áreas verdes en Santiago de Chile. Distribution, extent and accessibility of green spaces in Santiago de Chile. EURE, 36(109), 89–110.Google Scholar
  12. INE – National Statistics Institute of Chile (1992). Census of population 1992. Microdatos. Censos de Población. Redatam. Censo de Población y Vivienda 1992. http://www.ine.cl/. Accessed 2 May 2011.
  13. INE – National Statistics Institute of Chile (2002). Census of population 2002. Microdatos. Censos de Población. Censo 2002. http://www.ine.cl/. Accessed 2 May 2011.
  14. ISDR. (2004). Living with risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiative. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  15. McPherson, E. G. (1992). Accounting benefits and costs of urban greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 22(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McPherson, E. G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., & Rowntree, R. (1997). Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: The Chicago urban forest climate project. Urban Ecosystems, 1, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MIDEPLAN – Ministero de Planificación y Cooperación (2006). Encuesta CASEN 2006. Santiago de Chile http://www.mideplan.gob.cl/. Accessed 2 May 2011.
  18. NERI – The National Environmental Research Institute (1995). Recommendations on integrated environmental assessment, EEA/061/95. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  19. Niehoff, D., Fritsch, U., & Bronstert, A. (2002). Land-use impacts on storm-runoff generation: Scenarios of land-use change and simulation of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW-Germany. Journal of Hydrology, 267, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reiter, J. (2009). Vulnerabilität gegenüber Überflutungen in ausgewählten Stadtteilen von Santiago de Chile. Unpublished master thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  21. Reyes-Paecke, S. (2004). Santiago; la difícil sustentabilidad de una ciudad neoliberal. In C. De Mattos, M. E. Ducci, A. Rodríguez, & G. Yáñez Warner (Eds.), Santiago en la Globalización: ¿Una nueva ciudad? (pp. 189–218). Santiago Chile: Ediciones SUR-EURE Libros.Google Scholar
  22. Sorensen, M., Barzetti, V., Keipi, K., & Williams, J. (1998). Manejo de áreas verdes urbanas. Technical document ENV-109. BID – Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1441394. Accessed 19 Oct 2010.
  23. UNDP (2004). A global report. Reducing disaster risk. Challenge for development. Technical Report, 05/06, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Weiland, U. (2006). Sustainability indicators and urban development. In W. Wuyi, T. Krafft, & F. Kraas (Eds.), Global change, urbanization and health (pp. 241–250). Beijing: China Meteorological Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., & Cannon, T. (2005). At risk. Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellen Banzhaf
    • 1
  • Annegret Kindler
    • 1
  • Annemarie Müller
    • 1
  • Karin Metz
    • 1
  • Sonia Reyes-Paecke
    • 1
  • Ulrike Weiland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department Urban and Environmental SociologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations