Citizens' Communication Habits and Use of ICTs During Crises and Emergencies

This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Please cite the original version: All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. Citizens' Communication Habits and Use of ICTs During Crises and Emergencies Haataja, Matti; Hyvärinen, Jenni; Laajalahti, Anne Haataja, M., Hyvärinen, J., & Laajalahti, A. (2014). Citizens' Communication Habits and Use of ICTs During Crises and Emergencies. Human Technology, 10(2), 138-152. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201411203314 2014 An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments ISSN: 1795-6889 www.humantechnology.jyu.fi Volume 10(2), November 2014, 138–152 138 CITIZENS’ COMMUNICATION HABITS AND USE OF ICTs DURING CRISES AND EMERGENCIES Abstract: In this article, citizens’ communication habits and use of information and communication technologies during crises and emergencies are discussed from the perspective of community resilience. The topic is approached qualitatively by exploring citizens’ perceptions, and the data were gathered by means of focus groups in storm-prone and flood-prone areas in Finland. The results indicate that citizens consider emergency communication to be mostly unidirectional: from authorities to the public. However, because crises are often complex and fast developing, cooperation among response organizations and citizen groups is needed to coproduce safety and in adapting to changing situations. Organizations wanting citizens to participate proactively in emergency management should raise citizens’ awareness of the means and possibilities to contribute, because these informants’ expectation that authorities would welcome their input was low. Based on the results, public participation could be supported further by credible actors, such as local volunteer organizations. Keywords: citizen participation, emergency communication, information and communication technology. INTRODUCTION During crises and emergencies, citizens use various channels and methods to communicate and to receive information from authorities and each other. During recent years, citizens have been making increased use of social media to communicate about crisisand emergency-related events. By definition, social media platforms are interactive, and thus they enable everyone interested to shift between the roles of consumer and producer of information (Currie, 2009). © 2014 Matti Haataja, Jenni Hyvärinen, & Anne Laajalahti, and the Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201411203314 Anne Laajalahti Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Matti Haataja The Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Jenni Hyvärinen The Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Citizens’ Communication During Crises and Emergencies 139 This is convenient because public crises create not only the need for information, but also the need to interact and share opinions with other citizens (Sutton, Palen, & Shklovski, 2008). From the citizens’ point of view, arguably the main function of social media in times of crises is to serve as an additional source of information and a way to share information. However, as noted by Reuter, Heger, and Pipek (2013), rather than actively contributing by creating or sharing information, the majority of social media users are readers. As such, they simply consume and acquire information for their own purposes in order to develop general situational awareness and to obtain information regarding possible instructions and protective measures. Also, traditionally, the direction of emergency communication has usually been from authorities to the public. In this sense, it is hardly surprising that nowadays, even though there are other possibilities, the majority of crisis and emergency management organizations that use social media use it mainly as a one-way dissemination tool, as an additional channel complementing traditional channels such as radio and television (e.g., Currie, 2009; Lindsay, 2011, p. 1). Because crises are often complex and fast developing, the problems created by crises cannot always be solved by crisis communication and management experts alone. Thus, successful emergency management necessitates cooperation among various organizations in the response network, as well as between response organizations and citizen groups. The inclusion of ordinary citizens, citizen groups, and communities into the crisis preparedness and response network—known as the “whole community approach”—has been proposed by many scholars (e.g., Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004; Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008) and by practitioners (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency [United States of America; FEMA], 2011; United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2011). Included in the whole community approach are response organizations, other relevant organizations, and citizens as coproducers of information in the crisis and emergency management system (FEMA, 2011). Although the need for “collaborative resilience,” the ability to be resilient and cope with crises through collaboration between organizations and citizens (Goldstein, 2011), has been identified, few studies have concentrated on elaborating what motivates citizens to contribute and participate in crisis preparation and response. Furthermore, because the currently available information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as applications of social media, enable citizen participation, we seek in our research to deepen understanding on how the relevant ICTs can be used to facilitate the participation of citizens in collaborative resilience and on how that participation could be supported by crisis and emergency management organizations. Individual citizens can be viewed as having different types of roles in crises and emergencies. First, everyone is interested in his or her own well-being, safety, and security. To this end, individuals use various channels to obtain information. Lately, the use of social media as a means for communicating about crises and emergencies has received much attention (see, e.g., Beneito-Montagut, Anson, Shaw, & Brewster, 2013; Goolsby, 2010; Hughes & Palen, 2009). Although an inseparable component of daily communication for some, the adoption of the most popular applications of social media vary across geographical areas and demographic groups (e.g., age groups). Despite its popularity, statistics show that nonadopters of social media exist even in more technologically advanced countries, such as in Finland, especially among older age groups (Finnish Broadcasting Company, 2013). Based on differences in the adoption of ICTs among individuals, we reasonably can assume that individuals will vary in preferred methods and channels for crisis and emergency Haataja, Hyvärinen, & Laajalahti 140 communication. Furthermore, preparedness should not be seen only from an individual perspective, but from a community perspective as well. As mentioned above, we assume in this article that citizens take on a variety of roles in emergencies, perhaps as a volunteer in an organization or by participating informally. Besides personal well-being, individuals are interested in and concerned about the well-being of their family and friends. Even when the given event does not concern individuals personally or members of their immediate close circles, citizens in the affected areas are often willing and able to function on their own behalf to build up community resilience and help others when given the possibility (e.g., Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004). The purpose of this study is to elaborate on and build further understanding of how and via what ICTs citizens prefer to communicate in their different potential roles in crises and emergencies. RESEARCH METHOD AND DATA COLLECTION This study was conducted to explore and build further knowledge on (a) ordinary citizens’ communication habits and their current use of ICTs in crisis and emergency situations and (b) the various communication needs citizens have and how well the potential new ICT solutions meet these needs. The aim was also to gain further insight into what solutions could match the existing communication needs of individuals and how the acceptance of relevant upcoming technology could be enhanced among potential future adopters. The research task was approached qualitatively by eliciting ordinary citizens’ descriptions of their (a) information needs, (b) information sharing activities, and (c) use of ICTs in crisis and emergency situations. We conducted three focus groups (see, e.g., Krueger & Casey, 2009; Liamputtong, 2011; Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007) in Finland, 24–29 September, 2012. Before gathering the research data, the discussion topics and questions were piloted in a test discussion among five recruited university students or staff members. The phrasing of discussion topics and questions were adjusted slightly based on the feedback received. In addition, the purpose of the pilot was to practice the timing and researcher roles and to set up and test the audio recording equipment. The pilot discussion was not included in the research data. The participants for the focus groups were recruited through a multimethod process. Local community members were contacted via regional organizations, such as local branches of the Red Cross, volunteer rescue services, and local fire departments, which spread the word and promoted participation by forwarding an email invitation to take part in the research and by putting pamphlets to their noticeboards. Focus group sessions were announced in local newspapers, and the authors also recruited participants by handing out leaflets face-to-face in local library and shops. The objective was to form heterogeneous groups of males and females of different ages and backgrounds. Nevertheless, no specific demographic criteria were applied in selecting participants and all volunteers willing to take part in focus groups were included in one of the three sessions. Ultimately, 21 participants (15 females and 6 males) were recruited for the three focus group sessions, which consisted of six to nine participants with at least one man in each group. Participants were between 27 and 69 years old, with an average age of 52. Thus, compared to average age of the population Citizens’ Communication During Crises and Emergencies 141 of Finland (40.1 years for men, 43.1 for women), the participants represented a somewhat older group of the public (Statistics Finland, 2013). The focus groups were held in two locations: one in a rural area prone to and with a recent experience of intense storms and two others in a medium-sized city prone to and also with recent experience of flooding. However, the aim of the focus groups was not to compare the views expressed in the different sessions, but rather to hear a diversity of views while ensuring that each group of participants had enough in common to generate discussion from a community point of view. In addition to storms and floods, participants could describe their experiences related to other types of crises or emergencies. Around half of the participants (n = 10) had experienced personally a crisis or emergency situation. However, because all the participants lived in a storm-prone or a flood-prone area, they all had opinions and, based on the transcripts of the sessions, at least second-hand experiences on the topic. The participants seemed rather comfortable in taking part in the discussion topics. All three focus group sessions addressed the same three discussion topics. The first concerned the information needs of citizens in crisis and emergency situations and from where they would seek or have sought information. A second topic concerned how, with whom, and via what ICT devices/services they prefer to share information and what future preferences they perceived having. The third discussion topic concerned the existing customs, preferences, and needs regarding the use of different ICTs during crises and emergencies. The role of the researchers was quite active, and specific questions were asked during all three focus group sessions. At the beginning of each focus group session, we provided all the relevant information about the purpose of the session, its agenda, and about the research project itself. We then introduced and explained the roles of the researchers present in the session. Next, the participants signed the informed consent form and provided some background information regarding, for example, their previous experiences with crises, by completing a short survey. When the writing tasks were complete, we activated the audio recording equipment and the meetings continued with the participants introducing themselves before proceeding to the focused discussion. The sessions were held in Finnish, and all the participants were native speakers of Finnish. Each of the three group discussions lasted about 1.5 hours. The atmosphere was informal but focused. Four researchers were present in each focus group, with each fulfilling a specific role in each session. One person served as the main moderator; she focused on the process, presided over the session, asked the questions, and kept the discussions on track. A second person was the assistant moderator, who verified that all the contents were addressed and asked impromptu questions if the group did not address some key points. He also took notes and kept track of time. A third person was the host or facilitator who ensured that everything went smoothly. She also monitored the audio equipment. A fourth person, hired to transcribe the data, kept a log of the speaking order of participants throughout the discussion. The focus group sessions were audiotaped and transcribed in an anonymized way for data analysis. This resulted in 107 pages (35,789 words) of material for further analysis. The analytical method was a data-driven qualitative content analysis (see, e.g., Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000). The content was organized according to the themes, with attention on emerging subthemes. Although the data were analyzed as a whole, the three sessions remained Haataja, Hyvärinen, & Laajalahti 142 distinguishable to facilitate the in-depth analysis of the data and an understanding of the participants’ experiences from a community approach. RESEARCH FINDINGS Citizens’ Information Needs During Crises In connection with the first discussion topic, the participants were asked to talk about what their information needs were/would be in order to cope with various crises, emergencies, or acute disruptive events. The participants also were asked to evaluate the subject from the perspective of their possible roles, specifically in respect to personal safety and situational awareness (a) as a parent or family member, (b) as an employee, and (c) as a member of the community. On the topic of information needs, the desire and need to know the status of close family members and friends was discussed the most by the participants. Special consideration was given to individuals belonging to a potentially vulnerable group, such as elderly people and children. In line with the literature (e.g., Reynolds & Seeger, 2005), the participants also highlighted the need for communication to reduce uncertainties regarding the impact of a given event. Individuals preferred to know explicitly if the event or incident concerned them or their family and close friends. One participant described the need in a following way: First thing to spring to my mind, especially now that I have small children [and] if I would not be with them, I would need to know how to reach them or somebody in their presence, by phone, to ensure everything is alright—or to know if the event or incident even affected my family in the first place. (G3/P2)1 In relation to uncertainty, informants noted that although receiving relevant information is essential, it is equally important that the information is disseminated in a timely fashion. On this issue, the participants criticized authorities in prior crisis situations for being too slow in providing information to the public. In line with Veil, Buehner, and Palenchar (2011), the participants stated that even if the authorities do not have a comprehensive view on a given incident, they should communicate nevertheless with the public as rapidly as possible and provide regular updates in order to give the public the sense that the authorities are aware of the situation, that they are taking action, and that all citizens are being cared for. In other words, the participants were thinking that “it would be better to hear at least something than to not hear anything” (G2/P2), and that “if it’s a storm or something, it would be nice to hear every now and then at least the fact that the authorities don’t know more, so you wouldn’t have to think that they might be concealing something” (G2/P4). The participants also provided several concrete examples of the types of events, topics, and possible risks that should be communicated. According to the informants and following the general guidelines of emergency communication (e.g., United States National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, 2000), such information or notification should include, for example, the magnitude and duration of the incident, precautionary actions that could be taken, and details on where to find additional information on the subject. Citizens’ Communication During Crises and Emergencies 143 Citizens’ Information Sharing During Crises The second discussion topic was how and with whom the participants themselves would like to communicate and share information in crises and emergencies. In addition, they were asked to discuss what kind of information they would share and via which media. In line with the outcome of the first discussion topic, the participants in all three groups stated rather unanimously that, first and foremost, they would try to make contact with their close family or friends. The participants also mentioned the concept of “neighbor help,” reporting that they would try to contact neighbors and others living nearby, even those unfamiliar to them or strangers. The idea of helping those geographically close was discussed most concretely in the session that took place in the rural area, where the participants said they were sure to receive help from the local community when in need. That idea was described, for example, as follows: I think that in that kind of [crisis] situations, if the neighbors and other friends were okay, they surely would invite me to their place to stay overnight. I can remember one summer when a birch tree fell and crushed a playhouse in our backyard. Somebody called immediately and asked if we needed help. (G1/P3) The participants from the urban area indicated that volunteer citizen organizations could be a relevant actor for gathering information, mobilizing help, and allocating resources in line with community needs. They also remembered local radio broadcasts of messages about the possibility of lending water pumps to citizens during a flood in the city area. On the question of how to encourage people to participate in voluntary support activities, the participants suggested that the request to participate come from someone within their social network or from a volunteer group rather than from the authorities because “if the person who asks you to join a voluntary group is somebody you know, it’s more probable that you will take part” (G2/P4). For this, social media was seen as a potential platform. The participants felt that officials and authorities can be difficult to reach when needed. Participants suggested a two-level call service in which less time-critical yet important topics or questions could be directed to one number while emergency situations would be reported to another. Contacting authorities directly and using, for example, personal email was assumed to be an impossible option because they did not expect authorities to accept personal contact. On the whole, the participants were skeptical as to how authorities regard or value any information, observations, or contribution offered by the public. They did not expect authorities to be receptive, as stated by one participant: “And how would the authorities treat this kind of information? Meaning they would just ignore the information, for example, if you would warn them about some suspicious bag lying somewhere...” (G2/P2). However, the participants felt that, as local residents, they could have exceptional and invaluable knowledge about the surrounding environment and conditions and so could be of assistance to authorities: And it’s always the people who actually live in the area: They’re the ones who have the best knowledge concerning the surrounding environment. I’m guessing they are the ones who could be of assistance to the authorities. (G3/P3) They know the local conditions the best. (G3/P4) Yes, that’s right! (G3/P3) Haataja, Hyvärinen, & Laajalahti 144 Citizens’ Use of ICTs During Crises The third discussion topic dealt with the use of ICTs for communicating about crisis and emergency situations. The participants were asked to discuss what technologies they have used in previous situations and why and to tell what they had learned from such experiences. Participants also were asked what ICTs they would prefer to use in the future. A trend towards the use of multiple channels and methods for communicating emerged clearly from the discussions, as the majority of the participants reported using mobile phone, television, radio, and the Internet to receive and acquire information during crises and emergencies. From among all the communication devices and methods discussed, the most discussion time was spent on the use, benefits, and potential of mobile phones. During incidents, the ability to communicate directly with a human representative from a responsible organization via a mobile phone was highlighted. In addition, the mobile phone was noted as valuable for contacting other individuals—even those with whom they have no personal relationship— from the same geographical community, for example, contacting neighbors to warn them about possible security threats and burglaries. This kind of behavior was discussed, in particular, during the session with the participants from the rural area, where sharing information and helping other members of the community more often involved calling neighbors, as opposed to using social media. The importance of mobile phones during crises and emergencies was highlighted, for example, in the following way: Well, this is absolutely the best device [points to the mobile phone] because it is always with you in dangerous situations and it is the first one you use. I have used this many times to call an ambulance and sometimes also the fire service. (G1/P5) In addition, the ability of mobile phones to provide better means in general to reach people and to receive and provide timely information was discussed in depth. The mobile phone had the advantage of always being with the user and typically always switched on, qualities lacking in the case of many other information channels. The possibility to use mobile phones as a channel to present early warnings also was suggested: I feel it would be useful if the authorities would send mass text messages targeted to a specific area. This would be something I would like to use myself, as I would receive the information promptly because I have my phone always near me and turned on. (G3/P4) However, participants acknowledged that mobile phones do have limitations. Particularly during blackouts, phones may run out of power and not be chargeable. Additionally, a phone might be turned off or muted from time to time. During every discussion session, the radio was seen as a convenient source of information in emergency situations, also during power outages. The participants considered the radio especially suitable for receiving information when driving. In addition, the capability of radio technology to disseminate information to a specific area was seen as a convenient feature. The use of the Internet for receiving and finding information was discussed during the sessions. The participants reported using various Internet sources to search for specific information. Several participants stated that they follow the progress of events via news media Web sites. The convenience of using these sites was seen to be influenced by their everyday use as the source for other information needs: “I think that it [the selection of a Web Citizens’ Communication During Crises and Emergencies 145 page from which one starts to seek information] is mainly a question of your habitual use of the Internet” (G1/P6). The same sources preferred in normal conditions were preferred as well in crisis situations, although with higher frequency. This confirms the relevance of media use habits as described in the literature (Vihalemm, Kiisel, & Harro-Loit, 2012). Obtaining information from the Web sites operated by cities or municipalities was seen as troublesome because, in the experience and opinion of the participants, these sites are not updated frequently or fast enough in a crisis, thus making the information appear out of date, inaccurate, and thus unreliable. However, when they first hear about an incident from another source, the participants noted they often will check the local authorities’ sites to see if officials have reacted in any way to the situation. The participants discussed this situation, for example, in a following way: The thing with the municipality’s Web sites is that they only work [are updated] during the daytime, when the authorities are working. I have at times tried to find some information from their sites concerning some situation but it has never been successful. (G2/P5) And then it [information] gets easily out of date because there is no one to take care of this. (G2/P2) Yeah, the government and the municipality, they are, like, so unreliable. (G2/P6) In general, when seeking information from the Internet, the participants reported that they hardly ever rely on a single source. The general procedure seemed to be to seek confirmation of received information from several different sources in forming a comprehensive understanding of a given event. Thus, the necessity for the response network to cooperate and align information was highlighted. The role of social media in communicating about emergency-related matters and situations did not receive as much coverage as the other information sources and communication channels. For example, Twitter was not mentioned in any of the group discussions. This can be explained by the fact that, in Finland, Twitter is used less frequently than Facebook. The low level of importance of social media during the discussions can be explained in part by looking into the demographics on the adoption rate of Facebook, the most popular social media platform in Finland. According to 2012 statistics, the adoption rate of Facebook among Finns born in 1960 (the average birth year of our participants) was just 29% (Finnish Broadcasting Company, 2013) but rising. Nevertheless, the regular social media users in the groups raised the possibility of utilizing social media, more specifically Facebook, for various purposes in the crisis and emergency domains. For example, they suggested that local volunteer groups could use Facebook to send requests for assistance to the public. In addition, individuals themselves could use Facebook to ask friends and acquaintances for help in a crisis. This was seen as a convenient means to contact most close friends and family simultaneously. The possibility of sharing a photo from the scene of an accident via social media was discussed in one focus group session, where one of the participants mentioned having done so and others had seen posts with similar content by social media users reporting incidents as eyewitnesses. During this conversation, the participants also discussed the ethics of publishing photos of accidents online, especially in a life-threatening situation. Participants expressed doubts about the reliability of information disseminated in social media. Discussion also dealt with the emotional stress of reading and going through Haataja, Hyvärinen, & Laajalahti 152 Authors’ Note This study is part of the research project Public Empowerment Policies for Crisis Management (see www.projectPEP.eu) that has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 284927. All correspondence should be addressed to Matti Haataja Faculty of Information Technology, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems University of Jyväskylä PL 35 (Agora) 40014 University of Jyväskylä [email protected] Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments ISSN 1795-6889 www.humantechnology.jyu.fi