Assessment of flash flood hotspots through local knowledge and capacity for flood crowdsourcing

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری آبخیزداری، دانشکده مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، گرگان، ایران.

2 نویسنده مسئول، استاد گروه آبخیزداری، دانشکده مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، گرگان، ایران.

3 استادیار گروه آبخیزداری، دانشکده مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، گرگان، ایران.

4 استاد گروه آبخیزداری، دانشکده مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، گرگان، ایران.

چکیده

Background and Objectives: The complex knowledge of local communities on the full cycle of disaster risk management has been proven valuable in various researches. However, the scientific literature still lacks studies that examine how to use Local Knowledge (LK) and the local people capabilities for crowdsourcing in Flash Flood Early Warning Systems (FFEWS) studies. Hence the main target of this research is investigation on the capacity of crowdsourcing for FFEWS and identification of Flash Flood Hotspots (FFHs) by LK across a flood prone area in northeast of Iran.
Materials and Methods: In this study, a questionnaire with three different themes was designed. The first theme was related to the individual characteristics as independent variables, the second theme addressed the residents’ LK in determining the FFHs, the type and the predominant time of the flood occurrence in the region, through asking open ended questions with short-answers. The last theme addressed the assessment of people's capacity in Flash Flood Crowdsourcing (FFC), through asking questions with a Likert scale of 0-5. The face-to-face questionnaire administration mode was used for public survey through conducting oral interviews and live discussions.
Results: The results showed that there was no significant correlation between the individuals’ characteristics and their willingness and motivation to participate in FFC. Comparing residents’ LK with the 31-year flood report and literature review showed that the residents’ LK about the flood occurrence location, time and type on a local scale was very promising. The research results indicated that the respondents show highest level of willingness for participation in the release of flood warning messages with an average score of 4.23 and the most important motivating factor for their willingness to participate was introduced saving relatives, fellow villagers, and human being from flood hazards with an average score of 4.84.
Conclusion: In most of previous studies that have focused on the development of FFEWS, very little attention has been paid to understanding the needs of citizens and promoting their participation. In fact, there is a research gap regarding the method of citizen’s participation and their potential support for FFEWS. Hence in this research, an attempt was made to take a small step towards filling this gap by investigating LK, motivation and willingness of local residents to participate in various aspects and steps of FFEWS. Our findings indicate that involving local people in FFEWS has various unknown aspects that should be explored through more extensive and detailed studies.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of flash flood hotspots through local knowledge and capacity for flood crowdsourcing

نویسندگان [English]

  • Parvaneh Hatami Golmakani 1
  • Vahedberdi sheikh 2
  • Arash Zare Garizi 3
  • Abdolreza Bahremand 4
1 Ph.D. Student of Watershed Management, Faculty of Range and Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.
2 Corresponding Author, Professor, Dept. of Watershed Management, Faculty of Range and Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.
3 Assistant Prof., Dept. of Watershed Management, Faculty of Range and Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.
4 . Professor, Dept. of Watershed Management, Faculty of Range and Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives: The complex knowledge of local communities on the full cycle of disaster risk management has been proven valuable in various researches. However, the scientific literature still lacks studies that examine how to use Local Knowledge (LK) and the local people capabilities for crowdsourcing in Flash Flood Early Warning Systems (FFEWS) studies. Hence the main target of this research is investigation on the capacity of crowdsourcing for FFEWS and identification of Flash Flood Hotspots (FFHs) by LK across a flood prone area in northeast of Iran.
Materials and Methods: In this study, a questionnaire with three different themes was designed. The first theme was related to the individual characteristics as independent variables, the second theme addressed the residents’ LK in determining the FFHs, the type and the predominant time of the flood occurrence in the region, through asking open ended questions with short-answers. The last theme addressed the assessment of people's capacity in Flash Flood Crowdsourcing (FFC), through asking questions with a Likert scale of 0-5. The face-to-face questionnaire administration mode was used for public survey through conducting oral interviews and live discussions.
Results: The results showed that there was no significant correlation between the individuals’ characteristics and their willingness and motivation to participate in FFC. Comparing residents’ LK with the 31-year flood report and literature review showed that the residents’ LK about the flood occurrence location, time and type on a local scale was very promising. The research results indicated that the respondents show highest level of willingness for participation in the release of flood warning messages with an average score of 4.23 and the most important motivating factor for their willingness to participate was introduced saving relatives, fellow villagers, and human being from flood hazards with an average score of 4.84.
Conclusion: In most of previous studies that have focused on the development of FFEWS, very little attention has been paid to understanding the needs of citizens and promoting their participation. In fact, there is a research gap regarding the method of citizen’s participation and their potential support for FFEWS. Hence in this research, an attempt was made to take a small step towards filling this gap by investigating LK, motivation and willingness of local residents to participate in various aspects and steps of FFEWS. Our findings indicate that involving local people in FFEWS has various unknown aspects that should be explored through more extensive and detailed studies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Citizen Science
  • Data scarcity
  • Flooding
  • Participation
  • Upstream areas

مراجع

1.Ruin, I., Creutin, J. D., Anquetin, S., & Lutoff, C. (2008). Human exposure to flash floods–Relation between flood parameters and human vulnerability during a storm of September 2002 in Southern France. Journal of Hydrology, 361 (1-2), 199-213.
2.Tsakiris, G. (2014). Flood risk assessment: Concepts, modelling, applications. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14 (5), 1361-1369.
3.Maranzoni, A., D'Oria, M., & Rizzo, C. (2023). Quantitative flood hazard assessment methods: A review. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 16 (1), 1-31.
4.Chen, H., Ito, Y., Sawamukai, M., & Tokunaga, T. (2015). Flood hazard assessment in the Kujukuri Plain of Chiba Prefecture, Japan, based on GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Natural Hazards, 78 (1), 105-120.
5.Saharia, M., Kirstetter, P. E., Vergara, H., Gourley, J. J., Hong, Y., & Giroud, M. (2017). Mapping flash flood severity in the United States. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 18 (2), 397-411.
6.Tu, Y., Zhao, Y., Meng, L., Tang, W., Xu, W., Tian, J., Lyu, G., & Qiao, N. (2023). Study on Dynamic Early Warning of Flash Floods in Hubei Province. Water, 15 (17), 3153. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ w15173153.
7.Sene, K. (2012). Flash floods: forecasting and warning. Springer Science and Business Media.
8.Saint-Fleur, B. E., Allier, S., Lassara, E., Rivet, A., Artigue, G., Pistre, S., & Johannet, A. (2023). Towards a better consideration of rainfall and hydrological spatial features by a deep neural network model to improve flash floods forecasting: case study on the Gardon basin, France. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 9, 3693-3708. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40808-022-01650-w.
9.Khosh Bin Ghomash, S., Bachmann, D., Caviedes-Voullième, D., & Hinz, C. (2023). Effects of Within-Storm Variability on Allochthonous Flash Flooding: A Synthetic Study. Water, 15 (4), 645. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ w15040645.
10.Bucherie, A., Werner, M., van den Homberg, M., & Tembo, S. (2021). Flash Flood warning in context: Combining local knowledge and large-scale hydro-meteorological patterns. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 22, 461-480.
11.Dowthwaite, L., & Sprinks, J. (2019). Citizen science and the professional-amateur divide: lessons from differing online practices. Journal of Science Communication, 18 (01), 1-18.
12.Seibert, J., Strobl, B., Etter, S., Hummer, P., & van Meerveld, H. J. (2019). Virtual staff gauges for crowd-based stream level observations. Frontiers in Earth Science, 7, 70.
13.Šakić Trogrlić, R., Wright, G. B., Duncan, M. J., van den Homberg, M. J., Adeloye, A. J., Mwale, F. D., & Mwafulirwa, J. (2019). Characterising local knowledge across the flood risk management cycle: A case study of Southern Malawi. Sustainability, 11 (6), 1681.
14.Martin, N., & Rice, J. (2012). Emergency communications and warning systems: Determining critical capacities in the Australian context. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 21 (5), 529-540.
15.Aranda, N. R., De Waegemaeker, J., & Van de Weghe, N. (2023). The evolution of public participation GIS (PPGIS) barriers in spatial planning practice. Applied Geography, 155, 102940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102940.
16.Breuer, L., Hiery, N., Kraft, P., Bach, M., Aubert, A. H., & Frede, H. G. (2015). HydroCrowd: a citizen science snapshot to assess the spatial control of nitrogen solutes in surface waters. Scientific reports, 5, 16503.
17.Dickinson, J. L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain, R. L., Martin, J., & Purcell, K. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10 (6), 291-297.
18.Richter, A., Comay, O., Svenningsen, C. S., Larsen, J. C., Hecker, S., Tøttrup, A. P., & Marselle, M. (2021). Motivation and support services in citizen science insect monitoring: A cross-country study. Biological Conservation, 263, 109325.
19.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25 (1), 54-67.
20.Beza, E., Steinke, J., Van Etten, J., Reidsma, P., Fadda, C., Mittra, S., Mathur, P., & Kooistra, L. (2017). What are the prospects for citizen science in agriculture? Evidence from three continents on motivation and mobile telephone use of resource-poor farmers. PLoS One. 12(5), 1-26.
21.Randle, M., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Does cultural background affect volunteering behavior? Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing. 21 (2), 225-247.
22.Shinbrot, X. A., Jones, K. W., Newman, G., & Ramos-Escobedo, M. (2023). Why citizen scientists volunteer: the influence of motivations, barriers, and perceived project relevancy on volunteer participation and retention from a novel experiment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(1), 122-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1979944.
23.Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S., & Everett, G. (2016). Understanding motivations for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England. 120 p.
24.Kragh, G. (2016). The motivations of volunteers in citizen science. Environmental Scientist. 25 (2), 32-35.
25.Follett, R., & Strezov, V. (2015). An analysis of citizen science based research: usage and publication patterns. PLoS One. 10 (11), e0143687.
26.Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R., & Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2011). Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conservation Biology. 25 (6), 1148-1154.
27.Van Den Berg, H. A., Dann, S. L., & Dirkx, J. M. (2009). Motivations of adults for non-formal conservation education and volunteerism: implications for programming. Applied Environmental Education and Communication. 8 (1), 6-17.
28.Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience. 59 (11), 977-984.
29.Tinati, R., Luczak-Roesch, M., Simperl, E., & Hall, W. (2017). An investigation of player motivations in Eyewire, a gamified citizen science project. Computers in Human Behavior. 73, 531-540.
30.Curtis, V. (2015). Motivation to participate in an online citizen science game: a study of Foldit. Science Communication. 37 (6), 723-746.
31.Marchezini, V., Horita, F. E. A., Matsuo, P. M., Trajber, R., Trejo-Rangel, M. A., & Olivato, D. (2018). A review of studies on Participatory Early Warning Systems (P-EWS): Pathways to support citizen science initiatives. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6 (184), 1-18.
32.Namazirad, A., Mohseni, N., & Hoseinzadeh, S. R. (2021). Identification of flood-prone areas in Golestan province using sentinel images and hydraulic modeling, Quantitative geomorphological Research. 10 (3), 38-54. [In Persian]
33.Akhavan, S., & Vazifehdoost, M. (2019). Investigating the effect of land use change on flooding in Golestan province with remote sensing technique (Case study: Gorganrood watershed). 16th Iranian Soil Science Congress, Zanjan. 27-29 August, 1-7. [In Persian]
34.Sazab Golestan Consulting Engineers (SGCE). (2015). Studies to review and investigate the effects of the comprehensive flood plan and the development and formulation of the long-term flood plan in Golestan province. 102 p. [In Persian]
35.Sheikh, V., Ahmadi, A., & Komaki, C. B. (2021). Assessment of the spatial distribution of flood generation hotspots in the Ramian’s Ghoorchay watershed using KINEROS2 model. Journal of Natural Environmental Hazards. 9 (26): 21-42. [In Persian]
36.Golestan Province Directorate of Natural Resources and Watershed Management (GPDNRWM). (2022). The Golestan province flood analytical report from March 1991 to March 2018, Technical deputy for Watershed Management.
57 p. [In Persian]
37.Alender, B. (2016). Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects: a deeper look at water quality monitoring. Journal of science communication, 15 (3), 1-19.
38.Prager, K., & Posthumus, H. (2010). Adopting sustainable soil management: the role of socio-economic factors.
16th Annual international sustainable development research conference in Hong Kong, 32 pp.
39.Mendoza, G. A., & Parabhau, R. (2006). Participatory modeling and analysis for sustainable forest management: over view of soft system dynamics models and application, forest policy and economics. 9, 179-196.
40.Huntsinger, L., & Fortman, L. P. (1990). Californias privately owned oak woodland: owner, use and management. Journal of rangeland management, 43, 147-152.
41.Koehler, B., & Koontz, T. M. (2008). Citizen participation in collaborative watershed partnerships. Environmental management, 41, 143-154.
42.Elyasi, A., Shahedi, K., & Rastgar, Sh. (2017). Effective Factors on Stakeholders’ Willingness to Participate at Watershed Management Projects in Hezarkhani Watershed. Journal of Watershed Management Research. 8 (16), 259-310. [In Persian]
43.Marcos-Garcia, P., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Sanchis-Ibor, C., García-Mollá, M., Ortega-Reig, M., Garcia-Prats, A., & Girard, C. (2023). From local knowledge to decision making in climate change adaptation at basin scale. Application to the Jucar River Basin, Spain. Climatic Change, 176 (4), 38.
44.Chisadza, B. J., Tumbare, M. R., Nyabeze, W., & Nhapi, I. (2014). Validation of local knowledge drought forecasting systems in the Limpopo River Basin in Southern Africa. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23 (5), 551-566.
45.Ponce de Leon, I. Z. (2021). A portrait of contrasts in disaster risk response: A post-Haiyan study of Coron, Philippines. Weather, climate, and society, 13 (3), 511-523.
46.Haworth, B., Whittaker, J., & Bruce, E. (2016). Assessing the application and value of participatory mapping for community bushfire preparation. Applied Geography, 76, 115-127.
47.Zhang, H., & Nakagawa, H. (2018). Validation of indigenous knowledge for disaster resilience against river flooding and bank erosion. In Science and Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia, 57-76. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ B978-0-12-812711-7.00005-5.
48.Brandt, K., Graham, L., Hawthorne, T., Jeanty, J., Burkholder, B., Munisteri, C., & Visaggi, C. (2020). Integrating sketch mapping and hot spot analysis to enhance capacity for community‐level flood and disaster risk management. The Geographical Journal, 186 (2), 198-212.
49.Swee, H. (2017). Assembling local cyclone knowledge in the Australian tropics. Nature and Culture, 12 (1), 8-26.
50.Ramaano, A. I. (2023). Geographical information systems in sustainable rural tourism and local community empowerment: A natural resources management appraisal for Musina Municipality’ Society. Local Development and Society, 4 (1), 74-105.
51.Hadlos, A., Opdyke, A., & Hadigheh, S. A. (2022). Where does local and indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction go from here? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 103160.
52.Kienberger, S. (2014). Participatory mapping of flood hazard risk in Munamicua, District of Búzi, Mozambique. Journal of Maps, 10 (2), 269-275.‏
53.IAHS-UNESCO-WMO. (1974). Flash Floods. Proceedings of the Paris Symposium, Publication no. 112.
54.Farhan, Y., & Ayed, A. (2017). Assessment of flash-flood Hazard in arid watersheds of Jordan. Journal of Geographic Information System, 9 (06), 717.
55.Davis, R. S. (2001). Flash flood forecast and detection methods. In Severe convective storms (pp. 481-525). Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society.
56.Borga, M., Anagnostou, E. N., Blöschl, G., & Creutin, J. D. (2010). Flash floods: Observations and analysis of hydro-meteorological controls. Journal of Hydrology, 394 (1-2), 1-3.
57.Spreafico, M. (2006). Flash floods in mountain areas. IAHS publication, 308, 232.
58.Hajibigloo, M., Ghezelsofloo, A. A., Memarian, H., & Sheikh, V. (2017). Mapping the flood-prone areas for developing a flood risk management system in the northeast of Iran. Water Harvesting Research, 2 (2), 1-12.
59.Rahmati, O., Haghizadeh, A., & Stefanidis, S. (2016). Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based analytical hierarchy process for watershed prioritization; Gorganrood River Basin, Iran. Water Resources Management, 30 (3), 1131-1150.
60.Danladi, A., Siong, H. C., & Teck, G. L. H. (2018). Importance of indigenous knowledge in flood risk reduction: A review. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 11 (1), 7-16.‏
61.Bell, S., Marzano, M., Cent, J., Kobierska, H., Podjed, D., Vandzinskaite, D., Reinert, H., Armaitiene, A., Grodzi´nska-Jurczak, M., & Murˇsiˇc, R. (2008). What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodiversity and conservation. 17 (14), 3443-3454.
62.Asah, S. T., & Blahna, D. J. (2013). Practical implications of understanding the influence of motivations on commitment to voluntary urban conservation stewardship. Conservation Biology, 27 (4), 866-875.
مجله پژوهش‌های حفاظت آب و خاک
دوره 30، شماره 4
دی 1402
صفحه 125-145

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار