Less is More? Evaluating Technical Aspects and User Experiences of Smart Flood Risk Assessment Tools

Patrick A. Witte, Karin A. W. Snel and Stan C. M. Geertman
Additional contact information
Patrick A. Witte: Department of Human Geography and Planning, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Karin A. W. Snel: Department of Human Geography and Planning, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Stan C. M. Geertman: Department of Human Geography and Planning, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Urban Planning, 2021, vol. 6, issue 3, 283-294

Abstract:

In light of several recent large-scale flooding events worldwide, the urgency of involving residents in the flood risk management debate is growing. However, this has so far proven to be problematic, mainly because of lacking or ineffective communication between stakeholders. One way to better involve residents in the flood risk management debate is by developing smart applications, dedicated to facilitate and increase the insights of residents into the flood risk and vulnerability of their private properties. However, what is lacking thus far is a systematic evaluation of the technical aspects and the user experiences of such tools. The goal of this article is to explore and evaluate the technical, analytical, and communicative qualities of smart flood risk assessment tools. To this end, a new smart application named FLOODLABEL is used, aiming to inform residents of flood-prone areas about potential flood risks and associated protection measures of their dwellings. Based on this, the article concludes that a smart application like FLOODLABEL can be beneficial for informing residents about flood risks and potential protection measures. However, it also shows that a one-size-fits-all approach is not suitable for informing residents on flood risks, inter alia because how residents perceive risks is not homogeneous. This research is therefore just the first step towards a more systematic evaluation method of smart applications.

Keywords: flood risk governance; planning support; pluralism; risk communication; task-technology fit; user-technology fit (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4257 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cog:urbpla:v6:y:2021:i:3:p:283-294

DOI: 10.17645/up.v6i3.4257

Access Statistics for this article

Urban Planning is currently edited by Tiago Cardoso

More articles in Urban Planning from Cogitatio Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by António Vieira () and IT Department ().