My INSURER PTE LTD - Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
Towards an Efficient and Robust Wireless Disaster Management Architecture for Response Activities
1. “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
2. 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).
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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)
7. • 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)
8. 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
9. 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
10. 1. Introduction
Reported Deaths from all Disasters: World Scenario (1992-2001) [1]
Figure 2 World Disaster Scenario
10
Thursday, April 16, 2009
15. 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
16. 2. Architecture
Architecture of an efficient disaster management System [1]
16
Thursday, April 16, 2009 Figure 3.
17. 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
18. 2. Architecture
Mobile Responder Communication Networks for Public Safety [7]
IEEE Communications Magazine January 2006
18
Figure 5
Thursday, April 16, 2009
19. 2. Architecture
DM Wireless Communication Architecture as
A heterogeneous WiFi-Wimax Network [1]
Figure 6 19
Thursday, April 16, 2009
20. 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
21. 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
23. 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
24. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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 •
43. 5. Use Case Scenarios of Early
Warning Systems
43
Thursday, April 16, 2009
45. 5. Flow chart of Early Warning Network
45
Thursday, April 16, 2009
46. 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
50. 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
51. Early
Warning Systems for Natural Disasters in
Korea
51
Thursday, April 16, 2009
53. Table : Comparison of Different Communication
Channels Used in Disaster Warning
53
Thursday, April 16, 2009
54. 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
55. 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
56. 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
57. 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
58. 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
59. 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
