skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702171acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

XHELP: Design of a Cross-Platform Social-Media Application to Support Volunteer Moderators in Disasters

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent disasters have shown an increase in the significance of social media for both affected citizens and volunteers alike in the coordination of information and organization of relief activities, often independently of and in addition to the official emergency response. Existing research mainly focuses on the way in which individual platforms are used by volunteers in response to disasters. This paper examines the use of social media during the European Floods of 2013 and proposes a novel cross-social-media application for volunteers. Besides comprehensive analysis of volunteer communities, interviews were conducted with "digital volunteers" such as Facebook moderators of disaster-related groups. Based on the challenges identified, we designed and implemented the cross-social-media application "XHELP", which allows information to be both, acquired and distributed cross-media and cross-channel. The evaluation with 20 users leads to further design requirements for applications aiming to support volunteer moderators during disasters.

References

  1. Birkbak, A. Crystallizations in the Blizzard: Contrasting Informal Emergency Collaboration In Facebook Groups. Proc. NordiCHI (2012), 428--437. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. BITKOM. Soziale Netzwerke 2013 - Eine repräsentative Untersuchung zur Nutzung sozialer Netzwerke im Internet. Berlin, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. http://www.brandwatch.com/brandwatch-analyticsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, C., Carolina, N., and Ractham, P. Lessons Learned from the Use of Social Media in Combating a Crisis: A Case Study of 2011 Thailand Flooding Disaster. Proc. ICIS (2012), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, C., McCarthy, T., Perkins, A., and Bharadwaj, A. Designing for the Deluge: Understanding & Supporting the Distributed, Collaborative Work of Crisis Volunteers. Proc. CSCW (2014), 888--899. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. St. Denis, L., Anderson, K.M., and Palen, L. Mastering Social Media: An Analysis of Jefferson County's Communications during the 2013 Colorado Floods. Proc. ISCRAM (2014), 737--746.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. St. Denis, L., Hughes, A., and Palen, L. Trial by Fire: The Deployment of Trusted Digital Volunteers in the 2011 Shadow Lake Fire. Proc. ISCRAM (2012), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dörk, M., Gruen, D., Williamson, C., and Carpendale, S. A Visual backchannel for large-scale events. IEEE TVCG 16, 6 (2010), 1129--1138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dou, W., Yu, L., Wang, X., Ma, Z., and Ribarsky, W. HierarchicalTopics: Visually exploring large text collections using topic hierarchies. IEEE TVCG 19, 12 (2013), 2002--2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Fuchs, G., Andrienko, N., Andrienko, G., Bothe, S., and Stange, H. Tracing the German Centennial Flood in the Stream of Tweets: First Lessons Learned. SIGSPATIAL GeoCrowd (2013), 2--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gao, H., Barbier, G., and Goolsby, R. Harnessing the Crowdsourcing Power of Social Media for Disaster Relief. IEEE Intelligent Systems 26, 3 (2011), 10--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. http://geofeedia.com/how-it-worksGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Heverin, T. and Zach, L. Microblogging for Crisis Communication: Examination of Twitter Use in Response to a 2009 Violent Crisis in the Seattle-Tacoma, Washington Area. Proc. ISCRAM (2010), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofmann, M., Betke, H., and Sackmann, S. Hands2Help -- Ein App-basiertes Konzept zur Koordination Freiwilliger Helfer. i-com 13, 1 (2014), 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. https://hootsuite.com/products/platformGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hughes, A., Denis, L.A.S., Palen, L., and Anderson, K.M. Online Public Communications by Police & Fire Services during the 2012 Hurricane Sandy. Proc. CHI (2014), 1505--1514. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons 53, 1 (2010), 59--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kaufhold, M.-A. and Reuter, C. Vernetzte Selbsthilfe in Sozialen Medien am Beispiel des Hochwassers 2013 / Linked Self-Help in Social Media using the example of the Floods 2013 in Germany. i-com 13, 1 (2014), 20--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Ludwig, T., Reuter, C., Siebigteroth, T., and Pipek, V. CrowdMonitor: Mobile Crowd Sensing for Assessing Physical and Digital Activities of Citizens during Emergencies. Proc. CHI (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Marcus, A., Bernstein, M., and Badar, O. Twitinfo: aggregating and visualizing microblogs for event exploration. Proc. CHI (2011), 227--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. McClendon, S. and Robinson, A.C. Leveraging Geospatially-Oriented Social Media Communications in Disaster Response. Proc. ISCRAM (2012), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nielsen, J. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Oh, O., Agrawal, M., and Rao, H.R. Community Intelligence and Social Media Services: A Rumor Theoretic Analysis of Tweets during Social Crises. MISQ 37, 2 (2013), 407--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Okolloh, O. Ushahidi, or "testimony": Web 2.0 tools for crowdsourcing crisis information. Participatory Learning and Action 59, 1 (2009), 65--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Perng, S.-Y., Büscher, M., Wood, L., et al. Peripheral response: Microblogging during the 22/7/2011 Norway attacks. Proc. ISCRAM (2012), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Pohl, D. Social Media Analysis for Crisis Management: A Brief Survey. Special Technical Community on Social Networking. IEEE STCSN E-Letter 2, 1 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Qu, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, P., and Zhang, J. Microblogging after a Major Disaster in China: A Case Study of the 2010 Yushu Earthquake. Proc. CSCW (2011), 25--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Quarantelli, E.L. Emergent Citizen Groups in Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Activities. 1984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Reilly, W.S.N., Guarino, S.L., and Kellihan, B. ModelBased Measurement of Situation Awareness. Proc. WSC (2007), 1353--1360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Reuter, C., Heger, O., and Pipek, V. Combining Real and Virtual Volunteers through Social Media. Proc. ISCRAM (2013), 780--790.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Reuter, C., Marx, A., and Pipek, V. Crisis Management 2.0: Towards a Systematization of Social Software Use in Crisis Situations. IIJISCRAM 4, 1 (2012), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Reuter, C., Ritzkatis, M., and Ludwig, T. Entwicklung eines SOA-basierten und anpassbaren Bewertungsdienstes für Inhalte aus sozialen Medien. Informatik 2014 (LNI) (2014), 977--988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Reuter, C. Emergent Collaboration Infrastructures: Technology Design for Inter-Organizational Crisis Management (Ph.D. Thesis). Springer Gabler, Siegen, Germany, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson, A., Savelyev, A., Pezanowski, S., and MacEachren, A.M. Understanding the Utility of Geospatial Information in Social Media. Proc. ISCRAM (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. http://sproutsocial.com/featuresGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Stallings, R.A. and Quarantelli, E.L. Emergent Citizen Groups and Emergency Management. Public Administration Review 45, Special Issue (1985), 93--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Starbird, K. and Palen, L. Voluntweeters: SelfOrganizing by Digital Volunteers in Times of Crisis. In Proc. CHI. Vancouver, Canada (2011), 1071--1080. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Starbird, K. and Palen, L. (How) Will the Revolution be Retweeted? Information Diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian Uprising. Proc. CSCW (2012), 7--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Starbird, K. and Stamberger, J. Tweak the Tweet: Leveraging Microblogging Proliferation with a Prescriptive Syntax to Support Citizen Reporting. Proc. ISCRAM (2010), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Terpstra, T., Vries, A. de, Stronkman, R., and Paradies, G.L. Towards a realtime Twitter analysis during crises for operational crisis management. Proc. ISCRAM (2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Twidale, M., Randall, D., and Bentley, R. Situated evaluation for cooperative systems Situated evaluation for cooperative systems. Lancester, United Kingdom, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. https://about.twitter.com/products/tweetdeckGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. http://www.ubermetrics-technologies.com/en/productGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Valecha, R., Oh, O., and Rao, R. An Exploration of Collaboration over Time in Collective Crisis Response during the Haiti 2010 Earthquake. Proc. ICIS (2013), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Vieweg, S., Hughes, A., Starbird, K., and Palen, L. Microblogging During Two Natural Hazards Events: What Twitter May Contribute to Situational Awareness. Proc. CHI (2010), 1079--1088. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Vieweg, S., Palen, L., Liu, S.B., Hughes, A., and Sutton, J. Collective Intelligence in Distaster: Examination of the Phenomenon in the Aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting. Proc. ISCRAM (2008), 44--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. White, C., Plotnick, L., Kushma, J., Hiltz, S.R., and Turoff, M. An online social network for emergency management. IJEM 6, 3/4 (2009), 369--382.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Wulf, V., Rohde, M., Pipek, V., and Stevens, G. Engaging with Practices: Design Case Studies as a Research Framework in CSCW. Proc. CSCW (2011), 505--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Yates, D. and Paquette, S. Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. IJIM 31, 1 (2011), 6--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. XHELP: Design of a Cross-Platform Social-Media Application to Support Volunteer Moderators in Disasters

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2015
      4290 pages
      ISBN:9781450331456
      DOI:10.1145/2702123

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader