Supporting Group Decision Making and Coordination in …



Supporting Group Decision Making and Coordination in Urban Disasters Relief Efforts

Sergio F. Ochoa* — Andrés Neyem* — José A. Pino* — Marcos R.S. Borges**

* Department of Computer Science, Universidad de Chile

Blanco Encalada 2120, Santiago 6511224, Chile

{sochoa, aneyem, jpino}@dcc.uchile.cl

** Graduate Program in Informatics

Núcleo de Computação Eletrônica and Instituto de Matemática

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

mborges@nce.ufrj.br

ABSTRACT. When extreme events affect urban areas the response process should be fast and effective because the population and civil infrastructure densities potentially increase the impact of such events. These situations have shown the need to improve the group decision-making process and the coordination of relief activities carried out by organizations inside and outside de disaster area. Most research initiatives do not address these challenges considering the first responders working in the disaster area as decision makers. This paper presents a proposal to include first responders as decision makers and it describes a technological platform to support decision making and coordination activities among these first responders and the command post. The supporting platform provides digital communication and information recording, representation and dissemination capabilities among the mobile workers participating in the relief efforts. The platform could also be used to support activities in scenarios similar to this one, such as police and military operations, and security operatives during massive social events.

KEYWORDS: Group Decision Support, Coordination, Emergency Management, Contextual Information, Software Platform.

1. Introduction

At the global level, average number of annual deaths caused by extreme events in the period 1999-2003 was 59,000 people. For the same period, the average number of affected people was 303 million per year (International Federation of Red Cross, 2004). About 97,490 people were killed in disasters globally from January to October 2005 (World Health Organization, 2006). Furthermore, the corresponding economical losses were estimated at $ 159 billion.

More than half the world’s population (3.4 billion people), live in areas where at least one large scale hazard could significantly impact them. Billions of people in more than 100 countries are periodically exposed to at least one event of earthquake, tropical cyclone, flood or drought. As a result of disasters triggered by these natural hazards, more than 184 deaths per day are recorded in different parts of the world (World Health Organization, 2006).

These eXtreme Events (XEs) not only include natural hazards, but also accidental and intentional disasters such as fires and terrorist attacks. However, natural hazards are the most harmful. In 2005, four natural hazard types (earthquake, tropical cyclone, flood and drought) were responsible for 94 percent of deaths due to XEs (World Health Organization, 2006).

When these XEs affect urban areas their potential impact on society increases due to the high population and civil infrastructure densities. In addition, XE responding process becomes more complex and critical. Several researchers have identified the need of reducing the vulnerability of urban areas to XEs (Columbia/Wharton Roundtable, 2002; Godschalk, 2003; Mileti, 1999) and improve the effectiveness of relief team actions in these situations (Mendonça, 2007; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004; Scalem et al., 2004). The significant human and economical costs emphasize this urgent need.

The relief team actions can be classified according to the three phases of disaster relief processes: (a) the preparedness of first response plans for disasters, (b) the response process to reduce the impact of XEs, and (c) the recovery of the affected areas (Mileti, 1999; National Science and Technology Council, 2003). Mileti (1999) defines these phases as follows: (a) “preparedness involves building an emergency response and management capability before a disaster occurs to facilitate an effective response when needed”; (b) “response refers to the actions taken immediately before, during and after a disaster occurs to save lives, minimize damage to property, and enhance the effectiveness of recovery”; and (c) “recovery involves short-term activities to restore vital support systems and long-term activities to return life to normal”.

Although the three phases involve group decision-making in differing contexts, this paper focuses only on the response phase of urban relief efforts. Response is the most complex and critical phase. Many pitfalls related to group decision-making and coordination activities have been well documented (Comfort, 2001; Mileti, 1999; Moore, 1999; National Research Council, 1999; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004; Quarantelli, 1996; Stewart et al., 2002). These problems directly influence the quality of decisions made and the effectiveness of the actions taken to mitigate XEs.

Several research projects have been undertaken over the last five years in this area. However, they do not consider the first responders working in the disaster area as decision makers. The main reason is that due to the communication problems inside the affected zone first responders become partially or totally isolated during relief efforts (Manoj et al., 2007). Therefore first responders are mainly reduced to improvisation (Mendonça, 2007; Mendonça et al., 2007; Webb, 2004). This improvisation jeopardizes the collaboration among them and the effectiveness of emergency response (Mendonça, 2007; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004). Another key issue that affects decision making and collaboration inside the disaster area is the lack of standards that ensure the communication and information interoperability among the first responders and managers belonging to different organizations.

Authors stated that contextual information disseminated through digital wireless communication could be used as a basis to improve group decision-making and coordination processes during the response phase (Ochoa et al., 2006). This contextual information can be understood as “whatever does not intervene explicitly with the solution to a problem but constrains it” (Brézillon et al., 2004). These may include: number of available first responders, current environmental condition, the features of the disaster area and so on. During the response phase a large amount of contextual information is generated which results from the development of the event, including the relief actions carried out by the teams. The prompt capture and distribution of this information can play an important role in the decisions made and actions carried out by disaster relief teams during that phase (Canós et al., 2005; Turoff, 2002; van de Walle et al., 2007). Currently, this contextual information is poorly considered in group decision-making processes and most response plans. However, “emergency managers have learned and stated that accurate and timely information is as crucial as is rapid and coherent coordination among responding organizations” (van de Walle et al., 2007).

This paper presents a proposal to include first responders as decision makers and it describes a technological platform to record, represent and distribute contextual information during disaster relief efforts. The platform intends to improve the decision-making and coordination processes among first responders and the command post. The platform is composed of a software, hardware and communication system. It runs on mobile computing devices and it allows two information representations. Visual representations support the decision-making during disaster relief efforts, and the digital (internal) representation ensures the information’s interoperability. The communication support enhances the communication and coordination capabilities of participant organizations. The platform also includes the support for information delivery in heterogeneous technological scenarios.

The next section characterizes extreme events and explains the relevance these characteristics have on the decision-making and coordination process. Section 3 describes the extreme collaboration scenario where the group decision-making process should be supported as part of disaster relief efforts. Section 4 presents the related work. Section 5 describes the technological platform that supports the group decision making and coordination processes. Section 6 presents the conclusions and the further work.

2. Characterizing Extreme Events

Prior research has proposed six properties of extreme events that are important mainly for decision making and decision support. These properties are: rarity, uncertainty, high and broad consequences, complexity, time pressure, and multiple decision makers (Stewart et al., 2002). They are commented below.

XEs are rare. Their low frequency of occurrence restricts the opportunities for preparation and learning from them. This rarity creates the need for diverse thinking, solutions and skills. Furthermore, this rarity makes these events difficult to understand, model and predict.

XEs are also uncertain because both their occurrence is unpredictable and their evolution is highly dynamic. The challenges an XE presents and its consequences are the joint product of that event, the affected community, and the organizations involved in preparation and response. Every disaster is different; therefore disasters present varying challenges to decision making, e.g., time availability and geographic scale.

When XEs affect urban areas they usually have high and broad consequences, leading to the need to manage interdependencies among a wide range of physical and social systems (Godschalk, 2003; Rinaldi et al., 2001). The risks and the disaster evolution should be evaluated quickly and accurately so that decisions can be effective and timely. When these processes involve several people and organizations, it may be appropriate to use tools to support interaction among these people and organizations.

Event complexity arises in part due to the severe consequences of XEs (Columbia/Wharton Roundtable, 2002). It may also arise as a result of interdependencies among urban infrastructure systems (Godschalk, 2003; Rinaldi et al., 2001). The complexity of the events requires the participation of experts in several areas (e.g. civil engineers, transportation/electrical engineers and chemical experts) to support decision making. The activities of these persons need to be coordinated.

Time pressure forces a convergence of planning and execution (Moorman et al., 1998), so that opportunities for analysis are few (Stewart et al., 2002). It is therefore vital that accurate and timely information be gathered and delivered among the organizations participating in the disaster relief effort. Information supporting forecasting event impact and propagation is needed. This time pressure also creates a need for convergent thinking in order to generate coordinated mitigation actions in a timely fashion.

Finally, we have to consider that multiple decision makers will be involved in the relief activities given the complexity and diversity of organizations participating. They may compete or negotiate while responding to the event. It may therefore be advisable to consider how decision support systems can assist the management of shared resources and help people to converge soon to joint decisions. These decisions and the actions produced by them need to be coordinated in order to carry out an integral mitigation effort.

All these XE properties add requirements and challenges to the decision making and coordination processes. However, there are several other issues that also add requirements to the disaster relief process, for example the usability of the technological solutions, the commitment level for inter-organizational collaboration, and the features and role of the affected area. The proposal presented in this paper is focused just on providing communication support, information interoperability and delivery inside the disaster area as a way to reduce uncertainty and improvisation space. The information availability and interaction capabilities among first responders inside the affected area would help improve the decision making and coordination process. The usability of this technological solution was carefully considered during the design phase and it is discussed in sections 5.2 and 5.4.

3. Urban Disaster Relief Scenario

Urban areas can be seen as an interconnected system (public utilities, transportation systems, communications, power systems, and homes and office buildings) where a failure can potentially affect many people. When XEs affect urban areas, the key issue is to control the cascading effects on the interconnected systems (Godschalk, 2003; Rinaldi et al., 2001; Stewart et al., 2002).

Typically, the response process involves a disaster relief mission that relies on geographically distributed teams consisting of personnel in several roles, such as field agents, team leaders, coordinators, decision makers and specialists/advisors. The teams are composed of various individuals and organizations with diverse expertise depending on the type of XE to mitigate, the features of the affected area and the available resources. In major disasters, the first response teams are composed of firefighters, police officers, medical personnel, government officers and various specialists (Figure 1).

Typically, firefighters are mainly focused on fire fighting, evacuation of civilians, search and rescue activities and evaluation of the affected area. Police officers are mainly in charge of isolating the disaster area, supporting the evacuation process and protecting the civil property. Medical personnel provide first-aid and transportation of victims to health centers. The government officers are usually in charge of making the macro-decisions and coordinating the activities of the participating organizations. The role of the specialists is to support managers in the decision making process. For example they analyze possible consequences of a decision and provide advice to make the response process more effective/safe. Usually, when XEs affect urban areas, civil engineers are involved to carry out structural analysis of civil infrastructure (Aldunate et al., 2006; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002).

| |

Figure 1. Composition of an urban disaster relief mission

Several constraints exist in an urban relief mission: (1) one of the main issues is the mission needs to be launched in a short period of time; (2) cultural, age and discipline differences may exist since a disaster relief mission is performed by participants from various organizations and it could involve more than one country; (3) on-site information should be easily understandable and deliverable for all organizations; and (4) the communication availability in the disaster area should be provided in order to deliver information, communicate decisions and coordinate activities. Currently, most communication support inside a disaster area is based on 2 or 3 radio channels; and information delivery is based on physical maps disseminated among first responders (Aldunate et al., 2006). Considering that in large urban disasters there may be hundreds or thousands of first responders, these communication support and information delivery systems are clearly insufficient (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004).

3.1. Decision Making Scenario

Decision makers have to consider that several activities such as searching for and rescuing survivors, and repairing buildings temporarily to support rescue missions, must be carried out in a short time period (Turoff, 2002). Typically the first 12-24 hours are the most critical. Therefore, the decisions triggering these tasks should also be made as soon as possible. Searching and rescuing survivors should be performed immediately after a disaster occurs.

For that reason, the availability and understandability of the contextual information that supports the decision process should be high. Compiled information with a graphical representation (e.g. teams’ location, task assignments and resource allocation presented on a map) can be used to be easy to understand by persons making decisions in different organizations. However, if such information needs to be delivered among the participants, it will require the support of interoperable information and communication systems. Since the type and amount of contextual information that could be used to make decisions is diverse and comes from several sources, the processes of capturing, representing and delivering such information play a key role in getting accurate and on-time decisions.

Other aspects to consider are the decision dissemination and implementation. Not all persons have to know every decision made; therefore decisions have to be communicated to the right persons and delivered in the appropriate way (e.g. visual/sound alarms or on-demand notifications). Reported experiences show that organizations participating in relief efforts keep inter-organization interactions among themselves to a minimum, and follow their own protocols and procedures (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004; Stewart et al., 2002). This jeopardizes the implementation of decisions. Government agencies are usually in charge of the emergency management process, and their major challenge is to make the macro-decisions and coordinate efforts from other organizations (Dykstra, 2003; Jackson et al., 2002; National Research Council, 2002). However, people only obey executives from their own organization (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004; Smith, 2003). Thus, the decisions made by government managers might not have the expected effect.

The problems related to decision delivery and implementation are based on the lack of an inter-organizational structure able to establish responsibilities and decision making levels. Although proposals for this structure could be stated in some national response plan (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002), in practice it is the result of a self-organizing negotiation and even discussion process (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004).

Regardless of the way this structure is generated - by a self-organizing process or established by a national plan - two types of decision making processes are conducted during the response process: organizational decision making and improvisation. Organizational decision making is the process of making decisions following the protocols, rules and conventions defined by an organization. This process is usually done in a common command post or in the command post of each organization. The implementation of these decisions is carried out mainly using the organization’s own resources (e.g. equipment, human resources and materials). These decisions have an effect on the relief effort and also on the activities of other first response organizations. Since the rules and protocols of an organization are not usually designed to be used in inter-organizational activities, a decision made by an organization could imply negative effects on other ones (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004; Stewart et al., 2002).

Improvisations used to be a consequence of the communication problems in the disaster area. Members of first response teams usually communicate among themselves using radio systems, because the fixed communication infrastructure is frequently collapsed, unreliable or overloaded. They share two or three radio channels to carry out the communication process, which are insufficient and inappropriate for large relief efforts (Aldunate et al., 2006; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004). The lack of control on the transmission channels and the poor information transmission capabilities may leave several response teams isolated or uninformed. In such situations, the only choice for such persons is improvisation. Improvisation is typical of large relief efforts and it is mainly carried out in the field (Mendonça, 2007). The decisions made during improvisation are based on the experience of the decision maker or the group. Little or no information supports such decisions and their implementation involves just local group resources. Improvisations usually involve small scope activities; however, all these activities happening in parallel have important consequences on the global results of the relief effort.

Several researchers have identified the opportunity to use IT-based solutions to deal with the challenges involved in the inter-organizational decision making and activities coordination processes (National Research Council, 2002; National Science and Technology Council, 2003; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004). Digital communications, robotics, distributed real-time systems, GIS, collaborative systems, mobile computing and information interoperable formats are some tools that could be used to face these challenges. These IT-based solutions will have to deal with the first responders’ mobility, and they will be easy to transport, deploy and use in a disaster area.

3.2. Coordination Scenario

The coordination problems have several causes. Most of them are a consequence of limitations in both the decision making processes and the technological support for communication. It is clear that decisions made by an organization should be aligned with their partners’ decisions as a way to reduce unexpected consequences and to keep the relief activities coordinated. For this reason the decisions made need to be appropriately communicated to first responders in the field and also to decision makers of other organizations. It is also clear that not all persons have to know every decision.

The information and tasks related to these decisions have to be also visible to other organizations to keep the relief effort coordinated. In this scenario, the technological solution supporting the communication process represents a key element toward achieving effective coordination; particularly the capability of transmitting and routing information. In case of disaster relief efforts, digital wireless communication with routing capability would provide important advantages to coordination and decision making processes (Aldunate et al., 2006; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004). This communication support guarantees that several types of information can be delivered to mobile workers, and the communication channel will be available when a person needs to transmit or receive information. However, it does not ensure that the information can be understood by members of different organizations. This last feature can be ensured if the internal and external information representation is standardized, thereby achieving information interoperability among the organizations.

4. Related Work

Some countries have defined plans and responsibilities to adopt during emergency situations in order to coordinate efforts among organizations and to organize the decision-making processes. An example of them is the USA government which defined the Federal Response Plan (FRP) (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002), establishing the role of 27 federal departments and agencies during disaster relief efforts. The FRP does not incorporate technological solutions to support coordination activities among first responders and to service disaster managers’ information and operational needs. However, FRP assigns responsibilities to these agencies in order to coordinate the group decision making process. The FRP estimates around 24 hours to deploy such a plan. However, the survival rate drops to 50% after the first 24h in cases of collapse, and to under 5% in cases of fire.

Other initiatives are the Multi-Sector Crisis Management Consortium (Multi-Sector Crisis Management Consortium, 2006) and the E-Team initiative (E-TEAM, 2006), which have developed a set of IT tools to support coordination among local disaster managers and remote experts in order to enhance the decision making process. Typically, the local disaster managers use a mobile command post which provides videoconferencing capabilities. Although this initiative has made important contributions to the group decision support area, it does not allow representing and sharing key information among first responders working in the affected area. There are other projects, such as CAR (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997), CATS (Swiatek, 1999), OpenGIS (Farley, 1999) and Sahana (Currion et al., 2007), which have developed information systems to coordinate tasks among first response organizations. Similar to those mentioned previously, these systems are not able to represent and share contextual information among first responders deployed in the affected area as they require stable communication and large computing power. In the best case, first responders inside the disaster area are able to use PDAs supported by Wi-Fi or GSM (cellular network) to send/receive information from the command post or partners.

Multi-agent systems such as Robocup Rescue (Kitano et al., 2001), Combined Systems (van Veelen et al., 2006), Aladdin (Jennings et al., 2006), EQ-Rescue (Fiedrich, 2006), and FireGrid/I-Rescue (Tate, 2006) can also be used to support decision making and coordination processes carried out by managers located in the command post. These systems integrate legacy information systems, mobile communication devices and sensor networks in order to provide advices and alerts to disaster managers. These initiatives do not support the decision making and coordination processes carried out by first responders working in the field.

On the other hand, Turoff, et al have proposed a very detailed, theoretical model for the design of an emergency management information system (DERMIS), to support emergency management at the regional or national emergency operating center level (Turoff et al., 2006). However, no implementations are currently available. To date the research on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), with few exceptions, has ignored the Incident Command Systems that support emergency situations (Hannestad, 2005). The consequences of this can be seen in disasters such as the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of December 26, 2004 that generated the Indian Ocean tsunami. There, software engineers in Sri Lanka voluntarily worked day and night to build a basic emergency response system, lacking any other alternative to coordinate the activities of first responders deployed in the field. The system was up and running some weeks after the tsunami (van de Walle et al., 2007).

Results about the use of these tools as support of real disaster relief processes are not reported in the literature. Although we know the systems used in 9/11 terrorist attacks and Katrina hurricane did not provide good support (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004; van de Walle et al., 2007), we do not know which systems were used in those extreme events. On the other hand, we do know that Sahana system was used to support the recovery phase after the Indian Ocean Tsunami (Currion et al., 2007). The results produced by the system are not reported, however. For that reason it not easy to determine the effectiveness of these tools in real disaster relief efforts.

Some other recent initiatives have developed prototype solutions that support the decision making and coordination processes carried out by first responders working in the field. Examples of these solutions are an ad-hoc distributed shared memory system providing consistent and reliable communication among first responders (Aldunate et al., 2006) and the map based tools to represent and share information on response process evolution (Guerrero et al., 2006). These works are part of the authors’ previous research activities. Although these prototypes have been shown to be useful for training of firefighters, they are not able to capture, represent and deliver contextual information in order to improve the first response decision making and coordination activities in the field. After a long search through research related to this, no similar initiative was found. Therefore, this proposal could represent a basis for future research and development in the stated knowledge domain.

5. Platform for Context Management

In order to deal with the challenges involved in the inter-organizational decision making and coordination processes, this section presents a software platform that involves three main components for capturing, representing and delivering contextual information (Figure 2). The capture of contextual information is the module in charge of gathering relevant information to support the decision making process. The information gathering is carried out during preparedness, response and recovery stages. Typically, during preparedness activities information such as location of cranes, trucks, experts, health centers, police/fire departments, and government agencies are recorded. This information also includes maps and evacuation routes, plans and areas with high population density. This contextual information is part of the previous formal knowledge (Barbosa et al., 2005) and it usually is vital for effective and fast responses.

The contextual information to be captured and recorded during the response process is mainly related to the XE, decisions made and relief effort evolution. Such context information is known as current contextual knowledge (Barbosa et al., 2005).

| |

|Figure 2. Platform main functionality |

The second component of the platform is in charge of representing the contextual information in a way that such information can be easily shared, understood, and automatically processed by any organization participating in the relief actions. The context information stored in the platform has two types of representations (Figure 2): one internal and several external ones. The internal representation uses XML (eXtensible Markup Language) (World Wide Web Consortium, 2006) to represent the information and XML Schema (van der Vlist, 2002) to add semantics to such information. It ensures that when this information is shared, any organization will be able to understand it and process it.

The external representations are usually visual. In the case of this platform it is composed of a set of layers that deploy context information on a map. These layers can be compounded in order to show richer information to make decisions.

The third component of the platform is in charge of delivering the shared information to members of a work session. It involves communication support based on a Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork (MANET) (Tschudin et al., 2003). This functionality was reused from PASIR (Neyem et al., 2005), which implements networking capabilities, XML data synchronization, session management and information sharing using multicast and broadcast. These services allow people to work as autonomous units that are part of a relief community. It also allows us to implement user roles and deliver information to users considering their grants. This functionality represents the basis to coordinate the inter-organization actions.

The platform was implemented through a prototype that currently runs on notebooks, tabletPCs and PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants). The prototype has been preliminary evaluated by experts of the 6th and 8th firefighters company of Santiago (Chile) and it got good results. Section 5.5 presents more details about this evaluation process. Next sections describe the process of capturing, representing and delivering the context information when it is supported by the platform.

1. Capturing Context Information

Context information is required to make accurate decisions. These decisions have to be made on short notice; therefore the gathering process has to be previously done. Two main questions arise from this need: what context information has to be stored? and how to capture such information? Based on talks with first response managers, authors determined that context information related to the mitigation effort, the extreme event and the group decision support need to be captured and represented in order to improve the decision-making process (Figure 3) (Ochoa et al., 2006).

Since the decisions have to be fast, the stable contextual information (e.g. maps or location of health centers) needs to have been previously added to the platform; for example during preparedness. The highly dynamic context information has to be captured and reported on the fly. Specialized autonomous units that automatically collect and inform the context information to a platform agent are recommended for this task. The information can be weather conditions, presence of chemical and biological agents, or level of dust/smoke in the air.

5.1.1. Relevant Context Types

Typically, the contexts related to the mitigation effort, the extreme event and the group decision support system are composed of a Previous Formal Knowledge component and a Current Context Knowledge component (2). The previous formal knowledge consists of any information relevant to the decision-making process known before the occurrence of an XE; e.g., information from emergency response plans, city maps, experts’ location and available resources. Usually, this knowledge is explicit and it does not change during the course of the emergency. However, it is not always available or up-to-date.

On the other hand, the current context knowledge is composed of the information relevant to the decision-making process, which is known just after the occurrence of an XE. This information can be related to the XE itself or the response process. Examples of this contextual information are the type and magnitude of the XE, the allocated resources in the disaster area, location of medical personnel and entry/exit routes to/from the affected area. This information should be gathered, processed and stored in order to be considered as part of the current contextual knowledge. This contextual information is highly dynamic and volatile due to the continuous evolution of the disaster scenario. Next, these key contextual concepts are introduced.

Extreme Events. XEs represent the type of hazardous event which originated the emergency and the physical scenario. These include natural, accidental and intentional disasters. The previous formal knowledge in this case includes: maps, evacuation roads, risks areas and typical consequences and behaviors of XEs. On the other hand, the current contextual knowledge of an XE includes factors that could affect the behavior of the XE (e.g. meteorological conditions) and XE features such as the type and magnitude, and the identification of the affected area.

[pic]

Figure 3. Context of the key concepts and relationships among them

Mitigation Effort. The mitigation effort represents the activities carried out to reduce the impact of the XE on Society. The previous formal knowledge related to this concept includes information such as: available resources (materials providers, construction companies, first response and humanitarian organizations, transportation companies, specialist centers, disaster management agencies, health centers, police departments and firefighter departments) and their probable location, and emergency plans and policies. On the other hand, the current contextual knowledge is composed of information about the allocated and available resources, the list of tasks (scheduled and triggered) and their level of completion, the current (and expected) meteorological conditions, and the working protocols for first responders.

Group Decision Support (GDS). It considers the contextual information to support decision making not only inter-organizations but also inside an organization as well as improvisations. In order to support the correct actions and keep the relief effort coordinated when an XE happens, the decision makers can benefit from the use of group decision support which includes relevant information. The previous formal knowledge of this concept includes information such as: restrictions on the assigned resources and previous personal knowledge (this knowledge is embedded in each emergency responder’s mind, and it has been acquired during past experiences, training sessions and simulations of real-life settings (Barbosa et al., 2005)). On the other hand, the current contextual knowledge incorporates decisions that are implemented by managers, the tasks triggered by these decisions, the government priorities, the isolated perimeter, the expert recommendations and information about victims.

There is other contextual information relevant to support decision making and coordination activities, however it has been considered as part of the further work. For example, the primary use of the affected area (e.g. tourism, business, residence) would indicate the number and type of persons that could be there and if the people are familiar or not with their surroundings. Thus, would be possible to establish the probability of auto-evacuation of such people.

5.1.2. Relationships Among Contexts

Changes in the context of a key concept eventually influence the context of other key concepts. These influences are discussed below.

Mitigation Effort – Extreme Event. The context of the mitigation effort will depend on the type and magnitude of the XE. For example, the number of firefighters participating in a relief effort will be different in case of a building collapse or a fire. In addition, decisions made as part of the relief effort have an impact on the XE mitigation. For example, assigning more teams to fight a fire could help reduce the time for mitigating it. This strong relationship between the context of these two components helps: (a) to understand the dimensions of actions and consequences of a decision, and (b) to estimate the magnitude of a mitigation effort required to handle an XE. Although the context of these concepts is highly dynamic, the relationship between these two contexts is stable. It means a decision maker is able to understand the consequences related to changes in the context of the mitigation effort or the XE.

Mitigation Effort – Group Decision Support. Typically, the context of the mitigation effort affects the type and quality of the decisions made by the managers. For example, accurate and ready information about the possible location of victims could help increase the number of survivors after a building collapse. The available resources and the urgency to trigger a task are some of the restrictions that the mitigation effort context imposes over the group decision support. Furthermore, the hierarchical structure of the mitigation effort context helps locate the decisions made and analyze their impact. Because the context of the group decision support is composed of much knowledge from the mitigation effort context, both contexts are strongly related and this relationship is stable.

Group Decision Support – Extreme Event. Similar to the previous case, the context of the group decision support is also composed of much knowledge from the XE context; thus, both contexts are strongly related. For example, if a fire is collapsing a building, then decision makers have to evacuate the personnel they assigned for searching and rescuing victims in the building. However, these relationships are complex. It means disaster managers will not be able to predict the consequences a change in one of these contexts will have on the other context.

[pic]

Figure 4. Decision-making during preparedness, response and recovery

The known relationships among these contexts will be part of the previous formal knowledge, and the unknown relationships will be part of the current contextual knowledge. Considering these two types of contexts it is possible to see a transverse dimension of contexts. This transverse dimension will improve the decision making process during the three phases of a disaster relief effort: preparedness, response and recovery (Figure 4).

The previous formal knowledge will help managers to support the decision-making process during the preparedness phase. During the response phase disaster relief managers will use both types of contextual information to support decision-making. Finally, the current contextual knowledge from the response phase and the previous formal knowledge are the only basis to support the decision-making process in the recovery phase. Thus, every phase can be supported using this contextual information.

5.2. Representing and Using Context Information

Context information to improve group decision support when disasters occur is a complex description of knowledge related to three key concepts that have been presented: a) the mitigation effort, b) the extreme event and c) the group decision support. In these key concepts, the previous formal knowledge and the current contextual knowledge have to be represented, accessed and processed in order to promote coordination among organizations and to support the decision-making process. Therefore, it is convenient to create a collaboration space where several groups of people participate, even those belonging to several organizations. Their contributions incorporate various rich perspectives, but they can also bring difficulties like a lack of common opinions and various ways of expressing knowledge.

The proposed platform standardizes the representation of the shared knowledge to avoid these problems and ensures the information interoperability and understandability. This knowledge is part of the context and it supports the work of different roles participating in the disaster relief effort, such as: supporting agents, managers, monitors, first response teams working in the field and first response teams in stand-by (Figure 5).

Supporting agents are people in charge of making the previous formal knowledge available. This knowledge concerns the XE, the group decision support and the mitigation effort. Moreover, they also update the current contextual knowledge related to these concepts. Information on availability of resources - which changes depending on the gathering and allocation processes - is an example of updated knowledge . Typically, the supporting agents do not make decisions. However, some of them (i.e. remote experts) can provide advice to managers in order to improve the quality of the decisions made.

Managers use the previous formal knowledge and the current contextual knowledge to make decisions. These decisions update the current contextual knowledge and also trigger tasks that are assigned and communicated to first response teams deployed in the work field.

Figure 5. Using contextual information during the response process

On the other hand, monitors (government personnel or hospital managers) and first response teams in stand-by are able to follow the disaster relief evolution and to internalize the shared contextual information. This will improve the quality of the local decisions made by these first responders when they are deployed in the field, and it will reduce their adaptation period. Besides, it will also help reduce the loss of personal contextual information due to the exchange of first response teams.

Our working hypothesis is that the appropriate representation of contextual information is closely related to providing the information needed to support coordination activities and decision making in the event response effort. However, in order to have the contextual information stored, it is necessary to have a system to gather, represent and communicate this information from the place it is perceived to the place where it can be used.

Software systems are representational, so concern with context naturally leads to concern about how context can be encoded and represented. In particular, the context consists of a set of features of the environment surrounding generic activities. These features can be encoded and made available to a software system along side an encoding of the activity itself (Borges et al., 2004; Dourish, 2004). This process is inherent in the notion that our systems will “capture”, “model”, and “represent” context. Although the capture and model of context are relevant issues, the most critical one in this scenario is the representation. This is because several people from diverse emergency organizations should understand, share and update this knowledge. This platform has an internal and several external representations for the contextual information.

5.2.1. Internal Representation

The strategy of internal representation is responsible for the information interoperability among the organizations participating in the relief efforts. This strategy establishes two key features of the information: data format and meaning. The data format is supported by XML (eXtensible Markup Language) (World Wide Web Consortium, 2006), chosen because it is a standard that provides flexibility and it is easy to use. The information meaning is represented through XML Schema (van der Vlist, 2002), which is also a widely accepted standard.

Figure 6. Process of digital documents generation

The schemas allow organizations to compose information in order to form bigger or more complex pieces of knowledge, which could be used to support coordination activities or decision making. For example, basic information about a fire in a building (e.g. structure and type of building, fire intensity, coverage area, weather conditions and firefighting resource allocated) could be composed to determine the threshold of safety for firefighters working in the emergency area. Other examples are the online reports that integrate contextual information from several sources. These reports are designed to support decision making activities. They are implemented as digital documents that can be shared among the organizations without risks of information misunderstanding. Figure 6 shows the process to get any kind of digital document.

Digital document generation starts with the request from a user. The event is captured and processed by the digital document generator, which is in charge of producing the first version of a digital document (e.g. report of contextual information related to the XE, the mitigation effort or the group decisions). This module invokes the metadata/schema retriever in order to get the right schema and metadata that guide the process of composing information to create the digital document. Then, the digital documents generator recovers the basic information (in XML format) from the dataspace and produces a preliminary digital document, which adheres to the structure specified by the XML schemas. The generated document is re-checked by the digital document analyzer in order to guarantee that its information adheres to the predefined standards of formats and meanings. Digital documents that overcome this test can be considered interoperable; therefore they are stored into the shared dataspace and several organizations (and mainly decision makers) can access them and process them depending on their specific needs.

5.2.2. External Representation

The external representation is the one that can be accessed by the final user. A typical question during the design of a groupware application for this scenario is: which is the appropriate way to represent the context information in order to improve group decision support? Provided the decisions have to be made quickly, the information representation needs to be rich and easy to understand, even for persons that belong to different organizations. Typically, visual representations provide the best support. The described platform presents the context information based on several visual layers (Figure 7).

The lower layer represents a general view of the affected area. Based on that, several upper layers with diverse information can be displayed. Each upper layer is a map that represents the information needed by a specific organization or group, such as police, firefighters and civil engineers. There decision makers can make marks on the maps in order to record their decisions. Then, all authorized persons will be able to see the marks made by the managers. This information can also be transmitted to the first responders working in the field and also to those awaiting an assignment. Thus, they will have sound information to make local decisions or to improvise.

[pic]

Figure 7. Visual representation of context in the software system

Some typical marks the managers make on the maps are the location of available and allocated resources, the requested resources, the safe and dangerous areas, the entry and exit routes, health personnel location and pending and current activities. All this knowledge is useful not only to make decisions but also to coordinate the inter-organization efforts. However, it will be possible only if there is a strong support for communication and information delivery in ad-hoc interactions scenarios.

|[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |

|(a) |(b) |(c) |

Figure 8. Groupware system to support disaster relief efforts

Figure 8 presents a software prototype developed on the proposed platform. This system has a lightweight version and a full functionality version. The lightweight version is used by first responders deployed in the field. Typically 2 or 3 first responders in each group use the system to support the group’s local decisions, improvisations, receive their assignments and update shared information. They move with the group, but they are not located in the hot spot. Their main function is to support the partner in the work field, for example in search and rescue activities.

The lightweight module runs on a PDA fastened to the first responder’s arm (see figure 8a and 8b). The PDA uses a Compact Flash Memory card in which the maps of Santiago (Chile) were previously loaded. Such maps include 4 levels of zoom and require 52MB of storage. Thus, the only information that is communicated among mobile computing devices in the field is the XML files that implement each information layer. This reduces traffic on the Wi-Fi network and allows first responders to work autonomously. Due to this working strategy, PDA’s hardware limitations do not represent a big issue. Additionally, since the system supports zoom and scroll in any screen direction, the small size of the PDA screen is not an impediment to viewing the graphical information.

The full functionality version of the system provides support for all the external views previously mentioned. It runs on desktop PCs and notebooks (figure 8c), usually located in the command post. Additionally, this version of the system can manage groups, deliver messages/information to user roles or group members. It can also manage orders, task assignments and resource allocation. The system implements a shared repository that can be accessed by other managers using the same system. The repository stores maps, regulations, response plans and contact information of government agencies, experts, construction companies and disaster relief organizations. Finally, the system allows managers to carry out videoconferences with remote experts. The full functionality version of the system requires intensive use of computing resources; therefore it should run at least on a notebook or desktop PC. Section 5.4 presents the details of the hardware recommended to run the system.

5.3. Delivering Shared Information

The work scenario in urban disaster relief effort is unstable, hazardous and highly dynamic. The fixed communication infrastructure is frequently collapsed, unreliable or overloaded after an XE. The radio systems currently used by first responders are not able to transmit digital information and do not provide routing capabilities. On the other hand, the deployment of the communication systems should be fast and easy, because of the urgency to maintain control of the mitigation effort.

The use of wireless communication is essential, as mobile workers (e.g. police, firefighters and medical personnel) deployed in the field must be able to inform and be informed of new developments and to receive assignments and other relevant information (e.g. damaged buildings, maps, probable people locations and vulnerable points). However, this type of communication brings several requirements to any solution proposed to deliver information in disaster relief scenarios. Next section describes the most important ones.

5.3.1. Requirement for Information Delivery

Wireless communication can be carried out with or without infrastructure. Both types of services are needed and fortunately they are compatible. Typically, the wireless communication without supporting infrastructure is more restrictive; therefore any solution proposed to deliver information in such scenario should be designed for this type of network, well known as Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks (MANETs) (Tschudin et al., 2003). The most relevant requirements imposed by these networks are the following ones:

▪ No centralized mechanisms: Since ad-hoc networks do not have any underlying infrastructure, centralized routing algorithms are not applicable. Centralized components become critical failure points and then there are the typical problems with scalability and fault tolerance for processing all the information.

▪ High autonomy: Mobile software applications should function as autonomous solutions since the communication service is unstable. Depending on the type of communication the mobile workers have, they can work synchronously or asynchronously. Thus, the mechanisms for these two ways of information delivery should be provided.

▪ Interoperability: Provided mobile workers belonging to different organizations may need to engage in casual or opportunistic interactions, the data and services format should be standardized in order to ensure the interoperability. Thus, receivers will be able to understand the information and services they get.

▪ Roles and session support: The roles of the persons participating in the mitigation effort are diverse. These roles have to be considered when delivering decisions and to allow the access and update of shared information. Similarly, these people could establish private work sessions in which the message delivery and shared information can be accessed just by the session members.

The communication support currently available is based on Wi-Fi with routing capabilities. Provided the graphical information (maps) is previously loaded in each mobile device, the information transmitted through the network is mainly XML files representing orders, notifications and information layers. If a PDA or notebook does not have the information previously loaded, it can request it via wireless to the command post. Although it is also possible to recover this information from any mobile device deployed in the disaster area, we recommend getting it from the command post or from a computing device that is not in use by first responders. Thus, we avoid high data transfer rates on the MANET. The effective data transfer rate among two devices physically close (i.e. reachable in one hop) is presently about 50-100 kbps.

5.3.2. Information Delivery Strategy

The platform considers each computing device as an autonomous unit. For that reason it implements fully distributed session and user management. The shared dataspace is also distributed, with an ad-hoc percentage of information replication. In addition, the platform only provides support for asynchronous communication because of the wireless communication instability. The strategies for information delivery implemented in the platform consider these features and four basic asynchronous mechanisms for information delivery:

• Delivery to all. Every user reachable through the MANET receives the message.

• Delivery by session. Just the members of a session receive the message. This message delivery strategy can consider more than one session.

• Delivery by roles. Users playing a specific role are the only ones who receive the messages. This message delivery strategy can consider more than one role.

• Delivery to a user. This is a point to point communication. It could be a pushed or a pulled messages interchange. It is a pulled one when the user requests information, for example to the shared dataspace. It is pushed when the user sends information to others, for example a notification alarm.

Most of these strategies use a multicast protocol. Any node acts alternatively as client and server depending on whether it is sending or receiving information. The messages that are not delivered are stored in a pool, which has a specific policy of retries.

5.4. Technological Support

The software was developed in C# by using .Net Framework for the full functionality version of the system, and .Net Compact Framework for the lightweight version. The maps were recovered from a MS MapPoint Server. The heavyweight version was tested in notebooks with a 2,3 Ghz Pentium VI CPU and 1 GB of RAM. This version is mainly used by managers located in the command post.

The lightweight version was tested using PDAs with at least a 400 Mhz CPU and 64MB of memory (additional to the compact Flash memory). Two PDA screen sizes were used: 640x480 and 320x240. In the second case, the size of the map tiles must be adjusted to allow a correct visual representation. The main advantages of the PDAs are their portability and speed of deployment. Their main limitation is battery life (about 2 hours of continuous use). Currently, all computing devices considered in the solution are off-the-shelf systems that were not designed to be used in disaster scenarios. Therefore they can be affected by dust, heat, water or impact. In a fully operational version of the solution, rugged computing devices should be used in order to deal with the hardware durability problem.

The network support is based on IEEE 802.11b with routing capabilities. No access points were used. The network is composed only of the mobile devices deployed in the disaster area. They act as bridges to allow communication among devices that are not reachable in one hop. Each node in the network keeps track of the MANET topology over time.

5.5. Preliminary Results

Both versions of the system were preliminarily evaluated by experts of the 6th and 8th firefighters companies of Santiago (Chile) during March 2007. These experts are the official urban search and rescue trainers for Chilean firefighters, and police/military officers. The experts evaluated the system functionality, performance and usability. The first important conclusion indicates the system is ready to be used at least in small urban incidents (fires, chemical spills, small collapses). The system functionality was considered useful to support urban search and rescue activities. The main comments to consider are two: (a) the system does not use international icons to represent standard information (e.g. safe areas or evacuation routes) and the visual information is not shown according to the sectors defined by the National Disaster Response Plan.

The usability was evaluated simulating the actions that firefighters have to do during two small urban emergency situations: a fire and a car accident. The features of these emergencies were recovered from the real emergency situation that was occurring at the time. The usability evaluation was conducted in the Alarms Center of Santiago. During the next weeks, the prototype will be used by these firefighters in real small urban incidents.

Finally, system performance was good in the case of the heavyweight version. Three notebooks were used in this test. Five PDAs were used in the test of the lightweight version, and although the performance of such system was acceptable, it needs to be improved. The main performance problem was produced by the PDA transmission capability and the MANET bandwidth requirement which generated a bottleneck. Currently we are designing incremental tests with notebooks and PDAs in order to analyze network load and the evolution of system performance.

6. Conclusions and Further Work

Given their size, complexity and rarity, XEs challenge the relief organization capabilities for responding, particularly when they affect urban areas. The coordination among first response organizations, and the decision making process, have been identified as two key factors that produce a major impact on the results of the response process. The use of contextual information could be used to assist in meeting these challenges.

All disaster relief phases demand knowledge which is embedded in procedures and in the minds of people who handle them. Specifically during the response phase, a high amount of contextual information is generated. This information covers the development of the event, including the relief actions carried out by the teams. The prompt capture and distribution of this information can play an important role in the decisions made by the managers and the actions carried out by disaster relief teams. Most response plans, however, are not designed to make proper use of this type of contextual information.

Advances in IT provide opportunities to deal with these two key issues. Particularly, digital wireless communication and distributed collaborative systems have been considered as interesting tools to provide communication and information support.

Considering this perspective the paper presented a software platform able to record, represent and manage contextual information related to the mitigation effort, group decision support and extreme event, and the relationships among these contexts. The contextual information represented in the platform helps improve group decision support and activity coordination during disaster relief efforts. Visual representations of this information support group decision-making during disaster relief efforts, the digital (internal) representation of such information ensures interoperability and the technological support enhances the communication and coordination capabilities of participating organizations. Decision-making and coordination activities carried out in scenarios similar to this one, such as police and military operations, and security operatives during massive social events, can take advantage of this platform.

The use of the platform should help designers of disaster response support systems to represent and store contextual information in their knowledge base and to selectively disseminate it among the several emergency response teams in order to improve the result of their relief actions. We have assumed the contextual information can be disseminated among the people participating in the disaster relief effort. However, many challenges need to be addressed in order to make possible effective contextual information dissemination, such as multicasting support, data distribution based on roles, and support for synchronous/asynchronous work (Aldunate et al., 2006).

Future work includes, in the short term, the testing of the platform in simulated scenarios, in order to determine how scalable the system is. Additionally, prototypes will be used by firefighters to support small urban emergency events. This will allow us to evaluate system usability and the real advantages and disadvantages it provides. Based on that result, the tool will be adjusted and tested through an evolutionary process. Finally, the context information domain included in the tool will be extended in order to improve the support for decision making and coordination activities.

7. Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by grant No. UCH 0109 from MECESUP (Chile) and Fondecyt No. 11060467 and 1040952 (Chile). Marcos R. S. Borges was partially supported by a grant from CNPq (Brazil) No. 305900/2005-6.

8. References

Aldunate R., Ochoa S., Pena-Mora F., Nussbaum M., “Robust Mobile Ad-hoc Space for Collaboration to Support Disaster Relief Efforts Involving Critical Physical Infrastructure”, ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, vol. 20 no. 1, 2006, p. 13-27.

Barbosa V.D., Borges M.R.S, Gomes J.O., Canós J.H., “Knowledge Management Support for Collaborative Emergency Response”, in Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2005), Coventry, UK, March 24-26 2005, p. 1188-1193.

Borges M.R.S., Brézillon P., Pino J.A., Pomerol J., “Bringing Context to CSCW”, in Proceeding of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2004), Xiamen, P.R. China, May 26-28 2004, p. 161-166.

Brézillon P., Borges M.R.S., Pino J.A., Pomerol, J., “Context-Awareness in Group Work: Three Case Studies”, in Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.3 International Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS 2004): Decision support in an uncertain world, Prato, Italy, July 1-3 2004, p. 115-124.

Canós J.H., Borges M.R.S., Alonso G., “An IT View of Emergency Management”, IEEE Computer, vol. 38 no. 12, 2005, p. 27.

Comfort L., Coordination in Complex Systems: Increasing Efficiency in Disaster Mitigation and Response, Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, San Francisco, USA, September 2001.

Columbia/Wharton Roundtable, Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, IBM Palisades Executive Conference Center, Palisades, New York, April 12-13, 2002.

Currion P., de Silva C., Van de Walle B., “Open source software for disaster management”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 50 no. 3, 2007, p. 61-65.

Dourish P., “What We Talk About When We Talk About Context”, Journal on Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 8 no. 1, 2004, p. 19-30.

Dykstra E., Toward an International System Model in Emergency Management, Public Entity Risk Institute, 2003.

E-TEAM, Digital Resources, Retrieved May 13, 2006, from

Farley J., “Building Enterprise Government Using OpenGIS Technology”, in Proceeding of the Geospatial Information and Technology Association, Open GIS Seminar, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 25-28 1999.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, State Capability Assessment for Readiness Process, Report to the US Senate Committee on Appropriations, 1997.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Response Plan (FRP), 9230.1-PL, 2002.

Fiedrich F., “An HLA-based multiagent system for optimized resource allocation after strong earthquakes”, in Proceedings of the 38th Winter Simulation Conference (WSC 2006), Monterey, CA, USA, December 03-06 2006, p. 486-492.

Global Disaster Information Network, Retrieved May 22, 2006, from

Godschalk D., “Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities”, ASCE Journal on Natural Hazards Review, vol. 4 no. 3, 2003, p. 136-143.

Guerrero L., Ochoa S., Pino J.A., Collazos C., “Selecting Devices to Support Mobile Collaboration”, Journal on Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 15 no. 3, 2006, p. 243-271.

Hannestad S., “Incident Command System: A Developing National Standard of Incident Management in the U.S.”, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2005), Brussels, Belgium, April 18-20 2005, p. 19-28.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus on Community Resilience, 2004.

Jackson B., Peterson D., Bartis J., LaTourrette T., Brahmakulam I., Houser A., Sollinger J., Protecting Emergency Responders: Lessons Learned from Terrorist Attacks, RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute Report, March 2002.

Jennings N.R., Ramchurn S.D., Dutta P., Rogers A., Vetsikas I., “The ALADDIN project: Agent technology to the rescue”, in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Agent Technology for Disaster Management (ATDM 2006), Hokadoke, Japan, May 8 2006, p. 157-158.

Kitano H., Tadokoro S., “RoboCup rescue: A grand challenge for multi-agent and intelligent systems”, AI Magazine, vol. 22 no. 1, 2001, p. 39-52.

Manoj B.S., Baker A., “Communication challenges in emergency response”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 50 no. 3, 2007, p. 51-53.

Mendonça D., “Decision support for improvisation in response to extreme events: Learning from the response to the 2001 World Trade Center attack”, Decision Support Systems, vol. 43 no. 3, 2007, p. 952-967.

Mendonça D, Jefferson T., Harrald J., “Collaborative adhocracies and mix-and-match technologies in emergency management”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 50 no. 3, 2007, p. 44-49.

Mileti D., Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington DC, 1999.

Moore G., Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers, Harper Collins Publishers, New York NY, 1999.

Moorman C., Miner A., “Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 23 no. 4, 1998, p. 698-723.

Multi-Sector Crisis Management Consortium, Multi-Sector Crisis Management Consortium Programs, Retrieved July 6, 2006, from

National Research Council, Reducing Disaster Losses Through Better Information, National Academic Press, USA, 1999.

National Research Council, Making the nation safer: The role of science and technology in countering terrorism, National Academies Press, USA, 2002.

National Science and Technology Council, Reducing Disaster Vulnerability Through Science and Technology Report, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, 2003.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004.

Neyem A., Ochoa S.F., Guerrero L.A., Pino J.A., “Sharing Information Resources in Mobile Ad-hoc Networks”, in Proceeding of the 11th International Workshop on Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use (CRIWG 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3706, Porto do Galinhas, Brazil, September 25-29 2005, p. 351-358.

Ochoa S.F., Neyem A., Pino J.A., Borges M.R.S., “Using Context to Support

Group Decision Making in Disasters Affecting Urban Areas”, in Proceeding of IFIP TC8/WG 8 International Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Decision Making and Decision Support (CIDMDS 2006), London, England, June 29 - July 1 2006, p. 546-561.

Quarantelli E., Major Criteria for Judging Disaster Planning and Managing and their Applicability in Developing Societies, Background paper for the International Seminar on the Quality of Life and Environmental Risk, R.J. Brazil, October, 1996.

Rinaldi S., Peerenboom J., Kelly T., “Complexities in Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies”, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 22 no. 6, 2001, p. 11-25.

Scalem M., Bandyopadhyay S., Sircar A., “An approach towards a decentralized Disaster Management Information Network”, in Proceeding of the 2nd Asian Applied Computing Conference (AACC 2004), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3285, Kathmandu, Nepal, October 29-31 2004, p. 287-295.

Smith S., Inter-Agency Collaboration and Consequence Management: An All-Hazard Approach to Emergency Incident Response, Public Entity Risk Institute, 2003.

Stewart T., Bostrom A., Extreme Event Decision Making Workshop Report, Decision Risk and Management Science Program NSF, June, 2002.

Swiatek J., Crisis Prediction Disaster Management, SAIC Science and Technology Trends II, June, 1999.

Tate A., “The helpful environment: Geographically dispersed intelligent agents that collaborate”, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 21 no. 3, 2006, p. 57-61.

Tschudin C., Lundgren H., Nordström E., “Embedding MANETs in the Real World”, in Proceedings of the IFIP-TC6 8th International Conference on Personal Wireless Communications (PWC 2003), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2775, Venice, Italy, September 23-25 2003, p. 578-589.

Turoff M., “Past and Future Emergency Response Information Systems”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 45 no. 4, 2002, p. 29-32.

Turoff M., Chumer M., Van de Walle B., Yao X., “The Design of a Dynamic Emergency Response Management Information System (DERMIS)”, Annual Review of Communications, vol. 58, March 2006, p. 637-661.

van der Vlist E., XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Descriptions for XML, First Edition, O’Reilly, 2002.

van de Walle B., Turoff M., “Emergency Response Information Systems: Emerging Trends and Technologies”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 50 no. 3, 2007, p. 29-31.

van Veelen B., Storms P., van Aart C., “Effective and efficient coordination strategies for agile crisis response organizations”, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2006), New Jersey, USA, May 14 2006, p. 202-213.

Webb G.R., “Role improvising during crisis situations”, International Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 2 no. 1-2, 2004, p. 47-61.

World Wide Web Consortium, Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1. Second Edition, W3C Recommendation, Retrieved August 8, 2006, from

World Health Organization, Was 2005 the year of natural disasters?, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 84 no. 1, 2006, p. 4-8.

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download