Common Alerting Protocol
|
|
The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) is a simple but general format for exchanging all-hazard emergency alerts and public warnings over all kinds of networks. CAP allows a consistent warning message to be disseminated simultaneously over many different warning systems, thus increasing warning effectiveness while simplifying the warning task. CAP also facilitates the detection of emerging patterns in local warnings of various kinds, such as might indicate an undetected hazard or hostile act. And CAP provides a template for effective warning messages based on best practices identified in academic research and real-world experience.
Advances in technology, and higher expectations by the public have significantly complicated alert and warning procedures. There is a vast array of systems and equipment being fielded by a multitude of agencies. Unfortunately, these systems and technologies are generally developed without regard for how other related systems and equipment function. As a result, emergency managers and decision makers are faced with the task of operating several different warning systems nearly simultaneously. The alert message is generated separately in each system, often by different people or agencies. This results in the community receiving, at minimum, inconsistently worded messages and in the worst case, conflicting warning messages. The Common Alerting Protocol was defined as a basic protocol for all warning systems. This is the first step in developing a truly integrated and seamless alert and warning system.
| Contents |
A Call to Action
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) report on “Effective Disaster Warnings” (November, 2000) recommended that “a standard method should be developed to collect and relay instantaneously and automatically all types of hazard warnings and reports locally, regionally and nationally for input into a wide variety of dissemination systems4.”
The NSTC’s recommendation is reinforced by the results of a survey conducted by Pew Internet and American Life in association with Federal Computer Week magazine about emergencies and the internet5. The report states "Everything we've seen in our research suggests that Americans want every channel of communication fired up when there are emergencies," says Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. "They want horns sounding, radios blaring, TV screens alight with the latest information, pagers buzzing, emails sent, and Web pages updated on the fly. They don't want to have to rely on just one communications method and they don't want one channel to have special privileges over others. They want each one of them used when all hell is breaking loose." (Italics added)
Establishing the roadmap for improvement
The “Baby Boomer” generation grew up listening to routine tests of attack warning sirens. The use of electro-mechanical sirens was the primary mean of warning the public of a nuclear attack against the nation. In some jurisdictions, the systems were also used to issue warnings of severe weather (tornados, floods, etc.). As radio and television systems coverage grew, people immediately tuned to their local stations for more information. In order to take advantage of this mass media system, the federal government developed the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). As digital systems were developed and fielded, it provided an opportunity to code warnings to specific states and counties. In order to take advantage of this capability, a new national warning system was developed. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) replaced EBS and provided a significant improvement in warning. We continue to see almost explosive development of technologies that can be used to broadcast emergency warnings. Sirens activated via digital signals transmitted via radio. Telephone notification systems designed call all phones in a specific area. Cellular telephones, wireless digital devices, text-based pagers are in use everywhere.
Emergency management officials are being asked to send alert and warning messages over multiple systems, most of which use different coding schemes and activation methods. This often results in the end user receiving different messages based on what type of system is being used. It also significantly increases the workload on the individual(s) activating the various systems. As a result, at the one point in an emergency when speed and accuracy are critical, the system is designed to create multiple failure opportunities. How then, do we simplify the alert and warning tasks for emergency response officials and ensure that each recipient receives the same warning message? We develop and implement a Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).
What is the Common Alerting Protocol?
In its simplest form, CAP is an open, non-proprietary digital format for all types of alert and notifications. It’s written in Extensible Markup Language (XML) which is compatible across all operating systems. The CAP format is fully compatible with existing formats including the Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME) used for NOAA Weather Radio and the Emergency Alert System, while offering enhanced capabilities that include:
- Flexible geographic targeting using latitude/longitude “boxes” and other geospatial representations in three dimensions;
- Multilingual and multi-audience messaging;
- Phased and delayed effective times and expirations;
- Enhanced message update and cancellation features;
- Template support for framing complete and effective warning messages;
- Digital encryption and signature capability; and,
- Facility for digital images, audio and video.
Why CAP?
Warning systems in the United States today are a chaotic patchwork of technologies and procedures. Not only is there no coordination, there's no mechanism for coordination.
Existing nationwide systems are limited in scope both by their technological legacies and by the organizational mandates and priorities of their sponsoring agencies. In particular, none of the existing national systems are entirely suited to the needs of state, local and private emergency-information programs. As a result, dozens of different technical and operational warning systems have sprouted, seemingly at random, throughout the nation. As we previously stated, the public expects rapid and accurate emergency warning, and they want all the various information technologies to be used to broadcast the warning. The chief benefit of CAP will be reduction of costs and operational complexity by eliminating the need for multiple custom software interfaces to the many warning sources and dissemination systems involved in all-hazard warning. The CAP message format can be converted to and from the “native” formats of all kinds of sensor and alerting technologies, forming a basis for a technology-independent national and international “warning internet.”
In addition to pushing emergency data to its various warning devices, the protocol also creates a capability that allows sensors of various types (water levels, chemical detectors, wind sensors) to feed data to decision makers in a format that can be easily displayed on a computer-based situation map. An example of this capability is the Emergency Digital Information System (EDIS) used in California. An independent developer has deployed an EDIS Alert Monitoring software application that displays the various EDIS messages on a state map. Based upon the geographic information and type of warning message issued, the software draws a polygon on the map showing the affected area. By feeding information from CAP based sensors into the system, emergency manager can obtain near-real-time data and have it automatically displayed on the situation map. An example might be capturing the river level data from the California Data Exchange Center and, when river levels reach a specific level of concern, an icon appears on the map. By clicking on this icon, you’re able to read the data message from the sensor.
Where are we now?
Standards Development
The CAP 1.0 specification was approved by OASIS in April, 2004. The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) (http://www.oasis-open.org) is a not-for-profit, international consortium that drives the development, convergence and adoption of e-business standards. Members themselves set the OASIS technical agenda, using a lightweight, open process expressly designed to promote industry consensus and unite disparate efforts. OASIS produces worldwide standards for security, web services, conformance, business transactions, supply chain, public sector, and interoperability within and between marketplaces.
Based on experience with CAP 1.0, the OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency) has drafted a CAP 1.1 specification (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12649/CAPv1-1.pdf), which was released for public comment in May, 2005.
Current Implementations
According to a "CAP 1.0 Fact Sheet," CAP implementations have been demonstrated by agencies and companies including: United States Department of Homeland Security; National Weather Service; United States Geological Survey; California Office of Emergency Services; Virginia Department of Transportation; GeoDecisions, Inc.; E Team; Blue292; Warning Systems, Inc.; Comlabs, Inc.; mobileFoundations; Ship Analytics; MyStateUSA; IEM, Inc.; Hormann America, Inc.; Oregon RAINS. Below are the details from some of the implementations:
The National Weather Service (US Dept of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)"has an experimental feed of all its watches, warnings and advisories in CAP format,". See the document "Experimental Listings of Watches, Warnings, and Advisories," (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/alerts) which "provides access to NWS watches, warnings and advisors, listed by state in three different formats. Select a state name to view a list of active alerts in your web browser. These files are updated about every two minutes. Select a state name to see the list for a state. RSS and CAP/XML lists are provided to aid the automated dissemination of this information. More information on RSS and CAP/XML formats/feeds... NWS Alert CAP messages contain the county FIPS code information for the affected county in the cap:geocode tags. Additional cross references to NWS forecast zones is available..."
The State of California, Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Digital Information Service (EDIS) "delivers official information about emergencies and disasters to the public and the news media in California." EDIS has public feed for EDIS bulletins in CAP format at http://www.edis.ca.gov/cap_1.0.
HormannAmerica, Inc. (http://www.hormannamerica.com) - A specialist in warning systems, current maintainer and developer of the Contra Costa County, California Community Warning System. HormannAmerica is developing a pilot CAP Server to support the dissemination of County related Hazards CAP alerts across the county. Additionally HormannAmerica is developing a "BAMBox solution" to create alert popups on user PCs that are connected to the CAPServer networks.
During early 2005 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in partnership with the Association of Public Television Stations, demonstrated "digital EAS" broadcasts over public television digital TV transmitters and satellite links in the Washington, D.C. area and nationwide.
CAP has been selected as a foundation technology for the proposed "Integrated Public Alert and Warning System," an all-hazard, all-media national warning architecture being developed by DHS, the National Weather Service and the Federal Communications Commission. CAP is also being studied as an integrating technology for an enhanced Tsunami warning system and is cited in the Internet Society's 2005 ["Public Warning Network Challenge" (http://www.isoc.org/challenge/)].
Where are we going and how can users get involved?
As emergency managers and responders, we need to recognize situations where a CAP application will improve warning, response, and recovery. We need to specify the inclusion of CAP capability in new and upgraded equipment. Using the open architecture of the CAP program will ensure that a consistent message is sent to the public via all available communications capabilities. It also means that officials with notifications tasks only have to send the message once.
The second task is to get the public involved. Their input and demand for the capabilities that a CAP system provides will have a bigger impact on manufactures than anything local government can do. We need to take advantage of every opportunity to educate the residents in our jurisdictions on the capabilities and advantages of an integrated, CAP based public alerting system. A clear and consistent message, sent across all available media systems will reduce the confusion that typically occurs during major emergencies.
Summary
We have experienced an almost unbelievable leap in technology over the last 10 years. The public has become accustomed to receiving news and information updates virtually instantaneously. As a result, they have a difficult time understanding why it takes so long to get critical life-safety information to them accurately and in a timely manner. One of the most significant contributing factors is the fact that independent systems and technologies have been deployed without considering how, or if, these various capabilities should talk to each other. Any effort to develop a common alerting capability, must take into consideration the fact that a lot of major companies have invested huge sums of money in their own technologies. The Common Alerting Protocol’s open architecture scheme can be easily added to existing systems and incorporated into every manufactures product line. The two-way communications capability of the CAP process provides decision makers with near-real-time data. And the message “template” provided by CAP helps ensure complete and effective warning messages, even under fast-changing conditions.
Better data means better decisions. As emergency managers, we need to push for implementation of the CAP capability at every level. We also need to take every opportunity to get the public involved and demanding that a CAP capability be included in all future consumer electronics products. By requiring current and new systems to be CAP compliant, we reduce the learning curve for Emergency Responders and minimize chances of errors and reduce the amount of misinformation sent to the public.