After qualitatively analyzing data collected from participant observation at the Ontario Storm Prediction Centre (OSPC) and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority office, as well as surveys and semi-structured interviews with 12 OSPC meteorologists, 10 CA flood forecasters, 10 media representatives, 15 institutional partners, and 20 residents living in Toronto, over a 16 month period, I intend to highlight aspects of language in a flood warning that stood out to participants, the difficulty producers of flood notifications have in choosing the label Watch over Warning, as well as show the varying ways ‘urban flood’ is defined across groups, the multiple perceptions regarding the causes for ‘urban flood’ events, and the variable imaginations for who institutional and residential user groups perceive is responsible for communicating advanced warning of this hazard. From this I plan to describe the implications and unintended consequences word choice, labelling and perceptions have in the efficacy and desired uptake of (urban) flood information for intended recipients, or institutional and residential user groups. The results of the research call into question the appropriateness of ‘urban flood’ as a label altogether, demonstrate areas of disconnect in terms of perceived importance of flood information and responsibility for providing that information across groups, and perhaps most importantly, identify extremely useful considerations for the Meteorological Service of Canada and the Conservation Authorities should ‘urban flood’ warning generation for hazardous events developing away from rivers and watercourses become enacted as a routinized and standardized operating procedure in the region.
- Indicates paper has been withdrawn from meeting
- Indicates an Award Winner