Chapter 8:When Status Quo Becomes Obsolete:Modern Integrated Emergency Warning and Notification Strategies
owanaba
chapter_8.docx
Chapter 8
When Status Quo Becomes Obsolete:
Modern Integrated
Emergency Warning and
Notification Strategies
A highly digitized and interconnected world is one that’s rapidly democratizing power. The big media originally had an upper hand in news coverage but now social media is challenging the way the traditional media has done things. The main effect…is the change in economics and the rapid speed at which social media multiplies information.
—Nik Gowing, British television journalist1
Chapter Objectives
◾ To analyze the need to incorporate social media and Web 2.0 strategies into commonly utilized emergency notification and warning systems
◾ To evaluate the impact of mobility and portability on mass notification
◾ To consider the reliability of various emerging and new emergency notification and warning systems
139
◾ To consider the components of a strategically diversified emergency notification and warning system
◾ To understand the foundations of the next generation 9-1-1 systems
◾ To consider the limitations of modernizing emergency warning and notification systems
|
DISASTER FOCUS—LONDON BOMBINGS On July 7, 2005, at 8:50 a.m. (local time) in London, three separate bombs on the London Underground exploded within 50 seconds of each other. The first bomb exploded on subsurface Underground train #204 that was traveling between two stations. The second bomb exploded on subsurface Underground train #216, which had just left a local station. The third bomb exploded on deep-level Underground train #311. All three bombs caused significant primary damage to the impacted trains but also caused secondary damage to passing or nearby trains as well as the tunnels around them. Local emergency responders initially thought there had been six rather than three explosions in the underground train system. This confusion was caused by the fact that the train explosions occurred between stations, which resulted in casualties to emerge at stations both forward and to the rear of the train on each track. At 9:19 a.m., a Code Amber Alert was declared, leading to the cessation of the operations of the Underground train system. By 9:47 a.m., a fourth explosion occurred in Tavistock Square on a double-decker bus operated by the Stagecoach London Stratford depot. Earlier, the bus had traveled past train stations where crowds of people had been evacuated due to the earlier explosions. The explosion on the bus ripped the roof off the top deck and destroyed the back of the bus, causing witnesses to report seeing “half a bus flying through the air.” Fortunately, the bus explosion took place near the British Medical Association building and a number of doctors in or near the building provided immediate medical attention. Four Muslim men aged 18–30 were later identified as the suicide bombers. These men were unknown as terrorist threats prior to the bombing. Ultimately, 56 people (including the four suicide bombers) were killed by the bombings and about 700 were injured. This incident was the deadliest single act of terrorism in the United Kingdom since the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie that killed 270 souls. Police forensic investigators examined about 2,500 items of closed caption television from the scenes of the bombings to determine the details surrounding the event. Interestingly, the most influential evidence was the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of witnesses who reported the event via social media.2 In the hours immediately after the bombings, the British government put forth that the shocking damage and related casualties had been |
138 ◾ Disasters 2.0
caused by some sort of localized power surge. However, within two hours of the official government story being released, there were over 1,300 blog posts identifying that the cause was actually an explosion. According to one expert, “Camera phones and sites for sharing photos globally meant that the public could see images of the subway interior and of a double-decker whose roof had been blown to pieces—evidence utterly incompatible with the official story.” Consequently, due to the influence and impact of citizen journalism and the utilized social media tools, the British government had to correct the official story within two hours of the initial release.3 (See Figure 8.1.)
Figure 8.1 British prime minister Tony Blair announcing London subway attacks at G8 summit. (From White House, Eric Draper.)
The Fallacy of Traditional Approaches
Outdoor warning sirens have long been one of the primary emergency notification systems utilized by emergency managers to warn their citizens about severe weather threats or other community hazards. (See Figure 8.2.) They are based on the infrastructure and philosophy of civil defense sirens and are often distributed throughout communities based on budgetary availability and population density. Unfortunately, technology, human behavior, and social science have reached the point where sirens may no longer be capable of serving as the primary system for emergency warnings. Dennis Mileti and John Sorensen state that effective public warnings include consideration of the warning source, message content, frequency of warning, and the need for different warnings (e.g., to address multiple languages).18 This complexity is not solely achievable through the use of outdoor warning sirens and other traditional methods and therefore necessitates the consideration of a new approach that embraces new and emerging technologies.
Moreover, according to one Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, Americans spend 90% of their time inside, which severely limits the effectiveness
Figure 8.2 Outdoor warning sirens have long been a traditional public notification strategy. (From FEMA, Leif Skoogfors.)
of an outdoor warning notification system.4 This fundamental divide represents the most basic challenge to effective public notification through outdoor sirens. Although outdoor warning sirens create a “universal” language at first blush, this “language” does not necessarily mean the same thing for everyone in a given community. For instance, some local communities activate outdoor warning sirens for high wind events and some do not (even if they are adjacent communities). This significantly challenges the current accepted social science research that indicates people are most likely to respond correctly if the warning mechanism contains directed protective information and is clear, consistent, and repeated.5
In addition to the need for consistent messaging from multiple sources, Dr. Dennis Mileti, former head of the Colorado Natural Hazards Center with the University of Colorado, states that citizens are driven by four criteria. First, the content of the emergency notification message is critical with particular importance on the directed actions given to the public.30 This is particularly interesting considering that traditional outdoor warning sirens provide no protective action statements but simply provide notification of some emergency condition. Secondly, Mileti stresses that emergency warning notification messages must be repeated endlessly to facilitate effective and efficient public response.30 He goes so far as to describe the general public as “information vampires” during emergency events, noting that there is no such thing as too much information for the general public impacted during emergencies or disasters. While outdoor warning sirens are often repeated for the duration of the event, most emergency management offices do not repeat other notification methods. However, this is correctable with the implementation of emergency technologies. Mileti’s third and fourth considerations relate to the need for the general public to observe the response of others to the emergency notification and to discuss with trusted sources about the appropriate response to FOUR CONSIDERATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATIONS
1. Message content
2. Message repetition
3. Community observation
4. Community confirmation30
the message.30 This type of peer-to-peer confirmation harkens back to the theory of social validation discussed in Chapter 7 that creates some of the foundational concepts in social media. These last considerations are perhaps the most challenging to traditional methods of emergency notification but could significantly be improved through social media and Web 2.0 systems that allow for feedback and conversational consideration of shared information.
Outdoor warning sirens and most traditional emergency notification strategies are often costly to purchase and maintain by local jurisdictions. For example, an average community might have sirens that are up to 25–40 years old that could only be replaced with costs exceeding $20,000 per siren.6 Every community would also need multiple sirens to cover the entire municipal area (or at least areas identified as most populated or critical to the community). While newer siren systems incorporate increased technological capabilities that allow for better feedback regarding the effectiveness of the sirens, these systems are few and far between and do not often integrate with older devices that are still present in many communities. Moreover, because the sirens often stay dormant for the vast majority of the year there is always a vulnerability that the sirens may fail to operate or act unpredictably.
Mobility and Portability
Over the past decade—with specific focus on the last half of the decade—there has been an explosion in the availability and acceptance of equipment and technology that allows individual portability and mobility of information, services, and notification. This capability is based on global positioning systems (GPS) as well as wireless, infrared, Bluetooth, and social media technology. Notification systems utilizing this type of mobility and portability include National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) all-hazard alert radios, cell phones, smartphones, GPS devices, and many others. These systems are not only mobile but, due to their relatively small size, are extremely portable, which means they are often close to the owner rather than geographically limited to a home, building, or area like outdoor warning sirens.
The first and perhaps most pervasive of these mobile and portable notification tools is the cell phone. As the final years of the 20th century expired and a new
Table 8.1 Rate of Household Wireless Replacement (by State)
|
Highest Replacement |
Lowest Replacement |
||
|
Oklahoma |
26.2% |
Vermont |
5.1% |
|
Utah |
25.5% |
Connecticut |
5.6% |
|
Nebraska |
23.2% |
Delaware |
5.7% |
|
Arkansas |
22.6% |
South Dakota |
6.4% |
|
Idaho |
22.1% |
Rhode Island |
7.9% |
Source: From U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Study. “Wireless-Only Phone Use Varies Widely across United States.” CDC Press Room, March 11, 2009. http://www.
cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2009/r090311.htm (accessed February 22, 2011).
Note: Wireless replacement refers to the rate at which homeowners have cell-phone-only households.
decade dawned, cell phone usage in the United States jumped by nearly 600%, with saturation between 75% and 82%.7,20 Moreover, nearly one out of every five Americans—regardless of race or gender—maintains only a cell phone in their home or residence.7,19 Interestingly, this number varies throughout the United States, with Oklahoma’s wireless replacement being the highest and Vermont’s being the lowest. Table 8.1 contains a breakdown of this movement at the state level. Cell phone uses has also become pervasive across all ages, genders, and racial groups, which is critical for emergency managers to consider as public expectations and realistic utilization of modern emergency public notification strategies become more common.
One of the primary functions available on cell phones is the capability to use the common transfer protocol called Short Messaging Service (SMS) texting. As of 2009, there were more than 4.1 billion texts sent daily based on this protocol.8 At that time, U.S. cell phone users sent and received an average of 357 text messages per month while only making and receiving 204 phone calls each month. This text message rate compares to 2006 when an average cell phone user only sent and received 65 text messages per month. Interestingly, the rate of placed phone calls stayed relatively steady over that same period of time21; however, the average length of those calls dropped from 2.27 minutes in 2008 to 1.81 minutes in 2009.25 These usage statistics strongly indicate that text messaging is not replacing traditional communication forms but rather has become a sustained additional form of twoway communication.
Historically, emergencies and disasters have also proven the reliability and effectiveness of SMS texting when landlines and other communication infrastructure
Figure 8.3 Residents are lining up to get into the Superdome, which was opened as a hurricane shelter in advance of Hurricane Katrina. (From FEMA, Marty Bahamonde.) is damaged or overloaded. For example, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the cellular traffic in New York City increased 1300% over peak usage, which caused about 95% of the calls to fail due to congestion.23 However, texting has shown a far greater resiliency during the high-demand levels necessary during disasters. During Hurricane Katrina (see Figure 8.3), cellular providers released public messaging to their users in the impacted regions to strongly consider text messaging to communicate with family and friends who were otherwise unavailable on landlines.22 Likewise, based on debriefings after the response to Hurricane Katrina was over, the Mississippi Department of Transportation announced recommendations for future response to encourage local citizens to be prepared to utilize SMS texting by pre-identifying friends and family who use texting features and to practice before another event happens.22
In addition to the SMS text capability that exists on cellular phones, many cell phones have added data-transfer capability such as mobile internet. These phones are typically referred to as smartphones and are common to brands such as iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android. By the end of 2010, more than 60 million Americans owned smartphones, which represents a 60% increase from the same time in 2009.24 These smartphones are quickly becoming a primary mechanism for accessing social media systems and other internet sites. Specifically, in 2010, almost 33% of smartphone users accessed social media sites through their phones, which was an increase of 8% from 2009. Moreover, mobile access to Facebook grew 112% and Twitter 347% in the same period of time.26 Since these systems have already been established as leading social media systems for the exchange of accurate real-time information, their availability via smartphones may profoundly impact the form and function of how emergency public notifications are received by the public in the future. These systems and the impact of mobile information are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 12.
In addition to mobile phones, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supports all-hazard alert radios as an auxiliary mechanism for emergency public notification (particularly indoors). (See Figure 8.4.) Depending on the complexity of the device in question, the radio can be programmed for one geographic area (e.g., county) or multiple areas by the end user. This programming is based on the National Weather Service’s (NWS) Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME) code.14 Therefore, when NOAA’s National Weather Service distributes a weather notification product such as a watch, warning, advisory, or Amber Alert, they attach corresponding SAME code that limits the announcement to only those in the impacted area. Currently there are over 400 NOAA weather stations broadcasting to a coverage area of approximately 98% of the United States.9
Figure 8.4 FEMA assistance worker distributes weather radio to a disaster survivor living in FEMA temporary housing. (From FEMA, Jennifer Smits.)
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is another traditional public notification system that has significant saturation and is generally accepted and understood by the public. EAS is a national public warning system that requires television, cable television, and radio broadcasters to provide the capability to issue priority messaging during local, regional, state, or national emergencies such as weather advisories or Amber Alerts. It is supported at the national level by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Weather Service (NWS).36 Because it is a national system that can be activated at all levels of government, there are typically strict rules about when, where, and how the system is activated to protect its effectiveness and minimize potential abuse. Like all traditional notification systems, EAS does have some limitations, including the need for an individual to be actively engaged in the given network to receive the message. Specifically, if individuals do not have the TV or radio on, the EAS system will not be heard. This issue is further compounded by the rise in use of digital video recorders that delay broadcasts of given programming, which again delays or eliminates the receipt of the EAS message.
Although not available to everyone, these types of mobile and portable communication tools make emergency notification easier and often more effective than outdoor warning sirens, regardless of the time or location. With systems that are location static (e.g., NOAA alert radios), notifications and alerts are available inside buildings and homes where people spend the overwhelming majority of their time. Likewise, cell phones are location dynamic and are often within close reach of the individual user. Combined, the portability and mobility of these types of systems ensures the ability to provide obtrusive alerts for people asleep or otherwise distracted, which may not be possible inside homes from outdoor warning sirens.
Dynamic and Diverse Emergency
Notification Strategies
The concept of creating a more dynamic and diverse emergency notification strategy that moves away from outdoor warning sirens as the primary function is not new. In 2005, in response to significant severe weather that caused the deaths of 25 residents living in a mobile home community, the State of Indiana passed a law that required all new manufactured homes to come with NOAA all-hazard alert radios.9 Other communities have also identified funding or grants to purchase weather radios for nearly all citizens in the given area.11 Many communities have also begun to institute various forms of social media to send out emergency notification through systems such as Facebook and Twitter to reach the growing numbers of citizens engaged in those communication streams.12 Consequently, it is merely a matter of allowing this movement to shift from localized to industrywide to truly be effective. For a comprehensive comparison of the various types of emergency notification systems, see Table 8.2.
When Status Quo Becomes Obsolete ◾ 141
146 ◾ Disasters 2.0
When Status Quo Becomes Obsolete ◾ 11
Table 8.2 A Comparison of Emergency Notification Systems
148
◾
Disasters 2.0
|
System Name |
Type |
Mobilityb |
Portabilityb |
Service Purpose |
Implementer |
System Established |
|
Outdoor Warning Sirens |
Siren |
None |
None |
Outdoor Notification |
Local |
1950s |
|
National Warning System (NAWAS) |
Telephone |
None |
None |
Responder Notification |
State and Federal |
1950s |
|
|
Social Media |
Yes |
Yes |
Universal Notification |
Local |
2006 |
|
|
Social Media |
Yes |
Yes |
Universal Notification |
Local |
2004 |
|
SMS Text Notification Systemsa |
Text |
Yes |
Yes |
Universal Notification |
Local |
1992 |
|
Public Safety Communication Systemsa |
Telephone |
None |
Yes |
Universal Notification |
Local and State |
2000s |
|
Emergency Alert System (EAS) |
Alert Radio |
None |
Yes |
Universal Notification |
Local, State, and Federal |
1997 |
|
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) |
Integrated |
Yes |
Yes |
Universal Notification |
Local, State, and Federal |
N/A |
a There are many companies that provide this messaging system for a wide range of fees.
b For the purpose of this comparison, the distinction between mobility and portability is related to the dissemination capability of the emergency notification system. Specifically, mobility is based on the capability to receive emergency notification regardless of geographic location. Portability allows the notification system to be moved and reprogrammed or designated for a new geographic position. This distinction is slight but critical for this comparison.
Figure 8.5 Along with the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA administrator Fugate was specifically tasked in the GAO report to improve national emergency warning strategies. (From FEMA, Bill Koplitz.)
The need for a more robust and effective national emergency warning strategy was also established by the 2009 Governmental Accountability Office’s (GAO) review report entitled “Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems” (IPAWS).13 While the title sounds as convoluted as the problem, the report clearly identified a need for an updated overall strategy that fully implemented technology and programmatic implementations that have been undermanaged (Emergency Alert System) or underdeveloped (IPAWS). The report noticeably charged the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security and the FEMA administrator to improve emergency warning strategies through additional project development, testing, and increased project transparency.13 (See Figure 8.5.)
The first and perhaps most promising development by the various federal agencies with responsibilities related to mass emergency public notification is the development of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). IPAWS was originally launched in 2006 in response to presidential Executive Order 13407, which required the United States to have “an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster or other hazard.”27 Unfortunately, it has been plagued by setbacks over the years under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) control as the technological and philosophical developments necessary to replace the national Emergency Alert System (EAS) matured. However, by late 2010, under rejuvenated leadership, IPAWS made significant developmental jumps toward possible implementation.
One of the primary reasons for this progression was related to the development of the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) that allows for the sending of IN A NUTSHELL
The United States should have “an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster or other hazard.”
—Presidential Executive Order 1340727
text-based alerts to mobile devices in selected geographic areas without subscription services or other contractual obligations.28 The CMAS protocol was based on Federal Communications Commission orders in 2008 to begin a process to allow mobile providers to opt into a system that would allow for emergency cellular notifications to all subscribers.29 Specifically, the CMAS protocols allow for a cell broadcast message (one-to-many) approach rather than a traditional text message (one-to-one) approach, which can be slow on cellular systems (when sent to a bulk list of contacts) and equipment already under high demand. This type of directed messaging is one of the most significant challenges to modern warnings strategies by local emergency managers who have often lacked the technology, services, equipment, and understanding to implement it. If implementable as a comprehensive system, IPAWS would solve this problem by empowering emergency managers at all levels and for all hazards to provide the necessary and timely messages needed during an emergency event. (See Figure 8.6.)
Interestingly, with all the developments in directed messaging through IPAWS and ultimately the revision of the Emergency Alert System, these systems are still based on directed rather than conversational interactions. Social media allows for
Figure 8.6 IPAWS division director Antwane Johnson demonstrates the IPAWS program to domestic and international dignitaries. (From FEMA, Bill Koplitz.)
an incorporated mechanism for the distribution of emergency notifications as well as feedback for the effectiveness and distribution frequency of the message. For example, emergency notifications distributed on Twitter can be quickly retweeted across a multitude of users who may be in need or are otherwise impacted by that warning. This allows the initial emergency notification action to be enormously magnified without any additional energy or resources from the source provider (e.g., emergency manager).
In addition to the fundamental uses of social media already discussed, many of these systems allow information to be disseminated through internal systems as well as through SMS text messaging. For example, Johnson County Emergency Management in Olathe, Kansas, created an SMS emergency notification system by automating National Weather Service (NWS) products (such as tornado warnings) to be posted to Twitter within seconds by utilizing Twitter’s advanced programming interface (API). The organization promoted this program by encouraging people to follow the specified Twitter account (@JOCOAlert) by utilizing Twitter’s Fast Follow SMS notification feature. Consequently, Johnson County Emergency Management utilized the free social media tools to create a voluntary mass notification system at a fraction of the cost of commercial systems currently available.12,15 This type of efficient and cost-effective utilization is potentially a powerful tool for emergency managers to apply, especially in technology-limited or financially strapped areas.
Next Generation 9-1-1
In addition to modifications and modernization of emergency mass notification strategies, there is also a concerted effort to upgrade the 9-1-1 system throughout the United States to meet the growing use of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), social media, and texting for the receiving, sharing, and distribution of information. This change is significant considering that the 9-1-1 system has conceptually remained relatively unchanged since its initial implementation by the Federal Communications Commission in partnership with AT&T in 1968.31 Conceptually, the 9-1-1 service allowed for automated connectivity from a phone line to a central public safety answering point (PSAP) for dispatching of emergency response personnel and equipment appropriate for the information received. Technological changes to allow for caller location information were eventually integrated into the PSAP capability through the enhanced 9-1-1 (E911) systems; however, this functionality is not fully integrated for use with wireless devices. Regardless, the only integrated information available to PSAP stations and their dispatchers from mobile callers is the verbal reporting available from callers related to an event or incident. Even secondary information available from auxiliary sources (e.g., local highway cameras) is not integrated into traditional 9-1-1 systems and therefore creates an additional burden for dispatchers to perform primary job functions and monitor additional sources to make clear and effective response decisions.
Table 8.3 Comparison of Current 9-1-1 versus Next Generation 9-1-1 Systems
|
Current 9-1-1 Capabilities |
Next Generation 9-1-1 Capabilities |
|
Virtually all calls are voice callers via telephones over analog lines. |
Voice, text, or video information from many types of communication devices, sent over internet protocol (IP) networks |
|
Data transferred via voice |
Advanced data sharing is automatically performed |
|
Callers manually routed through legacy selective routers, limited forwarding/backup ability |
Physical location of PSAP becomes immaterial, callers routed automatically based on geographic location, enhanced backup abilities |
|
Limited ability to handle overflow situations, leading to callers potentially receiving a busy signal |
PSAPs able to control call congestion treatment, including dynamically rerouting callers |
Source: From “The U.S. Department of Transportation Next Generation 9-1-1- Initiative.” U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007. http://www.its.dot.gov/ ng911/docs/NG2007.ppt (accessed February 22, 2011).
These issues have led to a large-scale commitment to begin to evaluate what is often being referred to as “Next Generation 9-1-1” (NG911).32 Initial planning for the NG911 concept was started in 2000 with implementation beginning in 2003. According to the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), the NG911 concept continues to be a priority implementation for the future of 9-1-1 service delivery.33 NENA states that the NG911 concept “provides location-based routing to the appropriate emergency entities” while supporting “the transfer of calls to other NG911-capable PSAPs or other authorized entities based on and including accumulated data…including non-voice (multimedia) messages.”33 Unfortunately, to date, most 9-1-1 systems are not capable of handling the text, data, images, and video that are increasingly common in personal communications and critical to the public engagement on the NG911 systems. This conversion will be guided by national and statewide emergency communication groups as well as some regional and local jurisdictions with significant resources tied to their PSAP operations and effectiveness. A comparison of the capabilities of current 9-1-1 systems versus proposed NG911 models is included in Table 8.3.
While the NG911 conversation continues, there are several communities beginning to embrace alternative forms to receive emergency information from citizens that incorporates the social media and Web 2.0 concepts of two-way information exchange and documentation. For example, the University of Maryland has released a new smartphone application (app) that allows users to call 9-1-1 and stream audio and video from the incident to emergency dispatchers. The app uses
|
IN A NUTSHELL The ongoing evolution of the functionality and capabilities of digital communication devices has resulted in a technically savvy population that routinely uses communications services significantly more sophisticated than the 1960s era switched circuit analog telephone systems that are the foundation of today’s 9-1-1 systems in the United States. Citizens using these digital devices have a growing expectation that they can exchange voice, data and graphic information to governmental public safety organizations as easily as they do with peers, family and businesses. —Walt Way, State of Kansas Federal E911 Grant Project Oversight Committee Chairman (personal communication April 8, 2011) |
the university’s campus wireless network with an approximate transfer of 20 MB of data per minute of streamed video. Unfortunately, some students have objected to the potential use of the app in areas of campus not covered by the wireless system, which would force users to use personal data plans (if available) and be charged any corresponding charges.34 Likewise, some communities have released 9-1-1 registries where local residents can pre-register personal and health information so dispatchers can obtain background information more efficiently and effectively during emergency response.35 Although innovative, best practices still need to be developed for more comprehensive implementation.
Limitations to Modernization
Legal requirements must also be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of outdoor warning sirens versus other mechanisms. Unfortunately, this issue has no clarity on a national level but has been addressed in various ways at the state and local levels. For instance, in Griffin vs. Osage County Sheriff’s Office, the Kansas State Supreme Court ruled that “the dissemination of weather information by a government agency…is generally held to be a discretionary function,” which implies an unrestricted option to style and approach to emergency public notification. Conversely, entire states like New Hampshire have passed laws establishing statewide emergency notification systems.17 Unfortunately, disorganized governmental notification often leads to citizen confusion and disorder based on the research presented earlier in this chapter.
Although sirens and traditional emergency notification systems will most likely never be eliminated as a component of public emergency notification, it may be time for communities to reevaluate their philosophies for strategic emergency public information. For instance, are sirens the most efficient and cost-effective strategy for emergency public notification or should the location and impact of sirens be modified to outdoor locations with high vulnerability (e.g., recreational parks and waterways)? Moreover, should secondary systems that allow for mobility and portability be provided (i.e., purchased) or supported (i.e., subsidized) within a selected area? This need for reevaluation is supported by research that indicates improvements in notification lead times for warnings (and therefore improvement in siren sounding times) does not show significant reduction in fatality and injury rates related to severe weather.10 Bold action and strong leadership will be necessary to adjust this industry philosophy to become more in line with currently available technology and to continue to utilize current research and communication techniques.
Recognizing the need to diversify public emergency warning strategies to include technology based on mobility and portability will not be easy or quick. Many communities have significant commitments to the infrastructure and technology of outdoor warning sirens and other traditional strategies. However, with local economies and governmental budgets being restricted by the economic downturn, it is a pivotal time for local leadership to thoroughly evaluate warning strategies to ensure that future planning and implementation will result in the most effective strategy to keep local communities as safe as possible from severe weather and other community hazards.
In addition to the legal challenges to the implementation of modern emergency warning strategies, there are financial considerations as well. Clearly, purchasing and maintaining outdoor warning sirens is expensive, but those costs are absorbed by the community as a whole rather than by individuals or families. Because the modern strategies discussed are inherently driven by two-way or citizen-centric capabilities, any associated costs often impact the individual. For instance, the NG911 system being implemented by the University of Maryland discussed earlier potentially creates a sense of improved public safety with an unexpected cost when it is used outside their provided wireless system. In addition, according to national reports, the average local 9-1-1 service charges $0.72 per month to local users regardless of the amount of usage over time. This inherently creates a regressive tax structure where low volume users are charged a disproportionate amount, especially when compared to multiple-line users like businesses.31
Lastly, all emergency warning notification systems are also challenged in their effectiveness in reaching functional and accessible needs populations. These populations include those who are economically challenged, have limited language proficiency, have physical or mental handicaps, or are culturally or geographically isolated, not to mention those who represent the youngest and oldest generational demographics.16 Both traditional and suggested modern strategies have limitations to reach these populations universally. For example, culturally and geographically isolated communities like the Amish would refuse to allow personal notification strategies available through social media because of an aversion to technology. Conversely, traditional outdoor warning sirens would be ineffective for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. Striking a balance between traditional and modern notification strategies will be critical to effectively reach the community as a whole.
Practitioner Profile: Walt Way, Johnson County
Emergency Communications Center
Walt Way has worked in the emergency communication field for more than 30 years and is nationally respected as a leader in emergency communications and the integration of emergency technologies into the next-generation 9-1-1 approach. He currently chairs the Federal E911 Grant Project Oversight Committee for the State of Kansas, which is reviewing the implementation of NG911 in that field. Mr. Way stressed that the NG911 process began after the terrorist attack of September 11 when the public safety community identified the need for improved interoperability across disciplines and jurisdictions. When asked why the integration of new technologies like text messaging and video are important, Mr. Way reported that “There is a growing interest by the public safety community to allow the public to send photos and videos to a dispatcher, showing conditions at an incident scene with more detail than a verbal description can provide,” which includes “pictures of perpetrators or suspect vehicles [which] could be sent for immediate distribution to
Figure 8.7 Walt Way.
emergency responders in an area as well as for later use by investigators.” However, Mr. Way pointed out that there is a concern that the “Provision of such information to a 9-1-1 center is that without suitable means of verification of the sender and of a particular event, these tools could be used to feed misinformation to emergency personnel or could introduce confusion as to which images are associated with what incident.” Mr. Way continued to discuss the challenges to implementation by addressing costs and the adoption of national protocols as the primary challenges but did identify other more surprising challenges. Specifically, Mr. Way stated that “today’s Short Message Service (SMS) text messages are delivered by the carriers on a best-effort basis,” which means “there is no guarantee the message will be delivered at all…[or] it may be delayed by minutes or hours…[so that] multiple messages may be delivered out of sequence.” Clearly, Mr. Way and other leaders in the 9-1-1 community will continue to seek improvements in these systems to address the availability of technology and the expectations associated with it to ensure maximum benefit.
Chapter Terms
Next Generation 9-1-1: Public safety movement that looks to incorporate emergency technologies such as SMS texting, steaming video, and social media into 9-1-1 dispatching centers.
Mobility: Systematic capability to receive emergency notification and/or warnings regardless of geographic location.
Portability: Systematic capability that allows emergency notification and warnings systems to be moved and reprogrammed or designated for a new geographic position.
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS): Proposed public notification and emergency warning system for future development that will utilize notification based on mobile device and geographic proximity to the threat.
Emergency Alert System (EAS): National public alert and notification system that has the capability to override television and radio broadcasts to provide public notification and emergency warning messages.
NOAA all-hazard radio: National public alert and notification system that provides alerting mechanisms via portable radios based on SAME codes that correspond to certain geographic areas (e.g., local counties).
SAME code: Geographic designation used in NOAA all-hazard radio system to limit the geographic range of notification.
Short messaging system (SMS) protocol: Type of text messaging that utilizes small packets of information to improve the efficiency of message distribution.
Chapter Questions
General Questions
1. True/False: IPAWS, EAS, and NG911 are all the same.
2. Which of the following would not be considered modern emergency notification strategies?
a. IPAWS
b. Outdoor warning sirens
c. Twitter
d. SMS Text Messaging
3. True/False: Mobility and portability mean the same thing when it comes to emergency notification.
Essay Questions
1. Discuss Mileti’s four considerations for effective emergency notification with particular consideration of how modern tools apply.
2. Discuss the implementation challenges of next generation 9-1-1.
3. Discuss traditional public notification strategies versus the application of emerging technologies for emergency notification and warning.
Works Cited
1. Anil, Philip. “Use Social Media Responsibly: Nik Gowing.” Kerala IT News, 2010.
http://keralaitnews.com/state-scan/thiruvananthapuram/1717-mik-gowing-skyful-of lies-social-media (accessed February 22, 2011).
2. Storm, Kevin J., and Joe Eyerman. “Interagency Coordination: Lessons Learned from the 2005 London Bombings,” National Institutes of Justice, 2011. http://www.nij.gov/ journals/261/coordination.htm (accessed October 30, 2011).
3. Shirky, Clay. Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. New York: Penguin Press, 2010, p. 62.
4. “The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/insidest.html (accessed February 22, 2011).
5. Farley, John E. “Call-to-Action Statements in Tornado Warnings: Do They Reflect Recent Developments in Tornado-Safety Research?” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 25, no. 1 (2007): 1–36.
6. Poston, Ben. “Some Areas Lack Tornado Sirens.” Journal Sentinel, January 22, 2008.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29581894.html (accessed February 22, 2011).
7. Horrigan, John. “Mobile Access to Data and Information.” Pew Internet Study, March 5, 2008. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Mobile-Access-to-Data-and Information.aspx?r=1 (accessed February 22, 2011).
8. Van Grove, Jennifer. “Wow: 4.1 Billion SMS Messages Are Sent Daily.” Mashable.
com Blog, October 7, 2009. http://mashable.com/2009/10/07/ctia-wireless-survey/ (accessed February 22, 2011).
9. Kupec, Robert J. “Tuning In: Weather Radios for Those Most at Risk.” Journal of Emergency Management 6, no. 4 (2008): 51–55.
10. Simmons, Kevin M., and Daniel Sutter. “Improvements in Tornado Warnings and Tornado Casualties.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 24, no. 3 (2006): 351–369.
11. Lenz, Ryan. “Indiana Law Requires Weather Radios for Mobile Homes.” USA Today, June 29, 2007. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2007-06-29-ind-radios_N. htm (accessed October 30, 2011).
12. “SMS Text.” Johnson County (KS) Emergency Management and Homeland Security, 2011. http://www.jocoem.org/CIT/jocoalert.shtml (accessed October 30, 2011).
13. “Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System.” Governmental Accountability Office, September 9, 2009. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09–834 (accessed February 22, 2011).
14. “Weather Radios Save Lives.” PrepareMetroKC. www.preparemetrokc.org (accessed February 22, 2011).
15. “What Is WeatherCall.” http://www.weathercall.net/wc_whatisit.html (accessed February 22, 2011).
16. Mitchel, Helena, et al. “Wireless Emergency Communications.” Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies, 2009. http://www.wirelessrerc. org/about-us/projects/development-projects/d3-wireless-emergency-communications. html/?searchterm=wireless%20Emergency%20Communications (accessed February 22, 2011).
17. “Governor Lynch Signs Law Creating Emergency Notification System.” State of New Hampshire, July 7, 2010. http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2010/070710 emergency-notification.htm (accessed February 22, 2011).
18. Mileti, Dennis, and John H. Sorensen. “Communication of Emergency Public Warnings.” Oak Ridge National Laboratories, 1990, p. 3–7. http://www.emc.ornl.gov/ publications/CommunicationFinal.pdf (accessed February 22, 2011).
19. “Wireless-Only Phone Use Varies Widely across United States.” CDC Press Room, March 11, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2009/r090311.htm (accessed February 22, 2011).
20. Leo, Peter. “Cell Phone Statistics That May Surprise You.” Pittsburgh Gazette Online, March 16, 2006. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06075/671034–294.stm (accessed February 22, 2011).
21. “Text Messaging Explodes in America.” CNET Tech News, September 23, 2008. http:// www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/23/tech/cnettechnews/main4471183.shtml (accessed February 22, 2011).
22. “Katrina—Recovery: Verizon Explains Text Messaging Is Most Efficient Use of Wireless Networks.” Wireless News Desk, September 10, 2005. http://wireless.sys-con. com/node/128261 (accessed February 22, 2011).
23. Guernsey, Lisa (2001). “An Unimaginable Emergency Put Communications to the Test.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/ circuits/20INFR.html (accessed January 11, 2012).
24. Leggatt, Helen. “Use of Smartphones up 60%.” BizReport, February 2011. http:// www.bizreport.com/2011/02/use-of-smartphones-up-60.html (accessed February 22, 2011).
25. Wortham, Jenna. “Cellphones Now Used for Data More than Calls.” New York Times, May 14, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/technology/personaltech/14talk. html?_r=1 (accessed February 22, 2011).
26. Gonsalves, Antone. “Social Network Use by Smartphones Jumps.” Information Week, March 4, 2010. http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/show Article.jhtml?articleID=223101506 (accessed February 22, 2011).
27. “Executive Order 13407 of June 26, 2006.” Federation of American Scientists, 2006. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13407.htm (accessed February 22, 2011).
28. Bristow, Lorin. “The Impact of IPAWS on Public Alerts and Warnings.” Emergency Management Magazine, January 17, 2011. http://www.emergencymgmt.com/disaster/ Impact-IPAWS-Public-Alerts-Warnings.html (accessed February 22, 2011).
29. “Commercial Mobile Telephone Alerts.” Federal Communications Commission, 2010. http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/cmas.html (accessed February 22, 2011).
30. “Dennis Mileti ‘Social Media and Public Warnings.’” Denver UASI Presents: Shared Strategies, 2010. http://www.slideshare.net/COEmergency/warnings-social-media rev-3 (accessed February 22, 2011).
31. “The History of 9-1-1—Basic Questions.” Clark Regional Emergency Services Agency. http://www.cresa911.org/911/questions-history.php (accessed on October 30, 2011).
32. “The U.S. Department of Transportation Next Generation 9-1-1 Initiative.” U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007. http://www.its.dot.gov/ng911/docs/NG2007.ppt (accessed February 22, 2011).
33. “NG9-1-1 Project.” National Emergency Number Association (NEMA), 2010. http:// www.nena.org/?NG911_Project (accessed February 22, 2011).
34. McKenna, Corey. “Smartphone Application Will Give Campus Police a Virtual Look at an Incident.” Emergency Management Magazine, February 2, 2011. http:// www.emergencymgmt.com/safety/Smartphone-Application-V911-Maryland.html (accessed February 22, 2011).
35. Rich, Sarah. “911 Responders in Georgia Aided by Online Citizen Profiles.” March 7, 2011. http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/911-Responders-in-Georgia-Aided-by Online-Citizen-Profiles.html?elq=9c44c934d3524723b5b339e4bf3bd1b5 (accessed February 22, 2011).
36. “Emergency Alert System.” FCC—Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. http:// transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/eas/ (accessed March 22, 2011).
When Status Quo Becomes Obsolete ◾ 141
160 ◾ Disasters 2.0
When Status Quo Becomes Obsolete ◾ 21
