195

Foundations for

Decision Making

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Roger N. Jones (Australia), Anand Patwardhan (India)

Lead Authors:

Stewart J. Cohen (Canada), Suraje Dessai (UK/Portugal), Annamaria Lammel (France),

Robert J. Lempert (USA), M. Monirul Qader Mirza (Bangladesh/Canada), Hans von Storch

(Germany)

Contributing Authors:

Werner Krauss (Germany), Johanna Wolf (Germany/Canada), Celeste Young (Australia)

Review Editors:

Rosina Bierbaum (USA), Nicholas King (South Africa)

Volunteer Chapter Scientist:

Pankaj Kumar (India/Japan)

This chapter should be cited as:

Jones

, R.N., A. Patwardhan, S.J. Cohen, S. Dessai, A. Lammel, R.J. Lempert, M.M.Q. Mirza, and H. von Storch,

2014: Foundations for decision making. In: 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

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach,

M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy,

S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 195-228.

196

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 198

2.1. Introduction and Key Concepts .............................................................................................................................. 199

2.1.1. Decision-Making Approaches in this Report ..................................................................................................................................... 199

2.1.2. Iterative Risk Management ............................................................................................................................................................... 200

2.1.3. Decision Support ............................................................................................................................................................................... 202

2.2. Contexts for Decision Making ................................................................................................................................ 203

2.2.1. Social Context ................................................................................................................................................................................... 203

2.2.1.1.Cultural Values and Determinants ........................................................................................................................................ 203

2.2.1.2.Psychology ........................................................................................................................................................................... 204

2.2.1.3.Language and Meaning ....................................................................................................................................................... 204

2.2.1.4.Ethics ................................................................................................................................................................................... 205

2.2.2. Institutional Context ......................................................................................................................................................................... 206

2.2.2.1.Institutions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 206

2.2.2.2.Governance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 207

2.3. Methods, Tools, and Processes for Climate-related Decisions ................................................................................ 207

2.3.1. Treatment of Uncertainties ............................................................................................................................................................... 207

2.3.2. Scenarios .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 208

2.3.3. Evaluating Trade-offs and Multi-metric Valuation ............................................................................................................................. 208

2.3.4. Learning, Review, and Reframing ..................................................................................................................................................... 209

2.4. Support for Climate-related Decisions ................................................................................................................... 210

2.4.1. Climate Information and Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 210

Box 2-1. Managing Wicked Problems with Decision Support ..................................................................................................... 211

2.4.1.1.Climate Services: History and Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 211

2.4.1.2.Climate Services: Practices and Decision Support ................................................................................................................. 212

2.4.1.3.The Geo-political Dimension of Climate Services ................................................................................................................. 212

2.4.2. Assessing Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability on a Range of Scales ............................................................................................. 213

2.4.2.1.Assessing Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................ 213

2.4.2.2.Assessing Vulnerability, Risk, and Adaptive Capacity ........................................................................................................... 214

2.4.3. Climate-related Decisions in Practice ................................................................................................................................................ 214

2.5. Linking Adaptation with Mitigation and Sustainable Development ...................................................................... 216

2.5.1. Assessing Synergies and Trade-offs with Mitigation ......................................................................................................................... 216

2.5.2. Linkage with Sustainable Development: Resilience .......................................................................................................................... 216

2.5.3. Transformation: How Do We Make Decisions Involving Transformation? .......................................................................................... 217

References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 218

Table of Contents

197

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

Frequently Asked Questions

2.1: What constitutes a good (climate) decision? .................................................................................................................................... 200

2.2: Which is the best method for climate change decision making/assessing adaptation? .................................................................... 210

2.3: Is climate change decision making different from other kinds of decision making? ......................................................................... 216

198

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

Executive Summary

Decision support for impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability is expanding from science-driven linear methods to a wide range of

methods drawing from many disciplines (robust evidence, high agreement). This chapter introduces new material from disciplines

including behavioral science, ethics, and cultural and organizational theory, thus providing a broader perspective on climate change decision

making. Previous assessment methods and policy advice have been framed by the assumption that better science will lead to better decisions.

Extensive evidence from the decision sciences shows that while good scientific and technical information is necessary, it is not sufficient, and

decisions require context-appropriate decision-support processes and tools (robust evidence, high agreement). There now exists a sufficiently

rich set of available methods, tools, and processes to support effective climate impact, adaptation, and vulnerability (CIAV) decisions in a wide

range of contexts (medium evidence, medium agreement), although they may not always be appropriately combined or readily accessible to

decision makers. {2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.3}

Risk management provides a useful framework for most climate change decision making. Iterative risk management is most

suitable in situations characterized by large uncertainties, long time frames, the potential for learning over time, and the influence

of both climate as well as other socioeconomic and biophysical changes (robust evidence, high agreement).

Complex decision-making

contexts will ideally apply a broad definition of risk, address and manage relevant perceived risks, and assess the risks of a broad range of

plausible future outcomes and alternative risk management actions (robust evidence, medium agreement). The resulting challenge is for people

and organizations to apply CIAV decision-making processes in ways that address their specific aims. {2.1.2, 2.2.1, 2.3, 2.4.3}

Decision support is situated at the intersection of data provision, expert knowledge, and human decision making at a range of

scales from the individual to the organization and institution. Decision support is defined as a set of processes intended to create the

conditions for the production of decision-relevant information and its appropriate use. Such support is most effective when it is context-sensitive,

taking account of the diversity of different types of decisions, decision processes, and constituencies (robust evidence, high agreement).

Boundary organizations, including climate services, play an important role in climate change knowledge transfer and communication, including

translation, engagement, and knowledge exchange (medium evidence, high agreement). {2.1.3, 2.2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3}

Scenarios are a key tool for addressing uncertainty (robust evidence, high agreement). They can be divided into those that explore

how futures may unfold under various drivers (problem exploration) and those that test how various interventions may play out

(solution exploration).

Historically, most scenarios used for CIAV assessments have been of the former type, though the latter are becoming

more prevalent (medium evidence, high agreement). The new RCP scenario process can address both problem and solution framing in ways

that previous IPCC scenarios have not been able to (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.2.1.3, 2.3.2}

CIAV decision making involves ethical judgments expressed at a range of institutional scales; the resulting ethical judgements

are a key part of risk governance (robust evidence, medium agreement). Recognition of local and indigenous knowledge and diverse

stakeholder interests, values, and expectations is fundamental to building trust within decision-making processes (robust evidence, high

agreement). {2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4, 2.4, 2.4.1}

Climate services aim to make knowledge about climate accessible to a wide range of decision makers. In doing so they have to

consider information supply, competing sources of knowledge, and user demand. Knowledge transfer is a negotiated process that takes a

variety of cultural values, orientations, and alternative forms of knowledge into account (medium evidence, high agreement). {2.4.1, 2.4.2}

Climate change response can be linked with sustainable development through actions that enhance resilience, the capacity to

change in order to maintain the same identity while also maintaining the capacity to adapt, learn, and transform.

Mainstreamed

adaptation, disaster risk management, and new types of governance and institutional arrangements are being studied for their potential to

support the goal of enhanced resilience (medium evidence, high agreement). {2.5.2}

Transformational adaptation may be required if incremental adaptation proves insufficient (medium evidence, high agreement). This

process may require changes in existing social structures, institutions, and values, which can be facilitated by iterative risk management and triple-

loop learning that considers a situation and its drivers, along with the underlying frames and values that provide the situation context. {2.1.2, 2.5.3}

199

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

2.1. Introduction and Key Concepts

This chapter addresses the foundations of decision making with respect

to climate impact, adaptation, and vulnerability (CIAV). The Fourth

ssessment Report (AR4) summarized methods for assessing CIAV

(Carter et al., 2007), which we build on by surveying the broader

literature relevant for decision making.

Decision making under climate change has largely been modeled on

the scientific understanding of the cause-and-effect process whereby

increasing greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, resulting

in changing impacts and risks, potentially increasing vulnerability to

those risks. The resulting decision-making guidance on impacts and

adaptation follows a rational-linear process that identifies potential

risks and then evaluates management responses (e.g., Carter et al.,

1994; Feenstra et al., 1998; Parry and Carter, 1998; Fisher et al., 2007).

This process has been challenged on the grounds that it does not

adequately address the diverse contexts within which climate decisions

are being made, often neglects existing decision-making processes, and

overlooks many cultural and behavioral aspects of decision making

(Smit and Wandel, 2006; Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007; Dovers, 2009; Beck,

2010). While more recent guidance on CIAV decision making typically

accounts for sectoral, regional, and socioeconomic characteristics

(Section 21.3), the broader decision-making literature is still not fully

reflected in current methods. This is despite an increasing emphasis

on the roles of societal impacts and responses to climate change in

decision-making methodologies (high confidence) (Sections 1.1, 1.2,

21.2.1).

The main considerations that inform the decision-making contexts

addressed here are knowledge generation and exchange, who makes

and implements decisions, and the issues being addressed and how

these can be addressed. These decisions occur within a broader social

and cultural environment. Knowledge generation and exchange

includes knowledge generation, development, brokering, exchange, and

application to practice. Decision makers include policymakers, managers,

planners, and practitioners, and range from individuals to organizations

and institutions (Table 21-1). Relevant issues include all areas affected

directly and indirectly by climate impacts or by responses to those

impacts, covering diverse aspects of society and the environment.

These issues include consideration of values, purpose, goals, available

resources, the time over which actions are expected to remain effective,

and the extent to which the objectives being pursued are regarded as

appropriate. The purpose of the decision in question, for example,

assessment, strategic planning, or implementation, will also define the

framework and tools needed to enable the process. This chapter neither

provides any standard template or instructions for decision making, nor

does it endorse particular decisions over others.

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.1.2

addresses risk management, which provides an overall framework

suitable for CIAV decision making; Section 2.1.3 introduces decision

support; Section 2.2 discusses contexts for decision making; Section 2.3

discusses methods, tools, and processes; Section 2.4 discusses support

for and application of decision making; and Section 2.5 describes some

of the broader contexts influencing CIAV decision making.

2.1.1. Decision-Making Approaches in this Report

The overarching theme of the chapter and the AR5 report is managing

current and future climate risks (Sections 1.2.4, 16.2, 19.1), principally

through adaptation (Chapters 14 to 17), but also through resilience and

sustainable development informed by an understanding of both impacts

and vulnerability (Section 19.2). The International Standard ISO:31000

defines risk as the effect of uncertainty on objectives (ISO, 2009) and

the Working Group II AR5 Glossary defines risk as The potential for

consequences where something of human value (including humans

themselves) is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain (Rosa, 2003).

However, the Glossary also refers to a more operational definition for

assessing climate-related hazards: risk is often represented as

probability of occurrence of hazardous events or trends multiplied by the

consequences if these events occur. Risk can also refer to an uncertain

opportunity or benefit (see Section 2.2.1.3). This chapter takes a broader

perspective than the latter by including risks associated with taking

action (e.g., will this adaptation strategy be successful?) and the

broader socially constructed risks that surround “climate change” (e.g.,

fatalism, hope, opportunity, and despair).

Because all decisions on CIAV are affected by uncertainty and focus on

valued objectives, all can be considered as decisions involving risk

(e.g., Giddens, 2009) (high confidence). AR4 endorsed iterative risk

management as a suitable decision support framework for CIAV

assessment because it offers formalized methods for addressing

uncertainty, involving stakeholder participation, identifying potential

policy responses, and evaluating those responses (Carter et al., 2007;

IPCC, 2007b; Yohe et al., 2007). The literature shows significant

advances on all these topics since AR4 (Section 1.1.4), greatly expanding

methodologies for assessing impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in

a risk context (Agrawala and Fankhauser, 2008; Hinkel, 2011; Jones and

Preston, 2011; Preston et al., 2011).

Many different risk methodologies, such as financial, natural disaster,

infrastructure, environmental health, and human health, are relevant for

CIAV decision making (very high confidence). Each methodology utilizes

a variety of different tools and methods. For example, the standard CIAV

methodology follows a top-down cause and effect pathway as outlined

previously. Others follow a bottom-up pathway, starting with a set of

decision-making goals that may be unrelated to climate and consider

how climate may affect those goals (see also Sections 15.2.1, 15.3.1).

Some methodologies such as vulnerability, resilience, and livelihood

assessments are often considered as being different from traditional

risk assessment, but may be seen as dealing with particular stages

within a longer term iterative risk management process. For example,

developing resilience can be seen as managing a range of potential

risks that are largely unpredictable; and sustainable development aims

to develop a social-ecological system robust to climate risks.

A major aim of decision making is to make good or better decisions. Good

and better decisions with respect to climate adaptation are frequently

mentioned in the literature but no universal criterion exists for a good

decision, including a good climate-related decision (Moser and Ekstrom,

2010). This is reflected in the numerous framings linked to adaptation

decision making, each having its advantages and disadvantages

200

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

(Preston et al., 2013; see also Section 15.2.1). Extensive evidence from

the decision sciences shows that good scientific and technical information

alone is rarely sufficient to result in better decisions (Bell and Lederman,

2003; Jasanoff, 2010; Pidgeon and Fischhoff, 2011) (high confidence).

Aspects of decision making that distinguish climate change from most

other contexts are the long time scales involved, the pervasive impacts

and resulting risks, and the “deep” uncertainties attached to many of

those risks (Kandlikar et al., 2005; Ogden and Innes, 2009; Lempert and

McKay, 2011). These uncertainties include not only future climate but

also socioeconomic change and potential changes in norms and values

within and across generations.

2.1.2. Iterative Risk Management

Iterative risk management involves an ongoing process of assessment,

action, reassessment, and response (Kambhu et al., 2007; IRGC, 2010)

that will continue—in the case of many climate-related decisions—for

decades if not longer (National Research Council, 2011). This development

is consistent with an increasing focus on risk governance (Power, 2007;

Renn, 2008), the integration of climate risks with other areas of risk

management (Hellmuth et al., 2011; Measham et al., 2011), and a wide

range of approaches for structured decision making involving process

uncertainty (Ohlson et al., 2005; Wilson and McDaniels, 2007; Ogden

and Innes, 2009; Martin et al., 2011).

Two levels of interaction can be recognized within the iterative risk

management process: one internal and one external (Figure 2-1).

External factors are present through the entire process and shape the

process outcomes. The internal aspects describe the adaptation process

itself. The first major internal iteration (in yellow) reflects the interplay

with the analysis phase by addressing the interactions between evolving

risks and their feedbacks (not shown) and during the development and

choice of options. This process may also require a revision of criteria

and objectives. This phase ends with decisions on the favored options

being made. A further internal iteration covers the implementation of

actions and their monitoring and review (in orange). Throughout all

stages the process is reflexive, in order to enable changes in knowledge,

risks, or circumstances to be identified and responded to. At the end of

the implementation stage, all stages are evaluated and the process starts

again with the scoping phase. Iterations can be successive, on a set

timetable, triggered by specific criteria or informally by new information

informing risk or a change in the policy environment. An important

aspect of this process is to recognize emergent risks and respond to

them (Sections 19.2.3, 19.2.4, 19.2.5, 19.3).

Complexity is an important attribute for framing and implementing

decision-making processes (very high confidence). Simple, well-bounded

contexts involving cause and effect can be addressed by straightforward

linear methods. Complicated contexts require greater attention to process

but can generally be unravelled, providing an ultimate solution (Figure

2-2). However, when complex environments interact with conflicting

values they become associated with wicked problems. Wicked problems

are not well bounded, are framed differently by various groups and

individuals, harbor large scientific to existential uncertainties and have

unclear solutions and pathways to those solutions (Rittel and Webber,

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 2.1 | What constitutes a good (climate) decision?

No universal criterion exists for a good decision, including a good climate-related decision. Seemingly reasonable

decisions can turn out badly, and seemingly unreasonable decisions can turn out well. However, ﬁndings from

decision theory, risk governance, ethical reasoning, and related ﬁelds offer general principles that can help improve

the quality of decisions made.

Good decisions tend to emerge from processes in which people are explicit about their goals; consider a range of

alternative options for pursuing their goals; use the best available science to understand the potential consequences

of their actions; carefully consider the trade-offs; contemplate the decision from a wide range of views and

vantages, including those who are not represented but may be affected; and follow agreed-upon rules and norms

that enhance the legitimacy of the process for all those concerned. A good decision will be implementable within

constraints such as current systems and processes, resources, knowledge, and institutional frameworks. It will have

a given lifetime over which it is expected to be effective, and a process to track its effectiveness. It will have deﬁned

and measurable criteria for success, in that monitoring and review is able to judge whether measures of success

are being met, or whether those measures, or the decision itself, need to be revisited.

A good climate decision requires information on climate, its impacts, potential risks, and vulnerability to be integrated

into an existing or proposed decision-making context. This may require a dialog between users and specialists to

jointly ascertain how a speciﬁc task can best be undertaken within a given context with the current state of scientiﬁc

knowledge. This dialog may be facilitated by individuals, often known as knowledge brokers or extension agents,

and boundary organizations, who bridge the gap between research and practice. Climate services are boundary

organizations that provide and facilitate knowledge about climate, climate change, and climate impacts for planning,

decision making, and general societal understanding of the climate system.

201

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

1973; Australian Public Service Commission, 2007). Such “deep

uncertainty” cannot easily be quantified (Dupuy and Grinbaum, 2005;

Kandlikar et al., 2005). Another important attribute of complex

systems is reflexivity, where cause and effect feed back into each

other (see Glossary). For example, actions taken to manage a risk will

affect the outcomes, requiring iterative processes of decision making

(very high confidence). Under climate change, calculated risks will

also change with time as new knowledge becomes available (Ranger

et al., 2010).

In complex situations, sociocultural and cognitive-behavioral contexts

become central to decision making. This requires combining the scientific

understanding of risk with how risks are framed and perceived by

individuals, organizations, and institutions (Hansson, 2010). For that

reason, formal risk assessment is moving from a largely technocratic

exercise carried out by experts to a more participatory process of decision

support (Fiorino, 1990; Pereira and Quintana, 2002; Renn, 2008),

although this process is proceeding slowly (Christoplos et al., 2001;

Pereira and Quintana, 2002; Bradbury, 2006; Mercer et al., 2008).

Different traditional and modern epistemologies, or “ways of knowing”

exist for risk (Hansson, 2004; Althaus, 2005; Hansson, 2010),

vulnerability (Weichselgartner, 2001; O’Brien et al., 2007), and

adaptation assessments (Adger et al., 2009), affecting the way they are

framed by various disciplines and are also understood by the public

(Garvin, 2001; Adger, 2006; Burch and Robinson, 2007). These differences

have been identified as a source of widespread misunderstanding and

disagreement. They are also used to warn against a uniform epistemic

approach (Hulme, 2009; Beck, 2010), a critique that has been leveled

against previous IPCC assessments (e.g., Hulme and Mahony, 2010).

The following three types of risk have been identified as important

epistemological constructs (Thompson, 1986; Althaus, 2005; Jones,

2012):

1. Idealized risk: the conceptual framing of the problem at hand. For

example, dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate

system is how climate change risk is idealized within the UNFCCC.

2. Calculated risk: the product of a model based on a mixture of

historical (observed) and theoretical information. Frequentist or

recurrent risks often utilize historical information whereas single-

event risks may be unprecedented, requiring a more theoretical

approach.

3. Perceived risk: the subjective judgment people make about an

idealized risk (see also Section 19.6.1.4).

These different types show risk to be partly an objective threat of harm

and partly a product of social and cultural experience (Kasperson et al.,

1988; Kasperson, 1992; Rosa, 2008). The aim of calculating risk is to be

as objective as possible, but the subjective nature of idealized and

perceived risk reflects the division between positivist (imposed norms)

and constructivist (derived norms) approaches to risk from the natural

and social sciences respectively (Demeritt, 2001; Hansson, 2010).

Idealized risk is important for framing and conceptualizing risk and will

often have formal and informal status in the assessment process,

contributing to both calculated and perceived risk. These types of risk

combine at the societal scale as socially constructed risk, described and

Identify risks,

vulnerabilities,

and objectives

Establish decision

making criteria

Scoping

Implementation

Review

& learn

Implement

decision

Monitor

Assess

risks

Identify

options

Evaluate

tradeoffs

Analysis

Knowledge

Context

Deliberative Process

People

Figure 2-1 | Iterative risk management framework depicting the assessment process, and indicating multiple feedbacks within the system and extending to the overall context

(adapted from Willows and Connell, 2003).

202

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

assessed in a wide range of research literature such as psychology,

anthropology, geography, ethics, sociology, and political science (see

Sections 2.2.1.2, 19.6.1.4).

Acceptance of the science behind controversial risks is strongly influenced

by social and cultural values and beliefs (Leiserowitz, 2006; Kahan et

al., 2007; Brewer and Pease, 2008). Risk perceptions can be amplified

socially where events pertaining to hazards interact with psychological,

social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that heighten or

attenuate individual and social perceptions of risk and shape risk

behavior (Kasperson et al., 1988; Renn et al., 1992; Pidgeon et al.,

2003; Rosa, 2003; Renn, 2011). The media have an important role in

propagating both calculated and perceived risk (Llasat et al., 2009),

sometimes to detrimental effect (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007; Oreskes

and Conway, 2010; Woods et al., 2012).

Understanding how these perceptions resonate at an individual and

collective level can help overcome constraints to action (Renn, 2011).

Science is most suited to calculating risk in areas where it has predictive

skill and will provide better estimates than may be obtained through

more informal methods (Beck, 2000), but an assessment of what is at

risk generally needs to be accepted by stakeholders (Eiser et al., 2012).

Therefore, the science always sits within a broader social setting

(Jasanoff, 1996; Demeritt, 2001; Wynne, 2002; Demeritt, 2006), often

requiring a systems approach where science and policy are investigated

in tandem, rather than separately (Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Ison, 2010) (very

high confidence). These different types of risk give rise to complex

interactions between formal and informal knowledge that cannot be

bridged by better science or better predictions but require socially and

culturally mediated processes of engagement (high confidence).

2.1.3. Decision Support

The concept of decision support provides a useful framework for

understanding how risk-based concepts and information can help

enhance decision making (McNie, 2007; National Research Council Panel

on Design Issues for the NOAA Sectoral Applications Research Program

et al., 2007; Moser, 2009; Romsdahl and Pyke, 2009; Kandlikar et al.,

2011; Pidgeon and Fischhoff, 2011) The concept also helps situate

methods, tools, and processes intended to improve decision making

within appropriate institutional and cultural contexts.

Decision support is defined as “a set of processes intended to create

the conditions for the production of decision-relevant information and

for its appropriate use” (National Research Council, 2009a, p. 33).

Information is decision-relevant if it yields deeper understanding of, or

is incorporated into making a choice that improves outcomes for decision

makers and stakeholder or precipitates action to manage known risks.

Effective decision support provides users with information they find useful

because they consider it credible, legitimate, actionable, and salient

(e.g., Jones et al., 1999; Cash et al., 2003; Mitchell, 2006; Reid et al.,

2007). Such criteria can be used to evaluate decision support and such

evaluations lead to common principles of effective decision support,

which have been summarized in National Research Council (2009b) as:

• Begins with user’s needs, not scientific research priorities. Users

may not always know their needs in advance, so user needs are

often developed collaboratively and iteratively among users and

researchers.

• Emphasizes processes over products. Though the information

products are important, they are likely to be ineffective if they are

not developed to support well-considered processes.

Methodology

Approach

Stakeholder strategy

Mental models

Values and outcomes

Monitoring

Linear, cause and effect

Analytic and technical

Communication

Common model

Widely accepted

Straightforward

Top down and/or bottom up,

iterative

Collaborative process with

technical input

Collaboration

Negotiated and shared

Negotiated over project by user

perspectives and calculated risk

With review and trigger points

Iterative and/or adaptive, ongoing and systemic

Process driven. Frame and model multiple

drivers and valued outcomes

Deliberation, creating shared understanding

and ownership

Contested initially and negotiated over project

As real-time as possible, adaptive with

management feedback and trigger points

Calculated

risk

Perceived

risk

Simple risk Complicated risk Complex risk

Characteristics of decision making

Circle size increases with uncertainty

Figure 2-2 | Hierarchy of simple, complicated, and complex risks, showing how perceived risks multiply and become less connected with calculated risk with increasing

complexity. Also shown are major characteristics of assessment methods for each level of complexity.

203

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

•

Incorporates systems that link users and producers of information.

These systems generally respect the differing cultures of decision

makers and scientists, but provide processes and institutions that

effectively link individuals from these differing communities.

• Builds connections across disciplines and organizations, in order to

provide for the multidisciplinary character of the needed information

and the differing communities and organizations in which this

information resides.

• Seeks institutional stability, either through stable institutions and/or

networks, which facilitates building the trust and familiarity needed

for effective links and connections among information users and

producers in many different organizations and communities.

• Incorporates learning, so that all parties recognize the need for and

contribute to the implementation of decision support activities

structured for flexibility, adaptability, and learning from experience.

These principles can lead to different decision support processes

depending on the stage and context of the decision in question. For

instance, decision support for a large water management agency

operating an integrated system serving millions of people will have

different needs than a small town seeking to manage its groundwater

supplies. A community in the early stages of developing a response to

climate change may be more focused on raising awareness of the issue

among its constituents, while a community with a well-developed

understanding of its risks may be more focused on assessing trade-offs

and allocating resources.

2.2. Contexts for Decision Making

This section surveys aspects of decision making that relate to context

setting. Social context addresses cultural values, psychology, language,

and ethics (Section 2.2.1) and institutional context covers institutions

and governance (Section 2.2.2).

2.2.1. Social Context

Decision support for CIAV must recognize that diverse values, language

uses, ethics, and human psychological dimensions play a crucial role in

the way that people use and process information and take decisions

(Kahan and Braman, 2006; Leiserowitz, 2006). As illustrated in Figure

2-1, the context defines and frames the space in which decision-making

processes operate.

2.2.1.1. Cultural Values and Determinants

Cultural differences allocate values and guide socially mediated change.

Five value dimensions that show significant cross-national variations

are: power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,

long-/short-term orientation, and masculinity/femininity (Hofstede, 1980,

2001; Hofstede et al., 2010). Power distance and individualism/

collectivism both show a link to climate via latitude; the former relates

to willingness to conform to top-down directives, whereas the latter

relates to the potential efficacy of market-/community-based strategies.

Uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation show considerable

ariation between countries (Hofstede et al., 2010), potentially producing

significant differences in risk perception and agency.

Environmental values have also been linked to cultural orientation.

Schultz et al. (2004) identified the association between self and nature in

people as being implicit—informing actions without specific awareness.

A strong association was linked to a more connected self and a weaker

association with a more egoistic self. Explicit environmental values can

substantially influence climate change-related decision-making processes

(Nilsson et al., 2004; Milfont and Gouveia, 2006; Soyez et al., 2009) and

public behavior toward policies (Stern and Dietz, 1994; Xiao and

Dunlap, 2007). Schaffrin (2011) concludes that geographical aspects,

vulnerability, and potential policy benefits associated with a given issue

can influence individual perceptions and willingness to act (De Groot

and Steg, 2007, 2008; Shwom et al., 2008; Milfont et al., 2010). Cultural

values can interrelate with specific physical situations of climate change

(Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000), or seasonal and meteorological factors

influencing people’s implicit connections with nature (Duffy and Verges,

2010). Religious and sacred values are also important (Goloubinoff,

1997; Katz et al., 2002; Lammel et al., 2008), informing the perception

of climate change and risk, as well as the actions to adapt (Crate and

Nuttal, 2009; see also Section 16.3.1.3). The role of protected values

(values that people will not trade off, or negotiate) can also be culturally

and spiritually significant (Baron and Spranca, 1997; Baron et al., 2009;

Hagerman et al., 2010). Adger et al. (2013) emphasize the importance

of cultural values in assessing risks and adaptation options, suggesting

they are at least as important as economic values in many cases, if not

more so. These aspects are important for framing and conceptualizing

CIAV decision making. Cultural and social barriers are described in

Section 16.3.2.7.

Two distinct ways of thinking—holistic and analytical thinking—reflect

the relationship between humans and nature and are cross-culturally

and even intra-culturally diverse (Gagnon Thompson and Barton, 1994;

Huber and Pedersen, 1997; Atran et al., 2005; Ignatow, 2006; Descola,

2010; Ingold, 2011). Holistic thinking is primarily gained through

experience and is dialectical, accepting contradictions and integrating

multiple perspectives. Characteristic of collectivist societies, the holistic

conceptual model considers that social obligations are reciprocal and

individuals take an active part in the community for the benefit of all

(Peng and Nisbett, 1999; Nisbett et al., 2001; Lammel and Kozakai,

2005; Nisbett and Miyamoto, 2005). Analytical thinking isolates the

object from its broader context, understanding its characteristics

through categorization, and predicting events based on intrinsic rules.

In the analytic conceptual model, individual interests take precedence

over the collective; the self is independent and communication comes

from separate fields. These differences influence the understanding of

complex systemic phenomena such as climate change (Lammel et al.,

2011, 2012, 2013) and decision-making practices (Badke-Schaub and

Strohschneider, 1998; Strohschneider and Güss, 1999; Güss et al., 2010).

The above models vary greatly across the cultural landscape, but neither

model alone is sufficient for decision making in complex situations (high

confidence). At a very basic level, egalitarian societies may respond

more to community based adaptation in contrast to more individualistic

societies that respond to market-based forces (medium confidence). In

small-scale societies, knowledge about climate risks are often integrated

204

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

nto a holistic view of community and environment (e.g., Katz et al.,

2002; Strauss and Orlove, 2003; Lammel et al., 2008). Many studies

highlight the importance of integrating local, traditional knowledge with

scientific knowledge when assessing CIAV (Magistro and Roncoli, 2001;

Krupnik and Jolly, 2002; Vedwan, 2006; Nyong et al., 2007; Dube and

Sekhwela, 2008; Crate and Nuttal, 2009; Mercer et al., 2009; Roncoli et

al., 2009; Green and Raygorodetsky, 2010; Orlove et al., 2010; Crate,

2011; Nakashima et al., 2012; see also Sections 12.3, 12.3.1, 12.3.2,

12.3.3, 12.3.4, 14.4.5, 14.4.7, 15.3.2.7, 25.8.2, 28.2.6.1, 28.4.1). For

example, a case study in Labrador (Canada) demonstrated the need to

account for local material and symbolic values because they shape the

relationship to the land, underlie the way of life, influence the intangible

effects of climate change, and can lead to diverging views on

adaptations (Wolf et al., 2012). In Kiribati, the integration of local cultural

values attached to resources/assets is fundamental to adaptation

planning and water management; otherwise technology will not be

properly utilized (Kuruppu, 2009).

2.2.1.2. Psychology

Psychology plays a significant role in climate change decision making

(Gifford, 2008; Swim et al., 2010; Anderson, 2011). Important

psychological factors for decision making include perception,

representation, knowledge acquisition, memory, behavior, emotions,

and understanding of risk (Böhm and Pfister, 2000; Leiserowitz, 2006;

Lorenzoni et al., 2006; Oskamp and Schultz, 2006; Sterman and

Sweeney, 2007; Gifford, 2008; Kazdin, 2009; Sundblad et al., 2009;

Reser et al., 2011; Swim et al., 2011).

Psychological research contributes to understanding on both risk

perception and the process of adaptation. Several theories, such as

multi-attribute utility theory (Keeney, 1992), prospect theory (Kahneman

and Tversky, 1979; Hardman, 2009), and cumulative prospect theory

relate to decision making under uncertainty (Tversky and Kahneman,

1992), especially to risk perception and agency. Adaptation in complex

situations pits an unsure gain against an unsure loss, so creates an

asymmetry in preference that magnifies with time as gains/losses are

expected to accrue in future. Decisions focusing on values and

uncertainty are therefore subject to framing effects. Recent cognitive

approaches include the one-reason decision process that uses limited

data in a limited time period (Gigerenzer and Goldstein, 1996) or decision

by sampling theory that samples real-world data to account for the

cognitive biases observed in behavioral economics (Stewart et al., 2006;

Stewart and Simpson, 2008). Risk perception is further discussed in

Section 19.6.1.4.

Responses to new information can modify previous decisions, even

producing contradictory results (Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Marx et al.,

2007). Although knowledge about climate change is necessary (Milfont,

2012), understanding such knowledge can be difficult (Rajeev Gowda

et al., 1997; Boyes et al., 1999; Andersson and Wallin, 2000). Cognitive

obstacles in processing climate change information include psychological

distances with four theorized dimensions: temporal, geographical, social

distance, and uncertainty (Spence et al., 2012; see also Section 25.4.3).

Emotional factors also play an important role in climate change

perception, attitudes, decision making, and actions (Meijnders et al.,

002; Leiserowitz, 2006; Klöckner and Blöbaum, 2010; Fischer and Glenk

2011; Roeser, 2012) and even shape organizational decision making

(Wright and Nyberg, 2012). Other studies on attitudes and behaviors

relevant to climate change decision making, include place attachment

(Scannell and Gifford, 2013; see also Section 25.4.3), political affiliation

(Davidson and Haan, 2011), and perceived costs and benefits (Tobler et

al., 2012). Time is a critical component of action-based decision making

(Steel and König, 2006). As the benefits of many climate change actions

span multiple temporal scales, this can create a barrier to effective

motivation for decisions through a perceived lack of value associated

with long-term outcomes.

Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1975; Maddux and Rogers, 1983),

which proposes that a higher personal perceived risk will lead to a

higher motivation to adapt, can be applied to climate change-related

problems (e.g., Grothmann and Reusswig, 2006; Cismaru et al., 2011).

The person-relative-to-event approach predicts human coping strategies

as a function of the magnitude of environmental threat (Mulilis and

Duval, 1995; Duval and Mulilis, 1999; Grothmann et al., 2013). People’s

responses to environmental hazards and disasters are represented in

the multistage Protective Action Decision Model (Lindell and Perry,

2012). This model helps decision makers to respond to long-term threat

and apply it in long-term risk management. Grothmann and Patt (2005)

developed and tested a socio-cognitive model of proactive private

adaptation to climate change showing that perceptions of adaptive

capacities were important as well as perceptions of risk. If a perceived

high risk is combined with a perceived low adaptive capacity (see

Section 2.4.2.2; Glossary), the response is fatalism, denial, and wishful

thinking.

Best-practice methods for incorporating and communicating information

about risk and uncertainties into decisions about climate change

(Climate Change Science Program, 2009; Pidgeon and Fischhoff, 2011)

suggests that effective communication of uncertainty requires products

and processes that (1) closes psychological distance, explaining why

this information is important to the recipient; (2) distinguishes between

and explains different types of uncertainty; (3) establishes self-agency,

explaining what the recipient can do with the information and ways to

make decisions under uncertainty (e.g., precautionary principle, iterative

risk-management); (4) recognizes that each person’s view of risks and

opportunities depends on their values; (5) recognizes that emotion is a

critical part of judgment; and (6) provides mental models that help

recipients to understand the connection between cause and effect.

Information providers also need to test their messages, as they may not

be communicating what they think they are.

2.2.1.3. Language and Meaning

Aspects of decision making concerned with language and meaning

include framing, communication, learning, knowledge exchange, dialog,

and discussion. Most IPCC-related literature on language and

communication deals with definitions, predictability, and incomplete

knowledge, with less emphasis given to other aspects of decision

support such as learning, ambiguity, contestedness, and complexity.

Three important areas assessed here are definitions, risk language and

communication, and narratives.

205

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

ecision-making processes need to accommodate both specialist and

non-specialist meanings of the concepts they apply. Various disciplines

often have different definitions for the same terms or use different terms

for the same action or object, which is a major barrier for communication

and decision making (Adger, 2003; see also Chapter 21). For example,

adaptation is defined differently with respect to biological evolution,

climate change, and social adaptation. Budescu et al. (2012) found that

people prefer imprecise wording but precise numbers when appropriate.

Personal lexicons vary widely, leading to differing interpretations of

uncertainty terms (Morgan et al., 1990); in the IPCC’s case leading to

uncertainty ranges often being interpreted differently than intended

(Patt and Schrag, 2003; Patt and Dessai, 2005; Budescu et al., 2012).

Addressing both technical and everyday meanings of key terms can help

bridge the analytic and emotive aspects of cognition. For example,

words like danger, disaster, uncertainty, and catastrophe have technical

and emotive aspects (Britton, 1986; Carvalho and Burgess, 2005). Terms

where this issue is especially pertinent include adaptation, vulnerability,

risk, dangerous, catastrophe, resilience, and disaster. Other words have

definitional issues because they contain different epistemological frames;

sustainability and risk are key examples (Harding, 2006; Hamilton et al.,

2007). Many authors advocate that narrow definitions focused solely

on climate need to be expanded to suit the context in which they are

being used (Huq and Reid, 2004; O’Brien et al., 2007; Schipper, 2007).

This is a key role for risk communication, ensuring that different types

of knowledge are integrated within decision context and outlining the

different values—implicit and explicit—involved in the decision process

(e.g., Morgan, 2002; Lundgren and McMakin, 2013).

The language of risk has a crucial role in framing and belief. Section

2.1.2 described over-arching and climate-specific definitions but risk

enters into almost every aspect of social discourse, so is relevant to how

risk is framed and communicated (e.g., Hansson, 2004). Meanings of

risk range from its ordinary use in everyday language to power and

political discourse, health, emergency, disaster, and seeking benefits,

ranging from specific local meanings to broad-ranging concepts such

as the risk society (Beck and Ritter, 1992; Beck, 2000; Giddens, 2000).

Complex framings in the word risk (Fillmore and Atkins, 1992; Hamilton

et al., 2007) feature in general English as both a noun and a verb,

reflecting harm and chance with negative and positive senses (Fillmore

and Atkins, 1992). Problem analysis applies risk as a noun (at-risk),

whereas risk management applies risk as a verb (to-risk) (Jones, 2011).

For simple risks, this transition is straightforward because of agreement

around values and agency (Figure 2-2). In complex situations, risk as a

problem and as an opportunity can compete with each other, and if

socially amplified can lead to action paralysis (Renn, 2011). For example,

unfamiliar adaptation options that seem to be risky themselves will force

a comparison between the risk of maladaptation and future climate risks,

echoing the risk trap where problems and solutions come into conflict

(Beck, 2000). Fear-based dialogs in certain circumstances can cause

disengagement (O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009), by emphasizing risk

aversion. Young (2013) proposes framing adaptation as a solution to

overcome the limitations of framing through the problem, and links it to

innovation, which provides established pathways for the implementation

of actions, proposing a problem-solution framework linking decision

making to action. Framing decisions and modeling actions on positive risk-

seeking behavior can help people to address uncertainty as opportunity

(e.g., Keeney, 1992).

arratives are accounts of events with temporal or causal coherence

that may be goal directed (László and Ehmann, 2012) and play a key

role in communication, learning, and understanding. They operate at

the personal to societal scales, are key determinants of framing, and

have a strong role in creating social legitimacy. Narratives can also be

non-verbal: visualization, kinetic learning by doing, and other sensory

applications can be used to communicate science and art and to enable

learning through play (Perlovsky, 2009; Radford, 2009). Narratives of

climate change have evolved over time and invariably represent

uncertainty and risk (Hamblyn, 2009) being characterized as tools for

analysis, communication, and engagement (Cohen, 2011; Jones et al.,

2013; Westerhoff and Robinson, 2013) by:

• Providing a social and environmental context to modelled futures

(Arnell et al., 2004; Kriegler et al., 2012; O’Neill et al., 2014), by

describing aspects of change that drive or shape those futures as

part of scenario construction (Cork et al., 2012).

• Communicating knowledge and ideas to increase understanding

and increase agency framing it in ways so that actions can be

implemented (Juhola et al., 2011) or provide a broader socio-

ecological context to specific knowledge (Burley et al., 2012). These

narratives bridge the route between scientific knowledge and local

understandings of adaptation, often by working with multiple

actors in order to creatively explore and develop collaborative

potential solutions (Turner and Clifton, 2009; Paton and Fairbairn-

Dunlop, 2010; Tschakert and Dietrich, 2010).

• Exploring responses at an individual/institutional level to an aspect

of adaptation, and communicating that experience with others

(Bravo, 2009; Cohen, 2011). For example, a community that believes

itself to be resilient and self-reliant is more likely to respond

proactively, contrasted to a community that believes itself to be

vulnerable (Farbotko and Lazrus, 2012). Bravo (2009) maintains that

narratives of catastrophic risk and vulnerability demotivate

indigenous peoples whereas narratives combining scientific

knowledge and active citizenship promote resilience (Section2.5.2).

2.2.1.4. Ethics

Climate ethics can be used to formalize objectives, values (Section

2.2.1.1), rights, and needs into decisions, decision-making processes,

and actions (see also Section 16.7). Principal ethical concerns include

intergenerational equity; distributional issues; the role of uncertainty in

allocating fairness or equity; economic and policy decisions; international

justice and law; voluntary and involuntary levels of risk; cross-cultural

relations; and human relationships with nature, technology, and the

sociocultural world. Climate change ethics have been developing over

the last 20 years (Jamieson, 1992, 1996; Gardiner, 2004; Gardiner et al.,

2010), resulting in a substantial literature (Garvey, 2008; Harris, 2010;

O’Brien et al., 2010; Arnold, 2011; Brown, 2012; Thompson and Bendik-

Keymer, 2012). Equity, inequity, and responsibility are fundamental

concepts in the UNFCCC (UN, 1992) and therefore are important

considerations in policy development for CIAV. Climate ethics examine

effective responsible and “moral” decision making and action, not only

by governments but also by individuals (Garvey, 2008).

An important discourse on equity is that industrialized countries have,

through their historical emissions, created a natural debt (Green and

206

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

mith, 2002). Developing nations experience this debt through higher

impacts and greater vulnerability combined with limited adaptive

capacity. Regional inequity is also of concern (Green and Smith, 2002),

particularly indigenous or marginalized populations exposed to current

climate extremes, who may become more vulnerable under a changing

climate (Tsosie, 2007; see also Section 12.3.3). With respect to adaptation

assessment, cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness methods combined with

transfer of funds will not satisfy equity considerations (Broome, 2008;

see also Section 17.3.1.4) and modifications such as equity-weighting

(Kuik et al., 2008) and cost-benefit under uncertainty (Section 17.3.2.1),

have not been widely used. Adaptation measures need to be evaluated

by considering their equity implications (Section 17.3.1.4) especially

under uncertainty (Hansson, 2004).

Intergenerational issues are frequently treated as an economic problem,

with efforts to address them through an ethical framework proving to

be controversial (Nordhaus, 2007; Stern and Treasury of Great Britain,

2007; Stern, 2008). However, future harm may make the lives of future

generations difficult or impossible, dilemmas that involve ethical choices

(Broome, 2008), therefore discount rates matter (Section 17.4.4.4).

Some authors question whether the rights and interests of future people

should even be subject to a positive discount rate (Caney, 2009). Future

generations can neither defend themselves within current economic

frameworks (Gardiner, 2011) nor can these frameworks properly account

for the dangers, interdependency, and uncertainty under climate change

(Nelson, 2011), even though people’s values may change over time

(Section 16.7). The limits to adaptation raise questions of irreversible

loss and the loss of unique cultural values that cannot necessarily be

easily transferred (Section 16.7), contributing to key vulnerabilities and

informing ethical issues facing mitigation (see Section 19.7.1).

Environmental ethics considers the decisions humans may make

concerning a range of biotic impacts (Schalow, 2000; Minteer and Collins,

2010; Nanda, 2012; Thompson and Bendik-Keymer, 2012). Intervention

in natural systems through “assisted colonization” or “managed

relocation” raises important ethical and policy questions (Minteer and

Collins, 2010; Section 4.4.2.4) that include the risk of unintended

consequences (Section 4.4.4). Various claims are made for a more

pragmatic ethics of ecological decision making (Minteer and Collins,

2010), consideration of moral duties toward species (Sandler, 2009),

and ethically explicit and defendable decision making (Minteer and

Collins, 2005a,b).

Cosmopolitan ethics and global justice can lead to successful adaptation

and sustainability (Caney, 2006; Harris, 2010) and support collective

decision making on public matters through voting procedures (Held,

2004). Ethics also concerns the conduct and application of research,

especially research involving stakeholders. Action-based and participatory

research requires that a range of ethical guidelines be followed, taking

consideration of the rights of stakeholders, respect for cultural and

practical knowledge, confidentiality, dissemination of results, and

development of intellectual property (Macaulay et al., 1999; Kindon et

al., 2007; Daniell et al., 2009; Pearce et al., 2009). Ethical agreements

and processes are an essential part of participatory research, whether

taking part as behavioral change processes promoting adaptation or

projects of collaborative discovery (high confidence). Although the climate

change ethics literature is rapidly developing, the related practice of

ecision making and implementation needs further development.

Ethical and equity issues are discussed in WGIII AR5 Chapter 3.

2.2.2. Institutional Context

2.2.2.1. Institutions

Institutions are rules and norms held in common by social actors that

guide, constrain, and shape human interaction (North, 1990; Glossary).

Institutions can be formal, such as laws and policies, or informal, such as

norms and conventions. Organizations—such as parliaments, regulatory

agencies, private firms, and community bodies—develop and act in

response to institutional frameworks and the incentives they frame

(Young et al., 2008). Institutions can guide, constrain, and shape human

interaction through direct control, through incentives, and through

processes of socialization (Glossary). Virtually all CIAV decisions will be

made by or influenced by institutions because they shape the choices

made by both individuals and organizations (Bedsworth and Hanak,

2012). Institutional linkages are important for adaptation in complex

and multi-layered social and biophysical systems such as coastal areas

(Section 5.5.3.2) and urban systems (Section 8.4.3.4), and are vital in

managing health (Section 11.6), human security (Sections 12.5.1,

12.6.2), and poverty (Section 13.1). Institutional development and

interconnectedness are vital in mediating vulnerability in social-

ecological systems to changing climate risks, especially extremes

(Chapters 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 13).

The role of institutions as actors in adaptation are discussed in Section

14.4, in planning and implementing adaptation in Section 15.5, and in

providing barriers and opportunities in Section 16.3. Their roles can be

very diverse. Local institutions usually play important roles in accessing

resources and in structuring individual and collective responses

(Agarwal, 2010; see also Section 14.4.2) but Madzwamuse (2010) found

that in Africa, state-level actors had significantly more influence on formal

adaptation policies than did civil society and local communities.

This suggests a need for greater integration and cooperation among

institutions of all levels (Section 15.5.1.2). Section 14.2.3 identifies four

institutional design issues: flexibility; potential for integration into

existing policy plans and programs; communication, coordination, and

cooperation; and the ability to engage with multiple stakeholders.

Institutions are instrumental in facilitating adaptive capacity, by utilizing

characteristics such as variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous

change, leadership, availability of resources, and fair governance (Gupta

et al., 2008). They play a key role in mediating the transformation of

coping capacity into adaptive capacity and in linking short and long-

term responses to climate change and variability (Berman et al., 2012).

Most developing countries have weaker institutions that are less capable

of managing extreme events, increasing vulnerability to disasters (Lateef,

2009; Biesbroek et al., 2013). Countries with strong functional institutions

are generally assumed to have a greater capacity to adapt to current

and future disasters. However, Hurricane Katrina of 2005 in the USA and

the European heat wave of 2003 demonstrate that strong institutions

and other determinants of adaptive capacity do not necessarily reduce

vulnerability if these attributes are not translated to actions (IPCC,

2007a; see also Box 2-1, Section 2.4.2.2).

207

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

o facilitate adaptation under uncertainty, institutions need to be

flexible enough to accommodate adaptive management processes such

as evaluation, learning, and refinement (Agarwal, 2010; Gupta et al.,

2010; see also Section 14.2.3). Organizational learning can lead to

significant change in organizations’ purpose and function (Bartley,

2007), for example, where non-governmental organizations have moved

from advocacy to program delivery with local stakeholders (Ziervogel

and Zermoglio, 2009; Kolk and Pinkse, 2010; Worthington and Pipa,

2010).

Boundary organizations are increasingly being recognized as important

to CIAV decision support (Guston, 2001; Cash et al., 2003; McNie, 2007;

Vogel et al., 2007). A boundary organization is a bridging institution, social

arrangement, or network that acts as an intermediary between science

and policy (Glossary). Its functions include facilitating communication

between researchers and stakeholders, translating science and technical

information, and mediating between different views of how to interpret

that information. It will also recognize the importance of location-specific

contexts (Ruttan et al., 1994); provide a forum in which information can

be co-created by interested parties (Cash et al., 2003); and develop

boundary objects, such as scenarios, narratives, and model-based decision

support systems (White et al., 2010). Adaptive and inclusive management

practices are considered to be essential, particularly in addressing wicked

problems such as climate change (Batie, 2008). Boundary organizations

also link adaptation to other processes managing global change and

sustainable development.

Boundary organizations already contributing to regional CIAV assessments

include the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center in

the USA (GLISA; http://www.glisa.umich.edu/); part of the Regional

Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program of the U.S. government

(RISA; Pulwarty et al., 2009); the UK Climate Impacts Program (UKCIP;

UK Climate Impacts Program, 2011); the Alliance for Global Water

Adaptation (AGWA; http://alliance4water.org); and institutions working

on water issues in the USA, Mexico, and Brazil (Kirchhoff et al., 2012;

Varady et al., 2012).

2.2.2.2. Governance

Effective climate change governance is important for both adaptation

and mitigation and is increasingly being seen as a key element of risk

management (high confidence) (Renn, 2008; Renn et al., 2011). Some

analysts propose that governance of adaptation requires knowledge of

anticipated regional and local impacts of climate change in a more

traditional planning approach (e.g., Meadowcroft, 2009), whereas

others propose governance consistent with sustainable development

and resilient systems (Adger, 2006; Nelson et al., 2007; Meuleman and

in ’t Veld, 2010). Quay (2010) proposes “anticipatory governance”—a

flexible decision framework based on robustness and learning (Sections

2.3.3, 2.3.4). Institutional decisions about climate adaptation are taking

place within a multi-level governance system (Rosenau, 2005; Kern and

Alber, 2008). Multi-level governance could be a barrier for successful

adaptation if there is insufficient coordination as it comprises different

regulatory, legal, and institutional systems (Section 16.3.1.4), but is

required to manage the “adaptation paradox” (local solutions to a global

problem), unclear ownership of risks and the adaptation bottleneck

inked to difficulties with implementation (Section 14.5.3). Lack of

horizontal and vertical integration between organizations and policies

leads to insufficient risk governance in complex social-ecological

systems such as coasts (Section 5.5.3.2) and urban areas (Section 8.4),

including in the management of compound risks (Section 19.3.2.4).

Legal and regulatory frameworks are important institutional components

of overall governance, but will be challenged by the pervasive nature

of climate risks (high confidence) (Craig, 2010; Ruhl, 2010a,b). Changes

proposed to manage these risks better under uncertainty include

integration between different areas of law, jurisdictions and scale,

changes to property rights, greater flexibility with respect to adaptive

management, and a focus on ecological processes rather than

preservation (Craig, 2010; Ruhl, 2010a; Abel et al., 2011; Macintosh et

al., 2013). Human security in this report is not seen just as an issue of

rights (Box 12-1), given that a minimum set of universal rights exists

(though not always exercised), but is instead assessed as being subject

to a wide range of forces. Internationally, sea level rise could alter the

maritime boundaries of many nations that may lead to new claims by

affected nations or loss of sovereignty (Barnett and Adger, 2003). New

shipping routes, such as the North West Passage, will be opened up by

losses in Arctic sea ice (Sections 6.4.1.6, 28.2.6). Many national and

international legal institutions and instruments need to be updated to

face climate-related challenges and decision implementation (medium

confidence) (Verschuuren, 2013).

2.3. Methods, Tools, and Processes

for Climate-related Decisions

This section deals with methods, tools, and processes that deal with

uncertainties (Section 2.3.1); describes scenarios (Section 2.3.2); covers

trade-offs and multi-metric valuation (Section 2.3.3); and reviews

learning and reframing (Section 2.3.4).

2.3.1. Treatment of Uncertainties

Most advice on uncertainty, including the latest guidance from the IPCC

(Mastrandrea et al., 2010; see also Section 1.1.2.2), deals with

uncertainty in scientific findings and to a lesser extent confidence.

Although this is important, uncertainty can invade all aspects of decision

making, especially in complex situations. Whether embodied in formal

analyses or in the training and habits of decision makers, applied

management is often needed because unaided human reasoning can

produce mismatches between actions and goals (Kahneman, 2011). A

useful high-level distinction is between ontological uncertainty—what

we know—and epistemological uncertainty—how different areas of

knowledge and “knowing” combine in decision making (van Asselt and

Rotmans, 2002; Walker et al., 2003). Two other areas of relevance are

ambiguity (Brugnach et al., 2008) and contestedness (Klinke and Renn,

2002; Dewulf et al., 2005), commonly encountered in wicked problems/

systemic risks (Renn and Klinke, 2004; Renn et al., 2011).

Much of this uncertainty can be managed through framing and decision

processes. For example, a predict-then-act framing is different to an

assess-risk-of-policy framing (SREX Section 6.3.1 and Figure 6.2; Lempert

208

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

t al., 2004). In the former, also known as “top-down,” model or

impacts-first, science-first, or standard approach, climate or impact

uncertainty is described independently of other parts of the decision

problem. For instance, probabilistic climate projections (see Figure 21-4

or WGI AR5 Chapters 11 and 12; Murphy et al., 2009) are generated for

wide application, and thus are not tied to any specific choice. This follows

the cause and effect model described in Section 2.1. The basic structure

of IPCC Assessment Reports follows this pattern, with WGI laying out

what is known and uncertain about current and future changes to the

climate system. Working Groups II and III then describe impacts resulting

from and potential policy responses to those changes (Jones and Preston,

2011).

In contrast, the “assess-risk-of-policy” framing (Lempert et al., 2004;

UNDP, 2005; Carter et al., 2007; Dessai and Hulme, 2007) starts with the

decision-making context. This framing is also known as “context-first”

(Ranger et al., 2010); “decision scaling” (Brown et al., 2011); “bottom-

up”; vulnerability, tipping point (Kwadijk et al., 2010); critical threshold

(Jones, 2001); or policy-first approaches (SREX Section 6.3.1). In engaging

with decision makers, the “assess-risk-of-policy” approach often requires

information providers work closely with decision makers to understand

their plans and goals, before customizing the uncertainty description to

focus on those key factors. This can be very effective, but often needs

to be individually customized for each decision context (Lempert and

Kalra, 2011; Lempert, 2012) requiring collaboration between researchers

and users (see Box 2-1). A “predict-then-act” framing is appropriate

when uncertainties are shallow, but when uncertainties are deep, an

“assess-risk-of-policy” framing is more suitable (Dessai et al., 2009).

The largest focus on uncertainty in CIAV has been on estimating climate

impacts such as streamflow or agricultural yield changes and their

consequent risks. Since AR4, the treatment of these uncertainties has

advanced considerably. For example, multiple models of crop responses

to climate change have been compared to estimate inter-model

uncertainty (Asseng et al., 2013). Although many impact studies still

characterize uncertainty by using a few climate scenarios, there is a

growing literature that uses many climate realizations and also assesses

uncertainty in the impact model itself (Wilby and Harris, 2006; New et

al., 2007). Some studies propagate uncertainties to evaluate adaptation

options locally (Dessai and Hulme, 2007) by assessing the robustness

of a water company’s plan to climate change uncertainties or regionally

(Lobell et al., 2008) by identifying which regions are most in need of

adaptation to food security under a changing climate. Alternatively, the

critical threshold approach, where the likelihood of a given criterion can

be assessed as a function of climate change, is much less sensitive to

input uncertainties than assessments estimating the “most likely”

outcome (Jones, 2010). This is one of the mainstays of robustness

assessment discussed in Section 2.3.3.

2.3.2. Scenarios

A scenario is a story or image that describes a potential future, developed

to inform decision making under uncertainty (Section 1.1.3). A scenario

is not a prediction of what the future will be but rather a description of

how the future might unfold (Jäger et al., 2008). Scenario use in the

CIAV research area has expanded significantly beyond climate into

roader socioeconomic areas as it has become more mainstream (high

confidence) (Sections 1.1.3, 2.4.2.1). Climate change has also become a

core feature of many scenarios used in regional and global assessments

of environmental and socioeconomic change (Carpenter et al., 2005;

Raskin et al., 2005). Scenarios can be used at a number of stages within

an assessment process or can underpin an entire assessment. They serve

a variety of purposes, including informing decisions under uncertainty,

scoping and exploring poorly understood issues, and integrating

knowledge from diverse domains (Parson et al., 2007; Parson, 2008).

Scenarios also contribute to learning and discussion, facilitate knowledge

exchange, and can be expressed using a range of media. Local scale

visualization of impacts and adaptation measures, depicted on realistic

landscapes, is an emerging technology that is being tested to support

dialog on adaptation planning at the local scale (Schroth et al., 2011;

Sheppard, 2012). Although visual representations of scenario-based

impact assessments may be available for a location, scenario-based

adaptation assessments usually are not. Artistic depictions of potential

adaptation measures and outcomes are being negotiated and assessed

with local stakeholders in communities within Metro Vancouver, Canada

(Shaw et al., 2009; Burch et al., 2010; Sheppard et al., 2011).

Climate, socioeconomic, or other types of scenarios are widely used to

assess the impacts of climate change. Fewer studies report on the use of

scenarios as participatory tools to enable decision making on adaptation

(e.g., Harrison et al., 2013). However, the scenario literature emphasizes

the importance of process over product. The new generation of climate

and socioeconomic scenarios being developed from the Representative

Concentration Pathways (RCPs; 1.1.3.1) and Shared Socioeconomic

Pathways (SSPs; 1.1.3.2), which are storylines corresponding to the new

RCPs (Moss et al., 2010; Kriegler et al., 2012) have yet to be applied

within CIAV studies in any substantive way (van Ruijven et al., 2013;

Ebi et al., 2014).

By separating risks into simple and systemic or wicked-problem risks,

scenario needs for decision making can be better identified (medium

confidence). For simple risks, if probabilities cannot be easily calculated

then scenarios can be used to explore the problem, test for acceptable

or unacceptable levels of risk, and illustrate alternative solutions for

evaluation and testing. Wicked problems will need to be thoroughly scoped

to select the most suitable decision-making process, with scenarios playing

an important role. They may require separate applications of problem

(exploratory or descriptive) and solution-based (normative or positive)

scenarios or the development of reflexive scenarios, the latter being

updated with new knowledge over time that may re-examine values and

goals (van Notten, 2006; Wilkinson and Eidinow, 2008; Jones, 2012);

these categories can also be structured as top-down, bottom-up, and

interactive (Berkhout et al., 2013). Even if conditional probabilities can

be used to illustrate climate futures, scenarios are needed to explore the

solutions space involving strategic actions, options planning, and

governance using process and goal-oriented methods (high confidence).

2.3.3. Evaluating Trade-offs and Multi-metric Valuation

Decision makers bring diverse aims, interests, knowledge, and values

to CIAV decision making. With effective decision support, parties to a

209

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

ecision can manage competing views by more clearly articulating their

goals; understanding how various options affect trade-offs between goals;

and making informed choices that participants regard as legitimate,

salient, and credible (high confidence) (Cash et al., 2003). The decision

theory, risk governance, and ethical reasoning literatures use two broad

sets of criteria for decision making: outcome-based criteria focus on

whether a decision is likely to meet specified goals; process-based

criteria compare alternative actions according to the process by which a

decision is arrived. In particular, decision process aims to help stakeholders

choose between the risks, costs, and obligations being proposed

(Morgan et al., 1990), including specified levels of risk tolerance. Such

choices around risk tolerance, including acceptable levels of risk, are

ethical choices (DesJardins, 2012; Nanda, 2012). Selection strategies

informing context and process are described in Section 14.3.5. Decision

criteria inform the discussions of adaptation options, planning, and

economics in Chapters 14 to 17 and WGIII AR5 Chapter 2.

Multi-attribute decision theory (Keeney and Raiffa, 1993), or multi-criteria

decision analysis (MCDA), provides the most general framework for

assessing outcomes-based criteria. MCDA concepts and tools organize

and display the implications of alternative decisions on differing objectives

(e.g., cost and environmental quality), order and test preferences among

trade-offs between potentially incommensurate objectives, and show

how alternative processes for choosing options can lead to different

decisions. Cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty, one key tool for

evaluating trade-offs, is described in Section 17.3.2.1. Simple MCDA

tools include scorecards that graphically display how alternative policy

choices affect different goals. For example, the “burning embers” diagram

displays how risks to various attributes (e.g., health of unique systems,

extreme weather events) depend on targets for a given global mean

temperature increase (Figure 19-5). More sophisticated MCDA tools can

optimize a portfolio of choices in a variety of ways; for example, one

recent method applies scenarios representing significant uncertainty to

optimize between four or more choices in order to identify robust

combinations and system vulnerabilities (Kasprzyk et al., 2013).

Successful use of MCDA in CIAV decisions include the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation helping stakeholders with diverse interests and values to

consider 26 alternative performance measures for the Colorado River

system, to agree on potential climate-related risks, and to consider options

for reducing those risks. Trade-offs also occur where adaptation measures

produce negative impacts in other areas of value—for example, where

adaptation in agricultural and urban areas negatively affect ecosystems

(Section 4.3.3.3). Korteling et al. (2013) assess the robustness of

adaptation options for six criteria including risk of water shortage,

environmental impact, local self-sufficiency, cost, carbon footprint, and

social acceptability. Chapter 17 describes many criteria commonly used

in MCDA analyses.

Robustness is often nominated as the most appropriate criterion for

managing large decision uncertainty. It is a satisficing (sufficient rather

than optimal) criterion (Rosenhead, 1989) that seeks decisions likely

to perform well over a wide range of plausible climate futures,

socioeconomic trends, and other factors (Dessai and Hulme, 2007;

Groves et al., 2008; Wilby and Dessai, 2010; WUCA, 2010; Brown et al.,

2011; Lempert and Kalra, 2011). Robust decisions often perform better

than other methods if the future turns out differently than expected.

Testing for robustness can often illuminate trade-offs that help decision

akers achieve consensus even when they have different future

expectations. Robust choices often trade some optimality for being able

to manage unanticipated outcomes. Many forms of the precautionary

principle are consistent with robustness criteria (Lempert and Collins,

2007). Flexible and reversible options are often needed to manage

situations with significant potential for unanticipated outcomes and

differences in values and interests among decision makers (Gallopín,

2006; Hallegatte, 2009; see also Sections 2.3.4, 5.5.3.1). Flexibility is

signaled by reaching of specific management thresholds, critical control

points, or design states (Box 5-1). The literature disagrees on the

relationship between robustness and resilience (Folke, 2006). Chapter 20

describes resilience as a property of systems that might be affected by

decision makers’ choices, while robustness is a property of the choices

made by those decision makers (SREX Chapter 1).

Process-based criteria focus on the credibility and legitimacy of a

decision process. Institutional (Section 2.2.2) and cultural and ethical

(Section 2.2.1) contexts will strongly influence the appropriateness and

importance of such criteria in a given situation (high confidence).

Process criteria provide institutional rules, and governance for decision

making in a wide range of circumstances (Dietz and Stern, 2008; Sen,

2009). For instance, many environmental laws require advanced notice

and periods of public comment before any regulations are issued. Water

rights can be made tradable, giving users extra flexibility during times

of water shortage or oversupply. Participants may regard any decision

that fails to respect such rights as illegitimate. In complex situations of

a collaborative nature, both outcome and process-related criteria will

be needed in a decision-making process (high confidence).

Stakeholder involvement is a central process for climate-related decision

making and since the AR4 has grown in importance, particularly for

adaptation decision making (e.g., Lebel et al., 2010), covering methods

(Debels et al., 2009; Gardner et al., 2009; Salter et al., 2010; André et al.,

2012) and reflecting concrete experiences with stakeholder involvement

in CIAV assessments and adaptation processes (de la Vega-Leinert et al.,

2008; Ebi and Semenza, 2008; Posthumus et al., 2008; Raadgever et al.,

2008; Tompkins et al., 2008a,b; Preston et al., 2009). Lebel et al. (2010)

differentiate six advantages of social learning and stakeholder involvement

for adaptation to climate change: (1) reduces informational uncertainty;

(2) reduces normative uncertainty; (3) helps to build consensus on

criteria for monitoring and evaluation; (4) can empower stakeholders

to influence adaptation and take appropriate actions themselves by

sharing knowledge and responsibility in participatory processes; (5) can

reduce conflicts and identify synergies between adaptation activities of

various stakeholders, thus improving overall chances of success; and

(6) can improve the likely fairness, social justice, and legitimacy of

adaptation decisions and actions by addressing the concerns of all

relevant stakeholders. Complex settings will require a detailed mapping

of stakeholder roles and responsibilities (André et al., 2012).

2.3.4. Learning, Review, and Reframing

Effective decision support processes generally include learning, where

learning and review become important to track decision progress

(National Research Council, 2009b; see also Box 2-1, Figure 2-1). This can

be achieved by developing an ongoing monitoring and review process

210

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

during the scoping stage of a project or program. If circumstances

change so much that desired outcomes may not be achieved, then

reframing of the decision criteria, process, and goals may be required.

This iterative approach begins with the many participants to a decision

working together to define its objectives and other parameters, working

with experts to generate and interpret decision-relevant information,

then revisiting the objectives and choices based on that information

(Figure 2-1). Again, process is important. Pelling et al. (2008) found that

accounting for different personal values in both an official and informal

capacity could enhance social learning and therefore adaptive capacity.

Measuring progress on adaptation and adaptive capacity by tracking

impacts, vulnerability, and related adaptation metrics and process

indicators is discussed in Section 14.6. Such metrics are needed to

transfer wider learning on adaptation to new situations.

Learning and review can range from periodic reporting to adaptive

management. Adaptive management refers to a choice of policy

required to generate reliable new information (Holling, 1978, 1996) and

involves a process of adjusting approaches in response to observations

of their effect and changes in the system brought on by resulting

feedback effects and other variables (Glossary). Adaptive strategies are

designed to be robust over a wide range of futures by evolving over

time in response to new information (Rosenhead, 1989; Walker et al.,

2001; Lempert and Schlesinger, 2002; Swanson et al., 2006). Necessary

components include separating immediate actions from those that can

be deferred (and that may require additional information); an explicit

process to generate new information; institutional mechanisms for

incorporating and acting on new information; and some understanding

of the policy limits that, if exceeded, should lead to its re-evaluation

(Swanson et al., 2012; see also Box 5-1). As indicated by Figure 2-1,

effective decision making not only requires flows of appropriate

information but people willing and able to act on it. Though most

policies change over time, very few follow the steps of an intentional

adaptive strategy (high confidence). For instance, McCray et al. (2010)

surveyed 32 examples of U.S. environmental, health, and safety

regulations—all legally required to be adaptive—and found only five

instances where any policy change occurred as intended.

Reframing of an action can occur when an existing set of decisions and

actions are failing to manage risks adequately (see Box 2-1). Based on

experience to date, there now exists a sufficiently rich set of available

methods, tools, and processes to support effective CIAV decisions in a

wide range of contexts (medium confidence), although they may not be

combined appropriately, accessible, or readily used by decision makers

(Webb and Beh, 2013). Tools for decision making, planning and

development, and transfer and diffusion are discussed in Section 15.4.

2.4. Support for Climate-related Decisions

Growing understanding of the aspects of decision making (Section 2.2)

and methods and tools (Section 2.3) have led to improved support for

CIAV decisions, as shown by the provision of climate information and

services (Section 2.4.1), methods for impacts and vulnerability assessments

(Section 2.4.2), and decision support in practice (Section 2.4.3). Figure

2-3 divides the decision-making process into four stages: scoping, analysis,

implementation and review, outlining institutional, leadership, knowledge,

and information characteristics for each stage. Most effort in CIAV

research has been put into the first two stages, whereas decision

implementation and follow-up have been minimal. This does not imply

that the analysis stage is discounted. Problem analysis and solution

evaluation are significant undertakings in any decision process, but that

is where most current climate change assessments stop. Note that each

of these stages can be divided into other quite distinct process elements.

2.4.1. Climate Information and Services

Climate services are institutions that bridge generation and application

of climate knowledge. History and concepts are described in Section

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 2.2 | Which is the best method for climate change decision

making/assessing adaptation?

No single method suits all contexts, but the overall approach used and recommended by the IPCC is iterative risk

management. The International Standards Organization deﬁnes risk as the effect of uncertainty on objectives.

Within the climate change context, risk can be deﬁned as the potential for consequences where something of

human value (including humans themselves) is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain. Risk management is

a general framework that includes alternative approaches, methodologies, methods, and tools. Although the risk

management concept is very ﬂexible, some methodologies are quite prescriptive—for example, legislated emergency

management guidelines and ﬁduciary risk. At the operational level, there is no single deﬁnition of risk that applies

to all situations. This gives rise to much confusion about what risk is and what it can be used for.

Simple climate risks can be assessed and managed by the standard methodology of making up the “adaptation

deﬁcit” between current practices and projected risks. Where climate is one of several or more inﬂuences on risk,

a wide range of methodologies can be used. Such assessments need to be context-sensitive, to involve those who

are affected by the decision (or their representatives), to use both expert and practitioner knowledge, and to map

a clear pathway between knowledge generation, decision making, and action.

211

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

.4.1.1, how decision support applied in Section 2.4.1.2, and the policy

implications of climate services as a global practice in Section 2.4.1.3.

These institutions supply climate information on local, regional, national,

and global scales for the monitoring of risks, mitigation, and adaptation

planning as an important component of sustainable development

(Sivakumar et al., 2011). The Global Framework for Climate Services

(Hewitt et al., 2012) aims to “enable better management of the risks

of climate variability and change and adaptation to climate change,

through the development and incorporation of science-based climate

information and prediction into planning, policy, and practice on the

global, regional, and national scale” (http://www.wmo.int/pages/gfcs/

index_en.php). Climate services focus on the connection between

climate science and the public demand for information; however, their

development and deployment needs support from many other

disciplines (Miles et al., 2006). This extended reach requires measures

such as case-specific communication, engagement, and knowledge

exchange skills (high confidence).

While many countries have already established national and regional

climate services or are on the way to doing so, they show significant

differences. The development of Regional Climate Services in the USA

and parts of Europe, with their increasing focus on communication and

decision support, is well documented (DeGaetano et al., 2010; von

Storch et al., 2011). Developing countries are becoming increasingly

aware of the need for climate services (Semazzi, 2011), which is in part

reflected in the migration of regional climate models into those

countries. In 2001 only around 21 (mostly Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD)) countries were running

regional climate models (RCMs), but today more than 100 countries are

trained in using the Providing REgional Climates for Impact Studies

(PRECIS) RCM (Jones et al., 2004; Edwards, 2010). Regional climate

services are expanding geographically, shifting from simple understandings

of climate cause and effect to ever more complex and wicked problem

situations and are becoming more interdisciplinary.

2.4.1.1. Climate Services: History and Concepts

Early climate services in North America were seen as an expansion of

weather services, dealing mainly with forecasts, seasonal outlooks, and

risk assessment in a mostly stationary but variable climate (Changnon

et al., 1990; Miles et al., 2006; DeGaetano et al., 2010). This mainly

technical outlook had limited effectiveness; for example, decision makers

had difficulties understanding and using climate data for planning

purposes (Changnon et al., 1990; Miles et al., 2006; Visbeck, 2008) and

the data were slow to access and of poor quality (Changnon et al.,

1990). As these services developed, formal definitions of their mission

and scope shifted to being user-centric, focusing on active research,

data stewardship and effective partnership (National Research Council,

2001). Climate services were understood as a clearinghouse and

technical access point to stakeholders, providing education and user

access to experts—the latter informing the climate forecast community

of information needs, largely to inform adaptation (Miles et al., 2006).

Downscaling is a key product demanded by users for decision making

(Section 21.3.3.2). For example, in Africa, regional climate models play

an increasing role in Regional Climate Outlook Forums arranged by the

Box 2-1 | Managing Wicked Problems

with Decision Support

A well-designed decision support process, combined with

favorable political conditions, can effectively address

“wicked” (Section 2.1) decision challenges. The State of

Louisiana faces a serious problem of coastal land loss,

exposing the region’s fisheries and heightening the risk of

storm surge damage to the City of New Orleans, one of the

USA’s largest ports with facilities that account for ~20% of

U.S. oil and gas production (Coastal Protection and Restoration

Authority, 2007). Previous efforts at comprehensive coastal

protection had been stymied by, among other factors,

numerous competing jurisdictions and stakeholders with a

wide range of conflicting interests.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the state embarked

on a new coastal planning effort, this time with extensive

decision support. The Coastal Protection and Restoration

Authority organized an extension decision support effort

with a network of research institutions interacting with a 33-

member stakeholder group consisting of representatives from

business and industry; federal, state, and local governments;

non-governmental organizations; and coastal institutions. In

dozens of workshops over the course of 2 years, these

stakeholders influenced the development of and interacted

with a decision support system consisting of (1) a regional

model that integrated numerous strands of scientific data into

projections of future flood risk (Fischbach et al., 2012) and (2)

a multi-attribute planning tool that allowed stakeholders to

explore the implications of alternative portfolios of hundreds

of proposed risk reduction projects over alternative sea level

rise scenarios (Groves et al., 2012). This decision support

system allowed decision makers and stakeholders to first

formulate alternative risk reduction plans then to visualize

outcomes and trade-offs up to 50 years into the future.

The resulting Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast passed the

state legislature by a unanimous vote in May 2012. Deviating

strongly from past practice, the plan allocates far more

resources to restoring natural barriers than to structural

measures such as levees. The plan balances the interests of

multiple stakeholders and contains some projects that offer

near-term benefits and some whose benefits will be largely

felt decades from now. Observers recognized that extensive

analytic decision support contributed significantly to this plan.

212

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The Global Framework for

Climate Services was created in order to coordinate and strengthen

activities and develop new infrastructure where needed, focusing on

developing countries (WMO, 2011; Hewitt et al., 2012). From initially

being supply-focused and static, public climate services increasingly

need communication skills, engagement, and knowledge exchange in a

highly challenging environment of technical and institutional networks,

monitoring systems, and collaborations with other institutions,

stakeholders, and decision makers (DeGaetano et al., 2010).

2.4.1.2. Climate Services: Practices and Decision Support

Decision support is generally acknowledged as an integral part of

climate services (high confidence) (Miles et al., 2006; DeGaetano et al.,

2010). Depending on the stage and context in question (see Section

2.1.3.),“best” data as framed by experts should be reconciled with user

needs in order to produce scientific information that is relevant and

suitable for decision making. Social and cultural determinants have to

be taken into account (see Section 2.2) and require the communication

of scientific data to be context-specific. Decision support for climate

services consists of “processes of interaction, different forms of

communication, potentially useful data sets or models, reports and

training workshops, data ports and websites, engaging any level of

governance, at any stage in the policy- or decision-making process”

(Moser, 2009, p. 11). The climate service is a “process of two-way

communication” and “involves providing context that turns data into

information” (Shafer, 2004). Capacity building is required on all sides of

the communication process. For regional climate services, a successful

learning process engages both users and providers of knowledge in

knowledge exchange. For example, the uptake and utility of climate

forecasts in rural Africa is described in Box 9-4.

As knowledge brokers, climate services have to establish an effective

dialog between science and the public (von Storch et al., 2011). This

dialog undertakes two main tasks: One is to understand the range of

perceptions, views, questions, needs, concerns, and knowledge in the

public and among stakeholders about climate, climate change, and climate

risks; the other task is to convey the content of scientific knowledge to

the public, media, and stakeholders. This includes communicating the

limitations of such knowledge, the known uncertainties, and the

unknowable, as well as the appropriate role of science in complex

decision processes (von Storch et al., 2011).

2.4.1.3. The Geo-political Dimension of Climate Services

Climate knowledge is continually being documented and assessed by

the social sciences within a policy-relevant context (Yearley, 2009;

Grundmann and Stehr, 2010). One focus is on the spread of climate

knowledge into developing countries. Climate models distributed to users

with no in-house capacity for model development build capacity in

Decision

analysis

Decision

review

Decision

implementation

Decision

scoping

Develop and

implement

monitoring plan

& knowledge

exchange

Test progress

against goals,

revisit scenarios,

revise options

ﬂ

Problem- & solution-

based scenarios,

modeling & analysis,

evaluating

options

Governance & institutions

Key tasks

Decision-making process

Scope risks,

objectives, &

decision criteria

Figure 2-3 |

Four-stage process of decision making. Note that while adaptive management is located in the decision review quadrant here, when applied it will inﬂuence the

entire process.

213

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

egional climate science, producing high-resolution data for local decision

making. This mobility of knowledge has far-reaching implications for

how climate knowledge is produced; strengthening the influence of

epistemic communities such as the IPCC and other global governance

mechanisms (Mahony and Hulme, 2012). Thus, while regional climate

models play an increasingly important role in decision-making processes,

critics argue that climate monopolizes planning and development

strategies, rendering other forms of knowledge subordinate to this

“climate reductionism” (Dessai et al., 2009; Hulme, 2011).

Indigenous forms of knowledge—including the specialized knowledge

of any stakeholder—are becoming increasingly relevant for climate

services (high confidence) (Strauss and Orlove, 2003; Crate and Nuttal,

2009; Crate, 2011; Ulloa, 2011; Krauss and von Storch, 2012). Local

forms of knowledge and scientific climate models are not necessarily

mutually exclusive; individual case studies show how both forms of

knowledge contribute jointly to place-based adaptation (Strauss and

Orlove, 2003; Orlove and Kabugo, 2005; Orlove, 2009; Strauss, 2009;

Orlove et al., 2010). Indigenous knowledge in the form of oral histories

and other traditional knowledge are being compared or combined with

remote sensing technologies and model-based scenarios to co-produce

new knowledge, and to create a new discourse on adaptation planning

(Nakashima et al., 2012; see also Table 15-1). The challenge will be to

collaborate in a way that enables their integration into a shared narrative

on future adaptation choices.

These examples show that adaptation needs both to be implemented

locally and to be informed by larger scale (inter-)national policies and

directions. One strategy will not suit every location. Endfield (2011)

argues for a “reculturing and particularizing of climate discourses” in

order to successfully localize global and scientific meta-narratives. Climate

service development combines very different types of knowledge and

the social, cultural, and communication sciences play a decisive role in

this process (Pidgeon and Fischhoff, 2011; von Storch et al., 2011). To

position itself and to react according to the diverse demands, science-

based climate services have to become “rooted in society” (Krauss,

2011). The climate science community does not necessarily take the

lead, but becomes part of an inter- and trans-disciplinary process, where

politics, culture, religion, values, and so forth become part of climate

communication (medium confidence).

2.4.2. Assessing Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

on a Range of Scales

CIAV assessments address the “adapt to what” question, which can

enable a dialog among practitioners, stakeholders, and the public on

planning and implementation of adaptation measures within prevailing

mechanisms for governance. To date, however, assessments have focused

more on I than A (see Figure 1-1d). A number of global initiatives are

taking place to enable knowledge generation, transfer, and use, including

the Programme of Research on Climate Change Vulnerability, Impacts

and Adaptation (PROVIA; http://www.provia-climatechange.org/), the

Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to

climate change (http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/

items/3633.php), and work by the World Bank and regional development

banks (http://climatechange.worldbank.org/).

2.4.2.1. Assessing Impacts

For scenario-based impact assessments to contribute to vulnerability

and risk assessment, a series of translations need to be performed.

Scenarios of projected GHG concentrations are converted to changes

in climate, impacts are assessed, perhaps with autonomous adaptation,

leading to the evaluation of various adaptation options. This series of

translations requires the transformation of data across various scales

of time and space, between natural and social sciences, utilizing a wide

variety of analytical tools representing areas such as agriculture, forestry,

water, economics, sociology, and social-ecological systems. Climate

scenarios are translated into scenarios or projections for biophysical

and socioeconomic impact variables such as river flow, food supply,

coastal erosion, health outcomes, and species distribution (e.g., European

Climate Adaptation Platform, http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu).

Climate services help establish and support the translation process

(Section 2.4.1).

The resulting climate impacts and risks are then subject to decision

making on risk management and governance. Assessments of observed

events combine biophysical and socioeconomic assessments of the past

and present (Table 2-1, top row). Most scenario-based assessments

superimpose biophysical “futures” onto present-day socioeconomic

conditions (Table 2-1, middle row). This is useful for assessing how current

socioeconomic conditions may need to change in response to biophysical

impacts but raises inconsistencies when future socioeconomic states

are out of step with biophysical states. This will hamper assessments of

future adaptation responses in coupled social-ecological systems (see

Chapter 16). An important challenge, therefore, is to construct impact

assessments in which biophysical futures are coupled with socioeconomic

futures (Table 2-1, bottom row). A new set of socioeconomic futures,

known as Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), which are storylines

corresponding to the new RCPs (Moss et al., 2010; Kriegler et al., 2012),

is being developed to assist this process (Section 1.1.3.2).

A new generation of assessments links biophysical, economic, and social

analysis tools in order to describe the interactions between projected

biophysical changes and managed systems. For example, Ciscar et al.

(2011) estimated the costs of potential climate change impacts, without

public adaptation policies, in four European market sectors (agriculture,

river floods, coastal areas, and tourism) and one nonmarket sector

Nature of IAV

assessments

Biophysical conditions

Socioeconomic

conditions

Stationarity and

extrapolation

Continuation of current

trends; no change in

statistical properties

No change from current

conditions

Transitional Scenario-based projections

of future biophysical

conditions

No change from current

conditions; sometimes

sensitivity analysis with

alternate futures

Coupled and interactive Scenario-based projections

of future biophysical

conditions

Alternative futures from

s c e n a r i o s / s t o r y l i n e s

consistent with biophysical

projections, sometimes with

dynamic response

Table 2-1 | Nature of published Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (IAV)

assessments.

214

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

(

human health). A similar study in the UK was conducted for tourism,

health and transportation maintenance, buildings and transportation

infrastructure, and residential water supplies (Hunt, 2008). In the USA,

Backus et al. (2013) assessed national and state level gross domestic

product (GDP) and employment impacts, incorporating direct impacts

on water resources, secondary impacts on agriculture and other water

interests, and indirect impacts through interstate migration of affected

populations. Decision support tools are being integrated into scenario-

based impact and adaptation assessments. For example, the Water

Evaluation and Planning System model has been used to assess a

community water system in British Columbia, Canada (Harma et al.,

2012). Incorporation of stakeholder dialog processes within scenario

construction (Parson, 2008) and Participatory Integrated Assessment

(Salter et al., 2010) enables inclusion of local knowledge as part of

scenario-based assessments.

2.4.2.2. Assessing Vulnerability, Risk, and Adaptive Capacity

The adaptation to climate change, disaster risk management, and

resilience literatures all address the concept of vulnerability, defined as

a susceptibility to loss or damage (Adger, 2006; Füssel, 2007), or the

propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected (Glossary). Within

IPCC AR4, Schneider et al. (2007) identified vulnerabilities that might be

considered “key,” and therefore potentially “dangerous” (see Glossary).

Criteria denoting a key vulnerability include its magnitude and timing,

persistence, and reversibility, and the likelihood and confidence that the

contributing event(s) would occur (Sections 19.2.5, 19.6). Other criteria

include the importance of a location or activity to society and society’s

exposure to potential loss and its capacity to adapt. Adaptive capacity has

been defined as the ability to adjust, to take advantage of opportunities,

or to cope with consequences (Adger et al., 2007; see also Glossary).

However, adaptive capacity is context-specific, related to both availability

of resources, capacity to learn, and governance measures (Gupta et al.,

2010; see also Section 14.5). Actions that illustrate how adaptive

capacity and climate resilience can be mutually reinforcing include

disaster risk management (Sections 2.5.2, 15.3.2, 16.7.2) and “triple-

win” interventions where adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable

development goals are integrated so as to find climate-resilient

pathways (Sections 20.3.3, 20.4.2).

The concept of an “adaptation deficit” (Burton and May, 2004) is

applicable to cases such as Hurricane Katrina (Committee on New

Orleans Regional Hurricane Protection Projects, 2009; Freudenberg et

al., 2009; Box 2-1) or the 2003 European heat wave (Haines et al., 2006)

where substantial vulnerability follows a climate event. An adaptation

deficit represents a gap between an existing state of adaptation and

an idealized state of adaptation where adverse impacts are avoided

(Chapter 17; Glossary). The adaptation deficit has also been related to

“residual impacts,” which occur due to insufficient adaptation to current

or future climate (IPCC, 2007a). Within developing countries, Narain

et al. (2011) consider the adaptation deficit as being part of a larger

“development deficit.” Cardona et al. (2012) cite other “deficit”

indicators, including a Disaster Deficit Index (extreme event impact

combined with financial ability to cope), structural deficit (low income,

high inequality, lack of access to resources, etc.), and a risk

communication deficit. Maladaptation occurs where a short-term

esponse inadvertently leads to an increase in future vulnerability

(Glantz, 1988; Barnett and O’Neill, 2010; McEvoy and Wilder, 2012).

Barriers unrelated to scientific knowledge can hamper effective decision

making (Adger and Barnett, 2009; Berrang Ford et al., 2011). This may

help to explain why some extreme events create surprising levels of

damage within developed countries.

The assessment of potential future damages and loss requires approaches

that link biophysical and socioeconomic futures. An example is the

assessment of climate change effects on human health, including

research-to-decision pathways, monitoring of social vulnerability

indicators and health outcomes (English et al., 2009; Portier et al., 2010),

and tools for enabling adaptive management (Hess et al., 2012).

Examples of regional scale scenario-based vulnerability assessments

are case studies for North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany (Holsten and

Kropp, 2012) and agriculture in Mexico (Monterroso et al., 2012). An

example of a larger scale study is a vulnerability assessment of ecosystem

services for Europe, in which future adaptive capacity was based on

indicators from the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) storylines

(Metzger and Schröter, 2006). Difficulty in separating the relative influences

of changing climate and development patterns hampers assessments

of observed trends in property damage caused by atmospheric extreme

events. Recent increases in economic losses may be due to changes in

probabilities of extreme events, changes in human development patterns

(more people in harm’s way) without changes in climatic extremes, or a

combination of both (Pielke, 1998; Mills, 2005; Munich Re Group, 2011).

IPCC (2012) concluded that increasing exposure has been the major

cause, but a role for climate change has not been excluded.

Development choices taken in the current or near term can potentially

influence future vulnerability to projected climate change, hence interest

in the study of emergent risks (Sections 19.3, 19.4). Interactions

between development pathways, and climate change impacts and

responses, could create situations with little or no precedent. Assessments

based on gradual shifts in mean conditions could underestimate future

risk and consequent damage, suggesting the need for process-based

methodologies that focus on enhancing resilience (Jones et al., 2013;

see also Sections 2.5.2, 20.2.3). An example of assessing this type of

risk, and the costs and benefits of potential adaptation responses, is a

resilience assessment framework for infrastructure networks (Vugrin et

al., 2011; Turnquist and Vugrin, 2013).

2.4.3. Climate-Related Decisions in Practice

Implementation of adaptation actions, resilience strategies and capacity

building can take place as stand-alone actions or be integrated into other

management plans and strategies. Recent literature on potential climate

change effects on natural resources, public health, and community

planning and management is reviewed in Chapters 3 to 12. As the

omplexity of management challenges increases due to climate change,

development, and other pressures, a range of reflexive decision-making

processes are emerging under the general topics of adaptive management,

iterative risk management, and community-based adaptation (e.g.,

Section 5.5.4.1). However, there are few assessments of adaptation

delivery and effectiveness (Section 15.6). Cross-sectoral integrated

approaches such as Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM),

215

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

ustainable forestry management (SFM), and Integrated Coastal Zone

Management (ICZM) are viewed as being more effective than stand-

alone efforts (Section 16.5.1).

Adaptive approaches to water management can potentially address

uncertainty due to climate change (Section 3.6.1) but there is a limited

number of examples in practice (Section 3.6.4). Examples of recent

strategies include an IWRM roadmap prepared for the state of Orissa,

India (Jønch-Clausen, 2010) and seven cases in the USA (Bateman and

Rancier, 2012), some of which are applying adaptive water management

using a scenario-based experimental approach intending to align with

IWRM and promote resilience. Adaptations in urban systems following

integrated urban water management principles are becoming

widespread (Section 8.3.3.4) and in rural systems are more advanced

in developed countries and less so in developing countries, especially

those within transboundary basins (Sections 9.4.3.2, 24.4.1.5, 24.4.2.5,

25.5.3, 26.3.3, 27.3.1.2, 27.3.2.2).

Adaptation in agriculture ranges from small adjustments made to

current activities through to transformative adaptations across whole

systems (Sections 7.5.1, 9.4.3.1, 22.4.5.7, 23.4.1, 24.4.4.5, 25.7.2,

26.5.4, 27.3.4.2). Diversified systems are more resilient with some

diversification coming from off farm sources (Section 9.4.3.1). There

are few unequivocal adaptations to climate, but the development of

adaptive capacity is more widespread (Section 7.5.1.2). Adaptation in

forestry has expanded since the AR4 (Section 9.4.3.3) and is aiming to

develop toward SFM by focusing on biological diversity, productive and

protective functions of forests, maintenance of their social and economic

benefits, and governance (McDonald and Lane, 2004; Wijewardana,

2008; Montréal Process, 2009). Although SFM is still largely an abstract

concept (Seppälä et al., 2009), managing climate change risks is seen

as necessary for achieving its objectives (Montréal Process, 2009).

Governments and companies are also considering assisted migration

of forest species as an adaptation strategy (Pedlar et al., 2012) and

payment for ecosystem services is becoming more common (Section

9.4.3.3). Sustainable Fisheries Management has long-term ecological

and productivity goals (FAO, 2013) but climate change has generally not

been included in strategic guidance for fisheries management (Brander,

2010). Ecosystem-based approaches to management (e.g., Zhou et al.,

2010) and transformative approaches will be required (Sections 7.5.1.1.2,

9.4.3.4). Sustainable livelihoods approaches are also being applied for

populations dependent on marine resources (Sections 9.4.3.4, 30.6.2.1;

Table 30-2).

National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) for least-developed

countries (LDCs) are designed to be flexible, action-oriented, and

country-driven (UNFCCC, 2009). Key preparatory steps include the

synthesis of available information on vulnerability and impacts via

extensive public participation (see Chapter 14). The NAPA process has

assisted LDCs to assess climate sensitive sectors and prioritize projects

to address the most urgent adaptation issues (Lal et al., 2012; UNFCCC,

2012). Integrating NAPAs with other socioeconomic programs can help

develop resilience. However, although many countries have linked their

NAPAs with development programs, Hardee and Mutunga (2010) argue

that they have had limited success in aligning the NAPA priorities with

existing national priorities such as population growth. To this end,

scaling up and institutionalization of the NAPA process has commenced.

nder the Cancun Adaptation Framework, a process was established

that enables LDCs to formulate and implement National Adaptation

Plans (NAPs) building upon the NAPA experience (UNFCCC, 2013). The

NAP’s main objectives are to identify vulnerabilities and medium- and

long-term adaptation needs, and to develop and implement strategies

and programs to address those needs and also to mainstream climate

change risks. The NAPs are also an opportunity to align with other

global initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals and Hyogo

Framework for Action.

Many developed countries are developing adaptation strategy documents

at different scales of governance (European Environmental Agency,

2013). Biesbroek et al. (2010) analysed National Adaptation Strategies

(NAS) of nine European nations, examining their decision making aspects

and finding both “top-down” and “bottom-up” (delegation of authorities

to local governments) approaches. Dissemination of information on

weather, climate, impacts, vulnerability, and scenarios was found to be

a critical element for adaptation decision making.

Climate risk is being increasingly factored into existing decision-making

processes (Section 15.2.1). For example, learning from the 2003 heat

waves that killed some 35,000 people across Europe, many European

countries have implemented health-watch warning systems (Alcamo et

al., 2007; WHO, 2008). Vietnam has initiated large-scale mangrove

restoration and rehabilitation programs with the support of

international institutions to protect coastal settlements and aquaculture

industry (World Resources Institute et al., 2011). The Tsho Rolpa glacier

lake in Nepal was at the risk of outburst due to glacial melt (Adger et

al., 2007) so the Government of Nepal introduced both short- and long-

term measures to prevent the outburst flood event (World Resources

Institute et al., 2011). In many ways, local government is at the coal face

of adaptation decision making (Pelling et al., 2008; Measham et al., 2011;

Roberts et al., 2012). Municipal governments are incorporating climate

change adaptation planning within municipal planning instruments,

including energy and water system design, disaster risk reduction, and

sustainability plans (Ford and Berrang-Ford, 2011; Rosenzweig et al.,

2011). In human health, two main areas of benefit are occurring

through improvements in current health patterns being exacerbated

by changing climate and in reducing pollutants associated with co-

pollutants of GHG emissions (Sections 11.7, 11.9). Climate is being

increasingly recognized as a component of human conflict and insecurity,

so is becoming a factor in governance arrangements affecting security

and peace building programs (Section 12.5).

Details of adaptation planning within urban and rural settlements are

addressed in Chapters 8 and 9, respectively. In urban settlements,

adaptations are occurring in areas of energy, water, transport, housing,

and green infrastructure (Section 8.3.3) but opportunities for broader

integration into planning and the urban economy are largely being

missed (Section 8.4). The overall status of adaptation implementation

is assessed in Chapter 15. Although there is a rapidly growing list of

adaptation plans being generated at multiple scales, an evaluation of

adaptation plans from Australia, UK, and the USA suggests they are

under-developed (Berrang Ford et al., 2011). These plans reflect a

preference for capacity building over delivery of specific vulnerability-

reduction measures, indicating that current adaptation planning is

still informal and ad hoc (Preston et al., 2011; Bierbaum et al., 2013).

216

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

Capacity barriers have hampered the transition from planning to

implementation, so only a small number of jurisdictions have been

successful at implementing adaptation measures (Section 15.2). However,

there has been growth in community-based adaptation initiatives (Baer

and Risbey, 2009; Rudiak-Gould, 2011; Sections 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 15.6).

Various enabling factors for implementation have been identified in

stakeholder engagement processes. Such factors include access to

resources and sharing observations, language specific information, and

ICT tools (e.g., wireless sensor networks, geographic information systems

and web-based tools) that increase local awareness, allowing for good

public understanding of stresses, risks, and trade-offs (Section 15.4.2).

These factors allow new strategies to be explored, evaluated, and

implemented (Shepherd et al., 2006; Hewitt et al., 2013). Enabling

factors also include customized impact and vulnerability assessments

for communities of interest and local practitioners who would serve as

champions for adaptation planning, and the existence of local social

influences/networks and capacity that enable long-term strategic

planning and mainstreaming (Gardner et al., 2009; Cohen, 2010). These

factors are further discussed in Chapters 15 and 16. Local government

officials often lack training on climate change adaptation and require

capacity to be built in a number of areas. To assist this process,

guidebooks have been produced, framing the process of adaptation

planning as both a team-building and project management exercise,

activities that are already part of usual practice (Snover et al., 2007;

Bizikova et al., 2008; ICLEI Oceania, 2008; CARE International in Vietnam,

2009; Ayers et al., 2012). Practitioner engagement in decision “games”

can offer another training resource (Black et al., 2012).

2.5. Linking Adaptation with Mitigation

and Sustainable Development

2.5.1. Assessing Synergies and Trade-offs with Mitigation

Capacities to adapt to and mitigate climate change are broadly similar.

Opportunities for synergies are particularly relevant for the agriculture,

forestry, urban infrastructure, energy, and water sectors (Chapters 3, 4,

7 to 10). The IPCC AR4 (Klein et al., 2007) concluded that a lack of

information made it difficult to assess these synergies. Assessing the

synergies and trade-offs that face both adaptation and mitigation is an

important goal of the new IPCC scenario process (Kriegler et al., 2012;

O’Neill et al., 2014). These synergies and trade-offs between adaptation

and mitigation are illustrated in Figure 2-4. The negatives associated with

“adaptive emissions” or “new vulnerabilities” arising from mitigation do

not necessarily mean that such measures should not be contemplated,

but they do need to be assessed within a larger portfolio of actions

where losses and gains have been sufficiently well quantified (Section

19.7). Limits of adaptation emphasize the different reach of adaptation

and mitigation in managing climate risks (Sections 16.6, 19.7.5).

Mitigation can affect, for example, water resources (Section 3.7.2.1),

terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (Sections 4.4.4, 19.3.2.2),

agriculture (Sections 19.3.2.2, 19.4.1), and livelihoods and poverty

(Section 13.3.1), and will in turn be affected by changes in water resources

(Section 3.7.3.2) and terrestrial ecosystems (Sections 4.3.3.1, 4.2.4.1).

Adaptation actions for agriculture generally tend to reduce emissions

(Section 7.5.1.4). Potential losses of human security associated with

climate policy are discussed in Sections 12.5.2 and 19.4.2.2. Recent

literature on potential interactions between mitigation and adaptation

is reviewed in Sections 16.4.3, 19.7.1, 19.7.2, 19.7.3, 19.7.4, and 19.7.5.

Chapter 20 discusses the relationship between adaptation, mitigation,

and sustainable development including sustainable risk management

(Section 20.3.3).

2.5.2. Linkage with Sustainable Development: Resilience

The idea that climate change response and sustainable development

should be integrated within a more holistic decision framework was

assessed in IPCC AR4 (Robinson et al., 2006; Klein et al., 2007; Yohe et

al., 2007). Practical aspects of this integration are being tested as

decision makers endeavor to incorporate adaptation measures within

official long-term development plans (Section 15.3.3). A typical example

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 2.3 | Is climate change decision making different

from other kinds of decision making?

Climate-related decisions have similarities and differences with decisions concerning other long-term, high-

consequence issues. Commonalities include the usefulness of a broad risk framework and the need to consider

uncertain projections of various biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. However, climate change includes longer

time horizons and affects a broader range of human and Earth systems as compared to many other sources of risk.

Climate change impact, adaptation, and vulnerability assessments offer a speciﬁc platform for exploring long-term

future scenarios in which climate change is considered along with other projected changes of relevance to long-

term planning.

In many situations, climate change may lead to non-marginal and irreversible outcomes, which pose challenges to

conventional tools of economic and environmental policy. In addition, the realization that future climate may differ

signiﬁcantly from previous experience is still relatively new for many ﬁelds of practice (e.g., food production, natural

resources management, natural hazards management, insurance, public health services, and urban planning).

217

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

s the engagement of researchers and practitioners (planners, engineers,

water managers, etc.) in scenario-based exercises to build local capacity

to plan for a wide range of climate outcomes (Bizikova et al., 2010).

Development can yield adaptation co-benefits if climate change is

factored into its design (Sections 17.2.7.2, 20.3, 20.4).

Resilience is the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity

(see Glossary) and can be assessed through participatory research (Tyler

and Moench, 2012) or through system modelling. Chapter 20 examines

climate-resilient pathways, which are development trajectories of

combined mitigation and adaptation to realize the goal of sustainable

development while meeting the goals of the UNFCCC (Box 20-1). An

example of resilience assessment at the landscape scale is in the Arctic,

where local sources of important productivity and biodiversity are being

mapped and their future capacity in supporting larger ecoregions under

climate change is being assessed (Christie and Sommerkorn, 2012).

An industry example covers the resilience analysis of supply chains,

specifically petrochemical supply chains exposed to a hurricane in the

southeastern USA (Vugrin et al., 2011). For urban areas, Leichenko (2011)

categorize four types of urban resilience studies: (1) urban ecological

resilience, (2) urban hazards and disaster risk reduction, (3) resilience

of urban and regional economies, and (4) urban governance and

institutions. Boyd et al. (2008) promote resilience as a way of guiding

future urbanization that would be better “climatized.” The Asian Cities

Climate Change Resilience Network is applying a resilience planning

framework, with attention given to the role of agents and institutions

(Tyler and Moench, 2012).

daptive capacity is seen as an important component of resilience on

a range of scales (Sections 2.1.1, 2.2.3, 2.3.4, 2.4.2, 20.3). Local cases,

such as King County (Seattle) USA, illustrate the importance of

researcher-practitioner collaboration for knowledge exchange (Snover

et al., 2007) and iterative and reflexive processes that enable local

ownership, and adjustment to new information and evaluation of

actions taken (Saavedra and Budd, 2009). However, in regions with high

and chronic poverty, coupled with low awareness of global change

drivers, adaptation as a process is not well understood and tools

that enable anticipatory learning are lacking (Tschakert and Dietrich,

2010).

The normative concept of sustainable adaptation has been proposed to

manage adaptation’s unintended consequences (Eriksen et al., 2011).

It considers effects on social justice and environmental integrity,

challenging current (unsustainable) development paths rather than

seeking adjustments within them. This concept recognizes the role of

multiple stressors in vulnerability, the importance of values in affecting

adaptation outcomes (Section 2.2.1), and potential feedbacks between

local and global processes. Little is known about the long-term effects

of adaptation on livelihoods and poverty (Section 13.3.2) although

focusing on poverty alleviation as part of adaptation is thought to build

capacity (Sections 13.4.1, 13.4.2).

The Hyogo Framework for Action on disaster risk reduction considers

climate change as an underlying risk factor, and promotes the integration

of risk reduction and climate change adaptation (UNISDR, 2007, 2011;

see also Section 15.3.2). Social development is being integrated with

disaster risk management in order to enhance adaptive capacity and

address the structural causes of poverty, vulnerability, and exposure. In

small island states, this integration is being enabled through focused

institutional coordination, greater stakeholder engagement, and

promotion of community-based adaptation and resilience-building

projects (UNISDR and UNDP, 2012). Similar initiatives are underway in

urban areas (UNISDR, 2012; see also Sections 15.3.2, 15.3.3, 15.5;

Chapter 24; Box CC-TC).

Resilience is also being explored as an outcome of social contracts that

underpin governance. O’Brien et al. (2009) use examples from Norway,

New Zealand, and Canada to illustrate how resilience thinking on

climate does not easily fit into existing social contracts, and that new

types of arrangements may better serve the goals of resilience and

sustainable development within the context of climate change. Chapter

20 describes climate-resilient development pathways as being an

explicit objective of long-term planning and decision making and

considers the need for transformational adaptation aiming to achieve

sustainable development (Sections 20.5).

2.5.3. Transformation: How Do We Make Decisions

Involving Transformation?

Much of the existing adaptation literature examines gradual adjustment

or accommodation to change. But a growing literature highlights the

importance of transformative adaptation (Sections 14.3.5, 16.4.2), both

in the context of a world where global temperature raise above 2°C

(Kates et al., 2012; PIK, 2012) and in the context of climate-resilient

Adaptive emissions

Sustainable win–win

New vulnerabilitiesUnsustainable

• Coastal urban sprawl

• Permanent deforestation

• Air conditioning

• Expanded irrigation systems

• Water demand management

• Heat management from

buildings

• Monoculture plantations for

biofuels

• Expanded reliance on

hydro power

Adaptation

Mitigation

Vulnerability reduced

Emissions reducedEmissions increased

Vulnerability increased

Figure 2-4 | Examples of adaptation (A): mitigation (M) trade-offs and synergies

(adapted from Cohen and Waddell, 2009). The upper right quadrant (sustainable

win–win) illustrates synergies in which actions enable the achievement of both

adaptation and mitigation goals. The lower left quadrant (unsustainable) shows the

opposite condition. The upper left (adaptive emissions) and lower right (new

vulnerabilities) quadrants illustrate trade-offs that can result from actions within

particular local-regional circumstances.

218

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

athways that manage risk through combinations of adaptation and

mitigation (Section 20.5).

In concluding this chapter, we therefore reflect on some emerging,

though still sparse, literature that examines such transformational

adaptation, how it differs from incremental adaptation (O’Brien, 2012;

Park et al., 2012), and how it might occur in specific sectors and systems

(Rickards and Howden, 2012). This early literature suggests that many

themes raised in this chapter may prove important to transformational

adaptation, including iterative risk management with a broad view of

risk, adaptive management, robustness and resilience, and deliberation

(McGray et al., 2007; Leary et al., 2008; Hallegatte, 2009; Tschakert and

Dietrich, 2010; Hallegatte et al., 2011; Stafford Smith et al., 2011). For

instance, Irvin and Stansbury (2004) identify situations where

participatory processes may be most effective for bringing about

positive social and environmental change. Recently, Park et al. (2012)

have proposed the Adaptation Action Cycles concept as a means to

delineate incremental and transformative adaptation and the role of

learning in the decision-making process. Similar to the learning process

called “triple-loop”—which considers a situation, its drivers, plus the

underlying frames and values that provide the situation context (Argyris

and Schön, 1978; Peschl, 2007; Hargrove, 2008)—transformational

adaptation may involve decision makers questioning deep underlying

principles (Flood and Romm, 1996; Pelling et al., 2008) and seeking

changes in institutions, such as legal and regulatory structures underlying

environmental and natural resource management (Craig, 2010 ; Ruhl,

2010a), as well as in cultural values (O’Brien, 2012; O’Brien et al., 2013).

References

Abel, N., R. Gorddard, B. Harman, A. Leitch, J. Langridge, A. Ryan, and S. Heyenga, 2011:

Sea level rise, coastal development and planned retreat: analytical framework,

governance principles and an Australian case study. Environmental Science &

Policy, 14, 279-288.

Adger, W.N., 2003: Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change.

Economic Geography, 79, 387-404.

Adger, W.N., 2006: Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268-281.

Adger, W.N. and J. Barnett, 2009: Four reasons for concern about adaptation to

climate change. Environment and Planning A, 41, 2800-2805.

Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B.

Smit, and K. Takahashi, 2007: Assessment of adaptation practices, options,

constraints and capacity. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani,

J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 717-743.

Adger, W.N., S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D. Nelson, L. Naess, J.

Wolf, and A. Wreford, 2009: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate

change? Climatic Change, 93, 335-354.

Adger, W.N., J. Barnett, K. Brown, N. Marshall, and K. O’Brien, 2013: Cultural

dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change,

3, 112-117.

Agarwal, A., 2010: Local institutions in adaptation to climate change. In: Social

Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World

[Mearns, R. and A. Norton (eds.)]. The International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development / The World Bank, Washington DC, USA, pp. 173-197.

Agrawala, S. and S. Fankhauser (eds.), 2008: Economic Aspects of Adaptation to

Climate Change: Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments. The Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing, Paris, France, 133 pp.

Alcamo, J., J.M. Moreno, B. Nováky, M. Bindi, R. Corobov, R.J.N. Devoy, C.

Giannakopoulos, E. Martin, J.E. Olesen, and A. Shvidenko, 2007: Europe. In:

Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der

Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

and New York, NY, USA, pp. 541-580.

Althaus, C.E., 2005: A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk.

Risk Analysis, 25, 567-588.

Anderson, N.B., 2011: Special issue: psychology and global climate change. American

Psychologist, 66(4), 241-328.

Andersson, B. and A. Wallin, 2000: Students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect,

the societal consequences of reducing CO

emissions and the problem of ozone

layer depletion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1096-1111.

André, K., L. Simonsson, Å.G. Swartling, and B.-O. Linnér, 2012: Method development

for identifying and analysing stakeholders in climate change adaptation

processes. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14, 243-261.

Argyris, C. and D.A. Schön, 1978: Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action

Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, 356 pp.

Arnell, N.W., M.J.L. Livermore, S. Kovats, P.E. Levy, R. Nicholls, M.L. Parry, and S.R.

Gaffin, 2004: Climate and socio-economic scenarios for global-scale climate

change impacts assessments: characterising the SRES storylines. Global

Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 14, 3-20.

Arnold, D.G. (ed.), 2011: The Ethics of Global Climate Change. Cambridge University

Press, New York, NY, USA, 340 pp.

Asseng, S., F. Ewert, C. Rosenzweig, J. Jones, J. Hatfield, A. Ruane, K. Boote, P. Thorburn,

R. Rötter, and D. Cammarano, 2013: Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields

under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3, 827-832.

Atran, S., D.L. Medin, and N.O. Ross, 2005: The cultural mind: environmental decision

making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological

Review, 112(4), 744-776.

Australian Public Service Commission, 2007: Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public

Policy Perspective. Australian Public Service Commission, Canberra, ACT,

Australia, 38 pp.

Ayers, J., S. Anderson, S. Pradhan, and T. Rossing, 2012: Participatory Monitoring,

Evaluation, Reflection and Learning for Community-based Adaptation: A Manual

for Local Practitioners. PMERL Manual, CARE International, London, UK, 87 pp.

Backus, G.A., T.S. Lowry, and D.E. Warren, 2013: The near-term risk of climate

uncertainty among the U.S. states. Climatic Change, 116, 495-522.

Badke-Schaub, P. and S. Strohschneider, 1998: Complex problem solving in the

cultural context. Le Travail Humain, 61, 1-28.

Baer, P. and J.S. Risbey, 2009: Uncertainty and assessment of the issues posed by

urgent climate change. An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 92, 31-36.

Barnett, J. and W. Adger, 2003: Climate dangers and atoll countries. Climatic Change,

61, 321-337.

Barnett, J. and S. O’Neill, 2010: Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20,

211-213.

Baron, J. and M. Spranca, 1997: Protected values. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 70, 1-16.

Baron, J.S., L. Gunderson, C.D. Allen, E. Fleishman, D. McKenzie, L.A. Meyerson, J.

Oropeza, and N. Stephenson, 2009: Options for national parks and reserves for

adapting to climate change. Environmental Management, 44, 1033-1042.

Bartley, T., 2007: How foundations shape social movements: the construction of an

organizational field and the rise of forest certification. Social Problems, 54,

229-255.

Bateman, B. and R. Rancier (eds.), 2012: Case Studies in Integrated Water Resources

Management: From Local Stewardship to National Vision. American Water

Resources Association, Middleburg, VA, USA, 60 pp.

Batie, S.S., 2008: Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 90, 1176-1191.

Beck, U.,1992: Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications, London,

UK, 260 pp.

Beck, U., 2000: Risk society revisited: theory, politics and research programmes. In:

The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory [Adam, B., U. Beck,

and J. van Loon (eds.)]. Sage Publications, London, UK, pp. 211-229.

Beck, U., 2010: Climate for change, or how to create a green modernity? Theory,

Culture & Society, 27, 254-266.

Bedsworth, L. and E. Hanak, 2012: Preparing California for a changing climate.

Climatic Change, 111, 1-4.

Bell, R.L. and N.G. Lederman, 2003: Understandings of the nature of science and

decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education,

87, 352-377.

219

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

Berkhout, F., B. van den Hurk, J. Bessembinder, J. de Boer, B. Bregman, and M. van

Drunen, 2013: Framing climate uncertainty: socio-economic and climate scenarios

in vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Regional Environmental Change,

15 pp. (in press), link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-013-0519-2.

Berman, R., C. Quinn, and J. Paavola, 2012: The role of institutions in the

transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity.

Environmental Development, 2, 86-100.

Berrang-Ford, L., J.D. Ford, and J. Paterson, 2011: Are we adapting to climate change?

Global Environmental Change, 21, 25-33.

Bierbaum, R., J.B. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter, F.S. Chapin III, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo,

M. Stults, and S. McNeeley, 2013: A comprehensive review of climate adaptation

in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 361-406.

Biesbroek, G.R., R.J. Swart, T.R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, H. Mela, M.D. Morecroft,

and D. Rey, 2010: Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national

adaptation strategies. Global Environmental Change, 20, 440-450.

Biesbroek, G.R., J.E. Klostermann, C.J. Termeer, and P. Kabat, 2013: On the nature of

barriers to climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 13,

1119-1129.

Bizikova, L., T. Neale, and I. Burton, 2008: Canadian Communities’ Guidebook for

Adaptation to Climate Change: Including an Approach to Generate Mitigation

Co-Benefits in the Context of Sustainable Development. 1

edn., Adaptation

and Impacts Research Division, Environment Canada, and University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 97 pp.

Bizikova, L., S. Burch, S. Cohen, and J. Robinson, 2010: Linking sustainable development

with climate change adaptation and mitigation. In: Climate Change, Ethics and

Human Security [O’Brien, K., A.L.S. Clair, and B. Kristoffersen (eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 157-179.

Black, C., J. Brislawn, G. Deheza, T. Finnessey, and C. McNutt, 2012: Summary Report:

Colorado Drought Tournament. Report from September 2012 Drought

Tournament, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Boulder, CO, USA, 15 pp.

Böhm, G. and H.-R. Pfister, 2000: Action tendencies and characteristics of

environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 317-337.

Boyd, E., H. Osbahr, P.J. Ericksen, E.L. Tompkins, M.C. Lemos, and F. Miller, 2008:

Resilience and ‘climatizing’ development: examples and policy implications.

Development, 51, 390-396.

Boyes, E., M. Stanisstreet, and V.S. Papantoniou, 1999: The ideas of Greek high school

students about the “ozone layer”. Science Education, 83, 724-737.

Boykoff, M.T. and J.M. Boykoff, 2007: Climate change and journalistic norms: a

case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38, 1190-1204.

Bradbury, J.A., 2006: Risk communication in environmental restoration programs.

Risk Analysis, 14, 357-363.

Brander, K., 2010: Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems,

79, 389-402.

Bravo, M.T., 2009: Voices from the sea ice: the reception of climate impact narratives.

Journal of Historical Geography, 35, 256-278.

Brewer, P.R. and A. Pease, 2008: Federal climate politics in the United States:

polarization and paralysis. In: Turning Down the Heat: The Politics of Climate

Policy in Affluent Democracies [Compston, H. and I. Bailey (eds.)]. Palgrave

Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, pp. 85-103.

Britton, N.R., 1986: Developing an understanding of disaster. Journal of Sociology,

22, 254-271.

Broome, J., 2008: The ethics of climate change: pay now or pay more later? Scientific

American, 298, 96-102.

Brown, C., W. Werick, W. Leger, and D. Fay, 2011: A decision analytic approach to

managing climate risks – application to the upper Great Lakes. Journal of the

American Water Resources Association, 47, 524-534.

Brown, D.A., 2012: Climate Change Ethics: Navigating the Perfect Moral Storm. Taylor

and Francis, London, UK, 288 pp.

Brugnach, M., A. Dewulf, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T. Taillieu, 2008: Toward a relational

concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and

accepting not to know. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 30, www.ecologyand

society.org/vol13/iss2/art30/.

Budescu, D.V., H.-H. Por, and S.B. Broomell, 2012: Effective communication of

uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change, 113, 181-200.

Burch, S. and J. Robinson, 2007: A framework for explaining the links between

capacity and action in response to global climate change. Climate Policy, 7,

304-316.

Burch, S., S.R.J. Sheppard, A. Shaw, and D. Flanders, 2010: Planning for climate change

in a flood-prone community: municipal barriers to policy action and the use of

visualizations as decision-support tools. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3,

126-139.

Burley, J., R.J. McAllister, K. Collins, and C. Lovelock, 2012: Integration, synthesis and

climate change adaptation: a narrative based on coastal wetlands at the

regional scale. Regional Environmental Change, 12, 581-593.

Burton, I. and E. May, 2004: The adaptation deficit in water resources management.

IDS Bulletin, 35, 31-37.

Caney, S., 2006: Cosmopolitan justice, rights and global climate change. Canadian

Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 19, 255-278.

Caney, S., 2009: Climate change and the future: discounting for time, wealth, and

risk. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40, 163-186.

Cardona, O.D., M.K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez, R.S.

Pulwarty, E.L.F. Schipper, and B.T. Sinh, 2012: Determinants of risk: exposure

and vulnerability. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to

Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I

and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros,

T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.

Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 65-108.

CARE International in Vietnam, 2009: Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation:

A Practitioner’s Handbook. CARE International in Vietnam, Ha Noi, Vietnam,

59 pp.

Carpenter, S.R., P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennet, and M.B. Zurek (eds.), 2005: Ecosystems

and Human Well-being: Scenarios. Vol. 2, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA,

596 pp.

Carter, T.R., M.L. Parry, H. Harasawa, and S. Nishioka, 1994: IPCC Technical Guidelines

for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. Department of Geography,

University College, London, UK and Center for Global Environmental Research,

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan, 59 pp.

Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O’Neill, M.D.A.

Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek, 2007: New Assessment Methods and the

Characterisation of Future Conditions. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry,

M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171.

Carvalho, A. and J. Burgess, 2005: Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K.

Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457-1469.

Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jaeger, and

R.B. Mitchell, 2003: Knowledge systems for sustainable development.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America, 100, 8086-8091.

Changnon, S.A., P.J. Lamb, and K.G. Hubbard, 1990: Regional climate centers: new

institutions for climate services and climate-impact research. Bulletin of the

American Meteorological Society, 71, 527-537.

Christie, P. and M. Sommerkorn, 2012: RACER: Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic

Ecosystem Resilience, 2

edn., WWF Global Arctic Programme, Ottawa, Canada,

72 pp.

Christoplos, I., J. Mitchell, and A. Liljelund, 2001: Re-framing risk: the changing

context of disaster mitigation and preparedness. Disasters, 25, 185-198.

Ciscar, J.-C., A. Iglesias, L. Feyen, L. Szabó, D. Van Regemorter, B. Amelung, R. Nicholls,

P. Watkiss, O.B. Christensen, and R. Dankers, 2011: Physical and economic

consequences of climate change in Europe. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2678-2683.

Cismaru, M., R. Cismaru, T. Ono, and K. Nelson, 2011: “Act on climate change”: an

application of protection motivation theory. Social Marketing Quarterly, 17,

62-84.

Climate Change Science Program, 2009: Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing,

Communicating and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision

Making [Morgan, M. (Lead Author), H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion, D. Keith,

R.Lempert, S. McBride, M. Small, and T. Wilbanks (Contributing Authors)].

Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, Report by the Climate Change Science

Program (CCSP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, USA, 96 pp.

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, 2007: Louisiana’s Comprehensive

Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration

Authority of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 113 pp.

220

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

Cohen, S.J., 2010: From observer to extension agent – using research experiences to

enable proactive response to climate change. Climatic Change, 100, 131-136.

Cohen, S.J., 2011: Overview: climate change adaptation in rural and resource-

dependent communities. In: Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations

[Ford, J.D. and L. Berrang-Ford (eds.)]. Vol. 42, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands

and New York, NY, USA, pp. 401-412.

Committee on New Orleans Regional Hurricane Protection Projects, 2009: The

New Orleans Hurricane Protection System. The National Academies Press,

Washington, DC, USA, 46 pp.

Cork, S., R.N. Jones, C. Butler, D. Cocks, I. Dunlop, and P. Howe, 2012: Towards

scenarios for a sustainable and equitable future Australia. In: Negotiating our

Future: Living Scenarios for Australia to 2050 [Raupach, M.R., A.J. McMichael,

J.J. Finnigan, L. Manderson, and B.H. Walker (eds.)]. Vol. 1, Australian Academy

of Science, Canberra, ACT, Australia, pp. 115-151.

Corraliza, J.A. and J. Berenguer, 2000: Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: a

situational approach. Environment and Behavior, 32, 832-848.

Craig, R., 2010: ‘Stationarity is dead’ – long live transformation: five principles for

climate change adaptation law. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 34, 9-75.

Crate, S.A., 2011: Climate and culture: anthropology in the era of contemporary

climate change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 175-194.

Crate, S.A. and M. Nuttal, 2009: Anthropology and Climate Change: From Encounters

to Actions. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 416 pp.

Daniell, K., I. White, and D. Rollin, 2009: Ethics and participatory water planning. In:

Proceedings of H2009: 32

Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, 30

November-3 December 2009, Newcastle, Australia. Engineers Australia, Barton,

ACT, Australia, pp. 1476-1487.

Davidson, D.J. and M. Haan, 2011: Gender, political ideology, and climate change

beliefs in an extractive industry community. Population & Environment, 34,

217-234.

De Groot, J.I. and L. Steg, 2007: Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five

countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric

value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 318-332.

De Groot, J.I. and L. Steg, 2008: Value orientations to explain beliefs related to

environmental significant ebehavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and

biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40, 330-354.

de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., D. Schröter, R. Leemans, U. Fritsch, and J. Pluimers, 2008:

A stakeholder dialogue on European vulnerability. Regional Environmental

Change, 8, 109-124.

Debels, P., C. Szlafsztein, P. Aldunce, C. Neri, Y. Carvajal, M. Quintero-Angel, A. Celis,

A. Bezanilla, and D. Martínez, 2009: IUPA: a tool for the evaluation of the general

usefulness of practices for adaptation to climate change and variability. Natural

Hazards, 50, 211-233.

DeGaetano, A.T., T.J. Brown, S.D. Hilberg, K. Redmond, K. Robbins, P. Robinson, M.

Shulski, and M. McGuirk, 2010: Toward regional climate services: the role of

NOAA’s regional climate centers. Bulletin of the American Meteorological

Society, 91, 1633-1644.

Demeritt, D., 2001: The construction of global warming and the politics of science.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 307-337.

Demeritt, D., 2006: Science studies, climate change and the prospects for

constructivist critique. Economy and Society, 35, 453-479.

Descola, P., 2010: Diversité des Natures, Diversité des Cultures. Bayard, Paris, France,

88 pp.

DesJardins, J.R., 2013: Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental

Philosophy.5

edn., Wadsworth, Boston, MA, USA, 304 pp.

Dessai, S. and M. Hulme, 2007: Assessing the robustness of adaptation decisions to

climate change uncertainties: a case study on water resources management in

the East of England. Global Environmental Change, 17, 59-72.

Dessai, S., M. Hulme, R.J. Lempert, and R. Pielke Jr, 2009: Climate prediction: a limit

to adaptation? In: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance

[Adger, W.N., I. Lorenzoni and K.L. O’Brien (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, pp. 49-57.

Dewulf, A., M. Craps, R. Bouwen, T. Taillieu, and C. Pahl-Wostl, 2005: Integrated

management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple

actors and diverging frames. Water Science and Technology, 52, 115-124.

Dietz, T. and P.C. Stern (eds.), 2008: Public Participation in Environmental Assessment

and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 307 pp.

Dovers, S., 2009: Normalizing adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 19, 4-6.

Dube, O.P. and B.M. Sekhwela, 2008: Indigenous knowledge, institutions and

practices for coping with variable climate in the Limpopo basin of Botswana.

In: Climate Change and Adaptation [Leary, N., J. Adejuwon, V. Barros, I. Burton,

J. Kulkarni, and R. Lasco (eds.)]. Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 71-99.

Duffy, S. and M. Verges, 2010: Forces of nature affect implicit connections with

nature. Environment and Behavior, 42, 723-739.

Dupuy, J.-P. and A. Grinbaum, 2005: Living with uncertainty: from the precautionary

principle to the methodology of ongoing normative assessment. Comptes

Rendus Geosciences, 337, 457-474.

Duval, T.S. and J.P. Mulilis, 1999: A person-relative-to-event (PrE) approach to negative

threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: a field study. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 29, 495-516.

Ebi, K.L. and J.C. Semenza, 2008: Community-based adaptation to the health impacts

of climate change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 501-507.

Ebi, K.L., S. Hallegatte, T. Kram, N.W. Arnell, T.R. Carter, J. Edmonds, E. Kriegler, R.

Mathur, B.C. O’Neill, K. Riahi, H. Winkler, D. Vuuren, and T. Zwickel, 2014: A new

scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and

future directions. Climatic Change, 122, 363-372, 10 pp., doi:10.1007/s10584-

013-0912-3.

Edwards, P.N., 2010: A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the

Politics of Global Warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA., USA, 518 pp.

Eiser, J.R., A. Bostrom, I. Burton, D.M. Johnston, J. McClure, D. Paton, J. van der Pligt,

and M.P. White, 2012: Risk interpretation and action: a conceptual framework

for responses to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk

Reduction, 1, 5-16.

Endfield, G., 2011: Reculturing and particularizing climate discourses: weather,

identity, and the work of George Manley. Osiris, 26, 142-162.

English, P.B., A.H. Sinclair, Z. Ross, H. Anderson, V. Boothe, C. Davis, K. Ebi, B.

Kagey, K. Malecki, and R. Shultz, 2009: Environmental health indicators of

climate change for the United States: findings from the State Environmental

Health Indicator Collaborative. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117, 1673-

1681.

Eriksen, S., P. Aldunce, C.S. Bahinipati, R.D.A. Martins, J.I. Molefe, C. Nhemachena, K.

O’Brien, F. Olorunfemi, J. Park, and L. Sygna, 2011: When not every response to

climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable adaptation.

Climate and Development, 3, 7-20.

European Environmental Agency, 2013: Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science,

Precaution, Innovation. EEA Report, No.1/2013, European Environmental

Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 760 pp.

FAO, 2013: Fisheries Glossary. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy, www.fao.org/fi/glossary/ (accessed 28 Feb. 2013).

Farbotko, C. and H. Lazrus, 2012: The first climate refugees? Contesting global

narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Global Environmental Change, 22,

382-390.

Feenstra, J.F., I. Burton, J.B. Smith, and R.S.J. Tol (eds.), 1998: Handbook on Methods

for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. Version 2.0,

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya and Institute

for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands,

464 pp.

Fillmore, C.J. and B.T. Atkins, 1992: Towards a frame-based organization of the

lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In: Frames, Fields, and

Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization [Lehrer, A. and E.

Kittay (eds.)]. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp. 75-102.

Fiorino, D.J., 1990: Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of

institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 226-243.

Fischbach, J.R., D.R. Johnson, D.S. Ortiz, B.P. Bryant, M. Hoover, and J. Ostwald, 2012:

Coastal Louisiana Risk Assessment Model. RAND Gulf States Policy Institute,

Santa Monica, CA, USA 118 pp.

Fischer, A. and K. Glenk 2011: One model fits all? – On the moderating role of

emotional engagement and confusion in the elicitation of preferences for

climate change adaptation policies. Ecological Economics, 70, 1178-1188.

Fisher, B.S., N. Nakicenovic, K. Alfsen, J.C. Morlot, F. de la Chesnaye, J.-C. Hourcade,

K. Jiang, M. Kainuma, E. La Rovere, A. Matysek, A. Rana, K. Riahi, R. Richels, S.

Rose, D. van Vuuren, and R. Warren, 2007: Issues related to mitigation in the

long term context. In: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working

Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change [Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp.

169-250.

Flood, R.L. and N.R.A. Romm, 1996: Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning.

John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 253 pp.

221

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

Folke, C., 2006: Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267.

Ford, J.D. and L. Berrang-Ford (eds.), 2011: Climate Change Adaptation in Developed

Nations: From Theory to Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 490 pp.

Freudenberg, W.R., R.B. Gramling, S.B. Laska, and K.T. Erikson, 2009: Catastrophe

in the Making: The Engineering of Katrina and the Disasters of Tomorrow. Island

Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, DC, USA, 209 pp.

Gagnon Thompson, S.C. and M.A. Barton, 1994: Ecocentric and anthropocentric

attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14,

149-157.

Gallopín, G.C., 2006: Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive

capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16, 293-303.

Gardiner, S.M., 2004: Ethics and global climate change. Ethics, 114, 555-600.

Gardiner, S.M., 2011: A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change.

Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK and New York, NY, USA, 512 pp.

Gardiner, S.M., S. Caney, D. Jamieson, and H. Shue (eds.), 2010: Climate Ethics:

Essential Readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK and New York, NY, USA,

368 pp.

Gardner, J., A.-M. Dowd, C. Mason, and P. Ashworth, 2009: A Framework for

Stakeholder Engagement on Climate Adaptation. CSIRO Climate Adaptation

Flagship Working Paper No. 3, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, ACT, Australia, 32 pp.

Garvey, J., 2008: The EPZ Ethics of Climate Change: Right and Wrong in a Warming

World. Bloomsbury Academic, London, UK, 186 pp.

Garvin, T., 2001: Analytical paradigms: the epistemological distances between

scientists, policy makers, and the public. Risk Analysis, 21, 443-456.

Giddens, A., 2000: Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives.

Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 124 pp.

Giddens, A., 2009: The Politics of Climate Change. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK and

Malden, MA, USA, 264 pp.

Gifford, R., 2008: Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate

change. Canadian Psychology, 49, 273.

Gigerenzer, G. and D.G. Goldstein, 1996: Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models

of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.

Glantz, M.H. (ed.), 1988: Societal Responses to Regional Climate Change. Forecasting

by Analogy. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, 428 pp.

Goloubinoff, M., E. Katz, and A. Lammel (eds.), 1997: Antropología del Clima en el

Mundo Hispanoamericano, Vols. I & II, Vols. 49 and 50 Colección Biblioteca

Abya-Yala, Ediciones Abya-Yala, Quito, Ecuador, 602 pp.

Green, D. and G. Raygorodetsky, 2010: Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate.

Climatic Change, 100, 239-242.

Green, D. and K.R. Smith, 2002: The implications of graduation: why developing nations

will never produce more greenhouse gases than developed countries. Journal

of Energy and Development, 28, 15-40.

Grothmann, T. and A. Patt, 2005: Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process

of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change:

Human and Policy Dimensions, 15, 199-213.

Grothmann, T. and F. Reusswig, 2006: People at risk of flooding: why some residents

take precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazards, 38, 101-120.

Grothmann, T., K. Grecksch, M. Winges and B. Siebenhüner, 2013: Assessing

institutional capacities to adapt to climate change–integrating psychological

dimensions in the Adaptive Capacity Wheel. Natural Hazards and Earth System

Sciences Discussions, 1, 793-828.

Groves, D.G., M. Davis, R. Wilkinson, and R. Lempert, 2008: Planning for climate change

in the inland empire: Southern California. Water Resources IMPACT, 10, 14-17.

Groves, D.G., C. Sharon, and D. Knopman, 2012: Planning Tool to Support Louisiana’s

Decisionmaking on Coastal Protection and Restoration. RAND Gulf States Policy

Institute, Santa Monica, CA, USA 82 pp.

Grundmann, R. and N. Stehr, 2010: Climate change: what role for sociology? A

response to Constance Lever-Tracy. Current Sociology, 58, 897-910.

Gupta, J., K. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, and S.

Nooteboom, 2008: Institutions for Climate Change: A Method to Assess the

Inherent Characteristics of Institutions to Enable the Adaptive Capacity of

Society. Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,

Netherlands, 19 pp.

Gupta, J., C. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, S.

Nooteboom, and E. Bergsma, 2010: The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to

assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive

capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 459-471.

Güss, C.D., M.T. Tuason, and C. Gerhard, 2010: Cross-national comparisons of

complex problem-solving strategies in two microworlds. Cognitive Science, 34,

489-520.

Guston, D.H., 2001: Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an

introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26, 399-408.

Hagerman, S., H. Dowlatabadi, K. Chan, and T. Satterfield, 2010: Integrative

propositions for adapting conservation policy to the impacts of climate change.

Global Environmental Change, 20, 351-362.

Haines, A., R.S. Kovats, D. Campbell-Lendrum, and C. Carvalan, 2006: Climate change

and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation. The Lancet, 367,

2101-2109.

Hallegatte, S., 2009: Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global

Environmental Change, 19(2), 240-247.

Hallegatte, S., F. Lecocq, and C. de Perthuis, 2011: Designing Climate Change

Adaptation Policies: An Economic Framework. Policy Research Working Paper

5568, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 39 pp.

Hamblyn, R., 2009: The whistleblower and the canary: rhetorical constructions of

climate change. Journal of Historical Geography, 35, 223-236.

Hamilton, C., S. Adolphs, and B. Nerlich, 2007: The meanings of ‘risk’: a view from

corpus linguistics. Discourse Society, 18, 163-181.

Hansson, S.O., 2004: Philosophical perspectives on risk. Techné, 8, 10-35.

Hansson, S.O., 2010: Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values. Journal of Risk

Research, 13, 231-238.

Hardee, K. and C. Mutunga, 2010: Strengthening the link between climate change

adaptation and national development plans: lessons from the case of population

in National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, 113-126.

Harding, R., 2006: Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation

and challenges. Desalination, 187, 229-239.

Hardman, D., 2009: Judgment and Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives. John

Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 232 pp.

Hargrove, R., 2008: Masterful Coaching. 3

edn., Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 432 pp.

Harma, K.J., M.S. Johnson, and S.J. Cohen, 2012: Future water supply and demand in

the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia: a scenario-based analysis of multiple,

interacting stessors. Water Resources Management, 26, 667-689.

Harris, P.G., 2010: World Ethics and Climate Change: From International to Global

Justice. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK, 208 pp.

Harrison, P.A., I.P. Holman, G. Cojocaru, K. Kok, A. Kontogianni, M.J. Metzger, and M.

Gramberger, 2013: Combining qualitative and quantitative understanding for

exploring cross-sectoral climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability

in Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 13, 761-780.

Held, D., 2004: Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a

cosmopolitan perspective. Government and Opposition, 39, 364-391.

Hellmuth, M.E., S. Mason, C. Vaughan, M. van Aalst, and R. Choularton, 2011: A

Better Climate for Disaster Risk Management. International Research Institute

for Climate and Society (IRI), Columbia University, New York, NY, USA,118 pp.

Hess, J.J., J.Z. McDowell, and G. Luber, 2012: Integrating climate change adaptation

into public health practice: using adaptive management to increase adaptive

capacity and build resilience. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 171-179.

Hewitt, C., S. Mason, and D. Walland, 2012: The global framework for climate

services. Nature Climate Change, 2, 831-832.

Hewitt, C., C. Buontempo, and P. Newton, 2013: Using climate predictions to better

serve society’s needs. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 94, 105-

107.

Hinkel, J., 2011: Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: towards a clarification

of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21, 198-208.

Hofstede, G., 1980: Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-

related Values. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 327 pp.

Hofstede, G., 2001: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions

and Organizations Across Nations. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA,

596 pp.

Hofstede, G., G.J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov, 2010: Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 562 pp.

Holling, C.S., 1978: Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John

Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 377 pp.

Holling, C.S., 1996: Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for

people. Ecological Applications, 6, 733-735.

Holsten, A. and J.P. Kropp, 2012: An integrated and transferable climate change

vulnerability assessment for regional application. Natural Hazards, 64, 1977-1999.

222

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

Huber, T. and P. Pedersen, 1997: Meteorological knowledge and environmental ideas

in traditional and modern societies: the case of Tibet. Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute, 3, 577-597.

Hulme, M., 2009: Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding

Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK and New York, NY, USA, 392 pp.

Hulme, M., 2011: Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and

reductionism. Osiris, 26, 245-266.

Hulme, M. and M. Mahony, 2010: Climate change: what do we know about the

IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography, 34, 705-718.

Hunt, A., 2008: Informing adaptation to climate change in the UK: some sectoral

impact costs. Integrated Assessment, 8, 41-71.

Huq, S. and H. Reid, 2004: Mainstreaming adaptation in development. IDS Bulletin,

35, 15-21.

ICLEI Oceania, 2008: Local Government Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit.

Government of Australia and International Council for Local Envrionment

Initiatives (ICLEI) – Australia/New Zealand Limited, Melbourne, Australia, 61 pp.

Ignatow, G., 2006: Cultural models of nature and society. Environment and

Behaviour, 38, 441-461.

Ingold, T., 2011: The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling

and Skill. Routlege, London, UK and New York, NY, USA, 465 pp.

IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P.

Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 976 pp.

IPCC, 2007b: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report [Core Writing Team, Pachauri,

R.K and A. Reisinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate

Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker,

D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K.

Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

IRGC, 2010: The Emergence of Risks: Contributing Factors. International Risk

Governance Council, Geneva, Switzerland, 59 pp.

Irvin, R.A. and J. Stansbury, 2004: Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth

the effort? Public Administration Review, 64, 55-65.

ISO, 2009: ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 24 pp.

Ison, R., 2010: Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate Change World. Springer,

London, UK, 324 pp.

Jäger, J., D. Rothman, C. Anastasi, S. Kartha, and P. van Notten, 2008: Training module

6: scenario development and analysis. In: GEO Resource Book: A Training

Manual on Integrated Environmental Assessment and Reporting. International

Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg, Canada, and United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 40 pp.

Jamieson, D., 1992: Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Science, Technology

& Human Values, 17, 139-153.

Jamieson, D., 1996: Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change, 33,

323-336.

Jasanoff, S., 1996: Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics

of science. Social Studies of Science, 26, 393-418.

Jasanoff, S., 2010: Testing time for climate science. Science, 328, 695-696.

Jønch-Clausen, T., 2010: Application of integrated approaches in water resources

management beyond the conceptual phase In: A Review of Selected Hydrology

Topics to Support Bank Operations [García, L.E., G. Puz, and A. Mejia (eds.)].

The World Bank, Washington DC, USA, pp. 13-34.

Jones, R., 2010: A risk management approach to climate change adaptation. In:

Climate Change Adaptation in New Zealand: Future Scenarios and Some

Sectoral Perspectives [Nottage, R.A.C., D.S. Wratt, J.F. Bornman, and K. Jones (eds.)].

New Zealand Climate Change Centre, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 10-25.

Jones, R., 2011: The latest iteration of IPCC uncertainty guidance – an author

perspective. Climatic Change, 108, 733-743.

Jones, R.G., M. Noguer, D.C. Hassell, D. Hudson, S.S. Wilson, G.J. Jenkins, and J.F.B.

Mitchell, 2004: Generating High Resolution Climate Change Scenarios Using

PRECIS. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK, 40 pp.

Jones, R.N., 2001: An environmental risk assessment/management framework for

climate change impact assessments. Natural Hazards, 23, 197-230.

Jones, R.N., 2012: Applying scenarios to complex issues: Australia 2050. In:

Negotiating Our Future: Living Scenarios for Australia to 2050 [Raupach, M.R.,

T. McMichael, John J. Finnigan, L. Manderson, and B.H. Walker (eds.)]. Vol. 2,

Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, ACT, Australia, pp. 173-190.

Jones, R.N. and B.L. Preston, 2011: Adaptation and risk management. WIREs Climate

Change, 2, 296-308.

Jones, R.N., C.K. Young, J. Handmer, A. Keating, G.D. Mekala, and P. Sheehan, 2013:

Valuing Adaptation Under Rapid Change. National Climate Change Adaptation

Research Facility, Gold Coast, Australia, 182 pp.

Jones, S.A., B. Fischhoff, and D. Lach, 1999: Evaluating the science-policy interface

for climate change research. Climatic Change, 43, 581-599.

Kahan, D.M. and D. Braman, 2006: Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law

and Policy Review, 24, 147-171.

Kahan, D.M., D. Braman, P. Slovic, J. Gastil, and G.L. Cohen, 2007: The Second National

Risk and Culture Study: Making Sense of – and Making Progress In – The

American Culture War of Fact. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 370, Yale

Law School Public Law Working Paper No. 154, GWU Law School Public Law

Research Paper No. 370, Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation

Research Paper No. 08-26, 20 pp., ssrn.com/abstract=1017189,

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1017189.

Kahneman, D., 2011: Thinking, Fast and Slow. 1

edn., Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,

New York, NY, USA, 499 pp.

Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, 1979: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under

risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-292.

Kambhu, J., S. Weidman, and N. Krishnan, 2007: New Directions for Understanding

Systemic Risk: A Report on a Conference Cosponsored by the Federal Reserve

Bank of New York and the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies

Press, Washington, DC, USA, 90 pp.

Kandlikar, M., J. Risbey, and S. Dessai, 2005: Representing and communicating deep

uncertainty in climate-change assessments. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337,

443-455.

Kandlikar, M., H. Zerriffi, and C. Ho Lem, 2011: Science, decision-making and

development: managing the risks of climate variation in less-industrialized

countries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 201-219.

Kasperson, R.E., 1992: The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an in-

tegrative framework in social theories of risk. In: Social Theories of Risk

[Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.)]. Praeger, Westport, CT, USA, pp. 53-178.

Kasperson, R.E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H.S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J.X. Kasperson, and

S. Ratick, 1988: The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk

Analysis, 8, 177-187.

Kasprzyk, J.R., S. Nataraj, P.M. Reed, and R.J. Lempert, 2013: Many objective robust

decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change.

Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55-71.

Kates, R.W., W.R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation when

incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 7156-7161.

Katz, E., A. Lammel, and M. Goloubinoff (eds.), 2002: Entre Ciel et Terre: Climat et

Sociétés. IRD Editions, Ibis Press, Paris, France, 509 pp.

Kazdin, A.E., 2009: Psychological science’s contributions to a sustainable environment:

extending our reach to a grand challenge of society. American Psychologist,

64, 339.

Keeney, R.L., 1992: Value-focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA., USA, 432 pp.

Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa, 1993: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences

and Value Trade-Offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 569 pp.

Kern, K. and G. Alber, 2008: Governing climate change in cities: modes of urban

climate governance in multi-level systems. In: Competitive Cities and Climate

Change: OECD Conference Proceedings, Milan, Italy, 9-10 October 2008 [Elliott,

V.C. (ed.)]. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), Paris, France, pp. 171-196.

Kindon, S., R. Pain, and M. Kesby, 2007: Participatory Action Research Approaches

and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. Routledge, Abingdon,

UK and New York, NY, USA, 288 pp.

Kirchhoff, C.J., M.C. Lemos, and N.L. Engle, 2012: What influences climate information

use in water management? The role of boundary organizations and governance

regimes in Brazil and the US. Environmental Science & Policy, 26, 6-18.

Klein, R.J.T., S. Huq, F. Denton, T.E. Downing, R.G. Richels, J.B. Robinson, and F.L. Toth,

2007: Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In: Climate

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working

223

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J.v.d. Linden, and C.E.

Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,

USA, pp. 745-777.

Klinke, A. and O. Renn, 2002: A new approach to risk evaluation and management:

risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis,

22, 1071-1094.

Klöckner, C.A. and A. Blöbaum, 2010: A comprehensive action determination model:

toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of

travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 574-586.

Kolk, A. and J. Pinkse, 2010: The Climate Change – Development Nexus and Tripartite

Partnerships. The Partnerships Resource Centre Working Paper Series, Working

Paper 006, The Partnerships Resource Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 18 pp.

Korteling, B., S. Dessai, and Z. Kapelan, 2013: Using information-gap decision theory

for water resources planning under severe uncertainty. Water Resources

Management, 27, 1149-1172.

Krauss, W., 2011: Rooted in society. Nature Geoscience, 3, 513-514.

Krauss, W. and H. von Storch, 2012: Post-normal practices between regional climate

services and local knowledge. Nature and Culture, 7, 213-230.

Kriegler, E., B.C. O’Neill, S. Hallegatte, T. Kram, R.J. Lempert, R.H. Moss, and T.

Wilbanks, 2012: The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate

change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways.

Global Environmental Change, 22, 807-822.

Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002: The Earth Is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations

of Arctic Environmental Change. Frontiers in Polar Social Science, Arctic

Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks, AK, USA, 384 pp.

Kuik, O., B. Buchner, M. Catenacci, A. Goria, E. Karakaya, and R. Tol, 2008:

Methodological aspects of recent climate change damage cost studies.

Integrated Assessment, 8, 19-40.

Kuruppu, N., 2009: Adapting water resources to climate change in Kiribati: the

importance of cultural values and meanings. Environmental Science & Policy,

12, 799-809.

Kwadijk, J.C., M. Haasnoot, J.P. Mulder, M. Hoogvliet, A. Jeuken, R.A. van der Krogt,

N.G. van Oostrom, H.A. Schelfhout, E.H. van Velzen, and H. van Waveren, 2010:

Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level

rise: a case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate

Change, 1, 729-740.

Lal, P.N., T. Mitchell, P. Aldunce, H. Auld, R. Mechler, A. Miyan, L.E. Romano, and S.

Zakaria, 2012: National systems for managing the risks from climate extremes

and disasters. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to

Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I

and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros,

T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.

Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 339-392.

Lammel, A. and T. Kozakai, 2005: Percepción y representación de los riesgos de la

contaminación atmosférica según el pensamiento holístico y el pensamiento

analítico. Desacatos, 19, 85-98.

Lammel, A., M. Goloubinoff, and E. Katz, 2008: Aires y Lluvias. Antropología del Clima

en México. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología

Social (CIESAS) and Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos

(CEMCA), and Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement (IRD), Publicaciones

de la casa chata, Mexico City, Mexico, 640 pp.

Lammel, A., C. Guillen, E. Dugas, and F. Jamet, 2010: Cultural and environmental

changes: cognitive adaptation to global warming. In: Steering the Cultural

Dynamics: Selected Papers from the 2010 Congress of the International

Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology [Kashima, Y., E. Kashima, and R.

Beatson (eds.)]. eBook, International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology

(IACCP), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 49-58, www.iaccp.org/drupal/sites/default/

files/melbourne_pdf/Melbourne%20Proceedings.pdf.

Lammel, A., E. Dugas, and C. Guillen, 2011: Traditional way of thinking and prediction

of climate change in New Caledonia (France). Indian Journal of Traditional

Knowledge, 10, 13-20.

Lammel, A., E. Dugas, and E. Guillen Gutierrez, 2012: L’apport de la psychologie

cognitive à l’étude de l’adaptation aux changements climatiques: la notion

de vulnérabilité cognitive. VertigO – la revue électronique en sciences de

l’environnement, 12(1), doi:10.4000/vertigo.11915.

László, J. and B. Ehmann, 2012: Narrative social psychology. In: Social Cognition and

Communication [Laszlo, J., J. Forgas, and O. Vincze (eds.)]. Vol. 15, Sydney

Symposium of Social Psychology Series, Report from EASP Small Group Meeting

on Social Cognition and Communication, 9 -12th July, 2012, Pecs, Hungary,

Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis Group), New York, NY, USA, pp. 205-228.

Lateef, F., 2009: Cyclone Nargis and Myanmar: a wake up call. Journal of Emergencies,

Trauma and Shock, 2, 106-113.

Leary, N., J. Adejuwon, V. Barros, I. Burton, J. Kulkarni, and R. Lasco (eds.), 2008:

Climate Change and Adaptation, Earthscan, London, UK, 381 pp.

Lebel, L., T. Grothmann, and B. Siebenhüner, 2010: The role of social learning in

adaptiveness: insights from water management. International Environmental

Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10, 333-353.

Leichenko, R., 2011: Climate change and urban resilience. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 3, 164-168.

Leiserowitz, A., 2006: Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the

role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45-72.

Lempert, R.J, 2012: Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses.

Climatic Change, 117(4), 627-646.

Lempert, R.J. and M.T. Collins, 2007: Managing the risk of uncertain threshold

responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk

Analysis, 27, 1009-1026.

Lempert, R.J. and N. Kalra, 2011: Managing Climate Risks in Developing Countries

with Robust Decision Making. World Resources Report Uncertainty Series,

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 9 pp.

Lempert, R.J. and S. McKay, 2011: Some thoughts on the role of robust control theory

in climate-related decision support. Climatic Change, 107, 241-246.

Lempert, R.J. and M.E. Schlesinger, 2002: Adaptive strategies for climate change. In:

Innovative Energy Strategies for CO

Stabilization [Watts, R.G. (ed.)]. Cambridge

University Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 45-85.

Lempert, R.J., N. Nakicenovic, D. Sarewitz, and M. Schlesinger, 2004: Characterizing

climate-change uncertainties for decision-makers: an editorial essay. Climatic

Change, 65, 1-9.

Lindell, M.K. and R.W. Perry, 2012: The protective action decision model: theoretical

modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 32, 616-632.

Llasat, M.C., M. Llasat-Botija, and L. López, 2009: A press database on natural risks

and its application in the study of floods in Northeastern Spain. Natural Hazards

and Earth System Sciences, 9, 2049-2061.

Lobell, D.B., M.B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M.D. Mastrandrea, W.P. Falcon, and R.L. Naylor,

2008: Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030.

Science, 319, 607-610.

Lorenzoni, I., A. Leiserowitz, M.D.F. Doria, W. Poortinga, and N.F. Pidgeon, 2006:

Cross-national comparisons of image associations with “global warming” and

“climate change” among laypeople in the United States of America and Great

Britain. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 265-281.

Lundgren, R.E. and A.H. McMakin, 2013: Risk Communication: A Handbook for

Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. John Wiley & Sons,

Hoboken, NJ, USA, 416 pp.

Macaulay, A.C., L.E. Commanda, W.L. Freeman, N. Gibson, M.L. McCabe, C.M. Robbins,

and P.L. Twohig, 1999: Participatory research maximises community and lay

involvement. British Medical Journal, 319, 774-778.

Macintosh, A., A. Foerster, and J. McDonald, 2013: Limp, Leap or Learn? Developing

Legal Frameworks for Climate Change Adaptation Planning in Australia.

National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), Gold Coast,

Australia, 277 pp.

Maddux, J.E. and R.W. Rogers, 1983: Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised

theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 19, 469-479.

Madzwamuse, M., 2010: Climate Governance in Africa –Adaptation Strategies and

Institutions. Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Cape Town, South Africa, 110 pp.

Magistro, J. and C. Roncoli, 2001: Anthropological perspectives and policy implications

of climate change research. Climate Research, 19, 91-96.

Mahony, M. and M. Hulme, 2012: Model migrations: mobility and boundary crossings

in regional climate prediction. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,

37, 197-211.

Martin, J., P. Fackler, J. Nichols, B. Lubow, M. Eaton, M. Runge, B. Stith, and C.

Langtimm, 2011: Structured decision making as a proactive approach to dealing

with sea level rise in Florida. Climatic Change, 107(1-2), 185-202.

Marx, S.M., E.U. Weber, B.S. Orlove, A. Leiserowitz, D.H. Krantz, C. Roncoli, and J.

Phillips, 2007: Communication and mental processes: experiential and analytic

processing of uncertain climate information. Global Environmental Change,

17, 47-58.

224

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held,

E. Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe, and F.W. Zwiers,

2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on

Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 6 pp.

McCray, L.E., K.A. Oye, and A.C. Petersen, 2010: Planned adaptation in risk regulation:

an initial survey of US environmental, health, and safety regulation.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 951-959.

McDonald, G. and M.B. Lane, 2004: Converging global indicators for sustainable

forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 63-70.

McEvoy, J. and M. Wilder, 2012: Discourse and desalination: potential impacts of

proposed climate change adaptation interventions in the Arizona-Sonora

border region. Global Environmental Change, 22, 353-363.

McGray, H., A. Hammill, R. Bradley, E.L. Schipper, and J.-E. Parry, 2007: Weathering

the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and Development. World Resources

Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 57 pp.

McNie, E.C., 2007: Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands:

an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science

& Policy, 10, 17-38.

Meadowcroft, J., 2009: Climate Change Governance. Policy Research Working Paper

4941, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 40 pp.

Measham, T., B. Preston, T. Smith, C. Brooke, R. Gorddard, G. Withycombe, and C.

Morrison, 2011: Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning:

barriers and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change, 18, 889-909.

Meijnders, A.L., C.J. Midden, and H.A. Wilke, 2002: Role of negative emotion in

communication about CO

risks. Risk Analysis, 21, 955-955.

Mercer, J., I. Kelman, K. Lloyd, and S. Suchet-Pearson, 2008: Reflections on use of

participatory research for disaster risk reduction. Area, 40, 172-183.

Mercer, J., I. Kelman, S. Suchet-Pearson, and K. Lloyd, 2009: Integrating indigenous

and scientific knowledge bases for disaster risk reduction in Papua New Guinea.

Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 91, 157-183.

Metzger, M.J. and D. Schröter, 2006: Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative

vulnerability assessment of environmental change in Europe. Regional

Environmental Change, 6, 201-216.

Meuleman, L. and R.J. in ’t Veld, 2010: Sustainable development and the governance

of long-term decisions. In: Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science,

Politics, and Media [in ’t Veld, R.J. (ed.)]. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,

Germany, pp. 255-281.

Miles, E.L., A.K. Snover, L.C. Whitely Binder, E.S. Sarachik, P.W. Mote, and N. Mantua,

2006: An approach to designing a national climate service. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 19616-

19623.

Milfont, T.L., 2012: The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern

about global warming and climate change: a one-year longitudinal study. Risk

Analysis, 32, 1003-1020.

Milfont, T.L. and V.V. Gouveia, 2006: Time perspective and values: an exploratory

study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 26, 72-82.

Milfont, T.L., C.G. Sibley, and J. Duckitt, 2010: Testing the moderating role of

the components of norm activation on the relationship between values and

environmental behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 124-131.

Mills, E., 2005: Insurance in a climate of change. Science, 309, 1040-1044.

Minteer, B.A. and J.P. Collins, 2005a: Ecological ethics: building a new tool kit for

ecologists and biodiversity managers. Conservation Biology, 19, 1803-1812.

Minteer, B.A. and J.P. Collins, 2005b: Why we need an “ecological ethics”. Frontiers

in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 332-337.

Minteer, B.A. and J.P. Collins, 2010: Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of

relocating species under climate change. Ecological Applications, 20, 1801-

1804.

Mitchell, R.B., 2006: Global Environmental Assessments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,

USA, 344 pp.

Monterroso, A., C. Conde, C. Gay, D. Gómez, and J. López, 2012: Two methods to

assess vulnerability to climate change in the Mexican agricultural sector.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, doi:10.1007/s11027-

012-9442-y.

Montréal Process, 2009: Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable

Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. The Montréal Process, 4

edn.,

Montreal Process Liaison Office, Tokyo, Japan, 29 pp.

Morgan, M.G., 2002: Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge

University Press, New York, NY, USA, 351 pp.

Morgan, M.G., M. Henrion, and M. Small, 1990: Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with

Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 332 pp.

Moser, S., 2009: Making a difference on the ground: the challenge of demonstrating

the effectiveness of decision support. Climatic Change, 95, 11-21.

Moser, S.C. and J.A. Ekstrom, 2010: A framework to diagnose barriers to climate

change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America, 107, 22026-22031.

Moss, R.H., J.A. Edmonds, K.A. Hibbard, M.R. Manning, S.K. Rose, D.P. van Vuuren,

T.R. Carter, S. Emori, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G.A. Meehl, J.F.B. Mitchell, N.

Nakicenovic, K. Riahi, S.J. Smith, R.J. Stouffer, A.M. Thomson, J.P. Weyant, and

T.J. Wilbanks, 2010: The next generation of scenarios for climate change research

and assessment. Nature, 463, 747-756.

Mulilis, J.P. and T.S. Duval, 1995: Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness:

a person-relative-to-event (PrE) model of coping with threat. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 25, 1319-1339.

Munich Re Group, 2011: Topics Geo: Natural Catastrophes 2010: Analyses,

Assessments, Positions. Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Munich,

Germany, 56 pp.

Murphy, J., D. Sexton, G. Jenkins, B. Booth, C. Brown, R. Clark, M. Collins, G. Harris,

E. Kendon, and R. Betts, 2009: UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate

Change Projections. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK, 192 pp.

Nakashima, D.J., G.K. Mclean, H.D. Thulstrup, R. Castillo, and J.T. Rubis, 2012:

Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment

and Adaptation. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO), Paris, France, and United Nations University (UNU), Darwin,

Australia, 120 pp.

Nanda, V.P., 2012: Climate Change and Environmental Ethics. Transaction Publishers,

New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 262 pp.

Narain, U., S. Margulis, and T. Essam, 2011: Estimating costs of adaptation to climate

change. Climate Policy, 11, 1001-1019.

National Research Council, 2001: A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the

Future. National Academic Press, Washington DC, USA, 84 pp.

National Research Council, 2007: Research and Networks for Decision Support in

the NOAA Sectoral Applications Research Program [Ingram, H.M. and P.C. Stern

(eds.)]. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 85 pp.

National Research Council, 2009a: Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate.

National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA, 201 pp.

National Research Council, 2009b: Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk

Assessment. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 424 pp.

National Research Council, 2011: America’s Climate Choices. The National

Academies Press, Washington DC, USA, 144 pp.

Nelson, D.R., W.N. Adger, and K. Brown, 2007: Adaptation to environmental change:

contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and

Resources, 32, 395-419.

Nelson, J.A., 2011: The relational economy. In: Ethical Principles and Economic

Transformation – A Buddhist Approach [Zsolnai, L. (ed.)]. Vol. 33, Springer,

Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 21-33.

New, M., A. Lopez, S. Dessai, and R. Wilby, 2007: Challenges in using probabilistic

climate change information for impact assessments: an example from the water

sector. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 365, 2117-2131.

Nilsson, A., C. von Borgstede, and A. Biel, 2004: Willingness to accept climate change

strategies: the effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology,

24, 267-277.

Nisbett, R.E. and Y. Miyamoto, 2005: The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic

perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 467-473.

Nisbett, R.E., K. Peng, I. Choi, and A. Norenzayan, 2001: Culture and system of thought:

holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.

Nordhaus, W.D., 2007: A review of the “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate

Change”. Journal of Economic Literature, 45, 686-702.

North, D.C., 1990: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.

Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 152 pp.

Nyong, A., F. Adesina, and B. Osman Elasha, 2007: The value of indigenous knowledge

in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 787-797.

O’Brien, K., 2012: Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate

transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 667-676.

225

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L.P. Nygaard, and A. Schjolden, 2007: Why different

interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate

Policy, 7, 73-88.

O’Brien, K., B. Hayward, and F. Berkes, 2009: Rethinking social contracts: building

resilience in a changing climate. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 12, www.ecology

andsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art12/.

O’Brien, K., A.L.S. Clair and B. Kristoffersen, (eds.), 2010: Climate Change, Ethics And

Human Security, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 231 pp.

O’Brien, K., J. Reams, A. Caspari, A. Dugmore, M. Faghihimani, I. Fazey, H. Hackmann,

D. Manuel-Navarrete, J. Marks, R. Miller, K. Raivio, P. Romero-Lankao, H. Virji,

C. Vogel and V. Winiwarter, 2013: You say you want a revolution? Transforming

education and capacity building in response to global change. Environmental

Science & Policy, 28, 48-59.

O’Neill, B., E. Kriegler, K. Riahl, K. Ebi, S. Hallegatte, T. Carter, R. Mathur, and D. van

Vuuren, 2013: A new scenario framework for climate change research: the

concept of shared socio-economic pathways. Climatic Change, 122, 387-400,

doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.

O’Neill, S. and S. Nicholson-Cole, 2009: “Fear won’t do it”: promoting positive

engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations.

Science Communication, 30, 355-379.

Ogden, A.E. and J.L. Innes, 2009: Application of structured decision making to an

assessment of climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation options for

sustainable forest management. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 11, www.ecology

andsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art12/.

Ohlson, D.W., G.A. McKinnon, and K.G. Hirsch, 2005: A structured decision-making

approach to climate change adaptation in the forest sector. Forestry Chronicle,

81, 97-103.

Oreskes, N. and E.M. Conway, 2010: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of

Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,

U.S. edn., Bloomsbury Press, New York, NY, USA, 355 pp.

Orlove, B., 2009: The past, the present, and some possible futures of adaptation. In:

Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance [Adger, N., I.

Lorenzoni, and K. O’Brien (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

pp. 131-163.

Orlove, B. and M. Kabugo, 2005: Signs and sight in southern Uganda: representing

perception in ordinary conversation. Etnofoor, 18, 124-141.

Orlove, B., C. Roncoli, M. Kabugo, and A. Majugu, 2010: Indigenous climate

knowledge in southern Uganda: the multiple components of a dynamic regional

system. Climatic Change, 100, 243-265.

Oskamp, S. and P.W. Schultz, 2006: Using psychological science to achieve

sustainability. In: Applied Psychology: New Frontiers and Rewarding Careers

[Donaldson, S., D. Berger, and K. Pezdek (eds.)]. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,

NJ, USA, pp. 81-106.

Pahl-Wostl, C., 2007: Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing

climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21, 49-62.

Park, S., N. Marshall, E. Jakku, A. Dowd, S. Howden, E. Mendham, and A. Fleming,

2012: Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of

transformation. Global Environmental Change, 22, 115-126.

Parry, M.L. and T.R. Carter, 1998: Climate Impact and Adaptation Assessment: A Guide

to the IPCC Approach. Earthscan, London, UK, 166 pp.

Parson, E.A., 2008: Useful global-change scenarios: current issues and challenges.

Environmental Research Letters, 3(4), 045016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/

045016.

Parson, E.A., V.R. Burkett, K. Fischer-Vanden, D.W. Keith, L.O. Mearns, H.M. Pitcher,

C.E. Rosenweig, and M.D. Webster, 2007: Global-Change Scenarios: Their

Development and Use. Sub-report 2.1B of Synthesis and Assessment Product

2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global

Change Research, Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental

Research, Washington, DC, USA, 106 pp.

Paton, K. and P. Fairbairn-Dunlop, 2010: Listening to local voices: Tuvaluans respond

to climate change. Local Environment, 15, 687-698.

Patt, A. and S. Dessai, 2005: Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and

suggestions for climate change assessment. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337,

425-441.

Patt, A.G. and D.P. Schrag, 2003: Using specific language to describe risk and

probability. Climatic Change, 61, 17-30.

Pearce, T.D., J.D. Ford, G.J. Laidler, B. Smit, F. Duerden, M. Allarut, M. Andrachuk, S.

Baryluk, A. Dialla, P. Elee, A. Goose, T. Ikummaq, E. Joamie, F. Kataoyak, E. Loring,

S. Meakin, S. Nickels, K. Shappa, J. Shirley, and J. Wandel, 2009: Community

collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian Arctic. Polar

Research, 28, 10-27.

Pedlar, J.H., D.W. McKenney, I. Aubin, T. Beardmore, J. Beaulieu, L. Iverson, G.A.

O’Neill, R.S. Winder, and C. Ste-Marie, 2012: Placing forestry in the assisted

migration debate. BioScience, 62(9), 835-842.

Pelling, M., C. High, J. Dearing, and D. Smith, 2008: Shadow spaces for social learning:

a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within

organisations. Environment and Planning A, 40, 867-884.

Peng, K. and R.E. Nisbett, 1999: Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about conradiction.

American Psychologist, 54, 741-754.

Pereira, Â.G. and S.C. Quintana, 2002: From technocratic to participatory decision

support systems: responding to the new governance initiatives. Journal of

Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 6, 95-107.

Perlovsky, L., 2009: Language and cognition. Neural Networks, 22, 247-257.

Peschl, M.F., 2007: From double-loop learning to triple-loop learning profound

change, individual cultivation, and the role of wisdom in the context of the

microlearning approach. In: Didactics of Microlearning: Concepts, Discourses

and Examples [Hug, T. (ed.)]. Waxman, Munster, Germany and New York, NY,

USA, pp. 292-312.

Pidgeon, N. and B. Fischhoff, 2011: The role of social and decision sciences in

communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change, 1, 35-41.

Pidgeon, N., R. Kasperson, and P. Slovic (eds.), 2003: The Social Amplification of Risk.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 468 pp.

Pielke, R.A., 1998: Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Global

Environmental Change, 8, 159-170.

PIK, 2012: 4°C Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided. A

Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

and Climate Analytics (PIK), The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 84 pp.

Portier, C.J., K.T. Tart, S.R. Carter, C.H. Dilworth, A.E. Grambsch, J. Golke, J. Hess, S.

Howard, G. Luber, and J. Lutz, 2010: A Human Health Perspective on Climate

Change: A Report Outlining the Research Needs on the Human Health Effects

of Climate Change. Environmental Health Perspectives and National Institute

of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 70 pp.

Posthumus, H., C.J.M. Hewett, J. Morris, and P.F. Quinn, 2008: Agricultural land use

and flood risk management: engaging with stakeholders in North Yorkshire.

Agricultural Water Management, 95, 787-798.

Power, M., 2007: Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management.

Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK and New York, NY, USA, 248 pp.

Preston, B., C. Brooke, T. Measham, T. Smith, and R. Gorddard, 2009: Igniting change

in local government: lessons learned from a bushfire vulnerability assessment.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 14, 251-283.

Preston, B.L., E. Yuen and R. Westaway, 2011: Putting vulnerability to climate change

on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustainability Science,

6, 177-202.

Preston, B.L., J. Mustelin, and M.C. Maloney, 2013: Climate adaptation heuristics

and the science/policy divide. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change, 31 pp. (in press), doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9503-x.

Pulwarty, R.S., C. Simpson, and C.R. Nierenberg, 2009: The Regional Integrated Sciences

and Assessments (RISA) Program: crafting effective assessments for the long haul.

In: Integrated Regional Assessment of Global Climate Change [Knight, C.G. and

J. Jager (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 367-393.

Quay, R., 2010: Anticipatory governance: a tool for climate change adaptation.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 496-511.

Raadgever, G.T., E. Mostert, and N.C. van de Giesen, 2008: Identification of

stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using

Q methodology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 1097-1109.

Radford, L., 2009: Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability

of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 111-126.

Rajeev Gowda, M., J. Fox, and R. Magelky, 1997: Students’ understanding of climate

change: insights for scientists and educators. Bulletin of the American

Meteorological Society, 78, 2232-2240.

Ranger, N., A. Millner, S. Dietz, S. Fankhauser, A. Lopez, and G. Ruta, 2010: Adaptation

in the UK: A Decision Making Process. Grantham/CCCEP Policy Brief, Environment

Agency, London, UK, 61 pp.

Raskin, P., F. Monks, T. Ribeiro, D.van Vuuren, and M. Zurek, 2005: Global scenarios

in historical perspective. In: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios.

Findings of the Scenarios Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

[Carpenter, S.R., P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennett, and M.B. Zurek (eds.)]. Island Press,

Washington DC, USA pp. 35-44.

226

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

Reid, S., B. Smit, W. Caldwell, and S. Belliveau, 2007: Vulnerability and adaptation to

climate risks in Ontario agriculture. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for

Global Change, 12, 609-637.

Renn, O., 2008: Risk Governance: Coping With Uncertainty in a Complex World.

Earthscan, London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA, 455 pp.

Renn, O., 2011: The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework: application

to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 154-169.

Renn, O. and A. Klinke, 2004: Systemic risks: a new challenge for risk management.

EMBO reports, 5, S41-S46.

Renn, O., W.J. Burns, J.X. Kasperson, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 1992: The social

amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal

of Social Issues, 48, 137-160.

Renn, O., A. Klinke, and M. van Asselt, 2011: Coping with complexity, uncertainty and

ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio, 40, 231-246.

Reser, J.P., S.A. Morrissey, and M. Ellul, 2011: The threat of climate change:

psychological response, adaptation, and impacts. In: Climate Change and

Human Well-Being: Global Challenges And Opportunities [Weissbecker, I. (ed.)].

Springer Science, New York, NY, USA, pp. 19-42.

Rickards, L. and S. Howden, 2012: Transformational adaptation: agriculture and

climate change. Crop and Pasture Science, 63, 240-250.

Rittel, H. and M. Webber, 1973: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy

Sciences, 4, 155-69.

Roberts, D., R. Boon, N. Diederichs, E. Douwes, N. Govender, A. Mcinnes, C. Mclean,

S. O’Donoghue, and M. Spires, 2012: Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in

Durban, South Africa: “learning-by-doing” at the local government coal face.

Environment and Urbanization, 24, 167-195.

Robinson, J., M. Bradley, P. Busby, D. Connor, A. Murray, B. Sampson, and W. Soper,

2006: Climate change and sustainable development: realizing the opportunity.

AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 35, 2-8.

Roeser, S., 2012: Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: a

role for emotions. Risk Analysis, 32, 1033-1040.

Rogers, R.W., 1975: A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude

change. The Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114.

Romsdahl, R. and C. Pyke, 2009: What does decision support mean to the climate

change research community? Climatic Change, 95, 1-10.

Roncoli, C., T. Crane, and B. Orlove, 2009: Fielding climate change in cultural

anthropology. In: Anthropology and Climate Change: From Encounters to

Actions [Crate, S.A. and M. Nuttall (eds.)]. Left Coast Press, San Francisco, CA,

USA, pp. 87-115.

Rosa, E., 2003: The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework

(SARF): metatheoretical foundations and policy implications. In: The Social

Amplification of Risk [Pidgeon, N., R. Kasperson, and P. Slovic (eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 46-76.

Rosa, E.A., 2008: White, black, and gray: critical dialogue with the International

Risk Governance Council’s Framework for Risk Governance. In: Global Risk

Governance [Bunting, C. (ed.)]. Vol. 1, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp.

101-118.

Rosenau, J.N., 2005: Strong demand, huge supply: governance in an emerging epoch.

In: Multi-level Governance [Bache, I. and M. Flinders (eds.)]. Oxford University

Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 31-48.

Rosenhead, J., 1989: Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring

Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty, and Conflict. John Wiley & Sons,

Chichester, UK and New York, NY, USA, 370 pp.

Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra, (eds.), 2011: Climate

Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change

Research Network. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 312 pp.

Rudiak-Gould, P., 2011: Climate change and anthropology: the importance of

reception studies. Anthropology Today, 27, 9-12.

Ruhl, J., 2010a: Climate change adaptation and the structural transformation of

environmental law. Environmental Law, 40, 363-431.

Ruhl, J., 2010b: General design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal

systems – with applications to climate change adaptation. North Carolina Law

Review, 89, 1373-1401.

Ruttan, V.W., D.E. Bell, and W.C. Clark, 1994: Climate change and food security:

agriculture, health and environmental research. Global Environmental Change,

4, 63-77.

Saavedra, C. and W.W. Budd, 2009: Climate change and environmental planning:

working to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington

State, USA. Habitat International, 33, 246-252.

Salter, J., J. Robinson, and A. Wiek, 2010: Participatory methods of integrated

assessment – a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1,

697-717.

Sandler, R., 2009: The value of species and the ethical foundations of assisted

colonization. Conservation Biology, 24, 424-431.

Sarewitz, D. and R.A. Pielke Jr, 2007: The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling

supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 5-16.

Scannell, L. and R. Gifford, 2013: Personally relevant climate change: the role of

place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement.

Environment and Behavior, 45, 60-85.

Schaffrin, A., 2011: No measure without concept. a critical review on the

conceptualization and measurement of environmental concern. International

Review of Social Research, 1, 11-31.

Schalow, F., 2000: Who speaks for the animals? Heidegger and the question of

animal welfare. Environmental Ethics, 22, 259-272.

Schipper, E.L.F., 2007: Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the

Linkages. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 107,

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK, 20 pp.

Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M.

Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez, and F. Yamin, 2007:

Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In: Climate

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation And Vulnerability. Contribution of Working

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and

C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York,

NY, USA, pp. 779-810.

Schroth, O., E. Pond, C. Campbell, P. Cizek, S. Bohus, and S.R.J. Sheppard, 2011: Tool

or toy? Virtual globes in landscape planning. Future Internet, 3, 204-227.

Schultz, W.P., C. Shriver, J.J. Tanbanico, and A.M. Khazian, 2004: Implicit connections

with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31-42.

Semazzi, F.H.M., 2011: Framework for climate services in developing countries.

Climate Research, 47, 145-150.

Sen, A.K., 2009: The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA,

496 pp.

Seppälä, R., A. Buck, and P. Katila (eds.), 2009: Adaptation of Forests and People to

Climate Change. A Global Assessment Report. International Union of Forest

Research Organizations (IUFRO), Helsinki, Finland, 224 pp.

Shafer, M.A., 2004: Climate services: where do we go from here? In: Proceedings of

the 14th Conference on Applied Climatology, Seattle, WA, January 11-15.

American Meterological Society, Boston, MA, USA, 9 pp., ams.confex.com/ams/

84Annual/techprogram/paper_72822.htm.

Shaw, A., S. Sheppard, S. Burch, D. Flanders, A. Wiek, J. Carmichael, J. Robinson, and

S. Cohen, 2009: Making local futures tangible – synthesizing, downscaling, and

visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Global

Environmental Change, 19, 447-463.

Shepherd, P., J. Tansey, and H. Dowlatabadi, 2006: Context matters: what shapes

adaptation to water stress in the Okanagan? Climatic Change, 78, 31-62.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 2012: Visualizing Climate Change: A Guide to Visual Communication

of Climate Change and Developing Local Solutions. Earthscan/Routledge, London,

UK, 514 pp.

Sheppard, S.R.J., A. Shaw, D. Flanders, S. Burch, A. Wiek, J. Carmichael, J. Robinson,

and S. Cohen, 2011: Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for

community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualisation. Futures,

43, 400-412.

Shwom, R., A. Dan, and T. Dietz, 2008: The effects of information and state of

residence on climate change policy preferences. Climatic Change, 90, 343-

358.

Sivakumar, M., P. Bessemoulin, T.C. Peterson, and G. Asrar, 2011: Changing climate

and demands for sustainable development. Climate Research, 47, 3-4.

Smit, B. and J. Wandel, 2006: Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global

Environmental Change, 16, 282-292.

Snover, A.K., L. Whitely Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott, J. Kay, D. Howell, and J. Simmonds,

2007: Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional and State

Governments. ICLEI-Local Government for Sustainability, Oakland, CA, USA,

172 pp.

Soyez, K., S. Hoffmann, S. Wünschmann, and K. Gelbrich, 2009: Proenvironmental

value orientation across cultures. Social Psychology, 40, 222-233.

Spence, A., W. Poortinga, and N. Pidgeon, 2012: The psychological distance of climate

change. Risk Analysis, 32, 957-972.

227

Foundations for Decision Making Chapter 2

Stafford Smith, M., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey, C. Hamilton, M.S. Smith, L. Horrocks, A.

Harvey, and C. Hamilton, 2011: Rethinking adaptation for a 4°C world.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369, 196-216.

Steel, P. and C.J. König, 2006: Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of

Management Review, 31, 889-913.

Sterman, J.D. and L.B. Sweeney, 2007: Understanding public complacency about

climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation

of matter. Climatic Change, 80, 213-238.

Stern, N., 2008: The economics of climate change – Richard T. Ely lecture. American

Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 98, 1-37.

Stern, N.H. and Treasury of Great Britain, 2007: The Economics of Climate Change:

The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York,

NY, USA, 692 pp.

Stern, P.C. and T. Dietz, 1994: The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of

Social Issues, 50, 65-84.

Stewart, N. and K. Simpson, 2008: A decision-by-sampling account of decision under

risk. In: The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Science

[Chater, N. and M. Oaksford (eds.)]. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp.

261-276.

Stewart, N., N. Chater, and G.D. Brown, 2006: Decision by sampling. Cognitive

Psychology, 53, 1-26.

Strauss, S., 2009: Global models, local risks: responding to climate change in the

Swiss Alps. In: Anthropology & Climate Change. From Encounters to Actions

[Crate, S.A. and M. Nuttall (eds.)]. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, USA, pp.

166-174.

Strauss, S. and B. Orlove, 2003: Up in the air: the anthropology of weather and

climate. In: Weather, Climate and Culture [Strauss, S. and B. Orlove (eds.)]. Berg,

Oxford, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-14.

Strohschneider, S. and D. Güss, 1999: The fate of the Moros: a cross-cultural

exploration of strategies in complex and dynamic decision making.

International Journal of Psychology, 34, 235-252.

Sundblad, E.-L., A. Biel, and T. Gärling, 2009: Knowledge and confidence in

knowledge about climate change among experts, journalists, politicians, and

laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 41, 281-302.

Swanson, D., H. Venema, S. Barg, S. Tyler, J. Drexage, P. Bhandari, and U. Kelkar, 2006:

Initial conceptual framework and literature review for understanding adaptive

policies. In: Designing Policies in a World of Uncertainty, Change, and Surprise:

Adaptive Policy-Making for Agriculture and Water Resources in the Face of

Climate Change [Swanson, D. and U. Kelkar (eds.)]. International Institute for

Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and The Energy

and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India, pp. 9-36.

Swanson, D., S. Barg, S. Tyler, H. Venema, S. Tomar, S. Bhadwal, S. Nair, I. Roy and J.

Drexage, 2012: Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological

Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 924-939.

Swim, J., S. Clayton, T. Doherty, R. Gifford, G. Howard, J. Reser, P. Stern, and E. Weber,

2010: Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-Faceted

Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. A Report by the American Psychological

Association’s Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global

Climate Change, American Psychological Association, Washington DC, USA,

108 pp.

Swim, J.K., P.C. Stern, T.J. Doherty, S. Clayton, J.P. Reser, E.U. Weber, R. Gifford, and

G.S. Howard, 2011: Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing

global climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 241-250.

Thompson, A. and J. Bendik-Keymer, 2012: Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change:

Human Virtues of the Future. MIT Press, Cambridge. MA, USA, 344 pp.

Thompson, P.B., 1986: The philosophical foundations of risk. Southern Journal of

Philosophy, 24, 273-286.

Tobler, C., V.H.M. Visschers, and M. Siegrist, 2012: Addressing climate change:

determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 197-207.

Tompkins, E.L., R. Few, and K. Brown, 2008a: Scenario-based stakeholder engagement:

incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate

change. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 1580-1592.

Tompkins, E.L., M.C. Lemos, and E. Boyd, 2008b: A less disastrous disaster: managing

response to climate-driven hazards in the Cayman Islands and NE Brazil. Global

Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 18, 736-745.

Tschakert, P. and K.A. Dietrich, 2010: Anticipatory learning for climate change

adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 11, www.ecologyand

society.org/vol15/iss2/art11/.

Tsosie, R., 2007: Indigenous people and environmental justice: the impact of climate

change. University of Colorado Law Review, 78, 1625-1677.

Turner, N.J. and H. Clifton, 2009: “It’s so different today”: climate change and

indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental

Change, 19, 180-190.

Turnquist, M. and E. Vugrin, 2013: Design for resilience in infrastructure distribution

networks. Environment Systems & Decisions, 33, 104-120.

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1992: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative

representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.

Tyler, S. and M. Moench, 2012: A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate

and Development, 4, 311-326.

Ulloa, A., 2011: Construcciones culturales sobre el clima. In: Perspectivas Culturales

del Clima [Ulloa, A. (ed.)]. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Instituto

Latinoamericano para una Sociedad y un Derechos Alternativos (ILSA), Bogotá,

Colombia, pp. 33-54.

UN, 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 33 pp.

UNDP, 2005: Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies,

Policies and Measures. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 268 pp.

UNFCCC, 2009: Potential Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Options: A Review of

Existing Literature. Technical Paper 2009/2, United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 80 pp.

UNFCCC, 2012: NAPA Priorities Database. United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Bonn, Germany, unfccc.int/cooperation_support/

least_developed_countries_portal/napa_priorities_database/ items/4583.php

(accessed 28 Nov. 2012).

UNFCCC, 2013: Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Eighteenth Session,

Held in Doha from 26 November to 8 December 2012. Addendum Part Two:

Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Eighteenth Session. United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), United Nations,

Geneva, Switzerland, 37 pp.

UNISDR, 2007: Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of

Nations and Communities to Disasters. United Nations International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP), Geneva, Switzerland, 24 pp.

UNISDR, 2011: Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of

Nations and Communities to Disasters. Mid-Term Review 2010-2011. United

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Geneva, Switzerland, 107 pp.

UNISDR, 2012: Making Cities Resilient Report 2012. My City Is Getting Ready! A

Global Snapshot of How Local Governments Reduce Disaster Risk. United

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Geneva, Switzerland,112 pp.

UNISDR and UNDP, 2012: Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation

in the Pacific: An Institutional and Policy Analysis. United Nations International

Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), Suva, Fiji, 76 pp.

van Asselt, M.B.A. and J. Rotmans, 2002: Uncertainty in integrated assessment

modelling – from positivism to pluralism. Climatic Change, 54, 75-105.

van Notten, P., 2006: Scenario development: a typology of approaches. In: Schooling

for Tomorrow: Think Scenarios, Rethink Education. OECD Publishing, Paris,

France, pp. 66-92.

van Ruijven, B.J., M.A. Levy, A. Agrawal, F. Biermann, J. Birkmann, T.R. Carter, K.L.

Ebi, M. Garschagen, B. Jones, and R. Jones, 2013: Enhancing the relevance of

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for climate change impacts, adaptation and

vulnerability research. In: Special Issue of Climatic Change: A Framework for

the Development of New Socio-economic Scenarios for Climate Change

Research [Nakicenovic, N., R. Lempert, and A. Janetos, (eds.)]. 14 pp. (in press),

doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0931-0.

Varady, R.G., C.A. Scott, M. Wilder, B. Morehouse, N.P. Pablos, and G.M. Garfin, 2012:

Transboundary adaptive management to reduce climate-change vulnerability

in the western U.S.-Mexico border region. Environmental Science & Policy, 26,

102-112.

Vedwan, N., 2006: Culture, climate and the environment: local knowledge and

perception of climate change among apple growers in northwestern India.

Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 10, 4-18.

Verschuuren, J., 2013: Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Law. Edward

Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, 456 pp.

228

Chapter 2 Foundations for Decision Making

Visbeck, M., 2008: From climate assessment to climate services. Nature Geoscience,

1, 2-3.

Vogel, C., S.C. Moser, R.E. Kasperson, and G.D. Dabelko, 2007: Linking vulnerability,

adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and partnerships.

Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 17, 349-364.

von Storch, H., I. Meinke, N. Stehr, B. Ratter, W. Krauss, R.A. Pielke Jr, R. Grundmann,

M. Reckermann, and R. Weisse, 2011: Regional climate services: illustrated with

experiences from Northern Europe. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht,

34(1), 1-15.

Vugrin, E.D., D.E. Warren, and M.A. Ehlen, 2011: A resilience assessment framework

for infrastructure and economic systems: quantitative and qualitative resilience

analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane. Process Safety Progress,

30, 280-290.

Walker, W.E., S.A. Rahman and J. Cave, 2001: Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and

policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 282-289.

Walker, W.E., P. Harremoës, J. Rotmans, J.P. van der Sluijs, M.B.A. van Asselt, P.

Janssen, and M.P.K. von Krauss, 2003: Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis

for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated

Assessment, 4, 5-17.

Webb, R. and J.-l. Beh, 2013: Leading Adaptation Practices and Support Strategies

for Australia: An International and Australian Review of Products and Tools.

National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), Gold Coast,

Australia, 106 pp.

Weichselgartner, J., 2001: Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited.

Disaster Prevention and Management, 10, 85-95.

Westerhoff, L. and J. Robinson, 2013: The Meaning(s) of Climate Change: Exploring

Narrative and Social Practice in the Quest for Transformation. IRES Working

Paper Series, No. 2013-01, Institute for Resources, the Environment and

Sustainability, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 20 pp.

White, D.D., A. Wutich, K.L. Larson, P. Gober, T. Lant, and C. Senneville, 2010:

Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’

assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Science

and Public Policy, 37, 219-232.

WHO, 2008: Heat-Health Action Plans. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva,

Switzerland, 58 pp.

Wijewardana, D., 2008: Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management:

the road travelled and the way ahead. Ecological Indicators, 8, 115-122.

Wilby, R.L. and S. Dessai, 2010: Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather, 65,

180-185.

Wilby, R.L. and I. Harris, 2006: A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate

change impacts: low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK. Water Resources

Research, 42(2), W02419, doi:10.1029/2005WR004065.

Wilkinson, A. and E. Eidinow, 2008: Evolving practices in environmental scenarios:

a new scenario typology. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 045017,

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/045017.

Willows, R. and R. Connell, 2003: Climate Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty, and

Decision-making. UKCIP Technical Report, UK Climate Impacts Programme

(UKCIP), Oxford, UK, 154 pp.

Wilson, C. and T. McDaniels, 2007: Structured decision-making to link climate change

and sustainable development. Climate Policy, 7, 353-370.

WMO, 2011: Climate Knowledge for Action: A Global Framework for Climate Services

– Empowering the Most Vulnerable. Report No. 1065, World Meteorological

Organization (WMO), Geneva, Switzerland, 248 pp.

Wolf, J., I. Allice, and T. Bell, 2012: Values, climate change, and implications for

adaptation: evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global

Environmental Change, 28, 548-562.

Woods, R., A. Fernández, and S. Coen, 2012: The use of religious metaphors by UK

newspapers to describe and denigrate climate change. Public Understanding

of Science, 21, 323-339.

World Resources Institute, UNDP, UNEP, and World Bank, 2011: World Resources

2010–2011: Decision Making in a Changing Climate – Adaptation Challenges

and Choices. World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC, USA, 172 pp.

Worthington, S.A. and T. Pipa, 2010: International NGOs and foundations: essential

partners in creating an effective architecture for aid. In: Making Development

Aid More Effective. The 2010 Brookings Blum Roundtable Policy Briefs. Brooking

Institute, New York, NY, USA, pp. 28-36.

Wright, C. and D. Nyberg, 2012: Working with passion: emotionology, corporate

environmentalism and climate change. Human Relations, 65, 1561-1587.

WUCA, 2010: Decision Support Planning Methods: Incorporating Climate Change

Uncertainties into Water Planning. Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA), San

Francisco, CA, USA, 102 pp.

Wynne, B., 2002: Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology:

reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50, 459-477.

Xiao, C. and R.E. Dunlap, 2007: Validating a comprehensive model of environmental

concern cross-nationally: a U.S.-Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly,

88, 471-493.

Yearley, S., 2009: Sociology and climate change after Kyoto: what roles for social

science in understanding climate change? Current Sociology, 57, 389-405.

Yohe, G.W., R.D. Lasco, Q.K. Ahmad, N.W. Arnell, S.J. Cohen, C. Hope, A.C. Janetos,

and R.T. Perez, 2007: Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In:

Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J.v.d. Linden,

and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New

York, NY, USA, pp. 811-841.

Young, C.K., 2013: The problem-solution adaptation implementation framework

summary. In: Valuing Adaptation under Rapid Change [Jones, R.N., C.K. Young,

J. Handmer, A. Keating, G.D. Mekala, and P. Sheehan (eds.)]. National Climate

Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), Gold Coast, Australia, pp. 152-

156.

Young, O.R., L.A. King, and H. Schroeder, 2008: Institutions and Environmental

Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA, USA, 373 pp.

Zhou, S., A.D. Smith, A.E. Punt, A.J. Richardson, M. Gibbs, E.A. Fulton, S. Pascoe,

C. Bulman, P. Bayliss, and K. Sainsbury, 2010: Ecosystem-based fisheries

management requires a change to the selective fishing philosophy. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107,

9485-9489.

Ziervogel, G. and F. Zermoglio, 2009: Climate change scenarios and the development

of adaptation strategies in Africa: challenges and opportunities. Climate

Research, 40, 133-146.