Inforensics: The Cost of Communication

Following the Haiti earthquake, a number of responders sought to better connect victims and emergency workers to valuable sources of information managed via the web.  Short Message Service (SMS) or text messages sent by mobile phones played key roles.  The scalability of cellular networks, combined with the proliferation of mobile phones makes this a logical choice, as survivors are likely to have access to one.  Integrating mobile phone technology with web-based capabilities has broadened the scope of what can be accomplished during response efforts.  In Haiti, the most prominent example of technological integration was Ushahidi.  This service enabled victims to send their location coordinates to a designated SMS short code that were plotted on maps by communities of translators and mappers, all supported by a web-based infrastructure.  Ushahidi provided a real time picture of events on the ground as reported by its users.

In light of the Ushahidi case study, relief organizations will certainly aim to incorporate SMS as part of their response kit.  Yet, if more weight is placed on the use of mobile phones in a disaster, what kind of trade-offs might a survivor have to make to stay tied-in to such a capability?  To be effective, individuals should be able to use the service, but, can they afford it?  What decisions do survivors face, and how does mobile connectivity fit into these sorts of decisions?

To begin to think about these sorts of question, we will examine the cost of powering a cell phone following the earthquake in Haiti.  Reports from responders in Haiti following the quake describe merchants offering mobile phone charging in 15 minute increments for a fee of 40 Gourdes ($0.75 USD).  The rise of merchants offering ad hoc services, often for inflated prices, is not surprising.  This observation is quite useful as it allows monetary value to be assigned to cellular connectivity based on the cost of keeping a phone powered.  While this is anecdotally based, it does provide a starting point for some explorations of the relative value of connectivity in the eyes of a quake victim.  With a monetary value, cellular connectivity can be measured against other goods and services in post quake Haiti.  For example, how much is a minute of talk time in light of the cost of charging?  How does the cost of maintaining mobile connectivity via a working phone compare to the price of food?  How does the cost of charging a mobile phone compare to the per capita income of the average Haitian?

Is a cell phone charge worth one percent of yearly income?  Would a survivor realistically spend more to keep a phone running than on a day's worth of food?  Through these comparisons, some of the decisions and dilemmas that occur following a major disaster can be introduced.  The goal is not to disprove the utility of capabilities provided by services such as Ushahidi, but rather introduce questions that might be faced by potential users.

Analyzing data from the IMF, USAID, and Haitian mobile phone companies^[*], options possibly faced by survivors of the earthquake are explored.  Estimating that a full phone charge can take anywhere from 1-3 hours dependent upon battery capacity, phone age, and consistency of power source, we can calculate a cost for each of these charge cycles using the above reported pricing.  This now provides a means of comparing the cost of staying connected with other potential costs that an earthquake survivor might face.  Examining GDP per capita as a starting point allows for a rough estimate of the income for an average Haitian.  This in turn is the basis for the construction a frame of reference for how the cost of charging a phone might be viewed relative to a person's actual income.  For the sake of a more accessible comparison by readers, we apply the same charge to GDP ratio to the U.S. GDP per capita.  As it turns out, one percent a nation's GDP per capita is a significant amount of money in relative terms.

The main comparison focuses on the cost of mobile connectivity versus the cost of staple goods needed for survival.  This comparison becomes increasingly important as time passes and food aid becomes less prevalent.  The cost of a USAID defined basket of 'survival goods' is calculated as defined by the 2009 assessment of food and livelihood security in Port-Au-Prince.  These survival baskets account for 85% of the normal amount of calories considered necessary for sustenance.  The data set closest in proximity to the quake relates to market prices from 10 March 2010 and adjustments were made to accommodate available data on the price of goods.  In this case, rice was substituted for bread due to a lack of available pricing for bread in the USAID reports.  Using these market prices, a comparable basket of 'survival goods' for an individual can be calculated, and a price per day derived.

The numbers that emerged from these simple calculations are quite interesting.  Fifteen minutes of cell phone charge time costs more than a basket of survival goods that would feed an individual for one day.  Depending on the amount of time it takes to charge a phone, a full charge could cost up to 1.5% of the GDP per capita of an individual.  Were that percentage to be applied to the United States, fully charging a phone would cost anywhere from $227 for an hour of charging to $690 for three hours.  Moreover, the cost of a cell phone charge is considerably more than the approximately 30 Gourdes an individual would need to purchase a day's worth of staple goods at the Port-Au-Prince market.  A day's worth of food is the equivalent, on average, of 12-19 minutes of talk time.  These are examples of some very basic tradeoffs an earthquake victim might face in the days and weeks after a crisis.

Does this disprove the value of mobile technologies as a response tool?  Not in the least.  What it does suggest, however, is that these sorts of tradeoffs ought to be considered in developing technologies for responders and victims.  Immediately after the crisis, local cell phone shops that did have power, allowed people to charge their phones for free.  How could something as simple as this be included in the planning phase of future disaster response efforts?  Perhaps a start would be including mobile charging among basic services provided by responders.  Organizations such as Telecoms Sans Frontiers already specialize in the establishment of emergency call centers that were utilized extensively after the earthquake.  Adding a charging station to such an operation would not require much in terms of resources, and would provide an avenue for victims to access information from capabilities such as Ushahidi as well as reach out to contact friends and family.  Attention must also be paid to the sorts of information that can be pushed out via SMS, accounting for what information was and was not used by responders and victims.

The comparisons presented here represent a very small portion of a vastly complex network of decisions and tradeoffs that a survivor might face.  The scale of the devastation seen in Haiti meant for many, everything was lost.  In such a situation, proponents of technology, have a responsibility to provide a capability that is accessible and within the means of a victim.  Haiti was a test bed for SMS-web integration, and from it many lessons were learned about applicability, accessibility, and organizational cooperation.  Responsible approaches to future capabilities ought to take into account not only these lessons, but the landscape of decisions that define the lives of survivors in the days, weeks, and months following a disaster.

--- ~ ---

^[*]Calculations are conducted using information from the IMF World Economic Outlook Database  for Haiti's 2009 GDP per capita, information from USAID Famine Early Warning System  for staple good prices from the main Port Au Prince, and information from Haitian mobile phone companies Digicel and Comcel is used for cell phone statistics.