Social vulnerability map for the municipality of Natal (Northeast Brazil) at a census sector level

Authors

  • Isabelle Ribeiro Barbosa Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
  • Ruana Clara Bezerra Gonçalves Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
  • Reginaldo Lopes Santana Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.157749

Keywords:

social vulnerability, factor analysis, spatial analysis, inequalities

Abstract

Introduction: The concept of vulnerability describes the coexistence, cumulativeness or spatial superposition of poverty, social deprivation and exposure to situations of environmental risk, where there is exposure to risk, incapacity of reaction and difficulty in adapting in the face of risk materialisation.

Objective: Evaluate the spatial distribution of Social Vulnerability Risk at a census sector level for the municipality of Natal, Northeast Brazil.

Methods: Ecological study that utilised the 895 census sectors of the municipality of Natal. Principal component analysis was applied with eight variables related to human capital, urban infrastructure, income and work, obtained from the 2010 demographic census. The result was categorised from the Z score and the obtained classification was used to build the map. The programs SPSS 22.0 and QGIS 2.8 were employed.

Results: Bartlett’s test for sphericity obtained p<0.05, and KMO was 0.769. Communalities presented factor loadings over 0.60. Application of the analysis to the model enabled the extraction of three factors: Factor 1 (related to human capital), Factor 2 (Income and Work), and Factor 3 (Urban infrastructure), explaining jointly 71.56% of total variance. Factor 1 was the one that best described vulnerability in the municipality of Natal, showing areas of low vulnerability in the neighbourhoods of the South and East districts, and high vulnerability in the peripheral zones of West and North. For Factors 2 and 3, most sectors were classified within the range considered as intermediate vulnerability.

Conclusion: In the municipality of Natal, there are significant differences in the socioeconomic and demographic conditions of the population, with certain areas experiencing concentrated social and environmental risks.

Author Biographies

  • Isabelle Ribeiro Barbosa, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

    Doutora em Saúde Coletiva, Professora da Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde do Trairi (FACISA).

     

  • Ruana Clara Bezerra Gonçalves, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

    Graduanda do curso de Engenharia Ambiental

  • Reginaldo Lopes Santana, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

    Graduando do curso de Geografia

References

1. Ayres JRCM, França Júnior I, Calazans GJ, Saletti Filho HC. O conceito de vulnerabilidade e as práticas de saúde: novas perspectivas e desafios. In: Czeresnia D, Freitas CM . Promoção da saúde: conceitos, reflexões, tendências. Rio de Janeiro: FIOCRUZ, 2003; p. 117-39.

2. Alves HPF. Análise da vulnerabilidade socioambiental em Cubatão-SP por meio da integração de dados sociodemográficos e ambientais em escala intraurbana. Rev Bras Estud Popul. 2013;30(2):349-66. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-30982013000200002

3. Alves HPF. Vulnerabilidade socioambiental na metrópole paulistana: uma análise sociodemográfica das situações de sobreposição espacial de problemas e riscos sociais e ambientais. Rev Bras Estud Popul. 2006;23(1):43-59. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-30982006000100004

4. Sánchez AIM, Bertolozzi MR. Pode o conceito de vulnerabilidade apoiar a construção do conhecimento em Saúde Coletiva?. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva, 2007;12(2):319-24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232007000200007

5. Bertolozzi MR, Nichiata LYI, Takahashi RF, Ciosak SI, Hino P, Val LF, et al. Os conceitos de vulnerabilidade e adesão na Saúde Coletiva. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2009;43(spe 2):1326-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342009000600031

6. Monteiro SRDRP. O marco conceitual da vulnerabilidade social. Soc Debate, 2011;17(2):29-40.

7. Cunha JMP, Jakob AA, Hogan DJ, Carmo RL. A vulnerabilidade social no contexto metropolitano: o caso de Campinas. In: Cunha JMP. Novas metrópoles paulistas: população, vulnerabilidade e segregação. Campinas: Unicamp, 2006; p.143-68.

8. Cunha JMP. Um sentido para a vulnerabilidade sociodemográfica nas metrópoles paulistas. Rev Bras Estud Popul. 2004;21(2):343-7.

9. Araújo MCC, Cândido GA. Índices de qualidade de vida urbana de Natal-RN. Geoconexões. 2015;1(1):51-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15628/geoconexoes.2015.2836

10. Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS). Atenção primária em saúde: Agora mais do que nunca. Genebra: WHO, 2008.

11. Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. Policies and Strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm: Institute for Future Studies; 1991.

12. Schumann LRMA, Moura LBA. Índices sintéticos de vulnerabilidade: uma revisão integrativa de literatura. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2015;20(7):2105-20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232015207.10742014

13. Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas Aplicada (IPEA). Atlas da vulnerabilidade social nos municípios brasileiros. Brasília: IPEA, 2015.

14. Huang G, London JK. Cumulative Environmental Vulnerability and Environmental Justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2012; 9(5):1593-1608. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9051593

15. Assembléia Legislativa. Índice Paulista de Vulnerabilidade Social. São Paulo: Fundação SEADE; 2013.

16. Governo do Estado do Amazonas. Secretaria de Estado de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento Econômico Sustentável e Inclusão Social (DESIS). [cited 2016 Dec 28] Available from: http://desis.ufsc.br/files/2016/12/ Caderno-05.pdf

17. Costa MA, Marguti BO, Pirani NC. O Território em índices: a experiência do Ipea na construção do Índice de Vulnerabilidade Social (IVS) e a possibilidade de novos olhares sobre diferentes escalas do território. Bol Reg Urbano Ambiental. 2016;(13):11-19.

18. Guimarães JRS, Jannuzzi PM. Indicadores sintéticos no processo de formulação e avaliação de políticas públicas: limites e legitimidades. [cited 2018 Sep 25] Available from: http://www.ernestoamaral.com/docs/
IndSoc/biblio/Guimaraes2004.pdf

19. Deschamps MV. Vulnerabilidade socioambiental na região metropolitana de Curitiba. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade Federal do Parana. Curitiba: 2004.

20. Deschamps MV, Delgado PR, Sugamosto M, Cintra APU, Ignácio SA, Rodrigues JM, et al. Vulnerabilidade socioambiental nas regiões metropolitanas brasileiras. [cited 2018 Sep 25] Available from: http://www.observatoriodasmetropoles.ufrj.br/relatorio004_2009.pdf

21. Medeiros MD, Almeida LQ. Vulnerabilidade socioambiental no município de Natal, RN, BR. Rev Eletrôn PRODEMA. 2015;9(2):65-79.

22. Silva AF. Migração e crescimento urbano. Uma reflexão sobre a cidade de Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil. [cited 2018 Sep 25] Available from: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn-94-74.htm

23. Costa MCL, Dantas EWC. Vulnerabilidade socioambiental na região metropolitana de Fortaleza. Fortaleza: UFC, 2009.

24. Cartier R, Barcellos C, Hübner C, Porto MF. Vulnerabilidade social e risco ambiental: uma abordagem metodológica para avaliação de injustiça ambiental. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009;25(12): 2695-2704. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2009001200016

25. Carvalho IMM, Barreto VS. Segregação residencial, condição social e raça em Salvador. Cad Metrópole. 2007;(18):251-73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/8737

26. Winzer L. The relationship between the Municipal Human Development Index and rates of violent death in Brazilian Federal Units. J Hum Growth Dev. 2016;26(2):211-17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.119275

Downloads

Published

2019-05-06

Issue

Vol. 29 No. 1 (2019)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis