Status report from the Status report from the
GEO Geohazards Community of PracticeGEO Geohazards Community of Practice
Gonéri Le CozannetIGOS Geohazards
Presentation given on behalf of Hormoz Modaressihttp://www.igosgeohazards.org
OverviewOverview
Introduction: Benefits of a multi-hazards approach
1. GEO Geohazards Community of Practice
2. The need of improving access to data for disaster mitigation
3. Geohazards data clearinghouse GeoHazData
4. Regional communities of practice
Conclusion
Introduction: Benefits of a multi-hazards approach
EarthquakeSeismic monitoring
TopographySoil behaviorHydrogeology
VolcanoTopography
Seismic monitoringDeformation
Gases
Ground InstabilityTopographyDeformation
Hydrogeology
BoreholesGeological structure
InSAR images Seismologicalstations
Geo-referenced data
GPS
Multi-hazards approach: Geohazards observationsMulti-hazards approach: Geohazards observations
Multi-hazard approach: Multi-hazard approach: Synergies Geo- and Meteorological HazardsSynergies Geo- and Meteorological Hazards
Meteorological data can be used for the mitigation of Geohazards: e.g. Landslides• In Thailand, Landslides can be due to seism occurring in a near country during
the rainy season.
• Implementation of a system using both meteorological and geological data to produce Landslide hazard maps and inform people living in the exposed area
Meteorological information
Geological information
Weather model
Landslide model
Lan
dslid
e hazard
map
s
Source:
GPS makes InSAR accurate.
- 15
-10
-5
0
5
-15 -10 -5 0 5
Leveling (cm)
Up
by
InS
AR
(cm
) y=1.211x+2.685r=0.8675
- 15
-10
-5
0
5
-15 -10 -5 0 5
Leveling (cm)
Up
In
SA
R +
GP
S
(cm
)
y=0.8735x+0.30r=0.9183
Before (InSAR only) After (InSAR+GPS)
After Tobita, et al., 2004
Using Remote sensing together with in-situ dataUsing Remote sensing together with in-situ data
Leveling vs. InSAR+GPSAfter Tobita, et al., 2004
Bench m
ark Bench m
ark
GP
S station
No leveling Small ScaleSubsidence
Interpolation of Leveling
Bench Mark(Leveling)
GPS station
Cross section
Down
Up
The need for coordination in GeohazardsThe need for coordination in Geohazards Geohazards REMAINS a highly diverse community with little
interaction between thematic areas This is DESPITE significant overlap in earth observations for
different Geohazards
Need to promote global and regional multi-disaster approach
Need to develop synergies through a "system of systems" approach
A large number of observables and a "local/site" scale phenomenon encourages dispersion in the community
2. GEO Geohazards Community of Practice
Geohazards Community of practiceGeohazards Community of practice
Roles• Coordinate activities that input to tasks
• Establish a "community consensus" on key issues
• Provide a forum for mutual technical support
• Facilitate the link between decision makers and grass roots practitioners
• Definition of priority study sites for multi-national projects
Participation of South East Asia and Southern American communities working on Geohazards
IGOS GeohazardsIGOS Geohazards
> UNESCO, CEOS and ICSU initiated and scoped the IGOS Geohazards Theme in 2001.
> An Ad-hoc Working Group was formed, held an international workshop in Frascati (Italy), and delivered a proposal to the IGOS partnership in May 2002.
> The resulting IGOS Geohazards Theme Team delivered a Theme Report to the IGOS Partners in May 2003.
> Following an international peer review, the Geohazards Theme Report was published in April 2004.
> The IGOS Geohazards Bureau was created by the BRGM and the European Space Agency (ESA) in September 2004 to monitor and coordinate theme implementation
http://www.igosgeohazards.org
IGOS Geohazards activitiesIGOS Geohazards activities
To support the emergence of a Community of Practice (CoP) on Geohazards:
• Organization of international workshops
• Support to regional initiatives (e.g. in South East Asia and Latin America)
• Communication via website, newsletters and other publications
To implement GEO specific tasks, with support of the CoP:
• Support, and advocate funding for, research projects that contribute to the improved integration of InSAR technology for disaster warning and prediction (GEO task DI-06-03)
• Conduct an inventory of existing geologic and all-hazard zonation maps and identify gaps and needs for digitization: GeoHazData (GEO task DI-06-07)
3. The need of improving access to data for disaster mitigation
Access to data at different phases of the disaster cycle Access to data at different phases of the disaster cycle
Preparadness
Mitigation
Prevention Development
Recovery
Response
Disaster
Disaster Charter
Activation
⇒ Need to facilitate access to Earth Observation data for Mitigation and Prevention of Geohazards
• Upon requests
• Subject to satellite tasking priorities
• Conflict with the need of regular acquisitions
Mitigation vs Response policies Mitigation vs Response policies
Policies focusing on Policies focusing on ResponseResponse finally save lives, finally save lives, but costs continue to increase but costs continue to increase
Preparadness
Mitigation
Prevention Development
Recovery
Response
Disaster
Mitigation policiesMitigation policies yield to better land use, reduce yield to better land use, reduce vulnerability of exposed elements, and finally save vulnerability of exposed elements, and finally save both lives and costsboth lives and costs
MitigationMitigation
Reducing vulnerabilityReducing hazard Reducing exposure
Mitigation policies can focus on:
e.g. landslides
Observations provide: - inputs to alert systems- input information to
LAND USE PLANING
Observations help to identify
hazards and level of threat
Need to collect all available data and use it for all hazards assessment
Observations contribute to the assesment of
systemic and physical vulnerabilities
MitigationMitigation
Aim: to increase the use of Earth Observation data for mitigation of disasters
• Earth observation data are used for modeling hazards and production of Hazard maps
• Using hazards maps for land use policies lead to reducing vulnerability of exposed elements
-> Need to support use of data such as InSAR for disaster mitigation
-> Need to make an Hazard maps catalogue to support efficient land use policies
4. Geohazards data clearinghouse GeoHazData
Toward Earth Observation data clearing houseToward Earth Observation data clearing house
GeoHazData
GEO 10 years plan
Open data access and visualization services
Databases interoperability
Access to all data
Various databasesData collected by Geological surveys, mapping agencies,
space agencies, universities…
Inventories of data and observing means= Catalogue of Metadata
Seismometers
GPS networks
Other in-situ instruments
Satellite images
Instruments
Databases
Application layer
Hazard Map Catalogue – GeoHazData systemHazard Map Catalogue – GeoHazData system
Aim: to share metadata on Hazard MapsAim: to share metadata on Hazard MapsContribution of international partners needed!Contribution of international partners needed!
5. Regional communities of practice
Spatial distribution of hazards
Principal earthquake zones and explosivevolcanoes
‘Ring of Fire’
S. E. Asia
CaribbeanMountSt. Helens1980
Montserrat1995-present
Toba 73ka
Pinatubo 1991
Tambora 1815
Aitapei1998
Alaska 1964
Northridge 1994Loma Prieta 1989
Chile 1960
Izmit 1999Lisbon1755
Tangshen1976
Tokyo 1923Kobe 1995
Tropical cyclone zones
Bhuj 2001
Taiwan 1999
Columbia 1999
Venezuela 2000Hurricane Mitch1999
after UCL
Multi-hazards approach: need of global and regional Multi-hazards approach: need of global and regional approachesapproaches
Report on the GEO Geohazards Workshop in South East Asia
The Malaysian remote sensing Center (MACRES), the Group on Earth Observation (GEO), NASA, UNESCO and IGOS Geohazards organised this workshop in order to enhance regional and international cooperation on geological disasters in South East Asia.
More than 90 participants
Participants stressed the need of a Regional Multi-Hazards approach.
Workshop recommendations• Data timeliness and coverage:
need to move toward an open near real time data policy. This requires coordination of Southeast Asia countries and work with the space agencies and donor countries to focus on monitoring high-risk areas for disaster mitigation.
• System interoperability: need to move toward an open geospatial data portal to overcome interoperability issues and facilitate access to data in a timely manner.
• Historical and archive data: need to improve historical event databases, archives of observation data and to get easier access to these data sets
• Regional cooperation: need to establish a community of practice on geohazards at the regional level in South East Asia.
Workshop outcome:
IGOS Geohazards will advocate space agencies for providing an easier access to spaceborne data in specific high risks areas for disaster mitigation.
Workshop outcome:
IGOS Geohazards proposes a mechanism to collect metadata on hazard maps
Workshop outcome:
Need to consider the collection of metadata on these data in SE Asia
Toward a community of practice on Geohazards in South East Asia ?...
ConclusionsConclusions
• Need to focus on an easier data provision disaster mitigation
• Community of Practice on Geohazards aims at–supporting a multi-disaster approach
–increase the exchange of data from various sources
–moving toward an open access to data
• This Community of Practice on Geohazards contributes to GEO as a “Geohazard community of practice”– InSAR use for mitigation of disasters
– Hazard maps catalogue
Next IGOS WorkshopNext IGOS Workshop
The next IGOS Workshop will be organized at the European Space Agency, ESRIN, Rome, in June 2006.
1st announcement in October 2006
Participation of experts and decision makers is necessary to make this workshop a success
Please visit www.igosgeohazards.org or contact us.
Thank you for your attention
Contact: [email protected]
Tungurahua volcano threatening the city of Banos in Ecuador
Arnaud Joëlle and Scholl Pierre-Grégoire
Top Related