Spatial Information Research

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 169–179 | Cite as

Evaluation of an open-source collaborative web-GIS prototype in risk management with students

  • Zar Chi Aye
  • Marie Charrière
  • Roya Olyazadeh
  • Marc-Henri Derron
  • Michel Jaboyedoff
Article
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Over the past decades, advancements in web services and web-based geospatial technologies have led to increasing delivery, access and analysis of rich spatial information over the web. With the use of open access data and open-source technology, it has become possible for policy and decision makers to make more transparent and informed decisions. Under the framework of the CHANGES project, a prototype web-based collaborative decision support platform was developed for the evaluation and selection of risk management measures, mainly targeting flood and landslide hazards. The design of the conceptual framework was based on the initial observations obtained from field visits and stakeholders’ meetings at the case study areas of the project. A three-tier client–server architecture backed up by Boundless (OpenGeo) was applied with its client side development environment for rapid prototyping. This developed prototype was tested with university students to obtain feedback on the conceptual and technical aspects of the platform as well as to analyse how the application of interactive tools during an exercise could assist students in studying and understanding risk management. During the exercise, different roles (authorities, technicians, community) were assigned to each group of students for identification and selection of risk mitigation measures in a study area: Cucco village located in Malborghetto-Valbruna municipality of North-Eastern Italy. Data were collected by means of written feedback forms on specific aspects of the platform and the exercise. The subsequent analysis of the feedback reveals that students with previous experience in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) responded positively and showed interests in performing exercises with such kinds of interactive tools for learning, compared to the ones with fewer or no GIS experience. These results also show that the prototype is useful and supportive as a decision support tool in risk management while user-friendliness, interactivity and practical aspects of the platform could be further improved.

Keywords

Collaborative web-GIS Open-source Risk management Natural hazards Active learning 

References

  1. 1.
    EM-DAT. (2012). The international disaster database. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). www.emdat.be. Accessed July 22, 2015.
  2. 2.
    Sterlacchini, S., Akbas, S. O., Blahut, J., Mavrouli, O. C., Garcia, C., Luna, B. Q., & Corominas, J. (2014). Methods for the characterization of the vulnerability of elements-at-risk. In T. van Asch, J. Corominas, S. Greiving, J. P. Malet, & S. Sterlacchini (Eds.), Mountain risks: From prediction to management and governance, advances in natural and technological hazards research (pp. 233–273). Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    APFM. (2006). Social Aspects and stakeholder involvement in integrated flood management. WMO: Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/556_10315.pdf. Accessed Jan 23, 2016.
  4. 4.
    Fuchs, S., Keiler, M., Sokratov, S., & Shnyparkov, A. (2012). Spatiotemporal dynamics: The need for an innovative approach in mountain hazard risk management. Natural Hazards, 68, 1217–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansson, K., Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2008). A framework for evaluation of flood management strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. (2001). GIS-Supported collaborative decision making: Results of an experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(1), 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown, G. (2012). Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: Reflections on a decade of empirical research. URISA Journal, 25(2), 7–18.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. (2001). GIS for group decision making: Towards a participatory geographic information science. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dragićević, S., & Balram, S. (2004). A web GIS collaborative framework to structure and manage distributed planning processes. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6(2), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (2004). Planning support systems: An inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(4), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mysiak, J., Giupponi, C., & Rosato, P. (2005). Towards the development of a decision support system for water resource management. Environmental Modelling and Software, 20, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pasche, E., Küpferle, C. H., & Manojlovic, N. (2007). Capacity building of spatial planners for flood risk management in urban environment through decision support systems and interactive learning. In Paper presented at the International Symposium on New Directions in Urban Water Management. UNESCO Paris, Sept 12–14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salewicz, K. A., & Nakayama, M. (2004). Development of a web-based decision support system (DSS) for managing large international rivers. Global Environmental Change, 14, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sugumaran, R., Meyer, J. C., & Davis, J. (2004). A web-based environmental decision support system (WEDSS) for environmental planning and watershed management. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6(3), 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, Y., Sugumaran, R., McBroom, M., DeGroote, J., Kauten, R. L., & Barten, P. K. (2011). Web-Based spatial decision support system and watershed management with a case study. International Journal of Geosciences, 2(3), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evers, M., Jonoski, A., Maksimovič, Č., Lange, L., Ochoa Rodriguez, S., Teklesadik, A., et al. (2012). Collaborative modelling for active involvement of stakeholders in urban flood risk management. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12, 2821–2842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGahey, C., Sayers, P., van der Vat, M., Mens, M., & Schanze, J. (2008). An approach to planning for sustainable flood risk management in the long-term (supported by prototype tools). FLOODsite report T18-08-08. http://www.floodsite.net/html/partner_area/project_docs/t18_07_03_task_18_executive_summary_v2_0_p01.pdf. Accessed Jan 23, 2016.
  19. 19.
    Aye, Z. C., Sprague, T., Cortes, V. J., Prenger-Berninghoff, K., Jaboyedoff, M., & Derron, M.-H. (2016). A collaborative (web-GIS) framework based on empirical data collected from three case studies in Europe for risk management of hydro-meteorological hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 15, 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prenger-Berninghoff, K., Cortes, V. J., Sprague, T., Aye, Z. C., Greiving, S., Głowacki, W., & Sterlacchini, S. (2014). The connection between long-term and short-term risk management strategies for flood and landslide hazards: Examples from land-use planning and emergency management in four European case studies. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14, 3261–3278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aye, Z. C., Jaboyedoff, M., Derron, M.-H., van Westen, C. J., Hussin, H. Y., Ciurean, R. L., et al. (2016). An interactive web-GIS tool for risk analysis: A case study in the Fella River Basin, Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aye, Z. C., Jaboyedoff, M., Derron, M.-H., & van Westen, C. J. (2015). Prototype of a Web-based participative decision support platform in Natural Hazards and risk management. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4, 1201–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonwell, C. C., Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiggins, G., & Mc Tighe, I. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: Merrill Education/ASCD, College Textbook Series, ASCD.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hussin, H. Y., Ciurean, R., Frigerio, S., Marcato, G., Calligaris, C., Reichenbach, P., et al. (2014). Assessing the effect of mitigation measures on landslide hazard using 2D numerical runout modelling. In K. Sassa, P. Canuti, & Y. Yin (Eds.), Landslide science for a safer geoenvironment (pp. 679–684). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simonovic, S. P. (2010). Systems approach to management of disasters: Methods and applications. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeleny, M. (1973). Compromise programming, Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Spatial Information Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zar Chi Aye
    • 1
  • Marie Charrière
    • 2
  • Roya Olyazadeh
    • 1
  • Marc-Henri Derron
    • 1
  • Michel Jaboyedoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Geosciences and EnvironmentUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Water Resources Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations