Review of flood event management Decision Support Systems

FLOODsite is co-funded by the European Community

Sixth Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) FLOODsite is an Integrated Project in the Global Change and Eco-systems Sub-Priority

Start date March 2004, duration 5 Years Document Dissemination Level

PU Public PU

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Review of flood event management

Decision Support Systems

Co-ordinator: Paul Samuels, HR Wallingford, UK

and Management Methodologies

Report Number

T19-07-01

Revision Number 1_4_02

Date

January 2007

D

I

Title Review of flood event management Decision Support Systems

Lead Author Rob Maaten

Contributors

Marc Erlich, Pierre-Antoine Versini, Eric Gaume, Darren Lumbroso, Nathalie Asselman, Aljosja Hooijer, Karin de Bruijn

Distribution Public

Document Reference T19-07-01

D

H

Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes

09/10/06 v1_0_P2 Maaten WL Delft 01/11/06 v1_1_P2 Asselman WL Delft 22/11/06 v1_2_P2 Maaten WL Delft 30/11/06 v1_3_p2 Asselman WL Delft

15/01/07 v1_4_p2 Maaten WL Delft Marnix van der Vat

A

The work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT-2004-505420.

D

This report is a contribution to research generally and third parties should not rely on it in specific applications without first checking its suitability.

In addition to contributions from individual members of the FLOODsite project consortium, various sections of this work may rely on data supplied by or drawn from sources external to the project consortium. Members of the FLOODsite project consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data.

Members of the FLOODsite project consortium will only accept responsibility for the use of material contained in this report in specific projects if they have been engaged to advise upon a specific commission and given the opportunity to express a view on the reliability of the material concerned for the particular application.

S

In situations where there is the threat of flooding, different authorities and institutions need to make decisions concerning the management of the flood event. One of the most decisions to make as part of the flood event management process is whether to carry out an evacuation of the area at risk. This is because evacuation has perhaps by far the most impact on the population. A Decision Support System (DSS) will be use in assessing the merits of a proposed evacuation. It could help the responsible organisations to make decisions on the basis of quantitative information, for example related to the expected characteristics of the flooding, the number of inhabitants threatened by the flood and on the available infrastructure and resources that can be used to evacuate them.

This report addresses the following questions: What are the requirements of a DSS?

What DSSs exist already and might serve as an example for a FLOODsite pilot DSS? What are the lessons identified from the use of existing decision support systems?

The scope of flood event management is wide. However, in view of its high impact, most considerations in this report concentrate on the subject evacuation.

With respect to evacuation management in particular, the DSS should include the following

information:

Flooding pattern and flooding characteristics (water depths, flow velocities, available time between beginning of failure and inundation), for a range of boundary conditions and breach growth locations.

Location, number and vulnerability of people at risk.

Optimal evacuation routes depending on available infrastructure and available time. Vulnerability of area to the hazard e.g. high rise apartments or caravans.

Coordination of event response personnel including optimising safe routes for rescue services where warning time is minimal.

Under the subject existing decision support systems this report contains descriptions of systems developed in:

The United Kingdom:

Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) SurreyAlert

The Netherlands: Planning Kit DSS

Irma-Sponge DSS Large Rivers IVB-DOS

ESCAPE Decision Support System (European Solutions by Cooperation And Planning in Emergencies)

FLIWAS (Flood Information and Warning System)

Calamity Information System Regge & Dinkel (CIS-Regge) France:

ALarme Hydrologique Territoriale Automatisée par Indicateur de Risque (ALHTAÏR) ALPHEE: Economical Assessment of flood damages in the Ile-de-France Region Prévention Anticipation des Crues au moyen des TEchniques Spatiales (PACTES) OSIRIS-inondation

C

Document Information iii

Document History iii

Disclaimer iii

Summary iv

Contents v

1. Introduction...1

2. Requirements of flood event managers to a DSS...3

2.1 General considerations ...3

2.2 Information needs and user requirements...4

3. Review of existing decision support systems ...9

3.1 General remarks ...9

3.2 United Kingdom...9

3.2.1 Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online ...9

3.2.2 Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) ... 13

3.2.3 SurreyAlert ... 16

3.3 The Netherlands ... 19

3.3.1 Planning Kit DSS ... 19

3.3.2 Irma-Sponge DSS Large Rivers... 22

3.3.3 IVB-DOS ... 24

3.3.4 ESCAPE Decision Support System ... 26

3.3.5 FLIWAS ... 28

3.3.6 Calamity Information System Regge & Dinkel (CIS-Regge)... 32

3.4 France... 35

3.4.1 ALHTAÏR (Alarme Hydrologique Territoriale Automatisée par Indicateur de Risque... 35

3.4.2 ALPHEE: Economical Assessment of flood damages in the Ile -de-France Region ... 36

3.4.3 PACTES (Prévention Anticipation des Crues au moyen des TEchniques Spatiales) ... 38

3.4.4 OSIRIS-inondation... 40

3.4.5 Decision Support Systems for other natural hazards... 43

4. Conclusions and recommendations ... 44

5. References ... 49 Tables

-Figures

Figure 3.1 AMS top level “end-to-end” flood incident management level 1 process diagram 10

Figure 3.2 AMS diagram index 11

Figure 3.3 Example of an AMS level 2 diagram 11

Figure 3.4 Example of an AMS level 3 diagram 12

Figure 3.6 MDSF screen showing potential number of people at risk from flooding and their

vulnerability 15

Figure 3.7 Example of a SurreyAlert event log 17

Figure 3.8 Example of the latest news available to the general public via SurreyAlert over the

internet 18

Figure 3.9 Overview of possible measures in the ‘Room for the River’ project, supported by the

Planning Kit (courtesy Silva 2001). 20

Figure 3.10 Visualisation of the measure “The Weir of Pannerden and embankments along the

Lobberdensche Waard” 21

Figure 3.11 The set-up of the DSS Large Rivers. 23

Figure 3.12 Modular setup of the Escape DSS 26

Figure 3.13 Analysis screen of Escape evacuation 27

Figure 3.14 Evacuation planning screen Escape 28

1.

Introduction

The flood event management process consists of large number of components that can broadly be categorised into:

(i) Detection; (ii) Forecasting; (iii) Warning; (iv) Response.

These are briefly described below. (i) Detection

Detection covers the monitoring of the environmental conditions (e.g. rainfall, wave heights, water levels, river flows) that act as a source of flooding.

(ii) Forecasting

Flood forecasting covers the estimation of future flood conditions, in the case of rivers this is usually wave heights. Flood forecasting requires the understanding of meteorological and hydrological conditions. Flood forecasting is often carried out using metrological, hydrological and hydraulic models.

(iii) Warning

Flood warnings are distinct from forecasts, as they are issued when a flood occurs or is imminent. Flood warnings are often issued to a wide range of stakeholders for various purposes including:

To warn the public of the timing and location of a flood event and give them time to take preparatory actions;

To bring operational and emergency teams to a state of readiness;

In extreme cases to give warnings to prepare for evacuation and emergency response. (iv) Response

The response to a flood event is often wide ranging. It will include predefined and practised actions (e.g. distribution of sand bags to vulnerable households). However, there is often a degree of improvisation required to adapt these generic actions to the specific circumstances of the flood event. Evacuation is one of many responses that can be taken to a flood event.

When a flood is forecast different authorities and institutions need to make decisions concerning the management of the flood event. One of the most difficult decisions to make as part of the flood event management process is whether to advise that an area should be evacuated, as this has a significant impact on the population, as well as often being a costly operation.

It has not yet been decided if the DSS envisaged by the original FLOODsite Description Of Works (DOW) of Task 19 has to cover the complete scope of flood event management or whether it will be

limited to evacuation only. Should the DSS only be limited to evacuation there are still choices to be

made, for example does the DSS stop at the decision to evacuate or not to evacuate, or does it also cover the evacuation itself, the return and the debriefing?

This report addresses the following:

What are the requirements for a flood event management DSS? What DSSs already exist in the UK, the Netherlands and France?

What are the lessons that can be identified from the use of existing DSSs? The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 deals with what flood management planners and managers would expect a DSS to offer in terms of information and functionalities;

Chapter 3 describes a number of existing DSS used in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France.

2.

Requirements of flood event managers to a DSS

2.1 General

considerations

According to the original DOW of Task 19, the Decision Support System (DSS) used during flood events should incorporate a series of linked models that starts with meteorological and hydrological forecasts and ends with evacuation planning. Examples of projects that aimed at the development of such modelling systems include the following EU research projects: European Flood Forecasting System (EFFS), European River Flood Occurrence and Total Risk Assessment System (EUROTAS) and Multiple Sensor Precipitation Measurements, Interaction, Calibration and Flood Forecasting (MUSIC). These projects focus on the development of a modelling framework that comprises linked hydrological and hydraulic models that run relatively fast. For instance, in the case of a FEWS (Flood Early Warning System), updates of expected water levels are made every 10 to 15 minutes.

A modelling framework that aims at evacuation planning needs to incorporate the results of hydrological models as well as one or two dimensional flooding inundation models. The latter types of models often have long computational times (e.g. 10 hours or more), which make them less applicable for real time flood event management. In addition the model schematisation have to be adapted during the flood event as a results of changes in the boundary conditions (e.g. water levels) and the location of breaches in flood defences. so that the model schematisation represents the actual conditions. . In a crisis situation, when the user must be sure to have an answer within a limited amount of time concerning the predicted nature of a flood event there is often not time . Hence, probably the best option is to develop a DSS that incorporates the results of ‘pre-run’ or ‘pre-cooked’ model scenarios or best practice procedures.

In broad terms a DSS for flood event management may include:

Results of various inundation scenarios caused by failure of the flood defence system at a number of locations, under different hydraulic loading conditions and with different breach widths.

Knowledge on flood alleviation options e.g. emergency flood storage, temporary flood protection, etc.

Flood hazard at vulnerable locations in real time. Safe access/exit routes.

Co-ordination of all event response personnel.

The exact requirements will depend on the responsibilities of the user. For instance, in the Netherlands the authorities responsible for an evacuation are not the same as those responsible for flood alleviation. In the Netherlands it would not be helpful to combine both tasks in a single DSS. In other countries, however, this combination might be a prerequisite.

In case of evacuation management in particular, the DSS should include the following information: The flooding pattern and flooding characteristics (e.g. water depths, flow velocities, available time between the beginning of the failure of a flood defence and inundation), for a range of boundary conditions and potential breach growth locations.

The location, number and vulnerability of people and the commercial and residential properties at risk.

Optimal evacuation routes depending on available infrastructure and available time that lead to safe areas (e.g. higher grounds or buildings that will not be inundated).

Coordination of event response personnel and the optimisation of safe routes for rescue services where the warning time is minimal.

When the decision maker receives a warning, they should be able to question the DSS to find out which people should be evacuated and what routes should be taken. This answer should be available within a minute or two.

2.2 Information needs and user requirements

The introduction of this report poses the question as to whether the DSS should be limited to evacuation or should cover the complete scope of flood event management. Pending a decision on this, the current chapter will be on evacuation only.

A good basis for a systematic overview of information needs and user requirements is the (draft) Floodsite report of Christiaan Logtmeier of July 2006 on user requirements in flood evacuation

management [Ref. 1] . "Users" are the authorities and institutions that have to manage a flood event.

The report splits the evacuation process into nine stages: Organisation of the planning

Designing the plan Pre-flood awareness Flood emergency stage

Assessment of evacuation options Evacuation

Emergency shelter Return

Debriefing

Most important for a DSS on evacuation are the following items of each stage: the information needed and the user requirements. They are described as follows.

Information needed

This is the information required in order to meet the objective of the stage in question. It represents a piece of knowledge that needs to be available in order to make a decision in the evacuation process that is based on sufficient information.

User requirements

This refers to functionality that serves to deliver certain knowledge to the end users. This functionality can have many forms. User requirements comprise a type of analysis or a source of information that can support the decision making process. This may range from providing data and performing network analysis to performing flood simulations.

The distinction between information and functionality in the Logtmeier report is sometimes rather vague and not always relevant for a DSS. Therefore in the following summary of requirements for a DSS no distinction between the two is made. For each stage of an evacuation process the requirements on information and functionality are as follows.

Organisation of the planning

Stakeholder involvement is important in this stage, as it is their local knowledge and expertise that can be vital for the successful planning of emergencies and evacuations. They have their own perception

on risks and know to a certain extent how under the given situation they can guarantee or adapt their

business continuity.

The institutional context determines not only roles and responsibilities of several actors, it also defines how to act in trans-boundary events (e.g. this includes local, regional and national boundaries). This is important since it defines to what extent events are dealt with and at what level. The guiding principle is usually that events are dealt with at the lowest suitable level of governance, and that higher levels of governance are only taken into account in case of trans-boundary effects.

Each actor works within a legal and institutional framework that defines who is responsible for what. This framework will be different in individual countries.

An overview should be gained of what kind, how much and what quality of data is available to support the decision making process. If the amount and quality of the required data is not enough then, before any planning can take place, data needs to be gathered and to be assembled.

The user requirements are summarised as follows:

The identification of the planning and evacuation process.

An assessment of possible evacuation planning zones and identification of elements at risk including people and properties.

An assessment as to whether the available data is sufficient and of good enough quality to be used in decision making.

Designing the plan

An assessment of the available resources needs to be carried out. This assessment is required to ascertain the critical thresholds in the response organisations. A limited amount of available evacuation transport means, means that there may be a need for cooperation with other districts. Such an assessment helps to define the threshold above which additional resources and help from elsewhere may be needed in case of emergency.

Flooding scenarios are important as they define the state of the system during and after an emergency.

The flooding scenario is the only parameter that determines the emergency planning zone (EPZ). The EPZ is defined as the areas for which an emergency response needs to be organized and which may need to be evacuated.

There is a need for forward planning and carrying out a risk assessment. The available that are required for an evacuation would be assessed and these would be compared with the amount of resources available. The objectives of carrying out this planning activity would be as follows::

To understand at what point the situation becomes critical and external help is deemed to be necessary.

To understand what tasks and activities need to be carried out and how these should be prioritised under different circumstances.

The following information is deemed to be necessary in this stage.

Data on people to evacuate and the resources available. These data should be available within a GIS and should include:

Location of inhabitants that cannot evacuate themselves, such as nursing houses, hospitals and schools.

Location, extent and capacity of safe areas Lay out and the capacity of the road network

Knowledge of the potential flooding pattern, as characterised by the timing of flood, flooding depth and flow velocity for different scenarios. This information should be available in the form of animations, maps or graphs which show water depth and flow velocity as a function of time. In case of flooding caused by failure of flood defences, an estimate has to be made of the most likely breach location(s). Since it is not possible to predict the exact location of the breach, enough scenarios should be assessed in advance to provide an overall picture of potential flooding patterns.

The time required for evacuation. This information would be compiled in advance for the different flooding scenarios using an evacuation model.

The possible number of casualties for different flooding scenarios. Pre-flood awareness

Arrangements should be made for delivery of an evacuation message containing the main evacuation routes, description of shelter places, and prescription on how to behave during an evacuation to the inhabitants that are potentially affected. This message should be differentiated according to the situation of the inhabitants regarding risk, evacuation routes, safe areas and shelter place.

Awareness and preparedness of staff of the involved authorities and services can be increased and

maintained by regular exercises. An important role of these services is to emphasize the coordination among different organizations with different roles. Therefore, exercises should be held at different levels, ranging from the practical implementation of traffic control to the strategic consultations between the highest representatives of the organisation. To implement higher level exercises flooding and evacuation scenarios are required as input.

Flood emergency stage

An assessment of the elements at risk helps to determine what areas need to be evacuated. It also allows a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of evacuation to be made.

An estimate of the risk, either in terms of the number of properties flood, roads or people affected, helps to determine what areas are safe enough for emergency and rescue services to operate in. A flood event can reach a point at which communities can become isolated and it will be difficult to maintain a certain level of service or guarantee a certain quality of life in those areas. In some cases these areas may also need to be evacuated.

An assessment could be made of the merits of an evacuation, such as the number of injuries prevented and lives saved. The risks people are exposed to during an evacuation need to be weighted against the risks people are exposed to staying in the shelter, and the costs associated with providing transport, shelter and food. Expression of this as cost and benefits, if possible at all (e.g. loss of lives), will probably not be done in view of its political aspects. A politician will not explicitly accept loss of lives to save money.

In this stage information is needed on:

The likelihood of the occurrence of a flooding event; The possible size and extent of the event;

The elements at risk both due to direct contact with water as well as due to indirect contact with water;

The possibility to evacuate as determined by the current and future state of the road network and by the time left for evacuation.

The ultimate goal is to make an informed decision on the need for evacuation and the associated risks. To achieve this an analysis of several factors needs to be carried out, which should provide the decision maker with a better idea of the advantages and disadvantages of evacuation as an option. Assessment of evacuation options

To assess evacuation options information is needed on many aspects. It is important to know how the

risk develops during a possible evacuation.

An important resource in an evacuation is the road network. The road network needs to be managed in order to have it functioning in an optimal way. For this it is important to assess who will use the

network at what time and how much of the network is still available as the event develops. The

availability of the network determines what areas can and cannot be reached. This information is necessary for civil protection authorities since it allows them to assess the amount of risk to which the rescue services will possibly be exposed during their operations. Not only is it necessary to have a "snapshot" of the networks availability, also the development of availability in the coming hours or days is deemed to be an important asset as it not only determines who and what can be evacuated, it also provides input in the planning of rescues services.

If flooding pattern and stage of the road network differs significantly from the "pre-cooked" scenarios, it might be necessary to carry out new estimates with the evacuation model for the actual situation. Due to the required calculation time and the complexity, it is hardly feasible to calculate new flooding patterns. However, a traffic model for the road network might be flexible enough to make simulations that are adapted to the actual or expected situation.

Evacuation

Information is needed on who to warn and with what message. Given the delineation of the emergency planning zone a list of household addresses can be prepared containing the exact households which are supposed to be evacuated. The following step is to prepare a list with key information on the evacuation. A selection of this information should be communicated to the public.

The subsequent steps concern:

A list of addresses that need to be reached.

A message to the public containing: collecting points, routes and shelters. Instructions for how to behave during an evacuation for the public.

Registration system for determining the end of evacuation (who is evacuated and who is not). Detailed information about the amount of people to be transported, their locations within the emergency planning zone and their destination needs to be disseminated to the proper authorities. A proper traffic management needs to become operational on the basis of the evacuation plan. Other items that need attention are:

The evacuation of livestock.

Partial evacuation of children and elderly people, while others would look after houses and carry out flood fighting duties (e.g. on dikes that seem close to failure).

Emergency shelter

An inventory should be available of large buildings that provide enough basic facilities to shelter to evacuated amount of people for a certain period of time. In addition an inventory needs to be made of nearby suppliers of necessary material for sheltering people (e.g. beds, linen, sanitary equipment, food, drinks).

Return

What are the risks in the emergency planning zone the evacuees return? A continuous assessment of risk in the emergency planning zone is needed in order to know at what time the area is safe enough to return to.

Particular attention should be given to:

Clean-up activities (e.g. dangerous materials, dead animals, infected water). Disinfection.

Debriefing

3.

Review of existing decision support systems

3.1 General

remarks

The aim of Task 19 is to develop a DSS that can help the responsible organisations in taking decisions related to flood incident and emergency management during floods. The DSS will focus in particular on evacuation and rescue. This review describes the existing DSSs for flood event management. However, several DSSs used for long-term flood risk management are described as well. The reason for this is that some valuable lessons can be learned from them that are of help in deciding on the functionalities and architecture of the DSS for flood event management.

In principle the description of each DSS contains the following aspects: short description,

architecture, functionality, data requirements, application of the decision support system, current end users, and flood events in which the decision support system has been used. However, for some DSSs

there was not sufficient information to describe each of these aspects.

3.2 United

Kingdom

3.2.1 Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online

The Environment Agency has recently introduced a system for flood incident management on its internal intranet known as the Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online. The AMS forms the basis of a decision support framework for flood incident management within the Environment Agency. It contains a structured set of process diagrams and documents on flood incident management.

Architecture

The AMS comprises the following components:

A series of diagrams showing the “end-to-end” flood incident management process in the form of a series of nested diagrams.

A series of documents and procedures relevant to the flood incident management process covering:

Guidance. Policy. Procedure.

An overview of the flood incident management process. Definitions of roles and responsibilities.

Work instructions.

Other supporting documents.

Processes and activities related to flood incident management.

Departments within the Environment Agency and their roles in the flood incident management

process.

The AMS has a series of nested process diagrams that define the Environment Agency’s flood incident management process from end-to-end: from detection, forecasting, warning through to response and

delivery. The top level (i.e. level 1) diagram is shown in Figure 3.1. The AMS process diagrams have

AMS – Level 1 process diagrams

Detection and forecasting - Development Detection and forecasting incident management Flood warning and response

Warning and response - Development AMS – Level 2 process diagrams

Communicate. Gather data.

Inform and liaise with interested parties. Make a warning decision.

Manage information, resources and equipment. Manage warning dissemination and review. Manage.

Predict.

Prepare (carry out routine activities) – Detection and forecasting. Prepare (carry out routine activities) – Warning and response. Produce internal reports.

Respond. Summarise.

AMS – Level 3 process diagrams Deal with enquiries.

Issue a warning.

Liaise with professional partners. Maintain flooding information. AMS – Level 4 process diagrams

Field recording and reporting.

Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 show examples of the Level 2 and Level 3 diagrams for various parts of the flood incident management process. It should be noted that the AMS is still in the process of development and it is expected that the lower level diagrams will be expanded and revised.

Figure 3.2 AMS diagram index

Figure 3.4 Example of an AMS level 3 diagram

Functionality

There are three main functions of the Environment Agency’s AMS. These are as follows: (i) To bring together documents and procedures related to flood incident management (ii) To link together the processes and activities related to flood incident management

(iii) To provide details of the roles and responsibilities of the Environment Agency with respect to flood incident management

These functions are discussed below.

Documents and procedures

The AMS contains links to some 75 documents. These cover guidance, procedures and work instructions that are relevant to flood incident management. The guidance covers topics ranging from the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to flood warning procedures and processes. The procedures cover many aspects of the Environment Agency National Flood Forecasting System (NFFS).

Processes and activities related to flood incident management

For each process and activity related to flood incident management there is a link to a relevant document, these cover process steps such as:

Make decision to issue a warning.

Make initial assessment of likely incident duration and size. Make operational decisions.

Prioritise forecast requirement. Prioritise response.

Procedures review/update. Provide information for media.

Links to relevant Environment Agency departments in flood incident management

The AMS provides a link to relevant Environment Agency departments that are related to flood incident management. This provides details of their roles and functions.

Data requirements

The AMS requires the following:

Representation of the flood incident management process in the form of a series of nested diagrams.

Environment Agency document and procedures related to flood incident management. The roles of the various departments within the Environment Agency.

Application of decision support system

The AMS is not a decision support system as such. The AMS is a management system and is used to define the roles and processes involved in flood incident management

Current end users

The AMS is currently used solely by the Environment Agency in England and Wales to help to define the process and procedures used for flood incident management.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been used

The AMS is not used for specific flood incidents. It is used to define the framework for flood incident management that the Environment Agency works within.

3.2.2 Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF)

The Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) is used by the Environment Agency for long-term planning of flood risk. However, in the future the MDSF may be used for pre-flood incident management planning. The MDSF is a tool that can assist in the development of Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs), Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs), strategies and other flood risk management studies. The focus of the MDSF is on the assessment of the flood risk in terms of direct economic damages and social impacts of flood and coastal management policy options under current and future climates. However, in future the Environment Agency may modify the MDSF to estimate the flood risk for “pre-run” flood incidents in order for them to improve their response to floods.

Architecture

Functionality

The MDSF provides a decision support framework to facilitate common approaches and tools and deliver efficiency gains with respect to planning and flood response. The system allows for scenarios to be run through the system, providing an indication of flood damage for various scenarios. Flood damage is estimated as economic damage to both properties and agricultural land and as the number of people potentially at risk from flooding. Typical screen shots of the MDSF are shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.6.

Figure 3.6 MDSF screen showing potential number of people at risk from flooding and their vulnerability

Data requirements

The MDSF requires the following data:

Geo-referenced property database detailing the following:

- Type of property, some 50 different types of property are available; - Ground floor area of the property;

- Threshold level of the property (i.e. the level at which the property starts to flood); Floodwater depth versus economic damage curves for the different properties;

Floodwater depths for a number of design flood scenarios; Agricultural land classification;

Floodwater depth versus economic damage curves for the different types of agricultural land classes

Geo-referenced population data;

Socio-economic data (e.g. age of population, wealth, car ownership, employment) to establish the social vulnerability of the population;

Digital terrain model.

Application of decision support system

In the future the MDSF could easily be used to assist with pre-flood incident management planning by identifying the following for a number of pre-run scenarios:

Evacuation times for population centres. This would be calculated using an evacuation model or procedure and incorporated as a layer in the MDSF.

Provide an estimate of the coping capacity for areas during a major flood incident.

Provide an indication of the probability of infrastructure relevant to flood incident management (e.g. police stations, incident management centres, transport network) being inundated during a flood event.

A review of flood incident management in the UK has indicated that the emergency response organisations require the following:

Likely flood extent and floodwater depth. The timing of the event.

Whether key transport routes are to be affected;

What is at risk and where the most vulnerable receptors (e.g. people and properties) are. The likelihood of failure of flood defence assets.

As indicated above the MDSF would be able to provide all of the above to emergency responders. Current end users

The Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) is used by the Environment Agency for long-term planning of flood risk. In the future the Environment Agency may modify the MDSF to estimate the flood risk for "pre-run" flood incidents in order for them to improve their response to floods. Owing to its open architecture, user support and training, it is used widely across England and Wales for flood risk management.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been used

The MDSF is not used directly for managing flood events owing to the fact that it is a long term planning tool.

3.2.3 SurreyAlert

This is a web site secure site that can only be accessed by Surrey's Police, Fire and Rescue, and Ambulance Services, Surrey County Council and the 11 District and Borough Councils in Surrey in England. It is used to exchange information securely and in “real-time” during major incidents in the county of Surrey. These incidents are not just specifically related to flooding but to all incidents for example an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, or a serious road accident.

It is also used to hold the organisations' useful information, so that all emergency responders have access to, using the principle of “gather information once, and use it many times.” The use of this type of intranet system for both major and minor incidents is important in providing a medium for fast and effective communications between multiple agencies.

Architecture

The SurreyAlert system comprises two main parts as follows: SurreyAlert extranet.

SurreyAlert public web site.

It is used to exchange information securely and in 'real-time' during major incidents in Surrey. It is also used to hold the organisations' useful information, that all partners have access to.

The SurreyAlert system includes an event log an example of which is shown in Figure 3.7. Figure 3.7 is a small sample of an event log. Initially the events are ordered by time, with the most recent entry at the top. The time, event type, event summary, who logged it, and from which organisation are all listed for each event. If an event is in response to another event this is displayed too in the appropriate column. Events are added, via the 'Add Log Entry' button and the 'Refresh Log' button is used to obtain any updates.

Figure 3.7 Example of a SurreyAlert event log

Functionality

Figure 3.8 Example of the latest news available to the general public via SurreyAlert over the internet

Data requirements

All types of information that is important to share between emergency managers. Application of decision support system

One of the major issues that has been highlighted by various reports into the Environment Agency’s flood incident management system is that communication between the various actors is crucial to good incident management. It is often difficult for all the actors involved in responding to floods (e.g. the police, fire services, the Environment Agency) to know what actions have been implemented and when. A system such as the SurreyAlert system used nationally by the Environment Agency in conjunction with other emergency responders would help to ease these concerns.

Current end users

The SurreyAlert System is currently only used in the county of Surrey. It is used by Surrey’s Police, Fire & Rescue and Ambulance Services, Surrey County Council and the 11 District and Borough Councils in Surrey.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been used

3.3 The

Netherlands

3.3.1 Planning Kit DSS

The Planning Kit was commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Public Works to support the ‘Room for the Rhine Branches’ project; it was completed in 2004. It provides both policy makers and river managers in the Netherlands with a tool to evaluate a large number of alternative river design measures, taking into account the effects on flood stages, nature, ecology and costs. The Planning Kit serves to support decision-making on river designs for the Dutch Rhine Branches, and to communicate with stakeholders. The DSS does not provide details of the origin of flood waves, nor of flood impacts. The simplified web-based version of the Planning Kit, called the “Water Manager” (see www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl) allows the general public to play with river design measures, to understand the issues involved in selection of strategies and to test different alternatives. Both the Planning Kit and the Water Manager were developed by WL | Delft Hydraulics.

In the Netherlands, the river design of large rivers is legally required to be able to accommodate a specified design discharge. The design discharge of the Rhine has a probability of 1/1250 per year, and is determined from a river discharge record that is now just over 100 years long. The problem the Netherlands are facing now is that, as a result of high peak discharges in 1993 and 1995, the design discharge increased from 15000 m3_{/s to 16000 m}3_{/s at Lobith (near the Dutch-German border). The}

current Rhine river system has insufficient capacity for this flow. Dike strengthening is required, unless measures are taken to lower the water level associated with the design discharge. Because the Dutch government aims to limit dike strengthening and focuses instead on creating “room for the rivers” (which is considered more sustainable), measures that lower water levels need to be evaluated. These measures are shown in Figure 3.9.

To further complicate matters, the design discharge may increase even further due to climate change, to about 18,000 m3_{/s in 2100. The sea level also continues to rise, increasing backwater effects in the}

estuaries and rivers. According to the ‘no-regret’ principle, measures taken in the near future should still be sensible when design discharge increases even further. Therefore, measures must be evaluated both for the short-term 16,000 m3_{/s target and for the possible longer-term 18,000 m}3_{/s target.}

The stated aim of the Planning Kit is, to give all stakeholders/users the possibility to easily define a

combination of measures to safely transport 16,000 or 18,000 m3/s from Lobith to the sea without raising the dikes, considering all the criteria that the user considers important. These measures are

planned to be taken before 2015 (thus in the next 10 to 15 years), however, their use for the next 100 years is explored by using the design discharge expected by 2100. The DSS allows for the definition of strategies. It provides a tool to select and combine different measures and it provides an overview of the effects of individual measures as well as of the strategies. The DSS does allow the selection of one long-term scenario for the increase of the design discharge. No scenarios for other types of developments can be applied.

Architecture

The data in the DSS were obtained from many previous studies in which possible measures were identified and analysed in dialogue with local authorities and stakeholders. By studying the different Rhine Branches and designing measures for each particular site, a total number of approximately 700

measures was defined. The measures considered include the removal of hydraulic obstacles, lowering

Therefore, an extensive number of effects (approximately 100) have been determined and stored in the database for each measure, varying from costs and excavation quantities to the impact on nature and bird life.

Figure 3.9 Overview of possible measures in the ‘Room for the River’ project, supported by the Planning Kit (courtesy Silva 2001).

The Planning Kit contains a management response module and a decision support module.

Management response module

The Planning Kit does include a clear and very detailed module for management response: measure selection and combination of measures is what it was designed for. The developers of the Planning Kit are the only ones who can add information to the Planning Kit; users cannot add additional information or measures, they can only combine information that is already present. The information in the DSS was obtained by extensive model calculations, cost assessments and GIS analyses.

Measure locations are also shown in graph and map form. Furthermore, a picture, an aerial photograph and an image of each measure are included. These pictures give an overview of the area, the current situation and the expected result of the measure. By using help functions and further information functions additional information can easily be obtained.

Decision support module

To support decision making, detailed information on each measure is available and is easily provided. This includes pictures, maps, water level effects, costs, effects on land use, nature, etc. The combined effect of numerous measures is also clearly shown in score tables. The Planning Kit allows the comparison of different alternatives across a wide range of effects, such as removed agricultural area, additional area of nature, cubic meters of soil that needs to be removed, costs, etc. The effects are not combined or weighted. In other words the DSS does not provide the user with an optimal solution. It only provides all relevant criteria and data on which a decision can be based. The uncertainty in the resulting figures is not indicated.

Functionality

See above description. Data requirements

Application of decision support system Stepwise, the Planning Kit is used as follows:

1. The user must choose how to divide the extra discharge of 1,000 m3_{/s or 3,000 m}3_/s

(accommodating a design discharge of 16,000 or 18,000 m3_{/s compared to the former design}

discharge of 15000 m3_{/s) at the Dutch-German border over the different Rhine branches Waal,}

Nederrijn en IJssel. Dependent on this choice the Planning Kit shows the rise of the water levels (hydraulic design objective).

2. After that, the user can start to play with the available measures to reduce the water levels on all the Rhine branches. The user is directly confronted with the possibilities or impossibilities of his choice. Besides the effect on the water levels, the Planning Kit shows the user visualisations of all measures (photo’s, definition sketches, aerial photos) (see Figure 3.10) and provides an overview of all the other effects that are determined.

3. After the user has put together a combination of measures that meets the set hydraulic design objectives, the Planning Kit gives an overview of the costs and a summary of the effects. Furthermore, it provides the user with the possibility to compare different combinations of measures.

Figure 3.10 Visualisation of the measure “The Weir of Pannerden and embankments along the Lobberdensche Waard”

Current end users

(State Secretary for Water Management, Members of Parliament), river managers, technical engineers, inhabitants and local authorities have been using this tool to get insight in the problems in the river basin and to find solutions. The widespread acceptance of the tool is based on the fact that all involved parties could introduce their own knowledge of the River System to the tool. A strong point of this DSS is its user friendliness and the absence of complex hydraulic models which require specialist knowledge - everyone can use this DSS. Because of its simple use, the tool was able to support and facilitate the learning process for people without a technical background and it enlarged the knowledge of the river basin. Another strong point of the DSS is the clear and narrow scope on actual measures that can help achieve a clear goal (achieving 16000 m3_{/s discharge capacity in a limited stretch of the}

Rhine), which allows users to focus on the aspects that are really relevant in decision making: actual measures.

To be able to use the Planning Kit more effectively in the process of giving information to the inhabitants involved, a simplified version has been developed, named the Water Manager. The Water Manager uses the same database with hydraulic effects and costs but does not present all the details. The Water Manager is free to use for everyone. It is available on the Internet:

(www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl; in Dutch).

Flood events in which the decision support system has been used The Planning Kit was not intended for flood events.

3.3.2 Irma-Sponge DSS Large Rivers

The DSS Large Rivers is a decision support system for water managers and spatial planners, which supports the design of lowland rivers. The DSS was developed by WL | Delft Hydraulics within the IRMA-SPONGE Programme, and finalized by 2002. The project aimed to produce a generic DSS to support the ‘planning and assessment of river landscapes’, while applying the tool to a specific type of measure at specific locations: possible retention areas in North Rhine Westphalia, not far upstream of the Dutch border.

The DSS allows the definition of new landscape planning measures in lowland rivers, and hydrologic, ecologic and economic assessment of these measures. It also enables users to define and analyse strategies. Measures are defined in a GIS (ArcView) and translated automatically to changes in the model schematisations within the DSS. The measure definition method is consistent and clearly documented. The DSS contains an easy-to-use Case Management module. The DSS serves as a tool to increase transparency, reproducibility, and it improves communication because it provides all users with the same information based on the same assumptions. The DSS is not limited to measures with a specific time horizon. It has no facilities to develop long-term scenarios.

Architecture

Translation of engineering measures into model schematisations

One of the most important strong points of this DSS is the standardized method to translate measures into changes in the different model schematisations. When describing a lowland river from a management-technical perspective, the following main elements can be identified: a navigation channel (low flow channel), groynes, embankments, floodplains and dikes. In the different model types these elements need to be represented differently. The DSS thus ensures that spatial planners and river managers do not need to worry about the way measures and changes in any of the elements must be schematised in the different models.

The DSS combines a relational database, a GIS, a 1D and a 2D hydrodynamic model, a 1D and a 2D ecologic model, case management tools and tools for the generation of reports (see Figure 3.11). All these modules focus on river design. The clear indication of the different steps in the design process and the presentation in maps and graphs enlarges the user friendliness. The model requires the availability of schematisations for the different models included in the DSS. For the Dutch large rivers, such schematisations are available. For other rivers, developing such schematisations requires considerable effort and much time.

Figure 3.11 The set-up of the DSS Large Rivers.

The management response module

The DSS Large Rivers supports the assessment of measures influencing the low flow channel (riverbed), measures influencing the floodplain and measures outside the river channel. At present, river managers actually consider three different measures outside the riverbed, namely floodways (which are sometimes called “green rivers”), detention areas and dike-relocations.

The decision support module

The DSS Large Rivers calculates the effects of the measures on water levels and discharges, costs, culture historical values, ecotype distribution, distribution of species (flora and fauna) and sedimentation in the navigation channel. Uncertainties in the results are not assessed. By assessing the wide range of effects mentioned, the DSS integrates knowledge of different disciplines and stimulates cooperation between spatial planners, river engineers and ecologists and it structures the evaluation process.

Functionality

The system is based on the following four step approach in decision-making on river design measures: 1. Explorative measures at the scale of river stretches can be defined and studied. This gives insight

into the nature of the problem at stake and potential measures available to deal with them. 2. These measures can be combined to alternatives and their effects can be assessed.

3. The results of these explorative studies can be transferred into landscaping plans and studied on the scale of individual floodplains.

Access to information valuable in the process of identification and development of landscape plans.

Tools to sketch plans and measures which can then be evaluated quickly with the one dimensional model.

Interactive detailed design facilities to develop detailed plans on the scale of individual floodplains.

Two dimensional models to assess the effects of these detailed plans. Data requirements

All kinds of information that describe measures and their effects in river design for the Dutch branches of the Rhine and Meuse.

Application of decision support system

The DSS was developed in cooperation with the users, who are in this case the river modellers and river managers. It was distributed to the RIZA department of the Ministry of Public Works. These were using the DSS during and just after the development project, but have stopped using it due to the complexity of upgrades and network issues. There is a helpdesk and a website on this DSS.

As mentioned above, the strong point of this DSS is that it provides a standard consistent transparent method to define measures and to translate these to model schematisations and assess the effects of measures. It provides all users of this DSS with the same information and uses always the same assumptions.

Its most important weak point is that it is not useful for any single person: it is not useful for decision makers, since it requires knowledge on hydraulic models. It is also not very useful for modellers, because they do not need the interface around their model. They are able to use their model without this extra interface. However, this weak point is at the same time considered a strong point of the DSS also: the DSS requires different experts to cooperate with the decision-maker: spatial planners need to sketch their measures, modellers need to assist them and help them to calculate the effects of their models and everyone, including decision makers can study the effects of the designs. The DSS thus serves as a platform for communication between different experts and decision-makers. Because everyone’s input is stored in one system in a consistent way, the interaction between the different persons is more structured and more transparent. The DSS is not easily transferable to other large rivers than the Rhine and Meuse, since it requires schematizations for several models (SOBEK, WAQUA and Ledess).

Current end users

The DSS is not used anymore, due to the complexity of upgrades and network issues. Flood events in which the decision support system has been used

The DSS Large Rivers was not intended for flood event management.

3.3.3 IVB-DOS

between 2000 and 2015. However the exploration should also consider the effects of the measures in the period between 2015 and 2050 in order to prevent future regret (Ref.2, Van der Linden, 2001). IVB-DOS consists of a combination of a GIS, a database and several models. The Ministry of Public Works (through it RIZA department) assigned WL | Delft Hydraulics to develop this DSS, which was completed in 2001. It should be used by expert groups and committees within the IVB project such as the work group “spatial planning”. The IVB-DOS consists of tools to define structural river design measures, to visualise hydraulic, morphologic and ecological and economic effects of measures and strategies and to show the consequences of the measures on current and future spatial planning issues. Scenarios are built from projections of river discharges, sea level rise, operation rules for flood defence structures, a schematisation of the initial morphological description of the rivers and estuary. Architecture

The IVB-DOS consists of four subsystems:

1. A presentation system to explore and analyse data. 2. A definition system to define and combine measures. 3. A calculation system (see picture below).

4. A data management system in which all data is stored.

First, measures and scenarios are defined in the DSS. Next, measures and scenarios are applied to cases. Thirdly, the effects of these cases on water levels, discharges and biotopes are calculated. Fourthly, these effects are translated to changes in the area available for agriculture, housing, heritage, nature etc. Finally, costs are assigned to these changes. The uncertainties in the resulting figures are not assessed. The effects are presented in tables and on maps. The results can easily be exported to enable further analysis with other software packages such as Excel.

The DSS contains a clear management response module and decision support module. The management support module allows the definition and combination of measures. The decision support module presents the assessed effects. The DSS is GIS-based, thus all information is selectable from maps.

Functionality

See above description. Data requirements

The DSS includes hydrodynamic and ecological models, it requires a lot of input data and model schematisations. It is therefore very difficult to use it for other areas.

Application of decision support system

The use of the first version of the DSS was evaluated. Van der Linden (2001) concludes that the DSS is not used as intended, for several reasons:

1. Because the results of both the hydrodynamic model as the ecological model were considered unreliable.

2. Furthermore, the expectations on the possibilities and functions of the DSS were very high. Eventually, working with an instrument that has too many functions and possibilities proved to be very difficult, because it makes the system inflexible. In order to manage the complex data flows in the DSS, the rules for definition of measures and analysis of effects needed to be very strict. The users indicated that at present, they prefer to work with the individual models and not with the DSS combining the models.

Data Modules Decision module Alarm Facts and figures Advice Decision Log-book Static (GIS) Weather forecast HIS Checklists Planning Evacuation

The strong positive point of the DSS was that because of its strict rules, all measures were clearly defined and all analysis methods were clearly documented, transparent and reproducible.

Current end users

The DSS is not used anymore.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been used The DSS was not intended for flood event management.

3.3.4 ESCAPE Decision Support System

ESCAPE stands for European Solutions by Co-operation And Planning in Emergencies). ESCAPE is a joint venture between the Province of Zeeland (in the Netherlands), the Provinces of Oost-Vlaanderen and West-Oost-Vlaanderen (Belgium) and the county of Essex (England). Co-operation between these countries on water management and sharing their experience is seen as the first step towards broad co-operation between all the countries that border the North Sea. In contrast to other projects, which aim to prevent flooding in coastal areas around the North Sea, ESCAPE tries to

minimise the effects of flooding. One of the project's aims is to raise awareness, which it does by

holding conferences at which disaster relief workers, emergency service representatives, scientists and others directly involved, share their knowledge and experience. The project was executed between September 2002 and September 2004.

The framework of the ESCAPE project also comprised the development of a Decision Support System (DSS). The ESCAPE DSS ensures a structured decision-making process during an impending or an actual disaster. The system calculates the time required to evacuate a struck area, as well as the best route to use in doing so. In making these decisions, the system makes use of information supplied by staff of the provincial government. Information pertaining to the area of the disaster, number of inhabitants, anticipated water level (through the High water Information System, [Ref. 3] and traffic routes must be entered.

Architecture

The DSS has a modular setup (Figure 3.12). The core is the decision module, where on the basis of the available information (weather forecast, HIS) and a set of decision rules, the advice to evacuate or not is given. The static data (in the Data module) refer to number of people in the threatened area, the amount of people that will need help during an evacuation (e.g. elderly, disabled), exit and reception points, etc.

Functionality

The DSS is arranged like a film script. The script contains different scenarios (e.g. locations of dike breaches) in which the nature and the probable development of the emergency are sketched. A risk analysis is added to the most important decisions. This risk analysis contains information about the probability that the threat proceeds otherwise than expected and includes an assessment of the possible consequences. When all the information has been entered, the DSS advises the emergency staff as to whether or not to evacuate. With the DSS, the staff has a tool in hand that will help them during a crisis.

The DSS uses as input:

1. The results of inundation calculations with a Sobek1D2D hydraulic model. This model calculates the progress of an inundation in a dike ring area in terms of flow velocities and inundation depths as a function of time. Calculations are made for specific dike breach location (one breach at a time). For each breach several scenarios are considered on the growth of the breach in time (width, depth) and on the stability of some interior dikes in the dike ring, which create compartments within the dike ring. The compartments may reduce the extent of the flooded area, or anyhow slow down the inundation process.

2. Calculations on damage and casualties with the HIS-SSM computer model. This model uses the results of the inundation calculations and various data on spatial distribution of population, industry, infrastructure, land use, etc. On the basis of these data the model calculates the direct

damage (e.g. devastated houses), as well as indirect damage due to the inundation (e.g. stopped

supply of goods to firms outside the inundated areas). The model also calculates the number of people affected (more precisely: got wet by the inundation) and estimates the number of fatalities when no evacuation is undertaken.

On the basis of this input the DSS/Escape calculates the time which is required to evacuate a certain area completely. For the time being the model applies a fixed total time of 13 hours for decision making, response and preparation for any area in Zeeland. This is the period that precedes the actual evacuation. The time needed for the actual evacuation is calculated by the model on the basis of the number of inhabitants, the capacity of the roads in the area, and the potential exit routes. Apart from the calculation of the evacuation time a time schedule is made, which shows the number of evacuated people (Figure 3.13) and the activities to be carried out during the evacuation with an indication which activities are on the critical path. (see Figure 3.14)

Figure 3.14 Evacuation planning screen Escape

Data requirements

The required data to develop and run an inundation model comprise detailed elevation measurements, a range of hydraulic loadings (water levels), information on most likely breach locations and breach growth. Data needed for the HIS-SSM model are supplied with the software. No additional data are needed. The transport model is required to compute evacuation times. Computation of evacuation times also requires information on number of inhabitants at different locations in the potentially flooded area.

Application of decision support system

The evacuation model implemented in the DSS ESCAPE can be applied to any area that is prone to flooding, and for which evacuation plans need to be developed. The DSS ESCAPE can be used in the operational mode during periods of impending high water levels and flooding.

The system was applied in a pilot study of the Province of Zeeland on the preparation of flood emergency management for dike ring area 31 (Zuid-Beveland).

Current end users

The ESCAPE DSS is now being implemented by the Province of Zeeland. They plan to use the DSS for the development of detailed evacuation plans.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been used No flood events have occurred so far for which the DSS could be used.

3.3.5 FLIWAS

Description

emergency management: the FLood Information and Warning System, or in brief referred to as FLIWAS. FLIWAS enables decision-makers, water managers and other people concerned to take the right decisions at imminent high water levels.

FLIWAS is developed within the NOAH project. Working with water administrators from several European countries NOAH aims for a better provision of information during high water events and for a larger involvement of the citizens. FLIWAS is the tangible result of these efforts.

Dutch partners are STOWA (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer – leading partner), three Water Boards and the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat, i.e. RIZA – Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment). German partners are Hochwasserschutzzentrale Köln and the county of Baden-Württemberg, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe. The latter acts on behalf of six local governments (Stadt und Landkreisen) along the River Rhine between Iffezheim and Mannheim.

NOAH is an Interreg IIIb-project, and partially financed by the European Union. FLIWAS is developed in cooperation with two other relevant projects in the field of flood risks and calamity suppression, i.e. HIS and VIKING.

HIS (acronym for High water Information System) is an automated computer system of the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management. At imminent or existing high water levels HIS offers up-to-date information of threatened localities in retaining walls and dams. HIS also can generate a graphical overview of a potential breach and related safety issues for inhabitants of a threatened area. FLIWAS will incorporate the operational part of HIS. VIKING is a joint project of the Dutch province of Gelderland and the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia aiming to improve trans-boundary calamity management.

Architecture

FLIWAS is a modular application accessible through the Internet. FLIWAS has a GIS-oriented user-interface, giving intuitive access to all functionality and information. User profiles ensure that all users only have access to the functionality that they need for their professional tasks and responsibilities. FLIWAS is multilingual, available in English, German and Dutch; it is simple and straightforward to add new languages.

FLIWAS is developed as an open source (close community) application for governmental organisations within the European Union. Licenses for the use of FLIWAS are free, and it does not require any additional software licenses. Both DBMS Oracle and PostgreSQL can be used in FLIWAS. Communication with external applications and sources of information is performed through XML/RPC or web services.

Developing environment: ZOPE and Python. Server

Operating system: Linux and Microsoft Windows. Database Management System: PostgreSQL or Oracle. Map format: ESRI-shapes, bitmaps, TIFF and JPG. Workstations

Operating system: Linux, Microsoft Windows and Mac OS.

Web browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer (version 6 and higher), Netscape (version 7 and higher), Mozilla Firefox (version 1.0 and higher).