Advertisement

Mashups for the Emergency Management Domain

  • Axel SchulzEmail author
  • Heiko Paulheim
Chapter

Abstract

Emergency management applications support a command staff in disruptive disaster situations, such as earthquakes, large-scale floodings or fires. One crucial requirement to emergency management systems is to provide decision makers with the relevant information to support their decisions. Mashups can help here by providing flexible and easily understandable views on up-to-date information. In this chapter, we introduce a number of mashups from the domain of emergency management. An in-depth study of the mashup MICI shows how mashups can combine valuable information for ranking and filtering emergency calls to cope with information shortage and overload. We further discuss the use of Linked Open Data both as a source of additional information and a means for more intelligent filtering.

Keywords

Emergency Management Sentiment Analysis Link Open Data Soft Sensor Rule Engine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Abel F, Celik I, Houben G (2011) Leveraging the semantics of tweets for adaptive faceted search on Twitter. In: Aroyo L, Welty C, Alani H, Taylor J, Bernstein A, Kagal L, Noy N, Blomqvist E (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on the semantic web, ISWC’11. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7031. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abel F, Hauff C, Houben G (2012) Twitcident: fighting fire with information from social web streams. In: Proceedings of international conference on hypertext and social media, Milwaukee Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abel F, Hauff C, Stronkman R (2012) Semantics + filtering + search = Twitcident exploring information in social web streams categories and subject descriptors. In: International conference on hypertext and social media, Milwaukee Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ajmani V (2008) Los Angeles fire tweets. http://www.mibazaar.com/lafires.php
  5. 5.
    Ajmani V (2009) Iran election protests. http://www.mibazaar.com/irantweets.html
  6. 6.
    Ajmani V (2009). Swine flu tweets. http://www.mibazaar.com/swineflu.html
  7. 7.
    Auer S, Bizer C, Kobilarov G, Lehmann J, Cyganiak R, Ives Z (2007) DBpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data. In: Proceedings of the 6th international semantic web conference, ISWC, Busan, pp 722–735 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Auer S, Lehmann J, Hellmann S (2009) LinkedGeoData—adding a spatial dimension to the web of data. In: International semantic web conference (ISWC) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Babitski G, Bergweiler S, Grebner O, Oberle D, Paulheim H, Probst F (2011) SoKNOS—using semantic technologies in disaster management software. In: The semantic web: research and applications (ESWC 2011), Part II, pp 183–197 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beaumont C (2009) New York plane crash: Twitter breaks the news, again. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/4269765/New-York-plane-crash-Twitter-breaks-the-news-again.html
  11. 11.
    Bizer C (2009) The emerging web of linked data. IEEE Intell Syst 24(5):87–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bizer C, Jentzsch A, Cyganiak R (2001) State of the LOD cloud. http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/lodcloud/state/
  13. 13.
    Brownstein J, Freifeld C (2007) Healthmap: the development of automated real-time internet surveillance for epidemic intelligence. Euro Surveill 12(48):3322–3324 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burke J, Estrin D, Hansen M, Parker A, Ramanathan N, Reddy S, Srivastava MB (2006) Participatory sensing. In: Workshop on world-sensor-web (WSW’06): mobile device centric sensor networks and applications, pp 117–134 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (2008) Election day violence. http://cmev.wordpress.com/maps/
  16. 16.
    Clausen J (2012) Live Earthquake mashup. http://www.oe-files.de/gmaps/eqmashup.html
  17. 17.
    Collins A, Loftus E (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev 82(6):407–428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drabek TE, Hoetmer GJ (1991) Emergency management: principles and practice for local government. International City Management Association, Washington Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Endsley MR (1988) Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In: Aerospace systems: situation awareness in aircraft systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society annual meeting, vol 32. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Anaheim, pp 97–101 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (2011). FEMA 2011–2014 strategic plan overview. http://www.fema.gov/about/2011_14_strategic_plan_overview.shtm
  21. 21.
    Fritz C, Kirschner C, Reker D, Wisplinghoff A (2010) Geospatial web mining for emergency management. In: GIScience 2010—extended abstracts, pp 1–5 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galway D (2009) Sensor Masher examples. http://sensormasher.deri.org/
  23. 23.
    Goolsby R (2009) Lifting elephants: Twitter and blogging in global perspective. In: Social computing and behavioral modeling. Springer, New York, pp 1–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (GNOCDC) (2009) Population and loss of children across the New Orleans metro area. http://www.gnocdc.org/repopulation
  26. 26.
    Heim P, Thom D (2011) SemSor: combining social and semantic web to support the analysis of emergency situations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on semantic models for adaptive interactive systems (SEMAIS) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herald-Tribune (2012) IbisEye: your 2012 hurricane source. http://ibiseye.com/
  28. 28.
    Jadhav A, Wang W, Mutharaju R, Anantharam P (2009) Twitris: socially influenced browsing. In: Semantic web challenge 2009, demo at 8th international semantic web conference, Washington Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson D, Zagorecki A, Gelman JM, Comfort LK (2011) Improved situational awareness in emergency management through automated data analysis and modeling. J Homeland Secur Emerg Manag 8(1). doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1873
  30. 30.
    JRC European Commission (2012) MedISys. http://medusa.jrc.it/medisys
  31. 31.
    Kamenetz A (2010) Open source maps are helping the World Bank save lives in Haiti. http://www.fastcompany.com/1554072/open-source-developers-help-the-world-bank-save-lives-in-haiti
  32. 32.
    Keay A (2010) Ushahidi and Crowdmap: micro streaming as time-binding media. 3 PM J Digital Res Publ 1(2):116–125 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lavrenko V, Croft WB (2001) Relevance based language models. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR 01, pp 120–127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Le-Phuoc D, Parreira JX, Hausenblas M, Han Y, Hauswirth M (2010) Live linked open sensor database. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on semantic systems, I-Semantics’10, p 1 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Le-Phuoc D, Quoc H, Parreira J (2011) The Linked Sensor Middleware—connecting the real world and the semantic web. In: Semantic web challenge 2011, ISWC 2011 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lui S, Palen L (2010) The new cartographers: crisis map mashups and the emergence of neogeographic practice. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 37(1):69–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mendes P, Passant A, Kapanipathi P (2010) Twarql: tapping into the wisdom of the crowd. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on semantic systems (I-Semantics 2010) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Milis K, De Walle B (2007) IT for corporate crisis management: findings from a survey in 6 different industries on management attention, intention and actual use. In: 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS07, p 24 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (2012) RSOE EDIS. http://hisz.rsoe.hu/
  40. 40.
    Okolloh O (2008) Ushahidi, or ‘testimony’: Web 2.0 tools for crowdsourcing crisis information. Particip Learn Action 59(January):65–70 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Puras JC, Iglesias CA (2009) Disasters 2.0: application of Web 2.0 technologies in emergency situations. In: Lundgren J, Jul S (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international ISCRAM conference, vol 37 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sakaki T, Okazaki M (2010) Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. In: Proceedings of the 6th international ISCRAM conference, Gothenburg, pp 1–10 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schulz A, Paulheim H (2012) Combining government and linked open data in emergency management. In: AI mashup challenge 2012 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sequeda JF, Corcho O (2009) Linked Stream Data: a position paper. In: Taylor K, Ayyagari A, Roure DD (eds) International workshop on semantic sensor networks, SSN 2009, vol 522. CEUR, Washington, pp 148–157 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sheth A, Chen L (2011) Understanding events through analysis of social media. Tech rep, Kno.e.sis Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Signorini A, Segre AM, Polgreen PM (2011) The use of Twitter to track levels of disease activity and public concern in the U.S. during the influenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLoS ONE 6(5):1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    University of Fortaleza (2012) WikiCrimes—mapping crimes collaboratively. http://www.wikicrimes.org
  48. 48.
    Vieweg S, Hughes AL, Starbird K, Palen L (2010) Microblogging during two natural hazards events. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’10. ACM, New York, pp 1079–1088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zang N, Rosson M, Nasser V (2008) Mashups: who? what? why? In: CHI’08 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 3171–3176 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SAP ResearchDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Telecooperation GroupTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Research Group Data and Web ScienceUniversität MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options