Do location‐specific forecasts pose a new challenge for communicating uncertainty?
Do location‐specific forecasts pose a new challenge for communicating uncertainty?
复制标题
特定地点的预测是否对传达不确定性提出了新的挑战？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. McCloy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Abraham;R. Bartlett;Matthew Standage;Alison Black;A. Charlton;R. McCloy
在过去的十年中，通过移动的电话或网站提供的本地特定地点天气预报的增长可以说是自60年前电视天气预报开始以来预测消费的最快变化。在本研究中，对274名公众进行的街头拦截调查首次显示出对狭义天气预报的明显首选，而不是传统的广义天气预报，40岁以下的用户明显倾向于这种偏好。探讨了这种变化对预报概率和强度信息理解的影响。虽然对“明天下雨的可能性为30%”这一陈述的正确解释在队列中仍然很低，但与以往的研究一样，年龄和教育程度对理解的影响明显，40岁以下和受教育程度达到或超过学位水平的人更有可能正确解释它。结果表明，同一组群对同一个描述符（“轻度”、“中度”和“重度”）的评估与官方和专家对同一描述符的评估有显著差异，并且在同一组群中有很大的差异。然而，尽管存在这些关键的不确定性，该群体的成员似乎普遍作出适当的决定，降雨预报。有一些证据表明，所作的决定是不同的，这取决于所使用的通信格式，和队列表示了一个明确的偏好，以表格的图形天气预报介绍。
In the last decade, the growth of local, site‐specific weather forecasts delivered by mobile phone or website represents arguably the fastest change in forecast consumption since the beginning of television weather forecasts 60 years ago. In the present study, a street‐interception survey of 274 members of the public a clear first preference for narrow weather forecasts above traditional broad weather forecasts is shown for the first time, with a clear bias towards this preference for users under 40 years. The impact of this change on the understanding of forecast probability and intensity information is explored. While the correct interpretation of the statement ‘There is a 30% chance of rain tomorrow’ is still low in the cohort, in common with previous studies, a clear impact of age and educational attainment on understanding is shown, with those under 40 and educated to degree level or above more likely to correctly interpret it. The interpretation of rainfall intensity descriptors (‘light’, ‘moderate’ and ‘heavy’) by the cohort is shown to be significantly different to official and expert assessment of the same descriptors and to have large variance amongst the cohort. However, despite these key uncertainties, members of the cohort generally seem to make appropriate decisions about rainfall forecasts. There is some evidence that the decisions made are different depending on the communication format used, and the cohort expressed a clear preference for tabular over graphical weather forecast presentation.