S4SCON 2019 Augmenting Alert and Warning with Social Media
•
0 likes•159 views
This document discusses augmenting alert and warning systems with social media. It summarizes the existing alert and warning landscape including Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs), state and local alert systems, and future technologies. It provides recommendations from social science research to improve alerts, including using fear motivation but not for preparedness, confirming information through "milling" or discussion, using longer messages and sequential messaging, including images and maps, and leveraging trusted community influencers. The goal is to maximize public receipt and response to emergency messages.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Similar to S4SCON 2019 Augmenting Alert and Warning with Social Media
Similar to S4SCON 2019 Augmenting Alert and Warning with Social Media (20)
More from Mary Jo Flynn, MS, CEM
More from Mary Jo Flynn, MS, CEM (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (13)
S4SCON 2019 Augmenting Alert and Warning with Social Media
- 1. Augmenting Alert and Warning with Social Media Mary Jo Flynn-Nevins Emergency Operations Coordinator Sacramento OES MaryJoFly
- 2. The Alert and Warning Landscape WHAT SYSTEMS EXIST
- 4. Who can send a WEA? • Collaborative Operating Group (COG) identified • Designated Official for Public Alerting approves application • The person who signs the MOA is ultimately responsible for how the organization accesses and uses IPAWS-OPEN
- 5. WEA Features
- 6. State and Local Alert Systems
- 7. Future Technologies AWARN Alliance
- 8. The Process MAXIMIZING RECEIPT OF YOUR MESSAGE
- 9. Alert Origination Credit: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Alerts, Warnings, and Notifications (AWN) Working Group
- 10. Public Response Credit: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Alerts, Warnings, and Notifications (AWN) Working Group
- 12. Overcome Delays • Write out messaging in advance like bit.ly/PreScript • Utilize templates within software • Reduce chain of approvals • Build your library of guidance images which is preferable to an alert without an image
- 13. Elements of an effective warning message Credit: Dr. Denis Miletti, 2018 FEMA PrepTalk: Modernizing Public Warning Messages
- 14. Social Science Recommendations IMPROVING ALERT & WARNING
- 15. The Role of Fear • Fear is motivating for warnings, but not effective for preparedness messaging • Knowing what to do, when and how • Believing they are the one at risk • People take action when • They know what to do • Think it will work • Know someone who did it Wood, 2019, Bay Area Mass Notification Seminar: Creating Evidence-Based and Actionable Alert Messages
- 16. Confirmation Process or "Milling" • Believe information • Making messages personal increased response • For example, "This Area" is overused as a descriptor, but is not personalized • Be specific with location, features, or landmarks • Maps that show the affected area along with their personal location are the best
- 17. Longer Messages • Research shows that longer messages were superior to reducing the time of milling • Longer messages help people understand what they should do or what protective action to take • Sequential messaging is as effective as long messages • Complete Facebook posts, Twitter Threads and adding links to websites are effective Wood, 2018, Bay Area Mass Notification Seminar: Using Evidence to Create Effective Alert Messages
- 18. Include Images • People must perceive that the threat includes or is about them • Include familiar landmarks and locations • Visuals and pictographs can help those with Low English Proficiency (LEP) and understanding • When the bandwith is available, nothing is as powerful as live video
- 19. Influencers Matter in Disaster • People are more likely to follow the recommended actions when someone they know takes action themselves
- 20. Process Example
Editor's Notes
- While we all know social media has an impact on alert and warning, it is not seen as an official mechanism for distributing alerts or warnings to the public. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is a technological language – Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and dictates how messages will be sent and received. Various government entities have access to alert and warning systems including Wireless Emergency Alert System (WEA)
- WEAs currently have a 90 character limit. They are to be expanded to 360 characters, however, the deadline of May 1, 2019 and this has been indefinitely delayed. Additionally, expected changes include notifying to 1/10th of a mile, and including Spanish-language alert messages. While social media, especially platforms like twitter, can extend worldwide, WEAs are intended to be hyper-local. When the Alert Originator draws a polygon of the messaged area, the polygon must capture at least one cell tower to make the message effective. Ideally, for this hyper-local messaging type, it is most effective when it alerts the intended audience, and not audiences too far away from the primary affected region. This is known as bleed-over when the polygon is draw, but captures a cell tower that has a far range. Social media can help to clarify who the intended audience is and what protective action to take.
- Often called Reverse 9-1-1 systems Can send email, SMS Text and a phone call Requires the public to subscribe Can send directly to social media Some social media like tools, line Nixel, allow for more frequent and casual messaging of audiences. However, unlike WEA, the recipient has to take an active role in subscribing and wanting to engage with this messaging. The benefits of this system are more controlled geolocation, as the subscriber uploads addresses of interest. Some systems have associated apps that may utilize geolocation to alert the device without the subscription, but the user must still actively download the app and allow it to read the geolocation of the phone.
- While we all know social media has an impact on alert and warning, it is not seen as an official mechanism for distributing alerts or warnings to the public. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is a technological language – Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and dictates how messages will be sent and received. Various government entities have access to alert and warning systems including Wireless Emergency Alert System (WEA)
- Cycle of Warning: Alert Origination The Alert Origination graphic and supplemental text provides simple, easy to understand, step-by-step details of what happens when an incident occurs and AWN are sent to the public. The cycle begins with the On Ramp and getting capable (in blue). As an incident begins, alert originators enter The Main Loop (in green) and begin the process of distributing a warning message. The outside circles (in orange) represent factors that should be kept in mind throughout the process. After the incident ends, it is important to Close Out and perform updates and reviews.
- The Public Response graphic and supplemental text comprehensively outline the interaction of the public with AWN when an incident occurs.. The cycle begins with Citizen Education and Awareness (in blue) before an incident begins. The Public Loop (in green) details the steps the public takes once they have received an AWN. The outside circles (in orange) show additional information about what the public is doing during each step. The cycle ends when the incident ends and follow up information is sent.
- With each of those elements in any warning process, there are built in delays. These delays are true for all warning messages, inclusive of social media, and why many of us work too hard to build trust in our organization to reduce approvals of messages and be granted some form of autonomy. Once a hazard is identified, a delay happens in the issuance of a warning to the public. That could be from getting additional situational awareness from field responders to alert originators, often dispatchers, who will make the notification. Some of these processes have been standardized, like active shooters, while others like wildfire take more effort in identifying the hazard, and the potential effected population. Especially when a WEA is used, the alert originator may even artificially delay to confirm the message before it goes out since incidents in the media have caused some unease about issuing warnings. Once the warning is issued there is a technological delay. Even when the alert goes out simultaneously, the person must be available, capable, and willing to receive the message. Is their phone or radio actually on to receive it? This is true of social media which adds in a layer of noise. Finally, once someone receives the message, they are usually compliant, but they must believe it is about them and have the capability to perform the protective action.
- Not all maps are created equal
- Research studies indicate that longer messages are better at reducing milling and improving understanding Sequential messaging is as effective as long messaging Twitter Thread Be careful using maps. Poor maps can actually cause more confusion. Maps are best when people know where they are in relation to the threat. Longer messages do a better job in terms of increased interpretation, decreased milling, and enhanced public protective action-taking responses ▪ In other words, longer messages help people better understand what they should do/what protective action they should take • There was a favorable response to sequential messaging (e.g., sending multiple messages in a row) • Both long and sequential messages are equally more effective than shorter single messages