Equity in Resident Crowdsourcing: Measuring Under-reporting without Ground Truth Data

Zhi Liu, Nikhil Garg
{"title":"Equity in Resident Crowdsourcing: Measuring Under-reporting without Ground Truth Data","authors":"Zhi Liu, Nikhil Garg","doi":"10.1145/3490486.3538283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern city governance relies heavily on crowdsourcing (or \"co-production\") to identify problems such as downed trees and power-lines. A major concern in these systems is that residents do not report problems at the same rates, leading to an inequitable allocation of government resources. However, measuring such under-reporting is a difficult statistical task, as, almost by definition, we do not observe incidents that are not reported. Thus, distinguishing between low reporting rates and low ground-truth incident rates is challenging. We develop a method to identify (heterogeneous) reporting rates, without using external (proxy) ground truth data. Our insight is that rates on duplicate reports about the same incident can be leveraged, to turn the question into a standard Poisson rate estimation task---even though the full incident reporting interval is also unobserved. We apply our method to over 100,000 resident reports made to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, finding that there are substantial spatial and socio-economic disparities in reporting rates, even after controlling for incident characteristics.","PeriodicalId":209859,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3490486.3538283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Modern city governance relies heavily on crowdsourcing (or "co-production") to identify problems such as downed trees and power-lines. A major concern in these systems is that residents do not report problems at the same rates, leading to an inequitable allocation of government resources. However, measuring such under-reporting is a difficult statistical task, as, almost by definition, we do not observe incidents that are not reported. Thus, distinguishing between low reporting rates and low ground-truth incident rates is challenging. We develop a method to identify (heterogeneous) reporting rates, without using external (proxy) ground truth data. Our insight is that rates on duplicate reports about the same incident can be leveraged, to turn the question into a standard Poisson rate estimation task---even though the full incident reporting interval is also unobserved. We apply our method to over 100,000 resident reports made to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, finding that there are substantial spatial and socio-economic disparities in reporting rates, even after controlling for incident characteristics.
居民众包的公平性:在没有真实数据的情况下衡量漏报
现代城市治理在很大程度上依赖于众包(或“联合生产”)来识别倒下的树木和电线等问题。这些系统的一个主要问题是,居民没有以相同的比率报告问题,导致政府资源分配不公平。然而,衡量这种漏报是一项困难的统计任务,因为几乎根据定义,我们不会观察到未报告的事件。因此,区分低报告率和低真实事件发生率是具有挑战性的。我们开发了一种方法来识别(异构)报告率,而不使用外部(代理)真实数据。我们的见解是,可以利用关于同一事件的重复报告的比率,将问题转化为标准泊松率估计任务——即使完整的事件报告间隔也未被观察到。我们将我们的方法应用于向纽约市公园和娱乐部门提交的10万多份居民报告中,发现即使在控制了事件特征之后,报告率也存在巨大的空间和社会经济差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信