1st Periodic Dissemination Reportversion no. 2RASOR-DWP12.18-20151029-2-AG–

RASOR User Workshop – version no. 3

1

DOCUMENT INFORMATION PAGE

CONTRACT NUMBER 606888

PROJECT NAME Rapid Analysis and Spatialisation of Risk

PROJECT ACRONYM RASOR

DELIVERABLE NUMBER D12.18

DELIEVERABLE NAME User Workshop Report

WORK PACKAGE NUMBER 12

WORK PACKAGE NAME Dissemination Activities

DEADLINE Month 20

VERSION 1.0

DISSEMINATION LEVEL PP

NATURE Report

LEAD BENEFICIARY AG

AUTHOR / DATE OF PREPARATION

Workshop delivered June 2015V1 report Andrew Eddy / 09-2015V2 report Andrew Eddy / 31-10-2015V3 report Andrew Eddy / 16-11-2015

REVIEWER / DATES OF REVISION

Christiane Maasburg v1/ 15-10-2015RASOR team SC members) v2 / 02-11-2015Roberto Rudari, Christiane Maasburg v3 / 16-11-2015

SIGN-OFF FOR RELEASE Roberto Rudari / 16-11-2015

2

Table of ContentsTable of Contents...........................................................................................................3Purpose of the Document...............................................................................................4Executive Summary.......................................................................................................4Workshop Report............................................................................................................4Conclusions/Implications for RASOR.............................................................................12Abbreviations............................................................................................................... 12Annex 1 – Agenda of the workshop..............................................................................14Annex 2 – Comments from participants.......................................................................16Annex 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 SummaryThe 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 pre-prepared 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 ReportThe 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 and Emergency Management of Jamaica (ODPEM), the Global Earthquake Model (GEM), and the

4

Indonesian water research agency Pusair (Ministry of Public Works) and RASOR partners. The purpose of the User Workshop was to present the RASOR 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 order to organize the post event phase.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 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.

“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

“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” 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

5

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 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

6

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 multi-

hazard 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.

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

7

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.

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 of potential users who should all be expert users without having to be IT experts. No policy maker should use the platform. Therefore the system doesn’t need to be very user-friendly and simplified. He 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 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

“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

“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 in Jamaica.”Leiska Powell, ODPEM, Jamaica

8

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 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

9

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 applicationIoannis 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.

10

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 services that will make it possible to maintain a free service.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. 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 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

“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.” Andreas Antonakos, G.S.C.P.“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

11

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 RASORThe 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.

AbbreviationsAbbreviation MeaningAB Advisory BoardARPA Regional Environmental Protection Agency (Agenzia regionale per la

protezione ambientale)CIMA International Centre on environmental monitoring (Italy)CIMH Caribbean Institute for Hydrology and MeteorologyDPC Italian Department of Civil ProtectionGDP Gross Domestic ProductGEM Global Earthquake ModelGFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and RecoveryGSCP Greek Secretariat for Civil ProtectionITHACA Information Technology for Humanitarian Assistance, Cooperation

and ActionLULC Land use/land coverQGIS Quantum Geographic Information ServiceNATECH Natural Hazard Triggering Technological DisastersNGO Non-governmental organization

12

ODPEM Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management of Jamaica

OSM Open Street MapJRC European Commission’s Joint Research CentreRASOR Rapid Analysis and Spatialisation of RiskSC Steering CommitteeSENSUM Framework to integrate space-based and in-situ sensing for dynamic

vulnerability and recovery monitoringTC Tropical cycloneUNOSAT United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)

Operational Satellite Applications Programme

13

Annex 1 – Agenda of the workshop

RASOR User WorkshopCIMA Foundation Campus, University of Genoa, Savona, Italy

9 and 10 June, 2015

Agenda

8 June19:00 Arrival of participants; informal drinks at NH Hotel Savona20:00 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 introductions10:00 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.

17:00 Shuttle returns to NH Hotel18:30 The Fortress Priamar guided tour (walking distance from NH Hotel)

14

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 presentations11:15 Presentation back to group – Group 112:00 Presentation back to group – Group 2

12:45 Lunch

14:00 Feedback and discussion on RASOR platform15:00 Presentation on RASOR Business Model (Altamira Information)15:30 Discussion on next steps for RASOR development and extension16:00 Roundtable feedback from participants – short declaration from each

organization16:30 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 excellent2) Applicability to different users from different geographic locations with varying resource bases and data limitations not clear3) Minimum data requirement should be identified. Perhaps a case study for a small island developing state4) Great hazard planning (risk management) preparedness tool with real-time/near real-time and impact forecasting possibilities5) 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 possible2) 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.

16

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

“ 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

17

their opinion on several different aspects of the project and the final product-platform.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 participantsName Organization Email Contact details

Users/practitioners:

Alberto Agnetti ARPA Emilia-Romagna aagnetti@arpa.emr.it Via Garibaldi, 75, 43121 Parma, ItalyTel: 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 BoyceCaribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology (CIMH)

sboyce@cimh.edu.bb St. James, BarbadosTel: 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

Mauro Dolce Italian Department of Civil Protection (DPC) auro.dolce@protezionecivile.it Via Vitorchiano 2, 00189 Rome, Italy

Name Organization Email Contact details

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, UKTel: +44 1622 679545, Cell: +44 7963 652911

Paolo Pasquali ITHACA paolo.pasquali@gmail.com Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 61, 10138 Torino, ItalyTel. +39 011 1975 1872

Lieska PowellOffice of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM)

lpowell@odpem.org.jm 2-4 Haining Road, Kingston 5, JamaicaTel: 906-9674-5

Giuseppe Ricciardi ARPA Emilia-Romagna gricciardi@arpa.emr.it Via Garibaldi, 75, 43121 Parma, ItalyTel: +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 NetherlandsTel: +31(0)88335 8336

Barbara Borzi EUCentre barbara.borzi@eucentre.it Via Ferrata 1 - 27100 Pavia, ItalyTel: +39 0382 5169826

Lora Buckman Deltares lora.buckman@deltares.nl Postbus 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands

20

Name Organization Email Contact details

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@altamira-information.com

C/ Corsega, 381-387, 08037 Barcelona, SpainTel: +34 93 183 57 50

Silvia De Angeli CIMA Research Foundation Silvia.deangeli@cimafoundation.org Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, ItalyTel: +39 019-23027x237

Fabio Dell’Acqua EUCentre fabio.dellacqua@eucentre.it Via Ferrata 1 – 27100 Pavia, ItalyTel: +39-0382-516 98 90

Daniele de Vecchi EUCentre Daniele.devecchi@eucentre.it Via Ferrata 1 – 27100 Pavia, ItalyTel: +39-0382-516 98 90

Andrew Eddy AG Europe andrew.eddy@athenaglobal.com La Frouste, 04150 Simiane-la-Rotonde, FranceTel: +33 4 92 75 83 29

Athanassios Ganas National Observatory of Athens aganas@gein.noa.gr Lofos Nymfon, Athens 11810 , GreeceTel: +30-210-3490186 , +30-6945 551722

Martin Huber German Aerospace Center (DLR) martin.Huber@dlr.de Oberpfaffenhofen, 82234 WeßlingTel: +49 8153 28-2895

Fifamè Koudogbo Altamira fifame.koudogbo@altamira-information.com

C/ Corsega, 381-387, 08037 Barcelona, SpainTel: +34 93 183 57 50

Christiane Maasburg AG Europe christiane.maasburg@athenaglobal.com La Frouste, 04150 Simiane-la-Rotonde, FranceTel: +33 4 92 75 83 29

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@altamira-information.com

C/ Corsega, 381-387, 08037 Barcelona, SpainTel: +34 93 183 57 50

21

Name Organization Email Contact details

Lauro Rossi Acrotech lauro.rossi@cimafoundation.org Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, ItalyTel: +39 019-23027x261

Roberto Rudari CIMA Research Foundation roberto.rudari@cimafoundation.org Via A. Magliotto 2, 17100 Savona, ItalyTel: +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, ItalyTel: +39 01923027237

22