Combating disasters necessitates taking advantage of all means and resources that are available. A number of events in recent years have demonstrated the necessity, as well as the potential of well‐integrated and coordinated action between unaffiliated and professional responders. Nevertheless, in practical situations this potential remains largely untapped. This article investigates the case in Germany and asks to which extent known and researched disaster myths impede the cooperation between unaffiliated and professional responders. We combine data from observations of a full‐scale exercise, a representative population survey (N = 1.006), and expert interviews with professional rescue workers to answer our research question. With the results of our research, we have deduced that these disaster myths still significantly influence the perceptions and practical actions of the various involved actors and, as such, that approaches aiming to improve the various forms of cooperation between all available forces must take these underlying assumptions into account.
<p>Communicating the uncertainty underlying weather warnings appears promising. Information about uncertainty can increase confidence in the forecast and support the decision-making process (Joslyn and LeClerc, 2013; LeClerc and Joslyn, 2015; Fundel et al., 2019). However, probabilities can be misunderstood if they are not appropriately communicated (Murphy, 1980; Gigerenzer et al., 2005; Budescu et al., 2014). Uncertainty information in weather warnings might also reduce threat perception and intention to act (Taylor 2021; Schulze & Voss, in prep.).</p><p>As part of the WEXICOM project (Weather warnings: from EXtreme event Information to COMunication and action), we conducted a representative experimental online survey in Germany (n=1 721). In close collaboration with Nathalie Popovic (MeteoSwiss), we investigated how the public perceives weather warnings with different formats of uncertainty information. The study tested three combinations of numerical and verbal uncertainty information in weather warnings (numerical probability & verbal probability vs. numerical probability & verbal frequency vs. numerical frequency & verbal frequency). Moreover, we tested all three conditions with and without additional explanation about the probability level at which the weather service typically issues a warning. All combinations were tested for three probability levels (20%; 40%; 60%) in two weather scenarios (hurricane force gale; thunderstorm with extremely heavy rainfall).</p><p>We find that low probabilities decreased the perceived risk and warning response &#8211; in line with numerous findings in other domains that low probability events are often not taken seriously. Interestingly, the format in which probabilities were communicated did not make a difference: The warning response was independent of whether probability information was given in numerical or verbal form. What was striking, however, was that providing information about the low probability level at which weather services typically issue a warning improved the perception of the warning &#8212; especially at low probability levels. Thus, the main problem for the public might not be understanding the uncertainty information but interpreting its magnitude in the context of weather warnings. Here, a simple reference point can help to put low probabilities into perspective.</p>
<p>In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat die Meteorologie gro&#223;e Fortschritte bei der Erstellung zuverl&#228;ssiger probabilistischer Vorhersagen gemacht. Vorhersagen und insbesondere Wetterwarnungen werden aber weiter fast ausschlie&#223;lich deterministisch kommuniziert. Dass probabilistische Information nicht kommuniziert wird, behindert nicht nur die gemeinsame Entscheidungsfindung zwischen Meteorologen, Organisationen und der &#214;ffentlichkeit. Diese Praxis ber&#252;cksichtigt auch nicht, dass probabilistische Information durchaus auch von Laien bevorzugt werden kann, das Vertrauen in Vorhersagen erh&#246;hen kann und zu besseren Entscheidungen f&#252;hren kann. F&#252;r die praktische Nutzung der Unsicherheitsinformation muss z.B. gekl&#228;rt werden unter welchen Bedingungen sie hilfreich ist, wie sie verbal und grafisch aufbereitet werden soll und welche institutionellen und operationellen Fragen gekl&#228;rt werden m&#252;ssen.</p> <p>&#160;</p> <p>In diesem Beitrag stellen wir exemplarische Ergebnisse eigener sozialwissenschaftlicher Studien im Rahmen des Projektes WEXICOM des Hans-Ertel-Zentrums f&#252;r Wetterforschung (HErZ) zu folgenden Fragestellungen vor: Was wissen Nutzer*innen &#252;ber die Unsicherheit von Vorhersagen? Welche Einstellungen haben Nutzer*innen zur Angabe von Unsicherheitsinformation, d.h. z.B. wollen sie diese Information erhalten? Wie wird Unsicherheit verbal kommuniziert? Welche graphischen Darstellungen pr&#228;ferieren Nutzer*innen? Ab welcher Wahrscheinlichkeit w&#252;rden Nutzer*innen reagieren? Welchen Einfluss haben Raum- und Zeitbezug von Unsicherheitsinformation auf das Verst&#228;ndnis der Information und wie beeinflussen sie die Nutzung f&#252;r Entscheidungen? &#160;Schlie&#223;lich stellen wir dar, welche Herausforderungen und neuen Ans&#228;tze es gibt f&#252;r die Kommunikation und Nutzung von Unsicherheitsinformation in der Wettervorhersage.</p>
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.