ASRAdvances in Science and ResearchASRAdv. Sci. Res.1992-0636Copernicus PublicationsGöttingen, Germany10.5194/asr-15-99-2018Mapping users' expectations regarding extended-range forecastsMapping users' expectationsErvastiTiinatiina.ervasti@fmi.fiGregowHilppaVajdaAndreaLaurilaTerhi K.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0903-7331MäkeläAnttiFinnish Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 503, 00101 Helsinki, FinlandTiina Ervasti (tiina.ervasti@fmi.fi)28May2018159910616January201828March20189April2018This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is available from https://asr.copernicus.org/articles/15/99/2018/asr-15-99-2018.htmlThe full text article is available as a PDF file from https://asr.copernicus.org/articles/15/99/2018/asr-15-99-2018.pdf
An online survey was used to map the needs and preferences of the Finnish
general public concerning extended-range forecasts and their presentation.
First analyses of the survey were used to guide the co-design process of
novel extended-range forecasts to be developed and tested during the project.
In addition, the survey was used to engage the respondents from the general
public to participate in a one year piloting phase that started in June 2017.
The respondents considered that the tailored extended-range forecasts would
be beneficial in planning activities, preparing for the weather risks and
scheduling the everyday life. The respondents also perceived the information
about the impacts of weather conditions more important than advice on how to
prepare for the impacts.
The survey structure consisted of five thematic sections: usability
(yellow), visualization and delivery (red), content (green), respondent's
background (blue), contact information (black). Depending on the previous
answers, not all questions had to be answered.
Introduction
As
part of developing the climate services, much focus has been put on the
extended-range forecasts (ERF; up to 46 days) and long-range or seasonal
forecasts (LRF; 1–7 months). For instance, in the FP7 project CORE-CLIMAX
it was found, based on a worldwide
survey, that in addition to homogenized climate data records monthly and
seasonal forecasting are considered important in the development of future
climate services. Additionally, the impact assessments for improving weather
warnings and their criteria were considered desirable. Also, based on the
findings of project ELASTINEN , one of the recommendations given to the
Finnish Government was that impact-based forecasts and warnings are relevant
for decision-making related to climate change adaptation.
The use of ERF and LRF in decision-making processes is still relatively new
in Europe and fairly underutilized or not used at all in many sectors
. One reason for this is the low
reliability and skill of the forecasts in Europe. Also there is a lack of
awareness that such forecasts are available and sometimes the content of
information provided by the forecasts is ineffective
. Although there are many challenges remaining, the
progress in developing the ERF and LRF forecasts is fast. This improves the
opportunities of developing user-oriented climate services
.
Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) has been using the long-range
forecasts of ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts)
for years. However, the use has been mostly non-operational and the outlooks
for the general public have been provided in text format on the FMI website,
therefore not engaging the public much in the development of the services.
Furthermore, only a few case-study verifications have been made
for showing the capability and usefulness of these
forecasts for the Finnish society.
especially emphasize the need to maintain the dialogue
between providers and users of climate information when developing the
climate services. In CLIPS-project (CLImate services supporting Public
activities and Safety, 2016–2018) user engagement is in the heart of
developing extended-range forecast services and piloting them with users from
the general public. The survey presented in this paper was launched at the
planning stages of the ERF services and it was the first step in the
co-design process of the project. The aim was to map the users' needs and
preferences in detail and use the responses from the survey to guide the
design process of the first forecast prototypes. In the second step of the
co-design process pilot users test seasonally tailored extended-range
forecasts for Finland. In this piloting phase of the CLIPS-project (June 2017–May 2018) the outcome of the CLIPS online survey can also be further
verified and expanded on. Also, a website was designed to provide information
and news, for instance about lessons learned, to improve the dialogue.
In this paper, we present some outcomes of this survey and our first attempts
to co-design extended-range forecast services within the CLIPS-project. We
will specifically focus on how users estimated they could benefit from the
ERF products and services, and whether they appreciate the aspect that the
impact information is built-in in the ERF service. Based on the analyses and
discussions presented in this paper, we hope to be able to provide new
insights of the user perspective for future development of weather and
climate services.
Study design
The CLIPS online survey was targeted at the Finnish general public. It was
structured in five sections and consisted of maximum 21 questions (Fig. ). The sections included questions about usability and
preferences for certain tailored ERF products, visualization and delivery of
the ERF products, content of the ERF products, background information of the
respondents, and willingness to pilot the novel ERF services.
In the beginning of the survey a set of 28 ERF products was presented for the
summer, autumn, winter and spring seasons to give the respondents an idea of
the possible products (see Appendix A). Product portfolio contained
descriptive names of the possible products, but no visualized examples or
detailed information of the content. In this paper we focus on the aspect of
how users think they could benefit from ERF products. The survey questions
that contribute to this aspect and are analyzed in more detail are listed in
Table (questions 2, 10 and 11). Question 2 had seven
ready-made options (see Table ) and an open field to
provide the respondents the choice of giving their own answer. Respondents
were able to choose as many potential benefits as they wished. Respondents
could also elaborate whether they would benefit of the forecasts in their
work, free time or in both occasions. Questions 10 and 11 were based on
rating-scale: I consider it very important, I consider it somewhat important,
I consider it not that important, I don't need this kind of information.
Questions from the survey about how users estimate to benefit of the
extended-range forecast products.
QuestionRespondents/Total(2) Please estimate, in which way extended-range forecasts could benefit you.406/408(10) How important it is for you that the forecast includes information401/408on the impacts of weather conditions.(11) How important it is for you that the forecast includes information on how402/408to prepare for the impacts of weather conditions.
The CLIPS online survey was distributed to the Finnish public with two-folded
approach to reach as many respondents as possible. The two-folded
distribution approach included (1) general communication channels, such as
website and social media channels of FMI and the CLIPS project's own website
(http://clips.fmi.fi, 24 April 2018) and (2) more than 100 national and regional
organizations, institutions, and associations, whose members could
potentially benefit from ERF products. Therefore, the targeted users also
covered economic and social sectors such as health, education, tourism,
transportation, forestry, agriculture, rescue services, civil engineering
departments of major cities, and various sport or outdoor organizations. The
survey was opened to public for 10 weeks during 23 March–5 June 2017.
The promoting of the project was combined with distributing the survey.
Following steps were involved: (i) emailing about the survey and the following
pilot phase with targeted invitation letters that were sent during 23–30
March 2017, (ii) promoting the CLIPS online survey in the social media
channels of FMI, including FMI Beta (Facebook page) and FMI's Twitter channel
focused on research and science topics (which has currently 6521 followers),
(iii) launching the CLIPS project website http://clips.fmi.fi on 9 May 2017,
(iv) releasing a press release about CLIPS and the ongoing survey on FMI main
website on 16 May and sharing it in the FMI social media channels, (v) placing
CLIPS-project teaser on the website of the FMI long-range forecasts with a
title “Forecasts for 6 weeks?”. The results of these communication and
dissemination efforts are presented in Fig. , where
especially steps (i), (ii), and (iv) show as visible leaps in the number of
responses.
The rate of responses received on CLIPS online survey during the 10 weeks open period.
Extended-range forecast prototypes developed in the project
The CLIPS online survey was aimed at guiding the development of
extended-range forecast prototypes for the pilot phase of the project. Based
on the survey results, the ERF prototypes were then improved and made more
user-friendly based on the opinions of the general public. When the survey
was launched, the prototypes were still in the development phase and not
available to the respondents. However, some basic guidelines were already set
and we describe them here to give an idea of the planned ERF products.
The prototypes were based on the 0–46 day ERF data from the ECMWF (all 50
ensemble members). Additionally, the hours 00:00, 06:00, 12:00, 18:00 UTC
were available when tailoring the forecasts. The forecasts were presented as
weekly means and extremes for those hours that played an important role for
the activities it was tailored for.
Here we describe two examples of the extended-range impact forecast
prototypes in the planning phase: thunderstorm and sport weather outlooks
(Fig. ). The thunderstorm outlook was designed to
demonstrate the risk for thunder and lightning using a five-point severity
scaling. On a map of the Nordic countries we showed if the forecast indicated
a risk for weak, moderate, severe, very severe or extremely severe
thunderstorm and lightning in the coming weeks. The outlook was a combination
of weekly mean CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy) anomaly and
historical lightning data of the Finnish Meteorological Institute. First, a
weekly statistical lightning map was produced and then, the map was modified
based on CAPE anomaly forecast. The sports weather outlook was communicated
differently. It presented the impact of weather conditions on the
possibilities to perform outdoor sports using four categories: Poor (Pink),
Moderate (Orange), Good (Blue) and Excellent (Green). Sports weather index
included wind speed (WS), temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH) between
09:00 am–09:00 pm local time.
Two examples of extended-range impact forecast prototypes.
Thunderstorm outlook (a) and sport weather outlook (b).
Results
The CLIPS online survey resulted in 416 responses in total. However, eight
respondents considered not to be interested in the planned extended-range
forecasts and no further questions were asked from them. Therefore, the
sample of 408 replies is used as the data set. As some respondents left some
questions blank or unanswered the amount of replies varies between the
questions as addressed in Table .
Background information of the respondents
The sample covered wide range of the general public. 63 % of the respondents
were male and 36 % female, the rest did not want to express their gender.
The most represented age groups were 50–59 (26 %), 40–49 (24 %), 30–39
(20 %), 60–69 (18 %), in that order, but the sample involved all age
groups. In addition, the sample covered all regions of Finland except Åland
region, even though the Uusimaa region (capital area) was slightly
overrepresented in the sample with 30 % share. The respondents also came
from various different residential environments as 29 % lived in large
cities (over 100 000 inhabitants) or in their suburbs (9 %), 24 % in small
or medium-sized cities (20 000–100 000 inhabitants), 17 % in smaller
population centers and 21 % in the rural areas that are sparsely populated.
Over 90 % of the respondents stated that they use some kind of weather
forecasts, 80 % some kind of monthly forecast product and 50 % some kind of
seasonal forecast product. Only 8 % replied that they had not used these
types of forecasts. When asked which of the currently provided long-range
forecast services the respondents knew and were using already, the three most
mentioned were the FMI monthly forecasts, the FMI seasonal forecasts and
other providers’ monthly forecasts (Table ).
The provider and the type of long-range forecast that the respondents (N=408) were familiar with.
Type of long-range forecasts used by the respondentsResponsesResponse percentageFMI monthly forecast30675 %FMI seasonal forecast18946 %Other provider's monthly forecast15237 %Other provider's seasonal forecast6516 %Monthly forecast tailored for your organization82 %Seasonal forecast tailored for your organization41 %Other forecast tailored for your organization133 %I do not use long-range forecasts318 %Preferences on the product portfolio
In the survey a set of 28 possible products was presented for summer, autumn,
winter and spring (question 1 in Fig. , full list in Appendix A). The most popular were the sweater weather outlook (cold spells), winter
tire outlook, thunderstorm outlook, probability of difficult traffic
conditions, and growing season outlook (Table ). This
information and feedback related to possible benefits of these product
examples were considered when further working on the pilot product prototypes
for each season.
The ten most popular products presented in the survey's
product portfolio ordered by popularity.
ERF productSeasonTimes chosen in the responsesResponse percentage(N=408)Sweater weather outlook (cold spells)Winter26565 %Winter tire outlookAutumn24159 %Thunderstorm outlookSummer23056 %Probability of difficult traffic conditionsWinter22956 %Growing season outlookSummer21252 %Probability of slippery road conditionsWinter21051 %Forest outdoor activity conditionsAutumn20049 %Winter sport outlookWinter18345 %Probability of sultry heat spellsSummer16340 %Outlook for gravel removalSpring13333 %Estimated benefits from using tailored extended-range forecasts
Most of the respondents were already familiar with some kind of monthly and
seasonal forecasts (Table ) and showed interest in the
possible ERF products presented in the survey (Table ).
Respondents were then asked to estimate how they would benefit from the novel
tailored extended-range forecasts (question 2, Table ).
The three most popular options were: help in planning activities, help in
preparing for weather risks and making everyday life easier (Table ). In addition, two benefits were commonly described
under the option “other”: help in scheduling activities and generally
following the coming weather conditions.
Potential benefits considered by the respondents (N=406) if using the tailored extended range forecast products presented in the survey's
product portfolio. The percentages indicate the share of respondents that chose the benefit.
Potential benefit considered by the respondentFree timeWorkFree timeWorkHelp in planning activities31815578 %38 %Help in preparing for weather risks26315665 %38 %Making everyday life easier24412160 %30 %Increased feeling of safety1878746 %21 %Economic benefit749918 %24 %Other421410 %3 %No benefit250 %1 %
The order of most commonly chosen benefits was very similar between aspects
of work and free time. Economical benefit was the only one that was more
often related to work than to free time use. In general, 56 % of the
respondents chose at least one work-related benefit gained from using
extended-range forecasts. In contrast to this, over 90 % chose at least one
potential benefit linked with their free time. Thus, respondents more
commonly estimated to benefit from extended-range forecasts on their free
time rather than at work.
The respondents, who stated they would benefit from ERF products in their
work, worked mainly in private organizations (53 %) but also in
municipalities (17 %), other governmental organizations (19 %), or
non-governmental organizations (6 %). They represented over 27 different
fields of work, the most common being agriculture and food production,
education, and traffic and infrastructure.
All respondents were also asked to rate, how important it is for them that
impact and/or preparedness-related information is coupled with the
extended-range forecast (questions 10 and 11, Table ).
As seen in Fig. the responses indicated that
almost 40 % of the respondents thought that it is very important to get
information on the possible impacts of weather conditions. Approximately as
many considered that it is at least somewhat important. On the other hand,
only about 20 % of the respondents considered it very important to include
guidance on how to prepare for the impacts, and 30 % of the respondents
considered it somewhat important.
Rated value of built-in impact information compared to
preparedness-related information in extended-range forecasts.
Discussion
The CLIPS online survey was designed to support the product development
process and to be exploratory and open in nature. Therefore the outcome can
not be generalized to represent the opinions of the whole Finnish general
public. However, it provides a new insight in the needs of the general
public, as extended-range and long-range forecast products are often targeted
at certain professional sectors. Therefore most available information comes
from the surveys or co-design processes with targeted professional sectors
and not general audiences.
In the survey over 80 % of the respondents stated they used some kind of monthly
forecast product and over 50 % some kind of seasonal forecast product. As monthly
and seasonal forecast products are often considered to be less used by the
general public, it can be assumed that a lot of respondents took the survey
as they were interested in the topic of extended-range forecasts to begin
with.
Also, respondents estimated more commonly to benefit from tailored
extended-range forecasts on their free time rather than at work. This
suggests that also users outside usually targeted professional sectors think
they could benefit from extended-range forecasts. The respondents from the
general public also rated the impact information higher than guidance on how
to prepare for these impacts.
The aim of the survey was to map the users' perspective in more detail and
use the outcome to guide the design process of the first forecast prototypes.
Based on the survey, we were able to choose the most interesting tailored ERF
products to be tested and to improve our already-planned ERF products (Fig. ). The feedback related to possible benefits linked with
the product examples were considered when further working on the prototypes
for each season. We also managed to engage the first 200 pilot users to test
the ERF prototypes through the survey. The outcome of the survey also
supports us in assessing the experiences of users before and after the
piloting phase of the project.
In the future, more information on the users will be gathered in the piloting
phase of the CLIPS project, in which pilot users will test various tailored
extended-range forecasts in practice and give feedback. Combining the results
of the CLIPS online survey and the feedback from piloting provides a larger
data set, in which the user needs of ERF products can be more closely mapped.
For instance, one option would be to consider whether different demographic
variables had an effect on how the respondents perceived the potential
benefits of extended-range forecasts or the value of impact and
preparedness-related information. These demographic variables cover for
example the residential environment (large city, suburb, rural area etc.) as
people generally use distinct means of transportation when commuting from
different kinds of residential environments. Outcomes could indicate that
some groups of the general public might benefit even more explicitly of
climate services of this kind or they might have special needs regarding the
forecasts.
Conclusions
From the previous projects CORE-CLIMAX
and ELASTINEN ,
we had learned that the ERF and LRF services as well as impact forecast are
desired part of the climate services. Thus, with the CLIPS online survey, we
wanted to better understand the details for tailoring these kinds of services
for the public. According to the views of the 408 respondents the potential
benefits of the ERF services are: (1) better understanding of the possible
weather related risks and (2) aid in preparing for weather conditions and
their likely impacts. Additionally, respondents of the CLIPS online survey
most commonly chose that they would benefit from ERF products when planning
their free time activities although work-related benefits were also
considered possible. Based on these findings, the piloting phase of the CLIPS
project started with focus on tailoring ERF products and services that would
indicate the risks and the possibilities with built-in information about the
impacts of weather. The results of the CLIPS online survey are being further
developed and verified during the piloting phase of the CLIPS-project (June
2017–May 2018), when registered users test seasonally tailored
extended-range forecasts. Thus, in the future, it is possible to study the
perceptions and needs with respondents who are piloting the novel
extended-range forecast services in practice.
The survey data is available only in Finnish and is at the moment not publicly archived as the project is still ongoing.
However the survey was partially translated, as applicable, and those parts were included to support the analysis and conclusions presented in this paper.
Product portfolio of the possible tailored extended-range
forecasts presented in the CLIPS online survey.
ERF productSeasonBiking weather outlookSummerOutdoor sport conditionsSummerProbability of increased forest fire riskSummerThunderstorm outlookSummerProbability of sultry heat spellsSummerOutlook for blue algae growth conditions in lakesSummerGrowing season outlookSummerSkiing season outlookAutumnBiking weather outlookAutumnOutdoor sport conditionsAutumnOutdoor sport conditions in water areasAutumnForest outdoor activity conditionsAutumnOutlook for autumn foliageAutumnOutlook for soil bearing capacity (roads)AutumnWinter tire outlook (probability of slippery driving conditions)AutumnSummer cottage season outlook (ending)AutumnWinter sport outlookWinterWinter biking outlookWinterSweather weather outlook (probability of cold spells)WinterProbability of slippery road conditionsWinterProbability of difficult traffic conditionsWinterBiking weather outlookSpringOutdoor sport conditionsSpringGrowing season outlookSpringProbability of flooding roadsSpringProbability of frost heave (soil bearing capacity, roads)SpringSummer cottage season outlook (beginning)SpringOutlook for gravel removalSpring
TE and HG planned the paper together. All authors took part in the survey
construction, survey analyses and/or writing.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
This article is part of the special
issue “17th EMS Annual Meeting: European Conference for Applied Meteorology
and Climatology 2017”. It is a result of the EMS Annual Meeting: European
Conference for Applied Meteorology and Climatology 2017, Dublin, Ireland,
4–8 September 2017.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Academy of Finland, project number 303951 (SA
CLIPS). We thank ECMWF collaborators Erik Andersson, Laura Ferranti, David Richardson, Tim Hewson and Ivan Tsonevsky for their valuable support in the
project. Authors want to thank Juha A. Karhu, Otto Hyvärinen, Hannele Kaija
and the Customer Services department of FMI for their useful comments in the
planning phase and the volunteers who acted as the test general public before
launching the survey. Also, Hadassa Hovestadt is acknowledged for helping in
the analysis of survey results. Big thanks to all those Finns, who replied to
the survey and gave their valuable opinion for us to work with.
Edited by: Carlo Buontempo
Reviewed by: Isadora Christel Jiménez and one anonymous referee
ReferencesBruno Soares, M. and Dessai, S.: Barriers and enablers to the use of seasonal
climate forecasts amongst organisations in Europe, Climate Change, 137,
89–103, 10.1007/s10584-016-1671-8,
2016.Buontempo, C., Hewitt, C. D., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., and Dessai, S.: Climate
service development, delivery and use in Europe at monthly to inter-annual
timescales, Climate Risk Management, 6, 1–5,
10.1016/j.crm.2014.10.002,
2014.Gregow, H., Carter, T., Groundstroem, F., Haavisto, R., Haanpää, S., Halonen,
M., Harjanne, A., Hildén, M., Jakkila, J., Juhola, S., Jurgilevich, A.,
Kokko, A., Kollanus, V., Lanki, T., Luhtala, S., Miettinen, I., Mäkelä, A.,
Nurmi, V., Oljemark, K., Parjanne, A., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Perrels, A.,
Pilli-Sihvola, K., Punkka, A.-J., Raivio, T., Räsänen, A., Säntti, K.,
Tuomenvirta, H., Veijalainen, N., and Zacheus, O.: Keinot edistää sää- ja
ilmastoriskien hallintaa, (Measures to promote the management of weather and
climate related risks), Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja
tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja, 47/2016, 36 pp., 2016a (abstract in English).
Gregow, H., Jylhä, K., Mäkelä, H. M., Aalto, J., Manninen, T., Karlsson, P.,
Kaiser-Weiss, A. K., Kaspar, F., Poli, P., Tan, D. G. H., Obregon, A., and
Su, Z.: Worldwide Survey of Awareness and Needs Concerning Reanalyses and
Respondents Views on Climate Services, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 97, 1461–1473, 10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00271.1,
2016b.Harjanne, A., Haavisto, R., Tuomenvirta, H., and Gregow, H.: Risk management perspective for climate service development – Results from a study on
Finnish organizations, Adv. Sci. Res., 14, 293–304, 10.5194/asr-14-293-2017, 2017.Hyvärinen, O., Mäkelä, A., Kämäräinen, M., and Gregow, H.: Long-range forecasts for the energy market – a case study,
Adv. Sci. Res., 14, 89–93, 10.5194/asr-14-89-2017, 2017.
Pilli-Sihvola, K., Haavisto, R., Nurmi, V., Oljemark, K., Tuomenvirta, H.,
Groundstroem, F., Juhola, S., Miettinen, I., and Gregow, H.: Taloudellisesti
tehokkaampaa sää- ja ilmastoriskien hallintaa Suomessa, (Efficient weather
and climate risk management in Finland),
Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja, 45/2016, 68 pp.,
2016 (abstract in English).Soares, M. B., Alexander, M., and Dessai, S.: Sectoral use of climate
information in Europe: A synoptic overview, Climate Services,
9, 5–20, 10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.001,
2017.Su, Z., Timmermans, W., Zeng, Y., Schulz, J., John, V., Roebeling, R., Poli,
P., Tan, D., Kaspar, F., Kaiser-Weiss, A., Swinnen, E., Toté, C., Gregow,
H., Manninen, T., Riihelä, A., Calvet, J.-C., Ma, Y., and Wen, J.: An
overview of European efforts in generating climate data records, B.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., in press,
10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0074.1, 2017.Vitart, F., Ardilouze, C., Bonet, A., Brookshaw, A., Chen, M., Codorean, C.,
Déqué, M., Ferranti, L., Fucile, E., Fuentes, M., Hendon, H., Hodgson, J.,
Kang, H.-S., Kumar, A., Lin, H., Liu, G., Liu, X., Malguzzi, P., Mallas, I.,
Manoussakis, M., Mastrangelo, D., MacLachlan, C., McLean, P., Minami, A.,
Mladek, R., Nakazawa, T., Najm, S., Nie, Y., Rixen, M., Robertson, A. W.,
Ruti, P., Sun, C., Takaya, Y., Tolstykh, M., Venuti, F., Waliser, D.,
Woolnough, S., Wu, T., Won, D.-J., Xiao, H., Zaripov, R., and Zhang, L.: The
Subseasonal to Seasonal (S2S) Prediction Project Database, B.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 163–173,
10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0017.1,
2017.