Crisis CommuniCation Channels: GooGle reCommendations

Crisis Communication Channels: Google Recommendations

By Matt Abud 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Internews and Google's Disaster Response Team share a deep commitment to developing information tools that can mediate the challenges associated with humanitarian crises. Tech tools positioned in the hands of the right people can reunite families, connect people to safe havens in the midst of a disaster, or help humanitarian organizations navigate the quickly changing terrain when normal life is disrupted by disaster.

In 2012, Google's Disaster Response team and Internews' Humanitarian Communication Program began to look at the range and use of tech tools by communities affected by crisis in the developing world. Internews' Center for Innovation and Learning came forward to contribute a design methodology that could help answer basic questions about what tools have been used in three different disasters in Indonesia: Jakarta's January 2013 floods; Aceh's April 2012 earthquake and tsunami warning; and the ongoing volcano eruption in Rokatenda, Flores, which began in late 2012.

This document tells that story and opens up a broader dialogue of how we can understand the needs of people and organizations in the midst of crisis and develop new protocols, systems, and tools that enhance connection and save lives in times of crisis.

The Internews' Humanitarian Media Team takes a leadership role in understanding how media and communications plays a role in humanitarian crises.

Many thanks are due to a great number of people who helped during this research. They include: the Google Crisis Response team, both for supporting the research and their questions and discussion along the way. Gladys Respati and the whole team at OnTrack Media Indonesia, for going beyond the call with all collaboration and support provided. Juni Soehardjo, for research and several insights in the section on national issues. Many others provided both their time, and greatly facilitated further interviews. They include: colleagues at Palang Merah Indonesia and several IFRC member societies operating in Indonesia, including American Red Cross in Banda Aceh. Staff of local disaster management agencies in Jakarta; in Kupang and Sikka in east Indonesia (BPBD); and in Aceh (BPBA); and of the national disaster management agency (BNPB). Staff at UNOCHA and at the Australia Indonesia Disaster Reduction Facility. The Urban Poor Consortium for facilitating much of the fieldwork in north Jakarta. And of course numerous journalists, editors, humanitarian workers and digital activists in each of the areas researched gave invaluable insights throughout.

Most of all, thanks are due to the residents along the Ciliwung River and in Muara Baru in Jakarta; to the residents displaced from Palue Island; and the residents in Banda Aceh who shared their experiences and perspectives.

Credits

Design: Kirsten Ankers, Citrine Sky Design Front cover photos (from left to right): Oren Murphy, Febi Dwirahmadi and Matt Abud. Back cover photo: Oren Murphy

Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 2 2. Overview.............................................................................................................. 3 3. Methodology....................................................................................................... 4 4. Google Services in Disaster Response: Broad Findings................................... 6

4.1. Google Approaches to Indonesia............................................................................... 6 4.1.1. Google Tool Design............................................................................................ 6 4.1.2. Business Strategies........................................................................................... 6 4.1.3 Targeted Audiences, Targeted Criteria, Targeted Input.............................. 7 4.1.4 Targeted Partnerships........................................................................................ 7

4.2. Information Sources before the flood: Where Google tools fit........................... 8 4.2.1 Information Sources Accessed......................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Trust in Sources................................................................................................... 8

4.3. Information Sources during the flood: Where Google tools fit........................... 9 4.3.1 Google Tools accessed....................................................................................... 9 4.3.2 Rokatenda and Aceh case-studies.................................................................. 10 4.3.3 Use of Google Tools in the Jakarta Floods: Some Observations............... 10

5. Google Services in Disaster Response: Case Study Example..........................11 5.1 Disaster Agencies: Jakarta........................................................................................... 11 5.2 Media: Metro TV, others............................................................................................... 12 5.3 NGOs & Civil Society: RAPI........................................................................................... 12 5.4 Coordination: Google groups mailing list.................................................................. 12 5.5 Digital Volunteers: ODOS.............................................................................................. 13 5.6 Digital volunteers: Blogger groups............................................................................. 13

6. Potential Initiatives............................................................................................14 6.1 Neighborhood Social Networks.................................................................................. 15 6.2 Government Agencies................................................................................................... 16 6.3 Media................................................................................................................................ 17 6.4 Telecommunications Sector....................................................................................... 18 6.5 NGOs & Civil Society...................................................................................................... 19 6.6 Coordination.................................................................................................................... 19 6.7 Digital Volunteers & Communities of Practice........................................................ 19

7. List of Acronyms.................................................................................................21

Crisis Communication Channels: Google Recommendations 1

1 Introduction

This Recommendations document is a specific discussion focused on Google and Google Crisis Response in Indonesia's disaster responses, accompanying and drawing on the findings of Internews' broader Crisis Communications Channels report. That report explores communications ecosystems in three recent disaster response case studies.

Residents have been forced to adapt to frequent floods, with some closest to the river inundated eight times by late February. Photo by Oren Murphy.

In keeping with the focus on information and communication as a life-saving resource in a disaster, Internews focused on the experiences of those most affected and in need, and on the responders whose efforts could meet those needs. The research does not, therefore, incorporate the experiences of those who were less affected and whose lives and wellbeing were not placed at serious risk, even though they may live in nearby or adjoining areas and therefore be affected to a lesser degree.

Overall findings in these Recommendations show a low level of use of Google and Google Crisis Response tools by both affected communities and, perhaps more surprisingly, responders themselves. The report details the individual examples of Google tool use that were encountered, including a review of possible reasons or dynamics that prevent such use from reaching its full potential.

The goal of this research is not to point out limitations, but to suggest potential ways forward. The approach of Crisis Communication Channels, and of this accompanying Recommendations document, rests on an appreciation of the relationships that underpin effective communication. A single tool, service, or piece of information is frequently not enough to provide effective communication. Tools must be familiar and understood; information must be believed; data must flow rapidly to and from actors who know how to use it best; communities must be heard and receive responses to their concerns. All of these are necessary, with the absence of any one element potentially undermining all.

Finally, it is pertinent to note that Indonesia was selected as an example of a developing country that nevertheless shows a wide range of circumstances across a broad geographical area. Many of the features and dynamics identified in the report will have resonance with other developing contexts. However further comparative studies will help refine and isolate those features that generally hold true, and others which may be down to certain factors -- environmental, policy, or otherwise ? particular to a specific country.

2 Crisis Communication Channels: Google Recommendations

Overview

2

These Recommendations draw on the far more detailed case studies in the Crisis Communications Channels report. Specific sections in that report are referenced when needed, rather than repeating large slabs of the same detail here.

The Recommendations document first presents the methodology used to gather this data. It then discusses overall findings on the use of Google Tools, by disaster-affected populations, and by responders and other institutional actors. It then presents detailed individual examples of how Google tools were used, drawn from the Crisis Communications Channels report and highlighting a range of actors. Finally, it outlines a series of potential initiatives that can support improved use of Google tools for the needs of specific actors.

The actors included in this discussion are the same as those in the Crisis Communication Channels, namely:

Neighbourhood Social Networks (networks among affected populations, largely generated through face-to-face or proximity of contact)

Government Agencies

n Media (meaning conventional media outlets: T.V., radio, newspapers)

n Telecommunications sector n NGOs and Civil Society organisations n Coordination (while not an `actor' this cross-cutting area is

highlighted in recognition of the key role it plays in facilitating an effective response, including effective communication flows)

n Digital Volunteers and Communities of Practice (that is, networks connected over and mobilised through digital platforms to provide volunteer humanitarian response)

Church delivery to aid post in Ende regency, Flores. Photo by Matt Abud / Internews Crisis Communication Channels: Google Recommendations 3

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download