a) Recent work has demonstrated the value of using diagnostic and spatial verification methods to evaluate precipitation forecasts. We need to develop appropriate verification methods for new kinds of temporal and spatial high impact weather forecasts (e.g., high resolution ensembles, extremes, nowcasts, warnings, downstream hazards, etc.)
b) There are currently a very small number of scientists working in the area of user-focused evaluation. We need to pull in more people with expertise in the area of social, economic, and environmental sciences to assist with appropriate methods of evaluation, and from important impact sectors to help understand the decisions made in response to high impact weather and associated hazards.
c) Analysis of information content typically shows that information is apparently lost at each stage of the information chain (e.g., forecasts, communication, interpretation, use, value). We need to develop and apply methods to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of information at each stage, including measuring improvements in resilience.
d) Effective use of forecasts and warnings has been associated with trust in the product and its source. We need to build users’ trust by providing information about how good the forecasts were in the past and the reasons for incorrect forecasts, and developing and applying user-focused verification approaches.
e) Evaluation of hazards, impacts and response are limited by access to data. We need to use social media and non-standard data for evaluation and to improve collection of this information to make it easier to use.
f) Governments require assessments of the value of forecasting and warning services to national economies. Very few comprehensive studies have been undertaken. We need to develop and apply approaches to quantify the socio-economic benefits of high impact weather forecasts, including identifying avoided losses.