{"id":425,"date":"2020-07-07T18:47:12","date_gmt":"2020-07-07T23:47:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/?p=425"},"modified":"2020-07-07T18:47:12","modified_gmt":"2020-07-07T23:47:12","slug":"what-else-have-we-learned-a-deeper-dive-into-emergency-managers-thoughts-about-probabilistic-hazard-information-phi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/2020\/07\/what-else-have-we-learned-a-deeper-dive-into-emergency-managers-thoughts-about-probabilistic-hazard-information-phi\/","title":{"rendered":"What else have we learned?\u00a0 A deeper dive into emergency managers\u2019 thoughts about Probabilistic Hazard Information (PHI)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Each emergency manager (EM) that has participated in our experiment has come with a unique lens through which they viewed and evaluated the experimental PHI.\u00a0 Consequently, multiple themes and sub-themes emerged when discussing EMs\u2019 preferences for and thoughts about PHI during focus groups.\u00a0 For this analysis, the Friday (end-of-week) EM-only focus group discussions from the 2018 Spring Experiment (2 weeks), 2019 Spring Experiment (2 weeks), and 2019 Hazard Services PHI Experiment (2 weeks) were qualitatively coded for themes regarding probabilistic hazard information.\u00a0 These discussions included 23 EM perspectives from various jurisdictions and geographic locations.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Some of the major themes that have emerged are: using PHI and benefits of it, the training that will be required, concerns about putting PHI into operations, how to disseminate PHI, and how the public may use PHI.\u00a0 Each of these themes will be discussed in greater detail.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Using PHI and the Benefits<\/b><\/p>\n

First, EMs had several thoughts about using PHI, including how they would use it and when, the benefits of using it, and their preference for looking at probabilistic information.\u00a0 EMs used PHI in a variety of ways including to maintain overall situational awareness and to monitor storm histories and tracks.\u00a0 Some EMs enjoyed the lightning PHI product because \u201cwe just don\u2019t really have anything like that available right now,\u201d while others thought PHI objects were most helpful for tornadoes. Many EMs thought PHI would not be helpful for \u201cgarden variety thunderstorms\u201d but some did think PHI could be helpful for a general thunderstorm because, where they live, surprise thunderstorms can \u201cpop up.\u201d\u00a0 They even noted PHI could have worthwhile applications for winter weather and flood events.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, EMs noted many benefits of having PHI as another \u201ctool in their toolbox.\u201d\u00a0 One of the primary benefits of PHI, as noted by EMs, was that it gives them much more information than they currently receive and allows them to anticipate and plan ahead.\u00a0 For example, \u201cyou\u2019re talking about…being able to cancel or not cancel something that, if you didn\u2019t have the tool, you would cancel…and you really didn\u2019t have to; you didn\u2019t know there was no need to [cancel].\u201d\u00a0 Many EMs noted the benefit of PHI for event planning; PHI gave EMs a heads up on storm timing, anticipated location, and potential impacts and allowed them to plan and make decisions about events and resource planning sooner than normal.\u00a0 Many EMs noted that timing is everything for them and they really liked PHI for the timing information (e.g., time of arrival) it provided that is currently hard to find.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another often-cited benefit of PHI was the specified location information. One EM described its importance as, \u201chaving the PHI with the…more narrowed down location and then the timing on top of it is just important…this clinic might get skipped over, this clinic needs to actually relocate because of a possible tornado…when you talk about moving patients, staff, and visitors and everything that goes into that, or choosing to shelter in place because the risk is too high to actually move, that makes a difference.\u201d\u00a0 Other EMs also noted that the location information offered by PHI helped specifically with deciding whether to cancel\/postpone outside events or simply move them inside.<\/span><\/p>\n

As a whole, EMs enjoyed the flexibility of the PHI for each hazard and being able to customize options in the EDD and hone in on the aspects that they were most interested in, which tended to vary based on jurisdiction.\u00a0 EMs felt more confident in their decisions, indicated they were able to make decisions sooner and more accurately, and felt as though the PHI offered a greater volume of information that they could filter down to what they needed.\u00a0 They enjoyed receiving the probabilities, even if they did not want the public to see these numbers (which will be discussed in greater detail below).\u00a0 One EM noted that the probabilities \u201cemphasize the area of risk a little more than generalized warnings, so you can get a sense of what the meteorologist is thinking.\u201d Another EM noted they like the probabilities more than words because \u201cwords are subjective.\u201d\u00a0 Another EM explained that they liked the probabilities, but they still wanted the explanation to go along with it so they could make their own independent judgment.\u00a0 A few EMs agreed with this notion and indicated that they would like a \u201chybrid\u201d warning, which was described as a combination of the warnings typically issued today coupled with probabilities of occurrence.\u00a0 As one EM put it, \u201cI do think that [I want] traditional warnings to keep that concrete evidence…yes, this is capable of producing a tornado. Take action now. But then back that up with something like the PHI product.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PHI Training<\/b><\/p>\n

EMs discussed what types of training would be needed and how to go about implementing mass-training on PHI.\u00a0 Collectively, they<\/span> expressed the imperative need for formalized, immersive training.\u00a0 Participants noted the importance of exploring the tool and all of its capabilities in their home jurisdictions to get a better, fuller sense of what it could do and how it could be fully leveraged; something that the artificiality of a simulated experiment cannot provide.\u00a0 They also acknowledged that the one-day training during the experiment was not enough; as one EM noted, it was nice to get a \u201clittle bit of time before each [experiment] day [to] get your feet wet…but that doesn\u2019t make you proficient.\u201d\u00a0 Participants did not offer an estimate of the amount of training time they would need to feel \u201cproficient\u201d in using PHI, but several emphasized that refresher training would need to be available as well because \u201cif you don\u2019t use it all day, you will absolutely forget how to use it!\u201d There were suggestions to host training through the OK-First program, some sort of an online platform, or even regional workshops at NWS Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs). Regardless of format, EMs were clear that training needs to encompass both how to use the system (EDD, or whatever platform PHI is hosted on) and how to interpret the PHI probabilities and trends.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Concerns with Moving PHI into Operations<\/b><\/p>\n

EMs expressed several concerns with PHI moving into operations that were centered around potential misunderstandings, misperceptions, or different interpretations of what the probabilities mean between all groups involved\u2014forecasters, other EMs, and the public and partners.\u00a0 First, EMs were concerned with different interpretations of forecasters\u2019 intentions with probabilities.\u00a0 They would frequently ask, \u201chow do you know what it means to the forecaster?\u201d and \u201c what does it mean when the probabilities fluctuate?\u201d\u00a0 A similar concern was where to \u201cdraw the line\u201d in the probabilities for warnings and \u201caction vs. no action.\u201d\u00a0 These questions led to heavy reliance on the forecaster discussion box, which allowed the forecaster issuing PHI to communicate their thoughts on the storm, a feature that many EMs loved because it provided additional context they were looking for.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A second concern that was voiced concerned different decision thresholds across EMs in response to similar PHI.\u00a0 As an example, many EMs noted what \u201c50%\u201d means to one person may not mean the same thing to the next person, which may lead to differential decisions.\u00a0 As one EM stated, \u201cI didn\u2019t make the decision (sound the sirens) even though it was at 50% and then the next time I did make the decision based on 50%. So how do you figure that out?\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Another concern voiced was whether PHI would confuse the public and partners.\u00a0 Many EMs were concerned that it would be too much; EMs indicated that they wanted it for themselves but worried that the public would not understand it.\u00a0 One aspect EMs specifically pointed out as worrisome for the public was the 2-minute update period; EMs thought that rapid update time might be confusing for some people as they may not fully understand the trending or fluctuating probabilities.\u00a0 EMs were also worried that, as a product of not fully understanding the information, people may take less action in response to it. As one EM said, \u201cwe have to consider how the public would receive this,\u201d while another EM said, \u201cwe may overestimate the public\u2019s ability to take action with a lot of information,\u201d a third EM said, \u201cI think you could easily overwhelm and confuse them.\u201d\u00a0 Ultimately, more work with the public is needed to better understand their capacity to understand PHI and use it effectively for informed decision-making.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, EMs were concerned about shifting from a binary warning system to a warning system built on a probabilistic continuum.\u00a0 Many EMs noted they liked the current binary system for its ease of understanding: either you are in a warning or you are not.\u00a0 However, shifting to probabilistic forecasts provides people with a \u201ccontinuum to determine their own risk level and whether or not they should take action. So we may lose a lot of people taking action.\u201d\u00a0 Thus, this EM recommended that while there may be a continuum of risk, the product for the public \u201cneeds to be more definite.\u201d\u00a0 Similarly, another EM noted that the binary system creates \u201ctwo levels of decisions” whereas with probabilities, \u201cyou\u2019ve got ten.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

All in all, there have been many concerns that center on consistency of interpretations and understanding of the product.\u00a0 While EMs still very much want this information for themselves, they are leery of providing it to others in its current numeric form.\u00a0 However, EMs noted some hope that these concerns could be addressed by adequate training.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Disseminating PHI to the Public and Partners<\/b><\/p>\n

Fourth, while EMs might be hesitant to make this instantly available to the public for consumption, they did discuss mechanisms through which PHI should be disseminated and what should be included in the messaging to the public and partners.\u00a0 Many EMs suggested social media platforms as venues for delivering PHI in today\u2019s society.\u00a0 Other EMs suggested using pre-existing alert systems that send notifications directly to cell phones.\u00a0 Other EMs suggested the information could be put on a website with links to more detailed information for people who are interested in learning more or seeking additional information.<\/span><\/p>\n

While thinking about a paradigm where PHI is made public, EMs indicated that PHI should not come from them; they would be happy to pass PHI along but they felt strongly that it should originate from NWS.\u00a0 They thought the information would be more official and more trusted if it came directly from NWS.\u00a0 \u201cIt needs to be discussed with NWS and we need to follow that because they are the ones who are putting this out and we are just passing on the information,\u201d and, \u201cthere still has to be a message to the public that should not be filtered through us.\u00a0 We can relay messages and that sort of stuff and so can the broadcast media, but ultimately when the NWS issues that PHI plume, that\u2019s going to mean something.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

EMs also remarked on what <\/span>should<\/span><\/i> be included in public messaging. Some EMs noted that specificity is critical.\u00a0 Other EMs noted that impact should be included.\u00a0 Another EM suggested the information should be formatted as bullet points instead of summary text.\u00a0 Many EMs agreed that messaging, in whatever form it is delivered, should be concrete and definitive; \u201cgray\u201d or uncertain information should <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> be sent out.\u00a0 In particular, an EM said, \u201cthere’s a bit of anxiety from an emergency manager about providing them too much gray.\u201d\u00a0 EMs also stressed making the information personalizable; Zulu or UTC times should be eliminated in favor of local times, and location information is essential and should be provided when possible.\u00a0 EMs thought this would help make the information more easily digestible for the average person.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regardless of what gets conveyed to the public and how it gets sent out, EMs were in consensus that they did <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> want the public-at-large to have to interpret PHI on their own and make their own decisions.\u00a0 They were collectively worried about that leading to a decrease in the number of people taking appropriate protective actions when needed.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Opposing thoughts on the Public\u2019s Use of PHI<\/b><\/p>\n

Lastly, some emergency managers thought the public might use PHI.\u00a0 Many EMs suggested that while they really did not want the public to see PHI, they also believed it would become public anyway.\u00a0 \u201cPeople are going to get this information wherever they are. There\u2019s so many different blogs out there that people do have access\u2026\u201d \u201cLet\u2019s face it, they (the public) see stuff and they get apps and they can look at it…\u201d were comments shared by two EMs but endorsed by many others.\u00a0 Other EMs expressed that they were somewhat okay with making PHI public because they do not believe people will go seeking the information.\u00a0 One EM said, \u201cThe public\u2019s not really going to seek out that information unless there\u2019s a reason to.\u201d As another EM put it, \u201cI don\u2019t believe the everyday citizen is going to wake up in the morning and turn on the PHI and see what the weather\u2019s going to be like today.\u201d Another EM also conveyed this point by saying, \u201cI don\u2019t believe the public is going to seek out this information on a daily basis.\u201d\u00a0 Because people may not use this information often, EMs stressed the importance of also having a strong public education campaign on how to use and interpret PHI.<\/span><\/p>\n

Taken together, not every EM agreed with giving PHI to the public, but many EMs believed that the public would find a way to get the information.\u00a0 Thus, a centralized plan on how this information would be delivered to the public should be developed for consistency and trust in the information.<\/span><\/p>\n

We have gathered very rich information from participants over the years, and this blog post provides a high-level overview of some key themes that have emerged in the 2018 and 2019 experiments with a particular focus on PHI. Stay tuned for more updates and information about other aspects of the Experiment and other data collected!<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Each emergency manager (EM) that has participated in our experiment has come with a unique lens through which they viewed and evaluated the experimental PHI.\u00a0 Consequently, multiple themes and sub-themes… <\/p>\n

Read more \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/127"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=425"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":426,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425\/revisions\/426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/phi-em\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}