Advancing Risk Communication with Decision-Makers for Extreme Tropical Cyclones and Other Atypical Climate Events: Proceedings of a Workshop (2024)
Chapter: 5 A Recap of the First Day of the Workshop
Chapter 5
A Recap of the First Day of the Workshop
Rebecca Morss, Program Director, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, provided an overview of day 1 to set the stage for day 2. She first synthesized key themes from the panel discussions and then highlighted some common overarching themes. Morss began with a point made frequently during day 1: every event is different. The details of the event itself, the location, the community, and the meteorology all serve as different variables that determine impacts. Two major elements identified by Morss within this list are the built infrastructure and people’s responses to warnings and other information about the storm. Although the data on the impacts of various hazards on the built environment are robust, the data on how people respond—especially data collected in near-real-time—are much less plentiful. Gaps include evaluations of what information (including risk warnings) people receive, how they understand it, and what actions they take in response. Real-time research in this area received special emphasis, Morss noted.
Morss connected this need for data on people’s responses with another common theme, the many benefits of multiple perspectives. Often the problem of the storm, as it were, is so big and complex that the whole cannot be adequately viewed from a single perspective; instead, people perceive the storm in many different ways, depending on their roles, needs, and location, and multiple perspectives are useful for crafting effective messaging that enables responses. Multiple perspectives are especially critical in the fundamental task of defining the problem or goal—another common theme highlighted by Morss. “How we define a problem influences how we solve it,” she noted. Clarifying the problem is particularly important when multiple perspectives come together. For some speakers, including emergency managers (Ems) and other officials, the ultimate problem was how best to reduce death in the midst of an event; this perspective was largely influenced by their role and responsibilities. For others, in other roles, the problem might lie in clearly defining and characterizing the various kinds of storms because extreme events have become the new normal. Morss wondered whether using the label “ex-
treme” really matters; rather, simply determining whether people are at risk may be most important. The work of characterizing the problem is especially urgent in the case of extreme storms, when defining and managing risks can be difficult given the lack of precedent, she noted.
The question of how best to communicate about the risks involved in multi-hazard storms, as well as complex and cascading hazards, was a common theme from day 1. Morss referred to discussions about how hazards impact people directly and indirectly (e.g., disrupt access to food or other basic needs); “...the hazard is just one part of a bigger system,” she noted, and its effects can be wide-ranging.
The theme of uncertainty was present in discussions on a variety of topics. Meteorological uncertainty and spatial variability—and how to communicate probability to the public (e.g., cones of uncertainty)—is one example. How uncertainty intersects with decision-making was also a frequent topic. Morss particularly highlighted how attending to multiple perspectives seemed to reveal uncertainty as relative.
The terms “vulnerable,” “storm surge,” and “cone of uncertainty,” as well as the nature of “traditional” messaging served as touchpoints in discussions about using plain language and avoiding jargon. Morss summarize the main questions: Do people understand what the terms mean? Do they understand what is recommended, and why that can help?
Morss illuminated time as an important theme that was discussed in several different ways over the course of the day. Timing is a critical factor in decision-making and action, including giving people enough lead time and considering factors that cause people to lose time in which to make decisions and take action. Related issues include the time people need to process information, to absorb the information’s pertinence to them and the need to take action, and to then decide on the action(s) (including waiting, which is itself an action). The shift from “this is happening” to “this is happening to me, and I need to do something about it” takes time. Morss added that the temporal dimension of events challenges forecasters’ decision-making processes. She recalled descriptions of situations when officials and members of the public were surprised by the direness of the situation, which in turn eroded the time in which people had to make decisions and take protective action.
The theme of trust—who to trust, how to build trust—was also part of the first day’s discussions, Morss said. Trust among partners, and trust between agencies and members of the public, are important for effective risk communication. Efforts to build trust should occur not only between events—in the shape of longer-term relationships between partners and communities—but also during events. Also important is the trust people have in the forecaster—over and above the forecast itself. She wondered about the interaction between this trust in human intelligence and presence, on the one hand, and artificial intelligence (AI), on the other, and posed the open-ended question of “Does trust in the human element shape trust in AI?”
The final theme from day 1 that Morss highlighted was the strengths-based view of the past few decades: many advances have made things better for so many
people. She referred to “storm surge” as an example of a confusing concept that has become more accessible; through the combined efforts of many stakeholders—including the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Center, broadcast meteorologists, and EMs—improvements have been made in how the risks of storm surge are both predicted and communicated.
Of course, opportunities remain, Morss said; even as one problem is solved, others appear. Understanding of the interrelationships between different hazards might be leveraged to help people take appropriate action. For example, extreme heat might follow in the aftermath of a hurricane because of power outages and lessons from heat waves could be applied; or last-minute decision-making during an earthquake might be applied during a flash flood. In addition, messaging can become complicated in extreme events that surpass any benchmark storm. Comparison, in this case, might be leveraged to highlight what we do not know, Morss noted.
Another cluster of open questions involves evacuation choices. Why do people do what they do, when they do? Morss linked this behavior back to timing, including the need to help people who chose to evacuate to get to their destination in time to stay safe. She emphasized the importance for real-time research, which might yield a deeper understanding of why people leave when they do—what was it about that moment that spurred them to leave? Because people are influenced by different things at different times, it is important to communicate “across the lifetime of a hazard.”
This page intentionally left blank.
