A Federated OpenDRR Platform to Support Disaster Resilience Planning in Canada: High Level Requirements

Successful disaster risk reduction requires an integrated approach that facilitates the interpretation and delivery of disaster risk assessments across different verticals.

The Open Disaster Risk Reduction (OpenDRR) is a broad initiative to provide a linked data solution that addresses the needs of various stakeholders in the disaster risk assessment process on a common platform. The goal is to design and implement an open source platform that can be adopted by the global community to support disaster risk management, starting with earthquake risk reduction. The platform will be key to informing policy choices, empowering the decision-making process and encouraging risk mitigation practices among individuals and business owners.

The objective of this document is to provide high-level recommendations for an OpenDRR solution through a user-centric and standards-based approach as part of the national Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Pathways project to provide incentives for mitigation & adaptation investments in Canada.

Five stakeholder user groups are the actors in four primary use cases providing guidance for the recommendations here. Through a review of profiles for each user group, functional requirements have been derived to describe the target state of the OpenDRR platform. A survey of existing disaster risk management platforms reveals the need for users to perform risk analysis using standardized terminology. The proposed OpenDRR target state incorporates use of ontologies and taxonomies in risk communication to efficiently interpret and communicate the outputs of risk analysis

Finally, an incremental implementation strategy is proposed to guide the development of an OpenDRR solution. The successful implementation of OpenDRR will set a leading example for the Government of Canada in supporting disaster resilience planning in North America and Open Government initiatives.

In order to develop a successful program for disaster risk reduction, there needs to be seamless interaction between researchers, policy makers, planners, and the public based on a common understanding. The OpenDRR initiative aims to address this gap by prioritizing the end-user experience in guiding product development. Five scenarios for a federated OpenDRR platform were identified from which five user profiles were inferred.

The scenarios are as follows:

The Users described in the following section are the Risk Analyst, the Emergency Manager, the Land-use planner, the Financial Risk manager and the Individual Home or Business Owner.

Disaster Risk Reduction is a complex multi-variate analysis that requires detailed knowledge of both the hazardous phenomena (earthquake, floods, wildfires, etc.) and the human components of risk (Figure 2). In order to investigate the multiple data sources required for risk calculation and to share the risk analysis, both input and output data must be expressed in consistent, standardized terminology and format to enable analysis and increase efficiency. This data standardization is challenging, but necessary and highly rewarding (Abbas & Ojo, 2013; Guidoin, Marczak, Pane, & McKinney, 2014; Harvey et al., 2014; Schade & Lutz, 2010). Some terms have multiple interpretations across language, culture, and applications leading to confusion when used (Kelman, 2018). However, once the issue of inconsistent terminology is overcome, detailed hazard and risk taxonomies can be utilized to allow integrated data investigation (Xu & Zlatanova, 2007). Ontologies are valuable tools when it comes to hazard and risk analysis where a common understanding needs to be established for interoperability. Ontologies provide a basis for integration of relevant information across a distributed network of systems and facilitates hidden and implicit knowledge discovery.

Standardization of data and vocabularies has fostered applications at national (for example: Vilches-Blázquez et al. 2010) and international levels (for example: Arctic SDI 2015). However, according to a review of several risk web platforms by the European Commission, the presentation of disaster risk information varies between platforms and hence is not easily interpreted for integrated analyses (Antofie, Doherty, & Marin-Ferrer, 2018). This section explores some current implementations of standardized vocabularies to be considered for OpenDRR.

The initial release of the OpenDRR Platform will provide departmental capabilities for Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) within the Federal Geospatial Platform (FGP) to support the OpenQuake initiative in Canada. The goal is to design and implement an open source platform that can be adopted by the global community to support disaster risk management, starting with earthquake risk reduction. Hence, the architecture of FGP and other relevant spatial data infrastructures needs to be considered to determine industry best practices. This section reviews a collection of exemplary risk management platforms that share the same vision as the OpenDRR platform. Additional comparisons are illustrated in a feature comparison matrix in Appendix C.

Effective disaster risk reduction is dependent on a dynamic network of knowledge through which a wide range of users, from researchers and planners to the general public, have access to reliable and actionable information. The goal of OpenDRR is to establish a federated platform to support disaster resilience planning in Canada.

The target state for OpenDRR is to provide services for data access, search and discovery, data storage and management, and analysis tools supported by standardized vocabularies. From an architectural viewpoint, OpenDRR will need to include components that connect to the Canada’s Federal Geospatial Platform such as catalogues, data repositories, web services and OpenDRR-specific applications (Figure 12).

OpenDRR will need to provide a variety of analysis and reporting tools for decision support. A web GIS platform is recommended because it has the greatest flexibility and accessibility to support a wide range of operations and a diverse user base (Figure 13). Although the platform will initially focus on earthquake risk management, drawing on the functionality of the OpenQuake Platform, the methodological processes should be designed in a modular fashion in order to support risk management for multiple hazards.

The following sections describe the high-level requirements that will guide the development of OpenDRR towards the target state.

The OpenDRR platform is middleware between hazard or risk modeling environments like OpenQuake and end users who need to understand and evaluate risk to make economic and policy decisions. The end-user interface will operate as a web application using standard web browsers in desktop, tablet or hand-held device environments. Development and execution of hazard and risk assessment models is a separate concern, outside of the OpenDRR system. OpenDRR will receive output from these models as input, using one or more interfaces and interchange formats based on existing standards or on specifications developed by the implementation team if no standards meet requirements.

OpenDRR will:

The current landscape for disaster risk management tools described in this review is barely comprehensive, yet it is clear there is a lack in solutions that support seamless interaction between researchers, policy makers, planners, and the public. This interaction is critical in achieving a common understanding of risk such that all parties involved have incentives to support risk mitigation efforts and adaptation investments in Canada.

Successful disaster risk reduction can only be achieved with true interoperability between systems and all stakeholder groups and an OpenDRR platform addresses this gap with a standards-based approach. The proposed OpenDRR platform with common knowledge and terminology surrounding disaster risk reduction prioritizes the end-user experience. In so doing, it provides a necessary foundation for stimulating proactive investments in earthquake mitigation measures because it makes clear the positive role of return on such investments.

The following user profiles were compiled by NRCan.

End User: Emergency Manager 

Role/Responsibility: Emergency managers have a primary role in developing strategic and operational plans that will protect people and critical assets in the event of an unexpected disaster. They are responsible for all aspects of pre-event planning to identify and prioritize hazard threats of concern, to prepare for hazard events that are considered most likely in the context of a particular place or planning horizon, and to provide coordination for the response to and recovery from the impacts and consequences of these events. Their primary focus is to determine who and what are exposed to hazard threats in the immediate and short term (0–5 years); what are the likely impacts and consequences of a disaster event on people and critical assets; what are the capabilities to withstand, respond to and recover from disaster events; and how to increase awareness and understanding of the risk environment to encourage behaviours that minimize vulnerability and risk over time.

As with land use planners, emergency managers are focused primarily on judgments about scientific uncertainty, perceptions of risk, and political accountability. In support of both strategic and operational components of their mandate, they need access to relevant, timely and authoritative information about credible hazard risks for a given area (maps, tables, and reports), and require the ability to forecast likely impacts and consequences to assess mitigation requirements and to ensure critical thresholds of preparedness on an ongoing basis. They also need up-to-date and accurate inventories of vulnerable populations and critical assets of concern to enhance situational awareness during response and recovery operations. 

Motivating Questions: 

Pre-Event Planning 

Immediate Response 

Sustained Response 

Value Proposition: a collection of policy-based target indicators that can be used to assess baseline conditions of risk, and the potential for risk reduction through proactive investments in mitigation and/or adaptation measures

Preferred Channel(s) of Communication: 

User Story Map: 

End User: Community Planner 

Role/Responsibility: Land use planners have a primary role in researching and developing public policy strategies to manage the allocation and use of land in ways that reconcile individual and collective rights and that balance competing demands for economic vitality, social justice, quality of life, and environmental integrity. They are responsible for designing and facilitating the planning process in order to identify and develop policy recommendations that reflect the intent, values, and preferences of the community, and that are informed by relevant scientific and technical knowledge about human-natural systems and their interactions over time.

In the context of existing legislative frameworks such as land use bylaws and zoning ordinances (1–5 years), planners are often called on to assess whether proposed developments or land use activities are “safe for the use intended” and consistent with policies and regulations at multiple jurisdictional levels. Though responsible for informing day-to-day operational land use decisions, planners must also maintain a clear focus on the longer-term vision or intent of the community (5–30 years)— a vision that is developed through consultation, analysis, and the evaluation of policy alternatives. This involves a strategic assessment of current and anticipated future trends to direct the allocation of land in ways that will accommodate the varied needs and wants of a community while balancing thresholds for risk tolerance within the limits of available resources.

Primary needs and operational requirements for a land use planner in the context of disaster resilience are focused on issues of representation, judgments about scientific uncertainty, and perceptions about risk and political accountability. Planners need access to technical risk assessment information and guidelines that help facilitate risk-based planning at local or regional scales. They also need access to relevant domain experts to assist in the risk evaluation process and the interpretation of results. Finally, they need mechanisms to prioritize risk management options based on thresholds of risk tolerance that reflect community values and preferences and available knowledge about the risk environment.

Motivating Questions: 

Value Proposition: a collection of policy-based target indicators that can be used to assess baseline conditions of risk, and the potential for risk reduction through proactive investments in mitigation and/or adaptation measures 

Preferred Channel(s) of Communication: 

User Story Map: 

End User: Risk Analyst 

Role/Responsibility: Domain experts are called upon to provide insights on the causes and driving forces of natural hazard processes, and to diagnose the likely impacts and consequences of these events on society and the environment. They can include individuals from public, private, and academic sectors with a theoretical background and expertise in the physical sciences, engineering, the social sciences, or humanities. Unlike planners and members of the general public, domain experts are focused primarily on the generation of knowledge for the purpose of refining or expanding an understanding of human-natural systems and how they work. They have a primary role in identifying existing and emerging societal risk, and in assessing the implications of these risks to inform planning and policy development (analysis and evaluation).   

In the context of the physical sciences and engineering, time horizons of interest will vary depending on the nature of the hazard threat. They can range from near real-time monitoring of natural or anthropogenic processes (severe weather, floods, hurricanes, etc.) that have a potential to trigger hazard events over relatively short time intervals (0–50 years) to theoretical or computational modelling of larger-scale processes (earthquakes, landslides, global climate change, etc.) that have a potential to trigger hazard events over geologic time frames of decades and centuries (100–10,000 years).  In the context of the social sciences and humanities, the focus is on historical trends and existing conditions that may shed light on intrinsic patterns of vulnerability, and the adaptive capabilities of individuals to withstand, respond to and recover from disaster events.  

As the creatores of new information and knowledge about the risk environment, domain experts are primarily concerned about issues of complexity and uncertainty. They require an internally consistent set of protocols to measure and describe system conditions and driving forces of risk in the environment, and a corresponding set of methods and tools that can be used to analyze hazard potential, the impacts and consequences of credible hazard events, and to evaluate both single and multi-hazard event risk scenarios over time horizons of interest to the planning process. In addition, they need methods and tools to assist in communicating the results of their assessments in ways that make evident scientific uncertainties and underlying assumptions about system behavior. 

User Story Map:

Definition of standards is a very important step in many applications (Figure 14), including the OpenDRR platform.

Comparisons between existing spatial data infrastructures and web mapping applications are illustrated in subsequent feature matrices to identify desirable functionality for the OpenDRR platform.

Abbas, S., and Ojo, A. 2013. Towards a Linked Geospatial Data Infrastructure. Technology-Enabled Innovation for Democracy, Government and Governance: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective, and Electronic Democracy (EGOVIS/EDEM 2013), 8061: 196–210. Available from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-40160-2_16.

Antofie, T.E., Doherty, B., and Marin-Ferrer, M. 2018. Mapping of risk web-platforms and risk data: collection of good practices. Improving the access and share of curated EU-wide risk data for fostering DRM. doi:10.2760/93157.

Arctic SDI. 2015. Arctic Spatial Data Infrastructure Framework Document.

Barker, T. 2007. Climate Change 2007 : An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Change, 446: 12–17. IPCC. doi:10.1256/004316502320517344.

Epicentre. 2018. MOVER – Level 3 Data schema for Physical and Social Vulnerability Indicators , Indices , and Functions. London.

FEMA. 2009. Comprehensive Data Management System CDMS Version 2.5 Data Dictionary. Washington. D.C.

Guidoin, S., Marczak, P., Pane, J., and McKinney, J. 2014. Identifying recommended standards and best practices for open data. OpenNorth, http://geothink.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Identifying-Recommended-Standards-Open-Data-Open-North.pdf

Harvey, F., Jones, J., Scheider, S., Iwaniak, A., Kaczmarek, I., Lukowicz, J., and Strzelecki, M. 2014. Little Steps Towards Big Goals. Using Linked Data to Develop Next Generation Spatial Data Infrastructures (aka SDI 3.0). In Agile’2014. pp. 3–6.

Harvey, M., Eltinay, N., Barnes, S., Guerriero, R., and Caffa, M. 2018. Infrastructure for City Resilience. Available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.

JRC EU expert working group on disaster damage and loss data. 2015. Guidance for Recording and Sharing Disaster Damage and Loss Data. JRC Science and Policy Reports,: 28. doi:10.2788/186107.

Kelman, I. 2018. Lost for Words Amongst Disaster Risk Science Vocabulary? International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9: 281–291. Beijing Normal University Press. doi:10.1007/s13753-018-0188-3.

Natural Resources Canada. 2015. Integrated Enterprise Architecture - Federal Geospatial Platform.

Do Ó, F.A., Poljanšek, K., and Vallés, A.C. 2018. Disaster damage and loss data for policy. Publication Office of the European Union. doi:10.2760/840421.

Poljanšek, K., De Groeve, T., Marín Ferrer, M., and Clark, I. 2017. Science for disaster risk management 2017: knowing better and losing less. EUR 28034 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2788/688605.

Schade, S., and Lutz, M. 2010. Opportunities and challenges for using linked data in inspire. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings. pp. 3–7.

Silva, V., Yepes-Estrada, C., Dabbeek, J., and Martins, L. 2017. GED4ALL - Global Exposure Database for Multi-Hazard Risk Analysis - Inception Report. Pavia, Italy.

UNISDR. 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030. doi:A/CONF.224/CRP.1.

Vilches-Blázquez, L.M., Villazón-Terrazas, B., De Leon, A., Priyatna, F., and Corcho, O. 2010. An approach to publish spatial data on the web: The geolinked data case. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 691.

World Bank. 2014. Open Data for Resilience Initiative Field Guide. Washington, DC. Available from https://www.gfdrr.org/opendri.

World Economic Forum. 2019. The Global Risks Report 2019 13th Edition.

Xu, W., and Zlatanova, S. 2007. Ontologies for Disaster Management Response. In Geomatics Solutions for Disaster Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 185–200. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72108-6_13.