Seaside Tsunami Awareness Program: Evaluation & Preparedness

Introduction: Tsunami Preparedness and Education

Saving an indefinite and undeterminable number of lives has proven to depend on effective education and emergency management in tsunami events in the U.S. — and likely, everywhere else (NAS, 2011). Safety and survival ultimately depend on communities and individuals at risk having the precise knowledge and capability to decide correctly and act promptly, preferably before the event. This knowledge and capability can only be gained and developed through education before the event. Prolonged shaking of the ground and the drawing down of the shoreline are natural warning signs, especially for local communities — hints of arriving waves within minutes. No outside assistance is likely in the early moments or even days, so knowledge and capability are the only resources to rely on.

There are better opportunities for communities and individuals at risk from distant tsunamis. Official warnings may reach them in time to allow sufficient preparation. These warnings will tell them what to do (NAS, 2011).

Triggered by recent tsunami events and their consequences, education efforts and programs have been extended to those at risk (NAS, 2011). These have been aimed at preparing communities, creating and transmitting messages, and coordinating between people and agencies. However, current outcomes suggest that more effective coordination, more rigorous assessments of target populations, evaluations of program effectiveness, the teaching of best practices, and the use of evidence-based approaches to warnings and emergency management systems are still needed. Major gaps exist between emergency program goals and outcomes. Recommendations include:

Evidence-based evaluation research, which demonstrates expected positive results that proceed from the program itself and not from outside factors or events; peer-reviewed evaluation by experts; and endorsement of the program by a federal agency or reputable research organization in the field (NAS, 2011).

FEMA Programs and Services

FEMA (2015) programs and services include community preparedness through its Citizen Corps, donations and volunteer information, disaster assistance from the government, emergency lodging assistance programs, the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program, Emergency Planning Exercises, an Industry Liaison Program, Flood Map Assistance, regulatory materials, fire administration, the Freight Rail Security Grant Program, the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program, the Small Business Program, the Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program, the National Dam Safety Program, the National Incident Management System, the National Response Framework, and others (FEMA, 2015).

FEMA also offers education and training through its Center for Domestic Preparedness, National Training and Education Division, Community Emergency Response Team, Emergency Management Institute Independent Study Program, and its National Training and Education Division (FEMA, 2015).

The Seaside Tsunami Awareness Program

The Oregon Coast landscape is always a sight that draws crowds for a walk or a dip in any season (Connor, 2005). But its very location makes it a threat to residents and visitors who are not prepared for disasters like tsunamis. Storms, heavy rains, power failures, and fires occasionally occur in coastal communities. Less frequently, coastal regions like Oregon's are also at risk for severe earthquakes, tsunamis, and associated effects like landslides. What makes the Oregon Coast particularly vulnerable to tsunamis is the concentration of jobs, homes, and services located in areas exposed to possible wave surges (Connor, 2005).

In an effort to prepare for eventual tsunamis, the city government developed programs and resources to address the risk (Connor, 2005). These include an earthquake and tsunami preparedness and awareness program, a tsunami barrel program, emergency warning systems, NOAA weather radios, text and email alerts, tsunami evacuation maps and brochures, and a tsunami public library (Connor, 2005).

General Principles and Criteria for Evaluation

Evaluation should address four key questions: the frequency of evaluation, the individuals who should conduct it, what should be evaluated, and how the evaluation should be conducted (FEMA, 2015). The evaluation should be conducted at least once a year. Those responsible include the emergency manager, members of the local emergency management agency (LEMA), the local emergency management committee (LEMC), and elected and appointed local officials in higher-level positions. Performance on certain data is the object of evaluation. These data should meet three conditions: availability at the time of evaluation, relevance to organizational performance, and comprehensiveness. Emergency managers should ensure that performance is measured across the full range of organizational responsibilities (FEMA, 2015).

Many managers project and evaluate the success of their training and risk communication programs on the basis of inputs and outputs (FEMA, 2015). Inputs include the number of training participants, training hours, and the percentage of the community covered. Inputs for risk communication programs include the number of distributed brochures, community presentations, and published media stories. The more important basis is output — that is, the extent to which the program actually influenced or changed the target population's attitudes and behavior. The best procedures for evaluating these programs are therefore substantially different from older approaches, as they evaluate the effects of a given initiative on a particular population rather than a broad, undifferentiated group (FEMA, 2015).

The criteria for measuring the success of a community risk communication program are similar to those used for training programs (FEMA, 2015). These are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. The reaction criterion refers to participants' responses to the speaker, setting, medium of communication, and message. The learning criterion refers to participants' beliefs about the hazard and possible adjustments. The behavior criterion measures households' and businesses' implementation of hazard adjustments. The results criterion focuses on the reduction in mortality, morbidity, damage, and disruption caused by disasters (FEMA, 2015).

Of the four, reaction criteria are the easiest to gather. Learning and behavior criteria are the hardest. Results criteria are very difficult to gather because disasters do not occur frequently, and it is also quite difficult to draw logical conclusions from the impact of a single disaster event (FEMA, 2015).

Bibliography

Connor, D. (2005). The city of Seaside's tsunami awareness program. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/o-95=10_onscreen.pdf

FEMA. (2015). FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/pso_cat_fema.pdf

FEMA. (2015). Chapter 12: Standards and evaluation. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

NAS. (2011). Education and preparedness of individuals, communities and decision-makers. Chapter 3. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://www.nap.edu/read/12028/chapter/6

Scott, C. (2014). Evaluation of key components of draft guidelines for the National Weather Service Tsunami Ready Community Program. School of Graduate Studies, [University]. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from

Seaside. (2015). Seaside emergency preparedness. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from

Wood, N. (2007). Variations in city exposure and sensitivity to tsunami hazards in Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from