|
Page 3 of 9
multiple channels
When people receive news of an unexpected event, they seek confirmation
from other sources. If they hear an Emergency Siren, they turn on their
radios. If they receive an email, they’ll do a web search. If they hear
of a cyclone warning on the radio, they look out their windows at the
sky.
It's important that people do receive confirmation; if they do not, the chance
they will disregard the message is increased. It’s important also that
the message be consistent across channels. Variations in the message create
room for interpretation, increasing the chance that the message will be misinterpreted.
Disc Jockeys rewording prepared weather alerts to work them into their banter
reduce their effectiveness. (The Bureau of Meteorology now has an agreement
with ABC to read alerts verbatim.)
Multiple channels increase the effectiveness of emergency warnings by
extending their reach, and providing the means of confirmation
reinforcement. The more channels (modes of delivery; media), the
better.
More channels used to communicate emergency information messages means
a better chance that any individual citizen will receive the messages.
"This appears to be the clear message gained from international
experiences and those in other states. No one single method of
delivering emergency information will meet all needs or all
circumstances. " (Provost 2003)
"Warnings should be delivered through as many communication channels as
practicable so that those users who are at risk can get the message
whether inside or outside, at home, work, or school, while shopping
or in transportation systems. Delivery of the warning should have
minimal effect on the normal use of such communication channels,
especially for users who will not be affected." (Working Group on
Natural Disaster Information Systems - Subcommittee on Natural Disaster
Reduction 2000)
Another reason for multiple channels is system redundancy. More channels means less chance the message will be delayed.
"The first official request to broadcast the Standard Emergency Warning
Signal was issued by ESB to the media via fax at 1.45 pm. At this time ESB was
aware that the three major fires were spotting considerable distances. For reasons
never made clear to the Inquiry—although it appears likely to have been
inadequate fax-streaming— the ABC radio did not receive the advice until
2.31 pm. …Public submissions to the Inquiry also strongly criticized
having only one radio station or communication medium broadcast the emergency
warning message. (McLeod 2003)
It is important that increasing the number of channels does not lead to
a "scattergun" approach to message publication; rather, diverse
channels should be used to facilitate targeted delivery of messages,
using channels to deliver messages to specific groups, such as
voicemail messages to the blind, or SMS to the deaf.
"RECOMMENDATION: Warnings should be delivered through as many
communication channels as practicable so that those users who are at
risk can get the message whether inside or outside, at home, work, or
school, while shopping or in transportation systems. Delivery of the
warning should have minimal effect on the normal use of such
communication channels, especially for users who will not be affected."
(Working Group on Natural Disaster Information Systems - Subcommittee
on Natural Disaster Reduction 2000)
In an emergency, people often look to web sites for information, with
the result that emergency-oriented websites can become overloaded,
degrading their performance. It is also difficult to predict which
websites people will turn to for emergency information. (Worthington
2003) Increasing the number of websites on which emergency information
is available can decrease the load on any particular website, and
increase the chance people will find the information they need.
|
News 
