Mapping
Climate Resilience
Urban Planning
Mapping Coastal Vulnerability
Comparing competing definitions of vulnerability in coastal New Jersey through physical, social, and ecological lenses, and comparing the combination of these three with the government prioritization of resilience projects. Team members include: Jaron Kaplan & Sharon Mathews.
Context
🌊 Vulnerability maps often present a limited perspective on the challenges faced by a population or region, failing to comprehensively capture the multifaceted nature of climate issues
🌊 Government projects often prioritize the protection of high-value assets, raising the question of how resilience initiatives align with vulnerability maps
Challenge
🖥️ Complex methodologies like a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis must be employed to combine the physical, ecological, and social vulnerability maps
🖥️ Others like a Getis-Ord Gi* analysis and Tabulate Intersection must be similarly utilized to compare the combination map with the government-prioritized projects
Components
💾 Physical: Slope, Flood-prone areas, Storm surge (SLOSH), Drainage, Erosion, Geology
💾 Social: Population density, Housing density, Elderly, Youth, Minority Population, Poverty, English fluency, Educational levels, Disabilities, Mobile homes, Flood insurance
💾 Ecological: Marsh retreat zones, Urbanized land, Sea level rise depth
Considerations
📊 Which of the three vulnerability maps most closely aligns with the government-prioritized projects and combined vulnerability map?
📊 How does combined vulnerability (from these three lenses) compare to the government-prioritized projects?
outcome
🚨 Overall, 64% of government-prioritized projects fall within a high combined vulnerability zone
🚨 An astounding 88% of projects fall within a high physical vulnerability zone
🚨 At the same time, only 9.9% of projects fall within a high social vulnerability zone
Software used include: ArcGIS, Python Programming (Jupyter Notebook), InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop.