Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T23:54:55.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2021

Sveta Milusheva*
Affiliation:
Development Impact Evaluation Department, World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Anat Lewin
Affiliation:
Digital Development Global Practice, World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Tania Begazo Gomez
Affiliation:
Digital Development Global Practice, World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Dunstan Matekenya
Affiliation:
Development Data Group, World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Kyla Reid
Affiliation:
Independent Consultant Toronto, ON, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: smilusheva@worldbank.org

Abstract

Anonymous and aggregated statistics derived from mobile phone data have proven efficacy as a proxy for human mobility in international development work and as inputs to epidemiological modeling of the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Despite the widely accepted promise of such data for better development outcomes, challenges persist in their systematic use across countries. This is not only the case for steady-state development use cases such as in the transport or urban development sectors, but also for sudden-onset emergencies such as epidemics in the health sector or natural disasters in the environment sector. This article documents an effort to gain systematized access to and use of anonymized, aggregated mobile phone data across 41 countries, leading to fruitful collaborations in nine developing countries over the course of one year. The research identifies recurring roadblocks and replicable successes, offers lessons learned, and calls for a bold vision for future successes. An emerging model for a future that enables steady-state access to insights derived from mobile big data - such that they are available over time for development use cases - will require investments in coalition building across multiple stakeholders, including local researchers and organizations, awareness raising of various key players, demand generation and capacity building, creation and adoption of standards to facilitate access to data and their ethical use, an enabling regulatory environment and long-term financing schemes to fund these activities.

Information

Type
Translational Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
© World Bank, 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Stakeholders and key elements for the successful use of CDR-derived indicators.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Data access approaches. Note: Mobile network operator (MNO) refers to accessing the data via an independent or franchise MNO in-country, while MNO HQ refers to accessing the data via the headquarters of a global MNO. Third-party organization (TPO) refers to universities, for-profit firms and nonprofit organizations.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Main roadblocks to successful data translation and percent of successful cases.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Diagram of country case outcomes.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Percentage change in number of trips between administrative areas in one country example.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.

Author comment: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

No Conflicts of Interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: Summary of the significance of the article

The manuscript “Challenges and Opportunities in Accessing Mobile Phone Data for COVID-19 Response in Developing Countries” gives a thorough and good overview of different types of roadblocks that can be encountered in trying to get access to mobile operator data. Despite the fact that many organizations have good reasons for requesting information from mobile operators, there are issues ranging from regulation, legal and government clearance, to capacity constraints on the operator side, and unclear funding mechanisms, that halt projects and initiatives. Even though the data exists, there is always a cost in extracting and processing mobile operator data into the right format and context. I find the manuscript to be a very good read, and it addresses a very important problem.

Quality of the paper and its suitability for publication

The manuscript reviews findings from trying to get access to data from 41 operators. The findings are well presented, and the discussion of the different roadblocks to data access is well structured and well informed through the subsequent comments and discussions. The reviewer finds the quality of the manuscript in general to be good, and the manuscript will be suitable for publication after the authors have revised the manuscript in light of the suggested improvements.

Suggestions for improvement

The following suggestions will strengthen the contribution, improve the scientific quality of the manuscript, and clarify ambiguities and inaccuracies:

• The manuscript has a focus on CDR-derived indicators, and this can be limiting in at least two ways: i) CDRs are generated by user-initiated activity, and ii) emerging OTT-apps substitute the traditional CDR-generating telco services. Hence, there has been a realization that extracting aggregated location data from the network will in general be better than using CDRs, since this will cover all subscribers, regardless of their service usage. Using network data will also recover location information that is lost due to the OTT-apps.

• “Mobility data is generated as a by-product of MNOs’ commercial operations.” This statement is valid for CDR-based mobility data, since CDR data is billing data generated by the MNO. However, this statement comes across as not fully describing a setting where MNOs have commercial offerings selling mobility data that is generated based on network location data. In some instances, this can be full commercial products and not only a by-product.

• Section 2, line 12: Remove extra space after “MNOs”.

• Country Case Study 1: The description of the use-case is fine, but maybe too sober? It is my opinion that the description lacks the preparedness dimension: it was a straight forward exercise to extract new data, and utilizing previous agreements, because of preparedness. The legal and practical “infrastructure” was already in place, along with trust among the partners. Hence, all necessary investments had been taken up front, and partners were prepared and ready when the crisis hit. This is a textbook example in being prepared – since it is naïve to believe that all the necessary parts of these complex projects can be carried out during crisis. When in a crisis, your focus should be on execution, and not figuring out what to do.

• Page 6, line 8: There is a missing reference – (?).

• Subsection 2.1.2, line 3: suggest a comma after ‘regulator’.

• Subsection 2.1.3, line 1-2: Third-party organizations “have deep technical expertise in mobile phone data usage and can provide related IT system services to MNOs or regulators” is not a universal definition for a TPO. Very few third-party organizations have the resources that possess the necessary expertise in handling and processing the data sources in question. This requires a rewrite.

• Section 2.2, line 4-5: Non-consistent usage of anonymization term. In general, pseudo-anonymized or de-identified CDR data (removal and/or hashing of fields), cannot be said to be fully anonymized. Anonymized data is by definition not de-anonymizable. Suggest “Analyzing CDR is sensitive, since even when it is de-identified, it carries the risk of re-identification.” Also, missing references x 2.

• Subsection 3.1.1: The GDPR regulation is applicable in EU, and the discussion of GDPR comes across as not relevant in a context of developing countries where GDPR most likely does not apply. Or am I missing something? Please, clarify. Also, there is a double comma to fix on line 4.

• Subsection 3.1.3, line 3-4: Remove “typical”, as data protection laws don’t apply to anonymized and non-personal data. Period. Also, remove the quotes (“) around non-personal.

• Subsection 3.1.3, line 10-11: Preparedness requires that data sharing agreements are developed and agreed upon before a crisis; and it is naïve to expect and believe that developing and signing these types of agreements in times of crises, is quick, easy and non-trivial.

• Subsection 3.1.4, line 8-9: I agree that it is a lost opportunity. At the same time, it is poor legal work when the agreements do not cover such a situation – if that is the expectation from the partners.

• Subsection 3.2: There are a lot of relative terms being used in this section, that does not enable the reader to fully interpret the text. “Thus far”, “to election season”, “is no longer as acute” are not precise. By when were 16 approvals received? When is election season? By when is the epidemiological emergency not acute anymore?

• Subsection 3.2, line 16: A better term than “estimate an ABM” is “parameterize and/or inform an ABM”.

• Page 12, second paragraph: What are relevant links?

• Page 13, line 14: “institutionalize data use” can also be described as becoming data driven. It is a very difficult transition for organizations to become data-driven due to many things: Data automation replaces jobs and managing the new data pipelines requires new and different skills.

• Page 13, line -4: “… (governments) relinquishing control of their own data.” Ownership of data needs clarification. Subscribers own their own data, and not governments?

• Page 14, first bullet point: Is the only viable solution to have access to operator data for humanitarian emergencies, to have free access to the data? Why does it have to be free? Even though the data exists, there is always a cost in extracting and processing mobile operator data into the right format and context. Hence, the premise that this data access has to be free needs to be explained.

• Page 14, line -3, -4: Merging of data across operators can be accomplished through using pre-agreed spatial and temporal resolutions for the datasets. Hence, it is possible to merge data across MNOs.

Review: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

NA.

Comments

Comments to Author: Authors have missed one key deterrent to accessing MNO data which is lack of pricing benchmarks for data, lack of business models on data/analytics as a revenue stream for Telcos. It is thus important to discuss and consider business model for data sharing as one of the key elements that is relevant to MNOs in data sharing initiatives.

It must be clear that MNOs are primarily profit making entities; as such failure of MNOs to proceed where there was a call for a commercial agreement would have rather been due to perhaps lack of funds to cater for these costs and not necessarily as though the MNOs used the commercial agreement as a deterrent/ blocker not to partner. This must therefore be represented well not to sound generic as though these MNOs that preferred commercial agreements would never or never Proceeded for this reason. Surely, if funds were available to meet their commercial incentives, there is possibility they would have proceeded.

A lesson learned or recommendation on the need for MNO data pricing benchmarks and standards or models on creating more co-shared value proposition models between MNOs and development actors could be good.

Review: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

No Conflicts of Interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: This is an interesting and original manuscript which outlines a monumental effort to acquire aggregated mobility data from 41 countries.

And I wish to thanks the authors for documenting their efforts.

Their contributions are 2 fold. 1) They document and describe often encountered roadblocks in acquiring access to aggregated indicators from call detail records (CDR), identifying blockers, and offering learned lessons. 2) They offer a vision of what could be, and how to strengthen the foundations of data sharing.

It is clear there is a lot of work behind this paper and I wish to congratulate the authors for having tried to engage MNOs in 41 countries. As such, I think this manuscript would be a good contribution to the Data and Policy journal, however, I only recommend it to be accepted after the shortcomings below are addressed.

Additionally it might be beneficial if the authors, based on their learnings, built a decision matrix which could be used by international organisations and government to decide how/when to engage in large-scale data sharing endeavours. I.e. depending on factors such as event type (natural disasters, pandemic, poverty mapping, or static data sharing), cultural factors, data bias factors etc.

Further, Fig 2 contains information about what approaches the authors tried; having some details on why/how they decided on a specific approach would also be useful.

I will let it up to the authors to decide if this is something they want to pursue.

Below, I have split my comments up into two sections, major and minor issues.

Major issues:

-------------

-- 1) My main issue with the paper is that the authors have framed it around a "deficit narrative", focusing on the lack of data capacity and ignorance from local policy makers, as the leading causes of friction in the data ecosystem. This does not bring nuance to the discussion, rather it makes it very one sided. International organisations, like the UN, the World Bank, etc., often approach these issues in ways that are closely related to "data colonialism", leveraging their positions to extract big data from low and middle income countries to be analyzed on their own servers, without involving local organisation or academic talent.

For more information on the topic I can recommend the paper by R. Abebe et al.--> https://facct2021.hotcrp.com/doc/facct2021-final239.pdf?cap=0239alaqgO6lnEe4.

As such, In think it is important that the authors evaluate and critically reflect on their own position in the system, and not put all the blame on MNOs and local governments for the lack of data access.

-- 2) In putting all the responsibility for the lack of data on governments and MNOs the authors fail to mention what actually worked in setting up the data-partnerships.

For instance, did they learn that MNOs should be approached with the promise of a new business model (selling data to governments), the promise of up-skilling their tech staff, or the promise of funding for the work?

I think the manuscript could greatly benefit with having more details on what actually worked.

Further, for future crises what are their recommendations on how international organisations should approach the issue. Should funding be offered to set up data sharing systems? Should tech help be offered in the form of forward deployed engineers/data-scientist which sit in house with MNOs, should help be in the form of tech equipment (e.g. servers, laptops), or something else?

-- 3) In figure 1, and in many other parts of the manuscript the authors mention that funding and an enabling environment (dark green boxes) are essential for the successful use of CDR indicators. However, they do not mention where these should come from? Who should fund this work; the World Bank, other international organisations, local governments, others? Further, who should facilitate and create the enabling environment, governments, NGOs?

Basically I’m missing information about their recommendations on this?

-- 4) The authors mention TPO (Thirds Party Organisations) as an effective way of getting access to data and of providing the necessary technical capacity for the aggregation of indicators. Here, I’m missing the learnings from this? Have the authors worked with TPOs and how did they identify which TPOs to work with?

More importantly, are there any ethical dilemmas of working with third parties? Here, I’m especially thinking of for-profit TPOs.

-- 5) The paper is very light on references and the authors need to better document their claims.

For example, on page 8 paragraph 3, the authors write: "The good news is that there is authoritative literature about how to address possible bias in CDR data." but never reference any studies to back up this claim.

Further, again on the same page the authors write: "There is variability in ownership of phones among different demographic groups as well as potential geographic differences, both of which affect the representativeness of the data. Second, there are some phone usage behaviors that present challenges: for example, in some countries, it is well known that people use more than one sim-card with a single device - this is problematic when determining the number of unique users.", but without a referencing any studies.

Throughout the manuscript there are many other such examples; I would like the authors to add additional references to back up their argumentation.

Minor issues:

-------------

1. There are issues with citations on pages 6 and 7, please fix them.

2. Fig. 2 shows what channels the authors tried to get data access from, however, it does not contain any information about which approaches worked/were successful? Was it TPOs, MNOs, MNO HQs?

3. The authors mention there needs to be investment in establishing best practices for evaluating privacy, human rights, and associated risks. I’m not sure if the authors are aware but these things already exist. For instance, UN Global Pulse has released a document with general guidance on data privacy, data protection and data ethics. concerning the us of big data, collected in real time by private sector entities as part of their business offering, see more here --> https://unsdg.un.org/resources/data-privacy-ethics-and-protection-guidance-note-big-data-achievement-2030-agenda.

Recommendation: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R1/PR7

Comments

Dear editors,

We thank you for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, and for the very helpful comments from the reviewers. We have included responses to each reviewer comment, and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope you will agree that the revisions have improved the paper.

Sincerely,

Sveta Milusheva, on behalf of the research team

Recommendation: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Challenges and opportunities in accessing mobile phone data for COVID-19 response in developing countries — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.