Major Risks, Uncertain Outcomes: Making Ensemble Forecasts Work for Multiple Audiences

Rachel Hogan Carr Nurture Nature Center, Easton, Pennsylvania

Search for other papers by Rachel Hogan Carr in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Burrell Montz Department of Geography, Planning, and Environment, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina

Search for other papers by Burrell Montz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Kathryn Semmens Nurture Nature Center, Easton, Pennsylvania

Search for other papers by Kathryn Semmens in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Keri Maxfield Nurture Nature Center, Easton, Pennsylvania

Search for other papers by Keri Maxfield in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Samantha Connolly Department of Geography, Planning, and Environment, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina

Search for other papers by Samantha Connolly in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Peter Ahnert NOAA/NWS/Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center, State College, Pennsylvania

Search for other papers by Peter Ahnert in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Rob Shedd NOAA/NWS/Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center, State College, Pennsylvania

Search for other papers by Rob Shedd in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Jason Elliott National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office, Sterling, Virginia

Search for other papers by Jason Elliott in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

When extreme river levels are possible in a community, effective communication of weather and hydrologic forecasts is critical to protecting life and property. Residents, emergency personnel, and water resource managers need to make timely decisions about how and when to prepare. Uncertainty in forecasting is a critical component of this decision-making, but often poses a confounding factor for public and professional understanding of forecast products. A new suite of products from the National Weather Service’s Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast System (HEFS) provides short- and long-range forecasts, ranging from 6 h to 1 yr, and shows uncertainty in hydrologic forecasts. To understand how various audiences use and interpret ensemble forecasts showing a range of hydrologic forecast possibilities, a research project was conducted using scenario-based focus groups and surveys with community residents, emergency managers, and water resource managers in West Virginia and Maryland. The research assessed the utility of the HEFS products, identified barriers to proper understanding of the products, and suggested modifications to product design that could improve the understandability and accessibility for a range of users. There was a difference between the residential users’ reactions to the HEFS compared to the emergency managers and water resource managers, with the public reacting less favorably to all versions. The emergency managers preferred the revised HEFS products but had suggestions for additional changes, which were incorporated. Features such as interactive text boxes and forecaster’s notes further enhanced the utility and understandability of the products.

© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Rachel Hogan Carr, rhogan@nurturenature.org

Abstract

When extreme river levels are possible in a community, effective communication of weather and hydrologic forecasts is critical to protecting life and property. Residents, emergency personnel, and water resource managers need to make timely decisions about how and when to prepare. Uncertainty in forecasting is a critical component of this decision-making, but often poses a confounding factor for public and professional understanding of forecast products. A new suite of products from the National Weather Service’s Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast System (HEFS) provides short- and long-range forecasts, ranging from 6 h to 1 yr, and shows uncertainty in hydrologic forecasts. To understand how various audiences use and interpret ensemble forecasts showing a range of hydrologic forecast possibilities, a research project was conducted using scenario-based focus groups and surveys with community residents, emergency managers, and water resource managers in West Virginia and Maryland. The research assessed the utility of the HEFS products, identified barriers to proper understanding of the products, and suggested modifications to product design that could improve the understandability and accessibility for a range of users. There was a difference between the residential users’ reactions to the HEFS compared to the emergency managers and water resource managers, with the public reacting less favorably to all versions. The emergency managers preferred the revised HEFS products but had suggestions for additional changes, which were incorporated. Features such as interactive text boxes and forecaster’s notes further enhanced the utility and understandability of the products.

© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Rachel Hogan Carr, rhogan@nurturenature.org
Save
  • Demeritt, D., and S. Nobert, 2011: Responding to early flood warning in the European Union. Forecasting, Warning, and Transnational Risks: Is Prevention Possible?, C. O. Meyer and C. de Franco, Eds., Palgrave Macmillan, 127–147.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Demeritt, D., H. Cloke, F. Pappenberger, J. Thielen, J. Bartholmes, and M.-H. Ramos, 2007: Ensemble predictions and perceptions of risk, uncertainty, and error in flood forecasting. Environ. Hazards, 7, 115127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.05.001.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demeritt, D., S. Nobert, H. Closea, and F. Papperberger, 2010: Challenges in communicating and using ensembles in operational flood forecasting. Meteor. Appl., 17, 209222, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.194.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demeritt, D., E. M. Stephens, L. Créton-Cazanave, C. Lutoff, I. Ruin, and S. Nobert, 2016: Communicating and using ensemble flood forecasts in flood incident management: Lessons from social science. Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting, Q. Duan et al., Eds., Springer, 1–30, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40457-3_44-1.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Dilling, L., and M. C. Lemos, 2011: Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environ. Change, 21, 680689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Finger, R., and A. M. Bisantz, 2002: Utilizing graphical formats to convey uncertainty in a decision-making task. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., 3, 125, https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220110110324.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gigerenzer, G., R. Hertwig, E. Van den Broek, B. Fasolo, and K. V. Katsikopoulos, 2005: “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal., 25, 623629, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00608.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hirschberg, P. A., and Coauthors, 2011: A weather and climate enterprise strategic implementation plan for generating and communicating forecast uncertainty information. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 92, 16511666, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00073.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hogan Carr, R., B. E. Montz, K. Maxfield, S. Hoekstra, K. Semmens, and E. Goldman, 2016a: Effectively communicating risk and uncertainty to the public: Assessing the National Weather Service’s flood forecast and warning tools. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 97, 16491665, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00248.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hogan Carr, R., B. E. Montz, K. Semmens, K. Maxfield, S. Hoekstra, and E. Goldman, 2016b: Motivating action under uncertain conditions: Enhancing emergency briefings during coastal storms. Wea. Climate Soc., 8, 421434, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0028.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Joslyn, S., and R. M. Nichols, 2009: Probability or frequency? Expressing forecast uncertainty in public weather forecasts. Meteor. Appl., 16, 309314, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.121.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Joslyn, S., K. Pak, D. Jones, J. Pyles, and E. Hunt, 2007: The effect of probabilistic information on threshold forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 22, 804812, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF1020.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kinkeldey, C., A. M. Maceachren, and J. Schiewe, 2014: How to assess visual communication of uncertainty? A systematic review of geospatial uncertainty visualization user studies. Cartogr. J., 51, 372386, https://doi.org/10.1179/1743277414Y.0000000099.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirchhoff, C. J., M. C. Lemos, and S. Dessai, 2013: Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: Broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 38, 393414, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-022112-112828.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kox, T., L. Gerhold, and U. Ulbrich, 2015: Perception and use of uncertainty in severe weather warnings by emergency services in Germany. Atmos. Res., 158–159, 292301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.02.024.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morss, R. E., 2010: Interactions among flood predictions, decisions, and outcomes: Synthesis of three cases. Nat. Hazards Rev., 11, 8396, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000011.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morss, R. E., O. V. Wilhelmi, M. W. Downton, and E. Gruntfest, 2005: Flood risk, uncertainty, and scientific information for decision making: Lessons from an interdisciplinary project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 15931601, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-11-1593.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morss, R. E., J. L. Demuth, and J. K. Lazo, 2008: Communicating uncertainty in weather forecasts: A survey of the U.S. public. Wea. Forecasting, 23, 974991, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008WAF2007088.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morss, R. E., J. K. Lazo, and J. Demuth, 2010: Examining the use of weather forecasts in decision scenarios: Results from a US survey with implications for uncertainty communication. Meteor. Appl., 17, 149162, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.196.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Murphy, A. H., S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff, and R. L. Winkler, 1980: Misinterpretation of precipitation probability forecasts. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 61, 695701, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1980)061<0695:MOPPF>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Research Council, 2006: Completing the Forecast: Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty for Better Decisions Using Weather and Climate Forecasts. National Academies Press, 124 pp.

  • Pappenberger, F., E. Stephens, J. Thielen, P. Salamon, D. Demeritt, S. J. Van Andel, F. Wetterhall, and L. Alfieri, 2013: Visualizing probabilistic flood forecast information: Expert preferences and perceptions of best practice in uncertainty communication. Hydrol. Processes, 27, 132146, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9253.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Porter, J. J., D. Demeritt, and S. Dessai, 2015: The right stuff? Informing adaptation to climate change in British local government. Global Environ. Change, 35, 411422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.10.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rayner, S., D. Lach, and H. Ingram, 2005: Weather forecasts are for wimps: Why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Climatic Change, 69, 197227, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-3148-z.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruginski, I. T., and Coauthors, 2016: Non-expert interpretations of hurricane forecast uncertainty visualizations. Spat. Cogn. Comput., 16, 154172, https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2015.1137577.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stephens, E. M., T. L. Edwards, and D. Demeritt, 2012: Communicating probabilistic information from climate model ensembles: Lessons from numerical weather prediction. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 3, 409426, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.187.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tang, S., and S. Dessai, 2012: Usable science? The U.K. Climate Projections 2009 and decision support for adaptation planning. Wea. Climate Soc., 4, 300313, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00028.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wallsten, T. S., D. V. Budescu, R. Zwick, and S. M. Kemp, 1993: Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull. Psychon. Soc., 31, 135138, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334162.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1290 805 62
PDF Downloads 397 87 9