Agreement in extreme precipitation exposure assessment is modified by race and social vulnerability

Epidemiologic investigations of extreme precipitation events (EPEs) often rely on observations from the nearest weather station to represent individuals' exposures, and due to structural factors that determine the siting of weather stations, levels of measurement error and misclassification bias may differ by race, class, and other measures of social vulnerability. Gridded climate datasets provide higher spatial resolution that may improve measurement error and misclassification bias. However, similarities in the ability to identify EPEs among these types of datasets have not been explored. In this study, we characterize the overall and temporal patterns of agreement among three commonly used meteorological data sources in their identification of EPEs in all census tracts and counties in the conterminous United States over the 1991-2020 U.S. Climate Normals period and evaluate the association between sociodemographic characteristics with agreement in EPE identification. Daily precipitation measurements from weather stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and gridded precipitation estimates from the Parameter-elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) and the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) were compared in their ability to identify EPEs defined as the top 1% of precipitation events or daily precipitation >1 inch. Agreement among these datasets is fair to moderate from 1991 to 2020. There are spatial and temporal differences in the levels of agreement between ground stations and gridded climate datasets in their detection of EPEs in the United States from 1991 to 2020. Spatial variation in agreement is most strongly related to a location's proximity to the nearest ground station, with areas furthest from a ground station demonstrating the lowest levels of agreement. These areas have lower socioeconomic status, a higher proportion of Native American population, and higher social vulnerability index scores. The addition of ground stations in these areas may increase agreement, and future studies intending to use these or similar data sources should be aware of the limitations, biases, and potential for differential misclassification of exposure to EPEs. Most importantly, vulnerable populations should be engaged to determine their priorities for enhanced surveillance of climate-based threats so that community-identified needs are met by any future improvements in data quality.