Final Report Summary - PANGEO (Enabling access to geological information in support of GMES)
Executive Summary:
Geohazards are a continual threat in many of Europe’s major towns and cities but public and local authority awareness and knowledge of the issues associated with geohazards is limited. These geohazards are wide ranging in their nature and include: earthquakes, landslides, mineral workings, ground water abstraction and recharge, shrink swell clays, soluble rocks, compressible ground, collapsible deposits, landfill and rockfall, all of which clearly impact public safety and local authority decision making and planning. PanGeo has begun to increase the information available to local and regional authorities, national geological surveys, policy makers and the public by using new techniques of observing sub-millimetre ground motion. The approach within PanGeo uses satellite radar data integrated with local geological information to provide geohazard information that is openly accessible online.
PanGeo has been a three-year collaborative project that started on 1st February 2011 with the objective of enabling open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus. The project received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n⁰262371. This has enabled research and development to be completed in order to provide openly available online access to geohazard information for 52 of the largest towns and cities across Europe, covering approximately 13% of the EU population.
PanGeo has provided a unique methodology and prototype service mechanism by which urban geohazards can be identified and the results accessed online by any user. Expertise and data from satellite derived Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) providers, geological surveys and local authority end users has been integrated to provide two comprehensive output datasets: A Ground Stability Layer (GSL) which is an attributed, spatially referenced polygon outlining all areas of ground instability and a Geohazard Document (GHD) which describes the geological interpretation and evidence for the area of instability. The data can be integrated with the Copernicus land cover Urban Atlas dataset, to identify land cover types that are within the individual GSL polygons. The GSL and GHD products are made available to all users via the PanGeo website “coverage map”, either via the PanGeo portal, based on the infrastructure of the OneGeology-Europe, or via visualization in Google Earth. On acceptance of the license agreement the datasets are available to download as a shapefile to enable users to integrate the results into their own GIS. The ease of access to the results has enabled improved urban geohazard information availability for the 52 towns and cities within the current portfolio and the consistent, validated methodology applied to all towns provides confidence that the geohazard information is both robust and reliable.
The overall impression from users is that PanGeo provides a unique, well-structured service that delivers geohazard information in a clear, consistent and easily accessible manner. PanGeo has, without doubt, widened the doors for PSI and enabled further development and understanding of the InSAR technology within the geological and local authority communities. However, the market between geology, geohazards and the target client remains immature and for the continued use and uptake of PanGeo further support is required to maintain a service available to all. With European population increasing and the inevitable urban expansion that will be undertaken to meet the demands on urban development, it is vital that the most up to date and readily available information on geohazards is available. The ongoing provision of geohazard information should be considered as a key element in future disaster management and preparedness strategies of many European towns and cities.
Project Context and Objectives:
PanGeo has been a three-year collaborative project that started on 1st February 2011 with the objective of enabling open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus (formerly GMES). The project received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme, theme [SPA.210.1.1-01] Stimulating Development of Downstream Copernicus Services, which has enabled research and development to be completed in order to provide openly available online access to geohazard information. As at January 2014 the funding via this method finished in line with the original project period.
PanGeo has provided a platform for access to geohazard information for towns and cities across Europe by anyone who has access to the internet, thus including local authorities, businesses and the general public. This has been achieved by making available, via online provision, an attributed vector polygon file outlining the location of a geohazard and linking each polygon to a detailed written description of any discovered motions. This information has previously not been readily accessible and PanGeo has led the way in making geohazard information available to anyone who considers it important to improve their local knowledge and integrated it into their working schedules.
2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of PanGeo is to enable open access to geological hazard information in support of Copernicus. This has been achieved by providing an INSPIRE-compliant, online geohazard information service for 52 of the largest towns across Europe representing approximately 13% of EU population.
PanGeo generates geohazard information that can be easily understood, downloaded and integrated into any user’s IT system. The information is provided in a simple format and in a manner that is accessible to any user. Two PanGeo products are created for each town: A Ground Stability Layer (GSL) which is an attributed vector polygon, that indicates areas of ground instability; and a Geohazard Document (GHD) that describes the geological interpretation for each GSL polygon. These products, produced by the individual national geological survey are generated by the integration of:
• Satellite PSI processing, derived from satellite radar data, provides measurements of terrain motion;
• Geological and geohazard information already held by national geological surveys;
• The landcover and landuse data contained within the Copernicus Core Land Theme ‘Urban Atlas’.
Closely related to the primary objective is the need to reach a level of self-sustainability: With EU support, PanGeo has processed the largest 52 of the 699 Urban Atlas towns. As the PanGeo products have become available they have provided the bases for promoting the PanGeo service to the LAs of the respective towns and also to a small proportion of the remaining 647 Urban Atlas towns. PanGeo has attracted interest from a number of new European towns who have requested further information and provided expressions of interest for future processing. This interest generated and positive feedback gained from the Local Authorities and Geological Surveys on the PanGeo service to date should be used to take PanGeo forward into a future phase of sustainability.
The PanGeo service and delivery mechanism that has been developed during the past three years has enabled geohazard information to be made publically available in an easily accessible, validated and consistent manner. PanGeo has increased communication links and understanding between satellite PSI providers, Geological Surveys and individual local authorities throughout Europe and continues to engage users requiring access to geohazard information.
Other key objectives include:
• Develop Earth Observation derived ‘information’ products.
• Make services directly available to:
National Geological Surveys
Local Authorities
European policy-makers
Commerce
The citizen
• Facilitate direct user interaction in service design.
• Analyse the market and derive a sustainability action plan.
• Promote the service to end users.
• Add value to the Urban Atlas.
Secondary objectives:
• Demonstrate and support need for Sentinel-1 SAR data.
• Further exploit unique selling point of InSAR.
• Develop novel visualisation techniques.
• Provide commercial spin-off opportunities.
• Make progress towards the goals of INSPIRE.
• Address some of the EU’s environmental commitments.
• Further evolve national Geological Survey harmonisation.
• Build on achievements of, and complement other projects.
The majority of the objectives have been met within the project timescale, however ongoing work to engage additional towns or cities within the service continues.
2.2 PROJECT PARTNERS
The project has been well supported by thirty-seven partners which comprise a range of expertise. Core team members comprise of: ESA qualified satellite radar data specialists particularly focused on Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI); IT and INSPIRE specialists; an expert User Advisory Panel; Geospatial data visualisation experience and the makers of the Copernicus Land Core Service ‘Urban Atlas’. Geological Surveys which comprises of 27 National Geological Surveys of Europe. Figure 1 shows a list of all partners. The partnership ensures that PanGeo provides relevant and proactive geohazard information to local authorities and communities across Europe.
2.3 LINKED PROJECTS
PanGeo has had relationships with a number of EC and ESA projects, the list below shows those with which PanGeo has been most active, however, there are a number of other projects with which PanGeo has made contact throughout the three year period.
Terrafirma: The ESA GMES project Terrafirma is the main project with which PanGeo has been collaborating. This is not surprising, considering that PanGeo was born from Terrafirma and that 27 of the 52 PSI datasets originated from processing undertaken in that project. To this end PanGeo was required by ESA to formalise the relationship by way of an over-arching agreement as well as individual SLAs between each Geological Survey recipient, the supplying PSI Provider and the Terrafirma Prime (Altamira Information). PanGeo is well-promoted in Terrafirma as PanGeo provides further life to a good proportion of the processing which otherwise might be largely forgotten. Furthermore, PanGeo has ensured the longevity of products made in Terrafirma by initiating their inclusion within OneGeology. This process continues to be developed as part of the ongoing Terrafirma project being processed by Altamira Information (partner 13).
One Geology Europe: PanGeo services are incorporated into One Geology by way of the PanGeo Portal being an additional layer-page within the site.
SubCoast: FP7 Collaborative project. Ongoing collaboration has occurred with SubCoast, although the FP7 funding for SubCoast ended at the end of 2013, onwards discussions will occur as required.
EGDI-Scope: A feasibility study to identify and design the architecture for a pan European Geological Data Infrastructure (EGDI). One of the themes currently identified as a priority is geohazard and ground stability information as produced in PanGeo and other PSI-related projects. Successful implementation of the EGDI will likely mean that the maintenance of the PanGeo portal and support for metadata and hosting be transferred to an EGDI management system.
Other project contacts: DORIS, LAMPRE, the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), Global Earth Observation Systems of Systems (GEOSS) and Copernicus Emergency Management System (GIO EMS) non-rush mode, UNISDR Resilient Cities.
2.4 PROJECT USERS
The market for geohazards is growing but remains immature and fragmented. PanGeo has succeeded in improving the market for geohazards and the prime focus has been on the involvement and engagement of local authorities (LA) to use the service and products within their internal GIS systems, to give them increased knowledge and exposure to geohazard information. This has been achieved via the Local Authority Feedback Group (LAFG) and many individual meetings held between the geological surveys (GS) and the LAs. Local authorities are considered the prime users of PanGeo but the list below identifies all possible end users:
• Local Authorities;
• Geological Surveys, who are seen as not only providers of service but also end users;
• EC policy makers;
• Commercial businesses in particular insurance and environmental;
• The public.
Government LAs are concerned about geohazards from two perspectives, depending on their overall responsibilities (Peroni, 2011), a) planning and development control, and b) civil protection. In general it is the government LAs that are responsible for development planning and building control and as underlying geology and geohazards can have a major impact on buildings and infrastructure it is logical to assume that they have an interest in routinely assessing such information in their day to day work. By providing systematic geohazard mapping in major population centres PanGeo directly supports LAs by providing easy access to such information.
In general, national GS represent a country’s source of information of all things geological. They are usually mandated by law to collect and provide geological information, which can include elements of geohazards, especially to governments and well as other research organisations, companies and the public. Although typically mandated and driven to collect data on geohazards, GS do not always have the tools or resources necessary to provide complete or accurate picture about such phenomena. There are gaps in knowledge as well as inconsistencies in coverage, quality and format between the European GSs. PanGeo directly supports the GS by helping them to map and interpret ground stability in a systematic way using cutting edge technologies, thus increasing and improving their knowledge.
From a commercial perspective a broad range of markets (including oil & gas, mining, energy, engineering, environment and insurance) exploit both geological and terrain motion data in various forms. However, the requirement for such information and subsequent utilisation varies greatly. Relevant services are most often designed and implemented on a case-by-case basis, and such bespoke solutions may share themes and/or approaches but their implementation varies by site. Within the commercial sector the markets that are considered most relevant are the Environmental and Insurance markets. Both markets have a requirement for simplified, standardised products that have been derived from complex input datasets through expert interpretation of some sort.
Although all the markets mentioned above have some overlap of geohazard requirements, such as the need to know the extents and type of geohazard, each market has its own individual needs and specific requirements for geohazard information (e.g. insurance companies require country wide coverage whereas LAs and municipalities only require information for their specific town). PanGeo has specifically concentrated on the LA and GS as they have been key partners in the project and have provided substantial feedback on the service and current market requirements.
Project Results:
PanGeo has progressed the science and technologies for making available information on geohazards. PanGeo is a new, unique, service that provides geohazard information to increase the knowledge of the presence of geohazards in the urban environment. The information is provided in a consistent, validated and INSPIRE compliant manner and the results of the project are easily accessible, via a web portal, to all users including scientists, policy makers, local authorities and the general public.
Geohazard information has been made available for 52 of the major towns and cities across Europe, as shown in Figure 2 and listed in Table 1. The green pins show completed towns. (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment).
Figure 2 – Location of PanGeo towns and cities across Europe (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
Table 1 – A list of PanGeo towns and cities available on the PanGeo coverage map (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
3.1 WHY IS PANGEO NEEDED?
In general, the availability of information on geohazards is limited. Historically this has been due to the difficultly mapping, in particular, small scale movements over a large area. However, with the advances in technologies over the past 10 years the ability to map geohazards over wide areas, such as an entire town or city, has significantly improved and PanGeo has used these advances to provide simple output products from the complex inputs, to enable all users to have access to standardized and consistent geohazard information.
Since 1990, natural disasters in developed countries have caused more than US$ 1,543 billion of damages, 127,000 fatalities, and affected over 59 million people. Reported damages caused by disasters during 2001-2011 increased by 52% compared to 1990-2000. In terms of damage caused by disasters in the last decade, the top ten countries in the world include the EU Member States of Germany (US$ 29.9 billion), France (17.9 billion), Italy (13.4 billion), UK (12.1 billion) and Greece (2.9 billion). Overall, in Europe during the last decade, almost 100,000 fatalities have occurred, more than 11 million people have been affected, and losses reported of more than €200 billion (Giannopapa, 2011). A major contributory factor to the increase observed over the last 10 years, is the increase in population and assets with increasing economic value being located in exposed areas.
The above figures above are for ‘natural disasters’ and include the major effects of flood, wildfire, heatwave and storms - phenomena not directly related to the types of geological hazard dealt with by PanGeo. However, geological hazards, or ‘geohazards’, are a sub-set of these numbers, and their adverse effects to society are similarly increasing in proportion.
Geohazards in the built environment can be dangerous and costly. Earthquakes and landslides have obvious, high-profile and devastating impacts on society, while the more insidious effects of, say, poor foundation geology may not be so catastrophic. But when totalled for a whole region over a year, the latter still present a huge economic burden. For example the cost to the UK insurance sector for subsidence caused largely by the effects of clay shrink-swell has been estimated at half a billion euros per year (Culshaw, 2002). Likewise, in the Netherlands the total cost related to subsidence and soft soil conditions have been estimated at 3.5 billion euros per year (TNO, 2006). Exacerbating this situation, is population growth: in 2008 the UN declared that, for the first time in history, more than half the world’s population (or ~3,5 billion people) now live in urban environments. Estimates say that by 2030, this number may have swollen to 5 billion (UNDESA, 2009). This means more exposure of people and infrastructure to existing geohazards. It means that populations are now located in areas previously avoided, for example, because of a landslide or earthquake risk. It means additional pressure on natural resources that might result in a variety of geohazard effects, e.g. subsidence due to water or gas abstraction, or building on landfill, etc.
Even though geohazards present such a cost to society, accurate information concerning them can be difficult, if not impossible, to find. Historically geohazards are not widely mapped in the EU due to the high costs normally involved, and if they are, not in a standardised fashion. Except in areas of high earthquake or landslide risk, or areas of commercial interest where information is kept confidential, actual measurements relating to geohazards are virtually non-existent. What geohazard information there is, is generally collected in one of three ways:
• By interpretation of geological maps (geohazard susceptibility): Normally generalised, at relatively small-scale (1:50,000 – 1:100,00), and hold little detail beneath established towns where, for example, changes in water pumping due to changes in industrial practices, can have dramatic implications. These maps do not usually include any form of dynamic measurement of any associated ground instability, but are based on the potential of the geology (itself generalised) to cause motions.
• By in situ measurement, e.g. GPS, strain-gauge, levelling, borehole, etc.: These procedures are invasive, labour-intensive, complex and expensive. They are typically applied reactively and are often a confidential information source, or at least, not openly available in a non-specialist format.
• Insurance claims data: In towns often the most accurate indicator that a hazard exists, but represents a valuable part of a company’s intellectual property and considered highly confidential.
PanGeo has started to overcome some of the standardization issues for recording geohazard information by creating standard, validated products which are compliant with the Natural Risk Zones data specification of INSPIRE and by integrating satellite data and geological survey inputs.
Satellite radar data can be used to assist geohazard mapping and using European radar satellites high spatial and temporal resolution data have been routinely collected, with future data anticipated with the imminent launch of Sentinel-1 in 2014. The motion of the Earth’s surface over time can be calculated using the Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) processing technique which, using satellite radar data can reveal the relative displacements, to millimetre precision, of thousands of surface features which reflect the radar signal back to the satellite (e.g. curb stones, sides of buildings, pylons). This PSI information used in conjunction with known local geology has been used within PanGeo to identify areas of terrain motion that are directly related to ground instability and geohazards. With the additional land use cover information from the Copernicus Land monitoring service “Urban Atlas” and population datasets statistical information can be derived to identify the populations and land use that may be affected. Thus PanGeo provides the ability for geohazard information to be provided in a consistent manner.
PanGeo provides use of the ESA radar archive data and with the anticipated data that will be available from the future Sentinel satellites this could be expanded and developed to integrate the Sentinel radar data into a potential PanGeo monitoring product, thus sustaining the requirement of SAR data availability.
3.2 GEOHAZARDS WITHIN PANGEO
Geohazards are natural or man-made phenomena that make the ground unstable. Geohazards can fall into two broad categories; those that are sudden, obvious, wide area and sometimes catastrophic, causing significant loss of life and damage to property, such as earthquakes or large landslides; and those that are more insidious in nature, slower and often invisible to the naked eye, such as the effects of shrink and swell clays or compressible ground, which are generally of less risk to human life but can still account for billions of euros of damage each year.
PanGeo is concerned with geohazards which affect the stability of the ground; the project addresses all geohazards listed below, it does not address issues of flooding or radon.
1. Deep Seated Motions
1.1. Earthquake (seismic hazard)
1.2. Tectonic movements
1.3. Salt Tectonics
1.4. Volcanic inflation/deflation
2. Natural Ground Instability
2.1. Landslide
2.2. Soil Creep
2.3. Ground Dissolution
2.4. Collapsible Ground
2.5. Running Sand/Liquefaction
3 Natural Ground Movements
3.1. Compressible Ground
3.2. Shrink-Swell Clays
4. Man Made (Anthropogenic) Ground Instability
4.1. Ground Water Management - Shallow Compaction
4.2. Ground Water Management - Peat Oxidation
4.3. Groundwater Abstraction
4.4. Mining
4.5. Underground Construction
4.6. Made Ground
4.7. Oil and Gas Production
5. Other
6. Unknown
The above are the geohazards available to the geological surveys when completing their interpretation of the input data and creating the GSL and GHD products.
3.3 THE PANGEO PRODUCTS AND SERVICE PROVISION
PanGeo has taken a step towards developing the ‘missing geological link’ for Copernicus by initiating a pan-European geological service, which has derived and standardised geohazard information across an initial subset of the Urban Atlas towns across Europe. The aim of PanGeo is to enable open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus and throughout the three year project PanGeo partners have designed the methodology to create a service and then progressed to develop the service to provide online geohazard information via the PanGeo website www.pangeoproject.eu.
Throughout the project the Local Authority and Geological Survey end users have been intrinsically involved. As part of the design process it was important to gather inputs from the EU Geological Surveys and a selection of Local Authorities with input via questionnaires to ensure that their views and needs for the PanGeo products and service were considered. A Local Authority Feedback Group was established early on to ensure that their needs and requirements were incorporated into the final products and all 27 National Geological Surveys have been involved as partners. The Geological Surveys are an important set of users because not only do they use geohazard data, they also collect, maintain and distribute it. Early in the project a user requirement process was established to enable the PanGeo team to produce a service that is not only relevant to the users such as Local Authorities, but also to design a service that is achievable by all the Geological Surveys. Inviting the users to be involved in the design of the service from the outset was also a way to encourage the organisations to work together with a vested interest to a united aim. This was achieved by the Service Design and Validation group (SDVP), led by the British Geological Survey, and also via the online provision of the service, led by BRGM, in a manner that was acceptable to all project partners. The outcome and product/service development is described in detail below.
3.3.1 The PanGeo Products
The PanGeo products developed by the SDVP methodology and made available by the individual Geological Surveys for 52 towns and cities across Europe are produced at a minimum visualization scale of 1:10,000 and include the following:
• A Ground Stability Layer (GSL) which is an attributed vector polygon that indicates areas of ground instability. The Ground Stability Layer maps all the areas of a given town that are affected by ground instability, which can be caused by a number of natural and anthropogenic processes or phenomena as set out in section 3.2. PanGeo creates polygons around unambiguous geohazards which are based on hazards and not input data types.
The areas of mapped ground instability can fall into two categories:
1. Observed motion includes all types of direct or indirect observation/measurement of ground motion.
2. Potential motion includes all areas that the geologists, using the available geological and auxiliary data, have identified as having the potential for ground motion.
Observed and potential motion is clearly distinguished by the Ground Stability Layer attributes.
• A Geohazard Document (GHD) that describes the geological interpretation for each GSL polygon.
The GSL polygons are attributed and compliant with the Natural Risk Zones data specification of INSPIRE and are used in the portal to provide a summary of the geohazard. More detailed geological information is given in the GHD which is linked to the polygon via the individual GSL attributes; in addition the GHD is available as a standalone document.
The products are generated by the individual local GS using the integration of:
• Satellite PSI processing, derived from satellite radar data, provides measurements of terrain motion.
• Geological and geohazard information already held by national geological surveys. The input datasets may differ from one PanGeo city to the other. However, four main classes of information sources available to the GS are:
- Motion observed by PSI.
- Motion observed with other types of deformation measurement devices and techniques. These data are held by the GS.
- Motion observed from geology field campaigns, e.g. refer to mass movements, measurements of active faulting and neotectonics, indirect evidences from building damage, etc. These data are held by the GS.
- Potential motion derived from geological & auxiliary data held by the GS.
• The land-cover and land-use data contained within the Copernicus Core Land Theme ‘Urban Atlas’.
The interpretation of each Ground Stability polygon is assigned a measure of confidence within the polygon attributes and GHD. This measure of confidence is on a simple three-level scale of Low, Medium High or External depending on the number of datasets used in the interpretation and the confidence that the geologist feels is appropriate.
To provide reassurance to the user as to the accuracy and reliability of the PanGeo service and its products a quality assurance document is created as part of the project to ensure that the products and service are consistently fit for purpose. Each GSL is validated using an automated procedure to ensure compliance and a manual “conformancy filter”, completed by BGS, is applied to each dataset prior to being made available on the portal to confirm that all products meet the specification as set out in the product specification document. All products are made available using the online provision described in Section 3.3.5.
The issue of blight for towns processed as part of PanGeo that have areas identified with either observed or potential geohazard was raised early on in the project by many partners and end users. There are many definitions of the word ‘blight’ but in the case of PanGeo, the term means to potentially damage the value of property by publicly exposing the proximal existence of a geohazard. A technical Memorandum was written by BGS describing their experience of blight within their GeoSure dataset and their considerations as to “What is in the public’s best interest?”. It was agreed that within PanGeo the best approach-methodology was to be entirely transparent about what has been done, how it has been done, the data used, and for what and how the product should be used. We do not have to be right every time, but it was decided that we do need to be able to demonstrate that we have provided a reliable interpretation of the hazard given the information available at the time. This was integrated into the PanGeo service design and can be shown by the meticulous product validation and recording that is undergone by each town.
3.3.2 Consistent approach and methodology
PanGeo provides an online geohazard service to any user with products that have been carefully thought out, documented and completed in line with the detailed service Production Manual.
The PSI data methodology and integration with geological information has been described by the Consorci Institut de Geomatica and the validation results have been documented. The document incorporates findings from the Terrafirma Validation Project and describes other validation activities undertaken by the PanGeo PSIPs. The main objective was to provide the Geological Survey with a concise and complete summary of PSI validation results and to describe some of the technical issues related to the PanGeo PSI product specification.
Each product is validated via a two stage process: The first stage is completed automatically to ensure that the delivered products follow the PanGeo requirements in terms of compliance with INSPIRE and that there are no digital errors (e.g. attribute, polygon checks, projection etc.) in the data. The second is performed manually by the British Geological Survey to ensure that each geological interpretation is sensible and provides the required information and that the overall format of the document is correct, it does not verify the experienced geological interpretation of the individual GS. All products are INSPIRE compliant, a feature that is becoming increasingly important to the GS for onwards integration of data into their existing systems. It is only once these checks have been passed that the GSL will appear on the portal. It should be noted that the PanGeo products are constructed from a range of input data that has been interpreted by one of the 27 EU geological surveys. The absolute accuracy of a given GSL for a given town therefore varies depending on the quality of the input data and the level of interpretation. However, it has been possible to consider the quality and accuracy of the inputs to the service, and also the design and specification of the service to provide an assessment of its quality.
A PanGeo Quality Assurance document is provided for each town and aims to provide reassurance to the user as to the, accuracy and reliability of the PanGeo service and its products. In this document, the term ‘quality’ is used to denote both accuracy and reliability. Accuracy is defined as ‘nearness to the truth’, and reliability as ‘consistency of being fit for purpose’.
3.3.3 Urban Atlas
The Urban Atlas is an operational activity offering highly detailed urban land use maps at a scale of 1:10,000. Originally this was undertaken for 305 of the most populated towns in Europe (EU 27), but this was expanded in 2013 to total 699 towns across Europe. The activity is a European-wide effort funded by European Commission as a local component of the Copernicus Land Monitoring initiative.
The main goals of Urban Atlas are helping urban planners to better assess risks and opportunities, ranging from threat of flooding and impact of climate change, to identifying new infrastructure and public transport needs. The Urban Atlas can also provide a pan-European classification of city zones, allowing for easy comparison of information on density of residential areas, commercial and industrial zones, extent of green areas, exposure to flood risks and monitoring of urban sprawl which is important for public transport planning in suburban areas. The Urban Atlas offers those in land management (Urban administrations, policy makers, environmentalists, and other public stakeholders) the opportunity to build additional detail on top of these maps in order to monitor the status of urban development and trends, indicating, for instance, average distance to services, sizes of green areas and their environmental status, assess adequate response to rising percentages of sealed areas, support flood prevention due to increased surface run-off, etc. In terms of PanGeo, Urban Atlas provides a consistent source of land cover information that can be input into the GSL polygon statistics.
3.3.4 Statistical Analysis
PanGeo has used the Urban Atlas information to highlight areas of land use cover, combined with population datasets based on the EEA’s population estimates, which are potentially affected by geohazards. Detailed statistical work has been completed within a Statistical Working Group, set up as a subset of the SDVP, to examine the methodology and allow further value to be extracted from the GSL. Statistics are calculated at:
• Overall – summary statistics provide an overview of 50 towns (the 2 towns - Kosice and Presov that were not available at end March 2014 are not included) with the total area and population affected in all towns.
• Town – amalgamation of all data for any one individual town with total area of hazards and total population affected
• Polygon – for each individual polygon area, population and landuse affected by a particular hazard is extracted.
The statistical information is available as a web-link on request but is not currently publically available on the website.
3.3.5 The PanGeo Service Provision
The PanGeo service has been designed with the original project aims, user requirements and technical requirements in mind and has produced a multi-faceted procedure to provide geohazard information for 52 towns within Europe. Figure 3 shows a simplified version of the service provision mechanisms.
Figure 3 – Simplified service mechanics diagram (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The process starts with the identification of a town that wishes to increase their knowledge of local geohazards and create a PanGeo product. The 52 towns within the project were originally identified with input from the local Geological Surveys knowledge and experience but they were also required to be part of the Urban Atlas portfolio and have a population greater than 100,000. As the project progressed additional towns were encouraged to participate via discussions with the GS or project coordinator or via the “PanGeo my Town” link on the website.
Once a town has been accepted the input data for the generation of products is collected, these data include PSI terrain motion data, geology and other data e.g. topology, hydrology, as described in section 3.3.1 above. The data are integrated by the individual Geological Surveys using the detailed description in the PanGeo Production Manual and the town GSL and GHD generated. The products are then uploaded by the GS via the mechanism detailed and the products validated using the two stage process, as described in section 3.3.2. Once a town has been validated it is ready to be made available on the PanGeo portal and via Google Earth on the website. Upon enquiry users can retrieve the geohazard information for their specific town of interest via the PanGeo portal, visualization in Google Earth or download the data for use within their own GIS. An important aim of PanGeo is to generate geohazard information that can be easily understood and integrated into any user’s IT system.
The website includes a section for users to request a new town. This is provided using the service described above and in-line with the sustainability targets as set out is section 4.3 to identify potential new towns to expand the overall PanGeo service provision.
3.3.5.1 The PanGeo Website and Portal
The PanGeo website is available at www.pangeoproject.eu and is hosted by NPA Satellite Mapping. The site was graphically designed in accordance with the PanGeo identity with a clear logo and a concise description of the PanGeo service offering. The website is multilingual being available in English, French and German. The “coverage map” section presents the extents of the Pan-European service and displays the individual towns and cities within the service and provides access to the town results visualized in Google Earth or via links to the Portal.
Figure 4 – Website front page and coverage map (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The PanGeo website incorporates the following: General project information and contacts, National geological survey contacts and details, educational and reference material, Feedback forms (including “PanGeo my town” button to attract new towns), a password protected partner only section and document library, a coverage map with links to all town data on portal, visualisation in Google Earth, links to the PanGeo portal, Copyright statements and restrictions as appropriate [a “download” button presents the PanGeo License Agreement], the products are downloadable as KML or shape file and provides access to the Urban Atlas dataset for each of the 52 towns.
The objective of PanGeo, as described in section 2.1 is to “enable free and open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus”. The datasets have been made available, accessible and useable via the distributed INSPIRE-compliant portal as built and demonstrated by OneGeology Europe (www.onegeology-europe.eu) and via the website Google Earth provision (www.pangeoproject.eu/eng/coverage_map). The portal is available in 26 languages.
The architecture implemented for the PanGeo portal is based on the infrastructure of the OneGeology-Europe project and has been improved to satisfy the PanGeo requirements by BRGM. The main requirements were to follow existing standards (OGC web services) and to be compliant to INSPIRE (view and download services). Three main requirements have been handled: (1) Standards: the layers are implemented according to OGC standard; this allows the PanGeo layers to be used in any OGC WMS compliant software, such as several GIS tools, and portals. (2) INSPIRE: The INSPIRE view service is technically implemented by an OGC WMS 1.3 this specification requires the layers to be implemented accordingly. (3) OneGeology-Europe: the infrastructure and Service-Oriented Architecture implemented by the project OneGeology-Europe (1G-E) has been reused.
The Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach provides a network of web services, allowing each geological survey partner to implement and host their own web services delivering their own data. For the purposes of the PanGeo Portal a central database has not been compiled as the datasets generated by the geological surveys are generally hosted locally on their own servers, however, it should be noted that there are some exceptions where the local GS IT infrastructure was not well enough established to enable them to host the data themselves, these datasets are kindly hosted by the British Geological Survey. The PanGeo portal consumes all the GS web services and provides the interface for user access to the datasets. Figure 5 shows the current version of the PanGeo portal and the towns available (green pins).
Figure 5 - The PanGeo Portal (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
Towns can be viewed by clicking on the appropriate location or in the list of towns. The GSL for that town and the Urban Atlas land cover data is displayed and can be examined using the ¸ button to obtain the attribute information for each polygon and associated description from the GHD, an example is shown in Figure 6. The portal enables switching on and off of the individual layers and polygons within the GSL with varying transparencies and the ability to overlay the Urban Atlas class information. The data can also be downloaded for future use by an end user. The GSL and Urban Atlas information is presented in the portal in such a way that users can make informed decisions about which land use classes in their towns are affected by ground stability issues.
The display of the GSL on the portal depends on the viewing scale; at the European scale PanGeo towns are highlighted, at the regional scale a graphic showing the number of hazards affecting an area is displayed and at local scale the GSL polygons are displayed according to the geohazard category, the boundary line will distinguish potential and observed hazards. The user can also choose to integrate the GSL with the Urban Atlas; the GSL polygons will highlight those Urban Atlas land cover types affected by hazards.
Figure 6 – Portal example, Toulouse dataset (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
As an additional viewing method and to enable the data to be more widely accessed the project team decided to use the Google Earth visualisation technologies available and to implement, via the web coverage map, a complementary provision of the datasets. Google Earth is a very public and well known method to visualise graphical data and was considered appropriate for viewing the GSL linked to the relevant GHD for each polygon. Within Google Earth geohazard information can be simply viewed and overlaid on high resolution optical earth observation datasets where available, thus providing the average user with a comprehensive background view. As with the portal, all polygon attribute data can be viewed by clicking on a polygon and the GHD information is linked to each polygon. The data can also be viewed in 3D.
Figure 7 – GSL visualisation in Google Earth, London (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
3.4 LOCAL AUTHORITY FEEDBACK GROUP
During the course of the project a Local Authority Feedback Group was established comprising six end users from different countries within the EU, this was led by partner SIRS. A selection of questionnaires and face-to-face interviews held at the LA’s premises were undertaken to obtain the view point of the recognised prime end users, to establish their requirements for geohazard information and finally at the end of the project to obtain feedback on the service for their town. The members of the group included:
• Toulouse (France): Agence d'Urbanisme et d'aménagement du Territoire Toulouse Aire Urbaine (AUAT).
• Ljubljana (Slovenia): Oddelka za zaščito, reševanje in civilno obrambo (Department for Protection, Rescue and Civil Defence, City Administration, Municipality of Ljubljana).
• Faro (Portugal): Servicio de Protecao Civil e Bombeiros, Camara Municipal de Faro (Department of Civil Protection and Fire Fighters, Faro Municipality, Algarve Region).
• Gothenburg (Sweden): Göteborg Stad, Stadsledningskontoret, Byggavdelningen, Göteborg (Department of Local Planning Authority of Gothenburg City).
• Rome (Italy): Dipartimento Pianificazione e Attuazione Urbanistica, Direzione Programmazione e Pianificazione del Territorio, U.O. (Unità Operativa): Pianificazione Urbanistica Generale – P.R.G. Roma Capitale (Department of Planning and Urban Operations, Direction Programming and Territorial Planning, Operational Unit : General Urban Planning- Master Plan).
• Sofia (Bulgaria): Sofia Municipality, Architecture and Urban Spatial Planning Direction, Territorial Planning Directorate.
The feedback collected from the LAFG is discussed in section 4. Partners believe that the incorporation of the end users into the project is extremely important and considerations for any possible future projects should include end users as a partner rather than simply relying on their goodwill to complete the information requested. This would enable end users to integrate PanGeo into their systems and to investigate more fully the cost benefits that PanGeo can bring to their individual authority.
3.5 USER ADVISORY PANEL
The PanGeo User Advisory Panel (UAP) was made up of EuroGeoSurveys (EGS, Chair), the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) and AB Consulting (ABC). Their task in the project was to review the overall work, ensure the project stays on track, and from the users’ perspective guide the development of product and service, particularly in terms of format, content and delivery. Specifically the UAP has provided high-level guidance and advice from the point of view of the geological community and local authorities. Their key role is in the input to service design by review and comment on the documents output from the Service Design & Validation Panel (SDVP).
The UAP has brought a wealth of individual experience to the project in order to assist in steering the progress in the right direction, keeping it in line with user expectations and requirements, whilst also providing a link to key stakeholder networks through EGS (the geological surveys community) and EFG (the professional geologists community). These networks, as well as the broad array of contacts gained through years of experience in the field by ABC, have been successfully utilised to promote the PanGeo project, and its product, to all levels of interested parties – from local and regional authorities to high level policy makers as well as the geoscience community and general public.
Through attendance at numerous events and meetings worldwide the UAP have had access to a wide range of audiences with potential interest in the PanGeo service. These promotion and dissemination activities enabled a broad range of users to be reached and face to face meetings with interested parties have taken place in efforts to increase the number of towns involved in PanGeo and attract users to the portal. These activities have resulted in a number of important new contacts being made during the project and are described in section 4.1.
3.6 PANGEO RESULTS
Section 3.3 above describes the processes by which the geohazard information has been created, integrated and made available via the PanGeo service provision. In this section we go on to describe some of the successes of PanGeo and the results that have been generated throughout the project period.
At the end of the PanGeo project 52/52 towns have been submitted for validation, at the end of March 2014 fifty towns had been accepted for delivery onto the portal and 2 are still awaiting validation. As of the end of April 2014 all 52 towns have been validated and are live in Google Earth. 45 are available via the Portal. This represents 100% of the original service delivery, which given that 27 different geological surveys have been involved this is considered an excellent achievement. Figure 2 shows the location of all the available towns on the web service where the results can be examined in detail via the portal or visualised in Google Earth or downloaded and incorporated into a user’s GIS.
Examples have been gathered from the GSL and GHD outputs that identify the most relevant type of geohazard for each town; Table 2 shows a list of the towns. This list gives geological surveys the opportunity to liaise with other towns that display similar geohazard types and to increase their knowledge and use of the PanGeo products in similar circumstances. It is also useful for dissemination activities to identify good examples for promotion to new towns or cities.
Geohazard type Towns
Mining Ostrava, Prague, Stoke, Miskolc, Liege, Sofia
Underground construction London, Rome
Made ground Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Amsterdam
Ground water abstraction Murcia, Brussels
Shrink swell clay Cluj-Napoca, Luxembourg
Compressible ground Rome, London, Luxembourg, Warsaw, Gothenburg
Volcanic uplift Rome
Landslides Salzburg, Luxembourg
Earthquakes Lisbon, Faro
Peat oxidation Warsaw
Table 2 – Examples of geohazards by town
Throughout the three year project the Geological Surveys have played a significant role in the implementation of the service, not only in the production of the GSL and GHD products for each town, but also providing feedback on the service and in the engagement of the local end users of the products, in particular the Local Authorities of the towns processed. The GS continue to encourage the use of individual town data and exposure to PSI technologies and integration with their local geology to the end users. Throughout the last year of PanGeo the GS have presented the method by which these technologies and results can complement end user datasets, be integrated in to users GIS systems and helped identify the utility of PanGeo data.
Specific examples where PanGeo has assisted the knowledge of geohazard information to guide the local authority in their decision making have occurred in a number of towns, the following section describes some of the experiences the GS have encountered. Those identified below show some of the most mature examples, but as the data becomes more widely used it is anticipated that the number of instances where the PanGeo data is used within the end users systems will increase.
3.6.1 The Italian experience
The Italian Geological Survey (ISPRA) has provided PanGeo products for the towns of Rome and Palermo. Prior to PanGeo ISPRA had gained experience using PSI data for Rome from a number of projects, including Terrafirma so are one of the more mature users of PSI and EO data within the project. Throughout the project ISPRA have improved their relationship with Roma Capitale and both parties have benefited from the increased co-operation and knowledge transfer on the effects of geohazards within the municipality. A number of articles and presentation have been given on the Italian results which provide detailed explanations of the Rome results.
The analysis of Rome has identified 31 areas of geological hazard, divided between observed and potential geological hazards. The largest polygon corresponds to volcanic uplift of the Latium volcano. The Tiber River and its tributaries, which comprise potentially compressible ground of soft alluvial deposits, display areas of ground motion as a consequence of the natural compaction of unconsolidated sediments combined with anthropogenic factors.
Figure 8 – Screenshots of PanGeo portal, GSL visualised in Google Earth (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
ISPRA undertook meetings with Roma Capitale and gained a valuable insight into the benefits of the PanGeo project, a Utility Report was created which includes:
“Roma Capitale widely use GIS for the management of information concerning the many issues related to territory (urban, geological and environmental data) and use EO data for more specific problems such as illegal building, structural stability and urban flooding. Hazard evaluation is an activity normally carried out in Roma Capitale and particular attention is focused on hydraulic hazard, seismic hazard, landslides and sinkholes susceptibility, gaseous emissions (radon), the presence of unhealthy industries and establishments at risk of major accident. The aim is to assess the risks for urban planning and civil protection purposes. Participation in the PanGeo project and the publication of the results favoured communication with the technical administrators of the city, making them more aware of the hazard. It was an opportunity to establish closer co-operation between Roma Capitale and ISPRA, and homogenize different data coming from various sources. The PanGeo products are easily accessible via the website.
The cost-benefit ratio is favourable compared to the potential that the service offers. The PanGeo service has already been used for various applications: 1) an area where it is planned to build an underground car park has been found to be affected by subsidence, and 2) to determine whether the unstable buildings of the city fall into areas subject to Geohazards.”
In addition, PanGeo has provided ISPRA with the opportunity to expand their knowledge to provide products for the town of Palermo and to build a relationship with the local authority (Comune di Palermo). The use of GIS within the Comune di Palermo is not widely spread across the offices and the urban Planning Service experienced the use of EO data for the first time during the PanGeo project. They found the service to be user-friendly, clear even for non-experts and the files easy to download. They believe that the results have increased their knowledge on the ground movements taking place in the municipal area and it was possible to detect the uplifting of an industrial area not previously known. In addition they believe that through the use of updated satellite data, the Municipality of Palermo could monitor ground movements/instabilities induced by ongoing excavations for the construction of the new subway line (Passante ferroviario).
“The good cooperation that has been developed between ISPRA and Palermo municipality will continue in the future and at least two activities are currently planned: Publication of the results of the project in a national scientific journal (Geologia Tecnica & Ambientale); and the organization of a Meeting on the Urban Geology of Palermo.”
The Italian experience is seen as a flagship example of how PanGeo can assist the relationship between a local authority and local geological survey to provide an integrated geohazard product that is of benefit to both parties.
The above information has been extracted from the following sources: The Geohazard Document for Rome, Comerci et al., 2013, PanGeo. The Geohazard Document for Palermo, Comerci et al., 2013, PanGeo. Utility Reports for Rome and Palermo, PanGeo 2013. II Progetto Europeo PanGeo: monitoraggio dei movimenti del suolo urbanizzato di Roma Capitale mediante dati satellitari PSI. 14a Conferenza Italiana Utenti ESRI, Comerci et al., 2013. La Geologia nelle aree urbane. Palermo: modello per laricerca e nuove applicazioni, Palermo Municipality Conference: Eutizio Vittori and Valerio Comerci, ISPRA, 2013.
3.6.2 The Portuguese experience
The Portuguese Geological Survey (LNEG) has produced PanGeo products for Lisbon and Faro. The reasons for selection were: Lisbon in order to measure potential natural risks in the most populated city of Portugal and Faro in order to better understand tectonic activity and subsidence in this area of the country.
The Lisbon region is particularly sensitive to seismic and landslide hazards as a consequence of the geological and tectonic framework of the area. It is a densely populated and industrialized zone that undergoes numerous and diverse human interventions, it is also subject to other hazards resulting from the interaction of natural and artificial processes such as subsidence caused either by overexploitation of aquifers, or by underground constructions, or else by ground dissolution due to underground constructions over the local flow of groundwater. The GSL identifies the types of geohazard interpreted and the individual polygons are linked to a geohazard description as provided by the Portuguese geological survey (LNEG).
The Faro region is particularly sensitive to seismic, rock fall and ground dissolution hazards as a consequence of the geological and seismotectonic framework. The details of the area are described in the Faro GHD document and some excellent examples of ground dissolution hazards are shown and linked to the Faro GSL, Figure 9 shows extracts from the GHD and includes some field photographs from the area.
Figure 9 – Example of ground dissolution, Faro, extracted from Faro GHD (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The Local Authority for Faro was a member of the LAFG and feedback on the service was obtained from Serviço de Proteção Civil e Bombeiros, Câmara Municipal de Faro. It was also gathered from meetings held between LNEG and the local authorities, organised by LNEG and Altamira, in both Lisbon and in the Algarve; The Olhão Municipality (Olhão, Departamento de Planejamento urbano) and the Faro Municipality (Faro, Divisão de Gestão Urbanistica).
PanGeo has enabled the technology of PSI to be introduced into the local authorities and has improved communication between the LAs and LNEG. There is potential interest in the uptake of PSI for future projects where ground motion is considered to be an issue.
The above information has been extracted from the following sources: The Geohazard Document for Lisbon, Cunha.T 2013, PanGeo. The Geohazard Document for Faro, Cunha.T 2013, PanGeo. Utility Reports for Faro and Olhão region, PanGeo 2013. LNEG and Altamira dissemination event, 19th Nov 2013, Lisbon.
3.6.3 The Dutch experience
In The Netherlands the total cost related to subsidence and soft soil conditions have been estimated at 3.5 billion Euros per year (TNO 2006). The law on security regions (wet veligheidsregio’s) defines the regions that have responsibility for dealing with risks and disasters. This responsibility includes the risk assessment of fires, disasters and crises, including flood risk. The law on spatial planning obliges provinces to develop “structural visions” of their region, including long term developments, including the subsurface dimension. The national government is currently developing a specific “Structural Vision of the Subsurface” allowing for better spatial planning in the subsurface dimension. This includes a framework for identification and mitigation (including monitoring) of hazards and risk of subsurface activities.
Rotterdam case study - Large parts of the western Netherlands lies below sea level and is reclaimed land. The Rotterdam area has a strong influence of rivers, sandy channel deposits and has one of the largest artificial harbors in the world which is still expanding. Widespread subsidence in the west Netherlands is caused by a range of factors including: loading soft sediment, ground water management (compaction and peat oxidation), oil and gas production and compaction of made ground. The identification of geohazards and the creation of the GSL for Rotterdam were performed by TNO through combined interpretation of geological, land use and other geospatial layers available at GSN-TNO, including the 3D model GeoTOP and existing models of predicted subsidence, together with satellite Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) ground motion. The PanGeo GSL identifies eight geohazard polygons over Rotterdam, consisting of ~1430 km2 of observed and potential geohazards and Figure 9 shows the overall GSL for Rotterdam and the Urban Atlas land cover for the same area.
Figure 10 – Rotterdam Ground Stability Layer and Urban Atlas land coverage (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The GS concluded that the PanGeo workflow, combining satellite observation of ground movement with existing geological information provides a powerful method for identifying ground stability hazards. However, it recognises that satellite observations may be difficult to interpret by itself because of the complex geological conditions, multiple processes affecting subsidence and particularities of the observation method. TNO believe the PanGeo products provide general “entry level” information on geohazards but are useful to point advanced users to the existence (or inexistence!) of more specialized products or expertise. (PanGeo-ing Rotterdam - a case study, Paul Bogaard et al, presentation at European Space Solutions Workshop, Munich 2013).
The above information has been extracted from: The Geohazard Document for Rotterdam, Tamara van de Ven et al, TNO, August 2013. PanGeo-ing Rotterdam - a case study, Paul Bogaard et al, presentation at European Space Solutions Workshop, Munich 2013. PanGeo D10.1: Market and Sustainability Analysis, Jan 2014.
3.6.4 Town products and feedback
Summarised above in sections 3.6.1 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 is a description of the experiences from only three of the 27 countries that have participated in the project. Feedback, presentations and articles have been made by a number of other geological surveys including: BGS (UK), PGI (Poland), GEUS (Denmark), BGR (Germany), EKBBA (Greece) and Latvia. I would urge the reader of this final report to access the GSL and GHD products for the other towns processed as there is a huge wealth of information and expertise that has been delivered by the geological surveys.
Feedback on the service has been gained by direct interaction with the LAs via two methods: the LAFG and via GS/LA meetings. Table 3 shows those towns for which feedback has successfully been obtained and in many cases value statements collected.
Country City Feedback type Organiser
Italy Rome LAFG member SIRS
France Toulouse LAFG member SIRS
Bulgaria Sofia LAFG member SIRS
Portugal Faro LAFG member SIRS
Slovenia Ljubljana LAFG member SIRS
Sweden Goteborg LAFG member SIRS
Poland Warsaw 30th August 2013 and PGI and Altamira
Portugal Lisbon and Faro Workshop 18th November 2013 LNEG and Altamira
Greece Larissa 18th December 2013, open workshop planned for 15th January 2014 for Municipality of Kileler. EKBAA/IGME
Italy Palermo Response 31st October 2013 and presentation in Palermo 20th December ISPRA and TRE
Denmark Aalborg and Copenhagen, Danish Coastal Authority Workshop 9th October 2013 GEUS and Altamira,
Germany Berlin BGR and SenStadtUm
Table 3 – List of towns for which feedback on PanGeo service has been obtained
It should be noted that the GS did not have budget to set up or attend LA meetings within the original document of work and their contributions have been additional to the work expected. It is a testament to those geological surveys who have contributed additional effort to further promote their work and the PanGeo project and they have enhanced and built upon relationships with their local authorities for future benefit to all parties. However, feedback from the GS has shown that communication with the LA has proved to be a large workload and should be considered in more detail for any further projects.
3.6.5 Benefits of PanGeo
PanGeo has specifically concentrated on the Local Authorities and the Geological Surveys as they have been the key partners in the projects and have provided substantial feedback on the service and the current market requirements. Each market has been analysed based on information obtained from: relevant local, national and regional policies; feedback obtained from the LAs on individual towns processed; feedback from the GS; information obtained at local workshops, conferences and face to face meetings; and research compiled by project partners for identified commercial markets.
The benefits to any client, GS or PSIP for continuing to deliver and use products within PanGeo are identified below, this is not a full list but will continue to change and expand as the service develops. The list has been generated from feedback from the different segments of the service delivery chain. The benefits have been used to underpin the continuing marketing of PanGeo post March 2014.
3.6.5.1 PSIPs
The PSI Providers will benefit from:
• Increased uptake of InSAR products through increased awareness of the product and its benefits and the capabilities and limitations of InSAR
• Formation and strengthening of links with the GS
• Formation of links with LAs
• Improved knowledge of potential user needs and contact with new markets
• Potential to unlock new, previously unconsidered InSAR applications
3.6.5.2 Geological Surveys
A questionnaire was sent to all the GS asking them to comment on the overall project experience and the production of the PanGeo products. Focus was placed on the following: how well specified the product was, material produced to help the product creation; such as training courses and the production manual. Feedback was also sought on the products, how useful they perceived them to be and who they thought the main users might be. Feedback was received from the following surveys: Netherlands, Ireland, Greece, Poland, Austria, Germany, Romania, Latvia, Italy and Hungary. The British Geological Survey did not respond since they were so involved with the product design. A list of the benefits extracted from the questionnaire is:
• Improved understanding of the InSAR methods and applications by providing the resource to understand the InSAR data.
• Access to InSAR data for two towns in their country for free, which would otherwise cost approximately 40,000 Euros.
• Knowledge of how EO data can provide additional information on urban geohazards
• Provided with an excellent production manual to facilitate PanGeo product generation
• Generation of INSPIRE compliant products which can be included within other projects
• Improved links with PSIPs
• Improved links with LAs via promotion of the PanGeo products for individual towns.
• PanGeo builds on experience gained via the One Geology project, bringing a harmonised approach across the surveys.
• PanGeo has brought together all 27 Geological Surveys, via online communication and more importantly training courses, which has enabled a further networking opportunity, thereby strengthening the links between European Surveys. This will lead to further opportunities in Horizon 2020 for exciting EO and geohazard research to be funded.
3.6.5.3 End users
The end users who have provided feedback have, in general, found the PanGeo service fit for purpose and have been interested in examining the results via the web services. The majority of feedback has been gathered from the LAFG meetings and the individual LA/GS meetings held.
Five out of the six LAs within the LAFG have completed their questionnaire. Out of the five LAs that have responded, most do see a strong interest in the information provided by the PanGeo services, but they have yet to see the real benefit for their daily operations and in general, would not be prepared to fund further deployment of PanGeo services in its actual configuration. The City of Rome was much more involved than the others, but they also share this overall conclusion indicating that further testing and comparison with other method of obtaining similar information would need to be conducted. LAs also provided useful technical feedback in terms of the overall architecture and look and feel of the PanGeo portal.
The feedback obtained via the “Utility Reports” has been limited, with feedback received from 9 towns: Warsaw, Palermo, Rome, Lisbon, Faro, Larissa, Aalborg, Copenhagen and Berlin. The reason for the poor level of feedback can be found in the survey of the Geological Survey team (D7.3) but in summary, the majority of surveys found that the funding supplied to them was not sufficient to carry out the interpretation, produce the products and gain feedback form the relevant authorities. Gaining feedback form the authority’s means, in many cases, establishing a contact within the authority, this can take a great deal of time and effort.
The list below highlights the main benefits from all feedback that have been collated:
• Open and easy access to geohazard information
• Useful tool in spatial urban planning
• Additional tool to assist in urban resilience
• Free access to the first 52 towns and cities
• Products can easily be integrated into users own systems
• Development of productive collaboration between geological surveys and users
• Incorporation with land-cover use and population statistics
• Free public access to PanGeo products resulting in better informed society
• Unique information source
3.6.5.4 General benefits of being part of PanGeo
Although the end user community for PanGeo is broad there are some overarching benefits that are applicable to all sectors:
• Access to combined InSAR and Geological expertise - geology and surface deformation data in isolation do not answer many questions on geohazards. PanGeo expertly and successfully combines information from both to provide geology as an indicator of hazard susceptibility and InSAR as a measure of physical stability. This results in enhanced geohazard information.
• PanGeo has enabled a standardised source of urban geohazard information to be available within Europe via the provision of INSPIRE compliant, consistent and validated products.
• Ease of access to products online, with the first 52 town results being free to end users.
3.6.6 Operational uses and value statements of PanGeo
Positive examples of the operational use of PanGeo data within Italy are described in the final Local Authority Feedback report D2.1 v3 and in summary have included:
• area of construction of underground parking
• monitoring of industrial structures producing dangerous material (area classified at high risk)
• plan for monitoring school buildings.
This highlights the use of PanGeo data within local municipalities for a broad range of uses and shows the possible breadth of operation uses for PanGeo within an LA.
In addition there have been a number of positive statements about the use of PanGeo data by end users, these are outlined below:
“Pangeo was extremely successful in creating awareness about PSI technology and a network of GS positively interacting, sharing expertise and know how. Now each GS is aware of the potentials of InSAR data.” Sweden.
“We think that PanGeo portal is very well organised and have potential to get to many different customers. It could deepen public awareness and assist in the planning of scientific research. “ PGI, Poland
“We think that PanGeo portal is a good idea and can have a possibility to attract many different users. It will deepen public knowledge and popularize InSAR technology.” Centre for Emergency Management and Civil Protection of the city of Legnica, Poland.
“The results obtained are especially interesting in Copenhagen, showing clearly the instable area and pointing the main explanation for the motion.” Coastal Authorites, Denmark.
“InSAR combined with geological information looks to be a good option for municipalities like Tonder Kommune. They are now in charge of existing infrastructure and new construction on huge area and so must conduct the necessary studies to support safe and reliable project. Tonder Kommune looks very interested in PanGeo project results as they can be easily accessible and shared among professional and non-specialists. This kind of initiative is essential for Danish municipalities to discover, analyse and use efficient tools in their new mission”. Tonder Kommune, Denmark.
“Through the Project several subjects, holders of the data, have collaborated and made available their knowledge. The project has also made it possible to standardize the various existing data coming from different sources. The results of the Project have increased our knowledge on the ground movements taking place in the municipal area. It was in fact possible to detect the uplifting of an industrial area not previously known.” Area della Pianificazione del Territorio, Settore Pianificazione Territoriale e Mobilità, Servizio Urbanistica, Comune di Palermo, Italy.
“Participation in the PanGeo project with the publication of the results favored the communication against the technical administrators of the city, making them more aware of the hazard in the territory. It was an opportunity to establish closer co-operation between Roma Capitale and ISPRA, and homogenize different data coming from various sources.” Department of Urban Planning, Roma Capitale, Italy.
“Portal for sure is playing important role in geohazards monitoring and can help in a process of urban planning for these areas. The very strong advantage of the portal is its availability via internet for everyone and the possibility of download of the data in various formats.” Town Office in Wolomin, Departament of Urban Planning, Poland
The service is useful for creating an overview of ground movements. It is currently not a substitute for conventional methods, but it provides valuable additional data and information. Geology and Groundwater Management“ of the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, Berlin, Germany (SenStadtUm).
The uses and value statements above highlight the enthusiasm and high level of acceptance of PanGeo products as being fit for purpose and as a future operational service. The support network between the GS and LA is growing and PanGeo has without doubt progressed the relationships between these parties. It is anticipated that as the increased knowledge and awareness of PanGeo products and the use of PSI within the LA and other users expands the uptake of the service will increase.
Potential Impact:
PanGeo has succeeded, with input from the core partners and the significant effort by the national European Geological Surveys, in making available geohazard information for 52 of the largest towns and cities in Europe and where possible communicating the results with the individual town local authorities.
The potential impact of PanGeo is broad ranging, not only in the European geographical sense but also the service provides urban geohazard information affecting approximately 13% of the total EU population (approx. 65 million people). The ease of access to the results via the web-service enables these people to improve their knowledge and understanding of the geohazards in their local town and apply it to factors that affect them individually, whether that is commercially or personally. The broad range of geohazards that have been identified within PanGeo across the 52 towns will enhance cross collaboration of information between those towns that have similar experiences.
As highlighted in section 3.6.5 the potential impact and benefits PanGeo provides to the end users are the following:
• Unique information source with combined InSAR and geological expertise
• Open and easy access to standardised geohazard information
• Free availability of the first 52 towns and cities
• A useful tool in urban planning where products can be easily ingested into users own systems
• Development of collaboration between GS and users
• Enhancements of land use cover information and statistical analysis relevant to end users at regional and polygon level.
The benefits to the Earth Observation industry are focussed on the PSI providers and the increased uptake of InSAR products through the increased awareness of the benefits, capabilities and limitations of the technique. Throughout the project there has been an increase in uptake of EO data achieved through the generation of new town products. The geological surveys have increased their knowledge of the InSAR techniques, application and integration with geology through the production of individual town products. It is anticipated that with this increased understanding the geological surveys will promote the use and uptake of InSAR within the surveys themselves and their related national service role and also in any commercial activities that a geological survey may undertake. The output of these commercial activities may not produce a PanGeo product available on the PanGeo web service itself, but being part of the PanGeo project will have enabled the survey to increase confidence and application of the techniques and stimulate commercial procurement of InSAR services and thus for a wider public good. In general, PanGeo has also strengthened links between the PSIPs and the GS or LA by stimulating discussions on the town products and their future use within the LA. In addition, PanGeo has identified a potential market for Sentinel-1 radar datasets in the future.
All of the above confirm that PanGeo has and continues to contribute to a better informed society, where people are more aware of local geohazards. It has increased the profile of geohazards and need in the minds of authorities to increase their use of this information to assist them in achieving their local, regional and national policy requirements and will continue to raise the profile of geohazard information in the future.
4.1 DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES
The PanGeo dissemination activities have been varied and extended over a wide audience. Throughout the three year period 113 events, workshops and meetings have been presented to or attended and 111 articles, papers, posters, brochures, videos and press releases written and distributed. The dissemination and promotion activities are summarised below in Table 4 and further detailed in deliverable D9.1 – Promotion and Dissemination and also in sections: A1 - list of scientific (peer reviewed) publications and A2 - list of dissemination activities.
Activity No. in Yr 1 No. in Yr 2 No. in Yr 3 Total
Briefing Note 1 0 0 2
White Paper 0 0 1 1
Project Abstracts 3 2 0 5
Press Releases 12 (at KO) 0 10 22
Articles 2 6 12 20
Publications 0 6 6 12
Brochure 1 0 1 2
Events (confs., exhib) 17 32 30 79
Posters 0 3 8 11
Video 0 0 1 1
Websites on which PanGeo is promoted 4 7 23 34
Workshops 1 1 6 8
Meetings 0 0 26 26
TV and Radio 0 0 1 1
Table 4 – Summary of dissemination activities undertaken during PanGeo
All core partners have contributed to the delivery of the dissemination and promotion activities and in particular EGS has, as leader of the UAP, along with EFG and ABC, taken a leading role in engaging the geological surveys both within and outside Europe to promote the service and highlight the freely available results on the portal.
The most visible method of PanGeo dissemination has been the PanGeo website (www.pangeoproject.eu) which, by its very nature, attracts a wide audience from all possible users. The website has been promoted in all the dissemination activities and throughout the project has been redesigned, updated and improved in line with established user requirements. PanGeo has been present at a large number of scientific and industry focussed events throughout the three year period where the latest brochure has been distributed. Team members have given informative presentations, posters, manned the PanGeo booth and held workshops at key conferences and meetings. A 5 minute PanGeo video describing: what is PanGeo?, how to access the service via the portal and google earth, key results and how to contact the team for more information was produced and shown at events in year 3. An easy to distribute and simple Digital Service Atlas was provided on a data stick which enables those interested to simply access the webpage and to read key documents about PanGeo, this method was agreed to be a better use of resources than providing a printed copy which could quickly become out of date. Figure 11 shows examples of the types of dissemination and high quality of the resources generated.
Figure 11 – Examples of dissemination activities (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
One of the key dissemination activities were the meetings held between the Geological Surveys and the individual town local authorities. These meetings were set up by the two parties and provided an excellent method of displaying the PanGeo products and promoting the use of the PanGeo website to obtain information on geohazards in the relevant town or city. As described earlier in this report, only a few of these meetings were held due to financial constraints of the GS and also the difficulty in accessing the suitable contact at the LA, but they proved extremely valuable and provided feedback on the service and helped identify the benefits to end users of the PanGeo products.
Throughout the project the dissemination methods used have enabled PanGeo to become a well-known resource available to any user who requires geohazard information, particularly within the geological surveys and a number of local authorities. The PanGeo website will remain available in the short term and a suitable location will be continually discussed as PanGeo develops in the future.
4.2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
4.2.1 Foreground IPR
‘Foreground’ is the intellectual property generated in the project. It belongs to the participant generating it – the ‘Originator’. In PanGeo, three Foreground service products are made, two of which are ‘front-end’ and accessible via the portal for each town (along with the Urban Atlas datasets which are owned by DG-Regio). These products are listed below together with the originator who owns the foreground:
Foreground product Foreground owner Comment
PSI results PSIP Not published by PanGeo
Ground Stability Layer Geological Survey Front-end
Geohazard Description Geological Survey Front-end
Table 5 - PanGeo service products and their ownership
The rights to these products reside with the originating participant. However, by signing the Consortium Agreement, the Originators of these ‘front-end’ products have automatically granted a global license to everyone, forever, giving rights to free and unrestricted access and use (providing various credits are given as specified by the Originator). This means allowing commercial value-adding to use these products for profit, for example, by the insurance or environmental information sectors. This policy will benefit citizens by providing access to the PanGeo results for 52 towns and stimulate processing for new towns. The exception to this is the PSI results, the Foreground of which belongs to the PSIP making them. As an intermediary product used in making the final product, the raw PSI results themselves are not made freely available for commercial use. However, they may be made available for research purposes if required. Any commercial usage of the PSI results will require agreement between the Foreground PSIP owner and the commercial user. Correct processing records must be maintained to prove ownership (e.g. the PSI Provider’s own QA system).
The PanGeo portal has been built by BRGM who therefore own the Foreground to this work. However and upon request, BRGM may grant a royalty-free license and a transfer of source code to all members of the Consortium only so that they can use and maintain this Foreground.
No transfer of ownership of Foreground is foreseen.
4.2.2 Background IPR
The national geological surveys have used their own copyrighted material in the compilation of PanGeo products. This ‘Background’ IPR is not made available as part of the PanGeo service, nor is it used by any other participant. It is not envisaged that any access rights to ‘Background’ will need to be granted to other participants, however, a LA or user may benefit from derived data or information from the ‘Background’.
4.2.3 Publications
All partners have been encouraged to publish information about the project, whether this is formal presentation of papers at scientific fora or magazine articles for general promotion. The project coordinator has been made aware of any publications before execution. In all cases, permission has not been reasonably withheld for Foreground IPR. A list of all publication is available within section A of this report.
4.2.4 Future plans for the use and dissemination of Foreground
As described in section 4.3 core team members are prepared to maintain the PanGeo service in the short term, until further opportunities arise that will enable the PanGeo project to be taken forward either in terms of future web provision, enhancing products and services or expanding the PanGeo portfolio towns. The methods by which this may occur are not restricted and ongoing investigations to new opportunities are being assessed by NPA Satellite Mapping as well as PanGeo partners.
As long as the website remains open, access to the foreground products will be available and any user will have access to the products for the completed towns and cities. Users will be able to visualise or download the GSL and GHD products for their use within the terms of the license agreement in place. NPA Satellite Mapping will continue to promote the use of PanGeo Geohazard information in its routine dissemination activities using the promotion materials generated throughout the project. Discussions with new towns and cities that are interested in becoming part of PanGeo will be addressed when they arise but ongoing promotion of PanGeo is expected to increase the awareness of the project and therefore stimulate uptake and maintain sustainability of PanGeo.
4.3 EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS
There are three key components to ensure the continued exploitation of the project results and service and as such the success of PanGeo in the future, these are described in the following sections.
4.3.1 Continued provision of service
The most important aspect of future service provision is to ensure that the results for the town data is kept available for users to download and have free and unrestricted access of the ‘front-end’ foreground products i.e. the GSL and GHD. In order for this to be maintained it is essential that key partners within the project continue to be engaged and for the products to be kept accessible. The methods by this will occur is set out in deliverables D10.3 – Business plan and D10.1 – Market and Sustainability Analysis. In summary this consists of the commitment of the following:
• PSIPs to provide InSAR results when requested for new towns
• Engagement of the GS to create PanGeo products and to maintain interest and uptake of PanGeo
• Maintenance of the PanGeo validation procedure
• Maintenance of the PanGeo web service both via Google Earth and on the portal
For this to be undertaken MOUs are required between the following: The PSIPs and the PanGeo coordinating body (NPA Satellite Mapping) noting that all PSIP’s have committed to ongoing PSI provision, MoUs are available for Gamma and TRE and there are ongoing negotiations with Altamira; BGS and the PanGeo coordinating body have agreed and signed an MoU; NPA Satellite Mapping have agreed continued provision of the web service until end 2014; and EGS and the PanGeo coordinating body for the provision of Portal via BRGM, awaiting signature expected end April after the next EGS Directors board meeting.
It is anticipated that in the short term future web provision of PanGeo will be maintained using the current infrastructure but the longer term provision could be via an alternative source such as the EGDI programme. A feasibility project EGDI-SCOPE is due to complete at the end of May 2014 with the aim of designing the architecture of the infrastructure and suggesting datasets or data themes to be prioritised. One of the data themes currently identified as a priority area is geohazard and ground stability information as produced by PanGeo and other PSI related projects. Successful implementation of the EGDI may mean that the maintenance of the PanGeo portal and support for metadata and hosting is transferred to an EGDI management organisation in the long term.
4.3.2 Continued publication and dissemination
Continued publication and dissemination of the project results by all partners e.g. events, papers, articles etc. using the promotion materials already available, such as the PanGeo brochure and the digital service atlas, will ensure that PanGeo remains at the forefront of information provision on urban geohazards and thus have a high profile in ongoing programmes. Examples of future promotion and dissemination since the end of the project period (Jan 2014) include:
• Japan Space Systems article in a brochure entitled "Best Practice in Earth Observation Data Utilization". More than 1000-copy of the brochure will be printed and disseminated among Japanese stakeholders including potential users.
• Copernicus Observer Newsletter - a statement of the use of Sentinel-1 data for PanGeo
• Horizon Magazine – input into an article on the Copernicus project, and how it will affect EU citizens
• A paper on the London PanGeo results written by BGS (Cigna. F et al) and submitted to the Pure and Applied Geophysics for review.
• Article in Geotechnica e-magazine “PanGeo a Free Geohazard Information Service for Europe” David Norbury, EFG.
4.3.3 Expand service
The main aim of PanGeo is to expand the service provision in terms of the number of towns within Europe available to users. In order for this to be achieved a successful and continued program of PanGeo promotion and dissemination is vital and the future activities focussed on including the target users within a program of market development. This has been the main focus of project partners’ activities and has been on-going throughout the final stages of the project and will continue post January 2014 at a level required to maintain PanGeo at the forefront of the urban geohazard market and within the means of all partners.
In reality securing “commercial” orders from new towns has not proved as simple or proceeded as quickly as initially hoped and a number of important issues have become apparent as year 3 has progressed with regards to engaging new towns into PanGeo. These include, but are not limited to:
• Immature market for geohazards.
• A change of mind set is required from a reactive to proactive requirement of geohazard information.
• Difficulty engaging the correct contacts within the LAs for each European country.
• LAs cannot access funds to procure new processing
• Future costs of PanGeo products
• New towns may not want to make products freely available via online provision, in particular if they have been commercially funded.
• GS or LAs bypass PanGeo and go directly to the PSIPs for PSI point data requirements. Due to their increased knowledge of PSI processing gained throughout the PanGeo project they feel they have the knowledge and ability to complete this.
• SAR Data availability for future PanGeo towns - one of the main limits is the exploitation of ERS and ENVISAT imagery which are considered by the PSIPs to be too out of date to be used for an updated geohazard catalogue or monitoring service. It is clear that for new towns updated data-stacks are essential, e.g in Northern Italy. With the launch of the Sentinel constellation, it is anticipated that this barrier will be reduced.
However, despite these barriers PanGeo has obtained significant interest for new orders for PanGeo products and these are listed below and detailed in deliverable D10.1 - Market and Sustainability Analysis: Volos (Greece); Igoumenitsa (Greece); Paphos (Cyprus); Glasgow (UK); Granada (Spain) and Velenje (Slovenia). Two Expressions of Interest have been obtained and discussions continue with the other towns and related GS. Terrafirma results continue to be utilised and have been requested in the town of Volos, Greece.
4.4 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PANGEO
The 3 year PanGeo project has been highly product development focussed but the existing product and service should only be considered as a prototype which now requires further development and promotion. User feedback collected to date highlights the need to further evolve the service to provide as much benefit to the target user as possible and to overcome some of the barriers to market entry outlined above. This includes:
• Service development evolution to bring the Local Authorities further into the PanGeo decision making and for them to be part of the operational process. This will improve their knowledge of PSI and thus their confidence in the products and in turn their acceptance of the reliability of the product and increase potential uptake.
• Extended service trialling and testing: Increased showcasing of PanGeo to the LAs would encourage them to integrate PanGeo in their decision making workflows and thus improve the demonstrable cost/benefit which may in the long term mean that LAs can afford to pay. It will also mean that the LAs have more understanding of how the products are made and developed which will increase their trust in the product reliability.
• Provision of a monitoring service: One aspect that may be of interest, in particular to commercial businesses but also to local authorities, would be possible future development of PanGeo to a 'monitoring' product. PanGeo currently supplies geohazard data for a specific moment in time and has been an excellent contribution to the baseline understanding of ground instability in the 52 towns and cities processed. In the future this could evolve to include a 'monitoring service' and an update of individual towns as and when required. This has been requested by some members of the LAFG as geohazards are changing with time and perhaps the greatest value could come in seeing a 'monitoring' product. However, this is not considered within the remit of this project but should be considered when discussing possibilities in the future to make the service more attractive to existing users and expand/open up opportunities with commercial businesses.
• Who pays?: This is a very pertinent question. Throughout PanGeo it has become apparent that, at the moment, the LAs are unable to provide funding for new towns even though they believe that there is a demand and the service provided is useful and relevant. PanGeo was always intended to be a public good service that might also have tangential commercial potential. Within the Business Plan three possible funding sources for Local Authorities (LA’s) to procure further PanGeo products are identified:
- The LA directly funds new processing;
- The LA accesses funding from national, domestic programs;
- NPA / the PanGeo consortium win further contracts from public bodies e.g. ESA, the EC or national programmes.
The first two possible funding sources are from the LAs. It has been established from communications with the LAFG and additional LAs that, at the moment, the LAs are unable to provide any internal funding for PanGeo. In addition, the LAs have had no success in accessing funds from national or domestic programs that are known and available to them. This therefore limits the funding sources to winning further contracts from other funding bodies. Ongoing investigations to identify possible funding sources are examining a number of EU R&D research (including Horizon 2020), ESA, National/regional programmes and also commercial spin-offs.
An additional source of funding could be from the commercial market. From a commercial perspective a broad range of markets (including oil & gas, mining, energy, engineering, environment and insurance) exploit both geological and terrain motion data in various forms. However, the requirement for such information and subsequent utilisation varies greatly. Relevant services are most often designed and implemented on a case-by-case basis, and such bespoke solutions may share themes and/or approaches but their implementation varies by site. The insurance and environmental markets were evaluated within the project and the main barriers to uptake were perceived to be: Requirement for national coverage of data; variable needs to the technical level of information on a geohazard; wish for free data, which is possible for the 52 towns within PanGeo but unlikely for future sustainability plans; up to date information; and the requirement for trusted, tried and tested services and products.
In Summary, a high level plan of action for the next 6-12 months proposed in order to maintain the current level of service within the means of partners will include the following:
• Maintain the PanGeo website
• Maintain the PanGeo validation procedures
• Continue provision of access to the GSL and GHD for 52 towns and cities within PanGeo
• Respond positively and quickly to any “new town” requests received by either the website or individual communication with end users
• Promote PanGeo within routine dissemination activities
• Investigate possible future funding opportunities to further develop the PanGeo service and in particular to integrate end users into the program in order to obtain feedback and further analysis of the benefits PanGeo can provide.
• Maintaining the profile of PanGeo within the EC itself, with focus on non-rush EMS Copernicus service.
With this ongoing commitment it is anticipated that new towns will enter PanGeo and the range of LA or commercial requirements and cost benefits will become apparent. This may include the following issues that will need to be addressed: The threshold of costs within the LAs that are acceptable for their uptake of PanGeo; requirement for achieving a standard for PanGeo; continued training for the users; continued involvement and support from the GS and all partners.
At the end of the 6 month period (Oct 2014) NPA Satellite Mapping will provide the EC with a brief update.
List of Websites:
www.pangeoproject.eu
Contact details:
Project Coordinator - Claire Roberts email: claire.roberts@cgg.com
Project Administrator - Carole Holway email: carole.holway@cgg.com
Geohazards are a continual threat in many of Europe’s major towns and cities but public and local authority awareness and knowledge of the issues associated with geohazards is limited. These geohazards are wide ranging in their nature and include: earthquakes, landslides, mineral workings, ground water abstraction and recharge, shrink swell clays, soluble rocks, compressible ground, collapsible deposits, landfill and rockfall, all of which clearly impact public safety and local authority decision making and planning. PanGeo has begun to increase the information available to local and regional authorities, national geological surveys, policy makers and the public by using new techniques of observing sub-millimetre ground motion. The approach within PanGeo uses satellite radar data integrated with local geological information to provide geohazard information that is openly accessible online.
PanGeo has been a three-year collaborative project that started on 1st February 2011 with the objective of enabling open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus. The project received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n⁰262371. This has enabled research and development to be completed in order to provide openly available online access to geohazard information for 52 of the largest towns and cities across Europe, covering approximately 13% of the EU population.
PanGeo has provided a unique methodology and prototype service mechanism by which urban geohazards can be identified and the results accessed online by any user. Expertise and data from satellite derived Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) providers, geological surveys and local authority end users has been integrated to provide two comprehensive output datasets: A Ground Stability Layer (GSL) which is an attributed, spatially referenced polygon outlining all areas of ground instability and a Geohazard Document (GHD) which describes the geological interpretation and evidence for the area of instability. The data can be integrated with the Copernicus land cover Urban Atlas dataset, to identify land cover types that are within the individual GSL polygons. The GSL and GHD products are made available to all users via the PanGeo website “coverage map”, either via the PanGeo portal, based on the infrastructure of the OneGeology-Europe, or via visualization in Google Earth. On acceptance of the license agreement the datasets are available to download as a shapefile to enable users to integrate the results into their own GIS. The ease of access to the results has enabled improved urban geohazard information availability for the 52 towns and cities within the current portfolio and the consistent, validated methodology applied to all towns provides confidence that the geohazard information is both robust and reliable.
The overall impression from users is that PanGeo provides a unique, well-structured service that delivers geohazard information in a clear, consistent and easily accessible manner. PanGeo has, without doubt, widened the doors for PSI and enabled further development and understanding of the InSAR technology within the geological and local authority communities. However, the market between geology, geohazards and the target client remains immature and for the continued use and uptake of PanGeo further support is required to maintain a service available to all. With European population increasing and the inevitable urban expansion that will be undertaken to meet the demands on urban development, it is vital that the most up to date and readily available information on geohazards is available. The ongoing provision of geohazard information should be considered as a key element in future disaster management and preparedness strategies of many European towns and cities.
Project Context and Objectives:
PanGeo has been a three-year collaborative project that started on 1st February 2011 with the objective of enabling open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus (formerly GMES). The project received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme, theme [SPA.210.1.1-01] Stimulating Development of Downstream Copernicus Services, which has enabled research and development to be completed in order to provide openly available online access to geohazard information. As at January 2014 the funding via this method finished in line with the original project period.
PanGeo has provided a platform for access to geohazard information for towns and cities across Europe by anyone who has access to the internet, thus including local authorities, businesses and the general public. This has been achieved by making available, via online provision, an attributed vector polygon file outlining the location of a geohazard and linking each polygon to a detailed written description of any discovered motions. This information has previously not been readily accessible and PanGeo has led the way in making geohazard information available to anyone who considers it important to improve their local knowledge and integrated it into their working schedules.
2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of PanGeo is to enable open access to geological hazard information in support of Copernicus. This has been achieved by providing an INSPIRE-compliant, online geohazard information service for 52 of the largest towns across Europe representing approximately 13% of EU population.
PanGeo generates geohazard information that can be easily understood, downloaded and integrated into any user’s IT system. The information is provided in a simple format and in a manner that is accessible to any user. Two PanGeo products are created for each town: A Ground Stability Layer (GSL) which is an attributed vector polygon, that indicates areas of ground instability; and a Geohazard Document (GHD) that describes the geological interpretation for each GSL polygon. These products, produced by the individual national geological survey are generated by the integration of:
• Satellite PSI processing, derived from satellite radar data, provides measurements of terrain motion;
• Geological and geohazard information already held by national geological surveys;
• The landcover and landuse data contained within the Copernicus Core Land Theme ‘Urban Atlas’.
Closely related to the primary objective is the need to reach a level of self-sustainability: With EU support, PanGeo has processed the largest 52 of the 699 Urban Atlas towns. As the PanGeo products have become available they have provided the bases for promoting the PanGeo service to the LAs of the respective towns and also to a small proportion of the remaining 647 Urban Atlas towns. PanGeo has attracted interest from a number of new European towns who have requested further information and provided expressions of interest for future processing. This interest generated and positive feedback gained from the Local Authorities and Geological Surveys on the PanGeo service to date should be used to take PanGeo forward into a future phase of sustainability.
The PanGeo service and delivery mechanism that has been developed during the past three years has enabled geohazard information to be made publically available in an easily accessible, validated and consistent manner. PanGeo has increased communication links and understanding between satellite PSI providers, Geological Surveys and individual local authorities throughout Europe and continues to engage users requiring access to geohazard information.
Other key objectives include:
• Develop Earth Observation derived ‘information’ products.
• Make services directly available to:
National Geological Surveys
Local Authorities
European policy-makers
Commerce
The citizen
• Facilitate direct user interaction in service design.
• Analyse the market and derive a sustainability action plan.
• Promote the service to end users.
• Add value to the Urban Atlas.
Secondary objectives:
• Demonstrate and support need for Sentinel-1 SAR data.
• Further exploit unique selling point of InSAR.
• Develop novel visualisation techniques.
• Provide commercial spin-off opportunities.
• Make progress towards the goals of INSPIRE.
• Address some of the EU’s environmental commitments.
• Further evolve national Geological Survey harmonisation.
• Build on achievements of, and complement other projects.
The majority of the objectives have been met within the project timescale, however ongoing work to engage additional towns or cities within the service continues.
2.2 PROJECT PARTNERS
The project has been well supported by thirty-seven partners which comprise a range of expertise. Core team members comprise of: ESA qualified satellite radar data specialists particularly focused on Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI); IT and INSPIRE specialists; an expert User Advisory Panel; Geospatial data visualisation experience and the makers of the Copernicus Land Core Service ‘Urban Atlas’. Geological Surveys which comprises of 27 National Geological Surveys of Europe. Figure 1 shows a list of all partners. The partnership ensures that PanGeo provides relevant and proactive geohazard information to local authorities and communities across Europe.
2.3 LINKED PROJECTS
PanGeo has had relationships with a number of EC and ESA projects, the list below shows those with which PanGeo has been most active, however, there are a number of other projects with which PanGeo has made contact throughout the three year period.
Terrafirma: The ESA GMES project Terrafirma is the main project with which PanGeo has been collaborating. This is not surprising, considering that PanGeo was born from Terrafirma and that 27 of the 52 PSI datasets originated from processing undertaken in that project. To this end PanGeo was required by ESA to formalise the relationship by way of an over-arching agreement as well as individual SLAs between each Geological Survey recipient, the supplying PSI Provider and the Terrafirma Prime (Altamira Information). PanGeo is well-promoted in Terrafirma as PanGeo provides further life to a good proportion of the processing which otherwise might be largely forgotten. Furthermore, PanGeo has ensured the longevity of products made in Terrafirma by initiating their inclusion within OneGeology. This process continues to be developed as part of the ongoing Terrafirma project being processed by Altamira Information (partner 13).
One Geology Europe: PanGeo services are incorporated into One Geology by way of the PanGeo Portal being an additional layer-page within the site.
SubCoast: FP7 Collaborative project. Ongoing collaboration has occurred with SubCoast, although the FP7 funding for SubCoast ended at the end of 2013, onwards discussions will occur as required.
EGDI-Scope: A feasibility study to identify and design the architecture for a pan European Geological Data Infrastructure (EGDI). One of the themes currently identified as a priority is geohazard and ground stability information as produced in PanGeo and other PSI-related projects. Successful implementation of the EGDI will likely mean that the maintenance of the PanGeo portal and support for metadata and hosting be transferred to an EGDI management system.
Other project contacts: DORIS, LAMPRE, the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), Global Earth Observation Systems of Systems (GEOSS) and Copernicus Emergency Management System (GIO EMS) non-rush mode, UNISDR Resilient Cities.
2.4 PROJECT USERS
The market for geohazards is growing but remains immature and fragmented. PanGeo has succeeded in improving the market for geohazards and the prime focus has been on the involvement and engagement of local authorities (LA) to use the service and products within their internal GIS systems, to give them increased knowledge and exposure to geohazard information. This has been achieved via the Local Authority Feedback Group (LAFG) and many individual meetings held between the geological surveys (GS) and the LAs. Local authorities are considered the prime users of PanGeo but the list below identifies all possible end users:
• Local Authorities;
• Geological Surveys, who are seen as not only providers of service but also end users;
• EC policy makers;
• Commercial businesses in particular insurance and environmental;
• The public.
Government LAs are concerned about geohazards from two perspectives, depending on their overall responsibilities (Peroni, 2011), a) planning and development control, and b) civil protection. In general it is the government LAs that are responsible for development planning and building control and as underlying geology and geohazards can have a major impact on buildings and infrastructure it is logical to assume that they have an interest in routinely assessing such information in their day to day work. By providing systematic geohazard mapping in major population centres PanGeo directly supports LAs by providing easy access to such information.
In general, national GS represent a country’s source of information of all things geological. They are usually mandated by law to collect and provide geological information, which can include elements of geohazards, especially to governments and well as other research organisations, companies and the public. Although typically mandated and driven to collect data on geohazards, GS do not always have the tools or resources necessary to provide complete or accurate picture about such phenomena. There are gaps in knowledge as well as inconsistencies in coverage, quality and format between the European GSs. PanGeo directly supports the GS by helping them to map and interpret ground stability in a systematic way using cutting edge technologies, thus increasing and improving their knowledge.
From a commercial perspective a broad range of markets (including oil & gas, mining, energy, engineering, environment and insurance) exploit both geological and terrain motion data in various forms. However, the requirement for such information and subsequent utilisation varies greatly. Relevant services are most often designed and implemented on a case-by-case basis, and such bespoke solutions may share themes and/or approaches but their implementation varies by site. Within the commercial sector the markets that are considered most relevant are the Environmental and Insurance markets. Both markets have a requirement for simplified, standardised products that have been derived from complex input datasets through expert interpretation of some sort.
Although all the markets mentioned above have some overlap of geohazard requirements, such as the need to know the extents and type of geohazard, each market has its own individual needs and specific requirements for geohazard information (e.g. insurance companies require country wide coverage whereas LAs and municipalities only require information for their specific town). PanGeo has specifically concentrated on the LA and GS as they have been key partners in the project and have provided substantial feedback on the service and current market requirements.
Project Results:
PanGeo has progressed the science and technologies for making available information on geohazards. PanGeo is a new, unique, service that provides geohazard information to increase the knowledge of the presence of geohazards in the urban environment. The information is provided in a consistent, validated and INSPIRE compliant manner and the results of the project are easily accessible, via a web portal, to all users including scientists, policy makers, local authorities and the general public.
Geohazard information has been made available for 52 of the major towns and cities across Europe, as shown in Figure 2 and listed in Table 1. The green pins show completed towns. (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment).
Figure 2 – Location of PanGeo towns and cities across Europe (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
Table 1 – A list of PanGeo towns and cities available on the PanGeo coverage map (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
3.1 WHY IS PANGEO NEEDED?
In general, the availability of information on geohazards is limited. Historically this has been due to the difficultly mapping, in particular, small scale movements over a large area. However, with the advances in technologies over the past 10 years the ability to map geohazards over wide areas, such as an entire town or city, has significantly improved and PanGeo has used these advances to provide simple output products from the complex inputs, to enable all users to have access to standardized and consistent geohazard information.
Since 1990, natural disasters in developed countries have caused more than US$ 1,543 billion of damages, 127,000 fatalities, and affected over 59 million people. Reported damages caused by disasters during 2001-2011 increased by 52% compared to 1990-2000. In terms of damage caused by disasters in the last decade, the top ten countries in the world include the EU Member States of Germany (US$ 29.9 billion), France (17.9 billion), Italy (13.4 billion), UK (12.1 billion) and Greece (2.9 billion). Overall, in Europe during the last decade, almost 100,000 fatalities have occurred, more than 11 million people have been affected, and losses reported of more than €200 billion (Giannopapa, 2011). A major contributory factor to the increase observed over the last 10 years, is the increase in population and assets with increasing economic value being located in exposed areas.
The above figures above are for ‘natural disasters’ and include the major effects of flood, wildfire, heatwave and storms - phenomena not directly related to the types of geological hazard dealt with by PanGeo. However, geological hazards, or ‘geohazards’, are a sub-set of these numbers, and their adverse effects to society are similarly increasing in proportion.
Geohazards in the built environment can be dangerous and costly. Earthquakes and landslides have obvious, high-profile and devastating impacts on society, while the more insidious effects of, say, poor foundation geology may not be so catastrophic. But when totalled for a whole region over a year, the latter still present a huge economic burden. For example the cost to the UK insurance sector for subsidence caused largely by the effects of clay shrink-swell has been estimated at half a billion euros per year (Culshaw, 2002). Likewise, in the Netherlands the total cost related to subsidence and soft soil conditions have been estimated at 3.5 billion euros per year (TNO, 2006). Exacerbating this situation, is population growth: in 2008 the UN declared that, for the first time in history, more than half the world’s population (or ~3,5 billion people) now live in urban environments. Estimates say that by 2030, this number may have swollen to 5 billion (UNDESA, 2009). This means more exposure of people and infrastructure to existing geohazards. It means that populations are now located in areas previously avoided, for example, because of a landslide or earthquake risk. It means additional pressure on natural resources that might result in a variety of geohazard effects, e.g. subsidence due to water or gas abstraction, or building on landfill, etc.
Even though geohazards present such a cost to society, accurate information concerning them can be difficult, if not impossible, to find. Historically geohazards are not widely mapped in the EU due to the high costs normally involved, and if they are, not in a standardised fashion. Except in areas of high earthquake or landslide risk, or areas of commercial interest where information is kept confidential, actual measurements relating to geohazards are virtually non-existent. What geohazard information there is, is generally collected in one of three ways:
• By interpretation of geological maps (geohazard susceptibility): Normally generalised, at relatively small-scale (1:50,000 – 1:100,00), and hold little detail beneath established towns where, for example, changes in water pumping due to changes in industrial practices, can have dramatic implications. These maps do not usually include any form of dynamic measurement of any associated ground instability, but are based on the potential of the geology (itself generalised) to cause motions.
• By in situ measurement, e.g. GPS, strain-gauge, levelling, borehole, etc.: These procedures are invasive, labour-intensive, complex and expensive. They are typically applied reactively and are often a confidential information source, or at least, not openly available in a non-specialist format.
• Insurance claims data: In towns often the most accurate indicator that a hazard exists, but represents a valuable part of a company’s intellectual property and considered highly confidential.
PanGeo has started to overcome some of the standardization issues for recording geohazard information by creating standard, validated products which are compliant with the Natural Risk Zones data specification of INSPIRE and by integrating satellite data and geological survey inputs.
Satellite radar data can be used to assist geohazard mapping and using European radar satellites high spatial and temporal resolution data have been routinely collected, with future data anticipated with the imminent launch of Sentinel-1 in 2014. The motion of the Earth’s surface over time can be calculated using the Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) processing technique which, using satellite radar data can reveal the relative displacements, to millimetre precision, of thousands of surface features which reflect the radar signal back to the satellite (e.g. curb stones, sides of buildings, pylons). This PSI information used in conjunction with known local geology has been used within PanGeo to identify areas of terrain motion that are directly related to ground instability and geohazards. With the additional land use cover information from the Copernicus Land monitoring service “Urban Atlas” and population datasets statistical information can be derived to identify the populations and land use that may be affected. Thus PanGeo provides the ability for geohazard information to be provided in a consistent manner.
PanGeo provides use of the ESA radar archive data and with the anticipated data that will be available from the future Sentinel satellites this could be expanded and developed to integrate the Sentinel radar data into a potential PanGeo monitoring product, thus sustaining the requirement of SAR data availability.
3.2 GEOHAZARDS WITHIN PANGEO
Geohazards are natural or man-made phenomena that make the ground unstable. Geohazards can fall into two broad categories; those that are sudden, obvious, wide area and sometimes catastrophic, causing significant loss of life and damage to property, such as earthquakes or large landslides; and those that are more insidious in nature, slower and often invisible to the naked eye, such as the effects of shrink and swell clays or compressible ground, which are generally of less risk to human life but can still account for billions of euros of damage each year.
PanGeo is concerned with geohazards which affect the stability of the ground; the project addresses all geohazards listed below, it does not address issues of flooding or radon.
1. Deep Seated Motions
1.1. Earthquake (seismic hazard)
1.2. Tectonic movements
1.3. Salt Tectonics
1.4. Volcanic inflation/deflation
2. Natural Ground Instability
2.1. Landslide
2.2. Soil Creep
2.3. Ground Dissolution
2.4. Collapsible Ground
2.5. Running Sand/Liquefaction
3 Natural Ground Movements
3.1. Compressible Ground
3.2. Shrink-Swell Clays
4. Man Made (Anthropogenic) Ground Instability
4.1. Ground Water Management - Shallow Compaction
4.2. Ground Water Management - Peat Oxidation
4.3. Groundwater Abstraction
4.4. Mining
4.5. Underground Construction
4.6. Made Ground
4.7. Oil and Gas Production
5. Other
6. Unknown
The above are the geohazards available to the geological surveys when completing their interpretation of the input data and creating the GSL and GHD products.
3.3 THE PANGEO PRODUCTS AND SERVICE PROVISION
PanGeo has taken a step towards developing the ‘missing geological link’ for Copernicus by initiating a pan-European geological service, which has derived and standardised geohazard information across an initial subset of the Urban Atlas towns across Europe. The aim of PanGeo is to enable open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus and throughout the three year project PanGeo partners have designed the methodology to create a service and then progressed to develop the service to provide online geohazard information via the PanGeo website www.pangeoproject.eu.
Throughout the project the Local Authority and Geological Survey end users have been intrinsically involved. As part of the design process it was important to gather inputs from the EU Geological Surveys and a selection of Local Authorities with input via questionnaires to ensure that their views and needs for the PanGeo products and service were considered. A Local Authority Feedback Group was established early on to ensure that their needs and requirements were incorporated into the final products and all 27 National Geological Surveys have been involved as partners. The Geological Surveys are an important set of users because not only do they use geohazard data, they also collect, maintain and distribute it. Early in the project a user requirement process was established to enable the PanGeo team to produce a service that is not only relevant to the users such as Local Authorities, but also to design a service that is achievable by all the Geological Surveys. Inviting the users to be involved in the design of the service from the outset was also a way to encourage the organisations to work together with a vested interest to a united aim. This was achieved by the Service Design and Validation group (SDVP), led by the British Geological Survey, and also via the online provision of the service, led by BRGM, in a manner that was acceptable to all project partners. The outcome and product/service development is described in detail below.
3.3.1 The PanGeo Products
The PanGeo products developed by the SDVP methodology and made available by the individual Geological Surveys for 52 towns and cities across Europe are produced at a minimum visualization scale of 1:10,000 and include the following:
• A Ground Stability Layer (GSL) which is an attributed vector polygon that indicates areas of ground instability. The Ground Stability Layer maps all the areas of a given town that are affected by ground instability, which can be caused by a number of natural and anthropogenic processes or phenomena as set out in section 3.2. PanGeo creates polygons around unambiguous geohazards which are based on hazards and not input data types.
The areas of mapped ground instability can fall into two categories:
1. Observed motion includes all types of direct or indirect observation/measurement of ground motion.
2. Potential motion includes all areas that the geologists, using the available geological and auxiliary data, have identified as having the potential for ground motion.
Observed and potential motion is clearly distinguished by the Ground Stability Layer attributes.
• A Geohazard Document (GHD) that describes the geological interpretation for each GSL polygon.
The GSL polygons are attributed and compliant with the Natural Risk Zones data specification of INSPIRE and are used in the portal to provide a summary of the geohazard. More detailed geological information is given in the GHD which is linked to the polygon via the individual GSL attributes; in addition the GHD is available as a standalone document.
The products are generated by the individual local GS using the integration of:
• Satellite PSI processing, derived from satellite radar data, provides measurements of terrain motion.
• Geological and geohazard information already held by national geological surveys. The input datasets may differ from one PanGeo city to the other. However, four main classes of information sources available to the GS are:
- Motion observed by PSI.
- Motion observed with other types of deformation measurement devices and techniques. These data are held by the GS.
- Motion observed from geology field campaigns, e.g. refer to mass movements, measurements of active faulting and neotectonics, indirect evidences from building damage, etc. These data are held by the GS.
- Potential motion derived from geological & auxiliary data held by the GS.
• The land-cover and land-use data contained within the Copernicus Core Land Theme ‘Urban Atlas’.
The interpretation of each Ground Stability polygon is assigned a measure of confidence within the polygon attributes and GHD. This measure of confidence is on a simple three-level scale of Low, Medium High or External depending on the number of datasets used in the interpretation and the confidence that the geologist feels is appropriate.
To provide reassurance to the user as to the accuracy and reliability of the PanGeo service and its products a quality assurance document is created as part of the project to ensure that the products and service are consistently fit for purpose. Each GSL is validated using an automated procedure to ensure compliance and a manual “conformancy filter”, completed by BGS, is applied to each dataset prior to being made available on the portal to confirm that all products meet the specification as set out in the product specification document. All products are made available using the online provision described in Section 3.3.5.
The issue of blight for towns processed as part of PanGeo that have areas identified with either observed or potential geohazard was raised early on in the project by many partners and end users. There are many definitions of the word ‘blight’ but in the case of PanGeo, the term means to potentially damage the value of property by publicly exposing the proximal existence of a geohazard. A technical Memorandum was written by BGS describing their experience of blight within their GeoSure dataset and their considerations as to “What is in the public’s best interest?”. It was agreed that within PanGeo the best approach-methodology was to be entirely transparent about what has been done, how it has been done, the data used, and for what and how the product should be used. We do not have to be right every time, but it was decided that we do need to be able to demonstrate that we have provided a reliable interpretation of the hazard given the information available at the time. This was integrated into the PanGeo service design and can be shown by the meticulous product validation and recording that is undergone by each town.
3.3.2 Consistent approach and methodology
PanGeo provides an online geohazard service to any user with products that have been carefully thought out, documented and completed in line with the detailed service Production Manual.
The PSI data methodology and integration with geological information has been described by the Consorci Institut de Geomatica and the validation results have been documented. The document incorporates findings from the Terrafirma Validation Project and describes other validation activities undertaken by the PanGeo PSIPs. The main objective was to provide the Geological Survey with a concise and complete summary of PSI validation results and to describe some of the technical issues related to the PanGeo PSI product specification.
Each product is validated via a two stage process: The first stage is completed automatically to ensure that the delivered products follow the PanGeo requirements in terms of compliance with INSPIRE and that there are no digital errors (e.g. attribute, polygon checks, projection etc.) in the data. The second is performed manually by the British Geological Survey to ensure that each geological interpretation is sensible and provides the required information and that the overall format of the document is correct, it does not verify the experienced geological interpretation of the individual GS. All products are INSPIRE compliant, a feature that is becoming increasingly important to the GS for onwards integration of data into their existing systems. It is only once these checks have been passed that the GSL will appear on the portal. It should be noted that the PanGeo products are constructed from a range of input data that has been interpreted by one of the 27 EU geological surveys. The absolute accuracy of a given GSL for a given town therefore varies depending on the quality of the input data and the level of interpretation. However, it has been possible to consider the quality and accuracy of the inputs to the service, and also the design and specification of the service to provide an assessment of its quality.
A PanGeo Quality Assurance document is provided for each town and aims to provide reassurance to the user as to the, accuracy and reliability of the PanGeo service and its products. In this document, the term ‘quality’ is used to denote both accuracy and reliability. Accuracy is defined as ‘nearness to the truth’, and reliability as ‘consistency of being fit for purpose’.
3.3.3 Urban Atlas
The Urban Atlas is an operational activity offering highly detailed urban land use maps at a scale of 1:10,000. Originally this was undertaken for 305 of the most populated towns in Europe (EU 27), but this was expanded in 2013 to total 699 towns across Europe. The activity is a European-wide effort funded by European Commission as a local component of the Copernicus Land Monitoring initiative.
The main goals of Urban Atlas are helping urban planners to better assess risks and opportunities, ranging from threat of flooding and impact of climate change, to identifying new infrastructure and public transport needs. The Urban Atlas can also provide a pan-European classification of city zones, allowing for easy comparison of information on density of residential areas, commercial and industrial zones, extent of green areas, exposure to flood risks and monitoring of urban sprawl which is important for public transport planning in suburban areas. The Urban Atlas offers those in land management (Urban administrations, policy makers, environmentalists, and other public stakeholders) the opportunity to build additional detail on top of these maps in order to monitor the status of urban development and trends, indicating, for instance, average distance to services, sizes of green areas and their environmental status, assess adequate response to rising percentages of sealed areas, support flood prevention due to increased surface run-off, etc. In terms of PanGeo, Urban Atlas provides a consistent source of land cover information that can be input into the GSL polygon statistics.
3.3.4 Statistical Analysis
PanGeo has used the Urban Atlas information to highlight areas of land use cover, combined with population datasets based on the EEA’s population estimates, which are potentially affected by geohazards. Detailed statistical work has been completed within a Statistical Working Group, set up as a subset of the SDVP, to examine the methodology and allow further value to be extracted from the GSL. Statistics are calculated at:
• Overall – summary statistics provide an overview of 50 towns (the 2 towns - Kosice and Presov that were not available at end March 2014 are not included) with the total area and population affected in all towns.
• Town – amalgamation of all data for any one individual town with total area of hazards and total population affected
• Polygon – for each individual polygon area, population and landuse affected by a particular hazard is extracted.
The statistical information is available as a web-link on request but is not currently publically available on the website.
3.3.5 The PanGeo Service Provision
The PanGeo service has been designed with the original project aims, user requirements and technical requirements in mind and has produced a multi-faceted procedure to provide geohazard information for 52 towns within Europe. Figure 3 shows a simplified version of the service provision mechanisms.
Figure 3 – Simplified service mechanics diagram (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The process starts with the identification of a town that wishes to increase their knowledge of local geohazards and create a PanGeo product. The 52 towns within the project were originally identified with input from the local Geological Surveys knowledge and experience but they were also required to be part of the Urban Atlas portfolio and have a population greater than 100,000. As the project progressed additional towns were encouraged to participate via discussions with the GS or project coordinator or via the “PanGeo my Town” link on the website.
Once a town has been accepted the input data for the generation of products is collected, these data include PSI terrain motion data, geology and other data e.g. topology, hydrology, as described in section 3.3.1 above. The data are integrated by the individual Geological Surveys using the detailed description in the PanGeo Production Manual and the town GSL and GHD generated. The products are then uploaded by the GS via the mechanism detailed and the products validated using the two stage process, as described in section 3.3.2. Once a town has been validated it is ready to be made available on the PanGeo portal and via Google Earth on the website. Upon enquiry users can retrieve the geohazard information for their specific town of interest via the PanGeo portal, visualization in Google Earth or download the data for use within their own GIS. An important aim of PanGeo is to generate geohazard information that can be easily understood and integrated into any user’s IT system.
The website includes a section for users to request a new town. This is provided using the service described above and in-line with the sustainability targets as set out is section 4.3 to identify potential new towns to expand the overall PanGeo service provision.
3.3.5.1 The PanGeo Website and Portal
The PanGeo website is available at www.pangeoproject.eu and is hosted by NPA Satellite Mapping. The site was graphically designed in accordance with the PanGeo identity with a clear logo and a concise description of the PanGeo service offering. The website is multilingual being available in English, French and German. The “coverage map” section presents the extents of the Pan-European service and displays the individual towns and cities within the service and provides access to the town results visualized in Google Earth or via links to the Portal.
Figure 4 – Website front page and coverage map (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The PanGeo website incorporates the following: General project information and contacts, National geological survey contacts and details, educational and reference material, Feedback forms (including “PanGeo my town” button to attract new towns), a password protected partner only section and document library, a coverage map with links to all town data on portal, visualisation in Google Earth, links to the PanGeo portal, Copyright statements and restrictions as appropriate [a “download” button presents the PanGeo License Agreement], the products are downloadable as KML or shape file and provides access to the Urban Atlas dataset for each of the 52 towns.
The objective of PanGeo, as described in section 2.1 is to “enable free and open access to geohazard information in support of Copernicus”. The datasets have been made available, accessible and useable via the distributed INSPIRE-compliant portal as built and demonstrated by OneGeology Europe (www.onegeology-europe.eu) and via the website Google Earth provision (www.pangeoproject.eu/eng/coverage_map). The portal is available in 26 languages.
The architecture implemented for the PanGeo portal is based on the infrastructure of the OneGeology-Europe project and has been improved to satisfy the PanGeo requirements by BRGM. The main requirements were to follow existing standards (OGC web services) and to be compliant to INSPIRE (view and download services). Three main requirements have been handled: (1) Standards: the layers are implemented according to OGC standard; this allows the PanGeo layers to be used in any OGC WMS compliant software, such as several GIS tools, and portals. (2) INSPIRE: The INSPIRE view service is technically implemented by an OGC WMS 1.3 this specification requires the layers to be implemented accordingly. (3) OneGeology-Europe: the infrastructure and Service-Oriented Architecture implemented by the project OneGeology-Europe (1G-E) has been reused.
The Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach provides a network of web services, allowing each geological survey partner to implement and host their own web services delivering their own data. For the purposes of the PanGeo Portal a central database has not been compiled as the datasets generated by the geological surveys are generally hosted locally on their own servers, however, it should be noted that there are some exceptions where the local GS IT infrastructure was not well enough established to enable them to host the data themselves, these datasets are kindly hosted by the British Geological Survey. The PanGeo portal consumes all the GS web services and provides the interface for user access to the datasets. Figure 5 shows the current version of the PanGeo portal and the towns available (green pins).
Figure 5 - The PanGeo Portal (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
Towns can be viewed by clicking on the appropriate location or in the list of towns. The GSL for that town and the Urban Atlas land cover data is displayed and can be examined using the ¸ button to obtain the attribute information for each polygon and associated description from the GHD, an example is shown in Figure 6. The portal enables switching on and off of the individual layers and polygons within the GSL with varying transparencies and the ability to overlay the Urban Atlas class information. The data can also be downloaded for future use by an end user. The GSL and Urban Atlas information is presented in the portal in such a way that users can make informed decisions about which land use classes in their towns are affected by ground stability issues.
The display of the GSL on the portal depends on the viewing scale; at the European scale PanGeo towns are highlighted, at the regional scale a graphic showing the number of hazards affecting an area is displayed and at local scale the GSL polygons are displayed according to the geohazard category, the boundary line will distinguish potential and observed hazards. The user can also choose to integrate the GSL with the Urban Atlas; the GSL polygons will highlight those Urban Atlas land cover types affected by hazards.
Figure 6 – Portal example, Toulouse dataset (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
As an additional viewing method and to enable the data to be more widely accessed the project team decided to use the Google Earth visualisation technologies available and to implement, via the web coverage map, a complementary provision of the datasets. Google Earth is a very public and well known method to visualise graphical data and was considered appropriate for viewing the GSL linked to the relevant GHD for each polygon. Within Google Earth geohazard information can be simply viewed and overlaid on high resolution optical earth observation datasets where available, thus providing the average user with a comprehensive background view. As with the portal, all polygon attribute data can be viewed by clicking on a polygon and the GHD information is linked to each polygon. The data can also be viewed in 3D.
Figure 7 – GSL visualisation in Google Earth, London (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
3.4 LOCAL AUTHORITY FEEDBACK GROUP
During the course of the project a Local Authority Feedback Group was established comprising six end users from different countries within the EU, this was led by partner SIRS. A selection of questionnaires and face-to-face interviews held at the LA’s premises were undertaken to obtain the view point of the recognised prime end users, to establish their requirements for geohazard information and finally at the end of the project to obtain feedback on the service for their town. The members of the group included:
• Toulouse (France): Agence d'Urbanisme et d'aménagement du Territoire Toulouse Aire Urbaine (AUAT).
• Ljubljana (Slovenia): Oddelka za zaščito, reševanje in civilno obrambo (Department for Protection, Rescue and Civil Defence, City Administration, Municipality of Ljubljana).
• Faro (Portugal): Servicio de Protecao Civil e Bombeiros, Camara Municipal de Faro (Department of Civil Protection and Fire Fighters, Faro Municipality, Algarve Region).
• Gothenburg (Sweden): Göteborg Stad, Stadsledningskontoret, Byggavdelningen, Göteborg (Department of Local Planning Authority of Gothenburg City).
• Rome (Italy): Dipartimento Pianificazione e Attuazione Urbanistica, Direzione Programmazione e Pianificazione del Territorio, U.O. (Unità Operativa): Pianificazione Urbanistica Generale – P.R.G. Roma Capitale (Department of Planning and Urban Operations, Direction Programming and Territorial Planning, Operational Unit : General Urban Planning- Master Plan).
• Sofia (Bulgaria): Sofia Municipality, Architecture and Urban Spatial Planning Direction, Territorial Planning Directorate.
The feedback collected from the LAFG is discussed in section 4. Partners believe that the incorporation of the end users into the project is extremely important and considerations for any possible future projects should include end users as a partner rather than simply relying on their goodwill to complete the information requested. This would enable end users to integrate PanGeo into their systems and to investigate more fully the cost benefits that PanGeo can bring to their individual authority.
3.5 USER ADVISORY PANEL
The PanGeo User Advisory Panel (UAP) was made up of EuroGeoSurveys (EGS, Chair), the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) and AB Consulting (ABC). Their task in the project was to review the overall work, ensure the project stays on track, and from the users’ perspective guide the development of product and service, particularly in terms of format, content and delivery. Specifically the UAP has provided high-level guidance and advice from the point of view of the geological community and local authorities. Their key role is in the input to service design by review and comment on the documents output from the Service Design & Validation Panel (SDVP).
The UAP has brought a wealth of individual experience to the project in order to assist in steering the progress in the right direction, keeping it in line with user expectations and requirements, whilst also providing a link to key stakeholder networks through EGS (the geological surveys community) and EFG (the professional geologists community). These networks, as well as the broad array of contacts gained through years of experience in the field by ABC, have been successfully utilised to promote the PanGeo project, and its product, to all levels of interested parties – from local and regional authorities to high level policy makers as well as the geoscience community and general public.
Through attendance at numerous events and meetings worldwide the UAP have had access to a wide range of audiences with potential interest in the PanGeo service. These promotion and dissemination activities enabled a broad range of users to be reached and face to face meetings with interested parties have taken place in efforts to increase the number of towns involved in PanGeo and attract users to the portal. These activities have resulted in a number of important new contacts being made during the project and are described in section 4.1.
3.6 PANGEO RESULTS
Section 3.3 above describes the processes by which the geohazard information has been created, integrated and made available via the PanGeo service provision. In this section we go on to describe some of the successes of PanGeo and the results that have been generated throughout the project period.
At the end of the PanGeo project 52/52 towns have been submitted for validation, at the end of March 2014 fifty towns had been accepted for delivery onto the portal and 2 are still awaiting validation. As of the end of April 2014 all 52 towns have been validated and are live in Google Earth. 45 are available via the Portal. This represents 100% of the original service delivery, which given that 27 different geological surveys have been involved this is considered an excellent achievement. Figure 2 shows the location of all the available towns on the web service where the results can be examined in detail via the portal or visualised in Google Earth or downloaded and incorporated into a user’s GIS.
Examples have been gathered from the GSL and GHD outputs that identify the most relevant type of geohazard for each town; Table 2 shows a list of the towns. This list gives geological surveys the opportunity to liaise with other towns that display similar geohazard types and to increase their knowledge and use of the PanGeo products in similar circumstances. It is also useful for dissemination activities to identify good examples for promotion to new towns or cities.
Geohazard type Towns
Mining Ostrava, Prague, Stoke, Miskolc, Liege, Sofia
Underground construction London, Rome
Made ground Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Amsterdam
Ground water abstraction Murcia, Brussels
Shrink swell clay Cluj-Napoca, Luxembourg
Compressible ground Rome, London, Luxembourg, Warsaw, Gothenburg
Volcanic uplift Rome
Landslides Salzburg, Luxembourg
Earthquakes Lisbon, Faro
Peat oxidation Warsaw
Table 2 – Examples of geohazards by town
Throughout the three year project the Geological Surveys have played a significant role in the implementation of the service, not only in the production of the GSL and GHD products for each town, but also providing feedback on the service and in the engagement of the local end users of the products, in particular the Local Authorities of the towns processed. The GS continue to encourage the use of individual town data and exposure to PSI technologies and integration with their local geology to the end users. Throughout the last year of PanGeo the GS have presented the method by which these technologies and results can complement end user datasets, be integrated in to users GIS systems and helped identify the utility of PanGeo data.
Specific examples where PanGeo has assisted the knowledge of geohazard information to guide the local authority in their decision making have occurred in a number of towns, the following section describes some of the experiences the GS have encountered. Those identified below show some of the most mature examples, but as the data becomes more widely used it is anticipated that the number of instances where the PanGeo data is used within the end users systems will increase.
3.6.1 The Italian experience
The Italian Geological Survey (ISPRA) has provided PanGeo products for the towns of Rome and Palermo. Prior to PanGeo ISPRA had gained experience using PSI data for Rome from a number of projects, including Terrafirma so are one of the more mature users of PSI and EO data within the project. Throughout the project ISPRA have improved their relationship with Roma Capitale and both parties have benefited from the increased co-operation and knowledge transfer on the effects of geohazards within the municipality. A number of articles and presentation have been given on the Italian results which provide detailed explanations of the Rome results.
The analysis of Rome has identified 31 areas of geological hazard, divided between observed and potential geological hazards. The largest polygon corresponds to volcanic uplift of the Latium volcano. The Tiber River and its tributaries, which comprise potentially compressible ground of soft alluvial deposits, display areas of ground motion as a consequence of the natural compaction of unconsolidated sediments combined with anthropogenic factors.
Figure 8 – Screenshots of PanGeo portal, GSL visualised in Google Earth (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
ISPRA undertook meetings with Roma Capitale and gained a valuable insight into the benefits of the PanGeo project, a Utility Report was created which includes:
“Roma Capitale widely use GIS for the management of information concerning the many issues related to territory (urban, geological and environmental data) and use EO data for more specific problems such as illegal building, structural stability and urban flooding. Hazard evaluation is an activity normally carried out in Roma Capitale and particular attention is focused on hydraulic hazard, seismic hazard, landslides and sinkholes susceptibility, gaseous emissions (radon), the presence of unhealthy industries and establishments at risk of major accident. The aim is to assess the risks for urban planning and civil protection purposes. Participation in the PanGeo project and the publication of the results favoured communication with the technical administrators of the city, making them more aware of the hazard. It was an opportunity to establish closer co-operation between Roma Capitale and ISPRA, and homogenize different data coming from various sources. The PanGeo products are easily accessible via the website.
The cost-benefit ratio is favourable compared to the potential that the service offers. The PanGeo service has already been used for various applications: 1) an area where it is planned to build an underground car park has been found to be affected by subsidence, and 2) to determine whether the unstable buildings of the city fall into areas subject to Geohazards.”
In addition, PanGeo has provided ISPRA with the opportunity to expand their knowledge to provide products for the town of Palermo and to build a relationship with the local authority (Comune di Palermo). The use of GIS within the Comune di Palermo is not widely spread across the offices and the urban Planning Service experienced the use of EO data for the first time during the PanGeo project. They found the service to be user-friendly, clear even for non-experts and the files easy to download. They believe that the results have increased their knowledge on the ground movements taking place in the municipal area and it was possible to detect the uplifting of an industrial area not previously known. In addition they believe that through the use of updated satellite data, the Municipality of Palermo could monitor ground movements/instabilities induced by ongoing excavations for the construction of the new subway line (Passante ferroviario).
“The good cooperation that has been developed between ISPRA and Palermo municipality will continue in the future and at least two activities are currently planned: Publication of the results of the project in a national scientific journal (Geologia Tecnica & Ambientale); and the organization of a Meeting on the Urban Geology of Palermo.”
The Italian experience is seen as a flagship example of how PanGeo can assist the relationship between a local authority and local geological survey to provide an integrated geohazard product that is of benefit to both parties.
The above information has been extracted from the following sources: The Geohazard Document for Rome, Comerci et al., 2013, PanGeo. The Geohazard Document for Palermo, Comerci et al., 2013, PanGeo. Utility Reports for Rome and Palermo, PanGeo 2013. II Progetto Europeo PanGeo: monitoraggio dei movimenti del suolo urbanizzato di Roma Capitale mediante dati satellitari PSI. 14a Conferenza Italiana Utenti ESRI, Comerci et al., 2013. La Geologia nelle aree urbane. Palermo: modello per laricerca e nuove applicazioni, Palermo Municipality Conference: Eutizio Vittori and Valerio Comerci, ISPRA, 2013.
3.6.2 The Portuguese experience
The Portuguese Geological Survey (LNEG) has produced PanGeo products for Lisbon and Faro. The reasons for selection were: Lisbon in order to measure potential natural risks in the most populated city of Portugal and Faro in order to better understand tectonic activity and subsidence in this area of the country.
The Lisbon region is particularly sensitive to seismic and landslide hazards as a consequence of the geological and tectonic framework of the area. It is a densely populated and industrialized zone that undergoes numerous and diverse human interventions, it is also subject to other hazards resulting from the interaction of natural and artificial processes such as subsidence caused either by overexploitation of aquifers, or by underground constructions, or else by ground dissolution due to underground constructions over the local flow of groundwater. The GSL identifies the types of geohazard interpreted and the individual polygons are linked to a geohazard description as provided by the Portuguese geological survey (LNEG).
The Faro region is particularly sensitive to seismic, rock fall and ground dissolution hazards as a consequence of the geological and seismotectonic framework. The details of the area are described in the Faro GHD document and some excellent examples of ground dissolution hazards are shown and linked to the Faro GSL, Figure 9 shows extracts from the GHD and includes some field photographs from the area.
Figure 9 – Example of ground dissolution, Faro, extracted from Faro GHD (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The Local Authority for Faro was a member of the LAFG and feedback on the service was obtained from Serviço de Proteção Civil e Bombeiros, Câmara Municipal de Faro. It was also gathered from meetings held between LNEG and the local authorities, organised by LNEG and Altamira, in both Lisbon and in the Algarve; The Olhão Municipality (Olhão, Departamento de Planejamento urbano) and the Faro Municipality (Faro, Divisão de Gestão Urbanistica).
PanGeo has enabled the technology of PSI to be introduced into the local authorities and has improved communication between the LAs and LNEG. There is potential interest in the uptake of PSI for future projects where ground motion is considered to be an issue.
The above information has been extracted from the following sources: The Geohazard Document for Lisbon, Cunha.T 2013, PanGeo. The Geohazard Document for Faro, Cunha.T 2013, PanGeo. Utility Reports for Faro and Olhão region, PanGeo 2013. LNEG and Altamira dissemination event, 19th Nov 2013, Lisbon.
3.6.3 The Dutch experience
In The Netherlands the total cost related to subsidence and soft soil conditions have been estimated at 3.5 billion Euros per year (TNO 2006). The law on security regions (wet veligheidsregio’s) defines the regions that have responsibility for dealing with risks and disasters. This responsibility includes the risk assessment of fires, disasters and crises, including flood risk. The law on spatial planning obliges provinces to develop “structural visions” of their region, including long term developments, including the subsurface dimension. The national government is currently developing a specific “Structural Vision of the Subsurface” allowing for better spatial planning in the subsurface dimension. This includes a framework for identification and mitigation (including monitoring) of hazards and risk of subsurface activities.
Rotterdam case study - Large parts of the western Netherlands lies below sea level and is reclaimed land. The Rotterdam area has a strong influence of rivers, sandy channel deposits and has one of the largest artificial harbors in the world which is still expanding. Widespread subsidence in the west Netherlands is caused by a range of factors including: loading soft sediment, ground water management (compaction and peat oxidation), oil and gas production and compaction of made ground. The identification of geohazards and the creation of the GSL for Rotterdam were performed by TNO through combined interpretation of geological, land use and other geospatial layers available at GSN-TNO, including the 3D model GeoTOP and existing models of predicted subsidence, together with satellite Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) ground motion. The PanGeo GSL identifies eight geohazard polygons over Rotterdam, consisting of ~1430 km2 of observed and potential geohazards and Figure 9 shows the overall GSL for Rotterdam and the Urban Atlas land cover for the same area.
Figure 10 – Rotterdam Ground Stability Layer and Urban Atlas land coverage (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
The GS concluded that the PanGeo workflow, combining satellite observation of ground movement with existing geological information provides a powerful method for identifying ground stability hazards. However, it recognises that satellite observations may be difficult to interpret by itself because of the complex geological conditions, multiple processes affecting subsidence and particularities of the observation method. TNO believe the PanGeo products provide general “entry level” information on geohazards but are useful to point advanced users to the existence (or inexistence!) of more specialized products or expertise. (PanGeo-ing Rotterdam - a case study, Paul Bogaard et al, presentation at European Space Solutions Workshop, Munich 2013).
The above information has been extracted from: The Geohazard Document for Rotterdam, Tamara van de Ven et al, TNO, August 2013. PanGeo-ing Rotterdam - a case study, Paul Bogaard et al, presentation at European Space Solutions Workshop, Munich 2013. PanGeo D10.1: Market and Sustainability Analysis, Jan 2014.
3.6.4 Town products and feedback
Summarised above in sections 3.6.1 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 is a description of the experiences from only three of the 27 countries that have participated in the project. Feedback, presentations and articles have been made by a number of other geological surveys including: BGS (UK), PGI (Poland), GEUS (Denmark), BGR (Germany), EKBBA (Greece) and Latvia. I would urge the reader of this final report to access the GSL and GHD products for the other towns processed as there is a huge wealth of information and expertise that has been delivered by the geological surveys.
Feedback on the service has been gained by direct interaction with the LAs via two methods: the LAFG and via GS/LA meetings. Table 3 shows those towns for which feedback has successfully been obtained and in many cases value statements collected.
Country City Feedback type Organiser
Italy Rome LAFG member SIRS
France Toulouse LAFG member SIRS
Bulgaria Sofia LAFG member SIRS
Portugal Faro LAFG member SIRS
Slovenia Ljubljana LAFG member SIRS
Sweden Goteborg LAFG member SIRS
Poland Warsaw 30th August 2013 and PGI and Altamira
Portugal Lisbon and Faro Workshop 18th November 2013 LNEG and Altamira
Greece Larissa 18th December 2013, open workshop planned for 15th January 2014 for Municipality of Kileler. EKBAA/IGME
Italy Palermo Response 31st October 2013 and presentation in Palermo 20th December ISPRA and TRE
Denmark Aalborg and Copenhagen, Danish Coastal Authority Workshop 9th October 2013 GEUS and Altamira,
Germany Berlin BGR and SenStadtUm
Table 3 – List of towns for which feedback on PanGeo service has been obtained
It should be noted that the GS did not have budget to set up or attend LA meetings within the original document of work and their contributions have been additional to the work expected. It is a testament to those geological surveys who have contributed additional effort to further promote their work and the PanGeo project and they have enhanced and built upon relationships with their local authorities for future benefit to all parties. However, feedback from the GS has shown that communication with the LA has proved to be a large workload and should be considered in more detail for any further projects.
3.6.5 Benefits of PanGeo
PanGeo has specifically concentrated on the Local Authorities and the Geological Surveys as they have been the key partners in the projects and have provided substantial feedback on the service and the current market requirements. Each market has been analysed based on information obtained from: relevant local, national and regional policies; feedback obtained from the LAs on individual towns processed; feedback from the GS; information obtained at local workshops, conferences and face to face meetings; and research compiled by project partners for identified commercial markets.
The benefits to any client, GS or PSIP for continuing to deliver and use products within PanGeo are identified below, this is not a full list but will continue to change and expand as the service develops. The list has been generated from feedback from the different segments of the service delivery chain. The benefits have been used to underpin the continuing marketing of PanGeo post March 2014.
3.6.5.1 PSIPs
The PSI Providers will benefit from:
• Increased uptake of InSAR products through increased awareness of the product and its benefits and the capabilities and limitations of InSAR
• Formation and strengthening of links with the GS
• Formation of links with LAs
• Improved knowledge of potential user needs and contact with new markets
• Potential to unlock new, previously unconsidered InSAR applications
3.6.5.2 Geological Surveys
A questionnaire was sent to all the GS asking them to comment on the overall project experience and the production of the PanGeo products. Focus was placed on the following: how well specified the product was, material produced to help the product creation; such as training courses and the production manual. Feedback was also sought on the products, how useful they perceived them to be and who they thought the main users might be. Feedback was received from the following surveys: Netherlands, Ireland, Greece, Poland, Austria, Germany, Romania, Latvia, Italy and Hungary. The British Geological Survey did not respond since they were so involved with the product design. A list of the benefits extracted from the questionnaire is:
• Improved understanding of the InSAR methods and applications by providing the resource to understand the InSAR data.
• Access to InSAR data for two towns in their country for free, which would otherwise cost approximately 40,000 Euros.
• Knowledge of how EO data can provide additional information on urban geohazards
• Provided with an excellent production manual to facilitate PanGeo product generation
• Generation of INSPIRE compliant products which can be included within other projects
• Improved links with PSIPs
• Improved links with LAs via promotion of the PanGeo products for individual towns.
• PanGeo builds on experience gained via the One Geology project, bringing a harmonised approach across the surveys.
• PanGeo has brought together all 27 Geological Surveys, via online communication and more importantly training courses, which has enabled a further networking opportunity, thereby strengthening the links between European Surveys. This will lead to further opportunities in Horizon 2020 for exciting EO and geohazard research to be funded.
3.6.5.3 End users
The end users who have provided feedback have, in general, found the PanGeo service fit for purpose and have been interested in examining the results via the web services. The majority of feedback has been gathered from the LAFG meetings and the individual LA/GS meetings held.
Five out of the six LAs within the LAFG have completed their questionnaire. Out of the five LAs that have responded, most do see a strong interest in the information provided by the PanGeo services, but they have yet to see the real benefit for their daily operations and in general, would not be prepared to fund further deployment of PanGeo services in its actual configuration. The City of Rome was much more involved than the others, but they also share this overall conclusion indicating that further testing and comparison with other method of obtaining similar information would need to be conducted. LAs also provided useful technical feedback in terms of the overall architecture and look and feel of the PanGeo portal.
The feedback obtained via the “Utility Reports” has been limited, with feedback received from 9 towns: Warsaw, Palermo, Rome, Lisbon, Faro, Larissa, Aalborg, Copenhagen and Berlin. The reason for the poor level of feedback can be found in the survey of the Geological Survey team (D7.3) but in summary, the majority of surveys found that the funding supplied to them was not sufficient to carry out the interpretation, produce the products and gain feedback form the relevant authorities. Gaining feedback form the authority’s means, in many cases, establishing a contact within the authority, this can take a great deal of time and effort.
The list below highlights the main benefits from all feedback that have been collated:
• Open and easy access to geohazard information
• Useful tool in spatial urban planning
• Additional tool to assist in urban resilience
• Free access to the first 52 towns and cities
• Products can easily be integrated into users own systems
• Development of productive collaboration between geological surveys and users
• Incorporation with land-cover use and population statistics
• Free public access to PanGeo products resulting in better informed society
• Unique information source
3.6.5.4 General benefits of being part of PanGeo
Although the end user community for PanGeo is broad there are some overarching benefits that are applicable to all sectors:
• Access to combined InSAR and Geological expertise - geology and surface deformation data in isolation do not answer many questions on geohazards. PanGeo expertly and successfully combines information from both to provide geology as an indicator of hazard susceptibility and InSAR as a measure of physical stability. This results in enhanced geohazard information.
• PanGeo has enabled a standardised source of urban geohazard information to be available within Europe via the provision of INSPIRE compliant, consistent and validated products.
• Ease of access to products online, with the first 52 town results being free to end users.
3.6.6 Operational uses and value statements of PanGeo
Positive examples of the operational use of PanGeo data within Italy are described in the final Local Authority Feedback report D2.1 v3 and in summary have included:
• area of construction of underground parking
• monitoring of industrial structures producing dangerous material (area classified at high risk)
• plan for monitoring school buildings.
This highlights the use of PanGeo data within local municipalities for a broad range of uses and shows the possible breadth of operation uses for PanGeo within an LA.
In addition there have been a number of positive statements about the use of PanGeo data by end users, these are outlined below:
“Pangeo was extremely successful in creating awareness about PSI technology and a network of GS positively interacting, sharing expertise and know how. Now each GS is aware of the potentials of InSAR data.” Sweden.
“We think that PanGeo portal is very well organised and have potential to get to many different customers. It could deepen public awareness and assist in the planning of scientific research. “ PGI, Poland
“We think that PanGeo portal is a good idea and can have a possibility to attract many different users. It will deepen public knowledge and popularize InSAR technology.” Centre for Emergency Management and Civil Protection of the city of Legnica, Poland.
“The results obtained are especially interesting in Copenhagen, showing clearly the instable area and pointing the main explanation for the motion.” Coastal Authorites, Denmark.
“InSAR combined with geological information looks to be a good option for municipalities like Tonder Kommune. They are now in charge of existing infrastructure and new construction on huge area and so must conduct the necessary studies to support safe and reliable project. Tonder Kommune looks very interested in PanGeo project results as they can be easily accessible and shared among professional and non-specialists. This kind of initiative is essential for Danish municipalities to discover, analyse and use efficient tools in their new mission”. Tonder Kommune, Denmark.
“Through the Project several subjects, holders of the data, have collaborated and made available their knowledge. The project has also made it possible to standardize the various existing data coming from different sources. The results of the Project have increased our knowledge on the ground movements taking place in the municipal area. It was in fact possible to detect the uplifting of an industrial area not previously known.” Area della Pianificazione del Territorio, Settore Pianificazione Territoriale e Mobilità, Servizio Urbanistica, Comune di Palermo, Italy.
“Participation in the PanGeo project with the publication of the results favored the communication against the technical administrators of the city, making them more aware of the hazard in the territory. It was an opportunity to establish closer co-operation between Roma Capitale and ISPRA, and homogenize different data coming from various sources.” Department of Urban Planning, Roma Capitale, Italy.
“Portal for sure is playing important role in geohazards monitoring and can help in a process of urban planning for these areas. The very strong advantage of the portal is its availability via internet for everyone and the possibility of download of the data in various formats.” Town Office in Wolomin, Departament of Urban Planning, Poland
The service is useful for creating an overview of ground movements. It is currently not a substitute for conventional methods, but it provides valuable additional data and information. Geology and Groundwater Management“ of the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, Berlin, Germany (SenStadtUm).
The uses and value statements above highlight the enthusiasm and high level of acceptance of PanGeo products as being fit for purpose and as a future operational service. The support network between the GS and LA is growing and PanGeo has without doubt progressed the relationships between these parties. It is anticipated that as the increased knowledge and awareness of PanGeo products and the use of PSI within the LA and other users expands the uptake of the service will increase.
Potential Impact:
PanGeo has succeeded, with input from the core partners and the significant effort by the national European Geological Surveys, in making available geohazard information for 52 of the largest towns and cities in Europe and where possible communicating the results with the individual town local authorities.
The potential impact of PanGeo is broad ranging, not only in the European geographical sense but also the service provides urban geohazard information affecting approximately 13% of the total EU population (approx. 65 million people). The ease of access to the results via the web-service enables these people to improve their knowledge and understanding of the geohazards in their local town and apply it to factors that affect them individually, whether that is commercially or personally. The broad range of geohazards that have been identified within PanGeo across the 52 towns will enhance cross collaboration of information between those towns that have similar experiences.
As highlighted in section 3.6.5 the potential impact and benefits PanGeo provides to the end users are the following:
• Unique information source with combined InSAR and geological expertise
• Open and easy access to standardised geohazard information
• Free availability of the first 52 towns and cities
• A useful tool in urban planning where products can be easily ingested into users own systems
• Development of collaboration between GS and users
• Enhancements of land use cover information and statistical analysis relevant to end users at regional and polygon level.
The benefits to the Earth Observation industry are focussed on the PSI providers and the increased uptake of InSAR products through the increased awareness of the benefits, capabilities and limitations of the technique. Throughout the project there has been an increase in uptake of EO data achieved through the generation of new town products. The geological surveys have increased their knowledge of the InSAR techniques, application and integration with geology through the production of individual town products. It is anticipated that with this increased understanding the geological surveys will promote the use and uptake of InSAR within the surveys themselves and their related national service role and also in any commercial activities that a geological survey may undertake. The output of these commercial activities may not produce a PanGeo product available on the PanGeo web service itself, but being part of the PanGeo project will have enabled the survey to increase confidence and application of the techniques and stimulate commercial procurement of InSAR services and thus for a wider public good. In general, PanGeo has also strengthened links between the PSIPs and the GS or LA by stimulating discussions on the town products and their future use within the LA. In addition, PanGeo has identified a potential market for Sentinel-1 radar datasets in the future.
All of the above confirm that PanGeo has and continues to contribute to a better informed society, where people are more aware of local geohazards. It has increased the profile of geohazards and need in the minds of authorities to increase their use of this information to assist them in achieving their local, regional and national policy requirements and will continue to raise the profile of geohazard information in the future.
4.1 DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES
The PanGeo dissemination activities have been varied and extended over a wide audience. Throughout the three year period 113 events, workshops and meetings have been presented to or attended and 111 articles, papers, posters, brochures, videos and press releases written and distributed. The dissemination and promotion activities are summarised below in Table 4 and further detailed in deliverable D9.1 – Promotion and Dissemination and also in sections: A1 - list of scientific (peer reviewed) publications and A2 - list of dissemination activities.
Activity No. in Yr 1 No. in Yr 2 No. in Yr 3 Total
Briefing Note 1 0 0 2
White Paper 0 0 1 1
Project Abstracts 3 2 0 5
Press Releases 12 (at KO) 0 10 22
Articles 2 6 12 20
Publications 0 6 6 12
Brochure 1 0 1 2
Events (confs., exhib) 17 32 30 79
Posters 0 3 8 11
Video 0 0 1 1
Websites on which PanGeo is promoted 4 7 23 34
Workshops 1 1 6 8
Meetings 0 0 26 26
TV and Radio 0 0 1 1
Table 4 – Summary of dissemination activities undertaken during PanGeo
All core partners have contributed to the delivery of the dissemination and promotion activities and in particular EGS has, as leader of the UAP, along with EFG and ABC, taken a leading role in engaging the geological surveys both within and outside Europe to promote the service and highlight the freely available results on the portal.
The most visible method of PanGeo dissemination has been the PanGeo website (www.pangeoproject.eu) which, by its very nature, attracts a wide audience from all possible users. The website has been promoted in all the dissemination activities and throughout the project has been redesigned, updated and improved in line with established user requirements. PanGeo has been present at a large number of scientific and industry focussed events throughout the three year period where the latest brochure has been distributed. Team members have given informative presentations, posters, manned the PanGeo booth and held workshops at key conferences and meetings. A 5 minute PanGeo video describing: what is PanGeo?, how to access the service via the portal and google earth, key results and how to contact the team for more information was produced and shown at events in year 3. An easy to distribute and simple Digital Service Atlas was provided on a data stick which enables those interested to simply access the webpage and to read key documents about PanGeo, this method was agreed to be a better use of resources than providing a printed copy which could quickly become out of date. Figure 11 shows examples of the types of dissemination and high quality of the resources generated.
Figure 11 – Examples of dissemination activities (please refer to final report as delivered in pdf format as attachment)
One of the key dissemination activities were the meetings held between the Geological Surveys and the individual town local authorities. These meetings were set up by the two parties and provided an excellent method of displaying the PanGeo products and promoting the use of the PanGeo website to obtain information on geohazards in the relevant town or city. As described earlier in this report, only a few of these meetings were held due to financial constraints of the GS and also the difficulty in accessing the suitable contact at the LA, but they proved extremely valuable and provided feedback on the service and helped identify the benefits to end users of the PanGeo products.
Throughout the project the dissemination methods used have enabled PanGeo to become a well-known resource available to any user who requires geohazard information, particularly within the geological surveys and a number of local authorities. The PanGeo website will remain available in the short term and a suitable location will be continually discussed as PanGeo develops in the future.
4.2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
4.2.1 Foreground IPR
‘Foreground’ is the intellectual property generated in the project. It belongs to the participant generating it – the ‘Originator’. In PanGeo, three Foreground service products are made, two of which are ‘front-end’ and accessible via the portal for each town (along with the Urban Atlas datasets which are owned by DG-Regio). These products are listed below together with the originator who owns the foreground:
Foreground product Foreground owner Comment
PSI results PSIP Not published by PanGeo
Ground Stability Layer Geological Survey Front-end
Geohazard Description Geological Survey Front-end
Table 5 - PanGeo service products and their ownership
The rights to these products reside with the originating participant. However, by signing the Consortium Agreement, the Originators of these ‘front-end’ products have automatically granted a global license to everyone, forever, giving rights to free and unrestricted access and use (providing various credits are given as specified by the Originator). This means allowing commercial value-adding to use these products for profit, for example, by the insurance or environmental information sectors. This policy will benefit citizens by providing access to the PanGeo results for 52 towns and stimulate processing for new towns. The exception to this is the PSI results, the Foreground of which belongs to the PSIP making them. As an intermediary product used in making the final product, the raw PSI results themselves are not made freely available for commercial use. However, they may be made available for research purposes if required. Any commercial usage of the PSI results will require agreement between the Foreground PSIP owner and the commercial user. Correct processing records must be maintained to prove ownership (e.g. the PSI Provider’s own QA system).
The PanGeo portal has been built by BRGM who therefore own the Foreground to this work. However and upon request, BRGM may grant a royalty-free license and a transfer of source code to all members of the Consortium only so that they can use and maintain this Foreground.
No transfer of ownership of Foreground is foreseen.
4.2.2 Background IPR
The national geological surveys have used their own copyrighted material in the compilation of PanGeo products. This ‘Background’ IPR is not made available as part of the PanGeo service, nor is it used by any other participant. It is not envisaged that any access rights to ‘Background’ will need to be granted to other participants, however, a LA or user may benefit from derived data or information from the ‘Background’.
4.2.3 Publications
All partners have been encouraged to publish information about the project, whether this is formal presentation of papers at scientific fora or magazine articles for general promotion. The project coordinator has been made aware of any publications before execution. In all cases, permission has not been reasonably withheld for Foreground IPR. A list of all publication is available within section A of this report.
4.2.4 Future plans for the use and dissemination of Foreground
As described in section 4.3 core team members are prepared to maintain the PanGeo service in the short term, until further opportunities arise that will enable the PanGeo project to be taken forward either in terms of future web provision, enhancing products and services or expanding the PanGeo portfolio towns. The methods by which this may occur are not restricted and ongoing investigations to new opportunities are being assessed by NPA Satellite Mapping as well as PanGeo partners.
As long as the website remains open, access to the foreground products will be available and any user will have access to the products for the completed towns and cities. Users will be able to visualise or download the GSL and GHD products for their use within the terms of the license agreement in place. NPA Satellite Mapping will continue to promote the use of PanGeo Geohazard information in its routine dissemination activities using the promotion materials generated throughout the project. Discussions with new towns and cities that are interested in becoming part of PanGeo will be addressed when they arise but ongoing promotion of PanGeo is expected to increase the awareness of the project and therefore stimulate uptake and maintain sustainability of PanGeo.
4.3 EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS
There are three key components to ensure the continued exploitation of the project results and service and as such the success of PanGeo in the future, these are described in the following sections.
4.3.1 Continued provision of service
The most important aspect of future service provision is to ensure that the results for the town data is kept available for users to download and have free and unrestricted access of the ‘front-end’ foreground products i.e. the GSL and GHD. In order for this to be maintained it is essential that key partners within the project continue to be engaged and for the products to be kept accessible. The methods by this will occur is set out in deliverables D10.3 – Business plan and D10.1 – Market and Sustainability Analysis. In summary this consists of the commitment of the following:
• PSIPs to provide InSAR results when requested for new towns
• Engagement of the GS to create PanGeo products and to maintain interest and uptake of PanGeo
• Maintenance of the PanGeo validation procedure
• Maintenance of the PanGeo web service both via Google Earth and on the portal
For this to be undertaken MOUs are required between the following: The PSIPs and the PanGeo coordinating body (NPA Satellite Mapping) noting that all PSIP’s have committed to ongoing PSI provision, MoUs are available for Gamma and TRE and there are ongoing negotiations with Altamira; BGS and the PanGeo coordinating body have agreed and signed an MoU; NPA Satellite Mapping have agreed continued provision of the web service until end 2014; and EGS and the PanGeo coordinating body for the provision of Portal via BRGM, awaiting signature expected end April after the next EGS Directors board meeting.
It is anticipated that in the short term future web provision of PanGeo will be maintained using the current infrastructure but the longer term provision could be via an alternative source such as the EGDI programme. A feasibility project EGDI-SCOPE is due to complete at the end of May 2014 with the aim of designing the architecture of the infrastructure and suggesting datasets or data themes to be prioritised. One of the data themes currently identified as a priority area is geohazard and ground stability information as produced by PanGeo and other PSI related projects. Successful implementation of the EGDI may mean that the maintenance of the PanGeo portal and support for metadata and hosting is transferred to an EGDI management organisation in the long term.
4.3.2 Continued publication and dissemination
Continued publication and dissemination of the project results by all partners e.g. events, papers, articles etc. using the promotion materials already available, such as the PanGeo brochure and the digital service atlas, will ensure that PanGeo remains at the forefront of information provision on urban geohazards and thus have a high profile in ongoing programmes. Examples of future promotion and dissemination since the end of the project period (Jan 2014) include:
• Japan Space Systems article in a brochure entitled "Best Practice in Earth Observation Data Utilization". More than 1000-copy of the brochure will be printed and disseminated among Japanese stakeholders including potential users.
• Copernicus Observer Newsletter - a statement of the use of Sentinel-1 data for PanGeo
• Horizon Magazine – input into an article on the Copernicus project, and how it will affect EU citizens
• A paper on the London PanGeo results written by BGS (Cigna. F et al) and submitted to the Pure and Applied Geophysics for review.
• Article in Geotechnica e-magazine “PanGeo a Free Geohazard Information Service for Europe” David Norbury, EFG.
4.3.3 Expand service
The main aim of PanGeo is to expand the service provision in terms of the number of towns within Europe available to users. In order for this to be achieved a successful and continued program of PanGeo promotion and dissemination is vital and the future activities focussed on including the target users within a program of market development. This has been the main focus of project partners’ activities and has been on-going throughout the final stages of the project and will continue post January 2014 at a level required to maintain PanGeo at the forefront of the urban geohazard market and within the means of all partners.
In reality securing “commercial” orders from new towns has not proved as simple or proceeded as quickly as initially hoped and a number of important issues have become apparent as year 3 has progressed with regards to engaging new towns into PanGeo. These include, but are not limited to:
• Immature market for geohazards.
• A change of mind set is required from a reactive to proactive requirement of geohazard information.
• Difficulty engaging the correct contacts within the LAs for each European country.
• LAs cannot access funds to procure new processing
• Future costs of PanGeo products
• New towns may not want to make products freely available via online provision, in particular if they have been commercially funded.
• GS or LAs bypass PanGeo and go directly to the PSIPs for PSI point data requirements. Due to their increased knowledge of PSI processing gained throughout the PanGeo project they feel they have the knowledge and ability to complete this.
• SAR Data availability for future PanGeo towns - one of the main limits is the exploitation of ERS and ENVISAT imagery which are considered by the PSIPs to be too out of date to be used for an updated geohazard catalogue or monitoring service. It is clear that for new towns updated data-stacks are essential, e.g in Northern Italy. With the launch of the Sentinel constellation, it is anticipated that this barrier will be reduced.
However, despite these barriers PanGeo has obtained significant interest for new orders for PanGeo products and these are listed below and detailed in deliverable D10.1 - Market and Sustainability Analysis: Volos (Greece); Igoumenitsa (Greece); Paphos (Cyprus); Glasgow (UK); Granada (Spain) and Velenje (Slovenia). Two Expressions of Interest have been obtained and discussions continue with the other towns and related GS. Terrafirma results continue to be utilised and have been requested in the town of Volos, Greece.
4.4 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PANGEO
The 3 year PanGeo project has been highly product development focussed but the existing product and service should only be considered as a prototype which now requires further development and promotion. User feedback collected to date highlights the need to further evolve the service to provide as much benefit to the target user as possible and to overcome some of the barriers to market entry outlined above. This includes:
• Service development evolution to bring the Local Authorities further into the PanGeo decision making and for them to be part of the operational process. This will improve their knowledge of PSI and thus their confidence in the products and in turn their acceptance of the reliability of the product and increase potential uptake.
• Extended service trialling and testing: Increased showcasing of PanGeo to the LAs would encourage them to integrate PanGeo in their decision making workflows and thus improve the demonstrable cost/benefit which may in the long term mean that LAs can afford to pay. It will also mean that the LAs have more understanding of how the products are made and developed which will increase their trust in the product reliability.
• Provision of a monitoring service: One aspect that may be of interest, in particular to commercial businesses but also to local authorities, would be possible future development of PanGeo to a 'monitoring' product. PanGeo currently supplies geohazard data for a specific moment in time and has been an excellent contribution to the baseline understanding of ground instability in the 52 towns and cities processed. In the future this could evolve to include a 'monitoring service' and an update of individual towns as and when required. This has been requested by some members of the LAFG as geohazards are changing with time and perhaps the greatest value could come in seeing a 'monitoring' product. However, this is not considered within the remit of this project but should be considered when discussing possibilities in the future to make the service more attractive to existing users and expand/open up opportunities with commercial businesses.
• Who pays?: This is a very pertinent question. Throughout PanGeo it has become apparent that, at the moment, the LAs are unable to provide funding for new towns even though they believe that there is a demand and the service provided is useful and relevant. PanGeo was always intended to be a public good service that might also have tangential commercial potential. Within the Business Plan three possible funding sources for Local Authorities (LA’s) to procure further PanGeo products are identified:
- The LA directly funds new processing;
- The LA accesses funding from national, domestic programs;
- NPA / the PanGeo consortium win further contracts from public bodies e.g. ESA, the EC or national programmes.
The first two possible funding sources are from the LAs. It has been established from communications with the LAFG and additional LAs that, at the moment, the LAs are unable to provide any internal funding for PanGeo. In addition, the LAs have had no success in accessing funds from national or domestic programs that are known and available to them. This therefore limits the funding sources to winning further contracts from other funding bodies. Ongoing investigations to identify possible funding sources are examining a number of EU R&D research (including Horizon 2020), ESA, National/regional programmes and also commercial spin-offs.
An additional source of funding could be from the commercial market. From a commercial perspective a broad range of markets (including oil & gas, mining, energy, engineering, environment and insurance) exploit both geological and terrain motion data in various forms. However, the requirement for such information and subsequent utilisation varies greatly. Relevant services are most often designed and implemented on a case-by-case basis, and such bespoke solutions may share themes and/or approaches but their implementation varies by site. The insurance and environmental markets were evaluated within the project and the main barriers to uptake were perceived to be: Requirement for national coverage of data; variable needs to the technical level of information on a geohazard; wish for free data, which is possible for the 52 towns within PanGeo but unlikely for future sustainability plans; up to date information; and the requirement for trusted, tried and tested services and products.
In Summary, a high level plan of action for the next 6-12 months proposed in order to maintain the current level of service within the means of partners will include the following:
• Maintain the PanGeo website
• Maintain the PanGeo validation procedures
• Continue provision of access to the GSL and GHD for 52 towns and cities within PanGeo
• Respond positively and quickly to any “new town” requests received by either the website or individual communication with end users
• Promote PanGeo within routine dissemination activities
• Investigate possible future funding opportunities to further develop the PanGeo service and in particular to integrate end users into the program in order to obtain feedback and further analysis of the benefits PanGeo can provide.
• Maintaining the profile of PanGeo within the EC itself, with focus on non-rush EMS Copernicus service.
With this ongoing commitment it is anticipated that new towns will enter PanGeo and the range of LA or commercial requirements and cost benefits will become apparent. This may include the following issues that will need to be addressed: The threshold of costs within the LAs that are acceptable for their uptake of PanGeo; requirement for achieving a standard for PanGeo; continued training for the users; continued involvement and support from the GS and all partners.
At the end of the 6 month period (Oct 2014) NPA Satellite Mapping will provide the EC with a brief update.
List of Websites:
www.pangeoproject.eu
Contact details:
Project Coordinator - Claire Roberts email: claire.roberts@cgg.com
Project Administrator - Carole Holway email: carole.holway@cgg.com