“…To compare the understanding of probabilistic forecast information for this cohort with previous groups, respondents were asked a standard question (about their interpretation of probabilistic information) that was used by several previous studies (Gigerenzer et al , ; Morss et al , ; Peachey et al , ): Imagine that the weather forecast predicts ‘There is a 30% chance of rain tomorrow’. Please indicate which of the following is the most appropriate interpretation of the forecast?…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…In common with previous studies, a majority of respondents did not interpret this statement correctly, and a substantial fraction answered ‘other’ (again in common with Morss et al , ; Joslyn et al , ; Peachey et al , ) which suggests widespread difficulty in interpreting probabilistic forecast statements. In this sample, interestingly, of the three categories (region, time and days) in which respondents could indicate that they understood what the statement meant, the correct interpretation (days) was the most common answer (27%) indicating some understanding of PoP forecasts.…”
ABSTRACT:In the last decade, the growth of local, site-specific weather forecasts delivered by mobile phone or website represents arguably the fastest change in forecast consumption since the beginning of television weather forecasts 60 years ago. In the present study, a street-interception survey of 274 members of the public a clear first preference for narrow weather forecasts above traditional broad weather forecasts is shown for the first time, with a clear bias towards this preference for users under 40 years. The impact of this change on the understanding of forecast probability and intensity information is explored. While the correct interpretation of the statement 'There is a 30% chance of rain tomorrow' is still low in the cohort, in common with previous studies, a clear impact of age and educational attainment on understanding is shown, with those under 40 and educated to degree level or above more likely to correctly interpret it. The interpretation of rainfall intensity descriptors ('light', 'moderate' and 'heavy') by the cohort is shown to be significantly different to official and expert assessment of the same descriptors and to have large variance amongst the cohort. However, despite these key uncertainties, members of the cohort generally seem to make appropriate decisions about rainfall forecasts. There is some evidence that the decisions made are different depending on the communication format used, and the cohort expressed a clear preference for tabular over graphical weather forecast presentation.
“…To compare the understanding of probabilistic forecast information for this cohort with previous groups, respondents were asked a standard question (about their interpretation of probabilistic information) that was used by several previous studies (Gigerenzer et al , ; Morss et al , ; Peachey et al , ): Imagine that the weather forecast predicts ‘There is a 30% chance of rain tomorrow’. Please indicate which of the following is the most appropriate interpretation of the forecast?…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…In common with previous studies, a majority of respondents did not interpret this statement correctly, and a substantial fraction answered ‘other’ (again in common with Morss et al , ; Joslyn et al , ; Peachey et al , ) which suggests widespread difficulty in interpreting probabilistic forecast statements. In this sample, interestingly, of the three categories (region, time and days) in which respondents could indicate that they understood what the statement meant, the correct interpretation (days) was the most common answer (27%) indicating some understanding of PoP forecasts.…”
ABSTRACT:In the last decade, the growth of local, site-specific weather forecasts delivered by mobile phone or website represents arguably the fastest change in forecast consumption since the beginning of television weather forecasts 60 years ago. In the present study, a street-interception survey of 274 members of the public a clear first preference for narrow weather forecasts above traditional broad weather forecasts is shown for the first time, with a clear bias towards this preference for users under 40 years. The impact of this change on the understanding of forecast probability and intensity information is explored. While the correct interpretation of the statement 'There is a 30% chance of rain tomorrow' is still low in the cohort, in common with previous studies, a clear impact of age and educational attainment on understanding is shown, with those under 40 and educated to degree level or above more likely to correctly interpret it. The interpretation of rainfall intensity descriptors ('light', 'moderate' and 'heavy') by the cohort is shown to be significantly different to official and expert assessment of the same descriptors and to have large variance amongst the cohort. However, despite these key uncertainties, members of the cohort generally seem to make appropriate decisions about rainfall forecasts. There is some evidence that the decisions made are different depending on the communication format used, and the cohort expressed a clear preference for tabular over graphical weather forecast presentation.
“…Several studies (Morss et al ., , ; Lazo et al ., ; Joslyn and Savelli, ; Savelli and Joslyn, ; Peachey et al ., ) show that most people are inclined to assign a certain range of uncertainty to a single‐value forecast provided by a deterministic model: uncertainty is anticipated by the user even when such information is not intentionally supplied.…”
ABSTRACT:The aim of the present study is to contribute to the correctness and effectiveness of weather forecast communication, the importance of which has been steadily growing along with the improvement in numerical weather prediction models and methods as well as the general awareness about the increase of extreme events within a context of global climate change. An extensive survey was conducted among the general users of the weather forecasts issued by the regional meteorological service of Tuscany, Italy (LaMMA Consortium), which resulted in 2388 volunteers responding to the questions aimed at better understanding of how people access, interpret and use weather forecasts. The survey also includes some items investigated in previous research, allowing comparison with similar findings in other countries. The most critical issue concerns the uncertainty information, investigated with the main aim of verifying the existence and relevance of inferential mechanisms in the interpretation of weather icons and maps used in LaMMA forecasts to assess uncertainty. The present study also discusses users' interpretations of the probability of precipitation forecasts and their preferences on how forecast uncertainty is conveyed. Results show that, even if the Italian public is accustomed to strictly deterministic weather forecasts, people attribute uncertainty to them on their own even if lacking any explicit indication, thus suggesting the need to supplement the existing forecasts with both graphical and textual information about uncertainty, particularly in the case of precipitation forecasts.
“…Similarly, previous studies found that probabilities of precipitation gave rise to divergent interpretations by various members of the public (e.g., Gigerenzer et al 2005). In addition, there is no consensus as to which format should be used to present forecast uncertainty (e.g., probabilities, frequencies, odds, or expected ranges) among users (Peachey et al 2013) or scientists (LeClerc and Joslyn 2012). Another challenge occurred when all the provided information was not used, such as when informants looked at only the cloud symbols in the diagram and not at the hatched precipitation columns.…”
Section: Informationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent studies have focused on the communication of uncertainty information in weather reports (Gigerenzer et al 2005;Roulston et al 2006;Morss et al 2008;, Joslyn et al 2009Joslyn and Savelli 2010;Peachey et al 2013). However, these (mainly quantitative) studies are primarily concerned with interpretations of one type of uncertainty information: the probability of precipitation.…”
Many people depend on and use weather forecasts to plan their schedules. In so doing, ordinary people with no expertise in meteorology are frequently called upon to interpret uncertainty with respect to weather forecasts. With this in mind, this study addresses two main questions: 1) How do laypeople interpret online weather reports with respect to their degree of certainty and how is previous knowledge drawn upon in this interpretation? and 2) How do laypeople integrate information in weather reports to determine their degree of certainty? This qualitative study is based on semistructured interviews with 21 Norwegians. The results show the following: (a) only a portion of uncertainty information was used, (b) symbols were sometimes ascribed different meanings than intended, and (c) interpretations were affected by local experiences with wind direction and forecast quality. The informants' prior knowledge was found to prevail in the event of a conflict with forecast information, and an expected range of uncertainty was often inferred into single-valued forecasts. Additionally, (d) interpretations were affected by the integration of information used to predict the time and location of precipitation. Informants typically interpreted the degree of certainty differently (more or less uncertain) than was intended. Clearer presentation of uncertainty information, a clear intent of all nuances in information, a thorough use of multimodal information, and consideration of users' needs can help improve communication of forecast uncertainty. The diversity of user approaches makes forecast uncertainty more difficult to communicate and provides possible explanations for why communicating uncertainty is challenging.
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.
