1

Do Albertans trust weather warnings?

Improving the delivery of weather warnings in Canada

Jordan M. Witzel

ABSTRACT

Albertans living in areas of the province prone to severe summer weather are not prepared to endure this

weather threat unharmed. A large portion of the population has formed a negative behavioral response to severe

summer weather due to a poor warning system operated and communicated primarily by Environment Canada.

Canadas federal environment commissioner expressed concern over the weather forecasting and warnings branch of

Environment Canada in 2008, with the delivery of weather warnings being a primary concern. Without effective

weather warnings issued in a timely manner, Albertans cannot be expected to react properly when faced with severe

summer weather. Furthermore, inadequate preparedness and negative response behavior amongst the public are

possible results of an inadequate weather warning system. By showing that Albertans lack trust in weather warnings

primarily because they feel that they do not receive these weather warnings in a useful or timely manner, a

meaningful discussion can begin in Canada regarding the existing summer severe weather threat and its potential

impact on Albertans who are ill-prepared. To date, this is an area which has lacked attention in Alberta and across

Canada.

This paper summarizes survey data collected from more than 1,700 residents of towns and cities in central

and southern Alberta who are at a high risk to experience severe summer weather including tornadoes and damaging

winds. The survey responses show that a lack of trust in weather warnings originating from Environment Canada is

significantly correlated to a feeling that those warning are not received in a useful or timely manner. The survey

results also suggest that a lack of understanding of weather warnings when they are received and a low perception of

risk are not significantly correlated to a lack of trust in severe summer weather warnings. Participants were also

asked to identify how they would like to receive weather warnings. The majority expressed that television and radio

broadcasts still hold significance above social media platforms and websites but opt-ins to push technology via text

messaging and smartphone applications would be preferred. A large amount of respondents also suggested that they

would prefer interruptions to regular television programming. From this, private media enterprise in Canada should

recognize the benefit to their users in developing a text and/or smartphone weather warning delivery system, a void

that has been left by Environment Canada to date.

2

Introduction

Albertans living in areas of the province prone to severe summer weather are not prepared to

endure this weather threat unharmed. A large portion of the population has formed negative behavioral

responses to severe summer weather due to a poor warning system operated and communicated primarily

by Environment Canada. Specifically, without a sufficient weather warning delivery system in place at

Environment Canada it becomes difficult for Albertans to take effective safety measures both prior to and

during severe summer weather events. A report tabled by Canadas federal environment commissioner in

2008 stated that there is no approach for verifying severe weather warnings and assessing Environment

Canadas overall performance in delivering them. A similar sentiment is shared among the private

meteorological community concerning warning dissemination and delivery in Canada. The perception

amongst some is that many severe summer weather events are missed entirely or not warned in a timely

manner.

There is little research in the way of exploring how Albertans behave in advance of and during

severe weather events. The shortfalls of a severe weather warning system in Canada, as shown in the

federal commissioners report (2008), need to be investigated with what Albertans expect from severe

summer weather and how Albertans prepare for a severe summer weather event in mind. Even with a

demonstrated western Canada tornado hazard maximum in Alberta, it is likely that many Albertans are

not readily familiar with the risks associated with such an event. It has been shown that the tornado threat

is most likely to present itself in the vicinity of a large population corridor stretching from Edmonton

south through Calgary to Lethbridge (see figure 1, Big Sky Alley). It is concerning that little or no

research has been conducted to date regarding how people living in this corridor may react to the threat of

severe summer weather. This study will attempt to correlate a variety of qualitative results that are

collected through a publicly distributed survey. The intent is to show that Albertans who lack trust in

weather warnings originating from Environment Canada have formed this emotional logic because they

feel that they do not receive severe summer weather warnings in a useful of timely manner. Expressed

3

lack of trust from participants will also be tested for correlation against an expressed lack of severe

summer weather understanding and an expressed low threat perception to severe summer weather. This

study will also seek feedback as to what form of technology Albertans might find more useful for

receiving weather warnings in hopes that these methods could contribute to developing a better response

from the public during a severe weather event.

Figure 1

Big Sky Alley; annual tornado frequency in Alberta (Hage, 2003).

Background

Early tornado research in Canada was centered on Ontario and Quebec, owing mainly to a greater

database of newspaper articles and community histories in these provinces. It should be noted that

documented tornado events were rare in Canada before 1980. Results obtained by Banik et al. (2007),

who attempted to simulate the tornado hazard for point locations and power line transmission targets in

southern Ontario, show that this region faces a similar tornado threat to that of adjacent states. Tan and

Hong (2010) theorized that spatial inhomogeneity plays an important role in tornado occurrences and the

exclusion of this factor in prior research was skewing results for the risk posed to point locations in

4

southern Ontario. Among the results obtained by Tan and Hong (2010) is an indication that the inclusion

of the spatial inhomogeneity characteristic of tornado occurrences has a significant impact on lowering

the tornado hazard level in southern Ontario.

Shifting focus to western Canada, Hage (2003) sought to create a long term database of tornadoes

and other destructive windstorms specific to Alberta and Saskatchewan. Based on data from newspaper

reports and community histories, a total of 3,048 severe windstorms resulting in 167 deaths, 83 injuries,

and 896 structures damaged were identified in Alberta and Saskatchewan between 1880 and 1984. From

this data, Hage (2003) was able to determine two western Canadian severe windstorm maximums in

Alberta. A primary maximum was found south of Edmonton near Ponoka, AB and a secondary maximum

was found southeast of Lethbridge near Warner, AB (see figure 1). Meantime, Brimelow et al. (2004)

attempted to utilize a radar-based methodology to derive diurnal severe thunderstorm climatology

specifically for central Alberta. By using VIL and UVIL to quantify the strength of convection along with

dBZ values associated with severe hail, Brimelow et al. (2004) were able to correlate pixel counts on

radar imagery with severe convection, thus developing a solid base for severe thunderstorm climatology

in Alberta. Results show a peak in severe convection between 4 P.M. and 6 P.M. local time (MST).

According to Clague and Bobrowsky (2010), southern Canada, along with the Midwestern United

States, sees more tornadoes annually than elsewhere in the world because central North Americas low

topography allows an interaction between subtropical and arctic air masses. The importance of subtropical

air, supplied from the Gulf of Mexico, suggests latitude may be a limiting factor in severe convective

initiation in southern Canada. However, the deadliest tornado in Canadas history, an F4 which occurred

in the countrys northernmost major city, Edmonton, Alberta, located north of 53N suggests other

synoptic and mesoscale factors can often times be responsible for severe convection in western Canada.

Newark (1984) analyzed 30 years of data and discovered that tornadoes in Alberta and the interior regions

of British Columbia appear distinct from events further east, most likely due to local effects caused by the

Coastal and Rocky Mountains. Smith and Yau (1993) and, most recently, Taylor et al. (2011) have

5

worked to identify the synoptic and mesoscale parameters specific to Alberta that are responsible for the

generation of severe summer weather. Smith and Yau (1993) have demonstrated that strong surface

heating of the Alberta foothills coupled with upslope moisture supplied from farming practices and

vegetation in the prairie regions further east combine to develop a mountain-plains circulation that is

important to convective initiation in Alberta. Taylor et al. (2011) further demonstrate that the moisture

source present in the eastern prairies results from a sharp gradient between differing evapotranspiration

rates in forested and cropped areas.

Research conducted by Erfani et al. (2003) indicates that forecasting techniques with respect to

severe summer weather in Alberta have improved dramatically. Erfani et al. (2003) have shown that a

high resolution (4km) non-hydrostatic GEM model is capable of producing physical parameters that

closely match the case study F3 tornado event of July 14, 2000 in Pine Lake, AB. However, Joe et. Al

(1995) outline major deficiencies in both appropriate surface and upper air observations in Canada. This

is a major limiting factor for operational forecasters. With minimal surface and upper air data, it becomes

difficult to accurately and efficiently forecast severe weather and issue appropriate warnings. This is

evident in a 2009 report to the Senate Committee in which the Commissioner of the Environment and

Sustainable Development concluded there is no approach for verifying severe weather warnings and

assessing Environment Canadas overall performance in delivering them (Vaughan, 2009). Furthermore,

the report states there is no national system in place that automatically warns the public about severe

weather events or other emergencies (Vaughan, 2009). The report does outline a specific

recommendation to develop push technologies through mobile services that would provide better

warnings to the public ahead of severe weather including tornadoes. As of July 2014, email service is

available to the public but no other push technology has been developed. As well, despite a national

network of 11 Warning Preparedness Meteorologists available around the clock to notify emergency

management officials of impending hazards, the report identifies some level of concerns about their

accessibility, expressed in post-storm surveys and case studies that it conducted (Vaughan, 2009). It is

6

also in my experience that accessibility to this network of meteorologists is often difficult. The federal

Commissioners report should be of major concern to Canadians who need accurate and timely severe

weather warnings in order to ensure their safety yet dont receive the proper information and may not

understand what information they are currently receiving. The Canadian Governments public forecasting

branch, Environment Canada, appears to be failing when it comes to raising awareness of the potential

hazards leading up to and during severe weather events. Therefore, public understanding of the severe

summer weather hazard in Alberta may be insufficient. As shown, prior research suggests that severe

summer weather is a very real threat in Alberta.

Survey design and implementation

The survey, created and hosted on Survey Monkey, was distributed online through the social

media and online pages of Global News in Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge for maximum reach.

Because of this, it is expected that the majority of respondents were Global News viewers and are likely

familiar with my on-air work in Calgary. Therefore, it is recognized that responses may be bias to Global

News viewers and social media followers. It should be noted that no responses were paid for through

Survey Monkey. The online nature of the study is not of concern because, according to 2010 data from

Statistics Canada, 83 percent of Albertans have access to the internet. Due to response restrictions within

the Survey Monkey format, two survey periods were conducted. The first period launched on April 1,

2014 and concluded that evening due to an overwhelming response. The second survey period opened on

May 5, 2014 and concluded on May 11, 2014.

The primary purpose of the study was to seek correlation between those who lack trust in weather

warnings and their reasons for lacking trust. Participants were initially asked to identify whether or not

they lived in Alberta and what city or town they resided in. Following this, Alberta residents were

directed to a series of likert-scale questions that were the focus of the study. Participants were first asked

to rank their trust in severe summer weather warnings. The options given were never, rarely, sometimes,

7

usually, and always. Responses to this question were used as the dependant variable when calculating

correlation coefficients. Further to this, those respondents who answered never, rarely, or sometimes

were then asked to identify why they lacked trust. Three options were given and were used as the

independent variables when calculating correlation coefficients. Those options, populated in random

order for each participant, were I dont feel threatened by severe summer weather, I dont understand

thunderstorm, hail and/or tornado warnings, and I dont feel that I receive warnings in an appropriate or

timely manner. In order to confirm these responses, two additional likert-scale questions, which followed

the same format as the first, were posed. In these, participants were asked to rank their understanding of

weather warnings that mention thunderstorms, hail and/or tornadoes. They were also asked to rank their

threat perception of severe summer weather in the area which they live. Lastly, participants were given

one multiple choice question which asked them to correctly define what is implied by a severe

thunderstorm warning. They were also given an opportunity to describe how they currently receive

weather warnings and how they would prefer to receive weather warnings.

Results

A total of 1,986 responses were received during the two survey periods. Of these, 186 surveys

were incomplete and a further 21 were completed by non-Alberta residents. From this, 1,779 responses

were eligible for analysis in the study. These responses were representative of 134 communities from

southern and central Alberta that lie within the high risk regions identified by Hage (2003). Primary

analysis consisted of isolating those respondents who expressed a lack in trust of severe summer weather

warnings and calculating the percentage who selected each provided reason for a lack of trust. Each of the

three reasons provided were then assigned as the independent while the trust factor was assigned the

dependent variable to these reasons and a correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the three

samples. Because trust was expressed on a five point likert scale, two correlation coefficients were

calculated for each sample; one by maintaining the five point scale and one by assigning a binary scale to

responses with never, rarely, and sometimes assigned 0 and usually and always assigned 1.

8

Of all 1,779 respondents, only three (less than 1%) expressed that a lack of understanding of

severe summer weather was their reason for lacking trust in severe weather warnings. When these two

variables are measured for any correlation using a binary scale for expressed trust, a coefficient of 0.09 is

calculated. When the five point scale is maintained for expressed trust, a coefficient of 0.12 is calculated.

These results suggest that no significance exists between a lack of weather warning understanding and the

development of a lack of trust.

Considering those respondents who generally perceive severe summer weather as a low threat to

them and lack trust in severe weather warnings, just 16 participants (less than 1%) identified themselves

as such. When these two variables are measured for any correlation using a binary scale, a coefficient of

0.20 is calculated. When the five point scale is maintained for expressed interest, a coefficient of 0.27 is

calculated. These results also suggest that no significance exists between a low threat perception and the

development of a lack of trust in severe summer weather warnings.

The results are different for those respondents who suggested that their lack of trust has

developed because they do not receive severe summer weather warnings in a timely or useful manner.

204 of the 1,779 eligible participants (11.5 %) expressed that they do not trust weather warnings because

they do not receive them appropriately. The correlation coefficient between these two variables, when the

five point scale for lack of trust is maintained, is 0.60. With a binary scale assignment to the dependant

variable, the correlation increases to 0.76. These results suggest significance between the timely and/or

useful receipt of weather warnings and a developed lack of trust.

Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of respondents (99.3 %) indicated that they understand

severe summer weather warnings but most of these participants (57 %) answered incorrectly when asked

to define a severe thunderstorm warning given multiple choice selections. It was of interest to use this

figure displaying actual lack of understanding as opposed to expressed lack of understanding to

recalculate the correlation for the variable. In this case, of the 57 % of respondents who answered

9

incorrectly, 196 (11 %) also expressed a lack of trust in severe summer weather warnings. Using a binary

scale for lack of trust, a correlation coefficient of 0.31 is calculated. When maintaining the five point scale

for trust, a correlation coefficient of 0.05 is calculated. Therefore, it is shown that a lack of understanding,

whether expressed or actual, appears to have little significance in the development of a lack of trust in

severe summer weather warnings.

Summary and discussion

Much of this online study was qualitative in nature but still managed an acceptable response rate

for reasonable statistical analysis. It is hoped that the results will begin a serious discussion that

challenges the national shortcomings that currently exist within Environment Canada concerning the

delivery of weather warnings, as expressed by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable

Development in 2008. Survey results of this study show that Albertans lack trust in weather warnings

primarily because they feel that they do not receive these weather warnings in a useful or timely manner.

This relationship stems from major flaws that exist in how weather warnings that originate from

Environment Canada are communicated to the public. This situation should remain a top concern of

Canadas federal environment commissioner who, in 2008, suggested that Environment Canada should

pursue new ways to forecast and communicate severe weather events across the country. Since the federal

environment commissioners report was released, few changes have been made at Environment Canada

that has led to any noticeable improvement in the delivery system of severe weather warnings. The result

of this lack of action is that a negative behavioral response toward severe summer weather events

stemming from a lack of trust in weather warnings still exists amongst Albertans. Furthermore, it is

demonstrated that a negative behavioral response places Albertans specifically at a higher risk of injury,

loss of life, or loss of property due to the elevated risk of severe summer weather that exists in the

province of Alberta.

10

There is a significant void that exists after years of little or no improvement to the delivery of

weather forecasts and warnings by Environment Canada. This has created a major opportunity for private

media enterprise in Canada. It is important to recognize that survey respondents have expressed that

television and radio broadcasts still hold significance above social media platforms and websites when it

comes to receiving and gathering weather information. However, participants also expressed that opt-ins

to push technology via text messaging and smartphone applications would be preferred if such existed. As

current leaders in communicating weather information to the public, this is an area Canadian television

and radio outlets should look to develop immediately. The public is looking to television and radio outlets

for more valuable and timely information and improved communication. From this, private media

enterprise in Canada should recognize the benefit to their users in developing a text and/or smartphone

weather warning delivery system.

Further studies should explore why Albertans lack an understanding of weather warnings. While

a lack of understanding was not correlated to a lack of trust in weather warnings, it is interesting to see

that a large majority of Albertans believe that they understand weather warnings but actually fail to show

that they do understand. Its possible that education is a main factor in this and it is recognized that

education will play a large role in the whole process of severe weather awareness amongst Albertans.

References

Alberta, Government of, 2011: 2011 Municipal Affairs Population List. Municipal Services Branch, 1, 1-

11.

Banik, S.S., H.P. Hong, and G.A. Kopp, 2007: Tornado hazard assessment for southern Ontario. Can. J.

Civ. Eng., 34, 830- 842.

Brimelow, Julian C., Gerhard W. Reuter, Aldo Bellon, and David Hudak, 2004: A Radar-Based

Methodology for Preparing a Severe Thunderstorm Climatology in Central Alberta. Atmos.-

Ocean, 42 (1), 13- 22.

11

Clague, John J., and Peter T. Bobroqsky, 2010: International Year of planet Earth 8. Natural Hazards in

Canada. Geo. Can., 37 (1), 17-37.

Erfani, A., A. Methot, R. Goodson, S. Belair, K.S. Yeh, J. Cote, and R. Moffet, 2003: Synoptic and

mesoscale study of a severe convective outbreak with the nonhydrostatic Global Environmental

Multiscale (GEM) model. Met. Atmos. Phys., 82, 31- 53.

Etkin, David A., 1995: Beyond the Year 2000, More Tornadoes in Western Canada? Implications from

the Historical Record. Nat. Haz., 12, 19- 27.

Etkin, David A., and Michael Leduc, 1994: A non-tornadic severe storm climatology for southern Ontario

adjusted for population bias; some surprising results. Canadian Met. Ocean Soc. Bulletin, 22, 4-

8.

Hage, K., 2003: On Destructive Canadian Prairie Windstorms and Severe Winters. Nat. Hzds., 29, 207-

228.

Joe, P., Cliff Crozier, Norman Donaldson, Dave Etkin, Erik Brun, Steve Clodman, Jim Abraham, Stan

Siok, Henri-Paul Biron, Mike Leduc, Phil Chadwick, Steve Knott, Jamie Archibald, Glenn

Vickers, Steve Blackwell, Rick Drouillard, Alan Whitman, Harold Brooks, Nick Kouwen,

Richard Verret, Gilles Fournier, and Bob Kochtubajda, 1995: Recent Progress in the Operational

Forecasting of Summer Severe Weather. Atmos.-Ocean, 33 (1), 249- 302.

Newark, Michael J., 1984: Canadian Tornadoes, 1950- 1979. Atmos.-Ocean, 22 (3), 343- 353.

NOAA National Climatic Data Center, 2011: U.S. Tornado Climatology.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology. May 25,

2014.

12

Paruk, B.J., and S.R. Blackwell, 1994: A severe weather climatology for Alberta. Nat. Weather. Dig., 19,

27- 33.

Sill, David M.L., Sarah J. Scriver, and Patrick W.S. King, 2004: The tornadoes in Ontario Project (TOP).

Met. Service of Canada, 7B.5, 1- 10.

Smith, Stephan B., and M.K. Yau, 1993: The Causes of Severe Convective Outbreaks in Alberta. Part 1:

A Comparison of a Severe Outbreak with Two Nonsevere Events. American Met.Soc., 121, 1099-

1125.

Smith, Stephan B., and M.K. Yau, 1993: The Causes of Severe Convective Outbreaks in Alberta. Part 2:

Conceptual Model and Staistical Analysis. American Met.Soc., 121, 1126- 1133.

Statistics Canada, 2011: Canadian Internet Use Survey.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily- quotidien/110525/dq110525b-eng.htm. March 19, 2014.

Tan, L., and H.P. Hong, 2010: Influence of spatial inhomogeneity of tornado occurrence on estimated

tornado hazard. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 37, 279- 289.

Taylor, Neil M., David M.L. Sills, John M. Hanesiak, Jason A. Milbrandt, Craig D. Smith, Geoff S.

Strong, Susan H. Skone, Patrick J. McCarthy, and Julian C. Brimelow, 2011: The Understanding

Severe Thunderstorms and Alberta Boundary Layers Experiment (UNSTABLE) 2008. American

Met. Soc., 92 (6), 739- 763.

USA.gov, 2014: State Government. http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/State-and-Territories.shtml. May 25,

2014.

Vaughan, S., 2009: December 2008 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable

Development. Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 1, 1-28.