Crisis Mapping in Areas of Limited Statehood

I had the great pleasure of contributing a chapter to this new book recently published by Oxford University Press: Bits and Atoms: Information and Communication Technology in Areas of Limited Statehood. My chapter addresses the application of crisis mapping to areas of limited statehood, drawing both on theory and hands-on experience. The short introduction to my chapter is provided below to help promote and disseminate the book.

Collection-national-flags

Introduction

Crises often challenge or limit statehood and the delivery of government services. The concept of “limited statehood” thus allows for a more realistic description of the territorial and temporal variations of governance and service delivery. Total statehood, in any case, is mostly imagined—a cognitive frame or pre-structured worldview. In a sense, all states are “spatially challenged” in that the projection of their governance is hardly enforceable beyond a certain geographic area and period of time. But “limited statehood” does not imply the absence of governance or services. Rather, these may simply take on alternate forms, involving procedures that are non-institutional (see Chapter 1). Therein lies the tension vis-à-vis crises, since “the utopian, immanent, and continually frustrated goal of the modern state is to reduce the chaotic, disorderly, constantly changing social reality beneath it to something more closely resembling the administrative grid of its observations” (Scott 1998). Crises, by definition, publicly disrupt these orderly administrative constructs. They are brutal audits of governance structures, and the consequences can be lethal for state continuity. Recall the serious disaster response failures that occurred following the devastating cyclone of 1970 in East Pakistan.

To this day, Cyclone Bhola still remains the most deadly cyclone on record, killing some 500,000 people. The lack of timely and coordinated government response was one of the triggers for the war of independence that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh (Kelman 2007). While crises can challenge statehood, they also lead to collective, self-help behavior among disaster-affected communities—particularly in areas of limited statehood. Recently, this collective action—facilitated by new information and communication technologies—has swelled and resulted in the production of live crisis maps that identify the disaggregated, raw impact of a given crisis along with resulting needs for services typically provided by the government (see Chapter  7). These crisis maps are sub-national and are often crowdsourced in near real-time. They empirically reveal the limited contours of governance and reframe how power is both perceived and projected (see Chapter 8).

Indeed, while these live maps outline the hollows of governance during times of upheaval, they also depict the full agency and public expression of citizens who self-organize online and offline to fill these troughs with alternative, parallel forms of services and thus governance. This self-organization and public expression also generate social capital between citizen volunteers—weak and strong ties that nurture social capital and facilitate future collective action both on and offline.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze how the rise of citizen-generated crisis maps replaces governance in areas of limited statehood and to distill the conditions for their success. Unlike other chapters in this book, the analysis below focuses on a variable that has been completely ignored in the literature:  digital social capital. The chapter is thus structured as follows. The first section provides a brief introduction to crisis mapping and frames this overview using James Scott’s discourse from Seeing Like a State (1998). The next section briefly highlights examples of crisis maps in action—specifically those responding to natural disasters, political crises, and contested elections. The third section provides a broad comparative analysis of these case studies, while the fourth section draws on the findings of this analysis to produce a list of ingredients that are likely to render crowdsourced crisis-mapping more successful in areas of limited statehood. These ingredients turn out to be factors that nurture and thrive on digital social capital such as trust, social inclusion, and collective action. These drivers need to be studied and monitored as conditions for successful crisis maps and as measures of successful outcomes of online digital collaboration. In sum, digital crisis maps both reflect and change social capital.

Bio

Rapid Disaster Damage Assessments: Reality Check

The Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA) is the methodology used by UN agencies to assess and analyze humanitarian needs within two weeks of a sudden onset disaster. A detailed overview of the process, methodologies and tools behind MIRA is available here (PDF). These reports are particularly insightful when comparing them with the processes and methodologies used by digital humanitarians to carry out their rapid damage assessments (typically done within 48-72 hours of a disaster).

MIRA PH

Take the November 2013 MIRA report for Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. I am really impressed by how transparent the report is vis-à-vis the very real limitations behind the assessment. For example:

  • “The barangays [districts] surveyed do not constitute a represen-tative sample of affected areas. Results are skewed towards more heavily impacted municipalities [...].”
  • “Key informant interviews were predominantly held with baranguay captains or secretaries and they may or may not have included other informants including health workers, teachers, civil and worker group representatives among others.”
  • Barangay captains and local government staff often needed to make their best estimate on a number of questions and therefore there’s considerable risk of potential bias.”
  • Given the number of organizations involved, assessment teams were not trained in how to administrate the questionnaire and there may have been confusion on the use of terms or misrepresentation on the intent of the questions.”
  • “Only in a limited number of questions did the MIRA checklist contain before and after questions. Therefore to correctly interpret the information it would need to be cross-checked with available secondary data.”

In sum: The data collected was not representative; The process of selecting interviewees was biased given that said selection was based on a convenience sample; Interviewees had to estimate (guesstimate?) the answer for several questions, thus introducing additional bias in the data; Since assessment teams were not trained to administrate the questionnaire, this also introduces the problem of limited inter-coder reliability and thus limits the ability to compare survey results; The data still needs to be validated with secondary data.

I do not share the above to criticize, only to relay what the real world of rapid assessments resembles when you look “under the hood”. What is striking is how similar the above challenges are to the those that digital humanitarians have been facing when carrying out rapid damage assessments. And yet, I distinctly recall rather pointed criticisms leveled by professional humanitarians against groups using social media and crowdsourcing for humanitarian response back in 2010 & 2011. These criticisms dismissed social media reports as being unrepresentative, unreliable, fraught with selection bias, etc. (Some myopic criticisms continue to this day). I find it rather interesting that many of the shortcomings attributed to crowdsourcing social media reports are also true of traditional information collection methodologies like MIRA.

The fact is this: no data or methodology is perfect. The real world is messy, both off- and online. Being transparent about these limitations is important, especially for those who seek to combine both off- and online methodologies to create more robust and timely damage assessments.

bio

Inferring International and Internal Migration Patterns from Twitter

My QCRI colleagues Kiran Garimella and Ingmar Weber recently co-authored an important study on migration patterns discerned from Twitter. The study was co-authored with  Bogdan State (Stanford)  and lead author Emilio Zagheni (CUNY). The authors analyzed 500,000 Twitter users based in OECD countries between May 2011 and April 2013. Since Twitter users are not representative of the OECD population, the study uses a “difference-in-differences” approach to reduce selection bias when in out-migration rates for individual countries. The paper is available here and key insights & results are summarized below.

Twitter Migration

To better understand the demographic characteristics of the Twitter users under study, the authors used face recognition software (Face++) to estimate both the gender and age of users based on their profile pictures. “Face++ uses computer vision and data mining techniques applied to a large database of celebrities to generate estimates of age and sex of individuals from their pictures.” The results are depicted below (click to enlarge). Naturally, there is an important degree of uncertainty about estimates for single individuals. “However, when the data is aggregated, as we did in the population pyramid, the uncertainty is substantially reduced, as overestimates and underestimates of age should cancel each other out.” One important limitation is that age estimates may still be biased if users upload younger pictures of themselves, which would result in underestimating the age of the sample population. This is why other methods to infer age (and gender) should also be applied.

Twitter Migration 3

I’m particularly interested in the bias-correction “difference-in-differences” method used in this study, which demonstrates one can still extract meaningful information about trends even though statistical inferences cannot be inferred since the underlying data does not constitute a representative sample. Applying this method yields the following results (click to enlarge):

Twitter Migration 2

The above graph reveals a number of interesting insights. For example, one can observe a decline in out-migration rates from Mexico to other countries, which is consistent with recent estimates from Pew Research Center. Meanwhile, in Southern Europe, the results show that out-migration flows continue to increase for  countries that were/are hit hard by the economic crisis, like Greece.

The results of this study suggest that such methods can be used to “predict turning points in migration trends, which are particularly relevant for migration forecasting.” In addition, the results indicate that “geolocated Twitter data can substantially improve our understanding of the relationships between internal and international migration.” Furthermore, since the study relies in publicly available, real-time data, this approach could also be used to monitor migration trends on an ongoing basis.

To which extent the above is feasible remains to be seen. Very recent mobility data from official statistics are simply not available to more closely calibrate and validate the study’s results. In any event, this study is an important towards addressing a central question that humanitarian organizations are also asking: how can we make statistical inferences from online data when ground-truth data is unavailable as a reference?

I asked Emilio whether techniques like “difference-in-differences” could be used to monitor forced migration. As he noted, there is typically little to no ground truth data available in humanitarian crises. He thus believes that their approach is potentially relevant to evaluate forced migration. That said, he is quick to caution against making generalizations. Their study focused on OECD countries, which represent relatively large samples and high Internet diffusion, which means low selection bias. In contrast, data samples for humanitarian crises tend to be far smaller and highly selected. This means that filtering out the bias may prove more difficult. I hope that this is a challenge that Emilio and his co-authors choose to take on in the near future.

bio

Using UAVs for Search & Rescue

UAVs (or drones) are starting to be used for search & rescue operations, such as in the Philippines following Typhoon Yolanda a few months ago. They are also used to find missing people in the US, which may explain why members of the North Texas Drone User Group (NTDUG) are organizing the (first ever?) Search & Rescue challenge in a few days. The purpose of this challenge is to 1) encourage members to build better drones and 2) simulate a real world positive application of civilian drones.

Drones for SA

Nine teams have signed up to compete in Saturday’s challenge, which will be held in a wheat field near Renaissance Fair in Waxahachie, Texas (satellite image below). The organizers have already sent these teams a simulated missing person’s report. This will include a mock photo, age, height, hair color, ethnicity, clothing and where/when this simulated lost person was last seen. Each drone must have a return to home function and failsafe as well as live video streaming.

Challenge location

When the challenge launches, each team will need to submit a flight plan to the contest’s organizers before being allowed to search for the missing items (at set times). An item is considered found when said item’s color or shape can be described and if the location of this item can be pointed to on a Google Map. These found objects then count as points. Points are also awarded for finding tracks made by humans or animals, for example. Points will be deducted for major crashes, for flying at an altitude above the 375 feet limit and risk disqualification for flying over people.

While I can’t make it to Waxahachie this weekend to observe the challenge first-hand, I’m thrilled that the DC Drones group (which I belong to), is preparing to host its own drones search & rescue challenge this Spring. So I hope to be closely involved with this event in the coming months.

Wildlife challenge

Although search & rescue is typically thought of as searching for people, UAVs are also beginning to appear in conversations about anti-poaching operations. At the most recent DC Drones MeetUp, we heard a presentation on the first ever Wildlife Conservation UAV Challenge (wcUAVc). The team has partnered with Krueger National Park to support their anti-poaching efforts in the face of skyrocketing Rhino poaching.

Rhino graph

The challenge is to “design low cost UAVs that can be deployed over the rugged terrain of Kruger, equipped with sensors able to detect and locate poachers, and communications able to relay accurate and timely intelligence to Park Rangers.” In addition, the UAVs will have to “collect RFID tag data throughout the sector; detect, classify, and tack all humans; regularly report on the location of all rhinos and humans; and receive commands to divert from general surveillance to support poacher engagement anywhere in the sector. They also need to be able to safely operate in same air space with manned helicopters, assisting special helicopter borne rangers engage poachers.” All this for under $3,000.

Why RFID tag data? Because rangers and tourists in Krueger National Park all carry RFID tags so they can be easily located. If a UAV automatically detects a group of humans moving through the bush and does not find an RFID signature for them, the UAV will automatically conclude that they may be poachers. When I spoke with one of the team members following the presentation, he noted that they were also interested in having UAVs automatically detect whether humans are carrying weapons. This is no small challenge, which explains why the total cash prize is $65,000 and an all-inclusive 10-day trip to Krueger National Park for the winning team.

I think it would be particularly powerful if the team could open up the raw footage for public analysis via microtasking, i.e., include a citizen science component to this challenge to engage and educate people from around the world about the plight of rhinos in South Africa. Participants would be asked to tag imagery that show rhinos and humans, for example. In so doing, they’d learn more about the problem, thus becoming better educated and possibly more engaged. Perhaps something along the lines of what we do for digital humanitarian response, as described here.

Drone Innovation Award

In any event, I’m a big proponent of using UAVs for positive social impact, which is precisely why I’m honored to be an advisor for the (first ever?) Drones Social Innovation Award. The award was set up by my colleague Timothy Reuter (founder of the the Drone User Group Network, DUGN). Timothy is also launching a startup, AirDroids, to further democratize the use of micro-copters. Unlike similar copters out there, these heavy-lift AirDroids are easier to use, cheaper and far more portable.

As more UAVs like AirDroids hit the market, we will undoubtedly see more and more aerial photo- and videography uploaded to sites like Flickr and YouTube. Like social media, I expect such user-generated imagery to become increasingly useful in humanitarian response operations. If users can simply slip their smartphones into their pocket UAV, they could provide valuable aerial footage for rapid disaster damage assessments purposes, for example. Why smart-phones? Because people already use their smartphones to snap pictures during disasters. In addition, relatively cheap hardware add-on’s can easily turn smartphones for LIDAR sensing and thermal imaging.

All this may eventually result in an overflow of potentially useful aerial imagery, which is where MicroMappers would come in. Digital volunteers could easily use MicroMappers to quickly tag UAV footage in support of humanitarian relief efforts. Of course, UAV footage from official sources will also continue to play a more important role in the future (as happened following Hurricane Sandy). But professional UAV teams are already outnumbered by DIY UAV users. They simply can’t be everywhere at the same time. But the crowd can. And in time, a bird’s eye view may become less important than a flock’s eye view, especially for search & rescue and rapid disaster assessments.

Bio

 See also:

  • How UAVs are Making a Difference in Disaster Response [link]
  • UN World Food Program to Use UAVs [link]
  • Drones for Human Rights: Brilliant or Foolish? [link]
  • The Use of Drones for Nonviolent Civil Resistance [link]

Social Media: The First 2,000 Years

What do Papyrus rolls and Twitter have in common? Both were used as a means of “instant” communication. Indeed, a careful reading of history reveals just how ancient social media really is. Further, the questions we pose about social media today have already been debated countless times over hundreds of years. Author Tom Standage traces this fascinating history of social media in his thought-provoking book Writing on the Wall: Social Media – The First 2,000 YearsIn so doing, Tom forces us to rethink our understanding and assumptions of social media use today. To be sure, this book will change the way you think about social media. I highlight some of the most intriguing insights below.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC to 43 BC) was a Roman philosopher, politician and lawyer. When Julius Caesar relocated him from Rome to a distant output, Cicero drew on an elaborate communication system and social network to stay abreast of events in the capital. Printing presses did not exist at the time, nor did paper for that matter. So papyrus rolls were used to exchange letters and other documents, which were in turn copied, commented on and shared. In this way, Cicero received timely updates on politics and gossip coming from Rome, having asked his contacts in the capital to write him daily. Common abbreviations were soon used to save space and time, much like today’s acronyms on social media (e.g., BTW, AFAIK) . SVBEEV (si vales, bene est, ego valeo), for example, was a popular acronym for “if you are well, that is good, I am well.” Often, letters were also quoted in other letters, much like blog posts today. In fact, some letters during Cicero’s time were “addressed to several people and were written [....] to be posted in public for general consumption.”

The enabling infrastructure of this information system was slavery—many of the scribes and messengers who copied and delivered messages were slaves. In short, “slaves were the Roman equivalent of broadband.” Friends were also used to carry letters across cities, countries and indeed continents. “One advantage of getting friends to pass on the news was that they could highlight items of interest and add their own comments or background information in the covering letters they sent along with the copied letters. The combination of personal letters and impersonal news was more valuable then either in isolation, because each provided additional context for the other. And then, as now, one was far more likely to pay attention if a friend said it was important or expressed an opinion about it.”

wax tablets

Not all letters during Cicero’s time were sent via papyrus rolls. Wax tablets (pictured above) mounted in wooden frames “that fold together like a book” were used for messages sent over a short distance, which required a quick reply. “To modern eyes, these tablets [...] look strikingly similar to tablet computers. The recipient’s response could be scratched onto the same tablet, and the messenger who had delivered it would then take it straight back to the sender.” Earlier, in Mesopotamia, “letters were written in cuneiform on small clay tablets that fit neatly into the palm of the hand. Letters almost always fit onto a single tablet, which imposed a limit on the length of the message.” One can’t help but draw parallels with smartphones and Twitter.

Graffiti was also served as a social media some 2,000 years ago. In Pompeii, for example, ancient graffiti was found on the streets, in bars and also in private houses. Writing graffiti was not regarded as defacement at the time. “The most prominent messages, painted in large letters, were political slogans expressing support for candidates running for election [...].” Criticisms of political candidates were also found in Pompeii’s ancient graffiti, as were advertisements for events and even rental vacancies. As author Tom Standage notes, “the great merit of graffiti is that one did not have to be a magistrate [...] to add one’s voice to the conversation; the walls were open to everyone.”

The following graffiti messages found in Pompeii reveal what ordinary people were thinking about:

“I won 8,522 denarii by gaming, fair play!”

“I made bread”

“The man I am having dinner with is a barbarian”

“Atimetus got me pregnant”

These provided “glimpses of everyday activities, rather like status updates on modern social networks.” In addition, graffiti messages were left near inns as advice to potential customers, serving both positive and negative reviews, much like today’s Yelp and related websites. “More practical still were the messages addressed to specific people.” Examples include:

“Samius to Cornelius: go hang yourself!”

“Gaius Sabinus says a fond hello to Statius. Traveler, eat bread in Pompeii but go to Nuceria to drink. At Nuceria, the drinking is better”

According to Tom, there are “even a few examples of dialogues, where an inscription inspired comments or responses.” Not surprisingly, perhaps, “the sexual boasts and scatological humor familiar from modern graffiti in public lavatories can also be found in Pompeii [...].” Like much of social media today, a lot of the ancient graffiti that appeared on the walls of Pompeii was of no interest to anyone. As one graffiti message, which appeared four times in the ancient city laments: “Oh wall, I am amazed you haven’t fallen down, since you bear the tedious scribblings of so many writers.”

Pompeii-street-graffiti-631

In the 1500′s, as printing presses multiplied and religious pamphlets vent viral, there was growing anxiety about the potential spread of false information (and seditious books). This ignited a heated debate on whether printing should be tightly regulated. In England, the company that had been given draconian powers to destroy unregistered printing presses and books that painted the Monarchy in bad light. This company argued the following:

“If every man may print, that is so disposed, it may be a means, that heresies, treasons, and seditious libelles shall be too often dispersed, whereas if only known men do print this inconvenience is avoided.”

Again, the parallels with today’s debate over the reliability of crowdsourcing and user-generated content are clear. But the growing desire for new in Europe during the Thirty Year’s War (early 1600′s) made crowdsourcing a compelling approach for the collection of news reports. Indeed, the increasing demand for “news about the war led to the appearance of a new type of publication: the coranto. This was a single sheet, printed on both sides, with a compilation of items, usually letters or eyewitness accounts of battles or other notable events. [...]. Being anonymous, corantos were regarded as less trustworthy than handwritten news letters, which often related news at first hand.” So a backlash against corantos was inevitable, with criticism that we hear today about social media. For example, one critic at the time “thought it dangerous for ordinary people to have greater access to news, because printing allowed rumors and falsehoods to spread, causing social and political instability.”

In any event, “the pamphlets of the 1640′s existed in an interconnected web, constantly referring to, quoting, or in dialogue with each other, like blog posts today.” As this information web continued continued to scale, “the bewildering variety of new voices and formats made it very difficult to work out what was going on. As one observer put it, ‘oft times we have much more printed than is true.” But John Milton didn’t buy the arguments for regulating written speech. Milton countered that no one is truly capable of acting as a reasonable censor since humans are susceptible to  error or bias. While press freedom would allow “bad or erroneous works to be printed,” Milton argued that this was actually a good thing. “If more readers came into contact with bad ideas because of printing, those ideas could be more swiftly and easily disproved.” In essence, Milton was making the case for crowdsourced verification of information. Similar arguments have recently been made.

coffee-house

Meanwhile, at the coffee house. The first caffeinated drink reached Europe around the 1600′s. “And along with the coffee bean itself came the institution of the coffeehouse, which had become an important meeting place and source of news in the Arab world.” The same was to happen in Europe, where coffeehouses served the same function as today’s co-working spaces and innovation hubs/labs. Some coffee houses were “thronged with businessmen, who would keep regular hours at particular coffee houses so that their associates would know where to find them, and who used coffee houses as offices, meeting rooms, and venues for trade.” Indeed, “the main business of coffee houses was the sharing and discussion of news and opinion [...].” In sum, “coffee houses were an alluring social platform for sharing information.”

There’s a lot more to “Writing on the Wall” than summarized above, such as the tension between press regulation and freedom, how the era of centralized, mass media dominance was a two-century anomaly in the natural course of social media, the origins of the political economy of mass media, etc. So I highly recommend this book to iRevolution readers. I, for one, relished it.


bio

Yes, I’m Writing a Book (on Digital Humanitarians)

I recently signed a book deal with Taylor & Francis Press. The book, which is tentatively titled “Digital Humanitarians: How Big Data is Changing the Face of Disaster Response,” is slated to be published next year. The book will chart the rise of digital humanitarian response from the Haiti Earthquake to 2015, highlighting critical lessons learned and best practices. To this end, the book will draw on real-world examples of digital humanitarians in action to explain how they use new technologies and crowdsourcing to make sense of “Big (Crisis) Data”. In sum, the book will describe how digital humanitarians & humanitarian technologies are together reshaping the humanitarian space and what this means for the future of disaster response. The purpose of this book is to inspire and inform the next generation of (digital) humanitarians while serving as a guide for established humanitarian organizations & emergency management professionals who wish to take advantage of this transformation in humanitarian response.

2025

The book will thus consolidate critical lessons learned in digital humanitarian response (such as the verification of social media during crises) so that members of the public along with professionals in both international humanitarian response and domestic emergency management can improve their own relief efforts in the face of “Big Data” and rapidly evolving technologies. The book will also be of interest to academics and students who wish to better understand methodological issues around the use of social media and user-generated content for disaster response; or how technology is transforming collective action and how “Big Data” is disrupting humanitarian institutions, for example. Finally, this book will also speak to those who want to make a difference; to those who of you who may have little to no experience in humanitarian response but who still wish to help others affected during disasters—even if you happen to be thousands of miles away. You are the next wave of digital humanitarians and this book will explain how you can indeed make a difference.

The book will not be written in a technical or academic writing style. Instead, I’ll be using a more “storytelling” form of writing combined with a conversational tone. This approach is perfectly compatible with the clear documentation of critical lessons emerging from the rapidly evolving digital humanitarian space. This conversational writing style is not at odds with the need to explain the more technical insights being applied to develop next generation humanitarian technologies. Quite on the contrary, I’ll be using intuitive examples & metaphors to make the most technical details not only understandable but entertaining.

While this journey is just beginning, I’d like to express my sincere thanks to my mentors for their invaluable feedback on my book proposal. I’d also like to express my deep gratitude to my point of contact at Taylor & Francis Press for championing this book from the get-go. Last but certainly not least, I’d like to sincerely thank the Rockefeller Foundation for providing me with a residency fellowship this Spring in order to accelerate my writing.

I’ll be sure to provide an update when the publication date has been set. In the meantime, many thanks for being an iRevolution reader!

bio

The Best of iRevolution in 2013

iRevolution crossed the 1 million hits mark in 2013, so big thanks to iRevolution readers for spending time here during the past 12 months. This year also saw close to 150 new blog posts published on iRevolution. Here is a short selection of the Top 15 iRevolution posts of 2013:

How to Create Resilience Through Big Data
[Link]

Humanitarianism in the Network Age: Groundbreaking Study
[Link]

Opening Keynote Address at CrisisMappers 2013
[Link]

The Women of Crisis Mapping
[Link]

Data Protection Protocols for Crisis Mapping
[Link]

Launching: SMS Code of Conduct for Disaster Response
[Link]

MicroMappers: Microtasking for Disaster Response
[Link]

AIDR: Artificial Intelligence for Disaster Response
[Link]

Social Media, Disaster Response and the Streetlight Effect
[Link]

Why the Share Economy is Important for Disaster Response
[Link]

Automatically Identifying Fake Images on Twitter During Disasters
[Link]

Why Anonymity is Important for Truth & Trustworthiness Online
[Link]

How Crowdsourced Disaster Response Threatens Chinese Gov
[Link]

Seven Principles for Big Data and Resilience Projects
[Link]

#NoShare: A Personal Twist on Data Privacy
[Link]

I’ll be mostly offline until February 1st, 2014 to spend time with family & friends, and to get started on a new exciting & ambitious project. I’ll be making this project public in January via iRevolution, so stay tuned. In the meantime, wishing iRevolution readers a very Merry Happy Everything!

santahat