NWS Central Region service assessment : Joplin, Missouri, tornado, May 22, 2011.

LDR

04947nam^^22003613a^4500

001

FI13010939_00001

005

20130801103532.0

006

m^^^^^o^^d^^^^^^^^

007

cr^^n^---ma^mp

008

130206n^^^^^^^^xx^ab^^^o^^^^^|||^0^eng^d

024

8

|a FI13010939

245

00

|a NWS Central Region service assessment : Joplin, Missouri, tornado, May 22, 2011. |h [electronic resource] |y English.

246

3

|i Alternate title: |a National Weather Service Central Region service assessment Joplin, Missouri, tornado, May 22, 2011 |y English.

260

|a Kansas City, MO : |b U.S. Dept., of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service, Central Region Headquarters, |c 2011-07.

300

|a National government publication, 1 online resource (v, 34 p.) : |b PDF file, col. ill., col. maps. ; |c 2.0 MB.

500

|a "July 2011."

506

|a Refer to main document/publisher for use rights.

510

|a (2011). NWS central region service assessment, Joplin, Missouri, tornado—May 22, 2011. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service (NWS).

520

3

|a This document assesses the warning and forecast services provided by the National Weather Service (NWS) with a special focus on 2011 tornado in Joplin, Missouri. Besides, the document also provides additional focus on dissemination, preparedness, and warning response within the community as they relate to NWS services. The assessment mainly focuses in understanding the societal response to NWS warnings and external local warning systems during and after one of the most devastating tornadoes in the nation’s history that killed 158 people and injured over 1,000. As responding to warnings is not a simple act of stimulus-response, rather it is a non-linear, multi-step, complex process, relationship between false alarms, public complacency, and warning credibility are highly complex as well. The report discusses why a vast majority of Joplin resident did not immediately take protective action upon receiving a first indication of warning and most chose to further assess their risk by waiting for additional information as in most of such warning elsewhere. Residents took the protective actions after they had credible confirmation of the threat and its magnitude by physical observation of the tornado, urgency of the threat on radio or television, and/or hearing a second, non-routine siren alert. In preparing the assessment report, interview of survivors, local businesses, media, emergency management, NWS staff, city officials, and others were conducted. Significance of using social media including NWSChat and the benefit of increased use of GPS-based mobile communications technologies are discussed. Major points are documented in the forms of findings, recommendations and best practices. As credibility of the warning system is critical to the timely action by residents, report recommends that warning system should utilize a simple, impact-based, tiered information structure that promotes warning credibility. Poorly coordinated warning message can lead to confusing or mixed messages, so NWS should collaborate with partners throughout the weather enterprise to provide a better coordinated warning message.

520

0

|a Disasters and Climate Change

520

2

|a Introduction and Background p. 1; Societal Aspects of Risk Perception and Warning Response p. 3; Methodology p. 4; Risk Signals: Receiving and Understanding the Warning p. 4; Perception, Processing and Personalizing the Threat p. 6; Triggers for Decisions to Act p. 7; Taking Protective Actions p. 9; Conclusions p. 10; Warning Communications, Dissemination, and Community Preparedness p. 11; Storm-Based Warnings and Local Warning Dissemination Systems p. 11; NWSChat as a Coordination Tool p. 14; Community Preparedness p. 14; WFO Springfield Products and Services p. 15; Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Products and Services p. 18; WFO Springfield Warning Operations p. 20; Appendices: Appendix A: Radar Imagery p. 24; Appendix B: Upper Air Observations p. 27; Appendix C: Operational Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale p. 28; Appendix D: Findings, Recommendations, and Best Practices p. 29; Appendix E: Acronyms p. 33; Appendix F: Assessment Team Members p. 34

533

650

1

|a Tornadoes |z Missouri |z Joplin.

650

1

|a Emergency management |z Missouri |z Joplin.

650

1

|a National Weather Service |z United States |z Central Region.

662

710

2

|a United States. National Weather Service. Central Region,. |4 cre

710

2

|a Disaster Risk Reduction Program, Florida International University (DRR/FIU), |e summary contributor.

776

1

|c Original |w (OCoLC)756202821

830

0

|a dpSobek.

852

|a dpSobek

856

40

|u http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI13010939/00001 |y Click here for full text

992

04

|a http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/13/01/09/39/00001/FI13010939thm.jpg