2 thoughts on “COMMUNITY FLOOD MAPPER FOR PUERTO RICO”

1. Dear Dr. Harmsen:

   Greetings in the new year and thanks for sending the instructions for the flood maper for PR. I think this is a good idea, but wanted to caution you about a similar experience we had in the USGS back in 1960. I know that the new technologies and the iPhones open new doors to participation by citizens in monitoring activities related to climate and floods. But this advancements add risk to the data collection processes, which we used to call “garbage on time”. There are probably less than 200 people in PR that have background knowledge on methods and procedures to collect flood data accurately. The average citizen (including males and females) does not have the knowledge to discern the complexities of flood monitoring, even when a good guideline like your instructions are available. Lots of folks eager to be part of the process, and in the USGS we recruited local residents with a small economic incentive to help collect flood data during storms in isolated places in PR, but mostly close to where we operated stream gaging stations. At those times real time transmissions were dreams, and our technicians in the field would visit each station monthly and retrieve from the observers the collected data (recorded on notebooks) including particularly floods.

   I was in charge of field data collection and analyses, for eventual publication in our printed data reports (now electronic). More than 80 % of the data we recovered from the observers notebooks were useless. There were many factors that limited the quality of the data, but mostly that volunteers (even paid) were busy with many personal tasks and ended frequently in estimating the data values. Other than a fraction of the 200 folks I estimate can collect accurate data, everybody else is too busy with personal activities to be out there in the middle of floods to collect the data. After archiving the data for application to the rating curves validated monthly by field measurements by our field technicians, we ended up discarding most of the observations. I was stationed 4 years in Kentucky and another 7 years in Tennessee, and we encountered similar experiences of the poor quality of field data collected by observers, also paid like we did in PR before 1977.

   The current actual and historical extension of USGS gaging stations in PR is ample and abundant. Several studies and analyses published in USGS reports provide statistically significant correlations that allow estimation of peak flows for varied frequencies at nearly every spot in the basins within PR. These correlations are based on actual data collections and field surveys completed by hydrologists and hydrologic technicians. With respect, I do not think that current “civilian voluntary observers” can improve on the hydrologic knowledge of PR that we now have available. We also risk the potential of a mix of quality data collected by hydrologic technicians and hydrologists with questionable data collected by untrained observers, even when they are scientists but lack a hydrologic sciences background.

   I admire all of your publications and initiatives in climate and hydrology of PR. But respectfully disagree with the initiave of streamflow data collection by untrained volunteers.

   Cordially,

   Ferdinand Quiñones
   https://www.recursosaguapuertorico.com/

   Reply

2. Dear Eng. Quiñones,

   Thank you for your comments related to the Community Flood Mapper app.  I hope you will share the link to the report of your study that you referred to in your comment. I agree with your statements that crowd-sourced data can add risk to the data collection process.  I also agree that a citizen cannot and should not be out in a flood measuring the water depth during a flood event.  However, asking them to estimate the peak flood depth at their location after the event is another thing.  In many studies, such as the study we conducted after Hurricane Maria in the Añasco Watershed (Mejia Manrique et al., 2021), we were interested in the peak flood depth throughout the floodplain. A degree in engineering is not required for a person to estimate the peak depth of flooding with sufficient accuracy after the event. Usually, they will measure the height of the watermark on a wall with respect to the ground. We conducted home interviews to obtain the peak flood depth at approximately 50 locations.  I wish this app had been available then; perhaps my dataset could have doubled in size. 

   Chat-GPT lists the following advantages of the use of crowd-sourced Data

   Cost-effectiveness

   Speed

   Scalability

   Diverse perspectives

   Real-time Data

   Increased innovation

   Greater accuracy and validation

   Accessibility

   Enhanced engagement and community building

   Flexibility of data types

   Access to niche expertise

   One might question one or two of the advantages provided in the list in the case of flood data collection—for example, diverse perspectives (no. 4).  Indeed, there should be no “diversity” concerning the height of the peak flood.  However, when citizens in a particular area can provide comments about flooding in their area, it may reveal a more significant problem related to, for example, environmental injustice.  This could help professionals identify where resources should be channeled to provide more flood protection.  Of course, the data would have to be carefully evaluated, and suspect data should be checked.  For example, if there is questionable data at a location, a follow-up interview with other neighbors could validate or invalidate the questionable data.

   By the way, I understand that the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow Network (CoCoRaHS) has been a very successful crowd-sourcing project.

   I strongly agree with Enhanced Engagement and Community Building (no. 9).   Federal Agencies, such as NOAA, USDA, NSF, etc., are promoting the community’s involvement at the grassroots level with the hope of co-creating solutions.  To the extent that the Flood Mapper app encourages engagement by citizens, I believe it is a good thing.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.