Dr. Gow who was previously at the LSE is now an Associate Professor at University of Alberta.

The presentation began by looking at situations where systems/programmes are developed but only to fall to disuse. The focus will be on the last-mile. The presentation looks at the long term viability of a system. Financial resources are eimportant. The need to tap everyday communicative acts was also highlighted. The need to move beyond a narrow scope of early warning. As investment in last mile systems fall, the vulnerability increases. The cycle continues. The need for more moderate investment was stressed.

If the vulnearbilities of the local communities are reduced then their ability to eliminate or mitigate the disaster increases. This over time leads to risk reduction.

What role does community media play in hazard warning?

The stages of disaster management cycle were introduced as mitigate, prepare, response and recover.

Technologies with local contributions and variety of technologies were discussed. A differentiation was made with the ‘cult media’ such as twitter. Peer to peer was recongised as the best in terms of emergency communication. A lot of this is going on already, in examples such as California wildfires. The idea of crisis informatics was also introduced. The idea of effective use was stressed. The importance of local knowledge and participation for effective use.The UN has similar ideas about warning to risk reduction.

Three related ideas was introduced. Early warning linked to disaster risk reduction and for it to be sustainable the effective use of ICTs should be done.

The need for knowledge sharing was stressed leading from talking amongst community members about risk reduction.

3 stories were highlighted.

story 1 was highlighted the creation community based hazard warning system. Successful but long term sustanance is in doubt. An example of community media bridging communities and the global media.

Story 2 on bridging the generational gap. In Andaman and Nicobar island, it was stories passed down for generations as folklore that saved lives. But there are risks due to false positives. However, it is an example of informal early warning over time. An inter-generational warning system.

Story 3 is on bridging both space and time. An individual who heard about the news 1000s miles away, called village elders and an emergency evacuation plan was put in place.

The road to disaster resilience needs both time and space and hence relationships. The importance of social capital in sustainability hazard warning systems.

The importance of the sharing economy was highlighted. 3 insights were identified as being necessary for the sharing economy  to work.

How does this work? The need for tools for sharing is necessary, phone calls, texting, pictures. Looking at the Haz Info project, mobiles were the most popular. Specialised technology maybe abandoned. Use of everyday technology will lead to better sustainability. These tools need to be given to the community.

The need to respect diversity was highlighted. Allow community members to spend little or more time as they want. A selfish motivation can lead to collective value eg: tagging pictures on flickr, but the tag is now available for everyone.

3rd Insight was identified as the need to build open systems. Allowing people to create and share as they wish.

Standards for information sharing is necessary for this, as in open application interfaces and non propriety licensing for the building of open systems.

The success stories from 2004 tsunami highlights the need for relationships across space and time. Importance of Social capital.

Local risk mapping was also introduced. A pilot in Vietnam found that ownership of the system to the community leads to long term sustainability.

The presentation concluded with idea that a successful strategy needs to go beyond early warning. Time and Space in terms of relationships is key. The findings of the 2004 Tsunami need to be shared.
Ms. Helani Galpaya asked if there is example on the disaster world that related to this concept. Dr. Gow replied that he idea was to look at the overarching aspects.

Prof. Rohan Samarajiva asked if flickr the best example of this concept or is it open source. The reply was Open source.

Dr. Gow in response to a question said that the emphasis in more on sharing economy as opposed to social media. The idea behind the concept is to understand what makes people share knowledge and build relationships that go beyond technology.

RS: The central argument of the concept is around sharing Economy.

Comments by RS: In Sri Lanka, most activity in open source is through payment. The platform maybe open source but people do not contribute willingly. In order for the sharing economy to work, other aspects such as infrastructure and other economic aspects may need to be in place. The sharing economy is more visible in more economically developed countries.

Community sharing will be more relevant some hazards as opposed to others.

Response from GG: Where hazards are likely to often, the systems are likely to work better. If government supply of hazard information is scarce, then community based solution is what will work. Eg: Call from a mobile. The more the community is used to sharing information about slow onset disasters, the better the community is prepared to deal with the situation.

Comments by RS: Sarvodaya may have data on this. Communities will do it if there is stimulus from outside. Salaried staff will be needed to provide the stimulus.

GG: Agree with the idea that stimulus is needed for community sharing. The need for the community to see the value of disaster preparedness is important. In a system where the hazard knowledge is not provided by the government, where does one go?

RS: In Sri Lanka we have examples of community based activity however, we seems to have difficulty in channelling it to productive purposes.

TW: How do we convince people (first responders) using two-way radio to use the internet? Demonstrating the value of the internet. With new digital generation this might not be an issue in the future.

NW: What can replace ‘internet sharing economy’?

RS: Issue between private and public goods.

HG: Examples of sharing traffic information on radio.

RS: The examples are there, village knowledge sharing will work. But the sharing economy in terms of the economy may not work in Sri Lanka.

RS: The catalyst in the form of salaried employees will be needed to tell the community to work on its contingency plans.

GG: The idea is to ensure that this method (sharing economy) to benefit all areas rather than just hazards.

RS: It is possible that this maybe happening in some of the villages as seen during the haz info projects.

DS: The knowledge sharing is already happening among the village. Why not piggy back on that?

GG: Yes if possible.

RS: So how do we find these people who already have system to share knowledge between villages?

DS: Systems already in the health sector at local government level.

RS: Will the system be sustainable?

DS: Recongnition acts as motivationas there is personal gain. Identity brings about value. Can that replace money value?

RS: However in order for the system to work there would be a need for money at some level.

Exactly seven years from yesterday (still today to some), early in the morning on September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C. The hijackers flew two of the airliners, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center. Another group of hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. A fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, whose ultimate target was either the United States Capitol or White House, crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The rest, as we say, is history.

What 9/11 was to the West, ‘the’ tsunami was to the South. Caught unaware, more than 225,000 lives in eleven countries were lost on that fateful Boxing Day of 2004 by a tsunami caused as a result of an earthquake with that reached 9.1 in the Richter scale, with an epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand were the hardest hit.

The two were different. The tsunami was a natural disaster and 9/11 was man-made. 9/11 events took 3,000 lives – and tsunami nearly 75 times of that. The tsunami did not create a recession as in the aftermath of 9/11 though the misery that it caused to millions of families and individuals in Asia was immeasurable.

They were similar. Both were universal tragedies that had an impact far beyond national boundaries. Both were turning points of modern human history. Both made the entire world stand still with utter shock and grief.

Then the inevitable questions: Can we let these repeat? Can Homo sapiens think of their common future in the blue planet if they are not ready to face the increasing threat from disasters – be they natural or man-made? What can WE do? What can I do?

What LIRNEasia did can be best presented in the words of International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in one of their electronic newsletters entitled ‘Research that matters’:

IDRC’s lead research partner was LIRNEasia, a non-profit organization that aims to improve the lives of Asia’s people by using information and communication technologies (ICTs). LIRNEasia has had considerable experience on the use of ICTs in disaster situations. The project also drew upon the extensive networking resources of Sarvodaya, a large village-based self-help movement in Sri Lanka, and upon the disaster communication expertise of Buddhi Weerasinghe of TVE Asia Pacific, Peter Anderson of Simon Fraser University, and Gordon Gow of the University of Alberta, among other partners.

The pilot study had two broad objectives. First, it sought to evaluate the suitability of various configurations of five technical systems, each with unique capabilities, for reaching Sri Lankan local leaders in an emergency: (a) a stand-alone “remote alarm device” incorporating a radio, siren, and flashing lights; (b) versatile Java-enabled mobile phones set up to receive text alerts in English, Sinhala, and Tamil; (c) “addressable” satellite radio sets capable of remote activation and of issuing targeted messages to vulnerable areas; (d) a warning system based on Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) satellite technology that delivers pop-up screen alerts to personal computers; and (e) conventional fixed wireless telephones linked to the public network.

These options were tested for reliability under varying conditions, reaction time, bidirectionality (so that alerts can be confirmed and false warnings minimized), and degree of integration into daily life.

This last-mile system aims to complement and “amplify” the Sri Lankan government’s national alerting function, rather than to issue official public warnings. Project leaders hope that if they can demonstrate an efficient lastmile mechanism, the government will adopt it.

This goal may be advanced by pressure from Sri Lanka’s coastal villagers themselves. The project’s training exercises heightened their awareness of the importance of disaster preparedness, and many communities have demanded that such programs be continued and expanded. Many of the Sarvodaya villages have started emergency response committees to strengthen local disaster resilience.

Meanwhile, the technology and the training have been tested in an actual emergency situation. In September 2007 an earthquake triggered a government order for coastal areas to evacuate ahead of a possible tsunami. Most villages did so, but at least one community — thanks to links with the Colombo hub by satellite radio and Java-enabled phones — decided instead to monitor the situation. The emergency response coordinators observed the ocean before mobilizing the people to flee. In the end, the tsunami did not happen. The government order had been an overreaction, and so the system served to avoid a costly and needless evacuation.

This multi-faceted research endeavour has drawn attention to the many technical and people-centred problems that must be confronted if such hazard alert systems are to work.

(Full document can be downloaded from here or available at the IDRC site here.)

We know that research per se will not prevent the recurrence of 9/11 or a tsunami disaster. Still, we believe will help by allowing us to be more prepared. We are happy that we completed this research. And we are happy that our efforts have been recognized.

One of Gordon Gow’s key contributions to the HazInfo project was the Common Alerting Protocol Profile for Sri Lanka, which was a hard case as far as integrating the multi-language scenario as it is the case in Sri Lanka. The CAP Profile for Sri Lanka was designed for disseminations in Sinhala, Tamil, and English languages. Such a complex profile of CAP was field tested in Sri Lanka’s HazInfo project. This was the first time a Multilanguage profile was field tested in the World. The same problem appears in the European Union, for example, where they have a plan to use CAP for internetworking between emergency communicators of the member states in their “command control and coordination system”.

Gordon Gow is an Assistant Professor, Graduate Program in Communications and Technology (MACT), Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, Canada Currently, his research interests include development of WLL voice and data systems, especially with respect to regulatory concerns such as spectrum policy and management, telecom reform, technical standardization, public safety, and location based services.

Report on WRECOM Conference by G. Gow

Power Point Presentation used by G. Gow in his talk at WRECOM

Paper on Wireless ICTs for Community-based Hazard Warnings in Sri Lanka

WorldSpace, a lead technology partner in the HazInfo research project, field tested 16 Addressable Radios for Emergency Alerts (AREAs) in the Sarvodaya Communities and 34 AREAs in the Sarvodaya District Centers. Although the AREA solutions lacked bi-directional communication and seemed the least effective, the AREA solution proved to be the most reliable that worked with utmost certainty and greatest efficiency even when GSM and CDMA cells were deactivated for over 2 months, at the beginning of this year, during military operations in the conflict prone North-East regions of Sri Lanka. The HazInfo research introduced a concept called “complementary redundancy”, where coupling the AREA addressable/broadcast technology with a GSM mobile phone or CDMA nomadic phone improves the overall performance (reliability and effectiveness) of the HazInfo system. The HazInfo system was used in a “live” scenario during the Bengkulu earthquake on September 12th.

The HazInfo project realized that early warnings via Information Communication Technology (ICT) must be a point-to-multi-point application and is best accommodate by Wireless ICTs. The HazInfo pilot included outfitting and field-testing an initial 32 villages with various combinations of wireless communication equipment, which could provide features such as: early warning wake-up, addressability and provision of information in three languages (English, Sinhalese and Tamil).

In December 2005, LIRNEasia, an ICT policy and reform research organization, initiated a research project to evaluate the “last-of-the-mile” communication component of an all-hazards warning system for Sri Lanka. The project entitled, “Evaluating Last-Mile Hazard Information Dissemination”, or the “HazInfo Project”, was funded by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada. Its research design was based on recommendations of a “participatory concept paper” for a national early warning system (NEWS:SL) completed in the months following the 2004 tsunami.

The socioeconomic see the key problem is not software but accurate and timely entry of data by Medical Practitioners. Hence the project will extend the user interfacing to the last mile using information communication technology (ICT) networks that already span the island of Sri Lanka. They would be the GSM and CDMA Wireless Local Loop (WLL) markets that are far beyond the fixed phone market, it is intuitive to introduce WLL applications opposed to traditional personal computer applications in order to increase the early detection and warning of diseases outbreaks in Sri Lanka.

The proposed Biosurveillance project is an extension of the Last-Mile HazInfo project. The intent of this colloquium is to validate the research and objectives of the Biosurveillance project proposal.

The presentation Nuwan is making can be downloaded HERE

Skype participants: Dr Artur Dubrawski (AutonLabs), Dr Gordon Gow (University of Alberta) and Shanmugarajah

Nuwan: 80% of the Haz-Info project completed.
The research question is: Can Biosurveillance Algorithms coupled with Wireless Local Loop Network Applications increase the early detection and warning of Communicable diseases in Sri Lanka?

Biosurveillance as defined by the Ministry of Health. WLL includes GSM and CDMA Wireless Local Loop (WLL).

To be more specific, we need to look at reliability of WLL ICTs in communicating health information, reliability of Biosurveillance Algorithms, the contribution of organizational level, gender specific responses and the degree of integration of ICTs.

DG: Is this proposal geared towards IDRC and if it is going to be for the Gates foundation?

Nuwan: That is undecided so far.

The surveillance and alerting system was described, step by step as seen in Slide 7 of the presentation.

DrDubrawski: Need for feedback from MoH at 9.

RS: It wont make sense to get feedback after 9. Step 7 would be the feedback point.

Nuwan: Message verficiation and feedback takes place at 7 anyways.

Slide 9: The data algorithms to be used will be What’s Strange About Recent Events (WSARE 3.0), SpatialScan and TIPMON.

For WLL data exchange, we will be making use of GSM mobile phones and CDMA fixed phones.

Examples of patterns that can be detected using this system: diarrhea cases among children, respiratory syndrome cases among females, Botulinic syndrome cases and number of wrist injuries in a Base Hospital, etc.

Checking with archived records (last year’s record) and recent records (yesterday’s patient records) with current records (today’s information) is a costly affair.

The WSARE software obtains recent and baseline datasets, searches for rules, determines the significance level of best scoring rule, and reports all rules that are highly significant.

The SpatialScan statistics looks for over densities – the regions where counts are significantly higher than expected, given the underlying population.

Dr Dubrawski: The SpatialScan system collects data from pharamcists on drug purchases on a daily basis. This can be indicative of any impending outbreaks of disease.

The NoisyCopy model was built for the USDA for screening possible food complaints. Basically, the consumers submit complaints through phone interface and the system scans the complaints for similarities. If there are similarities, this may indicate that the product problem has generated by the same underlying process.

Nuwan explained the research matrix as described in slide 23.

Slide 24 – Project Task Matrix
EPID, Sarvodaya, Micro-image, AutonLab, Vanguard, and LIRNEasia will be partners in this project. Tasks have been allocated for each partner.

Slide 25 – Next steps
Proposal to be completed by November 2006.

We hope to seek $200,000 from the Gates Foundation or IDRC.

Target kick-off date March 2007.

We will start the event by lighting the traditional oil lamp. Next is a 2 minute meditation.

Nuwan Waidyanatha –

Welcome all partners including, Dr. Gordon Gow (University of Alberta), Dr. Dileeka Dias (Director Dialog Communication Research Lab), Prof Rohan Samarajiva (Director LIRNEasia), Mr. Nanadana Jayasinghe (Director Sarvodaya Disaster Management center), most importantly the Sarvodaya Participants (ICT Guardians).

Rohan Samarajiva –

We started the lat Mile HazInfo Program on January 23, 2006. The objective of my talk is to introduce you to the framework used in this project. The attendees are people who have faced the great tragedy that happened in December 26, 2004. Since then, 20 months later, we still have no solution in our nation.

3 Tsunamis have occurred in the Indian Ocean within the last 20 months. The last tsunami killed over 500 in Indonesia.

We can excuse ourselves for not having a warning system for the 2004 tsunami. But what about the next one? We cannot give excuses any further.

Before we go in to the details I will present the evidence and how is our preparedness– (Associated Press)

- local time 14:19 a Earthquake happens in the Indian Ocean,- PTWC issues a warning 17 minutes later- 39 minutes later first wave hits the coast

- message reads … affective coutries Indonesia and Australia

According to the Associated Press, Indonesia promises to roll out warning system in 2009. Welfare Minister Aburizal Bakrie told Associated press “ we are preparing one, but is not finished”. “After earthquake occurred people ran up hill”, V. President of Indonesia

Warning system links

Link 1 – Issue message to from the detection centers

Link 2 – Warn the Government Officials of threats

Link 3 – Warn first-Responders such as police and local government agents

Link 4 – Warn the last mile

Can we talk in past tense instead of future tense. Two other Nations ARE QUIPED with early warning system. Thailand has built a warning towers on beaches across its southern coast. Malaysia HAS positioned two buoys off its coast and have tested the system.

Now countries that speak in future tense; Sri Lanka has a plan to install a national warning system and information will be passed to villages by phones or national media

Rohan asks questions from the audience …

Do you get warnings through the gov now – audience NO

Do you have sirens in Churches, Mosques, and Temples as the Government has promised – audience NO

“Physical world of hazards, symbolic worlds, link technologies & institutions that work imperfectly.”

The Last-Mile HazInfo project is not a public warning system, it is a closed network alerting system. The Last-Mile project envisions on overcoming the lessons learned from the 2004 tsunami — keep ahead of congestions, address point-to-multiple media

We will provides the knowledge for the last mile to make their own response plans and when they are provided with them risk information. The last-Mile First-Responders will react based on the training and the severity of the hazard information.

We do not tell people to evacuate or take action but we only provide the know how and the information for the last mile to make their own decisions

10 deaths and 5 premature births as a result of inappropriate warning by the government in after the great Nyas earthquake in March. The incident happened at night where a people were sleeping.
Disaster Management is a village level duty. Therefore, we will only provide risk information; but will not ask people to evacuate. Sarvodaya is not authorized to issue public warnings but can develop a good information communication network to provide the necessary Disaster related information for local awareness and response planning.

The last-Mile system overcomes all these problems where a wakeup feature has been introduced. This is to help the Government by preparing the last mile.

First phase will evaluate how the organizational level of the villages and whether training is necessary for such a system.

Ultimate objective is to use the research findings to develop a model to implement an alerting solution in 226 of the Tsunami affected villages as a phase 2 of this project; phase 3 will implement a early warning solution for the 15000 Sarvodaya villages.

Gordon Gow –

Objective is to make everyone comfortable with the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). Presentation will highlight the most relevant aspects that deal with the LM-HWS project. It is a core function of the project

Several Needs:

• deliver messages to multiple technologies
• Need to ensure accuracy and consistency in the content
• - Need future expansion and interoperability

CAP is a mean to deliver information to a diverse set of technology which will be tested on Addressable Satellite Radio (ASR), Fixed Phones, Mobile Phones, Remote Alarm Device (RAD) and VSATs.

CAP Background

• standardize content of alerts across all hazards and enable multi-media dissemination
• Works started by the Partnership for Public Warning in 2002
• PPW submitted a report to OASIS in 2004 – Version 1.0 in the project we are using Version 1.1 approved in 2005
• XML-based data interchange format being implemented by government and private sector organizations

Why use CAP

• Open source protocol, which means it is free for us to use
• systematic Message Composition
• Multimedia distribution of single message
• Customization and filtering possibility
• Growing international recognition and implementation (e.g. WCATWC)
• Contribution to the evolution of CAP standard itself

All communication systems can be broken into 3 layers –

1. Content Layer: warning messages
2. Applicant Layer: mobile phones (WAP, Java, SMS, CB), telephone, radio (text display, text-to-voice), Internet (pop up display, email, rss)
3. Physical transportation layer (wireless networks and wired networks)

CAP fits in the Application Layer of the communication hierarchy.

A raw CAP message contains the XML tags and is annoying to read (raw software code). A CAP message viewed through a browser still looks very hard to read (raw information only). After applying a style-sheet to the message it can be converted in to a human readable message (clear message).

It very common to use web links in the message to direct readers to additional information such as a map of the effected areas.

A CAP “profile document defines its implementation for the LM-HWS, which is found in the Hazard-Information-Hub (HIH) guidelines; i.e CAP Profile. First-responders must understand certain features of the CAP profile: Alert, Information, resources, Area segments.

The 3 language problem has been solved by using multiple Information blocks; i.e. An Info block for Tamil, Sinhala, and English per message. The priority of the message is based on 3 pieces of the message: Urgency, Severity, Certainty. Urgent messages means that the community must act immediately; high priority implies that the community must be put on stand by; other a low priority message implies that the community must stay vigilant and keep a look out for hazards.

A government warning will be relayed by the HIH over the Sarvodaya network whenever it is issued. HIH will simply copy the government message and past it in the “description” element of the CAP message and set the “Event” as a “government warning”, which is one of the predefined hazard events in CAP.

This lecture is free and open to the public. The lecture will address all-hazards warning and the use of the Common Alerting Protocol in disaster mitigation.

Gordon Gow is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Extensions at the University of Alberta, Canada. Co-author of the book: “Mobile and Wireless Communication: An Introduction” and most current book: “Policymaking for Critical Infrastructure”. Moreover, he is the communication systems consultant for “Evaluating a last-mile Hazard Dissemination: A Research Project” in Sri Lanka.

Gordon Gow –

It is a community-based last-mile warning system, being tried out in a selection of Sarvodaya‘s villages in Sri Lanka. Different technologies will be tested in 32 of Sarvodaya’s Tsunami-affected villages; some are ‘organized,’ some are ‘less organized and some have received training, and some have not.

“Last mile hazard warning is a two-tier communication system; i.e. HIH first-responders and Village first-responders”