nicholas tenhue - open & user innovation in crises

16
1 Open and User Innovation during the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Nicholas Tenhue [email protected] [email protected] 881221-T574

Upload: peter-svensson

Post on 23-Jan-2015

430 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

1

Open and User Innovation during the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis

Nicholas Tenhue

[email protected]

[email protected]

881221-T574

Page 2: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

2

Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2. The Event ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3. Government Reaction ..................................................................................................................... 4

4. The Community Reaction ............................................................................................................... 4

4.1. Social media ................................................................................................................................ 5

4.2. Making Sense of Official Radiation Data ................................................................................... 5

CASE STUDY A: Japan Radiation Open Data .............................................................................. 5

4.3. Data Visualisation ....................................................................................................................... 6

CASE STUDY B: Rama C. Hoetzlein ............................................................................................ 7

4.4. Crisis maps .................................................................................................................................. 7

4.5. Open Source Hardware ............................................................................................................... 8

CASE STUDY C: Safecast ............................................................................................................. 9

5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 10

6. References ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Page 3: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

3

1. Introduction

In recent years the world has seen a number of natural disasters and human generated crises;

the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, 2001 Twin Towers attack, 2008 Cyclone Nargis, 2010 Haiti

earthquake just to name a few. There are usually a number of systems in place to help

governments and official bodies react appropriately to disaster situations. Unfortunately,

these systems are not always totally robust and they can fail. Information is not always

readily available to people or places that need it. In some cases the information coming from

official sources can be inaccurate, or important facts may even be withheld intentionally.

Sometimes official bodies simply cannot cope with the situation by themselves.

This report focuses on the types of open and user innovations that occurred due to the

Fukushima nuclear crisis and how we might be able to better facilitate innovation in future

times of crisis. The paper is structured in the fashion described as follows. In Section 2, the

sequence of events that led to the nuclear crisis is described. Section 3 has an overview of the

government’s response to the nuclear crisis. In Section 4, community reactions to disasters

are touched upon, then depth descriptions of the types of open and user innovations during

the Fukushima nuclear crisis are presented; this includes a number of case studies of notable

examples. Information for these case studies was obtained through a combination of

interviews with the developers, innovators, and their websites. In Section 5, conclusions are

drawn about what happened, and possible ways that we can encourage and enable users to

innovate in future crisis situations are discussed.

2. The Event

At 14:46 JST on 11th

March 2011 a 9.0 Mw

earthquake occurred off the coast of the Tōhoku

region of Japan causing a tsunami, this led to mass

destruction across the coastline. This resulted in the

release of radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima-

daiichi nuclear power plant(福島第一原子力発電

所) [1]. Pumps that circulated coolant throughout

the nuclear reactor failed, and as a consequence the

reactors began to overheat. Efforts to counter this

reaction were too little too late and a number of

reactors went through a full meltdown. Several

hydrogen explosions occurred within the structures

that house the reactors, causing releases of

radioactive fallout. The radioactive materials

caesium-134, caesium-137, and iodine-131 were

released [2]. Soon after the disaster, trace amounts

of these materials could be detected around the globe. Even as recently as August 2012 fish

were caught that had 250 times the government safety limit of caesium [3].

Figure 1 – A map of the earthquake’s intensity

Page 4: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

4

3. Government Reaction

The government had numerous crisis response systems in anticipation of such a disaster.

Some, such as the Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) [4] system, executed as anticipated, and

the proper warnings were raised. However, the radioactivity reporting systems functioned

less effectively than they should have. The System for Prediction of Environmental

Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) [5] performed badly, as it failed to predict the

diffusion of radioactivity due to power shortages to sensors and other factors. The

government reaction to the disaster came under scrutiny when they failed to inform the public

about the severity of the accident [6] and that vital information was not readily available.

Official radiation data was available from MEXT, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Science, & Technology in Japan (文部科学省) [7], through their website. The data came from

sensor stations around nuclear facilities dotted around Japan. Yet, documentation of historical

values was not available to the public from official sources at this time. This lack of

information, combined with distrust of information from the government led to a number of

innovations from independent groups and individuals. This year it was revealed that the

Japanese government did not even keep records of a number of major decision making

meetings following the quake [8], although keeping detailed records is considered vital

during disaster situations.

4. The Community Reaction

If we look at disaster situations throughout history we can see examples of how people are

determined to assist others, give support, and attempt to better the situation in extraordinary

and inventive ways [9]. We can see benevolent goings-on during all stages of disaster

recovery within local communities [10], the events that unfolded after the Tōhoku were no

different in this respect. The very same kinds of benevolent acts can be found within online

communities, too [11]. Information technology and the internet afford new modes of

communication and collaboration during crises; unfortunately the efficacy responses are still

not fully realised. New tools are allowing the public to not only consume, but also to produce

and share their innovations, using our cognitive surplus for the better [12].

The online community was shocked and surprised by the events of the tsunami and nuclear

disaster that followed. The public wanted to get a better idea of what the consequences of the

radiation escaping from the Fukushima nuclear power plant meant. In crisis situations getting

the right information is vital. Unfortunately, the information coming from official sources

tended to be hard to understand or hard to reach. The public came up with a number of

innovations during the Fukushima nuclear crisis, both within Japan and the international

community. The open and user innovations occurred on different timescales, some happened

mere days after the disaster, while some only really took off many months after the

earthquake. Independently functioning people and groups had a very powerful effect with the

counter disaster systems they developed. Looking into how and why each and every system

came into existence would be a colossal task, but by looking at the types of responses that

occurred, we can try to understand what happened. The following sections highlight the

actions that were taken by the public in an attempt to satisfy their needs.

Page 5: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

5

4.1. Social media

Members of the public tend to circulate official responses

among themselves through peer communication. They can

also feed information directly from effected areas. This was

done primarily through the medium of social media.

According to a number of reports people were very effective

in their use of social media after the earthquake [13, 14].

Telephone networks were disrupted and suffered greatly due

to excess traffic, thus people resorted to social media.

People tended to use services that they were already familiar

with. Facebook [15], Twitter [16] and Mixi [17] were all popular platforms during the crisis.

In fact, the number of re-tweets shot up by twenty times the normal level directly after the

earthquake [18]. Twitter is popular as an ad-hoc crisis communications platform because it

has fast information delivery with a selectively transparent user base [19]. By using hash tags

users and developers could communicate effectively. The end result was a platform that

allowed developers to form active projects and let users know about them. Communication is

essential in times of crisis, and general social media served that purpose better than any other

mode of communication.

4.2. Making Sense of Official Radiation Data

As mentioned previously, official sources had made data available to the public. But, there

were a number of issues with getting the data in a usable form. The following case study

highlights one situation where an individual took matters into his own hands and made usable

data for all to access.

CASE STUDY A: Japan Radiation Open Data

A User Experience Designer and Information Visualisation enthusiast from Germany called

Marian Steinbach was shocked by the tsunami and nuclear catastrophe. He wanted to know

what the radiation readings that were coming out of Fukushima really meant. He has the

initiative to take action almost as soon at the accident occurred. When looking for data

sources, he came across the website for the SPEEDI sensor network [5]. Data was available

to the public, but there were two main problems. The site was attracting massive traffic, so

the heavy load stopped the page from loading. Also, no documentation of historical values

was available, so nobody could compare values across time. Marian reached out to other

developers to discuss ways they could let people know whether they were safe or not.

In response Marian set out to develop a method to get machine readable data on the incident.

He created a Google Docs spread sheet [20] and manually updated the radiation values every

20 minutes. This was, of course, quite cumbersome, so he asked a number of people around

the globe to assist in this effort to share the workload. People were willing to help, and the

radiation values were being updated around the clock. There were a few problems with

malicious users that would add false results and destroy data, hence some data was lost. A

decent version control system would have been necessary to manage edits properly.

Figure 2 - Japanese flag with the top

trending #prayforjapan hashtag

Page 6: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

6

In the meantime Marian wrote a web scraper (web data extraction tool) to automate the

process of copying the values from the official SPEEDI network. He then sourced values into

a database that he then published as an open data download. The database can still be found

at his website [21], which is still updated with the most recent data values as they are

released. What started out as a crowdsourcing exercise, evolved into a data extraction and

storage one. Even after this shift, people still tried editing the Google spread sheet long after

the data was being automatically recorded. This was due to poor communication channels.

Even though Marian released all available historical values to the public, many sensor

stations (specifically the ones closest to Fukushima-daiichi nuclear power plant) did not

report any values due to technical issues. They did not start to report values until around Q1

2012. More recently the SPEEDI network website has added a ‘monitoring data download’

link to allow the public to access historical values, however the site only allows people to

download statistics from one sensor at a time with a maximum data range of six months .

There were a number of derivations that were born from ‘Japan Radiation Open Data’. A

number of people were able to make visualisations and, some were even able to confirm that

the development of radiation levels were concurrent with the half-life of the types of

radioactive isotopes that were believed to have been released.

Similar web scraping efforts of official sources were also made by the ad-hoc group

‘radmonitor311’ [22], who deserve a notable mention.

4.3. Data Visualisation

Representing raw data in a meaningful way is essential; otherwise we cannot make any sense

of it. This is where data visualisation plays a vital part. Media reports of radiation readings

were notoriously difficult for a layperson to understand. There was a great amount of

confusion when reporting levels of radiation. Different media sources reported radiation in

millisieverts (1 mSv = 0.001 Sievert), others in microsieverts (1 μSv = 0.000001 Sievert).

Some also reported per hour units while others reported per year units. It is important to

normalise comparisons so they are all based on the same scale, the media did a bad job of this

and much confusion was encountered.

The inadequate mass media news broadcasts drove individuals to create their own content to

help aid understanding of the situation. The primary objective of many innovators of data

visualisations during the nuclear crisis was accurate public education. A number of novel

ways of representing radiation information were developed such as ‘micro sievert’, a simple

visualisation of environmental radiation levels in the Kanto area [23], and ‘Global Pulse’,

visualisations by Miguel Rios, of the global flow of tweets in the wake of the disaster [24].

It should be noted that crisis visualisation has a big impact on societal reactions, thus it comes

with a large amount of responsibility to make sure data is interpreted correctly. There is a risk

that the social structure of a country could change in response to the information people have

access to, whether that information is credible or not.

Page 7: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

7

CASE STUDY B: Rama C. Hoetzlein

Rama C. Hoetzlein is a computer scientist and knowledge engineer working in the areas of

artificial intelligence and graphics. Troubled by the immensity of the casualties involved in

the tsunami, Rama was unable to focus on his own work. He wanted to see what he could do

to help. His inspiration came from initial rough sketches of radiation levels over time created

by other user innovators, though these lacked proper radiation unit information. This, coupled

with the data available from Marian Steinbach’s ‘Japan Radiation Open Data’, led him to

create content for the public.

To begin with Rama was taking data from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)

website [25] and translating it manually. This occurred for the first three days after the

disaster. He then came across Marian’s work and used the more user friendly data source. He

hoped to offer a visual way to show the risks related to radiation dosage by correlating events

that unfolded with actual radiation levels. A contaminant map was then posted to Wikipedia

on March 17th

; an updated map was also created on March 30th

when further data had been

generated. Both maps and further insight into their creation can be found at Rama’s website

[26]. He also created an animated information graphic of regional effects of Fukushima

radiation for the dates March 8th

to March 31st

[27].

By representing the data in an understandable format it was discovered that Tokyo, the

capital of Japan that lies around 200km from the power plant, was not getting significantly

more radiation than any other big city around the world. However, he was also able to show

that millions of people within a 20km (the initial evacuation zone recommended by the

government was 20km) to 100km radius of the plant were actually receiving levels of

radiation that are deemed unsafe for nuclear workers by international standards.

Rama feels that his visualisations have had more of an effect in countries outside Japan. By

giving real data out to the public, a lot of the scaremongering from other sensationalist

sources was quelled. He was contacted by many individuals, a department of health, and even

a worker on a submarine. The most rewarding feedback was from people in Japan who

thanked Rama for helping them, their families, and friends.

The biggest challenge for future disaster situations is getting the science correct. Typically

open and user innovations are done by engineers that come up with interesting ideas and want

to try them out. Unless there are professionals working within the field working on the

innovation, a lot of mistakes can easily be made.

4.4. Crisis maps

A crisis map is an open and intuitive way of letting people know what is going on during a

time of crisis. The age of mobile internet has really allowed this phenomenon to kick off over

the last five years. During the Fukushima nuclear crisis, these maps were used to give

readings of radiation levels around Japan. A lot of crisis mapping efforts rely on

crowdsourced information. However, at the beginning of the disaster many of the crisis maps

developed by users were in fact aggregated from government sources and international

Page 8: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

8

Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that

anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that

design. The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the

preferred format for making modifications to it. Ideally, open source hardware uses

readily-available components and materials, standard processes, open infrastructure,

unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to maximize the ability of individuals

to make and use hardware. Open source hardware gives people the freedom to control

their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open

exchange of designs.

- Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles 1.0

organisations. This was due to the fact that the public

were not armed with the correct equipment to make

readings. It took some time after the earthquake before

crowdsourced readings really made a big impact in the

radiation crisis mapping effort. The reasons for this are

discussed in Section 4.5.

Cosm (previously named Pachube) supported hundreds

of radiation associated feeds that helped to monitor

conditions in real-time [28]. This enabled crisis mappers

to access data for their maps [29, 30]. Later in the

disaster many people joined in on this effort to create

more data points with their own Geiger counters.

One issue with crowdsourced data is that it relies entirely on the honour system, where people

are expected to supply reliable and valid results. This was not always the case, sometimes

malicious results were submitted in order to try and disrupt the system, other times people

accidentally submitted false values due to the fact that they did not know how to operate their

equipment properly. Nevertheless, false reports are usually easily filtered out through the

sheer volume of proper results compared to false ones. This is the beauty of the crowd.

4.5. Open Source Hardware

There were a number of open source hardware developments after the earthquake; since it is

a fairly novel model the main body of Section 4.5 will describe the phenomenon before going

on to describe its applications in Japan. Open source hardware is a fairly new concept that is

still in its infancy when compared to open source software. The open source hardware

community is around seven years old; it is spearheaded by the Open Source Hardware

Association (OSHWA) [31], the first organisation created to defend open source hardware

and promote best practices. The definition of open source hardware is itself still a work in

progress, it is important to note that defining what the term means is vital since licences can

have differing levels of openness. Similarly to open source software, it might take some time

and test cases for legal clarity to materialise in open source hardware [32].

Figure 3 - Japan Radiation Map

Page 9: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

9

There are a number of factors that have led to the boom in open source hardware. Firstly,

Moore’s law [33] has allowed for sufficient technological advances to accommodate for the

types of systems that we need for people to design and develop products by themselves.

Secondly, tools such as 3D printers, laser cutters, CNC mills, soldering irons etc. have

become more affordable. Being able to access plans without the tools to materialise them

would mean that innovators could not make anything. Thirdly, the internet has opened up a

whole world of collaborative practice. Given the opportunity, people will create and share.

Lastly, collaborative locations such as hackerspaces, tech shop (small factories that anyone

can become a member of and use), and fabrication laboratories (fab labs) have created a place

for shared space and tools. These places also add a knowledge layer, where people can come

together and teach each other about different specialisations. Before there were only a few

dozen hackerspaces, but after the boom in 2009 the total number has increased to over seven

hundred hackerspaces worldwide. Public factories such as Shapeways [34] and Ponoko [35]

have also opened up the opportunity to make custom products by uploading designs and

having them made and mailed to the designer of the product.

Open source hardware is very attractive to user innovators because of the fact that you do not

have to start from scratch. This applies not only to the plans for hardware, but also for open

source hardware tools. Arduino [36], a microcontroller that powers most DIY hardware

projects, is a prime example of an open source tool that seriously lowers the barrier for entry

and cuts out a lot of the time that would otherwise be spent by the user building a similar

device from scratch.

In essence, by making plans available to the public a series of self-sustaining opportunities

for innovation can be created. If the hardware that is derived from the original open hardware

is kept open, there is a huge potential for further improvement through distributed innovation.

By allowing users to adapt devices we can open a well of untapped potential in citizen

research and development, this can save vast amounts of money when compared to

centralised research. By opening their own products companies invite a vast amount of public

feedback, allowing for improvements in future versions of their hardware. Conversely, when

design and construction are separated in this manner, in the case of an issue, it is not always

obvious whether the fault is in the design or the construction [37].

CASE STUDY C: Safecast

After the beginning of the nuclear crisis there was a shortage of Geiger counters in Japan.

Demand within Japan was incredibly high, as were the prices for these detectors. Many

people wanted to make their own readings in order to check if the levels of radiation in their

area were within safe limits. In response there were a number of open source radiation

monitor designs released to the public [38, 39, 40, 41]. Even a huge open source hardware

company based in China called Seeed Studio Depot [42] launched a collaborative effort to

design an open source Geiger counter. However, one group called Safecast [43] (previously

known as RDTN.org) stood out among the rest.

The story started when ‘Akiba’ Chris of the Tokyo hackerspace was able to acquire two

radiation monitors through the hackerspace network. He then hacked them and connected

Page 10: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

10

them to an open source hardware Arduino platform [44], from

which they then broadcast the data for everyone to access.

The Tokyo hackerspace continued on to collaborate closely

with Safecast throughout their start-up phase.

Meanwhile, Safecast worked in parallel on two projects.

Firstly, Safecast (at that time RDTN.org) used the

crowdfunding site Kickstarter to get 606 backers, raising a

total of $36,900 in order to purchase their first batch of Geiger

counters. These were used with Cosm (at that time Pachube)

to open source the data produced. Secondly, they partnered

with Bunnie Huang who began work on designing a cheap

radiation monitor suitable for civilian use. The resulting

design was a functional open source prototype [45] that can

be easily programmed on a laptop by connecting the device

though a USB port. The devices used by Safecast have been used to collect over three and a

half million open data points since launch. It should be noted that the crowsourced data sets

were not meant to replace official data, but instead provide additional context for the public

to have access to.

A second round of Kickstarter funding raised $104,268 for a limited edition of the Safecast

Geiger counter. They have also released mobile applications to visualise collected data on

crisis maps. The group is now moving into creating real-time maps of air pollution [46].

5. Conclusions

The examples above are by no means a comprehensive list of innovations. This report only

highlighted a small segment of all the user innovation that occurred in response to the nuclear

disaster at Fukushima-daiichi nuclear power plant. It seems that nearly all open and user

innovations that arose from the crisis were concerned with creating social value through

educating people within and outside of Japan, empowering others to help, and ensuring the

safety of those near the power plant. Many solutions that people came up with were effective

and efficient, but there are obviously many obstacles that need to be overcome if we want to

enable people to respond in innovative ways to future disaster and crisis situations.

Crisis innovations happen on a different timescale to what we usually see in regular open and

user innovation. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to categorise this type of innovation

within frameworks like the phases of consumer-innovation mentioned by Hippel et al. [47].

Whist the variety of challenges we face increases due to the changing landscape of our

society (natural disasters, terrorism, and manmade accidents), so do the chances to join forces

with others through novel collaboration and communication technologies. We must find new

ways of conceptualising and evaluating potential uses for these technologies in crisis

management and response [48].

Figure 4 - Prototype Safecast

Geiger counter

Page 11: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

11

By being more open with data, Governments would be able to harness the power of the

crowd to alleviate some of pressure to do everything centrally. If official bodies can

recognise citizens as an influential, self-organising, and intelligent force, technology and

innovation can play a transformational role in crises [49]. Many people working on data from

Japan were manually extracting figures from government PDF reports and websites; this is

not efficient, especially when time for response is of the essence. There needs to be a better

format for the release of information for decent technological innovation to take place.

Twitter has become a crisis platform by accident. The powers that be have had a hard time

trying to work out how to make use of or control this fact [50]. Crisis media is definitely an

untapped fountain of information for both users and governments, and a possible target for

innovation in future crisis situations.

As mentioned before, educating the public with proper facts is paramount in disaster and

crisis situations, but it is also a big challenge. Media outlets used high budgets to produce

incredible visualisations of things like reactor cores but they failed to portray any substantive

data through them. This encouraged a number of people innovate with the data was openly

available. One of Rama Hoetzlein’s main complaints was that media sources did not use any

of the high quality informative visualisations produced by data visualisation enthusiasts.

Independent sources are important when representing data from crisis situations. By

decentralising the flow of information a broader picture of the situation can be painted. This

is why crisis maps can be so important. Platforms like Ushahidi [51], originally a platform

created to map reports of violence in Kenya, seem like a conceivable type of solution for the

future of crisis mapping. Since 2008, it has evolved into a place where anyone is able to

crowsource information specifically in areas where information is difficult to obtain.

Information can come from SMS, email, Twitter and other web sources can be used to gather

data. A service like this, with proper integration across all popular social networks, is needed.

It should be noted that the mode of reporting should be tailored to cultural trends and

available technology in that area. For example SMS would most likely be the reporting

method of choice in Nigeria, whereas people in North America would probably turn to

Twitter. However, there is a need for design and social mechanisms to inspect the legitimacy

of data sourced from the crowd [52]. Some form of automated mediation or double validation

of crowdsourced results could be possible solutions for this issue.

The crisis in Japan sparked a lot of research into radiation detection devices. An off the shelf

HD webcam that was transformed into a Geiger counter, with possible applications in

consumer hardware as an open source modification kit [53], is a prime example of the

interesting innovations to emerge from this disaster. We are truly stepping into the era of low

cost detection devices.

Current open hardware efforts are very much dispersed; we need to create a better structure in

order to have a well-organized response to emergencies. In terms of open source hardware

applications for future crisis situations we can identify a number of factors that need to be in

place for successful innovation. The types of devices for each type of possible crisis situation

Page 12: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

12

needs to be defined. Plans for emergency devices for these situations must be available and

accessible through understandable and usable sources. The toolkits for each geographical area

should be defined based upon the resources available in that area. Hackerspaces should be

used as hubs for innovation during crises. They have played a very important role in disaster

relief over the last few years due to their huge array of skills and contacts within the

hackerspace network. Since designs for new products are commonly encoded in computer-

aided design (CAD) files [54], people from all around the world the can contribute to

customising a design to fit the needs of a particular crisis. Lastly, distribution channels for

getting these devices to areas in need must be accessible.

It is important to recognise that the entire pipeline for all open and user innovation in crises

needs to be working to be entirely successful. Data collection needs to be scientifically

accurate; users must be educated how to use hardware correctly. The hardware needs to be

accessible and functioning well. Crowdsourced data should be centralised, and efforts should

be made to ensure that people can reach the data. The results need to be displayed in ways

that can be easily understood. If any components are missing we end up with a bottleneck in

the problem that we are trying to solve. Getting this perfect mix of factors to fall into place in

a crisis, a situation with so many uncontrollable variables, is an enormous task. Far more

research is required to learn how to harness the power of the crowd and citizen innovators.

By opening up, governments and citizens can complement each other’s efforts for a more

timely response to disasters. By putting the correct tools and knowledge into the hands of the

general population, we can encourage a self-sustaining propensity for innovation in times of

crisis.

Page 13: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

13

6. References

[1] Tokyo Electric Power Company. Current situation of Fukushima Daiichi and Daini

nuclear power station [Online]. Available: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/index-

e.html

[2] Debora MacKenzie. 2011. Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels [Online].

New Scientist. Available: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-

radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

[3] Hiroko Tabuchi. 2012. Fish Off Japan’s Coast Said to Contain Elevated Levels of Cesium

[Online]. The New York Times. Available:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/world/asia/fish-off-fukushima-japan-show-elevated-

levels-of-cesium.html?_r=0

[4] Japan Meteorological Agency. Earthquake Early Warning. Available:

http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/EEW/kaisetsu/.

[5] Nuclear Safety Technology Center. The System for Prediction of Environment

Emergency Dose Information(SPEEDI). Available: http://www.bousai.ne.jp/eng/.

[6] Martin Fackler. 2012. Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis [Online]. The

New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-

considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html

[7] Ministry of Education,Culture,Sports,Science & Technology in Japan. [Online].

Available: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/

[8] BBC News Asia. 2012. Japan did not keep records of nuclear disaster meetings [Online].

Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16754891

[9] Leysia Palen and Sarah Vieweg. 2008. The emergence of online widescale interaction in

unexpected events: assistance, alliance & retreat. CSCW '08. ACM, New York, NY, USA,

117-126.

[10] DYNES, R. 1970. Organized Behavior in Disaster. Heath Lexington, Lexington, MA.

[11] Leysia Palen and Sophia B. Liu. 2007. Citizen communications in crisis: anticipating a

future of ICT-supported public participation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 727-736.

[12] Clay Shirky. 2011. Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.

Penguin. ISBN: 0141041609.

[13] F. N. Shigyo. 2011. The Great East Japan Earthquake: How Net Users Utilized Social

Media? The NHK Monthly Report on Broadcast Research, 61(8):2_13.

Page 14: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

14

[14] Y. N. Yoshitsugu. 2011. Roles of social media at the time of major disasters observed in

The Great East Japan Earthquake: twitter as an example. The NHK Monthly Report on

Broadcast Research, 61(7):16_23.

[15] Facebook. Available: http://www.facebook.com/.

[16] Twitter. Available: https://twitter.com/.

[17] Mixi. Available: http://mixi.jp/.

[18] Mai Miyabe, Asako Miura, and Eiji Aramaki. 2012. Use trend analysis of twitter after

the great east japan earthquake. CSCW '12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 175-178.

[19] QUALMAN, E. 2009. Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live

and Do Business. Wiley.

[20] Marian Steinbach. 2011. A Crowdsourced Japan Radiation Spreadsheet [Online].

Available: http://www.sendung.de/2011-03-15/a-crowdsourced-japan-radiation-spreadsheet/.

[21] Marian Steinbach. 2011. Japan Radiation Open Data, Measurement Data [Online].

Available: http://www.sendung.de/japan-radiation-open-data/.

[22] radmonitor311. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/radmonitor311/top_english.

[23] micro Sievert. Available: http://microsievert.net/.

[24] Miguel Rios. Global Pulse [Online]. http://blog.twitter.com/2011/06/global-pulse.html.

[25] Tokyo Electric Power Company. Available: http://www.tepco.co.jp/index-j.html.

[26] Rama Hoetzlein. 2011. Fukushima Nuclear Accident- Radiation Comparison Map

[Online]. Available: http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/2011/fukushima-radiation-

comparison-map/.

[27] Rama Hoetzlein. 2011. Fukushima Radiation – Regional Effects Animation [Online].

Available: http://www.rchoetzlein.com/theory/2011/fukushima-radiation-regional-effects-

animation/.

[28] COSM. Geiger [Online]. Available: http://community.cosm.com/taxonomy/term/221.

[29] Japan Radiation Map. Available: /.

[30] Haiyan Zhang. 2011. Japan Geigermap [Online]. Available: http://japan.failedrobot.com/.

[31] Open Source Hardware Association. Available: http://www.oshwa.org/.

[32] Aaron Weiss. 2008. Open source hardware: freedom you can hold?. netWorker 12, 3

(September 2008), 26-33.

[33] Gordon E. Moore. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits.

Electronics, Volume 38, Number 8, April 19, 1965.

Page 15: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

15

[34] Shapeways. Available: http://www.shapeways.com/.

[35] Ponoko. Available: http://www.ponoko.com/.

[36] Arduino. Available: http://www.arduino.cc/.

[37] David A. Mellis and Leah Buechley. 2011. Scaffolding creativity with open-source

hardware. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (C&C '11).

ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373-374.

[38] DIYGeigerCounter. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/diygeigercounter/home.

[39] Yapan.org. 2011. レシピ 39:自分の生活環境の放射線量を計測したい [Online

blog]. Available: http://www.yapan.org/main/2011/03/measure_radiation_dose.html.

[40] Open Geiger Project. Available: http://opengeiger.com/.

[41] The Libelium Team. 2011. Geiger Counter - Radiation Sensor Board for Arduino.

Available: http://www.cooking-hacks.com/index.php/documentation/tutorials/geiger-counter-

arduino-radiation-sensor-board.

[42] Seed Studio Depot. Seeed Open Hardware Facilitator. Available:

http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/.

[43] Safecast. Available: http://blog.safecast.org/.

[44] ‘Akiba’ Chris. 2011. Tokyo Hackerspace/RDTN Geiger Shield – Dev History [Online].

Available: http://www.tokyohackerspace.org/ja/blog/tokyo-hackerspacerdtn-geiger-shield-

dev-history.

[45] Bunnie Huang. 2011. Safecast Geiger Counter Reference Design [Online]. Bunnie:

studios. Available: http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2218.

[46] Amar Toor. 2011. Safecast to create real-time maps of air quality in Los Angeles

[Online]. Available: http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367078/safecast-to-create-real-

time-maps-of-air-quality-in-los-angeles.

[47] Hippel et al. 2011. The Age of the Consumer-Innovator [Online]. MIT Sloan

Management Review. September 21, 2011. Available:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367078/safecast-to-create-real-time-maps-of-air-

quality-in-los-angeles.

[48] Volkmar Pipek, Leysia Palen, and Jonas Landgren. 2012. Workshop summary:

collaboration & crisis informatics (CCI'2012). CSCW '12. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13-

14.

[49] Leysia Palen, Kenneth M. Anderson, Gloria Mark, James Martin, Douglas Sicker,

Martha Palmer, and Dirk Grunwald. 2010. A vision for technology-mediated support for

Page 16: Nicholas Tenhue - Open & User Innovation in Crises

16

public participation & assistance in mass emergencies & disasters. British Computer Society,

Swinton, UK.

[50] Rebecca Goolsby. 2010. Social media as crisis platform: The future of community

maps/crisis maps. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 1, 1, Article 7.

[51] Ushahidi. Available: http://ushahidi.com/.

[52] Leysia Palen, Starr Roxanne Hiltz, and Sophia B. Liu. 2007. Online forums supporting

grassroots participation in emergency preparedness and response. Commun. ACM 50, 3

(March 2007), 54-58.

[53] Thomas Auzinger, Ralf Habel, Andreas Musilek, Dieter Hainz, and Michael Wimmer.

2012. GeigerCam: measuring radioactivity with webcams. SIGGRAPH '12. New York, NY,

USA, , Article 40.

[54] Von Hippel, E. 2009. Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user

innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 29-40.