Skip to main content

Typologizing Stakeholder Information Use to Better Understand the Impacts of Collaborative Climate Science

Environmental Management volume 65, pages 178–189 (2020)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard RH (2006) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60(4):726–742

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B (2009) Assessing the impact of research on policy: a literature review. Sci Public Policy 36(4):255–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman B, Sarewitz D (2011) Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva 49(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Choo CW (1998) The knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk J (2002) Theorising information use: managers and their work. University of Technology, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari A, Wathen N (2013) A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation. Health Policy 109(2):187–191

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos MC, Rood RB (2010) Climate projections and their impact on policy and practice. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim change 1(5):670–682

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McNie EC (2013) Delivering climate services: organizational strategies and approaches for producing useful climate-science information. Weather Clim Soc 5(1):14–26

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Meagher LR, Martin U (2017) Slightly dirty maths: the richly textured mechanisms of impact. Res Eval 26(1):15–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer R (2011) The public values failures of climate science in the US. Minerva 49:47–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton S (2015) Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach. Res Eval 24(4):405–419

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh CH (1996) Linking social science information to policy-making. Jai Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Penfield T, Baker MJ, Scoble R, Wykes MC (2014) Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review. Res Eval 23(1):21–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Polk M (2015) Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65:110–122

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich RF (1975) Selective utilization of social science related information by federal policy-makers. Inquiry 12(3):239–245

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rich RF (1979) The pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge 1(1):6–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich RF (1997) Measuring knowledge utilization: processes and outcomes. Knowl Policy 10(3):11–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich RF, Oh CH (2000) Rationality and use of information in policy decisions: a search for alternatives. Sci Commun 22(2):173–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña J (2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Inc., Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Soares MB, Alexander M, Dessai S (2018) Sectoral use of climate information in Europe: a synoptic overview. Clim Serv 9:5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaapen J, Van Drooge L (2011) Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Res Eval 20(3):211–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan G, Rafisura KM, Subbiah A (2011) Climate information requirements for community-level risk management and adaptation. Clim Res 47(1–2):5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Street RB (2016) Towards a leading role on climate services in Europe: a research and innovation roadmap. Clim Serv 1:2–5

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RS (1991) Information use environments. In: Dervin B (ed) Progress in communication sciences. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, p 217–225

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven AH, Johnson PE (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manag Rev 31(4):802–821

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss CH (1980) The politics of impact measurement. Political Stud 1:179–183

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson TD (2000) Human information behavior. Informing Sci 3(2):49–56

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Affiliations

  1. Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV, 89512, USA

    Kristin VanderMolen & Tamara U. Wall

  2. Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, 1064 E. Lowell Street, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Alison M. Meadow & Alexandra Horangic

Authors
  1. Kristin VanderMolen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison M. Meadow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexandra Horangic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tamara U. Wall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin VanderMolen.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01237-9

Keywords

  • Climate information use
  • Collaborative climate science
  • Natural resource management
  • Research impacts