One of the donors I’m in contact with about the proposed crisis mapping conference wisely recommended I add a big-picture background to crisis mapping. This blog post is my first pass at providing a brief history of the field. In a way, this is a combined summary of several other posts I have written on this blog over the past 12 months plus my latest thoughts on crisis mapping.
Evidently, this account of history is very much influenced by my own experience so I may have unintentionally missed a few relevant crisis mapping projects. Note that by crisis I refer specifically to armed conflict and human rights violations. As usual, I welcome any feedback and comments you may have so I can improve my blog posts.
From GIS to Neogeography: 2003-2005
The field of dynamic crisis mapping is new and rapidly changing. The three core drivers of this change are the increasingly available and accessible of (1) open-source, dynamic mapping tools; (2) mobile data collection technologies; and lastly (3) the development of new methodologies.
Some experts at the cutting-edge of this change call the results “Neogeography,” which is essentially about “people using and creating their own maps, on their own terms and by combining elements of an existing toolset.” The revolution in applications for user-generated content and mobile technology provides the basis for widely distributed information collection and crowdsourcing—a term coined by Wired less than three years ago. The unprecedented rise in citizen journalism is stark evidence of this revolution. New methodologies for conflict trends analysis increasingly take spatial and/or inter-annual dynamics into account and thereby reveal conflict patterns that otherwise remain hidden when using traditional methodologies.
Until recently, traditional mapping tools were expensive and highly technical geographic information systems (GIS), proprietary software that required extensive training to produce static maps.
In terms of information collection, trained experts traditionally collected conflict and human rights data and documented these using hard-copy survey forms, which typically became proprietary once completed. Scholars began coding conflict event-data but data sharing was the exception rather than the rule.
With respect to methodologies, the quantitative study of conflict trends was virtually devoid of techniques that took spatial dynamics into account because conflict data at the time was largely macro-level data constrained by the “country-year straightjacket.”
That is, conflict data was limited to the country-level and rarely updated more than once a year, which explains why methodologies did not seek to analyze sub-national and inter-annual variations for patterns of conflict and human rights abuses. In addition, scholars in the political sciences were more interested in identifying when conflict as likely to occur as opposed to where. For a more in-depth discussion of this issue, please see my paper from 2006 “On Scale and Complexity in Conflict Analysis” (PDF).
Neogeography is Born: 2005
The pivotal year for dynamic crisis mapping was 2005. This is the year that Google rolled out Google Earth. The application marks an important milestone in Neogeography because the free, user-friendly platform drastically reduced the cost of dynamic and interactive mapping—cost in terms of both availability and accessibility. Microsoft has since launched Virual Earth to compete with Google Earth and other potential contenders.
Interest in dynamic crisis mapping did exist prior to the availability of Google Earth. This is evidenced by the dynamic mapping initiatives I took at Swisspeace in 2003. I proposed that the organization use GIS tools to visualize, animate and analyze the geo-referenced conflict event-data collected by local Swisspeace field monitors in conflict-ridden countries—a project called FAST. In a 2003 proposal, I defined dynamic crisis maps as follows:
FAST Maps are interactive geographic information systems that enable users of leading agencies to depict a multitude of complex interdependent indicators on a user-friendly and accessible two-dimensional map. […] Users have the option of selecting among a host of single and composite events and event types to investigate linkages [between events]. Events and event types can be superimposed and visualized through time using FAST Map’s animation feature. This enables users to go beyond studying a static picture of linkages to a more realistic dynamic visualization.
I just managed to dig up old documents from 2003 and found the interface I had designed for FAST Maps using the template at the time for Swisspeace’s website.
However, GIS software was (and still is) prohibitively expensive and highly technical. To this end, Swisspeace was not compelled to make the necessary investments in 2004 to develop the first crisis mapping platform for producing dynamic crisis maps using geo-referenced conflict data. In hindsight, this was the right decision since Google Earth was rolled out the following year.
Enter PRIO and GROW-net: 2006-2007
With the arrival of Google Earth, a variety of dynamic crisis maps quickly emerged. In fact, one if not the first application of Google Earth for crisis mapping was carried out in 2006 by Jen Ziemke and I. We independently used Google Earth and newly available data from the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) to visualize conflict data over time and space. (Note that both Jen and I were researchers at PRIO between 2006-2007).
Jen used Google Earth to explain the dynamics and spatio-temporal variation in violence during the Angolan war. To do this, she first coded nearly 10,000 battle and massacre events as reported in the Portuguese press that took place over a 40 year period.
Meanwhile, I produced additional dynamic crisis maps of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for PRIO and of the Colombian civil war for the Conflict Analysis Resource Center (CARC) in Bogota. At the time, researchers in Oslo and Bogota used proprietary GIS software to produce static maps (PDF) of their newly geo-referenced conflict data. PRIO eventually used Google Earth but only to publicize the novelty of their new geo-referenced historical conflict datasets.
Since then, PRIO has continued to play an important role in analyzing the spatial dynamics of armed conflict by applying new quantitative methodologies. Together with universities in Europe, the Institute formed the Geographic Representations of War-net (GROW-net) in 2006, with the goal of “uncovering the causal mechanisms that generate civil violence within relevant historical and geographical and historical configurations.” In 2007, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH), a member of GROW-net, produced dynamic crisis maps using Google Earth for a project called WarViews.
Crisis Mapping Evolves: 2007-2008
More recently, Automated Crisis Mapping (ACM), real-time and automated information collection mechanisms using natural language processing (NLP) have been developed for the automated and dynamic mapping of disaster and health-related events. Examples of such platforms include the Global Disaster Alert and Crisis System (GDACS), CrisisWire, Havaria and HealthMap. Similar platforms have been developed for automated mapping of other news events, such as Global Incident Map, BuzzTracker, Development Seed’s Managing the News, and the Joint Research Center’s European Media Monitor.
Equally recent is the development of Mobile Crisis Mapping (MCM), mobile crowdsourcing platforms designed for the dynamic mapping of conflict and human rights data as exemplified by Ushahidi (with FrontLineSMS) and the Humanitarian Sensor Web (SensorWeb).
Another important development around this time is the practice of participatory GIS preceded by the recognition that social maps and conflict maps can empower local communities and be used for conflict resolution. Like maps of natural disasters and environmental degradation, these can be developed and discussed at the community level to engage conversation and joint decision-making. This is a critical component since one of the goals of crisis mapping is to empower individuals to take better decisions.
HHI’s Crisis Mapping Project: 2007-2009
The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI) is currently playing a pivotal role in crafting the new field of dynamic crisis mapping. Coordinated by Jennifer Leaning and myself, HHI is completing a two-year applied research project on Crisis Mapping and Early Warning. This project comprised a critical and comprehensive evaluation of the field and the documentation of lessons learned, best practices as well as alternative and innovative approaches to crisis mapping and early warning.
HHI also acts as an incubator for new projects and supported the conceptual development of new crisis mapping platforms like Ushahidi and the SensorWeb. In addition, HHI produced the first comparative and dynamic crisis map of Kenya by drawing on reports from the mainstream media, citizen journalists and Ushahidi to analyze spatial and temporal patterns of conflict events and communication flows during a crisis.
HHI’s Sets a Research Agenda: 2009
HHI has articulated an action-oriented research agenda for the future of crisis mapping based on the findings from the two-year crisis mapping project. This research agenda can be categorized into the following three areas, which were coined by HHI:
- Crisis Map Sourcing
- Mobile Crisis Mapping
- Crisis Mapping Analytics
1) Crisis Map Sourcing (CMS) seeks to further research on the challenge of visualizing disparate sets of data ranging from structural and dynamic data to automated and mobile crisis mapping data. The challenge of CMS is to develop appropriate methods and best practices for mashing data from Automated Crisis Mapping (ACM) tools and Mobile Crisis Mapping platforms (see below) to add value to Crisis Mapping Analytics (also below).
2) The purpose of setting an applied-research agenda for Mobile Crisis Mapping, or MCM, is to recognize that the future of distributed information collection and crowdsourcing will be increasingly driven by mobile technologies and new information ecosystems. This presents the crisis mapping community with a host of pressing challenges ranging from data validation and manipulation to data security.
These hurdles need to be addressed directly by the crisis mapping community so that new and creative solutions can be applied earlier rather than later. If the persistent problem of data quality is not adequately resolved, then policy makers may question the reliability of crisis mapping for conflict prevention, rapid response and the documentation of human rights violations. Worse still, inaccurate data may put lives at risk.
3) Crisis Mapping Analytics (CMA) is the third critical area of research set by HHI. CMA is becoming increasingly important given the unprecedented volume of geo-referenced data that is rapidly becoming available. Existing academic platforms like WarViews and operational MCM platforms like Ushahidi do not include features that allow practitioners, scholars and the public to query the data and to visually analyze and identify the underlying spatial dynamics of the conflict and human rights data. This is largely true of Automated Crisis Mapping (ACM) tools as well.
In other words, new and informative metrics are need to be developed to identify patterns in human rights abuses and violent conflict both retrospectively and in real-time. In addition, existing techniques from spatial econometrics need to be rendered more accessible to non-statisticians and built into existing dynamic crisis mapping platforms.
Jen Ziemke and I thus conclude that the most pressing need in the field of crisis mapping is to bridge the gap between scholars and practitioners who self-identify as crisis mappers. This is the most pressing issue because bridging that divide will enable the field of crisis mapping to effectively and efficiently move forward by pursuing the three research agendas set out by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI).
We think this is key to moving the crisis-mapping field into more mainstream humanitarian and human rights work—i.e., operational response. But doing so first requires that leading crisis mapping scholars and practitioners proactively bridge the existing gap. This is the core goal of the crisis mapping conference that we propose to organize.
Thank you for the valuable information. Just wanted to point out these two crisis mapping in case you were not aware of them yet:
in French, damages due to cyclonic season in dec 08 in Madagascar:
and political crisis mapping using ushahidi in Madagascar:
Thank you very much Lova, great work!
Good overview. It’s very easy to miss successful examples that were never official projects, products, or case studies.
Examples such as OpenStreetMap and OpenRouteService in Haiti, Twitter and Flickr in San Diego wildfires, Wikis and Blogs during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.
It’s very valuable to put these cutting edge demonstrators in the history as they lead the way for the creation of tools, platforms, and larger initiatives. Ushahidi is a good, self-contained example of this process.
It seems like there should be, or we should make, a way to capture these projects, tools used, lessons learned, etc. in order to evaluate emerging better practices and techniques in crisis mapping.
Many thanks for the great feedback, Andrew.
Yes, we should find a way to capture unofficial projects, tools used, lessons learned, etc. in order to evaluate emerging best practices and techniques in crisis mapping. HHI has a 40-page report due out soon on this and one of the goals of the crisis mapping conference is precisely to set these action items in motion.
I am interested in the intersection of GIS and humanitarian response, but none of the classes I have taken gave me this kind of background. Thanks so much for taking the time to lay out the “evolution” of crisis mapping. I am particularly intrigued by the next step with econometrics.
Thanks for your kind, note, Jocelyn. Very glad you found the post informative!
Pingback: Crime Mapping Analytics « iRevolution
Pingback: Evaluating Accuracy of Data Collection on Mobile Phones « iRevolution
Pingback: Video Introduction to Crisis Mapping « iRevolution
Pingback: Mobile Crisis Mapping (MCM) « iRevolution
Pingback: The Past and Future of Crisis Mapping « iRevolution
Pingback: A revolution in data analysis for conflicts? | Ashoka.org: News & Knowledge Entrepreneurs
Thanks for this, it really helps to situate crisis mapping in a broader context. I’m curious if those defining the research agenda have also identified an agenda for its diffusion. As of yet, the information I’ve found is in blogs, project websites, and the gray-web. While many associated concepts (volunteered geographic information, participatory GIS, etc) and techniques (virtual globes, satellite imagery) are well represented; the idea of crisis mapping as a whole seems missing from academic literature. I don’t see this as good or bad, I’m just wondering if it’s a conscious choice. Will proceedings from the conference be published online or elsewhere?
Hi Shadorock, excellent point, you’re absolutely right, crisis mapping is missing from the academic literature. There are no peer reviewed journals, no books, etc. That’s why we’re launching the International Network of Crisis Mappers (INCM, “in-sim”): http://www.crisismappers.net. Please add your profile. We’ll be launching on an online journal next year, creating open coursework and will also set up a network of academics interested in crisis mapping. So stay tuned!
Pingback: Top 10 Posts on iRevolution in 2009 « iRevolution
Pingback: Crowdsourced Crisis-Mapping: Digital Cartography and Geo-Tagging « Hypios – Thinking
Pingback: What is Crisis Mapping? An Update on the Field and Looking Ahead | iRevolution
Note that by crisis I refer specifically to armed conflict and human rights violations. As usual, I welcome any feedback and comments you may have so I can improve my blog post
at the time was largely macro-level data constrained by the “country-year straightjacket.”
the idea of crisis mapping as a whole seems missing from academic literature. I don’t see this as good or bad, I’m just wondering if it’s a conscious choice. Will proceedings
s deben ser relevantes para la investigación con animales han hecho de este un lugar orugas se alimentan después de dar un giro en solitario, y los gusanos se alimentan de los hábitos de otros lugares están poniendo en y alrededor de kurtulamıyorlar están muriendo sin alimentos, ya sea t es muy extraño.?
Great article, I am slowly trying to work Crisis Mapping into one of my courses and this piece helps a lot.
Thanks Tom, would love to learn more about your course.
Pingback: The Best of iRevolution: Four Years of Blogging | iRevolution
Hi Patrick – Nice summary. One small correction. The practice of participatory mapping existed long before 2007, emerging from rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods used by the international development community, and blending with methods of the geographers and geospatial community in the 1980s and early 90s (for example, see the work of the East West Center and Land Tenure Center). As the academic land use planning community began to use these methods in the United States, the term Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) was officially coined at the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) Workshop, Orono, Maine, in July 10-13, 1996. (That said the use of mapping tools for community empowerment goes back well before this.) If memory serves, there were GIS & Society meetings in the mid-1990s that focused on participatory mapping approaches, but the first annual PPGIS conference in the US was held at Rutgers University in 2002. Others might have more history to add. See http://www.ppgis.net/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_participation_GIS
See also another line of inquiry in geography called “counter-mapping:” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-mapping
Many thanks for the correction, Lea, and thanks for reading blog posts of mine even when they are four years old 🙂 Had forgotten about this one!