We live in a landscape of pop-up security measures. Exactly two months passed between the ramming and knife attack on Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament, and last week’s suicide bomb on a crowded arena in Manchester. In both cases, we saw our public vista change significantly in the immediate wake of both attacks.
The most noticeable changes were an increased security presence made up of armed police and, more recently, an increased military presence on our streets.
Other indicators of the threat response included the introduction of temporary (and not so temporary) barriers and chicanes, additional security pass and bag checks at our places of work and leisure—and repeated encouragement from the authorities to remain vigilant when occupying these spaces.
Irrespective of the shape that they take, these pop-up security measures in public places communicate that the current state of play is abnormal—in spite of repeated calls for us to carry on as usual.
Some members of the public find the increased security measures reassuring, while others report feeling more anxious and, at times, intimidated.
The Myth of the Panic-prone Public
UK Counter-terror (CT) communication initiatives abound. Campaigns such as ‘It’s Probably Nothing, But’, ‘Action Counters Terror’ (ACT), and ‘See It, Say, It, Sorted’ collectively encourage members of the public to report anything unusual.The British Transport Police took this a step further with the introduction of the ‘Run, Hide, Tell’ campaign designed to improve the public awareness of what they should do during a marauding terrorist firearms attack—if they should ever have the misfortune to be caught up in one.
These written and spoken messages have been added to public spaces that are already bristling with visual signals and deterrents in the form of CCTV cameras, uniformed staff, sniffer dogs, and more.
How do members of the public respond?
Getting the public engaged
The sheer variety of campaigns might lead one to believe that public-facing communications have always formed part of the British counter-terror landscape. But this was not always the case.In the past, government organisations have been hesitant to communicate about events that are relatively unlikely to happen but, when they do, have a high impact. Terrorism falls into this category.
One problem is the still-prevalent assumption that members of the public will panic if this type of information is shared with them. This assumption of panic has led many organisations to focus too heavily on reassuring people, and less on practical, clear guidance about steps they can take to protect their loved ones and themselves.
In reality, organisations tasked with communicating about terrorism, and the need for public vigilance, often find that they struggle to get the public engaged enough.
The weight of academic evidence—and the lack of a chaotic public over-response when communications have been issued—should lay these concerns to rest once and for all.
How public behaviour shapes emergency response
Public responses to extreme events can impact the effectiveness and success of emergency response plans and systems—in the worst-case scenario, the public’s response can cause entire systems, such as healthcare, to fail.During the 1995 Tokyo Sarin Attacks, for instance, hospitals had to manage 500 injured, 7 dead, and an additional 5,510 psychological casualties, with this last category made up of individuals who experienced physical symptoms without direct exposure to the nerve agent.
Well-designed counter-terror communication should address both the behavioural and psychological impacts of such events, as the two are closely linked.
What do the member of the public think about CT technologies, procedures, and messaging in public spaces?
Research demonstrates that members of the public are capable of talking about terrorism and counter-terror in an informed manner. They accept that the threat of terrorism is real and likely, yet they understand that the likelihood it will have a direct impact on their lives is low.Members of the public also recognise that security and counter-terror communication is all around them in their day-to-day life in urban environments. Their responses to seeing counter-terror technologies in public places, however, is mixed.
Some technologies, such as CCTV, are seen as only being relevant after the event (i.e. when a case comes to court). More proactive technologies, such as metal detectors, are seen as intrusive and responsible for causing delays in an individual’s journey if they are placed, for example, at the door of train stations.
Clearly, a balance must be struck between using technologies which are proactive and effective, and making sure those technologies can be introduced without disrupting the social atmosphere and flow of a public space.
The importance of a clear message
Generally, however, counter-terror processes, such as security checks, staff patrols, and more, improve feelings of personal safety and security, and diffuse anxiety.Clear messaging helps, too. Members of the public report high levels of uncertainty about their ability to spot terrorists, or terrorism-related activities, within public spaces.
This lack of knowledge and clarity about what they should do to be vigilant can make them fearful. It also leads to a preference for placing the responsibility for safety and security of public places firmly in the hands of the professionals.
It is perhaps not surprising, then, that a number of studies and data collected during counter-terror campaigns have demonstrated communication about potential terrorist threats prior to an event does not increase anxiety or concern about that risk in a significant way. In fact, communication has been effective in increasing understanding of the risk,
In fact, communication has been effective in increasing understanding of the risk, perception of the risk, and trust in the authorities responsible for managing the risk—for a variety of terrorist attack methods.
A case study
Pre-event risk communication can also increase the likelihood of someone reporting unusual behaviour.In one case, staff at a storage facility received training via a ‘Know Your Customer’ campaign, designed to help businesses become more aware of potential terror-related behaviours. When a group of young men placed a single, large bag of fertiliser in storage, one employee raised her concerns.
The security services replaced the fertiliser with a bag of cat litter, and were able to stop a plot to blow up a number of public targets—including a large shopping centre in Kent.
In the wake of an attack
If an attack does happen, it is important to consider the transient impact of the pop-up security measures that are thrust into our public spaces in its wake. Often, this is a scaled-up version of the CT technologies, processes, and communications mentioned previously. For instance, locations which have long had armed police now have armed soldiers. As a result, there is a pre-existing level of familiarity with the signals appearing in our newly disrupted public environments.As I suggested above, the public response to this shift is often varied, ranging from feelings of reassurance to feelings of anxiety and unease.
These latter feelings are not necessarily as negative as they may appear. It is well-documented that members of the public are more likely to engage in protective behaviours if they perceive a risk to be relevant to themselves.
Informing an understanding of what those protective behaviours should be is key to managing the feelings of anxiety and unease. Coupling clear, regular, relevant risk communication with the procedural (e.g. more police/troops), and physical (e.g. temporary barriers; posters/notices) security measures deployed into public spaces in the wake of an attack can help members of the public navigate their new landscape.
This communication should include information about how the threat has changed and is likely to change; how safety is improved by the changes; how the government secures, and monitors, safety; and what this means for individuals in their day-to-day lives.
Public patience for the increased visibility and deployment of security measures is high in the wake of an attack—if explanations about these changes in public spaces are communicated clearly by trusted sources, such as the police, who have practical experience. Communication must be regularly updated (even if there isn’t anything new to say).
Sometimes "we are responding" can be the most reassuring message of all until information and the situation changes.
But the length of time that this support can be sustained is limited. Counter-terror organisations must act quickly to bring the situation under control in order to revert our environments to their normal appearance.
Leaving remnants of the heightened level response– temporary barriers and bollards that become permanent fixtures, bag checks where bag checks were not used before– in public spaces for too long, without explaining why, risks losing the public good-will for measures brought in when future emergencies occur.
