Thesis
Reference
Contributions of GIS to Efficient Mine Action
LACROIX, Pierre Marcel Anselme
Abstract
La Campagne Internationale pour Interdire les Mines (International Campaign to Ban Landmines : ICBL) rapporte qu'entre 1999 et 2010 les mines terrestres ont fait plus de 80'000 victimes dans 117 pays et régions du monde. En 2010, on dénombrait 4'191 victimes, parmi lesquelles environ 75% de civils. Pour cette seule année 2010, le chiffre de 1'155 morts a été avancé, mais il est probablement en deçà de la réalité. Les systèmes d'information géographique (SIG) restent encore très peu utilisés par les acteurs du déminage humanitaire, alors qu'ils le sont de manière extensive par de nombreuses autres communautés d'utilisateurs. Cette thèse de doctorat s'intitule ‘How GIS contributes to Efficient Mine Action'.
Elle examine dans quelle mesure la cartographie et les SIG peuvent contribuer à augmenter l'efficacité des activités de déminage humanitaire.
LACROIX, Pierre Marcel Anselme. Contributions of GIS to Efficient Mine Action . Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2013, no. Sc. 4571
URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-289967
DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:28996
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:28996
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
1
Contributions of GIS to Efficient Mine Action
Thèse
Présentée à la Faculté des Sciences de l‘Université de Genève En vue d‘obtenir le grade de Docteur ès Sciences, mention Sciences de
l‘Environnement
par
Pierre Lacroix – Université de Genève de
Collonges-sous-Salève (France) Thèse numéro
4571
Genève
Atelier d‘impression ReproMail - 2013
2
3
To my daughter
“Ego cogito, ergo sum”
(Descartes)
4
5
Table of Contents
6
Abstract ... 12
Acknowledgments ... 16
Supervisory Team & External Advisors ... 18
Chapter 1. Introduction ... 19
1.1. Structure of the thesis ... 20
1.2. Contributing research papers ... 22
1.3. Mine action background ... 23
1.3.1. International treaties ... 24
1.3.2. Mine action ... 25
1.3.3. Humanitarian demining ... 25
1.3.4. Information Management ... 25
1.3.5. Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) ... 26
1.3.6. The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) ... 27
1.3.7. Glossary ... 27
1.3.8. Photo gallery ... 32
1.4. User needs ... 37
1.4.1. Who are the end-users of this research? ... 37
1.4.2. GIS needs... 38
1.5. State of the art: GIS in mine action ... 42
1.6. Research problem, Research questions and Hypotheses... 44
1.7. Methodology ... 46
1.7.1. Development cycles ... 46
1.7.2. Data ... 47
1.8. Overview of the different research projects ... 49
1.8.1. SERWIS: Sharing data, maps, technologies and processes ... 49
1.8.2. Visualising contamination ... 50
1.8.3. Determining the impacts on human population... 50
7
1.8.4. Choosing the right technique... 51
1.8.5. Calculating the Shortest Path ... 51
1.8.6. Setting priorities ... 51
1.8.7. Optimising GIS workflows ... 52
1.8.8. E-learning... 52
1.8.9. Standardising symbology ... 52
1.8.10. Improving the Quality of data Web Services ... 53
1.8.11. Summary ... 53
Chapter 2. To what extent can GIS improve visualisation of contamination and its impact on population? ... 55
Contributing research papers ... 55
2.1. Introduction ... 56
2.2. Visualising Contamination ... 58
2.2.1. Abstract ... 58
2.2.2. Introduction ... 59
2.2.3. Background ... 60
2.2.4. Experimental Setup... 64
2.2.5. Visualising Hazards and Mine Hazards: State of the Art ... 65
2.2.6. Evaluated Visualisation Methods ... 67
2.2.7. Customising KDE-based methods (D and E): adjusting KDE bandwidth... 72
2.2.8. Quantitative Evaluation of the Visualisation Methods ... 75
2.2.9. Discussion ... 78
2.2.10. Conclusions and future Outlook ... 84
2.3. Using Clustering Techniques to improve Visualisation of Contamination ... 86
2.3.1. Introduction ... 86
2.3.2. Mine action data ... 87
2.3.3. The clustering algorithm ... 93
2.3.4. Results and discussion ... 100
8
2.3.5. Conclusion ... 107
2.4. Determining the impact ... 108
2.4.1. Abstract ... 108
2.4.2. Introduction ... 108
2.4.3. Objectives of the paper ... 108
2.4.4. Estimating the population density ... 109
2.4.5. Estimating the ERW hazard density ... 112
2.4.6. Combining hazard density maps with population data ... 114
2.4.7. Results and discussion ... 115
2.4.8. Conclusion ... 117
2.5. Highlights of Chapter 2 ... 118
Chapter 3. What are the contributions and limits of GIS for improving decision-making in mine action? ... 124
Contributing research papers ... 124
3.1. Introduction ... 125
3.2. Choosing the Right Technique... 128
3.2.1. Abstract ... 128
3.2.2. Introduction ... 128
3.2.3. Objectives ... 129
3.2.4. Inputs ... 130
3.2.5. The Model ... 136
3.2.6. Benefits of the Model ... 140
3.2.7. Conclusion ... 141
3.3. Calculating the Shortest Path ... 142
3.3.1. Abstract ... 142
3.3.2. Introduction ... 142
3.3.3. Objectives ... 143
3.3.4. The ArcGIS Network Analyst extension... 143
9
3.3.5. Inputs of the Model ... 144
3.3.6. Workflow ... 145
3.3.7. The Model ... 150
3.3.8. Case Study Results... 151
3.3.9. Perspectives for NAMA ... 152
3.4. Setting Priorities ... 154
3.4.1. Abstract ... 154
3.4.2. Introduction ... 154
3.4.3. Why developing MASCOT, and for whom? ... 155
3.4.4. Design of MASCOT ... 157
3.4.5. MASCOT ... 162
3.4.6. Perspectives ... 172
3.4.7. Conclusion ... 173
3.5. Highlights of Chapter 3 ... 175
Chapter 4. How to best build GIS capacity in mine action? ... 181
Contributing research papers ... 181
4.1. Introduction ... 182
4.2. Optimising GIS workflows ... 185
4.2.1. Abstract ... 185
4.2.2. Introduction ... 185
4.2.3. The Toolbar ... 187
4.2.4. Tool Improvement and User Help ... 188
4.2.5. Mine Action Scenario ... 189
4.2.6. Alternative use of START outside the Mine Action Community ... 190
4.2.7. Conclusion ... 191
4.3. E-learning ... 193
4.4. Standardising Symbology ... 194
10
4.4.1. Objectives of this research ... 194
4.4.2. Loose standards for cartography in mine action ... 195
4.4.3. The 2011 recommendations ... 196
4.4.4. Validation process ... 199
4.4.5. Perspectives of our research ... 200
4.4.6. Conclusion ... 200
4.5. Sharing Data, Maps, Technologies and Processes ... 202
4.5.1. Definitions ... 202
4.5.2. SERWIS services ... 205
4.5.3. From IMSMANG to the web ... 206
4.6. Improving the Quality of Web Services ... 209
4.6.1. Abstract ... 209
4.6.2. Introduction ... 209
4.6.3. Geospatial data interoperability ... 212
4.6.4. Quality of Service (QoS) ... 213
4.6.5. Methodology of testing ... 214
4.6.6. Results ... 219
4.6.7. Discussion ... 227
4.6.8. Conclusion ... 230
4.7. Highlights of Chapter 4 ... 231
Chapter 5. Conclusion ... 235
5.1. Conclusion: To what extent does GIS contribute to efficient mine action? ... 236
5.1.1. To what extent can GIS improve visualisation of contamination and its impact on population? ... 236
5.1.2. What are the contributions and limits of GIS for improving decision-making in mine action? .. ... 238
5.1.3. How to best build GIS capacity in mine action? ... 241
5.2. Contributions of our work ... 246
11
5.2.1. To provide mine action users with a new framework to make better decision ... 246
5.2.2. To develop new tools and new material ... 246
5.2.3. To communicate on our research ... 247
Acronyms ... 248
References ... 252
List of Figures ... 274
List of Tables ... 278
12
Abstract
13
This document presents a study that aims at answering the question how Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can contribute to efficient mine action.
In a first stage, we explore to what extent GIS can meet the needs for making visible the problem of contamination by Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) and its impact on population. To that end, we conduct an analysis of the requirements for visualising ERW of four categories of humanitarian demining stakeholders (donors and the general public, directors of national mine action authorities, operations officers and database administrators) and at four geographical scales, ranging from the municipal to the global level. We show that not one but several cartographic visualisation methods should be investigated to address these requirements. We thus explore a set of seven cartographic visualisation methods and systematically evaluate their usefulness to the four categories of stakeholders at the scale where they have to make decision. We integrate a number of challenges raised by the mapping of contamination data, such as dealing with highly heterogeneous patterns and preserving data confidentiality. Three of the seven cartographic visualisation methods are extensions of traditional kernel density estimation-based mapping.
We show that with these three methods there is a serious risk of under- or over-estimation of the picture of contamination in some countries, and we propose relevant solutions to keep control over this possible drift. The main outcome of our research is to show that GIS can meet users’ needs and requirements for making the problem of ERW contamination visible. However, this cannot be achieved through the use of a unique cartographic visualisation method but requires several methods. Another important outcome is to provide mine action users with a comprehensive framework for visualising ERW and making informed decision. A third outcome of our research is the prototyping of a new cartographic module designed for implementation in the Information Management System for Mine Action – Next Generation (IMSMANG), which is the standard in use in a sixty mine-affected countries. A fourth outcome is the development of a model for assessing and mapping populations at risk of ERW. Though very simple, this model clearly shows the potential for assessing population vulnerability to landmines, provided that further research is conducted.
In a second stage, we investigate to what extent GIS can help mine action users reduce time-decision and set clearance priority. Assuming that users need geospatial tools and that environmental, geographic and socio-economic conditions can have substantial influence on demining activity, we present three possible GIS-based approaches to bring auxiliary data (e.g. population density, human settlements, vegetation, cropland surface, soil characteristics, slope, roads, infrastructure, health facility, schools etc.) in the analysis. The three models are: 5D, MASCOT and NAMA. The first model, 5D, is a GIS-based analytical method for Determining and Displaying a Degree of operational Difficulty of Demining. 5D classifies degrees of difficulty as low, medium, high or extreme. Different realistic terrain factors are combined on an output map. On this basis, macro statistics can be computed for each degree of difficulty and provided to decision-makers and operators. The model is applicable to any country or any province, at the national and sub-national scales and for any demining method. We show that with further work, 5D can open the door to the possibility to estimate the financial implications of users‘ operational choices. The second
14
model builds on multi-criteria analysis: we develop MASCOT, a participatory Multi-criteria Analytical SCOring Tool designed for setting clearance priority at the national and the sub-national scale. The novelty of this Spatial Decision-Support System (SDSS) is that input features (typically, ERW) receive a score in function of their Euclidian distance to real-world scoring objects. Another novel contribution of MASCOT lies in its capacity of processing vector and raster data in the same workflow. MASCOT integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for achieving the weighting process. The third model that we develop builds on a GIS-based Network Analysis for Mine Action (NAMA), which could find useful applications in victim assistance and road clearance priority setting. We show that these three tools combined together provide an intuitive toolbox for mine action users to make better decision.
We also show that this user community of users is not yet ready to integrate such tools and models in their everyday work.
In a third stage we analyse the requirements for an optimal use of the models and tools introduced previously, and more broadly for making GIS more accessible to the mine action community.
Requirements include increasing the access to core mine action and auxiliary geospatial data, optimising GIS workflows, increasing GIS resources (training and software), facilitating the dissemination of understandable maps for users inside and outside the mine action community, and encouraging standardisation of GIS processes. To address these requirements, we develop a GIS toolbox that allows enhancing preparation of geospatial data for further GIS analysis and map design. We participate in the drafting of an online training that teaches the fundamentals users need to know in order to create maps to support land-release efforts. As a contribution to standardisation of visual communication within the mine action community, we revise the IMSMA current collection of cartographic symbols. We design a prototype Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) for mine action including configuration of a geoportal and implementation of the whole process from obfuscating the IMSMA data by raster density calculation to their publication as web services. We provide data providers with best practices for supplying responsive map and data services. We demonstrate that these key structuring elements altogether can contribute to best build GIS capacity in mine action. Nevertheless, we show that collaboration among key mine action actors is a limiting factor towards this.
In a fourth stage, we discuss limitations and perspectives of our work and we provide guidance and recommendations.
15
Remerciements
16
En préface à cette dissertation, je souhaiterais remercier un certain nombre de personnes qui ont grandement contribué à son succès.
Tout d‘abord mes proches qui m'ont apporté leur support et encouragé tout au long de cette grande aventure. Celle-ci a débuté en février 2010 lorsque le Prof. Anthony Lehmann et le Dr. Daniel Eriksson ont mis en place un partenariat académique entre l‘Université de Genève et le Centre International de Déminage Humanitaire de Genève (GICHD). Je suis très reconnaissant au Prof. Lehmann, qui a supervisé cette thèse, pour son soutien et ses conseils. Je souhaite également remercier le Dr. Eriksson, co- superviseur de ce travail de thèse, pour m‘avoir offert l‘opportunité de servir cette noble cause qu‘est le déminage humanitaire. Nos nombreux échanges ont considérablement élargi mon horizon, tant d‘un point de vue scientifique et technique qu‘humain.
Un acteur important au cours de ces trois années de recherche a été le Prof. Robert Weibel, membre de mon Jury et avec qui j‘ai eu l‘opportunité de collaborer à un travail portant sur la représentation des mines et restes explosifs de guerre. Sa disponibilité et ses précieux conseils m‘ont été très précieux.
Merci au Prof. Hy Dao pour avoir accepté de participer à mon jury de thèse et pour son retour sur mon travail.
Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude au Prof. Martin Beniston, qui dirige le groupe Climate Change and Climate Impacts à l‘Institut des Sciences de l‘Environnement de l‘Université de Genève, le Prof. Walter Wildi, Directeur de l‘Institut Forel de cette même Université ainsi que l‘Ambassadeur Stéphane Husy, Directeur du GICHD, qui m‘ont accueilli dans leur institution respective.
Je remercie sincèrement le Dr. Nicolas Ray pour ses précieux conseils et sa collaboration autour de deux papiers présentés dans cette monographie.
Mon travail de thèse n‘aurait pu être accompli sans l‘assistance du Dr. Grégory Giuliani. Son enthousiasme et ses encouragements m‘ont accompagné tout au long de ces trois années. J‘ai beaucoup appris de lui, notamment lors de notre collaboration autour de la qualité des services géographiques.
Je voudrais aussi exprimer ma gratitude à Valentina Bigoni, Olivier Cottray, Inna Cruz, Alain Dubois, Rocío Escobar, Eva Fernandez, Gissela Girón, Zoë Goodman, Jonas Herzog, Diana Joaqui Lopez, Aurora Martinez, Anne-Li Nauclér, Pablo de Roulet, Jean-Paul Rychener, Helder Santiago, et Julia Schwank qui ont toutes et tous contribué à leur manière à l‘accomplissement de ce travail.
Merci aux institutions suivantes pour m‘avoir donné accès à leurs bases de données : le Directorate of Mine Action (DMA), le Lebanon Mine Action Centre (LMAC), le Mine Action Centre in Cyprus (MACC), le Mine Action Coordination Centre of Afghanistan (MACCA), le Programa Presidencial Para la Acción Integral contra Minas Antipersonal (PAICMA), le Tajikistan Mine Action Centre (TMAC), et United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS).
Ma gratitude aux personnes suivantes pour leur support: Karin Allenbach, Dr. Andrea de Bono, Prof. Hy Dao, Emanuele Gennai, Dr. Stéphane Goyette, Yaniss Guigoz, Dr Enrique Moran, Fabio Oliosi, Dr Kazi Rahman, Ana Silva, Olivier Travaglini et Ron Witt.
17
Je remercie également le staff technique et administratif de l‘Institut des Sciences de l‘Environnement, de l‘Institut Forel ainsi que celui du GICHD, qui m‘ont permis d‘accomplir ce travail dans des conditions très favorables.
Enfin, je remercie trois enseignants qui ont compté au cours de mes études: Michèle Béguin (Université de Paris - Sorbonne), le Dr. Claude Chambon (Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Nancy) et Gérard Chappart (Ecole Nationale des Sciences Géographiques).
18
Supervisory Team & External Advisors
Prof. Anthony Lehmann Professeur Associé
Directeur du Laboratoire enviroSPACE Institut des Sciences de l‘Environnement Université de Genève
Dr. Daniel Eriksson
Head, Management Consulting
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining
Prof. Robert Weibel
Professor of Geographic Information Science Head, Geographic Information Systems Division Zürich University
Prof. Hy Dao Professeur titulaire
Département de Géographie et Environnement Université de Genève
19
Chapter 1. Introduction
20
1.1. Structure of the thesis
This thesis on the contributions of geographic information systems (GIS) for efficient mine action is divided into five chapters. Each of them contributes to answer the different research questions that will be asked later in this introduction.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of basic concepts underlying mine action, to give to the reader all the necessary knowledge to go through the rest of the thesis. In this chapter, we put in evidence strong needs for GIS in the mine action community. We identify different categories of stakeholders that could significantly benefit from GIS at the geographical scale at which they have to make decisions. Chapter 1 also defines the three research questions to be addressed and gives an overview of the projects that were conducted to support the associated research and of the methodology that was chosen to conduct these projects.
In Chapter 2, we investigate and discuss how maps can make the problem of contamination by Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) visible, and to what extent GIS can meet the needs of humanitarian demining stakeholders. We integrate a number of scientific and technical challenges raised by the mapping of contamination data, such as finding a good compromise between providing close-to-reality representations and preserving non-disclosure, and avoiding under- or over-estimating the picture of contamination in some countries. We provide mine action stakeholders with a novel and comprehensive framework for visualising ERW at the geographical scale at which they have to make decisions, as well as customised visualisation methods and recommendations to help them make informed decisions.
We investigate in Chapter 3 to what extent GIS can improve decision-making in mine action. Assuming that environmental, geographic and socio-economic conditions, as well as human activity, have substantial influence on demining activities, we present possible approaches to combine contamination data with other geospatial factors through multi-criteria and transportation network analysis models. To help users integrate these models in their everyday work, we implement them as user-friendly and flexible GIS tools.
Chapter 4 analyses the requirements for making GIS more accessible to mine action users. We show that an optimal use of the GIS models developed in Chapter 3 requires improving the access of mine action stakeholders to geospatial data. Other requirements include increasing GIS users‘ expertise, optimising preparation of GIS data, facilitating the production and sharing of understandable maps, and encouraging standardisation of GIS processes. As a response to these requirements, we develop tools for optimising GIS workflows, we publish an online course that teaches the basics of map creation to support land release efforts, we revise the existing collection of mine action cartographic symbols and propose the updated version as a standard and common visual language for GIS users, and we design the technical specifications of a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) for mine action. Finally, we provide guidance to data providers to supply responsive data and map services.
21
Each one of Chapters 2, 3 and 4 is followed by a few pages titled ‗Highlights of Chapter N‘ which summarise the key ideas and results of the Chapter.
Chapter 5 concludes this thesis by answering the three research questions, discussing perspectives of the projects and making recommendations for the future.
22
1.2. Contributing research papers
Lacroix P., Herzog J., Eriksson D., Weibel R. (2013). Methods for Visualising the Explosive Remnants of War. Applied Geography, 41:179-194. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622813001021
Lacroix P., Herzog J., Eriksson D. (2011). Mapping Populations at Risk of ERW. The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 15(1). Available from:
http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/15.2/specialrpt/lacroix/lacroix.htm
Lacroix P., Escobar R. (2012). 5D: a GIS-based approach for Determining and Displaying a Degree of operational Difficulty of Demining. The Journal of ERW and Mine Action, 16(3).
Available from: http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/16.3/rd/lacroix.htm
Lacroix P., De Roulet P., Escobar R., Cottray O. (2013). NAMA: A GIS-based Network Analysis approach for Mine Action. Accepted for publication by the Journal of ERW and Mine Action
Lacroix P., Santiago H., Ray N. MASCOT: Multi-criteria Analytical SCOring Tool for ArcGIS Desktop. Submitted to the International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making
Lacroix P., de Roulet P., Ray N. (2013). Simplified Toolbar to Accelerate Repeated Tasks (START) for ArcGIS: Optimising Workflows in Humanitarian Demining. Accepted for publication by the International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research.
Giuliani G., Dubois A., Lacroix P. (2013). Testing OGC Web Feature and Coverage Services performance: towards efficient delivery of geospatial data. Accepted for publication by the Journal of Spatial Information Science. Available from
http://www.josis.org/index.php/josis/article/view/112
23
1.3. Mine action background
This section will present an overview and provide definitions of basic concepts underlying mine action.
We will focus on the five pillars of mine action, information management, the main types of landmines, their characteristics and how they are stored in Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS).
With the following glossary, the reader will have all the necessary knowledge to go through the monograph. This background chapter on mine action will briefly evoke the international treaties, the five pillars of mine action, the work of the GICHD and the issue of information management in mine action.
About eighty countries are affected by landmine and ERW contamination situated on five continents (Figure 1). Thousands of people are injured or killed in accidents worldwide every year with an estimated 75 percent of civilian casualties. For the year 2010, 4‘191 victims where reported, among which 1‘155 were killed. ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines) reports that the actual number is however likely higher, as not all accidents and victims are systematically reported (ICBL 2011a). The issue of contamination by ERW will remain an issue as long as there are armed conflicts. This situation means that expertise on the different aspects of mine action will still be needed in the long term.
Figure 1: Mine contamination as of 2011 (source: ICBL 2011b)
24
The cost of clearance is variable depending on the area and the demining technique, but can be estimated to a minimum of $1‘000‘000 per square kilometre. In 2010, more than 200 square kilometres were cleared worldwide by states, Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and commercial companies in which 400‘000 anti-personnel and 30‘000 anti-vehicle mines were destroyed.
1.3.1. International treaties
Several treaties and protocols rule on the regulation or ban of landmines and conventional weapons. The three most important of these treaties are the mine Ban Treaty (also commonly called the Ottawa Convention), the Protocols II and V of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and the Convention on Cluster Munition (CCM). The CCW was signed in 1980 to regulate the use of conventional weapons. Only two of the five Protocols of the Convention relate to mine action, the amended Protocol II of 1996 to landmines and booby traps and the Protocol V of 2003 to cluster munitions. In the framework of the CCW which aims to reduce the ―excessively injurious‖ harm and is a general pledge to disarmament, both protocols regulate the use of these types of weapons, including by forbidding the use of some deemed ―inhuman‖ models. It does not however forbid altogether its use, trade and stockpiling. This limitation of the CCW led several states and representatives of civil society to develop treaties that would in fact ban these types of weapons: the 1997 International Mine Ban Treaty and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (Maslen 2001). The Mine Ban Treaty currently has 160 state parties. State parties of the treaty agree never to use, develop, produce, stockpile or trade anti- personnel landmines. It must also clear all laid anti-personnel landmines and destroy its stockpile, in respectively ten and four years for each task. Within their means, states should also provide assistance for mine awareness, stockpile destruction, and victim assistance activities worldwide. The convention on cluster munitions was adopted in 2008 as a stronger alternative to Protocol V of the CCW. Inspired by the Mine Ban Treaty this new treaty did not have the same wide success, with 76 state parties to date. The CCM prohibits the use, stockpiling production and transfer of cluster munition. Separate articles in the Convention concern assistance to victims, clearance of contaminated areas and destruction of stockpiles (Björk 2012).
The implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty signifies in most states a significant reduction of stockpiles, and its complete destruction in dozens of states. Although, a majority of countries worldwide are members of the Mine Ban Treaty, several non-signatory states still lay anti-personnel mines. Worryingly, three non-signatories countries that had nevertheless stopped laying landmines years ago restarted in recent years. Despite a global and steady reduction of both stockpiles and contaminated land, the fact that thirteen states1 still refuse to prohibit production of anti-personnel mines still poses a risk of a renewal of contamination in the future.
1 China, Cuba, India, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, United States of America, and Vietnam
25
1.3.2. Mine action
Mine action is generally defined as ―activities which aim to reduce the social, economic and environmental impact of mines and UXO‖ (UNMAS 2003, 04.10). With this definition, mine action is not limited to demining but aims at reducing the risk of landmines to societies. For this aim, it is conventionally divided into five pillars with the goal of reducing the impact of mines and ERW (Borrie 2009). The five pillars are the following:
Humanitarian demining: the removal of mines and ERW as well as the marking and fencing of contaminated areas. It includes aspects related to information management and mapping.
Mine risk education: helps people living in contaminated areas understand the risks they are exposed to, how to identify mines and ERW and how to stay safe.
Victim assistance: it includes all medical assistance to victims, such as rehabilitation and reintegration, including job skills.
Stockpile destruction: all tasks related to the destruction of mines stockpile to comply with the requirements of the mine ban treaty.
Advocacy against the use of anti-personnel mines: it includes encouraging countries to participate to international meetings and treaties and conventions to end the production, trade and use of landmines.
1.3.3. Humanitarian demining
Humanitarian demining, also called land release or land clearance, is concerned with all aspect of the removal of mines or ERW that have been laid in the field. Unlike military demining, which simply aims at clearing a path to pursue operations, the goal of humanitarian demining is to render civilian areas safe.
As a general pledge it aims at helping civilians to return to normal life after a conflict. It includes the removal of landmines and ERW, but also survey, marking, mapping and more generally information management (Björk 2012). Mine clearance is done by operation officers and managers, along with survey and marking.
1.3.4. Information Management
The crucial aspect of information management includes data collection, data preservation, the use of data and data dissemination. Overall, information management in mine action aims to ―support operational staff by giving them access to more relevant information on which to base their decisions‖ (Eriksson 2008). Information management follows a cycle of four main steps, starting with an assessment of the information needs and followed by data collection, data analysis and information dissemination. The end of the cycle means that a new assessment covering new needs has to be done along with all information updates. For this reason mine action programmes use RDBMS to cover their information management
26
needs.
1.3.5. Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA)
Countries that have signed the anti-personnel Mine Ban Treaty are obliged to collect, analyse and report spatial data on mine action. The Information Management System for Mine Action - Next Generation (IMSMANG) application uses ArcGIS Engine for its spatial functionality. The software has been available in its current form since 2006. The first generation of the software was based in different technology. The first deployment in Kosovo 1999 only focused on supporting business processes and did not have GIS functionality. In the current generation, the application offers useful cartography functions such as visualising the hazards in the database, and designing layouts.
IMSMANG uses an integrated MySQL server for data storage. Each country can store data in a customised way. The data types, scales and coordinate systems are different from one country to another. The data may also be heterogeneous inside a country where contaminated areas in one part of the country might mainly be cluster bomb strikes and minefields in another. The data collection forms have to be adjustable to allow for such differences. IMSMANG comes with sets of functionality for information management of contaminated areas, hazard reduction activities (such as clearance and marking), accidents, victims (as well as rehabilitation), risk education (activities to inform the population how to live more safely near contaminated areas), and quality management (to control the activities and the information). The core principle in the development of IMSMA was to provide a comprehensive software package that could be used by national governments in the developing world. A decade later, the software package has emerged as one of the most successful information management project in the humanitarian domain. In 2011, the GICHD and its IMSMA team was awarded the ―Making a difference award‖ by Esri at the user conference in San Diego2. The tool has been translated to numerous languages and is installed in 60 countries on 1‘200 computers and approximately 3‘000 users have been trained. The challenges that had to be overcome were the very limited computer literacy in some organisations and the vast differences in information needs between the various user organisations. The IMSMA package solved this by being highly customizable, modular and enabling gradual growth in complexity of the used functionality.
All information contained in IMSMA can be referenced with geospatial information in the form of pair of XY coordinate points, either to mark a single object, a line or an area. It allows however only little possibilities in terms of GIS and its main strength lay in the updates capabilities of the software in the information management cycle. The data update frequency in IMSMA, however, is extremely variable according to the country and its level of contamination. A few updates per year only are necessary for countries like Nicaragua, Zambia and Kosovo. In the other hand strongly affected countries like Afghanistan require several thousands of updates per year.
2 http://www.flickr.com/photos/esri/5930839475/
27
1.3.6. The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD)
Dozens of states, NGOs and commercial companies are involved in mine action and humanitarian demining. Among those actors, the GICHD is an international NGO of experts established in April 1998 and legally based in Switzerland (GICHD 2012). The GICHD works for the elimination of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other ERW. It wishes to contribute to the social and economic well-being of people and communities in affected countries. The Centre respects the lead of the national mine action programmes working closely with them, cooperating with other mine action organisations, and following humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. A key task of the GICHD is to provide advice and support capacity building. It undertakes applied research on different aspects of mine action, disseminates knowledge and best practices, and develops standards. The goal of its activities is to enhance performance and professionalism in mine action, and supports the implementation of the Mine Ban treaty, the CCM and other instruments of international law related to landmines and ERW.
Among other activities the GICHD is responsible for the development of the IMSMA software and providing training. Another important role of the GICHD in mine action worldwide is its implication in the International Mine Action Standards. Mine action, like all specialised fields, has specific terms. In order for the large array of states, NGOs and commercial companies to best coordinate, the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) were established to find common practices and definitions. The first IMAS were issued in 2001 and were updated several times since, to adapt to the changing practices. The standards are prepared by the GICHD on behalf of UNMAS. They are adapted to the requirement of the Mine Ban Treaty (UNMAS 2003, 01.10).
1.3.7. Glossary
1.3.7.1. Hazard and Hazardous area
Hazard: potential source of harm (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.126). In the context of mine action, it can typically refer to a minefield or an Unexploded Ordnance (UXO).
Hazardous area: a generic term for an area perceived to have mines and/or ERW (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.127).
Confirmed Hazardous Area (CHA) is an area identified by a non-technical survey in which the necessity for further intervention through either technical survey or clearance has been confirmed (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.47). Defined Hazardous Area (DHA) is an area, generally within a CHA, that requires full clearance: a DHA is normally identified through thorough survey (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.56). The DHA term is not anymore in use by IMAS. Suspected Hazardous Area (SHA) is an area suspected of having a mine/ERW hazard (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.276). A SHA can be identified by an impact survey, other
28
form of national survey, or a claim of presence of explosive hazard.
These three types of areas defined as such since 2003 are the product of different steps in the land release process. SHAs are identified by the claim of mine or ERW presence through an impact survey or by the local population. It does generally not have a precisely known perimeter. A non-technical survey is done on a SHA to define the borders of one or several CHAs, generally represented as polygons, within the SHA. Parts of the SHA that are not included in the CHAs are called cancelled areas. The characteristics of the CHA, such as the type of contamination, are known more precisely. Thorough survey, generally a technical survey on a CHA allows to identify one or several DHA. The CHA can be released, while the DHA requires full clearance.
In future, new terms will likely replace current IMAS definitions (APOPO et al. 2012). SHA will be replaced by ATS (Area Targeted for Survey). DHA will be suppressed. The term ―CHA‖ will include both what is currently understood as CHA and DHA.
1.3.7.2. Contamination types
Anti-Personnel mines (AP): a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.15). Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person that are equipped with anti-handling devices. Other types of landmines are the anti-vehicle mines and the anti- tank mines.
Explosive Remnant of War (ERW): the term refers to explosive munitions left behind after a conflict has ended. They include unexploded artillery shells, grenades, mortars, rockets, air-dropped bombs, and cluster munitions. ERW consist of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and abandoned explosive ordnance, but not mines.
Sub-munition: any munition that, to perform its task, separates from a parent munition. Any mine or munition that form part of a cluster bomb unit, an artillery shell or a missile payload (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.272).
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO): Explosive Ordnance that has been primed, fuzzed, armed or otherwise prepared for use or used. It may have been fired, dropped, launched or projected yet remains unexploded either through malfunction or design or for any other reason (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.293).
1.3.7.3. Processes
Battle Area Clearance (BAC): the systematic and controlled clearance of hazardous areas where the
29
hazards are known not to include mines (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.20).
Community Liaison (CL): also called ―community mine action liaison‖. Liaison with men and women in mine/ERW affected communities to exchange information on the presence and impact of mines and ERW, create a reporting link with the mine action programme and develop risk reduction strategies.
Community liaison aims to ensure that the different community needs and priorities are central to the planning, implementation and monitoring of mine action operations (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.44).
Community liaison is based on an exchange of information and involves men, women, boys and girls in the communities in the decision making process (before, during and after demining), in order to establish priorities for mine action. In this way mine action programmes aim to be inclusive, community focused and ensure the maximum involvement of all sections of the community. This involvement includes joint planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects. Community liaison also works with communities to develop specific interim safety strategies promoting individual and community behavioural change. This is designed to reduce the impact of mines/ERW on individuals and communities until such time as the hazard is removed.
Hazard reduction: the term does not have an IMAS definition. It concerns all type of activities directed towards rendering safe a hazardous area, including all types of surveys and clearance.
Hazard status: different status is defined for a hazard: active, closed, transitional/ongoing and cancelled.
An active hazard refers to an area or object that has been deems hazardous and is recorded as such. A closed hazard has been cleared. A transitional/ongoing hazard corresponds to an area where hazard reduction is in the process. A cancelled hazard has been declared safe following a Non-Technical Survey (NTS).
Impact Survey: an assessment of the socio-economic impact caused by the actual or perceived presence of mines and ERW, in order to assist the planning and prioritisation of mine action programmes and projects (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.137).
Landmine Impact Survey (LIS): refers to Impact Survey as defined by IMAS (Björk 2012).
Mine Risk Education (MRE): activities that seek to reduce the risk of injury from mines/ERW by raising awareness of men, women, and children in accordance with their different vulnerabilities, roles and needs, and promoting behavioural change including public information dissemination, education and training, and community mine action liaison (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.1839).
Non-Technical Survey (NTS): survey activity that involves collecting and analysing new and/or existing
30
information about a suspected hazardous area. Its purpose is to confirm whether there is evidence of a hazard or not, to identify the type and extent of hazards within any hazardous area and to define, as far as is possible, the perimeter of the actual hazardous areas without physical intervention. A non-technical survey does not normally involve the use of clearance or verification assets. The results from a non- technical survey can replace any previous data relating to the survey of an area (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.197).
Quality Assurance (QA): part of Quality Management focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.228).
Quality Control (QC): part of Quality Management focused on fulfilling quality requirements (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.229). QC relates to the inspection of a finished product. In the case of humanitarian demining, the ―product‖ is safe cleared land.
Task: the term ―Task‖ does not have an IMAS definition. It refers to an action being taken in the field of mine action that may cover one or several hazardous areas. It may include diverse type of activities, such as MRE, Surveys, and Clearance Quality Assurance. Similarly as for hazard reduction, possible status for a task is:
Ongoing: the task is being carried out by a mine action personnel.
Suspended: the task is temporarily stopped.
Cancelled: the task issued is cancelled. Cancelled is used here in its literal meaning and should not be confused with a hazard being cancelled through a NTS.
Issued: an issued task refers to assignment to this task to a mine action personnel (e.g. NGO, commercial company).
Planned: a planned task refers to the strategic decision in the long term.
Completed: the task that was assigned is finished according to the terms of reference when it was issued.
Technical survey (TS): detailed intervention with clearance or verification assets into a CHA, or part of a CHA. It should confirm the presence of mines/ERW leading to the definition of one or more DHA and may indicate the absence of mines/ERW which could allow land to be released when combined with other evidence (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.281).
1.3.7.4. Demining Methods
Three major methods are used for land clearance:
Animal detection refers to the use of animals trained to detect mines through the scent of
31
explosives. Mine Detection Dogs are traditionally used for this task, but rats are also increasingly used for these tasks. A proposal to include Animal Detection System as an IMAS definition is currently under review.
Manual demining refers to the manual removal of mines or ERW from a terrain, using metal detectors and digging tools. It is the most common method for land clearance. It has the particularity of being the least expensive of the different methods for clearance, but it is also slow. Important limitations occur when mines contain little or no metal, and/or when the terrain contains high level of metal, which is often the case in dwelling areas.
Mechanical demining operations refer to the use of machines in demining operations and may involve a single machine employing one mechanical tool, a single machine employing a variety of tools or a number of machines employing a variety of tools (UNMAS 2003, 04.10, 3.166).
32
1.3.8. Photo gallery
The following pictures illustrate some of the concepts and definitions described above.
33
34
35
36
37
1.4. User needs
1.4.1. Who are the end-users of this research?
Before analyzing end users‘ needs, it is important to specify who they are. Within the overall mine action process, four main groups of stakeholders may be distinguished:
Users outside the core mine action domain are the donors (public and private organisations and individuals) and the general public, considered as a potential donor. They need a reliable indicator of the progress of mine action activities in order to decide which country to fund as well as which activity (e.g. landmine clearance, mine risk education). In 2009, 83% of the funding for mine action came from international sources (Devlin and Naidoo 2010). In 2010, the international donors funded mine action activities up to US$ 480 million, including US$ 100 million for Afghanistan only. The top six recipient states were Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq, Sudan, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia, representing 55% of all international contributions. Donors no longer consider mine action as an immediate humanitarian response, but as part of a broader process including conflict prevention, protection, socio-economic impact, reintegration (Devlin 2010), humanitarian assistance and care for survivors (Devlin and Naidoo 2010). Donors have a priori low GIS expertise.
The directors of national mine action authorities ensure that mine action data is collected for their country in compliance with international standards and policies (GICHD 2007, GICHD and UNMAS 2011). They also enable strategic decisions at country level by undertaking landmine impact surveys (LIS) to assess socio-economic impacts of ERW on communities, and they coordinate the regional activities of demining organisations. They work in collaboration with other international and national bodies, governments, communities and field operators, and regularly produce overviews of their goals and achievements for distribution to donors and the broader mine action community (UNDP 2011). In its guidelines for policy and programme development intended for mine-affected states (GICHD 2009a), the GICHD recommends national mine action authorities to strengthen information sharing and cross-sector collaboration with different actors.
The operations officers in a mine action authority may be military, NGOs and commercial demining companies employing local individuals specifically trained for clearance activities.
Operations officers intervene in operational planning as well as in the demining operations themselves. They are part of a small to large scale prioritisation process: they first refer to information at the regional or sub-regional level (e.g. the results of a LIS) to prioritise the areas to survey or to clear. In a second step, other elements such as local infrastructures, land cover,
38
vegetation, and topography may help operations officers decide how to access these areas.
Operations officers are experts in mine action and explosive ordnance disposal and do not necessarily have GIS expertise.
The database administrators are in charge of probing the national IMSMANG repository for incompleteness or inaccuracy. Checking spatial data attributes such as coordinates, area type and area are common tasks undergone at large scales (between 1:50‘000 and 1:5‘000) in collaboration with field operators. Database administrators are experts in IMSMANG and not necessarily in GIS.
1.4.2. GIS needs
In this paragraph we summarise users‘ needs relative to cartography and GIS.
Needs analysis was achieved from different sources:
Literature review,
Two focus group meetings held in 2011 and 2012 and regrouping a twenty mine action or GIS experts or both3.
A two-day end-user workshop involving a dozen users from information management, national programme management, operations and database management4.
The results of the Space Assets for Demining Assistance (SADA) feasibility study. Conducted by the European Space Agency (ESA) and advised by the GICHD, the SADA activities aim at proving the viability and sustainability of an integrated set of services supporting land release in mine action, with a focus on space assets and GIS technologies (ESA 2012). Following an open competition, three consortia5 have been asked to identify users‘ needs and requirements and to propose technological and operational solutions. Within this framework, a survey covering 37 end-user organisations has been organised.
Discussions and brainstorming with dozens of users from organisations involved in humanitarian demining and/or in GIS, including national mine action programme management, strategic management, information management, operations, academic institutions, NGOs and others. In particular, numerous discussions were held with GICHD staff who are in frequent contact with decision makers in the community as part of their work and who are also responsible for the development of the GIS functionalities in IMSMANG.
A one-week field immersion in direct contact with the Albanian Mine Action Executive (AMAE), meeting demining and medical staff, governmental authorities and GIS users.
3 These focus groups will be described in detail in Section 2.2
4 This end-user workshop will be described in detail in Section 4.2
5 Led respectively by Infoterra UK, RadioLabs and Ingenerio y Servicios Aeroespaciales (INSA)
39
1.4.2.1. Needs for maps
Mine clearance is one of the five pillars of mine action6. Mine clearance includes surveying, clearance of unexploded ordnance and mines, marking of unsafe areas, and mapping. Maps that are produced by impact and technical surveys supply baseline data for clearance organisations to plan the operations in the field (UNMAS 2010). But the needs for maps in the humanitarian demining field are not limited to operational activities. In particular, countries that have signed the anti-personnel mine ban treaty are obliged to collect, analyse and report spatial data on mine action. As such, directors of national mine action authorities regularly provide donors and the broader mine action community with overviews of their goals and achievements. Similarly, donors and the general public need a global overview of the contamination problem to decide which country to fund.
1.4.2.1.1. Data disclosure policies in the context of mine action
S
everal major issues rise when wanting to map mine action-related information.One issue relates to the conflictual and controversial nature of mapping in a post-conflict context, both for question of national sensibilities, concerning the location of borders and on the practical aspect of the defence policies of countries. The question of the access to data is important and is strongly influenced by the very nature of the contamination. Landmines and ERW are deployed in the case of conflicts.
Although demining operations generally occur in post-conflict periods, past armed confrontations often still are present and their political origin stays partly unresolved. Ancient belligerents, might still be in a frozen conflict, might not have diplomatic relations, and even in the cases where there are, the relationship between countries may be still very cold. Ongoing existence of the conflict affects particularly the sensitivity to geographic representations in cases where a territory is disputed. The map of the outline border of a country may be very controversial, if, for example it does not include the territory claimed by one or the other warring party. As pointed out by O'Shea (1994), cartography constitutes an extremely powerful language in the constitution of a national discourse and is very likely to be strongly opposed if it is not deemed satisfying by one of the parties. In this context, the notion and goal of neutral mapping become extremely sensitive, as a border drawing is potentially subject to controversy. In fact where the line a border might be seen as a harmless element in a small scale map by someone not directly concerned, national representatives of different countries in conflict can easily only focus on this issue over all other questions at stake (Raleigh et al. 2010). This may harmfully divert attention from the proper humanitarian concern at stake.
A
nother issue is the question of data privacy and disclosure, sensitive because potentially touching private issues for victims and affected communities. Countries may not want to show the extent of remaining contamination. As for any type of military-related information, the presence of ERW and6 The other four are mine risk education, victim assistance, stockpile destruction and advocacy
40
landmines is very sensitive, and countries may not want to disclose it, while in the same time, they may want to show that their country is affected. The question of disclosure is especially problematic in countries that are not signatories of the mine ban treaty, as they consider landmines as part of the defence policy (ICBL 2011a).
Similarly, one other key important reason motivating non-disclosure of data related to landmines is its intricated relationship with health issues. As pointed out by Andersson and Mitchell (2006), the question of data privacy for victims of ERW is a key ethical requirement for analysis, and a limited level of detail might even benefit planning, giving possibly wider access to the data. It is very legitimate that victims of ERW want to protect their records from being made public. As suggested by Taylor (2002), methods for collecting and storing data in the context of mine action victims should be attentive to protect the privacy of health-care recipients. And logically, it is also legitimate that the GIS treatment of victim-related mine action data is required to follow guidelines protecting victims from their records being exposed nominally, or in a way in which they may get recognised by location.
Finally, it is very important for the mine action community that maps that are shown online do not give the exact location due the high data sensitivity. Exact locations could be used by civilians or criminals to either attempt to navigate through contaminated areas or to steal landmines to sell the explosives on the black market
.
1.4.2.2. Needs for auxiliary data
Mapping mine action information requires accessing not only data from the core mine action domain, but auxiliary data as well. The results of the SADA feasibility study (ESA 2012) show that about 50% of the mine action centres see as very high the relevance of general mapping (e.g. infrastructures, roads, villages, rivers) for their organisation and region/country to support land release monitoring and reporting to donors. This study also suggests that environmental factors (e.g. humidity, slope, surface, roughness of a hazardous area, soil classification and land cover including vegetation) can have significant influence on mine action resource selection, and that maps combining mine information with information indicating areas with high density of human activity can help decision-makers to prioritise areas and to plan demining activities. Likewise, the study stresses the needs for quick access to socio-economic data for producing risk maps and determining socio-economic impacts of ERW.
1.4.2.3. GIS capacity needs
GIS capacity is heterogeneous across the sixty mine-affected countries. The division roughly contrasts poor and rich programmes. Well-funded programmes have good resources in terms of GIS licences and trained staff. It is the case of UNMAS-managed programmes – there are about ten of them – and programmes in developed countries like Argentina, Chile, Finland, Israel and Turkey. Providing a
41
detailed picture of software capacity in the mine action community is quite complex. Many programmes are equipped with GIS tools, and most of them with the Esri suite. Among them, numerous unofficial ArcGIS 9.3.x and 10.x licences are circulating. Although 150 ArcGIS Desktop licences have already been provided by GICHD to Esri7 to be used in national programmes, they have yet not been distributed. In some countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina the main cartographic software remains MapInfo (Grujic 2011). Many other GIS utilities and plug-ins are in use within the mine action community (e.g. MGRS Conversion Utility (Mentor Software INc. 2012), XTools (Data East 2012) etc.), especially for specific GIS functions requiring transformation of geographic coordinates from one format to another (e.g.
Military Grid Reference System (MGRS) to decimal degrees (DD)) or feature conversion from one geometry type to another (e.g. transformation of ERW points into polygons). GIS expertise too is disparate across different countries. Some programmes are using GIS tools on a daily basis, while in others GIS expertise is very low.
Within this context, Eriksson (2011) points out an increasing amount of requests from national mine action programmes for the use of advanced information technology, including ―functionality that is too complex or costly to include in the regular IMSMANG‖.
1.4.2.4. Looking for more efficient mine action
The needs for improving efficiency in mine action are palpable. A basic search of the term ―efficiency‖
on the GICHD website8 search engine returns 1‘060 results. In comparison, the acronym ―GICHD‖ is displayed 22‘200 times. The word ―effective‖ carves itself a place of predilection with 1‘200 results,
―speed‖ is displayed 1‘000 times, ―efficient‖ 663 times, and ―reduce/reducing costs‖ 769 times.9
The conclusions of the SADA feasibility study (ESA 2012) are in line with these results. Recognizing that between 90% and 97.5% of the suspected land proves in hindsight to be non-contaminated, the authors suggest (1) focusing efforts on clearing minefields that are most threatening and costly to society, (2) avoiding the unnecessary deployment of clearance activities in non-contaminated areas, and (3) reducing the cost of detection and clearance per unit of land area. From a scientific and technical perspective, they see in new methodologies and technologies like remote sensing and GIS relevant support for contributing to the achievement of these three goals. More concretely, they point out strong needs for improving efficiency in collection and integration of field level data, for increasing the accuracy of data georeferencing and for optimising data transfer from in-field workers to decision-makers.
In line with the latter need, workshops and discussions with end-users (see Section 1.4.2) have highlighted the complexity of frequent GIS workflows. In particular, the design of maps from mine action data often requires repetition of numerous tasks such as data extraction from the IMSMANG repository,
7 Based on personal communication with Esri
8 http://www.gichd.org
9 Figures are of September 2012
