OR/18/014 Workshop review

From MediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Freeborough, K, Dashwood, C, Reeves, H, and Arnhardt, C. 2018. A workshop focusing on communication of hazard assessment information; summary of discussions. British geological Survey. (OR/18/014).

The workshop was planned as a tool to engage with stakeholders, and continue to ensure natural hazard information is communicated to users appropriately and effectively, whilst also responding to user needs. The format and stakeholder invitations of the workshop were designed to address whether the information within the DHA is currently useful, usable and used.

A series of questions were determined prior to the workshop day to guide the discussions (see Appendix 1 for a full list). Invites were sent out across the NCR address book. Attendees on the day included n=25 representatives from;

National Centre for Resilience Council representatives
Scottish Government EoS RRP
Prestwick Airport SEPA
Civil Contingency Service University of Dundee
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Met Office
Centre Ecology and Hydrology British Red Cross

Introductions: overview of presentations

National centre for resilience overview

Alessia Morris of the Scottish Government gave an overview of the National Centre for Resilience (NCR).

Following severe weather experienced by Scottish communities in winter 2015, the NCR was created as a collaborative partnership bringing together resilience partners, communities and academia to enhance resilience and preparedness to natural hazards in Scotland.

www.readyscotland.org/ready-government/ncr

The remit of the NCR is to help improve understanding of the impact of both natural hazard risks and emergencies on Scottish communities, and to provide community groups with access to learning and exercising opportunities. The NCR has 6 strategic priorities:

  • Improve Scotland’s resilience to natural hazards such as severe weather, flooding and landslides
  • Build Community Resilience across Scotland
  • Contribute to the development of Scotland’s Resilience Research capability on natural hazards and community resilience
  • Improve the protection and resilience of Scotland’s water assets and critical infrastructure
  • Scope the development of innovative approaches to natural hazards training
  • Exploit world class multi-agency resilience arrangements at the local level to build national resilience

The NCR has a core staffing presence at the Crichton Campus, Dumfries, formally opened in March 2016. Although having a base, the NCR operates on a network basis, involving a wide range of organisations across Scotland including:

  • Scottish Government
  • Met Office
  • Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS)
  • Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
  • Police Scotland
  • Scottish Funding Council (SFC)
  • Scottish Flooding Forum
  • Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation
  • University of Glasgow
  • Transport Scotland
  • British Geological Survey
  • Natural Hazards Partnership

The NCR receive their core funding from Scottish Government and Scottish Funding Council.

Natural Hazard Partnership overview

Helen Reeves, Science director for Engineering Geology and Infrastructure, and joint chair of the Hazard Impact Modelling Group subgroup (HIMG), gave an overview of the NHP and HIMG.

Established in 2011, a collaboration of UK government Agencies and organisations (Figure 1a), NHP is already gaining international recognition as world leading. The range of innovative science, services and coordinated advice already developed and delivered by the NHP include the services outlined below www.naturalhazardspartnership.org.uk:-

  • The Daily Hazard Assessment (DHA) delivers a daily ‘heads-up’ on a range of natural hazards likely to have an impact in the UK in the following five days. The overview document includes links to the more detailed warnings and advice provided by the responsible agencies. The DHA is available to thousands of category 1 and 2 responders through the met office’s hazard manager service www.metoffice.gov.uk/publicsector/hazardmanager and through ResilienceDirect www.gov.uk/guidance/resilient-communications#resiliencedirect.
  • A set of expertly informed natural hazard guidance notes (Figure 1b), available on the website, to provide top-level information about each hazard and associated impacts. (www.naturalhazardspartnership.org.uk/products/science-notes).
  • The NHP provides a coordinated ‘review and challenge’ function as part of the UK’s and Scottish national risk assessment process. The NHP has also provided support to the committee on climate change work in developing the UK climate change risk assessment 2017 report.
  • Protocols and collaboration for a more coordinated approach to the development of innovative Hazard Impact Models (HIMs), is led by the Hazard Impact modelling Group (HIMG) and hazard impact reporting networks. Early outputs from this work include the prototype ‘high wind vehicle overturning’ and ‘surface water flooding’ HIMs.
  • The Hazard Impact Framework (HIF) (Figures 2a and 2b) is being developed by the HIMG as standard protocol for development of future impact models ensuring a consistent and traceable approach to outputs.
Figure 1    a) The NHP collaboration b) NHP Science Notes.

There are currently three HIMs in various positions of development and operational use, related to flood, wind and landslides:

  • Surface Water Flooding (SWF) is developed and being operationally trialled in real time at the Flood Forecasting Centre.
  • Vehicle over Turning (VoT) is available to forecasters in Met Office Operations Centre to provide evidence for DHA warnings and by Highways England Public Weather Service daily report. There is also a Bridge vulnerability model in operational progress.
  • Landslide HIM is a work in progress. A beta version of the base model, is being reviewed daily as part of the DHA assessment.
Figure 2    a) The Hazard Impact Framework and b) The NHP risk Algorithm.

The Daily Hazard Assessment

Katy Freeborough from the British Geological Survey gave an overview and introduction to the Daily Hazard Assessment (DHA) and its content.

The DHA (Figure 3) is designed to deliver a daily ‘heads-up’ on a range of natural hazards likely to impact the UK over the following five days (currently a 24 hour assessment for landslides). Assessment is provided on a red, yellow, amber, green scale with a covering matrix offering clear explanation as to the interpretation of the assessments for the different hazards and the timescales covered (Figure 4). The assessment is issued daily at 2 pm, and information is provided for a range of well known natural hazards such as wind, surface water flooding and landslides, alongside, amongst others, space weather, extreme temperatures and air pollution.

The document includes links to more detailed warnings and advice provided by the responsible agencies. The DHA is disseminated through a formal pathway via a hazard manager portal operated by the Met Office (www.metoffice.gov.uk/publicsector/hazardmanager) and the ResilienceDirect portal (www.gov.uk/guidance/resilient-communications#resiliencedirect). The information is accessible to a wide range stakeholders, ranging from category 1 and 2 responders, local authorities and other users.

Figure 3    The Daily Hazard Assessment.
Figure 4    The Daily Hazard Assessment Risk Matrix.

Importance of impact data

Tim Aldridge from the Health and Safety Executive gave a presentation on the importance and variety of Impact data.

Tim began with an overview of natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis, which have caused billions of dollars’ worth of economic impacts. Comparatively here in the UK, notable storms since 2013 have caused extensive damage, breaking records and hitting headlines. Whilst data is collected in various guises, none is formally recorded and shared amongst different agencies.

As the result of the summer 2007 floods, the Pitt Review made recommendations for issuing ‘warnings and impact information on severe weather and flooding emergencies to responder organisations and the public’. The EU directive 2007/60/EC also calls for member states to consider both flood hazard and its impacts, whilst the UN Sendai Framework also identifies understanding disaster risk as a key priority action.

The science of impact modelling has changed the messages that organisations can communicate, to both the responders, resilience planners and public. People want to know the impact of the weather on their lives and how it may disrupt their ‘normal’ daily routine; they want to know three things:

  • What does it mean to them?
  • What does it mean to their family?
  • What do they need to do right now?

The NHP is using the opportunity of collaboration to combine data and expertise from partners to identify and forecast the impact on populations, areas and assets from a range of natural hazards. The challenges of providing real-time national guidance on impacts include the potentially complex modelling requirements (e.g. in urban environments) and the timely delivery of relevant and reliable information. Tim presented an overview of the Surface Water Flooding HIM.

The perception of hazards and impacts was also discussed; HSE reported that workshops they had been in evolved in had highlighted a difference in the view of the science and responder communities (pers comm).

Outbreak group: what information do you receive and what triggers a response?

The discussion format for the first session of the morning was planned to be centred on the stakeholders’ experience of the DHA; gathering information regarding how the Daily Hazard Assessment (DHA) fits into organisational strategies and clarification of how it is used to manage the potential impacts of natural hazards. However, although the workshop invitation had stated ‘for users of the DHA’, an early show of hands in the room, highlighted that none of the attendees were actually users.

Examples of the DHA released in the run up to, and during, Storm Frank (29–30 December 2015) were shown to the group for them to review and consider the information provided. Discussions within the group centred on what information was gathered, accessed and triggered a response or planning for a response? Experiences were discussed allowing the NHP representatives to gain insight into important timing, information sources, and possible actions that might be taken. Below is a summary of the key discussions divided into the key themes of experience, communication and impact modelling;

Experience:

  1. Local experience and knowledge does count and is paramount in resilience planning

Edinburgh Airport reported how after hearing a specific weather warning, a culvert was checked that had previously (2012) been the source of an unexpected flood event. The warning provided the reason to prioritise maintenance in advance of the storm and thus preventing the localised flooding from occurring again.

Severe wind warnings can lead to woodland tree inspections on specific roads and routes. The group also recalled that during Storm Desmond (4–5 December 2015), communities were engaged with at an early stage (Wednesday/Thursday). However, the ultimate severity of the event was not known.

The discussion centred on hazard forecasting showed an understanding of limits. Whilst flooding can be modelled and impacts calculated and prepared for, the specific geographic location and timing of a storm cloud, thunder, lightning, or landslides remains elusive.

Local communities and responders know the hot spots for hazard, but not exactly what will happen and when it will occur.

The DHA gives local experts the opportunities to consider multihazards or hazard cascades.

  1. Other sources of information and data

Views on how the stakeholders were receiving the information was also varied, ranging from modelled information and graphs; to personal contact and updates; and on the ground knowledge and expertise of specific hazards and likely affected infrastructure (e.g. roads).

The local level council specific or regional detail already provided to users is more applicable to the site-specific level. The DHA being countrywide does not offer a specific set of information, however it does offer an overview of the countrywide situation.

  1. Information already being received is detailed local and therefore more relevant to Category 1 responders

Due to recent advances in forecasting and monitoring science, and the increase of government mandates, the organisations required to trigger a plan, or influence a decision to act, were all confident that they were already receiving the best available local information, at an early enough time and understood the information that was being received. It is this information that is more useful to responders than a statement in the DHA and therefore some of the stakeholders were confused at who the DHA was directly aimed at.

Others fully supported the idea that the document was designed as an overview of all hazards, nationally. It was recognised by some that it was a useful information document to see what was happening elsewhere, both in Scotland and nationally. However, this again did raise questions as to who the document was actually aimed at.

The attendees felt that although they received better, more useable detailed information for their specific hazard of interest or local area, a ‘heads up’ of other hazards was informative, if not always useful.

  1. Timing is important

The Stakeholders agreed with the approach of the five-day broad-brush overview but where the DHA was concerned 2 pm was too late for 24 hours’ notice.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) described working in partnership with the Met Office through the Scottish Flood Forecasting Service to generate data 24 hours a day which they have access to. This helps to predict the likelihood and timing of river, coastal and surface water flooding.

Communication

  1. There is still a level of confusion within the language, use of terminology and interpretation of assessments, which needs to be considered

Small differences between the communication of events (and impacts) of hazard are important and depend on the hazard, and area, being referred too, e.g. the ‘likelihood’ of snowfall is as important as ‘severe’ rain in some areas. The DHA can help in preparedness for media communications.

Scientific vs public communication is important. This was highlighted in a discussion regarding flooding when it was posed that the ‘flood warning’ is the important factor not always the cause. Whilst differentiating the cause may always be important to scientists, in terms of communication to public and responders on the ground, warnings related to river, coastal and ground water flooding are all the same. They do not need to be distinguished for an action to occur, and affected people need to know what to do if their property may be at risk of flooding, not the science for what is causing it.

  1. The different assessments levels (red, amber, yellow, green) have very different responses

Assessments levels need to be high to trigger a response. A yellow is considered a heads up, whereas amber alerts require a response. Partners are engaged, awareness is raised and a response plan is actioned with an amber warning.

At the other end of the scale, not all hazards are reported in the same way, green is considered an alert level for flooding; it is the first level of an alert and if there is no hazard, there is no colour.

Impact modelling

  1. Where modelling of impact is concerned, to a responder saving lives is key

There is still a link between lives at risk vs economic risk. A small blocked road with low-density housing may be considered as low impact for economic risk; however, impact assessments change rapidly. Denial (of services) quickly moves into danger if an inhabitant of the cut off community was to fall ill and ambulance recovery was required.

  1. Local route understanding is key knowledge

Interpreting impact level can be locally skewed. An event occurring on a ‘minor road’ in a national context could be perceived as low impact, but in Scotland, this may be the only road to a community and denial (of services) could be as important as danger. Similarly an event on a trunk road which has no danger-to-life impact after the event, may have large denial consequences, for both life and economy, for a long time after (e.g. A9, Rest and be Thankful).

Interdependency is a key issue in Scotland. Questions such as ‘who else is affected’ ‘What can be done to improve/ manage the situation?’ should be considered at each stage.

Outbreak group: collection of impact related data

Disaster loss data is highly regarded by all stakeholders. Many organisations are active in data collection using approaches such as household surveys, social media and collection of digital press reports. The data collected was mainly used for creating and refining impact models and for benchmarking current hazardous events against historical records.

The group cited a number of issues with current practices. These included concerns over data quality and coverage, availability and accessibility of data, and issues relating to managing multiple services. For the future, the group liked the concept of a unified database but this raised questions about ownership, management and resourcing. Instead, there was general support for a collated register of datasets across the Scottish resilience network. There was also interest among local government participants for making more use of their post-event briefings, which hold unstructured impact data in free text documents. Further information and the outcomes from the break out groups can be gained from the HSE report (Gunawan, 2018[1]).

Afternoon session: forward look on the future requirements for DHA

The afternoon session provided an opportunity for open discussion about the DHA, its concept, its format and potential future wish lists. The discussion was guided by issuing the following questions:

What do we want? Where do we want to get to? What are the gaps?

  • Is the information currently being communicated helpful?
  • How could information be communicated to further prepare you to deal with an event?
  • How could the DHA fit better into your strategies to manage the impacts of natural hazards as part of your daily role/job?
  • What information could further assist you in making more informed decisions in response to natural hazard warnings?

Discussions are summarised below.

  1. Who is the DHA aimed at?

Described as an ‘at a glance overview’, the group agreed that the DHA is fit for purpose. It gives a clear overview of potential hazards for the following 5 days; however, the overview is still considered quite ‘broad level’. The inclusion of links to more detailed sources of information for particular hazards is positive and useful.

The group discussion still questioned who the DHA is aimed at, and questioned the list of the responder community (Category 1 and 2), local governments and other resilience professionals. In reality, the responders on the ground and organisations making the decisions during the more well-known natural hazard events (such as flooding and extreme weather) have access to more detailed, real time information, and local knowledge.

As a further positive, the group concluded that sharing of expertise is important in these situations, and the DHA does promote an understanding or awareness of other hazards not affecting their own local region to responders or responsibilities. The group greatly valued the multi-hazard approach to the document.

There were a few suggestions that the document could be more valuable as a regionally specific overview.

There was a suggestion that the DHA is more suited as a public overview. With the emphasis on public groups, school and community communications. It was discussed that feedback from the Environment Agency making the flood Guidance Statement accessible to the public should be followed up, in the context of the DHA potentially being more applicable to the public than the responder community. The Flood Guidance was also first applicable to the responder community but now is in the public domain. Within this context, the action is important, for example, the key is not just telling people, it will be windy, and instructing them in actions such as ‘tie trampolines down’ is the key.

  1. Timing of dissemination

All parties stated that 2 pm was too late for the document to arrive in the inbox and questioned the reasoning behind this timing. Within the responder community and those involved in hazard event resilience planning, access is available to 24-hour information for the better-known hazards (e.g. flooding). Again, the agreement was such that the overview for the other hazards without specific response teams (e.g. landslides) the document is useful.

In a discussion about community, preparedness to hazard it was stated that contrary to potential opinions of increased vulnerability, local rural communities could be better prepared out of experience and improved community collaboration. Discussion and experience presented by stakeholders working with rural communities summarised that a greater level of expectation of problems give rural and remote communities the ability to engage and a drive to improve preparedness at community level. Stakeholders commented that routine communications with local resilience teams are more likely to occur and often the communities are more willing to embrace advice.

  1. Terminology

The inclusion of the hazard matrix was generally supported with clear and concise overview of the hazard and assessment level (red, amber, yellow, green).

As the hazard statements are applicable for 5 days and cover many hazards, the detail included could be considered very vague. Again the group agreed that within the remit of an ‘at a glance overview’ this was acceptable; however within regard to ‘useable information’ there was confusion.

Much discussion about the terminology being used in communications took place. There is a difference in the responder community about the set of words used to communicate hazard and the implied meaning. As a rule of thumb it is assumed that:

‘Assessment’ should be an overview of the hazard
‘Alert’ is an early indication to be prepared
‘Warning’ means take action. The terminology of warning also implies an imminent issue with a consequence and a high level of quality and decisiveness about the data.

The DHA should be reviewed ensure it reflects these interpretations, given the community that it is aimed at. Currently some of the hazards on the DHA could be worded as warnings, but should be deemed alerts or assessments.

  1. Document format

There was agreement that the PDF lay out is clear and useable, with clear headlines throughout, providing structure to the document. The inclusion of the hazard matrix within the document was also supported for the clear definitions without having to refer back to further information or documentation.

There was a discussion that the document contains too many logos. Whilst it was understood there was a clear message of partnership, acknowledgement and inter-agency collaboration, the NHP logo should be enough. The number of logos now distract from the front page limiting space that could be used for hazard information. Another suggestion was that if involved agencies did want recognition, the logos could easily be relocated to the final page.

The 5-day summary maps were appreciated in the context of the DHA being a useful summary overview, however it was agreed that this was not in any way a useable level of detail. There was strong agreement that if the maps were slightly clearer, with a differentiation between hazards and labelled with appropriate symbology, then they could be more useable, even in the at-a-glance format.

  1. Future

There was a large discussion regarding the arrival of the document in inbox, in PDF email form, at 2 pm in the afternoon. Whilst the DHA offers a heads up, with data feeds, there is a potential that possible scenarios may already have been highlighted. In the interest of honesty, several of the attendees said during event periods the DHA would probably be ignored, due to the lack of detail. Local communication would be taking place, inboxes would be full and communication with relevant parties on the ground would be all consuming.

The concept of a portal, rather like Hazard Manager, that gave access to all the relevant data in the same place, constantly updated and accessible was discussed. Something more accessible and interactive, accessible on a mobile device, was suggested. Consistent information could be released, rather than many different sources of information to check.

The key was the multi-agency communications. An example was given where on the 7 January 2016, saturation levels were high and a modest amount of rainfall (not warning level) triggered unprecedented flooding. Through increased sharing of experiences and knowledge ‘more engagement at the coalface’ experiences like this could be better prepared for.

Whilst some agencies are already taking this as a step (Multi Agency Debrief – MAD) the wealth of knowledge in local and duty officers needs recording. Local resilience partnerships are embracing the MAD but an increase in this would prove beneficial.

The Science community need to be proactive in their communications. In addition, continue to stress the importance of documenting experiences.

References

  1. Gunawan, O, and Aldridge, T. 2018. Disaster Loss Data Management in Scotland, Unpublished HSE report for the Scottish Government, DMS/2018/01.