Governing the uses of social media and crowdsourcing in crisis and disaster (risk) management

This special issue addresses the ways in which social media and crowdsourcing (SMCS) technologies and procedures can contribute to disaster resilient societies. SMCS are increasingly being used within communities for gathering and sharing information in all phases of crises (Albris, 2018; Boersma et al., 2019; Cheong & Cheong, 2011; Harrison & Johnson, 2016; Kumar et al., 2019; Nganji & Cockburn, 2020; Wukich & Steinberg, 2013). The uses and challenges of social media in crisis management have been discussed for the last 20 years in the specific field of “crisis informatics” which studies how networked digital technologies, in particular social media from the 2000s onwards, interact with crisis management (Palen et al., 2020; Scholl et al., 2023). In addition, SMCS activities have been recently addressed in national and international policy agendas including those of the European Union (Clark et al., 2024; Galichet & Rizza, 2023; Rizza, 2023a, 2023b). SMCS in crisis and disaster (risk) management is a field that has reflected on multiple issues and uses by different actors of these digital tools during crises, whether due to natural (e.g., earthquakes, forest fires, floods), technological (e.g., chemical explosions, nuclear incidents, plane crashes), or urban hazards (e.g., terrorist attacks, riots). The social media we are referring to in this special issue are platforms or applications that allow their users to create content online, exchange it, consume it, and interact with other users or their environment in real time (Boersma, et al., 2019; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Luna & Pennock, 2018; Reuter et al., 2020). In this context, crowdsourcing can be seen as “a type of participative online activity in which an individual, an institution, a non-profit organization, or company proposes to a group of individuals of varying knowledge, heterogeneity, and number, via a flexible open call, the voluntary undertaking of a task” (Estellés-Arolas & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, 2012; p. 197). Over the years, multiple online platforms have been used in various disaster contexts across the globe in order to facilitate crowdsourcing. Well known examples are Ushahidi, Crisis Tracking, Ready2Help, and Digital Humanitarian Networks (Meier, 2015; Saroj & Pal, 2020; Schmidt et al., 2018). Formal authorities and crisis and disaster management organizations are applying these technologies to communicate risk and early warnings, for monitoring public sentiments, for establishing situational awareness, and for mobilizing volunteers and resources (Bunker et al., 2013; Chatfield & Brajawidagda, 2013; Ludwig et al., 2017; Martín et al., 2020; Mauroner & Heudorfer, 2016). In recent years, the use of social media for crisis and disaster (risk) management purposes has increased considerably and its nature has changed, becoming more collaborative, especially during crises (Reuter et al., 2020). Social media allow users to communicate and interact in different and often combined ways: the creation and dissemination of information, relationship management, communication and self-expression (Rizza, 2023b). Due to its increasing ubiquity in everyday life, its speed as a relay of information and communication, and its accessibility via different platforms, social media have been considered early on as a crisis management and communication opportunity, constituting a place for collecting real-time information about an event (Palen et al., 2010; Vieweg et al., 2010). Social media's uses engage, generally speaking, three dimensions and challenges for practitioners: informational, communicational, and organizational (Rizza, 2023b). At the informational level, social media have been quickly credited with facilitating the creation and sharing of information about an ongoing event. Roughly speaking, there are two ways of using information from social media: to refine situational awareness and to initiate action on the ground with “actionable information” (Coche et al., 2019). While very promising, a common challenge to overcome is that this information does not benefit from the same processing mechanisms that guarantee accuracy, security, and the usual legitimacy of the source of the information by the institution managing the crisis (Rizza, 2023b). At the communicational level, social media can be mobilized as an infrastructure that both clarifies the status of an event by pushing information upwards from the citizen (“bottom-up”) in order to initiate a response if the information is confirmed (actionable information), and disseminates or pushes official institutional information to the citizen (“top down”) (Reuter et al., 2011, 2014; Rizza, 2020). When used as a way for authorities to alert the public and relay official institutional communication, two ways of interacting with citizens constitute two different communication strategies: an “instrumental usage,” characterized by a formal and depersonalised communication about the situation and on the actions carried out in the field or an “expressive usage,” characterized by informal language and personalized, direct responses to citizens, and support and reassurance (Denef et al., 2013; Reuter et al., 2020; St. Denis et al., 2014). In this respect, mutual misunderstanding between institutions and citizens on social media due to language elements such as the use of irony, puns, or ambiguities can occur (Bubendorff et al., 2019; Reuter et al., 2020). Bubendorff et al. (2019) underline the gap in digital culture and ways of acting on social media between institutions and citizens. Although public actors are currently aware of this gap, good practice guides do not seem to be sufficient to bridge it. Recruiting competent agents (who are aware of this digital culture) for assuring these specific positions and tasks is required. Social media also constitute new channels of communication and interaction with citizens beyond a simple top-down information channel (Bubendorff & Rizza, 2022). There is a need to rethink these tools and their uses well in advance of a crisis and as a lever for rebuilding mutual trust between public institutions and citizens (Rizza, 2023b). At the organizational level, social media also constitute a virtual public space for the expression and organization of citizen actions. Its integration requires that institutions reorganize their services and redefine their doctrines and methods (Rizza, 2023b; SRC, 2023). These processes, when taking the diversity within communities into account, have the potential to strengthen and operationalize disaster resilience at local levels and provide opportunities to govern crises more efficiently and inclusively (Keim, MD & Noji, MD, 2011; Rizza, 2023a; Tierney, 2013; Wolbers & Boersma, 2018; Wolbers et al., 2021; Wukich, 2019). However, the conditions for effectively integrating SMCS technologies into crisis and disaster (risk) management are diverse, owing to different institutional, technical, and societal factors (Clark et al., 2024). The current landscape includes a scattering of both formal and informal processes and procedures by authorities, a vastness of technological solutions, and a lack of inclusive strategies and policies for proactively engaging with citizens (Ferguson et al., 2018; Nielsen, Raju, et al., 2024). Moreover, authorities are faced with growing challenges such as the management of misinformation and information overload (Muhammed T & Mathew, 2022). While SMCS technologies can be a helpful means towards this end, there is still a need to better understand how these technologies can be used by multiple stakeholders and integrated in existing crisis and disaster (risk) management operations, strategies and policies. For SMCS technologies to be successful, there is a need for inclusive frameworks, policies, and guidelines as well as clear ethical guidance. In line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the conditions for integrating these technologies into scalable and inclusive crisis and disaster (risk) management should follow an all-of-society approach, involving both public and private actors (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2023). This approach recognizes the opportunity to use the capacity of an increasing number of stakeholders in crisis and disaster (risk) management and to make the use of SMCS more inclusive. This special issue addresses how the use of SMCS continues to have a huge potential in all phases of crisis and disaster (risk) management including response, mitigation, recovery, prevention and preparation. It also addresses various challenges in the use of SMCS and will show that the all-of-society approach is still not embraced by formal authorities and crisis and disaster management organizations to its full potential. Consequently, while SMCS technologies and procedures are widely in use by crisis and disaster management organizations, reaching and including vulnerable groups remains to be a challenge for them. Indeed, the articles included in this special issue point out that the crisis and disaster management organizations struggle with making the SMCS tools more inclusive, while at the same time they are confronted with misinformation and biases. To overcome these challenges, the contributions to this special issue argue that there is a need to invest in institutional change and learning: to fundamentally rethink the way that SMCS is used in concrete practices, to create organizational capacities, and to invest in trusting relationships between the multiple stakeholders involved in SMCS use. This special issue presents seven papers, which critically explore how SMCS technologies can function as bridging mechanisms between public and private actors and between authorities and communities, as well as the conditions needed for strengthening institutional policies, processes, and routines for integrating and applying SMCS in crises and disaster (risk) management. The collection of articles include conceptual and empirical studies and cut across disciplines (including disaster and crisis management studies, public health and public administration, communication and organizational sciences) and methodological approaches. The results from the individual studies are connected through grounded outcomes which address relevant operational, strategic, and policy issues for authorities engaging with SMCS in crisis and disaster (risk) management. The special issue begins by detailing the state-of-the-art of research on SMCS in crisis and disaster (risk) management. In the paper Social Media and Crowdsourcing in Disaster Risk Management: Trends, Gaps and Insights from the Current State of Research, the authors present the results of an extensive literature review of studies published between 2008 and 2023 (Nielsen, Landwehr, et al., 2024). They identify key trends including a predominant focus of research addressing the application of SMCS for preparedness and response related efforts, and call for more holistic approaches addressing other disaster phases including mitigation, recovery, prevention and preparation. In similar vein, Galichet and Rizza (2023) specify that action plans usually comprise the four phases of the crisis management cycle: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery (PPRR stages). While the PPRR stages or the distinction between disaster risk reduction and emergency management constitute two categorizations gathering in a whole the same actions, community development (i.e. supporting social interactions and competencies) constitutes a critical and transverse set of actions which requires specific attention to effectively build resilient society on a territory. Nielsen, Raju, et al. (2024) also point to gaps in the literature which build on primary and empirical data as well as robust comparative studies, and rightly point out that these findings have implications for how researchers interpret and engage with the current body of knowledge, and therefore advise caution on the types of generalizations which are made. Finally, their work exposes important geographic and sociocultural imbalances in research on SMCS in disaster risk management, with fewer studies being published from the Global South. Such imbalances may influence the effectiveness of relevant global and evidence-based frameworks and policies aimed at strengthening SMCS related uses for disasters in disaster-prone regions. The next entry in the special issue examines the landscape of SMCS in crisis and disaster (risk) management from the perspectives of the communities engaging with it. Using social media in disaster management: the perceptions of emergency responders vs. the public, is based on interview and survey data collected across seven countries, and investigates perceptions and expectations of emergency management professionals and the public around usages of social media in crises (Stolero et al., 2024). The insights reveal differences in the acceptance and concerns around social media use, for instance in the unidirectional communication practices often used by emergency professionals versus the desires of the public for more reciprocal and multi-directional dialogue and engagement. Based on the findings, the authors urge emergency management professionals to establish clear guidelines and strategies, which are regularly updated and which take into account practices aimed at fostering a sense of community through social media engagement. This includes considerations for using different social media platforms and tailoring content to reach diverse audiences, sharing stories of unity and resilience, maintaining transparency in communication, and actively seeking feedback from the public to ensure that their practices meet the diverse needs of the public. Diversity and inclusion in crisis and disaster (risk) management communication and engagement are recurring themes in many of the contributions to this special issue. In the next two papers these issues are centered around communication and information needs of specific vulnerable groups. In Mitigating vulnerabilities with social media: a cross-national study of European disaster managers’ practices, the authors present another cross-national comparative analysis of social media practices among disaster management professionals (Torpan et al., 2024). The paper relies on an extensive document analysis and series of interviews conducted across eight European countries, to identify institutional social media practices that may reduce disaster vulnerability. These include sharing educational guidelines, informing and warning the public, identifying the concerns of citizens, identifying missing persons, sharing guidelines during disaster, and organizing volunteers. The authors argue that the integration of these practices by disaster management professionals can improve their capacity to meet the needs of various groups by improving the accessibility and understandability of disaster communications, and will ultimately contribute to reducing socio-structural drivers of disaster vulnerability. Moving from Europe to the United States, these social and political drivers of vulnerability are explored further in the paper, Promoting public health equity through strategic information campaigns on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of pandemic health information campaigns on Twitter in Houston, Texas (Page-Tan & Hope, 2024). By analyzing COVID-19 testing and vaccine-related Twitter posts, the authors aimed to understand the extent to which local government agencies, elected officials, and community-based organizations in Houston, Texas engaged in equitable information campaigns to address health barriers common in vulnerable communities, including issues of access, fear, and language barriers. Their findings show that local government agencies were more likely than elected officials and community-based organizations to engage in equitable information campaigns, noting that these results may be attributed to the different roles the groups have historically played during public health crises, as well as factors relating to the politicization of policies and mandates, misinformation campaigns, and a lack of cohesive coordination and messaging between stakeholders at different levels. The paper concludes with important policy insights which point towards the unique and important positioning of local authorities and stakeholders for mitigating barriers in public health messaging among vulnerable groups. Their local, historical, and cultural experiences and traditions can inform more effective communication processes and civic engagement. Further, the authors recommend that at operational levels, public health messaging should be targeted for different groups within diverse communities, including the use of culturally sensitive and accessible language from trusted sources. The challenges around managing misinformation emerge throughout this special issue, and remain top priorities for authorities working with SMCS in crisis and disaster (risk) management. In Navigating Misinformation in Voice Messages: Identification of User-Centered Features for Digital Interventions, the authors take on these challenges directly through a study which examines and evaluates features of misinformation in voice messages (Hartwig et al., 2024). Using a program to automatically process and identify features of misinformation in the paper a study with to provide insights as to how individuals the of voice as well as which automatically features they to be of The study important and to private individuals in government agencies faced with data overload during crises, and researchers seeking to features for approaches. The two contributions in the special issue around crowdsourcing practices, and the of digital volunteers on a from more formal to as an for examines how institutions tools and experiences for and at the same time support actions et al., 2024). have as trusted agents and for emergency management organizations, by online to and information from social media such as public misinformation and and for the authors that there are still known which need relating to the and of and which may be through the of this point the paper on two studies involving the of a in two in the United the Texas and the They that the to the and in these to for and the opportunities to work with agencies address issues related to and and the with institutions also with a of legitimacy and trust among The results also to and as opportunities for improving institutional and and experiences among and formal emergency the other of the The of Crowdsourcing Disaster and in the examines among the of groups on to in the response and recovery of specific 2024). These online community can be used to exchange information, and and provide In this the the of the in to explore the and of the in the recovery for Using survey responses from engaged with the the paper that while the groups were as helpful for sharing recovery processes, information, existing direct new and they were also as and in due to issues of the of and the of The paper that increased engagement of formal disaster management actors in can to of the such as using official to address and and can also strengthen crisis and disaster (risk) management of formal actors as as local between and For these processes to be crisis and disaster management organizations should and social media plans for which include of how local communities are using social media platforms for crowdsourcing disaster response and resilience The point by (2024) is which for all of the papers in this special issue. The use of SMCS in crisis and disaster (risk) management requires by authorities and crisis and disaster management organizations into flexible communication strategies and into and institutional into tools and solutions, and into inclusive practices for engaging and involving the When in the these actions can to reduce information the of and build trust and local resilience within communities, and ultimately to more uses of resources for crisis and disaster (risk) management. a this also requires policies and aimed at strengthening digital within organizations and facilitating dialogue and among formal and especially in preparedness and research should take these into account and further empirical research on these from other disaster-prone including the Global South. To do all-of-society approaches should be into the next of research on these This and action research which strengthen the of key stakeholders including emergency and local digital private and more vulnerable groups through engagement with community (e.g., social This includes empirical studies on factors into and communication, which channels and communication processes are effective based on different such as social and vulnerabilities et al., 2023; SRC, 2023). Moreover, focus should be to the of growing imbalances in the SMCS and the between and private SMCS the of which as to data for crises management and also a key in the management of misinformation and biases. These have on the and organizational routines of crisis and disaster management institutions working with SMCS There also remains gaps between (e.g., for the management of misinformation and the institutional and to in a research is needed to explore these to provide evidence-based support for the effective and use of for and to policy priorities towards and by social media platforms when needed et al., 2023; SRC, 2023). not for SMCS to be used to its full potential in crisis and disaster (risk) management, more research is needed which the opportunities for making SMCS data more including technical, and data Boersma is a of and societal resilience at has been a of various on crisis and societal resilience in the as well as on the is an in Crisis at is an in the of and crisis management with extensive in and national research the of the for Disaster and the for the currently research in the Europe Rizza is an in and at the for at has been a 2023 at the for various research in crisis management on the digital of actors in emergency how citizen by social are the relationships between public and private institutions and citizens, and attention needs to be to them. research on the resilience of local communities to due to change a national to and a research between and on this