Insights into stakeholder perceptions of Impact -based Forecasting (IbF) and implications for operational implementation in hydrometerology 

Abstract

<p>Impact based Forecasting (IbF) represents a shift away from traditional hazard focussed hydrometeorological forecasts and warnings (e.g. wind gusts exceeding 80mph at a location and time), towards those that communicate the risk, as a function of probability of the hazard occurring and its consequence(s) or impact on society. To achieve this shift, there is recognition that the exposure and vulnerability of society to the hazard, need to be considered in addition to hazard forecasts. The methods by which these additional variables are integrated to provide IbF outputs varies, but there has been limited research to understand why this is the case and what implications this has for operational IbF services.</p><p>To understand the variation in perceptions around IbF and the possible consequences these perceptions may have for operational implementation, this work invited practitioners, forecasters and researchers, working within the NERC and FCDO Science for Humanitarian Emergencies and Resilience (SHEAR) Programme, to provide their perspectives on a range of IbF related topics. Semi structured interviews were conducted with individuals that were selected by the project team based on their experience and expertise regarding IbF. A total of 11 interviews were held with stakeholders from the UK, South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, India, and Nepal, with representation from international institutions and NGOs, research institutes and hydrometeorological agencies.  </p><p>Our research aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a shared understanding of what IbF is and means across individuals involved in its development? (2) Is there a shared perception of the challenges, barriers and opportunities associated with implementing IbF operationally? In this session, we illustrate areas of consensus and clarity, as well as areas of divergence, and knowledge gaps that could impede effective collaboration and implementation. We review the relevance of our findings for researchers and practitioners and explore how this might inform IbF activities in the future. </p>

Advances and gaps in the science and practice of impact‐based forecasting of droughts

“…The outputs of IbF have proven valuable in addressing real-world challenges by providing actionable information to decision-makers and users. For instance, the ForPAc IbF project, implemented in Kenya, focuses on monitoring biophysical indicators and vulnerability-related indicators such as food security and livelihood zones (Robbins et al, 2022). This project provides information on drought impacts and supports actions in anticipation of normal, alarm and emergency conditions, rather than in response to them (Robbins et al, 2022).…”

“…As such, some practically-implemented IbF projects (ForPAc in Kenya and REAP in Niger) monitor livelihood zones and use specific vulnerability-related indicators of production (market food prices, loss of crops and livestock) as well as access and use (milk consumption, cost of water, malnutrition risk) to understand socio-economic coping strategies (Heinrich & Bailey, 2020). Additional area-dependent factors, as pointed out by IbF practitioners (Robbins et al, 2022), can include socio-economic indicators as poverty, literacy levels, population density, household income and other coping strategies (children school attendance, forced marriage and rural migration), all of which preferably need to be integrated in a quantitative format as qualitative data in this case lacks sufficient granularity. Overlaying these indicators as input data layers can allow identifying the distribution of entities of interest (exposure) and the evolving state of those entities (vulnerability) (UN ESCAP & WMO, 2021).…”

“…Owing to its novelty and broad scope, the risk theory‐based concept of IbF permits the use of different methods across different disciplines and facilitates close cooperation among the numerous actors involved (Robbins et al, 2022). The most common approach to IbF is to develop drought impact functions using hazard indices of different drought types as predictors and their associated impacts as predictands (Boult et al, 2022; Sutanto et al, 2019).…”

“…Many parties would benefit from negotiating with the insurance industry free use of aggregated loss data for noncommercial purposes, similar to the current conditions for accessing weather forecasts (very expensive for commercial use, free for research use albeit released with some temporal delay). Exploring this together with efforts toward achieving common cross‐border agreements and data policies on how impact data is collected and stored (Robbins et al, 2022) should lead to a better understanding of the link between drought drivers and their impacts and, ultimately, to a better management of drought risks (Van Loon, Stahl, et al, 2016b).…”

Advances and gaps in the science and practice of impact-based forecasting of droughts

“…Owing to its novelty and broad scope, the risk theory-based concept of IbF permits the use of different methods across different disciplines and facilitates close cooperation among the numerous actors involved (Robbins et al, 2022). The most common approach to IbF is to develop drought impact functions using hazard indices of different drought types as predictors and their associated impacts as predictands (Boult et al, 2022;.…”