Informing Decisions with Climate Change Information

  • Liese CoulterEmail author
  • Anne Coudrain
Part of the Springer Climate book series (SPCL)


This chapter offers a synthesis of perspectives to better communicate climate information for decision-making. Climate communication does not begin by considering how projected climate change influences long-term investments for infrastructure planning, or what far-sighted policy can manage social and environmental change. When centred on useful application, climate change communication begins by considering what information is already known and what drives the need for new knowledge. Traditionally driven by scientists, communicating what is known about climate change is increasingly influenced by the decision-makers who will use this information. Better understanding is needed of the ways in which existing and new mechanisms develop observations and analytic outputs to become the knowledge needed, especially considering the limits of what can be known. How information is derived influences how it can be communicated, from numeric model outputs to scenario visualizations. By involving stakeholders in both generating and communicating climate information from its initial development, many more actors can consider when, and how, to use knowledge of climate change.


Adaptation Application Evidence-based Mitigation Policy Stakeholder 


  1. Bai X, van der Leeuw S, O’Brien K, Berkhout F, Biermann F, Brondizio ES, Cudennec C, Dearing J, Duraiappah A, Glaser M, Revkin A, Steffen W, Syvitski J (2016) Plausible and desirable futures in the anthropocene: a new research agenda. Glob Environ Change 39:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonneuil C, Fressoz J-B (2016) The shock of the anthropocene: the earth, history and us. Verso Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Dalby S (2015) Framing the anthropocene: the good, the bad and the ugly. Anthrop Rev 3(1):33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hewitt C, Mason S, Walland D (2012) The global framework for climate services. Nat Climate Change 2:831–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Summary for Policymakers. IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. Jasanoff S (2010) A new climate for society. Theory Cult Soc 27:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Raford N (2015) Online foresight platforms: evidence for their impact on scenario planning & strategic foresight. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 97:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schnase JL, Duffy DQ, Tamkin GS, Nadeau D, Thompson JH, Grieg CM, McInerney MA, Webster WP (2017) MERRA analytic services: meeting the big data challenges of climate science through cloud-enabled climate analytics-as-a-service. Comput Environ Urban Syst 61:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Stuiver M, Leeuwis C, Klostermann JEM, Turnhout E, Harms B (2013) New roles of science in society: different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Sci Public Policy 40:354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Swart R, Bernstein L, Ha-Duong M, Petersen A (2008) Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC. Clim Change 92:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Szpunar KK, Spreng RN, Schacter DL (2014) A taxonomy of prospection: introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:18414–18421CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cities Research Institute, Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Unité de recherche ESPACE-DEVIRD, Universités UM UR UG UA, Maison TeledetectMontpellier Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations