UTILIZING INPUT FROM EMERGENCY MANAGERS, THE MEDIA, THE PUBLIC
AND LOCAL NWS METEOROLOGISTS TO BETTER COMMUNICATE SURGE AND OTHER
STORM HAZARDS Betty Hearn Morrow SocResearch Miami for Eastern
Research Group and NCAR Jeffrey K. Lazo National Center for
Atmospheric Research Jamie Rhome and Robbie Berg National Hurricane
Center Lou Nadeau, Evan Fago and Linda Girardi Eastern Research
Group, Inc. Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference Tropical Cyclone
Research Forum College Park, MD March 7, 2013 Presented via
Go-to-Meeting Slide 2 Background Research supported by: HFIP
Socio-Economic Working Group NOAA Coastal Services Center Conducted
through: National Center for Atmospheric Research Eastern Research
Group, Inc. SocResearch Miami Leadership: Jesse Feyen, National
Ocean Service Jennifer Sprague, National Weather Service Richard
Knabb, National Hurricane Center 2 Slide 3 OBJECTIVES To determine
the concerns and needs of key stakeholders regarding storm surge
and storm surge forecast communication To evaluate several
prototype surge inundation graphics To begin to explore ways to
improve storm track forecast communication To evaluate a prototype
graphic for communicating potential damaging winds To evaluate a
prototype graphic for communicating combined wind and track
forecasts To evaluate a prototype graphic for communicating the
arrival of tropical storm force winds 3 Slide 4 TASKS Develop,
test, and refine storm surge and wind prototype graphics One-on-one
webinars, interviews with key stakeholders Discussions with groups
of EMs and NWS personnel Exhibit at 2012 AMS Weatherfest Booth and
survey at 2012 National Hurricane Conference Develop survey
questions for key stakeholders OMB approval Pre-test Conduct 6
surveys (including add-ons to other surveys) 4 Slide 5 SURVEYS
Coastal EMs TC Online Survey (NCAR) NC to TX N = 53, 45% response
rate Coastal EMs ET TC Online Survey (NCAR) Atlantic, Gulf,
Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii 90% vulnerable to tropical cyclones N =
102, 52% response rate Coastal Broadcast Mets ET TC Online Survey
(NCAR) 4 major local TV stations (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) in each
market Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii 82% vulnerable to
TC, 90% vulnerable to ET N = 51, 42% response rate 5 Slide 6
SURVEYS (continued) Coastal Public ET TC Telephone Survey (NCAR)
Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii N = 900, 59% completion
rate (of 1525 screened) 38% ET, 30% TC, both 32% Coastal Public ET
TC Online Survey (ERG) Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii N =
459, 51,000 emails, 84% cooperation rate NWS WCM ET TC Survey (ERG)
Eastern, Southern, Western, Pacific, Alaska N = 54, 77% response
rate 6 Slide 7 CONCERNS Public Concerned about severe coastal
storms Most concern about wind and tornadoes Often not aware of
surge and flooding potential EMs Very concerned about storm surge
Most believe the public does not understands its surge risk Media
Very concerned about wind and storm surge Believe only about 1/3 of
public understands its risk 7 Slide 8 POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR STORM
SURGE WARNING 76% EMs TC survey 87% EMs ET-TC survey 95% Broadcast
mets 72% Public telephone survey 94% Public online survey 77% NWS
WCMs Most support the label Storm Surge Warning 8 Slide 9 REASONS
FOR STORM SURGE WARNING Serious lack of public understanding of
surge Too much focus on categories Would increase public attention
to surge Would result in greater emphasis in EM decisions Would
lead to better communication of surge threat in weathercasts
COUNTER ARGUMENTS: Public familiar with current coastal flood
warnings Already too many warnings Concern about NWSs ability to
provide reliable, timely information at necessary spatial and
temporal scale 9 Slide 10 PREFERRED DESCRIPTIONS FOR EXPRESSING
DEPTH OF WATER 83% EMs height of water above land 82% Broadcast
media height of water above land 66% Public Tel. Survey feet above
ground level 87% Public On-Line Survey above ground level 86% WCMs
above ground level Other suggestions: Ocean water above land Depth
of water on land 10 Slide 11 ASSESSMENT OF PROTOTYPES 1 Storm Surge
Warning Area Map 3 Storm Surge Inundation Maps 2 Potential for
Damaging Winds Maps 3 Current Forecast Track Cone and alternatives
1 Arrival of Storm Force Winds Map 11 Slide 12 STORM SURGE WARNING
AREA Criteria: Ease of understanding 92% by EMs 96% by Media 63% by
WCMs Effectiveness 96% Public 12 Slide 13 STORM SURGE INUNDATION
MAP 13 Slide 14 STORM SURGE INUNDATION MAP 14 Slide 15 STORM SURGE
INUNDATION MAP Criteria: Ease of understanding 86% by EMs 96% by
Media 77% by Public 90% by WCMs Usefulness 84% by EMs 94% by Media
98% by Public 83% by WCMs The majority of respondents in all
surveys preferred this map May affect evacuation decisions at both
extremes Problems with using low to describe storm surge hazard 15
Slide 16 TRACK FORECAST CONES Criteria: Ease of understanding 64%
by EMs 50% by WCMs 83% by Media Usefulness 84% by EMs 50% by WCMs
83% by Media Comments about too much information, too much jargon,
confusing 16 Slide 17 TRACK FORECAST CONES Criteria: Ease of
understanding 65% of EMs 72% of Media 50% of WCMs Usefulness 66% of
EMs 69% of Media 40% of WCMs Research problem: non-equivalency to
current cone and other characteristics that make comparison
difficult 17 Slide 18 TRACK FORECAST CONES Evaluated on: Ease of
understanding 70% of EMs 76% of Media 93% of Public 56% of WCMs
Usefulness 72% of EMs 74% of Media 87% of Public 46% of WCMs 18
Slide 19 POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING WINDS Criteria: Ease of
understanding 91% of EMs 83% of media 99% of public 74% of WCMs
Usefulness 94% of EMs 88% of media 99% of public 70% of WCMs Some
concern that probabilities may be too low (10%-20%) 19 Slide 20
POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING WINDS PLUS CONE Criteria: Ease of
understanding 75% of EMs 62% of Media 95% of Public 57% of WCMs
Usefulness 75% of EMs 64% of Media 55% of WCMs 20 Slide 21
POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING WINDS PLUS CONE LAND ONLY Criteria: Ease of
understanding 75% of EMs 64% of Media 55% of WCMs 89% of Public
Usefulness 75% of EMs 62% of Media 90% of Public 50% of WCMs Of the
two maps, most preferred the one that showing the winds over both
land and water 21 Slide 22 ARRIVAL OF TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS
Criteria: Ease of understanding 83% of EMs 95% of Media 83% of
Public 74% of WCMs Usefulness 81% of EMs 95% of Media 81% of Public
70% of WCMs Most public respondents were able to interpret
correctly 22 Slide 23 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Maps should be: High
resolution Interactive Allow zooming to view neighborhood
Mouse-overs with explanations Usable on smart phones, etc. 23 Slide
24 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS (continued) NWS websites need to be more
user friendly WFO websites are under-utilized by public Too many
NWS products and too much text Timing of storm surge information is
too late for EMs Timing of forecast products too close to media
broadcast times 24 Slide 25 SUMMARY Strong support for Storm Surge
Warning from all stakeholder groups Positive assessment of Storm
Surge Warning Area Map Positive assessment of Storm Surge
Inundation Map using multiple colors to show depth Strong support
for Potential for Damaging Winds Map Strong support for Combined
Winds and Cone (particularly from the public) Mixed review of
Forecast Track Cone (current and alternatives) Strong support for
Arrival of Tropical Storm Force Winds Map (especially from the
media) 25 Slide 26 AREAS FOR FUTURE WORK Track forecast
communication (cone?) Format and content of text products such as
public advisory and Hurricane Local Statement Coordination and
streamlining of TC and ET forecast products More user friendly web
sites Interactive communication products 26 Slide 27 Four reports
are available open access on UCAR OpenSky website:
http://opensky.library.ucar.edu Please send comments or questions
to: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 27
