Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)PO Box 9229 Grønland, NO-0134 Oslo, NorwayVisiting Address: Hausmanns gate 3 www.prio.orgFacebook: PRIO.orgTwitter: PRIOUpdates
PRIO POLICY BRIEF
Brief Points
During natural catastrophes, knowledge management and communication are vital to reducing damage and saving lives. However, the challenges of communicating are numerous, including the infrastructural damages such disasters produce.
This policy brief looks into emerging forms of digital communication and asks what it enables and disables in post- disaster scenarios. What role can digital communication play in relief work after natural disasters, such as the Nepal earthquake in 2015, and what are its limitations?
Humanitarian disaster response in the 2015 Nepal earthquake
Digital Communication in Natural Disasters
ISBN: 978-82-7288-866-3 (print)978-82-7288-867-0 (online)
03 2018
• Digital information is increasingly important in humanitarian disaster response, and includes macro techniques such as data gathering and analyses, as well as local usage of digital networks and applications.
• Effective distribution of digital information relies on digital means of communication such as internet, mobile phones etc.
• There are several limitations to such communication, including infrastructural damages caused by natural disasters, inequality of digital reach, potential misrepresentation of affected communities and the drawbacks of governing disasters from afar.
Elida K. U. Jacobsen Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
w w w.prio.org w w w.prio.org PRIO POLICY B RIEF 03 2018
Digital Communication in Disasters During a natural disaster and its aftermath, individuals, institutions and organisations face numerous challenges of communication. In recent years, the potential of digital communica- tion, social media and the usage of Big Data in emergency information gathering has become central to several international action plans for disaster management.
The potential impact of digital communication was seen in the responses to recent natural disasters and became more prominent after the Haiti earthquake in 2010, where digital com- munication and social media platforms played important functions in the emergency and post- disaster relief work. Community initiatives with local usage of digital communication is seen as particularly important in early stages of disaster relief, identifying information needs regarding food, shelter (people might be afraid to return to their homes), medical assistance, family reunification (how to contact family members), and how to deal with bodies of deceased persons and animals.1
Whereas digital communication has become vi- tal for humanitarian response to disasters, there are also numerous challenges and cautions that have to be considered with regards to the usage of digital means for humanitarian assistance.
In this policy brief, the micro and macro levels of digital humanitarianism are investigated, looking at the impacts of digital communication in the aftermath of the 2015 Nepal earthquake.
In particular, this brief looks at how knowledge is produced through digital means, what kind of knowledge is produced, and what or who might be left out in new forms of digital communica- tion and knowledge management in natural disasters.
Communication in Natural Disasters Knowledge management and dissemination in an emergency situation has to be flexible and take into account numerous factors such as lack of in-depth and contextual information on the emergent situation and its ramifications, as well as time constraints. Whereas the impact of hurricanes might be predicted through early warning, earthquakes happen all of a sudden, leaving no possibility for immediate preparedness. Yates and Paquette (2011) identify several challenges with regards to knowledge
management and communication in disaster settings:
•
Information and communication systems can become degraded or unavailable.•
Knowledge availability might be scarce, or less than in normal conditions.•
Decision making has to be fast, within time constraints. There is a need for improvisa- tion and flexibility in responding to a disaster.•
The tasks that have to be dealt with may be emergent.•
Resources are constrained.2Compared to other crises and emergencies (such as man-made attacks, or conflicts leading to humanitarian disasters), the challenges and communication needs in natural disasters in particular depend on what kinds of com- munication networks are operable. Oftentimes, commonly used means of communication, such as mobile phones or internet messaging might be temporarily out of order. This can weaken the possibility for central authorities to communicate with affected populations.
Digital humanitarianism responds to the need of humanitarian actors and organisations to produce knowledge on situational contexts that are often distant, chaotic and conflictual. On a local level, digital communication through net- worked community responses gives information that might not reach those that need it through the official channels of the authorities. At the same time, they enable local actors to (re)present their situation and needs.
Macro and Micro Levels of Communication
On an international and national level, ‘digital humanitarianism’ has emerged as a new practice and technology in disaster relief, in particular for improving response and recovery efforts. Digital humanitarianism can be under- stood as “the enacting of social and institutional networks, technologies, and practices that enable large, unrestricted numbers of remote and on-the-ground individuals to collaborate on humanitarian management through digital technologies”.3
Digital solutions to humanitarian crises form new ways of knowing that can be used for operationalising relief response. Through coordinated efforts of gathering, sharing and disseminating crucial information, such practices produce overviews and systematic knowledge on disaster situations, and also help cluster information found on the net – for example from social media sites – to produce vital knowledge for policy makers. Such digital solutions therefore support existing structures of knowledge sharing and communication.
Digital humanitarianism can be done from a distance, but it also involves the tools humani- tarians apply on the ground. Here, local organ- isations and affected populations contribute to the relief work through digital technology.
How Is Digital Knowledge Produced?
In particular, techniques of mapping, crowdsourcing information and monitoring of social media have increasingly been utilised in disaster response.5 Amongst these, crisis mapping has emerged as a widely used means of tracing digital maps of disaster-stricken sites to “classify, verify, and plot on maps Big Data produced by disaster-affected people”.6 Digital solutions to disasters might become co-created through international digital usage and local responses, as seen in the usage of SMS technologies in the immediate aftermath
Nepal Earthquake 2015
•
In April 2015, Nepal was hit by a 7.8 magnitude shallow earthquake that is estimated to have killed 9,000 people, injured 21,000 and destroyed half a million households.4•
In Nepal, several initiatives to operationalise digital humanitarianism emerged after the earthquake. Among these were the site Humanity Road and Facebook pages such as that of Code for Nepal.•
International digital networks also contributed to data on Nepal, including networks such as the CDAC network, Humanitarian Response and Humanitarian Data Exchange.w w w.prio.org w w w.prio.org PRIO POLICY B RIEF 03 2018 of the Haiti earthquake in 2010, which further
gave rise to an internationally applied Trilogy Emergency Response Application (TERA).7 Both in Nepal and Haiti, digital solutions to humani- tarian relief were further supported by platforms such as Crisis Mappers, Crowd mapping (such as Ushadidhi) and Open Street Map (such as the Humanitarian Open Street Map team).
Such emerging digital solutions also offer new perspectives and visualities, through technologies and practices such as data analysis techniques.
What Is Communicated, and What Is Left Out?
In the immediate aftermath of natural disasters, the main people in need of information and lines of communication are the affected com- munities. Yet, numerous studies find that local communities are left without vital information regarding the situation, shelter, food and safety, both in the immediate aftermath, and in the longer run.8 In a recent study of the earthquake in Nepal,9 it was found that despite a surge in digital communication, local communities – especially in more remote parts of the country – were left without key information regarding immediate and long-term needs.
Digital solutions can offer an alternative
means of communicating disasters to support humanitarian relief, but it is also important to take into consideration the limits and pitfalls of such tools. As digital humanitarianism relies on online access, there is the obvious dilemma with regards to what can, and what cannot, be represented and communicated. During disasters, problems such as lack of online access due to destruction of infrastructure is the most obvious example. But questions of access and representation also include such issues as who has digital access in the first place – for example, excluding rural communities and marginalised, poor populations.
The usage of digital tools such as maps and crowdsourcing to understand a (post-)disaster context produces opportunities to operationalise relief from a distance. It produces a certain form of disaster relief that is based on a macro gaze and local mobilisation. Oftentimes, those operating digital networks sit in faraway places detached from the actual context in which a disaster has occurred. With the impression that everything becomes more accessible and visible, what are the consequences then for those who are not included in this ‘digital gaze’?
On a local level, natural disasters such as earth- quakes and hurricanes often disproportionately affect rural areas,10 thus adding to complications in digital communication. It is thus important
that digital communication is carried out in tandem with conscious considerations of how one can communicate with (not only about) affected communities.
The kind of knowledge that is produced in digi- tal solutions to disaster relief has implications for the ways in which such relief is carried out.
Digital responses to humanitarian needs enable knowledge to be produced in numeric or coded form, thus giving a sense of overview in chaotic situations. Such practices have for example also included techniques of biometric identification for registration in aid programmes and usage of cash transfer systems. This has raised questions about the kinds of knowledge on individuals that is being collected in disaster settings. For example, in non-emergency situations, the same practice can be considered as invasion of privacy.11
There is a combined practice of creating knowledge on disaster situations with mapping affected populations based on digital data, maps and Digital Humanitarianism, therefore also creating “new ways of knowing and acting upon distant disaster-affected populations”.12 Digital humanitarianism relies on certain (epistemo- logical) foundations that simultaneously include and exclude certain world views and ways of being (Burns 2014). Burns speaks of knowledge
Daily life in Patan, Kathmandu, November 2017.
Photo: Elida K. U. Jacobsen.
Relief work in Patan, Kathmandu after the 2015 earthquake. Photo: Laxmi Prasad Ngakhusi/UNDP Nepal/CC BY-NC-ND @ Flickr.
w w w.prio.org
PRIO
The Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) is a non-profit peace research institute (estab- lished in 1959) whose overarching purpose is to conduct research on the conditions for peaceful relations between states, groups and people. The institute is independent, interna- tional and interdisciplinary, and explores is- sues related to all facets of peace and conflict.
THE PROJECT
PRIO POLICY B RIEF 03 2018 Elida K. U. Jacobsen is a Senior Researcher and External Associate at PRIO. Her research focuses on the role of digital data in different governance domains.
E-mail: [email protected]
THE AUTHOR
DIGICOM studies digitalisation in order to better grasp how new forms of risk commu- nication affect societal security. It explores risk communication in different environments, such as authorities, news media and social me- dia, as well as in relation to specific types of risk events that are of relevance for prepared- ness in Norway and beyond.
Disaster Relief’, TEDxRC2.
Available at: www.ted.com/talks/paul_con- neally_digital_humanitarianism
8. Wall, Imogen and Lisa Robinson (2008) ‘Left in the Dark: The unmet need for information in humanitarian responses’, Policy Briefing No.2, London: BBC World Service Trust.
9. Buchanan-Smith, Margie et al. (2016) Are you Listen- ing Now? Community Perspectives on Communication with Communities During the Nepal Earthquake Response. CDAC Network.
10. Epstein, Kathleen; Jessica DiCarlo; Robin Marsh;
Isha Ray and Inger Måren (2017) ‘Coping Strategies of Smallholder Farming Communities after the 2015 Nepal Earthquake: Insights into Post-Disaster Resil- ience and Social–Ecological Change’, Case Studies in the Environment. DOI: 10.1525/cse.2017.000612.
11. Hosein, Gus and Carly Nyst (2013) ‘Aiding Surveillance: An exploration of how development and humanitarian aid initiatives are enabling surveillance in developing countries’, London:
Privacy International.
12. Duffield, Mark (2016) ‘The resilience of the ruins:
production and the politics that evolve along pro- cesses of inclusion, categorisation, accuracy, and visibility. In short, making visible also implies a simultaneous production of invisibility.
Digital responses to disasters provide important tools and knowledge that help humanitarian organisations and communities to understand the context in which relief work takes place. Yet, how and what kind of knowledge is produced, what kinds of visibilities are fostered, what reali- ties and representations are excluded, and which communities and needs these digital solutions serve to help, remain important considerations in the usage of digital communication of disasters.
Notes
1. CDAC Network (2017) ‘Mexico: Earthquake – what we know about information and communica- tion needs’.
2. Yates, Dave and Scott Paquette (2011) ‘Emergency knowledge management and social media technolo- gies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake’, International Journal of Information Management, 31(1): 6–13.
3. Burns, Ryan (2014) ‘Moments of closure in the knowledge politics of digital humanitarianism’, Geoforum 53: 51–62.
4. Government of Nepal (2015) Nepal Earthquake 2015. Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Vol. A: Key Find- ings, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.
5. Sanderson, David and Ben Ramalingam (2015) Nepal Earthquake Response: Lessons for Operational Agencies. London: ALNAP/ODI.
6. Givoni, Michal (2016) ‘Between micro mappers and missing maps: Digital humanitarianism and the politics of material participation in disaster response’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(6): 1025–1043.
7. Conneally, Paul (2011) ‘How Mobile Phones Power
Bodanath Stupa, Kathmandu, 2017. Photo: Elida K. U. Jacobsen.
Resources
•
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2012) Humanitarianism in the Network Age. Available at: www.unocha.org/legacy/hina
•
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2013) World Disasters Report 2013: Focus on technology and the future of humanitarian action. Available at: media.ifrc.org/ifrc/document/world-disasters-report-2013
•
The Digital Humanitarian Network.Available at: digitalhumanitarians.com
•
The Humanitarian Data Exchange.Available at: data.humdata.org
•
Communicating with Disaster Affected Communities (CDAC network).Available at: www.cdacnetwork.org towards a critique of digital humanitarianism’, Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 4(3): 147–165.
