The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: Contributions of ... · volunteered geographic information...

The University of Manchester Research

The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: Contributions ofVolunteered Geographic Information to CommunityDisaster ResilienceDOI:10.3389/feart.2018.00183

Document VersionFinal published version

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):Haworth, B. T., Bruce, E., Whittaker, J., & Read, R. (2018). The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: Contributionsof Volunteered Geographic Information to Community Disaster Resilience. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6, 1. [183].https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00183

Published in:Frontiers in Earth Science

Citing this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscriptor Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use thepublisher's definitive version.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by theauthors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s TakedownProcedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providingrelevant details, so we can investigate your claim.

Download date:14. Jan. 2021

https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00183https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-good-the-bad-and-the-uncertain-contributions-of-volunteered-geographic-information-to-community-disaster-resilience(a2b44f96-c20e-4c9a-aba3-b65571953db0).html/portal/billy.haworth.html/portal/roisin.read.htmlhttps://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-good-the-bad-and-the-uncertain-contributions-of-volunteered-geographic-information-to-community-disaster-resilience(a2b44f96-c20e-4c9a-aba3-b65571953db0).htmlhttps://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-good-the-bad-and-the-uncertain-contributions-of-volunteered-geographic-information-to-community-disaster-resilience(a2b44f96-c20e-4c9a-aba3-b65571953db0).htmlhttps://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00183

feart-06-00183 October 30, 2018 Time: 15:19 # 1

REVIEWpublished: 01 November 2018doi: 10.3389/feart.2018.00183

Edited by:Jonathan D. Paul,

Imperial College London,United Kingdom

Reviewed by:Sultan Kocaman,

Hacettepe University, TurkeyEmanuele Intrieri,

Università di Firenze, Italy

*Correspondence:Billy Tusker Haworth

[email protected]

Specialty section:This article was submitted to

Geohazards and Georisks,a section of the journal

Frontiers in Earth Science

Received: 14 August 2018Accepted: 12 October 2018

Published: 01 November 2018

Citation:Haworth BT, Bruce E, Whittaker J

and Read R (2018) The Good,the Bad, and the Uncertain:

Contributions of VolunteeredGeographic Information

to Community Disaster Resilience.Front. Earth Sci. 6:183.

doi: 10.3389/feart.2018.00183

The Good, the Bad, and theUncertain: Contributions ofVolunteered Geographic Informationto Community Disaster ResilienceBilly Tusker Haworth1* , Eleanor Bruce2, Joshua Whittaker3 and Róisín Read1

1 Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, University of Manchester,Manchester, United Kingdom, 2 School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 3 Centrefor Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

The adoption of location-based information sharing technologies, and the emergence ofvolunteered geographic information (VGI), has seen changes to community involvementin disaster management. The concept of resilience, and recognition of the capacityfor renewal, re-organization, and societal development, has gained currency indisaster management. However, the opportunities presented by spatially referenceddata for sourcing contextual information for understanding processes of social–ecological resilience and fostering local inclusion has not been examined. We examinehow web 2.0 platforms, including VGI and social media, can support resiliencebuilding, and critically evaluate how these technologies potentially undermine resilience.We concentrate our analysis on factors deemed important for community disasterresilience through review of recent literature, policy documents, and author experience.Establishing which elements of VGI in disaster management should be emphasized,such as increased flexibility or individual empowerment, and which require carefulmanagement, such as compromised privacy or data quality, will enable VGI tobecome less opportunistic, data-centric, disruptive, and exclusionary, and allow formore reliable, community-centric, complementary, and socially inclusive practices.Incorporating awareness and training on collaborative geoweb technologies intodisaster preparedness programs will equip individuals to make informed judgments onVGI content and reduce unintended consequences of social media initiatives.

Keywords: disaster management, resilience, social media, volunteered geographic information (VGI), geoweb,digital volunteering

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of social media and location-based information-sharing technologies, and theemergence of volunteered geographic information (VGI), has seen a shift in the spatio-temporalscales of community involvement in disaster management. Often associated with the relatedconcept of citizen science1 (e.g., Haklay, 2013), VGI is widely understood to involve the

1While citizen science and VGI both involve members of the general public participating in what have been traditionally“expert” or professional activities, such as science or map-making, an important distinction is that citizen science involvesparticipation in defined scientific projects and VGI occurs in a wider range of contexts, with a variety of participantmotivations, and is not necessarily attached to a specific project. Further, citizen science data and activities do not alwaysinvolve a geographic component, as is always the case for VGI.

Frontiers in Earth Science | www.frontiersin.org 1 November 2018 | Volume 6 | Article 183

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science#editorial-boardhttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science#editorial-boardhttps://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00183http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00183http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.3389/feart.2018.00183&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-11-01https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2018.00183/fullhttp://loop.frontiersin.org/people/563123/overviewhttp://loop.frontiersin.org/people/515565/overviewhttp://loop.frontiersin.org/people/631853/overviewhttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/https://www.frontiersin.org/https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science#articles


Haworth et al. VGI Contributions to Disaster Resilience

growing practices of private citizens voluntarily generating(Goodchild, 2007) and subsequently disseminating (Ricker et al.,2014) geographic information, predominantly through dedicatedonline platforms. VGI contributors may explicitly volunteerinformation through focused mapping activities using platformssuch as OpenStreetMap (OSM) or generate data that areimplicitly associated with geographic location such as geotaggedphotographs (shared via Flickr) or microblogs (e.g., Tweets)(Craglia et al., 2012; Senaratne et al., 2017).The increasinglywidespread use of such technologies by private individuals forparticipation in emergency and disaster management has beentermed digital volunteering (Whittaker et al., 2015). However,social media and VGI efforts tend to focus on reactive responseinitiatives, such as the use of Facebook to connect communitymembers during bushfires (wildfires) in Australia (Irons et al.,2015), rather than preparedness and participatory practices forpromoting community resilience. The concept of resilience, andthe recognition of the capacity for renewal, re-organization, andsocietal development, following system disturbance has gainedcurrency in disaster management research. This paper examineshow resilience thinking can better inform the development ofpublic participation geoweb platforms and shape understandingsof the motivations and requirements of such initiatives. Theresilience perspective is adopted here to provide a contextualframework for critical evaluation of the role of VGI practices anddigital volunteering in disaster management.

The aim of many current emergency management policiesis to use the Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery(PPRR) model to work toward a more disaster-resilientpopulation, that is, one that is able to recognize current andfuture risk, reduce and manage those risks, and is better-ableto recover from disasters (Council of Australian Governments[COAG], 2011; Prosser and Peters, 2011). Increased emphasis onresilience requires emergency practitioners to shift focus from atop-down “command-and-control” model to one more strategic,participatory, and dialogic with communities and stakeholders;where value is increasingly recognized in both authoritative andcitizen information and practices (Burnside-Lawry et al., 2013).This has led to a focus on implementing initiatives centeredon community engagement (e.g., Frandsen et al., 2011) andinnovations in information and communication technologies,such as social media, that can empower citizens in disasterresponse (e.g., Taylor et al., 2012).

Allowing ordinary citizens to voluntarily create and sharegeographic information – through technologies such as theInternet and Web 2.0, global positioning systems, personallocational devices such as smartphones, inexpensive map-makingplatforms open to public contributions (e.g., OSM, UshahidiCrowdmap), cloud storage, and broadband communication – hastransformed the traditional model of authoritative productionof geographic information, with particular pertinence to disastermanagement (see for examples Zook et al., 2010; Haworth andBruce, 2015). The production of geographic knowledge is nolonger exclusive to experts, such as geographers (Elwood et al.,2012). The central discourse of Web 2.0 technology and practiceslike VGI is public participation and interactivity – a key elementin crisis literature aimed at building resilience and increasing

the involvement of the general public in disaster management(Bittner et al., 2016).

Although recent work has argued for the role of Web 2.0information sharing platforms in building community disasterresilience (Dufty, 2012; Taylor et al., 2012), this is often focusedon disaster response or a single platform in isolation, such asa social-media site like Facebook or Twitter, at the exclusionof other VGI practices, including crowdsourced web-mapping.The opportunities presented by spatially referenced (geotagged)data for sourcing contextual information at geographical andtemporal scales relevant in understanding processes of resilienceand fostering local inclusion have not been critically examined.We consider Web 2.0 information sharing platforms morebroadly in community disaster resilience to include socialmedia-based exchange of information and resources as well asmore participatory enterprises such as crowdsourced disasterrisk mapping. We also include here the concept of participatorymapping, as conceptualized by Brown and Fagerholm (2015) tocollectively denote any process whereby citizens contribute to thecreation of maps, which includes VGI. Further, while there areexceptions, much existing work on VGI and disasters has tendedto be somewhat boosterish, at times exuding “techno-optimism”(Read et al., 2016). The optimism and promise of mappingand big data have been critiqued in the context of digitalhumanitarianism (Read et al., 2016), but similar analyses inrelation to disaster resilience are lacking.

Thus, the intent of this paper is to examine how Web 2.0information sharing platforms for VGI generation can supportresilience-building in disaster management and, critically,evaluate how these technologies potentially undermine resiliencebuilding. We include social media beyond strict VGI in ouranalysis. While we recognize some social media informationis not strictly VGI (i.e., data may not be geographical),commonalities such as the nature of large-scale onlinenetworking, information sharing by private citizens, anddisruption to traditional systems catalyzed by technologicaladvancements and associated practices warrant inclusion ofthis literature. The novelty of our approach lies in the explicitlinking of VGI data and practices, including their promise,limitations, and implications, with conceptual understandings ofresilience – an important endeavor as resilience remains high oninternational disaster management agendas.

RESILIENCE

Social–Ecological Resilience andEmergence in Disaster ManagementA resilience concept has been embraced by various disciplines,including anthropology, engineering, urban planning, andgeography (Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015), with originsin physics (Van der Leeuw and Aschan-Leygonie, 2005),development psychology, and ecology (Manyena, 2006). Theresilience perspective emerged from the ecology literature inthe 1960–1970s with the discovery of multi-stable states innatural systems and non-linear forms of functional response(Folke, 2006). In challenging the dominant assumption of static


https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/https://www.frontiersin.org/https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science#articles



equilibrium, Holling (1973) introduced the concept of multiplebasins of attraction in which the size of stability domains (basin)or amount of disturbance a system can tolerate before shiftinginto another regime provides a measure of resilience (Folke,2006). The recognized importance of process dynamics acrossmultiple and interacting spatio-temporal scales later placed theresilience perspective in the context of complex adaptive systems(Folke, 2006). Integration of the social dimension in resiliencethinking led to the concept of social–ecological resilience (SER).SER considers the amount of disturbance the system can absorb,the system’s ability for self-organization, and the degree to whichthe system can build and increase capacity for learning andadaptation (transformability) (Carpenter and Gunderson, 2001;Folke, 2006). Rather than focusing on ecosystems or societies asseparated entities, recognition of the dynamic interplay betweenthe social and ecological components is critical in understandingsystem resilience (Gallopín, 2006).

In ecology, resilience emphasizes efficiency, control,constancy, and predictability as attributes of reliable systems(Holling and Gunderson, 2002). Another perspective considersthe persistence, adaptability, variability, and unpredictabilityof ecological systems (Holling, 1973). The first definition is ameasure of the speed at which a system “bounces back” afterdisturbance (Pimm, 1984); while the second measures thedegree of disturbance that can be absorbed by a system beforeundergoing structural change (Holling and Gunderson, 2002).More recently, interpretations of resilience have encompassedelements such as capacity and capability, moving from the earlyengineering-based “bounce back” perspective to somethingthat suggests doing better than before, or “bouncing forward”(Manyena et al., 2011; Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2015).

The term resilience has come into vogue in disastermanagement in recent decades with concern the language of“vulnerability” in disaster management was disempowering.Often resilience is treated as an antonym of vulnerability,a more positive way to talk about the same problem, butthere are important differences (Whittaker, 2008). Vulnerabilityis constructed in the social and economic circumstances ofeveryday living and describes the ways people are differentiallyexposed to hazards and have varying capacities to reduce risksand withstand potential impacts (Morrow, 1999; Whittaker,2008). Recognizing the terms are related, Zhou et al. (2010)attempt to contrast vulnerability and resilience, placing theemphasis of resilience on the process of enhancing capacityto respond and recover from disaster impacts in the shortestpossible time with minimal outside assistance. Disaster resilienceconsidered from a geographer’s perspective is “the capacityof hazard-affected bodies to resist loss during disaster and toregenerate and reorganize after disaster in a specific area in agiven period” (Zhou et al., 2010, p. 28).

Understandings and management of disasters since the 1970shas shifted focus from hazard identification and response to thedrivers of vulnerability that turn hazards into disasters (Collieret al., 2009). Promotion of the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)framework by the practitioner community, both internationally(Hyogo Framework for Action and Sendai Framework) and atnational levels, has highlighted the importance of SER thinking,

the need for indicators of effective disaster preparedness, andparticipatory approaches that ensure local inclusion (Collieret al., 2009). Emergency management is shifting away frommodels of “command and control” and is beginning to diversifyinto a more collaborative activity and dynamic enterprisethat facilitates multi-organizational, intergovernmental, andintersectoral co-operation (Waugh and Streib, 2006). Thisshift has led to philosophies such as “shared responsibility”(McLennan and Handmer, 2012). Shared responsibility itselfhas evolved from the notion of community responsibility andself-reliance (Elsworth et al., 2009) to a principle that impliesincreased responsibility for all concerned (being the state,municipal councils, individuals, household members, and thebroader community) and a focus on community safety.

Despite its prevalence, the concept of resilience has undergoneconsiderable critique. A basic criticism of the social–ecologicalsystems approach is the assumption that the ecological andsocial domains of such systems can be addressed in a commonconceptual, theoretical, and modeling framework (Welsh, 2014).A key problem here relates to the issue of defining theparameters of “the system” and locating human action withinit. MacKinnon and Derickson (2012) note that resilienceprivileges spatial sites and scales such as cities, regions, andlocal communities, which are implicitly equated with ecosystems,and are viewed as autonomous and subject to the sameprinciples of self-organization. They argue that a focus onthe local scale neglects consideration of more powerful, globalscale processes that enable and constrain action in specificplaces. Another criticism of resilience in disaster managementconcerns the transferral of responsibility for risk from the stateto communities, households, and individuals. Welsh (2014)notes that resilience approaches assume that communities canand should self-organize to manage risk, and that the roleof government is limited to facilitating and supporting, ratherthan funding, these processes. Much resilience research hasignored questions of politics, governance, and the unequaldistribution of power and resources in disaster preparednessand response (Cretney, 2014). Insufficient attention has alsobeen paid to the value judgments that underpin resilience: whatelements of the system should be protected, and for whom?(Handmer and Dovers, 1992; Davoudi, 2012). Weichselgartnerand Kelman (2015) have questioned why people would want to“bounce back” to a situation that is anywhere near the originalcircumstances that produced their vulnerability. Despite thesecritiques, resilience persists as a core goal in international disastermanagement.

The Resilience Goals of DisasterManagementResilience approaches aim to reduce the likelihood of disruption,damage, and death caused by disasters and enable communitiesto absorb change and recover quickly while exhausting the leastamount of resources (United Nations International Strategy forDisaster Risk Reduction [UNISDR], 2009; IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2012). But little consensusor formal clarity has been provided on the specific elements





required for resilience or how to achieve them (Arbon, 2014;Neely, 2014; Goode et al., 2015). It is not our intentionto review and translate all interpretations of resilience goals,nor to provide an alternative unifying consensus. Instead,we have identified common elements and goals of resiliencefound throughout previous interpretations, focusing on socialresilience, institutional resilience, and community capital (Cutteret al., 2010), and elements most relevant to communities andindividuals (as opposed to the natural environment, economics,or infrastructure). Factors deemed important for communitydisaster resilience were determined through examination andreview of relevant resilience policy documents (e.g., UnitedNations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction[UNISDR], 2005, 2015; Council of Australian Governments[COAG], 2011; Barnes et al., 2014), recent academic literaturerelating to community disaster resilience (e.g., Paton, 2006;Cutter et al., 2010; Renschler et al., 2010; Dufty, 2012;McLennan and Handmer, 2012, 2013; Taylor et al., 2012; Arbon,2014; Neely, 2014; Goode et al., 2015), and through researchexperience of the authors gained via collaboration with DRRand community development units within formal emergencymanagement organizations. For the purpose of this article, thecontributions of VGI and digital volunteerism to community

disaster resilience are summarized and discussed through theelements depicted in Figure 1.

THE GOOD: POTENTIAL FOR VGI TOENHANCE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE

Resilience thinking recognizes that multiple environmental andsocial stressors influence a community’s adaptive capacity, anddifferent context-dependent factors will determine whether acommunity is adversely impacted by a hazard (Murphy, 2015).Numerous published articles in recent years describe the benefitsof VGI in disaster management, particularly in crisis response,often implying (and sometimes boasting) that VGI aids inbuilding community resilience. What follows in this section is abrief discussion of how VGI may contribute to enhancing eachof the elements of community disaster resilience presented inFigure 1.

Effective CommunicationResilience is intimately associated with good communication,whereby two-way dialog delivers both resources to communitiesand intelligence regarding community needs to relevant agencies

FIGURE 1 | Factors important for community disaster resilience as identified by the authors’ review of relevant policy documents, scholarly literature, and researchexperience. Graphics have been modified from artwork by Minduka, SimpleIcons, grin, GDJ, Iaobc, yves_guillou, russel, Fred the Oyster, and Netalloy in the OpenClip Art Library and are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.





(Nicholls, 2012). The most effective disaster communicationis locally relevant, so those at risk can access and actupon specific information about their household and riskreduction (Boon, 2014). Information transfer and knowledgenetworks, both formal and informal, required for resiliencebuilding, are dependent on effective communication. In astudy of emergency management professionals in Australia,increased levels of communication were identified as themost significant opportunity presented by VGI (Haworth,2016). Social media platforms, in particular, increase the speedand reach of communication between community membersand emergency organizations, as demonstrated during the2011 Cyclone Yasi and Queensland flood disaster (Tayloret al., 2012). Social media and other mechanisms for timelycommunication help spread important information, such asemergency warnings (Dufty, 2012), and are vital componentsof resilient communities (Nicholls, 2012). Further, online VGIplatforms can reduce potential barriers to resilience building,including the inaccessibility of traditional communicationforums, such as community meetings due to other commitments.

Understanding Risks and AssociatedUncertaintyIncreased awareness of local risk, hazards, and vulnerabilityshared through VGI enables individuals to make informedassessments about their individual and community preparation,planning, and likelihood of danger or damage. VGI throughparticipatory mapping was useful for increasing risk awarenessamong youth in the Philippines (Gaillard and Pangilinan, 2010).Rather than simply trying to educate on risk through one-waycommunication, participatory mapping increases risk awarenessand engagement in DRR by involving marginalized groups,valorizing their inputs, and materializing the hazard and risk assomething personally relevant to the participants (Gaillard andPangilinan, 2010).

Flanagin and Metzger (2008) report on the manifold increasein the number of information sources provided through socialmedia and VGI. Research indicates that community perceptionsand actions are influenced by exposure to risk and preparednessinformation, with Basolo et al. (2009) arguing individualsexposed to multiple sources of information may feel moreknowledgeable about disaster preparedness. They found thatreceiving preparedness information from multiple sources wascorrelated with an individual taking protective actions.

Local Knowledge and Resource SharingThe building and transmission of local knowledge2 has beenassociated with increased adaptive capacity in social–ecological

2The authors adopt a broad definition of “local knowledge” to mean any individualor collective knowledge possessed by local people for a particular location orcommunity group, which may include, but is not limited to, knowledge of pastevents, indigenous knowledge, environmental and resource knowledge, and/orlocal social, economic, and political knowledge. Broadly, local knowledge is distinctfrom other forms of knowledge (i.e., scientific or professional) in that it typicallyderives from personal and lived experiences, and is often informal, tacit, andassociated with shared values and histories (see Raymond et al., 2010; Giordanoet al., 2013).

systems (Folke et al., 1998). Inclusion of local knowledge iscrucial for increasing community disaster resilience (Councilof Australian Governments [COAG], 2011; Giordano et al.,2013), and resilience-building strategies with an emphasis onlocal knowledge have positive impacts (Manyena, 2006). Yet, theintegration of local and scientific knowledge to support disastermonitoring is not standard practice (Giordano et al., 2013). VGIhas potential to facilitate increased collection, exchange, anduse of local knowledge and resources in disaster managementand resilience building. The ability of VGI to capture localobservations and interpretations provides contextual data atfine spatio-temporal scales of relevance to communities thatis otherwise unavailable in aggregate data. The merging oflocal knowledge and authoritative information sources candemonstrate differences in opinions and perspectives on riskor vulnerability, providing new insight for improving disasterplanning. Participatory mapping can facilitate co-learning andencourage communication between stakeholders (Lynam et al.,2007). Giordano et al. (2013) demonstrated a participatorymethodology for improving the usability of local knowledgefrom different stakeholders in analyzing drought impactsat Lake Trasimeno in Italy. Synthesis of knowledge fromdifferent sources allowed for identification of the impactsmost relevant to local communities. Haworth et al. (2016)demonstrated both individual and community level benefits ofcommunity-based participatory mapping for bushfire disasterresilience, with participants reporting the personal relevanceof shared knowledge and improved understanding of broadercommunity bushfire risk and preparation levels as valuable toboth community members and authorities.

Social ConnectednessInvolvement in activities that engender a sense of community(feelings of belonging and attachment for people andplaces), efficacy, and problem solving, strengthen peoples’disaster-resilience (Paton and Johnston, 2001). Sense ofcommunity fosters involvement in community disaster responseand increases access to social networks (Paton and Johnston,2001). Well-connected communities are able to draw on internalresources and competencies that will allow them to manage thechallenges of future hazards (Frandsen, 2012) and the role of VGIin fostering social connectedness is well documented (e.g., Tayloret al., 2012). The social aspect of VGI, with people collectivelysharing geographic information, has been shown to be evenmore valuable for community DRR and resilience building thanlocal knowledge (Haworth et al., 2016). Removing constraints oftime or geography, social media have made it simpler to interactwith community members (Dufty, 2012). Analysis of usagetrends during response to cyclones and floods found social mediadirectly contributed to increased disaster resilience throughpromoting connectedness, with individuals feeling supportedand encouraged by others, and was identified as a source ofpsychological first aid for those directly and indirectly affectedby the disaster (Taylor et al., 2012). Social media can increaseand improve social networks, leadership and support systems,and provide support to people during and after a disaster (Dufty,2012). Social capital in the form of trust and social networks is





a recognized source of resilience, enabling a social–ecologicalsystem’s capacity to adapt and shape change (Folke, 2006). Socialmedia can preserve and strengthen existing ties and also facilitatethe creation of new social relations (Dufty, 2012).

EmpowermentVolunteered geographic information promotes decentralizationof top-down power held by disaster authorities and disruptscontrol over the production, handling, and dissemination ofinformation (Haworth, 2016). McLennan and Handmer (2013)argue that for shared responsibility to be effective in developingcommunity disaster resilience, control over decisions must alsobe shared. Through these shifts in control and power, citizensmay become more empowered in their own disaster managementdecision-making, choices, and capacities.

Elwood (2002) framework for assessing three forms ofempowerment associated with community-based participatorygeographic information systems (GISs) can help to understandhow VGI and social media can contribute to empowerment.The first element, distributive empowerment, relates to materialchanges and outcomes allied with greater access to goodsand services and increased participation opportunities (Elwood,2002). VGI has been shown to increase opportunities forpublic involvement in disaster management through tasks suchas volunteer-mapping to assist with humanitarian aid efforts,including for individuals located outside the disaster location(e.g., Meier, 2012). Social media resources like Twitter have alsoempowered individuals with the desire to help in response tocrisis events by enabling remote assistance provision (Starbirdand Palen, 2011).

Procedural change involves shifts in processes resulting incommunities’ contributions and knowledge being granted greaterlegitimacy in decision-making (Elwood, 2002). Respondingto the 2010 Haiti earthquake crisis, VGI and the globalcitizen–volunteer mapping effort harnessing OSM, the UshahidiCrowdmap platform, social media data, and informationcollected via SMS from impacted individuals (see Meier,2012; Crawford and Finn, 2015) influenced decision-makingin an unprecedented way. In this event, and inspired casessince, VGI technologies and practices facilitated collection, use,and legitimation of citizen contributions in ways previouslyunseen, demonstrating capacity for VGI to support proceduraldimensions of empowerment.

And finally, capacity building improves the ability ofcommunities to take action on their own behalf throughskill acquisition, community-based knowledge production,or new understandings of community conditions (Elwood,2002). VGI empowers citizens to georegister and transmittheir own observations through the Internet (Goodchild andGlennon, 2010) and provides mechanisms for empoweringpeople to help themselves and each other, thus enhancingcommunity autonomy and capacity for independence fromemergency authorities for various tasks (e.g., Paton and Irons,2016). Community-based knowledge production and newunderstandings of community conditions have been associatedwith VGI through participatory mapping in community bushfirepreparation (Haworth et al., 2016). Similarly, Taylor et al. (2012)

described the empowerment of individuals and communities tohelp themselves during cyclones and floods where social mediadelivered a new mechanism for connecting with others, whichfor many constituted skill acquisition.

Preparation EngagementIndividual and community disaster preparation to enableeffective emergency response broadly involves both physicalpreparedness activities (e.g., making changes to the home, storingemergency supplies, identifying safe areas) and psychologicalprocesses (e.g., formulating household plans, engaging withneighbors, considering how one might feel, or be affectedemotionally during and after a crisis) (Frandsen, 2012). Frandsen(2012) demonstrated that community engagement is an effective,sustainable, and economical approach to increasing bushfirepreparedness and disaster resilience. However, merely providingrelevant information and community education doesn’t translateto meaningful engagement in disaster preparation (Lindell andPerry, 2000; McGee, 2005; Frandsen et al., 2011; McFarlaneet al., 2011). Engaged preparation is dependent on inclusive andparticipatory approaches to DRR (Frandsen et al., 2011).

Volunteered geographic information provides diversemechanisms for individuals to engage in DRR at multiplespatial scales. For example, global mapping efforts like theHumanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) utilize volunteersto co-create, curate, and disseminate free and up-to-date spatialinformation for disaster management3. These projects involvingmap creation for disaster preparedness (e.g., Malawi FloodPreparedness) harness the potential of the crowd, allowinglarge numbers of people to engage, improving broader disasterawareness, and increasing feelings of self-worth for contributors.The activities also provide geospatial products to assist localpeople and authorities to effectively engage in DRR. Althoughcollaborative online mapping provides greater flexibility forindividual involvement by removing geographical and temporalconstraints (Haworth et al., 2016), participatory mappingthrough less technologically sophisticated platforms, such aspaper sketch maps and three-dimensional maps using pushpins,have also been demonstrated to contribute to engagement inDRR (Gaillard and Pangilinan, 2010).

Collaboration Between StakeholdersCollaborative disaster management is recognized as an importantcontributor to resilience but requires coordination andpre-existing trust between multiple government agencies, NGOs,private sector, and the community (Kapucu, 2008). ThroughVGI technologies and practices, opportunities are createdfor collaborative disaster management between individuals,communities, and authorities, where increased value placedon citizen-information and bottom-up activities can lead toco-operation.

The 2010 Haiti earthquake disaster, which occurred witha dearth of official high-quality spatial information, saw theemergence of crowdsourced and volunteered mapping to meetthe needs of the humanitarian response (see Meier, 2012).

3https://hotosm.org


https://hotosm.orghttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/https://www.frontiersin.org/https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science#articles



Volunteers used OSM and the Ushahidi platform, Crowdmap,to trace satellite imagery, collate information from other onlinesources, and capture reports from people directly in the disasterarea via SMS from mobile phones (Meier, 2012). Here, VGIcreated a new disaster response paradigm in which citizens(in this case largely citizens from other countries) take thelead (Levental, 2012), or at least complement the activitiesof authorities (Heinzelman and Waters, 2010), in emergencyoperations with consequences for disaster management globally.

Developing FlexibilityA resilient system must be flexible to avoid undesirabletransformation (Allison and Hobbs, 2004), with inflexibilityeroding adaptive capacity and leading to what have beentermed “rigidity traps” (Carpenter and Brock, 2008). In a“rigidity trap,” strong self-reinforcing controls prevent theflexibility required for systems to adapt to change, therebyincreasing the risk of system breakdown (Carpenter andBrock, 2008) and preventing movement to a more desirableregime if the current state becomes untenable. A potentialrigidity trap lies in the top-down, “command and control”style of authoritative emergency management. The hierarchical,bureaucratic approach of emergency management, centered onagency control of information, risks limiting resilience throughinflexibility and an inability to adapt to change. Web 2.0 and VGIassist in deconstructing this rigid system by redistributing powerover information creation and sharing among other stakeholders,including private individuals (Haworth, 2016). Through VGI,people are able to contribute alternative representations of andresponses to risk, increasing flexibility in the system with diversityof information.

For instance, social media provided flexibility in crisiscommunication for earthquakes in Japan and Haiti, bombings inIndia, and severe storms in North America and Australia,particularly when power and telecommunications weredisrupted. Sites like Facebook and Twitter became morereliable with robust capacity to handle much larger activityvolumes than other services (Yates and Paquette, 2011; Bird et al.,2012). Through exposing people to new ways of doing things,VGI and social media can add to future flexibility and resilienceby improving citizens’ ability to be agile in other contexts.

Inclusion of alternate viewpoints enabled by VGI throughparticipatory mapping can lead to greater flexibility incorporatedinto decision-making over disaster planning and responsestrategies. For example, local knowledge shared on a communitypreparation map showing potential evacuation sites may revealalternative and improved site options to those designatedby authorities. Participatory mapping provides an enablingenvironment for assessing risks, identifying solutions, and theintegration of various strategy options into action plans (Cadagand Gaillard, 2012), and thus aids in building flexibility intocommunity and authoritative disaster management.

Capacity for Self-OrganizationThe Internet and mobile devices are empowering individualsto organize themselves in ways previously unimaginable, asevidenced by activities such as Wikileaks, Twitter, and citizen

journalism, or the formation of spontaneous volunteering groupslike the Student Volunteer Army in response to the 2011Christchurch earthquake (Neely, 2014). Social media platformsprovided a space for volunteers to mutually self-organize withothers in sharing information and resources in response tothe 2010 Haiti earthquake (Starbird and Palen, 2011) andbushfires in Australia in 2013 (Irons et al., 2015), where VGIenabled a form of self-sufficiency and self-responsibility insharing and coordinating people and resources previously notpossible through more traditional disaster response approachesor communication media. A capacity for self-organization isparticularly important in disaster management, where citizen-ledinitiatives are often more timely, responsive to local needs, andeffective over the longer term than external responses (Scanlonet al., 2014; Whittaker et al., 2015).

THE BAD: POTENTIAL FOR VGI TOUNDERMINE COMMUNITY RESILIENCE

Next we shift focus to the challenges presented by VGI forresilience-building in disaster management, which have potentialto lead to undesirable action or erode a community’s capacity toadapt to the inherent uncertainty associated with living in highrisk areas.

Compounding RiskIt is important to consider the compounding processes inwhich VGI practices may exacerbate disaster risk and theconsequences for disaster response planning and resourcing.VGI initiatives with recognized benefits can also providemechanisms for precipitating other events with potentiallynegative consequences. For example, in January 2013, a requestfor help posted on the Tassie Fires We Can Help (TFWCH)Facebook page (established by a community member tocoordinate the sharing of information and resources related toa bushfire emergency in Tasmania, Australia) identified severalpeople who had become isolated and needed supplies delivered(Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC], 2013). The onlyaccess route was via boat across open water. In responseto the Facebook post, hundreds of people gathered togethergeographically with donated goods, and 35 boats were involved indelivering supplies (Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC],2013). But when water conditions became dangerous, severalboats required rescuing, thus diverting emergency responseefforts and resources. In this instance, VGI practices triggeredunsafe actions and increased the risk of harm to VGI users andothers.

During the Parliament Hill shooting crisis in Ottawa in2014 social media posts unintentionally endangered others(Zoltick, 2014). It was reported that individuals geotaggedat the scene were tweeting live about the events as theyunfolded to indicate they were safe and to keep peopleinformed. This practice publicized their locations as well as thelocation of police response activities for potential exploitationby the then still-active gunman. These practices also haveliability implications for emergency response agencies potentially





acting on misinformation (see the section “Responsibility forCommunity-Led Initiatives”).

Data Quality and TrustData quality is a recognized challenge associated with VGI,including elements such as positional accuracy and contentinaccuracies (see Ostermann and Spinsanti, 2011; Bird et al.,2012; Goodchild and Li, 2012; Haworth, 2016; Senaratneet al., 2017). During the Haiti earthquake response, locationaluncertainty constrained the publishing of reports on Crowdmapto just 3,854 of the 15,000–60,000 reports collected (Morrowet al., 2011) and only 202 of those published reports weremarked as “verified” (Heinzelman and Waters, 2010). In the2011 Queensland floods Crowdmap, 75% of reports wereverified by the map conveners, but many of these hadbeen submitted by identifiable organizations, and, significantly,anonymous individuals were responsible for almost all ofthe unverified messages (Bittner et al., 2016). Pond (2016)argues that treating verification of crowdsourced data as abinary variable (verified or unverified) on platforms such asUshahidi may limit the quantity of information that can beused for situational awareness. There is a need to considerthe cognitive dimension of uncertainty and how perceptionsof reported accuracy translate in decision-making processes(Bruce, 2004). Alternative approaches for communicating datauncertainty extending beyond standard authentication criteriafor determining “truthfulness” and categories of data verificationwould allow the context-specific value of the information tobe judged by end users. Methods for qualifying VGI-deriveddata, which are informed by the communities relying on thosedata, would not restrict the publishing of crowdsourced reportsto those considered by “experts” as verified and would engagepeople in critical assessment of data sources as part of the disasterpreparation process. Although this will assume a level of dataliteracy that may not always be present in end users such asresponders, journalists, or the general public.

There is also potential for people to intentionally shareinformation that is false or misleading, particularly through socialmedia platforms, with demonstrated implications for disastermanagement (Mendoza et al., 2010), responses to terror incidents(Starbird et al., 2014), and financial markets (Rapoza, 2017).Vosoughi et al. (2018) studied news stories distributed on Twitterfrom 2006 to 2017 and found that false information diffusedfarther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than true information,although effects were stronger for false political news than fornews related to terrorism or disasters4. Gupta et al. (2013) studiedthe role of Twitter in spreading fake images during HurricaneSandy, such as images of sharks swimming in flooded motorways.They found that most (86%) of the tweets spreading fake imageswere retweets (as opposed to original tweets) by a very smallproportion (.3%) of Twitter users. While some research existson classifying, measuring, and filtering false information, furtherwork is needed to elucidate why people are motivated to share

4The authors adopt a broad definition of “news,” which refers to any story or claimwith an assertion in it. News was classified as true or false using information fromsix independent fact-checking organizations that exhibited 95–98% agreement onclassifications (see Vosoughi et al., 2018).

misinformation and to comprehend the wider implications of thisbehavior for community disaster resilience.

For resilience, uncertainties in data quality and sourcetrustworthiness have important implications. Trust is importantfor social capital and is necessary for individuals to engage withcollective activities, such as community or neighborhood groups,either online or offline (Valenzuela et al., 2009). Much of theuncertainty around VGI is due to a lack of known credibility ofinformation sources and, therefore, trust (Flanagin and Metzger,2008; Hung et al., 2016; Haworth, 2018). Low levels of trust ininformation provided by the general public were a rationale forTasmanian community members’ limited willingness to engageon social media for bushfire communication (Haworth et al.,2015). Public perceptions of community-supplied informationon Facebook during flooding events revealed VGI was moreup-to-date than government information, but was considered lessaccurate and less trustworthy (Bird et al., 2012).

If trust in VGI is nurtured, for example through past positiveexperiences, future complications may arise if an initiative is notsustainable, platforms are not maintained, past key individualsare absent, or a community becomes reliant on a single system.If people expect a particular previous source of VGI (e.g., aCrowdmap or social media page) to be present this may causetensions in communities, disappointment, or anxiety, all of whichnegatively impact elements of community resilience, such associal capital, empowerment, and individual and communityconfidence. Further, precedence does not necessarily equate toperceived reliability or future proof VGI initiatives.

Exposure to VGI and social media could be embeddedin disaster preparedness programs, involving techniques forusing, interpreting, evaluating, and contributing content to theseplatforms, and management of issues of data quality and trust.Encouraging learning and flexibility to engage effectively in thesenew technologies when confronted with a disaster event wouldstrengthen community and individual resilience.

Under-Representing the “Crowd”Due to the phenomenon of participant inequality (Haklay, 2016)we argue that VGI does not provide adequate opportunity forinclusive community participation. VGI inherently discriminatesbased on technology access and usage patterns associatedwith demographics, socioeconomic circumstances, and technicalskills, knowledge, and interest (see the “digital divide”; Chinnand Fairlie, 2007; Sui et al., 2013). It is also important toremember that the platforms and tools used for VGI datacollection and analysis have traditionally been created by anelite technology industry dominated by mainly Western men.As such, just as critical GIS has highlighted, “the uneven spatialdistribution of technologies across the globe suggests an unevenrepresentativeness of participation in the determination of howthose technologies will be developed” (Burns, 2014, p. 3). Thus,the marginalized are under-represented in VGI and the toolsand modes of data collection and analysis. Information gainedthrough social media or other VGI sources will therefore onlypresent partial and skewed representations (Crawford and Finn,2015; Klonner et al., 2016; Haworth, 2018). Exclusion of somegroups and individuals (Zook et al., 2010; Burns, 2015) means





VGI practices may operate at the detriment of resilience buildingfor some community members.

We must consider who can and does contribute VGI (and whocreates the platforms they rely on). Bittner et al. (2016) critiquethe idea that crisis maps are the product of “ordinary citizens”pooling their expertise. VGI often represents the elite over theordinary, as only those people with time, access to necessarysocial and technological systems, and required skills are ableto contribute (Bittner et al., 2016). Less privileged individualsmay be unable to participate, thus being excluded from theresilience-building benefits of VGI. Marginalized groups andindividuals are often not represented on maps, and, particularlytroubling for resilience, those people already marginalized areoften the most vulnerable to disasters (Hewitt, 1997), especiallysince preparedness information is often not directed at vulnerablegroups (Verrucci et al., 2016). Echoing critiques in the mid-1990sof the uneven community access to GIS technologies (e.g.,Sawicki and Craig, 1996) as well as critique of participatoryGIS in the 2000s (Elwood, 2006), Haworth (2018) recognizesthe importance of understanding barriers to participation incommunity applications of VGI, and Burns (2018) urges usto recognize the social and political imbalances of big data,understanding that representations of the “real world” in data arerooted in spatial inequalities.

Volunteered geographic information may in fact enhanceexisting inequalities and vulnerabilities by further isolating thosealready economically, socially, or technologically disadvantaged,as has also been described for other technologies such as mobilephones (Read et al., 2016). Crawford and Finn (2015) showedhow the crowdmapping efforts of the Haiti earthquake responseexacerbated power differentials between the rich and the Haitianpoor as VGI submitted in the local Kreyòl language was mappedin English only, excluding non-English speakers from benefitingfrom their own contributions. Thus, VGI curation practices andwho is responsible may impact what is included in “ordinaryvoices” (Bittner et al., 2016). Furthermore, the geography oftechnology access has been linked with the geography of risk,whereby those in urban areas with greater Internet access alsoexperience lower disaster risk in contrast to those in ruralor isolated areas with poor Internet and mobile coverage butpotentially greater disaster risk (Haworth, 2016). Even thosewith stable Internet access may have their contributions limitedthrough forms of online censorship, language barriers, or pageranking algorithms, and hence in disaster scenarios VGI mayrepresent only a privileged minority (Bittner et al., 2016).

The nature and characteristics of the “offline community”may also influence participation in an “online community,”particularly for social media, potentially limiting resiliencebuilding. For example, differences between urban and ruralenvironments, whereby sense of community has been shownto be greater in rural communities, positively associated withsocial joining and negatively related to antisocial actions (Roussiet al., 2006), may impact online participation in more dispersedcity communities, reducing the number of people who view, letalone contribute specific VGI together, undermining potentialbenefits such as increased social connectedness. This coupledwith geographic disparities in Internet access further distorts the

picture of who VGI actually represents and in what capacity (i.e.,as passive viewers, information recipients, contributors). Further,it has been shown that strong offline community groups do notnecessarily translate online, being unable to attract large numbersof friends and followers, with key stakeholders remaining passivein social media networks like Twitter (Williamson and Ruming,2015). It has also been argued that VGI activities may be mostuseful for DRR at local community scales (Haworth, 2018).

Critiques of public participation GIS (PPGIS), wherecomplexity of the technologies can contribute to marginalizationof individuals contrary to the promise of citizen-empowerment(Corbett and Keller, 2005), also apply to VGI. Use oftechnologies required for participation in VGI practices,such as computers, the Internet, smartphones, social mediaplatforms, location enabled mobile devices, satellite imagery,and online map-making software may result in a technologicallearning curve effect that precludes “non-experts,” potentiallynegatively impacting community disaster resilience with somepeople disproportionally benefiting while others are left off themaps.

Compromised Privacy and SecurityThe focus on community empowerment and democraticparticipation in much of the geoweb and VGI narrative hastended to equate power with public visibility and neglectedto consider the potential for exploitation of VGI-derived databy external groups (Young and Gilmore, 2014). VGI is oftenpublically available once contributed, potentially increasingvulnerability and risk exposure. Contributors’ informationmay be exposed to unintended uses, either by governments,companies, other individuals, or those with malicious intent.Greater openness exposes users to increased online securitythreats, such as malware, inappropriate content, and breaches ofconfidential information (Shanley et al., 2013).

Many people are not confident in their understanding ofhow and by whom their data can be accessed (Crawford andFinn, 2015). Moreover, in high-stress situations like disastersprivacy may be less of a priority for individuals than in“normal” settings, and thus individuals may be increasinglyvulnerable (Crawford and Finn, 2015). Lack of awareness ofVGI features, such as image geotags captured from GPS-enabledsmartphones, has had demonstrable implications for privacy,personal safety, and the protection of assets (Kruszelnicki, 2012).As data remain on the Internet after their initial use and can berepurposed in other ways, privacy and ethical issues persist intothe future (Shanley et al., 2013). While some digital humanitarianinitiatives have been designed to protect identities (e.g., theLibya Crisis Map; Meier, 2012), further critical research onethical and technical dimensions is needed to establish methodsfor acquisitioning the value of geoweb-enabled platforms fordisaster-prone communities while maintaining their privacy andsecurity (Young and Gilmore, 2014).

Increased Community TensionsTension within communities generated or exacerbated bymapping activities or outcomes can undermine the resilienceof disaster-prone communities. The TFWCH example in which





well-intended vessel owners responded to a VGI-enabled requestfor assistance highlights the potential for serious negativeoutcomes and resultant tensions between those involved.Although facilitating capacity for self-organization, the outcomesof poorly orchestrated logistical response actions such as thismay lead to feelings of blame and resentment; community tiescould be broken, thus reducing community disaster resilience.Carroll et al. (2006) examined sources of social conflict followingwildfires in the American West, finding that conflict can occurwhen social relations are disturbed by non-local entities, leadingto a perceived loss of local agency. VGI can facilitate greaterparticipation of “outsiders” in community responses to disaster,and therefore creates potential for increased community tensionor conflict.

Using VGI and participatory mapping for disaster preparationcan involve the identification of particular residents, properties,or areas as unprepared or problematic in the wider communitycontext. This process may motivate residents to improve theirlevel of preparedness, but may also provoke feelings of shame,guilt, or resentment toward those involved in the mapping.A sense of inadequacy in meeting the standards of others moreactively engaged in DRR may weaken community connectednessand reduce an individual’s confidence in their ability to respondto disaster. Furthermore, VGI contributions may disclosepersonal or sensitive information unrelated to disaster potentiallyleading to tension.

Capacity to participate varies depending on status andposition within the networks producing maps (Bittner et al.,2016). Therefore, VGI in disaster management is linked to thewealth, class status, community connections, reputation, politics,and power of particular community members. Disparitiesbetween individuals may be highlighted or aggravated by whocan and cannot contribute. Berkes and Ross (2013) argue that acommunity resilience approach that integrates socio–ecologicalsystems research and developmental psychology would givegreater recognition to the importance of the ability to copewith divisions within community (Kulig, 2000 as cited in Berkesand Ross, 2013) and key resilience dimensions of communityresources and collective action.

Responsibility for Community-LedInitiativesCommunity-led VGI initiatives promote resilience benefits,including a sense of ownership and power, and foster innovationand projects that work for specific communities. But withownership also comes responsibility and expectations, includingproject establishment, site/platform maintenance, and datamanagement. Community-led social media pages, communitymaps, or other VGI initiatives require some knowledge andexpertise in use of these technologies, and individuals with somelevel of autonomy and community trust who can championthese efforts. Not all communities will have access to this socialcapital – a further limitation to the broader social inclusivenesspotential of VGI. In addition to knowledge and technologicalskills, responsibility for VGI project and data maintenance alsorequires considerable time and resources, which may become

burdensome leading to volunteer fatigue (Deutsch and Ruiz-Córdova, 2015), thus reducing community connectedness anddisaster resilience.

Failure or abandonment of VGI initiatives when contributionscease, or if the responsible personnel change or leave, can haveconsequences. It is important to anticipate potential turnoverswhich may lead to the abandoning of map updates or shiftsin objectives or data use (Gaillard and Maceda, 2009). Thesustainability of a small-scale bushfire risk mapping projectacross Australia, Bushfire Connect, was dependent on not onlythe sustainability of the volunteers, but the relationship of thesevolunteers with supportive emergency management professionalsand how the participating/viewing public regarded the projectand outputs, which ultimately affected its long-term viability(Bittner et al., 2016).

In line with shared responsibility, organizations andcommunities could work together on VGI initiatives in fosteringcommunity disaster resilience. However, consideration needs tobe given to well-documented obstacles associated with agencyinvolvement in participatory style mapping projects. Theseinclude undervaluing of community input, regularity barriers,unpredictability associated with public activities, lack of effectiveadministrative structures, and lack of genuine communityparticipation (Corbett and Keller, 2005; Brown, 2012). Furtherresearch is needed on the social learning value of community-ledVGI initiatives, and community preparedness efforts will benefitfrom dissemination of positive outcome stories, a strategy knownto aid in reducing barriers to participatory approaches such asvolunteer dropout (Deutsch and Ruiz-Córdova, 2015).

Disruptions to Authoritative EmergencyManagementThe potential for VGI practices to disrupt official disastermanagement activities can reduce resilience in impacted orat-risk communities. Public trust gained for social media pagesor VGI contributions for a disaster event presents the risk thatthe public will give precedence to these information sources overofficial disaster information. Disaster messaging is designed to beclear, concise, and consistent to provide the public with accurateand understandable information for given scenarios. Deviationsfrom this messaging can be detrimental to community safety.Further, the accelerated rate of information exchange enabled bysocial media and VGI during an event may become incompatiblewith the logistics involved in coordinating response activities(Pond, 2016). Public preference for multiple disaster informationsources emphasizes that VGI should not aim to replace moretraditional forms of disaster communication (Taylor et al.,2012; Haworth et al., 2015). A balance between bottom-up andtop-down practices needs to be maintained where appropriatevalue is procured from both systems for effective resiliencedevelopment.

The Limits of Data as KnowledgeAs has been noted, “data is not knowledge, nor is it capacityto analyse it” (Read et al., 2016, p. 1315). In order for VGIto contribute to building individual and community disaster





resilience, it is important to recognize the blind spots andlimitations of dominant ways of thinking about data. One of thekey issues is practical; that the capacity to increase the amountof information collected about disasters through VGI and othercrowdsourcing techniques has grown faster than the concurrentincrease in the capacity to analyze that information, in manycases. This can lead to an expectations gap, where people believesharing information in disasters will lead directly to receivingaid, when capacity to respond may not match demand. It alsoinvites a focus on the new and novel in regards to data, oftendriven by advances in technology not response to need (Readet al., 2016), which can exacerbate the problems identified in thesection “Responsibility for Community-Led Initiatives” aroundmaintenance of platforms and ownership of data.

Additionally, increased and increasingly diverse data, whichVGI offers, invite more technological solutions to the problemof analyzing those data. The computational techniques whichdefine these new data forms (Boyd and Crawford, 2012), farfrom automatically empowering affected communities, can makepossible the governance of disaster at a distance, through areliance on “a cybernetic rationality” that “eschews causalityor a need to acknowledge the motives and beliefs that shapeactual behaviour” (Duffield, 2016, p. 147). The resilience thatthese developments offer is not progressive but a “case ofsurvivalism through encouraging improvisation, making do, andinventive bricolage with existing communications infrastructure,architecture and social capital” (Duffield, 2016, p. 148). Fromthis perspective, the optimism around both VGI and resilienceis bound up with neoliberalism which “rework[s] disasters as apositive development opportunity” which requires communitiesexperiencing disasters to take responsibility for their recovery(Duffield, 2016, p. 153).

Instead of leading to a growth in the inclusion of localknowledge, there is the potential for a loss of “ground truth”(Duffield, 2014) and a reliance on technological forms which,drawing on financial modeling and intelligence analysis are“concerned with rendering perceptible and actionable that whichwould otherwise be beyond the threshold of human observation”(Amoore, 2018, p. 1). This has contributed to what Burns (2014)describes as “moments of closure” through a fixing of the politicsof knowledge in which these new technologies privilege andencode as more legitimate certain data forms and a “cyberneticrationality” (Halpern, 2015). This sediments a system in whichdata that can be analyzed computationally are privileged, andso too are those who have the skills to analyze it, underminingthe valuing of local knowledge and knowledge exchange which,as earlier sections noted, have been cited as key to buildingcommunity disaster resilience.

THE UNCERTAIN: AREAS FOR FURTHERRESEARCH

The application and relevance of emergent VGI practices tobuilding community resilience require continuing critical debateinvolving disaster-prone communities, researchers, practitioners,and policy makers. Drawing on recent literature and policy

documents, we considered key elements of resilience to examinethe community disaster resilience-building potential of VGIpractices, and obstacles that may undermine resilience-buildingprocesses. In this concluding section, we focus on areas ofuncertainty where we perceive further work is needed. In doingso, we discuss various points of relevance to both practice-baseddisaster management and the disciplines of geography anddisaster management.

Although beyond the scope of this paper, indicators andframeworks have been offered for measuring communityresilience (Cutter et al., 2010; Renschler et al., 2010). Future workto examine the impacts of VGI practices on resilience throughalignment with these indices may clarify, for example, whetherthe increased risk to personal safety and issues associated withthe digital divide outweigh the potential benefits of VGI, such ascommunity connectedness and risk awareness.

The evolving and relatively embryonic nature of VGI indisaster management means practical adoption of VGI intocurrent emergency management approaches has been limitedto date and harnessing of VGI has often been ad hoc oropportunistic. Despite a growing body of literature (Goodchildand Glennon, 2010; Ostermann and Spinsanti, 2011; Birdet al., 2012; Dufty, 2012; Meier, 2012; Taylor et al., 2012;Shanley et al., 2013; Paton and Irons, 2016; Pond, 2016;Haworth, 2018) and identified opportunities associated with VGI,on-going cultural change involving adaption by authoritativeemergency management to less information control andincreased citizen participation may be required before VGI indisaster management becomes a more established field withmeasurable outcomes for community disaster resilience.

With much research on the data and technologicalcomponents (Granell and Ostermann, 2016), the social andbehavioral elements of VGI are lacking critical analyses; directinggreater attention to issues such as underrepresentation of the“crowd” and the nuances of power relations in online and offlinesocial networks will build confidence in VGI as a resource indeveloping community resilience. Further research on the ethicaland technical dimensions of VGI practices is required to informthe development of novel methods for maintaining the privacyand security of disaster-prone communities. Incorporatingawareness and training on collaborative geoweb technologies,including data ethics, effective VGI practice, and potential digitalfootprint, into community preparedness programs will equipindividuals to make informed judgments on VGI content duringa disaster event and reduce unintended consequences of socialmedia initiatives.

The positioning of VGI within critical GIS has been contested(McCall et al., 2015), but drawing on established approaches tocommunity mapping from within the discipline of geography,such as PPGIS or participatory mapping (Brown and Fagerholm,2015), may offer promise for understanding the social andbehavioral elements of VGI and confining the use of VGItechnologies to spatial scales most conducive to achieving theaim of increased community disaster resilience. By establishingwhich elements of VGI should be emphasized and which requirecareful management, a form of “controlled” or “facilitated” VGIat community scales with pre-established data systems, protocols,





intended outcomes, and appropriate links to authoritativeemergency management may be implemented. This canenable VGI in disaster management to be less opportunistic,data-centric, disruptive to authoritative activities andexclusionary, and allow for more reliable, community-centric,complementary, and socially inclusive practices. Recognitionof the consequences of these divergent outcomes is critical forensuring effective resilience strategies that encourage flexibilityto cope with disaster, self-organizing responses, and inclusiveparticipation.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

BH was responsible for defining the research aims, collating andreviewing the literature and previous research for the discussion,conceptualizing the article structure, writing the manuscript

draft, and figure conception and execution. EB and JW jointlyagreed upon the research objectives; provided supportive analysesand interpretations; and contributed, reviewed, and edited text.RR contributed and edited text, and critically reviewed the articleaims, analyses, and discussion.

FUNDING

The Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre(Australia) supported parts of this research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the journal editors and reviewers for their constructivefeedback and support.

REFERENCESAllison, H. E., and Hobbs, R. J. (2004). Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the

“lock-in trap” of the Western Australian agricultural region. Ecol. Soc. 9:3.doi: 10.5751/ES-00641-090103

Amoore, L. (2018). Cloud geographies: computing, data, sovereignty. Prog. Hum.Geogr. 42, 4–24. doi: 10.1177/0309132516662147

Arbon, P. (2014). Developing a model and tool to measure community disasterresilience. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 29, 12–16.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] (2013). Australian Story: Irons in theFire. PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2012/s3803164.htm

Barnes, P., Bergin, A., and Nichola, D. (2014). Working as one: A RoadMap to Disaster Resilience for Australia. Special report, SR73. Canberra,ACT: The Australian Strategic Policy Institute. doi: 10.1177/0013916508317222

Basolo, V., Steinberg, L. J., Burby, R. J., Levine, J., Cruz, A. M., and Huang, C.(2009). The effects of confidence in government and information on perceivedand actual preparedness for disasters. Environ. Behav. 41, 338–364. doi: 10.1177/0013916508317222

Berkes, F., and Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: toward an integratedapproach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26, 5–20. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2012.736605

Bird, D., Ling, M., and Hayes, K. (2012). Flooding Facebook – the use of socialmedia during the Queensland and Victorian floods. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 27,27–33.

Bittner, C., Michel, B., and Turk, C. (2016). Turning the spotlight on the crowd:examining the participatory ethics and practices of crisis mapping. ACME 15,207–229.

Boon, H. (2014). Investigating rural community communication for flood andbushfire preparedness. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 29, 17–25.

Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Inf. Commun.Soc. 15, 662–679. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878

Brown, G. (2012). Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional andenvironmental planning: reflections on a decade of empirical research.URISA J. 25, 7–18.

Brown, G., and Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping ofecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 119–133.doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007

Bruce, E. (2004). “Spatial uncertainty in marine and coastal GIS,” in GIS for CoastalZone Management, eds D. Bartlett and J. Smith (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press),51–62.

Burns, R. (2014). Moments of closure in the knowledge politics of digitalhumanitarianism. Geoforum 53, 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.02.002

Burns, R. (2015). Rethinking big data in digital humanitarianism: practices,epistemologies, and social relations. GeoJournal 80, 477–490. doi: 10.1007/s10708-014-9599-x

Burns, R. (2018). Datafying disaster: institutional framings of data productionfollowing Superstorm Sandy. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 108, 569–578. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1402673

Burnside-Lawry, J., Akama, Y., and Rogers, P. (2013). Communication researchneeds for building societal disaster resilience. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 28, 29–35.

Cadag, J. R. D., and Gaillard, J. C. (2012). Integrating knowledge and actions indisaster risk reduction: the contribution of participatory mapping. Area 44,100–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01065.x

Carpenter, S. R., and Brock, W. A. (2008). Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecol. Soc.13, 40. doi: 10.5751/ES-02716-130240

Carpenter, S. R., and Gunderson, L. H. (2001). Coping with collapse: ecologicaland social dynamics in ecosystem management. BioScience 51, 451–457.doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0451:CWCEAS]2.0.CO;2

Carroll, M. S., Higgins, L. L., Cohn, P. J., and Burchfield, J. (2006). Communitywildfire events as a source of social conflict. Rural Sociol. 71, 261–280.doi: 10.1526/003601106777789701

Chinn, M., and Fairlie, R. (2007). The determinants of the global digital divide: across-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Econ. Pap.59, 16–44. doi: 10.1093/oep/gpl024

Collier, W. M., Jacobs, K. R., Saxena, A., Baker-Gallegos, J., Carroll, M.,and Yohe, G. W. (2009). Strengthening socio-ecological resilience throughdisaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Identifying gapsin an uncertain world. Environ. Hazards 8, 171–186. doi: 10.3763/ehaz.2009.0021

Corbett, J. M., and Keller, C. P. (2005). An analytical framework toexamine empowerment associated with participatory geographic informationsystems (PGIS). Cartographica 40, 91–102. doi: 10.3138/J590-6354-P38V-4269

Council of Australian Governments [COAG] (2011). National Strategy forDisaster Resilience: Building our Nation’s Resilience to Disasters. Availableat: https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_strategy_disaster_resilience.pdf

Craglia, M., Ostermann, F., and Spinsanti, L. (2012). Digital Earth from visionto practice: making sense of citizen-generated content. Int. J. Dig. Earth 5,398–416. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2012.712273

Crawford, K., and Finn, M. (2015). The limits of crisis data: analytical and ethicalchallenges of using social and mobile data to understand disasters. GeoJournal80, 491–502. doi: 10.1007/s10708-014-9597-z

Cretney, R. (2014). Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies ofsocio-ecological resilience. Geogr. Compass 8, 627–640. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12154

Cutter, S., Burton, C., and Emrich, C. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators forbenchmarking baseline conditions. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 7, 1–24.doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1732

Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? Plan. TheoryPract. 13, 299–233. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.677124


https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00641-090103https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516662147http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2012/s3803164.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2012/s3803164.htmhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508317222https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508317222https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508317222https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508317222https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.02.002https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9599-xhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9599-xhttps://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1402673https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1402673https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01065.xhttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02716-130240https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0451:CWCEAS]2.0.CO;2https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106777789701https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpl024https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2009.0021https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2009.0021https://doi.org/10.3138/J590-6354-P38V-4269https://doi.org/10.3138/J590-6354-P38V-4269https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_strategy_disaster_resilience.pdfhttps://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/national_strategy_disaster_resilience.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2012.712273https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9597-zhttps://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12154https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12154https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1732https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/https://www.frontiersin.org/https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science#articles



Deutsch, W. G., and Ruiz-Córdova, S. S. (2015). Trends, challenges, and responsesof a 20-year, volunteer water monitoring program in Alabama. Ecol. Soc. 20:14.doi: 10.5751/ES-07578-200314

Duffield, M. (2014). From immersion to simulation: remote methodologies and thedecline of area studies. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 41, S75–S94. doi: 10.1080/03056244.2014.976366

Duffield, M. (2016). The resilience of the ruins: towards a critique of digitalhumanitarianism. Resilience 4, 147–165. doi: 10.1080/21693293.2016.1153772

Dufty, N. (2012). Using social media to build community disaster resilience. Aust.J. Emerg. Manag. 27, 40–45.

Elsworth, G., Gilbert, J., Rhodes, A., and Goodman, H. (2009). Community safetyprograms for bushfire: what do they achieve, and how? Aust. J. Emerg. Manag.24, 17–25.

Elwood, S. (2002). GIS use in community planning: a multidimensional analysis ofempowerment. Environ. Plan. A 34, 905–922. doi: 10.1068/a34117

Elwood, S. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: deconstructions,reconstructions, and new research directions. Trans. GIS 10, 693–708.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2006.01023.x

Elwood, S., Goodchild, M. F., and Sui, D. (2012). Researching volunteeredgeographic information: Spatial data, geographic research, and new socialpractice. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 102, 571–590. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2011.595657

Flanagin, A., and Metzger, M. (2008). The credibility of volunteered geographicinformation. GeoJournal 72, 137–148. doi: 10.1007/s10708-008-9188-y

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecologicalsystems analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 253–267. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C., Berkes, F., and Colding, J. (1998). “Ecological practices and socialmechanisms for building resilience and sustainability,” in Linking Social andEcological Systems, eds F. Berkes and C. Folke (London: Cambridge UniversityPress), 414–436.

Frandsen, M. (2012). Promoting Community Bushfire Preparedness: Bridgingthe Theory–Practice Divide. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania,Tasmania.

Frandsen, M., Paton, D., and Sakariassen, K. (2011). Fostering community bushfirepreparedness through engagement and empowerment. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag.26, 23–30.

Gaillard, J. C., and Maceda, E. A. (2009). Participatory three-dimensional mappingfor disaster risk reduction. Particip. Learn. Action 60, 109–118.

Gaillard, J. C., and Pangilinan, M. L. C. J. D. (2010). Participatory mapping forraising disaster risk awareness among the youth. J. Contingen. Crisis Manag. 18,175–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5973.2010.00614.x

Gallopín, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptivecapacity. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 293–303. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2014.05.002

Giordano, R., Preziosi, E., and Romano, E. (2013). Integration of local and scientificknowledge to support drought impact monitoring: some hints from an Italiancase study. Nat. Hazards 69, 523–544. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0724-9

Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography.GeoJournal 69, 211–221. doi: 10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y

Goodchild, M. F., and Glennon, J. A. (2010). Crowd sourcing geographicinformation for disaster response: a research frontier. Int. J. Dig. Earth 3,231–241. doi: 10.1080/17538941003759255

Goodchild, M. F., and Li, L. (2012). Assuring the quality of volunteered geographicinformation. Spatial Stat. 1, 110–120. doi: 10.1016/j.spasta.2012.03.002

Goode, N., McArdle, D., Archer, F., Salmon, P., and Spencer, C. (2015).Characteristics of a disaster resilient Victoria: consensus from thoseinvolved in emergency management activities. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 30,42–47.

Granell, C., and Ostermann, F. O. (2016). Beyond data collection: objectives andmethods of research using VGI and geo-social media for disaster management.Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 59, 231–243. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.01.006

Gupta, A., Lamba, H., Kumaraguru, P., and Joshi, A. (2013). “Faking Sandy:characterizing and identifying fake images on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy,”in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, Rio deJaneiro, 729–736. doi: 10.1145/2487788.2488033

Haklay, M. (2013). “Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information –overview and typology of participation,” in Crowdsourcing Geographic

Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice,eds D. Z. Sui, S. Elwood, and M. F. Goodchild (Berlin: Springer), 105–122.

Haklay, M. (2016). “Why is participation inequality important?,” in EuropeanHandbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information, eds C. Capineri, M.Haklay, H. Huang, V. Antoniou, J. Kettunen, F. Ostermann, et al. (London:Ubiquity Press), 35–44.

Halpern, O. (2015). Beautiful Data: A History of Vision and Reason since 1945.Durham, NC: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822376323

Handmer, J. W., and Dovers, S. R. (1992). A typology of resilience: rethinkinginstitutions for sustainable development. Org. Environ. 9, 482–511.

Haworth, B. (2016). Emergency management perspectives on volunteeredgeographic information: opportunities, challenges and change. Comput.Environ. Urban Syst. 57, 189–198. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.02.009

Haworth, B. (2018). Implications of volunteered geographic information fordisaster management and GIScience: a more complex world of volunteeredgeography. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 108, 226–240. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1321979

Haworth, B., and Bruce, E. (2015). A review of volunteered geographic informationfor disaster management. Geogr. Compass 9, 237–250. doi: 10.1186/1476-072x-10-67

Haworth, B., Bruce, E., and Middleton, P. (2015). Emerging technologies for riskreduction: assessing the potential use of social media and VGI for increasingcommunity engagement. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 30, 36–41.

Haworth, B., Whittaker, J., and Bruce, E. (2016). Assessing the application andvalue of VGI and participatory mapping for community bushfire preparation.Appl. Geogr. 76, 115–127. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.019

Heinzelman, J., and Waters, C. (2010). Crowdsourcing Crisis Information inDisaster-Affected Haiti. Special Report. Washington: United States Institute ofPeace.

Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Harlow:Longman.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol.Syst. 4, 1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Holling, C. S., and Gunderson, J. H. (2002). “Resilience and adaptive cycles,” inPanarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, edsL. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington: Island Press), 25–62.

Hung, K., Kalantari, M., and Rajabifard, A. (2016). Methods for assessing thecredibility of volunteered geographic information in flood response: a casestudy in Brisbane. Aust. Appl. Geogr. 68, 37–47. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.01.005

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2012). Managing the. (risks)of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: ASpecial Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Irons, M., Paton, D., Lester, L., Scott, J., and Martin, A. (2015). “Social media, crisiscommunication and community-led response and recovery: an Australian casestudy,” in Research Forum ath the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC & AFACConference 2014, ed. M. Rumsewicz (Wellington: Bushfire and Natural HazardsCRC).

Kapucu, N. (2008). Collaborative emergency management: better communityorganising, better public preparedness and response. Disasters 32, 239–262.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01037.x

Klonner, C., Marx, S., Usón, T., De Albuquerque, J. P., and Höfle, B. (2016).Volunteered geographic information in natural hazard analysis: a systematicliterature review of current approaches with a focus on preparedness andmitigation. Int. J. Geo

The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: Contributions of ... · volunteered geographic information...

Documents

Transcript of The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: Contributions of ... · volunteered geographic information...