City Disaster Susceptibility Comparisons using Weighted Bipartite Graphs

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Mar 1, 2018
https://doi.org/10.47164/ijngc.v9i1.135
Download
PDF
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 9, Issue 1, March 2018

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Wubai Zhou
Florida International University
Chao Shen
Florida International University
Tao Li
Florida International University
Shu-Ching Chen
Florida International University
Ning Xie
Florida International University
Jinpeng Wei
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Abstract

Metropolises offer ample employment opportunities, convenient facilities and a wide array of entertainment options. However large cities are also more vulnerable to natural disasters, which have caused widespread destructions, claimed thousands of lives and left havoc for the survivors. Knowing which city is less susceptible to natural disasters is thus one of the most critical questions one faces when making decisions on travelling or job and business relocation. In this work, we propose a bipartite-graph based framework to compare the impacts of disasters on two cities by answering different queries using textual documents collected online. Besides intuitive simple comparisons using statistics, our system also generates textual comparative summaries to better describe the differences between the two cities in term of safety. Although a number of online services provide disaster events statistic information for cities, our framework compares the impacts of disasters on cities in a more straightforward and comprehensive way.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Wubai Zhou, Chao Shen, Tao Li, Shu-Ching Chen, Ning Xie, & Jinpeng Wei. (2018). City Disaster Susceptibility Comparisons using Weighted Bipartite Graphs. International Journal of Next-Generation Computing, 9(1), 01–11. https://doi.org/10.47164/ijngc.v9i1.135
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Ballesteros, J., Rahman, M., Carbunar, B., and Rishe, N. 2012. Safe cities. a participa- tory sensing approach. In Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2012 IEEE 37th Conference on. IEEE, 626-634.
  2. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., and Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. the Journal of machine Learning research 3, 993-1022.
  3. Chen, H., Chung, W., Xu, J. J., Wang, G., Qin, Y., and Chau, M. 2004. Crime data mining: a general framework and some examples. Computer 37, 4, 50-56.
  4. Chen, P., Yuan, H., and Shu, X. 2008. Forecasting crime using the arima model. In Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 2008. FSKD'08. Fifth International Conference on. Vol. 5. IEEE, 627-630.
  5. E-Teams. 2004. http://www.nc4.us/ETeam.php.
  6. Finkel, J. R., Grenager, T., and Manning, C. 2005. Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 43rd An- nual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 363-370.
  7. GeoVISTA. 2010. http://www.geovista.psu.edu.
  8. Huang, X., Wan, X., and Xiao, J. 2011. Comparative news summarization using linear programming. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: short papers-Volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, 648-653.
  9. Jung, H.-S., Jeong, C.-S., Lee, Y.-W., and Hong, P.-D. 2009. An intelligent ubiquitous middleware for u-city: Smartum. Journal of Information Science & Engineering 25, 2.
  10. Karpiriski, M., Senart, A., and Cahill, V. 2006. Sensor networks for smart roads. In Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2006. PerCom Workshops 2006. Fourth Annual IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 5pp.
  11. Kim, H. and Zhai, C. 2009. Generating comparative summaries of contradictory opinions in text. In Proceeding of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 385394.
  12. Naphade, M., Banavar, G., Harrison, C., Paraszczak, J., and Morris, R. 2011. Smarter cities and their innovation challenges. Computer 44, 6, 32-39.
  13. Olligschlaeger, A. M. 1997. Arti cial neural networks and crime mapping. Crime mapping and crime prevention, 313-348.
  14. Ushahidi. 2012. http://www.ushahidi.com/.
  15. Wan, X., Jia, H., Huang, S., and Xiao, J. 2011. Summarizing the di erences in multilingual news. In Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in Information. ACM, 735-744.
  16. Wang, D., Zhu, S., Li, T., and Gong, Y. 2012. Comparative document summarization via discriminative sentence selection. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 6, 3, 12.
  17. WebEOC. 2002. http://www.esi911.com/home.
  18. Zheng, L., Shen, C., Tang, L., Zeng, C., Li, T., Luis, S., and Chen, S.-C. 2013. Data min- ing meets the needs of disaster information management. IEEE Transactions on Human- Machine Systems 43, 5, 451-464.