Abstract
A conceptual framework is proposed that defines the most appropriate 3D visualisations for different types of natural disasters in urban environments. Based on the disaster type, the needed level of detail for a 3D model is derived, which is then linked to the time needed to process the data and obtain this level of detail. The levels of detail are compliant with the 3D international standard CityGML. The framework is designed to serve risk managers and to help them make a better selection of 3D model representations to perform their tasks. After a brief introduction on the relations between types of disasters, data needed to manage the disasters and different users involved in the risk management process, the chapter elaborates on the parameters according to which types of hazards are classified. The framework is demonstrated for an earthquake case in Eskisehir, Turkey. The paper concludes with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the given framework, as well as an outline of future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Burton I, Robert WK, Gilbert FW (1993) The Environment as Hazard, Guilford Press, New York.
Emgard L, Zlatanova S (2008) Implementation alternatives for an integrated 3D information model. In: Van Oosterom PJM, Zlatanova S, Penninga F, Fendel E (eds.) Advances in 3D Geoinformation Systems, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 313–329.
Gröger G, Kolbe TH, Czerwinski A (2006) CityGML Implementation Specification, Developed by the Special Interest Group 3D (SIG 3D), OGC Document Number 06-057r1.
Herold S, Sawada M, Wellar B (2005) Integrating geographic information systems, spatial databases and the internet: A framework for disaster management, Proceedings of the 98th Annual Canadian Institute of Geomatics Conference June 13, Ottawa, Canada.
Hu J, You S, Neumann U (2003) Approaches to large-scale urban modelling. IEEE Comp Graph Appl, Published by the IEEE computer Society November/December :62–69.
Kaplan LG (1996) Emergency and Disaster Planning Manual, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kemec S, Duzgun S (2006) 3D visualization for urban earthquake risk in geohazards. In: Nadim F, Pöttler R, Einstein H, Klapperich H, Kramer S (eds.) ECI Symposium Series, Vol. P7 http://services.bepress.com/eci/geohazards/37.
Kemes S, Zlatanova S, Duzgun S (2009) Selecting 3D urban visualisation models for disaster management: A rule-based approach. In Proceedings of TIEMS 2009 Annual Conference, June 9–11, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 99–110.
Kerle N, Heuel S, Pfeifer N (2008) Real-time data collection and information generation using airborne sensors. In: Zlatanova S, Li J (eds.) Geospatial Information Technology for Emergency Response, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 43–74.
Kolbe TH, Gröger G, Plümer L (2005) CityGML-interoperable access to 3D city models. In: Oosterom P, Zlatanova S, Fendel EM (eds.) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geo-information for Disaster Management March 21–23, Delft, Springer Verlag.
Marincioni F (2007) Information technologies and the sharing of disaster knowledge: The critical role of professional culture. Disasters 31(4):459–476. Blackwell Publishing, USA.
Martin D, Higgs G (1997) The visualization of socio-economic GIS data using virtual reality tools. Trans. GIS 1(4):255.
Mitroff II (1988) Crisis management: cutting through the confusion. Sloan Manage. Rev. 29(2):15–20.
Raper JF (1989) The 3D geoscientific mapping and modeling system: A conceptual design. In: Raper JF (ed.) Three dimensional Applications in Geographical Information Systems. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 11–20.
Shaluf IM (2007) Disaster types. Disaster Prevention Manage. 16(5):704–717.
Tao CV (2006) 3D data acquisition and object reconstruction for AEC/CAD. In: Zlatanova S, Prosperi D (eds.) Large-Scale 3D Data Integration Challenges and Opportunities. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 39–56.
Uitto JI (1998) The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities. Appl Geogr 18(1):7–16.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2002) Communicating in a Crisis: Risk Communication Guidelines for Public Officials, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (2002) Guide on Public Understanding and Response to Warnings, WMO, Geneva.
Zlatanova S (2008) SII for Emergency Response: The 3D Challenges. In: Chen J, Jiang J, Nayak S (eds.) Proceedings of the XXI ISPRS Congress, Part B4-TYC IV, July, Beijing, pp. 1631–1637.
Zlatanova S, Holweg D, Stratakis M (2007) Framework for multi-risk emergency response. In: Tao CV, Li J (eds.) Advances in Mobile Mapping Technology, Taylor&Francis, London, ISPRS Book Series, pp. 159–171.
Zlatanova S, Rahman AA, Pilouk M (2002) 3D GIS: Current status and perspectives, In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Geo-spatial theory, Processing and Applications, July 8–12, Ottawa, Canada, p. 6. CDROM.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kemec, S., Zlatanova, S., Duzgun, H.S. (2010). A Framework for Defining a 3D Model in Support of Risk Management. In: Konecny, M., Zlatanova, S., Bandrova, T. (eds) Geographic Information and Cartography for Risk and Crisis Management. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03442-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03442-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03441-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03442-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)