The use of geo-information in Eco-DRR : from mapping to decision support

Ecosystem services can play an important role as measures for disaster risk reduction. At the same time it is important to find out where and how ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction really can make a difference. If we want to find out what will be the effect of alternative risk reduction measures, how ecosystem services can play a role in this context, and how they compare with other types of interventions, then there is a clear role for geo-information. Geographical information, such as obtained from spatial-temporal simulation modelling and spatial multi-criteria evaluation, is used for analyzing and monitoring what could be the effect of alternative development scenarios on the exposure to natural hazards, or of different combinations of engineered, ecosystem-based and other non-structural risk reduction measures. This helps to set management priorities and propose actions for risk reduction and risk-informed spatial planning. With the help of a spatial decision support system, the effect of risk reduction alternatives and their effect on risk reduction – now and in the future – can be analyzed and compared. This can support the selection of ‘best’ alternatives. The recently developed RiskChanges is presented, which is a web-based, open-source spatial decision support tool for the analysis of changing risk to natural hazards. It is envisaged that the use of the RiskChanges will support the provision of relevant geo-information about risk and changes in risk, and thus provides input for structured risk reduction-, disaster response-, and spatial development-planning.

[1]  Cees van Westen,et al.  Coping strategies and risk manageability: using participatory geographical information systems to represent local knowledge. , 2012, Disasters.

[2]  C. J. van Westen,et al.  GIS for the assessment of risk from geomorphological hazards , 2010 .

[3]  Han Meyer,et al.  Reinventing the Dutch Delta: Complexity and Conflicts , 2009 .

[4]  J. Malet,et al.  Introduction: The components of Risk Governance , 2014 .

[5]  Michal Petr,et al.  New climate change information modifies frames and decisions of decision makers: an exploratory study in forest planning , 2016, Regional Environmental Change.

[6]  J. Malet,et al.  Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk , 2013, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment.

[7]  Anne van der Veen,et al.  A spatial and temporal drought risk assessment of three major tree species in Britain using probabilistic climate change projections , 2014, Climatic Change.

[8]  Margreth Keiler,et al.  Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review , 2012, Natural Hazards.

[9]  C. J. Westen,et al.  Generation of a landslide risk index map for Cuba using spatial multi-criteria evaluation , 2007 .

[10]  M. L. Carreño,et al.  Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework , 2013, Natural Hazards.

[11]  Louise Willemen,et al.  A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services , 2013 .

[12]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  The Art and Science of Mess Management , 1981 .

[13]  Woods Ballard,et al.  The SUDS manual , 2007 .

[14]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[15]  D. Roth,et al.  Moving out or living on a mound? Jointly planning a Dutch flood adaptation project , 2014 .

[16]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world , 2013 .

[17]  Paul A. Longley,et al.  Geographical information systems : principles, techniques, management, and applications , 2005 .

[18]  Johannes Flacke,et al.  Modelling urbanization and flooding in Kampala, Uganda , 2013 .

[19]  S. Zlatanova,et al.  Geoinformation for Disaster and Risk Management. Examples and best practices , 2010 .

[20]  Ramanathan Sugumaran,et al.  Spatial Decision Support Systems: Principles and Practices , 2010 .

[21]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios , 2000 .

[22]  Marc Schut,et al.  Room for the River: Room for Research? The case of depoldering De Noordwaard, the Netherlands , 2010 .

[23]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know , 2008 .

[24]  C Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[25]  Fabrice G. Renaud,et al.  Opportunities, challenges and future perspectives for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction , 2013 .

[26]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making , 2010 .

[27]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling , 2002 .

[28]  Sisi Zlatanova,et al.  Risk-maps informing land-use planning processes A survey on the Netherlands and the United Kingdom recent developments. , 2007, Journal of hazardous materials.

[29]  Michal Petr,et al.  Climate change, uncertainty, and consequent risks : opportunities for forest management adaptation in Britain , 2014 .