Consumers do not need to sign up for this service. Alerts from CMAS cover only critical emergency alerts. Consumers will receive only three types of alerts:. A CMAS alert will be accompanied by a unique attention signal and vibration, which is particularly helpful to people with hearing or vision-related disabilities. Such consumers will receive CMAS alerts just as customers with postpaid, monthly service will. CMAS alerts are transmitted using a new technology that is separate and different from voice calls and SMS text messages.
This new technology ensures that emergency alerts will not get stuck in highly congested user areas, which can happen with standard mobile voice and texting services.
Some phones may require only software upgrades to receive alerts, while in other cases a subscriber may need to purchase a new CMAS-capable device. Consumers should check with their wireless carrier regarding the availability of CMAS-capable handsets. Participation in CMAS by wireless carriers is voluntary. Some carriers will offer CMAS over all or parts of their service areas or over all or only some of their wireless devices.
Other carriers may not offer CMAS at all. Consumers should check with their wireless carriers to determine the extent to which they are offering CMAS. Some participating carriers are offering CMAS on some, but not all, of their mobile devices. Consumers should check with their wireless carriers to find out if their cell phone in CMAS-capable. Face-to-face communication does have the advantage, however, of allowing the sender e.
Public officials often use multiple outlets to ensure wide dissemination of messages. One reason for doing so relates to the different characteristics of the different communication channels. For example, because weather forecasts allow alerts and warnings to be issued days in advance, many information outlets, including print media, are useful for carrying messages about hurricanes or winter storms.
By contrast, tornado warnings are very time-sensitive, and so sirens and other immediate alerting systems are required for these hazards. Not everyone has access to a particular single information source; for example, not everyone happens to be watching television when alerting messages are shown, and not everyone can hear sirens.
Finally, people have individual preferences about how they want to receive information. A model for an alert and warning system includes event detection, message dissemination alerts and warnings , message receipt, and response. Box 1. Receive the warning — People must physically receive a warning.
Understand the warning — Once people receive a warning they must be able to process the message and understand what it means. Believe the warning is credible — People must believe that the source of the warning is reliable and the threat could materialize.
Confirm the threat — People must take steps in order to verify that the threat described in the warning is real. Personalize the threat — People must believe that the threat is something that can potentially affect them. Determine whether or not protective action is needed —People need to decide if they need to take action. Determine whether protective action is feasible — People need to decide if they are able to take action. Decide if you have the resources to take protective action — Finally people need to have the resources to actually do what is required.
Mileti and J. Consider, for example, the process of delivering tsunami warnings: 1 a warning center detects an earthquake with the potential to generate a tsunami; 2 the warning center transmits this information to a variety of receivers, including government agencies and the media; 3 some, but not all, of these entities receive the message; and 4 of those that receive the message, not all transmit it to members of the public.
Ultimately, some citizens will receive the message from multiple sources, but some will not receive the message at all—and only some recipients of the message will take prompt action. Flash floods exemplify events with such rapid onset that there may not be time for an official warning message to be formulated and sent.
In such cases, it may be individuals in a community who successfully deliver timely messages and prompt appropriate action. People interact and make decisions during various points in the warning process.
They must be exposed to the message, comprehend the message, and then make a decision about what protective action to take. In such situations, people also consider social cues such as whether their neighbors are evacuating or whether local businesses are closing, and environmental cues such as whether they can see evidence of the reported hazard. They may also turn to other warning sources such as radio, print, or online information for confirmation.
If the information source is not identified in the message, the message is unlikely to be deemed as trustworthy. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the public will rely on different information sources in different types of emergency situations. For example, in an incident involving water-supply contamination, the public may respond most effectively to warnings from the water utility. Similarly, a weather alert issued by the National Weather Service is generally viewed by the public as having a high degree of credibility.
In other situations, such as those for less familiar hazards e. For warnings, there is a sizable body of social science research 10 on what constitutes effective warning messages, which include the essential elements listed in Box 1. In contrast, much less is known about effective content for alerts because traditional alert technologies—such as sirens and weather radio.
Much of this section, including the information in Box 1. For warnings, there is a sizable body of social science research on what constitutes effective warning messages. These key elements are listed below. When to take action, including when action should start and when it should be completed;. Where the hazard is taking place, in order to define clearly to whom the message is directed;. Why protective action is necessary, including consequences if action is not taken; and.
Such alerts require significant public education prior to a hazardous event so that populations at risk can translate tonal alerts to protective actions. Some recent alerting systems, such as the SMS text messages being provided today by many local jurisdictions, are able to provide added content, but because they are new and subscribed to by only a limited subset of the population, there has been relatively little experience with their use in disasters and thus fairly little is actually known about how to formulate effective messages.
As a result, past research and lessons learned are not fully translatable to the question of what would constitute effective content for CMAS alerts,. Moreover, CMAS raises novel issues such as the potential advantages as well as drawbacks in providing links URLs to associated warnings and other information. Chapter 6 discusses these issues in more detail. Following is a non-exhaustive sampling of misconceptions relevant to alerts and warnings:.
Misconception: Alerts cause mass panic. As a result of this misconception, warnings are often delayed until they have become absolutely necessary, in order to avoid panic. In fact, research has shown that what sociologists call normalcy bias —that is, the underestimation of the possibility of the disaster occurring and of its possible effects—is a greater risk.
For example, consider the last time that you heard a fire alarm sound—most likely people did not immediately evacuate the building in which the alarm rang. Misconception: People who do not comply with alerts are either irrational or stupid. Research shows that alerting messages received by the public are just one type of input important to decision-making processes. Messages are not directives, and they are normally not immediately complied with.
The warning process Box 1. Misconception: Technical terms are intuitive. Terms that an emergency manager may believe to be intuitive may not be understood by a significant portion of the public. Ngo and D. Wijesekera, Using ontological information to enhance responder availability in emergency response, Proceedings of the Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense and Security Conference , Butts and S.
Shenoi Eds. CrossRef Google Scholar. Paul Ngo 1 2 Duminda Wijesekera 1 1. Personalised recommendations.
0コメント