Climatic Change

, Volume 106, Issue 4, pp 507–536

Decision support for climate change adaptation planning in the US: why it needs a coordinated internet-based practitioners’ network

Article

Abstract

Decision support resources are emerging across the United States to address the adaptation and mitigation challenges associated with climate variability and change. In theory, climate-related decision support identifies the need to move beyond the linear dissemination of information from experts to decision-makers. Interviews with researchers and federal program managers, however, show that in practice there are still wide gaps between the development of climate science and its application. Lessons learned in two example cases of decision support experiments are discussed to highlight some of the on-going challenges in applying climate science, e.g. defining decision support, involving decision-makers, and determining effectiveness. The published literature also shows these reoccurring challenges but emphasizes more collaboration between science and decision-makers as this improves the relevance, compatibility, and accessibility of climate science information and can increase users’ receptiveness. This article proposes that the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) can help the development of decision support resources, in one way, by coordinating an Internet-based practitioners’ network. A coordinated network could provide opportunities for climate-related decision support practitioners to build collaborative partnerships, share lessons-learned, provide feedback to the USGCRP, and thereby assist the transition of science into decision-making processes to better address adaptation planning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adger N (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger N, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, O’Brien K, Pulhin J, Pulwarty R, Smit B, Kiyoshi T (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, option, constraints and capacity. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 717–743Google Scholar
  3. AgroClimate (2010) Website, http://www.agroclimate.org/. Accessed 20 October 2010
  4. Agrawala S, Broad K (2002) Technology transfer perspective on climate forecast applications. In: De Laet M (ed) Research in science and technology studies: knowledge and technology transfer. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 45–69Google Scholar
  5. Agrawala S, Broad K, Guston DH (2001) Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Sci Technol Human Values 26:454–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barham J, Gichon Y, Humphries S, Rossi F, Alvira D, Rios A (2004) Assessment of the format, content, and potential uses of the AgClimate website and crop yield risk assessment tool by extension agents in North Florida. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series, GainsvilleGoogle Scholar
  7. Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell M, Hobbs BF, Ellis H (2003) The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 37:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bos N, Zimmerman A, Olson J, Yew J, Yerkie J, Dahl E, Olson G (2007) From shared databases to communities of practice: a taxonomy of collaboratories. J Comput-Mediat Commun 12:652–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breuer NE, Cabrera VE, Ingram KT, Broad K, Hildebrand PE (2007) AgClimate: a case study in participatory decision support system development. Clim Change 87:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brewer GD, Stern PC (eds) (2005) Decision making for the environment: social and behavioral science research priorities, panel on social and behavior science research priorities for environmental decision making, committee on the human dimensions of global change. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 281Google Scholar
  12. Cabrera VE, Breuer NE, Bellow JG, Fraisse CW (2006a) Extension agent knowledge and perceptions of seasonal climate forecasts in florida. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series, Gainsville, FLGoogle Scholar
  13. Cabrera VE, Breuer NE, Hildebrand PE (2006b) North Florida dairy farmer perceptions toward the use of seasonal climate forecast technology. Clim Change 78:479–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canales G, Coles B, Cornejo C, Fletcher T, Manganyi T, Owuso K, Painter K, Pellish H, Stonerook E, Wilsey D (2005) Perceptions and attitudes of smallholder farmers in North Central Florida regarding the potential usefulness of seasonal climate forecasts. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series, Gainsville, FLGoogle Scholar
  15. CARA (2010) Consortium for atlantic regional assessment. Website, http://www.cara.psu.edu/. Accessed 20 October 2010
  16. Carter RH, Morehouse BJ (2003) Climate and urban water providers in Arizona: an analysis of vulnerability perceptions and climate information use. Climas Report Series CL 1-03, Institute for the Study of the Planet, University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  17. Cash DW (2001) In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information: agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Sci Technol Human Values 26:431–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci Technol Human Values 31:465–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CCSP (2003) Strategic plan for the US climate change science program. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, D.C., p 211Google Scholar
  21. CCSP: FY (2006) Our changing planet. US Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. CCSP: FY (2007) Our changing planet. US Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC, p 272Google Scholar
  23. CCSP: FY (2008) Our changing planet. US Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Changnon D (2004) Improving outreach in atmospheric scienes: assessment of users of climate products. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 85:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Correspondence (2006) Telephone interviews and emailsGoogle Scholar
  26. Correspondence (2007) Telephone interviews and emailsGoogle Scholar
  27. Daniels SE, Walker GB (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16:71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport, Conn., p xxii, 299Google Scholar
  29. Dempsey R, Fisher A (2005) Consortium for Atlantic Regional assessment: information tools for community adaptation to changes in climate or land use. Risk Anal 22:1495–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dietz T (1994) What should we do? Human ecology and collective decision making. Hum Ecol Rev 1:301–309Google Scholar
  31. Dietz T (2003) What is a good decision? Criteria for environmental decision making. Hum Ecol Rev 10:33–39Google Scholar
  32. Dilling L (2006) Workshop on decision support and carbon cycle science: practical strategies to reconciling the supply of and demand for carbon cycle science. Final Workshop Report’, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  33. Dilling L (2007a) The opportunities and responsibility for carbon cycle science in the U.S. Environ Sci Policy 10:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dilling L (2007b) Towards science in support of decision making: characterizing the supply of carbon cycle science. Environ Sci Policy 10:48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dow K, Carbone G (2007) Climate science and decision making. Geogr Compass 1/3:302–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fankhauser S, Smith JB, Tol RSJ (1999) Weather climate change: some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol Econo 30:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fragidis G, Tarabanis K (2006) From repositories of best practices to networks of best practices. IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology. IEEE Xplore, Singapore, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  38. Fraisse C, Bellow J, Breuer N, Cabrera J, Jones J, Ingram KT, Hoogenboom G, Paz J (2005) Strategic plan for the Southeast Climate consortium extension program. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series, Gainesville, FLGoogle Scholar
  39. Fraisse CW, Breuer NE, Zierden D, Bellow JG, Paz J, Cabrera VE, Garcia y Garcia A, Ingram KT, Hatch U, Hoogenboom G, Jones JW, O’Brien JJ (2006) AgClimate: a climate forecast information system for agricultural risk management in the Southeastern USA. Comput Electron Agric 53:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Franz NK, Peterson RS, Dailey AL (2002) Leading organizational change: a comparison of county and campus views of extension engagement. J Ext 40Google Scholar
  41. Gamble JL, Furlow J, Snover AK, Hamlet AF, Morehouse BJ, Hartmann H, Pagano T (2004) Assessing the impact of climate variability and change on regional water resources: the implications for stakeholders. Water Resources Monograph 16 Water: Science Policy, and Management 341–368Google Scholar
  42. GAO (2008) Natural resource management: opportunities exist to enhance federal participation in collaborative efforts to reduce conflicts and improve natural resource conditions. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Gray B (1989) Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. Josey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  44. Gregory R, McDaniels T (2005) Improving environmental decision processes. In: Brewer GD, Stern PC (eds) Decision making for the environment: social and behavioral science research priorities. National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 175–199Google Scholar
  45. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hinkey LM, Ellenberg KT, Kessler B (2005) Strategies for engaging scientists in collaborative processes. J Ext 43Google Scholar
  47. Ingram HM, Stern PC (eds) (2007) Research and Networks for Decision Support in the NOAA Sectoral Applications Research Program Panel on Design for NOAA Sectoral Applications Research Program, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 22Google Scholar
  49. Jager J, Farrell AE (2006) Improving the practice of environmental assessment. In: Jager J, Farrell AE (eds) Assessments of regional and global environmental risks. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 278–293Google Scholar
  50. Jones SA, Fischhoff B, Lach D (1999) Evaluating the science-policy interface for climate change research. Clim Change 581–599Google Scholar
  51. Jurgens I (2004) Science-stakeholder dialogue and climate change: towards a participatory notion of communication. In: Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change “Knowledge for the sustainability transition: the challenge for social science”. Global Governance Project: Amsterdam, Berlin, Potsdam and Oldenburg, Berlin, Germany, pp 87–101Google Scholar
  52. Kasperson RE (2006) Editorial: rerouting the stakeholder express. Glob Environ Change 16:320–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klein R, Kenney DS (2005) Use of climate information in municipal drought planning in Colorado. Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  54. Koku E, Nazer N, Wellman B (2001) Netting scholars: online and offline. Am Behav Sci 44:1752–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lachapelle PR, McCool SF (2005) Exploring the concept of “Ownership” in natural resource planning. Soc Nat Resour 18:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 10:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miles EL, Snover AK, Whitely Binder LC, Sarachik ES, Mote PW, Mantua N (2006) An approach to designing a national climate service. PNAS 103:19616–19623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morello L (2008) NOAA: agency planning ’National Climate Service. E&E News, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. Morello L (2009) Adaptation: NOAA chief seeks white house blueprint for climate service. E&E News, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Morgan MG, Kandlikar M, Risbey J, Dowlatabadi H (1999) Why conventional tools for policy analysis are often inadequate for problems of global change. Clim Change 41:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morgan MG, Cantor R, Clark WC, Fisher A, Jacoby HD, Janetos AC, Kinzig AP, Mellilo J, Street RB, Wilbanks TJ (2005) Learning from the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impact. Environ Sci Technol 39:9023–9032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. NOAA (2007a) Sea grant program history. http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/aboutsg/historyofsg.html2007a. Accessed 20 October 2010
  63. NAST (2001) National assessment synthesis team. Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Report for the US Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 620Google Scholar
  64. NRC (1996) Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: public service and public policy. NRC (1996) Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: public service and public policy. Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 140Google Scholar
  65. NRC (2001) A climate services vision: first steps toward the future, board on atmospheric sciences and climate. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 84Google Scholar
  66. NRC (2007a) Analysis of global change assessments: lessons learned. Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 148Google Scholar
  67. NRC (2007b) Evaluating progress of the U.S. climate change science program: methods and preliminary results, committee on strategic advice on the U.S. climate change science program, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 170Google Scholar
  68. 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 Climate Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 188Google Scholar
  69. Pandey N, Prakash C, Pandey DN (2007) Linking knowledge to action for sustainable development in India’. National Conference on Avenues for Empowering the Poor and Enhancing their Growth in the Era of Knowledge Economy, New Dehli, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  70. Pielke RA Jr (1998) Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Glob Environ Change 8:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pielke RA Jr (1999) Who decides? forecasts and responsibilities in the 1997 Red River Flood. Am Behav Sci Rev 7:83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 188Google Scholar
  73. Pyke CR, Bierwagen BG, Furlow J, Gamble J, Johnson T, Julius S, West J (2007) A decision inventory approach for improving decision support for climate change impact assessment and adaptation. Environ Sci Policy 10:610–621Google Scholar
  74. Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) (1998) Human choice and climate change: volume 1. Batelle Press, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  75. Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H (2005) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Clim Change 69:197–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Relyea HC (2000) Paperwork reduction act reauthorization and government information management issues. Gov Inf Q 17:367–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rhoads BL, Wilson D, Urban M, Herricks EE (1999) Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environ Manage 24:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. RISA (2007a) Regional integrated sciences & assessments. Website, http://www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo_pa/risa/. Accessed 20 October 2010
  79. RISA (2007b) RISA background. http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cpo_pa/cpo_pa_index.jsp&pa=risa&sub=2. Accessed 20 October 2010
  80. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Rogers EM, Kincaid DL (1981) Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. Romsdahl RJ, Pyke CR (2009) What does decision support mean to the climate change research community? Clim Change 95:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Roncoli C (2006) Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ response to climate predictions’. Clim Res 33:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roncoli C, Breuer N, Bellow J, Zierden D, Ingram KT, Broad K (2006) Potential applications of Keetch-Byram drought index forecasts for fire management decisions in Georgia and Florida. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series, Gainesville, FLGoogle Scholar
  85. Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr (2007) The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ Sci Policy 10:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. SECC (2010) Southeast climate consortium. Website, http://seclimate.org/. Accessed 20 October 2010
  87. Selin SW, Schuett MA (2000) Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Soc Nat Resour 13:735–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Smalley P, Herman J (2005) Creating a system to share user experience best practices at eBay. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  89. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Smit B, Pilifosova O, Burton I, Challenger B, Huq S, Klein RJT, Yohe G (2001) Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation & vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 879–912Google Scholar
  91. Smith PD, McDonough MH, Mang MT (1999) Ecosystem management and public participation: lessons from the field. J For 97:32Google Scholar
  92. Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society, Committee on Risk Characterization, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 249Google Scholar
  93. Stern PC, Easterling WE (eds) (1999) Making climate forecasts matter, panel on the human dimensions of seasonal-to-interannual climate variability, Committee on the Human Dimnensions of Global Change. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  94. Stokes DE (1997) Pastuer’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  95. Thompson A, Robbins P, Sohngen B, Arvai J, Koontz T (2006) Economy, politics, and institutions: from adaptation to adaptive management in climate change. Clim Change 18:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Tompkins E, Adger WN (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol Soc 9:10Google Scholar
  97. Turnpenny J, Haxeltine A, O’Riordan T (2003) A scoping study of UK user needs for managing climate futures, Part 1 of the pilot-phase interactive integrated assessment process (Aurion project). Working Paper no. 31., Tyndall Centre, Norwich, UKGoogle Scholar
  98. Vedwan N, Broad K, Letson D, Ingram KT, Podestá G, Breuer NE, Jones JW, O’Brien JJ (2005) Assessment of climate information dissemination efforts by the Florida climate consortium. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series, Gainsville, FLGoogle Scholar
  99. Weber EU (2006) Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (Yet). Clim Change 77:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wellman B, Salaff J, Dimitrova D, Garton L, Gulia M, Haythornthwaite C (1996) Computer networks as social networks: collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annu Rev Sociology 22:213–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wernstedt K, Hersh R (2002) Flood planning and climate forecasts at the local level. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, p 51Google Scholar
  102. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  103. Ziervogel G, Downing TE (2004) Stakeholder networks: improving seasonal climate forecasts. Clim Change 65:73–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth System Science & Policy, Stop 9011University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations