Browsing by Author "Harrison S"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Volunteered Geographic Information for people-centred severe weather early warning: A literature review
    (Massey University, 2020-06-01) Harrison S; Potter S; Prasanna R; Doyle EEH; Johnston D
    Early warning systems (EWSs) can prevent loss of life and reduce the impacts of hazards. Yet, recent severe weather events indicate that many EWSs continue to fail at adequately communicating the risk of the hazard, resulting in significant life and property loss. Given these shortcomings, there has been a shift towards people centred EWSs to engage with audiences of warnings to understand their needs and capabilities. One example of engaging with warning audiences is through the collection and co-creation of volunteered geographic information (VGI). Much of the research in the past has primarily focused on using VGI in disaster response, with less exploration of the role of VGI for EWSs. This review uses a scoping methodology to identify and analyse 29 research papers on EWSs for severe weather hazards. Results show that VGI is useful in all components of an EWS, but some platforms are more useful for specific components than are others. Furthermore, the different types of VGI have implications for supporting people-centred EWSs. Future research should explore the characteristics of the VGI produced for these EWS components and determine how VGI can support a new EWS model for which the World Meteorological Organization is advocating: that of impact-based forecasting and warning systems.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Where does scientific uncertainty come from, and from whom? Mapping perspectives of natural hazards science advice
    (Elsevier, 2023-10-01) Doyle EEH; Thompson J; Hill S; Williams M; Paton D; Harrison S; Bostrom A; Becker J
    The science associated with assessing natural hazard phenomena and the risks they pose contains many layers of complex and interacting elements, resulting in diverse sources of uncertainty. This creates a challenge for effective communication, which must consider how people perceive that uncertainty. Thus, we conducted twenty-five mental model interviews in Aotearoa New Zealand with participants ranging from scientists to policy writers and emergency managers, and through to the public. The interviews included three phases: an initial elicitation of free thoughts about uncertainty, a mental model mapping activity, and a semi-structured interview protocol to explore further questions about scientific processes and their personal philosophy of science. Qualitative analysis led to the construction of key themes, including: (a) understanding that, in addition to data sources, the ‘actors’ involved can also be sources of uncertainty; (b) acknowledging that factors such as governance and funding decisions partly determine uncertainty; (c) the influence of assumptions about expected human behaviours contributing to “known unknowns'; and (d) the difficulty of defining what uncertainty actually is. Participants additionally highlighted the positive role of uncertainty for promoting debate and as a catalyst for further inquiry. They also demonstrated a level of comfort with uncertainty and advocated for ‘sitting with uncertainty’ for transparent reporting in advice. Additional influences included: an individual's understanding of societal factors; the role of emotions; using outcomes as a scaffold for interpretation; and the complex and noisy communications landscape. Each of these require further investigation to enhance the communication of scientific uncertainty.