Use of the Visual Range of Detection to Estimate Effective Sweep Width for Land Search and Rescue Based On 10 Detection Experiments in North America

OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task. To calculate the POD, a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments. Because of the complexities of the land environment, search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments. We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W, and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W. METHODS We obtained the average maximum detection range (AMDR), Rd, and W values from 10 detection experiments conducted throughout North America. We measured the correlation between Rd and W, and tested whether the apparent relationship between W and Rd was statistically significant. RESULTS On average we found W ≈ 1.645 × Rd with a strong correlation (R(2) = .827). The high-visibility class had W ≈ 1.773 × Rd (also R(2) = .867), the medium-visibility class had W ≈ 1.556 × Rd (R(2) = .560), and the low-visibility had a correction factor of 1.135 (R(2) = .319) for Rd to W. Using analysis of variance and post hoc testing, only the high- and low-visibility classes were significantly different from each other (P < .01). We also found a high correlation between the AMDR and Rd (R(2) = .9974). CONCLUSIONS Although additional experiments are required for the medium- and low-visibility search objects and in the dry-domain ecoregion, we suggest search planners use the following correction factors to convert field-measured Rd to an estimate of the effective sweep width (W): high-visibility W = 1.8 × Rd; medium-visibility W = 1.6 × Rd; and low-visibility W = 1.1 × Rd.

[1]  Ncj Edwards,et al.  Factors Affecting Coast Guard SAR Unit Visual Detection Performance. , 1981 .

[2]  W. T. Nelson,et al.  Target Acquisition With UAVs: Vigilance Displays and Advanced Cuing Interfaces , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Donald C. Cooper Fundamentals Of Search And Rescue , 2005 .

[4]  B. O. Koopman Search and Screening: General Principles and Historical Applications , 1980 .

[5]  Kenneth B Chiacchia,et al.  Effectors of visual search efficacy on the Allegheny Plateau. , 2010, Wilderness & environmental medicine.

[6]  John R. Frost,et al.  Sweep Width Estimation for Ground Search and Rescue , 2004 .

[7]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  A Bayesian approach to modeling lost person behaviors based on terrain features in Wilderness Search and Rescue , 2010, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[8]  Christopher A. Barnes,et al.  Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. , 2011 .

[9]  L. Stone Theory of Optimal Search , 1975 .

[10]  R. Q. Robe,et al.  A Method for Determining Effective Sweep Widths for Land Searches. Procedures for Conducting Detection Experiments , 2002 .

[11]  John R. Frost,et al.  Compatibility of Land SAR Procedures with Search Theory , 2003 .

[12]  Robert J. Koester,et al.  Alzheimer's Research Paper Behavioral profile of possible Alzheimer's disease patients in Virginia search and rescue incidents , 1995 .

[13]  Suming Jin,et al.  Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States – Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information , 2015 .

[14]  A. Charnes,et al.  The Theory of Search: Optimum Distribution of Search Effort , 1958 .

[15]  G. Nowacki,et al.  Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States , 2007 .