OVIS
Emergency Alerting Systems
05 September 2010
Newsflash
 Home arrow News arrow Public Emergency Warning Systems arrow Design Criteria for Public Emergency Warning Systems
Main Menu
Home
News
Links
Contacts
Search
News Feeds
Design Criteria for Public Emergency Warning Systems Print E-mail
Article Index
Introduction
Multiple Recipients
Multiple Channels
Multiple Hazards
Multiple Stakeholders
Multiple Senders
Multiple Platforms
Write-Once Input
References

multiple senders

Typically many agencies cooperate in response to an emergency, and communication with the public is one aspect of the response that must be coordinated among the agencies. The content of warning messages may originate with different responding agencies, but it is important that messages to the public are consistent with one another, and their dissemination coordinated to achieve best effect. Inconsistent messages will lose credibility; too many messages will lose effect; too few messages will have inadequate impact.

In the event of an emergency, the Western Australia State Public Information Emergency Management Support Plan specifies, "the HMA will manage the public information function for the overall operation". However, the plan also states that, "as a principle, each agency may address the public and the media but only on issues which are their responsibility. Matters that are not their direct responsibility should be referred to the appropriate agency or the Emergency Public Information Coordinator." In addition, "all agencies are to be kept informed of information provided to the media and public"  (State Emergency Management Committee 2002).

"The process of warning is complicated by the fact that it requires the accomplishment of a number of tasks, and because these may have to be carried out by different organizations, coordination is required among them. For example, the determination that adverse weather will lead to unusually heavy rainfall is usually made by the Weather Bureau. This might alert the local flood control authorities to the possibility of flooding and the subsequent detection of impending dam or levee failure. The decision to issue an evacuation directive might then come from the sheriffs department or the office of the county executive. But the conveyance of the message to the public is often carried out by local commercial radio or TV stations." (Auf der Heide 1989) "FESA is often not the only Hazard Management Agency.  Outside the designated fire district, Local Government or CALM have this responsibility. Never the less, in the case of Local Government, FESA is often expected to disseminate this important information.  To date it has been an adhoc system and more work needs to be done to formalise processes to ensure consistency " (Provost 2003)

In large, rapidly emerging emergency events, coordination between responding, supporting, and managing agencies requires a high level of overhead, and maintaining this effort in the context of an emergency can be problematic.

The need for a reliable, coordinated approach to disseminating information originating from diverse hazard management agencies has led emergency professionals and incident inquiries to call for a centralized entity with this responsibility for public warnings.

"The most common criticism relating to evacuation on 18 January was the lack of a consistent message. Submissions reported mixed messages—public announcements advising people to stay with their homes and fight the fires if they were capable and prepared and, on the other hand, orders to evacuate from police on the ground." (McLeod 2003) "ACT Policing’s submission to the Inquiry commented: Issues of media liaison and coordination highlight the need for one physical or at least ‘virtual’ centralised information collection and dissemination point, definite coordination and sharing of information to obtain a common approach, and the benefits of senior officers liaising and agreeing on the content of media releases …" "There should be greater coordination of the content of whole-of government media releases and messages." (McLeod 2003)  "A preferred model would be a "whole of government" approach to the task of disseminating emergency information.  This would see a combination of, if not all, the above options being disseminated out of a central emergency information point.  This would allow FESA, CALM and Local Government to send their information about wildfires to a separate, independent entity and have it disseminated from there." (Provost 2003)



Next >
Copyright 2002 - 2009 Ovis Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. Site powered by Mambo