RISK ANALYSIS AS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE OF FLOODS IN THE AMAZON: A CASE STUDY OF FLOOD IN 2000 THE LARANJAL DO JARI-AP, BRAZIL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16224Keywords:
Análise de risco, subsídio à decisão, mitigação, adaptação, criseAbstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16224
The objective of the investigation was to test a simplified conceptual model of contingency for risk analysis of flood disaster in the city of Laranjal do Jari - AP during the year 2000. The methodological basis was elaborated in terms of probability and level of impact of the event, considering the urban area affected, as well as economic and financial losses associated with it, including homeless and number of fatal victims. These variables were used in the composition of weights indicators ranging between 1 to 5 obtained from the contingency table. The sum of measured scores of each impact factor (multiplying the weight versus the evaluation score) served as a support for calculating the probability of recurrence of extreme event, principally considering the degree of exposure of the area in relation to the margins of the Jari river. Furthermore, the risk matrix generated charged columns and rows that scored highest levels of likelihood and severity of impact event. Whereas the levels of environmental criticality of extreme event. Then, it was quantified the level of vulnerability of the community and the fragility indicators of the affected community. We conclude that the indicators of the matrix can be used as subsidies to preventives measures adopted in future in the medium and short term, based on crisis monitoring and management.
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.
