VOLUME 05 ISSUE 07 July 2026
SK Monirul Islam Mahadi
Department of Emergency and Threat Response Management, Rowan University, Glassboro, New Jersey, USA
DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i7n20Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
Effective disaster management depends on the ability of multiple agencies, jurisdictions, sectors, and community partners to develop a shared operational understanding of rapidly changing conditions. Yet major disasters continue to expose Common Operating Picture (COP) gaps, where information about hazards, infrastructure disruption, resource availability, community needs, and recovery progress remains fragmented across separate systems and organizations. This article uses a qualitative document based conceptual analysis to examine COP gaps across the disaster management cycle and develop a GeoAI-enabled dashboard framework for disaster coordination. The analysis synthesizes emergency management doctrine, disaster risk governance guidance, official disaster review documents, situational awareness theory, GeoAI scholarship, dashboard-based decision support literature, and multiagency information sharing research. The findings show that COP gaps are not limited to emergency response. They also affect preparedness, recovery, and mitigation by limiting shared risk intelligence, resource visibility, lifeline monitoring, social vulnerability assessment, and recovery progress tracking. The article develops a seven-component framework that integrates geospatial risk intelligence, real time incident information, resource and logistics visibility, infrastructure and community lifeline monitoring, social vulnerability and community needs assessment, recovery progress tracking, and decision support analytics. The article contributes to disaster management scholarship by reframing the COP as a cycle wide, human led decision support capability rather than a response phase information display. It also clarifies that GeoAI should support, not replace, emergency management doctrine, interagency trust, ethical data governance, and accountable decision making.
KEYWORDS:Common Operating Picture; GeoAI; disaster management; qualitative document analysis; emergency operations center; multiagency coordination; resource allocation; decision support; situational awareness
REFERENCES1) Australian Government. (2018). National disaster risk reduction framework. Department of Home Affairs. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/emergency/files/national-disaster-risk-reduction-framework.pdf
2) Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience. (2020). Emergency planning. Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection. https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/handbook-emergency-planning/
3) Bharosa, N., Lee, J., & Janssen, M. (2010). Challenges and obstacles in sharing and coordinating information during multi-agency disaster response: Propositions from field exercises. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9174-z
4) Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32-64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
5) Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2017). National Incident Management System (3rd ed.). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf
6) Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). Community Lifelines implementation toolkit (Version 2.1). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_lifelines-toolkit-v2.1_2023.pdf
7) Janowicz, K., Gao, S., McKenzie, G., Hu, Y., & Bhaduri, B. (2020). GeoAI: Spatially explicit artificial intelligence techniques for geographic knowledge discovery and beyond. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 34(4), 625-636. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2019.1684500
8) Li, W. (2024). GeoAI for science and the science of GeoAI. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 29, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2024.29.349
9) Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. (2020). Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements report. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/natural-disasters/report
10) Steen-Tveit, K., & Munkvold, B. E. (2021). From common operational picture to common situational understanding: An analysis based on practitioner perspectives. Safety Science, 142, Article 105381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105381
11) The White House. (2006). The federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/
12) Turoff, M., Chumer, M., Van de Walle, B. A., & Yao, X. (2004). The design of a dynamic emergency response management information system. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 5(4), 1-36. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol5/iss4/3/
13) U.S. House of Representatives. (2006). A failure of initiative: Final report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina (H. Rep. No. 109-377). U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CRPT-109hrpt377/CRPT-109hrpt377
14) VoPham, T., Hart, J. E., Laden, F., & Chiang, Y.-Y. (2018). Emerging trends in geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI): Potential applications for environmental epidemiology. Environmental Health, 17, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0386-x
15) Yigitbasioglu, O. M., & Velcu, O. (2012). A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 13(1), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002
Cite this Article: Mahadi, S. M. I. (2026). Common Operating Picture Gaps Across the Disaster Management Cycle a Geoai-Enabled Dashboard Framework for Disaster Coordination. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCHS, 5(7), 2011-2019. https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i7n20