Browsing by Author "Doyle EEH"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Differences in perceived sources of uncertainty in natural hazards science advice: lessons for cross-disciplinary communication
    (Frontiers Media S.A., 2024-04-04) Doyle EEH; Thompson J; Hill SR; Williams M; Paton D; Harrison SE; Bostrom A; Becker JS; Tagliacozzo S
    Introduction: We conducted mental model interviews in Aotearoa NZ to understand perspectives of uncertainty associated with natural hazards science. Such science contains many layers of interacting uncertainties, and varied understandings about what these are and where they come from creates communication challenges, impacting the trust in, and use of, science. To improve effective communication, it is thus crucial to understand the many diverse perspectives of scientific uncertainty. Methods: Participants included hazard scientists (n = 11, e.g., geophysical, social, and other sciences), professionals with some scientific training (n = 10, e.g., planners, policy analysts, emergency managers), and lay public participants with no advanced training in science (n = 10, e.g., journalism, history, administration, art, or other domains). We present a comparative analysis of the mental model maps produced by participants, considering individuals’ levels of training and expertise in, and experience of, science. Results: A qualitative comparison identified increasing map organization with science literacy, suggesting greater science training in, experience with, or expertise in, science results in a more organized and structured mental model of uncertainty. There were also language differences, with lay public participants focused more on perceptions of control and safety, while scientists focused on formal models of risk and likelihood. Discussion: These findings are presented to enhance hazard, risk, and science communication. It is important to also identify ways to understand the tacit knowledge individuals already hold which may influence their interpretation of a message. The interview methodology we present here could also be adapted to understand different perspectives in participatory and co-development research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How Visual Design of Severe Weather Outlooks Can Affect Communication and Decision-Making
    (American Meteorological Society, 2023-10-16) Clive MAT; Doyle EEH; Potter SH; Noble C; Johnston DM
    Multiday severe weather outlooks can inform planning beyond the hour-to-day windows of warnings and watches. Outlooks can be complex to visualize, as they represent large-scale weather phenomena overlapping across several days at varying levels of uncertainty. Here, we present the results of a survey (n 5 417) that explores how visual varia-bles affect comprehension, inferences, and intended decision-making in a hypothetical scenario with the New Zealand MetService Severe Weather Outlook. We propose that visualization of the time window, forecast area, icons, and uncertainty can influence perceptions and decision-making based on four key findings. First, composite-style outlooks that depict multiple days of weather on one map can lead to biased perceptions of the forecast. When responding to questions about a day for which participants accurately reported there was no severe weather forecast, those who viewed a composite outlook reported higher likelihoods of severe weather occurring, higher levels of concern about travel, and higher likelihoods of changing plans compared to those who viewed outlooks that showed weather for each day on a separate map, suggesting that they perceived the forecast to underrepresent the likelihood of severe weather on that day. Second, presenting uncertainty in an extrinsic way (e.g., “low”) can lead to more accurate estimates of likelihood than intrinsic formats (e.g., hue variation). Third, shaded forecast areas may lead to higher levels of confidence in the forecast than outlined forecast areas. Fourth, inclusion of weather icons can improve comprehension in some conditions. The results demonstrate how visualization can affect decision-making about severe weather and support several evidence-based considerations for effective design of long-term forecasts.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Nurturing partnerships to support data access for impact forecasts and warnings: Theoretical integration and synthesis
    (Elsevier B.V., 2024-04-15) Harrison SE; Potter SH; Prasanna R; Doyle EEH; Johnston D
    This paper presents a synthesis and theoretical integration of findings from a research project that explored the data needs and sources for implementing impact forecasts and warnings for hydrometeorological hazards. Impact forecasts and warnings (IFW) have received global attention in recent years as they offer a novel way of improving the communication of hazards and risks. The fundamental idea behind IFWs is to enable warning services to meaningfully communicate the anticipated outcomes, consequences, or impacts of the hazard interacting with society or the environment by incorporating knowledge about the underlying and dynamic exposure and vulnerability of people and assets. One key question for IFW implementation is about data needs and sources to inform IFWs.Using the Grounded Theory Methodology, we address the question “How can partnerships and collaboration better facilitate the collection, creation, and access to hazard, impact, vulnerability, and exposure data for IFWs?” Our findings point to partnerships and collaboration as a necessary strategy for implementing IFWs. Implementation requires accessing various types and sources of hazard, impact, vulnerability, and exposure data to assess and communicate the potential impacts of hydrometeorological hazards. Partnerships and collaboration facilitate the sharing of and access to required data and knowledge. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations to increase interagency communication and partnerships for IFWs and disaster risk reduction, such as making cohabitation arrangements between agencies, running joint training scenarios, and encouraging meteorological services and emergency responders to co-define tailored warning thresholds.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Where does scientific uncertainty come from, and from whom? Mapping perspectives of natural hazards science advice
    (Elsevier, 2023-10-01) Doyle EEH; Thompson J; Hill S; Williams M; Paton D; Harrison S; Bostrom A; Becker J
    The science associated with assessing natural hazard phenomena and the risks they pose contains many layers of complex and interacting elements, resulting in diverse sources of uncertainty. This creates a challenge for effective communication, which must consider how people perceive that uncertainty. Thus, we conducted twenty-five mental model interviews in Aotearoa New Zealand with participants ranging from scientists to policy writers and emergency managers, and through to the public. The interviews included three phases: an initial elicitation of free thoughts about uncertainty, a mental model mapping activity, and a semi-structured interview protocol to explore further questions about scientific processes and their personal philosophy of science. Qualitative analysis led to the construction of key themes, including: (a) understanding that, in addition to data sources, the ‘actors’ involved can also be sources of uncertainty; (b) acknowledging that factors such as governance and funding decisions partly determine uncertainty; (c) the influence of assumptions about expected human behaviours contributing to “known unknowns'; and (d) the difficulty of defining what uncertainty actually is. Participants additionally highlighted the positive role of uncertainty for promoting debate and as a catalyst for further inquiry. They also demonstrated a level of comfort with uncertainty and advocated for ‘sitting with uncertainty’ for transparent reporting in advice. Additional influences included: an individual's understanding of societal factors; the role of emotions; using outcomes as a scaffold for interpretation; and the complex and noisy communications landscape. Each of these require further investigation to enhance the communication of scientific uncertainty.