Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

On Monday, May 3, 1999, 76 tornadoes occurred in seven hours across the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The largest was a rare and extremely violent twister rated at magnitude 5 on the Fujita scale, with wind rotation speeds of up to 500 kilometers per hour (km/hr) and a path that was 130 km long and averaged 1.5 km wide. Damage exceeded $500 million, and 4,319 buildings were destroyed. However, good monitoring and public communication processes were in place, which allowed warning times that varied between 20 and 120 minutes. This was ample time to take cover. As a result, there were only 44 deaths, a significant number but far fewer than would have been the case if there had been no warning.

A warning is a recommendation or order for action to take place on the basis of a prediction or forecast. Predictions should be made by scientists or other qualified experts, whereas warnings should be the responsibility of public administrators, usually at the regional or local authority level. Emergency management agencies are typically responsible for warning the public about impending hazards. Hence, the warning process has three subsystems: technical, administrative, and social (Figure 1). Absence of efficiency of any of these subsystems will render the whole warning process ineffective.

Figure 1 The three subsystems of the warning process

On the Effectiveness of Warnings

Various factors influence the effectiveness of warnings. The first is the predictability of the hazard.

Imprecise Predictions

The problem of imprecise predictions is compounded by other factors that influence the effectiveness of warnings. Precise prediction is difficult or impossible if there are no precursors, or if these are unclear or indeterminate. Likewise, the speed of onset will determine the window of time available to assess the situation and issue a warning. The frequency, duration, and size of the impact are also relevant factors, as is the degree to which it can be limited or controlled by timely action. Nevertheless, a clear situation of identifiable precursors that have a known sequence and predictable timing would provide a good basis for launching the warning process. Floods, snow avalanches, hurricanes, and storms often show promise in this respect. Despite a long, drawn-out search for reliable precursors, earthquakes are largely unpredictable in the short term (although general seismicity is known and predicted). Through enhanced heat flux and surface deformation, volcanoes offer a good basis for predicting that an eruption is imminent, but it remains difficult to pin down the exact timing of its onset or how long it will last.

Anatomy of a Warning System

In synthesis, a warning system should consist of technical and social components, monitoring and evaluation procedures, technology and organization, planning, and communication. The absence of any of these ingredients is likely to compromise the effectiveness of the whole system.

There are several stages in the implementation of the warning process. To begin with, decision makers who are responsible for public safety must recognize that a warning is needed and that it is feasible. They must then decide whom to warn, about what, and by what means. A system must be designed, installed, and tested. It must be able to receive reliable information from the monitoring of a hazard with sufficient time to convert it into a warning message and disseminate this to users; for example, the general public in a given area, or a specific subset of the public, such as disabled people. A warning message should state the

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading