How We Can Stop Earthquakes From Killing People Before They Even Hit


Justin Worland in Time Magazine: “…Out of that realization came a plan to reshape disaster management using big data. Just a few months later, Wani worked with two fellow Stanford students to create a platform to predict the toll of natural disasters. The concept is simple but also revolutionary. The One Concern software pulls geological and structural data from a variety of public and private sources and uses machine learning to predict the impact of an earthquake down to individual city blocks and buildings. Real-time information input during an earthquake improves how the system responds. And earthquakes represent just the start for the company, which plans to launch a similar program for floods and eventually other natural disasters….

Previous software might identify a general area where responders could expect damage, but it would appear as a “big red blob” that wasn’t helpful when deciding exactly where to send resources, Dayton says. The technology also integrates information from many sources and makes it easy to parse in an emergency situation when every moment matters. The instant damage evaluations mean fast and actionable information, so first responders can prioritize search and rescue in areas most likely to be worst-hit, rather than responding to 911 calls in the order they are received.

One Concern is not the only company that sees an opportunity to use data to rethink disaster response. The mapping company Esri has built rapid-response software that shows expected damage from disasters like earthquakes, wildfires and hurricanes. And the U.S. government has invested in programs to use data to shape disaster response at agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)….(More)”.

Cross-sector Collaboration in Data Science for Social Good: Opportunities, Challenges, and Open Questions Raised by Working with Academic Researchers


Paper by presented by Anissa Tanweer and Brittany Fiore-Gartland at the Data Science for Social Good Conference: “Recent years have seen growing support for attempts to solve complex social problems through the use of increasingly available, increasingly combinable, and increasingly computable digital data. Sometimes referred to as “data science for social good” (DSSG), these efforts are not concentrated in the hands of any one sector of society. Rather, we see DSSG emerging as an inherently multi-sector and collaborative phenomenon, with key participants hailing from governments, nonprofit organizations, technology companies, and institutions of higher education. Based on three years of participant observation in a university-hosted DSSG program, in this paper we highlight academic contributions to multi-sector DSSG collaborations, including expertise, labor, ethics, experimentation, and neutrality. After articulating both the opportunities and challenges that accompany those contributions, we pose some key open questions that demand attention from participants in DSSG programs and projects. Given the emergent nature of the DSSG phenomenon, it is our contention that how these questions come to be answered will have profound implications for the way society is organized and governed….(More)”.

A Better Way to Trace Scattered Refugees


Tina Rosenberg in The New York Times: “…No one knew where his family had gone. Then an African refugee in Ottawa told him about Refunite. He went on its website and opened an account. He gave his name, phone number and place of origin, and listed family members he was searching for.

Three-quarters of a century ago, while World War II still raged, the Allies created the International Tracing Service to help the millions who had fled their homes. Its central name index grew to 50 million cards, with information on 17.5 million individuals. The index still exists — and still gets queries — today.

Index cards have become digital databases, of course. And some agencies have brought tracing into the digital age in other ways. Unicef, for example, equips staff during humanitarian emergencies with a software called Primero, which helps them get children food, medical care and other help — and register information about unaccompanied children. A parent searching for a child can register as well. An algorithm makes the connection — “like a date-finder or matchmaker,” said Robert MacTavish, who leads the Primero project.

Most United Nations agencies rely for family tracing on the International Committee of the Red Cross, the global network of national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. Florence Anselmo, who directs the I.C.R.C.’s Central Tracing Agency, said that the I.C.R.C. and United Nations agencies can’t look in one another’s databases. That’s necessary for privacy reasons, but it’s an obstacle to family tracing.

Another problem: Online databases allow the displaced to do their own searches. But the I.C.R.C. has these for only a few emergency situations. Anselmo said that most tracing is done by the staff of national Red Cross societies, who respond to requests from other countries. But there is no global database, so people looking for loved ones must guess which countries to search.

The organization is working on developing an algorithm for matching, but for now, the search engines are human. “When we talk about tracing, it’s not only about data matching,” Anselmo said. “There’s a whole part about accompanying families: the human aspect, professionals as well as volunteers who are able to look for people — even go house to house if needed.”

This is the mom-and-pop general store model of tracing: The customer makes a request at the counter, then a shopkeeper with knowledge of her goods and a kind smile goes to the back and brings it out, throwing in a lollipop. But the world has 65 million forcibly displaced people, a record number. Personalized help to choose from limited stock is appropriate in many cases. But it cannot possibly be enough.

Refunite seeks to become the eBay of family tracing….(More)”

Using Open Data to Analyze Urban Mobility from Social Networks


Paper by Caio Libânio Melo Jerônimo, Claudio E. C. Campelo, Cláudio de Souza Baptista: “The need to use online technologies that favor the understanding of city dynamics has grown, mainly due to the ease in obtaining the necessary data, which, in most cases, are gathered with no cost from social networks services. With such facility, the acquisition of georeferenced data has become easier, favoring the interest and feasibility in studying human mobility patterns, bringing new challenges for knowledge discovery in GIScience. This favorable scenario also encourages governments to make their data available for public access, increasing the possibilities for data scientist to analyze such data. This article presents an approach to extracting mobility metrics from Twitter messages and to analyzing their correlation with social, economic and demographic open data. The proposed model was evaluated using a dataset of georeferenced Twitter messages and a set of social indicators, both related to Greater London. The results revealed that social indicators related to employment conditions present higher correlation with the mobility metrics than any other social indicators investigated, suggesting that these social variables may be more relevant for studying mobility behaviors….(More)”.

Let’s create a nation of social scientists


Geoff Mulgan in Times Higher Education: “How might social science become more influential, more relevant and more useful in the years to come?

Recent debates about impact have largely assumed a model of social science in which a cadre of specialists, based in universities, analyse and interpret the world and then feed conclusions into an essentially passive society. But a very different view sees specialists in the academy working much more in partnership with a society that is itself skilled in social science, able to generate hypotheses, gather data, experiment and draw conclusions that might help to answer the big questions of our time, from the sources of inequality to social trust, identity to violence.

There are some powerful trends to suggest that this second view is gaining traction. The first of these is the extraordinary explosion of new ways to observe social phenomena. Every day each of us leaves behind a data trail of who we talk to, what we eat and where we go. It’s easier than ever to survey people, to spot patterns, to scrape the web or to pick up data from sensors. It’s easier than ever to gather perceptions and emotions as well as material facts and easier than ever for organisations to practice social science – whether investment organisations analysing market patterns, human resources departments using behavioural science, or local authorities using ethnography.

That deluge of data is a big enough shift on its own. However, it is also now being used to feed interpretive and predictive tools using artificial intelligence to predict who is most likely to go to hospital, to end up in prison, which relationships are most likely to end in divorce.

Governments are developing their own predictive tools, and have also become much more interested in systematic experimentation, with Finland and Canada in the lead,  moving us closer to Karl Popper’s vision of “methods of trial and error, of inventing hypotheses which can be practically tested…”…

The second revolution is less visible but could be no less profound. This is the hunger of many people to be creators of knowledge, not just users; to be part of a truly collective intelligence. At the moment this shift towards mass engagement in knowledge is most visible in neighbouring fields.  Digital humanities mobilise many volunteers to input data and interpret texts – for example making ancient Arabic texts machine-readable. Even more striking is the growth of citizen science – eBird had 1.5 million reports last January; some 1.5 million people in the US monitor river streams and lakes, and SETI@home has 5 million volunteers. Thousands of patients also take part in funding and shaping research on their own conditions….

We’re all familiar with the old idea that it’s better to teach a man to fish than just to give him fish. In essence these trends ask us a simple question: why not apply the same logic to social science, and why not reorient social sciences to enhance the capacity of society itself to observe, analyse and interpret?…(More)”.

Information Seeding and Knowledge Production in Online Communities: Evidence from OpenStreetMap


Paper by Abhishek Nagaraj: “The wild success of a few online community-produced knowledge goods, notably Wikipedia, has obscured the fact that most attempts at forming online communities fail. A large body of work analyses motivations behind user contributions to successful, online communities but less is known, however, about early-stage interventions that might make online communities more or less successful.

This study evaluates information seeding, a popular practice to bootstrap online communities by enabling contributors to build on externally-sourced information rather that starting from scratch. I analyze the effects of information seeding on follow-on contributions using data from more than 350 million contributions made by over 577,000 contributors to OpenStreetMap, a Wikipedia-style digital map-making community that was seeded with data from the US Census. To estimate the effects of information seeding, I rely on a natural experiment in which an oversight caused about 60% of quasi-randomly chosen US counties to be seeded with a complete Census map, while the rest were seeded with less complete versions. While access to knowledge generally encourages follow-on knowledge production, I find that a higher level of information seeding significantly lowered follow-on knowledge production and contributor activity on OpenStreetMap and was also associated with lower levels of long-term quality. I argue that information seeding can crowd out contributors’ ability to develop ownership over baseline knowledge and disincentivize follow-on contributions in some circumstances. Empirical evidence supports this explanation as the mechanism through which a higher level of information seeding can stifle rather than spur knowledge production in online communities….(More)”.

Mobility Score


MobilityScore® helps you understand how easy it is to get around. It works at any location or address within the US and Canada and gives you a score ranging from 0 (no mobility choices) to 100 (excellent mobility choices).

What do we mean by mobility? Any transportation option that can help you move around your city. Transportation is changing massively as new choices emerge: ridesharing, bikesharing, carsharing. Private and on-demand mobility services have sprung up. However, tools for measuring transportation access have not kept up. That’s why we created MobilityScore as an easy-to-understand measure of transportation access.

Technical Details

MobilityScore includes all the transportation choices that can be found on TransitScreen displays, including the following services:

  • Public transit (subways, trains, buses, ferries, cable cars…)
  • Car sharing services (Zipcar, Enterprise, and one-way services like car2go)
  • Bike sharing services
  • Hailed ride sharing services (e.g. taxis, Uber, Lyft)

We have developed a common way of comparing how choices that might seem very different contribute to your mobility. For each mobility choice, we measure how long it will take you until you can start moving on it – for example, the time it takes you to leave your building, walk to a subway station, and wait for a train.

Because we’re measuring how easy it is for you to move around the city, we also consider what mobility choices look like at different times of the day and different days of the week. Mobility data is regularly collected for most services, while ridehailing (Uber/Lyft) data is based on a geographic model of arrival times.

MobilityScore’s framework is future-proof. Just like we do with TransitScreen, we will integrate future services into the calculation as they emerge (e.g. microtransit, autonomous vehicles, mobility-as-a-service)….(More)”

Enhancing Citizen Engagement in the Face of Climate Change Risks: A Case Study of the Flood Early Warning System and Health Information System in Semarang City, Indonesia


Chapter by Aniessa Delima Sari and Nyoman Prayoga in book on Climate Change in Cities: “This case study describes how two climate resilience action projects in Semarang City, Indonesia, were able to provide new mechanisms allowing better engagement between the Semarang city government and its citizens. With the introduction of the Flood Early Warning System (FEWS), flood-prone communities in the Beringin River Basin are now able to evacuate to safe shelters before flood incidents occur. Through the Health Information and Early Warning System (HIEWS), citizens can access real-time information related to dengue fever cases in the city. Although the focus areas are different, both projects aim to help communities become more resilient to the impacts of climate change, specifically floods and vector-borne disease. We find similar patterns in the two cases, in which efforts to enhance community participation are essential to guarantee the success of the projects. Enhanced community engagement is achieved through the thoughtful consideration of local knowledge and social networks, intensive assistance to increase awareness and motivation of the community, and understanding governance structures to ensure that funds are allocated through formal handover processes to continue and expand the results of the interventions. These findings are useful and important to guide any climate change adaptation projects toward better sustainability and ownership, especially in the application of an early warning system or information system that requires technology, sustainable budget allocation from the local government to operate and maintain the system, and buy-in from local communities…(More)”

The Digital Social Innovation Manifesto


ChiC: “The unprecedented hyper connectivity enabled by digital technologies and the Internet are rapidly changing the opportunities we have to address some of the society’s biggest challenges: environmental preservation, reducing inequalities, fostering inclusion and putting in place sustainable economic models.
However, to make the most of these opportunities we need to move away from the current centralization of power by a small number of large tech companies and enable a much broader group of people and organisations to develop and share innovative digital solutions.

Across Europe, a growing movement of people is exploring opportunities for Digital Social Innovation (DSI), developing bottom-up solutions leveraging on participation, collaboration, decentralization, openness, and multi-disciplinarity. However, it is still at a relatively small scale, because of the little public and private investment in DSI, the limited experience in large-scale take-up of collective solutions, and the relative lack of skills of DSI actors (civil society) compared to commercial companies.

This Manifesto aims at fostering civic participation into democratic and social processes, increasing societal resilience and mutual trust as core element of the Digital Society. It provides recommendations for policy makers, to drive the development of the European Digital Single Market to fulfill first and foremost societal and sustainability challenges (rather than short-lived economic interests), with the help and engagement of all citizens.

This Manifesto reflects the views of a broad community of innovators, catalyzed by the coordination action ChiC, which is funded by the European Commission, within the context of the CAPS initiative. As such, it is open to incorporating incoming views and opinions from other stakeholders and it does not intend to promote the specific commercial interests of actors of any kind….(More)”

Information Governance in Japan: Towards a Comparative Paradigm


Book by Kenji E. KushidaYuko Kasuya and Eiji Kawabata: “The history of human civilization has been about managing information, from hunting and gathering through contemporary times. In modern societies, information flows are central to how individuals and societies interact with governments, economies, and other countries. Despite this centrality of information, information governance—how information flows are managed—has not been a central concern of scholarship. We argue that it should be, especially now that digitization has dramatically altered the amount of information generated, how it can be transmitted, and how it can be used.

This book examines various aspects of information governance in Japan, utilizing comparative and historical perspectives. The aim is threefold: 1) to explore Japan’s society, politics, and economy through a critical but hitherto under-examined vantage that we believe cuts to the core of what modern societies are built with—information; 2) articulate a set of components which can be used to analyze other countries from the vantage of information governance; and 3) provide frameworks of reference to analyze each component.

This book is the product of a multidisciplinary, multinational collaboration between scholars based in the US and Japan. Each are experts in their own fields (economics, political science, information science, law, library science), and were brought together in two workshops to develop, explore, and analyze the conception and various of facets of information governance. This book is frontier research by proposing and taking this conception of information governance as a framework of analysis.

The introduction sets up the analysis by providing background and a framework for understanding the conception of information governance. Part I focuses on the management of government-held information. Part II examines information central to economic activity. Part III explores information flows crucial to politics and social life….(More)”.