Content uploaded by Natália Da Costa Souza
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Natália Da Costa Souza on Feb 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Perception of Risk and Sustainability: Concept Analysis
of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development
in Geological–Geotechnical Risk Assessment Approaches
Nata
´lia da Costa Souza .Vinı
´cius Gustavo de Oliveira .Jose
´Augusto de Lollo
Received: 1 October 2018 / Accepted: 14 March 2019
ÓSpringer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract Geological–geotechnical risks studies are
a traditional approach in Earth Sciences and Engi-
neering areas. Its main focus is understood the
environmental dynamics related to risk situations
and the consequences of these environmental dynam-
ics for the well-being. This article focuses on
discussing the probability of the occurrence of an
environmental phenomenon that endangers population
and considering how socioeconomic and political
factors are associated with such occurrences. The
proposed analysis shows how geological–geotechni-
cal risk studies consider basic principles of sustain-
ability in their applications and the potential of these
studies in demonstrate how effective risk monitoring
and management can contribute to socially responsi-
ble policies. The bibliometric research presented
allowed us to identify tendencies and emerging
knowledge; specific related journals; people and
institutions acting and the mean life of scientific
literature in this area. We could establish a proper
relationship between this contribution and the recent
context of research conducted in these areas. How-
ever, limitations of data access resulting from journals
and congress proceedings not being fully open access
remain as barriers to deeper analysis.
Keywords Geological risk Risk monitoring
Sustainability Environmental justice
1 Introduction
Studies of geological–geotechnical risks still have a
long way to go in different areas of science. However,
researchers from the fields of Geography, Health
Sciences, Social Sciences, Demography, Earth
Sciences, Engineering and Economics have empha-
sized relationships between factors and the probability
of certain phenomena of different levels of subjec-
tivism occurring based on empirical and spatiotem-
porally circumscribed studies.
Specifically, in the 1970s, interest in these studies
increased, expanding their insertion into science,
political debate and civil society. In general, risk,
along with vulnerability, has entered scientific, medi-
atic and sociopolitical jargon (Marandola and Hogan
2004). A detailed analysis of the evolution of this
theme applied through different approaches, scales
N. da Costa Souza (&)V. G. de Oliveira
Department of Urban Engineering, Universidade Federal
de Sa
˜o Carlos-UFSCAR, Rodovia Washington Luı
´s, Km
235, Sa
˜o Carlos 13565-905, Brazil
e-mail: natalia.ntf@gmail.com
V. G. de Oliveira
e-mail: viniciusgusoliveira@gmail.com
J. Augusto de Lollo
Department of Civil Engineering, Universidade Estadual
Ju
´lio de Mesquita Filho-UNESP, Rodovia Washington
Luı
´s, Km 235, Sa
˜o Carlos 13565-905, Brazil
e-mail: jose.lollo@unesp.br
123
Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-00858-5(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)
and areas of knowledge is addressed by Almeida
(2010), (Marandola and Hogan 2006) and Cutter
(2003). They emphasize the relationship between the
arrival of the 1980s and the emergence of the
multidisciplinary integration of the social and natural
sciences and engineering. Their research focused on
the understanding of circumstances that place popu-
lations at risk due to hazards. They also paid attention
to factors that enhance or reduce the response and
recovery capacities of populations, physical systems
and infrastructures in relation to environmental
threats.
In the literature, studies related to geological–
geotechnical risk analysis are incorporated into theo-
retical and methodological approaches used in areas of
Earth Sciences and Engineering based on information
on natural and environmental conditions that can
facilitate understanding of exposure to risk. Hence,
such studies are very important to understanding the
circumstances and constraints that reduce the capac-
ities for people and places to respond to threats. These
are critical for the development of strategies for
limiting and mitigating the consequences of disasters
and environmental degradation at various scales of
analysis.
In general, the concentration of studies related to
geological–geotechnical risk analysis can be observed
in two main areas: (i) the development of quantitative
measurement models of the probability of the occur-
rence of events and on their causes and (ii) the
prediction of future scenarios with the appropriate
identification of present conditions. However, for the
well-being, there is an urgent need to understand
consequences of environmental dynamics that can
lead to risky situations and scientific needs in the
development of systematic documentation. These
approaches should be capable of measuring the
probability of the occurrence of an environmental
disaster and should consider socioeconomic and
political factors associated with such occurrences.
According to Almeida (2010), the growth of social
inequality, poverty and sociospatial segregation with
trinomial capitalism-industrialization-urbanization
gave rise to a theoretical approach in conjunction
with the consequent degradation of the environment in
its various aspects. A particular theoretical approach is
sought to focus on environmental risks and studies,
which not only consider physical risk triggering
factors but which also take into account sociological
discussions based on affected and threatened popula-
tions and places. The approach emphasizes consider-
ations of complex social organization and collective
behavior. In this sense, approaches focusing on
geological–geotechnical risks should not be reduced
to overlapping of environmental situations. Rather,
there are specifics that require a contextual, social or
historical analysis of these situations as pointed out in
several recent works on geodynamic phenomena
(Adger 2006; Adger et al. 2009; Cutter 2003;OBrien
et al. 2004; Marandola and Hogan 2004,2006,2009;
Vale
ˆncio 2010,2014). Vale
ˆncio (2014) concludes that
‘‘the social dimension becomes the precondition for
the natural dimension to become destructive.’’
Alca
´ntara-Ayala (2002) and Marcelino et al. (2006)
point out that most events involving risk and disaster
with victims have occurred in developing countries.
According to records for Asia and Africa, such cases
are up to 50% more significant than those of other
regions. The authors show that these figures reflect the
socioeconomic conditions of these countries, includ-
ing a lack of planning, of adequate infrastructure and
of low investment in education and health. These
factors increase vulnerability and exposure to extreme
events. In reference to Brazil, some authors point to a
chronic-degenerative process of social exclusion
intensifying the expansion of favelas (slums) and of
other forms of marginal occupation, typically in areas
at risk.
The present article presents an analysis of ways in
which geological–geotechnical risk analysis, preven-
tion and monitoring modeling surveys deal with the
relationship between the objectives of proposed
applications and concerns worth considering in refer-
ence to content on social and environmental justice.
Furthermore, we intend to investigate how geological–
geotechnical risk analysis studies consider basic
principles of sustainability in their application. More-
over, we explore how main authors of the area
consider such studies to be important subsidies of
projects that demonstrate how effectively risk moni-
toring and management can contribute to socially
responsible policies on, for instance, land manage-
ment and sustainable planning.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
2 Geological–Geotechnical Risk Approaches
In approaches involving the analysis and application
of risk management, hazards, disasters and socio
environmental vulnerability, contradictions and con-
fusion regarding the meaning and definition of such
terms are recurrent and are also considered in one body
of research on the subject.
According to Nogueira (2002), this turbulent
movement of conceptual construction is characteristic
and essential for the configuration of a multidisci-
plinary field of technical-scientific knowledge. (Var-
nes 1984 apud Corteletti, 2014), in his work for the
International Association of Engineering Geology
published by the United Nations Educational, Scien-
tific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), proposed
a formal definition for different meanings of risk such
as specific risk, hazard and vulnerability to standardize
terminology applied in geological and geotechnical
studies.
On the basis of this, the present research under-
stands all physical phenomena of a geodynamic nature
in relation to geological–geotechnical risks such as
slides, mass movements and landslides, floods, soil
repression, erosive processes and associated events.
Therefore, applications and approaches of geological–
geotechnical risk analysis studies mostly deal with
probability measurement tools, the intensity of these
events and how they can reach populations or places.
3 Sustainable Development, Sustainability
and Environmental Justice
The emergence of sustainable development as a social
and political project has promoted efforts to find paths
to sustainable societies (Salas-Zapata et al. 2011).
Since then, there has been a great deal of literature
devoted to the subject, though undoubtedly with a lack
of focus.
In recent times there has been an increasing interest
in sustainability in strategies of cleaner production,
pollution control, eco-efficiency, environmental man-
agement, social responsibility, industrial ecology,
ethical investments, the green economy, eco-design,
reusability, sustainable consumption and zero residue
planning (Glavic and Lukman 2007), among many
others.
Such approaches depend on the field of application
(engineering, economics, administration, ecology,
etc.) whereby each science tends to see only one side
of the equation (Chichilnisky 1996) but with a
common interest in sustainability. It is not by chance
that concepts of sustainability are still misunderstood
and in many cases treated as synonyms. However, not
all researchers of these concepts define them in this
way.
Dovers and Handmer (1992) state that sustainabil-
ity refers to the ability of a natural or mixed human
system to resist or adapt to endogenous or exogenous
change indefinitely. Furthermore, development
involves a path of intentional change and improve-
ment that maintains or enhance this attribute of a
system by responding to the needs of the present
population. At first glance, sustainable development is
defined as they ways in which sustainability is
achieved. Rather, sustainability is the ultimate, long-
term goal.
For Elkington (1994), sustainability involves the
balance of three pillars: environmental, economic and
social. The expectation that companies must con-
tribute progressively to sustainability comes from the
recognition that businesses need stable markets. Addi-
tionally, they must have the technological, financial
and managerial skills necessary to enable a transition
towards sustainable development (Elkington 2001). A
second view differing from the previous also defines
sustainable development as an objective to be
achieved and sustainability as the process through
which this is achieved.
The concept of environmental justice, however, is
understood based on a set of principles and practices.
It ensures that no social group (ethnic, racial, class or
gender) supports a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences of economic
operations; policy decisions and federal, state or local
programs or the absence or omission of such policies.
The environmental justice movement itself seeks to
integrate the environmental dimension with those of
law and democracy through transformative actions. It
has been developing over the last two to three decades
through the struggle against discriminatory dynamics
that affect certain population groups as malfunctions
of economic and industrial development (Porto 2011).
In Brazil, the environmental justice approach has
been developed with the critical contributions of
authors of political ecology (Martinez-Alier 1992), the
123
Geotech Geol Eng
social sciences (Acselrad 1992) and collective health
(Porto 2007), among others. The discussion on the
invisibility of certain social groups not only due to
their condition of socioeconomic vulnerability but
also as an expression of social, economic and political
processes involves disputes and conflicts over
resources and over ways of living in territories. For
Martinez-Alier (2007), environmental justice, which
he also calls popular or poor environmentalism,
derives from distributive conflicts over costs and
benefits of the use or preservation of natural resources
or, more broadly, all economic processes.
4 Methodological Procedure
The methodological procedure was based on biblio-
graphical research of scientific documents in the area
of geo-geotechnical risk and on an analysis of these
documents based on objectives of the present study.
Figure 1illustrates the methodological procedure
used, which can be divided into three main steps:
(a) search of available database documents, (b) biblio-
metric analysis of the documents found and (c) selec-
tion and analysis of documents based on objectives of
the present study.
In this study, the Scopus database was used to
obtain data to be analyzed, which according to
Elsevier (2017) is the largest database of abstracts
and citations of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
This database provides tools for tracking, analyzing
and visualizing research conducted in the areas of
science, technology, medicine, the social sciences, and
the arts and humanities.
The research was conducted in November 2017
using the key word ‘‘geological risk.’’ Articles pub-
lished in journals, conference proceedings, biblio-
graphic reviews, chapters of books and articles that
have already been accepted by journals and are in the
process of being published were considered. The
present study was based only on papers published
between the years 2014 and 2017 to obtain a recent
overview of studies carried across the globe over the
last 3 years.
The search returned a total of 135 research results.
Data with information on the articles were exported
in.bib and.ris formats that can be read with free
bibliometric software R Studios and VosViewer,
respectively.
The bibliometric analysis was performed with R
Studios and Vosviewer software. In R Studios, we used
the (Bibliometrix 2016) package, which offers several
means of importing bibliographic data from the Web of
Science,Scopus and Clarivate Analytics databases,
which performs bibliometric analyses and which
constructs data matrices. (Vosviewer 2017)isa
software tool that was used for the construction and
visualization of bibliometric networks via co-citation,
bibliographic coupling or coauthorship relationships.
Finally, from the 135 existing publications, 30
papers were selected for a final analysis of the results.
Such selection was based mainly on the following
criteria: publications with the most cited authors, with
authors from different countries, offering variation in
dates of publication across the proposed time series
(2014–2017) and considering areas with diverse
applications in the field of geological—geotechnical
risk.
From the selected data, the use of concepts of
Sustainability and Environmental Justice found (1) in
the discussion of results of the research, (2) in the
development of methodological procedures and (3) in
literature reviews contextualizing central themes was
considered critical in the analysis of the documents.
Theoretical considerations made on the concepts
analyzed were based on those proposed by
Sharachchandra (1991), Mebratua (1998), Hodge
Fig. 1 Methodological flowchart of the involved steps
123
Geotech Geol Eng
(1999), Gallopı
´n(2003), Ioris (2009), Acselrad
(2002,2009), Pinte
´r et al. (2012), Sartori et al.
(2014), Giovannoni and Fabietti (2013) and Sette
(2015).
5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Bibliometric Analysis
As noted above, the survey on ‘‘geological hazards’’
for 2014 to 2017 returned a total of 135 documents
published in periodicals, conference proceedings,
bibliographic reviews, book chapters and articles
newly accepted by journals and in the process of
publication.
Tables 1and 2present general information on the
publications found, main journals of the study area and
the number of publications. Figure 2illustrates vari-
ation in the body of research conducted in the analyzed
time period.
The majority of main journals published in the area
focus on the geosciences. The main journal, Neftyanoe
Khozyaystvo—Oil Industry, is a Russian journal
publishing research in the areas of technology, energy
engineering and fuel. In this case, risk factors are
discussed in works on contaminated areas and on the
emission of effluents. For the other journals, it is
possible to observe the multidisciplinary nature of
themes discussed and indicated by the proposals of
major international conferences such as: ‘‘Interna-
tional Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference
Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management
Sgem’’ and ‘‘6th Saint Petersburg International Con-
ference and Exhibition on Geosciences 2014: Invest-
ing in the Future.’’ Both conferences are attended by
groups of geoscientists (mostly European engineers)
and related publications include diverse research on
risks and disasters related to geological science and
technology; exploration and mining; computer
science; geoinformatics and remote sensing; water,
ecosystem, forestry, marine and ocean resources;
ecology; economics; education and legislation; energy
technologies and climates; and nanobiotechnology
and technologies in facilitating a sustainable future.
Although the most frequently cited journal in the
area is of Russian origin (Table 2), Italy is the country
with the most publications and authors focused on
geological risks (Fig. 3). As can be observed from the
graph shown in Fig. 2, China comes in second
followed by Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany and Iran. According to the Institute of
Environment and Human Security of the University of
the United Nations (UNU-EHS), risks of a catas-
trophic earthquake or flood occurring are greater in
Italy than in all other developed Western countries as
documented by the World Risk Report published in
mid-2016. It should be noted that differences in
environmental conditions between Italy and Brazil
give rise to quite different research fronts and appli-
cations. However, if in Italy earthquakes are common
and the main impetus for conducting research on
geotechnical and geotechnical risks and disasters,
Brazil’s tropical geodiversity makes it possible to
further the study of risks related to slopes, floods,
earthquakes and desertification (sandstone), among
others.
5.2 Critical Analysis
Table 3presents data used for the analysis: authors,
countries of origin, years of publication, numbers of
citations and journals or conference documents of
research publication. Regarding countries of origin,
Table 1 General
information on the studied
publications
Number of publications 135
Publication period 2014–2017
Sources (journals, books, annals of congress and others) 95
Average number of citations per article 1.104
Number of authors 495
Articles published by individual authors 16
Articles published by more than one author 479
Articles by author 0.273
Author by articles 3.67
123
Geotech Geol Eng
we used authors’ nationalities as our criterion. Journal
and conference origins refer to cities or locales of
publication.
As noted above, the use of sustainability and
environmental justice concepts presented in discus-
sions of research results, in the development of
methodological procedures and in the review of the
literature to contextualize central themes was consid-
ered critical in the analysis of the documents.
Figures 4and 5show keywords appearing in the
articles most frequently.
All of these elements were used in an attempt to
draw a profile that could define the types of queries
consulted. The summary table offers a broad view of
the documents, from which it is possible to observe
standards of methodologies and approaches of the
applications.
Table 4catalogues the analyzed data, from which it
is possible to observe an overview of characteristics of
the research consulted such as central research themes,
areas of interest (main objects of investigation/appli-
cation), concepts of sustainability and environmental
justice, type of results obtained and characteristics of
approaches used.
It is important to point out that in the risk literature
there is a debate marked by the distinction between
hazards theory and the ‘‘theory of disasters.’’ Hazards
theory emphasizes a geographic approach through
which physical mechanisms, temporal and spatial
distribution, and burst dynamics of physical events
play a greater role. On the other hand, ‘‘disaster
theory’’ is constructed from a sociological approach
and emphasizes considerations regarding complex
social organization and collective behavior (Vale
ˆncio
2014). In this context, the analysis of documents
followed the notion that different approaches can deal
with concepts of sustainability and social justice in a
differentiated way. So, it is important to say that the
research presented here does not necessarily discuss
that the theory of disasters can be seen only from the
sociological point of view, since disasters also include
physical and spatial components.
All surveys consulted in this study are the most
relevant publications of geology and geotechnical
engineering listed according to the methodology
presented in previous items. According to Table 4,
Table 2 Principal journals of the study area and the number of publications
Journal Number of
publications
Neftyanoe Khozyaystvo—oil industry 7
International multidisciplinary scientific geoconference surveying geology and mining ecology management SGEM 4
Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in
bioinformatics)
4
6th Saint Petersburg international conference and exhibition on geosciences 2014: investing in the future 3
Geomatics natural hazards and risk 3
Oil and gas geology 3
Petroleum exploration and development 3
Rendiconti Online Societa Geologica Italiana 3
Shiyou Kantan Yu Kaifa/petroleum exploration and development 3
Transactions of the institutions of mining and metallurgy section a: mining technology 3
2017 2016 2015 2014
Articles 26 35 42 32
26
35
42
32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Total Publications
Year
Publications Per Year
Arcles Linear (Arcles)
Fig. 2 Number of publications per year (2014–2017)
123
Geotech Geol Eng
all of the studies show that end result products can
address questions related to the probability, charac-
terization and localization of risks; on quantitative and
qualitative numerical modeling, and on databases
(queries) and mapping. Furthermore, only one of the
studied papers provides state of the art critical and
bibliographical analysis on the role of geomatics in the
analysis of hydrogeological risks. As a consequence,
100% of the analyzed data reflect approaches that are
essentially methodological.
Regarding the analysis of concepts of sustainability
and environmental justice, in the development of
methodological procedures and from the literature
review on the contextualization of central themes, it
was found that only roughly 20% of the total papers
considered align with objectives of the methods and
expected results. Even for those studies dealing with
the subject of sustainability in their applications, it
should be said that in all analyzed cases, approaches
used are brief and superficial to highlight and reinforce
the methodological nature of the research. Regarding
the analysis of the use of concepts of environmental
justice, none of the papers offer any considerations on
the theme.
In light of these results, it is clear that the proposed
idea reinforces the recent line of thinking that
addressed by authors from several scientific fields in
the area of risk analysis and classification and
especially in the field of geological–geotechnical risk
analysis. Discussions offered by the proposed appli-
cations do not involve the confrontation of complex
socio environmental problems, which are at the core of
concepts of sustainability and environmental justice.
As concluded by Vale
ˆncio (2014), this deterministic
character has been established around approaches to
risk, rendering it a dominant paradigm contributing to
several areas of the ‘‘hard sciences.’’ Within it, models
on the quantitative measurement of the probability of
dangerous event occurrence and of their causes are
valued by meeting the interests of the security sector
and of other sectors of the economy. Considering this
approach, methods and processes that are very effec-
tive in preventing and monitoring risks related to
geodynamic factors have been developed, though they
impede implicit social processes.
6 Final Considerations
The surveys consulted were published in geology and
geotechnical engineering sources, and showed final
products including risks probability, characterization
and location; its quantitative and qualitative numerical
distribution.
Roughly 20% of the papers considered sustainabil-
ity and environmental justice approaches, relating
them with objectives, methods and expected results. In
those studies themes are used to highlight and
reinforce the methodological nature of the research.
Discussions do not involve the complexity of socio
environmental problems.
0102030405060
Italy
China
Brazil
United Kingdom
Canada
Germany
Iran
Italy China Brazil United
Kingdom Canada Germany Iran
Average Citaon per arcle 1.576 1.304 0.250 2.000 1.600 1.400 2.000
Total Citaons Per Contry 52 30 2 12 8 7 6
Total Publicaons Per Country 33 23 8 6 5 5 3
Average Citaon per arcle Total Citaons Per Contry Total Publicaons Per Country
Fig. 3 Main countries: number of citations, number of publications and average number of citations per author
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Table 3 Data evaluated for analysis
Docment Theme Discussion Sustainable
development
Environmental
Justice
Result Approach
1. Rupture of
soil/landslides
Mass movements
induced by earthquakes
in Italy
NO NO Database Methodological
2. CO
2
in the UK Measurement of
geological risks for
CO
2
storage
NO NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
3. Hydrogeological
modeling with
high resolution
satellites
Mapping and
management of
emergencies
NO NO Quantitative
model/Mapping
Methodological
4. Surface modeling Potential asbestos risk NO NO Quantitative
model/Mapping
Methodological
5. Underground
mining
production
Geological risk
integrated into mine
management
NO NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
6. Risk analysis and
multicriteria
analysis
Geological risk
classification
NO NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
7. Geological risk
analysis
Geological risk in the oil
and gas sectors
YES NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
8. Modeling of soils
and contaminants
Contamination of soils
and groundwater by
methane
NO NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
9. Risk assessment
modeling
Geological, economic
and political risks of
gas projects
YES NO Quantitative and
qualitative
model
Economic, social
and
methodological
10. Safety analysis of
geological
hazards
Assessment of exposure
of students and schools
in relation to risks
YES NO Quantitative and
qualitative
model
Methodological
and social-
political
11. Hydrogeological
risk assessment
2D and 3D
photogrammetry for
hydrogeological risk
assessment
YES NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
12. Geological–
geotechnical
modeling
Prediction of landslides
and collapses of
structures
NO NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
13. Geomatics and
hydrogeological
risks
State of the art of the role
of geomatics in
hydrogeological risk
analysis
YES NO Critical and
bibliographical
analysis
Theoretical
14. Geological risk Geological risk
assessment in an area
of significant urban
growth
NO NO Quantitative
model/mapping
Methodological
15. Geological risk in
watersheds
3D Geological
Numerical Model
NO NO Quantitative
model/mapping
Methodological
16. Mass movements Mass movements and
turbidity currents in the
great canyons
NO NO Quantitative
model/mapping
Methodological
123
Geotech Geol Eng
It is known that the fields of geotechnical engi-
neering and geology are basically areas of a ‘‘techni-
cal’’ nature and of technical-scientific approaches
originating from the exact sciences and from the earth
sciences. Thus, it is consistent that research and
applications developed from such approaches mainly
present mathematical and methodological results.
Hence, processes and phenomena can be investigated
Table 3 continued
Docment Theme Discussion Sustainable
development
Environmental
Justice
Result Approach
17. Structural analysis Geotechnical risks for
the maintenance of
historical structures
YES NO Quantitative
model
Methodological
18. Structural analysis Geotechnical risks in the
construction of subway
lines
NO NO Quantitative
model/Mapping
Methodological
19. Geological hazards
in urban areas
Landslides in urban area
of Rome
NO NO Quantitative
model/mapping
Methodological
20. Geotechnical
cartography on
GIS platform
Geological–geotechnical
model by spatial bases
NO NO Quantitative
model/mapping
Methodological
Fig. 4 Clusters of words
appearing in the articles
most frequently. The largest
circles denote words
appearing most frequently.
Modified from (Vosviewer
2017)
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 5 Density map of words appearing most frequently in articles of this field of study. Red colors denote words appearing most
frequently. Modified from (Vosviewer 2017)
Table 4 Data evaluated for analyses
Ranking References Country Citation Journal or conference
1 Martino et al. (2014) Italy 16 Natural hazards and earth system sciences
2 Bentham et al. (2014) United Kingdom 12 Energy procedia
3 Nascetti et al. (2015) Italy 8 Geomatics, natural hazards and risk
4 Pacella et al. (2015) Italy 6 Chemical geology
5 Carpentier et al. (2016) Canada 6 Transactions of the institutions of mining and metallurgy
6 Nezarat et al. (2015) Iran 6 Tunnelling and underground space technology
7 Milkov (2015) EUA 5 Earth-science reviews
8 Schwartz (2015) Germany 5 Environmental earth sciences
9 Li et al. (2016) China 4 Sustainability (Switzerland)
10 Pazzi et al. (2016) Italy 4 International journal of disaster risk reduction
11 Scaioni et al. (2015) China/Italy 4 Geomatics, natural hazards and risk
12 Carla
`et al. (2016) Italy 3 Landslides
13 Pirotti et al. (2015) Italy 3 Geomatics, natural hazards and risk
14 Yang et al. (2015) China 3 Physics and chemistry of the earth
15 S
ˇram et al. (2015) Slovenia 3 Geologija
16 Li et al. (2015) China 2 Acta oceanologica sinica
17 Robles-Marı
´n et al. (2015) Spain 2 Natural hazards
18 Zheng and Ma (2014) China 2 Applied mechanics and materials
19 Alessi et al. (2014) Italy 2 Italian journal of engineering geology and environment
20 Zharkova et al. (2016) Russia 1 IOP conference series: earth and environmental science
123
Geotech Geol Eng
using a systematic approach based on the reading of
physical and natural properties of the environment.
Without intending to judge applications of the area
for the analysis and classification of geological–
geotechnical risks, it is understood that a discussion
of such methods is necessary. There is a global
tendency to invoke questions related to possibilities of
the development of a science that aligns its develop-
ment with proposals that address the achievement of
sustainable social, economic and environmental
conditions.
The present work was designed to contribute to
such a discussion by presenting an overview of how
the most important publications in the area deal with
issues of sustainability and environmental justice in
their applications. As a proposal for future research, it
is recommended that the search for materials devel-
opment be kept alive by expanding the key field of
research and by encouraging the interaction of key
concepts of interest.
The bibliometric research presented here, despite
its power in gauging scientific writing, exposes some
limitations related to peculiarities and limitations of
the algorithms and databases used (e.g., Scopus).
Rather, scientometric and bibliometric tools specifi-
cally identify (i) tendencies and knowledge emerging
from a specific area; (2) journals of certain areas of
knowledge; (3) people, groups, and institutions oper-
ating in certain area; and (4) the mean life of scientific
literature (Vanti, 2002).
With these techniques we could establish a proper
relationship between this contribution and the recent
context of research conducted in these areas. How-
ever, limitations of data access resulting from journals
and congress proceedings not being fully open access
remain as barriers to deeper analysis.
References
Acselrad H (1992) Cidadania e meio ambiente. IBASE, Rio de
Janeiro, pp 18–31
Acselrad H (2002) Justic¸a ambiental e construc¸a
˜o social do
risco. Desenvolvimento e Meio ambiente 5:49–60
Acselrad H (2009) O que e
´Justic¸a Ambiental?. Editora Gara-
mond, Rio de Janeiro
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang
16(3):268–281
Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, OBrien KL (2009) Adapting to cli-
mate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Alca
´ntara-Ayala I (2002) Geomorphology, natural hazards,
vulnerability and prevention of natural disasters in devel-
oping countries. Geomorphology 47(2–4):107–124
Alessi D et al (2014) Geological risks in large cities: The
landslides triggered in the city of Rome (Italy) by the
rainfall of 31 January-2 February 2014. Ital J Eng Geol
Environ 1:15–34
Almeida, L. Q. (2010). Vulnerabilidades socioambientais de
rios urbanos. Doctoral thesis, Paulista State University,
Institute of Geosciences and Exact Sciences
Bentham M, Mallows T, Lowndes J, Green A (2014) CO2
STORage evaluation database (CO2Stored). The UK’s
online storage atlas. Energy Procedia 63:5103–5113
Bibliometrix, R Package. 2016. Massimo Aria & Corrado Cuccu-
rullo. In: http://www.bibliometrix.org/. Accessed Sep 22 2017
Carla
`T, Intrieri E, Di Traglia F, Nolesini T, Gigli G, Casagli N
(2016) Guidelines on the use of inverse velocity method as
a tool for setting alarm thresholds and forecasting land-
slides and structure collapses. Landslides 14:517–534
Carpentier S, Gamache M, Dimitrakopoulos R (2016) Under-
ground long-term mine production scheduling with integrated
geological risk management. Min Technol 125(2):93–102
Chichilnisky G (1996) An axiomatic approach to sustainable
development. Soc Choice Welf 13(2):231–257
Cutter SL (2003) The vulnerability of science and the science of
vulnerability. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(1):1–12
Dovers SR, Handmer JW (1992) Uncertainty, sustainability and
change. Glob Environ Chang 2(4):262–276
Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation: win-
win-win business strategies for sustainable development.
Calif Manag Rev 36(2):90–100
Elkington J (2001) Canibais com garfo e faca. Makron Books,
Sa
˜o Paulo
Elsevier (2017). Scopus. In: https://www.elsevier.com/
americalatina/pt-br/scopus. Accessed Jan 20, de 2018
Gallopı
´n GC (2003) Sostenibilidad y desarrollo sostenible: un
enfoque siste
´mico. Divisio
´n de Desarrollo Sostenible y
Asentamientos Humanos. Serie Medio Ambiente y Desar-
rollo, 40p
Giovannoni E, Fabietti G (2013) What is sustainability? A
review of the concept and of its applications. Integrated
reporting: concepts and cases that redefine corporate
accountability. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–40
Glavic P, Lukman R (2007) Review of sustainability terms and
their definitions. J Clean Prod 15(18):1875–1885
Hodge RA (1999) Seeing change through the lens of sustain-
ability. Background paper for the workshop beyond delu-
sion: science and policy dialogue on designing effective
indicators of sustainable development. The International
Institute For Sustainable Development, Winnipeg
Ioris AAR (2009) O que e
´justic¸a ambiental. Revsta Ambiente e
Sociedade 12(2):389–392
Li X et al (2015) Mass movements in small canyons in the
northeast of Baiyun deepwater area, north of the South
China Sea. Acta Oceanol Sin 34:35–42
Li H, Sun R, Lee WJ, Dong K, Guo R (2016) Assessing risk in
chinese shale gas investments abroad: modelling and pol-
icy recommendations. Sustainability 8:1–17
Marandola E Jr, Hogan DJ (2004) Natural hazards: o estudo
geogra
´fico dos riscos e perigos. Revista Ambiente &
Sociedade 7(2):95–109
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Marandola E Jr, Hogan DJ (2006) As dimenso
˜es da Vulnera-
bilidade. Revista Sa
˜o Paulo em Perspectiva 20(1):33–43
Marandola E Jr, Hogan DJ (2009) Vulnerabilidade do lugar vs.
vulnerabilidade sociodemogra
´fica: implicac¸o
˜es
metodolo
´gicas de uma velha questa
˜o. Revista Brasileira de
Estudos Populacionais 26(2):161–181
Marcelino EM, Nunes LH, Kobiyama M (2006) Banco de dados
de desastres naturais: ana
´lise de dados globais e regionais.
Revista Caminhos da Geografia 6(19):130–149
Martinez-Alier J (1992) De la economı
´a ecolo
´gica al ecolo-
gismo popular. Icaria, Barcelona
Martinez-Alier J (2007) O ecologismo dos pobres: conflitos
ambientais e linguagens de valorac¸a
˜o. Contexto, Sa
˜o Paulo
Martino S, Prestininzi A, Romeo RW (2014) Earthquake-in-
duced ground failures in Italy from a reviewed database.
Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:799–814
Mebratua D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development:
historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 18(6):493–520
Milkov AV (2015) Risk tables for less biased and more con-
sistent estimation of probability of geological success
(PoS) for segments with conventional oil and gas
prospective resources. Earth Sci Rev 150:453–476
Nascetti A, Capaldo P, Porfiri M, Pieralice F, Fratarcangeli F,
Benenati L, Crespi M (2015) Fast terrain modelling for
hydrogeological risk mapping and emergency manage-
ment: the contribution of high-resolution satellite SAR
imagery. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 6:554–558
Nezarat H, Sereshki F, Ataei M (2015) Ranking of geological risks
in mechanized tunneling by using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy
Process (FAHP). Tunn Undergr Space Technol 50:358–364
Nogueira, F. R. (2002). Gerenciamento de riscos ambientais
associados a escorregamentos: contribuic¸a
˜oa
`s polı
´ticas
pu
´blicas municipais para a
´reas de ocupac¸a
˜o subnormal.
Doctoral Thesis, Paulista State University, Institute of
Geosciences and Exact Sciences., 260p
OBrien KL, Leichenko R, Kelkar U, Aandahl G, Venema H,
Tompkins H et al (2004) Mapping vulnerability to multiple
stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Glob
Environ Chang 14(4):303–313
Pacella A, Fantauzzi M, Turci F, Cremisini C, Montereali MR,
Nardi E (2015) Surface alteration mechanism and
topochemistry of iron in tremolite asbestos: a step toward
understanding the potential hazard of amphibole asbestos.
Chem Geol 405:28–38
Pazzi V, Morelli S, Pratesi F, Sodi T, Valori L, Gambacciani L
et al (2016) Assessing the safety of schools affected by geo-
hydrologic hazards: the geohazard safety classification
(GSC). Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 15:80–93
Pinte
´r L, Hardi P, Martinuzzi A, Hall J (2012) Bellagio STAMP:
principles for sustainability assessment and measurement.
Ecol Indic 17:20–28
Pirotti F, Guarnieri A, Masiero A, Vettore A (2015) Preface to
the special issue: the role of geomatics in hydrogeological
risk. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 6(5–7):357–361
Porto MFS (2007) Uma ecologia polı
´tica dos riscos. Fiocruz,
Rio de Janeiro
Porto MFS (2011) Complexidade, processos de vulnerabi-
lizac¸a
˜o e justic¸a ambiental: um ensaio de epistemologia
polı
´tica. Revista Crı
´tica de Cie
ˆncias Sociais 93:31–58
Robles-Marı
´n P, Guerrera F, Martı
´n-Martı
´n M, Raffaelli G, Alcala
´
FJ, Tejera de Leo
´n J et al (2015) Geological risk assessment of
Amtoudi Agadir in southern Morocco: a key case for sus-
tainable cultural heritage. Nat Hazards 75(1):415–440
Salas-Zapata W, Rı
´os-Osorio L, A
´lvarez-Del Castillo J (2011)
La ciencia emergente de la sustentabilidad: de la pra
´ctica
cientı
´fica hacia la constitucio
´n de una ciencia. Interciencia
36(9):669–706
Sartori S, Latro
ˆnico F, Campos LMS (2014) Sustentabilidade e
desenvolvimento sustenta
´vel: uma taxonomia no campo da
literatura. Ambiente e Sociedade 17(1):1–22
Scaioni M, Feng T, Barazzetti L, Previtali M, Lu P, Qiao G et al
(2015) Some applications of 2-D and 3-D photogrammetry
during laboratory experiments for hydrogeological risk
assessment. Geomat Natural Hazards Risk 6:473–496
Schwartz MO (2015) Modelling the hypothetical methane-
leakage in a shale-gas project and the impact on ground-
water quality. Environ Earth Sci 73:4619–4632
Sette, J. (2015). Habitac¸a
˜o social e sustentabilidade urbana:
Sustentabilidade urbana: impactos do desenvolvimento
econo
ˆmico e suas conseque
ˆncias sobre o processo de
urbanizac¸a
˜o em paı
´ses emergentes. Textos para discussa
˜o
da Rio ?20 – ONU HABITAT. Ministe
´rio do Meio
Ambiente e Ministe
´rio das Cidades, 2015
Sharachchandra ML (1991) Sustainable Development: a critical
Review. World Dev 19(6):607–621
S
ˇram D, Rman N, Riz
ˇnar I, Lapanje A (2015) The three-di-
mensional regional geological modelo f the Mura-Zala
Basin, northeastern Slovenia. Geologija 58(2):139–154
Vale
ˆncio NFLS (2010) Desastres, Ordem Social e Planejamento
em Defesa Civil: o contexto brasileiro. Sau
´de e Sociedade
19(4):748–762
Vale
ˆncio NFLS (2014) Desastres: tecnicismo e sofrimento
social. Cie
ˆncia sau
´de coletiva 19(9):3631–3644
Vanti NAP (2002) Da bibliometria a
`webometria: uma explor-
ac¸a
˜o conceitual dos mecanismos utilizados para medir o
registro da informac¸a
˜o e a difusa
˜o do conhecimento.
Cie
ˆncia da Informac¸a
˜o 31(2):152–162
Varnes DJ (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of
principals and practice. United Nations Educational, Sci-
entific and Cultural Organization, Paris
Vosviewer: Visualizing Scientific Landscapes (2017). Versa
˜o
1.6.6. Netherlands: Centre For Science And Technology
Studies, Leiden University. Dispo
´nivel http://www.
vosviewer.com/
Yang L, Wang Z, Jin G, Chen D, Wang Z (2015) Geological risk
assessment for the rapid development area of the Erhai
Basin. Phys Chem Earth 89–90:79–90
Zharkova N, Latypov A, Shevelev A, Khuzin I (2016) Devel-
opment of a permanent geological environment model of
Kazan city aimed to solve various engineering-geological
problems (Russia). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/33/
1/012048
Zheng X, Ma FH (2014) Metro construction safety risk assess-
ment based on the fuzzy AHP and the comprehensive
evaluation method. Appl Mech Mater 580–583:1243–1248
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
