Environmental Management

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 762–776 | Cite as

Resource-Constrained Information Management: Providing Governments with Information for Earthquake Preparedness



This study seeks to attain a better understanding of the information that is required by governments to prepare for earthquakes, and of the constraints they face in obtaining this information. The contributions of the study are two-fold. A survey that was conducted among those responsible for earthquake preparedness actions in different governmental agencies and at different levels revealed on the one hand a desire for information on a broad range of topics, but on the other hand that no resources were allocated in practice to gather this information. A Geographic Information System-based process that was developed following the survey, allowed the required information on seismic hazards and loss and damage risks to be rapidly collected, mapped and integrated. This supported the identification of high-priority areas, for which a more detailed analysis could be initiated. An implementation of the process showed promise, and confirmed its feasibility. Its relative simplicity may ensure that an earthquake preparedness process is initiated by governments that are otherwise reluctant to allocate resources for this purpose.


Earthquake preparedness Information requirements Seismic hazards GIS 



The authors thank Dr. Amos Salamon for clarifications regarding the geological topics. We thank the members of the National Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness for their participation in the survey, and for commenting on the objectives of the present research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. Armaş I (2012) Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest, Romania. Nat hazards 63(2):1129–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balamir M (2002) Painful steps of progress from crisis planning to contingency planning: changes for disaster preparedness in Turkey. J Contin and Crisis Manage 10(1):39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boin A (2004) Lessons from crisis research. Int Studies Rev 6(1):165–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen K, Blong R, Jacobson C (2003) Towards an integrated approach to natural hazards risk assessment using GIS: with reference to bushfires. Environ Manage 31(4):0546–0560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen K, McAneney J, Blong R, Leigh R, Hunter L, Magill C (2004) Defining area at risk and its effect in catastrophe loss estimation: a dasymetric mapping approach. Appl Geogr 24(2):97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen C, Werker ED (2008) The political economy of “natural” disasters. J Con Res 52(6):795–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Comfort LK, Ko K, Zagorecki A (2004) Coordination in rapidly evolving disaster response systems the role of information. Am Behav Sci 48(3):295–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutting B, Kouzmin A (1999) From chaos to patterns of understanding: reflections on the dynamics of effective government decision making. Public Adm 77(3):475–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dell’Acqua F, Gamba P, Jaiswal K (2013) Spatial aspects of building and population exposure data and their implications for global earthquake exposure modeling. Nat Hazards 68(3):1291–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickson E, Baker JL, Hoornweg D (2012) Urban risk assessments: understanding disaster and climate risk in cities. World Bank Publications, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Duzgun HSB, Yucemen MS, Kalaycioglu HS, Celik K, Kemec S, Ertugay K, Deniz A (2011) An integrated earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban areas. Nat Hazards 59(2):917–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FEMA (1997) Multi-hazard identification and risk assessment. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Isikdag U, Underwood J, Aouad G, Trodd N (2007) Investigating the role of building information models as a part of an integrated data layer: a fire response management case. Arch Engin Des Manage 3(2):124–142Google Scholar
  14. Jaffe BE, Gelfenbaum G (2002) Using tsunami deposits to improve assessment of tsunami risk. Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2:836–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaiswal K, Wald D, Porter K (2010) A global building inventory for earthquake loss estimation and risk management. Earthquake Spectra 26(3):731–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jennex ME (2011) Crisis Response and Management and Emerging Information System, Critical Applications. Information Science Reference, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jongejan RB, Helsloot I, Beerens RJ, Vrijling JK (2011) How prepared is prepared enough? Disasters 35(1):130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karaman H, Erden T (2014) Net earthquake hazard and elements at risk (NEaR) map creation for city of Istanbul via spatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Nat Hazards 73(2):685–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT (2006) HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwan MP, Lee J (2005) Emergency response after 9/11: the potential of real-time 3D GIS for quick emergency response in micro-spatial environments. Comput Environ Urban Syst 29(2):93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levi T, Tavron B, Katz O, Amit R, Segal D, Hamiel Y, Bar-Lavi Y, Romach S, Salamon A (2010) Earthquake loss estimation in Israel using the new HAZUS-MH Software: preliminary implementation. Geological Survey of Israel, Report GSI/11/2010, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  22. Manfré LA, Hirata E, Silva JB, Shinohara EJ, Giannotti MA, Larocca APC, Quintanilha JA (2012) An analysis of geospatial technologies for risk and natural disaster management. ISPRS Int J of Geo-Infor 1(2):166–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McConnell A, Drennan L (2006) Mission impossible? Planning and preparing for crisis. JCCM 14(2):59–70Google Scholar
  24. Montoya L (2003) Geo-data acquisition through mobile GIS and digital video: an urban disaster management perspective. Environ Model Softw 18(10):869–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nath SK, Adhikari MD, Maiti SK, Devaraj N, Srivastava N, Mohapatra LD (2014) Earthquake scenario in West Bengal with emphasis on seismic hazard microzonation of the city of Kolkata, India. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14(9):2549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newth OE (2014) Predicting extreme events: the role of big data in quantifying risk in structural development (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)Google Scholar
  27. O’Looney J (2000) Beyond maps – GIS and decision making in local government. Environmental System Research Institute, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Olshansky R, Wu Y (2004) Evaluating earthquake safety in mid-American communities. Nat Hazards Rev 5(2):71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenthal U, Kouzmin A (1997) Crises and crisis management: toward comprehensive government decision making. J Pub Admin Res and Theory 7(2):277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salamon A (2010) Potential Tsunamigenic Sources in the Eastern Mediterranean and a Decision Matrix for a Tsunamis Early Warning System in Israel. Geological Survey of Israel, Report No GSI/02/2010. Jerusalem, February 2010Google Scholar
  31. Salamon A, Netzer-Cohen C, Zilberman E, Amit R (2014) Qualitative Evaluation of Earthquake Hazards for Archaeological and Historical Sites in Israel. Geological Survey of Israel, Report No GSI/28/2014, Jerusalem, December 2014Google Scholar
  32. Salamon A, Netzer-Cohen C, Zilberman E, Amit R, Cohen M (2015) Qualitative evaluation of earthquake hazards for archaeological and historical sites in Israel. Proceedings, 6th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archaeoseismology, 19–24 April 2015, Pescina, Italy, 435–438Google Scholar
  33. Terlien MT, Van Westen CJ, van Asch TW (1995) Deterministic modelling in GIS-based landslide hazard assessment. In: Carrara A, Guzzetti F (eds) Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards (pp. 57–77). Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  34. Tierney KJ, Lindell MK, Perry RW (Eds) (2001) Facing the unexpected: disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Unlu A, Kapucu N, Sahin B (2010) Disaster and crisis management in Turkey: a need for a unified crisis management system. Disaster Prev Manage 19(2):155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yankelevsky D, Schwarz S, Leibovich E, Ofir Y (2011) Basis for preparation of database related to existing buildings in israel, stage i – residential buildings. The Israel Ministry of Construction and Housing and the Technion Research and Development Foundation, National Building Research Institute, HaifaGoogle Scholar
  37. Zerger A (2002) Examining GIS decision utility for natural hazard risk modelling. Environ Model Softw 17(3):287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zerger A, Smith DI (2003) Impediments to using GIS for real-time disaster decision support. Comput Environ Urban Syst 27(2):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhai Y, Ouyang Q (2013) Application of GIS and RS techniques in rapid seismic damage prediction. In: Bian F, Xie Y, Cui X, Zeng Y (eds) Geo-informatics in resource management and sustainable ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 88–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Vatenmacher
    • 1
  • Shabtai Isaac
    • 2
  • Tal Svoray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations