National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24935.
×
Page 11

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Summary Following a series of natural disasters, including Hurricane Katrina, that revealed shortcomings in the nation’s ability to effectively alert populations at risk, Congress passed the Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act in 2006. The law prompted the first significant changes to national alerting systems since the mid-1990s when the Emergency Alert System (EAS) replaced the Emergency Broadcast System used for radio and television alerting. The resulting Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) would come to include the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) system, which delivers short alert messages to cell phone subscribers. (See Box S.1.) Today, new technologies such as smart phones and social media platforms offer new ways to communicate with the public, and the information ecosystem is much broader, including additional official channels, such as government social media accounts, opt-in short message service (SMS)-based alerting systems, and reverse 911 systems; less official channels, such as main stream media outlets and weather applications on connected devices; and unofficial channels, such as first person reports via social media. Traditional media have also taken advantage of these new tools, including their own mobile applications to extend their reach of beyond broadcast radio, television, and cable; many even develop their own mobile apps to deliver information. Furthermore, private companies have begun to take advantage of the large amounts of data about users they possess to detect events and provide alerts and warnings and other hazard-related information to their users; for example, Google provides alerts along with search results and Facebook Safety Check detects emergencies and provides its users with an opportunity to register their status. Applications like Waze, provide automated alerting regarding traffic situations to oncoming drivers and may also be used by government agencies to provide evacuation information as well. As a result, there are numerous opportunities to better deliver, target, and tailor emergency alerts. More than 60 years of research on the public response to alerts and warnings has yielded many insights about how people respond to information that they are at risk and the circumstances under which they are most likely to take appropriate protective action. Some, but not all, of these results have been used to inform the design and operation of alert and warning systems, and new insights continue to emerge. In particular, a recent body of research, including work funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS; summarized in Box S.2 and described in more detail in Appendix B), has examined the implications of current and emerging technologies for the public response to alerts and warnings with a focus in part on how public would respond to messages that could be delivered by future versions of WEA. Some of these results have already been used to enhance WEA, as evidenced by references to the research in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) 2016 Report and Order on WEA,1 including the key insight that the 90-character message length afforded by the previous WEA system was not sufficient to accommodate the quality and quantity of information necessary for yielding 1 Federal Communications Commission, 2016, Report and Order and Further Notice of Rulemaking, FCC 16- 127, September 29, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-127A1.pdf. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 1

quick public response.2 Through this and other research, a good deal has been learned about how people use other tools, such as social media, during hazards and disasters.3 This report reviews the results of past research, considers new possibilities for realizing more effective alert and warning4 systems, explores how a more effective national alert and warning system might be created and some of the gaps in our present knowledge, and sets forth a research agenda to advance the nation’s alert and warning capabilities. BOX S.1 Defining Alerts and Warnings Traditionally, “alerts” have been used to indicate that something significant has happened or may happen, while “warnings” typically follows alerts and provide more detail information indicating what protective action should be taken. However, the distinction between the two terms has blurred over time, as a more nuanced understanding of people’s need for information and response to that information has emerged and as new communications technologies that can transmit both types of messages have come into use. The purpose of alerts and warnings is to provide the necessary information to warn the public and effect the necessary actions that will lead to their safety and to deliver the messages to populations at risk of imminent threats with the goal of maximizing the probability that people take protective actions and minimize the delay in taking those actions. There are a variety of events that could trigger issuance of alerts and warnings, including natural hazards such as severe weather and manmade events such as terrorist attacks, active shooters, biological/chemical threats, civil unrest, and significant traffic disruptions. Alerts and warnings may be sent by government agencies, school systems (both higher education and K-12), media stations, or other information sources and sent to individuals, organizations, select groups, or broadly to the public. For example, for a hazard that affects a school, alert originators may choose to alert school administrators before alerting the community. New technologies allow alerts and warnings to be more precisely targeted to subpopulations at risk. Similarly, alerts might be sent only to those subscribing to alerts for a particular school or to everyone located in a specific geographical area. Targeting is complex; people may receive an alert even when not located in the hazard area and people in a location may receive an alert that does not apply directly to them. Alerts and warnings may be sent before, during, or after an event. The type of information needed and the population that is at risk will shift throughout each phase of an event. 2 J. Sorensen and D. Mileti, 1987, Decision Making Uncertainties in Emergency Warning System Organizations, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 5(1):33-61. 3 L. Palen, K.M. Anderson, G. Mark, J. Martin, D. Sicker, M. Palmer, D. Grunwalk, 2010, A Vision for Technology-Mediated Support for Public Participation and Assistance in Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Association of Computing Machinery and British Computing Society’s 2010 Conference on Visions of Computer Science Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-BCS Visions of Computer Science Conference, Article No. 8; and B.R. Lindsay, 2011, Social Media and Disasters: Current Uses, Future Options, and Policy Considerations, No. R41987, Congressional Research Service. 4 An alert notifies the recipient that something significant has happened or may happen, and a warning, which typically follows an alert, provides more detailed information describing the event and indicates what protective action should be taken by the recipient. The distinction between alerts and warnings is not always clear-cut because a warning can also serve as an alert, and an alert may include some information about protect measures. Technology has further eroded the distinction. However, this distinction may be important as some tools are better designed to provide what has traditionally been called an alert, or vice versa. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2

AN INTEGRATED ALERT AND WARNING ECOSYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE The development and deployment of IPAWS and WEA established a valuable new tool for public alerting, and has been credited with saving lives.5 It leverages the ubiquity of cell phones (92 percent of American adults own a cell phone and 90 percent of those owners carry their phone with them frequently).6 However, there are many opportunities to go beyond WEA to make use of next-generation broadcast and multicast technologies, the emerging Internet of Things (IoT), and the ability of mobile devices to decide which messages to present based on user needs or contextual information the device has about the user or environmental and other contextual information. Moreover, the availability of new tools and technologies will likely generate new expectations among the public. Alerts and warnings that reach people through tools and communication devices they are using and present information in a way they are accustomed to will be the most effective. For an increasingly connected population using communication media in diverse ways, any methodology that relies solely on the current (cell) broadcast technology will no longer be sufficient to serve as the primary alert and warning system. FINDING: Alert and warning systems exist within a larger communication and technical ecosystem, and government-designed and maintained systems must fit within this larger ecosystem. FINDING: A more cohesive and all-encompassing alert and warning system is needed that can better integrate public and private communications mechanisms and sources of information, continue to provide the necessary information for the purpose of preserving the health and safety of people, and have a technologically agnostic architecture that allows new technologies for alert and warnings to be adopted quickly. FINDING: The nation’s alerting capabilities, such as WEA and IPAWS, will need to evolve and progress as the capabilities of smart phones and other mobile broadband devices improve and newer technologies become available. This evolution will need to be informed by both technical research and social and behavioral science research. EVOLUTION OF AN INTEGRATED ALERT AND WARNING ECOSYSTEM The committee envisions an alert and warning system that continually takes advantage of new technologies and reflects new knowledge that emerges from events and research. In the near term, this may mean increasing adoption of WEA and other existing alert and warning systems, incorporation of current knowledge about public response to craft more effective alert messages, and research focusing on verifying technology implementation and also involve adapting existing technologies—such as new technologies for delivering and geotargeting messages—for the use in alert and warning systems. Long term, this will involve gaining a better understanding of existing technologies, exploring new technologies, and continued socio-technical research to inform the design and operation of future alerting capabilities. These near-and long-term visions for an alerting system are fleshed out in this section and underpin the research agenda described in the next section. 5 National Weather Service, “Wireless Emergency Alerts: Real Stories,” release date May 28, 2014, https://www.weather.gov/news/130313-wea-stories. 6 L. Rainie and K. Zickuhr, “Americans’ Views on Mobile Etiquette,” release date August 26, 2015, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette/. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 3

Near Term: Adopt Existing Technologies for Alert and Warnings As of August 8, 2016, just under a third of U.S. counties have registered to use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System7 gateway, the system that allows message originators to send WEA messages. As of the same date, state, or local governments had originated only 387 wireless emergency alerts since WEA came online; by comparison the National Weather Service sent approximately 2 million alerts.8 An increased use of WEA by local emergency officials could not only mean reaching additional populations, but also increased use (for events other than weather) would improve familiarity with the systems, which could improve public response times. Pending new FCC rules for WEA would expand the message length message length to 360 characters and allow the use of Web links (URLs) in messages.9 Although DHS research studied a range of message lengths, none of the studies looked specifically at 360-character messages, the capability introduced by the FCC rulemaking, or the use of URLs, which would allow a user to access supplemental information. As a result, although the new rules provide new opportunities for emergency managers who have struggled to provide useful information in 90 characters, research is needed to determine what information to include and how to best display additional information in a WEA message itself and on any media it links to. WEA was developed prior to the wide use of smart phones and newer cellular network technologies. New technologies could address the shortcomings of WEA, including a host of accessibility, security, functionality, and other concerns. These advances include the following:  Modernize delivery technologies. The immediate opportunity to modernize is to switch from second- or third-generation Short Message Service-based (Cell Broadcast) to (fourth- generation) long-term evolution (LTE) broadcast, which provides faster delivery and longer messages, to deliver alerts.10  Diversify communications technologies in handsets to help distribute alert messages when cellular network congestion or failure occurs. Short-range communications technology, such as Bluetooth and WiFi, could be used to forward messages locally, while FM radio provides an alternate and longer-range communication technology.  Support the use of location information stored in handsets to improve the precision of geotargeting by determining if a device is located within the targeted area and whether an alert should be displayed. Targeting based on relevance could be enhanced further by leveraging the ability of smart phones to determine not only where a phone is but also where it has been and thus where it is likely to be in the future.  Incorporate more adaptability so that alert and warning capabilities can be upgraded more easily as understanding of public response and technology capabilities change. For example, the software on smart phones that supports receipt and presentation of WEA alerts could be moved from the operating system (which on some phones may not be frequently updated) to a more easily updated app, which is more readily upgraded through the usual software update mechanisms. 7 IPAWS was created under the Executive Order 13407 to integrate various alerting systems—Emergency Alert System, National Warning System, Wireless Emergency Alerts, and NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards— into one modern network. IPAWS takes advantage of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), an XML-based data format for exchanging alerts and warnings. 8 Mark Lucero, FEMA IPAWS Division, “IPAWS Evolution,” presentation to the committee on August 9, 2016. 9 See https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-127A1.pdf. 10 LTE Broadcast (or multicast) provides faster delivery and supports a larger content size. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 4

 Provide mechanisms for performance monitoring and user feedback to facilitate studies related to perceived relevance (by seeking user feedback and/or inferring action taken), coverage (how many users did and did not receive a message), and message delivery latency. Long Term: Build an Integrated Alert and Warning Ecosystem In the longer term, IPAWS could be augmented so that it draws on a wide variety of data sources, enhances public understanding of emergencies and public response, and uses a wider range of potential technologies and devices for delivering messages. Envisioning such an advanced system requires exploring questions around technical feasibility and implementation and an understanding of how these tools will affect public response. However, past technical, social, and behavioral research already informs us of some of the properties that an ecosystem should have. These include the following:  Using technologies that are privacy preserving. For example, location and other contextual information can be stored locally on a smart phone and applications can use this information to decide when and how to display messages.  Assuring end-to-end service availability and the validity and integrity of messages.  Giving users as much control as possible over what kinds of messages they receive, without limiting alerting control to simply on or off.  Including metadata in alerting systems that can be used in combination with user preference to determine when and how to present alerts.  Integrating messages across communication channels, given the wide number of available technologies. For example, IPAWS messages could be made available as a data stream for private industry to use freely in weather applications, navigation systems, social media streams, and the like.  Making alerting systems device agnostic and able to support more than one modality of information presentation. For example, both text and voice alerts can be provided on mobile devices.  Reflecting a better understanding of the information needs of emergency managers to quickly analyze data generated via social media.  Using Internet of Things (IoT) devices and other embedded sensors to detect, analyze, and categorize potential events, send alerts, and potentially automate certain protective actions.  Incorporating available communications technologies, such as mesh networking and FM broadcast signals,11 to increase the ability to deliver information in the event that primary communication networks fail.  Adapting message content and format to the context and needs of the end user—for example, considering location of device, known home location of device owner, language of device owner, disability status, and other context (as selected or entered by user). These desirable system properties and goals have the potential to inform research investments and to inform future system requirements. 11 Many smartphones have FM radio receiver hardware built into them. There is potential for these to be used to provide information if a cellular network is not functioning; however, enabling this function requires the consideration of a number of technical and business issues. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 5

A RESEARCH AGENDA To realize the above-envisioned alert and warning system, additional research questions will need to be answered. Given that alerts and warning are inherently interdisciplinary—both a social science phenomenon (their goal is to change public behavior) and a technical phenomenon (technology is required for their dissemination), this research agenda includes a wide range of socio-technical questions and highlights the need for social and behavioral scientists and technologists to interact frequently with each other. The areas of research are described below briefly and explained in greater detail in Chapter 3. Public Response As outlined in Chapter 1, much has been learned about the public response to alerts and warnings from years of research. However, many long-standing questions remain, and new technologies have introduced new questions. Key open topics include the following:  Message characteristics. How message length and inclusion of protective guidance as hyperlinks affect public response, how to best express lead-time to a hazard, and how to best to manage opt-in and opt-out preferences.  Accessibility. How to most effectively provide messages in languages and dialects other than English, how to adapt to differing physical abilities, and how to account in emergency planning for disparities in access to technologies.  Geotargeting. How to use the improved geotargeting capabilities afforded by WEA and the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) best, to communicate location, determine locations of interest (e.g., an individual location might not be at risk but their residence is), make use of improving indoor location capabilities, and determine and communicate protective action based on location.  Community engagement. New tools and technologies support communications among members of a community; for example, NextDoor allows people to quickly identify neighbors and communicate with those people who reside either in their neighborhood or nearby. NextDoor is already being used by public safety organizations to educate the public;12 however, little is known about how such tools have been or could be used during disasters and after emergencies. Message Characteristics Expressing Time until Hazard Impact. Different hazards have different lead times. When too much lead- time is provided, people are less likely to follow protective guidance. Understanding how to best express lead time in WEA messages, and other alerting tools, is an important area for future research as well as the ideal lead times by hazard type. Opt-in versus Opt-Out. Current WEA guidelines allow an individual to opt out of most emergency alerts. Past research suggests that alerts and warnings should be sent through as many channels as possible, but new research is needed to explore whether receiving the same message on numerous channels might prompt people to opt-out of messages from WEA, such as third-party applications, or local text alerting systems. 12 M. Helft, “A Facebook for crime fighters,” Fortune.com, July 1, 2014, http://fortune.com/2014/07/01/nextdoor-local-neighborhood-social-network-police/. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 6

Message Length and Protective Guidance in Enhanced Media Links. Although much is known about what information a message should contain, less is known about how to best communicate this information given constraints on message length and content. Research is needed, for example, to understand public response to messages that fit into the new 360-character length, and further research is needed to determine the optimal minimum length including personalized risk visualizations and/or URL links that can elicit the appropriate protective action from an alerted population. At this point, it is unclear what information is best included in a WEA message and what information is best included in linked content. Furthermore, concerns remain as network congestion could be caused by people accessing an included link within seconds of receiving a WEA that includes a URL.13 Accessibility Language and Dialect. What technical challenges exist in transmitting messages in multiple languages or relying on the receiving device to translate messages? Are there practical limits to the number of different languages that can be supported? Additionally, key language elements such as descriptions of protective actions may be challenging to translate accurately to various languages and dialects. Research is needed to understand whether templates can be created so that messages can be automatically translated with sufficient fidelity. Adapting to Differing Abilities. A variety of technologies, such as vibration cadences and Braille interfaces, have been developed to allow mobile phones to be used by a wide range of physically and cognitively challenged message recipients. Research is needed to understand how best to customize the content and means of delivery to physically and cognitively challenged individuals. What other technologies exist to support information dissemination to differently abled individuals? How can protective action instructions be tailored or customized to support diverse populations—including those of differing ages and abilities—and their caregivers? Digital Divide. Although a large and growing portion of the population uses smart phones, there are still others who cannot afford or choose not to use them. Considering the diversity in communication habits and availability of technology, alert and warning systems will need to consider various technologies to reach individuals facing hazards. Geotargeting Communicating Location. What graphics most effectively indicate that an individual is in an at-risk location? How can visualizations be used to best illustrate the location of the message receiver relative to the area of impact? What is the best way to communicate to someone who is unfamiliar with the area they are in? Determining Locations of Interest. Individuals want to be alerted not only when they are at risk, but also, for example, when their children may be at risk or their home may be at risk. How can locations of interests be determined and updated automatically rather than manually specified and updated by the end- user? Location-Based Protective Action. The best protective action—for example, shelter in place versus evacuate—for an individual may vary across the affected area. Furthermore, individuals could be 13 Federal Communications Commission, “Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and community-initiated alerting,” release date November 19, 2015, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-154A1.pdf. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 7

assigned diverse routes to enhance evacuation traffic flows. What are the technical challenges to providing such precision? What are the limitations to implementing these for disaster response? How might we encourage use of these tools? In-Building Location. Knowledge of a person’s location within a building could be used to determine the best evacuation route or if the individual should instead shelter-in-place. Limited indoor location capabilities are already being deployed in some areas, chiefly for marketing purposes; determining building floor is a bit harder. What location techniques are emerging, and how could they best be used? Hazard and Alerting Education Very limited research has been performed looking at what makes hazard and alerting public education effective. Research to date has found current public education campaigns are generally ineffective because they are not specific enough and do not contain content that motivates behavior change.14 More research is needed to determine how to motivate behavior change as well as what other factors contribute to successful public disaster education campaigns. Post Alert Feedback and Monitoring Technology is needed that solicits feedback from message recipients to help understand better who has received alert messages, how the public is responding to the messages, and what additional information might be needed. WEA’s cell broadcast technology may not reach all phones in the target area and today’s systems are one-way, meaning that alert originators have no way to know who has actually received an alert. An acknowledgement mechanism would be a useful element as part of any feedback and monitoring system. Some information about the public response can also be obtained using tools that extract information from social media. More direct feedback mechanisms could be built into alerting applications on mobile devices, and these tools will need to be more readily available. Perhaps more importantly, research is needed to understand what information would be more helpful to emergency managers. Tools, including those that employ machine learning and other artificial intelligence techniques, are also needed to quickly understand and process feedback to ensure emergency managers are not overwhelmed with information. A future alerts and warnings ecosystem that includes consistent, well-understood, and insightful measurements could inform (and improve) response to future hazards. Such a data-driven experimental framework would be of great interest to multiple stakeholders, including emergency managers and researchers. By building measurement into the alerts and warning system itself, researchers could gain supporting evidence for findings made in lab studies (e.g., which message length is appropriate? should we include a map or not?). Feedback during the lifecycle of a hazard could also be integrated into future responses within the same incident. For example, low response rates to an initial message could lead to more aggressive message content in a follow-on message. 14 B.J. Adame, and C.H. Miller, 2015, Vested interest, disaster preparedness, and strategic campaign message design, Health Communication 30(3):271-281; J.D. Fraustino, and L. Ma, 2015, CDC’s use of social media and humor in a risk campaign – Preparedness 101: Zombie apocalypse, Journal of Applied Communication Research 43(2):222-241; and M.M. Turner, and J.C. Underhill, 2012, Motivating emergency preparedness behaviors: The differential effects of guild appeals and actually anticipating guilty feelings, Communication Quarterly, 60(4):545- 559. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 8

Technical Challenges and Their Impact Technology advances have created greater opportunities for the delivering of alerts and warnings. However, several challenges exist on how to best use these technologies and how they may impact the delivering of alerts and warnings. Delivery Technologies Today, WEA is designed to only use cellular communications. While there are still several technical research questions around cell broadcast technologies, such as the use of next generation networks, cellphones can also receive data through a variety of other wireless communications technologies that could be adapted for message dissemination. Additionally, during hazards, some cellular networks may not function properly, so other technologies are needed to deliver messages (i.e. peer-to- peer, FM radio). Battery life management on end user devices is also a rich area of research. Role of Connected Devices As the Internet of Things (IoT) grows, more devices in homes and throughout the environment will be available as not only an alerting channel but also to detect emergencies and potential risk. It may be helpful to ensure that many connected devices that have a sensory output can be triggered to provide an alert or warning. To make the most effective use of these opportunities, several questions around aggregating data, potential use of automation, which devices are best suited for alerting, and IoT devices potential role in milling. Machine learning and other artificial intelligence techniques will play a role in the ability to automate not only the sending of alerts in short-fuse events, such as earthquakes and active shooter situations, but also provide responders with better information during and post-events. Security, Trust, and Privacy A system that instructs large populations to take a particular action may represent a significant target, for attacks on service availability, compromises of the integrity of valid messages, and spoofed messages.15 As emergency managers begin harnessing information—including personal and geographically relevant information—from social media, security and privacy concerns will increase. How can we take advantage of these tools while still protecting end-user privacy? Furthermore, in a system that makes use of user-generated (public-generated) content, misinformation becomes an increasing concern as well. Quickly detecting and correcting poor information will be a valuable system capabilities. CHALLENGES TO BUILDING A BETTER ALERTING SYSTEMS Beyond the specific research topics listed above, the committee noted several challenges to building a better alert and warning systems. Slow adoption of new systems. Reasons for lack of adoption include system costs for jurisdictions and message originators’ education, but even those with access to the IPAWS gateway can be hesitant to use the system. Moreover, in smaller jurisdictions, sending alerts may be a part-time job and a person may only be active in the emergency response community during events; in the largest jurisdictions, public alerting may be the responsibility of a large team of individuals who are trained emergency management professionals immersed in disaster response full time. 15 Carol Woody, Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, “SEI Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) Research 2013 through 2016,” presentation to the committee on September 1, 2016. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 9

Limitations on weather forecasts and other information about natural hazards Agencies that distribute weather-related messages at the state, local, regional or federal levels must ultimately rely on forecasts and weather information from the National Weather Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and information provided by the US Geological Survey. These agencies in turn rely on the infrastructure that collects, models, and distributes information about weather, earthquakes, air quality, and other environmental conditions. Information provided by these agencies also supports an array of private-sector alerting services. Effective alerting depends on modeling and data collection and analysis capabilities being maintained and advanced. Ever-changing technology. Technology and communications tools used by the public are quite dynamic. However, adding to this challenge is that old and new technologies coexist for long periods of time. To reach the majority of individuals, systems must not only evolve but continue to make use of legacy technologies. Furthermore, both the technology of emergency alerts and citizens’ capacity to comprehend the alerts and use messaging functions also continue to evolve. The interaction between the developing technologies and citizens’ capacity to use these technologies effectively on a community scale is itself an issue for future research. Difficulty of interdisciplinary research and converting research to practice. Public response to alerts is a highly interdisciplinary activity and it is also an activity closely coupled to the practice of emergency management, which takes place primarily at the state and local level in the United States. Yet technologists, social science researchers, and emergency managers have had few opportunities for ongoing interactions to consider how to apply current knowledge or fill gaps in our understanding. Incentives to participate. An alert and warning ecosystem incorporates numerous official sources of information as well as numerous other information providers, such as social media companies, navigation companies, local media, and hardware makers. For example, WEA relies on cellular service providers to implement the necessary capabilities in their infrastructure and for cell phone manufacturers to include the necessary software in smart phones (although participation is voluntary, all major carriers currently participate). Incorporating these various pieces, and ensuring that information about how the system is working is shared, will be an increasing challenge. How do we encourage openness among stakeholders and encourage participation by those who operate other valuable computer and communications capabilities? *** Our nation’s ability to respond effectively to natural hazards and manmade disasters depends on our ability to deploy improved alerting systems that take advantage of new technologies, informed by a better understanding of the way in which the public uses and responds to these systems. Doing so will depend on addressing the challenges and research areas listed above. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 10

BOX S.2 Recent DHS-Supported Research on Alerts, Warnings, and the Wireless Emergency Alert System This box summarizes recent research supported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Appendix B also includes a lengthier description of each research project and its results. PUBLIC RESPONSE  Cognitive Modeling of the Impact of Wireless Emergency Alerts. Experimental research on WEAs and disasters found that individuals perceive the threat of floods differently than other types of disasters.  WEA Messages: Impact on Physiological, Emotional, Cognitive, and Behavioral Responses. In a lab-based experiment, researchers assessed participants’ psychophysiological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to a simulated WEA message.  Results of an Integrated Approach to Geotarget At-Risk Communities and Deploy Effective Crisis Communication. Research used ethnographic surveys and secondary data sources (public records) to examine the alert and warning needs of the diverse communities of the Mississippi Gulf Coast.  Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for Mobile Devices. The project utilized mixed methods (interviews, focus groups, and experiments) to compare first-alert WEAs to 140-character and 1,380-character messages and also tested 280-character messages.  Public Response to Alerts and Warnings: Optimizing the Ability of Message Receipt by People with Disabilities. The Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP) conducted research and development activities to gain a better understanding of how people with disabilities respond to WEA messages.  Opportunities, Options, and Enhancements for the Wireless Emergency Alerting Service. The primary goals of this research were to gain insight into the use of WEA by alert orginators (AOs). GEOTARGETING  Wireless Emergency Alerts in Arbitrary Sized Target Areas: Mobile Location Aware Emergency Notification. A new WEA geotargeting mechanism, called Arbitrary-Size Location-Aware Targeting (ASLAT) was proposed, and an analysis was conducted to characterize the performance of the new mechanism and to assess feasibility of its deployment.  Geo-targeting Performance of Wireless Emergency Alerts: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the public benefit and performance trade-offs of geo-targeted WEA messages using alternative WEA antenna selection methods and to identify the optimal WEA radio frequency geo-targeted areas for imminent threat scenarios. This briefing addresses these questions for two imminent threat scenarios: tornado warnings and earthquake early warning.  Exploring the Effect of the Diffusion of Geo-Targeted Emergency Alerts: The Application of Agent-Based Modeling to Understanding the Spread of Messages from the WEA System. This project took on the question of how important diffusion behavior was for understanding the value of geotargeting WEA messages.  Using RF Coverage to Improve Geotargeting Granularity and Accuracy for Delivery of WEA. Comtech TCS carried out research and development on constructing a geo-targeting algorithm that utilizes Radio Frequency (RF) cell site propagation footprints. TECHNOLOGIES  Accessible Common Alerting Protocol Radio Data System Demonstration: Gulf Coast States. The goal of this project was to create and demonstrate end-to-end accessible radio emergency alerting using Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) messages from the FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) aggregator.  SEI Wireless Emergency Alerts Research 2013 through 2016. SEI developed an integration strategy to aid AOs in adopting and utilizing WEA. In a follow-on project, SEI assessed Commercial Mobile Service Providers (CMSPs) cybersecurity risks that affect the WEA service and developed the Wireless Emergency Alerts CMSP Cybersecurity Guidelines.1 1 DHS, “Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) CMSP Cybersecurity Guidelines,” last update July 31, 2017, https://www.dhs.gov/publication/wea-cmsp-cybersecurity-guidelines. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 11

Next: 1 Understanding Public Response to Alerts and Warnings »
Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Following a series of natural disasters, including Hurricane Katrina, that revealed shortcomings in the nation’s ability to effectively alert populations at risk, Congress passed the Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act in 2006. Today, new technologies such as smart phones and social media platforms offer new ways to communicate with the public, and the information ecosystem is much broader, including additional official channels, such as government social media accounts, opt-in short message service (SMS)-based alerting systems, and reverse 911 systems; less official channels, such as main stream media outlets and weather applications on connected devices; and unofficial channels, such as first person reports via social media. Traditional media have also taken advantage of these new tools, including their own mobile applications to extend their reach of beyond broadcast radio, television, and cable. Furthermore, private companies have begun to take advantage of the large amounts of data about users they possess to detect events and provide alerts and warnings and other hazard-related information to their users.

More than 60 years of research on the public response to alerts and warnings has yielded many insights about how people respond to information that they are at risk and the circumstances under which they are most likely to take appropriate protective action. Some, but not all, of these results have been used to inform the design and operation of alert and warning systems, and new insights continue to emerge. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems reviews the results of past research, considers new possibilities for realizing more effective alert and warning4 systems, explores how a more effective national alert and warning system might be created and some of the gaps in our present knowledge, and sets forth a research agenda to advance the nation’s alert and warning capabilities.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!