Enhancing Disaster Response with Earthquake MIS - A Comparative Study

1. MIS in Earthquake Response ‘Dream Team’ Dan Xie(4172339) RuitingCai(4153120) Jessica Seddon(4174087) Jianan Zhang(4152409) LaylaDelgosha(4166354) Pei Zhu(4156370) Yun Yang(4153964)

2. Agenda • Introduction to global earthquakes and their consequences • Statistics about earthquake degree and death rates • Critical evaluation of the role of MIS in disaster response • Comparing MIS in developed and developing countries (Japan's system vs. SAHANA) • Evaluation

3. Introduction Source: OFDA

4. Earthquake degree and death rates

5. The Standard Characteristics of MIS in Earthquakes • A system that records, collects, keeps, retrieves and analyses inputs and alters the reports and required earthquake information (Sima,2009) • Once the earthquake is identified, the system will estimate the damage and loss • It contains earthquake Early Warning System (EEW) and post recovery system

6. SWOT Analysis of Earthquake MIS Threats Opportunities Strengths Weaknesses • Preparing for disasters in the future • Government support/Collaboration • New technology and innovation • Unpredictability • Software failure (e.g. virus) • Security of hardware • Information reliability • User involvement (information gap) • Budget constraints • Not easy to change Risk reducing Forecast (before) Rapid response Reconstruct (after)

7. MIS in Developed Countries • Background of Japan • Japan is the third largest economy in the world but also one of the most earthquake-prone countries. • Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) uses the “PHOENIX” post recovery system:

8. Introduced in the late 1950’s • Localised systems in each town to collect information Phoenix System Source from: Disaster Prevention and Management (2009)

9. MIS in Developing Countries • Lack of resources to fund MIS • Prior to SAHANA – no globally accepted standard • Response to the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake (2004) • Tsunami Evaluation Commission: “significant effort and funding should be dedicated to organizing open source, easily shareable software and training tools to prepare for all stages of disaster response” • Open Source Software – can be improved and distributed at no cost (not built on proprietary of licensed software platforms and not owned by any single entity)

10. More on SAHANA • SAHANA – Low cost, FOSS approach, adaptability • Awards2006 – Highest award in the Open Source Industry (Free Software Foundation)Award for Social Benefit (beat Project Gutenburg & Wikipedia) • Drawback – lack of a helpline

11. Evaluation • PHOENIX Vs. SAHANA • CSF for MIS in earthquake • Top management support • Planned channels for information flows • User involvement and training • Coordination and Cooperation within each department

14. References • Ajami, S. & Fattahi, M. (2009) ‘The role of earthquake information management systems (EIMSs) in reducing destruction: A comparative study of Japan, Turkey and Iran’, Disaster Prevention and Management, 18(2), pp.150 – 161 • Careem et al. (2006) ‘Sahana, Overview of a Disaster Management System’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Automation. Available at: ftp://ftp.umiacs.umd.edu/pub/louiqa/PUB06/Sahana6.pdf • Currion et al. (2007) ‘Open Source Software for Disaster Management’, Communications of the ACM, 50(3), pp. 61-65 • Daniell, J. E. (2011) ‘Open Source Procedure for Assessment of Loss using Global Earthquake Modelling software (OPAL)’, Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Science. Available at: http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/11/1885/2011/nhess-11-1885-2011.pdf • Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (2012). Available at: http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/ • International Free and Open Source Solutions Foundation (2012). Available at: http://ifossf.org/ • Leebmann, J. & KyaloKiema, J. B, (n.d) ‘Knowledge Representation In Technical Information Systems For Earthquake Loss Mitigation’. Available at: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMP/july2000/Papers/leebmann.pdf • Phoenix Geographics Ltd (1996) ‘Earthquake Prediction in Future’, The Phoenix, 6, pp. 1-8 • Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication, organization and crisis. West port, CT: Quoru • Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (2012). Available at: http://www.sristi.org/cms/ • Reynolds, B. & Seeger, M. (2005) ‘Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication as an Integrative Model’, Journal of Health Communication, 10, pp. 43-55 • Woodworth, B. (n.d) ‘The SAHANA Disaster Management System: A contribution by IBM’. Available at: http://www.bizforum.org/whitepapers/ibm-10.htm • Xu et al (2009). ‘Coseismic reverse- and oblique-slip surface faulting generated by the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, China’, The Geological Society of America, 37 (6), pp. 515-518 • Yamada et al (2004). ‘Earthquake Disaster Prevention Information System Based on Risk Adaptive Regional Management Information System Concept’ 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Available at: http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_709.pdf

15. The system takes only two minutes to produce a report after the earthquake has occurred • It can forecast a tsunami around three minutes in advance