Climate in Context E-Book
93,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Serie: Wiley Works
- Sprache: Englisch
Society is increasingly affected by climate impacts, from prolonged water shortages to damaging coastal floods and wildfires. Scientists studying climate variations are eager to have their knowledge used in adaptive decision making. To achieve this, science and society must engage productively around complex management and policy challenges. For over 20 years, the science-society interface has been fertile ground for the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) programs sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Climate in Context describes what it takes to help scientists and stakeholders work together to “co-produce” climate science knowledge, policy, and action. This state-of-the art synthesis reflects on lessons learned by RISA programs, and provides a sober assessment of the challenges ahead. Through case studies from various US regions, this book provides lessons and guidance for organizations and individuals who want to work at the science-society interface on a range of climate challenges.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 522
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
List of contributors
Foreword
RISA contributions in the national and global context: climate services, assessments, and adaptation
The interagency context: subsequent science networks and the needs and aspirations of federal agencies
Conclusions
Preface
References
Acknowledgments
Disclaimer
Background on RISA
Section I: Understanding context and risk
Chapter 1: Assessing needs and decision contexts: RISA approaches to engagement research
1.1 Introduction
1.2 RISA overall approach to ongoing engagement
1.3 Key research questions for understanding context
1.4 New and evolving area of RISA research: analyzing knowledge networks
1.5 Factors affecting choice of methods
1.6 Conclusion
Disclaimer
References
Chapter 2: Understanding the user context: decision calendars as frameworks for linking climate to policy, planning, and decision-making
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Reservoir management
2.3 Wildfire management
2.4 Applications of monsoon research
2.5 Developing decision calendars
2.6 Discussion and contribution of this framework
2.7 Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 3: Climate science for decision-making in the New York metropolitan region
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Background (late 1990s to 2007)
3.3 Science policy interactions during NPCC1 (2008–2009)
3.4 The post-NPCC1 landscape (2009–2012)
3.5 Hurricane Sandy (29 October 2012)
3.6 CCRUN's role in Sandy response
3.7 Outcomes of NPCC2 and SIRR
3.8 Future needs
Acknowledgments
Glossary
Disclaimer
References
Section II: Managing knowledge-to-action networks
Chapter 4: Connecting climate information with practical uses: Extension and the NOAA RISA program
4.1 Introduction
4.2 History of Cooperative Extension
4.3 Cooperative Extension as a boundary organization
4.4 NOAA and Extension: Sea Grant
4.5 Boundary management: RISAs and Extension working together
4.6 Conclusions
References
Chapter 5: Participatory, dynamic models: a tool for dialogue
5.1 Introduction: participatory, dynamic models as boundary objects
5.2 Modeling the human health impacts of extreme heat in Michigan
5.3 Lessons learned in the model-building process and their application to science in decision-making
5.4 Lessons for institutional design of boundary organizations
5.5 Conclusions
References
Chapter 6: Not another webinar! Regional webinars as a platform for climate knowledge-to-action networking in Alaska
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Methods
6.3 Findings
6.4 Discussion
6.5 Reflections on developing and maintaining knowledge-to-action networks
6.6 Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Section III: Innovating services
Chapter 7: The making of national seasonal wildfire outlooks
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Challenges in innovating climate forecast services
7.3 The intersection of fire and climate in science and fire policy
7.4 Fire–Climate workshops meet predictive services: setting the stage for seasonal fire outlooks
7.5 National seasonal assessment workshops and the development of experimental seasonal fire potential outlooks
7.6 Sustaining the process (2007–2014)
7.7 Measuring outcomes
7.8 Implications for innovating services
7.9 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 8: Challenges, pitfalls, and lessons learned in developing a drought decision-support tool
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Background
8.3 User needs, technical considerations, and collaboration
8.4 Lessons learned in the DDIT transfer process
References
Chapter 9: Managing the 2011 drought: a climate services partnership
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Evolution and impacts of the drought
9.3 Existing climate services capabilities and building a drought community
9.4 Engaging stakeholders: multiple methods
9.5 The important role of each climate services partner
9.6 Participation by stakeholders
9.7 Lessons learned
9.8 Summary
References
Section IV: Advancing science policy
Chapter 10: Evaluation to advance science policy: lessons from Pacific RISA and CLIMAS
10.1 Introduction
10.2 The importance and challenge of evaluating RISA regional programs
10.3 Policy for science
10.4 The role of theory-based evaluation
10.5 Conceptualizing how change occurs: developing an Action-Logic Model
10.6 Conceptualizing how change occurs: understanding outside perspectives
10.7 Metrics and learning from self-evaluation plans
10.8 Science for policy
10.9 Informing policy: analysis of the Hāwai'i Water Code
10.10 Expanding capacity: needs, applications, and effective means for delivering climate information
10.11 Summary of lessons learned from evaluating RISA regional programs
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 11: Navigating scales of knowledge and decision-making in the Intermountain West: implications for science policy
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Doing boundary work to overcome scale challenges
11.3 Implications for science policy
11.4 Conclusions
References
Chapter 12: Evolving the practice of Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Embracing the complexity of context
12.3 Emergence of evaluation
12.4 Conclusions
Disclaimer
References
Acronyms
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xix
xx
xxi
xxiii
xxv
xxvi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
Section I: Understanding context and risk
Begin Reading
List of Illustrations
Chapter 2: Understanding the user context: decision calendars as frameworks for linking climate to policy, planning, and decision-making
Figure 2.1 Conceptual reservoir hydrograph. Key points in managing inflows into reservoirs, based on engagement with reservoir managers at a workshop and subsequent discussions.
Figure 2.2 Reservoir management decision calendar. Timing of select planning processes (gray bars), and operational issues (dotted bars), for Upper Colorado River reservoirs. Stippled bars indicate the timing of potential use of several types of weather and climate outlooks to address these planning and operational concerns. The width and position of the bars indicates the relevant time periods. For example, in the late winter, improved forecast of the runoff volume (after [17]).
Figure 2.3 Regional aggregated wildland fire management decision calendars. Months during the annual cycle when information is needed for each of the decisions are indicated by ▪▪▪ (after [25]).
Chapter 3: Climate science for decision-making in the New York metropolitan region
Figure 3.1 Satellite image of Hurricane Sandy on 29 October 2012. Source: NASA.
Figure 3.2 Hurricane Sandy surge modeling. Source: Stevens Institute of Technology.
Figure 3.3 Components of sea level rise. Source: Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University.
Chapter 4: Connecting climate information with practical uses: Extension and the NOAA RISA program
Figure 4.1 Map of the Big Wood River Basin study area.
Chapter 5: Participatory, dynamic models: a tool for dialogue
Figure 5.1 The causal loop diagram depicting the main structure and feedback loops in the Mid-Michigan Heat Model (MMHM). A series of balancing feedback loops regulate the flow of elderly people from being at risk, to being vulnerable (lacking air-conditioning), to perceiving the risk, and attempting action.
Figure 5.2 The Mid-Michigan Heat Model interface, with baseline settings indicated.
Figure 5.3 The decision structure represented in the model. In order to take action to avoid the consequences of extreme heat, the vulnerable population (elderly people in Detroit) must perceive a risk to themselves, be willing to act on that risk, and be able to act on that risk (e.g., by going to a cooling center). If one of these conditions is not met, hospitalization or death may occur.
Chapter 6: Not another webinar! Regional webinars as a platform for climate knowledge-to-action networking in Alaska
Figure 6.1 Topic themes presented in the ACCAP Climate Webinar Series (June 2007–June 2013). The label “Impacts” refers to climate impacts. The label “Other” includes presentations by representatives from the National Science Foundation highlighting funding opportunities relevant to climate and environmental change in the Arctic as well as a presentation by and about the US Fish and Wildlife Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in Alaska.
Figure 6.2 ACCAP webinar participation (per event). The “Other” category represents media, industry, Alaska Native organizations, local and state government, and international entities.
Figure 6.3 Schematic representing vertical and horizontal interplay that occurs in conjunction with ACCAP Climate Webinars. The vertical axis represents the scale at which information application or network interactions take place. The horizontal axis represents interactions within each level (i.e., local, regional/state, and national). The left side of the diagram illustrates specific examples of interactions and activities that occur, in part, as a result of the webinar series. The right side of the diagram shows a more general schema of ACCAP's networking interactions within the webinar series.
Chapter 7: The making of national seasonal wildfire outlooks
Figure 7.1 Timeline of key events pertaining to the development of seasonal fire potential outlooks.
Figure 7.2 Partnerships, information, and communication flows contributing to the development of seasonal fire potential outlooks. Thicker arrows indicate stronger information and communication flows.
Figure 7.3 Example of a significant wildland fire potential (SWFP) outlook map issued in February 2015. Areas showing above-normal SWFP indicate a higher than usual likelihood that wildland fires will occur and/or become events requiring resources from outside the region. White areas indicate that wildland fires are expected to occur as would usually be expected; these areas will experience fires, perhaps with high amounts of area burned, but the region is capable of handling resource needs. Areas showing below-average SWFP indicate that significant wildland fires are still possible, but are less likely than usual during the forecasted period. Hatched areas (Increasing to Above Normal; Decreasing to Below Normal) depict change in potential throughout the forecast period. Outlook maps and discussions may be viewed at http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/outlooks.htm. Source: Predictive Services, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho.
Figure 7.4 North American significant wildland fire potential outlook map, April 2006. The format is identical to the U.S. version (shown in Figure 7.3). Current outlook maps and discussions may be viewed at http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/outlooks.htm. Source: Predictive Services, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho.
Chapter 8: Challenges, pitfalls, and lessons learned in developing a drought decision-support tool
Figure 8.1 Sample output from the DDIT illustrating map display options and metadata listing user-selected parameters.
Chapter 9: Managing the 2011 drought: a climate services partnership
Figure 9.1 Approximate area affected by severe to exceptional drought during 2011 in the Southern Plains. Primary area of services during the 2011 drought focused on Texas, Oklahoma, and Eastern New Mexico. Additional services were provided to surrounding states.
Figure 9.2 The progression of the Southern Plains drought as captured by the U.S. Drought Monitor. The most severely affected areas are indicated on the maps by the darker shades, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor scale.
Figure 9.3 Number of views on YouTube for each webinar topic from earliest (September 2011) to most recent (August 2013).
Figure 9.4 Number of reports in the Drought Impact Reporter for Oklahoma submitted during 2011 that were originated from media coverage (gray) and direct user submissions (black). Media reports represented here include only Oklahoma media; it does not include national coverage of events in Oklahoma.
Figure 9.5 Number of user-submitted reports in the Drought Impact Reporter for 2011–2014 for the core drought area plus Arkansas. Climate Services partners initiated efforts to increase the number of user reports in Oklahoma and Arkansas during late 2011 and 2012.
Chapter 10: Evaluation to advance science policy: lessons from Pacific RISA and CLIMAS
Figure 10.1 Pacific RISA Action-Logic Model.
Figure 10.2 Four primary roles for CLIMAS perceived by stakeholders.
Chapter 11: Navigating scales of knowledge and decision-making in the Intermountain West: implications for science policy
Figure 11.1 (a)–(e) Individual examples of how WWA's work crossed multiple scales. On the
y
-axis are scales of knowledge shown at the level of the climate knowledge producer, while the
x
-axis shows scales of decision-making. “Supralocal” refers to decision-making or knowledge production entities that operate at a scale greater than an individual municipality but less than an entire state, while “suprastate” refers to entities operating at scales larger than an individual state but less than national.
Chapter 12: Evolving the practice of Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments
Figure 12.1 Conceptual framework for the RISA program. RISA teams integrate disciplinary expertise across the biophysical and social sciences within thematic areas (middle column) important to successfully informing climate-related decisions (middle to left column). These themes are connected nonlinearly; some of these steps may occur simultaneously, they may proceed linearly, or they may loop back on one another. Through their engagement with communities, social and behavioral scientists help understand the values, perceptions, and institutions that shape decision contexts (Chapter 1). These interactions are often catalyzed by information regarding socio-ecological risks posed by weather and climate. Services emerge as the tools and processes that help inform decisions in a timely and relevant manner. However, because the timing and relevance of decisions are acutely sensitive to context, the entire process is ripe for formal evaluation and assessment, which can in turn help to make approaches transferrable (middle to right column). Knowledge gained through decision-making experience becomes a central part of RISA work making the contrast between the scientific and decision-making communities less stark (all columns).
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Assessing needs and decision contexts: RISA approaches to engagement research
Table 1.1 Pros and cons of
formal
methods applied to understanding context research questions
Table 1.2 Pros and cons of
informal
methods applied to understanding context research questions
Chapter 3: Climate science for decision-making in the New York metropolitan region
Table 3.1 Climate assessment reports for the New York metropolitan region
Table 3.2 Top 10 coastal flood heights at The Battery, New York, NY (past 74 years)
Table 3.3 Mean annual changes
Table 3.4 Future Coastal Flood Events Associated with Projected Sea Level Rise
Chapter 4: Connecting climate information with practical uses: Extension and the NOAA RISA program
Table 4.1 Example activities that demonstrate knowledge–action-networks within SECC
Chapter 5: Participatory, dynamic models: a tool for dialogue
Table 5.1 Interview questions used in the model-building stage
Table 5.2 List of organizations represented at stakeholder workshop held in Detroit May 2, 2012
Chapter 7: The making of national seasonal wildfire outlooks
Table 7.1 Potential fire management uses of climate data and forecasts
Table 7.2 Retrospective assessment of the national seasonal assessment workshop process
Chapter 8: Challenges, pitfalls, and lessons learned in developing a drought decision-support tool
Table 8.1 Suggestions for DDIT revisions from focus groups
Chapter 10: Evaluation to advance science policy: lessons from Pacific RISA and CLIMAS
Table 10.1 Examples of short-term, long-term, qualitative, and quantitative metrics used in the Pacific RISA program evaluation process
Chapter 11: Navigating scales of knowledge and decision-making in the Intermountain West: implications for science policy
Table 11.1 Major scale discordance problems affecting societal responses to climate-related challenges
Climate in Context: Science and Society Partnering for Adaptation
EDITED BY
Adam S. Parris
Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay, Brooklyn College, 2900 Bedford Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA
Gregg M. Garfin
Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), School of Natural Resources and the Environment, Institute of the Environment, The University of Arizona, 1064 E. Lowell St., Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Kirstin Dow
Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments RISA, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Ryan Meyer
California Ocean Science Trust, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1530, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
Sarah L. Close
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, in service to: Climate and Societal Interactions Division, NOAA Climate Program Office, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
This edition first published 2016 © 2016 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for.
ISBN: 9781118474792
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Cover image: Getty/Åsa Almer/EyeEm
List of contributors
Daniel Bader
Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
Michael Beaulac
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Executive Division, 525 West Allegan St., Lansing, MI 48909-7973, USA
Stuart Blythe
Writing, Rhetoric and American Cultures, Michigan State University, 220 Trowbridge Rd, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
David Brown
National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76102, USA
Timothy J. Brown
California and Nevada Applications Program (CNAP), Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89511, USA
Julie Brugger
Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0137, USA
Lorraine Cameron
Michigan Department of Community Health, Division of Environmental Health, 201 Townsend St., Lansing, MI 48913, USA
Greg Carbone
Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments RISA, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Sarah L. Close
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, in service to: Climate and Societal Interactions Division, NOAA Climate Program Office, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Michael Crimmins
Climate Assessment for the Southwest, Department of Soil Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0038, USA
Art DeGaetano
Earth and Atmospheric Science and Northeast Regional Climate Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
Ed Delgado
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Interagency Coordination Center, National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, USA
Lisa Dilling
Western Water Assessment, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 216 UCB, Boulder,CO 80309, USA
Environmental Studies Program and Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO 80309-0397, USA
Kirstin Dow
Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments RISA, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Daniel B. Ferguson
Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, 1064 E. Lowell Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Melissa L. Finucane
East West Center, 1601 East-West Rd, Honolulu, HI 96848, USA
RAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Ave #600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Jay Fowler
Department of Geography, Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Clyde Fraisse
Southeast Climate Consortium, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0570, USA
J. Brook Gamble
Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 505 S Chandlar Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
Gregg Garfin
Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), School of Natural Resources and the Environment, Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, 1064 E. Lowell St., Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Eric S. Gordon
Western Water Assessment, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 216 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
Holly Hartmann
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Radley Horton
Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, 10025, NY, USA
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
Nathan P. Kettle
Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Alaska Climate Science Center, 505 S Chandlar Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
Victoria W. Keener
East West Center, 1601 East-West Rd, Honolulu, HI 96848, USA
Kirsten J. Lackstrom
Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments RISA, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Ellen Lay
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Maria Carmen Lemos
Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments RISA, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 430 E. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115, USA
Ralph Levine
Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 220 Trowbridge Rd, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Elizabeth McNie
Western Water Assessment, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 216 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
Chad McNutt
National Integrated Drought Information System Program Office, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307-3000, USA
Ryan Meyer
California Ocean Science Trust, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1530, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
Laura Schmitt Olabisi
Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 220 Trowbridge Rd, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Gigi Owen
Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, 1064 E. Lowell Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Adam Parris
Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay, Brooklyn College, 2900 Bedford Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA
Andrea J. Ray
Western Water Assessment, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 216 UCB, Boulder,CO 80309, USA
Physical Sciences Division, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway, R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Jinyoung Rhee
APEC Climate Center, 12, Centum 7-ro, Haeundae-gu Busan 48058, South Korea
Rachel E. Riley
Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program RISA, Oklahoma Climatological Survey, University of Oklahoma, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Suite 2900, Norman, OK 73072, USA
Cynthia Rosenzweig
Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
Mark Shafer
Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program, University of Oklahoma, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Suite 2900, Norman, OK 73072, USA
Caitlin F. Simpson
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Climate Program Office, 1315 East West Highway, Room 12212, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Linda Sohl
Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, 10025, NY, USA
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
William Solecki
Department of Geography, CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities, Hunter College, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
John Stevenson
Climate Impacts Research Consortium, Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-5503, USA
Sarah F. Trainor
Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 505 S Chandlar Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
Robert S. Webb
Physical Sciences Division, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway, R/PSD1, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Jessica Whitehead
Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments, North Carolina State University, North Carolina Sea Grant, Raleigh, NC 27695-8605, USA
Tom Wordell
(Retired), USDA Forest Service, National Interagency Coordination Center, National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, USA
Foreword
From the beginning, the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program has been an experiment. Unlike other experiments in climate-related services and in connecting science with decision-making, it has survived and thrived since 1995, despite numerous challenges. A partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), universities and stakeholders, RISA is focused on place-specific problems and solutions and explores the space between research and decision-making. It is designed to respond in a flexible way to the chain of requests for climate-related information at multiple time scales that has risen from regions and sectors across the United States.
RISA's origins lie in the vision of a few important leaders in the federal government and in academia; they include J. Michael (Mike) Hall, the former director of the Office of Global Programs at NOAA and a widely influential visionary in the U.S. government; Edward (Ed) Miles, the director of the first RISA, the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington; and Claudia Nierenberg, who served as the first program director for RISA. Of course, there have been literally dozens of visionary leaders associated with the program since the early days, but without the contributions of these three people, the program would not be what it is today. A strong vision from the beginning, a flexible management approach, and strong central coordination and leadership have all played a major role in building the program.
The 11 RISA program “experiments” across the country are linked to a multi-institutional network managed centrally in the Climate Program Office at NOAA. Each RISA has evolved in response to the interests and capabilities of Principal Investigators (PIs) within the partner universities as well as to the interests and needs of its regional stakeholders. Because there are so many issues related to climate impacts, vulnerability assessment, and building relevant decision-support products over a range of time and space scales, there is a need for multiple different approaches across the United States.
Clearly, the seed funding provided by NOAA has provided incentives to take the experiments in particular directions, but in virtually all cases, a highly leveraged program has evolved that includes a range of different local, regional, and federal funding sources and partnerships. This flexibility and diversity is one of the institutional strengths of RISA. Although the program has always been underfunded, RISA is widely acknowledged as a success story in providing decision-relevant science products. It has been a constant challenge to maintain and/or grow the program over time. Program funding has been threatened for a variety of internal (agency) and external reasons, but it has continued to provide incentives for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work that has been truly groundbreaking. In some cases, the interdisciplinary teams have been together for almost 20 years, and in all cases the opportunity to do longitudinal studies and engage with stakeholders over years-to-decades has been instrumental in building an understanding of both the art and science of connecting science and decision-making.
The fact that each of the RISAs has different topical focus areas and different strengths in engaging with stakeholders is an important part of the success of RISA as a system, and there are many examples of how the system itself has evolved as an institution over time. Not only are there far more collaborative projects across the RISA network now than there were historically, but there are also purposeful efforts to design the research in ways that fill both social and physical science gaps in the whole network. This approach is unprecedented in federal science programs and likely has no parallel globally, though there are now many examples of science networks that emulate portions of this approach.
Although there is an ongoing debate within the RISA community about where on the “science-to-action” continuum the work should focus, part of the rationale has always been to experiment with the space between research and applications, building an understanding of the role of science in policy and the role of academia and government investments in building science-based solutions. In building local communities of practice that are linked to a truly functional network of practitioners, there have been contributions to the careers of researchers and students who have been funded by the program as well as to the careers of external stakeholders who have been drawn into the experiment.
Building communication and planning tools, reporting back to the larger RISA community about successes and failures, and a significant dose of self-reflection have been the hallmarks of the program. In fact, self-reflection has been strongly encouraged. This willingness to openly expose weaknesses and identify the needs for improvement is extremely unusual in government-sponsored programs. There has been significant stress underlying all of the progress that has been made, but in many cases that stress has provided for enhanced learning opportunities (see also, RISA in a Nutshell).
RISA contributions in the national and global context: climate services, assessments, and adaptation
Given the well-documented observation that climate variability and climate change are already causing costly damages in every region and sector of the United States and the globe, and that there are many unrealized economic opportunities as well (National Climate Assessment, 2014), it has been clear to most of the climate community for two decades that climate information services at multiple time scales (subseasonal to interannual to decadal and beyond) are needed. The need for climate services mirrors the need for weather information but with longer time scales and larger consequences. Despite this fact, building a U.S. climate service has been very controversial. Without explicitly intending to do so, RISA has emerged as one of several highly leveraged attempts to fill in the gaps associated with the lack of a climate service in the United States. It also provides a good model for regional climate service activities that could be developed by other countries.
RISA has already influenced thinking outside of the U.S. borders through contributions of many of its PIs and stakeholders to the International Panel on Climate Change reports, through international colleagues who have closely followed the development of RISA-funded knowledge production, and through investments by the United States in international adaptation/resilience initiatives. For example, the influence of RISA contributions can be seen in the reports of the United States to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and the September 23, 2014 Presidential Executive Order on Climate Resilient International Development. Lessons learned have also influenced the evolution of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, and most recently, the framing of the NOAA International Research and Applications Program.
Many of the social science and process findings of RISA mirror those of other climate-focused organizations elsewhere, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australian Government Science Program and the UKCIP (the UK Climate Impacts Program). Examples are: the need for building trusted relationships between scientists and stakeholders over time, building salience, credibility and legitimacy of products and processes in partnership with stakeholders, enhancing utility of information through co-production of knowledge, and boundary spanning activities. In addition, RISA-related findings have been extremely visible in advice to the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and in multiple NRC panels (there are at least 15 reports where RISA players and findings were influential, including the five America's Climate Choices reports).
The RISA network has also made very explicit contributions to all three US National Climate Assessments, particularly certain Synthesis and Assessment products (e.g., SAP 5.3) of the Bush Administration, and the regional components of the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3). The contributions to the NCA3 were very substantial; RISA program managers, PIs, staff, and students played a role in virtually all of the eight regional assessment teams as well as in developing technical support documents and regional foundation reports later published as a book series by Island Press. All of the RISAs have been engaged in the discussions of the sustained approach to assessment and several are members of the NCA engagement network.
Science support for adaptation/resilience decisions is in great demand. Most of what the RISAs do, whether it is in support of agriculture, fire management, urban planning or water resources management, contributes to resilience— mostly direct investments in applied science, adaptation tools and services, climate-related communications, science translation in support of specific sectoral interests, social network analysis, and analysis of the effectiveness of decision support.
The interagency context: subsequent science networks and the needs and aspirations of federal agencies
As the costs of addressing climate-related disasters have risen, and the understanding of the climate-related drivers of these events have become more clearly understood, there has been an overall shift toward enhancing the societal relevance of the $2.6 billion annual research agenda of the 13-agency USGCRP. Although the proportion of funding that goes into decision support is very small (certainly less than 5%), the visibility of these efforts has continued to rise. Most of the movement in this direction has occurred within the last 6 years, though National Academy reports have been pushing the federal science agencies in this direction for decades and the Global Change Research Act of 1990 clearly anticipated that this transition would occur more rapidly. The lessons learned by the federal government in this arena have come in large part from lessons learned from RISAs.
Over the past decade, the demand for climate-related support from the federal government has far outstripped the capacity of the RISA system to meet the demand for decision support. Eight Climate Science Centers and 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (supported by the Department of the Interior) and 6 new “regional climate hubs” (the U.S. Department of Agriculture) mean that the capacity for engaging with stakeholders and providing relevant science support is expanding. Each of these networks has a different focus and audience, but all are dependent on using the foundational science and engagement strategies employed by RISA. Clearly, there is enough potential for better outcomes and collaboration across these systems; all three networks will benefit if they work more closely together in the future.
Conclusions
Having provided some perspective on the history and achievements of the RISA program, we believe that RISA was both a strategic and an opportunistic response, an approach whose time was right in the mid-1990s but whose contributions are even more relevant today. RISAs are innovative experiments in decision-relevant science and in self-conscious evaluation of engagement processes. Their contributions extend far beyond the RISAs themselves to a much broader knowledge network, including colleagues and practitioners that now include former students, stakeholders, and collaborators across the United States and globally.
RISA has been a public good, providing value to U.S. citizens for 20 years…connecting the best available science produced through government agencies and academia to real world issues like drought planning, range management, agricultural production, water management, flood control, and recovery from disasters in coastal and urban settings. These contributions span the range from fundamental physical and social science to stakeholder engagement to decision support at multiple time and space scales. The intellectual and public policy outcomes of RISA now have global implications and are fundamental to major shifts in U.S. domestic and international policies.
We would like to acknowledge the efforts of all who have contributed to RISA in the past, and those who will continue to contribute, in helping to build a more resilient future.
Kathy JacobsJim BuizerThe University of Arizona
Preface
“The local- to global-scale impacts of climate variability and change, as well as the broader issue of global change, have fueled a growing public demand for timely and accessible information about present and future changes…that can be applied directly to planning, management, and policymaking.”
The National Global Change Research Plan 2012–2021 [1]
Usable science is an enduring concept, but the practice remains elusive. It happens in muddy waters, where the controlled space of basic science meets the ever-evolving context of people and places. After 20 years of exploration through the RISA program, this book is an attempt to make the practice of usable science more transferrable by explaining key techniques.
Climate in Context documents the mechanics of fostering engaged and collaborative approaches between researchers and practitioners to inform decision-making. The book is organized around four themes of the RISA program: Understanding Context and Risk, Managing Knowledge-to-Action Networks, Innovating Services, and Advancing Science Policy. These themes represent the steps in a process of developing usable science to address persistent and/or emerging climate-environment-society management issues. Experience tells us that some of these steps may occur simultaneously, or even out of the aforementioned sequence. These themes relate to well-known advice from sources such as the National Research Council's report, “Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate” [2]. However, Climate in Context demonstrates that RISA teams have moved from articulating a course of implicit learning—a passive benefit of the interactions between researchers, intermediates, and decision-makers—to one of explicit learning, where the social capitals for learning and communication across social networks [3] are actively engaged at the outset of new projects. Leveraging the learning process is what allows researcher-practitioner partners to move from informing decisions with data and information to a keystone societal capacity—the knowledge and policy to manage risk in an increasingly uncertain world. Almost every chapter in Climate in Context refers to some form of learning as an essential element in understanding decision contexts, setting expectations for product development, and coproducing the knowledge needed to increase preparedness for the impacts of climate variability and change.
Unlike data and information, knowledge is not a commodity. The case studies and syntheses in Climate in Context show that usable science can generate the type of knowledge desired for adaptive planning and action. As shown in the chapters in this book, iterative and adaptive learning must accompany the transfer of technology and data, and it requires diverse approaches. Within the bounds of federal agency protocol, the RISA program has allowed “a thousand flowers to bloom” among the regional teams, in order to learn from the multiple geographic, political, and institutional contexts across the United States. The authors contributing to Climate in Context demonstrate, time and again, that partnerships are a central part of the practice of usable science. Climate science researchers aim to understand the dynamics and statistics of the climate system and develop products to support decisions, whereas practitioners seek knowledge to address time-sensitive decisions in a cost-effective manner. Fostering partnerships and managing the exchange of knowledge across the boundaries between researchers and practitioners require guidance and knowledge from social scientists and facilitators whose investigations on decision context lead the way to fostering and replicating innovation and learning. But how, specifically, do you achieve this process? When do you employ which technique? In what combination? And how do you know when you have achieved this? The answers to these questions are the substance of Climate in Context.
Members of the first RISA team—the Climate Impacts Group—used the phrase “a voyage of discovery” to describe this process of adaptive learning. The scientists whose contributions make up this book are some of the many voices of a growing field that is ushering further discovery. As detailed in the foreword, there is unmet demand for greater capacity in usable science. The demand reflects a modest notion that, despite its far-reaching impact, there remains a great deal of unmet potential in the ability of science to provide public value. In the face of increasing risk, society could easily retrace well-worn paths to reactive responses to climate-related disasters—costing needless loss of lives and extra billions of dollars; however, two decades of learning in the RISA program has taught us to apply usable science to proactively build capacity and increase preparedness to climate-related risks. We caution the reader: as is often the case with good intentions, the pursuit of usable science has been both controversial and prone to folly. Climate in Context is not an attempt to accelerate the application of rote processes, but rather to accelerate adaptive and collaborative learning to promote the expansion of usable science. It is an invitation to use these techniques and lessons learned when needs, context, and scientific insights align.
On behalf of the editors, Adam Parris and Gregg Garfin
References
1 U.S. Global Change Research Program (2012)
The National Global Change Research Plan 2012–2021
. A strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. National Coordination Office for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 132.
2 National Research Council (NRC) (2009)
Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate
. Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate- Related Decision Support. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 188.
3 Brown, P.R., Nelson, R., Jacobs, B.
et al
. (2010) Enabling natural resource managers to self-assess their adaptive capacity.
Agricultural Systems
,
103
, 562–568.
Acknowledgments
Like its subject, this book is a community effort. The development of the book alone has spanned a few natural disasters, a presidential election, the third National Climate Assessment, and a change in NOAA leadership. Editors and authors have changed jobs, started families, finished graduate school, and moved to new regions. Among the editors, we include the able and patient editorial and production staff of Wiley & Sons, Inc., especially Rachael Ballard, with whom we first developed the idea for a book on the RISA program. Taken in sum, this book is a testament to the collective endurance of a community of practice, within and outside the RISA program. Funding and management from NOAA remain a critical element of this endurance.
Ryan Meyer and Kirstin Dow deserve special recognition for their wise and patient contributions to the editorial working group, which has overseen the life of the project. Their devotion to exceptional editorial rigor improved all of the chapters. Sarah Close provided critical input and dedication in the tough final stages. All of the authors showed dedication and persistence, and we gratefully acknowledge the many experts who provided external peer review. The book does not capture many worthy and important RISA efforts, some of which have been formally submitted as chapters; we thank those authors for devoting time to the book at its nascent stage as well as to the RISA program. We also wish to recognize all of the scientists and experts who have contributed to RISA, both directly and indirectly, including the pioneers in the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington.
The foreword to this book rightfully acknowledges several key individuals for their foundational efforts in establishing RISA, though, by dint of modesty, fails to mention the substantial contributions of James Buizer. We wish to dedicate this book to two of those individuals, J. Michael Hall and Edward L. Miles.
Disclaimer
The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or the Department of Commerce
Background on RISA
Twenty years ago, a team of researchers began what would become a series of projects aimed at understanding how climate information can better inform decisions to adapt to a changing environment. It began with the establishment of the first Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA), Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington in 1995. From there, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) RISA program, managed from NOAA's Climate Program Office (formerly the Office of Global Programs), has grown to a network of 11 regionally based teams (Figure. I.1) around the United States. To this day, the RISA program supports interdisciplinary research teams that help expand and build the capacity of those seeking to prepare for and adapt to climate variability and change.
Figure I.1 The 11 RISA teams and their geographic footprints, as of February 2015.
In the early stages of the program, RISA teams were developed through deliberate consultations between RISA program management at NOAA and university-based scientists around specific issues or focusing events in a region. In 2006, the program transitioned to a competitive funding model in which each region is competed on a 5-year cycle. RISA teams developed diverse research areas and management structures, allowing for experimentation and learning across the network. Throughout the 20-year history of the network, the hallmarks of RISA work have been a central commitment to partnerships, process, and building trust.
Section I
Understanding context and risk
A central, enduring finding over the 20 years of the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program is that climate information can inform decisions to adapt to a changing environment, but only if the climate research community and decision-makers work together to understand each other's priorities, needs, and capabilities. This volume brings together insights and lessons on approaches to support climate decisions drawn from the experience of RISA teams and from collaborative dialogues among teams and partners. It begins by exploring, in this first theme entitled Understanding Context and Risk, the complex and evolving science needs embedded within decision contexts not exclusively related to climate, but responsive to other drivers of environmental, institutional, and societal change.
RISA experiences suggest that the task of identifying and refining climate science needs can often take years. In addressing this multidimensional issue, RISA investigators work to distinguish between what constitutes an initially perceived need and a more specific, grounded need for better comprehension of options within a range of uncertain futures. The first questions posed by decision-makers often become more precise during discussions of near-term scientific possibilities and limitations.
RISA teams build and sustain a capability for understanding emerging and evolving decision contexts informed by both advancing knowledge of how people use scientific information in the decision-making process and emerging information about projected exposure to climate-related impacts. The first chapter in this theme, by Simpson et al., provides a broad overview of the capabilities developed by RISA teams to inform decisions about when to invest or redistribute research resources to meet needs within these changing contexts. They assess the multiple social science methods employed by RISA teams to build the foundation for coproduction of knowledge and policy. Their chapter highlights the evolution of research approaches needed as ongoing working relationships between RISA teams and practitioners deepen over time; these include reviewing documents, conducting surveys and interviews, participant observation and, more recently, investigating informal institutions, such as social and knowledge networks. For science to be actionable, it must be salient, timely, and credible. Ray and Webb reflect on the use of a time-honored framework, the decision calendar, to establish mutual understanding of the timely insertion of assessment and forecast information in climate-related decisions.
While RISAs are credited for their ability to engage decision-makers and to understand context, the complementary capacities to develop risk-based information and to support knowledge exchange often receives less recognition. Horton et al. show how an event such as Hurricane Sandy warranted re-allocation of time and expertise to develop risk information in support of greater resilience in an urban rebuilding strategy. In addition, the RISA follow-up work on Hurricane Sandy is intended to complement ongoing research on the exposure and vulnerability of a regional urban system to regional climatic and nonclimatic stressors, such as increasing water demands. They point out the challenges of keeping multiple risks in perspective, given urban planners' visceral experience of the hurricane, and illustrate how a RISA team advanced a better understanding of vulnerability and risk in the form of usable knowledge for New York City, ultimately building a capacity to adapt to global change.
Understanding contexts and risks, which take many institutional and methodological forms, requires expertise in forming and managing interactions among scientists and decision-makers, and among scientists from different disciplines, a topic that is further explored in Managing Knowledge-to-Action Networks. Working relationships and collaborative partnerships are established through the exchange of knowledge. In many instances, RISA social scientists consider the dynamics of these interactions and raise important questions—highlighted in the chapters of Understanding Context and Risk—relevant to expanding the scientific community's capacity to more directly serve society.
Chapter 1Assessing needs and decision contexts: RISA approaches to engagement research
Caitlin F. Simpson1, Lisa Dilling2, Kirstin Dow3, Kirsten J. Lackstrom3, Maria Carmen Lemos4 and Rachel E. Riley5
1U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Climate Program Office, 1315 East West Highway, Room 12212, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
2Western Water Assessment, Environmental Studies Program and Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO 80309-0397, USA
3Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments RISA and Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
4Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments RISA and School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 430 E. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115, USA
5Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program RISA, University of Oklahoma, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Suite 2900, Norman, OK 73072, USA
1.1 Introduction
Research on how mankind will adapt to climate variability and change are undeniably important, and yet, traditionally, society tends to turn mainly to physical science for gaining expertise on climate. The Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program has attempted to remedy this situation by assimilating and generating knowledge that supports the usability of the physical sciences by expanding social and behavioral science on climate and society. We simply cannot understand how best to adapt to climate without gaining knowledge about behavior, policy, institutions, and decision contexts because these aspects often affect the ability of society to respond to and incorporate climate knowledge. Climate research is not only a study of physical processes and impacts, but also a study of individuals, communities, and institutions.
From the beginning, the RISA program has included a human dimensions research element. The number of social scientists in the RISA teams has grown significantly over the course of the program as NOAA staff overseeing the RISA program made deliberate decisions over the years to ensure that social science research was funded over the long term and in a continuous manner. This support allowed the RISA teams to undertake the kind of work discussed in this chapter.
The focus of social science research and the methods used vary from team to team and have evolved and expanded over the 20-year history of the program. In the early days of RISA, understanding the context of decision-makers coping with climate challenges focused mostly on assessing user needs, understanding social and institutional constraints in the use of climate information, and the economic value of forecast information. The network of researchers and range of approaches then grew to incorporate the analysis of risk perception and how decision-makers dealt with uncertain information, assessing the vulnerabilities of different socioeconomic groups to climate, and research on ways to communicate climate information. Over the past decade, the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has called on the federal government to increase its efforts in human dimensions research, build a larger community of researchers focused on these issues as they relate to climate, and use these efforts to build stronger national assessments of climate impacts and adaptation [1].
More recently, RISA work has expanded to include identifying and analyzing information flows across networks of scientists and decision-makers and figuring out how to support these networks by working with key individuals or nodes and providing usable information to them (see Chapter 4). Moreover, as the number of published findings from empirical social science research increased, comparative and meta-analysis studies have emerged. These analyses focus on explaining why users disseminate knowledge across RISAs [2] and how different decision contexts shape what RISAs do across regions to meet different users' needs [3].
Most discussions on the RISA approach tend to highlight the iterative nature of how the researchers interact with decision-makers rather than the methodologies involved (e.g., [4]). To understand the decision context of the planners, managers, and communities with which the teams interact, RISAs draw from a range of social science methods and do so in an interdisciplinary and social–physical science setting.
In this chapter, we discuss the approaches used by four RISA teams to understand the context within which decision-makers operate and use information. Some of the approaches are formal and are based on social science research methods, such as survey and network analysis, and others are more informal based on long-term engagement with stakeholders as well as being present at decision-maker meetings. RISAs learn a great deal about context from both the formal and informal methods. In this chapter, we use the term “decision-makers” to refer to those in the public and private sectors making management and planning decisions. For us, the term “stakeholders” is a broader one that includes other information providers as well as decision-makers and the public.
The four teams from which this chapter's lessons are drawn include Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments (CISA), Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA), Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program (SCIPP), and Western Water Assessment (WWA). Where appropriate, we have drawn examples from other RISA teams as well. The chapter is not meant to encompass all of the social science work undertaken by RISAs, but instead provide some thoughtful insight into the approaches used to understand the context as drawn from the experience of 4 of the 11 RISA teams as well as from a manager of the full RISA program who has observed the breadth and depth of the approaches taken over the years.
1.2 RISA overall approach to ongoing engagement
RISAs are designed to produce new knowledge through fundamental research and to increase the usability of existing knowledge through collaboration with decision-makers and climate information providers. The RISA teams have long and diverse experience with stakeholder engagement of many kinds [5]. RISA researchers regularly and extensively participate in meetings with decision-makers and listen to their concerns, promoting a two-way learning and trust for the knowledge they produce. They also formally study some cases of stakeholder interactions to understand and build a theory on its role in increasing climate information usability.
As Dilling and Lemos [6] observe, iterative engagement between producers and users does not happen in a vacuum and getting it started may take an organization that is willing to foster, and often create from scratch, the conditions necessary to produce usable knowledge. Many decision-making entities produce as well as use knowledge, as do academic researchers thus adding complexity to the analysis of the flow of knowledge or information. Collectively, RISAs have been willing to address this complexity by catalyzing interaction through both formal and informal channels among researchers, decision-makers, and stakeholders.
Coproduction, where new knowledge and the application of that knowledge are produced as a joint venture between scientists and decision-makers, often benefits from interdisciplinary research that draws from the natural, physical, and social sciences as well as interactions within and across research teams. For RISA teams, methods applied to understanding the decision context are often part of, or at least precede, a coproduction process. For example, when severe droughts began to grip the U.S. southern plains in the fall of 2010, SCIPP was able to build on its understanding of the region's drought planning context, and the team quickly identified the need for improving communication with decision-makers about local drought conditions and the strategies that could be employed to manage drought impacts across the region (see Chapter 9
