Improdiret State of the Art Analysis

www.improdiret.euRef. Ares(2018)4490623 - 31/08/2018

D 3.1 State of the art analysis

Project acronym: ImProDiReT

Improving disaster risk reduction in Project full title: Transcarpathian region, Ukraine

Grant agreement no.: 783232

Responsible: Abby Onencan

Contributors: Edmunds Akitis, Kenny Meesters

Document Reference: D3.1

Dissemination Level: PU

Version: Final

Date: 30/08/2018

Disclaimer: The content of this document represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

This project is funded by the European Union Civil Protection, under grant agreement No 783232

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

History

Version Date Modification reason Modified by

0.1 1-7-2018 Initial draft Abby Onencan

0.5 1-8-2018 Detailed outline Abby Onencan

0.7 15-8-2018 Main content Abby Onencan

0.8 17-8-2018 Revise sections / added details Kenny Meesters

0.9 22-8-2018 Quality check Edmunds Akitis

1.0 30-8-2018 Final reviewed deliverable Kenny Meesters

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Table of contents

Executive summary ...... 6 1 Introduction...... 8 1.1 Scope of the deliverable ...... 8 1.2 Methodology of the deliverable ...... 9 1.3 Structure of the deliverable ...... 9 1.4 Intended audience ...... 9 Mapping and Local Risk Knowledge ...... 11 2 Background Information on CS in EO ...... 15 2.1 Growth of European Union CS - Policy and Practice ...... 15 2.2 CS in EO Projects ...... 15 2.3 CS Projects providing useful data for EO ...... 17 High level Requirements ...... 20 3 The Case Study: Solotvyno Salt Mines ...... 20 4 List of High-Level Requirements ...... 23 4.1 (SENDAI Framework, Aarhus Convention & Rio Declaration) ...... 23 4. Methodology for Participatory Risk Mapping and CS ...... 27 5 Systems Analysis ...... 29 6 Stakeholder Analysis ...... 30 6.1 Step 1: Introduction to Existing Public Information ...... 30 6.2 Step 2: Discussion and Initial Priorities Setting ...... 31 6.3 Step 3: General Risk Perception Mapping ...... 32 6.4 Step 4: Digitization, visualization and discussion ...... 33 6.5 Step 5: Citizen Science ...... 33 6.6 Step 6: iSOLOTVYNO (Joint decision-making web tool and online map) ...... 34 Conclusion ...... 35 7 Implication for the ImProDiReT project ...... 35 7.1 Work packages ...... 35 7.2 Stakeholder engagement ...... 36 8 Conclusion ...... 37 8.1 Transparent Risk evaluation methods ...... 37 8.2 Joint decision-making approaches ...... 37 8.3 Challenges & Requirements ...... 37 Appendix ...... 39 9 Interviews ...... 39 10 References ...... 39

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

List of figures

Figure 1 Trends for Earth Observation and Citizen’s Science ...... 16 Figure 2 Examples of Citizen Science (CS) initiatives relevant to Earth Observation (EO) ...... 18 Figure 3 Images of Solotvyno ...... 21 Figure 4 Screenshot of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service digital maps ...... 24 Figure 5 Key steps necessary for system and stakeholder analysis ...... 28 Figure 6 Solotvyno Deputy Mayor (left image) and Mayor (right image) ...... 32

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

List of abbreviations

ImProDiReT Improving Disaster Risk Reduction in Transcarpathia

WP Work Package

DoA Description of Action

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

TUD Technische Universiteit Delft

IGS NASU Institute of Geological Sciences National Academy of Sciences Of Ukraine

MSFS The Main School of Fire Service

ARDZ Institution Regional Development Agency of Zakarpattia Oblast

RAN Resilience Advisors Network

CS Citizen’s Science

GIS Geographical Information System

RS Risk Mapping

EO Earth Observation

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Executive summary

ImProDiReT project was launched in March 2018 with a lifetime of 24 months and it aims to empower communities within the Transcarpathian region in Ukraine with innovative socio- technical solutions to help them reconnect, respond to, and recover from crisis situations. The main objective of the project is to foster social innovation during crises for safeguarding communities during critical scenarios from inaccurate, distrusted, and overhyped information, and for raising citizen and community awareness of crisis situations by providing them with filtered, validated, enriched, high quality, and actionable knowledge. Community decision-•‐ making will be assisted by automated methods for real-•‐time, intelligent processing and linking of crowdsourced crisis information.

This document forms deliverable D3.1 “State of the Art analysis”. As part of Work Package 3 (WP3) this deliverable focus on the establishing transparent risk evaluation and joint decision- making approaches. The focus of WP3 is on establishing these approaches through examine best practices, academic literature and draw on the work from the other work-packages. Additionally, WP3 conducts -in conjunction with the other work-packages- extensive field visits and interviews to complement the findings and develop novel and appropriate methods for involving various stakeholders in the decision-making process. This first deliverable, presents the State of the Art, and is a result of an explorative effort to identify and evaluate various existing methods for joint decision-making approaches in risk reduction efforts.

In this deliverable we present three different elements of the state-of-the-art analysis. (1) First, it details the state of the art of in terms of risk mapping and evaluation, describing best practices, current guidelines, and recent advancements, such as the SENDAI framework (2) The state of the art also includes (joint) multi-actor decision making approaches, including the design of disaster risk reduction programs. (3) Finally, the deliverable lists the state of the art for the applying the results of the project to the local circumstances, describing the requirements for the adoption of existing solutions and developed approaches, as well as the shortcomings and gaps that needs to be addressed.

The existing frameworks for disaster risk reduction, including the Sendai framework, are examined for their applicability to the local circumstances in the ImProDiReT project. This analysis shows that in order to successfully engage various stakeholders, information gathering, analysis and dissemination is a key element. However, from our field work, we found that employing this framework and leveraging the value of information in these complex socio- political landscapes this is not a trivial task. Further examining the state of the art and the local requirements we have identified that establishing ownership of the information management processes provides a valuable incentive and buy-in of stakeholders to participate in risk analysis and risk reduction measures. Combined with emerging fields of participatory approaches, including citizens’ science, and the available of (online) information such as Earth Observatory (systems, information and information exchanging can be regarded as an important vehicle to encourage participation in transparent risk analysis and joint decision-making processes.

From this analysis we have gathered key requirements for designing and developing a joint decision-making methodology regarding disaster risk reduction measures. These requirements will form the basis for the next activities within WP3 (risk evaluation approach). The requirements in listed in this deliverable will support the development of this approach and ensure that it build on existing practices, but also considers the local circumstances and challenges of the Solotvyno and the Transcarpathian region.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

These findings will also support the ongoing work in other work packages of the ImProDiReT project, specifically of Work package 4 and 5. Finally, the analysis presented in this deliverable provides valuable insights for the Disaster Risk Reduction-community in general, as it combines existing risk-evaluation approach with joint decision-making process while at the same involving the local needs and requirements. Such approaches bridge the gap between abstract policy level goals, objectives and methods, and transform those frameworks in the methods that are applicable at a regional and local level, while at the same considering the complex socio- economic requirements and diverse stakeholder landscape.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

1 Introduction

ImProDiReT project was launched in March 2018 with a lifetime of 24 months and it aims to empower communities within the Transcarpathian region in Ukraine with innovative socio- technical solutions to help them reconnect, respond to, and recover from crisis situations. The Transcarpathian region is situated in the West of Ukraine. Geographically the region is dominated by the northern part of the Carpathian mountain range, which stretches from Poland and Slovakia in a horse shoe form into Romania, crossing Ukraine. The population of Transcarpathia is multi-ethnic, with several large minority groups, for example Romanians, Hungarians, Russians and Romas.

Since the collapse of the Union of the Soviet Socialistic Republics (USSR) the logical connections between Ukrainian institutes and institutions with relevant data on hazards and risk of disasters and the local and regional administration were disturbed. An open, transparent exchange of information has become increasingly difficult at all levels, also in addressing cross cutting issues. The UCPM Scoping mission to the Solotvyno noted this as a major obstacle to come to a good, all-inclusive assessment. In respect to the Sendai framework problems can be seen in the field of understanding risks, risk reduction governance and investing in risk reduction management.

The main objective of the project is to foster social innovation during crises for safeguarding communities during critical scenarios from inaccurate, distrusted, and overhyped information, and for raising citizen and community awareness of crisis situations by providing them with filtered, validated, enriched, high quality, and actionable knowledge. Community decision- making will be assisted by automated methods for real-•‐time, intelligent processing and linking of crowdsourced crisis information.

This document forms deliverable D3.1 “State of the Art Analysis.” The analysis serves to determine the current state of the art for both the risk evaluation and (joint) decision making approaches. Furthermore, the local circumstances (from WP4) are examined, providing specific requirements to be considered. The combined outcome of these activities will provide a thorough review of existing methods and best practices and identifies which of these are applicable and if so, to what extent. The analysis will also prevent gaps between the existing approaches and the specific local needs, providing the necessary input for the development of new approaches and their evaluation criteria. The outcome will be a list of elements of existing practices, frameworks and guidelines for both risk evaluation and joint decision-making approaches that can be integrated with each other and are applicable to the local context.

1.1 Scope of the deliverable

The scope of this deliverable is to present the state of the art regarding ‘Transparent risk evaluation methods’ and ‘joint decision-making methods. This deliverable covers the work conducted in task 3.1, and the related activities 3.1.1. (Review of risk evaluation approaches), 3.1.2. (Review of decision-making approaches), and 3.1.3 (Review of local challenges & requirements). The results of these tasks are combined in activity 3.1.4 (ImProDiReT concept & Evaluation criteria). As such the deliverable covers elements of both Disaster Risk Reduction (i.e. identifying risks and hazards) as well as joint decision-making (i.e. implementing DRR measures).

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

1.2 Methodology of the deliverable

The findings presented in the deliverable are the result of ongoing work in Work Package 3 towards a transparent risk assessment approach, and joint -or collaborative- decision making process. This deliverable builds on 3 different inputs: (1) existing work conducted within the ImProDiReT project, specifically on for Work Package 1 and 4 as well as previous project meetings, (2) the examination of existing literature (both academic and white papers) on disaster risk reduction measures and transparent risk evaluation, and (3) first-hand data collection through field work (such as interviews and meetings) in the region.

We examined the above-mentioned input in light of enabling a joint decision-making process between the various stakeholders in the region. In addition to examining the inputs, we have also transformed the various components of DRR, risk evaluation and decision-making in a approach for engaging the various stakeholders. The method used in this deliverable is therefore a combination of literature review, first hand data collection, and development/integration of the methodology to be used in the ImProDiReT project.

1.3 Structure of the deliverable

The deliverable is constructed around three main parts. First, we explore the existing methods and approaches for disaster risk mapping and the use of local knowledge in mapping said risks. In this section we draw from existing, documented, knowledge for disaster risk reduction such as the SENDAI framework, and participatory methods for collecting information, analyzing and sharing information regarding hazards and risks. In the second section we examine the high- level requirements of the communities and stakeholders in the ImProDiReT project, i.e. in the Transcarpathian region in general and around the Solotvyno area in particular. These requirements are identified and described based on the engagements with the various local stakeholders through in-field interviews. Finally

1.4 Intended audience

This deliverable is first and foremost intended to lay the groundwork for the follow-up activities in Work Package 3, in order to develop a joint decision-making approach and transparent risk evaluation methodology. Furthermore, it provides other consortium members insights in direction of the ongoing developments in this Work Package, specifically to bridge the activities in Work Package 1 (Mapping) and Work Package 4/5 (development of an action plan), as described in the Plan of Action. However, the results from the ongoing work in this WP as they are presented in this deliverable also provides valuable insights in bringing together the work in the DRR domain, risk evaluation approaches, citizen engagement and participatory systems.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Group of readers Rationale for reading

1. ImProDiReT consortium The deliverable builds on the work that has been conducted in WP1 and WP4, along with the own field work presented. The results of the work presented in this deliverable also informs future work in other work- packages. Specifically, the application of the method in WP4 and WP5.

2. Regional stakeholders. The results of the deliverable will be shared and validated in the upcoming platform meeting. Furthermore, the method relies heavily on the involvement of local stakeholders. Finally and most importantly, the regional stakeholders will be the end-users of the proposed approach

3. Emergency management This deliverable examines existing DRR approaches and & Disaster Risk Reduction implementing measures in a complex stakeholder agencies landscape. While the local circumstances can differ, the findings and approached described in this deliverable can also be applied by DRR agencies and Emergency Management authorities and tailored to their region.

4. Policy makers Joint decision making and engaging citizen’s in the DRR process is a key element of the ImProDiReT project. This deliverable provides the rationale and narrative for policy and decision makers to move towards a more collaborative approach.

5. Academia The analysis presented in this deliverable combines concepts from the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) domain with elements from the participatory systems. Building on existing domain knowledge, new insights are presented combining these fields to empower and engage citizens

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Mapping and Local Risk Knowledge

Strengthening risk governance is a key priority in disaster risk reduction [1-4]. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) [3], which is a successor of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 [4] introduces the element of risk in disaster management [3], (5). The Sendai Framework recognizes that stakeholders have an active role in disaster risk management. It recommends measures to increase accountability and strengthen risk governance. It also recognizes the regional platforms and the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) to support decision-making.

The Sendai Framework is based upon four key priorities:

• Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk [3], (14) • Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk [3], (17) • Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience [3], (18) • Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction [3], (21) • Understanding natural disaster risks, which is the first priority, may require scientists to undertake Earth Observations (EO).

EO is the compilation of information in situ ground surveys and remote-sensing data regarding the Earth surface [5]. Fritz (2017) explains that EO is a compilation of images from a variety of sources including drones, satellite sensors, airplane aerial imagery, hand-held sensors, permanent ground sensors, paper-based templates and digital questionnaires.

To effectively manage disaster risks, the Sendai Framework proposes a better understanding of the three dimensions of risk (hazard, exposure and vulnerability). When data is available, EO’s conducted purely by scientists may be sufficient to inform decision-making in two dimensions, hazard and exposure. However, vulnerability is difficult to model, assess, forecast nor predict.

In March 2018, the ImProDiReT (Improving Disaster Risk Reduction in Transcarpathia, Ukraine) project was initiated with financing from the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism (EUCPM). One key responsibility of the project team is to improve DRR in the Solotvyno mine area. Three key activities that will be conducted during the two-year project, which are relevant for the current paper are: (1) Develop risk maps for the Solotvyno Salt Mine area; (2) Develop a joint risk awareness approach; and (3) Develop a joint decision-making method. The details of the project are discussed in Appendix A. One of the key responsibilities of the project is to develop a risk evaluation approach. The project currently faces multiple perceptions of risks from different stakeholders who should be engaged jointly to evaluate the risks and make joint decisions.

Understanding vulnerability with multiple, competing and sometime conflicting risk perceptions from a diverse group of stakeholders, is not straightforward for external EO scientists [6]. Risk perception is different amongst different stakeholders [7-9]. One’s perception of the likelihood of the hazard occurring, the degree of exposure and extent of vulnerability largely affects their overall understanding of the risk and the actions they will take to manage it [6]. For instance, in the case of the Solotvyno salt mines, land subsidence and collapse in a salt mining area is perceived by the modelers as a phenomenon that they can model and quantify to develop risk maps [10, 11]. To the head of the Transcarpathia Regional Administration, the safety of the people is a key concern and there is a risk of not understanding what is ensuing beneath the surface of the earth, to inform decision-making [12, 13].

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

The water directorate is concerned about further flooding of the mines that would result in further land subsidence and collapse [11] The State Ecological Inspection Department is concerned about salt intrusion into land and rivers and unauthorized pumping of the brine [14]. The PJSC “Girhimprom” (Mining Company), perceives it as incident that requires immediate actions to minimize the loses and reduce responsibility [15]. The former miners perceive the risk of losing their jobs [16]. For the state authority that authorized the corporate action, their perception of the risk is an event that needs to be minimized through liquidation and closure [17]. The local government perceives the risk as an information gap that needs to be filled to enable them to make better decisions on whether or not to relocate the people and which regions are high risk zones [18]. The State Emergency Services perceives a governance problem, they may not be informed on time to be able to respond effectively [19]. For the companies in the recreation center, they face the risk of bad publicity that might damage their business or even lead to business closure [20]. For the School Directors and teachers, they face the risk of not preparing their students for the disaster risks through their safety trainings [21, 22]. For the religious leaders, they face the risk of most of their parishioners leaving the village in search of a safer place, losing jobs, not being able to meet their basic physical needs [23]. For the citizen whose house is destroyed they face the risk of the house collapsing leading to further damage or even loss of life. They also face the risk of not being compensated for the damage [24]. However, for the local citizen, the risk is an incidence that they are required to confront and manage on a daily basis [25]. This may mean avoiding the regions that are subsiding and taking extra precautions to reduce risk incidence.

The EO scientists need to recognize local knowledge on management of risks to improve their understanding of risks to be able to develop the appropriate decision support tools. Due to the multitude range of risk perceptions, there is a wealth of local knowledge on how the various stakeholder groups are coping, adapting or managing the risks. The local knowledge is a collection of facts about characteristics of the hazard, its frequency and the changes that have been happening in their environment due to the hazard. Due to this local understanding of the hazard, the local people establish formal and informal mechanisms to cope with the hazard. These mechanisms need to be known and understood by the EO scientists, to be able to support the community in developing joint mechanisms to complement the existing ones, with the aim of managing the risk and reducing vulnerability [6].

Incorporation of the at-risk communities into joint decision-making processes has over the past decade increasingly been used in many countries [14]. These approaches include the rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and the participatory rural appraisal (PRA), that have been applied mainly in natural resource management projects [26-29]. Beyond natural resources management, RRA and PRA have also proved to be effective in disaster risk reduction [30-39]

PRA and RRA data can be used to develop spatial information through the field activities, interactive sessions and observations. Through the spatial information, the hazard features can be better understood, including zoning of the different levels of vulnerable structures and people. In addition, through the field work, experts can draw from the local people information about their coping strategies and represent this in sketch maps.

Unfortunately most of these sketch maps, photographs, and community historical profiles that are developed using RRA and PRA approaches are not formally incorporated in the official EO maps nor legitimated [6, 40] Most often, they are not stored, backed up or updated [41]. A wealth of local knowledge relevant for EO, tis lost after the conclusion of the RRA and PRA projects [6].

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

To make PRA and RRA data more accessible and usable, the data should be transformed into flexible forms spatial data [6, 41]. Flexible spatial data allows not only the EO scientists, but also the policy makers and the community to interact and update the data themselves [6, 42]. Spatial maps that are accessible to the community enhance local capacity, strengthen local risk governance, increase social learning within the community and improve the communication of risk [6, 42, 43]. In addition, the community can undertake risk analysis, joint risk zoning, and risk evaluation, with the flexible maps [41].

In the last four decades, the role of the citizen in EO has largely expanded, because of several driving forces. First, initiatives like Google and Bing Maps have made high-resolution satellite imagery to be accessible to everyone. Second, there have been very fast advances in mobile technology with the introduction of smart phones and the Web 2.0 technology [44]. Through these new advances, anyone “can literally map the world,” using the Google engine - MapMaker or OpenStreetMap (OSM) [44], (5). These innovations also allow people to collect location-based information, based on their movements around their geographical space. Third, the launch of new satellite sensors (Copernicus Sentinel satellites and Planet Satellite Imagery). The last development has been a great enabler in EO work [44], especially in the field of DRR [6]. Through the new innovations geospatial maps have been developed using massive databases on physical hazards, exposure to these hazards, environmental impacts, and to a very small extent social vulnerability [6, 45, 46] Recently, there are maps that include information derived from the RRA and PRA actions [6, 47-52].

With the advances in remote sensing and concurrent advances in community risk assessment (CRA), the quality of hazard, exposure and vulnerability mapping has improved significantly [6]. Based on these advances, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the use of local knowledge to enrich spatial maps will increase the legitimacy of the maps and improve policy planning and decisions by providing more thorough, consistent, credible, empirical data [6, 53-56].

Notwithstanding advances in CRA and remote-sensing, the innovations have not been extensively harnessed to improve the understanding of risks and risk governance [3, 4, 6, 57]. Participatory Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has been used to combine the DRR remote sensing data with the local spatial knowledge that is relevant to hazard, exposure and vulnerability factors. According to McCall (2008), PGIS results can be used for hazard forecasting, risk estimation and increasing understanding of vulnerability and community coping strategies [43].

The added value of PGIS developed maps is not only accuracy and consistency but also legitimacy. Since the spatial maps focus on a specific locality, the information can be verified and adjusted depending on local values, perceptions and priorities. The PGIS map is also socially inclusive thereby increasing its uptake and use. Decisions made using a PGIS map are more informed and better implemented, thereby increasing trust between the local leadership and the community. PGIS mapping is normally less costly because it is developed with the use of local resources, most of which are voluntary [6]. PGIS is recognized by Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [58]. Principle 10 lays emphasis on three pillars of participation. The three pillars are the need to ensure that the public have access to environmental information, can participate in decision-making and have access to environmental justice. These three pillars are also enshrined in the Aarhus convention (UNECE 1998) [59-61]. The introduction of open data facilitated the sharing of these PGIS databases across the globe that can be updated and visualized through GIS-based images [61]. Therefore, open data facilitated the implementation of Principle 10 and the Aarhus convention.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

In the mid-1990s, a new source of data emerged, Citizen Science (CS). The European Commission "Green Paper on Citizen Science,” defines CS as:

“the general public engagement in scientific research activities when citizens actively contribute to science either with their intellectual effort or surrounding knowledge or with their tools and resources. Participants provide experimental data and facilities for researchers, raise new questions and co-create a new scientific culture… As a result of this open, networked and trans-disciplinary scenario, science-society-policy interactions are improved leading to a more democratic research based on evidence-informed decision making” [62], (7).

While PGIS is focused on the development of the map, CS is wider. Through CS, the PGIS maps can be regularly monitored and updated [44]. CS connotes long-term engagement with the citizens as scientists, in addressing local challenges [61, 63]. EO was primarily been conducted by professionals with little or no input from citizens, until the introduction of Citizen Science (CS) [44, 63].

Haklay (2017), defines citizen scientists as “people who intertwine their work and their citizenship, doing science differently, … and helping to redefine what it means to be a scientist.” Citizen scientists add local knowledge that may not be easily collected through remote sensing to the risk mapping and management processes. They are also involved in the processes of collecting the data, validating the data and subsequently updating the data. Most of these data is mostly not captured in the formal databases that are used to develop the maps.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a Methodology for Participatory GIS Risk Mapping and Citizen Science. This methodology will draw input from the Haklay (2018) methodology for participatory mapping and citizen science [64], Reed (2009, 1947) schematic representation for key steps for stakeholder analysis [65], The iCASS Platform: Nine principles for landscape conservation design [66] and the Graciela Peters-Guarin (2012) proposed approach for coping strategies and risk manageability: using participatory geographical information systems to represent local knowledge [6]. Steven et. al (2014), will lay the foundation for the design of the methodology for CS in EO Saltmine Project in Solotvyno, Ukraine. In addition, based on the analysis by Fritz et. al (2017), lessons learnt will be drawn from some of the listed ongoing and concluded CS projects.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

2 Background Information on CS in EO

2.1 Growth of European Union CS - Policy and Practice

CS was coined by the New Scientist magazine in October 1979 in an article that explains the failures in Ufology Science [67]. Its first application was in 1989, under the name CS was by the Audubon Society, where 225 American citizens’ collected rain samples to test rain-water acidity [63], (71). Thereafter, the term CS continued to be used and slowly gained acceptance in the 1990s [68]. According to Hacklay (2018), the increased recognition is measured by the steep surge in CS projects, its inclusion in policies (e.g. European Commission Green Paper on Citizen Science) and practices. There are a number of notable practices in research and innovation, within Europe and globally that can be attributed to the growth of CS, namely:

• The European Commission, Council and Parliament are transforming their policies to support CS [69] and in accordance with the European Commission "Green Paper on Citizen Science” [70]. • Since 2002, the Framework Programmes for research and Innovation have dedicated funds for CS projects. In 2012, the European Union financed five projects under the topic "Developing community based environmental monitoring and information systems using innovative and novel earth observation applications." In 2017, the European Commission under the Horizon 2020, had specific calls for citizen science. One such call is under the topic: “Exploring and supporting citizen science.” Horizon 2020 introduced Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). The overall objective of RRI is to engage civil society organizations and citizens in research and innovation (R&I). • Directly, the EC engages citizens through VOICES urban waste project, CIMULACT and NewHoRRIzon projects, to co-create future citizen EC research narratives and visions. • The ‘Invasive Alien Species' app (IAS), was launched by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. This is in furtherance of the Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (the IAS Regulation) entered into force on 1 January 2015. Through the app, European Union citizens can document IAS incidents as an early warning advisory for new species invaders. • At the national level in Europe, in March 2017, a participatory research charter was signed between the French Research Ministry and research institutions. German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) is funding projects that support co-creation of knowledge with citizens (BürGEr schaffen WISSen or GEWISS). • Worldwide, there are two major advances in CS, in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). EPA is supporting CS projects. In August 2006, the New Citizen Science Opportunity was launched by NASA

The Horizon 2020 interim evaluation indicates a steep increase in citizen engagement with marginal imprint of less that 1% in budgetary terms and marginal influence. In terms of policy direction there is more clarity with the adoption of the 3Os strategy (Open Science, Open Innovation, Open to the World). To support this 3Os strategy a book on Europe’s future: Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World' was launched on 15 May 2017.

2.2 CS in EO Projects

In the last two decades, citizen engagement in R&I has witnessed an exponential growth [5, 63, 71]. In the mid-1990s, CS gained recognition and there was a steep increase in the CS projects and research studies [1, 5, 62, 63, 72]. This is reflected by the drastic increase in publications (according to Scopus Records) on CS generally and specifically in the EO domain, as illustrated in Figure 1.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Figure 1 Trends for Earth Observation and Citizen’s Science

Figure 1 shows the SCOPUS search results for "earth observation” AND” citizen science" from 2010 to August 16, 2018 compared with the search results for “citizen science". The total number of documents is 308 for the "earth observation” AND” citizen science" and 8220 for the search results for “citizen science". Based on the research articles CS holds potential in providing alternative valuable data [6]. Figure 1, is based on Scopus results. The of research outputs are more in Google Scholar (about 40,700 results for “citizen science” and 546 results for “citizen science” and “earth observations” based on a search conducted on 19 August 2018).

The enormous difference between “citizen science” and “citizen science” in “earth observations” search results, indicates that CS in the domain of EO is small compared to other CS R&I initiatives. CS in EO is an area that remains largely untapped [6]. However, there are a number of EO projects that have and continue to provide valuable EO data that is calibrated and validated [63]. From Figure 1, the first three leading subject areas for CS are: Agriculture, Environmental Sciences, followed by Agricultural and Biological Sciences and then Social Sciences. However, in the domain of EO, Earth and Planetary Studies is leading, followed by Environmental Sciences, finally Agricultural and Biological Sciences. Earth and Planetary studies is only 6.4% of the overall CS documents. This confirms the initial statement that in comparison to the overall CS R&I initiatives CS in EO occupies a small percentage.

Most of the research findings indicate that CS actions for the citizens are primarily data collection. The Lamy Report recommended increased citizen mobilization, based on the interim Evaluation of the Horizon 2020 projects [73]. This is particularly necessary and timely for the EO [63]. The report contains a plea for action aimed at stimulating citizen co‐design and co‐ creation [73], (42). The limited role that citizens have played in CS needs to expand to the level where citizens are treated as EO specialists and involved in the design and creation processes [6, 63].

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

2.3 CS Projects providing useful data for EO

The policy process normally comprises of the input-process-output model. The citizens are engaged, in most of the CS projects at the input level. Thus, they provide relevant input and in situ data. This data is used to calibrate and validate the EO remote-sensed data and imagery. Fritz et. al (2017) conducted an extensive review of CS projects that are providing relevant input and in situ data for EO projects. Figure 2 is an illustration of the projects were classified under 23 groups based on the data collected. The full description of the 23 groups are:

1. “Aerial Imagery 12. Light pollution 2. Air pollution/quality, aerosols, noise 13. Mapped features (buildings, roads, pollution POIs, land cover, land use, etc.) 3. Clouds, sunspots, solar flares 14. Northern Lights 4. Environmental data 15. Ocean water color 5. Extreme events, hurricanes, earthquakes, 16. Phenology climate change 17. Photosynthesis 6. Flood levels and extent 18. Precipitation/snow depth 7. Forest fires 19. Radioactivity of the oceans 8. Fracking 20. Soil moisture (and land cover) 9. Geotagged photographs of landscapes 21. Tree/forest cover, deforestation, 10. Humanitarian and crisis response, biomass disaster mapping 22. Water quality and biodiversity 11. Land cover, land use and land change 23. Weather” [44], (3-4)

Figure 2 comprises of mainly CS initiatives conducted in the last two decades. Fritz et. al (2017), further categorizes the CS projects based on the mode of data collection (whether it was online, field-based or both). Fifty-eight (58) percent of the projects were field-based. Twenty-five (25) percent were online. Seventeen (17) percent were both online and field-based. A high proportion of the projects collected in situ data (83 percent).

Of particular interest to this paper are the humanitarian & crisis response, disaster mapping projects. In addition, flood levels and extent, geotagged photographs & landscapes, forest cover and mapped features are of interest to the current paper. It is interesting to note that all the six projects under humanitarian & crisis response, disaster mapping projects had an online component. Two were purely online and four combined both online and field-based data. In addition, it is noteworthy that all the geotagged photographs & landscapes projects are purely field-based. The mapped features projects are purely online except for the OpenStreetMaps that combines both field-based data and online data. WeSenseIt, the only referenced flood levels and extent project was both field-based and online.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Figure 2 Examples of Citizen Science (CS) initiatives relevant to Earth Observation (EO)

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Steven et. al (2014), documents a CS initiative that engaged citizens in co-design, data collection, co-creation of the methodology, data analysis, results elucidation [74]. Apart from a few isolated cases, CS has mainly confined the role of the citizen to data collection [44] Fritz et. al (2017) highlight a number of challenges that have been encountered in previous CS projects, namely:

• Not involving the citizen in the entire workflow or project cycle and confining their role to data collection [44]; • Numerous data quality issues [75-78]; • Interoperability of the data [79, 80]; • Citizen motivation and engagement [81, 82]; • Sustainability issues (citizen retention and participation) [5, 83] • Legal issues (licensing, privacy and ethical concerns) [84]

Steven et. al (2014), will lay the foundation for the design of the methodology for CS in EO Saltmine Project in Solotvyno, Ukraine. In addition, based on the analysis by Fritz et. al (2017), lessons learnt will be drawn from some of the ongoing and concluded CS projects that are listed in Figure 2. Based on the analysis of the mode of data collection, the methodology will focus on designing a CS platform that utilizes both online and field-based data collection methods. In addition, based on the studies identified for the key challenges facing CS initiatives, lessons will be drawn on how to address and avoid facing the afore-mentioned six challenges. In the following section, the methods employed to develop the methodology will be discussed.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

High level Requirements

3 The Case Study: Solotvyno Salt Mines

Solotvyno (Ukrainian: Солотвино) is named after the salt mines that are located at the center of Solotvyno village. It is located in Transcarpathian region (Zakarpattia Oblast) of Ukraine, closer to the Romanian border and on the right bank of River Tirza (Figure 3). In 2016, the Solotvyno population was 8,791. It is a heavily populated area, with about 300 houses and the salt mines are located in the middle of the village [18].

The geological process of salt transforming into plastic parameters and becoming soft (due to pressure) and thereafter moving to the surface is normal and normally not hazardous. This geological process is normally slow. It takes a few million years for the salt to move to the surface due to pressure. The slow movement ensures that there is an equilibrium established so as not to disrupt the earth’s surface.

In the past, the upper part of the salt-dome was protected due to clay particles. During exploitation of the upper part of the salt-dome - the protective clay layer was removed, as illustrated in Figure 4. Consequently, water begun to filtrate the galleries thereby dissolving the salt materials. As a result, there was a karst technogenic reaction leading to subsidence in the peripheral part of the salt mines and collapse of the central part. The process of karst removal and subsidence has been going on for 20 years.

Unfortunately, the slow geological movement of salt to the surface was interrupted when flooding occurred in the Solotvyno salt mines. The water dissolved the salt leading to the active upward movement of the salt solution, up to the surface. Due to flooding, in 2008, mine 9 was closed and Mine 8 was closed in 2010. Inside the mines were large chambers, one such chamber was 20-meter-deep and 60 meters high, which was used for music production [16].

Figure 3 show various of Solotvyno The first image is the map of Solotvyno. The second image is a schematic geological – structural section (natural base for groundwater movement and karst cones subsidence development). From the schematic geological – structural section, Mine 7, 8 and 9, are represented. The zones of weakness are also indicated, where the protective clay layer was removed during salt exploitation leading to the filtration of freshwater into the salt dome and flooding of the salt mines. The third image is an illustration of one of the salt lakes that was created when the salt mines subsided and collapsed. The last image is a portion of the recreation center in Solotvino - solná jezera, which is always crowded with approximately 3,000 tourists in the summer season, every year [18, 20]. The tourist come to Solotvyno for recreation and healing, from the salt lakes. The salt lakes were formed when the mines flooded.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Figure 3 Images of Solotvyno

In addition to the closing of the mines and two underground allergological hospitals that focused on Asthma treatment were closed [85]. Most of the Solotvyno residents lost their jobs and source of income [16, 18, 23]. Currently the most critical issue is making joint decisions that will ensure the safety of the Solotvyno inhabitants and the tourists while reducing their exposure to the hazard and vulnerability [12, 13, 19].

When the salt mines could not be rescued and the situation was critical, a few places were determined which were considered high risk [18]. To address the challenge the Ukrainian Government built 133 (116 flats and 17 houses) for the Solotvyno residents in the village in Tereblya. A school was also constructed. 35-40 families took keys, went and looked at the houses and returned [25]. Only 11 of the Solotvyno residents currently live in Tereblya [13]. Some people, especially families whose houses have serious cracks, were ready to move because they were only given keys and not ownership to the new houses [24].

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Others refused to move because the building were not constructed to take account of the complexity of Solotvyno. In Solotvyno, the Romanian houses are mansions and the Czech houses are small and extremely sturdy. The new houses failed to capture the opulence of Romanian houses nor the strength of Czech houses. One of the Solotvyno residents from Czech origin refused to move because they did not feel safe in a house with very thin walls [25].

Most of the Solotvyno residents refused to move. The main reason for people’s refusal to move was the distance between Tereblya and Solotvyno. It was too far [12, 13, 18]. Some Solotvyno residents did not want to move far away from the land of the ancestors, one resident stated that he wants to be buried where his family was buried [21]. Others were too old to make the drastic life change [18].

Even though Tereblya is a salt village, its salt is considered of low quality than Solotvyno [85]. In addition, there were no or poor amenities in the new houses (water, electricity and poor wiring) [23] [25]. Most of the residents did not know how they would earn a living in the new environment because they had less business opportunities [19]. The Solotvyno residents are entrepreneurs and would like to live in a place that demonstrates a business case for earning an income. Tereblya village did not seem to present such an opportunity [23]. Solotvyno is a border town and thus most of the resident’s livelihood is based on the cross-border trade opportunities [19]. Tereblya is not a border town and their source of income would be lost. In addition, with the collapse of the mines, salt lakes were formed that have been a major source of income for the Solotvyno residents, during the summer seasons [18, 20]. This opportunity is not available in Tereblya village.

Solotvyno is a complex socio-technical system because it comprises of multiple nationalities, languages and religions. Moving to Tereblya village would mean moving to an environment where only the Ukrainians’ live in [18]. The school constructed did not take account of the complexity of Solotvyno town. Solotvyno is comprised of diverse backgrounds, cultures, religions and languages. To cater for this diversity, there is a Hungarian, Romanian and Ukrainian school, with different languages of instruction. This diversity was not addressed when one school was constructed [21, 22]. The religious diversity was also not addressed. The Solotvyno inhabitants, most of whom are highly religious were not sure which religious places they would attend in Tereblya village. Even though Solovyno is a small town, it has numerous opportunities for the multi-religious community [23].

In addition to the relocation challenge, Solotvyno is facing a very slow liquidation process around the salt mines. The process of liquidation and restoration of the mines stalled due to lack of funds and changes in prices that need to be adjusted. The State Enterprise Solerudlikvidacija is the company mandated to undertake liquidation of the mines. It is directly subordinated to Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food. The State Enterprise Solerudlikvidacija does not have the money to remove the objects (mining shafts and other mining objects) [13, 15, 17, 18]. In the meantime, a 20-year license has been issued to construct a Speleocenter in Solotvyno by the Solotvyno Spa Speleocenter. Under the license, Solotvyno Spa Speleocenter, has undertaken to restore the environment and stop the further degradation of the land around the mines [86].

From the field assessment conducted on 10th August 2018, it was concluded that the salt mine area is further deteriorating, in comparison to the EUCPM Advisory Mission in 2016 observations and the subsequent Risk Assessment report. The mission team noted that the salt lakes had become larger and steeper. There was also further subsidence of the land around the mines.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

4 List of High-Level Requirements

4.1 SENDAI Framework, Aarhus Convention & Rio Declaration

A review of existing DRR frameworks such as the SENDAI was conducted. The frameworks were examined for various factors, including the scope, applicability to different contexts, comprehensiveness, and inclusion of risk elements. The result of the review was a list of common elements that need to be considered for comprehensive CS methodology that is applicable to the local context. These elements will feed into the design requirements for the CS online and field-based platform.

The high level requirements that the methodology seeks to achieve are drawn from Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [58], Aarhus convention (UNECE 1998) [59-61], and the SENDAI Framework priorities and global targets. As stated earlier, the four SENDAI Framework priorities are:

The methodology will mainly focus on attaining priority 1, 2 and 4. However, the main focus of the project is to strengthen disaster risk governance (priority number 2). As noted earlier, the three pillars that are enshrined in the from Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [58], Aarhus convention (UNECE 1998) [59-61], are the need to ensure that citizens / the public:

• have access to environmental information (priority 1 and 2 of the SENDAI Framework); • can participate in decision-making (priority 1, 2 and 3of the SENDAI Framework); and • have access to environmental justice (priority 2 of the SENDAI Framework).

There are a number of studies and maps that have been developed specifically for Solotvyno. Most of them need to be updated. However, they provide a wealth of information that is relevant to decision-making to reduce disaster risks related to the flooded salt mines. The main challenge is most of these reports and maps are not accessible to the local community [21]. Figure 4 shows a screenshot of the Images of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service digital maps extracted from an online report for the period 2014 -2016. The maps were extracted from Sentinel datasets. The recent Copernicus Emergency Management Service digital maps (Figure 4) are not accessible to the local community in a format that the community can understand. They are online and most of the community do not have regular access to the internet. The reports are too technical, and in English and not written for that Solotvyno local community as their target audience.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Figure 4 Screenshot of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service digital maps

In addition, the purchase of the digital maps is not affordable for most institutions and the citizens. Access to environmental information is a basic right for every citizen according to the Aarhus Convention. It is also vital for informed decision making. Most environmental decisions require sufficient knowledge of the situation. The Solotvyno maps play as critical role in the decision-making process. Therefore, it is imperative that they are made accessible in a form that is easily understood, to all the Solotvyno village residents.

Solotvyno salt mine decision-making process is extremely complex. The village has been declared by the national State Emergencies Services (SES), to be in a critical point [19]. In December 2010, the situation related to these dangerous exogenic geological processes within the territory of Solotvyno salt mines was classified as an emergency by a decision of the Transcarpathian Regional State Administration. Later, this decision was approved by the expert report of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Ukraine (No. 02-17292 /165 dated from 09.12.2010). This resulted in the announcement of an environmental disaster at state level by the Ministry. Therefore, it is currently a national matter of national importance.

Being declared an emergency and a matter of national importance, the major responsibility for the future of the village and the salt mines shifted to the central government. Only the central government can make decisions concerning the future of the Solotvyno mines, the residents and economic activities in that place. As consequence, the Head of the Regional State Administration of Transcarpathia (Governor) [12], the Head of the Tyachiv District State Administration [13], and the Mayor of Solotvyno Municipality [18], cannot make major decisions regarding the future of Solotvyno. Their role is limited to urban planning, water treatment and distribution, waste management and similar duties. However strategic decisions are vested on the central government that has constituted a Solotvyno working group that meets in Kiev, Ukraine. Despite having this working group, there is lack of coordination of the socio/economic/environmental and safety issues.

In addition, at the State level, the state institution that was responsible for the mines is the one mandated to resolve the current problems in Solotvyno. The Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food is the state institution that was responsible for the exploitation of the mines. Therefore, the same Ministry continues to receive money from the consolidated fund to address the Solotvyno crisis. The Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food has started the tenders and projects with GORHIMPROM (mining company) to conduct analysis, and some monitoring. The same Ministry is also responsible for building the 133 homes and planning the relocation, and the ongoing liquidation and restoration of the mines. Both processes are at a standstill [12, 13, 18]. This decision-making process is not only slow, but disjointed and disempowering for the local

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility authorities and the local communities. Unfortunately, most of the stakeholders’ lack information on the ongoing activities and efforts to resolve the situation. The current governance system fails to respect the “principle of subsidiarity” that requires decisions to be made at the lowest, less centralized and smallest competent authority. Therefore, in the case of Solotvyno salt mine, the municipality or another competent authority at the lowest level, rather than the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food, should have been given the authority and budget to facilitate the relocation and liquidation process with the active participation of the central government, the Solotvyno residents and other stakeholders.

Environmental justice refers to the ability to seek redress, when a citizen’s environmental rights are infringed upon. During the mission to Solotvyno in August 2018, we interviewed a father and son in Solotvyno currently live near the sink holes, on Solna street. According to previous maps, that were used to determine the 133 families that will be relocated to Tereblya, this father and sons’ home were not identified to be in the high-risk zone. However, after a short while their houses were seriously deformed. They have gone numerous times to all the authorities they know at the local, district and regional level to seek redress. Despite their efforts to seek environmental justice, they were disappointed because everyone referred them to the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food. The Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food is based in Kiev, Ukraine and it would take 18 hours by train to go there looking for the Ministry. In addition, they would not know who to contact in the Ministry, because the Ministry is big and deals with many matters. Finally the father and son gave up on their search for environmental justice for the severe deformations in their house [24]. The CS platform will not only focus on providing citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions but will also create a “One-Stop- Shop” where citizens can easily contact the responsible authorities and seek environmental justice or reparations for the damages suffered as a result of environmental actions of the respective institution. Within the CS, there will be environmental civil society organizations who can advocate for policy reforms to improve and strengthen disaster risk governance [87]. In addition, environmental justice claims require the citizens to be better prepared to scientifically frame their problems and their proposed solutions. The CS platform will provide them with the participatory process of gathering evidence through PGIS and the joint risk evaluation and joint decision-making [88].

Based on the SENDAI Framework, the design of the methodology is guided by the following global targets:

1. Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030 - disaster-based mortality is increasing as the buildings continue to be deformed, flooding is still in the mines, the land is still subsiding. To substantially reduce mortality, the high-risk areas need to be identified as soon as possible through risk mapping and joint risk evaluation. Thereafter decision need to be made to treat the risks in cooperation with the community. Decisions need to be made on whether the community should be compensated or relocated to a safe place. If re location is the solution, then the following requirements should be considered:

• Distance from Solotvyno; • Livelihood and opportunities to exercise their entrepreneurship skills; • Ownership rights to the new property; • Building requirements that reflect the culture diverse community in Solotvyno; • School and religious institutions that take account of the diversity in the community; • Livable houses with water, electricity and up to standard wiring; • Demographics and age dynamics, old people may not be able and willing to relocate.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

2. Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030 – There are approximately 300 houses in Solotvyno. In every house there are approximately 4 persons. Therefore, there are 1200 persons that may be in danger. In addition, during summer holidays the number drastically increases due to the significant number of tourists living in the recreation centers and in people’s homes. The risk maps should indicate the persons at risk. The risk evaluation approach should zone the different areas in the village based on the level of risk. The joint decision-making approach should enable the different stakeholders to make joint decisions aimed at substantially reducing the number of affected persons.

3. Substantially reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 - Approximately the cost per house is about 100,000 USD = If all the 300 houses are at risk then the economic loss to the community in terms of loss of housing is approximately 30,000,000 USD. There are many other direct losses (jobs, income from the mines, income from the hospitals, income from the recreation centers and many other forms of economic losses). The CS should facilitate the joint evaluation of these risks and the development of joint action plans and investment matrix to substantially reduce the disaster economic losses.

4. Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities - Hospitals, schools, engineering systems, water supply systems etc. may be destroyed, deformed and be more unstable. The CS should facilitate the joint evaluation of these risks and the development of joint action plans and investment matrix to substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

4. Methodology for Participatory Risk Mapping and CS

We have developed the current methodology based on interviews conducted in Kiev, Uzhhorod and Solotvyno on Monday, July 16 2018 to Friday, August 10, 2018, under the ImProDiReT project. The ImProDiReT project seeks to improve risk governance in the Solotvyno salt mine area. We aim to give a voice to the Solotvyno municipality citizens to develop a common understanding of the geological risks they face; the local environmental justice issues related to the salt mines and provide support in the development of a local action plan and investment matrix. The project aims to develop and disseminate accessible and updatable GIS maps and relevant environmental information from the project and other relevant sources. To develop the methodology, we were guided by two methodological frameworks (Figure 5):

1. Reed (2009, p. 1947) schematic representation for key steps for stakeholder analysis [65]. The socio-technical system in Solotvyno is complex. To be effective in our intervention, there is need for a thorough stakeholder analysis to be able to develop a more detailed map to support the CS and PGIS work. 2. Hacklay (2018, p. 3) has developed a methodology that can be used for PGIS and CS [64] . We adopted the methodology, based on a few adjustments because it is relevant to the current project. The focus of the methodology is to develop a PGIS and CS platform that would enhance local capacity to better understand the risks they face, avail relevant information in a format they understand and help prepare them to communicate and seek solutions for the environmental justice issues affecting them

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Figure 5 Key steps necessary for system and stakeholder analysis

Figure 5 shows the schematic representation of key methodological steps necessary for system and stakeholder analysis and the development and application of the methodology for Participatory GIS Risk Mapping and Citizen Science for Solotvyno Salt Mines. The methodology comprises of a six-stage process. The process is iterative and flexible enough to be changed based on the local circumstances and agreements made with the stakeholders. The system and stakeholder analysis is modified from Reed (2009, 1947) schematic representation for key steps for stakeholder analysis [65]. The Methodology for Participatory GIS Risk Mapping and Citizen Science for Solotvyno Salt Mines is adjusted from Hacklay (2018, 3) PGIS and CS methodology [64] .

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

5 Systems Analysis

The systems analysis is essential for the design of the PGIS and CS online joint decision-making web tool. The objective of the analysis is to ensure that there is a match between the analysis and the subsequent design. We would like to avoid mismatches that would affect the quality of the design and lead to failure.

We will use the structured development technique to ensure that the various software developers have sufficient knowledge of the system under analysis in terms of inputs, functions and processes and outputs. All developers of the PGIS and CS system will use the same terminology to facilitate the eventual development of a coherent toolbox for the joint decision-making online platform. Even though there are many developers in the ImProDiReT project, the structured development systems technique will help to streamline the inputs, processes, functions and outputs.

During the systems analysis process, emphasis will be placed on the requirements analysis, because it is a critical stage in the development of an information system. The design of the online platform will be based on the initial requirements elicitation outputs and refined through an iterative process. The system analysis will adopt the requirements-driven information systems engineering approach that was adopted in the Tropos project [89]. The methodology comprises of four phases:

1. Early requirements elicitation. This stage has already begun and will be concluded during the first DRR platform meeting in October 2018. In the phase, the designers seek to understand the problem and understand the institutional set-up. At the end of this phase there will be a problem and institutional analysis which will include the actors who are relevant to the Solotvyno case, their respective goals and interdependencies. This phase will be conducted in tandem with the detailed stakeholder analysis for Solotvyno municipality. 2. Late requirements elicitation. The second phase will involve the initial visioning of the “system-to-be.” The description will be specific to the Solotvyno operational environment and include the qualities of the system and its requirements. 3. Prototype design. In this phase, we will define the system’s architecture in the form of a prototype that will be presented to the stakeholders during the DRR platforms meetings for Solotvyno. 4. Detailed design. The detailed design of the online joint decision-making will take place in the final phase.

The detailed design will be presented in the final integration workshop (4th Platform meeting) and applied to the local context. The results of its application will be presented, discussed, evaluated and if needed refined. Once verified, the approach will be combined and integrated into a roadmap tailored to the Solotvyno case.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

6 Stakeholder Analysis

Initial stakeholder mapping was conducted at the start of the ImProDiReT project. However, after the interviews, it became evident that some of the key stakeholders were not included in the list (for instance three new companies that have been issued a license to mine in Solotvyno and their supporting institutions – actual mining companies and research institutions). In addition, the initial scoping did not identify stakeholder stakes, differentiate between the categories of stakeholders nor assess the power relationships. Therefore, the Reed (2009) approach will be used to improve the current stakeholder map for Solotvyno.

Based on the initial systems analysis that establishes the problem, the focus and the system boundaries, the second phase will be to undertake a detailed stakeholder analysis. Due to budgetary constraints, part of the stakeholder analysis will adopt approaches that are non- participatory [90-92]. To categorize the stakeholders and understand their inter-relationships, we will triangulate using literature review, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and snow ball sampling approaches. At this stage the literature review and the semi-structured interviews have already been conducted. We chose to use simpler methods because of the language complexities in the target population, the purpose of the analysis, and the skills and resources available. Specialist methodologies (for instance Social Network Analysis and Q methodology), were not found appropriate because the number of stakeholders is not large and implementation of these methodologies might be cumbersome and time consuming.

The term stakeholder, for purposes of the analysis will refer to the people or groups of people who have a direct interest in the Solotvyno salt mine (have stakes) and also those may have or not have a direct interest but have the power to influence the decisions regarding the present condition and future of the mining area. The analysis will also assess the interactions between the stakeholders and possible opportunities for joint actions and decision-making.

6.1 Step 1: Introduction to Existing Public Information

As described earlier, the methodology for PGIS and CS involves six steps, that are iterative and flexible. The first step is to introduce the Solotvyno community to the existing information on the Solotvyno salt mine. This part will be undertaken under work package (WP) 2, in the ImProDiReT project. The main focus is introducing the community to existing hazard and risk maps and discussing with the community what the maps mean, in their particular circumstance. This process will be facilitated by the WP 2 leader, who is a member of the project consortium.

Step 1 needs to be undertaken at a convenient time for the community, when all the interested members of the community are available. Since the collapse of the mine, most of the men have left the village in search of work and normally come back during the summer holidays when there is work in the village. In addition, the recreation centers may be fully operational during the summer season and dormant in the winter season. However, during the summer season, some of the key policymakers in Kiev are on holiday. Therefore, timing for this activity is key to ensure that the process facilitator makes contact with all the interested members of Solotvyno community.

This initial meeting should be inclusive, and ensure all the interested groups are represented. Most importantly, the meeting should be in Solotvyno, not Kiev nor Uzhhorod. The initial meeting should happen in the study area to enable all the interested parties and the parties who have the power to influence decisions to understand the context and visit the mining area.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Prior to this first meeting, all open data and open access information that is relevant to the Solotvyno saltmine case will be compiled and made available through an online portal. This includes information from the previous geological studies carried out by various institutes in Kiev and Lviv [86], the Solotvyno maps that are available to the public, and other relevant policy information from the Solotvyno municipality, State Emergency Services, the Tyachiv District State Administration, Regional State Administration of Transcarpathia, the PJSC “Girhimprom” (Mining Company), Solotvyno Spa Speleocenter (the new compnay with a 20 year licence), and any other relevant sources.

There are two main reasons why this information needs to be presenting at the start of the implementation process. First, to present available information, expressed in the language that a majority of the community understand. most of this information is scattered, with minimal outreach attempts to the affected community (demand driven information). Though most of these research work was undertaken for the Solotvyno community, most of them are not aware of its existence [21]. Most of the information is produced to address a particular institutional need or fulfil budgetary or project requirements (supply driven information). This information needs to be repackaged and made accessible for the community in one place. With the click of one button they would be able to access all information relating to the Solotvyno salt mine which is regarded to be in the public domain (open data, access, science and education).

Second, leaflets to the public should be developed that identify and explore the key environmental issues that the Solotvyno public face. The leaflet should be neutral and not seem to be taking sides in an already polarized situation. It should scientifically present the facts openly while providing sufficient flexibility for the stakeholders to decide their own futures based on the information. Preconceived ideas about the Solotvyno problem and the possible solution should be avoided at this stage. The ImProDiReT project should not be presented as a ‘fait accompli,’ because it defeats the purpose of developing a joint-decision making platform, where the stakeholders and not external actors, can make the decisions. To avoid presenting a 'fait accompli,’ step 1 should present a portfolio of all the available and relevant information, a list of issues to stimulate discussions. The importance of the community controlling the decision-making process, even though they do not consider themselves to have any power nor influence, should be emphasized throughout the implementation of Step 1.

6.2 Step 2: Discussion and Initial Priorities Setting

The second step is a facilitated meeting to discuss the already concluded risk maps under WP 1 and set priorities. There are many issues surrounding the Solotvyno salt mine. There is the stalled liquidation process, the restoration attempts of the mines, the relocation of ‘at high risk’ citizens, the weak risk governance system, the land use planning system, the licensing of companies to conduct activities that have an impact on the environment, waste management, salination of the Tisza river and the trans-boundary issues associated with it, the pumping of salt water from the salt lakes, investment opportunities in Solotvyno, to mention a few. Therefore, there is need for priorities to be set and joint agreement reached on what issues should be focused on in DRR measures. The risk maps will provide basic information to guide the discussions. However, the decisions on what priorities to focus on have to be made jointly, with the stakeholders.

The output of step 2 will be an agreement on what to focus on in the ImProDiReT project and also an agreement on how to visualize the community map. Based on the initial map, there will be discussions on what should not be included, what should be included and how it should be included. In this meeting, the community will have access to both the digital and paper maps. The paper maps are for the members in the community who are not conversant with the use of the digital maps.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

If the community agrees to focus on adding more components to the already developed risk maps. Then the next stage is to discuss how the community will collect the data to populate the map, during the project period and after project closure. The community could gather extra evidence that may not be available in GIS maps, that is essential for solidifying their positions, in preparation for discussions with the decision makers and public authorities. Additional discussions can center around the data collection protocol, collating of the data and how the data will be analyzed and visualized. The protocol will take account of the following:

• Establish a balance between robust data collection protocols that require consistency and systematic collection of data to less stringent approaches that could be rejected as ‘anecdotal’[64]; • Availability of smart phones and internet connection; • Age dynamics (most of the young people leave Solotvyno for schooling and work and come back during the holidays); • Population dynamics and demographics • Working hour dynamics – when do they work and when are they available. • To enquire how can the PGIS maps be integrated into the official risk map. Assess whether the instruments and methods used to produce the official GIS risk map can also be used for the PGIS maps.

6.3 Step 3: General Risk Perception Mapping

The risk perceptions of the local community are mapped in step 3. For this step, only the paper risk maps are needed. This step can be conducted together with the awareness raising activities under WP2. The first action in this step is to distribute the paper maps to all the 300 households in Solotvyno community and informed them of the upcoming risk perception mapping. Thereafter, community volunteers will contact their neighbors and while looking at the map (Figure 6), ask them questions regarding:

• the history of Solotvyno and the salt mines (for the elderly and the miners); • the memories they have when the town was at the center of town and the successive changes over the years; • the memories they had when the mine was operational and when it was closed; and • the feelings they have about particular places – Mine 7, 8, 9, 10, the river, the mountains and the recreation center (dangerous, safe, moderately safe, unpleasant).

The volunteers will receive administrative access to an online shared community map where they will be able to digitize the information [64, 93, 94].

Figure 6 Solotvyno Deputy Mayor (left image) and Mayor (right image)

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Figure 6 shows images of the Solotvyno Deputy Mayor (left image) and Mayor (right image), explaining their perceptions of risk, while referring to the old Solotvyno paper map. Since there have been many environmental changes around the mines, there is need to update the current paper map with a more recent paper map, before undertaking further Solotvyno community risk perception mapping.

6.4 Step 4: Digitization, visualization and discussion

In the process of collecting data, the data will be made digital, thereafter analyzed and with the use of GIS software, it will be made visual, in step 5. We will discuss with the community whether they would like to initially have the data online as open data or not. Based on previous similar environmental projects, some communities would not wish to share the information until the conclusion of the process, especially if they fear negative repercussions, if the information is available to certain authorities as an early stage of the PGIS [64]. Haklay (2018) proposes either a password-protected website or localized GIS, in circumstances where the community does not wish their information to be shared openly.

6.5 Step 5: Citizen Science

Alternatively, perception mapping can be done through the CS platform through data collection (step 4). Initial perception mapping was conducted in August 2018, through semi-structured interviews. However, at this stage, the risk maps were not concluded. Therefore, the discussions were very general. Three key finding of the initial discussions was three successful businesses in the recreation center stated that they perceive the recreation area to be extremely safe. The former miners stated that they consider the places above the mines that had huge chambers to be extremely unsafe and the unexploited areas safe [16]. One of the companies that recently received a license to establish a Solotvyno Spa Speleocenter stated that they see a lot of potential in Solotvyno and the mines can be reclaimed and made profitable [86]. The second stage of the perception mapping will be conducted after the risk maps have been concluded.

Risk perception mapping could also be combined with community-based risk evaluation and zoning. Based on the risk maps, the community would evaluate the risks and zone the different areas that require:

1. Risk avoidance; 2. Risk mitigation or reduction of the likelihood of the land subsidence and collapse event or its consequences; 3. Risk transfer to a third party like the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food. 4. Risk acceptance when all the adequate controls have been addressed. However, it is important to explain to the Solotvyno community that risks to do with health and safety require a higher standard of controls. Risk acceptance is an option if everything possible to reduce the chance of risk occurrence, has been done. Before accepting a risk, is important to ensure that sufficient controls are in place.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

6.6 Step 6: iSOLOTVYNO (Joint decision-making web tool and online map)

This stage is only relevant if the Solotvyno community agrees to share the information online. iSOLOTVYNO will be an online platform where the joint decision-making web tool and the online map can be accessed. The online map will be updated by the community. It will form the basis for further discussions and the subsequent development of a community-based action plan and investment matrix. The decision-making process in iSOLOTVYNO will include, whether to:

1. Eliminate all geological hazards as much as possible; 2. If they cannot be eliminated, then substitute them with something less hazardous / dangerous; to reduce the risks; 3. If they cannot substitute, then engineer a solution to protect the community in Solotvyno; 4. If they cannot engineer a solution, then isolate it – stop people from getting near the high- risk zones; 5. If they cannot isolate, then administer it through policies and administrative processes on how to manage the hazard. At this stage the decision-makers will be getting to the dangerous part, where they have to rely on people to protect themselves. This increases the risk exposure and vulnerability. 6. If can’t administer, lets wear some personal protective equipment (PPE it). This might not be relevant, because of the nature of the risk.

The six-step design process is iterative and flexible, it is not a simple design process. However, it is responsive to the needs to the community, enabling changes and adaptation to ensure that the final product follows the EU principles of responsible research and innovation. The underlying principle of the methodology is ensuring that the community co-design the PGIS and iSOLOTVYNO and co-determine the process and the products [74].

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Conclusion

7 Implication for the ImProDiReT project

Throughout the analysis presented in this deliverable, the importance of information has been emphasized in both the literature and the interviews conducted with the various stakeholders in the communities. Information management processes, including the collection, analysis and sharing of information is seen as a key element to establish a common base for the transparent risk evaluation methods, and is an essential prerequisite successful joint decision-making process. Among others, the SENDAI framework, illustrates the importance of identifying, quantifying and assessing risks as a first step towards implementing appropriate risk reduction measures. However, as high-level framework (as many other generalized approaches) it does not dictate how such these steps should be completed. Especially in complex socio-economic and multi-stakeholder landscapes, implementing information sharing and joint-decision making processes is not trivial.

7.1 Work packages

In this deliverable 6 key steps have been identified to establish a shared and transparent risk evaluation method. These steps are narrowly integrated within the ongoing work of the ImProDiReT project and the activities in the various work packages. Each of these steps will be integrated in one or more of the planned activities. This not only enables the development of the approach but also improves the integration and alignment of the activities within the project and makes it easier to for the various (local) stakeholders to view the project an integrated part and participate its various activities. Specifically, we aim to integrate the 6 steps in the planned activities as follows:

• Introduction to existing public information: Engaging and informing the public and the various stakeholders, as well as collecting existing public information is done through the community. This requires awareness of the project and therefore this will be integrated and aligned with the ongoing activities in Work Package 2: Public Information campaign. • Discussion and initial priority setting: The following discussion and priority setting is integrated in the planned platforms meetings. These meetings bring together different stakeholders and can be used to discuss the findings. Aside from these meetings, the discussion can also take place in alternative settings such a workshops, training and conferences organized either by the ImProDiReT project or other opportunities organized by external partners. • General risk perception mapping: The mapping of risk perception involves the wider community and various stakeholders and therefore utilizes the activities in WP2. However, it also includes the engagement of communities to share, analyze and interpret the risk- related information. This requires building on the information collected in the previous steps as well as the baseline established in WP1. • Digitization, visualization and discussion: The digitization and visualization is building on the work conducted in Work Package 1, which provides the basic information and essential information. In this step WP3 expands on this work, using the information collected in the previous steps and transforming this into bespoke information products which facilitate the (ongoing) discussions, mainly in relation to formulating an action plan as described in the activities of WP4 and WP5. • Citizen science: Involving the communities, stakeholders and the public and engaging them in the information collecting and analysis process, is building on the concept of citizens science. Through the public campaigns of WP2 will bring this to the attention of the communities in the region. The results will feed into the ongoing discussions in WP4 / WP5

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

• iSolotvyno platform: The platform is an accumulation of the previous steps and ties into activities from all work packages. Building on the information collected in the work-packages and the engagement of the community through the previous steps, the platform would provide -transparent- information on the risk in the area and enable the base for joint and collaborative decision making in the formulation of the action plan in WP4 and WP5.

7.2 Stakeholder engagement

Aside from the specific activities, the analysis shows that stakeholders’ engagement is critical to successful analyze risks and hazards in the area. While this applies to all the work-packages and the ImProDiReT project as a whole, the participation in the risk-evaluation and joint decision- making methods are critical towards the success of the project. Therefore, identifying and leveraging the various incentives for the different stakeholders is a key element. The proposed 6-stepped approach towards engaging and involving the stakeholders provides a good bases for the future activities of Work Package 3.

Engaging the stakeholders throughout the project requires an active approach from all project partners in all the activities conducted. In each of the activities the project partners have to ensure to deliver value and build on in the incentives of the different stakeholders. This could be achieved by delivering and discussing the intermediate results of the project in the various meetings. Furthermore, individual feedback and discussions with community members has proven to be successful as well. Finally, the need for information to understand the situation has been requested frequently by the community. These and other requirements and need of the communities need to be especially considered throughout the project and addressed in the various activities. This not only increases the chances of a successful project, but also provides an important base for sustainable DRR strategies in the region.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

8 Conclusion

8.1 Transparent Risk evaluation methods

In this deliverable we examined different methods for establishing a transparent risk evaluation method. Transparency in risk evaluation methods however is not sufficient to engage communities. To establish engagement of communities, active participation in identifying and mapping risks and hazards is needed. This participation does not only increase the awareness and visibility but also encourages ownership among the various stakeholders. It also supports the identification of the different risk perceptions among these stakeholders.

This engagement in risk mapping and identification aligns with the engagement of citizens for data collection and analysis in general. Increasingly, citizen’s’ science plays an important role in conducting research and evaluation, building on active participation and contribution from the public towards a (research) goal. These trends and developments are further encouraged by development in technology, enabling more access to information but also enabling individuals to contribute and participate through digital systems such as Web 2.0 technologies. Increased communication (both in terms distances, frequency and across different time frames) also contribute to increased engagement and participation of the public. ImProDiReT aims to combine the risk evaluation methods with these developments to create a transparent risk evaluation method through active participation.

8.2 Joint decision-making approaches

The above-mentioned active participation provides the bases for a joint and collaborative decision-making process that -within the ImProDiReT project- support the development of a joint action plan (outlined in Work packages 4 and 5). Through the engagement of the public and the stakeholders in the risk evaluation approach, the joint development of action plan is facilitated. The initial shared mapping and understanding of the risks and hazards in the region provides a important base to start the joint decision making process on. Moreover, the proposed transparent risk evaluation method, involves various stakeholders. The combination of information and multi-stakeholder involvement ensures the involvement of the relevant parties in the discussions, centered around the shared information.

Aside from these elements, the joint decision-making approach builds on the mapping and shared understanding of the various interests in the area around the management and mitigation of the risks. ImProDiReT -through WP4 and WP5, fascinated by the designed process- supports these various stakeholders in understanding and discussing the various trade-offs needed for sustained DRR measures. Such as economic, financial and investment considerations, planning and spatial use, socio-technical aspects in the implementation and maintenance of the measures, and the political support from both the local and national stakeholders.

8.3 Challenges & Requirements

In order to make both the risk evaluation and joint decision-making approach work in the Solotvyno and wider Transcarpathian region, several key challenges and requirements have been identified that will need to be further examined and explored in the follow-up work of WP3. In this deliverable 6 key steps have been identified to establish a shared and transparent risk evaluation method. These steps are based around the identified requirements for engaging the community in disaster risk evaluation and subsequently joint decision-making.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

The proposed steps address important requirements such as the need for a shared situational understanding through collective information gathering. They also address the need for ownership through participatory approaches, i.e. the community and stakeholders are not only passive consumers of the information but also actively contribute to the shared information and knowledgebase.

8.4 General outcomes & future work

One of the key challenges of the context in which the ImProDiReT project is operating, is the complex stakeholder landscape. While the Transcarpathian region presents its unique challenges in terms of collective risk assessment and action-planning approaches, these complexities are not unique in itself. Many areas and regions, each with their own risk profiles, need to consider trade-offs between various interests and stakeholders. There are for example, economic trade-offs to be considered, but also social-technical impacts of measures as well as political impacts. As such, the ImProDiReT project does not only look at existing DRR frameworks and approaches but examines how these methods can be tailored with the local complex landscapes, employing the Transcarpathian region as a modal case.

Throughout the initial work in Work Package 3, and as presented in this deliverable, we examine how the local requirements can be identified from a system and induvial stakeholder perspective. Through this requirements analysis we identified the design for a shared information platform to act as a joint and transparent risk evaluation platform, enabling various stakeholders and community members to contribute not only their local information and knowledge, but also (re)present their interests. The resulting information platform would therefore serve as both a collective knowledge-base about the risks and their perception by the community, as well as a mediating platform between these various stakeholders. In this mediating role, the platforms serve to establish a common understanding of the risks in the region along with their (potential) impact on the communities. This common understanding provides the prerequisite towards a joint decision-making process.

While the frameworks, the exact requirements and resulting design of such a platform and joint decision making approach will likely differ between regions and communities, the approach towards identifying the requirements and design can be employed by other agencies including disaster management authorities and investors in disaster risk reduction. The ImProDiReT will continue to develop this approach and its methodology further towards supporting the Solotvyno and Transcarpathian communities, as well as identifying the key elements and steps for a more generalized community-driven DRR approach.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

Appendix

9 Interviews

1. Link to Interview One: Date: Thursday the 9th of August 2018 and Friday 10th of August 2018 Interviewee: Mr. Janos Kocserha, the Deputy Mayor of Solotvyno Municipality. 2. Link to Interview Two: Date: Wednesday the 8th of August 2018. Interviewee: Mr. Demianchuk Vasyl, the Head of the Tyachiv District State Administration 3. Link to Interview Three: Date: Tuesday the 7th of August 2018 at 0900 hours. Interviewee: Mr. Viktor Mikulin the Deputy Head of Regional State Administration (https://carpathia.gov.ua/storinka/kerivnyctvo ) 4. Link to Interview Four: Date: Thursday the 9th of August 2018. Interviewee: Two former Solotvyno salt miners 5. Link to Interview Five: Date: Thursday the 9th of August 2018. Interviewee: Mr. Palat Vladimir, the Managing Director of the Solotvyno Spa Speleocenter 6. Link to Interview Six: Date: Tuesday the 7th of August 2018 at 1100 hours.Interviewee: Ms. Oksana Fentsyk the Deputy Head of the Regional Ecological Inspection (https://carpathia.gov.ua/view_company/726 ) 7. Link to Interview Seven: Date: 6th of August 2018 at 1430 hours.Interviewee: Ms. Myrochnyk Tamara from the Regional Water Directorate (BUVR Tysa river) (http://buvrtysa.gov.ua/newsite/ ) 8. Link to Interview Eight: Date: Monday the 6th of August 2018 at 1130 hours. Interviewee: Mr. Roman Zayats from the State Emergency Service (SES) of Ukraine (http://zk.dsns.gov.ua/ ) 9. Link to Interview Nine: Date: Friday the 3rd of August 2018 at 1100 hours. 1. Interviewee: Mr. Haidur Mykhailo and Mr. Shpontak Yirii from the Transcarpathia State regional Administration (http://ecozakarpat.gov.ua/)

10 References

1. Onencan, A., et al., WeShareIt Game: Strategic foresight for climate-change induced disaster risk reduction. Procedia engineering, 2016. 159: p. 307-315. 2. Onencan, A.M. and B. Van de Walle. Designing Disaster Diplomacy in the Context of a Climate Change Water Game. in 48th International Simulation and Gaming Association Conference (ISAGA 2017) on Simulation Games for Sustainable Cities and Smart Infrastructures. 2017. Delft, The Netherlands: Springer. 3. UNISDR, U.N.O. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. 2015. UNISDR Sendai, Japan. 4. UNISDR, U.N.O. Hyogo framework for action 2005-2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. 2005. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Geneva. 5. Fritz, S., L. See, and M. Brovelli, Motivating and sustaining participation in VGI. 2017. 6. Peters‐Guarin, G., M.K. McCall, and C. van Westen, Coping strategies and risk manageability: using participatory geographical information systems to represent local knowledge. Disasters, 2012. 36(1): p. 1-27. 7. Barchiesi, S., et al., Adaptation planning: Views towards resilience and up-scaling success to enhance transboundary water governance. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 75, 2014. 8. Onencan, A.M. and B. Van de Walle, Equitable and Reasonable Utilization: Reconstructing the Nile Basin Water Allocation Dialogue. Water (20734441), 2018. 10(6).

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

9. Onencan, A.M. and B. Van de Walle, From Paris Agreement to Action: Enhancing Climate Change Familiarity and Situation Awareness. Sustainability, 2018. 10(6): p. 1-30. 10. Mykhailo, H. and S. Yirii, Department of Ecology, State regional Administration: Deputy Directors (http://ecozakarpat.gov.ua/ ), in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Uzhhorod, Ukraine. p. 1. 11. Tamara, M., Regional Water Directorate (BUVR Tysa river): Head of the Department of technogenic and ecological safety, BUVR Tysa (http://buvrtysa.gov.ua/newsite/ ), in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Uzzhorod, Ukraine. p. 1. 12. Mikulin, V., Regional State Administration of Transcarpathia: , Deputy Head of Regional State Administration, (https://carpathia.gov.ua/storinka/kerivnyctvo ), in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Uzzhorod, Ukraine. p. 1. 13. Vasyl, D., Head of the Tyachiv District State Administration, in ImProDiReT Project, A.M. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 14. Fentsyk, O., Regional Ecological Inspection: Deputy Head of regional ecological inspection, (https://carpathia.gov.ua/view_company/726 ), in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Uzzhorod, Ukraine. p. 1. 15. Head of the PJSC “Girhimprom” (Mining Company), Head of the PJSC “Girhimprom” (Mining Company), in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 16. Two former miners - Solotvyno Salt Mine, Two former miners - Solotvyno Salt Mine, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 17. Head of the State Enterprise responsible for liquidation of the mine, Head of the State Enterprise responsible for liquidation of the mine, in ImProDiReT Peoject, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 18. Kocserha, J., Deputy Mayor, Solotvyno Municipality, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 19. Zayats, R., State Emergency Services, Head of the Department of Civil Protection Measure (http://zk.dsns.gov.ua/ ), in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Uzzhorod, Ukraine. p. 1. 20. Three Company Directors of three Recreation Centers in Solotvyno, Three Company Directors of three Recreation Centers in Solotvyno, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 21. School Directors of the Hungarian Ukrainian and Romanian Schools in Solotvyno, School Directors of the Hungarian Ukrainian and Romanian Schools in Solotvyno, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 22. One Teacher in the Hungarian school, One Teacher in the Hungarian school,, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 23. Two male Priests of different confessions, Two male Priests of different confessions,, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 24. Father and Son whose house was destroyed in Solona Street - Solotvyno, Father and Son whose house was destroyed in Solona Street - Solotvyno, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 25. Resident of one of the Houses with Cracked Walls near Salt Mine number Eight (8), Resident of one of the Houses with Cracked Walls near Salt Mine number Eight (8),, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 26. Gilbert, E.H., D.W. Norman, and F.E. Winch, Farming systems research: a critical appraisal. MSU Rural Development Paper-Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics (USA). no. 6 1980. 135 p. 1980.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

27. Kabutha, C., B.P. Thomas-Slayter, and R. Ford, Participatory rural appraisal handbook: Conducting PRA’s in Kenya. Prepared jointly by Kenya National Environment Secretariat, Ergeton University, Clark University, and World Resource Institute, 1990. 28. Chambers, R., Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World development, 1994. 22(10): p. 1437-1454. 29. Mukherjee, N., Participatory learning and action: With 100 field methods. 2002: Concept Publishing Company. 30. Heijmans, A. and L. Victoria, Citizenry-based & development-oriented disaster response. Centre for Disaster Preparedness and Citizens’ Disaster Response Centre, 2001. 31. de Dios, H.B., Participatory capacities and vulnerabilities assessment: finding the link between disasters and development. 2002: Oxfam Great Britain, Philippines Programme. 32. Ireland, D., Disaster Risk Management from a Remote Shire's Perspective. Centre for Disasters Studies, JCU. Australia, 2001. 33. McCallie, E., et al., Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report, 2009: p. 1. 34. Venton, P. and B. Hansford, Reducing risk of disaster in our communities. 2006, Tearfund. 35. Shaw, R. and K. Okazaki, Sustainability in grass-roots initiatives: focus on community based disaster management. 2003, United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD). 36. Abarquez, I. and Z. Murshed, Community-based disaster risk management: field practitioners’ handbook. Bangkok: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), 2004. 37. Dekens, J., Local knowledge for disaster preparedness: A literature review. 2007: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). 38. Van Aalst, M.K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton, Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global environmental change, 2008. 18(1): p. 165-179. 39. Zerger, A. and D.I. Smith, Impediments to using GIS for real-time disaster decision support. Computers, environment and urban systems, 2003. 27(2): p. 123-141. 40. Anderson, M.B. and P.J. Woodrow, Rising from the ashes: development strategies in times of disaster. 1989. 41. Cannon, T., J. Twigg, and J. Rowell, Social vulnerability, sustainable livelihoods and disasters. Londres: DFID, 2003. 42. Onencan, A., et al., MAFURIKO: design of Nzoia basin location based flood game. Procedia engineering, 2016. 159: p. 133-140. 43. McCall, M.K., Participatory mapping and Participatory GIS (PGIS) for CRA, community DRR and hazard assessment. ProVention Consortium, CRA Toolkit, Participation Resources, Geneva, 2008. 44. Fritz, S., C.C. Fonte, and L. See, The role of citizen science in earth observation. 2017, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. 45. Longley, P.A., et al., Geographic information systems and science. 2005: John Wiley & Sons. 46. Van Westen, C.J., E. Castellanos, and S.L. Kuriakose, Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: an overview. Engineering geology, 2008. 102(3-4): p. 112-131. 47. Williams, C. and C.E. Dunn, GIS in Participatory Research: Assessing the Impact of Landmines on Communities in North‐west Cambodia. Transactions in GIS, 2003. 7(3): p. 393-410. 48. Upton, C., Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People edited by Greg Bankoff, Georg Frerks and Dorothea Hilhorst. Geographical Journal, 2006. 172(2): p. 172- 173. 49. Guarín, G.P., C.J. Westen, and L. Montoya, Community-based flood risk assessment using GIS for the town of San Sebastian, Guatemala. International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC), 2004.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

50. Laituri, M. and K. Kodrich, On line disaster response community: People as sensors of high magnitude disasters using internet GIS. Sensors, 2008. 8(5): p. 3037-3055. 51. Guarín, G.P., Integrating local knowkledge into GIS-based flood risk assessment: the case of Traingulo and Mabolo communities in Naga city, The Philippines. 2008. 52. Marschlavelli, M.I.C., et al., Flood risk perception analysis in urban areas: case study in Kampung Melayu, Jakarta, Indonesia. 2009. 53. McCall, M.K., Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat international, 2003. 27(4): p. 549-573. 54. O'Neill, P., Developing an Effective Risk Communication Model for Vulnerable Communities. 2003: State Emergency Service. 55. Chambers, R., Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 2006. 25(1): p. 1-11. 56. Rambaldi, G., et al., Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. The electronic journal of information systems in developing countries, 2006. 25(1): p. 1-9. 57. Ferrier, N. and C.E. Haque, Hazards risk assessment methodology for emergency managers: A standardized framework for application. Natural hazards, 2003. 28(2-3): p. 271-290. 58. Declaration, R., Rio declaration on environment and development. 1992. 59. Stec, S. and S. Casey-Lefkowitz, The Aarhus Convention: an implementation guide. 2000: The Commission. 60. Kravchenko, S., The Aarhus Convention and innovations in compliance with multilateral environmental agreements. Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. & Pol'y, 2007. 18: p. 1. 61. Haklay, M.E. and L. Francis, Participatory GIS and community-based citizen science for environmental justice action. 2017, Routledge. 62. European Commission, Green paper on Citizen Science for Europe: Towards a society of empowered citizens and enhanced research, E.C.s.D.S.U. SOCIENTIZE Project, Editor. 2014, European Commission. 63. Haklay, M.M., S. Mazumdar, and J. Wardlaw, Citizen science for observing and understanding the Earth, in Earth Observation Open Science and Innovation. 2018, Springer. p. 69-88. 64. Haklay, M., and and L. Francis, eds. Participatory GIS and community-based citizen science for environmental justice action. The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice, ed. J. Chakraborty, Walker, G. and Holifield, R. 2018, Routledge Abingdon. 297- 308. 65. Reed, M.S., et al., Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of environmental management, 2009. 90(5): p. 1933-1949. 66. Campellone, R.M., et al., The iCASS Platform: Nine principles for landscape conservation design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2018. 176: p. 64-74. 67. Oberg, J., Failure of the Science of Ufology. New Scientist, 1979. 84(1176): p. 102-105. 68. Bonney, R., et al., Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 2009. 59(11): p. 977-984. 69. Haklay, M., Citizen science and policy: a European perspective. The Wodrow Wilson Center, Commons Lab, 2015. 70. Socientize, C., Green paper on citizen science. Citizen Science for Europe. Towards a better society of empowered citizens and enhanced research. Brussels, 2013. 71. Grainger, A., Citizen observatories and the new earth observation science. Remote Sensing, 2017. 9(2): p. 153. 72. Riesch, H. and C. Potter, Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public understanding of science, 2014. 23(1): p. 107-120.

D3.1 ImProDiReT Visibility

73. Galiay, P., Citizen science on the rise. Research World, 2018. 2018(68): p. 40-42. 74. Stevens, M., et al., Taking participatory citizen science to extremes. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 2014(2): p. 20-29. 75. Senaratne, H., et al., A review of volunteered geographic information quality assessment methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2017. 31(1): p. 139- 167. 76. Fonte, C.C., et al., Assessing VGI data quality. Mapping and the Citizen Sensor; Foody, G., See, L., Fritz, S., Mooney, P., Olteanu-Raimond, A.-M., Fonte, CC, Antoniou, V., Eds, 2017: p. 137-163. 77. Antoniou, V. and A. Skopeliti, Measures and indicators of VGI quality: An overview. ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, 2015. 2: p. 345. 78. Ballatore, A. and A. Zipf. A conceptual quality framework for Volunteered Geographic Information. in International Workshop on Spatial Information Theory. 2015. Springer. 79. Bakillah, M., et al., Semantic interoperability of sensor data with Volunteered Geographic Information: A unified model. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2013. 2(3): p. 766-796. 80. Zhao, P., Geospatial Web Services: Advances in Information Interoperability: Advances in Information Interoperability. 2010: IGI Global. 81. Coleman, D., Y. Georgiadou, and J. Labonte, Volunteered geographic information: The nature and motivation of produsers. IJSDIR, 2009. 4(1): p. 332-358. 82. Iacovides, I., et al. Do games attract or sustain engagement in citizen science?: a study of volunteer motivations. in CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2013. ACM. 83. Hsu, A., et al., Mobilize citizens to track sustainability. Nature, 2014. 508(7494): p. 33- 35. 84. Mooney, P., et al., Considerations of privacy, ethics and legal issues in volunteered geographic information. Mapping and the Citizen Sensor, 2017: p. 119-135. 85. Head of Clinic - Solotvyno Allergological Hospital, Head of Clinic - Solotvyno Allergological Hospital, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan and S. Meijer, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 86. Vladimir, P., Solotvyno Spa Speleocenter (Company that has been given a new license for a Speleocenter),, in ImProDiReT Project, A. Onencan, S. Meijer, and E. Akitis, Editors. 2018, Onencan, AM: Solotvyno, Ukraine. p. 1. 87. Mitchell, G., Forecasting environmental equity: air quality responses to road user charging in Leeds, UK. Journal of Environmental Management, 2005. 77(3): p. 212-226. 88. Haklay, M., P. Mateos, and M. Hess, Mapping for Change: Practice, Technologies and Communication, Visioning and Visualization: People, Pixels and Plans, Geography and Genealogy: Locating Personal Pasts, Knowledge-Based Services, Internationalization and Regional Development. 2009, SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England. 89. Castro, J., M. Kolp, and J. Mylopoulos, Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Information systems, 2002. 27(6): p. 365-389. 90. Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood, Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 1997. 22(4): p. 853-886. 91. Frooman, J., Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of management review, 1999. 24(2): p. 191-205. 92. Clarkson, M.E., A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 1995. 20(1): p. 92-117. 93. Ellul, C., L. Francis, and M. Haklay. A Flexible database-centric platform for citizen science data capture. 2011. IEEE. 94. Ellul, C., et al., A platform for location based app development for citizen science and community mapping, in Progress in Location-Based Services. 2013, Springer. p. 71-90.