All clear messages are designed to do one thing: let people know that the event has concluded and they are safe to return or resume activities. We see a need for all clear messages in most hazard contexts - especially those that require people to shelter in place while there is an active dangerous event. People who have been evacuated for wildfire, flood, or hurricane also have a need for all clear messaging, especially when there are serious concerns that their homes and neighborhoods may have been damaged or lost.
The need for a reassuring follow-up message is so important that the USGS created a matrix for potential alert types and the post-alert messages that would need to go out in the case of a false, mis-located, or erroneous alert. You can read about it here: Developing post-alert messaging for ShakeAlert (McBride et al. 2020). And you can read about how to improve these message here: Public Perceptions of Post-Alert Messages. (Sutton et al. 2023).
We describe our work on "all clear" messaging as "post-alert messages" because sometimes they serve less to completely reassure the population, and more to alert them that while conditions may remain somewhat uncertain, the danger is reduced enough to resume/return to normal. For example - following an evacuation, people may be advised to return but to be cautious. Or following a shelter in place order, there may be law enforcement activity or hazardous materials activity on scene, but people can come out of their shelters if they are cautious with their behaviors. This is exactly the type of post-alert message that was issued following an active shooter event in Yellowstone National Park.
While there is no evidence that an initial WEA was issued to request people to shelter in place, the post-alert message provided some assurance that the conditions were resolved. We learn a bit about the context by reading an update from the Yellowstone National Park webpage . We find details about the shooter, his actions, and his intent to do extreme harm to the public. We also find that law enforcement worked quickly, in the early morning hours, to track the shooter and to stop him from entering an occupied building. The shooter died at the scene.
While the post-alert message assures message receivers that law enforcement do not believe there is any ongoing threat, there are a few additional details that could improve its clarity.
For example, who is the source of the message? At what time, on what day did an incident occur? What is a "law enforcement incident" and why use veiled language when the press release clearly says it was an active shooter? Where is Canyon; is that within the Park? Is it a feature inside the National Park? The spelling mistake is an added distraction that can cause more confusion about the nature of the message. What do you want people to do? Can they go about their day without reservation? Do they need to be cautious? When will the message senders be certain that there is no ongoing threat from this incident? And finally, where can we find more information?
If you are a user of the Message Design Dashboard or The Warning Lexicon, you already know that we have not yet included contents and workflow for post-alert messages. But it's coming! The work to code and analyze prior post-alert messages has been completed and you can read about that here: Message cancelled, orders lifted (Sutton et al. 2024). An experiment has been conducted and results are forthcoming. So, stay tuned.
For more recommended contents, be sure to download The Warning Lexicon - it's free and offers step-by-step instructions on how to write a better warning message.
________________________________________________________________________
Feel free to post this on your social media site, just remember to attribute it to The Warn Room and include the web address: TheWarnRoom.com - Thank you!
You may click on the keywords below to find other entries with similar topics.
Comments