Suggestions for alternative tropical cyclone warning graphics in the USA

Abstract

Purpose

The cone of uncertainty (COU) warning graphic has created confusion for people trying to make evacuation and safety decisions. The purpose of this research was to create several alternative tropical cyclone graphics and present them to the public and college students via face‐to‐face surveys and polling.

Design/methodology/approach

Surveys depicting hypothetical landfall scenarios were administered in Pensacola and Jacksonville, FL. Respondents ranked five graphics in order of preference, and were encouraged to discuss their rankings. Following this initial field research, the most popular graphic of these five was compared to a graphic resembling the one used by The Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Comments were recorded for respondents favoring or disliking the Australian graphic in two separate analyses. A final graphic emphasizing post‐landfall hazards was also created as a suggestion for future research and evaluated directly against the most popular graphics from field research.

Findings

A graphic called the color‐probability‐cone was the most popular graphic in field research. There were subtle differences in graphic preference resulting from age and gender influences, with only one significant result. Comments from subsequent analyses reveal that the Australian graphic causes mixed reactions. A final analysis with a larger sample of college students revealed that the color‐probability‐cone was the most popular choice; however, comments reveal that many respondents who had used hurricane graphics before liked the specificity presented by the Australian graphic and the hazards graphic.

Originality/value

This research represents a possible initial step in the process of establishing a tropical cyclone warning graphic that is informative, visually appealing, and effective.

Citation

Radford, L., Senkbeil, J.C. and Rockman, M. (2013), "Suggestions for alternative tropical cyclone warning graphics in the USA", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 192-209. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-06-2012-0064