Toward More Actionable Flood‐Risk Information

Abstract

The increasingly urgent need to develop knowledge and practices to manage flood risks drives innovative information design. However, experts often disagree about design practices. As a result, flood‐risk estimates can diverge, leading to different conclusions for decision‐making. Using examples of household‐scale fluvial (riverine) flood‐risk information in the United States, we assess design features and risk communication approaches that may lead to more actionable information for decision‐making. We argue that increased attention to uncertainty characterization and model diagnostics is a critical intermediate step for developing simpler approaches for designing flood‐risk information. Simpler frameworks are desirable because flood risks change over time, and simpler frameworks are less costly to update. Developing frameworks for large spatial domains require collaboration grounded in principles of open science. Finally, systematically evaluating how decision‐makers access and use information can provide new insights to guide risk communication and information design.

A point-of-use drinking water quality dataset from fieldwork in Detroit, Michigan

“…Moreover, resolved data about water quality in premise plumbing opens the opportunity to provide more actionable information to water users. Actionable information is information that is substantial, relevant, and supports one's self-efficacy and decision-making [8][9][10] . Furthermore, individualized water data also provides information that can hold utilities accountable.…”

Investing in open and FAIR practices for more usable and equitable climate-risk research

“…We model the behavior of "signing" the first version of the Climate Research Transparency and Openness Commitments in our data, code, and (p)reproducibility statements in this manuscript. With respect to broader open science initiatives and the need for deep transparency in science 30,38,39,49,77,84,95,101,103,106 , we recognize that our perspective takes a relatively narrow focus. We acknowledge that ideal commitments and transformative change requires collective action across the science ecosystem, such as funders, journals, editors, government bodies, and tenure review boards 30,32,38,39,49,50,61,77,[93][94][95]101,103 .…”