GEO Disaster Tasks:



STC Review of the Disaster SBA

Responses related to ST-09-01a

Task DI-09-01: Systematic Monitoring for Geohazards Risk Assessment
Sub-Task: DI-09-01a: Vulnerability Mapping and Risk Assessment
Point of Contact: Fabio DellAcqua

  1. What S&T issues are relevant for the Task?

    Major: some parameters relevant to vulnerability estimation either can not be extracted from remotely sensed data at all, or they can only by relying on weak correlations. A thorough study of possibile unexpected correlation between remotely sensed data and relevant features such as construction techniques could be beneficial.

    Minor: registration issues if optical-radar data fusion is used. Our experience shows that often geocoding of both data is not sufficient.

  2. What S&T activities are currently carried out in the frame of the Task, and what scientific and/or technological components and/or developments are being used to complete this task?

    Techniques formerly developed for feature extraction are being used to extract some of the relevant parameters. New ones are being developed relying on radar data.

  3. Does the Task Team have sufficient expertise to complete the task? If not, what is missing?

    The task would probably benefit from inputs provided by experts of construction techniques and structural issues.

  4. Does the Task Team have sufficient resources to complete this task (resources can be defined as funding, data, in-kind support, or any other element)?

    A sufficient amount of data has been collected to allow for performing a few case studies in different sites around the world (Italy and Caribbean Islands). In-kind support is provided by staff of the Seismic Risk Section of the EUCENTRE and staff of GEM (Global Earthquake Model). Fund raising is difficult and currently the level of funding is insufficient.

  5. What relevant S&T issues should be addressed but are currently not covered by the Task? In particular, do you see any scientific or technological barriers or science and technology gaps that might prevent you from completing this task within the Work Plan time frame?

    In principle, the task should be completed in time even though only in the form of case studies on a limited set of test sites. The main scientific threat is the – currently unexplored – degree of uncertainty left open on vulnerability level estimate by the set of relevant features that cannot be extracted neither by airborne nor space-borne remote sensing, e.g. structural characteristics of buildings or wall footprint area vs. total building footprint for masonry buildings.

    The task would probably benefit from more explicit support of in-situ data such as proximity sensing (e.g. Streetview-like tools and systems) capable of collecting a good deal of information complementing the set produced through remote sensing.

  6. Are there any issues with sustained operation/continuity (e.g., of sensors, observation, data archives, modeling, etc) that should be addressed in the frame of your tasks or in support of your task? Is there any help from ST-09-02 your Task would like to facilitate in order to promote a transition from research to more sustained operation?

    There seems to be no continuity issue, while operation issues are connected with the limited amount of very high resolution (VHR) radar data available so far, which is required to obtain some of the required information. In a long-term perspective the entire Earth surface should be covered but then naturally the issue becomes that of data age.

  7. How would you prioritize the science or technology issues relevant for your task?

    The priority should be placed on studying uncertainty left by the limited set of data available form remotely sensing.

  8. What linkages exist between your Task and other Disaster Tasks?

    The output of our Task may probably provide input to risk-connected tasks such as DI-09-02 (Multi-Risk Management and Regional Applications) and DI-06-09 (Use of Satellites for Risk Management) by providing exposure data.

  9. What cross-cutting issues are most relevant for the Task and how are these addressed?

    Availability of VHR radar data is probably to be considered a cross-cutting issue.

  10. Does your Task draw on other activities inside or outside GEOSS?

    The supersites initiative will probably be useful in the future, as a provider not only of raw data but also of information useful for assessment of results. Our formal and factual cooperation with the Italian Civil Protection Department is also an important source of data and information, especially for what concerns Abruzzi earthquake in recent times. Although our GEO activities are not explicitly funded, many of our activities in this framework are useful also for our GEO Task. In this context we have also developed strong links with the Italian Space Agency.

  11. What additional resources could be leveraged (existing and new) to complete this task?

    It is difficult to predict, as sometimes opportunities open up unexpectedly; other times they close down as unexpectedly. On the occasion of 33rd IRSE conference, Stresa, Italy, 4 8 May 2009, a delegate from e-Geos promised to distribute some COSMO/SkyMed data to GEO Task participants who would apply. We did, submitted a project and reached just a step away from data provision. We then had no further news and just one of my many reminders got somehow replied with more generic promises, then nothing. I am at loss to understand whether we will ever get C/S data on the Messina test site, which is also a candidate site for the Supersites initiative.

  12. Could your Task be used as a “compelling example” of how GEO and GEOSS works for science and technology communities? If so, who would be the contact person between Task ST-09-02 and your Task to develop the documentation of the example?

    I don’t think so. I am quite unsure whether the science and technology issues raised be of broad interest.

  13. What other circumstances are relevant for the completion of the Task?

    Favourable circumtstances allowing a "low-cost" completion of the Task: e.g. possibility to reuse data purchased for, and results from, other projects; personal interest of the people involved.

Last edited 02 December 2016