Risk Management Strategies: Role of Urban Information Management and Services

1. Risk Management Strategies: Role of Urban Information Management and Services Dr. Robert S. Chen Deputy Director and Senior Research Scientist Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Manager, Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) Columbia University With inputs from: Mark Reichardt Open GIS Consortium

2. Data and Information Post 9/11 • NYC EMC destroyed in WTC • Included GIS capabilities • Alternative command center brought in GIS systems, experts, volunteers within first 2-3 days • Different systems, data used by different agencies • Everyone adopted NYC base map, developed from 1-foot orthoimagery • GIS, GPS, remote sensing, Internet mapping used widely for monitoring, analysis, coordination, planning, control, communication, investigation • Some data had to be driven down from Albany!

3. Emergency Response Data and Information Needs • Many possible disaster scenarios • need robust and flexible access to diverse data and information • need underlying framework or structure for assimilating new data • Difficult to know what is going on in many different places • need real-time access to data from different sources • need accessible analysis and modeling services • need data and information generated from monitoring and analysis to be shared and exchanged between dozens of different groups involved in response (both public and private) • Information system itself may be vulnerable • need redundancy, survivability, and ability to redeploy assets • Demand for information by policy makers and the public is immediate • need to have communication channels and templates in place in advance

4. Example NYC Maps Used and Disseminated by the EMC (1)

5. Example NYC Maps Used and Disseminated by the EMC (2)

6. Some Key Barriers to Meeting Needs • Data hard to find, access, and integrate • Data not cataloged or cataloged inconsistently • Catalogs scattered, don’t support automated data access • Data are offline, proprietary, and/or restricted • Technical issues, e.g., projection, resolution, format, quality • Data and information systems don’t talk to each other • Lack of standards; proliferation of proprietary or idiosyncratic formats, styles of presentations, tools, etc. • Lack of interoperability between instruments, data loggers, database systems, catalogs, analysis packages, prediction models, mapping/visualization tools, etc. • Hard to communicate complex spatial, technical data

7. Alan Leidner, City-wide GIS CoordinatorDepartment of Information, Technology and Telecommunications During the response to the recent attacks on the World Trade Center, the rapid integration of spatial data from numerous local, state, federal, NGO and private sector sources was a major priority. Through OGC, we have been able to partner broadly with members of industry, government and academia to address some of the critical interoperability issues that challenged us during that time. I am confident that this relationship will no doubt help the market deliver interoperable capabilities that further improve our ability to deal with future emergencies as well as the critical services we provide to our citizens on a daily basis. City of New York Viewpoint

8. What is the Open GIS Consortium? OGC Vision A world in which everyone benefits fromgeographic information and services made available across any network, application, or platform. OGC Mission Our core mission is to deliverspatial interface specificationsthat are openly available for global use. • Not-for-profit, international consortium whose 230+ industry, government, and university members work to make geographic information an integral part of information systems of all kinds • Operates a Specification Development Program similar to other Industry consortia (W3C, OMG, etc.). • Operates an Interoperability Program (IP), a global, innovative, partnership-driven, hands-on engineering and testing program designed to deliver proven specifications into the SDP. • New MOU with the Columbia Earth Institute!

9. Open Web Services Initiative 1 (OWS-1) Demonstration Simulated users, including Geospatial Specialists, Remote Sensing Experts, Domain Professionals, Incident Support Teams, Decision Makers: Publish, Find and Access multiple information sources Sources Federal University NGO State Local

10. OWS-1 Timeline and the Players • Kickoff: September 2001 • Demonstration: March 2002, Chantilly VA • OWS-1 Sponsors: • US Environmental Protection Agency, GeoConnections Canada, NASA, NIMA, Lockheed Martin, USGS, FGDC, ERDC, CANRI • OWS-1 Participants: • Compusult, CubeWerx, Dawn Corp, DLR, ESRI, Galdos Systems, GMU, Intergraph, Ionic Software, Laser-Scan, PCI Geomatics, Polexis, SAIC, Social Change Online, Syncline, YSI, University of Alabama Huntsville, Vision for NY • OWS-1 Coordinating Organizations • NYC DOITT, NYC DEP,FEMA,EPA Region 2, CIESIN, Urban Logic

11. Map Viewer Client Discovery Client OWS-1 Clients and Services Client Tier Middle Tier Services Data Tier Services Find Register Registry Service (metadata) Web Map Service Services Client Publish/ Harvest Publish/Harvest Web Feature Service Web Client Generator Bind Bind Portrayal Services Sensors optional Sensor Collection Service Sensors internet internet Imagery Viewer Client Sensors Bind Sensor Client Web Coverage Service Web Coverage Service

12. OWS-1 Demonstration:Areas of Interest AOI 3 – NY State, New Jersey, Long Island AOI 2 – Greater New York City Region AOI 1 – Lower Manhattan AOI 0 - 10 acre area centered around WTC

13. OWS-1 Demonstration:User Scenarios Vignette 1 – Get Quick Maps Rapidly develop an overall view of the disaster area to support response Vignette 2 – Service Registration and Discovery Search for more relevant data and services Vignette 3 – Sensor Web Access Combine data from multiple networks of in-situ sensors Vignette 4 – Imagery Access and Visualization Flexibly portray imagery and integrate imagery and mapping information Vignette 5 – Supporting Decision Flow Make maps available on a portal accessed from “Situation Room”

14. Combine multiple sources combining images and weather patterns Vignette 1:Get Quick Maps WMS JPL Landsat EPA Enviro- mapper Syncline Wrapper WMS NASA WMS Client Syncline Weather WMS CubeWerx Transportation

15. Access real-time sensors Vignette 3:Sensor Web Access SCS SAIC NOAA METAR Data SCS Polexis Map Viewer SAIC + ESRI NY State Air Quality Data SCS SAIC YSI Water Quality And Meteorology Sensor WMS CubeWerx NYC OrthoImagery And Structures

16. Access remote sensing data for both visualization and analysis Vignette 4:Image Access & Visualization WCS Intergraph LIDAR Intergraph WCS Retrieval Service Web Browser Huntsville, AL WCS DLR X-SAR Germany Existing GIS S/W WCS GMU Files AVIRIS Greenbelt, MD WCS Polexis MODIS PCI WCS Retrieval Service Web Browser San Diego, CA WCS/ WMS PCI SPOT Ottawa, ONT, CA

17. Hazard Vulnerability Assessment: OGC NYC Demo • Intergraph client showing NYC imagery with overlaid features • Fire districts (red lines) drawn from WFS-compliant SEDAC server • SEDAC working with Ionic Software to host WMS-, WFS-, and WCS-compliant servers

18. GIS-Based Decision Support Tool

19. UAH Space-Time Toolkit “Thick” client that supports animation, 3-D visualization of phenomena Courtesy of M. Botts, University of Alabama Huntsville

20. UAH Plume Model Courtesy of M. Botts, University of Alabama Huntsville

21. Example of Landsat TM and Ikonos Data: Phoenix AZ Prepared by Chris Small of LDEO 22 June 1997 14 August 2000

22. Data/Information Issues • Shearson-Lehman, others demonstrate critical importance of “hot” backups for financial transaction data—across Hudson River! Far enough for the next extreme event? • Systems may be backed up—but what about expertise, chain of command? • Need for seamless data access by multiple levels of government and responders vs. need for data security • Need for rapid, flexible development of standards, specifications, and tools, working closely with industry, academia, nongovernmental groups, and government. • “Semantic Divides” to information sharing

23. Semantic Divides to Information Sharing • Within the CIPI-1 Common Vision, there are basic methods to transform legacy (local) data models into core data models (and vice versa) minimizing semantic divides between organizations & communities. • This is a challenge that will require extended effort and coordination with ongoing activities such as Geospatial One-Stop, and OGC Domain Modeling Support Initiatives. Community A <Road> Community B Critical Infrastructure Protection Event <Highway> Community C <Motorway> Community F Community D Community E

24. Broader Issues • Individual jurisdictions cannot deal with issues alone; must have regional collaboration (not just urban) • Lack of consistent loss estimates and loss estimation methods • Inconsistent hazard estimates and incomplete understanding of uncertainties • Disparate decision support tools and frameworks • Risk communication in a networked world!