Skip to main content
Log in

Participatory model assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard models

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews C (2002) Humble analysis: the practice of joint fact-finding. Praeger, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen I, Jaeger B (1999) Danish participatory models. Sci Public Policy 26:331–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlas Y, Carpenter S (1990) Philosophical roots of model validation: two paradigms. Syst Dyn Rev 6:148–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batenburg RS, Bongers FJ (2001) The role of GSS in participatory policy analysis: a field experiment. Inf Manag 39:15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black T (1999) Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: an integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne R (1995) Designing information technology in the postmodern age: from method to metaphor. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison R (1999) An instrument for measuring meeting success: revalidation and modification. Inf Manage 36:321–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drew CH (2003) Transparency—considerations for PPGIS research and development. Urban Reg Inf Syst As J 15:73–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrenberger G, Kastenholz H, Behringer J (1999) Integrated assessment focus groups: bridging the gap between science and policy. Sci Public Policy 26:341–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennen L (1999) Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity. Sci Public Policy 26:303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) GIS for group decision making. Taylor and Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jibson RW, Harp EL, Michael JA (2000) A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps. Eng Geol 58(3–4):271–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer G, O’Neill L, Ganeshan R (1998) Validation in simulation: various positions in the philosophy of science. Manage Sci 44(8):1087–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korfmacher K (2001) The politics of participation in watershed modeling. Environ Manage 27:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankelow J, Murphy W (1998) Using GIS in the probabilistic assessment of earthquake triggered landslide hazards. J Earthq Eng 2(4):593–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles SB, Keefer DK (2000) Evaluation of seismic slope-performance models using a regional case study. Environ Eng Geosci 11(1):25–39

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles SB, Keefer DK (2009b) Evaluation of CAMEL—comprehensive areal model of earthquake-induced landslides. Eng Geol 104:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N (1998) Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environ Health Perspect 106:1453–1459

    Google Scholar 

  • Refice A, Capolongo D (2002) Probabilistic modeling of uncertainties in earthquake-induced landslide hazard assessment. Comput Geosci 28(6):735–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rykiel E (1996) Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecol Model 90:229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D, Pielke R, Byerly R (2000) Prediction: science, decision making, and the future of nature. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott B. Miles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9587-5

Keywords

Navigation