1 / 27

Emergency Response Classifications at Sub-Precinct Scales

Emergency Response Classifications at Sub-Precinct Scales. David Tetley. Presentation Outline. Background Stage 1 ERP Classifications (Lot Scale) Stage 2 ERP Classifications (Pixel Scale) Discussion. Why Complete Emergency Response Planning?.

quang
Télécharger la présentation

Emergency Response Classifications at Sub-Precinct Scales

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Emergency Response Classificationsat Sub-Precinct Scales David Tetley

  2. Presentation Outline Background Stage 1 ERP Classifications (Lot Scale) Stage 2 ERP Classifications (Pixel Scale) Discussion

  3. Why Complete Emergency Response Planning? Key component of FPRM process is managing the continuing flood risk. A key component of managing the continuing flood risk is ensuring Emergency Response Planning (ERP) is completed. “Flood Emergency Response Planning Classification for Communities” (2007) guideline prepared to assist in assigning ERP classifications to floodplain communities: Table 1: Response Required for Different ERP Classifications (DECC, 2007)

  4. Current ERP Classification Approach From: “Flood Emergency Response Planning Classification for Communities” (DECC, 2007)

  5. Limitations of Current ERP Classification Approach What is a “precinct”? Broad scale classifications can make it difficult to prioritise emergency response requirements within precincts. Does not take full advantage of spatial datasets that are commonly produced as part of contemporary studies. “Precinct” approach focused on existing communities.

  6. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) • Computer program developed to automate ERP Classifications. • Required Inputs: • Digital Terrain Model (DTM) • GIS file of sub-precincts (e.g., lots) • GIS file of road network • Hydraulic model water level output file • Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) extent polygon • A range of “default” parameters

  7. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) • Computer program performs the following tasks: • Analyses the road network and PMF extent to determine which roads serve as evacuation routes to points outside of floodplain • Determines when roadways become cut by floodwater preventing vehicular and pedestrian evacuation • Determines which precincts become isolated during the flood • Determines which precincts become flooded during the flood • Assigns ERP Classifications to each precinct

  8. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale)

  9. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) LEGEND 1% AEP Depths (m)

  10. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) LEGEND 1% AEP Depths (m) Vehicular evacuation route 0 hours after rainfall commences (1% AEP Flood)

  11. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) LEGEND 1% AEP Depths (m) Vehicular evacuation route 2 hours after rainfall commences (1% AEP Flood)

  12. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) LEGEND 1% AEP Depths (m) Vehicular evacuation route 8 hours after rainfall commences (1% AEP Flood)

  13. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) LEGEND 1% AEP Depths (m) Pedestrian evacuation route 9 hours after rainfall commences (1% AEP Flood)

  14. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) LEGEND 1% AEP Depths (m) Pedestrian evacuation route 18 hours after rainfall commences (1% AEP Flood)

  15. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale) LEGEND

  16. Stage 1 ERP Classification (Lot Scale)

  17. Stage 2 ERP Classification (Pixel Scale) Some limitations were identified in ERP Classification flow chart at small scales Alternate ERP Classification was developed based on analysis of individual “pixels” (i.e., grid cells) Alternate approach considers same basic ERP factors but results are presented on a “gradient” of 13 classifications of increasing risk / emergency response requirements

  18. Stage 2 ERP Classification (Pixel Scale) Definitions of Risk Gradient ERP Classifications

  19. Stage 2 ERP Classification (Pixel Scale) LEGEND Time of First Inundation (1% AEP Flood)

  20. Stage 2 ERP Classification (Pixel Scale) LEGEND ERP Gradient (1% AEP Flood – Existing Conditions)

  21. Stage 2 ERP Classification (Pixel Scale) LEGEND ERP Gradient (1% AEP Flood – Existing Conditions)

  22. Stage 2 ERP Classification (Pixel Scale) LEGEND ERP Gradient (1% AEP Flood with Upgraded Roadway )

  23. Disadvantages Significant amount of pre-processing may be required Significant computational time (60km2, ~30000 lots & 2m pixel size = 12 hours) Information overload?

  24. Future Work Including additional criteria to determine when evacuation routes become cut Customised assessment of vulnerable community assets (e.g., hospitals, retirement villages, schools) Potential for different pedestrian/overland escape routes relative to vehicular escape routes Optimising software for improved run-times

  25. Conclusion Limitations identified with ERP classification workflow when applied at small scales Automated ERP classification is possible at small scales and offers a range of useful information to assist with emergency response management. ERP “gradient” approach has potential to offer improved spatial definition of emergency response requirements Further improvements to computer program planned

  26. Questions?

  27. Questions

More Related