Presentation of Roser Beneito-Montagut, Susan Anson, Duncan Shaw and Christopher Brewster on the topic "Governmental Social Media use for Emergency Communication" at ISCRAM2013

1. Japan Tsunami
cc by-nd 2.0 Sorisoro1
Governmental Social Media use for
Emergency Communication
“With the financial support of the Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence
Management of Terrorism and other Security-related Risks Programme
European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs”
Beneito-Montagut, R. ; Anson, S.; Shaw, D. & Brewster, C.

2. 2
Introduction
• During crisis communities need information
•To speed up recovery and help people EMAs
need to engage in a two-way conversation with
the public
• Web 2.0 has proved to be valuable in providing
information during a disaster

3. Structure
• Literature review
– Users / Citizens
– Organizations, Institutions and
Governments
• Methodology
• SM Adoption
– Drivers
– Barriers
• Policy Recommendations
• Conclusions
3

4. 4
Literature review: citizens and media
• The early uses of SM highlighted the active
role of citizens in spreading information
-Use of wiki during 11th September (Palen &
Liu, 2007), blogging, video-blogging and photo
sharing during London Bombings and Indian
Ocean Earthqueake (Meraz, 2006)

5. 5
Literature review: citizens and media
• Consequently, during Hurricane Katrina
traditional media was ready to use Web 2.0.
• SM during Katrina use of Web 2.0 was more
complex:
•Proliferation of databases to search people
•Use of mashups and geolocalisation tools.

6. cc by-sa 2.5 Markus Angermeier cc by-nd 2.0 Matthew Wilkinson
Greenfield, Manchester flood
6
First web 2.0 disasters highlighted
the power of NETWORKED
CONVERSATIONS

7. 7
Literature review
• The crowd is faster than EMAs
• Victoria Tech shooting (Winnerman, 2007;
Palen et al., 2007).
•Mumbai terrorist attacks (Howe, 2008).
• Lately, studies have concentrated on the use of
Twitter and Facebook (Büscher, Mogensen et al.,
2008; Starbird et al., 2010; Hughes and Palen,
2009; Sutton, 2010; Sutton et al., 2008, Vieweg et
al., 2008; Yan Qu, Zhang et al., 2010).
• All agree that micro-blogging is useful as well as
its perils (Castillo, et al, 2011: Waters et al., 2010;
Oh et al., 2011).

8. 8
Literature review: organisations
• Organizations have just recently begun using SM
to address crises (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2009)
• NGOs led the way in adopting SM tools (Barnes
& Mattson, 2008; Liu et al, 2012; Sachoff, 2009;
Waters, 2010)
• Few governmental organisations use SM and
mainly for publishing information, not as an
Emergeny Management tool.
•Few research in govermental use (Denis et al.
2012; Latonero & Shklowski, 2011; Taylor & Kent
2007; Taylor & Perry, 2005).

9. 1 9
Methodology
•Interviews
• focus groups
• online observation
and participations on
SM
Secondary data
SM guidelines
By Mass Energy Lab Inc
Case studies
Content analysis
Quantitative
data on
Internet and
SM usage for
individuals in
each country
and
eGovernment
indicators

10. 10
EU ORGANISATIONS ADOPTION

11. 11

12. 12
SOCIAL
Drivers & Barriers
“What’s the point of using SM? The emergency services cannot afford not
to use SM given all those conversations that actually are going on”
DRIVERS
• Enhanced Outreach
• Build a community
• Real time
engagement
BARRIERS
• Age
• Decision making
•Not aware
• Lack of trust
• Real / Virtual

13. 13
TECHNOLOGICAL
Drivers & Barriers
“The time is slow in terms of adoption; it takes time to catch up with
technology or with the social media flow. ” (interviewee, 2012)
DRIVERS
• Cheap
• Accessible
• No need of high
technological skills
BARRIERS
•Lack of Internet
access
•Lack of equipment
•Lack of skills
•Lack of skills and
knowledge
•Security concerns
•Information control

14. 14
ECONOMIC FACTORS
Drivers & Barriers
This dimension includes the investments that government organisations
has done to adopt social media. It will contain investment in form of
workforce, technological investment or hiring external companies or
consultants (Mergel et al, 2008).
DRIVERS
• Cheap
•No software
investment
BARRIERS
•Lack of staff
•Lack of equipment

15. 15
SOP FACTORS
Drivers & Barriers
It refers to the policies that restrict or support, in form of legislation or
regulations, the use of social media by governmental organisations (Mergel
et al, 2008).
DRIVERS
• Regulation & Policies
•Communication plan
including SM
BARRIERS
•Inter-organisational
problems
•Command & Control
•Lack of regulation &
Policies
•Lack of trust

16. 16
RECOMMENDATIONS

17. DEFINE
OBJECTIVES
IDENTIFY
PLATFORMS
GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE
DEFINE
COMMUNICATION
STRATEGY
PILOTMONITOR
CREATE
COMMUNITY
INSTITUTIONALISE
EVALUATE

18. • If EMAS don’t do it (inform first), PEOPLE will do
• It affects to the INSTITUTION IDENTITY/image
• TALKING with people
• To manage people EXPECTATIONS
• It can be CHEAP… the most of the cases we have
reviewed are not adding costs.
• Social Media is not only about talking with the public, it
can be as well ORGANISATIONAL talking, and staff of
your organisation talking among them.
• It can be an OPERATIONAL TOOL.
18
CONCLUSIONS

19. • The more powerful drivers and barriers are
social.
• The relevant role of the EM entrepreneur.
• The relevance of regulation, policies and
strategies for SM adoption.
• As in other public services, innovation is hard,
and it is even harder in organisations dealing
with uncertain situations.
19
CONCLUSIONS

20. cc by 2.0 James Cridland
20
It is not the technology that keeps us from
innovating – it is the organizational and
institutional difficulties that need to be
overcome (Mergel et al, 2009).

21. 21
Disaster 2.0 (D2.0): Using Web 2.0
applications and Semantic Technologies to
strengthen public resilience to disasters
Thanks!!!
http://www.disaster20.eu/
r.beneito-montagut@aston.ac.uk
@roserrr
Christopher Brewster (PI)
Duncan Shaw
Susan Anson
Roser Beneito-Montagut
Shuangyan Liu
Seyyed Shah
Jill Forrest