Lab 7: Fire Hazard Map

Creating my fire hazard map of the Station Fire region was by no means an easy task. First, I had to track down all of the data. The primary components were vegetation data, which I found on the Cal Fire website, digital elevation data, which I found on the USGS seamless server, and the perimeter of the Station Fire. Once I had compiled all of these pieces of the puzzle, I placed each data set into the Arcmap document.

This is where the spatial analysis began. The first step was to create a hillshade of the original digital elevation model of the region. This hillshade would show in detail the physical geography of the region, including the peaks of the hills as well as the floor of the ocean. Next, I used spatial analysis to create a slope map of the region. This slope map would analyze which raster cells contained regions of extreme slopes, as well as those with minimal slopes. After analyzing this map, it became clear that the mountainous regions have high slopes, and the urban regions have minimal slopes. At long last, it was time to reclassify both the vegetation data as well as the slope data. Each of these data sets were reclassified based upon the NFPA standards provided in the tutorial.

After I had used the raster calculator to add together the reclassified slope data and the reclassified vegetation data, I produced a fire hazard map that showed which regions are most susceptible to a potential fire. As the final maps shows, the station fire region falls into the most dangerous category. Along the way, I encountered several challenges. For one, I was unsure how to reclass my vegetation data set. After collaboration, I discovered the most efficient way of completing this task. Also, many of my data sets were displayed in different projections, which often complicated my calculations and displays. Other than these minor complications, the entire spatial analysis project was relatively straight forward. I have definitely learned the real-world value of spatial analysis, and several of its most useful applications.

Lab 6: Suitability Analysis 1

Health and safety is a basic right that should be guaranteed to all individuals within the border of our state. No person should ever be physically or mentally endangered by poor and selfish policy decisions. However, ultimately, politicians and other local lawmakers must make controversial decisions, such as where to construct a toxic waste landfill. By no means is this a simple decision for anyone involved. Quite often, controversial infrastructure projects such as landfills fall victim to NIMBY opposition - Not In My Backyard. No resident desires to live within just miles of a potentially dangerous toxic waste dump. This is where GIS software can be used effectively. Suitability analysis can help lawmakers determine the best possible location to construct a toxic landfill, taking into consideration multiple variables at once.

This very problem is currently occurring in the small, Central Valley farm town of Kettleman City. Currently, Chemical Waste Management operates a toxic waste landfill 3.2 miles outside of the town center. Plans have been proposed to expand this toxic landfill, already the largest in the state. However, light has recently been shed upon several babies that have been born with birth defects. Residents claim that the town's close proximity to the toxic waste dump is to blame. In fact, just last year the dump disposed of 400,000 tons of waste, much of which was material known to cause cancer. As a result of complaints, expansion of the waste site have been halted pending the results of the investigation into birth defects.

It is in a situation such as this where suitability analysis can be used most effectively. Suitability analysis can help lawmakers and city planners determine the absolute best location to construct controversial infrastructure. Suitability analysis can be used to analyze elevation slopes, distance, soil drainage, flood zones, land coverage, and countless other factors. Several of these variables are displayed below in the final outcomes of the suitability analysis tutorial. Such a visualization can shed a new light on a controversial issue. GIS provides the opportunity to combine existing and unique data sets into comprehensible visualizations. Ultimately, it provides lawmakers a tool to analyze and critique growth coalitions.

In the Kettleman City example, suitability analysis could be used to analyze the long-lasting effects of a potential landfill expansion. However, suitability is best used when determining the ideal location of a brand new facility. In the Kettleman City example, the toxic waste landfill already exists, and is unlike to be moved from its present location. Optimally, suitability analysis would be used to determine a new location to move the existing facility to. In terms of the investigation into the birth defects, suitability analysis would be ineffective. While suitability analysis will not effectively analyze the birth defects of children, other features of GIS can plot and point out certain patterns in data.

However, suitability analysis and GIS in general can only attempt to sway public opinion one way or another. Ultimately, the location of controversial and unwanted infrastructure projects such as landfills are determined by the activism of the residents. Communities with higher affluence and higher education levels generally will be able to ward off unwanted facilities. These communities will happily promote and exemplify the NIMBY approach. Environmental justice must be solved at a higher level of public opinion than GIS can provide. Ultimately, however, landfills are a necessary public good, and thus cannot be ignored. Suitability analysis, exemplified below, can combine numerous physical geographic factors to decide an optimum location for a new landfill. Social factors must be solved separately.



***My stream buffers would not buffer correctly - at some point they combined into one buffer as opposed to multiple buffers.

Quiz 1: Medical Marijuana Dispenaries

The Medical Marijuana Debate: Should Dispensaries Operate within 1,000 feet of where children congregate?

After extensively reviewing the geographic data of the city of Los Angeles, I agree that under no circumstances should medical marijuana dispensaries be permitted to operate within 1,000 feet of where children congregate. The locations where children most frequently gather are school zones and recreation zones, such as parks. On the map below, I have used ArcGIS software to plot the city of Los Angeles. Within the confines of the city, I have clearly plotted every school and every designated recreation zone. Further, I have constructed a 1,000 foot buffer around each point of interest.



After examining the map, it becomes clear that there are hundreds of schools within the city of Los Angeles, not to mention the many recreation areas. These points of interest in the city should remain safe from the negative influences of illegal substances such as marijuana. Children, especially children at the impressionable high school age, should be protected from the temptation of such substances. It is the job of the Los Angeles City Council to ensure the safety and well-being of all Los Angeles city residents.

However, a 1,000 foot buffer zone will by no means eliminate the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Referring back to the map, it is clear that while the school and recreation zone buffers eliminate many locations, they do not eliminate all locations. The city of Los Angeles, the second largest city in the United States, spans almost 500 square miles. This statistic, along with the aforementioned map, showcase the variability of possible locations that are far removed from the buffer zones. Los Angeles is immune from the issues of smaller cities, such as San Francisco, in which schools and parks are packed tightly together. Buffer zones are far more controversial in cities characterized by this.

Citizens in need of medical marijuana should continue to be able to fill their prescriptions at local dispensaries. Medical marijuana dispensaries should continue to receive operating permits. The above map proves that such dispensaries can easily operate outside of the 1,000 foot buffer zones. While some establishments will inevitably be forced to shut down or relocate, it is in the greater interest of the city as a whole to approve the removal of dispensaries within 1,000 feet of areas where children frequently congregate.

Ultimately, the cost of this initiative will fall primarily on those dispensaries that are forced to shut down or move. While this will be unfortunate for the businessman/woman, they will be able to find an alternate location to operate within the city. The above map showcases the many alternate locations available. Other groups who might be negatively affected are those who need to fill prescriptions, and may be forced to find a new dispensary. In contrast, this initiative will benefit the entire city and its residents as a whole. The negative influence and temptation for children will be removed. Parents will be able to safely take their children to parks without the fear of observing potheads wandering the streets. In a city as expansive as Los Angeles, there is no reason for marijuana outlets to operate in locations where children are often present. This initiative will, in the end, make the streets safer for all city residents.

In closing, the above map shows that medical marijuana dispensaries can operate in regions that are 1,000 feet away from school and recreation zones. I do not advocate shutting down and removing all dispensaries, just those that are a threat to our younger children.

Lab 4: Digitizing