Improving Early Warning Systems

1. Introduction:

US colleges and universities operate through an emergency communication system called the Early Warning System (EWS), which is integrated and coordinated to achieve one common purpose; building more on-campus resilient communities (Manoj & Baker, 2007; Oktari et al., 2014). One of the biggest challenges to overcome at US colleges and universities is achieving an effective level of emergency communication that goes beyond technicalities to consider the sociological dimension of communication, which is concerned with understanding the dynamics of the social structure for vulnerable communities at these institutions (Oktari et al., 2014). Any emergency communication system ideally consists of several integrated elements; such as risk knowledge, warning service, dissemination, response capability, etc., where any failure in any of these elements means a failure of the entire system (Manoj & Baker, 2007).

Emergency communication systems should be tailored to the needs of the entire community to effectively operate through timely, precise, informative, and relevant communication during disasters, making EWS an integral and critical part of the University’s overall communications plan (Oktari et al., 2014). Many studies were conducted to improve our understanding of how demographic characteristics affect personal preparedness to disasters (Simms, 2013), with a main focus on gender, age, and ethnicity (St. Cyr, 2005). Unfortunately, many studies have shown that emergency communication systems at US colleges and universities lack specificity, making these systems less effective (FEMA, 2010). This theoretical gap is a result of the complex interactions between behavioral, sociological, and psychological factors that influence peoples’ decisions to prepare (Findley, 2015), and the limited understanding of people’s response to emergency communication might complicate further research in this field (Watson et al., 2011).

2. Literature review:

In 2003, FEMA discussed how US colleges and universities were being overlooked in emergency communication planning (FEMA, 2003). A couple of years later, hurricane Katrina proved FEMA’s concerns by affecting 700 US schools, leaving many of them closed for months, and some were never able to reopened (Abukhalaf et al., 2022; Esnard et al., 2018; Sheldon, 2018). Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made the year 2005 a turning point that shifted the entire ideology of emergency communication and inspired many researchers to focus on US colleges and universities. One of the main missions of US colleges and universities is to provide a safe learning environment for their students and a secure working environment for their personnel (Madden, 2017). US colleges and universities with more sophisticated roles of emergency management also have more robust and efficient emergency notification functions (Abukhalaf & von Meding, 2020); emergency communicators should make a split-second decision when it comes to what information may constitute a possible threat.

Emergencies in US colleges and universities, including those brought on by natural hazards, school shootings, and hate crimes, have revealed gaps in emergency communications (Madden, 2017). These include the massacre at Virginia Tech campus, where 33 people lost their lives in a shooting, highlighting communication failures in the university notification system in 2007 (Sheldon, 2018). The impact of communication failure goes beyond physical to cover psychological consequences, such as anxiety and depression (Cohen et al., 2021; Cohen & Abukhalaf, 2021). In a conducted study in the US with a sample size of 416 volunteers, students reported higher alcohol and drugs use to cope with trauma-related vulnerabilities due to inadequate knowledge caused by failure of emergency communication during Hurricane Katarina (Prost et al., 2016).

While consolidating and standardizing communication at US colleges and universities carries a lower operation cost, it may not actually be the most appropriate way to serve diverse student populations. “Unified” communications create a sense of rejection to many students at US universities and colleges. Such students choose not to be enrolled in emergency communication, making them less prepared for natural hazards, mass violence, and pandemics (Christal et al., 2019). A National Research Council workshop outlined six research gaps for warnings and alerts concerning disasters and emergencies. Warning dissemination was one of the main 6 research gaps highlighted in the workshop (National Academies Press, 2011).

3. Discussion

The ability to notify thousands of students and personnel about possible threats at US colleges and universities in a timely manner is the core of emergency communication for campus security. An emergency notification system is shaped typically by three elements: the tools and applications of communication used by colleges and universities (e.g., text messages, phone calls, emails, etc.); the college students and personnel receiving the notification; and the delivery and content of the notification (Oktari et al., 2014). When it used correctly, an emergency notification system can reduce all kinds of threats to life, as well as property (Patten et al., 2019).

Most EWSs rely on repetition to avoid any possible misunderstanding (Abukhalaf & von Meding, 2020). When emergency messages are repeated through several communication channels, the different versions put out are compared in the mind of the receiver to generate a synthesized version (Abukhalaf & von Meding, 2021). While repetition is critical in emergency communication, it should be introduced with some breaks between repetitions. The receivers can then still remember the content of the previous message in order to be able to compare the content (Schwalbe, 2016); however, repetition can lead to over-communication. There is no specific way to define the correct amount of repetition; each system is unique and should be studied individually.

Many disaster studies show that US colleges and universities are rarely taken into consideration in emergency government planning, and even if they were considered, they were seen as homogenous communities with predictable behavior (Reed & Macuare, 2019). A study conducted in 2005 by a community college in Orlando discussed the students’ disasters related challenges, where 107 students were surveyed, assuming the college community to be homogeneous (Gutierrez et al., 2005). In 2008, a university in Mississippi researched the post-disaster impact of hurricane Katrina on college students, also assuming the college community to be homogeneous and it did not discuss any possible subgroups within that college community (Coleman, 2008).

A small number of disaster studies have been successful in exploring more distinct subgroups within US colleges and universities. One of the few studies that viewed US colleges and universities as heterogeneous communities was conducted in 2012, where a total of 8 universities from Florida participated in the study. The main result of this study was that all universities that are classified as Storm-Ready by the government have gaps in emergency communication (Reed & Macuare, 2019), which reflect a significant room for improvement in the current emergency planning at US colleges and universities.

College students provide an opportunity to study groups of people who are going through a life transition. Research has shown that students are generally under-prepared for natural hazards for multiple reasons, some of it is personal; such as continued dependence on parents, and lack of life experience and some is institutional; such as communication failure and lack of disaster awareness (Simms, 2013). Additionally, many students were also found to believe that it isn’t their responsibility to be prepared for emergency scenarios and the colleges and universities need to take full responsibility for their students’ preparedness (Findley, 2015).

Several factors impact students’ perception of protective actions and risk, such as socioeconomic, past experiences, psychographic differences, and demographic. Nevertheless, previous studies have confirmed that students are influenced by an optimism bias, where they believe they are unlikely to be affected by negative events than their peers (Sheldon & Antony, 2018). The emergency communication planning in US colleges and universities is extremely challenging due to the limitless number of potential hazards that vary in size and nature, in addition to the increasing complexity of college campuses, making quantification of different behaviors and their risk perceptions on a university campus significantly difficult (Simms, 2013; Kang, 2018).

4. Conclusion and recommendations:

Even with the availability of resources that can help in many disaster scenarios, gaps remain in emergency communication within US colleges and universities, which makes preparedness in these institutions either under-resourced or even neglected (Boon et al, 2012). In order to protect the campus and its community members, US colleges and universities must achieve an effective level of communication. This will require different tools of communication (Schwalbe, 2016) that realize the uniqueness of each group on campus and how it behaves before, during, and after emergencies (Abukhalaf, 2021). The evaluation of the emergency communication system should be an ongoing priority, in order to make action plans that build on and strengthen the existing warning system (Shaw & Quaye, 2019). The process of understanding better the individuals and groups that are being served on a university campus must be actively pursued (Oktari et al., 2014).

5. References

Abukhalaf, A.H.I. (2021). The risk behind communicating to people in their second language during the hurricane season. Academia Letters, Article 3572. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3572.

Abukhalaf, A. H. I., & von Meding, J. (2020). Communication challenges in campus emergency planning: The case of hurricane dorian in florida. Natural Hazards (Dordrecht), 104(2), 1535. doi:10.1007/s11069-020-04231-1

Abukhalaf, A. H. I., & von Meding, J. (2021). Integrating international linguistic minorities in emergency planning at institutions of higher education. Natural Hazards (Dordrecht), 1-25. doi:10.1007/s11069-021-04859-7

Abukhalaf, A. H. I., von Meding, J., Dooling, J., & Abusal, D. (2022). Assessing international students’ vulnerability to hurricanes: University of Florida case study. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 55, 102812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102812.

Boon, H. J., Pagliano, P., Brown, L., & Tsey, K. (2012). An assessment of policies guiding school emergency disaster management for students with disabilities in australia. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1), 17-26. doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00331.x

Christal N. Davis, Marcela C. Weber, Stefan E. Schulenberg, & John J. Green. (2019). University students' disaster preparedness: A focus group study

Cohen, S., & Abukhalaf, A. H. I. (2021). Necessity to Plan and Implement Mental Health Disaster Preparedness and Intervention Plans. Academia Letters. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3507

Cohen, S., von Meding, D., Abukhalaf, A.H.I. (2021). Successful Pandemic and Disaster Mental Health Preparedness Requires Widespread Community Collaboration. Academia Letters, Article 3987. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3987

Coleman, C. T. (2008). Post-disaster effects of hurricane katrina on significantly affected college students compared to moderately affected college students Available from ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304466105

Esnard, A., Lai, B.,Wyczalkowski, C., Shah, H. (2018). School vulnerability to disaster: Examination of school closure, demographic, and exposure factors in hurricane ike’s wind swath. Natural Hazards, 90(2), 513-535. doi:10.1007/s11069-017-3057-2

FEMA. (2003). Building a disaster-resistant university Washington, D.C.

FEMA. (2010). The federal emergency management agency (2010). . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Retrieved from https://catalog.gpo.gov/F/?func=find-c&ccl_term=OCLC=(OCoLC)759519602

Findley, D. A. (2015). Factors influencing college student preparedness for severe weather Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Oklahoma State University - Stillwater. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1853893049

Gutierrez, D., Hollister, D., & Beninati, A. (2005). Hurricane madness: Teaching, learning and the importance of flexibility in the wake of disaster. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 2(2) doi:10.19030/tlc.v2i2.1778

Kang, S. (2018). Research in brief. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 6(3), 171. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30061-4

Madden, S. (2017). The clock is ticking: Temporal dynamics of campus emergency notifications. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(4), 370-375. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12162

Manoj, B. S., & Baker, A. (2007, Mar 1,). Communication challenges in emergency response. Communications of the ACM, 50, 51-53. doi:10.1145/1226736.1226765 Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1226765

National Academies Press. (2011). Public response to alerts and warnings on mobile devices: Current knowledge and research gaps. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13076/public-response-to-alerts-and-warningson-mobile-devices-summary

Oktari, R. S., Munadi, K., & Ridha, M. (2014). Effectiveness of dissemination and communication element of tsunami early warning system in aceh. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 136-142. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00923-X

Patten, R., Ruddell, R., & Thomas, M. O. (2019). Campus emergency notification systems: Lessons learned from a miscommunication. Campus Security Report, 15(9), 1-5. doi:10.1002/casr.30459

Prost, S. G., Lemieux, C. M., & Ai, A. L. (2016). Social work students in the aftermath of hurricanes katrina and rita: Correlates of post-disaster substance use as a negative coping mechanism. Social Work Education, 35(7), 825-844. doi:10.1080/02615479.2016.1187720

Reed, K. B., & Macuare, K. A. (2019). University of South Florida. Technology & Innovation, 20(3), 337-342. doi:10.21300/20.1-2.2018.337

Schwalbe, K. (2016). Revised, an introduction to project management, fifth edition: with a brief guide to Microsoft Project Professional 2016. Minneapolis,MN: Schwalbe Publishing.

Shaw Bonds, M. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2019). Using dialogue to navigate controversy, civility, and community. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2019(163), 87-100. doi:10.1002/yd.20349

Sheldon, P. (2018). Emergency alert communications on college campuses: Understanding students' perceptions of the severity of a crisis and their intentions to share the alert with parents and friends. Western Journal of Communication, 82(1), 100-116. doi:10.1080/10570314.2017.1308005

Sheldon, P., & Antony, M. G. (2018). Sharing emergency alerts on a college campus: How gender and technology matter. Southern Communication Journal, 83(3), 167-178. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2018.1437467

Simms, J. L., Kusenbach, M., & Tobin, G. A. (2013). Equally unprepared: Assessing the hurricane vulnerability of undergraduate students SelectedWorks. Retrieved from https://works.bepress.com/jlsimms/2

St. Cyr, J. F. (2005). At risk: Natural hazards, people's vulnerability, and disasters. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2(2), 4. doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1131

Watson, P. G., Loffredo, V. J., & McKee, J. C. (2011). When a natural disaster occurs: Lessons learned in meeting students' needs. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 362-369. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.09.001