Information Society in Times of Risk

Summary

This discussion focused on information society challenges and solutions during times of risk, examining how digital technologies and collaborative approaches can enhance resilience during crises and disasters. The session was chaired by Horst Kremers and Professor Ke Gong, emphasizing the UN’s all-of-society principle that calls for broad cooperation among public and private sectors, civil society, academia, and other stakeholders in disaster risk reduction.

The Singapore team presented their DRIVE framework (Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment), which conceptualizes digital resilience as a socio-ecological process rather than just individual technical skills. Their research revealed that digital resilience emerges from the dynamic interplay between individuals and their social contexts, including family, community, and broader societal support systems. The framework maps drivers of digital resilience across individual, family, community, and societal levels, incorporating both personal disposition and digital citizenship components.

Turkish researchers presented their analysis of visual content shared on social media during the 2023 earthquakes, examining how 54,859 earthquake-related images facilitated digital solidarity and crisis communication. Their findings highlighted the critical importance of maintaining open communication channels during disasters, as telecommunication infrastructure was severely disrupted for the first two days following the earthquake.

Chinese case studies demonstrated how tech companies like Tencent have developed comprehensive digital disaster relief systems, including online philanthropic platforms and AI-powered knowledge bases for disaster preparedness. These initiatives have facilitated millions of donations and coordinated thousands of rescues through integrated digital platforms.

The discussion also addressed the risks of conflict in social media environments and proposed pro-social platform design solutions, including bridging systems that promote consensual content across political divides. Participants emphasized the need for sustained international collaboration and comprehensive information management systems that serve all stakeholders in disaster risk reduction, extending beyond immediate response to include preparation and long-term recovery phases.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Resilience Framework Development**: The Singapore team presented their DRIVE (Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment) framework, which conceptualizes digital resilience as a socio-ecological process involving individual, family, community, and societal levels rather than just individual technical skills.

– **Visual Communication During Crisis**: Turkish researchers analyzed how visual content shared on social media (particularly X/Twitter) during the 2023 earthquake served as a tool for digital solidarity and crisis communication, with plans to develop policy recommendations for improved disaster response.

– **All-of-Society Information Management**: Discussion of the complex information flows needed across multiple stakeholders (government, NGOs, private sector, civil society) during disasters, emphasizing the need for comprehensive interoperability and just-in-time information delivery in all phases of disaster management.

– **Technology-Enabled Disaster Response**: Examination of how major tech companies (like Tencent in China) are developing integrated digital platforms for disaster relief, including donation systems, real-time coordination tools, and AI-powered knowledge bases for community-driven disaster support.

– **Pro-Social Platform Design**: Exploration of how social media platforms can be redesigned to reduce conflict and promote social cohesion through bridging systems, balanced content recommendation, and features that facilitate cross-political dialogue and understanding.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how information society can effectively respond to and manage various types of risks and crises. The session focused on developing frameworks, tools, and approaches for building digital resilience across different levels of society, from individual users to entire communities and nations. The goal was to foster collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to create more inclusive, proactive, and sustainable approaches to crisis management in our increasingly digital world.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently academic and collaborative tone throughout. It was professional and research-focused, with presenters sharing ongoing work and findings in a constructive manner. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, emphasizing the need for continued cooperation and knowledge sharing. The session concluded on an encouraging note, with calls for sustained collaboration and a shared commitment to building resilient information societies that “leave no one behind.”

Speakers

– **Horst Kremers**: Session chair, working in environmental affairs and disaster risk reduction since Agenda 21/Rio Declaration, involved with UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism

– **Ke Gong**: Professor at the Institute of the World Federation of Engineers, session co-chair

– **Audrey Yue**: Provost, chair professor of media, culture, and critical theory, and deputy director at the NUS Center for Trusted Internet and Community at the National University of Singapore

– **Renae Loh**: Colleague of Audrey Yue working on the DRIVE (Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment) project

– **Jun Yu**: Colleague participating online in the DRIVE project presentation

– **Bengu Sezer**: Lecturer at Mersin University in Turkey, graduated from Mersin University Department of English Linguistics, completed MA and PhD at Mersin University Institute of Social Sciences, working as lecturer since 2006, specializes in new media and social media

– **Zhan Zhang**: Researcher presenting a case study on Tencent’s digital initiatives and CSR efforts in disaster resilience (presented via recorded presentation while traveling)

– **Emillie de Keulenaar**: Postdoctoral researcher at University of Copenhagen, researcher at University of Amsterdam’s Digital Methods Initiative and Open Intelligence Lab, consultant of UNDPPA’s Innovation Cell, specializes in politics of speech moderation and algorithmic systems

**Additional speakers:**

– **Giacomo Mazzone**: Audience member who asked questions, appears to collaborate with Horst Kremers on risk journalism and media activities

# Information Society in Times of Risk: Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This academic session was chaired by Horst Kremers, who has been working since the Agenda 21/Rio Declaration and is involved with the UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism, and Professor Ke Gong from the Institute of the World Federation of Engineers. The discussion examined challenges and solutions for information society during times of crisis and disaster, bringing together international researchers and practitioners to explore how digital technologies and collaborative approaches can enhance societal resilience.

## The DRIVE Framework: Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment

### Theoretical Foundation

The Singapore research team, led by Audrey Yue (Provost and chair professor of media, culture, and critical theory at NUS), presented their DRIVE framework. Yue explained that their research challenges existing conceptualizations of digital resilience by moving beyond individual technical skills to embrace a socio-ecological understanding.

“Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills,” Yue stated. The framework defines digital resilience as “the capability of individuals to act, learn, understand, and make informed choices when faced with technological failures, changes, disruption, or challenges.”

### Framework Structure

Renae Loh, working on the DRIVE project, explained how their research revealed that digital resilience emerges from dynamic interplay between individuals and their social contexts. The framework maps drivers across individual, family, community, and societal levels, with a grid structure incorporating both horizontal and vertical elements.

The framework includes personal disposition and digital citizenship components that interact across all levels to create comprehensive resilience capacity.

### Digital Citizenship Dimension

Jun Yu, participating online in the DRIVE project presentation, provided a key insight: “Digital resilience isn’t just about personal safety or protection. It is also about contributing to a healthier digital society. This adds a normative dimension that digital resilience becomes a shared responsibility and a core component of what it means to be a digital citizen in the 21st century.”

Yu clarified that “digital resilience, despite the term digital, isn’t actually just about technical or digital know-how or avoiding the digital harms and risk. It’s more broadly about maintaining one’s activities and goals, even when digital systems and tools falter.”

## Crisis Communication Through Visual Documentation: Turkey Earthquake Case Study

### Research Overview

Bengu Sezer, a lecturer at Mersin University specializing in new media and social media, presented research on visual content shared during the 2023 earthquakes in Turkey. Her three-year project, funded by TÜBİTAK with Dr. Kıyam as coordinator and six scholarship holders, analyzed 54,859 earthquake-related images shared on social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter).

The research team developed an annotation interface to systematically analyze the visual content, with disagreement resolution processes to ensure accuracy. Sezer’s analysis revealed how visual communication facilitated digital solidarity and crisis coordination during the disaster.

### Communication Infrastructure Challenges

A critical finding was the severe disruption of telecommunication infrastructure during the first two days following the earthquake. “We think the internet structure should be strengthened. There should be mobile internet providers. As the communication was blocked, that was a real problem in the very first days,” Sezer explained.

Sezer revealed how researchers had to take personal initiative to capture crucial data: “We couldn’t have done the rest of it without them. But the very first steps were taken by us personally.” This highlighted gaps between academic research capabilities and institutional disaster response frameworks.

### Timeline and Policy Goals

The comprehensive analysis is expected to be completed by October 2025, with findings available by the end of 2026. The research team aims to develop policy recommendations for governments and NGOs based on their systematic analysis of crisis-related visuals.

## Technology-Enabled Disaster Response: The Chinese Experience

### Integrated Digital Platforms

Zhan Zhang, presenting via pre-recorded presentation while traveling, analyzed how major technology companies in China, particularly Tencent, have developed comprehensive digital disaster relief systems. She referenced the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, which killed nearly 70,000 people and displaced millions, as a catalyst for these developments.

Zhang highlighted Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day, which reached 60 million participants and raised 500 million dollars in donations, demonstrating the potential for digital platforms to mobilize massive philanthropic responses. The approach includes online philanthropic platforms, real-time coordination tools, AI-powered knowledge bases, and gaming platform integration.

### WeChat Integration and Recent Developments

Zhang described how WeChat’s integration enables comprehensive disaster response coordination. She mentioned the 2021 Zhengzhou floods as an example of effective digital coordination, and noted that digital relief vouchers through WeChat Pay were introduced in 2023 to streamline aid distribution.

### AI Limitations

Despite optimism about digital innovation, Zhang provided a cautious assessment of artificial intelligence: “AI applications in disaster management are still in early development stages with limited real-time operational integration.” This restraint about AI’s current limitations provided important grounding for realistic expectations about technological capabilities.

## All-of-Society Information Management

### Comprehensive Interoperability Requirements

Horst Kremers, drawing on his extensive experience with the UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism, articulated complex information management challenges underlying effective disaster response. He emphasized that “comprehensive interoperability is required for information flows across all disaster management phases involving multiple stakeholder groups.”

Kremers outlined the complexity of cross-organizational, cross-border information flows required for effective decision support, involving coordination among emergency services, public administration, private sector organizations, civil society, international agencies, and academic institutions.

### Just-in-Time Information Delivery

Kremers articulated specific temporal requirements for information management: “just in time in a definite predefined way of timestamp and periodicity every two minutes, every two hours, every two days.” This systematic approach moves beyond general coordination calls to articulate precise, structured information flow requirements across multiple organizational levels and timeframes.

### Framework Development for 2030+

Looking toward future policy development, Kremers advocated for incorporating information society requirements into the post-2030 disaster risk reduction framework. He made available QR codes and PDF downloads for participants and called for continued international working group collaboration.

## Platform Design and Social Cohesion

### Risks of Conflict in Digital Environments

Emillie de Keulenaar, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen with expertise in speech moderation and algorithmic systems, examined how information systems themselves can generate societal risks. Rather than focusing on external disasters, de Keulenaar examined the “probability and risk of conflict in social media environments.”

“The lingering risk in that sense is the possibility that conflict might emerge… from the use of social media,” de Keulenaar explained. “These forms of conflict that it produces, from pluralistic ignorance to fragmentation to entrenchment, have a number of spiralling effects… all the way to offline conflict.”

She referenced examples including the Capitol Hill riots and conflicts over sustainability policies to illustrate how platform design decisions can either exacerbate or mitigate social tensions.

### Pro-Social Platform Design Solutions

To address platform-generated risks, de Keulenaar proposed pro-social platform design protocols including bridging systems that promote consensual content across political divides, balanced content recommendation algorithms, features facilitating cross-political dialogue, and multi-level governance approaches.

Rather than requiring complete platform redesign, de Keulenaar’s approach focuses on developing “bridging systems that can be plugged into existing social media platforms,” recognizing the entrenched nature of current platform ecosystems while providing pathways for incremental improvement.

## Key Areas of Agreement

### Multi-Level Approaches

The discussion revealed consensus around the need for multi-level, socio-ecological approaches to digital resilience. Ke Gong emphasized that “comprehensive socio-ecological approaches are needed for long-term empowerment in digital resilience,” supporting the Singapore team’s framework.

### Communication Infrastructure Resilience

Participants agreed on the critical importance of communication infrastructure resilience during disasters. This consensus emerged from different perspectives: Sezer’s emphasis on strengthening internet infrastructure, and Kremers’ comprehensive interoperability frameworks.

### Beneficiary-Centered Approaches

There was strong agreement on the requirement for beneficiary-centered technology solutions considering vulnerable groups. Zhang’s emphasis on “beneficiary-centered digital systems with attention to vulnerable groups” and Kremers’ advocacy for serving “all stakeholder groups” reflected this shared commitment.

## Implementation Challenges

### Operational Responsibility

Critical questions about operational implementation remained unresolved. Kremers’ questions about “who should be running your system after the project ends” and “how should the implementation be organized for ad hoc use in times of disaster” highlighted gaps between research feasibility studies and operational deployment.

### Technical Integration

The discussion identified technical challenges requiring further development: comprehensive interoperability standards, just-in-time information delivery mechanisms with quality guarantees, AI integration beyond current applications, and cross-platform integration for pro-social design features.

## Future Directions and Commitments

### International Working Group

The session concluded with Kremers’ call for establishing an international working group on “information society in times of risk” to continue collaboration beyond the immediate discussion. This working group would provide ongoing coordination among the diverse research teams and practitioners represented.

### Specific Deliverables

Participants committed to several deliverables: completion of the Turkey earthquake visual analysis by October 2025 with policy recommendations, development of policy recommendations addressing communication infrastructure gaps, creation of amendments for the 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework incorporating information society requirements, and maintenance of ongoing collaboration.

## Conclusion

Ke Gong’s closing remarks emphasized the importance of staying connected and exchanging ideas, practices, and research among participants. He stressed that “building resilient information society requires inclusive, proactive approaches grounded in solidarity across all stakeholder groups.”

The discussion successfully connected technical considerations about digital infrastructure and platform design to broader questions about social cohesion and civic responsibility. The commitment to sustained collaboration through an international working group and specific research deliverables provides mechanisms for maintaining momentum and achieving concrete outcomes.

The session established a foundation for addressing information society challenges during crises through multi-stakeholder coordination, socio-ecological approaches, and inclusive development, while identifying significant implementation challenges that require continued research and development efforts.

Horst Kremers: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, excellencies and distinguished participants. My name is Horst Kremers. I’m chairing this session together with Prof. Ke GONG from the Institute of the World Federation of Engineers. And this session has the topic of information society in times of risk. This has a, in the entrance of the session, I want to give a little bit an overview on the context of our work, and that is quite some years of activities in different fields, which aims to build a people-centric, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. In the context of an ever-changing world filled with various risks, this session focuses on the special demands that the information society faces during times of risk. These risks cover local, regional, national, cross-border, and global crises, as well as natural, technical, and humanitarian disasters, with special attention on highlighting demands, deficits, capabilities, and potential of actors and organizations. You already get the impression that there is a little bit of complexity behind that information scheme that we are talking about. United Nations’ all-of-society principle, which originated from the Agenda 21 in 1992, became a general principle starting from the data revolution activities of the United Nations in 2014, emphasizes the need for broad cooperation. The UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction further specifies the stakeholders such as women, children, youth, persons with disabilities, poor people, migrants, indigenous people, and so on, that should be involved in the design and implementation of policies, plans, and standards. It also calls for closer collaboration among the public and private sectors, civil society organizations, academia, scientific and research institutions, and encourages business to integrate disaster risk into their management practices. This session will cover contributions taking into account the special circumstances of information management in times of risk and the consequences for risk management, policies, anticipation, preparation, decision, and action in all phases of crisis and all types of disaster. Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, I’d like to start with our first presentation. The presentation is by Professor Audrey Yu. Audrey Yu is a provost, chair, professor of media, culture, and critical theory, and deputy director at the NUS Center for Trusted Internet and Community at the National University of Singapore. You will have two presenters, and I will please introduce also, as appropriate, when you start the separate presentation. Thank you very much. Please take the floor. Okay.

Audrey Yue: Thanks, Horst, and thanks to the session, and thanks to everyone for coming here. It’s a pleasure to be part of this roundtable discussion. Today, we want to present our ongoing work, which is to develop an evaluation framework for digital resilience. So we call it DRIVE for short, and I am going to—we have six minutes to talk for our presentation, and there will be three of us, myself, Audrey, and my colleague, Jun, who is online, but he will be speaking, and Renee, who is here. So the three of us will take turns to speak, and today we talk about our work from a larger project. This is the larger project on digital information resilience, but today we want to present only our work package, where we identify drivers to support the digital resilience of users. We want to present our design of this framework, introduce digital resilience as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments.

Renae Loh: Yes, thank you, Audrey. So we first sought to understand the current conceptualizations and operationalizations of digital resilience. This is done through a systematic review of peer-reviewed academic journal articles and grade literature, such as organizational reports and policy documents. So we gathered articles through basically keyword search, focusing on digital resilience, obviously, and related terms like digital skills, online safety, e-competences, just to name a few. So after a thorough screening and review process, we had a rich base of 68 academic articles and 31 pieces of grade literature, from which we would synthesize the very conceptualizations of digital resilience, identify key indicators, and current operationalizations. Now, on to the interesting part. From our review, we find that digital resilience is often conceptualized as an organizational capacity, focusing either on an organization’s information systems resilience or on employees’ and employers’ capacity to deal with digital disruptions. However, among the literature that does focus on individuals, the approach tends to center on personal skills and psychological capabilities, you know, what knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors individuals would need to develop in order to protect themselves and respond effectively in the face of digital challenges or threats. Now, this includes areas like digital literacy, coping strategies, and emotional regulation. More interestingly, our review also surfaced an emerging emphasis on the social-ecological approach, which recognizes that digital resilience is not just about individuals in isolation, but about the dynamic interplay between people and social formations and contexts, so like family, communities, and the broader society. It highlights the role of relationships, support structures, and the larger digital environment in driving resilience. Now, I’ll pass the time over to Jun, who is joining us online.

Jun Yu: Thank you very much, Renee, and I hope everyone can hear me properly. So, building on these foundations, yes, thank you. So, building on these foundations that Renee just discussed, our framework on digital resilience emphasizes that this isn’t just an individual trait. It is shaped by broader social, institutional, and technological contexts, and what does that mean? So, rather than seeing digital resilience in isolation, we would like to understand it as the capability of individuals to act and respond in relation to the systems and communities around them. For example, how someone copes with digital risks and harms is influenced not just by their own skills or awareness, but also by the support they receive from family and community, the policies in place, as well as the digital infrastructure available to them, of course. And importantly, we would like to bring this into dialogue with the concept of digital citizenship to highlight that digital resilience isn’t just about personal safety or protection. It is also about contributing to a healthier digital society. This adds a normative dimension that digital resilience becomes a shared responsibility and a core component of what it means to be a digital citizen in the 21st century. Next slide, please. Thank you. This approach informs our working definition of digital resilience as the capability of individuals to act, learn, understand, and make informed choices when faced with technological failures, changes, disruption, or challenges. So digital resilience, despite the term digital, isn’t actually just about technical or digital know-how or avoiding the digital harms and risk. It’s more broadly about maintaining one’s activities and goals, even when digital systems and tools falter. When facing a software failure, a new platform or app, or an unexpected online threat, resilience means responding thoughtfully and continuing to move forward. And we emphasize the four key capabilities, as you see in the presentation, to be able to anticipate and manage disruptions, to adapt to changing digital conditions, to recover in ways that foster growth, and to draw on support from families, peer networks, communities, institutions, including schools, of course, and wider social systems. So digital resilience in this view is as much collective as it is individual.

Audrey Yue: So our framework then is designed, as Jun mentioned, in a grid of horizontals and verticals, right? So at the vertical level, you will see the socio-ecological. So we map how different drivers of digital resilience are distributed across individual, family, community, and societal levels. So each level will contribute to a person’s ability to navigate digital disruptions. And then at the horizontal level you will see the drivers of digital resilience and we broke it down into comprising disposition and citizenship. So disposition then refers to habits, attitudes that we use to engage with technology in ways that are adaptive, critical, and ethically responsible. So then at the individual level you will see sort of indicators like personality, growth mindset, risk exposure, and informal learning. And then at the level of citizenship there are four domains on skills, competence, empowerment, and rights and responsibility. So here we talk about technical use, digital literacy, proactive coping, self-regulation, and ethical outlook. So more importantly, our grid cross-cuts the vertical and the horizontal. So if you look at the column on digital skills, for example, at the individual level is a bout technical use. And then you move down to the family, it’s about technical parenting. You move down to community, it’s about technology to foster social inclusion. And you move down to society, it’s about digital infrastructure provision and access. So to summarize then, our model develops digital resilience as a collective effort embedded in networks of relationships, systems, and shared values. So this, we believe, will provide a more dynamic understanding of what it means to be digitally resilient today. Thank you.

Horst Kremers: Yeah, thank you very much for this enlightening first presentation. I think there is a lot of topics you issued and showed. Are there questions from the audience here? Are there questions from the attending, virtually attending colleagues? Not to see here. I have a question on that one of the last slides was on the drive framework, socio-ecological levels with a table you showed. My question would be these requirements by society is a question how digital do you plan to have requirements put into digital way? Not only in a narrative way, but also in digital way. What kind of information would you need in digital for doing your analysis?

Audrey Yue: So if I understand your question correctly, you’re asking us about the kinds of digital resources that are required, right? So I think it’s before and after. So the before one is the behavioral traits and your mindset, your exposure to risk. So say, for example, if you have been exposed to online scams, I think you would be a bit more experienced and vigilant and you say, okay, I’m not going to do this again, right? So that’s the before part. And then the after part, right, the digital skills. I think we need to train people in technical use, but not just that, but for users to understand digital literacy and critical literacy in a broader dimension that is both digital and non-digital as well, and how the digital affects offline habits of life, right? And then after that, the citizenship part means, okay, then if we can navigate that, then we can actually have agency and be empowered. So how can we proactively cope? How can we behave online and in society in such a way that is ethical to ourselves and the users around us?

Horst Kremers: Yeah, fantastic. Thank you very much for this explanation. We certainly will, in the course of the presentations, we’ll touch some of these issues also, and I think this is a very good perspective of cooperation. So I will call the next presentation, please, that is from colleagues from Turkey. And his presentation will be by, the title is On the Role of Visuals in Digital Solidarity During Crisis, an Analysis of the 2023 Earthquake in Turkey. The presentation is by Bengui Sitser, lecturer of Mersin University in Turkey. Bengui Sitser graduated from Mersin University in Department of English Linguistics, completed an MA degree in Mersin University Institute of Social Sciences, and a PhD at the same institute. She has been working as a lecturer since 2006. On the other hand, she continues her work in the field of new media and social media. Bengui Sitser, are you online? Hi, it’s, oh, sorry.

Bengu Sezer: Hi, I’m here.

Horst Kremers: Yeah, we have, first we have the video presentation and then you’re available for questions. Yes, please. Please start the video presentation.

Bengu Sezer: Good morning, everyone. My name is Bengui Sitser. I’m going to present our project today, which is The Role of Visuals in Digital Solidarity during Crisis, an Analysis of 2023 Earthquakes in Turkey. This is a three year of, three years of project, which is funded by TÜBİTAK, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Dr. Kıyam, who is our project coordinator, and Dr. Sezer and myself as researchers, we are carrying out this project with a team of six TÜBİTAK funded scholarship holders. They are students, master’s and bachelor students. We are doing this all together. As We Are Social also states, information and communication technologies are widespread and have a high rate of usage in Turkey. And X, formerly Twitter, is tend to be used more often to reach news, especially in times of crisis in our country. We aim to investigate how citizens used visual content on social media, especially on X, to document and communicate during 2023 earthquakes in Turkey. By analyzing 54,859 earthquake-related visuals shared in the first week following the disaster, the project explores the role of images in shaping digital solidarity, crisis communication and cross-platform information flows in an increasingly visual-oriented media environment. Our project is composed of four work packages. Image annotation and analysis is only one work package, which I’m going to talk about today. First phase was data collection. We started to collect the data in the first week of the earthquakes. Then we separated visuals and the text data. For visuals, we created a codebook to annotate around 54,000 images. Once the codebook was ready, we designed the interface according to our requirements. As the last step, we trained our students to annotate the data. Here you see our annotation interface. We structured our annotation system so that each image is annotated by two different annotators. If they agree on each code, the image is automatically saved to the database. If not, as you see here, the red parts are the items on which annotators didn’t agree. In this case, an experienced annotator or one of the researchers checked the entry and decide what to do. As the items are not subjective, disagreement is generally a result of unintentional mistake. So we blocked this kind of mistakes by employing two different annotators. This section enables the tracking of finalized annotated images. Through frequency analysis and advanced queries on these visuals, it aims to establish a productive and scalable resource that can support a wide range of future research endeavors across disciplines. The annotation process is a labor-intensive task, which forms the backbone of our analytical framework, ensuring that each image is contextually and thematically categorized. Completion is expected by October 2025, paving the way for structured analysis. Secondly, following the annotation phase, the visual dataset will undergo both quantitative and qualitative analysis, including frequency patterns, thematic clustering, and platform-specific dissemination behaviors. These insights will be consolidated into academic publications, with initial findings expected to be released by the end of 2026. Based on the visual evidence and communication patterns observed in times of crisis, the study will offer concrete policy recommendations. These will address gaps in crisis communication, digital resilience, and participatory civic engagement tailored for use by governmental bodies, NGOs, and other stakeholders working in disaster response and digital governance. The initial findings of our project indicate that visual content produced during times of crisis strengthens digital solidarity. In this context, both the widespread availability of information and communication technologies and the maintenance of open and accessible communication channels are of great importance for effectively responding. Thank you very much, Dr. Bengü Sezer. Maybe you want to add some remarks to your presentation yourself? Thank you so much. Thank you for this opportunity. We are glad to be a part of this roundtable. We are really thrilled to be a part of this organization.

Horst Kremers: Yes, I think we have questions here from the auditorium, please. Please, Mr. Giacomo Mazzona.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, my question is, I see that you have a recommendation planned in your study. This recommendation will be for whom and for what? In which specific field will it be?

Bengu Sezer: The recommendation will be expected for the government, for NGOs to take precaution on what is important in the very first days of a disaster. We have seen a lot. We have seen that communication is really important and it was blocked in the very first days of the disaster here. We expect these kinds of contributions.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, the follow-up is, because we know what happened during this earthquake is that for two days there was no telecommunication in operation. The only way to communicate was broadcasting, mainly radio and then television. So, what are the lessons learned from this experience? That will be in the recommendation. Is the recommendation already prepared or are you still working on it? If you have an idea, where will you go with this recommendation?

Bengu Sezer: We think the internet structure should be strengthened. There should be mobile internet providers. As the communication was blocked, that was a real problem in the very first days.

Horst Kremers: Internet access. Okay, thank you very much for the question. I think that also we would like to have a specific, if it’s possible in your project, to make a specific remark. Also, on the kind of preparation of the organizational principles of the organization. I think that we have to the organizational principles that whosoever would do that service, would you do it from the institute in times of disaster or should all the service, you see that taking pictures or selecting pictures, analyzing social media, should that be done by some spot in government and so on. So, your recommendations also should cover these things and also preparation, what should be done in preparation of disaster, anticipation of crisis and so on. So, just to kick off and not to start working on elaborating how to do it in times of disaster.

Bengu Sezer: If I understood correctly, you asked how should the images collected, right?

Horst Kremers: No, not the images collected. Who should be running your system? You’re a science institution and you show the feasibility and the usefulness of your project work. After project, it should be implemented for ad hoc used in times of disaster. Maybe you find some ideas also to write in your project report how you think who should do it or who can do it or suggest to do it. We collected the data from the Twitter’s API.

Bengu Sezer: We personally took the step. I also think like you, governments should record these kinds of disasters. But in our case, we started this. We used Twitter API to collect the data with image and text messages. It was the very first days of the earthquake. We decided quickly so that no posts were missed, I think. We collected most of them. We are funded by TÜBİTAK. TÜBİTAK is the Scientific and Technological Research Council in Turkey. We couldn’t have done the rest of it without them. But the very first steps were taken

Horst Kremers: by us personally. Thank you very much. This is important work. And society and organizations certainly will benefit from your kind of analysis. Thank you very much for having that presentation and greetings also to your colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, too. Okay. We call the next presentation. That is myself. I’m working, as I’ve said in the introduction, since the years of the Agenda 21 of the so-called Rio Declaration on Environmental Affairs. At that time, there was not much sustainable development terminology. But from that time, we had a lot of activity in all of society. United Nations-induced all-of-society activities. And in the environmental field, there was a time where it was very active. Also in Germany, I experienced that myself at that time. And since that time, now we go for all-of-society information demands in 2030 plus. Why 2030 plus? Because the Sendai Frameworks that I mentioned runs out in 2030, and we are already expecting what to suggest for writing in the next follow-up framework. The structure of my presentation is situation and complexity of current tax, the basic role of information management, some challenges, recommendations for action, disaster risk reduction 2030 plus. So I will be short because we don’t have very much time. So there is sometimes a lot of text in my slides. I will only note parts of that. There is a link and a QR code in the last file where you can download that presentation and read all the details. Following from the United Nations definition of mayor groups and other stakeholders, there is a scheme. You don’t have to read all this, but that is kind of the typical stakeholders definitions. In the course of time of my involvement with UNDRR, Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism, and also with observing what is going on, we have a collection of post-event reports of reporting on disaster. These are partly very voluminous documentations. And when you go through this and you see who is involved in disaster, then you see all these organizations. So I don’t want to read single one of them. I just want to mention, because we come back to this, that is the chambers of engineers should be here somewhere. Where did I put it? Engineers and architects. On the bottom, but for us is also very important. So situation and complexity about this. The massive complexity of cross-organizational cross-border information flows for decision support, operational management, and for emergency services, public administration, law enforcement agencies, critical infrastructure operators, the private sector, civil society organization institutions, and civil-military cooperation. Well, this is real complex when you know that all of them need vice versa information. And this is not running as quickly and as definite as we would wish. Also, that is experience from that post-disaster documentations. That requires comprehensive interoperability for information in all phases of disaster management. Don’t want to read all these phases, but it’s not only first response, but it’s also in the preparation and in the aftermath of the disaster. Very important, because people suffer so much also in months, in years, many years after a disaster. The situation is also defined for decision and action support of all these actors I listed. Not for general, somewhat only government, and they will care for their decisions. Government is absolutely important, but society is structured in a very… and Dr. Renae Loh, Dr. ZHAN ZHANG, Ms. Emillie de Keulenaar, Dr. Jun YU, Dr. ZHAN ZHANG, Ms. just in time in a definite predefined way of timestamp and periodicity every two minutes, every two hours, every two days or whatsoever to make that not just when the information comes we will use it but to negotiate for quality in organizational principles and make sure that you get the information just in time. That is what all these reports of aftermath of disaster are telling us and we need certainly it’s hard to implement. I tell you it’s not easy and I want to mention that here. One domain I want to mention in detail was a financial domain where where is the money gone? Is it there effectiveness in a synergy of spending money from the financial domain? We all know that there is a lot of money internationally sometimes moved. It’s important but sometimes people say well who knows where it really went. The role of media we have a special activity track together with Giacomo Mazzoni in risk journalism, media and radio and so on. So that is a special track of activities and there is also United Nations says about accountability, fraud, crime and last not least audits, independent audits of what happens. I just can recommend from the information point of view. The engineering and architecture in all phases of disaster management, this is only a list of what typically they are doing in first order. Very very rough scheme that can be detailed and has been detailed already by a report written by the world commission on engineering and so this is mentioned here on the side and we have to go on in that direction for in principle for all the stakeholder groups that we mentioned in the previous tables. The information management goes from these schemes especially from narrative to implementation I say and from data to decision and action. Selected challenges. I just want to mention the personnel, human resources, education and curricula. We are far behind what we need. Big data, standard operational procedures, service level agreements and so on. Creating a common European information space would be adequate because so many European standard information spaces are created and operating already. Disaster risk reduction 2030 would mean start now collecting amendments, extensions to be considered for shaping the 2030 plus reduction framework. Broadening the scope to existing pillars of societal resilience, that is what I call the society domain. Include requirements of information society, situations of exceptional needs, that is a terminology that the European Union used in recent times and central role of information management. Shaping resilient futures and empowering next generations. With that I come to our common goals, digital innovation, increasing and ensuring thematic humanitarian efficiency, cross organizational, cross border coherence, granting just in time information in line with all of society demands and in line with involving societal expectations. Society has its own expectations in terms of information management. Serving citizens just in time with technology methods and quality content. Thank you very much for your attention. Here you have the QR code for the download and there is also the link to download the PDF version. Keep in contact. We want this event also for kickoff of an international working group so we will continue especially on the topic of information society in times of risk. You’re welcome to join the discussion. Thank you. Urgent questions? Not at the moment so we are short in time and please we have the next speaker that is, oh we have the presentation of ZHAN ZHANG now that comes first.

Zhan Zhang: Good morning everyone. My apologies for not being able to join the session in person at this moment and I would like to say thanks to the organizers especially Mr. Horace Clemes for bringing us together for this important discussion. In my presentation I will briefly introduce one case study from Tencent, one leading tech company in China, focusing on how its digital initiatives and CSI efforts are shaping new pathway for technology-enabled disaster resilience. In an environmentally diverse country like China, natural disasters are a persistent reality. The country experiences multiple disasters each year causing significant harm to both human lives and the economy. A notable example was the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake which caused nearly 70,000 deaths and left millions displaced. Recent data from 2024 also reviews the continued situation highlighting the ongoing need for disaster risk reduction strategies, early warning systems, and sustainable recovery mechanisms in the country. If we look at the evolving engagement of Tencent in natural disaster support, it was clear that the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 did push the company to develop an early version of its integrated disaster relief model and the multi-dimensional rescue framework. Today I will mainly focus on two digital initiatives during the past decade as part of the three-dimensional disaster relief initiative which leveraged Tencent’s digital infrastructure and products to support disaster response and recovery. First, Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day was launched in 2015 and has evolved into one of the largest online philanthropic events in China. Built on a fully digitized platform, the initiative allows Tencent users to easily access information about a wide range of charitable projects including natural disaster related projects, make donations with zero barriers, and track how their contributions are used. The initiative has seen remarkable growth in recent years with annual online donations exceeding 500 million dollars and active online participants reaching over 60 millions. Through Tencent’s flagship product WeChat, for example, all the projects related to natural disaster support have been accessible via a dedicated WeChat mini program since 2017. Tencent Docs were created, used, and shared through WeChat groups and WeChat moments during one of the natural disasters in 2021 Zhengzhou which allowed real-time reviews, updates over 6 million times and helped coordinating about 3,000 rescues during that local disaster. In 2023, Tencent introduced digital relief vouchers through WeChat Pay allowing disaster-affected families to purchase essential items based on their personalized needs and at the same time it also unleashes the power of a merchant system that local businesses could easily join such digital service. Building on these ongoing digital initiatives, Tencent announced earlier this year the launch of a digital disaster preparedness and relief support system. The system is beneficiary-centered with particular attention given to vulnerable groups, locally grounded, and technology-enabled. It addresses all the four phases of the disaster management cycle and outlines specific digital interventions at each stage with a strong emphasis on mobilizing and integrating local resources to establish a sustainable community driven model for disaster support that enhances local resilience and operational efficiency over the long term. Looking ahead, such frontline empowerment and localized integration are becoming central pillars in how Chinese tech companies approach digital and technological support for natural disaster management. The deployment of AI is also part of this blueprint. However, the current efforts mostly focus on building AI-powered knowledge base. Other AI applications are still in an early stage of development. with limited integration into real-time operational systems and the construction of cross-sector co-creation platforms. Thank you for your listening. And if you have further questions, feel free to contact me.

Horst Kremers: Yes, thank you very much. So we have this presentation because ZHAN ZHANG is not possible to have online because she is traveling at the very moment. So this could only be made as a presentation. Without further ado, I call the next speaker. That is Emillie de Keulenaar. She is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam’s Digital Methods Initiative and Open Intelligence Lab and a consultant of UNDPPA’s Innovation Cell. Her research is about the politics of speech moderation and the implementation of public dialogue processes in algorithmic systems. Thank you very much for being here and we were interested in your presentation.

Emillie de Keulenaar: I guess I have to use this? Yes. Sorry. Okay, so the case study here is a little bit different in that it focused more on the probability and the risk of conflict in social media environments. So there is this underlying critique that has started first in academic literature and now flows around a lot of public media, if you will, a lot of political discourse, which is that social media as a political information environment is a site of conflict and it produces lingering conflict in the sense that the way that it’s designed does not necessarily prioritize social cohesion or forms and processes of dialogue, but more so a number of special business interests. So the lingering risk in that sense is the possibility that conflict might emerge and other phenomena related to conflict might emerge from the use of social media. So that ranges from effective polarization to other forms of conflict that have been framed as, for example, the political entrenchment and the difficulty of crossing cross-political or social lines or pluralistic ignorance where we tend to consider or blame political opponents as more simplistically or caricaturely than what their arguments or positions actually are and so on and so forth. And it’s a source of risk in the sense that these forms of conflict that it produces, from pluralistic ignorance to fragmentation to entrenchment, have a number of spiraling effects. They can range from a loss of consensus or a shared reality amongst users all the way to the production of misinformation as a result of shared reality and consensus, or disinformation as a sort of instrumentalized way by state actors to tap into vulnerable and fragmented information ecosystems, to, as a result, a loss of trust in public institutions that’s particularly visible in the United States, to offline conflict, again, particularly visible in the United States, like in the Capitol Hill riots, to a number of key policies, especially for societal or even ecological resilience, for example, sustainability policies not being passed, not benefiting from popular support because of a fragmented information environment. And so some of the solution frameworks for this problem have been, let’s say, bundled up under one main agenda that’s been called pro-social platform design. And what that is about is essentially a collection of governance, design, and moderation protocols designed to facilitate and steer or produce social cohesion and societal dialogue through platform design. And in a sense, one can think about the notion of sustainability when one considers these pro-social platform design protocols in the sense that it’s based on the premise that if you tend to reduce online conflict, then you will tend to reduce a number of other phenomena that decur from conflict as a result. So, for example, the production of misinformation. And you tend to maintain the production of social cohesion as a result. One example is what we call bridging systems. So bridging systems can be seen as algorithms that you can plug in or plug out existing social media platforms like recommenders. So recommendation systems, and you might have seen this on YouTube, for example, they tend to prioritize very popular and sensationalistic content, whereas bridging systems will try to promote content that is consensual across political and social divides. And there may be an infinite number of different bridging systems in the sense that it’s just a framework, it’s an open problem, it’s not one specific solution, but it’s a framework through which to think of alternative platform design, if you will. And so one example, as I said, is bridging and balancing sources on social media Another is also facilitating social dynamism. So it’s facilitating the composition of different user groups based on political or social lines that facilitate cross-political, political crossovers. Another is giving social context. So features that facilitate understanding what are the premises and backgrounds and positions and lived experiences for other users that belong to other political divides and so on. And one can think in terms of a governance structure of kind of a stack. So how does one implement these sorts of policies and alternative design protocols? One can think first of, let’s say, high-level legislation or regulation or policies and standards that might first be deliberated on in public forums, such as this one, so OASIS or the Internet Governance Forum or other, where the method is through, let’s say, public consultations and deliberation with notable stakeholders, but also the public at large. And then operationalization is a key point of that in the sense that it’s all about transforming ideas or formulas for public dialogue into algorithmic systems. So this is the dialogue that goes from, let’s say, the political theorist to the computer scientist. This kind of crossover is operationalization. That can be done through a number of public hackathons and so on. The infrastructure, for example, there is this notion of middleware, which could be a public repository of alternative algorithms that one can plug in or plug out, decentralized social media platforms like BlueSky or Mastodon, and assessment protocols, so to look into, OK, what is the long-term sustainability of these alternative protocols that we’re recommending? And that’s it. Thank you.

Horst Kremers: Yeah, thank you very much. I apologize that we run a little bit out of time. But there are, like, recommender systems is something that we also would need for… One of the management principles in digital way is to make recommendations rather than decisions, to support decisions by making a lot of or a set of recommendations also to be documented, I say, on what kind of available decision alternatives can we act. So there is a lot of activities behind that. And I give the last word and the wrap-up to my friend Ke Guang.

Ke Gong: Thank you. Thank you so much. And I would like to thank all the participants for your active engagement and presenters. You talked about the information society’s responsibility and activities in the time of crisis from different aspects. For example, Emily has just provided a forward-looking vision for content moderation in high-conflict environments, advocating for sustainable consensus-based approaches that foster civic dialogue and societal cohesion. And also, our Turkish colleagues have analyzed how visuals shared on social media during the earthquake two years ago became a powerful tool for digital solidarity. And our Singapore team has provided a DRIVE project that stands for the Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment. I think that is a comprehensive approach, a comprehensive socio-ecological approach for long-term empowerment. And also, Zhang has offered in-depth cases from China. And Horst has reminded us of the fundamental principles from Agenda 21 and the CENTI framework highlighting the urgent need for all-society collaboration and integrated information management in disaster risk reduction. So with this, I think when we reflect on these insights, let us carry forward a shared commitment to build a resilient information society that is inclusive, proactive, and grounded in solidarity. I borrow the word used by our Turkish friends. So with this, we encourage all of you to stay connected beyond this forum and to exchange ideas, collaboration, good practices, and so on and so forth, and to carry out our responsibility as an information society to build a resilient world which is sustained and left no one behind. So with this, I declare the conclusion of this session. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-level, socio-ecological approaches are essential for digital resilience

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Renae Loh
– Jun Yu
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Comprehensive socio-ecological approaches are needed for long-term empowerment in digital resilience

Summary

All speakers from the Singapore team and the session chair agree that digital resilience cannot be understood as merely individual technical skills but requires comprehensive socio-ecological frameworks that account for multiple levels of social organization and environmental factors.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Communication infrastructure resilience is critical during disasters

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Giacomo Mazzone
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Communication infrastructure must be strengthened with mobile internet providers to prevent communication blackouts during disasters

Media and broadcasting remain critical when digital communication fails, as seen during earthquake communication blackouts

Comprehensive interoperability is required for information flows across all disaster management phases involving multiple stakeholder groups

Summary

These speakers agree that maintaining communication channels during disasters is essential, whether through strengthened digital infrastructure, backup traditional media systems, or comprehensive interoperability frameworks.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Technology-enabled solutions require beneficiary-centered approaches with attention to vulnerable groups

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang
– Horst Kremers
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Beneficiary-centered digital systems with attention to vulnerable groups can enhance local resilience and operational efficiency

Information management must serve decision and action support for emergency services, public administration, private sector, and civil society organizations

Building resilient information society requires inclusive, proactive approaches grounded in solidarity across all stakeholder groups

Summary

These speakers share the view that technology solutions must be designed with beneficiaries at the center, particularly considering vulnerable groups and ensuring inclusive approaches that serve all stakeholders in society.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

The Singapore research team shares a unified perspective on digital resilience as a collective, socio-ecological phenomenon that transcends individual capabilities and requires understanding of broader social, institutional, and environmental contexts.

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Jun Yu
– Renae Loh

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the need for systematic analysis of crisis communication to inform policy development and framework updates for disaster risk reduction.

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Systematic analysis of crisis-related visuals can provide insights for policy recommendations to governments and NGOs

The 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework should include requirements for information society and exceptional needs situations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize the potential of digital platforms to serve positive social functions, whether for disaster response mobilization or conflict reduction, when designed with pro-social objectives.

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang
– Emillie de Keulenaar

Arguments

Digital platforms can mobilize large-scale philanthropic responses, as demonstrated by Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day reaching 60 million participants

Pro-social platform design protocols including bridging systems can reduce online conflict and maintain social cohesion

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected consensus

Integration of traditional and digital communication systems

Speakers

– Giacomo Mazzone
– Bengu Sezer
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Media and broadcasting remain critical when digital communication fails, as seen during earthquake communication blackouts

Communication infrastructure must be strengthened with mobile internet providers to prevent communication blackouts during disasters

Comprehensive interoperability is required for information flows across all disaster management phases involving multiple stakeholder groups

Explanation

Despite coming from different professional backgrounds (media, academic research, and information management), these speakers unexpectedly converged on the need for hybrid communication systems that integrate both traditional broadcasting and digital infrastructure, recognizing that neither alone is sufficient for crisis communication.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights

Collective responsibility in digital environments

Speakers

– Jun Yu
– Emillie de Keulenaar
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Social media platforms create lingering conflict risks through design that prioritizes business interests over social cohesion

Building resilient information society requires inclusive, proactive approaches grounded in solidarity across all stakeholder groups

Explanation

These speakers from different research domains (digital resilience, platform design, and engineering) unexpectedly aligned on viewing digital challenges as collective rather than individual responsibilities, emphasizing the need for shared approaches to digital citizenship and social cohesion.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus around three main areas: the need for multi-level, socio-ecological approaches to digital resilience; the critical importance of communication infrastructure resilience during disasters; and the requirement for beneficiary-centered, inclusive technology solutions that consider vulnerable groups.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for the field. The agreement across diverse professional backgrounds (academic researchers, tech industry representatives, media experts, and policy practitioners) suggests a maturing understanding of information society challenges during crises. This consensus points toward the need for integrated, multi-stakeholder approaches that combine technical infrastructure development with social resilience building, moving beyond siloed solutions toward comprehensive frameworks that address both individual and collective needs in times of risk.

Different viewpoints

Individual vs. Collective Approach to Digital Resilience

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Renae Loh
– Jun Yu

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Summary

While all three speakers from the Singapore team agree on moving beyond individual-focused approaches, they present this as disagreeing with existing literature and current practices that focus too heavily on individual psychological capabilities and organizational capacity rather than broader social-ecological approaches.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Communication Infrastructure Priorities During Disasters

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Giacomo Mazzone

Arguments

Communication infrastructure must be strengthened with mobile internet providers to prevent communication blackouts during disasters

Media and broadcasting remain critical when digital communication fails, as seen during earthquake communication blackouts

Summary

Sezer emphasizes strengthening internet infrastructure and mobile providers as the solution, while Mazzone highlights the continued importance of traditional broadcasting media as backup when digital systems fail.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Role of AI in Disaster Management

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang

Arguments

AI applications in disaster management are still in early development stages with limited real-time operational integration

Explanation

Zhang’s cautious assessment of AI capabilities contrasts with the generally optimistic tone about digital solutions presented by other speakers. This unexpected restraint about AI’s current limitations stands out in a discussion otherwise focused on digital innovation potential.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on core principles with limited direct disagreements. Most differences were methodological rather than fundamental, focusing on different approaches to achieve shared goals of resilient information society.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high convergence on principles. The main tensions were between individual vs. collective approaches to resilience and different infrastructure priorities during disasters. This high level of agreement suggests strong foundational consensus in the field, but may also indicate need for more diverse perspectives to address potential blind spots in current thinking.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

The Singapore research team shares a unified perspective on digital resilience as a collective, socio-ecological phenomenon that transcends individual capabilities and requires understanding of broader social, institutional, and environmental contexts.

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Jun Yu
– Renae Loh

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the need for systematic analysis of crisis communication to inform policy development and framework updates for disaster risk reduction.

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Systematic analysis of crisis-related visuals can provide insights for policy recommendations to governments and NGOs

The 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework should include requirements for information society and exceptional needs situations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize the potential of digital platforms to serve positive social functions, whether for disaster response mobilization or conflict reduction, when designed with pro-social objectives.

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang
– Emillie de Keulenaar

Arguments

Digital platforms can mobilize large-scale philanthropic responses, as demonstrated by Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day reaching 60 million participants

Pro-social platform design protocols including bridging systems can reduce online conflict and maintain social cohesion

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Key takeaways

Digital resilience must be understood as a socio-ecological process involving individual, family, community, and societal levels rather than just individual technical skills

Visual content on social media serves as a powerful tool for digital solidarity and crisis documentation, as demonstrated during the 2023 Turkey earthquake

Communication infrastructure resilience is critical – communication blackouts during disasters highlight the need for strengthened mobile internet and backup systems

All-of-society information management requires comprehensive interoperability across multiple stakeholder groups including government, private sector, NGOs, and civil society

Just-in-time information delivery with predefined quality standards is essential for effective disaster response across all phases of disaster management

Technology companies can play significant roles in disaster response through digital platforms that mobilize resources and support affected communities

Social media platform design creates risks of conflict and fragmentation that can undermine societal resilience and consensus-building

The post-2030 disaster risk reduction framework should incorporate information society requirements and address situations of exceptional needs

Resolutions and action items

Establish an international working group on ‘information society in times of risk’ to continue collaboration beyond this session

Complete the Turkey earthquake visual analysis project by October 2025 with policy recommendations for governments and NGOs

Develop policy recommendations addressing communication infrastructure gaps and digital governance for disaster response

Create amendments and extensions for the 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework incorporating information society requirements

Maintain ongoing collaboration and exchange of ideas, practices, and research among session participants

Unresolved issues

Who should operationally manage digital crisis response systems – whether academic institutions, government agencies, or other organizations

How to implement comprehensive interoperability standards across diverse stakeholder groups and organizational boundaries

Specific mechanisms for ensuring just-in-time information delivery with quality guarantees during crisis situations

How to balance business interests of social media platforms with pro-social design requirements for societal resilience

Integration challenges for AI applications in real-time disaster management operational systems

Funding and sustainability models for implementing digital resilience frameworks at scale

Standardization of visual content analysis methodologies for cross-disaster and cross-cultural applications

Suggested compromises

Multi-level governance approach for platform design that combines high-level policies with operational algorithmic systems

Hybrid approach to crisis communication using both digital platforms and traditional broadcasting when digital systems fail

Beneficiary-centered digital systems that balance technological capabilities with attention to vulnerable groups and local contexts

Bridging systems that can be plugged into existing social media platforms rather than requiring complete platform redesign

Digital resilience isn’t just about personal safety or protection. It is also about contributing to a healthier digital society. This adds a normative dimension that digital resilience becomes a shared responsibility and a core component of what it means to be a digital citizen in the 21st century.

Speaker

Jun Yu

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it reframes digital resilience from an individual protective measure to a collective civic responsibility. It introduces the normative dimension that transforms the concept from merely defensive to actively constructive, connecting digital skills to citizenship and social contribution.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion by establishing a philosophical foundation that connected individual capabilities to societal well-being. It influenced subsequent presentations to consider broader social implications rather than just technical solutions, and provided a framework that other speakers could reference when discussing community-level interventions.

We think the internet structure should be strengthened. There should be mobile internet providers. As the communication was blocked, that was a real problem in the very first days… We couldn’t have done the rest of it without them. But the very first steps were taken by us personally.

Speaker

Bengu Sezer

Reason

This comment reveals a critical gap between academic research capabilities and institutional disaster response. It highlights how researchers had to take personal initiative to capture crucial data during the earthquake, exposing the lack of systematic governmental or organizational frameworks for real-time crisis data collection.

Impact

This comment prompted Horst Kremers to push for more concrete recommendations about institutional responsibility and preparation. It shifted the discussion from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation questions about who should run such systems and how they should be prepared in advance, rather than improvised during crises.

The massive complexity of cross-organizational cross-border information flows for decision support… requires comprehensive interoperability for information in all phases of disaster management… just in time in a definite predefined way of timestamp and periodicity every two minutes, every two hours, every two days.

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it quantifies the information challenge in disaster management with specific temporal requirements. It moves beyond general calls for ‘better coordination’ to articulate the precise, systematic nature of information flow needed across multiple organizational levels and timeframes.

Impact

This comment established the technical and organizational complexity that underlies all the theoretical frameworks discussed. It provided a reality check that influenced how other participants framed their solutions, emphasizing the need for systematic, pre-negotiated information protocols rather than ad-hoc responses.

The lingering risk in that sense is the possibility that conflict might emerge… from the use of social media… these forms of conflict that it produces, from pluralistic ignorance to fragmentation to entrenchment, have a number of spiraling effects… all the way to offline conflict.

Speaker

Emillie de Keulenaar

Reason

This comment is insightful because it introduces a completely different type of risk – not natural disasters or technical failures, but the risk that information systems themselves generate conflict. It challenges the assumption that digital platforms are neutral tools and highlights how platform design can either exacerbate or mitigate social tensions.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the entire session by introducing the concept that information systems can be sources of risk rather than just solutions to risk. It connected technical design decisions to social cohesion outcomes, influencing the final wrap-up to emphasize solidarity and inclusive approaches to information society development.

Digital resilience, despite the term digital, isn’t actually just about technical or digital know-how or avoiding the digital harms and risk. It’s more broadly about maintaining one’s activities and goals, even when digital systems and tools falter.

Speaker

Jun Yu

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it paradoxically redefines ‘digital resilience’ as fundamentally about non-digital capabilities. It challenges the assumption that digital problems require digital solutions, instead emphasizing human adaptability and goal-oriented thinking as the core of resilience.

Impact

This redefinition influenced how subsequent speakers approached the relationship between technology and human agency. It provided a conceptual bridge that allowed the discussion to move fluidly between technical infrastructure concerns and human-centered approaches, ultimately supporting the session’s emphasis on socio-ecological frameworks.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about crisis management tools into a nuanced exploration of the relationship between technology, society, and human agency. The Singapore team’s normative framing of digital citizenship established a philosophical foundation that elevated the entire discussion. The Turkish researcher’s candid admission about institutional gaps provided crucial practical grounding that prevented the session from remaining purely theoretical. Kremers’ systematic articulation of information complexity provided the technical reality check that informed all subsequent discussions. De Keulenaar’s introduction of platform-generated conflict risks broadened the scope to include information systems as potential sources of societal risk. Together, these comments created a multi-layered conversation that successfully integrated individual, community, institutional, and societal perspectives on information society resilience, ultimately supporting the session’s goal of fostering ‘all-of-society’ approaches to crisis management.

How digital do you plan to have requirements put into digital way? What kind of information would you need in digital for doing your analysis?

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Explanation

This question seeks clarification on the technical implementation and data requirements for the DRIVE framework’s digital resilience analysis, moving beyond narrative approaches to actual digital implementation.

Who should be running your system after the project ends? How should the implementation be organized for ad hoc use in times of disaster?

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between research feasibility studies and operational implementation, questioning organizational responsibility and preparedness structures for disaster response systems.

What are the lessons learned from the earthquake experience regarding telecommunication failures? Where will the recommendations go?

Speaker

Giacomo Mazzone

Explanation

This follows up on the practical implications of communication infrastructure failures during disasters and seeks clarity on how research findings will be translated into actionable policy recommendations.

How to ensure cross-organizational, cross-border information flows work effectively in real-time during disasters?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This addresses the complex challenge of coordinating information management across multiple stakeholders and jurisdictions during crisis situations, which was identified as currently inadequate.

How to implement ‘just-in-time’ information delivery with predefined timestamps and quality standards across all disaster management phases?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This technical challenge involves creating systematic information delivery protocols that go beyond ad-hoc information sharing to structured, quality-assured communication systems.

How to operationalize the transformation of public dialogue ideas into algorithmic systems for pro-social platform design?

Speaker

Emillie de Keulenaar (implied)

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between political theory and computer science implementation in creating platforms that foster social cohesion rather than conflict.

How to assess the long-term sustainability of alternative platform design protocols?

Speaker

Emillie de Keulenaar (implied)

Explanation

This research area focuses on developing evaluation methods for measuring the effectiveness and durability of pro-social platform design interventions.

How to integrate AI applications beyond knowledge bases into real-time operational disaster management systems?

Speaker

Zhan Zhang (implied)

Explanation

This identifies a current limitation in AI deployment for disaster management, suggesting need for research into more sophisticated real-time AI integration.

How to develop comprehensive interoperability standards for information management across all phases of disaster management?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This addresses the technical challenge of ensuring different systems and organizations can effectively share and use information throughout the complete disaster management cycle.

What amendments and extensions should be considered for the post-2030 disaster risk reduction framework?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This forward-looking research area involves preparing recommendations for the next iteration of international disaster risk reduction frameworks beyond the current Sendai Framework.