Evaluation of EWS Elements and Concepts

The examination of EWS models, theories and application in this section have helped to identify four main elements of EWS. These elements being risk knowledge, monitoring and warning, warning dissemination and communication and response capability have been examined from critically from risk management perspective. It was discovered that an essential element such as communication responsibility were both missing from the main EWS models recommended by the UN and Basher (2006). Although the model by Basher (2006) included the community at risk and the need for collaborative efforts of stakeholders in influencing the response behaviors of community at risk, the model failed to explain how knowledge or hazard, research, institutional commitments and mechanism, education and mitigation can be communicated to community at risk. This led to examining the communication methods used in EWS across the world. An examination of this indicated that communication methods were too technology based, without much consideration of developing countries where infrastructures might be insufficient, because of the impacts of disasters and other factors.

Disasters are known to affect development and development on the other hand can influence the impacts of disasters (Ozerdem, 2003). This is so because the severe impacts of disasters can affect development activities, infrastructures and economy in the immediate and long term. The projects and funding for development projects is often diverted to manage the impacts of disasters when they occur in large scale (Ozerdem, 2003). Meanwhile when development projects and urban planning is not well carried with consideration for the impacts of disasters, such development projects or results can also cause impact of disasters to be severe, hence the relationship between disasters and development (Wiltshire, 2006; Ozerdem, 2003). The concepts of EWS can be drawn from the development concerns and societal needs (Glantz, 2004). Even though in many instances, scientists and technologists have typically been the core actors in

27

EWS the role of the population is fundamental to developing and sustaining warning capabilities, especially for the mitigation and preparedness components (Wisner, 2011 and Basher, 2006). Using this explanation, society can be represented graphically by a pyramid, the base of which represents sustainable development as shown in Figure 2-6. This Figure provides a graphic representation of how governments tend to look at EWS of all kinds, including those for climate, water and weather. The pyramid suggests that governments view societies as stable entities resting on firm foundations (Glantz, 2009). In fact, the reality of EWS in society can be portrayed graphically as a pyramid resting on its apex in a position of unstable equilibrium, as in pyramid (b). Societies and the government that lead them are actually dependent on a wide array of EWS (Glantz, 2009).

Figure 2- 6: Traditional Perspective and Actual Importance of EWS in Society (Glantz, 2009)

The traditional perspective as seen in (a) is considered Table because it represents a bottom-up approach which incorporates the involvement of community at risk of natural hazard (Smith and Fischabacher, 2009). However, sustaining the interests of traditional perspective of EWS and creating a synergy between them and technology methods can be challenging (Smith and Fischabacher, 2009). As seen in the SCCT model in Figure 2-5, the effectiveness and concept of EWS should be based on shared responsibilities and communication for crisis or natural disasters should be aligned based on the risk knowledge, dissemination and communication, stakeholders,

28

monitoring and warning and response capability. Furthermore, Figure 2-6 emphasises the importance of sustainability of EWS in relation to development and the need to employ stable approach and elements for EWS.

However, the challenges of EWS such as accuracy of warning make it difficult to provide information that can contribute to stable and sustainable concept of EWS. According to McEntire and Myers (2004), ability to consistently provide stable EWS with consideration of all hazards can be challenging. For example, 75 per cent of all tsunami warnings in the Pacific Ocean are false alarms, making it very difficult to maintain the credibility of the warning systems (Gupta and Sharma, 2006). As a result of the increase in information and communication technologies (ICT) and the difficulty in ensuring that only one, authoritative voice issues warnings, further increases the risk of false alarms (UN, 2009). This suggests that for EWS to be effective and sustainable it must involve the community at risks, adopts the appropriate communication method and responsibility.

Despite technological advances that enable the quick dissemination of warnings to the target population at risk, the community not understanding the warning and the lack of knowledge of how to properly react remains one of the biggest shortcomings of EWS (UN, 2006; WMO, 2006). There is consensus that delivering information and disseminating a warning is not effective unless firmly accompanied by strategies to engage the community members in ways that facilitate the adoption of protective actions, including educational campaigns, in order to assure that the warning message is well understood (Paton, 2008; Villangran de Leon, 2012, WMO, 2006; Matthew and Kapucu, 2008).This section has provided background to EWS and its essential concepts. It has also evaluated and discussed models of EWS, dissemination of EWS and communication theory, sustainable EWS as well as challenges of EWS. Subsequent sections in this chapter will evaluate some EWS practiced across the world and identify the essential principles which make them sustainable and engage community. Thus the factors which make such EWS effectively communicate risk knowledge, warning and monitoring, disseminate and ensure adequate response capability are identified in the process.

29