Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Connecting the Dots:A Communications Model of the North Texas IWT
Dennis Cavanaugh – Melissa Huffman – Jennifer Dunn – Mark Fox
National Weather ServiceRio Vista, TX
Image: Kevin Rose
15 May 2013 Tornado Outbreak Overview•19 tornadoes•One EF-4 tornado (Granbury)•One EF-3 tornado (Cleburne)
•6 fatalities, over 50 injuries•Over $100 million in property damage
Dallas/Fort WorthMetroplex
Granbury
Cleburne
Tornado Paths
Integrated Warning Teams
• Local emergency management/government officials• National Weather Service• Media representatives• Public• Virtual Operations Support Teams (VOST)• Can also include agencies that support FEMA’s Emergency Support Functions, amateur radio
Integrated Warning Teams•Get persons in a threat area to take protective action• Protective action decision making requires a need for repetitive messaging as individuals will seek to confirm threats from multiple sources (Mileti and Sorensen, 2000)
•Build community resiliency
DataTo evaluate IWT messaging during the event, 1229 instances of communication were collected from
the following sources:
NWS Chat Logs
Internal NWS Communicatio
n Logs
Media Coverage (Transcribed Minute-by-
Minute)
Interviews with Local Emergency
Management
Emergency Operation
Center (EOC) Timelines &
Logs
Twitter & Facebook Interactions
Amateur Radio
Communication Logs
NWS Staff Interviews
IWT Interactions
NWS Media EM Public VOSTNWS 4 113 133 115 114
Media 40 16 19 461 15EM 49 32 49 28 32
Public 66 76 36 28 30VOST 26 21 21 46 0
• Communications documented between 7-10 PM
• Columns represent receivers, rows represent communicators
Rumor Tracking
• Identified pieces of information (rumors) to track•Created adjacency matrix to document directed communications from data• Successful communication
defined as documented instance of interaction occurring within 15 minutes of introduction into the IWT
•Digraph used to visualize adjacency matrix
Emergency Management
VOST
PublicMedia
NWS
Digraph for communication of an NWS warning
Rumor Modeling – By Example
Digraph for communication of an NWS warning
Senders RecipientsAnn Carla, Ehaz
Bert Carla, Dana
Carla Ehaz
Dana Ann, Carla
Ehaz Bert
Ann
Ehaz
DanaCarla
Bert
An email rumor network:
Rumor Modeling – By Example
Digraph for communication of an NWS warning
Senders RecipientsAnn Carla, Ehaz
Bert Carla, Dana
Carla Ehaz
Dana Ann, Carla
Ehaz Bert
An email rumor network:
Ann Bert Carla Dana Ehaz
Ann 0 0 1 0 1
Bert 0 0 1 1 0
Carla 0 0 0 0 1
Dana 1 0 1 0 0
Ehaz 0 1 0 0 0
Rumor Modeling – By Example
An email rumor network:
Ann Bert Carla Dana Ehaz
Ann 0 0 1 0 1
Bert 0 0 1 1 0
Carla 0 0 0 0 1
Dana 1 0 1 0 0
Ehaz 0 1 0 0 0
Ann
Ehaz
DanaCarla
Bert
Digraph
Emergency Management
VOST
PublicMedia
NWS
Digraph
NWS Media EM Public VOST
NWS 0 1 1 0 1
Media 0 0 0 1 0
EM 0 0 0 1 0
Public 0 0 0 0 0
VOST 0 0 0 1 0
Corresponding adjacency matrix
Rumor Modeling: NWS Warning Communication
Why is NWS to public communication assigned a 0 in the model?
15 May 2013 Public Response Survey, NWS Fort Worth29 Respondents
CASA Public Response Survey, Dr. Joseph Trainor169 Respondents
Rumor Modeling: NWS Warning Communication
Emergency Management
VOST
PublicMedia
NWS
Digraph
NWS Media EM Public VOST
NWS 0 1 1 0 1
Media 0 0 0 1 0
EM 0 0 0 1 0
Public 0 0 0 0 0
VOST 0 0 0 1 0
Corresponding adjacency matrix
Rumor Modeling: NWS Warning Communication
Confirmation of the TornadoReport of Significant
Damage
Emergency Management
VOST
PublicMedia
NWS
Emergency Management
VOST
PublicMedia
NWS
Results: Granbury Tornado
Confirmation of the TornadoReport of Significant
Damage
A5NWS Media EM Public VOST
NWS 0 0 0 0 0
Media 0 0 2 3 0
EM 0 0 2 3 0
Public 0 0 3 2 0
VOST 0 0 2 3 0
A5NWS Media EM Public VOST
NWS 90 69 91 44 69
Media 121 90 121 61 91
EM 31 22 30 16 22
Public 121 91 121 60 91
VOST 121 91 121 61 90
Given enough time for message transmission, are there any communication gaps within the IWT?
A5NWS Media EM Public VOST
NWS 0 0 0 0 0
Media 0 0 2 3 0
EM 0 0 2 3 0
Public 0 0 3 2 0
VOST 0 0 2 3 0
With several IWT members not receiving the message, the availability of the message for public consumption was
limited.
Results: Granbury Tornado
Confirmation of the TornadoReport of Significant
Damage
A5NWS Media EM Public VOST
NWS 0 0 0 0 0
Media 0 0 2 3 0
EM 0 0 2 3 0
Public 0 0 3 2 0
VOST 0 0 2 3 0
A5NWS Media EM Public VOST
NWS 90 69 91 44 69
Media 121 90 121 61 91
EM 31 22 30 16 22
Public 121 91 121 60 91
VOST 121 91 121 61 90
With a message being communicated back to the IWT, the public has significantly more opportunities to receive the
message.
Results: Granbury Tornado
Communicating with your IWT/Partners• Phone call/texts• Usually only reaches one partner at a time (takes a long time to contact
the entire IWT)• Has the benefit of conveying tone of voice
• Email briefings• Can reach multiple partners at once (saves time)• Information can become old and irrelevant very quickly• Difficult to convey any sort of tone/urgency
• NWSChat• Can reach multiple partners all at once• Information has the opportunity to be ALWAYS CURRENT, if you’re making
the effort to provide information here.• Difficult to convey tone still, but can be bridged by interacting with the
IWT real-time via Q&A.
Questions?
Dennis Cavanaugh [email protected]
Melissa [email protected]
Jennifer Dunn [email protected]
Mark Fox [email protected]
