Introduction
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* for local decision-making. This was
conducted as part of an IMPREX (IMproving PRedictions and management of
hydrological Extremes) stakeholder focus group for the West Thames, UK (van
den Hurk et al., 2016; IMPREX, 2018a), co-organized by the University of
Reading (UoR), UK, Environment Agency (EA) and supported by the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF).
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*, including increased accuracy out to 4 months for high-flow
events during the winter in Europe (Arnal et al., 2018; Emerton et al.,
2018).
There is growing interest in SHF amongst policy-makers and practitioners;
however, in many cases, there is limited information about whether SHF
products are actually being used. Research output has focused
largely on technical system development and improvements to forecast
skill* (see the review by Yuan et al., 2015), with relatively fewer
studies exploring how users engage with and apply SHF to inform decisions
(see Crochemore et al., 2015; Viel et al., 2016). Many seasonal forecasting
studies, including those investigating the application of seasonal
meteorological forecasts* (which provide information about future
weather variables, rather than hydrology more specifically), have identified
forecast uncertainty*, whereby forecast skill and sharpness*
decrease with increasing lead time* (Wood and Lettenmaier, 2008; Soares
and Dessai, 2015), and how this uncertainty can be communicated effectively
as key barriers to use (Arnal et al., 2016; Vaughan et al., 2016).
Non-technical factors, including the level of knowledge and training required
to interpret and apply SHF information effectively (Bolson et al., 2013;
Soares and Dessai, 2016), the visualization, format, and compatibility of the
information provided (Fry et al., 2017; Soares et al., 2018), and the level
of communication between different users in the water sector and between
research developers and practitioners (Golding et al., 2017), have all been
found to act as both barriers and enablers, depending on the user group in
question.
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*, tables, and
text provided. In reality, all three sets of SHF represented the same time
period: winter 2013–2014 (a period of extensive flooding nationwide that
occurred at the end of 2 years of drought conditions in the UK). Between
December 2013 and February 2014 the West Thames experienced extreme flooding
from fluvial and groundwater sources which had knock-on impacts for local
water quality, sewage treatment, and water resource management – opening up
discussions for all participants. Given that issues relating to flood and
drought risk, water quality, and water resource management in the West Thames
are generally managed by local and regional-area authorities (Thames Water,
2010), the activity focused on whether SHF can be used to support
decision-making at the local level. To the best of our knowledge, this scale
of practical application has yet to be explored, we suspect mainly due to the
lower skill of seasonal meteorological forecasts in Europe, particularly with
respect to precipitation, which is a key variable of interest for hydrology
(Arribas et al., 2010; Doblas-Reyes et al., 2013). A brief overview of the
focus group is provided in Sect. 2, the full activity set-up is detailed in
Sect. 3, and the findings and the discussion are presented in Sects. 4 and 5.
Discussion
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.
Operational SHF systems can support decision-making and uncertainty
is expected
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 > Stage 2
EFAS-Seasonal > Stage 3 “Improved” EFAS-Seasonal.
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 already have the potential to support
better communication and decision-making if they could be presented at a more
local scale? This would require
careful communication of the uncertainty, reliability, and skill of the
forecast, and how to do this effectively is a topic of current interest in
meteorological and hydrological forecasting (e.g. Ramos et al., 2013; Vaughan
et al., 2016; Fry et al., 2017). Although communicating uncertainty was not a
specific focus of our activity, one key message from the focus group was that
“uncertainty is expected” with SHF and water sector users would engage with
a local forecast, even if they chose not to act on it. As pointed out by Viel
et al. (2016), “low skill” is not the same as “no skill”, and SHF which
may have minimal value from the perspective of a scientific researcher can
sometimes elicit significant interest from the view of a water sector user
who is familiar with the area. Importantly, it should also be noted that
although no measures of forecast skill and quality were included in our
activity, participants only expressed a need to verify the quality of the
forecasts at Stage 3. In discussions as to why this was the case, the
forecasters and groundwater hydrologists stated that holding internal
briefings and increasing awareness of “at risk” catchments are suitable
low-cost actions when dealing with SHF that indicate some degree of risk,
even if the information is uncertain and unverified. At Stage 3, to obtain
such confident SHF was well beyond current operational standards; thus, its
reliability was questioned. Participants did agree however that even in the
absence of information on forecast quality, a sharper, more confident
forecast that indicated high potential flood risk would be more likely to
provoke a response than a dispersive one, even if the maximum of the forecast
ensemble indicated values of comparable magnitude in both cases.
Interactions with SHF are user-specific and should be tailored
accordingly
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 both a barrier and enabler to decision-making
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).
Implications for future policy and decision-making
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.
Learning outcomes and future considerations
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.