# Environmental Hazards: A Coverage Response Approach
## 1 Introduction  
The much anticipated value of (e.g., Pew Report, [1]) and rapid advancement in the capabilities [2, 3], prevalence [4], and synthesis of Smart Systems within the cultural landscape [5, 6, 7] and within many Smart Cities on a global scale is well documented [8]. Smart Systems allow for decision-making using data and/or analyses from monitoring platforms or equipment for the prediction and verification of various quantities or outcomes according to intended purposes or user-defined functionalities. The promise and delivery of improved quality of life with social participation [9], and the role of Smart Systems in creating more efficient, effective [10], and more sustainability and leisure or health-oriented societies [11, 12, 13] is evident. The use and/or distributionof resources (e.g., water), whether politically motivated or otherwise [14; 15] as related to policy, are also laudable. Further, the combination of real-time in situ observational platforms [16] that include immediate dissemination offer the public access to view and monitor events or situations of interest continuously. Thus the utility and complexities associated with the application of Smart Systems to a wide variety of situations or intents (e.g., water quality) becomes apparent [17]. Whether intended for additional purposes or not, Smart Systems are applied \"at-will\" by commercial, industrial or manufacturing [18] interests as well as individual users and governments. Concurrently the prevalence and increasing preponderance of significant environmental hazards worldwide have increased the burden they impose [19] on individuals and populations. This has brought into question the efficacy of Smart Systems in meeting multiple, increasing, and recurring losses, both economic and human. Together the increased burden of hazards and efficacy of Smart Systems raise the question that if interest exists in evolving more innovative business models [20], then why not with emergency response models linking interactive human responses with environmental hazards? What Smart Systems architectures [21] and applications [22], or components of the same, are missing? How are the uses, interpretations, and interactive responses of individuals [23], groups or crowds [24], and government agencies [25] being incorporated with such systems? These questions relate directly to applications designed for detection and/or diagnosis of flooding [26], assessment of urban climate monitoring [27], and earthquakes [28] with or without inclusion of online and Social Media information generated by the public. In tandem are the observed shifts in the actual response of populations and governments to hazards (e.g., flooding, [29]) as tracked before, during, and after events. With the advent of user created content (e.g., as connected with volunteered geographic information [30]), and the associated high costs of rescue and recovery operations (e.g., emergency rescue, recovery, rebuilding, and insurance); repeated hazards pose a strain on the response systems and supporting infrastructure. These are due to user interpretations and expectations based upon created content that does not have a clear relationship to repeated hazards or responses. Thus additional questions arise as to the functionalities of Smart Systems in the advance education, preparation, and warning process. When facing increasing environmental hazards in large population areas [31], the combination of public responses to perceived harm [32]--regardless of the frequency, recurrence, or intensity of a particular hazard [33; 34]--creates uncertainty when applied to locations with specific yet variable characteristics. For these reasons multiple responses to environmental hazards [13; 35] are employed by local governments before, during, and after events in and near urban and suburban regions often with large population densities amid widely divergent demographics.