Lunenburg Part 2 - Section 5 - Social Vulnerability - August 30.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Rural roads throughout the District lead through spectacular scenery. Many are located directly on the coast, very close to sea level; they are, in fact, the shoreline. In some locations, long roads lead to only one or two isolated residences. Some of these less-populated roads are cracked, uneven and potholed. In many locations both along the coast, such as the Stonehurst/Blue Rocks area, along the LaHave River, and Green Bay, rock armouring has been placed to protect roads and residences. In some areas, storm damage to this armouring is clearly visible. The road and powerlines on the narrow Crescent Beach leading to the LaHave Islands are close to sea level and appear precarious and highly exposed. Wooden cribbing and rose bushes are in place to help stabilize the fragile sand dunes. Summary of Field Observations Field observations performed in the District of Lunenburg do not provide conclusive knowledge of social vulnerability. They suggest, however, the potential for loss of access or loss of electrical power to island and peninsular communities, or that new residents may have limited awareness of the hazards of locating directly on the coast, and are concerns relevant to climate change impacts in the study area. Field observations also suggest that households and individuals with lower socioeconomic status are dispersed throughout the area, rather than being concentrated in particular communities or areas. Index of Social Vulnerability The following section discusses the results of the index of social vulnerability. The level of social vulnerability in each dissemination area is calculated by measuring the prevalence of each factor of social vulnerability as a percentage of the total population, and expressing that percentage by the number of standard deviations that it falls above or below the mean for Nova Scotia. Because all statistics used in the study measure proportion of the population that experiences a characteristic that increases social vulnerability, higher scores always indicate greater social vulnerability. The results are expressed visually by grouping them into seven equal categories (Table 1), which are each assigned a colour in a range from red (high vulnerability) to green (low vulnerability). Level of Social Vulnerability Standard Deviations from Corresponding Colour the Mean Very High +1.25 or more Red High +0.75 to +1.249 Dark Orange Above Average +0.25 to +0.749 Light Orange Average -0.25 to +0.249 Yellow Below Average -0.25 to -0.749 Light Green Low -0.749 to -1.249 Medium Green Very Low -1.25 or more Dark Green Table 1: Index of Social Vulnerability Classifications 26
Average results for Nova Scotia are used as the baseline to provide a justifiable basis for describing vulnerability as low or high – such classifications require a point of comparison. However, in order to fully understand the significance of the results, it is important to keep in mind what these average results for Nova Scotia are. The average results amongst all dissemination areas in Nova Scotia, for each indicator, are as follows (Table 2): Indicator Average Standard Deviation Low Income 9.05% 9.26% Government Transfer Payments 16.24% 8.85% Unemployment 9.88% 7.13% Children 22.63% 6.18% Seniors 15.65% 8.28% Seniors Alone 4.28% 3.69% Lone Parent Families 17.32% 11.21% No Secondary Education 27.43% 11.80% Language (Neither English nor French) 0.14% 0.86% Recent Immigrants 0.67% 2.06% Visible Minorities 3.72% 7.04% Aboriginal Identity 2.96% 10.80% Table 2: Average Prevalence of Indicators of Social Vulnerability in Nova Scotia The results of the index of social vulnerability are explored in the following sections. First, the Profile by Indicator section presents the geographic distribution of social vulnerability using choropleth mapping. Then, a profile of social vulnerability for each dissemination area is presented using vector diagrams in the Profile by Dissemination Area section. Profile by Indicator This section describes the distribution of social vulnerability by indicator amongst dissemination areas in the District of Lunenburg. Table 3 shows all indices of social vulnerability data for the District of Lunenburg. 27
Page 1 and 2: Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutio
Page 3 and 4: And, thank you to the many resident
Page 5 and 6: The District’s extensive and irre
Page 7 and 8: OAKLAND 61 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FE
Page 9 and 10: Introduction Social vulnerability r
Page 11 and 12: and over time. This creates a justi
Page 13 and 14: also emphasize the need for detaile
Page 15 and 16: Data Interpretation: Analysis For e
Page 17 and 18: maps of equal or superior quality t
Page 19 and 20: person’s employment improves and
Page 21 and 22: as providing valid information. She
Page 23 and 24: communication and collective action
Page 25 and 26: alone are particularly vulnerable i
Page 27 and 28: marginalization, limiting their acc
Page 29 and 30: disability in the event of a natura
Page 31 and 32: The prevalence of low income is a p
Page 33: Field Observations Travelling throu
Page 37 and 38: Next, the results from Table 3 are
Page 39 and 40: Figure 4. Social Vulnerability in t
Page 41 and 42: Seniors are more likely than other
Page 43 and 44: Figure 5. Storm Surge Scenarios in
Page 45 and 46: The Petite Riviere Bridge Several b
Page 47 and 48: This may reflect the Very High prop
Page 49 and 50: Table 7. Areas Requiring Attention
Page 51 and 52: Table 9. Areas Requiring Attention
Page 53 and 54: The area’s relatively high popula
Page 55 and 56: A High proportion of residents are
Page 57 and 58: An Average level of residents are s
Page 59 and 60: pharmacies, for medical services. I
Page 61 and 62: Figure 7: Storm Surge Scenarios wit
Page 63 and 64: The Plan also addresses the need fo
Page 65 and 66: A related ICSP strategic goal is to
Page 67 and 68: While the Economic Development Stra
Page 69 and 70: Oakland The Oakland Secondary Plann
Page 71 and 72: to maintain existing conditions and
Page 73 and 74: patterns and potential dangers (“
Page 75 and 76: new residents, seasonal residents,
Page 77 and 78: vulnerabilities for individuals wit
Page 79 and 80: Two coastal dissemination areas hav
Page 81 and 82: about this program and use their kn
Page 83 and 84: Groome, P. (2010). Census Changes H
Page 85 and 86:
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography
Page 87 and 88:
and analyzed using a Decision Tree
Page 89 and 90:
Dolan, A.H., and I.J. Walker. “Un
Page 91 and 92:
in health care or mitigating socioe
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix B: Table of Indicators and
Page 95 and 96:
No Secondary Education Adger et al.
Page 97 and 98:
Appendix C: Maps of Profile by Indi
Page 99 and 100:
Government Transfer Payments This s
Page 101 and 102:
Children The District has a Below A
Page 103 and 104:
Seniors Living Alone The District h
Page 105 and 106:
No Secondary Education Social vulne
Page 107 and 108:
dissemination areas where no reside
Page 109 and 110:
Visible Minorities The District of
Page 111 and 112:
Appendix D: Radar Diagrams for each
Page 113 and 114:
105
Page 115 and 116:
DA 82 DA 83 Aboriginal Identity Vis
Page 117 and 118:
DA 123 DA 124 Aboriginal Identity V
Page 119 and 120:
DA 160 DA 161 Aboriginal Identity V
Page 121 and 122:
Mahone Bay Food Bank Hospital, Long
Page 123:
South Shore Big Brothers Big Sister
show all

Lunenburg Part 2 - Section 5 - Social Vulnerability - August 30.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?