Chapter 20

GEOINFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES TO
SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT

Sven Fuhrmann1, Alan MacEachren2, and Guoray Cai3

1
Texas State University, Department of Geography, San Marcos, Texas, U.S.A.
(fuhrmann@[Link]); 2The Pennsylvania State University, GeoVISTA Center, University
Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. (maceachren@[Link]); 3The Pennsylvania State University,
College of Information Sciences and Technology, University Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.A
(cai@[Link])

CHAPTER OVERVIEW
In today’s emergency management environments geoinformation technologies play a vital
role, but their potential has not been fully exploited. Key decision makers usually do not have
direct access to Geographic Information Systems and if they receive access, complex user
interfaces often hinder performance for high pressure tasks. In order to provide decision
makers with direct and easy access to geoinformation in emergency situations and support
group collaboration, we developed three collaborative geoinformation platforms: the
Multimodal Interface Platform for Geographic Information Systems (GeoMIP), the
GeoCollaborative Crisis Management platform for mobile collaboration and a web-portal for
humanitarian relief logistics. The technologies developed are intelligent, multimodal (speech
and gesture-based) user interfaces that allow synchronous and asynchronous collaboration
between decision makers; support GIS use by mobile emergency management teams; and
provide open standards-based web portal technologies.
396 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of geoinformation technologies is broadly established in

academia, business and governmental agencies. Within emergency manage-
ment, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been used for over 20
years (Cova and Church 1997). Examples for GIS utilization in natural and
man-made disasters are to support flood mapping, hurricane prediction, and
environmental clean-ups after industrial accidents. GIS use in emergency
management cuts across multiple domains and user groups and many
definitions are available to describe the concepts, techniques and impacts of
GIS. For the emergency management domain, Geographic Information
Systems can be best described as software for integrating and analyzing
geospatial data relevant to individuals and teams who carry out a range of
key emergency management tasks (e.g., situation assessment, evacuation
planning and execution, logistics planning and supply delivery, damage
assessment, etc).
Today, emergency management applies geoinformation technologies in
all five phases of the emergency management process, i.e. planning,
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Johnson 2000). In 2001
GIS was prominently used in the rescue, relief and recovery process after the
World Trade Center attack. Although New York City’s Emergency
Operation Center and GIS infrastructure was destroyed, city officials were
able to set up a backup facility and use GIS to produce maps for emergency
response purposes by the evening of 9/11 (Kevany 2003).
Despite the recent popularity in using Geographic Information Systems
for emergency management, their potential has not been fully explored
because most systems do not support direct multi-user access and require
highly trained operators that produce analysis and mapping results for the
decision makers. In most emergency situations, GIS operators receive their
orders via runners (staff members) who are asked by the decision makers to
inquire about maps (Brewer 2005). The GIS specialists usually react to
mapping and spatial analysis requests from decision makers, e.g. after the
World Trade Center attack GIS specialists, supported by company con-
sultants, were operating Geographic Information Systems and producing
maps on demand (Greene 2002) and, after Hurricane Katrina, GIS experts
from Louisiana State University provided support to evacuation and relief
efforts (Curtis et al. 2006). In larger communities, state and federal agencies
GIS operations have become an integral part of Emergency Operation
Centers (EOCs), but in some instances, e.g. smaller and/or rural commu-
nities, special GIS operators might not be available or are not part of the
Emergency Operation Center staff. Even in New Orleans, a major
metropolitan area, GIS use was hindered during Hurricane Katrina because
Digital Government 397

the mapping requests overwhelmed the EOC capabilities and outdated

computers caused frustration (Curtis et al. 2006).
Geographic Information Systems have been demonstrated to provide
major benefits to emergency management, but the technology has also
shortcomings and constraints. Kevany (2003) identifies eight different
shortcoming categories each with at least five individual challenges. The
most prominent constrains identified by Cutter (2003), ESRI (2000, and
Kevany (2003) are that (1) users need extensive training to operate a GIS,
(2) group work functions have not been implemented, (3) real-time data are
often not accessible, (4) data formats are sometimes incompatible, and (5)
the data quality frequently does not match the requirements. In the light of
9/11 many researchers and developers are working on the removal of these
shortcomings, e.g. the integration of real time data (Kwan and Lee 2005;
Baldus and Kim 2005), interoperable GIS (Rocha, Cestnik, and Oliveira
2005) and improvements in spatial data infrastructure (Mansourian et al.
2006; Maguire and Longley 2005).
This chapter will focus on developing relevant and usable geoinformation
technologies. We begin with an overview of the field that addresses three
themes: the current status of GIS for emergency management, efforts to
extend GIS to support collaboration across teams and organizations, and
efforts to make GIS easier to use so that non-specialists can access the
information they need to carry out emergency management work. We follow
this overview with a set of case studies from our own Digital Government
research. These case studies highlight our research on: intelligent,
multimodal user interfaces that allow more natural access to GIS-based
information by individuals without special training and that enable
synchronous and asynchronous collaboration between decision makers;
support for GIS use by mobile emergency management teams; and open
standards-based web portal technologies to support multi-organization
humanitarian relief activities.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD

2.1 GIS in Emergency Management

Disasters strike unexpectedly. In the context of emergency management,

disasters are any event that results in large scale and high impact emergency
situations. These events, natural or human-generated, are ones that have high
death tolls and/or substantial damage to property and infrastructure. The
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and the resulting tsunamis resulted in over
185,000 deaths (United Nations 2006), Hurricane Katrina killed over 1800
398 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

people in 2005 (Wikipedia 2006), the 2006 earthquake in Indonesia caused

over 6000 deaths (International Federation of Red Cross And Red Crescent
Societies 2006) and in the 2001 World Trade Center attack over 2700 lives
were lost ([Link] 2005). These and other disasters resulted in calls to
develop and use new technologies for better emergency management (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security 2004).
The initial response to disasters happens on a local level. It is usually the
city or county that needs to cope with emergency situations (Gunes and
Kovel 2000). Emergency management is concerned with reducing potential
human and material losses from crisis events, assuring immediate rescue and
relief efforts, and supporting effective recovery (FEMA 2005). The
emergency response cycle by Cutter (2003) schematically represents the
different stages in emergency management (Figure 20-1).

Figure 20-1. The emergency response cycle (Cutter 2003)

The emergency response cycle (Figure 20-1) illustrates the process by

which federal, state and local agencies, private businesses and citizens react
to disasters, recover, and prepare for a possible new disaster. In recent years,
emergency management was mostly concerned with reacting to emergency
situations. Lessons learned, particularly from recent major disasters, indicate
that it is important to be proactive and mitigate the potential for disasters
before they strike. After the World Trade Center attack President Bush
established the Disaster Management E-Government Initiative (White House
2006) intended to do just this. The Disaster Management Initiative
investigates and develops State of the Art technology and standards to
support disaster information and services. Its focus is on the development of
Internet-based services and protocols that will help the emergency
management domain to manage incidents, share information and gain
Digital Government 399

common situational awareness by providing Disaster Management

Interoperability Services or DMIS. DMIS is an open and interoperable
platform that currently can provide basic maps that can be edited and shared
through access protocols, tactical information exchange, and weather
information (see [Link]
The Disaster Management E-Government Initiative (White House 2006)
and the National Incident Management System (U.S. Department of
Homeland Security 2004) encourage the use of geoinformation technology
in emergency management. GIS provides functions, e.g. disaster forecasts,
impact modeling, vulnerability analysis, damage assessment, resource
management, etc. that support essential emergency management tasks
(Gunes and Kovel 2000; Cova et al. 2005; Zerger and Smith 2003).
The most prominent GIS technology development in emergency
management in recent years is HAZUS (Hazards U.S.), a multi-hazard risk
assessment and loss estimation software program. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) started to develop HAZUS in 1997 focusing
on estimating losses from earthquake related events (Quinn 2000). Over the
next years HAZUS was further developed and in 2003 HAZUS-MH (Multi-
Hazard) was released. HAZUS-MH not only models earthquake losses but
also helps to make forecasts and risk assessment decisions for flooding and
hurricane events. HAZUS-MH can prioritize potential losses so that rescue
activities can focus on areas with the greatest needs. HAZUS-MH was
successfully applied during Hurricane Isabel in 2003 and Hurricane Katrina
in 2005 (Levitan and Hill 2005; Oliver 2004; Srinivasan 2003).
HAZUS-MH and DIMS can be considered success stories about
application of GIS in emergency management. But geoinformation tech-
nology still has two major shortcomings in the fast paced emergency
management domain: (a) emergency management is fundamentally an
activity carried out by teams (and teams of teams) but current GIS does not
support collaboration and (b) current GIS is hard to use, requiring a
substantial amount of specialized training, thus it does not allow direct
access to geospatial data, analysis and mapping abilities by the decision
makers (few of whom have specialized GIS knowledge). Most likely
HAZUS-MH and DIMS will be operated by a trained specialist who reacts
to the requests of the decision makers. In a typical workflow, the GIS
specialist will acknowledge the request for spatial analysis and mapping
products, walk to his/her workstation and return with mapping products for
the decision makers about 10-25 minutes later (Brewer 2005). Such
workflows limit the potential access to geospatial information and take extra
time, two limitations that are critical in emergency management.
400 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

2.2 Supporting Collaboration in Emergency Management

Difficulties in multi-jurisdictional emergency agencies working together

during and after 9/11, led to the creation of the National Incident
Management System (NIMS). Historically many emergency responders and
their departments/agencies have dealt with emergencies by themselves,
mostly in a non-standardized fashion. Major disasters such as 9/11 and
Hurricane Katrina made clear that large (and smaller) disasters that cross
single-jurisdictions require an overarching incident management structure. In
2003, President Bush issued the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5
that states: “NIMS will include a core set of concepts, principles,
terminology, and technologies covering the incident command system;
multi-agency coordination systems; unified command; training; identi-
fication and management of resources; qualifications and certification; and
the collection, tracking, and reporting of incident information and incident
resources” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2004). NIMS outlines
a framework for interoperability and compatibility that allows flexibility
and standardization within the organizational structure of emergency
management. It encourages the use of geoinformation technology (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security 2004), but does not provide detail about
the GIS design requirements. Since 2003, NIMS has been adopted in many
jurisdictions to improve emergency planning and response. All federal
departments, agencies, state, local, and tribal governments are required to
comply with NIMS implementation requirements by October 1, 2006, i.e.
use the NIMS-based Incident Command System (ICS) organizational
structures and operational procedures to manage emergency incidents.
(NIMS Integration Center 2005b, 2005a).
The most obvious role for geoinformation technology in emergency
management is to enable collaborative geoinformation access and decision
making within the organizational structure. GIScience research has begun
to address the challenges and opportunities associated with extending
geoinformation technology to use by groups (Armstrong 1993; Al-Kodmany
2000; Jankowski and Nyerges 2001a; MacEachren 2000, 2001; MacEachren
and Brewer 2004; Schafer et al. 2005). However, researchers still have
limited knowledge about the dynamics of collaborative group work with
geospatial information technologies, particularly in emergency management
where these technologies may have a central role in time-critical decision
making. Here, we will focus on shared visual interfaces to geospatial
information.
Although Armstrong and Densham (1995), and Armstrong (1997)
predicted that GIS would be used in group settings for decision making and
developed a prototype visual aide for facility location, follow-up research
Digital Government 401

was somewhat slow to materialize. Jankowski and Nyerges (2001a, 2001b)

have been among the most active researchers in this domain, focusing
particular attention on development and testing of a theory-based approach
to understanding the process of group decision making in the context of
urban and regional planning. In relation to the role of maps and visual
display, their empirical research reached a conclusion that maps were more
often used if decision making involved a conflict. In subsequent work,
Jankowski collaborated with other colleagues to develop highly interactive
visual tools to support decision making (Andrienko, Andrienko, and
Jankowski 2003).
Drawing upon perspectives from computer supported cooperative work,
collaborative visualization, group work with GIS, and other domains,
MacEachren (2005) proposes that visual artifacts have three fundamental
roles in facilitating group work with geospatial information. Specifically,
visual artifacts can function: (a) as objects of collaboration (e.g., maps
depicting entities to discuss, create or manipulate), (b) to support dialogue
(e.g. between decision makers who might draw a diagram to illustrate a
relationship they are trying to explain), and (c) to support coordinated
activities (e.g. dynamic maps that help an EOC team monitor and adjust
executing plans). Research findings in these areas would enable multi-
user geocollaboration: the synchronous or asynchronous collaboration of
numerous users with geospatial information through geospatial technologies
(MacEachren and Brewer 2004).

2.3 Making GIS Easier to Use Through New Interaction

Techniques

GIS user interfaces continue to evolve, from early command line mode
interaction to graphical (point and click) user interfaces – but still these
interfaces do not bridge the gap between expert users and novice/once-in-a-
while GIS users. Especially in time critical situations, i.e. emergencies, GIS
should provide direct access to geospatial data and support the situation
awareness of decision makers who are typically not expert GIS users.
Overall, strategies that have potential to address this issue include giving
more attention to understanding how innovations diffuse and what the
impediment to up-take are as well as taking a user-centered approach to
design of GIS as a whole and of the user interface that new and occasional
users must master (MacEachren et al. 2005).
Numerous factors contribute to GIS acceptance and usability barriers and
many strategies for solving this problem have been suggested. One category
of possible solutions might consist of multimodal interfaces. In our daily
tasks and conversations, verbal descriptions and gestures have become
402 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

essential communication vehicles. In emergency management we use

gestures and verbal commands to direct people, request information, make
decisions and give explanations. Our human senses, i.e. hearing, sight, smell,
touch, taste, and equilibrium allow us to perceive and communicate
information about our environment. Nowadays computers have the ability to
simulate this information for the human senses and also perceive information
via different modalities (Dix et al. 1998; Shneiderman 1998). Oviatt (2003)
describes multimodal systems as systems that process two or more combined
user input modes, such as speech, touch, gesture, gaze or body movements.
Systems that allow only one input modality are considered to be unimodal
(Schoemaker et al. 1995). Multimodal interfaces might provide a solution to
better GIS interfaces by supporting more natural interaction with maps and
the information behind them.
Research about multimodal interfaces (Lamel et al. 1998; Rasmussen,
Pejtersen, and Goodstein 1994) emphasizes the use of natural and
conversational human-computer interfaces, e.g. speech and free-hand/pen-
based gestures but little research has focused on multimodal GIS interaction
(Schlaisich and Egenhofer 2001; Jeong and Gluck 2003). Cohen et al. (1997)
developed a pen and speech-based multimodal interface to interact with
maps. They adopted a multimodal approach because previous research
showed that speech-only interfaces were not effective for specifying spatial
relations. In usability assessments, Cohen and colleagues found that, with a
multimodal interface, participants were able to express spatial relations more
efficiently than with speech-only interfaces (Cohen et al. 1997). In
subsequent research Cohen, McGee, and Clow (2000) found that users of
interactive multimodal maps even solved tasks faster and had shorter error
correction times than users of common GUI-based maps. In complementary
research, Jeong and Gluck (2003) studied the feasibility of adding haptic and
auditory displays to GIS. They discovered that (a) haptic displays produced
faster and more accurate results than auditory and auditory/haptic displays
and (b) users liked the combined auditory/haptic displays much better
although there performance was less good. Sharma et al. (1999) and
Kettebekov and Sharma (2001) solved a variety of speech-gesture capture
problems, analyzing weather broadcasts in which individuals talk and
gesture at large screen maps. Their research has been leveraged in the
GeoMIP and GCCM development.

3. CASE STUDIES

Our Digital Government research is focused on advance GIS to better

support emergency management activities. The research addresses two
Digital Government 403

overarching issues: (1) developing a more comprehensive understanding of

geospatial information technology-enabled individual and group work in
emergency situations and (2) the development of advances in geospatial
information technology that support coordinated same-place and distributed
crisis management activities. Here, we provide a brief overview of three
prototypes developed within the overall research effort and that (a) enable
GIS in emergency management, (b) support synchronous and asynchronous
collaboration and decision making between decision makers, (c) provide
map-mediated decision support between groups that work in the same place
(room) and different places (mobile components) and support multilingual
logistic tasks in multi-national emergency events. The prototype applications
that will be introduced are (a) the Dialog-Assisted Visual Environment for
Geoinformation (DAVE_G), (b) the Mobile Environments for Geo-
Collaborative Crisis Management, and (c) the Humanitarian Relief Logistics
Web Portal.

3.1 The Multimodal Interface Platform for Geographic

Information Systems

Imagine an emergency operation center (EOC) of a government

organization at 2:00 AM in which a group of emergency managers try to
reach a decision about how to respond to a flash flood that occurred after an
intense rainstorm and at the same time cope with a weakening dam that is
threatening a city with its residents and infrastructures. Unfortunately the
existing paper maps generated by GIS do not support the creation of a
common operational picture and the group needs to request help from the
off-duty GIS analyst to find out about potential hazards and solutions. The
contact information for the GIS analyst is not on the EOC contact list, since
the GIS branch is part of the urban planning division. About one hour later
the GIS analyst receives the call for duty and arrives at the EOC after a long
commute. At 5:00 AM the first situation maps are printed and transferred to
the EOC.
Such a scenario could happen at almost any time in any place. It indicates
many important points in emergency management that relate to geoinfo-
rmation technology development. Emergency management requires decision
makers in an EOC to (a) gain fast access to critical geospatial data, (b) rely
on team work and derive information from geospatial data collaboratively,
and (c) coordinate and execute decisions quickly. Successful geoinformation
technology needs to meet these requirements; otherwise the technology
might not be used in response and rescue missions.
To meet the needs of the EOC context requires tools that allow personnel
to gain fast access to geospatial data and to collaborate in decision making.
404 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

We believe that natural interfaces to GIS, that make use of integrated

(freehand) gesture and natural dialog, have the potential to enable efficient
access to and work with geoinformation technology for non-GIS specialists,
i.e. decision makers. We approached the system development from a human-
centered system perspective that focused on users, their knowledge, and their
tasks as fundamental input to the tool design process. Analysis of the
emergency management tasks and interactions was essential to develop an
intelligent system that recognizes the natural dialog of emergency managers
and understands their tasks and requirements in different situations (Sharma
et al. 2003; MacEachren et al. 2005). Domain knowledge (including spoken
domain-specific phrases) and tasks of emergency managers were captured
using a cognitive systems engineering (CSE) approach (Rasmussen et al.
1994). Some of the knowledge elicited was represented in concept maps that
detailed connections among information, technology, people, and decision-
making tasks (Brewer 2002). These concept maps provided a basis for
scenario development. Several scenarios were designed to frame
development, e.g. a hurricane threat in Florida and a chemical incident in the
New York metro area. Besides task identification, the designed scenarios
were essential for identifying generic and domain-specific GIS requests that
the system must support.
To overcome single user constrains of GIS and support group work, a
single-user system developed in earlier research, the Dialog-Assisted Visual
Environment for Geoinformation (DAVE_G1) was extended to support
group work and more flexible dialogue. DAVE_G1, developed through an
NSF small ITR grant, implemented core, proof-of-concept ideas to achieve a
working prototype multimodal interface to GIS using integration of speech
and free-hand gesture (Sharma et al. 2003). DAVE_G2, developed as part of
our current NSF Digital Government project implemented a range of
advanced strategies for supporting natural interaction with GIS (MacEachren
et al. 2005) (see Figure 20-2, next page). These advances included improved
speech processing (using grammar-based parsing to extract content-carrying
phrases), better semantic interpretation for understanding user intentions to
match them with GIS commands, and the addition of dialogue control that
supports user-system interaction to determine user intention (rather than the
simpler strategy of one-pass system interpretation of user requests used in
DAVE_G1). Building on this progress, industry partner Advanced
Interfaces, Inc. (now VideoMining) then developed a more robust
commercial version of the system, the Geospatial Multimodal Interface
Platform (GeoMIP).
DAVE_G (both 1 and 2) was designed to accept simple voice and
freehand gesture-based commands. Both modalities allow the users to query
Digital Government 405

data sets, navigate through the environment (zoom and pan), and draw
points, lines and circles on a large screen display (Figure 20-2).

Figure 20-2. The Dialog-Assisted Visual Environment for Geoinformation (DAVE_G2)

Two different types of requests can be distinguished; one that relies on

spatial references that need to be specified by gesturing (e.g. pointing and
outlining), and a second that allows requests to be expressed solely by
speech. The current DAVE_G2 version features the following requests
• Data query (show/hide features, select/highlight features)
• Buffering (create/show buffers),
• Map navigation (pan left/right/up/down, center at, zoom in/out/area/full
extend) and Drawing (points, circle, line, free hand) (MacEachren et al.
2005).
For fulfilling a successful task, e.g. visualizing a theme, the user does not
need to provide all required information at once. DAVE_G2 incrementally
collects information about the intended task by supporting a human-
computer-based dialog. As an example, the user might want to display
population data, DAVE_G2 might have different kinds of population
information available (e.g., for census tracts, counties), thus DAVE_G2
would ask which of the available population data sets the user wants to have
displayed (Cai, Wang, and MacEachren 2003).
The DAVE_G2 architecture is based upon three modules: Human
Interaction Handling, Human Collaboration and Dialog Management, and
Information Handling (Figure 20-3, next page).
406 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

Figure 20-3. The DAVE_G2 architecture (after MacEachren et al., 2005)

The Human Interaction Handling Module consists out of two

components: (1) the human reception control that captures speech and
gesture input through cameras and microphones and generates descriptions
of recognized words, phrases, sentences, and gestures, (2) the display control
that receives the processed system responses, e.g. maps and textual
messages. It coordinates the direct feedback in response to users’ actions,
e.g. cursor movements.
The Human Collaboration and Dialog Management Module receives the
gesture descriptions and verbal utterances from the reception control
components. It coordinates the execution of these commands through the
collaboration manager and the dialog manager. The collaboration manager is
involved in the conflict management if two or more persons are interacting
with DAVE_G2. The dialog manager checks the received information for
consistency and ambiguity and establishes a dialog with the users to resolve
interpretation problems. When sufficient information is collected the
Information Handling Module initiates a GIS query and sends the query,
through the GIS query interface, to ArcIMS, which is located on a remote
server (ESRI 2003). The GIS action control takes care of all GIS related
queries and maintains information regarding the current status of the GIS.
Successful GIS queries return a map and relevant metadata to the
Information Handling Module that passes the returned information
(including error messages) to the display control.
In 2005 the commercial adaptation of some of the ideas developed in
DAVE_G1 and 2, GeoMIP, was successfully deployed as demo system at
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and will be further
developed and distributed by VideoMining, Inc. Working with the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey has helped identify long-term tasks
to make adoption of the GeoMIP system easier for emergency management.
Examples include: (a) integrating the GeoMIP system with existing EOC
Digital Government 407

software tools, (b) dynamically synchronizing GeoMIP system GIS data

with master GIS datasets, and (c) providing role-specific, expertise
collaboration to enable seamless group decision-making.

3.2 Synchronous GeoCollaborative Crisis Management

with Mobile Teams

The DAVE_G implementations and their transition to the Multimodal

Interface Platform for Geographic Information Systems (GeoMIP) was a
first step towards making geoinformation technology accessible and
available in emergency management settings typically found in Emergency
Operations Centers (EOC). However, most emergency management
activities involve cooperation among EOCs and teams of emergency
responders in the field. Such settings are exemplified by the scenario
depicted in Figure 20-4 in which a package of chemical substance generates
suspicion of a terrorist attack.

Figure 20-4. A scenario of GeoCollaborative Crisis Management (GCCM) (after Cai and
MacEachren, 2005)

Geographical intelligence gathered in the field and decisions and actions

made in the EOC must be shared across the team, creating team awareness
on an emergency situation. Yuan and Detlor (2005) pointed out the
potentials for networked mobile devices to enhance the crisis response team
in their ability to monitor crisis dynamics, assess damage, constructing team
knowledge, and coordinating collaborative actions, but effective technology
for crisis response support does not exist yet. Hence, our next step in the
GeoCollaborative Crisis Management project (GCCM) was concerned with
408 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

supporting multimodal and map-mediated collaboration among EOCs and

mobile teams. The GCCM research team developed a multi-agent system
that is designed to mediate collaborative activities among emergency
managers in EOCs and first responders in the field.
The challenges of supporting synchronous collaboration among
distributed emergency response teams are many-folds. Emergency
management teams are often formed dynamically in an ad-hoc manner
according to the situation. Some members may be constantly on the move,
while others stay in relatively stable environments. Members may be
equipped with a diverse range of devices that need to communicate with
each other reliably. Irrespective of the team configuration, technology
support should facilitate information flows among team members. Map-
mediated geocollaboration goes beyond simple sharing of geographical
information, and should include workspace awareness and activity aware-
ness to enable coordination and cooperation.
We have developed a map-enabled groupware environment called
GCCM (Figure 20-5, next page). GCCM is designed to mediate
collaborative activities among emergency managers in Emergency Operation
Centers (EOCs) and first responders in the field. It assumes that the EOCs
are equipped with a large-screen display together with microphones and
cameras to capture human speech and free-hand gestures. The EOC
coordinates with field teams through multimodal dialogues mediated by
GCCM. Field teams have access to hand-held devices that run a GCCM
client. Using GCCM mobile client, a crisis manager in the field can access
geographical intelligence gathered over the network as well as com-
municating and collaborating with other team members, using natural
multimodal dialogues (natural speech and pen-based gestures). All
communications are through XML-based web service protocols. Mobile
devices use wireless connections, while the EOC system(s) use high-speed
network connections.
During an interactive session, GCCM mediates all the message flows
among team members and reasons about the role of maps in the ongoing
tasks in order to determine map contents, presentation format, and sharing
requirements. Currently, GCCM support crisis response teams by allowing
each member to work with geospatial information individually or colla-
boratively with others. To support first responders, GCCM can also interpret
stylus input from tablet PC as deictic or iconic gestures.. Examples include
the ability to: select cities that are on one side of a position (spatial
component indicated with a linear gesture), highlight a critical facility
(spatial component indicated by a pointing gesture), exclude locations
outside of a region from consideration (spatial component indicated with an
area gesture). More generally, users can indicate any specific location or
Digital Government 409

extent through gesture (e.g. “zoom to include this area” – with a pointing or
area gesture indicating the referent for this and the interpretation of the
request based on which kind of gesture is sensed).

Figure 20-5. GCCM environment (after Cai and MacEachren, 2005)

As a reconfigurable prototype, GCCM employs a web service based

distributed architecture. The architecture of a system refers to the description
of components, connectors, and their configurations. From the perspective of
geocollaboration support, the architecture of GCCM has to cope with a GIS
service specification model, a groupware specification model, and their
dynamic integration based on task knowledge. The result of this work has
been detailed in a paper by Cai (2005) and illustrated in the Figure 20-6. It
extends distributed GIS with groupware and intelligent communication
agents. In addition to the architectural choice, special attention is given to
410 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

the computational approach for enabling collaborative geographical

information dialogues in spatial decision-making contexts. Collaboration
requires representation and reasoning on a team mental model, which must
be constructed from dialogue contexts and shared knowledge.

Figure 20-6. A distributed architecture of GCCM environment (after Cai 2005)

3.3 The Humanitarian Relief Logistics Web Portal

A massive tsunami strikes the coast of Thailand. Teams need to remove

rubble; rescue efforts are being complicated by electric power outages in the
area and a shortage of heavy equipment and generators. “We are in dire
need of assistance and relief,” particularly antibiotics and medical staff, the
Foreign Ministry says. UNICEF deploys staff to Thailand and says it has
prepared emergency supplies that include: 9,000 tarpaulins, 850 hygiene
kits, 1,165 small tents, 753 large tents, 4,000 lanterns, 160 collapsible water
tanks, 1,707 school kits, 50 school tents, 152 recreation kits, and 90 school-
in-a-box school supplies. “A planeload of relief supplies also is on the way
with more than 5,000 pounds of medical supplies and two portable water
treatment facilities,” the Foreign Ministry spokesperson says.
Digital Government 411

This scenario gives just a brief introduction into the essential logistics
that go along with large-scale disasters. The Indian Ocean Tsunami that
rippled across the globe on December 26, 2004, the 2005 hurricane season
and other recent natural disasters have indicated the need for geospatial
infrastructures that effectively support humanitarian logistics and response
and facilitate planning and mitigation efforts on a national and international
level. In order to meet these requirements we developed the Geo-
collaborative Web Portal (GWP) as a prototype testbed for studying the
potential of map-based, different place collaboration and coordination
strategies and technologies. The goal of the GWP is to provide a common
and intuitive interface through which asynchronous, geocollaborative
activities can be conducted in support of humanitarian relief logistics
operations (Figure 20-7).
The GWP is an active research effort for which an early prototype has
been implemented. GWP development extends our GCCM efforts for useful

Figure 20-7. The Geocollaborative Web Portal (GWP)

412 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

and usable geoinformation technologies in emergency management to the

context of international, multiorganization coordination, with a focus on
support of relief and recovery efforts. The near-term goals for the GWP are
to support situation assessment, positioning teams and distribution sites, and
routing supplies. Special emphasis is being placed on supporting international
group interaction through collaborative map annotation procedures, support
for group activity awareness and transactive memory (through action
histories), multi-lingual map feature labeling, organization-specific symbol
sets to overcome communication barriers, and upload of photos and GPS
feeds from the field. The GWP will facilitate asynchronous group knowledge
development through: (a) integrating external resources (Web Map Services
and Web Feature Services), (b) providing interactive concept maps with
operation and command structures, (c) retrieving and storing of internal and
external data and (d) displaying web syndications (news and blogs) through
RSS (Really Simple Syndication 2.0) and GeoRSS (RSS feeds described by
location).
The intention is that the web portal can be used as a central online
location for information sharing and reporting by all parties (national
and international) that are involved in response activities. Additional
functionality that has been identified thus far as desirable includes: tracking
of situational urgency at various locations (lack of food, medical supplies,
etc.), support for efficient and relevant resource allocation, tools to enable
relocating response crews, and help in identifying hierarchy issues that arise
from coordinating different institutional perspectives (government agency
policies vs. non-governmental organization policies).
The current application provides three different map-based collaboration
components. They are discussed in detail elsewhere (Tomaszewski et al.
2006; Turton et al. submitted) with a brief summary provided here. The first
component is a mapping session in which multiple users interact via a web
map. Map administrators can add or remove collaborators, tools and
functionalities as the response situation requires. Both single user and group
interaction is controlled. Responders can be online at the same time
interacting in near real time, or (depending on the time zone or workload)
conduct mapping sessions asynchronously. The GWP functionality records
the interaction history, i.e. panning, zooming, map extent, and annotation.
This capability is a first step toward providing more comprehensive
transactional memory support that enables collaborators (who may have
never met) to keep track of (or execute a query to find out) who is likely to
know details about particular places, resources, or past actions.
Another suite of tools in the GeoCollaborative Web Portal allows users to
input a diverse range of geospatial data into the portal and subsequently
share it with other collaborators using a variety of methods. Functions
Digital Government 413

include real-time address geocoding, GPS data exchange (waypoints, routes,

and tracks) through GPX (the GPS Exchange Format), geospatial image
overlays, and dynamic Web Map Service and Web Feature Service data
integration. These capabilities are based on Open Geospatial Consortium
standards (for details see: Turton et al. (submitted).
Besides geographic maps, the GWP also enables concept map-based
group work (for additional details, see: MacEachren et al. (working paper).
The goal of the concept maps is to help collaborators to structure and share
knowledge about relief logistics operations by understanding responsibilities
and procedures, displaying different organizational policies in relief efforts
and identifying logistics solutions. Dynamic links between the concept maps
and the geographic map allow users to employ the concept map as an
interface to information that may have a geographic component and to use
the concept map to refocus the geographic map on the appropriate context.
The long term goal for the GWP development effort is to demonstrate
(and empirically study) how geocollaborative technologies coupled with
effective, intuitive information sharing can bridge potential language and
cultural constraints between team members and lead to coordinated
perspectives through the construction of team knowledge that can overcome
issues inherent in disaster response collaboration.

4. DISCUSSION

Geoinformation technologies provide essential functions and methods for

effective emergency management but these rather complex functionalities
are usually available only to one GIS specialist at a time. Emergency
management is a collaborative effort: it involves the police forces, fire
departments, EMS, transportation planners, politicians and depending on the
scale of the emergency many other individuals and agencies. Currently
geoinformation technology restricts the range of potential users and narrows
the chances for effective problem recognition and solving. This shortcoming
needs to be overcome to meet the challenges of NIMS and in broader
perspective support homeland preparedness and security requirements for
future natural and human-generated disasters.
We outlined three geoinformation technology developments that support
asynchronous and synchronous collaboration with geospatial data and
enable communication, analysis, discussion, and decision-making within
the emergency management group. The technologies we introduced are
intelligent, multimodal user interfaces that allow synchronous and
asynchronous collaboration between decision makers; support GIS use by
mobile emergency management teams; and provide open standards-based
414 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

web portal technologies to support multi-organization humanitarian relief

activities. The developed applications replace traditional views on human-
computer interaction. Mouse and keyboard interaction are replaced by
natural language and gesture recognition, the advantages of multimodal
interfaces have been extended to support mobile use of GIS, and we are
beginning to work on support for international interfaces to map-based
information.
Introducing useful and usable geoinformation technologies into
emergency management represents a great challenge that can not be fulfilled
without guidance and feedback from first responders and emergency
managers. The applied human-centered design approach taken in the
research summarized above, proved to support application design and
implementation in an effective fashion. The quality of the applications was
improved using an iterative design process that made extensive use of close
interaction with domain specialists that enabled requirements and tasks
analysis and collection of quantitative and qualitative feedback in usability
testing sessions.
Rapid advances in geoinformation technologies are creating new
opportunities and challenges and many research questions have not been
answered, yet. Our evolving research on novel geoinformation and
geovisualization technologies is being continued through the North-East
Visualization & Analytics Center (NEVAC). The NEVAC is one of the five
Regional Visualization Analytics Centers, funded by the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory through their Department of Homeland Security’s
National Visualization and Analytics Center (NVAC). The fundamental
scientific objectives underlying the NEVAC are to: (a) understand how
individuals and teams carry out analytical reasoning and decision making
tasks with complex geoinformation technology and (b) using this
understanding to develop and assess geoinformation technologies that enable
these processes. The research results will influence and foster national and
international geoinformation technology development for better emergency
management and homeland security.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grants No. BCS-0113030, EIA-0306845; PI: Alan M.
MacEachren, CoPIs: Rajeev Sharma, Guoray Cai, Michael McNeese, Sven
Fuhrmann. Grateful appreciation goes to the following individuals for their
assistance and support: Rajeev Sharma, Michael McNeese, Levent Bolelli,
Isaac Brewer, Adrian Cox, Timothy Frazier, Marc Friedenberg, Xiaoyan
Digital Government 415

Liu, Bita Mortazavi, Joaquin Obieta, Scott Pezanowski, Ingmar Rauschert,

Michael Stryker, Brian Tomaszewski, Ian Turton, Hongmei Wang, and
Yinkun Xue. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the funding agency.

ACRONYM TABLE
Acronym Short Description
DAVE_G Dialog-Assisted Visual Environment for Geoinformation, developed
at Penn State’s GeoVISTA Center to enable speech and gesture-
based GIS collaboration during emergencies.
EOC Emergency Operation Center, central facility to manage a range of
emergency situations.
GCCM GeoCollaborative Crisis Management, a project at Penn State’s
GeoVISTA Center to support multimodal and map-mediated
collaboration among EOCs and mobile teams.
DIMS Disaster Management Interoperability Services, open platform that
provides maps, tactical information exchange and weather
information.
GeoMIP Multimodal Interface Platform for Geographic Information Systems,
commercial adoption of DAVE_G components.
GIS Geographic Information Systems, software for integrating, analyzing
and visualizing geospatial data.
GWP GeoCollaborative Web Portal, developed at Penn State’s GeoVISTA
Center, prototype testbed for studying map-based, different place
collaboration and coordination.
HAZUS-MH Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard, pre-event risk assessment and loss
estimation software, developed by FEMA.
NIMS National Incident Management System, core set of concepts,
principles, terminologies, and technologies covering the incident
commend system, multi-agency coordination, management of
resources and additional topics in unified emergency management.

REFERENCES
Al-Kodmany, K. 2000. Extending Geographic Information Systems to Meet Neighborhood
Planning Needs: The Case of Three Chicago Communities. URISA Journal 12 (3):19-37.
Andrienko, G., N. Andrienko, and P. Jankowski. 2003. Building Spatial Decision Support
Tools for Individuals and Groups. Journal of Decision Systems 12 (2):193-208.
416 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

Armstrong, M. P. 1993. Perspectives on the development of group decision support systems

for locational problem-solving. Geographical Systems 1 (1):69-81.
———. 1997. Emerging technologies and the changing nature of work in GIS. Paper read at
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, at Bethesda, MD.
Armstrong, M. P., and P. J. Densham. 1995. Collaborative spatial decision-making: A look at
the dark side. Paper read at Proceedings of GIS/LIS ’95, at Bethesda, MD.
Baldus, G., and J. Kim. 2005. Integrating GIS and real-time vehicle tracking for county
emergency response. Paper read at 2005 ESRI International User Conference Proceedings,
at San Diego.
Brewer, I. 2005. Understanding work with geospatial information in emergency management:
A Cognitive Systems Engineering approach in GIscience, Department of Geography, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Cai, G. 2005. Extending distributed GIS to support geo-collaborative crisis management.
Geographic Information Science 11 (1):4-14.
Cai, G., and A. M. MacEachren. 2005. Supporting effective human interactions with
geographic information during crisis response. GeoMatica 59 (4):415-425.
Cai, G., H. Wang, and A. M. MacEachren. 2003. Communicating Vague Spatial Concepts in
Human-GIS Interactions: A Collaborative Dialogue Approach. Paper read at COSIT 2003:
Conference on Spatial Information Theory, 24-28 September, at Ittingen, Switzerland.
[Link]. 2006. Identification of 9/11 remains comes to an end 2005 [cited 05/12/2006
2006]. Available from [Link]
Cohen, P., M. Johnston, D. McGee, S. Oviatt, J. Pittman, I. Smith, L. Chen, and J. Clow.
1997. QuickSet: Multimodal interaction for distributed applications. Paper read at
Proceedings of the Fifth International Multimedia Conference (Multimedia ’97), at Seattle.
Cohen, P., D. R. McGee, and J. Clow. 2000. The efficiency of multimodal interaction for a
map-based task. Paper read at Proceedings of the Applied Natural Language Processing
Conference, April 29 - May 4, at Seattle, WA.
Cova, T. J., and R. L. Church. 1997. Modelling community evacuation vulnerability using
GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 11 (8):763-784.
Cova, T. J., P. E. Dennison, T. H. Kim, and M. A. Moritz. 2005. Setting wildfire evacuation
trigger points using fire spread modeling and GIS. Transactions in GIS 9 (4):603-617.
Curtis, A., J. W. Mills, J. K. Blackburn, and J. C. Pine. 2006. Hurricane Katrina: GIS
response for a major metropolitan area, 7. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.
Cutter, S. L. 2003. GI Science, Disasters, and Emergency Management. Transactions in GIS 7
(4):439-445.
Dix, A. J., J. E. Finlay, G. D. Abowd, and R. Beale. 1998. Human-Computer Interaction.
2 ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
ESRI. 2000. Challenges for GIS in emergency preparedness and response, 34. Redlands:
ESRI.
FEMA. 2006. IS-1 Emergency Manager: An Orientation to the Position. Federal Emergency
Management Agency 2005 [cited 05/12/2006 2006]. Available from [Link]
gov/EMIWeb/IS/[Link].
Greene, R. W. 2002. Confronting Catastrophe: A GIS Handbook. Redlands: ESRI Press.
Gunes, A. E., and J. P. Kovel. 2000. Using GIS in Emergency Management Operations.
Journal of Urban Planning and Development 126 (3):136-149.
International Federation of Red Cross And Red Crescent Societies. 2006. Indonesia: Yogyakarta
Earthquake - Operation Update no.2. ReliefWeb 2006 [cited 06/02/2006 2006]. Available
from [Link]
Digital Government 417

Jankowski, P., and T. L. Nyerges. 2001a. Geographic Information Systems for Group
Decision Making: Towards a participatory, geographic information science. New York:
Taylor & Francis.
———. 2001b. GIS-supported collaborative decision making: Results of an experiment.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (1):48-70.
Jeong, W., and M. Gluck. 2003. Multimodal Geographic Information Systems: Adding haptic
and auditory display. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 54 (3):229-242.
Johnson, R. 2000. GIS technology for disasters and emergency management, 12. Redlands:
ESRI.
Kettebekov, S., and R. Sharma. 2001. Toward natural gesture/speech control of a large
display. Paper read at Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, May 11 - 14, at
Toronto.
Kevany, M. J. 2003. GIS in the World Trade Center attack - Trial by fire. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 27:571-583.
Kwan, M.-P., and J. Lee. 2005. Emergency response after 0/11: the potential of real-time 3D
GIS for quick emergency response in micro-spatial environments. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 29:93-113.
Lamel, L., S. Bennacef, J. L. Gauvain, H. Dartiguest, and J. N. Temem. 1998. User
Evaluation of the MASK Kiosk. Paper read at ICSLP 1998, at Sydney.
Levitan, M. L., and C. Hill. 2005. Residential wind damage in Hurricane Katrina -
Preliminary estimates and potential loss reduction through improved building codes and
construction practices, 9. Baton Rouge: LSU Hurricane Center, Louisiana State
University.
MacEachren, A. M. 2000. Cartography and GIS: facilitating collaboration. Progress in
Human Geography 24 (3):445-456.
———. 2001. Cartography and GIS: Extending collaborative tools to support virtual teams.
Progress in Human Geography 25 (3):431-444.
———. 2005. Moving geovisualization toward support for group work. In Exploring
geovisualization, eds. J. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren and M.-J. Kraak, 445-461.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
MacEachren, A. M., and I. Brewer. 2004. Developing a conceptual framework for visually-
enabled geocollaboration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 18
(1):1-34.
MacEachren, A. M., G. Cai, R. Sharma, I. Rauschert, I. Brewer, L. Bolelli, B. Shaparenko, S.
Fuhrmann, and H. Wang. 2005. Enabling collaborative geoinformation access and
decision-making through a natural, multimodal interface. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science 19 (3):293-317.
MacEachren, A. M., X. Liu, S. Pezanowski, and B. M. Tomaszewski. working paper.
Bridging forms of knowledge for crisis management: Concept maps to geographic maps.
Maguire, D. J., and P. A. Longley. 2005. The emergence of geoportals and their role in spatial
data infrastructures. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (1):3-14.
Mansourian, A., A. Rajabifard, M. J. Valadan Zoej, and I. Williamson. 2006. Using SDI and
web-based system to facilitate disaster management. Computers & Geosciences 32:303-
315.
NIMS Integration Center. 2005a. State and territorial compliance activities: Federal fiscal
year 2006, 13: DHS/FEMA.
———. 2005b. Tribal government and local jurisdiction compliance activities: Federal fiscal
year 2006, 13: DHS/FEMA.
418 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

Oliver, C. 2004. FEMA employs new state-of-the-art technology to predict losses from
hurricane Isabel, 11: FEMA.
Oviatt, S. 2003. Multimodal interfaces. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook:
Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, eds. J. A. Jacko and A.
Sears, 286-304. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Quinn, B. B. 2000. HAZUS - Getting back to business. Geospatial Solutions October 2000.
Rasmussen, J., A. M. Pejtersen, and L. P. Goodstein. 1994. Cognitive engineering: Concepts
and applications. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Rocha, A., B. Cestnik, and M. A. Oliveira. 2005. Interoperable Geographic Information
Services to Support Crisis Management. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science - Web and
Wireless Geographical Information Systems: 5th International Workshop, W2GIS 2005,
Lausanne, Switzerland, December 15-16, 2005. Proceedings eds. K.-J. Li and C.
Vangenot, 246-255. Berlin: Springer.
Schafer, W. A., C. H. Ganoe, L. Xiao, G. Coch, and J. M. Carroll. 2005. Designing the
next generation of distributed, geocollaborative tools. Cartography and Geographic
Information Science 32 (2):81-100.
Schlaisich, I., and M. J. Egenhofer. 2001. Multimodal spatial querying: What people sketch
and talk about. Paper read at 1st International Conference on Universal Access in Human-
Computer Interaction, at New Orleans.
Schoemaker, L., J. Nijtmans, A. Camurri, F. Lavagetto, P. Morasso, C. Benoit, T. Guiard-
Marigny, B. Le Goff, J. Robert-Ribes, A. Adjoudani, I. Defee, S. Munch, K. Hartung, and
J. Blauert. 1995. A taxonomy of multimodal interaction in the human information
processing system. Miami: Esprit Basic Research Action 8579.
Sharma, R., I. Poddar, E. Ozyildiz, S. Kettebekov, H. Kim, and T. S. Huang. 1999. Toward
interpretation of natural speech/gesture: Spatial planning on a virtual map. Paper read at
Proceedings of ARL Advanced Displays Annual Symposium, at Adelphi, MD.
Sharma, R., M. Yeasin, N. Krahnstoever, I. Rauschert, G. Cai, I. Brewer, A. M. MacEachren,
and K. Sengupta. 2003. Speech-gesture driven multimodal interfaces for crisis
management. Proceedings of the IEEE 91 (9):1327-1354.
Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the user interface - Strategies for effective human-computer
interaction. 3 ed. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Srinivasan, D. 2003. Battling hazards with a brand new tool. Planning February 2003:10-13.
Tomaszewski, B. M., A. M. MacEachren, S. Pezanowski, X. Liu, and I. Turton. 2006.
Supporting Humanitarian Relief Logistics Operations through Online Geocollaborative
Knowledge Management. Paper read at Proceedings of The National Conference on
Digital Government Research, May 21-24, 2006, at San Diego, CA.
Turton, I., B. M. Tomaszewski, S. Pezanowski, and A. M. MacEachren. Submitted. An OGC
standards approach to web-based geocollaboration.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2004. National Incident Management System, 139.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
United Nations. 2006. The human toll. Office of the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for
Tsunami Recovery 2006 [cited 05/12/2006 2006]. Available from [Link]
[Link]/ country/[Link].
White House. 2006. The Presidential Disaster Management Initiative. White House 2006
[cited 05/12/2006 2006]. Available from [Link]
[Link].
Wikipedia. 2006. Hurricane Katrina. Wikipedia 2006 [cited 06/02/2006 2006]. Available
from [Link]
Digital Government 419

Yuan, Y., and B. Detlor. 2005. Intelligent Mobile Crisis Response Systems. Communications
of the ACM 48 (2):95-98.
Zerger, A., and D. I. Smith. 2003. Impediments to using GIS for real-time disaster decision
support. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 27:123-141.

SUGGESTED READINGS

• Longley, P. A., M. F. Goodchild, et al. (2005). Geographic Information

Systems and Science. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. Gives an essential
introduction into the field of GIScience and the geoinformation
technology.
• Dykes, J., A. M. MacEachren, et al., Eds. (2005). Exploring Geo-
visualization. Amsterdam, Elsevier. Provides an exclusive overview
about cutting-edge geovisualization research.
• Greene, R. W. (2002). Confronting Catastrophe: A GIS Handbook.
Redlands, ESRI Press. Introduces the use of GIS in emergency
management and lists development challenges.
• Oviatt, S. (2003). Multimodal interfaces. The Human-Computer
Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and
Emerging Applications. J. A. Jacko and A. Sears. Mahwah, Lawrence
Erlbaum: 286-304. Narrates over the design and integration of
multimodal interfaces in IT products.
• Thomas, J. J. and K. A. Cook, Eds. (2005). Illuminating the path - The
research and development agenda for visual analytics. Los Alamitos,
IEEE Computer Society. The latest research agenda in the important
field of visual analytics.

ONLINE RESOURCES

• Department of Homeland Security:[Link]

• Official Web Portal of 26 U.S. government agencies that are concerned
with emergency management and homeland security:
[Link]
• GeoVISTA Center, The Pennsylvania State University:
[Link]
• HAZUS - FEMA’s Software Program for Estimating Potential Losses
from Disasters: [Link]
420 Chapter 20. Fuhrmann, MacEachren, and Cai

• The National Incident Management System (NIMS) Integration Center:

[Link]
• United Nations website providing information to humanitarian relief
organizations: [Link]

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Which emergency management tasks would benefit the most from

provision of more current, relevant information available where and
when it is needed?
2. For what aspects of emergency management is collaboration most critical
and what kinds of collaboration need to be supported?
3. How does the role of geospatial information (and GIS) vary across the
emergency management stages and among different kinds of
emergencies? Give examples.
4. Why are Geographic Information Systems essential for emergency
management?
5. What are the major shortcomings of Geographic Information Systems in
emergency management?
6. What are the benefits of multimodal user interfaces for Geographic
Information Systems?