School of Earth and Environment
Using and visualising climate
projections for adaptation planning in
local government in the UK – a user
study of adaptation practitioners
Susanne Lorenz, Suraje Dessai, Piers Forster, Jouni Paavola
Third Nordic International Conference on Climate Change Adaptation, Copenhagen,
25-27 August 2014 Adapting to change: from research to decision-making
Theme 2 – Mainstreaming
25th August 2014 1
• Demands placed on visualisations
• Research questions and design
• Results
– Objective comprehension
– Subjective comprehension
– Planning preference
– Communication choices
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• After thought – Does any of this currently matter for the target
audience?
Overview
2
‘To improve the ability to adapt to a changing climate, it is
necessary to improve the linkages between the production
and supply of climate-science information with users’
needs to ensure that the climate science is contextual,
credible, trusted and understood by the users.’
(McNie 2013: 14)
‘The (post) modern world is visual.’ (Roth 2002: 1)
Research context
3
1. Demand for visualisations to support user needs
(Bostrom et. al. 2008)
2. Demand for more effective communication of climate
projections and evaluation of effectiveness (Stephens
2012 et al., Gahegan 1999, Pidgeon & Fischhoff 2011,
Fischhoff 2011)
3. Demand for more experimental evidence on visual
communication (e.g. Bostrom et al,. Spiegelhalter 2011,
Broad et al. 2007, Pidgeon & Fischhoff 2011)
Demands for visualisations
4
• Communication should be tailored to the audience
(Spiegelhalter 2011, Nicholson-Cole 2005)
• Focus on the comprehension of visualisations and the
preference for different visualisations (Broad et al. 2008,
Pappenberger et al. 2013) – need to understand both for
effective communication (Spiegelhalter 2011)
• Understand comprehension in relation to objective and
subjective knowledge (Stoutenborough & Vedlitz 2014) –
connect to planning and communication process
Guiding thoughts
5
• Are there differences in levels of objective comprehension amongst adaptation practitioners?
• Do objective and subjective comprehension vary?
• What is the relationship between comprehension (subjective and objective), preference for visualisation integration into planning decisions and communication?
• Can we make any best practice recommendations?
Research question
6
• Online-survey on visualising climate
projections with adaptation
practitioners in Local Government in
the UK
• 99 respondents from 84 Local
Authorities from across the UK
• 20 semi-structured interviews with
adaptation practitioners in two case
study regions in the UK (South East
and East Midlands)
Methodology
7 Source: BMV Warehouse 2012
Survey design
8
Scatter Plot
Pictograph
Survey design
9
Scatter Plot vs. Pictograph
The same questions get asked
for both graphs
How many models project a
decrease in summer temperature?
None of the models project a
temperature change above which
temperature threshold (to the
nearest half of a degree)?
Survey design
10
Bubble Plot
Histogram
Survey design
11
Scatter Plot vs. Pictograph Histogram vs. Bubble Plot
The same questions get asked
for both graphs
The same questions get asked
for both graphs
How many models project a
decrease in summer temperature?
None of the models project a
temperature change above which
temperature threshold (to the
nearest half of a degree)?
Which is the most likely
temperature change projected
by the models?
Are you more likely to get a
temperature change below -
2.5°C or above 5.0°C?
Results – Objective comprehension
12
• Respondents accuracy
does not change
significantly between
scatter plot, histogram
or bubble plot
Results – Objective comprehension
13
• Respondents accuracy
does not change
significantly between
scatter plot, histogram
or bubble plot
• Pictograph is the
exception
• So graph format
doesn’t really matter?
Results – Objective comprehension
14
Results – Objective comprehension
15
77% are better on traditional
figures
Does it matter what we show?
16
47% are better on traditional
figures
Results – Objective comprehension
17
9% are better on
alternative figures
Does it matter what we show?
18
40% are better on
alternative figures
Results – Objective comprehension
19
For 14% it actually does not matter
Results – Subjective
comprehension
20
27% of respondents do
objectively better on a
figure other than the one
they perceive to be the
easiest to understand
Very small link between objective
comprehension and subjective
comprehension
Which figure did you find the easiest to understand
Scatter Plot
Histogram
Pictograph
Bubble Plot
Results – Planning preference
21
74% people would use a figure to help them
make a planning decision
If you had to make a planning decision, which of these figures would you find most helpful for your decision-making process?
Results – Planning preference
22
27% of respondents do
not use the figure in a
decision-making process
that they objectively
understand the best
Scatter Plot HistogramPictograph Bubble PlotDepends on the decision None of the above
No link between objective
comprehension and subjective
preference
If you had to make a planning decision, which of these figures would you find most helpful for your decision-making process?
Results – Communication choices
23
If you had to persuade someone on your organisation of the necessity to start
planning for changes in future summer temperatures, which of these figures would
you use?
85% people would use a figure to help them persuade a colleague
Results – Communication choices
24
Scatter Plot
Histogram
Pictograph
Bubble Plot
I wouldn't use afigure at all
If you had to persuade someone on your organisation of the necessity to start
planning for changes in future summer temperatures, which of these figures would
you use?
No link between objective
comprehension and subjective
preference
20% of
respondents do not
use the figure they
understand the
best to
communicate with
a colleague
Discussion
25
usable
Discussion
26 Subjectively utilised externally Subjectively utilised internally
Subjectively usable
Objectively
usable
• Audience (i.e. climate adaptation practitioners) is not
homogenous – within group differences for comprehension and
preferences
• Complex interplay of (subjective & objective) comprehension
and preferences
• Question of transforming information from useful to usable (e.g.
Lemos et al. 2012) - But how does usable translate to utilised?
• Considering the divide between what users subjectively use and
what would objectively be ‘better’ to use, is it even possible to
make best practice recommendations?...
Conclusions
27
• … does anyone need them at the moment in our target
audience?
• Performance framework on climate adaptation in local
government 2008 – 2011 - Adaptation moved up the agenda
(Cooper and Pearce 2011)
• Focus on economic benefits, energy saving instead
– ‘It’s money, money, at the moment.’
• Lack of political drive for adaptation
• ‘Adaptation […] really dropped completely off the radar.’
Practical setting
Status quo of adaptation
28
Thank you!
Susanne Lorenz
School of Earth and Environment
University of Leeds, UK
http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/people/s.lorenz
https://twitter.com/Susanne_Lorenz
29
• BMV Warehouse. 2012. UK Regions Map . [Online] . [Accessed 18th August 2014] . Available from:
http://www.bmvwarehouse.co.uk/uk-regions-map/
• Bostrom, Ann, Luc Anselin, and Jeremy Farris. 2008. Visualizing seismic risk and uncertainty. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1128(1), pp.29-40.
• Broad, Kenneth, et al. 2007. Misinterpretations of the “cone of uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004
hurricane season. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 88(5). pp.651-667.
• Cooper, Stuart, and Graham Pearce. 2011. Climate change performance measurement, control and
accountability in English local authority areas. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal . 24(8),
pp.1097-1118.
• Fischhoff, Baruch. 2011. Applying the science of communication to the communication of
science. Climatic change .108(4), pp.701-705.
• Gahegan, Mark. 2000. The case for inductive and visual techniques in the analysis of spatial data.
Journal of Geographical Systems . 2(1), pp.77-83.
• Lemos, Maria Carmen, Christine J. Kirchhoff, and Vijay Ramprasad. 2012. Narrowing the climate
information usability gap. Nature Climate Change. 2(11), pp.789-794.
• McNie, Elizabeth C. 2012. Delivering climate services: organizational strategies and approaches for
producing useful climate-science information. Weather, Climate, and Society . 5(1), pp.14-26.
• Nicholson-Cole, Sophie A. 2005. Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images
for visual communication. Computers, environment and urban systems. 29(3), pp.255-273.
• Pappenberger, Florian, et al. 2013. Visualizing probabilistic flood forecast information: expert
preferences and perceptions of best practice in uncertainty communication. Hydrological Processes .
27(1), pp.132-146.
References
30
• Pidgeon, Nick, and Baruch Fischhoff. 2011. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating
uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change . 1(1), pp.35-41.
• Roth, Wolff-Michael. 2002. Reading graphs: Contributions to an integrative concept of literacy. Journal
of Curriculum Studies . 34(1), pp.1-24.
• Schneider, Birgit. 2012. Climate model simulation visualization from a visual studies perspective. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 3(2), pp.185-193.
• Spiegelhalter, David, Mike Pearson, and Ian Short. 2011. Visualizing uncertainty about the
future. Science . 333(6048), pp.1393-1400.
• Stephens, Elisabeth M., Tamsin L. Edwards, and David Demeritt. 2012. Communicating probabilistic
information from climate model ensembles—lessons from numerical weather prediction. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 3(5), pp.409-426.
• Stengel, Dirk, Georgio M. Calori, and Peter V. Giannoudis. 2008. Graphical data
presentation. Injury. 39(6), pp.659-665.
• Stoutenborough, James W., and Arnold Vedlitz. 2014. The effect of perceived and assessed
knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: an empirical comparison. Environmental
Science & Policy . 37, pp.23-33
References
31
