Emergency messaging is crucial in saving lives and avoiding property damage during natural or human-made disasters. Advancements in digital technologies have expanded the ability of emergency managers to reach citizens, particularly through the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system, which notifies citizens in a specific geographic area via their own mobile devices. There have been studies from the perspective of citizens, but little research has been conducted from the perspective of the message senders and focusing on the technology they use. This study aims to better understand the perspective of alerting authorities by examining a case where a participatory design (PD) approach is utilized to create a digital technology that allows alerting authorities to write messages more efficiently and effectively. We seek to understand the processes for implementing effective PD in a technology application used for emergency messaging and also investigate stakeholders' needs and expectations, as well as the role of knowledge sharing during the design processes.
Emergency messaging plays a critical role in safeguarding lives and property during both natural
and human-made disasters [
Existing research on emergency messaging, especially in the US context, has provided valuable
insights into what needs to be included in a message, how to present information to recipients, and how
recipients react after receiving a message [
In light of the identified gaps and challenges, this study showcases how a participatory design (PD) approach can help create a technology tool that enables alerting authorities to write messages more effectively and efficiently. More specifically, we seek to answer the following key questions: (1) What are the critical processes for implementing participatory design of a technology tool for emergency messaging? and (2) How to identify various stakeholders’ needs and expectations as well as foster knowledge sharing during the design processes? Through this research, we aim to contribute to the literature on emergency messaging by adding insights into the use of technology by government agencies and provide practical insights for designing technology tools that are better suited to the needs and expectations of all stakeholders involved.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In section two, we provide a brief overview on emergency messaging. Section three describes the PD approach, including its benefits and core concepts. Section four introduces the background of our case study. Section five shows some preliminary findings. Section six presents some final comments and the next steps for this ongoing research.
Emergency messaging plays a vital role in providing life-saving information to citizens during disasters and other crises. As a result, a considerable amount of literature has been dedicated to studying this area, with a focus on two key aspects: message attributes and the interaction between messages and their recipients.
Studies on message attributes have helped to shed light on the content and style of emergency
messages. In terms of message content, research indicates that a message typically involves five core
elements: hazard (what is the hazard), location (where is the impacted area), protective action guidance
(what actions should be taken), time (when is the message effective), and source (who is sending the
message) [
Another crucial aspect of emergency messaging research is the interaction between messages and
recipients. Studies in this area primarily investigate how message attributes influence recipients’
interpretations, intentions, and actions [
Although researchers have gained significant insight into the attributes of emergency messages and
their impact on recipients, there is limited understanding regarding the role of message senders and their
use of technology in the emergency messaging process. Specifically, little is known about how alerting
authorities create, write, and send emergency messages, as well as the challenges and opportunities they
face during the process [
Participatory design (PD) is a collaborative design approach where technical experts work together
with individuals from the targeted user communities to develop appropriate solutions [14]. In other
words, it means giving a voice to those who will use a technology in its design [
Scholars have developed various concepts and approaches to examine PD, with varying emphasis
on aspects such as the role and focus of users [16] and the specific participation process [25]. While PD
can be studied in multiple ways, Drain [
First, the designer knowledge component recognizes that designers possess greater knowledge about the process and design aspects of the project and technological development. However, to ensure that the design meets users’ needs, designers must also understand the users, referred to as basic knowledge. To acquire such knowledge, designers can utilize various design activities such as making (e.g., building a sketch, model, or prototype), enacting (e.g., role play and prototype testing), or telling (interviews or group discussions) to collect knowledge from the participants. Second, the participant knowledge component recognizes that participants own more contextual information about the community characteristics and their needs (basic knowledge). They can also provide feedback on the prototype (design knowledge). However, for the participants to share knowledge, they must have the capacity to participate, including the motivation to contribute and the necessary ability and skills to generate and express their ideas. Third, the collaboration component highlights the interactions between designers and participants. The model stresses that proper identification of the design space and the user space is crucial for exchanging ideas and building technologies. Finally, the society and culture component acknowledges the social and cultural backgrounds of the participants, which may vary by region, country, local area, age, and gender. The model indicates that PD activities may need to adjust to these social and cultural differences.
Some key ideas in the model have been utilized in various fields such as education and design [
To answer our research questions, we have adopted the case-study approach to examine the case of
the Message Design Dashboard (MDD) project in the United States. Defined as an empirical inquiry
that “investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (p14) [
The MDD project has been developed with the objective of assisting local alerting authorities across the United States in writing effective WEA messages. The project specifically seeks to provide alerting authorities with a lexicon of research-tested message content that includes information on impacts and protective actions associated with specific hazards. One of the core tasks of the project is to create a software prototype that will guide alerting authorities in writing messages step-by-step. To develop and evaluate this prototype, a PD approach was utilized.
The co-creation of the MDD project involved two types of stakeholders, namely the university researchers and government employees (Table 1). On the university side, the lexicon team is primarily responsible for developing emergency message templates and testing their effectiveness, while the technology team is focused on creating and evaluating the software prototype. On the government side, local emergency management agencies played a crucial role in sharing information on their emergency messaging practices as they are the main target audience of the project. In addition, FEMA provided guidance on project implementation and facilitated contact between the university researchers and local alerting authorities.
This section presents the preliminary results of our case study, particularly on the process of PD implemented for the MDD prototype. The main process and relevant tasks are summarized in Table 2.
The first phase was a current practices review, conducted by the technology team. This phase aimed to understand the current technological landscape for emergency messaging. The primary objective was to identify the features and limitations of the off-the-shelf packages available for alerts and warnings to inform the development of the MDD prototype. The review has helped identify what information users must provide to reduce redundancy in completing the required information in the MDD. Additionally, the review of ease of use provided insights into the workflow and interface capabilities used by different applications. The information on template creation and management highlighted limitations in the existing applications, such as inconsistent naming conventions and a lack of tracking for template creators. Finally, the details about site navigation and message design offered various design patterns that the MDD could adopt to improve its usability.
The second phase was a needs assessment. In this phase, the technology team conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with 19 local alerting authorities, varying in geographic location, type of government, population size, and experiences of sending WEAs, to understand the existing practices for emergency messaging, including the process of writing messages, the technological tools used for message writing, the use of information, and the organizational factors affecting message writing. In this phase, the technology team also asked interviewees to share templates or any other aids they used to write more effective messages.
The third phase was the message template design. The primary objective was to create a comprehensive list of message contents, the MDD lexicon, for communicating hazards, including impacts and associated protective actions. The lexicon team utilized a multi-step process to analyze existing hazard messages and documents and conducted subject matter expert interviews and reviews. The information gathered from this analysis served as the foundation for the MDD software.
The fourth phase was the prototype design. In this stage, various stakeholders were engaged. The technology team developed the prototype’s system architecture and web storyboard layouts using results from previous tasks. Throughout the design and refinement process, the lexicon team provided feedback on the layout and assisted in addressing any issues related to the usage of technical terms and the MDD lexicon database. In addition, scenario-based follow-up interviews were conducted with local alerting authorities to gain insight into their message writing process in real-life situations and the choices they make, such as when describing a location. The information gathered was used to further refine the MDD prototype.
Finally, the fifth phase will be the prototype evaluation. The technology team will conduct interviews and a survey to collect feedback from alerting authorities on the MDD prototype to improve the software. Participants will be selected based on specific criteria such as location, experience with sending WEAs, and previous participation in the project. Participants will be asked to perform scenariobased tasks designed to assess the effectiveness, usability, and clarity of the MDD prototype, as well as provide suggestions for refinement. The user testing and evaluation will help gain insight into the perceptions and experiences of emergency managers when utilizing the MDD prototype to write WEA messages.
Our preliminary findings outline the steps taken to implement the PD approach in creating and evaluating the MDD software prototype. Multiple stakeholders from the university and local alerting authorities were engaged in the design process, and a range of methods, including software analysis, in-depth interviews, and scenario-based interviews, were employed to gather information and promote knowledge sharing.
Moving forward, we aim to conduct a more detailed analysis of the case. Specifically, we will
provide a comprehensive account of the activities undertaken in each stage of the process. Also,
evaluation interviews and surveys will be conducted to collect user feedback on the MDD prototype.
Moreover, we will employ Drain [
This project was supported by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Contract Number 70FA5021C00000016. [11] FEMA 2023. Wireless Emergency Alerts. [12] Ginige, A. et al. 2014. Information Sharing Among Disaster Responders - An Interactive Spreadsheet-Based Collaboration Approach. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). 23, 4–6 (Dec. 2014), 547–583. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-014-9207-0. [13] Goldkuhl, G. 2016. E-government design research: Towards the policy-ingrained IT artifact.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.006. [14] Holmlid, S. 2009. Participative, co-operative, emancipatory: From participatory design to service design. (Oslo, Norway, 2009). [15] Huang, C.-M. et al. 2010. Web 2.0 and Internet Social Networking: A New tool for Disaster
(2010), 5. [16] Kautz, K. 2011. Investigating the design process: participatory design in agile software development. Information Technology & People. 24, 3 (Aug. 2011), 217–235.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841111158356. [17] Kim, G. et al. 2019. Wireless Emergency Alert messages: Influences on protective action behaviour. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 27, 4 (Dec. 2019), 374–386.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12278. [18] Kuligowski, E.D. et al. 2023. Ember Alerts: Assessing Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA)
Messages in Wildfires Using the Warning Response Model. (2023). [19] Kuligowski, E.D. 2020. Field research to application: a study of human response to the 2011, Joplin tornado and its impact on alerts and warnings in the USA. Natural Hazards. 102, 3 (Jul. 2020), 1057–1076. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03945-6. [20] Lindell, M.K. and Perry, R.W. 2012. The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence: The Protective Action Decision Model. Risk Analysis. 32, 4 (Apr. 2012), 616–632. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x. [21] Liu, B.F. et al. 2017. Is a picture worth a thousand words? The effects of maps and warning messages on how publics respond to disaster information. Public Relations Review. 43, 3 (2017), 493–506. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.004. [22] Mileti, D.S. and Sorensen, J.H. 1990. Communication of emergency public warnings: A social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Technical Report #ORNL-6609, 6137387. [23] Reuter, C. and Kaufhold, M.-A. 2018. Fifteen years of social media in emergencies: A retrospective review and future directions for crisis Informatics. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 26, 1 (Mar. 2018), 41–57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12196. [24] Rushton, E. and Corrigan, S. 2021. Game-Assisted Assessment for Broader Adoption: Participatory Design and Game-Based Scaffolding. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 19, 2 (Mar. 2021), 71–87. DOI:https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.2.2143. [25] Salman, Y.B. et al. 2012. Icon and user interface design for emergency medical information systems: A case study. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 81, 1 (Jan. 2012), 29–35.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.08.005. [26] Schramm, W. 1974. Notes on Case Studies of Instructional Media Projects. Working paper for
[27] Sutton, J. et al. 2018. Designing Effective Tsunami Messages: Examining the Role of Short Messages and Fear in Warning Response. Weather, Climate, and Society. 10, 1 (Jan. 2018), 75– 87. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0032.1. [28] Sutton, J. et al. 2021. Tornado Warning Guidance and Graphics: Implications of the Inclusion of Protective Action Information on Perceptions and Efficacy. Weather, Climate, and Society. (Oct. 2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0097.1. [29] Sutton, J. and Kuligowski, E.D. 2019. Alerts and Warnings on Short Messaging Channels: Guidance from an Expert Panel Process. Natural Hazards Review. 20, 2 (May 2019), 04019002.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000324. [30] Thomas, M. et al. 2023. Emergency risk communication and sensemaking during smoke events: A survey of practitioners. Risk Analysis. 43, 2 (Feb. 2023), 358–371.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13903.
About the Authors
Tzuhao Chen is a doctoral candidate in Public Administration and Policy at Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). His research interests include government algorithmic accountability, technology innovation in the public sector, cross-boundary information sharing, digital divide, and sustainable smart cities. Chen currently serves as a Research Assistant for the Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany.
J. Ramon Gil-Garcia is a Full Professor of Public Administration and Policy and the Director of the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Dr. Gil-Garcia is a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Mexican National System of Researchers. In 2009, Dr. Gil-Garcia was considered the most prolific author in the field of digital government research worldwide and in 2018 and 2019 was named “One of the World’s 100 Most Influential People in Digital Government” by Apolitical, in the United Kingdom. More recently, in 2021, Dr. Gil-Garcia was one of the recipients of the two inaugural Digital Government Society (DGS) Fellows Awards. Currently, he is also a professor at the Business School at Universidad de las Américas Puebla in Mexico. Dr. Gil-Garcia is the author or co-author of articles in prestigious international journals in Public Administration, Information Systems, and Digital Government and some of his publications are among the most cited in the field of digital government research worldwide. His research interests include collaborative digital government, inter-organizational collaboration and information integration, smart cities and smart governments, data and data analytics for decision making, artificial intelligence in government, adoption and implementation of emergent technologies, digital divide policies, information technologies in the budget process, digital government success factors, information technologies and organizations, and multi-method research approaches.
G. Brian Burke is the managing director for the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Burke works closely with governments at all levels to help them develop better policies, management practices, and information and communication technologies that improve performance and services and has authored and co-authored numerous academic and practitioner-focused publications on topics including digital government, information sharing, and government information management strategies.
Derek Werthmuller is the Director of Technology Innovation at the Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Werthmuller manages the Technology Solutions Laboratory and the Technology Services Unit, which are responsible for researching, prototyping, and implementing innovative and sustainable technology solutions.