Erik Bethke & Matthew Mittler

GIS for Emergency Management

Technical Paper

Introduction

The management of emergency events and natural disasters is an extremely complex

subject, with several core stages of disaster management before, during, and after the occurrence

of a disaster. There are numerous key stakeholders involved in emergency management, and the

scale of the efforts related to natural disaster management can range from local responses to

global efforts. As such, it is obvious that having perfect preparedness, response, recovery, and

mitigation efforts in place is impossible. Still, there are several different avenues that emergency

management specialists can attempt to lessen the impacts of these events.

This project attempts to provide a new methodology for helping emergency managers in

the preparation stage of the management cycle. During this stage, emergency management

specialists attempt to develop the ability and preparedness to respond and recover to a natural

disaster event. This phase includes using geospatial tools and methodology to help understand

and interpret areas with greater risk and susceptibility to disaster events. One potential way to

identify these areas is through the use of composite indicators and modeling to assess risk.

The importance of a composite assessment is strongly linked to its interpretability and its

combination of multiple indicators of risk. Merz et al. points to this operationalizing of multiple

factors, stating that “using composite indicators bridges the gap between theoretical vulnerability

framework and decision-making within disaster risk management.” As they later mention,
composite modeling does not result in absolute or definitive statements, but shed light upon the

underlying indicators (Merz et al., 1080). The use of composite risk modeling is a popular

concept, although they are often fairly vague in both description and classification. Often the

composite index is limited to poor spatial resolution or broad rankings, such as the Rhode Island

Emergency Management Agency’s composite hazard index seen in Figure 1.

The goal of this

project is to develop a high

spatial resolution composite

risk mapping model that is

easily replicable on a local

scale, with the ability to

modify the classification

indexes. The ability to

modify the classification

indexes is ideal in its

similarity to the HAZUS

Composite Exposure Indicator (CEI) approach, in that the approach is “flexible and the list of

indicator variables could be modified easily” (Multihazard Risk Assessment, 316). Additionally,

the creation of the composite risk map should be easily scalable by the locally perceived threat of

each natural hazard. It is important to note that the results of this project are intended to display

the methodology of developing a high resolution, generalized composite risk map rather than

provide significant insight as to the risk levels that were found throughout the case study area.
 The selected case study for this project was the Los Angeles, United States county. This

region was selected due to two main factors: moderate levels of publicly available data and the

presence of enough potential hazards to develop a composite risk map. The availability of spatial

data provided enough information to be able to develop perceived risk layers, while the lack of

refined data available for use provided the requirement to make the methodology flexible enough

to adapt to other spatial data. This would ensure that the composite risk mapping methodology

would be able to be ported to other locations with ease. The second condition gave cause for a

composite risk map to be created, with earthquakes, fires, flooding, and landslides all as potential

natural disasters for the Los Angeles county region. While these hazards were used for this case

study, it would be simple to incorporate other hazards into the composite risk mapping

methodology.

Technical Parameters & Spatial Practices

The methodology for the creation of the generalized composite risk map incorporated

several different geospatial functions and processes to ensure the smooth conversion of

individual risk indicators into one composite map. The following functions and tools were

implemented:

● Clipping and masking of spatial data was used to limit the extent of datasets to the case

study area of interest. This was done for raw datasets of both polygon and raster file

types.

● All raw data was reprojected into the appropriate projection, which was UTM 11N for

the case study.

 ● Reclassification was performed on data to assign a standardized perceived risk level to

allow for smooth scaling of composite risk.

● Any datasets that were initially of polygon file types were converted to raster format

using polygon to raster conversion.

The need for high spatial resolution for this project necessitated the conversion of any

generalized spatial data to raster format. Raster formatting is ideal for local composite risk

mapping, this allows for the finer combinations of individual perceived risk indicators into one

composite output.

Hazard Assessment Methodology

General methodology section

For this project, a standardized workflow was used for creating all layers (figure below).

First the appropriate data had to be gathered for each layer. This is a vital decision to make as

the quality of the data highly affects the results. Next, each layer had to be converted to raster

format because generalized risk is calculated for all locations in the study area. Raster format is

best for phenomena that exist everywhere. The conversion process varies depending on the

format of the original dataset. Then all the rasters are reclassified into five categories with a

value of five being very high risk and a value of one being very low risk. This is done to

standardize each layer so when the composite is created, every layer will have equal weight

(unless intentionally weighted otherwise). Finally, all the rasters are added together and the

value is divided the number of layers. The values in this final output represent the generalized

risk of natural hazards using the 1-5 scale. For the case study of Los Angeles county, wildfires,
earthquakes, flooding and landslides were selected as the relevant natural hazards. The World

Bank’s ThinkHazard!, a tool that models natural hazard risk at a more global scale, was used for

guidance on this decision (Douglas et al. 42). It is possible that Los Angeles county is

susceptible to other natural hazards not included in this model, but they were deemed

insignificant or adequate data could not be found. In the figure below, drought and cyclones are

shown but they were not incorporated into the final version of the model. Drought was dropped

because its impact on human lives tends to be equal at the scale being used in this project.

Cyclones were not included because they rarely affect the study area.

Wildfire

The intentions of this project are to establish the framework for creating localized tools

for the generalized risk of natural hazards. The case study used is for Los Angeles County, but
the specific methodologies discussed below will differ by location due to different data sources

and different natural hazards. California is notorious for its wildfires which have been known to

cause significant destruction to property. Los Angeles County government has a data portal for

GIS data on several topics which would be expected to be invaluable for finding high resolution

localized data. However, much of their data on natural hazards was irrelevant to this

methodology or it linked to other sources. Through this platform, relevant data was found at the

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program

(FRAP). The dataset used from this source is titled Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and considers

fire frequency as well as potential fire behavior (California Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection 1). Conveniently this dataset was already available in raster format with five

assigned threat classes. Below the chart shows how the original dataset was reclassified, and

there are before and after images of this layer below. The primary negative aspect of this data is

its 100x100 meter resolution. The final output for the project is 10x10 meter (a fairly precise

resolution) so in the conversion process, the pixel size of the original fire dataset was made

smaller even though the source data was not gathered at this resolution.
Earthquake

The San Andreas fault runs through the northern portion of Los Angeles County,

increasing the area’s risk of human casualties and property damage from earthquake shaking.

The dataset used for earthquakes was gathered from California’s Department of Conservation,

and is called Low Frequency Shaking Potential. This dataset was chosen because the metadata

of this reliable source said that earthquake shaking at the 1 second period correlates well with

overall earthquake damage (California’s Department of Conservation 1). The alternative

method would have been using a historic earthquake layer and estimating risk using the epicenter

and magnitude fields. However, that methodology ignores the underlying geology of the region

which greatly affects where shaking occurs and at what intensity.

 The low frequency shaking potential layer was originally in polygon vector format and

contained a field called g which represented ground shaking. The Polygon to Raster tool in

ArcGIS was used to convert the data into raster format with a specified cell size of 10 meters.

Because this dataset was originally made up of precisely drawn polygons, the cell size makes a

significant difference in the output. After this, the Reclass tool was used to break the data into

the five standardized categories. The g field ranged from 0.25 to 2.35, and because this data is

continuous rather than categorical, natural breaks was used to create the five categories. After

running, the earthquake layer is ready for final processing.

Flooding

Almost any location with a stream network or on the ocean is susceptible to flooding and

Los Angeles County has both of these characteristics. The Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) is arguably the most rigorous organization for flood mapping, although they do

not make their data easily accessible. After much searching, FEMA’s National Flood Hazard
Layer was obtained. This data is in polygon vector format, and the field that was decided to be

most relevant was Flood Zones (Federal Emergency Management Agency 1). Unlike the

earthquake data, the Flood Zones field was categorical. Therefore, the metadata had to be well

understood in order to properly assign the reclassified values. The chart below shows the results

of this decision making process. After running the Reclass tool, the flood layer results were

cross-referenced with a DEM and a stream network layer to ensure that the results made sense

(one would expect flood risk to be highest along streams and at low elevations). Flood

Modelling is a very developed field of study, and it would have been possible to implement a

more advanced system to determine flood risk. However, these capabilities were beyond the

skillset of the team available.

Landslides

Landslides are not often considered one of the major natural hazards, but California is

notorious for them as they cause significant damage to property and infrastructure. Out of the

four hazard layers of the study area, the landslide data has the lowest resolution (this can be seen

in the map below). All data available on this topic was global in scale, and the best compromise

found was the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility

Layer. Like the last two hazards, this was available in vector polygon format, and like the flood

layer, the data was categorical (United States Geological Survey 1). There were only four

landslide categories so the decision making process for reclassifying was not as difficult (see

chart). After converting to raster and running the Reclass tool, all four layers are ready to be
added together.

Composite Methodology

The simplest way to make a composite

hazard layer is to use the Raster Calculator tool

and add the four rasters together. However, this

assumes that all the four natural hazards occur at

the same rate and intensity. To weigh each raster

layer differently, the Weighted Sum tool is optimal to use. Again, the World Bank’s

ThinkHazard! Tool was used to decide how to weigh the hazards. The chart below shows how

each hazard was weighted for the final composite. Earthquakes and Flooding are the most

concerning hazards for the study area so they are given the highest weight of five. Due to the

landslide layer’s relatively low quality of data and lower rate of incidence, it was weighted the

lowest at one. Looking at the final results (map below), the area of highest generalized risk can

be found along the San Andreas fault in the northern part of the county. Most of the southern

portion (where most people live) is relatively low, but there are interesting pockets of high risk

particularly on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Other populated areas at high risk include Malibu,

Glendale, and Palmdale.

Results & Future Goals

The methodology developed for creating a generalized composite risk map fulfilled the

desired goals of this project. By combining multiple high resolution hazard datasets into one

composite risk indicator, it was possible to develop the equally local risk map. This process and

modeling was consistent and easily replicable, which satisfies the requirement to easily be able

to swap in different hazard datasets or transpose the model to a different area of interest. Still, the

development of composite risk maps is highly useful but limited. Merz et al. also come to this

conclusion, stating that they are “stepping stone[s] towards risk mitigation: by identifying the

most vulnerable sectors, risk management measures enhancing the resilience can be defined”

(1096). This project hopes to be an additional stepping stone, providing a convenient way to

identifying these vulnerable locations for improvement through modeled composite risk maps.

There are several components of this project that could be enhanced in the future,

although many of these improvements are reliant upon external sources: higher resolution

analysis, incorporation of more hazards, and providing an interactive interface. The first

improvement is highly dependent upon the availability of data; however, it would be beneficial

to see the full potential of an extremely high spatial resolution composite risk map. Additionally,

it would be both increasingly complex and useful to incorporate other hazards into the composite

map. Finally, providing a system for less tech-savvy emergency managers to interact with the

composite risk map could provide a way for more individuals to identify areas that are at high

risk of natural disasters. A separate project that would complement this composite risk map

modeling could be refining the ability to classify and scale natural disaster potential impacts.

References
California Department of Conservation. (2016). Earthquake Shaking Potential for California.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=eee5a39483604a4c8861e6e6433e009c

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2016). Fire and Resource
Assessment Program.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_development

Douglas, John, et al. (2016). ThinkHazard!: Methodology Report. World Bank Group.
http://thinkhazard.org/static/2f1be9baecafa08c3823a654028d2dcd/documents/thinkhazar
d-methodology-report_v1_8final.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2016). National Flood Hazard Layer.

https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=cbe088e7c8704464aa0fc34eb99e7f30

Merz, M., Hiete, M., Comes, T., & Schultmann, F. (2013). A composite indicator model to
assess

natural disaster risks in industry on a spatial level. Journal Of Risk Research, 16(9),

1077-1099. doi:10.1080/13669877.2012.737820

"Multihazard Risk Assessment/HAZUS - Risk Assessment Approaches." Multihazard Risk

Assessment/HAZUS - National Institute of Building Sciences. Federal Emergency

Management Agency. Accessed 20 Dec. 2016. Accessed from:

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1545-20490-4252/mhira_ra.pdf

Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (2016). State of Rhode Island Hazard

Identification and Risk Assessment.

United States Geological Survey. (2016). Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United
States. http://landslides.usgs.gov/hazards/nationalmap/