The views expressed in this paper/presentation are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented, nor does it make any representation concerning the same.

Draft 2, 18 November 2010

The Environments of the Poor: Mapping Spatial Dimensions to Improve Development Planning.
Background paper for the conference on “The Environments of the Poor in the Context of Climate Change and the Green Economy” By: Lothar LINDE and Armin BAUER 1


Introduction – The Environments of the Poor and GIS

Over the past decade, the Asia and Pacific region has shown a rapid decline in incomebased poverty as a result of pro-poor economic growth. In addition, social indicators of living standards improved substantially. The underlying economic development, however, has had significant impacts on natural resources and environmental services that fuel much of this growth. Increased resource demand and unsustainable exploitation practices results in a decline in natural resource quality and productivity across the region, and increased the risk of natural hazards and disasters. The corresponding vulnerability – and its impacts on social well-being – is disproportionately distributed among the region. Natural resource dependent livelihoods – which still make the majority of the population in the Asia and the Pacific region – are significantly more affected by this development. A major part of Asia’s core poor can be found living (a) in remote, difficult to access mountainous areas (the upland poor), (b) in harsh, drought-prone areas (the dryland poor), (c) among those affected by regular floods (the wetland poor), and (d) among fishing communities (the coastal poor). Furthermore, in urban slum areas, environmental poverty puts major stress on people's health through pollution, congestion and noise (the urban poor). Hence, environmental poverty (i.e. the spatial distribution of poverty tied to resource dependencies and risk exposures of the poor) is likely to become the main form of poverty in the near future. It is estimated that by 2020, more than two-thirds of the vulnerable and poor population in the region will suffer from environmental poverty—up from less than one-half today 2 . More investments are particularly required for rural dryland areas and urban slums. It is estimated that worldwide USD 60-90 billion are needed annually to address environmental poverty, and additional USD 80 billion to tackle climate change. About 60-80% of these costs would be needed for the Asia and Pacific region.                                                             
  Lothar Linde is a GIS expert for the ADB Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Core Environment Program (CEPBCI, RETA6289). Armin Bauer is senior economist in the Asian Development Bank.. 2 See: (1) ADB (2008): Environments of the poor. New Perspectives on Development Planning.;. (2) A. Bauer (June 2008): The Environments of the Poor - Summary of a forthcoming book on "Environmental Poverty”. onments%20of%20Poverty%202.pdf. (3) A. Bauer et al (forthcoming): The Environments of the Poor. Manuscript of a book for ADB. 

The Environments of the Poor is a geographic concept influenced by many spatial parameters such as terrain, climate, hydrology, and population distribution. Translating this into a Geographic Information System (GIS) adds geographic context and improves statistical data presentation, spatial data integration and analysis. GIS integration of such a complex concept is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach though. Each topic and stakeholder has different demands with regard to thematic content and detail, spatial accuracy, and level of comprehension of and interaction with GIS data and outputs. In the early planning stages (visions, strategies, regional plans and program) GIS outputs primarily need to serve a better regional understanding of broader geographic dimensions and associations. At this level, generalization (trends) and efficient distribution of the data among large stakeholder groups is more important than detail. Further on in the planning process (national plans and program), decision makers and planning experts need scalable GIS tools that can accommodate increased thematic and spatial detail to aid spatial prioritization (e.g. vulnerable areas). Finally, the evaluation of national interventions and local investments is the domain of dedicated thematic modeling tools that can answer very specific questions at maximum detail. Along this line of thinking, the paper introduces three examples that translate the Environment of the Poor concept into a Geographic Information System (Table 1).

Table 1: Stages of (Environments of the Poor) planning and corresponding GIS approaches and tools introduced. Need Regional understanding Data National statistics (averages) Regional and national spatial datasets of poverty drivers Detailed subnational spatial datasets Analysis Spreadsheet calculations GIS Output Thematic maps, Google Charts + Earth interactive visualization Delineation (map) of different environments of the poor, area and population statistics (Future) risk and vulnerability maps Feeds into Vision, Strategy

Sub-regional prioritization

Data overlay, Criteria based Raster / vector aggregation Scenario based predictive modeling

Plan, Program

National intervention and local investment

Project, Activity, Policy


Improving understanding – Interactive geovisualization of environmental poverty statistics

Geodatabrowsers – moving beyond maps

The establishment of the internet as a key medium for digital information exchange in the 1990s, and the subsequent development of browser technologies that can interactively display geographic data (aka geodatabrowsers), have led to a “democratization” of geographic information – making them broadly available to the public. Geodatabrowsers are usually provided free of charge (for the user) and can be divided into two main categories: a) Desktop Geodatabrowsers that are installed on a local computer. They access geographic data by streaming them directly from the internet or by downloading and storing them directly on the computer (offline use). Examples of such stand-alone browsers are Google Earth, NASA World Wind, Microsoft Virtual Earth, ESRI ArcReader, or the ERDAS ER Viewer. Web-based Application Programming Interfaces (API) and Browser Plug-Ins allow for the delivery of geographic contents directly through an internet browser such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox, practically “upgrading” it to become a geodatabrowser. They simplify the distribution of geographic data by giving the user direct access to the geographic contents without the need for installing and learning the use of a separate application on a local computer (serverside application). The integration into a standard internet browser however imposes some limits with regard to functionality, speed, and requires significantly more programming skills from the GIS developer (not only GIS and KML expertise but also HTML and dedicated API’s). Examples are the Google Maps API (incl. Google Earth Plugin), Microsoft Virtual Earth API, UMASS MapServer or ESRI ArcServer.


Each of these browsers serve as an interface to read and render file formats that actually contain the geographic content (data). While some of them directly build on Desktop GIS standards such as ESRI ArcGIS (Shapefiles, Grid), the geodata format most commonly used on the net today is the Google-introduced Keyhole Markup Language (KML), which has been specifically developed for the use with public geodatabrowsers rather than analytical Desktop GIS software. While most geodatabrowsers (and Desktop GIS software) can display KML data, Google has practically built its Google Earth browser around the language. That makes it easy for developers to prepare corresponding contents, and the intuitive user interface of Google Earth simplifies the browsing experience. Together with Google’s omnipresence in the internet, this has helped to quickly establish a large community of users as well as contributors – essential for the long term success of a particular technology. As a result, KML has quickly become the quasi-standard for sharing geodata through the internet. Developing and distributing such geodatabrowser applications has a few interesting advantages over “classic” thematic maps. Firstly, they provide the user with customization options that can improve understanding and recognition of geographic contents, compared to static maps where the GIS developer has to carefully scope out beforehand what particular area and level of detail the user requires. Second, both desktop and web-based geodatabrowsers can fetch the data from a remote server, allowing for simple and instant (server-side) updates that ensure every user gets the latest information. A static map on the contrary, particularly if included in printed reports, can’t be updated even if newer information has already become available, and often several versions might be circulating at the same time.

Geographic presentation of statistical contents Geodatabrowsers traditionally have their strength in distributing raw geographic data (e.g. satellite image mosaics, terrain maps) and basic administrative and infrastructural contents (e.g. borders, roads, major towns). More detailed thematic information – like different population and environmental poverty statistics – is better displayed through a combination of geographic location and charts. The corresponding symbology however requires more sophisticated customization options than most geodatabrowsers support, and hence has largely remained a domain of stand-alone maps created by desktop GIS. In order to combine the advantages of interactive geodatabrowsers and detailed thematic map symbology, The Environments of the Poor project has developed two interactive geodatabrowser applications (desktop and web-based) that combine interactive maps with chart symbologies. The applications were built from a combination of four (desktop) and five (web-based) components, respectively (Figure 1): • • Spreadsheet software: like Microsoft Excel is used to organize the Environment of the Poor statistical data. Geographic Information System (GIS): generates the geographic point coordinates for the thematic map (e.g. country polygon centroid or – alternatively – the national capital) Google Charts API: provides an interface to generate several different types of charts including customizable color, label and legend formatting. The corresponding data are the statistical data collected by the Environments of the Poor project. The chart symbol generated by the Charts API replaces the standard map symbol in the KML file. Keyhole Markup Language (KML): is used to map out the geographic locations and attach the chart symbol to it (see Google Charts API). Individual KML files (one for each thematic layer) were then embedded into a KML folder structure. This KML folder file is the primary input into the Google Earth browser. Google Maps API: is used to create a web-based interface to the Environment of the Poor data directly through the internet. The site also links to the KML folder file for download.

Figure 1: Development of a desktop and a web-based geodatabrowser for Environment of the Poor statistics, based on freely available Google applications.

Currently, both the Google Earth (Figure 2) and the Google Maps application (Figure 3, 4) hold the following 11 thematic layers (all currently displaying the information as pie charts) developed out of the statistical information of the Environments of the Poor research: Population 1. 2. Rural and Urban Population (2005, percent and million people) Rural and Urban Population (Projection for 2020, percent and million people)

Poverty (rural and urban) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Individual national poverty lines (2005, million people) USD 1.25 as per PovCalNet (2005, million people) USD 1.25 as per PovCalNet (Projection for 2020, million people) USD 2 as per PovCalNet (2005, million people) USD 2 as per PovCalNet (Projection for 2020, million people)

Poverty (in the Environments of the Poor): 8. 9. 10. 11. USD 1.25 (2005, in million people) USD 1.25 (Projection for 2020, in million people) USD 2 (2005, in million people) USD 2 (Projection for 2020, in million people)

Figure 2: Google Earth Desktop Geodatabrowser displaying Environment of the Poor statistical data as pie charts for each country. Clicking on a pie chart symbol triggers a callout box with an enlarged chart including labels and legend.

Figure 3: Web-based, interactive Google Maps Geodatabrowser displaying EOP data as pie charts using a combination of HTML, JavaScript, KML, Google Charts API, Google Maps API and the Google Earth Plugin.

Figure 4: Clicking on a pie chart returns an enlarged version with labels and legend (both Google Maps and Google Earth Plugin mode).


Adding knowledge – Geographic delineation and spatial disaggregation of poverty environments

Interactive geovisualization of statistical data from literature research and expert opinions is a critical first step towards a better understanding of spatial associations. It also provides easier access to the data itself through web-based distribution. Geovisualization, however, is only one step (normally the last) in a GIS workflow. Particularly for intrinsically geographic concepts such as the Environments of the Poor, a GIS can and should be used as an analytical tool to contribute to the generation of parts or all of the desired statistical data – functionality that only a Desktop GIS can provide. The following section explains such an application. Spatial Dimensions of the Environments of the Poor The translation of the Environments of the Poor into a GIS map starts with identifying the geographic references contained in the concept. Two distinct geographic references can be identified: 1) 40 countries in the Asia and Pacific Region, and 2) six distinct geographical areas in which poor people live, of which one is related to pro-poor growth potential areas where poverty is mainly caused through lack of pro-poor growth. Five other spatiual areas are related to environmental poverty categories that are each defined by one or more

geographically explicit poverty driver, namely dryland poverty, upland poverty, flood affected wetland poverty, coastal poverty, and slum poverty. The 40 countries are the simplest form of geographic reference, with a clearly defined geographic level of spatial disaggregation. This reference, together with statistical base information, was used as a base for the interactive geographic browsing tool introduced in the previous chapter. The five environmental poverty categories, in comparison, are defined by non-administrative geographic factors, introducing flexibility of scale and room for spatial disaggregation beyond the national level. The Environment of the Poor report defines them as follows as follows: • Dry-land poor are those living in arid and desert land [dryland] areas […] including desert areas in northern Asia, especially China, Pakistan, Central Asia, and northern India; degraded, salinized, and dry land (some caused by desertification); Upland poor are those living in upland areas [that are] mountainous, remote, forested [and] inhabited by small-scale farmers and mountain people; deforestation [and other land conversion / degradation processes contribute to poverty pressure]; Coastal poor are those living adjacent to coasts and dependent upon coastal and/or marine resources […] affected by degraded fish stocks (typically within five kilometers of the sea) and areas flooded due climate change (such as Bangladesh, and the Pacific Islands); areas frequently subject to floods and natural disasters 3 ; Flood-affected wetland poor are those in wetland areas who are […] experiencing frequent flooding (such as in the Mekong and Ganges delta, or around the Yellow river) 4 […]; and Slum poor are those living in substandard [urban] settlements with high exposure to urban pollutants.

Translation into a spatial application For each of these categories and underlying environmental parameters, a geographically explicit dataset (=GIS layer) has to be found. Furthermore, to be suitable for developing a consolidated EOP category layer from them, each individual layer has to fulfill basic compatibility criteria including a) coverage of the entire study area, b) consistent thematic accuracy across the study area, and c) comparable scale / spatial resolution. Also, each GIS layer should be available for free or at low cost, and be continuously updated by the data producer to ensure the approach can easily be replicated later. Following those compatibility guidelines – particular for such a large study area as Asia and the Pacific – naturally limits the options on GIS layers suitable for such an assessment. For a first approximation of the extent of the environment of the poor categories, five GIS layers were identified that are covering key geographic drivers at sufficient thematic and spatial accuracy (Table 2).

Coastal area floods referred to in the concept are assumed to be sea-born (e.g. sea level rise, marine storms and corresponding inland surges)  4 Wetland area floods referred to in the concept are assumed to be river-born (e.g. downstream riverine floods from upstream rainfalls) 

Table 2: GIS datasets available and used for the development of the draft EOP layer. EOP Dataset used Category FAO Global Dryland Map of Aridity Upland SRTM30 Digital Elevation Model Coastline, Distance from coastline Resolutio n 10 arc min Coverag e Global Data Producer / Provider UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Download at: USGS Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM). Download at: M30 Extracted from the geographic extent of: LandScan 2009™ High Resolution Global Population Data Set. Oak Ridge National Laboratory/UTBattelle, LLC Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Germany. Distributed by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) at: data/item1877.html Schneider, A., M. A. Friedl and D. Potere (2009) A new map of global urban extent from MODIS data. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 4, article 044003. Request download at: eider/research/data.html

30 arc sec



30 arc sec



Global Lakes and Wetland Database (GLWD)

30 arc sec



Global Map of Urban Extent from MODIS Data

15 arc sec


While each of these datasets have global coverage, there are still unavoidable small differences in the datasets that need to be dealt with before a seamless, aggregated layer of the Asian and Pacific region can be produced. This includes GIS processing steps to mosaicking tiles, fill data gaps, delete data overlaps, adjust the spatial resolution, and perform conversion and raster calculation steps detailed out for each individual layer in table 3. The processed layers ready for analysis are shown in appendix 1 (Figure 12-16). Also, each of the GIS layers is covering the full thematic value range, i.e. both what’s contributing to poverty as well as what’s not. For instance, the FAO Aridity Index has a scale from 0-10, of which only a fraction is actually arid and semiarid (0-0.5). The GLWD covers altogether 12 classes of which only 3 classes relate to flood land. And the digital elevation data range from 1-8685m 5 , of which only the higher elevation ranges are actually mountainous uplands.

5 The elevation dataset averages elevation values within a 1kmx1km area (pixel size), leading to lower values than the maximum elevation (8848m)  


Table 3: Raster processing steps to prepare the individual GIS layers for further analysis. EOP Category / Dataset used LandScan 2009 Country Raster Properties 40 EOP countries at 30 arc sec resolution (1km) provided with (and aligned to) LandScan 2009 population dataset. 10 arc minutes resolution, gaps / overlaps Processing steps • Preparation of a mask with common extent, resolution (pixel size) and projection


FAO Aridity Index (AI)


SRTM30 Digital Elevation Model Coastline Distance

30 arc seconds resolution, gaps / overlaps


Same as LandScan 2009



Global Lakes and Wetland Database MODIS 500m Global Urban Extent

30 arc seconds resolution, gaps / overlaps 15 arc seconds resolution, projection error

• Resampling (bilinear interpolation) to 30 arc seconds, • floating point to integer conversion, • clipping along mask, • Euclidean allocation to fill gaps • Correction of USGS DEM NoData values, • mosaicking of tiles, • clipping along mask, • Euclidean allocation to fill gaps • Raster to vector conversion of boundary, • Extraction of sea boundary, • Euclidean distance from sea boundary • Filling of NoData values within EOP area • Raster calculation (criteria extraction), • X-axis shift to correct offset (-6 pixels), • Region group, lookup count and elimination of small areas (<=6 pixels) • Filling of NoData values within EOP area

Therefore, the fraction of values which is poverty-relevant needs to be extracted from each GIS layer. These criteria need to be defined from literature research and / or expert consultations, and can be regionally different depending on societal conditions (cultural, ethnical, political, economic etc.). A significant amount of country level research and GIS data is needed to make that distinction, so for the purpose of estimating the extent of the Environments of the Poor in Asia and the Pacific, generalized – i.e. region-wide – criteria were used as described in table 4.

Table 4: Criteria used to extract poverty relevant values from the GIS layers. EOP Dataset used Category FAO Aridity Dryland Index (AI) Total value range of dataset AI < 0.05 = Hyperarid 0.05 < AI < 0.20 = Arid 0.20 < AI < 0.50 = Semi-Arid 0.50 < AI < 0.65 = Dry sub-humid 1 to 8848 meter elevation above sea level 0 to 29 decimal degree distance (equals ~3500km) from coastline 1 = Lake 2 = Reservoir 3 = River 4 = Freshwater Marsh, Floodplain 5 = Swamp Forest, Flooded Forest 6 = Coastal Wetland (incl. Mangrove, Estuary, Delta, Lagoon) 7 = Pan, Brackish/Saline Wetland 8 = Bog, Fen, Mire (Peatland) 9 = Intermittent Wetland/Lake 10 = 50-100% Wetland 11 = 25-50% Wetland 12 = Wetland Complex (0-25% Wetland) 13 = Urban Value range used to define EOP category AI <= 0.50

Upland Coastal Wetland

SRTM30 Digital Elevation Model Coastline Distance Global Lakes and Wetland Database

Elevation >= 600m above sea level Distance <= 0.415 (equals <= 50km) Classes 4, 5 and 6


Global Urban Extent from MODIS

Class 13

Working with zonal statistics After extracting the poverty-relevant fractions from the GIS layers, they were aggregated into one joint GIS layer using the following order: 1) Urban, 2) Wetland, 3) Coast, 4) Dryland, and 5) Upland 6 . The resulting “Environments of the Poor GIS layer” (Figure 5) can be used – besides for visual interpretation – to summarize the area covered by each environmental poverty category in Asia and the Pacific. By superimposing regional, country or even provincial boundaries, these numbers can be further spatially disaggregated, adding detail and depth to the EOP statistical data and opening up new opportunities for analysis that might not be available from national statistics and literature. An additional step towards standardizing the Environments of the Poor analysis through the use of GIS is the combination of the Environments of the Poor GIS layer with a population distribution raster. Corresponding GIS data are produced by the Center of International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University ( and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) of UT-Battelle ( Since the ORNL LandScan dataset has the highest resolution (1km) and is being updated and improved every two years, it was used for this study (Figure 6). The EOP GIS layer was superimposed over the population distribution raster and corresponding zonal statistics calculated. An example for a sub-national application is given in table 5.                                                             

Pro-Poor Growth Area was defined as all area that was left after the aggregation of the other five layers. 

Figure 5: Spatial approximation of poverty environments. Urban areas enlarged for better visibility.

Figure 6: High-resolution population distribution dataset of 2009.

Table 5: Example of GIS based zonal statistics from EOP GIS layer and population distribution raster: Population in socio-economic regions in Viet Nam, by EOC category. A GIS layer of the Environments of the Poor allows for disaggregation below the national level, facilitating the identification of target areas for interventions.
Viet Nam Population in EOP Category (ex Pro‐Poor Growth Area) Socio‐Economic Region Urban Wetland Coastal Upland Total Population North East                412,600                343,542           1,004,070            757,871              2,518,083 North West                235,009                279,972                472,538            932,557              1,920,076 Red River Delta           3,220,000           9,107,130                242,626                       84            12,569,840 North Central Coast                876,965                109,276           8,455,180                69,620              9,511,041 South Central Coast                840,873                 20,671           6,368,800                54,206              7,284,550 Central Highlands                249,534                 42,138                 29,181          2,184,840              2,505,693 South‐East South           5,446,890                 92,438           4,808,610                      901            10,348,839 Mekong River Delta           1,090,970          15,407,400           1,190,410                      ‐            17,688,780


Measure risk – Predicting changes in poverty environments

Mapping out national poverty statistics (chapter 3) and delineating and disaggregating poverty environments (chapter 4) establishes the geographic context and provides additional data on spatial aggregation and association to the Environments of the Poor analysis. This serves – and potentially improves – the development of state and trend indicators feeding into regional visions, strategies and plans. The GIS also simplifies data integration and facilitates methodological standardization. Naturally, data integration and standardization comes at the expense of some thematic and spatial detail. Such generalization is perfectly acceptable – and even required – in early strategic planning stages. Once planning moves on to developing local interventions and investments however, thematic and spatial accuracy becomes more important than regional standardization. Detailed assessments of driving forces and their interactions are what dedicated thematic modeling tools plug into. They contribute either into broader suitability or vulnerability assessments (like the Environments of the Poor), they contribute local, yet very detailed information on – for instance – floods and droughts (climate and hydrological models), soil and ecosystem degradation (universal soil loss equation, biodiversity pressure models, emission / pollution models), or projected land conversion (land demand models). Such dedicated models can provide in depth information on the present and projected future distribution of a specific environmental poverty driver. Modeling land conversion Among potential poverty drivers, land conversion is a key driver that many other poverty drivers (like soil erosion, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation) partially or fully derive from. An example for a GIS tool that predicts future land conversion is the CLUE model (Conversion of Land Use Change and its Effects modelling framework), developed by the Technical University Wageningen / NL ( Two versions of the model exist: the “original” CLUE framework which works for global level analysis and the CLUE-s

(…at small regional extend) framework, which is an adaptation fit for land use change analysis at a regional scale. Task of the model is to processes and analyse a range of spatial data and non-spatial parameters and criteria to provide a spatially explicit estimate of near-future land use changes. To do so, the CLUE-s framework works with four knowledge components (Figure 7): a) Land use requirements: projected land demand in the future, researched from past sector development trends and national targets, b) Land use type specific conversion settings: a matrix that identifies typical land conversion sequences, c) Spatial policies and restrictions: identifying areas that are restricted for future land conversion, such as protected areas, but also army land or land already allocated to private sector investments, and d) Location characteristics: a set of underlying “explanatory” layers which strong associations to individual land use types. While the first both are non-spatial “qualitative” components broadly defining the development trends in the target region, the latter are location specific components that provide the “quantitative” dimension of the model and the necessary spatial correlations. Based on these inputs, the land use change allocation procedure calculates a future land use map. Figure 7: Functional chart of the CLUE-s framework.

Quang Nam Province – coastal growth and upland poverty A good example to demonstrate the usefulness of a land demand model for province level impact / vulnerability assessments is the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Quang Nam 7 Land Use Plan 2011-2020 8 . Quang Nam Province was chosen over other provinces because of its challenges to harmonize between rapid economic growth and protecting underlying natural resources and dependent livelihoods. In the East of Quang Nam province, the coastal plains have been transformed into intensive farming systems and aquaculture. As coastal population increases, so does competition for additional land for subsistence farming and agro-businesses. Parallel, the neighboring city of Da Nang has emerged as Central Vietnam’s largest business hub, catalyzing particularly the development of manufacturing industry (e.g. furniture) and related transport networks. As a result of these coastal developments, Quang Nam’s environmentally and socially sensitive Annamite mountain range – which is already struggling with upland poverty – is facing an increasing demand for its land and natural resources. This includes timber harvesting for the furniture industry, hydropower development to satisfy the increasing energy demand, and agricultural land conversion as a result of land scarcity in the coastal plains. Much of these developments profoundly change the forest ecosystems that the upland poor depend on. Conversion of forests into agriculture in steep terrain might compromise agricultural productivity (soil degradation, erosion) and increase disaster risk (landslides from exposed slopes, flash floods). Mining activities, often illegal, contribute to water contamination affecting freshwater fish stocks. Immigration from the coastal plains seeking new land for sustenance farming and agro-businesses even exposes the upland poor to competition for their ancestral land. Without providing appropriate livelihood alternatives to mitigate these pressures, land conversion might aggravate upland poverty rather than reducing and eventually eradicating it. Therefore, being able to anticipate where total projected land demand is likely to trigger land conversion can help identifying which upland poor communities are potentially facing particularly high land conversion pressure in the future, based on which field surveys can scope out appropriate mitigation measures. CLUE-s in the SEA of the Quang Nam Land Use Plan 2011-2020 After introducing and raising awareness on the model with provincial authorities, GIS base data were collected and processed to populate the spatial components of the CLUE-s model. Present land cover / use was derived from AWIFS satellite imagery of 2007 (eight classes, Figure 8). A layer of spatial restrictions was generated from information on protected areas (special use forest) and biodiversity conservation corridors. The location characteristics were configured with eight layers (Figure 9): elevation, slope, aspect, costdistance to coast, cost-distance to road, cost-distance to rivers, population density, and costdistance to settlement.                                                              7

 Quang Nam Province, Viet Nam.    This  activity  is  supported  by  the  Asian  Development  Bank  Greater  Mekong  Subregion  (GMS)  Core  Environment Program (CEP‐BCI, ADB RETA6289) to provide the Vietnamese government with technical support  and  training  to  achieve  socially  inclusive  economic  growth  through  environmentally  sound  development  planning. 

Figure 8: Input land cover / use of 2007, derived from AWIFS satellite imagery.

Figure 9: Input land cover / use of 2007 and underlying layers used to establish correlations explaining the distribution of the individual land use types.

Individual consultations with the LUP writing team identified past development trends and present sector demands, based on which two broad land demand scenarios were formulated: A ‘business as usual’ baseline scenario, focusing on maximised agricultural

development and assuming that spatial restrictions – despite existing – are not enforced efficiently. As an alternative, an “environmentally and socially balanced” scenario puts emphasis on lowering agricultural land demand through productivity enhancement measures. It also internalizes demand in environmental and social services for economic tools such as ecotourism and PES/REDD (e.g. protected areas, biodiversity corridors). This information was used to configure and run the CLUE-s model. Projected land conversion (business as usual scenario) until 2020 (Figure 10) shows land conversion rates steeply increasing at the fringe between the coastal lowlands and the upland areas, and then again decreasing towards more remote mountain areas, particularly low along the Laotian border (Figure 11). This general pattern is locally overridden by the alignment of the mountain valleys, acting as entry points for land conversion. According to the first model outputs, 74.8% (or 92.500ha) of the total land converted until 2020 (business as usual) would fall into upland poverty communes with a poverty incidence of 60% or higher. More disaggregated figures (districts, communes, watersheds) can be calculated using GIS zonal statistics, opening up interesting new data and possibilities to social and environmental assessments. Figure 10: CLUE-s output: Projected land cover / use in 2020 (business as usual.

Figure 11: CLUE-s output: Areas projected to be converted until 2020, overlaid on upland poverty communes (>60% poverty incidence).

References ADB (2008): The Environments of the Poor – A Geographical Approach to Poverty Reduction in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank, Manila Google Maps JavaScript API V2: Google Maps JavaScript API V3: Google Chart Tools / Image Charts (aka Chart API): Keyhole Markup Language (KML) Documentation: Conversion of Land Use and its Effects (CLUE) Modelling Framework:

Appendix 1 Figure 12: FAO Global Map of Aridity, adjusted to the EOP target area.

Figure 13: SRTM 30 Digital Elevation Model, adjusted to the EOP target area.

Figure 14: Euclidean distance from the coast.

Figure 15: Global Lakes and Wetlands Database (GLWD), adjusted to the EOP target area.

Figure 16: Global Urban Extent.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.