skip to main content
10.1145/3423455.3430315acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

AI-supported citizen science to monitor high-tide flooding in Newport Beach, California

Published:03 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Monitoring High-tide Flooding (HTF) is challenging because HTF usually spreads widely and forms localized water accumulations depending on the natural processes and infrastructure. Stationary monitoring systems and satellite imaging have their certain limitations. To date, citizen science is considered as the most promising means to monitor HTF, which provides wide and continuous coverage of the community and real-time first-hand witness of the flooding event. Here, we present a flexible Artificial Intelligence (AI) -supported citizen science platform for HTF monitoring. Flood extent is identified through standard photogrammetry algorithms and a Computer vision technique called monoplotting, and water depth can be estimated using reference objects. In this paper, monoplotting is employed to establish a correlation between photos and the corresponding digital elevation model (DEM) data, allowing to map the flood extent and water depth to the DEM map to minimize the data uncertainty and enhance the data credibility, resolution, and overall value.

References

  1. Rick Bonney, Caren B Cooper, Janis Dickinson, Steve Kelling, Tina Phillips, Kenneth V Rosenberg, and Jennifer Shirk. 2009. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59, 11 (2009), 977--984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Priyanka Chaudhary, Stefano D'Aronco, Matthew Moy de Vitry, João P Leitão, and Jan D Wegner. 2019. Flood-water level estimation from social media images. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 4, 2/W5 (2019), 5--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Priyanka Chaudhary, Stefano D'Aronco, João P Leitão, Konrad Schindler, and Jan D Wegner. 2020. Water level prediction from social media images with a multi-task ranking approach. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 167 (2020), 252--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Office for Coastal Management. [n.d.]. 2016 USGS West Coast El-Nino Lidar (WA, OR, CA). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/48222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Miyuki Hino, Samanthe Tiver Belanger, Christopher B Field, Alexander R Davies, and Katharine J Mach. 2019. High-tide flooding disrupts local economic activity. Science advances 5, 2 (2019), eaau2736.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Vedrana Kutija, Robert Bertsch, Vassilis Glenis, David Alderson, Geoff Parkin, Claire Walsh, John Robinson, and Chris Kilsby. 2014. Model validation using crowd-sourced data from a large pluvial flood. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christopher S Lowry and Michael N Fienen. 2013. CrowdHydrology: crowdsourcing hydrologic data and engaging citizen scientists. GroundWater 51, 1 (2013), 151--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Hamed R Moftakhari, Amir AghaKouchak, Brett F Sanders, Maura Allaire, and Richard A Matthew. 2018. What is nuisance flooding? Defining and monitoring an emerging challenge. Water Resources Research 54, 7 (2018), 4218--4227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Barbara Neumann, Athanasios T Vafeidis, Juliane Zimmermann, and Robert J Nicholls. 2015. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding-a global assessment. PloS one 10, 3 (2015), e0118571.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Tamlin Pavelsky, Shuai Zhang, Faisal Hossain, Sheikh K Ghafoor, Grant Parkins, Sarah Yelton, Sarina Little, and Megan Elizabeth Rodgers. 2019. Combining Citizen Science and Satellite Data to Better Understand Lakes. AGUFM 2019 (2019), IN51E-0675.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Greg Obeysekera J. T. B. Marra John J. Sweet, William Dusek. 2018. Patterns and projections of high tide flooding along the US coastline using a common impact threshold. NOAA technical report NOS CO-OPS; 086 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. William William VanderVeer Sweet, Greg Dusek, Greg Carbin, John J Marra, Douglas C Marcy, and Steven Simon. 2020. 2019 State of US High Tide Flooding with a 2020 Outlook. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Stefan A. Talke and David A. Jay. 2020. Changing Tides: The Role of Natural and Anthropogenic Factors. Annual Review of Marine Science 12, 1 (2020), 121--151. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010727PMID: 31479622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. AI-supported citizen science to monitor high-tide flooding in Newport Beach, California

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ARIC '20: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Advances in Resilient and Intelligent Cities
      November 2020
      76 pages
      ISBN:9781450381659
      DOI:10.1145/3423455

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 3 November 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate10of16submissions,63%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader