Overview of Forecast Communication and Use of Ensemble Hydrometeorological Forecasts

  • Jutta Thielen-del PozoEmail author
  • Michael BruenEmail author
Reference work entry


Over the last few decades, hydrometeorological forecasting, warning and decision making has benefited greatly from advances in the natural, physical, computing and social sciences. A fast developing computing capability has enabled meteorologists to produce ensemble prediction systems (EPS) that quantify the uncertainty in forecasting and simulating floods, droughts, and in water management decision making. At the same time, the social sciences have helped to understand the human perceptions of risk information and how different actors communicate hazard, risk and uncertainty information. Ultimately hydrometeorological forecasts are used in making decisions. However, to be effective, such decisions must be communicated to the hazard response organisations and to the general public. For this, the communication must be simple and clear, it must be relevant and should come from a trusted source. This overview summarises how such communication is organised for a variety of applications in different countries. It is the effectiveness of the entire system which must be considered and assessed. As ensembles are increasingly used in increasingly longer term management and policy decisions, the range of end-users and their differing requirements can only expand and flexibility and adaptability to individual circumstances will be required from both the natural and social scientists involved.


Ensemble prediction systems (EPS) Flood Forecast communication Hydrometeorological forecasts 


  1. P. Block, Tailoring seasonal climate forecasts for hydropower operations. HESS 15(4), 1355–1368 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. D.E. Brashers, Communication and uncertainty management, Journal of Communication, 51(3), 477–497 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Bruen, P. Krahe, M. Zappa, J. Olsson, B. Vehvilainen, K. Kok, K. Daamen, Visualising flood forecasting uncertainty: some current European EPS platforms – COST731 Working Group 3. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 11(2), 92–99 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Dale, J. Wicks, K. Mylne, Probabilistic flood forecasting and decision-making: An innovative risk-based approach. Nat. Hazards 70(1), 159–172 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Demeritt, H. Cloke, F. Pappenberger et al., Ensemble predictions and perceptions of risk, uncertainty, and error in flood forecasting. Environ. Hazard. 7, 115–127 (2007). Scholar
  6. D. Demeritt, S. Nobert, H. Cloke, F. Pappenberger, Challenges in communicating and using ensembles in operational flood forecasting. Meteorol. Appl. 17(2), 209–222 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Demeritt, S. Nobert, H.L. Cloke, The European Flood Alert System and the communication, perception, and use of ensemble predictions for operational flood risk management. Hydrol. Process. 27(1), 147–157 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. T.E. Drabek, Understanding disaster warning responses. Soc. Sci. J. 36(3), 515–523 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Drobot, D.J. Parker, Advances and challenges in flash flood warnings. Environ. Hazard. 7, 173–178 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Frick, C. Hegg, Can end-users’ flood management decision making be improved by information about forecast uncertainty? Atmos. Res. 100(2–3), 296–303 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Internation Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Community and Early Warning Systems: guidelines, (2012), 81pp.
  12. C.J. Kirchhoff, Understanding and enhancing climate information use in water management. Clim. Change 119(2), 495–509 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. K. Lackstrom, N.P. Kettle, B. Haywood, Climate-sensitive decisions and time frames: a cross-seectoral analysis of information pathways in the Carolinas. Weather Clim. Soc. 6(2), 238–252 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. N.A. Marshall, I.J. Gordon, A.J. Ash, The reluctance of resource-users to adopt seasonal climate forecasts to enhance resilience to climate variability on the rangelands. Clim. Change 107(3–4), 511–529 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. A. Millner, Getting the most out of ensemble forecasts: a valuation model based on user-forecast interactions. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 47(10), 2561–2571 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Millner, What is the true value of forecasts? Weather Clim. Soc. 1(1), 22–37 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. S. Moser, Making a difference on the ground: The challenge of demonstrating the effectiveness of decision support. Clim. Change 95(1–2), 11–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. L.M. PytlikZillig, Q. Hu, K.G. Hubbard, Improving Farmers’ perception and use of climate predictions in farming decisions: a transition model. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 49(6), 1333–1340 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. S. Rayner, D. Lach, H. Ingram, Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resources managers do not use climate forecasts. Clim. Change 69(2–3), 197–227 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O. Renn, The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework: application to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2(2), 154–169 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Rossa, K. Liechti, M. Zappa, M. Bruen, U. Germann, G. Haase, C. Keil, P. Krahe, The COST 731 action: a review on uncertainty propagation in advanced hydro-meteorological forecast systems. Atmos. Res. 100(2/3), 150–167 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. E.M. Stephens, T.L. Edwards, D. Demeritt, Communicating probabilistic information from climate model ensembles—lessons from numerical weather prediction. WIREs Clim Change, 3, 409–426. (2012)Google Scholar
  23. J. Thielen, K. Bogner, F. Pappenberger, M. Kalas, M. del Medico, A. de Roo, Monthly-, medium-, and short-range flood warning: testing the limits of predictability. Meteorol. Appl. 16, 77–90 (2009). Scholar
  24. S.W.D. Turner, D. Marlow, M. Ekstrom, B.G. Rhodes, U. Kularathna, P.J. Jeffrey, Linking climate projections to performance: a yield- based decision scaling assessment of a large urban water resources system. Water Resour. Res. 50(4), 3553–3567 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Q.J. Wang, D.E. Robertson, F.H.S. Chiew, A Bayesian joint probability modeling approach for seasonal forecasting of streamflows at multiple sites. Water Resources Research, 45, W05407 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. C.P. Weaver, R.J. Lempert, C. Brown, Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 4(1), 39–60 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. F. Wetterhall, F. Pappenberger, L. Alfieri, H.L. Cloke, J. Thielen-del Pozo, S. Balabanova, J. Danhelka, A. Vogelbacher, P. Salamon, I. Carrasco, HESS 17(11), 4389–4399 (2013)Google Scholar
  28. WMO, Present and planned configurations of ensemble prediction systems at the National Centers for Environmental Protection (NCEP). Report CBS ET/EPS/Doc.3(6) of WMO Expert Team on Ensemble Prediction Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  29. M. Zappa, K.J. Beven, M. Bruen, A. Cofino, K. Kok, E. Martin, P. Nurmi, B. Orfila, E. Roulin, K. Schröter, A. Seed, J. Stzurc, B. Vehviläinen, U. Germann, A. Rossa, Propagation of uncertainty from observing systems and NWP into hydrological models: COST-731 Working Group 2. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 11(2), 83–91 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Zappa, F. Fundel, S. Jaun, A ‘Peak-Box’ approach for supporting interpretation and verification of operational ensemble peak-flow forecasts. Hydrol. Process. 27(1), 117–131 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Commission, Joint Research CentreIspraItaly
  2. 2.UCD Dooge Centre for Water Resources ResearchUCD School of Civil EngineeringDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations