Due to the frequent occurrence of public emergency events and the extensive use of social media in recent years, the public is more and more involved in the communication of public emergencies. As important members of the public, the rapid and massive information sharing of social media users makes them play an increasingly crucial role in the emergency processing. Hence, it is necessary to analyse information behaviours of social media users in emergency events. This article mined the information behaviours of users in multiple events to reflect the public’s behaviour preferences, aiming to provide information support for emergency handling. Specifically, we collected the user-generated contents related to emergency events, and then analysed the user-generated contents from multiple dimensions to obtain the corresponding information behaviours. Finally, based on the comparative analysis of four events, the information behaviour preferences of the public during emergencies were obtained. The experimental results indicate that the public’s behaviours in emergencies are related to their own interests and economic status, and curiosity about the details of events is the consistent appeal of the public.
BedfordJFarrarJIhekweazuC, et al. A new twenty-first century science for effective epidemic response. Nature2019; 575: 130–136.
2.
XieYQiaoRShaoG, et al. Research on Chinese social media users’ communication behaviors during public emergency events. Telemat Inform2017; 34: 740–754.
3.
XueBTaoH. Research on the emergency events monitoring of Minsheng hotline based on text. In: IEEE international conference on big knowledge, Hefei, China, 9–10 August 2017, pp. 151–154. New York: IEEE.
4.
MeiJYZhangMBZhouB. Research on the hydrological emergency monitoring system of high-risk Barrier Lake based on PDCA theory. In: IOP conference series earth and environmental science, Macao, China, 16–19 July 2019, p. 012103. Bristol: IOP Science.
5.
FiedrichFGehbauerFRickersU. Optimized resource allocation for emergency response after earthquake disasters. Safety Ence2000; 35: 41–57.
6.
FiedrichF. An HLA-based multiagent system for optimized resource allocation after strong earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 2006 winter simulation conference, Monterey, CA, 3–6 December 2006, pp. 486–492. New York: IEEE.
7.
LiuYFanZPYuanY, et al. A FTA-based method for risk decision making in emergency response. Comput Oper Res2014; 42: 49–57.
8.
LiuYFanZPZhangY. Risk decision analysis in emergency response: a method based on cumulative prospect theory. Comput Oper Res2014; 42: 75–82.
9.
AnhornJKhazaiB. Open space suitability analysis for emergency shelter after an earthquake. Natural Hazard Earth Syst Ences2015; 2: 4263–4297.
10.
ZhouXChenZYuS, et al. Risk analysis and emergency actions for Hongshiyan barrier lake. Natural Hazards2015; 79: 1933–1959.
11.
SuttonH. See how your emergency response time measures up. Campus Secur Report2019; 15: 9–9.
12.
LorinczKMalanDJFulford-JonesT, et al. Sensor networks for emergency response: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Pervas Comput2005; 3: 16–23.
13.
YangBWangJMaW, et al. Research on crowdsourcing emergency information extraction of based on events’ frame. J Phys Conf2018; 933: 012009.
14.
NalluruGPandeyRPurohitH. Relevancy classification of multimodal social media streams for emergency services. In: IEEE international conference on smart computing, Washington, DC, 12–15 June 2019, pp. 1–15. New York: IEEE.
15.
SongM. Emergency management of network public opinion events based on FPGA and machine learning. Microprocess Microsyst2020; 2020: 103413.
16.
LiuDZhangHYuH, et al. Research on network public opinion analysis and monitor method based on Big Data technology. In: 10th international conference on electronics information and emergency communication, Beijing, China, 17–19 July 2020, pp. 195–199. New York: IEEE.
17.
TongYSunW. Multimedia network public opinion supervision prediction algorithm based on Big Data. Complexity2020; 2020: 6623108.
18.
HughesALPalenL. Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. Int J Emerg Manag2009; 6: 248–260.
19.
PanagiotopoulosPBigdeliAZSamsS, et al. Social media in government: communicating risks to the public during emergency events. In: 75th annual meeting of the academy of management, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–11August2015.
20.
PanagiotopoulosPBarnettJBigdeliAZ, et al. Social media in emergency management: Twitter as a tool for communicating risks to the public. Technol Forecast Soc Change2016; 111: 86–96.
21.
MirbabaieMFrommJLppenbergS, et al. The potential of social media analytics for improving social media communication of emergency agencies. In: Australasian conference on information systems, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 3–5 December 2018, pp. 1–11. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08570
22.
ThelwallMThelwallS. A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets: consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life. Aslib J Inform Manag2020; 72: 945–962.
23.
XieHJTanYZXuYQ. Research on simulation of the emergency information dissemination based on Netlogo. In: 4th international Asia conference on industrial engineering and management innovation, Shanxi, China, 21–22 July 2014, pp. 847–857. New York: Springer.
24.
LiuXHeDLiuC. Information diffusion nonlinear dynamics modeling and evolution analysis in online social network based on emergency events. IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst2019; 6: 8–19.
25.
ZhaoJHZengDLQinJT, et al. Simulation and modeling of microblog-based spread of public opinions on emergencies. Neural Comput Appl2021; 33: 547–564.
26.
DinhLParulianN. COVID pandemic and information diffusion analysis on Twitter. In: 83Rd annual meeting of the association for information science and technology, Virtual, 22October–1November2020, p. e252. Silver Spring, MD: ASIS&T.
27.
OwensMEJohnsonRM. Emergency response, public behavior, and the effectiveness of Texas counties in a pandemic. J Politic Inst Politic Econ2020; 1: 615–630.
28.
MaYDengQWangX, et al. Keyword-based semantic analysis of microblog for public opinion study in online collective behaviors. In: International conference on web-age information management, Macau, China, 14–18 June 2014, pp. 44–55. New York: Springer.
29.
ZhangLWeiJBoncellaRJ. Emotional communication analysis of emergency microblog based on the evolution life cycle of public opinion. Inform Discover Deliver2020; 48: 151–163.
30.
GaliPTalJZ. Expectations, effectiveness, trust, and cooperation: public attitudes towards the Israel police during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policing2020; 14: 1073–1091.
31.
BaloranET. Knowledge, attitudes, anxiety, and coping strategies of students during COVID-19 pandemic. J Loss Trauma2020; 25: 635–642.
32.
SamuelJRahmanMMAliGMN, et al. Feeling positive about reopening? New normal scenarios from COVID-19 US reopen sentiment analytics. IEEE Access2020; 8: 142173–142190.
33.
WangZLeiYYangT. Measurement and analysis on microblog network of emergency topic. In: 10th international conference on natural computation, Fujian, China, 19–21 August 2014, pp. 828–833. New York: IEEE.
34.
AnLYuCLinX, et al. Topical evolution patterns and temporal trends of microblogs on public health emergencies: an exploratory study of Ebola on Twitter and Weibo. Online Inform Review2018; 42: 821–846.
35.
LiZDuJCuiW, et al. User interaction based bursty topic model for emergency detection. In: 2018 Chinese intelligent systems conference, Zhejiang, China, 13–14 October 2018, pp. 11–21. New York: Springer.
36.
WangGChiYLiuY, et al. Studies on a multidimensional public opinion network model and its topic detection algorithm. Inform Proces Manag2019; 56: 584–608.
37.
KwanSLLimKH. Understanding public sentiments, opinions and topics about COVID-19 using Twitter. In: International conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, virtual, The Hague, 7–10 December 2020, pp. 1–4. New York: IEEE.
38.
ThompsonWDWalterSD. A reappraisal of the Kappa coefficient. J Clin Epidemiol1988; 41: 949–958.
39.
YangYPedersenJO. A comparative study on feature selection in text categorization. Adv Inform Sci Service Sci1997; 4: 412–420.
40.
SaltonGMcGillMJ. Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
ZhouQJingM. Detecting expressional anomie in social media via fine-grained content mining. J Database Manag2020; 31: 1–19.
43.
HoffmanMDBleiDMBachFR. Online learning for latent Dirichlet allocation. Adv Neural Inform Proces Syst2010; 23: 856–864.
44.
BehlSRaoAAggarwalS, et al. Twitter for disaster relief through sentiment analysis for COVID-19 and natural hazard crises. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc2021; 55: 102101.
45.
ZhouQJingM. Detecting online expressional anomie and its evolutions in social media. Electron Libr2019; 37: 703–721.
46.
JansenBJSobelKCookG. Classifying ecommerce information sharing behaviour by youths on social networking sites. J Inform Sci2011; 37: 120–136.
47.
BasharMANayakRBalasubramaniamT. Topic, sentiment and impact analysis: COVID19 information seeking on social media, 2020, ArXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12435
48.
KubicekKRamirezMLimbosMA, et al. Knowledge and behaviors of parents in planning for and dealing with emergencies. J Commun Health2008; 33: 158–168.
49.
CondonBJSinhaT. Who is that masked person: the use of face masks on Mexico City public transportation during the Influenza A (H1N1) outbreak. Health Policy2010; 95: 50–56.
50.
DedeoğluBBBoğanE. The motivations of visiting upscale restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of risk perception and trust in government. Int J Hospital Manag2021; 95: 102905.
51.
Raphael Beverley. Crowds and other collectives: complexities of human behaviors in mass emergencies. Psychiat Interpers Biol Proces2005; 68: 115–120.
52.
ZhouQJingM. Multidimensional mining of public opinion in emergency events. Electron Libr2020; 38: 545–560.
