Improdiret State of the Art Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 © Copyright 2018 Abby Onencan, Edmunds Akitis, Kenny Meesters 2 | P a g e 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 © Copyright 2018 Abby Onencan, Edmunds Akitis, Kenny Meesters 3 | P a g e 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 © Copyright 2018 Abby Onencan, Edmunds Akitis, Kenny Meesters 4 | P a g e 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 © Copyright 2018 Abby Onencan, Edmunds Akitis, Kenny Meesters 5 | P a g e 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