Emergency Management

Copernicus EMS ValidationStatus and 3rd phase

Marco Broglia (JRC), Alan Steel (Uni Systems SA), Antigoni Maistrali (Engineering Ingegneria Informatica SpA), Iban Ameztoy (Seidor SA)

EMS Annual User Workshop 2019, Stresa

EmergencyManagement

27 June 2019 2

W h a t i s V a l i d a t i o n ?

Technical Verification

Detailed feedback

Exploration

Continuous improvement

EmergencyManagement

“A producer-independent process

generating documented evidence

measuring attributes of the object under validation and

estimating its added value and impact”

V a l i d a t i o n c o n c e p t

EmergencyManagement • Ground Control Points

• SP is in-field in5 days from the start of the procedure

4

M 1 : F i e l d s u r v e y

• UAV

Source: http://www.gtcluster.com/

EmergencyManagement • Reliability of content

– Thematic accuracy

– Positional accuracy

– Etc.

• Consistency– Positional consistency across features

– Time gap across features

– Consistency between map and legend symbols

– Topological consistency (datasets)

– Attributes consistency (datasets)

– Etc.

• Usability– Coverage of the area of interest

– Presence and pertinence of cartographic elements (e.g.Overview map, Scale, etc.)

– Readability

– Etc. 5

M 2 : P r o d u c t v a l i d a t i o n

EmergencyManagement

6

M 2 P r o d u c t v a l i d a t i o n - e x a m p l e s

FOREST BURNT AREA VALIDATION (ha)

INDICATORS REFERENCE 1OVERLAP

DISCREPANCYOMISSION COMMISSION TOTAL

ha % REF % COP ha % ha % ha

ΔBAI for forest 10,958.87 11,128.88 10,673.03 95.90 97.39 455.85 4.10 285.84 2.61 741.69

ΔBAI2 10,617.28 11,128.88 10,410.26 93.54 98.05 718.62 6.46 207.02 1.95 925.64

READABILITY PARAMETERS RESULTS COMMENTS EXAMPLES TL

1

Appropriate title, adequate to the content (contains topic, location, date)

Yes No

Title is appropriate as it includes topic, location and date (starting date of the event).

Correctly placed labels Yes No

Text and labels are readable but some road labels could have been added to perform a more complete map. River labels are curved, which is normally not advisable, but in this case does not worsen the readability. Some labels are redundant. A shorter version of some Point of interest layer’s label would be advisable. Given that the name of the town is already displayed, “Skola” would be enough instead of “Vaesterfaernebo skola”.

Adequate and differentiable colours used for representing the different themes area; satisfactory visual contrast between background and map themes

Yes No

Colours used for representing the different themes follow the conventions for qualitative representation. Although crisis information has been defined according to the Copernicus-EMS Mapping Guidelines, it would be recommended the use of higher transparency not to hinder readability.

LEGEND PARAMETERS RESULTS COMMENTS EXAMPLES

Legend symbols are clearly defined

Yes No

Pertinence of the definition of the symbols and their arrangements are considered correct as they are identical to those used in the mapped areas and are properly organized.

1Traffic light (TL): Negative, Partially positive / need of improvement, Positive.

EmergencyManagement • Added value

– Review of alternative products

– Detailed user feedback collection

• Impact of Copernicus products on the user workflow– Detailed user feedback collection

• Assessment (when possible) of resources savings

• Estimation (when possible) of emergency support effectiveness

7

M 3 : A d d e d v a l u e a n d i m p a c t e s t i m a t i o nM 3 : e x a m p l e

7

SECTIONS EVALUATED ASPECTS USER’S OPINIONS TL

1.

USE

RS’G

ENER

AL IN

FO

Operational procedure / role.

- Profile: Mr. Anders Eriksson is member of the Decision Support Section of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency; he works with geographical data (mapping, etc.).

- Role: o Mr. Anders Eriksson is the contact person in the

Copernicus-EMS (SRF filling and feedback). o Ms. Ann-Charlotte Nylén is the contact of the

National Focal Point.

-

Intended use of Copernicus-EMS products (needs and expectations).

- Locate and see the extent of the fire for planning the response activities during the crisis (fire control activities, etc. in the emergency phase).

Real use of Copernicus-EMS products.

- Unfortunately, the products could not be used as intended.

- However, monitoring maps were used, in the post-fire evaluation, although that was not their intended use.

Copernicus-EMS products’ formats used.

- All three formats were used (paper maps, digital georeferenced maps, and vector files). The user appreciated very much to have the vector files in advance.

Integration of Copernicus-EMS products in user’s workflow.

- Products were not integrated in the fire management workflow.

Sharing Copernicus-EMS products with other users.

- Products were shared with local agencies, firefighters, headquarters, etc.

SECTIONS EVALUATED ASPECTS USER’S OPINIONS TL 1.

AC

TIVA

TIO

N O

F CO

PERN

ICU

S-EM

S SE

RVIC

E

Ulterior modifications of requirements (after sending SRF).

- AOI was modified on the 6th

of August, after the fire changed direction because of strong winds.

- The user did not trigger any other service. -

Communication with SP and ERCC.

- Communication with SP and ERCC was very good, and frequent. There were several contacts per day, by telephone and email.

- However, the user thinks that Copernicus-EMS should have alerted him, before the service activation, about the possible difficulties for delivering useful maps on time, thus about: o The fact that mapping wildfires based on optical

satellite data is dependent on weather conditions (clear sky, no clouds…).

o The possibility that delivery of fire delineation maps can be delayed by the lack of cloud-free satellite images. The user comments that, perhaps, they were informed about the possible delay of maps delivery, he was not sure.

Future possible service activation / recommendation of the service.

- The user would activate again Copernicus-EMS. - The user would recommend other people the

Copernicus-EMS.

SECTIONS EVALUATED ASPECTS USER’S OPINIONS TL

1.

COPE

RNIC

US-

EMS

PRO

DU

CTS

VALU

ATIO

N

FTP-service to deliver products. - Appropriate.

Products’ reception (timeliness).

- Useful products were received too late to be used for the intended use.

- Considering that the Copernicus-EMS Validation Service found satellite images corresponding to the 8

th and 9

th

of August (with less than 20% of cloud cover), the user confirms that it would have been very useful to have maps published around those days (between the 8

th and

the 10th

of August), based on those images. The user wonders why the Copernicus-EMS / Service Provider could not acquire those images and prepare maps on those dates.

Compliance with requirements. - The products were consistent with the activation

request.

Compliance with needs and expectations.

- Not or low compliance, because the maps could not be used for the intended use.

Date, time, and resolution of satellite image used.

- There were no relevant comments on these aspects.

Map generic contents (content type, details, geometric and positional accuracy, reliability, presence of errors).

- Those aspects are ok, maps’ quality is good, and the user likes them. The user is very happy with the vector files.

Map format (paper, digital, vector). - Adequate.

Scale of maps. - Adequate, but perhaps in case of big areas, like the one

under study, the AOI could be subdivided in several AOIs and represent them in a larger scale.

Visual presentation (visualization, symbology, colours).

- Some comments on this issue are presented in section 5, “best practices”.

Cartographic information section.

- Correct in general, although the user suggested one change: To remove the fire date “Fire-31/07/2014” from the title of the maps because it is confusing. Some users mistook that date and thought it was the date of the fire characterization. The user proposed to focus on the date of the fire extent characterization.

Easiness to understand the maps. - Understandable.

Map specific aspects.

- The user would appreciate a summary table, in the marginalia section of the map, including the most relevant dates / time (see Table 3 of the questionnaire, Annex 6).

- In the consequences table, fire consequences in settlements can be expressed in hectares (as in Copernicus-EMS maps), or as number (No.) of buildings. Both options are correct.

- The user realized in the field that there were buildings affected by the fire, whereas the Copernicus-EMS maps indicated no affected settlements in the consequences table. The user indicated that it is better not put anything (leave empty cells) that putting erroneous data.

SECTIONS EVALUATED ASPECTS USER’S OPINIONS TL

1.

IMPA

CT O

F C

OPE

RNIC

US-

EMS

PRO

DU

CTS

ON

USE

R’S

WO

RKFL

OW

Were Copernicus-EMS products useful / beneficial?

- Products were not useful for their intended use. The first maps showed outdated fire extent, and the others were received too late to be used in the fire management. o The first delivered maps characterized the fire

situation on the 4th

of August, 10:06 UTC, and were delivered on the 5

th of August, before the

Copernicus-EMS activation and the fire spread. Without the strong winds that spread significantly the fire, perhaps those maps could have been useful on the 5

th of August. That day, the strong winds

spread the fire, so the fire situation changed drastically between the morning of the 4

th of August

to the evening and night of the 5th

of August. Those maps delivered on the 5

th of August were not useful

at all. - The second monitoring map was useful in the post-fire

evaluation, although that was not the intended use of it.

Major benefits of Copernicus-EMS products.

- Not indicated.

Negative aspects / impacts on user’s workflow.

- Products had negative impacts on the user’s workflow; they could not be used to help in the activities of the immediate emergency phase. The user spent a lot of time waiting and not receiving the products in the most crucial dates.

Factors that limited the use of the products.

- The two main factors that limited the maps’ use in fire management (in the ongoing of the fire crisis) were: (1) timeliness of product availability, and (2) Non-compliance with the user’s needs and expectations.

SECTIONS EVALUATED ASPECTS USER’S OPINIONS TL

1.

OPI

NIO

N O

N C

OM

PARI

SON

BET

WEE

N C

OPE

RNIC

US-

EMS

PRO

DU

CTS

AND

ALT

ERN

ATIV

E IN

FO

Alternative products used.

- The EFFIS hotspots products were used, but they are not strictly similar and comparable to the Copernicus-EMS products.

- There were no other products strictly similar to the Copernicus-EMS products.

-

Opinion about the EFFIS service and products.

- EFFIS’s hotspots products were very useful, and time for their availability was very good.

- EFFIS products cannot replace the Copernicus-EMS products and service. However, the user suggests that both type of products could be combined to get a better risk management service.

Main added value of Copernicus-EMS products vs. alternative products.

- Not applicable as Copernicus-EMS products and EFFIS products are different and complementary.

Best practices identified in the comparison between Copernicus-EMS y alternative products / information.

User’s opinion Selected option

According to the user, the best options to present the following key aspects (in italic) in the maps are: - Presentation of the crisis

information layer (burnt areas): o Crisis information layer

delineated with only an outline polygon, without any polygon around the clouds. Another option is to present the crisis information layer with a high level of transparency. Order from the best to the worst option (see Table 6 of Annex 6): D, C, B, A. The two worst options correspond to the ones of the Copernicus-EMS maps. The best option is as follows:

- Presentation of clouds and the lack of crisis information underneath: o Not represent the clouds

with any symbol, just leave the clouds as shown in the satellite image, indicating with an asterisk “areas under the clouds are not analysed” (see Table 7 of Annex 6 for more detail). The selected option does not correspond to the one presented in Copernicus-EMS maps. In addition, the shadows of the clouds should be identified and marked in the legend.

- Presentation of the background image (see Table 8 of Annex 6): o Show a satellite image

without clouds. This selected option does not correspond to the one used in the Copernicus-EMS maps.

SECTIONS EVALUATED ASPECTS USER’S OPINIONS TL

1.

OVE

RALL

EVA

LUAT

ION

OF

COPE

RNIC

US-

EMS

PRO

DU

CTS

Strengths

- Copernicus-EMS provides information hard to find in other services.

- Copernicus-EMS products are free of charge. - Copernicus-EMS products have very good quality.

-

Weaknesses

- Useful Copernicus-EMS products were delivered too late to be used in the fire management (intended use of them).

- Lack of Copernicus-EMS maps during the most crucial days of the fire, thus, from the 5

th to the 10

th of August,

and in particular between the 8th

to the 10th

.

Recommendations

- Users should be informed, before the service activation, about: o The fact that mapping wildfires based on optical

satellite data is dependent on weather conditions (clear sky, no clouds…).

o There can be problems to acquire the appropriate images and to deliver useful maps on time.

o Delivery of fire delineation maps can be delayed by the lack of cloud-free satellite images.

Other comments

- The user wonders why the Copernicus-EMS / Service Provider did not find the images of the 8

th and 9

th of

August that later were found by the Copernicus-EMS Validation Service.

EmergencyManagement • 47 activations

V a l i d a t i o n s t a t u s ( M a y 2 0 1 9 )

Mapping service Event location Event type

EmergencyManagement

9

H o w v a l i d a t i o n w o r k s

Rapid Mapping• Quality checks

Risk and Recovery Mapping

• Products revision

Validation• Samples• Technical checks• Added value & impact• Exploration

IssuesRecommendations

Actions

Results

Results, analyses, suggestions, feedback

Requests

EMS Workshop

CopernicusInfra-

structure

Sci. & tech. evolution

Feedback Forms

EmergencyManagement

V i r t u o u s l o o p e x a m p l e s

ISSUE → RECOMMENDATION → ACTION

• Many dates → organise dates → Relevant date record

• Definition of AOIs → support tool → Map Coverage Planner

• Steps to access vectors → introduce direct access → Webservices

• Overlooked impact areas → extend analysis → FEP

• Confusion in grading classes → Analyse → reduction from 4 to 3

• Waiting for cloud free imagery → Explore radar → Experiments, +radar

• Wide area long lasting floods → Explore improvements → Expert group

• Timeliness → Improve timeliness → FAM, FEP, ProductionTime↓, REACT

EmergencyManagement TWO DRIVERS

1. STANDARDIZE

– Mature and well defined steps

– Time reduction

– Expected cost reduction

2. EXPAND

– Improvements

– Innovation

– Alternatives

– Cross-cutting issues

T h e n e x t p h a s e

Emergency Management

Thank you!

JRC-EMS-VALIDATION@ec.europa.eu