Warning systems and public response
Download
1 / 100

WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC RESPONSE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 97 Views
  • Uploaded on

WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC RESPONSE. Social Science Research Findings and Evidence Based Applications for Practice (Rev 13). PRIMARY AUTHORS. Dennis S. Mileti Professor Emeritus University of Colorado at Boulder & START Center, University of Maryland, College Park Erica Kuligowski

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC RESPONSE' - Faraday


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Warning systems and public response

WARNING SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC RESPONSE

Social Science Research Findings and Evidence Based Applications for Practice

(Rev 13)


Primary authors
PRIMARY AUTHORS

  • Dennis S. Mileti

    • Professor Emeritus

    • University of Colorado at Boulder &

    • START Center, University of Maryland, College Park

  • Erica Kuligowski

    • Research Associate

    • University of Colorado at Boulder &

    • START Center, University of Maryland, College Park


Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  • Contributors:

    • John H. Sorensen, Oak Ridge Nat’l Lab

    • Barbara Vogt-Sorensen, Oak Ridge Nat’l Lab

  • Reviewers:

    • Susan Cutter,University of South Carolina

    • David Gillespie, Washington University

    • Kathleen Tierney, University of Colorado


Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER

  • Supported by:

    • U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Number N00140510629 to the START Center, University of Maryland at College Park

  • However:

    • Opinions, findings & conclusions are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security


Purpose
PURPOSE

  • SYNTHESIZE:

    • Findings from social science public warning research for hazards

    • Do it in plain language

  • PRESENT:

    • Evidence-based applications for practice

    • Regarding the….


Fundamental question
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

How do you Help People in Danger to:

-STOP…..

-HEAR…. &

-TAKE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS FOR….





Hazardous materials and more
HAZARDOUS MATERIALSand more….







The research basis
THE RESEARCH BASIS

  • 50+ Years “Warning Response” Research

    • Emphasis on U.S. publics

  • Researched Hazards Include:

    • Natural: Hurricane Camille, Mt. St. Helens

    • Terrorism: World Trade Center 1993 & 9/11

    • Hazardous Materials: Mississauga, Nanticoke

    • Technology: Three Mile Island

    • Building Fires: MGM Grand, Cook County Hospital

  • We Know:

    • What works, what doesn’t & why, & how to apply it


Research on people in communities
RESEARCH ON PEOPLE IN COMMUNITIES

  • 350 Page Annotated Bibliography (1 page/publication with key findings) is Available at:

  • http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/informer/infrmr2/pubhazbibann.pdf


Most comprehensive synthesis to date
MOST COMPREHENSIVE SYNTHESIS TO DATE

  • Mileti, Dennis S., and John H. Sorensen.

    1990. Communication of Emergency Public Warnings: A Social Science Perspective and State-of-the-Art Assessment. Report #ORNL-6609. Oak Ridge, TN: Report #ORNL-6609 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (Available on line as a pdf file)

  • Can be found at: http://emc.ornl.gov/EMCWeb/EMC/PDF/CommunicationFinal.pdf


Research on occupants
RESEARCH ON OCCUPANTS

  • 150 Entry Bibliography is Available at:

  • http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/library/BuildingsEvacBib2007.doc


People knowledge transcends hazards
“PEOPLE” KNOWLEDGE TRANSCENDS HAZARDS

  • PEOPLE STAY PEOPLE:

    • Across hazards

  • AND THE SAME FACTORS:

    • Determine public behavior across hazards & events

    • Mathematically modeled & same equations apply

  • BUT OUTCOMES VARY ACROSS EVENTS:

    • Because of different quantities for the factors that determine public response occur in different events, e.g., warning message quality, gender & age


We ll cover 12 topics
WE’LL COVER 12 TOPICS

  • 1. Warning System Definition

  • 2. Warning System Preparedness

  • 3 Myths

  • 4 Alert

  • 5. Diffusion

  • 6. Mobilization

  • 7. Notification, Messaging & Public Response

  • 8. Compliance

  • 9. Monitoring, Evaluation, & Feedback

  • 10. Destinations

  • 11. Modernizing Warning Systems

  • 12. Next Steps


Topic 1 warning system definition
TOPIC 1: WARNING SYSTEM DEFINITION

  • Warnings Systems Mean:

    • Different things to different people

  • All Warning System Have:

    • The same subsystems

  • Integrating the Subsystems:

    • Reduces warning system failures


Warning system subsystems
WARNING SYSTEM SUBSYSTEMS

  • SUBSYSTEM 1 = Risk Environment:

    • Natural, technological, civil

  • SUBSYSTEM 2 = Detection:

    • Monitoring, detection, data assessment, data analysis, prediction, & informing

  • SUBSYSTEM 3 = Management:

    • Interpretation, decision to warn, method of warning, content of warning, channel of warning, monitoring response for feedback & warning revision

  • SUBSYSTEM 4 = Public Response:

    • Interpretation, confirmation, response, & warning others


Integrating subsystems
INTEGRATING SUBSYSTEMS

Risk Environment Subsystem

Management Subsystem

Cues

Inform & Interpret

Monitor

Monitor

WARNING

Detection Subsystem

Public Response Subsystem

Inform


Topic 2 warning system preparedness
TOPIC 2: WARNING SYSTEM PREPAREDNESS

  • Warning System Preparedness:

    • Elaborate the subsystems

    • Develop linkages between them

  • Major Goals:

    • The rarely used system will work when needed

    • Weave together organizations, agencies, levels of government & disciplines that rarely interact

    • No communication link in the chain breaks


Elements of preparedness
ELEMENTS OF PREPAREDNESS

  • Ready the Warning Players:

    • Warning plans, operating procedures & protocols

    • Warning training & exercises

    • Warning human factors issues addressed

    • Warning standards of performance

    • Evidence based:

      • Warning messages & dissemination channels

  • Prime the Audience:

    • Public warning & response education

  • “Grow” the Warning System Rationally:

    • Development priorities based on risk assessment


Topic 3 three myths
TOPIC 3: THREE MYTHS

  • A MYTH EXISTS WHEN PEOPLE:

    • BELIEVEits true (but its not)

    • Think they have EVIDENCE for it (but they don’t)

    • WON’T STOP BELIEVINGit (no matter what)

  • Here Are Three of Them…..


Myth 1 panic
MYTH 1: PANIC

  • Non-problem:

    • Never occurred after a warning

  • Actual Problem:

    • “We didn’t issue a warning so we

      wouldn’t cause a panic”

  • Panic Occurs When:

    • Spaces are confined

    • Escape routes ARE available, but

    • People think: not enough time for

      everyone to use them, resulting in

    • People must: “compete to live”

  • Even then, Panic is Rare


  • Myth 2 kiss
    MYTH 2: “KISS”

    • Definition:

      • “Keep it simple stupid”

  • Myth:

    • Applies to public warning messages

  • Reality:

    • Applies to advertising, not public warnings

    • Warned people become “information starved”

    • If those who warn don’t say enough, the public will find it elsewhere & confusion can result


  • Myth 3 cry wolf
    MYTH 3: CRY WOLF

    • Myth:

      • People don’t respond after false alarms

    • Reality:

      • They do (perhaps differently)

    • False Alarms:

      • Can be productive for future response “if explained”

      • Anger local governments because they cost money

    • Exception:

      • People ignore sirens, especially if sounded frequently, e.g., for siren tests


    Topic 4 alert
    TOPIC 4: ALERT

    • STOP Ongoing Life

    • Get People’s ATTENTION

    • CAPTURE Your Audience

    • But Keep in Mind that….


    People don t remember indicators
    PEOPLE DON’T REMEMBER INDICATORS

    • People:

      • Don’t remember meaning of:

        • Siren signals (wails, whoops, tones)

        • Color codes

      • Don’t distinguish between:

        • Advisories, watches & warnings

    • Except:

      • When signals/codes are “drilled

        into them”, e.g., weekly fire

        drills in schools


    Alerting is n t s imple
    ALERTING ISN’T SIMPLE

    • Many Isolate “Themselves” from Information

      • Some are isolated by circumstance, e.g., poor

    • And Even when Signals Blare, Many:

      • Think they’re “safe” &

      • Disasters happen to other people

    • Some Sub-populations Need

      Unique Alerts, e.g.,

      • Hospitals in communities

      • Hearing impaired in buildings

      • Visitors & “out-of-towners”

      • Different language speakers


    Use obtrusive alerts
    USE “OBTRUSIVE” ALERTS

    • Get People’s Attention, e.g.,

      • “Lights on” in theaters

      • Piercing sounds with TV crawlers

    • Wake People Up, e.g.,

      • Sleeping children & older adults

      • Hearing loss & under the influence

    • Outside Devices Loose Effectiveness if:

      • Windows shut & air/heat is on

      • 3 minute sounding 10 decibels over ambient outdoor

        siren has a 62% chance of waking someone up

    • Need Indoor Devices for Alert at Night:

      • Fast moving community event

      • Fire in a hotel


    Informal alerting
    INFORMAL ALERTING

    • Warning Diffusion “Among those Warned”

      • Always happens, count on it, & use it

    • 9/11 Example:

      • Most in country learned about attack in 1 hour

      • Many in towers found out a plane hit from friends/relatives

    • Rule of Thumb:

      • 1 informal first warning for every 2 formal first warnings

    • Informal Alerting Increasing with New Technologies


    Topic 5 diffusion
    TOPIC 5: DIFFUSION

    • Diffusion = Getting the Word Out

      • A social process regardless of technology used

    • No “SILVER BULLET” Technology:

      • Different technologies = different effectiveness

      • USE ALL OF THEM (relying on one won’t work)

      • Reach sub-populations in different ways:

        • And using diverse technologies (channels) helps “confirm” the message which facilitates human response

      • Effectiveness impacted by time of day/night


    Diffussion data example
    DIFFUSSION DATAEXAMPLE

    0.1


    Topic 6 mobilization
    TOPIC 6: MOBILIZATION

    • Time between 1st Warning & Starting a Protective Action

      • People don’t all act at once

      • Getting ready to respond delays response

    • People Delay in Order to:

      • Locate family & gather possessions

      • Confirm warning & need to take action

      • Talk things over with others

    • And a Few People Don’t Respond at All


    A view of mobilization
    A VIEW OF MOBILIZATION

    • Can Vary By:

      • Urgency of event

      • Severity of threat

      • Time of day/night

      • Time increases as message quality decreases

    • Non-linear (curved) Relationship between Time & Starting a Protective Action:

      • Typically an “S” shaped relationship

      • Here’s an example....



    Topic 7 notification messaging public response
    TOPIC 7: NOTIFICATION, MESSAGING & PUBLIC RESPONSE


    Predicting public behavior
    PREDICTING PUBLIC BEHAVIOR

    • Predictions Based on SCIENCE Work:

      • “A” causes “B”

    • Predictions Based on NON-SCIENCE Don’t:

      • What people did in past events:

        • Using a past “B” to predict a future “B”

      • Behavioral intention surveys:

        • Intentions (opinions) & behavior (actions) are different

        • Key determinants of public warning response don’t operate in pre-event surveys & aren’t known by respondents


    Factors that impact public response
    FACTORS THAT IMPACT PUBLIC RESPONSE

    • Many “Statistically Significant” Factors Documented by Research but….

    • They Vary in Importance:

      • Strong vs. weak relationships

      • Real vs. spurious effects

      • High vs. low research evidence

    • Strong Evidence Exists for What Follows


    Information factors
    INFORMATION FACTORS

    “About the Warning Message”


    Factor 1 the message
    FACTOR 1: THE MESSAGE

    • Five Dimensions:

      • Channel

      • Frequency

      • Content

      • Style

      • Source


    Factor 1 the message cont d
    FACTOR 1: THE MESSAGE(cont’d)

    • Number of Communication Channels:

      • The “more the better”

    • Type of Communication Channel:

      • Personal channels work best

      • The “more the better”

    • Communication Frequency:

      • The “more” its repeated & heard the better:

        • Repetition fosters confirmation

        • Confirmation fosters belief

        • Belief fosters taking action


    Factor 1 the message cont d1
    FACTOR 1: THE MESSAGE(cont’d)

    • CONTENT (What to Say):

      • WHAT: Tell them what to do

      • WHEN: Tell them when (time) to do it

      • WHERE: Say who should & shouldn’t do it

      • WHY: Tell about the hazard’s consequences

      • WHO: Say who‘s talking (source):

        • There is NO single credible source, so use multiple sources for the same message


    Factor 1 the message cont d2
    FACTOR 1: THE MESSAGE (cont’d)

    • STYLE (How to Say It):

      • CLEAR: Simply worded is best

      • SPECIFIC: Precise & non-ambiguous

      • ACCURATE: Errors cause problems

      • CERTAIN: Authoritative and confident

      • CONSISTENT:

        • Externally: Explain changes from past messages & differences from what others are saying

        • Internally: Never say “attack will occur soon, don’t worry”


    Factor 2 cues non verbal information
    FACTOR 2: CUES (Non-verbal Information)

    • Social Cues Help:

      • “Monkey see, monkey do”

        • What neighbors, friends, & relatives are doing

        • What organizations are doing

    • Physical Cues Help too:

      • If confirm the risk (rain in flood warnings)



    People factors
    PEOPLE FACTORS

    “About the Audience”


    The human filter
    THE “HUMAN FILTER”

    • Everyone May “Receive” the Same Warning Message, but:

      • Differences in the people who hear it result in it “meaning” different things to different people

    • Overcoming These Human Receiver “Biases” is Possible, but Requires:

      • Well-crafted warning messages

      • Well-designed warning delivery systems

    • The Human Filter Includes….


    Factor 3 statuses worded as constraints
    FACTOR 3: STATUSES (worded as constraints)

    • Socio-economic Status:

      • Having little money, education, employment

    • Age:

      • Being young or old

    • Gender:

      • Being male

    • Ethnicity:

      • Being non-Anglo

    • Acculturation:

      • Not speaking English, born in another country


    Factor 4 roles worded as incentives
    FACTOR 4: ROLES (worded as incentives)

    • Roles of Responsibility for Others:

      • Having children

      • Larger family size

      • Having pets

      • More kin relationships

      • Family united

      • Greater community involvement


    Factor 5 experience
    FACTOR 5: EXPERIENCE

    • People “Normalize” Warning Information Based on Their Experience:

      • Think disasters faced will be like those experienced

      • Inclined to do what was appropriate in past events experienced


    Process factors
    PROCESS FACTORS

    • How Message & People Factors Interact


    Factor 6 belief
    FACTOR 6: BELIEF

    • There is NO Single Credible Spokesperson:

      • STOP LOOKING FOR ONE

      • Why? People have different ideas about who’s credible

    • “Who’s Credible?” = Wrong Question:

      • Many “think” spokesperson credibility = message belief

      • They’re different & belief is what’s important

    • How to Achieve Warning Belief:

      • ONE MESSAGE OVER DIVERSE CHANNELS

      • FROM A “PANEL” OF SPOKESPERSONS :

        • e.g., officials, Red Cross, scientists, familiar newscaster, & others

      • REPEATED MULTIPLE TIMES

    • Here’s as Good as Single Spokespersons Get….



    Factor 7 knowledge
    FACTOR 7: KNOWLEDGE

    • Multi-faceted Concept Including:

      • PAST: What people “import” into the event

      • PRESENT: What people “think” based on the information/cues they get during the event

      • NATURAL INCLINATION: “I’m safe, don’t tell me I’m not”

    • Not Static & Can Change

    • Manage it in Warning Messages:

      • Provide warning information that “overcomes” differences in people’s past, present, & natural inclinations


    Factor 8 perceived risk
    FACTOR 8: PERCEIVED RISK

    • About Perceived Risk “During the Event”:

      • Different from “pre-event” risk perception

    • Roadblock to Taking Action:

      • People don’t “perceive they’re at risk”

      • People “perceive that they’re safe”:

        • And search for information to confirm that they are, and that’s what they’ll believe if they find it, not the warning

    • Moreover:

      • People dichotomize risk into:

        • Do something/do nothing

        • They don’t act in proportion to probability estimates

      • And they’re inclined to:

        • “Normalize” the risk information they receive


    Factor 9 milling
    FACTOR 9: MILLING

    • Milling/Confirmation:

      • The KEY to how warnings work

    • Few People Do Something because They’re Told to:

      • People need to think it’s their own idea

    • People Think It’s Their Idea & then Act from:

      • MILLING AROUND: talking about it with others and confirming the risk and what they could do about it

    • Before Taking Protective Actions, People Need to:

      • Have confirmation (additional information)

      • Talk it over with others



    Sequenced cummulative effects of factors e g
    SEQUENCED CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS OF FACTORS, e.g.,

    • Perceived Risk Determined by:

      • Multiple communications

      • Multiple channels

  • Milling Determined by:

    • Multiple communications:

    • Multiple channels

    • Plus Perceived risk

  • Warning Response Behavior Determined by:

    • Multiple communications

    • Multiple channels

    • Perceived risk

    • Plus Milling


  • Sequencing the factors
    SEQUENCING THE FACTORS

    STATUS

    INFO

    RECEIVED

    INFO

    BELIEF

    ROLES

    PERCEIVED

    RISK

    MILLING

    ACTION

    CUES

    KNOW-

    LEDGE

    EXPERI-

    ENCE


    General model
    GENERAL MODEL

    INFO

    RECEIVED

    PERCEIVED

    RISK

    CUES

    STATUS

    MILLING

    ROLES

    ACTION

    EXPERI-

    ENCE

    IINFO

    BELIEF

    KNOW-

    LEDGE


    Converting the model to mathematics
    CONVERTING THE MODEL TO MATHEMATICS

    • Models Are Represented by Equations:

      • Called “simultaneous multiple regression equations”

    • Equations Enable Us to Determine:

      • Effect of every factor on other factors while controlling for the effects of everything else (good science)

    • The Result is:

      • Can distinguish between what’s really important & what isn’t

    • When to Get Excited:

      • When different studies reach the same conclusions

      • That’s where we are with research on public response to warnings for hazardous events


    Examine some equations wtc evacuation on 9 11
    EXAMINE SOME EQUATIONS(WTC Evacuation on 9/11)*

    X4 = β41X1 + β42X2 + β43X3 + e4

    X5 = β51X1 + β52X2 + β53X3 + β54X4 + e5

    X6 = β61X1 + β62X2 + β63X3 + β64X4 +β65X5 +e6

    X7 = β71X1 + β72X2 + β73X3 + β74X4 +β75X5+ β76X6+ e7

    *Averill, J. D., D.S. Mileti, R.D. Peacock, E.D. Kuligowski, N. Groner, G.

    Proulx, P.A. Reneke, and H.E. Nelson. 2005. Federal Building and Fire Safety

    Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and

    Emergency Communications. Report NCSTAR 1-7, National Institute of Standards

    and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Available at:

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf


    Conclusions from the mathematics
    CONCLUSIONS FROM THE MATHEMATICS

    • All Factors AREN’T EQUAL

    • Some Factors are REALLY Important:

      • CONTENT: what the message says:

        • Especially what actions to take

      • REPETITION: Hearing same warning many times

      • CUES: Seeing things that confirm the message

      • MILLING: Confirming it with others

    • Other Factors are LESS Important:

      • Demographics (unless information is poor)


    General observations
    GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

    • Message Factors:

      • Largest impact of all on public response

    • If “High Quality” Message Factors:

      • Influence of other factors decrease

      • Ability to manage public response can be high

      • Example: Nanticoke

    • If “Low Quality” Message Factors:

      • Influence of other factors “increases”

      • Ability to manage public response can be lost

      • Example: Three Mile Island


    General conclusions
    GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

    • Good Public Warning Response Doesn’t Happen Naturally:

      • Due to differences between the people being warned

    • Influence of People Differences:

      • Can be overcome by providing good messages

    • But Good Warning Messages Don’t Happen Naturally Either:

      • Require warning training & warning preparedness



    Example message
    EXAMPLE MESSAGE RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • This is a MANDATORY EVACUATION ORDER from the Yellow County Sheriff’s Department AND Fire Authority. After consulting with the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Weather Service, we issue a mandatory evacuation order for the following people in Yellow County:

      • If you LIVE IN or ARE IN an area BELOW or NEAR burnt slopes, evacuate now. Do not delay. This is a MANDATORY EVACUATION ORDER. Evacuate. Evacuate NOW.

      • What we mean when we say evacuate is: GET OUT OF ALL CANYONS, and get out of them NOW.

      • If you don’t live in or aren’t in an area below or near burnt slopes, you don’t need to do anything.


    Example message cont d
    EXAMPLE MESSAGE RESEARCH FINDINGS? (Cont’d)

    • There’s high risk of catastrophic mudslides and debris flows due to rain on burnt slopes:

      • Mudslides and debris flows could occur NOW, and they could be large enough to completely bury homes, roads, and lives.

      • They can occur without notice.

      • The amount of rain needed to start a catastrophic mudslide or debris flow is small. Don’t think you’re safe because the rainfall you see is slight.

      • The risk of catastrophic mudslides and debris flows below all burnt slopes in all Yellow Country is real.


    Example message cont d1
    EXAMPLE MESSAGE RESEARCH FINDINGS? (Cont’d)

    • If you LIVE IN or ARE IN an area BELOW or NEAR burnt slopes evacuate NOW.

      • Evacuate without delay.

      • This is a mandatory evacuation order.

    • Plan on being away for several days and bring everything that you need with you.

    • There’s a Red Cross shelter at Monroe High School in the town of Yellow. Large animals can be brought to the Yellow County Fairgrounds.

    • If you have questions or require assistance, please call 123-456-7890.


    Overview of what s in an evidence based warning
    OVERVIEW OF WHAT’S IN AN EVIDENCE-BASED WARNING RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • THE MESSAGE IS:

      • 1. CLEAR (simply worded)

      • 2. SPECIFIC (precise and non-ambiguous)

      • 3. ACCURATE (no error)

      • 4. CERTAIN (authoritative and confident)

      • 5. CONSISTENT (within and between messages)

  • ABOUT:

    • 6. WHAT (what to do)

    • 7. WHEN (when to do it)

    • 8. WHERE (who should & shouldn’t do it)

    • 9. WHY (hazard & consequences)

    • 10. WHO (who’s giving the message)

  • AND IS CONFIRMED:

    • 11. REPEATED frequently

    • 12. over MULTIPLE CHANNELS


  • Topic 8 compliance
    TOPIC 8 RESEARCH FINDINGS?: COMPLIANCE

    • Influenced by Information During the Event:

      • MESSAGE QUALITY & QUANTITY

      • “How people respond is more the result of the messages they’re provided during an event than it is anything else”

    • Has Been Observed to Be:

      • HIGH IN: Haz-mat events, building fires, hurricane surge zones

      • LOW IN: Slow-term river floods

    • Likely Inclined to be Higher with Increased:

      • Severity of event & shortness of time to impact


    Shadow evacuation
    SHADOW EVACUATION RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • When Safe People Evacuate

      • Occurs in all evacuations (& can be high)

    • Wide Variance in Observed Rates, e.g.,

      • Hurricane Floyd: 12%-49% coastal; 26% mean

      • Graniteville, SC (chlorine): 59% buffer zone mean

    • Depends on Messages “During” the Event:

      • Most don’t include safe people in warning messages

    • Simply Not Predictable from Pre-event:

      • Risk perceptions or behavioral intentions


    Topic 9 monitoring evaluation feedback
    TOPIC 9 RESEARCH FINDINGS?: MONITORING, EVALUATION & FEEDBACK

    • Monitor Public Response in Events

      • Find out what the public is doing

    • Range of Ways to Monitor, e.g.,

      • Traffic guides (can tell you)

      • Police & fire (can call in reports)

      • Video monitors (you can see it)

    • Adjust Next Messages Accordingly

      • What you say impacts what the public does


    Topic 10 destinations
    TOPIC 10 RESEARCH FINDINGS?: DESTINATIONS

    • Most Don’t go to Official Shelters

    • Friends/Relative Play Major Role:

      • Echo shelter needs in protracted events as:

        • Relatives & friends get “tired of company”

        • Secondary hazards occur

    • Many Stay in Hotels & Motels


    Data on shelter use
    DATA ON SHELTER USE RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Evacuee

      Surveys

    • Shelter

      Records


    Some shelter use data
    SOME SHELTER USE DATA RESEARCH FINDINGS?


    Factors that increase shelter use
    FACTORS THAT INCREASE SHELTER USE RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • 1. Publicized

    • 2. Older Evacuees

    • 3. Lower Income

    • 4. Urban Area

    • 5. Few Friends/Relatives

    • 6. Large Area Involved

    • 7. Night Evacuation


    Topic 11 modernizing warning systems
    TOPIC 11: RESEARCH FINDINGS? MODERNIZING WARNING SYSTEMS

    • Warning Preparedness is Different from Response Preparedness Because:

      • Warning = pre-impact

      • Response = post-impact

    • Warning Preparedness is Out of Date:

      • WHY?: Society changed, preparedness for public warnings hasn’t

    • Here’s What Changed……


    Public communication changed shape
    PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CHANGED “SHAPE” RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Most Warning Systems:

      • Based on a “linear” model of communication

    • Communication has Become “Non-linear”:

      • Innovations in communication technologies

      • Changes in communication practices

    • Requires Warning Systems Change to:

      • Preparing for “non-linear” communication

    • Here’s What it Looks Like……………


    Yesterday linear warning system preparedness
    YESTERDAY RESEARCH FINDINGS?: “LINEAR” WARNING SYSTEM PREPAREDNESS

    DETECT

    GOV’T

    MEDIA

    PUBLIC


    Today everyone s warning everyone else
    TODAY RESEARCH FINDINGS?: EVERYONE’S WARNING EVERYONE ELSE

    INTERNET

    FRIENDS

    & FAMILY

    CNN/FOX

    NEWS

    CELL

    PHONE

    CO-

    WORKER

    PAGER

    PUBLIC

    TV

    RADIO

    REVERSE

    911

    WEATHER

    RADIO

    WHITE

    HOUSE


    The fundamental shift
    THE FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Yesterday….We Prepared for:

      • Emergency alert system (EAS) messages

      • Joint information center (JIC) press briefings

      • Fire fighter’s messages in buildings

    • Today….We Must Prepare to:

      • Manage a public “warning” conversation:

        • In which everyone is giving & getting warning information to & from everyone else


    Three modern warning preparedness objectives
    THREE MODERN WARNING PREPAREDNESS OBJECTIVES RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • 1. Modern Plans:

      • Eliminate sources of past warning failures

    • 2. Evidence-Based Messages:

      • Worded in ways “documented” to yield sound public response

    • 3. Modern Technologies for Today’s World:

      • Provide warning in our “non-linear” communication world using modern technologies


    Design out documented sources of failures
    “DESIGN-OUT” DOCUMENTED SOURCES OF FAILURES RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Eliminate Warning Provider’s Personality:

      • Believe myths (e.g., panic) & withhold warnings

      • Downplay risk as communicate “up” an organization

    • Provide Adaptable “Canned” Messages:

      • Don’t know research findings on warning messages so say something else

      • Don’t think about “ending” a protective action

    • Guarantee Repetitive Messaging:

      • Few know to say it many times


    Design out failures cont d
    “DESIGN-OUT” FAILURES (cont’d) RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Eliminate Public Confusion Resulting from What Other Warning Providers are Saying:

      • Address wrong information given by others

      • Render inconsistent information consistent

      • Focus public on best warnings

      • Give “official warning” to other warning providers to upgrade what they say


    Design out failures cont d1
    “DESIGN-OUT” FAILURES (cont’d) RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Reach Everyone at Risk:

      • Use diverse devices and channels:

        • Avoid missing audience segments

        • Reach all special populations

    • Communicate to People not at Risk:

      • Safe members of public who are near

      • Other warning providers (many are non-local)

    • Monitor Response & Change What’s Said Next Accordingly:

      • Warnings should not be “static” but an “adapted” conversation based on how people respond


    Design out failures cont d2
    “DESIGN-OUT” FAILURES (cont’d) RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Solve Technological Communication Problems with Technological Solutions:

      • Compatibility: problems observed since 1950s

      • Overload: inevitable

      • Electrical supply: some warnings go out after impact

      • Fail safe: has to work when needed

      • Mutually exclusive/redundant: more than one

      • Dedicated: available when needed

      • Customized: for special populations


    Design out failures cont d3
    “DESIGN-OUT” FAILURES (cont’d) RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • Solve Societal Communication Problems with Social Solutions:

      • Between organizations:

        • Organizations who don’t communicate routinely are disinclined to do so during warnings

        • Staff who don’t communicate to centralized personnel routinely don’t do so during warnings

      • To the public:

        • Install ways to reach marginalized sub-populations


    What s needed giving warning information
    WHAT’S NEEDED RESEARCH FINDINGS?: GIVING WARNING INFORMATION

    • Public:

      • Location-specific (customize)

      • Diverse publics = diverse warnings pathways

      • People at risk & people not at risk

    • Organizations & Special Facilities:

      • Location-specific (customize)

      • Diverse facilities = diverse warning pathways

      • Facilities at risk & host facilities

    • Warning Partners:

      • Location-specific (customize)

      • Divers partners = diverse communication pathways

      • All of them (whether you want them or not):

        • Local, regional, statewide, national, international


    What s needed getting information
    WHAT’S NEEDED RESEARCH FINDINGS?: GETTING INFORMATION

    • Other Organizations:

      • What other say in their warnings

      • What emergency organizations are doing

    • Media & Call-Ins:

      • Rumor control

    • Special Facilities:

      • What they’re doing

    • Public Protective Response:

      • Are they doing it or not

    • What the Public is Saying to Each Other:

      • Warning “informatics”


    What s needed operational concept
    WHAT’S NEEDED RESEARCH FINDINGS?: OPERATIONAL CONCEPT

    • Centralized Approach:

      • All inputs & outputs available in one place

    • Configuration:

      • State-of-the-art “virtual” communication system

      • Dedicated, redundant, & mutually exclusive

    • Systems Architecture:

      • Capacity to communicate (send & receive) over all of today’s devices


    Topic 12 next steps
    TOPIC 12 RESEARCH FINDINGS?: NEXT STEPS


    Major research needs
    MAJOR RESEARCH NEEDS RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • National Public Response Data Repository

    • Meta-analysis of Existing Survey Data:

      • Within & across disciplines, hazards, & agencies

    • Studies of Public:

      • Non-evacuation protective actions

      • Response in large urban areas

      • Response to no notice & short notice events

      • Variation in mobilization times

      • Ending events & issuing all clears

      • Evacuation vs. migration vs. area abandonment

    • Penetration of New Warning Technologies


    Major application needs
    MAJOR APPLICATION NEEDS RESEARCH FINDINGS?

    • “Evidence Based” Guidance:

      • How to write effective warning messages

      • Inter-organizational warning preparedness

    • Prototype (Canned) Warning Messages

    • Modernize Warning Preparedness:

      • New technologies

      • Societal changes since plan development

    • Evidence-based Behavior Assumptions in Protective Action Models


    Thank you
    THANK YOU RESEARCH FINDINGS?