Crowdsourced mapping in crisis zones: collaboration, organisation and impact

Abstract

Crowdsourced mapping has become an integral part of humanitarian response, with high profile deployments of platforms following the Haiti and Nepal earthquakes, and the multiple projects initiated during the Ebola outbreak in North West Africa in 2014, being prominent examples. There have also been hundreds of deployments of crowdsourced mapping projects across the globe that did not have a high profile. This paper, through an analysis of 51 mapping deployments between 2010 and 2016, complimented with expert interviews, seeks to explore the organisational structures that create the conditions for effective mapping actions, and the relationship between the commissioning body, often a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and the volunteers who regularly make up the team charged with producing the map. The research suggests that there are three distinct areas that need to be improved in order to provide appropriate assistance through mapping in humanitarian crisis: regionalise, prepare and research. The paper concludes, based on the case studies, how each of these areas can be handled more effectively, concluding that failure to implement one area sufficiently can lead to overall project failure.

Disaster-resilient communication ecosystem in an inclusive society – A case of foreigners in Japan

“…Therefore, a communication ecosystem forms and breaks up every time a disaster occurs. We observed dynamic characteristics of crisis communication structure with the involvement of various organizations [ 62 ] and tools [ 52 ]. The tools greatly hinge on social media which have become essential for digital crisis communication [ 55 ].…”

“… Characteristics Descriptions based on information ecology perspective Adaptation (coevolution) Social media enhances coevolution within the disaster communication setup by exchanging real time information about the event [ 51 ]. Heterogeneity (diversity) Cases exhibit diversity among information and communication tools, i.e., Twitter, Facebook, organizational websites, and mass media [ 52 ], and list various actors such as remote actors [ 37 , 38 ], responsible agents [ 40 , 41 ], transmitters [ 43 ], and targets [ 45 ]. Driving force (keystone species) Cases show highly skilled, voluntary entities or governmental organizations could be a driving force for adaptation.…”

“…In all the case studies, social media was the main avenue for such information dissemination and feedback. Although there was evidence of other information sources [ 52 ], Twitter and Facebook became the widely used information avenues [ 55 ]. Let's now illustrate the formation of a resilient communication ecosystem during the emergency caused by Typhoon Hagibis.…”

Why predict climate hazards if we need to understand impacts? Putting humans back into the drought equation

“…Generating these socioeconomic data, sampled regularly in space and time, presents a novel challenge because instruments like space-based sensors are easier to “encourage” than people. Since current frontiers of mobile data collection, such as citizen science (Callaghan et al 2019 ), crowdsourcing (Hunt and Specht 2019 ), Short Message Service (SMS)-based surveys (Bell et al 2016 ), or interactive voice response (IVR) calls (Morrow et al 2016 ), fail to establish a baseline if they are event-driven or carried out irregularly, self-reporting can fill critical gaps. There are strategies to incentivize truthful self-reporting, but incentives vary across different cultural backgrounds, climate impact scenarios, and socioeconomic contexts.…”

Any Portal in a Storm? Collaborative and crowdsourced maps in response to Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan, Philippines

“… Technical literature addressing how the data collection, curation and cartography can be improved to better aid crisis response, key issues addressed here have included data verification, interoperability and data privacy (see Reuter et al., 2018; and de Alberquerque et al, 2016; for literature reviews of these); Studies examining the social contexts of crisis mapping and the broader shifts in community participation, collaboration and cartographic practice (e.g. Zook et al., 2010; Roche et al, 2011/2013; Liu & Palen, 2010; Resor, 2016; Bittner et al., 2016; Bargués‐Pedreny, 2018); Literature addressing the politics of crisis mapping within the context of humanitarian intervention and digitalization (Stanley et al, 2013; Burns, 2014, 2018; Givoni, 2016; Soden and Palen, 2018; Duffield, 2019; Hunt & Specht, 2019); and Post‐deployment assessments, which review the use of crisis mapping in specific responses (e.g. Heinzelman & Waters, 2010; McDougall, 2011,2012; Morrow et al, 2012; Chan, 2014; Reimer et al., 2014) and incorporate important critiques from disaster response practitioners (c.f.…”