Abstract
There is increasing interest among scholars in producing information that is useful and usable to land and natural resource managers in a changing climate. This interest has prompted transitions from scientist- to stakeholder-driven or collaborative approaches to climate science. A common indicator of successful collaboration is whether stakeholders use the information resulting from the projects in which they are engaged. However, detailed examples of how stakeholders use climate information are relatively scarce in the literature, leading to a challenge in understanding what researchers can and should expect and plan for in terms of stakeholder use of research findings. Drawing on theoretical, typological, and evaluation insights from the field of information use, we examine stakeholder use of climate information emerging from 13 collaborative climate science projects conducted in the western United States between 2012 and 2016. Three primary types of use emerge from our findings—conceptual, instrumental, and justification—reflecting common typologization of information use. Conceptual use was the most predominant. We suggest that researcher awareness of this typology can enable more systematic understanding of what project outputs stakeholders use and impacts of those outputs, giving way to new areas of inquiry and aiding in the conceptualization and design of climate information products for land and natural resource managers.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R (2004) New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun 26(1):75–106
Bell S, Shaw B, Boaz A (2011) Real-world approaches to assessing the impact of environmental research on policy. Res Eval 20(3):227–237
Bernard RH (2006) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD
Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A, Nutley S Eds (2019) What works now? Evidence-informed policy and practice. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60(4):726–742
Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B (2009) Assessing the impact of research on policy: a literature review. Sci Public Policy 36(4):255–270
Bozeman B, Sarewitz D (2011) Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva 49(1):1–23
Brugger J, Meadow A, Horangic A (2016) Lessons from first-generation climate science integrators. Bull Am Meteor Soc 97(3). https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-14-00289.1
Buizer M, Ruthrof K, Moore SA, Veneklaas EJ, Hardy G, Baudains C (2015) A critical evaluation of interventions to progress transdisciplinary research. Soc Nat Resour 28(6):670–681
Buontempo C, Hewitt CD, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Dessai S (2014) Climate service development, delivery and use in Europe at monthly to inter-annual timescales. Clim Risk Manag 6:1–5
Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci Technol Hum Values 31(4):465–494
Choo CW (1996) The knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions. Int J Inf Manag 16(5):329–340
Choo CW (1998) The knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Choo CW, Bergeron P, Detlor B, Heaton L (2008) Information culture and information use: an exploratory study of three organizations. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 59(5):792–804
Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay É (2010) Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 88(4):444–483
Cundill G, Rodela R (2012) A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. J Environ Manag 113:7–14
Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Change 21(2):680–689
Djenontin INS, Meadow AM (2018) The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ Manag 61(6):885–903
Doyle J (2018) Reconceptualising research impact: reflections on the real-world impact of research in an Australian context. High Educ Res Dev 37(7):1366–1379
Evely AC, Fazey I, Lambin X, Lambert E, Allen S, Pinard M (2010) Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary conservation research. Environ Conserv 37(4):442–450
Fales M, Dell R, Herbert ME, Sowa SP, Asher J, O’Neil G, Doran PJ, Wickerham B (2016) Making the leap from science to implementation: Strategic agricultural conservation in Michigan’s Saginaw Bay watershed. J Gt Lakes Res 42(6):1372–1385
Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC, Lambert E, Hastings E, Morris S, Reed MS (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Change 25:204–220
Feldman DL, Ingram HM (2009) Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge networks. Weather Clim Soc 1(1):9–21
Flitcroft K, Gillespie J, Salkeld G, Carter S, Trevena L (2011) Getting evidence into policy: the need for deliberative strategies? Soc Sci Med 72(7):1039–1046
Garfin GM, Wordell T, Brown TJ, Ochoa R, Morehouse BJ (2003) The 2003 National Seasonal Assessment Workshop: A Proactive Approach to Preseason Fire Danger Assessment. Final Report, 25–28 Feb 2003, Mesa, AZ, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A (2002) Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review J Health Serv Res Policy 7(4):239–244
IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the 5th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p 151
Jantarasami LC, Lawler JJ, Thomas CW (2010) Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in US national parks and forests. Ecol Soc 15(4):33.
Kemp K, Blades J, Klos PZ, Hall T, Force JE, Morgan P, Tinkham W (2015) Managing for climate change on federal lands of the western United States: perceived usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to implementation. Ecol Soc 20(2):17
Kirchhoff CJ (2013) Understanding and enhancing climate information in water management. Clim Change 119:495–509
Kirk J (2002) Theorising information use: managers and their work. University of Technology, Sydney
Knorr KD (1976) Policy-makers use of social science knowledge: symbolic or instrumental? In: Weiss CH (ed) Using social research in public policy making. Heath, Lexington, MA, p 165–182
Kothari A, Wathen N (2013) A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation. Health Policy 109(2):187–191
Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81(2):221–248
Lawson DM, Hall KR, Yung L, Enquist CA (2017) Building translational ecology communities of practice: insights from the field. Front Ecol Environ 15(10):569–577
Lemos MC (2008) What influences innovation adoption by water managers? Climate information use in Brazil and the United States. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 44(6):1388–1396
Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Change Hum Policy Dimens 15(1):57–68
Lemos MC, Rood RB (2010) Climate projections and their impact on policy and practice. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim change 1(5):670–682
Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Ramprasad V (2012) Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat Clim Change 2(11):789–794. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1614
Lewis DE, Selin JL (2012) Sourcebook of United States executive agencies, Administrative Conference of the United States, Office of the Chairman
McEvoy DJ, Hobbins M, Brown TJ, VanderMolen K, Wall T, Huntington JL, Svoboda M (2019) Establishing relationships between drought indices and wildfire danger outputs: a test case for the California-Nevada drought early warning system. Climate 7(4):52
McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10(1):17–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004
McNie EC (2013) Delivering climate services: organizational strategies and approaches for producing useful climate-science information. Weather Clim Soc 5(1):14–26
McNie EC, Parris A, Sarewitz D (2016) Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research. Res Policy 45(4):884–895
Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z, Horangic A, Owen G, Wall T (2015) Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim Soc 7(2):179–191
Meadow AM, Wall TU, Horangic A. Evaluating collaborative climate science research processes and impacts (in review)
Meagher L, Lyall C, Nutley S (2008) Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. Res Eval 17(3):163–173
Meagher LR, Martin U (2017) Slightly dirty maths: the richly textured mechanisms of impact. Res Eval 26(1):15–27
Meyer R (2011) The public values failures of climate science in the US. Minerva 49:47–70
Morton S (2015) Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach. Res Eval 24(4):405–419
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) (2019) Mission Statement. https://ndep.nv.gov/. Accessed 5 Sep 2019
Nutley S, Walter I, Davies HT (2003) From knowing to doing: a framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation 9(2):125–148
Oh CH (1996) Linking social science information to policy-making. Jai Press, London
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC health Serv Res 14(1):2
Pagano TC, Hartmann HC, Sorooshian S (2001) Using climate forecasts for water management: Arizona and the 1997–1998 El Niño. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(5):1139–1153
Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
Patton MQ (2008) Utilization-focused evaluation. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
Pelz DC (1978) Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy. In: Yinger JM, Cutler SJ (eds) Major social issues: a multidisciplinary view. The Free Press, New York, NY, p 346–369
Penfield T, Baker MJ, Scoble R, Wykes MC (2014) Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review. Res Eval 23(1):21–32
Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53
Polk M (2015) Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65:110–122
Power S, Sadler B, Nicholls N (2005) The influence of climate science on water management in western Australia: lessons for climate scientists. Bull Am Meteorological Soc 86(6):839–844
Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H (2005) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Clim Change 69(2):197–227
Reed M, Meagher L (2019) Using evidence in environmental and sustainability issues. In: Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A, Nutley S(eds) What works now? Evidence-informed policy and practice. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p 151–170
Reed M, Stringer L, Fazey I, Evely A, Kruijsen J (2014) Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. J Environ Manag 146:337–345
Rice JL, Woodhouse CA, Lukas JJ (2009) Science and decision making: water management and tree‐ring data in the Western United States. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 45(5):1248–1259
Rich RF (1975) Selective utilization of social science related information by federal policy-makers. Inquiry 12(3):239–245
Rich RF (1979) The pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge 1(1):6–30
Rich RF (1997) Measuring knowledge utilization: processes and outcomes. Knowl Policy 10(3):11–24
Rich RF, Oh CH (2000) Rationality and use of information in policy decisions: a search for alternatives. Sci Commun 22(2):173–211
Saldaña J (2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Inc., Los Angeles
Schuck-Zöller S, Cortekar J, Jacob D (2017) Evaluating co-creation of knowledge: from quality criteria and indicators to methods. Adv Sci Res 14:305–312
Snover AK, Hamlet AF, Lettenmaier DP (2003) Climate-change scenarios for water planning studies: pilot applications in the Pacific Northwest. Bull Am Meteor Soc 84(11):1513–1518
Soares MB, Alexander M, Dessai S (2018) Sectoral use of climate information in Europe: a synoptic overview. Clim Serv 9:5–20
Spaapen J, Van Drooge L (2011) Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Res Eval 20(3):211–218
Srinivasan G, Rafisura KM, Subbiah A (2011) Climate information requirements for community-level risk management and adaptation. Clim Res 47(1–2):5–12
Street RB (2016) Towards a leading role on climate services in Europe: a research and innovation roadmap. Clim Serv 1:2–5
Swart R, de Bruin K, Dhenain S, Dubois G, Groot A, von der Forst E (2017) Developing climate information portals with users: promises and pitfalls. Clim Serv 6:12–22
Taylor RS (1991) Information use environments. In: Dervin B (ed) Progress in communication sciences. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, p 217–225
USGCRP (2017) Climate Science Special Report: 4th National Climate Assessment, Volume I. In: Wuebbles DJ, Fahey DW, Hibbard KA, Dokken DJ, Stewart BC, Maycock TK (eds) US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, p 470, https://doi.org/10.7930/J0J964J6
van Drooge L, Spaapen J (2017) Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations. J Technol Transfer 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9607-7
Vaughan C, Dessai S (2014) Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 5(5):587–603
Van de Ven AH, Johnson PE (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manag Rev 31(4):802–821
Wall TU, Meadow AM, Horganic A (2017) Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Weather Clim Soc 9(1):95–107
Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plann 30(4):325–338
Weaver CP, Lempert RJ, Brown C, Hall JA, Revell D, Sarewitz D (2013) Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 4(1):39–60
Weiss CH (1980) The politics of impact measurement. Political Stud 1:179–183
West S, van Kerkhoff L, Wagenaar H (2019) Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions. Policy Studies 40(5):1–22
Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J (2014) Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Eval 23(2):117–132
Wilson TD (2000) Human information behavior. Informing Sci 3(2):49–56
Wolf B, Lindenthal T, Szerencsits M, Holbrook JB, Heß J (2013) Evaluating research beyond scientific impact: how to include criteria for productive interactions and impact on practice and society. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 22(2):104–114
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the US Geological Survey under Grants G13AC00326, G15AP00175, and G17AP00100 from the Department of the Interior Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center and Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, or the US Geological Survey. This manuscript is submitted for publication with the understanding that the United States Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes. We wish to thank Alexandra Lutz of the Desert Research Institute for her valuable review of this paper, as well as the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
VanderMolen, K., Meadow, A.M., Horangic, A. et al. Typologizing Stakeholder Information Use to Better Understand the Impacts of Collaborative Climate Science. Environmental Management 65, 178–189 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01237-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01237-9