Resource Centre‎ > ‎

Comparison of different Devices Systems when used in a disaster

The comparison table provides an overview of the different devices (technologies) applied in the case of Natural or Man Made Disasters and Hazards. The criteria used derive from international acknowledged evaluation criteria in Humanitarian Action. The criteria are modified with the purpose to compare devices (technology) to take images from disaster zones. The comparison encounters various problems such as the moment of the use of the device and the magnitude of the disaster or hazard as well the resources available in the concerned country. For the purpose of simplification we are using the scenario of a common natural disaster such as an earthquake or flooding in a developing country and looking at the criteria from the perspective of a user of images located in the disaster zone. In this scenario we assume the Space charter is activated and Satellite images are free available.


Definition of the criteria used in the comparison table:

Relevance /Appropriateness:
Relevance is concerned with assessing whether the device (technology) is in line with local needs and priorities.
A device (technology) is appropriate when it can be used themselves by local teams, increasing ownership, accountability and cost-effectiveness accordingly.
Sub Criteria Relevance /Appropriateness: Availability, User friendliness, Technical Autonomy, Affordability/Sustainability

Connectedness:
Connectedness refers to the need to ensure that updated Imagery is available during all phases of the disaster management cycle, including to a context that takes longer-term and interconnected problems into account.
Sub Criteria Connectedness: Availability , Affordability/Sustainability, Real-time Use,

Coverage:
The need to produce images in order to support planning and coordination process of interventions to reach major population groups facing life-threatening suffering wherever they are.
Sub Criteria Coverage: Quality, Accessibility,

Efficiency:
Efficiency measures the outputs (Imagery used in planning and coordination) – qualitative and quantitative – achieved as a result of inputs. 
Sub Criteria Efficiency: Quality, Technical Autonomy, Affordability/Sustainability,

Effectiveness:
Effectiveness measures the extent to which the taking of the images achieves its purpose (support to planning and coordination), or whether this can be expected to happen on the basis of the outputs. Implicit within the criterion of effectiveness is timeliness.
Sub Criteria Effectiveness: Real-time Use, Interpretation, Quality, Availability

Impact:
Impact looks at the wider effects (influencing decision making processes) of the images taken. Impacts can be intended and unintended, positive and negative, macro (sector) and micro (household).
Sub Criteria Impact: Quality, Real time Use

Definition of the Sub critera:

User friendliness: User friendliness describes the handling of the device and the outputs (images) to support planning and coordination by a Disaster Management Team on the spot of a disaster zone (On-Site).

Interpretation: Interpretation looks at the possibility to understand the information captured in an image and attribute the correct use of it.

Availability: Availability describes the possibility in which a device or its product is available at all stages of the planning and coordination process and on site of the disaster.

Affordability/Sustainability: Affordability looks at the possibility that device and its product are available to local emergency management teams and that they can maintain the device and equipment.

Real-time Use: Real-time use describes the ability to produce, provide and make an interpretation of images at the same moment.

Technical Autonomy: Technical Autonomy describes the circumstances in which images are captured, delivered and processed independently from human and technical inputs.

Quality: Quality describes resolution of a photo, 3 D impression.

Accessibility: Accessibility describes the geographical range of the image and the autonomous manoeuvrability of the Device.





Comments