Hurricane Irma was one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes in history before landfall and caused a large evacuation. A total of 155 evacuees at interstate rest areas were asked to rank their concern about damage at their residence for six different geophysical hurricane hazards. Additionally, they were asked about their perceived maximum wind speeds (PMWS) and the wind speeds at which they thought damage would occur (DW) at their residence. These wind speeds were then compared to the actual peak wind gusts (APG) nearest to each resident’s location. Results show a significantly greater concern for wind and storm size, compared to other hazards (tornadoes, rainfall/flooding, storm surge, falling trees). The mean PMWS of evacuees was greater than the mean APG, suggesting widespread misperception of wind speeds. Furthermore, the mean APG was less than the mean DW, and the mean PMWS was also higher than the DW. Additional tests found no significant differences in wind perception between residents with previous storm experiences and no experience, and no significant differences between those who resided in mandatory evacuation zip codes and those who did not. These results suggest that wind speed risk is poorly understood, even though it is a high concern for evacuees from hurricanes. The communication of wind speed risk in forecasts should possibly be modified by placing greater emphasis on postlandfall impacts, wind speed decay after landfall, and wind speeds that cause damage to different types of residences.
Hurricanes Isaac (2012), Harvey (2017), and Irma (2017) were storms with different geophysical characteristics and track forecast consistencies. Despite the differences, common themes emerged from the perception of track forecasts from evacuees for each storm. Surveys with a mixture of closed and open-ended responses were conducted during the evacuations of each storm while the storm characteristics and decision-making were fresh in the minds of evacuees. Track perception accuracy for each evacuee was quantified by taking the difference between three metrics: perceived track and official track (PT − OT), perceived track and forecast track (PT − FT), and home location and perceived track (HL − PT). Evacuees from Hurricanes Isaac and Harvey displayed a tendency to perceive hurricane tracks as being closer to their home locations than what was forecast to occur and what actually occurred. The large sample collected for Hurricane Irma provided a chance to statistically verify some of the hypotheses generated from Isaac and Harvey. Results from Hurricane Irma confirmed that evacuees expected a storm to be closer to their home locations after controlling for regional influences. Furthermore, participants with greater previous hurricane experience perceived a track as being closer to their home locations, and participants residing in zip codes corresponding with nonmandatory evacuation zones also perceived tracks as being closer to their home locations. These findings suggest that most evacuees from hurricanes in the United States appear to perceive storms as being closer to their home locations than they are and overestimate wind speeds at their homes, thus overestimating the true danger from landfalling hurricanes in many storms.
There have been multiple efforts in recent years to simplify visual weather forecast products, with the goal of more efficient risk communication for the general public. Many meteorological forecast products, such as the cone of uncertainty, storm surge graphics, warning polygons, and Storm Prediction Center (SPC) convective outlooks, have created varying levels of public confusion resulting in revisions, modifications, and improvements. However, the perception and comprehension of private weather graphics produced by television stations has been largely overlooked in peer-reviewed research. The goal of this study is to explore how the extended forecast graphic, more commonly known as the 7, 10 day, etc., is utilized by broadcasters and understood by the public. Data were gathered from surveys with the general public and also from broadcast meteorologists. Results suggest this graphic is a source of confusion and highlights a disconnect between the meteorologists producing the graphic and the content prioritized by their audiences. Specifically, timing and intensity of any precipitation or adverse weather events are the two most important variables to consider from the viewpoint of the public. These variables are generally absent from the extended forecast graphic, thus forcing the public to draw their own conclusions, which may differ from what the meteorologist intends to convey. Other results suggest the placement of forecast high and low temperatures, use of probability of precipitation, icon inconsistency, and length of time the graphic is shown also contribute to public confusion and misunderstanding.
Hurricane Michael made landfall on 10 October 2018 as only the third Saffir Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale (SSHWS) category 5 storm in the USA in the named era. The storm’s intensity, rapid intensification, October landfall, high inland winds, and uncommon landfall location all combined to complicate the communication and preparation efforts of emergency managers (EMs) and broadcast meteorologists (BMs), while clouding the comprehension of the public. Interviews were conducted with EMs, BMs, and a small public sample to hear their stories and identify and understand common themes and experiences. This information and previous research was used to inform the creation of questions for a large sample public survey. Results showed that 61% of our sample did not evacuate, and approximately 80% either underestimated the intensity, misinterpreted or did not believe the forecast, or realized the danger too late to evacuate. Hazard perception from a survey of the public revealed that wind followed by tornadoes, and falling trees were the major concerns across the region. According to their counties of residence, participants were divided into Coastal or Inland, and Heavily Impacted or Less Impacted categories. Inland participants expressed a significantly higher concern for wind, tornadoes, falling trees, and rainfall/inland flooding than Coastal participants. Participants from Heavily Impacted counties showed greater concern for storm surge, tornadoes, and falling trees than participants from Less Impacted counties. These results reinforce the continued need for all parties of the weather enterprise to strengthen communication capabilities with EMs and the public for extreme events.
A survey consisting of open-ended and closed responses was administered at three universities in the eastern USA. The home counties of survey participants represented climatological tornado risks spanning from rarely impacted to frequently impacted. The first objective of this research was to classify climatological tornado risk for each county so that analyses of tornado perception accuracy could be evaluated. Perception accuracy was defined as the difference between what each participant perceived minus what actually happened. A manual classification scheme was created that uses the Storm Prediction Center’s Convective Outlook framework as county climatological risk categories. Participants from high-risk counties statistically significantly overestimated the numbers of violent tornadoes compared to participants from every risk category but moderate. Furthermore, participants from high-risk counties had significantly greater tornado impacts, thus validating the classification of high-risk. Participants from high, moderate, and slight-risk counties significantly overestimated the number of strong tornadoes compared to participants from enhanced-risk counties. There appeared to be no relationships between tornado memory and tornado sentiment with tornado perception accuracy. Possible explanations for the overestimation of the numbers of violent tornadoes in high-risk counties are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.