Uncertainty in three dimensions: the challenges of communicating probabilistic flood forecasts maps
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract. Real time operational flood forecasting most often concentrates on issuing streamflow predictions at specific points along the rivers of a watershed. Those points often coincide with gauging stations, and the forecasts can eventually be compared with the corresponding observations for post-event analysis. We are now witnessing an increasing number of studies aimed at also including flood mapping as part of the forecasting system, by feeding the forecasted streamflow to a hydraulics model. While this additional new information (flood extent, depth, velocity, etc.) can potentially be useful for decision makers, it also has the potential to be overwhelming. This is especially true for probabilistic and ensemble forecasting systems. While ensemble streamflow forecasts for a given point in space can be visualized relatively easily, the visualization and communication of probabilistic forecasts for water depth and extent brings additional challenges. The uncertainty becomes three dimensional and it becomes difficult to convey all the important information to support decision-making, while a confusion that could arise from too much information, counter-intuitive interpretation, or simply too much complexity in the representation of the forecast. In this paper, we synthesize the results of a large-scale survey across multiple categories of users of hydrological forecasts (28 government representatives, 52 municipalities, 9 organizations, 37 citizens and farmers, for a total of 139 persons) regarding their preferences in terms of visualizing probabilistic flood forecasts over an entire river reach. Those users have different roles and realities, which influence their needs and preferences. The survey was performed through individual and group interviews during which the interviewees were asked about their needs in terms of hydrological forecasting and their preferences in terms of communication and visualization of the information. In particular, we presented the interviewees with four prototypes representing alternative visualizations of the same probabilistic forecast in order to understand their preferences in terms of colour maps, wording, and the representation of uncertainty. Our results highlight several issues related to the understanding of probabilities in the specific context of visualizing forecasted flood maps. We propose several suggestions for visualizing probabilistic flood maps in order to convey all the relevant information while limiting the confusion of decision makers, and also describe several potential adaptations for different categories of end users.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».