You may have noted that we updated the last blog twice, adding information to further validate and substantiate our statements. We published the first post, because we were convinced that the content was relevant and credible. The relevance of creating a simple integrated information system is evident, the information was in our view credible because it stemmed from a source we knew. 

As a scientist, you will raise your eyebrows about this approach – and rightly so. Scientific rigour requires us to make measurable, comparable, reproducible statements that can be confirmed and checked in any place. Yet, we are working remotely, and the usual paths of scientific analyses are not open for us.

Back to the ivory tower then?
Not necessarily: Information validity is in this case not only an issue of being reproducible, but will, to a large extent depend on the credibility of the source. Following Boghossian (Fear of Knowledge, 2007), credibility depends on the methods used to derive information. We would like to add the knowledge about the source as a good proxy to methods.

Information is credible if we can access information about how it was derived. This should be true for official information provided by governments. Governmental information is quite often not credible in humanitarian disasters; governments have their own agendas, do not want to admit failure, or hide their mistakes or lack of preparations or response capacity… To get a better understanding about the problems on site, ideally, we would line up a series of interviews, conduct experiments, and so forth. This is, however, not possible for us right now and we need to work with information that is of a different quality. 

I have seen it on TV! 
Another potential filter is using expertise of aid agencies, or professional journalists. Particularly visuals, such as videos, are so appealing because they make an event more tangible for us. 

But I don't know that guy!
We work with experts, ideally those we know, because we assume that they will apply appropriate methods to derive their statements; or we can derive information from the crowd, each individual being an expert qua exposure to a specific situation. In this sense, knowing the source can be interpreted as a proxy for the methods that will have been applied.

Instead of not making any statements, because we cannot justify them by following the usual paradigms, we rather try to explain, analyse, assess the situation as we go, communicating also the limits of our investigations, and updating information as we know more - trying to find the delicate balance between rigor and relevance in this blog.

Disaster relief operations entail getting essential supplies such as food and water to the people affected. This is a great effort, which requires ad-hoc coordination and planning, particularly when the damages are so severe as in the Philippines. Currently, November 25 2013, 13.2 million people are affected, 3.43 million displaced and a large part of them need to be supplied with food, water, blankets and medical care. Questions need to be addressed such as: Where should warehouses be located? Which distribution channels should we choose? And which are potential sources for what is needed. The graphic gives an overview about the warehouses around the world, from which disaster relief goods are currently shipped to the Philippines.  

To support decision makers in planning these logistics and supply networks, and gaining an overview about the current status of needs and available supplies within and across organizations, supply chain management tools have been developed. They enable mapping, tracking, planning and coordination. They have largely been designed for business enviroments, but in the humanitarian sector, we are facing a much greater challenge: keeping it simple. Keeping it manageable and user-friendly, keeping it so simple that it can be used in situations, when time is short, there is hardly any power, and telecommunication is disrupted. Instead of optimising warehouse locations or scheduling, having a flexible, agile and robust network should be the aims. 

Back to Pen and Paper?  
Using no technology is usually pragmatic and works - but also means that information cannot be shared and propagated widely, and that we cannot exploit the support that is available remotely. There is so much great technology that simply refraining from it is not a solution. 

The Challenge
How can we develop tools that enable decision makers to get an overview of the situation and support them in responding to the urgent needs of the population? Lightweight approaches are needed to that enable decision makers on-site to work with the information in adequate formats, to process, share, manipulate it as they go. 
For the humanitarian case, we issue today a challenge to the GIS community that has been elicited from a humanitarian aid worker who is currently deployed to Samara. We are well aware of the fact that such a tool may not exist in the required scope given the constraints in disaster situations - but take it as a challenge that you may find interesting to work towards to.
If you need further information about this case please contact us at thedisasterresiliencelab@gmail.com.

Below, there are just two infographics from OCHA that highlight the extent of the disaster. While this is interesting to know, one of the major difficulties to understand the situation, the needs of responders and population is the amount and heterogeneity of information available. There are dozens of sites, maps, infographics. It is hard for us to get an overview, how much harder will it be for those working on the field.
The information changes rapidly. The Hazards Data Distribution System enables us to get Satellite images showing the evolution of the meterologicla conditions, so does EC Copernicus Emergency Management Service. As the situation evolves, typically we tend to assume that we have a more clear understanding of the situation on the ground. But given the plethora of pieces of information from various sources that need to be interpreted, understood, evaluated and then shared with the right people, this is a challenge.
One of the questions we would like to address is, which sources of information are actually used in the field. What are the requirements with respect to reliability, relevance, and trustworthiness? How can the information be made accessible and manageable to the responders on-site?
 

This is the question that we intend to ask decision-makers and responders in the field. Equally, we would like to issue this question as a challenge to the scientific community. Which information would be important for you to improve the tools and systems you are developing for disaster response? To engage in an active discussion, please contact us and share your thoughts and ideas. You can contact us via mailto:thedisasterresiliencelab@gmail.com.

What we need now for our research are contacts and funding. We have been in touch with UN-OCHA, Unicef, the RedCross, Nethope and B-Fast. All have indicated interest in working with us. 

Applying for funding is more difficult. Although we have received messages of support, traditional project funding requires long term planning. Applications need to be sended in months in advance. Earthquakes, floods or taiphoons unfortunately don't comply to this scheme. 
Therefore, we rely on flexibility and support of our universities, from the scientific community, all of you. We will start a crowd funding action, asking to donate money for science and publish the link here soon.