LA-13894-MS 

Consensus-Building Tools For Post-Wildfire Geographical 

Information System (GIS) Design

Gordon N. Keating, GISLab, EES-10 

Steen Rasmussen, EES-6 

Michael J. Raven, Reed College and EES-6 

Abstract 

We present an application of a web-based, consensus-building, and conflictclarification tool used to guide the design and implementation of a Geographical 

Information System (GIS) for the Cerro Grande Wildfire Rehabilitation Project (CGRP) 

at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The online, open-response survey used in the tool 

harnesses the collective intelligence of fire rehabilitation stakeholders to identify areas of 

conflict and agreement and to provide documentation for GIS design. The results 

highlight a clear division of labor between operations personnel, who were involved with 

infrastructure rebuilding and public information, and environmental monitoring and 

research workers, who were concerned with evaluating environmental impacts, numerical 

modeling, and flood control. The main GIS needs identified by the stakeholders include 

topographic data, a central data repository, remote sensing data, predictive model results, 

and data on post-fire environmental changes. The perceived need for a central data 

repository was most strongly correlated with the need for infrastructure and topographic 

data and predictive model results. Concerns were voiced about potential problems with 

data access, ownership, and maintenance; costs; and redundancy. The design and 

implementation of the CGRP-GIS, guided by stakeholder feedback provided by this tool 

as well as by stakeholder meetings, includes a data warehouse for spatial data layers, an 

online metadata catalog, a web-based Internet map server (IMS), and policies and 

procedures to ensure data quality and documentation. Two websites (http://www.cgrpgis.lanl.gov and http://www.gislab.lanl.gov) provide direct downloads of BAER Team 

data, access to metadata and map catalogs, interactive map services, a link to the 

consensus project for CGRP, and a request system for GIS services.

1 
1. Introduction 

In the aftermath of the destructive May 2000 Cerro Grande wildfire, geographical 

information systems (GIS) and information management experts at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory are considering options for (1) improved communication during and after 

disasters and (2) spatial data management and exchange, based on lessons learned during 

and shortly after the fire. Limitations in the existing GIS included a lack of spatial data 

accuracy, accessibility, and currency for emergency managers and facilities managers 

involved in fire recovery efforts. Data sharing occurs frequently on an ad hoc basis at the 

Laboratory. However, a consistent system of hardware and software with accompanying 

data policies and procedures does not exist to facilitate effective data exchange during 

emergency and day-to-day operations and project activities. The web-based 

communication methods used in this report were originally developed to mitigate 

disasters, and they are used in this context to enhance consensus building and clarify 

potential conflicts during the development of an institution-wide or “enterprise” GIS for 

LANL wildfire rehabilitation. 

As part of the Cerro Grande Rehabilitation Project (CGRP), launched shortly after 

the fire was brought under control, an enterprise GIS project was launched (CGRP-GIS) 

to build a central repository for spatial data associated with the fire as well as GIS 

applications and services in support of the fire rehabilitation effort. The diversity of 

project and operational data needs as well as points of view regarding spatial data 

exchange and storage posed a serious challenge to the CGRP-GIS effort. A web-based 

consensus tool provided a means to assess the positions and attitudes of the various 

CGRP stakeholders and to help shape the design of the GIS to meet their needs. 

2. Consensus Tool Overview 

The purpose of the CGRP-GIS consensus building project is to develop an interactive 

decision support tool that provides emergency managers, administrators, and scientists 

with a practical, usable interface with a vast array of relevant information sources and a 

2 
way to communicate with each other as stakeholders. The most critical part of such a 

decision support system is an integrated consensus building and conflict clarification 

system. Such a system has been developed as a series of web-based applications for the 

CGRP. A website (http://consensus.lanl.gov/cerro) provides basic information about the 

CGRP GIS effort and links to relevant portions of detailed databases and GIS maps. 

Through the use of online, open-response surveys, we can identify the most important 

issues for CGRP-GIS, how they are related, and how they relate to the different 

stakeholders. The tool clarifies potential conflicts between stakeholders by identifying 

who is in conflict with whom as well as why they are in conflict. Finally, it provides 

detailed documentation to support the final decision(s). This collective intelligence 

method has been used successfully in the past to explore trends within a scientific 

community (Rasmussen et al. 2000), to aid strategic planning within a LANL science 

Division, and to evaluate governmental efficiency within the Navajo Nation (Keating et 

al. 2001). In this application, the tool provides insight into stakeholder needs and 

concerns regarding the development of an enterprise GIS for the CGRP, including a 

central spatial data repository. The consensus building and conflict clarification method 

is part of a set of disaster mitigation tools based on collective intelligence methods 

developed to enhance communication and information exchange in disasters (Rasmussen 

and Goldstein 2001). 

3. Methods 

In the first step of the methods used in the Web-Based Consensus Building and 

Conflict Clarification Tool (Figure 1), stakeholders individually review the available 

information in the form of online databases, maps, and other relevant information, much 

of which is found on the CGRP-GIS website. Where possible, stakeholders provide 

additional information to the storehouse for review by others. 

3 
Figure 1. Schematic of the Web-Based Consensus Building and Conflict 

Clarification tool used in the CGRP-GIS effort. 

Next, in step 2, stakeholders pick, rank, and organize issues relevant to the process and 

express opinions through the use of this online, open-response survey that allows freely 

typed input to questions about important issues in the project. Individuals are given the 

opportunity to describe new issues as well as to rank those provided in the survey. These 

survey responses are synthesized and analyzed in step 3 to identify areas of conflict and 

consensus via graphical mind maps and other relevance plots. In step 4 the results of the 

analyses are posted on the web site for feedback to individual stakeholders. Steps 2, 3, 

and 4 can be repeated as the stakeholder community reacts to areas of conflict and 

agreement and individuals modify their positions. Finally, in step 5, newly defined needs 

are met by informed decisions; for example, acquiring additional data or developing new 

software applications to develop a more effective enterprise GIS and to help the 

stakeholders make better informed decisions. 

The consensus tool is built on Internet applications, a database, and graphical analysis

software. The graphical front-end for the open-response survey is a website, linked to the 

CGRP-GIS project website, that provides an explanation of the consensus-building 

process and links to additional information for the project. The web pages utilize Active 

Server Pages (ASP) technology to dynamically build HTML and interact with a database 

using JavaScript and VBScript. The actual open-response survey is composed of several 

sections, including demographic information and one or more topical groups of 

questions. The demographic information section collects data on respondents that may 

4 
be useful later in the analysis, such as contact information, organization, title, activities, 

age, gender, etc., depending on project requirements. The topical questions are posed to 

solicit responses in the form of 255-character short answers, and space is provided for 

several responses (usually 3–5) for each question. Sample answers may be provided in 

order to demonstrate the desired syntax or to stimulate thought along more than one 

avenue. 

Several question formats have been implemented, including simple yes/no, true/false, 

agree/disagree dualities, the short-answer format described above, quantitative rankings 

or categories (degree of agreement / disagreement with the posed statement, percentages, 

etc.), and a free-response section of nearly unlimited length. We have included the latter 

format on all open-response surveys used to date (e.g., Rasmussen et al. 2000, Keating et 

al. 2001) to provide a space for respondents to add comments that didn’t fit into the 

question structure, to reiterate earlier points, or to react to the survey or the larger 

consensus-building process. 

At the conclusion of the survey period, queries are run on the database to extract 

responses to individual questions. These responses are categorized—currently manually 

by a small group of people—and then the answers in the database are recoded. Several 

types of graphical plots are produced to analyze trends in the data, from simple 

histograms by category of answer to more complex and revealing “mindmaps” and 

cluster diagrams. Mindmaps, in particular, demonstrate not only the distribution of 

answers per category, but also the interconnectivity of answer categories. For instance, if 

a respondent included answers falling into categories 1, 5, 6, and 8 in response to a given 

question, the links among these categories are displayed. In this way, clusters of 

response categories are developed, illustrating relationships among issues posed by 

respondents. These various diagrams may be easily incorporated into a report on the 

consensus-building process that demonstrates areas of agreement and conflict to the 

stakeholder community. New positions may be formed in response to the results, and 

further clarification may be necessary (iteration of the open-response survey). Finally,

the diagrams and analyses provide documentation for decisions based on stakeholder 

consensus. 

5 
4. Application to CGRP 

The stakeholder group for the CGRP-GIS includes personnel involved in Laboratory 

operations, emergency management, facilities management, environmental monitoring, 

and various research projects. Each of these groups has different goals and works on 

different time scales. Long-term environmental monitoring and infrastructure reference 

databases (e.g., utilities, structures, and roads) emphasize change control, updates, 

consistency of data format, and documentation of data sources. Isolated, short-term

research projects may place a higher priority on rapidity of analysis and knowledge held 

in the minds of individuals, while data documentation, consistency of data format, and 

long-term archiving may not be valued. Once a given research project is completed and 

summarized, the data is informally stored and often is eventually lost. 

However, these disparate approaches do have common threads, such as data 

quality standards. With a basic introduction to the value provided by enterprise GIS, 

large and small projects alike can benefit from metadata, consistent data formats, ease of 

data exchange and accessibility, and data warehouse and backup arrangements. Longterm operations work may benefit, for example, from the results of specialized studies on 

slope stability or wildlife habitat, while readily available infrastructure data may be of

great value to researchers. 

The questions developed for the CGRP-GIS open-response survey were designed 

to capture these differences and commonalities (see Appendix). In the main (core) 

section of the survey, each question included a list of sample answers to catalyze 

thinking. Demographic information was collected so that responses could be analyzed by 

organization, position, research area, etc. 

5. Results 

The responses to the online open-response survey questions were categorized and 

plotted in histograms and mindmaps. The results presented in this section are organized 

by survey question. While the histograms illustrate the most frequently mentioned 

categories of answer for a given question, the mindmaps provide insight into the 

6 
connections among the responses. In the mindmap plots, each circular node represents a 

category of response to the question. The lines (edges) that connect the nodes represent 

the instances in which the two connected nodes were mentioned by the same person in 

response to the question. The map associates the issues that are related (correlated). The 

thicknesses of the node rims and edges are proportional to the number of responses 

(nodes) or connections (edges). Within the nodes, the number in parentheses corresponds 

to the number of connections made to this category of answer; each edge is similarly 

labeled along its length. Some plots have been “filtered” to remove the nodes and edges 

mentioned by only one respondent. These filtered plots better emphasize the main trends 

in the responses. Refer to the Appendix for the exact wording of the open-response 

survey questions. 

While only 10 responses were captured via the web tool, this represents about a 

third of the 35 active CGRP-GIS stakeholders. The respondents were fairly evenly 

distributed among the groups that comprise the stakeholder community. 

5.1. Organizational Response to the Cerro Grande Fire 

1. Organizational Response

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IM Infra PI FC EI NM GIS F

# Responses

N = 27 

Explanation

IM Information management 

Infra Infrastructure rebuilding

PI Public / community information 

FC Flood control / watershed 

 stabilization 

EI Evaluating / monitoring 

 environmental impacts 

NM Numerical modeling 

GIS GIS 

F Firefighting / mitigating future 

 fire hazards 

Figure 2. Histogram of organizational responses to the Cerro Grande fire 

According to the responses (Figure 2), the greatest efforts of stakeholders in 

response to the fire fall into the categories of evaluating and monitoring environmental 

impacts (EI), infrastructure rebuilding (Infra), and public and community information 

7 
(PI). The mindmap (Figure 3) highlights relationships among the responses that are not 

apparent in the histogram. The more subtle connections among the answer categories 

reveal two separate groups among the respondents: the operations (left of the dashed line) 

and environmental monitoring (right) efforts. Those involved with evaluating and 

monitoring environmental impacts (EI) were also working on flood control (FC) and 

numerical modeling (NM) but generally not on infrastructure rebuilding (Infra). Efforts 

in infrastructure rebuilding were tied with firefighting (F), information management (IM), 

and GIS (GIS). It is notable that information management was mentioned solely by the 

operations workers. This is further reflected in the responses regarding the need for a 

data repository and management of spatial data in question 2. 

Explanation

IM Information management 

Infra Infrastructure rebuilding

PI Public / community information 

FC Flood control / watershed 

 stabilization 

EI Evaluating / monitoring 

 environmental impacts 

NM Numerical modeling 

GIS GIS 

F Firefighting / mitigating future 

 fire hazards 

Figure 3. Mindmap of organizational responses to the Cerro Grande fire 

8 
5.2. Main Data Needs from CGRP-GIS 

2. Main Data Needs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Topo Rep RS NM PM Vis Infra GIS Env

# Responses

N = 31 Explanation 

Topo Topographic data

Rep Data repository / Downloads/ 

 Information management

RS Remote sensing data

NM Numerical model input

PM Predictive model results

Vis Data visualization

Infra Infrastructure data

GIS GIS services

Env Post-fire environmental 

 changes

Figure 4. Histogram of main data needs from CGRP-GIS 

The main data GIS data needs of CGRP stakeholders are topographic data (Topo) 

and a data repository with downloads and information management (Rep), followed by 

remote sensing data (RS), predictive model results (PM), and data on post-fire 

environmental changes (Env) (Figure 4). The mindmap (Figure 5) shows the strong 

interconnectivity between the need for topographic data, predictive model results, and the 

spatial data repository. A second loop links topographic data with data on environmental 

changes and remote sensing data. Note that those interested in GIS Services are 

connected with the “environmental” (second) loop, while those interested in 

infrastructure data (Infra) are connected strongly to the spatial data repository. 

9 
Explanation 

Topo Topographic data

Rep Data repository / Downloads/ 

 Information management

RS Remote sensing data

NM Numerical model input

PM Predictive model results

Vis Data visualization

Infra Infrastructure data

GIS GIS services

Env Post-fire environmental 

 changes

Figure 5. Mindmap of main data needs from CGRP-GIS. This filtered 

mindmap displays only those nodes with more than one connection. 

10 
5.3. Advantages of CGRP-GIS 

3. Advantages of CGRP-GIS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Rep Coll GIS Haz EOC Stew Cost Meta

# Responses

Explanation 

Rep Central data repository, map 

 archive

Coll Foster research collaborations

GIS GIS services

Haz Natural hazards mitigation

EOC EOC support

Stew Data stewardship remains with 

 data owner

Cost Cost effectiveness

Meta Metadata standards

N=28

Figure 6. Histogram of perceived advantages of CGRP-GIS

The main advantage of the CGRP-GIS project, as seen by the responding 

stakeholders (Figure 6), is the central data repository and map archive (Rep). Other 

important advantages include natural hazard mitigation (Haz) and Emergency Operations 

Center support (EOC). The mindmap (Figure 7) demonstrates the centrality of the data 

repository and map archive and the strong interconnectivity among the repository, 

Emergency Operations Center (EOC) support, and natural hazards mitigation. Lesser 

advantages, linked to the data repository, are fostering research collaborations (Coll) and 

GIS services (GIS). Interestingly, GIS Services was mentioned here as a “Main 

Advantage of CGRP-GIS” in connection with such diverse nodes as the data repository, 

EOC support, fostering research collaborations, and natural hazards mitigation, but in 

response to “Main Data Needs from CGRP-GIS” (question 2), GIS Services was 

primarily related to environmental studies (remote sensing, topographic data, and postfire environmental changes). Lesser interest in cost savings, metadata, and data 

stewardship had links distributed among the other nodes. 

11 
Explanation 

Rep Central data repository, map 

 archive

Coll Foster research collaborations

GIS GIS services

Haz Natural hazards mitigation

EOC EOC support

Stew Data stewardship remains with 

 data owner

Cost Cost effectiveness

Meta Metadata standards

Figure 7. Mindmap of perceived advantages of the CGRP-GIS

12 
5.4. Concerns and Reservations about CGRP-GIS 

4. Concerns about CGRP-GIS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Cost Cent Bene Data Redun IP Turf

# Responses

Explanation 

Cost Costs / who pays

Cent Overcentralization

Bene Project goals, benefits, utility 

 unclear

Data Data access, ownership, 

 maintenance unclear

Redun Redundancy

IP Loss of intellectual property 

 (one respondent)

Turf Turf battles

N = 31

Figure 8. Histogram of concerns about CGRP-GIS 

The stakeholders voiced strong concerns regarding data access, ownership, and 

maintenance (Data) (Figure 8). Other concerns include costs (Cost) and unclear CGRPGIS project goals, benefits, and utility (Bene). These main concerns are strongly related 

(Figure 9). A secondary loop involves data access issues; unclear project goals, benefits, 

and utility; and redundancy (Redun). Lesser concerns about turf battles and 

overcentralization link to data access issues and unclear benefits. 

Explanation 

Cost Costs / who pays

Cent Overcentralization

Bene Project goals, benefits, utility 

 unclear

Data Data access, ownership, 

 maintenance unclear

Redun Redundancy

IP Loss of intellectual property 

 (one respondent)

Turf Turf battles

Figure 9. Mindmap of concerns about CGRP-GIS 

13 
5.5. Effective Post-Fire Information Exchange 

5. Effective Information Exchange

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Meet BAER Tel Net SW DL Pub WWW

# Resp

onses

Explanation 

Meet Face-to-face (public) meetings

BAER Data gathered by BAER Team,

 LANL

Tel Telephone

Net Networked workstations

SW Standalone workstations

DL Manual downloads

Pub Public domain data

WWW Internet, web applications

N = 19

Figure 10. Histogram of responses citing effective information exchange methods 

The most effective aspects of information exchange during and 

immediately after the fire include data gathered by the Burned Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation Team and LANL (designated BAER in the above plot), followed by 

meetings (Meet), telephone (Tel), and networked workstations (Net) (Figure 10). From 

the mindmap (Figure 11), it is clear that the data gathered by the BAER Team and LANL 

was of central importance. One group of respondents found meetings, telephone 

interaction, and networked workstations useful, while another utilized standalone 

workstations (SW) and manual data downloads (DL). Use of the Internet and web 

applications (WWW) appears to be only related to the use of BAER Team and LANL 

data. This division may represent a difference between coordination and technical work, 

but the data itself (and effective access) is of central importance. 

14 
Explanation 

Meet Face-to-face (public) meetings

BAER Data gathered by BAER Team,

 LANL

Tel Telephone

Net Networked workstations

SW Standalone workstations

DL Manual downloads

Pub Public domain data

WWW Internet, web applications

Figure 11. Mindmap of responses citing effective information exchange methods 

15 
5.6. Difficulties in Post-Fire Information Exchange

6. Difficulties in Information Exchange

0

2

4

6

8

10

Meet DA FP HU

# Responses

Explanation 

Meet Face-to-face communications

DA Data access, currency, accuracy

FP Finding people, resources

HU Hardware and infrastructure 

 unreliability

N = 19 

Figure 12. Histogram of difficulties in post-fire information exchange 

The greatest difficulties in information exchange during and immediately after the 

fire involved data access, accuracy, and currency (DA) (Figure 12). Secondary problems

involved finding people and resources (FP) and hardware and infrastructure unreliability 

(HU). These three main difficulties are reflected in a strong loop in the mindmap (Figure 

13). These problems are arguably related to poor spatial information management. A 

secondary relationship is demonstrated between data access issues (DA) and face-to-face 

communications (Meet). 

Explanation 

Meet Face-to-face communications

DA Data access, currency, accuracy

FP Finding people, resources

HU Hardware and infrastructure 

 unreliability

Figure 13. Mindmap of difficulties in post-fire information exchange 

16 
5.7. Utility of GIS Efforts 

7. Utility of GIS Efforts

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

123456 789 10 11 12 13

Question #

# Pos, Neg Responses

Figure 14. Ranking of the utility of GIS efforts. This topic contained a total 

of 13 questions, each answered by a ranking of “most useful” to “least useful” or 

“no opinion.” Positive responses ("most useful"), shown in green, project above 

zero on the y-axis, and negative responses ("least useful"), shown in red, project 

below zero. "Neutral" and "No Opinion” responses have been excluded from this 

analysis. 

Explanation 

1 Central fire data repository

2 Online download capability

3 Internet MapServices

4 Map preparation service

5 GIS analysis service

6 Numerical model input formulation

7 Ongoing CGRP data acquisition and 

 storage

8 Infrastructure data acquisition and 

 storage

9 Predictive model results for selected 

 scenarios

10 Consensus building

11 Decision support tool development

12 Enhancing GIS services to external 

 stakeholders

13 GIS application development

The GIS efforts of greatest potential utility to CGRP stakeholders (Figure 14) 

include the central data repository (category 1), map preparation service (4), numerical 

model input formulation (6), infrastructure data acquisition and storage (8), and 

enhancing GIS services to external stakeholders (12). Other interests include ongoing 

CGRP data acquisition and storage (7), predictive model results for selected scenarios

(9), and GIS application development (13). Consensus building (10) and decision 

support tool development (11) were perceived to have lesser utility. 

17 
6. Discussion 

The need for spatial information management and a central fire data repository 

was emphasized mainly by operations personnel working on infrastructure rebuilding, the 

Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and natural hazards mitigation (Figures 3, 5, 7). 

Environmental monitoring and research staff showed less interest in a central data 

repository and were instead interested in specific data types, including topographic, 

remote sensing, and post-fire environmental change data. However, these workers did 

link a central data repository to the potential benefits of fostering research collaborations, 

mitigating natural hazards, and more effective GIS services. Predictive model results are 

valued by both groups (Figure 5). 

The concerns about CGRP-GIS voiced by the stakeholders, in contrast, are not 

divided along the lines of professional focus. Concerns about cost, data stewardship and 

maintenance, and poorly defined benefits were shared by many stakeholders (Figure 9). 

There was good consensus that data access and accuracy as well as reliable 

communications systems were lacking in the fire-fighting and recovery efforts. Simpler 

communication means, such as meetings and phone calls, were generally more effective 

than networked computers, most likely due to network and power outages (SalazarLangley et al. 2000a, b). The spatial data gathered by the BAER Team and LANL 

personnel were central to almost all efforts during this period, underscoring the need for 

effective spatial information management during and immediately following crises. 

These results, when combined with opinions and suggestions voiced at 

stakeholder meetings, provide guidance for the design and implementation of the CGRPGIS. An enterprise GIS, including a central spatial data warehouse (metadata catalog and 

repository for selected spatial data), GIS applications and services, and accompanying 

data quality policies and procedures is clearly valued by the operations and facility 

management personnel. The benefits of this organizational scheme could be made clear 

to those involved in environmental monitoring and research, but a clear cost / benefit 

comparison must be made (e.g., Keating et al. 2002). While operations budgets may be 

structured to include funds for this GIS infrastructure, the direct and indirect burdens on 

18 
research and monitoring budgets may seem more invasive and detrimental to project 

activities. 

The benefits of the enterprise GIS include well-documented, accessible data in 

consistent formats. Even if the majority of spatial data reside with the data owners, a 

central metadata catalog provides a searchable resource for locating necessary data. 

Clear policies on data ownership / stewardship, change control, and documentation 

(metadata) will make future budgeting for long-term data management easier. 

The implementation of the CGRP-GIS to date includes a data warehouse for 

spatial data layers, an online metadata catalog, a web-based Internet map server (IMS), 

and policies and procedures to ensure data quality and documentation. The website for 

the CGRP-GIS (http://www.cgrp-gis.lanl.gov) provides background information on the 

post-fire rehabilitation efforts; a data catalog for direct download of BAER Team spatial 

data layers and maps; interactive, browser-based map services to view combinations of 

data layers; and a link to the Consensus Project website for the CGRP-GIS

(http://consensus/lanl.gov/cerro). The EES-10 GISLab team home page 

(http://www.gislab.lanl.gov) carries these services a step further to provide an online 

enterprise metadata and map catalog as well as a request system for GIS services. These 

tools and services are in development, and the future of the project is guided by the input 

described in this report. 

7. Lessons Learned for the Use of the Consensus Tool 

The limited participation and sparseness of data in the CGRP-GIS consensus 

effort resulted from two primary causes: lack of stakeholder buy-in and lack of 

motivation to complete the open-response survey. Early in the Cerro Grande Wildfire 

Rehabilitation Project the GIS effort was distributed among various organizations, and 

the formal data repository project was seen as a splinter project to the main rehabilitation 

effort. The CGRP-GIS was perceived as usurping data ownership and individual GIS 

efforts. The CGRP consensus project was launched during this period, and the answers 

reflect the unconvinced attitude of the stakeholders. Secondly, even those stakeholders 

19 
who were interested in the success of the CGRP-GIS had limited time to devote to taking 

the survey and many did not complete it at all. 

These experiences have resulted in the following list of lessons learned for 

application of the consensus-building tool: 

• Ensure that a representative subgroup of stakeholders participates in the layout 

and formulation of the open-response survey issues. 

• Ensure that the open-response survey tool is explicitly described in workplans or 

mandates for project work. This may provide better stakeholder buy-in to the 

process. 

• Facilitate completion of the survey. The website is very efficient, but it is 

difficult to get those disinterested in Internet applications to use it. 

• Eliminate fussiness. Consider eliminating login/password entry to the website. 

Minimize the number of mouse clicks to get to the survey (i.e., don’t have several 

introductory pages to scroll through to get to the heart of it). 

• Employ alternative means of surveying stakeholders: interviews are laborintensive, but this may be necessary for key individuals. Provide paper versions 

of the survey at meetings: introduce the survey and ask for stakeholders to 

complete the survey before leaving the meeting. Set up portable computers at 

meetings in facilities with Internet access so that participants can use the web 

interface if preferred. 

• Email reminders are not effective. Such messages are buried in the avalanche of 

similar pleas. 

20 
8. Conclusions 

• There is a clear division of labor apparent in the efforts in response to the fire: 

operations workers were involved with infrastructure rebuilding and public 

information, while environmental monitoring workers were concerned with 

evaluating environmental impacts, numerical modeling, and flood control. 

• Web-based tools which are based on collective intelligence and are similar to the 

methods used in this investigation demonstrated their public information utility 

during the wildfire. 

• The main GIS data needs identified by the responding stakeholders include 

topographic data, a central data repository, remote sensing data, predictive model 

results, and data on post-fire environmental changes. 

• The central data repository was most strongly correlated with the need for 

infrastructure and topographic data and predictive model results. It was less 

important in relation to environmental data or GIS services. 

• The main advantage of the CGRP-GIS project is the central data repository and its 

relation to natural hazard mitigation, the EOC, GIS services, and fostering 

research collaboration. 

• Strong concerns were registered over potential problems with data access, 

ownership, and maintenance; unclear benefits of CGRP-GIS; costs; and 

redundancy. 

• While the data gathered in the field during and shortly after the fire (by the BAER 

Team and LANL) was deemed most useful to emergency and recovery efforts, the 

greatest problems in information exchange came from data access, currency, and 

accuracy. 

21 
• The design and implementation of the CGRP-GIS has been guided by stakeholder 

feedback provided by this tool as well as by stakeholder meetings. The enterprise 

GIS constructed for this project includes a data warehouse for spatial data layers, 

an online metadata catalog, a web-based Internet Map Server (IMS), and policies 

and procedures to ensure data quality and documentation. Two websites 

(http://www.cgrp-gis.lanl.gov and http://www.gislab.lanl.gov) provide direct 

downloads of BAER Team data, access to metadata and map catalogs, interactive 

map services, a link to the consensus project for CGRP, and a request system for 

GIS services. 

9. Acknowledgements 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the Cerro Grande 

Rehabilitation Project and National Science Foundation agreement number CMS9902868. We are indebted to Cathy Wilson, Steve Koch, Elizabeth Keating, Randy 

Mynard, and Paul Rich for their helpful review of an early version of the open-response 

survey. Steve Linger provided a helpful review of the text. 

22 
10.References 

Keating, G., S. Rasmussen, M. Raven, E. Tso, J. Cocq and P. Dotson, 2001. Use of webbased consensus building and conflict clarification process for the Navajo Nation 

governmental efficiency evaluation, an appendix to ETD Environmental 

Consulting, Report of the Navajo Nation Council Evaluation, submitted to the 

Office of Navajo Government Development, Window Rock, Arizona. Los 

Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-01-6207, 43 p. 

Keating, G., P.M. Rich, M.S. Witkowski, C.M. Batts, J.H. Deming, M.A. Jones, S.P. 

Linger, C.R. Mynard, T.L. Riggs and D. Walther, 2002. Challenges for Enterprise 

GIS in Post-Wildfire Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Management. Los 

Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-13930, 47 p. 

Rasmussen, S., M. Bedau, J. McCaskill, N. Packard and M. Raven, 2000. Artificial Life: 

Looking Backward, Looking Forward, websites, Accessed: July 2001, 

http://consensus.lanl.gov/alife, http://alife7.alife.org. 

Rasmussen, S. and N. Goldstein, 2001. Use of distributed information technology in 

disasters. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-01-6838. 

Salazar-Langley, C.A., D.L. Hall and C.G. Coffman, 2000a. Cerro Grande fire: Facility 

and Waste Operations Division and Facilities lessons to be learned report. Los 

Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-01-1304, 20 p. 

Salazar-Langley, C.A., D.L. Hall and C.G. Coffman, 2000b. Cerro Grande fire: 

laboratory recovery lessons to be learned report. Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Report LA-UR-01-1305, 44 p. 

23 
Appendix: Web-Based Open-Response Survey 

Part 1: Professional (Demographic) Information Gathered in the CGRP-GIS 

Open-Response Survey 

24 
Part 2: Core Questions of the CGRP-GIS Open-Response Survey 

25 
26 
27