Hurricane knowledge and interpretation of forecasted error cone and wind potential graphics

Kathleen Sherman-Morris, PhD; Karla B. Antonelli, PhD

doi:10.5055/jem.2018.0363

Authors

Kathleen Sherman-Morris, PhD
Karla B. Antonelli, PhD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2018.0363

Keywords:

tropical cyclone, communication, misconceptions, risk perception, hurricane cone of uncertainty

Abstract

Objective: The purpose was to examine how participants understand, interpret, and make decisions using hurricane forecast graphics.

Design: A four-part online survey was administered.

Participants were provided an error cone graphic and one of three experimental potential for damaging winds graphics. Hurricane knowledge was also measured.

Subjects: Two hundred eighty-six individuals initially responded to the survey. A subset of the sample was used for analysis (N = 203, with 130 responding to questions in all four parts). The average age was 41.97 (SD 12.97) with a range from 18 to 75. The reduced sample was 56.7 percent female and 43.3 percent male.

Results: Responses were significantly different between those receiving the potential for damaging winds graphic and both other graphics. The addition of the error cone did not significantly change decision making. Perceived helpfulness of the forecast graphic increased with the addition of the track, but similarly, the addition of the error cone did not contribute significantly (means = 5.91, 7.78, 8.09). A majority of respondents answered five of the six hurricane knowledge questions correctly (62.1-79 percent). The lowest percentage knew what ingredients hurricanes needed to form (36.3 percent).

Conclusions: Track information significantly altered participants’ perceptions of risk from damaging winds, but the error cone did not. Hurricane knowledge was good, with misconceptions existing regarding the effectiveness of taping windows and the meaning of the term “major hurricane.” Understanding of the two forecast graphics was also good.

Author Biographies

Kathleen Sherman-Morris, PhD

Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi

Karla B. Antonelli, PhD

National Research & Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi

References

American Meteorological Society: Hurricane path now a computer graphic. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 1996; 77: 2348-2349.

Baker EJ: Hurricane Charley Hurricane Evacuation Behavioral Analysis. Tallahassee, FL: Hazards Management Group, 2005.

Broad K, Leiserowitz A, Weinkle J, et al.: Misinterpretations of the “cone of uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 hurricane season. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2007; 88: 651-667.

Demuth JL, Morss RE, Morrow BH, et al.: Creation and communication of hurricane risk information. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2012; 93: 1133-1145.

Morrow BH, Lazo JK, Rhome J, et al.: Improving storm surge risk communication: Stakeholder perspectives. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2015; 96: 35-48.

Morrow BH, Lazo JK: Coastal emergency managers’ preferences for storm surge forecast communication. J Emerg Manag. 2014; 12: 153-160.

Sherman-Morris K, Antonelli KB, Williams CC: Measuring the effectiveness of the graphical communication of hurricane storm surge threat. Weather Clim Soc. 2015; 7: 69-82.

Cox J, House D, Lindell M: Visualizing uncertainty in predicted hurricane tracks. Int J Uncertain Quantif. 2013; 3: 143-156.

Radford L, Senkbeil JC, Rockman M: Suggestions for alternative tropical cyclone warning graphics in the USA. Disaster Prev Manag. 2013; 22: 192-209.

Matyas C, Srinivasan S, Cahyanto I, et al.: Risk perception and evacuation decisions of Florida tourists under hurricane threats: A stated preference analysis’. Nat Hazards. 2011; 59: 871-890.

Saunders ME, Senkbeil JC: Perceptions of hurricane hazards in the mid-Atlantic region. Meteorol Appl. 2017; 24: 120-34.

Meyer R, Broad K, Orlove B, et al.: Dynamic simulation as an approach to understanding hurricane risk response: Insights from the Stormview lab. Risk Anal. 2013; 33: 1532-1552.

Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS, et al.: Effects of track and threat information on judgments of hurricane strike probability. Risk Anal. 2014; 34: 1025-1039.

Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS: Strike probability judgments and protective action recommendations in a dynamic hurricane tracking task. Nat Hazards. 2015; 79: 355-380.

Risk Management and Decision Processes Center: Risk through the eyes of the beholder: Using eye-tracking & facial emotion recognition to study responses to natural hazards. Risk Manag Rev. 2013; 8-9. Available at http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/review/WhartonRiskCenter-newsletter_2013.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2017.

Sherman-Morris K, Del Valle-Martinez I: Optimistic bias and the consistency of hurricane track forecasts’. Nat Hazards. 2017; 88: 1523-1543.

Wu HC, Lindell MK, Prater CS: Process tracing analysis of hurricane information displays. Risk Anal. 2015; 35: 2202-2220.

Drake L: Scientific prerequisites to comprehension of the tropical cyclone forecast: Intensity, track, and size. Weather Forecast. 2012; 27: 462-472.

Roulston MS, Bolton GE, Kleit AN, et al.: A laboratory study of the benefits of including uncertainty information in weather forecasts. Weather Forecast. 2006; 21: 116-122.

Baker EJ: Hurricane evacuation behavior. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 1991; 9: 287-310.