Qualitative study identifies barriers to weather information access in underserved communities, suggesting actionable solutions.
Despite advancements in forecasting and warning technologies, some communities still face barriers to accessing essential weather and climate information. These gaps disproportionately affect individuals with limited digital access, unstable housing, or limited English proficiency, leading to uneven impacts during high‐impact weather events. Addressing these inequities aligns with federal directives in 15 U.S.C. § 8512 and Public Law 115‐25, which mandate improvements in forecast communication and public response. This study draws on case studies, interviews, and workshops conducted in the Upper Mississippi River Basin to better understand how forecast and warning information is disseminated in practice. Through qualitative engagement with operational professionals who act as boundary spanners, the research identifies institutional and procedural factors that shape the delivery of timely and actionable information. These findings demonstrate how institutional visibility across the dissemination chain is critical for ensuring that warning information reaches populations facing structural barriers to access. To address these challenges, we introduce an Information Supply Chain Framework that illustrates how forecast products move through diverse actors and systems before reaching the public. While developed in a specific regional context, the framework offers lessons for cross‐regional application. Notably, the system‐level challenges revealed, especially those related to tracing information flows and evaluating dissemination effectiveness, require structural solutions to strengthen communication pathways. In response, this paper proposes practical strategies to improve the equity, relevance, and reach of forecast products. Future research should build on these insights by applying participatory methods and prioritizing the co‐design of communication solutions with affected communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: