Warnings and Communications Track

2008 Natural Hazards Research and Applications Workshop

Communicating Flood Risk – Behind the Levees

Moderator
Mary Jo Vrem, FEMA
Panelists
Eelco H. Dykstra, George Washington University Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management
Gerald E. Galloway, University of Maryland; Kamer Davis, JWT/FEMA FloodSmart Program
Larry S. Buss, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Recorder
Bob Goldhammer, Dewberry & Davis

Summary
Ms. Vrem opened the session with a comment that there are a lot of misconceptions when trying to communicate with people who do not want to listen. She asked the panelists to focus their comments on that problem.

Mr. Galloway identified what he called the seven principles of communicating flood risk. They are: 

  1. Communicate multiple ways
  2. Understand that people respond differently during periods of high stress
  3. Consider the probability of the event against the values of the citizenry
  4. Recognize and address anger and fear
  5. Acknowledge the uncertainty of the hazard
  6. Explain technical information
  7. Be proactive in dealing with the media

Ms. Davis said the challenge is in marketing flood insurance either as a benefit (financial protection) or a requirement. Flood hazard-related public relations must use broadcast media, Web sites, direct mail, and any other means to get the word out. There has been a 25 percent increase in the number of flood insurance policies during the past four years, but this growth has been overall and not in areas of specific concern, such as behind the levees where most people are in denial or unaware of the need for insurance.

Of those in flood hazard areas required to maintain flood insurance in the amount of their mortgage, only 25 percent of households have actually done so. Less than 1 percent of other people have flood insurance. After the 1993 flood, there was a temporary increase of 2,000 policies, but now that number is lower. Scientific explanations of the threat are not sufficient to get people to take action, Ms. Davis said. People are unable to distinguish between “needed” and “required” in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) language and they wrongly assume that if it is not required, then it is not needed. People living behind levees can get lulled into a false sense of security because they don’t realize that levees can fail or be overtopped.

Ms. Davis believes there are three groups of people living in flood-prone areas—compliant, defiant, and self-reliant. The last group is actually the best target for flood insurance marketing since some will buy insurance if they can be convinced of its necessity. FloodSmart could provide a toolkit for local officials to use when talking to community groups.

Mr. Buss gave an F to communication efforts so far. He felt flood damages are beating the nation and levees are being built too low or in the wrong places. Those focused on short-term political and economic gains compound this situation by telling people they’re safe. Mr. Buss feels levees should only be built to protect existing development. Self-responsibility has decreased and that trend must be reversed. We must also educate politicians, the public, and those who make land-use decisions. He suggested that a “No Flood Risk by 2050” campaign be started and that it could be supported by conducting flood forensics after each event—identifying trends in damage, deaths, expense, relocation, and development. The goal would be building levees to handle the need instead of allowing people to avoid buying flood insurance by building them to the 100-year flood level.

Mr. Dykstra commented that increased analysis has caused people to discount the risk. He stressed the importance of communicating a clear message to educate people. In The Netherlands, where 65 percent of the land is below sea level, people understand there is high probability and high impact. This has spurred the construction of a massive system of dikes to protect the country.

Strong leadership is needed in Congress, where the Senate and House of Representatives are at odds on potential legislation.

The session closed with a brief discussion on recommendations from a recent levee workshop and talk of developing methods that more clearly demonstrate threat of living in at-risk areas.

Return to list

Warning and Communication as Social Processes

Moderator
Eve Gruntfest, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Panelists
Isabelle Ruin, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Mary Hayden, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Craig Schmidt, National Weather Service
Recorder
Lisa Howison, University of Delaware Disaster Research Center

Summary
Moderator Eve Gruntfest posed these questions to the panelists:

  • How might warning systems become a part of individual livelihoods and contribute to society?
  • What everyday social factors encourage or limit the development of interoperable and functional disaster communications between response organizations?
  • Are there recent successful public awareness campaigns in hazards and public health that provide useful examples for other agencies? Offer specific examples of lessons learned and recommendations for effectively communicating risk to prompt timely and appropriate responses. Are there guidelines to follow or pitfalls to avoid?
  • What are some recent findings regarding social vulnerability to hazards and how can public, private, and non-governmental partners work together to offer new programs that reduce public vulnerability? Share some examples of suggested or actual collaborations.

Mary Hayden opened the session by outlining facets of successful public health campaigns. She stressed planning ahead and anticipating problems, which require local knowledge of risks, hazards, and demographics. Response plans should include capacity-building aspects that would empower residents and emergency professionals to reduce risks. Effective communication of these plans, however, is impossible if the information is not perceived as credible. Emergency planners should be empathetic; familiar with prominent community leaders and organizations; and, above all, respectful of their audience. This type of communication requires in-depth, grounded local knowledge.

Hayden participated in a public health campaign that illustrated these points. In order to raise awareness about and prevent West Nile virus among Hispanics in California, Hayden teamed with the Center for Disease Control to create a “photo-novela” demonstrating risk-reducing actions. Several field tests revealed misunderstandings that reduced the tool’s effectiveness. Revisions based on these findings led to a product that effectively communicated steps to avoid contracting West Nile.

Isabelle Ruin discussed her research on flash flood alerts in France. She found reaction to warnings was a “step-wise” process involving both internal (personalization, understanding) and external (onset, type of event) factors. She and her team conducted qualitative and quantitative research into resident responses to flood warnings. They found cars were perceived as secure transportation during flooding and that familiar routes also were viewed as safe. Armed with this knowledge, her team was able to aid emergency managers in creating warnings that targeted these beliefs. Additionally, they formulated messages about where and how to retrieve children from school, another widespread public concern. Acknowledging social and familial obligations lent credibility to warning messages.

Craig Schmidt discussed the integration of warning systems and end-users as a way to foster effective communication. As part of the WAS*IS movement to incorporate social science studies into emergency communications, he researched excessive heat alerts across several regions. He found accounting for community-level variations such as humidity levels, urban and rural differences, and specific vulnerable populations led to improved outcomes. In another study, his team found the timing of a winter weather alert was central to eliciting appropriate public responses. Studying impacts at the community level helped emergency managers “calibrate” their messages to more effectively reach their audience.

Questions and comments from workshop attendees centered on two broad themes:  communications issues and planning and outreach. False alarms, also known as “events with no impact,” were major concerns—too many alerts could foster apathy, but failure to issue a warning could severely reduce an agency’s credibility. Panelists agreed there is need for further research into the impact of false alarms on warning interpretation. Also discussed were language use and the perceived difference between a “watch” and a “warning”: a watch could be disregarded and end-users might miss an opportunity to take protective action. Sensationalized media broadcasts were said to have similar effects. Again, panelists emphasized the importance of interaction with end-users in order to maintain community-level relevance.

A second area of concern was planning and outreach efforts. As with communications, panelists stressed the importance of familiarity with the end-user population. Effective outreach required specialized knowledge of local vulnerable populations and how to reach them. An audience member remarked maps might be ineffective due to a dearth of map-reading skills among the public (see Streeter and Vitello 1986). Schmidt explained the National Weather Service’s Storm Ready Program encouraged forecasters and broadcasters to take emergency management classes. This information fostered strategic communications that balanced accuracy, uncertainty, and credibility. Panelists emphatically agreed on the importance of continual involvement and research at the community level.

Return to list

Disaster Strikes, City in Flames! News at 11

Moderator:
Lee Wilkins, University of Missouri School of Journalism
Panelists:
Shawn Patrick, 9News
Edward Conley, FEMA
Amanda Ripley, Time Magazine
Susan Feeney, National Public Radio;
James O’Byrne, Times-Picayune
Recorder:
Jennifer Webb, University of South Carolina

Panelists were asked to discuss the question, “Why is it so difficult for the news media to cover issues of mitigation?”

Summary
In the aftermath of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, journalists find it more and more difficult to focus on issues of mitigation and preparedness. Journalists find personal stories that evoke emotional reactions grab attention because people want something to which they can relate. Journalists, therefore, struggle with how to tell the story in a way it hasn’t been told before. This continues to be more difficult in the age of the instant information delivered by the Internet and 24-hour news coverage. Broadcasters and other journalists are under pressure to deliver compelling stories, while still competing with these technologies. The stories of those impacted by Hurricane Katrina continue to be told, but they need to be framed in to emphasize lessons learned and preparedness and mitigation measures of real people.

A few tips for garnering mainstream media coverage were suggested. First, the importance of a face cannot be understated—people need a human to with which to relate. Footage (video or audio) is also needed to engage the audience. Framing coverage in the form of myths or tips allows research to come across clearly to audiences. People don’t understand what “disaster preparedness” and “mitigation” mean, so it helps to use words that mean something to the audience (such as “resilience,” which also has more of a positive connotation).

Panelist agreed on two central challenges in bringing disaster preparedness and mitigation into the news media. First, it’s difficult to motivate people to take action to reduce risks and vulnerabilities. Second, most people aren’t interested in preparedness and mitigation until after a disaster occurs. It is then that journalists have an opportunity to make a point.

The importance of leadership, especially at the local level, in disseminating information during and after disasters was emphasized. Local media should be seen as first responders and be given access to information. Panelist said they could not stress enough the importance of establishing trusting, positive relationships with journalists before disasters occur.

During the discussion period, questions related to ways to balance accuracy and emotions in news coverage, the interface between local and national media, and ways in which the reliance on researcher and expert opinion in the disaster community differs from other communities. It was suggested that those interested take trips to hazardous places that could be “the next Katrina,” such as Sacramento, California, to coordinate the exchange of information with government and other institutions. It was also suggested researchers who want news coverage on a topic should be prepared to convince reporters that it is worthy of coverage. It’s up to the researchers to contact the media, not wait for the media to notice them. Emphasis was also placed on the importance of correcting research mistakes so they are not repeated.

Return to list

Early Warning and Rapid Response Technology for Hazard Events

Moderator
David Applegate, USGS
Panelists
Paul Earle, USGS
James Goltz, California Office of Emergency Services
Chris Lochra, City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility
Recorder:
Cory Scoppe, University of Delaware Disaster Research Center

Summary
Panelists were asked to focus on the following questions:

  • What is the feasibility and reliability of early warning and rapid response systems?
  • How much can these systems reduce damage?
  • How can these systems be used to provide more actionable information?
  • What are some of the barriers to implementation?

With the creation of new early warning technology come questions of reliability, as well as how to best get warnings to those at risk. The three panelists in this concurrent session explored these issues from the national, state, and local level. Both Earle and Goltz discussed earthquake and tsunami warnings, while Lochra focused on flash flood warnings. All three members of the panel agreed that all levels of government working together is key in making warning information available. This should include back-up agencies, which are critical for warning system reliability. The goal of these systems is to be ahead of a disaster event, not react to it.
           
Like any system, there are challenges to implementation and weaknesses in this system. One weakness is a lack of public attention and the work it takes to get the public interested in these systems. The lack of frequency of earthquake and flash floods creates a barrier to maintaining interest and that barrier must be overcome to keep people alert and actively seeking out information. Other challenges to implementation include difficulty keeping up with changing technology, navigating the divergent missions of different agencies, and matching the needs of different populations.
           
The session also included a discussion of different types of early warning technology. This technology includes the PAGER system (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response). This worldwide system provides post-earthquake estimates of the number of people and the cities exposed to severe shaking. The PAGER system allows more people to access earthquake information and take specific action. Information can be e-mailed or downloaded.

Another system discussed was the Community Intensity Internet Map. This system provides a questionnaire to be completed following an earthquake, collecting information on ground shaking and giving individual agencies an opportunity to participate in data collection. It also provides emergency managers and researchers with need post-quake information. One final example of warning technology was the Earthquake Notification Service. This system provides free e-mail and text message notification of earthquakes worldwide.

The discussion period included questions about how different types of technology work, such as how the Community Intensity Internet Map was set up. There was also discussion concerning the development of a near-shore tsunami system. Concerns about the lack of tsunami warnings were discussed. The audience also brought up concerns about the reliability of these systems during a disaster.

Panelists said in a real event some data might be lost, but there is enough overlap in back-up systems that whole system failure is unlikely. Questions about the media’s role in these systems and increased dependency on technology were also addressed. A consensus was reached on the need for integration of observations and technology and the understanding that technology would never replace personal observation and experience.

Return to list

Return to Index