• Save
Towards an Efficient and Robust Wireless Disaster Management Architecture for Response Activities
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Towards an Efficient and Robust Wireless Disaster Management Architecture for Response Activities

on

  • 3,542 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,542
Views on SlideShare
3,538
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
0
Comments
2

1 Embed 4

http://www.slideshare.net 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Congratulations on your slideshow! I allowed myself to add it to 'GREAT CAUSES and JUST CAUSES' group . Feel free to join us. Thank you in advance for your participation and sharing your 'favorites'. . Wish you a beautiful day! With friendship, Bernard (France)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • very good presentation

    Syed Noman Husain
    (Student of Electronics Eng at Hamdard University)

    Engr.Hyder Abbas is my Teacher
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Towards an Efficient and Robust Wireless Disaster Management Architecture for Response Activities Towards an Efficient and Robust Wireless Disaster Management Architecture for Response Activities Presentation Transcript

  • “Towards an Efficient and Robust Wireless Disaster Management Architecture for Response Activities” IEEEP 24th Multi-topic Symposium 2009 April 08 & 09, 2009, Karachi By Engr. S. Hyder Abbas Shah Assistant Professor & HEC Sponsored Ph D Scholar (Telecom Engg.) FEST, HIIT, Hamdard University 1 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction • Disasters can fall into one of three types • Natural-Caused by a natural event • Environmental-Related to environmental problems • Incited-Provoked and urged on • Disasters are often classified by cause {Alexander, 2000; Burton et al., 1993; Cutter, 2001}: • Natural (e.g., floods, droughts, landslides, volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, winter storms, tsunami), • Technological (e.g., chemical spills or releases, computer failures, train derailments, plane crashes, power outages, bridge collapses), or • social (e.g., riots, willful acts such as arson or 2 Thursday, April 16, 2009 terrorism).
  • 1. Introduction • A disaster is a result from the combination of hazard, vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce the potential chances of risk. A disaster happens when a hazard impacts on the vulnerable population and causes damage, casualties and disruption [1] • Any hazard – flood, earthquake or cyclone which is a triggering event along with greater vulnerability (inadequate access to resources, sick and old people, lack of awareness etc) would lead to disaster causing greater loss to life and property. 3 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction Vulnerability Disaster Hazard Underlying Dynamic Unsafe Trigger Events Cause Pressure Conditions Earthquake Limited Access Lack of Dangerous Tsunamis To resources Institutions location Floods Illness and Education Dangerous Cyclones Disabilities Training buildings Volcanic Eruptions Age/Sex Skills Low Income Drought Poverty Population level Landslide Others explosion War Urbanization Technological Uncontrolled development accident Environmental Degradation Environmental pollution Figure 1 Hazard, Vulnerability and Disaster 4 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction • Hazard may be defined as “a dangerous condition or event, that threats or have the potential for causing injury to life or damage to property or the environment.” – Natural and Manmade. • Vulnerability may be defined as “The extent to which a community, structure, services or geographic area is likely to be damaged or disrupted by the impact of particular hazard, on account of their nature, construction and proximity to hazardous terrains or a disaster prone area.” • Risk is a “measure of the expected losses due to a hazard event occurring in a given area over a specific time period. Risk is a function of the probability of particular hazardous event and the losses it would cause.” The level of risk depends upon: • Nature of the hazard • Vulnerability of the elements which are affected • Economic value of those elements • Capacity can be defined as “resources, means and strengths which exist in households and communities and which enable them to cope with, withstand, prepare for, prevent, mitigate or quickly recover from a disaster”. 5 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction- World Major Disasters Several governments are blamed for some of these natural disasters, eg Stalin for the Ukrainian famine of 1921, Mao for the Chinese famine of 1969 and Britain for the Irish famine of 1845 • Concepcion, Chile, 1835: earthquake (5,000 dead) • Ireland, 1845: famine (one million dead) • Russia, 1847-51: cholera (one million dead) • Athens, 430 B.C.: Typhus epidemic • Mapoli, Italy, 1857: earthquake (11,000 dead) • Pompei, 79: Volcanic eruption • India, 1864: Cyclone (70,000 dead) • Antioch, Syria, 526: Earthquake (250,000 dead) • Russia, Prussia, Austria, Hungary, 1867: cholera (225,000 dead) • Costantinopole, 542: Bubonic plague • France and Germany, 1870-71: Smallpox (500,000 dead) • Beirut, Lebanon, 551: earthquake and tsunami (tens of thousands dead) • Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1873: cholera (230,000 dead) • Japan, 1181: famine (100,000 dead) • India, 1875-78: Famine (10 million dead) • Holland, 1228: sea flood (100,000 dead) • Bangladesh, 1876: Cyclone (200,000 dead) • Chihli, China, 1290: Earthquake (100,000 dead) • China, 1876-78: Famine (9 million dead) • Europe and Asia, 1346-52: Bubonic plague or quot;black deathquot; (one third of the European population dead plus millions in Asia and North Africa for a total of • China, 1881: Typhoon (300,000 dead) 25 million) • Indonesia, 1883: Tsunami (36,000 dead) • Brazil, 1555: smallpox (? dead) • Huayan Kou, China, 1887: Yang-tse Kiang flooding (one million dead) • Mexico, 1555-76: smallpox (more than one million dead) • Mino-owari, Japan, 1891: earthquake (7,000 dead) • Shensi, China, 1556: earthquake (800,000 dead) • Russia, 1891: famine (500,000 dead) • Russia, 1601-03: famine (one million dead) • Germany, 1892: cholera (140,000 dead) • Northern Italy, 1629-31: plague (120,000 dead) • Sanriku, Japan, 1896: Tsunami (27,000 dead) • Napoli, Italy, 1631: Mt Vesuvius erupts (3,000 dead) • India, 1897: earthquake (1,500 dead) • Havana, 1648: Yellow fever epidemic • Galveston, 1900: Hurricane (8,000 dead) • Sevilla, Spain, 1649: Plague (80,000 dead) • Martinique, 1902: Volcano (38,000 dead) • Russia, 1654-56: plague (200,000 dead) • San Francisco, 1906: earthquake and fire (3,000 dead) • Napoli, Italy, 1656: plague (150,000 dead) • Colombia, 1906: earthquake (1,000 dead) • Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1663: plague (50,000 dead) • Valparaiso, Chile, 1906: earthquake (20,000 dead) • London, Britain, 1665: plague (150,000 dead) • China, 1907: famine (20 million dead) • Turkey, 1668: earthquake (8,000 dead) • Messina, Italy, 1908: 7.5 earthquake (70,000 dead) • Vienna, Austria, 1679: plague (76,000 dead) • Ukraine, 1910: cholera (110,000 dead) • Prussia, Sweden and Finland, 1709-11: plague (300,000 dead) • Mexico City, 1911: earthquake • Hokkaido, Japan, 1730: Earthquake (140,000 dead) • Guatemala, 1917: earthquake (600 dead) • Lisbon, 1755: earthquake and tsunami (30,000 dead) • Worldwide, 1918: Influenza pandemic (25-100 million dead) • Calcutta, 1737: Earthquake (300,000 dead) • Gansu, China, 1920: 8.6 earthquake (200,000 dead) • Bengal, India, 1769: famine (10 million dead) • Hebei, China, 1920-21: famine (500,000 dead) • Russia, 1770-71: plague (200,000 dead) • Ukraine, 1921: Famine (5 million dead) • India, 1775: Tsunami (60,000 dead) • Lower Volga, Russia, 1921-22: Famine (5 million dead) • Northamerica, 1775-82: Smallpox (130,000 dead) • Yokohama, Japan, 1923: 8.3 earthquake (143,000 dead) • Iran, 1780: earthquake (200,000 dead) • Nanshan, China, 1927: 8.3 earthquake (200,000 dead) • Caribbeans, 1780: Hurricane (22,000 dead) • China, 1928-30: Famine (3 million dead) • Philadelphia, 1793: Yellow fever epidemic (5,000 dead) • Florida, USA, 1928: Hurricane (1800 dead) • Prussia, 1813-14: typhoid (200,000 dead) • China, 1931: Flooding (3.7 million dead) • Sumbawa, Indonesia, 1815: Mt Tambora erupts (88,000 dead) • Ukraine and Russia, 1932: Famine (5 million dead) • Japan, 1826: Tsunami (27,000 dead) • Gansu, China, 1932: 7.6 earthquake (70,000 dead) • Russia, 1830-31: cholera (500,000 dead) • Sanriku, Japan, 1933: 8.4 earthquake (3,000 dead) • Hungary, 1831: cholera (100,000 dead) • Bihar, India, 1934: 8.1 earthquake (10,700 dead) 6 • Cairo, 1831: Cholera epidemic, which spreads to London • Quetta, Pakistan, 1935: 7.5 earthquake (60,000 dead) Thursday, April 16, 2009 • London and Paris, 1832: Cholera epidemic (25,000 dead) • China, 1936: Famine (5 million dead) • New York, USA, 1938: Rains (600 dead)
  • • Erzincan, Turkey, 1939: 7.8 earthquake (33,000 dead) • Santiago, Chile, 1939: earthquake (30,000 dead) • West Africa, 1996: meningitis outbreak (25,000 dead) • Henan, China, 1941-43: famine (3 million dead) • Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 1996: earthquake (??,000 dead) • Bengal, India, 1943: famine (3.5 million dead) • Papua New Guinea, 1998: Tsunami (2,200 dead) • Tonankai, Japan, 1944: 8.1 earthquake (1,200 dead) • Yangtze Kiang, China, 1998: flooding (3,600 dead) • Nankaido, Japan, 1946: earthquake (1,330 dead) • Central America, 1998: Hurricane Mitch and floods (12,000 dead) • Ukraine and Russia, Soviet Union, 1946-47: famine (one million dead) • Afghanistan, 1998: Earthquakes (10,000 dead) • Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, 1948: earthquake (100,000 dead) • Colombia, 1999: earthquake (1,185 dead) • Assam, India, 1950: earthquake (1,526 dead) • Izmit, Turkey, 1999: earthquake (17,000 dead) • Holland, 1953: Sea flood (1,794 dead) • Taiwan, 1999: 7.6 earthquake (2,400 dead) • Iran, 1953: Rain flood (10,000 dead) • Orissa, India, 1999: Cyclone (7,600 dead) • Louisiana, USA, 1957: Hurricane (400 dead) • Venezuela, 1999: Floods (20,000 dead) • Worldwide, 1957: Influenza pandemic (about four million dead) • Vietnam, 1999: Floods (750 dead) • Japan, 1958: Typhoon (5,000 dead) • Gujarat, India, 2001: earthquake (20,000 dead) • Ethiopia, 1958: Famine (100,000 dead) • El Salvador, 2001: earthquake (850 dead) • China, 1958-61: Famine (38 million dead) • Afghanistan, 2002: earthquake (2,500 dead) • Morocco, 1960: earthquake (10,000 dead) • Algeria, 2003: earthquake (2,266 dead) • Chile, 1960: 9.5 earthquake and tsunami (5,700 dead) • Asia, 2003: SARS (744 dead, mostly in China) • Mt Huascaran, Peru, 1962: Volcano eruption (3,000) • Andhra Pradesh, India, 2003: Heat wave (1,300 dead) • Skopje, Yugoslavia, 1963: earthquake (1,066) • France, Spain and Italy, 2003: Heat wave (50,000 dead) • India, 1965: Famine (1.5 million dead) • Bam, Iran, 2003: earthquake (26,300 dead) • Worldwide, 1968: Influenza pandemic (about 750,000 dead) • Al-Hoceima, Morocco, 2004: earthquake (571 dead) • China, 1969: Famine (20 million dead) • Haiti and Dominican Republic, 2004: rains (2,400 dead) • North Peru, 1970: 7.8 earthquake (66,000 dead) • Philippines, 2004: typhoon (1,000 dead) • Bangladesh, 1970: Sea flood (200-500,000 dead) • China, 2004: floods (1,300 dead) • Vietnam, 1971: Red River flood (100,000 dead) • Southeast Asia, 2004: tsunamis caused by 9.0 earthquake (111,000 dead in • Managua, Nicaragua, 1972: earthquake flood (10,000 dead) Indonesia, 31,000 in Sri Lanka, 10,700 in India, 5,400 in Thailand, 68 in Malaysia, 82 in the Maldives, 300 in Myanmar and 150 in Somalia, including • Bangladesh, 1974: floods (28,000 dead) 1,500 Scandinavian tourists, and dozens of Germans, Italians, Dutch, etc) • Honduras, 1974: hurricane (5,000 dead) • Zarand, Iran, 2005: earthquake (500 dead) • Ethiopia, 1974: famine (200,000 dead) • Nias, Indonesia, 2005: 8.7 earthquake (1000 dead) • Haicheng, China, 1975: 7.0 earthquake (10,000 dead) • Mumbai, India, 2005: monsoon (1,000 dead) • Tangshan, China, 1976: 8.0 earthquake (750,000 dead) • China, 2005: floods (567 dead) • Guatemala, 1976: earthquake (23,000 dead) • Louisiana and Mississippi, USA, 2005: quot;Katrinaquot; hurricane (1,836 dead) • Cambdia, 1976-78: famine (700,000 dead) • Niger, 2005: famine (10,000? dead) • Andhra Pradesh, India, 1977: cyclone (10,000 dead) • Kashmir, 2005: earthquake (80,500 dead, of which 79,000 in Pakistan and • Caribbeans, 1979: Hurricane (2,000 dead) 1,350 in India) • Mexico, 1982: volcanic eruption (1,800 dead) • Central America, 2005: floods (1,400 dead, of which 1,200 in Guatemala) • Yemen, 1982: earthquake (3,000 dead) • Philippines, 2006: mudslides (1,800) • Bhopal, India, 1984: Chemical pollution (3,800 dead) • Java, 2006: earthquake (4,300) • Mozambique, 1984: famine (100,000 dead) • Java, 2006: tsunami (520) • Ethiopia, 1984: Famine (900,000 dead) • India and Pakistan, aug 2006: floods (300) • Ciudad de Mexico, 1985: 8.1 earthquake (9,500 dead) • Southern Ethiopia, aug 2006: floods (800) • Colombia, 1985: Volcano (25,000 dead) • Fujian, China, aug 2006: typhoon (260) • Armenia, 1988: earthquake (55,000 dead) • Indian subcontinent, june 2007: storms (228 in Pakistan, 500 in India, 600 in • Colombia, 1985: eruption of Nevado del Ruiz (23,000 dead) Bangladesh, unknown in Afghanistan) • Bangladesh, 1988: Monsoon flood (1,300 dead) • Hungary, july 2007: heatwave (500) • Gilan and Zanjan, Iran, 1990: 7.7 earthquake (35,000 dead) • North Korea, august 2007: floods (1,000?) • Bangladesh, 1991: tsunami (138,000 dead) • Peru, august 2007: earthquake (540) • Latur, India, 1993: earthquake (22,000 dead) • Bangladesh, november 2007: cyclone (4,000) • Kobe, Japan, 1995: earthquake (5,500 dead) • Afghanistan, february 2008: cold wave (926) • Niger, 1995: meningitis epidemic (3,000 dead) • Myanmar/Burma, may 2008: cyclone (135,000) • Chicago, USA, 1995: heatwave (739 dead) • China, may 2008: earthquake (70,000) • North Korea, 1995-98: Floods and famine (3.5 million dead) 7 • Haiti, august 2008: hurricane (500) Thursday, April 16, 2009 • India and Bangladesh, september 2008: floods (635)
  • 1. Introduction Disaster Strengths • Over the past decade, the number of natural and manmade disasters are continuously increasing • From 1994 to 1998, reported disasters average was 428 per year but from • 1999 to 2003, this figure went up to an average of 707 disaster events per year [1] showing an increase of about 60 per cent over the previous years. • The biggest rise was in countries of low human development, which suffered an increase of 142 per cent. • In Pakistan 256,037 people were killed and 8,989,631 affected in the period from 1993 to 2007 (World Disasters Report 2007). 8 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction Cost Impact • Globally, the costs averaged $138 billion per year from 1988 to 1992 and $940 billion per year from 2000 to 2007 (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,2007). • Globally the average of lives lost is approximately 228,597 (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2007). • The fundamental problems are that population is increasing, more people are moving to urban high-risk areas, and our infrastructure is increasing in complexity and value. • The number of people affected by disaster damage worldwide is typically one thousand times greater than the number of people killed by disasters (Burton, Kates and White, 1996). • Improved warnings and mitigation measures have reduced significantly the number of lives lost in the technologically advanced nations (UN Global Program, 2005). 9 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction Reported Deaths from all Disasters: World Scenario (1992-2001) [1] Figure 2 World Disaster Scenario 10 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction Table 1: Top Natural Disasters- Pakistan Disaster Date Killed Disaster Date Earthquake 31-May- 60,000 Flood Sep-1992 1935 Wind storm 15-Dec-1965 10,000 Flood 9-Aug-1992 Earthquake 28-Dec-1974 4,700 Flood 2-Aug-1976 Earthquake 27-Nov-1945 4,000 Flood Aug-1973 Flood 1950 2,900 Flood Jul-1978 Flood Sep-1992 1,334 Drought Mar-2000 Flood 3-Mar-1998 1,000 Flood 22-Jul-1995 Flood Jun-1977 848 Flood 24-Aug-1996 Wind storm 14-Nov-1993 609 Flood Jun-1977 Source: quot;EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium“ http://www.cred.be/emdat/intro.htm Access time: 05/01/2003 11 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction Table2: Top Natural Disasters in Pakistan Disaster Date Died Affected Damage $ (000) Earthquake May 31, 1935 35,000 _ _ (Tsunami) Nov. 27, 1945 4,000 _ _ Earthquake Dec. 28, 1974 4,700 _ 3,255 Earthquake Jan. 31, 1991 Earthquake Oct. 8, 2005 73,338 2,869, 142 5,000,000 Flood 1950 2,900 Flood August 1976 5,556,000 505,000 Flood July 1978 2,246,000 Flood July 1992 1334 12,324,024 1,000,000 Flood 1994 92,000 Flood August 1996 1,300,000 _ Flood June 1997 848 _ _ Flood March 1998 1,000 _ _ Flood February 2005 7,000,450 Flood July 2001 246,000 Flood July 2003 1,266,223 Total 6082 Drought 2000-02 2,200,000 247,000 Windstorm 15 Dec 1965 10,000 Windstorm 14 Nov 1993 609 12 Thursday, April 16, 2009 Source: EM – DAT Emergency database. http//www.em.net/disasters/pr
  • 1. Introduction Floods in Pakistan [40] During the decade 1991 to 2001 caused an estimated damage of over Pak Rs. 78,000 million to property Table 3: Loss in Floods in Pakistan [40] Year Lives Lost Villages Affected 1950 2910 10000 1955 679 6945 1956 160 11609 1973 474 9719 1975 126 8628 1976 425 9150 1978 393 9199 1988 508 1000 1992 1008 13208 1995 591 6852 1998 47 161 2001 201 0.4 million* 2003 230 1.266 million* 13 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 1. Introduction FLOODS 2007 [40] Table 4: DAMAGES/ LOSSES EFFECTS BALOCHISTAN SINDH PUNJAB NWFP NA TOTAL DEATHS 215 205 57 117 6 600 VILLAGES 5,000 1,449 12 - - 6,461 AFFECTED HOUSES 41718 29,878 6,619 310 19 78,544 DESTROYED POPULATION 2 MN 500,000 172 - - 2.5 MN AFFECTED
  • 1. Introduction Table 5: TROPICAL CYCLONE in Pakistan Effect Balochistan Sindh NWFP Total Villages Affected 5,000 1,449 6,449 Houses destroyed 41718 29,878 90 71,686 Population affected 2 Mill 5,00,000 2.5 Mill No of Deaths 205 215 23 443 Relief Camps *21 *5 *26 Population in Relief 7182 365 7547 Camps DURING THE PERIOD 1971-2001 FOURTEEN CYCLONES APPROACHED COASTAL AREAS OF PAKISTAN THE CYCLONE OF 1999 HIT SINDH COAST AND CAUSED SERIOUS DAMAGE IN TERMS OF LIVES AND PROPERTY IN THATTA AND BADIN DISTRICTS:- WIPED OUT 73 SETTLEMENTS, 168 LIVES LOST, NEARLY 0.6 MILLION PEOPLE AFFECTED KILLING OF 11,000 CATTLE 15 Thursday, April 16, 2009 CONSIDERABLE LOSSES TO INFRASTRUCTURE
  • 2. Architecture Architecture of an efficient disaster management System [1] 16 Thursday, April 16, 2009 Figure 3.
  • 2. Architecture Evolving Public Safety Communication Systems by Integrating WLAN and TETRA Networks- IEEE Communications Magazine January 2006 [8] 17 Figure 4 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 2. Architecture Mobile Responder Communication Networks for Public Safety [7] IEEE Communications Magazine January 2006 18 Figure 5 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 2. Architecture DM Wireless Communication Architecture as A heterogeneous WiFi-Wimax Network [1] Figure 6 19 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 2. Architecture Evolving Public Safety Communication Systems by Integrating WLAN and TETRA Networks- IEEE Communications Magazine January 2006 [8] 20 Figure 7 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 2. Architecture Evolving Public Safety Communication Systems by Integrating WLAN and TETRA Networks- IEEE Communications Magazine January 2006 [8] 21 Figure 8 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 3. Technologies Figure 9. [Source: http://www.wimax.com] 22 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 3. Technologies Global Wireline/ Wireless Market 1995-2010 1,600 Subscribers -- In Millions 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 Global Wireline 400 Global Wireless 200 Global Wireless (Revised) 0 2002 1996 1998 2000 2004 2006 2008 2010 Figure 10 23 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 3. Technologies Bandwidth positioning of MESA [39] Advanced/future system •Not replacement for existing and evolving systems • MESA combines mobility up to aeronautical speeds with broadband data rates • Complements and meant to interwork with known/planned narrow to broadband wireless standards & projects around the world • Calls for a variety of advanced research (e.g. WWRF) • Recognized by entities like ITU, UN, NATO, FBI, NTIA, APCO, EU Commission, GSC/RaST Bandwidth positioning of MESA (GTSC/GRSC), Industry Canada Figure 11. 24 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4 Methodology Figure12. 25 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Figure 13. Disaster Management & CIVIONICS Network 26 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Categories Services have been sorted into different categories resulting from the combination of identified – Scenarios • Daily • Emergency • Disaster – Operational environments • Local • Countryside • Metropolitan – Coverage area • On Spot 27 Thursday, April 16, 2009 • Big Area
  • 4. Methodology Analysis for Implementation of Categories Services have been sorted into 28 different categories resulting from the combination of identified •Local/Daily/On Spot • Countryside/Emergency/On Spot •Local/Emergency/On Spot • Countryside/Emergency/Big Area •Local/Planned Events/On Spot • Countryside/Disaster/On Spot •Underground/Emergency/On Spot • Countryside/Disaster/Big Area •Metropolitan/Daily/On Spot • Countryside/Planned Events/On Spot •Metropolitan/Daily/Big Area • Countryside/Planned Events/Big Area •Metropolitan/Emergency/On Spot • Severe/Daily/On Spot • Severe/Daily/Big Area •Metropolitan/Emergency/Big Area • Severe/Emergency/On Spot •Metropolitan/Disaster/On Spot • Severe/Emergency/Big Area •Metropolitan/Disaster/Big Area • Severe/Disaster/On Spot •Metropolitan/Planned Events/On Spot • Severe/Disaster/Big Area •Metropolitan/Planned Events/Big Area • Severe/Planned Events/On Spot •Countryside/Daily/On Spot • Severe/Planned Events/Big Area •Countryside/Daily/Big Area 28 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Scenario Category 1 - Local/Daily+Emergency+Planned Events/ On Spot – The following classes seem to be relevant: – Armed robbery in a bank – Fire in a chemical industry – Fire in a disco, Fire in an apartment, Fire in the tube – Fire in a tunnel – Hazardous materials dealing – Surveillance and patrolling in the airport, railway station... – Prison surveillance – Arrival of the VVIP at the airport – Surveillance and medical assistance of a stadium during a big event (i.e. Olympic – Games Opening 29 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Scenario Category 2 Metropolitan + Countryside/Daily/On spot + Big area • Automated criminal history and law enforcement records systems • Forests surveillance • Exceptional transports, e.g. hazardous materials • Coastal guard services • Urban patrolling • Suspect car pursuit • Assistance to a boat in trouble • Surveillance systems of mines, underground, tunnels • Surveillance of a volcanic activity • Wildlife management and surveillance • Minor pile-up 30 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Scenario Categories 3 Metropolitan/Emergency+ Planned events/On spot • Middle severity earthquake • Car bomb • Emergency medical services • Car accident with a moderate number of injured people 31 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Scenario Categories 4 Metropolitan / Emergency + Planned events / Big area and Countryside / Emergency + Planned events/On spot + Big area • Criminal pursuit • VIP visit in city • Highway car accident • Search and rescue activity • Evacuation of villages due to the explosion of a volcano • Emergency for a flood in a farmers village • Public planned events far away from urban area (e.g. Woodstock) • Exhibition during a celebration or any congregation • Industry accident with environmental contamination. • A flood, • A storm 32 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Scenario Categories 5 Faroff + Severe/Emergency + Planned events/On spot + Big Area • Rescue to a sinking boat • Car, helicopter, plane accident in remote areas • People search and rescue on mountains • Sport events on sea, mountain • Alarm of the presence of a bomb in underground • Black-out in the underground • Cave collapse • Train crash • Opening of a new station, Airport 33 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Scenario Categories 6 Local/Disaster/On spot and Severe/ Disaster/ On Spot+ Big Area • Explosion in a ground/ Stadium- collapse • Train crash in extreme environment • Terrorist attack with a bomb attack in underground 34 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Scenario Categories 7 Metropolitan + Countryside+ Faroff/Disaster/On spot + Wide Area • High magnitude earthquake • Big fire in a forest close to urban area • Big train crash • Big avalanche • Tornado • Air crash in a remote area Skyscraper collapse • 35 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Considerable Parameters for the mapping process • Technical requirements have been defined in terms of: – Mobility – Interoperability – Traffic Classification • Audio Services • Video Services • Data Services – Reliability and Availability – Power consumption Thursday,Security – April 16, 2009 36
  • 4. Methodology Four Main Catagories • From the identified scenarios 4 different Macro-categories can be identified: – Indoor/Emergency+Day-by-Day/Single Spot – Rural+Urban/Emergency/Single Spot – Rural+Urban/Emergency+Disaster/Wide Area – Rural+Urban/Day-by-Day/Single Spot+Wide Area 37 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 4. Methodology Network Architecture 1: Local/Emergency+Daily/On Spot Remote Control ISDN Centre PSTN xDSL Router Router AP Node peer-to-peer connection AP-to- nodes connection AP-to- router connection Interoperability with external access networks both wired and wireless Interconnection through backhaul to the RCC 38 Thursday, April 16, 2009 Figure 14.
  • 4. Methodology Network Architecture 2: Metropolitan+Countryside/Emergency/On Spot Satellite peer-to-peer connection backhaul AP-to- nodes connection Interoperability with external access networks (TETRA, TETRAPOL, 2G/2.5/3G) Remote Interconnection through the Control backhaul to the Remote Centre (RCC) Control Centre AP+Router Node 39 Thursday, April 16, 2009 Figure 15.
  • 4. Methodology Network Architecture 3: Countryside+Metropolitan/Emergency+Disaster/Big Area peer-to-peer connection Satellite AP-to- nodes connection backhaul AP-to-AP connection AP-to- router connection Remote Interoperability with external access networks Control Interconnection through the backhaul to the RCC Centre AP +router HAP backhaul Node AP+router GW AP +router Node Node 40 Thursday, April 16, 2009 Figure 16.
  • 4. Methodology Network Architecture 4: Countryside+Metropolitan/Daily/On Spot+Big Area Satellite Interoperability with external backhaul access networks (2G/2.5/3G) Interconnection through the Remote satellite link to the Remote Control Control Centre Centre (RCC) 41 Thursday, April 16, 2009 Figure 17.
  • 4. Methodology Figure 18. DM Architecture [39] Operations • Support Vertical • Command and • Services, e.g. Control LBS Management Commercial • Network Edge • Backhaul from • Router/Switch • Radio Access • Network • Core • Network Internet • Edge • Ede • Router/Switch • Router/Switch • Firewall • AAA • Mobility • Server “Jurisdictionaly Separate” Manager Network Visitor • Home • Manager • Database 42 Database Thursday, April 16, 2009 Server •
  • 5. Use Case Scenarios of Early Warning Systems 43 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 5. Disaster Warning Network- Stages 44 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 5. Flow chart of Early Warning Network 45 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 5. Information Technology Applications to Multi-Hazard Engineering • SENSING AND IMAGING • COMMUNICATION • COMPUTING AND SOFTWARE • INFORMATION MANAGEMENT • HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERFACES 46 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 5. Technologies in DWN 47 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 5. Layout of Warning Network 48 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 49 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • The following picture shows the installation of a WSN using components from ScatterWeb for the study of warming effects in the Swiss alps as part of the project SensorGIS GEOTECHNOLOGIEN Science Report. Early Warning Systems in Earth Management. Kick-Off-Meeting 10 October 2007 Technical University Karlsruhe, p. 75 - 88 50 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • Early Warning Systems for Natural Disasters in Korea 51 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 52 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • Table : Comparison of Different Communication Channels Used in Disaster Warning 53 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 6. References [1] Khan Himayatullah Khan, Abu Turab, Natural hazards and disaster management in Pakistan, MPRA Paper No. 11052, posted 12. October 2008 / 14:53, 12. October 2008, Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11052/ MPRA Paper No. 11052, posted 12. October 2008 / 14:53 [2] Wenling Xuan; Xiuwan Chen; Gang Zhao, Early warning monitoring and management of Disasters, Geo-science and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2007, IGARSS 2007, IEEE International Volume, Issue, 23-28 July 2007 Page(s):2996 – 2999 Digital Object Identifier 10.1109 , IGARSS.2007.4423475 [3] M. H. Jo a, *, Y. W. Jo a, D. H. Shin: Advanced real-time disaster information mapping technique by integrating ubgi (ubiquitous geographic information): The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Vol.XXXVII. Part B8. Beijing 2008. [4] Arnhardt, et al.: Sensor Based Landslide Early Warning System: Journal of Early Warning Systems in Earth Management: October 10, 2007, p. 75-88. [5] “Improving Disaster Management: The Role of IT in Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery”, books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11824&page15 [6] “Advances in Space Technologies for Disaster Management and Rehabilitation”,1st International Conference held on 2-3 September 2006, Islamabad, Pakistan [7] Mobile Responders Communication Networks for Public Safety, IEEE Communications Magazine January 2006 [8] Evolving Public Safety Communication Systems by Integrating WLAN and TETRA Networks- IEEE Communications Magazine, January 2006 54 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 6. References [9] Francesco Chiti, Romano Fantacci, Ieonardo Maccari, Dania Marabissi and Daniele Tarchi: A broadband wireless communications System for Emergency Management: IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 4, June 2008 pp. pp. 8-14 [10] Hwang, S., Sanderson, W., Lindell, M., State Emergency Management Agencies’ hazard Analysis information on the internet; 2001, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 19, No. 1, 85-106. [11] Mendonca, D. and Wallace, W. Studying organizationally-situated improvisation in response of extreme events; 2004; International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 22, No.2,5-29 [12] Slayton, J. Establishing and maintaining interagency Information Sharing; Juvenile Accountability Incentive-JAIBG Bulletin, Block Grants Program; US Department of Justice; 2000. [13] Zhang, J., Zhou, C., Xu, K., Watanabe, M. Flood disaster monitoring and evaluation in China, ISPRS Journal of Phogrammetry and Remote Sensing; Vol. 35, No. 5-6, 359-372, 2003. [14] Hecker, E., Irwin, W., Cottrell, D., Bruzewicz, A. Strategies for improving response and recovery in the future; Natural Hazards Review; 2000; Vol 1, No. 3, p161-170. [15] Waring, S., Zakos-Feliberti, A., Wood, R., Stone, M. The utility of Geographical Information Systems in rapid epidemiological assessments following weather-related disasters: Methodological issues based on the Tropical Storm Allison experience; 2005, International Journal of Hyg. Environ-Heath, 208, 109-116. [16] Sato, K. Map database construction in disaster information system, http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc95 , 1995. 55 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 6. References [17] Zerger, A., Smith, D., Impediments to using GIS for real-time disaster decision support, 2003, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 27, 123-141. [18] Grangen, K. Community vulnerability – The Human Dimensions of Disaster, in AURISA/SIRC’95, pp1-11; 1995. [19] Cova, T., Church, R., Modelling community evacuation vulnerability using GIS, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 1997, vol. 11, No. 8, 763- 784. [20] Shibata, F. Road maintenance system providing an integrated picture of damaged highways at disaster time http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97, 1997. [21] Marzolf, F. Trepanier, M., Langevin, A., Road network monitoring: algorithms and a case study, 2005, Computers & Operations Research; (in press). [22] Stokes, R.W. Marucci, G. GIS for Transportation Current Practices, Problems and Prospects. ITE Journal: 1995, 28-37. [23] Amdahl, G. Disaster response: GIS for public safety; Redlands, California; ESRI press, 2001. [24] Dash, N., The use of Geographical Information Systems in Disaster Research, 1997, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 15, No. 1, 135-146. [25] Briton, N. R. Whither the Emergency Manager? The International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 1999. [26] Hunter, P. Tsunami spare global IT but shakes up disaster recovery plans; Network Security; January, 2005. [27] Fujiwara, T., Watanabe, T. An ad hoc networking scheme in hybrid networks for Emergency communications; Ad Hoc Networks, Volume 3, Issue 5, September 2005, Pages 607-620. 56 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 6. References [28] Laurini, R. An introduction to TeleGeoMonitoring: problems and potentials; Ind Atkinson, P. and Marting, D. (eds.) Innovations in GIS 7- GIS and Geocomputation; 11- 26; Taylor&Francis, 2000, London. [29] Gordin, L. GIS in Telecommunications; Redlands, California; ESRI press; 2001. [30] Harder, C. Serving Maps on the Internet; Redlands, California; ESRI press, 1998. [31] Gruntfest, E., Weber. M. Internet and Emergency management, 1998, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 16, No. 1, 55-72. [32] Jafari, M., Bakhadyrov, I., Maher, A., Technological advances in evacuation planning and emergency management: current state of the art; Report to the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, USA, 2003. [33] Gladwin, C., Gladwin, H., Peacock, W., Modelling hurricane evacuation decisions with ethnographic method; 2001; International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 19, No. 2, 117-143. [34] De Silva, F. N.. Challenges in designing spatial decision support systems for evacuation planning. University of Colorado, USA, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, Institute of Behavioral Science: 200013. [35] De Silva, F. N. & Eglese, R.W.. Integrating simulation modelling and GIS: spatial decision support systems for evacuation planning. Journal of the Operational Research Society 2000; 51: 423-430. 57 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 6. References [36] Cova, T.J. Johnson, J.P. 2002. Microsimulation of neighborhood evacuations in the urban – wildland interface. Environment and Planning A; 34 (12): 2211-2229 [37] Partyka, J.G. & Hall, R.W.. On the Road to Service; OR/MS Today. 2000. http://www.lionhrtpub.com [38] Goldblatt, R., Weinisch, K. Evacuation planning, human factors and traffic engineering; TR News 238; 13-17, 2005. [39] Project MESA (Mobility for Emergency and Safety Applications), http://www.projectmesa.org/ [40] National Disaster Management Authority http://www.ndma.gov.pk [41] Harnessing Information and Technology for Disaster Management, Disaster Information Task Force Report USA N O V E M B E R 1 9 9 9. [42] Montoya, L., Masser, I. Management of natural hazard risk in Cartago, Costa Rica; Habit International, 29,493-509, 2005. [43] Marincioni, F., A cross-cultural analysis of natural disaster response: the Northwest Italy Floods of 1994 compared to the US Midwest floods of 1993, 2001; International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 19, No. 2, 209-236. [44] Karanci, N., Aksit, B., Building disaster resistant communities: Lessons Learned from Past Earthquakes in Turkey and suggestions for the future; 2000, International Journal Of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 18, No. 3, 403-416. 58 Thursday, April 16, 2009
  • 6. References [45] Denis, H. Coordination in a governmental disaster mega-organization; 1995, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 13, No. 1, 25-43. [46] Simpson, D. Community emergency response training (CERTs): a recent history and review; Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 54-63, 2001. [47] Popkin, R., Rubbin, C. Practitioners’ views of the natural hazards center; Natural Hazards Review, 2000; vol. 1, No. 4, 212-221. [48] Lindell, M., Sanderson, W., Hwang, S., Local Government Agencies; 2002; International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters; Vol. 20, No. 1, 29-39. [49] Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions a book by RS Bolar USA, 2002 59 Thursday, April 16, 2009