Rise of Crisis Mapping - Liu and Ziemke - api.ning.comapi.ning.com/.../RiseofCrisisMappingLiuandZiemke.pdf · From Cultures of Participation to the Rise of Crisis Mapping in a Networked

Routledge Handbook of Participatory Cultures Please Do Not Distribute

1

From Cultures of Participation to the Rise of Crisis Mapping in a Networked World By Sophia B. Liu and Jen Ziemke

The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan, the rest of us learn about it in real time – from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the supermarket are connected in ways that were not even imagined a year ago, even a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity today. As we sit here, any of you – or maybe more likely, any of our children – can take out the tools that many carry every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world.

–Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, January 23, 2010 Secretary Clinton’s timely comments mark the beginning of an exciting new epoch, an era in which public participation at a global level occurs en masse and in real-time. In one case, an individual trapped under the rubble after an earthquake in Port-au-Prince uses her phone to send an SOS via a text message. One thousand miles away, an office worker logs on during her lunch break to translate SOS texts from Haitian Creole, her native language, into English. In another city, students far from the disaster stay up all night reading these translated real-time texts. When the students are not able to identify the street name or neighborhood on any current map of Haiti, the Haitian diaspora again shares its local knowledge, which helps to improve existing maps as well as helps to quickly identify the trapped person’s location. Still others, far from the scene of the emergency, work from home combing the web and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to find and share contextual, up-to-the-minute information about the emergency as quickly as possible to those on the other side of the globe. A group of students then use this information to create geo-referenced, real-time situation reports. This global, emergent collaboration ends up offering emergency responders the best, most comprehensive source of information about the crisis area. For example, responders were able to react to the original SOS text message because they could quickly locate the position of the trapped individual. All along this chain of emergency communication, people from all walks of life with different kinds of knowledge, from different locations, and with different backgrounds and affiliations offer remote assistance in service to strangers trapped in an emergency situation. This participation intimately binds both local and remote participants together, unified by a common cause to help those in need. The academic, military, policy, and humanitarian aid communities now recognize that individual voices, when aggregated, serve as the best source of hyper-local, real-time, news. Learning how to channel, visualize, and analyze this “crowdsourced” crisis information for effective humanitarian response is one of the goals of emergent networks like the Crisis Mappers Network and Crisis Commons. The Crisis Mappers Network was created in October 2009 in response to growing interest in the new field of Crisis Mapping. Together, these networks are taking a cue from the example set by the crowd itself of adopting the crowd’s urge to share and be open. Both individually and as part of a network, people are now newly empowered to participate in ways that connect all of us to the human experience. We have adopted new habits and are developing new norms of sharing in order to affect positive, meaningful change, especially during calamitous times. We make use of new technologies, but the technologies themselves are not responsible for this generosity: such sharing emerges from the human spirit. However, technologies can ably empower us to do what we have always longed to do, which is to help those in need.


2

An Emerging Culture of Participation A global, participatory culture is quickly developing because of both the rapid rise of information and communication technologies (ICTs) like the Internet and mobile phones as well as an emerging ethos of participation. But the mere expansion of ICT technologies alone cannot explain the remarkable emergence of such participation. In fact, participatory culture is as much a function of the design of these technologies themselves as anything else. We argue that how we design our computing technologies will determine what kind of experience and interaction we will have. Since the Internet was initially designed to facilitate decentralized networking, new rituals of participation have emerged. As consumers harness ubiquitous ICTs and become participants in the production process, a more decentralized, socially-distributed form of interaction has developed. Fischer (2009) defines a “culture of participation” as a culture where “people are provided with the means to participate actively in personally meaningful activities.” Thus, cultures of participation are no longer just consumed by all but also produced by all in order to contribute to social well-being. Wessels (2010) explains through a socio-cultural perspective that in the Internet era “social relations have become increasingly ‘virtualized’…to provide a basis for new forms of community, a revival of democratic citizenship” (p. 165), which has led to an increase in democratic participation, a revival of freedom of speech, and the provision of free information and communication channels. Ultimately, the values of free and open communication were inherently designed into the development of the Internet and the resulting World Wide Web. The notion of Web 2.0 increasingly speaks to the shift towards designing web-based applications that support the participatory, “read-write” web. O’Reilly (2005) initially explained Web 2.0 as web applications that allow users to contribute their own data, that get better when more people use it, that consume and remix data from multiple sources, and that create network effects through an ‘architecture of participation.’ Web 2.0 technology is ultimately about facilitating online conversations and sharing information by remotely participating, thus allowing a global network to form. Although this participatory form of computing may seem recent, it was futurists like Ted Nelson (1974) who began envisioning this “intellectual and social revolution of having access to the panoply of thought and knowledge” in his book Computer Lib. Nelson further states that it is how we design our computing technologies that will determine what kind of experience and interaction we will have. In the next section, we explain how the design of Web 2.0 technologies encourages individuals to act as citizen journalists, a more specific kind of phenomenon that has emerged from this culture of participation. Participatory Forms of Journalism According to Bowman and Willis (2003), public journalism is “the act of a citizen, or group of citizens, playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information” (p. 9). It is an emergent, self-assembling type of journalism where audiences are shaping the news and information to create a more informed citizenry. This type of journalism, often referred to as citizen, grassroots, or do-it-yourself journalism, challenges the traditional, one-way communication model of transferring knowledge between institutions to the wider public. The industry-style “pipeline” model for distributing mass media content typically supports passive consumerism. However, Web 2.0 technologies are increasingly testing conventionally understood boundaries between centralized, top-down institutions and decentralized, bottom-up activities that emerge from the public.


3

Media institutions face inherent challenges when reporting on major crises. For example, after the September 11 attacks in 2001, many people turned to non-news websites “looking to fulfill a need that was not being met by the traditional news media” (Halavais, 2002, p. 27). Also, the July 7, 2005 London bombings led to notable forms of citizen journalism, especially through the use of cameraphones, and was a key turning point in professional journalists’ assessments of its transformative potential for news-gathering processes (Allan, 2007). Nearly two months later in response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, online news and information resources reported by citizen journalists on the ground were unlike traditional, televised news sources (Allan, 2006). As Gillmor (2006) states, what we are seeing is “journalism’s transformation from a twentieth century mass-media structure to something profoundly more grassroots and democratic…[where] technology has given us a communications toolkit” (p. xxiii). Members of the public are taking the opportunity to use this “toolkit” to engage in dialogue and in advocacy in unprecedented ways. One of the tools in this toolkit is the ability to easily communicate spatially through ubiquitous GIS technology. Participatory Forms of Mapping The pervasive use of participatory mapping technologies has led to the rise of the neogeography movement and subsequently facilitated the emergence of Crisis Mapping as a new field. The term neogeography refers to geographic tools and techniques that go beyond traditional geographic information systems. It is a term that GIS professionals like Dangermond (1995), Monmonier (1998), and Krygier (1999) hoped for more than a decade ago urging that next generation GIS should be more interactive and accessible to citizens in order to foster public participation and collaboration around geographic information. Turner (2006) explains that neogeography is about “people using and creating their own maps, on their own terms by combining elements of an existing toolset” (p. 3). Goodchild (2009) also explains that neogeography is also about “blurring of the distinctions between producer, communicator and consumer of geographic information” (p. 82) thus allowing other non-professionals to become a part of the mapping process. The Geospatial Web has in large part facilitated a much wider use of geospatial data than in the past. Ultimately, maps can be used as a visual communication tool and to prompt decision-making (Kraak, 2001, p. 12), since it is geographically contextualized information. Many Internet mapping sites like Google Maps and OpenStreetMap have been dubbed as “the People’s GIS.” This may be an accurate way of describing map mashups as well. Mashups are web applications that typically use openly published Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to access, extract, and recombine data feeds from multiple sources into a single integrated application. Hackley et al. (2008) explains this phenomenon as a shift towards “an inter-networked, participatory model where users also collaboratively create, share and mash-up data” in ways that make information more accessible to the general public (p. 2033). In the crisis context, mapping has always been crucial for emergency management; however, it no longer just done by GIS professionals and formal responders but also by members of the public during crises. Liu and Palen (2010) provide an in-depth explanation of the emergent neogeographic practice around crisis map mashups, which they describe as supporting a new kind of cartographic literacy from the use of participatory geotechnology.


4

CRISIS MAPPING AS AN EMERGING FIELD Mapping crisis information is not entirely new; yet, over the past five years, we have seen an increase in real-time mapping activities in response to recent disasters by emerging crisis-related technology communities. Clearly, the rise of neogeography and participatory journalism as outlined above helped launch the new field of Crisis Mapping, but what is Crisis Mapping? Crisis mapping is both a new field and an engaged network of people from the government, the technology industry, academia, humanitarian and human rights organizations, and news agencies. They are united by their common interest in leveraging ICTs to help visualize, understand and respond to crisis events of all kinds. Crisis Mappers create visual representations of the discrete, individual crisis events that, when aggregated together, make a Crisis Map. The best Crisis Maps are compelling, multi-layered interfaces that offer a window into the situation on the ground. End users have at their fingertips a wide range of analytic tools to help make sense of these Crisis Maps. Finally, Crisis Maps are used by the community and emergency responders to help save lives and coordinate relief efforts. The value of looking at participatory cultures during crises is in part because these are inherently participatory environments already. We must not forget that when a crisis affects a community, members of the public are often the true first responders who self-organize to provide critical rescue assistance, relief resources, and information to the general public. Disaster researchers have long documented how citizens from the affected population, community-based organizations and emergent groups near the impact zone of a disaster self-organize to address unmet needs during crisis situations through improvisation (Fischer III, 1998; Tierney et al., 2001). It is during times of crisis when we see ways in which people innovatively adapt to adversity, especially in the information age. With the pervasive use of ICTs during crises, we are witnessing the emergence of virtual disaster volunteer communities. Nourbakhsh et al. (2006) foresaw this “emergence of a new breed of volunteers—online data managers” facilitating a “web-based community approach to disaster operations” (p. 787). There is an increasing need to map these data to gain better situational awareness. In the following section, we provide recent examples of Crisis Mapping in action. Ushahidi: A First Generation Crisis Mapping Platform Since its early deployment in Kenya in 2007, the very successful Ushahidi instance has been used to help keep governments and their constituents accountable during elections. Organizations have deployed instances of Ushahidi to help track possible fraud, intimidation, vote tampering, and violence in places like Kenya, India, Burundi, Colombia, Namibia, Lebanon, Togo, Mexico, Ethiopia, Sudan, Phillippines, Mozambique and Guinea. Other groups have used the platform to monitor harassment of racial minorities, or to track acts of violence of all kinds in places like South Africa, New Mexico (US), Atlanta (US), and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The platform has also been notably used in 2010 to track incidents of crises emerging from natural hazards and man-made disasters, such as the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile in 2010, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the floods in Pakistan, to name but a few. Most notably, the Haiti-Ushahidi (see Figure 1) deployment demonstrated, for the first time, the real potential of Crisis Mapping to affect change and facilitate humanitarian response on the ground in near real-time. Many actors were involved in the Haiti-Ushahidi deployment of 2010,


5

including a team of students at the Fletcher School of Tufts University as well as many other individuals working from around the world. An SMS-based system was set up, SMS 4636, allowing free text messaging to anyone inside Haiti with a cell phone. Volunteers worked around the clock and in several time zones on various tasks from translation, to surfing the web, to processing incoming SMS messages, to creating incident reports and carefully geolocating each incident. The result was a publicly accessible map that became an important resource for the Joint Task Force Command Center, the US State Department, the Red Cross, the UN Foundation, the International Medical Corps, the Clinton Foundation, and other emergency responder organizations. Eventually, as trapped and urgent messages abated, the entire project was turned over to the Haitian people themselves to facilitate recovery and development efforts.

Figure 1: Haiti-Ushahidi available at http://haiti.ushahidi.com

For the Chile-Ushahidi deployment, several factors contributed to its success. The media monitoring and crisis mapping activities were modeled largely after the Haiti-Ushahidi instance developed barely a month before. Liu and Ayala Iacucci (2010) as well as Liu, Ayala Iacucci, and Meier (2010) explain how free cloud computing tools (i.e., Google Groups, Google Docs and Forms, and Skype Public Chat) were used along with Facebook Groups and Events to facilitate the distributed coordination efforts for Ushahidi Haiti and Chile. The key was to “harness the power of the crowd for timely and effective crisis response” (Liu and Ayala Iacucci, 2010, p. 14). Free cloud computing and social networking tools have become pivotal for building bridges between multi-stakeholder interactions to ultimately support a more participatory form of Crisis Mapping. Crisis Commons: CrisisCamps and OpenStreetMap Crisis Commons, founded in March 2009 at a Government 2.0 Camp, is a global network of citizen volunteers, emergency management organizations, international humanitarian relief agencies, and people representing non-profits and the private sector. Their vision is to create and sustain a culture of information sharing to improve emergency management and humanitarian activities. Their core values are independence, openness, sharing, and connecting different stakeholders within their global network of volunteers.


6

In response to the January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake, over 45 CrisisCamps—barcamp events intended to unite the global network of technology volunteers in local public spaces and collaborate on technology projects that would help people in crisis—were setup for Haiti in six different countries with around 1,500 participants in total. One of the projects that the participants worked on was providing surge capacity for an open source mapping effort through OpenStreetMap1. OpenStreetMap relies on the donation of high-resolution satellite imagery and a volunteer workforce to generate a free and editable wiki map of the world. Volunteers from CrisisCamp and others around the world worked on the OpenStreetMap project to help create a new basemap of Port-au-Prince. The “OpenStreetMap – Project Haiti” Vimeo video2 provides a timelapse visualization of the edits made to the Haiti map immediately after the earthquake struck. The Haitian government sent a direct request for these maps since they were praised as the most up-to-date map available at the time. As such, the WorldBank and OpenStreetMap in collaboration with Crisis Commons deployed a team to Haiti on February 9, 2010 to deliver these maps on hard drives to the Haitian government. Crisis Commons volunteers are not just coders or programmers but they are also geospatial specialists, social media users, everyday Internet users, and just people willing to donate their time to help during a crisis. With their motto as “Think locally, act globally, build locally,” these distributed volunteers are drawn together by a call to service to help during any disaster any where in the world. Mapping Repopulation Indicators for New Orleans In response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, The Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (GNOCDC.org) created the Repopulation Indicators for New Orleans map (see Figure 2). Often described as going “beyond the typical Google mash-up,” this map visualizes “patterns of density and repopulation across New Orleans, as well as block-by-block within neighborhoods” using the ratio of households who received postal mail recently to households who received postal mail pre-Katrina. The purpose of this map mashup is to generate repopulation patterns in order to visually show how many people have returned since the catastrophic hurricanes in 2005.

What makes this map mashup participatory is in part due to how it was designed and also how the local community has used it. With a usability expert on this team, participatory design (Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991) approaches were used. First, they used their existing “Ask Allison” feature on their GNOCDC website to determine the value of repopulation data (e.g., businesses could make investment decisions and human service agencies could decide how to allocate scarce resources). Then, they explored different sources of population data and found that the United States Postal Service (USPS) data would be the best fit for indicating repopulation information. After they incorporated the 3,000+ requests received from the Ask Allison system to inform the design of their map mashup, then they conducted usability testing in the Lower Ninth Ward to address any user interface design issues when viewing their map on these residences’ own computers to become more familiar with the environment in which these maps would be used.

1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti 2 http://vimeo.com/9182869


7

Figure 2: Repopulation Indicators for New Orleans crisis map available at:

http://www.gnocdc.org/repopulation/ As a Community Data Center, they provide reliable, targeted data to help leaders create positive change in their community. Here are a few examples of how the Repopulation Indicators map was used by the local community. The Lower Ninth Ward used it to deploy their volunteers on projects focused on rebuilding homes. A grocery store chain used it to plan the development of new stores. An interesting use of the service occurred when two different stakeholders used the same repopulation data against each other to describe the impact of building a hospital. A university planning team used the data to promote the proposed medical center; whereas, a neighborhood association in the area used the data to show the possible displacement of many active households and the destruction of historic sites due to the proposed construction. Ultimately, the success of the Repopulation map was the team’s ability to open up the design process and use of this map to relevant stakeholders and potential users of this map to better facilitate disaster recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Google My Maps Mashups for Wildfires The first significant use of Google My Maps for a crisis after launching in April 2007 was for the October 2007 Southern California wildfires. KPBS San Diego and LATimes.com were the first two news organization to notably create Google My Maps and annotate information about the wildfires (i.e. the location of the fires, containment percentages, destroyed or damaged structures, evacuation information, etc.). These publicly accessible online maps were particularly useful for people who had loved ones affected by this wildfire because the maps allowed them to remotely monitor the wildfire to see if their loved ones’ homes were directly affected. This kind of location-specific crisis information is often difficult to obtain from afar since it may be difficult to access local news channels and news anchors do not routinely provide real-time information for all affected areas of a crisis. Google My Maps allows users to zoom in-and-out to geobrowse any location.


8

Figure 3: 2009 Los Angeles Google My Maps

For the 2009 Los Angeles Fires, Rong-Gong Lin II, a Los Angeles Times staff writer, created another Google My Maps3 (see Figure 3) after having experience creating one for the 2007 wildfires. He explains how the advantage of using a map interface to communicate crisis information is that it provides a “better sense of scale” and it is the “fastest way to communicate” news about a wildfire, a phenomenon that changes so quickly. One important addition that Lin made for the 2009 map is the addition of the following line in the LATimes.com news article: “Feedback: Contact the Reporter,” which is a link to an online comment form within the LATimes.com site that immediately sends a message to Lin. He recounts how helpful this and the comment feature within Google Maps were because “getting real-time feedback made the map better and easier to understand.” More specifically, he viewed these two-way communication features as a way to “get tips for reporting,” which ultimately compelled reporters in the field to search for information based on requests from members of the public. For example, he received feedback about locations that he had not been updated yet but were heavily discussed by members of the public. He also received comments suggesting corrections to make the map more accurate (e.g., moving icons or showing active fire fronts not just fire boundaries).

3 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-la-fire-map-html,0,7464337.htmlstory


9

Presciently, Lin goes on to explain how maps are a “powerful way of illustrating news stories…that you would not be able to show through text alone” because “when you map things out, you can definitely see trends that were not there before…[and] it helps give me the sense of what the story is.” Maps often are a better and faster way to communicate information about certain kinds of location-specific news, such as wildfires. The value of creating annotated maps like Google My Maps is that it allows us the ability to see geographic trends that we would not have otherwise noticed as easily when linearly listed in a text format. CRISIS MAPPING IN A NETWORKED WORLD Indeed, the very motivation for the entire Crisis Mapping effort is to affect change and make a difference for affected populations. The case studies of Crisis Mapping in action presented above are but a few examples of the Crisis Mapping history that has emerged from our networked world. It was these many early Crisis Mappers who saw before the rest of us that a participatory revolution was coming and it was to occur through a mapping interface. In this final section, we specifically discuss how one Crisis Mapping community has emerged and become officially established through online networking technologies. Crisis Mappers Net In 2008, Jen Ziemke and Patrick Meier, Director of Crisis Mapping for Ushahidi, came up with the idea of convening a conference on Crisis Mapping that took place in October 2009. The idea was to bring together scholars and practitioners across business, industry, military, government, and non-profit NGOs working in this field. Their overlapping interests and expertise were becoming more visible but more collaboration in this space was urgently needed.

Figure 4: Crisis Mappers Net available at http://www.crisismappers.net/

The International Network of Crisis Mappers (see Figure 4) was launched at the end of the conference using a customizable platform for creating online social networks. The network sustained the enthusiasm from this highly successful conference. The group remained in contact over the course of the year. Members of the Crisis Mappers Network met their first test of this new relationship and commitment in the hours and days after the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti in January 2010. How could the Crisis Mappers group work together to help facilitate effective humanitarian response? Did our mobilization matter? Would it help save lives? The answer was a


10

resounding yes. People began posting messages asking and offering help, which included anything from technical minutiae, to the status of key roads and bridges, to “I have grain to distribute from a nearby warehouse but need to locate fuel to get it to those most in need,” and they immediately received assistance through the Crisis Mappers Network. Working in close collaboration with other networks like Crisis Commons and Mission 4636, the Crisis Mappers Network collectively helped save lives by continuously updating our collective understanding of what was taking place on the ground in near real-time, thereby improving situational awareness and effective response. Recent discussions on the Crisis Mappers Google Group indicates that the only way to continue to move forward and to revolutionize the field as a network boils down to this: Share until it hurts. We learned this idea from the norms embedded in the crowd itself and its emergent participatory culture. Like individuals on other networks or those working in isolation and like their counterparts “on the ground,” individuals in the Crisis Mappers network also embodied the same ethos. They have already shown an incredible willingness to share, even when it might result in personal sacrifices and hurt chances for promotion, credit, tenure, and the like. We agree that the responsibility to do our part to help improve and save lives, as well as increase accountability is more important than our institutional and personal differences, inter and intra-agency competitions, and other politics. In conclusion, it is our belief that the so-called “expert networks” work best when emulating the crowd’s best practices, and in conjunction with affected populations. Crisis Mapping is only one part of an emergent global participatory culture in which everyone contributes his or her own localized or specific knowledge to the global commons. References Stuart Allan, 2006. Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Maidenhead and New York: Open

University Press.

Stuart Allan, 2007. Citizen Journalism and the Rise of “Mass Self-Communication”: Reporting the London Bombings. Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, volume 1, number 1.

Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis, 2003. We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. Reston, VA: The Media Center at the American Press Institute.

Jack Dangermond, 1995. Public data access: Another side of GIS data sharing. In Onsrud, H. J. and Rushton, G. (editors) Sharing Geographic Information. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, N. J. pp. 331-339.

Henry W. Fischer III, 1998. Response to Disaster: Fact Versus Fiction and Perpetuation (2nd Edition). New York, NY: University Press of America.

Gerhard Fischer, 2009. “Cultures of Participation and Social Computing: Rethinking and Reinventing Learning and Education.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), IEEE Press, Riga, Latvia, pp. 1-5.

Dan Gillmor, 2006. We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc.


11

Michael Goodchild, 2009. Neogeography and the nature of geographic expertise. Journal of Location Based Services, volume 3, number 2, pp. 82-96.

Joan M. Greenbaum and Morten Kyng, 1991. Design at Work. Erlbaum.

Muki Hakley, Alex Singleton, and Chris Parker, 2008. Web Mapping 2.0: The Neogeography of the GeoWeb. Geography Compass, volume 2, number 6, pp. 2011-2039.

Alexander Halavais, 2002. The Web as News: September 11 and New Sources of Web News. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association of Internet Researchers, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Menno-Jan Kraak, 2001. Trends in cartography. In M-J. Kraak and A. Brown (editors) Web Cartography: Developments and Prospects. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 9-19.

John Krygier, 1999. World Wide Web mapping and GIS: An application for public participation. Cartographic Perspectives, volume 33, pp. 66-67.

Sophia B. Liu and Anahi Ayala Iacucci, 2010. Crisis Map Mashups in a Participatory Age. American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) Bulletin, June 2010, pp. 10-14.

Sophia B. Liu, Anahi Ayala Iacucci, and Patrick Meier, 2010. Ushahidi Haiti and Chile: Next Generation Crisis Mapping. American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) Bulletin, August 2010.

Sophia B. Liu and Leysia Palen, 2010. The New Cartographers: Crisis Map Mashups and the Emergence of Neogeographic Practice. Cartography and Geographic Information Science (CaGIS) Journal Special Issue on Mapping Hazards and Disasters, volume 37, number 1, pp. 69-90.

Mark Monmonier, 1998. The Three R’s of GIS-Based Site Selection: Representation, Resistance and Ridicule. In: D. R. Fraser Taylor (editor) Policy Issues in Modern Cartography, Modern Cartography Volume Three. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp. 233-247.

Ted Nelson, 1974/1987. Dream machine/Computer lib. Chicago, IL: Theodor Nelson.

Illah Nourbakhsh, Randy Sargent, Anne Wright, Kathryn Cramer, Brian McClendon, and Michael Jones, 2006. “Mapping disaster zones.” Nature, volume 439, pp. 787-788.

Tim O’Reilly, 2005. “Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again.” 2006-10-01. O’Reilly Radar at http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition.html, accessed 29 October 2008.

Kathleen J. Tierney, Michael K. Lindell, and Ronald W. Perry, 2001. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Washington, DC: John Henry Press.

Andrew Turner, 2006. Introduction to Neogeography. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Bridgette Wessels, 2010. Understanding the Internet Socio-Cultural Perspective. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Documents

Rise of Crisis Mapping - Liu and Ziemke - api.ning.comapi.ning.com/.../RiseofCrisisMappingLiuandZiemke.pdf · From Cultures of Participation to the Rise of Crisis Mapping in a Networked