How can we keep communication active when the networks we use daily stop working? This was one of the questions that guided the beginning of our research in the Tridecs project.
Faced with the impacts that extreme climate events can have on communication infrastructure, we wanted to identify which technologies were already being used in emergency and climate disaster situations. To do this, we began a benchmarking reference study aimed at mapping communication solutions used in different contexts around the world.
At the beginning of the investigation, one question stayed with us: could there be a single technology capable of solving, on its own, the communication problems caused by a climate disaster?
As we advanced in the mapping, the answer became clearer. The communication needs observed in emergency situations were highly varied. In some cases, the challenge was enabling the exchange of information among people within a community. In others, it was coordinating response and rescue teams. In still others, it was transmitting alerts, organizing resources, or sharing information about affected areas.
Each need seemed to point to different technologies. Some solutions stood out for their ease of implementation. Others for their ability to operate without conventional infrastructure. Still others for their geographic coverage or robustness in critical scenarios. So, instead of finding a single technology capable of solving every problem, we found a set of tools with complementary characteristics.
It was at this point that a new challenge emerged.
If communicational resilience depends on combining different technologies, how can they be compared consistently? How do we evaluate, using the same criteria, solutions as different as mesh Wi-fi networks, satellite systems, or remote sensors?
Comparing only the functionalities of each technology did not solve the problem. Knowing what a tool does is important, but not enough when we think about its use during an emergency. We also needed to understand under what conditions it works, what resources it requires to operate, who is able to use it, and what limitations may arise in a real climate disaster scenario.
To answer these questions, we began recording each technology in standardized technical sheets. The idea was simple: create a common basis that would allow different technologies to be analyzed from the same aspects. Each sheet was organized around nine points:
- Technical description: what the technology is and how it works;
- Functionality: what it actually does or measures;
- Disaster context: how it behaves in real critical situations;
- Basic infrastructure: what is required for its operation;
- Application examples: documented cases of field use;
- Actors involved: who operates and maintains the technology;
- Data location: where information circulates and is stored;
- Regulatory aspects: which rules and legal requirements are related to its use;
- Civil society access: how accessible the technology is to communities and organizations.
These aspects emerged from recurring questions during the research process itself.
- Does the technology keep working without electricity?
- Does it depend on the Internet or on some infrastructure that could be interrupted?
- Who is able to operate it in the field?
- Is it easy to transport?
- Is it within reach of communities and response and rescue teams?
By organizing information this way, we began to see patterns that were not so obvious when we looked at each technology in isolation. Very different solutions could be compared using the same analytical framework, allowing us to identify not only their functionalities, but also their real conditions of use.
The goal of this mapping was never to find a “winning” technology. What we sought was to build a consistent way of evaluating possibilities, understanding their limits, and identifying which solutions showed the greatest potential for building resilient communication strategies in climate crisis scenarios.
The technical sheets thus became a guiding stage of the technical research. They organized the knowledge produced in the mapping and served as the basis for building the criteria that guided the selection of the technologies that will advance to the next phases of analysis and testing.
In the next entries of this Project Diary, we will present how this mapping helped create the technology selection criteria and which technologies advanced to the testing phase. From there, we will detail their potential uses, implementation challenges, and field applications. Stay with us!