Abstract
The study described in this paper investigates the relative merits of two peer-reviewed earthquake-induced landslide models using participatory model assessment. The earthquake-induced landslide hazard models assessed are a simplified Newmark’s displacement model and a recently developed knowledge-based model. Participatory model assessment involves conducting facilitated participatory processes where the model(s) are used for aiding decisions within a socio-behavioral experiment designed for collecting data to evaluate formal hypotheses about the model(s). The paper sets out the design of the participatory model assessment—a series of workshops involving experts and potential model end-users that incorporated a roleplay site selection task. Quantitative data elicited using a set of entrance and exit questionnaires were analyzed to investigate hypotheses about the models. Participants found the knowledge-based model to be significantly more complete and more informative for their roleplay task. Overall, the two models did not yield significant differences with respect to issues such as task efficiency or task outcome satisfaction. Lastly, it was found that education level and disciplinary perspectives (of those analyzed) did not significantly affect outcomes, suggesting that a wide demographic of participants can be used for participatory model assessments. Additional research is needed to assess the models in different contexts, as well as more broadly developing a set of best practices for conducting participatory model assessments of other natural hazard and risk models intended to support decision-making.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews C (2002) Humble analysis: the practice of joint fact-finding. Praeger, London
Andersen I, Jaeger B (1999) Danish participatory models. Sci Public Policy 26:331–340
Arias E, Eden H, Fischer G, Gorman A, Scharff E (2000) Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7:84–113
Barlas Y, Carpenter S (1990) Philosophical roots of model validation: two paradigms. Syst Dyn Rev 6:148–166
Batenburg RS, Bongers FJ (2001) The role of GSS in participatory policy analysis: a field experiment. Inf Manag 39:15–30
Black T (1999) Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: an integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Coyne R (1995) Designing information technology in the postmodern age: from method to metaphor. MIT Press, Cambridge
Davison R (1999) An instrument for measuring meeting success: revalidation and modification. Inf Manage 36:321–328
Del Gaudio V, Pierri P, Wasowski J (2003) An approach to time-probabilistic evaluation of seismically induced landslide hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(2):557–569
Drew CH (2003) Transparency—considerations for PPGIS research and development. Urban Reg Inf Syst As J 15:73–78
Durrenberger G, Kastenholz H, Behringer J (1999) Integrated assessment focus groups: bridging the gap between science and policy. Sci Public Policy 26:341–349
Hennen L (1999) Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity. Sci Public Policy 26:303–312
Hooke W, Pielke R (2000) Short-term weather prediction: an orchestra in need of a conductor. In: Sarewitz D, Pielke RA, Byerly R (eds) Prediction: science, decision making and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 61–84
Hornecker E, Eden H, Scharff E (2002) Role Play as assessment method for tools supporting participatory planning. In: Binder T, Ehn P (eds) PDC 2002. Malmo, Sweden, pp 243–247
Innes J, Booher D (1999) Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning. J Am Plan As 65:9–27
Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) GIS for group decision making. Taylor and Francis, New York
Jibson RW, Harp EL, Michael JA (2000) A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Eng Geol 58(3–4):271–289
Kleindorfer G, O’Neill L, Ganeshan R (1998) Validation in simulation: various positions in the philosophy of science. Manage Sci 44(8):1087–1099
Korfmacher K (2001) The politics of participation in watershed modeling. Environ Manage 27:161–176
Mankelow J, Murphy W (1998) Using GIS in the probabilistic assessment of earthquake triggered landslide hazards. J Earthq Eng 2(4):593–623
McCrink T, Real C (1996) Evaluation of the Newmark method for mapping earthquake-induced hazards in the Laurel 7.5′ quadrangle, Santa Cruz County, California: Final Technical Report for US Geological Survey Contract 143-93-G-2334
Miles SB (2000) Towards policy relevant environmental modeling: contextual validity and pragmatic models, US Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-401, http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00-401
Miles SB, Chang SE (2006) Modeling community recovery from earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 22(2):439–458
Miles SB, Keefer DK (2000) Evaluation of seismic slope-performance models using a regional case study. Environ Eng Geosci 11(1):25–39
Miles SB, Keefer DK (2001a) Seismic landslide hazard for the cities of Oakland and Piedmont, CA, US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF 01-2379, http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/map-mf/mf2379
Miles SB, Keefer DK (2001b) Seismic landslide hazard for the city of Berkeley, CA, US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF 01-2379, http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/map-mf/mf2378
Miles SB, Keefer DK (2007) Comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides: technical specification and user guide. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1072, p 69
Miles SB, Keefer DK (2009a) Towards a comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides (CAMEL). Nat Haz Rev 10(1):19–28
Miles SB, Keefer DK (2009b) Evaluation of CAMEL—comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides. Eng Geol 104:1–15
Miles SB, Keefer DK, Nyerges TL (2000) A case study in GIS-based environmental model validation using earthquake-induced landslide hazard. Fourth international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and environmental sciences, Amsterdam, pp 104–114
Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15(2):139–160
Norton B (1996) Integration or reduction: two approaches to environmental values. In: Light A, Katz E (eds) Environmental pragmatism. Routledge, New York, pp 105–138
Nyerges T, Jankowski P, Drew C (2002) Data gathering strategies for social-behavioral research about participatory geographic information system use. Int J Geograph Inf Sci 16:1–22
Oreskes N (1998) Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environ Health Perspect 106:1453–1459
Refice A, Capolongo D (2002) Probabilistic modeling of uncertainties in earthquake-induced landslide hazard assessment. Comput Geosci 28(6):735–749
Rykiel E (1996) Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecol Model 90:229–244
Sarewitz D, Pielke R, Byerly R (2000) Prediction: science, decision making, and the future of nature. Island Press, Washington, DC
Wu T, Tang W, Einstein H (1996) Landslide hazard and risk assessment. In: Turner A, Schuster R (eds) Landslides: investigations and mitigation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Zigurs I, Reitsma R, Lewis C, Hübscher R, Hayes C (1999) Accessibility of computer-based simulation models in inherently conflict-laden negotiations. Group Decis Negot 8:511–533
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Timothy Nyerges, David Keefer, Devon Macauley, and Scott Haefner for their help in designing and conducting the participatory model assessment workshop. Timothy Nyerges and David Keefer also provided much appreciated reviews of this manuscript. An additional thanks is owed to the two anonymous reviewers who helped focus the manuscript. All shortcomings and oversights are the responsibility of the author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miles, S.B. Participatory model assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard models. Nat Hazards 56, 749–766 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9587-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9587-5