WOW !! MUCH LOVE ! SO WORLD PEACE !
Fond bitcoin pour l'amélioration du site: 1memzGeKS7CB3ECNkzSn2qHwxU6NZoJ8o
  Dogecoin (tips/pourboires): DCLoo9Dd4qECqpMLurdgGnaoqbftj16Nvp


Home | Publier un mémoire | Une page au hasard

 > 

Flood vulnerability assessment of donstream area in Mono basin in Yoto district, south-eastern Togo


par Abravi Essenam KISSI
University of Lome - Master 2014
  

précédent sommaire suivant

3.2. Methods

This chapter describes the methods that are used in executing this study. Construction of vulnerability index consists of several steps. First is the selection of study area which consists of several villages. In each village a set of indicators are selected for each of the three components of vulnerability.

3.2.1. Study Population and sampling

This study is carried out in eight villages (Mawussou, Drekpon, Batoe, Atikpatafo, Tofakope, Tchakponou-kondji, Logokpo and Kpodji) from three counties (Sedome, Esse-godjin, Tokpli) in the Yoto district, popularly known to be associated with flood. The choice of the counties and the villages is based on information obtained from literature and further confirmed from Togolese Red Cross institution which is highly involved in Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Yoto district.

Data were collected through personal interviews from two hundred and twenty one (221) households randomly sampled from the selected villages.

3.2.2. Selected Vulnerability Conceptual Frameworks

The current study relies on Turner et al's vulnerability framework . It focuses only on the vulnerability part of the framework in red "figure 5"

Figure 4: Turner et al's Vulnerability Framework; Source: Turner et al., 2003, p 8076

The Turner et al's vulnerability framework is selected for the present study for many reasons. It illustrates the interactions involved in vulnerability analysis, drawing attention to the array of factors and linkages that potentially affect the vulnerability of the coupled human-environment system in a place. It facilitates the identification of critical interactions in the human-environment system that suggest response opportunities for decision makers. It is opened to the use of both quantitative and qualitative data. It also illuminates the nested scales of the vulnerability problem but provides an understanding of the vulnerability of a particular place. This study focused on the local level `village' as a unit of analysis. The main factors of the framework that were tackled in the present study are presented in "figure 6".

Figure 5: Vulnerability components extracted from Turner et al., 2003 framework

3.2.3. Flood Vulnerability Indicator Development

In this study, only the deductive approaches were used to select indicators to serve as proxies of human-environment vulnerability to flood disasters. The field survey and interviews that were carried out in the scope of this research showed whether the selected indicators are most relevant for flood vulnerability analysis in the study area taking into account the local knowledge and perception of the affected people. Those indicators which fitted the local conditions best were combined into the composite vulnerability index "Table 2".

Table 2: Selected indicators for flood vulnerability

No

Defined Indicators

Factors

Abbr

Functional relationship

1

Population in flooded area

Exposure

E1

(+)

2

Women (%)

Exposure

E2

(+)

3

Children (%)

Exposure

E3

(+)

4

Elderly (%)

Exposure

E4

(+)

5

Return period ( year)

Exposure

E5

(+)

6

Flood duration (days)

Exposure

E6

(+)

7

Flood depth (m)

Exposure

E7

(+)

8

Flood magnitude (m3/s)

Exposure

E8

(+)

9

Village proximity (m)

Exposure

E8

(+)

10

Farmland in flood area (ha)

Exposure

E10

(+)

12

Education : no schooling (%)

Susceptibility

S1

(+)

13

Household size (more than 10)%

Susceptibility

S2

(+)

14

Female headed (%)

Susceptibility

S3

(+)

15

Farmers (Solely) (%)

Susceptibility

S4

(+)

16

Poor building material (%)

Susceptibility

S5

(+)

17

Household with affected land (%)

Susceptibility

S6

(+)

18

Community Awareness (%)

Susceptibility

S7

(+)

19

Household Coping mechanisms (%)

Susceptibility

S8

(+)

20

Emergency service (%)

Susceptibility

S9

(+)

21

Household Past experience (%)

Susceptibility

S10

(-)

22

Household Preparedness (%)

Susceptibility

S11

(-)

23

Warning system (%)

Resilience

R1

(-)

24

Household perception on flood risk(%)

Resilience

R2

(-)

25

Household Evacuation capability (%)

Resilience

R3

(-)

26

Household flood Training (%)

Resilience

R4

(-)

27

Recovery capacity (%)

Resilience

R5

(-)

28

Recovery Time (%)

Resilience

R6

(-)

29

Long term resident 10 years + (%)

Resilience

R7

(-)

30

Environmental recovery (%)

Resilience

R8

(-)

précédent sommaire suivant