• Alam, F., Q. Alam, S. Reza, S. M. Khurshid-ul-Alam, K. Saleque, and H. Chowdhury, 2017: Sourcing green power in Bhutan: A review. Energy Procedia, 110, 586591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.189.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baldwin, R. F., S. C. Trombulak, P. B. Leonard, F. R. Noss, J. A. Hilty, H. P. Possingham, L. Scarlett, and M. G. Anderson, 2018: The future of landscape conservation. BioScience, 68, 6063, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix142.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bremer, S., and S. Meisch S, 2017: Co-production in climate change research: Reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 8, e482, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.482.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Briley, L., D. Brown, and S. E. Kalafatis, 2015: Overcoming barriers during the co-production of climate information for decision-making. Climate Risk Manage., 9, 4149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.04.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Campos, I., A. Vizinho, C. Coelho, F. Alves, M. Truninger, C. Pereira, F. Duarte Santos, and G. Penha Lopes, 2016: Participation, scenarios and pathways in long-term planning for climate change adaptation. Plann. Theory Pract., 17, 537556, https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1215511.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carr, E., and S. N. Onzere, 2018: Really effective (for 15% of the men): Lessons in understanding and addressing user needs in climate services from Mali. Climate Risk Manage., 22, 8295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.03.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cash, D., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, and J. Jäger, 2002: Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: Linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG Working Paper RWP02-046, 24 pp, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372280.

  • Díaz, S., and et al. , 2019: Summary for policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat Doc., 56 pp, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Dilling, L., and M. C. Lemos, 2011: Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environ. Change, 21, 680689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Escobar, A., 2011: Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, 304 pp.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Harris, R. M. B., M. R. Grose, G. Lee, N. L. Bindoff, L. L. Porfirio, and P. Fox-Hughes, 2014: Climate projections for ecologists. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 5, 621637, https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Horton, R., S. Martin, M. De Mel, R. Bartlett, W. Solecki, and C. Rosenzweig, 2016: The ADVANCE approach: Co-generating and integrating climate risk information to build resilience for conservation, development, and disaster risk reduction. Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research Rep., 24 pp., https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/879/files/original/Advance_Approach_web.pdf?14640128601.

  • Horton, R., and et al. , 2017: Assessing climate risk in Myanmar: Technical report. Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, WWF–US, and WWF–Myanmar Rep., 47 pp., https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1006/files/original/Final_Technical_Report_-_Assessing_Climate_Risk_in_Myanmar.pdf?1494428197.

  • IPCC, 2018: Summary for policymakers. Global Warming of 1.5°C, V. Masson-Delmotte et al., Eds., 32 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf.

  • IPCC, 2019a: Summary for policymakers. Climate Change and Land, P. R. Shukla et al., Eds., 41 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf.

  • IPCC, 2019b: Summary for policymakers. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, H.-O. Pörtner et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 36 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/03_SROCC_SPM_FINAL.pdf.

  • Kahan, D. M., E. Peters, M. Wittlin, P. Slovic, L. L. Ouellette, D. Braman, and G. Mandel, 2012: The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Climate Change, 2, 732735, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalafatis, S. E., M. C. Lemos, Y. J. Lo, and K. A. Frank, 2015: Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: The role of knowledge networks and communities of practice. Global Environ. Change, 32, 3039, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.007.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirch, L., S. Luther, P. Mucke, R. Prütz, K. Radtke, and C. Schrader, 2017: World Risk Report: Analysis and prospects. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft Rep., 56 pp., https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/WRR_2017_E2.pdf.

  • Kirchhoff, C. J., M. C. Lemos, and S. Dessai, 2013: Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: Broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 38, 393414, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-022112-112828.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lemos, M. C., K. S. Wolske, L. V. Rasmussen, J. C. Arnott, M. Kalcic, and C. J. Kirchhoff, 2019: The closer, the better? Untangling scientist–practitioner engagement, interaction, and knowledge use. Wea. Climate Soc., 11, 535548, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0075.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McNie, E. C., 2007: Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy, 10, 1738, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McNie, E. C., 2013: Delivering climate services: Organizational strategies and approaches for producing useful climate-science information. Wea. Climate Soc., 5, 1426, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00034.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moser, S. C., and J. A. Ekstrom, 2010: A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 22 02622 031, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moss, R. H., and et al. , 2010: The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463, 747756, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Research Council, 2012: Himalayan Glaciers: Climate Change, Water Resources, and Water Security. National Academies Press, 156 pp.

  • New York City Panel on Climate Change, 2015: New York city panel on climate change 2015 report executive summary. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1336, 917, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12591.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oh, C. H., and R. F. Rich, 1996: Explaining use of information in public policymaking. Knowl. Tech. Policy, 9, 335, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832231.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Neill, B. C., and et al. , 2017: The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environ. Change, 42, 169180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pachauri, R. K., and et al. , 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Cambridge University Press, 151 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.

  • Reside, A. E., N. Butt, and V. M. Adams, 2018: Adapting systematic conservation planning for climate change. Biodivers. Conserv., 27, 129, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1442-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SERNAP-RNVSA Manuripi–WWF Bolivia, 2017: Workshop proceedings: Climate Scenarios for the planning and management of the Manuripi Reserve. National Service of Protected Areas Manuripi National Wildlife Reserve Publ., 9 pp., https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1122/files/original/Workshop_Proceedings__Climate_Scenarios_for_the_Planning_and_Management_of_the_National_Wildlife_Reserve_-_Amazon_Manuripi.pdf?1511817989.

  • Singletary, L., and K. Sterle, 2017: Collaborative modeling to assess drought resiliency of snow-fed river dependent communities in the western United States: A case study in the Truckee-Carson River system. Water, 9, 99, https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020099.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stokes, D. E., 2011: Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press, 196 pp.

  • Wall, T. U., A. M. Meadow, and A. Horganic, 2017: Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Wea. Climate Soc., 9, 95107, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0008.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Warren, R., J. Price, J. VanDerWal, S. Cornelius, and H. Sohl, 2018: The implications of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant biodiversity areas. Climatic Change, 147, 395409, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2158-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weaver, C. P., R. J. Lempert, C. Brown, J. A. Hall, D. Revell, and D. Sarewitz, 2013: Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: The value and demands of robust decision frameworks. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 4, 3960, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.202.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yousefpour, R., J. B. Jacobsen, B. J. Thorsen, H. Meilby, M. Hanewinkel, and K. Oehler, 2012: A review of decision-making approaches to handle uncertainty and risk in adaptive forest management under climate change. Ann. For. Sci., 69, 115, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-011-0153-4.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 108 108 108
Full Text Views 15 15 15
PDF Downloads 14 14 14

Perceptions of Climate Risk and Use of Climate Risk Information by Natural Resource Conservation Stakeholders Participating in ADVANCE Projects in Asia and Latin America

View More View Less
  • 1 Center for Climate Systems Research, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York
  • | 2 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York
  • | 3 Hunter College of the City University of New York, New York, New York
  • | 4 Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York
  • | 5 World Wildlife Fund U.S., Washington, D.C.
© Get Permissions
Restricted access

Abstract

Integrating climate risk information into resilience-building activities in the field is important to ensure that adaptation is based on the best available science. Despite this, many challenges exist when developing, communicating, and incorporating climate risk information. There are limited resources on how stakeholders perceive risks, use risk information, and what barriers exist to limit knowledge integration. This paper seeks to define the following: 1) What do conservation stakeholders consider to be the most significant climate risks they face now and possibly in the future? 2) What have been the most significant barriers to their using climate risk information? 3) What sources and types of knowledge would be most useful for these managers to overcome these barriers? A survey was conducted among stakeholders (n = 224) associated with World Wildlife Fund projects in tropical and subtropical countries. A very high proportion of stakeholders used climate risk information and yet faced integration-related challenges, which included too much uncertainty and the lack of a relevant scale for planning. The main factors preventing the use of climate risk information in decision-making were unavailability of climate risk information, no or limited financial or human resources available to respond, lack of organizational mandate or support, and no or limited institutional incentives. Comparing perceived current and future risks revealed a decline in concern for some future climate hazards. Survey respondents identified scientific reports, climate scientists, and online sources as the most useful information sources of climate risk information, while (i) maps and illustrations; (ii) scenarios format; and (iii) data tables, graphs, and charts were identified as user-friendly formats.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0010.s1.

© 2021 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Manishka De Mel, manishka.demel@columbia.edu

Abstract

Integrating climate risk information into resilience-building activities in the field is important to ensure that adaptation is based on the best available science. Despite this, many challenges exist when developing, communicating, and incorporating climate risk information. There are limited resources on how stakeholders perceive risks, use risk information, and what barriers exist to limit knowledge integration. This paper seeks to define the following: 1) What do conservation stakeholders consider to be the most significant climate risks they face now and possibly in the future? 2) What have been the most significant barriers to their using climate risk information? 3) What sources and types of knowledge would be most useful for these managers to overcome these barriers? A survey was conducted among stakeholders (n = 224) associated with World Wildlife Fund projects in tropical and subtropical countries. A very high proportion of stakeholders used climate risk information and yet faced integration-related challenges, which included too much uncertainty and the lack of a relevant scale for planning. The main factors preventing the use of climate risk information in decision-making were unavailability of climate risk information, no or limited financial or human resources available to respond, lack of organizational mandate or support, and no or limited institutional incentives. Comparing perceived current and future risks revealed a decline in concern for some future climate hazards. Survey respondents identified scientific reports, climate scientists, and online sources as the most useful information sources of climate risk information, while (i) maps and illustrations; (ii) scenarios format; and (iii) data tables, graphs, and charts were identified as user-friendly formats.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0010.s1.

© 2021 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Manishka De Mel, manishka.demel@columbia.edu

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Materials (PDF 988.88 KB)
Save