DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
Earth system governance and spatial data infrastructures to support local climate
adaptation and disaster risk reduction in cities1
Sandra R. Baptista
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Email: sbaptist@ciesin.columbia.edu, sandra.r.baptista@gmail.com
Abstract:
Social learning towards improving global sustainability strategies occurs at multiple societal
levels and in diverse sectors. Conflict, competition, or isolation can obstruct vertical and
horizontal flows of information, knowledge, understanding, and innovative ideas thus interfering
with communication, integration, and coordination. Considering climate stress, vulnerability,
resilience, and the adaptive capacity of coupled human-environment systems, this paper explores
governance and institutional mechanisms that link global and national geospatial technologies,
data sets, analytical methods, and tools to coevolving local disaster risk management and climate
adaptation research and action. Local level actors include networks of applied researchers, policy
analysts, geospatial database designers and practitioners involved in disaster risk management,
emergency response, and recovery. The paper begins with a brief history of the development of
spatial data infrastructures. It describes how Earth observation networks and communications
systems have evolved over the past two decades to support disaster mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery. Next, it reviews a selection of literature on governance theory and
complex systems theory. It highlights the recent emergence of Earth system governance, a
crosscutting initiative in the global environmental change community, and the notion of global
adaptive governance. Finally, the paper discusses the concept of “climate resilient cities” in the
context of Earth system governance, spatial data infrastructures, and disaster risk reduction
efforts in southern Brazil.
Keywords: adaptation; climate hazards; coordination; complex adaptive systems; disaster
management; disaster risk; geographic information systems; governance, institutions,
knowledge; learning; resilient cities; spatial data infrastructures; volunteered geographic
information; vulnerability.
1
Paper prepared for the ICARUS workshop on Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation: Theory and Cases, February
10-13, 2010, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
The more we understand the complexity of interactions and inter-dependencies between
environmental and social phenomena at different levels, local, regional, global, the more we need
dynamic information systems to provide reliable, accurate, timely, and openly accessible
information at the relevant geographic and temporal scales. The more geographic information we
have, the more we see the need for sophisticated processing and analysis models that can turn
information into insight and intelligent action. (M. Craglia, M. Goodchild, A. Annoni, G. Camara,
M. Gould, W. Kuhn, D. Mark, I. Masser, D. Maguire, S. Liang, and E. Parsons 2008, p. 148)
A resilient social-ecological system may make use of crisis as an opportunity to transform into a
more desired state. (C. Folke, T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg 2005)
1. Introduction
Investments in the development, implementation, and use of global, regional, national, and local
spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) do not automatically guarantee that their design and
functionality will effectively, ethically, and equitably serve the needs of people exposed to
climate risk or other types of environmental hazards.2 Whether explicit or implicit, social values,
norms, and principles are integral to governance systems, and the institutions, rules, leadership,
vision, and priorities that shape governance processes are key factors in managing disaster risk
(e.g., Adger et al. 2005; Folke et al. 2005; Haddad 2005; Olsson et al. 2006; National Research
Council 2007; Amin et al. 2008; Kooiman and Jentoft 2009). Nevertheless, in the present age of
accelerated technological innovations, increasing connectedness, and changing patterns of social
interaction (Young et al. 2006; National Research Council 2007; Craglia et al. 2008), there is
reason to hope that SDIs will rapidly evolve in ways that: foster multilevel, cross-sectoral, and
interjurisdictional social networks; organize knowledge systems; and strengthen human capacity
to prevent and cope with the negative impacts of climate change including extreme events such
as cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, heavy rainfall, floods, landslides, heatwaves, and droughts. In
addition, SDI systems are expected to facilitate longer-term learning and human adaptation not
2
In this paper, SDI is defined as a dynamic system encompassing information, data, metadata, institutions,
technology, policies, standards, economic resources, and human resources. SDI activities include data collection,
processing, integration, maintenance, analysis, representation, dissemination, communication, use, and preservation
(cf. Kok and van Loenen 2005; de Man 2007b).
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
2
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
only to already familiar hazards, but also to other emerging or yet unknown stressors that may
arise either gradually or abruptly. These humanitarian goals for geospatial information systems
are among the key sustainability challenges in an increasingly urbanized world.
The first generation of SDIs emerged in the early 1990s when several national mapping agencies
decided to create national spatial databases; these early national-level efforts led to the rapid
diffusion of SDIs globally and the creation of the Global Spatial Data Infrastructures Association
(http://www.gsdi.org/) in 1996 (Craglia et al. 2008). Since then the multidimensional and flexible
SDI concept has been shaped by the interdisciplinary communities that are working to
understand socio-environmental and landscape dynamics occurring in diverse ecosystems and at
multiple scales from global to regional to local. Moreover, interest has grown in how SDIs have
begun to transform society politically and institutionally. Many highlight the important role that
inclusive, accessible, and interactive SDIs can play in strengthening democracy, participatory
governance, and the decentralization of urban infrastructure planning and service provision.
However, it is important to question whether or not the specific institutional and governance
mechanisms that are actually in place today at multiple levels are allowing for adequate conflict
resolution and open negotiation of SDI development and implementation. If conflict resolution
and open negotiation are discouraged, obstructed or otherwise limited, the danger is that
exclusionary dynamics, conflicting interests, and competitive behaviors will bias SDIs in favor
of already privileged social groups and thus contribute to continued failures to substantially
reduce the multiple disaster risks threatening the world’s most vulnerable human populations.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
3
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
Interorganizational SDIs are intended to facilitate and coordinate spatial data exchange, sharing,
integration, accessibility, and use (Crompvoets et al. 2004; de Man 2007a). SDIs and other types
of information infrastructures are embedded within social, historical, political, economic, and
cultural systems, and, therefore, their development and use will vary at different spatial scales as
a reflection of different social contexts (de Man 2007a). Similarly, SDIs at different spatial scales
may reflect different environmental and ecological contexts.
The aim of this paper is to consider how, in the coming years and decades, SDIs and related
geospatial capabilities at multiple spatial and organizational levels might be made more effective
at supporting local climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, particularly in the rapidly
expanding urban areas of low- and middle-income nations. While acknowledging the existence
of hierarchical structures and policies within SDI systems, this paper understands that the
relationships and dynamics between higher-level and lower-level SDIs are often complex rather
than merely top down or bottom up. Today SDIs are multilevel, cross-sectoral, and
interjurisdictional. Given that the SDI model is not bound by a hierarchical framework, in
concept or in practice, there are multiple promising entry points for strategic interventions that
could be targeted in order to fill gaps in institutional coordination, stakeholder participation,
vulnerability assessment, environmental monitoring, and actionable knowledge towards
adaptation to climate variability and climate change. Such strategic interventions should be
focused to: (1) support anticipatory measures to prevent human fatalities and injuries, minimize
property damage, and avoid livelihood and economic disruptions from rapid- and slow-onset
disasters; (2) strengthen the ability of urban populations and their allies to coordinate postdisaster rescue and relief efforts; (3) strengthen the ability of urban populations and their allies to
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
4
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
cope with the adverse impacts of climate-related hazards both in the short-term aftermath of
extreme weather events and during prolonged periods of crisis; (4) enhance resilience; (5) and
facilitate recovery and reconstruction over the longer term.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly traces the trajectory of SDI
development since the 1990s and identifies trends in contemporary SDIs that have particular
significance for climate adaptation and disaster risk management. Section 3 considers some of
the challenges associated with using geospatial data and tools in disaster management and how
Earth system observation and socio-technological systems are evolving to support disaster
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Section 4 reviews a selection of the literature
on governance theory and complex systems theory and highlights the emergence of Earth system
governance, a recent cross-cutting initiative in the global environmental change community.
Section 5 discusses the concept of climate resilient cities and describes a case in southern Brazil
to provide an example of institutional self-organization and SDI in support of local climate
adaptation and disaster risk reduction that could potentially be coordinated with global-level
SDIs in the coming years. Section 6 offers some concluding remarks.
2. Spatial Data Infrastructures: Past, Present, and Future
This section provides a brief summary of the conceptual and artifactual evolution of SDI then
discusses what current SDI trends might mean for efforts to move closer to coordinated,
multilevel climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Learning, whether individual or
collective, depends on multiple factors including experience, observation, interaction,
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
5
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
information exchange, analysis, communication, knowledge generation, knowledge integration,
decision-making, action, experimentation, and feedback. Therefore, to the extent that SDIs
facilitate these interconnected human elements, they provide tools and mechanisms for
enhancing human agency, fostering interactive learning, and improving decision-making at
multiple societal levels and in diverse sectors. SDIs that have already been, or that will be,
(re)designed to support research on human-environment interactions and to aid in humanenvironmental problem solving are well-positioned to accelerate individual and collective
learning to improve decision-making and to coordinate actions that reduce urban climate
vulnerability at the local level. The growing consensus is that participation in SDI development,
implementation, and use is required not only from the scientific, government, and business
communities, but also from civil society actors.
The first-generation SDIs of the 1990s were, for the most part, designed by geospatial
professionals who were charged with building specific databases and products in centralized
settings to serve predefined and restricted user communities such as national mapping agencies
and utility companies (de Man 2007b). Nowadays SDI development is no longer limited to
geospatial experts, and SDI user communities have expanded not only in terms of the number of
users, but also in terms of their increasingly active role as data providers and evaluators of
products and services (Crompvoets et al. 2004; Goodchild 2007). The second generation SDIs,
emerging in the early 2000s, operate in a decentralized framework and increasingly invite
nonprofessional stakeholders to contribute interactively to design and production processes by
accessing and providing input through Web-based interfaces.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
6
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
Over a very short time period, local governments, non-governmental organizations, civil society
organizations, and individual members of the general public have been empowered by everincreasing access to affordable computers, high-capacity Internet connections, mobile devices
such as cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs), digital cameras, video recorders,
Global Positioning System (GPS), satellite imagery (e.g., Landsat, QuickBird, IKONOS,
MODIS), distributed computing and geoportals (e.g., GEO Portal, http://www.geoportal.org/;
INSPIRE Geoportal, http://www.inspire-geoportal.eu/ ), and online service applications (e.g.,
Wikimapia, Google Maps, Google Earth, Geo-Wiki, and OpenStreetMap) inviting usergenerated content (Montoya 2003; Tait 2005; Maguire and Longley 2005; Laituri and Kodrich
2008; McCallum et al. 2010). Public participation in user-generated content has been referred to
as volunteered geographic information (VGI) and public participation geographic information
systems (PPGIS) (e.g., Hansen and Prosperi 2005; Goodchild 2007; Budhathoki et al. 2008;
Elwood 2008; Gouveia and Fonseca 2008; Tulloch 2008). These related phenomena have been
applied in land use planning activities as a means of promoting inclusive, democratic decisionmaking processes by efficiently exchanging information and knowledge, increasing levels of
public participation, and fostering citizens’ trust of government.
It is clear that SDI and related geospatial capabilities have fundamentally changed the human
activities and institutions that produce maps and other forms of spatial representation used to
support multilevel decision-making and planning. Both open-access and access restricted Webbased GIS systems have the potential to improve strategies for climate adaptation and disaster
risk management. Success, however, depends on overcoming a number of challenges regarding
data availability, access, reliability, timeliness, and accuracy. A pilot project to develop a
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
7
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
prototype Web-based system with GIS functionalities to facilitate disaster management in Iran
provides a case in which these difficulties became evident (Mansourian et al. 2006). Additional
technological advances and innovations may help to address these problems. Craglia et al. (2008)
note the growing potential for collecting high-resolution, real-time or near real-time geodata
using geosensor networks and wireless sensor networks (WSN), technologies that can serve the
environmental monitoring objectives of professional communities and civil society
organizations.3
3. Earth System Observation and the Interoperability of Socio-technological Systems
As the number and diversity of participants involved in SDI development continues to grow, it
becomes increasingly important to establish and maintain international and national
interdisciplinary institutions that are responsible for coordinating the interoperability of
multilevel geospatial information systems. In order to adequately meet the needs of government
officials, disaster risk managers, emergency responders, humanitarian aid workers, and public
health professionals working in the field, the members of these institutions must also keep in
mind the particular types of challenges that arise in stressful environmental conditions such as
extreme weather events, earthquakes, tsunamis, and disease outbreaks. Knowledge management,
the effective flow of information—including the speed of information flow and the volume,
robustness, accuracy, and organization of the information—and effective communication are
especially critical in the midst of a disaster (Zhang et al. 2002). As pointed out by Vogel et al.
(2007: 353) in their discussion of the difficulties in linking science to practice, communication
A WSN node can be defined as “any device receiving and measuring environmental stimuli that can be
geographically referenced” (Craglia et al. 2008: 151-152).
3
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
8
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
means much more than just the “conveyance of technical information”; it “touches on the
relationship between those engaged in the dialogue and their level of mutual understanding of
(institutional) cultures, (professional) codes of conduct, modes of operation, information needs,
decision contexts, including pressures, constraints, capacities, and so on.” This section begins
with a synopsis of the findings of a 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report on the current
use of geospatial data and tools in disaster management. Next, it briefly describes some
important international efforts that have emerged in recent years to support knowledge
management in multilevel disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
In 2007 the Committee on Planning for Catastrophe of the NRC released a report, intended
primarily for public officials, titled “Successful Response Starts with a Map: Improving
Geospatial Support for Disaster Management.” The Committee adopted the perspective that
technology is embedded in human systems, and admitted that “Geospatial data and tools are
currently used for emergency response, but recent events have demonstrated the many ways in
which our geospatial data and tools and the use we make of them fail us, both in preparing for
unpredictable events and in responding to them afterwards” (NRC 2007: xii). In great part, their
conclusions were drawn from the emergency management breakdowns and failures that occurred
before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The report offers several recommendations
to improve the use of geospatial data, information, products, and tools and to build capacity for
multilevel collaboration. The Committee emphasized that geospatial technologies and the use of
mechanisms for data acquisition (e.g., processes for the procurement of satellite imagery) must
be integral to the day-to-day operations of emergency managers and responders. By developing
expertise with geospatial data and geospatial information technologies and by gaining practice
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
9
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
with data acquisition protocols, managers and responders will be better prepared, when an
emergency occurs, to handle communication to and from the field about the location of the
different types and degrees of impacts, the range of needs in those locations, and the amount,
location, storage, and delivery status of assets. The Committee stressed the need for improving
education, training, and funding at state and local levels. Geospatial data accessibility, sharing,
security, backup, redundancy, and archiving were all identified as major issues. The impediments
to data sharing highlighted by the Committee included lack of interoperability at multiple levels,
lack of knowledge about existing data and its location, restrictions on use, lack of user training,
data security concerns, and lack of operational infrastructure in the immediate aftermath of
disaster.
Interlinked global-level geospatial data infrastructure programs have emerged in recent years,
and they are being designed to play key roles in improving disaster response capacity. One of
these programs—the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)—is coordinated by
the Group on Earth Observations (GEO; http://earthobservations.org; see also Craglia et al.
2008).4 As stated on the GEO website and in the GEOSS 10-Year Implementation Plan (20052015), the objective of GEOSS is to link instruments and systems to achieve coordinated,
comprehensive, and sustained Earth observations that can inform decisions and actions for the
benefit of humankind. GEOSS is designed to promote open exchange of data, metadata, and
products organized around nine “Societal Benefit Areas”: disasters, health, energy, climate,
agriculture, ecosystems, biodiversity, water, and weather. The four GEOSS “Transverse Areas”
are: capacity building, architecture and data, science and technology, and user interface. The
4
The establishment of GEO was an outcome of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg, South Africa.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
10
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
GEO is a voluntary partnership of national governments, the European Commission, and
intergovernmental, international, and regional Participating Organizations. As of September
2009, GEO Members included 80 countries, the European Commission, and 58 Participating
Organizations. Among these Participating Organizations are the Open Geospatial Consortium
(OGC; http://www.opengeospatial.org/) and the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(ISDR; http://www.unisdr.org/).
The ISDR system has adopted the Global Risk Identification Programme (GRIP;
http://www.gripweb.org/), a multi-stakeholder initiative launched in 2007 to support worldwide
activities to identify, assess, and monitor disaster risk. GRIP is hosted by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). In 2000 the United Nations Geographic Information
Working Group (UNGIWG; http://www.ungiwg.org/) was established to “improve the efficient
use of geographic information for better decision-making; promote standards and norms for
maps and other geospatial information; develop core maps to avoid duplication; build
mechanisms for sharing, maintaining and assuring the quality of geographic information; [and]
provide a forum for discussing common issues and emerging technological changes.” The
UNGIWG has been meeting annually and had its tenth meeting in October 2009. The UNGIWG
currently has 30 members including the UNDP, the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN/OCHA), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations
Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), the United Nations Institute for Training and
Research (UNITAR), the World Bank, and the World Meteorological Organization. The
UNGIWG has been developing the United Nations Spatial Data Infrastructure (UNSDI) as a
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
11
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
common framework for managing geospatial data and information, enabling interoperability, and
facilitating inter-agency coordination.
4. Earth System Governance and Complex Adaptive Systems
The integration of complex systems theory and governance theory is helping to guide Earth
system research and management approaches. Insights arising from the intersection of these two
bodies of theory are, first, that different governance systems coexist and interact within and
across societal levels in ways that may either weaken or strengthen adaptive capacity and,
second, that increased awareness and understanding of multilevel governance systems can
facilitate interorganizational coordination (e.g., Comfort et al. 2004; Duit and Galaz 2008).
Contemporary global society possesses a dynamic multilevel governance system. Assuming that
malleable, supranational governance structures exist, how might we define and measure global
adaptive capacity and identify ways to enhance it?
According to Biermann (2007: 328), the term governance “usually denotes new forms of
regulation that differ from traditional hierarchical state activity and implies some form of selfregulation by societal actors, private-public co-operation in the solving of societal problems, and
new forms of multilevel policy.” The literature on adaptive governance argues that social
networks—of individuals, organizations, agencies, and institutions—at multiple organizational
levels form polycentric institutional arrangements and that it is possible to reach a balance
between decentralized and centralized decision-making that serves to increase the diversity of
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
12
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
response options (e.g., Dietz et al. 2003; Folke et al. 2005; Olsson et al. 2006). Biermann (2007:
331) introduced the term global adaptive governance.
Human response to climate-related hazards and disasters includes the mobilization of existing
institutions, resources, and assets at multiple levels towards the goal of coordinating governance
and identifying viable response options. Disasters provide opportunities for learning (Comfort et
al. 1999) as planned and spontaneous mobilization processes inform a variety of social actors.
Disaster management experiences may reveal policy and programmatic gaps and lead to the
creation of innovative institutions and institutional arrangements to help address perceived gaps
such as the development of “hybrid modes of governance” and “emerging governance
partnerships involving market, state, and civil society actors” described by Lemos and Agrawal
(2006).
Earth system science (ESS) conceptualizes the Earth holistically as a single, self-organizing,
complex system with interacting physical, chemical, biological, and social components that
exhibit multiscale temporal and spatial variability and generate emergent properties (Pitman
2005; Leemans et al. 2009; Earth System Science Partnership5). As such, the Earth system is a
large-scale socio-ecological system made up of lower-level socio-ecological systems (Folke et al.
2005; Young et al. 2006). As an alternative to the concept of Earth system management,
Biermann (2007) has proposed the notion of Earth system governance to serve as a crosscutting
5
Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). http://www.essp.org. The ESSP was established in 2001 to help build an
international system of global environmental science. Its four international global environmental change research
programs are: DIVERSITAS: An International Programme of Biodiversity Science, International GeosphereBiosphere Programme (IGBP), World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and the International Human
Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP). For more information on the mission and
activities of the ESSP, see Leemans et al. (2009).
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
13
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
theme for social scientists engaged in global change research. He argues that for many social
scientists the term management is “often related to notions of hierarchical steering, planning and
controlling of social relations” (Biermann 2007: 327). Biermann situates the field of Earth
system governance at the interface of Earth system analysis and governance theory. He
elaborates by identifying five Earth system governance research challenges. These “five A’s” are
relevant to debates about the future of SDI systems and thus to the application of SDIs to achieve
local climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction: (1) the overall architecture of earth system
governance, (2) agency beyond the state, (3) the adaptiveness of governance mechanisms and (4)
their accountability and legitimacy, and (5) the modes of allocation in earth system governance,
meaning distributive concerns related to fairness and social equity.
5. Climate Resilient Cities and the Case of Santa Catarina, Brazil
SDI development in concert with development of Earth system governance has the potential to
assist urban populations in efforts to assess hazard vulnerabilities, prepare for and respond to
extreme weather events, avert disasters, and recover from the disasters that do occur. In recent
years, social scientists and others have advanced urgently needed dialogue on ‘good governance’
and climate adaptation by urban inhabitants of low- and middle-income nations (e.g., Moser and
Satterthwaite 2008; Satterthwaite et al. 2009). This dialogue deserves to be expanded, both in
depth and breadth, to provide citizens, leaders, civil defense agencies, and other partners with the
information systems and tools they need to generate knowledge and make strategic decisions: (1)
for specific territories at subnational scales (i.e., states, river basins, metropolitan regions,
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
14
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
municipalities, districts within municipalities, neighborhoods); (2) across sectors of human
activity; and (3) within and across jurisdictional levels.
Despite gaps in knowledge, uncertainties, and the element of surprise (cf. Mitchell 2008), the
idea that humans must develop the adaptive capacity to design resilient cities and communities
(i.e., climate and disaster resilience) is becoming widespread (e.g., Comfort 2006; Stehr 2006;
Prasad 2009; Shaw 2009). Cities and urban communities are being conceptualized as “complex
systems” (Comfort et al. 2001; Comfort et al. 2004; Comfort 2006), “decision-making units”
(Folke et al. 2005), and “exposure units” (Polsky et al. 2007) possessing adaptive capacity and
adaptive governance. The socio-technological capacity to monitor exposure units and to gather,
share, integrate, analyze, validate, and disseminate biophysical and socioeconomic information
during all phases of disaster management is improving through SDI development, but much
more can be accomplished. The strengthening of adaptive capacity to reduce urban vulnerability,
however, will also require the political will to address the harmful economic, financial, market,
legal, and policy failures that hinder provision of basic infrastructure and services such as
housing, communications, transportation, drainage, water, sanitation, energy, health, education,
and training.
Adger et al. (2005) assert that the resilience of a social-ecological system reflects the degree to
which it is capable of self-organization. Comfort et al. (1999) focus on the notion selforganization in disaster management at the household and community levels. Laituri and
Kodrich (2008: 3051) recognize the value of self-mobilization and local solutions based on bestfit technologies. The remainder of this section describes an interdisciplinary research group
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
15
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
based in southern Brazil to provide an example of self-organization for disaster risk management
that has potential for expanded coordination with institutions at the national and international
levels.
The annual number of registered hydro-meteorological disasters in Brazil has been increasing.
The Natural Disasters Research Group (Grupo de Estudos de Desastres Naturais or GEDN;
http://www.cfh.ufsc.br/~gedn/), based at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) in the
city of Florianópolis (Santa Catarina, Brazil), was established in 2003 to develop a community of
scientists specializing in natural hazards research. The GEDN is primarily involved in urban and
regional planning for climate risk reduction and management in the 293 municipalities of Santa
Catarina State. The GEDN team is working to better understand risk exposure and the physical
and socioeconomic vulnerabilities of populations in Santa Catarina. Part of this work has been to
conduct site visits following climate-induced disasters and interviewing victims. The primary
research objectives of the GEDN are: (1) to analyze the history and spatiotemporal distribution
of extreme weather events; (2) to generate maps communicating levels of environmental risk to
support local land-use zoning; and (3) to monitor and model atmospheric dynamics, flooding,
and landslides in hazard-prone areas and implement meteorological early warning systems for
disaster risk reduction. In coordination with the Santa Catarina Civil Defense agency
(http://www.defesacivil.sc.gov.br/) and the Centro Universitário de Estudos e Pesquisas sobre
Desastres (CEPED; http://www.ceped.ufsc.br/) which is another UFSC disasters research unit,
the GEDN has produced a Natural Disasters Atlas for Santa Catarina State (Atlas de Desastres
Naturais de Santa Catarina) (Herrmann 2005). Containing a wealth of municipal-level data and
displaying graphics produced with a sophisticated GIS, the Atlas organizes and communicates
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
16
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
information about the occurrence and impacts of hydro-meteorological disasters in Santa
Catarina from 1980 to 2003. In addition to its research and publication activities, the GEDN has
also provided training and capacity building courses and disaster prevention outreach materials
to local authorities, members of the Civil Defense agency, and community leaders.
In their evaluation of the quality of disaster databases, comparing the global and the regional
scale, members of the GEDN (Marcelino et al. 2006a) found that while in 2005 the Emergency
Events Database (EM-DAT) maintained by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of
Disaster (CRED) had on record only 89 events for all of Brazil over the period 1980–2003, the
state-level database of the Santa Catarina Civil Defense Department (Departamento Estadual de
Defesa Civil de Santa Catarina or DEDC-SC) contained 3,373 disasters in Santa Catarina alone
for the period 1980–2003 of which 2,881 events (85%) were associated with atmospheric
instabilities.6 The annual average number of disasters in Santa Catarina increased from 109.5
events during the decade 1984–1993 to 127.4 events during the decade 1994–2003 (Marcelino et
al. 2006a). According to Marcelino et al. (2006b), DEDC-SC is carrying out pioneering work in
Brazil by prioritizing detailed record keeping of disaster occurrences in Santa Catarina.
6. Concluding Remarks
This paper has begun to explore a number of governance and institutional mechanisms that either
link, or have the potential to link, global and national geospatial technologies, policies and
6
According to Marcelino et al. (2006a), EM-DAT registered a total of 261 disasters for all of Brazil over the period
1900–2003 with 95% of these having occurred after 1950. For the 261 events combined, there were 3,157 registered
fatalities, 966,654 people left unsheltered, and 41,919,471 people affected. Of these 261 events, 61.8% were floods
and 15% were landslides.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
17
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
standards, data sets, analytical methods, and tools to coevolving local disaster risk management
and climate adaptation research and action. More specifically, the paper has explored the
growing potential for SDI-assisted data sharing, knowledge exchange, communication, learning,
coordinated response, and planning across scales ranging from the Earth system level to the local
level. It has focused on applications that are especially relevant for the rapidly growing cities of
low- and middle-income nations where hazard vulnerabilities are substantial and the adverse
consequences of extreme weather events tend to be most severe. Social inequalities in these
cities often drive poorer populations to occupy risk-prone areas (e.g., low-lying lands and steep
slopes). Financial resources, risk management institutions, disaster preparedness systems, and
protective built structures are often inadequate and, in some cases, absent. Intelligent and
sustained investments in institutions, infrastructures, services, and people are needed to enable
anticipatory action and to build response capacity.
In sum, this literature review and review of recent SDI initiatives has identified the following
ongoing challenges for multilevel climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction:
(1) to improve coordination of geospatial practices among agencies, organizations, and other
social entities with overlapping missions and agendas;
(2) data gathering, sharing, organization, integration, analysis, validation, dissemination,
accessibility, security, and preservation;
(3) standardization of SDI elements, achievement of interoperability, and SDI integration;
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
18
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
(4) documentation and the maintenance of metadata (i.e., data about data);
(5) regular maintenance and dissemination of updated systems and products;
(6) optimization of social networking capabilities, VGI, and PPGIS to promote effective
stakeholder participation and networked governance;
(7) cultivation of SDI-enhanced social arenas that enable interdisciplinary engagement and
interactions between research and practitioner communities in order to better match scientific
research with decision needs;
(8) collection of more detailed, higher-resolution spatial and temporal data;
(9) strengthening scientific and social capacity in the regions and cities with the greatest needs;
and
(10) production of legitimate knowledge on climate vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience.
SDIs offer environments for multi-directional, democratic communication flows. Breakdowns in
communications impede the coordination and integration of science and practice (Vogel et al.
2007). Thus global- and national-level institutions play critical roles as facilitators and
coordinators of geospatial information systems and as clearinghouses for methodologies, data,
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
19
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
information, knowledge, innovations, and technology. Further, the international community can
mobilize resources and assets to provide stakeholders with training and financial support. The
lessons learned by individuals and groups in disaster-prone cities should be openly exchanged,
synthesized, and applied to help reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience in communities,
particularly in those communities where vulnerability assessment, risk management, and
response strategies have been absent or weak. Governance and decision support systems needed
at supra- and subnational levels require timely and accurate spatial information. As SDIs become
increasingly user friendly and more accessible to vulnerable populations, longstanding hopes for
effective public participation in information and knowledge systems become more realistic and
tangible.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a postgraduate fellowship of The Earth Institute at Columbia
University with partial support from the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC)
hosted by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). The views
and opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Earth
Institute or CIESIN. I thank Alex de Sherbinin and Susana B. Adamo for helpful input and for
encouraging me to write this paper. Any errors or omissions are my own.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
20
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
References
Adger, W.N., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, and J. Rockström. 2005. Social-ecological
resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737): 1036-1039.
Amin, S., M. Cox, and M. Goldstein. 2008. Using data against disasters: overview and synthesis
of lessons learned. In Data Against Natural Disasters: Establishing Effective Systems for Relief,
Recovery, and Reconstruction, eds. S. Amin and M. Goldstein, 1-22. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
Biermann, F. 2007. ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change
research. Global Environmental Change 17: 326-337.
Budhathoki, N.R., B. Bruce, and Z. Nedovic-Budic. 2008. Reconceptualizing the role of the user
of spatial data infrastructure. GeoJournal 72: 149-160.
Comfort, L.K. 2006. Cities at risk: Hurricane Katrina and the drowning of New Orleans. Urban
Affairs Review 41: 501-516.
Comfort, L.K., Y. Sungu, D. Johnson, and M. Dunn. 2001. Complex systems in crisis:
anticipation and resilience in dynamic environments. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management 9(3): 144-158.
Comfort, L., B. Wisner, S. Cutter, R. Pulwarty, K. Hewitt, A. Oliver-Smith, J. Wiener, M.
Fordham, W. Peacock, and F. Krimgold. 1999. Reframing disaster policy: the global evolution of
vulnerable communities. Environmental Hazards 1: 39-44.
Comfort, L.K., M. Dunn, D. Johnson, R. Skertich, and A. Zagorecki. 2004. Coordination in
complex systems: increasing efficiency in disaster mitigation and response. International
Journal of Emergency Management 2(1-2): 62-80.
Craglia, M., M.F. Goodchild, A. Annoni, G. Camara, M. Gould, W. Kuhn, D. Mark, I. Masser,
D. Maguire, S. Liang, and E. Parsons. 2008. Next-generation Digital Earth: a position paper from
the Vespucci Initiative for the Advancement of Geographic Information Science. International
Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 3: 146-167.
Crompvoets, J., A. Bregt, A. Rajabifard, and I. Williamson. 2004. Assessing the worldwide
developments of national spatial data clearinghouses. International Journal of Geographical
Information Science 18(7): 665-689.
de Man, W.H.E. 2007a. Are spatial data infrastructures special? In Research and theory in
advancing spatial data infrastructure concepts, ed. H.J. Onsrud, 33-54. Redlands, CA: ESRI
Press.
de Man, W.H.E. 2007b. Beyond Spatial Data Infrastructures there are no SDIs – so what.
International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 2: 1-23.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
21
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, P.C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science. 302(5652):
1907-1912.
Duit, A. and V. Galaz. 2008. Governance and complexity—emerging issues for governance
theory. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 21(3):
311-335.
Elwood, S. 2008. Volunteered geographic information: future research directions motivated by
critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal 72: 173-183.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological
systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441-473.
Goodchild, M.F. 2007. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal
69(4): 211-221.
Gouveia, C. and A. Fonseca. 2008. New approaches to environmental monitoring: the use of ICT
to explore volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal 72: 185-197.
Haddad, B.M. 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15: 165-176.
Hansen, H.S. and D.C. Prosperi. 2005. Citizen participation and Internet GIS—some recent
advances. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29: 617-629.
Herrmann, M.L. de P. (org.). 2005. Altas de Desastres Naturais do Estado de Santa Catarina.
Florianópolis: Imprensa Oficial do Estado de Santa Catarina (IOESC). [online]
http://www.cfh.ufsc.br/~gedn/atlas/Atlas_Ceped.pdf
Kooiman, J. and S. Jentoft. 2009. Meta-governance: values, norms and principles, and the
making of hard choices. Public Administration 87(4): 818-836.
Kok, B. and B. van Loenen. 2005. How to assess the success of National Spatial Data
Infrastructures? Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29: 699-717.
Laituri, M. and K. Kodrich. 2008. On line disaster response community: people as sensors of
high magnitude disasters using Internet GIS. Sensors i8: 3037-3055.
Leemans, R. G. Asrar, A. Busalacchi, J. Canadell, J. Ingram, A. Larigauderie, H. Mooney, C.
Nobre, A. Patwardhan, M. Rice, F. Schmidt, S. Seitzinger, H. Virji, C. Vörösmarty, and O.
Young. 2009. Developing a common strategy for integrative global environmental change
research and outreach: the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 1: 4-13.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
22
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
Lemos, M.C. and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources 31: 297-325.
Maguire, David J. and Paul A. Longley. 2005. The emergence of geoportals and their role in
spatial data infrastructures. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29: 3-14.
Mansourian, A., A. Rajabifard, M.J. Valadan Zoej, and I. Williamson. 2006. Using SDI and
web-based system to facilitate disaster management. Computers & Geosciences 32: 303-315.
Marcelino, E.V., L.H. Nunes, and M. Kobiyama. 2006a. Banco de dados de desastres naturais:
análise de dados globais e regionais (Natural disaster databases: global and regional analysis).
Caminhos de Geografia 6(19): 130-149.
Marcelino, E.V., L.H. Nunes, and M. Kobiyama. 2006b. Mapeamento de risco de desastres
naturais do Estado de Santa Catarina. Caminhos de Geografia 8(17): 72-84.
McCallum, I., S. Fritz, C. Schill, C. Perger, F. Achard, R. Grillmayer, B. Koch, F. Kraxner, M.
Obersteiner, and M. Quinten. 2010. Geo-Wiki.org: harnessing the power of volunteers, the
internet, and Google Earth to collect and validate global spatial information. Earth Observation
[online] http://www.earthzine.org/category/earth-observation/ (last accessed 6 February 2010).
Mitchell, J.K. 2008. Including the capacity for coping with surprises in post-disaster recovery
policies: reflections on the experience of Tangshan, China. Behemoth: A Journal on Civilisation
3: 21-38.
Montoya, L. 2003. Geo-data acquisition through mobile GIS and digital video: an urban disaster
management perspective. Environmental Modelling and Software 18(10): 869-876.
Moser, C. and D. Satterthwaite. 2008. Towards pro-poor adaptation to climate change in the
urban centres of low- and middle-income countries. Global Urban Research Centre Working
Paper #1. [online]
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/gurc/resources/workingpapers/wp1.htm
National Research Council. 2007. Successful response starts with a map: improving geospatial
support for disaster management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [online]
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11793
Olsson, P., L.H. Gunderson, S.R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C.S. Holling. 2006.
Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
Ecology and Society 11(1): 18. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/
Pitman, A.J. 2005. On the role of Geography in Earth System Science. Geoforum 36(2): 137148.
Polsky, C., R. Neff, and B. Yarnal. 2007. Building comparable global change vulnerability
assessments: the vulnerability scoping diagram. Global Environmental Change 17: 472-485.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
23
DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite.
Prasad, N., F. Ranghieri, F. Shah, Z. Trohanis, E. Kessler, and R. Sinha. 2009. Climate Resilient
Cities: A Primer on Reducing Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts and Strengthening
Disaster Risk Management in East Asian Cites. Washington, DC: The World Bank. [online]
http://www.worldbank.org/eap/climatecities
Satterthwaite, D., S. Huq, H. Reid, M. Pelling, and P.R. Lankao. 2009. Adapting to climate
change in urban areas: the possibilities and constraints in low- and middle-income nations. In
Adapting Cities to Climate Change: Understanding and Addressing the Development
Challenges, eds. J. Bicknell, D. Dodman, and D. Satterthwaite, 3-47. London: Earthscan.
Shaw, R. 2009. City Profile: Climate and Disaster Resilience. Kyoto University, CITYNET,
UNISDR-Hyogo, UNU, and RTF-URR. [online]
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/8168_cityprofilelowresolution.pdf
Stehr, S.D. 2006. The political economy of urban disaster assistance. Urban Affairs Review 41:
492-500.
Tait, M.G. 2005. Implementing geoportals: applications of distributed GIS. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 29(1): 33-47.
Tulloch, D.L. 2008. Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal 72:
161-171.
Vogel, C., S.C. Moser, R.E. Kasperson, G.D. Dabelko. 2007. Linking vulnerability, adaptation,
and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and partnerships. Global Environmental
Change 17: 349-364.
Young, O.R., F. Berkhout, G.C. Gallopin, M.A. Janssen, E. Ostrom, and S. van der Leeuw. 2006.
The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research. Global
Environmental Change 16: 304-316.
Zhang, D., L. Zhou, and J.F. Nunamaker Jr. 2002. A knowledge management framework for the
support of decision making in humanitarian assistance/disaster relief. Knowledge and
Information Systems 4: 370-385.
S.R. Baptista/February 8, 2010
24