Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Expressing Flood Likelihood: Return Period versus Probability

Expressing Flood Likelihood: Return Period versus Probability AbstractThe likelihood of floods and other potentially destructive natural phenomena is often expressed as a return period, or recurrence interval such as a 100-year flood. However, the expression might give users the impression that the event will occur exactly once within the described period, obscuring the intended probabilistic meaning. If so, users may think a flood is less likely when one has just occurred or more likely when it has not, leading to a “flood is due” effect. This hypothesis was tested experimentally in two studies reported here. Participants were given either a return period or a probability expression and asked to rate flood likelihood and concern. Flood recency was also manipulated. The results from both studies support a “flood is due” effect when the return period expression is used. In the return period condition alone, participants rated floods as more likely and expressed greater concern when no flood had occurred recently. When no likelihood information was conveyed in the control condition, the opposite effect was observed. Participants rated flood likelihood as higher and expressed greater concern when a flood had occurred recently. Participants using percent chance expression were least affected by flood recency. This adds to the growing body of research suggesting that non-experts can benefit from probabilistic weather forecasts. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Weather, Climate, and Society American Meteorological Society

Expressing Flood Likelihood: Return Period versus Probability

Download PDF
44 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ams/expressing-flood-likelihood-return-period-versus-probability-yfxjO6v9Ts

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Copyright
Copyright © American Meteorological Society
ISSN
1948-8335
DOI
10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0107.1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractThe likelihood of floods and other potentially destructive natural phenomena is often expressed as a return period, or recurrence interval such as a 100-year flood. However, the expression might give users the impression that the event will occur exactly once within the described period, obscuring the intended probabilistic meaning. If so, users may think a flood is less likely when one has just occurred or more likely when it has not, leading to a “flood is due” effect. This hypothesis was tested experimentally in two studies reported here. Participants were given either a return period or a probability expression and asked to rate flood likelihood and concern. Flood recency was also manipulated. The results from both studies support a “flood is due” effect when the return period expression is used. In the return period condition alone, participants rated floods as more likely and expressed greater concern when no flood had occurred recently. When no likelihood information was conveyed in the control condition, the opposite effect was observed. Participants rated flood likelihood as higher and expressed greater concern when a flood had occurred recently. Participants using percent chance expression were least affected by flood recency. This adds to the growing body of research suggesting that non-experts can benefit from probabilistic weather forecasts.

Journal

Weather, Climate, and Society – American Meteorological Society

Published: Oct 4, 2017

References

  • Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and perception of flood risk
    Bell, H. M.; Tobin, G. A.
  • Rarely occurring headaches and rarely occurring blindness: Is rarely=rarely? The meaning of verbal frequentistic labels in specific medical contexts
    Fischer, K.; Jungermann, H.
  • Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy
    Galesic, M.; Garcia-Retamero, R.; Gigerenzer, G.
  • “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts?
    Gigerenzer, G.; Hertwig, R.; Van Den Broek, E.; Fasolo, B.; Katsikopoulos, K. V.
  • Temporal clustering of floods and impacts of climate indices in the Tarim River basin, China
    Gu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Singh, V. P.; Chen, Y. D.; Shi, P.
  • Communicating forecast uncertainty: Public perception of weather forecast uncertainty
    Joslyn, S.; Savelli, S.
  • Uncertainty forecasts improve weather-related decisions and attenuate the effects of forecast error
    Joslyn, S.; LeClerc, J. E.
  • Decisions with uncertainty: The glass half full
    Joslyn, S.; LeClerc, J. E.
  • The effects of wording on the understanding and use of uncertainty information in a threshold forecasting decision
    Joslyn, S.; Nadav-Greenberg, L.; Taing, M. U.; Nichols, R. M.
  • Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research
    Kellens, W.; Terpstra, T.; De Maeyer, P.
  • The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication
    Keller, C.; Siegrist, M.; Gutscher, H.
  • The cry wolf effect and weather-related decision making
    LeClerc, J.; Joslyn, S.
  • Flood risk perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees
    Ludy, J.; Kondolf, G. M.
  • Flood frequency hydrology: 1. Temporal, spatial, and causal expansion of information
    Merz, R.; Blöschl, G.
  • Communicating uncertainty in weather forecasts: A survey of the U.S. public
    Morss, R. E.; Demuth, J.; Lazo, J. K.
  • Do probabilistic forecasts lead to better decisions?
    Ramos, M. H.; van Andel, S. J.; Pappenberger, F.
  • Temporal scales and hydrological regimes: Implications for flood frequency scaling
    Robinson, J. S.; Sivapalan, M.
  • A laboratory study of the benefits of including uncertainty information in weather forecasts
    Roulston, M. S.; Bolton, G. E.; Kleit, A. N.; Sears-Collins, A. L.
  • Communications to reduce risk underestimation and overestimation
    Sandman, P. M.
  • Boater safety: Communicating weather forecast information to high stakes end users
    Savelli, S.; Joslyn, S.
  • The advantages of 80% predictive interval forecasts for non-experts and the impact of visualizations
    Savelli, S.; Joslyn, S.
  • Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior
    Stone, E. R.; Yates, J. F.; Parker, A. M.
  • On the temporal clustering of US floods and its relationship to climate teleconnection patterns
    Villarini, G.; Smith, J. A.; Vitolo, R.; Stephenson, D. B.
  • Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms
    Wallsten, T. S.; Budescu, D. V.; Rapoport, A.; Zwick, R.; Forsyth, B.
  • From subjective probabilities to decision weights: The effect of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events
    Weber, E. U.
  • Testing a visual display to explain small probabilities
    Weinstein, N. D.; Sandman, P. M.; Hallman, W. K.
  • Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numerical methods
    Windschitl, P. D.; Wells, G. L.