11^th^ ANNUAL FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HIGHER EDUCATION CONFERENCE:

FRAMING THE FUTURE

JUNE 2-5, 2008

PUBLIC WARNINGS THAT FOSTER PROTECTIVE ACTIONS

(1^st^ Breakout Session of Tuesday, June 3, 2008)

**Moderator**

Steve Borth

<steve.borth@dhs.gov>

Training Specialist

Emergency Management Institute

**Presenter**

Dennis Mileti, PhD

<dennis.mileti@colorado.edu>

Professor Emeritus

University of Colorado at Boulder

PUBLIC WARNINGS THAT FOSTER PROTECTIVE ACTIONS

Prepared by:

Eduardo Fonseca Fuentecilla

<fuentecilla7710@philau.edu>

Graduate Student: Disaster Medicine & Management

Philadelphia University

Introduction:

Communicating the risk of disaster to the public requires an
understanding of the communication dynamics that results in an effective
information transfer eliciting expected actions and responses towards
such hazard. Analysis of past communication techniques, information
delivery models of conveying disaster risks and lessons learned from
previous disaster warning experiences are paramount for public planners
in engaging the public to take protective actions towards such disaster.

Social Science research is the major source of our present knowledge
about disasters and is presented as an evidence-based practice in
delivering public warning messages. This involves an understanding on
how to help people who are in danger to: ***stop, listen and take
protective actions*** during a disaster such as terrorism, man made
events, technological events, and natural disasters. People have taken
protective actions in the form of vehicle evacuation, sidewalk and
stairwell evacuation, sheltering in place, and respiratory protection
against air pollutants.

Studies of previous "warning response" to disasters has equipped us to
recognize "What had worked, what doesn't & why, and how to apply it" to
future events. These studies included research on people in communities
([*http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/informer/infrmr2/pubhazbibann.pdf*](http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/informer/infrmr2/pubhazbibann.pdf)),
and research on building occupants
(*<http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/library/BuildingsEvacBib2007.doc>).*
Knowledge of past disasters had influenced human behavior to participate
with proactive actions following a disaster warning alert.

This lecture will discuss ten issues that influence the public's
reactions to disaster warning message.

1\. Myths

Disaster myths occur when people believe that a ***concept*** is true
but in reality is not, or when they think they have evidence to dispute
the facts but they do not, and they will not stop believing in that
***concept*** regardless of the facts. There are three disaster myths of
public warning namely - panic, KISS and crying wolf.

Panic occurs when people believe that the warning message will not
produce any problem after it is disseminated. They also believe that the
warning itself will not cause a panic reaction. Panic is believed to
occur when people are in a confined space with available escape routes
and there is not enough time to prepare & respond when warning is given.
People then react frantically & haphazardly; further, people feel that
they have to fight for their own survival during disasters. People also
think that panic rarely happens during a disaster event.

"Keep it simple statement" (KISS) is believed to apply in public warning
but in reality only applies to commercial advertising. People who are
warned become "information starved" and they seek additional disaster
information elsewhere resulting to further "state of confusion" and
further delay in responding to approaching disaster.

The Cry Wolf syndrome results when too frequent false alarms are issued
and people become immune to the warning system. , When an actual hazard
occurs, the individual response contradicts what had been drilled and
practiced. An example of this would be when a fire alarm is constantly
sounded; the individual will turn it off and deactivate the alarm
instead of leaving the building.

2\. Alert

Alert per se will not stop ongoing life activity. In alerting the
public, it is important to get people's attention. It is also critical
that the public official giving the warning signals capture the
attention of the intended audience and be cognizant that people do not
always remember the meaning of the alert indicators. Studies have shown
that people do not recall the meaning of siren signals such as wails,
whoops, tones; the state of readiness color codes such as Red, Orange,
Yellow, Blue, Green; nor distinguish between advisories, watches &
warnings except when the signals and codes are drilled into the public
such as the weekly fire drills in schools. Alerting the public is not an
easy task due to various socio-cultural restraints such as: The
economically challenged have limited access to the new technology of
warning system; People ignore the warning because they feel that they
are safe in their own abode and believe that disaster happens only to
other people (not to them); and there are sub-populations that need
different alert systems such as in hospital communities, hearing
impaired inside the buildings, visitors & "out-of-towners", and those
who speak different languages.

The use of "Obtrusive" alert system will get people's attention to
consider the warning such as turning "Lights on" in theaters and use of
piercing sounds with TV crawlers, Waking people up such as in sleeping
children & older adults and people with hearing loss & under the
influence. The use of outside warning devices is found to loose its
effectiveness if the windows are shut & air conditioner or heater is on;
further, outside siren will require 3 minutes of activation at 10
decibels over ambient outdoor siren noise level to have a 62% chance of
waking someone up.

Informal Alert system involves reliance on the notification of another
person through the use of communication devices such as cell phone, text
messages etc. This warning diffusion "among those who were warned" was
seen in 9/11 wherein people in the WTC tower learned about the initial
plane crash one hour after the event through friends and relatives.
Studies have shown that the effectiveness of an informal first warning
is supplemented by 2 formal first warnings, and this ratio increases
with the introduction of newer communication technology.

3\. Diffusion

Diffusion is defined as getting the word out through the use of social
networking utilizing various communication channels. There is no "SILVER
BULLET" warning technology that is 100% effective in alerting everyone.
Various warning technologies have different efficiencies, and
simultaneous application of all available warning methods during the
disaster event is found to have additive and cumulative efficiency in
warning the public. Studies have shown that other population subgroups
will require confirmation of the message through the use of different
technology and social networking before that individual commit a
protective action.

4\. Mobilization

It has been found that warned people delay initiating the evacuation
process upon receipt of initial warning alert. Delays in initiating an
action after being warned may be related to: first priority in locating
family members & gathering material possessions; confirming the warning
message and the need to discuss the anticipated action with another
person; and the need to talk things over with other people before
engaging in such action. Few people do not respond at all with any
warning messages. Mobilization or evacuation is influenced by the
severity of threat, urgency of the event, time of the day, and the time
required for the next warning alert to occur. Mobilization is
characterized by a curvilinear relationship between the time interval
between the warning and the initiation of action as seen in the
departure times and warning activation during Hurricane Floyd.

5\. Messaging & Public Response

Studies on social behavior have shown that people tend to repeat the
previous responses to similar events and that it will take strong
evidence-based methodologies to change that behavior. The public's
reaction to a warning message is influenced by various factors such as:
(a.) the message itself, (b.) cues and non-verbal information, (c.)
"statuses" worded as constraints, (d.) "roles" worded as incentives,
(e.) experience, (f.) belief, (g) knowledge, (h.) perceived risk, and
(i.) milling.

a\. Effective warning ***messag***e involves the following: Use of
numerous types of communication channels; frequently repeated messages
are heard better because repetition fosters confirmation, confirmation
fosters belief, and belief fosters taking an action; message content
must answer the 5 Ws of good journalism to include the what, when,
where, why, who; and the message should be clear, specific, accurate,
certain, and follows a consistent style.

b\. Social ***cues*** or ***non-verbal information*** relies on the
social dictum of "Monkey see, monkey do" wherein people imitate and
follow what their neighbors, friends & relative, or organizations are
doing. Physical cues do assist the public in confirming the risk such as
the presence of rain during flood warning. The significance of a "human
filter" in processing the warning message shows that when the same
message alert is relayed to anyone, that same message will be
assimilated differently by different people based on how that
information was valued by the individual. Overcoming human filter biases
requires a well-crafted message and well-designed warning delivery
systems.

c\. Social ***Status*** and public demographics posses a challenge in
relaying the warning message to target population. This social status
includes socio-economic (income, education, and employment), age (young
or old), gender (male); ethnicity (non-Anglo American) and acculturation
(non speaking English, born in another country). In crafting a warning
message, these social factors must be considered in order to effectively
influence the target population.

d\. Individual ***roles*** or responsibilities enhance the reception of
hazard alert by target population such as those who have children, large
family, having pets, extended family relationships, united and extended
family structure, and those that have greater community involvement.

e\. People's ***experience*** will "normalize" the warning information
that the individual receives during a disaster by incorporating their
experiences from the past disaster event to include second hand
information from esteemed individual.

f\. People's ***belief*** influences how the warning information is
assimilated by the public who tend to query the message and the person
delivering the warning during disaster event. To overcome this belief,
the warning message should be well crafted and be delivered by a
spokesperson who is respected by the community such as the Red Cross
representative, a scientist, known professional with expertise in the
field, or by celebrities such as the local newscaster, known actor or a
popular public official, combined with the alert system that is
delivered frequently through multiple channels of communications.

g\. The ***Knowledge*** of disaster facts and myths is based on one's
experiences that are incorporated into the present event. The past
experiences, the present risk information and physical cues of the
danger combined with public's natural inclinations towards the disaster
("I'm safe; don't tell me I'm not") will influence how the warning is
received by target population who are at risk.

h\. ***Perceived risks*** "during the event" are different from
"pre-event" risk perceptions. The reason people do not take protective
actions during an event is because people do not "perceive they are at
risk" and that people "perceive that they're safe" while they continue
to search for information to reaffirm that they are safe even it is the
contrary and the danger risk is well communicated to them, resulting in
"normalization" of information about the danger that they have received.

i\. ***Milling*** or Confirmation influences the effectiveness of
warning messages in eliciting a specific response. This involves making
one feel good about the decisions and actions they had made and owning
such decision as their own rather than being told what to do during a
disaster event. Milling involves people discussing the information with
other people, confirming the risk, and discussing the options that are
available to them regarding that particular disaster risk.

For a warning message to elicit a specific action, processing of
information involves the interaction of multiple variables such as those
seen in Figure I.

This general model is expressed mathematically using a "simultaneous
multiple regression equations". This mathematical equation was used in
the WTC evacuation studies during the September 11 event.

Example of some equations (WTC Evacuation on 9/11)

**X4 = β41X1 + β42X2 + β43X3 + e4**

**X5 = β51X1 + β52X2 + β53X3 + β54X4 + e5**

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

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

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

Proulx, P.A. Reneke, and H.E. Nelson. 2005. [Federal Building and Fire
Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Occupant
Behavior, Egress, and]{.underline} [Emergency
Communications]{.underline}. *Report NCSTAR 1-7*, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Available at:
<http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf>

**Figure I. General Model: Processing dynamics of warning message prior
eliciting an action or response.**

An overview of the evidence-based warning includes a message that is
clear, specific, accurate, certain, consistent, confirmed, containing
hazard information that answers the questions: what, when, where, why,
and who; and delivered repeated over multiple communication channels.

6\. Compliance

Compliance with an evacuation warning is influenced by the quality and
quantity of warning messages during the event. It has been found that
compliance is high in events that have severe impact to the community
and/or an event that suddenly occurs within a short period of time such
a Haz-Mat release, building fire, and hurricane. Issues on evacuation
compliance include evacuation of people who are considered to be in a
safe environment prior the evacuation, and a wide variance of observed
response rates from studies of comparable situation. The risk
perceptions or behavioral intentions of evacuees are not predictive of
available pre-event information.

7\. Monitoring, evaluation & feedback

Once evacuation has commenced, it is important to monitor, evaluate and
analyze how the public responds to the event. Monitoring the public
responses and activities include observing the pattern of evacuation
traffic, review of police and fire reports and monitoring surveillance
devices. Real time information gained from these studies will facilitate
appropriate adjustments in the next warning message.

8\. Destinations

The majority of evacuees do not go directly to the official shelter
area. They usually seek shelter with their friends, relatives or stay in
Motel/Hotel and other lodging facilities. It has been found that access
to the official shelter facility increases when the evacuation warning
is well publicized, involves older population, poor and low income
families, urban evacuation, individuals with few friends and relatives,
a night evacuation and evacuations involving large number of people.

9\. Warning system preparedness

***Warning system preparedness*** is different from ***response
preparedness.*** The former involves a pre-impact event, while the
latter involves a post-impact event. Warning preparedness is considered
out of date because society is undergoing constant dynamic changes.
Preparedness for public warnings remains the same, because of this
relationship; the dynamics of communicating the warning message to the
public has changed. In the past, Warning Systems followed a "linear"
communication model as seen in Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages,
Joint Information center (JIC) press briefings and fire fighters
messages in buildings wherein warning information is transmitted from
one agency to another agency culminating with the media that alerts the
public. The new pattern of non-linear communication involves the
application of technological innovations and changes in communication
practices wherein warning information is simultaneously shared and
broadcasted by someone to everyone. The objective of modernizing warning
preparedness involves eliminating the sources of past warning failures,
use of evidence-based messages, and use of modern technology to provide
non-linear communication pattern in alerting the public with the ongoing
risk. This involves centralizing the communication resources to include
a state-of-the-art ***virtual*** communication system that is dedicated,
redundant, & mutually exclusive with interoperable capability with other
communication technologies.

10\. Next steps

Major research on public warning needs a national public response data
repository, meta-analysis of existing survey data; study of public
involvement in non-evacuation protective actions; response in large
urban areas, response to no notice & short notice events; variation in
mobilization times; ending events & issuing all clears; evacuation vs.
migration vs. area abandonment; and penetration of new warning
technologies. Results of these studies will facilitate an evidence-based
guide on "how to write effective warning messages and
inter-organizational warning preparedness", develop a canned prototype
warning messages, modernized warning preparedness to include new
technologies and social and behavioral changes, and application of
evidence-based behavioral assumptions in protective action models.

Summary

A good public warning response does not happen naturally because there
are differences between people that were being warned. The influence of
behavioral differences among warned people can be overcome by crafting a
good warning message that requires warning training and warning
preparedness.