ESTIMATIVE OF THE WATERPROOF AREAS FROM PORTO ALEGRE – RS NEIGHBORHOODS AS AN URBAN PLANNING STAGE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X11214Keywords:
Geoprocessing, Housing density, Hard classification.Abstract
The use of high spatial resolution satellite image for urban planning to determination of parameters related to land use as the fraction ofwaterproof areas correlating the housing density is currently a present and indispensable tool for decision makers. A short review of literaturediscusses the close relationship between population density and impermeability of the soil due to urban occupation. This close relationshiprefers to urban planning, regulatory elements of urban sprawl, as the intense waterproof surfaces directly affects the hydrological cycle byreducing the infiltration of rainwater and consequent increase in runoff, providing frequent flooding in the rainy season and floods. Thus,the quantification of waterproof areas, allows managers to actions related to public infrastructure such as transport, sanitation, health andeducation. Using high spatial resolution image (1m) of QuickBird II was obtained for 12 neighborhoods of the city of Porto Alegre-RS, thepercentage of waterproof areas and its relationship with housing density by census data. To verify the used hard classification, the study wassupported in obtaining the overall arrangement and the kappa factor, obtaining values of respectively 70 and 0.57% considered as satisfactoryfor the classification type used. From the information obtained it is clear that despite the population decline occurring in the central regionsand advance on the outskirts of the city, there was no impediment to the densification of the central nucleus with increased waterproof areas
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
