Dr Jacqueline Homan,
Your email raises several secondary question which I think other list
members may want to comment on.
The first is how quickly does the natural hazards management industry adopt
new technology? I presume innovation adoption is rather fast at the hard
science end of the business and slow at the response management end of the
business. For instance the melding of GIS, GPS and remote sensed images is,
I presume, old hat for geologist, but really cutting edge for your typical
emergency manager.
Second, to what degree is the use of technology in hazards management being
pushed by industry and not by needs? A wearable computer sounds neat, but
do you really need one (basically the question you ask)? Since most of the
hazards management industry is very cost sensitive (being largely funded
from the public purse), making the needs-base justification to spend money
on new technology is probably more critical than actual utility.
But awareness is also an important factor. I have worked on major disaster
relief operations in the past 3 years where well established communications
technologies were not used (but sorely needed) apparently because staff on
the ground (and presumably in HQ) weren't aware of what was possible with
off-the-shelf equipment.
Finally, the problems with Iridium's hand-held sat phones suggests that
"new" and "reliable" technologies are not always the same. Most emergency
managers probably go for reliable but old technologies since disasters are
often poor times to experiment. In other words, a wearable computer is
fine, but will it survive having a 50 kg bag of grain dropped on it? A
pencil and notebook would, and probably cost a lot less to replace.
C. Kelly
[log in to unmask]
|