Using citizen science to expand the global map of landslides: Introducing the Cooperative Open Online Landslide Repository (COOLR)

Juang, Caroline S.; Stanley, Thomas; Kirschbaum, Dalia

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0218657

Cited by 71 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In their work, geoscientists must engage and work with people from other backgrounds and disciplines (Barthel & Seidi, 2017), as their work often directly involves and impacts different publics (e.g. Juang et al, 2019). However, geoscientists often struggle to communicate with non-geoscientists, particularly around controversial topics such as resource extraction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology

Lacchia

Schuitema

McAuliffe

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Geoscientists and non-geoscientists often struggle to communicate with each other. In this paper we aim to understand how geoscientists and non-geoscientists perceive geological concepts and processes, that is, how they think (cognitive responses) and feel (affective responses) about them. To this effect, using a mixed-methods approach, we compare mental models &#8211; people's representation of a phenomenon &#8211; of the subsurface, mining/quarrying, drilling, and flooding between geoscientists (n&#8201;=&#8201;24) and non-geoscientists (n&#8201;=&#8201;38). We identify four dominant themes which underlie their mental models: (1) degree of knowledge and familiarity, (2) beliefs about human interactions, (3) affective beliefs, and (4) beliefs about perceived impact of the processes. While the mental models of non-geoscientists focus more on the perceived negative environmental and economic impacts of geoscience, those of geoscientists focus more on human interactions. We argue that mental models are the result of beliefs, including both cognitive and affective components, and that both need to be acknowledged for effective dialogue between the two groups to take place.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology

Lacchia

Schuitema

McAuliffe

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, several studies have tried to model global landslide hazard (e.g. Stanley and Kirschbaum, 2017;Kirschbaum and Stanley, 2018). In the following paragraphs, those studies that have explicitly assessed global risk are described and summarised in Table 1.…”

Section: Landslidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review article: Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale

Ward

Blauhut

Bloemendaal

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Since 1990, natural hazards have led to over 1.6 million fatalities globally, and economic losses are estimated at an average of around USD 260–310 billion per year. The scientific and policy communities recognise the need to reduce these risks. As a result, the last decade has seen a rapid development of global models for assessing risk from natural hazards at the global scale. In this paper, we review the scientific literature on natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale, and we specifically examine whether and how they have examined future projections of hazard, exposure, and/or vulnerability. In doing so, we examine similarities and differences between the approaches taken across the different hazards, and we identify potential ways in which different hazard communities can learn from each other. For example, there are a number of global risk studies focusing on hydrological, climatological, and meteorological hazards that have included future projections and disaster risk reduction measures (in the case of floods), whereas fewer exist in the peer-reviewed literature for global studies related to geological hazards. On the other hand, studies of earthquake and tsunami risk are now using stochastic modelling approaches to allow for a fully probabilistic assessment of risk, which could benefit the modelling of risk from other hazards. Finally, we discuss opportunities for learning from methods and approaches being developed and applied to assess natural hazard risks at more continental or regional scales. Through this paper, we hope to encourage further dialogue on knowledge sharing between disciplines and communities working on different hazards and risk and at different spatial scales.

show abstract

“…Projects like "iCoast -Did the Coast Change?" from the USGS [Liu et al, 2014], or "Landslide Reporter" from the NASA [Juang et al, 2019], are examples that focus on observing and monitoring landscapes and geomorphological features (i.e., landforms). A reason for the limited number of initiatives that aim at integrating citizens in geomorphological research is that the field of geomorphology generally faces problems to engage citizens since it is not an easily comprehensible topic and often considered unexciting [Simm, 2008].…”

Section: Fig 1 the Citizenmorph Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geo citizen science and the role of participatory design in the field of geomorphology

Hennig

Abad

Hölbling

2020

ICIGIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizen science, aiming at integrating citizens, their commitment and knowledge into scientific research, is a powerful way to create additional research outputs and scientific knowledge. This is particularly true when geospatial technology is used to enable citizens to contribute spatial data. While fields such as biology and ecology make abundant use of geo citizen science, only a limited number of projects approach topics related to geomorphology. Due to climate change and its impact on the Earth’s surface, research activities that use citizen science are considered very useful to support the work of geomorphologists. However, geomorphology is a complex topic to engage with citizens. Thus, to reach and involve citizens in geomorphological research, we need spatial data collection tools that are tailored to their needs and raise their interest in geomorphology. For this, participatory design is a valuable option since it allows us to get comprehensive information about citizens and their requirements and to integrate this information into the development process. Now, does participatory design reveal requirements otherwise unknown to the developers? What additional efforts must be made when cooperating with citizens in participatory design? The citizenMorph project, which addresses these questions, found that detailed and valuable insights can be gained (regarding, e.g., information delivery, design issues, and community building), but also that additional efforts are required in terms of the composition of the project team, the interaction and communication during the development process, and the selection of methods, tools and material to be used.

show abstract

Using citizen science to expand the global map of landslides: Introducing the Cooperative Open Online Landslide Repository (COOLR)

Cited by 71 publications

References 48 publications

The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology

The human side of geoscientists: comparing geoscientists' and non-geoscientists' cognitive and affective responses to geology

Review article: Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale

Geo citizen science and the role of participatory design in the field of geomorphology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About