Betty Hearn Morrow SocResearch Miami for Eastern Research Group and NCAR Jeffrey K. Lazo

UTILIZING INPUT FROM EMERGENCY MANAGERS, THE MEDIA, THE

PUBLIC AND LOCAL NWS METEOROLOGISTS TO BETTER

COMMUNICATE SURGE AND OTHER STORM HAZARDS

Betty Hearn MorrowSocResearch Miami for Eastern Research Group and NCAR

Jeffrey K. LazoNational Center for Atmospheric Research

Jamie Rhome and Robbie BergNational Hurricane Center

Lou Nadeau, Evan Fago and Linda GirardiEastern Research Group, Inc.

Interdepartmental Hurricane ConferenceTropical Cyclone Research Forum

College Park, MDMarch 7, 2013

Presented via Go-to-Meeting

BackgroundResearch supported by:HFIP Socio-Economic Working GroupNOAA Coastal Services Center

Conducted through:National Center for Atmospheric ResearchEastern Research Group, Inc.SocResearch Miami

Leadership:Jesse Feyen, National Ocean ServiceJennifer Sprague, National Weather ServiceRichard Knabb, National Hurricane Center

2

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

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 (includingadd-ons to other surveys)

4

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

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

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

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

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 NWS’s ability to provide reliable, timely information at necessary spatial

and temporal scale

9

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

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

STORM SURGE WARNING AREA

Criteria:Ease of understanding• 92% by EMs• 96% by Media• 63% by WCMs

Effectiveness• 96% Public

12

STORM SURGEINUNDATION MAP

13

STORM SURGEINUNDATION MAP

14

STORM SURGEINUNDATION MAPCriteria: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 mapMay affect evacuation decisions at both extremesProblems with using “low” to describe storm surge hazard

15

TRACK FORECAST CONESCriteria: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, confusing16

TRACK FORECAST CONESCriteria:Ease of understanding•65% of EMs•72% of Media•50% of WCMsUsefulness•66% of EMs•69% of Media•40% of WCMs

Research problem: non-equivalency to current cone and other characteristics that make comparison difficult

17

TRACK FORECAST CONESEvaluated 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

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

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

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

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 correctly22

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS• Maps should be:– High resolution– Interactive• Allow zooming to view neighborhood•Mouse-overs with explanations

– Usable on smart phones, etc.

23

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

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

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

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]@erg.com

27