Less is More? Evaluating Technical Aspects and User Experiences of Smart Flood Risk Assessment Tools

被引:3
|
作者
Witte, Patrick A. [1 ]
Snel, Karin A. W. [1 ]
Geertman, Stan C. M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Dept Human Geog & Planning, Utrecht, Netherlands
来源
URBAN PLANNING | 2021年 / 6卷 / 03期
关键词
flood risk governance; planning support; pluralism; risk communication; task-technology fit; user-technology fit; WATER MANAGEMENT; COMMUNICATION; PERCEPTION; INFORMATION; RESIDENTS; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.17645/up.v6i3.4257
中图分类号
TU98 [区域规划、城乡规划];
学科分类号
0814 ; 082803 ; 0833 ;
摘要
In light of several recent large-scale flooding events worldwide, the urgency of involving residents in the flood risk management debate is growing. However, this has so far proven to be problematic, mainly because of lacking or ineffective communication between stakeholders. One way to better involve residents in the flood risk management debate is by developing smart applications, dedicated to facilitate and increase the insights of residents into the flood risk and vulnerability of their private properties. However, what is lacking thus far is a systematic evaluation of the technical aspects and the user experiences of such tools. The goal of this article is to explore and evaluate the technical, analytical, and communicative qualities of smart flood risk assessment tools. To this end, a new smart application named FLOODLABEL is used, aiming to inform residents of flood-prone areas about potential flood risks and associated protection measures of their dwellings. Based on this, the article concludes that a smart application like FLOODLABEL can be beneficial for informing residents about flood risks and potential protection measures. However, it also shows that a one-size-fits-all approach is not suitable for informing residents on flood risks, inter alia because how residents perceive risks is not homogeneous. This research is therefore just the first step towards a more systematic evaluation method of smart applications.
引用
收藏
页码:283 / 294
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cognitive and emotional aspects in evaluating the flood risk
    Armas, Iuliana
    Avram, Eugen
    PSIWORLD 2011, 2012, 33 : 939 - 943
  • [2] APPROPRIATE FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR PREDICTING FLOOD INUNDATION EXTENT AND ASSESSING FLOOD HAZARD RISK FOR FLASH FLOOD EVENTS
    Kvocka, Davor
    Falconer, Roger A.
    Bray, Michaela
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 36TH IAHR WORLD CONGRESS: DELTAS OF THE FUTURE AND WHAT HAPPENS UPSTREAM, 2015, : 5001 - 5013
  • [3] RAPID -: A Risk Assessment Procedure for technical flood protection measures
    Kutschera, Gesa
    Bachmann, Daniel
    Huber, Nils Peter
    Niemeyer, Maren
    Koengeter, Juergen
    WASSERWIRTSCHAFT, 2008, 98 (1-2) : 43 - 48
  • [4] Evaluating Urban Quality: Indicators and Assessment Tools for Smart Sustainable Cities
    Garau, Chiara
    Pavan, Valentina Maria
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2018, 10 (03)
  • [5] Balancing Act: Evaluating the Need for Airborne Isolation Tools-Sometimes More Is Less
    Li, Jie
    RESPIRATORY CARE, 2024, 69 (04) : 519 - 520
  • [6] Technical Usability Assessment of Security Analysis Tools for Ethereum Based Smart Contracts
    Zeeshan, Rana
    Tal, Irina
    2022 IEEE 22ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE QUALITY, RELIABILITY, AND SECURITY COMPANION, QRS-C, 2022, : 87 - 95
  • [7] A new flood risk assessment framework for evaluating the effectiveness of policies to improve urban flood resilience
    Hammond, Michael
    Chen, Albert S.
    Batica, Jelena
    Butler, David
    Djordjevic, Slobodan
    Gourbesville, Philippe
    Manojlovic, Natasa
    Mark, Ole
    Veerbeek, William
    URBAN WATER JOURNAL, 2018, 15 (05) : 427 - 436
  • [8] New risk-assessment guidelines—more or less personalized?
    Michael J. Blaha
    Roger S. Blumenthal
    Nature Reviews Cardiology, 2014, 11 : 136 - 137
  • [10] A spatial assessment framework for evaluating flood risk under extreme climates
    Chen, Yun
    Liu, Rui
    Barrett, Damian
    Gao, Lei
    Zhou, Mingwei
    Renzullo, Luigi
    Emelyanova, Irina
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 538 : 512 - 523