While this paper has a hydrological focus (a glossary of terms highlighted by asterisks in the text is included in Appendix A), the concept of our decision-making activity will be of wider interest and applicable to those involved in all aspects of geoscience communication.
Seasonal hydrological forecasts (SHF) provide insight into the river and groundwater levels that might be expected over the coming months. This is valuable for informing future flood or drought risk and water availability, yet studies investigating how SHF are used for decision-making are limited. Our activity was designed to capture how different water sector users, broadly flood and drought forecasters, water resource managers, and groundwater hydrologists, interpret and act on SHF to inform decisions in the West Thames, UK. Using a combination of operational and hypothetical forecasts, participants were provided with three sets of progressively confident and locally tailored SHF for a flood event in 3 months' time. Participants played with their “day-job” hat on and were not informed whether the SHF represented a flood, drought, or business-as-usual scenario. Participants increased their decision/action choice in response to more confident and locally tailored forecasts. Forecasters and groundwater hydrologists were most likely to request further information about the situation, inform other organizations, and implement actions for preparedness. Water resource managers more consistently adopted a “watch and wait” approach. Local knowledge, risk appetite, and experience of previous flood events were important for informing decisions. Discussions highlighted that forecast uncertainty does not necessarily pose a barrier to use, but SHF need to be presented at a finer spatial resolution to aid local decision-making. SHF information that is visualized using combinations of maps, text, hydrographs, and tables is beneficial for interpretation, and better communication of SHF that are tailored to different user groups is needed. Decision-making activities are a great way of creating realistic scenarios that participants can identify with whilst allowing the activity creators to observe different thought processes. In this case, participants stated that the activity complemented their everyday work, introduced them to ongoing scientific developments, and enhanced their understanding of how different organizations are engaging with and using SHF to aid decision-making across the West Thames.
There has been a recent shift away from the conventional linear model of
science, where research is carried out within the scientific community with
the expectation that users will be able to access and apply the information,
towards co-production and stakeholder-led initiatives that bring together
scientists and decision-makers to frame and deliver “actionable research”
(Asrar et al., 2012; Lemos et al., 2012; Meadow et al., 2015). Regular and
clear communication between scientists and policy-makers and practitioners in
workshops, focus groups, consultations, and interviews, and
through the development of games, activities, and interactive media, is
imperative for ensuring that projects deliver impact outside of the academic
environment. Here, we share findings from an activity that explored the use
of seasonal hydrological forecasts
Seasonal hydrological forecasts (SHF) have the ability to predict principal
changes in the hydrological environment such as river flows and groundwater
levels weeks or months in advance. This has the potential to benefit
humanitarian action and economic decision-making, e.g. to provide early
warning of potential flood and drought events, assist with water quality
monitoring, and ensure optimal management and use of water resources for
public water supply, agriculture, and industry (Chiew et al., 2003; Arnal et
al., 2017; Li et al., 2017; Meißner et al., 2017; Turner et al., 2017).
SHF systems covering a range of spatial scales have been developed –
Hydrological Outlook UK forecasts at a national level (Prudhomme et al.,
2017; CEH, 2018) – while the Copernicus European and Global Flood Awareness
Systems (EFAS and GloFAS) provide operational forecasts over larger scales
(JRC, 2018a, b). Recent research has demonstrated improvements in SHF
quality
There is growing interest in SHF amongst policy-makers and practitioners;
however, in many cases, there is limited information about whether SHF
products are
The potential for SHF to meet the needs of the water sector is recognized by a host of UK environmental organizations, including the EA, the Met Office, and research centres (see Prudhomme et al., 2017). The West Thames specifically is underlain by a slowly responding, largely groundwater-driven hydrogeological system (Mackay et al., 2015), meaning that there is potential for extreme hydrological events such as the drought of 2010–2012 (Bell et al., 2013) and winter floods of 2013–2014 (Neumann et al., 2018) to be detected weeks or months in advance. It also has a dense population and high demands for water which require effective long-term management of resources for public drinking supply, industry, agriculture, and wastewater treatment (further details about the West Thames can be found in Sect. 2.2). The value of using SHF in the West Thames is of particular interest to the EA; however, information on the level of understanding, uptake, and application is currently unknown. We therefore aimed to develop a clearer understanding about how different professional water sector users – broadly forecasters, groundwater hydrologists, and water resource managers – are currently engaging with SHF in the West Thames using a decision-making activity.
In the context of flood science communication with experts, real-time
activities such as simulation exercises (that imitate real-world processes
and behaviours) or roleplay (where participants engage with real-world
scenarios but take on personas and positionalities that differ from their
own) are known to be effective when engaging with stakeholders who bring a
range of scientific ideas and perspectives to the table (McEwen et al.,
2014). Such activities encourage participants to apply their knowledge to
realistic situations and to reflect on issues and the perspectives of other
stakeholders (Pavey and Donoghue, 2003, p. 7). They are also valuable for
understanding decision-making processes, e.g. for environmental hazards and
conflicting community views (Harrison, 2002), for capacity building in
response to new water legislation (Farolfi et al., 2004), and for
understanding climate forecasts and decision-making (Ishikawa et al., 2011).
Our decision-making activity provided an interactive and entertaining
platform that encouraged participants to engage with real-world scenarios
whilst fostering discussions about the barriers and enablers to use of SHF.
Using three activity stages, participants were provided with sets of
progressively confident and locally tailored SHF for the next 3 to 4 months.
The SHF were produced using output from operational systems including
Hydrological Outlook UK and the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS), and
hypothetical forecasts generated through scientific research (see Neumann et
al., 2018). Participants were asked to play in real time, i.e. as if
receiving the forecasts on the day for the next 3 to 4 months. They did not
know in advance whether the SHF represented a flood, drought, or
business-as-usual scenario and had to use their knowledge and experiences to
make informed decisions based on the maps, hydrographs
The focus group was developed in collaboration with the EA
and in line with the objectives of the IMPREX project. The aims were the
following.
Introduce and discuss current SHF projects, products, and initiatives for
the UK and Europe. Engage with participants' experiences and knowledge of using SHF. Learn how SHF are being applied in the West Thames and recognize how
different users in the water sector approach and apply SHF information for
decision-making. Identify limitations and barriers to use. Identify future opportunities for SHF application and research.
These aims were delivered through a series of four interactive sessions
designed to actively engage participants to share their knowledge and
experiences of SHF, and short presentations that introduced the main topics
surrounding SHF and informed participants about current SHF projects and
developments in the scientific research. While this paper focuses on the
decision-making activity (interactive session 2), discussions from the other
sessions are also presented where relevant. An outline of the focus group
programme is provided in Supplement 1 and a full report of the activities is
available; see Neumann et al. (2017).
Location and lithology of the West Thames and its 10 main river catchments.
The West Thames refers to the non-tidal portion of the Thames River
Basin
The West Thames is a highly pressured environment – 15 million people and a substantial part of the UK's economy rely directly on its water supply (EA, 2015). There are more than 2000 licensed abstraction points in the chalk aquifers and superficial alluvium and river terrace gravel deposits; 90 % of abstractions are for public water supply, the rest providing water for agriculture, aquaculture, and industry (Thames Water, 2010). There are 12 000 registered wastewater discharge points; pollution from sewage treatment works, transport, and urban areas affects more than 45 % of rivers, water bodies, and aquifers, largely towards London. Diffuse pollution and sedimentation from agricultural and forestry practice are the main contributors to poor water quality in the upper catchments, especially during times of high rainfall (EA, 2015).
Urbanization and land-use change in combination with more varied rainfall
patterns have seen the region affected by a number of extreme drought and
flood events in recent years (EA, 2009; Parry et al., 2015; Muchan et al.,
2015). Across the Thames Basin, 200 000 properties are at risk from a
SHF have the potential for wide-ranging application and it was important to
capture the different perspectives of the West Thames water sector. The
organizers agreed that the focus group would work well with a relatively
small number of participants (up to 12) so that all perspectives could be
heard. Based on discussions held between the organizers, individuals from
local organizations working in established (i.e.
long-term/permanent/leadership) roles relevant to SHF in the West Thames were
invited; many but not all participants had previously collaborated with the
University of Reading and/or EA. In some cases, an invitee
was unable to attend due to prior commitments or because they had a colleague
who they felt would be a better fit for the focus group. A total of 17
participants were invited from six organizations – 12 accepted and 11 took
part on the day. They were responsible for flood and drought forecasting
(F
Breakdown of participants who took part in the activity.
By inviting local stakeholders we ensured that participants represented a range of different water sector personas and were familiar with the West Thames environment. We did not assume that participants had any prior knowledge of SHF and invitees were encouraged to attend even if they were unfamiliar with the concept as this would be an important indicator of the state of play in the West Thames (invite poster; see Supplement 1).
All 11 focus group participants were familiar with the concept of seasonal
hydrological forecasting and 10 regularly used SHF in their everyday job
(according to results from interactive session 1 – “What are seasonal
hydrological forecasts?”). Using post-its, participants noted that
Hydrological Outlook UK (CEH, 2018) and the associated raw forecasts from the
analogue, hydrological, and meteorological models (produced by the UK Met
Office, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, British Geological Survey,
EA, Natural Resources Wales, Scottish Environment Protection
Agency, and Rivers Agency Northern Ireland) were the main sources of SHF
information currently being used, primarily for flood and drought outlook,
groundwater monitoring, and river flow projection purposes. Scientific
research, operational planning, and sharing of information with other
organizations in the water sector were also listed as reasons for engaging
with SHF. It is important to note that no prior definitions or information
were provided and no restrictions or guidance were placed on what
participants should write down. This suggests that many in the water sector
are using SHF to obtain an insight into whether the upcoming season will be
drier or wetter than normal, but that they also believe SHF
Our activity was inspired by the success of previous decision-making activities and games run by the HEPEX (Hydrological Ensemble Prediction EXperiment) community (e.g. Ramos et al., 2013; Crochemore et al., 2015; Arnal et al., 2016). The aim was to better understand how different water sector users in the West Thames interpret and act on SHF by providing them with hydrological context, maps, and forecasts for the region. The activity was designed for the West Thames so that we could capture the relationship between local stakeholders and the environment in which they work.
Set-up of the activity.
The set-up of the activity (illustrated in Fig. 2) had the following
structure: Choose groups
Participants divided themselves into three groups based on their area of expertise and where they felt they could best contribute to the discussions. There were three flood and drought “forecasters” and two “groundwater hydrologists”. The remaining participants (navigation, water resource and reservoir management, public water supply and wastewater operations) grouped themselves as “water resource managers”. While the results and discussions focus on these three broad groups, individual perspectives are also included to capture the variety of water sector personas present. There were also three research facilitators and three note-takers whose role it was to capture and record the key discussion points.
Groups were first provided with background context to the West Thames to set the scene, followed by three sets of progressively confident SHF for the next 3 to 4 months (Stages 1–3). Stage 1 forecasts were from Hydrological Outlook UK, Stage 2 were from EFAS-Seasonal (European Flood Awareness System) and Stage 3 were “improved” output from EFAS-Seasonal (Fig. 2 and Sect. 3.4). Participants were asked to discuss the information presented in their groups and make informed decisions about each of the 10 West Thames catchments (Fig. 1 and Sect. 3.3.2). All groups were provided with exactly the same information and discussion was encouraged. The activity took around 2 h and timings were only loosely controlled.
SHF at all three stages of the activity represented the same time period –
dating from 1 November 2013 to 28 February 2014 (or 31 January 2014 for
Hydrological Outlook UK, which only extends to 3 months; CEH, 2018). These
dates captured a period of severe and widespread river and groundwater
flooding in the West Thames (Huntingford et al., 2014; Kendon and McCarthy,
2015; Muchan et al., 2015).
Participants' individual colour-coded decisions recorded on an A1 map.
Colour codes and corresponding action or decision to be taken.
In real life, a user's decision process can encompass a range of possible
actions and associated consequences (Crochemore et al., 2015). Decisions can
be controlled by providing participants with a set of options to choose from,
e.g. to deploy temporary flood defences or not – the consequences of which
usually determine the outcome of a game or activity. In this case,
participants were asked to select from a broad range of colour-coded options
(Table 2), but specific decisions were not defined as these had the potential
to differ greatly between participants and might prompt unrealistic answers.
At each stage, the colour-coded options were discussed by the three groups,
simulating conversations that could happen in real life, but it was stressed
that
Empathy map completed by each participant during Stages 1–3.
Groups were given information about the West Thames catchment characteristics and “current” hydrological conditions (units and dates removed) to place the upcoming SHF into context and aid interpretation.
Five maps (Supplement 2) that provided a visual representation and a
numerical breakdown of the characteristic differences between each catchment
were given to participants.
Hydrogeology Elevation – minimum, maximum and mean elevation (m a.s.l.) Slope – minimum, maximum and standard deviation of slope angle (degrees) Land cover – dominant land use (urban, woodland, agricultural, semi-natural) Flood risk – flood warning and flood alert areas and an indication of
“urban flood risk”
Participants were asked to discuss and identify the key differences between
catchments and highlight the associated risks and opportunities. As some
participants were more familiar with specific areas/catchments based on their
day job, the maps provided a wider view of where catchment characteristics
differ across the West Thames region.
To help set the scene with respect to initial conditions, i.e. the “current” levels of water contained in the soil, groundwater, rivers, and reservoirs, groups were provided with information from the Hydrological Summary (NRFA, 2018) for the last month, past season, and past year (October 2013, June to September 2013, and November 2012 to October 2013 with dates removed). The Hydrological Summary (Supplement 3) focuses on rainfall, river flows, groundwater levels, and reservoir stocks and places the events of each month, and the conditions at the end of the month, into a historical context. In the real world, decision-makers are already prepared with this information; thus, providing evidence about whether hydrological conditions were wet, dry, or normal at the point of receiving the forecasts was an important piece of information for the participants to consider.
The first set of SHF information provided to participants was the Hydrological Outlook UK (from 1 November 2013 to 31 January 2014, with dates removed) (CEH, 2013). This provided regional information for the next 3 months with reference to normal conditions for precipitation, temperature, river flows and groundwater levels. Hydrological Outlook UK uses observations, ensemble models and expert judgement (CEH, 2018) to produce the seasonal forecasts. Information is publicly available and consists of text, graphs, tables and regional maps (examples are shown in Fig. 5 and the full set of forecasts provided to participants are in Supplement 4).
UK 3-month outlook maps from November 2013 (colours based on the
percentile range of historical observed values).
EFAS-Seasonal (European Flood Awareness System) is an operational system that
monitors and forecasts streamflow
Four-month hydrological forecasts from EFAS-Seasonal (Stage 2).
For the activity, SHF were produced from 1 November 2013 out to 4 months to focus on the period of extreme stormy weather and flooding experienced. As EFAS-Seasonal is designed to run at the scale of large river basins (i.e. the whole Thames basin), GIS shapefiles were used to extract forecast information for the 10 West Thames catchments using Python v3.5. This provided more locally tailored forecasts compared with Hydrological Outlook UK (Stage 1).
Four-month hydrological forecasts from the “Improved”
EFAS-Seasonal (Stage 3).
To ascertain whether participants had a preference for how SHF information is
presented, the Stage 2 forecasts were presented as both hydrographs and
choropleth
The choropleth maps showed the maximum probability that the full forecast ensemble for a catchment exceeded the Q10 (90th percentile) threshold in a given month (Fig. 6b), thus providing a snapshot of the probability of potentially extreme conditions at catchment level. The full set of EFAS-Seasonal SHF provided to participants can be found in Supplement 5.
Stage 3 followed the exact same set-up and provided the same style output
(Fig. 7a, b) as Stage 2 – the only difference being that the seasonal
meteorological forecasts used as input to LISFLOOD were taken from a set of
atmospheric relaxation experiments
Atmospheric relaxation experiments were conducted by the ECMWF in late 2014
All groups recognized spatial variability between the catchments and general consensus was that hydrogeology was the most important factor determining flood risk, drought risk, and water availability in the West Thames (Supplement 2). All groups were interested in the persistence, hydrological memory, and slower response of the groundwater-driven catchments upstream (e.g. the Evenlode, Thames, and South Chilterns and Kennet) as these provided the greatest opportunity for water supply but also increased risk of local groundwater flooding and widespread fluvial flooding further downstream. Forecasters also highlighted the risks posed by impermeable catchments (e.g. the Cherwell and Lower Thames) that have a flashier response to rainfall. Water resource managers stated that upstream reservoirs were at increased risk of pollution (from agriculture), whilst dry weather (drought) was a greater issue towards London.
Summary of decisions and actions taken by different water sector
personas based on
Hydrological Summary placed the “current” hydrological conditions for river flows, groundwater levels, and reservoir stocks within the “normal” range (Supplement 3). Maps indicated that rainfall was below average over the past season but above average the previous month. All groups were happy with the current hydrological situation (no risks currently), although water resource managers stated that rainfall deficiency in the background should be kept in mind due to future drought potential.
The findings from each stage of the activity are presented below. At no point did participants ignore the SHF information (no black stickers were placed on the maps), which matched previous discussions about organizations' current use of SHF (Sect. 2.3.2). Colour-coded decisions made by all participants (calculated by counting the stickers on the A1 catchment maps) are represented as pie charts. An accompanying bar chart details the breakdown of choices made by each participant and their specific role in the water sector (Fig. 8a–c). Quotes and information in the text are taken from discussions recorded on the day and empathy maps – these are presented for the three groups (forecasters, groundwater hydrologists, and water resource managers).
General consensus was for normal or above-normal conditions over the next 3 months; however, the information was “too vague to be actionable”. Forecasters and groundwater hydrologists were more likely to discuss the situation with colleagues and keep an eye on the situation (green/blue), although there was some disagreement about the level of risk. Those involved in water resources, water supply, navigation, and wastewater operations (water resource managers) identified no risks requiring action (blue) (Fig. 8a).
Key statements:
General consensus was for above-average streamflow and groundwater levels. Although the SHF provided more detail compared with Hydrological Outlook UK (Stage 1), clarity remained an issue. There was a general shift towards more internal communication (green), although actions were taken by the wastewater operations manager in the water resource managers' group (yellow/red) (Fig. 8b).
Key statements:
General consensus was for confident forecasts that showed a high risk of streamflow and groundwater flooding in approximately 6 weeks' time. At this stage, forecasters and groundwater hydrologists were looking to verify the reliability and quality of the forecasts. Internal discussion and wider communication (green/yellow) were actively explored, although forecasters and groundwater hydrologists were still more likely to act on the information compared with water resource managers (Fig. 8c).
Key statements:
Our decision-making activity was designed to help understand how different water sector users engage with and act on SHF at a local level. The SHF for the three activity stages represented an extreme flood event between November 2013 and February 2014. There was clear evidence that more confident (sharper) and locally tailored forecasts led to increased levels of decision and action, although water sector users did not respond uniformly. Forecasters and groundwater hydrologists were most likely to inform other organizations, request further information about the situation, and implement action, while water resource managers more consistently adopted a “watch and wait” approach. In this section, the results are discussed in more detail and the findings are placed into the wider context of policy, practice, and next steps based on discussions captured during the focus group.
Throughout the focus group, participants expressed positively the potential
for SHF to deliver better preparedness and early warning of flood and drought
events, and the benefits associated with more consistent management of water
resources, whilst recognizing that low skill and coarse resolution are
current barriers to use (see also Soares and Dessai, 2015, 2016; Vaughan et
al., 2016; Soares et al., 2018). These benefits and barriers were
demonstrated during the activity as participants increased their level of
decision-making in response to the more confident and locally tailored
forecasts presented: Stage 1 Hydrological Outlook UK
Hydrological Outlook UK is the first operational SHF system for the UK and was the product that participants were most familiar with, likely due to its partnership set-up (Prudhomme et al., 2017). All groups indicated that the regional focus of the maps, i.e. the whole Thames basin, and lack of resolution and certainty as to the trajectory of the upcoming hydrological conditions, limited their ability to make informed decisions. No participants however ignored or dismissed the information despite there being no perceived risk. All agreed that on a day-to-day basis, Hydrological Outlook UK serves as a useful outlook tool when supplemented with additional sources of information including water situation reports (UK Gov, 2018) and other hydro-meteorological forecasts. As of 2017, exactly how the water sector uses Hydrological Outlook UK in practice had yet to be assessed (Bell et al., 2017), and here we provide a first step towards answering this question.
Stage 2 (EFAS-Seasonal) also represented an operational forecasting system
designed to run at the scale of the whole Thames basin akin to Hydrological
Outlook UK. The forecasts however were presented at a catchment level on a
month-by-month basis to provide a more localized outlook. This finer
spatio-temporal resolution allowed participants to supplement the SHF with
their knowledge of local hydrogeology and other risk factors to identify
those catchments where attention would likely be most needed. This led to
increased levels of communication within organizations, even though the
overall hydrological outlook was very similar to that observed at Stage 1
(uncertain but with indication towards normal–high flows). The use of
large-scale (regional or global) operational forecasting products that
trigger worthwhile actions at the local level has been demonstrated at
shorter lead times (e.g. Coughlan de Perez et al., 2016). While the
development of higher-resolution seasonal meteorological forecasts and better
representation of the coupled system and initial conditions are expected to
lead to improvements in SHF (Lewis et al., 2015; Bell et al., 2017; Arnal et
al., 2018), we pose the open question: do operational systems such
as Hydrological Outlook UK
The manner in which users approached and used SHF differed markedly depending on the perceived severity of the flood event; the responsibilities and risk appetite of an organization; and the local knowledge and experiences possessed by the individual (see also Kirchhoff et al., 2013; Golding et al., 2017). Forecasters and groundwater hydrologists displayed the lowest risk appetite, admitting that they were likely to err on the side of caution to avoid negative media impacts, economic damages, and loss of trust by the public.
“Analogy with the summer floods of 2007 … my previous experience
makes me think that the risk is worth communicating…” – forecaster
at Stage 1/2.
“A much stronger and more coherent signal regarding river flows and
groundwater levels, but the forecasts indicate that the potential impact
isn't right now … we'll keep an eye on the situation” – water
resource manager at Stage 3.
While a flood event is less of an immediate issue for water resource managers, secondary effects relating to closure of canals (navigation), turbidity, and sewer surcharge (wastewater operations) did invoke action where there was potential to impact on the public. Participants were notably proactive where they had had previous experience of extreme events, e.g. forecasters' analogies with the 2007 floods (Chatterton et al., 2010), or had been witness to poor management; e.g. the wastewater operations manager recognized high potential for groundwater flooding and sewer surcharge at 1 month's lead time in the Evenlode, Cherwell, and Colne (Fig. 7).
“Based on previous operational issues, I'd advise pre-emptive actions such
as the cleaning and maintenance of pumping stations for these catchments” –
Wastewater operations manager at Stage 2/3.
This highlights the value of retaining institutional memory where possible (see also McEwen et al., 2012) and being aware of organizations' or individuals' pre-determined positions or perceived self-interests which may largely be founded on previous experiences (Ishikawa et al., 2011).
It is important to note that while this activity focused on a flood event, decisions made by the groups would almost certainly have differed if the SHF had indicated drought conditions. The impacts of drought have the potential to affect larger areas, for longer (Bloomfield and Marchant, 2013), notably with respect to agriculture (Li et al., 2017), reservoir management (Turner et al., 2017) and navigation (Meißner et al., 2017). The difference in response between water sector users supports the notion that tailoring SHF information to specific user groups will improve uptake and ability to inform decision-making (Jones et al., 2015; Lorenz et al., 2015; Vaughan et al., 2016; Soares et al., 2018), an area currently being explored by the IMPREX Risk Outlook (IMPREX, 2018b).
Communication is one of the most frequently identified barriers when it comes to uptake and use of seasonal meteorological and hydrological forecasts (Soares and Dessai, 2015; Vaughan et al., 2016; Golding et al., 2017; Soares et al., 2018). Discussions captured during the focus group and indicated on some empathy maps identified two key communication barriers in the West Thames: (1) between water sector users themselves and how they interpret and communicate SHF information and (2) a disconnect between scientists developing the forecasts and those involved in policy, practice and decision-making.
All groups said they felt better able to interpret and communicate the messages when presented with a range of complementary forms of SHF information including maps, hydrographs, and text, with maps being of particular value. This supports findings by Lorenz et al. (2015), who identified clear differences in users' comprehension of and preference for visualizations of climate information. Mapping information was also found to be important in the survey by Vaughan et al. (2016), while numerical representations were preferred over text and graphics in the study by Soares et al. (2018). Many participants said they would feel better prepared and able to discuss upcoming hydrological conditions if SHF information was visualized in a variety of ways and regular engagement was made a routine part of their job (see Sect. 5.4).
A number of participants also felt that scientific improvements and developments to SHF are not being adequately communicated to those involved in policy and practice. General consensus was that knowledge exchange events and information sharing services through projects such as IMPREX are an excellent way of addressing this disconnect. Presentations during the focus group shared findings from other projects, including the European Provision Of Regional Impacts Assessments on Seasonal and Decadal Timescales (EUPORIAS) (Met Office, 2018), the End-to-end Demonstrator for improved decision-making in the water sector in Europe (EDgE), Service for Water Indicators in Climate Change Adaptation (SWICCA) (Copernicus, 2017a, b), and Improving Predictions of Drought for User Decision Making (IMPETUS) (Prudhomme et al., 2015) – much of which was new knowledge to some participants. It was further expressed that stakeholder events yield maximum benefit for both the scientist and the user when they are co-produced with an organization that is involved in receiving, tailoring, and distributing SHF information (Rapley et al., 2014). Importantly, we do not want to be in the position whereby SHF skill has improved but the credibility and reliability of the information is questioned by decision-makers who have not been kept up to date with developments. The potential for this disconnect was demonstrated by both forecasters and groundwater hydrologists at Stage 3 (“Improved” EFAS-Seasonal) whereby decisions would only be made if the accuracy of the forecast could be verified.
“Forecast signal is implausibly strong but, if valid, gives a clear signal
for disturbed conditions”
“Surprised at forecast and the strength of the signal… IF credible,
then actions need to be taken”
“Would definitely talk to the Environment Agency and search for other
monitoring data to verify the forecast” – forecasters and groundwater hydrologists at Stage 3.
In this case, the SHF at Stage 3 were hypothetical and no information on forecast quality was given; however, the forecasts provided a good representation of what scientists hope to achieve with operational seasonal forecasting systems in the future (Neumann et al., 2018). This emphasizes the need to keep water sector users informed of scientific developments (see also Bolson et al., 2013), and to build awareness and knowledge around interpreting and using forecast quality information, as it is becoming more widely adopted in seasonal forecasting (see Copernicus, 2017a; Fry et al., 2017).
The EA is the public body responsible for managing flood
risk in the UK. They focus on maintaining a certain level of preparedness
whilst recognizing that particular conditions and types of flooding/drought
are more likely at different times of year. Currently, the EA use SHF
predominantly as supporting information and rely on shorter-range forecasts
for action. As co-developers of this focus group, the EA recognized the
following points for future consideration.
To upskill and help staff interpret SHF information received. To identify suitable low-consequence actions that could be taken based on
SHF. To move beyond the current position of using SHF for information only, to
making conscious decisions as part of routine incident management strategies
(relies on 1 and 2). “Regular review and discussion of extended outlooks (5–30 days) and the
1–3 months forecasts during weekly handover between the incoming and
outgoing flood duty teams would improve familiarity of long range forecast
products and dealing with the uncertainty that they present. This would be an
excellent way of considering the possible conditions and the potential for
disruption going forward.” – EA activity co-developer.
In short, more engagement with SHF and improved clarity for easier interpretation by different users will ensure that SHF have a valuable role to play in future decision-making at the local scale.
Encouragingly, we identified that SHF are being used, and participants agreed that the decision-making activity was an entertaining platform for fostering discussions which complemented their everyday work and general understanding of SHF. From the participants' perspective, learning outcomes included knowing more about the ongoing scientific developments in SHF and a better understanding of how different organizations in the West Thames water sector are using SHF. Many also stated that the activity and focus group discussions enhanced their ability to think about possible decisions and actions that may be taken in the future. As the activity developers, we found that the group discussions stimulated participants' motivations and interests more so than would have been achieved by asking participants to engage on an individual basis. We also advocate the use of empathy maps or other forms of obtaining a written record of participant thought processes in addition to their decision choices.
Our activity was designed to provide a first insight into the current state of play regarding SHF in the West Thames. Although 11 participants was a small sample size, they represented an important and well-balanced mix of water sector decision-makers in the West Thames. The only exception was the agricultural sector, which could not attend, and thus it would be interesting to capture this perspective with ongoing research (e.g. Li et al., 2017). We also recognize the possibility that those who took part had a vested interest in SHF; however, we did encourage participants to attend even where they had no background knowledge or experience of SHF. Finally, we advocate that others conducting a similar activity may wish to consider whether participant interpretation can be subconsciously influenced by the information provided. For example, flood risk maps were provided as part of the background context, but may have inadvertently led participants to consider the upcoming forecasts with respect to high-flow events. Likewise, there is potential that the 3-month SHF (Stage 1) may have been interpreted differently to the 4-month forecasts (Stage 2 and Stage 3) and we do not know the degree to which individuals may have been swayed to place a particular colour on the map based on the conversations they had with their group members (and how big an influence such conversations play in real life). Discussions with the participants at the end of the activity with respect to these points would have been helpful.
Key findings were that engagement is user-specific and SHF have the potential to be more useful if they could be presented at a scale which matches that employed in decision-making. The ability to interpret messages is aided by complementary forms of SHF visualization that provide a wider overview of the upcoming hydrological outlook, with maps being of particular value. However, improved communication between scientists, providers, and users is required to ensure that users are kept up to date with developments. We conclude that the current level of understanding in the West Thames provides an excellent basis upon which to incorporate future developments of operational forecasts and for facilitating communication and decision-making between water sector partners.
All data/graphs/information that were used by participants for the focus group activity are included in the Supplement. Individual participant results are not publicly available in order to protect anonymity. If readers require further information, this may be provided by contacting the corresponding author.
Supplement 1: Invitation flyer and programme for the focus group Supplement 2: West Thames catchment characteristic maps Supplement 3: Hydrological Summary: October 2013, June–September 2013
and November 2012–October 2013 Supplement 4: Stage 1 Hydrological Outlook UK: November 2013–January
2014 Supplement 5: Stage 2 EFAS-Seasonal: November 2013–February 2014 Supplement 6: Stage 3 “Improved” EFAS-Seasonal: November 2013–February
2014
The supplement related to this article is available online at:
JLN and LA designed the decision-making activity. JLN, LA, SH, and HLC co-organized the set-up of the focus group. All the authors took part in delivering the focus group, including as note-takers, organizers, and presenters of their scientific research. JLN wrote the manuscript with input from all the authors.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The information and findings in this paper are based on discussions and actions captured during the decision-making activity. They should not be taken as representing the views or practice of particular organizations or institutions.
This work was funded by the EU Horizon 2020 IMPREX project
(