Question 1
The National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) is a system which ensures that volcanoes are monitored, and their activity recorded and communicated. Their threat is also analyzed as it advances with time (Ewert, 2005) . As with any national corporation, NVEWS deals with unusually great masses and therefore any public communication made, has to undergo multiple authentications and possibly get re-edited before it is publicly released. This is what precedes the release of any public warnings or evacuations in the event of a potential catastrophic volcanic reaction. But, these communications do not normally represent the actual hazards of a volcanic eruption. In the event of a potential volcanic eruption, NVEWS prioritizes getting the public’s attention with the aim to exercise control over them, so as to facilitate smooth mass evacuation from the exclusion zone to safe zones that may not be affected by the eruption (Ewert, 2005) . To exercise this authority without triggering panic amongst the people, NVEWS must devise an appropriate way in which to communicate. This sometimes would mean manipulating the information to be communicated, at the expense of relaying the true hazard likely to result from the volcanic reaction.
The public in such like an event is given limited information, which is just enough to get them to the secure zones, away from the exclusion zone, and ensure their safety in the process. In as much as this is for the greater good of the public, they are deprived of important information that may give them an insight as to the nature of the calamity they are dealing with, the kind of damage to anticipate, and more importantly, to fully comprehend the main reason as to why they should stick together and obey the interim authority as at that particular time. However, NVEWS as a system has effectively executed its main task of monitoring active volcanoes and communicating potential threats in real time, saving people’s lives and property in the process.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question 2
On one hand, it is safe to agree that the citizens had credible information. Credible enough to allow them to make rational decisions based on, not only the background information they had had on their mind but also their primary opinion based on real time experience of the hazardous effects of an avalanche. With first-hand information on the damages that could have been created by this avalanche in its aftermath, the people are able to relate to the damages that result individually. As a result, the citizens also provide substantial information needed for the decision-making process (Crowfoot, 2012) . The information provided is critically and rationally crafted to address the citizens’ interests with regards to the avalanche and the hazardous effects it brings along to the people and to infrastructure.
However, there are slight chances that the people on at the site may not have good information. Most people found at the sites of national disasters like avalanche are often victims, those who are directly or indirectly affected by the occurrence. These victims usually have to deal with clouded judgment as a result of losing property, friends or relative to the disaster. Emotionally clouded judgment may guide them towards blaming an individual or organization, and this distorts the information given, lowering the credibility of the decisions made in close reference to the opinion that’s otherwise misinformed (Crowfoot, 2012). But, there are better ways of containing emotional influences on decision making, with regards to avalanche hazards. The decision-making process is only credible if the stakeholders are like-minded and have a common interest for the citizens. They could be sensitized on their geographical topography and risks they are exposed to. This knowledge will unite all the members of the society in one; their common interest could be how to survive in the midst of potential avalanche hazards. Together, a working decision will be borne by the citizen’s holistic and sober involvement.
References
Crowfoot, J. &. (2012). Environmental disputes: Community involvement in conflict resolution. New York: Island Press.
Ewert, J. W. (2005). An assessment of volcanic threat and monitoring capabilities in the United States: framework for a National Volcano Early Warning System (No. 2005-1164) . Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1164/2005-1164.pdf
