| Literature DB >> 31207875 |
Francesco Cantini1, Giulio Castelli2, Cristiano Foderi3, Adalid Salazar Garcia4, Teresa López de Armentia5, Elena Bresci6, Fabio Salbitano7.
Abstract
The "Valles Cruceños" rural region plays a fundamental role for securing food and other resources for the neighboring, and fast sprawling, city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia). Due to the increasing pressure on its natural resources, the region is affected by progressive and severe environmental degradation, as many other rural regions in South and Central America. In this situation, sound policies and governance for sustainable land management are weak and not supported by data and scientific research outputs. With the present study, we aim at developing a novel and practical integrated hazard analysis methodology, supporting the evidence-based understanding of hazard patterns and informing risk assessment processes in the urban-rural continuum. Firstly, the main environmental hazards affecting the area were identified via questionnaire campaigns, held by the staff of local municipalities. Focusing on the hazards mostly perceived by the inhabitants of the region, including deforestation, water pollution and precipitation changes, hazard maps were created by using multiple environmental hazards indicators. An integrated hazard map was then built in a GIS environment, after a pair-wise comparison process. The maps represent a first baseline for the analysis of the present status of natural resources in "Valles Cruceños" area, and the proposed approach can be scaled up for integrated environmental hazards analysis in similar areas of Latin America.Entities:
Keywords: CHIRPS; GIS; agricultural intensification; deforestation; integrated hazard assessment; precipitation shift; remote sensing; sustainable land and water management; water pollution
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31207875 PMCID: PMC6616499 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16122107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study area and municipalities of “Valles Cruceños”, Santa Cruz department, Bolivia.
Figure 2Forest cover changes in the last two decades [31]. (a) Forest cover at the year 2000. (b) Forest loss between the years 2000–2017. Maps were created considering only pixels with a value of forest >50% as “forested”.
Description of data collected and processed for the study area.
| Name | Data Type | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forest cover 2000 | Raster (geotiff) | Forest cover map of the year 2000 | Hansen et al., 2013 [ |
| Deforestation (2000–2017) | Raster (geotiff) | Deforestation map of the period 2000–2017 | Hansen et al., 2013 [ |
| Deforestation (2000) | Raster (geotiff) | Deforestation map of the year 2000 | Hansen et al., 2013 [ |
| DEM | Raster (geotiff) | Digital Elevation Model of the “Valles cruceños” region | GEOBOLIVIA |
| Water bodies | Vector (shapefile) | Total hydrographic pattern | GEOBOLIVIA |
| Population centers | Vector (shapefile) | Map of the population centers points | Elaboration of ICO |
| Roads | Vector (shapefile) | Map of the roads of the study area | GEOBOLIVIA |
| Agricultural areas | Vector (shapefile) | Map of the agricultural areas of the study area | GEOBOLIVIA |
| Breeding areas | Vector (shapefile) | Map of the breeding areas of the study area | GEOBOLIVIA |
| Slope | Raster (geotiff) | Map of the slope | Elaboration from DEM |
Hazard values of slope factor (Fs), factor of proximity to water bodies (Fw), factor of proximity to roads (Fr), population centers (Fp), agricultural areas (Fa) and breeding areas (Fb) and factor of proximity to areas deforested in 2000 (Fd). The classification for Fr, Fo, Fa and Fb is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
| 0–20 | 4 | 0–100 | 1 |
| 20.1–40 | 3 | 100.1–300 | 4 |
| 40.1–50 | 2 | 300.1–600 | 3 |
| 50.1–60 | 1 | 600.1–1000 | 2 |
| 60.1–max | 0 | 1000.1–max | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0–500 | 4 | 0–500 | 4 |
| 500.1–2000 | 3 | 500.1–1000 | 3 |
| 2000.1–5000 | 2 | 1000.1–2000 | 2 |
| 5000.1–max | 1 | 2000.1–max | 1 |
Comparison matrix of the criteria for the determination of the deforestation hazards.
| Landscape Element | Agricultural Areas | Breeding Areas | Water Bodies | Roads | Population Centers | Slope | Deforestation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
|
| 0.33 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
|
| 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
|
| 3 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 3 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 1 |
Comparison matrix values.
| Much More Important | More Important | The Same | Less Important | Much Less Important |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 3 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/9 |
Normalized comparison matrix and calculation of weights for hazard indicator (Hd) map generation.
| Landscape Element | Agricultural Areas | Breeding Areas | Water Bodies | Roads | Population Centers | Slope | Deforestation | Weights (W) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.103 | 0.103 | 0.0447 | 0.11 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.111 |
|
|
| 0.103 | 0.103 | 0.0447 | 0.11 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.111 |
|
|
| 0.103 | 0.103 | 0.0447 | 0.04 | 0.1 | 0.04 | 0.037 |
|
|
| 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.0447 | 0.04 | 0.1 | 0.04 | 0.037 |
|
|
| 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.0149 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.037 |
|
|
| 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.4029 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.333 |
|
|
| 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.4029 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.333 |
|
Values of the water pollution hazard (Hw) for different percentage of agricultural and grazing areas (A), Hw varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher).
| Percentage of Agricultural and Grazing Area (A) | Water Pollution Hazard Indicator (Hw) |
|---|---|
| <8% | 1 |
| 8.1% ≤ A < 12% | 2 |
| 12.1% ≤ A < 16% | 3 |
| A ≥ 16.1 | 4 |
Agricultural areas in the different municipalities of the study area.
| Municipality | Municipal Area (ha) | Agricultural Area (ha) | Agriculture/Land Cover Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Samaipata | 192,503 | 10140.5 | 5.27 |
| Pampa Grande | 100,661 | 6432.9 | 6.39 |
| Mairana | 74,361 | 7035 | 9.46 |
| Quirusillas | 28,716 | 1509.9 | 5.26 |
| Comarapa | 331,741 | 11170.1 | 3.37 |
| Saipina | 44,995 | 2326.1 | 5.17 |
| Vallegrande | 321,629 | 14106 | 4.39 |
| Trigal | 40,046 | 3127.8 | 7.81 |
| Moro Moro | 68,030 | 3602.8 | 5.30 |
| Postrer Valle | 111,699 | 3267.3 | 2.93 |
| Pucará | 68,324 | 4626.5 | 6.77 |
Animal husbandry data in the different municipalities of the study area
| Municipality | Pasture Surface (ha) | Pasture Surface Percentage (%) | Cattle ( | Cattle/ha | Poultry Farms ( | Poultry Farms/ha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samaipata | 5394.8 | 2.80 | 14,894 | 0.077 | 842895 | 4.379 |
| Pampa Grande | 5031.3 | 5.00 | 16,642 | 0.165 | 167807 | 1.667 |
| Mairana | 3259.8 | 4.38 | 8639 | 0.116 | 1,003,203 | 13.491 |
| Quirusillas | 474.3 | 1.65 | 2908 | 0.101 | 4940 | 0.172 |
| Comarapa | 19,691.9 | 5.94 | 17,790 | 0.054 | 185,337 | 0.559 |
| Saipina | 387.8 | 0.86 | 4070 | 0.090 | 21,708 | 0.482 |
| Vallegrande | 17,513.1 | 5.45 | 38,002 | 0.118 | 94,887 | 0.295 |
| Trigal | 1426.3 | 3.56 | 6800 | 0.170 | 31,364 | 0.783 |
| Moro Moro | 7038.2 | 10.35 | 6072 | 0.089 | 6703 | 0.099 |
| Postrer Valle | 11,355.7 | 10.17 | 16,533 | 0.148 | 10,010 | 0.090 |
| Pucará | 8531.9 | 12.49 | 6755 | 0.099 | 7030 | 0.103 |
Locations of water points sampled.
|
| Type | Municipalities | Site | Elevation (m a.s.l.) | Longitude (°) | Latitude (°) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | River | Mairana | Mairana | 1272 | −63.9682 | −18.1268 |
| 2 | Well | Mairana | Bellavista | 1365 | −63.9657 | −18.1782 |
| 3 | Well | Mairana | Bellavista | 1378 | −63.9668 | −18.1846 |
| 4 | Well | Mairana | Bellavista | 1382 | −63.9676 | −18.1902 |
| 5 | Well | Samaipata | Monte Agudo | 1384 | −63.9487 | −18.2081 |
| 6 | River | Trigal | Trigal | 1562 | −64.1452 | −18.3057 |
| 7 | River | Pampa Grande | Los Negros | 1237 | −64.1078 | −18.0409 |
| 8 | Well | Pampa Grande | Basanca | 1302 | −64.1086 | −18.1247 |
| 9 | Well | Trigal | La Ramada | 1432 | −64.0579 | −18.2475 |
| 10 | Well | Pampa Grande | La Ramada | 1463 | −64.0530 | −18.2750 |
| 11 | Well | Trigal | La Raia | 1469 | −64.0550 | −18.2865 |
| 12 | River | Moro Moro | Alto Veradero | 2727 | −64.2668 | −18.3496 |
Figure 3Abstraction points for water samples, “Valles Cruceños” region, Bolivia, 2019.
Values of root mean squared error (RMSE) and RMSE-observations standard deviation ratio (RSR) utilized for the validation of the Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Stations (CHIRPS) dataset in the study area for the selected validation stations. The data from Vallegrande were used to generate the CHIRPS database value of rainfall.
| Station | Lat (°) | Long (°) | Beginning | End | RMSE (mm/month) | RSR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vallegrande | −18.2907 | −64.0631 | Jan-02 | Dec-13 | 27.3 | 0.5 |
| Yerba Buena | −17.5906 | −64.0155 | Jan-92 | Dec-01 | 48.8 | 0.81 |
| Comarapa | −17.5455 | −64.3145 | Jan-91 | Dec-02 | 33.7 | 0.64 |
| Mataral | −18.0755 | −64.1224 | Jan-87 | Dec-13 | 36.4 | 0.69 |
| San Juan del Potrero | −17.5823 | −64.1719 | Jan-88 | Dec-09 | 31.2 | 0.68 |
Precipitation shift hazard (Hp) values, Hp varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher).
| Angular Coefficient SPI Value | Hazard |
|---|---|
| <−0.04 | 4 |
| −0.0399 to −0.03 | 3 |
| −0.0299 to −0.02 | 2 |
| −0.0199 to −0.001 | 1 |
Comparison matrix of the criteria for the determination of the integrated hazard.
| Hd | Hp | Hw | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 3 | 3 |
|
| 0.333333 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 0.333333 | 1 | 1 |
Normalized comparison matrix of the criteria for the determination of the integrated hazard.
| Hd | Hp | Hw | Weights | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.086 | 0.257 | 0.257 | 0.6 |
|
| 0.029 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.2 |
|
| 0.029 | 0.086 | 0.086 | 0.2 |
Hazard classes of the deforestation hazard (Hd) map of deforested areas, Hd varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher).
| Classes | Hectares | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 148 | 0.6 |
| 2 | 5460 | 21.4 |
| 3 | 19,050 | 74.8 |
| 4 | 810 | 3.2 |
Figure 4Deforestation hazard map (Hd) of the “Valles Cruceños” region. Hd varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher). Bolivia, 2019.
Classification of water pollution hazard (Hw) value, Hw varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher).
| Municipality | Agricultural Areas (%) | Breeding Areas (%) | Sum of Agricultural and Breeding Areas (%) | Hw |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samaipata | 5.27 | 2.8 | 8.07 | 2 |
| Pampa Grande | 6.39 | 5 | 11.39 | 2 |
| Mairana | 9.46 | 4.38 | 13.84 | 3 |
| Quirusillas | 5.26 | 1.65 | 6.91 | 1 |
| Comarapa | 3.37 | 5.94 | 9.31 | 2 |
| Saipina | 5.17 | 0.86 | 6.03 | 1 |
| Vallegrande | 4.39 | 5.45 | 9.84 | 2 |
| Trigal | 7.81 | 3.56 | 11.37 | 2 |
| Moro Moro | 5.3 | 10.35 | 15.65 | 3 |
| Postrer Valle | 2.93 | 10.17 | 13.1 | 3 |
| Pucará | 6.77 | 12.49 | 19.26 | 4 |
Figure 5Water pollution hazard (Hw) map of the “Valles Cruceños” region, Hw varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher). Bolivia, 2019.
Results of the microbiological and chemical water analysis.
| GPS | pH | Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) | Turbidity (UNT) | Temperature (°C) | Nitrite (mg/L) | Nitrates (mg/L) | Total Coliforms (UFC/100 mL) | Fecal Coliforms (UFC/100 mL) | Ammoniacal Nitrogen NH4 (mg/L) | Glyphosate (µg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.77 | 249 | 37 | 21.4 | 0 | 0.006 | 80 | 22 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 2 | 7.32 | 534 | 22 | 21.1 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 8 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 3 | 7.31 | 574 | 11 | 20.8 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 45 | 9 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 4 | 6.94 | 408 | 18 | 21.4 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 40 | 7 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 5 | 7.32 | 7.36 | 12 | 20.5 | 0.008 | 0.01 | 38 | 7 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 6 | 7.44 | 841 | 55 | 21.2 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 20 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 7 | 7.1 | 786 | 52 | 12.5 | 0.0001 | 0.0002 | 68 | 19 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 8 | 7.75 | 1045 | 52 | 13.1 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 47 | 9 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 9 | 7.77 | 423 | 18 | 13.2 | 0.02 | 0 | 45 | 2 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 10 | 7.57 | 1332 | 11 | 13.5 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 2 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 11 | 7.38 | 1757 | 42 | 13.6 | 0.03 | 0.016 | 70 | 13 | <5.00 | <600 |
| 12 | 7.52 | 97 | 194 | 13.4 | 0.0018 | 0.008 | 65 | 16 | <5.00 | <600 |
|
| 6.5−9.0 | 1500 | 5 | 0.1 | 45 | 5000 (0 for potable water) | 1000 (0 for potable water) | >5.00 | >600 |
Figure 6Precipitation shift hazard map (Hp) of the “Valles Cruceños” region, Hp varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher). Bolivia, 2019.
Figure 7Integrated hazard (H) map of the “Valles cruceños” region, H varies from 1 (lower) to 4 (higher). Bolivia, 2019.
Disaggregation of rankings for the participatory environmental hazard evaluation proposed in Valles Cruceños region. Each impact feature (geographical extent, duration, probability, severity, reversibility) was assigned in a focus group discussion. Aggregated hazard values were calculated as the sum of each impact feature value.
| Hazard Evaluation | Value |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| REGIONAL: over-municipal dimension | 10 |
| LOCAL: Affects the concrete area and other adjacent areas. | 5 |
| PUNCTUAL: It affects the specific area of intervention but not the adjoining areas. | 2 |
|
|
|
| Length: greater than 10 | 10 |
| Medium: from 5 to 10 | 5 |
| Short: from 0 to 5 | 2 |
|
|
|
| High | 10 |
| Moderate | 5 |
| Unlikely | 2 |
|
|
|
| Very serious (illegal, damage to health of people and a very high percentage of flora or fauna) | 10 |
| Severe (no significant damage to people but in flora and fauna) | 7 |
| Medium (only causes moderate and specific damage to immediate neighbors) | 5 |
| Insignificant | 2 |
|
|
|
| Irreversible: the damage is irreversible | 10 |
| High: the damage is reversible in 25 years | 7 |
| Average: the damage is reversible in 10 years | 5 |
| Low: the damage is reversible as soon as the activity is suspended | 2 |
Indicators of impact and impact considered—average impact value in the four municipalities considered for the analysis.
| Average Aggregated Hazard Value | Action that Generate Impact | Environmental Impact | Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|
| 45 | Leakage of fuels in tanks | Fire, soil contamination | Hw |
| 42 | New roads or means of communication | Settlements and expansion of agricultural borders | Hw, Hd |
| 42 | Expansion of urban sprawl | Generation of waste, loss of productive areas, and expansion of agricultural frontiers. | Hw, Hd |
| 39 | Water treatment plants | Extensive occupation of land, contamination of surface water and groundwater. | Hw |
| 38 | Plastics use (agrochemical packaging) | Contamination of water sources, soil pollution | Hw |
| 37 | Deforestation of hillsides | Landslides and erosion | Hd |
| 35 | Use of Agrochemicals | Soil pollution and environment, atmospheric, water source contamination, diseases in people and fauna, reduction of bee colonies (pollinators) | Hw |
| 34 | Deforestation | Erosion. | Hw |
| 34 | Slash and burn | Erosion, loss of fertile layer, deforestation, loss of water recharge surface, loss of flora and fauna | Hd |
| 33 | Grazing | Soil compaction and degradation, loss of forage species, water contamination, infiltration reduction | Hd, Hw |
| 32 | Interventions in canals | Decrease or extinction of flora and fauna. | Hd, Hw |
| 32 | Hillside cultivation | Degradation of the soil, loss of fertile layer, accumulation of sediments in the middle and lower watershed | Hd |