1 / 19

Socio-ecological vulnerability assessment for Germany

Socio-ecological vulnerability assessment for Germany. A sub-national approach Marion Damm. Table of content. Problem Definition Objectives Conceptual Framework Methodology Preliminary Results Conclusion and Outlook. Floods in Germany. DLR. Flood Extent. Year. River. Damage [m].

nerice
Télécharger la présentation

Socio-ecological vulnerability assessment for Germany

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Socio-ecological vulnerability assessment for Germany A sub-national approach Marion Damm

  2. Table of content Problem Definition Objectives Conceptual Framework Methodology Preliminary Results Conclusion and Outlook

  3. Floods in Germany DLR Flood Extent Year River Damage [m] UNU-EHS 2002 Elbe 9200 € 2005 Danube 900 € 1999 Danube, Rhine 530 € Vulnerability 1995/1993 Rhine 810 € GFZ Damage Model Elbe Rhine Danube

  4. Coupled social-ecological system

  5. Objective of this study Assessment of social-ecological vulnerability to flooding in Germany at county level forest sector agricultural sector • Work steps: • Conceptual Framework • Development of Indicators • Building a Composite Indicator • Mapping Vulnerability • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  6. Conceptual Framework (1)‏ • Important elements: • Vulnerability framework • Cross-scale dynamics • Coupled systems • Dynamic feedbacks adapted from Turner et al. 2003

  7. Conceptual Framework (3)‏ Disaster Risk = f (Hazard, Vulnerability)‏ Vulnerability = f (Exposure, Sensitivity, Resilience)‏ Hazard: flood dependent and flood independent characteristics that contribute to flood intensity Vulnerability: Intrinsic and dynamic feature of a system which is driven by environmental, social and economic factors and determines the susceptibility towards a certain hazard • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  8. Methodology 1. Indicator development - Literature Review - Impact Analysis - Interviews with experts from forest and agricultural sector 2. Building a composite indicator - Data collection (German wide data base)‏ - Statistical Analyses 3. Mapping vulnerability across counties - Geographical Information System (GIS)‏ • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  9. Composite Indicator Procedure: 1. Data collection 2. Imputation of missing data 3. Scaling and transformation of indicators 4. Data analysis 5. Normalization 6. Weighting (Nardo et al. 2005)‏ • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  10. Weighting Scheme • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook • Criteria • Data quality • Correlations

  11. Composite Indicator Procedure: 1. Data collection 2. Imputation of missing data 3. Scaling and transformation of indicators 4. Data analysis 5. Normalization 6. Weighting 7. Aggregation of indicators (Nardo et al. 2005)‏ • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  12. Aggregation • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook Resilience Vulnerability = E + S+ R

  13. Composite Indicator Procedure: 1. Data collection 2. Imputation of missing data 3. Scaling and transformation of indicators 4. Data analysis 5. Normalization 6. Weighting 7. Aggregation of indicators 8. Visualization 9. Robustness tests (Nardo et al. 2005)‏ • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  14. Vulnerability Maps • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  15. Robustness Test (1)‏

  16. Robustness Test (2)‏

  17. Robustness Test (3)‏ • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  18. Conclusion and Outlook Conclusion: Data availability and accessibility as a main constraint Generalization due to scaling Indicators and methods are robust Approach provides a reliable overview on vulnerable patterns in Germany Outlook: Evaluation and Validation of the approach Risk assessment • Problem Definition • Objectives • Concep. Framework • Methodology • Results • Constraints/Outlook

  19. Thank you for your attention! Contact: damm@ehs.unu.edu

More Related