Expertise or Experience: Comparing Discussion of Drought Between Audiences and Agencies

This year’s conference theme includes a focus on communication about less-visible hazards, such as drought. Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri and Iowa all experienced drought in 2023. In fact, the last time the region was mostly drought-free was 2019 (droughtmonitor.unl.edu; Svoboda et al. 2002). This study seeks to understand how water resources and hazards are being discussed by those most involved—residents who live in those areas and the local, state and federal workers who work in disaster management.

Recent research has found that more than 56 percent of rural Nebraskans are at least somewhat concerned about severe drought or longer dry periods (Vogt, et al., July 2020). Further, a 2022 poll of rural Nebraskans suggested that residents in western Nebraska are more concerned about severe drought than those in other locations across the state (Vogt, et al., 2022). Based on geographic size, the four states FEMA Region 7 range from 56,000 square miles (Iowa) and 69,000 square miles (Missouri|) to 77,000 (Nebraska) and 82,000 square miles (Kansas). This variety demonstrates the vast amount of land and space encompassed by this region.

This study looked at how discussion of drought is occurring across this region, focusing specifically on comparisons of individuals and official observations. This study collected social media data about how drought information is being conveyed and discussed publicly. That information was then compared to focus group discussions with local, state and federal officials to determine their views of how to manage communications of such a complex topic.

RQ: How do public conversations about drought compare between individuals experiencing the events and experts who study extreme weather activity?

Initial social media data analyses suggest that conversations specifically about drought include perspectives on how drought is affecting individuals and communities. This research demonstrates the intensity of drought focus of social media users and how on-going drought conditions impact livelihoods/quality of life. Our social media findings (shown in Table 1 below) demonstrate that much of the public discussion focused on effects of drought on specific areas of life, including crops and wildlife.

In digging deeper, we learned that there were significant differences in discussion topics between official observations (those in expert jobs and roles) vs. individual observations, who were those speaking for themselves or without job titles behind them. Our initial findings indicated individual observations were more likely to discuss agricultural impacts and effects and provide “on-the-ground” monitoring than those in official positions (See Table 2 below). We plan to compare this information with the rich focus group information we gathered.

This work isolates risk communication dynamics between decision-makers and the public during a significant drought event. These results will inform efficient and effective communication strategies designed to support governmental and other decision-making related to public risk communication surrounding drought preparedness and management. This research demonstrates the differences in how individuals and professionals discuss drought on social media and how on-going drought conditions are affecting livelihoods/quality of life directly. The results can inform official public communication strategies via social media for longitudinal events.

References:

Smith, K. H., Tyre, A. J., Tang, Z., Hayes, M. J., & Akyuz, F. A. (2020). Calibrating Human Attention as Indicator Monitoring #drought in the Twittersphere. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101(10), E1801–E1819. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0342.1

Sprinkr. (2022, 30 November). Modern Research: Social Listening. Retrieved from Sprinklr: https://www.sprinklr.com/features/social-listening/

Svoboda, M., LeComte, D., Hayes, M., Heim, R., Gleason, K., Angel, J., ... & Stephens, S. (2002). The drought monitor. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83(8), 1181-1190.

Vogt, R., Akin, H., Burkhart-Kreisel, C., Lubben, B., McElravy, L., Meyer, T., . . . Tupper, A. (2022). Nonmetropolitan Nebraskans’ Opinions about Water, Climate, and Energy. Lincoln: Nebraska Rural Poll.

Vogt, R., Burkhart-Kreisel, C., Lubben, B., McElravy, L., Meyer, T., Schultz, S., & Weigle, J. (July 2020). Severe Weather in Nebraska: Impacts on Nonmetropolitan Nebraskans. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Rural Poll.

Table 1: Drought Effects Mentioned in Tweets

Drought Effects	No. of Tweets (percent of total)
Wildlife health or habitat	162 (13.9%)
Crop Health	159 (13.7%)
Livestock Health	41 (3.5%)
Human Mental Health	32 (2.7%)
Air quality	5 (.004%)
Human Physical Health	6 (.005%)
Recreation	2 (.001%)
Water Use Restrictions	5 (.004%)
Economy	7 (.006%)
Other	50 (4.3%)
None	693 (59.6%)
Total	1162

Note: Effect Numbers exceed 1082, as some tweets mentioned multiple effects.

Table 2: Results of Comparison of Original and Official Observation Tweet Topics

	Type of Observation
Group			Original (%)	Official (%)	χ2 (df = 2)		Φ
Effects on Wildlife		34 (21.0)		91 (56.2)	1.41		.04
Effects of Crop Health		38 (23.9)		73 (45.9)	11.13**		.10
Effects of Livestock Health		8 (7.3)		22 (23.7)	.308		.02
Drought Conditions		99 (12.3)		534 (66.3)	103.50**		.31

Note. ** = p < .01.