Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://www.nap.edu/24865 SHARE    

DETAILS 198 pages | 7 x 10 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-46422-2 | DOI: 10.17226/24865

CONTRIBUTORS

GET THIS BOOK Committee on Advancing Social and Behavioral Science Research and Application Within the Weather Enterprise; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Board on Environmental Change FIND RELATED TITLES and Society; Board on Human-Systems Integration; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports  – 10% off the price of print titles  – Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests  – Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.

Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

Committee on Advancing Social and Behavioral Science Research and Application Within the Weather Enterprise

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Board on Environmental Change and Society

Board on Human-Systems Integration

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

A Consensus Study Report of

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001 This study was supported by the Federal Highway Administration under contract number DTFH61- 12-D-00033 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under contract number WC133R-11-CQ-0048. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-46422-2 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-46422-6 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24865

Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http:// www.nap.edu.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise. Washington, DC: The National Acad- emies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24865.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been sub- jected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON ADVANCING SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND APPLICATION WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

ANN BOSTROM (Co-Chair), University of Washington, Seattle WILLIAM H. HOOKE (Co-Chair), American Meteorological Society, Washington, DC RAYMOND J. BAN, Ban and Associates, Marietta, GA ELLEN J. BASS, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA DAVID V. BUDESCU, Fordham University, Bronx, NY JULIE L. DEMUTH, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO MICHAEL D. EILTS, Weather Decision Technologies, Inc., Norman, OK CHARLES F. MANSKI, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL RICHARD J. NELSON, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Minden, NV YVETTE RICHARDSON, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park JACQUELINE SNELLING, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC JOHN TOOHEY-MORALES, WTVJ NBC-6, Miami, FL JOSEPH E. TRAINOR, University of Delaware, Newark

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

LAURIE GELLER, Senior Program Officer ALISON MACALADY, Program Officer HEATHER KREIDLER, Associate Program Officer AMANDA PURCELL, Associate Program Officer ROB GREENWAY, Program Associate ERIN MARKOVICH, Senior Program Assistant/Research Assistant

BOARD ON ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES AND CLIMATE

A.R. RAVISHANKARA (Chair), Colorado State University, Fort Collins SHUYI S. CHEN (Vice Chair), University of Washington, Seattle CECILIA BITZ, University of Washington, Seattle MARK A. CANE, Columbia University, Palisades, NY HEIDI CULLEN, Climate Central, Princeton, NJ ROBERT DUNBAR, Stanford University, CA PAMELA EMCH, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach, CA ARLENE FIORE, Columbia University, Palisades, NY PETER FRUMHOFF, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA WILLIAM B. GAIL, Global Weather Corporation, Boulder, CO MARY GLACKIN, The Weather Company, Washington, DC TERRI S. HOGUE, Colorado School of Mines, Golden EVERETTE JOSEPH, SUNY University at Albany, NY RONALD “NICK” KEENER, JR., Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC ROBERT KOPP, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ L. RUBY LEUNG, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA JONATHAN MARTIN, University of Wisconsin–Madison JONATHAN OVERPECK, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor ALLISON STEINER, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor DAVID W. TITLEY, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park DUANE WALISER, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Ocean Studies Board Liaison

DAVID HALPERN, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

AMANDA STAUDT, Director DAVID ALLEN, Senior Program Officer LAURIE GELLER, Senior Program Officer KATHERINE THOMAS, Senior Program Officer LAUREN EVERETT, Program Officer APRIL MELVIN, Associate Program Officer AMANDA PURCELL, Program Officer YASMIN ROMITTI, Research Associate RITA GASKINS, Administrative Coordinator

SHELLY FREELAND, Financial Associate ROB GREENWAY, Program Associate MICHAEL HUDSON, Senior Program Assistant ERIN MARKOVICH, Senior Program Assistant/Research Assistant

vii

BOARD ON ENVIRONMENAL CHANGE AND SOCIETY

RICHARD H. MOSS (Chair), Joint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, MD JOSEPH L. ARVAI, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor F. STUART CHAPIN III, University of Alaska–Fairbanks RUTH DEFRIES, Columbia University, New York, NY HALLIE C. EAKIN, Arizona State University, Tempe LORI M. HUNTER, University of Colorado Boulder KATHARINE L. JACOBS, University of Arizona, Tucson MICHAEL ANTHONEY MENDEZ, Yale University, New Haven, CT RICHARD G. NEWELL, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC MARY D. NICHOLS, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento JONATHAN T. OVERPECK, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor ASEEM PRAKASH, University of Washington, Seattle J. TIMMONS ROBERTS, Brown University, Providence, RI MAXINE L. SAVITZ, Technology/Partnership Honeywell Inc., Los Angeles, CA MICHAEL P. VANDENBERGH, Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, TN JALONNE L. WHITE-NEWSOME, The Kresge Foundation, Troy, MI ROBYN S. WILSON, The Ohio State University, Columbus

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

TOBY WARDEN, Interim Board Director JENNIFER HEIMBERG, Senior Program Officer HEATHER KREIDLER, Associate Program Officer JORDYN WHITE, Program Officer TINA M. LATIMER, Program Coordinator LETICIA GARCILAZO GREEN, Senior Program Assistant MARY GHITELMAN, Senior Program Assistant

viii

BOARD ON HUMAN-SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

PASCALE CARAYON (Chair), University of Wisconsin–Madison ELLEN BASS, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA SARA J. CZAJA, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, FL FRANCIS “FRANK” T. DURSO, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta ANDREW S. IMADA, A.S. Imada and Associates, Carmichael, CA EDMOND ISRAELSKI, AbbVie, North Chicago, IL ELIZABETH LOFTUS, University of California, Irvine FREDERICK OSWALD, Rice University, Houston, TX KARL S. PISTER, University of California, Santa Cruz, Berkeley (Emeritus) DAVID REMPEL, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco EMILIE ROTH, Roth Cognitive Engineering, Stanford, CA BARBARA SILVERSTEIN, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia DAVID H. WEGMAN, University of Massachusetts, Lowell (Emeritus)

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

TOBY WARDEN, Interim Board Director HEATHER KREIDLER, Associate Program Officer TINA M. LATIMER, Program Coordinator

Acknowledgments

his Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this inde- Tpendent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: PATRICIA DeLUCIA, Texas Tech University, Lubbock JOHN A. DUTTON, retired, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park BARUCH FISCHHOFF, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA JONATHAN GILLIGAN, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN ROBERT GOLDHAMMER, International Association of Emergency Managers, Falls Church, VA EVE GRUNTFEST, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis JENNIFER HENDERSON, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg AMANDA LEE HUGHES, Utah State University, Logan NATHAN S. JOHNSON, WRAL-TV, Raleigh, NC KEVIN KLOESEL, University of Oklahoma, Norman DENNIS MILETI, University of Colorado Boulder WILFRID A. NIXON, retired, The University of Iowa, Iowa City LORI PEEK, University of Colorado Boulder RICK ROSEN, retired, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Program Office, Silver Spring, MD JOSEPH YURA, The University of Texas at Austin Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Bonnie J. McCay, Rutgers University, and Kristie L. Ebi, University of Washington, Seattle. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Respon- sibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. We would also like to thank numerous people who provided input to the Committee throughout the study process (see the list of names in Appendix C).

xii

Preface

uring the time that we were wrapping up this report, the United States was struck by three tremendous weather events—Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. DThose events illustrated how the ever-more prolific production and dissemination of weather forecasts weaves through and interacts with our cultural values and behavioral norms, with numerous sectors of our economy (e.g., agriculture, commerce, energy, and water management), with a wide array of public policies, and much more. Given today’s accelerating pace of social and technological change, and the warming of our atmosphere and oceans, our relationship to weather is rapidly evolving. The rise of social media and individualized communications have enriched and complicated the public–private partnerships that have delivered weather messages for decades; it also creates new opportunities for collaborative advances in decision support with weather forecasting, and new challenges with respect to accuracy, reliability, and quality control. Social and behavioral science efforts to understand and inform the weather enterprise go back decades and have achieved many successes—including advances in our understanding of forecasting processes, warning perceptions, and evacuation behaviors, for example. Awareness of unmet needs among different segments of society has spawned a variety of exploratory studies in recent years, bringing to bear the expertise of psychologists, sociologists, economists, geographers, and others on a variety of important communication challenges. Already social scientists have helped the weather enterprise (the ecosystem of government agencies and private enterprise responsible for weather service provision) improve the clarity and utility of their messages for what the community now refers to as “impact-based decision support.” These efforts have found a toehold in the weather enterprise, but the social and behavioral sciences have yet to realize advances on the scale and scope realized by the meteorological sciences. Although the potential of social science for improving the value of weather services has been demonstrated, much more can and should be done. Over the course of the past 15 months, our Committee was charged to offer guidance to government agencies and other institutions in the weather enterprise, on strategies for effectively integrating social and behavioral science knowledge and its application into meteorology, weather forecasting, and hazard preparedness. The Committee held multiple meetings and solicited input from several dozen scholars and practitioners

xiii

PREFACE

coming from government agencies, academic institutions, and private-sector companies. Dr. Laurie Geller and her colleagues at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (in particular Heather Kreidler and Erin Markovich) designed and executed the complicated logistics for these data collection exercises efficiently and creatively, enabling the Committee to cast a far wider net than initially seemed feasible. We are indebted to Dr. Geller and colleagues for their superb support in assessing and integrating the resulting diversity of evidence, and to those from across and beyond the weather enterprise who volunteered their time and insights to this report, especially our fellow Committee members. The Committee’s report lays out a research agenda and points to opportunities for building capacity that offer the prospect of major returns on investment. Our hope is that the recommendations set forth will aid the weather enterprise in its investments and decisions going forward. This task has implications far beyond its nominal scope, given that weather hazards affect the safety, health, and well-being of all individuals, communities, and society at large.

Ann Bostrom and William Hooke Co-Chairs, Committee on Advancing Social and Behavioral Science Research and Application Within the Weather Enterprise

xiv

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 11 1.1 Motivation for This Study, 11 1.2 Origin, Goals, and Process for This Study, 14 1.3 Structure of This Report, 16

2 The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise 19 2.1 Why the Weather Enterprise Needs Social and Behavioral Science Insights, 19 2.2 Some Current Developments That Magnify the Need for SBS Research, 27 2.3 The Challenges of Defining Success and Quantifying the Value of SBS Research, 32

3 Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise 39 3.1 Overview of Recent/Current SBS Activities, 40 3.2 Barriers to Integrating SBS Within the Weather Enterprise, 71

4 Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns 81 4.1 The Motivation for Advancing SBS for Road Weather, 81 4.2 How Weather Information Is Used to Advance Road Weather Safety, 86 4.3 Key Partnerships and Interactions in the Use of Road Weather Information, 90

5 Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness and Advancing Fundamental Social and Behavioral Science Knowledge 95 5.1 Previously Identified Research Needs, 95 5.2 Critical Defining Features of SBS Research in the Weather Enterprise, 97 5.3 The Types and Scope of SBS Research Needed, 102 5.4 Critical Knowledge Gaps, 103

CONTENTS

6 A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research in the Weather Enterprise 109 6.1 The Challenge of Strategic Planning Across the Weather Enterprise, 109 6.2 Steps Forward Within and Among Sectors, 111

7 Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations 127 7.1 Findings, 127 7.2 Recommendations, 128

References 133

Appendixes

A Examples of Funding for Social and Behavioral Science Activities by NOAA, NSF, DHS 147 B Lessons from SBS Integration into the “Public Health Enterprise” 161 C People Who Provided Input to the Committee 167 D Committee Biosketches 171 E Acronyms 179

xvi

Summary

ur ability to observe and forecast severe weather events has improved mark- edly over the past few decades. Forecasts of snow and ice storms, hurricanes Oand storm surge, extreme heat, and other severe weather events are made with greater accuracy, geographic specificity, and lead time to allow people and communities to take appropriate protective measures. Yet, hazardous weather continues to cause loss of life and result in other preventable social costs. Nearly 6,000 people are killed and more than 445,000 people are injured in weather-related vehicle crashes on U.S. roadways each year. Also of concern are the many examples of severe weather events that had accurate forecasts and widespread warnings yet nonetheless resulted in considerable loss of life or other adverse outcomes—for example, Super- storm Sandy in 2012, when more than 100 deaths were reported, and the August 2017 Hurricane Harvey–related flooding disaster in south Texas, which led to more than 60 deaths and required many thousands of emergency rescues. There is growing recognition that a host of social and behavioral factors affect how we prepare for, observe, predict, respond to, and are impacted by weather hazards. For example, an individual’s response to a severe weather event may depend on their understanding of the forecast, prior experience with severe weather, concerns about their other family members or property, their capacity to take the recommended protective actions, and numerous other factors. Indeed, it is these factors that can determine whether or not a potential hazard becomes an actual disaster. Thus, it is essen tial to bring to bear expertise in the social and behavioral sciences (SBS)—including disciplines such as anthropology, communication, demography, economics, geography, political science, psychology, and sociology—to understand how people’s knowledge, experiences, perceptions, and attitudes shape their responses to weather risks and to understand how human cognitive and social dynamics affect the forecast process itself.

THE EVOLVING WEATHER ENTERPRISE

The National Weather Service and the broader “weather enterprise”1 have recognized that improving public safety requires more than just the provision of timely, accurate

1 The “weather enterprise” includes the network of government agencies, private-sector companies, and academic institutions that provide weather services to the nation.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

weather forecasts, and they have been expanding their operational goals accordingly. There is growing emphasis on helping individuals and communities reduce vulnerability and mitigate risks of hazardous weather well before an event strikes, and on supporting the efforts of emergency managers, transportation officials, and others who help protect public safety when hazardous weather approaches and who conduct response, rescue, and recovery efforts when hazardous weather strikes. Meeting these more ambitious goals requires a paradigm shift in the weather enterprise to make social and behavioral sciences an integral part of research and operations. As illustrated in Figure S.1, SBS research offers great potential not just for improving communications of hazardous weather warnings, but also for improving preparedness and mitigation for weather risks, for hazard monitoring, assessment, and forecasting processes; for emergency management and response; and for long-term recovery efforts. A rapid pace of technological and institutional change within the weather enterprise also motivates the need for better incorporating the social and behavioral sciences. For instance, the ways that people get weather information have been proliferating, as seen in the tremendous growth of mobile weather apps and private companies that provide forecast information tailored for specific stakeholders. Continuing to advance public safety and well-being in the face of these changes requires insights from many different social science disciplines and research methods. It also requires new forms of engagement and partnership among the public, private, and academic providers of weather-related services.

STUDY CHARGE AND APPROACH

As part of their ongoing efforts to address these challenges, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to convene a committee to explore and provide guidance on the challenges of integrating social and behavioral sciences within the weather enterprise. This task included assessing current SBS activities, describing the potential value of improved integration of SBS and barriers that impede this integration, developing a research agenda, and identifying infrastructural and institutional arrangements for successfully pursuing SBS-weather research and the transfer of relevant findings to operational settings (see the full Statement of Task in Box 1.2). Another sponsor of this effort, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), asked the Committee to give specific consideration to issues related to road weather safety. Such issues deserve focused attention because vehicle

Summary

FIGURE S.1 Stages of communication and decision support that must be addressed under the Weather Ready Nation paradigm, with examples of how social and behavioral science (SBS) research can provide critical insights and understanding in each of these stages.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

accidents are by far the largest cause of weather-related deaths and injuries and because in hazardous weather, drivers face unique vulnerabilities and opportunities to make choices that affect both their own safety and that of many others. Systems and technologies designed to convey road weather information to travelers continue to evolve, and transformative changes such as autonomous vehicles may fundamentally alter how people deal with hazardous weather in their vehicles. SBS research is critical for designing safe, effective road weather information systems, and for understanding the needs and behavior of transportation managers and individual drivers in the face of such developments. The Committee assembled to carry out this effort comprises a mix of experts in meteorology from the public, private, and academic sectors, and experts with training in social, behavioral, and related sciences, including, for example, communications, decision and policy sciences, human factors, and sociology. The Committee’s information-gathering work included public sessions at four meetings (including one full-day workshop), where they heard perspectives from many dozens of people across the weather enterprise.

RECENT ADVANCES AND REMAINING CHALLENGES

A growing, diverse base of research addressing many dimensions of the weather- society interface has emerged over the past two decades or more. Among other topics, this research has explored factors that influence the interactions and decisions of weather enterprise professionals (e.g., forecasters, broadcast meteorologists, and emergency and transportation managers); the ways that people receive, interpret, and use hazardous weather forecasts, warnings, and preparedness information; the factors that underlie social vulnerability to different types of weather hazards; and the economic value of weather information to different sectors and stakeholders. Research advances are providing transformative opportunities for expanding these contributions to the weather enterprise, with new tools and models making it possible to collect, analyze, interpret, and apply data and information both at smaller and larger scales. For instance, eye-tracking technologies now enable fine-scale examination of the use of visual information in weather-related warnings. Studies of the spread and influence of information across broad social networks are now possible through social media analyses and the application of big data, data analytics, and cognitive computing. As these research and data collection activities demonstrate, exciting opportunities exist for further advancing weather-related research, both within the social and behavioral sciences and across social and physical sciences. The innovative

Summary

research projects and activities to date have made demonstrable contributions both to the social and behavioral sciences and to meteorology. Achieving this potential however, requires addressing a variety of remaining barriers and challenges. This is still a nascent area of research. New insights are not yet routinely applied in practice, and the accumulation of knowledge has been hampered by the relatively small scale, intermittency, and inconsistency of investment in these kinds of efforts. Financial support for research at the SBS-weather interface comes primarily from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and FHWA programs. Exact funding levels are difficult to ascertain because the agencies do not typically track SBS investments separately, and many studies include SBS research as a component of a larger project. It appears, however, that the level of financial support for SBS-weather research is growing over time but is still a small frac- tion of the overall support of weather research by these agencies. Numerous reports going back many years have highlighted needs and challenges similar to those identified here, yet many of the same challenges remain today. Evidence indicates that overcoming these challenges is not idea-limited, but rather is resource-limited. The limited and inconsistent level of support for (both disciplinary and interdisciplinary) SBS-weather research to date has made it difficult to sustain a critical mass of robust studies, let alone to expand research capacity. Organizations across the weather enterprise—including several federal agencies, private-sector weather companies, academic institutions, and professional societies— have shared motivations for actively contributing to the expansion of SBS-weather research through a variety of practical roles that are discussed in this report. Private- sector weather companies that carry out proprietary marketing research and audience surveys (often aimed largely at expanding viewership and market share) have opportunities for contributing more directly to fundamental new SBS insights; currently, however, these insights are not routinely shared with the research community more broadly. Public–private partnerships to support such research could yield great benefits for all involved, especially by advancing research that looks “end to end” across different parts of the weather forecasting and communication chain. The regular collection of high-quality data is a critical foundation for progress in SBS research. Several existing federal agency data collection activities could, with modest additions and greater interagency coordination, significantly expand our understanding of the social context of hazardous weather. This includes, for instance, data collection activities led by NOAA (National Weather Service “Service Assessments,” Natural Hazard Statistics), by Federal Emergency Management Agency (Mitigation Assessment Team Program, National Household Survey), and by the

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Disaster Surveillance Workgroup programs, the National Center for Health Statistics’ mortality and injury data collection). Some barriers that have inhibited progress in integrating SBS research within the weather enterprise are challenges that often arise when fostering interdisciplinary work among diverse science communities with different knowledge sets, research goals, and capacities. For example, rather than viewing SBS research as an “add- on” to weather research in the physical and engineering sciences, interdisciplinary approaches to weather-related research should be pursued from the outset of a project. Addressing these barriers requires a more realistic understanding (by meteorologists and others in the weather enterprise) of the diverse disciplines, theories, and research methodologies used within the social and behavioral sciences; of the time and resources needed for robust SBS research; and of the inherent limitations in providing simple, universally applicable answers to complex social science questions.

A FRAMEWORK TO SUSTAINABLY SUPPORT AND EFFECTIVELY USE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE IN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

The government agencies, private-sector weather companies, and academic research institutions in the weather enterprise all have important roles to play in advancing the support for and application of research at the SBS-weather interface. Drawing on the insights of all those who contributed to this study, and our analysis of prior recommendations and current gaps and opportunities, we recommend the following as priority actions for the weather enterprise.

Invest in Leadership to Build Awareness

Effectively integrating social and behavioral sciences into organizations that have historically been rooted in the physical sciences requires leadership at the highest levels. Across the weather enterprise, leaders themselves need to invest time in understanding and spreading awareness to key constituencies and stakeholders of the many ways that social and behavioral sciences can help advance their organization’s goals related to weather readiness; hazard monitoring, assessment, and forecasting processes; emergency management and response; and long-term recovery. To aid these efforts, federal agencies, private companies, and leading academic programs within the weather enterprise need to augment their leadership teams to include executives and managers with strong and diverse social science backgrounds.

Summary

Recommendation: Leaders of the weather enterprise should take steps to accelerate this paradigm shift by underscoring the importance of SBS contributions in fulfilling their organizational missions and achieving operational and research goals, by bringing SBS expertise into their leadership teams, and by establishing relevant policies and goals to effect necessary organizational changes.

Build Capacity Throughout the Weather Enterprise

Building SBS research capacity is an enterprise-wide concern and responsibility. However, NOAA will need to play a central role in driving this research forward if it is to achieve the agency’s goals of improving the nation’s weather readiness. NOAA’s approach thus far has been to support an ad hoc mix of different types of SBS research activities (in-house, contractor led, directly competed), a variety of community- and capacity-building efforts, and supplemental support for NSF funding opportunities. While these efforts have individually made worthwhile contributions, collectively it has proven difficult to build sustained momentum for this field of research and to advance effective operational application of new insights gained. Building capacity to support and implement SBS research depends on more sustained funding and increased intellectual resources, including professional staff trained and experienced in SBS research and its effective application. Several possible mechanisms for advancing SBS capacity at NOAA are described in this report, such as innovative public–private partnerships for interdisciplinary weather research, the development of an SBS-focused NOAA Cooperative Institute, or creation of SBS-focused programs within existing Cooperative Institutes. New sustained efforts by other key federal agencies such as NSF, DHS, and FHWA, and by academic institutions and research labs and the private sector, will also be critical for expanding capacity to support research and operations at the SBS-weather interface. Just as important as the mechanisms for supporting research are the research assessment and agenda-setting activities, community-building programs, and information- sharing venues that help build a professional community working at the SBS-weather interface. Some existing platforms for sustained dialogue and strategic planning among public-sector, private-sector, and academic representatives (e.g., within the American Meteorological Society, National Weather Association, and American Asso- ciation of State Highway Transportation Officials) could provide an effective base for SBS-related strategic planning as well. Interagency cooperation and collaboration could be pursued through mechanisms the federal government currently employs,

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

such as interagency working groups or university-based research centers supported by multiple agencies. Fully engaging SBS in the ways discussed in this report would be a major adjustment for the weather enterprise and would require changes in the culture and operation of NOAA and many of its partner organizations. A concerted effort will be required to build capacity in future professionals at the undergraduate and graduate levels and in professionals working today to advance the needed SBS-weather research and its integration into operations. In particular, targeted training programs can help researchers from the social, physical, and engineering sciences better understand each other’s diversity of research methodologies and capacities and limitations. Viable approaches include interdisciplinary or joint degree programs, training at multi- or transdisciplinary centers in team science, building on NOAA’s currently developing SBS training efforts, and utilizing existing training platforms such as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Emergency Management Institute and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) COMET program.

Recommendation: Federal agencies and private-sector weather companies should, together with leading SBS scholars with diverse expertise, immediately begin a planning process to identify specific investments and activities that collectively advance research at the SBS-weather interface. This planning process should also address critical supporting activities for research assessment, agenda setting, community building, and information sharing and the development of methods to collectively track funding support for this suite of research activities at the SBS-weather interface.

In addition, NOAA should build more sustainable institutional capacity for research and operations at the SBS-weather interface and should advance cooperative planning to expand SBS research among other federal agencies that play critical roles in weather-related research operations. In particular, this should include leadership from: • NSF for a strong standing program that supports interdisciplinary research at the SBS-weather interface, • FHWA for research related to weather impacts on driver choices and behaviors, and • FEMA for research on the social and human factors that affect weather readiness, including decisions and actions by individuals, communities, and emergency management to prepare for, prevent, respond to, mitigate, and recover from weather hazards.

Summary

All parties in the weather enterprise should continue to develop and implement training programs for current and next generation workforces in order to expand capacity for SBS-weather research and applications in the weather enterprise.

Focus on Critical Knowledge Gaps

Recommendation: The weather enterprise should support research efforts in the following areas: • Weather enterprise system–focused research. To address this gap requires system-level studies of weather information production, dissemination, and evaluation; studies of how forecasters, broadcast media, emergency and transportation managers, and private weather companies create information and interact and communicate among themselves; studies of forecaster decision making, such as what observational platforms and numerical weather prediction guidance forecasters use and how they use them; studies of how to assess the economic value of weather services; and studies of team performance and organizational behavior within weather forecast offices and other parts of the weather enterprise. • Risk assessments and responses, and factors influencing these processes. This includes research on how to better reach and inform special-interest populations that have unique needs, such as vehicle drivers and others vulnerable to hazardous weather due to their location, resources, and capabilities. It also includes research on how people’s interest in, access to, and interpretation of weather information, as well as their decisions and actions in response, are affected by their specific social or physical context, prior experiences, cultural background, and personal values. • Message design, delivery, interpretation, and use. Persistent challenges include understanding how communicating forecast uncertainties in different formats influences understanding and action; how to balance consistency in messaging with needs for flexibility to suit different geographical, cultural, and

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

use contexts, including warning specificity and impact-based warnings; and how new communication and information technologies—including the proliferation of different sources, content, and channels of weather information— interact with message design and are changing people’s weather information access, interpretations, preparedness, and response.

CONCLUSION

To shift focus from forecasts of atmospheric conditions to the “protection of life and property” and “enhancement of the national economy” is not an incremental step but a major shift in emphasis for the weather enterprise. While efforts to advance meteorological research and numerical weather prediction should continue, realizing the greatest return on investment from such efforts requires fully engaging the social and behavioral sciences—both to expand the frontiers of knowledge within SBS disciplines and to foster more extensive application of these sciences across the weather enterprise. Other areas of applied science—particularly in the realm of public health—offer important lessons about effective strategies for integrating social and behavioral sciences. For example, conditions found to be important for incorporating SBS into the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration include high-level leadership and grassroots champions within the agencies, sustained funding, and a strong core of in-house SBS expertise. These experiences illustrate that it takes patience and persistence to build a robust presence of social and behavioral sciences within enterprises that have historically been dominated by other scientific disciplines. But with high-level leadership and vision, consistent financial support, and innovative partnerships, tremendous successes can indeed be achieved, to the great benefit of society at large.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 MOTIVATION FOR THIS STUDY

eather is shaped by physical processes in our oceans and atmosphere, but the impacts of weather are shaped to an equal or greater degree by a wide Wvariety of social and behavioral factors. To shift in focus from forecasts of atmospheric temperatures and precipitation to the protection of life and property, and enhancement of the national economy, is not an incremental step but a major shift in emphasis. Yet, making this leap from weather forecast to application for societal benefit has long been a goal, reaching back to the origins of the weather enterprise (defined in Box 1.1). Weather forecasts today provide greater geographical specificity and accuracy than ever before, but at the same time, individuals, businesses, institutions, and governments have grown more reliant on forecasts and thus more vulnerable to prediction errors, uncertainties, and misapplications. Accelerating social change challenges efforts to make effective use of forecasts for societal benefit. Society is urbanizing and increasingly connecting through new information and communication technologies. Businesses are moving to zero-inventory and just-in-time approaches, driven by global as well as local supply chains, and numerous economic sectors (e.g., agribusiness, energy, health, transportation, water resource management) thus have growing and changing vulnerabilities to extreme weather. As a result, realizing the fullest benefits of weather information increasingly requires understanding how individuals, households, organizations, communities, and social systems prepare for and respond to weather, and how weather information in all its manifestations informs decisions and behaviors. For this reason, many previous reports from the National Academies have stressed the importance of social science for improving our nation’s weather readiness, forecasting, and response capabilities. When Weather Matters: Science and Service to Meet Critical Societal Needs (NRC, 2010) identified social science research and sustained collaboration between social and physical scientists as being as important as advances in physical science understanding and technical advances in numerical weather prediction for improving operational weather forecasts and weather disaster response. Weather Services for the Nation: Becoming Second to None (NRC, 2012) recommended that the National Weather Service create outside governance and evaluation mechanisms

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

BOX 1.1 Definitions

Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) are defined in this report as including—but not limited to—anthropology, communication, decision sciences, demography, economics, geography, political science, psychology, and sociology. Social and behavioral scientific research encompasses the systematic study of society at all levels, from influences on individual behaviors, to the roles and dynamics of institutions, cultures, and social movements. Focal topics can include beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, emotions, decisions, and actions, as well as interactions with the physical environment and other people, across diverse social and institutional contexts. Social and behavioral scientists rely on a variety of rigorous quantitative and qualitative methods such as participant observations, experiments, surveys, individual and focus group interviews, and content analysis to collect data. They use a variety of methods to derive and test general theories and model the behaviors being studied.a Several other fields of study that may not conventionally be defined as SBS also have important knowledge and methods that can be brought to bear in SBS studies of the weather enterprise, such as human-centered design and engineering, urban planning and public administration, science and technology studies, and the computational and informational sciences.

Weather Enterprise: A variety of definitions of this concept have been used over time (see NRC, 2012 for a detailed discussion). For the purpose of this report, we define the Weather Enterprise as the broadest set of public, private, and academic organizations, institutions, and individuals that observe, predict, communicate, and provide decision support information related to weather and associated environmental phenomena. An expanded form of this term—the “Weather, Water, and Climate Enterprise”—is finding increased usage. While we recognize the merits of this more inclusive label, here we use “Weather Enterprise” to avoid confusion about the scope of this study, which focuses on preparation for and response to near-term weather, as opposed to seasonal, interannual, or long-term climate variations.b

a For a discussion of and introduction to deductive and inductive approaches used in social science, see, for example, Gerring, 2011. b As discussed later, there is a growing body of SBS research related to longer-term meteorological and climatological changes, which offers many critical insights for those studying issues related to near-term weather preparedness and response.

that include social and behavioral science expertise in routine assessment of weather disasters. Similar recommendations have been made in numerous other reports by professional societies, scientific conferences, and other sources. So why undertake another study on this topic? It is because the integration of social and behavioral sciences (referred to herein as SBS) into the work of the weather enterprise has proven challenging to actually accomplish in an effective, sustained manner.

Introduction

It is a challenge that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other key partners across the weather enterprise have been struggling with for many years. Progress is evident (see Section 3.1), but occurring at a rate that many consider to be unacceptably slow and frustrating, both for the SBS and meteorological research communities (see Section 3.2). Several factors point to this as an opportune time for a fresh attempt to address this issue: • The National Science Foundation (NSF) and NOAA have been experimenting with a number of different approaches for funding work at the SBS-weather interface over the past several years (see Section 3.1h). Partly as a result of this support, there is a growing community of social science practitioners studying weather-related issues (see Sections 3.1a,c,d). The expertise of this community, along with the momentum provided by previous assessments and reports, can now be drawn on to identify a forward-looking research agenda and to develop the frameworks and mechanisms needed for improved integration of SBS and meteorology across the weather enterprise and within numerous SBS research communities. • Advances in SBS have enabled other areas of risk management—such as emergency response (NRC, 2006b), driver behavior (NRC, IOM, and TRB, 2007), aviation safety (Wiggins and Stevens, 2016), and public health (Smedley and Syme, 2000)—to make progress in incorporating SBS findings and expertise into their operations. This raises new opportunities for the weather enterprise to learn from these other experiences, both in terms of mechanisms for facilitating cross-disciplinary interaction and in terms of the new SBS scholarship generated in these efforts. • There are numerous developments occurring with the weather enterprise itself related to new forecasting and communication technologies, capabilities, and approaches (NASEM, 2016a; NWS, 2017a) and a growing emphasis on impact-based decision support (NWS, 2013)—all of which raise critically important new questions that can only be addressed through dedicated SBS research. • There is growing congressional interest in expanding the use of SBS in weather operations. The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 enacted by Congress in April 2017 calls on NOAA to issue a research and development and research-to-operations plan that (among other things) “identifies, through consultation with NSF, the U.S. weather industry, and academic partners, research necessary to enhance the integration of social science knowledge into weather forecast and warning processes, including to improve the communication of threat information necessary to enable

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

improved severe weather planning and decision making on the part of individuals and communities.” The goal of this study is to advance efforts to generate and apply SBS research in the contexts of weather preparedness, forecasting, and response. It aims to identify opportunities to accelerate relevant findings and better engage researchers and practitioners from multiple social science fields, and to advance strategies for fostering more cooperation in this endeavor among public, private, and academic sectors. We go beyond previous reports on this topic by taking a close look at the infrastructure that is needed to ensure SBS can thrive within the weather enterprise. Two of the key terms used in this effort are described in Box 1.1. Over the past century, the development of global observation systems and numerical weather prediction models has enabled the weather enterprise to predict conditions conducive to hazards up to several days in advance and to issue timely warnings as events unfold. This leap in capabilities, resulting from long-term investments in physical science research, has paid enormous dividends to the public (Lazo et al., 2009). At the same time, many SBS disciplines have continued to advance theories, observational and modeling techniques, and experimental designs, which together have vastly increased our understanding of the human dimensions of many critical societal problems and concerns. Given the solid foundation existing in both the physical science and SBS domains, this is an opportune time for exciting interdisciplinary work that investigates critical weather and society issues from multiple angles. Disci- plines such as meteorology, hydrology, and numerous social and behavioral sciences, each individually and jointly, hold great promise to continue advancing the weather enterprise.

1.2 ORIGIN, GOALS, AND PROCESS FOR THIS STUDY

This study was requested and sponsored by NOAA’s Office of Weather and Air Quality (within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research), NOAA’s National Weather Service, and the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (DOT/FHWA). The study was developed through discussions with key personnel within these agencies, and with an array of select experts from academic and private-sector backgrounds—in particular at a scoping meeting held in July 2015, where the main elements of this study were shaped. See the Official Task for the Committee in Box 1.2. Note that the Committee was asked not only to advise the sponsoring federal agencies, but to consider how the weather enterprise as a whole might help ensure that critical SBS research is robustly supported and effectively applied.

Introduction

BOX 1.2 Charge to the Committee

An ad hoc committee will develop a framework for generating and applying social and behavioral science (SBS) research within the context of meteorology, weather forecasting, and weather preparedness and response. It will identify opportunities to accelerate relevant findings and better engage knowledge and practitioners from multiple social science fields with the weather enterprise, including multiple users of weather information (e.g., transportation, military, agriculture, aviation, energy). Specifically, the committee will:

1. Assess current SBS activities and applications within the weather enterprise, which encompasses meteorological research, operational forecasting, and users of weather information. 2. Describe the potential value of improved integration of SBS and meteorological sciences and institutions, and identify barriers to better integration. 3. Develop a research agenda aimed at advancing the application of social and behavioral sciences for improving the nation’s weather readiness while providing opportunities to advance fundamental social science knowledge. 4. Identify infrastructural and institutional arrangements necessary to successfully pursue SBS weather research and the transfer of relevant findings to operational settings. This will include: a. An examination of present roles within the public, private, and academic sectors of the weather enterprise for conducting SBS research and applying findings, and recommendation of strategies that could improve coordination. b. Specific mechanisms for improving interagency coordination to advance SBSresearch relevant to weather forecasting and emergency response. c. An assessment the types of routine observations needed to conduct SBS research in support of weather operations, as well as mechanisms within the enterprise for contributing to data collection. d. A discussion of implications for work force development, staffing, and training within the weather enterprise.

The Committee assembled to carry out this effort comprises a mix of experts in physical meteorology (coming from public, private, and academic sectors) and experts in several different social, behavioral, and related sciences. Some have direct experience working at the SBS-weather interface, while others were chosen to offer fresh perspectives from beyond this immediate realm of research. (See Appendix D for biosketches of the Committee members.)

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Over the course of this study, the Committee held five in-person meetings to gather information and perspectives, to share and debate views, and to work on developing this report. From the outset, the Committee sought to build on the wide array of studies, reports, and workshop proceedings that have looked at various angles of this issue over the past several years. The Committee also sought to build on ideas and perspectives of many different stakeholders across the weather enterprise. To this end, more than 40 people interacted with the Committee over the course of the first four meetings, including one full-day workshop held in December 2016. (See Appendix C for a full list of people who provided input to the Committee.) Additional perspectives were gathered via written input and an open comment option on the Committee’s webpage. Those who provided input included representatives of several federal agencies, including NOAA, FHWA, NSF, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);1 local emergency managers and state DOT officials; a wide variety of SBS and meteorology researchers; broadcast meteorologists; and representatives of several weather-related companies. The Committee hopes this study will provide valuable guidance for an array of govern mental and nongovernmental stakeholders across the weather enterprise, and for numerous SBS research communities that are seeking to direct their attention more systematically toward research and applications in meteorology.

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

The structure of the rest of this report is as follows: • Chapter 2 discusses how SBS research helps address the mission of saving lives and other important challenges facing the weather enterprise today, especially in the context of rapidly changing forecast and communication technologies. The chapter discusses the potential benefits of collaboration for both SBS and meteorology and discusses the challenges of quantifying value and defining success stemming from new SBS insights. • Chapter 3 provides an overview of the wide array of activities that have been undertaken in recent years, or are currently undertaken, to help advance the presence of SBS research within the weather enterprise. It also includes discussion of some key challenges that have thus far impeded greater progress.

1 Although the U.S. military branches are in many respects an important part of the nation’s weather enterprise, they represent a unique context for SBS research and were not encompassed within the explorations and recommendations of this study.

Introduction

• Chapter 4 offers a more specific focus on how SBS research can help address road weather concerns, motivated in part by the fact that vehicle accidents are the dominant cause of weather-related deaths in the United States. • Chapter 5 elucidates the breadth of SBS research methodologies and models that can be used to study weather-related questions, identifies knowledge gaps, and offers an illustrative agenda of compelling research questions to address those gaps in the coming years. • Chapter 6 discusses the overall framework for more effectively supporting and applying SBS research across the weather enterprise, discussing the complementary roles and possible steps forward that can be pursued by NOAA and other partner agencies, private-sector weather companies, and the academic community. • Chapter 7 summarizes the Committee’s key findings and recommendations.

CHAPTER 2

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

uilding appreciation of how social and behavioral sciences (SBS) can contribute to the goals of the weather enterprise means appreciating both the diversity of BSBS disciplines and research methodologies that exist, and the diversity of issues that such expertise can help address—reaching well beyond the task of refining how weather forecasts and warnings are communicated. This chapter provides an overview of these many potential contributions (see Section 2.1) and examples of recent contributions (see Box 2.1); it discusses how the weather enterprise is currently evolving, and why such developments raise new needs for SBS research (see Section 2.2); and it discusses why it can be challenging to define success and assign value to the outcomes of such research (see Section 2.3).

2.1 WHY THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE NEEDS SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE INSIGHTS

The motivation for integrating social and behavioral sciences within the weather enterprise is tied directly to the official mission of the National Weather Service (NWS), and, arguably by extension, the mission of the weather enterprise at large: Provide weather, water, and climate data, forecasts, and warnings for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. Success in achieving this mission requires the capability to effectively inform decision making and to help people prepare for and respond to many types of hazardous weather—not just among individuals, but among numerous institutional actors. Improving scientific understanding of the factors that affect decision making and behavior has the potential to fundamentally strengthen the performance of the weather enterprise. In the recent decades, there have been numerous advances in meteorological and hydrological sciences that have led to substantial improvements in technical forecasting and warning capabilities (NASEM, 2016a; NWS, 2017a). Yet, this progress often has not translated into similar advances in protecting lives from hazardous weather. The high death toll from a historic tornado outbreak across numerous states in 2011 is

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

BOX 2.1 Examples of Social and Behavioral Science (SBS) Input to Weather Enterprise Operations

Below are just a few recent examples of different types of SBS research that are helping to advance the goals of the weather enterprise.

• Storm surges from hurricanes cause significant damage to property and loss of life along the coast, yet there is little public understanding of these risks (Morrow et al., 2015). In recent years, there have been growing efforts both to improve physical science forecasts of storm surge and to improve risk communication with the public. Most recently, the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Hurricane Center (NHC) led the “Potential Storm Surge Flooding Map” project, to provide more accurate real-time forecast guidance for storm surges, and to communicate this information in a way that is useful for people to act upon. This new mapping product shows areas where storm surge could occur during a tropical cyclone event. By accounting for factors such as land elevation and tides, it allows the user to see areas that could receive extremely high flooding, as well as areas that are routinely flooded (see Figure A). This product was developed in consultation with emergency managers, broadcast meteorologists, and social scientists. An interdisciplinary team, including a sociologist, an economist, a meteorologist, and an engineer, contributed to the research to create a surge product—including the product colors, wording, and labels—based on studies of stakeholders’ reactions, interpretations, and preferences. For example, the term “low” was changed in maps because it was found to cause underestimation of risk, and the term “height above ground level” was found to be more effective than “sea level” (Morrow et al., 2015). The NHC began using these maps in an operational capacity in 2014. • A recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-funded study on Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for Mobile Devices (Bean et al., 2014) examined the effectiveness of Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) mobile text messages, which are used for a variety of hazard alerts, including some weather hazards. In looking at ways to optimize WEA message content, a key finding was that longer messages of 280 characters, rather than the current 90 characters, are more effective at motivating protective actions. As a direct result of this study, in September 2016, the Federal Communications Commission took steps to update rules for WEA messages by lengthening the character limit and adopting other beneficial features identified in the study. • A series of studies by Sorensen and Mileti (2017a,b,c) examined systems-level emergency management operations related to controlled releases of floodwaters from dams, dam breaches, and flooding related to levee overtopping or breach. They modeled the processes of warning issuance (the framework, activities, and length of time between when an emergency management agency first learns of an impending or occurring hazard event and the

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

time when that community transmits a public warning to people), warning diffusion (the time between when an alert or warning is received by a person at risk and the initiation of a recommended protective action by that person). Such studies illustrate how SBS research can address more than just individual-level communication issues to improve understanding of and provide practical guidance to and protective action initiation (the time between when an alert or warning is received by a person at risk and the initiation of a recommended protective action emergency management operations at the systems level. • Numerous behavioral economics studies have illuminated the dynamics of how homeowners in risk-prone areas think and act with regard to purchasing flood insurance. For instance, most homeowners in flood-prone areas do not voluntarily purchase flood insurance until after they suffer damage from a disaster, and they are likely to cancel polices if they do not experience losses in the subsequent few years (Atreya et al., 2015; Kunreuther et al., 2013), leading to a mean tenure for flood insurance policies of only 2 to 4 years (Michel-Kerjan et al., 2012). Kousky (2017) notes that the boost in flood insurance purchases that followed recent disasters is largely attributable to the requirement that disaster aid recipients be insured. Behavioral research also indicates that low rates of flood insurance update are driven more by homeowners’ underestimation of flood damage than by their understanding of the probability of flooding (Botzen et al., 2015; Kousky and Michel-Kerjan, 2015). Although more research is needed, studies to date can help inform the redesign of flood insurance policies to make them more effective and sustainable, and can help shed light on how information about weather impacts influences insurance uptake (Michel-Kerjan and Kunreuther, 2011).

Figure A Illustration of the storm surge mapping product brought into operational use by the National Hurricane Center in 2014. SOURCE: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/inundation.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

cited by many National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials as the “wake up call” that led to the creation of the Weather-Ready Nation initiative (NWS, 2011), discussed later in this section. Other recent examples: In 2012, Superstorm Sandy affected millions and is reported to have killed 117 people along the U.S. East Coast. In this event, accurate forecasts and widespread warnings failed to trigger, for many people, the protective behaviors that experts in the weather enterprise recommended and were hoping to see (CDC, 2013; Terrell, 2016). In 2013, during a deadly tornado outbreak in Oklahoma, thousands of people fled their homes in cars despite years of messaging about the dangers of encountering tornados in a vehicle. Analysis found that several factors, including people’s recent experiences with another large tornado event and conflicting advice from different local broadcast officials, contributed to this outcome (NWS, 2014). Most recently, in autumn 2017, Hurricane Harvey brought record-breaking rainfall to the Texas Gulf Coast, leading to dozens of deaths and many thousands of water rescues; Hurricane Irma affected the entire state of Florida with power outages, storm surges, widespread damage, and fatalities; and Hurricane Maria caused widespread devastation across Puerto Rico. These events illustrated the weather enterprise’s many successes, with forecasts and public safety communications that enabled millions of people to take recommended precautionary actions. Yet, these events also illustrated many of the huge challenges we still face, for instance, in effectively communicating about weather hazards with inherent uncertainties (e.g., rapidly changing information about storm tracks), and informing decisions about protecting and evacuating dense population centers, developing more resilient urban infrastructure and more sustainable flood insurance policies, and providing response and recovery support that ultimately increases weather readiness for all. As a result of such experiences, there is increasing recognition that SBS insights provide a critical underpinning of the weather enterprise. The breadth of possible contributions becomes clear when looking at the goals that the NWS has articulated for its signature initiative, “Weather Ready Nation” (WRN). These goals are • to provide forecast information in a way that better supports emergency managers, first responders, government officials, businesses, and the public to make fast, smart decisions that save lives and property and enhance livelihoods; • to move new science and technology into NWS operations that will improve forecasts and ultimately increase weather-readiness; and • to foster dialog with local communities that will ultimately reduce the risk of being adversely impacted by extreme weather and water events and increase community resilience for future extreme events.

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

A centerpiece of the WRN strategy is the concept of Impact-based Decision Support Services (IDSS), defined as “provision of relevant information and interpretative services to enable core partners’ decisions when weather, water, or climate has a direct impact on the protection of lives and livelihoods” (NWS, 2013). The paradigm of WRN and IDSS has far-reaching implications for how the weather enterprise operates. It requires NWS to work with a wide array of partners in government agencies that address emergency management, transportation management, and public health, as well as researchers, the media, civic institutions, the insurance industry, and private-sector weather companies. These partners and the myriad relationships and interactions among them raise a host of new social and behavioral science issues to understand and navigate effectively. Figure 2.1 illustrates the stages involved in weather-related communication and decision support that must be addressed under the WRN paradigm—with a few examples of how SBS research can provide critically needed insights and understanding in each of these stages. Figure 2.2 presents a temporal perspective on these weather enterprise activities. It illustrates the broad potential impact of SBS research by showing how decision making and actions at different scales within the timeframe of a hazardous weather event depend on, and can influence, social and physical contexts. The growing emphasis on IDSS also points to the need to focus beyond just forecast and warning products toward services that support decisions for “end to end” integrated planning and for building resiliency throughout the full cycle of preparedness and mitigation; monitoring, assessment, and forecasting; dissemination of warnings and recommended actions; response efforts of institutions and individuals; and post-event assessment and recovery efforts. Below we briefly discuss how SBS research is critical to each of these different stages. This builds on a framework defined by Quarantelli (1990), as well as a variety of other activities that require organizational coordination and decision making (Bostrom et al., 2016; Morss et al., 2015). • Preparedness and mitigation (that is, weather readiness) efforts are motivated by the fact that preventing adverse impacts from hazardous weather requires understanding many contextual factors that can turn a potential weather hazard into an actual disaster—ranging from land use, built environment, and geographic vulnerabilities to the demographic, cultural, and economic characteristics of the specific populations at risk. It also requires understanding (well before a specific weather hazard ever arises) the highly context-specific factors that affect what “protective actions” are actually feasible and effective for any given community, household, or individual to follow. SBS research is needed to inform all of these considerations.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

FIGURE 2.1 Stages of communication and decision support that must be addressed under the Weather Ready Nation paradigm, with examples of how social and behavioral sciences (SBS) research can provide critical insights and understanding in each of these stages.

Temporal perspective on the decisions and actions occurring at different social and physical scales within the time frame of of scales within the time frame perspective social and physical on the decisions and actions occurring different at Temporal

hazardous weather events. Note that relevant social scales range from individual actors to society, as discussed in numerous social and social and as discussed in numerous individual actors society, from to social scales range relevant that Note events. weather hazardous 2015). Sallis and Owens, 2008; Renn, 1977; Bronfenbronner, models (e.g., behavioral FEMA = Administration; Aviation = Federal FAA EOC = emergency center; operations and Prevention; Disease Control for CDC = Centers NOTE: Service. Weather NWS = National Administration; Highway = Federal FHWA Emergency Management Agency; Federal FIGURE 2.2

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

• Assessment and monitoring of weather (e.g., at specialized national forecast centers and at local forecast offices) involves designing or selecting monitoring infrastructure and interfaces, developing or interpreting standards for categorizing weather conditions, and conducting monitoring activities individually and in teams. There are multiple points at which social, behavioral, and human factors research can inform improvements, such as design and use of visualizations and other tools showing dynamic results from sensors, expert consultation and judgment to interpret model outputs, design and selection of thresholds for weather risks that will trigger particular response actions, decisions regarding whether such thresholds have been met, and translation of information from one domain to another (e.g., visualizations into stylized text). Weather monitoring involves diverse data from multiple sources, ranging from national satellites to regional radar to local spotters. This raises communication and decision-making challenges about how to weigh these diverse sources of input. Decisions about where and when to issue watches and warnings often entail both inter- and intra-organizational coordination. • Dissemination of weather information can include formal products, channels, and standardized operating procedures, as well as informal or ad hoc local procedures. SBS research can improve the design, implementation, and evaluation of each of these, as well as how they function collectively. For example, hurricane-related communication products may be developed and issued by multiple organizations (e.g., National Hurricane Center, local Weather Forecast Office, various media outlets). Dissemination may include intra-agency hot- line calls and automatic feeds to emergency managers, as well as standard operating procedures for moving to 24-7 broadcasting at major media outlets (Bostrom et al., 2016). SBS can inform the design, operation, and evaluation of such systems and products, and can inform goal-setting by examining these systems comparatively and experimentally. Moreover, dissemination is not solely a top-down process originating from weather organizations; it also involves social networks and processes that interact with (or can even super- sede) formal dissemination processes. Research on these dynamics is essential. • Response is a function of both selective perception and social confirmation, and it is driven by vulnerability, social and physical context, awareness and beliefs, and numerous other social and behavioral factors, in addition to the actual content of warning messages (Quarantelli, 1990; Sorensen, 2000). Examining responses to weather warnings is a rich field of research, but much remains to be learned, especially in light of the rapid evolution of communications technologies and practices. SBS can inform the evaluation of current responses, design of new response options, and the development of feedback

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

mechanisms to improve the entire system. It can also inform organizational coordination and the prediction of responses. This encompasses studies to understand the information needs and dynamics not just of the public at large, but likewise for the many different response professionals (e.g., emergency managers, road maintenance engineers, school superintendents) who must make critical decisions well in advance of a pending weather event. • Recovery efforts taking place in the days to years after a major weather event occurs present another opportunity where SBS research can provide numerous critical insights. This includes, for instance, studies of how and why injuries and deaths occurred and what sort of changes are needed to prevent recur- rence of such outcomes in the future, as well as studies of how households, communities, and regions can rebuild in ways that reduce vulnerability to similar future events.

2.2 SOME CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAGNIFY THE NEED FOR SBS RESEARCH

The weather enterprise is a highly dynamic system that evolves continuously in terms of new technologies and forecasting capabilities, new means of collecting and sharing observations, and ever-growing public demand for new types of weather services. Many of these changes raise important new questions that require SBS expertise and methodologies to address. A few examples discussed below help to illustrate that SBS research is not only critical to the weather enterprise today, but also may become even more important in the future.

Proliferation of Weather Information Sources

While the NWS is the original source of most U.S. weather observations, forecasts, and watches/warnings, it is no longer the direct source of weather information for most Americans. Rather, NWS information is filtered through a complex, ever-evolving communication chain of secondary sources. Institutional actors such as private firms, large event and venue managers, and state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) often get customized information from “value-added meteorology” companies. A 2009 study (Lazo et al., 2009) found that the most common source of forecast information for the general public is local television stations; cable television and radio are the next most popular sources, followed by web pages and newspapers. In recent years, there has been a huge growth in various types of weather apps for mobile phones, as well as growth in the communication of weather information via social media channels such

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

as Twitter and Facebook, and crowdsource-driven platforms where anyone can report weather conditions in their area—similar to how some popular mobile phone apps gather information from drivers about traffic congestion. Role of SBS. This ever more diverse and complex communication chain presents a tremendous challenge that underscores the need for SBS research to better understand how different target populations (e.g., in different age groups, different geographic locations) receive and process weather information in different contexts, and how people are affected by differing, sometimes conflicting information coming from these diverse sources.

FACETS and Warn-on-Forecast

Forecasting a Continuum of Environmental Threats (FACETs) is a project of the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory that proposes to modernize the high-impact weather forecasting and communication processes by addressing seven interrelated functions of the watch and warning process: the nature of hazardous weather; observations and guidance; forecaster decisions; forecast generation tools; useable output; effective response; and verification. Currently NWS follows a “warn-on-detection” strategy, in which warnings for local severe weather are not issued until there is an early signal on radar, or the weather hazard is physically spotted, which in some cases does not provide the public with enough lead time to move to safety. An important development being advanced within FACETs to address such concerns is an alternative “Warn-on-Forecast” strategy, which aims to create computer-model-generated probabilistic maps of storm-scale hazards (tornadoes, large hail, extreme rainfall), allowing forecasters to issue warnings up to an hour before they strike (NSSL, 2015). Researchers use high-resolution surface, satellite, and radar data with an ensemble of forecasts from convection-resolving numerical weather models to produce the probabilistic information. Threat levels are updated in real time based on current weather observations, including data from rapidly scanning radars. Warn-on-Forecast methods are being evaluated in the NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed, as a precursor for transitioning these technologies into forecasting operations. Role of SBS. The Warn-on-Forecast capabilities, and probabilistic-based forecasting strategies more generally, raise a host of questions that require SBS research, such as: How do longer hazard warning lead times affect the ways that people heed and react to warnings? Can they result in unintended and potentially worse societal response (e.g., if people stop sheltering before the storm arrives or try to drive away through crowded urban areas)? How should probabilistic information be displayed to achieve

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

the most accurate interpretation by the public and emergency managers? How, and how frequently, are warnings best updated in time for different forecasting contexts?

GOES-R Satellite Weather Information

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) have been providing imagery and data on atmospheric conditions and space weather since the mid-1970s. In November 2016, the first of three satellites being built to replace the aging U.S. weather satellite system, the GOES-R satellite series, was launched. The GOES-R satellites have numerous advanced features and capabilities that were not available in the previous generation of satellites. For example, they will be able to capture weather details for the entire United States in the same time it took older GOES satellites to image one small stormy region. With these improved detailed pictures and measurements, the forecast models will have more precise data. This development will help the routine process, and it will help track severe storms and create better hurricane forecast tracks. This near-real-time imagery will help meteorologists see which storms are strengthening or weakening, possibly improving lead times for warnings of severe storms, particularly in areas devoid of radar. Storm initiation, which often is seen on satellite images before it appears on radar, will be known much more quickly, allowing forecasters to pinpoint the most likely regions of interest for upcoming severe weather. Role of SBS. Forecasters already have a large amount of incoming data from multiple sources. How will this large new influx of information affect their decision-making processes? Social science research can examine how forecasters access, interpret, and use the newly available information; how they integrate the data into their forecast process; and what is a useful and usable mix of displays to aid the forecaster in various decision making contexts, given the even more frequent input of data coming from the GOES-R satellites.

National Water Model and Hydrometeorological-Forecasting Advances

Forecasting of flooding hazards has the potential to take a significant step forward with the development and recent launch of the National Water Model (NWM). Prior to the NWM, forecasts involved significant forecaster input (e.g., manual modifications to model forcings, states, and parameters) and were limited to deterministic values at ~4,000 locations, with probabilistic forecasts based only on climatology. The NWM provides hourly high-resolution national streamflow guidance, including at locations that

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

are currently underserved. The system will provide real-time flood forecast inundation mapping and, eventually, daily national “situational awareness” products, including visualizations of how flooding hazards are likely to develop in a given location. Related innovations are also advancing at the state level; for instance, new inundation mapping tools and watershed-scale flood mitigation activities are being developed at the Iowa Flood Center.1 Role of SBS. The NWM opens an entirely new set of water resource information for the public and for emergency managers. Both the spatial coverage and temporal resolution will be fundamentally different, and as such, the NWM promises to provide major improvements in predicting and tracking flooding events. Social science can inform how to best use output from the NWM to create useful products for decision makers, for short-term events and longer-term water resource management, and for planning efforts to manage future potential hazards. Social science may also be useful in determining the optimal interactions and task sharing among disparate River Forecast Centers and the National Water Center Operations Center.

Automated and Connected Vehicles

Widespread options already exist for drivers to choose “connected vehicles” that are equipped with features such as internet-enabled navigation and safety alerts, including hazardous weather information. An even more revolutionary development on the horizon is the advent of automated vehicles—sometimes referred to as “self-driving” cars—motivated by the desire to eliminate accidents related to human error and to enable more efficient use of roadways. A number of trial vehicles and systems are already being field tested in several cities around the United States. Automation will allow vehicles to receive and react to real-time information about traffic dynamics and to adjust accordingly. Such vehicles could presumably also react to real-time geo- targeted information about weather hazards and resulting road conditions. Role of SBS. These technological developments raise a host of questions about human-vehicle interactions that require careful study. Connected vehicles raise new questions about the right balance between providing useful real-time alerts to drivers and encouraging drivers to focus on the road instead of information being provided on a screen. Other complex research questions arise with the development of “partial autonomy” technologies that allow the drivers to take the wheel in certain conditions (including severe weather), and with the fact that humans create the algorithms

1 See http://iowafloodcenter.org/ifc-projects for more information.

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

that determine how automated vehicles respond to weather. As noted by Kyriakidis and colleagues (2017), some key research challenges are to understand the synergy between the humans and automation, potential changes in driving behavior due to automation, and the type of information that the drivers will receive from the automated driving system.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather Risks

In addition to these many changes in technologies and processes related to weather information, changes in the weather itself must be considered. The report Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change (NASEM, 2016a) reviews observed trends in different types of extreme weather events and assesses current scientific understanding of the degree to which those trends can be attributed to long-term climate change. This study also reviews the latest scientific thinking about the changes in extreme weather risks that can be expected for the coming decades, briefly summarized below2: • It is expected that cold events should become less frequent and less severe as the climate warms, but it is possible for them to increase in frequency or intensity for periods of time due to increases in the intensity of cold air advec- tion from polar to lower-latitude regions. • It is very likely that heat waves (spells of days with temperature above a threshold determined from historical climatology) will occur with a higher frequency and longer duration. • It is very likely that the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events over land will increase on average; however, this trend will not be apparent in all regions because of natural variability and possible influences of anthropo- genic aerosols. • It is suggested by theory that for the coldest climates, the occurrence of extreme snowfalls should increase with warming due to increasing atmospheric water vapor, while for warmer climates it should decrease due to decreased frequency of subfreezing temperatures. • It is expected that tropical cyclones will become more intense and will have greater precipitation as the climate warms, but the global frequency of tropical cyclone formation is projected to decrease.

2 Details, including the primary references for all of these conclusions, can be found in NASEM (2016a, Chapter 4).

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

• It is expected that coastal flood risk due to storm surge will increase due to both sea level rise and tropical cyclone intensity change. • It is unclear how extratropical cyclones are affected by climate change because there are competing factors that could either weaken or strengthen them, and storm track positions could change location in the future. • It is also unclear how severe convective activity, including tornados and hailstorms over the U.S. plains will be affected. Convective instability increases in a warming climate, but wind shear decreases, and changes in storms will depend on which of these dominates the other. Role of SBS. A critical factor underlying how people react to hazardous weather warnings is their past experiences with such events. This dynamic poses challenges even in the context of normal temporal variability of weather hazards. But when historical weather patterns change such that a region receives more intense or more frequent extreme weather than in the past, the need for effective communication is escalated so that people are in a position to make response decisions based on accurate, up-to- date information and appropriate assumptions about the levels of risk they face.

2.3 THE CHALLENGES OF DEFINING SUCCESS AND QUANTIFYING THE VALUE OF SBS RESEARCH

Making the case for greater support of SBS-weather research would be much easier if it were possible to demonstrate a clear, simple “return on investment.” Although many examples of successful investments in SBS research can be found in the weather enterprise (see examples in Box 2.1), as well as in other realms (see examples in Box 2.2), it is often challenging to draw a direct line from specific investments in SBS studies that yield new insights to specific benefits and outcomes that are measurable and even quantifiable in economic terms. As noted earlier, the stated NWS mission is to provide weather, water, and climate data, forecasts, and warnings for the protection of life and property and enhancement of the national economy. While clear in many respects, this mission involves some fundamental ambiguities, especially regarding how to evaluate progress in meeting this mission. For instance, it is often difficult to unambiguously measure lives lost due to hazardous weather events, since fatalities can result from a complex collection of individuals’ vulnerabilities, decisions and actions, and other factors (see Combs et al., 1999). It is likewise difficult to measure how well an individual or a population is “prepared” for a weather hazard or how preparedness relates to actual outcomes in terms of taking recommended actions and reducing risk. Furthermore, it is hard to scientifically prove

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

BOX 2.2 Examples of Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) Research Contributions in Other Realms

Given the nascent presence of SBS research within the weather enterprise, it is instructive to consider examples of how SBS research has successfully contributed to important national goals in other types of federal agencies and programs. For instance:

National Institutes of Health (NIH). SBS research has contributed to NIH efforts to improve public health in areas such as reducing tobacco use, improving control of infectious diseases, increasing disease screening, and reducing environmental exposures. Some NIH-sponsored longitudinal cohort studies that have involved behavioral research include the Framingham Heart Study of lifestyle characteristics that affect cardiovascular disease risk (begun in 1948 and now collecting data from three generations of participants); and the Nun Study of Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease, in which researchers conducted yearly medical and social-behavioral examinations over several decades, and 98% of the participating sisters donated their brains for research after death. Another example of a major NIH effort involving significant SBS research is the Diabetes Prevention Program, carried out from 1996-1999, which explored the outcomes of taking a prescription drug versus lifestyle change interventions for diet, physical activity, and behavior modification (NIDDK, 2008).

Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Several key CDC mission areas have been advanced through the development, testing, and evaluation of behaviorally and socially based interventions; the study of how attitudes, behaviors, and social factors such as class, family structure, and community integration affect public health; and the identification and reduction of health disparities among different social groups. CDC efforts to reduce transmission of HIV/AIDS have relied heavily on social science research, including the design of interventions directed at vulnerable populations, and evaluation of how such efforts affect behavioral outcomes (e.g., use of condoms, reduction in number of partners) and health outcomes (e.g., reduction in the number of new infections).

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA’s human factors researcha studies interactions among people, technology, procedures, and organizations. The aim is to attain high levels of human-system performance and to enhance aviation safety by reducing erroneous human behavior stemming from inadequate training and procedures, conflicting roles and responsibilities, poorly designed equipment, poor communication, fatigue, and distraction. This research elucidates how human operators make decisions, what factors affect decision making, and how decisions are implemented. Such studies aid the development and evaluation of procedures, tools, standards, and policies; and they help avoid conflicting or confusing information, and help improve workload management, situational awareness, and trust in the system.

continued

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

BOX 2.2 Continued

Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST). The SBST was a cross-agency group of experts in applied behavioral science, economics, and policy, established in 2015 in recognition that helping people realize the intended benefits of federal programs requires having the best understanding possible of how people engage with, participate in, and respond to such programs. One of the SBST goals was to identify and find solutions to barriers such as poorly worded or burdensome application forms that prevent people from applying for important benefits, related for instance to health insurance, college financial aid, and retirement security. Although this program was ended in 2017,b reviews of the initial SBST operations (Congdon and Shankar, 2015; OECD, 2017; SBST, 2016) offer many examples of how social science evidence and principles can drive improvements in system performance—including significant costs savings for government programs.

For additional examples of how SBS research contributes to a diverse array of important societal needs and goals, see the recent report The Value of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science to National Priorities (NASEM, 2017c,c OECD, 2017). See also public health examples in Box 6.3 and Appendix B of this report.

a Human factors research is defined as a “multidisciplinary effort to generate and compile information about human capabilities and limitations and apply that information to equipment, systems, facilities, procedures, jobs, environments, training, staffing, and personnel management for safe, comfortable, and effective human performance” (FAA, 2005). b Some activities of the former SBST program are continuing in the GSA Office of Evaluation Sciences (https://oes.gsa.gov). c The National Academies also has a “Decadal Survey” of Social and Behavioral Science needs for national security currently under way (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/bbcss/sbs_for_National_Security-Decadal_Survey/index.htm).

a negative—i.e., to prove that deaths and damage were avoided specifically because of preparedness efforts and timely warnings. Weather forecasters and broadcasters have long debated whether their role is simply to provide information about weather risks or to persuade people to take specific actions in response to those risks. In contrast, this question is unambiguous in other parts of the weather enterprise, including FEMA, which directly aims to both inform sound preparedness and response actions and actively persuade people to take such actions. These differing views within the weather enterprise have both ethical implications and practical implications for how one defines and measures progress over time. SBS expertise can help with framing and working through these sorts of considerations. (See Box 2.3 for further discussion.) Assessing and determining the value of improvements in a domain such as hazardous weather communication require consideration of the end-to-end system—from the

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

BOX 2.3 Informational and Directive Communication About Severe Weather

When a potential severe weather event approaches, forecasters and policy makers face a delicate question regarding the degree to which communication to the public should be informational or directive. In the case of purely informational communication, forecasters inform the public as fully and accurately as possible about the potential event, but they do not recommend or direct that members of the public take specific actions. Instead, they leave it to individuals to act as they think best. At the opposite pole of purely directive communication, policy makers use legal authority to mandate specific actions. For example, they may mandate evacuation in the case of a hurricane or prohibit driving in the case of a blizzard. Intermediate between these poles are modes of communication in which forecasters and/or policy makers recommend, with varying degrees of urgency, that people take certain actions. (Elsewhere we discuss the challenge that such recommendations may not always be well targeted or based on sound understanding of what response actions are most feasible or effective.) The case for purely informational communication is strong if the following three conditions hold:

1. Individuals have knowledge of their personal circumstances that forecasters and policy makers do not possess. For example, individuals may know the ability of their homes to withstand a hurricane or the ability of their vehicles to operate safely in a blizzard or high winds. 2. Individuals are able to make reasonable personal decisions using the information they possess. 3. The decision that each individual makes does not affect the safety of other persons.

The case for some degree of directive communication strengthens to the extent that the above conditions do not hold. Directive communication has a paternalistic motivation if condition (1) or (2) does not hold. That is, forecasters and policy makers may judge that certain groups have limited capacity to make reasonable personal decisions. Directive communication has a social-welfare motivation if condition (3) does not hold. For example, the decision of a person not to evacuate home in the face of a hurricane or to drive in a blizzard may negatively affect the community at large by generating a necessity for dangerous and costly rescue operations. Similar choices between informational and directive communication arise in areas of public concern other than response to severe weather. There are particularly strong parallels in public health policy. The case for purely informational communication about health risks and about alternative treatments is strong if conditions (1)-(3) hold. However, social welfare arguments often motivate directive policies—such as the requirement that new pharmaceutical products be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Likewise, concern for social welfare underlies state and local policies that mandate vaccination against infectious diseases, based on the argument that failure to vaccinate oneself has negative effects on the community by increasing the chance that other persons become ill.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

natural hazard itself, to the people, organizations, and technology providing support to those impacted. In each phase of a natural hazard (preparedness, observations, warnings, response, recovery, mitigation), the information that is collected and ana- lyzed will differ. All the organizations involved are embedded in unique social and technical systems, and the individuals within these systems operate under different constraints with respect to time, resources, and knowledge. The people impacted by a weather phenomenon are operating in response to numerous considerations related to their own needs, abilities, and resources, as well as the needs of those they support. To measure and value the performance of such a complex system, one must consider the many technological, organizational, and human elements, and the interdependen- cies among all these elements. Consider, for example, how one might evaluate and assign value to the outcomes of a hazardous weather warning. What may seem like a relatively simple measure of performance— compliance by taking protective action—poses a challenge in that it is often impossible to know why people fail to comply with recommended actions (e.g., Were they unaware of the recommendations? Did they willfully choose to ignore them? Were they aware but unable to take the recommended action? Did they have reason to believe that the recommendations did not apply to them or their situation?). People take a wide range of actions in response to a warning, and outcomes are often dependent on people’s ability to recognize and respond to the warning, as well as how they seek out information and utilize cues, which in turn impacts response. Also, from a scientific perspective, we typically lack natural benchmarks or control conditions that are necessary to put measurements in their proper perspective and context. These dif- ficulties are a sharp contrast to the context of physical weather forecasts, which have direct, easy-to-measure metrics, such as absolute accuracy of temperature or precipitation forecasts, duration of extreme events, or warning window of approaching events. It is thus much easier to quantify forecast improvements relative to costs. A recent analysis of the weather information “value chain” (Lazo, 2016) suggests several key points: • that many research and operational programs justify themselves as providing benefits to society without actually measuring or even characterizing that value, or how the new products and services will be created, communicated, understood, or used; • that valuation ultimately depends on the specific outcomes being evaluated (e.g., mortality/morbidity, reduced costs, reduced damages, increased profits, improved welfare); and

The Motivation for Integrating Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

• that the value of weather information is ultimately a function of the ability of decision makers to receive, understand, and act on that information. Economics research can help address some challenges of quantifying the value of weather information. In particular, much can be learned from economic evaluations undertaken in other realms that weigh the costs and benefits of investments in public safety. The Department of Transportation, for instance, regularly issues guidance on methodologies for valuing the reduction of fatalities and injuries due to safety regula- tions and investments (DOT, 2016). Yet, overly simplistic efforts to define metrics for assessing and quantifying the value of research outcomes might lead to picking the easiest quantities to measure, rather than the factors most relevant to societal well- being. Defining appropriate performance metrics is a crucial part of measuring the value of a research or operational program. Similar challenges arise when attempting to identify “successful” research. Integration of social and behavioral science with the weather enterprise is a multifaceted process, and thus what constitutes success is also multifaceted. Some examples of different types of success that should be recognized and encouraged include the following: • Success can be exposing people to new ideas through conferences, workshops, and other interactions. These venues provide opportunities for a dynamic, interactive exchange that can spur new ideas, problem framings, and collaborations. The agenda-setting, community program and capacity- building, and communication and information-sharing activities discussed in Section 3.1 are examples of efforts that have been successful in this regard. For instance, the Weather and Society * Integrated Studies (WAS*IS) workshops provided a mechanism for exposing people to new ideas and building a community of people interested in this interdisciplinary space. Another example comes from the Integrated Warning Team workshops that bring together forecasters, emergency managers, broadcast meteorologists, social scientists, and other core forecast information users (e.g., transportation managers). • Success can be defining a new research question to pursue, applying a concept for studying in a new context, or developing a new methodological approach to a research problem—especially at the interface among disciplines. For example, a research team with expertise in geography, anthropology, and physics developed an interactive web-based simulation to evaluate how people dynamically seek and interpret information about hurricane risks (Meyer et al., 2013). A research team that included scientists with training in meteorology, policy analysis, risk communication, economics, and anthropology adapted a mental models research approach developed and used in risk

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

communication studies (on a variety of topics ranging from radon to sexually transmitted diseases) to study flash flooding perceptions, understanding, decision making, and responses, and compare these among and between weather forecasters, broadcasters, emergency managers, and laypeople (Lazrus et al., 2016; Morss et al., 2015). • Success can be development of new understanding about human cognition, behavior, and culture (at individual, group, organizational, or other levels) pertaining to weather. Numerous past studies have examined how people receive and respond to warnings (e.g., Mileti and Sorensen, 1990; Sorensen and Mileti, 2017a,b,c; other references in Section 3.1a). Such efforts for instance, have debunked the myth that people panic in hazardous weather situations, have revealed that people seek confirmation of warnings, and have shown the range of weather information sources that people have used over the years. Much recent research has also has focused on how people interpret, perceive, and respond to specific weather forecast and warning messages (e.g., Ash et al., 2014; Drost et al., 2015; Morss et al., 2016a,b; Perreault et al., 2014; Rickard et al., 2017; Sherman-Morris et al., 2015), as well as other factors such as the effect of people’s past weather experiences (Demuth et al., 2016), folk knowledge (Klockow et al., 2014), and people’s perceptions and attitudes (e.g., Weinstein et al., 2000). Because science is incremental and cumulative, such successes provide an important foundation; other researchers and practitioners can leverage this knowledge to develop new applications. • Success can be development of a new product, display, tool, algorithm, or approach that is developed and transitioned for use in the operational environment. Some examples include the development and testing of perceptions and preferences for storm surge visualization products (Morrow et al., 2015) (see Box 2.1) and the development of improved ways to simply and visually communicate the type and timing of hazardous weather threats on the NWS point-and-click webpage (Demuth et al., 2013). The NWS’s Hazard Simplification Project is a current research-based effort to modify the types of and ways that hazardous weather information is communicated (NWS, 2017a).

CHAPTER 3

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

ost discussions about integrating social and behavioral sciences (SBS) within the weather enterprise acknowledge that much progress has been made, but Mmany barriers to progress still exist. This statement remains true, based on what we have learned from broadly surveying the recent history and current landscape and talking with a diverse array of scholars and practitioners who work at this intersection. This chapter provides a brief overview of recent and current activities related to SBS in the weather enterprise (see Section 3.1), using the categories of activity noted below. This is followed by discussion of key existing barriers to meaningful progress (see Section 3.2). The SBS activities discussed herein are categorized into the following groups: • Research activities: May include basic, applied, and development research efforts. • Private-sector activities: May include marketing studies, product development research and evaluation, interface design, and assessments of workplace efficiency or team processes. • Agenda-setting activities: Those for which the primary goal is to develop agendas for SBS-weather research. • Research community programs and capacity-building activities: Those with a primary goal to help grow and sustain an SBS-weather research community. • Communication and information-sharing venues: Formal standing groups and discussion forums, as well as ad hoc activities that allow researchers and practitioners to share ideas and research findings. We also review the status of: • Integrating SBS into research-to-operations efforts. • Routine data collection efforts that help support SBS-weather research. • Existing mechanisms for funding activities at the SBS-weather interface.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

This overview focuses primarily on activities related to near-term weather hazards, however much related and useful SBS research addresses climate variability at subseasonal to seasonal timescales, as well as long-term climate change timescales. Like- wise, SBS research can encompass “everyday” weather that is not hazardous. Drawing on insights from these related areas of research could help inform studies of near-term hazardous weather.

3.1 OVERVIEW OF RECENT/CURRENT SBS ACTIVITIES

Research Activities

Myriad studies have been conducted that have examined SBS aspects of weather hazards across a range of disciplines, investigating varying concepts and theories and using different methods. It is beyond the scope of this report to provide a comprehensive summary of all the relevant research that has been done over the past several years. Rather, here we provide a brief illustration of topics that have been investigated, including some key literature reviews.

Research on Weather Professionals

There is a growing body of research on weather enterprise professionals, including National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters, emergency managers and other public officials, and broadcast meteorologists. This research has focused on the individual, group, and system levels, and it has looked across weather hazards such as hurricanes, flash floods, and tornadoes. Some of this research has examined these professionals’ job roles, cultures, goals, and functions; their conceptualization of the risks of different extreme weather hazards; and the creation and dissemination of preparedness, forecast, and warning information (Bostrom et al., 2016; Demuth et al., 2012; Morss et al., 2015; Nagele, 2015). Some studies have focused on assessment and communication of uncertainty information as a lens through which to study forecasters (Daipha, 2012) and broadcast meteorologists (Demuth et al., 2009). Still others have taken an ethnographic approach to deeply understanding NWS forecasters’ cultures, socio-technical environments, and threat detection and communication (Daipha, 2015; Fine, 2007; Henderson, 2016). More recently, there has been an emphasis on examining the role of forecasters amidst rapidly developing and proliferating weather information, including how they interpret and use new weather radar information (Heinselman et al., 2012, 2015), how they interpret and use Geo- stationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-R) imagery in operational

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

forecasting (Gravelle et al., 2016), how they manage cognitive task loads,1 and how they use ensemble-based information from numerical weather prediction models to assess and warn for a threat.2 Among the many findings from this emerging research area are that professionals in the weather enterprise tend to be overtaxed and face challenging work environments, such as shift work (e.g., Daipha, 2015); and that even when there is significant coordination across weather forecast and warning systems (for example, in the form of coordination conference calls during major weather event) the involved professionals’ understanding of the overall forecast and warning system could be improved (e.g., Morss et al., 2015).

Weather Enterprise System-Focused Research

SBS research can examine, in many different ways, the weather enterprise as a system. This research includes the above-mentioned studies of weather professionals, as well as studies that examine people’s weather information sources, preferences, and uses (Demuth et al., 2011; Lazo et al., 2009; Sivle and Kolstø, 2016). It can include research about the influences of trust among different actors in the weather enterprise, for instance, related to the communication of hurricane risk information (Demuth et al., 2012) and flows of information across organizations during crisis management efforts (Militello et al., 2007). Economic assessments also have been conducted to examine how people value weather forecasts (Lazo et al., 2009), the economic sensitivity to weather variability (Lazo et al., 2011), time cost savings due to the transition from county-based to storm-based polygon tornado warnings (Sutter and Erickson, 2010), cost of avoided fatalities due to tornado safe rooms (Merrell et al., 2002), fine-scale hurricane damage losses (Czajkowski and Done, 2014), and financial hurricane risk mitigation strategies (Meyer et al., 2014b; Wilks and Horowitz, 2014). Exciting advances are being made in interdisciplinary research that models and simulates interactions between infrastructure, communications, and weather-related behaviors such as evacuations (e.g., Quiring et al., 2014; Stephens et al., 2015; Ukkusuri et al., 2017; and the National Science Foundation (NSF) awards in Appendix A). Research to date, for example, illustrates the economic benefits of meteorological services that result from improvement of decisions made in numerous economic sectors

1 See NOAA grant: “Probability of What? Understanding and Conveying Uncertainty Through Probabilistic Hazard Services” in Appendix A. 2 See NOAA grant: “Refinement and Evaluation of Automated High-Resolution Ensemble-Based Hazard Detection Guidance Tools for Transition to NWS Operations” in Appendix A.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

(e.g., Frei et al., 2014). It also demonstrates a continuing need for improved valuation and cost-assessment methods (e.g., Sutter and Ewing, 2016), for audience- and decision context–specific evaluations of graphical communications (e.g.,Visschers et al., 2009); and for interdisciplinary studies of the dynamics of weather forecast, warning, and response processes.

Vulnerable Populations

Social vulnerability to disasters has been studied extensively in the hazards and disasters community. This body of work has resulted in several informative texts, including books that describe the roots and essence of vulnerability (e.g., Wisner et al., 2004), edited volumes that empirically summarize what is known about different vulnerability characteristics during disasters (Enarson and Pease, 2016; Phillips et al., 2009), and books that chronicle specific vulnerable populations following a given weather disaster, like Hurricanes Andrew (Peacock et al., 1997) and Katrina (Fothergill and Peek, 2015). Moreover, different indices have been developed as a means for quantifying vulnerabilities to hazards—among them the Social Vulnerability Index (Cutter et al., 2003)—with more recent related work conducted that compares the different indices (Bakkensen et al., 2016). Topics of weather vulnerability studies to date include, for example: • vulnerabilities due to nocturnal tornadoes (Ashley et al., 2008); • vulnerability of mobile home dwellers (e.g., Ash, 2017; Prasad and Stoler, 2016; Schmidlin et al., 2009); • tornado vulnerabilities of Texas residents (Dixon and Moore, 2012); • how Miami-area residents’ vulnerabilities intersect with receipt and use of hurricane risk messages (Lazrus et al., 2012); • challenges that disabled people face in terms of physical safety and access to aid, shelter, evacuation, and relief during natural hazards (Hemingway and Priestley, 2014); • vulnerabilities that result because people want to protect their pets (Edmunds and Cutter, 2008) or they fear they will not be able to return home if they evacuate (Siebeneck and Cova, 2008; Siebeneck et al., 2013); and • communication strategies, crowd behavior, and event safety management when weather hazards affect large gatherings of people in outdoor venues such as at sports events, festivals, and on college campuses (e.g., Sherman- Morris, 2010; Zeitz et al., 2009).

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

These and many other studies illustrate that vulnerability is complex and results from interactions of multiple factors (e.g., Cuite et al., 2017; Demuth et al., 2012, 2016; Dewitt et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2012, 2016; Jaurnic and Van Den Broeke, 2016; Klowkow et al., 2014; Lindell et al., 2016; Morss et al., 2016a,b; Phillips and Morrow, 2007; Sutton and Woods, 2016; Sutton et al., 2014).

Message Design

There are myriad research studies that pertain to the design, interpretations, and effects of weather forecast and warning messages, focusing on different populations regarding weather hazards such as hurricanes, floods and flash floods, tornadoes, and high winds, as well as everyday weather. For example, past studies have addressed: • trade-offs between message content and length to examine the effects of curtailing length in some channels such as Twitter and WEA messages (Bean et al., 2015; Sutton et al., 2015a,b); • perceptions and interpretations of forecast uncertainty information (Fischhoff et al., 1994; Joslyn and LeClerc, 2012, Joslyn and Savelli, 2010; Morss et al., 2008a; Murphy et al., 1980; Savelli and Joslyn, 2013); • effects of messages on how people assess and respond to weather risks (e.g., Ash et al., 2014; Broad et al., 2007; Morss et al., 2016b; Nagele and Trainor, 2012; Perreault et al., 2014; Ripberger et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2009); • dynamic responses to weather risks (Gladwin et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2014a; Morss et al., 2017); and • how people conceptualize and perceive weather risks (Hoekstra et al., 2011; Knocke and Kolivras, 2007; Peacock et al., 2005; Terpstra, 2011; Trumbo et al., 2016), including factors that influence their understanding (Demuth, 2015; Klockow et al., 2014; Trainor et al., 2015). Some cognitive experimenters are now using eye-tracking technologies3 to better understand how people interpret weather messaging (e.g., Drost et al., 2015; Sherman- Morris et al., 2015). Wilson and colleagues (2016) discuss how such technologies also allow for the study of forecasters’ decision-making and cognitive processes to better understand how they use information during complex forecasting situations.

3 Also called gaze-trackers, these previously cumbersome but now more portable devices use cameras and sometimes headsets to track where and when a person’s gaze focuses when they look at a specific message or graphic. See Wilson et al., 2016, for an example of the use of this kind of research technology.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

There is a large body of research on message design for many other, non-weather- related types of risks, which offer insights that are directly applicable to weather-related messaging. An extensive body of relevant message design studies with direct relevance for weather forecasts and warnings exists in areas such as health, safety, and risk (e.g., Cho, 2011; Fischhoff et al., 2011; Glik, 2007; Parrott, 2017; Wogalter, 2006). Many such studies provide guidance specifically relevant to designing warnings (Wogalter, 2006; Wogalter and Mayhorn, 2017), hazard communications (e.g., Huang et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2017), or both (e.g., Sorensen and Mileti, 2017a,b,c). Also pertinent is an extensive body of research on health and risk communication program design (e.g., NIH4). The general takeaway from this broad area of research is that the effects of messages depend on the audience and many of their specific contextual characteristics. The empirical support for guidance on some types of message design has strengthened as the field has advanced over the past few decades, but gaps remain and continue to emerge as technologies evolve, suggesting that message design research merits a more systematic approach (NASEM, 2017a). No discussion of SBS-weather research would be complete without mention of big data, which is generating increasing interest across many scientific domains in both the public and private sectors. See the later section on data collection efforts for discussion of the advances and opportunities arising on this front.

Literature Reviews and Syntheses

In addition to the many individual studies noted above, some important reviews of relevant literature have been conducted. Among these are extensive annotated bibliographies of public risk communication on hazard warnings, protective actions responses, and public education (Fischhoff et al., 1984; Mileti et al., 2006; Mileti and Sorensen, 1990). Lindell and Perry (2012) summarized studies of factors affecting people’s responses to different environmental disasters, including hurricanes and tornadoes. Literature reviews of how people assess and respond to specific weather risks also are available for hurricanes (Baker, 1991, Dow and Cutter, 2002, Huang et al., 2016; Lazo et al., 2015) and floods and flash floods (Kellens et al., 2013). There are also efforts under way by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to review the scientific base for protective actions that are recommended to the public in response to specific weather hazards (FEMA, 2017b).

4 Making Health Communication Programs work (NIH Pink Book), see http://www.cancer.gov/pinkbook.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

As discussed further in section 5.1, reviews of related research areas also have important implications for the weather enterprise—including for instance, research on team science (NRC, 2015) and team performance (Cooke and Winner, 2007; Salas et al., 2008); judgment and decision making under uncertainty and risk (e.g., Bruch and Feinberg, 2017; Hastie, 2001; O’Connor et al., 2005; Shanteau, 2015; Stewart et al., 2004); and crisis and risk communication in a variety of related domains, such as health, climate, and environment (e.g., Fischhoff et al., 2011; Fitzpatrick-Lewis et al., 2010; Glik, 2007; McComas, 2006; Nisbet et al., in press; Parrott, 2017), and warnings (Wogalter, 2006; Wogalter and Mayhorn, 2017). Systematic research reviews and literature syntheses on a wide array of SBS weather- related topics provide an essential basis for advancing the field. Like any endeavor, knowing the “state of the science” is the foundation for knowing how to more effectively move forward. This sort of periodic assessment can help to identify fits and starts of support, evolution in thinking, the different ways that SBS helps us know and understand people, what is known and where the knowledge gaps are, and who is involved in these efforts. The need for a central clearinghouse for collecting such information has been called for in several past reports, and we reiterate this need. If the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other partners support periodic assessments for SBS weather research, this would help to assure that those who plan, manage, and seek to apply SBS research are aware of what issues have already been well-addressed by the research community, and what issues remain as critical knowledge gaps. Literature syntheses and assessments are useful to stakeholders across the weather enterprise in part because much of the important research being done appears only in specialized disciplinary journals that may, unless there is open access, be inacces- sible to people who are not specialists in that discipline—for instance, operational or broadcast meteorologists generally do not have access to academic journals that require paid subscription. And just as physical scientists need accessible means to follow relevant developments in the social sciences, conversely, social scientists need accessible means to follow relevant developments related weather forecasting and meteorological sciences. Research syntheses can be aimed at informing scientific audiences for shaping future research directions, or they may be aimed at aiding the work of operational practitioners. In the latter category, one encouraging example is the recent production by the NOAA Social Science Committee of the report Risk Communication and Behavior: Best Practices and Research Findings (NOAA, 2016). While not a comprehensive assessment, this report does provide a useful overview of risk communication

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

issues of direct relevance to NOAA. It is too soon to ascertain how effectively this overview is being promulgated and applied in NOAA’s operations and more widely across the weather enterprise. But as a start, this is a worthy example of the type of assessment that could, with sufficient financial support, be done on a regular basis, as systematically as possible, for a variety of SBS topics of importance within the weather enterprise.

Private-Sector Activities

A great majority of people in the United States receive their weather information from private-sector apps or websites, or from watching local or national television stations (Lazo et al., 2009). Given the large, diverse audiences that the private sector can reach—and the significant motivation to gain insights on how these audiences use and perceive the value of their services—the private sector has numerous potential opportunities to undertake SBS research and apply SBS insights to their operations. This includes the groundbreaking opportunities of some private-sector weather companies to pursue “big data” analyses, as discussed later in this chapter. The challenge for this sector is determining how to most effectively take advantage of these opportunities, and to access and use SBS insights in ways that both increase the company’s value in the marketplace and advance our common goals of saving lives and protecting property. As part of the information gathering for this study, the Com- mittee collected input via direct briefings and written exchanges from representatives of more than 20 private-sector companies that provide weather information services to a wide variety of customer bases. These private-sector representatives identified numerous ways that SBS insights can benefit their work, many of which would benefit the entire weather enterprise. Specific topics they mention included: • to help present messages in ways that are understandable and actionable and that can influence people to take action during life-threatening weather, • to determine the most valuable ways to communicate custom forecasts to respective clients with different requirements and decision support processes, • to gain a deeper understanding of the cognitive decision processes individual engage in when digesting information and making decisions, • to gain better understanding of how information influences decisions—to help drive product/feature development and marketing efforts to get the products and information into the hands of the right people, and • to help identify the interests and common behaviors of the audience, thus helping to target ideal advertising partners.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

While some of these goals relate solely to the commercial, competitive environment in which these companies operate, other goals align well with those of the weather enterprise overall. These private-sector representatives also helped to elucidate the activities they actually engage in to generate new SBS-related insights of value to their companies. For instance: • Some companies use outside research firms and some companies conduct their own research to ascertain what types of information their audiences are interested in and how they expect this information to be delivered to them. These studies employ various methods such as surveys, usability studies, focus groups, custom research programs, and studies ranging in size from small (e.g., usability tests or surveys) to large (e.g., behavioral/attitudinal studies on a global scale). • Some companies utilize access to big data from the billions of data requests they receive daily to develop business, economic, social, and artificial intelligence analytics to understand trends where value can be created. • Many companies use analytics to measure how many members of digital audiences are looking at a particular story or video, the time of engagement, location, etc. This helps them determine which themes are working for a particular audience. This information is also used by ad sales departments as they help identify the interests and common behaviors of an audience and target ideal advertising partners. • Some companies reported using behavioral science–trained interviewers to determine the most valuable ways to communicate custom forecasts to respective clients with different requirements and decision support processes. Others have used panel groups to understand product usage and perception. • Many utilize SBS research to identify need states that are then woven into product strategy. Activities that pinpoint preferences, attitudes, and behaviors are used to fine tune offerings and to inform data implementation, architecture, and user experience practices. • Some also have advisors who help on-air meteorologists develop effective communication styles for giving viewers the information they need. This includes both verbal and nonverbal communication, along with use of on- screen graphics. Overall, it appears that most SBS-related activities in the private sector can be characterized as audience surveys, marketing research, and product research and develop ment (R&D), all focused primarily on expanding viewership and market share for products and services. Most of these efforts are considered to be proprietary in nature; particularly any information gathered that directly informs a company’s R&D and product roadmap is thus unlikely to be shared with the broader weather enterprise.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Yet, some aspects of these activities hold the potential to contribute to fundamental new SBS insights. Examples of fundamental social science topics that are relevant to broader weather enterprise concerns include research on trust and source credibility (e.g., Hayden et al., 2007; Hoffman et al., 2009; Mayer et al., 1995; Rayner et al., 2005; Sherman-Morris, 2005) especially in the context of risk communication (Löfstedt, 2005; Siegrist et al., 2012), and research on creating virtuous feedback cycles that enable continuous product improvement (e.g.,Van Doorn et al., 2010). Most weather-related companies recognize that they share some common goals that reach across the weather enterprise, and some weather-related companies are open to exploring new opportunities for public–private partnerships—either for supporting actual SBS research, or for advancing research agenda-setting, research community- and capacity-building, and information-sharing activities. These partnership possibili- ties are discussed further in Chapter 6.

Agenda-Setting Activities

On several occasions over the past few years, groups of scientists and other stake holders have convened workshops and other gatherings focused on identifying an agenda for SBS activities within particular key areas. Some of these were stand-alone activities and some were events held as part of the planning for ongoing research programs/projects. (Research recommendations from these and other similar activities are summarized in Section 5.1.) A sampling of these activities is summarized below. • Pomona workshop. In 2005, scientists gathered in Pomona, California, to develop a research agenda for SBS activities centered on the hurricane forecast and warning system. The Pomona workshop included participants from research organizations (e.g., the National Center for Atmospheric Research [NCAR]) and federal agencies (e.g., FEMA, NSF, and numerous NOAA divisions). Multiple types of social science expertise were represented including geography, sociology, economics, anthropology, and risk and decision management. Drawing from the discussion at this and other workshops, Gladwin and colleagues (2007) issued a “call to action for the appropriate agencies and organizations to support social science research on the high-priority issues in the hurricane forecast and warning system to meet societal goals of protecting lives and property in the face of the ever-present threat of hurricanes.” • North American THORPEX Societal and Economic Research and Applica- tions (SERA) group. In this regional effort within the international THORPEX

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

program (The Observing System Research and Predictability Experiment; Morss et al., 2008b), more than 40 scientists from a range of disciplines such as meteorology, behavioral science, psychology, economics, atmospheric research, and communication research gathered in Boulder, Colorado, to outline SBS research priorities that address the overall international THORPEX goal to “accelerate improvements in the accuracy of 1-day to 2-week high- impact weather forecasts for the benefit of society, the economy, and the environment” (WMO, 2017). Scientists identified five priority themes for SERA research, with the recommendation that these be addressed first within an ongoing and sustainable SBS research effort. • Weather-Ready Nation (WRN) meetings. In response to the large number of tornado-related deaths in the spring of 2011, NOAA developed the Weather- Ready Nation initiative, starting with a cross-disciplinary conversation held in Norman, Oklahoma, “to identify, prioritize, and set in motion actions to improve the nation’s resiliency against severe weather, especially tornadoes, to protect lives and property” (UCAR, 2012). The ~175 attendees included physical and social scientists, emergency managers, forecasters, government officials, and TV broadcasters. For many of the physical scientists, this was their first experience in such an interdisciplinary conversation. This initial conversation was followed by an “Imperatives for Severe Weather Research” workshop held in Birmingham, Alabama, in March 2012 with 65 participants representing numerous disciplines (Lindell and Brooks, 2013). Eight white papers were developed prior to the meeting, and the ensuing conversation resulted in twelve specific research recommendations. • World Meteorological Organization High-Impact Weather (HIWeather) project. Following on the THORPEX efforts, a workshop was held in Karlsruhe, Germany, “to define a high-impact weather project . . . emphasizing the improvement of the predictions of high impact weather on the hours-to- weeks timescales with a stronger focus on shorter time and space scales” (PANDOWAE, 2013). Another workshop was held in 2014 in Silver Spring, Maryland, to develop an implementation plan which established HIWeather goals to “promote cooperative international research to achieve a dramatic increase in resilience to high impact weather, worldwide, through improving forecasts for timescales of minutes to 2 weeks and enhancing their communication and utility in social, economic and environmental applications” (Jones and Golding, 2014). The plan indicates the need for the physical and social science communities to work together to achieve these goals. A kickoff meeting for HIWeather was held in Exeter in April 2016.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

• NOAA Flash Flood Summit. The new Water Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, served as the venue for a 2014 multidisciplinary summit designed to refine the vision of flash-flood forecasting in the United States. A significant component involved “exploring the intersection between science and social science requirements to help inform priorities” (NOAA, 2015). The summit resulted in three high-level recommendations spanning several disciplines. • Living With Extreme Weather workshop. The goal of this May 2015 workshop was to “bring together researchers from the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, as well as physical sciences, engineering, technology and operational domains, to chart a bold and innovative course for addressing one of society’s greatest challenges: reducing mortality associated with extreme weather” (Droegemeier et al., 2016). This workshop played a major role in developments leading to the creation of “The Alliance,” which is discussed in the next section. • VORTEX-SE workshops. In 2015, Congress provided funds to NOAA to carry out the Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes EXperiment- Southeast (VORTEX-SE) program with the goal of understanding the tornado problem in the southeast, including both physical and social science aspects (Rasmussen, 2015). NOAA held a workshop in Birmingham, Alabama, in November 2015 to help define an interdisciplinary research agenda for the project. The output from the workshop was a set of research problem statements that informed the eventual Science Roadmap from which the NOAA federal funding opportunity was developed. A portion of the VORTEX-SE allocation facilitated a grants program for non-NOAA researchers. After the first field project phase (held in March-April 2016), a second workshop was held in conjunction with the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Severe Local Storms conference in Portland, Oregon, in November 2016 to revise the (renamed) Science Plan.

Research Community Programs and Capacity-Building Activities

Fostering the growth of a new field of research, policy, and practice—especially one that is highly interdisciplinary in nature—requires dedicated efforts to inspire, build, and sustain a true community among countless individuals who may be widely dispersed in terms of disciplinary background, geographic location, and sector. These efforts can provide opportunities for developing professional networks and relationships, for sharing knowledge and perspectives, for identifying research needs and opportunities, and, perhaps most importantly, for training, mentorship, and encour-

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

agement of people who are new to thinking and working at this interdisciplinary intersection. It is not possible to characterize all activities that are helping build the SBS-weather community, so only a few are briefly described below. Some are longstanding programs that have played an indispensable role in building the SBS community such that it exists today, whereas others are nascent activities that hope to build on the foundation of efforts to date. These efforts are varied in their scope and in the ways that they support the community, but broadly speaking, they can be categorized into two groups: • capacity-building efforts that focus on shaping and growing the community through such activities as developing research agendas and frameworks, training and mentoring, catalyzing partnerships, convening workshops and conferences, and so forth; and • community programs that focus on conducting research (both fundamental and applied) that integrates SBS within the weather enterprise, and that contribute to community capacity-building. A capacity-building movement that has left an indelible, continued mark on the SBS-weather community is WAS*IS (Weather and Society * Integrated Studies).5 WAS*IS began in 2005, envisioned as a one-time workshop to introduce social science concepts and methods to interested meteorologists. Due to sustained interest and support primarily from the Societal Impacts Program (SIP, discussed below), as well as from NWS, WAS*IS evolved into 10 workshops, including 2 international ones. The workshops were attended by 276 participants total, comprised of public, private, and academic sectors and backgrounds in atmospheric science and several social science disciplines. As such, the WAS*IS movement changed the culture of the weather enterprise by integrating social science into meteorological research and practice in comprehensive and sustained ways, not by funding research (although several WAS*IS participants did conduct research inspired by the workshop), but by building expo- sure, commitment, and capacity (Demuth et al., 2007). The WAS*IS workshops were discontinued after 2011 due to lack of funding. Yet, the movement continues virtually through a WAS*IS Facebook page with 895 members and a WAS*IS student Facebook page with 265 members as of this writing.6 The Facebook pages serve as focal points for discussing topics, jobs, policy, conferences, and so forth that pertain to SBS in the weather community.

5 See http://www.sip.ucar.edu/wasis for additional details. 6 Some people are members of both Facebook pages.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

In 2016, a new capacity-building effort The Alliance for Integrative Approaches to Extreme Environmental Events7 was announced. The mission of The Alliance is “to serve as an organizing mechanism among a wide array of sectors and stakeholders in facilitating rapid and sustained progress toward mitigating the societal impacts of extreme environmental events.” The effort includes 10 initial programmatic elements in support of a broad SBS-weather community. Among them are elements to synthesize relevant funding opportunities, help identify collaborators, assist with proposal preparation, provide electronic resources for facilitating interactions, and provide travel funding. The Alliance eventually will have a core staff as well as a volunteer Steering Committee. The Alliance was seeded initially by a $3 million private gift with a goal of acquiring sustained funding from multiple sources. Over nearly the last 15 years, there have been a handful of community programs dedicated to integrating social and behavioral sciences within the weather community. These programs have evolved, and some have ended due, in part, to funding changes. For instance: The Collaborative Program on the Societal Impacts and Economic Benefits of Weather Information (SIP) was founded at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in 2004 to “improve societal gains from weather information by infusing social science research, methods, and applications throughout the weather enterprise” (NCAR, 2017). With support from NOAA (through the U.S. Weather Research Program) as well as from research grants, SIP currently conducts fundamental and applied research and supports community activities with a focus on economic assessments of existing and improved weather information. SIP previously also supported multiple capacity-building efforts, including costs to convene the WAS*IS workshops and associated staff time, the Weather and Society Watch newsletter, and a community discussion board. Also at NCAR, the Weather Risks and Decisions in Society (WRaDS) program builds fundamental understanding of how weather- and climate-related risks intersect with society, including how they factor into decision making. WRaDS research integrates social sciences approaches and methods with knowledge about weather and climate research, prediction, and predictability. It includes studies with members of various publics, forecasters, public officials and public agency personnel, broadcast meteorologists, and other stakeholders, drawing from and contributing to the atmospheric science, natural hazards, risk communication, and environmental anthropology communities. WRaDS also helps build capacity for weather-society research and activities

7 The current webpage is at http://alliance.ou.edu; it is also described here: https://hazards.colorado. edu/article/the-alliance-for-integrative-approaches-to-extreme-environmental-events.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

at universities and colleges, in public agencies, and in the broader community. WRaDS support comes from NSF and research grants. Among past programmatic efforts is Social Science Woven into Meteorology (SSWIM). SSWIM was founded in 2008 at the National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma, to promote collaborative research and partnerships between the social sciences and the physical sciences to enhance societal relevance and to reduce the human risk from atmospheric and related hazards. SSWIM was supported by NOAA and the University of Oklahoma through 2012. Another effort, Weather for Emer- gency Management (WxEM), was a collaboration among NOAA, NWS, and the East Carolina University Renaissance Computing Institute, which focused on helping the emergency management community more effectively use weather information in their planning and in real-time decision-making. Figure 3.1 provides a summary of the timeframe over which these various programs and activities have operated. The programs discussed above focus on SBS specifically for weather hazards. There are also numerous other programs that conduct relevant SBS research and capacity building within the broader scope of societal risk, hazards, and disasters. We do not attempt here to offer an exhaustive list of all relevant institutions and programs, but we offer the following as some examples of key institutions: • Center for Disaster and Risk Analysis at Colorado State University • Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Centers of Excellence

FIGURE 3.1 Timeline of some key social and behavioral science (SBS) research community programs and capacity-building activities. NOTE: Although Weather and Society * Integrated Studies (WAS*IS) formally ended when shown in the figure, some WAS*IS related communications (such as Facebook group discussions) are ongoing.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

• Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center at Texas A&M University • Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute at the University of South Carolina • The Center for Advanced Public Safety at the University of Alabama • The Center for Risk and Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma • The Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware • The Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado • The Nurture Nature Center • The Risk and Disaster Communication Center at the University of Kentucky

Communication and Information-Sharing Venues

A key requirement for advancing any field of research is the availability of venues where research ideas and results can be shared and discussed—typically through periodic conferences, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and standing committees and other groups. Advancing these standard communication mechanisms at the interface of SBS and meteorology requires deliberate efforts to work across traditional disciplinary stovepipes. There has been considerable progress made on this front in recent years, due largely to the efforts of scientific societies described below. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has, for nearly a century, worked to advance “the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.” For most of that period, the AMS and its members have seen improvements in physical understanding of the Earth system as the most effective pathway to realizing greater societal benefit. But in recent years, the AMS has turned to social science as providing the keys to further progress and has taken several steps to foster SBS research as applied to weather, water, and climate science and services. In particular, the Society has worked to build the infrastructure needed to support such research in two important ways, described below. • The AMS journal Weather, Climate, and Society. Following a few years of study and preparation, the AMS launched a new peer-reviewed journal, published quarterly, that provides SBS researchers investigating applications in the Earth sciences with a platform for publishing their work. The quality, quantity, and diversity of the articles continue to grow, as does the journal’s reputation in the SBS community. • AMS symposia and conferences. AMS Annual Meetings are structured as a collage of specialized conferences and symposia, and each year since 2006, this has included a Symposium on Societal Applications: Policy, Research, and Practice. Initially just a few dozen people attended 1 day of sessions. Today several hundred people attend 4 full days of panels, presentations, town halls,

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

and posters. A Board on Societal Impacts, comprising both social scientists and meteorologists, works throughout the year to plan this symposium. The Board also now organizes a biennial Conference on Weather Warnings and Communi- cation, now in its fourth year, which is held jointly with the annual AMS Broad- casters Conference. This conference provides an opportunity for broadcast and private-sector meteorologists, providers of online weather information, and NWS forecasters engaged in public communication to interact with researchers and stay abreast of (and, in turn, to help inform) relevant social science advances. Since 2011, the AMS Symposium on Building a Weather-Ready Nation has been another important feature of the Annual Meetings. Though not focused on SBS research per se, it has a focus on societal impacts. In addition to these structured, sustained efforts, SBS-related research issues increasingly thread through other AMS meetings such as the AMS Washington Forum and the AMS Summer Community Meeting. The National Weather Association (NWA) is another professional society playing important roles at the interface of SBS and meteorology. The NWA hosts a Societal Impacts Committee, which undertakes efforts such as: (i) participating in the NWA Annual Meeting and other NWA-sponsored conferences and workshops to share recent research and applications and enhance dialogue about societal impacts of weather and climate; (ii) engaging in educational activities concerning the societal impacts of weather and climate and its application to decision-making processes; (iii) interacting with and serving as a resource for other NWA committees regarding activities and initiatives that involve societal impacts (e.g., design, implementation, and analysis of surveys; development of conference sessions, web page content, and outreach projects and materials); (iv) facilitating partnerships between meteorology, climatology, and social science communities to advance applied research on the societal impacts of weather and climate and the application to hydro-meteorological forecasting and decision support; and (v) providing advice, information, and policy statements to the NWA Council on matters concerning societal impacts of weather and climate. Professional/scientific societies such as AMS and NWA bring together operational forecasters, service providers, and equipment manufacturers, as well as researchers. Their conferences, standing committees, and publications have thus far proven to be one of the most effective mechanisms available for weaving social science expertise and insights into the advancement of weather preparedness (readiness), forecasting, and communication. Chapter 6 discusses further roles these different groups can play in advancing enterprise-wide efforts.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

There are also a variety of relevant conferences and other venues available among the broader hazards research community. For instance, since 1975 the University of Colorado’s Natural Hazards Center has hosted the annual Natural Hazards Research and Applications Workshop, a meeting point for exchange among researchers and practitioners, including federal, state, and local emergency officials, representatives of nonprofit and humanitarian organizations, hazards researchers, disaster consultants, and others. In addition, the International Research Committee on Disasters has for several years co-organized a set of research presentations as an addition to the main meeting that provide a forum for SBS-weather research. While too many to fully discuss here, there are numerous other agency- and disciplinary-focused conferences that offer potential as useful forums for discussing weather-related SBS research. For instance, this includes meetings of the following: • American Planning Association • American Psychological Association (Disasters and Terrorism interest area) • American Society for Public Administration (see Section on Emergency and Crisis Management) • American Sociological Association (see Section on Environment and Technology) • International Association of Emergency Managers (communication/weather section) • International Research Committee on Disasters of the International Sociologi- cal Association • National Emergency Management Association • Society for Risk Analysis (risk communication specialty group)

Integrating SBS in Research-to-Operations Efforts

The concept of transitioning research advances into the routine operations of NWS and other institutions of the weather enterprise is a long-standing challenge—one that is well-explored in earlier National Academies reports such as From Research to Operations in Weather Satellites and Numerical Weather Prediction: Crossing the Valley of Death (NRC, 2000). Over the past decade or so, NOAA has developed a variety of concepts and programs for fostering more rapid, effective research-to-operations transitions for new meteorological technologies and tools.8 Such concepts, however, can be difficult to apply meaningfully to SBS research, given the hugely varying social contexts in which this research is utilized (e.g., see Klockow, 2017). The Committee’s

8 See https://www.weather.gov/sti/R2O for examples.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

outreach discussions did not identify any simple solutions to this challenge overall, but did point to a couple of fronts on which notable progress is being made—and where the potential for much greater progress exists—for effectively integrating SBS insights into meteorological research-to-operations efforts. This includes (i) the use of Testbeds and Proving Grounds, and (ii) the development of “Living Labs,” each discussed below. These endeavors exemplify creative approaches to evaluating the usability and usefulness of weather information and tools.

NOAA Testbeds and Proving Grounds

NOAA has multiple Testbeds and Proving Grounds9—for aviation weather, severe weather, hurricanes, and hydrometeorology, including for winter weather and flash flooding—which are important mechanisms for evaluating the utility of transitioning innovative research into NWS operations (Ralph et al., 2013). There are recent over- views of some specific efforts, for instance, for the joint hurricane testbed (Rappaport et al., 2012); the hazardous weather testbed (Clark et al., 2012); the GOES-R Proving Ground (Goodman et al., 2012); and the hydro-meteorological testbed’s Flash Flood and Intense Rainfall Experiment (Barthold et al., 2015) and multi-radar multi-sensor experiment (Martinaitis et al., 2017). There are also myriad examples of specific research that has been evaluated in the testbeds, such as probabilistic forecasting of severe convection (Karstens et al., 2015), use of new GOES-R satellite imagery (Gravelle et al., 2016), and tropical cyclone intensity forecasts (DeMaria et al., 2014; Kossin and DeMaria, 2016), including wind speed probabilities (DeMaria et al., 2009, 2013). As the lists above illustrate, the testbeds’ research-to-operations focus primarily has been on atmospheric science. Yet, they also offer great potential for integrating SBS expertise and research, in particular opportunities to investigate questions about how originators and mediators of forecast information (e.g., NWS forecasters, broadcast meteorologists, emergency managers) access, interpret, and utilize new information being developed by the atmospheric science research community. Some integration of SBS expertise into testbed activities is beginning to occur. For instance, SBS research has examined forecasters’ use of new systems for forecasting severe hail (Ling et al., 2015), and the effect of new rapid-scan radar information on severe weather warning decisions (Heinselman et al., 2012). The FY 2017 joint funding announcement for the Hurricane, Hazardous Weather, and Hydrometeorology Testbeds10 included SBS research topics. Fostering these and other opportunities to more deeply

9 See additional information at http://www.testbeds.noaa.gov. 10 See http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/jht/NOAA-OAR-OWAQ-2017-2005004.pdf.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

and broadly integrate SBS into such activities will help realize the full potential of the NOAA Testbeds and Proving Grounds.

Living Labs: A Platform for Multi-Disciplinary Research and Transition to Practice

A growing convention across the weather enterprise is the development of integrated warning teams: locally focused groups that integrate NWS forecasters, emergency managers, and broadcast media in order to improve operations during severe weather hazards. To understand what occurs within these teams, researchers need concepts and methods to study the decision-making processes and interactions among forecasters, emergency managers, weather observing spotters, and other stakeholders during severe weather events (Bass et al., 2011). One model for meeting such needs is the “Living Lab” (Eriksson et al., 2005)—a platform for multidisciplinary integration to address user-driven research challenges. A recent example of this approach can be found in efforts of the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Urban Demonstration Network, also called the CASA11 DFW Living Lab (Philips et al., 2011). This effort brings together collaborators from across the weather enterprise, including the NWS, the North Central Texas Council of Governments, Dallas Fort Worth Airport, more than 20 local communities, and a group of academic researchers. Together, they have created an enterprise that aims to: • develop high resolution boundary layer observations and forecasts of wind, tornados, floods, hail, and ice; • create impacts-based warnings and forecasts for a range of public and private decision-makers that result in measurable benefit for public safety and the economy; and • demonstrate the value of multi-sector local, federal, and private partnerships to operate observing networks and fund research. The effort is distinguished by features such as a focus on co-creation of knowledge with multiple information users, rather than treating users solely as subjects of study; experimentation in real-world environments and in contexts that influence innovation and uncover tacit knowledge and behavior of users; private–public partnerships that govern and structure interaction among stakeholders and the public and fund the experimentation; and a research and innovation arena where interested parties can collaborate.

11 Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere, an NSF Engineering Research Center headquartered at the University of Massachusetts.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

In recent work focused on decision making related to urban flash floods, the CASA team is developing mobile applications that provide weather alerts based on contextual information and user-controlled alerting thresholds such as distance from the event. The users not only receive alerts but can report events in order to provide verification data and can provide other information about their experiences and responses during the weather event. This Living Lab approach is an innovative way to foster cross-disciplinary learning. It is also challenging work, and requires leadership and sustained, sufficient resources, time, and diverse expertise to plan and execute such studies, and to analyze the resulting data. The approach provides an effective “forcing function” for cross-disciplinary learning and respect. It also fosters greater research-to-operations development, given that live systems must actually work for all the stakeholders involved. As a result, this approach offers a rich opportunity for growth.

Data Collection for SBS-Weather Research

Advancing the social and behavioral sciences requires the regular collection and sharing of high-quality data, including ongoing observations that may need to be sustained over periods of months, years, or even longer. This data collection serves many purposes, for instance, to better understand how key factors within a given population or organization vary over time, locations, and across different groups; to help detect gradual trends or abrupt changes in those factors over time or in response to particular events; and to explore possible correlations and causal relationships with other observed variables of interest. There is a growing recognition of the importance of integrated data collection and analysis for understanding disasters, including those stemming from hazardous weather. In recent years, there have been some significant advances in better integration of physical science data from multiple disciplines, but much more needs to be done among weather enterprise core partners to improve the collection and integration of data that provide a social and behavioral context for understanding disasters. To this end, there are currently numerous activities managed by government agencies that can provide opportunities to collect information of great value to those studying the weather/ society interface, in particular if the synergies among these different efforts are better exploited. Some examples of these relevant efforts are described below. • NOAA/NWS Service Assessments. Conducted by teams that can include experts from outside as well as within the Weather Service, NWS Service Assessments “evaluate activities before, during, and after events to determine

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

the usefulness of NWS products and services. The team generates a report, which serves as an evaluative tool to identify and share best practices in operations and procedures, and identify and address service deficiencies. The goal of the activity is for the NWS to continuously improve its services to the nation.” (NWS, 2017b) Service assessments have included social science expertise and evaluations with increasing frequency over the past several years, but going forward it would be helpful for NOAA to carefully evaluate how to do this most effectively. • NOAA Natural Hazard Statistics. NOAA compiles annual injuries and fatalities from weather events (NWS, 2016), which provide an important basis for social science analyses. For example, an analysis of flood fatality data (Ashley and Ashley, 2008) evaluated the different reasons why people intentionally walked through flood water, thus helping to identify which of these deaths may have been preventable. Storm Data Reports contain information on storm paths, deaths, injuries, and property damage. NWS collects the data from a variety of sources, including county, state, and federal emergency management officials, local law enforcement officials, skywarn spotters, NWS damage surveys, newspaper clipping services, the insurance industry, and the general public, among others.12 Information about behaviors is available in some of these reports. • FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team Program. This program draws on partnerships and combined resources of federal, state, local, and private sector to assemble and rapidly deploy teams of investigators. The teams, which are drawn from disciplines such as structural and civil engineering, architecture, building construction, natural hazards research, and code development and enforcement, are deployed to evaluate the performance of the buildings and related infrastructure in response to the effects of natural and man-made hazards (FEMA, 2016). Based on the evaluations, the teams develop recommendations (e.g., for code development, mitigation activities for greater resistance to hazard events), which are reported through a variety of methods, including publications and training. In addition, the “OpenFEMA” system provides a number of relevant datasets, including disaster declarations, grants, and disaster assistance. • FEMA National Household Survey. This survey has been conducted bi- annually from 2001 to 2007 and annually since 2012 to identify the effective drivers of preparedness for specific hazards and specific populations, to enhance understanding of factors that influence preparedness behavioral

12 See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/faq.jsp for examples.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

change, and to measure and track progress toward national preparedness. The report Preparedness in America, Research Insights to Increase Individual, Organi zational, and Community Action (FEMA, 2014), which summarizes findings from several recent surveys, highlights critical factors of risk communication (particularly the relevance of the risk to the individual), and the importance of communication networks such as the workplace and school. Since 2013, the National Household Survey has been designed to better understand how key factors vary by hazard in order to improve the effectiveness of outreach for specific weather-related hazards, including tornados, floods, hurricanes, extreme heat, winter storms, and wildfires. • CDC Public Health Surveillance During Disasters. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) surveillance is “the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of deaths, injuries, and illnesses which enables public health to track and identify any adverse health effects in the community.” It is the base for assessing the human health impacts of a disaster and evaluating potential problems related to planning and prevention (CDC, 2012). The Disaster Surveillance Workgroup (DSWG) includes experts from across CDC who set standards for data collection, sharing, and reporting during a public health disaster. Morbidity and mortality surveillance tools and training are developed based on the standards developed by the DSWG. • CDC Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER). The CDC Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects has developed the CASPER toolkit to assist personnel from any local, regional, state, or federal public health departments in conducting community assessments during disasters, in order to standardize assessment procedures in U.S. disaster response. The CASPER toolkit provides guidelines on data collection tool development, methodology, sample selection, training, data collection, analysis, and report writing.13 • CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Mortality and Injury Data. Mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System are an authori- tative source of demographic, geographic, and cause-of-death information used as a source for research on causes of death related to hazards. In 2016, the NCHS launched a project to modernize these efforts and improve the data collection for understanding deaths related to natural hazards. This includes an effort to establish and promulgate the use of case definition for disaster- related deaths, and to increase the medical examiner/coroner’s (ME/C) use of this designation in death certificates. CDC has worked to adapt the contents

13 See details at https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/surveillance.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

of a 1999 manuscript for a disaster-specific death certification guide for ME/Cs that is expected to be released this year. There is a growing recognition of the importance of including SBS in these and other post-disaster data collection efforts, as evidenced by a number of recent reports that discuss new data collection efforts and call for greater coordination and uniformity in such efforts (e.g., Aitsi-Selmi et al., 2015; NIH, 2017; NRC, 2012; Oliver-Smith et al., 2016). Specific social science or interdisciplinary approaches and research methodologies are recommended in some reports, such as the Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN) approach described in Oliver-Smith et al. (2016). Although some efforts are under way in this direction, widely agreed-upon standards or instruments for social science disaster reconnaissance data collection have yet to be developed. In addition to the need for survey research on experiences and survival of weather hazards, there is a need for continued development of in-depth and holistic anthropological and ethnographic research on weather hazards and the weather enterprise, as illustrated by, for example, Daipha (2015), Henderson (2016), Lazrus (2016), and Orlove et al. (2010). Recent innovative interdisciplinary weather research on which anthro- pologists are collaborating (e.g., Meyer et al., 2013) illustrates ways in which this rich body of qualitative knowledge can contribute to understanding human experiences with weather. In addition, social scientists from a variety of backgrounds have conducted informative content analyses of qualitative weather-related data, for example, of individual interview or focus group transcripts (Lazrus et al., 2016) and of situational reports (Tierney and Trainor, 2004). Furthermore, there is a long tradition of story telling, illustrated by projects such as the NPR StoryCorps project (StoryCorps, 2017), the Field Innovation Team’s Stories from the Field (FIT, 2014), and the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank (HDMB, 2017). Extracting from these resources large-scale systematic data on weather decision making, behavior, and risk reduction is theoretically feasible but challenging, given that content analysis is still often conducted manually and is resource-intensive, requiring multiple coders and extensive training. As machine learning and algorithmic approaches to content analyses improve, applying social and behavioral theories to such data sources may reveal new insights. Personal vehicle event data recorders, analogous to flight recorders in airplanes (see Box 3.1), have been used for several decades by some automotive manufacturers to evaluate factors such as the performance of airbags in crashes, for traffic enforcement, and for research purposes (Kowalick, 2005; PROSPER, 2006; Wouters and Bos, 2000). Assessments suggest that event data recorders are highly beneficial, for example, by reducing crashes by an estimated 20% and providing training and event reconstruc- tion data (Schmidt-Cotta, 2009). Journey data recorders, used both for monitoring driv-

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

BOX 3.1 Example of Data Collection in the Aviation Industry

The aviation industry offers some useful examples of how critical data can be routinely collected and used to enable research. For instance, airline flight decks must be instrumented to support accident analysis; and some aircraft are required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be equipped with two types of “black boxes” that record flight-related information that can help reconstruct events leading up to an accident. The Cockpit Voice Recorder records radio transmissions, conversations, and other audible flight deck information such as engine noise. The Flight Data Recorder records engine, flight, sensor and related parameters. All information is automatically stored and available for investigations. Similar processes are used within the Flight Operational Quality Assurance program, a voluntary program designed to make aviation safer by sharing de-identified aggregate information with the FAA. All of these data can be retrieved not only for accident investigation (McFadden and Towell, 1999), but also for supporting research (Helmreich et al., 1999). The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) operated by NASA receives voluntarily submit- ted aviation safety incident and situation reports from pilots, controllers, and other stakeholders. The ASRS staff, which includes human factors research experts, tags and analyzes the data and makes the de-identified data available to the public. These reports help ASRS staff to highlight system deficiencies and provide feedback to stakeholders. The ASRS data also support policy and planning and help strengthen aviation human factors safety research in areas such as fatigue (ASRS, 2016c), design of procedures (ASRS, 2016a), crew resource management (ASRS, 2016b), communication (ASRS, 2016d), weather (Burian et al., 2000), and communication concerns at shift changes (Parke and Kanki, 2008).

ing behavior and for managing traffic and cargo, have potential to be a rich source of research information on driving behavior under hazardous weather conditions (Malta et al., 2007; Toledo et al., 2008). Most research fields must grapple with questions about developing data standards, to facilitate validation and replication of earlier studies and inter-comparison among studies that collect data at different places and times. In the social sciences, such questions can be particularly challenging, given the diversity of research methodologies that are used (see Section 5.2) and the inherent trade-offs that can exist between conducting precisely tailored place-based studies and fostering coordination among different research projects to enable data inter-comparisons and meta-analyses. There are no easy answers to such questions, and we do not suggest imposing rigid new data collection protocols for research at the SBS-weather interface, given the great benefits that can accrue from pursuing triangulation among a diversity of research

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

approaches. However, SBS and interdisciplinary researchers can facilitate efforts to mirror past research approaches and/or to compare among different studies by dili- gently documenting the research approaches that are used. For instance, by: • making available (in published journals, in supplemental material, or to those who request it): o data collection instruments, including all open- and close-ended questions for surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc., o coding schemes and, as appropriate, inter-coder reliability results, o thorough descriptions of data collection (sampling approach, implementation) and data analysis, including of quantitative and qualitative data, o model code, e.g., for agent-based modeling efforts; • making datasets publicly available as possible (after they are de-identified, in accordance with Institutional Review Board [IRB] human subjects approvals); and • as possible and appropriate, utilizing past data collection instruments and measures.

Harnessing of “Big Data”

The exact definition of big data varies but is broadly considered as datasets whose size, complexity, and heterogeneity preclude conventional approaches to storage and analysis (NASEM, 2016b). Within meteorology this concept existed well before the label became popular, given the countless atmospheric observations collected and numerical weather prediction model outputs and ensembles. Big data also is playing an increasing role—and offering increasing research and operational opportunities— in SBS-weather research, particularly through user-generated content and platforms. Such platforms may be used to elicit information, for instance, by crowdsourcing weather reports through NOAA’s mPING (mobile Precipitation Identification Near the Ground14), an app which allows anyone to report precipitation information, or by encouraging people to use specific hashtags to share weather reports with NWS offices. Numerous sources of novel big data now being used in other domains hold promise to be useful in studying weather-related decisions and behaviors, such as big data on purchases and information searches (Choi and Varian, 2012), security camera footage (Lambie et al., 2016, 2017), or smartphone data, which can include metadata such as time, place, and weather (Bogomolov et al., 2014).

14 See http://mping.nssl.noaa.gov.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

A growing source of big data that is already highly relevant to the SBS-weather interface is use of social media when hazards threaten or occur. Social media offer new opportunities for people to obtain, combine, create, and share information in creative ways during hazardous weather (Morss et al., 2017; Neeley, 2014). Crisis informatics is a burgeoning, multidisciplinary field that combines expertise in computer and information sciences with social sciences to study how people use new communication technologies during disasters, especially in the face of uncertainty (Palen et al., 2010; Palen and Anderson, 2016). For example, Hughes and colleagues (2014) found that during Hurricane Sandy, the use of online media for public communications by fire and police departments was limited, with 25% using Facebook, 7% using Twitter, and 5% using Nixle (a subscriber-based notification service). Social media are changing the types and amount of hazard-related information that people can interact with and respond to while also offering a window to study these behaviors. Because Twitter data are publicly available, researchers are utilizing the opportunity to investigate social and behavioral aspects of a multitude of hazards and disasters (Houston et al., 2015; Hughes and Palen, 2014; Palen et al., 2010). For weather hazards, the growing body of Twitter research includes, for instance, macro-analyses of relevant keywords used and correlations between number of tweets and geographic areas at risk (e.g., tornado warned areas) or affected (Lachlan et al., 2014b; Ripberger et al., 2014; Shelton et al., 2014). Other research includes analyzing the content of tweets qualitatively and quantitatively to characterize and understand what people are tweeting about (Anderson et al., 2016; Lachlan et al., 2014a; Spence et al., 2015). Big data is also quickly becoming an important analytical tool for private-sector weather companies. For instance, a recent article titled, Why the Future of Social Science Is with Private Companies (Schrage, 2015), stated “Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, Alibaba and scores of other global enterprises conduct literally thousands of experiments on their networks every day. No doubt, many or most of them are mar- ginal or incremental in design. But with literally billions of measurable customer, client, and channel interactions a year, be sure they’re also testing hypotheses that could lead to profitably disruptive innovations.” Having this capacity provides some weather companies with the potential to serve as unique “user laboratories” that government and academic organizations cannot easily replicate. This capacity promises to revolu- tionize weather information services. Big data poses novel analytical and ethical challenges, however. For instance, some uses of big data may require specialized statistical and computer science expertise (e.g., in natural language processing, machine learning, and specific computing hardware systems and software languages); thus meaningful application of big data analyses to

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

SBS research is likely to require interdisciplinary training or interdisciplinary teams of researchers and practitioners. Big data also raises new ethical challenges, in particular with regard to issues of anonymity. Although SBS researchers are trained in privacy protection of human subjects, there have been instances where people were identifiable by their social media posts, despite researchers having taken steps to anonymize the data (e.g., Zimmer, 2010), thus raising new and evolving privacy concerns (e.g., Boyd and Crawford, 2012). Ethical questions also arise regarding privacy and ownership of big data that go beyond the confidentiality issues that SBS researchers typically face; however, approaches are being developed to address such concerns (e.g., Xu et al., 2014).

Funding Support of SBS in the Weather Enterprise

Like any field of research, SBS research on weather-related questions requires funding support. We discuss here some of the key federal agency support provided over the past several years, focusing on the investments of NOAA, NSF, and DHS.15 This is not a comprehensive analysis, given that not all funding information is available or in a form that can be easily compared among programs and agencies, but it offers a sense of the different mechanisms and relative size of the investments being made.

NOAA Research Support

NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research/Office of Weather and Air Quality (OAR/OWAQ) and National Weather Service (NWS) are critical sources of support for SBS activities for weather enterprise, encompassing a mix of efforts such as customer satisfaction surveys, development of social science curricula for meteorologists, development of societal performance measures, workshops, and research of various types that is funded through different vehicles. Drawing on overview information provided to the Committee by NOAA about SBS- related awards made from 2004 to 2016, it appears that NWS-funded research has primarily, and increasingly, been through Cooperative Institutes, indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, and blanket purchase agreement contracts. Many of these funds have been used to support applied research endeavors, largely focused around stakeholder engagement and assessment of operational forecast products (e.g., hurricane storm surge products, hazard simplification, convective weather outlooks) and services and tools (e.g., fire weather services, NOAA Weather Radio). Other

15 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) support for SBS research specifically related to road weather issues is discussed in Chapter 4.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

efforts have focused on economic assessments such as case studies of specific events and valuation of improved forecast information. OWAQ-funded research is comprised of efforts supported through open competitions, restricted competitions, and Cooperative Agreements. For instance, in 2012 there was an open competition for Social Science Weather Research, which provided approximately $400,000 to support two to four projects. And for 2015-2017, there was a yearly open competition associated with the VORTEX-SE project, providing annual support in the range of $100,000-$250,000 total for a variety of 2-year grants. These open competitions have primarily focused on severe convective weather, although in 2016 NOAA announced a broader funding opportunity for their Hurricane, Hazardous Weather, and Hydrometeorological Testbed. The OWAQ also has funded efforts competed within a restricted context, including a Research-to-Operations grant (internal to NOAA, but could include non-NOAA collaborators), and a supplemental award opportunity in collaboration with NSF. The cooperative agreement funds have supported a mixture of foundational and applied research efforts—as well as the NCAR Societal Impacts Program (SIP), FACETs, and Social Science Woven Into Meteorology (SSWIM) efforts discussed earlier. See Appendix A for details. A more quantitative analysis of these research investments is precluded by a lack of information about NOAA funding on an individual project level. Some general insights can be gleaned however, from the Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Sup- porting Research (OFCM, 2016). This report suggests that for FY15 and FY16 together, NWS invested a little over $37 million in research support overall. In comparison, for this period of time NWS invested approximately $2.9 million in activities related to SBS-weather research. For OAR/OWAQ, overall research investments for FY15 and FY16 together were roughly $29 million. In comparison, for this period of time OWAQ invested approximately $3.3 million in activities that could be characterized as SBS- related. These comparisons, however rough, illustrate that SBS-related efforts are a relatively small part of the overall portfolio of NOAA’s weather-related research. It is encouraging, however, that NOAA’s funding for SBS-related activities has generally been increasing over the past decade or so, and likewise encouraging to see support both for baseline initiatives as well as specific funding opportunities, as this sort of mix is important for allowing social science research in the weather community to deepen and grow. Yet, the availability and scope of these different funding opportunities have varied considerably over time. This irregularity of support can constrain scientific progress, particularly for the fledging weather-social science community. Progress of the research community would also be aided by greater transparency, for instance, regarding who is eligible to compete for funds, which proposals are being

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

funded, the funding topics, and whether and where results from prior funded efforts are available.

NSF Research Support

The National Science Foundation (NSF) does not keep records to specifically track funding for research at the nexus of SBS and weather, but a search of awards on its public databases yields some useful insights. A search of awards made from 1989 to 2016 on the term “weather” resulted in more than $1.7 billion in awards. Restricting this search to awards that included SBS-related terms such as “perceptions, behavior, communication, decision, action, human” (with some additional hand-screening) produces a total of $113 million in funding, much of which is interdisciplinary. It is impossible to assess from the public data how much of a total award goes specifically toward SBS research, and when the research is truly interdisciplinary, it is not feasible to truly disentangle SBS research from the other sciences involved. Thus, this analysis can at best be considered an approximation. Two additional searches were also conducted (see Figure 3.2): • A search for weather-related awards specifically from the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) suggests that approximately $60 million was awarded from 1989 to the present for weather-related activities.16 This includes numerous standard awards, and other types of awards such as quick-response grants (i.e., the collection of time-sensitive ephemeral data for disaster reconnaissance research) and some large cooperative agreements. • A search for weather- and SBS-related awards from Program Directors of what is now the Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events (IMEE) program in the NSF Engineering Directorate (ENG), which has for several decades funded quick-response grants and other hazards research. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, IMEE led much of NSF’s social science funding for research on warnings and risk communication, but the program reduced its focus on such issues during the subsequent decade. Our search suggests that approximately $63 million was awarded from 1989 to 2016 for weather- and SBS-related awards directly from ENG through IMEE and related programs. While these are very rough estimates, the analyses illustrate that only a small portion— likely less than 10%—of all weather-related funding from NSF since 1989 has directly concerned human behavior, decision making, perceptions, or communications.

16 This is defined as awards for which “weather” appears in the award title or abstract after manually redacting awards with spurious references to weather (e.g., rock weathering) from the search results.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

FIGURE 3.2 NSF Awards (expired and active, by start date, in nominal dollars) from the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate (solid line), or awarded by Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events (IMEE) Program Directors in the Engineering (ENG) Directorate (dashed line). SBE Awards were identified by searching award titles and abstracts for “weather,” then redacting results to exclude those that were not weather related. ENG-CMMI awards from IMEE Program Directors were identified by searching for awards made by IMEE Program Directors (by name) and award titles and abstracts for “weather” or a related term (e.g., hurricane) then redacting results to exclude those that lacked any dis- cernable social or behavioral science element in their title or abstract. Awards are assigned to the managing program (other programs may have contributed funding to the awards). SBE spikes in 2004 and 2015 are due to single large multi-year cooperative agreements.

Weather-related awards from the SBE Directorate over the past several years are diverse—ranging from small dissertation awards on farmer decision making, to large collaborative awards examining perceptions and responses to extreme weather, to prestigious CAREER awards to junior faculty that focus on fundamental theoretical work with the potential to contribute to understanding of the human dimensions of weather in a variety of ways. A couple of notable examples of the larger awards to highlight: • NSF Award 1331399 funds the development of an Integrated Hazard, Impact, and Resilience Model by an interdisciplinary team of researchers with expertise in individual and organizational behavior, economic modeling, climate

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

science, infrastructure engineering, hazard modeling, public health, and spatial landscape analysis. The project will use systems modeling to advance understanding of the impacts repeated hurricanes and heat waves have on regional vulnerability and resilience in the mid-Atlantic region, and to develop approaches for improving resilience to these repeated weather hazards. • NSF Award 1444755 funds the development of a multi-city network of scientists and communities across nine geographically dispersed cities—the Urban Resilience to Extremes Sustainability Research Network—to explore how the social, ecological, and technological dimensions of urban systems interact to generate vulnerability or resilience to extreme weather related events. The network will also investigate how these dynamics can be guided along more resilient, equitable, and sustainable trajectories. Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A list additional examples of funding awards from SBE and ENG for research that are relevant to weather concerns. Table A.3 shows the total current funding by directorate from across NSF for weather-related projects related to “perception, behavior, communication, decision making, or action,” along with one sample active award from each directorate. As is evident from the examples collected, NSF has funded a variety of useful research on human perceptions of and communications about weather hazards (with a small amount of this jointly funded by NOAA), and research on modeling and simulation of resilience and responses of integrated social and physical systems to repeated weather hazards. Awards target fundamental advances in understanding of underlying social and behavioral processes and dynamics, as well as practical application of resulting models and understanding, for example, to increase community resilience to extreme weather events. Although the estimates resulting from our analyses should be considered approximations at best, they suggest that funding levels for weather- related research are quite variable, but have increased over the past three decades17 (see Figure 3.2).

DHS Research Support

While focused on hazards more generally, a great deal of relevant research is supported through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate programs, which aim to “deliver effective and innovative insight, methods, and solutions for the critical needs of the homeland security enterprise” (DHS, 2017).

17 These trends persist, even accounting for inflation. Note that the trends are affected by a few large awards given in some years.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

The S&T Directorate’s Office of University Programs (OUP)18 builds partnerships with researchers and educators at numerous U.S. colleges and universities, in part through the establishment of DHS S&T Centers of Excellence (COEs). The COEs are a consortium of hundreds of universities conducting research to address homeland security challenges by developing customer-driven tools and technologies. COE partners include academic institutions, industry, other federal agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial homeland security agencies, and first responders. A COE is established through a competitively bid 5-year cooperative grant. COE grants cover a range of funding levels depending on the challenge area, but all grant requirements include a systematic review of the delivery of value to end users and active planning for the transition of COE work products to self-sustaining operating status. The COEs are responsible for developing and managing individual project-level grants, which are relatively small grants, with funding reviewed annually. Many of the COEs support research of direct relevance to the weather enterprise; they support SBS research on public attitudes and behaviors related to risk assessment, perception, and communication applied to multiple hazards, including weather hazards. Appendix A lists some specific examples of research that is relevant to weather concerns being supported at four COEs: the Coastal Resilience Center of Excellence led by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (see Table A.6); the National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events led by the University of Southern California (see Table A.7); the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism led by the University of Maryland (see Table A.8); and the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Institute led by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (see Table A.9). In conclusion, the Committee’s exploration of funding opportunities illustrates a promising upward trend in funding for SBS weather-related research over the past several years, but also illustrates that funding opportunities have been highly variable and are limited by comparison with overall agency budgets for weather-related research. Much, if not most, SBS weather-related research funding appears to have been awarded in the context of interdisciplinary research projects.

3.2 BARRIERS TO INTEGRATING SBS WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

The many agenda-setting, research community- and capacity-building, and communication and information-sharing activities discussed in the prior section have,

18 See examples at https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/office-university-programs.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

BOX 3.2 Earlier Findings on Interdisciplinary Research Challenges

The barriers outlined in this section are due in part to intrinsic interdisciplinary challenges that exist regardless of discipline and domain. Some researchers have attempted to study the processes and challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration (for instance, Davidson, 2015; Lach, 2014; Poteete et al., 2010; Reich and Reich, 2006), but this area of research is relatively limited, making it difficult to identify unambiguous “best practices.” The National Academies report Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (NRC, 2005b) includes numerous findings on how interdisciplinary research is defined, challenges to overcome, and changes that are needed. Below are some of the findings from this study that are highly relevant to the barriers discussed here.

• Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice. • The characteristics of IDR pose special challenges for funding organizations that wish to support it. IDR is typically collaborative and involves people of disparate backgrounds. Thus, it may take extra time for building consensus and for learning new methods, languages, and cultures. • The pursuit of interdisciplinary research, education, and training at many institutions is impeded by traditions and policies that govern hiring, promotion, tenure, and resource allocation.

in different ways, contributed to introducing SBS to the meteorological community, introducing weather hazards and associated challenges to the SBS community, and providing forums for collaborating and exchanging ideas. Yet, despite this progress, multiple barriers still limit how SBS research is conducted and applied in the weather enterprise. Some barriers are not specific to SBS and weather (in that they are present whenever disparate research and practitioner communities come together), while other barriers appear to be particularly problematic for this realm of research. Several of these barriers and their implications are discussed below. Although the different barriers are parsed for exposition, in practice most are closely interlinked. This section draws on the expertise and direct experiences of the Committee members themselves and of many people who provided input to this study. It also echoes the findings of recent studies on team and interdisciplinary science (see Box 3.2).

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

• The increasing specialization and cross-fertilizations in science and engineering require new modes of organization and a modified reward structure to facilitate interdisciplinary interactions. • Professional societies have the opportunity to facilitate IDR by producing state-of-the-art reports on recent research developments and on curriculum, assessment, and accreditation methods; enhancing personal interactions; building partnerships among societies; publishing interdisciplinary journals and special editions of disciplinary journals; and promoting mutual understanding of disciplinary methods, languages, and cultures. • Reliable methods for prospective and retrospective evaluation of interdisciplinary research and education programs will require modification of the peer-review process to include researchers with interdisciplinary expertise in addition to researchers with expertise in the relevant disciplines.

A recent report on Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (NRC, 2015) offers further insights and strategies for addressing the challenges of interdisciplinary research. The report identifies several features of team science that pose challenges to those involved, including diversity of membership in terms of disciplines and demographics; the need for deep knowledge integration in the face of communication challenges and theoretical and methodological differences; large team size, making it hard to communicate and coordinate tasks and build trust; goal misalignment when many teams are involved; permeable boundaries and geographic dispersion, which can impede group interactions; and high task interdependence, leading to coordination challenges. The report suggests that improving team effectiveness requires careful attention to factors such as leadership, team composition, professional development, and organizational support. Funders of team science are advised to pay attention to collaborative merit—that is, how the team members work together and integrate disciplinary perspectives and methods across the life of the research project.

Working at the Intersection of Research Communities with Different Knowledge, Goals, Capacities, and Roles

There are profound differences in the knowledge, roles, goals, and capacities of people who comprise the SBS and weather communities. As in other interdisciplinary research contexts, such differences can present significant challenges, both for individuals who deliberately seek to conduct research at the SBS-weather interface and for indi viduals who may inadvertently find themselves in this space. These differences can exist among participants within SBS, between the SBS and the weather enterprise, and across public, private, and academic sectors; and they can manifest through specialized languages and terminologies for programs, projects, and job positions, and by research instruments, tools, theories, concepts, and methodologies.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

For instance, meteorologists work with numerous instruments to collect in situ data (e.g., thermometers, hygrometers, anemometers), remotely sensed data (e.g., satellite, radar, lidar), and numerical weather prediction model forecasts—all of which form the basis of empirical analysis for weather forecasting and research purposes. Social and behavioral scientists likewise have numerous instruments to collect data, including surveys, structured interviews, experiments, and direct observations in the case of participant observation and ethnography. Meteorologists are often unfamiliar with how social scientists collect data and make meaning of it in ways that are reliable and valid. This lack of understanding can be exacerbated by the fact that most meteorologists have access to a wealth of freely available atmospheric data collected by agencies such as NOAA and NASA. In contrast, the types of social science data related to weather hazards that are freely available are relatively limited in the type of information they can provide to test and shed light on key concepts and theories. Another common challenge when groups with differing disciplinary knowledge interact is the potential for miscommunication because vocabulary is not shared or terms are actually defined differently among disciplines. For instance, words as seemingly straightforward as “model accuracy” (defined by most meteorologists as an objective gridpoint-to-gridpoint comparison of forecast to observations) can for social science disciplines mean something different (e.g., a measure of overall effectiveness, which is much broader). These terminology differences can lead to frustration and unneces- sary confusion that derail productive discussions. Such tensions can be minimized by defining key terms up front and allowing participants to learn and grow from the interaction. There also has to be an openness to put ego aside and ask for definitions and provide them without judgment. Only when everyone is comfortable asking the questions they need to ask—especially within the context of a specific research or application—can collaboration truly thrive. Ultimately, there is a need both for individual-level efforts to facilitate an environment in which everyone is comfortable asking the questions they need to ask, and for more systematic, collective efforts to advance the development of a shared language and vocabulary. Differences between SBS and weather research communities reflect the ways in which scientists, scholars, managers, and practitioners are trained, both within their disciplines and on the job. The differences further manifest through job cultures, including organizational missions and visions, specific job roles, and incentive and reward structures. These challenges exist in both directions—that is, for SBS scholars who want to work with meteorologists, and for meteorologists who wish to engage with SBS scholars. Disciplinary and organizational stove-piping can limit incentives and opportunities for groups to work together. Studies of university

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

support for interdisciplinarity have found widespread barriers, including limited resources, academic reward structures that only reward efforts within the promoting department, and cultural differences between institutions (NRC, 2005b; see also Box 3.2 and the additional references noted therein). Such challenges can deter those who might otherwise see weather as a rich domain in which to ask interesting questions about human cognition, behavior, and culture that can advance SBS theory. Similarly, meteorologists who wish to work with SBS and stakeholders often are not compensated or credited for such collaborations, or they may feel pressure to contract back to their atmospheric science scope when writing proposals or doing research efforts, despite the potential for such interdisciplinary collaborations to enrich the research done. These challenges are potentially exacerbated by a lack of any kind of social science training for meteorologists, particularly at the graduate level. Furthermore, few social and behavioral scientists are aware of the meteorological contexts in which their skills could be applied. Such divisions lead to constraints in the number and nature of interdisciplinary research questions that are articulated and investigated. These limitations also are felt in the workforce, affecting whether or not there is any SBS expertise within different weather organizations, and where and how this expertise is situated within a given organization. NOAA/NWS has very little social science expertise within its line office, for example, and extremely few other academic, research, or operational meteorological organizations have SBS expertise either. Growing and supporting the next generation of workers requires developing ways to train people with interdisciplinary knowledge and skillsets. Just as importantly, it requires ensuring there are employment opportunities where they can meaningfully apply their knowledge and skills. Within the workplace, this requires creating new ways to value, evaluate, and promote people; in the broader community, it requires developing mechanisms and venues for fostering collaborations and for sharing training resources and research across disciplines and sectors. The foundation of strong team performance, in team science as well as other environments, is that each person has a strong area of expertise that the other team members recognize, not that everyone knows about everything (NRC, 2015). The critical goal is to help people understand and learn to function in project-based team environments; both individual expertise and well-coordinated team information sharing are essential to team effectiveness (Cooke et al., 2013).

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Problem Identification and Framing

Another major barrier pertains to how SBS-related research questions in the weather domain are identified and framed. Often SBS topics are discussed at conferences, in policy arenas, and through online discussion forums populated solely or largely by meteorologists—with very limited representation of different SBS disciplines, research approaches, and theories. This imbalance in what expertise is brought to the table drives how research and application problems are framed, what research agendas are set, how funding priorities are determined, how success is defined, and even what time frames are considered—for instance, by focusing only on the forecast and warning processes rather than preparedness and mitigation opportunities. One interesting example of a framing challenge comes from the growing concern among meteorologists about 7-10 day forecasts of weather hazards such as winter storms being posted and shared via social media, sometimes with little to no context of uncertainty information, and in some cases these might be worst-case scenarios. Some meteorologists are concerned that such information can lead to over-warning and false alarms, leading to general distrust of the source and poor decision making. However, this assumes that there is active public attention to such information and that people make protective response decisions based on it. Furthermore, it does not consider possible positive outcomes, such as raising people’s awareness of a possible threat and spurring their information seeking. In other words, such practices tend to be seen by meteorologists as universally bad, and something that must be reduced. Yet, people have always been active consumers of information, especially during times of threat, and this is true in the social media world as well (Neeley, 2014). Although meteorologists’ concerns about such potentially misleading forecasts are valid, it would be useful if the questions were reframed to explore whether, to what extent, when, how, and why these forecasts may have a negative effect, and to better understand the balance between negative and positive effects. This example also illustrates that often problems identified within the weather enterprise are narrowly focused and reactive to a recent weather event; and they are often driven by paternalistic perceptions that there is “correct” information that people “should” want, and a “correct” response that people “should” take. Thus, the goal is to persuade people to behave accordingly, and people who do not follow these expected ways are labeled as “irrational” and deemed to act in ways that are not aligned with their own interests and well-being. (See further discussion of this issue in Box 2.3.)

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

Funding Constraints

Another major barrier is the limited funding for SBS-weather activities, including for research, application, and community and capacity-building programs. Funding constraints particularly inhibit high quality social science data collection (including sampling, developing instruments, and conducting field work) and analysis, and research approaches that require significant time to complete, such as longitudinal data analysis and certain qualitative research approaches such as ethnography. The limited SBS work that is funded tends to be focused on development projects, rather than on basic or applied problems. NOAA’s heavy emphasis on contractor- funded projects, particularly on “stakeholder engagement,” further reflects this ten- dency. Another major challenge with how NOAA approaches its SBS funding decisions is a lack of transparency in whether and how research priorities are set, how funds are competed, and how funding decisions are made. A related concern is the lack of mechanisms to support the study of “end to end” processes that link different parts of the weather enterprise. NOAA primarily supports research about NWS processes and products, and individual weather companies focus largely on improving their own capabilities. It is much harder to find support for research about information flow across the “weather communication chain” or about the critical interactions happening across different sectors of the weather enterprise. In Chapter 6 we discuss some possible options for more collective support of these sorts of cross-cutting research needs.

Limited Understanding and Misperceptions of SBS by the Weather Community

The barriers discussed above exemplify a general problem that impedes progress in meaningfully integrating SBS within the weather enterprise—that is, the limited understanding of SBS by many members of the weather community. This problem manifests in many ways, for instance: • Interdisciplinary insights are lost when just one person—often found opportunistically—is selected to be “the social scientist” and tasked to provide answers, often drawing on just one theory or one set of studies. • The potential for effective outcomes is limited when social scientists are asked to advise on how to improve an idea or product (e.g., for communicating warning information) that has already been approved for use—and thus the social science input affects only limited aspects of how the product will be used.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

• Opportunities for advancing broadly applicable knowledge may be lost when research questions of large, often fundamental scope are framed as narrow projects for contractors to bid on and to “answer” within a very short timeframe and minimal financial resources. • Valuable workforce development opportunities may be overlooked when graduate student and job positions in meteorological organizations are open to social and behavioral scientists, but are defined only through the lens of what meteorologists think this role should be. • Progress for the weather enterprise overall may be limited when there is a lack of substantive collaboration with social scientists across the stages of agenda- setting, research, applications, workforce development, training and mentoring, and so forth. • Risks of problem oversimplification are heightened when new communication products or policies are based solely on meteorologists’ intuitive beliefs about human behavior, rather than more systematically examined professional social science perspectives. Effective cooperation among professionals with different sets of skills and knowledge requires that all sides involved have a clear understanding of the nature, scope, and limitations of everyone’s expertise, as well as clear expectations about the variety of interventions and solutions that the other experts can offer. Collaborators must be sensitive to these differences and anticipate the implications in order to avoid frustrations and disappointments. For example, some meteorologists wanting to know how to best issue warnings and/ or evacuation recommendations in anticipation of a severe weather event may seek advice from a social scientist (for example, a risk communication expert), hoping for a direct, unequivocal recommendation. Yet, in a social science framing the answers to such a question would likely depend on many factors, such as intended audience, context, dissemination method, geographic and temporal specificity (e.g., does the warning apply to a small, densely populated urban area or to a large rural area with a widely distributed population), and the type, severity, and timescale of the weather event. Some types of social scientists could offer general advice in line with their areas of expertise, but would not necessarily be able to answer the questions posed at the level of specificity requested without consulting with experts in other areas and possibly conducting additional research. Social scientists, just like meteorologists, have diverse areas of disciplinary expertise, thus they may only be able to provide partial answers to broad questions that encompass areas of specialization that diverge from their own.

Assessing the Current State of Social and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise

As another example, meteorologists sometimes express frustration with people’s failure to comply with recommendations for responding to hazardous weather warnings based on highly accurate data and forecasts. This is often rooted in a lack of appreciation of the multiple factors that drive human behavior and the spectrum of activities that lead people to take response actions (e.g., information seeking, understanding and confirmation of information gathered, consideration of whether recommended actions are feasible for a particular individual). Social science helps shed light on the tremendous variance that exists within any given population—in terms of differing contexts, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, cultural values, and other individual attributes—all of which can affect people’s responses to risk (e.g., see Fischhoff et al., 1984). Failure to understand this diversity can create false expectations regarding the effectiveness of weather warnings; and it can increase the risks of operationalizing communication practices that have unintended negative consequences, and that could even place people at increased risk. Addressing the barriers discussed above will help ensure that SBS research can effectively advance the goals of the weather enterprise. Providing the level and consistency of support that can sustain a growing body of thoughtful, rigorous SBS research will help bolster perceptions of this research across the weather enterprise. It will also help mitigate frustrations that lead scientists working at this interface to pursue alternate research domains, thus helping the field maintain valuable talent, institutional knowledge, and champions of interdisciplinary collaboration. None of the systematic imped- iments discussed here are insurmountable, but real progress in integrating SBS within the weather enterprise will require sustained efforts to overcome these challenges.

CHAPTER 4

Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns

his chapter discusses the rationale for special focus on the application of social and behavioral sciences (SBS) research to road weather concerns (see TSection 4.1), describes how the provision of weather information for driver safety is evolving over time (see Section 4.2), and characterizes the network of local, state, and federal actors involved in providing and responding to road weather information (see Section 4.3). The chapter also discusses the types of SBS research needed to address these complex dynamics.

4.1 THE MOTIVATION FOR ADVANCING SBS FOR ROAD WEATHER

Mobility is a fundamental element of life. The transportation network of roads, highways, bike paths, and pedestrian facilities provides a lifeline that connects people to jobs, schools, essential services, community, and recreation, and it facilitates commerce locally, regionally, and globally. In 2002 trucks moved 64% of the nation’s freight (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2016). The latest National Household Travel Survey in 2009 found that private vehicles are used for 83% of all the trips made (Santos et al., 2011), and of those trips, 17% were to and from work, 45% were for personal and family errands, and 25% were for social and recreational reasons (see Table 4.1). Our nation’s heavy reliance on the network of roads and highways makes it easy to see that any disruption that restricts traffic flow has major implications for our lives and our economy. Weather has profound impacts on the transportation network and the safety of its users. In 1999, it was estimated that the total delay due to adverse weather on the nation’s freeways and principal arterials was approximately 24% of all non-recurring traffic congestion (Chin et al., 2002). Each year in the United States there are approximately 5.7 million vehicle crashes nationwide and 22% (1.3 million crashes) occur during adverse weather and where weather conditions are listed as a contributing factor (see Figure 4.1). While the numbers vary over time (see Figure 4.2a), on average 445,000 people are injured and almost 6,000 are killed annually due to vehicle accidents associated with adverse weather (FHWA, 2017b), which is more than nine times the number of fatalities of all the other National Weather Service (NWS)-tracked adverse weather fatalities combined (see Figure 4.2b).

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

TABLE 4-1 Annual Number and Percent of Person Trips by Mode and Purpose for Private Vehicles in 2009. Trips (millions) Percent By Mode Private vehicle 327,118 83.4 Transit 7,520 1.9 Walk 40,962 10.4 Other 16,424 4.2 By Purpose for Private Vehicle To/from work 55,969 17.1 Work related business 10,525 3.2 Family/personal errands 146,159 44.7 School/church 26,654 8.1 Social and recreational 82,887 25.3 Other 4,925 1.5

NOTE: This data was compiled using 2009 National Household Travel Survey which was composed of two major sample units. The first contained 25,000 households representing all 50 U.S. States and the District of Columbia. The second consisted of 20 states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations who collectively purchased an additional 125,000 household samples for their respective regions. SOURCE: Adapted from Santos et al., 2011.

Road weather concerns deserve special attention for several reasons. Travelers are in a unique position to control their fate when it comes to decisions about making a trip during hazardous weather. Unlike cases where encountering a hazard is unavoid- able (e.g., when a tornado approaches one’s home), drivers often choose to travel in the face of a weather hazard. Such choices involve personal valuations regarding the importance of making a particular trip at that particular time, balanced against perceived risks of injury or death. Better understanding the motivations and risk evaluations that people are making in such cases can aid the development of better strategies to discourage risky behavior. At the same time, if a driver already in transit encounters dangerous conditions (e.g., icy surfaces, low visibility, water-covered roadways), safe response actions are often very limited and not always clear; and if the “wrong” actions are taken, it can endanger not only the driver, but the occupants of many other vehicles as well. Knowing how to better prepare people for such situations, and to provide real-time information during such episodes is a critical need.

Distribution of weather-related crashes that occurred under adverse conditions for 2006-2015. for conditions under adverse occurred that crashes Distribution of weather-related NOTE: Weather-related crashes are those that occur in the presence of adverse weather and/or slick pavement conditions. Additional factors such Additional conditions. and/or slick pavement weather of adverse occur in the presence those that are crashes Weather-related NOTE: that those crashes is for fog due to the percentage i.e., in this graphic; conditions pavement from not disaggregated are and fog snow, as rain, conditions. or snowy pavement icy, but not wet, conditions, occur under foggy Administration. Highway Federal Pisano, Paul SOURCE: FIGURE 4.1

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

FIGURE 4.2 A: Trend over time in fatalities from weather-related road accidents. B: Annual average weather-related vehicle crash fatalities (last column) compared to all other types of adverse weather fatalities, shown for each type of weather event and for all combined (10-year average over the period 2005-2014). SOURCES: A: http://www.sirwec.org/Presentations/2016-ftcollins/010.pdf; B: Federal Highway Administra- tion and National Weather Service.

Safety is a top priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and local public works authorities (FHWA, 2017c). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) scientific leadership has helped advance the understanding of how adverse weather impacts the surface of the

Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns

roadway. State DOTs have invested heavily in advanced technologies to monitor and forecast pavement conditions and to offer site-specific road weather forecasts; and they continue to develop proactive strategies for responding to adverse weather conditions and providing information about road conditions to travelers. In addition, NWS can now provide site-specific weather warnings using highway mile markers, and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) can be activated by emergency management officials during certain extreme events. Yet, despite these many advances, every year hundreds of thousands of people continue to be injured or killed while traveling in a personal vehicle during adverse weather. The report Where the Weather Meets the Road: A Research Agenda for Improving Road Weather Services suggests that automotive technologies such as anti-lock brakes, high-output lighting, and traction control have increased safety during normal driving conditions (NRC, 2004). As discussed earlier in this report, connected and autonomous vehicles are becoming more interactive with the roadway environment, and in the coming years, vehicles will have even more capabilities to compensate for poor driving conditions and a lack of driver abilities. However, at the same time, these advances can lead to overconfidence in some people who drive during adverse weather conditions; motorists will still have the ability to make poor decisions, placing themselves and others at risk while driving in adverse weather conditions. During hazardous weather, state highway agencies have the ability to make “directive communications,” such as closing highways and restricting travel, which can raise dynamic tensions between the paternalistic motivation to protect motorists and the economic motivation to avoid closing the transportation network. There are situations where closing highways is clearly warranted; for instance, in winter weather an inter- state may be closed when reduction in visibility is so severe that the plow trucks cannot safely operate. Yet, this sometimes results in motorists then choosing to pursue alternate, secondary roads that are even less safe—thus illustrating how risk perceptions and ensuing decisions and behaviors can vary among motorists and result in unintended consequences. Many other situations fall into the realm of “informational communications,” where travelers have the responsibility to evaluate the need and urgency for a trip against the risk of making that trip during adverse weather. Such choices extend beyond a simple “go or no-go” decision, as they can also include choices about when to begin a trip, what transportation mode to use, and what route to choose. With the majority of personal trips made for seemingly discretionary reasons (e.g., to run errands and for social/recreational purposes), why do motorists so often find themselves in hazardous driving situations during adverse weather? SBS expertise is

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

critically needed to help understand the motivations, risk perceptions, and decision processes motorists undertake in adverse weather and to explore many important questions about how to reduce the number of injuries and deaths on the nation’s roadways during adverse weather. This includes questions such as: • What creates the expectation that travelers can make a trip anywhere, any time? Do these expectations cause drivers to mistrust information about adverse weather on the roadways? • How do motorists evaluate the risk of making a trip against the perceived urgency or desire to make a trip during adverse weather conditions? • What decision processes take place when someone decides whether to take a trip, and if so, how to take it? • How realistically do drivers view the capabilities of their vehicles, and their own abilities and skills, in adverse weather conditions? • How do we most effectively educate drivers about safe/unsafe driving practices during hazardous weather?

4.2 HOW WEATHER INFORMATION IS USED TO ADVANCE ROAD WEATHER SAFETY

Beginning in the early 1990s, three significant advances were made in road weather and maintenance operations, each building on the previous, that have become important foundations for maximizing the use of weather information to advance road weather safety (see Figure 4.3).

FIGURE 4.3 Advances in road weather information technologies and systems.

Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns

• The first involved the creation of road weather observational networks along the roadways by state DOTs. In the early 1990s, the Strategic Highway Research Program initiated a project (Boselly et al., 1993) to evaluate ways to fill in the gaps in the weather observation networks near roadways particularly where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) observational networks are quite sparse. This project laid the groundwork for many states to begin installing environmental sensor suites that included not only routine atmospheric sensors, but also sensors to measure pavement surface temperature, electrical conductivity of moisture on the pavement to determine the amount of deicing chemicals present on the pavement, subsurface temperature probes, and most recently, optical sensors that provide estimates of surface friction. The aggregation of these environmental sensor stations into a Road Weather Infor- mation System (RWIS) allows state DOTs to utilize proactive strategies to mitigate the effects of adverse weather on roadways. The FHWA provided guidance (Manfredi et al., 2008) to help standardize installation, and provided leadership for state DOTs to aggregate these RWIS observations in a national database for operational and academic use (NCEP Central Operations, 2016). Today there are more than 2,400 RWIS sites throughout the United States in every state.1 • The second technology resulted from a desire to emulate European proactive winter maintenance strategies. Anti-icing and the use of liquid deicing chemicals were made possible through the use of pavement temperature forecasts based on RWIS road weather data (Blackburn et al., 1994). FHWA built on this work with a project conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Laboratory (Ketcham et al., 1998) that yielded the “Manual of Practice for an Effective Anti-icing Program” (Ketcham et al., 1996). The manual includes charts of suggested winter maintenance responses based on the road weather forecast and pavement temperature trends. • The final initiative that ties these developments together was the creation of a Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS) to help maintenance managers evaluate their route-specific road weather and suggest optimal treatment strategies based on the Manual of Practice noted above. FHWA contracted with several groups2 to develop and demonstrate a working system that pri-

1 A collection of RWIS data from state DOTs can be found here: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/ resources/links.htm. And a nationally compiled collection can be found here: https://madis-data.ncep.noaa. gov/MadisSurface (clicking on the “Datasets” button opens a window with everything selected; de-select the top datasets box, scroll down and select “RWIS”). 2 The National Center of Atmospheric Research was the lead agency along with the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology–Lincoln Laboratory, NOAA– Forecast Systems Laboratory (FSL), and National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL).

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

vate companies could then build on to create tailored MDSS products (NCAR Research Applications Laboratory, 2017). A key element of the MDSS is a high- resolution ensemble forecast utilizing meteorological elements important to road weather—in particular for determining the pavement temperatures, which are crucial to understanding how weather will affect the roadway. Along with these advances in providing road weather data to state DOTs, there are likewise many advances occurring in the provision of warnings and information directly to motorists. For instance, the RWIS data is used in Intelligent Transportation System applications to provide motorists with real-time warnings of hazards such as high winds, icy roadways, avalanche, blowing dust and low-visibility conditions, and flooded roadways (see examples in Figure 4.4). Travelers can also receive information on road conditions prior to and during a trip from a multitude of other private and public sources, many of which rely on information provided by state DOTs. To provide a common framework for this traveler information, the Federal Communications Commission agreed to designate 511 as the nationwide traveler information number

A. B.

FIGURE 4.4 Active hazard warning examples. SOURCES: A: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop13013/ch1.htm; B: http://www.dot.ga.gov/ AboutGeorgia/Pages/GDOTAnnouncementDetails.aspx?postID=38; C: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ctjournal/ 2009-2/Safety.html.

Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns

(FHWA, 2017a), and state DOTs developed traveler information systems to meet the 511 requirements, and to help ensure that drivers are alerted to hazardous conditions before they initiate their trip. While 511 is a nationwide telephone number for traveler information, each state system is independent, with little consistency between them. For example, the New England system reports road conditions in two broad categories3 while South Dakota utilizes 15 different categories to classify road conditions with a multitude of solid and dashed color combinations.4 Some agencies, like Iowa DOT, have incorporated real-time camera images taken from their snowplows to show the actual road conditions along with text descriptions. The lack of consistency in reporting between states has raised concern within DOT operations communities, but little has been done to determine the best classifications and representations that appropriately convey the impact and risk posed during adverse weather. Further complicating this picture is the emerging role of crowd-sourced data in providing information about road hazards (FHWA, 2014). Citizen reporting is seen as a growing opportunity to provide information on road hazards and risk, particularly regarding adverse weather. In addition to widely used mobile apps such as Waze, the Utah DOT developed its own smart phone application to facilitate the collection of this information (Neugebauer, 2014), which has thus far seen wide acceptance by motorists and 99% accuracy in reporting. SBS research can provide important insights about the value travelers place on the many different sources of road condition reporting systems they utilize before and during a trip. Understanding why travelers value one source over another would help agencies focus limited resources on the most effective delivery methods. A Strategic Highway Research Program project on the Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Disseminating Traveler Information on Travel Time Reliability (Kuhn et al., 2014) examined the human factors associated with communicating traveler information to drivers. The study recognized the importance of the variety of media, including personal navigation devices (e.g., GPS enabled mobile devices, smart phone applications) and crowd-sourced applications to convey traveler information. The study also emphasized that the safety implications of distracted driving and the increasing complexity of warning information being provided to drivers heightens the urgency of understanding the relationships between the information and receiver. Similar points were called out during an AMS Policy Forum on “Weather and Highways” (AMS, 2004). Despite the many advances taking place with technologies to connect vehicles with roadside infrastructure and with other vehicles, successful communication of informa-

3 See http://www.newengland511.org for details. 4 See http://www.safetravelusa.com/sd for details.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

tion on road weather and adverse impacts will still depend on the driver’s ability to understand the risks and the implications of warnings for their own personal context, and to make sound decisions regarding their travel. In 2008 FHWA initiated the project Human Factors Analysis of Road Weather Advisory and Control Information (Richard et al., 2010) to better understand traveler needs for information before and during trips and to identify the most effective methods for communicating road weather information with drivers. Weather information requirements and different delivery methods were determined for several travel scenarios, and a guide was developed for state DOTs to help standardize communications. Further research is needed to assess if the messages and communication modes in the guide actually influence traveler decisions and to explore questions such as the following: • With all the advances taking place in road weather data collection, active warning systems, more accurate road weather forecasts and traveler information, and message delivery through numerous forms of media, why have the numbers of injuries and deaths not decreased more? • How do travelers get road weather information and what influences their travel decisions? • How effective are in-vehicle communications about weather impacts on the roadways? • What are most effective ways to communicate complex situational awareness and risk regarding road weather impacts to travelers?

4.3 KEY PARTNERSHIPS AND INTERACTIONS IN THE USE OF ROAD WEATHER INFORMATION

During adverse weather conditions, the transportation network provides an important lifeline in the provision of critical community services. Maintaining mobility is critical to the mission of emergency managers and responders, and to the provision of essential functions before, during, and after adverse weather events. The decisions and actions taken by the state DOTs and by travelers can affect the transportation system just as much as the direct impacts of adverse weather. For example, if a crash occurs due to slippery conditions, the resulting congestion caused by the crash and the emergency response vehicles can prevent snowplows from applying treatments, which in turn allows more pavement to remain in a slippery condition. There are numerous sources of weather and impact information sources available to both travelers and public officials who must prepare and implement mitigation strate-

Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns

gies for adverse weather events. There is seldom perfect consistency among different forecasts, and thus operations and emergency managers must evaluate these various sources of information and make appropriate decisions about what response actions to initiate. These decisions and actions will in turn cause impacts on the system (see Figure 4.5). The success of the response is not only dependent on the atmospheric science behind the forecasts, but on an array of human factors and interactions between players. While much still needs to be learned about travelers’ motivations and decisions about traveling during adverse weather, one thing that is already well understood is that conflicting information about road conditions and impacts confuses the process. Providing consistent, timely, accurate, impact-based, and actionable messages helps avoid confusion and helps travelers make more informed travel decisions. It is also well understood that personal relationships between forecasters and highway operations managers are extremely important in translating atmospheric and road weather forecasts into mitigation strategies to maintain mobility. Dur- ing the early development of the MDSS, a series of workshops brought together weather forecasters and highway maintenance managers to discuss what weather

FIGURE 4.5 Cause and effect of actions and decisions by travelers and public officials.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

BOX 4.1 The Pathfinder Project

The “Pathfinder” project was initiated to demonstrate the value of collaboration between the NWS WFOs, state DOTs, and their value-added meteorologists in producing impact-based road weather forecasts (Helsel et al., 2016). In this project, the NWS, state DOTs, and their value-added meteorological services collaborate in creating coordinated, timely forecasts that show how the weather will impact the roadway and that provide actionable information to travelers. During the pilot stage of this project, an evaluation by the Utah DOT demonstrated the ability to alter traffic patterns to provide a safer travel experience during adverse weather (see Figure A). Some of the main benefits to be realized through these efforts include:

• Enhanced Collaboration. Working together to execute the Pathfinder Implementation Plan strengthens the relationships between the NWS and DOTs. • Informed Travelers. Cohesive weather impact statements enable drivers to make better decisions regarding whether, when, and where to travel. • Improved Safety, Mobility, and Economy. Consistent messages can reduce traffic demand, with the ultimate goal of saving lives and property and minimizing the impact of weather events.

Travel behavior is affected by more than just the decisions made by individual travelers; it can also be dictated by the work policies of private and public employers and by directive communications from public officials. Understanding the dynamics of collaboration and organizational culture is central to the success of the Pathfinder Project. The project also seeks to address the institutional barriers and internal biases that can undermine the sustainability of such partnerships after the individual champions who may have initiated such efforts move on in their careers.

information is needed by operational maintenance managers (e.g., forecast detail, resolution, timing) and what products could feasibly be produced by forecasters (FHWA, 1999). They discovered that both sides had preconceived and often inaccurate ideas regarding what the highway agencies required and what the atmospheric science could produce. The development of effective relationships between forecasters and maintenance managers was key to the initial success of the MDSS project, but these relationships existed among only a few select forecasters and highway maintenance managers, and these have proven to be difficult to maintain and expand on. Programs to understand and improve these relationships are necessary in order to see the full benefit of the atmospheric science translate into actionable strategies by highway agencies.

Social and Behavioral Sciences for Road Weather Concerns

FIGURE A Number of vehicles on the road over time during a winter storm in Utah, showing how a coordinated impact-based road weather forecast system modified traffic patterns. NOTE: The control is represented by the volume of vehicles on the road on a non-storm day for the same day of the week, 1 week after a snow event. SOURCE: Recreated from the Utah Department of Transportation figure. Accessed at https://ops.fhwa. dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16086/apd.htm.

This experience points to other important questions that SBS research can help elucidate, such as: • How can the NWS Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs), private meteorological companies, and maintenance managers continue to develop fruitful working relationships? • What are the organizational cultural barriers that impact the relationship between forecasters and maintenance managers? What are the trade-offs among timing, accuracy, and confidence that affect operational response and trust in the forecast by maintenance managers?

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

• Why do some operational personnel such as maintenance managers continue to distrust forecasts that are based on sound science? In conclusion, we emphasize that the nation’s economy and essentially all aspects of society are grounded in our ability to move from point A to point B. There is no other activity that increases the risk of injury or death during adverse weather more than choosing to get in a vehicle and attempting to travel. Doing so can have major consequences not only for the individual traveler, but for many others as well. Applying SBS expertise to studies of road weather offers the potential for profound impacts in terms of reducing death and injury, and improving the many complex interactions that occur among public transportation agencies, private organizations, and individual travelers in efforts to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to dangerous weather events.

CHAPTER 5

Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness and Advancing Fundamental Social and Behavioral Science Knowledge

his chapter focuses on knowledge gaps and research needs, including a synthesis of prior calls for social and behavioral science (SBS) needs (Section 5.1), a discus- Tsion of the key characteristics that define different types of social and behavioral science research in the weather enterprise (Section 5.2), suggestions for the types of SBS studies that are needed going forward (Section 5.3), and building on all of this, suggestions for specific critical research topics for the coming years (Section 5.4). Our focus in this discussion includes not only the immediate timeframe of forecasts and warnings for individual weather events, but also research to better understand vulnerabilities and strengthen preparedness well in advance of such events. It includes research that looks across the originators, communicators, and users of weather information and across all sectors of the weather enterprise. In addition, our focus is on broad-based research that advances fundamental knowledge and is potentially applicable across a variety of different contexts, in contrast, for instance, to marketing research focusing on development of a specific communication product for a specific audience.

5.1 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESEARCH NEEDS

Many earlier reports have called for additional SBS-weather research. Our Commit- tee devoted significant effort to reviewing a wide array of the previous documents and findings that discussed SBS research needs. Based on that review, we identify below areas in which there is broad agreement regarding critical knowledge gaps. This reflects the Committee’s detailed evaluation of many assessments that have been conducted over the past decade and beyond, including assessments made by prior National Academies committees and by national and international expert groups

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

convened to assess the state of research. In addition, we have drawn insights from published assessments of relevant SBS fields and theories, for example, related to team performance and team science (NRC, 2015), interdisciplinary research (NRC, 2005b), warnings (Thompson et al, 2017; Wogalter, 2006; Wogalter and Mayhorn, 2017), health risk messaging (e.g., Parrott, 2017), and risk and science communication (e.g., NASEM, 2017a). Many of these assessments illustrate both the advances in understanding that have resulted from research to date and the critical knowledge gaps that remain (e.g., Bean et al., 2015, on effective warning lengths). Our assessment identified the following topics: • Efforts to explore and identify vulnerabilities and vulnerable populations, including simulations of risk area, populations’ levels of forewarning, access to shelters, access to warning information, and reduction of storm impacts (Lindell and Brooks, 2013); and studies of how these factors are associated with social and demographic characteristics of populations (Droegemeier et al., 2016). • Expanded engagement with stakeholders and nontraditional research partners (NRC, 1996, 2003b; Sullivan, 2013) and development of participatory research processes (NRC, 2003b) in order to integrate needs into practices; engagement of stakeholders in order to identify priorities and values and their influence in decision making (NRC, 2005a); improved data collection from populations on many scales (NOAA Social Science Committee, 2015); and work that develops a deeper understanding of the intersections between forecast products and user needs (NRC, 2003b). • Expansion of disciplinary research, such as economic analysis of tornado warning systems (Lindell and Brooks, 2013), reassessment of criteria for evaluating forecasts, and expansion of approaches to studying weather-related human behavior (Droegemeier et al., 2016). • Forecaster- and forecasting-specific research needs, such as the effects of models on forecaster performance and the effects of peer pressure on forecaster behaviors (Carbin et al., 2013; Daipha, 2015; NRC, 2003b, 2007). • Integrated warning system research (see Nigg, 1995; Sorensen, 2000) that addresses topics such as exploring consistencies and inconsistencies between warning channels (Lindell and Brooks, 2013), identifying appropriate roles for the public and private sectors in major storm forecasting and statements (NRC, 2003b, NOAA WP, 2015), and understanding how information networks come about and operate (NRC, 2007). • Explorations of National Weather Service (NWS) practices and policies, such as false alarm calculations (Lindell and Brooks, 2013), the Asymmetric Penalty (NRC, 2012) (i.e., the preference for false alarms over missed alerts), confusion

Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness

around watch and warning (Lindell and Brooks, 2013), alerting standards, and the implications of changes to these approaches. • Explorations of specific technologies or forecast approaches in order to improve public understanding and/or to modify those products based on public needs. This includes, for instance, Forecasting a Continuum of Environmental Threats (FACETs), Impact Based Warnings, Warn on Forecast (Drogemeier et al., 2016), confirmation of tornado occurrence from dual-polarization tornado debris signatures, and effects of information and communications technologies such as internet and cell phones (Lindell and Brooks, 2013; Bean et al., 2015). • Specific risk communication research topics, for example, better understanding the effects of message (especially warning) content on response (Bean et al., 2015; NWS, 2013); timing and pace of warnings (Lindell and Brooks, 2013), and how events intersect with the rhythm of daily life, such as behavioral differences between the week versus weekend, seasonality, and off season (Carbin et al., 2013); warning specificity, including geographic and temporal specificity (Lindell and Brooks, 2013; NRC, 1996); and studies on the use of fear, emotion, and drama in messaging (Lindell and Brooks, 2013). • Exploration into how we measure and communicate uncertainty (NRC, 2012), with study of visual representations, numeracy, and public interpretation and understanding of different types of measures of uncertainty (NRC, 2003a), how to communicate uncertainty (Budescu et al., 2014; NWS, 2013), showing users the value of uncertainty information, and discovering how to help them incorporate it into their decisions (NRC, 2006a). • Understanding of how social and personal characteristics influence warning behaviors, such as the effects of experience on risk perceptions and preparing for weather events, and how long those effects last (Lindell and Brooks, 2013). • Calls for studies on public education and training to change culture and behavior related to hazardous weather preparedness (e.g., Does practicing severe weather drills and other in-school educational efforts decrease adverse outcomes?) (NRC, 2003b, 2005a, 2006a).

5.2 CRITICAL DEFINING FEATURES OF SBS RESEARCH IN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Given the wide array of disciplines and perspectives encompassed within the social and behavioral sciences, the range of SBS research approaches that can be applied to the weather enterprise is highly diverse. This section offers some perspective on the range of approaches that a weather researcher might encounter. Just as a hydrologist and a meteorologist might understand flooding in different ways, so too do researchers

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

from different social and behavioral disciplines. The distinctions between disciplines matter because each reflects a different focus on the human condition. Furthermore, a disciplinary base provides a critical reference point for theories, concepts, and often for research methods. In this section, we discuss several of these distinguishing characteristics, and illustrate several key research design features. Examining the potential breadth of each of these key features helps us illustrate how extant and ongoing SBS-weather research efforts may be expanded on.

Advancing Science and Applications

When considering the range of research types it is common to distinguish between applied and basic research. SBS research that uses data, trends, and the resulting knowledge to inform a specific design problem or policy, or to adjust a specific practice, would generally be characterized as applied. Such projects focus on an immediate problem at hand. Basic social and behavioral research uses systematic, scientific methods and focuses on unlocking patterns in human perception, interpretation, and behavior. Though often viewed as opposites, the aim of advancing generalized, fundamental knowledge (basic research) and the aim of making practical, effective use of science and technology (applied research) intersect in what is called Pasteur’s quadrant (Stokes, 1997; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007), a space where it is argued that applied concerns and basic science can and should influence each other (see Section 5.3, footnote 28).

Exploration and Testing in Science

Particularly in instances where little theory exists or prior research has not been conducted on a specific topic, social scientists will collect information and employ systematic processes to explore and identify patterns in the information. For example, behavioral researchers may collect and study records or self-reports of people using weather apps on their smartphones, to understand use patterns. Evaluating research questions and testing hypotheses about such patterns is the most common approach to building a body of scientific knowledge. Like other scientists, SBS researchers are expected to compare findings from their work to the extant record, provide insight into how they compare, and contribute to the accumulation of a scientific body of evidence. Independent validation of findings is essential for scientific confidence in the results, and replication or triangulation among studies can be important for evaluating validity.

Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness

Concepts and Theories

While a meteorologist may study atmospheric pressure as a way of understanding differences in weather conditions, a social scientist may study a factor like peer pressure as a way of understanding differences in human behaviors. Concepts such as risk perception, emotion, and economic resources are used by scientists to try to understand and predict social and behavioral patterns and variations (see, e.g., Babbie, 2007; Chaffee, 1991). For example, one might say that experiencing tornado damage makes one more likely to see that hazard as risky. While this general idea is intuitive, social science research will focus on understanding, defining, and measuring this concept, going beyond just the simple intuitive expectation that experience matters, to think more systemically about that relationship. For example, “hazard experience” as a social science concept includes many dimensions—e.g., being in a place that a hazard occurred, having home damage, being injured, having a major life disruption, and taking into account the number, the recency, and the intensity of each of those experiences. Well-defined concepts in a well-developed theory can succinctly explain broad patterns in perception or behavior. Some concepts and theories have been developed specifically to explain people’s interactions with weather, while others that have been developed to address other contexts or problems are (or could be) used to explain behavior related to weather. New SBS theories are continually emerging to refine, replace, or augment SBS concepts and theories in extant literatures. Some types of theories are represented in at least a limited body of weather-related research, such as sociological theories of vulnerability (Tierney, 2014), psychological theories related to warning response and evacuation (Lindell and Perry, 2012), and economic theories concerning nonmarket valuation (Letson et al., 2007). Many other existing theories could be fruitfully explored further in the weather enterprise, such as psychological and behavioral economics theories of judgment and decision making (Kahneman, 2011; SBST, 2016), organizational and team performance theories (NRC, 2011, 2015; Stokols et al., 2008), network theories (Contractor and DeChurch, 2014), and theoretical models of behavior change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1983). The proliferation of SBS theories poses an ongoing challenge to the goal of advancing a cumulative science in the weather enterprise as well as in other domains. Yet, as the body of comparable studies increases, systematic reviews and meta-analyses become possible, which cannot only help advance the goals of the weather enterprise, but can also contribute to the advancement of the social and behavioral sciences at large.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Unit of Analysis and Observation

Saying that SBS researchers study “people” oversimplifies the range of what they actually study. SBS observations comprise social actions and experiences—from individual-level processes to societal-level changes—as well as interactions among these. SBS research can group people together in order to study the distinct characteristics of that group. For example, objects of study include families (e.g., Huang et al., 2016), organizations (Henderson, 2016), communities (Dynes, 1994, 2006), cultures (Oliver-Smith and Hoffman, 1999; Webb et al., 2000), and nations (McEntire, 2007). For a given study, SBS researchers will carefully consider the implications of choices about the unit of observation and the unit of analysis. Sometimes they are the same— for example, collecting data from individuals to describe how they make decisions (Kunreuther and Michel-Kerjan, 2009) or their beliefs (Klockow et al., 2014) or values (Tierney, 2014). And sometimes they are different—for example, when researchers collect data from individuals in different roles within an organization to examine how the organization as a whole operates (Kendra and Wachtendorf, 2003), or collect data from individuals to examine how a system works (Bostrom et al., 2016). SBS researchers also study people’s interactions and experiences with the things around them, including tools, policies, rules, expectations, resources, symbols, mental models, and so forth (e.g., Barnes et al., 2007; Daipha, 2015), and how individuals, groups, and organizations interact in social systems. While much SBS-weather research to date has focused on members of the public at the individual level, as illustrated above, SBS-weather research also concerns other actors and objects in the weather enterprise. Actors also include, for example, atmospheric science researchers, NOAA or FHWA management, public- and private-sector forecasters and broadcast meteorologists, a wide variety of public officials—for example, emergency managers, mayors, snowplow operators, and school superintendents (Donner, 2008; Sylves and Búzás, 2007)—and private-sector businesses (e.g., Craft, 1999). Objects include, for example, forecasts, computer software and hardware, budgets, offices and other infrastructure, and policies (e.g., Kunreuther and Michel-Kerjan, 2009). With the emergence of new research tools and greater access to big data, researchers are increasing their attention to behaviors at the system level, for example, agent-based modeling of evacuation behaviors (e.g., Chen et al., 2006; Widener et al., 2013) and social networking (Butts et al., 2012; Jones and Faas, 2017).

100

Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness

Data Collection and Study Design, Methods, Tools

Across different SBS disciplines, there is a range of methods one might employ for different purposes. For example, a study might focus on quantitative methods (such as survey questionnaires, experiments, large dataset analysis, GIS, or simulations using techniques such as agent-based modeling), or qualitative methods (such as interviews, content analysis, focus groups, and participant observations), or mixed methods that encompass both. Within each of these choices, multiple sub-types of studies can be developed. For instance, there are multiple types of experimental and quasi- experimental research designs (e.g., Shadish et al., 2002) and longitudinal analyses that model change and event occurrence (e.g., Singer and Willett, 2003). Surveys can be conducted by phone, internet, or mail, in person, or in mixed mode (e.g., Dillman et al., 2009). Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. Even within these research types, there can be different approaches used, such as a mental models approach (Morgan et al., 2002), cognitive interviewing (Conrad and Blair, 1996; 2009), or Q methodology (Bouwman et al., 2012; Brown, 1993). Research designs can be cross-sectional (in which data are collected at a single point in time) or longitudinal (in which data are collected at multiple points over time), and they may have varying spatial dimensions (localized versus distributed, small versus large scale). Studies might also vary in their degree of interaction between researchers and the people, organizations, or systems being studied (i.e., is the study purely observational, or do study participants interact with researchers?). Analytical methods vary as well. For instance, studies vary in the extent to which they incorporate synthetic data. While imputing missing data in surveys is a familiar process for many survey researchers, more complex imputation processes, bootstrapping, and simulation techniques can also be used to synthesize datasets. This section does not exhaustively address the range of options that SBS researchers employ, but it illustrates that SBS research encompasses a diverse toolbox of options, each with strengths and weaknesses. It is thus important to ensure that the right set of tools is used to address any given question, and to recognize that a wide variety of individual-, organizational-, and societal-level SBS research is potentially useful for the weather enterprise.

101

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

5.3 THE TYPES AND SCOPE OF SBS RESEARCH NEEDED

Using the general framework of research design characteristics discussed in the previous section as a foundation, and based on what we heard in discussions with researchers across the community, the Committee offers the following as guidance about the types and scope of research that is needed going forward: • Research that is disciplinary, interdisciplinary within SBS, and interdisciplinary between SBS and atmospheric science and other fields, such as hydrology, engineering, and computational and information sciences; • Research that is basic, applied, and developmental in nature;1 • Research that is of different scopes and budget sizes to accommodate different research needs. For instance, larger grants are generally appropriate for interdisciplinary work or for particularly resource-intensive data collection and analysis (e.g., longitudinal studies, ethnographic studies, “big data” analysis). Smaller grants may be appropriate for entraining new scholars into the SBS- weather research arena, or for proof-of-concept studies; • Research that examines a given topic or event from multiple methodological, disciplinary, conceptual, and sampling perspectives; • Research that takes a given topic that’s been framed by the meteorological community and reframes it from a SBS perspective. For instance, the related topics of “false alarms,” “over-warning,” and “warning complacency” might be reframed as questions about people’s information access, interpretations, perceptions, responses, and experiences; • Research that cuts across multiple events, populations, or time, in contrast to research that solves a very specific problem at hand; • Research that systematically employs in-depth, naturalistic, and engaged methods to investigate the lived weather experiences of people, comparison of cases, and identification of similarity and differences across and within populations; • Research that goes from “end-to-end,” e.g., that studies operational information that goes into and out of the forecast office; private businesses and media companies that access the information and transmit it to the public in

1 Following the National Science Foundation definitions: Basic research: systematic study directed toward fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in mind. Applied research: systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met. Development: systematic application of knowledge or understanding, directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes to meet specific requirements.

102

Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness

many forms; public officials and managers as mediators of forecast, preparedness, and response information; businesses and members of the public as end users; and • Research that leverages and builds on methods, concepts, and theories from nonweather research, recognizing that hazardous weather is a subset of research on risks, hazards, and disasters. This should include past data collection instruments and datasets that can be mined for secondary analyses.

5.4 CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Synthesizing our analysis of prior calls for research in Section 5.1 and the wide array of ideas and perspectives about research needs presented to the Committee over the course of this study, including the information presented in prior chapters, we emphasize here three broad research areas that will be critical for the coming 5-10 years. We expect that research priorities will evolve over time as society and technologies change, and as meteorological and SBS understanding, practices, and capabilities advance. Research looking at the weather enterprise as a system is needed to gain insights into how system-wide changes in forecast production and operations affect the quality and value of weather information, and to guide new decisions about weather enterprise operations at the system level. Research on risk assessments and responses and factors influencing these processes is needed because the growing emphasis on impact-based warnings and decision support increases pressures to understand different types of vulnerability and risk and how they interact and vary. Research focused on message design, delivery, interpretation, and use is needed, even though message design has long been a focus of weather research and there have been many recent advances (e.g., Bean et al., 2015; Sutton et al., 2015a,b). Much remains to learn in this realm because how people interpret messages is context- dependent, and the technological, social, and physical contexts for weather information are evolving rapidly (see Ch.4 of NASEM, 2017a). These three themes are described and illustrated with examples below.

Weather Enterprise System-Focused Research

Additional studies of weather information production, dissemination, and evaluation that would benefit the weather enterprise system include examinations of what information sources different people in the weather enterprise system use and trust; the timing of information production and dissemination; system effects on the design

103

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

of content, and on how information is used or influences others; the reach of information such as forecasts and warnings throughout the weather enterprise, and how this reach is affected by the information source, channel, and content. Studies of what messages get shared on social media such as Twitter illustrate this type of research and the lessons it can provide for forecast and warning systems (e.g., Sutton et al., 2015a). Examples of specific research questions include: • How do we investigate “end-to-end” questions about how forecasters, media, emergency managers, private weather companies, and others create information and communicate with officials, local residents, and others—as well as how people access, interpret, and use this information? What are the critical systems of connections among individuals, groups, organizations in the weather enterprise, such as Integrated Warning Teams? • What organizational and institutional changes would enhance collaboration across public, private, academic sectors in the weather enterprise? A better understanding is needed of the ways forecasters access, interpret, and use the increasing proliferation of new observations, remote sensing (e.g., GOES-16), and numerical weather prediction information to assess and communicate weather hazards. For example: • What global, synoptic, and storm-scale model guidance (including deterministic and ensemble-based guidance and associated verification information) do forecasters currently use and how, both for their own assessment of hazardous weather threats and for communicating hazardous weather threats to their core partners? How is this evolving over time, and what factors are driving this evolution? • How can forecasters’ expertise be coupled with computer-based output in ways that enhance forecast effectiveness, trustworthiness, and acceptance? How might this vary for different hazardous weather scenarios, in different places, and at different scales? Much remains to learn about team performance, organizational behavior, and focal activities in the weather enterprise, especially the activities and behaviors of fore casters and Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs). Recent research in this area (e.g., Anthony et al., 2014; Bass et al., 2011; Daipha, 2015; Demuth et al., 2012; Fine, 2007; Fine and Hallett, 2014; Heinselman et al., 2012; Hoffman et al., 2017; Morss et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2016) suggests that the effects of rapid technological and management changes should be evaluated regularly. Further investigations are needed to help refine performance evaluation metrics and practices. Research questions that have

104

Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness

been raised previously but that remain incompletely answered in the current forecasting environment include, for example: • What are the different ways that forecasters interact with other meteorologists and support staff within a given office, and how does this influence the forecast and warning process? How do the number and type of forecast office staff, the shift configurations, and other contextual factors influence forecast and warning processes? Further study of the economic valuation of services and improvements in services provided by the weather enterprise is much needed (e.g., Freebairn and Zillman, 2002; Frei et al., 2014; Gunasekera, 2003; Letson et al., 2007). For example: • How can one best assess the value of improved forecast information for different types of hazardous weather, different types of improvements, and different forecast parameters and timeframes? What are the most informative ways of measuring the impact of forecast improvements in helping to save lives? How do different users of forecasts perceive and value these impacts?

Risk Assessments and Responses and Factors Influencing These Processes

Research is needed to improve understanding of how people obtain hazardous weather information, including associated uncertainties; how they perceive their chances of being affected and harmed by a weather threat; their beliefs about their abilities to reduce those risks; their behavioral and emotional responses; and what factors influence all of those processes. Such research should address distinctions in the information needs across various populations, including the especially vulnerable (such as the poor, illiterate, innumerate, disabled, very young, aged, non-English speaking, tourists, or hospitalized) and key professional groups (see, for example, the discussion of transportation management professionals in Chapter 4). Some open research questions include: • How can the weather enterprise improve the timing, content, and channels of hazardous weather information to better reach, and enhance the utility of information for vulnerable populations, or populations with special or professional needs that are not well served by current systems? When information alone is insufficient to protect vulnerable and special needs populations, how can the weather enterprise effectively inform and support other types of interventions, such as engineering or planning interventions?

105

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

For understanding the needs, opportunities, and capacities of professionals with regard to weather information and decision making: • Are there new types of information or products, or enhancements of existing products, that NWS could provide to better support the weather communications efforts of broadcast meteorologists, private-sector forecast providers, emergency managers, transportation managers, and others in the weather enterprise? For understanding the needs, opportunities, and capacities of different populations with regard to weather information and decision making: • How might community- or neighborhood-based weather hazard communication and participation (i.e., crowdsourcing or other processes that focus on exchanging information with key community leaders, gatekeepers, and actors) enhance group-level adaptive capacity to enhance resilience and reduce harm? • What factors moderate people’s interest in, access to, interpretation of, and responses to weather information (emotional or protective factors, social norming, isolation, connectedness)? What is the role of factors such as physical context and vulnerabilities, socio-demographic characteristics, prior experiences, worldviews, personality traits, cultural background, and personal values? • How does scientific evidence about the effectiveness of protective actions (e.g., the safest structural locations in which to take shelter from a tornado) match people’s perceptions of those protective actions?

Message Design, Delivery, Interpretation, and Use

Advancing the effectiveness of the weather enterprise requires a better understanding of how message content and weather information provision practices influence people’s interest in, understanding of, and response to weather services and products. Much remains to learn about how to most effectively tailor forecasts, warnings, and protective action recommendations to the needs of specific types of users. As highlighted in the studies summarized in Section 5.1, specific issues needing further study include warning specificity, how communication technologies interact with message design, and how best to design impact-based warnings. Those designing and producing weather forecasts, warnings, and other decision support information need a better understanding of the perceptions and uses of uncertainty information by different types of audiences (such as state DOTs, drivers, public works directors, and vulnerable populations), and of how these different groups in turn communicate such uncertainties to others. Examples of specific research questions include:

106

Research Needs for Improving the Nation’s Weather Readiness

• What are effective approaches to communicating forecast uncertainty information so that it is understandable and actionable for different users, at different temporal and spatial scales, for different weather hazards, including both slower-onset, spatially diffuse hazards such as hurricanes and winter storms and rapid-onset, spatially localized hazards such as flash floods and tornadoes? • How do operational forecasters balance the requirements for consistency in messaging (e.g., use of nomenclature or designations like “hurricane”) with the needs for flexibility to best suit different geographical and cultural contexts? • What are the social impacts of, and the best strategies to manage, heavy media attention on major weather events, including the potential for and concerns about “media over-hype”? • How do false alarms and misses associated with high-impact weather events such as tornados affect people’s perceptions and behaviors when hazardous weather threatens? • How are new communication and information technologies (including the proliferation of different sources, content, and channels of weather information, along with improvements in meteorological understanding and forecasting) changing how people access, interpret, and respond to weather information? What effects are social media and information crowdsourcing having on people’s weather comprehension, preparedness, risk perception, and response?

107

CHAPTER 6

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research in the Weather Enterprise

his chapter explores how to make progress in addressing all the challenges and needs discussed in the previous chapters. We start by acknowledging how this Tissue is embedded in a larger challenge to identify appropriate roles for the different sectors of the weather enterprise overall (see Section 6.1). We then explore possible options for making progress on several fronts, including mechanisms for federal support of social and behavioral science (SBS)-weather research, public–private partnerships for supporting such research, platforms for intersectoral and interagency engagement, and opportunities to enhance interdisciplinary education and training (see Section 6.2).

6.1 THE CHALLENGE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING ACROSS THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

The U.S. weather enterprise has previously been defined as the synergistic, inter dependent relationship between the academic/research community, the public sector, and the private sector that provides weather services to the nation. The government’s traditional role within this relationship is the protection of life and property and the enhancement of national security and the national economy. This public-sector role is grounded in the sustainability and dependability of observational data, and in weather forecast products, to which there is free and open access. The private sector’s traditional role is to create and market customized and tailored weather products and services to a broad customer base of private individuals, government agencies, and businesses in a multitude of sectors. The academic community’s traditional role is to improve understanding of meteorological processes (as part of the larger “Earth

109

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

System”), perform basic and applied research that leads to innovation, and train the next generation. These traditional roles, however, have changed over time and continue to evolve at an increasing velocity, with this rate of change likely to increase in the coming years. Such changes are blurring the clear distinctions among sectoral responsibilities. This is seen, for instance, in the growth of commercial weather models and satellite and in situ data observations, in university- and private sector–operated weather observing networks, and in government meteorologists engaging directly with core partners to provide impact-based decision support services. Collaboration among the three sectors has been viewed as a particular strength of the U.S. approach to the weather services, and this enterprise has had some tremendous successes over the past few decades. Yet, each sector maintains its independence and develops and plans its own strategies; and there has never been any strategic planning process that looks to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the enterprise as a whole. One of the main recommendations to the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration/National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS) in the report Weather Services for the Nation: Becoming Second to None (NRC, 2012) is to “leverage the entire enterprise.” This recommendation stems from the recognition that to address expanding needs in a time of accelerating scientific and technological advancement, as well as uncertain and likely constrained budget resources, all available skills and com- petencies across the enterprise will have to be optimally coordinated and applied. The community continues to explore options to work together more strategically as an enterprise. For instance, there are ongoing discussions about possibly creating a process to periodically synthesize and prioritize research needs based on widespread input from across the scientific community (e.g., some have proposed launching something similar to the Decadal Survey of Earth Science and Applications from Space currently carried out by the National Academies [NASEM, 2017b]). No such plans have yet been implemented, however. While it is beyond the scope of this study to address these longstanding challenges, it is necessary to acknowledge this important underlying context, as any recommendations for more effectively supporting and applying SBS research are embedded in and inherently constrained by these broader weather enterprise challenges. The primary conclusion of the report Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services (NRC, 2003b) was that “it is counterproductive and diversionary to establish detailed and rigid boundaries for each sector, outlining who can do what and with which tools. Instead, efforts should focus on improving the processes by which the public and private providers of weather services interact” (p. 3). This earlier suggestion rings true in the current context as well, given the dramatic changes to the weather enterprise occurring today and expected in the coming years. Thus, in the following

110

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

sections, we focus on opportunities for progress that are flexible in terms of how they may be pursued and what institutional actors may be involved. For similar reasons, rigidly defining what integration of SBS within the weather enterprise should ultimately look like is difficult as well. But at the broadest level, the aim is to have people with diverse SBS backgrounds serving as active collaborators throughout all stages of weather enterprise activities, including the fundamental strategic planning efforts noted above, and employed as respected professionals throughout public, private, and academic sector organizations.

6.2 STEPS FORWARD WITHIN AND AMONG SECTORS

While SBS research is an enterprise-wide concern and responsibility, NOAA should continue to play a central role in driving forward this research. A stronger, more coherent foundation for SBS research and application requires improvements in terms of sustained attention, increased funding and staffing, and more robust institutional structure, including the inclusion of social science perspectives at leadership and planning levels.

Mechanisms for Federal Support of SBS Research

As discussed in Chapter 3, NOAA’s approach to supporting SBS-weather research over the past several years has been an ad hoc mix of different types of efforts, including in-house and directly competed studies, support for a variety of community- and capacity-building efforts, supplemental support for National Science Foundation (NSF) funding opportunities, and contractor-led activities. While most all of these individual efforts have made important contributions, collectively they have been lacking in terms of building a coherent guiding vision, a critical mass, and sustained, stable momentum for this field of research; in terms of effective operational application of new insights gained; and in terms of encompassing the full “end-to-end” weather communication pathways that predominate today, which include, for instance, emergency managers, private-sector companies, broadcasters, weather apps, and social media. Below are several possible options for new institutional arrangements to advance federal support of SBS for the weather enterprise on a more sustained basis: • Establish a special interdisciplinary research program jointly between NOAA and NSF, and possibly other interested agencies, to fund large-scale research proposals related to integrating SBS in the weather enterprise. The program could be designed specifically to support multi- and interdisciplinary research

111

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

by requiring co-principal investigators (Co-PIs) from social and physical sciences. Perhaps as well, special funding could be reserved for proposals that include Co-PIs from the private sector (see Box 6.1 for examples). • Establish a NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Labora- tory or Cooperative Institute dedicated to SBS-weather research, analogous to the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) focused on numerical modeling and the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL)

BOX 6.1 Some Examples of Interdisciplinary Research Programs

There are many examples of successful federal research programs that not only allow, but actually require active participation by scientists coming from both physical and social science disciplines. A couple of current examples include the following:

• In 2016, NSF released a solicitation entitled Critical Resilient Interdependent Infrastruc- ture Systems and Processes (CRISP) (NSF, 2017). CRISP seeks to foster an interdisciplinary research community of engineers, computer and computational scientists, and social and behavioral scientists. The goals are to create new approaches and engineering solutions for the design and operation of infrastructures and to create new knowledge, approaches, and solutions that increase resilience, performance, and readiness in interdependent critical infrastructure (ICI) systems. It is required that proposals integrate research across cyber elements (computing, information, computational, sensing, and communication), engineering elements, and societal elements (behavioral, economic, organizational) of ICIs. • Another useful model is a program sponsored by NOAA under the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), a partnership between NOAA and coastal states consist- ing of 29 coastal research reserves that protect and study estuaries. Each site is managed by a state agency or university, with involvement from local partners; and the estuary health is monitored to enable physical and social scientists to understand how human activities and natural events affect coastal habitats. One of the goals of the NERRS is to “increase social science research and use of social information to foster coastal stewards that value and protect estuaries” (NERRS, 2011); and to this end, NERRS actively solicits proposals that include integrated interdisciplinary study of some particular problem or issue at a given site. This collaborative approach requires both physical and social science participation, as well as active stakeholder engagement.

Criteria and strategies for successful interdisciplinary research are discussed in detail in Fa- cilitating Interdisciplinary Research (NRC, 2005b) and in Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (NRC, 2015).

112

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

focused on severe storms. This approach would put SBS on a more equal footing with other sciences within NOAA; it would help create a critical mass of social sciences expertise within the agency, and with that increased depth, it would enhance capacity within NOAA to develop interdisciplinary collaborations. It would also encourage research and applications testing that directly meets the needs of NWS. It would also provide a more stable base by protecting social science funding from the operational overruns and budget constraints of the service Line Offices. We recognize, however, that garnering the needed resources and actually establishing such a laboratory could be a difficult and lengthy process, and that this approach may face barriers in terms of infusing social science into the service components of NOAA. • Develop strong social science programs within some of the existing NOAA Cooperative Institutes. For instance, there is great potential for expanding cross-disciplinary testbed activities within: o the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS) at the University of Oklahoma, for SBS studies related to severe convective weather and tornados; o the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS) at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sci- ence, for SBS studies related to hurricanes and storm surge; o the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University and/or the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS) at the University of Wisconsin, for SBS studies related to forecasters’ use of new satellite data; and o the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, for SBS studies on the characterization and communication of weather forecast uncertainty information. This approach offers the advantage of allowing NOAA to efficiently tap social- science resources across the whole of academia, but like the previous option, it may face increased challenges related to infusing social sciences into the service-based components of NOAA. • Identify new collaborations with social scientists across a variety of relevant disciplines by building on the internal expertise and external professional networks of other parts of NOAA. In particular this may include NOAA’s National Sea Grant Program,1 which has connections to a broad network of state universities; the societal impacts programs within the OAR Climate Pro- gram Office, such as the Regional Integrated Science and Assessments (RISA)

1 See programs information at http://seagrant.noaa.gov.

113

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

program;2 and the Economics and Social Science Program within the National Marine Fisheries Service. • Capitalize on the fact that many NWS Weather Forecast Offices are co-located with university campuses by building more formal connections to SBS-related campus departments, which could develop new collaborations and applications of social science within weather operations. • Develop a University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)-based program, not physically confined just to the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (Boulder) but operating in a distributed fashion across some or all of the member campuses. This approach would encompass a broader range of research universities than those represented by the NOAA Coopera- tive Institutes, and it could help facilitate the infusion of social science not just into NOAA but across a broad range of other federal agencies. • Enhance SBS representation and research capacity at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), either through strengthening capacity at existing FFRDCs like UCAR/NCAR, or establishing a new FFRDC that focuses specifically on the application of social sciences. Such a step would raise the visibility of social science for weather applications; however, it may fail to capture the opportunities provided by being “close to the customer.” • Establish a Center of Excellence as a mechanism to directly link research to operational actors. (See discussion of the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] Centers of Excellence in Chapter 3.) A truly successful program—one that is able to respond to the needs of the weather enterprise and of the American public—would likely need to be a combination of some of these different approaches. Such diversity would foster innovation and ensure that the needed research efforts could remain robust in the face of budget cuts and other events that might befall any one agency or entity. We suggest the immediate commencement of a planning process that involves strong representation of SBS expertise and representatives of the key federal agencies, private-sector weather companies, and other weather enterprise partners to explore the different options described above for supporting new collaborative efforts among physical and social scientists. By supporting a variety of “startup-scale” efforts, widely distributed geographically and topically, the most effective of these efforts can be identified and expanded to reach the needed critical mass and stability.

2 See programs details at http://cpo.noaa.gov/ClimateDivisions/ClimateandSocietalInteractions/ RISAProgram.aspx.

114

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

Staffing considerations. Advancing any of these options successfully will require that NOAA’s leadership and management staff entrain more people with the expertise necessary for planning and managing SBS research activities who can provide consistent institutional knowledge of how SBS research is most effectively implemented, not only within NOAA’s weather-related operations but also end-to-end across the weather enterprise. This need has been spelled out in earlier reports, including Completing the Forecast: Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty for Better Decisions Using Weather and Climate Forecasts (NRC, 2006a), which suggests that NWS needs to acquire core in-house expertise in relevant social sciences in order to (i) conduct research, particularly in response to short-term needs; (ii) help NWS identify priority research questions and appropriate methods for answering them; (iii) help NWS identify and engage relevant external social science or other expertise; and (iv) assist with product development.

Public–Private Partnerships to Support SBS Research

The input from private-sector companies collected by this Committee indicates that it is unrealistic to expect commercial companies to actively support fundamental social science research or to openly share proprietary marketing studies. However, some private companies are willing to explore and likely to engage in some cooperative social science research efforts, and eventually this willingness may spread to additional companies—particularly if this research is of a general, high-level nature that would not delve into the competitive dynamics of any particular market. One possible mechanism for facilitating such joint research support is a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA): a vehicle for a government agency and a private company or university to work together on research and development. A CRADA is intended to speed the commercialization of technology, optimize resources, and protect the private company involved, in part by allowing research results to be kept confidential for up to 5 years. It may be worth considering a cooperative initiative among interested private companies and appropriate federal agencies as partners in a CRADA that is focused on doing foundational and/or applied SBS research. NOAA already has one CRADA established with several large companies, including IBM, Microsoft, and others, for the “Big Data Project,”3 which can be explored as an opportunity for cross-sector efforts to gather and mine data of key relevance to SBS-weather research.

3 See details at http://www.noaa.gov/big-data-project.

115

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

There are some existing institutions that offer potentially useful models of innovative platforms for joint public–private research planning and funding in a focused area of societal concern, such as the following: • The Health Effects Institute (HEI) is a nonprofit independent research organization focused on health effects of air pollution (HEI, 2017). HEI research is jointly funded by federal agency programs (primarily from EPA) and a consortium of private-sector stakeholders (mostly from the auto industry). The research is strategically targeted to address stakeholder needs and concerns, and the research outcomes are rigorously reviewed and openly shared. • The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) is an independent, nonprofit, scientific research and communications organization supported by property insurers and reinsurers (IBHS, 2017). IBHS conducts scientific research to identify and promote the most effective ways to strengthen homes, businesses, and communities against natural disasters and other causes of loss. While an institution that is primarily focused on SBS-weather research could differ in some fundamental ways from these examples, the basic mechanisms used by these institutions may nonetheless be instructive.

Platforms for Intersectoral and Interagency Engagement

Just as important as the mechanisms for supporting research are mechanisms for cooperation in agenda-setting activities, community-building programs, and information sharing venues at the SBS-weather interface. As discussed in Chapter 3, successful past activities of this type were often stymied by a lack of continuity and sustained funding. Box 6.2 offers an example that illustrates how effective intersectoral engagement has been sustained in the realm of aviation. Additionally, we suggest below some options for sustained platforms for dialogue and strategic planning among public, private, and academic sectors of the weather enterprise. • The National Academies report Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services (2003b) explicitly pointed to AMS as a good “neutral host” for convening discussions about intersector partnerships. In that same vein, there are a number of existing American Meteorological Society (AMS) platforms that can continue to be utilized for engagement: o The AMS Commission on the Weather, Water and Climate Enterprise (CWWCE) is tasked to develop and implement programs that address the needs and concerns of all sectors of the weather, water, and climate enterprise; to provide appropriate venues and opportunities for communi-

116

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

BOX 6.2 FAA Human Factors Research

A useful model of intersectoral engagement comes from the Federal Aviation Administra- tion’s (FAA’s) Human Factors research, which has involved coordination with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Defense (DoD); professional groups that include, for example, pilot and contractor unions and airframe and parts manufacturers; and the major airlines. A central mechanism to foster this coordination is the FAA’s Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), which provides advice to the FAA Administrator on research needs, objectives, plans, and accomplishments and assists in ensuring FAA research activities are coordinated with other government agencies and industry. The Human Factors subcommittee of the REDAC has a mixture of professional associations, industry, academia, FFRDC representatives, and other government agency members (FAA, 2017).

cations; and to engage the government, academic, and private sectors on pressing and strategic issues on behalf of the Society. The CWWCE could thus be an ideal incubator for SBS enterprise-wide planning. o The AMS Commission of Professional Affairs has Boards representing Broadcast Meteorologists, Certified Consulting Meteorologists, and Operational Government Meteorologists. These groups and others in the Commission all stand to benefit from advancing the development and application of SBS insights. o The AMS Board on Societal Impacts—under the Scientific and Techno- logical Activities Commission—could provide a useful platform for some types of interdisciplinary planning processes, perhaps in partnership with the NWA Societal Impacts of Weather and Climate Committee (discussed below). • The National Weather Association (NWA) likewise offers an important platform for facilitating inter-sectoral, interagency engagement regarding the SBS. NWA membership is comprised of many NWS operational forecasters, as well as broadcast meteorologists and other private-sector meteorologists. Moreover, NWA has a Societal Impacts of Weather and Climate Committee that could be also the focal point for conversation. • New working groups could be established within AASHTO (The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, a nonprofit association representing state highway and transportation departments) and/or the Transportation Research Board’s standing committee structure to provide

117

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

platforms focused on identifying and discussing critical SBS research specifically for road weather concerns. • The newly formed Alliance for Integrative Approaches to Extreme Environ- mental Events (described in Chapter 3) can potentially offer a new means to facilitate research planning and discussion at the SBS-weather interface. The value of this option, however, will depend on many details of how the Alliance is actually implemented and whether a stable source of funding for the organization can be secured. • Many interdisciplinary and SBS professional associations offer opportunities to develop weather-focused interest groups, or to strengthen their weather hazard focus within existing interest groups. These could include, for example, the risk communication specialty group of the Society for Risk Analysis or the environmental communications division of the National Communications Association. Researchers addressing weather-related topics can be found in most if not all of the major disciplinary SBS associations, such as the American Psychological Association, Psychonomics, the American Sociological Association, the American Political Science Association, the National Communications Association, and the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, as well as in interdisciplinary associations such as the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Soci- ety for Social Studies of Science. The newly formed Behavioral Science and Policy Association illustrates a growing interest in the study of how fundamental social and behavioral sciences can inform problems of public interest. • Other important opportunities for cross-sector collaboration can occur in research-to-operations projects that include SBS scientists, operational meteorologists both in NWS and in the private sector, and physical-science academics, focusing on practical questions of mutual interest to all such groups. For fostering more interagency cooperation and collaboration, one can look to the array of methods the Federal government currently employs. Some key examples of the facilitating organizations and methods for research related to the weather enterprise include the following: • The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), a part of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), has been the principal means within the executive branch for science and technology (S&T) coordination across the Federal research enterprise. NSTC has included several committees, subcommittees, and working groups that directly relate to SBS and the weather enterprise. For example, the Committee on Science includes an SBS subcommittee charged with coordination and collaboration of research

118

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

agendas across federal agencies and departments. The Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, and Sustainability includes a Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction that advises the OSTP and others about risk reduction, including mitigating weather-related disasters. The Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education includes several subcommittees charged with guidance for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development efforts across the federal government. • Congressionally authorized interagency working groups have been created for the purpose of coordination, some for specific priorities within the weather enterprise. For example, The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program was authorized to “achieve major measureable reductions in the loss of live and property from windstorms through a coordinated Federal effort, in cooperation with other levels of government, academia, and the private sector aimed at improving understanding of windstorms and their impacts and developing and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.”4 • Agency and program level workgroups are one of the most common sources for supporting interagency coordination and encouraging broad stakeholder participation in initiatives and programs. These groups may be formal continuing organizations such as NOAA’s Weather-Ready Nation “Ambassadors” program and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Youth Preparedness “Affirmers” program, or more single-purpose or hazard-focused workshops convened and funded by one or more agencies to discuss a specific topic. • University-based centers with federal funding. Federal agencies fund research in universities that include interagency collaboration as part of the research development. For instance, see the discussion of DHS Centers of Excellence in Chapter 3. • Workshops and conferences sponsored by national organizations. Large national organizations with a common interest related to the weather enterprise provide significant opportunities for informal, practitioner-level federal coordination, through annual conferences and workshops that bring together stakeholders from different sectors, roles, and disciplines. The informal information sharing and opportunities for collaboration that result from these

4 Public Law 114-52, September 30, 2015. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015. 42 U.S. Code 15701.

119

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

meetings should not be underestimated. A good example is the Symposium on Building a Weather Ready Nation held as part of the AMS annual meeting. There are numerous opportunities for strengthening integration of SBS through these existing mechanisms. For example, the NSTC Committee on Science’s SBS sub committee could be requested to lead a work group, with other committees and agency liaisons, to review opportunities and develop plans for collaboration across the weather enterprise. Or NOAA could lead new interagency efforts, for instance, by: • establishing an official work group for coordinating SBS-weather research across academic research centers, funded through key agencies (e.g., NOAA, NSF, DHS, Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], U.S. Geological Society [USGS]); • hosting an informal interagency work group to share research, applications, and practices that integrate SBS within the weather enterprise; • developing with other agencies and stakeholder organizations a regular conference topic track on integration of SBS in the weather enterprise; • working with other agencies to host a regular webinar series highlighting SBS research contributing to weather enterprise objectives.

Education and Training to Advance SBS in the Weather Enterprise

Fully engaging SBS in the ways discussed in this report would be a major departure from the current state of affairs within the weather enterprise, which would require changes in the culture and operation of NOAA and many of its partner organizations. A critical element in bringing about such changes is to augment the training of professionals throughout the weather enterprise. Below we suggest some possible steps forward in advancing the training of future professionals currently at various stages in their study and of professionals working today. In advancing these training efforts, it is important to learn from the successes and limitations of past capacity-building activities (such as those described in 3.1d) and to ensure that new efforts be accom- panied by tracking and evaluation in order to identify successes and inform course corrections. For training of future professionals, some options include: • Universities can develop new courses of study for people who wish to study the social and behavioral dimensions of weather, and initiate a project to develop high-quality source materials for such courses. This could include invited literature reviews and position papers co-authored by social scientists and meteorologists that focus on topics at the interface of the two. These

120

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

could be based on disciplinary lines (e.g., How can Sociology, Psychology, Eco- nomics, etc. contribute to the activities of the weather enterprise?), or could be focused around specific weather-related activities (e.g., How can SBS insights improve the communication of forecasts and warnings, post-event assessments?). • To facilitate those seeking a deeper immersion in learning at the weather/ society interface, some universities could develop joint programs that offer degrees spanning both meteorological sciences and SBS disciplines. While developing interdisciplinary joint degree programs is certainly no trivial undertaking, there are a growing number of such programs that could provide useful models to build on. We note for example Columbia University’s M.A. program in “Climate and Society”5 designed to help young professionals and academics work at the nexus of social science, climate science, and public policy. Developing a comparable program focused on weather-timescale dynamics seems a feasible and worthwhile goal for a number of universities around the United States. • Universities, together with private-sector weather companies and relevant federal agency offices, can develop internship opportunities for advanced undergraduate and graduate students majoring in various social science disciplines to work within the weather enterprise, including both private-sector and government placements, to expose them to the opportunities and challenges of the profession and to create opportunities for post-doctoral training that supports both social and physical science PhDs who want to broaden their horizons by learning, interacting, and collaborating with peers and more senior professionals from other disciplines. We note also the importance of encouraging underrepresented groups to become active scholars and practitioners working at this weather/society interface. A recent AMS statement about enhancing diversity within the atmospheric sciences6 articu- lates why such diversity is so valuable to society—a need that is all the more important for helping shape research on the social dimensions of weather enterprise operations:

The effective engagement, recruitment, and retention of underrepresented and underserved groups within the atmospheric sciences are vitally important. Increased diversity promotes innovation and strengthens our community’s ability to tackle research questions of great complexity and social consequence through the contribution of a wide

5 See http://climatesociety.ei.columbia.edu. 6 From a May 2017 AMS statement: see statement at https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/ about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/bachelor-s-degree-in-atmospheric-science1.

121

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

range of perspectives and expertise. The environmental science literacy of the general public will be enhanced by their engagement with a diverse atmospheric science workforce that is well connected to all segments of society. This issue relates to earlier discussion about trust as a key factor shaping how people respond to hazardous weather information. More diversity in the weather enterprise will bring in additional voices and perspectives to help establish trust with critical audiences, increasing both the relevance and the uptake of weather information. For training of professionals, some options might include: • Developing short workshops that provide weather professionals (meteorologists, forecasters, broadcasters) and physical science academics with basic understanding of key SBS research topics and methodologies and of critical new insights being gained through SBS research. (More discussion of this concept below). • For physical scientists and social scientists who want opportunities for more in-depth study and learning about issues at the interface of weather and society, new mid-career training opportunities could be developed, perhaps in the form of quarter, semester, or year-long research leaves.7 Similar opportunities could be created with interested private companies. One recent encouraging development is that a small group of SBS experts within NOAA (coming from NWS, OAR, SeaGrant programs) are developing a series of educational modules aimed at helping the agency’s forecasters, hydrologists, and other physical scientists gain some basic understanding of SBS disciplines, concepts, and research methods and to identify potential applications of these approaches in the weather enterprise. The Committee was told that these modules would also include (i) examples of how SBS studies have helped to improve specific NWS products and processes in the past; (ii) explanation of the standards and requirements for sound SBS research, to illustrate why this research can often be a lengthy process (and conversely, to illustrate why sound research cannot be done “on the fly” and why not every SBS study can provide simple, immediate, and definitive answers); and (iii) practical information about where to find resources and SBS scholars, and how to engage researchers who have the expertise appropriate for addressing different types of research questions. As of this writing, this effort is just a small pilot project being tested out with an initial cohort of roughly 20 NWS/Weather Forecast Office (WFO) employees from around the country. It will involve a combination of in-person training sessions and virtual webinar

7 See, for example, this NSF mid-career fellowship program: https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/mms/ midaward.jsp.

122

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

sessions over a period of about 6 months. There is not yet any identified source of sustained funding to ensure this activity can expand or continue for the long term. The Committee cannot comment on the specific program content, or evaluate the effectiveness of this specific effort. We do however, strongly support the initiative, and we believe that if this effort is broadly and strategically implemented, it could have valuable impacts—both to enlighten those who remain skeptical about the value of SBS research, and to provide “grounding” for those already eager to engage SBS in their work. The Committee thus strongly encourages that such efforts continue, but with the following caveats: • The material being used for these courses should be carefully peer reviewed by independent experts in the relevant SBS disciplines. • There needs to be a broader strategic vision developed for how this program will be sustained and expanded over time, how it will build on past SBS- related training programs (e.g., from Weather and Society * Integrated Studies (WAS*IS) workshops), and how it will ensure these modules are consistent and complementary with other related training programs (e.g., trainings currently provided for Integrated Warning Teams, Science & Operations Officers). • Training should also make it clear for participants that gaining an introduc- tory-level understanding of SBS concepts is not a substitute for actually working with credentialed SBS experts. While the concepts learned might help inform outreach and communication duties, actual SBS research cannot be done as an “amateur” effort. If the initial pilot efforts prove successful, there is a wide array of other stakeholders across the weather enterprise who would likely benefit from such a program, such as individuals in private-sector companies and university settings, broadcast meteorologists, and emergency and transportation managers. These programs could be expanded through creative new partnerships, for instance, with trainings hosted at scientific and professional meetings of AMS and NWA (both for their student and their professional-level members) and at UCAR member meetings (for the academic community). NOAA could also work with groups that are highly experienced in developing and administering training programs within the weather enterprise, such as: • FEMA’s Emergency Management Higher Education Program (FEMA, 2017a) • The DHS Centers of Excellence programs (described in Chapter 3) • NCAR’s COMET program (UCAR, 2017) The NWS’s Operations Workforce Analysis and the consequent “Evolve” initiative provide further motivation for SBS-related training. The forecaster’s role increasingly involves

123

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

BOX 6.3 Lessons from Social and Behavioral Science (SBS) Integration into the “Public Health Enterprise”

Appendix B explores the details of how SBS research has been successfully integrated, increasingly over the course of the past few decades, within two public health agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These are highlighted because they offer useful models from which the weather enterprise may glean numerous insights. Within the CDC, strategic integration of SBS into agency-wide operations has helped to advance understanding and mitigation of the situations and behaviors that place people at risk of contracting and transmitting infectious diseases. These developments were catalyzed by factors such as senior-level agency leadership, congressional interest and support, establishment of a high-level SBS coordinating staff position, and growth of a staff-led Behavioral and Social Sciences Work Group (BSSWG). The BSSWG today plays a leading role through activities such as maintaining a database of member contacts, skills and interests; managing a listserv for announcements and group discussions; organizing workshops, trainings, a speaker series, an annual awards program, support for attendance at professional conferences, and direct SBS employee recruitment. The CDC model suggests that some key elements for successfully integrating SBS within a federal agency include having grassroots champions and professional support, including peer-level support mechanisms; funding support for coordination, recruitment, professional development, and recognition of the SBS contributions to the agency mission; agency- level recognition of the critical role of SBS in mission success; and leadership support through policy direction and goal-setting. Within the FDA, SBS research has long been important for assuring effective communication of information to consumers, patients, and health care professionals. The FDA’s Risk Communication Advi- sory Committee in particular plays an active role in these efforts. A recent publication by a psychologist

working closely with core partners to communicate information about high-impact weather threats to support effective decision-making (see the Section 2.1 discussion of IDSS). Consequently, there is a growing need to train and prepare forecasters to meet these new job requirements, which go beyond what forecasters primarily are educated and trained to do (i.e., understanding and forecasting weather phenomena). The type of social science training courses discussed above can fulfill some aspects of these emerging forecaster training needs if the courses include a focus on effectively translating new SBS insights into practice within an operational environment, if they can be made available to all forecasters in the near future, and if they are updated regularly as critical new SBS insights emerge. One example of a recent IDSS-relevant course for forecasters (and others) that could be built on is Communicating Forecast Uncertainty developed by COMET.

124

A Framework to Sustainably Support and Effectively Use Social and Behavioral Science Research

who worked with the FDA (Fischhoff, 2017) highlights the opportunities and obstacles for successful social science collaborations within the agency. Key conditions identified as necessary for incorporating SBS into agency operations include:

• an external catalyst that recognizes the relevance and salience of SBS to the agency’s mission; • the presence of a core of in-house behavioral scientists able to identify the relevant science and apply it at the opportune time; and • engaged and committed social scientists with a good understanding of the agency, its mission and the environment it operates in, who are ready to deploy their expertise when called upon.

Other crucial elements of success noted by current FDA staff are broad buy-in by senior leaders about the importance of SBS research to the mission of the agency and dedicated funding and staff to undertake the needed work. The weather enterprise can learn from these experiences, as well as from comparable successes within other public health agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. Like the weather enterprise, the “public health enterprise” faces challenges such as a need for close coordination among multiple federal agencies and an array of state and local officials, rapidly evolving private-sector capabilities and contributions, and a diverse research community spread across universities and research institutes around the country. The experiences gained within the public health realm make clear that fostering a robust SBS presence within organizations traditionally dominated by physical or biological sciences requires a significant paradigm shift that can be decades in the making. Yet, with high-level leadership and vision, consistent support, and innovative approaches and partnerships, real successes can indeed be achieved.

Alongside these efforts to help meteorologists gain a better and deeper understanding of SBS concepts and research methods, parallel efforts in the other direction should be encouraged. Advancing the integration of SBS and weather requires entic- ing more social scientists to explore and pursue opportunities for actively working at this interface. Most social scientists have little familiarity with meteorology, NWS operations, or the weather enterprise more broadly (beyond being regular consumers of weather information), so a well-designed training course about weather enterprise “basics” could help social scientists better understand what a rich field of study this presents. Many of the actors listed above—NWS, AMS, NWA, UCAR—could develop short courses for social science students and professionals about basic concepts of weather preparedness, forecast development and communication, and response. Short courses

125

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

could include field visits to local WFOs, weather company offices, and broadcast meteorology studios to illustrate the real-world environment of today’s weather enterprise. Outreach for these sorts of trainings could be offered through university social science departments and relevant SBS professional societies and conferences. Here too there is no pretense that this training would equip social scientists to “do” meteorology. Rather, the goal is to help them feel conversant enough in basic concepts and terminology to feel comfortable proactively engaging with their physical science counterparts and to proactively seek new research opportunities at this interface.

126

CHAPTER 7

Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations

f the many thoughts and suggestions raised in the preceding chapters, the OCommittee highlights the following findings and recommendations:

7.1 FINDINGS

• While efforts to advance meteorological research and numerical weather prediction must continue, realizing the greatest return on investment from such efforts requires fully engaging the social and behavioral sciences (SBS)—both to expand the frontiers of knowledge within social and behavioral science disciplines, and to foster more extensive application of these sciences across the weather enterprise. • SBS research offers great potential not just for improving communications of hazardous weather warnings, but also for improving preparedness and mitigation for weather risks, for hazard monitoring, assessment, and forecasting processes, for emergency management and response, and for long-term recovery efforts. • The past few decades have seen a variety of innovative research projects and activities bring social and behavioral sciences within the weather enterprise; these efforts have made demonstrable contributions both to the social and behavioral sciences and to meteorology. However, the accumulation of knowledge has been hampered by the relatively small scale, intermittency, and inconsistency of investment in these sorts of efforts. • As current research activities demonstrate, exciting opportunities exist for advancing weather-related research that addresses important societal needs, both within the social and behavioral sciences, and across social and physical sciences. A variety of research advances are providing transformative new opportunities for expanding these contributions to the weather enterprise. For instance, new tools and models are making it possible to collect, analyze, interpret, and apply data and information both at smaller scales—for example, eye-tracking of the use of visual information—and at larger scales—for

127

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

example, through social media analyses of the spread and influence of information across social networks, and the application of big data, data analytics and cognitive computing to this context. • Existing federal agency data collection activities by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could, with modest additions and greater interagency coordination, significantly expand our understanding of the social context of hazardous weather. • Meteorologists and others in the weather enterprise could benefit from a more realistic understanding of the diverse disciplines, theories, and research methodologies used within the social and behavioral sciences; of the time and resources needed for robust SBS research; and of the inherent limitations in providing simple, universally applicable answers to complex social science questions. • Organizations across the weather enterprise—including several federal agencies, private-sector weather companies, academic institutions, and professional societies—have shared motivations for actively contributing to the integration of SBS within the weather enterprise, through a variety of practical roles that are discussed herein. • Numerous previous reports going back many years have highlighted needs and challenges similar to those noted here—yet many of the same challenges remain today. Recent history demonstrates that overcoming these challenges and making progress is not idea limited, but rather, is resource limited.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Social and behavioral scientific research focused on weather applications is advancing during a time of accelerating social and technological change, both within the weather enterprise and across society at large. In this context, the Committee offers a broad-based framework for action, which leverages leadership to build awareness and demand for increased capacity, and identifies key knowledge gaps to target with that increased capacity. The Committee advocates that all sectors of the weather attend to these three main areas:

Invest in Leadership to Build Awareness

Effectively integrating social and behavioral sciences into organizations that have historically been rooted in the physical sciences requires leadership at the highest levels.

128

Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations

Across the weather enterprise, leaders themselves need to invest time in understanding and in spreading awareness to key constituencies and stakeholders about the many ways that social and behavioral sciences can help advance their organization’s goals related to preparedness and mitigation for weather hazards; hazard monitoring, assessment, and forecasting processes; emergency management and response; and long-term recovery. To aid these efforts, federal agencies, private companies, and leading academic programs within the weather enterprise need to augment their leadership teams to include executives and managers with strong and diverse social science backgrounds. Recommendation: Leaders of the weather enterprise should take steps to accelerate this paradigm shift by underscoring the importance of social and behavioral science (SBS) contributions in fulfilling their organizational missions and achieving operational and research goals, bringing SBS expertise into their leadership teams, and establishing relevant policies and goals to effect necessary organizational changes.

Build Capacity Throughout the Weather Enterprise

Building SBS research capacity is an enterprise-wide concern and responsibility. However, NOAA will need to play a central role in driving forward this research in order to achieve the agency’s goals of improving the nation’s weather readiness. Building capacity to support and implement SBS research depends on more sustained funding and increased intellectual resources (i.e., professional staff trained and experienced in SBS research and its effective application). Several possible mechanisms for NOAA to advance SBS capacity are described in this report, such as innovative public–private partnerships for interdisciplinary weather research, the development of an SBS-focused NOAA Cooperative Institute, or creation of SBS-focused programs within existing Cooperative Institutes. New sustained efforts by other key federal agencies, in particular the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), will also be critical for expanding capacity to support research and operations at the SBS-weather interface. Just as important as the mechanisms for supporting research are the research assessment and agenda-setting activities, community-building programs, and information sharing venues that help build a professional community working at the SBS-weather interface. Some existing platforms for sustained dialogue and strategic planning among public-sector, private-sector, and academic representatives could provide an effective base for SBS-related strategic planning as well. Interagency cooperation

129

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

and collaboration could be pursued through mechanisms the federal government currently employs, such as interagency working groups or university-based research centers supported by multiple agencies. Targeted training programs can help researchers from the social, physical, and engineering sciences better understand each other’s diversity of research methodologies, and capacities and limitations. Viable approaches include interdisciplinary or joint degree programs, training at multi- or transdisciplinary centers in team science, building on NOAA’s currently developing SBS training efforts, and utilizing existing training platforms such as FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute, and the University Corpo- ration for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) COMET program. Recommendation: Federal agencies and private-sector weather companies should, together with leading social and behavioral science (SBS) scholars with diverse expertise, immediately begin a planning process to identify specific investments and activities that collectively advance research at the SBS-weather interface. This planning process should also address critical supporting activities for research assessment, agenda setting, community building, and information sharing, and the development of methods to collectively track funding support for this suite of research activities at the SBS-weather interface. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should build more sustainable institutional capacity for research and operations at the SBS-weather interface and should advance cooperative planning to expand SBS research among other federal agencies that play critical roles in weather- related research operations. In particular, this should include leadership from: • The National Science Foundation for a strong standing program that supports interdisciplinary research at the SBS-weather interface; • The Federal Highway Administration for research related to weather impacts on driver choices and behaviors; and • The Federal Emergency Management Agency for research on the social and human factors that affect weather readiness, including decisions and actions by individuals, communities and emergency management to prepare for, prevent, respond to, mitigate, and recover from weather hazards. All parties in the weather enterprise should continue to develop and implement training programs for current and next generation workforces in order to expand capacity for SBS-weather research and applications in the weather enterprise.

130

Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations

Focus on Critical Knowledge Gaps

Building scientific understanding of weather-related actions, behaviors, and decisions will require investing wisely in research that addresses specific knowledge gaps and will help accelerate the maturation of the field overall. The Committee identified a series of key near-term research questions that span the different stages of weather communication and decision support shown in Figure S.1. The research questions, which are detailed in this report, can be broadly grouped into the following topical areas listed below. Recommendation: The weather enterprise should support research efforts in the following areas: • Weather enterprise system-focused research. To address this gap requires system-level studies of weather information production, dissemination, and evaluation; studies of how forecasters, broadcast media, emergency and transportation managers, and private weather companies create information, interact, and communicate among themselves; studies of forecaster decision making, such as what observational platforms and numerical weather prediction guidance forecasters use and how they use them; studies of how to assess the economic value of weather services; and studies of team performance and organizational behavior within weather forecast offices and other parts of the weather enterprise. • Risk assessments and responses, and factors influencing these processes. This includes research on how to better reach and inform special-interest populations that have unique needs, such as vehicle drivers and others vulnerable to hazardous weather due to their location, resources, and capabilities. It also includes research on how people’s interest in, access to, and interpretation of weather information, as well as their decisions and actions in response, are affected by their specific social or physical context, prior experiences, cultural background, and personal values. • Message design, delivery, interpretation, and use. Persistent challenges include understanding how communicating forecast uncertainties in different formats influences understanding and action; how to balance consistency in messaging with needs for flexibility to suit different geographical, cultural, and use contexts, including warning specificity and impact-based warnings; and how new communication and information technologies—including the proliferation of different sources, content, and channels of weather information—interact with message design and are changing people’s weather information access, interpretations, preparedness, and response.

131

References

Aitsi-Selmi, A., Blanchard, K., Al-Khudhairy, D., Ammann, W., Basabe, P., Johnston, D., Ogallo, L., Onishi, T., Renn, O., and Revi, A. (2015). UNISDR Science and Technical Advisory Group report 2015: Science is used for disaster risk reduction. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. AMS (American Meteorological Society). (2004). Weather and highways. Washington, DC: The American Meteorological Society. Anderson, J., Kogan, M., Bica, M., Palen, L., Anderson, K., Morss, R., Demuth, J., Lazrus, H., Wilhelmi, O., and Henderson, J. (2016). Far far away in Far Rockaway: Responses to risks and impacts during Hurricane Sandy through first-person social media narratives. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM) 2016 Conference. Anthony, K.E., Cowden-Hodgson, K.R., Dan O’Hair, H., Heath, R.L., and Eosco, G.M. (2014). Complexities in communication and collaboration in the hurricane warning system. Communication Studies, 65(5), 468-483. Atreya, A., Ferreira, S., and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2015). What drives households to buy flood insurance? New evidence from Georgia. Ecological Economics, 117, 153-161. Ash, K.D. (2017). A qualitative study of mobile home resident perspectives on tornadoes and tornado protective actions in South Carolina, USA. GeoJournal, 82(3), 533-552. Ash, K.D., Schumann III, R.L., and Bowser, G.C. (2014). Tornado warning trade-offs: Evaluating choices for visually communicating risk. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(1), 104-118. Ashley, S.T., and Ashley, W.S. (2008). Flood fatalities in the United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47(3), 805-818. Ashley, W.S., Krmenec, A.J., and Schwantes, R. (2008). Vulnerability due to nocturnal tornadoes. Weather and Forecasting, 23(5), 795-807. ASRS (NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System). (2016a). ASRS database report set: Checklist incidents Moffett Field, CA Ames Research Center. ASRS. (2016b). ASRS database report set: Cockpit resource management (CRM) issues Moffett Field, CA. ASRS. (2016c). ASRS database report set: Commuter and corporate flight crew fatigue reports. Moffett Field, CA: Ames Research Center. ASRS. (2016d). ASRS database report set: Pilot/controller communications. Moffett Field, CA: Ames Research Center. Babbie, E.R. (2007). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Baker, E.J. (1991). Hurricane evacuation behavior. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9(2), 287-310. Bakkensen, L.A., Fox-Lent, C., Read, L.K., and Linkov, I. (2016). Validating resilience and vulnerability indices in the context of natural disasters. Risk Analysis, 37(5), 982-1004. Barnes, L.R., Gruntfest, E.C., Hayden, M.H., Schultz, D.M., and Benight, C. (2007). False alarms and close calls: A conceptual model of warning accuracy. Weather and Forecasting, 22(5), 1140-1147. Barthold, F.E., Workoff, T.E., Cosgrove, B.A., Gourley, J.J., Novak, D.R., and Mahoney, K.M. (2015). Improving flash flood forecasts: The HMT-WPC Flash Flood and Intense Rainfall Experiment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(11), 1859-1866. Bass, E.J., Hogan, B., Rude, D., Philips, B., Westbrook, D., League, C., Brotzge, J., Marsh, P., Riley, R. and Lemon, L. (2011). A method for investigating real-time distributed weather forecaster-emergency manager interaction. Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). October 9-12, 2011, Anchorage, Alaska, 2809-2815. Bean, H., Liu, B., Madden, S., Mileti, D., Sutton, J., and Woo, M. (2014). Comprehensive testing of imminent threat public messages for mobile devices. College Park, MD: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

133

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Bean, H., Sutton, J., Liu, B., Madden, S., Wood, M.M., and Mileti, D.S. (2015). The study of mobile public warning messages: A research review and agenda. Review of Communication, 15(1), 60-80. Blackburn, R.R., McGrane, E.J., Chappelow, C.C., Harwood, D.W., and Fleege, E.J. (1994). Development of anti-icing technology. Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council. Bogomolov, A., Lepri, B., Ferron, M., Pianesi, F., and Pentland, A.S. (2014). Daily stress recognition from mobile phone data, weather conditions and individual traits. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Confer- ence on Multimedia. Boselly, E., Thornes, E., and Ulburg, C. (1993). Road weather information systems volume 1: Research report. Strategic High- way Research Program Publication-SHRP-H-350, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 90-93. Bostrom, A., Morss, R.E., Lazo, J.K., Demuth, J.L., Lazrus, H., and Hudson, R. (2016). A mental models study of hurricane forecast and warning production, communication, and decision-making. Weather, Climate, and Society, 8(2), 111-129. Botzen, W.W., Kunreuther, H., and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2015). Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4), 365. Bouwman, H., Bejar, A., and Nikou, S. (2012). Mobile services put in context: A Q-sort analysis. Telematics and Informatics, 29(1), 66-81. Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679. Broad, K., Leiserowitz, A., Weinkle, J., and Steketee, M. (2007). Misinterpretations of the “cone of uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 hurricane season. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(5), 651-667. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513. Brown, S.R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138. Bruch, E., and Feinberg, F. (2017). Decision-making processes in social contexts. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 207-227. Budescu, D.V., Por, H.-H., Broomell, S.B., and Smithson, M. (2014). The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nature Climate Change, 4(6), 508. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2016). Growth in the nation’s freight shipments—highlights. Retrieved February 21, 2017, from https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/freight_shipments_in_america/ html/entire.html. Burian, B.K., Orasanu, J., and Hitt, J. (2000). Weather-related decision errors: Differences across flight types. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(1), 22-25. Butts, C.T., Acton, R.M., and Marcum, C.S. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration in the Hurricane Katrina response. Journal of Social Structure, 13. Carbin, G., Heinselman, P., and Stensrud, D. (2013). Current challenges in tornado forecast and warning. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 31, 350-359. CDC (Centers for Disease Control Prevention). (2012). Public health surveillance during a disaster. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/surveillance.htm. CDC. (2013). Deaths associated with Hurricane Sandy—October-November 2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62(20), 393. Chaffee, S.H. (1991). Communication concepts 1: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chen, X., Meaker, J.W., and Zhan, F.B. (2006). Agent-based modeling and analysis of hurricane evacuation procedures for the Florida Keys. Natural Hazards, 38(3), 321. Chin, S., Franzese, O., Greene, D., Hwang, H., and Gibson, R. (2002). Temporary losses of highway capacity and impacts on performance. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Cho, H. (2011). Health communication message design: Theory and practice: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Choi, H., and Varian, H. (2012). Predicting the present with Google trends. Economic Record, 88(s1), 2-9. Clark, A.J., Weiss, S.J., Kain, J.S., Jirak, I.L., Coniglio, M., Melick, C.J., Siewert, C., Sobash, R.A., Marsh, P.T., and Dean, A.R. (2012). An overview of the 2010 hazardous weather testbed experimental forecast program spring experiment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(1), 55-74. Combs, D.L., Quenemoen, L.E., Parrish, R.G., and Davis, J.H. (1999). Assessing disaster-attributed mortality: Development and application of a definition and classification matrix. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28(6), 1124-1129.

134

References

Congdon, W.J., and Shankar, M. (2015). The White House Social & Behavioral Sciences Team: Lessons learned from year one. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1(2), 77-86. Conrad, F., and Blair, J. (1996). From impressions to data: Increasing the objectivity of cognitive interviews. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, Annual Meetings of the American Statistical Association. Conrad, F., and Blair, J. (2009). Sources of error in cognitive interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 32-55. Contractor, N.S., and DeChurch, L.A. (2014). Integrating social networks and human social motives to achieve social influence at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13650-13657. Cooke, N.J., and Winner, J.L. (2007). Human factors of homeland security. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3(1), 79-110. Cooke, N.J., Gorman, J.C., Myers, C.W., and Duran, J.L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37, 255-285. Craft, E.D. (1999). Private weather organizations and the founding of the United States Weather Bureau. The Journal of Economic History, 59(4), 1063-1071. Cuite, C.L., Shwom, R.L., Hallman, W.K., Morss, R.E., and Demuth, J.L. (2017). Improving coastal storm evacuation messages. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(2), 155-170. Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., and Shirley, W.L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261. Czajkowski, J., and Done, J. (2014). As the wind blows? Understanding hurricane damages at the local level through a case study analysis. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(2), 202-217. Daipha, P. (2012). Weathering risk: Uncertainty, weather forecasting, and expertise. Sociology Compass, 6(1), 15-25. Daipha, P. (2015). Masters of uncertainty: Weather forecasters and the quest for ground truth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Davidson, R.A. (2015). Integrating disciplinary contributions to achieve community resilience to natural disasters. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 32(1-2), 55-67. DeMaria, M., Knaff, J.A., Knabb, R., Lauer, C., Sampson, C.R., and DeMaria, R.T. (2009). A new method for estimating tropical cyclone wind speed probabilities. Weather and Forecasting, 24(6), 1573-1591. DeMaria, M., Knaff, J.A., Brennan, M.J., Brown, D., Knabb, R.D., DeMaria, R.T., Schumacher, A., Lauer, C.A., Roberts, D.P., and Sampson, C.R. (2013). Improvements to the operational tropical cyclone wind speed probability model. Weather and Forecasting, 28(3), 586-602. DeMaria, M., Sampson, C.R., Knaff, J.A., and Musgrave, K.D. (2014). Is tropical cyclone intensity guidance improving? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(3), 387-398. Demuth, J.L. (2015). Doctoral dissertation: Developing a valid scale of past tornado experiences. Colorado State University. Demuth, J.L., Morss, R.E., Lazo, J.K., Gruntfest, E., and Drobot, S. (2007). WAS*IS: Building a community for integrating meteorology and social science. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(11), 1729-1737. Demuth, J.L., Lazo, J.K., and Morrow, B.H. (2009). Weather forecast uncertainty information: An exploratory study with broadcast meteorologists. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(11), 1614-1618. Demuth, J.L., Lazo, J.K., and Morss, R.E. (2011). Exploring variations in people’s sources, uses, and perceptions of weather forecasts. Weather, Climate, and Society, 3(3), 177-192. Demuth, J.L., Morss, R.E., Morrow, B.H., and Lazo, J.K. (2012). Creation and communication of hurricane risk information. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(8), 1133-1145. Demuth, J.L., Morss, R.E., Lazo, J.K., and Hilderbrand, D.C. (2013). Improving effectiveness of weather risk communication on the NWS point-and-click web page. Weather and Forecasting, 28(3), 711-726. Demuth, J.L., Morss, R.E., Lazo, J.K., and Trumbo, C. (2016). The effects of past hurricane experiences on evacuation intentions through risk perception and efficacy beliefs: A mediation analysis. Weather, Climate, and Society, 8(4), 327-344. Dewitt, B., Fischhoff, B., Davis, A., and Broomell, S.B. (2015). Environmental risk perception from visual cues: The psycho physics of tornado risk perception. Environmental Research Letters, 10(12), 124009. DHS (Department of Homeland Security). (2017). About S&T. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.dhs.gov/ science-and-technology/about-st. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

135

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Dixon, R.W., and Moore, T.W. (2012). Tornado vulnerability in Texas. Weather, Climate, and Society, 4(1), 59-68. Donner, W.R. (2008). Decision making as community adaptation: A case study of emergency managers in Oklahoma. Disasters, 32(2), 292-302. DOT (Department of Transportation). (2016). Revised departmental guidance 2016: Treatment of the value of preventing fatalities and injuries in preparing economic analyses. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.transportation. gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf. Dow, K., and Cutter, S.L. (2002). Emerging hurricane evacuation issues: Hurricane Floyd and South Carolina. Natural Hazards Review, 3(1), 12-18. Droegemeier, K.K., Rothfusz, L.P., Knoedler, A.J., Ferree, J.T., Henderson, J., Nemunaitis-Monroe, K.L., Nagele, D., and Klockow, K.E. (2016, May 18-20, 2015). Living with extreme weather workshop: Summary and path forward. Paper presented at Living with Extreme Weather: A Workshop to Integrate Understanding and Improve Societal Response, Norman, OK. Drost, R., Trobec, J., Steffke, C., and Libarkin, J. (2015). Eye tracking: Evaluating the impact of gesturing during televised weather forecasts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(3), 387-392. Dynes, R.R. (1994). Community emergency planning: False assumption and inappropriate analogies. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 12(2), 141-158. Dynes, R. (2006). Social capital: Dealing with community emergencies. Homeland Security Affairs, 2(2). Edmonds, A.S., and Cutter, S.L. (2008). Planning for pet evacuations during disasters. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 5(1). Enarson, E., and B. Pease. (2016). Men, masculinities, and disasters. New York: Routledge. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P., and Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation—A European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-spanning Technology. Lulea University of Technology Sweden: Lulea. FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). (2005). Human factors policy: Order 9550.8a. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https:// www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/...hf/.../faa_order_9550.8_hf_policy.doc. FAA. (2017). Research & development management division. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.faa.gov/about/ office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/offices/tc/about/campus/faa_host/RDM. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). (2011). Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence-based user’s guide. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2014). Preparedness in America, Research Insights to Increase Individual, Organizational, and Community Action. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA. (2016). What is the Mitigation Assessment Team Program? Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.fema.gov/ what-mitigation-assessment-team-program#2. FEMA. (2017a). Academic Emergency Management and Related Courses (AEMRC) for the higher education program. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://training.fema.gov/hiedu/aemrc. FEMA. (2017b). Protective Action Validation Report, Research Review of Natural Hazard Guidance to the Public, Version 1, Individual and Community Preparedness, 2017. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (1999). Surface transportation weather decision support requirements. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/94f01!.pdf. FHWA. (2014). Best practices for road condition reporting systems. Publication no. FHWA-HOP-14-023. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. FHWA. (2017a). 511: America’s traveler information telephone number, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/trafficinfo/511what. htm. FHWA. (2017b). How do weather events impact roads? Retrieved February 24, 2017, from https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/ weather/q1_roadimpact.htm. FHWA. (2017c). Toward zero deaths. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tzd/ Fine, G.A. (2007). Authors of the storm: Meteorologists and the culture of prediction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fine, G.A., and Hallett, T. (2014). Group cultures and the everyday life of organizations: Interaction orders and meso-analysis. Organization Studies, 35(12), 1773-1792. Fischhoff, B. (1994). What forecasts (seem to) mean. International Journal of Forecasting, 10(3), 387-403.

136

References

Fischhoff, B. (2017). Breaking ground for psychological science: The US Food and Drug Administration. American Psycholo- gist, 72(2), 118. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S.R., and Hope, C. (1984). Defining risk. Policy Sciences, 17(2), 123-139. Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N., and Downs, J. (2011). Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence-based user’s guide. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC. FIT (Field Innovation Team). (2014). Stories from the field: A visual series from the field innovation team. Retrieved March 6, 2017, from http://fieldinnovationteam.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Pakistan-After-Action-Report-2014.pdf. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Yost, J., Ciliska, D., and Krishnaratne, S. (2010). Communication about environmental health risks: A systematic review. Environmental Health, 9, 67. Fothergill, A., and Peek, L. (2015). Children of Katrina. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Freebairn, J.W., and Zillman, J.W. (2002). Economic benefits of meteorological services.Meteorological Applications, 9(1), 33-44. Frei, T., von Grünigen, S., and Willemse, S. (2014). Economic benefit of meteorology in the Swiss road transportation sector. Meteorological Applications, 21(2), 294-300. Gerring, J. (2011). Social science methodology: A unified framework. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gladwin, C.H., Gladwin, H., and Peacock, W.G. (2001). Modeling hurricane evacuation decisions with ethnographic methods. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 19(2), 117-143. Gladwin, H., Lazo, J.K., Morrow, B.H., Peacock, W.G., and Willoughby, H.E. (2007). Social science research needs for the hurricane forecast and warning system. Natural Hazards Review, 8(3), 87-95. Glik, D.C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 28, 33-54. Goodman, S.J., Gurka, J., DeMaria, M., Schmit, T.J., Mostek, A., Jedlovec, G., Siewert, C., Feltz, W., Gerth, J., and Brummer, R. (2012). The GOES-R proving ground: Accelerating user readiness for the next-generation geostationary environmental satellite system. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(7), 1029-1040. Gravelle, C.M., Runk, K.J., Crandall, K.L., and Snyder, D.W. (2016). Forecaster evaluations of high temporal satellite imagery for the GOES-R era at the NWS operations proving ground. Weather and Forecasting, 31(4), 1157-1177. Gunasekera, D. (2003). Measuring the economic value of meteorological information. Bulletin of the World Meteorological Organization, 52(4), 366-372. Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 653-683. Hayden, M., Drobot, S., Radil, S., Benight, C., Gruntfest, E., and Barnes, L. (2007). Information sources for flash flood warnings in Denver, CO and Austin, TX. Environmental Hazards, 7(3), 211-219. HDMB (Hurricane Digital Memory Bank). (2017). Collecting and preserving the stories of Katrina and Rita. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://hurricanearchive.org. HEI (Health Effects Institute). (2017). Health Effects Institute. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.healtheffects.org. Heinselman, P.L., LaDue, D.S., and Lazrus, H. (2012). Exploring impacts of rapid-scan radar data on NWS warning decisions. Weather and Forecasting, 27(4), 1031-1044. Heinselman, P., LaDue, D., Kingfield, D.M., and Hoffman, R. (2015). Tornado warning decisions using phased-array radar data. Weather and Forecasting, 30(1), 57-78. Helmreich, R.L., Klinect, J.R., and Wilhelm, J.A. (1999). Models of threat, error, and CRM in flight operations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Helsel, M., Boyce, B., Poling, T., and Sundararajan, S. (2016). Collaboration across the road weather enterprise: The Pathfinder Project. FHWA-HOP-16-086. Hemingway, L., and Priestley, M. (2014). Natural hazards, human vulnerability and disabling societies: A disaster for disabled people? Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 2(3). Henderson, J.J. (2016). To err on the side of caution: Ethical dimensions of the National Weather Service warning process. PhD dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 240 pp. Herring, L. (1997). CDC arms with behavioral science in war on disease and injury. Observer, Association for Psychological Science, May 1997. Hoekstra, S., Klockow, K., Riley, R., Brotzge, J., Brooks, H., and Erickson, S. (2011). A preliminary look at the social perspective of warn-on-forecast: Preferred tornado warning lead time and the general public’s perceptions of weather risks. Weather, Climate, and Society, 3(2), 128-140.

137

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Hoffman, R.R., Lee, J.D., Woods, D.D., Shadbolt, N., Miller, J., and Bradshaw, J.M. (2009). The dynamics of trust in cyberdomains. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(6). Hoffman, R.R., LaDue, D.S., and Mogil, H.M. (2017). Minding the weather: How expert forecasters think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Holtzman, D., Neumann, M., Sumartoj, E., and Lansky, A. (2006). Behavioral and social sciences and public health at CDC. MMWR Supplements, 55(2), 14-16. Houston, J.B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M.F., Park, E.H., Goldstein Hode, M., Halliwell, M.R., Turner McGowen, S.E., Davis, R., Vaid, S., and McElderry, J.A. (2015). Social media and disasters: A functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1-22. Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M.K., Prater, C.S., Wu, H.-C., and Siebeneck, L.K. (2012). Household evacuation decision making in response to Hurricane Ike. Natural Hazards Review, 13(4), 283-296. Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M.K., and Prater, C.S. (2016). Who leaves and who stays? A review and statistical meta-analysis of hurricane evacuation studies. Environment and Behavior, 48(8), 991-1029. Hughes, A., and Palen, L. (2014). Chapter 11, social media and emergency management: An academic’s perspective. In J.E. Trainor and T. Subbio (Eds.), Critical issues in disaster science and management: A dialogue between researchers and practitioners (pp. 350-363): FEMA Higher Education Project. Hughes, A.L., St Denis, L.A., Palen, L., and Anderson, K.M. (2014). Online public communications by police & fire services during the 2012 Hurricane Sandy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. IBHS (Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety). (2017). About IBHS. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://disaster- safety.org/about. Jauernic, S.T., and Van Den Broeke, M.S. (2016). Perceptions of tornadoes, tornado risk, and tornado safety actions and their effects on warning response among Nebraska undergraduates. Natural Hazards, 80(1), 329-350. Jones, E.C., and Faas, A. (2017). Social network analysis of disaster response, recovery, and adaptation. Cambridge, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Jones, S., and Golding, B. (2014). HIWeather. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/ new/documents/HIW_IP_v1_4.pdf. Joslyn, S., and Savelli, S. (2010). Communicating forecast uncertainty: Public perception of weather forecast uncertainty. Meteorological Applications, 17(2), 180-195. Joslyn, S.L., and LeClerc, J.E. (2012). Uncertainty forecasts improve weather-related decisions and attenuate the effects of forecast error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(1), 126. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Karstens, C.D., Stumpf, G., Ling, C., Hua, L., Kingfield, D., Smith, T.M., Correia Jr, J., Calhoun, K., Ortega, K., and Melick, C. (2015). Evaluation of a probabilistic forecasting methodology for severe convective weather in the 2014 hazardous weather testbed. Weather and Forecasting, 30(6), 1551-1570. Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., and De Maeyer, P. (2013). Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 33(1), 24-49. Kendra, J.M., and Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of resilience after the World Trade Center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Centre. Disasters, 27(1), 37-53. Ketcham, S.A., Minsk, L.D., Blackburn, R.R., and Fleege, E.J. (1996). Manual of practice for an effective anti-icing program: A guide for highway winter maintenance personnel. FHWA-RD-95-202: Federal Highway Administration. Ketcham, S.A., Minsk, L.D., and Danyluk, L.S. (1998). Test and evaluation project no. 28: Anti-icing technology, field evaluation report. FHWA-RD-97-132: Federal Highway Administration, USACE Cold Regions Laboratory. Klockow, K. (2017). Transitioning knowledge from research in the social sciences to applications in NOAA. Paper presented at the AMS 12th Symposium on Societal Applications: Policy, Research and Practice, Seattle, WA. Klockow, K.E., Peppler, R.A., and McPherson, R.A. (2014). Tornado folk science in Alabama and Mississippi in the 27 April 2011 tornado outbreak. GeoJournal, 79(6), 791-804. Knocke, E.T., and Kolivras, K.N. (2007). Flash flood awareness in southwest Virginia. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 155-169.

138

References

Koplan, J.P., Milstein, R.L., and Wetterhall, S. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR, 48(RR11), 1-40. Kossin, J.P., and DeMaria, M. (2016). Reducing operational hurricane intensity forecast errors during eyewall replacement cycles. Weather and Forecasting, 31(2), 601-608. Kousky, C. (2017). Disasters as learning experiences or disasters as policy opportunities? Examining flood insurance purchases after hurricanes. Risk Analysis, 37(3), 517-530. Kousky, C., and Michel-Kerjan, E. (2015). Examining flood insurance claims in the United States: Six key findings. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 84(3), 819-850. Kowalick, T.M. (2005). Fatal exit: The automotive black box debate. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kuhn, B., Higgins, L., Nelson, A., Finley, M., Ullman, G., Chrysler, S., Wunderlich, K., Shah, V., and Dudek, C. (2014). Effectiveness of different approaches to disseminating traveler information on travel time reliability. Transportation Research Board, SHRP 2 Report (S2-L14-RW-1). Kunreuther, H.C., and Michel-Kerjan, E.O. (2009). At war with the weather: Managing large-scale risks in a new era of catas- trophes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kunreuther, H.C., Pauly, M.V., and McMorrow, S. (2013). Insurance and behavioral economics: Improving decisions in the most misunderstood industry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kyriakidis, M., de Winter, J.C., Stanton, N., Bellet, T., van Arem, B., Brookhuis, K., Martens, M., Bengler, K., Andersson, J., and Merat, N. (2017). A human factors perspective on automated driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1-27. Lach, D. (2014). Challenges of interdisciplinary research: Reconciling qualitative and quantitative methods for understanding human–landscape systems. Environmental Management, 53(1), 88-93. Lachlan, K.A., Spence, P.R., Lin, X., and Del Greco, M. (2014a). Screaming into the wind: Examining the volume and content of tweets associated with Hurricane Sandy. Communication Studies, 65(5), 500-518. Lachlan, K.A., Spence, P.R., Lin, X., Najarian, K.M., and Greco, M.D. (2014b). Twitter use during a weather event: Comparing content associated with localized and nonlocalized hashtags. Communication Studies, 65(5), 519-534. Lambie, E., Wilson, T.M., Johnston, D.M., Jensen, S., Brogt, E., Doyle, E.E., Lindell, M.K., and Helton, W.S. (2016). Human behaviour during and immediately following earthquake shaking: Developing a methodological approach for analysing video footage. Natural Hazards, 80(1), 249-283. Lambie, E.S., Wilson, T.M., Brogt, E., Johnston, D.M., Ardagh, M., Deely, J., Jensen, S., and Feldmann-Jensen, S. (2017). Closed circuit television (CCTV) earthquake behaviour coding methodology: Analysis of Christchurch public hospital video data from the 22 February Christchurch earthquake event. Natural Hazards, 86(3), 1175-1192. Lazo, J.K. (2016). The weather information value chain. Paper presented at the HIWeather, Exeter, England, April 27. Lazo, J.K., Morss, R.E., and Demuth, J.L. (2009). 300 billion served: Sources, perceptions, uses, and values of weather forecasts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(6), 785-798. Lazo, J.K., Lawson, M., Larsen, P.H., and Waldman, D.M. (2011). US economic sensitivity to weather variability. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92(6), 709-720. Lazo, J.K., Bostrom, A., Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., and Lazrus, H. (2015). Factors affecting hurricane evacuation intentions. Risk Analysis, 35(10), 1837-1857. Lazrus, H. (2016). “Drought is a relative term”: Drought risk perceptions and water management preferences among diverse community members in Oklahoma, USA. Human Ecology, 44(5), 595-605. Lazrus, H., Morrow, B.H., Morss, R.E., and Lazo, J.K. (2012). Vulnerability beyond stereotypes: Context and agency in hurricane risk communication. Weather, Climate, and Society, 4(2), 103-109. Lazrus, H., Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., Lazo, J.K., and Bostrom, A. (2016). “Know what to do if you encounter a flash flood”: Mental models analysis for improving flash flood risk communication and public decision making. Risk Analysis, 36(2), 411-427. Letson, D., Sutter, D.S., and Lazo, J.K. (2007). Economic value of hurricane forecasts: An overview and research needs. Natural Hazards Review, 8(3), 78-86. Lindell, M.K., and Brooks, H. (2013). Meeting summaries: Workshop on weather ready nation: Science imperatives for severe thunderstorm research. American Meterological Society.

139

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Lindell, M.K., and Perry, R.W. (2012). The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616-632. Lindell, M.K., Huang, S.-K., Wei, H.-L., and Samuelson, C.D. (2016). Perceptions and expected immediate reactions to tornado warning polygons. Natural Hazards, 80(1), 683-707. Ling, C., Hua, L., Karstens, C.D., Stumpf, G.J., Smith, T.M., Kuhlman, K.M., and Rothfusz, L. (2015). A comparison between WarnGen System and Probabilistic Hazard Information System for severe weather forecasting. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1791-1795. Löfstedt, R. (2005). Risk management in post-trust societies. New York, NY: Springer. Malta, L., Miyajima, C., and Takeda, K. (2007). Analysis of drivers’ responses under hazardous situations in vehicle traffic. Paper presented at the Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2007 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Manfredi, J., Walters, T., Wilke, G., Osborne, L., Hart, R., Incrocci, T., Schmitt, T., Garrett, V.K., Boyce, B., and Krechmer, D. (2008). Road weather information system environmental sensor station siting guidelines, version 2.0. FHWA-HOP-05-026 Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Martinaitis, S.M., Gourley, J.J., Flamig, Z.L., Argyle, E.M., Clark III, R.A., Arthur, A., Smith, B.R., Erlingis, J.M., Perfater, S., and Albright, B. (2017). The HMT multi-radar multi-sensor hydro experiment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. McComas, K.A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 75-91. McEntire, D.A. (2007). International relations and disasters: Illustrating the relevance of the discipline to the study and profession of emergency management. Disciplines, Disasters and Emergency Management: The Convergence and Diver- gence of Concepts, Issues and Trends from the Research Literature. Charles C. Thomas Publisher: Springfield, IL, 170-177. McFadden, K.L., and Towell, E.R. (1999). Aviation human factors: A framework for the new millennium. Journal of Air Transport Management, 5(4), 177-184. Merrell, D., Simmons, K.M., and Sutter, D. (2002). Taking shelter: Estimating the safety benefits of tornado safe rooms. Weather and Forecasting, 17(3), 619-625. Meyer, R., Broad, K., Orlove, B., and Petrovic, N. (2013). Dynamic simulation as an approach to understanding hurricane risk response: Insights from the Stormview lab. Risk Analysis, 33(8), 1532-1552. Meyer, R.J., Baker, J., Broad, K., Czajkowski, J., and Orlove, B. (2014a). The dynamics of hurricane risk perception: Real-time evidence from the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(9), 1389-1404. Meyer, R.J., Horowitz, M., Wilks, D.S., and Horowitz, K.A. (2014b). A novel financial market for mitigating hurricane risk. Part II: Empirical validation. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(3), 318-330. Michel-Kerjan, E., and Kunreuther, H. (2011). Redesigning flood insurance. Science, 333(6041), 408-409. Michel-Kerjan, E., Lemoyne de Forges, S., and Kunreuther, H. (2012). Policy tenure under the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Risk Analysis, 32(4), 644-658. Mileti, D.S., and Sorensen, J.H. (1990). Communication of emergency public warnings: A social perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mileti, D.S., Bandy, R., Bourque, L.B., Johnson, A., Kano, M., Peek, L., Sutton, J., and Wood, M. (2006). Annotated bibliography for public risk communication on warnings for public protective response and public education. Natural Hazards Centre, University of Colorado at Boulder. Militello, L.G., Patterson, E.S., Bowman, L., and Wears, R. (2007). Information flow during crisis management: Challenges to coordination in the emergency operations center. Cognition, Technology & Work, 9(1), 25-31. Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., and Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Morrow, B.H., Lazo, J.K., Rhome, J., and Feyen, J. (2015). Improving storm surge risk communication: Stakeholder perspectives. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, January 2015. Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., and Lazo, J.K. (2008a). Communicating uncertainty in weather forecasts: A survey of the U.S. public. Weather and Forecasting, 23(5), 974-991.

140

References

Morss, R.E., Lazo, J.K., Brown, B.G., Brooks, H.E., Ganderton, P.T., and Mills, B.N. (2008b). Societal and economic research and applications for weather forecasts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(3), 335. Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., Bostrom, A., Lazo, J.K., and Lazrus, H. (2015). Flash flood risks and warning decisions: A mental models study of forecasters, public officials, and media broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado.Risk Analysis, 35(11), 2009-2028. Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., Lazo, J.K., Dickinson, K., Lazrus, H., and Morrow, B.H. (2016a). Understanding public hurricane evacuation decisions and responses to forecast and warning messages. Weather and Forecasting, 31(2), 395-417. Morss, R.E., Mulder, K.J., Lazo, J.K., and Demuth, J.L. (2016b). How do people perceive, understand, and anticipate responding to flash flood risks and warnings? Results from a public survey in Boulder, Colorado, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 541, 649-664. Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., Lazrus, H., Palen, L., Barton, C.M., Davis, C.A., Snyder, C., Wilhelmi, O.V., Anderson, K.M., Ahijevych, D.A., Anderson, J., Bica, M., Fossell, K.R., Henderson, J., Kogan, M., Stowe, K., and Watts, J. (2017). Hazardous weather prediction and communication in the modern information environment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Murphy, A.H., Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., and Winkler, R.L. (1980). Misinterpretations of precipitation probability forecasts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 61(7), 695-701. Nagele, D. (2015). PhD dissertation: Evolution of culture among warning system organizations. University of Delaware. Nagele, D.E., and Trainor, J.E. (2012). Geographic specificity, tornadoes, and protective action. Weather, Climate, and Society, 4(2), 145-155. NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). (2016a). Attribution of extreme weather events in the context of climate change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. (2016b). Refining the concept of scientific inference when working with big data: Proceedings of a workshop—in brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. (2017a). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. (2017b). Decadal survey for earth science and applications from space. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://sites. nationalacademies.org/DEPS/ESAS2017/index.htm. NASEM. (2017c). The value of social, behavioral, and economic science to national priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research). (2017). NCAR societal impacts program vision, mission, and goals. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://www.sip.ucar.edu/mission.php. NCAR Research Applications Laboratory. (2017). Maintenance decision support system. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from http://www.ral.ucar.edu/projects/rdwx_mdss. NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction) Central Operations. (2016). MADIS. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from https://madis.ncep.noaa.gov. Neely, L. (2014). Risk communication in social media. In J. Arvai and L. Riveres (Eds.), Effective Risk Communication (pp. 143-164). London: Routledge. NERRS (National Estuarine Research Reserve System). (2011). National Estuarine Research Reserve System strategic plan 2011-2016. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/nerrs/StrategicPlan2011.pdf. Neugebauer, C. (2014, November 13, 2014). UDOT releases first crowd-sourced road hazard smartphone app. Retrieved from http://www.standard.net/Local/2014/11/13/UDOT-releases-first-citizen-reporting-crowd-sourced-road- hazard-smartphone-app-in-the-nation. NIDDK (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases). (2008). Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Nigg, J.M. (1995). Risk communication and warning systems. Natural risk and civil protection, 16050, 369. NIH (National Institutes of Health). (2017). NIH disaster research response (DR2). Retrieved March 6, 2017, from https:// dr2.nlm.nih.gov. Nisbet, M.C. (Editor), Ho, S., Markowitz, E., O’Neill, S., Schafer, M., Thaker, J.T. (Assoc. Editors) (2017). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). (2015). Flash flood services for the future: Flash Flood Summit and Focus Group findings. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/water/resources/NOAA_ Flash_Flood_Summit_Report5_29_15.pdf.

141

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

NOAA. (2016). Risk communication and behavior: Best practices and research findings. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Social Sci- ence Committee. NOAA Social Science Committee. (2015). Vision and strategy: Supporting NOAA’s mission and social science. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from http://www.performance.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/SSVS_Final_0731151.pdf. NOAAWP. (2015). LWEW workshop 1. [video file]. Paper presented at the Living with Extreme Weather Workshop, May 18-20, 2015, Norman, OK. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_NVgCGK6Js&index=2& list=PLowCkjeYmJBSREJAJidfb_XXBwCr7tufo. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. (2000). From research to operations in weather satellites and numerical weather prediction: Crossing the valley of death. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. (2003a). Communicating uncertainties in weather and climate information: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2003b). Fair weather: Effective partnerships in weather and climate services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2004). Where the weather meets the road: A research agenda for improving road weather services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2005a). Decision making for the environment: Social and behavioral science research priorities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2005b). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2006a). Completing the forecast: Characterizing and communicating uncertainty for better decisions using weather and climate forecasts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2006b). Facing hazards and disasters: Understanding human dimensions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2007). Research and networks for decision support in the NOAA sectoral applications research program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2010). When weather matters: Science and service to meet critical societal needs. Washington, DC: The National Acad- emies Press. NRC. (2011). Climate change education: Goals, audiences, and strategies: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2012). Weather services for the nation: Becoming second to none. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC, IOM, and TRB (National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, and Transportation Research Board). (2007). Prevent- ing teen motor crashes: Contributions from the behavioral and social sciences: Workshop report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NSF (National Science Foundation). (2017). Critical Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Systems and Processes (CRISP). Retrieved April 24, 2017, from https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505277. NSSL (National Severe Storms Laboratory). (2015). Warn-on-Forecast. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.nssl.noaa. gov/news/factsheets/WoF_2015.pdf. NWS (National Weather Service). (2011). Service assessment: The historic tornadoes of April 2011. Silver Spring, MD: National Weather Service. NWS. (2013). Weather-Ready Nation roadmap. Silver Spring, MD: National Weather Service. NWS. (2014). Service assessment: May 2013 Oklahoma tornadoes and flash flooding. Silver Spring, MD: National Weather Service. NWS. (2016). Natural hazard statistics. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/hazstats.shtml. NWS. (2017a). Hazard simplification. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from https://www.weather.gov/hazardsimplification. NWS. (2017b). NWS service assessments. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://www.weather.gov/publications/assessments. O’Connor, R.E., Yarnal, B., Dow, K., Jocoy, C.L., and Carbone, G.J. (2005). Feeling at risk matters: Water managers and the decision to use forecasts. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1265-1275.

142

References

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2017). Behavioural insights and public policy. Lessons from Around the World: Paris: OECD Publishing. OFCM (Office of Federal Coordinator for Meteorology). (2016). The federal plan for meteorological services and supporting research: Fiscal year 2017. Silver Spring, MD: Federal Coordinator for Meterological Services and Supporting Research. Oliver-Smith, A., and Hoffman, S.M. (1999). The angry earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Oliver-Smith, A., Alcántara-Ayala, I., Burton, I., and Lavell, A.M. (2016). Forensic investigations of disasters (FORIN): A conceptual framework and guide to research. Integrated Research on Disaster Risk, 2. Orlove, B., Roncoli, C., Kabugo, M., and Majugu, A. (2010). Indigenous climate knowledge in southern Uganda: The multiple components of a dynamic regional system. Climatic Change, 100(2), 243-265. Palen, L., and Anderson, K.M. (2016). Crisis informatics—new data for extraordinary times. Science, 353(6296), 224-225. Palen, L., Anderson, K.M., Mark, G., Martin, J., Sicker, D., Palmer, M., and Grunwald, D. (2010). A vision for technology-mediated support for public participation & assistance in mass emergencies & disasters. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-BCS Visions of Computer Science Conference: 2010 April 12-16, Edinburgh, UK. PANDOWAE. (2013). Workshop on HIW THORPEX Legacy Project. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://www.pandowae. de/en/thorpex-hiw. Parke, B., and Kanki, B.G. (2008). Best practices in shift turnovers: Implications for reducing aviation maintenance turnover errors as revealed in ASRS reports. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 18(1), 72-85. Parrot, R., ed. (2017). The Oxford encyclopedia of health and risk message design and processing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Peacock, W.G., Morrow, B.H., and Gladwin, H. (1997). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender, and the sociology of disasters. New York: Routledge. Peacock, W.G., Brody, S.D., and Highfield, W. (2005). Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida’s single family homeowners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(2), 120-135. Perreault, M.F., Houston, J.B., and Wilkins, L. (2014). Does scary matter?: Testing the effectiveness of new National Weather Service tornado warning messages. Communication Studies, 65(5), 484-499. Phillips, B.D., and Morrow, B.H. (2007). Social science research needs: Focus on vulnerable populations, forecasting, and warnings. Natural Hazards Review, 8(3), 61-68. Phillips, B., Thomas, D.S., Fothergill, A., and Blinn-Pike, L. (2009). Social vulnerability to disasters. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Philips, B., Chandresekar, V., Carr, F., Brotzge, J., Rees, P., League, C., Thoerner, M., and Ortiz, J. (2011). Dallas Fort Worth urban demonstration network. AMS summer community meeting 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2017, from https://www. ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/profiles/PhilipsBrendaJ/2011-08-SCM.pdf. Poteete, A.R., Janssen, M.A., and Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Prasad, S., and Stoler, J. (2016). Mobile home residents and hurricane vulnerability in South Florida: Research gaps and challenges. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(4), 436-439. Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395. PROSPER. (2006). PROSPER: Project for research on speed adaptation policies on European roads, final report on stakeholder analysis project no. GRD2200030217. Quarantelli, E.L. (1990). The warning process and evacuation behavior: The research evidence. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/520. Quiring, S.M., Schumacher, A.B., and Guikema, S.D. (2014). Incorporating hurricane forecast uncertainty into a decision- support application for power outage modeling. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(1), 47-58. Ralph, F.M., Intrieri, J., Andra Jr, D., Atlas, R., Boukabara, S., Bright, D., Davidson, P., Entwistle, B., Gaynor, J., and Goodman, S. (2013). The emergence of weather-related test beds linking research and forecasting operations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(8), 1187-1211. Rappaport, E.N., Jiing, J.-G., Landsea, C.W., Murillo, S.T., and Franklin, J.L. (2012). The joint hurricane test bed: Its first decade of tropical cyclone research-to-operations activities reviewed. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(3), 371-380.

143

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Rasmussen, E. (2015). VORTEX-Southeast program overview. Norman, Oklahoma: National Severe Storms Laboratory. Rayner, S., Lach, D., and Ingram, H. (2005). Weather forecasts are for wimps: Why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Climatic Change, 69(2), 197-227. Reich, S.M., and Reich, J.A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1-2), 51-62. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. New York: Earthscan Risk in Society. Richard, C.M., Campbell, J.L., Lichty, M.G., Cluett, C., Osborne, L., and Balke, K. (2010). Human factors analysis of road weather advisory and control information: Final report. FHWA-JPO-10-053. Rickard, L.N., Schuldt, J.P., Eosco, G.M., Scherer, C.W., and Daziano, R.A. (2017). The proof is in the picture: The influence of imagery and experience in perceptions of hurricane messaging. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(3), 471-485. Ripberger, J.T., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Silva, C.L., Carlson, D.E., and Henderson, M. (2014). Social media and severe weather: Do tweets provide a valid indicator of public attention to severe weather risk communication? Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(4), 520-530. Ripberger, J.T., Silva, C.L., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., and James, M. (2015). The influence of consequence-based messages on public responses to tornado warnings. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(4), 577-590. Salas, E., Cooke, N.J., and Rosen, M.A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540-547. Sallis, J.F., and Owen, N. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. Pp. 43-65 in Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice. K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer, and K. Viswanath, eds. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Santos, A., McGuckin, N., Nakamoto, H.Y., Gray, D., and Liss, S. (2011). Summary of travel trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Savelli, S., and Joslyn, S. (2013). The advantages of predictive interval forecasts for non-expert users and the impact of visualizations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 527-541. SBST (Subcommittee on the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team). (2016). Social and Behavioral Sciences Team 2016 annual report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council. Schmidlin, T.W., Hammer, B.O., Ono, Y., and King, P.S. (2009). Tornado shelter-seeking behavior and tornado shelter options among mobile home residents in the United States. Natural Hazards, 48(2), 191-201. Schmidt-Cotta, R. (2009). Vehicle event recording based on intelligent crash assessment: VERONICA–II. Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1152521. Schrage, M. (2015, September 1, 2015). Why the future of social science is with private companies. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/09/why-the-future-of-social-science-is-with-private-companies. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., and Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmond, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Shanteau, J. (2015). Why task domains (still) matter for understanding expertise. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 169-175. Shelton, T., Poorthuis, A., Graham, M., and Zook, M. (2014). Mapping the data shadows of Hurricane Sandy: Uncovering the sociospatial dimensions of “big data.” Geoforum, 52, 167-179. Sherman-Morris, K. (2005). Tornadoes, television and trust—a closer look at the influence of the local weathercaster during severe weather. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 6(4), 201-210. Sherman-Morris, K. (2010). Tornado warning dissemination and response at a university campus. Natural Hazards, 52(3), 623-638. Sherman-Morris, K., Antonelli, K.B., and Williams, C.C. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of the graphical communication of hurricane storm surge threat. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(1), 69-82. Siebeneck, L.K., and Cova, T.J. (2008). Risk perception associated with the evacuation and return-entry process of the Cedar Rapids, Iowa flood. Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Center. Siebeneck, L.K., Lindell, M.K., Prater, C.S., Wu, H.-C., and Huang, S.-K. (2013). Evacuees’ reentry concerns and experiences in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 2267-2286. Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C., and Gutscher, H. (2012). Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. London, UK: Earthscan.

144

References

Singer, J.D., and Willett, J.B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sivle, D.A., and Kolstø, S.D. (2016). Use of online weather information in everyday decision-making by laypeople and implications for communication of weather information. Meteorological Applications, 23(4), 650-662. Smedley, B.D., and Syme, S.L. (2000). Promoting health: Intervention strategies from social and behavioral research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.. Sorensen, J.H. (2000). Hazard warning systems: Review of 20 years of progress. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2). Sorensen, J.H., and Mileti, D.S. (2017a). First alert and/or warning issuance time estimation for dam breaches, controlled dam releases, and levee breaches or overtopping. Publication Pending: US Army Corps of Engineers Risk Management Center. Sorensen, J.H., and Mileti, D.S. (2017b). First alert or warning diffusion time estimation for dam breaches, controlled dam releases, and levee breaches or overtopping. Publication Pending: US Army Corps of Engineers Risk Management Center. Sorensen, J.H., and Mileti, D.S. (2017c). Protective action initiation time estimation for dam breaches, controlled dam releases, and levee breaches or overtopping. Publication Pending: US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center. Spence, P.R., Lachlan, K.A., Lin, X., and Del Greco, M. (2015). Variability in Twitter content across the stages of a natural disaster: Implications for crisis communication. Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 171-186. Stephens, K.K., Jafari, E., Boyles, S., Ford, J.L., and Zhu, Y. (2015). Increasing evacuation communication through ICTs: An agent-based model demonstrating evacuation practices and the resulting traffic congestion in the rush to the road. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 12(3), 497-528. Stewart, T.R., Pielke Jr, R., and Nath, R. (2004). Understanding user decision making and the value of improved precipitation forecasts: Lessons from a case study. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 85(2), 223-235. Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Stokols, D., Hall, K.L., Taylor, B.K., and Moser, R.P. (2008). The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2 Suppl), S77-S89. StoryCorps. (2017). StoryCorps. Retrieved March 4, 2017, from https://storycorps.org. Sullivan, K. (2013, January, 10, 2013). Vision and strategies for a Weather-Ready Nation. Paper presented at the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Sutter, D., and Erickson, S. (2010). The time cost of tornado warnings and the savings with storm-based warnings. Weather, Climate, and Society, 2(2), 103-112. Sutter, D., and Ewing, B.T. (2016). State of knowledge of economic value of current and improved hurricane forecasts. Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, 11(1), 45-64. Sutton, J., and Woods, C. (2016). Tsunami warning message interpretation and sense making: Focus group insights. Weather, Climate, and Society, 8(4), 389-398. Sutton, J., Spiro, E.S., Johnson, B., Fitzhugh, S., Gibson, B., and Butts, C.T. (2014). Warning tweets: Serial transmission of messages during the warning phase of a disaster event. Information, Communication & Society, 17(6), 765-787. Sutton, J., Gibson, C.B., Phillips, N.E., Spiro, E.S., League, C., Johnson, B., Fitzhugh, S.M., and Butts, C.T. (2015a). A cross- hazard analysis of terse message retransmission on Twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(48), 14793-14798. Sutton, J., League, C., Sellnow, T.L., and Sellnow, D.D. (2015b). Terse messaging and public health in the midst of natural disasters: The case of the Boulder floods. Health Communication, 30(2), 135-143. Sylves, R., and Búzás, Z.I. (2007). Presidential disaster declaration decisions, 1953–2003: What influences odds of approval? State and Local Government Review, 39(1), 3-15. Taylor, K., Priest, S., Sisco, H.F., Banning, S., and Campbell, K. (2009). Reading Hurricane Katrina: Information sources and decision-making in response to a natural disaster. Social Epistemology, 23(3-4), 361-380. Terpstra, T. (2011). Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: Affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Analysis, 31(10), 1658-1675. Terrell, D. (2016). The economic state of the August 2016 floods on the state of Louisiana. Louisiana Economic Development: Baton Rouge, LA. Thompson, R.R., Garfin, D.R., and Silver, R.C. (2017). Evacuation from natural disasters: A systematic review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 37(4), 812-839.

145

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Tierney, K. (2014). The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tierney, K., and Trainor, J. (2004). Networks and resilience in the World Trade Center disaster. MCEER: Research Progress and Accomplishments 2003-2004, 157-172. Toledo, T., Musicant, O., and Lotan, T. (2008). In-vehicle data recorders for monitoring and feedback on drivers’ behavior. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 16(3), 320-331. Trainor, J.E., Nagele, D., Philips, B., and Scott, B. (2015). Tornadoes, social science, and the false alarm effect. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(4), 333-352. Trumbo, C.W., Peek, L., Meyer, M.A., Marlatt, H.L., Gruntfest, E., McNoldy, B.D., and Schubert, W.H. (2016). A cognitive-affective scale for hurricane risk perception. Risk Analysis, 36(12), 2233-2246. Tushman, M., and O’Reilly, C. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 769-774. UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research). (2012). Weather-ready nation: A vital conversation on tornadoes and severe weather. A community report. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from http://vintage.joss.ucar.edu/events/2011/ weather_ready/summary_report.pdf. UCAR. (2017). Welcome to the COMET® Program. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://www.comet.ucar.edu. Ukkusuri, S.V., Hasan, S., Luong, B., Doan, K., Zhan, X., Murray-Tuite, P., and Yin, W. (2017). A-RESCUE: An agent based regional evacuation simulator coupled with user enriched behavior. Networks and Spatial Economics, 17(1), 197-223. Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., and Verhoef, P.C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266. Visschers, V.H., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.W., and De Vries, N.N. (2009). Probability information in risk communication: A review of the research literature. Risk Analysis, 29(2), 267-287. Webb, G.R., Wachtendorf, T., and Eyre, A. (2000). Bringing culture back in: Exploring the cultural dimensions of disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18(1), 5-19. Weinstein, N.D., Lyon, J.E., Rothman, A.J., and Cuite, C.L. (2000). Preoccupation and affect as predictors of protective action following natural disaster. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5(4), 351-363. Widener, M.J., Horner, M.W., and Metcalf, S.S. (2013). Simulating the effects of social networks on a population’s hurricane evacuation participation. Journal of Geographical Systems, 15(2), 193-209. Wiggins, M.W., and Stevens, C. (2016). Aviation social science: Research methods in practice. New York: Routledge. Wilks, D.S., and Horowitz, K.A. (2014). A novel financial market for mitigating hurricane risk. Part I: Market structure and model results. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(3), 307-317. Wilson, K.A., Heinselman, P.L., and Kang, Z. (2016). Exploring applications of eye tracking in operational meteorology research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 97(11), 2019-2025. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters (2nd edition ed.). New York: Routledge. WMO (World Meterological Organization). (2017). The observing system research and predictability experiment (THORPEX). Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/thorpex_new.html. Wogalter, M.S. (2006). Purposes and scope of warnings. Handbook of Warnings, 3-9. Wogalter, M.S., and Mayhorn, C.B. (2017). Warning design. Information Design: Research and Practice, 331. Wouters, P.I., and Bos, J.M. (2000). Traffic accident reduction by monitoring driver behaviour with in-car data recorders. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(5), 643-650. Xu, L., Jiang, C., Wang, J., Yuan, J., and Ren, Y. (2014). Information security in big data: Privacy and data mining. IEEE Access, 2, 1149-1176. Zeitz, K.M., Tan, H.M., Grief, M., Couns, P.C., and Zeitz, C.J. (2009). Crowd behavior at mass gatherings: A literature review. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 24(1), 32-38. Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technol- ogy, 12(4), 313-325.

146

APPENDIX A

Examples of Funding for Social and Behavioral Science Activities by NOAA, NSF, DHS1

FROM NOAA

TABLE A.1 Examples of Social Science–Related Research Funded by the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research-Office of Weather and Air Quality (OWAQ) Funding/ Project Lead Project PI(s), Type Project Title Institution(s) 2016 Awards Contract Advancing Social and Behavioral Science Research National Academy of and Application within the Weather Enterprise Sciences

NSF Supplemental Supplement to NSF award “Collaborative Research: Jeannette Sutton, University Award Online Hazard Communication in the Terse Regime” of Kentucky Carter Butts, UC-Irvine

NSF Supplemental Supplement to NSF award “Improving Public Susan Joslyn, University of Award Response to Weather Warnings” Washington

NSF Supplemental Supplement to NSF award “Next Generation, Brenda Philips, University of Award Resilient Warning Systems for Tornadoes and Flash Massachusetts Floods” Joseph Trainor, University of Delaware

VORTEX-Southeast Improving Risk Communication and Reducing Julie Demuth, National Center Vulnerabilities for Dynamic Tornado Threats in the for Atmospheric Research Southeastern U.S. Keith Anderson, Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory

VORTEX-Southeast Lay Judgments of Environmental Cues That Signal Stephen Broomell and a Tornado Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, University of Pennsylvania continued 1 NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NSF = National Science Foundation; DHS = Department of Homeland Security.

147

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

TABLE A.1 Continued Funding/ Project Lead Project PI(s), Type Project Title Institution(s) VORTEX-Southeast Collaborative Research: Understanding How Daphne LaDue, Jack Uncertainty in Severe Weather Information Affects Friedman, and Laura Myers, Decisions (Part 2) University of Oklahoma

VORTEX-Southeast Convective mode and Tennessee tornadoes: Kelsey Ellis and Lisa Mason, Climatology, warning procedures, and false alarm University of Tennessee rates 2015 Awards VORTEX-Southeast Tornado Warning Response in the Southeast: Kelsey Ellis and Lisa Mason, Advancing Knowledge for Action in Tennessee University of Tennessee

VORTEX-Southeast Multi-disciplinary Investigation of Concurrent Russ Schumacher, Colorado Tornadoes and Flash Floods in the Southeastern U.S. State

VORTEX-Southeast Complacency and False Alarms in Tornado Affected Michael Egnoto, University Communities of Maryland

VORTEX-Southeast Collaborative Research: Understanding How Daphne LaDue, Jack Uncertainty in Severe Weather Information Affects Friedman, and Laura Myers, Decisions (Part 1) University of Oklahoma 2014 Awards Cooperative Workshop: Life and Death Decisions: An Integrative Lans Rothfusz, National Agreement Approach to Understanding and Mitigating the Severe Storms Laboratory Impacts of Extreme Weather

Open Refinement and Evaluation of Automated High- Stan Benjamin, NOAA Global competition - R2O Resolution Ensemble-Based Hazard Detection Systems Division Guidance Tools for Transition to NWS Operations

Open Probability of What? Understanding and Conveying Tracy Hansen, NOAA Global competition - R2O Uncertainty Through Probabilistic Hazard Services Systems Division, National Severe Storms Laboratory

HWT Comparing Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Harold Brooks, National Forecasts for Severe Thunderstorms Severe Storms Laboratory

HWT Testing and Evaluation of Experimental Chris Karstens, Cooperative Probabilistic Hazard Information with Decision Institute for Mesoscale Makers Meteorological Studies

continued

148

Appendix A

TABLE A.1 Continued Funding/ Project Lead Project PI(s), Type Project Title Institution(s) 2012 Awards Open The Impact of Uncertainty Information on Tornado Kim Klockow and Renee competition - Warning Response: Developing Recommendations McPherson, University of SSWR for Warning Best Practices Oklahoma

Open Flood Risk and Uncertainty: Assessing the National Rachel Hogan Carr, Nurture competition - Weather Service’s Forecast and Warning Tools Nature Center SSWR

Open Social and Behavioral Influences on Weather-Driven Ken Galluppi and Burrell competition - Decisions Montz, Arizona State SSWR

Open Utilization of Real-Time Social Media Data in Carol Silva, University of competition - Severe Weather Events: A Proposal to Evaluate Oklahoma SSWR the Prospects of Social Media Data Use for Severe Weather Forecasting, Communication, and Post- Event Assessments

MRMS The Phased Array Radar Innovative Sensing Pam Heinselman, National Experiment (PARISE) Severe Storms Laboratory 2006-2012 Awards Cooperative Societal Impacts Program Jeff Lazo, National Center for Agreement Atmospheric Research

Cooperative Integrated Solutions: Environment and Health Bill Hooke, American Agreement Series Meteorological Society

Cooperative Social Science Woven Into Meteorology Eve Gruntfest, National Agreement Severe Storms Laboratory/ Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies

MRMS Impact of High-temporal Resolution PAR Data on Pam Heinselman, National Warning Decision Making Severe Storms Laboratory

NOTE: HWT = Hazardous Weather Testbed; MRMS = Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor; NSF = National Science Foun- dation; NWS = National Weather Service; PAR = phased array radar; PI = Principal Investigator; R2O = Research to Operations; SSWR = Safe and Sustainable Water Resources.

149

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

TABLE A.2 Examples of Social Science–Related Research Funded by the National Weather Service (NWS)

Funding/ Lead Project PI(s), Project Type Project Title Institution(s) 2016 Awards BPA Social and Economic Effects of Severe Weather Storms: Jeff Lazo, Abt Associates NYC Case Study

BPA Cost Modification: Social and Economic Effects of Jeff Lazo, Abt Associates Severe Weather Storms: NYC Case Study

BPA Social and Economic Effects of Space Weather Matthew Ranson, Daniel Baker, and Kevin Forbes, Abt Associates

BPA Rip Current Visualization Burrell Montz, East Carolina University

BPA Support for NWS Phaze IV Hazard Simplification Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Group, Inc.

BPA Identifying Key Partners/Users of Weather Prediction Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Center Products & Mapping Related User Decision- Group, Inc. Making

BPA Communicating Probabilistic Information for Decision Gina Eosco and Susan Makers: A Case Study Using Experimental Snow Joslyn, Eastern Research Forecast Products Group, Inc.

BPA Stakeholder Engagement to Validate Water Resources Arleen O’Donnell, Eastern Information and Services Needs and Gather Feedback Research Group, Inc. on NOAA’s NWS Initial Water Resources Services Capability

BPA Social Science Evaluation of National Water Center Arleen O’Donnell, Eastern Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service and National Research Group, Inc. Water Model Output and Technical Support Services

BPA Assessing Fire Weather Services From the Public Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Perspective Group, Inc.

BPA Cost Modification: Support for Effective Rebecca Morss, Abt Communication of SPC Day 1 Outlook with Increased Associates Temporal and Spatial Resolution

150

Appendix A

TABLE A.2 Continued Funding/ Lead Project PI(s), Project Type Project Title Institution(s) BPA Cost Modification: Support for Haz Simp III Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Group, Inc.

CSTAR Major Risks, Uncertain Outcomes: Making Ensemble Burrell Montz, East Carolina Forecasts Work for Multiple Audiences University Rachel Hogan Carr, Nurture Nature Center

Cooperative National Weather Service Social Science Curriculum Laura Myers, NGI Institute - NGI Delivery FY17

Cooperative NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards Network Laura Myers, NGI Institute - NGI Transformational Change Stakeholder Engagement Phase One

Cooperative NOAA Weather Information and Dissemination All Laura Myers, NGI Institute - NGI Hazards Stakeholder Needs Assessment Verification Project (Phase Two)

Cooperative Identifying Users, Diagnosing Understandability Michael Gerst, Melissa Institute - CICS Challenges, and Developing Prototype Solutions for Kenney, and Allison Baer, NOAA Climate Prediction Center’s Temperature and CICS Precipitation Outlooks

Contract Continuous surveys to measure customer satisfaction Douglas Young and of NWS services based on the American Customer Salvatore Romano, CFI Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Group

Contract Advancing Social and Behavioral Science Research and National Academy of Application within the Weather Enterprise Sciences 2015 Awards IDIQ Cost Modification: Support for Phase 2 Hazard Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Simplification Group, Inc.

BPA Support for NWS Impact Based Warnings Joe Ripberger, Eastern Research Group, Inc.

BPA Support for NWS Hurricane Local Impact Local Betty Morrow, Eastern Statement/Tropical Cyclone Valid Time Event Code and Research Group, Inc. Hurricane Threat and Impacts Graphics

continued

151

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

TABLE A.2 Continued Funding/ Lead Project PI(s), Project Type Project Title Institution(s) BPA Support for NWS Phase 3 Hazard Simplification Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Group, Inc.

BPA Support for Effective Communication of SPC Day Rebecca Morss, Abt 1 Outlook with Increased Temporal and Spatial Associates Resolution

Cooperative Certificate Program Curriculum Development in Social Laura Myers, NGI Institute - NGI Science Applications for Meteorologists

Contract Continuous surveys to measure customer satisfaction Douglas Young and of NWS services based on ACSI Salvatore Romano, CFI Group 2014 Awards IDIQ Weather Ready Nation Societal Outcome Performance Lou Nadeau, Eastern Measures Research Group, Inc.

IDIQ Onset of Tropical Storm Force Winds Betty Morrow, Eastern Research Group, Inc.

IDIQ Support for Phase 2 Hazard Simplification Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Group, Inc.

IDIQ Surge and Inundation Social Science Research Betty Morrow, Eastern (Extratropical and Assessment of Potential Storm Research Group, Inc. Surge Graphic)

Contract Annual survey to measure customer satisfaction of Douglas Young and NWS services based on ACSI Salvatore Romano, CFI Group 2013 Awards IDIQ Stakeholder Engagement to Document Information Arleen O’Donnell, Eastern and Service Needs and Demonstrate Integrated Research Group, Inc. Water Resources Science and Services for River Basin Commissions

IDIQ Support for the National Weather Service Hurricane Betty Morrow, Eastern Local Statement and Hazard Simplification Research Group, Inc.

152

Appendix A

TABLE A.2 Continued Funding/ Lead Project PI(s), Project Type Project Title Institution(s) IDIQ Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program Socio- Betty Morrow, Eastern Economic Research and Recommendations Research Group, Inc.

Contract Annual survey to measure customer satisfaction of Douglas Young and NWS services based on ACSI Salvatore Romano, CFI Group 2012 Awards IDIQ Stakeholder Engagement to Demonstrate Integrated Arleen O’Donnell, Eastern Water Resources Science and Services for River Basin Research Group, Inc. Commissions in the Mid-Atlantic

Open The Impact of Uncertainty Information on Tornado Kim Klockow and Renee competition - Warning Response: Developing Recommendations for McPherson, University of SSWR Warning Best Practices Oklahoma

Open Social and Behavioral Influences on Weather-Driven Ken Galluppi and Burrell competition - Decisions Montz, Arizona State SSWR

Contract Annual survey to measure customer satisfaction of Douglas Young and NWS services based on ACSI Salvatore Romano, CFI Group 2011 Awards IDIQ Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program Socio- Betty Morrow, Eastern Economic Research and Recommendations Research Group, Inc. Storm Surge Research Project

Report on Tsunami Warning Center Warning Products Eastern Tennessee State Proposed and Existing Guidelines for Recognition in University the NWS TsunamiReady® Community Program

Contract Annual survey to measure customer satisfaction of Douglas Young and NWS services based on ACSI Salvatore Romano, CFI Group 2010 Awards Prototypes of Weather Information Impacts on Burrell Montz, RENCI Emergency Management

continued

153

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

TABLE A.2 Continued Funding/ Lead Project PI(s), Project Type Project Title Institution(s) Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project & Economic Daniel Sutter Valation

Assessing the Value of Climate Information in David Letson, University of Agriculture Using a Stochastic Production Frontier Miami

Contract Annual survey to measure customer satisfaction of Douglas Young and NWS services based on ACSI Salvatore Romano, CFI Group 2009 Awards Forecast-At-A-Glance Webpage Project Julie Demuth, National Center for Atmospheric Research - The Societal Impacts Program 2008 Awards Improving the Display of River and Flash Flood Aptima Predictions 2004 Awards Evaluation of NWS Flood Severity Categories and Use David Ford, David Ford of Gage Station Flood History Information Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Probability Focus Groups Sheri Teodoru, CFI Group

NOTE: ACSI = American Customer Satisfaction Index; BPA = Blanket Purchase Agreement; CICS = Coopera- tive Institute for Climate and Satellites; CSTAR = Collaborative Science Technology, and Applied Research Program; IDIQ = Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity; NGI = Northern Gulf Institute; PI = Principal Investigator; SPC = Storm Prediction Center; SSWR = Safe and Sustainable Water Resources.

154

Appendix A

FROM NSF

TABLE A.3 Examples of Weather-Related Research Funded by the NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Lead Project NSF Program Project Title PI(s) Award # SEES Fellows, SEES Hazards SEES Type 2: Modeling to Promote Seth Guikema 1331399 Hazards Regional Resilience to Repeated Heat Waves and Hurricanes

Decision Risk and Distinguishing Two Dimensions of Subjective Craig Fox 1427469 Management Sci Uncertainty

Decision Risk and Collaborative Research: Multi-scale Modeling of Peter Howe, 1459903 Management Sci Public Perceptions of Heat Wave Risk Jennifer Marlon 1459872

Sociology Collaborative Research: Community Reactions Hilary Boudet, 1357055 to Extreme Weather Events Doug McAdam 1357068

Geography and Spatial Doctoral Dissertation Research: Weather Risk, Matthew Turner 1459175 Sciences Climate Adaptation and Farmer Decision Making in the Southwestern United States

Economics CAREER: Economic Theory, Testing of Theories Wojciech 644930 Olszewski

Perception, Action, CAREER: Flexible Resource Allocation and George Alvarez 953730 and Cognition Efficient Coding in Human Vision

NOTE: CAREER = Faculty Early Career Development Program; SEES = Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability.

155

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

TABLE A.4 Examples of Weather-Related Research with a Social or Behavioral Science Component Funded by the NSF Directorate for Engineering (ENG) Lead Project NSF Program Project Title PI(s) Award # SEES Hazards, Hazards SEES: Bridging Information, Uncertainty, Satish Ukkusuri 1520338 Infrastructure and Decision-Making in Hurricanes Using an Management and Interdisciplinary Perspective Extreme Events

Infrastructure Structures of Long-Term Disaster Recovery: Michelle Meyer 1434957 Management and Organizational Roles and Collaboration in Six Extreme Events Cities

Infrastructure Collaborative Research: An Integrated Approach Adam Rose, 1363437, Management and to Measuring Dynamic Economic Resilience Kathleen 1363409 Extreme Events Following Disasters Tierney

Infrastructure RAPID: Network Improvisation in Emergency David 1313589 Management and Response: An Application to Debris Removal Mendonca Extreme Events Operations

Special Studies and RAPID: Post-Disaster Risk Redefinition in Small James Mitchell 1324792 Analyses New Jersey Municipalities During the Initial Recovery Period following Super Storm Sandy

NOTE: RAPID = Rapid Response Research; SEES = Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability.

156

Appendix A

TABLE A.5 Total Funding for National Science Foundation–Funded Weather- Related Projects Active in 2016 Related to Concepts Such as Perception, Behavior, Communication, Decision Making, or Action National Science Foundation (NSF) Weather-Related Awards That Include SBS Research Estimated Total Funding by Directorate (for projects active in Example Project Supported by This Lead Project NSF 2016) Directorate PI(s) Award # CSE $4.3 million CGV: Large: Collaborative Research: Modeling, Donald House 1212501 Display, and Understanding Uncertainty in Mary Hegarty 1212577 Simulations for Policy Decision Making Michael Lindell 1540469 Ross Whitaker 1212806

EHR $3 million NRT: Coastal Climate Risk and Resilience Robert Kopp III 1633557 (C2R2)

ENG $17.7 million CRISP Type 2/Collaborative Research: Critical Laura Siebeneck 1638317 Transitions in the Resilience and Recovery of Interdependent Social and Physical Networks

GEO $11.2 million Hazard SEES: An Integrated Approach to Risk Ning Lin 1520683 Assessment and Management in Responding to Land Falling Hurricanes in a Changing Climate

SBE $16.4 million Urban Resilience to Extreme Weather Related Charles Redman 1444755 Events

Total $52,704,970

NOTES: The list is in order of the directorate managing the project; funding may be contributed by other directorates or agencies. Also shown is one relevant example of current NSF awards (active as of end of 2016) from each directorate; the award amounts for these individual examples are not provided here but are available through the public NSF web-based award search. Results were screened by hand to restrict to those with an SBS element. CGV = Computer Graphics and Visualization; CRISP = Critical Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Systems and Processes; CSE = Directorate For Computer and Information Science and Engineering; EHR = Directorate For Education and Human Resources; ENG = Directorate For Engineering; GEO = Directorate For Geosciences; SBE = Directorate For Social, Behavioral and Economic Science; SEES = Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability.

157

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

FROM DHS

Some examples of research projects relevant to SBS-weather concerns being supported through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) current Centers of Excel- lence are presented below.

TABLE A.6 Examples of Weather-Related Research with a Social or Behavioral Science Component Funded by the Coastal Resilience Center of Excellence (CRC), Led by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Lead Project PI Institution Project Title Larry Atkinson Old Dominion A Tool to Measure Community Stress to Support Disaster University Resilience Planning

James Prochaska University of Rhode Communicating Risk to Motivate Individual Action Island

James Opaluch University of Rhode Overcoming Barriers to Motivate Community Action to Island Enhance Resilience

Isaac Ginis University of Rhode Modeling the Combined Coastal and Inland Hazards from Island High-Impact Hypothetical Hurricanes

Rachel Davidson University of Delaware An Interdisciplinary Approach to Household Strengthening and Insurance Decision

SOURCE: Homeland Security University Programs Network. (2017). Coastal Resilience Center. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://www.hsuniversityprograms.org/centers/crc-coastal-resilience.

158

Appendix A

TABLE A.7 Examples of Weather-Related Research with a Social or Behavioral Science Component Funded by the National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), Led by the University of Southern California Lead Project PI Institution Project Title David Weiss California State Analyzing Project Behavioral and Emotional Responses to University-Los Angeles Terrorism Events

Richard Zeckhauser John F. Kennedy Communicating Probability in Intelligence Analysis and School of Government Homeland Security

John Richard University of Southern Dynamics of Public Fears, Beliefs, and Avoidance Behavior California

William Burns University of Southern Examining the Potential of Using Twitter Data to Study California Public Response to Terrorist Threats

Robin Dillon-Merrill Georgetown Including Perceptions of Near-Miss Events and Terrorist University Risk Factors in Risk Communication

Timothy Sellnow North Dakota State Inoculation Strategies for Risk Communication University Messaging

William Burns University of Southern Modeling the Dynamics of Risk Perception and California Fear: Examining Amplifying Mechanisms and Their Consequences

SOURCE: Homeland Security University Programs Network. (2017) Center for Risk and Economic Analy- sis of Terrorism Events. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://www.hsuniversityprograms.org/centers/ create-risk-economic-analysis.

159

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

TABLE A.8 Examples of Weather-Related Research with a Social or Behavioral Science Component Funded by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), Led by the University of Maryland Lead Project PI Institution Project Title Monica Schoch- University of Best Practices for Preparing Communities: Citizen Spana Pittsburgh Medical Engagement in Public Health Planning Center

Kathleen Tierney University of Colorado Community Field Studies and Analyses of Cross-Sector Preparedness Networks

Dennis Mileti University of Colorado Modeling and Simulation of Public Response to Threat and Attacks

Linda Bourque University of California National Household Survey on Preparedness - Los Angeles

Delbert Elliott University of Colorado School-Based Preparedness and Intervention Programs

Elaine Vaughan University of California Risk Perception in Different Populations - Irvine

SOURCE: Homeland Security University Programs Network. (2017). Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://www.hsuniversityprograms.org/centers/start-terrorism-studies.

TABLE A.9 Examples of Weather-Related Research with a Social or Behavioral Science Component Funded by the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Institute (CIRI), Led by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Lead Project PI Institution Project Title Eric Salathe University of Changing flood risk - Extreme precipitation, sea level rise, Washington and inundation

Himanshu Grover University of Scenario-based Flood Risk Mapping Washington

Adam Rose University of Southern Measuring Business and Economic Resilience in Disasters California

Stephen Flynn Northeastern Resilience Governance University

SOURCE: Homeland Security University Programs Network. (2017). Critical Infrastructure Resilience Institute. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://www.hsuniversityprograms.org/centers/ciri-critical-infrastructure-resilience.

160

APPENDIX B

Lessons from SBS Integration into the “Public Health Enterprise”

s part of the search for models from which the weather enterprise can gain useful insights, the Committee explored how social and behavioral sciences (SBS) Aresearch has been supported and applied, increasingly over time, within two federal agencies in the realm of public health—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We offer below some highlights of lessons learned.

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)

The CDC offers a mature model, with more than 30 years of experience, for strategic integration of SBS into agency-wide operations. The initial development of SBS within the agency was supported by strong active champions, informal coordination, and application of SBS to individual work areas. Participants during those early years refer to the integration of SBS as a “grassroots movement.” The spark for institutionalizing and expanding SBS was a mission-driven initiative with agency-level support by senior leadership. The institutional implementation was driven by several key developments, including: • leadership identification of five mission areas; • establishment of a dedicated coordinating position sponsored by the Office of the Chief Science Officer within the CDC Office of the Director; • agency level tasking; • congressional level interest and support; and • development of an SBS coordination work group, the Behavioral and Social Sciences Work Group (BSSWG), to implement SBS integration policy objectives and a peer support program. The HIV epidemic, as it grew through the 1980s and 1990s, was one of the primary factors that motivated recognition of the need for more SBS research within CDC. Epidemiological data could help explain how infections were spreading, but this

161

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

understanding did not help solve the challenge of mitigating the situations and behaviors that placed people at risk. The growing rate of diabetes during this time also led to a recognition of the critical importance of understanding the social and behavioral context of disease, including the need to augment purely medical model for addressing such diseases with behavioral models to support effective strategies to motivate and support behavioral changes. As a result of these developments, the agency identified several key missions for strengthening SBS capability within CDC: (1) expanding understanding and use of SBS; (2) promoting excellence in SBS research; (3) expanding communication and collaboration among SBS within the agency and with external partners; (4) improving the recruitment and retention of SBS scientists; and (5) supporting professional development of SBS scientists within CDC (Herring, 1997). Today the voluntary membership of the BSSWG provides the primary continuing support for SBS development and integration within the agency. The group has formal by-laws, elected officers, regular meetings, and a regular annual report to leadership. All SBS staff across the agency are invited to participate in the BSSWG. Annual activities have included developing and maintaining a database of member contacts, skills and interests, and current positions and managing a listserv for BSSWG members, which includes updates on related work and job announcements. The BSSWG has organized workshops and training on topics of interest, an annual speaker series, an annual awards program specifically for SBS work, support for BSSWG member attendance at relevant professional conferences (both for professional development and recruitment), and direct SBS employee recruitment. The establishment of the SBS initiative and the BSSWG has resulted in significant increases in representation by scientists from multiple SBS disciplines in the CDC workforce, including at the primary CDC Centers across the country. Currently there are approximately 700 SBS professionals in the BSSWG, an increase from about 300 in 2006. Some of the critical contributions of SBS staff to the agency’s operations include applied public health through development, testing, and evaluation of behaviorally based interventions (Holtzman et al., 2006). Research has included study of the effects of attitudes and behaviors on the public’s health; understanding critical social factors (such as class, family structure, and community integration) that affect public health; and better identifying, understanding, and reducing health disparities. In addition to the HIV and diabetes examples noted earlier, some other specific health issues that have benefited from substantial SBS research at CDC include injury and violence prevention, occupational safety and health, reproductive health, development disabilities, and environmental health concerns (Holtzman et al., 2006). Recently SBS professionals

162

Appendix B

have played critical roles in CDC’s emergency response to the Ebola and Zika public health threats, and BSSWG is helping bring greater visibility to these contributions being made to CDC’s emergency response efforts. SBS participation has been critical for developing priorities for grants and for developing a new agency framework for program evaluation in public health (Koplan et al., 1999). The CDC model suggests that some key elements for expanding and integrating SBS with a federal agency may include having grassroots champions and professional support, including peer-level support mechanisms, and having funding support for coordination, recruitment, professional development, and recognition of the contributions of SBS to the mission. At the institutional level, key elements of success include agency-level recognition of the critical role of SBS in mission success and leadership support through policy direction, goal-setting, and expanded use of SBS resources for addressing mission areas.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

SBS research has long been important for the FDA in communicating information and assessing product designs, given that consumers, patients, and health care professionals all need understandable information about products’ risks as well as benefits. The FDA began hiring in-house social scientists in the early 1960s following multiple agency reviews that recommended improvement in consumer education practices under the guidance of scientific experts. Development of several consumer health and safety education programs created more demand for expert social scientists to shape the agency’s health literacy efforts. Legislative requirements for full disclosure of side effects on drug product labels compounded the need for behavioral science expertise in assessing labeling design, and congressional investigations into the health concerns of the elderly created a new impetus for the agency to recruit social scientists. All these efforts lead to a wide range of important studies. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the FDA recruited social scientists to study drug abuse, contracted a national survey on consumers’ understanding of food and drug labeling and poison prevention practices, and began drawing on social scientific studies to influence policy that affected many agency-regulated commodities. Numerous FDA program areas employ SBS expertise, including: • The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has a dedicated social science research program in their Office of Prescription Drug Promotion to address needs stemming from direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

163

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

The Center’s Office of Communications focuses on risk communication research to enhance its efforts at providing evidence-based communications. • The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Consumer Studies Branch is composed of social scientists with expertise in psychology, sociology, agricul- tural economics, public health, and public policy, who advise policy makers on consumer behavior related to food and nutrition. • The Center for Tobacco Products’ Office of Health Communication and Educa- tion has social scientists that conduct research and evaluation to support its public health education campaigns. • The Center for Devices and Radiological Health leverages social science research to assure that the public has access to clear medical device labeling and consumer-friendly materials that help make informed health decisions. • The Office of the Commissioner’s Office of Planning has a Director for Risk Com- munication and a Risk Communication Advisory Committee. The Risk Commu- nication Staff also established an Internal Message Testing Network to connect message designers in various FDA Centers and Offices with employees who are willing to provide feedback on draft messages, web content, graphics, and proposed label changes. FDA designs SBS research projects to meet particular program needs or broader mission goals. Most of this research is carried out by contractors, but with significant direction and oversight by FDA social scientists, including research for designing studies and developing protocols; reviewing the relevant scientific literature; craft- ing study-related materials such as screening documents, interview and moderators guides for focus groups and individual interviews, and survey questionnaires; reviewing work plans, project reports, and presentations; and leading data analysis and drafting of articles for peer-reviewed journals. On an informal basis, FDA social and behavioral scientists also regularly advise FDA employees from other disciplinary backgrounds about how to apply SBS insights, typically within their own centers and offices, through seminars, meetings, and individual consultations. Social scientists at FDA present research results in peer-reviewed publications and at numerous conferences and invited presentations; and these research findings are all available to the public. FDA strives to incorporate SBS research results and insights into operations through a variety of cross-agency internal information exchanges, including a Social Science Forum (a cross-agency interest group for information exchange), and an SBS Subcommittee (a cross-agency small working group providing social science input).

164

Appendix B

FDA’s Risk Communication Advisory Committee holds periodic state-of-the-science meetings, which are open to the public; and they recently produced a collected volume titled Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide(FDA, 2011). FDA also organizes public events, like the biennial FDA Science Forum presentations and posters showcasing FDA scientists and their work, including sessions on social and behavioral research. A recent publication by a psychologist who worked with the FDA for many years (Fischhoff, 2017) highlights the opportunities and obstacles for successful social science collaborations within the agency. Three key conditions are identified as necessary for incorporating SBS into agency operations: • An external catalyst that recognizes the relevance and salience of SBS to the agency’s mission; • The presence of a core of in-house resident behavioral scientists that were able to identify the relevant science and apply it, at the opportune time; and • Engaged and committed social scientists with a good understanding of the agency, its mission and the environment it operates in who were ready to deploy their expertise when called upon. Other current FDA staff have similarly noted that crucial elements of success are broad buy-in about the importance of SBS research to the mission of the center, office, or agency as a whole by senior leaders, along with dedicated funding and staff needed to undertake the work. As discussed in Box 6.3, these and other examples from the “public health enterprise” offer some important lessons for the weather enterprise, regarding the critical factors that drive successful integration of the social and behavioral sciences.

165

APPENDIX C

People Who Provided Input to the Committee

Meeting 1: Washington, DC | July 27-28, 2016 Roemer Alfelor, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration John Cortinas, Kim Klockow, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Gina Eosco, NOAA, formerly Eastern Research Group, Inc. Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University William Gail, Global Weather Corporation Michael Hand, White House Social and Behavioral Sciences Team/GSA Patrick Harr, National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Robert O’Connor, NSF, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Jennifer Sprague, NOAA, National Weather Service

Meeting 2: Boulder, CO | October 6-7, 2016 Mike Chard, Boulder Emergency Management Bob Glancy, National Weather Service Dave Gochis, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Eve Gruntfest, Resilient Communities Research Institute, Cal Poly Greg Guibert, Boulder’s Chief Resilience Officer Jeff Lazo, NCAR Heather Lazrus, NCAR Mike Lewis, Colorado Department of Transportation Kelly Mahoney, NOAA Rebecca Morss, NCAR Leysia Palen, Colorado University Boulder Liesel Ritchie, Colorado University Boulder Russ Schumacher, Colorado State University Kate Starbird, University of Washington, Seattle Deb Thomas, Colorado University Denver Kathleen Tierney, Colorado University, Boulder Olga Wilhelmi, NCAR

167

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Meeting 3: Workshop: Washington, DC | December 1, 2016 Chris Albrecht, Narwhal Group Greg Carbin, National Weather Service (NWS), Forecast Operations Branch Dave Call, Ball State University Phaedra Daipha, Rutgers University Mike Egnoto, University of Maryland Gina Eosco, Eastern Research Group, Inc. Irina Feygina, Climate Central Eve Gruntfest, Resilient Communities Research Institute, Cal Poly Sandra Hawthorn, Office of Personnel Management, Emergency Management, Facilities, and Security Jen Henderson, Virginia Tech Michael Hinson, Howard County Emergency Management Eli Jacks, NWS, Forecast Services Division Nathan S. Johnson, WRAL-TV North Carolina Brooke Liu, University of Maryland Keri Lubell, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response Steve Lund, Minnesota Department of Transportation Edward Maibach, George Mason University Barry Myers, Accuweather Brenda Philips, University of Massachusetts Amherst Krista Rouse, The Weather Channel Bob Ryan, Broadcast and Consulting Meteorology (retired) Jason Samenow, The Washington Post Kenneth Wall, Federal Emergency Management Agency National Capital Region Steven Zubrick, LWX Weather Forecast Office

Meeting 4: Seattle, WA | January 19-20, 2017 Vankita Brown, National Weather Service Kirby Cook, National Weather Service Susan Joslyn, University of Washington, Seattle Michael Lindell, University of Washington, Seattle Laura Myers, The University of Alabama

Others who provided input through written comments or direct discussions: Theresa Armstead, Mary Neumann, Gene Shelley, CDC Bob Baron, Critical Weather Intelligence William Callahan and Mark Hoekzema, Earth Networks

168

Appendix C

Jodi Duckhorn, Lee Zwanziger, Food and Drug Administration Bill Elwood, National Institutes of Health Jim Gandy, WLTX, Columbia, SC Dave Hennen, CNN Weather Richard Jeffries, University Cooperation for Atmospheric Research COMET J.T. Johnson, Weather Decision Technologies, Inc. Doug Kammerer, NBCUniversal. Washington, DC Kevin Keeshan, NBC Owned Television Stations Michael Kraus, NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) Arlene Laing, NOAA/ESRL Brandon Miller, CNN Weather Melissa Petty, NOAA/ESRL Ryan Phillips, NBC Universal, WTVJ Jay Prater, KAKE, Wichita, KS John Rabin, Katherine Fox, FEMA/National Preparedness Chris Samsury, The Weather Channel James Spann, Alabama Weather Blog Jeffrey Tongue, NWS, New York Weather Forecast Office Jay Trobec, KELO-TV, Sioux Falls, SD Steve Weagle, WPTV, West Palm Beach, FL

169

APPENDIX D

Committee Biosketches

ANN BOSTROM (Co-Chair) is the Weyerhaeuser Endowed Professor in Environmental Policy at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance of the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Bostrom was previously on the faculty at the Georgia Insti- tute of Technology from 1992-2007, where she served as associate dean for research at the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts and professor in the School of Public Policy. She co-directed the Decision Risk and Management Science Program at the National Science Foundation from 1999-2001. Her research focuses on risk perception, communication, and management, and on environmental policy and decision-making under uncertainty. Dr. Bostrom serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Risk Research and is on the editorial boards of Risk Analysis and of Environmental Hazards. She is an elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the Washington State Academy of Sciences, and is past president and an elected fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis. She has served on numerous science advisory boards, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Science Advi- sory Board Environmental Information Services Working Group (EISWG), the UNISDR/ ICSU/Integrated Research on Disaster Risk Science Committee, and several Academies committees, most recently the Committee on the Science of Science Communication: A Research Agenda, and on the Committee to Review the EPA IRIS Process. Dr. Bostrom received a Ph.D. in public policy analysis from Carnegie Mellon University, an M.B.A. from Western Washington University, and a B.A. from the University of Washington. WILLIAM H. HOOKE (Co-Chair) is Associate Executive Director of the American Meteo- rological Society, where he has been a Senior Policy Fellow since 2000. He directed the AMS Policy Program from 2001-2013. Educated as an atmospheric scientist, he has published widely on atmospheric wave dynamics, remote sensing, and natural hazards science and policy. He worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA) from 1967-2000 in a series of research and management positions, including Deputy Chief Scientist and Acting Chief Scientist. He also served as Senior Scientist to then-Commerce-Secretary William Daley. Between 1993 and 2000, he chaired the U.S. Interagency Subcommittee for Natural Disaster Reduction, operated out of the White House. He was a member of the ICSU Planning Group on Natural and Human-induced Environmental Hazards and Disasters, 2006-2008, and subsequently a member of the ICSU/Integrated Research on Disaster Risk Scientific Steering Committee, 2008-2009. He was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society in 2006, a National Associ-

171

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

ate of the NRC/NAS in 2008, and a Fellow of the AAAS in 2015. In 2014 he received the AMS Joanne Simpson Mentorship Award. Educational background: S.B. Swarthmore College 1964, physics (honors); S.M. University of Chicago, 1966, Geophysical Sciences; Ph.D. University of Chicago, 1967, Geophysical Sciences. Dr. Hooke has experience with the Academies dating back to 1987. Most recently, between 2012 and 2015, he served as a member of the Board on International Scientific Organizations. RAYMOND J. BAN is retired Executive Vice President of Programming, Operations and Meteorology at The Weather Channel, Inc. (TWC). Currently, Mr. Ban is Managing Director of Ban and Associates, providing consultative services to the weather/climate enterprise, and is also a lecturer in the Meteorology Department at Penn State Uni- versity. Mr. Ban has been associated with The Weather Channel for more than 34 years and is considered one of the founding members of the all-weather television network. He served as a member of the senior leadership team that grew The Weather Channel from a modest cable television network into a top, multiplatform media brand. He currently consults with TWC in Weather/Climate Enterprise Partnerships. In the community, Mr. Ban has been an active member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) for more than 45 years. He is a Fellow of the Society and holds both the Televi- sion and Radio Seal of Approval. Mr. Ban was the Commissioner on Professional Affairs for the AMS for 6 years, served as Councilor for 3 years and served on the inaugural Steering Committee of the AMS Commission on The Weather, Water and Climate Enter- prise. Mr. Ban is an Alumni Fellow of Penn State University and a Centennial Fellow of its College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. He has served as recent past Chair of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Science Advisory Board, on the Board of Atmospheric Science and Climate of the National Academy of Sciences, and was Chair of the Academy Committee on Effective Communication of Uncertainty in Weather and Climate Forecasts, and he recently Chaired the Academy Committee on Developing a Research Plan to Accelerate Progress on Improving Subseasonal to Seasonal Forecasts. Mr. Ban also served on the Governing Board of the National Envi- ronmental Education Foundation (NEEF) and as President of the Alumni Board of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University. Currently, he is active on several Boards and Committees, including Co-Chair of the Weather Coalition, a member of the Board of Directors of the Hydrologic Research Center and chair of the Advisory Board to the Meteorology Department at The Pennsylvania State University. Mr. Ban received his BS in Meteorology from The Pennsylvania State Univer- sity in 1973. ELLEN J. BASS is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Health Systems and Sciences Research in the College of Nursing and Health Professions at Drexel Univer- sity. She holds a joint appointment in the Department of Information Science in Drexel

172

Appendix D

University’s College of Computing and Informatics. She also holds affiliate status in Drexel University’s School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems. She has more than 30 years of human-centered systems engineering research and design experience in air transportation, health care, medical informatics, and weather related applications. Early in her career, Dr. Bass was a systems engineering practitioner, specify ing and testing the human-automation interaction for real-time, complex systems. Since then she has established a strong research program in that area of human factors. The focus of her research is to develop theories of human performance, quantitative modeling methodologies, and associated experimental designs that can be used to evaluate human-automation interaction in the context of total system performance. The outcomes of the research can be used in the systems engineering process: to inform system requirements, procedures, display designs and training interventions and to support system evaluation. She is a fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and a senior member of the IEEE and of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Dr. Bass is a member of the Executive Council of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. She is a member of the editorial board for the journals Human Factors and IIE Transaction on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. She is Asso- ciate Editor for the Sociotechnical System Analysis department of the journal IIE Trans- actions on Healthcare Systems Engineering. She is a member of the Board on Human- Systems Integration (BOHSI) in the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Bass holds a Ph.D. in Systems Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. DAVID V. BUDESCU is the inaugural Anne Anastasi Professor of Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology at Fordham University. He held tenured positions at the University of Illinois and the University of Haifa, and visiting positions at Carnegie Mellon University, University of Gotheborg, the Kellog School at Northwestern Uni- versity, the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) and INSEAD Business School. His research is in the areas of human judgment, individual and group decision making under uncertainty and with incomplete and vague information, and statistics for the behavioral and social sciences. He is Associate Editor of Decision Analysis, and on the editorial boards of American Psychologist; Applied Psychological Measurement; Journal of Behavioral Decision Making; Journal of Mathematical Psychology; Multivariate Behav- ioral Research; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1992-2002), Psychological Methods (Past, Associate Editor). He is past president of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM) (2000-2001), fellow of the Association for Psychological Sciences (APS) and an elected member of the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology (SMEP). Dr. Budescu received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 1980.

173

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

JULIE L. DEMUTH is a Project Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Lab. She has been working for more than 10 years on integrating social sciences knowledge and research with the meteorological research and practitioner communities. She conducts research on risk communication, risk perceptions, and responses by members of the public and by experts (i.e., weather forecasters, public officials, media) for hazardous weather events, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and flash floods, and winter storms. Dr. Demuth’s current work with members of the public is focused on (a) how people’s past experiences with hazardous weather affects their risk judgments and decisions, and (b) how people’s risk assessments evolved with the evolving threat of Hurricane Sandy, based on Twitter data analysis. Dr. Demuth’s current work with National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters includes understanding how they assess and communicate high- impact weather risks. As part of this research, she is working with atmospheric scientists who use numerical weather prediction ensembles to produce probabilistic information to aid NWS forecasters in their forecast process. Dr. Demuth holds a B.S. in meteorology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1999), an M.S. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University (2001), and a Ph.D. in public communication and technology from Colorado State University (2015). Dr. Demuth also was a Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy fellow with the Disasters Roundtable and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC) in 2002. She then served as a Program Officer for BASC from 2003-2005. MICHAEL D. EILTS is the President and CEO of Weather Decision Technologies, Inc. (WDT) based in Norman, Oklahoma. He is passionate about saving lives and helping companies manage operations through effective communication of weather risks to businesses and the public. He has deep expertise in weather analytics and how these analytics can be applied to business solutions. Mr. Eilts was a co-founder of Weather Decision Technologies and has been the President and CEO since the beginning, more than 15 years ago. Mr. Eilts received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Meteorology and an MBA from the University of Oklahoma. He is also a Harvard Senior Executive Fellow and is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Before founding WDT in 2000, Mr. Eilts worked at the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) for 18 years, the last 7 as the Assistant Director. Mr. Eilts has written more than 75 publications on subjects such as severe storms, Doppler weather radar, automated severe weather analytics, and aviation weather. He also can often be found as a participant on panels as well as providing presentations regarding weather safety and communication to the public and to large enterprises alike. CHARLES F. MANSKI has been Board of Trustees Professor in Economics at North- western University since 1997. He previously was a faculty member at the University of

174

Appendix D

Wisconsin Madison (1983-1998), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1979-1983), and Carnegie Mellon University (1973-1980). He received his B.S. and Ph.D. in economics from MIT in 1970 and 1973. Dr. Manski’s research spans econometrics, judgment and decision, and analysis of public policy. He is author of Public Policy in an Uncertain World (Harvard, 2013), Identification for Prediction and Decision (Harvard, 2007), Social Choice with Partial Knowledge of Treatment Response (Princeton, 2005), Partial Identifi- cation of Probability Distributions (Springer, 2003), Identification Problems in the Social Sciences (Harvard, 1995), and Analog Estimation Methods in Econometrics (Chapman and Hall, 1988), co-author of College Choice in America (Harvard, 1983), and co-editor of Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs (Harvard, 1992) and Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (MIT, 1981). He has served as Director of the Institute for Research on Poverty (1988-1991) and as Chair of the Board of Overseers of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (1994-1998). Editorial service includes terms as editor of the Journal of Human Resources (1991-1994), co-editor of the Econometric Society Monograph Series (1983-1988), member of the Editorial Board of the Annual Review of Economics (2007-2013), and associate editor of the Annals of Applied Statistics (2006-2010), Econometrica (1980-1988), Journal of Economic Perspectives (1986-1989), Journal of the American Statistical Association (1983-1985, 2002-2004), and Transporta- tion Science (1978-1984). Service at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine includes being Chair of the Committee on Data and Research for Policy on Illegal Drugs (1998-2001) and a member of the Report Review Committee (2010- 2016), the Committee on Law and Justice (2009-2015), the Board on Mathematical Sciences and Their Applications (2004-2007), the Committee on National Statistics (1996-2000), and the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (1992-1998). Dr. Manski is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, an elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Econometric Society, the American Statistical Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and an elected Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. RICHARD J. NELSON is an independent contractor under contract to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) currently serving as the Snow and Ice Pooled Fund Cooperative Program (SICOP) Coordinator. Previ- ously, Mr. Nelson spent 30 years at the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) as a Civil Engineer, Assistant District Engineer, District Engineer (District II), and finally as Assistant Director of Operations. As the SICOP Coordinator, he supports the AASHTO Winter Maintenance Technical Service Program (commonly known as SICOP), whose mission is to advance the science and practice of winter maintenance to improve surface transportation mobility during winter storm events across the United States. The emphasis of Mr. Nelson’s NDOT career was in surface transportation operations. As

175

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

District Engineer, he had operational responsibility to provide mobility during winter events in high mountainous, urban, and rural regions. Mr. Nelson instituted the first Road Weather Information System (RWIS) in Nevada, thermal mapping of state highways, value added meteorological service, an active wind warning system controlled by RWIS, and the 511 traveler information system and website in the state. He served as the RWIS and anti-icing team leader during the FHWA’s Lead State Program for implementation of the first Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) products. As Assistant Director of Operations, his responsibilities grew to include statewide traffic operations and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Mr. Nelson received his B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Colorado Boulder in 1981 with emphasis in environmental engineering. YVETTE RICHARDSON is a professor in the Meteorology Department at Penn State University and is the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Dr. Richardson’s research focuses on understanding the formation and evolution of severe storms through both numerical modeling and observations. In particular, her numerical modeling studies investigate the influence of temporal and spatial variations in environmental shear and/or convective available potential energy on storm strength, rotational properties, and longevity. Her observational work has focused on understanding storm rotation, in particular tornado genesis and maintenance, using mobile radars and other instruments to collect fine-scale observations of thunderstorms and tornadoes. Dr. Richardson was a principal investigator in the International H2O Project (IHOP) in spring 2002 with a focus on convection initiation and boundary layer processes. She served as a steering committee member and a principal investigator for the second phase of the Verifica- tion of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment (VORTEX2) in 2009 and 2010. Dr. Richardson recently served as the chair of the UCAR President’s Advisory Com- mittee on University Relations and as an editor of the AMS journal Monthly Weather Review. She currently serves on the AMS Mesoscale Processes Committee and as the AMS Planning Commissioner. She earned her master’s and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorol- ogy from the University of Oklahoma in 1993 and 1999, respectively. Dr. Richardson has been invited to participate in several National Academies workshops and has also served as a reviewer twice for National Academies reports. JACQUELINE SNELLING currently serves as Senior Policy Advisor to the Director in DHS/FEMA’s Individual and Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) with responsibilities for national policy and guidance, research, evaluation and assessment, and initiatives to support individual and community preparedness and resilience at all levels. Her current responsibilities include social science research to inform effective behavioral change strategies in public preparedness and the scientific validation

176

Appendix D

of recommended protective actions for the public. Since joining DHS in 2005, Ms. Snelling has developed programs and partnerships to integrate government and nongovernmental resources for preparedness, strategic metrics for reporting progress on individual and community preparedness, and research methods to refine our understanding of personal preparedness using hazard oversample data. Ms. Snelling’s work for DHS/FEMA builds on a 30-year public service career of senior policy and management positions at all levels of government and extensive volunteer community service. Ms. Snelling has public policy and management experience in diverse areas serving as Special Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Education and serving several Chancellors of the New York City Board of Education. Responsibilities for the Secretary of Education included liaison to the Office of Educational Research, including responsibility for ensuring research support for the Secretary’s initiatives. Ms. Snelling received her undergraduate and Master’s degrees from Harvard University studying administration and social policy. JOHN TOOHEY-MORALES is chief meteorologist at WTVJ NBC-6 in Miami, Florida, and the founder of ClimaData, a small commercial weather firm. During his 32-year operational meteorology career, Mr. Toohey-Morales has worked in the public sector as a lead forecaster for the National Weather Service, and in the private sector as a Certi- fied Broadcast and Certified Consulting Meteorologist. He has also been an adjunct professor of meteorology at St. Thomas University in Miami. Mr. Toohey-Morales attained his American Meteorological Society (AMS) Certified Consulting Meteorolo- gist (CCM #589) designation in 1997, and is one of only a handful of AMS members with both the CCM and Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM #5) accreditations. Mr. Toohey-Morales, an AMS Fellow, served for 6 years as the Society’s Commissioner on Professional Affairs, and as such was an ex-officio member of the AMS Council. Mr. Toohey-Morales has chaired or participated in another half-dozen AMS committees and boards. He was honored with the AMS Award for Outstanding Contribu- tion to Applied Meteorology in 2007, the AMS Award for Broadcast Meteorology in 2004, and the NWA Broadcaster of the Year Award in 2003. He is also Past-President of the National Council of Industrial Meteorologists (NCIM), as well as a member of the National Weather Association (NWA). While at NOAA, Mr. Toohey-Morales was part of the Department of Commerce Silver Medal winning NWS San Juan team for “distinguished, at time heroic service during…Hurricane Hugo.” As a broadcast meteorologist, he’s won three regional Emmy awards. His experience in all sectors of the weather enterprise led to his selection as one of the charter members of the Envi- ronmental Information Services Working Group (EISWG) of NOAA’s Science Advisory Board. Previously, Mr. Toohey-Morales served on the Academies committee studying the Modernization of the U.S. National Weather Service, and co-authored the report

177

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

Weather Services for the Nation: Becoming Second to None. Mr. Toohey-Morales attained his degree in atmospheric sciences from Cornell University in 1984. He also completed master’s-level coursework in remote sensing and tropical meteorology during World Meteorological Organization sponsored training at the National Hurricane Center and the University of Miami in 1988. JOSEPH E. TRAINOR is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at the University of Delaware and a Core Faculty Member of the Disaster Research Center where he conducts research, provides consultation, teaches, and mentors students. Dr. Trainor conducts multidisciplinary, mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative research focused on many dimensions of disasters and crises. His studies include “basic” science, applied research, and rapid reconnaissance post- disaster fieldwork studies. Recent projects have focused on disaster researcher and practitioner integration; warnings, risk perception, and protective action decision making for short fuse hazards; post hurricane housing decisions; household insurance and mitigation decision, and multiorganizational response systems. Findings from these efforts have led to a number of peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, disaster related reports and invited publications, thesis, and dissertations, many that were co-authored with students. Dr. Trainor frequently presents research findings to academic, professional, and public audiences. Most relevant to this work, Dr. Trainor has recently been engaged in a great deal of work related to human behavior and decision making around severe weather risks through research funded by the National Science Foundation. That work has focused on the end to end (weather, forecast, dissemination, perception and response) warning process. As a result, he has been actively engaged in the integration of social science and physical science and a member at a number of Weather-Ready Nation related meetings. Dr. Trainor has a Ph.D. and an M.A. in Sociology from the University of Delaware. He is a core faculty member in the Disaster Science and Management (DISA) program. He teaches courses and advises students in the DISA, the Urban Affairs and Public Policy Ph.D., and the Public Policy B.A. programs. He also serves on key committees for these programs and for the School of Public Policy and Administration.

178

APPENDIX E

Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials AMS American Meteorological Society ASRS Aviation Safety Reporting System (FAA)

BSSWG Behavioral and Social Sciences Work Group (CDC)

CASA Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere CASPER Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CDC) CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CICS Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites CIMMS Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies COE Center of Excellence (DHS) CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement CRISP Critical Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Systems and Processes (NSF) CSTAR Collaborative Science Technology, and Applied Research Program (NWS) CWWCE Commission on the Weather, Water, and Climate Enterprise (AMS)

DHS Department of Homeland Security DoD Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation DPP Diabetes Prevention Project (NIH) DSWG Disaster Surveillance Workgroup (CDC)

EMI Emergency Management Institute (FEMA) ENG Engineering Directorate (NSF) EOC Emergency Operations Center EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERG Eastern Research Group ESRL Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA)

FAA Federal Aviation Administration FACET Forecasting a Continuum of Environmental Threat (NOAA/NSSL) FDA Food and Drug Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

179

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIT Field Innovation Team FORIN Forensic Investigations of Disasters

GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (NOAA) GIS Geographic Information System GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites GSD Global Systems Division (NOAA/ESRL)

HEI Health Effects Institute HHS Department of Health and Human Services HIWeather High-Impact Weather Project (WMO) HWT Hazardous Weather Testbed (NOAA/NSSL)

IBHS Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety ICI interdependent critical infrastructure IDIQ indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (a funding mechanism) IDR interdisciplinary research IDSS Impact-based Decision Support Services IMEE Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events (NSF) IRB Institutional Review Board

MDSS Maintenance Decision Support System ME/C medical examiner/coroner MMM Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory (NCAR) mPING mobile Precipitation Identification Near the Ground MRMS Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor System (NOAA/NSSL)

NAS National Academy of Sciences NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research NCEP National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NOAA) NCHS National Center for Health Statistics (CDC) NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NOAA) NHC National Hurricane Center (NOAA) NIDDK National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIH) NIH National Institutes of Health NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

180

Appendix E

NRC National Research Council NSF National Science Foundation NSSL National Severe Storms Laboratory (NOAA) NSTC National Science and Technology Council (OSTP) NWA National Weather Association NWM National Water Model NWS National Weather Service (NOAA)

OAR Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (NOAA) OCWWS Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services (NWS) OSTP White House Office of Science and Technology Policy OUP Office of University Programs (DHS) OWAQ Office of Weather and Air Quality (NOAA/OAR)

PI Principal Investigator

R&D research and development R2O Research to Operations REDAC Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (FAA) RENCI Renaissance Computing Institute at East Carolina University RISA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (NOAA) RWIS Road Weather Information System

S&T science and technology SBE Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (NSF Directorate) SBS social and behavioral sciences SBST Social and Behavioral Sciences Team SERA Societal and Economic Research and Applications SIP Societal Impacts Program (NCAR) SSWIM Social Science Woven into Meteorology STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

THORPEX The Observing System Research and Predictability Experiment

UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VORTEX-SE Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes in the Southeast (NOAA)

181

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WITHIN THE WEATHER ENTERPRISE

WAS*IS Weather and Society * Integrated Studies (NCAR) WEA Wireless Emergency Alert WFO Weather Forecast Office WMO World Meteorological Organization WPC Weather Prediction Center WRaDS Weather Risks and Decisions in Society (NCAR) WRN Weather-Ready Nation WxEM Weather for Emergency Management (FEMA)

182