Greta Byrum
December 17, 2010
Locating Low-Power FM Radio in NYC
Strategic Risk Communication and Community Support for Vulnerable Populations
The Planning Role of Community Radio
Over the last three decades, small-scale community radio, once a staple of local
news and information, has largely disappeared from the dial, especially in urban areas. Local
broadcasting – of school board or community board meetings, about local candidates for
office, etc. – has mostly moved to the Internet or disappeared. Some would argue that
broadcast radio is an outdated medium. But many small groups of activists – and some
larger, more influential actors and agencies – are advocating for small-scale radio
broadcasting. They say that local noncommercial radio provides a unique service, and that
the public interest would be served by policies designed to facilitate and protect it (Moyers,
2007; Prometheus, 2010; MAP, 2010). They are concerned about the media consolidation
that has taken place since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which removed
barriers to media consolidation and presaged the buying-up of most of the country’s local
non-profit stations, with some unfortunate consequences: “Minorities own only 7 percent of
all local television and radio stations. Women own only 6 percent” (H.R. 1147, Local
Community Radio Act of 2009).
At issue is a class of broadcast licenses, allocated in very limited supply by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since 2000. Low-power FM (LPFM) transmitters
operate at 100 watts or less (about as much power as an incandescent light-bulb), which
means they have a broadcast range of only up to three miles. Under current legislation, they
are only permitted in rural areas. Yet many people argue that they may have a unique role to
play in community cohesion and resilience, especially in disaster scenarios, and that
licensing should be expanded.
When Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans, 37 of the area’s 41 radio
stations went off air. Of the remaining four, two were LPFM radio stations. One of these –
WQRZ in Hancock County – stayed on-air 24 hours a day throughout the crisis and
throughout the following months, broadcasting emergency information and community
updates (Moyers, 2007). Small and mobile, and with minimal demands for power, it could
adapt easily. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doubled the station’s
permitted broadcast range, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) started
giving out radios along with water and ice. FEMA eventually requested station manager Brice
Phillips to move his station to the Emergency Operations Center.
This is just one case in which LPFM has proven adaptable to situations of scarcity
and crisis. WQRZ was the only media organization in the area providing local information to
residents throughout the Katrina crisis, mainly because of its stake in the community and its
knowledge about local needs and conditions. Similarly, rural Florida’s Radio Conciencia, run
by the Immokalee Workers’ Cooperative, also played an important role during Hurricane
Wilma. As the only local station broadcasting in Spanish, it reached many people who
otherwise wouldn’t have evacuated – a lot of those in particular danger because they were
working in the fields or sleeping in trailers. People were also able to call into the station and
get information and help evacuating. But even when there is not an emergency, Radio
Conciencia is important for its community, broadcasting local news, culture, and politics both
about Florida and about many of the workers’ home countries. Workers can listen to the
radio in the fields and call in with song requests; the station is run cooperatively by
community volunteers. The importance of radio in cases of disasters is clear, but I argue that
this only telescopes a need that is already present in the community for locally owned and
operated information networks.
This study addresses two important planning areas served by LPFM broadcasting:
1. Disaster and risk mitigation and management
2. Community and capacity-building: Broadcasting local information and culture is
important but so is the process of the community working together and learning the
technology. The reason Radio Conciencia was able to save lives was because it
already existed as a well-developed community asset beforehand.
Rationale and Hypothesis
Control of radio resources and spectrum occupies a pivotal position between use and
occupation in a spatial sense, intellectual property rights, and freedom of expression. As
such it presents unique challenges for regulation.
I will show that control of the radio spectrum has consequences for planning,
especially in times of scarcity and disaster. Allocation of portions of the radio spectrum to
local non-profits would lead to greater community cohesion and communication, which in
turn would lead to better risk management and everyday planning outcomes. Without policy
provisions and spatial consideration for this allocation, control of the spectrum may be
retained by commercially-driven, large-scale interests that do not have incentives to provide
needed local information and connections.
If the airwaves are viewed as a common-pool resource, then portions of the spectrum
should be dedicated to LPFM broadcasting. This is a policy challenge since the spectrum is a
valuable asset, continually being auctioned off for wireless and broadband. LPFMs have
been the focus of intense debate, and although legislation has been introduced many times
for the expansion of LPFM, and although the FCC has shown support for it, each time these
bills have stalled in Congress. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which resulted in
massive media consolidation, institutions such as the National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB) and NPR have consistently fought against licensing LPFM stations on adjacent
frequencies, citing concerns about broadcast interference. A 2003 study commissioned by
the FCC, however, showed that the risk of interference is actually low to negligible (MITRE,
2003).
Legislation currently in Congress will decide the future of LPFM by potentially opening
the spectrum up to low-power operators in urban areas. If H.R. 1147, Local Community Radio
Act of 2009, were to pass, it would open up LPFM licensing in New York City, an area that is
currently dominated by large commercial broadcasters. Where could LPFM towers be placed
in order to provide the best services to the community, especially in the case of emergencies
or disasters?
Literature Review
The cases of WQRZ and Radio Conciencia represent the convergence of several
planning issues, especially with relation to the emerging field of disaster planning. WQRZ
clearly provided a valuable service to the community by issuing information that was
unavailable through state agencies or national-media channels. This included vital
information about evacuations and emergency resources, both of which are central to
community preparedness and disaster planning (Kapucu, 2008). Hancock County, though it
was located at the epicenter of the storm’s fury, clearly benefitted from having an
established, resilient, adaptable local news source. New Orleans was not so lucky.
Qualitative interviews conducted in 2005 among Katrina evacuees living in the
Houston Astrodome revealed that the lack of local information compounded the effects of
the disaster for many of those hardest-hit. Respondents indicated that their main source of
information about the storm and the evacuation was television, but that “televised warnings
about the hurricane but evacuation messages were recalled as nonspecific or ambiguous, for
instance, messages to ‘go somewhere’ but not where and how to evacuate” (Eisenman et al,
2007). This is a crucial distinction in thinking about local information networks: these,
presumably, could have offered more specific information or resources for ride-sharing, local
emergency shelters, etc.
In disaster literature, vulnerability is generally defined as “the characteristics of a
person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with,
resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard -- an extreme natural event or
process” (Wisner, 2004) Much post-Katrina literature analyzes the reasons why
organizations failed to reach those marginalized by economic, political, social, or cultural
circumstances (Philips and Morrow, 2006). The poorer citizens of New Orleans did not
evacuate for a variety of reasons such as, for example, a lack of transportation. Those who
were eventually forced to relocate now face other problems.
A subset of disaster vulnerability research deals in particular with risk
communications – that is, the extent to which people understand or heed warning messages.
An example of vulnerability associated with warning messages in particular is the Saragosa,
Texas, tornado of 1987, where two problems occurred. First, local media outlets attempting
to warn those at risk mistranslated the word “warning” from English into Spanish. Second, a
Spanish-language television station, originating outside of the local area but watched by
locals, did not broadcast local warnings. Twenty-nine lives were lost. (Aguirre, 1988; Philips
and Morrow, 2006)
More literature regarding the variables that affect risk communication is in the
“Findings” section below, in particular the factors of age, poverty, race or ethnicity, and
linguistic isolation, all drawn from Philips and Morrow’s work on social science research
needs for vulnerable populations.
Methodology
What is being targeted in this study is not the universe of vulnerable populations, but
those which may not be reachable with existing media, or may not respond to warning
messages. Further, many researchers believe that vulnerability factors tend to cluster,
multiplying the risk spatially for certain segments of the population (Philips and Morrow;
Wisner et al). Using a combination of demographic indicators for vulnerability, I have
developed a methodology for weighting variables for communities that would most benefit
from LPFM broadcasting. Then I created a vector decision map showing clustering of
vulnerable populations, and indicating possible FM LPFM licensing locations.
Steps:
1. Identify the variables that make populations vulnerable with regard to risk communication
according to existing literature.
2. Based on the literature, choose the 4 most common dependent variables affecting
vulnerability with regard to risk communication: poverty, age, race, and linguistic isolation.
These were chosen because they cluster spatially and were commonly cited in multiple
studies.
Age -- Seniors do not access emergency services at the same rate as younger
disaster victims. It is not clear exactly why, though it may be due to technological
barriers. At least one study found that the elderly did evacuate at similar rates to
others if they received the warning, though most have found that households with
older members are reluctant to evacuate. Many researchers also believe that support
networks are crucial in getting warnings to the elderly. (Philip and Morrow, 2006) The
level of access to technology and the reliance on local support and social networks
are reasons that the elderly are an important audience for LPFM.
Race and Ethnicity -- Cultural groups, including racial and ethnic groups, “may be less
likely to accept a warning message as credible without confirming it through other
sources such as family and social networks, often delaying reaction” (Fothergill et al.
1999; Lindell and Perry 2004, as qtd in Philip and Morrow, 2006). This is due to
distrust of those outside their immediate circles, including media and government
figures.
I have only used data on the African-American population here, partly because I
thought that New York’s other largest ethnic populations (Latino and Asian) would be
captured through the next variable, which is about linguistic isolation. Also, much of
the literature examining the effects of Katrina, African Americans were identified as
the racial group that was primarily affected. However a more comprehensive look at
race might benefit the study.
Poverty -- Poverty affects availability of resources/transport and ability to pay for
lodging in motels, etc. Cities also have clusters of poverty, which creates difficulty for
emergency services because of concentration of need.
Linguistic Isolation – the US Census Bureau defines “a linguistically isolated
household” as one “in which no one 14 years old and over speaks only English or
speaks a non-English language and speaks English ‘very well.’” In other words, all
members of the household 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty with
English. Linguistic isolation is the variable most discussed in disaster planning for
risk communication, since it has the most obvious effect on peoples’ ability to
understand and respond to warning messages. In addition, linguistically isolated
populations may not have an extended social network they can tap into for
resources, lodging, and support in the case of evacuation. This is actually true of the
other vulnerable populations as well.
US Census Data at the block group level was used to show where these populations cluster
in New York.
3. Create choropleth maps showing areas with densities of these populations in NYC.
4. Based on literature, create a rating system to weight the variables most important in
affecting vulnerability. I weighted my chosen variables according to the literature. The two
categories “very hard to reach” and “moderately hard to reach” are determined by looking at
the standard deviation from the mean when all these weighted variables are combined.
Weighting:
Linguistic isolation: 40%
Age: 25%
Race (African American): 20%
Poverty: 15%
Since linguistic isolation is the clearest and most common determinant in the rate of
comprehension and response to warnings, it got the highest weighting. Age and race were
weighted similarly, since according to literature on Katrina they were the two most common
variables. Age is weighted slightly higher because the link between technological access and
risk communication (radio may be an easier media access tool for the elderly) was factored
in, and also because several articles called for more attention to the problem of age in risk
management. Poverty was weighted lowest because, although there seems to be a
correlation between poverty and vulnerability in past disasters, this study is concentrating in
particular on communication. The poverty issue creates difficulty more around the logistics of
evacuation (transport, lodging) than receiving warning messages.
5. Creating a vector decision map identifying block groups that have the highest vulnerability
index according to the above criteria.
6. Identify optimum LPFM placement in relation to these vulnerable block groups and other
variables, for example proximity to OEM hurricane evacuation zones and centers. Using OEM
data I was able to map hurricane evacuation zones in NYC as well as evacuation centers.
Many of the block groups identified as being “very hard to reach” were located in evacuation
zones, for instance in Harlem, Coney Island/Sheepshead Bay, Northern Queens,
Greenpoint/Williamsburg, and Chinatown. These are areas that could were then targeted for
LPFM licensing recommendations.
7. Create 2-mile buffers around possible LPFM sites at the block groups with the highest
vulnerability indexes. Usually LPFM broadcast range is 3 miles, but in a dense city
interference from buildings may block the signal. Create buffers also around the sites of the
central hurricane centers, which are OEM distribution centers surrounded by smaller shelters
whose locations are not disclosed. LPFM transmitters could be temporarily placed at
hurricane shelters in the case of emergency.
8. Make recommendations for placement that could help the FCC decide where in NYC to
approve licenses if Community Radio Act of 2009 passes.
Limitations
In terms of social science limitations, this study does not address many of the
important factors that affect vulnerability in disasters, such as disabilities and gender. The
reason for this is the focus on risk communications. Disabled populations and women do
have particular difficulties with evacuating, as the disabled have trouble with mobility and
transport, and women are often caretakers who must arrange logistics for others, such as
children and the elderly. I did not focus on these variables the issues around their
vulnerability are not primarily warning communications problems. Similarly, I did not address
transport needs in disasters at all, since this study is about communication of risk and not
what is communicated. In addition, I only looked at linguistic isolation, and not which
languages in particular are spoken in NYC. This is because I was interested not in broadcast
content (i.e. which language it is in) but in the presence of broadcasting.
There are also technical limitations to this study. First, I did not perform ground
elevation or building height analysis. Although these factors do affect broadcast range, LPFM
broadcasting is so limited in scale that these factors are not as important as the others –
LPFM will reach about 2 miles from any point if a transmitter is placed on a rooftop. Also, I
am concentrating on FM and not AM broadcasting, as FM equipment is easier for
communities to use and FM audio is not as compromised as AM by static and interference,
especially in storms.
Findings
Based on this analysis, I have some recommendations for LPFM licensing in NYC if
the FCC does allow for expansion into urban areas. I have identified the areas with the
highest index of clustering of vulnerability factors, and mapped potential coverage if LPFM
stations were placed in the 13 block groups with the highest rate of vulnerability. Most of the
areas identified for clustering of vulnerability factors have multiple block groups that fit the
criteria, so one or two LPFMs would probably suffice. Based on these criteria, I would
recommend 5 or possibly 6 LPFM licenses in these areas. Ongoing presence of LPFMs in
these areas would enable the second planning goal I identified as a possible benefit of LPFM
– community development and empowerment. However, when you compare these broadcast
ranges against the hurricane evacuation zones, there are still some high-risk flooding areas
that wouldn’t receive broadcasting in the case of a disaster. However, hurricanes aren’t the
only kinds of disasters. It’s just hard to predict where the others will happen.
Another possibility would be to put temporary LPFMs at evacuation centers
themselves. However, there is a lot of redundancy and overlap in this scenario – many of the
centers are close together, so you wouldn’t need LPFMs at all of them. Also, the FCC would
have to allot far more spectrum to LPFM for this many licenses. Based on this, my overall
recommendation would be: six permanently available LPFM licenses for the 13 block groups
identified as most vulnerable, with further frequencies reserved for LPFM use at evacuation
centers in emergencies.
Bibliography
Mitre Technical Report: Experimental Measurements of the Third- Adjacent Channel Impacts
of Low-Power FM Stations, Volume One: Final Report May 2003
Kapucu, Naim. “Collaborative emergency management: better community organising, better
public preparedness and response.” Disasters, Volume 32, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages: 239–
262.
Kim, Yong-Chan and Jinae Kang. “Communication, neighbourhood belonging and household
hurricane preparedness.” Disasters, Volume 34, Issue 2, April 2010, Pages: 470–488
Coase, Ronald H. “The Federal Communications Commission.” Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 2. (Oct., 1959), pp. 1-40.
Hazlett, Thomas, with David Porter and Vernon L. Smith. “Radio Spectrum And The Disruptive
Clarity Of Ronald Coase.” Paper provided by Chapman University, Economic Science Institute
in its series Working Papers with number 10-02.
Media Access Project, “Low Power Radio.” Accessed November 18, 2010.
http://www.mediaaccess.org/issues/lpfm/
Moss, David, and Michael Fein. “Radio Regulation Revisited: Coase, the FCC, and the Public
Interest.” Journal of Policy History - Volume 15, Number 4, 2003, pp. 389-416
Bill Moyers Journal, “A Low Power Radio Katrina Story and Bill Moyers talks with Hannah
Sassaman and Rick Karr.” PBS, August 24, 2007.
<http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08242007/watch2.html>
Philips, Brenda D. and Better Hearn Morrow. “Social Science Research Needs: Focus on
Vulnerable Populations, Forecasting, and Warning.” Natural Hazards Review, August 2007.
Prometheus Radio Project. “Spotlighted! LPFM and the Local Community Radio Act. Accessed
November 18, 2010. < http://prometheusradio.org/node/2367>
Wisner, Ben et al. At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples’ Vulnerability, and Disasters. New York:
Routledge, 2004.