Why Information Matters - A Foundation for Resilience

WHY
INFORMATION
MATTERS
A FOUNDATION
FOR RESILIENCE
November 2014
SUPPORTED BY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“Why Information Matters: a foundation for resilience” is
part of Embracing Change: The Critical Role of Information,
funded by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to
support the Internews’ Center for Innovation and Learning’s
research on the role of information ecosystems in building
resilience. Many thanks to the Rockefeller Foundation, and
especially to Sundaa Bridgett-Jones, Associate Director,
International Development, for vital input and support.
Amanda Noonan (Internews, Director of Research and
Learning) and Adam Levin (Internews, Project Manager
and Knowledge Management Advisor) collaborated on
the strategic vision and planning, and provided invaluable
feedback on earlier drafts of this report. Mark Frohardt
(Executive Director, Internews’ Center for Innovation and
Learning) shared useful input on earlier drafts. Matt Abud
provided helpful context and guidance for the Jakarta
InfoEco Pilot research. A big acknowledgement is due to
the staff at PMI East Jakarta, particularly Eki, Fahdhli, and
Dewi, for generously facilitating two days of our site visits
to flood-affected areas. Deep appreciation as well to the
Jakarta InfoEco Pilot interviewees for their very valuable
contributions. Many thanks to Roanne van Voorst, (University
of the Netherlands, Lecturer) and Vida Parady (University of
Indonesia, Lecturer) for their helpful peer reviews of earlier
drafts of Part III. We also thank our final peer reviewers,
Charles Martin-Shields (George Mason University) and Ola
Tjornbo (University of Waterloo), for their invaluable feedback.
CREDITS
Tara Susman-Peña (Internews, Senior Research Officer)
is the research lead for the Embracing Change project
and the principal author of the report. Nicole Audette
(Internews, Research Assistant) was responsible for analysis
of the Internews case studies (Part II). Julianne Funk,
Alyssa Mesich, and Thelonius Cook (Internews, Research
Assistants) reviewed theoretical and policy literature. Mary
Myers contributed edits to an early draft of the report.
Isobel Grad (Internews, Research Assistant) designed the
preliminary visualizations and graphics for the report. Natalie
Chang (Senior Program Associate, Internews) edited the
report and provided substantial writing support. Annette
Makino copyedited the report. Front cover photograph
by Roanne van Voorst, 2011. Photographs on pages 22-
24 are drawn from their respective research reports.
All other photographs by Tara Susman-Peña, 2014.
ACRONYMS
AIFDR Australia Indonesia Facility
for Disaster Reduction
BNPB National Disaster Management Agency
(Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana)
BPBD Provincial Disaster Management Agency
(Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah)
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
FEMA The Federal Emergency
Management Agency
MPBI Indonesian Society for Disaster
Management (Masyarakat
Penanggulangan Bencana Indonesia)
NGO Non-governmental Organization
PMI Indonesia Red Cross (Palang
Merah Indonesia)
Pusdalops Central Management and
Operations for Floods
RT “Neighborhood administrator”
(Rukun Tetangga)
RW “Community administrator” (Rukun
Warga) Administrators of a larger
geographic area and level of
responsibility above Rukun Tetangga
SMS Short Message Service
UNOCHA United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
SUPPORTED BY

1
WHY INFORMATION MATTERS A FOUNDATION FOR RESILIENCE
SCOPING &
DEFINING
TESTING &
UNDERSTANDING
OPERATIONALIZING
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3
Initial framing and research
to explore theoretical and
practical underpinnings of
information ecosystems.
ACTIVITIES
• Literature review of systems,
ecosystems and resilience
• Defining information
ecosystems and an analytic
framework
OUTPUTS
• Literature Review
[Completed April 2014]
Refining definitions and
analyzing the relationship
between information
ecosystems and resilience.
ACTIVITIES
• Reviewing four Internews
case studies in Japan,
Pakistan, Indonesia,
and Myanmar
• Fieldwork in Jakarta
• Fieldwork in New York City
OUTPUTS
• Resilient Information
Ecosystems Tumblr [Ongoing]
• Why Information Matters:
A Foundation for Resilience
[September 2014]
• Why Information
Matters summary deck
[September 2014]
Developing and sharing
of operational guidelines
and tools for policymakers
and practitioners.
ACTIVITIES
• Creating materials to
capture research findings
• Disseminating materials
through events and public
launch
OUTPUTS
• Final Presentation Deck
[September 2014]
• Final Report
[November 2014]
• Outreach Strategy
& Dissemination Plan
[November 2014]
EMBRACING CHANGE:
THE CRITICAL ROLE OF INFORMATION

2
Embracing Change: The Critical Role of
Information, a research project by the Internews'
Center for Innovation & Learning, supported by
the Rockefeller Foundation, combines Internews’
longstanding effort to highlight the important role of
information with Rockefeller’s groundbreaking work on
resilience. The project focuses on three major aspects:
∞∞ Building knowledge around the role of
information in empowering communities to
understand and adapt to different types of
change: slow onset, long-term, and rapid onset /
disruptive;
∞∞ Identifying strategies and techniques for
strengthening information ecosystems to support
behavioral adaptation to disruptive change; and
∞∞ Disseminating knowledge and principles to
individuals, communities, the private sector,
policymakers, and other partners so that they can
incorporate healthy information ecosystems as a
core element of their social resilience strategies.
“Why Information Matters: A Foundation For
Resilience” represents the first step towards these
aims. Drawing on theoretical literature, case studies,
and primary field research, this report:
1. Defines “information ecosystems” and
proposes an analytic framework of eight critical
dimensions for understanding them, drawing
upon the Center’s extensive literature review
completed in April 2014 and reflecting Internews’
three decades of field experience;
2. Analyzes information ecosystems across
a spectrum of change and their impact on
resilience, referencing four case studies of
Internews’ previous work;
3. Shares insights from the Jakarta Information
Ecosystems pilot, which investigated the
relevance of information ecosystems to
communities living in chronically flood-prone
environments; and
4. Reveals the utility of an information ecosystems
approach and highlights preliminary conclusions
on why information matters for resilience.
This analysis provides consistent evidence that healthy
information ecosystems promote resilience, while weak
information ecosystems seriously hinder preparedness,
response, and recovery from shocks and stressors;
underscores that healthy information ecosystems are a
vital component of ensuring that resilience strategies
engage all individuals and communities within a
city or system; and surfaces critical areas of further
investigation in the second phase of the Embracing
Change project, the New York InfoEco Pilot study.
The final phase of the Embracing Change project
(to be completed in November 2014) will lead to the
development of practical guidelines and tools for
incorporating measures to strengthen the health of
information ecosystems into resilience frameworks.
Future outcomes will include diagnostic tools for
accessingthehealthofinformationecosystems,including
additional characteristics, indicators, and variables
that inform a holistic picture of healthy information
ecosystems. Ultimately, the research is designed to
identify critical issues and opportunities that can inform
planning and practice, and further identify where action
and investment will be most effective.
“Why Information Matters” is designed principally
for policymakers, practitioners, and communities
concerned with strengthening resilience strategies
and practices. The streams of research that inform the
analysis and recommendations are described below
in Methodology. While the data from this research
ABOUT THIS REPORT

3
is summarized in the paper and annexes, the focus
of this piece is the learning and recommendations
that we have drawn from the data. The paper is not
meant to be academic nor fully capture the rigor of the
research; it is meant to enable informed action.
METHODOLOGY
LEARNING FROM LITERATURE
Information ecosystems, occasionally referred to
as “information ecologies,” are an underdeveloped
concept in the literature. Most uses of the term
assume a common understanding without laying out
a definition; it is less so considered with respect to
the development and resilience of communities. In
April 2014, the Center presented a literature review
summarizing explorations of the theoretical and
practical underpinnings of information ecosystems to
articulate: 1) what information ecosystems are, how
they function, and how best to assess them; and 2)
how best to strengthen them to support communities’
adaptation to change.1
LEARNING FROM CASE STUDIES
The review of theoretical literature was a basis for
constructing a working definition of information
ecosystems, a significant part of which is the “Eight
Critical Dimensions of Information Ecosystems.” This
definition was then used to analyze the relationship
between healthy information ecosystems and
resilience through four Internews case studies
representing different forms of disruption and
change: 1) instability and underdevelopment in the
tribal regions of northwest Pakistan, 2) Japan after
the massive underwater earthquake and tsunami that
notoriously damaged the Fukushima nuclear power
plant, 3) Myanmar at the cusp of unprecedented
1 THE FULL LITERATURE REVIEW CAN BE DOWNLOADED ON THE CENTER’S
WEBSITE: HTTPS://INNOVATION.INTERNEWS.ORG/RESEARCH/WHAT-
INFORMATION-ECOSYSTEM-WHY-DOES-ITMATTER
political and economic opening, and 4) three
environmental disasters in Indonesia, including
floods that are a chronic occurrence in Jakarta.
LEARNING FROM RESILIENCE POLICY,
IDEAS, AND PRACTICE
To contextualize the research, the Center examined
policy literature on disaster risk reduction and
resiliencetobetterunderstandhowinformationfitsinto
current conversations and thinking in this area. Key to
this review was Arup’s “City Resilience Framework”
(supported by the Rockefeller Foundation) in addition
to documents on disaster policy in Indonesia and the
United States.
LEARNING FROM FIELDWORK
To further inform the theoretical and retrospective
analyses on the relationship between information
ecosystems and resilience, this report incorporates
fieldwork in Jakarta, Indonesia completed in April
2014. At the time of writing, additional fieldwork in the
Brooklyn and Staten Island areas of New York City is
ongoing, and will be described in future deliverables.
This component of the research is designed to pilot
the information ecosystems methodological approach
to offer new insight and inform future inquiry for
information ecosystem and resilience research and
planning.

4
ABOUT THIS REPORT
DESK-BASED RESEARCH
FIELDWORK RESEARCH
JAKARTA INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS PILOT
WHY INFORMATION MATTERS:
A FOUNDATION FOR RESILIENCE
LITERATURE
REVIEW
INTERNEWS
CASE STUDIES
CITY
RESILIENCE
FRAMEWORK
RESILIENCE
POLICY:
INDONESIA&US
INTERVIEWS SITE VISITS

5
Information is as critical as the air we breathe.
Without information, people can neither understand
nor effectively respond to the events that shape their
world. For over 30 years, Internews has strengthened
and supported local media around the world to
help ensure that individuals, communities, and
governments have the information they need to make
critical decisions. This experience with citizens and
local media in more than 90 countries has provided
plentiful evidence that information not only supports
the development and wellbeing of populations around
the world, but that people empowered with the
information they need are more capable of creating
resilient communities.
While information is so fundamental to surviving and
thriving within our complex global environment, it is
rarely addressed directly, considered strategically, or
integrated effectively across policy and planning for
resilience. When information does appear in resilience
literature, it usually has a minor role, and is often
conceived as simple messaging to affected populations,
or as a tool in coordinating responders and resources.
Moreover, when information is explicitly recognized
as an important element in a system’s capacity
to adapt and evolve in the face of disruptions,
corresponding strategies rarely incorporate analyzing
and strengthening information flows as a core pillar
– particularly at the hyper local, human-to-human
level. The information needs of communities; the
context, production, sharing, or impact of information;
or social factors such as trust and power dynamics
are seldom even mentioned in resilience policy and
practice. Most studies to date do not take into account
informal information networks, people’s perceptions
about information in their community, or the impact of
information transmitted through word of mouth. Issues
of change and adaptation, or the use of information to
cope with the events, shocks, and stressors that disrupt
the performance of systems and the lives of citizens,
has never been systematically analyzed or incorporated
into an operational framework.
These elements, which deliberately incorporate
an appreciation of social relationships, human
context, and dynamic networks of control and
influence, are critical to understanding the impact
ofmedia,information,communication,andvarious
information technologies on social systems.
Information is inherently social and has meaning only
in social context. As such, we must leverage a broad and
universal framework that emphasizes these dimensions
- information ecosystems – to truly understand a
community’s unique information obstacles, challenges,
and needs. The use of information ecosystems as a
PREFACE
““HUMAN WELLBEING
IN CITIES RELIES ON
A COMPLEX WEB
OF INSTITUTIONS,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
INFORMATION."
- CIT Y RESILIENCE FR A MEWORK , ARUP
WHY DO
INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS
MATTER FOR
RESILIENCE?

6
PREFACE
framework creates the opportunity for a vastly diverse
array of frames of analysis, ranging from the sum total
of all information points and flows in a community, to a
very narrow slice of the system. The framework is also
the first to conceive of information needs, information
creation, and information distribution as multi-
dimensional, dynamic, and fluid systems that adapt
and regenerate according to the specific context of a
given situation and community.
Information ecosystems are fundamental to
resilience. Information is the lifeblood of resilience
– it is the foundation for human behavior. Without
the ability to access, create, disseminate, and share
critical information about the world around them,
individuals are incapable of understanding the
challenges they confront, adapting to an evolving
environment, nor ultimately, improving their lives.
As such, a significant element in the understanding,
building, and reinforcement of community resilience
must be an understanding of how to support the
health of information ecosystems. More broadly,
understanding how information flows, and how to
ensure that information has an impact at all levels
of a city or system, is essential for operationalizing
resilience strategies and should be a central concern
for all planning, practice and investment in this space.
How information is interpreted, perceived, and trusted
is extremely important in understanding how resilience
policies and programs will be transformed in practice.
The information ecosystems framework, therefore,
offers unique value in understanding the complexities
of information so that decision makers can leverage
informationasaresourceforthewellbeingofpopulations.
The approach is applicable at multiple scales and
timeframes, from the hyper-local, to the city, to systems
within systems. As it enables highly granular human
insights grounded in social context, it offers insights for
actively engaging communities down to the individual
citizen as participants and builders of resilience. For
anyone interested in improving information access, flow
and uptake in target communities, an understanding of
information ecosystems is key not only to the design of
appropriate and effective interventions that have impact,
““EXCHANGE OF
INFORMATION BETWEEN
SYSTEMS ENABLES
THEM TO FUNCTION
COLLECTIVELY AND
RESPOND RAPIDLY
THROUGH SHORTER
FEEDBACK LOOPS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY."
CIT Y RESILIENCE FR A MEWORK , ARUP
““THE CONCEPTUAL
LIMITATION OF
RESILIENCE IS THAT IT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY
ACCOUNT FOR THE
POWER DYNAMICS THAT
ARE INHERENT IN THE
WAY CITIES FUNCTION
AND COPE WITH
DISRUPTIONS."
CIT Y RESILIENCE FR A MEWORK , ARUP

7
but fostering strategies that empower and build upon a
community’s existing relationships internally and with
external stakeholders.
At the heart of the Internews’ work is the vision that
healthy information ecosystems are a root solution to
furthering human progress. Through research in the
closed societies of Pakistan and Burma, as well as this
current work supported by the Rockefeller Foundation,
theInternewsCenterforInnovation&Learningcontinues
to develop a deeper appreciation for and description
of the information dynamics, flows, networks, and
communication behaviors that characterize information
ecosystems in environments of change and disruption.
It is our belief that applying our expertise in
information ecosystems to the context of the
Rockefeller Foundation’s resilience strategies is not
only a fundamental element of strengthening our
support for communities around the world, but is
a valuable opportunity to bring our expertise to
urban planners and others in the resilience space to
collaborate and build a body of knowledge around
the critical role of information in embracing change.
This report is a first step toward demonstrating and
building a body of evidence around the importance
of healthy information ecosystems in understanding,
building, and reinforcing resilience.
““[I]NFORMATION HOLDS SYSTEMS TOGETHER AND…
DELAYED, BIASED, SCATTERED, OR MISSING INFORMATION
CAN MAKE FEEDBACK LOOPS MALFUNCTION. DECISION
MAKERS CAN’T RESPOND TO INFORMATION THEY DON’T
HAVE, CAN’T RESPOND ACCURATELY TO INFORMATION
THAT IS INACCURATE, AND CAN’T RESPOND IN A TIMELY
WAY TO INFORMATION THAT IS LATE. I WOULD GUESS THAT
MOST OF WHAT GOES WRONG IN SYSTEMS GOES WRONG
BECAUSE OF BIASED, LATE, OR MISSING INFORMATION.
IF I COULD, I WOULD ADD AN ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT
TO THE FIRST TEN: THOU SHALT NOT DISTORT, DELAY, OR
WITHHOLD INFORMATION. YOU CAN DRIVE A SYSTEM
CRAZY BY MUDDYING ITS INFORMATION STREAMS. YOU
CAN MAKE A SYSTEM WORK BETTER WITH SURPRISING
EASE IF YOU CAN GIVE IT MORE TIMELY, MORE ACCURATE,
MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION."
– DONELL A ME ADOWS , THINKING IN SYS TEMS

8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT THIS REPORT 2
PREFACE 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS 8
PARTI:DEFININGINFORMATIONECOSYSTEMS 9
A. INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS:
WHY A NEW PARADIGM? 9
B. WHAT IS AN
INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM? 11
C. INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS:
A PRELIMINARY DEFINITION 11
D. EIGHT CRITICAL DIMENSIONS
OF INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS 12
E. INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS
& ADAPTATION TO CHANGE 18
PART II: INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS & RESILIENCE 21
A. OVERVIEW
OF CASE STUDIES 22
B. WHY INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS MATTER
FOR RESILIENCE 24
C. HOW INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS
MATTER FOR RESILIENCE 25
D. AREAS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH 28
E. TOWARDS PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGIES:
CLASSIFYING INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS 29
PART III: THE IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS FOR RESILIENCE 31
1. INFORMATION NEEDS 33
2. INFORMATION LANDSCAPE /
3. PRODUCTION AND MOVEMENT 34
4. DYNAMIC OF ACCESS 36
5. USE 37
6. IMPACT OF INFORMATION 38
7. SOCIAL TRUST 40
8. INFLUENCERS 41
PRELIMINARY
CONCLUSIONS 42
PART IV: WHY INFORMATION MATTERS 44
ANNEX I:TOWARDS TYPOLOGIES 46
ANNEX II: ANALYZING THE CASE STUDIES 48
ANNEX III: JAKARTA INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS PILOT 74
ANNEX IV: KEY FINDINGS
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 77
ANNEX V:NEW YORK INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS PILOT 78
ANNEX VI: BIBLIOGRAPHY 81

9
situation and community. Among other goals, this
framework aimed to understand the utility and
impact of new tools and technologies within specific
contexts, including their unintended consequences on
traditional information flows.
Now referred to as “information ecosystems,” this
approach combining macro-level analysis (i.e.
media landscape, information infrastructures,
and political/regulatory environments), granular
observations (i.e. information availability, needs,
and distribution), with human and social insights
(i.e. identifying information disseminators and
influencers) is believed to be the best methodology
for understanding how to deliver information with
impact. By understanding information ecosystems,
policymakers and practitioners can design the most
appropriate and effective strategies that can serve
even the most information deprived communities
and societies.
This report offers an opportunity to take a systemic
and holistic approach in defining information
ecosystems and examining how they function across a
spectrum of change. In Part I, we present a preliminary
definition of information ecosystems and eight critical
dimensions for understanding them, based on an
PART I
A. INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS:
WHY A NEW PARADIGM?
R
ecent years have seen more changes in the
global media and journalism environment
than ever before in Internews’ 30+ years
of history. From the rapid trending of the mobile
phone as a primary source of information, to the
decline of traditional media in many places around
the world, the dramatic evolution in how people
access, produce, consume, and share information
has challenged our fundamental understanding of
how to create quality local news and information.
Recognizing that new information dynamics
necessitated a new and forward-looking model
of comprehending local information systems, the
Internews Center for Innovation & Learning began its
investigations into “information ecologies” in 2012.
For the first time, this optic conceived of information
needs and information creation and distribution as
fluid systems that adapt and regenerate according
to the obstacles, challenges and needs of a given
DEFINING INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS

10
I. DEFINING INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS
HOW NEWS IS RECEIVED, DISCUSSED, AND SHARED IN MON STATE (URBAN AND RURAL)
URBAN HOUSEHOLDS
RURAL HOUSEHOLDS
INFLUENTIAL/AFFLUENT
YOUNG URBAN
INFORMATION THAT
FLOWS FROM SOURCE
AND THROUGH:
LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
FRIENDS
AND
FAMILY
RURAL
HOUSEHOLDS
URBAN
HOUSEHOLDS
INFLUENTIAL
URBAN/
AFFLUENT RURAL
RESIDENTS
YOUNG
URBAN
RESIDENTS
MYANMAR NATIONAL
NEWS SERVICES
FOREIGN NEWS
SERVICE (BBC, VOA)
EXILED
MEDIA
DISCUSS
WITH
FAMILY/
FRIENDS
DISCUSS
WITH
TRUSTED NETWORKS
IN PUBLIC
(TEA SHOPS, MARKETS,
SALONS, ETC...)
PASS
ON
INFORMATION
DIRECTLY
MOBILE
PHONE
WORLD OF
MOUTH
TELEVISION
RADIO
INTERNET
LESS AVAILABLEPRINT
MEDIA
@
AND THEN IS VERIFIED AND/OR DISCUSSED
IN VARIOUS SPACES, BEFORE BEING PASSED
ON TO OTHER FRIENDS OR FAMILY
A sample information ecosystem analysis from Mon State, Myanmar examining information sources and flows for different segments of the population.
This is just one way of analyzing an information ecosystem; there are many others.

11
extensive literature review.2
In order to ground our
definitions of information ecosystems, we then look
at these concepts “in action” through an examination
of Internews’ previous research in Japan, Pakistan,
Myanmar, and Indonesia in Part II.
B. WHAT IS AN
INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM?
Borrowed from environmental studies, the term
“information ecosystem” is used to describe how
local communities exist and evolve within particular
informationandcommunicationsystems.Withinthese
systems, different types of news and information may
be received from outside then passed on to others—
through word of mouth, key community members,
phone, the Internet, and the like. An examination of
an information ecosystem looks at the flow, trust, use
and impact of news and information.
2 THE FRAMEWORK PRESENTED HERE SYNTHESIZES AND EXTENDS RELEVANT
THEORY ABOUT INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS AND ITS UNDERPINNING
CONCEPTS. THIS SECTION DRAWS ON KEY FINDINGS FROM THE EMBRACING
CHANGE LITERATURE REVIEW, FOUND AT https://innovation.internews.org/
research/what-information-ecosystem-why-does-it-matter.
An information ecosystem is not a static entity; it is
by nature constantly evolving and changing. Nor is it
a discrete form; it can be defined at many levels, from
global to national to community to interest-based
groupings within communities. Any examination of
an information ecosystem goes beyond traditional
audience research on media access and consumption;
it adds considerations of information needs,
information creation, and information distribution as
dynamic systems that adapt and regenerate according
to the broader developmental challenges and needs of
a given community.
C. INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS:
A PRELIMINARY DEFINITION
“Information ecosystems” broadly refers to a loose,
dynamic configuration of different sources, flows,
producers, consumers, and sharers of information
interacting within a defined community or space. A
resonant and promising idea, information ecosystems
are an underdeveloped concept in the literature. Most
uses of the term assume a common understanding
without laying out a definition. It is not yet a common
concept,andevenlesssowithrespecttothedevelopment
and resilience of communities. This under-elaboration
and minimal currency offers an opportunity to explore
the theoretical and practical groundwork that underlies
the term, and to craft the definition that best suits the
goals for the Embracing Change project.
The idea of information ecosystems stands on
the shoulders of several other families of theory:
ecosystems, resilience, and at the very core, systems
theory. The systems framework establishes that an
information ecosystem is made up of complex sets of
relationships. Any systems-driven analysis thus will
need to consider the structure of the system, how to
understand the relationships among its parts, how to

12
trace and examine the flows of information that are
critical to those relationship, and the relationship of the
system’s structure to its behavior.
Tosystemsthinkers,theworldisacollectionoffeedback
processes. Information flows are vital to feedback
processes, and thus, information is the lifeblood of any
and all systems. Information is inherently social and
acquires meaning only in a social context. Information
is a relationship; generating and receiving information
are both creative acts. Information is an activity, not a
thing; it has to move or it ceases to be of value.
To understand information ecosystems, contextual
analysis is critical. Information is a defining aspect of
human relationships; thus the question of trust is critical
to the study of information ecosystems. Information
must move or it has no reason to exist; because it moves,
it transforms as context and actors shift.
Based on an extensive literature review and Internews’
extensive global field experience as an implementer
of media and information projects, the Center puts
forth the current working definition of information
ecosystems:
Information ecosystems are complex
adaptive systems that include
information infrastructure, tools, media,
producers, consumers, curators, and
sharers. They are complex organizations
of dynamic social relationships
through which information moves and
transforms in flows. Through information
ecosystems, information appears as a
master resource, like energy, the lack of
which makes everything more difficult.
This definition is intended to be a preliminary
one, and will continue to evolve through further
research.3
D. EIGHT CRITICAL DIMENSIONS
OF INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS
This conceptual framework also includes
Eight Critical Dimensions of Information
Ecosystems, which enable a holistic understanding
and analysis of the information ecosystem of any
given community or place. These dimensions are
dynamic and in constant flux, depending on the
specificities of each context at a given moment in
time. To illustrate how each would be reflected
in a healthy information ecosystem, we provide
a few general principles for each dimension. In
the next section of this report, the case studies
3 FOR EXAMPLE, COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS BY DEFINITION
EXHIBIT EMERGENCE; THEY TRANSFORM IN UNPREDICTABLE WAYS.
UNDERSTANDING THIS DYNAMIC IN INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS IS AN
IMPORTANT TOPIC FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.

13
provide concrete examples illuminating these
principles. These dimensions, like the definition of
information ecosystems, were constructed out of
the theoretical literature review and observations
from Internews’ field experience. The dimensions
are interconnected and non-hierarchical, and are
provided as a preliminary analytical tool with which
to understand resilience from a new perspective.4
4 FOR AN EXAMPLE OF EARLY FORAYS INTO APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK,
SEE http://resilientinfoeco.tumblr.com/post/91388759035/putting-the-infoeco-
framework-into-action. THIS EXAMPLE SHOWCASES SISI NI AMANI, A KENYA-
BASED ORGANIZATION THAT USES A COMBINATION OF TRADITIONAL
AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO COMMUNICATION AND DIALOGUE
TO INCREASE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND PREVENT VIOLENCE IN KENYAN
COMMUNITIES.
THE EIGHT CRITICAL DIMENSIONS OF INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS
Information
needs1
Inﬂuencers
8
Social
trust7
Impact of
information6
Production
and movement3
Dynamic of
access4
Information
landscape2
Use of
information5

14
1. INFORMATION NEEDS
• Information needs across different segments of
the population, and how they change over time
• The degree that information needs are known
to information producers and consumers
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• Populations’ information needs are diverse and
changing, and sub-groups within a community
will have vastly different information needs.
Information and communication needs assessments
are a critical first step in designing programs.
• Information must be inclusive and relevant to
all segments of the population, including at the
hyper-local community level. Policymakers and
practitioners must have sufficient channels for
listening and adapting to community feedback.
• Information must be unbiased, and should not
serve the interests of media organizations, the
government, or others. Without locally relevant
and actionable information, communities are
left disempowered, helpless, and frustrated.
2. INFORMATION LANDSCAPE
• The physical and institutional infrastructures
that support information production and
flow, including media outlets, distributions
systems, production units, etc.
• Intermediary organizations: media,
government, private industry, civil society
• The characteristics of information
providers and their capacity to verify, filter,
sort, and disseminate information
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• While elements of macro infrastructure (e.g.
national radio broadcasting networks, cell phone
towers) are often the easiest to identify and support
within media and information landscapes, Internews
has found that the hyper-local, community level
information landscape is the backbone of healthy
information ecosystems. Hyper-local information
is critical for inspiring action, and its flow depends
on capable information providers and local
influencers (please see the eighth dimension).
• Different groups access information
through different means; understanding the
information landscape ensures that information
is matched with the most appropriate and
resonant way to communicate it for impact.

15
3. PRODUCTION AND MOVEMENT
• The variety of types of information available
(e.g. government services, community news)
• The producers of information and the owners
of the means of production and dissemination
• The role of word of mouth, social media, bulletin
boards, and other local information hubs
• The role of Internet and mobile media as new, and
rapidly expanding sources of information flows
• The variety of types of content
available, and to whom
• Impact of information as storytelling
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• Strengthening information flows is not just
about building new tools or technologies; it is
also about redundancy and coordination. Healthy
information ecosystems are characterized by
a diversity of sources capable of providing the
same message. In particular, while sophisticated
sources of information like SMS and TV are typical
of more developed societies, these systems
are often the most vulnerable to disruption.
• Strengthening information flows is also
about richness of content – not just where
and how information flows, but what types of
information are available, how compellingly
information is conveyed, and whether
information is understandable and actionable.
4. DYNAMIC OF ACCESS
• The environment in which information flows (e.g.
political, cultural, time, cost, and other factors)
• Ease of accessing, finding, using, sharing, and
exchanging different types of information
• Barriers to interaction and participation
• Broader structures that influence
access: governance, legal, political,
economic, and infrastructural factors
• Social inclusion
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• Power relationships and other forms of
social constraints profoundly shape access to
information. Understanding power dynamics
is critical to designing for inclusive access.
• Specific, contextual understanding of what
access looks like on the ground is also critical.
• Techniques such as design research, combining
immersive observation and ethnographic
investigative methods, may be the best way to
understand the intrinsic constraints and motivations
that drive behaviors around information, as well as
build a nuanced picture of the dynamics of access.

16
5. USE
• Factors influencing information’s
relevance to people: content, medium/
format, source, literacy, habit
• What consumers and audience do
with information that is received
• How information is processed,
disseminated, and applied
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• Once information reaches its intended
audience, there are many factors that influence
whether and how it is actually used. Therefore,
it cannot be assumed that an environment
with plentiful information is necessarily one
with a healthy information ecosystem.
• Before it is used, information is often verified,
validated, and triangulated at a hyper-local
level through friends and trusted contacts
6. IMPACT OF INFORMATION
• The impact of information on individual
and community opportunity, health,
and economic development
• Relationship between information,
knowledge and behavior change
• Community organization around
different types of information
• Effects on community planning and action
• Effects on policy and implementation
• The effect of information on civic engagement
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• Relevant, compelling, and accessible information
has a positive impact on people’s lives in terms
of their agency and overall well-being.
• However, unless information resonates
with people’s needs and interests, it
will not foster agency and action.
• Information may not always have a positive
impact on knowledge and behavior change; in
some cases, it may even perpetuate state influence
over the architecture of public information and
discourse. It may be that information production,
distribution, and access are robust in a community;
however, if information does not promote
empowered decision making (i.e. is primarily
entertainment or “managed” news content), it
will not actually foster the development of a
more empowered or enlightened citizenry.

17
7. SOCIAL TRUST
• Influence of trust networks on the
flow and use of information
• Trust building around information
• Trust in information sources, medium, content
• Disruptions in trust tied to information
(or the lack of information)
• Challenges in building trust
around information flows
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• A healthy information ecosystem can only
exist when information sources are trusted, and
individuals have the ability to verify and validate
information through their established trust networks.
• Trust in information is ultimately influenced
by a community’s social dynamics at the
moment, coupled with any historical or cultural
factors that may generally color attitudes about
government, external intervention, crises,
conflict, or other sociopolitical events.
8. INFLUENCERS
• The people, organizations, and institutions that
influence how different types of information flow
• Builders of trust in information
• Change in influence over time,
especially during disruption
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• Influence rests on political, religious, economic,
and social status. It can also emerge from
disruptions of traditional social structures
precipitated by specific events, or the advent
of new technologies. The democratization of
information and communication technologies
means that control over information production
and flows is more unpredictable than ever before.
• Influencers can act as information bridges,
connecting social groups that have weak or
nonexistent ties. This is critical for ensuring that
information flows are healthy and can adapt
to function during change or disruption.

18
E. INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS
& ADAPTATION TO CHANGE
Internews’ experience has revealed consistently and
acrossamyriadofcontextsthatqualityinformationand
communicationarecriticaltoanticipating,planningfor,
and ultimately responding to change. When people are
supported by strong information ecosystems that allow
them to access and exchange critical information, they
can effectively adapt and flourish in response to more
frequent and large-scale changes in their environment.
Timely and accurate information for populations, as
well as strong and healthy information flows between
communities, responders, and local media, allows
communities to understand the challenges they
confront, self-organize and take on responsibilities in
response, participate in recovery and resilience efforts,
and reach consensus on how to build back better. As
such, information fosters the capabilities and aspirations
of individuals and communities: it empowers people to
take an active role in their own resilience in a sustained,
systemic manner, while reducing dependency on
external intervention that is typically only available for
traumatic, large-scale events.
While our research demonstrates that information
ecosystems are rarely acknowledged within resilience
policy and practice, a review of the City Resilience
Framework, developed by Arup’s International
Development team and supported by The Rockefeller
Foundationindicatesthathealthyinformationecosystems
are already an implicit cornerstone of resilient cities and
systems. As the City Resilience Framework is highly
aligned with our own conception of resilience (built
from the literature review and Internews’ experience),
Internews is adopting it as our definition of resilience.5
This framework will help us to precisely analyze the
linkages between dimensions of information ecosystems
and qualities of resilient systems.6
5 THE DEFINITION OF RESILIENCE ARTICULATED IN THE FRAMEWORK DOES
NOT REFER TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SYSTEM, OR PUT
DIFFERENTLY, FEATURES THAT REMAIN UNCHANGED DESPITE DISRUPTION.
WHETHER INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS SUPPORT A COMMUNITY’S ESSENTIAL
CHARACTERISTICS, OR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION INSTEAD, IS FERTILE
GROUND FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.
6 THE TEXT ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ARUP, “CITY
RESILIENCE INDEX: CITY RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK,” APRIL 2014, P.5
““RESILIENCE IS THE
CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUALS,
COMMUNITIES, AND
SYSTEMS TO SURVIVE,
ADAPT, GROW, AND
EVEN TRANSFORM IN
THE FACE OF CHANGE,
STRESS, SHOCKS, AND
DISRUPTION."
- ADAP TED FROM THE ROCKEFELLER
FOUNDATION
““RESILIENCE FOCUSES
ON ENHANCING THE
PERFORMANCE OF
A SYSTEM IN THE
FACE OF MULTIPLE
HAZARDS, RATHER
THAN PREVENTING OR
MITIGATING THE LOSS OF
ASSETS DUE TO SPECIFIC
EVENTS."
- CIT Y RESILIENCE FR A MEWORK , ARUP

19
R E F L E C T I V E
Reflective systems are accepting of
the inherent and ever-increasing
uncertainty and change in today’s
world. They have mechanisms
to continuously evolve, and will
modify standards or norms based
on emerging evidence, rather
than seeking permanent solutions
based on the status quo. As a
result, people and institutions
examine and systematically learn
from their past experiences, and
leverage this learning to inform
future decision-making.
R O B U S T
Robust systems include well-
conceived, constructed and
managed physical assets, so that
they can withstand the impacts of
hazard events without significant
damage or loss of function. Robust
design anticipates potential failures
in systems, making provision
to ensure failure is predictable,
safe, and not disproportionate
to the cause. Over-reliance on
a single asset, cascading failure
and design thresholds that might
lead to catastrophic collapse if
exceeded are actively avoided.
R E D U N D A N T
Redundancy refers to spare capacity
purposely created within systems
so that they can accommodate
disruption, extreme pressures
or surges in demand. It includes
diversity: the presence of multiple
ways to achieve a given need or
fulfill a particular function. Examples
include distributed infrastructure
networks and resource reserves.
Redundancies should be intentional,
cost-effective and prioritized at a
city-wide scale, and should not be
an externality of inefficient design.
F L E X I B L E
Flexibility implies that systems
can change, evolve and adapt
in response to changing
circumstances. This may favor
decentralized and modular
approaches to infrastructure or
ecosystem management. Flexibility
can be achieved through the
introduction of new knowledge
and technologies, as needed.
It also means considering and
incorporating indigenous or
traditional knowledge and
practices in new ways.
R E S O U R C E F U L
Resourcefulness implies that
people and institutions are able
to rapidly find different ways to
achieve their goals or meet their
needs during a shock or when
under stress. This may include
investing in capacity to anticipate
future conditions, set priorities, and
respond, for example, by mobilizing
and coordinating wider human,
financial and physical resources.
Resourcefulness is instrumental to a
city’s ability to restore functionality
of critical systems, potentially under
severely constrained conditions.
I N C L U S I V E
Inclusion emphasizes the need for
broad consultation and engagement
of communities, including the most
vulnerable groups. Addressing the
shocks or stresses faced by one
sector, location, or community in
isolation of others is an anathema
to the notion of resilience. An
inclusive approach contributes to
a sense of shared ownership or a
joint vision to build city resilience.
I N T E G R A T E D
Integration and alignment between
city systems promotes consistency
in decision-making and ensures
that all investments are mutually
supportive to a common outcome.
Integration is evident within and
between resilient systems, and
across different scales of their
operation. Exchange of information
between systems enables them to
function collectively and respond
rapidly through shorter feedback
loops throughout the city.
QUALITIES OF RESILIENT SYSTEMS

20
While it is implicit from the Qualities of Resilient
Systems that healthy information ecosystems are vital
to resilience, Internews argues that it is important to
make this element explicit and to better understand
its dynamics. Without healthy information
ecosystems, articulated goals and characteristics of
resilience simply cannot be achieved. For example,
if governments, donors, investors, policymakers,
and the private sector hope to foster resilience by
understanding dynamic networks of control, influence
and power and ensuring inclusion of all social groups
and neighborhoods, it is vital to systematically assess
and support the information ecosystem within a given
community or place. Similarly, the City Resilience
Framework identifies resource coordination,
collective action, social cohesion, social networks,
and effective communications systems as key features
of resilient cities and systems (to name just a few).
These ambitions cannot be achieved solely through
technology or tools, but must also rely upon strong,
redundant, and trusted information flows and
relationships that underlie and sustain day-to-day life
within a community. Simply put, a community with a
strong information ecosystem is a more resilient one.

21
INSIGHTS FROM
INTERNEWS CASE STUDIES
In order to move beyond a theoretical understanding
of information ecosystems and their relationship with
resilience, we now apply the conceptual framework
to four real world cases of disruption and change.
This section examines four Internews Case Studies
that were, to varying degrees, undertaken from
different information ecosystems perspectives.7
While
these Case Studies were written before the current
information ecosystems framework was constructed,
they do provide enough data to test the framework
and construct prototype typologies of information
ecosystems.
7 NOTE THAT THESE STUDIES WERE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO OUR CURRENT
INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS FRAMEWORK, AND WHILE THEY REFLECT SOME
OF THE VALUES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FRAMEWORK ILLUSTRATED
IN PART 1, THEY DO NOT ADHERE TO IT. FOR A MORE DETAILED LOOK AT THE
DATA ACROSS THE FOUR CASE STUDIES, SEE THE COMPARATIVE CHARTS IN
ANNEX 2.
1. “Trust, Influence and Connectivity:
Understanding Information Ecosystems in
Pakistan’s Tribal Areas” by Panthea Lee (2013)
2. “Connecting the Last Mile: The Role of
Communication in the Great East Japan
Earthquake” by Lois Appleby (2013)
3. “Information Ecosystems in Transition: A Case
Study from Myanmar” by Andrew Wasuwongse
and Alison Campbell (2014)
4. “Indonesia: Crisis Communication Channels” by
Matt Abud (2013)
The case studies provide a diversity of types of
informationecosystem,levelsofeconomicdevelopment,
and types of change––including acute disaster, long-
term stresses, and slow-onset crises. They allow us to
identify common features of information ecosystems
across different contexts and formulate preliminary
typologies that can serve as useful analytical and
predictive models for policy and planning. The case
studies also demonstrate weaknesses in information
ecosystems undermine resilience. This presents
areas for further investigation through the Jakarta
Information Ecosystems (InfoEco) Pilot and the New
York InfoEco Pilot.8

8 INFORMATION IN THE SUMMARY BOXES WAS ADAPTED FROM THE
RESPECTIVE CASE STUDIES.
PART II
INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS & RESILIENCE

22
II. INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS & RESILIENCE
A. OVERVIEW
OF CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDY 1: INSTABILITY AND
UNDERDEVELOPMENT IN FATA, PAKISTAN
Pakistan’s present-day Federally Administered Tribal
Areas (FATA) are the homeland for three million
Pashtun residents and thousands of Afghan refugees
spread across three thousand mostly rural villages and
towns. Decades of turbulence and semi-autonomous
governance have alienated inhabitants from the rest of
PakistanandkeptFATAinaperpetualstateofinstability,
CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERNEWS CASE STUDIES
PAKISTAN JAPAN MYANMAR INDONESIA
TYPE OF
DISRUPTION
Instability and
underdevelopment
Acute crisis event Political and
economic
opening; post-
conflict recovery
Environmental
disasters
SPEED AND
SCALE OF
DISRUPTION
Long-term, chronic Sudden-onset,
large scale
Sudden, uneven Chronic,
sudden-onset
LEVEL OF
DEVELOPMENT
Low High Low Medium
INVESTIGATIVE
LENS ON THE
INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEM
Everyday human
impacts of
information
challenges
Information
ecosystems in
post-disaster
survival and
recovery
Information
ecosystems within
a history of crisis;
such as repression
and conflict
Crisis
communications
across contexts
(urban and rural,
local and national
disasters, areas
with/without
infrastructure
and with/without
preparedness
efforts)

23
poverty,andisolation.Pakistan’sper-capitadevelopment
spending in FATA is one-third of those in other parts of
the country leading to critical gaps in essential services
and inadequate infrastructure, including information
infrastructure. Compounding these obstacles is the
existence in parts of FATA of militant groups that
threaten regional security. Since 2004, this threat has
led to US intelligence operations, targeting FATA with
drone strikes in the attempt to defeat Taliban and Al-
Qaeda militants. The political and physical alienation
of the region has further contributed to an already-wide
gap of understanding between the global community
and the people of Pakistan’s tribal regions.
CASE STUDY 2:
GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE
On March 11, 2011, a massive underwater earthquake
measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale struck off the
Pacific coast of the Tohoku region in northeast Japan.
The earthquake was the most powerful ever recorded
in Japanese history and caused a mega-tsunami
that toppled seawalls and spread over 500 square
kilometers. The tsunami destroyed towns and villages
along the coastline and resulted in over 18,000 dead or
missing, 6000 injured and 470,000 survivors seeking
shelter. The tsunami also damaged the Fukushima
nuclear power plant, causing radioactive material to be
leaked into the sea. While the damage was catastrophic,
it is generally acknowledged that Japan’s advanced
disaster preparedness measures prevented the number
of fatalities and damage from being far greater.
CASE STUDY 3: MYANMAR’S
DEMOCRATIZATION AND OPENING
Until recently, few might have predicted the political,
social and economic developments now taking place
in Myanmar. Rapid removal of restrictions present
a unique opportunity to conduct research among
the most remote, least developed ethnic minority
areas, such as Mon State, that chronically experience
conflict. Little has been documented about the way
in which information circulates in the ethnic states,
what information people need, how they meet these
needs through informal networks, and what kinds of
information they trust and can access. Internet and
mobile phone penetration are minimal.

24
CASE STUDY 4:
THREE ENVIRONMENTAL
DISASTERS IN INDONESIA
Flooding has long been a fact of life in the Indonesian
capital, Jakarta. Recent decades, however, have seen
a significant increase in severity, affecting areas that
had not previously been susceptible. Starting January
16, 2013, heavy monsoon rains combined with broken
embankments and seasonally high tides led to extreme
flooding across Jakarta, causing approximately 41
casualties and some 45,000 displaced. Under a state
of emergency, government agencies, civil society
organizations, businesses, and citizens all scrambled
to meet the sudden humanitarian needs of those
affected.
The Rokatenda volcano dominates the isolated Palue
Island, home to some 12,000 people. In November
2012, Rokatenda began intense activity and continued
to experience repeated tremors with frequent ejections
of smoke, ash, and debris. The three villages closest to
the volcano, Nitlung, Lidi, and Rokirole were the most
affected and account for many of the approximately
4,900 people displaced.
After the catastrophic 2004 tsunami, Aceh, a region on
the island of Sumatra, received extensive investment
in early warning systems and crisis communications.
When two earthquakes struck off the west coast of
northern Sumatra on April 11, 2012, measuring 8.6
and 8.2 on the Richter scale, the systems were put to
the test. The first quake triggered a tsunami evacuation
warning; fortunately, no tsunami materialized.
However, the experience exposed significant
weaknesses in the disaster response mechanism:
thousands were stranded as they tried to heed the
evacuation warning.
B. WHY INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS MATTER
FOR RESILIENCE
These four case studies highlight several observations
about information ecosystems that are particularly
significant in building resiliency:
Firstly, information ecosystems are shaped
and constrained by their context. The ability for
information to foster community resilience depends
on broader factors that define the context, including
a country’s media laws, the presence of conflict, the
poverty gap, and the current development status of
the entire country. The case studies show that the role
informationcanplayinmanagingchangeislinkedwith
other features of the system, such as infrastructure
and policy. Barriers such as a lack of electricity or
community isolation can severely hinder information’s
movement, the relevance of information produced,
and people’s usage of that information. Likewise,
factors such as demographics can dramatically change
the way that people experience and recover from a
crisis. To build resilience at the hyper-local level, it is
critical to strengthen information ecosystems with an
appreciation of contextual constraints.

25
Second, trust is absolutely essential for
information to have an influence on the lives
of communities and individuals. Naturally, the
strongest level of trust is found at the local levels
through information shared among friends and
families. In all of the case studies, people evaluate
information in multiple ways to establish its validity.
They consider eyewitness accounts, the medium,
and whether there were videos or photographs, and
then compare these inputs with other sources of
information including friends and family. In all cases,
trust in information is difficult to establish, yet central
to the way that information is accepted. Information
ecosystems with strong trust bonds make for more
resilient communities.
Third, the case studies confirm the notion that
information is power. For example, in Pakistan,
where tribal and religious leaders once held the most
influence, others have now begun to occupy equal if
not more influential positions. For example, educated
and tech-savvy citizens have begun to gain influence
due to their ability to utilize new media to access
and share relevant information and validate official
sources of information.
Lastly, one of the most interesting themes central
to all case studies was that technology broadens
opportunities for citizens to participate in and
shape their lives. For example, the ability for a
community to share information through social media
and other Internet platforms allows people to have a
voice in setting the agenda and encouraging producers
to generate needed information. Additionally, the 24-
hour news cycle and the ability for instant updates
allows people to get information whenever they want
it, and far more quickly than ever before.
C. HOW INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS
MATTER FOR RESILIENCE
The case studies also provide tangible examples of
how various dimensions of information ecosystems
play into community resilience. Using the Eight
Critical Dimensions of Information Ecosystems
(described in Part I.D) as a framework for analysis, we
can identify how strengthening certain dimensions
can foster adaptation and recovery from disruption,
whereas barriers and weaknesses in other dimensions
undermineresilienceandleadtobreakdowninsystems.
∞∞ Inclusive and relevant information is essential.
Government and major media producers often
set an information agenda that is too broad or
too sensational, failing to serve the information
desires and needs at the community level. In the
Indonesia case study, media conglomerates
provided sensationalized crisis coverage to benefit
the media owners. This failed the people directly
affected by the disaster. Sensational stories that
drive ratings should not take precedence over
empowering and informing communities through
relevant and unbiased information.
∞∞ In Japan, mainstream media coverage focused on
the nuclear crisis and did not provide the informa-
tion that people in evacuation centers needed most.
This barrier stemmed from a lack of sufficient chan-
nels for local information and inquiries to reach
policymakers and crisis responders. It also high-
lights the fact that information providers often have
their own agenda. Feeling that their urgent needs
for local information are treated as unimportant,
people in communities can end up feeling helpless
and frustrated.

26
2. INFORMATION LANDSCAPE
∞∞ The hyper-local, community-level information
ecosystem is the backbone of effective information
flows. In all the case studies, local influencers
are key, as they are best able to discern what
information is valuable and capitalize on trusting
relationships to disseminate it. In Indonesia,
while television is the most important source of
information for people in Jakarta, electricity-
dependent sources of information are unusable
during flooding. Instead, residents rely on local
administrators or informal community leaders to
pass on data, warnings, and other information they
acquire from their administrative superiors or other
channels. Residents receive notifications either
by door knocking or by announcements on local
mosque loudspeakers.
∞∞ As the case in Japan shows, while national
preparations can be robust, there remain gaps
that only local communities can fill. Even if
macro-, city-level systems remain functional,
hyper-local information is irreplaceable. In
Japan, despite the presence of high-tech national
information mechanisms, the main sources
of information for many were local initiatives
such as community radio stations, community
and local newspapers, newsletters and
announcements at evacuation centers.
∞∞ In Japan, platforms such YouTube, Facebook,
and Twitter were used to spread information
about individual safety, educate wider audiences
about what was happening, map humanitarian
relief gaps, and generate funds. However,
this highlighted the risk of over-reliance on
technology that could be rendered unusable
because of incapacitated networks and blackouts.
Further, much of the consumer technology was
not designed to function under high load crisis
conditions, which could lead to more significant
breakdowns.
∞∞ The case study in Myanmar shows that
improving information flow is not just about new
tools for information sharing, but finding ways
to leverage and compound existing information
dissemination practices. For example, since word
of mouth is the best way to spread a message in
Mon State, at the community level it is important
to tailor messages to be easily remembered
and repeated. The importance of community in
all our case studies, coupled with the fact that
information is almost always locally validated
through trusted sources, shows that inclusivity
and local participation in co-designing any
information intervention is central to success.
∞∞ It is critical to coordinate strategies for
information content and dissemination. One of
the major gaps in fostering resilience through
information is the lack of coordination among
the different producers and disseminators of
information. Without such collaboration, there
are inefficiencies and unnecessary overlaps.
The creation of the ANY Liaison Council in the
Japan case study highlights the need for this
type of collaboration. The council is the joint
venture of three major newspaper groups to
ensure better cooperation in any future disaster,
allowing these media companies to use one
another’s facilities in emergencies. This will
allow multiple, diverse channels to provide the
same basic information. Diversity in source, but
redundancy in message, is vital to overcoming
infrastructural problems and providing validity.

27
∞∞ Even in the most sophisticated systems, it is
essential to ensure redundancy of access to
information. Although technology-based sources
can provide improved access to information, by
their very nature they are highly vulnerable to
disruption in crises. Hence, the more dependent
communities become on high-tech tools, the less
resilient they become. Across all case studies
it is apparent that with greater infrastructure
and economic development, the most commonly
used medium for information also becomes more
high-tech. For example, in all our countries,
newspapers are seen as the medium of historical
record, and are no longer a primary source
of information. In the developing nation case
studies, radio is increasingly being replaced by
television as the most used source of information,
and in Japan, the most highly developed nation
in our case studies, the Internet is beginning
to replace television as the primary source of
information. All case studies suggest the most
resilient form of communication through all
crisis situations is radio, yet many countries have
built their crisis structures on SMS and television
broadcasts, which depend on mobile phone
networks and electricity. These infrastructures
are usually the first to fail in a crisis.
∞∞ New media can support healthy information
flow, but must be accessible to all parts of the
population. For example, in Japan, where
crisis communication was built largely on new
media and television, 65.8% of the deaths in
the villages of Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima
were of people over 60 who lacked much access
to these technologies. Information access is not
homogeneous, and understanding demographic
and group patterns is a first step in designing
effective information strategies.
5. USE
∞∞ Information must be trusted and validated before
it will inspire action. For example, in a crisis
situation such as occurred in Japan, the presence
of one type of information was not enough
to make individuals respond to earthquake
warnings; people needed to hear the information
from the government and the media, and then
verify it through friends and families.
∞∞ Information must resonate with people’s needs
and interests in order to foster agency and action.
To foster adaptation and resilience, media must
provide relevant and reliable information that
addresses hyper-local social and development
challenges. Information provided in the FATA
area of Pakistan focused overwhelmingly on
conflict that people felt little ability to change.
What communities really wanted was information
to help navigate instability, build livelihoods, and
achieve aspirations. Media outlets emphasized
incidents rather than patterns, challenges
rather than solutions, and symptoms rather
than causes, fostering a sense of helplessness.
Residents therefore felt frustrated and deprived of
information that could have helped them access
resources to address local and personal challenges.
∞∞ Information may do nothing to foster the
development of an informed citizenry, and may
even perpetuate control and influence over public
information and discourse. Our Myanmar case
study demonstrated that increased media access
and “openness” do not automatically lead to positive
development outcomes. It is possible that formerly
“information dark” ecosystems that prevailed
across much of the country under military rule
may be seamlessly replaced with “information

28
lite” ecosystems, in which unsophisticated media
audiences consume primarily entertainment and
“managed” news content. This sleight of hand
would replicate the information ecosystems of the
“disciplined democracies” of Singapore, Malaysia
and China to which Myanmar’s rulers aspire.
7. SOCIAL TRUST
∞∞ Trust and perceptions around information is key
to information use. In Pakistan, the presence
of continual conflict and external meddling has
worn down trust bases. Overall, the degree that
information is trusted appears to be influenced
greatly by the community’s relationship with the
source and the community’s perceived notion of
who is setting the agenda and why.
∞∞ In Indonesia and Myanmar, where many of
the producers of information are linked to politics,
citizens tend to perceive the information being
disseminated as biased toward politicians’ own
personal agendas.
8. INFLUENCERS
∞∞ In Pakistan, tribal and religious leaders are no
longer the only influential providers of information.
Educated, tech-savvy youth have begun to attract
influence through their use of social media to filter
relevant information and provide further sources of
validation.
∞∞ In Indonesia, local community members
equipped with walkie-talkies acted as “information
bridges” between the provincial and local
governments, those working at the dam, and the
local population. These individuals often also
served as informants for the government.
D. AREAS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
While not exhaustive by any means, this rough
analysis illustrates the utility of the Eight Critical
Dimensions framework, and already suggests a few
areas for further research:
∞∞ Role of information bridges: These are the
people, organizations, or mechanisms that
exist as conduits of information from the top
to the bottom and vice-versa. They create
linkages between the needs at the bottom
and the resources available at the top. They
enable the community to access relevant and
trusted information, and provide feedback to
policymakers and decision makers. These bridges
are based on two-way symmetrical relationships
that are attuned to listening as much as
producing information, and link the national,
local, and hyper-local information levels.
∞∞ The influence of development factors –
cultural, social, political, and economic
– on the strength of an information
ecosystem: In the case studies, there is
little to no reference to the impact that issues
such as illiteracy have on the access, use, and
landscape of information. Additionally, there is
little research on intra-community differences,
including power dynamics across sub-groups
distinguished by gender, economic status, age,
ethnicity and information access. To truly find
avenues for expanding and building information
ecosystems, these barriers need to be explored
and understood.

29
E. TOWARDS PRELIMINARY
TYPOLOGIES: CLASSIFYING
INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS
The Embracing Change project not only aims to
build knowledge around the role of information in
empowering communities to understand and adapt to
change, but also to identify strategies and techniques
for individuals, communities, practitioners, and
policymakers to leverage certain principles and
frameworks produced by this research in their
resilience efforts. The Eight Critical Dimensions are
one component of this, and we intend to continue
refining this framework as our research continues.
In addition, Internews aims to produce typologies for
information ecosystems that can serve as a diagnostic
tool for assessing information ecosystems, predicting
how they may function in different contexts, and
anticipating how they may respond to different
types of disruption (i.e. technological, physical,
or infrastructural). These typologies will enable
policymakers and practitioners to design strategies
for maximum impact.
Through our analysis of these four Internews case
studies, we have created a typology that identifies
three types of information ecosystems, each based
on the Eight Critical Dimensions of Information
Ecosystems framework. At this stage of the project,
these are extremely preliminary; we anticipate the
emergence of more robust and detailed typologies
with further research.9
The preliminary types
identified below highlight that each country’s level
of economic development substantially affects the
health of its information ecosystems. The least
economically developed countries arguably have the
9 PLEASE SEE THE ANNEX FOR A TABLE SHOWING THE KINDS OF DATA ONE
WOULD MEASURE WITHIN EACH OF THE EIGHT DIMENSIONS TO DIAGNOSE
AN INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM AND CLASSIFY IT BY TYPE.
weakest information ecosystems due to the low levels
of infrastructure and other factors. This apparently
straightforward relationship is likely to be complicated
and questioned with a better understanding of the
hyper-local social relationships within communities.
TYPE 1: MISMATCHED
This typology is characterized by low rankings on
most dimensions of the information ecosystem, and
an overall mismatching of information needs and
provision. Low rankings on information landscape,
the movement of information, and trust profoundly
inhibit the ability of producers and influencers of
information to meet or understand the needs of those
usingandimpactedbyinformation.Localrelationships
with information are weak and there is minimal
recognition of the importance of strengthening them
at any level. This type of mismatching, exemplified
in the Pakistan case study, suggests low resiliency
and the ability for any shock to the system to lead to a
worsening situation.

30
TYPE 2: EMERGING
This typology is characterized by mid-range rankings
across most indicators. The mix of various political,
physical, and institutional infrastructure factors has
led to stronger information flows and rising levels
of trust. With a broader range of resources deployed
towards understanding and identifying potential
stressors, there is an increased ability to meet
information needs. This type of emerging information
ecosystem, as exemplified in the Myanmar and
Indonesia case studies, suggests engineering
resilience: the potential to return to status quo after
a shock.
TYPE 3: EVOLVING
This typology is characterized by high rankings across
mostindicators.Theexistenceofstronginfrastructure,
information flows, and access creates a system in
which influencers and producers are not only aware of
the informational needs but are constantly adapting
to meet them. Information is plentiful, dynamic, and
engaged. This type of active information ecosystem,
as exemplified in the Japan case study suggests a
complex adaptive resilience and the potential for the
impacted community to recover and strengthen after
a shock.
Due to the complexity of information ecosystems,
these prototypes will continue to be adapted and
expanded, and there will certainly be additional
typologies added to this list. As a research tool, a
typology approach will also be useful for capturing
transformations in information ecosystems over
time. Examining information ecosystems in the
context of disruptive change not only highlights their
importance to community and social resilience; it
can also illuminate how information ecosystems
themselves are adapting in response to stressors and
broader shifts in the way people communicate. As
information and communication ecosystems are a
critical component of preparing citizens, communities,
and cities for a future characterized by unpredictable,
large-scale disruptions, we must not only understand
what they look like now, but what they will look like
in the future and how we can help them to adapt and
prepare communities to live in a rapidly changing
environment.

31
PILOTING THE INFOECO
FRAMEWORK IN JAKARTA
Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, is highly flood-prone.
A convergence of factors contribute: an estimated 40%
of the megacity is below sea level; a web of thirteen
natural rivers in addition to an extensive canal system
constructed by Dutch colonists runs throughout the
city; communities have responded to the lack of piped
water throughout the city by extracting groundwater;
and the city is estimated to be sinking approximately
5 to 10 centimeters per year. Floods have increased
notably in the last two decades, due mostly to rapid
urbanization and population growth. All of this creates
significant environmental, infrastructural, and social
strain. Meanwhile, public services and infrastructural
improvements have been inadequate.10
The floods
have the most severe and ongoing impact on the
10 ROANNE VAN VOORST, “GET READY FOR THE FLOOD! RISK-HANDLING
STYLES IN JAKARTA, INDONESIA,” PHD DISSERTATION, UNIVERSITY OF
AMSTERDAM, 2014, PP. 12-13.
poorest and most marginalized communities in the
city.11
In many years, Jakarta’s floods can be classified
as acute crises in terms of life lost, land affected,
widespread illness, and economic impact. However,
they are still highly disruptive even in “less extreme”
years. For example, tens of thousands of people
were still displaced in 2014; during our fieldwork in
April, some residents reported having been flooded
9-15 times over the previous two months, with water
levels rising up to four meters. In some communities,
people’s entire lives seem to revolve around the cycle
of floods: preparing, evacuating, and cleaning up, over
and over. The floods are in some sense predictable; yet
exactly when, where, to what degree, and with what
frequency, is not. In a sense, the floods are both a
crisis and a normal part of life—a “normalized crisis.”
11 THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE HAS NOT KEPT UP WITH THE ONGOING
CRISIS, AND THE LATEST TACTICS, PROMISED WITH GREAT FANFARE,
WILL DISRUPT MANY LIVES. A “NORMALIZATION PROCESS,” AGREED
UPON IN LATE 2013, WILL EXPAND THE WIDTH OF THE CILIWUNG RIVER,
DREDGE ALL OF THE JAKARTA RIVERS, TEAR DOWN BUILDINGS AND
MOVE COMMUNITIES WITH THE INTENTION OF MITIGATING FLOOD
IMPACT. MEDIA REPORTS ESTIMATE THAT THIS PROCESS WILL DISPLACE
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 34,000 PEOPLE AND 70,000 HOUSEHOLDS (THE
CITY IS HOME TO 10 MILLION PEOPLE). THE FIGURE OF 34,000 PEOPLE
COMES FROM ”NORMALISASI KALI CILIWUNG SEGERA DIMULAI,” http://
www.jakarta.go.id/v2/news/2013/12/normalisasi-kali-ciliwung-segera-dimulai#.
U3Ki1IGSySo; THE FIGURE OF 70,000 HOUSEHOLDS COMES FROM ”RELOKASI
WARGA, SYARAT NORMALISASI SUNGAI,” http://megapolitan.kompas.com/
read/2014/02/03/1340285/Relokasi.Warga.Syarat.Normalisasi.Sungai
PART III
THE IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS FOR RESILIENCE

32
JAKARTA
Java Sea
Koja
Cilincing
Kemayoran
Cempaka
Putih
Metraman
Pulogadung
Jatinegara
Mampamg
Cilandak
Ragunan
Jagakarsa
Pasar
Rebo
Pondok Gede
Duren Sawit
Bintaro
Palmerah
Senayan
Pantai
Mubara
Pantai
Indah
Kapuk
Cengkareng
Airport
Grogol
Tol Merak
Monas
Gambir
Kebon
Jeruk
Pelabuhan
Tanjung Priok
INDONESIA
Vietnam Philippines
Australia
Malaysia
Jakarta
Visited areas
Kelapa
Gading
Kampung
Melayu
Bidara
Cina
Cililitang
Muara
Baru
Sunter
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION

33
Giventhisreality,flooding
in Jakarta provides a
fertile context in which
to study community
resilience in response to
stress and change across
multiple scales. Building
upon Internews’ previous
research described in the
2013 report “Indonesia:
Crisis Communications
Channels,” we piloted the
information ecosystem
approach through field
research in Jakarta in
April 2014. This research
tested the framework’s
utility to highlight the
role of information in
resilience, as well as
its ability to identify
recommendations for
policies and practices that address deficiencies in
information ecosystems.
The following narrative highlights observations from
an Information Ecosystems pilot research study
investigatingthefeaturesofJakarta’sfloodinformation
ecosystem along the Eight Critical Dimensions of
Information Ecosystems. This study builds upon
the initial findings of the Crisis Communications
Channels Indonesia Case Study, and on the broad
findings from all of the Case Studies analyzed in Part
II. The methodology for this qualitative research study
can be found in Annex 3. The analysis below offers a
quick diagnosis of the extent to which each dimension
supports or impedes the qualities of resilient systems
(for resilience qualities as identified in the City
Resilience Framework, see Part I.D), and offers
recommendations for strengthening the information
ecosystem.
• Do communities have access to the information
that they need before, during, and after floods?
• Do responders have accurate and timely
information related to the floods?
There are some signs that stakeholders in Indonesia
are beginning to seriously consider the role of
information in managing disaster. Since the 2013
floods, responder and crisis planning organizations
have started to map institutional information flows
in the interest of improved information sharing and
coordination. However, while many are mapping
information flows across responder organizations, no
one has conducted any assessments of the information
needs of communities.
RAPID DIAGNOSIS: Improvements in planning
and attention to information flows show an
increased capacity to be reflective, evolving
and learning from past experiences. Further
improvements could be made to make sure
the flows are serving community needs.
RECOMMENDATION: As a start, organizations
tasked with disseminating flood-related
information should coordinate with each
other to conduct participatory assessments of
community information needs. These should be
repeated periodically to adapt to information and
communication structures that shift over time.
Willy, a second-year college student,
stands in his house in the Muara
Baru area in North Jakarta. There
is a watermark from the most
recent flood visible across the
photograph of his grandparents.

34
2. INFORMATION LANDSCAPE /
• What infrastructures support
information production and flow?
• What capacities do information providers possess
to verify, filter, sort and disseminate information?
• How does information flow across
different stakeholder groups? What are
the factors affecting healthy flows?
At the national level, according to an estimate by
Cahyo from the disaster management association
MPBI, at least 32 organizations are working on
disaster management. Various managing and
responding organizations including BNPB (national
disaster agency), BPBD (provincial disaster agency),
the army, police, fire department, health department,
and others, are not yet functioning as an integrated
system. There is a notable disjuncture between the
top (especially government and news media) and
bottom (communities), as well as significant gaps
in the information flow across responders, disaster
city
government
local
officials
city
media
PMI BPBD
print
official
warning
system
word
of mouth/
in-person
mobile
phone/
sms
television radio
social
media websites
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
This diagram depicts information flows during the 2013 Jakarta floods, with hierarchical layering of actors and sources of information.
The diagram shows that local officials use word of mouth to communicate with local communities in a two-directional manner, while
the BPBD sends messaging out through social media, websites, and SMS that is supposed to reach local communities.

35
management organizations, NGOs, and media. The
biggest challenge is two-way communications between
the provincial and community levels. As such, there
is a demonstrated need for collaborative information
bridges that link people and organizations from the
bottom to the top.12
Most respondents’ descriptions of information flows
provide an impression of generalized chaos, and a lack
of coordination and clarity on designated authorities,
attendant responsibilities, decision making, and
ensuing actions. A seemingly simple decision, such as
the formal declaration of an emergency, is complicated
by information confusion; what information the
national government needs in order to declare a
state of emergency, and how they would receive this
information, is unclear. Complicated channels of
authority and communication tend to confuse, delay,
and add stress to the decision of when to declare an
emergency and how to respond.
Several recent initiatives show promising signs of
improving coordination, including designating the
BPBD office, Pusdalops, as an information hub, and
startup initiatives PetaJakarta and FloodTags that
map Twitter conversations on flood maps to share
with provincial and national government. A social
network analysis indicated that Pusdalops was
perceived by peer organizations to be both the most
effective at communicating during disaster and also
the most collaborative with other organizations (see
Annex 4). At the policy level, a clear articulation
(and appropriate dissemination of information) of
what government bodies make which decisions, in
what sequence, and the budget, planning, and action
implications that flow from those decisions, is the
most basic and critical first step to strengthening the
information ecosystem for resilience.
12 CHART CREATED BY ISOBEL GRAD BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN
INDONESIA: CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS CHANNELS, BY MATT ABUD.
RAPID DIAGNOSIS: Chaotic information
flows and disjunctures in communication
across key social groups show a systematic
lack of integration in the system.
Recommendation: At the policy level, a clear
articulation (and appropriate dissemination of
information) of what government bodies make
which decisions, in what sequence; and the
budget, planning, and action implications that
flow from those decisions, is the most basic
and critical first step. There is also a need to
create collaborative information bridges based
on trust relationships: people or organizations
who operate in the middle are able to analyze
the needs at the bottom and the resources
(information) from the top, as well as create
linkages to inform both the bottom and top.
Pusdalops control center decision-making tools, including maps,
real-time flood data, and live streaming camera pointed on the dam

36
• What are the intra-community
dynamics that impact access and use
of information? How uniform are these
experiences within communities?
• How do power dynamics impact
information access?
• What are the key factors and details
impacting access at the hyper-local level?
Flood-prone communities are composed of different
sub-groups, and our research revealed that intra-
community mistrust is an obstacle to information
flows. In a visit to one of the slums, we approached a
woman sitting on her doorstep to ask about her life at
the edge of the river. As we approached the woman,
the local leader informed us that she was a renter
(i.e. not a “real” resident of the community), and that
there was no need to speak to her. He became visibly
annoyed when the interview proceeded. Such tension
between long-time residents and renters is apparently
consistent across Jakarta’s slums; long-term residents
generally despise renters, which negatively impacts
renters’ ability to integrate into neighborhood social
networks that are vital to community resilience. More
broadly, a few respondents suggested that different
groups demonstrate different degrees of integration
into the community (i.e. local gangs and militias,
political parties, local clinics, and women).
RAPID DIAGNOSIS: Complex power
dynamics within communities mean that
marginalized groups may lack full access to
important information; despite respondents’
perceptions, there are negative dynamics
affecting community inclusiveness.
Recommendation: Participatory assessments
of information access can identify key groups
that are not getting all the information
they need, and how best to address these
inequities. Building inclusive information
access relies upon the ability to perceive
relationships that are distinct from Jakarta’s
typical patterns of highly structured society.
One renter expressed how much
she enjoyed living in the Kampung
Melayu community and being by
the water. This house is built out
over the flood-prone river and sits
right across from the public toilet
that empties out into the river.

37
5. USE
• Is information perceived to be relevant?
• What do people do with information?
• How is information processed,
disseminated, and applied?
The dominant narrative from respondents in Jakarta
was that during the times that communities were
threatened with flooding, the information they needed
most was fairly straightforward. Information thought
to be the most critical was the height of the water at
the Bogar dam in West Java. 13
Weather forecasts and
news about evacuation and relief were also important,
but the water heights were the first item of concern.14
This narrative certainly represents an important
element of how the flood-affected population uses
information. However, it is only part of the story.
Once flood-related information is received, poor, middle-
class, and wealthy flood-prone communities behave in a
variety of ways that defy generalization. With regard to
decisions about whether to leave home, when to go, where
togo(i.e.tothesecondfloor,totheroof,outtoadesignated
shelter), and how to go, we heard a variety of approaches
with no patterns. These findings align with other research
that describes the various decision-making styles in
heterogeneous communities. In her doctoral research,
anthropologistRoannevanVoorstuncoveredfourdistinct
“risk-handling styles” in community members’ approach
to dealing with floods, which range from cooperative
13 UNIVERSALLY, THE MEASURE OF WATER LEVELS AT THIS DAM, WHICH
REGULATES THE WATERS OF THE CILIWUNG RIVER, WAS CITED AS THE FIRST
LEVEL INDICATORS OF POSSIBLE FLOODING. RESPONDENTS IN NORTH
JAKARTA REPORTED THAT THEY THEN WATCHED FOR NEWS OF FLOODING
IN EAST JAKARTA, AND KNEW THEY WERE NEXT.
14 SEVERAL RESPONDENTS INTIMATED THAT THE QUESTION OF WATER
HEIGHT WAS NOT ACTUALLY SO STRAIGHTFORWARD, AS THE OPENING
AND CLOSING OF THE DAM’S SLUICE GATES IMPACTS THE HEIGHT OF THE
WATER. THUS, DECISIONS ABOUT OPENING THE GATES MAY BE RELATED
AS MUCH TO DESIRES FOR CONTROL AS THEY ARE TO SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
and information-sharing to isolationist. These different
approaches led people to make vastly different choices
about whether and when to go, from whom to accept
help, whom to assist, and what to do once they had left.
It is clear that decisions emerge from a web of converging
factors: social relations, power relations, past experiences,
and values. Starting with information as a basis is simply
not enough to predict behavior.
RAPID DIAGNOSIS: What information is needed and
how communities used it during flood-threatened
periods rests on untested assumptions that are
only part of the story. Thus, there is insufficient
robustness in community information systems—
information interventions do not anticipate the
diversity of decision-making approaches.
Recommendation: At the community level, rather
that what seems logical from the perspective of
an outsider or any one group in the community,
interventions should start by acknowledging the
heterogeneity of decision-making, then creating
planning and policy out of what exists. This
means digging deeper to identify and directly
address different decision-making styles.
The RW (local leader) of Bidara Cina community stands next to the whiteboard
where flood data is gathered and posted on the river watch house. To inform their
own preparations and actions, watch house volunteers update the monitoring board
every three to five minutes by calling the dam when there is a threat of a flood.

38
• What are the short and long term impacts
of how people use information?
• How does information inform community
members’ decision-making?
• How does information inform government, NGO,
and other responder agencies’ decision-making?
In Jakarta, poor communities adept at adapting to
floods through their use of information have ensured
their own survival; this is no small feat in the face
of poverty. At the same time, becoming locked in a
particular web of habits may promote the survival
of these communities at the cost of improving their
lot overall. Information has historically been used to
build strong capacity for survival while reinforcing
poverty and low social power in flood-prone areas.
These communities are filled with visible examples
of the impact of information on their experience of
floods. Ingenious adaptations enable communities
to adapt to the ebb and flow of floods on the fly. For
example, the most visible and widespread adaptations
are residents’ raising of their homes, from a few
feet to an entire floor level. Given that Jakarta is
rapidly sinking, it is clear that these adaptations are
short- to middle-term responses. So far, available
information has not prompted more substantive,
long-term solutions (though this is likely also related
to resources, beliefs, values, and capacities, not just
information).
RAPID DIAGNOSIS: Different types of
information about floods—their cyclical
nature, timing, behavior, and risks—have
allowed most communities to stay in place
and live through the floods. Overall survival is
impressive (though community members are still
vulnerable to flood-induced illness and death,
particularly the young and the elderly). Thus,
the communities have shown themselves to
be quite resourceful in flood management.
After fleeing their home in the middle of the night during the 2007 floods, these wealthy homeowners in
Kelapa Gading, below, bought the home next door, razed both original properties, and built a new home.
The new home is elevated a meter and a half above the street, following the advice of a flood expert
they consulted. These residents chose to pay for expert information to guide their choices.
Above, impromptu
second floors built in the
impoverished Muara Baru.

39
Recommendation: Identify ways to help
communities not only survive, but thrive.
One approach would be to look for examples
of positive deviance in flood-prone slums:
effective solutions that deviate from the norm
but may not be widely adopted. Observing and
tracking clever adaptations to understand how
they are created, and facilitating their wider
adoption by the community, could help make
the communities even more resourceful.
This post is one of several throughout the community of
Kampung Melayu. People tie rope lines to the loops, then string
rope lines throughout the community that people can grab
as they wade through the water during evacuations.
Above, residents of middle class neighborhood sometimes
raise the first floor above street level.

40
7. SOCIAL TRUST
• What are the dynamics of trust
within communities?
• (How) does trust nurture resilience? (How)
does the lack of trust impede resilience?
• What are the challenges around
trusting flood-related information?
Key relationships that should facilitate bi-directional
information flow before, during, and after the floods—
between the government and communities and across
individuals and groups in each community—suffer
from mistrust. Thus, while it is one of the most
fundamental dimensions of an information ecosystem,
social trust is systematically weak at multiple levels in
Jakarta.
Trust is not only an issue between communities and
the different government structures, but within flood-
prone communities as well. The government pays
informants within communities and provides a financial
or information quid pro quo. In the community van
Voorst lived in, individuals with walkie-talkies that
were networked to each other and had access to the
most relevant flood information also happened to
be government informants, and would warn the city
government if someone showed signs of making trouble.
Yet this illustrates that citizens may still trust individual
governmentofficialswithwhomtheyhaveanestablished
relationship, a holdover from the longtime patronage
system.
Jakarta’s population, which media researchers describe
as credulous when it comes to advertising, is extremely
skeptical of news and media messages in a crisis context.
There are many reasons for this skepticism. First, the
government has not historically been transparent about
anything related to city planning, and has actively
withheld public health information (e.g. during the avian
flu crisis). The larger lack of a social safety net and fairly
recenthistoryofgovernmentviolenceagainstcitizensalso
contributes, in particular, to the urban poor’s distrust of
government motives. To make matters worse, residents
of Jakarta perceive the government as slow to respond to
flood emergencies, and many believe that the government
may not have the most vulnerable people’s best interests
at heart. Further adding to the confusion, the well-known
possibility that any SMS or tweeted warning might be a
hoax (SMS hoaxes are frequent in Jakarta) blunts certain
communications channels’ effectiveness for delivering
messages from the government.
This fraught relationship means that in times of crisis,
people verify information from the government with their
personalcontacts(overthephoneorinperson)orthrough
pictures.Amoreseriousconsequenceofthiscomplexityis
that information from the government can be completely
ignored, or even worse, promote exactly the opposite
of the intended reaction. Anthropologist van Voorst,
who spent a year living in a flood-prone slum for her
research, argues, “A lot of people wouldn’t evacuate if the
government told them to. They wonder, what if this is just
anothertrick?Maybethegovernmentistryingtobulldoze
myhouse.”Giventhedisplacementsplannedaspartofthe
normalization process, this is not simply paranoia.
RAPID DIAGNOSIS: Fragile trust bonds are
yet another factor preventing a truly socially
integrated and inclusive system. Disconnection
and mistrust means people are not mutually
supportive across the whole social landscape.
““INDONESIA IS IN A KIND
OF TRUST CRISIS."
– ARIES NUG ROHO, OG ILV Y PR

41
Recommendation: Providing redundant,
personal or pictorial information flows for
community members to verify government
information would be one step to building
bottom-to-top trust. Participatory, collaborative
activities such as mapping and budgeting that
sensitively involve members from across the
entire community might also build trust while
contributing to more robust information flows.
8. INFLUENCERS
• At the very local community context, who
is influencing how information flows?
• How does disruption impact these influencers?
Indonesian society is highly structured, with recognized
divisions and leadership at the province, district, village,
and sub-village levels. This defined organization is
present in the slums, which have a rigid, articulated
social structure with designated informal leaders at
several levels. These locally chosen leaders include the
RW (Rukun Warga, or community administrators), and
theRT(RukunTetangga,orneighborhoodadministrator.
Responder organizations and other research repeatedly
pointedtothesepeopleaskeytrustpointsandinfluencers
in the community. These leaders are always the contact
points for outside groups such as the Red Cross.
Ininterviews,severalresponderorganizationsexpressed
doubtsaboutwhetherthecommunalleaders designated
by the government and responder organizations were
actually trusted by the community. Faizal Thamrin
of the United Nations Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) explains, “We
don’t know who the focal point is for the local people
on the ground, and it’s hard to get information from
local government officials…. The government says they
registerthelocalpersonthatcanbetrustedandverified,
but I think we don’t understand what their roles really
are in the community…. I always say to the government,
you need to dialogue, have meetings at least twice a
month to build relations and trust.” This is particularly
important for building relationships with the groups of
people who are marginal to the power structures and
may look to different sources for their information. The
current communication chaos, however, may include
ad hoc communications redundancies that support
community adaptation to change.15
For example,
community members might cross-check information
from local leaders with information from neighbors
who travel frequently across different communities and
also with SMS messages from Pusdalops.
RAPID DIAGNOSIS: Community leaders that have
been identified as information influencers play
a key role in spreading key information about
floods. However, not everyone in the community
trusts them, and they turn to a variety of other
sources. Thus, the community system has created
redundant trusted sources of information that
can back up the influencers if needed, while
ensuring inclusiveness. This redundancy also
illustrates the flexibility of the social system, even
within such an apparently rigid social structure.
Recommendation: Government and responder
organizations must understand the realities
of how information flows, beyond assumed
hierarchical social structures. This is critical to
identify appropriate points of contact and help
communities build upon existing redundancies.
15 THIS WAS THE OBSERVATION OF ETIENNE TURPIN, PETAJAKARTA.

42
PRELIMINARY
CONCLUSIONS
The Jakarta InfoEco pilot study provides compelling
evidence that weaknesses in information ecosystems
can hinder effective preparedness, response, and
adaptation to floods at multiple levels, including sub-
groups within a community, responder organizations,
and provincial and national government bodies. Using
the Eight Critical Dimensions as a basis for analyzing
the information ecosystem, we can also see precisely
where deficiencies hobble the ability of institutions
and communities to function resiliently. Building
resilience requires extensive coordination and strong
information loops across multiple stakeholders, at
multiple levels. Approaches to disaster risk reduction
and other resilience-related strategies are typically
broadly inclusive and engage many different actors,
including state and local government, national
disaster agencies, non-governmental organizations,
and private companies.
Challenges to resilience and information ecosystems
do not divide neatly across geographical boundaries
or levels of economic and human development. In
the next phase of the Embracing Change project,
Internews piloted the InfoEco methodology in New
York communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy. In
preliminary desk research on New York City, we have
observed striking similarities with the case of Jakarta.
Both contexts are characterized by problems with
disconnected decision-making and communications
across agencies and organizations, and unclear roles
and decision trees across national and provincial/
state agencies. In Indonesia, provincial agencies
like BPBD are still fighting for recognition and
coordinating capacity within provincial disasters.
Because their lines of communication and authority
vis-à-vis the national-level BNPB are often unclear,
the BPBD’s effectiveness is constrained. In the U.S.,
FEMA confronts a system of regulatory confusion and
multiple layers of laws as previously existing agencies
with their own priorities and objectives have been
consolidated. Both national disaster agencies have
widened their scope over time, from weather-related
crises to terrorism and other human-caused hazards.
Both employ a multi-stakeholder approach to disaster
risk reduction, but face challenges in understanding
community needs and information systems. In both
contexts, rapid adoption of new technologies has
increased the reach of communication and created
the potential for new spaces of engagement wherein
communities can become more informed and self-
reliant. This capability enables more bottom-up forms
of decision-making and reinforces the need to build
the capacity for local response and communication.
Interest and investment in disaster risk reduction
and resilience programs have clearly been on the rise.
These will only continue to grow as global pressures
like climate change, disease pandemics, economic
ONEOFTHEPRINCIPALOBJECTIVESOFTHE
EMBRACINGCHANGEPROJECTISTOINCREASE
UNDERSTANDINGAMONGDECISIONMAKERS
OFINFORMATIONECOSYSTEMSASATOOLFOR
RISKMANAGEMENTANDRESILIENCE.

43
fluctuations, and terrorism challenge the well-being of
individuals and communities around the world. Yet,
while governments are adjusting their policies and
practices to prepare for disruption, manage risks and
limit devastation in the face of change, information
is a neglected element of policies and practice.
It is difficult to imagine how risks, hazards, and
vulnerability can be reduced without strengthening
information ecosystems. Equally importantly, it is
difficult to imagine how principles of resilience can be
put into practice effectively unless policymakers and
practitioners understand how to leverage information
ecosystems to disseminate their strategies and
interventions.
Embracing Change is not intended to be a theoretical
exercise, but a very practical one. One of the principal
objectives of the Embracing Change project is to
increase understanding among decision makers of
information ecosystems as a tool for risk management
and resilience. Building on the Jakarta InfoEco pilot,
our field research in New York City was implemented
in June and July 2014. As an extension of the research
conducted in Jakarta, the New York study piloted the
information ecosystems methodological approach
to offer additional insight and inform future inquiry
for strengthening information ecosystems within
resilience research and planning.16
The synthesized
findings of the Jakarta and New York studies will
16 PLEASE SEE ANNEX 5 FOR AN OVERVIEW OF THE NEW YORK INFOECO PILOT
STUDY.
provide rich preliminary insights into the benefits
and challenges of taking an information ecosystems
approach. We will also provide carefully considered
designs for more robust research on information
ecosystems,andadecisiontoolbringinganinformation
ecosystems approach to policy and implementation of
locally appropriate resilience processes and systems.
A summary report from the New York InfoEco Pilot,
a tool for decision-makers, and a longer research
report on the New York fieldwork will be available in
December 2014.

44
I
nternews’ first priority is the communities we
serve.Assuch,inmakingthecasethatinformation
matters for resilience, this analysis has focused
largely on individuals and communities—many at
the margins of society—that are the most vulnerable
when it comes to disruptive change, shocks and
stressors. However, healthy information ecosystems
clearly matter for many different actors, not least the
policymakers and practitioners who rely on strong
information flows and relationships to implement
resilience strategies.
While we have seen ample evidence that timely,
accurate, and relevant information is essential, the
research cautions against jumping to the conclusion
that good information has a straightforward
relationship with the health, safety, and security
of individuals and communities. The impact of
information on decision-making is not easy to
anticipate: unpredictable decisions belie the notion
that information alone can save lives. In Jakarta, many
residents seem to understand the range of choices
around flood events, and report that they “know what
to do” to protect themselves and their families. So how
do we understand people’s long-term decision to stay
in flood-prone areas, knowing that they will be subject
to ongoing stresses and cyclical shocks?
Structural and development constraints are one
explanation: in Jakarta, problems around the floods
are fundamentally linked with development issues,
which serve as a significant constraint on behavior.
Several respondents from outside the communities
emphasized that the choices framing community
members’ decisions are limited by their low economic
and social status. When asked how information helps
people in these communities make decisions, Maha
Adi, the director of the Society of Environmental
Journalists, observed, “People don’t have so many
options to make their lives better, so they can’t
really make decisions. Their decisions don’t have
impact because of the system.” Aside from economic
constraints, several respondents referred to a deep
sense of place connecting them to where they had
been born, and in many cases cited a tribal tie to the
land. Other reasons might relate to everyday survival
and well-being. “It’s about network connectivity;
people need access to a lot of different kinds of people
to be able to survive in Jakarta,” said Etienne Turpin
of PetaJakarta. Neighborhood social networks in the
PART IV
WHY INFORMATION MATTERS

45
slums are a key mechanism for survival, so leaving
such sources of socio-economic support can represent
an even bigger disruption than chronic and severe
floods.
Despite these constraints, responder organizations,
flood support organizations, researchers, and the
government often use the word resilience to describe
the most vulnerable and flood-prone communities’
capacityforsurvivalinseeminglyunlivableconditions.
Many of these communities demonstrate impressive
adaptation and self-organization in the absence of
governmental intervention. For example, it is common
for residents to permanently lift their homes a few feet
in anticipation of annual floods. The community of
Kampung Melayu has built permanent posts for rope
lines that can aid evacuations as people wade through
water. Others have devised clever means of protecting
precious goods by hanging them from the ceilings of
buildings. These and other examples in flood-prone
slums underscore the ways in which communities
are adapting and exhibiting resilience even under
significant constraints. While these communities
remain vulnerable, they have self-organized and
adapted within the social systems and physical places
in which they exist. Still, much more is needed for such
communities to fully develop the Qualities of Resilient
Systems (elaborated in Part I.D).
Resilience depends on various factors, including
individuals having the capacity, resources and
willingness to act, as well as true freedom of action
within a system or structure. Our fieldwork provided
ample evidence that these communities exhibit an
incredible capacity to survive and adapt to floods.
However, much can still be done to strengthen
resiliency not just in Jakarta, but also in Pakistan,
Japan, Myanmar, and beyond, and our research
shows that strengthening information ecosystems
is a fundamental part of this effort. Therefore,
while information is not a panacea for economic,
demographic, or political challenges, it is foundational
totheinstitutionsthatcanacttochangesuchstructural
inequalities, and it is foundational to empowering
people to take charge of their own lives. The absence
of information can lead to inaction, just as inaccurate
information can lead to counterproductive measures.
Thus, we contend that information is a fundamental
piece of resilience: while it is not sufficient, it is
absolutely necessary.
WECONTENDTHATINFORMATION
ISAFUNDAMENTALPIECEOFRESILIENCE:
WHILEITISNOTSUFFICIENT,ITIS
ABSOLUTELYNECESSARY.

46
This chart shows examples of data that could be
captured, by dimension, in categorizing and diagnosing
an information ecosystem. These observations would
result in the formulation of typologies of information
ecosystems.
CORE ELEMENTS
MACRO ENVIRONMENT
Key Structures
EIGHT
DIMENSIONS
INFORMATION
LANDSCAPE
DYNAMICS
OF ACCESS
DATA
• Media
environment
• Key players
in “traditional”/
big media
and “new/
social media”
• New players
• Innovation
/ new
technological
developments/
infrastructures
• Political/
regulatory
environments:
national/local/
community
• Economic profiles
• Ethnic factors
• Security
• Vulnerability
to emergencies
/ natural
disasters etc.
• Access to
technology
• Access to media
DIAGNOSING AND
CLASSIFYING AN
INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM
ANNEX I
TOWARDS TYPOLOGIES

47
CONTENT DISTRIBUTION/CONSUMPTION HUMAN/SOCIAL INSIGHTS
The Information “market” Information Flows
PRODUCTION
AND
MOVEMENT
INFORMATION
NEEDS
INFORMATION
USE
SOCIAL TRUST INFLUENCERS IMPACT
• Type/access
to content -
distribution
• Appropriate
content
creation and
management
• Community
creation and
inputs - Co-
designing and
implementing
• Network
dynamics
• User-
generated
content
• Sustainability
• Assessments
of information
needs in
different
situations
• Human-
centered
approaches
to identifying
unmet needs
and potential
strategies to
meet them
• Security and
social audits
-Identification
and
classification
of information
users: tech-
savvy to
basic word-
of-mouth
(secondary
audiences etc.)
• Measures of:
-- Reach
-- Impact
-- Engagement
-- Empowerment
-- Trust
-- Reliability
• New metrics
• Identification
of factors that
constitute trust in
different societies,
communities,
groups etc.
• What
constitutes social
trust in different
situations?
• Who are trusted
individuals,
institutions etc.?
• Location:
where are these
trust points?
• Classifications
of trust and
effective outcome
of engagement
• New metrics
• Identification
and
classification
of information
networks and
key brokers/
conduits
• Factors of
influence
• Sustainability
of different
types of
information/
mechanisms
of distribution
• New metrics
• Impacts
in terms of
knowledge,
actions, and
practices
• Factors
and
pathways
that ensure
inclusivity

48
DATA CHARTS
This chart is a summary of the data analysis of the four
case studies outlined in Part II. Each of the four studies
was originally undertaken with a distinct purpose
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
INFORMATION
NEEDS
• media coverage is mostly government propaganda
• media is security focused
• outlets emphasize incidents rather than
patterns; challenges rather than solution;
symptoms rather than causes
• US strategic interests are a factor
• three-fourths of stories on conflict or terrorism
• little to no relevant local information
from traditional sources
• terrorism is a scapegoat for the region’s
underdevelopment; used to explain why
region lacks infrastructure, education, health
services and employment opportunities
• externally driven programs may actually
stifle the evolution of a market and audience
driven information landscape
• print news coverage of issues: development issues(6%),
education (4%), electricity (2%), local economy (1%)
• media focus on government failures
• political agendas of owners
shape editorial policies
• business side of the media is primary
• hoping to shape government action
• outlets create narratives in intense
situations to generate ratings
• coverage by media conglomerates
is sensationalized to benefit the
owners which leaves the needs
of those directly affected by
the disaster on the sidelines
• media often follow the activities of
political leaders and celebrities and less
the needs of those directly affected
in mind, though all were guided by the broad idea of
investigating information ecosystems. To begin to
test our framework and build typologies, we analyzed
the research reports with respect to the Eight Critical
Dimensions of information ecosystems and several
ANNEX II
ANALYZING THE CASE STUDIES

49
JAPAN MYANMAR
• evacuation drills are common practice
for most coastal towns,
• NHK is legally bound to provide disaster-related
information in Japan and is the designated public institution
for broadcasting disaster warnings and other lifesaving
information during natural disasters; NHK’s headquarters
are designed to be able to continue broadcasting even
during a massive earthquake. It is also why the organization
has 460 robotic cameras stationed around the country as
well as 14 helicopters at its disposal to record footage of
natural disasters; Information is offered in 18 languages, and
within two weeks of the earthquake, 5.4 million people had
visited its website. The NHK homepage was amended for
mobile phone access and it also linked to other information
sources, donation pages and evacuee registers. The Google
Person Finder was embedded directly on the homepage.
• High recognition for DVB and Sky Net:
-- SkyNet offers a broad array of content, including
sports and entertainment 24 hours a day
-- DVB (a formerly banned exile-based news
operation) runs just two hours of programming
a day repeating on a 24 hour loop, yet offers
extremely rich political and news content.
• Focus on news about disaster (including weather
forecasts), health news, religion, and ethnic conflict.
• 90% or more of radio listeners have heard of
the BBC, VOA, and RFA radio stations, but only
60% have listened to programs on them.
• 100% of radio listeners have heard of Nay
Pyi Daw Myanmar Radio National Service,
Myanmar’s state-run national radio service.
98% have listened to its programs.
• Two other domestic radio stations are
highly popular, Padauk Myay and Shwe FM.
Each are known by close to 90% of radio
listeners and listened to by over 80%.
other relevant categories. The data are presented
as rough notes to suggest the type of information
ecosystems analysis that can be performed on already
completed research and to demonstrate how we arrived
at our preliminary typology of information ecosystems.

50
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
Consumers • want information about possible ways
to address endemic unemployment, poor
public services and lack of electricity
• want information to help navigate instability,
build livelihoods and achieve aspirations
• addressing issues of conflict is outside
of respondents’ means so they want to
focus on more manageable subjects
• respondents felt frustrated and removed from
information that could help them access resources
to address local and personal challenges
• no idea on how the decisions of politicians
and institutional actors impact them
• ranking of acute problems: electricity and
gas (55%), lack of employment (38%), lack of
food or water (34%), security issues (6%)
Producers • US and Pakistani government • conglomerate media houses
• politicians
Sources • Radio stories:
-- 47% use official spokesperson
-- 30% use unidentified source
-- 13% ordinary individual
-- 10% academic
-- Newspaper stories:
-- 52% use official spokesperson
-- 38% use unidentified source
-- 9% ordinary individual
-- 1% academic
• civil society responders noted
that coverage of their own efforts
was extremely low to nonexistent
• media liaison with responders,
NGOs, and government
Gaps • local information is almost completely absent
• limited access to media agenda by local residents
• no feedback mechanism; no
apparent desire for feedback
• media awareness of the
needs of citizens
ANNEX II: ANALYZING THE CASE STUDIES

51
JAPAN MYANMAR
• for most disaster-affected communities local initiatives
like community radios, community (or hyper-local)
newspapers and word of mouth provided the information
evacuees wanted most, including information on the safety
of friends and family and other essential information
• local governments are responsible for disaster
preparedness and the standards of this and the
levels of engagement vary among towns
• NHK failed to provide sufficient info on
food, water, gasoline and electricity
• mainstream media coverage focused on the
nuclear crisis and didn’t provide the information
that people in evacuation centers needed most

52
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
INFORMATION
LANDSCAPE
(TYPES
OF MEDIA
AVAILABLE)
• state-owned media
• Radio Pakistan: sole radio station
legally permitted to broadcast
• Pakistan television is the only news
channel accessible without satellite
• mobile phones, satellite dishes and internet increasing
• Radio Khyber: USAID funding with programming
in Pashto-language on health education, women’s
rights, religious programming (risking closure)
• local government provides the
most information about getting aid
• 10 private national TV stations (2011)
• 1 state TV with 100
regional stations (2011)
• 2800 radio stations/700 were
community stations (2011)
• 85% of the country covered
Intermediary
Organizations
• Provincial Disaster Management Agency
(BPBD): capture flood and aid response data
from range of government departments
and share with relevant stakeholders
-- no common reporting format or platform
-- utilizes website and social media
-- no dedicated PR office
-- no shared media protocol with BNPB
-- insufficient personnel
• National Disaster Management Agency
(BNPB): national body overseeing and
supporting disaster response strategy
-- has PR office
-- head of organization is the
main communicator
• Jakarta Governor’s Office
-- political profile and lead responsibility
of Governor’s position is significant

53
JAPAN MYANMAR
• media choices in Myanmar are growing quickly.
• newspapers have been proliferating in
the cities while new television programs,
driven particularly by satellite TV services,
have expanded the range of content and
programming available within the country.
• satellite TV is now legally bringing content into
the country ranging from rich political discussion
via DVB-Burmese to a variety of entertainment
programming, including popular Burmese and
Korean soap operas and even Myanmar Idol, a
Burmese version of the popular music competition
Face-to-face information flows take place primarily
in the home between immediate family and friends.
• very little information arrives through the Internet
• news and information flows overwhelmingly
by word of mouth, after entering a community
through radio, TV, or print media.

54
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
Infrastructure • Physical (Land)
-- isolated
-- tracks that cannot be driven
-- periodic floods, droughts, earthquakes
• Physical (Technology)
-- Poor electricity supply/enduring blackouts
-- lack of mobile signal and Internet connectivity
-- DSL internet networks
• 19 million households lack electricity
PRODUCTION
AND MOVEMENT
• poor communication between governing
institutions and the communities they serve
Community
Participation
• mullahs influence being affected by local
militants, drone strikes, and persistent poverty
• most successful neighborhood
social networks were able to integrate
with permanent administration
or community structures
independent of finite funding
• Digital volunteers are
beginning to have an impact
ERMEDIA

55
JAPAN MYANMAR
-- highly sophisticated media and
telecommunications infrastructure
• 220 terrestrial television
• 300 AM/FM radio stations.
• high internet and mobile penetration rate; 80
percent of the population are internet users with
around 84 percent using mobile phones.
-- lack of access to grid-connected electricity
by 85% of the rural population—limit key
information sources to radio and word of mouth
• In 2011, 74% of Myanmar’s population lacked
access to grid-connected electricity.
• local initiatives including community radio stations,
community and local newspapers (also known as hyper-
local media), newsletters and announcements at evacuation
centers - remained the main source of information for many
• Information shared mostly by word of mouth (88%
of respondents); 5% by phone, 1% by email or SMS
• Monks are sources of religious information
ARY ORGANI

56
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
Owners • Pakistani government
• US government
• conglomerates are dominated by
Kompas Gramedia and Jawa Pos
• conglomerates include:
TV, radio, print, online and
entertainment portals
• 11 companies compete
in the mobile market
• Telkomsel is the most dominant
followed by Indosat and XL Axial
Barriers • women are even less literate and many
are not mobile (= less access to info)
• licensing regulations block local
access to radio networks; only allowed
to transit in a radius of 2.5km
• Media Convergence Bill
(bring together the country’s
Broadcasting Act, the Electronic
Information and Transaction Law,
and Telecommunications Laws;
and merges the Broadcasting
Commission, the Information
Commission and the Indonesian
Telecommunications Regulatory Body)
• censorship laws: Anti-Pornography
Law, Cyber Law, EIT Law
• there are no government common
reporting platforms or formats

57
JAPAN MYANMAR
• government owns the majority of
crisis communication channels
• private media
• 3 Internet providers exist in Myanmar:
Red Link Communications, Sky Net
MPS, and Yatanarpon Teleport.
-- all three work under the regulation of state-
owned Myanmar Posts and Telecommunications
(MPT), which controls all aspects of Myanmar’s
communications sector, including landlines,
street phone kiosks, and mobile phones.
-- Red Link, whose services are limited mostly
to Yangon and Mandalay, is owned by the sons
of current Union Solidarity and Development
Party (USDP) chairman and speaker of
Myanmar’s lower house of parliament,
-- business tycoon Shwe Than, an ally of
President Thein Sein, owns Sky Net,
-- Yatanarpon Teleport is state-owned.
• the stations with the most extensive reach and
popularity remain in the government’s hands
• there was little information sharing
between humanitarian agencies
• while there were some localized efforts to co-
ordinate government and civil society efforts, there
was no systematic approach to sharing information,
causing inefficiencies and duplication
• it appears that connectivity issues, remoteness,
and a focus on meeting basic needs preclude
many from the ability to readily share news, or
to cultivate an interest in news or information
not directly connected to their daily lives.

58
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
DYNAMIC OF
ACCESS
• local journalists barred from accessing government
records, including development schemes
• international media outlets and human rights
organization denied access to report in region
• 74% of journalists had been threatened
by militants or governments
• Pakistan Telecommunication Authority temporary
blocks websites including Facebook, YouTube
and Wikipedia as blasphemous (2010)
• Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority creates
media licensing framework but not extended to FATA
• poor infrastructure, militant attacks,
and threats to journalists.
• two-way radio is an open channel;
can be picked up my militants
• no secure forums for discussing, vetting
and debating first-hand accounts
• residents use public spaces to share information but less
freely and restricted conversation since rising insecurity
• residents fear digital communications
might be monitored by intelligence
agencies, militants or other actors
• investment in telecommunication
only in places where revenue is high;
disincentive for investment in more
sparsely populated locations
• Telecommunication: fixed-line
phones are extremely limited
Places • hujras
• mosques
• barber shops
• internet cafes (highest usage of internet)

59
JAPAN MYANMAR
• areas where internet connectivity was available,
those with internet-enabled mobile phones could
search for news of the dead and missing
• The JMA use a Short Message Service Cell Broadcast
(SMS-CB) system to send mass alerts to mobile
phone users in specific geographical locations
• As of 2009, 21 million mobile phones in Japan are capable
of receiving earthquake early warning messages and
three of Japan’s major mobile providers offer it for free
• A smartphone application such as Yurekuru Call
can be downloaded and it will send warnings before
an earthquake with details of potential magnitude
and arrival times depending on the location
• Live updates were available on a number
of newspapers websites whenever there was
breaking news or a development in the story.
• Most media outlets including newspapers used social
media services like Twitter to inform the public
• people in survivor centres were able to
make one outgoing call a day, for free.
• All the public payphones that were still operational
in Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima were able to be used
free of charge for one month after the disaster.
• Where all telephone networks were down, the
International Committee of the Red Cross also provided
stations where survivors could make calls via satellite
phone to let family members know that they were safe
• At the current time, connecting to the Internet
outside of Internet cafes is outside of the
financial reach of most of Myanmar’s citizens.
• use of new media and technology in Mon
State still remains very low. Only 25% of
respondents owned mobiles phones, while
a mere 2% had Internet access at home.
• Only 32% reported that their communities had
access to grid-connected electricity. Close to three-
quarters reported access to electricity by generator
(72%), while almost one-quarter reported access to
electricity in their communities by solar power (22%).
• Radio use has declined in Mon State overall
as access to TV and electricity has improved.
• over 50% of Mon State urban dwellers have a mobile
phone in their household 67% of respondents in Mon
State have a TV and DVD/VCD player in their home.
• markets, weddings, public ceremonies
local monastery, tea shops

60
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
Challenges
to access
• underdeveloped
• characterized by crisis and conflict for decades
• Poor, isolated, and unstable
• Very low literacy and very high unemployment
• Characterized internationally as a training
ground for religious extremists
• High circulation of drones
• Mass population displacement
• Tribal system of governance (semi-autonomous)
• personal mobility restricted and public
conversations endangered
• maintaining networks between
individuals and local groups
• continuing programming
once funding ends
• digital access does not
mean digital literacy
• changes in mobile online access is
most prevalent among responders rather
than among affected communities
• digital divide
• squeezing out of local stations
• maximizing on tools
• Lack of staff: PMI has 100,000
followers on Twitter, 65000
likes on Facebook, website and
e-mail subscription but only one
person to manage the role
Use
Developmental • Illiteracy- only 22% literate
• 66% below poverty line
• 60-80% unemployment

61
JAPAN MYANMAR
• two years later, around 305,000 people are still in temporary
accommodation and need for information is still there
• Months of continuous power outages, damage
to infrastructure and congestion on landlines and
mobile phone networks across northeast Japan.
• Phone carriers restricted up to 95%
of traffic for emergencies
• main media consumption could not be relied
upon during the disaster or after it, due to power
shortages, problems with the telecommunications
networks and other technical failures.
• rural areas face cost and distance barriers; lack the
financial means to purchase a television and often
must travel to the nearest town to buy a radio or
a newspaper; extremely high costs of electricity
• Rural/urban divide
• world’s most rapidly aging population,
with 24 percent over 65 years old

62
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
Consumption • Satellite: available to the rich
• TV: 33% respondents used this to form opinion
• Radio: 50% respondents used this to form opinion
• Online: 5% of 64 respondents had internet access
• Oral Tradition: largely used
• Mobile: Bluetooth devices; 64% have access
to mobile phones (unreliable signals)
• Print: medium of record
(19% of population)
-- 1076 print media (2011)
• TV: largest medium 90% of
population as regular viewers
• Radio: national audience of 23.5%
-- 40000 villages without access
• Online: 45 million
(18.5%) of population
-- 4th highest number
of Facebook users
• high in urban/low in rural
• Oral Tradition
• Mobile: proliferation
was 107% in 2012
-- 65% of households lack
access to any network
-- mobile data penetration (10%)

63
JAPAN MYANMAR
• TV was the most used medium in daily life (87.2 percent)
followed by the Internet accessed on a personal computer
(81.3 percent) and then mobile phones (63.6 percent).
• While only 46.6 percent of the respondents used the radio
in daily life, during the crisis it became the most used medium
(67.5 percent).; mobile phones (37.5 percent), television
(33.4 percent), and internet on a computer (19.5 percent).
• the extensive network of public address
systems using a system of wireless speakers was
the most used means of communication.
• Social networks such as Twitter, Mixi and Facebook
• With approximately 35 million account holders in
Japan, Twitter is the most popular social networking
site in that country; disaster related hashtags
• Facebook is rapidly becoming more
popular with over 17 million users
• TV most prevalent media device;
2/3 of respondents owned a TV; 85%
in urban, 46% in conflict areas
• Nearly half of the total sample said they had never
watched TV (46%); 70% in conflict areas, 51% in
rural areas; Respondents who had never watched
TV were predominantly female (65%), employed
(59%), working at least 30 hours per week (68%),
lower middle class (76%) and possessing less
than a middle school-level education (80%).
• Radio is the second most used media device in
Mon State. 59% of all respondents have a radio in the
home. Radio ownership is more prevalent in rural
households compared to urban homes, with 61% of
rural respondents owning one, compared to 49%
of urban respondents, and also more common in
non-conflict areas (60% of respondents) than former
conflict areas (48%). Nearly every radio listener
(98%) used a battery-powered transistor radio.
• In qualitative interviews in Mon State’s former
conflict areas, respondents reported that radio
is the main and preferred source for news and
information, including the latest news, weather
report, music, talk shows, and Buddhist teachings
• Radio only means of accessing
immediate information
• 9% in 2012 had mobile phones; almost exclusively
for making and receiving calls with only 9% of mobile
users used their phones to send or receive text
messages, while 3% or less used their phones to take
photos, record video, record audio, or send photos
to other people; Only 2% of mobile phone users in
Mon State used their phones to access the Internet
• 98% of respondents had never used the Internet;
70% do not know what the Internet is or how to use it
• 21% of respondents own a mobile phone. 54%
of all urban respondents have a mobile phone in
their household, while 47% own one themselves.
• Only 2% of mobile phone users use
their phones to access the Internet.

64
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
Relationship • Willing to risk their lives to use walkie talkies
• travel miles to get mobile signal
• hiding satellite antenna dishes in house; balancing
fear or militants against desire to be connected
• excitement for getting online
IMPACT OF INFO • increasingly recognizing the value of education
to access, analyze and use information
• test information through social networks and as
many trusted sources as they are able to access
• reinforced feelings of powerlessness
• US/India and international news may signal
changes in their environment given the relationship
between the governments and theirs

65
JAPAN MYANMAR
• Less than one-third of respondents saw
themselves as a disseminator of news and
information to other members of the community.
Most news is passed on to friends and family.
• Only 2% of the sample—business owners,
professionals, military, and students—strongly viewed
themselves as a source of information for others.
• Over 26% of respondents in former conflict
areas do not share news and information at all.
• respectively, wireless public address systems,
radio and television broadcasts and word of
mouth were the most useful channels
• Car and battery-powered radios also proved useful
during power cut as people moved to higher ground
• Radio and TV effective only if had them on at the time
• Japanese national radio, NHK, covered the disaster
extensively but this was on a national level; Local
radio stations could better address the needs of
those seeking shelter, missing persons and relief
supplies in their surrounding communities.
• Social networks such as Twitter, Mixi and Facebook
provided a way for survivors to locate friends and
family and let people know that they had survived.
• A few hours after the earthquake, Google’s Person Finder,
a platform to trace and reunite the missing, was launched.
• Mixi users could easily check the last
time fellow users had logged in
• YouTube was also used after the disaster: fundraising
appeals, educational videos, and requests help

66
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
SOCIAL TRUST • international media trusted but not
locally relevant (VOA 50%, BBC 60%)
• verify information received through social networks
• highly skeptical consumers of info
• process of triangulation
• eyewitness, consider other indicators of quality, consider
the medium, look at particulars and ask around repeatedly
• most faith in those who can report first-hand
• live TV more than written
• fact-filled stories
• religious leaders are increasingly viewed
as minding their own agendas
• educated peers more influential -
less reliant on word of mouth
• seek certainty and reliability above all else
• Local information isn’t credible, while
credible information isn’t locally relevant
• national media unreliable for accurate reporting
of issues that impacted residents day-to-day life
• Usage/Trust (%)
-- friends and family: 42/40
-- neighbors: 38/16
-- coworkers: 21/14
-- tribal elders: 12/8
-- government officials: 2/1
-- Radio Pakistani 49/40
-- Radio US: 20/16
-- Radio British: 9.5/7
-- Print Media Pakistani: 35/30
-- TV Pakistani: 33/26
-- Friday Sermon: 18/12
-- Communal Gathering: 9/6
• media were criticized
as sensationalist
• perception of political interest
in the media; undermines the
effectiveness of the media
• face to face is the most used
and trusted but least efficient

67
JAPAN MYANMAR
• while the general level of public trust in media and in social
media increased, radio gained the most trust from locals.
• radio cited as being a more personable source
of information - and it may even have been the
most suitable after events as traumatic as these
because distressing images couldn’t be seen
• most trusted by Mon State respondents tend to
be the ones they also recognize most readily.
• In general, 81% of all respondents said
they trust information from sources inside
Myanmar more than foreign sources.
• Trust in government news sources appears to
be increasing due to reforms that have enabled
government media to be more open.
• Government media was fairer in conflicts
between Muslims and Buddhists so trust
foreign media much less than before.
• not trust any news source completely. Instead,
most respondents felt the need to always
validate information against other sources
• triangulation essential prior to fully trusting any
information or passing such information on to others.
• The sources of information people
in Mon State trust the most are friends
and family, Nay Pyi Daw Myanmar Radio
National Service, MRTV, and Shwe FM.
• Respondents had a high degree of trust in news
from a familiar source, news presented with video
or photographs, news spread by word of mouth,
and news shared by elders and local authorities.
• The newspapers, radio stations, and TV
stations that are trusted by the most people
in Mon State are all government-owned.
• The most trusted media sources in Mon State
are also the ones that have the greatest reach
and coverage. These stations are Nay Pyi Daw
Myanmar National Radio Service (trusted by
94% of users), MRTV (91%), and the newspapers
Kyaymon (76%) and Myanmar Ahlin (73%).

68
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
INFLUENCERS • shifting political spheres of influence (away from
tribal/religious; toward educated/tech-savvy)
• People appear to rely on (non-electronic) social
networks to access and verify information
• role of transient people and diaspora in
providing differing news and perspectives
• residents leverage relationships with people
whose professions or social status afford them the
opportunity to spread stories and observation
• mullahs do not understand and are ill
equipped to address the problems their people
face today; used to be most important
• educated people are expected to share
news with the illiterate and uneducated
• youth with ability to use mobile
technologies and the internet
• residents with geographical mobility: traveling
merchants and service providers, taxi and
truck drivers, diaspora, nomadic women
• politicians
• celebrities
• local leaders
• family and friends
• media itself

69
JAPAN MYANMAR
• With new social media, because of collaboration
and interactivity there is no clear distinction between
the senders of information and the recipients.
• Traditional media only allows one- way communication
so government, humanitarian response agencies,
and civil society can have direct influence here

70
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
INNOVATION • visit spaces where information is
shared, debated and analyzed
• reach beyond borders with personal connections
to get information that is free and informed
• Walkie Talkies
• Cassettes of recorded information sent back and forth
• bluetooth
LEVERAGE
POINTS
• Diaspora
• Youth
• Analytical capacity building
• Education on institutions and politics
• Employ trusted citizen sources
• Provisions of emergency generators,
loudspeakers, and phone chargers
at displacement locations
• Training how to use mobile tools
• Information bridges
• Training and implementation
of systems
• SMS blasts

71
JAPAN MYANMAR
• Japanese broadcasters decided to stream their
material online using private sector streaming
services like Ustream, Niconico Live and Yahoo!
• ANY Liaison Council, which saw three major newspaper
groups - Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun and the
Asahi Shimbun Group come together so these publishers could
co-operate better in any future disaster, allowing other media
companies to use one another’s facilities in emergencies
• provision of temporary broadcast licenses for Saigai
FM stations: One category for existing local, commercial
radio stations that wished to become dedicated disaster
information providers, and the license meant they temporarily
widened transmission areas and another category for
new radio stations, created to assist during the disaster
• Ushahidi crisis map; volunteers categorized and mapped
12000 tweets over three months; this allowed the public to
see what kinds of information and requests were coming
from which areas; none of the interviewees in the research
in Miyagi and Iwate were aware of this crisis map.
• “packet communication”: Packets are short messages
of up to 128 bytes that are broken into smaller data
packets and sent separately through internet
• “disaster message boards”: used 14 million times; One
was text based, where people could input a message
on the provider’s website that would be stored online or
automatically forwarded to pre-registered email addresses;
the other was a voice recording that could be emailed
to a recipient just like an answer phone message.
• Community sharing of cell phones
• Using local media – such as community radio or print
media – should be embraced by humanitarian organizations.
• Radio doesn’t require literacy or proficiency like with digital
technologies and is a resource that government agencies,
aid organizations and NGOs can use to ensure accurate, life
saving information is reaching those who need it most.
• In times of emergency it is simply not possible to rely on
only one, or even three or four kinds, of communication;
Both low tech and high tech methods of communication
have proven themselves equally important in a crisis
• Information Exchange in the former conflict areas
• Mobile Phones
• Exiled/Diaspora Media

72
PAKISTAN INDONESIA
RESEARCH
LIMITATIONS
• All of this is in reference
to crisis communication
not general ecosystem
LESSONS
LEARNED
• any influences that discourage
broad-based and local participation
in communication practice will likely
erode the communication resilience
that’s needed when disaster strikes
• if communication not
anticipated, people are not
going to risk waiting for it

73
JAPAN MYANMAR
• world leader in earthquake preparedness measures.
• Information and communication are a form of aid
– although unfortunately, historically, the aid sector
has not always recognized this. Getting information to
people on the side of the digital divide, where there is no
internet, may help them survive in times of crisis and help
communities rebuild after immediate danger has passed.
• Another study shows that only about half of the
respondents (52.3 percent) in areas that experienced
immense devastation were aware of the tsunami alert.
• showed that it is not possible to rely solely on
technology; underestimated the height of mega-
tsunami’s waves, which may have caused those who
received only the first warning to prepare inadequately

74
METHODOLOGY
The Jakarta Pilot research included desk and field
research in the spring of 2014. Field research included
18 in-depth interviews. These took place in Jakarta
(14), Washington, DC (1), and by Skype or phone (3)
with individuals from the following organizations:
Australia–Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction
(AIFDR), Jakarta Disaster Mitigation Agency (BPBD),
Communication Research Center, University of
Indonesia; FloodTags; Humanitarian OpenStreetMap
Team (HOT); International Organization for
Migration (IOM); The Indonesian Society for Disaster
Management (MPBI), Ogilvy Public Relations;
PetaJakarta research project; Red Cross (PMI) East
Jakarta; United Nations Global Pulse Lab; United
Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UNOCHA); University of Amsterdam;
World Bank - Global Facility for Disaster Reduction
and Recovery (GFDRR); and several independent
journalists and researchers. Interviews included
open-ended questions and discussion and a limited
number of social network analysis questions asked of
a subset of the interviewees. The discussion guide can
be found in the appendix.
Jakarta field research also included three days of site
visits to flood-affected areas in Kelapa Gading, Sunter,
Muara Baru, Cililitang, Bidara Cina, and Kampung
Melayu. Site visits included observation, photography,
GPS mapping, and intercept interviews (lasting 10-
30 minutes each) with a total of approximately 30
residents and local workers across those five areas.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION
∞∞ Have you assessed people’s information needs
/environments? What do you look for? (Trust
points? Influencers? Decision points?)
XX If so, how is this information used?
XX If not, how do decisions about information
provision and reporting get made?
INFORMATION FLOWS
∞∞ If you were to map the key flows of
information in a flood-prone community,
where would you start? What important
flows are there?
Potential topics for info content:
A. General news affecting the community
B. Weather
C. Security
D. Flooding
∞∞ Show some of the information flow maps -
What do you think? Can you re-draw so this
is more accurate? What are the key things to
show?
ANNEX III
JAKARTA INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS PILOT

75
INFORMATION PRIORITIES
∞∞ What do people need to know during and after
a crisis?
∞∞ How do you know?
∞∞ Whose responsibility is it to provide the
information?
∞∞ Can you tell how the information you share is
used for people to make decisions? (Tell me a
story…)
∞∞ Who is responsible for responding to queries
and requests from a community during crisis?
FLOODS
∞∞ How did you hear about the floods this past
January?
∞∞ How is information about floods collected and
shared throughout communities?
∞∞ How can you tell if the information is being
effectively communicated?
∞∞ Tell me a story about the floods.
PREPARATION
∞∞ How do you anticipate what communications
will take place during disaster… but before the
disaster happens?
FOR RESPONDER ORGANIZATIONS
∞∞ How does your organization handle
communications during crisis?
∞∞ How would you assess recovery from the 2013
floods? 2014? In the case where recovery is
progressing well, what has contributed?
∞∞ How do you perceive this issue of integrating
international/national/local disaster
preparation & response policy? What are the
challenges?

76
COMMUNITY VISIT MAP
Manggarai
Selatan 7
Manggarai
Selatan 3
Manggarai
Utara 2
Manggarai
Utara 1
Ciliwung
Kebun Pala 2
Bukit Duri Permai
Bukit Duri Permai
Permata 2
Manggarai
Selatan 1
The site visit from Day 3,
Kampang Melayu.
Note the labyrinthine
path, the large portion of
the community that is
unmapped, and the three
points where we walked
over the water, following
the settlement.
Kampung
Melayu
JAKARTA
ANNEX III: JAKARTA INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS PILOT

77
Thesocialnetworkanalysiswasconductedtoinvestigate
perceptions of organizations involved in flood planning
and response. The most effective organizations were
seen to be collaborative and networked. The provincial
disaster response organization, the BPBD (of which
the Pusdalops high-tech communication hub is a part)
was considered to be the most effective and the most
collaborative in the communications space in Jakarta.
BPBD has put a special emphasis on communications
and improving information flows.
Which organization do you consider
to be the most effective in the crisis
communications space?
Society for
Environmental
Journalists
UNOCHA
PMIBPBD
HOT
MPBI
Media
Ogilvy PR
Political Orgs
What other organizations does
this one collaborate with (if any)?
Volunteer
PMIPolitical
Orgs
New
Media HOT
National
PMI
BPBD
National
NGOs
ANNEXIV
KEY FINDINGS:
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

78
METHODOLOGY
The New York InfoEco study will examine how
information ecosystems contributed to resilience
before, during, and after the Hurricane Sandy disaster
of October 2012, focusing on communities in Brooklyn
and Staten Island. As an extension of the research
conducted in Jakarta, the New York study will pilot
the information ecosystems methodology to inform
future research and planning on how to strengthen
information flows to foster resilience. The approach of
the New York study is complementary to, rather than
repetitive of, that of the Jakarta study; thus we can
consider the New York study almost as a second phase
of the Jakarta study.
KEY QUESTIONS FOR JAKARTA AND NEW YORK:
What is the role of an information ecosystem
in helping people adapt to change?
How do information ecosystems transform during
disruption? How do they function during recovery?
How do information ecosystems contribute to
resilience during disruption and recovery?
What is the best way to strengthen
information ecosystems to strengthen
the resilience of communities?
NEW QUESTIONS PROMPTED
BY THE JAKARTA STUDY:
• What are the particular characteristics
of information flow within communities?
Has this changed since Sandy? How
does information flow between the “top”
(government/recovery organizations) and
the “bottom” (affected communities)?
• What are the differences and similarities
across the two chosen field sites in
Brooklyn and Staten Island?
• How does one determine the appropriate
scale for a “hyper-local” perspective?
• What is the relationship between influence and
trust during an unanticipated crisis situation?
• What is the (likely complex) role of information
in decision-making at the community level?
Are there observably distinct decision-making
styles in communities related to questions
of resilience and disaster risk reduction?
• Why do people stay in flood-prone areas,
even when they have other options?
• What might we learn from better understanding
the communities’ self-organizing capacities?
RESEARCH AREAS
FOR NEW YORK STUDY
In preparation for the New York case study, the Center
first conducted desk research as a preliminary step
to test the extent to which elements of information
ecosystems were taken into account in disaster
planning, response, and recovery. Using the Eight
Critical Dimensions of Information Ecosystems
ANNEXV
NEW YORK INFORMATION
ECOSYSTEMS PILOT

79
Questions as a guide, questions included: What are the
gaps in terms of how policymakers are incorporating
a systemic consideration of information in their
framework? How might incorporating an information
ecosystems approach strengthen the resilience of
communities and nations? While not an exhaustive
portrait, the diagnosis already reveals areas in which
policy and practice post-Sandy both incorporates and
neglects a consideration of information ecosystems:
The above diagnosis is just a preliminary assessment;
it points to ample areas for further investigation and
improvement. The New York InfoEco Pilot presents
an opportunity to delve deeper into each of these
dimensions to develop guidelines for decision-makers
in New York and beyond.
1. Information Needs: During the long-term planning,
was any assessment done of how New York
residents communicate, and how to incorporate this
assessment into strategy? Desk research indicated not.
2. Information Landscapes: Flood maps were not
up to date and insufficient to aid responders’
understanding of the crisis. There were no redundant
structures backing up the electrical grid. These
failures had a strong negative impact on the affected
population’s health and ability to communicate.
3. Production and Movement: Loss of
electricity curtailed access to all key sources
of information. This highlighted insufficient
redundancies in communications. Further
research is needed to uncover information
channels, flows, and impediments.
4. Dynamic of Access: Assessing this would require
a better understanding of the community-level
dynamics, which was outside of the scope of the
policy documents reviewed. This indicates that
broad policy documents should attempt better
inclusiveness and portrayal of citizen experience.
5. Use: About half of the drowning deaths in flooded
homes were in areas under mandatory evacuation.
This brings up questions: did these people learn
about the evacuation? If they did receive the
information, what was their decision-making
process? Questions arise about the relationship
between information and decision-making.
6. Impact of Information: The high volunteer
engagement in response and relief—from the Surge
Capacity Force to Occupy Sandy—reveals that
significant numbers of people used information
about the hurricane to take action to help those
affected. The desk review revealed neither how
well the information informed them, nor whether
or not their actions matched what was needed.
7. Social Trust: The recent creation and deployment
of FEMA Corps is one measure that begins to answer
needs for networks of trust around information.
An evaluation of FEMA Corps’ effectiveness during
Sandy would help determine to what extent it (or
other volunteer groups) played this role. Such an
evaluation should determine not only how well
these various groups helped bolster trust across
affected communities and between communities
and responders, but also what the broader gaps are
in social trust related to information in New York.
8. Influencers: The literature provides information about
high-level decisions and declarations that triggered
action (including preventive actions taken by the New
York and New Jersey governors and the US president
before Sandy made landfall) and aid distribution.
Government and responder actions seem to have
been significantly better coordinated than in past
disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. However, the
desk review shed no light on the communications
flows around these major actions. Further, the city-
level focus of the literature reviewed does not reveal
much about community level information influencers.

80
METHODOLOGY
FOR THE NEW YORK STUDY
To answer these questions and help further develop
our information ecosystems framework, the New York
InfoEco Pilot takes a multi-method research approach,
described in the table below.
LOCATION RESPONDENTS N KEY ISSUES FOR RESEARCH
QUANTITATIVE
PHONE-BASED
SURVEY
Brooklyn near
the water; across
Staten Island
Residents of the two
areas during Superstorm
Sandy (80%); residents of
the two areas that moved
in after Sandy (20%)
750, divided evenly
between the two
geographic areas
Information sources, trust in
information, neighborhood
influencers; the relationship of all
these elements to Sandy recovery
FOCUS GROUPS 2 for each
location as above
People who self-
identify with qualities
that indicate they are
information influencers
4 groups total;
8-10 per focus
group; N=32-40
Information flow within the
community on issues related both
to Sandy and other important
issues of the day; community
trust networks; decision-making
in the context of cycles of
resilience; and resilience factors
in information ecosystems
POLICYMAKER
IN-DEPTH
INTERVIEWS
Anywhere in
NYC; people
with a citywide
perspective
New York City
disaster risk reduction
decision makers
5 How do decision-makers
incorporate elements of
information ecosystems framework
into their current approach to
resilience (even if unconsciously)?
Whether/how could information
flow maps and other information-
focused decision tools be useful?
COMMUNITY
LEADER
IN-DEPTH
INTERVIEWS
Same 2 locations
as above
Community leaders who
have been instrumental in
helping their home area
to recover (and perhaps,
improve) since Sandy
10 (5 in each
location)
Role of community innovation
in building complex adaptive
resilience, successes and
challenges in building resilient
communities and resilient
information ecosystems, and the
role of trust and influencers in
building community resilience.
ANNEX V: NEW YORK
INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS PILOT

81
• Abud, M. 2013. Indonesia: Crisis
Communication Channels: Case Studies
in Humanitarian Communication
Preparedness and Response. Internews.
• Amzallag, D. and Deloney, A. 2010.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.
An Information Community Case
Study. New America Foundation.
• Anderies, J., Janssen, M., and
Ostrom, E. 2003. Design Principles
for Robustness of Institutions in
Socialecological Systems. Joining the
Northern Commons: Lessons for the
World, Lessons from the World: 17–21.
• Appleby, L. 2013. Connecting the Last
Mile. The Role of Communications
in The Great East Japan Earthquake.
Internews Europe and Internews.
• Armia Muhammad Syathi, Centre for
Disaster Resilience. 2013. Disaster Risk
Reduction in Indonesia: Safer Communities
through Disaster Risk Reduction (SCDRR)
Project. http://www.buildresilience.
org/2013/proceedings/files/papers/475.pdf
• Arnold, M. 2013. Grassroots Leaders,
Empowering Communities is Resilience
Building. World Bank Official Blog. http://
blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/
grassroots-leaders-empowering-
communities-resilience-building.
• Arnold, M. 2013. Take the Blue Line to
Social Resilience. World Bank Official Blog.
http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/
take-blue-line-social-resilience.
• Associated Press-NORC Center
for Public Affairs Research. 2013.
Communication During Disaster
Response and Recovery: Issue Brief.
• Bakornas PBP. 2005. National
Information, Prepared For: World
Conference on Disaster Reduction.
• Baldwin, T., Bergan, D., Fico, F., Lacy,
S., & Wildman, S. S. 2010. News Media
Coverage of City Governments in 2009.
• Barlow, J.P. 1994. The Economy of
Ideas: Selling Wine Without Bottles on the
Global Net. Wired. http://www.wired.com/
wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas_pr.html
• Batabyal, A. 1998. The Concept of
Resilience: Retrospect and Prospect.
Environment and Development Economics.
Volume null, Issue 2: 235-239.
• BBC Media Action. 2013. Fragile
states: the role of media and
communication. http://www.bbc.co.uk/
mediaaction/publicationsandpress/
policy_fragile_states.html
• Beckland, J. 2009. City of Portland Social
Media Conversation Audit. White Horse.
• Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks:
How Social Production Transforms
Markets and Freedom. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press.
• Bishop, J. 2006. Increasing Participation
in Online Communities: A Framework for
Human-Computer Interaction. Computers
in Human Behavior 23: 1881-1893.
• Blaikie, P. et al. 1994. At Risk: Natural
Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and
Disasters. London: Routledge.
• BNPB. 2012. Indonesia: National
Progress Report on the Implementation
of the Hyogo Framework for Action
(2011-2013). http://www.preventionweb.
net/english/countries/asia/idn/
• Breitbart, J. 2010. Toward a Healthy
Media Ecosystem for Philadelphia.
New America Foundation.
• Brown, J.S. and Dugid, P. 2000. The Social
Life of Information. Harvard Business Press.
• Burke, J. & Fan, L. 2014. Humanitarian
Crises, Emergency Preparedness and
Response: The Role of Business and the
Private Sector. Indonesia Case Study.
http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/8227-
humanitarian-crises-emergency-
preparedness-response-indonesia
• Busta, H. 2013. Learning From
Rebuilding: Illya Azaroff. Architect.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/
architecture/interview-with-aia-
design-for-risk-and-reconstruction-
committee-co-chair-illya-azaroff.aspx.
• Byrum, M. 2011. Zoning the Airwaves:
Why the Radio Spectrum Matters for
Planners, Markets and Communities.
Masters Thesis. http://gretabyrum.com/
files/greta_thesis_final_web.pdf.
• Capurro, R. 1990. Towards an Information
Ecology in I. Wormell, ed. Information
Quality: Definitions and Dimensions.
London, Taylor Graham: 122-139.
• Casagrande, D. n.d. Professional
website. http://www.lehigh.edu/~dac511/
pages/research/infoecol.html
• Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
2013. Deaths Associated with Hurricane
Sandy – October-November 2012.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, 62 (20): pp. 393-397.
• Cetrulo, K. 2014. Community Information
Toolkit Gets a Refresh. Knight Blog.
http://www.knightfoundation.org/blogs/
knightblog/2014/2/13/community-
information-toolkit-gets-refresh/
• Community Media Workshop. 2010. The
NEWnews: The Second Annual Survey of
the Chicago Area’s Online News Ecosystem.
Community Media Workshop. http://
communitymediaworkshop.org/newnews/
• Cosgrave, J. 2010. Programme
Evaluation of Disaster Risk Reduction
Commissioned by Cordaid. https://www.
cordaid.org/media/medialibrary/2013/10/
Programma_Evaluation_of_DRR-_Expanded_
Summary_Report_Feb_2010_1.pdf
• Cumming, G. 2011. Spatial
Resilience in Social-Ecological
Systems. New York: Springer.
• Curtis, A. 2011. The Use and Abuse of
Vegetational Concepts. (Film). BBC.
• Davenport, T.H. and Prusak,
L. 1997. Information Ecology.
Oxford University Press.
• De Causmaecker, A.S.P. 2010.
Ubiquitous Web for Ubiquitous
Computing Environments: The Role
of Embedded Semantics. Journal of
Mobile Multimedia 6(1): 26-48.
ANNEXVI
BIBLIOGRAPHY

82
ANNEX VI: BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Dembo, R. 2011. Towards More
Resilient Cities. The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ron-
dembo/towards-more-resilient-
ci_b_927616.html?just_reloaded=1.
• Division of Homeleand Security
and Emergency Services (DHSES).
2013. New York Hurricane Sandy:
Disaster Recovery Resources.
• Durkin, J. and Glaisyer, T. 2010.
An Information Community
Case Study: Scranton.
• New America Foundation.
• Egli, D. S. 2013. Beyond the Storms:
Strengthening Homeland Security
and Disaster Management to Achieve
Resilience. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• EHP. 2013. The Long Road to Recovery:
Environmental Health Impacts of
Hurricane Sandy. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 121 (5): pp. A152- A 159.
• EHP. 2013. Post-Sandy
Preparedness Policies Lag as Sea
Levels Rise. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 121 (7): A 208.
• Elliot, J.A., 2006. An Introduction
to Sustainable Development, third
edition, Routledge, London.
• Eryomin, A. 1998. Information Ecology
- A Viewpoint. International Journal of
Environmental Studies 54: 241–253.
• Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). 2012. National Business
Emergency Operations Center Fact
Sheet http://www.fema.gov/media-library/
assets/documents/28983?id=6437
• Finin, T., Joshi, A., Kolari, P., Java, A.,
Kale, A. and Krandikar, A. 2007. The
Information Ecology of Social Media and
Online Communities. AI Magazine 28(3)
• Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The
Emergence of a Perspective for Social-
Ecological Systems Analyses. Global
Environmental Change 16: 253-267.
• Friedland, L., Napoli, P., Ognyanova,
K., Weil, C. and Wilson, E., J. III. 2012.
Review of the Literature Regarding Critical
Information Needs of the American Public.
The Federal Trade Commission. http://www.
fcc.gov/blog/review-literature-regarding-
critical-information-needs-american-public
•
• Gloria, K. and Hadge, K. 2010. Washington,
D.C. An Informing Community Case
Study. New America Foundation.
• Goldstein, B. (ed.) 2012. Collaborative
Resilience: Moving Through Crisis to
Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Hanley, N. 1998. Resilience in Social
and Economic Systems: A Concept that
Fails the Cost-Benefit Test? Environment
and Development Economics,
• Harvard Humanitarian Initiative.
2011. Disaster Relief 2.0: The Future of
Information Sharing in Humanitarian
Emergencies. Washington, D.C. and
Berkshire, UK: UN Foundation & Vodafone
Foundation Technology Partnership.
• Highfield, W. E., Norman, S. A. &
Brody, S. D. 2013. Examining the 100-
Year Floodplain as a Metric of Risk,
Loss, and Household Adjustment.
Risk Analysis, 33 (2): pp. 186-191.
• Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and
Stability in Ecological Systems. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics.
• Homer-Dixon, T. 1994. Environmental
Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence
from Cases. International Security, Vol.
19, No. I: 5-40. http://graduateinstitute.
ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/shared/
summer/IA2009_readings/MD1.pdf.
• Homer-Dixon, T. 2006. The Upside
of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity,
and the Renewal of Civilization.
Random House Canada.
• HUD.gov. 2014. CDBG Disaster
Recovery Assistance.
• Huvila, I. 2011. Social Aspects of
the Ecology of Information Work.
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/
get/diva2:455231/FULLTEXT01.pdf
• Indonesia.go.id. (2010). The Geography
of Indonesia. http://www.indonesia.go.id/
en/indonesia-glance/geography-indonesia
• Institute for the Future. 2012. Information
Ecosystems for Well-being: New Tools,
New Connections, New Identities. http://
www.iftf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/
downloads/hh/IFTF_SR-1499_HH2012__
InformationEcosystemsforWell-being_map.
pdf and http://www.iftf.org/our-work/
health-self/health-horizons/information-
ecosystems-for-well-being/information-
ecosystems-for-well-being-map/
• Institute for the Future. 2012. Information
Ecosystems for Well-Being: Map of the
Decade. Unpublished PowerPoint.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). 2012. Summary for
Policymakers. In Field, C.B. et al. (eds)
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events
and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation: A Special Report
of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge & New York:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-19.
• International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
2011. The Red Cross Red Crescent
Approach to Disaster and Crisis
Management: Position paper. http://
www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/91314/1209600-
DM-Position-Paper-EN.pdf
• International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). 2013. World
Disasters Report: Focus on Technology
and the Future of Humanitarian Action.
https://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/134658/
WDR%202013%20complete.pdf
• Internews. 2013. Lost: Syrian Refugees and
the Information Gap https://www.internews.
org/sites/default/files/resources/Internews_
Lost_SyriaReport_Nov2013_web.pdf
• Internews and Fritz Institute. 2010 1.
Information Ecologies of Crisis: A Research
Proposal. Internal document.
Internews and Fritz Institute. 2010
2. Key Findings and Research
Agenda. Confidential Draft.
• Knight Commission. 2010. Informing
Communities: Sustaining Democracy in
the Digital Age. http://www.knightcomm.
org/read-the-report-and-comment/.
• Kuskridho, A. et al. 2014. Mapping
Digital Media: Indonesia. http://www.
opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/
mapping-digital-media-indonesia
• Kusumasari, B. & Alam, Q. 2011. Bridging
the Gaps: The Role of Local Government
Capability and the Management of a
Natural Disaster in Bantul, Indonesia.
Nat Hazards, 60: pp. 761-779.

83
• Labaka, L. et al. 2013. Resilience Building
Policies and Their Influence in Crisis
Prevention, Absorption and Recovery.
Homeland Security & Emergency
Management, 10 (1): pp. 289-317.
• Lee, Panthea. 2013. Trust, Influence,
and Connectivity: Understanding
Information Ecosystems in Pakistan’s
Tribal Areas. A Design Research
Approach. Reboot and Internews.
• Léle, S. 1998. Resilience, Sustainability
and Environmentalism. Environment
and Development Economics,
• Levin, S., Barrett, S., Aniyar, S., Baumol,
W., Bliss, C., Bolin, B., Dasgupta, P.,
Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., Gren, I., Holling, C.S.,
Jansson, A., Jansson, B., Mäler, K., Martin,
D., Perrings, C., and Eheshinski, E. 1998.
Resilience in Natural and Socioeconomic
Systems. Environment and Development
Economics, Volume null, Issue 2: 221-262.
• Global Network of Civil Society
Organisations for Disaster Reduction,
Views from the Frontline, 2009. Views
from the Frontline: A Local Perspective
of Progress Towards Implementation
of the Hyogo Framework for Action.
http://www.preventionweb.net/
files/9822_9822VFLfullreport06091.pdf
• Levin, S. 1998. Ecosystems and
the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive
Systems. Ecosystems: 431-436.
• Levin, S. (ed.), 2009. Princeton Guide to
Ecology, Princeton University Press.
Lim, M. 2013. Democratized/Corporatised:
Contesting Media in the Post-Authoritarian
Indonesia. http://www.gp-digital.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/Indonesia.pdf
• Manyena, S. B. 2012. Disaster
and Development Paradigms: Too
Close for Comfort? Development
Policy Review, 30 (3): 327-345.
• Martin-Breen, P. and Anderies,
J.M. 2011. Resilience: A Literature
Review. Rockefeller Foundation.
• MBPI. n.d. Indonesia Society for Disaster
Management. http://www.preventionweb.net/
files/8389_8389IndonesianDMSociety1.pdf
• McEntire, D. A. 2004. Development,
disasters and vulnerability: a discussion
of divergent theories and the need for
their integration. Disaster Prevention
and Management, 13 (3): pp.193-198.
• McChesany, R. W. & Pickard, V.
2011. Will the Last Reporter Please
Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of
Journalism and What Can be Done
to Fix It. New York: New Press.
• Meadows, D. 2009. Thinking in
Systems: A Primer. Edited by Wright, D.
London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
• Monitor Institute and Knight Foundation.
A Community Information Toolkit.
(website). http://www.infotoolkit.org/
• Moore, M., Westley, F., Tjornbo, O. and
Holroyd, C. 2010. Working Paper: The
Loop, the Lens, and the Lesson: Using
Resilience Theory to Examine Public Policy
and Social Innovation. Waterloo Institute
for Social Innovation and Resilience.
• Moore, M. and Westley, F. 2011.
Surmountable Chasms: Networks and
Social Innovation for Resilience Systems.
Ecology and Society. 16(1): 5. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art5/
• Morgan, F. and Perez, A. 2010.
An Information Community Case
Study: The Research Triangle, North
Carolina. New America Foundation.
• Moss, M., Schellhamer, C. & Berman, D.
A. 2009. The Stafford Act and Priorities for
Reform. Journal of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, 6 (1): article 13.
• Nardi, B. and O’Day, V. 1999. Information
Ecologies: Using Technology with
Heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• The National Academies Press.
2011. Building Community Disaster
Resilience Through Private-Public
Collaboration. http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=13028
2012. Disaster Resilience: A National
Imperative. http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=13457.
2013. The Resilience of the Electric
Power Delivery System in Response
to Terrorism and Natural Disasters:
Summary of a Workshop. http://www.
nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18535
• Noonan, A. 2012. Next Generation
Research for a New Media Landscape:
Research Programs at the Internews
Center for Innovation and Learning.
Internews Unpublished Document.
• Nugroho, Y., Putri, D.A. & Laksmi,
S. 2012. Mapping the Landscape of
the Media Industry in Contemporary
Indonesia. http://cipg.or.id/uploads/
books/D02-MediaIndustry-CIPG-
Hivos-MAN_FULL_FINAL_rev.pdf
• NYC. 2013. The City of New York:
Community Development Block Grant-
Disaster Recovery. Partial Action
Plan A. Public Law 113-2, January 29,
2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/cdbg/
downloads/pdf/cdbg-dr_full.pdf
• Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD).
N.D. Joint Risk Assessment - The First
Step in Resilience Programming.
• Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD).
2012. From Good Idea to Good Practice
- Options to Make Resilience Work.
http://www.oecd.org/dac/governance-
development/Experts%20Group%20
working%20paper%20-%20Options.pdf.
• Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the
Commons: The Evolution of Institutions
for Collective Action. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Pew Project for Excellence in
Journalism. 2010. How News Happens:
A Study of the News Ecosystem of One
American City. http://www.journalism.
org/2010/01/11/how-news-happens/
• planNYC, 2013. Progress Report
2013: A Greener, Greater New York.
• Por, G. in collaboration with Molloy,
J. 2000. Nurturing Systemic Wisdom
Through Knowledge Ecology.
The Systems Thinker 11:8.
• Post-Sandy Initiative. Building Better,
Building Smarter: Opportunities for
Design and Development. 2013. http://
postsandyinitiative.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/05/Post-Sandy-
Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
• Reid, H., Huq, S., and Murray, L. 2010.
Community Champions: Adapting to
Climate Challenges. Fourth International
Conference on Community-Based
Adaptation. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10028IIED.pdf.
• Schaffer, J. 2010. Exploring a
Networked Journalism Collaborative
in Philadelphia. J-Lab.

84
• Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable Rural
Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.
Working Paper 72, Brighton, UK:
Institute for Development Studies.
• Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and Famines:
An Essay on Entitlement and Famines.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Stepp, J.R. 1999. Prospectus for
Information Ecology. Georgia Journal
of Ecological Anthropology 3: 38-54.
• Telecommunications Reports,
2013. New York Officials Complain
About Carrier Response to Hurricane
Sandy. Telecommunications
Reports 79(4): pp.3-6.
• Twigg, J. 2009. Characteristics of
a Disaster-Resilient Community:
A Guidance Note. Version 2.
• UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). 2013.
Indonesia Jakarta Flood Situation
Report. No. 03/2013: 19-22 January.
http://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/
floods-jakarta-and-its-greater-area-
situation-report-no-03-22-january-2013
Indonesia Jakarta Flood Situation
Report, No. 04/2013: 25 January. http://
reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/indonesia-
floods-jakarta-and-its-greater-area-
situation-report-no-042013-25-january
Indonesia Monthly Humanitarian Bulletin,
Issue 2: February & March 2013. http://
reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/
resources/Indonesia%20Monthly%20
Humanitarian%20Bulletin%20-%20
February%20March%202013.pdf
Indonesia Monthly Humanitarian
Bulletin, Issue 3: April-May 2013. http://
reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/
resources/Indonesia%20Monthly%20
Humanitarian%20Bulletin%20-%20
April%20May%202013-English_0.pdf
Indonesia: Humanitarian Snapshot,
April – May 2013. http://reliefweb.
int/report/indonesia/indonesia-
humanitarian-snapshot-april-may-2013.
Indonesia Situation Updates: 24 January
2014. http://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/
indonesia-situation-updates-24-january-2014
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). 2014. OCHA
Policy and Studies Series. Saving Lives
Today and Tomorrow: Managing the
Risk of Humanitarian Crises. https://docs.
unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OCHA%20
SLTT%20Web%20Final%20Single.PDF
Indonesia Humanitarian Bulletin:
January-March 2014. http://reliefweb.int/
report/indonesia/indonesia-humanitarian-
bulletin-january-march-2014-enid
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). 2013. What
Does “Resilience” Mean for Donors?
OECD Factsheet. www.oecd.org/dac
• UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(ISDR). 2007. Hyogo Framework
for Action 2005-2015: Building the
Resilience of Nations and Communities
to Disasters. Extract from the Final Report
of the World Conference on Disaster
Reduction (A/CONF.206/6). http://www.
preventionweb.net/english/professional/
publications/v.php?id=1037&pid:22&pif:3
• UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(ISDR). 2011. Hyogo Framework for Action
2005-2015: Building the Resilience of
Nations and Communities to Disasters.
Mid-Term Review 2010-2011. http://www.
unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/18197
• UN Development Programme
(UNDP), 2007. Indonesia Annual
Report. http://www.undp.or.id/pubs/
docs/UNDP%20ANN%20REP%20EN.pdf
• US Government Accountability Office
(GAO). 1998. Disaster Assistance:
Information on Federal Costs and
Approaches for Reducing Them.
T-RCED-98-139 http://www.gao.
gov/products/T-RCED-98-139
• US Government Accountability Office
(GAO). 2013. National Preparedness:
Actions Taken by FEMA to Implement
Select Provisions of the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006. GAO-14-99R. http://www.
gao.gov/assets/660/659242.pdf
• Van Voorst, Roanne.“Get Ready for the
Flood! Risk-handling styles in Jakarta,
Indonesia,” PhD dissertation, University
of Amsterdam, 2014, pp. 12-13
• Walker, B. 1998. Resilience, Instability,
and Disturbance in Ecosystem Dynamics.
Environment and Development
Economics, Volume null, Issue 2: 259-262.
• Walker, B. and Salt, D. 2012.
Resilience Practice: Building Capacity
to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain
Function. Washington, DC.
• Wasuwongse, A. Unpublished.
Understanding Information Ecologies.
Mon State, Myanmar Pilot Study. Draft
v4. Internews. Forthcoming (2014).
• Watkins, M. 2013. Testing Innovation
in the Superstorm Sandy Response.
Disaster Management. http://connection.
ebscohost.com/c/articles/90136887/testing-
innovation-superstorm-sandy-response
• World Health Organization (WHO). 2014.
Three Months after the Indian Ocean
Earthquake-Tsunami Report. http://
www.who.int/hac/crises/international/
asia_tsunami/3months/report/en/
• Wijkman & Timberlake. 1984.
Natural Disasters: Acts of God or
Acts of Man? London: Earthscan.
• World Bank. 2012. Indonesia: A
Reconstruction Chapter Ends Eight
Years after the Tsunami. http://www.
worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/12/26/
indonesia-reconstruction-chapter-
ends-eight-years-after-the-tsunami
• World Bank. 2013. Building Resilience:
Integrating Climate and Disaster Risk
into Development. Lessons from World
Bank Group Experience. http://www.
worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/
document/SDN/Full_Report_Building_
Resilience_Integrating_Climate_
Disaster_Risk_Development.pdf
• Zolli, A. 2012. Learning to Bounce
Back. The New York Times. http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/
opinion/forget-sustainability-its-about-
resilience.html?hp&pagewanted=all
• Zolli, A. and Healy, A. 2012.
Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
ANNEX VI: BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABOUT INTERNEWS CENTER
FOR INNOVATION & LEARNING
Building on the breadth and depth of Internews’
activities and experience accumulated over 30 years
of promoting independent media in more than 80
countries around the world, the Internews Center for
Innovation & Learning supports, captures, and shares
innovative approaches to communication through
creative research and development worldwide.
Founded in 2011, the Center strives to balance local
expertise and global learning in support of our vision
that healthy information ecosystems are a root solution
to furthering human progress. The Center serves as
an open knowledge hub that develops and inspires
collaborative investigation and experimentation.
Through a rigorous, iterative process of pilots and
experimental research, the Center seeks to contribute
information and tools to better understand the changing
worlds of information and communications.
In the Center, we strive to deepen and enhance the links
between existing expertise in media and the increasingly
diverse information worlds and research that can help address
the challenges of today’s dynamic information ecosystems
be they global, hyper local or somewhere between.
This is far from a purely academic endeavor. Internews
hopes that the Center’s activities will engage and
benefit both those who work at the front lines of global
development and the communities they serve.
www.innovation.internews.org
COVER PHOTO
Roanne van Voorst, 2011
GRAPHIC DESIGN | INFOGRAPHICS
VROS Design | Visual Thinking Comunicación

Why Information Matters - A Foundation for Resilience

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Why Information Matters - A Foundation for Resilience (20)

More from The Rockefeller Foundation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Why Information Matters - A Foundation for Resilience