Looking Beyond CRZ. by- Arun B. Inamdar

616 views

Published on

Significance of Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote sensing in management of coastal issues. Remote sensing monitoring can serve the dual purpose of water quality monitoring and nature policing.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
616
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Looking Beyond CRZ. by- Arun B. Inamdar

  1. 1. Looking Beyond CRZ Arun B.Inamdar CSRE, IIT Bombay
  2. 2. Introduction Coastal issues through: CRZ (1991) LU/LC Mapping, Shoreline Change Studies, Wetland Mapping, HTL Demarcation, Mangrove Mapping/ Monitoring, Coastal Geomorphology Mapping, Coastal Vulnerability Assessment, Natural Hazard Studies, Marine Water quality Studies & GIS based CMIS Development. - In view of the inclusion of 12 NM coastal sea area as CRZ- IV as per ‘CRZ (2011) our marine water quality monitoring studies present interesting insights of the status of coastal waters around Mumbai. - Need for GIS based CMIS
  3. 3. 1. Marine Water Quality Studies • Monitoring of water quality parameters viz. Chl-a, CDOM, TSS, Euphotic Depth, Nitrates, SST is possible with effective RS techniques. • For Mumbai coastal region it was done for last decade largely using OCM & MODIS data • Data base is useful for monitoring coastal ecosystem health as well as for policing purposes.
  4. 4. Study Area
  5. 5. SST Monitoring Methodology • Sea Surface Temperature (SST) was calculated from MODIS data using the following formula: L= 2 * h * c2 * l-5 / [ e (h * c / k * l * T) – 1] Where, L = radiance (Watts/m2/steradian/m) h = Planck's constant (joule second) c = speed of light in vacuum (m/s) k = Boltzmann gas constant (joules/kelvin) l = band or detector center wavelength (m) T = temperature (degree Kelvin)
  6. 6. Methodology • Daily cloud-free MODIS (Terra) data with 1km resolution from Thermal band (B-31)- Wavelength range :10.78 to 11.28 μm, which are first converted to radiance and then to SST. • Monthly averages of SST were generated for every year for December, January and March from 2004 to 2010, from the daily images. • Standard deviation and yearly averages were calculated using daily images. • To generate the SST maps, the images were resampled to a 5 x 5 km grid size and a land-mask has been applied to the images.
  7. 7. December 2004 December 2005 December 2006 December 2007 December 2008 December 2009 Monthly average SST for December (2004-2009)
  8. 8. Monthly aggregated average and standard deviation images for December (2004-2009) Average Standard Deviation
  9. 9. Average SST (December) 284.00 285.00 286.00 287.00 288.00 289.00 290.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Perpendicular distance from shoreline (km) SST(degreeKelvin) Average SST Vs Perpendicular distance from shoreline Standard Deviation in SST (December) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Perpendicular distance from shoreline (km) SST(degreeKelvin) SST standard deviation Vs Perpendicular distance from shoreline
  10. 10. January 2005 January 2006 January 2007 January 2008 January 2009 January 2010 Monthly average SST for January (2005-2010)
  11. 11. Average Standard Deviation Monthly aggregated average and standard deviation images for January (2005-2010)
  12. 12. Average SST (January) 276.00 278.00 280.00 282.00 284.00 286.00 288.00 290.00 292.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Perpendicular distance from shoreline (km) SST(degreeKelvin) Standard Deviation in SST (January) 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Perpendicular distance from shoreline (km) SST(degreeKelvin) Average SST Vs Perpendicular distance from shoreline SST standard deviation Vs Perpendicular distance from shoreline
  13. 13. March 2005 March 2006 March 2007 March 2008 March 2009 March 2010 Monthly average SST for March (2005-2010)
  14. 14. Average Standard Deviation Monthly aggregated average and standard deviation images for March (2005-2010)
  15. 15. Average SST (March) 282.00 284.00 286.00 288.00 290.00 292.00 294.00 296.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Perpendicular distance from shoreline (km) SST(degreeKelvin) Standard Deviation in SST (March) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Perpendicular distance from shoreline (km) SST(degreeKelvin) Average SST Vs Perpendicular distance from shoreline SST standard deviation Vs Perpendicular distance from shoreline
  16. 16. Comparative SST trends near CETP with respect to average SST 5 km away from shoreline for study period. Average SST in degrees Kelvin shown as linear trend line December 283.00 283.50 284.00 284.50 285.00 285.50 286.00 286.50 287.00 287.50 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 `2009 Year SST(monthlyaverage) SST near CETP Average SST for 5 km from land Average SST for CETP
  17. 17. Comparative SST trends near CETP with respect to average SST 5 km away from shoreline for study period. Average SST in degrees Kelvin shown as linear trend line January 273.00 275.00 277.00 279.00 281.00 283.00 285.00 287.00 289.00 291.00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year SST(monthlyaverage) SST near CETP Average SST for 5 km from land Average SST for CETP
  18. 18. Comparative SST trends near CETP with respect to average SST 5 km away from shoreline for study period. Average SST in degrees Kelvin shown as linear trend line March 282.00 284.00 286.00 288.00 290.00 292.00 294.00 296.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year SST(monthlyaverage) SST near CETP Average SST for 5 km from land Average SST for CETP
  19. 19. Comparative SST trend at Mahul Creek with respect to the average SST 5 km away from shoreline for the study period. Average SST in degree Kelvin shown as a linear trend-line. December 283.00 284.00 285.00 286.00 287.00 288.00 289.00 290.00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 `2009 Year SST(monthlyaverage) SST near Mahul Average SST for 5 km from land Average SST for Mahul
  20. 20. Comparative SST trend at Mahul Creek with respect to the average SST 5 km away from shoreline for the study period. Average SST in degree Kelvin shown as a linear trend-line. January 273.00 275.00 277.00 279.00 281.00 283.00 285.00 287.00 289.00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year SST(monthlyaverage) SST near Mahul Average SST for 5 km from land Average SST for Mahul
  21. 21. Comparative SST trend at Mahul Creek with respect to the average SST 5 km away from shoreline for the study period. Average SST in degree Kelvin shown as a linear trend-line. March 283.00 284.00 285.00 286.00 287.00 288.00 289.00 290.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year SST(monthlyaverage) SST near Mahul Average SST for 5 km from land Average SST for Mahul
  22. 22. Observations • Results show Mahul Creek & Vashi creek area are thermally active, compared to a 5 km buffer zone off the shoreline. • Both are situated in a bay area, away from the influences of any deep sea warm water phenomenon • This anomaly can not be explained by anything but anthropogenic interference. • Mahul area and Vashi creek show high SST anomalies in March and December resp. • Except 2006, which was declared as a La Nina year, the SST has increased from the year 2004 to 2010.
  23. 23. (mg/m3) Chlorophyll concentration contours for January, February, March and April (2012) for coastal waters of Mumbai {Chlor-a 3 (Carder et. al., 1999), Wavelengths used – 488 and 555 nm} January & February March & April
  24. 24. (m) Euphotic depth contours for January, February, March and April (2012) for coastal waters of Mumbai {kd(490) (Lee et. al., 2005), wavelengths used – 490 nm } January & February March & April
  25. 25. CDOM concentration contours for the months of January, February, March and April (2012) for coastal waters of Mumbai {Tassan (1994), wavelengths used- 412, 490, 443 nm} January & February March & April
  26. 26. Conclusions 1. RS & GIS techniques are a boon in all these studies and should be extensively used in identification, demarcation, assessment and monitoring a wide variety of coastal and marine attributes. 2. Must relook at the new ‘exceptions/ concessions’ in CRZ laws as well as the ‘carrying capacity of coastal ecosystem’ to aim at Sustainable Development
  27. 27. 2. Major Issues in CRZ Rules & Way Ahead 1. Fixed area of NDZ (500m) all over India Sol.:Coastal Habitat studies and modifications based on it 2. Undue importance to development status, esp. CRZ-II Sol.: Adoption of Ecosystem Approach 3. ‘Sector need’ based additional exceptions in CRZ(2011) Sol.:Carrying capacity studies to decide them. 4. Excessive fishing Sol.: Need for Sustainable Fishing 5. Influence of dams/ urban structures on fresh water/ sediments/ nutrients transport in CRZ Sol.: Permissions to be based on assessment of impacts of dams/other development downstream.
  28. 28. 6. Permission to destroy mangroves in Mumbai if replant 5 times that elsewhere. Sol.: Not practical !..Ensure survival of planted mangroves. 7. Untreated sewage/ solid waste not allowed to enter CRZ-IV after Jan. 2013 Sol.: Not feasible unless we recycle and reuse liquid & solid waste 8. Little / No involvement of stake holders in decision making Sol.: Compliance with ICZM practices/ principles 9. Lack of political will to go with nature/ follow laws Sol.: (e.g. New airport in New Mumbai) Coastal Environmental Education ? 10. Lack of awareness / info / education in coastal environment management & transparency. Sol.: Development of a GIS based Coastal Management Information System (CMIS) accessible through internet, for networking / free exchange of information amongst researchers
  29. 29. GIS based CMIS
  30. 30. THANKS

×