Upgrades to the Wireless Emergency Alert System

An emergency alert describes an ongoing emergency situation and is typical of what one might receive to their cellphone or smart device. The current article discusses warnings of imminent threats, along with a review of the research literature’s guidance behind writing effective emergency alerts. In recent years, there have been several changes to the Wireless Emergency Alert System used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the United States. Some of these changes are reviewed along with the potential benefits of each improvement.

Emergency Alerts

The term “emergency warning” is a broad term that refers to any type of communication that informs one of a threat (Mileti & Sorenson, 1990). Colloquially, warnings used to inform the public of an imminent or ongoing emergency situation are often called “alerts.”

Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) refer to a text-based message sent to digital communication devices with internet and/or texting capabilities that communicate imminent threats (Bean et al., 2015, 2016; Casteel & Downing, 2015; Moore, 2010).

The terms “warning” and “alert” are often used interchangeably but the emergency management community tends to use “alert” to describe communication about an emergency that might be sent to the public’s cellphone via text or a pop-up notification (see Figure 1).

Fig 1. Example of an emergency alert on a smart device.

Warning Components

An emergency message can have several pieces of information. The research literature has documented and provided guidance to alerting officials on how to write an effective emergency message.

For instance, Wogalter and colleagues (1987) suggested that there are four components of a message:

1. A word that indicates there is an emergency and attracts attention (e.g., “WARNING!”)
2. A statement that identifies and describes the emergency
3. A statement that describes the consequences of not heeding the warning
4. Directions that tell people what to do to stay safe (i.e., protective action recommendation).

Likewise, Mileti and Peek (2000) outlined five similar components:

1. A statement that identifies the emergency
2. The location of the emergency
3. What to do to protect oneself from the emergency
4. Information that conveys the time individuals have to take protective actions
5. The source of warning in order to convey credibility

Although these components are slightly different, a warning must at least have both a description with varying levels of detail and a protective action recommendation (see Figure 2).

Fig 2. Example of an emergency alert with the different components outlined based on guidelines from Mileti and Peek (2000) and Wogalter and colleagues (1987).

Mileti and Peek (2000) also provided suggestions for emergency management to consider when authoring an alert to improve warning response. For instance, they suggested that the details of a warning message should be as specific and accurate as possible to increase the likelihood that someone will personalize the message and follow protective actions. Likewise, the warning should contain sufficient information that informs the public about the emergency and what to do.

Mileti and Peek also suggested that warnings should have a consistent style and should convey certainty and clarity that the source is confident about the information in such a way that the layperson can understand. Additionally, the authors suggested that the medium (i.e., voice, print, alarms, etc.) from which the warning is delivered may influence emergency response (see also Parker, Whitmer, & Sims, 2018), and that receiving warnings from multiple channels may lead to the best response.

Recent Changes to the Wireless Emergency Alert System

In December 2019, there were several improvements made to the WEA system used by FEMA in the United States.

Among these recent enhancements include increasing the maximum character limit, improving the geo-location features, and embedding web links and pictures (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2020). Now that the maximum character limit increased from 90 characters to 360 characters, emergency management can provide more details in alerts which should improve the likelihood people will heed warnings (Mileti & Peek, 2000).

With the geo-location improvements, alerts can be delivered to individuals inside a designated “alert area.” Alerting at-risk individuals in proximity to a threat can increase relevancy and increase the likelihood people will heed warnings (Schroeder, Whitmer, & Sims, 2017).

Additionally, alerts can now include supplemental information such as a picture, a link to a website, or a phone number to provide people with more direction. Providing additional resources may aid those who are less likely to seek out information on their own or those who feel invulnerable to threats (Schroeder, Whitmer, & Sims, 2017), and may increase understanding of the alert (Liu et al., 2017). These new features may help the everyday user take protective actions.

Conclusion

Emergency management’s goal when they distribute alerts is to give people information and help them make decisions to avoid danger. Due to the advancements in technology, the modern WEA system allows people to receive these potentially life-saving messages on their cellphones.

The improvements and sophistication of this technology over the years is owed to the collaborative relationship between the research community and the emergency management community.

Although it is challenging to influence all people to heed warnings, following the guidelines outlined by the research literature along with the recent improvements to the WEA system can make a positive impact on the public’s decision-making during these stressful events.

References

Bean, H., Liu, B. F., Madden, S., Sutton, J., Wood, M. M., & Mileti, D. S. (2016). Disaster warnings in your pocket: How audiences interpret mobile alerts for an unfamiliar hazard. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 24(3), 136–147.

Bean, H., Sutton, J., Liu, B. F., Madden, S., Wood, M. M., & Mileti, D. S. (2015). The study of mobile public warning messages: A research review and agenda. Review of Communication, 15(1), 60–80.

Casteel, M. A., & Downing, J. R. (2016). Assessing risk following a wireless emergency alert: Are 90 characters enough? Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 13(1), 95–112.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2020). Wireless emergency alerts. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/integrated-public-alert-warning-system/public/wireless-emergency-alerts

Liu, B. F., Wood, M. M., Egnoto, M., Bean, H., Sutton, J., Mileti, D., & Madden, S. (2017). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The effects of maps and warning messages on how publics respond to disaster information. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 493–506.

Mileti, D. S., & Peek, L. (2000). The social psychology of public response to warnings of a nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 75(2), 181–194.

Mileti, D. S., & Sorensen, J. H. (1990). Communication of emergency public warnings. Landslides, 1(6), 52–70.

Moore, L.K. (2010). The emergency alert system (EAS) and all-hazard warnings. Congressional Research Service.

Parker. J.A., Whitmer, D.E., & Sims, V.K. (2018). Warnings for Hurricane Irma: Trust of warning type and perceptions of self-efficacy and susceptibility. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 62(1), 1368–1372.

Schroeder, B. L., Whitmer, D. E., & Sims, V. K. (2017). Toward a user-centered approach for emergency warning distribution. Ergonomics in Design, 25(1), 4–10.

Wogalter, M. S., Godfrey, S. S., Fontenelle, G. A., Desaulniers, D. R., Rothstein, P. R., & Laughery, K. R. (1987). Effectiveness of warnings. Human Factors, 29(5), 599–612.