optimizing the use of social media for the dissemination of emergency warnings

Running Head: SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMERGENCY WARNINGS

OPTIMIZING THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF EMERGENCY WARNINGS

By

JAMES EMBLETON-FORREST

A Major Research Project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In

DISASTER AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Accepted and Recommended:

Eileen Davenport Academic Supervisor

Approved: SPCM Designate

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY 5th March 2014

© James Embleton-Forrest, 2014

SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMERGENCY WARNINGS

2

Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine how emergency managers in Vancouver could

optimize the use of social media for the formal dissemination of warnings. Specifically, this

study asked what are the most utilized forms of social media in Vancouver, how these

applications are perceived by users in terms of credibility, and whether there is a relationship

between the source of an emergency warning message and the assessment of credibility by the

recipient. Finally, the appetite of Vancouver residents to receive emergency warnings via social

media was assessed. A mixed-methodology was employed using an Internet-based survey

instrument with follow-up interviews and exposure to a series of simulated warning messages.

The study concludes that there is a strong linkage between the popularity of social media

applications and the assessment of credibility by users. Message recipients prefer to know the

originating source of a message to aid in their own assessment of credibility. While there is an

appetite for emergency warnings via social media, there is trepidation that it may lead to

information overload. Emergency managers in Vancouver should consider email, linkedin,

Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Google+ a priority for warning promulgation via social media.

Emergency managers should be transparent about their reasons for using social media with

recipients and establish an online identity prior to any crisis. Also, message recipients should be

encouraged to forward emergency warnings onwards to their own social networks by email as

email from a known source is highly regarded by respondents in terms of credibility.


3

Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 3 List of Figures 5 List of Tables 6 List of Appendices 7 Chapter One: Study Introduction 8 Introduction 8 Purpose 9 Outcome 10 Chapter Two: Literature Review 11 Literature Review 11 Search Procedures 12 Defining Social Media 12 What is Social Media? 13 Key Principles 14 Web 2.0 16 Social Media: A Working Definition 18 Paradigm Shifts 19 Research Trends and Deficiencies 23 Summary 25 Chapter Three: Methodology 27 Purpose 27 Outcome 28 Methodological Approach 28 Research Design 29 Research Methods 29 Conduct of Survey 29 Conduct of Interviews and Simulated Warning Messages Assessment 30 Survey Group Composition 31 Timeframe of Study 33 Data Analysis 33 Presentation of Results 35 Limitations of the Study 36 Delimitations of the Study 36 Assumptions 36 Ethical Considerations 36 Chapter Four: Study Findings 38 Respondent Demographics 38 Question Three to Seven: Internet Usage 40 Questions Eight to Ten: Social Networking Applications and Credibility 45 Questions Eleven to Fourteen: Source vs. Medium and Credibility 50


4

Subsequent Interviews and Simulated Message Assessment 51 Coding of Qualitative Interview Data 52 Summary 54 Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations 56 Research Aim 56 Demographics and Internet Usage 56 Social Media Utilization 60 Social Media Credibility 63 Source versus Credibility 65 Receptiveness 70 Conclusions 71 Recommendations 72 Implications 74 Chapter Six: Reflective Learning 76 Researching Skills 76 Thinking Skills 78 Conclusion 81 References 82 Appendices 88


5

List of Figures

Fig 3.1. Methods of Assessment 34 Fig 4.1. Respondents by Age and Gender 40 Fig 4.2. Internet Access at Work 41 Fig 4.3. Internet Access at Work Regulated by Employer 42 Fig 4.4. Use of Mobile Internet Device 43 Fig 4.5. Use of Push Notifications 44 Fig 4.6. Social Media Applications Used 46 Fig 4.7. Assessment of Credibility of Each Social Media Application Used 47 Fig 4.8. Credibility Rating by Social Media Application 48 Fig 4.9. Likelihood of Behavioral Change by Social Media Application 49 Fig 4.10. Simulated Messages Ratings. 52


6

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Paradigm Shifts in Emergency Management 21 Table 3.1. Methods of Triangulation 35 Table 4.1. Frequency Distribution by Age Group and by Gender 38 Table 4.2. Vancouver Population by Age and Gender 39 Table 4.3. Summary of Analytical Coding by Age and Gender 53


7

List of Appendices Social Media and Emergency Management Survey Appendix A Consolidated Response Data for Survey Appendix B Simulated Emergency Management Messages Appendix C Simulated Message Assessment Sheet Consolidated Responses Appendix D Coded Interview Data Appendix E


8

Chapter One: Study Introduction

Introduction

One of the consistent trends in emergency management is that disasters are becoming more

frequent and affecting more people (ICRC, 2005). An increase in the interdependence of

individuals, communities, communication networks, industry, and governments is creating

complex disasters that can rapidly traverse geographic, social, and political boundaries (Canada,

2011; Murphy & Etkin, 2011; Tierney, 2001). Part of the role of the emergency manager in this

increasingly complex environment is to initiate protective measures against an event such as

extreme weather, seismic activity, a health pandemic, a major infrastructure failure, or a terrorist

incident.

More traditional methods of warning dissemination include word of mouth and mass media

(Sutton, Palen & Shklovski, 2008). However, it is important to recognize that conventional

television and radio, while potentially very influential, are not the only forms of high-speed mass

communication (Scanlon, 2007), and indeed in the future may not be the most frequently used.

The proliferation of mobile electronic devices, the Internet and social media has created an

almost instantaneous flow of information that the public is increasingly using for a wide variety

of purposes, including emergency warnings. Yet research into more traditional dissemination

methods shows that the first thing a recipient usually does upon receipt of an emergency warning

is verifies it with another source (Cutter & Smith, 2009; Perry & Greene as cited in Scanlon,

2007; Sorensen & Sorensen, 2007). Therefore the emergency manager, working in a world that

now encompasses both traditional and new forms of high speed mass communication, must

consider the most credible means by which to disseminate a warning in order to maximize the


9

probability that the message will be perceived as reliable, understood by the target audience, and

if necessary, complied with by those affected.

Social media offers a rapid and versatile means of communication with significant reach.

Over one third of adults who use the Internet are using web logs (blogs), social media, and text

messaging on their portable devices (Veil, 2011). The volume of traffic via social media is

staggering: Twitter generates an estimated 55 million tweets a day, Flickr amasses more than

6000 photos each minute, YouTube accumulates over 24 hours of video a minute and takes up

more than 10% of all internet traffic, and Facebook has more than 400 million active users,

making it the most visited site on the Internet in the USA (Kavanaugh, 2012)

However, while much research has been conducted into threat warnings, crises

communication, perception of threat, and warning compliance, there has been less work in the

use of social media to convey a warning message prior to an incident. While traditional print and

electronic mass media (television and radio) is subject to the legal and ethical vetting that one

would expect of a professional media organization, the multi-directional configuration and mass

participation of social media is not (Fearn-Banks, 2011). While this makes the social media

information landscape more fluid and current, it also potentially impacts upon its perceived

credibility (Seeger, 2006) and therefore raises questions as to its potential for use by emergency

managers.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine how emergency managers in Vancouver can

optimize the use of social media for the formal dissemination of warnings. In addition, the

following sub-questions will be addressed:

a. What are the most utilized forms of social media within Vancouver for personal use? The

purpose of this question is to determine what forms of social media Vancouver residents use for


10

general social networking and everyday use. This will provide an idea of the social media

‘channels’ available to the emergency manager through which to promulgate a warning.

b. How are those forms of social media perceived in terms of credibility by the residents of

Vancouver? Different social media sites may mean different things to different people. Some

sites may be highly regarded in terms of credibility, whereas others may be perceived as lighter

entertainment and not a worthwhile source of warning information. Understanding the

relationship between the forms of social media used and the assessment of credibility by the

target audience may make positive behavioral change and warning compliance more likely. The

more credible the site is perceived to be, the higher priority that site should be for use as a tool

for the dissemination of warnings by an emergency manager.

c. Is there a relationship between the source of the message and the perception of

credibility? Social media can serve as a rapid and widespread distribution method for

information. However, often the originating source for that piece of information can be lost in

the flurry of ‘re-tweets’, ‘posts’ or ‘likes’. How important is it to a social media user to know the

originating source for a piece of information? In relation to the prior sub-question, is knowledge

of the originating source more important than the perceived credibility of the form of social

media upon which that information is currently being viewed?

d. Would Vancouver residents wish to receive emergency warning information via their

social media? This question will hopefully identify if there is an appetite for using social media

for emergency warning messages in Vancouver.

Outcome

The hope is to provide data that will aid emergency managers in Vancouver in selecting the

optimal type of social media via which to promulgate a warning message to ensure speed of

delivery and to enhance the probability of compliance, thereby contributing to public safety.


11

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Literature Review

A great deal of research has been conducted into the field of emergency warning messages

and compliance. However the majority of this material is centered on conventional mainstream

mass media, social networks and word of mouth. Although this research provides a good starting

point, this Major Research Project (MRP) will focus exclusively on social media as the means of

message promulgation. Prior research shows that to be effective, an emergency warning must be

timely, accurate, credible, and transmitted via as many sources as possible (Auf de Heide, 1989;

Mileti & Peek, 2000). Current research into social media suggests that these factors continue to

be important and shape target audience perception (Veil, 2011; White, 2012). However,

developments over the last decade in social media suggest that people are even less likely now to

rely on single sources for official information, in part because the Internet provides instantaneous

access to a wider variety of sources to consult (Mersham, 2010). The purpose of this MRP will

be to examine message promulgation via social media, specifically in Vancouver. Social media

provides a means to rapidly repeat and exponentially transfer a message on numerous sources

simultaneously. The utility of social media for promulgating emergency warning messages

seems clear. However the relationship between the forms of social media used, the originating

source of the message and the resultant impact on credibility by the viewer is less understood and

represents a shortfall in the current research. Furthermore, there is very limited research into

understanding how social media can be used to assist the public in making decisions that result in

recommended actions (O’Brien, 2012). Understanding the characteristics of social media, how

social media has changed emergency management warnings, and where the deficiencies in


12

research currently exist will be key in framing the context of this MRP. Consequently, this

literature review will focus on three main areas:

a. Defining social media.

b. Paradigm shifts in emergency management related to social media.

c. Research trends and deficiencies.

Search Procedures

The primary means used for research for this literature review was the Internet. Google

Scholar, Summon and the Royal Roads University library database were used in conjunction with

the following search terms:

a. Social media + emergency management.

b. Social networks + emergency warnings.

c. Crisis communication + social media.

d. Social media information flow.

e. Social media + credibility.

f. Social media + government.

g. Trust + Internet.

h. Emergency warning compliance.

i. Emergency warning + social media.

j. Web 2.0.

k. Mass media + emergency management.

Defining Social Media

It is difficult to imagine a world without the Internet and social media. Social media has been

likened to the agricultural or industrial revolutions in the sense that it fundamentally alters the

way we function and in a sense, the balance of power in terms of information (Crowe, 2012).


13

When compared to other communication mediums, the pace at which social media has become so

influential is staggering. It took 38 years for radio to reach 50 million listeners while terrestrial

television took only 13-years to do the same. However the website Facebook had over 500

million users within only 4-years of being developed (Walaski, 2013). With such a short history

and a rapid and ongoing evolution, the breadth of research into social media is limited but

increasing and there are a number of key themes emerging that are relevant to this study.

What is Social Media?

A definition often centers on something’s purpose or reason for being. Drawing together a

working definition for social media from across the current research is difficult as new

applications and ways of using social media are developing every day. “Social media is an

umbrella term that covers all the various electronic tools, technologies, and applications that

facilitate interactive communication and content exchange, enabling the user to move back and

forth easily between the roles of audience and content producers” (Spicer, 2013). This notion of

the user being both the audience and the producer of content is key and impacts on information

credibility as information is perhaps less likely to come from a subject matter expert or person in

authority, but instead from a bystander or layperson. Social media stresses openness and

participation where the consumers are the contributors, and the contributors are the consumers

(Veil, 2011). Credibility remains important because although social media may serve to

eliminate the “middleman (i.e. the Media)” in the passage of information, the information still

must be believed to be relevant (White, 2012). White further defines social media as a form of

“…electronic communication through which users create online communities to share

information, ideas, personal messages and content” (White). Social media is further

characterized by “…dynamic interaction in a networked format” (Crowe, 2012). Social media


14

can also be defined as “…Internet-based applications that enable people to communicate and

share resources and information” (Lindsay, 2011).

Key Principles

Although the definitions are varied and are developing at the same explosive pace as the

Internet itself, a few key principles that define social media resonate across the existing literature.

Firstly, social media is Internet-based and electronic in nature. Although this may seem obvious,

it does provide some basic parameters. To use social media, a person must have access to an

electric power source and a reliable communication system, they must have access to the Internet

(be it wireless or via a ‘hard-wire’), and they must have a computer device like a laptop, desktop

computer or smart phone to view content (Shankar, 2008). Devices capable of viewing social

media content are becoming cheaper to produce and highly accessible. About 40% of current

Facebook users access the site via a mobile device and mobile users are twice as active on the site

as those who use the site from a non-mobile device such as a desktop computer (White, 2012).

Both electric power and an Internet signal are increasingly being considered as ‘core’ utilities to

be provided to a community. In fact the United Nations has ruled that Internet access is a basic

human right to be guaranteed and protected by every state (United Nations General Assembly,

2012).

Next, social media is about, and for, people. It is a way of interacting that transcends

geographic space. It may seem natural to stereotype social media to being predominantly the

remit of the younger generation, but interestingly, the 50-64 year old age group is the fastest

growing demographic amongst social media users (Crowe, 2012). Although commonality of

language can be a barrier to some, English appears to be the predominant means of

communication over social media globally. However, popular applications like Facebook are

available in over 70 different translations (White, 2012). Also, the capability to exchange and


15

view images and video often transcends a common language. Although the quality of images

uploaded over social media may be less polished than those produced by a professional media

outlet, Crowe suggests that raw, grainy, hand-held footage or unedited audio files may seem

more compelling and believable to some viewers, potentially enhancing credibility (2012).

Although the Internet is subject to regulation by government, the viral nature of information

transfer makes policing the Internet highly challenging. Even if disseminated information is

subsequently revealed to be inaccurate, once that information is on the Internet or being

exchanged between social media sites or users, it is hard to remove. Social media is ever

changing, transparent and cost effective in that it continues to rapidly morph to meet new

requirements limited in a sense only by creativity (Crowe, 2012). Whereas uploading footage

from a remote location once required physical transfer of the written word on paper or expensive

and cumbersome satellite upload technology, the same can be achieved almost instantaneously

with a palm-sized mobile device and a social media account. Despite social media seemingly

being by and for the people, one must not under-estimate the commercial power of the Internet

and social media. Over half of Twitter users in the USA are currently following a product brand

or a corporation (Crowe). So although the Internet and social media are very much in the hands

of the general public, that does not preclude government and industry from using social media for

marketing, public relations, and crisis communication purposes. The originating source of a

message may have an impact on message credibility, but determining whom the originating

source is can be difficult when a message has passed through a number of different social media

sites and users. Social media can potentially be used as a tool for disinformation as well, by

releasing privileged or ‘leaked’ information or deliberately malicious or erroneous material.

Social media stresses pro-activeness and projection. The speed of information transfer has

created very short cycles in which to receive, review, analyze, decide upon and respond to


16

information. During the 2013 crash of Asiana flight OZ214 in San Francisco, the first image of

the impact had been uploaded to Twitter within 30 seconds by a Google employee boarding an

unrelated flight. This was over a minute before the emergency slides on the crashed aircraft had

even deployed to aid in evacuation. The same Google employee then received numerous direct

messages from news agencies via Twitter requesting interviews and more details (Simpliflying,

2013). By news agencies and interested parties automatically monitoring social media for key

terms like ‘plane crash’ or ‘terrorist explosion’, the speed at which interested parties can identify

information and then promulgate that information to a wider audience is increasingly rapid.

Currently however, in terms of emergency management, government uses social media somewhat

passively to disseminate information, relying on the target audience seeking information from

websites and electronic bulletin boards rather than information being ‘pushed’ towards a targeted

audience (Lindsay, 2011). This view is supported by research conducted by Spicer who suggests

that formalized emergency management as a discipline under utilizes the capability of social

media (2013). It is perhaps this ‘thirst’ for information amongst Internet and social media users

and the seemingly limited provision of information by government that has helped the Internet

and social media evolve into more of a two-way communication tool, forcing government to re-

evaluate how they use social media.

Web 2.0

The early days of the Internet were generally somewhat one-way in nature. Those with

Internet access uploaded information onto the Internet for viewing by others with Internet access.

Once that content was uploaded, the sender could conceivably forget about it, and simply let

others passively view the material. There may be some limited facility for dialogue with the

ability to leave comments or ‘post’ feedback, but the relationship was somewhat one-way and

linear in nature. There was less of a linkage between feedback and content. The Internet and


17

social media have now developed to enable a greater degree of collaboration and communication

and have become known in characteristically computer-centric speech as Web 2.0 (White, 2012).

Applications like “Wikis” and shared websites allow for cooperative construction of social media

content with ‘real-time’ dialogue and feedback. Simple applications such as the ability to ‘like’

something on Facebook are being used by television newscasts to permit real-time viewer

feedback on news stories and comment sharing via social media polling. Educational institutions

are placing an increasing number of courses on-line providing students with the ability to attend

lectures and discuss course content ‘virtually’. Students who have never actually met in person

can create online learning communities using social media, enabling the completion of group

projects online. A person’s social circle is perhaps as likely to contain people that they have not

met or whom they seldom see in person, as people they see everyday. As a consequence, in an

emergency management context, relying on a member of one’s social network for advice,

assistance or an opinion may mean relying on someone who is not physically co-located with the

user or even subject to the same impending threat.

A survey by the Canadian Red Cross suggests that 63% of Canadians think that first

responders should be prepared to respond to a request for assistance posted by people on social

media (2012). There is an expectation now by Canadians that emergency management

authorities not only use social media but actively monitor it to help drive response activity.

However only about one third of Canadians polled believe that such a request posted on social

media would currently translate to aid (Red Cross). This perhaps indicates a capability gap

between the Canadian public’s appetite for the use of social media as an emergency management

tool and the capacity of first responders to meet that expectation. In part this is perhaps due to

simple resource limitations: including a lack of capacity on the part of emergency agencies to


18

devote staff to monitor social media and the subsequent linking of monitoring to the operational

deployment of resources.

The monitoring of social media websites by government and non-governmental agencies can

be a good source of situational awareness and trend analysis. Palen (2008) has suggested a tighter

linkage is required between emergency management and social media research proposing that

organizational processes are crucial to leveraging publicly disseminated information (i.e. social

media monitoring). Mersham (2010) suggests that there is a cultural mindset amongst public

officials for only using ‘credible’ sources of information and that public officials feel that social

media is not a readily verifiable source. This comes from an understandable fear of promulgating

false or unaccredited information and a moral responsibility to ‘get it right’ and not spread undue

panic. Emergency management organizations and government may be held accountable for their

decision to issue or not issue a warning and the lack of attribution to some viral warning

messages makes that decision to promulgate more complex (Sene, 2008). This should not detract

from government’s ability to monitor social media for information and situational awareness

however. Nonetheless the volume of traffic over social media and the difficulty of discerning the

true volume due to re-posting, repeating etc. makes social media monitoring complex and

potentially resource intensive (Imran, 2013).

Social Media: A working definition

Based on the literature reviewed and in light of the purpose of this MRP, the author proposes

the following definition of social media:

“Social media refers to Internet-based applications that enable the free and rapid exchange of

information and opinion within a virtual community.”


19

Paradigms Shifts

In relation to emergency warning dissemination, social media represents a potentially radical

change in conventional warning models. Firstly, social media has enabled a shift from

unidirectional warnings to multi-directional warnings. Traditional warning method research

stressed the need for multiple channels but there was little crossover between those channels

creating ‘stove-piped’ and linear pathways of information (Botterell, 2008; Mileti, 2007; Scanlon,

2007). Although there was a degree of ‘cross-fertilization’ of information amongst a person’s

actual social network, the majority of the information routes into that social network were

singular. Social media allows information to follow numerous divergent and often intersecting

channels, creating more of a potential for dialogue between emergency managers and a

population (Fearn-Bank, 2011). However, predicting how and where that information may travel

via the Internet is extremely difficult. White suggests that controlling the flow of information on

social media is fruitless (2012). However, by contrast Hui et al. suggest that in times of crisis,

information sharing on mediums like Twitter reverts back to being one-way in nature, with a high

proportion of information posted being passed on to the public via social media but not

necessarily replied to or questioned by the recipient (2012). This would suggest that in times of

crisis, people prefer to receive specific and clear instructions that are consistent across multiple

channels, a principle well established in research into more traditional emergency warning

methods (Auf de Heide, 1989). What social media does is provide a significantly greater number

of channels by which to pass that information quickly and the facility to engage in dialogue for

those amongst the target audience who wish to do so.

Historically, emergency management structures have generally been hierarchical and based on

traditional military and government command and control models (Quarantelli, 2000).

Information flows downwards from a central control node, usually a government official or


20

department. The speed at which that government department can be alerted to an impending

crisis, means the decision to disseminate a warning, and then promulgate that information

through traditional channels, is often slow and mired by bureaucracy (Sorenson, 2000). Social

media however is readily available to the wider population or the ‘citizen journalist’. Current

information or even images captured on a cell phone at the scene of an incident as it unfolds,

possibly out of context, can instantaneously be uploaded and disseminated onto social media

before formal emergency management authorities are aware the incident has even occurred and

decisions to act can be made. This to an extent puts the power of information at the lowest levels

and de-links the power to affect change from official sources and government authorities.

Information flow has switched from the impersonal to the personal with an emphasis on ‘back-

channels’ facilitated by social media (Mersham, 2010; Sorensen, 2000). However, with

information less likely to originate with an official source, will this in turn impact on credibility?

Social media permits online communities to form based on geographic proximity or a shared

jeopardy in relation to an impending emergency. However there has been limited research into

how proximity to jeopardy impacts upon a social media user’s perception of credibility. For

example, what will someone who faces an impending disaster find more credible as the source of

a warning over social media: a distant, removed government expert commenting on an impending

disaster or an average citizen who lives only a few minutes away and is fundamentally at risk as

well? A person can have links with both of those entities via social media, but it is unclear,

which would seem more compelling and credible to the viewer. Credibility may be further

impacted by social media often not permitting the traditional cues people rely upon for

determining truthfulness like posture, intonation, eye contact etc. (Castillo, 2011). So while prior

research indicates that warning messages from authority figures and respected traditional media

sources still have a level of credibility, there is limited research into how the same messages


21

promulgated over social media are regarded. While some researchers suggest that word of mouth

is perceived as more trusted than mainstream media, existing research makes this less easy to

support when that word of mouth is a 140-character message on Twitter received from a person

you have never physically met and cannot see (Imran, 2013).

With information more likely to be transmitted over social media by a ‘non-professional’ in

the field of crisis communication, the information is more likely to be personalized, subjective

and localized (Veil, 2011). Traditional emergency management warnings are issued by official

or media organizations that have specific criteria, standards and thresholds to facilitate the

decision to promulgate (Sene, 2008). News agencies are bound by legal and ethical codes of

conduct that regulate the release of information and warnings. A participant in social media

however, may not consider the consequences of dissemination, possibly leading to the

exaggeration of severity, false warnings, and confusion (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996).

However, what emergency managers need to realize is the sum total of the situational awareness

within any social network is likely to exceed the knowledge of any one individual emergency

management practitioner (Crowe, 2012). As a consequence, emergency managers exclude social

media from their warning strategy at their peril.

So in short, current research suggests that the major paradigm shifts in the field of emergency

management warnings related to the evolution of social media can be summarized as follows:

Table 2.1

Paradigm Shifts in Emergency Management

Emergency Management: Pre-social media Emergency Management: Post-social media

Unidirectional information flow: -From official sources to the public via the traditional mass media. -Slower and linear in nature.

Multi-directional information flow: -From both unofficial and official sources via a complex web of multi-channel linkages. -Distance and time no longer an issue.


22

-Can be virtually instantaneous.

Lack of Information: -Timetable of information flow controlled by sender, often a central authority. -Hesitancy to release partial information picture, leading to slower flow of information or absence of information.

Information Overload: -Information from multiple sources. -Greater tempo of information shared and repeated exponentially. -Desire by central authority such as government to keep ahead of the ‘information cycle’. -Can create an overload of information and comment of varying credibility/utility. -Information fusion and assessment can be difficult for the individual.

Top-down in terms of authority: -Official source vested with the authority and responsibility to issue warnings.

Bottom-down in terms of power: -Unofficial sources lacking formal authority but who possess the power to affect change through influence and social connectivity.

Official sources: -Government, first responders, news media, emergency management practitioners. -Attributed sources. -Accountability.

Unofficial sources: -Eyewitnesses, bloggers, social media users, non-professionals, community opinion formers. -Less attributed. -Limited accountability.

Control of information and process: -Formal thought process and decision-making cycle to disseminate warnings based around legislation, reporting thresholds, and codes of ethical conduct.

Transparency: -Honesty, timeliness, candor, and a lack of process and formalization. -Limited ‘ownership’ of information posted to the Internet.

Impersonal: -Objective, focused on the wider community as opposed to individuals. -Emotionally detached and pragmatic. -Regional versus individual in terms of focus.

Personal: -Often highly subjective, personalized, individual and anecdotal. -Authentic human voice to which audience can relate possibly enhancing credibility. -Geographically relevant and localized.

Mass media as the source: -Messaging via mass media most common.

Social media as the source: -Mass media now using social media to deliver


23

-Attribution to formal sources impacting upon credibility. -News agencies work hard to cultivate a reputation for honest, accurate, and responsible reporting.

their message. -Originating source of information often difficult to discern. -Social media channel being used may impact on credibility of message.

Empowerment of Authorities: -Knowledge is power. -Control of that flow of knowledge exacerbates the hierarchical relationship of the emergency management authority and the community.

Empowerment of Community and Individuals: -Ordinary citizen often has access to the most up-to-date information and the means to promulgate via social media. -Validation of actions through shared opinion and support by on-line community.

Research Trends and Deficiencies

Although the advent of the Internet and social media has created much discussion within

emergency management, the majority of this research focuses on crisis communication (Coombs

& Holladay, 2009). In other words how to handle a crisis as it emerges using social media as

almost a public relations tool. Much of the existing research into social media also seems to be

focused on citizen response to a disaster (i.e. online information sharing, resiliency, and

coordinating response and recovery activities) with less emphasis on the promulgation of initial

warnings using social media before an event. Schultz et al. have looked at message credibility

and reputation, but again with a focus more on crisis communication and crisis containment

strategy (2011). Schmierbach and Oeldorf-Hirsch (2012) have conducted extensive research into

the issue of credibility for specific areas of social media like Twitter. But they acknowledge that

there has been little comparative research of how the same information from the same source

disseminated on different social media channels is perceived in terms of credibility.

Much of the research into disaster warnings has been somewhat restricted to singular

communication channels, which is not as relevant to the multi-directional and multi-channel


24

distribution that social media can achieve (Burkhart, 1990). Historically, there has been research

into how social networks impact upon a person’s decision to comply with warning information.

However, much of this research involves face-to-face contact and ‘actual’ social networks as

opposed to the virtual social networks that social media can provide. Widener has suggested a

need to examine how geographically distant members of a person’s social network, joined only

by social media, may impact upon a decision to comply with a localized warning (2013). He

further suggests that from an emergency management perspective, determining whom to target

within social networks in order to maximize the chance of message dissemination and enhance

credibility should be a focus for future study (2013), a research need also supported by Crowe

(2012).

The question of the timescale in terms of threat is also an area that is not well understood,

specifically slow versus rapid onset threats. The speed of transmission and dissemination on

social media lends itself to rapid-onset warnings like seismic activity, extreme weather or a

terrorist incident. However the collaborative and conversational nature of social media also

provides a mechanism for debate over slower-onset events like climate change or a seasonal

pandemic threat. What research has been conducted into the credibility of warning information

via social media has not differentiated slower versus rapid onset emergencies. Potentially, the

lack of time to process information and make a decision to act in rapid onset emergencies makes

related information received over social media more credible out of necessity. In other words, if

there is limited time to make a decision, a person may rely on the most readily available opinion

or source of information, often found on the Internet via social media. At this point in time there

is limited research available to fully examine this issue. This MRP will focus exclusively on

rapid onset emergencies in relation to warning promulgation.


25

I have identified the relationship between social media and credibility with regard to

emergency warnings as the most critical research gap resulting from this literature review.

Traditional ‘rules’ for warning messages suggest that an authority figure providing a serious yet

empathetic message will have the best effect on a population (Auf de Heide, 1989; Seeger, 2006).

However, what needs to be considered is the effect on credibility that the same messages will

have when viewed on social media. Different social media platforms may impact on the

perceived credibility of the message. Furthermore, this perceived level of credibility for official

messaging must be contrasted with messages received from unofficial sources and ‘ordinary’

citizens via social media. Determining through further research, the perception of credibility of

different social media forms and methods of dissemination over social media, will provide

guidance of how best to disseminate a warning when time is short.

Summary

Traditional disaster warning methodology is based around a unidirectional flow of information

from official source to target population. However disaster and emergency management scholars

increasingly recognize “...that technological and social developments over the last decade means

the public no longer relies on a single source of official information” (Mersham, 2010, p. 139).

Social media has brought about a shift from official information and warning distribution from

practitioners to the public via mass media being the sole source of information, to an unrestricted

and multi-directional sharing of knowledge from any and all sources. While credibility in

conventional mass media has been extensively studied, less is known about the credibility of

using social media for disseminating these rapid onset emergency warnings. What is unclear is

what the effect of where the message originates and the social media form used will have upon

credibility amongst the target audience. The aim of this project will be to examine these factors


26

in a small study in Vancouver, Canada in order to suggest ways to maximize the effectiveness of

issued warnings via social media.


27

Chapter Three: Methodology

Purpose


optimize the use of social media for the formal dissemination of warnings. Such agencies could

include municipal, regional, provincial and federal government, emergency services and non-

governmental aid agencies. In addition, the following sub-questions will be addressed:

a. What are the most utilized forms of social media within Vancouver for personal use? The

purpose of this question is to determine what forms of social media Vancouver residents use for

general social networking and everyday use. This will provide an idea of the social media

‘channels’ available to the emergency manager through which to promulgate an emergency

warning.


Vancouver? Different social media sites may mean different things to different people. Some

sites may be highly regarded in terms of credibility, whereas others may be perceived as lighter

entertainment and not a worthwhile source of warning information. Understanding the

relationship between the forms of social media used and the assessment of credibility by the

target audience may make positive behavioral change and warning compliance more likely. The

more credible the site is perceived to be, the higher priority that site should be for use as a tool

for the dissemination of warnings by an emergency manager.


credibility? Social media can serve as a rapid and widespread distribution method for

information. However, often the originating source for that piece of information can be lost in

the flurry of ‘re-tweets’, ‘posts’ or ‘likes’. How important is it to a social media user to know the


28

originating source for a piece of information? In relation to the prior sub-question, is knowledge

of the originating source more important than the perceived credibility of the form of social

media upon which that information is currently being viewed?


social media? This question will hopefully identify if there is an appetite for using social media

for emergency warning messages in Vancouver.

Outcome

The hope is to provide data that will aid emergency managers in Vancouver in selecting

the optimal type of social media via which to promulgate a warning message to ensure speed of

delivery and to enhance the probability of compliance, thereby contributing to public safety.

Methodological Approach

The key to establishing a research methodology is to understand how best to answer the

research questions in an objective way (O’Leary, 2010). The research questions in this project

lend themselves to both quantitative and qualitative examination and thus this project used a

mixed-methods approach to determine what forms of social media the survey group uses, how

credible each form is considered and how best to employ social media for the promulgation of

emergency warnings. The mixed-methods approach was also used in part to overcome the

“…dominance of case-study-based predictions in the field of crisis communication” (Coombs &

Holladay as cited in Schultz, Utz & Goritz, 2011, p. 25). Sub-question A addressed the social

media sites used by Vancouver residents and can be reflected as a list of social media sites linked

to the number of survey respondents who use those sites. The respondents were also asked to

give qualitative comment as to why they choose to use those sites specifically. This question was

therefore addressed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Sub-question B asked for an

assessment by respondents of credibility and was assessed by not just a numerical scale


29

(quantitative) but by respondent opinion and anecdotal evidence (qualitative). Sub-question C is

based around how important respondents feel knowing the originating source of a message is,

and its impact on credibility. While this question was in part answered using a simple scale of

preference (quantitative), understanding the linkage between source and credibility is perhaps

better understood via respondent descriptions and qualitative reporting and is also the subject of

future research proposed by Castillo, Mendoza and Poblete (2011). Finally, sub-question D

measured the appetite for social media use for emergency management in Vancouver and was

examined quantitatively along a numerical scale of preference. Widener, Horner, and Metcalf

contend that future research should “…investigate empirical forms of online social networks as

well as how much weight is placed upon information garnered from social media “ (2012, p.

207). This research need will in part be satisfied by the qualitative assessments outlined above. It

is hoped that the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods employed in this MRP will

produce some recommended best practice for use of social media by emergency managers in

Vancouver.

Research Design

Research Methods

The following research methods were used:

a. Online self-administered survey using survey software.

b. One-on-one interviews.

c. Administered written simulated warning message assessment.

Conduct of Survey

The initial intention was to distribute both an identical online and hardcopy survey to capture

the widest possible audience. However, it was correctly anticipated that the greatest return was

for the version of the survey that was electronically produced and distributed using an Internet-


30

based survey platform. The written survey and the Internet-based survey were identical. Part of

the survey asked about social media usage patterns (types of social media used, degree of access

at home and at work, usage of automatic updates, and why the respondent chooses the social

media platforms that they do). This section also included relative assessments by the user of the

degree of perceived general credibility for each of the types of social media they use. Much of

this section was represented numerically with responses to either yes or no questions or a 5-point

scale of preference, with some qualitative comment from the respondent. The survey continued

with an opportunity for comment regarding how the credibility of these forms of social media

could be improved and credibility enhanced regarding dissemination of emergency warning

information. The commentary section provided informants the opportunity to amplify and

provide further detail on their quantitative and qualitative responses. Respondents were asked

how important they feel knowing the originating source of a message found on social media is

and the impact on credibility of knowing the source. Respondents answered this question on both

a numerical scale of preference and through qualitative commentary. A complete copy of the

survey can be found at Appendix A. A consolidated list of survey respondent data can be found

at Appendix B.

Conduct of Interviews and Simulated Warning Messages Assessment

Six respondents (or just over 5% of the survey group) were also randomly selected for a

subsequent follow-up interview and for exposure to a series of four simulated emergency

warning messages on different social media applications. Interviews were conducted in person

and recorded. The basis of each interview was the completed survey with encouragement for

interviewees to expand on their quantitative assessments and survey comments in order to gather

a greater depth of qualitative data. Interviewees were then exposed to four simulated emergency

messages from a municipal emergency management organization. The four simulated test


31

messages can be found at Appendix C and a copy of the Simulated Message Assessment Sheet

with consolidated responses can be found at Appendix D. The forms employed for the four

simulated warning messages included a link to a municipal website posted via text message on a

cell phone, a Facebook post to a municipal website, a Twitter feed warning, and a warning

message distributed by email. All of these messages were simulated and this was explained in

advance to respondents. Respondents were then invited to quantify the degree of perceived

credibility for each message using a 5-point scale of preference and their likelihood of complying

with or changing their behavior in response to that warning. Respondents were then invited to

provide their opinion of how these methods could be made more credible and the likelihood they

would pass that message along to their own social network.

Survey Group Composition

The survey group was drawn exclusively from residents of the City of Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada. The study was only conducted in English and therefore only involved those

able to read and write fluently in English. Survey participants were selected predominantly

based on availability and convenience. The aspiration was to have a survey group of a minimum

of ten subjects from each of four different age groups (18-25 years, 26-40 years, 40-65 years, and

over 65 years). This was to gather a spread of opinion from across the adult population and to

provide sufficient representation to ensure statistical rigor. It was hoped that this aspiration

would be met and even exceeded by the distribution of the survey instrument via the Internet.

The survey respondents consisted of a mix of males and females within each age group.

However, the over 65 years of age group was under-represented. A comparison of the current

Vancouver census by age group against respondent age group for this survey can be found in

Chapter 4. Online surveys were distributed via email and it was hoped that a snowball strategy

would enable the widest possible audience within Vancouver. The link to the survey was


32

distributed via email through friends, family, work colleagues, and the social media website

linkedin. The primary caveat was that adult residents of Vancouver only complete the survey.

The initial study design included an approach the City of Vancouver Emergency Management

Department to request permission to attend the emergency management workshops run for

Vancouver residents by the Department (2-3 per month). These workshops were normally

conducted on weekday evenings in community centers and schools and attended voluntarily by

residents of the City of Vancouver hoping to broaden their knowledge of emergency

preparedness. It was hoped that the City of Vancouver would permit the distribution of written

surveys to attendees of these workshops or alternatively, copies of the electronic link to the

online survey for workshop attendees who were unwilling or unable to complete the survey in

writing while at the workshop but willing to do so subsequently. Also the City of Vancouver’s

permission was to be sought to conduct one-on-one interviews amongst workshop attendees. The

plan was to draw no more than half the survey participants from the City of Vancouver

workshops. The rationale for this is that attendance at the City of Vancouver workshop indicates

a possible interest in emergency management. This would have meant that some percentage of

survey participants would have had a level of personal interest in emergency management and

potentially some knowledge of how emergency warnings work and where they come from.

However, at least 50% of the respondents were to be drawn from participants not attending the

City of Vancouver workshops and without any kind of obvious emergency management interest

to yield a cross-section of opinion based upon differing levels of emergency management

knowledge and interest. The aspiration was to conduct the one-on-one interviews at the

sponsored workshops. The aim would be to not detract from the flow of the City of Vancouver

workshops and interviews were to be conducted after the workshops had concluded or at alternate

venues at a mutually agreed upon time for those willing participants unable to spare additional


33

time for interview immediately after the workshop. Regrettably, the City of Vancouver

discontinued its program of emergency preparedness workshops a few weeks before the request

for assistance could be made by the researcher. The City of Vancouver now only runs periodic

training sessions for business and community groups by request, and the program was only just

being established during the period when this MRP survey was in the field. Consequently, the

workshops were not used and the focus of the survey became entirely online. Respondents to the

survey were also asked if they would be willing to partake in interviews and the simulated test

message assessment phase. Respondents were randomly selected for the interview and simulated

warning message assessment phase based upon willingness, convenience, and availability.

Timeframe of Study

The electronic survey was available online between 14 November 2013 and 02 January 2014,

or a total of 50 days. The follow-up interviews and test message assessments overlapped with the

final few weeks of the online survey and occurred between 22 Dec 2013 and 10 January 2014.

Participants for the test message assessments were selected at random as outlined above. The

initial research plan called for the researcher to attend a series of City of Vancouver emergency

management workshops between 04 Nov and 13 December 2013, but the last minute cancellation

of the workshop program prevented this. Instead, in addition to the online survey, one-on-one

interviews were conducted in person at a mutually acceptable venue (researcher’s home, coffee

shop). Each interview lasted approximately 20-30 minutes.

Data Analysis

Part of this project examined simple preference with regard to the use of social media. This

was summarized using quantitative methods and analysis. As this project is limited in scope,

quantitative analysis will allow some conclusions to be drawn about the wider Vancouver

population through the use of statistics and probability (O’Leary, 2010). The remaining part of


34

this project goes beyond statistical preference and examines informant descriptions of how social

media can be made more credible and appealing as an emergency management tool. Qualitative

assessment of both the descriptive responses to surveys and interviews are best suited to this part

of the project, as informants were asked open-ended questions and their opinions to build upon

their ratings and preferences. Qualitative data was then coded using descriptive, topical and

analytical coding. Several of the questions were examined using both qualitative and quantitative

means. This allowed for some triangulation of results to aid in the verification of result validity

(Richards, 2009). Survey data was also triangulated against respondent reactions to the simulated

warning messages contained within the survey. This aided in validating one part of the survey

against the other. Although beyond the scope of this project, ideally, the qualitative conclusions

drawn from the survey could be operationalized in a further quantitative study to verify their

validity and produce a grounded theory (Richards). Finally, the focused interviews conducted

with an element of the survey group served to expand upon responses and verify the validity of

survey answers through further triangulation. Interviews were coded as outlined above. These

multiple levels of triangulation ensured a rigorous process that hopefully produced trustworthy

results yielding pertinent recommendations for emergency managers in Vancouver. The methods

of assessment and triangulation are represented below in figure 3.1 and table 3.1 respectively:

Figure 3.1

Methods of Assessment

Sub-‐question A: Social media used

Sub-‐question B: Credibility

Quantitative reflection of social media used by Vancouver residents. Comment on why that type of social media is used.

Quantitative assessment of the credibility of each form. Qualitative reflection on what makes each social media platform credible or lacking in credibility as applicable.


35

Table 3.1

Methods of Triangulation Data Gathered: To be Triangulated against: Sub-question A: Usage Sub-question B, simulated messages and interviews. Sub-question B: Credibility Simulated messages and interviews. Sub-question C: Source Sub-question A & B, simulated messages and interviews. Sub-question D: Receptiveness Simulated messages, interviews and sub-question A. Simulated Warning Messages Sub-questions A, B, C and D. One-on-one interviews Sub-questions A, B, C and D and simulated messages. Presentation of Results

Results were summarized in the form of a statistical analysis of social media usage by age

group and gender. Also a quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted to ascertain the

existence of any demographic trends in terms of credibility perception regarding dissemination of

emergency warning information. This was followed by any trends noted in the manner in which

social media can be enhanced when employed to disseminate emergency warning messages to

Vancouver residents. The objective was to note any clear trends in order to produce

recommendations for social media usage by emergency managers, a research need supported by

Hui et al. in their study of information flow on social media (2012).

Sub-‐question D: Receptiveness

Sub-‐question C: Knowledge of source

Quantitative rating of how important knowing the source is to respondents. Qualitative comment on why knowing source is important.

Quantitative rating of how amenable respondents would be to receiving emergency warnings via their social media.

Simulated Warning Messages

Quantitative rating of message credibility. Qualitative description of why respondents rate their responses the way they do.

One-‐on-‐one Interviews

Further qualitative description of responses to sub-‐questions A, B, C and D and responses to simulated messages.


36

Limitations of the Study

a. Convenience sampling was used.

b. Limited time period for study in accordance with Royal Roads University (RRU)

assignment schedule.

c. Ethnic background was not considered for recipients.

d. Socio-economic background and education level was not considered for recipients.

e. Unethical to create the level of anxiety in respondents that accompanies a warning

message, which could effect accurate reaction to simulated warning messages.

Delimitations of Study

a. Only English-speaking survey participants were used.

b. Only Vancouver residents (not those who work in Vancouver and reside outside).

c. Emergency management workshop schedule cancelled at last minute by City of

Vancouver causing a reliance on online survey.

d. Online survey relies on respondents with Internet access.

Assumptions

a. Participants use social media and have Internet and computer access.

b. Participants have a rudimentary knowledge of the human and environmental hazards they

face as residents of Vancouver.

c. In-line with existing research, credibility is a key driver in considering any emergency

management warning.

Ethical considerations

As this MRP involved human subjects, it complied with both RRU and the Tri-council

Policy Statement for ethical standards for research. Each participant was provided a consent

form and had the option to terminate their involvement in the survey at any time. The consent


37

form explained the aim and format of the survey and how the information would be controlled

and presented. Participants were coded to protect anonymity and this final report does not

contain any information that would suggest the identity of informants. Lastly, the simulated

emergency messages used were clearly explained prior as being simulations only, and that no real

emergency threat was imminent.


38

Chapter Four: Study Findings

Respondent Demographics

There were a total of 102 respondents to the survey. Frequency distribution for respondent

age, both by gender and combined, can be found in table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1

Frequency Distribution by Age Group and by Gender

Age Group % Male % Female % of Sample Population 18-35 5.88 11.76 17.64 36-50 28.43 38.23 66.66 51-65 5.88 8.82 14.70

Over 65 0 0.98 0.98 Total 40.2 59.8 100

Questions one and two of the survey asked respondents to provide gender and age group

information. In terms of gender, 61 females and 41 males responded to the survey. Although

respondents represented all of the four prescribed age groups (18-35, 36-50, 51-65, and over 65

years of age), the majority of respondents fell into the group 36-50 years of age (two thirds of the

sample population). This proportion seems quite high and is possibly a consequence of the fact

that I distributed the survey via email to friends and colleagues, many of whom are of a similar

age group to myself. However, this will be discussed more fully in Chapter 5. The low

representation of the over 65 age group was initially disappointing but is reflective of the smaller

size of the over 65 age group in Vancouver. Based on the potential vulnerabilities faced by the

elderly in terms of emergency management, use of social media by this demographic is a worthy

area for future study. From discussion during the interview stage, the low uptake of Internet

usage by the over 65 age group appears to be more one of trust in social media and ease of use,

and less a factor of physical access to the Internet. To understand how representative the


39

composition of the survey group is in relation to the population of Vancouver, the above data can

be compared with the 2011 Statistics Canada Census for the Vancouver census metropolitan area

(CMA). In this study, the total population (both male and female) was determined to be

2,313,330. Although Statistics Canada used a slightly different division of age groups, the

breakdown of population (both male, female and combined) by age is shown below (Statistics

Canada, 2011).

Table 4.2

Vancouver Population by Age and Gender

Age Group % of Total Male Population

% of Total Female Population

% of Total Population (Male and Female)

0-19 22.77% 20.47% 21.60% 20-34 21.45% 20.85% 21.15% 35-49 22.72% 23.43% 23.08% 50-64 20.60% 20.70% 20.65%

Over 65 12.46% 14.55% 13.53% Total 100% 100% 100%

As can be seen in the Vancouver census, the combined number of males and females as a

percentage of the overall population is approximately 21% each for the 0-19, 20-34 and 50-64

years of age groups. The 35-49 years of age group is slightly larger at just over 23%. The

smallest group in the Vancouver Census is the over 65 years of age group at 13.53%, though the

MRP survey respondent group in this age category was considerably smaller at only 0.98%. The

MRP survey group also records the 35-49 years of age group as the largest, but by a much greater

degree. In the MRP survey, the 35-49 group was almost 66% of the overall survey group. Figure

4.1 below represents the breakdown of survey respondents by gender and age graphically.


40

Figure 4.1. Respondents by Age and Gender

Questions Three to Seven: Internet Usage

Question three of the survey asked whether respondents have access to the Internet at home.

All 102 respondents answered with a unanimous “yes”, unsurprising as the survey was

distributed via the Internet. Question four asked respondents if they had access to the Internet at

their place of work. The clear majority (87% or 89 people) does, with only seven respondents

saying they did not and six answering ‘not applicable’. Figure 4.2 below shows the breakdown

of those respondents who have Internet access at their place of work.

18-‐35 years 36-‐50 years 51-‐65 years over 65 years Male 6 29 6 0 Female 12 39 9 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Freq

uenc

y


41

Figure 4.2. Internet Access at Work

In some workplaces, it is common for an employer to electronically restrict Internet access for

employees. This could be to limit liability in terms of employee access to illegal websites, or it

could be to safeguard the company’s servers and electronic information from hacking by an

external source. Access to some social media sites may be restricted to prevent distractions for

employees and ensure productivity. Question five asked those respondents who do have Internet

access at their place of work, whether their employer restricts their access in any way. All

respondents answered this question and over half (or 55 respondents) said their employers do not

restrict their access to the Internet. Figure 4.3 below shows the breakdown of employers who

regulate their employee’s access to the Internet at work.

87.4%

6.8%

5.8%

Yes

No

Not Applicable


42

Figure 4.3. Internet Access at Work Regulated by Employer

Despite restrictions placed on Internet usage by an employer, the availability of

inexpensive portable devices make accessing the Internet on the move easy and almost

instantaneous. Over 90% of survey respondents routinely access the Internet using a mobile

device. In practical terms, this means that 91 of the 102 respondents use a mobile device and have

portable, potentially instantaneous access to social media and the Internet at both work and home

and on the move. Figure 4.4 below represents this graphically.

38.2%

61.8%

Yes

No


43

Figure 4.4. Use of Mobile Internet Device

However, access to the Internet at work, at home or on the move is of limited use unless a

person makes a conscious choice to use that access. A person has to actually seek out a website

or social networking application through logging-on, possibly requiring a password or individual

user identification. Alternatively, an Internet user could pre-arrange access to certain websites

and with relative ease, permit that website to send them information or alerts of relevance as soon

as they meet certain criteria imposed by the user. The user can tailor what types of information

they get, how frequently they receive it and how they are alerted to the presence of that new

information. Automatic-forwarding from one email address to another or from one device to

another can increase the probability of a message getting to a user anywhere and at anytime.

These automatic ‘push’ notifications can be used for everything from breaking news and

91%

9%

Yes

No


44

changing weather, to changes in stock prices or mention of your own name on a certain website

by a third party. Figure 4.5 shows the breakdown of respondents who currently subscribe to push

notifications via the Internet. In practical terms, this means that 52 respondents of the sample

population of 102 actively seek and receive information from the Internet and social media that

they feel is relevant to them via push notifications.

Figure 4.5. Use of Push Notifications

Questions one to seven served to illustrate the general Internet usage characteristics of the

survey group. In the case of this survey, all respondents have access to the Internet at home,

most have access at their place of work, and most have access through a mobile device.

However, even with all this opportunity to access the Internet, half choose to control their own

access ‘manually’. There does not appear to be a wealth of information or study on the appetite

51%

49% Yes

No


45

for and usage of push notifications in social media at present. Although it is difficult to

determine respondent motivation conclusively, the survey group appears to be equally split

between those who want to control their own access to information by consciously seeking out

what information they need as they need it, and those who prefer to make that decision in

advance and receive information as soon as it is available automatically via push notifications.

Ease of use, degree of control, confidence in the accuracy of information and information

overload may all be factors that affect a person’s choice to use push notifications. This is another

potential area for study, examining motivations for the utilization of push notifications and how

to increase uptake.

Questions Eight to Ten: Social Networking Applications and Credibility

Question eight asked respondents what social networking applications they currently use. There

was no limit to the number of social networking applications a respondent could select and

respondents had the option of adding other sites that were not listed. Figure 4.6 shows the

breakdown. Email from a known contact is in the clear majority (97 respondents or 95%)

followed closely by Facebook (81 respondents or 79%). YouTube (77 respondents or 75%) and

linkedin (71 respondents or 69%) are similarly popular and were generally part of a pair for any

given respondent. In other words, if a person uses linkedin, they seemed likely to use YouTube

and vice versa. Twitter (38 respondents or 37%), email from an unknown source (45 respondents

or 44%) and Google+ (35 respondents or 34%) were the next most popular. The remaining social

networking applications were of limited popularity and were mostly used by 1-2 respondents or

1-2% of respondents only. Responses can be seen below in Figure 4.6.


46

Figure 4.6. Social Media Applications Used

Question nine asked respondents how they rate each of the social networking applications they

currently use in terms of credibility. A five-point scale of preference was used to assess whether

each application was credible or lacking in credibility in the opinion of the user. Email from a

known contact scored the highest with 92 respondents or over 95% of those who used it stating

they found it to be ‘very credible’ (58 respondents or 60%) or ‘somewhat credible’ (34

respondents or 35%). By contrast, just below 17 respondents or 28% of those who used it, found

email from an unknown source to be ‘very credible’ (3 respondents or 5%) or ‘somewhat

credible’ (14 respondents or 23%). Less than 59% or 48 respondents who use Facebook would

rate it as ‘very credible’ (8 respondents or 10%) or ‘somewhat credible’ (40 respondents or 49%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Freq

uenc

y

Social Media Applications Used


47

and 53% or 26 respondents who use Twitter regard it as ‘very credible’ (7 respondents or 14%) or

‘somewhat credible’ (19 respondents or 39%). By contrast over 83% or 55 respondents who

currently use linkedin rated it as ‘very credible’ (12 respondents or 18%) or ‘somewhat credible’

(43 respondents or 65%). This is perhaps a reflection of linkedin being designed and advertised

as a professional network as opposed to a social network. Figure 4.7 below represents this

graphically.

Figure 4.7. Assessment of Credibility of Each Social Media Application Used.

Figure 4.8 shows the data retrieved from question nine in another way. In this graph, only

the top two selections for each social networking application (‘very credible’ and ‘somewhat

credible’) are considered. This combined total is used as an overall credibility rating. That

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Freq

uenc

y

Social Media Applications Used

Very Lacking in Credibility Lacking in Credibility Neutral Somewhat Credible Very Credible


48

credibility rating is then divided by the size of the survey group to suggest an overall percentage

ranking of credibility for each social networking application used. The applications are then

arranged in descending order of perceived credibility.

Figure 4.8. Credibility Rating by Social Media Application.

From this graph, there appear to be four main groupings:

1. Email from a known sender: 90+% credibility rating

2. linkedin: 55%, and Facebook: 48% credibility rating

3. Twitter, YouTube, Google+ and email from an unknown sender: between 25%

and 15% credibility rating

4. Remaining applications used: less than 9% credibility rating

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Email (known sender)

linkedin

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube

Google+

Email (unknown sender)

Flickr

Instagram

Tumblr

Wikispaces

Vimeo

Vine

Four Square

HeyTell

Skype

Individual Blogs

Flip Board

Google Circles

Snap Chat

% C

redi

bilit

y R

atin

g

Social Media Application Used

Credibility


49

Question ten asked respondents how likely they would be to alter their personal behavior in

response to receiving an emergency message from each application. Over 97% of those who

used email from a known sender stated that they were ‘very likely’ (46 respondents or 70%) or

‘somewhat likely’ (18 respondents or 27%) to change behavior. Interestingly, this represents a

5% rise over the number who rated email from a known sender as being ‘very credible’ or

‘somewhat credible’. Similarly, 67% of respondents who use Facebook stated they were ‘very

likely’ (9 respondents or 15%) or ‘somewhat likely’ (31 respondents or 52%) to change behavior,

an increase of 7% of those who scored Facebook as ‘very credible’ or ‘credible’.

Figure 4.9. Likelihood of Behavioral Change by Social Media Application.

Generally, if a person rated a social networking application as credible in question nine, that

translated into an increased likelihood that the respondent would alter their behavior in response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Facebook

Twitter


Email (unknown

linkedin

YouTube

Flickr

Instagram

Tumblr

Google+

Vimeo

Vine

Wiki Spaces

Snap Chat

Foursquare

HeyTell

Skype

Individual Blogs

Flip Board

Google Circles

Freq

uenc

y

Social Media Application

Very unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Somewhat likely

Very likely


50

to an emergency warning message promulgated via that medium. Figure 4.9 above shows the

breakdown of responses for each application. This linkage between credibility and behavioral

change extends back further to question eight (social networking application usage). The pattern

emerging consistently across all age groups and both genders of the survey group is that the most

used social networking applications are regarded as the most credible and in turn are the most

likely to cause behavioral change by the user in response to an emergency warning posted on that

application.

Questions Eleven to Fourteen: Source versus Medium and Credibility

Question eleven asked respondents how important they feel that knowing the originating

source of an emergency warning message is when using a social networking application. Almost

90% felt that it was ‘very important’ (91 respondents) and the remaining 10% (11 respondents)

felt that it was ‘somewhat important’ (a combined total of all 102 respondents). Question twelve

asked respondents if knowing the originating source of the message made them more likely to

alter their behavior. Almost unanimously, the survey group agreed that knowing the originating

source made it more likely that they would alter their behavior in response with only 3

respondents or 2.94% stating the opposite. Question 13 asked respondents what in their opinion

contributes more to social media credibility: knowing the originating source of a message or the

social media application upon which the message is viewed. Virtually the same response was

received as with question 12 with 98 respondents or 96% stating that knowing the originating

source of the message was the more important factor. Lastly, in question 14, respondents were

asked it they would like to receive emergency warning information from local, provincial or

federal government via their social networking applications. A total of 94 respondents or over

92% stated that they would with only 8 respondents or less than 8% stating that they would not.


51

However this is a significant increase over the number of respondents who currently subscribe to

push notifications (a little over 50% as determined in question 7).

Subsequent Interviews and Simulated Message Assessment

Six respondents were randomly selected for further interview and for exposure to four

simulated emergency warning messages. The demographic profile of respondents for this phase

included four females 36-50 years of age, one male 36-50 years of age, and one male over 65

years of age. The simulated messages can be found at Appendix C. Each respondent was asked

to expand upon their responses to the original survey and were then exposed to the four simulated

emergency warning messages. Respondents were asked to rate each simulated message in terms

of credibility, likelihood of altering behavior and likelihood of passing the information along.

Respondents were also asked how they were likely to pass the information along if they indeed

chose to do so. The consolidated responses can be found at Appendix D. Figure 4.10 below

represents the results of the test message assessments graphically. In this graph, the blue line

represents test subjects who found each message ‘very credible’ or ‘somewhat credible’. This

line represents an assessment of credibility. The red line represents those test subjects who felt

themselves ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to alter their behavior in response to each message.

This represents an assessment of behavioral change. The green line represents those test subject

who felt themselves ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to promulgate the message further via his

or her own social networks. This represents an assessment of promulgation.


52

Figure 4.10. Simulated Messages Ratings.

Email remains the most highly rated in terms of credibility, likelihood of behavioral change

and likelihood of further promulgation. Twitter and Facebook are broadly equivalent and come

next in order of precedence in terms of credibility, likelihood of causing behavioral change, and

likelihood of further promulgation. Text messages however are seen as the least credible, but

interestingly equal to Facebook and Twitter in terms of likelihood of causing behavioral change.

Coding of Qualitative Interview Data

Commentary provided by respondents during the online survey and interviews was subjected

to descriptive coding in terms of the primary two demographic descriptors in the survey: age

group and gender. Those responses were further coded by subject (topical coding), and finally by

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Email Twitter Facebook Text Message

Freq

uenc

y

Message Medium

Credibility

Behavioral Change

Promulgation


53

theme (analytical coding). The key elements for the topical coding were derived from specific

comments made by respondents. For example, in the male 18-35 years of age group, several

respondents suggested a preference for warnings to be automated. This topic was repeated

several times by different respondents within this group using similar language. As such, it

became a heading under topical coding. A second topic mentioned in the same age and gender

group was ease of ability to authenticate a message and a sender. These two also became

headings under topical coding. Next, during the process of analytical coding and using the

examples above, the prevailing themes that underline automation and the facility to authenticate a

message and sender were identified. One of the prevailing themes chosen that seems to underpin

the above two topics is simplicity. So in essence, the respondents determine the topics that are

coded through their specific comments during the survey and in interview, and the researcher

analyzes the common themes and principles that underpin those topics to establish the headings

for analytical coding. The objective is to identify those common and recurrent themes that

emerge. A detailed breakdown of the descriptive, topical, and analytical coding can be found at

Appendix E. The table below provides a summary of the key themes by gender and age.

Table 4.3

Summary of Analytical Coding by Age and Gender

Descriptive Coding Analytical Coding Age group 18-35

Male Simplicity Ease of use Legitimacy Female Legitimacy

Age group 36-50

Male Simplicity Ease of use Legitimacy Engagement Utility Lack of expense Trust

Female

Legitimacy Trust Verifiable Engagement Message saturation Ease of use

Age group 51-65

Male Legitimacy Message saturation Simplicity Female No comments made

Age group over 65

Male No comments made Female Legitimacy Simplicity Engagement


54

Summary

So in summary, the survey, interviews, and simulated messages reveal the following key

findings:

a. The survey group appears to have comprehensive unrestricted access to the Internet at

home, work and when mobile (in other words virtually 24/7).

b. The survey group is almost equally split on their use, or lack of use of automated (push)

notifications.

c. The most utilized social media applications consistently by age and gender include email

(from a known sender), Facebook, YouTube, linkedin, email (from an unknown sender),

Google+, and Twitter.

d. The most utilized social networking applications are viewed by respondents as more

credible and more likely to produce behavioral change in response to a warning message.

e. Knowing the originating source of a message is highly important to the user and likely to

impact on their decision to change their behavior in response.

f. There appears to be an appetite for emergency warning information via social media

amongst the survey group.

g. Preferred characteristics of a warning message via social media include: legitimacy, ease

of use and authentication, no expense, brevity, and prior engagement by emergency

managers. In the 18 to 35 age group, men prefer simplicity of message and ease of use,

whereas females regard message legitimacy as important. As age increases legitimacy

becomes more important across both genders.

h. Respondent views on how to enhance credibility are less to do with the medium and more

to do with the source of the message and include: use of trusted sources like government

or the emergency services, use of conventional media to authenticate messages, as a


55

source or to promulgate further, use of existing social networks, and saturation of the

target audience with the message. These recommendations are generally consistent across

both genders and across all age groups.


56

Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations

Research Aim

Prior to discussion and interpretation of the data collected, it is worth re-visiting the

purpose and the sub-questions posed for this MRP:


optimize the use of social media for the formal dissemination of warnings. In addition, the

following sub-questions will be addressed:

a. What are the most utilized forms of social media within Vancouver for personal use?


Vancouver?


credibility?


social media?

First, conclusions will be drawn regarding the survey group composition. Then each of

the sub-questions will be discussed in the context of the literature reviewed and with regard to

age group and gender. Finally, to answer the main research question posed, recommendations

will be drawn on how to optimize the use of social media in Vancouver for the promulgation of

emergency warnings. Also, some possible implications for future research will be discussed.

Demographics and Internet Usage

Survey questions one to seven dealt with (i) respondent demographics and (ii) Internet usage.

Table 4.1 summarized the breakdown of respondent age by gender. Table 4.2 showed the

breakdown of the Vancouver population by age and gender according to the 2011 Vancouver


57

census. It is interesting to note that almost two thirds of survey respondents came from the age

group 36-50 years. As can be seen in the Vancouver census, the combined number of males and

females as a percentage of the overall population is approximately 21% each for the 0-19, 20-34

and 50-64 years of age groups. The 35-49 years of age group is slightly larger at just over 23%.

The smallest group in the Vancouver Census is the over 65 years of age group at 13.53%. The

MRP survey group also records the 35-49 years of age group as the largest, but by a much greater

degree. In the MRP survey, the 35-49 years of age group was almost 66% of the overall survey

group. This much higher representation of respondents in the 36-50 age group could be a

consequence of it being the age group in which the researcher belongs. Potentially, the initial

distribution of the survey via peers, family and co-workers focused the survey at people in a

similar social network, age group, socio-economic demographic etc. as the researcher. However,

as initial invitees to the survey were encouraged to forward the survey onwards via social media

and email, it is acknowledged that this may have consequently brought the survey to a wider

spread of respondents of varying ages. Also, although the origins of the Internet can be traced

back to the 1960s, the Internet’s explosion into mainstream popularity began in the mid-1990s.

That would make the 36-50 years of age survey group approximately 16-30 years of age at the

time when the Internet’s popularity began to gather significant momentum. So the most

prominently represented part of the survey group is essentially the first generation to have ‘grown

up’ with the Internet. In terms of gender, the Vancouver census is generally equally split with

each age group being composed of 48-52% representation from each gender. In the MRP survey

however, females are consistently the larger part of each of the respondent age groups. It is

unclear why more females chose to respond to the MRP survey than are recorded in the census,

but if this study was to be repeated or expanded upon, a purposive sampling strategy to ensure

that the survey respondents were more equally split along the lines of gender should be


58

considered. This would then more accurately reflect the current gender breakdown in Vancouver

according to the 2011 census.

With regard to Internet usage, as the survey was distributed predominantly via email and the

Internet, this may have artificially created a higher number of respondents who reported having

access to the Internet. In other words, respondents received the survey link via email, and

therefore, by default, would report having access to the Internet. This does represent a constraint

of the survey as identified in the limitations section in Chapter 3. However, regardless of from

where respondents received the survey (at home, at work, verbal request from the researcher, or

via a mobile device), a sizeable proportion of Vancouver residents appear to have access to the

Internet. This is perhaps indicative of the overall popularity of Internet use in British Columbia

where over 85% report having access to the Internet and use the Internet regularly (Statistics

Canada, 2010). The promulgation of emergency warnings to those members of the population

without Internet access is a worthy area of study, but outside of the remit of this MRP. All MRP

respondents reported having access at home, almost all have access to the Internet via a mobile

device and over half have unrestricted access to the Internet at work. The popularity of mobile

devices alone represents a potent tool for the passage of warning messages to individuals (Ghosh,

2012). Over 90% of MRP respondents report having access to the Internet via a mobile device.

Although not examined in this MRP in detail, even cellular telephones without Internet access

may have utility for message promulgation through short message service (SMS) or ‘text

messages’. In terms of this MRP, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the Internet represents

a potentially instantaneous and highly adaptable means of message promulgation between

emergency managers and the majority of the population of Vancouver.

However, in terms of ensuring the rapid passage of warning information, a major stumbling

block for this survey group appears to be their willingness to use automatic push notifications.


59

The survey group is almost exactly split on their use at present, which could impact on the

timeliness of a warning message being received via social media. There also do not seem to be

any significant differences in preference on the use of automatic notifications by age or gender.

This response is reinforced almost exactly by the findings of the Canadian Red Cross survey on

social media that suggests that 49% of all Canadians would sign up for email and Internet alerts if

there was a significant emergency expected or occurring (2012). This figure is based on

responses from both those with frequent and reliable access to the Internet and those without.

For the interview phase, six willing survey respondents were selected at random based on their

willingness to participate and their availability. They were each exposed to a number of

different messages via social media and an SMS message, each containing an emergency warning

of an impending snowstorm. In addition to rating those messages for credibility and the

likelihood of behavioral change as a consequence of reading the message, respondents were

asked to expand upon their responses to the original survey. Four females and two males were

interviewed representing the 36-50 and over 65 years of age groups. Due to constraints of time

and availability, it did not prove possible to obtain respondents representing both genders from

all four age groups. If this survey was to be expanded or repeated, representation from all age

groups and both genders should be sought. Generally during the interview phase, all respondents

suggested that they were weary of unsolicited information. Respondents also reported that they

were wary of a sender’s motivation and the prospect of signing up for a notification system that

passes on their information to a third party for other purposes like marketing or government

research was a significant concern. Respondent comments during interview reinforce the view

from the reviewed literature that information flow can be overwhelmingly (Crowe, 2012).

Internet based ‘scams’ are getting increasingly sophisticated and frequent, making it a challenge


60

for users to sift through a large volume of emails and messages in order to make an informed

decision about whether to act upon information or even open an email and read it to begin with.

Internet users value their ability to maintain their privacy online. Privacy is a key issue that

has become significantly affected by the Internet (Clarke, 1999). According to a study by

O’Neil, privacy is consistently considered more important to Internet users than convenience.

However there appears to be only minor differences in the level of concern regarding privacy

across gender, education, income level and race (2001). The results of this MRP reinforce

O’Neil’s findings regarding gender but suggest that privacy is a greater concern to older

respondents. Quan-Haase and Young suggest that although the younger Internet and social

media user is concerned with privacy issues, they are more likely to use personal strategies to

protect their own privacy including fake names, alternate email addresses, use of privacy settings

and the blocking of certain users from viewing their personal information (2009). In other

words, the younger generation is perhaps more technically savvy and able to mitigate their

privacy concerns through technical means. If respondents are going to be convinced to subscribe

to automated notifications, a considerable amount of effort must be made to build trust amongst

the public and convince them that the service is legitimate, secure, and will be used only in the

event of an emergency likely to affect them adversely. Walaski (2013) reinforces these findings.

He suggests that organizational integration of social media into risk communication requires a

strategy developed well in advance of a crisis event and hinges on developing trust and credibility

with the audience.

Social Media Utilization

Veil suggests that one third of online adults are using blogs, social networking, video, text, and

portable devices (2011). This is reinforced in a survey by Pew Internet who suggests just over

30% of online adults do the same (2009). A survey by the Canadian Red Cross suggests that


61

60% of Canadians use social media and that 94% of that figure use Facebook (Red Cross, 2012).

That would equate to just over 56% of Canadian adults using Facebook. This MRP would

suggest that either this figure might be much higher in Vancouver, or that usage in this particular

Vancouver sample is much higher. In this study over 97% of respondents use email to and from

known contacts and over 80% use Facebook. In the context of this MRP, comments during

interview show that respondents have interpreted email from a known sender as a source that the

respondent is previously familiar with (either a friend or relative, or a news agency or emergency

service that has a track record for credibility with the recipient). It is important to note that only

one respondent reported using only email and no other social media applications. However, this

represents less than 1% of the overall survey group. As such a small part of this survey group

exclusively uses email, this would mean that the other members of that respondent’s online social

network (email contacts) would statistically almost all utilize another social networking

application. Therefore, that first respondent who uses only email, will be indirectly connected to

other more popular social networking applications through their own email contacts. So despite

using only one social networking application, a person will almost certainly have a second order

connection to the more popular social media sites through their email contacts. Also, even if a

person predominantly uses a seemingly less popular application (for example only 34% of

respondents report using Google+), if that person uses even one other social networking

application, the chances of them receiving information indirectly increases. Measuring the exact

degree of influence is challenging due to ever-changing applications, interconnectedness of

individuals, users, and pages within the various social media systems (Crowe, 2012). Mapping

these complex secondary and tertiary social network connections is beyond the remit of this MRP

and has already been suggested as a topic for future research by Shankar (2008). The point

remains that in this survey group, the overwhelming majority of respondents routinely utilize at


62

least one form of popular online social media. Furthermore, not actively using a particular social

media application does not prevent a person from receiving an email link and following it to that

website to see a warning message. If an Internet user receives a link to a social media platform

that they do not usually use, this adds another layer of decision-making into the passage of that

warning message. If a person does not use Facebook but receives a link from a friend to a

Facebook page of warning information, that receiver has the option to follow that link or discard

it, thereby breaking that warning message pathway. That decision will be impacted greatly by the

recipient’s individual assessment of the relative credibility of the person sending that link.

However, issues of credibility will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the responses of the survey group. First, there appears

to be ample use of social media applications that would warrant their use for the promulgation of

emergency warning information in Vancouver. Secondly, there are unsurprisingly several

applications that are more popular than others (Email, Facebook, Twitter, linkedin, YouTube,

Google+) and represent an effective link to the majority of the survey group. Email from a

known sender is the most utilized social media platform by the survey group. Therefore

encouraging recipients of a message by email to pass that message along via email or social

media applications is likely to reach the greatest proportion of a target population. Finally, due to

the overlap of applications and the majority of the survey group using more than one application,

greater message saturation will be achieved through posting information on multiple sites to

ensure numerous, possible converging pathways of warnings to the population of Vancouver.

This traditional layered approach to warning systems is commonly accepted in the literature as

being the most effective way to ensure reception of a message and enhance the chances of

understanding and compliance (Auf de Heide, 1989; Scanlon, 2007; Sene, 2008; Sorensen,

2000).


63

Social Media Credibility

Sorensen suggests that there are six steps in the process of warning response: Hearing the

warning, understanding the message content, believing the warning is credible, personalizing the

warning to one’s own situation, confirming the warning is true and if others are taking heed, and

finally, responding with protective action (2000). The question of social media utilization,

encapsulated in Sub-question A, has in part looked at steps one and two, hearing and considering

the warning, by examining social media usage among the survey group. Sub-question B

examines the third step in the process, specifically, the issue of credibility with regard to social

media.

In terms of usage, email from a known contact, Facebook, YouTube and linkedin are the most

utilized with over 70% of respondents using them routinely. For some of these applications like

Facebook and linkedin, what may differentiate them from the remainder used by the survey

group, is that they enable a user to build a personality online. Facebook users build an online

profile and linkedin users build an online resume. With email from a known sender, to an extent,

the user is potentially already familiar with the identity, characteristics and qualities of the sender

in advance. Therefore, on some level, using these particular applications is akin to having a

conversation with a person you are familiar with. Although this is less the case in the event of a

purely business relationship conducted via email when one is corresponding with a customer

service representative, a bank manager or someone in a purely professional capacity, for

example. With an online profile however, even if you have not met that person physically, you

may have been exposed to a picture of that person online and engaged in online conversations

and exchanges of points of view. Therefore, a person using a social media application will have

an opinion (either conscious or sub-conscious) about the person from whom they receive a

message and the degree to which they trust that person. Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini suggest that


64

trust is a vital component to any social exchange and the degree to which you trust a person

determines the likelihood that you will enter into an exchange (2007). The creation of an online

profile as in Facebook and linkedin provides a user a more personalized rapport akin to meeting

someone in person. Of course a detailed online persona may not always be an accurate reflection

of the person with whom you are communicating. The earlier mentioned study by Quan-Haase

and Young suggested that some social media users mitigate their privacy concerns by using false

profile information, fake email addresses, and privacy settings (2009). Regardless, these social

networking applications have the potential to personalize warning messages and information as if

it is a single trusted source speaking directly to you (White, 2012). A person is more likely to

consider information and more thoroughly assess that information for credibility if the

information is personalized or relevant to them (i.e. geographically or professionally relevant or

likely to have some personal or financial impact on the recipient). Even if you have never met

the person with whom you are speaking via social media, applications like Facebook and linkedin

allow you to get to know that person ‘virtually’ prior to the receipt of any advice or warning

message. That in turn may create trust so that a message received is less impersonal and more

like ‘word of mouth’ that you would receive from a valued member of your social network (Veil,

2011). In their study of Twitter usage prior to and during an emergency, Hui at al. found that

usage is dominated by repetition of warning information with a high percentage of web addresses

and web links posted (information sharing) and a lower-percentage of replies and discussion

(2012). In other words, users are less inclined to engage in discussion on the impending

emergency and more inclined to absorb and then swiftly pass along warning information that they

find useful and relevant to others who may benefit from being informed. If Sorensen’s six-stage

warning model were utilized, this would suggest that prior to or during an emergency, social


65

media users would have received information (stage one), understood it (stage two), assessed it as

credible (stage three) and repeated it to their own social network (stage six).

Question nine of the survey asked respondents how credible they found each of the social

media applications they used. The applications rated as most credible, were also the applications

rated as being the most utilized. So in summary, the responses to the first two sub-questions are

related in that the most utilized social media applications (sub-question A) were perceived as the

most credible (sub-question B). Email from a known sender, linkedin, Facebook, Twitter and

YouTube remain the most popular social media applications and are perceived as being the most

credible by the survey group.

Source versus Credibility

What is emerging is a link between credibility and popularity. The difficulty is determining

what came first: are these applications popular because they are credible or credible because they

are popular? And does one factor come first for all respondents or does it vary by gender or age.

As suggested above, what differentiates these more popular sites in part is the level of

personalization and the manner in which these popular applications facilitate ‘knowing’ the

person with whom you are communicating. This would suggest that knowing the source of the

message and being in a position to make a value judgment about how credible that person or

source is will guide the respondent’s attitude toward the overall assessment of the level of

credibility of that social media application. Both Facebook and linkedin are essentially social

networking applications, but arguably Facebook is designed more for fun and less for a

professional purpose like linkedin. The social networking application YouTube was rated by

only one third of users as being very credible or somewhat credible. This is interesting as

YouTube is essentially a social networking application to share video images. The popularity

and availability of hand-held high-resolution cameras in cell phones combined with mobile


66

Internet access can allow virtually instantaneous uploading of footage from the scene of an

emergency to a platform such as YouTube, thus making that footage available for all to see.

However, a recipient has to be alerted to the presence of that footage being uploaded, whether it

is through a specific search conducted by a user or through receipt of a link from a contact, or

from an automatic push notification. Crowe suggests that unedited and raw footage of an

emergency situation or incident uploaded by a bystander onto an application like YouTube is

often considered highly convincing and authentic (2012). Yet the results of this survey suggest

otherwise. What may impact upon the credibility rating of YouTube is that in addition to

legitimate footage of actual events, the Internet and YouTube has become a haven for fake

footage, pranks, staged incidents and material that may be difficult to regard as credible. The

ease with which information can be posted to the Internet has made it a potent medium for social

protest and so called “guerilla communication” or just users seeking notoriety or having fun

(Schonberger, 2005, p. 286). In some cases, parody websites have been developed that mislead

web users into believing they are official sites (Johnson & Kaye, 1998). Some footage, even

legitimate footage, may seem so incredible that a viewer simply does not believe it to be true.

This is perhaps compounded by the fact that it is unlikely you will receive a link to some

YouTube footage captured by someone you actually know and perceive as credible, or of a

location that is known to you or geographically proximate and that is experiencing a disaster.

Instead, you may receive a link from a trusted friend to some YouTube footage filmed by

someone unknown to you of somewhere you have never been and of an incident that does not

directly affect you. This depersonalizes the process somewhat. Now, instead of receiving a

personalized warning message from a trusted contact, you are receiving an unverified piece of

footage that may or may not seem relevant or believable from a trusted contact. The absence of

a known source for the footage, even if passed on by a trusted contact, makes the footage seem


67

less credible. As for the remaining applications assessed by the survey group, those social

networking applications with less than 10% usage were generally regarded as lacking in

credibility. This would further indicate a connection between popularity and perception of

credibility by a user. Perhaps, if a person sees that a great number of people are using a particular

application, they will sub-consciously consider it more credible on the basis of a simple majority.

If a person sees their online network using an application that they do not currently use, they may

consider using that application based on the trust and confidence they have in their contacts. But

it must also be considered that some applications may just be considered popular based

predominantly on their entertainment value to the user. An application may have very limited

credibility to the user but be highly utilized just for fun. It could be suggested that the usage of

these entertainment applications would perhaps drop significantly in times of an emergency as

the user’s appetite for credible and useful information increases.

Survey question ten asked respondents how likely they were to alter their behavior in response

to receiving a warning message via social media. The responses reinforce the trend emerging in

questions eight and nine of a connection between popularity and credibility. Responses to

question ten can be triangulated against responses received during the interview phase. During

interview, 66% (or 4 out of 6 interviewees) expressed a preference to have some way of verifying

the validity of emergency warning information viewed on social media. Suggestions included the

use of a follow-up call or email or a verification that only the source could provide. Others

suggested that push notifications be used from sources with established credibility like a news

agency or from the emergency services. This would mirror the statistical results that respondents

found email from a known sender to be the most credible in question nine of the survey. In the

context of the survey and one-on-one interviews, a known sender has been interpreted by

respondents as a source that the respondent is previously familiar with (either a friend or relative,


68

or a news agency or emergency service that has a track record for credibility with the recipient).

It does not seem to have been interpreted by all respondents as a singular entity that is known to

the respondent personally. One interviewee described their preferred source for a warning

message as a “recognized authority” and another suggested “a known political figure”. In either

case, respondent data confirms that the credibility of the source is of more importance to the

respondent than the medium through which that message is transmitted. Mersham contends that

social media and sites like Facebook are challenging the notion of official sources and that

community forums are increasingly seen as reliable and authoritative (2010). This MRP supports

this in part, but interview data, although limited, still demonstrates the importance and impact of

a recognized and credible authority figure in affecting behavior and gaining compliance.

Some respondents both in the survey and the interview phase commented that it was important

to establish a line of communication prior to any emergency event and build that trust or rapport

before an emergency is imminent. This is a theme that can be found across the current literature

on emergency warnings and the Internet (O’Brien, 2012; Veil, 2011; Walaski, 2013). One survey

respondent termed this “an emergency identity” but cautioned about using it for anything other

than true emergencies. Botterell suggests that the public is remarkably tolerant of false warnings

being issued by government or emergency services, provided that they are promulgated in good

faith and not issued so frequently as to suggest negligence (2008). The fear of many respondents

during interview seemed to be more about the use of the Internet, social media, and personal

contact information for non-emergency purposes like opinion polls, political campaigning or non-

emergency bulletins of a commercial nature. Respondents suggested that any credibility would

be eroded quite quickly if message recipients felt that they were being taken advantage of by

authorities. These concerns are reinforced by the themes identified during the analytical coding


69

phase and that include the need for legitimacy, the importance of trust, an ability to verify

information and the requirement to engage users in advance of an emergency occurring.

Several respondents in both the survey and the interview group made reference to having the

capability to verify warning information with at least one other source and the need for consistent

messaging across multiple sources. This finding is consistent with existing crisis communication

research that suggests the credibility of any message is increased if the same message is received

over multiple channels simultaneously (Botterell, 2008; Mileti, 2007; Scanlon, 2007). What the

initial warning message may serve to do is initiate a desire in the recipient to gain more

knowledge from other sources in order to verify that information. Interview respondents felt that

a warning via social media may serve as an initiator to prompt respondents into seeking

information on another medium or social networking application. Both survey and interview

respondents felt that the initial notification should be brief but also guide respondents to where

they can get more detailed information if they are interested. Respondents suggested that they

should be able to quickly and without cost forward the initial warning message onto friends and

family, thus capitalizing on existing social networks and increasing the spread of an initial

message exponentially. Social media can easily facilitate this rapidity. With the exception of cell

phone or data usage fees, forwarding messages is, for many, also free. Lastly, many respondents

to both the survey and in interview were weary of the many scams and ‘bulk’ emails they receive

and acknowledged that this has affected how they view push notifications and social networking

application credibility. One respondent commented, “Credibility has little to do with the

platform and more to do with the people using it and their motivations.” This goes back to the

point that if the source is trusted the message will likely be successfully conveyed no matter what

the medium. It is this potential for two-way dialogue and personalized connection between an

authority figure and the public via social media that enhances credibility (Seeger, 2006). What


70

social media provides is the facility to engage in discussion, to question warnings, and to seek

additional information if desired. However, as discussed, during emergencies, information flow

is often more unidirectional with warnings being passed through social networks ‘one-way’ (Hui

et al, 2012). Although message recipients could respond, comment, or engage in discussion with

the trusted source of the message, in times of emergency they are less likely to do so.

So in summary, the source of any warning message appears to have a significant impact on the

recipient’s assessment of message credibility. Social media applications that are more

personalized and allow a recipient to be more familiar with a source make that medium more

credible in the eyes of that recipient, even if they have never actually met that source. What

social media does is allow a user to view and become familiar with an online identity, even if

they have never and will never meet that person in reality. A more personalized message from a

distant political figure or emergency services authority enhances credibility not only because of

that figure’s political standing or social ranking, but also because of the seemingly direct and

personal connection that social media application provides. And when such a message is

received second-hand from a trusted source, it has the potential to amplify further that credibility

rating in the eyes of the recipient. The key seems to be that information is attributable.

Recipients prefer to know where the information is coming from in order to apply their own

assessment of credibility in their decision to alter their own behavior. Perhaps this is why

sources like YouTube are deemed less credible as with even the most seemingly compelling

footage, it is often difficult to assess from whom exactly that footage has come and what that

person’s motivations really are.

Receptiveness

The final question of the survey asked respondents if they would wish to receive

emergency warning information via their social media applications. The answer was an


71

overwhelming “yes” with over 92% suggesting they would. However currently, only half of

respondents subscribe to automatic push notifications via the Internet and social media. Based on

the survey and information gathered during interview, the social media applications that are the

most popular are also regarded as the most credible. Furthermore, the most popular and most

credible applications are also the most likely to cause behavioral change in response to a warning

message. What appears to be holding almost half of the respondent population back from using

automatic notifications is their level of trust in the motivations of the sender. Respondents also

stress the negative impact on credibility of an unsolicited message from an unknown source and

the need to establish an emergency identity in advance of any real warning message. So based on

this survey, it appears that there is indeed an appetite amongst Vancouver residents to receive

emergency warning message information via social media and the means available to emergency

managers to make that message credible. Residents have access to the Internet both at home, on

the move and at their place of work. Residents routinely use social media and have a somewhat

shared view of the relative levels of credibility of the social media applications they use. The

recommendations below may serve to contribute to the use of social media in the emergency

warning process and overcome the credibility stumbling block.

Conclusions

Social media can provide emergency managers in the City of Vancouver with a potentially

instantaneous and highly adaptable means of communicating with the majority of the respondent

population. This could be used to complement existing systems including televisions, radio and

print media, posted warning signs, emergency preparedness training, and the use of emergency

services to disseminate information directly. However, it should be noted that the availability of

Internet access reflected in this survey is slightly higher than that found in the other surveys

discussed in the literature, potentially due to the decision to promulgate this survey


72

predominantly via the Internet. While there is an appetite for automatic emergency warning

messages, there is a fear on the part of respondents that it may lead to information overload or

open a gateway to third parties who will abuse the process. While certain social media

applications may seem more popular, greater message saturation will be achieved through posting

information on multiple sites to ensure numerous, possible converging pathways of warnings to

the target audience. Although respondents rate some social media applications as more credible

than others, this is likely more a consideration of the source of the messages being viewed on the

applications as opposed to the applications themselves. Message recipients prefer to know where

information is coming from in order that they can make their own assessment of credibility. Also,

recipients do not need to know a message sender personally for the message to be deemed

credible. A message can gain in credibility if the sender has an online identity that is trusted or if

the message is promulgated indirectly via a trusted contact.

Recommendations

To enhance existing emergency management warning systems in the City of Vancouver, the

following recommendations should be considered by emergency managers:

a. Emergency managers should consider email, linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and

Google+ a priority for message promulgation via social media.

b. Emergency Managers must acknowledge the existing trepidation amongst half the

population to subscribe to automatic notifications at present. This figure is consistent with

survey findings from the wider Canadian population. Efforts should be made by

emergency managers in Vancouver to establish and maintain trust with residents via

social media in advance of the need to promulgate any warnings.

c. Emergency managers must be transparent about their motivations for using social media.

Criteria for use should be distributed so recipients know under what circumstances


73

emergency management practitioners are going to use social media to promulgate

warnings.

d. Online contact information for recipients should never be shared with a third party who is

going to use it for non-emergency warning purposes and this should be made clear to

social media users.

e. Warning messages must be attributed, preferably to an individual in authority, such as an

emergency manager, political figure, or spokesperson for the emergency services.

f. Emergency managers who are going to distribute messages must create an emergency

management identity online. Recipients must feel they have the facility to engage with

and ‘get to know’ that warning authority (be it an individual or an organization) in

advance of any crisis.

g. Information should be personalized. That could be in the sense of it coming from a

familiar emergency management authority, or information that is geographically pertinent

to the recipient.

h. Existing social networks should be leveraged. In any promulgated message, recipients

should be encouraged to forward the message onto their own social network by email, as

email from a known sender is most utilized and perceived as the most credible by

respondents.

i. Warning messages should offer a means of verification and should be issued in concert

with multiple mediums to enhance credibility.

j. Any warning process should be free in terms of expense and limited in terms of the time

necessary to understand it. If overly complex or cumbersome, user uptake may be

limited. This is perhaps predominantly relevant in terms of mobile device usage and the

cost of sending and receiving text messages or downloading data.


74

Implications

What this MRP has demonstrated is the presence of a readily available medium for message

promulgation and an appetite amongst Vancouver residents for its use. This research has also

reinforced much of the pre-Internet warning message theory and demonstrated its continued

relevance in the field. Also, the survey data has shown some similarities between recent research

by the Canadian Red Cross into social media usage and the findings of this MRP. The two areas

that have emerged as candidates for subsequent research are as follows:

a. Mapping the flow of warning information via social media from source to recipient could

pay huge dividends to emergency managers. Although this would be quite challenging

due to the ever-changing social media landscape, visualizing how information flows from

primary to secondary to tertiary contacts in a social network via social media could be

beneficial. Noting which routes are the quickest and are likely to produce the highest

level of behavioral change amongst users would provide some specific case study

information on how to pass a message quickly via social media.

b. This MRP has in part focused on the importance of credibility in social media. The next

step would be to focus on decision-making by recipients. Messages can be passed

quickly by social media and found to be credible by the user. However, does that

necessarily translate into action by the user? This research project has in essence looked

at the first half of Sorensen’s six steps in the process of warning response (hearing the

warning, understanding the message content, and believing the warning is credible). The

next stages deal with personalizing the warning to one’s own situation, confirming the

warning is true and if others are taking heed, and finally, responding with protective

action (2000). These next stages are in essence the decision-making that comes out of the

assessment of credibility a recipient makes upon receipt of a message. O’Brien suggests


75

that there is currently no clear understanding of how social media can be used to assist the

public in making decisions that result in recommended actions (2012). To that end,

research into how to take that credible message and make it not just believable, but

convincing enough to support a decision to act by the recipient would be of significant

benefit.


76

Chapter Six: Reflective Learning

To suggest that the MRP process was daunting is an under-statement! From the point

when I first considered taking the Master of Arts (MA) program until the point at which I started

the MRP, was an elapsed period of approximately five and a half years. One of the major

considerations I had when deciding on whether to embark upon the program was whether I would

be able to maintain the level of focus and effort to complete such a major undertaking as the

MRP. I would be lying if I did not say that the MA period has been quite exhausting. Like

many, I have never completed a piece of work as detailed as the MRP and I feared that I would

not be able to write convincingly about one topic for such a length. Being awarded the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) scholarship just before I began

the MRP was admittedly a sizeable and well-timed boost to my confidence level. During the two

3-week residency periods at RRU, students were required to complete a period of written

reflection at the end of each week. Among other things, we were asked to comment on our

thinking and researching skills and how the previous week had impacted upon and developed

those skills. Like the residency periods, this MRP has been a period of self-discovery and I will

frame my reflection around those two skills: researching and thinking.

Researching Skills

It is ironic that I am considering my researching skills in light of my MRP topic being on

social media. When I first attended University in 1990, the Internet for use by the wider

population was essentially in its infancy. The degree of success of your research in the early

nineties depended mainly on the availability of hardcopy resources in libraries close to where you

lived or studied. Now, I have access to an almost un-ending supply of information 24-hrs a day

almost anywhere. As the subjects of my research pointed out regarding social media and


77

emergency management warnings, information overload is a very real problem with today’s

Internet. This can be a significant problem in even the most basic research project as well I

suspect. I am generally a well-organized person, however the sheer volume of material available

online in addition to in the library means a researcher today must be vigilant to keep track of the

sources he or she uses and discerning in the material they choose to review in detail. A

researcher could spend the entire MRP period sifting through different literature and never really

making any headway. The MA program and the MRP process has forced me to become much

more comfortable with technology and the sheer volume of sources, search engines, survey

platforms and citation management systems available. I think a researcher today has to spend

more time just gathering their sources than ever before. Actually reading and critically analyzing

those sources is arguably the easy part, the hard part is determining the material upon which you

are going to base that analysis and ensuring it is usable and credible. Research is as much about

time management as it is about analysis and writing it seems.

What this last year has also developed in me is the ability to detect and appreciate subtlety

in the information I reviewed. During the literature review phase of the MRP, I would find

myself reading several articles that on a broad level, appeared to be saying the same thing. It was

only through a more careful analysis, and sometimes on a second or third read, that I would

realize that my own misinterpretation of a concept or definition fundamentally yet subtly refined

the argument being presented. On one level, this is because being immersed in a topic I tended

perhaps to approach each new article with my own evolving opinion or sub-conscious definition

for a concept that might or might not be shared by the article’s author. This would configure how

I in turn interpreted that new article. I often wonder if I had read many of the articles I reviewed

in a different order, would it have shaped my research and my opinions in a different way,

thereby impacting on the direction of my MRP? Realistically, I cannot re-invent the wheel and I


78

cannot approach an article completely devoid of any opinion or academic or personal ‘baggage’.

But I did find that recording some of the assumptions I was making and some of the opinions I

was formulating concurrently with my literature review was helpful. It not only assisted me in

being more objective in my research, but it helped me to formulate some of the assumptions I

was making for my research that needed to be pointed out in the body of the MRP. What this also

did was help me challenge some of my existing viewpoints and more thoroughly examine the

opinions that were forming as I conducted my literature review. In my undergraduate studies, I

would have been more inclined to accept any piece of research as valid on the face of it and I

would assume that the opinion of the writer was more worthy than my own. Increasingly over

the last year, I have become more able to read and research critically and make a balanced

judgment on whether I think the author’s view is valid, and if not, why not.

Thinking Skills

During the MRP process, I do not think I used the term ‘systematic enquiry’ once. Yet

from our examination of systematic enquiry during the first period of residency at RRU, I realize

that I have been routinely employing it during this last year. This started with me writing a very

specific problem statement and formulating some equally specific sub-questions for my research.

Like many, I was keen to ‘jump right in’ and start researching and writing the MRP. This was

not only because of my interest in the topic, but also because I was conscious that this year would

pass by quickly. I had to very deliberately restrain myself from hasty and ill-conceived

‘progress’ and ensure that I had a logical foundation upon which to work. In hindsight, I am so

grateful that I was able to stave off my own impatience and adopt a more systematic approach to

my research. The MRP milestone process was also quite helpful in this regard. Having a number

of smaller deliverables and a time schedule to produce them was an excellent handrail. The MRP

schedule called for approximately the same amount of time being spent on formulating a research


79

question as for conducting the literature review. At first glance, this seemed to me to be quite a

slow start and a misuse of time. However, after starting a few literature searches during that

research question formulation phase, I quickly realized that unless I had ‘nailed down’ that

research question and asked myself some second and third order questions about it early on, I

would have real issues identifying the right kind of literature suitable for my MRP. This

reinforces the point I made earlier on the overwhelming wealth of information available to the

researcher. Devoting sufficient time to your research question is time well spent! This does not

mean that you cannot reconsider your research question during your literature review. The MRP

is after all an iterative process. However, I have discovered that a well thought out research

question will hopefully prevent a significant directional change to a project mid-stream if

possible.

I mentioned above the need for a second and third order analysis during the MRP process.

The residency periods emphasized to me the sheer complexity of the multi-disciplinary field of

emergency management and the plethora of stakeholders potentially affected by even the most

‘basic’ emergency situation. The MA program has helped me to wrestle with some of the

underlying concepts to disaster in an effort to not just identify what is happening, but why it is

happening and what it means to a wider audience. A town does not flood ‘just’ because it does

not have flood defenses. Deeper questions about why certain houses and infrastructure were built

in areas we know are prone to flooding and what social factors make certain groups more

vulnerable, help an emergency manager look beyond the obvious argument and mitigation

strategy which might simply entail building a bigger flood wall. During the MRP process I found

myself asking these same ‘so what’ questions. In other words: conducting a subsequent level of

analysis that I might not ordinarily do. I have felt myself becoming a little more critical in my

thinking and looking for a tighter linkage between a question and an answer, both in the sources


80

that I am reading and in my own work.

There is a real temptation after the data for the MRP was collected to just produce a series of

bright colored graphs and charts. Although presentation is a key part of the MRP process,

conducting that next level of enquiry and considering what that information may mean is what I

have gained most from this last year. This reinforces my earlier point regarding the importance

of devoting time to formulating a research question. Part of that initial formulation involved for

me asking questions about what information I was going to gain from posing each sub-question.

I then had to consider what value that information might hold. Would that information actually

have any utility in proving a thesis or answering that sub-question? I pride myself on being a

fairly logical and sequential thinker. Although the MRP process appears somewhat modular and

is established with a helpful system of milestones, I have found that each part does overlap with

other parts of the process. Although it would be premature to start formulating a written survey

before you have decided upon a research question, I would be lying if I said that I was not

considering how I might gather data during the early stages. Likewise, when formulating sub-

questions, I was considering what kind of data I might gather and how that data might be used to

answer that sub-question. So although I am historically more comfortable with a sequential,

ordered, ‘cause and effect’ thought process, the MRP process caused me to think along a number

of pathways simultaneously. Although the process was systematic and I had an ultimate critical

path, represented well by the MRP process and milestones, I had to ask myself some deeper

questions earlier on that did cause me to consider later milestones in the process. This did feel a

little over-whelming at times as I thought my thinking was a little disorganized and I was

‘walking in circles’. But I began to realize early on that as long as I kept to the overall critical

path and MRP structure, thinking ahead and asking some deeper questions about subsequent parts

of the MRP paid dividends in the long-term.


81

Conclusion

I thoroughly enjoyed the MRP process. On one hand, I am elated that it is almost over! On

the other hand, I think there will be a bit of a void in my life being away from academia. Not

being enrolled in some kind of educational courses does not mean that I am going to stop

thinking critically. Quite the opposite in fact: the skills I have honed in the last year have made

me a more considered, logical and empathetic person. I now more readily question the impacts

of a decision or an issue from a wider point of view beyond my own. I would like to think that I

am a lot more inquisitive and critical in the ways in which I think. I also know that my

confidence in my own opinion has increased. I will definitely not always have the ‘right’ answer

(what ever that means) but I am more self-assured that my response will have a greater depth of

understanding of the problem than ever before.


82

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Argenti, P. A. (2006). How technology has influenced the field of corporate communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(3), 357-370. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/docview/ 196455658?accountid=8056

Armon, D. (2010). Ready or not: Is your crisis communications plan anti-social? Public Relations Tactics, 17(4), 10.

Auf der Heide, E. (1989). Disaster Response: communication with the public. Principles of preparation and coordination (pp. 122-132) St Louis: CV Mosby.

Botterell, A. (2008). Warnings that work. The American City & County, 123(7), 24. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/docview /195913904? accountid=8056

Burkhart, F. (1990). Media, emergency warnings and citizen response. (PhD, Arizona State University).

Canadian Red Cross. (2012). Social media during emergencies. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Red Cross.

Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., & Poblete, B. (2011). Information credibility on twitter. Proceedings from the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '11), New York. 675-684. doi:10.1145/1963405.1963500

Clarke, R. (1999). Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Communications of the ACM. 42(2). 60-67.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). An exploration of the effects of victim visuals on perceptions and reactions to crisis events. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 115-120. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.01.006

Crowe, A. (2012). Disasters 2.0: The application of social media systems for modern emergency management. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from http://voyager.royalroads.ca/ vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=327769

Cutter, L., & Smith, M. M. (2009). Fleeing from the hurricane's wrath: Evacuation and the two americas. Environment, 51(2), 26-36. Retrieved from http://search. proquest.com.ezproxy .royalroads.ca/docview/224013998?accountid=8056


83

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concerns within social networking sites: A comparison of facebook and myspace. Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado. 339-350.

Fearn-Banks, K. (2011). Crisis communications: A casebook approach (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from http://voyager.royalroads.ca/vwebv/holdings Info?bibId=259172

Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Staff. (2004). World disasters report 2004: Focus on community resilience. Bloomfield, USA: Kumarian Press Inc.

Fink, A. (2009). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ghosh, J. K., Bhattacharya, D., Samadhiya, N. K., & Boccardo, P. (2012). A generalized geo-hazard warning system. Natural Hazards, 62(2), 1273-1289. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0296-0

Goolsby, R. (2010). Social media as crisis platform: The future of community Maps/Crisis maps ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 1(7), 7. doi:10.1145/ 1858948.1858955 http://doi. acm. org/10.1145/1858948.1858955

Handbook of disaster research (2007). Rodríguez H., Quarantelli E. and Dynes R. (Eds.). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-32353-4

Hui, C., Tyshchuk, Y., Wallace, W., Magdon-Ismail, M., & Goldberg, M. (2012). Information cascades in social media in response to a crisis: A preliminary model and a case study. Proceedings from the 21st International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (WWW '12 Companion), New York. 653-656. doi:10.1145/ 2187980.2188173

Imran, M., Elbassuoni, S. M., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Meier, P. (2013). Extracting information nuggets from disaster-related messages in social media. ISCRAM, Baden-Baden, Germany,

Jaeger, P. T., Shneiderman, B., Fleischmann, K. R., Preece, J., Qu, Y., & Fei Wu, P. (2007). Community response grids: E-government, social networks, and effective emergency management. Telecommunications Policy, 31(10–11), 592-604. doi:http://dx.doi. org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1016/j.telpol.2007.07.008

Jaegera, P., Shneiderman, B., Fleischmann, K., Preece, J., Qu, Y., & Wu, P. (2007). Community response grids: E-government, social networks, and effective emergency management. Telecommunications Policy, 31, 592-604.

Johnson, T. & Kaye, B. (1998). Cruising is believing: Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75(2), 325-340. Retrieved from http://www.aejmc.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journalism-Mass-Communication-Quarterly-1998-JohnsonKay-325-340.pdf


84

Kasperson, R., & Kasperson, J. (1996). The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, 95-105.

Kavanaugh, A., Fox, E., Sheetz, S., Yang, S., Li, L., Whalen, T., . . . Xie, L. (2012). Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Proceedings from the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, New York. 121-130. doi:10.1145/2037556.2037574

Lindsay, B. R. (2011). Social media and disasters: Current uses, future options, and policy considerations. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.

Martin, N., & Rice, J. (2012). Emergency communications and warning systems. Disaster Prevention and Management, 21(5), 529-540. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy. royalroads. ca/10.1108/09653561211278671

Mauriello, T. (2013). Entering a new age of disaster response. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, Pa.1978). A.1.

Mersham, G. (2010). Social media and public information management: The september 2009 tsunami threat to new zealand. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture & Policy, (137), 130.

Meyer, J. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43, 563-572. doi:10.1518/001872001775870395

Mileti, D. Public hazards communication and education: The state of the art. Public Education for Earthquake Hazards, 2007(2), 1-14.

Mileti, D., & Peek, L. (2000). The social psychology of public response to warnings of a nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 75(2–3), 181-194. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00179-5

Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management. (2011). An emergency management framework for canada. Ottawa, Canada: Emergency Management Policy directorate.

O’Brien, M., Bass, E., Bliss, J., Cooke, N., Kalsher, M., & Mayhorn, C. (2012). Improving public response to disaster warnings: A discussion panel. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56: 2036-2039.

O'Leary, Z. (2010). The essential guide to doing your research project. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

O’Neil, D. (2001). Analysis of internet users’ level of online privacy concerns. Social Science Computer Review. 19(17). 17-31. doi: 10.1177/089443930101900103


85

Page, S., Freberg, K., & Saling, K. (2013). Emerging media crisis value model: A comparison of relevant, timely message strategies for emergency events. Journal of Strategic Security, 6(2), 20-31.

Palen, L. (2008). Online social media in crisis events. Educause Quarterly, 31(3), 76-78.

Pechta, L. E. (2010). Understanding the dynamics of emergency communication: Propositions for a four-channel model. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1), 1-18.

Pew Internet. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx

Quan-Haase, A., Young, A. (2009). Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: A case study of facebook. Paper presented at C&T ’09. Retrieved from http://sozio-informatik.net/fileadmin/IISI/upload/2009/p265.pdf

Quarantelli, E. (2000). Disaster planning, emergency management and civil protection: The historical development of organized efforts to plan for and to respond to disasters. (Unpublished Preliminary Paper #301). University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center.

Reynolds, B. (2010). Building trust through social media. Center for disease control experience with H1N1 swine flu response. Marketing Health Services, 30(2), 18.

Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Scanlon, J. (2007). Chapter 24: Unwelcome irritant or useful ally? The mass media in emergencies. In R. Havidan, E. Quarantelli & R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 413-429). New York: Springer.

Schmierbach, M. (2012). A little bird told me, so I didn't believe it: Twitter, credibility, and issue perceptions. Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 317.

Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 20-27. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/ 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010. 12.001

Schonberger, K. (2005). How false information creates ‘true events’. Persistent and recombined forms of activist communication through internet fakes and hoaxes. Hamburg, Germany: University of Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.eastbound.eu/site_media/pdf/ 060113schoenberg.pdf

Seeger, M. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research: JACR, 34(3), 232-244.


86

Sene, K. Flood warning, forecasting and emergency response. (2008). UK: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77853-0

Shankar, K. (2008). Wind, water, and wi-fi: New trends in community informatics and disaster management. The Information Society, 24(2), 116-120.

Simpliflying. (2013). Crises management 2.0. Asiana airlines flight OZ214 in SFO. Message posted to http://www.slideshare.net/shanxz/asiana-flight-214-crash-in-sfo-crises-management-case-study-and-analysis?utm_source=slideshow&utm_ medium=ssemail &utm_campaign=weekly_digest

Sorensen, J. H. (2000). Hazard warning systems: Review of 20 years of progress. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 119. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login? url=http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eih&AN=6786276

Sorenson, J. H., & Sorensen, B. V. (2007). Chapter 11: Community processes: Warning and evacuation. In H. Rodriguez , E. Quarantelli & R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 183-199). New York: Springer.

Spicer, T. (2013). Being social: Integrating social media into public information support to emergency response. (Unpublished Masters). Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Statistics Canada. (2010). Canadian internet use survey. Retrieved from http://www.statcan. gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/comm36a-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2011). Focus on geography series, 2011 census. Census metropolitan area of Vancouver, British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GC=933

Sutton, J., Palen, L., & Shklovski, I. (2008). Backchannels on the front lines: Emergent uses of social media in the 2007 southern california wildfires. Proceedings of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference , Washington, DC.

Tierney, K. J., Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2001). Facing the unexpected disaster preparedness and response in the united states. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Retrieved from http://voyager.royalroads.ca/vwebv/ holdings Info?bibId=184651

United Nations General Assembly. (2012). The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, A /HRC/ 20 /L. 1 3.

Veil, S. R. (2011). A work-in-process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2), 110-122.

Walaski, P. (2013). Social media. Professional Safety, 58(4), 40-49. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/docview/1331594111?accountid=8056


87

White, C. M. (2012). Social media, crisis communication, and emergency management: Utilizing web 2.0 technologies. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. Retrieved from http://voyager. royalroads.ca/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=300703

Widener, J., Horner, M., & Metcalf, S. (2013). Simulating the effects of social networks on a population’s hurricane evacuation participation Journal of Geographical Systems, 15(2), 193-209. doi:10.1007/s10109-012-0170-3


88

Appendix A

SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMERGENCY WARNING INFORMATION

My name is James Embleton-Forrest and this research project is part of the requirement for a Masters Degree in Disaster and Emergency Management at Royal Roads University. If you wish to verify my credentials with Royal Roads University you may contact Associate Faculty Eileen Davenport at [email protected]. This document constitutes an agreement to participate in my research project, the objective of which is to examine how the credibility of social media can be enhanced for use in disseminating emergency management information. The research will consist of a short interview consisting of a mix of open-ended questions and is foreseen to last 10-15mins. The questions will refer to the ways in which you currently use social media in your day-to-day life. I will be submitting my final report to Royal Roads University in partial fulfillment for a Masters Degree in Disaster and Emergency Management. Information will be recorded on computer and where appropriate, summarized in the body of the final report. Participants do not have to include their name or any personal information in order to preserve anonymity. At no time will any specific comments be attributed to any individual unless specific agreement has been obtained beforehand. All documentation will be kept strictly confidential in a locked cabinet and destroyed once my report is completed and accepted by Royal Roads University. If a participant withdraws from the study mid-way, all records of their survey answers will be destroyed upon withdrawal and not included in the study. The final report will be disseminated to Royal Roads faculty electronically. A copy can also be sent to interested survey participants by arrangement. You are not compelled to participate in this research project. If you do choose to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without prejudice. Similarly, if you choose not to participate in this research project, this information will also be maintained in confidence. Do you wish to continue?

• Yes • No

1. Please state your gender?

• Male • Female • Other

2. What is your age group?


89

• 18-35 years of age • 36-50 years of age • 51-65 years of age • over 65 years of age

3. Do you have Internet access at your home?

• Yes • No

4. Do you have Internet access at your place of work?

• Yes • No

5. If your answer to the previous question was 'Yes', is that access electronically restricted by your employer? (i.e. are there some websites that you are unable to access at work).

• Yes • No • Not applicable

6. Do you use a mobile device to access the Internet? (i.e. smart phone or tablet)?

• Yes • No

7. Do you subscribe to any 'push' notifications via the Internet? (i.e. information like breaking news or weather updates that are automatically sent to your internet device without you having to deliberately access them yourself).

• Yes • No

8. Do you use any of the following social networking accounts? (Please add any social media applications that you use that are not listed).

• Facebook • Twitter • Email (known sender)


90

• Email (unknown sender) • Linked-in • YouTube • Flickr • Other (Please specify below) • Other (Please specify below) • Other (Please specify below) • Other (Please specify below)

9. Of the forms of social media you use, how do you rate each in terms of credibility?

Very credible

Somewhat credible Neutral Lacking in

credibility Very

lacking in credibility

Facebook Twitter



Linked-in YouTube

Flickr Other (Please specify below) Other (Please specify below) Other (Please specify below) Other (Please specify below)


91

10. If you received an emergency warning message through any of the social media forms listed above, how likely are you to immediately alter your personal behavior in response (i.e. evacuate, shelter in place etc)?

Very likely

Somewhat likely


Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

Facebook Twitter



Linked-in YouTube

Flickr Other (Please specify below) Other (Please specify below) Other (Please specify below) Other (Please specify below)


92

11. How important to you is knowing the originating source of a message received on social media?

• Very important • Somewhat important • Neither important nor unimportant • Somewhat unimportant • Very unimportant

12. Does knowing the originating source of a message make you more likely to immediately alter your behavior as result?

• Yes • No

13. What contributes more to social media credibility in your opinion: knowing the originating source of a message or the social media application upon which you are viewing the message?

• Knowing the originating source of the message • The social media application upon which the message is viewed

14. Would you want to receive emergency warning information from the City of Vancouver and official agencies via your social media applications?

• Yes • No

15. Do you have any recommendations for how emergency warning information disseminated on social media can be made more credible?


93

Appendix B

Consolidated Response Data for Survey

1. Please state your gender?

Male 41 Female 61 Other 0

2. What is your age group?

18-35 years of age 6 male, 12 female 36-50 years of age 29 males, 39 female 51-65 years of age 6 male, 9 female over 65 years of age 0 male, 1 female

3. Do you have Internet access at your home?

Yes 102 No 0

4. Do you have Internet access at your place of work?

Yes 89 No 7 Not Applicable 6

5. If your answer to the previous question was 'Yes', is that access electronically restricted by your employer? (i.e. are there some websites that you are unable to access at work).

Yes 34 No 55 Not Applicable 13

6. Do you use a mobile device to access the Internet? (i.e. smart phone or tablet)?

Yes 93 No 9

7. Do you subscribe to any 'push' notifications via the Internet? (i.e. information like breaking news or weather updates that are automatically sent to your internet device without you having to deliberately access them yourself).

Yes 52 No 50


94

8. Do you use any of the following social networking applications?

Facebook 81 Twitter 38 Email (from a known contact) 97 Email (from a contact not known to you) 45 linkedin 71 YouTube 77 Flickr 11 Instagram 19 Tumblr 5 Google+ 35 Vimeo 1 Vine 2 Wikispaces 3 Snap Chat 2 Foursquare 1 HeyTell 1 Skype 1 Individual Blogs 1 Flip Board 1 Google Circles 1

9. Of the forms of social media you use, how do you rate each in terms of credibility? Please also rate any applications you added to the previous question under Other 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Very credible


credibility

Very lacking in credibility

Facebook 8 40 19 12 2 Twitter 7 19 14 8 1

Email (from a known sender) 58 34 5 Email (from a contact not

known to you) 3 14 19 24 1

linkedin 12 43 10 1 YouTube 4 22 34 15

Flickr 3 6 11 5 Instagram 1 2 14 7 Tumblr 2 13 4

Google+ 8 11 15 Vimeo 1 1 Vine 1 2

Wikispaces 2 1 Snap Chat 1 Foursquare 1


95

Very credible


credibility


HeyTell 1 Skype 1

Individual Blogs 1 Flip Board 1

Google Circles 1

10. If you received an emergency warning message on any of the social media applications listed above (i.e. an evacuation advisory or an extreme weather alert), how likely are you to alter your personal behavior in response? Please also rate any applications you added to the previous

11. How important is knowing the originating source of a message received on social media to you?

Very likely Somewhat likely


Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

Facebook 9 31 12 5 2 Twitter 10 20 7 2 3

Email (from a known sender) 46 18 2 Email (from a contact not

known to you) 5 12 15 8 8

linkedin 5 24 13 5 YouTube 1 13 25 11 6

Flickr 1 7 7 1 Instagram 1 9 5 1 Tumblr 7 6 1

Google+ 3 9 7 4 Vimeo 1 Vine 1 1

Wiki Spaces 2 Snap Chat 1 Foursquare 1

HeyTell 1 Skype 1

Individual Blogs 1 Flip Board 1

Google Circles 1


96

Very important 91 Somewhat important 11 Neither important nor unimportant 0 Somewhat unimportant 0 Very unimportant 0

12. Does knowing the originating source of a message make you more likely to immediately alter your behavior as a result?

Yes 99 No 3

13. What contributes more to social media credibility in your opinion: knowing the originating source of a message or the social media application upon which you are viewing the message?

Knowing the originating source of the message 98 The social media application upon which the message is viewed 4

14. Would you want to receive emergency warning information from government (local, provincial or federal) or other official agencies, via your social media applications?

Yes 94 No 8


97

Appendix C

Simulated Emergency Management Messages

Simulated Message Number One: UNSOLICITED EMAIL

Retrieved from http://www.google.org/publicalerts/alert?aid=9a6d2b485c772bd&hl=en&gl=CA&source=web


98

Simulated Message Number Two: TWITTER

Retrieved from https://twitter.com/CityofVancouver


99

Simulated Message Number Three: FACEBOOK

Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/CityofVancouver?rf=127584693944934


100

Simulated Message Four: TEXT MESSAGE

Unknown


101

Appendix D

Simulated Message Assessment Sheet

This assessment represents a continuation of the previous survey and the same guidelines apply. You may withdraw at any time without prejudice and your anonymity will be maintained unless you specifically authorize otherwise. This assessment refers to four simulated warning messages. The messages are fictional and no real emergency exists. Question One: How credible did you find each of the simulated warnings messages? Very

credible Somewhat credible

Neutral Lacking in credibility


Total respondents

Email 5 1 6 Twitter 2 3 1 6 Facebook 2 3 1 6 Text Message

2 1 2 1 6

Question Two: How likely are you to alter your behavior in response to the simulated messages? Very likely Somewhat

likely Neither likely nor unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

Total respondents

Email 2 3 1 6 Twitter 1 3 1 1 6 Facebook 1 3 1 1 6 Text Message

2 2 2 6

Question Three: How likely are you to pass this message onto friends or family (either verbally or via social media)? Very likely Somewhat

likely Neither likely nor unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Very unlikely

Total respondents

Email 3 2 1 6 Twitter 2 2 2 6 Facebook 1 2 2 1 6 Text Message

2 1 3 6


102

Question Four: If you stated that you are likely or somewhat likely to pass this message onto family or friends, would you pass it on via social media or via word-‐of-‐mouth? I would forward the message exclusively via social media I would forward the message predominantly via social media I would forward the message via social media and word-‐of-‐mouth equally 2 I would forward the message predominantly via word-‐of-‐mouth 3 I would forward the message exclusively via word-‐of-‐mouth 1 Not applicable


103

Appendix E

The comments provided by respondents have been consolidated and have not been repeated

verbatim for the benefit of brevity.

Descriptive Coding Topical Coding Analytical Coding Age group 18-35: Total of 18 respondents

Male: Total of 6 respondents

Warnings must be automated Facility to authenticate sender Facility to authentication the source Credibility has little to do with the platform. More to do with the people using it and their motivations

Simplicity Ease of use Legitimacy

Female: Total of 12 respondents

Message must come from a credible source such as emergency services

Legitimacy

Age group 36-50: Total of 68 respondents


Warning messages should be automated Message are most credible from a government source Emergency managers should create an Internet application that people can opt to use creating ‘buy-in’ Systems that people have already taken the time to engage with will be more widely accepted Importance of ‘word of mouth’. Relying on people to promulgate through their own networks Make notifications brief and to the point but also include a link to more detailed information for those who want to research

Simplicity Ease of use Legitimacy Simplicity Engagement Utility Simplicity


104

Age group 36-50 continued:

Male continued:

further Make the notifications free, also including a free function to forward messages on to other friends and family easily Offer financial incentives that are already open for use Remove concerns about scams or being subjected to unrelated mass-emailing An agency must have the ability to override our common social media devices/portals e.g. when an Amber alert appears on your TV I would rely more on conventional media i.e. TV / radio (or perhaps word of mouth from other people who are using social media)

Lack of expense Simplicity Legitimacy Trust Trust


Show a recorded video of a known political figure and proof of author Public information service campaign via traditional media promoting the service It would have to be from a warranted source that links to a warranted site A post on Facebook from the government that is then linked to their website that says the same thing Verification via news and radio Verification or proof that only that source could provide Establish an 'emergency

Legitimacy Trust Legitimacy Verifiable Legitimacy Engagement


105

Age group 36-50 continued:

Female continued:

identity' before Use only in a legitimate emergency Using trusted newspaper radio or TV news companies with push notifications Use a vast spectrum of media sources Do not rely on any single application or source I would rely on the CBC Establish email link/rapport in advance to avoid skepticism when a warning is received Establish confidence in the system before hand Have a specific social media website designed for this purpose

Trust Saturation Saturation Trust Engagement Engagement Legitimacy Ease of use

Age group 51-65: Total of 15 respondents


Having a means of verifying the source and content - e.g. a follow-up call or email Simply state who the original message is from and offer an opportunity to verify Information received by subscription tends to be credible; information that gets through anti-spamming controls will be somewhat credible and that credibility will be increased if it carries some sort of verifiable or distinguishing identifier Use multiple medias

Legitimacy Simplicity Legitimacy Saturation


106


No comments made No comments made

Age group over 65: Total of 1 respondent


No comments made No comments made


Pre-authenticated sound and visual alarm to indicate if it is real or a practice or bogus Authentication of source with continuing updates

Legitimacy Simplicity Engagement

optimizing the use of social media for the dissemination of emergency warnings

Documents

use of social media

social networks

utilized forms of social

emergency managers

social networking applications

emergency warning message

emergency management

study introduction