4.6 Article

A Mixed-Methods Investigation into Barriers for Sharing Geospatial and Resilience Flood Data in the UK

期刊

WATER
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13091235

关键词

flood risk management; technology; data sharing; community resilience; property flood resilience

资金

  1. Flood Re

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By 2050, more UK households are expected to face flooding risks with increasing average temperature and rainfall. Data and technologies are crucial across public, private, and third-sector organizations, but barriers and constraints exist in sharing data due to local politics, organizational structures, and various obstacles such as technological, security, privacy, cultural, and commercial factors. Long-term recommendations are provided to improve flood data accessibility and enhance outcomes for organizations and communities.
With increases in average temperature and rainfall predicted, more households are expected to be at risk of flooding in the UK by 2050. Data and technologies are increasingly playing a critical role across public-, private- and third-sector organisations. However, barriers and constraints exist across organisations and industries that limit the sharing of data. We examine the international context for data sharing and variations between data-rich and data-sparse countries. We find that local politics and organisational structures influence data sharing. We focus on the case study of the UK, and on geospatial and flood resilience data in particular. We use a series of semi-structured interviews to evaluate data sharing limitations, with particular reference to geospatial and flood resilience data. We identify barriers and constraints when sharing data between organisations. We find technological, security, privacy, cultural and commercial barriers across different use cases and data points. Finally, we provide three long-term recommendations to improve the overall accessibility to flood data and enhance outcomes for organisations and communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据