GMES TERRAFIRMA. ESRIN/Contract no /03/I-IW. User Systems Inventory U8 30 th April 2004 Version 1.0. Luc Closset, Christine King BRGM

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "GMES TERRAFIRMA. ESRIN/Contract no /03/I-IW. User Systems Inventory U8 30 th April 2004 Version 1.0. Luc Closset, Christine King BRGM"

Clarence Dorsey
5 years ago
Views:

GMES TERRAFIRMA ESRIN/Contract no. 17059/03/I-IW User Systems Inventory U8 30 th April 2004 Version 1.

1 GMES TERRAFIRMA ESRIN/Contract no /03/I-IW User Systems Inventory U8 30 th April 2004 Version 1.0 Luc Closset, Christine King BRGM Contributors to Dossier Reviewed by: Project Manager Ren Capes/ / Approved by: Project Contract Officer David Morten/ /

2 STRATEGY GROUP MEMBER ENDORSEMENT I, the undersigned, confirm that I have read and endorse this dossier. Strategy group member for policy Name.. Signature.... Strategy group member for science Name.. Signature. Strategy group member for users Name.. Signature. Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators 2003 i

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This dossier is trying to demonstrate the experience acquired by the Core User Group based on their work on Terra-Firma products realised to assess urban area ground movement. The information used to prepare this dossier is based on the Service Utility Reports as drafted into dossier U7 and fulfilled by the end users after reception of H1 Terra Firma product as defined in Dossier S5 and according to the following table. Town Code Supplier Delivery date Recipient Utility Report availability Athens H1c TRE NKUA, EPPO, IGME yes Athens H1a BRGM TBC NKUA, EPPO, IGME yes Thessaloniki H1b BRGM TBC NKUA, EPPO, IGME no Palermo H1c TRE Enel Hydro yes Amsterdam H1c TRE TNO no Sosnowiec H1c TRE TBC PGI (Poland) no Stoke-on-trent H1c TRE TBC BGS no Haifa H1c TRE Due GII, GSI (Israel) no Istanbul H1c TRE Due Kandilli Observatory no Lisbon H1c TRE Due TBD no TBD H1c TRE TBD TBD no Moscow H1c NPA TBD TBD no St Petersburg H1c NPA TBD TBD no Additional information as been acquired by personal contacts with the TerraFirma partners and associate partners. These data are representing detailed ground movement over a surface of 250 square kilometres and for a period of approximately 12 years. Each Service Utility Report ideally includes according to U7: the case study of utilisation an account of integration with other information sources Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators 2004 ii

4 examples of end users assessment of impact and benefit critical analysis of utility for end-user-organisation comparison with alternative service and information sources recommendations for service improvements recommendations for products improvements record of complaints, problems, resolutions; and a value statement Based on the three Service Utility reports actually available, on the U4: Service Prospectus Appraisal and discussions held during TerraFirma meetings, the following conclusions may be issued : Acquiring geographical, geological and other data is a difficult matter and their comparison with ancillary data is not an easy task; For these three users, validating the data is passing through a mandatory cross-checking with ground information; Historical Ground movement detected by TerraFirma product where known for some areas but unknown (at least by the user in charge of the SUR) for others; There is a need for a processing report issued by the VAC to explain in detail the processing ; The interpretation of the historical movement and the seismic activity need more interpretation and ground information. This is outlining the fact that there is a real need of research activities in this direction; An effort of standardising the Service Utility Report has to be done to insure a full and accurate communication between VACS and his end-users at any levels; Validation, passing through the evaluation of the precision and the accuracy of the product, is a very important matter which has to be addressed as soon as possible; The exact location of a persistent or permanent reflectors (PSINSAR) is a subject of great concern among the Core User Group. For a persistent reflector located on the vicinity of a building should we consider this one at the ground surface or on the building top. H1 product may be considered as a final product only for users which have already a good knowledge of the mechanisms which has triggered the ground movement. For non specialist and non advised users, the product should include at least an explanation of the cause of the movement. For such reasons, H2 products are almost mandatory for institutional and public users. A special effort of communications showing quality products has to be directed for this specific end-user segment in stage 2. The political issue of disseminating such data without accepted ground validation as to be addressed. It is unlikely that TerraFirma partners is welcome in most of the local authorities offices without such a validation and their data accepted as the full truth. For some local authorities, communication about these subjects, and specially if the considered hazards are not fully demonstrated, should be restricted or at least limited in extent. H1 product should not be restricted in TerraFirma Stage 2 (If any) at only PSINSAR but should include some conventional or stacked INSAR and specially in area where large and fast ground movement are anticipated. For such case, some limitations seems to apply to PSINSAR accuracy. Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators 2004 iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION Objective Document Structure Terminology and Acronyms REVIEW OF SERVICE UTILITY REPORT Introduction case study of utilisation integration with other information sources End Users Assessment of impact and benefit Critical analysis of utility for end-user-organisation comparison with alternative service and information sources recommendations for service improvements recommendations for products improvements Value statement CONCLUSIONS Conclusions coming from Service Utility Report (SUR) Conclusions coming from other users statements... 7 Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators 2004 iv

6 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective The main objective of this document is to pass in review the Service Utility Report (SUR) provided by the VAC to the end user and to extract from the collection of the available report the main comments, benefits and shortcomings of the data received in order to assess the main trends into users perception of the products and eventually react on some As defined by U7 dossier untitled Service Utility Reports and by the SOW the following points are of major interest : the case study of utilisation an account of integration with other information sources examples of end users assessment of impact and benefit critical analysis of utility for end-user-organisation comparison with alternative service and information sources recommendations for service improvements recommendations for products improvements record of complaints, problems, resolutions; and a value statement 1.2 Document Structure The document will summarise the utility report received and some of the already known comments about the products. The chapter 2 will pass in review each point of major interest for the received SUR. The chapter 3 will conclude in trying to summarise and give general trends of the user perception, benefit and the possible improvement to the product coming either from the Service Utility Report and from comments already arising during TerraFirma Stage 1 meetings. 1.3 Terminology and Acronyms Global User Base This is the complete set of all potential users (in the world) for a given set of services. It is made up of a collection of different user-segments Acronyms SP CUG GUB VAC SUR Service Portfolio Core User Group consisting of: Arup, BGS, BRGM, Enel.Hydro, TNO Global User Base Value Adding Company Service Utility Report Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators

7 2 REVIEW OF SERVICE UTILITY REPORT 2.1 Introduction The actual available SUR are summarise into the following table Town Code Supplier Delivery date Recipient 1 Athens H1c TRE NKUA, EPPO, IGME 1 Athens H1a BRGM NKUA, EPPO, IGME 2 Thessaloniki H1b BRGM NKUA, EPPO, IGME 3 Palermo H1c TRE Enel Hydro Table 2. Actual Service Utility Report completed by end users For the sake of convenience and as the users have produced only one SUR for both products in Athens and Thessaloniki, the review will keep comments together. 2.2 case study of utilisation Ideally this section should include a full description of the area concerned with the evaluation of ground movement including : Size of the area (in square km2) ; Size of the conventional INSAR ground movement (including size of area of the zone where movement cannot be evaluate because of low coherence) ; Number of PSINSAR detected ( with densities in urban and rural areas), Socio-Economic data as population, major infrastructure and transportation systems, etc... Only Enel (Palermo) is giving few of this data in his SUR. It should also include the name of his author(s) as some information to reach him (them) if any questions is arising. For Athens, The Athens SUR is well documented but the scale of the presentation in SUR is quite low ( < 1/100000) and designed as a scientific paper. For Thessaloniki The Thessaloniki SUR is well documented but the scale of the presentation in SUR is quite low ( < 1/100000) and designed as a scientific paper. Most of the SUR evaluation point are not present. Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators

8 For Palermo The SUR is very well documented and demonstrated by several maps. Some maps (Table?) documented inside the SUR are not available inside the U7 dossier. 2.3 integration with other information sources For Athens, the following data has been overlaid into a H2a product to evaluate the product received by the consortia of NKUA, EPPO and IGME (TerraFirma Associate Partners). Geographical data were available under the form of the 2 EO images; Geological (no presentation of geological map); Old Coal Mining (boundary of exploitation works); Water Resources (location of the main water drillings); Earthquakes (no presentation of epicenter or any concerned fault is presented); Transport Infrastructure (Athens Subway pattern). The data are described in detail into the utility report but no comments are accessible the following characteristic of such : Availability or eventually price of acquisition or licensing Format, Scale and accuracy For Thessaloniki Four maps at scale between 1 / and 1 / are proposed. There are presenting 2 Geographical maps (one EO Image at different scale with some text) Geological data : Fault and seismic event imposed on EO Images PS map For Palermo Geographical data (none specify) Geological and hydro-geological data a scan of a soil map at 1/ is presented a scan of a soil and vulnerability map of Palermo (no scale mentioned but close from 1 / ) is presented including some layers (independent?) showing buildings and infrastructure ; a scan of crustal movement map (no scale but < 1 / ) a scan of North-Western Sicily showing hydro-geological degradation (no scale mentioned) referring to building constraint a scan of deterioration map ( Landslide hazard?) of the city of Palermo (1/50 000? tbc) an hydrology map of the basin of Palermo (no scale) Several seismicity hazard maps of Italy and Sicily (no scale but smaller than 1/ ) 3 macrosismisity site effect of Palermo at large scale ( from scale 1/ to 1/ ) None of this map are overlaid with the H1 product. Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators

9 There is some table introduced into the text which are not available into U7 dossier. 2.4 End Users For Athens, some potential end users (5) are specified. No attempt to communicate results are specified inside the SUR. For Thessaloniki, no potential end-users are specified. For Palermo, only the city of Palermo is considered as a possible end-user 2.5 Assessment of impact and benefit For Athens,. no direct impact or benefit are clearly established by the SUR For Thessaloniki, no direct impact or benefit are clearly established by the SUR For Palermo, several potential benefits are clearly established mainly concerning building stability ( either from subsidence and seismic hazard) and for water extraction 2.6 Critical analysis of utility for end-user-organisation For Athens, it clearly stated that TerraFirma general information will benefit to the knowledge of seismicity and subsidence mechanisms. Meanwhile seismic mechanisms are not described and used for interpreting deformation pattern produced by INSAR technology. This indicates some R&D should be initiated to link INSAR detected ground movement and seismicity. For Thessaloniki, as no real conclusion is given to the SUR, no critical analysis is available. Interpretations done for the detected ground movement can attribute mechanisms either to seismic activity or to water pumping. No correlation seems to have been performed with any other ground movement evaluation. For Palermo, there is an evident need of validation as the indication of ground movement is concerning small area involving small amount of buildings. 2.7 comparison with alternative service and information sources This part of the utility report should try to make some correlation between the ground or ancillary data and the evaluated ground movement. For Athens, none are specified For Thessaloniki, none are specified For Palermo, This point is considered but no other measurement available are specified about some GPS based crustal movement assessment at the scale of Italy. 2.8 recommendations for service improvements For Athens, the service (H1 or H2) should focus of the specific end-users requirements. The example given is referring more to H2 than H1. Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators

10 For Thessaloniki, no recommendation is given For Palermo, the lack of ancillary data to make comparison with EO based ground movement measurement is outlined. This recommendation is again referring more to an H2 product than an H recommendations for products improvements For Athens, none are specified. For Thessaloniki, none are specified. For Palermo, it is recommended that an extensive report, issued by the VAC, will be furnished to the user. This document should contain most of the information validating the process and making possible its follow-up (images used, accuracy of the measurement, etc...) 2.10 Value statement For Athens, no general comment about the value of the product is given inside the SUR For Thessaloniki, the H1 product have outlined ground movement problem on area for which no general information is largely available. For Palermo, The H1 products has to be accompanied with detailed complementary information ( geotechnical studies are pointed out). This outlines the need of a large scale (equal or superior to 1/25000 scale to be consider for land management policies) H2 product for commercialisation and specially for considering local and national authorities as final endusers Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators

12 3 CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Conclusions coming from Service Utility Report (SUR) The actual low number of available SUR do not allow to make definite conclusions about the TerraFirma users view of the product. At this stage it appear: Acquiring geographical, geological and other data is a difficult matter and their comparison with ancillary data is not a such an easy task that it may have been seen previously. These ancillary data, when available, are produced and stored in a large variety of format, scale and precision which may or may not be fully compatible with TerraFirma product. For example, none of the actual available SUR are presenting maps with PSINsar data overlaid on the regional geology ; For these three users, validating the data is passing through a mandatory cross-checking with ground information. This is in fact outlining the need of a least a preliminary H2 product ( Conventional Insar with some geographical and geological data at small scale?). For two of the three SUR the recommendations for improving the product are concerning H2 product, based in their experience to validate the data through building of H2, instead of H1 product improvement; Historical Ground movement detected by TerraFirma product where known for some area but unknown (at least by the user in charge of the SUR) for others area ; There is a need for a processing report issued by the VAC to explain in detail the processing ; The interpretation of the historical movement and the seismic activity known in the area for the three towns considered by the SUR needs more interpretation and ground information. This is outlining the fact that there is a real need of research activities in this direction ; An effort of standardising the Service Utility Report has to be done to insure a full and accurate communication between VACS and his end-users at any level. 3.2 Conclusions coming from other users statements The core users group as chance to met at several time for progress meeting and other TerraFirma meeting. From these discussions and as well from BRGM experience in France and notably in Paris, it appears : Validation, passing through the evaluation of the precision and the accuracy of the product, is a very important matter which as to be addressed as soon as possible and not only by the VAC s but by the entire TerraFirma group. The exact location of a persistent or permanent reflector (PSINSAR) is a subject of great concern among the Core User Group. For a persistent reflector located on the vicinity of a building should we consider this one at the ground surface or on the building top. Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators

13 H1 product may be considered as a final product only for users which have already a good knowledge of the mechanisms which as triggered the ground movement. For non specialist and non advised user, the product should include at least an explanation of the cause of the movement. For such reasons, H2 product is almost mandatory for institutional and public users. A special effort of communications showing quality products has to be directed for this specific end-user segment in stage 2. The political issue of disseminating such data without accepted ground validation has to be addressed. It is unlikely that TerraFirma partners is welcome in most of the local authorities offices without such a validation and their data accepted as the full truth. For some local authorities, communication about these subjects, and specially if the considered hazards are not fully demonstrated, should be restricted or at least limited in extent. H1 product should not be restricted in TerraFirma Stage 2 (If any) at only PSINSAR but should include some conventional or stacked INSAR and specially in area where large and fast ground movement are anticipated. For such case, some limitations seems to apply to PSINSAR accuracy. Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators

Change detection in cultural landscapes

9-11 November 2015 ESA-ESRIN, Frascati (Rome), Italy 3 rd ESA-EARSeL Course on Remote Sensing for Archaeology Day 3 Change detection in cultural landscapes DeodatoTapete (1,2) & Francesca Cigna (1,2) (1)