The upstream-downstream interface of Sri Lanka’s tsunami early warning system

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to deliver a detailed analysis of the functioning of upstream–downstream interface process of the tsunami early warning and mitigation system in Sri Lanka. It also gives an understanding of the social, administrative, political and cultural complexities attached to the operation of interface mechanism, and introduces an analytical framework highlighting the significant dynamics of the interface of tsunami early warning system in Sri Lanka. Design/methodology/approach Through the initial literature review, a conceptual framework was developed, highlighting the criteria against which the interface process can be assessed. This framework was used as the basis for developing data collection tools, namely, documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews and observations that focused on the key stakeholder institutions in Sri Lanka. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data according to the conceptual framework, and an improved and detailed framework was developed deriving from the findings. Findings The manner in which the interface mechanism operates in Sri Lanka’s tsunami early warning system is discussed, providing a detailed understanding of the decision-making structures; key actors; standardisation; technical and human capacities; socio-spatial dynamics; coordination among actors; communication and information dissemination; and the evaluation processes. Several gaps and shortcomings were identified with relation to some of these aspects, and the significance of addressing these gaps is highlighted in the paper. Practical implications A number of recommendations are provided to address the existing shortcomings and to improve the overall performance of tsunami warning system in Sri Lanka. Originality/value Based on the findings, a framework was developed into a more detailed analytical framework that depicts the interface operationalisation in Sri Lanka, and can also be potentially applied to similar cases across the world. The new analytical framework was validated through a focus group discussion held in Sri Lanka with the participation of experts and practitioners.

Tsunami Preparedness within Sri Lanka's Education System

“…Tsunami arrival times from seismic events in different segments of the Sunda Subduction Zone -Andaman-Myanmar (Arakan), Northern Sumatra-Andaman, Southern Sumatraand the Makran Subduction Zone, are in the ranges of 130-160, 95, 160-170, and 280 min, respectively [18]. The actual evacuation times at the disposal of each school depends on a complex set of 'upstream-downstream' interfaces from when Tsunami Service Providers (TSPs) detect a possible tsunamigenic earthquake, to when and how a school receives an early warning, such as from an early warning tower, telephone, or SMS [19].…”

Post-tsunami Indonesia: An Enquiry into the Success of Interface in Indonesian Tsunami Early Warning System

“…A lack of coordination among these actors could result in communities being left stranded and misguided (Perry and Green 1982). It is necessary to plan effective coordination among the national stakeholders, among the local stakeholders, as well as between national and local stakeholders (Haigh et al 2020). For all these functions to operate smoothly, it is also vital to have a properly designed, managed, and regulated communication mechanism that supports the primary motive of communicating the accurate warning and evacuation information to the public (Hiltz et al 2011;Mersham 2010;Samarajiva 2005).…”

Governance, Institutions and People within the Interface of a Tsunami Early Warning System

“…Sakalasuriya et al (2018) highlight that vertical and horizontal coordination among the stakeholders is a key factor that determines the effectiveness of an early warning system. Gaps in coordination can result in errors and misunderstandings (Haigh et al, 2020;Rahayu et al, 2019). Within an early warning system, the institutions should build trusting relationships with other stakeholders by under-standing the duties and responsibilities of each other (Samaratunge, Coghill, & Herath, 2008).…”

“…The two countries are different in terms of geographic and demographic features, and therefore the extent of (de)centralisation of the warning system also differs considerably. The beginning and end points of tsunami interface mechanisms in the two countries are also different (Haigh et al, 2020;Rahayu, Haigh, Amaratunga, & Sakalasuriya, 2019). However, both are developing countries and similar in terms of multilevel administrative structures and have diverse populations with social and cultural complexities.…”