1. U.S. coastlines are increasingly at risk from hurricanes and other hazards, and are experiencing rapid population growth and diversification in terms of race, ethnicity, and class. There is a growing need to understand how emergency alert systems (EAS) and their associated alert/warning devices are used by emergency management agencies and by the public. An Integrated Approach to Geo-Target At- Risk Communities and Deploy Effective Crisis Communication Systems Bandana Kar, David Cochran, Nicole Callais, James Dickens, Xiaohui Liu, and Joslyn Zale Geoinformatics and Hazards Research Laboratory; Department of Geography and Geology University of Southern Mississippi This research focuses on the three counties of the Mississippi Gulf Coast (Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson). The population of these counties (370,680 in 2010 and 386,134 in 2014) is ethnically and socioeconomically diverse. Most residents live in the relatively dense urban areas on or near the coast. Further inland, and especially north of Interstate 10, populations are more sparse. This research examines the following questions regarding the emergency alert and warning devices in use on the Mississippi Gulf Coast from the perspective of emergency management agencies and the public. 1.Which alert / warning devices are most used by the public and by emergency management agencies? 2.How do the public and emergency management agencies perceive these devices in terms of their accuracy, frequency of use, and trustworthiness? 3.Which devices do the public and emergency management agencies believe are most effective at motivating at-risk populations to evacuate? Population density is high in the physically high risk areas. Socio-economically vulnerable populations reside in high physical risk zones along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. County Anglo- American African American Other Total Population Hancock 38,842 (88.4%) 3,138 (7.1%) 1,949 (4.4%) 43,929 Harrison 130,365 (69.7%) 41,393 (22.1%) 15,346 (8.2%) 187,104 Jackson100,720 (72.1%) 30,034 (21.5%) 8,893 (6.7%) 139,647 Figure 1: Population Density Distribution at Block Level Figure 2: Spatial Distribution of Physical Risk Figure 3: Spatial Distribution of Social Vulnerability Physical Risk Zones LowModerateHigh White112,612126,90032,244 African American16,55248,3239,697 Asian2,2915,1181,357 Hispanic4,27710,8142,695 Male68,08693,86722,655 Female68,62196,43022,902 Below 18 Years of Age36,38845,05710,745 Above 65 Years of Age14,89025,0706,215 Owner Occupied Housing Unit38,81144,42812,322 Single-Person Household9,67521,1194,838 Geoinformatics and Hazards Research Laboratory: http://ghrldev.st.usm.edu/

2. Figure 6: Spatial Coverage, Cell Service Providers Figure 7: Spatial Coverage, Television Figure 4: Spatial Coverage, Sirens Figure 5: Spatial Coverage, NOAA Weather Radio All existing emergency alert devices are widely available in the study area. Sirens service the cities of Bay St. Louis, Gulfport, Biloxi, and Ocean Springs. NOAA Weather Radio is available across the area except for small, rural areas in the lower Pascagoula River. Television and cell phone coverage is also widely available across the three counties. Geoinformatics and Hazards Research Laboratory: http://ghrldev.st.usm.edu/ The public trusts 7 of 13 devices: TV, NOAA Weather Radio, Siren, Internet, Social Media, Family & Friends, and EMA Visits. The public view the devices in bold as most effective to motivate them to evacuate. They have little trust for landline telephones (Reverse 911) or texts (Wireless Emergency Alert). Agencies prefer Emergency Operation Centers (EOCs) for risk communication and view Radio, Phone, Text, and EOCs as most effective at motivating evacuation. Figure 8: Household Use and Trust & Agency Perceptions of Alert/Warning Devices Younger (18-35 years) and older participants (55 years or older) have higher regard for social media in terms of trust and as a motivator for evacuation to a greater degree than other adults. Participants with higher education are more skeptical of risk communication and tend to use and trust internet and social media to a greater degree than others. Caucasians and Hispanics exhibit high trust in all devices; African-Americans indicate high trust in social media, text messages, pictures/posters and family and friends; Vietnamese residents have high trust in pictures/posters and sirens.