The Evaluation of InaRISK and InaSAFE in Response to User Needs (Flood Emergency Responder)

Organised by Laboratory of Geo-information Science and Remote Sensing

Thu 30 August 2018 09:00 to 09:30

Venue Lumen, gebouwnummer 100
Droevendaalsesteeg 3a
6708 PB Wageningen
0317 48 17 00
Room 1

By Talitha Rahmawati (Indonesia)

This study was conducted to evaluate InaRISK and InaSAFE application in response to user needs . The scope of this study was limited to response activity in the cycle of disaster risk management (DRM) with flood as the chosen specific case to run InaSAFE analysis. The data collection on this study was derived from the interview with National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), Regional Disaster Management Agency Jakarta (BPBD Jakarta), and volunteers. The first research question was formulated to answer the information needs by participants in term of disaster risk and flood emergency response. The second research question was made to evaluate the ability of InaRISK and InaSAFE to fulfil the required information from emergency respondents based on the application evaluation and stakeholder evaluation. The fulfilment level of the application evaluation was categorized into fully fulfilled, not fully fulfilled, and not fulfilled. From the evaluation, it showed that InaRISK can meet 89.73% of the required information on disaster risk (fully fulfilled) and cannot complete 10.27% of the request (not fulfilled), while InaSAFE can fully fulfil 76.92% of the requested information on flood emergency response, unable to meet 4.43% of the required information, and cannot fully fulfil 18.66% of the information requirements. Related to stakeholder evaluation, this study used Likert Scale to measure the attitude of emergency responders toward InaRISK and InaSAFE application by following Common Evaluation Framework (CEF) that comprises of 7 categories: usability, accessibility, quality, verifiability, interoperability, relevance, and timeliness. Based on stakeholder evaluation, it was observed that both applications acquired satisfactory feedback on the categories of Common Evaluation Framework. The strength areas of InaRISK in CEF categories were related to relevance, usability, accessibility, and interoperability while InaSAFE obtained good feedback in terms of relevance, usability, interoperability, and quality. On the other hand, InaRISK received more negative feedbacks in terms of quality and verifiability while InaSAFE had unsatisified response on accessibility.