Colloquium: Last-Mile Hazard Warning System in Sri Lanka: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Phase

Posted on July 3, 2007  /  0 Comments


The Colloquium was on the HazInfo project lead by Nuwan Waidyanath and discussed the methology and research findings with respect to the specific objectives and hypothesis of the proposal with evidence to support the recommendations for an implementation phase of the LM-HWS.

The research indicated the different preferences made by users in regard to hazard notification technologies.  He also explained the CAP (Common Alerting Protocol) profile that was developed for Sri Lanka. The different devices used were listed and the pros and cons discussed.

Harsha de Silva raised fundamental issue of ne whether the LM HWS will be bi-directional, ie upstream and downstreamraised.

 Rohan Samarajiva argued that calls should not come into the disaster center, but an emergency number, because a disaster center cannot have everyone calling in when they receive alerts and will only lead to congestion. So no one will be helped. We cannot include the bi-directionality clause in the calculation because if a device does not allow upstream and downstream data then it skews the results.

Rohan Samarajiva raised a problem with rating that was attributed to the reliability of ICT as a warning technology. He argued that none of the scenarios should be exempted from the calculations. This allows for greater comparisons between geographical space. He suggested that the reliability should be measured for each configuration within a specific area and then extended to each device that was employed.

Harsha de Silva argued that it was a conditional test based on properly functioning technology. He suggested that there should be a silent test and a live test carried out.

Rohan Samarajiva also argued that situational training seemed to be more effective through random drills than regular workshops.

Comments are closed.