There is currently no defined standard for map symbols to represent features relevant to responders to emergencies, law enforcement or counter terrorism.
Many emergency events, especially large scale incidents, cross jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Often in these circumstances, personnel from different agencies and jurisdictions are brought together under a single command structure. It is important that these people are able to absorb information quickly.
During the recent Victorian bushfire crisis, fire-fighters were brought in from the other Australian states, and from New Zealand, Canada and the US.
In addition, GIS personnel from Geoscience Australia augmented the regional Country Fire Authority teams in the preparation of customised planning maps and other GIS services. GIS played an important role in the distribution of information about the extent and behaviour of the fires, both to the community and CFA strategic planners. These CFA personnel also used GIS to plan for water bombing and to help decide where to create fire breaks.
It is now well accepted that standard symbol sets help to increase efficiency and safety, in that they can be readily understood by all emergency management personnel at all levels of the incident management framework.
ANZLIC, the Spatial Information Council, in association with the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping and the Emergency Management Spatial Information Network Australia, want to encourage consistency in the way that all-hazards events are depicted on maps. These stakeholders established a project to develop an Australasian All Hazards Symbology standard.
The only relevant Australasian approach to consistent mapping is provided by the Australian Inter-service Incident Management System. AIIMS was designed to promote effective joint operations through the use of common terminology and a structure for communication and chains of command.
The system was developed in the 1980s, and included a limited set of mapping symbols, mostly aimed at bushfire response.
Although the AIIMS incident management system has been historically associated with fire response, the framework has been partially adopted by non-fire agencies in Australia.
A recent audit of 25 emergency management agencies across Australia found that more than 80 per cent relied on AIIMS for its incident management system. However, only 62 per cent - mostly bushfire response agencies - used the related mapping symbols. All of these agencies needed to expand beyond the limited range. In many states, especially within the fire related agencies, there is a high level of consistency in the symbols.
This is a result of agencies sharing their approaches.
So while some consistencies do exist, there is still plenty of scope for confusion. There are fundamental differences in many of the symbols used by the states and many agencies to represent similar features. There are also differences in the terms used to describe the same feature, or the same term can have a different meaning.
On the international scene, the most recognised standardised approach to emergency management mapping symbology is provided by the US Federal Geographic Data Committee. The FGDC Homeland Security Working Group established a symbology sub-group, which developed a symbology set commonly referred to either as the US Homeland Security symbology library or the FGDC symbology library. The complete FGDC symbology library can be viewed at www.fgdc.gov/HSWG/index.html.
The library was designed to be used by the emergency management and first responder communities at all levels (i.e. national, state, local and incident).
Although it is comprehensive, the library does not cover all emergency management features. However, it has established a framework by which agencies can incorporate additional symbols, and it provides a model for other jurisdictions. Symbols are classified in four broad categories. Incidents, Natural Events, Operations, and Infrastructures are differentiated by frame shapes for each symbol. Each symbol includes a definition, and is designed for use in both black and white and colour.
The FGDC symbology library has been formally recognised as an (US) ANSII Standard.
The objective for the Australasian All Hazards Symbology standard is to define a symbology framework that will support emergency management across jurisdictions, agencies, hazard types and technology platforms. To be successful, the symbology framework must reflect the requirements of the EM community and be presented in a form that they can readily adopt.
Consultation undertaken to identify the requirements for such a standard revealed the strong need for the symbology framework to cater for all three levels of practice: strategic; tactical and operational.
Although the FGDC approach is comprehensive, at this time, its symbology set is limited to point symbols. In the Australian context, the use of the FGDC symbols would narrow its use to the higher levels, and would severely limit the level of adoption by emergency management agencies. These agencies have a clear need for mapping at the operational level to represent features by their geometric characteristics, i.e. point, line or polygon.
The approach recommended for the Australasian All Hazards Symbology will incorporate features of both AIIMS and FGDC. The symbols will be defined within an extensible framework that will be characterised by:
Symbols must work in conjunction with contextual or background mapping that is typically presented in the form of a standard topographic map or satellite image. The features may be represented with point, line or polygon symbols depending on their geometry and the scale of the map display. Where practical, symbols will be drawn from existing standards and practices.
Features that need to be identified or verified on the ground at the operational level, will be designed so that the average person can draw them by hand on a map that can then be faxed to a command centre.
At this time, a framework with 81 initial features and symbols has been recommended to the project stakeholders. The next stage in the project will be to trial the recommended symbols with a few agencies. This will enable the project team to refine the definitions and quantify the cost and impact of adoption.
The implementation and wholesale adoption of an Australasian consistent approach to all hazards symbols will be a very significant achievement. Adoption of new symbols and definitions for terminology will not only impact mapping systems and tools but also operational procedures and training. Fortunately, the project audit of emergency agencies identified that there was a high level of awareness of the importance of the initiative, and a willingness to adopt a consistent approach to mapping symbols.
Graeme Martin graeme.martin@spatialvision.com.au is a senior consultant with Spatial Vision in Melbourne. Spatial Vision was contracted by the ICSM to conduct an audit of mapping symbols used by emergency management agencies. It was then to recommend a framework for a nationally consistent Incident Management System symbology resource catalogue, and an initial set of symbols to satisfy emergency management requirements. For further information about the Australasian All Hazards Symbology project, contact Graeme Martin or Michael Black at Spatial Vision on +61-3-9691-3048 or your state representative on EMSINA.
