The Role of GIS in DRR: Classifying and Improving GIS Capabilities in Small Towns and Rural Areas

Optimizing GIS capability does not always require that the municipality obtain cutting edge professionals and resources. This paper offers a disaster risk reduction (DRR) design methodology for small towns and rural areas that employs a multi-variable classification system, enabling customization for effective DRR. Determining appropriate GIS capacity requires that a community first be evaluated in order to identify its disaster risk reduction/disaster management (DRR/DM) requirements. These requirements are then considered in conjunction with the municipality's resources to establish the desired capability. Qualification levels for major aspects of GIS capability with respect to DRR/DM are provided along with descriptions of each level and suggested procedures for advancement to the next level. It should be noted that a municipality can be classified at a different level with respect to different variables. Needs vary according to the community, thus attainment of a uniform capability level may not be necessary.

Incorporating variable peak -to -daily ratios in the equilibrium traffic assignment procedure of the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS)

The standard highway assignment model in the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS) is based on the equilibrium traffic assignment method. This method involves running several iterations of all-or-nothing capacity-restraint assignment with an adjustment of travel time to reflect delays encountered in the associated iteration. The iterative link time adjustment process is accomplished through the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) volume-delay equation. Since FSUTMS' traffic assignment procedure outputs daily volumes, and the input capacities are given in hourly volumes, it is necessary to convert the hourly capacities to their daily equivalents when computing the volume-to-capacity ratios used in the BPR function. The conversion is accomplished by dividing the hourly capacity by a factor called the peak-to-daily ratio, or referred to as CONFAC in FSUTMS. The ratio is computed as the highest hourly volume of a day divided by the corresponding total daily volume. ^ While several studies have indicated that CONFAC is a decreasing function of the level of congestion, a constant value is used for each facility type in the current version of FSUTMS. This ignores the different congestion level associated with each roadway and is believed to be one of the culprits of traffic assignment errors. Traffic counts data from across the state of Florida were used to calibrate CONFACs as a function of a congestion measure using the weighted least squares method. The calibrated functions were then implemented in FSUTMS through a procedure that takes advantage of the iterative nature of FSUTMS' equilibrium assignment method. ^ The assignment results based on constant and variable CONFACs were then compared against the ground counts for three selected networks. It was found that the accuracy from the two assignments was not significantly different, that the hypothesized improvement in assignment results from the variable CONFAC model was not empirically evident. It was recognized that many other factors beyond the scope and control of this study could contribute to this finding. It was recommended that further studies focus on the use of the variable CONFAC model with recalibrated parameters for the BPR function and/or with other forms of volume-delay functions. ^

Factors influencing university performance of associate in arts graduates transferring to the state university system

The purpose of this study was to examine the factorsbehind the failure rates of Associate in Arts (AA)graduates from Miami-Dade Community College (M-DCC) transferring to the Florida State University System (SUS). In M-DCC's largest disciplines, the university failure rate was 13% for Business & Management, 13% for Computer Science, and 14% for Engineering. Hypotheses tested were: Hypothesis 1 (H1): The lower division (LD) overall cumulative GPA and/or the LD major field GPA for AA graduates are predictive of the SUS GPA for the Business Management, Computer Science, and Engineering disciplines. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Demographic variables (age, race, gender) are predictive of performance at the university among M-DCC AA graduates in Engineering, Business & Management, and Computer Science. Hypothesis 3 (H3): Administrative variables (CLAST -College Level Academic Skills Test subtests) are predictive of university performance (GPA) for the Business/Management, Engineering, and Computer Science disciplines. Hypothesis 4 (H4): LD curriculum variables (course credits, course quality points) are predictive of SUS performance for the Engineering, Business/Management and Computer Science disciplines. Multiple Regression was the inferential procedureselected for predictions. Descriptive statistics weregenerated on the predictors. Results for H1 identified the LD GPA as the most significant variable in accounting for the variability of the university GPA for the Business & Management, Computer Science, and Engineering disciplines. For H2, no significant results were obtained for theage and gender variables, but the ethnic subgroups indicated significance at the .0001 level. However, differentials in GPA may not have been due directly to the race factor but, rather, to curriculum choices and performance outcomes while in the LD. The CLAST computation variable (H3) was a significant predictor of the SUS GPA. This is most likely due to the mathematics structure pervasive in these disciplines. For H4, there were two curriculum variables significant in explaining the variability of the university GPA (number of required critical major credits completed and quality of the student's performance for these credits). Descriptive statistics on the predictors indicated that 78% of those failing in the State University System had a LD major GPA (calculated with the critical required university credits earned and quality points of these credits) of less than 3.0; and 83% of those failing at the university had an overall community college GPA of less than 3.0.