ENCUESTA AGRUPADA

Countries that are exposed to several hazards as seen in France often device a generic EWS which can be used to communicate warning and danger in order to avoid confusion. For example, China, United States (US), and Japan all have long history for experiencing natural disasters (Xu et al., 2014; Keeney et al., 2012; Hasegawa et al., 2012). To this end, China developed a Multi-Hazard EWS (MHEWS) in reaction to improve response to natural disasters. A significant component of MHEWS is the cooperation and coordination among multiple agencies at all levels in order to build regional capabilities and jointly decide to provide an optimal joint response to hazards (Tang et al., 2012). The system integrates diverse technologies to provide an advanced early warning hazard process and enables multiple agencies including emergency response and rescue to communicate and coordinate across a common communication platform. The MHEWS focuses on response capabilities and communication mechanisms. For example, the “4+1” technical platforms comprise: Multi-Hazard Detection and Monitoring; Forecast and Warning Information Generation; Multi-Agency Coordination and Cooperation Support; Dissemination and User Application Platforms, and a Multi-Hazard Information database. This is shown in Figure 2-8.

Figure 2- 8: Readiness Levels Communication Flow (Tang et al., 2012)

Weather & Climate Hazard

EWS (SMB) Weather and Climate

Related Hazards Other Hazards

Phone Media Internet Light

Governmental Agencies Schools, Enterprises, Factories, Hospitals Housing Communities Villagers,

35

While the MHEWS shows platforms which are integrated as a three-level standard system for coordination between agencies, even though it is still undergoing refinement (Xu et al., 2014), it lacks indicative arrows to show interactions between all stakeholders. Regardless of this one-way communication, the MHEWS is known to increase effectiveness between agencies involved in delivering warning at local level and extends communication flows for readiness as illustrates in Figure 2-8.

The Multi-Hazard EWS in the US is created to respond to a range of natural hazards such as drought, tsunamis, flooding, storms, hurricanes etc. Unlike the Chinese MHEWS, the US EWS system is a multiple EWS each intended to monitor and warn against specific threats (Barnes et al. 2007). The EWS is also embedded into the National Response Framework, into the Incident Command System and as an Emergency Alert System which functions across multiple channels. The model is designed to be scalable, adaptable and flexible, but the service operates in partnership with other agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US Geological Survey to take advantage of the expertise and infrastructure within the federal government (Keeney et al., 2012). While collaboration is considered as a key component for facilitating the multi-hazard EWS in the US, it lacks clear assigned roles of community at risk in the disseminating and communicating the warning. Figure 2-9 shows the close interactions between agencies, but none with community at risk.

36

NOAA

USGS

America Water Science Centers Water Discipline Geography Discipline

USACE

Decision Support Systems, Information Systems (e.g NIDIS)

Figure 2- 9: Hydrologic Services Collaboration Partners (Keeneyet al., 2012)

Although not integrated, the systems have common elements and all are connected to national emergency response systems which are disseminated through an “integrated public alert warning system” (Keeney et al., 2012). While the warnings are disseminated through single alerts across multi-channels during the stages of incidents and under all conditions (Barnes et al. 2007). However, this EWS model does not make provision for preparedness activities, risk knowledge, warning and monitoring which involves community at risks. Furthermore, Simmons and Sutter (2009) found that a higher, false alarm rate for tornadoes in the USA have also significantly increased casualties of tornadoes when it actually occur in that area. This suggest that frequent false alarms for tornadoes or any hazard do make people less inclined to react to subsequent or serious warnings. This problem shows another limitation and flaws in the EWS used in the US.

However, the EWS used in Japan focused on disaster prevention and on early protection against the destructive effects of uncontrollable severe events (Hasegawa et al., 2012). The scheme relies on strong meteorological forecast technologies and an extensive communications infrastructure to transmit disaster prevention information. The EWS which is also considered as multi-hazard focuses on essence of communication using enhanced observation systems which precisely identifies real-time disaster risks, so that early warnings can be provided promptly This in turn expedites prompt evacuation and triggers response actions from disaster management agencies

37

which diminish the damage from calamities (Hasegawa et al., 2012). The EWS implements a disaster specific warning and response process, which varies according to the disaster type.

The responsibility for the issuance of hazard warnings is contingent on the type of hazard. The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) is vested with the legal mandate for monitoring, forecasting and development warnings for all high risk natural hazards and severe weather conditions. It has sole mandate for Type I hazard warnings, a joint mandate with other bodies for Type II hazards and it is mandated to assume an informational role for Type III hazards (HfaIrides Review Report, 2014). This approach for dissemination resembles the communication responsibilities in SCCT model, ensuring that all stakeholders are involved in hazard warning and communication. The goal is for EWS to trigger the people to evacuate or take mitigating action (HfaIrides Review Report, 2014). However, the timeframe between earthquake and tsunami as seen in 2011 Tohoku was short giving people little or no time to evacuate or take actions even when the warning was issued (HfaIrides Review Report, 2014).Thus, while the multi-hazard seems to be one of the best practices in EWS, it also have its own limitations especially as seen in the US and Japan model.