Tag Archives: Disasters

Establishing Social Media Hashtag Standards for Disaster Response

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has just published an important, must-read report on the use of social media for disaster response. As noted by OCHA, this document was inspired by conversations with my team and I at QCRI. We jointly recognize that innovation in humanitarian technology is not enough. What is needed—and often lacking—is innovation in policymaking. Only then can humanitarian technology have widespread impact. This new think piece by OCHA seeks to catalyze enlightened policymaking.

ebolatags

I was pleased to provide feedback on earlier drafts of this new study and look forward to discussing the report’s recommendations with policymakers across the humanitarian space. In the meantime, many thanks to Roxanne Moore and Andrej Verity for making this report a reality. As Andrej notes in his blog post on this new study, the Filipino Government has just announced that “twitter will become another source of information for the Philippines official emergency response mechanism,” which will lead to an even more pressing Big (Crisis) Data challenge. The use of standardized hashtags will thus be essential.

hashtags-cartoon

The overflow of information generated during disasters can be as paralyzing to disaster response as the absence of information. While information scarcity has long characterized our information landscapes, today’s information-scapes are increasingly marked by an overflow of information—Big Data. To this end, encouraging the proactive standardization of hashtags may be one way to reduce this Big Data challenge. Indeed, standardized hashtags—i.e., more structured information—would enable paid emergency responders (as well as affected communities) to “better leverage crowdsourced information for operational planning and response.” At present, the Government of the Philippines seems to be the few actors that actually endorse the use of specific hashtags during major disasters as evidenced by their official crisis hashtags strategy.

The OCHA report thus proposes three hashtag standards and also encourages social media users to geo-tag their content during disasters. The latter can be done by enabling auto-GPS tagging or by using What3Words. Users should of course be informed of data-privacy considerations when geo-tagging their reports. As for the three hashtag standards:

  1. Early standardization of hashtags designating a specific disaster
  2. Standard, non-changing hashtag for reporting non-emergency needs
  3. Standard, non-changing hashtags for reporting emergency needs

1. As the OCHA think piece rightly notes, “News stations have been remarkably successful in encouraging early standardization of hashtags, especially during political events.” OCHA thus proposes that humanitarian organizations take a “similar approach for emergency response reporting and develop partnerships with Twitter as well as weather and news teams to publicly encourage such standardization. Storm cycles that create hurricanes and cyclones are named prior to the storm. For these events, an official hashtag should be released at the same time as the storm announcement.” For other hazards, “emergency response agencies should monitor the popular hashtag identifying a disaster, while trying to encourage a standard name.”

2. OCHA advocates for the use of #iSee, #iReport or #PublicRep for members of the public to designate tweets that refer to non-emergency needs such as “power lines, road closures, destroyed bridges, large-scale housing damage, population displacement or geographic spread (e.g., fire or flood).” When these hashtags are accompanied with GPS information, “responders can more easily identify and verify the information, therefore supporting more timely response & facilitating recovery.” In addition, responders can more easily create live crisis maps on the fly thanks to this structured, geo-tagged information.

3. As for standard hashtags for emergency reports, OCHA notes emergency calls are starting to give way to emergency SMS’s. Indeed, “Cell phone users will soon be able to send an SMS to a toll-free phone number. For emergency reporting, this new technology could dramatically alter the way the public interacts with nation-based emergency response call centers. It does not take a large imaginary leap to see the potential move from SMS emergency calls to social media emergency calls. Hashtags could be one way to begin reporting emergencies through social media.”

Most if not all countries have national emergency phone numbers already. So OCHA suggests using these existing, well-known numbers as the basis for social media hashtags. More specifically, an emergency hashtag would be composed of the country’s emergency number (such as 911 in the US, 999 in the UK, 133 in Austria, etc) followed by the country’s two-letter code (US, UK, AT respectively). In other words: #911US, #999UK, #133AT. Some countries, like Austria, have different emergency phone numbers for different types of emergencies. So these could also be used accordingly. OCHA recognizes that many “federal agencies fear that such a system would result in people reporting through social media outside of designated monitoring times. This is a valid concern. However, as with the implementation of any new technology in the public service, it will take time and extensive promotion to ensure effective use.”

Digital Humanitarians: The Book

Of course, “no monitoring system will be perfect in terms of low-cost, real-time analysis and high accuracy.” OCHA knows very well that there are a number of important limitations to the system they propose above. To be sure, “significant steps need to be taken to ensure that information flows from the public to response agencies and back to the public through improved efforts.” This is an important theme in my forthcoming book “Digital Humanitarians.”

bio

See also:

  • Social Media & Emergency Management: Supply and Demand [link]
  • Using AIDR to Automatically Classify Disaster Tweets [link]

Quantifying Information Flow During Emergencies

I was particularly pleased to see this study appear in the top-tier journal, Nature. (Thanks to my colleague Sarah Vieweg for flagging). Earlier studies have shown that “human communications are both temporally & spatially localized following the onset of emergencies, indicating that social propagation is a primary means to propagate situational awareness.” In this new study, the authors analyze crisis events using country-wide mobile phone data. To this end, they also analyze the communication patterns of mobile phone users outside the affected area. So the question driving this study is this: how do the communication patterns of non-affected mobile phone users differ from those affected? Why ask this question? Understanding the communication patterns of mobile phone users outside the affected areas sheds light on how situational awareness spreads during disasters.

Nature graphs

The graphs above (click to enlarge) simply depict the change in call volume for three crisis events and one non-emergency event for the two types of mobile phone users. The set of users directly affected by a crisis is labeled G0 while users they contact during the emergency are labeled G1. Note that G1 users are not affected by the crisis. Since the study seeks to assess how G1 users change their communication patterns following a crisis, one logical question is this: do the call volume of G1 users increase like those of G0 users? The graphs above reveal that G1 and G0 users have instantaneous and corresponding spikes for crisis events. This is not the case for the non-emergency event.

“As the activity spikes for G0 users for emergency events are both temporally and spatially localized, the communication of G1 users becomes the most important means of spreading situational awareness.” To quantify the reach of situational awareness, the authors study the communication patterns of G1 users after they receive a call or SMS from the affected set of G0 users. They find 3 types of communication patterns for G1 users, as depicted below (click to enlarge).

Nature graphs 2

Pattern 1: G1 users call back G0 users (orange edges). Pattern 2: G1 users call forward to G2 users (purple edges). Pattern 3: G1 users call other G1 users (green edges). Which of these 3 patterns is most pronounced during a crisis? Pattern 1, call backs, constitute 25% of all G1 communication responses. Pattern 2, call forwards, constitutes 70% of communications. Pattern 3, calls between G1 users only represents 5% of all communications. This means that the spikes in call volumes shown in the above graphs is overwhelmingly driven by Patterns 1 and 2: call backs and call forwards.

The graphs below (click to enlarge) show call volumes by communication patterns 1 and 2. In these graphs, Pattern 1 is the orange line and Pattern 2 the dashed purple line. In all three crisis events, Pattern 1 (call backs) has clear volume spikes. “That is, G1 users prefer to interact back with G0 users rather than contacting with new users (G2), a phenomenon that limits the spreading of information.” In effect, Pattern 1 is a measure of reciprocal communications and indeed social capital, “representing correspondence and coordination calls between social neighbors.” In contrast, Pattern 2 measures the dissemination of the “dissemination of situational awareness, corresponding to information cascades that penetrate the underlying social network.”

Nature graphs 3

The histogram below shows average levels of reciprocal communication for the 4 events under study. These results clearly show a spike in reciprocal behavior for the three crisis events compared to the baseline. The opposite is true for the non-emergency event.Nature graphs 4

In sum, a crisis early warning system based on communication patterns should seek to monitor changes in the following two indicators: (1) Volume of Call Backs; and (2) Deviation of Call Backs from baseline. Given that access to mobile phone data is near-impossible for the vast majority of academics and humanitarian professionals, one question worth exploring is whether similar communication dynamics can be observed on social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

 bio

Using Social Media to Predict Disaster Resilience (Updated)

Social media is used to monitor and predict all kinds of social, economic, political and health-related behaviors these days. Could social media also help identify more disaster resilient communities? Recent empirical research reveals that social capital is the most important driver of disaster resilience; more so than economic and material resources. To this end, might a community’s social media footprint indicate how resilience it is to disasters? After all, “when extreme events at the scale of Hurricane Sandy happen, they leave an unquestionable mark on social media activity” (1). Could that mark be one of resilience?

Twitter Heatmap Hurricane

Sentiment analysis map of tweets posted during Hurricane Sandy.
Click on image to learn more.

In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, “social ties can serve as informal insurance, providing victims with information, financial help and physical assistance” (2). This informal insurance, “or mutual assistance involves friends and neighbors providing each other with information, tools, living space, and other help” (3). At the same time, social media platforms like Twitter are increasingly used to communicate during crises. In fact, data driven research on tweets posted during disasters reveal that many tweets provide victims with information, help, tools, living space, assistance and other more. Recent studies argue that “such interactions are not necessarily of inferior quality compared to simultaneous, face-to-face interactions” (4). What’s more, “In addition to the preservation and possible improvement of existing ties, interaction through social media can foster the creation of new relations” (5). Meanwhile, and “contrary to prevailing assumptions, there is evidence that the boom in social media that connects users globally may have simultaneously increased local connections” (6).

A recent study of 5 billion tweets found that Japan, Canada, Indonesia and South Korea have highest percentage of reciprocity on Twitter (6). This is important because “Network reciprocity tells us about the degree of cohesion, trust and social capital in sociology” (7). In terms of network density, “the highest values correspond to South Korea, Netherlands and Australia.” The findings further reveal that “communities which tend to be less hierarchical and more reciprocal, also displays happier language in their content updates. In this sense countries with high conversation levels … display higher levels of happiness too” (8).

A related study found that the language used in tweets can be used to predict the subjective well-being of those users (9). The same analysis revealed that the level of happiness expressed by Twitter users in a community are correlated with members of that same community who are not on social media. Data-driven studies on happiness also show that social bonds and social activities are more conducive to happiness than financial capital (10). Social media also includes blogs. A new study analyzed more than 18.5 million blog posts found that “bloggers with lower social capital have fewer positive moods and more negative moods [as revealed by their posts] than those with higher social capital” (11).

Collectivism vs Individualism countries

Finally, another recent study analyzed more than 2.3 million twitter users and found that users in collectivist countries engage with others more than those in individualistic countries (12). “In high collectivist cultures, users tend to focus more on the community to which they belong,” while  people in individualistic countries are “in a more loosely knit social network,” and so typically “look after themselves or only after immediate family members” (13). The map above displays collectivist and individualistic countries; with the former represented by lighter shades and the latter darker colors.

In sum, one should be able to measure “digital social capital” and thus disaster resilience by analyzing social media networks before, during and after disasters. “These disaster responses may determine survival, and we can measure the likelihood of them happening” via digital social capital dynamics reflected on social media (14). One could also combine social network analysis with sentiment analysis to formulate various indexes. Anyone interested in pursuing this line of research?

bio

Analyzing Crisis Hashtags on Twitter (Updated)

Update: You can now upload your own tweets to the Crisis Hashtags Analysis Dashboard here

Hashtag footprints can be revealing. The map below, for example, displays the top 200 locations in the world with the most Twitter hashtags. The top 5 are Sao Paolo, London, Jakarta, Los Angeles and New York.

Hashtag map

A recent study (PDF) of 2 billion geo-tagged tweets and 27 million unique hashtags found that “hashtags are essentially a local phenomenon with long-tailed life spans.” The analysis also revealed that hashtags triggered by external events like disasters “spread faster than hashtags that originate purely within the Twitter network itself.” Like other metadata, hashtags can be  informative in and of themselves. For example, they can provide early warning signals of social tensions in Egypt, as demonstrated in this study. So might they also reveal interesting patterns during and after major disasters?

Tens of thousands of distinct crisis hashtags were posted to Twitter during Hurricane Sandy. While #Sandy and #hurricane featured most, thousands more were also used. For example: #SandyHelp, #rallyrelief, #NJgas, #NJopen, #NJpower, #staysafe, #sandypets, #restoretheshore, #noschool, #fail, etc. NJpower, for example, “helped keep track of the power situation throughout the state. Users and news outlets used this hashtag to inform residents where power outages were reported and gave areas updates as to when they could expect their power to come back” (1).

Sandy Hashtags

My colleagues and I at QCRI are studying crisis hashtags to better understand the variety of tags used during and in the immediate aftermath of major crises. Popular hashtags used during disasters often overshadow more hyperlocal ones making these less discoverable. Other challenges include the: “proliferation of hashtags that do not cross-pollinate and a lack of usability in the tools necessary for managing massive amounts of streaming information for participants who needed it” (2). To address these challenges and analyze crisis hashtags, we’ve just launched a Crisis Hashtags Analytics Dashboard. As displayed below, our first case study is Hurricane Sandy. We’ve uploaded about half-a-million tweets posted between October 27th to November 7th, 2012 to the dashboard.

QCRI_Dashboard

Users can visualize the frequency of tweets (orange line) and hashtags (green line) over time using different time-steps, ranging from 10 minute to 1 day intervals. They can also “zoom in” to capture more minute changes in the number of hashtags per time interval. (The dramatic drop on October 30th is due to a server crash. So if you have access to tweets posted during those hours, I’d be  grateful if you could share them with us).

Hashtag timeline

In the second part of the dashboard (displayed below), users can select any point on the graph to display the top “K” most frequent hashtags. The default value for K is 10 (e.g., top-10 most frequent hashtags) but users can change this by typing in a different number. In addition, the 10 least-frequent hashtags are displayed, as are the 10 “middle-most” hashtags. The top-10 newest hashtags posted during the selected time are also displayed as are the hashtags that have seen the largest increase in frequency. These latter two metrics, “New K” and “Top Increasing K”, may provide early warning signals during disasters. Indeed, the appearance of a new hashtag can reveal a new problem or need while a rapid increase in the frequency of some hashtags can denote the spread of a problem or need.

QCRI Dashboard 2

The third part of the dashboard allows users to visualize and compare the frequency of top hashtags over time. This feature is displayed in the screenshot below. Patterns that arise from diverging or converging hashtags may indicate important developments on the ground.

QCRI Dashboard 3

We’re only at the early stages of developing our hashtags analytics platform (above), but we hope the tool will provide insights during future disasters. For now, we’re simply experimenting and tinkering. So feel free to get in touch if you would like to collaborate and/or suggest some research questions.

Bio

Acknowledgements: Many thanks to QCRI colleagues Ahmed Meheina and Sofiane Abbar for their work on developing the dashboard.

Social Network Analysis for Digital Humanitarian Response

Monitoring social media for digital humanitarian response can be a massive undertaking. The sheer volume and velocity of tweets generated during a disaster makes real-time social media monitoring particularly challenging if not near impossible. However, two new studies argue that there is “a better way to track the spread of information on Twitter that is much more powerful.”

Twitter-Hadoop31

Manuel Garcia-Herranz and his team at the Autonomous University of Madrid in Spain use small groups of “highly connected Twitter users as ‘sensors’ to detect the emergence of new ideas. They point out that this works because highly co-nnected individuals are more likely to receive new ideas before ordinary users.” The test their hypothesis, the team studied 40 million Twitters users who “together totted up 1.5 billion follows’ and sent nearly half a billion tweets, including 67 million containing hashtags.”

They found that small groups of highly connected Twitter users detect “new hashtags about seven days earlier than the control group.  In fact, the lead time varied between nothing at all and as much as 20 days.” Manuel and his team thus argue that “there’s no point in crunching these huge data sets. You’re far better off picking a decent sensor group and watching them instead.” In other words, “your friends could act as an early warning system, not just for gossip, but for civil unrest and even outbreaks of disease.”

The second study, “Identifying and Characterizing User Communities on Twitter during Crisis Events,” (PDF) is authored by Aditi Gupta et al. Aditi and her co-lleagues analyzed three major crisis events (Hurricane Irene, Riots in England and Earthquake in Virginia) to “to identify the different user communities, and characterize them by the top central users.” Their findings are in line with those shared by the team in Madrid. “[T]he top users represent the topics and opinions of all the users in the community with 81% accuracy on an average.” In sum, “to understand a community, we need to monitor and analyze only these top users rather than all the users in a community.”

How could these findings be used to prioritize the monitoring of social media during disasters? See this blog post for more on the use of social network analysis (SNA) for humanitarian response.

Why the Public Does (and Doesn’t) Use Social Media During Disasters

The University of Maryland has just published an important report on “Social Media Use During Disasters: A Review of the Knowledge Base and Gaps” (PDF). The report summarizes what is empirically known and yet to be determined about social media use pertaining to disasters. The research found that members of the public use social media for many different reasons during disasters:

  • Because of convenience
  • Based on social norms
  • Based on personal recommendations
  • For humor & levity
  • For information seeking
  • For timely information
  • For unfiltered information
  • To determine disaster magnitude
  • To check in with family & friends
  • To self-mobilize
  • To maintain a sense of community
  • To seek emotional support & healing

Conversely, the research also identified reasons why some hesitate to use social media during disasters: (1) privacy and security fears, (2) accuracy concerns, (3) access issues, and (4) knowledge deficiencies. By the latter they mean the lack of knowledge on how to use social media prior to disasters. While these hurdles present important challenges they are far from being insurmountable. Educa-tion, awareness-raising, improving technology access, etc., are all policies that can address the stated constraints. In terms of accuracy, a number of advanced computing research centers such as QCRI are developing methodologies and pro-cesses to quantify credibility on social media. Seasoned journalists have also been developing strategies to verify crowdsourced information on social media.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is privacy, security and ethics. Perhaps the new mathematical technique, “differential privacy,” may provide the necessary break-through to tackle the privacy/security challenge. Scientific American writes that differential privacy “allows for the release of data while meeting a high standard for privacy protection. A differentially private data release algorithm allows researchers to ask practically any question about a database of sensitive informa-tion and provides answers that have been ‘blurred’ so that they reveal virtually nothing about any individual’s data—not even whether the individual was in the database in the first place.”

The approach has already been used in a real-world applications: a Census Bureau project called OnTheMap, “which gives researchers access to agency data. Also, differential privacy researchers have fielded preliminary inquiries from Facebook and the federally funded iDASH center at the University of California, San Diego, whose mandate in large part is to find ways for researchers to share biomedical data without compromising privacy.” So potential solutions are al-ready on the horizon and more research is on the way. This doesn’t mean there are no challenges left. There will absolutely be more. But the point I want to drive home is that we are not completely helpless in the face of these challenges.

The Report concludes with the following questions, which are yet to be answered:

  • What, if any, unique roles do various social media play for commu-nication during disasters?
  • Are some functions that social media perform during disasters more important than others?
  • To what extent can the current body of research be generalized to the U.S. population?
  • To what extent can the research on social media use during a specific disaster type, such as hurricanes, be generalized to another disaster type, such as terrorism?

Have any thoughts on what the answers might be and why? If so, feel free to add them in the comments section below. Incidentally, some of these questions could make for strong graduate theses and doctoral dissertations. To learn more about what people actually tweet during this disasters, see these findings here.

How People in Emergencies Use Communication to Survive

“Still Left in the Dark? How People in Emergencies Use Communication to Survive — And How Humanitarian Agencies Can Help” is an excellent report pub-lished by the BBC World Service Trust earlier this year. It is a follow up to the BBC’s 2008 study “Left in the Dark: The Unmet Need for Information in Humanitarian Emergencies.” Both reports are absolute must-reads. I highlight the most important points from the 2012 publication below.

Are Humanitarians Being Left in the Dark?

The disruptive impact of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) is hardly a surprise. Back in 2007, researchers studying the use of social media during “forest fires in California concluded that ‘these emergent uses of social media are pre-cursors of broader future changes to the institutional and organizational arrangements of disaster response.’” While the main danger in 2008 was that disaster-affected communities would continue to be left in the dark since humanitarian organizations were not prioritizing information delivery, in 2012, “it may now be the humanitarian agencies themselves […] who risk being left in the dark.” Why? “Growing access to new technologies make it more likely that those affected by disaster will be better placed to access information and communicate their own needs.” Question is: “are humanitarian agencies prepared to respond to, help and engage with those who are communicating with them and who demand better information?” Indeed, “one of the consequences of greater access to, and the spread of, communications technology is that communities now expect—and demand—interaction.”

Monitoring Rumors While Focusing on Interaction and Listening

The BBC Report invites humanitarian organizations to focus on meaningful interaction with disaster-affected communities, rather than simply on message delivery. “Where agencies do address the question of communication with affected communities, this still tends to be seen as a question of relaying infor-mation (often described as ‘messaging’) to an unspecified ‘audience’ through a channel selected as appropriate (usually local radio). It is to be delivered when the agency thinks that it has something to say, rather than in response to demand. In an environment in which […] interaction is increasingly expected, this approach is becoming more and more out of touch with community needs. It also represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and potential of many technological tools particularly Twitter, which work on a real time many-to-many information model rather than a simple broadcast.”

Two-way communication with disaster-affected communities requires two-way listening. Without listening, there can be no meaningful communication. “Listening benefits agencies, as well as those with whom they communicate. Any agency that does not monitor local media—including social media—for misinformation or rumors about their work or about important issues, such as cholera awareness risks, could be caught out by the speed at which information can move.” This is an incredibly important point. Alas, humanitarian organ-izations have not caught up with recent advances in social computing and big data analytics. This is one of the main reasons I joined the Qatar Computing Research Institute (QCRI); i.e., to spearhead the development of next-generation humani-tarian technology solutions.

Combining SMS with Geofencing for Emergency Alerts

Meanwhile, in Haiti, “phone company Digicel responded to the 2010 cholera outbreak by developing methods that would send an SMS to anyone who travelled through an identified cholera hotspot, alerting them to the dangers and advising on basic precautions.” The later is an excellent example of geofencing in action. That said, “while responders tend to see communication as a process either of delivering information (‘messaging’) or extracting it, disaster survivors seem to see the ability to communicate and the process of communication itself as every bit as important as the information delivered.”

Communication & Community-Based Disaster Response Efforts

As the BBC Report notes, “there is also growing evidence that communities in emergencies are adept at leveraging communications technology to organize their own responses.” This is indeed true as these recent examples demonstrate:

“Communications technology is empowering first responders in new and extremely potent ways that are, at present, little understood by international humanitarians. While aid agencies hesitate, local communities are using commu-nications technology to reshape the way they prepare for and respond to emergencies.” There is a definite payoff to those agencies that employ an “integrated approach to communicating and engaging with disaster affected communities […]” since they are “viewed more positively by beneficiaries than those that [do] not.” Indeed, “when disaster survivors are able to communicate with aid agencies their perceptions become more positive.”

Using New Technologies to Manage Local Feedback Mechanisms

So why don’t more agencies follow suite? Many are concerned that establishing feedback systems will prove impossible to manage let alone sustain. They fear that “they would not be able to answer questions asked, that they [would] not have the skills or capacity to manage the anticipated volume of inputs and that they [would be] unequipped to deal with people who would (it is assumed) be both angry and critical.”

I wonder whether these aid agencies realize that many private sector companies have feedback systems that engage millions of customers everyday; that these companies are using social media and big data analytics to make this happen. Some are even crowdsourcing their customer service support. It is high time that the humanitarian community realize that the challenges they face aren’t that unique and that solutions have already been developed in other sectors.

There are only a handful of examples of positive deviance vis-a-vis the setting up of feedback systems in the humanitarian space. Oxfam found that simply com-bining the “automatic management of SMS systems” with “just one dedicated local staff member […] was enough to cope with demand.” When the Danish Refugee Council set up their own SMS complaints mechanism, they too expected be overwhelmed with criticisms. “To their surprise, more than half of the SMS’s they received via their feedback system […] have been positive, with people thanking the agency for their assistance […].” This appears to be a pattern since “many other agencies reported receiving fewer ‘difficult’ questions than anticipated.”

Naturally, “a systematic and resourced approach for feedback” is needed either way. Interestingly, “many aid agencies are in fact now running de facto feedback and information line systems without realizing it. […] most staff who work directly with disaster survivors will be asked for contact details by those they interact with, and will give their own personal mobile numbers.” These ad hoc “systems” are hardly efficient, well-resourced or systematic, however.

User-Generated Content, Representativeness and Ecosystems

Obviously, user-generated content shared via social media may not be represen-tative. “But, as costs fall and coverage increases, all the signs are that usage will increase rapidly in rural areas and among poorer people. […] As one Somali NGO staff member commented […], ‘they may not have had lunch — but they’ll have a mobile phone.’” Moreover, there is growing evidence that individuals turn to social media platforms for the first time as a result of crisis. “In Thailand, for example, the use of social media increased 20% when the 2010 floods began–with fairly equal increases found in metropolitan Bangkok and in rural provinces.”

While the vast majority of Haitians in Port-au-Prince are not on Twitter, “the city’s journalists overwhelmingly are and and see it as an essential source of news and updates.” Since most Haitians listen to radio, “they are, in fact, the indirect beneficiaries of Twitter information systems.” Another interesting fact: “In Kenya, 27% of radio listeners tune in via their mobile phones.” This highlights the importance of an ecosystem approach when communicating with disaster-affected communities. On a related note, recent statistics reveal that individuals in developing countries spend about 17.5% of their income on ICTs compared to just 1.5% in developing countries.