Climatic Change

, Volume 135, Issue 1, pp 39–54 | Cite as

Engagement in the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment: commitment, capacity, and communication for impact

  • Emily CloydEmail author
  • Susanne C. Moser
  • Edward Maibach
  • Julie Maldonado
  • Tinqiao Chen


The National Climate Assessment’s ability to support decision-making partly relies on engaging stakeholders throughout the assessment process. The guiding vision for the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3) was for an inclusive, broad-based, and sustained process attentive to both the conduct of assessments and communication of findings. Such a process promotes dialogue between scientific experts, stakeholders, and decision-makers about what is important in a particular region or sector, the potential impacts of climate change, and possible responses. We sought to create actionable research and assessment products widely perceived as credible, salient, and legitimate. The process also sought to build capacity to conduct sustained assessments and use climate change information in decision-making processes. Here we describe how we pursued this stakeholder engagement vision during the planning, development, and release of NCA3. Through repeated opportunities for stakeholder. input, we ensured process transparency and inclusiveness in the framing of assessment and built human capital. We also increased connectivity among stakeholder organizations. By cultivating a network of collaborators who connected the NCA to other networks, the NCA3 engagement process laid the groundwork for a sustained assessment - which is envisaged to transition the traditional quadrennial assessment approach into a more dynamic and adaptive assessment process.


Stakeholder Engagement Sustained Assessment Stakeholder Involvement Engagement Strategy Engagement Process 
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.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1568_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)
10584_2015_1568_MOESM2_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 27 kb)
10584_2015_1568_MOESM3_ESM.docx (347 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 347 kb)
10584_2015_1568_MOESM4_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 18 kb)


  1. Adams P, Steeves J, Ashe B, Firth J, Rabb B (2014) Climate risks study for telecommunications and data center services, Report prepared for the General Services Administration. Accessed 10 May 2015
  2. Allegheny Highlands Climate Change Impacts Initiative (2015) On the chopping block: the impacts of global warming and climate change on the mid-atlantic allegheny highlands. Accessed 10 May 2015
  3. Bathke DJ, Oglesby RJ, Rowe CM, Wilhite DA (2014) Understanding and assessing climate change: Implications for Nebraska. Accessed 10 May 2015
  4. Boykoff MT (2015) 2000–2015 United States newspaper coverage of climate change or global warming (Updated Through May 2015). Accessed 3 June 2015
  5. Buizer JL, Fleming P, Hays SL, Dow K, Field CB, et al. (2013) Report on preparing the nation for change: Building a sustained National Climate Assessment process. Accessed 11 May 2015
  6. Buizer JL, Dow K, Black ME, Jacobs KL, Waple A, Moss RH, Moser S, Gustafson DI, Richmond TC, Hays SL, Field CB (2015) Building a sustained climate assessment process. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1501-4
  7. CCSP (2003) Strategic plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Accessed 15 October 2015
  8. Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekwurzel B, Frumhoff PC, McCarthy JJ (2011) Climate uncertainties and their disconents: increasing the impact of assessments on public understanding of climate risks and choices. Clim Chang 108:791–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell AE, Jäger J, VanDeever SD (2006) Overview: Understanding design choices. In: Farrell AE, Jäger J (eds) Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: designing processes for the effective use of science in decision making. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 1–24Google Scholar
  11. Garfin G, Jardine A (2013) Overview. In: Garfin G, Jardine A, Merideth R, Black M, LeRoy S (eds) Assessment of climate change in the southwest United States. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauser R, Jadin J (2012) Rural communities workshop. Technical report. Accessed 7 May 2015
  13. IPCC (2014) climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. Jäger J, Farrell AE (2006) Improving the practice of environmental assessment. In: Farrell AE, Jäger J (eds) Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: designing processes for the effective use of science in decision making. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 278–293Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs KL, Buizer JL (2015) Building community, credibility and knowledge: the third US National Climate Assessment. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1445-8
  16. Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (eds) (2009) Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Keller AC (2010) Credibility and relevance in environmental policy: measuring strategies and performance among science assessment organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory 20:357–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenney MA, Janetos AC (2015) Building an integrated national climate indicator system. Climatic Change (this issue)Google Scholar
  19. Keystone Center (2012) Final report and lessons learned: the climate conversations project. Submitted to The Energy Foundation. The Keystone Center, Washington, DC. Accessed 3 June 2015
  20. Maibach E, Cobb S, Leiserowitz A, Peters E, Schweizer V, et al. (2011) A national survey of television meteorologists about climate change education. Center for climate change communication. George Mason University, Fairfax VAGoogle Scholar
  21. McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Pol 10:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) (2014a) Climate change impacts in the United States: the Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC Accessed 3 June 2015
  23. Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (2014b) Appendix 1: Report development process. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 727–732Google Scholar
  24. Morgan MG, Cantor R, Clark WC, Fisher A, Jacoby HD, et al. (2005) Learning from the U.S. national assessment of climate change impacts. Environmental Science & Technology 39:9023–9032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moser SC (2005) Stakeholder involvement in the first U.S. national assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability and change: an evaluation, finally. Accessed 6 June 2014
  26. Moser SC, Berzonsky C (2015) There must be more: Communication to close the cultural divide. In: O’Brien K, Selboe E (eds) Culture and the adaptive challenge of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 287–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moss RH (2015) Assessing decision support systems and levels of confidence to narrow the climate information “usability gap”. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1549-1
  28. Moss R, Scarlett PL, Kenney MA, Kunreuther H, Lempert R, et al. (2014) Decision support: Connecting science, risk perception, and decisions. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 620–647Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council (NRC) (2007a) Analysis of global change assessments: lessons learned. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. NOAA, NCAnet Education Affinity Group, and CLEAN Network (2014) National Climate Assessment (NCA) teaching resources. http://wwwclimategov/teaching/2014-national-climate-assessment-resources-educators Accessed 3 June 2015
  31. NRC (2007b) Evaluating progress of the US Climate Change Science Program. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. NRC (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. NRC (2010a) Advancing the science of climate change. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. NRC (2010b) Informing effective responses to climate change. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. NCADAC (2011a) National Climate Assessment: interim strategy – summary. http://wwwglobalchangegov/sites/globalchange/files/NCADAC-May2011-Interim-Strategypdf Accessed 4 May 2015
  36. NCADAC (2011b) National Climate Assessment (NCA) engagement strategy. Accessed 4 May 2015
  37. NCAnet (2014) Workshop on building capacity for engagement around the Third National Climate Assessment Report. http://ncanetusgcrpgov/partners/calendar/nca3-engagement-workshop Accessed 10 May 2015
  38. Parson EA, Corell RW, Barron EJ, Burkett V, Janetos A, et al. (2003) Understanding climatic impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation in the United States: building a capacity for assessment. Clim Chang 57:9–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Risky Business Project (2014) Risky business: the economic risks of climate change in the United States. http://riskybusinessorg/uploads/files/RiskyBusiness_Report_WEB_09_08_14pdf Accessed 10 May 2015
  40. Tassel S (2015) Weather we don’t recognize: How climate change is affecting the Midwest’s weather and how communities are responding. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. USGCRP (2010b) Planning regional and sectoral assessments for the National Climate Assessment. Accessed 15 October 2015
  42. USGCRP (2011b) Supplement to: Request for information: technical inputs and assessment capacity on topics related to 2013 U.S. National Climate Assessment. Accessed 11 May 2015
  43. USGCRP (2014a) Comments received on public draft Third National Climate Assessment. http://wwwglobalchangegov/sites/globalchange/files/NCA3-Public-Commentspdf Accessed 11 May 2015
  44. USGCRP (2014b) Frameworks for evaluating the National Climate Assessment: workshop report. http://downloadsglobalchangegov/nca/workshop-reports/NCA-Evaluation-Frameworks-Workshop-Report-2014-finalpdf Accessed 11 May 2015
  45. USGCRP (2015) First National Climate Assessment 1997–2000. http://wwwglobalchangegov/engage/process-products/NCA1 Accessed 4 May 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Cloyd
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Susanne C. Moser
    • 3
    • 4
  • Edward Maibach
    • 5
  • Julie Maldonado
    • 6
  • Tinqiao Chen
    • 7
  1. 1.ICF InternationalWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.University Corporation for Atmospheric ResearchWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Susanne Moser Research & ConsultingSanta CruzUSA
  4. 4.Woods Institute for the EnvironmentStanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA
  5. 5.Center for Climate Change CommunicationGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  6. 6.University of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  7. 7.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations