geography of social vulnerability, environmental hazards and climate change (vulclim)

Department of Geography

1

Geography of social vulnerability, environmental hazards and climate change

(VulClim)

Haakon Lein,

Department of Geography

2

Department of Geography

3

Department of Geography

4

Verdal: Flood, storm surge and sea level rise

Department of Geography

5

Point of departure

‘Vulnerability of a place’

Cutter, S.; J.T. Mitchell; M. S. Scott. 2000. Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4): 713–737.

Department of Geography

6

Biophysical hazards

+ Social vulnerability

=Vulnerability of a place

Cutter, 2000

Department of Geography

7

Modifications

• Contextualise (Norway)

• Add time (the future/climate change)

Department of Geography

8

Climatechange

Demo-graphicchange

Social and eco-nomic changes

Department of Geography

9

Department of Geography

10

Social vulnerabilityProduct of Social inequalities and Place

inequalities • Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI)

Cutter S L, Boroff, B J, Shirley W L, 2003, Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards, Social Science Quarterly, 84 (2): 242 – 261.

• Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) for the United States based on 1990 data• County level 3,141 units• Collected several variables which could act as indicators on social

vulnerability• Factor analysis (PCA): 42 variables 11 independent factors• Additive model summary score (SoVI)• Mapping SoVI identify most vulnerable counties

Department of Geography

11

Social Vulnerability Concepts and Metrics

• PERCAP89 Per capita income• PCTHH7589 Percent of households earning more than $75,000, 1989 • PCTPOV90 Percent living in poverty, 1990 • PCTVOTE92 Vote cast for president, 1992 - percent voting for leading party

(Democratic)

Department of Geography

12

Social Vulnerability Concepts and MetricsFrom Cutter et al (2003), Table 1

• Socioeconomic status (wealth)• Gender• Race and ethnicity• Age• Rural/urban• Education• Population growth• Medical services• Social dependence• …

Department of Geography

13

Kilde: http://www.cas.sc.edu/geog/hrl/sovi.html

Department of Geography

14

Social vulnerability index (SoVI) for Norway

Department of Geography

15

Figure 1. Social Vulnerability Index for Norwegian municipalities based on Cutter et al. (2003) variable list

Department of Geography

16

Figure 2. Socioeconomic Vulnerability Index for

Norwegian municipalities

Department of Geography

17

Local SoVI

¯

Department of Geography

18

Climatechange

Demo-graphicchange

Social and eco-nomic changes

Department of Geography

19

How to deal with the future?

• Climate is obviously not the only thing that is changing...

• Is it possible to say something meaningful about socio-economic changes in a 50-80 year perspective? How?

• Local socio-economic scenarios?

Department of Geography

20

Local Scenarios

Welfare(environment)

Growth

Global Local

Forever growth

Forever green

Forever young

Department of Geography

21

Using existing scenarios: Some issues to be addressed

Not dealing directly with climate change issues nor hazards- how to make more relevant?

Cover a period up to 2020- we need scenarios up to 2050 or longer

How to make a spatial interpretation, how to map the scenarios?

How to identify quantifiable/measurable indicators?

Department of Geography

22

Forever green Renewed interest in small scale agriculture and local fishing Growth of small scale rural enterprises- decline in traditional large scale industries Decentralised and scattered settlements both in coastal areas and inland Decentralised political decision-making, emphasis on active participation (Limited population growth) Little immigration More expensive transport -emphasis on public solutions Forever Young Growth in service industries/public welfare production Growth of smaller urban settlements, decentralised urbanisation? Big public sector Growth in population Young population but also active aged Substantial organised (unskilled) immigration Development of good infrastructure/roads and mixed transport solutions Forever Growth Growth in knowledge based /high tech industries – more efficient and large scale agriculture Substantial Urban growth mainly around Trondheim and along Trondheimsfjorden (Orkanger to Steinkjer) Well modern but vulnerable infrastructure (roads, railroads) Growth in private/market based solutions Substantial population growth Immigration of well-educated people

Department of Geography

23

About the project • Funded by The Research Council of Norway (NORKLIMA)

& NTNU 2007-2011

• 3 PhD students + department staff + master students

• Cooperation with: – Susan Cutter, Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute,

University of South Carolina, – International Centre for Geohazard (SFF) – National and local agencies

Department of Geography

24

Department of Geography

25

Holand, I, P Lujala,JK Rød (forthcomming):

‘Vulnerability of Norwegian Municipalities to Environmental Hazards’

Department of Geography

26

Table 1 . Factors, factor labels, factor loadings, and factor

sign adjustment for SoVINOR, Cutter et al. replication F a c t o r V a r i a b l e L o a d i n g S i g n

% h o u s e h o l d s w i t h i n c o m e l e s s t h a n 1 5 0 0 0 0 N O K - 0 . 7 5

B i r t h r a t e ( n u m b e r o f b i r t h s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n ) 0 . 5 7

% p o p u l a t i o n 5 y e a r s o r y o u n g e r 0 . 7 5

% p o p u l a t i o n 6 7 y e a r s o r o l d e r - 0 . 9 2

% p o p u l a t i o n c h a n g e 0 . 6 9

A v e r a g e n u m b e r o f h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s 0 . 5 2

% p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n n u r s i n g h o m e s ( o l d & d i s a b l e d ) - 0 . 6 2

% e m p l o y e d i n p r i m a r y e x t r a c t i v e i n d u s t r i e s - 0 . 6 8

% f e m a l e s i n l a b o r f o r c e 0 . 7 0

% e m p l o y e d i n s e r v i c e s e c t o r 0 . 6 7

D i s t a n c e t o n e a r e s t h o s p i t a l - 0 . 4 6

% f e m a l e s 0 . 6 0

% e l e c t o r a t e v o t i n g i n m u n i c i p a l e l e c t i o n - 0 . 4 1

% u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n 0 . 5 5

A v e r a g e i n c o m e 0 . 7 8

% h o u s e h o l d s e a r n i n g m o r e t h a n 5 0 0 0 0 0 N O K 0 . 7 5

V a l u e o f h o u s i n g u n i t s 0 . 5 5

# c o m m e r c i a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s p e r k m _ 0 . 6 0

% f i r s t o r s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n n o n - w e s t e r n i m m i g r a n t s 0 . 5 3

% s i n g l e - p a r e n t h o u s e h o l d s , 2 0 0 6 0 . 5 0

% u n e m p l o y e d 0 . 8 0

% w i t h o n l y l o w e r s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n 0 . 6 1

% p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e - 0 . 5 7

% r e c e i v i n g i n v a l i d i t y p e n s i o n 0 . 5 9

% a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d - 0 . 5 3

# p h y s i c i a n l a b o r y e a r s i n p r i m a r y h e a l t h c a r e p e r 1 0 0 0 0 i n h a b i t a n t s 0 . 4 2

% r e n t e r s 0 . 8 1

N O T E : T a b l e s h o w s t h e r e s u l t s f r o m I t e r a t i v e P r i n c i p a l F a c t o r i n g ( I P F ) a n a l y s i s w i t h V a r i m a x r o t a t i o n a n d H o r s t n o r m a l i z a t i o n .

A n a l y s i s i s b a s e d o n 4 3 1 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a n d 2 7 v a r i a b l e s . 5 f a c t o r s w e r e e x t r a c t e d . F o r v a r i a b l e s a n d d e f i n i t i o n s , s e e t h e t e x t . S i n g

a d j u s t m e n t : a b s o l u t e ( | | ) , n e g a t i v e ( - ) , o r p o s i t i v e ( + ) .

| |

+

-

+

+

1 . P o p u l a t i o n

s t r u c t u r e

2 . G e n d e r

3 . I n c o m e

4 .

S o c i o e c o n o m i c

s t a t u s

5 . ?

Department of Geography

27

Table 2. Factors, factor labels, factor loadings, and factor

sign adjustment for the Socioeconomic Vulnerability F a c t o r V a r i a b l e ( m a i n l o a d i n g ) L o a d i n g S i g n

% h o u s e h o l d s w i t h i n c o m e l e s s t h a n 1 5 0 0 0 0 N O K 0 . 7 7

% p o p u l a t i o n 6 7 y e a r s o r o l d e r 0 . 7 3

% r e c e i v i n g i n v a l i d i t y p e n s i o n 0 . 6 6

% p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n n u r s i n g h o m e s ( o l d & d i s a b l e d ) 0 . 5 9

% h o u s e h o l d s e a r n i n g m o r e t h a n 5 0 0 0 0 0 N O K - 0 . 7 0

M e d i a n i n c o m e - 0 . 6 9

% p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e - 0 . 6 8

% p o p u l a t i o n 5 y e a r s o r y o u n g e r - 0 . 7 0

% L a b o r f o r c e e m p l o y e d i n h e a l t h c a r e a n d s o c i a l s e r v i c e s 0 . 5 6

% w i t h 4 y e a r s o r m o r e o f t e r t i a r y e d u c a t i o n 0 . 7 8

% w i t h o n l y l o w e r s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n - 0 . 6 7

% e m p l o y e d i n p r i m a r y s e c t o r ( f a r m i n g , f i s h i n g , f o r e s t r y ) - 0 . 5 7

% f i r s t o r s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n n o n - w e s t e r n i m m i g r a n t s 0 . 5 6

G e n d e r e q u a l i t y 0 . 5 0

% W e s t e r n i m m i g r a n t s 0 . 4 6

% e m p l o y e d i n l o w s k i l l s e r v i c e s 0 . 3 5

% m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s n e t d e b t o f g r o s s r e v e n u e - 0 . 4 9

% m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s e x p i n d i t u r e o n d e b t s e r v i c e o f t o t a l i n c o m e - 0 . 3 3

M u n i c i p a l i t y ' s d i s p o s a l i n c o m e p e r i n h a b i t a n t 0 . 6 6

% e l e c t o r a t e v o t i n g i n m u n i c i p a l e l e c t i o n 0 . 5 7

% p o p u l a t i o n m o v i n g t o o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s 0 . 5 0

% s i n g l e - p a r e n t h o u s e h o l d s - 0 . 4 9

M e d i a n p e r c a p i t a c a p i t a l a s s e t s - 0 . 4 8

% u n e m p l o y e d 0 . 6 9

+

-

1 . P o p u l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e

a n d s o c i o e c o n o m i c

s t a t u s

2 . H i g h - s k i l l e d a n d

m u l t i e t h n i c v s . l o w -

s k i l l e d

N O T E : T a b l e s h o w s t h e r e s u l t s f r o m I t e r a t i v e P r i n c i p a l F a c t o r i n g ( I P F ) a n a l y s i s w i t h V a r i m a x r o t a t i o n a n d H o r s t

n o r m a l i z a t i o n . A n a l y s i s i s b a s e d o n 4 3 1 N o r w e g i a n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a n d 2 4 v a r i a b l e s . 4 f a c t o r s w e r e e x t r a c t e d . F o r

t h e m e t h o d , v a r i a b l e s , a n d d e f i n i t i o n s , s e e t h e t e x t . S i n g a d j u s t m e n t : n e g a t i v e ( - ) , o r p o s i t i v e ( + ) .

-3 . M u n i c i p a l v i a b i l i t y

4 . S o c i o e c o n o m i c

i n s e c u r i t y a d n i n s t a b i l i t y

+

Department of Geography

28

Table 3. Factors, factor labels, factor loadings, and factor

sign adjustment for the Build Environment Vulnerability

F a c t o r V a r i a b l e ( m a i n l o a d i n g ) L o a d i n g S i g n

V a l u e o f h o u s i n g u n i t s - 0 . 8 2 6 5

L e n g t h o f m u n i c i p a l r o a d s ( k m p e r c a p i t a ) 0 . 7 7 0 9

# e x i t r o u t e s p e r 1 0 0 0 i n h a b i t a n t s 0 . 6 4 9 8

D i s t a n c e t o n e a r e s t h o s p i t a l 0 . 7 9 1 1

P o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y 0 . 8 5 9 6

N u m b e r o f h o u s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s 0 . 8 4 9 4

A v e r a g e a g e o f w a t e r p i p e l i n e s 0 . 6 9 1 4

A v e r a g e a g e o f s e w e r l i n e s 0 . 7 2 8 1

% r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g s t o c k b u i l t a f t e r 1 9 8 0 - 0 . 7 2 0 9

+3 . A g i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e

N O T E : T a b l e s h o w s t h e r e s u l t s f r o m I t e r a t i v e P r i n c i p a l F a c t o r i n g ( I P F ) a n a l y s i s w i t h V a r i m a x r o t a t i o n a n d H o r s t

n o r m a l i z a t i o n . A n a l y s i s i s b a s e d o n 4 3 1 N o r w e g i a n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a n d 9 v a r i a b l e s . 3 f a c t o r s w e r e e x t r a c t e d . F o r t h e

m e t h o d , v a r i a b l e s , a n d d e f i n i t i o n s , s e e t h e t e x t . S i n g a d j u s t m e n t : n e g a t i v e ( - ) , o r p o s i t i v e ( + ) .

| |1 . L i f e l i n e s

+2 . S e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n

Department of Geography

29

Figure 3. Built Environment Vulnerability Index for Norwegian municipalities