A Critical Evaluation of the Role of Social Media in Crisis Messaging during Disasters
Jessica
1 M3
1
Wickes ,
Heather
2
Koch ,
Zeno Franco,
3
PhD
Student, Urban & Community Health Pathway, 2 M2 Student, Global Health Pathway, 3 Department of Family & Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin
Introduction
In recent years, investigations have
turned to social media, a worldwide
reaching resource prevalent in all levels of
society, and its capability to effect a more
efficient and productive outcome in a
disaster situation.
These capabilities appear promising in
synthesizing a coherent plan in a crisis
situation, but there also exist significant
hindrances to relying sustainably upon
social media as the primary plan for
disaster response situations.1,2,4 These
hindrances are often under-recognized by
technologists developing and researching
these systems.
A systematic literature review and local
key-informant interviews explore the
published and supposed capabilities of
social media in the field of crisis
messaging. The review and interviews
further reflect the limitations of this
communication avenue that often prevent
the immediate adoption of social media in
the important area of public health crisis
communication with at-risk communities.
Method
• Systematic literature review
• Keywords: “disaster” and “social media”
• Source: Google Scholar
• Restricted to recent publications (2012current)
• Interviews with key informants
• Selection criteria ranged from in largescale disaster experience and community
engagement work
• Groups
• Community-based organizations
• Government agencies
• Healthcare systems
• Located in a mid-sized city in the US
Midwest
• Questions focused on familiarity with the
US Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA) “Whole Community”
approach; current relationships between
the marginalized communities,
departments of Public Health, and
healthcare systems; and large-scale
disaster experience
Systematic Review
Year design Country
2013
Authors
Limitations of Using
Social Media (SM)
Glasgow, Fink
posts tagged inappropriately
McClendon,
Robinson
need to decrease ambiguous
information; message content
needs filtering to ensure
relevance; information needs
effective dissemination
targeted populations need
access to technology; need to
better communicate with other
health departments
need to accept that
inaccuracies outweigh waiting
if don't provide timely and
unambiguous information, the
collective will inspire rumors
prevention saves more lives
than response, need to
redirect to risk reduction
need to be able to scale stateof-the-art approaches
"noise" and rumors need to be
filtered out
need to determine if
communicating as one voice or
multichannel; need to avoid
rumor propagation; there can
be an overload of information;
need to protect privacy and
confidentiality
difficult to real-time filter SM
Case
study
Case
study
England
2014
Cross
sectional
USA
Rubin et al.
2013
Case
study
Case
study
USA
Kaufman
2012
2013
India, USA Oh, Agrawal,
Rao
2013
Review
2014
2013
Case
study
Review
2013
Review
Wendling,
Radisch,
Jacobzone
2013
Review
2013
Case
study
Huynh,
Rodrigues,
Rumberger
Ahmed,
Sinnappan
2013
Review
Stevens
USA
Purohit et al.
Hagar
Australia
using secondary data
(newspaper) to evaluate SM
use cannot guarantee
comprehensive, impartial, and
un-biased information
Australia Burgess, Bruns much of the research is
"snapshot“, needs to be more
generalized
USA, India, Imran et al.
need to filter through the
Pakistan
unstructured noise of SM
2013
Case
study
2013
Case
study
2013
Review
2013
Case
study
USA
Yang et al.
2013
Case
study
USA
Burger et al.
2013
Case
study
Japan
Japan
Sakaki et al.
Rasheed
Tanala,
Sakamoto,
Honda
2013
Case
study
Chile, China Paris, Rubin
2013
Case
study
Australia, Flew et al.
New
Zealand
SM has different uses
depending on vicinity, ie
communicating vs retweeting
rumors can disseminate and
gain creditability quickly
large datasets require a great
amount of processing
capabilities
extreme power outages
decrease usability of internet,
cell phone, and social media
posting URLs in tweets to
surpass character limits only
increases rumor spreading
behavior as individuals don't
need to look at URLs to feel
that they support the statement
tourists may be particularly
vulnerable during a disaster
situation
need to identify accurate
information; need to effectively
respond without duplicating
efforts
Results
Conclusions
Virtual Operations Support Teams (VOST) and
government domain websites
Social media allows for a multi-way
communication with people in a crisis situation. It
can be used in a situation geographically far
removed from the actual situation, while
simultaneously allowing those heading the response
to see the situation at the ground level. It allows
resources to be appropriately directed, and
individuals in danger to be quickly informed of the
situation.
Despite the numerous benefits of using social
media as a response system, there are many
potential disadvantages including spreading rumors
and further marginalizing those without access to
media, whether due to age, socioeconomic status,
rural location, or due to immediate situational
circumstances, including loss of internet or phone
service. These consequences have specific
ramifications for public health and crisis
communication to marginalized communities.
Thus, before social media can take the front seat
in society’s response to disaster situations,
communities need to determine how best to
increase engagement, globally increase access to
social media, and sort out false rumors quickly.3,5
Capabilities
• Observe virtually, communicate to public, handle remote
operations
• Continuity despite time zones or geographical conditions
Limitations
• Internet/cellular phone coverage inaccessible in
marginalized communities
• Requires time to share events in fluid environments
• Government websites have been known to crash
• Milwaukee plans to use radio technologies or door-todoor communication to compensate
Hashtag and Geographical Mapping
Capabilities
• Hashtags/user designated locations can map situations
like the Ushahidi Haiti Project and Chicago food
poisonings
• Can filter tweets using hashtags, with phrases such as
“damage”
• In one study 95.45% vs 86.36% of mock casualties were
found using no media vs social media, respectively, and
using social media resulted in individuals found earlier
• Tweets and hashtags enable grassroots responders
Limitations
• Users can relocate quickly during events and designated
locations change falsely or may not be geographical
• In one study, only 0.23% of 53,296 individuals had any
geolocation metadata on their tweets
• Chicago discovered it can be more time-consuming to
map situations than perform simple data extrapolation
Government Communication with Public
Capabilities
• Tool for multi-directional communication
• Individuals express public needs through social media
• About half of respondents reported to Red Cross that
they would be willing to contribute to online databank or
information
Limitations
• Emergency professionals are trusted over governing
authorities
• Organizations are not all experienced in social media
• About 60% of state health departments use social media
• Milwaukee’s public health department (PHD) has about
1200 followers with little response from the public
• Milwaukee’s PHD’s social media presence is not
widespread, but is connected with news reporters
• Statements must be quick, inclusive, and thorough
despite character and education limitations
Retweeting and Social Media Rumors
Capabilities
• Retweeting is collaborative filtering by local community
Limitations
• Boston bombings demonstrated rumors can perpetuate
by retweeting or propagation on official channels
• Chicago and Boston demonstrated that resources are
misallocated due to rumors
Resources
1. Hughes, A. L., Palen, L. (2012) The Evolving Role of the Public
Information Officer: An Examination of Social Media in Emergency
Management, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, 9.
2. Latonero, M., Shklovski, I. (2011) Emergency Management,
Twitter, and Social Media Evangelism. International Journal of
Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, 3, 4,
1–16.
3. Nilsson, S., Brynielsson, J, Granasen, M., et al. (2012) Making
use of New Media for pan-European Crisis Communication,
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information
Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2012),
Vancouver, Canada.
4. Terpstra, T., de Vries, A., Stronkman, R. and Paradies, G. L.
(2012) Towards a realtime Twitter analysis during crises for
operational crisis management, Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis
Response and Management (ISCRAM 2012), Vancouver, Canada.
5. Veil, S. R., Buehner, T. and Palenchar, M. J. (2011) A Work-InProcess Literature Review: Incorporating Social Media in Risk and
Crisis Communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management. 19, 110–122.