Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 140, Issue 3–4, pp 451–465 | Cite as

Adaptation by stealth: climate information use in the Great Lakes region across scales

  • Laura Vang Rasmussen
  • Christine J. Kirchhoff
  • Maria Carmen Lemos
Article

Abstract

While there has been considerable focus on understanding barriers to climate information use associated with the character of climate knowledge, individuals’ negative perception of its usability and constraints of decision-contexts, less attention has been paid to understanding how different scales of decision-making influence information use. In this study, we explore how water and resource managers’ scales of decision-making and scope of decision responsibilities influence climate information use in two Great Lakes watersheds. We find that despite availability of tailored climate information, actual use of information remains low. Reasons include (a) lack of willingness to place climate on agendas because local managers perceive climate change as politically risky, (b) lack of formal mandate or authority at the city and county scale to translate climate information into on-the-ground action, (c) problems with the information itself, and (d) perceived lack of demand for climate information by those managers who have the mandate and authority to use (or help others use) climate information. Our findings suggest that (1) scientists and information brokers should produce information that meets a range of decision needs and reserve intensive tailoring efforts for decision makers who have willingness and authority to use climate information; (2) without support from higher levels of decision-making (e.g., state), it is unlikely that climate information use will accelerate significantly; and (3) the trend towards characterizing climate specific actions within a broader concept of sustainability practices, or “adaptation by stealth,” should be supported as a component of the climate adaptation repertoire.

Keywords

Climate Information Stormwater Management Precipitation Time Series City Manager Urban Forestry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the water and resource managers in the Huron and Maumee watersheds who provided primary data for this research. We also thank James Arnott for the comments on an earlier draft. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed extensively to this work. M.C.L. and C.J.K. jointly designed the research. C.J.K. conducted the data collection and L.V.R. analyzed the data. All authors contributed to writing and developing the manuscript at all stages.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

Research for this study was funded by NSF Grant no. 1039043.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1857_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15.0 kb)

References

  1. Archie KM, Dilling L, Milford JB, Pampel FC (2014) Unpacking the ‘information barrier’: comparing perspectives on information as a barrier to climate change adaptation in the interior mountain West. J Environ Manag 133:397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briley L, Brown D, Kalafatis SE (2015) Overcoming barriers during the co-production of climate information for decision-making. Clim Risk Manag 9:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown C, Ghile Y, Laverty M, Li K (2012) Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in water sector. Water Resour Res 48:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob Environ Chang 10(2):109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F et al (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darela Filho JP, Lapola DM, Torres RR, Lemos MC (2016) Socio-climatic hotspots in Brazil: how do changes driven by the new set of IPCC climatic projections affect their relevance for policy? Clim Chang 136(3):413–425Google Scholar
  8. Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke R Jr (2009) Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation? In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien KL (eds) Adapting to climate change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Dilling L, Berggren J (2014) What do stakeholders need to manage for climate change and variability? A document-based analysis from three mountain states in the Western USA. Reg Environ Chang 15:657–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dilling L, Lackstrom K, Haywood B, Dow K, Lemos MC, Berggren J, Kalafatis S (2014) What stakeholder needs tell us about enabling adaptive capacity: the intersection of context and information provision across regions in the US. Weather, Climate Soc 7:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dow K, Murphy RL, Carbone GJ (2009) Consideration of user needs and spatial accuracy in drought mapping. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45(1):187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eakin H, Lemos MC, Nelson DR (2014) Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Glob Environ Change 27:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksen S, Aldunce P, Bahinipati CS et al (2011) When not every response to climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate Dev 3:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldman DL, Ingram HM (2009) Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water management, and knowledge networks. Weather, Climate Soc 1(1):9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon ES, Dilling L, McNie E, Ray AJ (2016) Navigating scales of knowledge and decision-making in the Intermountain West: implications for science policy. In: Climate in Context: Science and Society Partnering for Adaptation (eds A.S. Parris et al.), John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  16. Hulme M (2007) Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change. Trans Inst Br Geogr 33(1):5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–32Google Scholar
  18. Jiménez Cisneros BE, Oki T, Arnell NW et al. (2014) Freshwater resources. In: Field CB et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–269Google Scholar
  19. Jones L, Dougill A, Jones RG et al (2015) Ensuring climate information guides long-term development. Nat Clim Chang 5:812–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalafatis SE, Lemos MC, Lo YJ, Frank KA (2015) Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: the role of knowledge networks and communities of practice. Glob Environ Chang 32:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirchhoff CJ (2013) Understanding and enhancing climate information use in water management. Clim Chang 119:495–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirchhoff CJ, Dilling L (2016) The role of U.S. states in facilitating effective water governance under stress and change. Water Resour Res 52(4):2951–2964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Engle NL (2013) What influences climate information use in water management? the role of boundary organizations and governance regimes in Brazil and the U.S. Environ Sci Pol 26:6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirchhoff CJ, Esselman R, Brown D (2015) Boundary organizations to boundary chains: prospects for advancing climate science application. Clim Risk Manag 9:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lach D, Ingram H, Rayner S (2003) Coping with climate variability: municipal water agencies in Southern California. In: Diaz HF, Morehouse BJ (eds) Climate and water: transboundary challenges in the Americas. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemos MC (2015) Usable climate knowledge for adaptive and co-managed water governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:48–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemos MC, Morehouse B (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Chang 15:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Ramprasad V (2012) Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat Clim Chang 2:789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Kalafatis SE, Scavia D, Rood RB (2014) Moving climate information off the shelf: boundary chains and the role of RISAs as adaptive organizations. Weather, Climate Soc 6:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lopez A, Fung F, New M, Watts G, Weston A, Wilby RL (2009) From climate model ensembles to climate change impacts: a case study of water resource management in the South West of England. Water Resour Res 45:W08419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlove BS, Leiserowitz A, Krantz DH, Roncoli C, Phillips J (2007) Communication and mental processes: experimental and analytical processing of uncertain climate information. Glob Environ Chang 17:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, Guido Z, Horangic A, Owen G (2015) Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, Soc 7(2):179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mearns LO (2010) The drama of uncertainty. Clim Chang 100:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moss RH, Meehl GA, Lemos MC, Smith JB, Arnold JR, Arnott JC, Behar D et al (2013) Hell and high water: practice-relevant adaptation science. Science 342:696–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NCA (2014) 2014 national climate assessment. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Brien K, Sygna L, Haugen JE (2004) Vulnerable or resilient? A multi-scale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway. Climate Change 64:193–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ostrom E (2001) Vulnerability and polycentric governance systems. Update: Newsl. Int. Hum. Dimens. Program. Glob. Environ. Chang. 3 http://www.ihdp.unibonn.de/html/publications/update/IHDPUpdate0103.html
  38. Phadke R, Manning C, Burlager S (2015) Making it personal: diversity and deliberation in climate adaptation planning. Clim Risk Manag 9:62–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poff NL, Brown CM, Grantham TE et al (2016) Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling. Nat Clim Chang 6:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rabe BG (2007) Beyond Kyoto: climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance 20(3):423–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H (2005) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not use climate forecasts. Climate Change 69:197–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reid H, Huq S (2014) Mainstreaming community-based adaptation into national and local planning. Climate Dev 6(4):291–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roncoli C, Jost C, Kirshen P et al (2009) From accessing to assessing forecasts: an end-to-end study of participatory climate forecast dissemination in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Clim Chang 92:433–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soares MB, Dessai S (2015) Exploring the use of seasonal climate forecasts in Europe through expert elicitation. Clim Risk Manag 10:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 Chang 4(1):39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weber EU (2006) Experience-based and decision-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare use (yet). Clim Chang 77:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolf J, Moser SC (2011) Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: insights from in-depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev – Climatic Change 2(4):547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woodruff SC, Stults M (2016) Numerous strategies but limited implementation guidance in US local adaptation plans. Nat Clim Chang. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3012 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations