1st Periodic Dissemination Report
version no. 2
RASOR-DWP12.18-20151029-2-AG–
RASOR User Workshop – version no. 3
1
DOCUMENT INFORMATION PAGE
CONTRACT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
606888
Rapid Analysis and Spatialisation of
Risk
PROJECT ACRONYM
RASOR
DELIVERABLE NUMBER
D12.18
DELIEVERABLE NAME
User Workshop Report
WORK PACKAGE NUMBER
WORK PACKAGE NAME
12
Dissemination Activities
DEADLINE
Month 20
VERSION
1.0
DISSEMINATION LEVEL
PP
NATURE
LEAD BENEFICIARY
AUTHOR / DATE OF PREPARATION
Report
AG
Workshop delivered June 2015
V1 report Andrew Eddy / 09-2015
V2 report Andrew Eddy / 31-10-2015
V3 report Andrew Eddy / 16-11-2015
Christiane Maasburg v1/ 15-10-2015
RASOR team SC members) v2 / 02-11-
REVIEWER / DATES OF REVISION
2015
Roberto Rudari, Christiane Maasburg
v3 / 16-11-2015
SIGN-OFF FOR RELEASE
Roberto Rudari / 16-11-2015
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Document ................................................................................................................ 4
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4
Workshop Report ............................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusions/Implications for RASOR ............................................................................................. 12
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 12
Annex 1 – Agenda of the workshop ............................................................................................. 14
Annex 2 – Comments from participants....................................................................................... 16
Annex 3 – List of participants ......................................................................................................... 19
3
Purpose of the Document
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the RASOR User Workshop
held with a representative group of users in June 2015, and to present the main
feedback received from the users at the workshop, which was later used to finalize
the User Requirements Document and update the platform in its beta release.
Executive Summary
The User Workshop was held on 9 and 10 June, 2015 in Savona, Italy. Some 40
people attended from user organizations (both end users and intermediary users)
and from the RASOR partnership. The cross section of users included civil protection
agencies, international non-governmental and governmental organizations active
in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management and local and regional environmental
organizations.
User were given a high-level presentation of platform functionality and then an
opportunity to use the platform to perform their own risk assessments based on preprepared scenarios in Haiti and Indonesia. After the break-out sessions (practical
exercises), users were shown the RASOR business model and given an opportunity to
provide oral and written feedback on the platform.
Users felt in general that the platform was innovative and unique in its treatment of
risk form a multi-hazard perspective integrating data from both satellite EO and
modeling outputs. The business model that builds on core services offered for free to
a global user community was also applauded as original and promising. Advanced
users familiar with other tools felt that further effort should be placed on cascading
risk assessment in multi-hazard scenarios, and several users felt the near-real time
applications of RASOR were undersold given their potential for rapid damage
assessment. The RASOR Consortium will release a beta version of the platform in the
fall, which will be available to all users present at the workshop.
Workshop Report
The RASOR User Workshop, held on June 9th and 10th, 2015, in Savona, Italy brought
together about 40 participants from disaster
management agencies, including two Italian
regional environmental agencies (ARPAs from
Liguria and Emilia-Romagna), the European
Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the
Greek Secretariat for Civil Protection (GSCP),
UNOSAT, the Caribbean Institute for Hydrology
and Meteorology (CIMH), the Italian Civil
Protection Agency (DPC), the Global Facility for
Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)/World
Bank, the UK-based NGO MapAction, ITHACA, the Office of Disaster Preparedness
4
and Emergency Management of Jamaica
“The first time I have seen a one-stop shop on both
(ODPEM), the Global Earthquake Model
archived risk and hazard scenarios and ability to run
(GEM), and the Indonesian water research
your own simulations for a wide range of natural
hazards; has potential to assist emergency response
agency Pusair (Ministry of Public Works)
in focusing where affected populations are in most
and RASOR partners. The purpose of the
need and for more realistic donor appeal
User Workshop was to present the RASOR
calculations” Alan Mills, MapAction
platform to beta users, provide a hands-on
experience
through
risk
assessment
simulation exercises and to receive feedback on functionality, ergonomics, and the
business model.
After a short welcome by CIMA Vice President Luca Ferraris and a roundtable
introduction of participants, Roberto Rudari gave an overview presentation to
introduce the RASOR platform followed by a
presentation by Andrew Eddy on scope and objectives
of the workshop. Before the guided demonstration of
the RASOR platform by RASOR platform development
coordinator Lauro Rossi, each participant had the
opportunity to give a presentation including a short
overview of their work and related projects (5 to 10
minute presentations). These presentations are available
at the RASOR Project website.
The afternoon and the morning of the next day were dedicated to break-out
sessions aiming at letting the users work on RASOR case studies and to develop
impact analyses on event scenarios in a multi-hazard framework. The RASOR
platform was used in order to evaluate hazard scenarios, characterize exposed
elements, and assess direct damages linked to the chosen scenarios, with the
general objective of dealing with specific problems linked to different phases of the
disaster risk reduction cycle.
Break-out group 1, lead by Roberto Rudari (CIMA): The participants in this group
were asked to work on an earthquake with floods in Bandung.
The scenario provided was the following: It is December 15th, 2015. A fault north of
the Bandung area activates and a M 6.6 earthquake takes place.
It is necessary to evaluate the damage suffered by Bandung city (in the southern
part) and the population affected in
“An effort should be made in driving RASOR results toward
order to organize the post event
a real multihazard/multirisk analysis with different risk
phase.
associations (cascade, correlated, independent) also
including NATECH, if possible” Daniela Di Bucci, DPC
“RASOR would do an excellent job as a real-time
damage estimation tool, in the first few hours after any
major event. I definitely intend to use it as such. Right now
you do not sell it as such at all, you might want to
consider adding this use to your arsenal of convincing
people to use and support it.” Ioannis Andredakis, JRC
This can be done on the building
block level in order to have a
synoptic view of the impact and for
certain part of the city at a more
detailed building level.
In parallel, the international donor
community has made available to Bandung city council an amount of up to $US 2
million to retrofit part of the south blocks of the Bandung city, provided they can
demonstrate the benefit of doing so to avoid damage in case of a similar EQ was to
5
occur.
After assessing the initial damage, please assess the retrofitting cost in the structure
types that allow retrofitting and compare it with the loss reduction from the EQ.
We are, however, 3 months away from the flood season, and we would like to assess
possible flood damage on the same buildings.
Please conduct a simulation testing dry and wet preconditions in order to assess two
possible scenarios and the related impacts. Generate a report to present to the
municipality for discussion.
Roberto explained that the platform is going to be online and accessible after the
workshop. However, it is still on a development server and not that stable yet. CIMA
will give beta users access to the platform during the next release of the platform, in
order to prepare for validation missions with each case study end user. Other end
users working outside the case studies are also welcome to use the platform at that
time on a beta user basis.
It was explained that there are different capabilities for viewing the layers but it is
necessary to sign in. Without signing in the user will only be able to see and use freely
accessible data. However, some icons will be grey (disabled) like e.g. the ‘erase’
icon. It was suggested to only leave the possibility to delete and edit for the users’
own layer, and hide or disable the icon for everything else.
After getting their hands on the software and ‘playing’ with it the users had the
following questions/comments:
 Make more clear that grey rectangles were faults.
 The users own files e.g. historical shape maps can be uploaded and are directly
and automatically saved in the catalogue.
 The problem of having too many users with huge amounts of data was
discussed. Paolo answered that RASOR relies on user to delete layers he doesn’t
want to keep.
 Add actual numbers to earthquake scale
 Measure unit to other generated layer for future info
 Earthquake circles are too round, don’t take into account soil cover
 Zoom-in: show available layers first and then let the user modify it.
 Add page numbering in layers, not easy to see that there are more layers on
another page
 Uploads are visible in monitor
 Suggestion to click on box and see metadata
 Let user select feature using polyline or rectangle
 Add titles to the exposure add filter window
 Categorize building, to map back vulnerability function, to force user to use
RASOR categories so that vulnerability curves match
 Define multiple filters not possible yet but can be added
 Change logical operators inside filtering (not only “and” but also “or”)
 Add option GAUSS population distribution, add distance calculator
 The library cannot be changed. Vulnerability can only be changed in users’ own
library.
 Units of measure in forcing in curve graph, will be added
6
 Different vulnerability curves for different building types: in exposure there are
different categorizations. The system automatically associates a different
vulnerability curve with a different type of building. User can see what type of
vulnerability curve has been used.
 If layers don’t match the user has to go back to exposure and qualify properly.
 It’s fundamental that you allow people to bring their own library
 Mapping scheme procedures: describe detail in one sample area and use the
characteristic for a wider area; same pattern for homogenous area. If area is not
homogenous it is more complicated. Important to find the right sample.
 Right now classification is still simple (building or non-building) but soon
classification will be 30% concrete, 40%....
 Advice not to get lost in detail in sample areas. It is more important to develop
the multi-hazard risk assessment component.
 Roberto explained that details can be found by composing and merging from
different layers (shape files). Different characterizations are in different layers.
 Is it not possible right now to see that a specific vulnerability curve has been
assigned to a certain building.
 Reports can be tailored. Suggestion to add maps to report. Exposure, hazard,
damage (direct, economic, human).
 Checklist to choose which map/information should be included in the report
 Different type is related to resilience and to exposure.
 Compare different hazards in report, scenario 1 and scenario 2
 Percentage of GDP in area - use to verify
 Add warning message: your exposure is not in the same area. Leiska clicked
outside shape map and nothing happened. Should get error message.
 Check if only string can be read as building usage values.
 Round the numbers in the labels of the Bandung rain chart
 Add tooltips to Bandung rain model labels
 WFlow open source, subgrid not yet








Refresh map on hazard run panel when user changes hazards or exposure layer
When you choose hazard layer the hazard label shouldn’t disappear
Colour of the labels
The user can customize how different damages can be combined (in multihazard simulations, define rule). Establish some rules but leave room to customize
Choose which products should be displayed in report (together or separately)
All the combo boxes should have a default text before selection (please
select…)
Include image of the buildings, features that have been changed. Could be
classified as a “what if” scenario
Location of the points for the hurricane track need to be guided
Towards the end of the break-out session there were presentations by Fifamè
Koudogbo from Altramira on the interferometry behind the ground deformation
maps in the platform, by Stefano Salvi from INGV on geohazard products, by Joan
Sala on the QGIS plug-in to create new exposure layers and by Daniele de Vecchi
showing a demo of the SENSUM platform to show footprints where OSM is not
available.
7
Break-out group 2 was led by Lauro Rossi and
Andrew Eddy, and worked on the scenario of a
hurricane/earthquake
in
Gonaives,
Haiti:
Hurricane Jeanne which struck Les Gonaives in
2004 was a destructive event, but not an unlikely
one. In fact, a similar event may well take place
again.
It is September 2015. Hurricane Jorge is forecast
to strike Haiti along a similar path to Jeanne, with
similar intensity. Les Gonaives administration
would like to evaluate with the current exposure information the impact in terms of
economic damage and the impact on different categories of population. This can
be tackled at different scales in order to have a synoptic view on a LULC type of
exposure and then on a more detailed building block level. At a third level, we can
assess the impact at the building level.
Hurricane Jorge strikes on the morning of September 19th, but is much worse in terms
of intensity. A layer estimating the strength of Jorge has been provided. How would
the impact change in this case?
A few weeks later, the community is
struck by another surprise. An
earthquake similar in intensity to the
2010 event, but with an epicentre
much further north.
Please calculate the impact at the
3 scales listed above for Gonaives.
“Functionality and potential functionality was excellent;
Great hazard planning (risk management) preparedness
tool with real-time/near real-time and impact forecasting
possibilities; Customization regarding model usage and
model type would be useful for groups like CIMH who
develop and parameterize Caribbean specific models”
Shawn Boyce, CIMH
Break-out group 2 had similar feedback to the first break-out group, given above. A
detailed statement of the discussions was provided in the wrap-up up session by
Group 2 rapporteur Stuart Fraser of the World Bank (see below).
Both break-out groups summarized their discussions and comments in a short
presentation that was made to the plenary. Rapporteur Ioannis Andredakis of JRC
(group 1) summarized the comments from break-out group 1 indicating that the
system should have a narrower field
“I found the workshop to be useful introducing the tool and
of potential users who should all be
the different functionalities and analysis that can be
expert users without having to be
derived. For the Caribbean Region the tool will be
applicable however a challenge with the region’s data
IT experts. No policy maker should
deficit. Resources will have to be identified/provided for full
use the platform. Therefore the
implementation and buy-in.
I will definitely use the tool and will introduce same to some
system doesn’t need to be very
key stakeholders in Jamaica.”
user-friendly and simplified. He
Leiska Powell, ODPEM, Jamaica
would like to see plenty of
documentation
(on
libraries,
algorithms, accessible by link, tutorials) and hints for users on which steps to take next
(instructions). The user should be able to upload his own data and make it available
to everyone. The data would stay private unless the user chooses explicitly to make
them public (user profiling for data, results, tools and functionalities). The group
requested that the output report should be customizable and include maps. Ioannis
8
remarked that the functionality is too much oriented towards used cases. It should
be made clearer that user can introduce his own models and data. It was felt
necessary that there is an indication of the uncertainty of the results when user
calculates impact (economic impact, casualties etc…). The platform should have
some basic capability to handle successive or causally-related multi-hazard events
(cascading, correlated, independent), taking into account the elapsed time
between events. Ioannis stated that the system needs to be calibrated and
validated by modeling past events and requested to see the results of the validation
in terms of impact numbers. He also felt that the user friendliness could still be
improved. He closed his comments with a clear statement that the platform is well
designed, scalable and very useful.
Stuart Fraser summarized the discussion in breakout session 2 as follows:
 Need to improve labelling of hazard, exposure, vulnerability on input box (use
of forcing for model parameter)
 Use progress bar / time to completion instead of or in addition to turning cog
 Careful definition of input parameters (e.g. what does fault depth mean)
 Need for multiple languages eventually
 Simple, clean interface with icons on the top
 The legend should be shown at all time (now it’s often hidden) and needs to
be dynamic (range of data that is shown on the map), numeric and text
values (standards), standardize colour scales
 Metadata: there should be a standard file name (name to be constructed
into an optional standard from other fields like location, date, etc.), minimum
fields that are required before the model can be used, indication of what
assumptions were being used
 Pop-up window with background information
 Indicate uncertainty in interface and output report
 Include assumptions and models used, have access to manual and technical
document including tool-tips
 Potential to include population at different times of day (tourists, working
people in offices, not at home)
 Different levels of details for different users, have simple default view for policy
makers with advanced options that could be opened up for expert users
 More customization in near real-time functions, integrate forecast model data
and real-time data into the model
 Earthquake specific: legends should be dynamic, don’t use triangle for
earthquake (it’s the standard label for volcanoes), make epicentres
selectable as well
 Fault plane definition for shake map (not just point source)
 Validation of shake map (observed intensity of damage, PGA recorded at
seismic stations)
 Improve user experience in entering/adjusting TC track (not enter each point)
have it already in the platform
 Ability to show impact for TC + FL, TC only, FL only
 Input data for heavy rainfall only in all locations (not only TC induced in CB)
 Plug-ins don’t need to be incorporated into RASOR platform
 Plug-ins are valuable tools enabling user to import any data, based on
RASOR-specific data templates
9










Interest in a plugin to import spatial model-influencing data, eg. INGV plug-in
available for soil type for attenuation
Reports: include maps with legends, flexibility to let user choose which map,
parameters to include in report
Record time of analysis as well as date
Comparison report, compare two scenarios in one report
Make it possible to include of company logo
Fix page breaks, formatting
Ability to report impact by administrative units (on national level, on province
level) and building type
Suitable users: more towards expert user, multi-hazard knowledge is required
to make full use of the platform
Repeated use beneficial, need for training (tutorial)
Conclusions: well-presented product with lots of data in one platform, high
interoperability, very useful in training (can improve risk knowledge of users)
After lunch, the group gathered again in plenary and the
breakout session rapporteurs and Roberto and Andrew led a
panel discussion with the entire group. Andrew kicked-off the
discussion with a few common points that were made by the
two break-out groups.
Experts vs. policy users, target community for platform –
definition of ‘expert’.
It seemed important to define who are the end-users. Ronald Jackson pointed out
the policy maker is not going to use the platform but he is going to ask the expert to
run a model and produce the output (what are the costs…etc.) to guide his
decision. Andrew was wondering whether risk managers are a target group. Stuart
explained that the World Bank has technical experts but they don’t necessarily have
the expertise of what vulnerability, which catalogue etc. to use. They are more risk
modeling experts and need more guidance. Mauro Arcorace added that the office
for emergency management will not be able to play with RASOR but needs a
summary of the outputs prepared by experts. This will guide the political decision
that is made by the minister.
Leiska explained that at ODPEM the specialists run the models and create the
hazard data maps and her office will then do the vulnerability and risk assessment
based on these hazard maps. They will develop scenarios of where a hurricane for
example would likely impact and prepare for emergencies in these areas to be
ready for when it happens. Leiska also pointed out the usefulness of developing
applications at the local level.
Alan Mills commented that MapAction won’t perform analysis with the tool directly,
but are very interested in results. The places MapAction deploys to are data poor
and RASOR could help the responders find vulnerable communities.
Mauro and Shawn pointed out that there are two types of users: direct and indirect
users, users of the platform versus users of the products.
Near-real time application vs. risk assessment application
10
Ioannis felt that the platform can already be used for near-real time applications
and immediate disaster impact assessment without adding new functionalities.
Ronald added that if RASOR can do hurricane tracks it can provide useful real-time
impact products. Oky added that BNBP is very interested in the RASOR hazard maps.
Mauro pointed out that real-time applications are less complicated because there is
no probability associated with the output. The only problem is to have the data
available in real time. However, for risk assessment you have to associate a
probability. Stuart added that this could be achieved by putting in hazard layers.
User friendliness of the platform:
Ioannis said that what is missing is better step-by-step guidance of the user.
Andrew explained that the platform will be made available to the participants of
the User Workshop. The release of the beta version of the platform in the five case
study areas is scheduled for November and the release of the final platform for
March after the validation phase. He invited all participants to come to the RASOR
Conference next spring and present how they are using it. A discussion ensued
during which it was suggested that this conference be the inaugural meeting of the
RASOR Global Community of Practice, which will be an informal grouping of RASOR
Users to provide mutual support and share experiences using the free and open
platform.
The next item on the agenda was a presentation on the business model by Zenzie
Richmond from Altamira. She asked all participants to comment on what is plausible
and what not. The RASOR team has come up with a business vision where a
consortium will be able to provide a
free service because of add-on
“The platform can be a valuable tool for risk assessment
and its products can be used in contingency and strategic
services that will make it possible to
planning. Also it can be a valuable tool for rapid impact
maintain a free service.
assessment after major disasters.” Andreas Antonakos,
G.S.C.P.
Some parts of the world (e.g. the
Caribbean) need high-resolution
imagery for risk assessment and
the add-on service is going to
provide a list of add-on products. A
customized product developed as
an add-on service will then become part of the core service.
“I am personally impressed about the potential
applications that can be derived from RASOR. In particular
I see RASOR as a very useful tool for understanding the risk.
That is something that can really make a difference within
our training.” Mauro Arcorace, UNOSAT
Lauro explained that the platform is totally free and open source. Every organization
can add their work to the platform. The user can use his own models, the code is
open. This is how the globe should be slowly populated, like a global patchwork.
Some of it is going to be paid for and some of it will be volunteered.
There was discussion on whether organizations who pay for customization are going
to be willing to share the results. This model has already been demonstrated in the
case of the World Bank that is paying for customization of the tool in Malawi and this
will be made available as part of the platform.
Thanassis expressed concern about competing organizations that will use the tool
and try to make money with it.
At the end of the session Andrew asked all participating organizations for quick oral
and written feedback on the platform. Participants commented openly on their
11
experience, and were offered the opportunity to put comments in writing, which
appear in annex 2 to this report.
Generally participants were very pleased with the workshop and the tool. They were
impressed by the opportunity to perform analysis functions themselves using the
beta tool and felt that while further progress on the ergonomics of the tool interface
would be useful, it was already a useable tool. Significant ‘easy’ improvements
could and should be made to reporting. For instance, while the platform is meant for
spatial analysis, there is no map print function for the reports. As a general comment,
the reporting function could be more visual and more graphic.
The global risk analysis function is increasingly multi-hazard and multi-risk, and while
there are lots of very sophisticated models out there, few of these are multi-risk.
RASOR offers this, but it can also be a useful tool for non-experts for quick and easy
assessment, or be used in strategic long-term planning. RASOR is useful in rapid
impact assessment, rather than early warning. The functionality of the platform is
excellent, and it would be a useful support to training and simulation exercises. There
is a challenge is to get requisite data to make RASOR fully functional, but once data
has been collected, it is extremely useful and can even serve as repository for civil
protection data sets, or fed with their own models and applications.
Roberto Rudari thanked everybody for their contribution and promised that the
RASOR team would work hard over the next few months to incorporate comments
and suggestions and come back to the community with an improved platform in
November (beta release) and March (final phase 1 release).
Conclusions/Implications for RASOR
The User Workshop was a resounding success, with strong participation and
excellent feedback. The feedback will be integrated into the platform. Users will
then be offered a chance to work with the platform in their own work environments,
and validation missions will take place with the key users. Results of this experience
will be showcased at the RASOR Conference, which as per the suggestion of the
User Workshop participants will be the inaugural meeting of the RASOR Global
Community of Practice, to be held in Istanbul in May 2016 during the Understanding
Risk Conference.
Abbreviations
Abbreviation
Meaning
AB
ARPA
Advisory Board
Regional Environmental Protection Agency (Agenzia regionale per la
protezione ambientale)
International Centre on environmental monitoring (Italy)
Caribbean Institute for Hydrology and Meteorology
Italian Department of Civil Protection
Gross Domestic Product
Global Earthquake Model
CIMA
CIMH
DPC
GDP
GEM
12
GFDRR
GSCP
ITHACA
LULC
QGIS
NATECH
NGO
ODPEM
OSM
JRC
RASOR
SC
SENSUM
TC
UNOSAT
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
Greek Secretariat for Civil Protection
Information Technology for Humanitarian Assistance, Cooperation and
Action
Land use/land cover
Quantum Geographic Information Service
Natural Hazard Triggering Technological Disasters
Non-governmental organization
Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management of
Jamaica
Open Street Map
European Commission’s Joint Research Centre
Rapid Analysis and Spatialisation of Risk
Steering Committee
Framework to integrate space-based and in-situ sensing for dynamic
vulnerability and recovery monitoring
Tropical cyclone
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Operational
Satellite Applications Programme
13
Annex 1 – Agenda of the workshop
RASOR User Workshop
CIMA Foundation Campus, University of Genoa, Savona, Italy
9 and 10 June, 2015
Agenda
8 June
19:00 Arrival of participants; informal drinks at NH Hotel Savona
20:00 Informal dinner at Osteria Bacco
9 June
8:45 Shuttle from NH Hotel to CIMA Foundation Campus
9:15 Introduction and welcome (Franco Siccardi and Roberto Rudari, CIMA
Foundation)
9:30 Round table introductions
10:00 Overview of RASOR project (Roberto Rudari, RASOR Project Coordinator)
10:15 Scope and objectives of the workshop (Andrew Eddy, RASOR Project
Manager)
10:30 Presentations from participating organizations (5 min each)
11:30 Coffee break
11:45 Guided demonstration of the RASOR platform (Lauro Rossi, Platform
development Coordinator)
13:00 Case study objectives – Overview of the work exercises
13:15 Lunch
14:30 Break-out into group exercises
The users will work on some of the RASOR case studies, developing impact analyses
on event scenarios in a multi-hazard framework. The RASOR platform will be used in
order to evaluate hazard scenarios, characterize exposed elements, and assess
direct damages linked to the chosen scenarios, with the general objective of
dealing with specific problems linked to different phases of the disaster risk reduction
cycle.
14
17:00 Shuttle returns to NH Hotel
18:30 The Fortress Priamar guided tour (walking distance from NH Hotel)
19:30 Hosted dinner at The Fortress Priamar (walking distance from NH Hotel)
10 June
9:00 Shuttle leaves NH Hotel
9:30 Group exercises (continued in same groups)
10:30 Preparation of presentations
11:15 Presentation back to group – Group 1
12:00 Presentation back to group – Group 2
12:45 Lunch
14:00 Feedback and discussion on RASOR platform
15:00 Presentation on RASOR Business Model (Altamira Information)
15:30 Discussion on next steps for RASOR development and extension
16:00 Roundtable feedback from participants – short declaration from each
organization
16:30 Closing remarks (Roberto Rudari, RASOR Project Coordinator)
15
Annex 2 – Comments from participants
“I would be happy if this application going well with all existing tools. We are as an
expert can cooperate with BNPB as a end user in order to find out correctly the
region which has a hazard and requires more attention. The result for this time
maybe not perfect but next time with suggest & support will be perfect and very
useful until we will already know about damage impact etc.”
Oky Subrata, Pusair, Ministry of Public works and housing
“The first time I have seen a one-stop shop on both archived risk and hazard
scenarios and ability to run your own simulations for a wide range of natural hazards;
has potential to assist emergency response in focusing where affected populations
are in most need and for more realistic donor appeal calculations”
Alan Mills, MapAction
“As a hydrometeorological office we could be very interested using RASOR platform
providing hydrological evaluation and model results into the system. Useful for risk
evaluation in flood related problems.
This also could be a common interface where experts put their own information or
results in a multi hazard evaluation producing a shared evaluation and collecting all
available information and expertise.
For a real time application this could be very difficult, but for planning purposes
could be the right way to proceed.”
Giuseppe Ricciardi, Alberto Agnetti, ARPA-ER SIMC
“1) Functionality and potential functionality was excellent
2) Applicability to different users from different geographic locations with varying
resource bases and data limitations not clear
3) Minimum data requirement should be identified. Perhaps a case study for a small
island developing state
4) Great hazard planning (risk management) preparedness tool with real-time/near
real-time and impact forecasting possibilities
5) Customization regarding model usage and model type would be useful for groups
like CIMH who develop and parameterize Caribbean specific models”
Shawn Boyce, CIMH
“I found the workshop to be useful introducing the tool and the different
functionalities and analysis that can be derived. For the Caribbean Region the tool
will be applicable however a challenge with the region’s data deficit. Resources will
have to be identified/provided for full implementation and buy-in.
I will definitely use the tool and will introduce same to some key stakeholders I
Jamaica.”
Leiska Powell, ODPEM, Jamaica
“1) An effort should be made in driving RASOR results toward a real
multihazard/multirisk analysis with different risk associations (cascade, correlated,
independent) also including Natech, if possible
16
2) In the near-real time applications attention should be paid to avoid that alert be
issued based on the simplified approach proposed by RASOR platform, also in terms
of institutional responsibilities.
3) Other platforms are free and available that can release results comparable with
RASOR outputs – a comparison among these results on selected case studies should
be carried out to understand analogies, differences and possible biases.”
Italian DPC
“- GENERIC If RASOR is to be kept alive - which it must - it has to keep a clear
competitive edge. CAPRA is the only competitor right now, but unavoidably there
will be others. You must try hard to consolidate your competitive advantages. For
example, try to get Airbus to commit to the use of their SAR highres data, or they will
change their mind. Try hard to Keep your big and rich players like MunichRe, try to
get others on board.
- SUBSTANCE Even if RASOR is not a probabilistic tool, it would be great if we could
have an indicative error (uncertainty) of the values reported as loss. Just reporting a
value of 3.456 billion $ as damage is not good enough, and people never really
understand - or care - about any disclaimers you might write under these unique
numbers.
- GENERIC RASOR would do an excellent job as a real-time damage estimation tool,
in the first few hours after any major event. I definitely intend to use it as such. Right
now you do not sell it as such at all, you might want to consider adding this use to
your arsenal of convincing people to use and support it.
- SUBSTANCE Calibrate and get a feeling of the correctness of the loss numbers
spewed by the system using real, recent events, if you haven't done so already.
- GENERIC Do not try to please everyone, in the end no-one will be happy. Resist the
urge (from within or from outside) to continuously add new features and more detail
and sophistication. Instead, focus on usability, reliability, robustness, maintenance,
good calibration. Do not try to make your system something that it isn't, i.e. a tool for
everything and everyone, from the crude policy maker to the sophisticated
professional seismologist. Such tools do not exist, and you only lose focus, resources
and customer base. (Personal opinion, feel free to ignore...)
- GUI The web user interface, even though I know full well is still under construction,
should be much more intuitive than it currently is. Try to avoid symbols for buttons;
using the "play" symbol to start adding an exposure layer is confusing. Our
Indonesian guest did not even know what the "play" was, if you remember Tuesday
afternoon' session. Instead, use clearly written words on the buttons, as per the latest
Microsoft trend (one of the few things they got right).
- GUI Guide the user with messages after each step, e.g. "exposure layer choice
complete, now set the vulnerability function or go directly to Impact Calculation".
- GUI Do not substitute the layer name on the selection button, on the left side of the
interface. Let the selection button in place, show the selected layer under it.
- SUBSTANCE Consider the possibility to be able to use multiple exposure layers at the
same time.”
Ioannis Andredakis, JRC
17
“ Regarding the workshop: very well organized in terms of agenda and logistics.
Users had the opportunity to be informed about the platform and also to express
their opinion on several different aspects of the project and the final productplatform.
Regarding the platform: A lot of work has been done already. The platform can be
a valuable tool for risk assessment and its products can be used in contingency and
strategic planning. Also it can be a valuable tool for rapid impact assessment after
major disasters. I don’t think that it is a tool that can be used by decision-policy
makers but only be different kind of “experts”.”
Andreas Antonakos, G.S.C.P.
“Potential users at UNOSAT of RASOR’s multihazard risk analysis are:
- Support risk assessment over in country projects
- Support training on the use of GIS for DRR
I am personally impressed about the potential applications that can be derived
from RASOR. In particular I see RASOR as a very useful tool for understanding the risk.
That is something that can really make a difference within our training.”
Mauro Arcorace, UNOSAT
“I see valuable potential in RASOR as a platform to disseminate information. It could
complement our early warning systems and we look forward to testing and hopefully
contributing back.”
Paolo Pasquali, ITHACA
18
Annex 3 – List of participants
List of participants
Name
Organization
Email
Contact details
Alberto Agnetti
ARPA Emilia-Romagna
aagnetti@arpa.emr.it
Via Garibaldi, 75, 43121 Parma, Italy
Tel: 0521 274 352
Ioannis Andredakis
Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission (JRC)
ioannis.andredakis@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Via Enrico Fermi, 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy
Andreas Antonakos
General Secretariat for Civil
Protection
aantonakos@civilprotection.gr
Euaggelistrias 2, ΤΚ. 105 63, Athens, Greece
Tel: +30213 1510170
Mauro Arcorace
UNITAR - UNOSAT
mauro.arcorace@unitar.org
Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10,
Switzerland
Shawn Boyce
Caribbean Institute for
Meteorology and Hydrology
(CIMH)
sboyce@cimh.edu.bb
St. James, Barbados
Tel: 246-425-1362/5
Daniela Di Bucci
Italian Department of Civil
Protection (DPC)
daniela.DiBucci@protezionecivile.it
Via Vitorchiano 2, 00189 Rome, Italy
Tel.: +39-06-68204761, Cell: +39-335-7390607
Veronica Casartelli
Italian Department of Civil
Protection (DPC)
Veronica.Casartelli@protezionecivile.it
Via Vitorchiano 2, 00189 Rome, Italy
Tel: +39 06 68202884
Andrea Cavallo
ARPA Liguria
andrea.cavallo@arpal.gov.it
Via Bombrini, 8, Genova, Italy
Matteo Corazza
ARPA Liguria
matteo.corazza@arpal.gov.it
Via Bombrini, 8, Genova, Italy
Users/practitioners:
Name
Organization
Email
Contact details
Mauro Dolce
Italian Department of Civil
Protection (DPC)
20auro.dolce@protezionecivile.it
Via Vitorchiano 2, 00189 Rome, Italy
Stuart Fraser
GFDRR – World Bank
sfraser@worldbank.org
Tel: +44 7455 048 044
Francesca Giannoni
ARPA Liguria
francesca.giannoni@arpal.gov.it
Via Bombrini, 8, Genova, Italy
Alan Mills
MapAction
alanpmillsuk@yahoo.co.uk
Saint Michaels, TN30 6SY, UK
Tel: +44 1622 679545, Cell: +44 7963 652911
Paolo Pasquali
ITHACA
paolo.pasquali@gmail.com
Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 61, 10138 Torino, Italy
Tel. +39 011 1975 1872
Lieska Powell
Office of Disaster Preparedness
and Emergency Management
(ODPEM)
lpowell@odpem.org.jm
2-4 Haining Road, Kingston 5, Jamaica
Tel: 906-9674-5
Giuseppe Ricciardi
ARPA Emilia-Romagna
gricciardi@arpa.emr.it
Via Garibaldi, 75, 43121 Parma, Italy
Tel: +33 0521 274 356
Vitor Silva
Global Earthquake Model (GEM) vitor.silva@globalquakemodel.org
Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
Jasper Stam
Rijkswaterstaat Waterdienst
jasper.stam@rws.nl
Zuiderwagenplein 2, P.O. Box 17, 8200 AA
Lelystad, The Netherlands
Oky Subrata
Pusair
rizaki124@gmail.com
Jl. Ir. H. Juanda 193, Bandung, Indonesia
RASOR Consortium members
Daniel Bachmann
Deltares
daniel.bachmann@deltares.nl
Rotterdamseweg 185, 2629 HD Delft, The
Netherlands
Joost Beckers
Deltares
joost.beckers@deltares.nl
Postbus 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands
Tel: +31(0)88335 8336
20
Name
Organization
Email
Contact details
Barbara Borzi
EUCentre
barbara.borzi@eucentre.it
Via Ferrata 1 - 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel: +39 0382 5169826
Lora Buckman
Deltares
lora.buckman@deltares.nl
Postbus 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands
Alessandro Burastero
Acrotech
alessandro@acrotec.it
Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, Italy
Paolo Campanella
Acrotech
p.campanella@fadeout.it
Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, Italy
Clément de Alcala
Altamira
clement.dealcala@altamirainformation.com
C/ Corsega, 381-387, 08037 Barcelona, Spain
Tel: +34 93 183 57 50
Silvia De Angeli
CIMA Research Foundation
Silvia.deangeli@cimafoundation.org
Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, Italy
Tel: +39 019-23027x237
Fabio Dell’Acqua
EUCentre
fabio.dellacqua@eucentre.it
Via Ferrata 1 – 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel: +39-0382-516 98 90
Daniele de Vecchi
EUCentre
Daniele.devecchi@eucentre.it
Via Ferrata 1 – 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel: +39-0382-516 98 90
Andrew Eddy
AG Europe
andrew.eddy@athenaglobal.com
La Frouste, 04150 Simiane-la-Rotonde, France
Tel: +33 4 92 75 83 29
Athanassios Ganas
National Observatory of Athens
aganas@gein.noa.gr
Lofos Nymfon, Athens 11810 , Greece
Tel: +30-210-3490186 , +30-6945 551722
Martin Huber
German Aerospace Center (DLR)
martin.Huber@dlr.de
Oberpfaffenhofen, 82234 Weßling
Tel: +49 8153 28-2895
Fifamè Koudogbo
Altamira
fifame.koudogbo@altamirainformation.com
C/ Corsega, 381-387, 08037 Barcelona, Spain
Tel: +34 93 183 57 50
Christiane Maasburg
AG Europe
christiane.maasburg@athenaglobal.com
La Frouste, 04150 Simiane-la-Rotonde, France
Tel: +33 4 92 75 83 29
21
Name
Organization
Email
Contact details
Giuseppe Pezzo
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
Vulcanologia (INGV)
giuseppe.pezzo@ingv.it
Via di Vigna Murata, 605, 00143 Rome, Italy
Zenzie Richmond
Altamira
Zenzie.richmond@altamirainformation.com
C/ Corsega, 381-387, 08037 Barcelona, Spain
Tel: +34 93 183 57 50
Lauro Rossi
Acrotech
lauro.rossi@cimafoundation.org
Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, Italy
Tel: +39 019-23027x261
Roberto Rudari
CIMA Research Foundation
roberto.rudari@cimafoundation.org
Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, Italy
Tel: +39 01923027239, Cell: +39 3487983939
Stefano Salvi
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
Vulcanologia (INGV)
stefano.salvi@ingv.it
Via di Vigna Murata, 605, 00143 Rome, Italy
Tel. +39 06 51860438, cell: +39 340 5606494
Eva Trasforini
CIMA Research Foundation
eva.trasforini@cimafoundation.org
via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, Italy
Tel: +39 01923027237
22